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

[jodyjohnson]

I think there are certain things that don't need a full edition change to fix and that there are others that do.

Variant Surge systems I think could be designed within 4e. (variant limits on recovery, or extra recovery, or limits on what they can do non-magically)

Variant Math could be designed within 4e (i.e. just replace the attack rolls with Level+x, defenses with Level+y; or establish a floor or ceiling based on that number)

Variant Skill systems could be designed within 4e (i.e. Training is already a default mastery rank - some skill uses require 'Trained'. Add Skill Focus as a more limited mastery skill rank. 'Focused' might give auto success on untrained tasks and allow rolls on 'Focused only' tasks. Maybe add a rank higher than Focus. Add back missing skills but tie them to Backgrounds or Themes and make their uses Trained only.

Scrub through the Creature list for 4e to update to MM3 standards - already in process but slow (6-8 creatures per month).

Maybe add a Gonzo/Genre Rating to Races, Powers, and Classes - from 0 to 11. Advise DMs to pick a Gonzo/Genre Rating they can live with for the campaign. This is like Common, Uncommon, Rare for Items. Tweak AEDU power selection based on Gonzo/Genre - At-Wills generally are less Gonzo than Dailies, Heroic less than Epic. Allow extra At Wills, and add some generic Encounter and Daily powers with Gonzo/Genre 0 and 1.


I think the Genre system might be easier in a new edition.

A new edition fixes bloat (temporarily) and scrubbing for less Status effects but if 4e doesn't stay around online after 5e then our group would bail on the whole thing - just like users of offline tools bailed when it swithed to online only.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I'd bring back the skills craft, perform and handle animal/ride...maybe profession as well. And 10' poles & mules.

And I would not. This is an argument that's been had before, and there was no clear 'winner'. The community is pretty divided over this one.

I could get behind it if, and only if, the resources to buy those skills were completely siloed away from your other choices. Maybe training in these would come from your background (as would make sense).

I still find it generally unnecessary though. You want your character to be good at something? Fine call him trained if a skill check ever needs to be made. What? He was really good at it? Trained and Skill Focus (that you didn't have to pay for). Maybe only half-assed at something? Just +2 or +3 then.

10 foot poles made their glorious return in Mordenkainen's Emporium.

Well one thing I recently noticed that I'd like to see is multiple ability score importance. Dump stats and off abilities should mean something. Not so much that they cause dependency but noticeable somehow.

For example, melee and non magically aim ranged spells could return on arcane spells with slightly higher than normal damage and effect curves. Wizards, sorceries, and warlock could switch their usually secondary ability for Str or Dex to get a decent chance of these spells hitting.


Every ability does not have to be supported as a separate build though.

I found it a little jarring at first, but now that I'm used to it, I prefer it this way. I'm perfectly ok with not needing Dex and Con and Wis and possibly even Cha on my Wizards (forex). It's bad enough that they still have Fighters with a mandatory dependency on Wisdom as well as their other physical stats. I'm good with having them not be completely stupid, foolish, louts, (again forex) but some choice by build would have been nice (without having to pay a feat for it).

 

[KidSnide]

I'd like to add one more 5e feature that's not quite a "fix". I'd like it if 4e adventures and setting materials mostly worked in 5e.

It doesn't need to be perfect, but I think it would be good if 4e modules worked in 5e about as well as 1e modules worked in 2e. I don't care if the monster balance is a little off and the skill challenges need to be rebuilt from scratch, but I'd like to be able to run a day of 4e material with a minimal amount of conversion prep.

In contrast, I don't care if PCs need to be rebuilt from scratch, even with a little re-imagining. (I think I would actively welcome rebuilding their magic item lists.)

I also think 5e needs to be more open to third party contributions, both in the on-line tools and in the licensing arrangements. WotC should be running the "app store" of 5e, distributing 3rd party materials and taking a small bite each time.

-KS

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I still find it generally unnecessary though. You want your character to be good at something? Fine call him trained if a skill check ever needs to be made. What? He was really good at it? Trained and Skill Focus (that you didn't have to pay for). Maybe only half-assed at something? Just +2 or +3 then.

I find this as unconvincing as when it was first asserted (in another thread).

The system limits the number of trained skills a PC has- adding some to a PC just because a player says the PC is trained is unbalancing. Not majorly so, but enough to make for a nice arms race of "My PC too...and this skill besides!"

It defeats the purpose of having limited skills per PC entirely.

Personally, I'm simply tired of the game mechanical gyrations you get put through to do something as simple as play a song for your supper or entertain by doing animal tricks absent those skills.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

Just as I find it unconvincing that they need to be there for the reasons you are suggesting. Like I said, this argument's been had before, and nothing we say to each other now is going to change any minds.

Adding extra trained skills is hardly unbalancing. Most of the time those skill checks don't matter. For the one time that they do, it hardly unbalances anything, especially if that is the way you've been roleplaying your character all along. That makes it easy for the DM to put their foot down where it concerns any kind of off-skill "arms race." Not in your background, and not ever roleplayed? Sorry, you don't have the bonus.

I don't find the same mechanical gyrations you speak of, and I have characters that do those things. I just don't care if there is a rule that spells out how good I am at them. In fact, I prefer that 4e lets me decide how good my bard is at playing his zither, or how well my warlord tells her war stories, or whatever. And if it becomes plot important, then because I've played up those elements already, it's easy to decide that I'm trained and maybe focused too.

Obviously your mileage varies, but it seems like little more than PC anatomy measuring to me. *shrug*

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Obviously your mileage varies, but it seems like little more than PC anatomy measuring to me. *shrug*

When told I need to Intimidate or Bluff the crowd listening to my lute to see how they react (previously, this subforum), that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

When I see people talking about using Acrobatics, Nature or Intimidate to determine whether a horseriding stunt works (see the thread about Ride currently ongoing in this subforum) it ticks me off.

That kind of square peg=>round hole garbage has no place in a well-designed game. That isn't anatomy measuring, that's a game design gap.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

When told I need to Intimidate or Bluff the crowd listening to my lute to see how they react (previously, this subforum), that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

When I see people talking about using Acrobatics, Nature or Intimidate to determine whether a horseriding stunt works (see the thread about Ride currently ongoing in this subforum) it ticks me off.

That kind of square peg=>round hole garbage has no place in a well-designed game. That isn't anatomy measuring, that's a game design gap.

And neither does the 3.x style garbage of CraPPer skills and the endless open-ended skill list which simply demands that everyone is bad at everything until they jump through some game-mechanical hoop in order to be able to do it. A hoop that NEVER makes sense from any kind of narrative perspective.

It makes perfectly good sense that when you want to bluff your audience you use BLUFF! It isn't even all that relevant how well you play the zither. You're trying to put one over on the people listening. The elegance of your fingering has little or nothing to do with how well you pull that off compared with how adept you are at weaving a tall tale. Skills in 4e represent the TYPES of accomplishments that your character is adept at achieving. The means is perfectly well relegated to a less strict system where the players get to have the fun of imagining how they can do what they can do. It is guaranteed not to be unbalancing because what you can achieve is firmly under the auspices of the skill mechanics. You can claim that your character is the greatest cook, instrumentalist, and tailor in the universe. It isn't going to do squat for you when it comes to where the rubber meets the road and you need to make your bluff/diplomacy/intimidate etc skill check to make something happen.

Nor is there an issue with say Acrobatics for a riding trick. Your character can ride, right? He's got significant expertise as an Acrobat, right? There you go. If you really want to say "well, that requires a whole bunch of riding talent" then OK, you have a feat, Mounted Combat, that lets you express "I'm really good at working with my mount" that makes perfectly good sense as an indicator for that. Likewise for most other analogous situations there either is or can trivially exist a feat and/or you can simply examine the character's background.

I'd also point out that background HAS mechanics. You get 5 background elements, one of each of several types. There's no reason why the DM has to allow any player to exceed those limits.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

When told I need to Intimidate or Bluff the crowd listening to my lute to see how they react (previously, this subforum), that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

When I see people talking about using Acrobatics, Nature or Intimidate to determine whether a horseriding stunt works (see the thread about Ride currently ongoing in this subforum) it ticks me off.

That kind of square peg=>round hole garbage has no place in a well-designed game. That isn't anatomy measuring, that's a game design gap.

And I think the 3E model is equally bad design, and lazy design to boot. The problem is thinking that "skill" mechanically is supposed to represent anything that is "skill" in the game world. (Nevermind that this has never been true in any version of D&D, given what classes and weapon and spell use are and have been.)

The skill mechanic, or something very much like it, is useful for things that are done often in game, often matter, need a range of outcomes, and require limited character resources to excel with. And when looking at "often in game, often matter" we have to consider the range of play and center somewhere on that, not what each individual wants. For example, "Being Sneaky" comes up a lot, across many games, and is not something we want every character getting easily.

For things that don't fit that criteria, but meet some of it, some of the time, I have no inherent problem with a separate mechanic, appropriate to the design space. For example, something very much like feats, but siloed away from combat ability, could be one way to include instrument playing ability. Perhaps it is tied to an ability check, or proficiencies, or any number of things. Maybe take all the combat stuff completely out of feats (I'd go for this) and leave feats for stuff not so big--I can speak another language, I can play the flute well, etc.

OTOH, the 3E mindset that says, "Well hey, being a blacksmith is a skill. We've got a working skill system. So we'll just add a Profession option to that skill system, and it will fit in just fine"--that is bad, lazy design. It's a cop out, not thinking hard about what crafting or performance or art or being a shopkeepr means in the context of D&D.

As a Hero System fan, you've seen this. Even Hero and GURPS, far more simulation conscious than D&D would ever be, at least give thought to varying scope of skills, and price accordingly. And there are still flaws in their models.

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

When told I need to Intimidate or Bluff the crowd listening to my lute to see how they react (previously, this subforum), that leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

And I remember that thread. I don't agree with that method either, which is why I suggested handling it differently. As I implied, this would be a trained check, maybe even with skill focus, based on a stat. The stat could depend on how you describe your skill(s).

Someone who is technically good might use Dex or Int in this case. Someone who is a performer, probably Charisma, maybe Wisdom.

When I see people talking about using Acrobatics, Nature or Intimidate to determine whether a horseriding stunt works (see the thread about Ride currently ongoing in this subforum) it ticks me off.

It's hardly worth getting angry over. But having a separate skill for riding seems like a waste, for the few times it actually comes up in the typical game. If your campaign is all about that stuff, sure, add something (maybe like I suggested above), but in an average game, I think it's safe to assume that most characters can ride competently, and if your background or theme or feat choices indicate you are better at it, then you are. In lacking a specific skill, all you have to do is adjust the DC down by 5.

That kind of square peg=>round hole garbage has no place in a well-designed game. That isn't anatomy measuring, that's a game design gap.

As others have said, the 3.x skill system was also garbage design IMHO. For the opposite reasons, as others have also said.

But sorry, unless you have a campaign focus on any area that the skills do not cover, then I hold that it is little more than anatomy measuring to need to have a number to know just how good you are. It's purely fluff the vast majority of the time.

If 5e can do anything right in this regard, it will be to make the skill system modular enough that it can accommodate a more nitpicky "ain't on the page, it ain't on the stage" approach, as well as the current, simplified system. And preferably a few notches in between. Because I'm not saying that you're wrong to want these things (I do think you are wrong for calling it bad design), I just don't want the same things you do, but I want us to both get what we want.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

Someone who is technically good might use Dex or Int in this case. Someone who is a performer, probably Charisma, maybe Wisdom

Which still gets you the problem of:

1) its either a straight-up stat or stat+level-check, which is 4Ed's benchmark for untrained skills, OR

2) the PC gets the +5 for a trained skill check, which is giving away reined skills like Haloween candy

Neither works for me.

The skill mechanic, or something very much like it, is useful for things that are done often in game, often matter, need a range of outcomes, and require limited character resources to excel with. And when looking at "often in game, often matter" we have to consider the range of play and center somewhere on that, not what each individual wants. For example, "Being Sneaky" comes up a lot, across many games, and is not something we want every character getting easily.

While riding with skill didn't occur as often as "being sneaky" in my experience with D&D, it came up at least as often (if not moreso) as climbing ropes, needing to survive in the wilderness (without magic), succeeding at being diplomatic, or needing to know a bit of history.