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

[Belltent]

When I first played 5e I viewed advantage and disadvantage as an exceptionally simple and elegant way to mete out bonuses, but recently I've grown tired of its limitations. Everything seems to boil down to just trying to get advantage or impose disadvantage. Very cool, fluffy abilities are neutered when the benefit they grant is identical to a dramatically different ability. Mechanically I also find it limited and would prefer some sort of boon-and-drawback dice set up.

 

[Hakon Blum]

Sounds like your system could use a Savage Worlds-esque and instead of numbers use die types, then roll them together.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

the problem with upgrading dice vs a +1 to your roll is the minimum roll does not increase.

at the moment if i go ahead with a 2d6 system and make it that a stat of 10 results in a bonus of 3 (note this makes a warhammer to D&D conversion very easy to do as well)
then rolling 2d6 averages a 7, adding the average of the 2 stats typically resulting in 3, most rolls will be 2d6+3 vs dc with a standard dc of 10 this results in a very good system.

bonuses mean a hell of a lot more for example to pick a lock which needs lock picks a dc of 16 means that an average person would find it impossible, a highly dextrous or smart character might get lucky.
and dc conversion is easy from most d&d systems
eg: 3.5 edition (dc of 10 is 10, each +/-5 to the dc from 10 in 3.5 = 2 in this system.
5e would be 10 is average (not 8) each +/-3 is a +/-2 in this system

this is important as if i make a SYSTEM the backwards compatibility as well as forwards compatibility it will result in any developer that has or will release a module, is/has also releasing a module for my system

i will look into savage worlds

keep these tips coming guys, they have been great so far

When I first played 5e I viewed advantage and disadvantage as an exceptionally simple and elegant way to mete out bonuses, but recently I've grown tired of its limitations. Everything seems to boil down to just trying to get advantage or impose disadvantage. Very cool, fluffy abilities are neutered when the benefit they grant is identical to a dramatically different ability. Mechanically I also find it limited and would prefer some sort of boon-and-drawback dice set up.

i think you might find my spin more to your liking
advantage and disadvantage exists in circumstances, however since its a 2d6 system it is simply a re-roll of the lowest or highest d6

 

[Ovinomancer]

Expertise, and all "double proficiency" features. They break the bounded accuracy concepts. When rogues can hit DC 25 without rolling, there's little point to setting challenges.

And I dislike the solution of just not putting those challenges out there. A player should get the spotlight of using their abilities in more than a gloss over "you pick the lock, no roll needed" way.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Expertise, and all "double proficiency" features. They break the bounded accuracy concepts.

That's not necessarily true. The concept of bounded accuracy doesn't inherently include a specific value of accuracy that is the maximum boundary, nor does it inherently include a mandate that all forms of accuracy (attack vs. AC, saving throw vs. DC, and ability check vs. DC) be set to the same maximum boundary.

So the "double proficiency" features only actually break bounded accuracy if the designer didn't intend the level of accuracy that they give to be possible for the type of accuracy they give. And since there are no "double proficiency" features that add to attack rolls, saving throws, or save DCs, I think it might well be deliberate that ability checks can reach the level of accuracy that you view a "break."

When rogues can hit DC 25 without rolling, there's little point to setting challenges.

And I dislike the solution of just not putting those challenges out there. A player should get the spotlight of using their abilities in more than a gloss over "you pick the lock, no roll needed" way.

That all comes down to preference.

Some players prefer to be able to make their character so good at a particular activity that they can safely assume their own success over the feeling that there will be challenges which they only stand a fair chance at beating because of their heavy investment into a particular thing. I know my group much prefer the 5th edition approach of DCs that rarely exceed 25 and ability check modifiers that might get as high as +17, plus the "really good at skills class" basically can't roll less than 10 on the die, over the 3.5 edition approach of DCs that will likely reach near to the 40s and you've got to really pump your points into the relevant traits to manage even a +25 by the time they do.

But then, that might come down to them not feeling like there being a thing their character has to deal with, them describing dealing with it, and us carrying on with the results would be accurately described as to "gloss over it."

 

[mrpopstar]

Expertise, and all "double proficiency" features. They break the bounded accuracy concepts. When rogues can hit DC 25 without rolling, there's little point to setting challenges.

To make an ability check, you must roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier, so how can a rogue succeed without rolling? Are you referencing a passive check?



Is the issue double proficiency, passive checks, Perception, or all of the above?

 

[FarBeyondC]

To make an ability check, you must roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier, so how can a rogue succeed without rolling? Are you referencing a passive check?

No.

It sounds like he's referring to a combination of expertise + reliable talent, where you end up with a rogue potentially having +15 to a given skill and the inability to ever end up with less than a 10 on the die.

 

[TerraDave]

Ahh, the fantasy heart breaker. And a new wave for a new edition.

I would try to come with an angle, not just little things that bug you, but some deeper critique that can sort of drive what you are doing. It could be about the implicit world (lower magic, higher magic, more pulpy, more historical, more magna), about the complexity of the game, making the game more realistic on the one hand or more wahoo on the other hand, or something else, but some clear and significant way you want to make the game different. Then fill in the details.

 

[LapBandit]

Full caster domination at higher levels. The power curve for everyone should end up at the same place even if they don't take the same path there.

Fighters getting their benefits at the same levels as everyone else. This is literally the singular thing they've trained for, make them the better at it than anyone else. More attacks earlier and making Indomitable = Legendary Resistance would go a long way.

 

[Sacrosanct]

No.

It sounds like he's referring to a combination of expertise + reliable talent, where you end up with a rogue potentially having +15 to a given skill and the inability to ever end up with less than a 10 on the die.

Yeah, but you don't get that until 11th level. So much of your playing time isn't anywhere near automatic checks. And I'd like to think that a someone that accomplished (11th level plus devote all your choices to maxing out that) should let you auto succeed at hard or easier tasks. (Incidentally, it's 23 as the highest you can get at 11th level, 25 needs you to be level 17). So until level 17, you can still fail very hard checks, and nearly impossible checks still fail unless you roll a 13 or higher on the d20 (which is what? 60% of the time?) even at level 20 with everything else maxed out for the most skilled class there is.

I guess what I'm saying is that I disagree with Ovinomancer in that a DM shouldn't even bother setting challenges.

 

[nswanson27]

I'd let advantage/disadvantage stack. I'd also get rid of 5e surprise rules, and go back to surprise round. In my experience, this "simpler" 5e version of surprise ends up causing more confusion and consternation than helping.