D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[Lanefan]

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...

To the bolded bits: I couldn't disagree more.

An equally-large (or, I dare say, larger) segment of the community wants a reasonable degree of [realism, believability, non-dissociation - pick whichever term you want] in the fiction, so they can use real-world knowledge to interact with it.

And I play RPGs to have my characters do stuff that I can't, but that doesn't mean the underlying setting needs to be unrealistic.

 

[TheSword]

Thing is, trident - unlike spear or javelin which can be bundled or quivered - isn't something you can easily carry around a lot of; which means sure, you can throw it once - and then you've just disarmed yourself.

Put another way, adding the Thrown property to trident really doesn't do very much for it until-unless you find a Returning version.

Sure but it’s a piercing weapon which underwater is really helpfully. Not to mention the fact that the weight and cost, not to mention the artwork suggests it’s made of metal. Unlike a wooden spear, which also wouldn’t last very long underwater.

Why do weapons have to be all things to all people, all the time. Why can’t the trident be niche.

 

[TheSword]

To the bolded bits: I couldn't disagree more.

An equally-large (or, I dare say, larger) segment of the community wants a reasonable degree of [realism, believability, non-dissociation - pick whichever term you want] in the fiction, so they can use real-world knowledge to interact with it.

And I play RPGs to have my characters do stuff that I can't, but that doesn't mean the underlying setting needs to be unrealistic.

I’d go so far as to say a unrealistic setting with gonzo stuff means that characters can’t reasonably predict what opponents can do. Which removes a massive element of strategy from the game. It tends to be a result of ‘fly by the seat of your pants’ game planning and a Devil may care attitude to verisimilitude.

 

[TheSword]

That's a good question. One of the other quirks of "save spells" is that while attack-spells can critically hit, save-spells cannot. A firebolt can hit you in the face, but a fireball cannot. In a "Defenses, not saves" system like 4e, everything can critically hit. At our table, having just spent a decade playing one 4e campaign, we compromised: Roll a Nat 1 on a save-spell, you have been "critically hit" and suffer "maximum effect" - max damage, if applicable, or miss your next chance to save against an ongoing spell, or maximum duration, or whatever. Likewise, a Nat20 against a save-spell means "exceptional defense"; minimum damage, or no ongoing effect, or advantage against this spell from this caster next time. Thus a fireball Nat 1 = 48 guaranteed damage, while a Nat 20 = 4 (min 8, save for half).

Yeah, players make many more saves than that Orc that’s dead in two rounds does. So it hugely disadvantages players. Doesn’t feel much fun to me.

 

[fearsomepirate]

It isn't actually worse than other martial weapons. It's a 1d6 thrown(20) versatile. If you made it a 1d8, it would be straight up better than the longsword/warhammer/battle axe trio.

The problem with trident is that some of the simple weapons, like spear, are a little overbudget for what they provide, and there's no space to make a martial version of the spear that isn't better than what the longsword was already budgeted at.

Do this:
Trident, special property: You do not have disadvantage when attacking with a trident while swimming, regardless of whether you have a swim speed.

 

[cbwjm]

Do this:
Trident, special property: You do not have disadvantage when attacking with a trident while swimming, regardless of whether you have a swim speed.

Trident already has this ability.

 

[Swarmkeeper]

Do this:
Trident, special property: You do not have disadvantage when attacking with a trident while swimming, regardless of whether you have a swim speed.

It already has this property per the Underwater Combat rules.

@cbwjm ninja’d me while I was looking it up!

 

[CleverNickName]

Here's another hotfix for it:

Trident, Special Property: Creatures with a Swim speed may wield the Trident as if it were a Simple weapon.

 

[DammitVictor]

An equally-large (or, I dare say, larger) segment of the community wants a reasonable degree of [realism, believability, non-dissociation - pick whichever term you want] in the fiction, so they can use real-world knowledge to interact with it.

The problem with this approach-- and I will never get tired of saying this-- is that the people who most want a reasonable sense of realism in D&D are the people with the least reasonable grasp of reality outside of it: the people whose sense of realism is based primarily on older forms of D&D with no understanding of the sacrifices older D&D made to reality for the sake of gameplay and genre conventions.

People who balk at a Monk surviving a 10d6 fall, but not a Fighter surviving a 12d8 breath weapon. People who replace Armor Class with Damage Reduction with no allowance for stilettos and warhammers. People who think it's unrealistic for a 7th level Fighter to reduce the -8 Armor Check Penalty for half plate armor, or a 6th level Ranger to fire three arrows in six seconds. People who think a smoothbore matchlock musket is a better weapon than the English longbow, that needs to cost a fortune and require specialized training to be balanced.

@TheSword makes a good point about consistency and predictability... but these things are not exclusively the product of "grounded realism" that doesn't take actual military history or athletic achievements into account.

 

[CleverNickName]

Remember those weapon abilities from 3rd Edition? I really miss those.

Defensive: weapons with this property have wide flat surfaces that can be used as a rudimentary shield. While wielding a weapon with this property, you may use your Bonus action to interpose the weapon between you and your opponent, gaining a +1 bonus to AC until the beginning of your next turn. (Example: greataxe)

Disarming: weapons with this property have hooks or spikes that can be used to catch or snag an opponent's weapon or shield. While wielding a weapon with this property, you have Advantage on all ability checks and opposed rolls made to disarm your opponent. (Example: trident)

Staggering: weapons with this property are designed to use their mass to unbalance foes. While wielding a weapon with this property, you have Advantage on all ability checks and opposed rolls made to push or move your opponent. (Example: greatclub)

Tripping: weapons with this property have features that can be used to snag a creature's limbs. While wielding a weapon with this property, you have Advantage on all ability checks and opposed rolls made to knock your opponent prone. (Example: whip)

And so on.