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

[Oldtimer]

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

Why? (Aside from the fact that it was that way in 3.x)

You can shift one square with a move action without triggering an OA, but you shouldn't be able to stand up within the same square without one? Both actions seems like rather minor movement to me, so I see no realism requirement for it.

And there is certainly no game requirement for it. Having just two things triggering OAs is one of the best simplifications in 4e, compared to the multitude of things causing them in 3.x. I don't want that back.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

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.

Named and unnamed bonuses and stacking.

... 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.

...

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

The second quote, among its other virtues as an idea, is also the key to solving the issue in the first quote. This is why temporary hit points don't stack in 4E, and the same reasoning applies here. (However, with temporary hp, they were still awarded too frequently in too small amounts. Too fiddly.)

The only time we should care about stacking bonuses is when they overlap imperfectly because of different durations. If you've got a longer-running +2 (the minimum) from some leader daily, and then you happen to get a one-round +4, that's still great and worth knowing about. And then when it goes away, you go back to your +2. Or you leave the zone, and the +2 disappears. Or whatever. If there happen to be seven sources of potential +2 to +5 bonuses sitting out there in a given round, you only care about the first, best one you can wrangle.

 

[ForeverSlayer]

Why? (Aside from the fact that it was that way in 3.x)

You can shift one square with a move action without triggering an OA, but you shouldn't be able to stand up within the same square without one? Both actions seems like rather minor movement to me, so I see no realism requirement for it.

And there is certainly no game requirement for it. Having just two things triggering OAs is one of the best simplifications in 4e, compared to the multitude of things causing them in 3.x. I don't want that back.

It having being in 3rd edition has nothing to do with why I want it back. It actually makes sense if you think about it because while you are getting up you are not able to defend yourself as good.

Prone does a few things but this is something I would like to see again. It actually helps you because it makes ranged people harder to hit you. There should really be no bonus when it comes to a condition.

 

[Fanaelialae]

I'd also like them to do away with the vast number of bonuses.

Perhaps instead of an always-on/conditional bonus, grant PCs a +1 "advantage point" token instead. In order to prevent the system from being abused, caps can be placed on how many tokens a PC can accumulate and/or spend at one time.

Then, instead of trying to remember that his character has a +1 to attack rolls for the encounter, +2 to reflex until the end of his next turn, and +4 to perception checks until the start of his next turn, he instead just marks down 10 "advantage points" (6 for reflex and perception + 4 for the plus one that is expected to last all 4 rounds of combat) on his sheet and is done.

Please keep in mind that this is a very rough, bare bones sketch of the idea. Seems simpler to me at any rate, albeit at the cost of a greater level of abstraction. You can reduce the level of abstraction by creating pools of tokens (maybe attack and defense, or combat and skill pools). Of course, that results in increased complexity relative to the number of pools you implement.

 

[Ryujin]

I'd be quite happy if they just simplified the duration of effects. Why have so many different ones? Save ends, beginning of attacker's next turn, end of attacker's next turn, beginning of target's next turn, end of target's next turn..... Make 'em all save ends, and be done with it.

As for the rest, I'm pretty happy with the way things are overall.

 

[Oldtimer]

It actually makes sense if you think about it because while you are getting up you are not able to defend yourself as good.

It doesn't make any sense to me. You can defend yourself a whole lot better while getting up than if you stay prone. I can see an argument about not getting up triggering an OA, since it's hard to defend yourself lying on the ground.

Prone does a few things but this is something I would like to see again. It actually helps you because it makes ranged people harder to hit you. There should really be no bonus when it comes to a condition.

Yes, it helps against ranged attacks, but if we're talking about OAs, there is melee right next to you and being prone is no help in melee. Ending the prone condition, i.e. getting up, is the only sensible thing to do. Why penalize it?

 

[ForeverSlayer]

It doesn't make any sense to me. You can defend yourself a whole lot better while getting up than if you stay prone. I can see an argument about not getting up triggering an OA, since it's hard to defend yourself lying on the ground.

Emmmmmm no you can't. You are able to defend yourself when you are actually up but there is a time in between you on the ground and you standing up. You don't go from sitting to standing unless you have an item or a magical ability that allows this.

Have someone stand over you with a stick and see how well you can block that person while getting up. I've been in enough Tae Kwon Do tournaments to know that you never stand up while your opponent is standing right next to you. You are prone to leave yourself open for attack.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

If you are prone, you can actually use your limbs- in some positions, all four- to strike and block.

If you are trying to stand, your limbs are being used to support your weight- at best one can be used to strike & block.

 

[Ryujin]

If you are prone, you can actually use your limbs- in some positions, all four- to strike and block.

If you are trying to stand, your limbs are being used to support your weight- at best one can be used to strike & block.

I always thought that giving up a AoO, for standing up, was a needless complication. If you want to get into it you might be able to use all of your limbs for defence, but you can't move for crap. You can move better and defend yourself better on your knees, than you can on your back or front.

Best to (over) simplify and just get on with the game. I'm not overly concerned if it invalidates someone's favourite broken tactic of perma-proning.

 

[AngryMojo]

One thing I've thought about implementing for a while involves nearly eliminating all dynamic bonuses, and consolidating them into three categories that overlap, a minor, standard and major bonus.

A +2 (minor) bonus is a minor benefit, like combat advantage or a circumstantial feat.
A +4 bonus (standard) is a very noticeable benefit, like a good sized buff spell or a particularly advantageous position.
A +6 bonus (major) is an overwhelming boon, something along the lines of a single-use magic item ability in specific circumstances, or attacking a paralyzed foe.

These bonuses don't stack at all, so you only take your biggest benefit. One modifier to track, faster dice rolls, and all those circumstantial feats and powers will still be beneficial.

This of course only applies to temporary bonuses and modifiers, not things built into the character sheet like skill, high ability scores, levels, inherent bonuses and whatnot.

Completely untested, but worth a thought.