D&D General Design issues with 5e

[Stalker0]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the crappiness of treasure in 5e. Not the magic items I think those are generally fine (as always there are a few eye brow raising ones and some stinkers, but on the whole they are good).

I'm talking raw gold. Everyone jokes in 5e about "useless gold". We got the stronghold rules which were....pretty meh. Finding a way to have that treasure be meaningful in some way would be great to see.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

That is why I said, do the opposite,
3rd or 5th or 6th level features, 1st level HPs.

Sorry. Missed that. Can you ex0lain it a bit more?

5th level features like extra attack at level 1 might be excessive. On the other hand, it could be totally ok.

 

[Stalker0]

In reading over the entire thread, so far it seems the most common answer is the skills system. I agree with that, so if we are looking for "consensus" that so is the biggest one I have seen.

 

[Horwath]

Sorry. Missed that. Can you ex0lain it a bit more?

5th level features like extra attack at level 1 might be excessive. On the other hand, it could be totally ok.

yeah,

if you want to have capable heroes but still feel very fragile, you reduce HP,
you have good skills, but still, one sword swing can bring you down.

 

[Tessarael]

One thing that I haven't seen mentioned is the crappiness of treasure in 5e. Not the magic items I think those are generally fine (as always there are a few eye brow raising ones and some stinkers, but on the whole they are good).

I'm talking raw gold. Everyone jokes in 5e about "useless gold". We got the stronghold rules which were....pretty meh. Finding a way to have that treasure be meaningful in some way would be great to see.

The A5E Stronghold rules are pretty good in my opinion. That's where we have been funneling spare money, to get the +1 ability score bonus at a level 3 stronghold, another +2 at a level 6 stronghold, and there are other benefits as well depending on the type of stronghold.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

yeah,

if you want to have capable heroes but still feel very fragile, you reduce HP,
you have good skills, but still, one sword swing can bring you down.

In an old Warhammer Fantasy RPG, being at 0 hp did not knock you out but once you ran out of HP, you suffer griveous wounds.
So maybe only 1st level hp, but you can still chose and fight a bit longer.

One just has to be careful not making it a death spiral.

 

[CreamCloud0]

Just start at 3 HD at "level 1".

Con bonus to HP is a class feature.

And you cap at 10-13 HD depending on class or race.

10/13HD still feels like alot of HP, personally i might go:

3HD+CON at 1st
you cap at 5-8HD based on class+species
CON bonus to HP is standard

less HP coming from the HD but more of a continual trickle as you level.

 

[Minigiant]

10/13HD still feels like alot of HP, personally i might go:

3HD+CON at 1st
you cap at 5-8HD based on class+species
CON bonus to HP is standard

less HP coming from the HD but more of a continual trickle as you level.

Im for not adding Con to HP except for fighter or barbarian.

So 13HD cleric is about 60 hp.

 

[Minigiant]

Your personal heartbreaker trrpg house rule collection is not particularly relevant l, but you very much seem to be using it to defend the published official version everyone else is discuss as if they are one and the same

Im not defending the status quo.

5e designed Races and then Species with too low a budget and made the forced +2/+1 and +2/+2/-2 handlr the differentiation.

But the community revolted against the forced +2/+1.

So the "other bonuses" are too weak

6e will like increase the power budget of species to match the amount of racial differentiation the community wants.

There is and it's about a quarter century old by now

Its not Oberoni.

This isnt about DMs and roleplaying.

Its about fundamental game design.

The 5e math model doesnt match what the community wants in play.

The 5e math model match what the community wants to look at.

Its dating the annoying supermodel of gameplay.

 

[Stormonu]

I assume that you know all this, just detailing the logic behind the 5E AC framework, which makes sense to me. 3E got crazy with too many stacking modifiers. There are a few cases like this in 5E, such as casting the Shield spell while wielding a shield, which I would not allow to stack as a DM, but they largely fixed such issues.

If you enforce the "have to have free hand to cast spells", that generally cuts out shield plus shield, short of the character burning a feat to get War Caster.

But the base rule of having a free hand is one I keep forgetting/ignoring and I suspect many other tables do the same.