D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Add

[billd91]

Lots and lots of very popular videogames lean heavily into it - so obviously there's a market (so to speak).

Sure, but a lot of those have saved games so that if you don't figure out the puzzle on the first, second, third, etc try, you can try again with little muss or fuss - costing just your tolerance for repeated trials.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, well some of us have moved on from the ancient tomes of yesteryear and protection from normal missiles no longer works, you need improved invisibility to cast a spell (and you can't have improved invis and fly up at the same time).

@Lanefan has never met a game situation that couldn't be improved by just playing 1e instead.

 

[rmcoen]

I have occasionally asked myself why I'm not just playing PF2! [And the answer is "my gaming group wants to play D&D"....]

 

[Mind of tempest]

I have occasionally asked myself why I'm not just playing PF2! [And the answer is "my gaming group wants to play D&D"....]

what is it that you and your group diss agree upon?

 

[Sithlord]

Lots and lots of very popular videogames lean heavily into it - so obviously there's a market (so to speak).

I think the issue is that ttrpgs are ultimately a non-visual medium: the players don't see anything you don't specifically tell them about. If you call out the 'burning heat' coming off a creature, they immediately know it's fire-based. In a picture, you can leave tiny heat distortions. So you can't really rely on subtle visual cues, which makes the puzzle of figuring out what this monster is weak/strong against more difficult to do in a fun way. Either you tell them indirectly (and once they learn all the key words, you're telling them directly - not a challenge), you make them roll for it (which isn't nearly as much fun as actually puzzling it out although it adds a strategic layer), or you don't give them the info and they learn by trial and error. (which is a frustrating phase, or over very quick.)

There's also balance issues - it need to be important enough to be worth the effort but not so important that it invalidates other options, you need enough damage types to make it hard to memorize but not so many that it's impossible to learn the rules, and you need to be subtle enough that the knowledge feels earned but not so obscure that it feels random. IT's tough.

And, of course, it also means martials will need to carry several if not a dozen or more different weapons if they want to engage with the system, which many people think looks silly.

I really wouldn’t even go that far. They would have to try it and see if it works.

 

[rmcoen]

what is it that you and your group diss agree upon?

I like more crunch - my "add one thing" was more distinction in weapons (and armor, but mostly weapons). Like the whole conversation about the Trident (was that this thread? or the "bugs me" thread?) being "Martial", and mechanically identical to the Spear (despite costing more, being heavier, and the spear is "Simple"). If weapons had more distinctions - even a "joke" distinction like "+2 on Survival checks to Forage, because 3 tines are better than one when fishing"! - picking a weapon is a more interesting decision.

I like PF2's more levels of proficiency with skills. I like the defined tiers of "Experts can do this", even if the DC is low enough an untrained person can't fail... they can't try. I like their skill quirk/feat ideas. Again, more crunch, more distinctions, more "my Acrobat (master of balance) is different from your Acrobat (master of tumbling and falling)".

My players like [RAW] because they can look things up in online tools, use online character builders and sheets, and sometimes min-max within the confines of a known system. They tend to forget little details, even on their own unique magic items. Too many choices or details, and combat turns take 10 minutes each.

 

[jmartkdr2]

I really wouldn’t even go that far. They would have to try it and see if it works.

Cycling through all the damage types results in a boring first phase of combat. You're not making decisions or really playing a game, just picking stuff at random until you flip the right card over. It has neither tactical nor strategic depth.

And still results in magical-longsword-caddies.

 

[rmcoen]

In our previous - 4e - campaign, the martial characters generally had two weapons: the one they preferred to use, and the backup. In that particular party, most of the backup weapons were cold-based because they had an ice mage with them who frequently imposed "Vulnerable 5 cold" to his targets. The ranger, whose main weapon was cold-based (a chillwind longsword) had a radiant-based backup; I think the warforged juggernaut had a poison-based armbow as a tertiary choice. If monsters had resistances or vulnerabilities to other elements, it was up to the spellcasters to bypass/exploit them. There was no instance of the "magic weapon caddy".

Even in our previous 3.5e campaigns, which was awesomely/awfully filled resistances and vulnerabilities... most characters didn't carry more than three weapons. And many times, it was just more efficient to beat through the DR than to switch: the specialized greataxe barbarian would rather do 1d12+12, minus 10 (DR) than switch to the backup 1d8+4 longsword (which was less accurate besides).

So, despite this popular objection, I never saw it in play. Instead I saw "Hey mage! This guys resists my stuff! You get him, I'll go kill this other thing."

 

[jmartkdr2]

In our previous - 4e - campaign, the martial characters generally had two weapons: the one they preferred to use, and the backup. In that particular party, most of the backup weapons were cold-based because they had an ice mage with them who frequently imposed "Vulnerable 5 cold" to his targets. The ranger, whose main weapon was cold-based (a chillwind longsword) had a radiant-based backup; I think the warforged juggernaut had a poison-based armbow as a tertiary choice. If monsters had resistances or vulnerabilities to other elements, it was up to the spellcasters to bypass/exploit them. There was no instance of the "magic weapon caddy".

Even in our previous 3.5e campaigns, which was awesomely/awfully filled resistances and vulnerabilities... most characters didn't carry more than three weapons. And many times, it was just more efficient to beat through the DR than to switch: the specialized greataxe barbarian would rather do 1d12+12, minus 10 (DR) than switch to the backup 1d8+4 longsword (which was less accurate besides).

So, despite this popular objection, I never saw it in play. Instead I saw "Hey mage! This guys resists my stuff! You get him, I'll go kill this other thing."

Both of these solve the issue of making it overly tedious by making it not very impactful As you note - you can just power through. So it doesn't matter all that much if you note the resistance.

Basically, they become ribbons rather than significant gameplay elements.

 

[Sithlord]

Cycling through all the damage types results in a boring first phase of combat. You're not making decisions or really playing a game, just picking stuff at random until you flip the right card over. It has neither tactical nor strategic depth.

And still results in magical-longsword-caddies.

Yes. I hit with my long sword again is much more fun.