D&D General What do you NOT want systems for?

[Cadence]

I want a system for stats and rolling for mental/social challenges, and I really don't want rousing speeches at the table. But I don't think it's enough in social settings to say "I investigate it" or "I persuade them" any more than it is to say "I attack" without saying what you're attacking with and who you're attacking, and things like flanking and using movement to get out of range or the like mattering. I go to the estate and ask questions feels different than I go to the front door and harangue the butler which feels different from trying to bribe the delivery person into letting you make the run so you can try to pick up gossip from the servants.

One of my reasons for diliking INT, WIS, CHR is that the worldview that would come from boiling each of those down to a single number (picture the insult tied to lacking one of those) in the real world annoys me a lot more than doing the same thing with the physical ones (picture the insult tied to lacking one of those). If I imagine groups of kids giving stats to the other kids in their high school - it's the handing out of the mental three that feels particularly gross. And I wonder if it's setting it up where a kid thinks they're only 6 INT and 5 CHR in real life and will never do well at anything in school or have real friends. I think I'd rather have everything except perception and willpower sluffed off to the skills (different macro fields of study, different macro social skills, etc...) with just a +0 as the base of one of the remaining abilities didn't matter.

This also kind of makes me feel better than the current way the mental three cover different things. Which stat does willpower go with in each addition? Why is someone seductive also good at intimidating the charging ogre into stopping, convincing the king to surrender, be a standup comedian, and able to resist the Ilithid's mind control? (For this thing about ability scores doing too much, dex is the physical one that annoys me most and I would split).

Finally, being human, my brain whatabouts sometimes, and did so when the ableism was brought up above. I'm now wondering how screen reader friendly ENWorld is and how many folks on here give meaningful captions to their posted images. Do we have participants using screen readers so I definitely should start captioning? Would we have more if we all did. And that segues me to thinking about the thread I started on TotM. Does the choice of VTT without ample narration disadvantage some players? From that thread we know that choice of TotM when there is any tactical complexity doesn't work for some. And now I want to Google what the good VTTs do for accessibility.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

…, and I (for one) think that D&D should have things that are for players other than me. I see a lot of the opposite around here sometimes, and it always makes me sad.

I agree 100%. There are lots of rules for D&D (almost all of them really) that we don’t need, but I want them there for those who do want them

 

[Edgar Ironpelt]

Two of my big do-not-wants are:
1. Critical hit and fumble rules.
2. PCs other than the old-school human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, and half-elf.

 

[Horwath]

Social abilities and skills shouldn’t be in the game. That’s what roleplaying is for.

Some people like combat aspect of the game, some people like puzzles/exploration and some people like roleplaying/social part of the game most.

Do I have to go through a 2 year HEMA course if I want to play a fighter?

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Two of my big do-not-wants are:
1. Critical hit and fumble rules.
2. PCs other than the old-school human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome, half-orc, and half-elf.

So. How do we square this with the fact that dragonborn and tiefling are more popular than over half the things on your list?

Because, from how you said this, it's hard to see any other end result but telling those folks (including yours truly) that their preferences aren't welcome in D&D and they should game elsewhere so you don't have to deal with seeing the things they like. Because it's not like you have to use or play or even look at those things if you don't like them; your problem is that they exist at all, not that they are in some way forced upon you.

 

[Reynard]

So. How do we square this with the fact that dragonborn and tiefling are more popular than over half the things on your list?

Because, from how you said this, it's hard to see any other end result but telling those folks (including yours truly) that their preferences aren't welcome in D&D and they should game elsewhere so you don't have to deal with seeing the things they like. Because it's not like you have to use or play or even look at those things if you don't like them; your problem is that they exist at all, not that they are in some way forced upon you.

You know, treating a simple answer to the thread topic as a direct personal attack is not really conducive to civil discourse.

 

[mamba]

So. How do we square this with the fact that dragonborn and tiefling are more popular than over half the things on your list?

we don’t, and there is no need to. They can like whatever they want

 

[Gorck]

But why tho?

I've never been a fan of multi-classing to begin with because it leads to all the broken builds. WotC has a hard enough time balancing individual classes against each other, and this imbalance just gets exacerbated when multi-classing gets involved. As a result, some of the design decisions I've seen in One D&D so far seem to be with the intent of curtailing multi-classing abuse. These abuse concerns have weakened potential class abilities that could have been so much better otherwise. For instance, there's nothing inherently wrong with using Proficiency Bonus as an ability limiter since it is steady, consistent increase, as opposed to the sporadic increase of Ability Score Modifiers. But using PB leads to abuse because your PB increases independently of specific classes.

In my list, #1 was an attempt to limit mega-overpowered builds, as the more classes used creates more power imbalance. A good example of this is the Fighter 5/ Rogue 3/ Ranger 3 with Extra Attack and Action Surge, coupled with the Assassin's Assassinate ability and the Gloom Stalker's Dread Ambusher Ability.

#2 was an attempt to avoid the Charisma class abuse (Bard, Paladin, Sorcerer, and/or Warlock) that a lot of multi-classers tend to gravitate toward. It limits mulit-classing to the core 4 classes of Cleric, Fighter, Rogue and Wizard.

#3 was a clean and simple way to avoid dipping. If you must multi-class, commit to it fully.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You know, treating a simple answer to the thread topic as a direct personal attack is not really conducive to civil discourse.

Alright? I'm not the one who said that if they had their druthers, well-liked player options would be excluded from the game simply so they don't have to see them.

 

[Reynard]

Alright? I'm not the one who said that if they had their druthers, well-liked player options would be excluded from the game simply so they don't have to see them.

No, you're the one who interpreted it that way. I just can't figure out why you would rather be angry than just keep scrolling.