D&D General What Is D&D Generally Bad At That You Wish It Was Better At?

[Reynard]

Note 1: This is D&D General, so I am talking about things that D&D (in its core rules in particularly) has always been sort of bad at (in your opinion). It is not about what 5E or AD&D or any other specific edition or version of the game is bad at.

Note 2: Of course "generally bad at" is subjective and some folks are going to disagree on these things. Awesome! Disagreements build discussions. But remember EN World's rules and overall just aim for "discussion" over "argument" please.

Note 3: Similarly, "Better at" is also subjective, so when folks inevitably suggest fixes, be open minded.

For example, I think D&D is historically pretty bad at "courtly intrigue." It is a staple of both historical and fantastical fiction, but there has never really been a mechanism in D&D that aids with courtly intrigue. This is a subset of the broader lack of decent social interaction rules, but I am calling out courtly intrigue just because it is a staple of the genre(s) D&D purports to be at least adjacent to. I have tried a few different fixes in various editions, from integrating others game system to developing "social combat" rules, and none of it has ever really worked. i think part of that is because in most versions of D&D, there just aren't any mechanical bits defining characters outside of exploration and combat. it would be cool if one day the social pillar got more support,a nd specifically things like courtly intrigue.

What do you think? What aspect of play or element of the game do you feel like D&D is not generally good at and you wish it were? And how?

 

[Voadam]

Non-magical hero options.

Thieves in OD&D, AD&D, and Basic were completely second class combat characters compared to everybody else and were pretty terrible at non-magical skills.

Fighters were OK, with decent attacks and sturdyness in the pre 3e era, but were kind of dependent on magic items to really shine although in AD&D to have great strength scores, later on the huge boost of specialization, and in some versions two weapon fighting you could do really well out of the gate (unless you hit any of the many monsters that require magic to hit). In 1e non-magical fighters were second class though to the magical fighter paladins and rangers who got everything fighter plus special bonuses.

In 5e there are a ton of spellcasting and magical classes and just the fighter and rogue for base non-magical classes, and even those have explicitly magical subclasses. Plus many races have magic and a lot of the feats give magic. You kind of have to really want to plan on being non-magical to get such a 5e character.

4e was probably the best for this with the ability to do a whole competent and balanced martial party and to use inherent bonuses to go without magic items and have the default math work.

 

[Retreater]

I wish it was better with not requiring certain character archetypes. For example, a party without access to healing magic is going to struggle. In my experience, finding someone who wants to play a cleric is a challenge.
Even in 4E with healing surges, the party couldn't get "up to speed" during a fight. You'd have the ability to heal 25% of your HP once per fight (giving up your action).

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Focusing people on what it does best and letting them know there are other games out there that are better at other things.

Yes, I know that's not an easy ask in a capitalist system, but I think it would help the game if we used it for what it is particularly suited for in relation to other RPGs and not for what it's not.

 

[Steampunkette]

Non-Magical Hero options is a big thing, yeah. Also social and exploration pillars are woefully underformed.

My big one is recognizing it's a game system for telling stories and just going with it, rather than ignoring that reality to try and elevate things.

Short and Long rests, for example. They're mechanics for system recovery and trying to map them to the passage of time rather than have them just be recovery mechanics was definitely 'a choice'. Hit points often being meat rather than luck or bruises is another great example of the other half of the same coin.

Rather than Death Saves they should've given out wounds after you run out of HP... 3 or 4 wounds when you're out of HP and you're dead. Then have wounds stick around beyond (whatever replaces) long rests until you get proper medical care and/or stronger healing magic. Healing potions to get rid of the bumps and bruises that you get as your HP drops, but no real -harm- until you get hit at 0hp.

(To be clear, no death spiral, but lingering 'failed death saves', essentially)

Also guns and firearms. Yes. Guns kill people. So do swords. The difference is in the ease of use, not the damage dealing being somehow insanely higher. And both are meant to be in a game, so making guns ridiculously powerful, expensive, and rare as 'balancing mechanics' is just silly. Let the pirate have a gun that deals relatively normal damage for use in boarding actions rather than it being some ridiculous treasure that kills the Wizard in one shot.

The main recommended solutions are:

1) Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition.
Adds in some social and a fairly solid exploration system. There's also some more Nonmagical classes. Like the Marshal and the Savant. Especially including the Voidrunner's Codex which adds Scientists, Scouts, and Troopers as even more nonmagical classes! Yeah, you might need some fluffery skills to adapt those to a more traditional fantasy setting... but they'll work just fine.

The Scout, in particular, is a really cool blend of Bardic Inspiration used for being an absolute jerk to people while ditching spellcasting for combat maneuvers and being a smarmy scoundrel hero type.

2) 3rd Party
There's tons of good third party content out there. Especially for A5e. I even make some of it, myself.

 

[Zardnaar]

Rangers.

Hot mess design wise. Overpowered (1E, Gloomstalker) or meh (2E, 3.0, Beastmaster)or doesn't feel right (3.5, 4E).

All over the place design wise.

 

[Theory of Games]

Note 1: This is D&D General, so I am talking about things that D&D (in its core rules in particularly) has always been sort of bad at (in your opinion). It is not about what 5E or AD&D or any other specific edition or version of the game is bad at.

Note 2: Of course "generally bad at" is subjective and some folks are going to disagree on these things. Awesome! Disagreements build discussions. But remember EN World's rules and overall just aim for "discussion" over "argument" please.

Note 3: Similarly, "Better at" is also subjective, so when folks inevitably suggest fixes, be open minded.

For example, I think D&D is historically pretty bad at "courtly intrigue." It is a staple of both historical and fantastical fiction, but there has never really been a mechanism in D&D that aids with courtly intrigue. This is a subset of the broader lack of decent social interaction rules, but I am calling out courtly intrigue just because it is a staple of the genre(s) D&D purports to be at least adjacent to. I have tried a few different fixes in various editions, from integrating others game system to developing "social combat" rules, and none of it has ever really worked. i think part of that is because in most versions of D&D, there just aren't any mechanical bits defining characters outside of exploration and combat. it would be cool if one day the social pillar got more support,a nd specifically things like courtly intrigue.

What do you think? What aspect of play or element of the game do you feel like D&D is not generally good at and you wish it were? And how?

What do you mean by "courtly intrigue"? Talking to the nobles? How was D&D bad at that?

For me, up until Pathfinder arrived, I saw all editions lacking in options. Races, classes, weapons, equipment, skills. There just wasn't enough there, compared to GURPS Dungeon Fantasy. But, PF did a fantastic job of providing an incredible wealth of options that enables groups to explore the many genres of Fantasy. Thank you, Paizo.

 

[Remathilis]

Horror.

D&D doesn't handle real horror well because after 5th level, everyone D&D is a Big Damn Hero. D&D handles action-movie horror like Castlevania, but not real horror unless you are house rulling it into oblivion.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Mass Combat

 

[overgeeked]

Depends entirely on the edition.

The low-hanging fruit is non-combat options. TSR editions have more options, but not great ones. 4E tried with skill challenges, but flubbed it so bad even mentioning skill challenges causes a visceral negative reaction in many. 4E was great at splitting combat from non-combat options with skill powers and rituals, but in general it was so combat focused that you had to go out of your way to find non-combat stuff. BECMI and AD&D had domain play, mass combat, and all the rest, so that was at least something. But again, they weren’t the best. Then there’s all the downtime stuff, monster harvesting, crafting, etc. For a game some people want to use as a fantasy life sim, there’s a whole lot missing from the game.

But honestly, combat. D&D could do combat so much better. It’s a monster fighting game at its heart (at least it is since WotC took over), and yet D&D has some of the most grindy, boring combat of any RPG. 5E is infamous for having most monsters be big bags of hit points. It’s a no brainer for a 3PP to make a monster book because official 5E monsters are so boring. Unsurprisingly 4E nailed monster and encounter design, but also made combat insanely grindy and sloggy. So something like 4E monster and encounter design with the speed of play of B/X would be amazing.