D&D General 5.5 and making the game easier for players and harder for DMs

[bloodtide]

I think it is worth noting that everyone in the party having high stats... is fine. Doesn't really make the game harder to DM nor does it leave the characters without flaws.

High Stats don't matter as much as players think they do. True.

Well, except when you do the reverse. When you do real, hard and harsh, mechanical rule based flaws. Well, then every player just jumps up to say no! Ask a player to have a low Constitutions so no bonus hit points. Or ask them to have a low score in an ability they need for their build. And players will not want that.

Players just love to have flaws that they can make all fluffy. My character is this or that, when I role play. But have a flaw of a clumsy character....with a very low dexterity score....oh, well that is suddenly the "wrong" kind of flaw and the player won't want to do that.

 

[Chaosmancer]

High Stats don't matter as much as players think they do. True.

Well, except when you do the reverse. When you do real, hard and harsh, mechanical rule based flaws. Well, then every player just jumps up to say no! Ask a player to have a low Constitutions so no bonus hit points. Or ask them to have a low score in an ability they need for their build. And players will not want that.

Players just love to have flaws that they can make all fluffy. My character is this or that, when I role play. But have a flaw of a clumsy character....with a very low dexterity score....oh, well that is suddenly the "wrong" kind of flaw and the player won't want to do that.

Might have something to do with "I roll -1 on the d20 if I can't avoid these skill checks" being really, really boring in terms of role-play potential.

It also likely isn't helped by a "Clumsy" character being able to roll a 18, 19 or 20 on the die and succeeding anyways with grace and poise, while a "graceful" character can still roll a 1, 2 or 3 and be clumsy. Like the flaw isn't matched by the mechanical reality at play....

 

[Remathilis]

High Stats don't matter as much as players think they do. True.

Well, except when you do the reverse. When you do real, hard and harsh, mechanical rule based flaws. Well, then every player just jumps up to say no! Ask a player to have a low Constitutions so no bonus hit points. Or ask them to have a low score in an ability they need for their build. And players will not want that.

Players just love to have flaws that they can make all fluffy. My character is this or that, when I role play. But have a flaw of a clumsy character....with a very low dexterity score....oh, well that is suddenly the "wrong" kind of flaw and the player won't want to do that.

That also depends on how the DM is going to use said penalty. It's one thing to play a low wis fighter who makes lots of blunders and is oblivious as a post, it's quite another when every spellcasting enemy is casting charm, hold, fear, and other Wis save magic on me every encounter because the DM knows I will more than likely not make that save and get taken out of the fight. You play with enough of these omniscient, I'm sorry, "tactical" DMs and you stop looking at flaws as RP hooks and start seeing them as gaps you must plug or perish.

 

[bloodtide]

That also depends on how the DM is going to use said penalty. It's one thing to play a low wis fighter who makes lots of blunders and is oblivious as a post, it's quite another when every spellcasting enemy is casting charm, hold, fear, and other Wis save magic on me every encounter because the DM knows I will more than likely not make that save and get taken out of the fight. You play with enough of these omniscient, I'm sorry, "tactical" DMs and you stop looking at flaws as RP hooks and start seeing them as gaps you must plug or perish.

This is my point though, bad DMs notwithstanding. A flaw should have a real, in game consequence. Not just be fluff for a player to point to and say 'my character has a flaw'.

It also likely isn't helped by a "Clumsy" character being able to roll a 18, 19 or 20 on the die and succeeding anyways with grace and poise, while a "graceful" character can still roll a 1, 2 or 3 and be clumsy. Like the flaw isn't matched by the mechanical reality at play....

Of course the reverse does not bother the player with the high stat character...

Of course, D&D has never had a good 'flaw' system anyway...

 

[Micah Sweet]

That also depends on how the DM is going to use said penalty. It's one thing to play a low wis fighter who makes lots of blunders and is oblivious as a post, it's quite another when every spellcasting enemy is casting charm, hold, fear, and other Wis save magic on me every encounter because the DM knows I will more than likely not make that save and get taken out of the fight. You play with enough of these omniscient, I'm sorry, "tactical" DMs and you stop looking at flaws as RP hooks and start seeing them as gaps you must plug or perish.

Let me ask you this: like @EzekielRaiden , you clearly have had bad experiences with DMs that have informed you; my sympathies for that. What's your solution? Are you in favor of stricter rules for DMs in D&D?

 

[Chaosmancer]

This is my point though, bad DMs notwithstanding. A flaw should have a real, in game consequence. Not just be fluff for a player to point to and say 'my character has a flaw'.

Why?

The Princess in the game I was talking about has no mechanical flaw. Her flaw has had real, in-game consequences for our potential survival. Multiple times.

Of course the reverse does not bother the player with the high stat character...

Probably because they don't use the stat to define their character in more than the broadest sense of "competence".

 

[Malmuria]

And if the game reduced complexity for your playstyle, it would drive off those of us who prefer a crunchier rules approach.

FWIW, I don't think the core game should reduce in complexity compared to 2014. I'm just pointing out that 2014 5e is easier to run than 5e with a whole bunch more options (as it seems 2024 will have). 2014 5e was a game that became popular because of its ease of use and accessibility. The more crunch you add to that base...yes, you get more tactical complexity, but it also becomes less easy to use. I'm simply pointing out that there's a trade off there.

This is especially important to keep in mind when thinking about new players and dms. Right now, if you are a new dm, you pick up the current 2014 core books. A year from now, new DMs will be picking up a new core set of books. If the game caters too much to those who have been running it for 10 years and prefer a crunchier approach, it will also be less accessible for those new dms and players

 

[haakon1]

My friend was in another game, and when a Barbarian rolled excellent scores he later asked the DM to voluntarily reduce his scores. A Barbarian with 16s and 18s in all three of Strength, Constitution, and Dexterity becomes quite literally too good. He felt he outshone his fellow party members to such a degree it reduced the game fun.

I had a player roll 3 18’s, with two witnesses. It was mathematically amazing, and fun for our group to have a gifted character.

Life doesn’t give balanced talents, so D&D having randomized abilities makes sense to me.

 

[cbwjm]

FWIW, I don't think the core game should reduce in complexity compared to 2014. I'm just pointing out that 2014 5e is easier to run than 5e with a whole bunch more options (as it seems 2024 will have). 2014 5e was a game that became popular because of its ease of use and accessibility. The more crunch you add to that base...yes, you get more tactical complexity, but it also becomes less easy to use. I'm simply pointing out that there's a trade off there.

This is especially important to keep in mind when thinking about new players and dms. Right now, if you are a new dm, you pick up the current 2014 core books. A year from now, new DMs will be picking up a new core set of books. If the game caters too much to those who have been running it for 10 years and prefer a crunchier approach, it will also be less accessible for those new dms and players

I agree that the more options get added the more complex the system becomes, but I wonder what the breakpoint is that makes it difficult enough that it turns away new players. There would be a point where it becomes too much for many but I'm not sure, from what I've seen in the playtests, if 5.5 is going to reach that point.

 

[haakon1]

We all have different preferences. I've been at tables where we rolled and one character had multiple 18s, nothing below a 12. Another had a single 14 and most stats below 10. No thanks. I won't play at a table, unless it's a one shot, where we roll. You do you.

Obviously a preference/taste thing.

For you random rolled stats are so seriously bad, you refuse to play that way.

For me, rolled stats are more fun because of the randomness. When I DM, it’s 4d6 drop lowest, place in any order. And you can reroll if any stat is 6 or lower - you failed the draft physical, but can play those stats anyhow if you want.

But I’ll play stat buy.

Why is randomization a deal breaker for you?