D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

[DND_Reborn]

A cap of 30 is fine. It's just that in the 5e MM, the cap is more like 19, with only exceptional monsters ever having 20 or greater. This means monsters have a crapton of hit points just to survive. I think there is also an issue with ability score mods + point-buy + ASI. The hit die range is pretty huge, as low as d6 for the wizard, and as high as d12+5 for the barbarian. And of course, multiattacking characters typically are adding a flat +5 to +9 damage per attack, which adds up.

Sure, 30 can work, 40 would just be my preference. shrug

As I've said before, it is an easy fix, and something we do in my online game:

1. All AC is +4 (or +5 if you want...)
2. All HP is half
3. PCs get CON bonus at level 1, and then just HD until level 10, then just a static bonus (+1 to +4) for levels 11-20.
4. Everything is proficient in all saves. If you already had a proficient save, you gain advantage instead.

Done. Issue solved. None of these are hard fixes and it makes the game so much better in many ways: faster, magic is more powerful, mook monsters are mook monsters again, etc. It works very well for us and I am considering moving it to our live game as well.

FWIW, as is, the typical hit probability is actually 65% across all levels (+/- 5%). With extra attack, the chance of scoring at least one hit is about 87%. Way too high, IMO, and it makes the game boring, slow, and tedious. I prefer hitting less (like 35-45%) but when you hit, it counts for a lot more (with lower HP...).

f proficiency bonuses were part of AC calculations, the result would be really both really flat (you'd pretty much track 1-to-1 against on-level enemies) but the variance would be a little higher (goblins would stop being able to reliable hit you but level 13-ish).

This was something I considered before just deciding on a flat +4-5 AC bump. But you make a great point and I might revisit the idea.

Oh hell no. If you've got a 20th-level fighter with a +3 sword, they still only have a 25% chance to hit AC 30. Any higher than that and you might as well just declare the monster immune to physical damage and not waste the players' time rolling.

It would all be adjusted to compensate for the greater range of course. Like others, I don't want to return to 3E and +40 or more on an attack roll, but I like the idea of 40 cap since the d20 is half that. It means, at maximum, the die roll can at most count half of the result instead or more than half. With a 30 cap, the d20 swinginess is felt a lot more IMO.

Skills load everything onto that one d20 roll. Because of that, bounded accuracy dramatically limits a skilled character's ability to shine in their particular area. The uneducated barbarian has a decent chance to know stuff about Arcana that the wizard does not.

Yeah, it is terrible when it comes to skills! Which is why (for skills) a lot of tables change to either a 2d10 or 3d6 roll, so the curve is re-introduced into the equation.

Even there, however, I don't think relaxing bounded accuracy limits is a great idea. I'd rather see additional elements introduced to the skill system to benefit the skilled PC. One possibility would be to bring back 3E's distinction between "trained" and "untrained" uses of a skill: Certain uses of the skill simply require proficiency, and can't be done at all if you aren't proficient.

For instance, if they're examining a magical crystal, perhaps the Wizard did not study the crystal in their life but the Barbarian remembers growing up near a cave where there existed such a crystal. Therefore, a barbarian would understand a crystal more.

This is the debate IMO. 5E treats ability scores as not just natural talent, but also a limited amount of training or exposure, and the swinginess of the d20 compared to the cap 30 adds in the other random elements (such as the barbarian growing up near crystal caves).

The problem with relying on the swinginess of the d20 is unless you track your successes and how you account for them (without having actual proficiency), the next time you roll for something similar or even the same subject, the roll could go the other way and you know nothing or fail, etc.

It creates too much inconsistency for me, but I know the designers wanted to favor as simply a system as they could while allowing for some decision points. In that respect, they succeeded, but personally I am not thrilled with the results.

 

[TheSword]

I want to talk a little about XP, how to award it to encourage certain play styles and behaviors, and what potentially unintended consequences those choices might have.

I will say straight away that I do not like, use or believe in milestone leveling. It is the players' job to go get XP, not the DM's job to give it out. Milestone leveling is arbitrary and by definition tied to a style of play I do not enjoy. After all, you can't have milestones without a path.

All that said, rewarding XP primarily for defeating foes encourages a style of play that i don't think is particularly desirable or fun. Rather, i want an XP system that encourages exploration and clever solutions to problems. The go to answer here is usually "XP for treasure" but that too comes with its own troubles. Specifically, in 5e in particular, money is essentially useless and I am opposed to 3.x style magic item shops and crafting.

What to do?

The best solution is XP for achievements. It’s like milestone but more granular and down to the players.

Award a set amount of XP per session for participation... taking action is an experience in and of itself, regardless of success or failure.

Award XP for achievements. As you see fit. As small or large as you want.

Ask players for short term goals (a few sessions) and long term goals (perhaps would take a whole tier of play) and award large XP based on these.

Set the XP gains at the rate of advancement you want

Awarding XP based in kills is barmy and is best left to CRPG like Baldurs gate. Though to be honest I’m not sure XP based on treasure is reinforcing any better behaviours.

 

[Reynard]

The best solution is XP for achievements. It’s like milestone but more granular and down to the players.

Award a set amount of XP per session for participation... taking action is an experience in and of itself, regardless of success or failure.

Award XP for achievements. As you see fit. As small or large as you want.

Ask players for short term goals (a few sessions) and long term goals (perhaps would take a whole tier of play) and award large XP based on these.

Set the XP gains at the rate of advancement you want

I'm not sure that solves the "not arbitrary/DM fiat" part of the problem.

Let me use a goofy example thought experiment to try and get across what I mean:

The foyer of the dungeon consists of a circular room with a door at every position on the clock. There is an infinite plane of rooms behind each door. In each room there is a crystal -- maybe hidden, maybe guarded, maybe trapped. When the PCs leave the dungeon and come back to the foyer, they are rewarded with XP and treasure for each crystal they bring with them, equivalent to an encounter at a CR equal to the clock position of the main door. The PCs are free to choose any door, and free to explore any plane for as long as they desire.

This is effectively what I am going for in my mega-dungeon: complete player freedom to explore at their own pace at whatever level of risk they are willing to accept without my arbitrarily deciding for them what risk/reward they are taking on.

 

[Asisreo]

The problem with relying on the swinginess of the d20 is unless you track your successes and how you account for them (without having actual proficiency), the next time you roll for something similar or even the same subject, the roll could go the other way and you know nothing or fail, etc.

I feel like that naturally means that your players should be taking notes.

 

[fearsomepirate]

As I've said before, it is an easy fix, and something we do in my online game:

1. All AC is +4 (or +5 if you want...)
2. All HP is half
3. PCs get CON bonus at level 1, and then just HD until level 10, then just a static bonus (+1 to +4) for levels 11-20.
4. Everything is proficient in all saves. If you already had a proficient save, you gain advantage instead.

I hit on a similar fix, but I call it "switching to an OSR rule set."

 

[Dausuul]

I actually feel like that itself is more realistic depending on the DM's ability to justify the knowledge gap in a believable way.

For instance, if they're examining a magical crystal, perhaps the Wizard did not study the crystal in their life but the Barbarian remembers growing up near a cave where there existed such a crystal. Therefore, a barbarian would understand a crystal more.

I'm not concerned with realism (if I were, I certainly would not be playing D&D). My concern is making the wizard feel like their expertise is meaningful. That doesn't mean the barbarian can't contribute in an "arcane mystery" scenario, but the wizard should be able to provide something no one else can.

The scene at the gates of Moria in "The Fellowship of the Ring" is a good example. Pippin rolled a natural 20 and provided a vital contribution; but it required Gandalf's knowledge to take that contribution and put it to use. Without Gandalf, the Fellowship would not even have been able to reveal the inscription, let alone figure out what it meant.

Similarly, when the party is tracking a monster through the wilderness, the wizard might get a hot roll and notice an unusual sign, but the barbarian should be the one who understands what that sign means.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I feel like that naturally means that your players should be taking notes.

To each, their own. Notes are fine, but I prefer background, class, and skill selection to emphasize the likelihood of success on instead of the d20 having more influence.

Things like this:

Similarly, when the party is tracking a monster through the wilderness, the wizard might get a hot roll and notice an unusual sign, but the barbarian should be the one who understands what that sign means.

I hit on a similar fix, but I call it "switching to an OSR rule set."

Considered it. Showed AD&D 1E to some of my group and there were definitely elements of it they preferred to 5E.

So, my "fixes" were an attempt to bring some of those elements into 5E.

 

[TwoSix]

To each, their own. Notes are fine, but I prefer background, class, and skill selection to emphasize the likelihood of success on instead of the d20 having more influence.

I don't think this is particularly difficult to do in 5E. I grant automatic skill successes to characters, or only allow rolls to characters, based on background, class, skill and Expertise all the time. Actually rolling a skill in my game doesn't happen that often.

 

[Asisreo]

Similarly, when the party is tracking a monster through the wilderness, the wizard might get a hot roll and notice an unusual sign, but the barbarian should be the one who understands what that sign means.

Those are two separate skill checks. One is Wisdom(Survival) the other is Intelligence(Investigation). It'd be fine if the party decide to try it like that, but its more likely to be the reverse.

The Wizard's Proficiency will always matter.

The difference between a -1 and +9 is so vast (a whole 45 percentage points) that it really is a stroke of luck that the wizard fails and the barbarian succeeds. I feel comfortable with that range.

 

[TheSword]

I'm not sure that solves the "not arbitrary/DM fiat" part of the problem.

Let me use a goofy example thought experiment to try and get across what I mean:

The foyer of the dungeon consists of a circular room with a door at every position on the clock. There is an infinite plane of rooms behind each door. In each room there is a crystal -- maybe hidden, maybe guarded, maybe trapped. When the PCs leave the dungeon and come back to the foyer, they are rewarded with XP and treasure for each crystal they bring with them, equivalent to an encounter at a CR equal to the clock position of the main door. The PCs are free to choose any door, and free to explore any plane for as long as they desire.

This is effectively what I am going for in my mega-dungeon: complete player freedom to explore at their own pace at whatever level of risk they are willing to accept without my arbitrarily deciding for them what risk/reward they are taking on.

Sure. Sounds good. But you have to make a decision. You can’t absolve responsibility for XP awards. At some point you have to make a decision as to what elements to reward and which not to. For instance by selecting the crystal as the reward trigger you are making an arbitrary decision. You have effectively put milestone levelling in. The milestone is the crystal.

I think the challenge you have is that developing ones character is probably the single greatest reward the game provides. Power trumps treasure every time. If you link development to returning crystals then the players aren’t going to want to explore the infinite planes for as long as they like... they going to explore until you let them have a crystal and then they will search for another crystal.

Is there any difference between your clock face analogy and the DM instead providing a number of quest books within the dungeon that are clearly of different difficulties and therefore worth different XPs. Either way you are making the decision. Whether you award based on treasure or CR you’re also making the decision too.

Do you want to:

• Reward overcoming challenges that you set (finding a crystal)
• Reward players for achieving their own self determined goals
• Reward participation.

Decide which you think is best and then run with it.