D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[Nemesis Destiny]

Nice parting shot- if we didn't care, we wouldn't discuss this.

Yes, WE care. I'm talking about the customers that are gone for good. It would make no sense for WotC to chase away their current supporters only to fail to win back folks that have already abandoned them for good.

* to beperfectly clear, I'd be fine with 4Ed style skills if there were more of them. No need to change the mechanics, just bring back the missing ones.

I'd like to see that as well.... as long as they remain strictly optional. I want to have them. I just don't want them competing with other things, and I think this is where the heart of the divide lies between our points of view, nor one which we are likely to reconcile.

Besides, as I've maintained all along... the mechanics are already there. Nothing needs to change to accommodate an add-on similar to what you want, and if all you need is a page of the DMG or the PHB telling you that you can write in x number of background skills and call them trained, that's a pretty easy fix.

 

[keterys]

Background Skills:
Write two backgrounds appropriate for your character. You may use those backgrounds as trained skills when appropriate.

Examples:
Blacksmith
Cartographer
Chef
Cobbler
Farmer
Hunter
Sailor

Can do it with current 4E

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

A slightly more detailed version of what I proposed. And I agree.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

in other games, when I do, I get full value for my choices. If I choose to make my PC a flute virtuoso, that skill works the same as any other in the game.

in 4Ed, without a Perform skill, calling myself a flute virtuoso is meaningless. There are no mechanics for it.

I'm sorry, at this point this isn't really an honest discussion anymore. I'd say give me an example, etc, and on we would go but lets just call it quits here. IMHO I'm not going to gain any insight into anything out of this that I don't have already and I'm pretty sure it won't be an informative discussion for you either. Clearly the best we do is agree to disagree...

 

[Minigiant]

Eh, I'm OK with races having say 2 options. It solves a couple of issues. For one it does add some depth and variety to the race, but it also helps stop them being pigeonholed. Look at races like Minotaur which are simply too typecast and have a feature that is too tied to melee classes to be really broadly useful. They could REALLY use some kind of alternate feature that would support non-melee characters. It is REALLY hard to do that with a single racial power or feature. The most obvious choices have been doled out already, like Elvish Accuracy.

Minotaur is a case of a totally pigeonholed race than a racial option problem. Actually if 80% of melee powers where Strength based and each class had at least a few melee powers, it wouldn't be so bad. Overall the race was too focused on one side of combat and a single attribute.

But forced sorting of minotaurs does bring up a few of my hopes.

All classes should have ranged and melee options (or weapon and implement if they go that route). Each side doesn't have to be supported completely but it would help if a race is forced into a style again. And it might help with multiclassed characters.

Races should not to be frontloaded. The same problem was in 3.X and 4e. Races got everything in the start so we go stuck with level adjustments or slightly too powerful abilities too early. Instead races with a lot of baggage or a strong racial feature (or character's with templates) could have the feature grow appropriate with the character's level.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Background Skills:
Write two backgrounds appropriate for your character. You may use those backgrounds as trained skills when appropriate.

Examples:
Blacksmith
Cartographer
Chef
Cobbler
Farmer
Hunter
Sailor

Can do it with current 4E

Isn't this just a less verbose version of EXACTLY what we have in PHB2? Maybe 'less is more' in terms of describing it. Seems like this is pretty well covered within the core rules at this point.

 

[keterys]

Not really, no. Your background name never necessarily has a mechanical effect, and the background bonuses add to already existing skills.

Though the background rules in PH2 are pretty cool - sadly overshadowed by their other backgrounds (Scales of War, Forgotten Realms)

 

[KarinsDad]

I do think that the game plays a lot easier for a lot more people if there are fewer "important" skill groupings of similarly related and apt to find space in a game skills like in 4E. We really do not need Spot, and Search, and Listen. Perception handles that just fine without going overboard. In a 4E game, skills like Endurance are already underutilized IME. We really do not need more mostly worthless skills (crafting, etc.). Those really can be handled by roleplaying and character background.

In fact, my biggest issue is that sheer number of options that eventually show up in every D&D game system. Adding more when there are tens of thousands is really unnecessary. Yes, I know the counter argument that if I don't want something in my game, I can just remove it. zzzzzzz

But, the fact remains that in order to remove something, I have to go read it. And when there are thousands of powers and thousands of feats and thousands of magic items, it becomes a real chore for both my fellow players and myself to wade through even a fraction of all of that crap.

Could we have a game without so many tens of thousands of options?

Could we have a game where a third of the powers at a given level for a given class do not suck, a third are not just ok, and a third are pretty darn good? Sure, I could read all 12 or so (or even more) powers at every level for a given class, but cut us all a break.

If we had 5 powers to choose from at a given level for a given class and all 5 were good, that would be head and shoulders better than the plethora of nearly useless powers that we have now. There would still be a TON of options. But, at least most of the options would all be good instead of millions of people having to read through thousands of subpar options that virtually no players ever take.

It's all about game balance and when a third of the powers at a given level for a given class suck, it means that whomever designed them had no clue about game balance, or at least how to balance two same level powers for the same class. And, it makes the game a lot easier for novice players when they can pick any power out of the 5 and they made a good choice. Today, inexperienced (and sometimes even experienced) players can pick something that sounds good to them and it can be the worst power possible at that level for that class.

Ditto for feats. Is having 3000+ feats today really a good thing? Or does there become a point where enough is enough? Ditto for magic items.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

in other games, when I do, I get full value for my choices. If I choose to make my PC a flute virtuoso, that skill works the same as any other in the game.

in 4Ed, without a Perform skill, calling myself a flute virtuoso is meaningless. There are no mechanics for it.



It may not make sense to you, but it does to me.

A skill- any skill- takes time to learn. That means time not spent doing something else. Reno's character is, without a doubt, the deadliest human on the screen for that entire movie, racking up a nice bodycount with gun, blade, and explosives. He is also quite clearly devoted to his plant. He takes on-screen risks to ensure its safety. It matters to him.

He has taken time out of his life as Bad Ass Assassin to learn how to care for it. That means he didn't learn something else. What that lack is is unclear, though it may be reflected in his interactions with Natalie Portman's character. Or it may be that he's not so good with poisons.

He's also not a farmer. He loves his plant and cares for it well, but his green thumb is limited.

So transferring a few skill points in an RPG from his assassinitude to give him the ability to care for his plant to the fullest is not nonsense, its rounding out his character.

Absolutely not.

You get your skill points (or whatever the resource would be called) from the same place. The skills work the same regardless of type. You merely decide which ones you want- all combat-related, no combat-related, or a mix. You decide the utility you get from taking those skill points and using them to be a master baker or a quintessential con artist.


I disagree- its a skill, and it should work like any other skill in the game.



Why does it have to be "my way or the highway" with you?

The inclusion of the "CraPPer skills" (as you and others call them) that function identically to the other skills in no way impacts your ability to avoid taking the "CraPPer skills".

OTOH, the exclusion of the "CraPPer skills" directly has an effect on my ability to choose them if I so choose to do.



Actually, I didn't suggest using 3.X's system. I just think its better than 4Ed's. I prefer HERO's system, personally.

But the key to your position and mine is this: I don't see giving a PC depth of character at the expense of combat efficacy to be a penalty. Its a tradeoff like any other.



Just like I see no convincing reason why it should be a separate pool.

Danny: I just want to say that I am with you all the way here. I really enjoy the various Craft, Profession, Etc.. type skills that various systems have.

Mechanical skills give PC's an actual sense of interaction with the game that hand waved fluff does not. Just saying that I can do something because I add it to my back story is a bit of a cop out unless you have the mechanic to back it up.

I can't tell you how many useful times I have used Knowledge:Engineering in ways that the DM never thought of. Now I enjoy there being a chance of success as well as a chance of failure. I don't want to succeed all the time, nor do I want the DM to just say "yes" or "no".

There is a notion going around that people who like noncombat skills lack in the imagination department and I say that's BS.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

There is a notion going around that people who like noncombat skills lack in the imagination department and say that's BS.

I think it's related to the notion going around that people who like those skills in the background aren't good roleplayers - also BS.