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

[Zuche]

It's still too much bookkeeping.

Not at all. If you find you're still tipping dice at a sideboard and you (or your players) don't trust your judgment enough to come up with a reasonable number when your memory fails you, there are other easy options. You can do this on an abacus without any training, for example. (With a little training, this might also be the fastest tool for tracking damage.) Stacking cones of two different colours can also work, three if you really think you're likely to accumulate 25 or more counters of a given type in a fight. (If it gets to four, you have an entirely different bookkeeping problem.) It should take no time at all to sweep four blue cones away to replace them with one green, or a red for four blue and four green.

Once you're familiar with the most suitable tools, the "bookkeeping" requires as much focus as peeling vegetables (useful for handling players whose attention tends to wander, assuming they don't know how to knit).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Ah, so you're talking a much broader re-balancing of combat actions, powers, and the action economy, not just 'Grab is dumb for not doing damage.'

In that context, sure, if you wanted to re-design the combat system so there would be a wealth of balanced (viable) options universally available, in addition to any powers that might be available, the current grab would not be a good candidate for one of those options.

For the part it plays in 4e, though, it's fine - something anyone should be able to attempt, if the need is pressing, but not normally a viable combat option. And, for those creatures that 'need' to grab, there are more potent powers that let them. If an enemy needs to grab, take a hostage, or whatever as part of the story, it is not at all difficult for the DM to give it an apropriate power.

 

[KarinsDad]

You can do this on an abacus without any training, for example.

Dude! Read what you are writing.

An abacus? Seriously?

Maybe you can use an abacus and maybe I can use an abacus, but if the game needs an abacus to be played, I can guarantee you that there are literally hundreds of thousands of players that will look at you as if you grew a third eye. This is not good game design.

The number one thing (and the one I started this thread with) wrong with 4E is that there are too many damn conditions and special cases and effects. Adding more of them and hence requiring more game aids, especially when your suggestion is to use an abacus to resolve it, is going in the wrong direction.

It's obvious that you are a smart guy, but you have to look at the big picture. Just because a game mechanic is easy for you to remember, it doesn't mean that another player that needs tokens or abacus' or dice put on the side of the table to remember what is going on is going to find it easy.

Sorry, but it's still too much bookkeeping if we have to have additional game aids brought to the table so that players can remember stuff. Anything that adds more game aids to the table is going in the wrong direction. By definition.

 

[Droogie128]

Not sure if it has been mentioned or not, but I'd like to see ability scores linked to class instead of race. Or reworked completely (or eliminated).

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.



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.



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.



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

Remember, page 42 exists. There are always options. I'd also just note that every little corner-case that can possibly come up can't realistically have a rule attached to it. The DM should be flexible enough to sort out what happens in certain edge cases. Also codifying things that are highly situational can lead to pathological results where stupid tricks end up being so advantageous that they get spammed around left and right. There's nothing wrong with creating some rules for stuff that happens to come up a reasonable amount of the time, but I suspect it is usually just as well to let these situations be adjudicated on a case-by-case basis. If I saw a dramatic opportunity for a monster to take a hostage, I'd just do it. Call it 'page 42' or 'oh, I'll give this monster an AP' or whatever. The rules are there IMHO to resolve the actions that characters take, not to dictate exactly what happens in all cases. When the rules lack some facility then the DM's job is to provide a reasonable way to resolve things.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Dude! Read what you are writing.

An abacus? Seriously?

Maybe you can use an abacus and maybe I can use an abacus, but if the game needs an abacus to be played, I can guarantee you that there are literally hundreds of thousands of players that will look at you as if you grew a third eye. This is not good game design.

The number one thing (and the one I started this thread with) wrong with 4E is that there are too many damn conditions and special cases and effects. Adding more of them and hence requiring more game aids, especially when your suggestion is to use an abacus to resolve it, is going in the wrong direction.

It's obvious that you are a smart guy, but you have to look at the big picture. Just because a game mechanic is easy for you to remember, it doesn't mean that another player that needs tokens or abacus' or dice put on the side of the table to remember what is going on is going to find it easy.

Sorry, but it's still too much bookkeeping if we have to have additional game aids brought to the table so that players can remember stuff. Anything that adds more game aids to the table is going in the wrong direction. By definition.

Agreed. This is really the #1 improvement that needs to be made in 4e. I think tracking one condition, hit points, and which powers have been used is really as much as I'd like to see ideally (APs, HS, and death saves are OK as they're generally not something you have to pay a lot of attention to constantly). Anything that requires additional tracking mechanics IMHO should be pretty much rejected out of hand unless it is going to simplify things in some other way. My ideal would be a tracking burden similar to 1e AD&D, you track your hit points and maybe now and then there's a 'condition' of some sort that comes up.

Generally the people I play with are fairly casual gamers. They are people that have played a good bit of D&D and they'll learn the 4e rules, but they're not into it for an intense tactical experience and don't usually get off on tracking tons of stuff. Frankly they don't care THAT much about super detailed in-depth tracking considerations. I think they would enjoy a '5e' that had fewer but more significant things to track. In general 4e does a decent job of making tracking fairly straightforward, but it definitely moves outside of a lot of player's comfort zones fairly often. This can get fairly problematic when you get into some of the more tracking-intensive classes like psionic classes or runepriests and such. It can also get bothersome at high levels or in situations where a lot of conditions and effects start getting tossed around.

'5e' definitely needs to focus on this. Conditions could use some polishing, and effects should generally be less frequent and a bit more significant. I wouldn't at all mind if the more important ones were simply made into encounter durations either. Lets get rid of the plethora of durations and just generally simplify this whole aspect of the game as much as possible. It will make IMHO a HUGE difference in acceptance. 99% of the objections I've seen to 4e in practice (IE not on the boards) have been related to complex tracking requirements. It just slows the game down more than it is really worth.

 

[KidSnide]

'5e' definitely needs to focus on this. Conditions could use some polishing, and effects should generally be less frequent and a bit more significant. I wouldn't at all mind if the more important ones were simply made into encounter durations either. Lets get rid of the plethora of durations and just generally simplify this whole aspect of the game as much as possible. It will make IMHO a HUGE difference in acceptance. 99% of the objections I've seen to 4e in practice (IE not on the boards) have been related to complex tracking requirements. It just slows the game down more than it is really worth.

QFT.

On the DM's side, 85+% of encounters should involve imposing no more than one or two types of conditions (and 95+% should involve no more than three types). That means monster design needs to get a little pumped up with a stronger distinction between controllers and other monsters that dish out generally nastier conditions and brutes (et al) that are a little mechanically less complicated.

On the player's side, I think the major advantage will be in commonality of powers. If there are simply fewer powers in the game, it will be easier for the DM to keep track of what effects are being put on their monsters. I run a level 9 group (not that high, but high enough to have a bunch of powers) and it's hard to keep track of all the condition when they start burning through their dailies.

-KS

 

[Tony Vargas]

Not sure if it has been mentioned or not, but I'd like to see ability scores linked to class instead of race. Or reworked completely (or eliminated).

4e has made having a high stat, and, more importantly, increasing that stat continuously, very much a part of being good (or even decent) at your chosen class. That does put such a strong impetus on players to pick a class with 'perfect' stat mods that they've had to come out, first, with tons of 'bribery' feats to make races work better for classes thematically apropriate to them, for which they have less-than-ideal stats. Then, that done, they went ahead and gave all the non-human races a choice of two stats for their second mod, making some of those heavily-feat-bribed races, now, 'ideal' stat-wise. Yipes.

The same goes for skills, with the difficulty of 'Hard' checks as high as it is, you need a hight stat, increasing at every oportinuty, and training, to hit that DC with any consistency.

I think, maybe, D&D would do better to make it all even more about level, leaving stats static, and just giving 1/level instead of 1/2 per level + tons of bonuses from all over creation, that just about add up to the 1/2, if you're really on the ball.

 

[KarinsDad]

I think, maybe, D&D would do better to make it all even more about level, leaving stats static, and just giving 1/level instead of 1/2 per level + tons of bonuses from all over creation, that just about add up to the 1/2, if you're really on the ball.

This could have other benefits.

There are players who prefer 3.5 or Pathfinder over 4E for a wide variety of reasons. One of those reasons is that certain spells (Dispel Magic, Bulls Strength, etc.) have been totally nerfed/yanked out of the game.

In a game where the PC's ability scores do not increase, spells like Bull's Strength and Bear's Endurance, etc. can make a comeback. A Daily power to add +2 to hit and +2 damage (e.g. Strength 4 higher) for the entire encounter.

But in the 4E system where any ability score can be used for to hit and damage, and the players are practically forced to boost their primary ability score every time, it becomes a big math problem instead of a well designed architecture that just works.


Additionally, there are some other game aspects that can be trimmed back if durations are encounter long.

In the example I just gave, +2 to hit and +2 damage for a Daily power for an entire encounter.

An Encounter power might be +1 to damage (no to hit boost) for the entire encounter against the same target, but only if the PC hits in the first place.

There are too many +2 here, +4 there, etc. boosts in the game system because the durations are so short. The boosts should be smaller and last for the entire encounter instead of larger and only apply for 1+ rounds.


Additionally, most PC powers should be PC buffs instead of NPC debuffs (and conversely, most NPC powers should be PC debuffs instead of NPC buffs). The reason is that it is much easier to remember which buffs you have on your PC than it is for the DM who is running 5 NPCs to remember all of the debuffs on all of the NPCs. That typically requires tokens and group memory, or the condition might be forgotten. There are many players who don't need a token on their PC to remember that they have +1 to damage for the entire encounter, so the bookkeeping is less intrusive for the modifiers to be on the PCs than for them to be on the NPCs.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Eh, I think a +1 simply isn't distinctive enough. It is hardly noticed and won't add even one hit in the average encounter (if it is to-hit) and will have little chance of making an attack distinctive.

Instead if it were me I'd make daily powers do things like make the next hit an auto-crit or just hit automatically, or do double damage, or something. No need to track anything much, just POW. Other effects could be tracked but make them significant. A -5 to WILL or something actually makes people notice. Obviously the game needs to tweak things a bit to make these kinds of things balanced, and I'd have less dailies out there. Heck, just have ONE daily per character. You want to do your awesome thing? Yeah, it's going to make a big dent in the opposition, but you're going to want to be smart about using it.

I'd be happy with ditching ability score bumps entirely. I think they were a bad idea. Maybe basically instead of that you have as you say Bull's Strength or whatever (or large debuff daily powers that accomplish the same thing) that are just factored in. There can be some items that grant some of those too so the DM can make sure each party is reasonably capable. Some encounter powers could 'make up' some as well. Actually if you had buffs that were instead of "+5 to STR" have them be "Your STR is now 22" that would make it a lot less necessary to lard up your prime score too. Even the weakest guy around can be plenty strong in a pinch.