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

[KidSnide]

I seem to recall 1E through 3.5E not having bonuses to hit for most spells.

...

Do we really need to hit rolls for every single attack? And if we do, do they all need ability score modifiers to work? And does every ability score have to be used for to hit and damage by somebody? Can some of them not be used for that and it be ok?

This is an excellent point.

However, most (though certainly not all) 3.x attack spells did have a to hit modifier, usually in the sense that the primary ability score of the caster was added to the save DC. Of course, the target rolled instead of the caster and making a saving through isn't quite the same thing as having a spell miss (although often enough there wasn't much of a difference).

My nitpick notwithstanding, I agree that there could be more "attack" powers that don't depend on a hit roll, especially for daily powers.

-KS

 

[KarinsDad]

You do realize that there is a conception of "charisma" that predates all D&D that means "force of will" and something quite a bit stronger? It is a religious term, and I'm pretty sure Gygax had that in mind when he picked the name for the attribute.

Well, I'm glad that you're sure. I cannot find a definition of "force of will" for the word Charisma anywhere, in D&D or out. Where did you find that? Nor can I find anything about Gygax thinking this.

The alternative definition of Charisma as "Gift of Grace"? "Divine power"? Sure. One can find those on Wiki and in other places. But, not force of will. I do see the phrase "force of will" for Dragon Sorcerers as fluff, but it doesn't indicate that this is the reason that a Sorcerer uses Charisma and doesn't explicitly have any direct link. If interpreted that way, that's a new fluff that didn't exist pre-PHB2.

The phrase "will power" or "willpower" has been used in the Wisdom definition from 1E through 3.5, so I don't think that when we discuss D&D Charisma, that we should be using an alternative definition that implies Wisdom. 4E dropped the term willpower from Wisdom, but it didn't add it to Charisma.

The phrase "force of personality" is used for Charisma, but that's not the same as "force of will". Someone could have a very forceful personality, but easily fold when it's time to do something that requires inner mental strength, self control, or determination. I do think that people confuse "force of personality" with "imposing one's will" on others and this is probably where this concept of "force of will" comes in. But, that's a phrase misnomer. The term Will refers to self control, not controlling others.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is an excellent point.

However, most (though certainly not all) 3.x attack spells did have a to hit modifier, usually in the sense that the primary ability score of the caster was added to the save DC. Of course, the target rolled instead of the caster and making a saving through isn't quite the same thing as having a spell miss (although often enough there wasn't much of a difference).

My nitpick notwithstanding, I agree that there could be more "attack" powers that don't depend on a hit roll, especially for daily powers.

-KS

You could. Things just get harder to measure against each other the more they differ, and 'no save' effects were not generally that fun. To be balanced any such effect is relatively weak, so chances are it is a mediocre power. You end up with things a lot like Fireball, which would be even MORE bland if it didn't even have to hit to do full damage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well, I'm glad that you're sure. I cannot find a definition of "force of will" for the word Charisma anywhere, in D&D or out. Where did you find that? Nor can I find anything about Gygax thinking this.

The alternative definition of Charisma as "Gift of Grace"? "Divine power"? Sure. One can find those on Wiki and in other places. But, not force of will. I do see the phrase "force of will" for Dragon Sorcerers as fluff, but it doesn't indicate that this is the reason that a Sorcerer uses Charisma and doesn't explicitly have any direct link. If interpreted that way, that's a new fluff that didn't exist pre-PHB2.

The phrase "will power" or "willpower" has been used in the Wisdom definition from 1E through 3.5, so I don't think that when we discuss D&D Charisma, that we should be using an alternative definition that implies Wisdom. 4E dropped the term willpower from Wisdom, but it didn't add it to Charisma.

The phrase "force of personality" is used for Charisma, but that's not the same as "force of will". Someone could have a very forceful personality, but easily fold when it's time to do something that requires inner mental strength, self control, or determination. I do think that people confuse "force of personality" with "imposing one's will" on others and this is probably where this concept of "force of will" comes in. But, that's a phrase misnomer. The term Will refers to self control, not controlling others.

The term charisma (pl. charismata, adj. charismatic; from the Greek χαρισμα, meaning "favor given" or "gift of grace") has two senses: 1) compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, 2) a divinely conferred power or talent.[1] For some theological usages the term is rendered charism, with a meaning the same as sense 2.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charisma#cite_note-1

In other words ancient societies saw those people with a natural power over others as having a special gift from God. We all know what it is, and we've all seen people that have it. Define it however you want, it is what people have when they speak and other people follow them freely.

Really, pardon the use of the word 'will' but go back and read the argument and forget about the one word that you are free to change to whatever word pleases you, the point is the same, you can come up with an explanation for any stat giving you an attack bonus.

And NO, some stats should not be relegated to nothing. Remember too, in the original game, the REAL game was name level and then cha mattered a LOT. You weren't running around hacking on stuff all the time, there was a whole miniatures TT war gaming side of it all. I think 4e has actually done a pretty nice job of letting you portray a really nice variety of character concepts, and part of that is you can do MOST things in some fashion with the majority of possible stat allocations.

I don't really see a huge reason why different character concepts shouldn't be able to use their mind to control their sword (swordmage) or let the will of their god flow directly into their weapon and strike with it (avenger) or confuse, blind, and destroy the mind of my enemy with 'force of personality' using magic (bard). The majority of classes STILL use the most typical stat anyway. You have almost all your melee fighting guys using str, except rogues using dex, and then your one or two oddball ones like avenger and then monk, but how many of them are outlandish? I think I've justified swordmage and avenger already.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The original paladin had to have at least a 17 Cha. Consider how "immediate" (in the sense of, "right there") some of his abilities were compared to the cleric spells.

The funny thing was that at age 14, our initial D&D group had a couple of Pentacostal believers, and as long time friends, all of us had talked about our differences in beliefs. So we picked up on the wider scope of "charisma" right away, and never questioned why the paladin had that requirement. We had to be one of the few teen D&D groups that all knew the meaning of the word before we played D&D.

We did wonder about the Wis stat for clerics and the Int stat for magic users. For us, a magic user was "Gandalf" and thus a "wizard" or "mage", and both of those are forms of "wise men". And it seemed rather odd that the "wise man" who used wisdom for his main ability could do a lot of the standard "holy man" abilities, but wore armor, while the "wise man" that didn't wear armor or even use a sword cast more offensive spells. But then later I read some medieval theology and Jack Vance and figured that last one out.

And you'll note that "force of will" in the sense of resistance to pressure in the original was in the saving throws, which were rather offbeat.

As for Gygax being aware of that meaning of charisma, I have no direct cite or evidence. So I don't know it for a fact. However, when you see someone match a rather unorthodox idea almost point for point, it isn't a huge leap to think they either got it direct or from some intermediate source that didn't change the essentials much. And Gygax was known for appreciating the original sources for ideas when he could get them.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I seem to recall 1E through 3.5E not having bonuses to hit for most spells.

When discussing 5E, throw out not just the 1E through 3.5E sacred cows, open up your mind to throwing out 4E sacred cows as well.

Sacred cows take time to grow to full maturity. 4e hardly has any fatted calves to slaughter, let along sacred cows. It's just too new.

Do we really need to hit rolls for every single attack?

Well, you need a balanced chance of success vs failure. Attack rolls do that. Really, 4e attack rolls for spells just inverted 3.5 saves. You have a caster stat, you use that and other bonuses to make your spell likely to work. Whether that's because you have a high attack bonus or high save DC doesn't make a huge difference. Whether you can break the system to get that attack bonus to 'never misses' or save DC to 'impossible' makes a difference...

Touch attacks worked just fine in 3E.

No, no they really didn't. Chance of hitting was all over the map in 3e, but touch attacks made it worse. Some characters had the same AC vs touch attacks as anything else, some lost 8 or 10 15 or more points of AC, making them sitting ducks. It was even worse than the problem 4e has with lowest non-AC defenses at Epic - a /lot/ worse. Touch attacks were a travesty. 'Attacking REF' is the same thing, conceptually, but much more balanced.

 

[KarinsDad]

The term charisma (pl. charismata, adj. charismatic; from the Greek χαρισμα, meaning "favor given" or "gift of grace") has two senses: 1) compelling attractiveness or charm that can inspire devotion in others, 2) a divinely conferred power or talent.[1] For some theological usages the term is rendered charism, with a meaning the same as sense 2.

you can come up with an explanation for any stat giving you an attack bonus.

No, you can do this.

I don't care to come up with somewhat obscure definitions of words in order to rationalize game mechanics that don't make sense.

 

[keterys]

I'm good with attack bonus being fairly standardized with very minor differences for style and class (similar to monsters). No need to tie it to a stat at all - stats can do enough without tying to attack (damage, skills, based on for ability effects, etc)

 

[KidSnide]

An interesting benefit to having a more standardize range of to-hit modifiers is that you can have more powers that are more or less accurate than usual.

For example, you might say that a large number of buffing leader powers could be less accurate than a standard attack, but provide the buff as an effect instead of on a hit. Or, lightning powers could be characterized by above average to hit modifiers vs reflex (because lighting is hard to dodge). I'm not sure how much it helps the game from a pure tactical gamist perspective, but it's another way that the mechanics could better reflect the in-game reality.

Of course, this is nothing you couldn't do with 4e, but the balance effects would be somewhat easier to predict.

-KS

 

[KarinsDad]

Another thing that kind of bugs me is the plethora of the same type of concept being used for multiple different classes. For example, how many sword swinging arcane classes do we really need?

We currently have hexblade, swordmage, bladesinger, and bard. Yes, they gave them different roles and abilities, but it's just slightly different flavors of the same concept.


Wizard and Sorcerer are just two different (typically) stand in the back and blast arcane casters (and yes, the Wizard does have the option to not be a blaster, but I've rarely seen one in practice that doesn't do at least a little of it). One got the easier and more frequent Invisibility, the other got the easier and more frequent Fly. They often feel very similar, even considering that they have different roles and power focuses.


The one thing that I really liked about the Barbarian when he first came out was that he was predisposed to carrying a two handed weapon. That made him feel different than other strikers. Then, the Slayer came out and the Barbarian didn't seem quite so unique anymore as every Slayer that I saw in the game (and I saw quite a few) were using two handed weapons.

The Slayer became the new Barbarian and I only once saw a Barbarian ever played again since the release of the Slayer (I designed a Hybrid Barbarian|Paladin for my wife, but if I hadn't, I wouldn't have ever seen one).


Rogue and Thief? Do we really need two of them? How many different flavors of Ranger are there?


I really do wish that WotC would beef up the uniqueness of each class more for 5E and decrease the number of similar watered down classes, and decrease the number of overall classes. Stop releasing new similar classes, just to print more splat books.