D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

Asisreo · Feb 11, 2021

Dausuul said:
That logic works when you're making a lot of checks. But you can't assume it will all average out in a scenario that comes up maybe once every two sessions. "Arcane mystery" is not a particularly common occurrence.

Moreover, the wizard's likelihood to roll highest shrinks dramatically when you consider there are 3-4 other PCs. In a party of 5, even if the wizard has +9 and everyone else has -1, there is close to a 30% chance that someone else beats the wizard's roll.

When these unusual scenarios come up, they should be a chance for the relevant PC to step up and be awesome, not for them to fall on their face and look incompetent because they blew a roll.

It shouldn't be unusual for a character to want to use their proficiencies more. The frequency of Arcana checks are mostly in the hands of the player with minor sway from the DM. They decide the DC, but the rules already defined the check.

A wizard with Arcana proficiency should be attempting to recall the lore of most magical occurrences. If they approach a rune, arcana. A Magic Item? Arcana. A summoned creature? Arcana. A magical effect? Arcana.

And its not just the obvious stuff like their names and features. Its also the lore and history behind the target. Information which may either completely change the party's plan, or just be fun tidbits of knowledge.

My point is that characters should be asking for their checks when they see the opportunity so that the game may progress using both their abilities and their ability to lean into what makes their character special.

Reynard · Feb 11, 2021

TheSword said:
Well it’s a pre-written adventure.

Are you concerned that the adventure as written doesn’t assume that your party will want to explore every inch of IWD?

Surely by linking XP to goal achievements... helping the ten towns, dealing the major threats to the area they are making the game party dependent... which is not the same as repeatable.

I have a cannibal pirate, an escaped prisoner and a explorer for lost magic as PCs in this campaign. It makes sense for them to explore areas linked to these themes. Why on earth would they explore a hostile wilderness for the sake of it?

The structure of the milestones in the open world is a problem because it essentially demands the PCs will move on to the next part of the adventure after completing some specific number of side quests.

That isn't how RPGs work. In RPGs, players decide what they do, when, and how. Especially in a sandbox environment, it is a head-scratchingly strange decision to force them to stop exploring after having dipped so shallowly into the content.

I mean, the solution is simple: just give them the XP they earn by actually doing stuff. If they show up in a new town and the locals tell them there is a horde of zombie yetis stealing the elderly at night, the PCs are free to decide whether or not to engage that quest based on whether they thing the reward is worth the risk. They can move on, try to help, or join the Yeti for all I care. they just have to do something. Maybe the Yeti sound too tough, so they decide to come back in a level or two (and hope they aren't too late). That's up to them, not up to me or the designer that decided they only get 3 sidequests before they move on.

And if the PCs and up being a higher level than is necessary to deal with a challenge? Awesome! they have been busting their buts and risking life and limb to level up. Let them kick some ass.

Anyway, my point is that milestones are bad and designers that use them should feel bad.

Faolyn · Feb 11, 2021

Reynard said:
For example, one thing in 5E that I really find to be a problem as a GM is how poorly the action economy is balanced for "solo" creatures. A PC party of 4 or 5 characters punches WAY above its weight class against solo monsters, even in Lairs and with legendary actions. A good part of this has to do with the 5E math -- solo monsters don't hit especially hard and so they aren't terrifying in that "stay away from it or you're dead!" feeling that helps keep the PCs at bay. On top of it, PCs can really pump out a lot of damage when they want to and solos, which are usually just big bags of hit points, don't last long. All that said, the fight against one massive foe is a fantasy staple and I want it to work -- and not just for epic boss battles. There's no reason a random encounter with a giant or whatever shouldn't be viable, too.

Part of the problem is the poor way that CR is determined. It's the average of offense CR and defense CR, and very few other abilities are taken into play. IMO, a creature that can reduce your hp maximum or can inflict a condition, should be of higher CR than one who can't. But reduction of hp max (or stat, which while very rare does show up) and most conditions are ignored by CR.

Snarf Zagyg said:
1. Rangers and Paladins become non-spellcasters. Provide them abilities instead.

I think they could be made a lot like warlocks, with their own version of invocation.

I generally agree on too many spellcasters, although I have no problem with druids and nature clerics being separate things. Ideally, a druid works within nature, while a nature cleric commands it. Yes, I know that's more a lore/RP thing, but I think there's enough of a difference.

OTOH, what I'd prefer is more non-spellcasters. Which could be accomplished by having non-caster paladins and rangers. I wouldn't mind a third-caster archetype for each of those, but I'm not fond of them by half-casters by default.

Snarf Zagyg said:
2. Re-work the Sorcerer to make it a more interesting full-caster option to the Wizard.

As a serious question: how would you do that? I personally don't have any ideas on that front.

(I like bards...)

Reynard said:
There's another mode?

There should be a Dark Mode available. Bottom of the screen? I switched mine a while ago and now I can't remember how to switch back.

Faolyn · Feb 11, 2021

Reynard said:
I think maybe the Boss monsters who have multiple things they can do should get multiple initiatives for those things. It is a LONG time between turns for the solo.

That would be a Legendary Action, which the monster is supposed to take after another creature takes its turn. Then add in Lair Actions and you should be set.

The thing is for the DM to make sure to always give their bosses, even if they're not super-powerful monsters, some Legendaries and Lairs.

Snarf Zagyg · Feb 11, 2021

Faolyn said:
As a serious question: how would you do that? I personally don't have any ideas on that front.

I tend to focus on two things only:

1. Better martial options; and
2. Ending the scourge that is the bard.

That said, if I were to take a stab at it, this would be my idea:

You have the main Spellcasters.
Wizard, Warlock, Cleric. (Druid is a half-caster in my ideal world).

What to do with the Sorcerer?

Well, tear it down and re-build from the ground up. Instead of making them all meta-magic with a little subclass flavor, I'd design them to be the completely flexible chassis for the innate caster to "hang" the cool, but specific, subclasses on.

What?

More specifically:
Re-design so that they don't have spells, slots, etc. They just have sorcery points (think spell points).

The choice of subclass doesn't just give them a little bit of flavor; it directly impacts how their innate magic works. How they can use those sorcery points. The actual play and feel and utilization of a Storm Sorcerer would be completely different than a Shadow Sorcerer.

They'd end up straddling the design space between warlocks (with invocations and limited spells) and wizards (with almost no innate powers and tons of versatile spells).

Justice and Rule · Feb 11, 2021

Faolyn said:
There should be a Dark Mode available. Bottom of the screen? I switched mine a while ago and now I can't remember how to switch back.

In your account tab, go to preferences, right at the top.

Snarf Zagyg said:
I tend to focus on two things only:

1. Better martial options; and
2. Ending the scourge that is the bard.

Kind of kidding, kind of interested in what catastrophic encounter you had with a Bard player.

Snarf Zagyg said:
That said, if I were to take a stab at it, this would be my idea:

You have the main Spellcasters.
Wizard, Warlock, Cleric. (Druid is a half-caster in my ideal world).

What to do with the Sorcerer?

Well, tear it down and re-build from the ground up. Instead of making them all meta-magic with a little subclass flavor, I'd design them to be the completely flexible chassis for the innate caster to "hang" the cool, but specific, subclasses on.

What?

More specifically:
Re-design so that they don't have spells, slots, etc. They just have sorcery points (think spell points).

The choice of subclass doesn't just give them a little bit of flavor; it directly impacts how their innate magic works. How they can use those sorcery points. The actual play and feel and utilization of a Storm Sorcerer would be completely different than a Shadow Sorcerer.

They'd end up straddling the design space between warlocks (with invocations and limited spells) and wizards (with almost no innate powers and tons of versatile spells).

You could maybe do something about handling raw spellstuff, being more like an elementalist, with that idea, too: you can form basic elemental attacks like cantrips, but you can modify them with a big pool of metamagic to be explosions, barriers, etc. You could move out from there to flavoring stuff, but at least it'd give it a clear and interesting niche compared to what it is now.

Faolyn · Feb 11, 2021

Justice and Rule said:
Use Warlock-style casting more: The Warlock was a great concept, and it sucks that they didn't use the chassis for other casting classes. Bard immediately springs to mind as a great "shot rest caster", and maybe Paladin if you want to keep their spellcasting abilities (plus the invocation system would work well at modeling cool Paladin stuff).

Agreed, also with Paladins and Rangers. Although I think that Bards could do well with having cantrip access. I can see them as have a lot of weak but useful magic.

Justice and Rule said:
Secondly, clean up the skill list a bit. Let's also combine Animal Handling and Nature.

That I disagree with. They actually deal with different things, and knowing how to calm down or train an animal is quite a bit different than knowing if a plant is safe to eat or what sort of wild animal left those tracks.

Justice and Rule said:
Either get rid of Performance or turn it into something distinct, because having it as well as your instrumental tool proficiency has just been a weird debate for ages. I'd honestly suggest turning it into "Charm", where you are able to carouse and orate, while Persuasion a more logical reasoned approach (I might also make that an Int skill just to distinguish the different approaches).

I would disagree because a Charm skill would so end up being the Seduction skill.

The rest of it, I agree with. Perform isn't quite distinctive enough from knowing an instrument, or as I allow, substituting something like Singing for knowing an instrument.

Justice and Rule said:
Make Dex less of a God-stat: Right now I'd argue Dex is easily one of the best pound-for-pound stats you can get, and I'd love to see that pulled back somehow. Not sure how, but my final suggestion would help...

I'm listening to a live play podcast that says that in Pathfinder, you use Dex for attacks with some weapons but Strength for the damage? I haven't actually gone through the PF weapon rules to any length to know if that's true, but if it is that might be one way to nerf it a bit.

Snarf Zagyg · Feb 11, 2021

Justice and Rule said:
Kind of kidding, kind of interested in what catastrophic encounter you had with a Bard player.

I love what can only be provided by a Bard; its absence.

turnip_farmer · Feb 11, 2021

Asisreo said:
It shouldn't be unusual for a character to want to use their proficiencies more. The frequency of Arcana checks are mostly in the hands of the player with minor sway from the DM. They decide the DC, but the rules already defined the check.

A wizard with Arcana proficiency should be attempting to recall the lore of most magical occurrences. If they approach a rune, arcana. A Magic Item? Arcana. A summoned creature? Arcana. A magical effect? Arcana.

And its not just the obvious stuff like their names and features. Its also the lore and history behind the target. Information which may either completely change the party's plan, or just be fun tidbits of knowledge.

My point is that characters should be asking for their checks when they see the opportunity so that the game may progress using both their abilities and their ability to lean into what makes their character special.

I don't do checks for any of this. That just feels weird. Ability checks are rolled when a player does something, and there is a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a consequence of failure. 'I look at that rune and think really hard' doesn't meet those criteria.

I've started doing a lot more pre-session prep on handling what players know about stuff. If I know the players are going to find an idol of Jinglybubwub, I define levels of knowledge about Jinglybubwub, usually something like this:

0 - never heard of
10 - know the basic details
15 - know all the details

Then I'll compare those numbers to my players' passive Religion score with modifiers like +2 for 'from the area where Jinglybubwub is worshipped' and -5 for 'from some made-up place on the other side of the world because you refused to pick one of the races you're supposed to used for this campaign'.

And then it all makes sense. Characters know stuff that fit in with their backgrounds. Intelligent characters with relevant proficiences know all sorts of stuff. The special snowflake who has to a be a weird outsider knows nothing about anything because that's what you get. No rolls needed, fiction maintained, and investment in proficiencies and ability scores rewarded.

Tinker-TDC · Feb 11, 2021

Fun Fact: The milestone XP variant in the DMG is not "Level Advancement Without XP: Story-Based Advancement," which is a separate section right below milestone XP. (I understand that milestone means just levelling up whenever in the vernacular, it's just that ACTUAL milestone XP is a ruleset that I actually like.)

D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

Asisreo

Patron Badass

Reynard

Legend

Faolyn

(she/her)

Faolyn

(she/her)

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist

Justice and Rule

Hero

Faolyn

(she/her)

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist

turnip_farmer

Adventurer

Tinker-TDC

Explorer

Similar Threads