D&D 5E (2014) good things, bad things and things you would change about 5e

[Ogre Mage]

The CR/XP system doesn't work and is such a failure that all my DMs level us up based on milestones/completing plot points rather than trying to calculate that mess.

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

They definitely dropped the ball on dual-wielding. Rapier + dagger, a classic real-world dual-wielding combination, takes a feat in this edition. Ridiculous. One change I'd make for sure is to specify certain weapons (with d4 damage dice, mainly) with a specific "off-hand tag," which means you can dual wield with it in the off-hand even if your main-hand weapon isn't light. Make the dagger one of those, for example.

Though historically, most people (i.e. those without a feat) probably didn't attack with that off-hand dagger; they used it for parrying. So really, they should be able to use it to get +1 AC, using it like a buckler, without a feat.

Indeed. You don't need a feat to fight with a rapier and dagger. You just need the feat to get an extra bonus action attack out of them.
Generally daggers were used in the off-hand both as a defence that was slightly more robust than just your arm or cloak and, more importantly, for when you were too close to your opponent to use your rapier effectively. D&D combat just doesn't go into that level of granularity however.

 

[Cyvris]

Blep boop I'm an idiot and forgot I already posted in here.

 

[Hakon Blum]

I'm afraid I have a very strong opinion on that. Fewer skills are generally better. More importantly, a fixed skill list is better than an open-ended one. The way I see it, adding a skill 'creates incompetence.' That is, before you add the skill, everyone's good at what they're good at out of the universe of possibly things to be good at, and bad at the rest. Add a skill, and they're /all/ bad at one more thing, so, relatively less competent, overall. If you split the new skill off from an existing one, you don't technically hurt anyone who didn't have it, but those who did, similarly, become less competent.

Ideally, a game should have few, relatively broad skills, that evenly divide amongst themselves the universe of tasks required of PCs in the genre in question. 'Evenly' of course, might be nuanced and weighted, since some tasks come up more often, and some are higher-impact or more spotlight-grabbing.

But, ultimately, if you hit the right balance between PCs being able to acquire and master skills, and tasks being required of them, it doesn't matter much (mainly a matter of bookkeeping/complexity) of you list is large or small. As long as it doesn't get larger in play.

they way i am looking at running the skills section is completely different to other rpg's.

when you create your character your back ground will determine your starting skills
an example of this is in the "modern version of the game" your back ground may be that of a mechanic
who finished year 12.
primary school gives you 1 rank in the following skills:
run, catch, jump, dodge, balance, swim, maths, history, language, sing, charm, insult and insight

secondary school gives you one rank in the following skills:
run, jump, dodge, balance, swim, maths, history, language, charm, insult, insight, chemistry, physics, computers

and 3 extra skills (max of 2 extra) from the above list or poetry, instrument, dance, leadership, smithing, woodcrafting

as a qualified mechanic you gain the following skills, these are your profession skills:
mechanic 4 ranks, electrician 2 ranks, smithing 2 ranks, drive 2 ranks.

you get age/2 ranks to spend as you wish representing learning you gained over your life.


your class and background profession determines "class skills" which are cheaper to level

ranks equate to a 0.5 bonus on the roll you make, maximum is rank 10 (+5)
some skills require a trainer to begin to learn or advance, those would be listed under their entry.

the idea is with a 150 skills you won't really need them all, you only need 1-4 combat skills, unless your a caster you don't need any of the magic skills (skills like illusion or fire damage) or divine skills (which are basically domains)

the idea is each skill doesn't just provide a bonus, but has its own 10 level talent tree
for instance as you level wood crafting you will gain the ability to auto succeed making common items, reduce time to craft, improve quality of things crafted, auto succeed making uncommon items, eventually unlocking the ability to craft a legendary item if you hit rank 10 and become a grand master wood crafter.

classes will have their own signature moves that are unlocked, but the majority of leveling will be done through skills which will have all the shared abilities that can be gained.


this system is probably most like Skyrim or Enderal in design.

I'm hoping shifting the load away from feats and classes to the actually dedication you put into what you want to be good at will be a great way to revolutionise leveling.

 

[Tony Vargas]

they way i am looking at running the skills section is completely different to other rpg's.

Sounds complex and syncretic. I recognize elements from 3e, BRP, Hero, Paranoia, and others I'm not so sure about, a few I've only heard of 2nd hand and can't place the system, seems like you're familiar with a lot of systems and are putting some real thought into yours. Good luck with it.

 

[JonnyP71]

Following on from a comment in the least used classes thread.

I would make Paladins be Lawful Good again. And enforce alignment penalties - really nasty ones.

That way nobody will want to play them. Fewer Paladins, better game!


(damn I hate Paladins)

 

[Hakon Blum]

Following on from a comment in the least used classes thread.


I would make Paladins be Lawful Good again. And enforce alignment penalties - really nasty ones.


That way nobody will want to play them. Fewer Paladins, better game!




(damn I hate Paladins)

at the moment for the fantasy setting i have 4 Pillars of class (think of it like a d4)
the pillars are war, craft, divine, magic (the future replaces divine with science, modern uses both science and divine)

you can be completely dedicated to 1 of those fields, or a mixture of 2 of them.
each of the 10 possible choices then has 2 options, order or chaos (think lawful or chaotic from dnd)

from there any class to do with the divine has 2 subclasses, 1 for good, 1 for evil

all other classes have 4 subclasses to choose from

this gives 64 different classes to choose from.

to answer your question about paladins:
on my class pyramid they fall on the straight edge between the points of war and divine
in a Category known as: The Templar
depending weather your character follows the rules of an order or chooses more freedom in chaos
he could be:
Chaos+Good=Inquisitor
Chaos+Evil=Heretic
Order+Good=Paladin
Oder+Evil=Blackknight

Edit: Correction there are 63,
In the Divine/Craft point the chaos Ki Warrior has only one choice for both good and evil: Martial Artist
the order ki warrior has Monk (Good) or Disciple (Evil)

 

[Nebulous]

The rogue obliterates all DC challenges by 10th level. No lock can resist, rolls are always in the mid twenties to early thirties. Same with Stealth, the rolls are so impossibly high that no creature can even sense his presence. I find it HIGHLY annoying as DM. And yes, I know there are ways around it, but in general play it seems to break the bounded accuracy.

The only time it was a challenge was in a homemade dungeon during Princes when every lock and every trap was DC 25. A couple of those he missed.


EDIT - I have not considered house ruling 5e much, but if I did it would be a fun system to
tinker with. We play out of the box, and it certainly works, but we realize it is more or less /
a video game. Get in a fight, take a nap, heal up and go at it again.