D&D General D&D Evolutions You Like and Dislike [+]

[Minigiant]

Ugh. No. I want ability scores to matter less, not more. As it stands, 5e actively makes you want to max your primary ability score to 20 ASAP for maximum effectiveness. While making attunement tied to con and or cha sounds like you are forcing hard choices, all you are doing is rewarding classes who already are going to max those scores (sorcerer and paladin) while punishing everyone else who is more concerned with their primary scores that aren't Charisma. (Con is already important due to HP).

I was upset that 5e was angling away from "get to 20 ASAP" for classes and then doubled down on it in 5.24.

It would be something that you do not add-on top of fif edition..

Attaching Attunement slots to Constitution or charisma, or both would be part of the calculus and design of all classes from the start. When you redo the entire game.

Like, I want theorized, creating a simple RPG where you got attument slots based on your charisma. But charisma based classes would get bonuses based on how many slots they have unused. So it would kind of be like casters in shadowerun, where magic items messes up your casters.

Then, you could do funky things like have. A monk have their slots based on their wisdom. But get magical bonuses based on how many slots they have unused. So a "naked" monk would be like a dragon ball character with all kinds of mystical natural abilities but a magic item using monk be like a magic ninja.


I dont mind getting to 20 ASAP. My issue was everything else was ignored besides being nonnegative.

 

[Yaarel]

But it really decided that if it was written for battlemaps (as literally every D&D has been) rather than going lukewarm it would use it. And had three things every battlemap system should have.

• Complete stat blocks where you don't need to look up e.g. feats or spells. (Every system should have this)
• Monster roles to make more variety and to make creating situations easy
• Easy access to forced movement to make what is actually on the battlemap matter

These three lead to an excellent structure from the DM's side.

The first two formats can benefit mental gaming (theater of the mind), as well: statblocks that dont require referencing, and monster roles to suggest combat behavior.

ToTM 5e drives me mad because I want to know exactly how big that 20' radius is or what I can line up with the lightning bolt - and 3.X is more dependent on ToTM because of opportunity attacks being much bigger. Yes you can do it but it's annoying and heavier than it needs to be.

Heh, for me, it is the micromeasurements that force a grid that drive me mad. Mental play and grid play are both legitimate styles of gameplay.

Lightning is never a straight line, and it seems unnecessary for a spell description to require one. Lightningbolt could instead say, its range chooses any two targets within a 30 foot blast upto 300 feet away. Similarly, Fireball could say, chooses one target upto 100 feet away, then all others within 30 foot blast.

The standardized ranges, 10 feet (engaged, melee reach), 30 feet (close, move), 100 (far, run), 300 (arrow, bolt), 1000, 3000 (city block, neighborhood), are useful for mental visualization, and grid players can lay these numbers out as well. (These numbers are also convenient for metric.)

The D&D core game works better when strictly accommodating theater of the mind.

At the same time, it is possible to design a 2024 setting that leans into grid gaming, such as adding spells and weapon masteries with forced movements of various ad hoc distances. A setting can have special rules that are true for the setting. Today, 2024 core rules make the choice of a setting necessary, thus the vaunted "modular" design possible.

 

[nevin]

It really doesn't matter in 5E. Some people may feel that it does, but the game math does not bear that out.

as long as there is a maximum players are going to try to get there so it does matter. Pretending that it doesn't matter to most people who are all about how they measure up to others, because you don't care is ignoring human nature. And Video Games trained almost all new players that maximum is necessary. It doesn't matter if you set the max to 12, 20 or 100 players will fight to get to whatever that maximum is. It's just human nature.

 

[nevin]

The first two formats can benefit mental gaming (theater of the mind), as well: statblocks that dont require referencing, and monster roles to suggest combat behavior.


Heh, for me, it is the micromeasurements that force a grid that drive me mad. Mental play and grid play are both legitimate styles of gameplay.

Lightning is never a straight line, and it seems unnecessary for a spell description to require one. Lightningbolt could instead say, its range chooses any two targets within a 30 foot blast upto 300 feet away. Similarly, Fireball could say, chooses one target upto 100 feet away, then all others within 30 foot blast.

The standardized ranges, 10 feet (engaged, melee reach), 30 feet (close, move), 100 (far, run), 300 (arrow, bolt), 1000, 3000 (city block, neighborhood), are useful for mental visualization, and grid players can lay these numbers out as well. (These numbers are also convenient for metric.)

The D&D core game works better when strictly accommodating theater of the mind.

At the same time, it is possible to design a setting that leans into grid gaming, such as spells and weapon masteries

well some of that is for simplicity of play. If you had to roll a die 8 at every hex of the lightning bolt that would really turn into a pain. If the player can control the lightning bolt then you end up with min max drawing the bolt around the map hitting everyone. (which if table is ok is fine and will work the other way when the baddies do it). Combat can take enough time without complicating each individual spell.

But I do agree that the theater of the mind makes a far better game if the individuals at the table can collectively do so. Not everyone can do that. Some need /wantthe battlemap and the micromeasurements so they can see it and accept it. And that's ok if the table is wants it that way. That's why D&D is the big dog at the table. There is no one correct way to do anything. Every table can do thier own thing and just have fun.

 

[Necropolitan]

I liked how in 3.5 I could have a bunch of magic items that did different things, even if all they provided was a small bonus that could be replicated by a Feat.

Sure there was the hermit crab problem, but it was fun to play a character decked out in flashy gear.

I disliked how 5E minimized the ability to mechanically customize your character. 3.5 definitely had a problem when it came to min-maxing, but there were so many fun feats and only getting them every 4 levels means 5E classes need to choose between competence and flavor.

 

[Minigiant]

no magic items were the slider of whether you wanted a gritty crawl through the desert or a high powered game or anything in between. If as a DM you wanted the players to take on high level things than thier levels might suggest you could buff the players with magic items. Magic Items also could be used to remove the power level disparities between high level character's like say warriors and mages. Magic Items also filled in missing classes like healers or other casters if needed for the story. They are also stealable, run out of charges and are consumable etc. So they can come and go as needed unlike player powers. They add an incredible flexibility to the game if used correctly

Yes magic items was a slider..

But in 4 of the 5 editions, it was also tied to the power of the game. And ingrained, in a helm, many of the classes worked. So A DM literally had to change the base game if they strayed from the base assumption.

And that's something that many, or even most DM's that strayed from the base assumption did not do.

The Christmas tree happened because there literally was a Magic Item Treadmill..

Trying to fix DMin'g by controlling magic items in the rules was just stupid. Bad DM's will still do bad things and good DM's won't . There is no rule you can ever write that will fix that. The irony is that anyone thinks the 1/3 that don't like being told what to do were ever going to listen because a rule was written is rich. Your 1/3rd that don't read the book never got the memo so really you just tried to handcuff the 1/3rd that read and follow the rules

That's what it was the 2/3rds of the dm's who either weren't following the rules because they didn't read them or weren't following the rules because they thought they were better than the rules were handcuffing the 1/3 of people who are actually mindful about how magic items worked.

And some of the "bad" 2/3rds were the actual official adventure designers in some cases.

 

[nevin]

Yes magic items was a slider..

But in 4 of the 5 editions, it was also tied to the power of the game. And ingrained, in a helm, many of the classes worked. So A DM literally had to change the base game if they strayed from the base assumption.

And that's something that many, or even most DM's that strayed from the base assumption did not do.

The Christmas tree happened because there literally was a Magic Item Treadmill..




That's what it was the 2/3rds of the dm's who either weren't following the rules because they didn't read them or weren't following the rules because they thought they were better than the rules were handcuffing the 1/3 of people who are actually mindful about how magic items worked.

And some of the "bad" 2/3rds were the actual official adventure designers in some cases.

Ahhh so we are back to DM the way I say or you are a bad DM. nice to be such an expert you get to decide the official designers were the bad DM's. Completely ignores the fact that D&D is as big as it is because there is no one required playstyle or DM'ing style. Don't think we'll ever agree on this one. You keep telling people how to play. I'll keep ignoring the rules that I don't like. I imagine both our players will be happy playing the game.

 

[Yaarel]

well some of that is for simplicity of play. If you had to roll a die 8 at every hex of the lightning bolt that would really turn into a pain. If the player can control the lightning bolt then you end up with min max drawing the bolt around the map hitting everyone. (which if table is ok is fine and will work the other way when the baddies do it). Combat can take enough time without complicating each individual spell.

I am suggesting that the Lightningbolt spell wont harm allies. The player can choose the target upto 300 feet away (the distance of an arrow shot), plus optionally choose a second target nearby the first. The spell cannot affect three targets. It would be a very simple spell, and easy to visualize the electricity arcing around others in the vicinity.

Fireball can affect more targets, but can harm engaged and nearby allies as well.

 

[Minigiant]

I liked how in 3.5 I could have a bunch of magic items that did different things, even if all they provided was a small bonus that could be replicated by a Feat.

Sure there was the hermit crab problem, but it was fun to play a character decked out in flashy gear.

I disliked how 5E minimized the ability to mechanically customize your character. 3.5 definitely had a problem when it came to min-maxing, but there were so many fun feats and only getting them every 4 levels means 5E classes need to choose between competence and flavor.

5E 2024 finally categorized feats into groups.

Maybe by 6E magic items and feats could be categorized by pillar or seriousness, so a DM can say you can only choose "Combat" feats because im only dropping "Flavor" and "Exploration" magic items or vice versa.

 

[nevin]

I am suggesting that the Lightningbolt spell wont harm allies. The player can choose the target upto 300 feet away (the distance of an arrow shot), plus optionally choose a second target nearby the first. The spell cannot affect three targets. It would be a very simple spell, and easy to visualize the electricity arcing around others in the vicinity.

Fireball can affect more targets, but can harm engaged and nearby allies as well.

why would lightning only harm enemies? Of course you just described chain lighting but it arcs over friendly targets in the path. I'd be ok with that if it's a few levels above chain lightning. As a Higher level spell or something a specialist wizard could do at higher levels it would be ok. But I think as a 3rd level spell that would be too much utility.