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

[The Crimson Binome]

so in summary the game will work on you having a 10 in every stat, the balance should automatically occur from advisories being better then average like you and from the dm throwing you on harder missions.

I would advise against that sort of balance. Aside from the obvious reasons, it's hard to tailor the opposition to balance against a wide range of PC power.

D&D already has an issue where one character can outshine others, and a DM attempting such a counter is forced between using enemies against that are balanced against the strong character (which will annihilate the weaker characters) and enemies balanced against everyone else in the party (who will never be able to challenge the strong character). It's not as bad in 5E as it is in many earlier editions, but it's still something to be aware of.

 

[mrpopstar]

I'm sure it has great appeal to some players. You'd think, with me being an AD&D guy all these years, that I'd be all for weapon charts. But actually, I go the opposite way. IMO, it slows things down too much and discourages certain archetypal builds, like the lethal dagger wielding fighter. I would rather they make it even more simpler, and every weapon uses the same damage dice, like a d6 like they had in OD&D and B/X. Then, based on skill and proficiency, that damage dice can improve. Maybe tied to the prof rating. Just tossing out ideas. For example, "Weapons you are proficient in, you add your prof bonus to damage". And maybe a feat that "add 1 to either strength or dexterity, increase your weapon damage dice to a d8." And maybe a champion fighter ability sort of like expertise, "Choose two weapon types. You double your prof bonus to damage with those weapons."

I like these ideas!

 

[Aldarc]

I'm sure it has great appeal to some players. You'd think, with me being an AD&D guy all these years, that I'd be all for weapon charts. But actually, I go the opposite way. IMO, it slows things down too much and discourages certain archetypal builds, like the lethal dagger wielding fighter. I would rather they make it even more simpler, and every weapon uses the same damage dice, like a d6 like they had in OD&D and B/X. Then, based on skill and proficiency, that damage dice can improve. Maybe tied to the prof rating. Just tossing out ideas. For example, "Weapons you are proficient in, you add your prof bonus to damage". And maybe a feat that "add 1 to either strength or dexterity, increase your weapon damage dice to a d8." And maybe a champion fighter ability sort of like expertise, "Choose two weapon types. You double your prof bonus to damage with those weapons."

When you have really detailed weapon charts, you end up with cookie cutter builds. Everyone and their grandma's dog has a long sword in AD&D. And cookie cutter PCs is a bad thing, IMO. It's a game about heroes. If someone wants to play a famous character from literature or a movie who uses a less optimal weapon, it's good for the game if they are able to do so without suffering mechanically. Ergo, all weapons use basic same dice.

Or go the Cypher System route: light weapons do 2 damage, medium does 4, and heavy does 6. Other abilities can add to that total. Mazel tov.

 

[Hakon Blum]

ok so question to you guys....
less skills like 5e or EOTE
or more skills like 3e or more

currently i am sitting at close to 150 skills for my game

26 combat skills
26 magic skills
12 physical
18 social
18 crafts
18 knowledge
8 interaction
and 24 domain skills

for a total of 150

each skill tree includes its own "talent tree"

each skill has 10 ranks

at the moment your back ground will give you ranks (1 or 2) in skills to start off with

your class will select which of these skills are class skills (which cost less to level like EOTE)
classes will help shape how your abilities and skills develop
(through forcing some choices eg a wizard may have to choose a knowledge skill to advance, a fighter may have to level a combat skill)
but not all choices are forced (only a quarter to a third)
classes will have access to class only abilities as well
and shape your ability increases
(a warrior may have to choose 1 of 6 physical abilities, a wizard one of 6 mental, a rogue may choose between agility, intellect or presence)

this kind of leveling is similar to mordhiem, removing the randomness of what gets upgraded and replacing it with a choice.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I prefer fewer skills, myself. 150 Skills seems like overkill to me. I just don't see the need for that level of specificity I guess. The catchall categories like History or Arcana work just fine.

I do think that 5E could have gone with a few different skill options that would have made things even simpler. Perception versus Investigation being the big one in my mind. Seems to cause some confusion in which is applicable in a given circumstance. Like in searching for traps or secret doors....I generally let a character use either.

But Perceptiin is used so much more often in general that it becomes almost a required skill for rogues and anyone else who is supposed to be dealing with traps and disabling devices.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I apologize if my use of terminology was incorrect, but that doesn't change point.

Oh, your numbers seemed just fine, you were just describing less 'swing' (variance), not more. A system with a resolution on a curve like Traveler (2d6) or Hero (3d6) gives you the on-average expected results more consistently. It also tails off more slowly.

Now, as tasks get either very likely or very unlikely the 2d6 has a smaller change than d20. But in the sweet spot a small change in modifiers will have a huge effect on did you make your DC.

Exactly. So if you're a just a little better, you still have a noticeable advantage, if your significantly better it's all but assured. But, those returns diminish rapidly. On 3d6, if you need an 11, that's prettymuch 50/50 (the average being 10.5). A mere +3 takes you into 90% territory, but those last 10% require a +4. Systems like that lend themselves to low bonuses because of the diminishing returns on higher bonuses, while linear systems, like d20, lend themselves to high bonuses, because every +1 counts (and, relative to the chance of failure, counts for more as you get really good).

ok so question to you guys....
less skills like 5e or EOTE
or more skills like 3e or more

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.

 

[Blue]

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.

This is good thinking, and I haven't really considered it this way even though I've heard the old saying "Nobody every fell off a horse until there was a Ride skill."

One slight counter is that with the "roll only if it's in question" instructions. I've had DMs who do auto-success based on having skills that would be rolls for others. For example, my ranger with survival never gets asked to roll for anything basic involving nature or survival, it's just an assumed success, while he asks others to roll for the same type of thing. And no, the fact that I am adding +3/+4 for proficiency wouldn't push these to succeed on a 1.

 

[mellored]

This is good thinking, and I haven't really considered it this way even though I've heard the old saying "Nobody every fell off a horse until there was a Ride skill."

That can also be countered with weaknesses.

No one falls off a horse, except those who are notably bad at it.

 

[Gladius Legis]

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.

 

[corwyn77]

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.