D&D 5E CHALLENGE: Change one thing about 5e

[NotActuallyTim]

I'm with you - when I run I keep things moving. Great article BTW. But that doesn't always happen when I'm a player. And trust me, if you're waiting 15 minutes between turns, having your turn be 1.5 seconds long to say "I start a multi-round spell" it's not fun at all.

But while a rule system can't keep players on track, I think it can easily encourage players to go off track by being too complex and having too much time between player's turns because of it.

Worst I played in was probably a 4e game in paragon levels. So many individual powers, each having to be individually evaluated for the current tactical setup. Sometimes one-by-one each turn by some of the players. Like if everyone was a high level spellcaster with lots of options. Made more complex by playing online. We played in evenings every other week and it got to the point that combats were taking more then one session to complete. Easy 30+ minutes between turns. DM had a killer campaign going on, but the weight of the system in combat was killing it. 5e came out and we started to convert but that ended up being a mess and it killed the campaign.

But I've been the cause of slowdowns in a 3.5 game way back when playing a summoner druid, because I had to run a bunch of creatures in addition to my own spellcaster. Not just taking their turns, but making saves, tracking damage, attacks of opportunity, etc. From my PoV it wasn't all that bad, btu one close friend now won't play in any group that has a regular summoner because of that, so that wasn't the viewpoint of the others.

So I agree with you that the rules can't keep a player on track. But in my experience the opposite needs to be considered, that the rules can slow things down and get in the way of keeping players on track.

Gotta say Blue, it's not the rules, it's how the people use them. I just ran a session with some brand new players, and by only referencing the rules in my head, I managed to get them through a full combat with no previous experience or explanations. And I set it up so that they would be able to remember what they can and can't do for the next combat.

I've had similar experiences to your 4e game with systems as simple as Vampire:the Requiem and as messy as Shadowrun with the hacking rules. It's never been the rules that slowed people down in any of those games, it was us. The people at the table couldn't make calls as needed, and that's never on the rules. That's on the players.

And if you are a player, all you can do is set an example by making decisions snappily.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Skimming this thread, and the one thing I'd change about 5e is the attitude of some of it's players. There's a lot of good constructive criticism here, but it's like some people are going out of their way just to take shots

Compared to the edition war, we're sit'n 'round the campfire sing'n Kumbaya.

Out of curiosity, what advantages do you see in a game that requires (or at a minimum assumes) frequent combat (probably hundreds of battles over the course of a PCs career)

Based on the exp charts and encounter guidelines around 145 'hard' battles.

As far as Saelorn's coming down from Mt Arrarat with commandments....

... meh, it's been done better.

 

[Spookykid]

really is a challenge to pick one,

I love the idea of bounded accuracy, 5th edition tries but fails to implement properly/funly for me. There are some scattered + to something hanging around that mess with it. Seems like characters dont advance much beside gaining a new ability once and a while but the only ones who really do are spellcasters. So once you hit a certain point equipment upgrades seem the only way to advance. A gnome and a half-orc both cap out at a 20 strength, just odd.

Fix might just be expand the range a bit. Have a races attribute bonus add to the attribute cap. Add a few more points between the starting proficiency and the level 20 one. Maybe even a couple different ones, like 3e good and bad saves.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Out of curiosity, what advantages do you see in a game that requires (or at a minimum assumes) frequent combat (probably hundreds of battles over the course of a PCs career) where in each one of those combats, the PCs are a chance of smashed bones, permanent nerve damage and hacked off limbs, or where any attack roll could lead to instant death in any given combat?

You're exaggerating my position by a significant amount. I never said anything about broken bones or hacked-off limbs. Everyone is wearing armor, after all (and the ones who aren't, like wizards and monks, are fortified with magic).

But to go with the general sense of the question, the point of having long-term consequences for combat is that it 1) discourages pointless combat, and 2) means you don't need very many battles in order for the PCs to be challenged. If the party is substantially worse off after a single combat even when they win (as an extreme example), then you only need two combats total in order for the second one to be uncertain; and it's still not as chaotic or random as real combat, since you're unlikely to die if you went into that combat at full capacity, and you can react to changes in your condition by changing your tactics as necessary.

As an example, imagine your typical party of four, if the fighter gets beaten up in the first fight of the day (maybe you were fighting an ogre, and it got in a lucky crit). Now, you get to react to the fact that your fighter is injured and probably shouldn't be on the front line. So you let the rogue take point, while the fighter hangs back with a bow; the rogue isn't exactly a tank, but they're relatively tougher than the wizard. And maybe the rogue isn't that great at melee, and the fighter isn't great with a bow, but it's probably better than the alternative. Probably. Or maybe the rogue and the fighter both hang back, and hope you can stop an enemy before they get to you. Or maybe you try to sneak around, and avoid further fights. Or dress up like pilgrims, and let the cleric try to talk your way past enemies. You're forced to consider your alternatives, instead of everyone always doing the same things they always do, because their characters are only built to do one thing.

Plus, it makes for a convenient language to describe the world, if sometimes people can't do something because they're injured. A world where nobody gets injured and requires bed rest is hard to believe in, especially when you're hanging out with a lot of soldiers and mercenaries or whatever.

And what disadvantages to such a system do you see?

The big danger is that players become attached to their characters, and then treat them recklessly and they get killed, because they have the incorrect expectation that combat has no lasting consequences for them. That's not so much a system problem as it is a player problem, though. There's also potential for their characters to get killed or seriously injured through no fault of their own, which can make it hard for players to become invested in their characters in the first place, but that can be addressed on the DM/worldbuilding side.

 

[tuxgeo]

Problem: The Bard and Cleric classes are strangled in their magical attack choices by being limited to exactly one damage-dealing cantrip per class. (Some divine domains add a bit, but the limitation is striking.)

Solution: Add more Bard and Cleric attack cantrips. (In 4E, the Bard ended up with a choice of 7 attack cantrips, and the Cleric ended up with a choice of 20 attack cantrips. There's plenty of material to draw from.)

And speaking of the topic of 5E Cantrips, I see why Wizard of the Coast didn't include any at-will attack cantrips of the Illusion school: I'm sure their reason is that editions before 4E didn't have any such things, so 5E couldn't either, if it was to successfully bring fans of the various editions back to a single game.

For comparison, 4E had "Illusory Ambush" dealing 1d6 + modifier psychic damage (plus attack penalty), "Nightmare Eruption" dealing 1d8 + modifier psychic damage (plus damage to adjacent enamies), "Phantasmal Assault" dealing 1d8 + modifier psychic damage (plus granting Combat Adv. and being unable to make OAs), "Phantom Bolt" dealing 1d8 + modifier psychic damage (plus slide 1), "Phantom Cage" dealing 1d8 + modifier psychic damage (plus further psychic damage if it moves next round), and the famous "Winged Horde" dealing 1d6 psychic damage (plus preventing OAs) (modifier to damage removed as being too powerful).

If WotC wanted to do more with Gnomes, it might draw some inspiration from 4E in a non-core supplement sometime, and include some way for Gnome Illusionists to deal damage with a cantrip of the Illusion school; but that's still rather far-fetched for the underlying philosophy of 5E.

 

[RCanine]

really is a challenge to pick one,

I love the idea of bounded accuracy, 5th edition tries but fails to implement properly/funly for me. There are some scattered + to something hanging around that mess with it. Seems like characters dont advance much beside gaining a new ability once and a while but the only ones who really do are spellcasters. So once you hit a certain point equipment upgrades seem the only way to advance. A gnome and a half-orc both cap out at a 20 strength, just odd.

Fix might just be expand the range a bit. Have a races attribute bonus add to the attribute cap. Add a few more points between the starting proficiency and the level 20 one. Maybe even a couple different ones, like 3e good and bad saves.

I think the problem with bounded accuracy is that it's not actually bounded. Monster ACs range from 9 to 25 and PCs can easily push 20+ halfway through their career. IMO they should be actually bounded, with AC caps at 20 and attack bonus caps around +7. Stop the AC/Attack bonus arms race.

 

[dco]

I don't like:

- Armor gives AC instead of reducing damage. I would have used proficiency+Dex+Shield+... for AC. And provide options for a setting more gritty for example, not all DMs want to run the same thing.

- I don't like the feats, they change the balance between classes and they are overpowerd, in a lot of cases better than class features. I think they are there because of the past, if they wanted some of those things they should have added them to class features.
OR they could have changed all class features to feats, like True 20, giving more freedom for building a character, I would have preferred this option.

- There are more pointless levels than ever, the first levels are always so fast and the things the characters can face are so limited...I think they are a waste of time. There are 5 proficiency bonus changes, 5 levels only have the ability upgrade, a lot of levels only see a boring continuation of a class feature(indomitable I, II, II, etc) or a new spell/spell slot, there are also only 9 spell levels. 10 levels would have been enough in my opinion.

- Lots of spells but a lot of them are minor variations or upgrades. Some spells can be upgraded using a higher spells slot and other not. For example you can have 30 different kinds of bolts that could be one spell with some elemental additions written in one page. It is worse, some elements are present in a lot of spells, others practically don't appear. At least appart from updating old spells they've changed some mechanics like concentration, counterspells, etc that make the game much better.

- This is the only thing I hate, yes, hate, the short rest mechanics and how they are different between classes. This can only bring more discusions between players, some want to rest and others to continue, it's another strategic discusion that could have been avoided easily. I would have made all classes equal.

 

[Inchoroi]

Problem: There's too much healing. It trivializes the significance of combat, since anything other than death can be recovered from almost immediately. It trivializes healing magic, since a Cure spell or healing potion is less powerful than a nap. It creates an unbelievable world, where the outcome of getting struck by a weapon isn't that you're physically wounded, and it's hard to take that world seriously.

Solution: Set the default healing rate to 5% of your maximum HP per day (minimum 1 per day). Get rid of Hit Dice, or require them to be used in conjunction with healing magic (like Healing Surges).

For my games, I don't grant HP after a long rest. You just have to spend hit dice before you take a long rest to heal up, and then, after your long rest, you regain half your current number of hit dice (minimum 1). In addition, death saves do not reset until one takes a long rest; your pass/failures remain until then.

It's made for very interesting decisions.

EDIT: I've been tempted to reintroduce negative HP, as well, to make it even harder to heal up between combats, and makes the yo-yo drop/rise thing nonexistant. I will state that I would enjoy a simple system of "Condition", a la Mutants and Masterminds 3e. I loved those things. So simple...so cinematic...it's just so that that system never works out (in my experience) in anything other than a superhero game.

Problem: Concentration. Half my table won't even touch 5e because it influences so many classes.

Solution: Make a text box with a nice off color background that says "Concentration is optional". Alternative solutions: Make a skill allowing people to concentrate on multiple spells, with cumulative difficulties. Say for example, DC 8 + (Total Spell levels). This same skill could be used for Mystics. You could even have elaborate "interruption" rules. A feat could even exist that gives you +1 Intelligence and allows you to take Expertise in Concentration.
Concentration would be Intelligence Based. (1 year later... someone posts a thread like this. "Problem: Concentration is only Intelligence based, but [other stat] is better. Make [other stat] an option for concentration!)

I considered something like this, actually, for a game where spellcasters in general were supposed to be crazy-powerful--i.e. if you were a martial character, you were ed.

I said that a spellcaster can concentrate on a number of spells equal to their spellcasting modifier, and the DC for concentration checks is 10 or half damage dealt, plus the number of spells you're concentrating on. If you fail, all concentration spells drop.

Problem: not everyone likes the absence of the magic item economy.

Solution: assign gp values for magic items.

I have a magic item crafting system I use, that also addresses buying and selling them, with a minimum of actual numbers involved.

 

[Onussen]

Issue: Characters are far too durable. I do not think a return to the flimsiness of the OD&D characters is needed, but I've found there is not that much fear of dying in 5e, unless the player is exceedingly, erm, *incautious*. That sense of trepidation, that at any moment...boom! That was part of the fun.

My thoughts on the nature of Hit Points under the spoiler, since it has been discussed already.
[sblock]Hit points are what you spend to avoid taking physical damage. Every time the PC is hit but does not die or fall mortally wounded, it means that it, the PC, has somehow avoided taking physical damage-- or at least any noteworthy physical damage- nothing more than a scrape or scratch. However, like the boxer who starts fresh and over the course of several rounds starts slowing down as fatigue sets in, the PC also incurs this fatigue (HP loss) until finally the PC takes that final hit which actually physically damages them. (there is no juice left in the battery, gas in the tank, etc, the PC can no longer deflect or dodge or get lucky...) Maybe it was a fatal blow. (3 failed death saves) Maybe it was serious but not fatal.

It is only that last hit that does the telling physical damage. This is why the Hit Dice healing during a short rest is, IMHO, a good implementation, albeit a smidge too generous in terms of HD allowed. The pause that refreshes. Full hit point recovery in one long rest from 0 or less hit points is not a good implementation.
[/sblock]
Solution: I would, at the very least, give the PC levels of Exhaustion (say 5) if it dropped to 0 or below 0 hit points. It puts a nice sting into nearly "dying" without adding more new rules. I would limit the number of Hit Dice that a PC could use during one short rest. It is enough time to catch one's breath, but to fully recover, no. The PC would need consecutive short rests to get more Hit Dice recovered.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How many DM's have assigned advantage or disadvantage to death saving throws?

Of course the serious issue, IMHO, is the the Experience Points system. Awarding them, officially anyway, for only killing/subduing monsters, makes for odd gameplay to me. I would like to see a system, or set of guidelines, for converting treasure-- including magic items, or clever activity, into XPTS. I can do it on my own, but I would like to see the actual game designers--who presumably understand the interactions of the ruleset-- come up with something.

 

[CapnZapp]

To follow the instructions, I'm choosing the way saving throw bonuses fall hopelessly behind save DCs for epic monsters.

I'm fine with a stupid fighter having to roll perhaps a 17 to succeed on an Intelligence save.

I am not fine with a character having to roll 21 to succeed (that is, impossible saves).

It just stinks of bad design. It's not elegant. And more importantly, it's not fun.

My solution is really only a suggested approach.

Make it so DCs top out at 19. The idea a 1st level spell gets DC 11 and a 9th level spell gets 19 is a good starting point.

Then, epic superhuge worldending threats like, say, Demogorgon or Tiamat, could perhaps have an ability that forces characters to save at disadvantage.

You need to roll twice, but you can always make the roll. If you start thinking "but isn't that much like the idea behind bounded accuracy"... you'd be completely right!

In essence, the designers forgot to apply their beloved bounded accuracy on saves. And that's hugely irritating.

Now, to the real reason I wrote - nitpicking your own suggestions!

My problem.*

Too much spellcasting. I think it devalues magic in general.

My solution.

First, I would go back and re-design the classes. I would make the so-called "half-casters" in 5e that are martial (Paladins, Rangers) go to non-casting status, and replace spells with abilities. I would allow the Bard the option of half-caster (college of lore), and weaken half-casting (I would also weaken arcane trickster and EK). In essence, "half-caster" would now be a subclass (College of Lore, AT, EK).

Then I would move Wizards, Clerics, and Druids to a Vancian system- you have to have particular spells memorized, then forgotten. Yeah, I know. I would limit the number of spells known to Wizards from what it is now.

Warlocks and Sorcerers (especially) would retain limited spells, but gain the (slight) advantage of flexibility in their spellcasting. More flexibility from a more limited palette.

Finally, I would greatly reduce the availability and potency of cantrips. I would get rid of attack cantrips completely; this is what weapons are for. However, I would increase the potency of spells; if you are using one of your (level) spells, then you should get more benefit.

Those are my thoughts.

While I understand that these views aren't popular with many people, my personal belief is that magic is more awesome when it is more scarce.



*I understand that this isn't shared by most people.

I symphatize with the desire for more non-magical subclasses.

1/2 casters and 1/3 casters are already weak as is, and it'd be wrong to change that. After all, the 3E Bard showed us that a jack of all trades should be at 80% of those trades. Not 50%.

What you could do, however, is restrict the increase in save DC for 1/3rd casters. In 5E their Hold Person and Fear spells can be just as devastating as a Wizard's, which I can somewhat see as a point of contention.

The Vancian ship has sailed, and I'm grateful for it.

I symphathize with the desire to get rid of cantrips. In my case it's not an issue in combat, but for worldbuilding.

Sure you don't need a dagger or crossbow, but that is not worth the way cantrips make the world seem like a videogame. A cantrip allows you to apply flame to an object continously. So you don't need firewood to keep warm - just heat up a chunk of stone or metal. You can melt things, letting you open locks. A cantrip like Mending absolutely wrecks local economies, since you never need another supply in your life.

So I don't need to remove cantrips entirely. But I do symphatize with the idea you can't cast cantrips nearly as free as you can chop wood or swing swords.

Problem: There's too much healing. It trivializes the significance of combat, since anything other than death can be recovered from almost immediately. It trivializes healing magic, since a Cure spell or healing potion is less powerful than a nap. It creates an unbelievable world, where the outcome of getting struck by a weapon isn't that you're physically wounded, and it's hard to take that world seriously.

Solution: Set the default healing rate to 5% of your maximum HP per day (minimum 1 per day). Get rid of Hit Dice, or require them to be used in conjunction with healing magic (like Healing Surges).

Stor right there Saelorn. What you're really saying is: you want less monsters and less combat in your world.

The only reason healing is as generous in 5E is because you want to get to the fun stuff - the kobolds in the next room.

If your PCs encounter fewer and weaker enemies (so that they can still win fights even without hit points) or spend more downtime recuperating back at the inn, that's quite okay.

But it's not the way most people play, and it's not the way published adventures are set up.

There's nothing wrong with your suggestion, except your idea it should be the default rule. As an optional variant, I don't have any problem with it. As a core rule, no - it's just not the D&D most people want.

I would nerf certain things. Here are some examples:

1) -5/+10 would become -5/+5 (or -5/+1d10) for both Sharpshooter and Great Weapons Master. There is currently too much upside to this.
2) I would deal with Crossbow Expert (and specifically it's interaction with Sharpshooter) by either
A) Make it clear that the hand crossbow can't be the same hand crossbow you're using as your primary weapon (you need a free hand to load!)
B) Outright outlaw the combination of the two
3) Nerf the moon druid. Absolute damage sponge with very little risk. Find a way to add risk to this.
4) Add an optional rule or rules of some sort to supress multiclassing abuse. Examples:
A) Limit multiclassing to 1st tier (You can't add levels to any class that you don't have at level 4)
B) Limit multiclassing to two classes

That's my list examples that I'd try to use to nerf overpowerful rules interactions (and the moon druid).

1) I'm afraid that's mathematically unsound. Making it a half feat (so -5/+10 is replaced by +1 Str or Dex) is by far the solution that combines "simple" with "working".
2) I suggest removing Crossbow Expert entirely
3) no opinion
4) A is on the right idea, except it's probably too harsh, and it doesn't stop first level dips. The idea is that restricting MC to first tier is not fun if you later in life decide you want to spread out, perhaps for RP reasons. It simply feels needlessly inflexible to not allow MC at every level-up.

B also has merit, only it does nothing to stop "abuse" other than triple-class builds.

How about
C1. If you are a multiclass character, the class with most levels is your primary class.
C2. Other classes are secondary classes.
C3. If you have one or more secondary classes with fewer levels than half your primary class levels (round down), you must take a level in one of those secondary classes when you next level.

So, if you dip Cleric 1, and then start taking Fighter levels, you will find that when you reach level 5, you must take a second cleric level. As a Fighter 3/Cleric 1 character you're fine (since 3 divided by two rounded down is 1, and Clr 1 is not less than this number). As a Fighter 4/Cleric 1 character you now have fewer cleric levels than half your primary class levels (since 4 divided by 2 is 2, and Clr 1 is now less than this number). Thus your sixth level needs to be Cleric, making you a Fighter 4/Cleric 2 character.

This gets rid of one level dips.

The rule is otherwise flexible enough to allow you to abandon one class, and focus on others.

For instance, I might be a Fighter 10 that suddenly wants to explore the Bard concept with a pinch of Rogue on the side. I could pick a level of Bard, but then I couldn't go back to Fighter unless I pick up five levels of Bard first: at level 16 I could take Fighter 11 since 5 is "not fewer than half" of 11 (rounded down).

What I could do, however, is go
L11: Bard (Fighter 10/Bard 1)
L12: Wizard (Fighter 10/Bard 1/Wizard 1)
L13: Bard (Fighter 10/Bard 2/Wizard 1)
and so on

The regular MC ability requirements would still be in place, so I wouldn't worry about restricting multiclassing to two classes. The requirements mean more than three classes is probably an impracticality.

So, I won't answer this exactly as asked, but I will contribute this:

I'm am involved in a weekend-long RPG convention that is likely to use all 5e this year (for the first time). We are trying to stick close to the PHB rules, because it sort of defeats the purpose of adopting a well-known system to then tweak the heck out of it. But there are two things we're likely to change:

1. Drop all of the "uncommon" races, leaving Dwarf/Elf/Halfling/Human. In this case I think it's probably more of a historical thing with the event and the past race selection there -- and for those coming to the 5e setting for the first time, Half-Orcs and Tieflings in particular are a lot to swallow.

Sure. Each campaign world has a right to restrict character races. I would hate for a player bringing along Volo's demanding to be allowed to play a Tabaxi or Hobgoblin. That's just player entitlement that needs to go.

In general, the only PHB change I would make is to drop darkvision for elves and half-elves.

It's just too easy to create a near-traditional party that is all-darkvision with 5E elves.

The traditional D&D party, Human, Elf, Dwarf, Halfling party is 25% darkvision, and that's okay.

But with 5E I have found players can and will choose Half-Elf instead of Human, and Gnome instead of Halfling. Voila you have a close to traditional party with 100% darkvision.

I simply dislike the way this makes humans (& halflings) the odd man out. Not having darkvision becomes a liability, rather than having darkvision is an asset. I hate the way "man, couldn't you pick half-elf instead? Describe your characters as having human-like ears. And we can skip the lanterns and gain huge stealth bonuses!" puts pressure on players to abandon non-darkvision as the default.

Switch back elves to Nightvision* and this problem goes away. WHen the dwarf is alone in having darkvision, he can't blame the human and halfling for not having it.

*) Low-Light Vision

Characters with low-light vision have eyes that are so sensitive to light that they can see twice as far as normal in dim light. Low-light vision is color vision. A spellcaster with low-light vision can read a scroll as long as even the tiniest candle flame is next to her as a source of light.

Characters with low-light vision can see outdoors on a moonlit night as well as they can during the day.