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

[Dausuul]

Rest duration is only limiting if the DM is honest about encounter rolls, torch life and so on. This is something that is handwaived away too often -- in all editions. People don't want to get fiddly, but then they complain about the 15 minute adventuring day or whatever. The way to avoid the 15MAD is to BE fiddly. Enforce the genre.

That is a way to avoid issues with resting. It's a bunch of extra work for all concerned.

My house rule achieves the same goal and is not a bunch of extra work.

 

[overgeeked]

I know. "Fix" implies there is something "wrong" and that's okay. We are allowed to not like the way a thing is done in D&D (or any other game). But it also suggests something positive: that by tweaking or changing a thing, we can make the game better for our own purposes.

So here are the rules: present a "problem" with D&D (any edition will do) and explain why you feel it is a problem (this part is really important) and the either suggest a fix, or ask for a fix from fellow community members.

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.

One thought I have had to fix this is to treat a big creature like a group of creatures that all stay close together. Like, if the dragon were it's head, it's tail and its torso/claw routine. So the head not only gets to act independently on its own initiative, it has its own list of abilities, its own reach and range, and its own hit point pool. The same for the other parts. But while I think it is a neat idea for a dragon, I don't know how it would translate well to a giant or other creature without lots of "interesting parts."

A quick fix is to simply give solo monsters as many attacks as there are PCs. You’d also need to adjust their hit points. Divide listed hp by four, then multiply the result by the number of PCs. Now you have a proper solo monster. It’s not perfectly balanced, but it works.

 

[D1Tremere]

I wish they would just make everything more mundane and grounded as the baseline and then, if you want, add the extra layer of magical awesomesauce. It is much harder to remove that stuff than to add it.

That opinion always confuses me. It is a Fantasy setting after all.

 

[DND_Reborn]

That opinion always confuses me. It is a Fantasy setting after all.

While I can't speak for @Reynard, I can say I agree with their sentiment.

Yes, it is a Fantasy game, but for myself and many others the appeal of the magical things is when they are special, rare, etc. and not mundane. To achieve that, having mundane as the baseline makes sense.

It is like electricity or moving pictures. When they first became a thing, people were awed by them, now we take them for granted. If magic is "common" to your Fantasy setting, it loses some of its appeal IMO. So, I strive for a more mundane and grounded setting, making magic rarer and special when you encounter it. It is more of a sword & sorcery genre approach, but more to my liking personally. shrug

I actually lose interest in "super-magical" games I've played in. "Oh, look, another magic weapon in this dung beetle lair..." or "LOL, Bob died again, guys! Sigh... let's take him to the priest and get him raised. This makes--what?--five times this month? (Everyone laughs--except Bob who is dead.).

 

[Oofta]

A quick fix is to simply give solo monsters as many attacks as there are PCs. You’d also need to adjust their hit points. Divide listed hp by four, then multiply the result by the number of PCs. Now you have a proper solo monster. It’s not perfectly balanced, but it works.

Personally I adjust legendary actions = number of party members - 1. Well, that and I try to play legendary monsters intelligently. An ancient dragon isn't going to just land and go toe-to-toe with the PCs. They're going to strafe, use hit and-run tactics, try to separate the party, do everything to avoid a fair fight. It can be a bit difficult to balance so that it's not frustrating, but it's up to the group to figure out counter-strategies.

 

[Dausuul]

Sure, we limit short rests to 2 per long rest anyway.

But then why change the time requirement from 1 hour to 5 minutes? I thought your intent was to allow PCs to "squeeze" their "recovery mechanic" in between encounters?

Yes, that is exactly the point. The goal is to hit that "2 short rests per long rest" mark. I don't want to undershoot it, and I also don't want to overshoot it.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Yes, that is exactly the point. The goal is to hit that "2 short rests per long rest" mark. I don't want to undershoot it, and I also don't want to overshoot it.

Ok, but then I repeat my question: why change it to 5 minutes instead of 1 hour, which was also part of your fix?

 

[Reynard]

That opinion always confuses me. It is a Fantasy setting after all.

It is difficult to play a Lord of the Rings feeling campaign out of the box with D&D -- 5E in particular, but all editions to some degree. I just think there should be a viable "low fantasy" dial -- a limited set of classes, races, spells, etc... onto which you graft your high fantasy stuff, your steampunk stuff, your grimdark post apocalyptic stuff.

 

[Dausuul]

Ok, but then I repeat my question: why change it to 5 minutes instead of 1 hour, which was also part of your fix?

Because I do not want the PCs to have fewer than two short rests per day. When short rests are 1 hour, they often don't have time in between encounters and so end up taking one or none.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Because I do not want the PCs to have fewer than two short rests per day. When short rests are 1 hour, they often don't have time in between encounters and so end up taking one or none.

Fair enough.

I see this sometimes in dungeon crawls or similar adventures, but otherwise by and large it is pretty easy IMO to get in two short rests per long rest. But, in that case, I would just remove the time limit completely--IME 5 minutes is still too long when you have a run of encounters one after another, but YMMV of course.

Now, are you just considering feature recovery, or would you translate all of the short rest into 5 minutes (such as spending HD to recover HP)?