D&D 5E 5E's "Missed Opportunities?"

[Quartz]

Why!? I would greatly prefer there to be some definite and unavoidable advantages or disadvantages (or even outright immunities) based on the monster's lore. Maybe slimes are impervious to bladed and piercing weapons, and resistant to bludgeoning? What if golems were resistant based on their composition?

Nothing is stopping you from creating those monsters.

Additionally, monsters have virtually no scary options aside from damage. Level drain is gone, ability damage is insanely rare, aging effects are gone,

And good riddance. Those were seriously un-fun.

 

[Oofta]

I agree with Elfcrusher, while limiting stats was nice and a design decision that should be kept, the utter abandonment of tertiary stat usefulness drives me ballistic. If all fighters could get some benefits from Int, for example, we might see more niche builds around being an knowledgeable fighter rather than the more conventional variety. Maybe if strength expanded the list of sneak attack compatible weapons then every rogue under the sun might not carry a rapier. It's a big problem and I really hope they fix it in the distant future when 6th ed rolls around, but I won't be holding my breath.

So take a background (or create one) that grants your fighter proficiency in investigation. I don't totally disagree, but if all your characters focus entirely on combat that's on you not the game.

I wish weapons meant something. There are precious few weapon qualities of note, and with the way the classes are structured you either use one of maybe 5 martial weapons or you don't use any weapons at all in lieu of cantrips. The weapon qualities are uninspired and have very little effect, and few set up any sort of unique approach or usage to encourage different playstyles. If we're going to give non-weapon classes viable options to select (and we definitely should) then the concept and structure of D&D weapons need an overhaul to promote some diversity and niches. To go with this...

Monster defenses are utter garbage design wise. As a DM, this is a COLOSSAL misstep in my opinion. Virtually every damage resistance in official wizards product is completely bypassed by any magic weapons. Why!? I would greatly prefer there to be some definite and unavoidable advantages or disadvantages (or even outright immunities) based on the monster's lore. Maybe slimes are impervious to bladed and piercing weapons, and resistant to bludgeoning? What if golems were resistant based on their composition? Energy types fall into this hole as well, with monsters having few weaknesses and many extrapalanar foes just getting huge sweeping resistances regardless of if it makes sense or not.

That was one of the sillier things in previous editions. My fighter had to carry around different flavors of weapons and swap out depending on what monster they were fighting. No thanks.

Additionally, monsters have virtually no scary options aside from damage. Level drain is gone, ability damage is insanely rare, aging effects are gone, long term conditions are gone, diseases and poisons are trivially cured, the list goes on. Rust monsters used to be universally despised because of equipment loss and especially if you have one of the aforementioned magic items they're just a joke. I can think of very few monsters the players would be loathe to fight regardless of their current level, and that's a missed opportunity if ever there was one.

Level drain was either fun-destroying perma-penalty or just another restoration spell you had to cast/pay for. Aging effects had virtually no impact unless you were human or half-orc. Long term conditions are an optional rule in the DMG if it's something your group wants to use.

A lot of people (including myself) don't want to play the game you describe. If I did I'd play a previous edition or PathFinder. Of course then I'd have to put up with people complaining about how complex the game is and how every fighter ends up looking like this guy:

 

[Dualazi]

Nothing is stopping you from creating those monsters.

Nothing is stopping me from creating a whole system on my own. The reason most don't do this is because they would prefer to let someone else undergo that effort and then compensate them for use of said product. Similarly, if I have to change huge swathes of a product in question, then it begs the question of why I should buy it. Simply put, the ability of homebrew to compensate for certain issues is not a defense against criticism of a product.

And good riddance. Those were seriously un-fun.

To you. For others they were a valuable source of attrition, creativity, or challenges. Lacking these options strongly reinforces the paradigm of fights simply being a slug-fest, since the only real vector of attack is HP loss.

 

[Dualazi]

So take a background (or create one) that grants your fighter proficiency in investigation. I don't totally disagree, but if all your characters focus entirely on combat that's on you not the game.

Yeah, no. Skills will never cut it in that regard, and if the fix was that simple then it would already be done. My point was that there should be combat incentives or options for a multitude of stats on all characters, such as my example on expanded sneak attack options of rogues. If battlemasters got extra Superiority dice based on int bonuses, maybe we'd see some people put points there instead of so many in con or wisdom.

That was one of the sillier things in previous editions. My fighter had to carry around different flavors of weapons and swap out depending on what monster they were fighting. No thanks.

And the pendulum has swung way too hard in the opposite direction. If you have a magic weapon in 5e then the entire resistance game element essentially disappears.

Level drain was either fun-destroying perma-penalty or just another restoration spell you had to cast/pay for. Aging effects had virtually no impact unless you were human or half-orc. Long term conditions are an optional rule in the DMG if it's something your group wants to use.

A lot of people (including myself) don't want to play the game you describe. If I did I'd play a previous edition or PathFinder. Of course then I'd have to put up with people complaining about how complex the game is and how every fighter ends up looking like this guy:

Again, happy mediums can be reached between the two, it's not a binary option. Also, some of the effects are cosmetic as well as potentially impactful, like aging. I know a lot of people who would be more bothered by that than by actual mechanical changes, so it's still potentially a fearsome outcome of an encounter. As it stands now there's really no mechanical reason to give a crap about what you're fighting because it all matters so little, especially at the high end. Golems get magic resistance, but with how monster saves scale it tends not to matter, rendering them a shadow of their former selves. Rust monsters are a speedbump for any martial character, and one with a magic weapon has nothing to fear. Undead can lower your HP cap temporarily, but if you aren't on a time crunch you can just sleep it off. In earlier editions my group would have to plan how to deal with those various aspects to some degree, and they don't have to do anything of the sort in 5e.

 

[Blue]

So take a background (or create one) that grants your fighter proficiency in investigation. I don't totally disagree, but if all your characters focus entirely on combat that's on you not the game.

I have to agree here - I see too many players with the mentality that if an ability score doesn't improve their class features it's not worthwhile. But that ignores that skills can easily be based off an ability score and that for all of the pillars of the game outside of combat, skills are the biggest mechanical aspect. (Spells are #2.)

Right now I'm playing an urban investigator paladin who has decent INT and WIS for those skills, in addition to the obvious CHR.

 

[Satyrn]

A lot of people (including myself) don't want to play the game you describe. If I did I'd play a previous edition or PathFinder. Of course then I'd have to put up with people complaining about how complex the game is and how every fighter ends up looking like this guy:

View attachment 102539

Needs more owl.

 

[Nebulous]

You could make that a feat:

Resistant: You add half your Proficiency Bonus (rounded down) to saving throws in which you are not proficient. (i.e. from +1 to +3)

or

Resistant: You add your Proficiency Bonus less 2 to saving throws in which you are not proficient. (i.e. from +0 to +4)



I've seen poker chips recommended as a solution. Players are more likely to remember if they have a visual reminder in front of them. It works with conditions too. When someone is at 0 HP you can give them 3 black chips. Each round they lose one chip...

I like the chips idea.

 

[Lanefan]

Nothing is stopping you from creating those monsters.

Unless one is playing in AL or some other environment that doesn't allow such creativity.

And good riddance. Those were seriously un-fun.

That was the point. They were supposed to be significant setbacks.

Now the only significant mechanical (as opposed to fiction or story-based) setback left is PC death.

That was one of the sillier things in previous editions. My fighter had to carry around different flavors of weapons and swap out depending on what monster they were fighting. No thanks.

Easily prevented by even a slightly more strict enforcement of encumbrance rules.

Aging effects had virtually no impact unless you were human or half-orc.

This one's also easy to fix: make aging effects be relative to the creature's potential lifespan, rather than in straight years. For each race, figure out how long their potential lifespan is relative to a Human in your world/setting, and then apply aging effects in Human Year Equivalence (HYE).

In practice, and using arbitrarily round numbers, if a Human's potential lifespan is 100 years and an Elf's is 700 (thus, 7 years to an Elf = 1 year to a Human) then something that would age a Human 10 years hits an Elf for 70. This actually helps Part-Orcs a bit, in that their potential lifespan is shorter than a Human's and thus aging effects are also correspondingly reduced.

A bit of work for the DM to set up to begin with, but work she only has to do once.

 

[delericho]

1) Backgrounds. They just don't contribute enough to the character's abilities and feel tacked on.

I disagree... mostly. At 1st level, I think Backgrounds make for a great addition to the character. I agree that they very quickly fall by the wayside, though. I think I'd be inclined to suggest that at 5th level they should consider having the character's Background be superseded by something else (maybe Faction at 5th level, then a Paragon Path at 11th, and Epic Destiny at 16th?).

2) Inspiration. Half-baked idea that is literally never remembered. Unless you have people always fishing for bonuses in annoying ways.

Yeah, I really dislike this as written. I've taken instead to giving each player an Inspiration token to use on any one roll, once per level. When used, it cancels Disadvantage and then grants Advantage on that roll.

Which isn't an ideal solution (far from it), but has the virtues of being simple and easy to remember.

3) Treasure Hordes. This is in the DMG, and there is actually a recommended schedule for awarding magic items and treasure. Too bad no official products ever used these guidelines.

Never used these. A shame, really - I did think the 5e DMG was pretty good, but in practice it's turned out no more memorable than the DMG for any other edition (except maybe 1st).

4) Advantage/Disadvantage. +5/-5 is too big of a modifier for most conditions. Flanking is lethal against the PCs (so we didn't use it).

I disagree. IMO, one of their best decisions in 5e was precisely that - getting rid of the host of minor modifiers, and replacing them instead with a single, big modifier. Meaning that it should only apply when it's really significant and also that when it does apply it is, indeed, really significant.

5) Bonded Accuracy. A good idea in practice, except that it turns monsters into bags of hit points.

Again, I disagree - this is a big factor in 5e being a very robust system (as far as I've been able to tell).

That said, it is important that monster design takes this into account, precisely to avoid the "big bag of hit points" effect. And too much of 5e monster design is pretty dull.

 

[Li Shenron]

I would have liked a little bit more balance in the general usefulness of the 6 ability scores. There is still a certain tendency to "dump" Strength, Intelligence or Charisma significantly more often than the other three. During the playtest I always wrote that in my feedback, the difference between the "greater three" and the "lesser three" could have been mitigated a bit for example by switching the Saving Throws required by more spells.

Also, they could have done a few more low-complexity subclass options beyond the Champion, at least one for each of iconic 4 classes.