D&D 5E What needs to be fixed in 5E?

[Tony Vargas]

The problem I see with powers is that they're not consolidated enough, being spread out class by class, producing a lot of redundancy. Creating more, albeit hopefully smaller, power lists would seem to risk adding yet more redundancy, and an even greater total number of powers.

Aside from that, Themes adding additional power or feature choices, instead of additional powers & features, seems like a great idea. More generally, if a character's level progression consisted of powers (AEDU), feats, and features gained at certain levels, and choice of class, race, theme, and so forth simply added to the choices at each level, you could have a wonderfully intuitive and balanced character-creation system. While there'd still be potential issues with synergies and overpowered or trap non-choices, the problem of adding to the game adding directly to the power of characters would be eliminated. You could even have each class (or build), in the first core book, have only a single progression of powers and features. Latter suplements would introduce the idea that each of those powers or features is a choice that could be swapped for another...

Heck, the first core player book could have the /classic/ choices of Fighter, Cleric, Magic-User, Halfling, Elf & Dwarf. Suplement would reveal that the Halfling is a Rogue, and the Elf multi-classed or Themed or some such.

 

[marelion]

I'd rather see ongoing damage replaced by a counter that lasts until the encounter ends. (I'll discuss some options for removing it earlier in a later paragraph.) Instead of causing ongoing 5 fire damage, an elemental causes level appropriate fire damage to its target, and all further fire damage during that encounter causes x amount more damage (to creatures only). Each time the elemental (or some other opponent that currently does ongoing fire damage) hits the target, the counter increases by 1 hp of damage, or maybe 1 hp per tier. This won't impair player characters too badly in most cases, but it has something to offer the game as a tool of attrition.

I honestly think that would make the bookkeeping even worse. I wanna play Dungeons & Dragons, not Archives and Accountants I think it is consensus here on the board that 4E already suffers from too much tracking during encounters and your suggestion would add even more of that.
While your option might help building thematically interesting encounter groups (think of the Planar Sphere Quest in BG II, where the devs placed large groups of elemental creatures) imho it requires too much effort to be of efficient use.

Something similar to that last idea might serve to replace the current mechanics for saving throws. Rather than the base 55% chance of success, give creatures the option to attempt an appropriate ability check to negate an effect, losing a healing surge if successful. (Skill checks might be appropriate in some cases, but making sense of that will require more effort.) Since monsters don't have more than 1 surge per tier, multiple successes will cost them a quarter of their hit points each time. I'd suggest that it only cost elites an eighth (or maybe 10%) of their hp in such cases, while solos would only lose 5% of their total each time this happened.

And sapping healing surges to get rid of conditions sounds rather harsh as a penalty. The condition itself impaires chartacters quite a bit and spending surges on conditions makes consecutive encounters in the Paragon/Epic Tier practically impossible. And you would punish defenders for drawing fire. Their higher surge value would go wasted on the conditions, from which they would suffer the most. In our current paragon group our defender would be dry on surges after one encounter ( and he`s got 14 of them, so he does not qualify as squishy). It`s fine if the group consensus is the 15 min adventure day but any other gamestyle would feel out of luck if your suggestions were to be the official guidelines.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You know what would make it worth the surge to end an effect? Immunity to the effect until the end of the encounter.

So if you're fighting ghouls and you're sick of being immobilized, you could spend a surge, end the immobilized condition, and the ghouls won't be able to immobilize you again. You're just 'so over it.'

It'd be worth it, and it'd fit the general feel of an heroic narrative a bit better than constantly overcoming paralysis only to be re-paralyzed, almost commically, seconds later.

On further consideration, it might be better as an option, when you save. You save, end the condition, and have the options to spend the surge to overcome it for the balance of the encounter.

 

[Zuche]

Many monsters, particularly those with a bonus vs grabbed enemies, have attacks that do damage, and also grab. Zombies in the MM1, for instance, grab with their 'slam' attack, in addition to doing damage.

Unless that was changed in errata, you're mistaken about the zombies in MMI, as well as its successor, MV. Now if that was changed in errata, doesn't that just make my point?

It's pretty much par for the course. Monsters that lack such powers rarely grab.

Monsters such as humanoids, even when you might imagine them trying to grab and threaten a hostage in a meaningful fashion.

The Grab in the PH (or Grab power in Essentials) is there for a player who does see some benefit to briefly immobilizing an enemy at the cost of a standard action - highly situational, but it could happen. It's not an option that's meant to see regular use, like a basic attack or at-will class power.

That's unnecessarily restrictive. Most at-will (and often basic) attacks already benefit from feats, weapons, or implements, where the benefit is seen on both attack and damage rolls. Sure, you're targeting Reflex, but you're unable to do attempt this against anything more than one size larger than you--not even just to hang on to a creature too big to immobilize. You can't do a thing against teleportation or in any situation that subjects you to regular forced movement.

Even a simple change, such as, "If the attack roll would hit both AC and Reflex with an unarmed strike, the attack also does damage appropriate to a one-handed improvised weapon sized for the attacker's use," might do the trick, unless you'd like to know why you have to first knock anyone out in order to grab them off the street. We're talking about a minimum of three standard actions to acquire a helpless hostage in circumstances that could be relieved in as little as a single move action; a reward more appropriate to the investment should be in order.

If this makes players more likely to parley with armies, regardless of level, isn't that a good thing? If it gives players the option to take a lone guard alive for interrogation without ever having to use blade, mace, or mystical bolt to first knock someone unconscious, doesn't that add something to the game?

 

[Zuche]

I honestly think that would make the bookkeeping even worse. I wanna play Dungeons & Dragons, not Archives and Accountants I think it is consensus here on the board that 4E already suffers from too much tracking during encounters and your suggestion would add even more of that.

It's as easy as putting out a scroll counter with a number on it, or a d10. I generally use a Duel board (old Parker Brother's game) as a counter organizer for such purposes, leaving the map free of such clutter and keeping things moving along pretty quickly.

And sapping healing surges to get rid of conditions sounds rather harsh as a penalty.

As matters stand now with regard to healing surges, sure. Tony Vargas suggests one mechanic that could make it worth the price again, but there are other options. Give people more options to save or even regain their healing surges, for example, though that combined with the checks to throw off effects in the first place could make Endurance and Heal essential skills for every member of your group.

Please understand I'm not telling you what the game needs. We're all just kibitzing here, throwing out ideas in the hope either that some of them might just do the trick or else might inspire a better idea.

 

[KarinsDad]

It's as easy as putting out a scroll counter with a number on it, or a d10. I generally use a Duel board (old Parker Brother's game) as a counter organizer for such purposes, leaving the map free of such clutter and keeping things moving along pretty quickly.

It's still too much bookkeeping.

The first PC was taking 7 points, but now has a 5 on his counter, so he now takes 12 points.

On top of that, the second PC was taking 7, but has a 2 on his counter, so 9 points for him.

And then the die got hit and I don't remember what it was. Was it a 6 or a 9?

It's better to totally avoid this level of bookkeeping where a counter has to be placed on the board and a number has to be added to it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Unless that was changed in errata, you're mistaken about the zombies in MMI, as well as its successor, MV. Now if that was changed in errata, doesn't that just make my point?



Monsters such as humanoids, even when you might imagine them trying to grab and threaten a hostage in a meaningful fashion.



That's unnecessarily restrictive. Most at-will (and often basic) attacks already benefit from feats, weapons, or implements, where the benefit is seen on both attack and damage rolls. Sure, you're targeting Reflex, but you're unable to do attempt this against anything more than one size larger than you--not even just to hang on to a creature too big to immobilize. You can't do a thing against teleportation or in any situation that subjects you to regular forced movement.

Even a simple change, such as, "If the attack roll would hit both AC and Reflex with an unarmed strike, the attack also does damage appropriate to a one-handed improvised weapon sized for the attacker's use," might do the trick, unless you'd like to know why you have to first knock anyone out in order to grab them off the street. We're talking about a minimum of three standard actions to acquire a helpless hostage in circumstances that could be relieved in as little as a single move action; a reward more appropriate to the investment should be in order.

If this makes players more likely to parley with armies, regardless of level, isn't that a good thing? If it gives players the option to take a lone guard alive for interrogation without ever having to use blade, mace, or mystical bolt to first knock someone unconscious, doesn't that add something to the game?

I think grabbing actually works reasonably well when you account for non-tactical story aspects of combat. Grabbing someone and moving them over by the edge of the cliff for instance, plenty threatening. The monster that grabs someone as IT takes a dive off the cliff, etc. These are all possibilities, as is just "I hold onto you and we all go to our doom together" kinds of things.

I think getting free of a grab however may be too easy. There could easily be some additional options there, like being able to subsequently knock your opponent prone, etc. Of course at a certain point you find that it is just better to let page 42 rule the day on things like that.

KD, I agree. The less tracking of things the better. Honestly there are not THAT many monsters who's primary damage is ongoing anyway. Most monsters do some damage and salt on some ongoing damage. The lack of stacking isn't totally trivial, but it isn't that big a deal either. In any case I think the real answer there is to just design encounters so there aren't a heap of 'ongoing 5 fire' dealing monsters filling the whole roster. In fact I kind of think things like ongoing damage might profitably be rarer and maybe a bit beefier. Being on fire can be SCARY, which these days it usually isn't really.

 

[Gryph]

You know what would make it worth the surge to end an effect? Immunity to the effect until the end of the encounter.

So if you're fighting ghouls and you're sick of being immobilized, you could spend a surge, end the immobilized condition, and the ghouls won't be able to immobilize you again. You're just 'so over it.'

It'd be worth it, and it'd fit the general feel of an heroic narrative a bit better than constantly overcoming paralysis only to be re-paralyzed, almost commically, seconds later.

Must spread XP, etc. I love this idea, gonna try it out as a houserule.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Monsters such as humanoids, even when you might imagine them trying to grab and threaten a hostage in a meaningful fashion.

There's not really a great way to do that. Readying is a little too specific, and a reaction, in any case. So threatening a hostage would mechanically be little more than that: a threat, with not much to back it up, grabbed or otherwise.

OTOH, there are monsters that grab enemies, and use them as 'shields' via specific powers. A 'hostage taking' power would not be at all hard to dream up, I'd be surprised if there aren't some humanoid monster that already does it.

Besides, grabbing a hostage would mean /not/ hurting them, so as far as it goes, grabbing a helples victim with the standard grab is fine. The victim, if statted out at all, probably has no hope of escape and would be killed by an powered-up damaging Grab, anyway.

That's unnecessarily restrictive. Most at-will (and often basic) attacks already benefit from feats, weapons, or implements, where the benefit is seen on both attack and damage rolls. Sure, you're targeting Reflex, but you're unable to do attempt this against anything more than one size larger than you--not even just to hang on to a creature too big to immobilize. You can't do a thing against teleportation or in any situation that subjects you to regular forced movement.

Again, it's not supposed to be an action that stacks up to basic attacks or at-wills. It's there in case grabbing is situationally so desireable as to sacrifice a standard action to do it. So anyone can do it, not so anyone can do it /well/.

 

[Zuche]

There's not really a great way to do that. Readying is a little too specific, and a reaction, in any case. So threatening a hostage would mechanically be little more than that: a threat, with not much to back it up, grabbed or otherwise.

A game that does not acknowledge the old chess maxim, "The threat is stronger than the execution," has a problem. One of the problems this game has is the need to create specific mechanics for creatures to attempt to do something that should be plausible, if not always likely, for anything to try.

Besides, grabbing a hostage would mean /not/ hurting them, so as far as it goes, grabbing a helples victim with the standard grab is fine. The victim, if statted out at all, probably has no hope of escape and would be killed by an powered-up damaging Grab, anyway.

Or knocked unconscious, as is always the option. That lends itself to the possibility of a second tier of options: you can either grab and do improvised weapon damage or you can treat the target as restrained. A second standard action against a target thus restrained could then either join the grab and do improvised weapon damage or render the target helpless until the grab is escaped. Too good? That depends on what else changes: minion mechanics, adjudication of attack rolls, options for investing your "luck" toward another's survival chances, etc.

As you note, the readied action to finish off a helpless target is already a pretty hefty investment of resources, especially when the target is still conscious and there's a defender to consider. I don't allow readied actions to interrupt triggering events that weren't detected until after they happened, and might even adjust what the response is or even allow none at all if the creature with the readied action would have no way of knowing the trigger happened even after it finished.

If people have to maneuver around for a round or two before an attack power can be used, I'm perfectly fine with that. Players should not be conditioned to reach for those things as their first option, nor to think that you should always use all of your encounter powers in a given fight (save perhaps those that always trigger off a successful basic attack). The results are like a chess game in which a player only moves two or three pieces all game.

Again, it's not supposed to be an action that stacks up to basic attacks or at-wills.

I haven't made myself clear. Basic attacks or at-wills should not be preferable options. Likewise, encounter attack powers should not be preferable to at-will powers or basic attacks. These things limit choice, which in turn limits thinking.

For example, the mechanics for aiding another in combat could also do with an overhaul. A big part of that involves getting rid of powers or features that force enemies to target you instead or even grant allies a basic attack. By forcing players to invest resources in such options, you ensure that they are never options for people who didn't build along such lines, limiting what they will try. Limiting what your players will attempt is bad, and is one of the things people most criticize about this game.

It should be enough that your character is strong (and has a hand or two free) to consider grabbing your enemy a viable option. It should be enough that your character is quick to consider throwing off your enemy's aim against a given target, to an extent that gives you nothing if the enemy says, "Okay, then I'll just attack you instead," while still involving some risk to either you or the intended target (or maybe both). An aided attack should offer something more than a bonus to hit for what you're giving up, something it does not do when even your at-will or basic melee attacks offer more than someone else gets from a +2 bonus on the attack roll.

For example, if enemy hits the target whose defense you were aiding, make a saving throw. Success means the enemy must target you instead. Failure means the original target is still attacked, with the normal bonus to the target's defenses. A roll of 1 on the saving throw means the target gets to attack you both. If your defenses are being aided by multiple allies (up to four in most cases), the target enemy gets to choose which of the successful defenders to hit, but gets to attack any of them that rolled a 1 on the saving throw as a free action.

Another example: With an aided attack, the target makes a saving throw. If it succeeds, the aid merely adds the normal bonus to the attack roll. If it fails, you get to make a melee basic attack as an opportunity action against the trigger if your aided ally hits the target, using the same bonus you provided.

Fewer powers. More teamwork.

It's there in case grabbing is situationally so desireable as to sacrifice a standard action to do it. So anyone can do it, not so anyone can do it /well/.

The rules already cover that by making it a Strength based attack, and not even a melee basic attack.