D&D General Let's Talk About How to "Fix" D&D

Asisreo

Patron Badass
That logic works when you're making a lot of checks. But you can't assume it will all average out in a scenario that comes up maybe once every two sessions. "Arcane mystery" is not a particularly common occurrence.

Moreover, the wizard's likelihood to roll highest shrinks dramatically when you consider there are 3-4 other PCs. In a party of 5, even if the wizard has +9 and everyone else has -1, there is close to a 30% chance that someone else beats the wizard's roll.

When these unusual scenarios come up, they should be a chance for the relevant PC to step up and be awesome, not for them to fall on their face and look incompetent because they blew a roll.
It shouldn't be unusual for a character to want to use their proficiencies more. The frequency of Arcana checks are mostly in the hands of the player with minor sway from the DM. They decide the DC, but the rules already defined the check.

A wizard with Arcana proficiency should be attempting to recall the lore of most magical occurrences. If they approach a rune, arcana. A Magic Item? Arcana. A summoned creature? Arcana. A magical effect? Arcana.

And its not just the obvious stuff like their names and features. Its also the lore and history behind the target. Information which may either completely change the party's plan, or just be fun tidbits of knowledge.

My point is that characters should be asking for their checks when they see the opportunity so that the game may progress using both their abilities and their ability to lean into what makes their character special.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Reynard

Legend
Well it’s a pre-written adventure.

Are you concerned that the adventure as written doesn’t assume that your party will want to explore every inch of IWD?

Surely by linking XP to goal achievements... helping the ten towns, dealing the major threats to the area they are making the game party dependent... which is not the same as repeatable.

I have a cannibal pirate, an escaped prisoner and a explorer for lost magic as PCs in this campaign. It makes sense for them to explore areas linked to these themes. Why on earth would they explore a hostile wilderness for the sake of it?
The structure of the milestones in the open world is a problem because it essentially demands the PCs will move on to the next part of the adventure after completing some specific number of side quests.

That isn't how RPGs work. In RPGs, players decide what they do, when, and how. Especially in a sandbox environment, it is a head-scratchingly strange decision to force them to stop exploring after having dipped so shallowly into the content.

I mean, the solution is simple: just give them the XP they earn by actually doing stuff. If they show up in a new town and the locals tell them there is a horde of zombie yetis stealing the elderly at night, the PCs are free to decide whether or not to engage that quest based on whether they thing the reward is worth the risk. They can move on, try to help, or join the Yeti for all I care. they just have to do something. Maybe the Yeti sound too tough, so they decide to come back in a level or two (and hope they aren't too late). That's up to them, not up to me or the designer that decided they only get 3 sidequests before they move on.

And if the PCs and up being a higher level than is necessary to deal with a challenge? Awesome! they have been busting their buts and risking life and limb to level up. Let them kick some ass.

Anyway, my point is that milestones are bad and designers that use them should feel bad.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
For example, one thing in 5E that I really find to be a problem as a GM is how poorly the action economy is balanced for "solo" creatures. A PC party of 4 or 5 characters punches WAY above its weight class against solo monsters, even in Lairs and with legendary actions. A good part of this has to do with the 5E math -- solo monsters don't hit especially hard and so they aren't terrifying in that "stay away from it or you're dead!" feeling that helps keep the PCs at bay. On top of it, PCs can really pump out a lot of damage when they want to and solos, which are usually just big bags of hit points, don't last long. All that said, the fight against one massive foe is a fantasy staple and I want it to work -- and not just for epic boss battles. There's no reason a random encounter with a giant or whatever shouldn't be viable, too.
Part of the problem is the poor way that CR is determined. It's the average of offense CR and defense CR, and very few other abilities are taken into play. IMO, a creature that can reduce your hp maximum or can inflict a condition, should be of higher CR than one who can't. But reduction of hp max (or stat, which while very rare does show up) and most conditions are ignored by CR.

1. Rangers and Paladins become non-spellcasters. Provide them abilities instead.
I think they could be made a lot like warlocks, with their own version of invocation.

I generally agree on too many spellcasters, although I have no problem with druids and nature clerics being separate things. Ideally, a druid works within nature, while a nature cleric commands it. Yes, I know that's more a lore/RP thing, but I think there's enough of a difference.

OTOH, what I'd prefer is more non-spellcasters. Which could be accomplished by having non-caster paladins and rangers. I wouldn't mind a third-caster archetype for each of those, but I'm not fond of them by half-casters by default.

2. Re-work the Sorcerer to make it a more interesting full-caster option to the Wizard.
As a serious question: how would you do that? I personally don't have any ideas on that front.

(I like bards...)

There's another mode?
There should be a Dark Mode available. Bottom of the screen? I switched mine a while ago and now I can't remember how to switch back.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
I think maybe the Boss monsters who have multiple things they can do should get multiple initiatives for those things. It is a LONG time between turns for the solo.
That would be a Legendary Action, which the monster is supposed to take after another creature takes its turn. Then add in Lair Actions and you should be set.

The thing is for the DM to make sure to always give their bosses, even if they're not super-powerful monsters, some Legendaries and Lairs.
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
As a serious question: how would you do that? I personally don't have any ideas on that front.

I tend to focus on two things only:

1. Better martial options; and
2. Ending the scourge that is the bard.

That said, if I were to take a stab at it, this would be my idea:

You have the main Spellcasters.
Wizard, Warlock, Cleric. (Druid is a half-caster in my ideal world).

What to do with the Sorcerer?

Well, tear it down and re-build from the ground up. Instead of making them all meta-magic with a little subclass flavor, I'd design them to be the completely flexible chassis for the innate caster to "hang" the cool, but specific, subclasses on.

What?

More specifically:
Re-design so that they don't have spells, slots, etc. They just have sorcery points (think spell points).

The choice of subclass doesn't just give them a little bit of flavor; it directly impacts how their innate magic works. How they can use those sorcery points. The actual play and feel and utilization of a Storm Sorcerer would be completely different than a Shadow Sorcerer.

They'd end up straddling the design space between warlocks (with invocations and limited spells) and wizards (with almost no innate powers and tons of versatile spells).
 

There should be a Dark Mode available. Bottom of the screen? I switched mine a while ago and now I can't remember how to switch back.

In your account tab, go to preferences, right at the top.

I tend to focus on two things only:

1. Better martial options; and
2. Ending the scourge that is the bard.

tenor.gif


Kind of kidding, kind of interested in what catastrophic encounter you had with a Bard player. ;)

That said, if I were to take a stab at it, this would be my idea:

You have the main Spellcasters.
Wizard, Warlock, Cleric. (Druid is a half-caster in my ideal world).

What to do with the Sorcerer?

Well, tear it down and re-build from the ground up. Instead of making them all meta-magic with a little subclass flavor, I'd design them to be the completely flexible chassis for the innate caster to "hang" the cool, but specific, subclasses on.

What?

More specifically:
Re-design so that they don't have spells, slots, etc. They just have sorcery points (think spell points).

The choice of subclass doesn't just give them a little bit of flavor; it directly impacts how their innate magic works. How they can use those sorcery points. The actual play and feel and utilization of a Storm Sorcerer would be completely different than a Shadow Sorcerer.

They'd end up straddling the design space between warlocks (with invocations and limited spells) and wizards (with almost no innate powers and tons of versatile spells).

You could maybe do something about handling raw spellstuff, being more like an elementalist, with that idea, too: you can form basic elemental attacks like cantrips, but you can modify them with a big pool of metamagic to be explosions, barriers, etc. You could move out from there to flavoring stuff, but at least it'd give it a clear and interesting niche compared to what it is now.
 

Faolyn

(she/her)
Use Warlock-style casting more: The Warlock was a great concept, and it sucks that they didn't use the chassis for other casting classes. Bard immediately springs to mind as a great "shot rest caster", and maybe Paladin if you want to keep their spellcasting abilities (plus the invocation system would work well at modeling cool Paladin stuff).
Agreed, also with Paladins and Rangers. Although I think that Bards could do well with having cantrip access. I can see them as have a lot of weak but useful magic.

Secondly, clean up the skill list a bit. Let's also combine Animal Handling and Nature.
That I disagree with. They actually deal with different things, and knowing how to calm down or train an animal is quite a bit different than knowing if a plant is safe to eat or what sort of wild animal left those tracks.

Either get rid of Performance or turn it into something distinct, because having it as well as your instrumental tool proficiency has just been a weird debate for ages. I'd honestly suggest turning it into "Charm", where you are able to carouse and orate, while Persuasion a more logical reasoned approach (I might also make that an Int skill just to distinguish the different approaches).
I would disagree because a Charm skill would so end up being the Seduction skill.

The rest of it, I agree with. Perform isn't quite distinctive enough from knowing an instrument, or as I allow, substituting something like Singing for knowing an instrument.

Make Dex less of a God-stat: Right now I'd argue Dex is easily one of the best pound-for-pound stats you can get, and I'd love to see that pulled back somehow. Not sure how, but my final suggestion would help...
I'm listening to a live play podcast that says that in Pathfinder, you use Dex for attacks with some weapons but Strength for the damage? I haven't actually gone through the PF weapon rules to any length to know if that's true, but if it is that might be one way to nerf it a bit.
 


turnip_farmer

Adventurer
It shouldn't be unusual for a character to want to use their proficiencies more. The frequency of Arcana checks are mostly in the hands of the player with minor sway from the DM. They decide the DC, but the rules already defined the check.

A wizard with Arcana proficiency should be attempting to recall the lore of most magical occurrences. If they approach a rune, arcana. A Magic Item? Arcana. A summoned creature? Arcana. A magical effect? Arcana.

And its not just the obvious stuff like their names and features. Its also the lore and history behind the target. Information which may either completely change the party's plan, or just be fun tidbits of knowledge.

My point is that characters should be asking for their checks when they see the opportunity so that the game may progress using both their abilities and their ability to lean into what makes their character special.

I don't do checks for any of this. That just feels weird. Ability checks are rolled when a player does something, and there is a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a consequence of failure. 'I look at that rune and think really hard' doesn't meet those criteria.

I've started doing a lot more pre-session prep on handling what players know about stuff. If I know the players are going to find an idol of Jinglybubwub, I define levels of knowledge about Jinglybubwub, usually something like this:

0 - never heard of
10 - know the basic details
15 - know all the details

Then I'll compare those numbers to my players' passive Religion score with modifiers like +2 for 'from the area where Jinglybubwub is worshipped' and -5 for 'from some made-up place on the other side of the world because you refused to pick one of the races you're supposed to used for this campaign'.

And then it all makes sense. Characters know stuff that fit in with their backgrounds. Intelligent characters with relevant proficiences know all sorts of stuff. The special snowflake who has to a be a weird outsider knows nothing about anything because that's what you get. No rolls needed, fiction maintained, and investment in proficiencies and ability scores rewarded.
 

Tinker-TDC

Explorer
Fun Fact: The milestone XP variant in the DMG is not "Level Advancement Without XP: Story-Based Advancement," which is a separate section right below milestone XP. (I understand that milestone means just levelling up whenever in the vernacular, it's just that ACTUAL milestone XP is a ruleset that I actually like.)
1613078520386.png
1613078565203.png
 

Snarf Zagyg

Notorious Liquefactionist
Fun Fact: The milestone XP variant in the DMG is not "Level Advancement Without XP: Story-Based Advancement," which is a separate section right below milestone XP. (I understand that milestone means just levelling up whenever in the vernacular, it's just that ACTUAL milestone XP is a ruleset that I actually like.)

Funner fact: I have always read it as 'millstone xp variant."

Which is why I use XP to punish my players. Have a little XP, get dropped into the Nyr Dyv.
 


Faolyn

(she/her)
I tend to focus on two things only:

1. Better martial options; and
2. Ending the scourge that is the bard.
Well, as I said, I like the bard, but I can also see putting it through major revisions, by removing the magic and giving it cantrips plus invocation-like abilities (play a riff on your lute, get a power).

That said, if I were to take a stab at it, this would be my idea:

You have the main Spellcasters.
Wizard, Warlock, Cleric. (Druid is a half-caster in my ideal world).
If Druids are half-casters, what other aspect of them would you expand? More shapeshifting? More ability to control plants and animals?

What to do with the Sorcerer?

Well, tear it down and re-build from the ground up. Instead of making them all meta-magic with a little subclass flavor, I'd design them to be the completely flexible chassis for the innate caster to "hang" the cool, but specific, subclasses on.

What?

More specifically:
Re-design so that they don't have spells, slots, etc. They just have sorcery points (think spell points).
Sounds a bit math-heavy (especially if you go for a lot of points), and really easy for them to go nova and then be useless, but it's not an entirely bad idea. However, I think it might not be great to have each archetype so radically different. It would be potentially confusing and difficult to remember.

That being said, I can see giving each archetype it's own metamagic option(s) that no other archetype has. A Storm Sorcerer might be the only sorcerer who can switch damage types to lightning and thunder, or can add riders that cause temp blindness or deafness; a Shadow Sorcerer might... I dunno, be able to cast a spell and spend SP to teleport to a nearby place of shadow at the same time, or could spend SP to create an object out of shadow.
 

Tinker-TDC

Explorer
I want:
1. Meaningful decisions at each level.
2. More non-magical options (I went through by subclass and counted 17 options (out of 112 total) that I could consider nonamgical (and that's if you consider the zealot's radiant damage force-of-will and the base monk's ability to turn invisible as skill rather than magic.)
3. Diversity in martial options (make maneuvers standard for fighters, maybe weapon choice matters).
4. Bard has a weird niche. I'd personally make it a half-caster and have it be the default for an arcane martial character.

So...aside from number four maybe I'm just saying I hope the Level Up A5e comes out cool.
 

Agreed, also with Paladins and Rangers. Although I think that Bards could do well with having cantrip access. I can see them as have a lot of weak but useful magic.

Adding more cantrips to the Warlock chassis for the Bard would work well enough. I think the big thing here with that concept of "a few spells and a whole bunch of cool effects" would really work for a lot of classes that are just casters right now. Bards would have songs, stuff they can play that buffs or debuffs people in a certain zone, Paladins would have blessings which give them immunities or powers, and Rangers could have... whatever neat name you want to call it to buff them on stuff to differentiate them from other martials. I'll be honest, though; I prefer a non-magical Ranger as the chassis, with the ability to be a half-caster as a subclass.

That I disagree with. They actually deal with different things, and knowing how to calm down or train an animal is quite a bit different than knowing if a plant is safe to eat or what sort of wild animal left those tracks.

You're not wrong, but at the same time History doesn't tell you law, but generally it's the go-to for societal stuff. I understand the difference, but I think combining the two works when we are talking in more general terms. I might also move Nature to Wisdom so that Druids and Rangers don't have one of their big skills be in what is otherwise a Dump Stat. But that's just me.

I would disagree because a Charm skill would so end up being the Seduction skill.

Again, not wrong, though I think Charm could work for things like carousing and information gathering, as well as (to use the FFG Star Wars idea) "appeals to one's better nature". Sort of being appealing and fun and personable to improve your standing one with someone compared to Persuasion, which sounds more like negotiation to me.

I do get the hesitance to put it in given how skeevy it could be used.

The rest of it, I agree with. Perform isn't quite distinctive enough from knowing an instrument, or as I allow, substituting something like Singing for knowing an instrument.

Sure. I think it's been a forever-debate as to how Performance and Instrumental Tools work together.

I'm listening to a live play podcast that says that in Pathfinder, you use Dex for attacks with some weapons but Strength for the damage? I haven't actually gone through the PF weapon rules to any length to know if that's true, but if it is that might be one way to nerf it a bit.

Yes. So Dex is very rarely used for damage in PF2 now, which means you can't just use it as a complete replacement for Strength. It also means that melee weapons will typically cause more damage than ranged weapons because ranged weapons will only do a damage die while you get your Strength bonus on melee, and in PF2 crits double everything, so you are getting even more assured damage that way.

They also moved initiative to Perception (most of the time; you can use other skills if it is appropriate for the situation, like Stealth for an ambush), which also is a good thing, but given how the action system works in 5E I'd rather they go towards the Greyhawk Initiative system from the UA a while back. It's just a cool, unique idea that really changes how combat works.

I love what can only be provided by a Bard; its absence.

ash.jpg
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
I don't do checks for any of this. That just feels weird. Ability checks are rolled when a player does something, and there is a possibility of success, a possibility of failure, and a consequence of failure. 'I look at that rune and think really hard' doesn't meet those criteria.

I've started doing a lot more pre-session prep on handling what players know about stuff. If I know the players are going to find an idol of Jinglybubwub, I define levels of knowledge about Jinglybubwub, usually something like this:

0 - never heard of
10 - know the basic details
15 - know all the details

Then I'll compare those numbers to my players' passive Religion score with modifiers like +2 for 'from the area where Jinglybubwub is worshipped' and -5 for 'from some made-up place on the other side of the world because you refused to pick one of the races you're supposed to used for this campaign'.

And then it all makes sense. Characters know stuff that fit in with their backgrounds. Intelligent characters with relevant proficiences know all sorts of stuff. The special snowflake who has to a be a weird outsider knows nothing about anything because that's what you get. No rolls needed, fiction maintained, and investment in proficiencies and ability scores rewarded.
If that's how you like to do things, that's absolutely fine.

Again, its the DM that determines whether the roll was necessary or not.

However, a player won't be able to conceive of everything they may have learned, experienced, or intuit from their backstory alone. A character may not have actually studied a particular magical effect like Hallow, but they may have come across it in the Library of Ruinix.

Would the character know about Hallow? Its up to the DM. But if the DM is thinking "I don't know." Or "maybe he did or maybe he didn't." That's when a roll is appropriate.

Maybe the rune was just flavor text, but it also does have history but you never really expected them to analyze them.

Imagine the runes were in a dwarven stronghold lost to time.

"The walls glow with mystic runes."

"Can I check the runes?"

"Make an arcana check."

"8+5 is 13."

"You recognize that the runes are dwarven runes made to signify that the area has been cleansed."

Now the players know
1. The area is cleansed
2. The stronghold had dwarves in it
3. The dwarves were capable of magic

Significant information that you didn't expect to provide due to a relatively decent roll.
 

billd91

Not your screen monkey (he/him)
I feel the same way about Out of the Abyss. I decided to use chapter-based milestones, and it completely abolishes any reason to explore anything at all.
If the only reason to explore is a metagame feature (more XPs), then I suspect there are bigger problems with the motivation to explore. There should be some thing there worthwhile for the PCs other than XP farming.
 

turnip_farmer

Adventurer
Now the players know
1. The area is cleansed
2. The stronghold had dwarves in it
3. The dwarves were capable of magic

Significant information that you didn't expect to provide due to a relatively decent roll.
I'm not really sure I understand the example. I've learnt that I can't have generic flavour runes since coming across that skill that lets warlocks read everything. So if there's writing I have to know what it means.

But if I didn't know what the runes meant, and just had to make something up when the player asked; I don't see what I gain from only telling the player with Arcana proficiency what I made up 75% of the time.
 

Reynard

Legend
If the only reason to explore is a metagame feature (more XPs), then I suspect there are bigger problems with the motivation to explore. There should be some thing there worthwhile for the PCs other than XP farming.
Should there? Some games are ABOUT exploring.
 

Asisreo

Patron Badass
I'm not really sure I understand the example. I've learnt that I can't have generic flavour runes since coming across that skill that lets warlocks read everything. So if there's writing I have to know what it means.

But if I didn't know what the runes meant, and just had to make something up when the player asked; I don't see what I gain from only telling the player with Arcana proficiency what I made up 75% of the time.
I don't necessarily consider runes as a type of translatable language anyhow. Its the language of verbal components and spell scrolls in my mind. They don't have to say anything coherent, just be infused with magic.

But you aren't making stuff up. You're explaining to them information which you've had prepared but weren't about to info dump on them.

When I make something, I always write up: What it is, Why its there, How it got there, When did it happen, and Who put it there. I always keep track of that info but its not necessarily to splurge on my players. It so that everything fits together coherently like puzzle pieces.

The runes are as important as the players think they are based on the info they've been provided due to their checks.

It wasn't about your gains, anyway. Its about what the players gain. Besides, unless the player is keeping it a secret. Knowledge given to one player is party given to the party to do as they wish.
 

Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition Starter Box

An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top