D&D (2024) Things You Think Would Improve the Game That We WON'T See

[Minigiant]

"Behind the curve" is not the same as "incompetent" and if that Paladin really wants "power" she should put all her ASIs into Charisma, because spells and abilities beat weapons in 5E all day long.

There is a mathmatical standard out there about the "baseline" damage being a Warlock who starts with a 16 Charisma and Hex and takes ASIs at 4th and 8th level. That is considered the "normal" or average damage for a damage dealer. The 14 fighter you mention can easily do half of that baseline all day long and that is without even trying to optimize. If you optimize that fighter who starts with a 14 strength and dexterity will equal or beat that baseline.

Half that Warlock Baseline is below the baseline.

Optimizing both Str based Melee and Dex based Range at the same time take so many class resources that you wont finish until late Tier3 an not be able to take flavor picks.

No you don't, at least not if the DM follows the guidelines for difficulty.

5E is extremely forgiving and because of that a comparitavely low roll character is mathematically still competent.

Yes,competent as a defender or blocker. Your damage will suck if you don't take damage feats or focus on ASI on a starting 14.

Not true and I routinely play martials at high level that never get beyond a 16 in their attack stat, including several 20th level games. As a matter of fact I personally usually do not making my attack stat higher than a 16 at all on a martial, I am usually boosting a spell casting stat first, or taking feats that give me spells.

Sure. With feats and fighting style.
My point is you can't do 2 types of fighting at once unless they use the same score or same feats or are a ranger.
PHB pg 70. WellRounded Specialists The fighter wasdesigned as a specialist. Barbarian, paladin, and monk too. Only the ranger and roguecan afford to be versatile.

That was a mistake.

This is completely false in 5E. It may have been true in other versions, but it is no longer the case.

Still the case. There is still an accuracy curve. A very forgiving one but it is still there. There are many ways to keep on curve or pass it but the game expectsan offensive character to move on it with starting stats, ASI, feats, magic items, or boons.

 

[cbwjm]

Not true and I routinely play martials at high level that never get beyond a 16 in their attack stat, including several 20th level games. As a matter of fact I personally usually do not making my attack stat higher than a 16 at all on a martial, I am usually boosting a spell casting stat first, or taking feats that give me spells.

16 is often, not always, where I stop on a martial, you don't really need to go further due to bounded accuracy. A higher stat helps but isn't a requirement, though I think the last fighter I made had an 18 and I wasn't really intending to go beyond that.

 

[M_Natas]

I’m still planting my flag firmly in the “Sorcerers should use CON rather than CHA” hill and I’m not backing down. After all, their magic comes from within them; it’s a part of their life essence. That screams Constitution to me.

But Con is useful in game (as Charisma) - it should be a "useless" abilitiy score comparable to intelligence for wizards. So make that Strength.
Sorcerers should use their strength score.

Because all classes need main stat + Con. If Con is the mainstat you make it too easy.

 

[DEFCON 1]

There are many ways to keep on curve or pass it but the game expects an offensive character to move on it with starting stats, ASI, feats, magic items, or boons.

Does the game expect it, or does a specific DM with how they run their game expect it?

In my opinion there's not a single rule in the entire game that can be universally applied so that every single players says "Yep, that's exactly what's happening." It's never the case. For every "universal truth" about D&D that someone throws out... there will be any number of people who will honestly be able to say that that supposed truth is actually false as far as they are concerned. Even if someone tries their hardest to justify the truth with "Well, if you play RAW and don't make any changes, then the game will do X, Y, and Z, which means you have to do A, B, and C in reaction"... that doesn't take into account the idiosyncrasies of how that specific DM runs their game (even supposedly "RAW") and how those idiosyncrasies affect or change the results at their table compared to some other DM.

One table has only a single PC with healing magic, the other table has almost every single PC with healing magic. Boom-- all the numbers of combat and balance are now screwed up compared to each other and there's no "universal truth" to be made on how D&D combat runs. One table goes all Human, the other table goes all species with Darkvision. Boom-- exploration is now all screwed up compared to each other and there's no "universal truth" to be made on how easy or difficult D&D exploration runs. One table does all their social work verbally at the table and few to no CHA checks are made, the other table doesn't care what actually is said and all that matters is the several CHA checks that are made to convince NPCs to do things. Boom-- all the reactions and communications between characters and NPCs are now screwed up compared to each other and there's no "universal truth" to be made on how the social pillar runs in D&D. And every single one of those tables could still be playing "RAW".

At no point should anyone ever bother saying "You HAVE to do X" when it comes to something in D&D... because it's just not true. What they should be saying is "I have to do X" because it's what their perspective of the game is telling them and how they are reacting to that perspective. But it's not universal... it's idiosyncratic.

 

[Minigiant]

Does the game expect it, or does a specific DM with how they run their game expect it?

I mean the DMG encounter design has increasing AC with CR.

 

[Minigiant]

But Con is useful in game (as Charisma) - it should be a "useless" abilitiy score comparable to intelligence for wizards. So make that Strength.
Sorcerers should use their strength score.

Because all classes need main stat + Con. If Con is the mainstat you make it too easy.

Well every class shouldn't need CON.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Well every class shouldn't need CON.

Every class doesn't need CON. Combat in WotC 5e isn't so tough that one or two extra hit points per level are vital to survivability.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

I mean the DMG encounter design has increasing AC with CR.

I think you mean the Creating a Monster section (DMG pg 273).

In that section, it is true that they have the table that has increasing ACs from 13 to 19 matching up with CRs between 0 and 30.

They also offer this caveat:

Don't worry if the monster's AC isn't matching up with the expected challenge rating for the monster. Other factors can affect a monster's challenge rating, as shown in later steps.

 

[Minigiant]

Every class doesn't need CON. Combat in WotC 5e isn't so tough that one or two extra hit points per level are vital to survivability.

This is true. But people act that way.

Because the ability scores aren't evenly important.

 

[Minigiant]

I think you mean the Creating a Monster section (DMG pg 273).

In that section, it is true that they have the table that has increasing ACs from 13 to 19 matching up with CRs between 0 and 30.

They also offer this caveat:

Don't worry if the monster's AC isn't matching up with the expected challenge rating for the monster. Other factors can affect a monster's challenge rating, as shown in later steps.

Well for the monsters with below average AC has high than normal HP which still encourages specialization.