D&D General Design issues with 5e

[CreamCloud0]

Granularity slows down combat. I am okay with having less to do on turns if it means turns come around faster.


Would you prefer 5.5 to become as granular as 4e, where combat took multiple hours?

I feel half the reason people play one combat a day is that combat has become so slow. 5.5 is particularly bad about that, but even regular 5e could stand some improvement on that front imo

i'm sure we could find a form of granularity that doesn't take multiple hours, overly simplistic combat doesn't appeal to me.

 

[Tessarael]

In 3.xe it was a problem as the power curve was so stupidly steep in that system that being one level adrift was a big deal. It's one of the biggest flaws in that edition.

In 0-1-2e not so much, however; as it's already assumed the party's level will vary anyway due if nothing else to staggered class advancement rates. Also, the power curve in those editions isn't nearly so harsh; a character a level or even two below the party average is still quite viable in play.

Lost levels and lost items are the snakes that counterbalance the much more frequent ladders - level or stat gain, major item acquisition, major rweard, etc. - the game provides.

They provide variety in loss conditions instead of having character death be the only one; and can with time and effort be recovered from, just as death can.

There are distinct bumps in character effectiveness in 5E at level 5 in particular. While that was present in 3E and earlier editions, it was not quite as major - Fireball only did 5d6 at Wizard level 5 in AD&D and 3E, and then there were the different XP progression rates across classes as you mentioned for AD&D and OD&D. But a major problem was that some classes such as Rogue and Wizard with significantly lower HP had lower survival rates. 5E has done a much better job of balancing classes.

I strongly agree that it is good to have a variety in loss conditions other than death. However, magical equipment is tied strongly to character effectiveness in D&D, so the loss of multiple magic items due to some bad dice rolls can be really painful.

We had a 5E campaign where the characters started a new adventure having lost their equipment, albeit able to recover it within a couple of sessions. That was more fun to play. The difference was that everyone was back to no gear and having to survive and build up from that point.

I definitely had less fun in older campaigns where things appeared to be significantly uneven between characters: bad dice rolls for ability scores, bad rolls for HP, bad rolls for item saving throws ... That's why I prefer point buy for ability scores (everyone starts out the same), and the narrower spread of HP + improved survivability in 5E and A5E. I also don't like rolling for HP, just start with max HP at 1st level and half HD (round up) for HP at each level thereafter.

I do want to run an adventure with wild magic with potential periodic loss of some of their magic items that are not essential to the characters. I think this needs to be spelled out at the start to players. Player's are also much more receptive to bad things happening to their characters if they are the ones suggesting it and at least partly in control of that aspect of their storyline. It also helps if they spell out red lines as to what won't work for them in a campaign.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I don't think that was an issue.

It was an issue for me.

The trick to GMing here was - you don't need to know 100 different maneuvers. You only need to know the maneuvers your NPCs can pull off, and the all fit on a single page or less usually.

I really did not like this. I still think printing 10 variations of attack for 3dx damage, push 1 was a waste of space (in the book and in my memory).
It also made everything not really iconic.

There were a few standouts (come and get it).

The maneuvers the players could do? That's their thing.

No. It is not. It is a group thing.

It is way more memorable if someone (player or enemy) throws a "fireball". Everyone knows what that means.

Just watch stranger things if you do not believe me.
If only the one doing it knows what they do, it is very boring for everyone else and it supports the feeling that everyone just plays for their own, activates a power, moves some pieces.

You know the basic language of maneuvers, so when they say "the target is dazed (save ends)" or "I can push it 3 squares", you know what to do.

Yeah.

But if someone says:

"I cast fireball."

Everyone at the table immediately knows what to do. It is even faster.

So. Please, by the love of Gary Gygax, don't overload the game again with 1000 powers and 6000 feats.

 

[WitchyD]

Anecdotally, I ran D&D4e over Foundry VTT from level 1-30 and then again from level 1-10 or so, stopping last year when my computer died. We had a good time killing Orcus, and a lot of that had to do with the programmable automation and powers displayed in chat. I would not attempt to run epic level 4e at a physical table, but I found that players, over the course of multiple levels, quickly grew very familiar with what each other's powers could do and strategized around around them. Even if they might not remember the name "Dimensional Vortex," they would remember the swordmage's helpful ability to redirect an enemy's melee attack.

 

[Tessarael]

I'd argue that one of the key things that makes certain spells and combat maneuvers iconic is that they have a one or two word name that at a high level describes them well. For example: Backstab, Cleave, Cone of Cold, Conjure Elemental, Deflect Missile, Feint, Fireball, Invisibility, Lightning Bolt, Mage Armor, Magic Missile, Meteor Swarm, Psionic Blast, Sneak Attack, Stunning Strike, Teleport, Web, and Whirlwind Kick.

Now there are plenty of combat maneuvers and spells that are far from clear from the name, such as say Crown of Stars. For me, that makes them less iconic, and less easy to remember.

I think it is also important that combat maneuvers and spells are distinct and provide some clear tactical benefit/use. Blur and Mirror Image are ultimately too similar and should probably be simplified into one spell.

 

[Minigiant]

Yeah.

But if someone says:

"I cast fireball."

Everyone at the table immediately knows what to do. It is even faster.

So. Please, by the love of Gary Gygax, don't overload the game again with 1000 powers and 6000 feats

You can do that with a Universal Maneuver system.

"I hit the goblin and Cleave his buddy."

The problem is when you fight it and accidentally create

1. Battlemaster Fighter Sweeping Attack
2. Hunter Ranger Hordebreaker
3. Weapon Mastery: Cleave
4. Great Weapon Master: Hew

Just codify Cleave, Graze, Trip, Slow, etc already.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

You can do that with a Universal Maneuver system.

"I hit the goblin and Cleave his buddy."

The problem is when you fight it and accidentally create

1. Battlemaster Fighter Sweeping Attack
2. Hunter Ranger Hordebreaker
3. Weapon Mastery: Cleave
4. Great Weapon Master: Hew

Just codify Cleave, Graze, Trip, Slow, etc already.

Yes. One cleave like attack would be sufficient. Different ways to access the same maneuver.

5e also has what I regard as problematic.

An universal maneuver system would have been nice.

Ideally I would like:

• Spells (magic: arcane/divine/primal)
• Maneuvers (weapon/armor/body based: martial attacks/defenses/ inner focus)
• Knacks (skill based: exploration/infiltration/social/knowlege)

 

[Tessarael]

A5E has spells, maneuvers, and knacks. It works fairly well, though knacks are class-specific.

 

[Lanefan]

While I agree with the topline, I disagree with some of the specific conclusions. Racial ability score penalties don't actually add consequences. They're just a penalty for your aesthetic preferences. That's a sucky thing. Instead, species/races/ancestries/etc., (edit: forgot to complete this sentence) should be different because of how they support (or don't support) certain playstyles. Orcs crit hard and move fast, dragonborn heal fast and have breath, elves teleport, etc. That way, it's a question of "how do I make this work for me" rather than "does the thing I love get excluded because it's objectively a bad choice at the most fundamental level".

Not to pick on you here as others upthread have said similar things, but giving only bonuses or improvements without at the same time giving countervailing (sp?) penalties or reductions elsewhere is nothing but power creep.

Orcs crit hard and move fast. Dragonborn heal fast and have breath. Elves teleport. And they can all see in the dark. OK. But what do all these people give up in order to gain these benefits? The answer cannot be "nothing", else why would anyone ever play a Human that doesn't get any of this shizz?

Agreed, up to the definition of "dangerous". It's a tightrope. Make it too easy and, as you say, you've stolen a valuable tool from the players. Make it too tough, however, and you've just made the game into rocket tag, who can get the jump on the enemy, which is not better than the current situation.

I think there needs to be a difference between these two situations:

1 - simple surprise, say, where two groups each walk around a corner and bump into each other - who if anyone is momentarily caught off guard
2 - ambush or stealth attack, where the specific intent is that the target (ideally) dies without ever knowing what hit it (extremely important seeing as the dead can still give evidence!).

The WotC-edition surprise rules are all designed around situation 1 here, and do an awful job with situation 2 to the point where for the players or the DM setting up situation 2 properly is close to impossible.

It also makes the conversation around surprise more difficult when some people are talking about situation 1 and others about situation 2.

Oh, this absolutely. It'd be wonderful if they could, I dunno, bring back a common framework into which exploration could be set, such that there is real mechanical heft to it. Something like a "Competence Confrontation" or a "Talent Trial"--I feel like there must be a good word for something where the player must overcome a challenge through the use of skills.

For exploration to work as anything other than a mere tack-on it needs to be far more granular in resolution than this.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

On a different note :

Hit points as someone else mentioned...

gygax got it right: capped HP after name level... or at least better direction.

One way to correct it:

level 0: start with a size based hit die + con (or str) modifier. Standard d8. Take the average rounded up: 5.

Level 1 and above: get the average of your class hp rounded up. No con modifier. Ever.

So you usually start with 10 to 12 hp.

A gnome (d6) wizard (d6) with 8 con might start with just 7 hp. Still enough to survive level 1.

Con bonus on hit dice to recover hp. The gnome wizard has very bad regeneration. But that is ok.

The catch: weapons deal no bonus damage from stat modifiers. But you might be able to wield higher dice weapons with better str or dex. Or they might allow you to reroll dice results of your modifier or less (or both) No 2d6 weapons.

Str 11 allows d6 weapons
Str 12 reroll 1's
Str 13 allows d8 weapons
Str 14 reroll 2's
Str 15 allows d10 weapons
Str 16 reroll 3's
Str 17 allows d12 weapons
Str 18 reroll 4's

That way damage dealt is significantly reduced. Especially with multiattack.