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

[Voadam]

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.

It went very smoothly and those edge cases never came up for my character. I mostly mechanically used spells for smites anyway and the maybe once I used an enhance ability spell it was not targeted with a dispel. Sensing evil was my character literally sniffing and saying something like "Hold up, I smell demon stench."

 

[Lanefan]

Thanks very much, I’ll try and get used to using such a… “classic” medium again; I haven’t used a forum since I was a moody teenager on DeviantArt.
You’re not wrong though, I suspect what I’m looking for is realism in a game that isn’t about that any more, because dying in the trenches from dysentery isn’t much fun, and roleplaying that probably isn’t much fun either. I guess I’m looking for stakes, really. The 5 players pretty much steamrolled a reduced threat Otyugh (CR3), a Vine Blight (CR1), and a handful of giant rats and rat swarms at level TWO, which was… a relief, but I would like them to have a slightly grittier experience.

If you want to put disease into the game as a challenge or obstacle then my recommendation is that you also put some sort of more-or-less-accessible mechanism into the game to overcome it. 1e had Cure Disease as a specific spell, other systems have herbs or skills or other means of curing disease that the PCs have to find-access-buy if they need such.

Another way to game-mechanically look at disease is as a type of slow-onset temporary (as in maybe a few days duration) poison, except that it's potentially contagious to others. That allows you to use the poison mechanics, such as they are, to abstract disease.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

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

It wasn't a gamist argument, though. It was a narrativist one. (The gamist argument would be about how mechanical design is needlessly laborious if things which serve different functions are forced to always use identical components; you wouldn't design an engine and a sprinkler system using 100% identical components.)

The narrativist argument is that the intended experience of playing the game, and the role within that experience that specific components play, needs to actually...serve that experience. It needs to make the experience satisfying and rewarding in and of itself. It's the same source as things like Chekhov's Gun. I even expressly said "an unsatisfying 'narrative', if you will" for a reason; this argument is about the story, the play-feel, the thematics of the experience.

Gamist arguments are about the mechanics themselves. We use the unrealistic to-hit and AC mechanics because actually modeling the real physical process of attacking a target in melee combat would be horrendously tedious while adding effectively nothing at all to the actual process. (See, for instance, the tedium of 3e's grapple rules.) That's a gamist argument. Conversely, a narrativist argument might be that we have classes because there is a more engaging story to be gained from making clear, measurable progress toward ultimate mastery, than there is in tiny incremental gains that only slowly coalesce into something better or stronger, even though the latter is much more like how people actually learn and develop.

 

[Lanefan]

If what you are saying about Gygax is true... why do ever growing hit points exist in older editions? Why do Saving Throws for situations that would kill a normal person? Aren't these forms of plot/protagonist armor?

They are, but only to a point. You can fail a save. You can run out of hit points. They're helpful as plot armour, but they're not guaranteed to bail you out every time.

The type of plot armour a typical novel or movie protagonist has is guaranteed, and that's the difference: some people seem to want (or worse, expect) the game to give their PCs that same sort of guaranteed can't-fail plot armour. And if I were to go on to say exactly what I think of that some red mod-text would surely follow, so I'll just stop there....

 

[Lanefan]

Well then I'll assume you aren't arguing for mundane threats being more dangerous or even just as dangerous as a fire/poison/lightning/frost/etc breathing 15 ft long flying lizard that can cast magic.

Immediately as dangerous, as in it'll kill you right now? No.

But a diseased character might notice ongoing effects in the field while trying to push through it e.g. weakness (down x-amount of Str and-or Con points with associated effects) or reduced combat effectiveness (penalty to-hit and-or damage in melee) or blurry thinking (small chance of failure on casting any spell), etc. That's where mechanics like this can and will have an effect; they don't kill the character but they do weaken it, and thus make it easier for other things to kill it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

Can you explain this? Its like claiming having Hercules catch a disease and die from the swamp he fought the hydra in would somehow ground him in Mythic Greece better. I just don't get it.

 

[TwoSix]

Can you explain this? Its like claiming having Hercules catch a disease and die from the swamp he fought the hydra in would somehow ground him in Mythic Greece better. I just don't get it.

Well, it's somewhat tautological.

Those mechanics help ground the character in the setting BECAUSE the intention is to have a setting where even high-level characters are still mortal who can be humbled by mundane bad luck.

 

[Lanefan]

Can you explain this? Its like claiming having Hercules catch a disease and die from the swamp he fought the hydra in would somehow ground him in Mythic Greece better. I just don't get it.

First off: diseases don't necessarily have to be fatal in themselves. Most aren't.

That said, Hercules catching a cold after walking through a few days of rain serves to remind the reader-viewer that he's still (part) human, and subject to the same issues as the rest of us. It makes him relatable as a person.

 

[Imaro]

They are, but only to a point. You can fail a save. You can run out of hit points. They're helpful as plot armour, but they're not guaranteed to bail you out every time.

The type of plot armour a typical novel or movie protagonist has is guaranteed, and that's the difference: some people seem to want (or worse, expect) the game to give their PCs that same sort of guaranteed can't-fail plot armour. And if I were to go on to say exactly what I think of that some red mod-text would surely follow, so I'll just stop there....

But my argument isn't for impenetrable plot armour... its for moving past trivial, mundane challenges to more appropriate ones for what a character is capable of.

There's a reason you go from it being hard fighting a few goblins at 1st level to being able to take on a dragon at 5th level... im arguing the same should be true of hazzards, diseases and environmental dangers.

 

[Imaro]

First off: diseases don't necessarily have to be fatal in themselves. Most aren't.

That said, Hercules catching a cold after walking through a few days of rain serves to remind the reader-viewer that he's still (part) human, and subject to the same issues as the rest of us. It makes him relatable as a person.

I think him acting human is what makes him relatable... not catching a cold. That just makes me go huh? How does this demigod hero thing work again?