Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Merlecory" data-source="post: 9842850" data-attributes="member: 7045536">I think I would agree to lots of this list, but have a few thing I want to expound upon/append.Regarding your #2: I think resting in 5E doesn't quite work. Short rests could have a place if they were actually short. A full hour is a fairly long time in a dungeon, but very short for a party traipsing through the woods. I like the Sanctuary rest rules from other systems, or slower recovery from earlier editions. Wounds should not go away after a nights rest, they should linger.As for my list<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">A lot of things have become spectral these days. I think features/spells should have some in game-world effect; players should be invited to think about how their character's abilities and the world interact. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Similarly, replacing features with spells. Compare XGtE's Sheppard Druid. Speech of the Woods lets you talk with animals the same as talking with every other creature. Compare the 2024 Druidic feature: You can cast speak with animals.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I think that the two features say very different things about the characters who have them, and about what it means to be a druid in the game world.</li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I have mixed feelings for (dis)advantage. It is a very elegant mechanic, but it is also a fairly "powerful" mechanic, often worth ~+5 for a role.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Bounded accuracy was too tight, if it ever was a worthwhile mechanic. It makes the gap between untrained characters and trained characters far too close for what I like. I have seen a number of people be disappointing by being beaten by other players in things they have tried to be good at (eg, Wizard not succeeding an arcana check that the barbarian passes). You can try to require proficiency to even participate in some skills, but not others (eg, athletics).<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I think WotC sees these complaints complaints, and has tried to mitigate situations where your character sucks at something they should be good at (eg, Fighter's Tactical Mind), but these features can easily let you outshine a character who is supposed to be "good" at the skill. Tactical Mind's d10 (available at level 2) is worth an average of +5.5, about as much as Expertise at max level (+6). </li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">I think the game has lost some "rough" points. Times where a character can't easily do what they want.<ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Spellcasting in melee range provoking Attacks of Opportunity. Topical, given the Spellbreaker paladin in UA right now.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">More features are designed to let you be Single Ability Dependent: Dex(as mentioned up thread), Gish subclasses getting to attack with their Main stat. We have 6 ability scores, give each character a reason to want them. Let characters have abilities that are influenced by different scores and let players choose what features they want to lean into. </li> </ol></li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Not having guidance on how to create/key.stock a dungeon in the 2024 DMG was a mistake.</li> </ol>I realize that this has been a log list of complaints, but there are genuinely things that I have liked. <ol> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">(Dis)advantage is genuinely nice is a lot of situations. easy to teach, understand, and use.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Caster's getting to use magic as their go to in combat via Cantrips is a whole lot better than throwing darts. </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ol">Martial character action economy (at least compared to 3.X) was a "Rough" spot that is better left in the past.</li> </ol></blockquote>

Verification