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

[KarinsDad]

I don't know why you assume that A) the only thing you can do with skills is drop a bonus on them, and B) that the only thing that is useful out of combat is a skill.

I don't assume that. I just have seen in 4E how many utility powers affect skills and how strongly they affect them, and do not think that the 5E designers will do anything better.

For example, search for the word Diplomacy in the powers list for utility powers.

Arcane Mutterings: Arcana check in place of the Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate
Suggestion: Use Arcana instead of Diplomacy

Where is the balance here? Both of these average probably +7 or more to the roll, but one affects one of three skills and one affects a single skill.


Waukeen's Silver Tongue: Reroll Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate with +5 bonus

This power is effectively a +8 to the skill because it will only be used if the skill check is failed. Being able to have someone get an effective +8 to one of three skills every single skill challenge is, IMO, seriously unbalanced. Especially when one considers that the user of such a skill power probably has pretty strong numbers in one or more of these skills to begin with.


I just think that based on track record that WotC will just go crazy with the utility portion of powers, especially for ones they use for skill adjustment.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try something like: the attack portion of this power is lame, so let's combine it with a utility power that is kick butt.


I also think that if they combine attack powers with utility powers, that the number of powers won't decrease that much since they will still want to fill up levels with the same or a similar number of powers. That means that the game might become even more complex when instead of there being 10 attack and 7 utility powers, there might still be 17 powers that are 17 attack/utility powers. It's fairly difficult for some players to keep up with all of the powers as is at late heroic or so onwards.

 

[keterys]

Heck, instead of 10 attack + 7 utilities turning into 17 attack-utility powers... they could turn into _70_

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

A recent RP in an adventure where the noble was demanding we provide proof of one of his folk's being a traitor almost turned into us torching the town

I _really_ would like skill checks in 5E to work more like some other modern RPGs. Roll a single check, go with it. So, maybe you're not rolling for if you can pick the lock - of _course_ you eventually pick the lock. You're rolling for picking the lock _in time_ or without setting off the traps, or quietly. Something that changes things. If there's no reason to care whether you made it this turn or next turn, then no roll. Just move on.

Every die roll should result in the adventure / action advancing, in interesting ways. Much like a skill challenge shouldn't have an end result that isn't interesting (success or failure), so should every skill check.

Well... the DM can decide how long any given check takes and generally you can keep trying, maybe take 10, or even like searching an area thoroughly just look at what a 20 gets you. Failures can always be interesting too, and change the situation and give you other opportunities. I don't think you have to submit to the dice at all all of the time. You have a simple 'how long does it take' consequence just from how many times you had to roll to get a success and whatever the basic time for one try the DM decided.

Really though, the skill system rests a lot on doing something SCs. They give you all your multiple possibilities and complexity one challenges really aren't a big deal to set up and run either. You can even decide on the fly how complex the challenge is, or let the players kind of indicate when they want to consolidate their gains and when they want to up the wager.

 

[keterys]

You have a simple 'how long does it take' consequence just from how many times you had to roll to get a success and whatever the basic time for one try the DM decided.

What I'm saying is... that's an element of old design that doesn't need to exist anymore.

Only roll if it will make a difference.
Only roll once for a challenge.
Make failures as fun as successes, in their own way.
Actually play with the time you saved

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't assume that. I just have seen in 4E how many utility powers affect skills and how strongly they affect them, and do not think that the 5E designers will do anything better.

For example, search for the word Diplomacy in the powers list for utility powers.

Arcane Mutterings: Arcana check in place of the Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate
Suggestion: Use Arcana instead of Diplomacy

Where is the balance here? Both of these average probably +7 or more to the roll, but one affects one of three skills and one affects a single skill.


Waukeen's Silver Tongue: Reroll Bluff, Diplomacy, or Intimidate with +5 bonus

This power is effectively a +8 to the skill because it will only be used if the skill check is failed. Being able to have someone get an effective +8 to one of three skills every single skill challenge is, IMO, seriously unbalanced. Especially when one considers that the user of such a skill power probably has pretty strong numbers in one or more of these skills to begin with.


I just think that based on track record that WotC will just go crazy with the utility portion of powers, especially for ones they use for skill adjustment.

In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if they didn't try something like: the attack portion of this power is lame, so let's combine it with a utility power that is kick butt.


I also think that if they combine attack powers with utility powers, that the number of powers won't decrease that much since they will still want to fill up levels with the same or a similar number of powers. That means that the game might become even more complex when instead of there being 10 attack and 7 utility powers, there might still be 17 powers that are 17 attack/utility powers. It's fairly difficult for some players to keep up with all of the powers as is at late heroic or so onwards.

Aren't we assuming 5e here? Is the 'argument from designers' some kind of argument that only crappy concepts should be discussed because WotC is inevitably too stupid to do anything right? lol.

If I have to reject every idea that might possibly be done badly we might as well just invent checkers and be done with it.

Anyway, no, smart designers will not create 17 attack powers. They will not pair up bad pairings. Honestly though, what we want is LESS powers, so lets decide that. Maybe ALL utility powers are linked to a skill instead of being class based at all, and you don't need slots. Get a skill, pick a utility. You get one per skill, they can have a minimum level, and you can swap each one out for higher level ones at x,y,z levels. Honestly, why not just assume a shorter day and give everyone max 2 daily powers. Make them a bit stronger, you use less, less complexity, etc. Give each one some clear out of combat use case and now you've eliminated a lot of need for this and that extra stuff. What's wrong with a 3 encounter day default? It is a lot easier to get PCs to go on than to deal with them doing less than the standard number of encounters a day too.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The way to avoid min/maxing is for the DM to create a variety of situations.

I have to disagree. While that is a way of dealing with min/maxing after it's already aflicted your campaign, it doesn't avoid it - punishes, perhaps. While I agree that a varied campaign is more enjoyable, a lot of DMs don't - they have a style they like to lean on, be it combat-heavy or 'role-not-roll' or whatever.

Instead of making silos the answer is dual-use. There should be very few things that have no use only in or out of combat.

Well, that's an answer. I don't see how it's particularly better, but it serves the same function. If /every/ choice is equal useful in and out of combat, then you can minimize one to maximize the other. I think that would be harder to implement - it'd be only as effective as the least perfectly dual-use choices available, and each new thing added would be another point of failure. A 'silo' aproach has the virtue of being structural - new material need only plug into the structure.

All silos do is forbid perfectly good character concepts

Not at all, they forbid perfectly horrid character concepts - the kind that overshadow their fellows or fail to contribute enough to pull their own weight. If a character can't contribute in adventuring challenges, he shouldn't be adventuring. As far as the third silo, there could be stock background for those who can't be bothered going into the choices in detail. For that matter, it's a class based system, so stock or pre-built or default choices aren't hard to provide at all.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I have to disagree. While that is a way of dealing with min/maxing after it's already aflicted your campaign, it doesn't avoid it - punishes, perhaps. While I agree that a varied campaign is more enjoyable, a lot of DMs don't - they have a style they like to lean on, be it combat-heavy or 'role-not-roll' or whatever.

Well, that's an answer. I don't see how it's particularly better, but it serves the same function. If /every/ choice is equal useful in and out of combat, then you can minimize one to maximize the other. I think that would be harder to implement - it'd be only as effective as the least perfectly dual-use choices available, and each new thing added would be another point of failure. A 'silo' aproach has the virtue of being structural - new material need only plug into the structure.

Not at all, they forbid perfectly horrid character concepts - the kind that overshadow their fellows or fail to contribute enough to pull their own weight. If a character can't contribute in adventuring challenges, he shouldn't be adventuring. As far as the third silo, there could be stock background for those who can't be bothered going into the choices in detail. For that matter, it's a class based system, so stock or pre-built or default choices aren't hard to provide at all.

Ummmm, if ALL you care about is combat, so what? Why do you want the people who could care less about anything else even have to think about anything else? Just give them challenging encounters and let them buy options they like instead of ones they will never use.

Any character concept that is what the player wants and doesn't wreck the other player's fun is a good concept. YOU call them horrid. So don't use them. All a matter of priorities.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ummmm, if ALL you care about is combat, so what? Why do you want the people who could care less about anything else even have to think about anything else?

Because you might have very combat-oriented games. Actually, you almost certainly will. A combat-focused character in such a game will overshadow a non-combat focused one (whose player will eventually get the message and specialize in combat, even though that's not what he wants to do - or just walk).

Now, I do think a default advancement by build or class might not be a bad idea. A player completely unconcerned with his fighters non-combat abilities could thus just not sweat them, while lavishing attention on his combat choices. When non-combat comes up, though, he can still pull his own weight. The 'background silo' could be entirely optional - develop it as much as you want, including not at all.

As long as you can't cash in non-combat powers for combat or vice-versa, or cripple yourself collecting worthless concept abilities that will never contribute to the party or the story.

Any character concept that is what the player wants and doesn't wreck the other player's fun is a good concept. YOU call them horrid. So don't use them. All a matter of priorities.

The sort of over-specialized builds that a 'silo' system (any robustly balanced system, really) would be intended to prevent /are/ exactly the sort that wreck the other players' fun.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because you might have very combat-oriented games. Actually, you almost certainly will. A combat-focused character in such a game will overshadow a non-combat focused one (whose player will eventually get the message and specialize in combat, even though that's not what he wants to do - or just walk).

Now, I do think a default advancement by build or class might not be a bad idea. A player completely unconcerned with his fighters non-combat abilities could thus just not sweat them, while lavishing attention on his combat choices. When non-combat comes up, though, he can still pull his own weight. The 'background silo' could be entirely optional - develop it as much as you want, including not at all.

As long as you can't cash in non-combat powers for combat or vice-versa, or cripple yourself collecting worthless concept abilities that will never contribute to the party or the story.

The sort of over-specialized builds that a 'silo' system (any robustly balanced system, really) would be intended to prevent /are/ exactly the sort that wreck the other players' fun.

Yes, but those builds in 4e are not at all about purely min/maxing for combat. There are tons of good builds that work fine in most situations. If the other players are going to be building BAD characters (which no system is going to completely prevent) then yes, the good ones will be a good bit better. The thing is you're looking for things like charging cheese and stuff. It doesn't require using every resource there, the build is just overdone.

The problem isn't the concept, it is the execution. There is just enough crap in 4e at this point that if someone is DETERMINED to min/max they will, and yet go back and build your feats and powers properly and that wouldn't need to be so. Things should be stacked more carefully etc. Now, for 5e you can make it harder to have that happen, but pure and simple it boils down mostly to less options to have to worry about combining.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Now, for 5e you can make it harder to have that happen, but pure and simple it boils down mostly to less options to have to worry about combining.

That's true, and that's why a 'silo' set-up helps, it reduces the combinations of options available.