Latest D&D Survey Says "More Feats, Please!"; Plus New Survey About DMs Guild, Monster Hunter, Inqui

WotC's Mike Mearls has reported on the latest D&D survey results. "In our last survey, we asked you which areas of D&D you thought needed expansion, and solicited feedback for the latest revision of the mystic character class and new rules for psionics." Additionally, there's a new survey up asking about DMs Guld as well as the last Unearthed Arcana (which featured the Monster Hunter, Inquisitive, and Revenant).

Find the survey results here. The most requested extra content is more feats, followed by classes, spells and races, in that order.

 

[Tony Vargas]

My point was only that adding +1 to AC or attacks or save DC's or whatever isn't necessary to keep pace with the monsters, so it is not necessarily the "automatic" choice (and that characters who DON'T choose to do those things aren't being handicapped).

It's still a d20 game. +/-1 (or 2 or 3) is the same thing it's always been.

Saving throw effects are rarely binary in their consequences.

Binary as in, save:neg, a successful save, nothing happens, a failure, something happens. Your fearless character gains the Frightened condition, your indomitable character is charmed, your highly-mobile character is paralyzed, etc... May not be fatal with other high-level PCs there to save your bacon, but it's still certainly a consequence.

The curve is a lie.

Whether it's +4 over 20 levels, +20 over 20, +15 over 30, or obscured by a matrix, whether it factors in items or they make you 'just better,' it's a reality.

 

[MechaPilot]

Those are all monster races that are so powerful most Dungeon Masters would never allow them at the table as PCs.

If that's what you are looking for, 3rd Edition had monsters broken down into PC levels and guidelines for how to do it with mosnter races not already covered. Those same guidelines could be applied to 5E versions of the monsters.

I let a few players use those rules in 3E, and it was servicable, but I would never allow a PC to play a race like Medusa or Mindflayer with save or die abilities useable every round.

The 3e system was pretty bad. EL and LA as implemented were rather abysmal. Frequently, characters would be too fragile because their HD didn't adequately relate to their EL. You could easily see this even in races like the Tiefling: if the rest of the party started at second level so the entire group had the same EL, you'd have half the HPs of the rest of the group while being expected to deal with foes as if you were a level 2 character. You also had the fact that flight jacked up your EL far more than it really should have given how situational the benefits of flight actually are. And there were certainly BAB issues because of differences in monster and class BABs. And other issues as well.

I think what hes looking for is more along the lines of playable races that are traditionally monsters. Not the system from 3e.

That is very much accurate.

Well, when the examples posited are races like Medusa and Mind Flayer, the natural question is how one makes them playable and balanced in the 5e framework.

I don't think "+2 Int, +1 Wis, tentacle attack for 1d4" is what makes a mind flayer, a mind flayer. But maybe I misunderstood.

There are really a few ways you can make them playable:
1) make them weaker than average to start with, and give them a means of becoming stronger over time: racial feats, racial levels, etc.
2) leave them as is and come up with a good way to determine their approximate PC level.
3) leave them as is and give them some kind of penalty that decreases over time. For example, negative modifiers to ability damages/DCs, etc.
4) and possibly something else that's not immediately springing to mind.

 

[nswanson27]

There are really a few ways you can make them playable:
1) make them weaker than average to start with, and give them a means of becoming stronger over time: racial feats, racial levels, etc.
2) leave them as is and come up with a good way to determine their approximate PC level.
3) leave them as is and give them some kind of penalty that decreases over time. For example, negative modifiers to ability damages/DCs, etc.
4) and possibly something else that's not immediately springing to mind.

I would say make them (and their intellect devourer kin) not show up in levels before the party casters are able to get spells to undo the things that they "do" to PCs.

 

[MechaPilot]

I would say make them (and their intellect devourer kin) not show up in levels before the party casters are able to get spells to undo the things that they "do" to PCs.

My first instinct would be to base it on either CR of XP value, or some amalgam of the two. Rationally, if one of a given monster is a moderate to difficult* challenge for a party of 1 PC, then the two are roughly on par. It may not work out that way in actuality because of imperfections in the CRs and Xp values assigned to the monsters, but that does sound like a rational, at first glance way of figuring out rough equality between monsters and PCs.

*I include difficult in there because it helps represent how two PCs facing off against each other might have nova potential that some monsters generally won't.

 

[Awesome Adam]

The 3e system was pretty bad. EL and LA as implemented were rather abysmal. Frequently, characters would be too fragile because their HD didn't adequately relate to their EL. You could easily see this even in races like the Tiefling: if the rest of the party started at second level so the entire group had the same EL, you'd have half the HPs of the rest of the group while being expected to deal with foes as if you were a level 2 character. You also had the fact that flight jacked up your EL far more than it really should have given how situational the benefits of flight actually are. And there were certainly BAB issues because of differences in monster and class BABs. And other issues as well.

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of what was done in Libris Mortis where the Ghoul/Ghast, Mohrg, Mummy, Vampire Spawn, and Wight were broken down into playable a class like structure.

To keep pace with other PCs I'd suggest normal race staples like HD at every level, standard proficiency bonuses, etc.. but divide the supernatural abilities out over the levels.

I still think races like Medusa would be overpowering, unless petrification was nerfed down to paralyzation etc..

 

[MechaPilot]

Actually, I was thinking more along the lines of what was done in Libris Mortis where the Ghoul/Ghast, Mohrg, Mummy, Vampire Spawn, and Wight were broken down into playable a class like structure.

To keep pace with other PCs I'd suggest normal race staples like HD at every level, standard proficiency bonuses, etc.. but divide the supernatural abilities out over the levels.

I still think races like Medusa would be overpowering, unless petrification was nerfed down to paralyzation etc..

The name Libris Mortis sounds familiar, but I don't think I ever owned that one (my gaming budget is not, and was not, as large as I would like).

I think the Medusa isn't as bad as all that. Sure, petrification is great. However, you still have to fail the save. If the save DC was toned down until you reached a certain level, it wouldn't be that big of an issue. Also, it only works out to about 30 feet. In cramped spaces that won't help, but out in an open world there's no reason a foe couldn't keep more than 30 feet away and use magic or missile weapons to fight a medusa PC.

 

[Awesome Adam]

My issue with the Medusa's iconic ability is as a PC ability in 5th edition the rules would likely break down into save of 8+ Proficiency + Cha Mod, on a race likely to have a +2 Cha mod. So you would end up with Cha 20 Medusa PC with a DC 15(8+2+5) petrifying gaze attack.

On top of that, the other likely racial ability would be Multi Attack from the snakes.

"Oh sweet, you averted your eyes ? I get advanatage on all 3 of my attacks"
"Oh sweet, you didn't avert your eyes and your restrained? I get advanatage on all 3 of my attacks"
"Oh sweet, you didn't avert your eyes and your petrified? I attack the other guy"

That scenario might be fun for you as a player, but it would quickly annoy other PCs and the DM as it imbalances the entire campaign.

Dragon ? Gaze Attack!
Anything that isn't blind ? Gaze Attack!
Other PC that is annoying me ? Gaze Attack!

I can sympathise with a players desire for WOTC to put out rules for things they want to play, but not everything people want is necesarily a good idea

 

[Magil]

Exactly what type of fighter do those who are satisfied play? And what is the other kind that are not?

Well, I can't speak for everyone. It was a hypothetical point that started the whole conversation, I do believe. At the very least, I'd like to see the battle master expanded--combat superiority dice are not a bad mechanic, they just need more maneuvers and more scaling. I'd like a more tactical fighter, one that is better at various quasi-improvised combat maneuvers than other people simply because he or she is a fighter and thus the best at combat.

What I'd consider the best they can do with the current rules implementation (as in a pie-in-the-sky, overly optimistic goal) is something like a full spell list for a fighter, but instead of spells, call them "maneuvers" or "blade magic", as stated earlier.

What about all those slides, pushes, pulls, and various micro action types like reactions and interrupts? I'm not convinced that giving the fighter a bunch of powers would go far enough. The combat mechanics of the system would limit this approach.

As has been stated, those mechanics already exist within the existing rules structure. Forced movement is in the rules, see the humble Shove action, Repelling Blast, or various spells like Thorn Whip. Reactions are within the rules, from opportunity attacks to the Shield spell (among others, like Absorb Elements).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I can't speak for everyone. It was a hypothetical point that started the whole conversation, I do believe. At the very least, I'd like to see the battle master expanded--combat superiority dice are not a bad mechanic, they just need more maneuvers and more scaling. I'd like a more tactical fighter, one that is better at various quasi-improvised combat maneuvers than other people simply because he or she is a fighter and thus the best at combat.

I have to consider the fighter class something of a lost cause in that regard. It's very DPR focused (with excellent results), so it can never be pounded into a workable shape while significantly covering other forms of contribution, as well. As designed, it fills established needs - the very simple 'training wheels' (sub)class and the simple/fast-combat 'best at fighting' sub-class, and the play a fighter/magic-user even if the DM isn't using Multi-classing sub-class - and does so admirably. As designed, it can't do a lot more. The new subclasses we've seen all necessarily shake out as fairly simple, very DPR-focused options.

'Maneuvers' are a better name than 'martial powers' or 'exploits' or even 'fighter bonus feats,' but the implementation is very limiting. Like you say, scaling would be desperately needed, and that's not something that works with the BM design. So, too, versatility, agency, and depth (tactical and/or general play). A new class or classes is called for to open up more/more-interesting and viable non-magic-using or 'martial' options.

 

[MechaPilot]

My issue with the Medusa's iconic ability is as a PC ability in 5th edition the rules would likely break down into save of 8+ Proficiency + Cha Mod, on a race likely to have a +2 Cha mod. So you would end up with Cha 20 Medusa PC with a DC 15(8+2+5) petrifying gaze attack.

A PC medusa's save DC would likely break down as you have suggested. However, it all depends on how it's done. Recall that I mentioned

On top of that, the other likely racial ability would be Multi Attack from the snakes.

Multiattack doesn't really come FROM the snakes. Multiattack is an ability to increase damage output so the monster can be a viable threat in a fight without relying solely on petrification to take out her foes. Keeping multiattack is also a symptom of bad monster-to-PC translation. Multiattack is far more fitting for a fighter-ish character than for a rogue or wizard or cleric. I would expect multiattack to be stripped away for a playable version of the medusa. The snake hair might be kept as a bonus action attack, sort of like two-weapon fighting, but either way I'd expect the poison damage to be toned-down given that a starting player version will have 1 HD while the MM version has 17.

"Oh sweet, you averted your eyes ? I get advanatage on all 3 of my attacks"
"Oh sweet, you didn't avert your eyes and your restrained? I get advanatage on all 3 of my attacks"
"Oh sweet, you didn't avert your eyes and your petrified? I attack the other guy"

That scenario might be fun for you as a player, but it would quickly annoy other PCs and the DM as it imbalances the entire campaign.

Dragon ? Gaze Attack!
Anything that isn't blind ? Gaze Attack!
Other PC that is annoying me ? Gaze Attack!

I can sympathise with a players desire for WOTC to put out rules for things they want to play, but not everything people want is necesarily a good idea

I already addressed the "all 3 of my attacks" bit with my discussion of multiattack above, so I will focus on the petrification part here. I would fully expect the fail by 5 or more = instant petrification to be stripped from a playable version. Maybe segregate it into a racial feat. Frankly. I would also expect the save DC to either be reduced, or for enemies to have advantage on the save, until the medusa PC reaches a given level.

There are also other options. You could make the PC medusa's petrification require additional saves. Instead of two, you could go with three, with a speed reduction coming before being restrained. You could require the PC medusa to spend an action, bonus action, or reaction to force the save. You could change it so that the medusa has to keep her gaze on a target who has become restrained by her gaze to force the additional petrification saves. The spellcasting concentration mechanic seems appropriate for that.

Also, as I've previously mentioned, the gaze attack has a 30 foot limit. The dragon you mentioned, it can probably get out of range, and every chromatic dragon wyrmling I found in the MM has at least a +3 to Con saves. An optimized medusa PC would probably have a save DC of 14 or 15 (8 + 4 or 5 Cha mod +2 prof mod), which (assuming the PC stat cap of 20 still applies) would top out at an absolute high-level maximum of 19 (8 + 5 Cha mod + 6 prof mod). The wyrmlings have a 45-50% chance of success on the save.