What 5e got wrong

[doctorbadwolf]

The thing I think 5e did wrong were small...

the warlock... every other caster in the book plays nice with caster level when multi classing, except the warlock

the battle master fighter it is a good start but more powerful and maybe even boarder line supernatural manuvers at higher levels should have been int here

I would have been really dissapointed had the warlock had the same spell system as every other caster. I'm also disapointed that the sorcerer isn't more like the warlock than like he wizard.

IMO, the problem with the warlock is sticking with the pacts, instead of treating the warlock like the rogue to the wizard's fighter, and having the warlock be the class that used various "hacked" rituals, including pacts, to jack into magical power sources, thus having a combination of raw blasting power, the kind of magic usually reserved for magical creatures, and ritual style stuff like curses, calling forth otherwordly beings and powers, binding stuff, etc.

IT comes close in feel, but I'd like at least one "patron" option that doesn't actually have a patron, and instead is flavored as above. Warlocks as magical hackers taking shortcuts and taking huge risks by breaking what are actually very sensible safety related rules, is much more interesting to me than "guy who sold his soul for power, but doesn't necessarily know a damn thing about magic on his own."

 

[TheCosmicKid]

My bad, I meant investigation, not insight. I dunno, maybe our group spends a lot of time in out of combat things, like doing research into the area before we just march blinding into it. History, arcana, and investigation checks are very common in our games.

Sure. But Stealth and Acrobatics checks are very common in a lot of games too, and Dexterity still gets to add to AC, initiative, ranged attacks, and a frequently-used saving throw. I'm not saying Intelligence is completely useless. I'm saying that Intelligence is underpowered compared to other scores and to itself in previous editions.

 

[TheCosmicKid]

I would have been really dissapointed had the warlock had the same spell system as every other caster. I'm also disapointed that the sorcerer isn't more like the warlock than like he wizard.

IMO, the problem with the warlock is sticking with the pacts, instead of treating the warlock like the rogue to the wizard's fighter, and having the warlock be the class that used various "hacked" rituals, including pacts, to jack into magical power sources, thus having a combination of raw blasting power, the kind of magic usually reserved for magical creatures, and ritual style stuff like curses, calling forth otherwordly beings and powers, binding stuff, etc.

IT comes close in feel, but I'd like at least one "patron" option that doesn't actually have a patron, and instead is flavored as above. Warlocks as magical hackers taking shortcuts and taking huge risks by breaking what are actually very sensible safety related rules, is much more interesting to me than "guy who sold his soul for power, but doesn't necessarily know a damn thing about magic on his own."

You seem to be describing a wizard.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sure. But Stealth and Acrobatics checks are very common in a lot of games too, and Dexterity still gets to add to AC, initiative, ranged attacks, and a frequently-used saving throw. I'm not saying Intelligence is completely useless. I'm saying that Intelligence is underpowered compared to other scores and to itself in previous editions.

Again, depends on what you're playing (INT is certainly a lot more important for a caster) and what style of game you're playing. For example, in our games, investigation and history checks come up WAY more often than stealth or acrobatics do.

Just because one stat has more things it impacts, doesn't mean it impacts more things in the actual game. THAT is entirely dependent on what sort of game you're running.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, but did he say that?

He might have said "anyone" rather than "everyone," or something, but yes. It was rather a memorable quote because of the flowery phrasing. It was in one of the L&Ls following the announcement of Next. He also said some pretty improbable things about not only supporting multiple styles, but letting people play characters in the style of the edition they liked best at the same table.

Now, he didn't come out and say that they were rolling rev because 4e had failed to please everyone, nor did he promise that Next would please everyone, but he did say that it was meant to be D&D for everyone who had ever loved D&D, and a lot of us did observe how effing impossible that sounded...

 

[Einlanzer0]

No, they don't. Your attributes tell you what to add to a D20 roll when you try to do something, nothing more.

D&D is not some PVP video game where ALL things need to be equal to prevent someone from geting an unfair advantage.

This line of thought goes along with the people not being able to cope with other chartacters being able to so the same thing they can but better, in a co-operative game.

The point flew over your head, but I don't agree with you regardless.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Since DM's apply the mechanical rules differently at different tables, I don't see any mechanical framework as being really able to enforce equality of ability scores. Even if you loot PoE's mechanics wholesale, nothin' stops an individual adventure or quest from completely ignoring INT or CON or whatever and focusing on other ability scores. The PoE wiki itself admits that CON, for instance, is rarely relevant in dialog. A conversation-heavy adventure wouldn't use the ability score much, so it could be safely "dumped" by a character playing through that adventure.

Combat is key. Con doesn't play a vital role in dialogue because it doesn't need to; it's universally important when it comes to combat. The point I was making is that the ability scores should be as equal as possible when it comes to combat mechanics, because those are the only rules that are extremely fleshed-out and detailed; they are far less subject to DM interpretation.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

The point flew over your head, but I don't agree with you regardless.

Translation: You are too ignorant to understand why I am right so I have dismissed your argument entirely.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Why? Just because you think they should? Or do you have a logically valid argument leading to the conclusion that such mechanical balance should be the case? You accuse Sacrosanct of fallacious reasoning (though you don't point out exactly what fallacy he is guilty of) while resorting to question begging yourself.

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

I'm not begging the question. The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance when there are overt gaps in usefulness between the stats. It creates a clunky system where you have to hog-tie class specific mechanics to emphasize "weak stats" for certain classes, which in turn leads to goofy build non-options and pigeonholing game-play. For example, playing a high-Int fighter typically requires making a suboptimal character, because Fighters get very little value from the Int stat. As a result, you almost never see high-Int fighters, despite the fact that if it were the real world, one's Intelligence would definitely play a role in how effective a fighter they were. The same is true regarding Str for wizards. If you're in combat, physical strength and reflexes are going to be important.

The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and you can build a diverse array of potential characters without gimping their ability to support a party.

A good way to handle Int, as an example, would be to tie some type of Tactics mechanic to it, which may work something like how Hero Points work in the normal rules. This would serve as an incentive to buff up Int instead of, say, Con.

 

[OldSkoolRPG]

https://1d4chan.org/wiki/Oberoni_Fallacy

I'm not begging the question. The reason for this is obvious - it's bad for game balance when there are overt gaps in usefulness between the stats. The ideal way to design a game is for every stat to carry unique mechanical benefits irrespective of class, so that character building is engaging and character builds are diverse.

ROFLMFAO. Did you really just quote me a fictional fallacy created in a RPG forum?!? Since you are obviously not informed on actual logical fallacies let me educate you on what question begging is. It is when you make an argument which presupposes the conclusion. Example: It is bad design for there to be gaps in stat usefulness because ideal design is for stats to be beneficial regardless of class, i.e. what you just did!

Edit: OP edited the quoted post while I was responding apparently thinking if he made it longer and more complex it would hide the fundamental question begging but it all boils down to "bad design = stats that aren't equally useful to all classes and good design = stats equally useful regardless of class because I said so."