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

[Dannyalcatraz]

What with that system will stop someone from just using all their points on the key adventuring skills?

Absolutely nothing. And why should that scare you? There is nothing wrong with a PC being a combat god in all facets of the RPG system and a complete dud in social situation. If his GM likes social situations, he'll be reduced to Mr. Gruntsalot while others shine.

As things stand, many have criticized 4Ed's weakness at handling PCs who are not focused on combat- a dearth of skills that are focused primarily on non-combat uses; far fewer non-combat spells/powers; few combat spells/powers that aren't focused on damage. Etc.

Some of us miss things like Illusions whose purpose isn't to do damage.

 

[Tymophil]

Absolutely nothing. And why should that scare you? There is nothing wrong with a PC being a combat god in all facets of the RPG system and a complete dud in social situation. If his GM likes social situations, he'll be reduced to Mr. Gruntsalot while others shine.

There is something wrong, in my humble opinion, with this vision of roleplay. I really like the way D&D4 makes it such that any kind PC can play on every kind of scene.
I really disliked the fact that some character classes made it difficult for the player to participate in some scenes in older editions.

As things stand, many have criticized 4Ed's weakness at handling PCs who are not focused on combat- a dearth of skills that are focused primarily on non-combat uses; far fewer non-combat spells/powers; few combat spells/powers that aren't focused on damage. Etc.

Some of us miss things like Illusions whose purpose isn't to do damage.

It has nothing to do with the mechanics of D&D4, but with the flavour the designers gave to the powers, the default setting and the adventures.
Nothing prevented WotC to give another flavour to the classes, the races, the default setting... Except a certain lack of imagination.

Once again, D&D4 would have shone if third party companies would have been allowed to give their take on the system.

I firmy believe that the biggest mistake was to double the new system with a bland setting and uninspired adventures.

 

[Stalker0]

Speaking strictly from a "game play and setting implication" persective, it would make sense to have all potential problematic racial abilities moved into options that the race may take. Sure, all eladrin had the opportunity to learn to Fey Step, but that was one of several choices that they could make. In practice, a lot of eladrin, maybe even the vast majority, don't.

I think we have started to see this philosophy in 4e, and could easily extend it into 5e.

Most races now have a choice to their ability score. And humans and half-elves now have a choice on their racial power. I have greatly enjoyed both for the wonderful flexibility it offers with just a small increase in mechanics. I would encourage it for other races as well.

 

[Minigiant]

Since I personally don't have a problem withFey Step and access to travel powers at lower level, I would prefer not to see bunch of optional racial features. I like the members of my races and classes to have a lot in common and be able to predict their actions once my characters are familiar with them.

What I would prefer is to have races to start with weaker racial and class features at low levels that would be upgradeable at higher level (teleport capped at 3 squares as encounter until level X).

Of course not as a feat tax. It should be programmed automatically like ability score increases. Something like specialization points which can be gain every X levels that can be put into race, class, paragon/prestige or whatever.

 

[Gortle]

Good analysis on teleport vs flight but missing the real game play effect.

The problem I have with teleport is that it is so common as such low levels that as a GM and player I just can't have fun with grabs and restraints. At least a couple of the PCs will take a few teleport powers from level 1 and there is just no point. In low to mid heoric games these fun tactics should be effective. Simple entangling powers, many types of terrain features. I want to be using Acrobatic and Athletics skill checks, not simply teleporting away.

Likewise with flight. But wizards have had the sense to by and large delay that till Paragon, due to the obvious combat problem with flight and superior ranged attacks.

Not every one wants to play high powered fantasy from day dot. Give us some space to work up to those tactics at higher levels.
Please move Teleport to Paragon or above please.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Since I personally don't have a problem withFey Step and access to travel powers at lower level, I would prefer not to see bunch of optional racial features. I like the members of my races and classes to have a lot in common and be able to predict their actions once my characters are familiar with them.

A bunch of options would be too many. But exactly one is too little. There is a sweet spot somewhere between "one and a handful" where the races do end up having a lot in common, but a lot of flexibility is provided. It is rather an 80/20 rule applied to options--20% of the conceivable options give you 80% of the value. The trick is finding the 20%.

Among other things, this makes house ruling marginally easier. If you don't like fey step for campaign X, you ban it. No big deal, as there are still 2-3 other good choices to pick from. It's as easy as one line in a campaign document. OTOH, if you want to go the other extreme and standardize, that is equally easy. Everyone takes fey step, and that is also balanced.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Absolutely nothing. And why should that scare you? There is nothing wrong with a PC being a combat god in all facets of the RPG system and a complete dud in social situation. If his GM likes social situations, he'll be reduced to Mr. Gruntsalot while others shine.

As things stand, many have criticized 4Ed's weakness at handling PCs who are not focused on combat- a dearth of skills that are focused primarily on non-combat uses; far fewer non-combat spells/powers; few combat spells/powers that aren't focused on damage. Etc.

Some of us miss things like Illusions whose purpose isn't to do damage.

It has nothing to do with social situations vs anything else. It is just a bad deal to take 'play pan flute' when you can take Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate instead, and blowing skill slots on obscure things that never come up is just a sucker's bet, pure and simple. All your rigid insistence on a single game mechanic for things that are not equivalent does is DISCOURAGE character customization, not encourage it, and you haven't enabled players to do anything they couldn't already do.

4e handles non-combat perfectly well. This whole line of reasoning is just simplistic and absurd. Nor is the concept that a power that does 'damage' somehow less engaging in an RP sense. Damage is simply the uniform measure of progress towards victory over an opponent and can represent anything you care to have it represent, such as the willingness of your opponent to continue to resist.

The issue isn't the game. The issue is a rigid unwillingness to accept a more logical and useful set of rules representations for what has always existed. What you want is in the view of many of us simply a stubborn refusal to accept any paradigm that isn't exactly a retread of what was being used 10 years ago. We don't want to go back. Despite all the protestations about how terribly lacking 4e is in this and that and the other thing, I have run campaigns with it for what, 3 years now, and found none of these criticisms to hold water. I'm sure if I insisted on playing 3.5 with 4e rules I'd be dissatisfied but in fact what I've found is that the 4e developers actually have an excellent handle on flexible and sensible ways to do things.

I realize this will just provoke more howls of outrage in all probability, but there it is. I really honestly have to hope for the sake of my own desire to play with rules that I like that what you suggest falls on deaf ears. I don't really see how we can both be accommodated by the same game system. If it is possible, great! I just don't see it and can't endorse making today's game into yesterday's game. Sorry.

 

[Minigiant]

A bunch of options would be too many. But exactly one is too little. There is a sweet spot somewhere between "one and a handful" where the races do end up having a lot in common, but a lot of flexibility is provided. It is rather an 80/20 rule applied to options--20% of the conceivable options give you 80% of the value. The trick is finding the 20%.

Among other things, this makes house ruling marginally easier. If you don't like fey step for campaign X, you ban it. No big deal, as there are still 2-3 other good choices to pick from. It's as easy as one line in a campaign document. OTOH, if you want to go the other extreme and standardize, that is equally easy. Everyone takes fey step, and that is also balanced.

I agree that there be some options within a race's features but I don't thing the options should be one of the major aspects of the race. The racial options shouldn't change the characters of that race too much.

To me things like bonuses to skills, resistances, attacks, saves, and things of that sort would be acceptable. Movement and attacks should be standard between all members of the race.

This could all avoided if they finally stop frontloading races and allow racial features to progress in strength via some mechanic.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

It has nothing to do with social situations vs anything else. It is just a bad deal to take 'play pan flute' when you can take Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate instead, and blowing skill slots on obscure things that never come up is just a sucker's bet, pure and simple. All your rigid insistence on a single game mechanic for things that are not equivalent does is DISCOURAGE character customization, not encourage it, and you haven't enabled players to do anything they couldn't already do.

FOR YOU!

I could show you a stack of my RPG characters going back to 1982- various editions of D&D, RIFTS, HERO, GURPS, Stormbringer...the list goes on- and most of them will have secondary talents, professions, instruments, art supplies, non-magical books, skills in crafts, cooking, obscure languages, etc., because for me, having those options was not a "sucker's bet", it was part of rounding out those characters. What they did when out of combat or adventuring informed me how they would react in certain situations (in combat or social).

Options are not a "sucker's bet" unless you think the only reason for a PC's numbers is combat/non-combat efficacy. Me? I'm digging deeper.

Look at Jean Reno's character from The Professional- most people would stat that character as purely a combat monster. OTOH, my version would divert character building points away from combat abilities into horticulture and a couple of other things. Why? Because being a top-level assassin is what he does, but his love for his precious potted plant says something about who he is.

And I'm as interested in the latter as the former, so diverting those character building resources makes sense to me.

Example: one of my mire recent 3.5Ed characters spent the bulk of his skill points on Rope Use, Languages, History, KS: Architecture, and KS: Engineering- because besides being an adventurer, he was a historian/archaeologist.

I really honestly have to hope for the sake of my own desire to play with rules that I like that what you suggest falls on deaf ears.

Why?

How does my liking to pick up Underwater Basket Weaving or Obscure Tribal Burial Rituals negatively affect your ability to choose Bluff?

Is it the whole "choosing between useful and useless skills from the same resource pool" thing?

Do what was suggested to me: don't divert resources from that finite pool- just write it down on your character sheet. You won't be as good at it as someone who actually diverted resources to gain that level of skill, but your PC will be customized, and you won't feel like a sucker.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree that there be some options within a race's features but I don't thing the options should be one of the major aspects of the race. The racial options shouldn't change the characters of that race too much.

To me things like bonuses to skills, resistances, attacks, saves, and things of that sort would be acceptable. Movement and attacks should be standard between all members of the race.

This could all avoided if they finally stop frontloading races and allow racial features to progress in strength via some mechanic.

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.