D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[ART!]

Yeah, but see that's the game. In absolutely ANY case where dice are rolled a single stupid roll can change the course of events. Whether it be a player's hit points, attributes or an attack roll, or damage roll, failed or successful skill check. Once you start removing those elements (especially for player 'comfort'), you might as well just be sitting around the table shooting the breeze, because you're not playing a game anymore.

All or nothing, baby!

Crappy or not crappy ability scores are not "the game". There's a huge swath of gaming difference between "I don't want crappy ability scores" and "I don't want any dice rolls in the game".

 

[Benjamin Olson]

Well, I got rid of rolling for ability scores in my home game back in 2E so apparently I disagree. I don't see the point of rolling dice to tell me who my PC will be.

I thought the whole premise, based on most things that people had named, was to pick a perfectly fine thing that we just personally dislike for irrational reasons.

As for not rolling dice to tell you whom your PC will be, why roll dice for anything? Really the dice aren't "telling" you anything, they are imposing boundaries on what story you can tell. You just don't like those boundaries being randomized for character creation I guess, and I get that, but personally feel the opposite.

 

[dave2008]

I'd prefer just Fighter, Rogue, and Caster, with hybrids. Classic clerics can be Fighter/Caster with an acolyte background and healing and buff spells.

I understand and I could get behind that; however, I think I would like to create space for their to be real mechanical difference between divine magic and arcane magic. Perhaps a cleric uses magic, but doesn't cast spells at all. So I see the mage as any spellcasting class, but the cleric is a magic using class that doesn't cast spells. Does that make sense. Maybe those two ideas could be rolled into one, but it seems you could explore the differences more if they are different classes.

EDIT: I change my list to more accurately display my idea

1. an arcane spellcaster
2. a magic user, possibly "divine" (not spells, something different)
3. martial fighting class,...
4. and a martial skill based class.

 

[TwoSix]

I understand and I could get behind that; however, I think I would like to create space for their to be real mechanical difference between divine magic and arcane magic. Perhaps a cleric uses magic, but doesn't cast spells at all. So I see the mage as any spellcasting class, but the cleric is a magic using class that doesn't cast spells. Does that make sense. Maybe those two ideas could be rolled into one, but it seems you could explore the differences more if they are different classes.

Oh, absolutely. I've said in other threads I think the warlock class makes a better base for a cleric concept than a cleric does. More granted abilities, less spells.

 

[Stormonu]

"Everything gets better after a nap and perhaps slap in the face by the Paladin."

I think I need that this afternoon. Well, maybe not the slap, unless I’m visiting Castle Perilous.

 

[Oofta]

I thought the whole premise, based on most things that people had named, was to pick a perfectly fine thing that we just personally dislike for irrational reasons.

As for not rolling dice to tell you whom your PC will be, why roll dice for anything? Really the dice aren't "telling" you anything, they are imposing boundaries on what story you can tell. You just don't like those boundaries being randomized for character creation I guess, and I get that, but personally feel the opposite.

Different strokes for different folks and all. I just want all the PCs to start out on a more or less on an even footing.

I guess if I had made a second "honorary mention" it would have been rolling for ability scores, I meant no offense.

 

[Faolyn]

Re: XP, just stop giving XP for killing things. Make all leveling milestone/story-based.

There are two parts to the encounter quota. First is attrition, and yes by making encounters more deadly you can deal with it.

The second is inter-class balance between the at-will classes like rogue (or EB-only Warlock) and the long rest recovery classes (like casters) and to some extents hybrids (like paladin or barbarian). I don't think anyone will say that a single average martial round will do as much as a single average round of high level spell casting. High level limited resources > at-will ability. True and good. If there is a single round of combat in a day, we can see how the casters will be able to accomplish more than the at-will characters. By the flip side of the same coin, if long rest only happened once per level the asters would be predominantly cantrips for the level, and at-will class action > cantrips.

Well, first, I'm not talking about "a single round of combat." A deadlier combat would likely have multiple foes, or at least one foe with lots of actions, legendary and lair actions, and all that sort of stuff, and monsters moving around instead of going toe-to-toe, causing it to last long enough that the casters will have to use both higher-level slots and cantrips. Also, if you have both combat and non-combat encounters (obstacles, hazardous conditions, social encounters, etc.) then that also helps to deplete resources.

Addendum: This isn't me pushing the encounter quota system. I dislike that it's needed and I can't just do whatever pacing the narrative delivers, and where it's calibrated is the single biggest weakness in 5e for me because it's at a place that no one goes regularly except possibly during a dungeon crawl. Definitely it isn't exceeded as frequently as it's short. I wish the design was quite different and it wasn't part of the game at all.

I do agree with that. They shouldn't have used that at all. They should probably also completely redo the CR system to both take other things into consideration (most effects that cause conditions, even conditions like incapacitated, or that reduce hp/stat maximums, don't actually affect CR) and make it so CR 1 = 1 first level character, or something like that, rather than equal a party of four.

 

[jasper]

I was going to say Rogue but someone stole my train on thought on that idea.

 

[TwoSix]

I was going to say Rogue but someone stole my train on thought on that idea.

Must have been a sneak attack.

 

[Faolyn]

"Everything gets better after a nap and perhaps slap in the face by the Paladin."

It's not too hard to kill 5e characters if you put your back into it. Harder than 1e, sure, but in my Temple of Elemental Evil campaign, I killed about 15. What's really hard is imposing any kind of debilitating condition. Disease and injury should be, I don't know...things?

Lingering injuries and diseases are definitely a thing that should be of greater importance of the game, as long as it's done in a way that doesn't make it too un-fun for everyone.

On the other hand...

If I fall and break a leg, I clearly take some damage. However, I don't think I would be easier to kill (i.e., have reduced hit points) for 6-8 weeks until my leg's fully healed.

So the difference shouldn't be slowly regaining hit points; it should be other things: slow movement, penalties to Dex saves or not getting to use your Dex bonus in AC because you can't dodge, stuff like that.