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

[Herremann the Wise]

I hope they don't go the 3e way with a single, monsterous alphabetical list of powers in the back, with powers crossing source as well as class.

Organization by /level/ is sooo much friendlier, especially to the casual player. You flip to a given page and see your choices for your new level.

Actually, if every class isn't to have it's own power list, then, it might be better for /no/ class to have it's own exclusive powers (or, at least, very few such).

All classes of a given Source could chose from a list of powers that reflected that source and dependend upon class features to support their Role. Or, I suppose, conversely, all classes of a given Role could choose from a list of mechanically-role-apropriate powers, with fluff and features painting the class's source.

In 3e, I kind of liked the spell list summaries followed by alphabetical listings; it seemed to pick the middle ground just nicely. Turning the wall of powers into the index of powers in 4e PHB 1 would have been a better design decision in my opinion. Imagine if each class had something akin to the 3e feat pages but for powers. For a particular class, imagine if it gave the powers name and then a short description of what it does - about a single page for each class. I just can't help but think that this would have made the overall design of the book cleaner and the overall package more accessible for all players.

However on the flip-side, without power cards you really need your own PHB open at the page when starting out (a 3e feats style listing would not have been good for this purpose.) And so their design decision is understandable.

Best Regards
Herremann the Wise

 

[Crazy Jerome]

Even better would be the Arcana Evolved replacement for 3E spell lists, applied to 4E powers. Arrange the powers by level and give them appropriate keywords (probably role + power source + a few other relevant pieces to make it work). Or perhaps instead of the simple/complex/exotic lists of AE, role provides that distinction. That is, there are maybe powers that are common to all roles, and then four lists, one for each role.

The keywords make it easier to find the exceptions, and to have feats that grant extended access. Perhaps a wizard, by default, at first level, only gets access to the arcane controller powers. But with the right feats, he can select up to 50% of his spells from arcane striker powers.

 

[KarinsDad]

The keywords make it easier to find the exceptions, and to have feats that grant extended access. Perhaps a wizard, by default, at first level, only gets access to the arcane controller powers. But with the right feats, he can select up to 50% of his spells from arcane striker powers.

Taking this back a step, I designed a D&D like game system decades ago where the PC would buy components for spells. Fire. Cold. Range. Wall. Multi-target. etc.

The components added together so that the more components added, the less chance the PC had to hit with the spell. So, the PC could cast simple spells with few components and they would often hit and do damage. But, casting complex spells required more experience, hit less often, but did more amazing things.

There were even some computer games in the late 80s that did something similar as characters leveled up and unlocked more "boons" that made their powers more versatile or powerful.


The concept that PCs could acquire keywords for their powers as they level up that unlock more powers is interesting. Adding that to the concept that most "damaging" powers are the equivalent of a "basic attack" with some extra added benefit allows for a long list of powers selectable, but with little in the way of additional text on the character sheet.

Powers with more keywords are more powerful or have stronger additional effects or both.


Basic Attack: 1d8+stat
Cold: Basic Attack and the target is Slowed.
Charm: Basic Attack and the target is at -2 to hit.

Or whatever.


Not that all powers should work this way. Encounters and Dailies might work differently. But, this would allow for a longer list of At Will weaker powers with minor additional effects as PC levels up.

 

[Ryujin]

Even better would be the Arcana Evolved replacement for 3E spell lists, applied to 4E powers. Arrange the powers by level and give them appropriate keywords (probably role + power source + a few other relevant pieces to make it work). Or perhaps instead of the simple/complex/exotic lists of AE, role provides that distinction. That is, there are maybe powers that are common to all roles, and then four lists, one for each role.

The keywords make it easier to find the exceptions, and to have feats that grant extended access. Perhaps a wizard, by default, at first level, only gets access to the arcane controller powers. But with the right feats, he can select up to 50% of his spells from arcane striker powers.

The idea of a common spell list, for all power sources, is a pretty attractive one. Each power having a list of classes next to it, who have the specific power available for choice. Multi-classing would open up additional powers, without the need for power swap feats, maybe with the powers made available by multi-classing becoming one 'availability level' worse; at-will to encounter, encounter to daily... Dailies would essentially be the defining characteristics of a class.

Could be a hard system to balance, in the same way that 4e has been very well balanced, but it's intriguing.

Taking this back a step, I designed a D&D like game system decades ago where the PC would buy components for spells. Fire. Cold. Range. Wall. Multi-target. etc.

The components added together so that the more components added, the less chance the PC had to hit with the spell. So, the PC could cast simple spells with few components and they would often hit and do damage. But, casting complex spells required more experience, hit less often, but did more amazing things.

Yeesh! Shades of Torg's "casting on the fly"! That system came pretty close to breaking my brain.

 

[KarinsDad]

Yeesh! Shades of Torg's "casting on the fly"! That system came pretty close to breaking my brain.

Yeah, I wouldn't recommend that.

More like a list of At Will powers based on keyword where every power worked the same as far as the basic attack, but the keyword resulted in a specific extra effect unique to that power. That way, a PC could have 10 At Will powers at high level, but each one of them would be a single line on the character sheet.

 

[Crazy Jerome]

The idea of a common spell list, for all power sources, is a pretty attractive one. Each power having a list of classes next to it, who have the specific power available for choice...

In the printed version, I wouldn't use classes as keywords. That makes it hard to fit new classes into the game. And while I think there should be relatively few classes, I do think there should be a few added later. Also, it never hurts to make things easier on groups that want to make up their own classes. OTOH, if you have a keyword of "arcane controller" and that means only "wizard" for awhile, no harm done. If you have a keyword of "psionic defender" and that never means anything but a particular class, the modest overhead isn't that bad for what it bought you in the other cases.

Now, in the online character generator, sure, resolve the keywords into the respective classes, and let users filter accordingly. Hey, I'm playing a wizard, with these relevant feats. Just show me the powers I can pick.

 

[Zuche]

Based on the handling of certain creatures in this season of Encounters (ending today), one of the things most likely to change by the time 5e rolls out is the grab mechanic. No surprise there, since related mechanics have been a pain in every edition in this game. Still, a standard action that merely immobilizes an opponent until it can make a move action to escape (automatically, in some cases) isn't that useful even to creatures that get damage bonuses against a target they have grabbed. Maybe this would be different if there was some option for moving the targets status from grabbed to restrained and then to helpless, but there's some reluctance to let player characters face that kind of risk.

Meanwhile, the Lost Crown of Neverwinter solution gave monsters that just grabbed their opponents with a successful attack a flat 10 hp of damage on top of this result. Maybe it would have been better to apply the same guidelines for damage done by at-will attacks that target multiple opponents, as that flat 10 was a bit harsh to some 1st level groups.

Ongoing damage needs some fixing, especially with regard to creatures that do nothing but ongoing damage. Consider the fire elemental: once one has scored a hit against a target, no other fire elemental can do anything more to that opponent, whether during their own turns or on an opportunity attack. To make it worse, tier-appropriate fire resistance makes you immune to a fire elemental of the same tier. Okay, it can still destroy the furniture, but that's likely to feel either contrived or spiteful in most cases.

I'd rather see ongoing damage replaced by a counter that lasts until the encounter ends. (I'll discuss some options for removing it earlier in a later paragraph.) Instead of causing ongoing 5 fire damage, an elemental causes level appropriate fire damage to its target, and all further fire damage during that encounter causes x amount more damage (to creatures only). Each time the elemental (or some other opponent that currently does ongoing fire damage) hits the target, the counter increases by 1 hp of damage, or maybe 1 hp per tier. This won't impair player characters too badly in most cases, but it has something to offer the game as a tool of attrition.

Removing this marker early could be done with a successful Heal check, a good use of a standard action when attrition damage can eventually wear down any resistance or regeneration you might have. You might also allow someone to remove the counter with the use of second wind, or possibly with a successful Endurance check at the cost of a healing surge.

Something similar to that last idea might serve to replace the current mechanics for saving throws. Rather than the base 55% chance of success, give creatures the option to attempt an appropriate ability check to negate an effect, losing a healing surge if successful. (Skill checks might be appropriate in some cases, but making sense of that will require more effort.) Since monsters don't have more than 1 surge per tier, multiple successes will cost them a quarter of their hit points each time. I'd suggest that it only cost elites an eighth (or maybe 10%) of their hp in such cases, while solos would only lose 5% of their total each time this happened.

As suggested, these are not workable systems. The rules would have to be significantly overhauled to make them work, particularly with regard to effects that prevent creatures from taking any effective action. That said, designers have cautioned against the use of such debilitating powers before. They mainly had their use against player characters in mind, but they can be real fun killers against monsters as well. (It's fine to stack the deck in your favour right up until you may as well be playing solitaire for all your opponents get to contribute.)

That's enough for now. I've got a few thoughts on tactical teleportation (and why I think it makes sense to be more widely available than reliable flight to most creatures), and maybe a few suggestions on the handling of the ability scores (concerning with application to attack rolls), but I'll save those for a later post.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Based on the handling of certain creatures in this season of Encounters (ending today), one of the things most likely to change by the time 5e rolls out is the grab mechanic. No surprise there, since related mechanics have been a pain in every edition in this game. Still, a standard action that merely immobilizes an opponent until it can make a move action to escape (automatically, in some cases) isn't that useful even to creatures that get damage bonuses against a target they have grabbed.

Many monsters, particularly those with a bonus vs grabbed enemies, have attacks that do damage, and also grab. Zombies in the MM1, for instance, grab with their 'slam' attack, in addition to doing damage. It's pretty much par for the course. Monsters that lack such powers rarely grab.

Those few PC builds that emphasise grabbing at all also tend to have powers that tack on a grab to some other attack. The Brawling Fighter build (Martial Power 2) is the premier example - very grabby.

The Grab in the PH (or Grab power in Essentials) is there for a player who does see some benefit to briefly immobilizing an enemy at the cost of a standard action - highly situational, but it could happen. It's not an option that's meant to see regular use, like a basic attack or at-will class power.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 3e, I kind of liked the spell list summaries followed by alphabetical listings; it seemed to pick the middle ground just nicely. Turning the wall of powers into the index of powers in 4e PHB 1 would have been a better design decision in my opinion. Imagine if each class had something akin to the 3e feat pages but for powers. For a particular class, imagine if it gave the powers name and then a short description of what it does - about a single page for each class.

Sounds horrid. Those short descriptions are often so far wrong or misleading as to be worse than useless. Flipping back and forth to see what each power actually does is a pain.

Most classes have about 4 choices per level, and when they're all on one page it makes it extremely easy to pick your next power. You read them, compare them point-by-point if you like, and make your decision. No flipping back and forth between powers starting with 'A' and 'S,' no flipping back and forth to an index... Ugh!

Of course, once suplements get into it, you need to have two or three books open in front of you...

A fair middle ground might be to consolidate powers by source, but still sort them by level, letting each class chose any power of it's source. You'd have significantly fewer powers, a quarter or a 5th or less of what we have now.

 

[FireLance]

I think I would prefer a themes approach myself. Basically, group powers into Dark Sun style themes, and at character creation, each PC picks three (or more, if so desired) themes from which to choose their powers and other benefits.

Three themes would allow a character to select a race theme, a class theme and a background theme. Multiclassing and racial hybrids could be represented by choosing two class or race themes, possibly giving up the background theme, or all characters could just be allowed to select more themes.

This approach also allows for the fairly easy implementation of powers common to role and power source, either by developing each role and power source as a separate theme, or making them sub-themes which characters gain access to by virtue of their class themes (so a character with the Cleric class theme might also gain access to powers in the Leader role theme and the Divine power source theme).

Level would still be the key determinant of character power, though. Themes give a character more power choices, but ultimately, the total number of powers and benefits that he can choose would be limited by his level.