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

[Snarf Zagyg]

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.

 

[Nebulous]

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

I hate bards too.

 

[Faolyn]

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]

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.

 

[Justice and Rule]

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.

 

[Asisreo]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.