D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[TheSword]

If tridents were better or the same as longswords then there PCs would pop up carrying them everywhere. That would break verisimilitude for a lot of people. The fact is that tridents are better underwater than a longsword because of piercing. Which is why I would expect to see them replace longswords in an underwater setting.

 

[Reynard]

XP. Fully remove the XP system and go over to milestones. Adventurer's League has essentially done that.

See the first 200 posts of this thread plus or minus for THAT discussion...

 

[Reynard]

If tridents were better or the same as longswords then there PCs would pop up carrying them everywhere. That would break verisimilitude for a lot of people. The fact is that tridents are better underwater than a longsword because of piercing. Which is why I would expect to see them replace longswords in an underwater setting.

People who spend their time fighting a nd killing monsters and other "people" would probably be inclined to use the best tool for the job at hand. But D&D is all about cool iconic images and power fantasy, so practical considerations are often thrown out. So I think the game either needs to get a little more granular with weapons so there are real choices to be made (aka bring back weapons types vs armor types and similar stats) or completely divorce damage from the actual weapon and just have it based on class and level (fighters get the best damage and versatility and it tiers down from there).

 

[Scott Christian]

Ideas, bonds, flaws never seen this used. Just takes extra space on the character sheet.

Really? So many players I know use these as the moral grounding and compass rose for most of their RP actions. I am surprised to hear this one.

 

[TheSword]

People who spend their time fighting a nd killing monsters and other "people" would probably be inclined to use the best tool for the job at hand. But D&D is all about cool iconic images and power fantasy, so practical considerations are often thrown out. So I think the game either needs to get a little more granular with weapons so there are real choices to be made (aka bring back weapons types vs armor types and similar stats) or completely divorce damage from the actual weapon and just have it based on class and level (fighters get the best damage and versatility and it tiers down from there).

You don’t think that’s an extreme reaction for a corner case?

 

[Reynard]

You don’t think that’s an extreme reaction for a corner case?

The trident is a corner case but the problem is persistent throughout the design. There's an inherent tension between Rule of Cool and "Realism" (probably better described as "simulationism") that has always existed in D&D, but has gotten more stark in 5E because it is intended to be easy to grok and fast in play. Those are worthy design goals, but you make sacrifices to achieve them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

From the DM's side, I can see it being abusive, but from the player side it has some great advantages. Rather than get rid of it, I think it should have some limitation - as long as it prevents yo-yoing, I think the spell would be okay. Maybe put a stipulation on (all) healing spells that they have no effect on characters who are not first stabilized. Gives a lot of oomph to Spare the Dying (or having a medicine kit), makes healing a target before they drop to 0 much more enticing and puts a delay on bringing a downed character back too quickly, but not utterly preventing it.

What is the underlying issue here that you are having? Instead of band-aide patching a spell or two, what motivates the notion that there is a 'problem' here. Is there some particular narrative which cannot be realized due to the way these mechanics work?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

The trident is a corner case but the problem is persistent throughout the design. There's an inherent tension between Rule of Cool and "Realism" (probably better described as "simulationism") that has always existed in D&D, but has gotten more stark in 5E because it is intended to be easy to grok and fast in play. Those are worthy design goals, but you make sacrifices to achieve them.

Yeah, this is the real underlying reason why 4e is so well-liked (particularly in retrospect) in a large segment of the community. Because the FIRST THING that happened when it was designed is someone said "this is a game" and all the weird 'but it has to be realistic' crippling thinking went out the window. What you need in an RPG is 'story thinking', what will make a game that plays a good fun story, both in outcome and process. One aspect of that is that we can understand what is going on and the fiction has some 'bite' to it. So we do want a sort of map of expectations, which are ultimately derived from actual human experience in the real world, to exist between the fiction and the way the game process interacts with it and how that whole interplay works.

What we don't want is "that isn't realistic, so you can't do it." That's what mother nature tells me in the real world, which is exactly why I play RPGs. There was more to it than just this aspect, but you often see this part raise its ugly head when people talk about weapons or something like that. In terms of the 'trident vs sword', I guess you could argue that the rules should favor swords, but you can equally well argue that should be up to the players. It is of course logically impossible for a single game to cater to both wishes...

 

[Stormonu]

What is the underlying issue here that you are having? Instead of band-aide patching a spell or two, what motivates the notion that there is a 'problem' here. Is there some particular narrative which cannot be realized due to the way these mechanics work?

I think the primary issue people have with this spell is they don’t like the Bonus Action to bring someone back into the fight so easily and quickly. I think most DMs from older editions of the game prefer that when someone in the combat is dropped to 0 (on either side), they are out of participation for the rest of the combat, and that quickly patching them back up to get back into the fight creates a dissonance in storytelling they don’t like. It is part and parcel to the “1+ hit point and your fine, 0 hit points or less and your (unconscious and) dying” binary state of D&D. Healing Word comes across like mage handing smelling salts under PC noses to get them back in the fight.

I confess to having some sympathy to this viewpoint.

 

[Reynard]

Yeah, this is the real underlying reason why 4e is so well-liked (particularly in retrospect) in a large segment of the community. Because the FIRST THING that happened when it was designed is someone said "this is a game" and all the weird 'but it has to be realistic' crippling thinking went out the window. What you need in an RPG is 'story thinking', what will make a game that plays a good fun story, both in outcome and process. One aspect of that is that we can understand what is going on and the fiction has some 'bite' to it. So we do want a sort of map of expectations, which are ultimately derived from actual human experience in the real world, to exist between the fiction and the way the game process interacts with it and how that whole interplay works.

What we don't want is "that isn't realistic, so you can't do it." That's what mother nature tells me in the real world, which is exactly why I play RPGs. There was more to it than just this aspect, but you often see this part raise its ugly head when people talk about weapons or something like that. In terms of the 'trident vs sword', I guess you could argue that the rules should favor swords, but you can equally well argue that should be up to the players. It is of course logically impossible for a single game to cater to both wishes...

Emphasis mine.

Well, I don't know if that's what we NEED, but I think it is one way to approach RPG play. Another way is through a lens of simulation, which is totally valid and can be fun, but I do agree that they tend to be --- if not mutually exclusive, at least difficult to marry.