D&D General Things That Bug You

[Shadowedeyes]

I get that it's difficult to balance, and 5e has plenty of examples of poorly balanced gishes (I'm looking at you, Eldritch Knight, Hexblade, and Ranger), but I really like the concept of the Gish, particularly because the diversity in possible characters with it. "Gish" just means someone that merges magic and martial combat, which includes Paladins, Rangers, at least 3 Bard subclasses, Bladesinger Wizards, Hexblade/Bladepact Warlocks, about 4 Fighter Subclasses (Rune Knight, Eldritch Knight, Psychic Warrior, Arcane Archer, possibly Echo Knight), Armorer/Battle Smith Artificers, and a buttload of other subclasses.

A holy warrior that burns spell slots to explode demons? That's a gish. A finesse skald that slices apart enemies with a magical sword while singing a party-bolstering song? That's a gish. A heavily-armored tinker that thunder-punches enemies to death? That's a gish. A tree-hugging shaman that smacks enemies in the face with a Shillelagh'd quarterstaff and commanding an animal companion? That's a gish. All of these, and many more, qualify as gishes.

However, when compared to nonmagical Barbarians, Fighters, Rogues, and Monks, none of these invalidate any of the other options. They have their own strengths, Gishes just have to have more limited resources than non-magical warriors and be restricted in unique ways (Paladins have to be melee, Bladesingers can't use two-handed weapons, Hunter's Mark and Hex have time limits and require concentration, and so on).

I have quite a few friends that are fans of different gish concepts, so I can definitely get that diversity of options is a big draw. And I while do think it's possible to balance the magical gish with the nonmagical warrior, it's quite the tightrope.

Which I think is part of my problem with it. It's way too easy to end up on either end. You either have a mess of a character who can't really contribute in either magic or martial ability, or you end up with a slightly worse martial character who has enough magic to equal or even exceed the nonmagical character at their own game, often with enough left over to have some useful utility that the nonmagical character just can't match. And this is way more common with martial characters over full magic users, who very rarely get overshadowed by the gish at their thing. Part of this is just the fact that magic tends to trump non-magic in general, but it can made even worse by magic that explicitly is designed to enhance martial combat.

In 5e, I'd say WotC did a pretty good job making sure you won't feel completely useless bringing your Battlemaster Fighter into a party with a Bladesinger, Paladin or other gish character, but I'm not sure that the Battlemaster is bringing anything unique or special to the table either.

 

[billd91]

Apropos to the thread, the use of gish as generic jargon for any fighter/wizard idea divorced from the githyanki.

 

[overgeeked]

I don't necessarily think it is a bad design. I think you are trying to use it in a way it is not intended. I find the DMG table and rules for making a monster pretty easy to use, others do not. So it seems it could be more clear or simplified, but I like the steps and the different things they address that simply cannot be contained in just a table.

What you are really looking for is a "Typical Monster Stats by CR" table where you can pick a CR and just use the stats and it will compare well to the "average" MM monster of that CR. That would be great, and I wish they would provide that (I've seen it reverse engineered on the internet), but that is not what the table in the DMG is. Now, 4e had a table like that and it was very useful for improvising monsters. That is not what the table in the 5e DMG is though.

If you break down the math to account for the assumption of one monster per four party members you can easily take things back to 4E’s 1-for-1 ratio and the numbers click into place. You get something close to easily scaled monsters.

Standard Monster Stat Block, v2
Level: X.
Prof. Bonus: 1 + 1/4 level.
✦ 01-04: +2; 05-08: +3; 09-12: +4; 13-16: +5;
✦ 17-20: +6; 21-24: +7; 25-28: +8; 29+: +9.
AC: 12 + 1/2 level.
HP: Level x6.
Attack: 4 + 1/2 level.
Damage: Level x2.
Save DC: 8 + Attack.
Checks: +0, +prof, +attack.

This is an example. This monster looks under on HP and damage because it’s meant to face one PC, not an entire party. Just have one of these per party member or multiply the HP and damage by the # of party members. The MM HP and damage are typically x3, x3.5, or x4 what this yields, again the game assumes a party of four. The damage is average for one attack per PC, so a party of four the monster should have x4 that damage, either from multiattack and/or legendary actions. That’s also average so you can combine them for a single big attack. This also assumes you’ll do the +1 level / -1 level adjustments for offense swaps or AC vs HP swaps, offense vs defense swaps, etc. One of these has one attack. If you use multiples each has one attack. If you scale this up based on party size, give it one attack per PC.

This is almost spot on for ~80% of the monsters WotC has published. If you think their monsters are too tough or too weak, adjust from there. Doing it like this also fixes the action economy problem.

 

[DeviousQuail]

Ability Scores - The basic idea is fine but if I were the god of DnD for a day I would replace the current six with a different set. Maybe even go up to 8 or down to 4.

AC - Taking off my armor shouldn't reduce my ability to defend myself to nonexistent levels.

Cantrips - Replace most of them with magical foci and make things like Druidcraft, Thaumaturgy, etc into class abilities.

 

[dave2008]

AC - Taking off my armor shouldn't reduce my ability to defend myself to nonexistent levels.

What edition are you talking about? That certainly isn't the case in 5e. If anything, armor doesn't give you enough protection IMO (in 5e).

 

[dave2008]

Spider-Man and PCs with supernatural abilities and get a pass when it comes to dodging. Everyone else needs to rely on physics and the fact that you are probably doing more in combat than just waiting there to dodge an arrow that's going to be fired as a timed event while also dodging being hit by a sword, diving out of the way of a scorching ray and so on.

There are some scenarios where it could be done, but they're pretty limited to one-on-one combat. Have multiple opponents? Non-ideal conditions? I'd rather have a steel cocoon.

It is also harder to hit a moving target that is engaging in combat with other parties. It cuts both ways IMO. Physics and geometry are part of dodging and hitting. If the shot is traveling over 60 ft, you probably have time to react if you see, even tangentially, what is going on. That doesn't mean you have much time to really dodge though. I would say any shot from over 120 feet would give you chance to dodge. Conversely, the farther away the less accurate the shot is going to be and the more obstacles (like people fighting with the person) are a problem, making the dodge easier (possibly - from a game perspective).

However, I was talking about a 1v1 scenario as you didn't provide anything else to go on.

 

[dave2008]

the table is only so imaginative and there are only so many things to do as a thief or a fighter you would get bored and end up dead sooner or later.

Not my experience. Perhaps it is who you're playing with (or just you)? My players almost never choose caster classes. Fighters are by far the most popular, then rogues and rangers (spell-less variety). I've played the game for over 30 years and my groups have had 3 wizards and 1 warlock and 2 druids in those 30+ years.* Yet, we have had not problem with boredom or the "gameplay loop" you either assume or experience.

*In the same time frame we have had about 18-20 fighters, 8-10 rogues/thiefs, and 5-6 rangers

 

[Stormonu]

Yeah, that's barbarians who get to add con to their AC. I guess they're so tough that weapons just bounce off their pecs.

"I'll catch your puny arrows WITH my pecs, villian!"

 

[Oofta]

It is also harder to hit a moving target that is engaging in combat with other parties. It cuts both ways IMO. Physics and geometry are part of dodging and hitting. If the shot is traveling over 60 ft, you probably have time to react if you see, even tangentially, what is going on. That doesn't mean you have much time to really dodge though. I would say any shot from over 120 feet would give you chance to dodge. Conversely, the farther away the less accurate the shot is going to be and the more obstacles (like people fighting with the person) are a problem, making the dodge easier (possibly - from a game perspective).

However, I was talking about a 1v1 scenario as you didn't provide anything else to go on.

Well, you can't have a generic rule that applies no matter how many opponents you have with something like dex adding to AC causing some issues.

But what it really comes down to is how to balance things out. Yeah, someone who is supernaturally dextrous (i.e. Spider-Man) should be as difficult to hit and damage as someone in full plate. But really good armor? It's should be a far higher AC than someone dodging around. Unless you're talking modern rifles or cannon balls, good armor meant you had to find a gap. Of course on the flip side, I don't care how good your armor is, if you get smacked by a giant's club it's going to hurt. Kind of the Iron Man issue - there are so many times that barring some sort of inertial damper magic he should be paste in a can.

In any case, I don't think there's a good solution, just a thing that bugs me.

 

[Xetheral]

What bugs me is when a new edition makes campaign setting assumptions that conflict with the campaign setting assumptions of previous editions. As campaign settings (both published and homebrew) can have lifespans far exceeding any particular edition, changing assumptions with each new edition require either explanatory events in the campaign setting, or else a very large tolerance for hand-waving inconsistencies. (This issue bugs me precisely because my tolerance for such is low.)

At the very least, I would want each new edition to have sufficiently robust optional rules to allow existing campaign settings to function without major revision in the new edition. If the changes in a new edition are large enough that it's not possible to provide optional rules to let existing campaign setting continue to function, I would prefer if that edition were instead marketed as a separate product line.

The list of game mechanics that affect campaign setting assumptions is quite varied, but the key ones D&D seems to have issues maintaining consistency on between editions are magic item economies (including both how magic items are made and whether they are merchantable) and weapon ranges (which affect how warfare is conducted in the setting and how fortifications are designed).