D&D General My "Perfect D&D" Would Include...

[Clint_L]

The thing I keep saying is a set of objective skill DCs. Tell me exactly how hard it is to open non-magical locks or climb a stone wall with appropriate handhold/piton modifiers.

Let me make characters that are good enough at skills to translate them directly into always on abilities, and accept that challenge/adventure design will warp around them.

I really, really don't want that, because as DM I want to make adjustments for contexts. Some locks are harder than others. And (speaking as a long time climber) some walls are definitely harder to climb. There's a whole rating system. It's quite detailed!

Overall, those were mostly things I don't want. I'm pretty content with 5e.

Edit: some surprises on the list thus far. I thought alignment would be more popular. I didn't think advantage/disadvantage would get so much support; I thought it was more controversial. Interesting to see how many choices had a substantial contingent (say, a third or more) backing them.

However, not really surprised that the more recent items tended to have the most support.

 

[Reynard]

I really, really don't want that, because as DM I want to make adjustments for contexts. Some locks are harder than others. And (speaking as a long time climber) some walls are definitely harder to climb. There's a whole rating system. It's quite detailed!

How does having benchmarks stop you from doing that?

 

[Deset Gled]

Species Choice: Include lots of species, but make sure to say that it's up to each world/GM to say what's actually available in it--the game should straight-out say that not every world is going to have every option.

Adding things that the DM is expected to remove is bad game design for the DM/player relationship. It creates a dynamic where the DM is "mean" if he takes away something that a player wants. It's much better, IMNSHO, for the base options to be minimal, and let the DM be benevolent by allowing extra options beyond the norm. This helps set the expectations better for both sides.

 

[Clint_L]

How does having benchmarks stop you from doing that?

That's not how I read his request for exact skill DCs. I thought he was suggesting having something in the rules like lists of different DCs for specific tasks. I think that would overcomplicate something that is best left to DM discretion.

As for benchmarks, they already exist: very easy (5) to nearly impossible (30). I can decide if this lock is a 10 or a 25 or whatever based on the situation.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I didn't ask you

Maybe not with your text, but with your heart.

 

[Faolyn]

Adding things that the DM is expected to remove is bad game design for the DM/player relationship. It creates a dynamic where the DM is "mean" if he takes away something that a player wants. It's much better, IMNSHO, for the base options to be minimal, and let the DM be benevolent by allowing extra options beyond the norm. This helps set the expectations better for both sides.

Meh. I think it would actually be a lot better for the DM, to give them the go-ahead to say "no, I don't want these things in my game." How many DMs make a world that includes the standard races--elves, dwarfs, halflings, tieflings, orcs, gnomes--because they feel they have to, that every D&D game has to have them? A while ago, my table co-created a world that was supposed to be the base of operations for a Spelljammer game that never happened. We picked the native races based entirely on the things we wanted to play, not what were in the PHB (aarakocra, dwarf, elf, goblin, goliath, loxodon, tabaxi, with humans as an invasive species). I think it makes for a much more interesting (to us, at least) world, and is far better than going for the same-old standard races.

Plus, if the DM was going to take away a race, they're going to do it anyway, whether or not the book says so--which is "meaner" because the PHB implies that the species are supposed to be there. I'd rather play in a game where the DM says "this world has X, Y, and Z species in it" than one where they say "I don't like X, so you can't play one."

I've gotten into SWADE recently, and the books all provide templates for a ton of different, non-human races/ancestries, with zero expectation that you're required to have any of them. They're just there, so the GM doesn't have to make the stats themselves.

And what's "minimal" for base options? Only Tolkien species? Only current species of Tolkien + dragonborn, gnome, and tiefling? Only the most popular races according to old polls on DDB? Only humans, with every non-human species off in another book somewhere? Those are all extremely valid options, after all.

 

[Reynard]

That's not how I read his request for exact skill DCs. I thought he was suggesting having something in the rules like lists of different DCs for specific tasks. I think that would overcomplicate something that is best left to DM discretion.

As for benchmarks, they already exist: very easy (5) to nearly impossible (30). I can decide if this lock is a 10 or a 25 or whatever based on the situation.

DC 5 for a knotted rope and DC 20 for a cliff face are benchmarks. That's what "benchmark" means. Knowing what the system expects as far as difficulty is an important tool for the GM in adjudicating difficulties. "East" and "hard" lead the GM toward relativistic DCs, instead of objective ones. The same climb shouldn't be just as hard for a 1st level thief as a 13th level one just because the GM wants it to be "hard." At that point why are we leveling at all?

 

[tetrasodium]

DC 5 for a knotted rope and DC 20 for a cliff face are benchmarks. That's what "benchmark" means. Knowing what the system expects as far as difficulty is an important tool for the GM in adjudicating difficulties. "East" and "hard" lead the GM toward relativistic DCs, instead of objective ones. The same climb shouldn't be just as hard for a 1st level thief as a 13th level one just because the GM wants it to be "hard." At that point why are we leveling at all?

That might work well at tier1 levels but move into late tier2 & up you start having players with +9 +13 & higher to +17 before adding possible advantage guidance & so on. There's a reason why the old DC chart went up to dc43 "Track a goblin that passed over hard rocks a week ago, and it snowed yesterday," with a who can do it of " A 20th-level ranger who has maxed out his Survival skill and has been fighting goblinoids as his favored enemy since 1st level". With the DC chart present in 5edmg/the expert class dc5-30 chart presents a situation where success is virtually guaranteed at all times with almost anything that the party can just say "that's bob's area" unless the GM starts inventing reasons why bob can't participate in his area.

 

[Tonguez]

I want a Feat and Skills based Kits that allow for broad race and class customisation on a narrow base.
I want Skill challenges and combat to be run using the same system and I want skillbased magic
Detailed Journey and Social skill challenges, including guidelines for Domain management, mass warfare, exploration, resource gathering and crafting.
I like Proficiency, Advantage/Disadvantage, dynamic Encounters and I want to reward Storytelling and Narrative inspiration rather than mechanics
oh and Templates (more customisation)

and bring back Morale

 

[Reynard]

That might work well at tier1 levels but move into late tier2 & up you start having players with +9 +13 & higher to +17 before adding possible advantage guidance & so on. There's a reason why the old DC chart went up to dc43 "Track a goblin that passed over hard rocks a week ago, and it snowed yesterday," with a who can do it of " A 20th-level ranger who has maxed out his Survival skill and has been fighting goblinoids as his favored enemy since 1st level". With the DC chart present in 5edmg/the expert class dc5-30 chart presents a situation where success is virtually guaranteed at all times with almost anything that the party can just say "that's bob's area" unless the GM starts inventing reasons why bob can't participate in his area.

I don't understand your point. Prince Huperdink can track a falcon on a cloudy day because he has a +19 and the DC for that is 25 (or whatever, it's just an example). I don't understand why listing DC 45 difficulties (for 3.x; for 5E it would be DC 30 difficulties) is a problem. They are still benchmarks. It says "This is what is considered 'impossible' for climbing in 5E." It takes minimal space and provides the GM with valuable information with which they can adjudicate. Win-win.