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

[AbdulAlhazred]

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

Not really. You have 10 options in 2 silos and thus 5 each and you get to pick 2 from each silo, you have less permutations than 'pick any 4', but you still have more than if you have 5 options in 1 group and you get to pick 2 of them and each pick has 2 functions.

Creating silos will indeed force people to pick from each one, which reduces their options some, but as long as they get picks from each side they'll generally be able to create the combinations they want. The only kind of min/maxing you'll stop (with any set of restrictions except a tree) is where the player has to select a LOT of options of one type to get a result. That is true of some 4e charop builds, but not others. Some require no more than 2 feats, or even 1 feat.

 

[KidSnide]

Not really. You have 10 options in 2 silos and thus 5 each and you get to pick 2 from each silo, you have less permutations than 'pick any 4', but you still have more than if you have 5 options in 1 group and you get to pick 2 of them and each pick has 2 functions.

Creating silos will indeed force people to pick from each one, which reduces their options some, but as long as they get picks from each side they'll generally be able to create the combinations they want. The only kind of min/maxing you'll stop (with any set of restrictions except a tree) is where the player has to select a LOT of options of one type to get a result. That is true of some 4e charop builds, but not others. Some require no more than 2 feats, or even 1 feat.

This is a slightly strange context to discuss silo-ing. In the combat vs. non-combat example, a silo is a situation where players are required to take combat abilities and non-combat abilities from two different pools of resources. It prevents you from having a single pool of 5 combat options and 5 non-combat options where a player is allowed to pick 4 combat options and 0 non-combat options.

Your example, in which there are 5 options (pick 2), each of which contains a combat ability and a non-combat ability is just another form of silo. Players still have to pick 2 combat powers and 2 non-combat powers. It's just that when they choose one, the other is chosen automatically.

Personally, I'm inclined to silo in the traditional way (i.e. two unconnected pools). That's mostly because I suspect the "every daily power has a combat and non-combat ability" design paradigm will prove difficult and complicated. It's just a different way of bundling character abilities together. Whenever you bundle, you decrease the number of combinations which provides fewer choices (and some benefit -- fewer combinations to analyze). But it's not obvious to me that martial combat and non-combat abilities combine well. I get that Brutal Strike should be combined with "giant door smash" power, but should they be the same power (i.e. a daily one)? Who wants to use their big attack on a door?

-KS

 

[marelion]

One thing I would like to see in 5E with regards to the skill-debate is getting rid of the one-ability-score-to-rule-a-skill.

It is a fine guideline to say that Arcana triggers off Intelligence but it bugs the warlocks that he can never even hope to compete with the wizard in terms of checks albeit they both are characters of the same level and show the same mastery of the arcana arts. it is plainly a little frustrating that some character classes have very little chance at succeeding at what they are supposed to excel at: Think barbarians!

I hope we can all agree that the idea of a muscelous half-ork waving a gigantic, bloodstained Waraxe IS intmidating, can`t we? Now why do the rules tell me to use charisma for the resulting check? That half-orc doesn`t have to radiate an aura of smoothiness, he doesn`t need to put on a sly smile to make me lower my weapon, all he needs to show mw is his prowess with an axe. And I think strenght as a required attribute fits my mental image of the scene a lot better than charisma.

I`d prefer a more flexible approach that would allow players to designate one key skill, which would automatically trigger of their primary attribute, so regardless of choice of build or class, you would be able to play a character who can excel at an area where you want him to excel with the numbers supporting your idea of how the character is perceived by his environment.

There is no cherry-picking since it is just one skill, yet you give some real power to the player in terms of concepts and numbers. Now I can have that wizard living like a hermit on a mountain top who is an excellent climber(athletics) and the dice actually support that thesis, without forcing me to flaw my character in other areas (such as lowering his intelligence to buy more strenght, which would be seriously hampering the character`s functionallity on a mechanical basis). It just seems an elegant way to consolve powergamers and theatreplayers, since your character can now afford to have that oddball skill you would never expect him to have without the need of further investments of precious ability points.

Just my two cents

 

[keterys]

One thing I would like to see in 5E with regards to the skill-debate is getting rid of the one-ability-score-to-rule-a-skill.

The training system they've discussed previously would largely do that, since training would be far more important than your stat.

This argument comes up about Intimidate all the time, though... Intimidate is not just scaring someone, but scaring someone in a way that gets you what you want. Just looking scary and hefting a weapon might scare someone into trying to kill you, or avoiding you, but it wouldn't necessarily make them give up secrets or whatever. Not any more so than a halfling putting a knife to their vitals and smiling sweetly. Both are pretty damn scary.

Like for the repeated Half-Orc with an Axe intimidate scheme... which is more intimidating, Dirty Harry's "Do you feel lucky", Batman staring at a bad guy, Joker describing what he's going to do to your family...

Or Beastman from He-man? Or Sloth from Goonies?

There's a fine line there on what just looking tough can get you.

Especially if you got rid of stat inflation (which they should definitely do), you're only talking a 1-4 difference between the proper stat vs not, and if you decouple attack from your ability scores (which they should also do), then you've more freedom to toss a couple points into being an intimidating half-orc or knowledgable warlock.

 

[KidSnide]

One thing I would like to see in 5E with regards to the skill-debate is getting rid of the one-ability-score-to-rule-a-skill.

This raises an interesting point about skills. How much spread should there be between high level play and how level play? How much spread should there be between dedicated specialist, highly skilled, skilled amateur and unskilled. And where should those modifiers come from?

• How much should attributes matter?
• How much should training matter?
• How much should level (or the ability to add more skill points) matter?
• How much should feats or powers matter?
• How much should equipment (mundane or magical) matter?

In 4e, low level skills are very different from high level skills. I think that works well when it comes to interactions with NPCs (demon lords should be harder to bluff than town sheriffs), but it gets a little wacky when it comes to climb. (Stone walls become trivial and you start wondering if you rogue could climb a cyclone.)

Related, training and attributes have a huge impact at low levels, but at higher levels, equipment and feats/powers start to dominate. Also, the spread between specialist and skilled amateur really starts to grow at paragon and epic. The difference is much smaller than 3e, but still quite large. Overall, I'm inclined to think that 4e's changes to skill numbers were an improvement over 3.x, but I still think there is too much skill growth and that the numbers grow too far apart at upper levels.

-KS

 

[Nemesis Destiny]

I think that to really hit that 'epic' feel, you need to have a larger spread between low and high levels as long as the D20 continues to be a factor. It has such a huge effect on results. Especially in the lower levels.

If you put "fuzzy logic" difficulty ratings in place, like what Monte Cook and Mike Mearls have suggested, this becomes less an issue, as the DM or the module can just step in and say, "no, there is no chance you can do this right now."

Alternately, if you apply some kind of bell-curve to the rolling by requiring you to make multiple rolls to accomplish or fail a task, it will have a similar effect, while still allowing for amazing success or catastrophic failures. The issue there is that you end up doing a lot of rolling. The first method is ultimately simpler, but some folks like allowing for extremes.

It's a matter of preference, and that's why I feel the game should offer a basic framework with multiple options to take it one way or the other, as you or your group like.

 

[KarinsDad]

One thing I would like to see in 5E with regards to the skill-debate is getting rid of the one-ability-score-to-rule-a-skill.

It is a fine guideline to say that Arcana triggers off Intelligence but it bugs the warlocks that he can never even hope to compete with the wizard in terms of checks albeit they both are characters of the same level and show the same mastery of the arcana arts. it is plainly a little frustrating that some character classes have very little chance at succeeding at what they are supposed to excel at: Think barbarians!

I hope we can all agree that the idea of a muscelous half-ork waving a gigantic, bloodstained Waraxe IS intmidating, can`t we? Now why do the rules tell me to use charisma for the resulting check? That half-orc doesn`t have to radiate an aura of smoothiness, he doesn`t need to put on a sly smile to make me lower my weapon, all he needs to show mw is his prowess with an axe. And I think strenght as a required attribute fits my mental image of the scene a lot better than charisma.

I`d prefer a more flexible approach that would allow players to designate one key skill, which would automatically trigger of their primary attribute, so regardless of choice of build or class, you would be able to play a character who can excel at an area where you want him to excel with the numbers supporting your idea of how the character is perceived by his environment.

Instead of a flexible approach where every ability score can be used for everything, I'd prefer a system where one and only one ability score is responsible for the same thing, regardless of class.

With your Warlock example, his arcane power should come from Intelligence. His ability to smooze extraplanar creatures should come from his Charisma. Using Charisma for to hit and damage for arcane spells or powers really makes zero sense to me.

Using Constitution for to hit and damage for anything makes zero sense to me.

I'd prefer powerful melee attacks to use Strength for to hit and damage, and no other ability score in the game.

I'd prefer finesse melee attacks to use Dexterity for to hit and damage, and no other ability score in the game.

Feats like Melee Training make me want to puke. They are such a hack.

 

[Siberys]

But that has consistency issues, too. When I played 3e, I never understood why Strength affected accuracy. Why isn't it Dex for attack and Strength for damage for melee attacks? It can be justified - but if it can, why not Con or Cha for attacks? I channel my force of will into a powerful magical effect, where my strength of personality directly affects the efficacy of the spell (Sorcerer with Cha). I have immense natural psychic power, but it's useless unless I can direct and control it by channeling it through my body (Battlemind with Con). These are just as consistent as Str for attack, so what's the problem?

 

[Dannyalcatraz]

I never understood why Strength affected accuracy.

It's about controlling relatively large amounts of mass for several minutes at a time, with your arm partially or fully extended. One arrow weighs about 1/40th the weight of a sword or other large-ish melee weapon and despite the high pull of a good Welsh bow, you only need control it for a few seconds.

Dexterity matters, sure, but arm strength keeps that weapon elevated. The fine motor control won't matter if your gross movements aren't up to the task of getting the weapon into proper position.

Hell, you see that with boxers: the longer heavyweight matches, it's not a lack of dexterity preventing them from keeping their 16oz gloves elevated, it's that their strength is sapped.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's about controlling relatively large amounts of mass for several minutes at a time, with your arm partially or fully extended. One arrow weighs about 1/40th the weight of a sword or other large-ish melee weapon and despite the high pull of a good Welsh bow, you only need control it for a few seconds.

Dexterity matters, sure, but arm strength keeps that weapon elevated. The fine motor control won't matter if your gross movements aren't up to the task of getting the weapon into proper position.

Hell, you see that with boxers: the longer heavyweight matches, it's not a lack of dexterity preventing them from keeping their 16oz gloves elevated, it's that their strength is sapped.

I disagree. In game terms, it isn't that the boxers have lost strength, but rather the constitution to utilize that strength. Endurance is a factor of Con, after all. A hypothetical boxer with superhuman constitution shouldn't have any difficulty keeping his gloves elevated, IMO.

As someone who has studied the martial arts, I see where Siberys is coming from. Strong guys are hard to block (because despite blocking, the impact still goes through you), but at least if you can avoid their attacks they're not that bad. In my experience it's the tall, thin, fast ones that are the hardest to fight. It doesn't really hurt to block them, but with their reach and speed they're very hard to avoid or block at all. That's in regard to unarmed combat, of course.

When using weapons, I agree that strength does play a role, but to what degree depends largely on the weapon in question. A dagger doesn't require much strength to wield. Nunchaku are completely dexterity based. On the other hand, I'd say that a staff leverages both strength and dexterity in roughly equal proportions, while I expect that a Claymore relies almost entirely on one's strength.

Moreover, as with the boxers, constitution plays an important role. It doesn't matter how strong or dexterous you are if 20 seconds into the fight your muscles cease responding due to fatigue. You also have to take into account that outwitting an opponent (Intelligence), leveraging your environment (Wisdom), and even self-confidence (Charisma) can be significant factors in a fight.

Saying that Strength is the only important factor in melee combat is a vast oversimplification.