D&D General What Is D&D Generally Bad At That You Wish It Was Better At?

[Reynard]

I stopped using ToM myself when 3e came out. My AD&D days were full of debates about "wait, where was that wolf? How many wolves did you say there were? No, my character was by the door, not the treasure chest!" that stopped being a thing once I started using maps and minis.

It also let me more easily use difficult and blocking terrain, as well as show people where things they could interact with were. That's not saying it's the greatest thing ever, and if movement and positioning really don't matter, then I don't bother with the map, but it's worked well for me.

Especially since we got a projector that can just slap whatever map we need on the table, and are pretty easy to modify, so I don't have to have reams of map paper anymore (mats start looking pretty shabby after awhile).

Plus, if there's a gamer out there that doesn't love minis, I've yet to meet them (I'm sure they exist, but the visceral reaction I get from my players when I drop a huge hideous chunk of colored plastic on the table, like my Pathfinder Rune Giant, is something I'll never get tired of- "We have to fight THAT??!!").

The downside of course, as you've noted is, that pesky third dimension, lol.

TotM works better in some games (and versions of D&D) than others, based largely on how well the rules integrate TotM play. For example, Shadowdark assumes TotM and unless you are bringing a bunch of grid-and-minis baggage from other games, it works great.

 

[Lanefan]

D&D like any turn-based system is historically bad at chase scenes, and you have to hack it with a system of relative time and relative distance to get it to work. Really, anything that involves simultaneous action is hard within D&D or any turn-based game, though (ironically) BECMI with its phases and simultaneous declaration gets closest, and would allow you with some hacking to for example run a game of football (any form thereof) in D&D.

The bigger issue here is that over the editions D&D has become progressively worse at simultaniety of in-fiction action.

And for no good reason.

 

[Lanefan]

It's not just pursuit though. Rules for how far you can move before you must turn and the like really make it hard to use flying monsters, for example. I remember in 3e, where (going off memory), it was very hard to hover, and staying in the air required you to be able to move. This left a lot of encounters with multi-attacking flying monsters feel more like a Benny Hill skit (cue Yakety Sax).

One thing that both aerial and ship-v-ship combat really needs is the ability (which the rules as written don't provide and to my knowledge never have) to morph the length of a "combat round" to suit the situation, rather than hew to the round-length standard of that particular edition.

For example, if it takes on average 30 seconds for two fast-flying foes to loop around and come together after the previous pass then the combat round for that battle should be made about 30 seconds long. Age-of-sail ships maneuvering for broadsides might need combat rounds each of several minutes. And so on.

Keeping track of where a person is in relation to you in 3D space can be a hassle as well. Especially when there aren't rules for what happens if a flying creature falls on someone, lol! I think some VTT's have 3D support though, so maybe this will be less of a problem in the future for people who aren't dinosaurs like me, who believe that face-to-face gaming is the only real way to game.

Agreed, this can be a real PITA at the table unless you've got some fancy-dan clear stands or shelving or whatever (which I don't) to indicate relative elevation as well as horizontal positioning by use of minis.

 

[overgeeked]

The bigger issue here is that over the editions D&D has become progressively worse at simultaniety of in-fiction action.

And for no good reason.

Well, it’s all relative. For some, including the designers, apparently, the good reason is all the simulation produced either boring stories or boring game play. That’s a good reason. If you prefer story or game play to simulation. Not saying either way is the one right and true way. It does make sense though if you look at it from the right angle.

 

[Lanefan]

Well, it’s all relative. For some, including the designers, apparently, the good reason is all the simulation produced either boring stories or boring game play. That’s a good reason. If you prefer story or game play to simulation. Not saying either way is the one right and true way. It does make sense though if you look at it from the right angle.

Not simulation. Simultaniety. As in, things happening at the same time. Particularly in combat.

In the TSR editions it was at least possible to have multiple things happen at once, though still not often and-or believably. In the WotC editions it has become impossible by RAW.

Think about it: in 3e-4e-5e it's impossible by RAW for two foes to kill each other at the same time because the strict turn-based setup dictates that one of them has to strike first and thus the other won't get to strike as it'll be dead.

It's easy to fix - use a smaller die for initiative, re-roll it each round, and allow ties - but for some reason they don't give us this even as an optional rule. EDIT to add: another easy fix is to have it that everyone still gets their attack in a round even if they die or are otherwise incapacitated during that round.

 

[Theory of Games]

This, of course, only if you use the CR system.

4e's Experience Budget system--which assigned levels to monsters, not CRs--was highly effective and worked in the vast, vast majority of situations. The only major "holes" were if you use the digital monster builder program to scale a high-level monster down to very low level or vice-versa, because monster design shifts over 4e's level-range in ways that numbers do not directly address (e.g. nasty, debilitating conditions are much more common among higher-level monsters, which low-level characters probably can't do much about.)

As with a lot of things in D&D, 4e is the game's equivalent of Mongols, blowing holes in any otherwise-reliable theories of how things do or should work.

Isn't Lizards of the Coast revisiting this system with the 5.5 update?

Dungeons & Dragons: XP Budget, Explained

Learn how the XP budget works in D&D!

www.thegamer.com

 

[Retros_x]

For example, I think D&D is historically pretty bad at "courtly intrigue." It is a staple of both historical and fantastical fiction, but there has never really been a mechanism in D&D that aids with courtly intrigue. This is a subset of the broader lack of decent social interaction rules, but I am calling out courtly intrigue just because it is a staple of the genre(s) D&D purports to be at least adjacent to. I have tried a few different fixes in various editions, from integrating others game system to developing "social combat" rules, and none of it has ever really worked. i think part of that is because in most versions of D&D, there just aren't any mechanical bits defining characters outside of exploration and combat. it would be cool if one day the social pillar got more support,a nd specifically things like courtly intrigue.

I think putting mechanics like "social combat" into social encounters would take the fun out of courtly intrigue. Instead of fun courtly roleplaying you would roll dices all the time. IMO the rules are perfectly fine for courtly intrigue and its more a question of adventure design. If you would actually put a big focus on it, I think a different game would be a better fit.

For me what modern D&D is actually bad at is exploring. Exploring is for me the biggest pillar in the identity of D&D, exploring dungeons and exploring wilderness is the most important part. And a lot of rules are there but the modern books are so bad at a) presenting those rules and b) explaining how to ACTUALLY run a good dungeon crawl or good hexcrawl.

I had to learn all this stuff from third party sources, internet forums etc. Emberrassing for a game with "dungeons" in their name.

 

[humble minion]

Him: I want there to be mounted combat specialists in my game!

Me: That's great, but what happens when you can't have or use your mount?

Him: Uh, well, that's a trade-off, then. Not everyone can use their abilities all the time.

Me: Sure, but, like, the situations where a spellcaster has nothing to do are potentially fewer and farther between than a warrior. And even if a warrior has to sit on his hands during say, a social encounter, if a fight breaks out at a social gala, he's golden, even if he has to improvise a weapon. The cavalryman, however, has the additional problem of not generally being allowed to have a horse while in a dungeon or building.

That's never been my problem with D&D mounted combat. The big problem is mount fragility at higher levels. Drop a fireball on a high-level mounted party and they just become a slightly singed high-level walking party. The lack of durability of mounts compared to PCs just makes mounted combat a bit of a novelty that doesn't last very long.

(My 12th level paladin recently had cause to ride his celestial mount into battle. 150hp astride 19hp. Sigh)

5e made a good decision in making riding something that PCs were all assumed to be able to do at a basic level of competence. So your party is not completely handicapped by having a PC who just didn't take the proficiency and couldn't ride. And a PC who WANTED to specialise in mounted combat - well, there's a feat for that, but ONLY one feat for that, so you can't overspecialise yourself into uselessness when you're not on your horse.

Hit point inflation kills mounted combat. If your mount keeps the same stat block as you advance, they can hardly take a single hit at high levels without dying. If they do, then suddenly your mount functional acts as an additional party member and is kicking beholders to death on its own. And what happens when you steal someone else's mount, does it suddenly level up to match your power level because you're the one riding it?

If I had my way, I'd start treating mounts as equipment in combat rather than separate creatures with their own stat blocks. A warhorse is a piece of equipment that increases your speed to 60ft, your side to large, gives you one extra 'kick' attack causing 2d6+3 bludgeoning, doubles your carrying capacity, and you gain the 'mounted' condition (check to not fall off under certain circumstances, disadvantage to climb checks, etc etc). Just treat rider and mount as a single creature until such time as they're not (maybe you fall off on a crit?)

Of course, even then it's the edge cases that get you. Spells cast specifically to affect the mount, what happens when you dismount and then remount in combat, etc etc.

It's a shame it's never worked, because the whole image of the charging mounted knight is so emblematic, and you can't really represent cultures like horse-archer nomads etc without mounted combat that works. But it's just so hard. And even if you do manage it somehow, mounted combat moves so fast that most battlemaps are too small to handle it anyway.

 

[GobHag]

I think putting mechanics like "social combat" into social encounters would take the fun out of courtly intrigue. Instead of fun courtly roleplaying you would roll dices all the time. IMO the rules are perfectly fine for courtly intrigue and its more a question of adventure design.

This is a great and interesting belief if you're good at social gameplay but a terrible thing if you're bad at it

 

[pemerton]

I think putting mechanics like "social combat" into social encounters would take the fun out of courtly intrigue. Instead of fun courtly roleplaying you would roll dices all the time.

Only if they're bad mechanics!

Here's an example of courtly intrigue, played in a very simple system - Prince Valiant - that nevertheless supports it well.

That ended the battle scene, and we cut to the castle. With the reserve garrison and the returned troops there were 22 archers, 36 men-at-arms, 18 sergeants and 3 knights, plus Sir Andreas and his castellan Sir Satyrion, and the PCs and their 12 men-at-arms: a total of 96 defenders. The penalty for being outnumbers two-to-one is -2 dice; the penalty for assaulting the castle is -4 dice; and so the players were reasonably confident they could hold the castle against assault.

And so everyone dined.

The scenario I was drawing on here is in the Prince Valiant Episode Book - The Littlest Prince - but our framing was rather different, as the castle's army had returned rather than having been routed. So I asked Sir Morgath's player to roll his Fellowship + Presence (7D) against an obstacle of 3 (I think it was), and he succeeded. I told him that he noticed that Sir Satyrion seemed rather sour. Morgath first spoke to Sir Andreas, and (with successful Courtesie) confirmed his suspicion that it was Satyrion who had suggested that they sally forth. (The conjecture was the players, and it certainly fitted with the scenario backstory.)

He then consulted with the other PCs, and decided to speak to Sir Satyrion, to try and learn his motives (eg power-hunger; loyalty to the Arab rather than the Greek cause; etc). This was Glamourie, and the player was rolling 8 dice (Presence 4, Glamourie 2, +2D for greater fame and his prestigious accoutrements). So he was quite successful. First, he learned that Satyrion was jealous of Andreas, and mocked him. When I asked Morgath's player if he likewise mocked Justin and Gerren, he replied "Not Sir Gerren". I asked Sir Justin's player to make a Presence check to see if he overheard the mockery; he did. Justin's player had Justin declare that he was finished dining, with the intention that he would go to the infirmary and tend to the injured; I called for another Presence check to see if he could really hold his pride in check despite Sir Morgath's word. This succeeded too, and he then rolled very well on his healing, further cementing his order's reputation in Cyprus.

A second Glamourie check succeeded, and Satyrion asked Morgath whether he was married. Sir Morgath started to speak of his love for his wife Elizabeth of York - I asked for a Presence check to avoid also speaking of Lorette of Lothian, who he left in Toulouse but still longs for. The check succeeded, and so Lorette didn't come up. Satyrion explained that he wished to marry Flora, Andrea's teenage daughter; although this would not make him the heir, as there was also an infant son, Theo. Satyrion also asked Morgath if his ambitions lay in the East, but Morgath responded that he hoped the crusading urges of Justin and Gerren would soon be satisfied so that they could all return to the West, and Morgath could return to his duties in York. (Morgath's player explained that Morgath isn't really a liar, and that his Glamourie is mostly just for helping resist seduction.)

I explained that this seemed to quieten Satyrion, and asked whether Morgath wanted to pump him for any more information. A third successful Glamourie check was made, and Morgath suggested that he might be able to help Satyrion with his plans with Flora. Satyrion, his guard quite lowered, asked whether Morgath was intimating that he might help with a plot against Andreas and Theo; Morgath replied that he was just referring to wooing! And so Satyrion excused himself.

I asked Sir Gerren's player what Gerren was doing. The reply was, checking the castle's defences. I said that a roll of Battle + Presence (9 dice) could strengthen the defences on 5 or more successes (ie give another die penalty to attacking forces), while two or fewer successes would mean something had gone wrong. Naturally the roll was two successes! As Sir Gerren was at a tower battlement, backlit by torches, an arrow struck him for 1 point of Brawn lost. I then said that he could see someone - a spy - who had infiltrated via the postern and was trying to open the main gate. I asked Gerren's player whether he was prepared to leap from the tower to stop the spy, as Tintin would. He was. I can't recall the difficulty I set - 4 or 5, I think - with every success short of that on Brawn + Agility being a point of Brawn lost in the landing. With Brawn 4 and no Agility skill, 2 points were lost, leaving Sir Gerren with only 1 Brawn to brawl with the spy. Their first round of brawling did not let the spy get to the gate, but nor did Sir Gerren disable him. Sir Gerren called for help, and with a success on his Presence + Oratory check guards came running and the gate remained closed. But about this same time, Flora announced in distress that Theo was missing from the nursery! Sir Morgath spoke to the servants in the castle, including the basement (Fellowship + Presence, with good successes) and they had seen nothing; Sir Gerren looked out from the battlement, and might have seen the riders leaving where Satyrion had spirited Theo out the postern, but failed his Presence check.

Down in the courtyard, Sir Gerren could see that Sir Andreas was getting ready to ride forth searching for his son. He tried to persuade him to hold off, that this was too big a risk to the defence of the castle; but failed: Sir Andreas reminded him that when his son (Sir Justin) had been in trouble, he had risked everything to rescue him (ie in the battle earlier that day). But Sir Andreas agreed that Sir Gerren, Sir Justin and their troops could ride with him. An oratory check mustered the men, although it was one success short of the difficulty I'd set and so they were at -1 for fighting due to the rapidity of the mustering (loose saddles, poorly donned armour, etc). And so Andreas rode out with 2 of his house-knights, 3 sergeants and 6 men-at-arms, as well as Sir Justin, Sir Gerren, their scout Rhan, and their 12 men-at-arms. Sir Morgath's player insisted quite forcefully that his scout retain, Algol the Bloodthirsty, was remaining with him in the castle. It was only once the posse had ridden out, to the echoes of me the GM saying "no backsies!", that the players fully computed that their two commanders with Battle 6 each had left the castle under the command of the teenager Flora and Sir Morgath with his Battle 1.