D&D General Design issues with 5e

[Lanefan]

Thats the idea.

There would be spells not on any class list. You can learn them as treasure, downtime, or by taking a feat.

I'd do the same for magic items. A fighter could put their blood and soul into searching for and bonding to a magic item. A bond so deep it doesnt require attunement.

Or just pare down the list players can choose from at level up (say, maybe a chooseable list of about 6 spells per spell level, this list being different for each arcane spellcasting class) and make the rest uncommon or rare, only to be found in the field.

As for attunement, I'd ditch it completely.

 

[Lanefan]

As a design change at the real root level, make combat considerably more risky so as to encourage non-combat or very one-sided-combat solutions to problems. Then, provide some options for those non-combat solutions (stealth, diplomacy, ambush, etc.) and rewards for using such.

Suddenly, the exploration and social elements become considerably more important.

 

[Corinnguard]

As a design change at the real root level, make combat considerably more risky so as to encourage non-combat or very one-sided-combat solutions to problems. Then, provide some options for those non-combat solutions (stealth, diplomacy, ambush, etc.) and rewards for using such.

Suddenly, the exploration and social elements become considerably more important.

What would also help is having mechanical class features that deal with exploration and social interaction and have them designed around how a member of a certain class handles them. A fighter handles exploration and social interaction differently than a Rogue or a Ranger does.

It's nice that 5.5 brought up the other two pillars of gameplay (exploration and social interaction) in the PHB. But 5.5 needs to do more with those two pillars.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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.

Fully agreed. A certain edition was pilloried for making everyone into spellcasters and making it so all classes played the same. 5e then actually DID make nearly everyone spellcasters....and actually DID make all classes play more or less the same.

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.

While I agree with the topline, I disagree with some of the specific conclusions. Racial ability score penalties don't actually add consequences. They're just a penalty for your aesthetic preferences. That's a sucky thing. Instead, species/races/ancestries/etc.,

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, up to the definition of "dangerous". It's a tightrope. Make it too easy and, as you say, you've stolen a valuable tool from the players. Make it too tough, however, and you've just made the game into rocket tag, who can get the jump on the enemy, which is not better than the current situation.

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.

Oh, this absolutely. It'd be wonderful if they could, I dunno, bring back a common framework into which exploration could be set, such that there is real mechanical heft to it. Something like a "Competence Confrontation" or a "Talent Trial"--I feel like there must be a good word for something where the player must overcome a challenge through the use of skills.

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.

Can't agree, but can't entirely disagree either. Every additional ability should have a good justification for existing--but we should not be so persnickety about it that we reject eminently reasonable justifications simply because we want to keep the list short. That very thing is part of what contributed to both point #1 and point #2 for you.

 

[Corinnguard]

All of the following base class features for the 5e Fighter (Fighting Style, Second Wind, Action Surge, Extra Attack, and Indomitable) involve the Combat pillar of gameplay. They don't have anything from the Exploration and Social Interaction pillars. So, it is kind of up to the players to do anything with them. However, they don't receive any mechanical benefit from exploring or from interacting with others.

It's a different story for the base class features of the Level Up Fighter.

Combat
Fighting Style (1st)
Combat Maneuvers (1st)
Maneuver Specialization (3rd)
Reserves (4th)
Extra Attack (5th)
Indomitable (9th)
Warmaster (20th)

Exploration
Soldiering Knacks (1st)
Martial Lore (6th)

Social Interaction
Steely Mien (2nd)
Reputation (10th)
Martial Legacy (18th)

War's Toil (14th) has options for all three pillars, which is why it's not lumped under just one pillar.

The Level Up Fighter still has a lot of stuff going for it in the Combat pillar. But now the base class has mechanical features to aid the player when it comes to exploration and social interaction. And these features have been designed to reflect how a Fighter approaches exploration and social interaction compared to a class that excels in those other pillars. Ex. Ranger- Exploration, Bard-Social Interaction.

Fighter | Level Up

a5e.tools

 

[DEFCON 1]

by not making a 6e they will accomplish that too over the long run, so they can only hope to attract new players faster than the stagnation makes them lose existing ones

Except they won't really lose that many. Because as we have seen for decades, so many people stick with D&D regardless of how the game plays when they could have moved on to any number of different games that better suited them. And they get past that by just showing up here to complain about it. The whole "I wish I could quit you!" syndrome.

If people didn't really want to play D&D, they wouldn't. They'd actually put on the effort to get a different game going and stop with the excuses as to why they can't.

 

[CreamCloud0]

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.

if i were trying to cut the armour table down as essential as possible but still as nuanced as possible i'd cut down the number of different armour types but add in different materials, and so that the Heavy armours are distinct from the Medium armours rather than just different Dex/Str progressions.

Base Armour	AC	STR?	Stealth?	Mythril	Adamantite	Ohricalcum
studded leather	10+(STR or DEX)	No	Yes	ADV stealth	+Maximum STR or DEX Mod (+5)	ADV spell saving throws
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
chain shirt	12+(DEX)	No	Yes	+10ft speed	+2 AC	spell saving throws +1d4
chain mail	16	Yes (14)	Yes	+10ft speed	+2 AC	spell saving throws +1d4
-	-	-	-	-	-	-
half plate	15+(DEX)	No	No	No stealth penalty	Damage Resist 3 (B/S/P)	magic saving throws +1d6
full plate	19	Yes (17)	No	No stealth penalty	Damage Resist 3 (B/S/P)	magic saving throws +1d6

 

[Corinnguard]

Except they won't really lose that many. Because as we have seen for decades, so many people stick with D&D regardless of how the game plays when they could have moved on to any number of different games that better suited them. And they get past that by just showing up here to complain about it. The whole "I wish I could quit you!" syndrome.

If people didn't really want to play D&D, they wouldn't. They'd actually put on the effort to get a different game going and stop with the excuses as to why they can't.

Game Inertia. If you have played D&D for a long time, it may not be easy to simply stop playing it and move on to a different game. Especially if the latter involves a completely different set of game mechanics that have to be learned and experienced. For some older players, this can be a frustrating thing to deal with.

 

[mamba]

Except they won't really lose that many. Because as we have seen for decades, so many people stick with D&D regardless of how the game plays when they could have moved on

I have no idea how many people stopped playing, all I know is that so far they managed to attract new players fast enough to grow sales.

The average player sticks around for a few years and then drops out rather than becoming a lifelong customer, so getting new players in fast enough is what grows sales, not having people stick around forever, esp. since once you do have the core books the need for additional material is pretty low

If people didn't really want to play D&D, they wouldn't. They'd actually put on the effort to get a different game going and stop with the excuses as to why they can't.

agreed for the most part, if people really do not enjoy playing they will leave, whether to other games or entirely, but D&D’s position in the market ensures that they attract a vast majority of new players and many of them won’t be aware of alternatives they might otherwise prefer

 

[DEFCON 1]

Game Inertia. If you have played D&D for a long time, it may not be easy to simply stop playing it and move on to a different game. Especially if the latter involves a completely different set of game mechanics that have to be learned and experienced. For some older players, this can be a frustrating thing to deal with.

Yeah, and that's their problem, not WotC's. WotC can stay with updating 5E or create a 6E or do whatever they decide to do over the next ten, fifteen years and the players out there will deal with it just like they always have. Playing the game while complaining about the game, LOL.

WotC knows how this dance goes, which is why they don't freak out about it like players do. And if at some point something doesn't end up working to their satisfaction then WotC will pivot and adjust.