D&D 5E Quibbles with NEXT rules

[Warbringer]

I really don't want stacking of advantage/disadvantage. The way they do it now, where stacking just doesn't work is a good design in my opinion. Stacking is one of those things that just slows down combat* and in certain situations make rolling the dice superfluous, something I dislike.

The slowdowns come when you have players going: I got advantage from x... starts rolling, stops, add advantage from y, wonders if he has advantage from z and after rolling begin discussing if he should have had advantage from æ as well. 3e was horrible in this regard with often up to 5-6-7 different sources of +1 and +2 bonuses.

I would rather see maneuvers and such that allows you to do new things instead of adding a small bonus or another advantage dice.

So, we've been playing multiple d20s for about 4 years now (basically an exchange of actions for a d20) and it doesn't slow down combat in the slightest. W

We also play "successes" so if you hit multiple times with the d20s, or by more that 5' you get benefits from a great hit (FYI this is our critical system). These benefits can be used for more damage, maneuvers, or even aid a companion. Stunts are simply a target number of successes now, eg " I want to swing of the balcony, land on the ogres back and backstab him"... No problem, you need 3 successes...

Speed of play is not a factor.

 

[Sunseeker]

They have said in the recent live stream that they've removed the Deadly Strike mechanic, because it's a lot simpler when making an attack always means the same thing.

Sure it's a lot simpler...but does that make it better? Iterative attacks are still just as worthless now as they were then.

 

[Sunseeker]

I would rather see maneuvers and such that allows you to do new things instead of adding a small bonus or another advantage dice.

I tend to agree. I'd rather more variety than simply more +X.

 

[the Jester]

Sure it's a lot simpler...but does that make it better? Iterative attacks are still just as worthless now as they were then.

Only if they are successively weaker (e.g. 3e's -5/-10/-15 to attacks).

 

[Sunseeker]

Only if they are successively weaker (e.g. 3e's -5/-10/-15 to attacks).

I still feel that even having to roll for each attack lowers their power.

 

[variant]

Stacking advantages goes completely against bounded accuracy.

 

[GX.Sigma]

I still feel that even having to roll for each attack lowers their power.

It definitely increases it.

1. It's not all-or-nothing
2. You get your ability bonus on each attack
3. It multiplies effects that trigger on hit

 

[Blackbrrd]

Stacking advantages goes completely against bounded accuracy.

A better argument than the one I was making. Even with half the supplements of 4e, you could probably create a character that got advantage in 3-4 different ways, which totally destroys the concept of bounded accuracy.

 

[Jester David]

Generally the same:

The action Dodge gives you advantage on Dex saves and makes attacks against you gain disadvantage. It is generally useless to dodge if you're fighting in a dark area where the enemy takes disadvantage from seeing you (or any other circumstance wherein the enemy has disadvantage on attacks). If there's a VIP who must live, and one PC is 'hindering' the enemy while the VIP tries to dodge, the efforts don't stack. If a spell already gives you advantage on saves, there's no benefit to dodging if you expect an incoming fireball.

Advantage and disadvantage is nice and keeps you from having to remember small fiddly bonuses, but when your entire action is being spent modifying your chances it should provide and actual bonus and make harder or easier to succeed not just less/more likely.
A myriad small bonuses are a pain to remember but when you're burning your turn it's large enough that you will remember the bonus.

Math is not the enemy and the DM's Best Friend shouldn't be kicked to the curb.

I tend to look at the Aid action as well as Dodge. Two people working together should have the potential to do more - lift a heavier object, build a barn faster, solve a complicated puzzle - that neither could do alone. If there's a locked door, half the party should be able to join in to batter it down, not just one person.

I'd love to see many of the options that grant dis/advantage be changed to +/-2 OR advantage, chosen when you spend the action.

 

[Dausuul]

They have said in the recent live stream that they've removed the Deadly Strike mechanic, because it's a lot simpler when making an attack always means the same thing.

Praise Gygax. Deadly Strike seems simple in theory, but in practice it's too much bookkeeping for what amounts to a plain-vanilla damage bonus.

Sure it's a lot simpler...but does that make it better? Iterative attacks are still just as worthless now as they were then.

Who said anything about iterative attacks? Out of the editions that have implemented multiple attacks in some form (which is to say, all of them), 3E was the only one that used the iterative approach.