D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[Don Durito]

5E's skill system works best if you never use it for anything important.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5E's skill system works best if you never use it for anything important.

Funny, but narrating success or failure to make sure the important uses of skills go the right way is using the 5e skill system.

 

[Bacon Bits]

5th edition does a lot of things right. Curious to hear what peoples' biggest issues are with it.

1. HP scaling is an issue as I think you start with too few and end up with too many. The should have normalized starting HP and per level growth a bit better.

It does this because they feel like it has to. The game virtually stops scaling at about level 13. Your proficiency bonus is +5 and your prime attributes are 20.

I could see switching to fixed HP gains for a gritty style game. I'd like to try it at some point to see how it goes. Obviously, yes, combat suddenly gets extrordinarily dangerous at very high levels. I would consider that a feature of such a change.

2. Subclasses are great, but I think there's been an over-reliance on them as expansions to character options, and I'm a bit disappointed there are no "multiclassing" rules around them.

Nah, I disagree. I think subclasses are a perfect alternative to 2e's kits and 3e's prestige classes. They let you play the same class over and over with just enough modifications to feel unique.

3. In general, they have been a bit too conservative. As an example, the D&D cleric is really overdue for an overhaul so it can properly be broad enough to incorporate a wide range of priestly archetypes the way the other 3 core classes can within their archetypal domains. This is part of the reason why people question the existence of classes like Paladin and Ranger.

The game is supposed to be simple. It intentionally forgoes complexity that adds significant depth of play in order to remain simple. 1e/2e did well because the system was virtually all that existed. 3e did well because it was actually a designed universal game system. 5e has done well because it's a simpler version of the best parts of 3e.

The game is also about preserving it's own legacy. I could see Warlock or Sorcerer getting the axe, but I can't imagine the game without Fighter, Barbarian, Ranger and Paladin.

3. Inspiration is an interesting idea that is very wonky in its execution. I've gone through several different iterations of it to try to make it work better and have a more significant and consistent place at the table.

We've literally never used inspiration.

I would prefer something like Savage World's bennies or 2d20 Conan's fortune instead, where players get use-it-or-lose points to use every game session. Imagine giving every player the Lucky feat, except they get 3 luck points every game session instead of every in-game day.

4. The ability scores are still not balanced well, and don't offer enough to PCs outside of what they do for your class. All ability scores should have significant class-agnostic secondary benefits the way Con does. There's too much of a "stock build" issue for each class as it is, leading to too little diversity between characters and making character building feel shallower than it needs to.

I agree. The game would be a significantly better game if the stats were: Brawn, Agility, Intellect, and Personality. Four saves would be better than six. Six is far too many. You don't have the Int vs Wis confusion, you don't run out of uses for Int and Str or have Con be only for HP, etc. I do think that Dex does too much, Con is too important, Int does too little, and Cha is overused in general.

However, D&D doesn't have that, and it's unrealistic to ever think that it will. We're stuck with Str, Int, Wis, Dex, Con, Cha just as much as we're stuck with the d20 and 3-18 ability scores.

My criticisms:

1. I'm not a fan of a la carte multiclassing. I think it undermines the class system, and I think D&D is best as a strong class-based RPG. It's fine if you like modular or classless RPGs, but that's never going to be D&D. I think a la carte multiclassing encourages players to think about mechanics in lieu of narrative. It leads to the tail wagging the dog where the mechanics drive the character instead of the story. I understand why people like games that do that, but I don't think that it necessarily leads to a better roleplaying game experience. It doesn't help that I think most classes are largely mechanically terrible above level 10.

2. Most classes are largely mechanically terrible above level 10. 12 or 13, certainly. With the exception of high level spells, I just don't find that the abilities that you get above level 10 actually have an impact on play. Outside high level spellcasting a few feature or class outliers, there are no good abilities above level 13. The level 20 capstone abilities all district you from the fact that level 13 to 19 are total trash in essentially every class.

3. I am a fan of hybrid multiclassing. I like the idea of blending two classes together, I just want it to result in a holistic character rather than Johnny Fighter suddenly waking up with a spellbook or holy symbol and being something new. I have my own ideas what it would look like, but, unfortunately none of them are nearly as simple as a la carte multiclassing. I don't know what an official version would look like, but I'd like to see it. I understand that I am somewhat anachronistic in this position.

4. I don't like that there are classes that require short rests. Warlock, Fighter, and to a somewhat lesser degree Monk I have issues with. I think short rests are a great addition that add mid-day recovery, but I strongly oppose classes that require the players to short rest in order to meet their expected gameplay impact when the majority of classes don't do that. I think short rest classes poison the game with the 6-8 encounter benchmark, which spoils encounter difficulty and restricts adventure design. I don't like this tension as a DM that I need to nickel and dime my PCs with encounters so that they can short rest in order to keep the Fighter feeling relevant.

5. I think Concentration is too punitive. Specifically, I think losing a spell you're concentrating on when you take damage is much too punitive and means too many spells are simply not useful. I also think too many spells require concentration, and too many spells were not property thought about. Spells like Stoneskin and Mirror Image and Elemental Weapon make no sense to cast anymore. Most other spells already grant saves at the end of each turn. Maybe if Bless is too powerful at +1d4 and 1 minutes, you should change it to +1 or reduce the duration.

6. I think either too many magic items require attunement, or that attunement is too sticky (i.e., it takes to long to attune to items). Again, I understand the idea is to limit the power level of the PCs, but I don't think the method they chose to do it leads to the kind of fun emergent gameplay that really makes me love D&D. Like, I'm sorry, I don't think that a ring of jumping or a ring of feather falling really need to have attunement. All that needs to happen is that the effect only works while you wear the ring. I miss the ability to have utility items that you find early on and can just use. I miss being at higher level and just having items that almost never come up, but are cool when they do. And magic armor that grants resistance to fire really need attunement? It drives me nuts that that the XGtE common magic items do nothing relevant essentially ever. My workaround is that, usually around level 8 to 10, I ask the players what items they have and never use and I let some of them be non-attuned for higher level play.

Frankly, I would much rather the game make items that grant +X to attack/damage/saves/AC as attuned items, and then limit the PC to 1 or 2 of those tops. It's a trope of the game, but it's a boring design for what's supposed to be cool.

7. Warlock, in general, I think is poorly designed. I think eldritch blast is a poorly designed spell. I think it's intentionally overpowered because the class often has nothing else to do. That is, it's a crutch. I think Pact Magic is too narrow. I think the class, when combined with multiclassing, has significant design problems. The first 1-3 levels are very front-loaded comparatively, while the rest of the class has a sameness in actual play that is not appealing or beneficial to the game.

8. I find Sorcerer and Warlock to be too redundant for my taste. I think both classes could exist in the same game, but I think the two classes that we have are a bit too similar. I would rather replace one of them with Artifacer.

9. I think feats are generally poorly designed. I think they needed a lot more development time than they got. Unfortunately, I also think that they're the only thing that saves martial classes at high levels.

10. I'm not a fan of skill expertise as written. I would rather it were a flat +2. I am irritated by players wanting skill checks to be automatic successes at high level. I'm not interested in making players roll the dice when the outcome is a foregone conclusion. That's a waste of table time. Stop asking for that to be a mechanic!

11. Two weapon fighting should not require a bonus action to make the off hand attack.

12. Opportunity attacks should not require a reaction. WotC has made this mistake repeatedly where they try to make the martial classes have more play in combat, and they give them reactions. Except they're often movement reactions, or reactions that then mean you lose your opportunity attack. So the enemies just run away from you.

13. Surprise is needlessly complicated. For real, the surprise round was not that complicated. For how often surprise actually comes up, it's not worth being that fiddley about it.

14. The stealth and hiding rules should not say - in so many words - "Do what makes logical sense," and then the game gives out abilities that make no logical sense like Halfling Naturally Stealthy.

 

[Fanaelialae]

The wizard in that example spent a bunch of ASIs on +1 int, the rogue still has 10 int & a bunch of different ASIs or feats at their disposal. If the rogue had been 8 int dumpstat they would be even with the wizard who devoted everything to advancing arcana via int boosts. In the past there were more skills & synergy bonuses that mitigated the ability of a skillmonkey character to meet & exceed the specialized character's more narrow focus.

It might be an issue if the wizard were spending those ASIs to compete with the rogue. But that's not the case. Intelligence is the wizard's prime attribute. It's his most important stat. Hence, the wizard is going to be increasing his Int regardless (much like the Rogue is more likely than not investing some of those ASIs into raising Dexterity).

Not to mention that this hypothetical rogue invested something far more significant in being able to compete with the wizard in Arcana. One of his limited expertise slots that would have likely been better spent on something like stealth or thieves tools (the stuff that rogues actually use with regularity). But maybe this oddball rogue is a specialist in stealing from mages. That kind of rogue should be expected to be at least as knowledgeable as a wizard in matters arcane, else he wouldn't be long for this world.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

4. The ability scores are still not balanced well, and don't offer enough to PCs outside of what they do for your class. Ability score choices should be impactful for all PCs with a complex set of tradeoffs. There should be good, tangible benefits to playing a high Intelligence PC of any class. Where's a tactics skill? All ability scores should offer secondary benefits to any character that are equivalent to what Con offers.

I know you edited this out but someone quoted it from before your edit. I have to say i agree with this more aggressive stance. It feels at times that 5e just wants to punish you for having an imagination or being smart IRL by hurting these two scores as they would allow you to use your brain to come up with creative solutions in game. Aparently there is a known restriction on using knowledge mid battle. As if during fighting your iq inexplicably drops. Many other issues with int and wis too. That was just my example.

 

[tetrasodium]

It might be an issue if the wizard were spending those ASIs to compete with the rogue. But that's not the case. Intelligence is the wizard's prime attribute. It's his most important stat. Hence, the wizard is going to be increasing his Int regardless (much like the Rogue is more likely than not investing some of those ASIs into raising Dexterity).

Not to mention that this hypothetical rogue invested something far more significant in being able to compete with the wizard in Arcana. One of his limited expertise slots that would have likely been better spent on something like stealth or thieves tools (the stuff that rogues actually use with regularity). But maybe this oddball rogue is a specialist in stealing from mages. That kind of rogue should be expected to be at least as knowledgeable as a wizard in matters arcane, else he wouldn't be long for this world.

Funny you mention stealth. an 8 dex bard with expertise in stealth meets & beats a 15-20 dex ranger proficient in stealth at the same points laid out earlier even while in a forest/desert/grassland/etc.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

That kind of rogue should be expected to be at least as knowledgeable as a wizard in matters arcane

No he shouldnt. He should very specifically be expected to be LESS knowledgeable than a wizard in matters arcane. If its not the case it should be a surprise albeit not a big one but the definite default assumption is opposite what you claim.

5e skills are horribly screwed up. This is one of the areas that really shows how incompetantly 5e's skills system is designed. Wizards shouldnt be outpaced by rogues so easily in arcana. Come on.

 

[Lanefan]

Wow - lots to unpack in this one! I don't agree with everything you say but some of your points are bang on.

We've literally never used inspiration.

I would prefer something like Savage World's bennies or 2d20 Conan's fortune instead, where players get use-it-or-lose points to use every game session. Imagine giving every player the Lucky feat, except they get 3 luck points every game session instead of every in-game day.

I'd rather see metagame mechanics like this disappear completely.

I agree. The game would be a significantly better game if the stats were: Brawn, Agility, Intellect, and Personality. Four saves would be better than six. Six is far too many.

Where I think six is not enough. Each of the current stats can quite reasonably be divided into two parts. Then at roll-up, for each pair you ROLL (none of this point-buy or array stuff) 4d6-take-3 twice, where one goes into one side of that stat and the other goes into the other. For example what's now Strength would break into Strength and Brawn; you'd roll 4d6 twice and put one result into each. Repeat for each pair of stats; after which you can switch one (and only one) complete pair with another.

My criticisms:

1. I'm not a fan of a la carte multiclassing. I think it undermines the class system, and I think D&D is best as a strong class-based RPG. It's fine if you like modular or classless RPGs, but that's never going to be D&D. I think a la carte multiclassing encourages players to think about mechanics in lieu of narrative. It leads to the tail wagging the dog where the mechanics drive the character instead of the story. I understand why people like games that do that, but I don't think that it necessarily leads to a better roleplaying game experience. It doesn't help that I think most classes are largely mechanically terrible above level 10.

Keep on preaching this from the highest mountain you can find!!!!

3. I am a fan of hybrid multiclassing. I like the idea of blending two classes together, I just want it to result in a holistic character rather than Johnny Fighter suddenly waking up with a spellbook or holy symbol and being something new. I have my own ideas what it would look like, but, unfortunately none of them are nearly as simple as a la carte multiclassing. I don't know what an official version would look like, but I'd like to see it. I understand that I am somewhat anachronistic in this position.

The answer is both simple and a bit complex at the same time: do away with additive levels and have levels in each class advance independently, at whatever ratio the player desires.

Currently a Fighter-4/Wizard-4 is an 8th level character where four levels have been put into each class. What I'd like is that this instead be a Fighter-4 and a Wizard-4, saving and attacking etc. using the better of the two classes' abilities.

This would force a re-think of the advancement table to make it more of a J-curve, so that single-class characters don't get too far ahead of double-class ones. It also wouldn't work well in games that don't use xp; the whole point of this idea is that a player can divide any xp in whatever ratio is desired, so you can have a 50-50 Fighter-Wizard or a 75-25 Fighter-Wizard or a 90-10 Wizard-Fighter, whatever. (we use this, and have ruled that the ratio can be changed only at training for any level or during downtime between adventures)

Most importantly, put a hard cap that says no character can ever have more than two classes.

4. I don't like that there are classes that require short rests.

Resting in 5e is its own special case...

5. I think Concentration is too punitive.

6. I think either too many magic items require attunement

Both of these are good enough mechanics in themselves but - like advantage/disadvantage - they get massively overused. It's a designer thing: come up with a good mechanic and then shoehorn it into everything even if it doesn't work there.

Best to leave concentration and attunement only for those relatively few particular spells/items that would become truly problematic without them.

11. Two weapon fighting should not require a bonus action to make the off hand attack.

In an old-school game where characters are a bit more fragile at all levels, this would be correct: not having a shiled to give you some extra AC makes you much more vulnerable thus making it a serious choice as to whether to go with two weapons or sword-and-board. But in 4e-5e where everyone has bags of hit points and so taking damage isn't so much of an issue, the loss of defense from not having a shield is way more than made up for by the increased damage output from a second weapon - the choice is really no choice at all. Thus, they needed to find a way to rein in TWF somehow, and this was their solution.

13. Surprise is needlessly complicated. For real, the surprise round was not that complicated. For how often surprise actually comes up, it's not worth being that fiddley about it.

I think they toned down surprise to avoid parties getting half-wasted before they could react; which is kind of a shame in some ways as it also means a careful party can't do the same to their foes. You're quite right: the surprise round works just fine 99% of the time.

14. The stealth and hiding rules should not say - in so many words - "Do what makes logical sense," and then the game gives out abilities that make no logical sense like Halfling Naturally Stealthy.

Stealth and hiding have some glaring holes in their rules, so "Do what makes logical sense" is still what it comes down to anyway.

 

[Nebulous]

The 5e play-loop also suggests, indirectly, a solution, in that you can stick to the Goal & Approach style, and insist no on ever call out a roll, but describe an actual action they're doing. That cuts down on piling on, because it can get implausible pretty quickly, and players realize that when they try to come up with approaches to pile on. But, also, 5e hasn't thrown away Group Checks, so that option remains open, as well.

The Group check is great, yes. And I should really encourage the player to explain, in detail, how EXACTLY is whatever you are doing going to actually give the skill check an advantage? Really, explain, it. I bet lots of times there's no logical explanation. Or at least, not good enough to warrant advantage.

 

[mrpopstar]

No he shouldnt. He should very specifically be expected to be LESS knowledgeable than a wizard in matters arcane. If its not the case it should be a surprise albeit not a big one but the definite default assumption is opposite what you claim.

5e skills are horribly screwed up. This is one of the areas that really shows how incompetantly 5e's skills system is designed. Wizards shouldnt be outpaced by rogues so easily in arcana. Come on.

Arcane Tricksters come to mind.