Ancalagon
Dusty Dragon
... so what should be the "default" then?
D&D General Things That Bug You
- Thread starter Reynard
- Start date
turnip_farmer
Adventurer
How about going full on Hackmaster?
Attack rolls (ranged or melee), depend on your Dexterity and your Intelligence - it's all about how quick and agile you are and how intelligently you place the hit. And there are no fixed Armour Classes - an attack roll is opposed to a defense roll, which depends on Dexterity and Wisdom (how quick you dodge and how well you read your opponent).
Strength only comes into play for damage. And, of course, for encumbrance. Which is always the answer when people complain Dexterity is too important. Enforce encumbrance!
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
They shouldn't assume a default number of players. Design the game around the assumption that party size will vary. Design monsters based on the assumption that you'll have one monster per party member instead of one monster against a set party of four adventurers. It causes a lot of problems, honestly. Action economy being one of the big ones. Which they have to fix with legendary actions, legendary saves, etc. That one assumption has a lot of headache inducing knock-on consequences.
The number of monsters varies widely in my campaign, from one to dozens.
But it also doesn't matter - they have to have some assumptions, you're just changing what the assumption is.
overgeeked
Open-World Sandbox
Absolutely. The assumption of one monster per character is just easier to work with than the assumption of a set party of four vs one monster. You can easily work the math to get the right numbers for a challenging combat encounter (if you're worried about balance), but it's more work than you'd have to do with a system designed around more flexible assumptions.
fearsomepirate
Hero
Nah. I'm not asking for taking 5 minutes to resolve a hit. I just want there to be some meaningful reason to have 17 STR instead of 16 other than buying a +1 feat later. I actually liked the weapon damage type distinctions mattering beyond just "magic vs non-magic," too.
Sentient does necessarily mean free willed. Don't put free willed creatures on the summon list if it bothers you (but also ban all charm spells).
Levistus's_Leviathan
5e Freelancer
I get that it's difficult to balance, and 5e has plenty of examples of poorly balanced gishes (I'm looking at you, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, and Ranger), but I really like the concept of the Gish, particularly because the diversity in possible characters with it. "Gish" just means someone that merges magic and martial combat, which includes Paladins, Rangers, at least 3 Bard subclasses, Bladesinger Wizards, Hexblade/Bladepact Warlocks, about 4 Fighter Subclasses (Rune Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psychic Warrior, Arcane Archer, possibly Echo Knight), Armorer/Battle Smith Artificers, and a buttload of other subclasses.
A holy warrior that burns spell slots to explode demons? That's a gish. A finesse skald that slices apart enemies with a magical sword while singing a party-bolstering song? That's a gish. A heavily-armored tinker that thunder-punches enemies to death? That's a gish. A tree-hugging shaman that smacks enemies in the face with a Shillelagh'd quarterstaff and commanding an animal companion? That's a gish. All of these, and many more, qualify as gishes.
However, when compared to nonmagical Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks, none of these invalidate any of the other options. They have their own strengths, Gishes just have to have more limited resources than non-magical warriors and be restricted in unique ways (Paladins have to be melee, Bladesingers can't use two-handed weapons, Hunter's Mark and Hex have time limits and require concentration, and so on).
Rob Kuntz
Hero
Alignment has always driven me to the edge starting with the original game. It really broke the logic circle with the Know Alignment spell and I have since recreated the whole kaboodle for my own World of Kalibruhn.
The above covers function; the other part of design is form. Call me old fashioned if I want clearly ordered and presented information that I can easily access during a game. Thus, even with DMG !E, 9 point font? Back then it was irritating, now it is unreadable. Eyes age, and constantly referencing 9 point font will age them quicker. Another point about form: There's too much noise on any given page what with side-bars, water-marked images and what not proliferating. I understand sprucing up a page, but when it starts defeating the purpose--accessing information quickly--it's a big put-off for me as it actually slows down the speed and efficiency of DMing and thus negatively impacts the play-end. The DCC Rule Book by GG is a prime example of this (as an aside).
The above covers function; the other part of design is form. Call me old fashioned if I want clearly ordered and presented information that I can easily access during a game. Thus, even with DMG !E, 9 point font? Back then it was irritating, now it is unreadable. Eyes age, and constantly referencing 9 point font will age them quicker. Another point about form: There's too much noise on any given page what with side-bars, water-marked images and what not proliferating. I understand sprucing up a page, but when it starts defeating the purpose--accessing information quickly--it's a big put-off for me as it actually slows down the speed and efficiency of DMing and thus negatively impacts the play-end. The DCC Rule Book by GG is a prime example of this (as an aside).
J.Quondam
CR 1/8
Do you have any particular publications or product lines that demonstrate the sort of good organization you're talking about?
