D&D (2024) Postmortem: 10 Ideas in 5e that didn't quite work...

[payn]

They built the system that is modular, it seems theybjuat figured out that they could get 90%+ of players in a certain range ofnplayatyles and have just focused their efforts there, leaving the 10% for the OGL (like our local Level Up effort).

Right, I wasn't convinced before and I'm not now.

 

[Parmandur]

Right, I wasn't convinced before and I'm not now.

shrug

The system is made up of modules, and the math deals very well with them being plugged in and out. And homebrewed or third party modules work well, too!

They didn't go for delivering a wide swathe of Edition specific modules, which is an idea they briefly floated...but seemed to abandon when they started gathering data. Doubt that is a coincidence.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You’re missing the caveat here… “for me”

They are a way of customizing intangible elements and adding a little bit of extra detail. The rule that if they granted a skill you already had you could pick any other, meant they were actually very flexible. They were fun, flavourful and helped customize the classes. They clearly aren’t going anywhere.

Excellent at easing new players into the experience of pretending to be somewhere else. Not needed for everyone but didn’t do any harm, and useful for those that needed them. Again, fun and flavour. God forbid we step outside the mechanical.


Totally dull… right up until that token you wrote into your backstory ends up being a magic item that the DM weaves in.


Flat out wrong. The best multiclassing system in the 5 editions of the game. Allows me to do what multiclassing should do, which is play a hybrid character in a viable way. Love it. Two thirds of my characters multiclass.


You or your DM forget to use it, so it doesn’t work? This is a classic PICNIC… Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.

There are tons of optional rules and systems for 5e. Added to by a plethora of third parties. Folks can’t even agree on what modular means so it’s a leap to criticise 5e for not being it.

I don’t hold 5e accountable for an UA play test. Pretty much everything a 3e and earlier psionic could do is replicated in 5e. Tasha’s additions were nice. They tested the water without precluding later options. I don’t call that failure.

Again, this is a picnic. Our group takes plenty of short tests. Usually two per adventuring day. One hour isn’t very long. Crickey, I get up from my office from work to get a cup of tea and by the time I’m back at my seat an hour has passed. Finding a definable space out of site is a form of tactics, as is making sure you have the resources to successful take that rest. Our group had no tension in using them. If they are causing tension, you probably need to examine the group social contract.

Much more could be done. Adventures in Rokugan and Adventures in Middle Earth give good examples of this in their add one. 3pp is great for pushing the boat out on this. To be honest, HD is our groups main method of healing.

On this I agree. Ditch Warlocks from the PHB.

So, other than pact magic, is 5e a perfect game to you? Do you have your own list of issues?

 

[TheSword]

So, other than pact magic, is 5e a perfect game to you? Do you have your own list of issues?

Sure. I do. I just don’t think those things are fundamentally broken. They can improved, but each of those things was a positive addition to D&D.

I’m pretty sure I posted this in one of the many threads but…

• Magic item assignment/purchasing/values.
• Creatures (and PCs) being massive sacks of HP
• Dropping to zero hp has no cost
• Shield spell is broken when taken by high AC characters
• Crits should be more interesting
• Some feats are unbalanced (polearm master, lucky, GWM, Sharp shooter etc)
• Warlocks suck. (I’m not saying they’re weak, just that I don’t like them)
• Monk isn’t strong enough.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

shrug

The system is made up of modules, and the math deals very well with them being plugged in and out. And homebrewed or third party modules work well, too!

They didn't go for delivering a wide swathe of Edition specific modules, which is an idea they briefly floated...but seemed to abandon when they started gathering data. Doubt that is a coincidence.

The rushed and poorly-written DMG, which was supposed to provide most of the modularity is pretty clear evidence that they never took the modularity terribly seriously. Or at least delayed taking it seriously until it was too late.

I mean, it's clear that almost none of the modular/optional/variant stuff suggested in the 5E DMG is remotely playtested, much of it is just plain unfinished and is just waffle about what people "could" do, instead of presenting a modular option (some of it isn't even called out, you have to trudge through text and happen to find it, and it's hard to find again), and where there are modular options, they're often ill-considered and clearly don't represent what people actually want from modular options (hence so few of them being used "as is" - whereas in other games that succeed at modularity and take it seriously you see the opposite). The insanity module doesn't even do what it claims it does - the maths is all wrong (as discussed at vast length elsewhere)!

It's sad because you are right about one thing - aside from combat (where the math and class design interact too tightly to allow it), 5E has strong potential for modularity. It's easy to imagine a DMG that did a vastly better job.

This is all fixable in One D&D's new DMG of course. It wouldn't even be hard. So there's hope.

(That said, I think it's equally possible One D&D will go away from modularity and towards a more unified vision that's even easier for WotC to design and balance around.)

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Sure. I do. I just don’t think those things are fundamentally broken. They can improved, but each of those things was a positive addition to D&D.

I’m pretty sure I posted this in one of the many threads but…

• Magic item assignment/purchasing/values.
• Creatures (and PCs) being massive sacks of HP
• Dropping to zero hp has no cost
• Shield spell is broken when taken by high AC characters
• Crits should be more interesting
• Some feats are unbalanced (polearm master, lucky, GWM, Sharp shooter etc)
• Warlocks suck. (I’m not saying they’re weak, just that I don’t like them)
• Monk isn’t strong enough.

Whilst the Warlock one is a misfit because it's taste/aesthetics whereas the rest are actual mechanical issues of various kinds, it'd be pretty easy to fix a lot of the rest, except the "sacks of HP one", sadly.

Sacks of HP would be easy to fix with an incompatible edition. Just have PCs start with about as many HP as L3 (by whatever mathematical trick), and then kill the assumption that you gain an HD every level, instead have some sort of deal where either you gain HD every other level, or you gain them every level up to L9 or something then it goes to "every other" or otherwise stops increasing so fast. At the same time, slash the amount of HP monsters have by an appropriate amount, which is going to be pretty large.

But sadly that requires incompatibility.

For the rest:

Magic items - Easy, just give us numbers!
Zero HP - Easy, loads of RPGs offer solutions. Some variant of what Worlds Without Number does might work.
Shield spell - Honestly remove it as a spell and make it a class feature for Wizard (and maaaaaybe others). And not a level 1 feature! It's not actually iconic outside D&D nerds, helpfully (unlike Fireball, say).
Crits - Loads of things you could do. Bring back multipliers for PC weapons or have a crit always be maximized + 1 die etc.
Feats - Fix 'em.
Monks - Fix 'em.

 

[Eric V]

For as often as people online complain about the ranger, I have NEVER had someone in a real game complain and I almost always have at least one in the party. It's a meme, not a real problem.

It's a real problem. I have been in 3 different 5e campaigns with a ranger and the nicest thing I heard about the class from the players is "Eh, it's kinda disappointing. Oh, well."

 

[jhingelshod]

I wish it was like this with psionics.

I wish it was like this with Warlords.
(Or interesting Fighter archetypes)

 

[Horwath]

Yeah exactly just go back to 4E's Fort/Ref/Will, which were respectively best of STR or CON, DEX or INT, and WIS or CHA. That would genuinely be a straight-up improvement to D&D. The whole "simplification" aspect of not having "derived" saves was destroyed by also making those saves have proficiency or not and there being twice as many of them!

I would put both abilities in calculations.

FORT: str+con
REF: dex+int
WILL: wis+cha

every class gets one proficiency

this would give every ability value in saves, it would give more chance to increase saves through ASI's and would reward point buy with lower abilities.

with +1/+1/+1 and one set of 15,15,15,8,8,8 and other of 13,13,13,12,12,12 would give

16,16,16,8,8,8, total modifiers of 6. average +2 per save
14,14,14,12,12,12, total modifiers of 9. average +3 per save

 

[Horwath]

• Some feats are unbalanced (polearm master, lucky, GWM, Sharp shooter etc...

I would agree that they are unbalanced, but only towards some feats that are bad.
When you compare them to +2 to your primary ability they are balanced, or just slightly under +2