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

[SkidAce]

...
And every single spell that includes damage for a successful saving throw is, definitionally, also damage on a miss. You missed them with that fireball, but they still took damage from it.

...

I'd like to offer a different perspective to DoAM with area effect saves.

Firreball hits the area (doesn't "miss"). Some targets caught off guard or in the open (failed save), takes full damage. Other targets duck low, take shelter behind table, or just get lucky as the fiery blaze swirls around and manage to take less damage.

No "miss" involved.

 

[CleverNickName]

Might I ask what your issue with DoaM is? Because it's been part of D&D for ages. Heck, 5.5e has it too! The Graze mastery property is straight-up DoaM:

It breaks my immersion. I wouldn't call it an "issue," though. I've always found ways to avoid/remove it.

I...don't really understand the analogy you've used for multiclassing. You've never been able to multiclass to the same class.

It's not a great analogy; I was trying too hard to sound clever and muddled my point.

My point is that Classes are all just different flavors of adventurers. Fighter = adventurer. Sorcerer = adventurer. Wizard = adventurer. Therefore, Fighter/Sorcerer/Wizard = adventurer/adventurer/adventurer. Nearly every multiclassed character I've seen is a variation of "adventurer who uses a sword and also magic, but not like that other guy." Seems like a feat tree or skill tree would be a more efficient way to describe that, but I'm not holding my breath.

Anyway. This isn't really an issue either, it's just a personal preference. Multiclassing is optional, so I prefer to opt out.

 

[Scribe]

I kinda hope D&D goes further with attunement.

I wish for a formula which includes both Constitution and Charisma? To determine a character's attunement slots. This would also give people a reason to care about these 2 abilities scores even more.

Quite frankly, I think that 5E originally came with a mistake of making itself magic item indifferent. I think that DND is kind of based on the process of adventurers collecting magic items. Just maybe not requiring tying their physical bonuses to the combat system..

Does Charisma really need a boost?

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

hmmm, i might say i don't think ability scores ought to matter less, but perhaps matter more equally, so that's you don't get that rush for 20 because it might be more valuable for your broadsword battlemaster fighter to instead invest in INT so they can learn an extra fighting style and bumps their number of uses of maneuvres,

edit, i do however also think there ought to be a few more ASI sprinkled into progression than there currently is.

 

[Minigiant]

Does Charisma really need a boost?

Charisma the score, yes.
Charisma classes, no.

Charisma classes are overboosted to make up for the lack of strength in Charisma.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

In 5e maximum effectiveness = overkill. I've never felt pressured to go to 20, or even 18.

Edit: I mean overkill on stat numbers. The bonuses in 5e don't improve things very much in the long run. If you have a 14 or 16, feats will have a far greater impact on the game than ASIs will.

 

[Parmandur]

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.

Maybe, maybe not: but there is literally no incentive in the game for it. The difference is minimal.

Bjt yes, a 3-18 more or less unchangeable Attribute roll under system would be preferable in some ways

 

[Marc17]

I mostly just wish DOAM of weapons to be bludgeoning damage.

I always mentally see it as the shockwave of the weapon crashing with armor or shield or the hard dodge of jumping out the way and hitting a wall or the floor.

I think D&D suffers because the primary audience and designers arent the type of people who get into fights or practice martial arts so the fluidity and movement of combat is HEAVILY DOWNPLAYED.

A 3-7 foot humaniod is not being attack by a dragon or giant the size of a bear or elephant and standing straight in a 5 foot square or hex. They are jumping and dodging all over the place.. or dead.

At first I was not up on damage on a miss, but have become pretty ok with it in 5E. HPs have always been "not meat points until they are" and triplely so for 5E where a good nights rest cures all ills. There are combatants that are just quicker, stronger, or trickier so they force their opponent to move and exert all that much more to defend themselves and keep from getting hit (in the meat points). In the current case of DoaM, this is just that extra effort tiring out and wearing down the opponent until they can't anymore and leave an opening for a blow that connects.

 

[Yaarel]

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.

With the Lightningbolt spell for mental gaming, the players (and the DM) dont need to worry about who is in the "line" of the lightning, because there is no line, the electricity literally arcs away from all creatures except the two targets that the player chooses.

This Lightningbolt spell is balanced for slot 3. For comparison, Fireball impacts more targets but its tradeoff is the risk to allies.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

Sure, but if they fight to get there at the expense of other parts of the game, they only have themselves to blame for any shortcomings. It's a tradeoff. Max ability in your prime stat vs. max efficiency at the game as a whole.