D&D General Design issues with 5e

[UngeheuerLich]

I love 5e -- it has a lot going for it as a player and as a DM. But the other thread anticipating 6e got me thinking seriously about what design aspects of 5e are actually problems.

So I felt like posting this thought exercise : if I were the lead designer, and not concerned with consensus or backwards compatibility, what would I consider needs changing to improve the game?

1. Not enough distinctiveness in the player experiences offered by the classes. Too much reliance on spells instead of giving each class unique ways to interact with the game and world. Too much overlap in spell lists. Hunter's mark never needed to be a spell, it could have been a skill-based ability triggered by stalking and studying an enemy. Weapon mastery and maneuvers could have been given to fighters only. And so on! I would redesign every core class to make its abilities serve a specific and unique play experience and trajectory, as much as possible.

Disagreed. Overlapping spell lists and maneuvers save design space.
I think not having them was an issue in 4e. So many maneuvers that nearly did the same thing for different classes. In the end a DM had to memorize 100 different maneuvers. Having a general list makes it way easier.
That is also an issue woth MMotU monster design. Fireballs by another name and so on.

2. Add back choice and consequences in PC design. It is ok for a species to give an ability score penalty. It is ok if you pick a class ability from a menu that is locked in at least for a whole level, not changeable every long rest. Itbis more than ok if dumping strength cripples you in melee and spending your two high scores is an interesting choice but not an obvious one. The game is more interesting because the PCs have strengths and weaknesses, and need to rely on one another.

Agreed.
Locked in for a level is totally ok.
I think downtime rules should have been used to switch abilities. Not just a long rest.

3. Surprise needs to be dangerous. If it is practically consequence-free, then you've removed one of the major functions of the exploration pillar.

Agreed.
But surprise already is dangerous. Maybe "surprised" should be a status which should disallow reactions before the first turn. Like flat-footed in 3e.

4. Beef up exploration. A solid chapter in the DMG with many examples of exploration/survival challenges. Cover dungeon, wilderness, and urban exploration. Explainnhow to run them with skills, new subsystems or both, and how some class abilities can change the nature of these challenges without avoiding them altogether. For example, maybe when a ranger fails a tracking roll, they get a "no AND" result instead of a simple no. It is OK if some classes can access tasks that others can't, or obtain unique results.

Agreed.
That was tried in DnD next. Difficult to make it work. It was partly rejected by the community.
The whole skill systemneeds an overhaul.
I think there should mostly be proficiencies and I think they should be aquired by playing the game. Not on level up. At least partially.
If you want to learn a skill like survival, find a trainer or go out into the wild.

5. Cut down on the number of abilities acquired at higher levels. It's better to upgrade an ability, especially if it is already one if the class' core and mechanically unique ones.

Agreed. All core abilities should be obtained before level 11.

I could probably think of a couple of others but I think all of the above would make the game more fun for more kinds of players, and justify a new edition without changing the basic framework much.

Cool thread. Brainstorming is good.

I will add more ideas later

 

[Tessarael]

I agree. It is good to have a common maneuver and spell system, as there's no way everyone is going to be able to remember all of them if they are unique for each class. That said, having a few encounter or daily powers codified by class also makes sense, or have a generic mechanism to handle this (better).

I don't remember any of the 4E class powers. Whereas I do recall OD&D, AD&D, 3E, 5E, and A5E spell descriptions to varying degrees. That's a testament both to not having played 4E that much, and to having a fairly common spell system that migrates across editions with relatively minor changes.

The D&D spell system is actually quite complex with so many different spells, but for experienced players, they feel familiar. When I ran a Vampire the Masquerade V5 campaign, a number of players struggled building and advancing characters due to lack of familiarity with what is a somewhat simpler system of powers across 10 vampire disciplines.

I do think that 5E D&D nailed it with consistency versus older editions of D&D, a fairly well play tested set of rules, with good balance across most classes (albeit Ranger in particular was lackluster). 5E was a good reduction in complexity from 3E and Pathfinder, avoided a number of the 4E blunders. I think it will be quite difficult for 6E to be as successful as 5E, without just being some incremental improvement upon 5E.

 

[Corinnguard]

What would you prefer to see for the armor table?

Armor Training. In PF1, Fighters learned how to be more maneuverable while wearing armor (especially while wearing Medium and Heavy armor). Back then, a Fighter with Armor training could reduce their armor check penalty by 1 and increase the maximum dexterity bonus allowed by their armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter, they would continue to reduce and increase the other to a maximum of -4 and 4. Movement also saw an improvement in that Medium armor and Heavy armor no longer slowed you down.

While the Armor Check Penalty doesn't exist in 5e, it kind of bugged me that you could have a character with a DEX of 18 could have that DEX capped by whatever Medium or Heavy armor they wore. A drawback that could be negated by a bit by the Medium Armor Master feat.

Maybe wearing armor requires some skill?

 

[Retros_x]

Try 5.5e, it's a lot better at the high levels. Plus PCs deal more damage, so that's not the issue. The problem is more all the added abilities used every bonus action, reaction and for free.

I am currently a player in a 5.5 campagin but we are still on lvl 4. Looking forward to the higher levels. But I heard mixed reception about high level play and high CR monster.

Also 12 HP - 1d8 +3 will always be much easier to calculate than 367HP - 5d8 +13. This is probably the same in 5.5.

 

[Tessarael]

Armor Training. In PF1, Fighters learned how to be more maneuverable while wearing armor (especially while wearing Medium and Heavy armor). Back then, a Fighter with Armor training could reduce their armor check penalty by 1 and increase the maximum dexterity bonus allowed by their armor by 1. Every four levels thereafter, they would continue to reduce and increase the other to a maximum of -4 and 4. Movement also saw an improvement in that Medium armor and Heavy armor no longer slowed you down.

While the Armor Check Penalty doesn't exist in 5e, it kind of bugged me that you could have a character with a DEX of 18 could have that DEX capped by whatever Medium or Heavy armor they wore. A drawback that could be negated by a bit by the Medium Armor Master feat.

Maybe wearing armor requires some skill?

5E and 5.5E D&D don't allow the Dexterity maximum bonus to AC to be increased significantly for bounded accuracy reasons. You're limited to one of the following:

• Light armor AC 12 + full Dexterity modifier => maximum of AC 17 with Dexterity 20.
• Medium armor AC 15 + Dexterity modifier (max 2) => maximum of AC 17 with Dexterity 14+;
  but with the Medium Armor Master feat, this increases to max +3, so AC 18 with Dexterity 16+.
• Heavy armor AC 18 and no dexterity modifier.

As much as this armor + Dexterity bonus maximum of AC 17 to 18 is a little boring, it avoids some of the crazy high AC values that were possible in earlier editions.

I do agree that it should be possible to remove the Stealth check and movement speed penalties. There are expensive armors like mithral that remove the Stealth penalty. And to remove the 10' speed penalty, you just need to meet the Strength requirement for the armor, and in D&D 2014 being a Dwarf also provided that benefit.

The basis intent is that folks wearing armor either have at least a moderately high Strength for the heavy armor, or a decent Dexterity score, but you're not rewarded excessively for both of those. It is fine to homebrew something different if you're not fussed about bounded accuracy and allow nigh unhittable characters, or if the players avoid such overpowered builds.

I assume that you know all this, just detailing the logic behind the 5E AC framework, which makes sense to me. 3E got crazy with too many stacking modifiers. There are a few cases like this in 5E, such as casting the Shield spell while wielding a shield, which I would not allow to stack as a DM, but they largely fixed such issues.

 

[Corinnguard]

5E and 5.5E D&D don't allow the Dexterity maximum bonus to AC to be increased significantly for bounded accuracy reasons. You're limited to one of the following:

• Light armor AC 12 + full Dexterity modifier => maximum of AC 17 with Dexterity 20.
• Medium armor AC 15 + Dexterity modifier (max 2) => maximum of AC 17 with Dexterity 14+;
  but with the Medium Armor Master feat, this increases to max +3, so AC 18 with Dexterity 16+.
• Heavy armor AC 18 and no dexterity modifier.

As much as this armor + Dexterity bonus maximum of AC 17 to 18 is a little boring, it avoids some of the crazy high AC values that were possible in earlier editions.

I do agree that it should be possible to remove the Stealth check and movement speed penalties. There are expensive armors like mithral that remove the Stealth penalty. And to remove the 10' speed penalty, you just need to meet the Strength requirement for the armor, and in D&D 2014 being a Dwarf also provided that benefit.

The basis intent is that folks wearing armor either have at least a moderately high Strength for the heavy armor, or a decent Dexterity score, but you're not rewarded excessively for both of those. It is fine to homebrew something different if you're not fussed about bounded accuracy and allow nigh unhittable characters, or if the players avoid such overpowered builds.

I assume that you know all this, just detailing the logic behind the 5E AC framework, which makes sense to me. 3E got crazy with too many stacking modifiers. There are a few cases like this in 5E, such as casting the Shield spell while wielding a shield, which I would not allow to stack as a DM, but they largely fixed such issues.

After googling up the definition for Bounded Accuracy, I do understand it better than I did previously. RPGs like D&D require more than just maintaining balance. They require a level of consistency too. Previous editions of D&D weren't very consistent in what they allowed and didn't allow.

 

[Minigiant]

Increase proficiency to +3 to +8 and yo I can spread armor values better and make skills better.

The nostalgia of Plate being 18 screws up the math

 

[tetrasodium]

After googling up the definition for Bounded Accuracy, I do understand it better than I did previously. RPGs like D&D require more than just maintaining balance. They require a level of consistency too. Previous editions of D&D weren't very consistent in what they allowed and didn't allow.

4e had bounded accuracy but the 5e bounded accuracy is broken by design. Monsters are bounded but PCs are expected to exceed the math monsters assume. Likewise with skill checks and the dc ladder
There is a lot of detail on it here:

1D&D: The 5E Skill System Is Bad

One of the most talked about changes in the One D&D playtest is the decision to make all natural 1’s auto-failures and all natural 20’s auto-successes.My first gut reaction to this was:

thealexandrian.net

 

[GrimCo]

Armor is hella boring. They might as well just cut table to 3 armors. Light - 12+max dex, Med - 15+2dex, Heavy - 18 without dex. That's it. By the level 3-4 max you'll get best armor you can wear and will use it for the rest of the game unless you find magic version of that armor. IMHO, since i value simplicity and speed over complexity, i wouldn't have problem with it. But, for more complex system, armor choice has to mean more. Like they added weapon masteries, you could give something like that to various armors. I'm just not smart enough or care enough to devise what.