D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[Micah Sweet]

The assumption of an effect like Guidance does seem to be present, but I've heard people claim that Guidance was a mistake (and apparently the developers have said so?), and there seems to be a lot of pushback towards players who want to use Guidance often.

Heck, when I suggested a player can throw out a Guidance every 10th turn for whatever die roll someone might need to make out of combat, I was told something to the effect that "that would be narratively ridiculous to me".

My analogy, a Sorcerer refreshing Dancing Lights ever 10th round for hands-free light sources, was also ill received, but I see that happen all the time at tables. /shrug

There does seem to be a lack of consensus about how difficult the game should be- I usually try to be a player advocate, because when I play the game, I look at what frustrates me and figure I can't be the only one.

Some people want D&D characters to be heroes, and others want them to be The Mystery Men (look it up if you haven't seen it!). And the developers don't seem to want to come out and say which is a more apt description, so the people who play and DM this game keep butting heads about it.

That's funny. I'm a GM advocate even as a player. The rest of the group gets on me about it.

 

[Micah Sweet]

I don't think so. They're there to provide both a moment to shine for the PCs (mowing the minions down with ease) while also providing something akin to a challenge (by doing reasonable damage). Matt's minion rules provide the first but not the second.

Right. The problem there is the DM is running a railroad where specific things must happen, and they're further compounding the problem by locking the things that must happen behind random rolls. That's just bad DMing.

I think part of the problem is that people don't read the social rules for 5E. There's three steps. DM determines starting disposition. Players try to adjust that disposition. DM asks for a roll when the players finally come to the point or ask for something.

And every seems to skip over this bit:

"That said, a hostile creature might be so ill-disposed toward the party that no Charisma check can improve its attitude, in which case any attempt to sway it through diplomacy fails automatically."

Negotiating with hostile creatures isn't a thing PCs should be doing.

But then...that's why there are reaction tables in older editions. Not every monster you face is automatically hostile and trying to murder you.

So, back to the thread, 5E is missing reaction tables.

Unless there's a fair chance of success or failure there's no point in rolling. If you've stacked things so well in your favor, it should be automatic. If things are so lop-sided against you, it should be automatic. No need to roll for a foregone conclusion. Most rolls should be in that vast excluded middle.

Two things. First, max level with max stat and proficiency isn't optimized. Second, the problem is we define difficult differently so that's making us talk past each other. "Difficult" isn't 60% chance of success. That's about twice as likely as MLB's all-time best hitter hitting a ball while at bat. That's the opposite of "difficult". That's easy. Difficult is something like 25% chance of success.

It almost reads like we define a lot of things differently. In an RPG the expectation is players have the freedom to try anything. Literally anything...as long as it's within bounds of the genre and the PC's capabilities. Chance of success is never guaranteed. You can try to fast-talk the king into giving up your crown...that in no way implies that you have any chance of success.

The problem is the bolded bits. What's reasonable to one is insane to another. Thinking that you have a chance to fast-talk the king into giving up his crown might seem reasonable to a player with max CHA and expertise in persuasion, while also being insane to the DM. There's no objective standard for what's "reasonable". When there's a conflict between what the player and DM expect, the DM is the final arbiter. If the DM's call seem arbitrary or unreasonable to you as a player, ask the DM why they made that call.

Also, you're talking about reasonable here. But you're the one who set the example DC at 20. That is, by definition, not something with a reasonable chance of success. The DCs are largely based around an assumed +0 roll. So something that for the average person has a 5% chance of success is not what I'd call reasonable. That your PC has a bonus to that task makes it easier to accomplish, but that's a show of how awesome the PC is compared to an average person.

No. You've got it backwards. The world does not mold and transform to suit the PCs and the load-out they bring to the table. NPCs don't suddenly become more easily negotiated with simply because none of the players wanted to run a face character. Likewise, doors that would be locked don't magically become unlocked if the party has no rogue or PC with proficiency with thieves' tools. That's not how any of this works. The PCs shouldn't have a reasonable chance to overcome every obstacle. Some things will be harder, others easier. That's kind of what I was asking about up thread. Why would you assume that no matter what you and your party should always be able to tackle every obstacle and challenge no matter what? That's the opposite of reasonable.

Yes, exactly. Welcome to a human-run RPGs. That's literally how the game works. Everything is an interaction between the player and the DM. You have to present your case that something is reasonable to the human running the game.

Um...no. A 12 or better with 2d20 is 69.75% chance of success. Load up anydice and drop this in "output [highest 1 of 2d20]" then click "at least". Look at the # line for 12.

Well, that's down to there being no reaction tables in the game and the assumption that every single monster is there to fight. Both players and DMs make that mistake. But yeah, sometimes you're not going to be able to talk to the monsters trying to eat you.

Exactly. It's so odd. Players want the dice to solve everything...and to use them all the time...yet want their chances of success to be so high that there's no point in bothering with the roll. I honestly don't get it. The fun of rolling is the anticipation of the result...not the sound the math rocks make on the table. Like opening a present. It could be DragonQuest for the NES or a pair of socks or noting or a glitter bomb or dog poo.

We're defining hostile differently then. Hostile means they don't like you, are not disposed to listening to you, and consider themselves your enemy. There's almost zero chance of saying "hey, could you not" to a creature who actively wants to harm you. That's not a reasonable expectation.

I expect players to face AC20 around the same time they have AC20...so 1st or 2nd level...in most cases.

It does, sort of. In the DMG. There's an optional rule for degrees of failure on page 242. It's not hard to use a similar framework for degrees of success. There's also pass/fail, critical/fumble as degrees of success.

It really is weird to me. I agree with what you're saying here. If you're going somewhere dangerous to do dangerous things...you should, I dunno, expect some...danger. It's odd that some players want this weird mish-mash of "danger" as a veneer we all pretend is there but really isn't. Like most combat in 5E is so wildly tipped in the players' favor that it's a foregone conclusion...to the point where rolling dice is just wasting table time...yet players seem to honestly think it's somehow dangerous...when it really isn't. I want danger in my games. I want risk. I want consequences. I want wonder. I want terror. I appreciate it when I'm on either side of the screen. I don't get when, why, and how "let's play a game of pretend with actual in-game risks" morphed into "let's pretend we're playing a game with actual in-game risks."

One of the things I always found interesting in Critical Role is how good a job the players do in pretending a situation is actually dangerous to their characters, when the vast majority of the time it wasn't. Now THAT'S acting!

 

[Minigiant]

I find it strange that people think 5e is easy. Like, yeah, you win most encounters, but if you're going to face the fabled 6-8 per diem, you're supposed to.

Three of the things that makes 5e easy are:

1. "Optional" variant rules which allow for optimization are widely used and encourages as "patches" for the simple game design.
2. "Optional" magic items are used by PCs
3. Monsters lack "Optional" additions which boost power by default.

The Champion in MoTM has 22 HD but is CR 9 because he/she/they/it is a lame beatstick with no feats, no magic items, and no supernatural/dark/epic/mythic/political/war gifts/boons.

Where's the writeup for the Champion with solar greatsword +1 longbow, red dragon plate, cape of flight, necklace of lazer beams, and gauntlet of disjunctions?

 

[Guest 7034872]

One of the things I always found interesting in Critical Role is how good a job the players do in pretending a situation is actually dangerous to their characters, when the vast majority of the time it wasn't. Now THAT'S acting!

We should never underestimate the acting skills of the Critical Role cast. It's clear to me they are all genuine friends and having a genuinely good time at the table, but there're a lot of strong acting skills getting called up those sessions, too.

 

[billd91]

We should never underestimate the acting skills of the Critical Role cast. It's clear to me they are all genuine friends and having a genuinely good time at the table, but there're a lot of strong acting skills getting called up those sessions, too.

That's true, but I think there are a lot of cases in which the players actually did believe their characters were in danger, particularly in campaign 2. I think that is a bit of a legacy from campaign 1 where they suffered quite a few death events - pretty much all recovered from via magic. They ran from fights a lot more in campaign 2 and did so successfully having learned some valuable lessons. The loss of Mollymauk really did highlight how much danger they could get themselves in if they weren't coordinating well.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I at least wasn't talking about "challenging the players" in the old school sense. That's not a thing for which there are good rules, and in fact rules are pretty much the antithesis of that mindset.
I was referring to the built in tension of the uncertainty of combat. For various reasons and by various mechanisms, previous editions (except maybe 4th, I don't know, but I don't want to get accused again of pretending it doesn't exist) were more swingy than 5E is. That translates to greater uncertainty, which means more tension, which -- IMO (just in case it wasn't clear) -- means more fun. One of the reasons I like Savage Worlds is that there is a lot of uncertainty in the combat due to the swingy nature of the core mechanic. 5E fights often feel rote because the result is a foregone conclusion and we are just expending resources to whittle them down enough that the boss fight is actually a question.

The thing is, the critters are given their CR and abilities on the balance basis of a fairly long adventuring day, with a certain level of difficulty. I mean, a "deadly" encounter is called that for a reason.

Rather than worrying about PC abilities, IMO it makes more sense to change monsters in simple ways, use templates, make more enemies "legendary", etc.

And buy Monster of The Multiverse, actually. It makes monsters hit harder, and makes them harder to counter, in general.

Where's the writeup for the Champion with solar greatsword +1 longbow, red dragon plate, cape of flight, necklace of lazer beams, and gauntlet of disjunctions?

How would you do that in a way that doesn't just mean that every Champion you fight gives the party the same three magic items when defeated? Advice in the MM on how to easily integrate magic and special abilities to simple enemies would be great, though.

That's true, but I think there are a lot of cases in which the players actually did believe their characters were in danger, particularly in campaign 2. I think that is a bit of a legacy from campaign 1 where they suffered quite a few death events - pretty much all recovered from via magic. They ran from fights a lot more in campaign 2 and did so successfully having learned some valuable lessons. The loss of Mollymauk really did highlight how much danger they could get themselves in if they weren't coordinating well.

That, and I think they were in danger more than a lot of folks think. Matt redesigns a lot of monsters to be more engaging and dangerous.

 

[Minigiant]

How would you do that in a way that doesn't just mean that every Champion you fight gives the party the same three magic items when defeated? Advice in the MM on how to easily integrate magic and special abilities to simple enemies would be great, though.

A weapons and armor chart.

Roll 3 d6. Your rolls give the "Heroic Champion" their magic melee weapon, magic ranged weapon, and magic accessory.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

A weapons and armor chart.

Roll 3 d6. Your rolls give the "Heroic Champion" their magic melee weapon, magic ranged weapon, and magic accessory.

You don't think that would feel forced and weird?

I'm all for giving NPCs magic items, a lot of the magic items I give out are taken from people who used them against the party first. But that isn't a Champion thing, it's just an NPC thing. Give the Veteran a collection of magic crossbow bolts. Give the Archer a magic bow or boots of flying. Go nuts. Or don't.

But the solution to thinking the Champion is boring isn't to have the game say, "If you want engaging NPCs, load them up with magic items!"

A much better way to handle the fact that some DMs/groups (certainly not all) want more complexity in monsters, is to introduce a good set of templates covering a wide range of themes and "combat roles", and a set of group templates, and giving advice on how to use them.

What I mean by group templates is, treat the entire encounter's worth of enemies as A Thing, in that there are certain special actions and traits they have as a group. So the highly trained unit of hoplites have legendary actions they can do to move as a unit, attack an area, force movement in an area, regroup when things turn south, etc, and a boost of some kind that they lose when enough of them are taken out.

Each goblin doesn't need to have pack tactics, if you make a Goblin War Band template that gives the group pack tactics, and the ability to move without opportunity attacks on initiative 20.

 

[Minigiant]

You don't think that would feel forced and weird?

I'm all for giving NPCs magic items, a lot of the magic items I give out are taken from people who used them against the party first. But that isn't a Champion thing, it's just an NPC thing. Give the Veteran a collection of magic crossbow bolts. Give the Archer a magic bow or boots of flying. Go nuts. Or don't.

But the solution to thinking the Champion is boring isn't to have the game say, "If you want engaging NPCs, load them up with magic items!"

A much better way to handle the fact that some DMs/groups (certainly not all) want more complexity in monsters, is to introduce a good set of templates covering a wide range of themes and "combat roles", and a set of group templates, and giving advice on how to use them.

What I mean by group templates is, treat the entire encounter's worth of enemies as A Thing, in that there are certain special actions and traits they have as a group. So the highly trained unit of hoplites have legendary actions they can do to move as a unit, attack an area, force movement in an area, regroup when things turn south, etc, and a boost of some kind that they lose when enough of them are taken out.

Each goblin doesn't need to have pack tactics, if you make a Goblin War Band template that gives the group pack tactics, and the ability to move without opportunity attacks on initiative 20.

That's a better way to do it, yes.

But my overall point was to have variants and items for tables that let PCs use empowering variants and items.

Variant: Eldritch Champion
The Champion has the following spells:

Variant: Champion Magic Items
The Champion has a 30 ft fly speed, has resistance to fire and cold damage, and has a Magic Greatsword attack of your choice.

Variant: Champion Feats of Strength
The Champions has the Unarmed Strike and Slam attacks.

Variant: Champion's Challenge
The Champion has the Champion's Challenge and Champion's Punishment attacks.

 

[Reynard]

I would love to see a return of the weapon types versus armor types in the era of VTTs. It should be easy to implement as and would help reinforce the martial versus caster difference. Martial characters get weaker when you eliminate for expediency all the fiddly bits about weapons. Bring back weapon speed, reach and effectiveness versus armor types and you start to reinstate the value of martial characters without having to resort to giving them "martial spells."