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

[Tony Vargas]

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.

Both the systems you describe result in characters with 2 non-combat abilities and 2 combat abilities - assuming each ability is balanced, the characters are thus reasonably balanced, no one has 4 combat abilities and no non-combat, for instance. The first can potentially generate 400 mechanically distinct characters, the second 20. So, yes, there are more permutations - of characters. There are not more permutations of, say, combat powers.

Now, with the dual-use system, it's possible you could have some powers that have a better-than-average combat effect, and a less-desireable non-combat one (IMHO, given how designers tend to think as a game ages and it gets harder to come up with 'good' material, I'd expect that to become quite prevelent, eventually). That would end up having the same de-facto effect as trading in non-combat for combat.

One thing I liked about 4e's class structure, and would like about a 'silo' aproach is that it's a structure. It makes it easier to stick to balanced designs... and obvious when you've run out...

The only kind of min/maxing you'll stop 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.

It's easier to fix one or two broken feats than to fix all the options in a 'LOT of options' combo.

 

[marelion]

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.

I believe you didn`t get my point right: My idea was solely devotede to skill checks. Right now, you need an intelligence-based class to master the arcane in an effective way. That`s doubly important once rituals see the light of day in your group: It feels slightly disturbing if arcane rituals are the domain of your Warlord, while the sorcerer next to him puts on a puzzled face, muttering something like: "You know, what you`re doing
right?! For I don´t understand the meaning of half the arcane sigils you`ve just drawn onto the floor." Since the rituals have varying effects based on the check, it makes perfectly sense from a point of game mechanics to let the lazylord do the job, but from a point of immersion?!

And all because our lazylord keys off intelligence as a secondary attribute, while the sorcerer does not. The sorcerer uses arcane powers all day long, while the shouted commands of a warlord are about as magical as a kick to the nuts.

And now you seriously think that`s the way it should be? I couldn`t disagree more wholeheartedly. IMHO power sources should matter with regards to skill checks and your choice of class should be independant from the question of the attribute related to the key skill for the power source in question. If the group you join asks you whether you could perhaps fullfill the role of arcane ritual caster this should not imply your only class choices in terms of effective ritual checks were wizards and swordmages. I think you should be free as a player to choose the sorcerer as well. Maybe your dragonblood sorcerer truly is the son a half-dragon? What if his grandfather has taught him the effectice channeling of arcane power into rituals? Why can`t a set of rules cover such cases?

And, I`ll stress this one more time, this is about one key skill you get to designate, so that any class can take on the role of an expert in his area of expertise. Yes, this twin-blade-ranger is as good at following tracks as is his elven cousin over there with the greatbow, even if his attribute point distribution suggests otherwise.
Your character should be able to excel at the expected area of expertise of a member of his class regardless of attribute distribution. This way you open up the path to many interesting character concepts and free mechanical ressources such as attribute points for storytelling.

It is not about cherry-picking or the every class should be able to do everything-idea. On the contrary I strongly support the idea of class skills, for class skill lists are a good way to make sure that the characters do not turn out to be all the same in terms of skill selection. It just bugs me that some builds cannot hope to show their competence in their area of expertise the way the skill sytem works now.

Maybe I was not clear enough on this on my firdt post, but i was simply suggesting that every player should be allowed to choose one skill as a key skill and have that one skill trigger off his primary atttribute. All other skills the character possesses would remain unaffected and still trigger of the related attribute in question.

And KD, I was nowhere reffering to attack rolls or damage, my whole post was about skill checks. I was not commenting on other attribute-related issues, so next time please be more careful who you quote with what arguement. I wasn`t offended in any way, it is just that sloppy quotes tend to lead to missunderstandings during the long course of a heated debate such as this one.

 

[KarinsDad]

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?

Because they are not consistent.

Power sources should all be channeled the same, not whatever random ability score a game designer decided today for the class he was working on.

The entire concept of using different ability scores for the same power source is purely a game mechanics "spread the wealth around" one. They don't make logical sense, no matter how far out of someone's butt they pull an irrational explanation.

Why exactly is a Bladesinger able to use intelligence to swing a sword? Err, because he's smart enough to hit in the right place with it. Then why isn't a Wizard smart enough to hit in the right place with a sword? Err, ...

They are totally inconsistent hacks.

I would have no problem with the Arcane power source being Intelligence and the Psionic power source being inner Charisma.

But what exactly does Con have to do with Warlocks? It's not as if the Con is protecting them from the external influences that they are dealing with. Attacking with your "stamina" makes zero sense. It's just random because some game designer said "Hey, we don't have a Con primary ability score in the PHB. Who can we give that to?".

 

[Ryujin]

When a Warlock is casting a spell, he's in effect smoozing the power from an extraplanar being.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I believe you didn`t get my point right: My idea was solely devotede to skill checks. Right now, you need an intelligence-based class to master the arcane in an effective way. That`s doubly important once rituals see the light of day in your group: It feels slightly disturbing if arcane rituals are the domain of your Warlord, while the sorcerer next to him puts on a puzzled face, muttering something like: "You know, what you`re doing
right?! For I don´t understand the meaning of half the arcane sigils you`ve just drawn onto the floor." Since the rituals have varying effects based on the check, it makes perfectly sense from a point of game mechanics to let the lazylord do the job, but from a point of immersion?!

And all because our lazylord keys off intelligence as a secondary attribute, while the sorcerer does not. The sorcerer uses arcane powers all day long, while the shouted commands of a warlord are about as magical as a kick to the nuts.

And now you seriously think that`s the way it should be? I couldn`t disagree more wholeheartedly. IMHO power sources should matter with regards to skill checks and your choice of class should be independant from the question of the attribute related to the key skill for the power source in question. If the group you join asks you whether you could perhaps fullfill the role of arcane ritual caster this should not imply your only class choices in terms of effective ritual checks were wizards and swordmages. I think you should be free as a player to choose the sorcerer as well. Maybe your dragonblood sorcerer truly is the son a half-dragon? What if his grandfather has taught him the effectice channeling of arcane power into rituals? Why can`t a set of rules cover such cases?

And, I`ll stress this one more time, this is about one key skill you get to designate, so that any class can take on the role of an expert in his area of expertise. Yes, this twin-blade-ranger is as good at following tracks as is his elven cousin over there with the greatbow, even if his attribute point distribution suggests otherwise.
Your character should be able to excel at the expected area of expertise of a member of his class regardless of attribute distribution. This way you open up the path to many interesting character concepts and free mechanical ressources such as attribute points for storytelling.

It is not about cherry-picking or the every class should be able to do everything-idea. On the contrary I strongly support the idea of class skills, for class skill lists are a good way to make sure that the characters do not turn out to be all the same in terms of skill selection. It just bugs me that some builds cannot hope to show their competence in their area of expertise the way the skill sytem works now.

Maybe I was not clear enough on this on my firdt post, but i was simply suggesting that every player should be allowed to choose one skill as a key skill and have that one skill trigger off his primary atttribute. All other skills the character possesses would remain unaffected and still trigger of the related attribute in question.

And KD, I was nowhere reffering to attack rolls or damage, my whole post was about skill checks. I was not commenting on other attribute-related issues, so next time please be more careful who you quote with what arguement. I wasn`t offended in any way, it is just that sloppy quotes tend to lead to missunderstandings during the long course of a heated debate such as this one.

Ah, but you can rationalize, or fail to rationalize, practically anything. The lazylord is SMART, that's his shtick is being intellectually better equipped and using his problem solving ability to apply superior tactics, reflected in his powers. The sorcerer's arcane power comes from some natural source, he is just 'brimming with power'. He doesn't understand that power or know any of the theory behind magic, he just channels it by pure instinct and practice. There's no reason he is more likely to understand ritual magic than any fighter.

I'm fine with the idea of letting characters sub a different ability score for a skill, because again you can pretty much rationalize most anything, but ALL arguments on all sides about this or that ability score being applicable to any given situation are always going to be arguable. People have rationalized EVERY single one of the six scores being a sensible attribute to apply to an attack role for instance (and just right here in this thread are plenty of examples). All such arguments are doomed to lead to disagreement that nobody is going to resolve.

Skills just need bonuses to be reworked so that there's less stacking. If I were doing 5e I'd also immediately get rid of ability score boosts, they create more math nightmare than all other aspects of the game combined. Half the reason there ARE so many ways to boost up a skill was motivated in the first place to give non-primary skill users some chance to actually be useful.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Because they are not consistent.

Power sources should all be channeled the same, not whatever random ability score a game designer decided today for the class he was working on.

The entire concept of using different ability scores for the same power source is purely a game mechanics "spread the wealth around" one. They don't make logical sense, no matter how far out of someone's butt they pull an irrational explanation.

Why exactly is a Bladesinger able to use intelligence to swing a sword? Err, because he's smart enough to hit in the right place with it. Then why isn't a Wizard smart enough to hit in the right place with a sword? Err, ...

They are totally inconsistent hacks.

I would have no problem with the Arcane power source being Intelligence and the Psionic power source being inner Charisma.

But what exactly does Con have to do with Warlocks? It's not as if the Con is protecting them from the external influences that they are dealing with. Attacking with your "stamina" makes zero sense. It's just random because some game designer said "Hey, we don't have a Con primary ability score in the PHB. Who can we give that to?".

No, they're not inconsistent. Different characters are doing different things. The Bladesinger is using arcane magic to guide his sword in combat, not strength or speed or anything else. There's no HACK involved at all KD. Absolutely any application of any ability score to any task can somehow be rationalized and/or fluffed. All your dogged insistence on locking everything down to one narrow way of envisaging it does is make the game more narrow. It doesn't make it more fun, or 'consistent' or anything else. It is a fantasy world, you provide the answers and when you've got magic all over the place there's plenty of ways to do that. Not even to MENTION all the various rationalizations that are made by people for using plain old martial power (non-magical expertise/talent).

Really, it is trivial to come up with these answers:

STR - I hit hard, my blows are hard to block
CON - I keep up a constant barrage of blows until my enemy's guard is worn down
DEX - My attacks are exceptionally accurate and quick
INT - I outthink my opponent and analyze his weakness to get past his guard
WIS - I possess a natural instinctive ability to anticipate and/or an intuitive understanding of the enemy's style of fighting
CHA - I have superior self confidence and force of will which causes my enemy to be defeated

See how easy that is? ALL of those are plausible.

 

[Fanaelialae]

Personally, I wouldn't mind attack rolls being divested from ability scores completely. I know that that probably isn't a sacred cow that too many folks would like to see slaughtered. IMO though, combat has multiple physical and mental factors, so associating an attack with a single ability score isn't a realistic approach. Not that the game doesn't make approximations in other areas.

Another approach would be to grant a bonus based on the average of your total ability score bonuses. With the "weighted" nature of 4e ability score generation, a well-balanced character might have a better attack modifier than a character with min/maxed stats. I doubt it would fly though.

 

[KidSnide]

Personally, I wouldn't mind attack rolls being divested from ability scores completely. I know that that probably isn't a sacred cow that too many folks would like to see slaughtered. IMO though, combat has multiple physical and mental factors, so associating an attack with a single ability score isn't a realistic approach. Not that the game doesn't make approximations in other areas.

I've thought that To Hit rolls should be divorced from ability scores for a while. First, how often you hit is just too important from a balance perspective for it to vary based on how ability scores are allocated. Expertise is a "must have" ability for just this reason. Even if you're not focused on damage, with 80%+ of powers you still need to hit to deliver your rider effects.

Second, it's not like tying it to the highest plausible ability score is relevant. Regardless of how you feel about using Str vs Dex for melee combat, shouldn't the Str 18 / Dex 18 fighter be much better at hitting the target than the Str 20 / Dex 8 fighter?

You could add abilities up and average, of course. But why bother? Just use a fixed modifier (modified by level and equipment, and possibly also by class/feats) and apply the attributes to damage, riders and other effects.

-KS

 

[Fanaelialae]

I've thought that To Hit rolls should be divorced from ability scores for a while. First, how often you hit is just too important from a balance perspective for it to vary based on how ability scores are allocated. Expertise is a "must have" ability for just this reason. Even if you're not focused on damage, with 80%+ of powers you still need to hit to deliver your rider effects.

Second, it's not like tying it to the highest plausible ability score is relevant. Regardless of how you feel about using Str vs Dex for melee combat, shouldn't the Str 18 / Dex 18 fighter be much better at hitting the target than the Str 20 / Dex 8 fighter?

You could add abilities up and average, of course. But why bother? Just use a fixed modifier (modified by level and equipment, and possibly also by class/feats) and apply the attributes to damage, riders and other effects.

-KS

It's more a matter of sacred cows than anything else. You and I might agree, but my gut says that if they completely divorced ability scores from attack rolls there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But yes, in my ideal 5e, ability scores would not influence the attack roll. I'll grant that it's less realistic in some respects, but it's more balanced and frees character concepts that D&D has traditionally sidelined: the fighter who can beat physically superior opponents because he's worked ten times as hard at mastering the blade, or the idiot savant battlemage.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

It's more a matter of sacred cows than anything else. You and I might agree, but my gut says that if they completely divorced ability scores from attack rolls there would be much wailing and gnashing of teeth.

But yes, in my ideal 5e, ability scores would not influence the attack roll. I'll grant that it's less realistic in some respects, but it's more balanced and frees character concepts that D&D has traditionally sidelined: the fighter who can beat physically superior opponents because he's worked ten times as hard at mastering the blade, or the idiot savant battlemage.

My ideal is that the ability scores are kept, but the cause and effect vis-a-vis attack bonuses is reversed. The correlation between attack rolls and ability scores would still be loosely there in one sense, but not determinative. This naturally changes character generation.

Are you a fighter that hits people with heavy melee weapons as your thing. Then you get a certain amount of increasing attack bonus with such weapons, from your level, and a static bonus from your class. (Whether these match current 4E numbers with Str included or not is irrelevant. Whatever makes the math work is fine.) Having this ability also gives you the option to gradually increase Str and/or Con. If you choose to increase Str, you do more damage, open heavy doors easier, leap longer, etc.

I'd also like the increases in ability scores to be less frequent, but the bonuses to damage and other things outside of hitting to be a bit nicer. There is a danger in my ideal that players feel locked out of character concepts, because they want this "strong guy that became a fighter" but feel like they had this "98 lb weakling that started as a fighter and became strong". If attack bonus is out of the equation, you don't increase abilities so radically, remaining bonuses are nicer, and you start with a smattering of ability bonuses--then a wider range of starting concepts are possible. You could have the strong guy that hits hard from the beginning, but wasn't all that accurate until his fighter level increases. But you can also have that 98 lb weakling that gets wiry and strong due to being a fighter over several levels.