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

[Dannyalcatraz]

You will find many here who agree with your sentiments, more or less- what you say resonates somewhat with my own position. However, when a position like yours- or its exact opposite- is stated in such a bald & forceful rhetorical fashion, it tends to stir things up 'round here in a way the mods reluctantly have to deal with.

So you might want to tone it down in the future.

 

[The Human Target]

Having just played under the 3E era rules the other day for the first time in years, I hope the game never goes back into that direction.

 

[Stalker0]

The idea of removing stats from attack bonus is an interesting idea, though it would lead to even more standardization....something that many cried foul at when 4e was released (the idea that classes are too much the same).

Also...it may not be necessary with some other changes. There are reasons primary reasons that the attack stat is so important in 4e.

1) The lack of effect based powers. In 3e, these are called "buffs". Basically they are spells or effects that simply give a benefit, no attack roll required.

In 3e, you could play a cleric with a big strength for a heavy attack stat. You could play a wisdom heavy one who focused on attack spells. Or you could play one with a bit of both, and use buff spells to augment your weaker attack.

In 4e this has traditionally been hard to do. Often hitting is required for both damage and to apply your conditional effects. That means attacking is critical to perform a function on the battlefield.

Now I will say recent 4e has made a lot of improvements here. We have a lot more effect based at-wills and other powers. Heck, there are some very nice cleric attack powers that are pure effect....no attack roll they just add this penalty to the enemy.

2) SAD instead of MAD. 3e is much more MAD than 4e is. In 3e, you need strength for damage (and often to hit), dex for AC, always need some con for living, int for skills, wisdom for that all important will save, cha for.....okay we all know cha was the red headed step child of the lot

In 4e, a rogue for example could make his entire living off of dex. Dex gives him attack, damage, AC, reflex defense, initiative. Con is not nearly as important as it once was, and while having defenses is great you don't deal with the deadly dominates and death saves you did in 3e.

As a second part to this, I think 4e's point buy system leads to SADness over MADness. In 3e, its relatively cheap to get a 14 in a stat. So having a lot of 14's is an efficient use of points. In 4e its more expensive to get a 14, so you are encouraged to focus your points into a few stats.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Please, by all means, NOT return to 3.5... and especially not to pathfinder!

Why? Pathfinder is already there, up and running, doing what you want of a fifth edition. Doing well enough. (Pobably about as well as 4th edition considering different ways of distributing.)

Imagine wizards did a 5th edition, that is exactly like pathfinder... what do we gain with it.

BUT 5th edition may also no be like 4th edition revisited. Because we already have 4th edition. Doing now what it promised to do 3 years ago. Having tools that seem to work again. Having a quite balance combat system (Especially when you allow for some free feats). Starting to remember its roots.
And still: a too similar edition will fail...

What we need is a 5th edition that learned from 3.x and 4e and other editions that are still played today and will be played later... and offer an alternative that allows for different playstyles with a solid rule base, that allows easy DMing and rewards players for PLAYING well.

If you ask me, the character building micromanagement minigame should be the main target to bring down in 5th edition.

For those who like it, leave 4th edition and 3.x including pathfinder intact and don´t shut down access to it. It is frankly not needed... everyone, be it pathfinder player or 4e player will try the 5th edition game, no matter how it looks on paper... and if it is to their tastes, they will play it...

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The idea of removing stats from attack bonus is an interesting idea, though it would lead to even more standardization....something that many cried foul at when 4e was released (the idea that classes are too much the same).

2nd edition did exactly that. Your stats only gave a small bonus if you were no fighter...

But it did not matter back then: you started hitting usually not at al, but a single blow could kill, and ended where you hit most enemies with a 5 or so... or you just had different means to kill.

I believe, if you decide on a range that PC´s hit your average monster, you should keep it in mind when giving attack and defense bonuses to players and monsters alike... and either both should have a standard progression there or none.

Lets assume the 4e "hitting about 60%" is the desired range (I think it is both, too low and too high, the way the rest of the system is designed*), then you should make sure, that this numer is kept. Not with every attack but with your basic attacks. And specialized attacks, with a ceratin weapon, encounter powers or your class specials should exceed that number OR just bypass the defense at least partially.

Many essentials classes keep that in mind, but it is not enough...

*it would take me too long to explain it, and i don´t have the right solution at hand...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I don't think stats should be removed from attack bonus, I think we should just have a more flexible choice of stats to use and toned down bonuses.

Move the attack stat choice for weapon powers from the power to the weapon. That allows for light weapons that are dex based and heavier ones that are str based. You can use a 'mastery' (theme or feat tree, whatever) to allow each type of weapon to gain specific advantages. This could be based on stats too, so a character could gain an ability to draw and attack quickly (like the Iaijitsu ability of the Samurai) that works with dex based attacks, etc. More general masteries would be agnostic on that score and would allow for a character to operate in a more flexible manner, using an appropriate weapon in each situation for instance.

The ability score boosts can then be ditched. They really serve no good purpose except to bloat up bonuses to problematic values. An ED or something could always allow a +1 ability score bonus if desired.

 

[Ryujin]

An alternative would be a system in which your attributes represent your upper limit of skill and combat development, rather than adding to them, but that's not what D&D has traditionally been.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

An alternative would be a system in which your attributes represent your upper limit of skill and combat development, rather than adding to them, but that's not what D&D has traditionally been.

Yeah, the tricky part is that either way if your stat doesn't ever change once you build the character you're pretty much almost guaranteed to want to max out your primary attack stat, you'll never get another chance.

You could do it as your stat NEVER applies directly to your attacks at all and just defines the absolute max bonus you can ever get, which you then have to acquire with feats etc. STILL, you'll just want to slap a 20 in there.

I think the better approach would be to simply cap non-level bonus for all attacks at some arbitrary number like +8 or something, and then allow your stat to apply as well as feats, proficiency, etc. That way you gain a decent amount by jacking your attack stat, but it isn't the ONLY way to get to max accuracy, which is basically something every single character is going to want to hit sooner or later.

Its a bit complicated, but it would produce the desired result. Whatever feats you use to fill in are STILL going to be basically mandatory though. I can think of a few ways to at least make that interesting, but it isn't going to be a lot different from how things are now really. The main advantage being you cap the variance between builds. Some characters will be more accurate starting off, but eventually everyone catches up.

 

[KidSnide]

I tend to think that stat-based bonuses are problematic because of how they distort the ability allocation. The to-hit bonus is so important that there are very few instances where an optimized character doesn't want to maximize that bonus at the cost of whatever other benefits are available.

I think good game design should allow for interesting decisions. If maximizing your primary stat is almost always the optimal decision, then you have an underdeveloped aspect of the game. Of course, I think fighters should be able to benefit significantly from a high strength (to pick one example), but I don't think the benefits of a high strength should dominate fighter builds (at least, non-slayer builds) quite so thoroughly.

Stat-based to hit bonuses are also the bane of V-shaped classes. There's nothing wrong with the idea that there are two types of paladins who have different personal characteristics (Str vs. Cha) and that affects the sorts of powers they want to use. But the to-hit issue is so important that Paladins effectively turn into two sub-classes that share the same utility powers. This is also true of classes that aren't V-shaped, but maybe would be if not for this issue. I love the idea of ranged-warlords, but it's completely bizarre that they use their Strength for bow attacks. What?

-KS

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I tend to think that stat-based bonuses are problematic because of how they distort the ability allocation. The to-hit bonus is so important that there are very few instances where an optimized character doesn't want to maximize that bonus at the cost of whatever other benefits are available.

I think good game design should allow for interesting decisions. If maximizing your primary stat is almost always the optimal decision, then you have an underdeveloped aspect of the game. Of course, I think fighters should be able to benefit significantly from a high strength (to pick one example), but I don't think the benefits of a high strength should dominate fighter builds (at least, non-slayer builds) quite so thoroughly.

Stat-based to hit bonuses are also the bane of V-shaped classes. There's nothing wrong with the idea that there are two types of paladins who have different personal characteristics (Str vs. Cha) and that affects the sorts of powers they want to use. But the to-hit issue is so important that Paladins effectively turn into two sub-classes that share the same utility powers. This is also true of classes that aren't V-shaped, but maybe would be if not for this issue. I love the idea of ranged-warlords, but it's completely bizarre that they use their Strength for bow attacks. What?

-KS

I don't see any point to V shaped classes personally. Paladin should have been STR based and cleric WIS based, pure and simple. Warlocks could have been CHA based with variable secondaries, etc. V shaped classes were just a mistake and I personally see no reason for that.

OTOH if weapon choice determines attack stat then you can build what you want to build. There's no reason why you can't build a STR/DEX fighter that is capable of wielding a bow as ably as he wields a sword for instance.

I'm not sure what you mean by 'distorted' either. You're going to have good stats and not-so-good stats, that's just the nature of the game and always has been. Heroes are generally the best of the best, and a strong fighter or an agile fighter will be that. NPCs might be lesser warriors and not so strong, PCs are the most gifted and what they're gifted at is what benefits them at their archetype.

The thing is, suppose you built your fighter with a 14 STR, and I built mine with an 18 STR, wouldn't I EXPECT to gain a benefit from that. There's no system you're going to dream up where that isn't going to be the player's expectation. It is kind of inescapable. I agree that there's plenty of scope to have different builds use different stats. OTOH maybe such different builds deserve to be classes too. There are plenty of choices and I'm not entirely certain what the ideal result is EXACTLY, but one way or another putting your stats where they most count is always going to be optimum.