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

[Pedantic]

I've said as much in other forms before, but the number one thing I don't want to see in an RPG is a list of generic task difficulties or a scaling table of appropriate difficulties by level. Those are design side tools, most appropriate for a chapter on rules customization in the latter half of the DMG (or better yet, the DMG2). Skills should be self-contained lists of abilities, such that rolling is a test to try and activate an ability outside your natural range or a directly opposed test.

 

[Reynard]

I've said as much in other forms before, but the number one thing I don't want to see in an RPG is a list of generic task difficulties or a scaling table of appropriate difficulties by level. Those are design side tools, most appropriate for a chapter on rules customization in the latter half of the DMG (or better yet, the DMG2). Skills should be self-contained lists of abilities, such that rolling is a test to try and activate an ability outside your natural range or a directly opposed test.

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying there shouldn't be a list of typical DCs for typical actions? If so, how would the GM know how to adjudicate success?

 

[Pedantic]

I'm not sure what you mean. Are you saying there shouldn't be a list of typical DCs for typical actions? If so, how would the GM know how to adjudicate success?

Such lists should be self-contained to a given skill. It's a DC X check to climb a rough wall, a DC Y to climb a smooth wall, a DC Z to just have a 30 ft climb speed and a DC Q to fight with one hand while clinging upside down from a ceiling, here's a list of modifiers for ambient conditions, etc.

No reference to an "Easy" or "Very Hard" challenge, either as a generic statement or in a level based table. A player asking for the DC of a check should be asking a rules expert for clarification about the manual, not for the DM to assign one, or maybe clarifying the description of the scene.

 

[Moonmover]

I don't want to have to put my suit of armor together piece-by-piece. I'm never going to play a character who is just wearing gauntlets and greaves or whatever. If I am buying a suit of armor, just let me buy the entire suit of armor. I don't want to see "left pauldron" or whatever on your equipment list.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Bathroom breaks.

 

[Reynard]

Such lists should be self-contained to a given skill. It's a DC X check to climb a rough wall, a DC Y to climb a smooth wall, a DC Z to just have a 30 ft climb speed and a DC Q to fight with one hand while clinging upside down from a ceiling, here's a list of modifiers for ambient conditions, etc.

No reference to an "Easy" or "Very Hard" challenge, either as a generic statement or in a level based table. A player asking for the DC of a check should be asking a rules expert for clarification about the manual, not for the DM to assign one, or maybe clarifying the description of the scene.

I understand now, and agree.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Such lists should be self-contained to a given skill. It's a DC X check to climb a rough wall, a DC Y to climb a smooth wall, a DC Z to just have a 30 ft climb speed and a DC Q to fight with one hand while clinging upside down from a ceiling, here's a list of modifiers for ambient conditions, etc.

No reference to an "Easy" or "Very Hard" challenge, either as a generic statement or in a level based table. A player asking for the DC of a check should be asking a rules expert for clarification about the manual, not for the DM to assign one, or maybe clarifying the description of the scene.

I respect that you want that, but definitely disagree. I think those are essential tools for the kinds of D&D games I enjoy

 

[Umbran]

To be blunt? You're very clearly cherry-picking.

Mod note:
To be blunt, your being blunt is probably not convincing anyone, and is generating a bunch of reports. You may want to reconsider your approach to your fellow posters.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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.

The majority of MC builds are less powerful than single class builds in the same niche/role.

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.

That isn’t even really “abuse”, it just causes the ability to not work as intended when multiclassing.

The fact that the designers are accommodating false concerns of phantom balance issues is a separate problem, IMO. I mean, being a sturdy tiny creature as a Druid is just not OP in any way, and yet they felt the need to gate it at level 11 or whatever like it’s a big deal.

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.

This is probably the biggest disconnect, then. My observation is that there aren’t any mega-OP builds in 5e. Even the ones with questionable rules status like the “coffee-lock” aren’t actually that powerful. D&D hasnt had actually broken player options since 3.5.

#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.

Just ban multiclassing, then? Like I don’t know why you’re allowing it at all with restrictions like this. That’s the biggest thing prompting my “but why tho?” Comment.

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

Dipping isn’t a bad thing, though. If the character makes more sense with 2 levels of fighter, but is very much a Valor Bard (assume swords doesn’t work for the character. Plenty of Valor concepts make no sense spending dice to do cooler attacks rather than to bolster allies) it makes no sense to force them to take more levels of fighter.

Nearly all problem builds are theorycraft that “wreck games” at like 2-3 levels of play at most, and are on par or worse compared to standard builds the rest of the time.

 

[jmartkdr2]

For Dungeons & Dragons? Any rule that tries to be realistic. This game is for fantasy.