D&D (2024) Postmortem: 10 Ideas in 5e that didn't quite work...

[TheSword]

It's a real problem. I have been in 3 different 5e campaigns with a ranger and the nicest thing I heard about the class from the players is "Eh, it's kinda disappointing. Oh, well."

I’m surprised. I love the ranger (granted not the beast master).

Four attacks at 5th level in relatively common circumstances and two weapons is pretty cool. The spells are a nice addition - particularly hunters mark and zephyr strike. Canny makes them a proper skill monkey, and they can easily be Dex based, which is the best stat.

I’m experimenting with a current character which multi classes with cleric but only for high levels.

Favoured enemy still needs sorting as the Tasha’s version still conflicts with too many things but it’s not a major problem.

 

[Remathilis]

You’re missing the caveat here… “for me”

They are a way of customizing intangible elements and adding a little bit of extra detail. The rule that if they granted a skill you already had you could pick any other, meant they were actually very flexible. They were fun, flavourful and helped customize the classes. They clearly aren’t going anywhere.

Excellent at easing new players into the experience of pretending to be somewhere else. Not needed for everyone but didn’t do any harm, and useful for those that needed them. Again, fun and flavour. God forbid we step outside the mechanical.


Totally dull… right up until that token you wrote into your backstory ends up being a magic item that the DM weaves in. It’s a tangible way of bringing backstory to life. It worked for dark souls. Honestly, who care though? It’s a bit like saying the spare dagger the PC carries doesn’t work.


Hard disagree. The best multiclassing system in the 5 editions of the game. Allows me to do what multiclassing should do, which is play a hybrid character in a viable way. Love it. Two thirds of my characters multiclass.


You or your DM forget to use it, so it doesn’t work? This is a classic PICNIC… Problem In Chair, Not In Computer.

There are tons of optional rules and systems for 5e. Added to by a plethora of third parties. Folks can’t even agree on what modular means so it’s a leap to criticise 5e for not being it.

I don’t hold 5e accountable for an UA play test. Pretty much everything a 3e and earlier psionic could do is replicated in 5e. Tasha’s additions were nice. They tested the water without precluding later options. I don’t call that failure.

Again, this is a picnic. Our group takes plenty of short tests. Usually two per adventuring day. One hour isn’t very long. Crickey, I get up from my office from work to get a cup of tea and by the time I’m back at my seat an hour has passed. Finding a defendable space in a dungeon is a form of tactics, as is making sure you have the resources to successful take that rest. Our group had no tension in using them. If they are causing tension, you probably need to examine the group social contract.

Much more could be done. Adventures in Rokugan and Adventures in Middle Earth give good examples of this in their add one. 3pp is great for pushing the boat out on this. To be honest, HD is our groups main method of healing.

On this I agree. Ditch Warlocks from the PHB.

Well, I assumed I wasn't speaking universal truth, but there are more than a few other people who agree.

The issue wasn't that these things didn't work, it's that they didn't work quite like WotC probably wanted them to. As evidence, most of your suggestions involved having the DM go in a fix them. A DM CAN go in and make sure his game carefully centers around a PCs background features, meticulously memorize their BIFTs, and secretly make every one of their trinkets an integral part of the narrative. OR they can buy Wilds Beyond the Witchlight and run a game where none of that stuff matters and nobody is the worse for it. Which to me says WotC didn't know how to design around those elements, and if the designers fumble with making background features or trinkets interesting, you can't expect a DM to come in a save them.

Which is why I don't propose removing any of them (well, maybe pact magic, but I'm open to seeing what can be done with it) but instead seeing what WotC can do to make them more relevant. Background features becoming level 1 feats is a good first step. Inspiration on a natural 20 is another. Both fix problems with them being difficult to use or design for. I think BIFTs will probably be turned into a more generic role-playing section rather than be tied to background. I think psionics could use more spells and subclasses (especially a caster one without tentacles) I think they could have added more options for rule options. I don't think that's a big ask.

 

[Stalker0]

I would put both abilities in calculations.

FORT: str+con
REF: dex+int
WILL: wis+cha

every class gets one proficiency

this would give every ability value in saves, it would give more chance to increase saves through ASI's and would reward point buy with lower abilities.

with +1/+1/+1 and one set of 15,15,15,8,8,8 and other of 13,13,13,12,12,12 would give

16,16,16,8,8,8, total modifiers of 6. average +2 per save
14,14,14,12,12,12, total modifiers of 9. average +3 per save

The issue with this is it creates an even wider array of saves than you have now, and people already complain about the wide range.

At 20th level you could have a class with a +16 in one save (+20 for barbs) and a -1 in the next.

 

[Lanefan]

The issue with this is it creates an even wider array of saves than you have now, and people already complain about the wide range.

At 20th level you could have a class with a +16 in one save (+20 for barbs) and a -1 in the next.

That would be a feature rather than a bug.

Characters need to have weaknesses as well as strengths, at any level, in order that they may sometimes feel a bit threatened or vulnerable and need to rely on their fellow party members to cover for them and-or bail them out.

 

[kunadam]

I frankly does not like the idea of removing the short rest. I would remove the long one (8 hours).
Long rests based features are prone to invoke the 5 minute workday effect.
So why not have encounter based and "act" based features. There is a set of stuffs you know you can use every encounter, no matter if there are 2 minutes, hours or days between them. Act is like the siege at the beginning of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
Then there is less argument about if the party could sit for an hour or even 8. If it is one act, they you can sit as much as you want, but that does not recharge any of the act based abilities.

 

[payn]

I frankly does not like the idea of removing the short rest. I would remove the long one (8 hours).
Long rests based features are prone to invoke the 5 minute workday effect.
So why not have encounter based and "act" based features. There is a set of stuffs you know you can use every encounter, no matter if there are 2 minutes, hours or days between them. Act is like the siege at the beginning of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
Then there is less argument about if the party could sit for an hour or even 8. If it is one act, they you can sit as much as you want, but that does not recharge any of the act based abilities.

Thats is how PF2 works (though they try really hard to hide it).

 

[Lanefan]

I frankly does not like the idea of removing the short rest. I would remove the long one (8 hours).
Long rests based features are prone to invoke the 5 minute workday effect.
So why not have encounter based and "act" based features. There is a set of stuffs you know you can use every encounter, no matter if there are 2 minutes, hours or days between them. Act is like the siege at the beginning of the Hoard of the Dragon Queen.
Then there is less argument about if the party could sit for an hour or even 8. If it is one act, they you can sit as much as you want, but that does not recharge any of the act based abilities.

And how do you define when an act has begun and-or ended?

This has always been my issue with encounter-based design: in many cases sure, it's easy to tell when an encounter begins and ends. But in many other cases it isn't. Is sneaking into the castle all one encounter or it is broken down into sub-encounters e.g. climbing the wall, sneaking past the guards, picking the door to the treasury, etc.? Is encounter defined universally or is it subjective to the character? (example: party is in a fight in one room [encounter A] meanwhile a PC sneaks away from that fight and finds trouble in another room - is that still encounter A or a separate encounter B; and how is it defined if-when the other PCs come to bail out the sneaker?)

Using in-game time as the delimiter gives everything a consistent foundation, assuming the DM keeps track of in-game time (and what DM doesn't?). Forcing the party to take actual breaks (i.e. in the fiction, resting for a while) also acts as a clear delimiter.

 

[Aldarc]

And how do you define when an act has begun and-or ended?

Encounters are more analogous to scenes. Scenes are tied to a specific location and time. If you change either of these things, then you have a new scene. A series of connected scenes form a sequence. For example, the opening of Indiana Jones: Raids of the Lost Ark - i.e., Indiana Jones infiltrating and exfiltrating the ruins - is a series of connected scenes that forms the opening sequence.

 

[Stalker0]

That would be a feature rather than a bug.

Characters need to have weaknesses as well as strengths, at any level, in order that they may sometimes feel a bit threatened or vulnerable and need to rely on their fellow party members to cover for them and-or bail them out.

It means that for any set dc, if I choose spell X it’s nigh guaranteed to fail, but if I pick spell Y it’s nigh guaranteed to succeed. That’s probably a bit much.

 

[kunadam]

And how do you define when an act has begun and-or ended?

This has always been my issue with encounter-based design: in many cases sure, it's easy to tell when an encounter begins and ends. But in many other cases it isn't. Is sneaking into the castle all one encounter or it is broken down into sub-encounters e.g. climbing the wall, sneaking past the guards, picking the door to the treasury, etc.? Is encounter defined universally or is it subjective to the character? (example: party is in a fight in one room [encounter A] meanwhile a PC sneaks away from that fight and finds trouble in another room - is that still encounter A or a separate encounter B; and how is it defined if-when the other PCs come to bail out the sneaker?)

Alderac said it more elegantly.
The DM has the script, so the DM knows what is an encounter and what is an act (sequence). So the DM can design these knowing what the players have as resources to them. And the DM can also just tell the party, that today session will be one act, or part of one. And then players can prepare accordingly. I know that there is a lot of meta in this.
But stopping for exactly one hour after a fight, or looking for place to sleep after some major battles is also meta.