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

[AnotherGuy]

If I may, what techniques do you have for helping with this? My group is poised to start Out of the Abyss, so if you have suggestions for how to curtail the excessive utility of spells, it could be useful to my DM. I can certainly say I'm at a loss for how to address various exploration-negating spells without just...negating the spells in turn.

(a) It is the Underdark, flood it with residual corrupting auras which reduces effects (duration, effectiveness, area of effect...etc). Randomise it if easier.
(b) Long Rests require 24 hours of a safe and comfortable rest location.
Inject Travel Rests (8 hours) which provide the benefits of a Short Rest and restore abc but do not offer the full benefits of a Long Rest.
(c) Introduce magic-sickness where excessive exposure to magic has the potential to incur disabilities or inflict magical ailments which require rest time to purify/cleanse.
Things that could affect excessive exposure - potion drinking, exposure to spells - casting or areas of effect, attunement...etc.
DM would need to develop a simple numerical cost to see when a character exceeds normal limits and risks potential ailments.

 

[Voadam]

Still casting spells though. Reflavoring doesn't actually make anything different. That's why I don't like it as a design concept.

I think it can.

I played a 5e vow of glory paladin as a narratively non-magical warrior who did anime style power strikes instead of divine smiting, his lay on hands and casting enhance ability was warlord style inspiration, and his aura was just that he is so great that being around him makes you better.

It worked great for me and my group.

As a DM I allow a lot of reskinning for player options to get specific character concepts (5e druid to be a Werewolf the Apocalypse werewolf, shifter barbarian to be a similar WtA werebear, warforged artificer to be a full on non magical technologist robot, etc.) and it has worked well for me and my groups.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

I don't see a dissonance that can't be overcome. All those things can be survived, after all, or not.

I mean, the dissonance is pretty blatant to me.

Imaro is making two points. First, that it is conceptually unsatisfying that a powerful and resilient adventurer, who has endured dragon's breath and mummy rot and the manipulations of devils and the caprice of fey nobility and (etc., etc., etc.), could die of a completely mundane illness in the span of (presumably) only a few days. This is an incongruity, because the character has clearly survived, even thrived, under far, far greater danger with no meaningful side effects. It's not like we're talking about a person IRL who won wars and survived amputations in their youth only to die of the flu at age 65. This is a character generally in the prime of their life and who has proven herself far superior to much more dangerous threats. Even from a naturalistic logic perspective, there's reason to find this dubious.

And, secondly, an argument I know you are likely to dismiss out of hand, but which really does matter quite a lot for many people: the fact that it is an unsatisfying played experience—an unsatisfying "narrative", if you will—to lose one's powerful, heroic character to something so insultingly banal as a slightly worse than usual head cold.

Just as it would be unsatisfying for the true perpetrator of a grisly murder to be a random stranger who just happened to be walking by, even if such a perpetrator is more "realistic" than one of the named, participating characters in a mystery, because the point of engaging with a mystery as entertainment is being able to solve the mystery yourself, at least in principle. Just as it infamously was unsatisfying and deeply unpopular for the Game of Thrones TV show to trash all or nearly all of the arcs that characters had been building to, merely for the shock factor of doing something unexpected but (at least theoretically...) naturalistic, like Danaerys suddenly descending into madness or Jaime Lannister abandoning the people he's made sacrifices to help because Cersei wooed him back. Just as it would be unsatisfying for, say, a show or movie or book about racing to feature a race where the POV character is disqualified before the race even begins due to a technicality and just...leave it there, even though that is a real thing that certainly happens to a lot of people IRL.

Something being grounded and naturalistic for the everyday lives of completely ordinary human beings on this island Earth is, unfortunately, not at all a guarantee that the experience of playing through such events would be a good one.

 

[Celebrim]

If what you are saying about Gygax is true... why do ever growing hit points exist in older editions?

If pizzas are round, why are doghouses made of pancakes?

Why do Saving Throws for situations that would kill a normal person? Aren't these forms of plot/protagonist armor?

Certainly that's one way to describe them, but the focus is not on the narrative needs of the story, but the simulation of a more skilled or powerful heroes. Consider that 1e AD&D is not a skill-based system, so when we consider something like an improved saving throw versus Death Magic, we are looking at a skill in abstraction. Gygax says, "You can be using any number of heroic skills/abilities to evade Death Magic, but the net outcome is that the more skillful hero is better at evading Death Magic." So while it isn't wrong to see hit points or saving throws as plot armor, they are also and at the same time a simulation of the in-world concept that the hero is special in something other than a narrative sense. They have more willpower, more grit, more luck, more favor of the gods, more knowledge of the arcane arts, more skill with a blade, or are just hardy beyond the ken of ordinary men. Whatever combination of skills concretely explains why they parry aside the killing blow and take a scratch instead, or leap away from the blast at the last moment to a place of comparative shelter, or however they evade in the story is being simulated by improved hit points and saving throws.

I don't think it's as clear cut as you are presenting it...

I don't even understand how you think the questions you raise are problematic to the description I just provided. If anything, if it were true that saving throws and hit points were plot armor in some form, then it would I think only reinforce and prove my point that everyone is trying to emulate heroic fiction. And if your point is that heroes don't die of diphtheria in heroic fiction, then I think you are missing my point, which is that they aren't crushed by rolling boulder traps or eaten by dinosaurs either. And if your character is slain by orc arrows despite heroically hewing down scores of his enemies, well maybe he wasn't ever the protagonist anyway. The point is that if the hero can be tested by fighting a dragon, then you can also test whether a hero can heroically overcome crossing a desert waste, and if it is a test then potential heroes can fail either one. It's not necessarily the case that if you can slay the dragon that the desert waste is an easier test. Sam can vanquish Shelob, but he doesn't have the strength to do more than cross the ash choked wastes of Mordor with no hope of return. Why is this hard to understand? Why should we expect Man against Nature to be a trivial test of the heroic?

 

[Imaro]

If pizzas are round, why are doghouses made of pancakes?

Not even close to what I asked but continue to try and disparage the question as opposed to addressing it.

Certainly that's one way to describe them, but the focus is not on the narrative needs of the story, but the simulation of a more skilled or powerful heroes. Consider that 1e AD&D is not a skill-based system, so when we consider something like an improved saving throw versus Death Magic, we are looking at a skill in abstraction. Gygax says, "You can be using any number of heroic skills/abilities to evade Death Magic, but the net outcome is that the more skillful hero is better at evading Death Magic." So while it isn't wrong to see hit points or saving throws as plot armor, they are also and at the same time a simulation of the in-world concept that the hero is special in something other than a narrative sense. They have more willpower, more grit, more luck, more favor of the gods, more knowledge of the arcane arts, more skill with a blade, or are just hardy beyond the ken of ordinary men. Whatever combination of skills concretely explains why they parry aside the killing blow and take a scratch instead, or leap away from the blast at the last moment to a place of comparative shelter, or however they evade in the story is being simulated by improved hit points and saving throws.

Only he specifically calls out saving throws as encompassing skill but also luck, magical protections, quirks of fate and supernatural aid... so not just a representation of skill but plot protection from heroes like unknown quirks of fate, magical protections and supernatural aid.

Hit points are similarly defined as partially combat skill but with a portion given over to magic/divine aid, luck, sixth sense, etc.

So both clearly represent more than skill...and actually encompass nebulous magic and unknown divine protections which sure seems like plot protection that arent actual in game magic effects.

I don't even understand how you think the questions you raise are problematic to the description I just provided. If anything, if it were true that saving throws and hit points were plot armor in some form, then it would I think only reinforce and prove my point that everyone is trying to emulate heroic fiction. And if your point is that heroes don't die of diphtheria in heroic fiction, then I think you are missing my point, which is that they aren't crushed by rolling boulder traps or eaten by dinosaurs either. And if your character is slain by orc arrows despite heroically hewing down scores of his enemies, well maybe he wasn't ever the protagonist anyway. The point is that if the hero can be tested by fighting a dragon, then you can also test whether a hero can heroically overcome crossing a desert waste, and if it is a test then potential heroes can fail either one. It's not necessarily the case that if you can slay the dragon that the desert waste is an easier test. Sam can vanquish Shelob, but he doesn't have the strength to do more than cross the ash choked wastes of Mordor with no hope of return. Why is this hard to understand? Why should we expect Man against Nature to be a trivial test of the heroic?

My point is that these things don't even come up as challenges in heroic fiction...

 

[Micah Sweet]

I think it can.

I played a 5e vow of glory paladin as a narratively non-magical warrior who did anime style power strikes instead of divine smiting, his lay on hands and casting enhance ability was warlord style inspiration, and his aura was just that he is so great that being around him makes you better.

It worked great for me and my group.

As a DM I allow a lot of reskinning for player options to get specific character concepts (5e druid to be a Werewolf the Apocalypse werewolf, shifter barbarian to be a similar WtA werebear, warforged artificer to be a full on non magical technologist robot, etc.) and it has worked well for me and my groups.

Again, all of those things are magic though, or you're not reskinning, you're changing the rules. Which is fine.

 

[Lanefan]

You don't see how the type of challenges PV's face are connected?

Edit: i have the personal physical or magical power to protect a city or kingdom... but I'm felled by strong rain or not being able to catch a rabbit to eat? That makes sense to you?

Yes, it does make sense.

Still being potentially affected by minor challenges such as bad weather regardless of level-powers-etc. serves to keep the PCs - and the game - more grounded in their surroundings i.e. the setting. To me that's a feature, not a bug.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I mean, the dissonance is pretty blatant to me.

Imaro is making two points. First, that it is conceptually unsatisfying that a powerful and resilient adventurer, who has endured dragon's breath and mummy rot and the manipulations of devils and the caprice of fey nobility and (etc., etc., etc.), could die of a completely mundane illness in the span of (presumably) only a few days. This is an incongruity, because the character has clearly survived, even thrived, under far, far greater danger with no meaningful side effects. It's not like we're talking about a person IRL who won wars and survived amputations in their youth only to die of the flu at age 65. This is a character generally in the prime of their life and who has proven herself far superior to much more dangerous threats. Even from a naturalistic logic perspective, there's reason to find this dubious.

And, secondly, an argument I know you are likely to dismiss out of hand, but which really does matter quite a lot for many people: the fact that it is an unsatisfying played experience—an unsatisfying "narrative", if you will—to lose one's powerful, heroic character to something so insultingly banal as a slightly worse than usual head cold.

Just as it would be unsatisfying for the true perpetrator of a grisly murder to be a random stranger who just happened to be walking by, even if such a perpetrator is more "realistic" than one of the named, participating characters in a mystery, because the point of engaging with a mystery as entertainment is being able to solve the mystery yourself, at least in principle. Just as it infamously was unsatisfying and deeply unpopular for the Game of Thrones TV show to trash all or nearly all of the arcs that characters had been building to, merely for the shock factor of doing something unexpected but (at least theoretically...) naturalistic, like Danaerys suddenly descending into madness or Jaime Lannister abandoning the people he's made sacrifices to help because Cersei wooed him back. Just as it would be unsatisfying for, say, a show or movie or book about racing to feature a race where the POV character is disqualified before the race even begins due to a technicality and just...leave it there, even though that is a real thing that certainly happens to a lot of people IRL.

Something being grounded and naturalistic for the everyday lives of completely ordinary human beings on this island Earth is, unfortunately, not at all a guarantee that the experience of playing through such events would be a good one.

You're right, I will dismiss the gamist argument personally. I'm sure it matters to some people though.

 

[TwoSix]

Again, all of those things are magic though, or you're not reskinning, you're changing the rules. Which is fine.

But how much rule changing is actually required to turn a paladin from "using divine spells" to "just generically awesome?"

I would argue not that much, outside of some targeted interactions like counterspell and dispel magic.

 

[TwoSix]

Yes, it does make sense.

Still being potentially affected by minor challenges such as bad weather regardless of level-powers-etc. serves to keep the PCs - and the game - more grounded in their surroundings i.e. the setting. To me that's a feature, not a bug.

I mean, you can absolutely have a game where 12th level characters have to worry about things like diseases, food and water, and the weather, and a second game where being that powerful means those concerns are utterly trivial, even within the same game engine (with some minor house rules).

Those are differences, ultimately, of the design of the setting aesthetic. And of the narrative that you think that higher levels should represent.