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

[KarinsDad]

Multiple Tiny Bonuses:
I don't want to deal with a bunch of +1 bonuses. e.g. the dragonborn ranger (hunter) that gets +1 if I'm bloodied, +1 if the enemy is alone, +1 if an ally is adjacent to the enemy, +1 if I'm the closest to the enemy, +2 if I have Combat Advantage, -2 if it's dim light, etc.

If a bonus that I get for during combat isn't at least +3, don't bother. Out of combat, if it's more of a static bonus (+1 sword), then I can write it down on my character sheet and factor it into the numbers there.

A possible solution would be to just give me a power that I can use only 1/encounter to add +3 with the same requirement as before.

For a more out-there solution, say the first type of situational bonus from any source gives me +3, the next bonus an additional +2, the third bonus an extra +1, and any other bonuses don't have an effect. If you need more than a situational +6 bonus, you're probably way out of your league or you're slowing down the game doing all that counting of modifiers. .

The problem with dynamic bonuses above +1 or +2 is that it is too easy to get multiple ones and then activities become nearly automatic.

So I wouldn't mind a +3 dynamic bonus, as long as it doesn't stack with any other in combat bonuses. And, as long as the PC didn't have a lot of ways to get static bonuses on the character sheet.

The game system either has to have a lot of stackable little bonuses, or it has to have a few non-stackable larger bonuses.

And a +6 dynamic bonus on a D20 should be out of the question. +3 is about as high as it should get.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Something else that I would change in 5th edition is I would go into more depth with regards to campaign settings. I will say that the Neverwinter Guide has done a good job of this and I wish to see 5th edition take this approach as well.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I decided to throw my hat into the 5E rules discussion.

One of the things that is starting to bother me about Monte's articles is that he doesn't seem to be that familiar with 4E and he is discussing a lot of things that do not appear to need fixing.

So, I decided to ask the community what they think needs fixing.

Yeah, I get the impression Messrs Mearls & Cook are working on 5e as an evolution of 3e, not 4e. Like 'oops, we actually made a good game there for a couple of years, silly us, we were trying to do D&D...'

Anyway, a fundamental improvement that 4e could use would be in the underlying way classes, sources, and roles interact as classes are designed.


In 4e, classes were each tightly coupled to a role and source, which is fine. The expression of the role and source were /both/ represented in the powers and features of the class. This required each class to have unique features - which, again, is OK, most classes have 3 or so - and to have unique powers (which means 100+ for a basic class). Those powers became a huge design burden.

The Essentials solution to that problem was to give up on classes as strong expressions of role and source, and go back to the paleo-D&D aproach of just giving classes abilities to fit their concept, without much regard for role or balance or how coherent the concept is. Poor solution.

A better solution, I think, would be to reduce the number of powers needed by using powers to express Source, only. Thus, all classes of a given source would share a common pool of powers - much like classes sharing spell lists in 3e. Role, then, would be expressed by features. This also cleans up the problem with controllers - that their role support is too much in their powers, making controller powers potentially over-powered in the hands of other classes (and there's a lot of features being limitted only to class powers to avoid that - which also causes a lot of reasonable multi-classing to fall flat). Taken to extremes, you wouldn't even need specific classes. You could just have 4 sets of features, one to express each role, and a list of powers for each source. Choose a Source, choose a Role, and you have a 'Class.' Anyway, even if not taken that far, it'd cut the burden of power design by a factor of about 4, and make developing a new class many times easier, since only features need be provided to define a class - the class would simply draw powers from it's Source. Class-specific powers, like Paragon Path powers, might still be an option, of course, but they could be much fewer in number.



tl;dr: 5e needs to focus the support for Roles in class features instead of powers, and consolidate powers by Source instead of giving each class an often-repetative power list of it's own.

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, here's another one - and 3.5/Pathfinder could take a listen to this one, too, for Pathfinder 2 ...

Named and unnamed bonuses and stacking.

Stacking bonuses is a favorite pastime of low-grade powergamers everywhere. It requires stolid determination and a complete library rather than creativity or brilliance. So, it happens a lot. It really becomes almost automatic to the longtime gamer.

3.x and 4e reduced bonus stacking with the named bonus. Named bonuses don't stack. Yay. 3.x screwed up by have /way/ too many names. Stacking could still be extreme. 4e reduced the number, but it retained a loophole: the unnamed bonus. Unnamed bonuses stack with eachother, with named bonuses - heck, with a little willful mis-interpretation, even with themselves.

The problem is that designers have a tremendous temptation to add unnamed bonuses as the game matures. You want to come up with a new/worthwhile feat/power/item? But, there's already lots of bonuses being given out by other feat/powers/items like it? Make it an unnamed bonus! That gaurantees that it's useful! Hooray!

That has to stop. The game is played by both obsessive power gamers with too much time and too many books on their hands, and by casual players who /maybe/ have their own copy of the PH. The game needs to retain a vestige of balance between characters created by these two extremes. Reining in stacking would help.

How? Well, first of all, named bonuses need to be tightly coupled to the source they name. Nothing that isn't a power should give a power bonus. Non-items should never give item bonuses. Non-feats should never give feat bonuses. Second unnamed bonuses shouldn't stack - with anything - oh, they're still a /bonus/ they still add to your basic roll which includes half your level and a stat mod, but they don't stack with any named bonuses. Rather, the role of named bonuses thus becomes the allowing of /some/ stacking, for those bonus-hounds who like digging for them. Conversely the purpose of the unnamed bonus becomes giving the casual player a one-stop shop to make his character good at something. Unnamed bonuses should thus be relatively high, but not /quite/ so high as a cunning and complete collection of named bonuses could be.



tl;dr: Named bonuses need to be tightened up. Unnamed bonuses shouldn't stack with named bonuses.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

5e needs to focus the support for Roles in class features instead of powers, and consolidate powers by Source instead of giving each class an often-repetative power list of it's own.

Amen!

 

[Tony Vargas]

OK, last one for now...

Armor. Armor has been an annoyance in D&D since the beginning. At first, armor was just too good. You got your platemail and your shield and your high dex and you were /really/ hard to hit. What armor your class could use was an absolute, and one of the few, clumsy balancing factors in the early game. 3.0 finally 'fixed' that by giving heavier armors a limit to how much DEX could add to their protection - but it still created these various corners where the best AC came at a certain DEX/armor combo... and it still put a lot of character in heavy armor all the time, which was a little genre-inapropriate for fans of loin-cloth wearing barbarians and chainmail bikinis...

4e took it's own, more abstract stab at fixing armor. It's kludgy, but it works as far as it goes: Light armor takes a stat bonus (higher of DEX or INT) to AC, heavy armor doesn't. As heavy armor gets better magically, it also gets 'masterworked' to keep ahead of the rapidly rising DEX/INT of the light armor characters. 4e also had to throw out any rules discouraging having armor worn at all times, though, because heavy-armor characters were just /too/ dependent on being armored to survive without it.

A possible solution:

Further abstract armor down to three types: light, heavy, shield. And, of course, 'none.'

Light: +2 AC
Heavy: +4 AC, -1 move
Shield: +2 AC, -2 DEX checks.

Then, just allow the character's best stat mod to add to AC. OK, it's a bit of a stretch, but it's simple. You could rationalize it - DEX lets you dodge, STR makes you better at parrying, WIS spots attacks, INT formulates defensive strategies, CHA bluffs the other guy into being too cautious, CON keeps your defenses up as the fight progresses.

Armor helps, but it's not the be-all and end-all of defense. Going heavy armor and shield accumulates some penalties (as well as costing proficiency - however you handle that, feats or features or whatever).

Though it'd be shades of 1e, you could make armor usage a function of class, or allow characters to take only one armor proficiency 'feat' over and above what their class gives them. Or, if not using feats for proficiency, some classes could have some sort of higher 'cost' for gaining added proficiencies...

 

[Pickles JG]

1) Lose the maths progression treadmill for attack & defence or make it purely level dependent.
This ensures the maths works & removes what is for me the only “video-gamey aspect.”


2) Lose numerical ability scores.
Have eg strong as a quality that improves melee damage & some skills. A bit radical, but 4e pushes you into stereo typical designs anyway so assuming fighters are all “strong” with the option to be “very strong” would not make much difference but might make things feel less mathsy. Losing the ability score increases would also be a bonus.


3) Simplify conditions.
There are slightly too many that last for odd durations & have many different numbers. One (stacking?) “combat disadvantage” & another for advantage would be fine. I love ongoing damage as it can provide great tension so that is spot on for me.


4) Speed up combat a bit – about 30% faster would suit me.
This could probably be done with a bit of maths fixing (maybe 25% more damage all round) & a bit of simplification of conditions.


5) Make one big fight a day an option.
I do not mind that trivial fights take too long in 4e as I do not see the point of them anyway in any edition. I do miss the fact that it is hard to balance a single big fight as the characters are balanced over a 4 ish encounter adventuring day. Adding pauses other than short rests might to this. It would also make them more explicitly narrativist which would not suit some. You might have “pause”, interlude, milestone, Rest. Pauses refresh an encounter power & let you spend a surge or refresh second wind. The others are as before but more at the DMs discretion, though not entirely so.

6) Make magic items magical. (Yay for trite titles!)
They should provide powers & fun properties not bigger numbers or worse running to keep numbers. Well you could keep +1 (to hit) as a sword power but it would always be that +1 bonus.

7) Split powers/feats/features into 2-3 groups & make people pick from each. Combat effectiveness, Combat options, non Combat options. The one to perhaps lose is combat effectiveness by factoring it in. Combat effectiveness is bonuses to the numbers, mostly attack/damage. Combat options would be uses for skills in combat, extra powers or the ability to add riders to powers. Most current utility powers fit here & more interesting feats. Out of combat I would like some skill based powers that do not compete with our combat ones. Such as professions & backgrounds or craft skills & also the non combat feats & utilities.


8) Make power sources mean something. Share mechanics & powers across a source with class based riders & other features for variation. Psionics sort of does this now, except Monks, but the rest have very limited feel that you are playing eg a primal character rather than a martial one.


9) Fix multiple attack maths.
If two powers are balanced at level 1 & one adds static bonuses twice as fast they will not be balanced at level 10 (twin strike how I loathe thee). I am sure what the best way to do this is but the most obvious is to only add static bonuses once. That is odd for AOEs, though these are less problematic being anti focus fire.

~Admin note: please don't use fonts and colours - makes it harder to work with site stylesheets ~

 

[Pickles JG]

How? Well, first of all, named bonuses need to be tightly coupled to the source they name. Nothing that isn't a power should give a power bonus.

At the moment items tend to give static item bonuses but often give short term power bonuses, which I feel is fine.

I like the the general idea but I think getting every bonus named & removing the need for one stop unamed bonuses, by factoring them in, would be simpler.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think roles should be more tightly defined in order to achieve game balance.

Game balance is all about the math. Any time a given ability or effect modifies the math, it affects game balance.

Every effect and ability (class ability, power, feat, monster, or item) should be given a mathematical weighing during game design and then play testing should be used to verify the weighing assumptions.

This isn't something that the players need to know about, it's something the designers should do.

The "math foobars" of 4E were pretty obvious to players. The masterwork drop for heavy armor in Paragon, the lowest NAD in Paragon and Epic, and the Expertise/NAD defense math issues all illustrated that WotC relied on rough rule of thumb instead of sitting down and doing real math.

But, real math in design is important. A slight deviation is fine, but a major one unbalances the game.

As an example, monster damage. It was pretty obvious from the start that many monsters were not a serious threat. They had to be N+4 and/or focus fire like crazy and/or get lucky with 20s to seriously challenge most parties, especially most parties once players learned how to play the game.

Another example (as I just pointed out in another thread) is striker damage. Our group has slowly shifted to having the players play more and more strikers as 4E as evolved. The reason appears to be because strikers can do 1.5 (low level) to 3.0 (high level) times the damage that other classes typically can do and players are picking up on that. Damage is the major deciding factor on when an encounter ends. Do a lot of damage, it ends earlier, fewer resources are used, and there is less grind. Strikers should really do about 1.25 to 1.5 times the damage of other PCs. As is, it's a game imbalance when a controller knocks a foe prone, dazes it, or slows it, and this has little impact on the encounter outcome compared to a striker doing 50% or more extra damage. Even the +2 for combat advantage of prone (if PCs can get to the prone target before it gets up) or dazed only increases PC damage by about 20%. That's small potatoes compared to the 50% or more extra damage that the striker does every round s/he hits.

Conditions like daze, prone, and slowed were never given an equivalent damage weighing scale in order to balance them out. The bottom line is that all effects should be given a rough equivalent of how much damage they equate to in combat. Sure, this will never be perfect because there are so many variables in a combat, but even a rough idea of how potent each effect is compared to damage would be better than none.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

I think the "Prone" condition should attract an attack of opportunity when the creature stands up like it used to.