D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Blue]

@Blue, all I can say is I've never had any of the problems that you're stating exist, so I don't know what's up with your games.

I firmly believe you've never noticed the problems I've stated. That neither proves nor disproves them. Why not take a shot at the math I've described several times if you don't believe it exists.

 

[tetrasodium]

An action casting a high level slot on average does more then an action doing an at-will action. If all we have are those, then the classes with the high level slots (and low level slots for utility and defense) will do more than the at-will characters. There's no question about intent "did then mean for you to be completely out of resources", it's entirely math. If you sum a bunch of numbers between 10 and 15, and sum together the same number of 8s, the 10-20s will be higher. It's not until you start adding in the 4s to the top list (having to use cantrips either to conserve slots or because you are out of slots) while the other list is still averaging in 8s, that they start to converge. The measure of that balance is the average efficiency of an action.

For the balance between classes to work out, the average efficiency of an action must balance out by the end of the day. Now, not everyday - some days will (and properly!) favor one side or the other. But if it only favors one side, that's not balanced. And over a statistically approprite longer period, it should balance out if you want the classes to be balanced.

As a side note, I play with several DMs who don't do a lot of encoutners per day. It's definitely fun. But we've wandered away from the at-will classes. We have paladins and barbarians - both whom are hybrids that benefit from short days - and casters.

One DM also doesn't like giving short rests once the action has started - feels it destroys tension and pacing. We don't see monks or warlocks with that DM. Same general reason, about the efficiency of actions being too much lower than the average replacement. (WAR for you sabermetrics folks.)


I won't forget, but it's meaningless. If a spell using a slot X and an action to cast is held for all of a 3 round combat, or is lost in the 4th round of a 8 round combat, there can be no argument that because it was lost in the second cast that it was the less efficient use of the spell. Enemies will be targetting regardless. If it lasts 3 rounds, it lasts 3 rounds. If it has the opportunity to last longer but doesn't, doesn't suddenly make it worse then the one that lasted the entire 3 round combat - neither is useful round 4 onward.

I'm not sure that you are right on the math. You start out good, but it doesn't sound like you are factoring in the impact of multiple attacks & +attrib damage to numbers or there is some miscommunication. At will weapons significantly outpace cantrips other than agonizing eldritch blast once you add +attribute mods & factor in extra attacks or things like sneak. The limited spell slot buff/debuff/nuke leveled spells should make up the slack in some other area as you note, but those spells tend to be balanced as if holding back from a misconception that cantrips outdamage weapons. Maybe I'm misreading you somewhere?

 

[fearsomepirate]

I much prefer large dungeons where parties can engage at will, and every time they leave the dungeon and long rest, I partially restock, set up traps, have the monsters plan ambushes, etc. This leaves it to them to simply try and clear as much as they possibly can before a long rest.

 

[pogre]

Gnomes

 

[Faolyn]

I firmly believe you've never noticed the problems I've stated. That neither proves nor disproves them. Why not take a shot at the math I've described several times if you don't believe it exists.

<shrug> If I remember to. But since I (A) do encounters that aren't combat encounters, (B) have players that apparently react quite differently to combat than yours do, and (C) have noticed that actual play doesn't actually have much to do with mathematical simulations, I doubt it would do anything.

In one game I'm in, the sorcerer spends more times hitting things with her quarterstaff than casting spells. In another one, my non-EB-using warlock has only used a single spell slot in combat; the rest of the time, they've been using them to cast detect evil and good willy-nilly. In the games I actually run, non-combat encounters take up as much casting as combat encounters.

 

[dave2008]

I firmly believe you've never noticed the problems I've stated. That neither proves nor disproves them. Why not take a shot at the math I've described several times if you don't believe it exists.

I tried to find your math, but I didn't see it. Can you point me to the correct post. However, I will say I believe math tends to be a bad predictor of game play in my experience.

 

[Seramus]

Dungeons or Dragons
Dungeons nor Dragons
Dungeons xor Dragons
Dungeons but Dragons

(actually, I might be interested in that last one)

Dungeons above Dragons.
Dungeons without Dragons!
Dungeons digesting Dragons?
Dungeons painting Dragons~
Dungeons riding Dragons+
Dungeons butt Dragons-

 

[fearsomepirate]

An action casting a high level slot on average does more then an action doing an at-will action. If all we have are those, then the classes with the high level slots (and low level slots for utility and defense) will do more than the at-will characters.

At 11th level, a 20 INT wizard's high level slots are 1x6, 2x5, and 3x4. A duelist Fighter, with a +1 sword, against 17 AC, such as a Behir, is expected to do as much damage each round as the wizard casting Blight against an enemy with +4 to save, such as that same Behir. A Samurai's Action Surge in on par with two full rounds of Blight + Bigby's Hand (5th level). Against a monster with Legendary Resistance or Magical Resistance, forget it.

Sure, the wizard excels at AoE damage, and that's what the class is for. But single-target damage? A wizard has to spend a lot of resources to hit as hard as a Fighter just swinging his sword mindlessly, to say nothing of a Paladin burning smites, and he's going to run out of gas fast. Yes, the Fighter plateaus, but between 11th and 17th level, when the Fighter picks up a second Action Surge, the wizard will only gain 3 more spell slots. It's just not enough to keep up if you have more than 6 or 7 rounds of combat in an adventuring day.

If the Fighter gets a +2 sword, or something really badass like Frost Brand or Flametongue, forget it, it's Fighter Town.

And this is, of course, completely neglecting how easy it is to absolutely wallop wizards at high level and break their concentration.

 

[Raith5]

There are a lot of small things Id like to give a small tweak (getting rid of concentration checks for damage for one) and big things that would demand big changes (like rethinking how D&D works at high level/13th level + or changing the game into only having short rests).

But for me the thing id like to change is how spells are presented (level of spell vs spell slots). I would like a caster to know a spell which enables then to cast a cantrip spell at will and then cast related spells as they level up - so that eg if you know the Fire Spell you could cast firebolt at will and at 1st level you could cast Burning hands and 5th level fireball etc.

 

[Raith5]

Bonus actions.

There is no one single rule that confuses players (even experienced players) more than bonus actions.

This has come up a couple times in this thread. How do people get confused by this mechanism or not like it? I think it is a good mechanic - IME it is far better than minor actions in 4e.