5e Problems

[Pichu]

I've been playing for a while. I've seen people complain (especially my friend, yet he continues to play) about several things. People saying "Wizards are OP because they're too versatile" and "Paladins are too strong". So, what do you think is wrong with 5e? Now, before you post, let's try something new: Don't just complain, come up with an alternative solution that makes sense (i.e. Paladins only get 3 spells slots is not a reasonable fix). Instead of complaining, let's try and fix what we see wrong with 5e! Also, only AL legal stuff, so no UA!

I'll go first: Ranger Capstone. Change it so it is (maybe) 1d6+Wis. Mod to either of your choice.

[Lombra]

If wizards are too versatile in your games then the DM is not proposing enaugh options, if paladins are too strong in your games your DM is not using enaugh long range enemies, that's my view about "broken classes", they just don't get challenged enaugh.

[Pichu]

If wizards are too versatile in your games then the DM is not proposing enaugh options, if paladins are too strong in your games your DM is not using enaugh long range enemies, that's my view about "broken classes", they just don't get challenged enaugh.

I'm not talking about "In my game", I'm talking overall what people think is overpowered. I just gave some examples of what I've heard online.

[Lombra]

I'm not talking about "In my game", I'm talking overall what people think is overpowered. I just gave some examples of what I've heard online.

I wasn't referring to a specific "you" I was referring the the general others who complain about those problems. Some capstones are underwhelming but every class is fun and effective to play, so I really don't see why people complain about them.

[Spookykid]

Spellcasters are unstoppable without restrictions on casting spells in melee. Things i've seen personally when trying to beat one down, cast invisibility and move away, charm person, hold person, lightning bolt, misty step, dimension door, some others i was not able to identify.

[BladedWizard]

It's not a complaint but an observation I have because I quite enjoy 5e. It's simple yet fun. What I miss in 5e is the complexity of the character creation process you had with 3.5e.

I miss having access to feats like we did in 3.5e. In 5e you either get a feat or an ASI. I know it's left to the DM's choice. However, I wish they would have implemented something similar to 3.5e where you get a feat at level 1, 3, 5, etc and have more feats designed for character creation (such as linguist, actor, etc). It creates more diversity in characters. Most people that pick feats usually pick the one that help in combat such as Sharpshooter, GWM, X Bow Expert, etc. In all the campaign I played thus far I have had maybe one person that took a non combat related feat. Mind you, none of the players that I played with did either a full fighter or rogue who has more feats.

I like the feat system because it allows for diversity in character. In 5e you need those +2 to your stat to remain competitive as you level up. Therefore, you may have the chance to get one or two feats max.

I'm thinking that the next campaign I will run I will remove vHuman and instead, grant a starting feat to all races.

[Naanomi]

The only 'world breaking' fix needed is the simple banning of wish/simulacrum interactions (or clarification that they don't interact if you are of the camp that it is already that way)

Beyond that: are there some things I would hope they would 'do different' if they had the chance (various ranger stuff, wildsurge mechanics, clarify a few fuzzy rules here and there) sure... but nothing out to 'theoretical optimization' 3.5 levels of absurdity

[LeonBH]

Have the Wizard face another Wizard with Counterspell and a Clay Golem. I bet he'll die :) As for the Paladin, throw a Bladesinger with Haste, Mage Armor, and Shield his way and see if he can hit. For extra challenge, give the Bladesinger the Lucky feat.

In my opinion, no class save the PHB Ranger is disappointing (but the Revised Ranger totally makes up for it). None is really overpowered, up until the time someone can cast a 9th level spell, in which case the game changes.

As far as I've heard, the Sorcs seem to need some love. I like the direction they took with the UA in giving more Sorcerous Origins, which addresses this. But really it's more Metamagic options I'd like for them. Personally, I'll play the PHB Sorc over the Wizard any day :)

[hymer]

My problem is skills.
I don't like the skill-levels and how you can't generally just pick them for your character (non-proficieny/half-proficieny/proficieny/expertise).
I don't like how training and experience (proficiency bonus) is so often less important than aptitude (ability score), requiring a very high ability score associated with a skill in order to be good at it.
And I don't like how chance has such a high importance compared to the character's total ability with a skill.

My solution would be to work out a system with more granular advancement in skills; skill points, presumably. There would be a good chunck at level one (which would reflect the skill capabilities of the class), and a drizzle at each level advancement (and a small shower if you multiclass into a class that gives an additional skill). And something to emulate Expertise (a higher celing for the level, perhaps).
I'd halve the ability modifier's influence on skills for PCs, and compensate with sufficent amounts of skill points. And I would do something like let players take X on a skill (up to 10, i guess, and not during a fight or a contested check), based on the PC's relevant skill.

Such a system might not be workable after all (particularly because it needs to interact with so many rules), but it's where I'd start.

[brainface]

Short Rests. Particularly classes with short rest resources vs. those with long rest resources.

In pretty much every 5e campaign I've played, the long rest resource characters nova and then rest, and once every two or three sessions we might get a short rest in between long rests. This "isn't how 5e is supposed to be played", but with time constraints (we only have time to play 3-4 hour sessions, weeks apart, really) and dm styles--like, seriously, no DM has any experience adding lunch breaks to their adventures, the whole short rest regen mechanic winds up incredibly frustrating. There's solutions, but they're house rules, and I really wish it worked out of the box the way we played rather than asking us to play some hypothetical D&D workflow we've never done or kludging the game to work better for us.

Instead I've just learned to not play warlocks or battlemasters. ^^

(I mean, seriously, the dms guide recommends what, 6-8 encounters a day? That would effectively make each of our D&D days 2 months real time I am not even kidding. It just doesn't work for the groups I play in.)

[LeonBH]

Short Rests. Particularly classes with short rest resources vs. those with long rest resources.

In pretty much every 5e campaign I've played, the long rest resource characters nova and then rest, and once every two or three sessions we might get a short rest in between long rests. This "isn't how 5e is supposed to be played", but with time constraints (we only have time to play 3-4 hour sessions, weeks apart, really) and dm styles--like, seriously, no DM has any experience adding lunch breaks to their adventures, the whole short rest regen mechanic winds up incredibly frustrating. There's solutions, but they're house rules, and I really wish it worked out of the box the way we played rather than asking us to play some hypothetical D&D workflow we've never done or kludging the game to work better for us.

Instead I've just learned to not play warlocks or battlemasters. ^^

(I mean, seriously, the dms guide recommends what, 6-8 encounters a day? That would effectively make each of our D&D days 2 months real time I am not even kidding. It just doesn't work for the groups I play in.)

Just a thought here. You could play with the variant rule that's in the DMG (so not a house rule) where a short rest takes 8 hours, and a long rest takes 7 days. If you're struggling to cram 6-8 encounters per day, now you have a whole week to cram them in.

If you're not the DM, you could raise the idea and see if the table likes it. :)

[INDYSTAR188]

It's not a complaint but an observation I have because I quite enjoy 5e. It's simple yet fun. What I miss in 5e is the complexity of the character creation process you had with 3.5e.

I miss having access to feats like we did in 3.5e. In 5e you either get a feat or an ASI. I know it's left to the DM's choice. However, I wish they would have implemented something similar to 3.5e where you get a feat at level 1, 3, 5, etc and have more feats designed for character creation (such as linguist, actor, etc). It creates more diversity in characters. Most people that pick feats usually pick the one that help in combat such as Sharpshooter, GWM, X Bow Expert, etc. In all the campaign I played thus far I have had maybe one person that took a non combat related feat. Mind you, none of the players that I played with did either a full fighter or rogue who has more feats.

I like the feat system because it allows for diversity in character. In 5e you need those +2 to your stat to remain competitive as you level up. Therefore, you may have the chance to get one or two feats max.

I'm thinking that the next campaign I will run I will remove vHuman and instead, grant a starting feat to all races.

Maybe if you give that free feat you should tell the players that they can't take a combat feat? I wonder how that would effect your early game?

[Frauxst]

Not enough monsters have weaknesses, especially for monsters where certain weaknesses would make sense.

[Typhon]

It's not a complaint but an observation I have because I quite enjoy 5e. It's simple yet fun. What I miss in 5e is the complexity of the character creation process you had with 3.5e.

I miss having access to feats like we did in 3.5e. In 5e you either get a feat or an ASI. I know it's left to the DM's choice. However, I wish they would have implemented something similar to 3.5e where you get a feat at level 1, 3, 5, etc and have more feats designed for character creation (such as linguist, actor, etc). It creates more diversity in characters. Most people that pick feats usually pick the one that help in combat such as Sharpshooter, GWM, X Bow Expert, etc. In all the campaign I played thus far I have had maybe one person that took a non combat related feat. Mind you, none of the players that I played with did either a full fighter or rogue who has more feats.

I like the feat system because it allows for diversity in character. In 5e you need those +2 to your stat to remain competitive as you level up. Therefore, you may have the chance to get one or two feats max.

I'm thinking that the next campaign I will run I will remove vHuman and instead, grant a starting feat to all races.

Paperwise 3.x used feats to great diversity, but sometimes it felt more like people let those papers define the character. It should be the character that defines who they are to the feats. I am not saying a feat here and there wouldn't be good, I am just saying that I don't want the smorgasbord of feats that 3.X had. I especially didn't care for all the feats that literally did the same thing as another and then stacked with them unless specifically stated or DM ruled against.


Maybe if you give that free feat you should tell the players that they can't take a combat feat? I wonder how that would effect your early game?

That would lead to some very interesting character builds and even more interesting character RPs.


My problem is skills.
I don't like the skill-levels and how you can't generally just pick them for your character (non-proficieny/half-proficieny/proficieny/expertise).
I don't like how training and experience (proficiency bonus) is so often less important than aptitude (ability score), requiring a very high ability score associated with a skill in order to be good at it.
And I don't like how chance has such a high importance compared to the character's total ability with a skill.

My solution would be to work out a system with more granular advancement in skills; skill points, presumably. There would be a good chunck at level one (which would reflect the skill capabilities of the class), and a drizzle at each level advancement (and a small shower if you multiclass into a class that gives an additional skill). And something to emulate Expertise (a higher celing for the level, perhaps).
I'd halve the ability modifier's influence on skills for PCs, and compensate with sufficent amounts of skill points. And I would do something like let players take X on a skill (up to 10, i guess, and not during a fight or a contested check), based on the PC's relevant skill.

Such a system might not be workable after all (particularly because it needs to interact with so many rules), but it's where I'd start.

I would like to be able to stretch out character skills and add a few individual choices. Someone else mentioned feats doing this, but skill can do quite as much in that respect as well.

[Pex]

Don't just say give a DC of 10 when something is easy to do. Give examples for the various skills on what can be done with a DC 10, DC 15 etc. to provide guidelines for DMs to follow and players can expect. Some DCs can be based on a formula, such as a Knowledge check to know about a monster is DC 10 + CR, round up fractional CR to 1.

Allow for being able to concentrate on more spells at higher levels. Make it analogous to Extra Attack perhaps such that at 5th level a spellcaster can concentrate on two spells, three spells at 11th level, etc.

Alter Point Buy. 0 points starts at 10, not 8, and scores above 15 may be purchased, 18 max. Scores below 10 give negative points a player can choose to take to help purchase 17 or 18. Variant Human is the only Human with a more flexible ability score bonus allocation. It can be +1 to two scores or +2 to one score.

[Knaight]

There's relatively few things in 5e I'd call problems - design decisions that push it away from a game I personally like, sure, but not problems. With that said, if I take the designer's stated intentions towards D&D being a game for everyone and not something deliberately hyper specialized into account:

The specific design of 6-8 encounters per day (or really of any specific number of encounters per day) being central to balancing really cuts down on what the system can handle.
The generalized proficiency and the absence of skill mechanics beyond proficiency (and expertise) pretty effectively hamstrings most characters who want to be good at something other than combat or magic.
There's some miscellaneous editing weirdness, although it's still good by RPG standards, where things like having a table of contents at all are surprisingly rare.

If we expand to the things I personally don't like the list gets longer, but the vast majority of that list is things shared with every D&D edition.

[NecessaryWeevil]

Short Rests. Particularly classes with short rest resources vs. those with long rest resources.

In pretty much every 5e campaign I've played, the long rest resource characters nova and then rest, and once every two or three sessions we might get a short rest in between long rests. This "isn't how 5e is supposed to be played", but with time constraints (we only have time to play 3-4 hour sessions, weeks apart, really) and dm styles--like, seriously, no DM has any experience adding lunch breaks to their adventures, the whole short rest regen mechanic winds up incredibly frustrating. There's solutions, but they're house rules, and I really wish it worked out of the box the way we played rather than asking us to play some hypothetical D&D workflow we've never done or kludging the game to work better for us.

Instead I've just learned to not play warlocks or battlemasters. ^^

If you can't or won't play the game according to the design assumptions, and you can't or won't change the game to make it conform to your assumptions...well, yeah, you're sort of out of options.



(I mean, seriously, the dms guide recommends what, 6-8 encounters a day? That would effectively make each of our D&D days 2 months real time I am not even kidding. It just doesn't work for the groups I play in.)

Can you say more about why that's a problem for you?

[brainface]

Can you say more about why that's a problem for you?

Combats last about an hour, roleplaying/ investigating the mystery what-not take up a couple of hours, and we only have time to meet once a month, and you generally want self-contained adventures if you're meeting only once a month so everything isn't simply forgotten. That doesn't really work with 6-8 encounters. It's not an insurmountable problem at all--I just really feel it was an unnecessary one, because hour-long short rests just aren't a part of dming/playing habit, and 6-8 encounters are at the extreme end of how many encounters people go through, I'm not even sure who does that. Dungeon crawly room-by-room clear adventures I guess? Hexycrawly guys? And I'm not saying the game shouldn't support them, I just feel like the game's pacing assuming that's of course how you're playing is irritating and frustrating. I don't even think that's how most people play the game but I could be drastically wrong, all I've got is anecdote.

As far as house rules to modify short rests, I'd personally like them, but... it's rather a soft-nerf to the people playing long-rest based nova-ing characters, and it's easier to just sync up with them by playing another long-rest based character. Avoids all discussion, I avoid frustration, I just miss out on playing a couple classes/archetypes. >>

[Coidzor]

Can you say more about why that's a problem for you?

We meet 1/week, and particularly busy days have ended up taking multiple sessions and lead to things at the beginning of that same day being thought of as having happened days or weeks ago like they did in real life.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've been playing for a while. I've seen people complain (especially my friend, yet he continues to play) about several things. People saying "Wizards are OP because they're too versatile" and "Paladins are too strong". So, what do you think is wrong with 5e? Now, before you post, let's try something new: Don't just complain, come up with an alternative solution that makes sense (i.e. Paladins only get 3 spells slots is not a reasonable fix). Instead of complaining, let's try and fix what we see wrong with 5e! Also, only AL legal stuff, so no UA!

I'll go first: Ranger Capstone. Change it so it is (maybe) 1d6+Wis. Mod to either of your choice.

Can you elaborate a bit on those complaints? They seem awfully vague and undefined. Too versatile or strong compared to what? What is even meant by "too versatile"? What's the baseline being used?


Spellcasters are unstoppable without restrictions on casting spells in melee. Things i've seen personally when trying to beat one down, cast invisibility and move away, charm person, hold person, lightning bolt, misty step, dimension door, some others i was not able to identify.

In one combat? That's one 1st lvl spell (charm person), three 2nd lvl spells (invisibility, hold person, misty step), a 3rd lvl (lightning bolt), and a 4th lvl (dimension door).

At best they only did 8d6 from the lightning bolt (28 ave, save for 1/2) and they'd have to be at least level 7 and having blown all that in 6 rounds of combat they'd only have a meagre 5 spell slots remaining (3 1st level, 2 3rd level).

Moreover, because invisibility doesn't actually hide you, they would have suffered at least 12+ attacks in that timeframe....which probably would kill them, while dealing basically nothing in return.

That sounds horrifically useless.


Short Rests. Particularly classes with short rest resources vs. those with long rest resources.

In pretty much every 5e campaign I've played, the long rest resource characters nova and then rest, and once every two or three sessions we might get a short rest in between long rests. This "isn't how 5e is supposed to be played", but with time constraints (we only have time to play 3-4 hour sessions, weeks apart, really) and dm styles--like, seriously, no DM has any experience adding lunch breaks to their adventures, the whole short rest regen mechanic winds up incredibly frustrating. There's solutions, but they're house rules, and I really wish it worked out of the box the way we played rather than asking us to play some hypothetical D&D workflow we've never done or kludging the game to work better for us.

Instead I've just learned to not play warlocks or battlemasters. ^^

(I mean, seriously, the dms guide recommends what, 6-8 encounters a day? That would effectively make each of our D&D days 2 months real time I am not even kidding. It just doesn't work for the groups I play in.)

I do and don't get this.

From one end: Taking a short rest is no more difficult than saying: We take a short rest (or, we rest for an hour, or take lunch, or take a break, or whatever).

And although I know in the 3.5 era combats could take a very long time for players trying to calculate out their hit bonuses based on a seemingly endless number of situational or temporary modifiers, in 5th edition it's really really really simple. In my experience a character can execute their turn in as little as 10 seconds, making any given combat last no more than about 10 minutes of real time. The only times I've seen where nothing really happened in a session it was a result of one or more players ******* around, or being distracted, or engaging in a debate about the merits of various plans. Planning takes up an inordinate amount of time compared to actual combat.

The starter module, Lost Mines of Phandelver, and the first book each have 8+ encounters in the first day or night of the adventure, for example, along with countless opportunities to take a short rest.

[CaptainSarathai]

D&D reminds me quite a lot of Skyrim, in that you can "mod" or house-rule quite a lot and really fix the game or make it play the way you want. My "mod list" therefore (incidentally, things which bother me and I have therefore fixed)

1. Death Causes Exhaustion
Hitting Zero increases your level of exhaustion by 1, even if you are revived. Failing a DST is +1 level of exhaustion. Exhaustion can kill you, no saves allowed.

2. No Auto-Stabilize
Your own successful DSTs do not count. You roll until stabilized by an outside force, or until you fail 3 DSTs. HP gain must be enough to bring you positive, or else the spell/effect must specifically stabilize you (spare the dying).
Once you are revived in this way, you are Unconscious until completing a Short Rest.

3. Longer Rests
I play that a Short Rest is 8hrs, as per current long rest.
A Long Rest is 24hrs. During this time, players must get at least 1 Short Rest. During this rest, they can generally use Skills and cast spells, but cannot enter combat. They must be in a reasonably safe area. Spending a day in town and "living like a citizen" is considered a day rested for our heroes.

4. Wish/Simulacrum
No. No questions asked.

5. PoleArm Master Fix
The d4 Bonus is counted as an offhand attack, and may not benefit from your Ability Modifier or GWM.
You're a Two Weapon Fighter? Too bad, still no ability modifier.
Essentially, it only benefits from +X's received for a weapon, as it is still part of 1 weapon (so Bladelock's +Cha to damage, or a +1 Magic Item, etc)

6. Sharp Shooters, Archery Style
Archery Style is no longer +2 to Hit. It now allows rerolls on 1-2 to Hit.
This is to mitigate Sharp Shooter shenanigans.

7. Eldritch Blast, Scaling Woes
Eldritch Blast scales off Warlock level.
All other spells which scale by Character Level only scale by Maximum Spell Slot Level. In other words:
If a spell is only available to Full Caster spell lists, then it scales by the highest slot that caster would have at the level it would normally increase at. Green Flame Blade gets an extra d8 damage at 5th level. Full Casters can cast 3rd level spells at 5th level. In order to get the extra d8 from GFB, you must be able to cast at least 3rd level spells.
You must always be at least the Character Level required, so even if you somehow were able to cast 3rd level spells at 4th level, you would not get the added d8, but if you can't cast 3rd level spells at 20th level, too bad - GFB deals base damage.

8. Warlocks Get Spell Points
Their slots get traded for equivalent Spell Points automatically, and can be used to generate lower level slots. They refill by Short Rests as normal.

9. Smite, Sneak Attack, Inspiration, etc - Declare before Crits
If it's possible to apply dice after determining a Hit, as it is with Smite, then the added dice do not double with the Crit.
Unless - the player declares the use of the ability before rolling to Hit. It's now a gamble: you could Crit with that Smite, or waste it altogether, or you can play it safe but never double the damage.

10. TWF/DW swap
Two Weapon Fighter (Style) now allows the use of Non-light weapons.
Dual Wielder (Feat) now allows the user to apply their stat on the off-hand.
This is done to make dual wielding a more worthwhile feat, and more accessible to everyone.

11. XBow XPert
Yes, you can "John Woo" a pair of hand crossbows and still reload.
SharpShooter only applies to the main-hand though.
The ability to "point blank" without Disadvantage does not apply to spells.

12. Melee Spells and Reach Weapons
Melee spells like GFB/BB which require a weapon attack as part of the spell, do not require Spell Sniper to be used with a Reach Weapon. You can cast BB with a PoleArm at reach, if you want.
You cannot, however, use PAM+Warcaster to use these spells on someone entering your reach. Even with a Quarterstaff.

13. 2H weapons are heavy
You cannot attack with a 2H weapon on the same turn that you use a free hand to do something else.
This means that you need the Versatile property if you want to Gish with a big sword, among other things.
The difference in average damage is +/-1, this is hardly a nerf.
---

That about covers it, really. I feel like I might be missing a few, but they would be the lesser used ones.
It seems like a lot, but I try to tackle them as they come up, rather than throw it at players right out of the gate. If someone is interested in using a polearm, for example, I warn them right away about the changes to PAM.

Edit: remembered and added Archer Style fix.

[Coidzor]

D&D reminds me quite a lot of Skyrim, in that you can "mod" or house-rule quite a lot and really fix the game or make it play the way you want. My "mod list" therefore (incidentally, things which bother me and I have therefore fixed)

1. Death Causes Exhaustion
Hitting Zero increases your level of exhaustion by 1, even if you are revived. Failing a DST is +1 level of exhaustion. Exhaustion can kill you, no saves allowed.

2. No Auto-Stabilize
Your own successful DSTs do not count. You roll until stabilized by an outside force, or until you fail 3 DSTs. HP gain must be enough to bring you positive, or else the spell/effect must specifically stabilize you (spare the dying).
Once you are revived in this way, you are Unconscious until completing a Short Rest.

Was the issue that your players weren't rolling up replacement characters often enough, or that there weren't enough feedback loops to kill off PCs? :smallconfused:


12. 2H weapons are heavy
You cannot attack with a 2H weapon on the same turn that you use a free hand to do something else.
This means that you need the Versatile property if you want to Gish with a big sword, among other things.
The difference in average damage is +/-1, this is hardly a nerf.

That's a strange way of putting it, since it means a character can't gish with a big sword, as Longswords are just regular old swords.

[Trolleitor]

Well, d&d is a game about resource management, is hard to make deadly fights without those fights feeling "swingy". I don't really like that, forces me to prepare a lot of combat focused adventures, or narrative adventures (because you can't forget about the challenge). So my opinion is that "Challenge = Lot of fighting" don't fit on a lot of adventures and playstyles.

About what the op, if you have 6-8 encounters per adventure day you don't have problems with paladin or wizard blasters until level 11+. I actually have more problems with battle masters with archery and sharpshooter at level 5. Dems 80 damage on their first turn! Give me shivers! At will shivers!

I have problems with them on social encounters, on random travel encounters (Deadly swingy stuff) and on light combat days.

I've been making adventures with 4-3 deadly combat encounters per day. No one break a sweat, or one was intsgibbed on the first round.
I eventually made dungeons with a lot of easy/medium encounters, mansions, prisons, strongholds, etc. And they started to really stop blasting his way out of everything.
I would like an optional rule for "wounds" instead of hitpoints for more "gritty" campaigns.

[Deleted]

If wizards are too versatile in your games then the DM is not proposing enaugh options, if paladins are too strong in your games your DM is not using enaugh long range enemies, that's my view about "broken classes", they just don't get challenged enaugh.

No.

You are missing the entire issue. It isn't that they don't get challenged enough. The issue here is that any challenge that a martial is expected to pass can be passed by a caster in some way while the opposite isn't true.

It's all about what doors are shut to whom.

Martial classes don't really expand on what a character can already do. There is a wide open door and any character can push, use skills, and use tools... Classes don't open any new doors.

Anyone can pick a lock, rogues do it better/faster but that avenue isn't taken away from casters. If you do anything that requires magic or magical damage then the door is shut to martials.

[Naanomi]

7. Eldritch Blast, Scaling Woes
How does this interact with racial spells in classes that never take caster levels? Yuan-ti rogue or Fire-Gensai fighter... can't cast their spells? Can only ever cast them at 'level 0' equivalence?

[Honest Tiefling]

My problem is skills.
I don't like the skill-levels and how you can't generally just pick them for your character (non-proficieny/half-proficieny/proficieny/expertise).

Problem is that in 3.5, there were three level of skills: 'Nope', 'I have a few ranks for a prestige class' and 'lolmaxx'. I'm not saying that granularity isn't preferred, just that it is hard to make it relevant to the game other then existing on someone's character sheet, sad and forgotten.

I prefer the awkwardness of 5e, which is what tended to happen anyway, to being encouraged to waste resources for 'flavor'.

[Strill]

3. Longer Rests
I play that a Short Rest is 8hrs, as per current long rest.
A Long Rest is 24hrs. During this time, players must get at least 1 Short Rest. During this rest, they can generally use Skills and cast spells, but cannot enter combat. They must be in a reasonably safe area. Spending a day in town and "living like a citizen" is considered a day rested for our heroes.I like this. Week-long rests are too much, but this seems just right.


8. Warlocks Get Spell Points
Their slots get traded for equivalent Spell Points automatically, and can be used to generate lower level slots. They refill by Short Rests as normal.If you're going to do that, then you need to nerf Agonizing Blast. Under your rules, Warlocks are getting equal or greater spell slots compared to full casters, plus great at-will damage, and have more flexibility than normal casters.


10. TWF/DW swap
Two Weapon Fighter (Style) now allows the use of Non-light weapons.
Dual Wielder (Feat) now allows the user to apply their stat on the off-hand.
This is done to make dual wielding a more worthwhile feat, and more accessible to everyone.IMO you also need to give TWF an extra off-hand attack at level 11, when it begins to fall off in effectiveness compared to the other options.


11. XBow XPert
Yes, you can "John Woo" a pair of hand crossbows and still reload.
SharpShooter only applies to the main-hand though.
The ability to "point blank" without Disadvantage does not apply to spells.

I think Zman's PHB Homebrew tweaks (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=21003796) has the best fix for Sharpshooter I've seen. He makes it so that the +10/-5 from Sharpshooter and Greatweapon Master are usable once per round.

[Naanomi]

Problem is that in 3.5, there were three level of skills: 'Nope', 'I have a few ranks for a prestige class' and 'lolmaxx'.
Hey now, there was also the 'I have just enough to do this one thing I want to do 100% of the time' level... and 'lolmaxx' is actually two levels, the 'I threw every point I had into this because I had nothing else to do with it' and 'I played the optimization mini game, now watch me jump to the moon' levels... so that's like... 5 levels really? :smallbiggrin:

[2D8HP]

...So, what do you think is wrong with 5e?...


My chief complaint with 5e is that I don't really have time for tabletop anymore, and I find having to refer to my character "sheet" when I play PbP on a "smartphone" cumbersome and annoying (but still worth it), for my all too brief time playing actual physical table top 5e D&D looking up rules, and at my notes didn't bother me that much. It was a little annoying to have to unlearn old D&D, and learn anew, but the rules are much more clearly written now which has helped a lot, I actually found the rules pretty good.

My PC's can:

Fire arrows

Swing swords

Track

Sneak

Hide

Climb

Swim

Sometimes Convince

Sometimes heal

And one could entertain

And one could shoot bolts of fire out of his fingertips!

Except for my one Cantrip High elf PC that I briefly played I shy away from playing spell casters but I really haven't noticed any lack.

None of them seem very complex, so all else being equal I'd play.



Let me play a "vanilla" archer or thief and I'm happy, load me up with minutia and I walk, happily the "Champion" and "Thief" subclasses have been good for me to play.

I've just had a PC "level up" and be able to have the "Swashbuckler" subclass, and I'm looking forward to trying that out.

[Potato_Priest]

Big monsters get too many attacks. (I mean seriously. The tarrasque is the size of a battleship and it can hit you eight times in a round?)

To fix this while keeping them interesting, I'd make the larger monsters get fewer attacks, but the ones they did have would be AOE and have rider effects such as proning or pushing.

[LeonBH]

Big monsters get too many attacks. (I mean seriously. The tarrasque is the size of a battleship and it can hit you eight times in a round?)

To fix this while keeping them interesting, I'd make the larger monsters get fewer attacks, but the ones they did have would be AOE and have rider effects such as proning or pushing.

Complaining you can't kill a Tarrasque easily? Those things are CR 30 for a reason.

[Potato_Priest]

Complaining you can't kill a Tarrasque easily? Those things are CR 30 for a reason.

I'm not complaining that it's hard to kill. I'm complaining that this hill-sized monster is a ****ing ballerina, and can move its enormous limbs faster than a fighter can move a dagger. I'm also complaining that it can't kill multiple peasants or soldiers in a single blow, which by all rights it should be able to do.

[Sigreid]

IMO there aren't really problems with 5e that don't boil down to them not being to a particular person or group's taste (including my own for some things). Any given "fix" may make it more to the taste of some, but will make it less of the taste of others. This is why even the creators encourage tables to figure out what works for them and play the game their way.

[INDYSTAR188]

That would lead to some very interesting character builds and even more interesting character.

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?

[tKUUNK]

Big monsters get too many attacks. (I mean seriously. The tarrasque is the size of a battleship and it can hit you eight times in a round?)

To fix this while keeping them interesting, I'd make the larger monsters get fewer attacks, but the ones they did have would be AOE and have rider effects such as proning or pushing.

first off, that's a really cool idea!

man, how about a monster(s) that basically plays Freeze Tag with the party, turning them to stone or stunning them with a touch / breath weapon / whatever. Then, add some "unfreezing" mechanic (splashing water from the adjacent stream on them, dashing through a wall of flame to ring a huge bell beyond which releases everyone, endless options here).

okay, end tangent.

I haven't played 5e long, but I also find the skill system a bit dry after playing 3.5e. Naanomi's funny-because-it's-true statement re: 3.5e skills says it all. I'd like a way to start out with a couple extra languages regardless of character race and background, when it suits the character. I'd like to add an extra skill every 5 levels or so regardless of class. Would this hurt game balance?

[Naanomi]

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?
Any that also gives a Stat boost in your attack stat?

[JumboWheat01]

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?

I would think Skilled. Get your characters Perception and Thieves' Tools, no matter their background, and something else as change.

[Strill]

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?

I would definitely get Ritual Caster.

[mephnick]

In 5e you need those +2 to your stat to remain competitive as you level up. .

Not really. People just think you have to max your primary stats for some reason. You could probably take no +2s and be fine.

[Strill]

Not really. People just think you have to max your primary stats for some reason. You could probably take no +2s and be fine.

A +2 to your primary stat is usually worth around +20% overall DPR for martial classes. (Upwards of +30%, downwards of +15%) It's quite a big deal.

[mephnick]

Yes, at the expense of versatility. Definitely don't have to take them over feats. People overrate DPR. (on forums anyway)

[Naanomi]

A +2 to your primary stat is usually worth around +20% overall DPR for martial classes. (Upwards of +30%, downwards of +15%) It's quite a big deal.
And spell save DCs are arguably even more important. There are some times delaying the +2 is fine; but very few builds don't heavily benefit from maxing their 'main stat' by 20

[tkuremento]

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?

I would pick Lucky or Observant. Those are both non-combat, right?

[Knaight]

Complaining you can't kill a Tarrasque easily? Those things are CR 30 for a reason.

It's not a matter of them being dangerous. It's a matter of how they're dangerous - attacking over and over with every body part against an opponent vastly smaller than it is just thematically weird. A powerful tail swipe that does lots of damage and can launch a medium sized character a good 30ft or into terrain at speed that can hit everyone in an area makes a lot more sense and is also dangerous.

[INDYSTAR188]

I would pick Lucky or Observant. Those are both non-combat, right?

I would have thought Lucky would be the pick but you're the first to suggest they'd take it. Maybe it's too close to a 'combat feat' to qualify?

[BladedWizard]

Maybe if you give that free feat you should tell the players that they can't take a combat feat? I wonder how that would effect your early game?

Indeed. I did not specify that in my post but I would certainly not allow combat feats unless given extra thoughts. Who knows maybe someone who starts with GWM or Sharpshooter may not benefit from it as much as we think. It is still -5 to Atk and at level 1 I think -5 would hurt a lot.

What I would do is go through all feats a make a list of the one I find acceptable. Feat like Lucky could maybe pose a problem, and therefore, I would have to think about that one further.

[INDYSTAR188]

Indeed. I did not specify that in my post but I would certainly not allow combat feats unless given extra thoughts. Who knows maybe someone who starts with GWM or Sharpshooter may not benefit from it as much as we think. It is still -5 to Atk and at level 1 I think -5 would hurt a lot.

What I would do is go through all feats a make a list of the one I find acceptable. Feat like Lucky could maybe pose a problem, and therefore, I would have to think about that one further.

In my Out of the Abyss campaign we have a Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who's about to go to Fighter level 3 and isn't sure if he should take Champion or Battle Master. He has the GWM feat but hardly ever uses the -5/+10, I think he just doesn't want to miss; also his Reckless Attack where he could generate Advantage, he doesn't ever do that because he doesn't want to grand Advantage. So maybe he's playing his character less than optimally, but maybe he's close to the average and I just didn't realize!

[hymer]

In my Out of the Abyss campaign we have a Half-Orc Barbarian/Fighter who's about to go to Fighter level 3 and isn't sure if he should take Champion or Battle Master. He has the GWM feat but hardly ever uses the -5/+10, I think he just doesn't want to miss; also his Reckless Attack where he could generate Advantage, he doesn't ever do that because he doesn't want to grand Advantage. So maybe he's playing his character less than optimally, but maybe he's close to the average and I just didn't realize!

That sounds a lot like my experience with low level martials in general and barbarians in particular. Though I think some of it has to do with the foes you fight at low levels. -5/+10 is overkill against a lot of CR 1/4s, e.g., and not all players are that aware of how many hp or what AC they can expect various monsters to have.

[Typhon]

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?

The ones that immediately jump out at me are Skilled (3 proficiencies), Lucky (luck Mechanic), Resilient (Additional save and stat boost), Durable (CON boost and healing increase), Tough (HP+), Magic Initiate (Extra Spells for free, and they can be non-combat), Mobile (move faster and negate terrain) and skulk (sneaky sneak easier).

For those who choose to optimize; Alert (some people are just this way, negate surprise and Invis advantage), Durable (as above), Athlete (STR or DEX boost and extras), Actor (CHR boost and fun toys), Keen Mind (INT boost and neat tricks), Skilled (as above), Linguist (INT boost, languages and ciphers), Observant (INT or WIS, lip reading and + to Investigate and perception), Resilient (as above), Magic Initiate (as above), Ritual Caster (free magic and theme), Healer (because people get hurt and sick all the time), Lucky (as above).

It might work better for character purposes if they were tied to backgrounds. I think that backgrounds might allow for a feat to be granted as well. At the very least, a gain equivalent to a feat.

One thing that has very much bothered me is that certain backgrounds don't grant things that make a tremendous amount of sense. Like if you choose/roll soldier, why are you not proficient in at least light armor and a cheap/fairly common martial weapon. Military organizations specifically train their people to use standardized arms and armor. So a wizard that has a background as a soldier would get light armored feat for free and short swords in my book. I mean come on. They even break soldiers down into different roles, tie a proficiency or feat to those roles.

Sailor's variant feature screams for Tavern Brawler to be attached. Charlatan and Entertainer cry out for Actor. Why can't backgrounds be more than they are, which is currently give me these skills and good-bye.

[Spellbreaker26]

One thing that has very much bothered me is that certain backgrounds don't grant things that make a tremendous amount of sense. Like if you choose/roll soldier, why are you not proficient in at least light armor and a cheap/fairly common martial weapon. Military organizations specifically train their people to use standardized arms and armor. So a wizard that has a background as a soldier would get light armored feat for free and short swords in my book. I mean come on. They even break soldiers down into different roles, tie a proficiency or feat to those roles.


If it's a wizard, they'd be heavy artillery on the battlefield and probably wouldn't even wear armour.

[NNescio]

Complaining you can't kill a Tarrasque easily? Those things are CR 30 for a reason.

Drop a CR 9 Clay Golem via TPM and it will solo the CR 30, killing it after ~500 rounds or so. Or plink the CR 30 with magical ranged weapon attacks (cast Magic Weapon if necessary) from an underlevelled party with access to flight or a Phantom Steed.

Really though, what were WotC thinking when they removed its Regeneration, Epic/Magical weapons and Burrowing (not present in 3.5e, but present in 4e) abilities? The bag of stats looks pretty impressive, but it has crippling weaknesses for a CR 30. I mean, sure killing the Tarrasque with an underlevelled party is a grand tradition in DnD, but the sheer ease with which it can be done in 5e just makes it borderline insulting.


I'm not complaining that it's hard to kill. I'm complaining that this hill-sized monster is a ****ing ballerina, and can move its enormous limbs faster than a fighter can move a dagger. I'm also complaining that it can't kill multiple peasants or soldiers in a single blow, which by all rights it should be able to do.

Yeah, it's a bit impossible to kill if the party tries to fight it 'fairly' within its movement + reach, and 8 attacks within 6s from a Godzilla-sized monster really does shatter willing suspension of disbelief. Its statblock just forces players to cheese the encounter (which they can do so quite easily even if the DM springs a stealthy ninja Tarrasque, provided the party has teleportation or other escape options).

[INDYSTAR188]

The ones that immediately jump out at me are Skilled (3 proficiencies), Lucky (luck Mechanic), Resilient (Additional save and stat boost), Durable (CON boost and healing increase), Tough (HP+), Magic Initiate (Extra Spells for free, and they can be non-combat), Mobile (move faster and negate terrain) and skulk (sneaky sneak easier).

For those who choose to optimize; Alert (some people are just this way, negate surprise and Invis advantage), Durable (as above), Athlete (STR or DEX boost and extras), Actor (CHR boost and fun toys), Keen Mind (INT boost and neat tricks), Skilled (as above), Linguist (INT boost, languages and ciphers), Observant (INT or WIS, lip reading and + to Investigate and perception), Resilient (as above), Magic Initiate (as above), Ritual Caster (free magic and theme), Healer (because people get hurt and sick all the time), Lucky (as above).

It might work better for character purposes if they were tied to backgrounds. I think that backgrounds might allow for a feat to be granted as well. At the very least, a gain equivalent to a feat.

One thing that has very much bothered me is that certain backgrounds don't grant things that make a tremendous amount of sense. Like if you choose/roll soldier, why are you not proficient in at least light armor and a cheap/fairly common martial weapon. Military organizations specifically train their people to use standardized arms and armor. So a wizard that has a background as a soldier would get light armored feat for free and short swords in my book. I mean come on. They even break soldiers down into different roles, tie a proficiency or feat to those roles.

Sailor's variant feature screams for Tavern Brawler to be attached. Charlatan and Entertainer cry out for Actor. Why can't backgrounds be more than they are, which is currently give me these skills and good-bye.

This is a pretty interesting thought too... .tying the free feat to a background. I can see Soldier getting the Durable feat for example. I wonder what would be a good assignment of feats to backgrounds? Would make a fun exercise... maybe a new thread is needed?

[tkuremento]

I would have thought Lucky would be the pick but you're the first to suggest they'd take it. Maybe it's too close to a 'combat feat' to qualify?

Maybe. I mean one of the options specifies attack roll. I'd have thought it was far away enough since it is basically all the d20s without saying any d20 cause if it did then it'd stack with ridiculous stuff like Mystic's capstone.

[Typhon]

If it's a wizard, they'd be heavy artillery on the battlefield and probably wouldn't even wear armour.

I understand your point, but you would still want to make sure they had a little extra protection. Just in case. Plus what is the greatest range a normal spell has without pulling out Lore Wizard, and does it beat actual artillery/siege weapons and archer range? Mostly, no. Are Mages, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Druids, and Clerics valuable resources, especially at higher levels? Definitively, but their large area damage spells can produce large amounts of collateral damage, and their better spells are high level. Archers and siege weapons are fairly cheap and easy to produce in comparison to training a battalion of spellcasters who can cast up to 4th level spells which mostly have a range of half a football field away without receiving more specialized training (feats). The general would prefer to have a full football fields worth of distance between himself and the fighting.

Successful armies tend to shy away from thoughts like, "They are just artillery", or "No one could sneak behind us." Great military leaders also never forget that they lead people and not machines (unless we are talking Eberron, but that is a whole different story). People like to know there is some protection at all times, like when you run out of magic. Leaders also understand that buffing the grunts can be exceptional in producing results faster and minimize the loss of high value resources.

[BladedWizard]

It might work better for character purposes if they were tied to backgrounds. I think that backgrounds might allow for a feat to be granted as well. At the very least, a gain equivalent to a feat.

Yes I like this. You let the player choose their background and from there you find a feat that works with the background. I could well see Urchin BG with Resilient (CON).

[Typhon]

This is a pretty interesting thought too... .tying the free feat to a background. I can see Soldier getting the Durable feat for example. I wonder what would be a good assignment of feats to backgrounds? Would make a fun exercise... maybe a new thread is needed?

Another option would be to give a couple options that a player could choose from. Soldier could gain by choosing/rolling, Observant (scout), Healer (medic/healer), Tough (infantry), Inspiring Leadership (Officer), Skilled (Support Staff, they do more than you think), Mobile (Standard Bearer), Mounted Combat (Cavalry), and Ritual Caster (Quartermaster, what they do be black sorcery).

[Typhon]

Yes I like this. You let the player choose their background and from there you find a feat that works with the background. I could well see Urchin BG with Resilient (CON).

There are several. Remember, just because you don't see it doesn't mean it isn't there. Urchins could be resilient, great actors(con artists), skulkers (hiding in plain sight), or just plain tough. It just matters what works best for the character and what the DM will allow per the characters background.

[Spellbreaker26]

I understand your point, but you would still want to make sure they had a little extra protection. Just in case. Plus what is the greatest range a normal spell has without pulling out Lore Wizard, and does it beat actual artillery/siege weapons and archer range? Mostly, no. Are Mages, Sorcerers, Warlocks, Druids, and Clerics valuable resources, especially at higher levels? Definitively, but their large area damage spells can produce large amounts of collateral damage, and their better spells are high level. Archers and siege weapons are fairly cheap and easy to produce in comparison to training a battalion of spellcasters who can cast up to 4th level spells which mostly have a range of half a football field away without receiving more specialized training (feats). The general would prefer to have a full football fields worth of distance between himself and the fighting.

Successful armies tend to shy away from thoughts like, "They are just artillery", or "No one could sneak behind us." Great military leaders also never forget that they lead people and not machines (unless we are talking Eberron, but that is a whole different story). People like to know there is some protection at all times, like when you run out of magic. Leaders also understand that buffing the grunts can be exceptional in producing results faster and minimize the loss of high value resources.

In that case I would have companies of infantry protecting my wizards. I wouldn't expose them to damage, so that they wouldn't have to wear armour. But even if they were in danger, firstly, they can probably cast Mage Armour (which is a 1st level spell, lasts for eight hours and is superior to studded leather). Secondly, every day they spend learning to fight in leather armour is a day that they don't spend practising magic. Have the wizards focus on doing their magic and have the companies of infantry focus on protecting them.

Adding proficiencies in martial weapons or armour detracts from classes who have those anyway. Backgrounds are designed to have enough of a mechanical impact so that they are felt but not so great that people feel compelled to take a particular one for a mechanical advantage even when they prefer a different background.

[Pex]

IMO there aren't really problems with 5e that don't boil down to them not being to a particular person or group's taste (including my own for some things). Any given "fix" may make it more to the taste of some, but will make it less of the taste of others. This is why even the creators encourage tables to figure out what works for them and play the game their way.

You could say the same about any D&D edition.

5E is not immune to criticism how dare we.

[Typhon]

In that case I would have companies of infantry protecting my wizards. I wouldn't expose them to damage, so that they wouldn't have to wear armour. But even if they were in danger, firstly, they can probably cast Mage Armour (which is a 1st level spell, lasts for eight hours and is superior to studded leather). Secondly, every day they spend learning to fight in leather armour is a day that they don't spend practising magic. Have the wizards focus on doing their magic and have the companies of infantry focus on protecting them.

Adding proficiencies in martial weapons or armour detracts from classes who have those anyway. Backgrounds are designed to have enough of a mechanical impact so that they are felt but not so great that people feel compelled to take a particular one for a mechanical advantage even when they prefer a different background.

They would be practicing magic, just in armor. A relevant option would also be an aptly named one, War Caster. You know, because it is war and they are going to get shot at and most likely hit. Although the chain shirt level of protection that Mage armor gives is an amazing argument, considering it is only a +1 better than studded leather or hide armor. I can see how that goes so much farther than an attack spell or buff for others.

You also want to waste resources grouping your assets into a larger target area where artillery/siege weapons, archers and enemy casters can more easily remove more from the battle. Plus if the infantry has to work on saving the wizards in a large grouping, isn't that counter productive to winning a battle/war and their safety. War is a numbers battle and if you are not willing to put all the pieces in harms way, you will always have a weakness.

I agree that backgrounds should grant no overwhelming bonus that makes them a goto selection, but what is wrong with better options for classes. A champion fighter who was raised as a sage has little to no need for something like Magic Initiate, but that is where he is from and what he learned. It would make for a great story, just as would a young wizard pushed to the front lines in a war and forced to learn the hard truths of holding down a line in the sand.

[Squiddish]

I'd say 5e is pretty airtight, and a lot of things that seem broken in theory are pretty good in practice. A lot of things, like wizards being a tad too powerful or fighters not being versatile enough, are mostly a build thing, after all, nothing is forbidding a fighter from taking ritual caster (unless your DM forbids feats, can't help you there) and a character being a bit overpowered is only fully relevant if the player is abusing that power or being inconsiderate.

A few legitimate problems I've seen:
Sorcerers don't get enough spells, and they don't get enough metamagic to make up for getting so few spells (Seriously, it's their unique feature and they only get four options for it, ever, AND they can't swap them out?).

Forcecage. Seriously, just get rid of it, or make it moderately escapable.

[mephnick]

Short Rests. Particularly classes with short rest resources vs. those with long rest resources.

I consider designing different classes around different rest structures the weakest part of the system. You have to vigorously structure your day to include the right amount of rests or some of the party is not getting the full scope of their class. What would have been wrong with having everyone reset on a long rest and giving "short rest" classes more uses of their abilities? More characters could nova an encounter and be useless for the rest of the day, oh no.

[Socratov]

While the dX+Y bonus works well for HP, attacks and damage, it is absolute horse manure for skills and skillchallenges. I would much rather use NWoD's successes for that. This way you could divvy up non-proficiency, proficiency and expertise as to grant success on respectively 5, 6 and 8 on a d10. then the DC becomes not an arbitrarily set number to at least roll on a die+mod, but a skill challenge which incorporates both a succession of successes to pull off a chain of success and to make aid another checks simpeler. You just get to roll your ability modifier for a number of tries to get successes. You allies can help you make a roll by making a skillcheck of their own and allow their successes to boost your number of tries.

Timmy the rogue has Dex 16 (+3 mod) is proficient in Stealth (so success on a 6), and has expertise in Sleight of hand (success on a 5). His skill challenge is to sneak up behind a guardsman and to pick his pocket. The DM sets the DC of sneaking up behind the guard as a 1 (not really hard, but not so easy either), and picking his pocket as 2 (one success to get in without him noticing, and one success for getting out without noticing).

Timmy rolls 3 dice for stealth: 4, 2, 7. He succeeds in sneaking up on the guard.
Timmy then rolls 3 dice again for Sleight of Hand: 5, 3, 9. he succeeds in the extraction of a pouch of money.

The next time Timmy wants to do this the DM says that now that the guard is being pickpocketed they are more vigilant. Luckily Timmy has his bardic buddy Bob with him to serve as a distraction. Bob has 18 charisma and starts talking to the guard to keep their attention focused on him. he tells the DM that he is aiding Timmy. The DM says fine, make a persuasion roll (which Bob is proficient in). Bob does as he is told: and rolls a 7, a 4, a 2 and a 10. For proficiency that is 2 successes. Timmy now may attempt his skillchallenge not with 3 dice, but 5 dice to roll. The DM had set DC's of 3 successes and 4 successes. Timmy rolls (7, 9, 6, 7, 1) for Stealth (passing), and (2, 5, 8, 10, 9) for SoH (again, passing as his expertise helps him getting that 4th success!). I think this will promote group play and create a sense of achievement from skill challenges. What's more, instead of saying "I too do X" or "I help doing Y" it allows a player to employ creativity to, during his own minigame, support the player making the 'main' roll. This builds up suspense as all the help stuff is done first as it leads up to achieving the main goal.

Also, for more swingy-ness you could even incorporate 1s and 10s as critical successes and failures like glitches in Shadowrun (like 1's subtracting a succes form the total and 10's adding the opportunity to reroll for another success), without allowing the 8 int barbarian to luckily identify some obscure arcana lore just because he rolled a nat 20 on the roll, but by still allowing him to help (it's just harder to be useful as he has les chance to gain succeses as opposed to others, but he has just the same chances to roll a 1)

Obviously the numbers can be tweaked to fit a better statistical model, but the basis should work well.

[Coidzor]

It's not a matter of them being dangerous. It's a matter of how they're dangerous - attacking over and over with every body part against an opponent vastly smaller than it is just thematically weird. A powerful tail swipe that does lots of damage and can launch a medium sized character a good 30ft or into terrain at speed that can hit everyone in an area makes a lot more sense and is also dangerous.

Definitely not enough AoE melee attacks from really big critters.


I would have thought Lucky would be the pick but you're the first to suggest they'd take it. Maybe it's too close to a 'combat feat' to qualify?

I'd say that Lucky is a feat that's both for combat and non-combat uses, so I wouldn't count it amongst feats that are exclusively non-combat, no.

IIRC, it's at its most useful in combat situations, too, to give super disadvantage to enemies even when they have Advantage.

[Zalabim]

The editing and organization of information in the books is a real problem. I'd really like to fix that.


Yeah, it's a bit impossible to kill if the party tries to fight it 'fairly' within its movement + reach, and 8 attacks within 6s from a Godzilla-sized monster really does shatter willing suspension of disbelief. Its statblock just forces players to cheese the encounter (which they can do so quite easily even if the DM springs a stealthy ninja Tarrasque, provided the party has teleportation or other escape options).
The Tarrasque (in 5e anyway) is 50 feet tall. Godzilla at his smallest, original appearance, I'm told is 50 meters tall. It's really only a little taller than an Atlas, and those things can carry ECM and be quite stealthy. Maybe it's a problem that 5e's Godzilla-styled monster isn't that big?

Obviously the numbers can be tweaked to fit a better statistical model, but the basis should work well.
So ability modifier determines dice pool and proficiency determines success threshold? So Henry the Knowledge Cleric with expertise in History and Arcana and 8 Int (because he's a cleric, let's be honest here) rolls no or minimum dice and basically his skills only exist if people help him. This is really one of those personal opinion changes. I quite like that ability checks are usable without requiring optimization of ability score and proficiency. I also like being able to eyeball difficulty without needing a spreadsheet or supercomputer. I imagine this only works if you're going for specialized characters instead of the broadly capable adventurers that 5E presents.

[Socratov]

The editing and organization of information in the books is a real problem. I'd really like to fix that.
I can get behind that...

The Tarrasque (in 5e anyway) is 50 feet tall. Godzilla at his smallest, original appearance, I'm told is 50 meters tall. It's really only a little taller than an Atlas, and those things can carry ECM and be quite stealthy. Maybe it's a problem that 5e's Godzilla-styled monster isn't that big?
well, i'd say 10 average human beings is still quite tall... (50 divided by 3 is about 18 meters, which translates to about 10 europeans on average...)

So ability modifier determines dice pool and proficiency determines success threshold? So Henry the Knowledge Cleric with expertise in History and Arcana and 8 Int (because he's a cleric, let's be honest here) rolls no or minimum dice and basically his skills only exist if people help him. This is really one of those personal opinion changes. I quite like that ability checks are usable without requiring optimization of ability score and proficiency. I also like being able to eyeball difficulty without needing a spreadsheet or supercomputer. I imagine this only works if you're going for specialized characters instead of the broadly capable adventurers that 5E presents.

Well, yeah, it might look weird, but consider this: Henry the knowledge cleric has trouble remembering his stuff (intelligence is there to among others show how good you are at remembering stuff). Once someone helps him organise the historical timeline or gives him a starting point he can really tell you everything you are missing and the grand scheme of things in that period.

Same for Arcana, Henry couldn't remember the name of a spell as it is being cast at him, but set him on a magical effect with books and knowledge banks and he will tell you exactly what it is and how it works...

[CaptainSarathai]

Was the issue that your players weren't rolling up replacement characters often enough, or that there weren't enough feedback loops to kill off PCs? :smallconfused:
No. The issue was that players were treating dropping to zero as a pretty acceptable thing. They'd let a guy lay there for the rest of the fight, then worry about healing him. It was very metagamey. This way, if they just leave you there, you will die. And if you drop to zero, you've just slowed the whole party down because now they have to Short Rest (a night in my system) just to get you walking again, and you're exhausted until you can take a long rest (24hrs, my system) to heal up.

And yes, I do want a more lethal game, for two reasons.
Firstly, it cuts down on murder-hoboism, and forces players to take more interest in looking for alternatives to either avoid a fight or talk their way out of it.
Secondly, D&D is stupidly forgiving as it is. A "deadly" encounter isn't deadly at all. If you want to put the characters under a squeeze, you're running crazy high CRs. These death rules and the rest rules mean that I can have characters facing down low-CR foes much further into their career, as it takes more time to recover abilities, and taking lots of damage requires retreating for a night's rest.

Really, this is more a change in how I write encounters/campaigns compared to how you do it, I think. I have very few long "dungeon crawls" and more "combat as war" in less contained areas.



That's a strange way of putting it, since it means a character can't gish with a big sword, as Longswords are just regular old swords.
Just semantics. D&D already messed up with the way they treat their swords. Truly "Greatsword" weren't that common, and there should be something between Shortsword and Longsword - an "arming sword" more typical to what people would use alongside a shield in warfare.


How does this interact with racial spells in classes that never take caster levels? Yuan-ti rogue or Fire-Gensai fighter... can't cast their spells? Can only ever cast them at 'level 0' equivalence?
If you get it from your race, it scales by level.



If you're going to do that, then you need to nerf Agonizing Blast. Under your rules, Warlocks are getting equal or greater spell slots compared to full casters, plus great at-will damage, and have more flexibility than normal casters.
Not really. Depends on rests. Thing is, Warlocks already get the same SPs as any full caster - they just have them tied up in bigger spell slots. That's great if you have lots of spells that scale effectively, but the Warlock typically keeps a spell slot held aside for Hex. Why burn a 5th level slot on a non-scaling spell?
Also, when you break them down to SPs, they have about the same slots as any other Caster at their level, if you use the standard 3-4 Encounters between Rests.

This is something that has been common for a while. I do agree that Agonizing Blast should not come before LifeDrinker though, that's something i missed. They should both be 11th level Invocations.


IMO you also need to give TWF an extra off-hand attack at level 11, when it begins to fall off in effectiveness compared to the other options.

Maybe. Right now, those "other options" pretty much require being a Fighter, and using a Str weapon. I still think that Fighters using big swords should be the top of the heap for damage output.
Dual wielding has other advantages that Fighters don't really get to use. It's an extra attack for things like Hunter's Mark and Hex, SA and Smite opportunities. Dual Wielding isn't about raw damage. Just, as it is right now, there's a problem where TWF is amazing prior to Lvl5. Moving it to a Feat that most people can't get until 4th makes that easier to stomach. It also makes it more useful for those "partial Martials" who either never get Extra Attack, or who can't keep up with a Fighter getting 3-4 attacks per turn with a big sword. Giving those classes 4A would likely put them beyond what a Fighter can do with that big sword - and that wasn't the intent.

[GPS]

While the dX+Y bonus works well for HP, attacks and damage, it is absolute horse manure for skills and skillchallenges. I would much rather use NWoD's successes for that. This way you could divvy up non-proficiency, proficiency and expertise as to grant success on respectively 5, 6 and 8 on a d10. then the DC becomes not an arbitrarily set number to at least roll on a die+mod, but a skill challenge which incorporates both a succession of successes to pull off a chain of success and to make aid another checks simpeler. You just get to roll your ability modifier for a number of tries to get successes. You allies can help you make a roll by making a skillcheck of their own and allow their successes to boost your number of tries.

Timmy the rogue has Dex 16 (+3 mod) is proficient in Stealth (so success on a 6), and has expertise in Sleight of hand (success on a 5). His skill challenge is to sneak up behind a guardsman and to pick his pocket. The DM sets the DC of sneaking up behind the guard as a 1 (not really hard, but not so easy either), and picking his pocket as 2 (one success to get in without him noticing, and one success for getting out without noticing).

Timmy rolls 3 dice for stealth: 4, 2, 7. He succeeds in sneaking up on the guard.
Timmy then rolls 3 dice again for Sleight of Hand: 5, 3, 9. he succeeds in the extraction of a pouch of money.

The next time Timmy wants to do this the DM says that now that the guard is being pickpocketed they are more vigilant. Luckily Timmy has his bardic buddy Bob with him to serve as a distraction. Bob has 18 charisma and starts talking to the guard to keep their attention focused on him. he tells the DM that he is aiding Timmy. The DM says fine, make a persuasion roll (which Bob is proficient in). Bob does as he is told: and rolls a 7, a 4, a 2 and a 10. For proficiency that is 2 successes. Timmy now may attempt his skillchallenge not with 3 dice, but 5 dice to roll. The DM had set DC's of 3 successes and 4 successes. Timmy rolls (7, 9, 6, 7, 1) for Stealth (passing), and (2, 5, 8, 10, 9) for SoH (again, passing as his expertise helps him getting that 4th success!). I think this will promote group play and create a sense of achievement from skill challenges. What's more, instead of saying "I too do X" or "I help doing Y" it allows a player to employ creativity to, during his own minigame, support the player making the 'main' roll. This builds up suspense as all the help stuff is done first as it leads up to achieving the main goal.

Also, for more swingy-ness you could even incorporate 1s and 10s as critical successes and failures like glitches in Shadowrun (like 1's subtracting a succes form the total and 10's adding the opportunity to reroll for another success), without allowing the 8 int barbarian to luckily identify some obscure arcana lore just because he rolled a nat 20 on the roll, but by still allowing him to help (it's just harder to be useful as he has les chance to gain succeses as opposed to others, but he has just the same chances to roll a 1)

Obviously the numbers can be tweaked to fit a better statistical model, but the basis should work well.

Seems like a hit too much for a simple skill check. Also, 2 checks to pick a pocket seems like breaking them down in a disadvantage inducing manner, but to each their own.

[mephnick]

No. The issue was that players were treating dropping to zero as a pretty acceptable thing. They'd let a guy lay there for the rest of the fight, then worry about healing him. It was very metagamey.

I track the saves and then have the player roll them all at once if they're checked on or healed. That way the players can't metagame. Leave your ally down for 2 rounds? A fail and crit fail when you go to heal them means they're already dead.

RAW is so stupid. "Oh it's ok, he's got 2 successes and no fails, leave him there. Gonna cast conjure animals instead."

[Coidzor]

I track the saves and then have the player roll them all at once if they're checked on or healed. That way the players can't metagame. Leave your ally down for 2 rounds? A fail and crit fail when you go to heal them means they're already dead.

RAW is so stupid. "Oh it's ok, he's got 2 successes and no fails, leave him there. Gonna cast conjure animals instead."

Which will kill them just as dead if there's no one with Healing Word in the party (or the guy with Healing Word is currently a bear) and the characters able to stabilize or heal them had to take an entire turn just to get over to the downed ally. Crit fails are pretty ridiculous.

The silly thing about this example to me isn't that they're waiting to revive a downed ally, but rather that it's a fight that's nasty enough to down an ally and still be going on after 2 whole rounds without having transitioned into mop-up, and they're just now conjuring animals. :smallconfused: Well, I guess less silly and more strange and very much outside my range of experiences and expectations.


No. The issue was that players were treating dropping to zero as a pretty acceptable thing. They'd let a guy lay there for the rest of the fight, then worry about healing him. It was very metagamey. This way, if they just leave you there, you will die. And if you drop to zero, you've just slowed the whole party down because now they have to Short Rest (a night in my system) just to get you walking again, and you're exhausted until you can take a long rest (24hrs, my system) to heal up.

I find that very interesting, because my experience has been wildly different from that.

Generally, if the fight is nasty enough to down one character, then more characters have a very real chance to follow, rather than the group being totally fine in the fight without that other character at least pulling some of their weight, even in parties of 5 or 6 PCs. Typically if one of us gets dropped, then 1 or 2 more of us also get dropped, at least temporarily, even with healing to bring the character that first(generally one of the party's frontline melee types or magical artillery) got downed back up into the fight and contributing their damage or control against the enemy.

More often, characters have been too locked down by enemies that had a very real chance of downing them too and so had to deal with that before they could do anything about the downed ally. In some cases, even with access to Healing Word, as they simply couldn't get close enough in a single turn with all they had to deal with, because things were going very badly.

Although the domino effect has gotten less pronounced after about level 5 to 7, or in parties where over half the party has healing and multiple characters have Healing Word.

Healing Word is really nice.

[mephnick]

Which will kill them just as dead if there's no one with Healing Word in the party (or the guy with Healing Word is currently a bear) and the characters able to stabilize or heal them had to take an entire turn just to get over to the downed ally. Crit fails are pretty ridiculous.

The silly thing about this example to me isn't that they're waiting to revive a downed ally, but rather that it's a fight that's nasty enough to down an ally and still be going on after 2 whole rounds without having transitioned into mop-up, and they're just now conjuring animals. :smallconfused: Well, I guess less silly and more strange and very much outside my range of experiences and expectations.



I find that very interesting, because my experience has been wildly different from that.

Ok conjure animals was an odd choice for my joke, but yes, players metagame death saves and it makes getting knocked to 0 meaningless. Thankfully I have aggressive NPCs ruthlessly finish downed PCs if they have the opportunity. Between this and the houserule, my players have learned to actually help their helpless allies instead of ignoring them with the help of 5e's weak death system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I track the saves and then have the player roll them all at once if they're checked on or healed. That way the players can't metagame. Leave your ally down for 2 rounds? A fail and crit fail when you go to heal them means they're already dead.

RAW is so stupid. "Oh it's ok, he's got 2 successes and no fails, leave him there. Gonna cast conjure animals instead."

I'm late with this, but I had a group try that. Fighter went down, had 1 failure. The next turn the cleric spends his turn getting mad at the wizard for something (in character) instead of using healing word, knowing he had 2 more turns (no active enemies). And then the fighter took his next save. Crit Fail. Did I mention that this was session 1, with all of them new to the game? By common consent we ended up retconing that last round to a "vision granted by the cleric's god."

Lesson of the story--the dice are out to get players who do stupid things. Darn things are sentient. And evil. <walks off muttering about genre-savvy dice...>

[JumboWheat01]

Lesson of the story--the dice are out to get players who do stupid things. Darn things are sentient. And evil. <walks off muttering about genre-savvy dice...>

This is why some people I know have made "dice prisons" where they throw their dice in for misbehaving.

[CaptainSarathai]

Generally, if the fight is nasty enough to down one character, then more characters have a very real chance to follow, rather than the group being totally fine in the fight without that other character at least pulling some of their weight, even in parties of 5 or 6 PCs. Typically if one of us gets dropped, then 1 or 2 more of us also get dropped, at least temporarily, even with healing to bring the character that first(generally one of the party's frontline melee types or magical artillery) got downed back up into the fight and contributing their damage or control against the enemy.

More often, characters have been too locked down by enemies that had a very real chance of downing them too and so had to deal with that before they could do anything about the downed ally. In some cases, even with access to Healing Word, as they simply couldn't get close enough in a single turn with all they had to deal with, because things were going very badly.

Although the domino effect has gotten less pronounced after about level 5 to 7, or in parties where other half the party has healing and multiple characters have Healing Word.

Healing Word is really nice.

Right - this is assuming something like a "Super Deadly" encounter. If the guys dropping first are the frontline melee dudes with HP for days, then absolutely - whatever just killed Bob the Tank is going to make paste out of Maggy the Wizard in the next round.

My desire was to make it so that one character going down, even to a lucky Crit or an unnoticed trap, puts stress on the party beyond just,
"Oh, Maggy missed that jump and Zeroed herself. Dust her off, pop a healing word, and make sure she stays in the back for the rest of the dungeon."
I can now get the party to stop and retreat just by knocking down one character. Think of something like the machine-gun scene from Saving Pvt. Ryan - they get in a fight and one guy gets hit. The entire squad bogs down because they have to try and save this one person. They don't just 'Lay On Hands' him and get him back in the fight.

Admittedly, a lot of my campaigns take place in the open - not in a dungeon. In dungeons I allow regular (or even shorter) Short Rests, or I give them potions and salves that can get someone back on their feet (but still exhausted) much faster than the typical 8hrs.
I think it feels like more an accomplishment when the party comes out of a dungeon bloody and exhausted, and has to limp back to town and tend their wounds.
For most adventures, that final boss-fight is the last encounter they'll have, and then they head to town to cash in their rewards and decide on the next hook. So why worry about how they look after that boss fight? I plan my adventures around the changes I make - encounter CRs get easier the deeper we go, because I expect the party to start facing some attrition.

[Stubbazubba]

While the dX+Y bonus works well for HP, attacks and damage, it is absolute horse manure for skills and skillchallenges. I would much rather use NWoD's successes for that. This way you could divvy up non-proficiency, proficiency and expertise as to grant success on respectively 5, 6 and 8 on a d10. then the DC becomes not an arbitrarily set number to at least roll on a die+mod, but a skill challenge which incorporates both a succession of successes to pull off a chain of success and to make aid another checks simpeler. You just get to roll your ability modifier for a number of tries to get successes. You allies can help you make a roll by making a skillcheck of their own and allow their successes to boost your number of tries.

Timmy the rogue has Dex 16 (+3 mod) is proficient in Stealth (so success on a 6), and has expertise in Sleight of hand (success on a 5). His skill challenge is to sneak up behind a guardsman and to pick his pocket. The DM sets the DC of sneaking up behind the guard as a 1 (not really hard, but not so easy either), and picking his pocket as 2 (one success to get in without him noticing, and one success for getting out without noticing).

Timmy rolls 3 dice for stealth: 4, 2, 7. He succeeds in sneaking up on the guard.
Timmy then rolls 3 dice again for Sleight of Hand: 5, 3, 9. he succeeds in the extraction of a pouch of money.

What is the statistical difference here, though? If you need to roll two 6s out of 3d10 (a lvl 1 character with a +3 bonus and Proficiency attempting a moderately difficult task in your model), that just means you have a 68.75% chance of success, which is about statistically equivalent to just rolling d20+5 against a DC of 12-13. It looks like you're modeling the same things and getting the same outcomes, just with a much more opaque roll method (I have no idea how much an extra die changes my odds of success, for instance). Breaking it down into multiple dice doesn't really add any decision points for the player, it's just a different RNG, which just doesn't seem worth obscuring the odds so much. There's a benefit in having attacks, AC, saves, and skills all on the same scale (one of 5e's seldom-recognized innovations), it allows them to directly interact: you can roll a skill check as an attack, or force a save against a skill check and that will actually work instead of quickly being on different scales as in previous editions. Switching to a NWoD model loses both the statistical clarity of 20 increments of 5% and the ability to directly interact with the rest of the system on the same scale.

I can, however, see the benefit of breaking a skill challenge into multiple rolls where one random die roll leading to a complete failure is unacceptable, like a stealth challenge. But I wouldn't have you roll multiple times just to perform one action successfully; rather, I would have each skill check progress the complex task a certain amount, such that if it fails mid-way through, partial success is an emergent property of the game rules instead of a meta construct.

For a simple example, if you need to sneak across a courtyard to a distracted guard, the total distance divided by your move speed is going to tell you how many times to roll, while his passive perception will be the DC for your Stealth. That's just RAW--or at least my personal RAI since stealth is one of 5e's shall we say weaknesses--the only innovation is that a failure doesn't automatically mean you're spotted, instead, it just raises his awareness to Suspicious; he will actually roll to spot you against a DC based on your stealth and your cover, for instance (I dislike straight up opposed rolls, I'm weird). If he fails to see you for another turn, he is no longer Suspicious and won't roll to see you between your sneaking. But if he passes the check, he is now Aware of where you are, or at least he is sure you are behind X cover. One roll can't automatically fail you, but 2-3 probably can, and in that event you know how close you are because you were moving your move speed each check, and that difference might influence your attack/retreat options, etc.

Frankly, even that example seems a bit tedious, but there are plenty of instances where breaking down a single check into several to play through a complex task so that one failed check doesn't end the entire challenge makes sense, and this accomplishes that without losing the benefits of the skill system as-is.


The next time Timmy wants to do this the DM says that now that the guard is being pickpocketed they are more vigilant. Luckily Timmy has his bardic buddy Bob with him to serve as a distraction. Bob has 18 charisma and starts talking to the guard to keep their attention focused on him. he tells the DM that he is aiding Timmy. The DM says fine, make a persuasion roll (which Bob is proficient in). Bob does as he is told: and rolls a 7, a 4, a 2 and a 10. For proficiency that is 2 successes. Timmy now may attempt his skillchallenge not with 3 dice, but 5 dice to roll. The DM had set DC's of 3 successes and 4 successes. Timmy rolls (7, 9, 6, 7, 1) for Stealth (passing), and (2, 5, 8, 10, 9) for SoH (again, passing as his expertise helps him getting that 4th success!). I think this will promote group play and create a sense of achievement from skill challenges. What's more, instead of saying "I too do X" or "I help doing Y" it allows a player to employ creativity to, during his own minigame, support the player making the 'main' roll. This builds up suspense as all the help stuff is done first as it leads up to achieving the main goal.

Sometimes "I too do X" or "I help doing Y" makes perfect sense, e.g. I help him push the boulder (what else would you do, Perform at it?). Other times, there's nothing stopping you from getting creative in describing how you take the Help action as it is. Making them roll for it might make it more interesting, but either way, it's just bumping the odds of success a bit, no matter whether you're rolling d20+N vs. DC or rolling Nd6 and counting X+ as successes vs. DC. Keeping it d20+N actually makes it so that you can have the Bard roll against the guard's Will save if you wanted, or (more likely) his passive Insight. What would passive perception/insight look like in a dicepool system? You might be able to figure one out, but 5e's solution is quite elegant as it is. Rolling more dice doesn't introduce new decision points for the players, it's just a different curve on the RNG. If there's a problem with the d20's curve, then that'd be one thing, but I don't get the sense that that's what you're trying to address. Help is already done before the main roll, so it's not any more suspenseful, I don't think.

I don't mean to be overly critical, it's just that 5e is, at least in some ways, one of the best showcases of the versatility of the d20 as a core mechanic due to the fact that attacks, saves, and skills all work the same way with proficiency and ability scores (as opposed to, e.g., BAB and skill points diverging rapidly in 3e). And I am no 5e fanboy: it is rife with design failures and shoddy workmanship, but the core is uncharacteristically an improvement over previous editions (even if it still scales way too slowly as it goes up; bounded accuracy was a bad idea to get the results they wanted). Now, the structure of skill challenges needs some attention: there are too many instances where one failure means the challenge is failed, which is just poor mechanic design, but swapping out the d20 for d10 dicepools doesn't change that.

[djreynolds]

The classes are not equal and really..... have never been equal.

Some players choose a class because they want to be a beast master, and the whole time they are doodling and drawing their ranger and wolf out hunting

Some players choose a class because they think or know what would be the best fit for the party

Some players want to be a simple grunt and other a jet fighter pilot.

Others want to be able to do everything in game, sub-optimally or the best at every aspect.

My issue is all classes should've been long rest dependent aside from short rest hit dice, but then again this creates more in-game variables which can be fun and exciting

[Knaight]

What is the statistical difference here, though? If you need to roll two 6s out of 3d10 (a lvl 1 character with a +3 bonus and Proficiency attempting a moderately difficult task in your model), that just means you have a 68.75% chance of success, which is about statistically equivalent to just rolling d20+5 against a DC of 12-13. It looks like you're modeling the same things and getting the same outcomes, just with a much more opaque roll method (I have no idea how much an extra die changes my odds of success, for instance). Breaking it down into multiple dice doesn't really add any decision points for the player, it's just a different RNG, which just doesn't seem worth obscuring the odds so much. There's a benefit in having attacks, AC, saves, and skills all on the same scale (one of 5e's seldom-recognized innovations), it allows them to directly interact: you can roll a skill check as an attack, or force a save against a skill check and that will actually work instead of quickly being on different scales as in previous editions. Switching to a NWoD model loses both the statistical clarity of 20 increments of 5% and the ability to directly interact with the rest of the system on the same scale.

The statistical difference is that one of these forms a binomial distribution and the other one is a uniform distribution, and that matters. The particular implementation discussed is a bit odd (I'd consider WoD's dice pool system a pretty bad one), but there are a lot of reasons to use that general type of system.

Also having attacks, AC, saves and skills on the same scale isn't a 5e innovation. It's new to D&D, but it's been pretty common (albeit without necessarily the exact same system components) in the rest of the industry since the mid 1980's. Other editions of D&D don't get criticized enough for maintaining a ridiculous number of scales, but 5e is hardly innovative here.

[Stubbazubba]

The statistical difference is that one of these forms a binomial distribution and the other one is a uniform distribution, and that matters. The particular implementation discussed is a bit odd (I'd consider WoD's dice pool system a pretty bad one), but there are a lot of reasons to use that general type of system.

Yes, I later brought up that there's a difference in the curve (or lack thereof), but that didn't seem to be at the heart of OP's concern, and none of the alleged benefits have to deal with the curve.


Also having attacks, AC, saves and skills on the same scale isn't a 5e innovation. It's new to D&D, but it's been pretty common (albeit without necessarily the exact same system components) in the rest of the industry since the mid 1980's. Other editions of D&D don't get criticized enough for maintaining a ridiculous number of scales, but 5e is hardly innovative here.

I meant in D&D. And to my knowledge, it's the only d20 system that does that, so to that extent, in d20. Either way, the skill system being on that scale is not a 5e Problem, it's an improvement from previous generations.

[Socratov]

What is the statistical difference here, though? If you need to roll two 6s out of 3d10 (a lvl 1 character with a +3 bonus and Proficiency attempting a moderately difficult task in your model), that just means you have a 68.75% chance of success, which is about statistically equivalent to just rolling d20+5 against a DC of 12-13. It looks like you're modeling the same things and getting the same outcomes, just with a much more opaque roll method (I have no idea how much an extra die changes my odds of success, for instance). Breaking it down into multiple dice doesn't really add any decision points for the player, it's just a different RNG, which just doesn't seem worth obscuring the odds so much. There's a benefit in having attacks, AC, saves, and skills all on the same scale (one of 5e's seldom-recognized innovations), it allows them to directly interact: you can roll a skill check as an attack, or force a save against a skill check and that will actually work instead of quickly being on different scales as in previous editions. Switching to a NWoD model loses both the statistical clarity of 20 increments of 5% and the ability to directly interact with the rest of the system on the same scale.
certainly true, but the same is true of dis-/advantage. it's opaque to a point where nobody is sure what the statistical benefits are, while they will edge more towards the extreme. This is very cool in combat where luck should be the deciding factor in a hard match-up. For skills it's lousy: skills are all about what you CAN do, things you can be confident to do. Meanwhile, a dicepool method reduces the ability to rely on excesses (both through the pass/fail method as well as by forcing multiple rolls to achieve something closer to the Normal Distribution). This will make sure that longshots happen less (sure less fun for those barbarians attempting untrained knowledge arcana checks), but when they do they are more epic.

But fair point none the less...

I can, however, see the benefit of breaking a skill challenge into multiple rolls where one random die roll leading to a complete failure is unacceptable, like a stealth challenge. But I wouldn't have you roll multiple times just to perform one action successfully; rather, I would have each skill check progress the complex task a certain amount, such that if it fails mid-way through, partial success is an emergent property of the game rules instead of a meta construct.
and for me it's mostly also about the help action: this time someone who is very competent at it can really help you along big time. a great help will have more effect then just mere advantage, but tagteaming in this way really pays off. In this case any overlap between characters adds synergy instead of creating fallbacks.

And I can smell the heist quests from this distance.

For a simple example, if you need to sneak across a courtyard to a distracted guard, the total distance divided by your move speed is going to tell you how many times to roll, while his passive perception will be the DC for your Stealth. That's just RAW--or at least my personal RAI since stealth is one of 5e's shall we say weaknesses--the only innovation is that a failure doesn't automatically mean you're spotted, instead, it just raises his awareness to Suspicious; he will actually roll to spot you against a DC based on your stealth and your cover, for instance (I dislike straight up opposed rolls, I'm weird). If he fails to see you for another turn, he is no longer Suspicious and won't roll to see you between your sneaking. But if he passes the check, he is now Aware of where you are, or at least he is sure you are behind X cover. One roll can't automatically fail you, but 2-3 probably can, and in that event you know how close you are because you were moving your move speed each check, and that difference might influence your attack/retreat options, etc.

Frankly, even that example seems a bit tedious, but there are plenty of instances where breaking down a single check into several to play through a complex task so that one failed check doesn't end the entire challenge makes sense, and this accomplishes that without losing the benefits of the skill system as-is.
True, but in this case, say he fails the first 2, but nails the 3rd? either he nails the task, (does give himself a bit away), in my system the guard only picks him up late. The first might be more (or less) fun, the second seems internally more consistent, but YMMV

Sometimes "I too do X" or "I help doing Y" makes perfect sense, e.g. I help him push the boulder (what else would you do, Perform at it?). Other times, there's nothing stopping you from getting creative in describing how you take the Help action as it is. Making them roll for it might make it more interesting, but either way, it's just bumping the odds of success a bit, no matter whether you're rolling d20+N vs. DC or rolling Nd6 and counting X+ as successes vs. DC. Keeping it d20+N actually makes it so that you can have the Bard roll against the guard's Will save if you wanted, or (more likely) his passive Insight. What would passive perception/insight look like in a dicepool system? You might be able to figure one out, but 5e's solution is quite elegant as it is. Rolling more dice doesn't introduce new decision points for the players, it's just a different curve on the RNG. If there's a problem with the d20's curve, then that'd be one thing, but I don't get the sense that that's what you're trying to address. Help is already done before the main roll, so it's not any more suspenseful, I don't think.passive scores certainly are a pain in my proposed system. However, in that case it's always opposed. And why not do it like this: wis mod in successes to beat passively. (in the case of insight or perception)


I don't mean to be overly critical, it's just that 5e is, at least in some ways, one of the best showcases of the versatility of the d20 as a core mechanic due to the fact that attacks, saves, and skills all work the same way with proficiency and ability scores (as opposed to, e.g., BAB and skill points diverging rapidly in 3e). Oh, by all means, go for it, in this way I can gather counter points before ven testing my tweaks out and tinker with it before I unleash it on the players...

Oh, and I think that 5e certainly has a strong core, however, I also think that it's rather rigid. The way it is designed leaves little room for mathematical finnicking. You must keep to bounded accuracy lest you break the complete backbone of the spine. While it;s reather flexible in play, it's rather set in design. 3.5 was, in that regard, a lot more flexible to adapt to your tastes in design, but when you started playing it it was more rigid due to the massive amount of rules.

And I'm not saying either edition is better for it, as both editions have their strengths and weaknesses.
And I am no 5e fanboy: it is rife with design failures and shoddy workmanship, but the core is uncharacteristically an improvement over previous editions (even if it still scales way too slowly as it goes up; bounded accuracy was a bad idea to get the results they wanted). Now, the structure of skill challenges needs some attention: there are too many instances where one failure means the challenge is failed, which is just poor mechanic design, but swapping out the d20 for d10 dicepools doesn't change that.
I think it does, but my thoughts remain untested as long as I don't try it out. Which means that one day I will have to work out the design in a mathematical and statistical manner.

The classes are not equal and really..... have never been equal.
and quite frankly shouldn't be. That's what drove a lot of players who tried 4th edition back into 3.5/pathfinder. The fact that an imbalance of power exists adds meaning to a choice. What 5e did right is to make the gap not too large (at least in most cases)

Some players choose a class because they want to be a beast master, and the whole time they are doodling and drawing their ranger and wolf out hunting

Some players choose a class because they think or know what would be the best fit for the party

Some players want to be a simple grunt and other a jet fighter pilot.

Others want to be able to do everything in game, sub-optimally or the best at every aspect.

My issue is all classes should've been long rest dependent aside from short rest hit dice, but then again this creates more in-game variables which can be fun and exciting

I fully agree that the rest recovery for classes could use quite some work. I think for instance that if a druid gets wildshape back on a SR, cleric gets channel Divinity on a SR, that the Barbarian should get rages on a SR. Just about everything they do hinges on it and it should be their staple. Maybe not right off the bat, but from lvl 5 on or something...

[KorvinStarmast]

Not enough monsters have weaknesses, especially for monsters where certain weaknesses would make sense. This. Undead for starters. They need to reboot vulnerabilities/resistances on a lot of monsters.

Taking a short rest is no more difficult than saying: We take a short rest (or, we rest for an hour, or take lunch, or take a break, or whatever).
-------------------------------
The starter module, Lost Mines of Phandelver, and the first book each have 8+ encounters in the first day or night of the adventure, for example, along with countless opportunities to take a short rest. Thank you.

rant on stuff that isn't a problem I did not find those to be anything like a fix. Feats give martials options. I see no reason to cramp their groove.

IMO there aren't really problems with 5e that don't boil down to them not being to a particular person or group's taste (including my own for some things). Any given "fix" may make it more to the taste of some, but will make it less of the taste of others. This is why even the creators encourage tables to figure out what works for them and play the game their way.
Thank you, sir.

I appreciate the extended discussions we've had on this board for the past couple of years on the skill system. I understand why a lot of people find it "not quite right." What it does, perhaps as an unintended effect, is restore the skill monkey role to the old rogue class: thief and bard.

That said, back in the days with multi sided dice were new, high level thieves rarely failed certain skill checks, but others were still up in the air.

[ATHATH]

I don't really like what they did with Animate Dead. While I like how they made the spell non-maintenance-free, their choice of forcing you to use dozens of weak skeletons/zombies instead of just a few strong ones/other undead just bogs down the game.

[Naanomi]

I don't really like what they did with Animate Dead. While I like how they made the spell non-maintenance-free, their choice of forcing you to use dozens of weak skeletons/zombies instead of just a few strong ones/other undead just bogs down the game.
Create Undead is just a few levels up for stronger Undead (though mechanically, a necromancer may be better served by the 'firing squad' of skeletons...)

[Citan]

Short Rests. Particularly classes with short rest resources vs. those with long rest resources.

In pretty much every 5e campaign I've played, the long rest resource characters nova and then rest, and once every two or three sessions we might get a short rest in between long rests. This "isn't how 5e is supposed to be played", but with time constraints (we only have time to play 3-4 hour sessions, weeks apart, really) and dm styles--like, seriously, no DM has any experience adding lunch breaks to their adventures, the whole short rest regen mechanic winds up incredibly frustrating. There's solutions, but they're house rules, and I really wish it worked out of the box the way we played rather than asking us to play some hypothetical D&D workflow we've never done or kludging the game to work better for us.

Instead I've just learned to not play warlocks or battlemasters. ^^

(I mean, seriously, the dms guide recommends what, 6-8 encounters a day? That would effectively make each of our D&D days 2 months real time I am not even kidding. It just doesn't work for the groups I play in.)
Plz allow me to point you towards this discussion (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?519591-Could-these-situations-be-considered-as-quot-short-rests-quot). You may find some opinions there that you could push to your DM to support more "streamlined" short rests with the help of casters or some other tactics.

For me, the main problems are that the overall simplicity makes it a tad too swingy in rolls, and the lack of proper, simple explanation for Hiding system and surprise (still have problems with that).
Everything else is minor gripes that can be easily dealt with imagination or improvisation... :)

[Strill]

Not really. Depends on rests. Thing is, Warlocks already get the same SPs as any full caster - they just have them tied up in bigger spell slots. That's great if you have lots of spells that scale effectively, but the Warlock typically keeps a spell slot held aside for Hex. Why burn a 5th level slot on a non-scaling spell?
Also, when you break them down to SPs, they have about the same slots as any other Caster at their level, if you use the standard 3-4 Encounters between Rests.

This is something that has been common for a while. I do agree that Agonizing Blast should not come before LifeDrinker though, that's something i missed. They should both be 11th level Invocations.I'm aware that Warlocks get comparable overall spell usage compared to other casters, but I still think that the Warlock's high at-will damage is predicated on the unruly Pact Magic system, and the fact that it often causes Warlocks to spend spell slots inefficiently or to sometimes end up in an important fight with no spell slots left.

If you disagree, then why didn't other casters get anywhere near as much at-will damage as the Warlock?


Maybe. Right now, those "other options" pretty much require being a Fighter, and using a Str weapon. I still think that Fighters using big swords should be the top of the heap for damage output.
Dual wielding has other advantages that Fighters don't really get to use. It's an extra attack for things like Hunter's Mark and Hex, SA and Smite opportunities. Dual Wielding isn't about raw damage.First, TWF falls behind in damage even compared to a Fighter with a Longsword + Shield Master build. It is really far behind.

Second, your reason why TWF shouldn't do as much damage as a two-handed weapon is because it can do damage with all those abilities, but it's not about raw damage? I have no idea what you're trying to say. Regardless, your argument is flawed because any two-handed weapon build is going to take Polearm Master or Greatweapon Master in order to get a bonus-action attack anyway. So in terms of number of attacks, TWF has no advantage there.

TWF will never surpass a two-handed sword build because TWF has no equivalent to Polearm Master or Greatweapon Master, which are each on par with +4 Strength in terms of damage. Even more so for TWF Paladins and Warlocks who never get Two Weapon Fighting Style.

For Rogues, getting a second TWF attack helps to justify the danger of running into melee combat instead of just hanging back hiding and firing a bow. All you get from being in melee is a paltry +1d6 damage, and the second TWF attack boosts that to +2d6, at a time where it's becoming harder and harder to justify that the danger of being in melee compared to that tiny extra bit of damage.


Just, as it is right now, there's a problem where TWF is amazing prior to Lvl5. Moving it to a Feat that most people can't get until 4th makes that easier to stomach.Levels 1-4 take only a handful of sessions. I don't see that as an issue. If you're going to make it a feat, you'd better add a bunch of damage boosts to it, because there's absolutely no reason to spend a feat on TWF once you've reached level 5.


It also makes it more useful for those "partial Martials" who either never get Extra Attack, or who can't keep up with a Fighter getting 3-4 attacks per turn with a big sword. Giving those classes 4A would likely put them beyond what a Fighter can do with that big sword - and that wasn't the intent.Try doing the math and you'll find that's not the case at all, especially considering the fact that those "partial martials" never even get Two-Weapon Fighting Style.

Nevertheless, you could just stick the second TWF attack in with the Dual Wielder feat.

[Specter]

The biggest 5E problem I see is that DMs don't play around the 6 regular-difficulty encounters a day; that's when Paladins and other classes pull ahead. If you're not going to do several encounters, then you have to tone down all long rest options, especially spells at higher levels.

[Citan]

If you gave them out to everyone and disallowed variant human, what do you think would be the most popular non-combat feat taken at level 1?
I'd say Resilient first, obviously, because you can target any stat so either Constitution or Wisdom would be taken. Although you probably consider this a "combat" feat.
Then...
Ritual Caster probably, because it's versatility made as a feat, with Lucky tied at first place (you can use it for ability checks too after all).
Skilled and Observant would probably come close behind, along with Magic Initiate (Minor Illusion, Mage Hand, Prestidigitation, Mold Earth, Comprehend Languages, Charm Person, Fog Cloud, Unseen Servant, Jump... All fine spells bringing some versatility).
Actor would finish the group of head competition (very nice feat, but still more niche than all the others).

Other feats would be taken only for a very particular concept (Grappler, Charger, Healer, Inspiring Leader, Keen Mind, Dungeon Delver, Tavern Brawler) as a way to bring occasional mechanical boon to what would be otherwise a glorified trait.


Not really. People just think you have to max your primary stats for some reason. You could probably take no +2s and be fine.


A +2 to your primary stat is usually worth around +20% overall DPR for martial classes. (Upwards of +30%, downwards of +15%) It's quite a big deal.
In my experience of roleplay in general and 5e in particular, statistics slap probabilities in the face. Very rarely did either players or DM in the games I played miss by only 1, and rarely by 2. Usually rolls are far enough or far away, middle ground rarely occuring. ^^

So, sure, when it happens, you are angry, and you may occasionally hate yourself for not bumping your stat (especially for a prime caster) and wasting both your action and that important spell altogether. But overall, what matters the most is having luck with you, or side abilities that can alter it significantly.
For example, a Shield Master on a STR S&B class with no decent bonus action is far better than a plain +1 STR, as long as you also take Athletics proficiency (which is probable enough, or you can strive for it during downtime).
Spell Sniper ignoring cover is far better for a caster using ranged cantrips than a plain +1, unless the DM is very lenient about cover management (including cover provided by close allies, which people tend to forget ;)).
Ritual Caster may prove much more invaluable for a party lacking ritual casting than a better spell dc, because you bring much value for adventuring overall (lesser chance to be surprised with Alarm, comfortable place to rest with Rope Trick / LTH, tricky moves with Unseen Servant, ability to know that this weapon is cursed with Detect Magic / Identify, etc).

With that said, I'm in the group of people who would feel uneasy not having at least a 18 in main stat as a caster (unless Wild Magic / Shadow Sorcerer or Diviner Wizard). Just because I'm a tad superstitious, so I can't help thinking that if I don't "help myself" first, the "god of luck" won't help me either. XD:smalltongue:
But a feat over 20 in attack stat? I would always strongly consider it. ;)

[Strill]

In my experience of roleplay in general and 5e in particular, statistics slap probabilities in the face. Very rarely did either players or DM in the games I played miss by only 1, and rarely by 2. Usually rolls are far enough or far away, middle ground rarely occuring. ^^

There's plenty of explanations for this. One, did the DM tell you the DC of every roll you made? Two, how many rolls did you make? If you haven't come anywhere near close to statistical significance, then that's your explanation. Randomness happens. Three, are you using cheap unbalanced rock-tumbler-polished dice? Most dice are poorly made, and favor some numbers over others, often by quite large margins. If you're using dice like that, then you should expect anomalies like these.

[mephnick]

There's plenty of explanations for this. One, did the DM tell you the DC of every roll you made? Two, how many rolls did you make? If you haven't come anywhere near close to statistical significance, then that's your explanation. Randomness happens.

But if you never know that +1 would have helped, and you only see a roll within 1 a couple times during a campaign, it probably feels better as a player to take a feat that gives you options permanently. I just think players that focus on stats deprive themselves of stuff that would make their character more interesting and combat more varied. People always complain about fighter versatility, but then turn around and spend their extra feats on bumping secondary and tertiary stats. With a racial bonus I think a +1 half feat to your major stat is probably all you need in 5e.

[Pichu]

While the dX+Y bonus works well for HP, attacks and damage, it is absolute horse manure for skills and skillchallenges. I would much rather use NWoD's successes for that. This way you could divvy up non-proficiency, proficiency and expertise as to grant success on respectively 5, 6 and 8 on a d10. then the DC becomes not an arbitrarily set number to at least roll on a die+mod, but a skill challenge which incorporates both a succession of successes to pull off a chain of success and to make aid another checks simpeler. You just get to roll your ability modifier for a number of tries to get successes. You allies can help you make a roll by making a skillcheck of their own and allow their successes to boost your number of tries.

Timmy the rogue has Dex 16 (+3 mod) is proficient in Stealth (so success on a 6), and has expertise in Sleight of hand (success on a 5). His skill challenge is to sneak up behind a guardsman and to pick his pocket. The DM sets the DC of sneaking up behind the guard as a 1 (not really hard, but not so easy either), and picking his pocket as 2 (one success to get in without him noticing, and one success for getting out without noticing).

Timmy rolls 3 dice for stealth: 4, 2, 7. He succeeds in sneaking up on the guard.
Timmy then rolls 3 dice again for Sleight of Hand: 5, 3, 9. he succeeds in the extraction of a pouch of money.

The next time Timmy wants to do this the DM says that now that the guard is being pickpocketed they are more vigilant. Luckily Timmy has his bardic buddy Bob with him to serve as a distraction. Bob has 18 charisma and starts talking to the guard to keep their attention focused on him. he tells the DM that he is aiding Timmy. The DM says fine, make a persuasion roll (which Bob is proficient in). Bob does as he is told: and rolls a 7, a 4, a 2 and a 10. For proficiency that is 2 successes. Timmy now may attempt his skillchallenge not with 3 dice, but 5 dice to roll. The DM had set DC's of 3 successes and 4 successes. Timmy rolls (7, 9, 6, 7, 1) for Stealth (passing), and (2, 5, 8, 10, 9) for SoH (again, passing as his expertise helps him getting that 4th success!). I think this will promote group play and create a sense of achievement from skill challenges. What's more, instead of saying "I too do X" or "I help doing Y" it allows a player to employ creativity to, during his own minigame, support the player making the 'main' roll. This builds up suspense as all the help stuff is done first as it leads up to achieving the main goal.

Also, for more swingy-ness you could even incorporate 1s and 10s as critical successes and failures like glitches in Shadowrun (like 1's subtracting a succes form the total and 10's adding the opportunity to reroll for another success), without allowing the 8 int barbarian to luckily identify some obscure arcana lore just because he rolled a nat 20 on the roll, but by still allowing him to help (it's just harder to be useful as he has les chance to gain succeses as opposed to others, but he has just the same chances to roll a 1)

Obviously the numbers can be tweaked to fit a better statistical model, but the basis should work well.

This is a great system and i love it! .....Except what if I have a negative skill modifier (i.e. 8 Int). Heck, even at a 10 in a skill I get no rolls! How would this be fixed?

Also, on passive skills, you could use them to do set the DCc at (passive skill)-10/2 (rounded down) + (1 for 1/2 proficiency, 2 for proficiency, 3 for expertise)

FInally, how does Jack of All Trades interact with this?

[Socratov]

This is a great system and i love it! .....Except what if I have a negative skill modifier (i.e. 8 Int). Heck, even at a 10 in a skill I get no rolls! How would this be fixed?

Also, on passive skills, you could use them to do set the DCc at (passive skill)-10/2 (rounded down) + (1 for 1/2 proficiency, 2 for proficiency, 3 for expertise)

FInally, how does Jack of All Trades interact with this?

I think that the baseline might be proficiency: then your dice pool becomes proficiency+mod (so at lvl 1 with 8 ability you get 1 die).

As for jack of all trades, it gives you not a lowered ceiling, but +1 die (scaling like cantrips so +1 on every 5th lvl in bard) to your pool on all rolls. Same for guidance: it gives you 1d4 extra dice for your pool when you use it.