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

[Fanaelialae]

Your bleeding rules are a bit harsh because we have probably all experienced missing a saving throw 5 times in a row. It will be hard to balance the proper number of resolves for those times that bleeding does not occur with those times that bleeding removes so much resolve from one PC that everyone else is fine after one encounter whereas Ragnar the Punchingbag is on death's door because he couldn't stop bleeding.

To clarify, those bleeding rules are just optional gritty rules meant to simulate an event like puncturing the carotid artery. The type of situation where you're bleeding all over the place and have only a short time to get the bleeding under control before you're dead. It's included as an idea under the gritty options because it's deadly. That type of injury would probably only have a small chance of occurring on the hit location table, because it's so dangerous, much like decapitation from old critical hit tables.

You would still use the normal (ongoing damage) bleeding rules for conditions. That kind of bleeding might be dangerous if left unchecked, but most likely won't kill you.

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

The concept of Mother May I has the inverse concept of Player Entitlement. I can do this because the rules and my character sheet say so.

See, I'm not with you there. If I'm doing something that my character sheet says I can do, that's not "Player Entitlement", that's playing by the rules of the game.

To me, "Player Entitlement" is more like players wanting to use game elements you've excised from a campaign- say, Monks, Paladins or specific spells, etc.- because they don't fit.

If a DM told me I couldn't ride a completely mundane horse despite my PC having great skill in horsemanship (not because i failed a roll, either), I'd walk away from the table. And as a DM, I'd never do something like that.

Allow the DM to DM.

Again, that's all well & good if you have a DM who can/does do that kind of game management. I can and have done it myself.

But I'm currently running about 50/50 in my 34 years of gaming experience, and let me tell you, it can be quite frustrating when you try to do something outside of the published rules of a game and you get ruling #1 when you do it...and weeks later, when someone else tries it, you get ruling #2.

...or some OTHER kind of response that boils down to the rules gap causing a problem.

Its not like asking for the inclusion of "Starship Piloting" skills to be added into the game. Its basic stuff- there really is no reason why a FRPG game with a skills system shouldn't have some kind of a Ride skill. And I say that as both a player AND a DM.

Its also not exactly an answer when you have players who don't invest a lot of time in writing PC backgrounds (for whatever reason). My current gaming group has a lot of busy, busy people in it...and one with adult ADHD. I'm damn near the only one who has a background longer than a few sentences.

The last game I ran, I asked for backgrounds. I even did my typical "your background may have an effect on starting equipment yada yada yada" statement.

Out of 10 guys, I got 1 one paragraph background.

And its not like they aren't roleplayers. They're damn good roleplayers (well, several of them)- and not a one with less than a decade+ in the hobby.

Simply put- for whatever reason, if it isn't in a rulebook, they don't consider it as part of character generation.

YMMV- and clearly it does.

 

[KidSnide]

Maybe '5e' or just 'better D&D' really needs 3 siloes, rather than tiers. You get combat abilities that support your combat role in one 'silo' - that's all your basic attack bonuses and defenses, hps/surges, and attack powers and so forth. The, you get a separate customizeable pool of non-combat options - skills, utility powers, rituals, etc - that support, perhaps, a formal non-combat role. Finally, you get a separate set of customizeable 'background' choices that let you customize your character's non-adventuring aptitudes, knacks, traits and quirks. The key is that you can't swap from one 'silo' to another. No sacrificing combat effectiveness for non-combat, or overall effectiveness for a detailed background.

I completely agree - at least on a general matter. I don't see a difference between "tier" and "silo" in this context. Both terms apply. It's a silo, in the sense that you can't transfer resources between adventuring skills and background skills. It's a tier in the sense that adventuring skills are associated with meaningful rules overhead, while background skills are less complicated and more subject to ad hoc DM interpretation.

As far as combat vs. non-combat silos are concerned, separating those powers into silos is good idea in general, but I'm not sure how well it will work in practice. A chase or an infiltration is "non-combat" adventuring (in the sense that the small-unit miniatures combat sub-game isn't the best way to resolve those encounters), but either one can involve the use of combat abilities. Similarly, the trap resolution mechanics need to work both in-combat and out-of-combat. Even a negotiation scene could take place in the middle of a combat (e.g. "We're on your side! We should team up to fight those guys.").

My inclination is to think that the designers need to start off by thinking "what kind of character traits are relevant to this type of non-combat encounter?" and "given those traits, what mechanics do you use to resolve this type of non-combat encounter?" before it makes sense to figure out how those traits are acquiring during character generation.

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But, that's the point. It is the sheer number of buffs and debuffs. And, those buffs and debuffs come in many different varieties:

1) I buff myself
2) I buff an ally.
3) I buff multiple allies.
4) I debuff a foe.
5) I debuff multiple foes.

On top of each of these, there are the different durations.

On top of each of these, there are the conditional effects. The Conduit of Ice type powers were the zone does damage, but only if an enemy ends its turn in the zone. Or Daunting Presence where the foes take a -2 to attack the PC, but not other PCs, and the NPCs have to be adjacent for this to occur. There are a ton of these types of conditional effects in the game.

So my point is that it is much easier if there are fewer types of durations and fewer numbers of #2 through #5. #1 is easy for each player to keep track of. I am +2 to attacks next turn. People rarely forget that.

#2 and #3 are the second easiest to remember, but still often require bookkeeping.

But, the DM is running 5 NPCs per encounter. #4 and #5 are more difficult for the DM to handle on his own and are a significant reason people use little tokens on miniatures.


Getting back to the first sentence here, it is the sheer number of buffs and debuffs. There are only a few ways to get rid of the numbers mathematically:

1) Decrease the number of powers that can do #2 through #5, especially At Will powers than can do these type of things round after round after round. Having an Encounter power doing it once in a while is fine. Spamming an At Will doesn't address the problem.

2) Decrease the number of different durations. Make all disadvantageous effects a saving throw, make all advantageous effects either until the end of the next turn (for slightly stronger effects), or until the end of the encounter (for weaker effects).

3) Decrease the number of powers that do things conditionally. Instead of Daunting Presence being a foe is -2 to hit if adjacent and only on the PC, instead make it a +1 to the defenses of the PC against all foes. The focus becomes on buffing the PC instead of conditionally debuffing foes against specific targets and in specific circumstances. That's much easier to remember and to bookkeep.

4) Decrease the number of powers overall.


The number of times each player can do buffs and debuffs and especially conditional stuff per encounter has to decrease in order to address the problem. Having every PC being able to throw out an effect/condition nearly every single round also means having to keep track of those effects/conditions unless they are instantaneous.


As for the narrative part, that's easy. I've rarely had a problem narrating what happens based on the game mechanics except for a few rare cases like the original Come and Get It. Do you have some examples where the narrative is illogical?

Well, I do agree that simplifying and streamlining conditions is fertile ground for improving the game. As for narrative issues the BIG culprit is the sheer number of different ways in which the same narrative can translate to different mechanics. There has been zero attention paid to consistency here. The real issue with that is you can have 5 different ways of depicting that a character is being inflicted with 'fire' in some way, and for each one there are a different set of mechanics in play, which interact with the character's mechanics in totally different ways. Thus you may mysteriously not suffer much from one burning monster's attacks and yet another will be far more potent, simply because of arbitrary mechanical interactions.

Conditions really should have dealt with this, but unfortunately the designers chose to have a very limited number of them and instead simply leave it up to the designers of individual powers to try to be consistent. It isn't really sensible. I understand why there are a limited number of conditions, but really there needs to be seriously more consistency here.

 

[Votan]

Background Skills:
Write two backgrounds appropriate for your character. You may use those backgrounds as trained skills when appropriate.

Examples:
Blacksmith
Cartographer
Chef
Cobbler
Farmer
Hunter
Sailor

Can do it with current 4E

Kind of like Secondary Skills in 1E AD&D. Simple and elegant.

 

[KarinsDad]

To clarify, those bleeding rules are just optional gritty rules meant to simulate an event like puncturing the carotid artery. The type of situation where you're bleeding all over the place and have only a short time to get the bleeding under control before you're dead. It's included as an idea under the gritty options because it's deadly. That type of injury would probably only have a small chance of occurring on the hit location table, because it's so dangerous, much like decapitation from old critical hit tables.

Yes, I understood that.

But, you might have not understood what I meant.

If someone is bleeding, it means that he already got smacked hard and took a minimum of a Resolve point in your system.

Considering that Resolve points are similar to Healing Surges, a PC that gets into that unlucky situation of missing 5 saving throws as I mentioned would be in a world of hurt. If this occurs in encounter one of the day, then this PC is probably losing 1 Resolve for getting hit with a Wound that bled in the first place, 5 Resolve because of bad luck, and another 2 or 3 Resolve or so to heal back the lost Stamina.

That's 8 or 9 Resolve points in a single encounter. In 4E, most PCs are typically in the range of 6 to 12 Healing Surges, so this PC is more or less done for the day after a single encounter (or dead depending on the rules). Even in a gritty campaign, having a PC be done for the day after a single encounter is, as I mentioned, harsh. It really becomes a 5 minute work day and would be pretty unfun for the players.

This is similar to using the old Rolemaster rules without using house rules. They were unusable because one or more PCs would die or be seriously incapacitated within a few encounters and it took 3 hours to create a new PC. We even had a game once with the house rules where a PC nearly killed himself with a fumble on round one of the first encounter of the campaign. There's limits to how gritty a game that takes a while to create a new PC should be. Otherwise, people won't play it, at least based on the non-house ruled rules. I don't know anyone who ever played the old Rolemaster rules as written without house ruling the critical tables.


A game designer has to be a bit careful with rules that could take away half or more of a PC's resources within a single encounter. This bleeding rule is such a rule if the player runs into cold dice.

 

[Minigiant]

I'd like to throw something in that is dear to my RPG heart

Ability Score Equality.

I'd love for each ability score to matter for all characters. Raising and dumping them should have major effect on a character. There could still be dump stats but it should hurt in a very noticeable way.

Ignoring saves/NAD and associated skills as 4e fixed Saves/NAD equality-wise and skills work on the most sensible ability to often to suggest arbitrary shifting.

Strength should be the melee ability. Everything about close ranged combat should be Str based with very very few exceptions (AC, rogues, a little for paladins and monks). Only a few classes and characters should be able to make a decent melee attack with Strength being at least their 3rd highest ability. When close in level, characters with low Strength should fear being up close to enemies.

Dexterity and Constitution are traditionally fine.

Intelligence took a step back with the lost of skill points. It is still good as it is now available for AC. It is just not as good as it's partner and is ignored unless a class feature or character concept depends on it. Many things could be added to it.

Wisdom and Charisma are tricky. Wisdom used to have a stranglehold on the party's scariest saving throw and now shares an important NAD with Charisma. I would love to see Charisma entangled into magic item use somehow. I shrug my shoulders on Wisdom but going back to 1 ability to a NAD to give Wisdom sole Will bonus giver wouldn't bother me too much. I'd prefer not to go back there though

 

[Fanaelialae]

Yes, I understood that.

But, you might have not understood what I meant.

If someone is bleeding, it means that he already got smacked hard and took a minimum of a Resolve point in your system.

Considering that Resolve points are similar to Healing Surges, a PC that gets into that unlucky situation of missing 5 saving throws as I mentioned would be in a world of hurt. If this occurs in encounter one of the day, then this PC is probably losing 1 Resolve for getting hit with a Wound that bled in the first place, 5 Resolve because of bad luck, and another 2 or 3 Resolve or so to heal back the lost Stamina.

That's 8 or 9 Resolve points in a single encounter. In 4E, most PCs are typically in the range of 6 to 12 Healing Surges, so this PC is more or less done for the day after a single encounter (or dead depending on the rules). Even in a gritty campaign, having a PC be done for the day after a single encounter is, as I mentioned, harsh. It really becomes a 5 minute work day and would be pretty unfun for the players.

This is similar to using the old Rolemaster rules without using house rules. They were unusable because one or more PCs would die or be seriously incapacitated within a few encounters and it took 3 hours to create a new PC. We even had a game once with the house rules where a PC nearly killed himself with a fumble on round one of the first encounter of the campaign. There's limits to how gritty a game that takes a while to create a new PC should be. Otherwise, people won't play it, at least based on the non-house ruled rules. I don't know anyone who ever played the old Rolemaster rules as written without house ruling the critical tables.


A game designer has to be a bit careful with rules that could take away half or more of a PC's resources within a single encounter. This bleeding rule is such a rule if the player runs into cold dice.

I've talked to people who've complained to me that one of 4e's biggest shortcomings is that nothing in 4e (aside from minions) can be one-shot. That certainly isn't my cup of tea, but it appears that some people like that sort of thing.

I still vaguely recall that back in the day we occasionally used a hit location table with critical hits. The worst effect on that table, sitting right around 100% (or maybe 98-100%?) was decapitation. If you rolled decapitation, aside from the rare instance of someone who could live without a head, it was instant death.

There were numerous other "death-spiral" effects on that table that could quickly end a character's career, such as limb loss. IMO arterial bleeding fits right in.

There are ways around the inconvenience created by a swingy system. When we used those critical hit tables, we usually made a "back-up" character or two, because odds were pretty good that a few characters would die sooner than later. Admittedly, nowadays we like to get a bit attached to our characters, which is why we haven't used those tables in a long time.

I assure you, I understood the implications of bleeding when I designed it. It's intentionally brutal. I put it in because it seemed like something that at least some people who like gritty games would want. There could even be two tables for the gritty sub-system; one with only hindering injuries, and an expanded table that includes deadly injuries like bleeding and decapitation. There's no reason why an optional ruleset couldn't have a "dial" for grit.

 

[KarinsDad]

I assure you, I understood the implications of bleeding when I designed it. It's intentionally brutal. I put it in because it seemed like something that at least some people who like gritty games would want. There could even be two tables for the gritty sub-system; one with only hindering injuries, and an expanded table that includes deadly injuries like bleeding and decapitation. There's no reason why an optional ruleset couldn't have a "dial" for grit.

Agreed.

Even with grit though, one has to be careful to allow the game to continue. As an example, say the unlucky PC has one resolve point left after the first encounter and a few wound points. The rest of the PCs have about eight resolve points left. Although it was a bit scary for that PC, that PC is more or less fine now. A little banged up, but easily able to fight.

But the rules still would incentivize the players to hole up for the night. Many if not most groups would do so. When the rules encourage holing up for the night after one somewhat unlucky encounter, that's not a good thing.

I like the rest of your system. But I think that bleeding should be something other than losing a resolve point every round that a save would stop.


In fact, I'm kind of cold to the entire 4E make a save to stop ongoing effects. A PC is on fire, but doesn't have to stop, drop, and roll to put it out. Ditto for your bleeding rules. A severe enough bleed in a gritty system should be wound points straight up and only a high DC Heal check or healing magic of some type should stop it.

I don't mind a saving throw for Daze, Stunned, or anything else that a PC should be able to "shake it off", etc. But I was kind of hoping that in order to stop ongoing damage in 5E, the PC or one of his allies actually has to do something. That would make ongoing damage nasty, but it should be. If you are on fire or have had acid thrown on you, it should be nasty. In 4E, it's mostly a minor inconvenience. Not even a flesh wound.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Meh, as some kind of UA article for people that like playing Russian Roulette with their characters? Hey, anything goes there. As core rules? Seems like a waste of page space to me. Not even at his most killer did EGG drop a crit table into the game. It seems pretty much utterly opposed to the whole concept of popular modern RPGs.