D&D 5E Discussion

[Lhynn]

for 3.5 you would have to rewrite the entire thing, its just plain shit.

 

[DavidBVal]

I think it would be a mistake to remove HP from D&D. I appreciate and have enjoyed alternative systems like Vampire 2nd ed "Health Levels" for realism, or WFRP bounded Wounds system, but HP is pretty much one of the identity cornerstones of D&D. IF you want to remove HP or spell slots or classes, then you're making a different system. Which is fine, they should probably do that and compete with themselves with a brand new game, but IMO HP is what most D&D players want. Just don't fucking inflate it to Weimar Republic levels. With 4e at least they tried, nowhere near enough but at least it meant they acknowledged a problem; then with 5e they made it worse than in any other edition, because you have more HP than in 3e, and damage has been reduced, plus now there's almost no other way to kill enemies (there's not even coup-de-grace!)

Maybe bring the HP levels back to low AD&D 2ed numbers, return save-or-die stuff, but make death cheaper by offering more affordable lower level options to rez?

It was not a perfect system because it still greatly inflates between levels 1-9. What would be better is granting a base hp of 12-25, then increasing by 1-3 per level. You also need a real critical system that doesn't merely adds extra damage, but causes incapacitating wounds.

 

[PapaPetro]

I think it would be a mistake to remove HP from D&D. I appreciate and have enjoyed alternative systems like Vampire 2nd ed "Health Levels" for realism, or WFRP bounded Wounds system, but HP is pretty much one of the identity cornerstones of D&D. IF you want to remove HP or spell slots or classes, then you're making a different system. Which is fine, they should probably do that and compete with themselves with a brand new game, but IMO HP is what most D&D players want. Just don't fucking inflate it to Weimar Republic levels. With 4e at least they tried, nowhere near enough but at least it meant they acknowledged a problem; then with 5e they made it worse than in any other edition, because you have more HP than in 3e, and damage has been reduced, plus now there's almost no other way to kill enemies (there's not even coup-de-grace!)

Maybe bring the HP levels back to low AD&D 2ed numbers, return save-or-die stuff, but make death cheaper by offering more affordable lower level options to rez?

It was not a perfect system because it still greatly inflates between levels 1-9. What would be better is granting a base hp of 12-25, then increasing by 1-3 per level. You also need a real critical system that doesn't merely adds extra damage, but causes incapacitating wounds.

Run into the problem of CRPG vs PnP calculating ability. One system may work smoothly on one system, but in the other it's a mess.
>roll for sepsis

 

[DavidBVal]

I think it would be a mistake to remove HP from D&D. I appreciate and have enjoyed alternative systems like Vampire 2nd ed "Health Levels" for realism, or WFRP bounded Wounds system, but HP is pretty much one of the identity cornerstones of D&D. IF you want to remove HP or spell slots or classes, then you're making a different system. Which is fine, they should probably do that and compete with themselves with a brand new game, but IMO HP is what most D&D players want. Just don't fucking inflate it to Weimar Republic levels. With 4e at least they tried, nowhere near enough but at least it meant they acknowledged a problem; then with 5e they made it worse than in any other edition, because you have more HP than in 3e, and damage has been reduced, plus now there's almost no other way to kill enemies (there's not even coup-de-grace!)

Maybe bring the HP levels back to low AD&D 2ed numbers, return save-or-die stuff, but make death cheaper by offering more affordable lower level options to rez?

It was not a perfect system because it still greatly inflates between levels 1-9. What would be better is granting a base hp of 12-25, then increasing by 1-3 per level. You also need a real critical system that doesn't merely adds extra damage, but causes incapacitating wounds.

Run into the problem of CRPG vs PnP calculating ability. One system may work smoothly on one system, but in the other it's a mess.
>roll for sepsis

Which was solved magnificently back in the olden days with something called critical hit tables. So beautiful. Just look for WFRP for an example of how well it can work. Rolemaster was a bad example but charming nonetheless.

RPGs are based in violence, at least it's one of the main pillars. If your players will never have a broken arm nor will spend several days injured and forced to choose between healing or going on, then something will be missing. 5e hit dice nonsense healing is a great way to destroy immersion and turn your PNP game into a videogame. Basically you fully heal around once per day, it's just ridiculous.

 

[PapaPetro]

Which was solved magnificently back in the olden days with something called critical hit tables. So beautiful. Just look for WFRP for an example of how well it can work. Rolemaster was a bad example but charming nonetheless.

RPGs are based in violence, at least it's one of the main pillars. If your players will never have a broken arm nor will spend several days injured and forced to choose between healing or going on, then something will be missing. 5e hit dice nonsense healing is a great way to destroy immersion and turn your PNP game into a videogame. Basically you fully heal around once per day, it's just ridiculous.

You mean this one?

When I played a Planescape campaign, the best violent combat was on the Plane of Asgard since everyone knew they'd resurrect at the end of the day. Fun times...

 

[Akachi]

It's obvious 5e is less lethal than past editions, but I think some of you are exaggerating a bit IMO. In games I've played with friends we tend to have builds with mediocre CON since we usually rather up other secondary or tertiary stats like CHA first, and we roll for stats and it's mathematically unlikely to get an insane array. In one game we had a level 9 Monk with around 37 HP due to bad rolls on every level up. They were made of tissue paper even when our DM wasn't even aiming for a lethal game. In another, a Wizard with mediocre rolls had about 43 HP at level 11, which is almost spot on the average with a 0 CON modifier. A few hits and a lucky crit from any level appropriate monsters and those characters are toast in 2-3 bad rounds (or at least making death saves).

What doesn't help is that it doesn't take much experience with the system to realise CR is garbage at estimating difficulty. A group of Shadows or Intellect Devourers getting the drop on the players with Surprise can turn deadly fast, and those are CR 1/2 and 2. On the other hand, some are total pushovers for their CR or basically just HP sponges, and some enemies that should be deadly tend to get played poorly and not to the Intelligence and Wisdom of their statblocks, like dragons. Any enemies that are smart enough to use traps, cover, and tactics are much deadlier than their CR makes them out to be. But judging by some of the modules, even WotC isn't a fan of playing enemies intelligently or of using all the rules that exist in their own books in their encounter design.

But the bigger problem than the system itself is IMO all the DMs and players who just don't want difficulty and want everything to go their way, and who barely know or utilise the rules which tends to make the game much easier as well. I see these poor bastards everywhere related to 5e, but luckily I have yet to play with any.

 

[DavidBVal]

It's obvious 5e is less lethal than past editions, but I think some of you are exaggerating a bit IMO. In games I've played with friends we tend to have builds with mediocre CON since we usually rather up other secondary or tertiary stats like CHA first, and we roll for stats and it's mathematically unlikely to get an insane array. In one game we had a level 9 Monk with around 37 HP due to bad rolls on every level up. They were made of tissue paper even when our DM wasn't even aiming for a lethal game. In another, a Wizard with mediocre rolls had about 43 HP at level 11, which is almost spot on the average with a 0 CON modifier. A few hits and a lucky crit from any level appropriate monsters and those characters are toast in 2-3 bad rounds (or at least making death saves).

It's then a matter of perspective on what "lethal" means. When I am DM, no wizard or otherwise "weak" character should be able to safely endure "a few hits", and if they do, monsters shouldn't need "a lucky crit" to flatten him out. In 5e, an Ettin (level 10 pure melee creature with two +7 attacks, 2d8+5 damage) would have a hard time knocking that wizard out in one round... in fact even rolling maximum damage, it would be impossible without a crit. An average on attack and damage rolls will pretty much leave the Wizard at half health or better. The way I see things as DM, this removes all tension from the players; in my first sessions DMing 5e it came to a point where players would think it was ok to have everyone tank some of the hits so their healing hd wouldn't go to waste. I didn't like that one bit, monsters stopped being monsters at that very instant, to become resources to handle.

Let's look at the same scenario in older editions. The "average" L11 wizard in 2e or 3e without CON bonus would have 27hp, The Ettin does roughly that very same samage on average in 3e, a bit lower in 2e. However in 2e its chance to hit (Thac0 11) makes it almost certain both hits will land. In those editions, which also don't grant free healing between encounters, an Ettin attacking an unprotected wizard is *always* bad for the party. They don't want that to happen. In 5e it's kind of a shrug. "He'll be OK, with bad luck we may need to stabilize him after we win".

 

[PapaPetro]

I didn't like that one bit, monsters stopped being monsters at that very instant, to become resources to handle.

They become HP pinatas lacking a soul.

 

[Lhynn]

Yeah, there are a few problems, the first one of them is that the game is balanced towards having MANY encounters between long rests, but one or two between short rests. I cant imagine making my players fight more than 2 times a day, its insane thinking you will have them fight 6-8 times in fairly easy encounters just to have them run out of resources but that is how the game is structured. Anything less and fights have essentially no consequences because they can fully heal themselves without using potions or spells pretty much at will.

There are other, minor problems, like ranged being superior to melee in every way for pretty much all classes but barbarian and monk.

 

[PapaPetro]

like ranged being superior to melee in every way for pretty much all classes but barbarian and monk.

The old way of handling this was making the ranged classes flimsy as fuck. Level 25 mages still only had like 50 or 60 hp in the old editions. Godlike sure, but they go down like a twig if their defenses are breached.
That was always the old balance: ranged were glass canons and melee got more survival wiggle room.

 

[DavidBVal]

Yeah, there are a few problems, the first one of them is that the game is balanced towards having MANY encounters between long rests, but one or two between short rests. I cant imagine making my players fight more than 2 times a day, its insane thinking you will have them fight 6-8 times in fairly easy encounters just to have them run out of resources but that is how the game is structured. Anything less and fights have essentially no consequences because they can fully heal themselves without using potions or spells pretty much at will.

Absolutely. The full healing thing can be easily houseruled out, however. But the availability of powers is just part of the system and can't be fixed without a lot of work.

Back when I was reading 5e rulebook, my opinion on it was very high. After playing at low level, some problems became apparent. In mid levels it became worse. And not just a matter of level, but of combat getting old real quick, being mostly a matter of hp.

So right now for me it's an edition that, yes, fixes my main gripes about 3.5e, but has introduced many new problems.

I would use it to run a quick & dirty low level game that is mostly about roleplaying, or for newbie players. But as for my Dark Sun campaign, I begin regretting having picked 5e.

 

[Lhynn]

Eh, dont get me wrong, its still a damn good system, but the quirks are really fucking odd. The fact that the fighter in the group would always use his 2nd level ability to do shit other than attacking twice, meaning stuff with actual narrative weight made it obvious to me than the system favors narrative over mechanics, which is great because this isnt a vydia gayme.
The biggest problem it has is that to make fights challenging you have to both go way over the recommended challenge for any given encounter and add a lot of narrative complications to make the encounters interesting. Which is fine, its the DMs job. But this meant they were getting a LOT of exp per fight, which again, is fine, you can always reduce it, but it is such a neatly packed system doing that also has its consequences.
Reducing the healing dies is imperative, maybe even eliminating it outright and replacing it with standard healing.
I also tend to give max hp die per level, but on the other hand they get a lot more damaged in combat, this means i can torture them and abuse them at my own leisure knowing i have some wiggle room.

Remember that with bounded accuracy makes it so that mid and high level gameplay isnt that different from low level, you dont have the problem of having players being funneled into being hyper competent at one thing, meaning they never fail at that, but at the same time, they fail at everything else. Even at high level players have a decent chance of succeeding at things they arent good at, while having a good chance at failing at things they are good at, keeping the rolls tense.

 

[Bara]

Why is this scroll appearing in a adventure for levels 1-12 what point could it serve other than to break the campaign?



I mean maybe if it was a high level adventure sure maybe but they refuse to do that since they constantly make adventures that start at early levels in order to have as big a market as possible.

 

[mediocrepoet]

Why is this scroll appearing in a adventure for levels 1-12 what point could it serve other than to break the campaign?



I mean maybe if it was a high level adventure sure maybe but they refuse to do that since they constantly make adventures that start at early levels in order to have as big a market as possible.

It might serve some plot purpose basically serving more as a story point rather than a stat block. Summoning it a mile away to fight some big bad whatever in order to weaken it enough that it could be fought by your level 12 party. I agree though, it seems retarded.

 

[7h30n]

Low-lethality rate? I have no idea what you are talking about, because my players shat their pants out of fear yesterday encountering their very first Brass Dragon. We actually postponed the encounter for the next week, as more people should be able to attend and help out :D

But yeah, HP bloat and low-lethality is indeed a problem, and to fix it I as a DM really have to use CR more as a guideline and rely on making creative battlefields which can be used against stronger monsters.

Other than that, my main beef with D&D 5e are the following.

• Terrible inventory system which along with spells ruins resource management. Tracking pounds is just terrible, and Rules as Written allow players to carry everything, meaning you can ignore weight altogether. This would not be as bad if Light were a higher level spell, or other resource replenishing spells (like Create Food & Water). Furthermore, even if such spells cost more slots, here comes the Short Rest and Long Rest mechanic, which leads me to the next bullet point.
• Game has so many rules for travelling and in general seems to allow adventures where a single PC "turn" is expected to take hours of in-game time. All of this is in vain as the SR and LR mechanic is tuned so that PCs can and should have about 6 encounters per day. This in turn means that if I do an overland adventure, almost every game "turn" should be an encounter draining resources equivalent to a Med/Hard combat encounter. Obviously, it doesn't make sense to bog down each session with so much combat, so the solution would be to make Deadly encounters each day of travel, which could go out of hand easily. Naturally, this is following RAW. The game is simply optimized for dungeon crawl style adventures where a single "turn" is, just like in old D&D, 5 or 10mins of in-game time, thus allowing more varied sessions. I just wish the designers were honest with themselves and focused on making that work perfectly, because it doesn't according to my previous point as well as the next one.
• Treasure & Loot is essentially worthless. The usual expectation of all players I introduce to D&D is: "We gonna conquer dungeons and defeat dragons to get big fat loot". Unfortunately, players can carry everything, so there's no balance of carrying mundane stuff into a dungeon and using things found in the said dungeon. Naturally, it's possible to pepper players with magic items, but if magic items are not rare they lose their value and "wow" factor. Oh, and gold is worthless. there are no real moneysinks which make it worth it from the game mechanics point of view. Players can just rest their way to replenish their HP & spells, while torches, food & water are easily avaible through spells.
• Other problems already mentioned in this thread...
• All of the problems I listed are not obvious at first and are actually hidden behind the interaction of various system mechanics. This means that any new DMs don't have a real way to learn how to run great games by just using the core rulebooks as their guide. Oh, and don't get me started on officially published adventures...

There, I managed to rant this crap out of my system. Now I'm done, and back to designing the next dungeon :D

 

[Bara]

So the new Theros book is up on Trove for those who wish to see it. My impressions from skimming over things are get Odyssey of the Dragon lords instead if you want Greek based 5e stuff. I've only seen bits of it but it's more interesting than what Theros. At the very least it has more new races and actually has new sub classes in it when comparing the two.

Anyhow the two main new features of Theros:

Supernatural gifts they feel like player power bloat and they're all active upon character creation. Feel like DM's are going to need a little more dangerous Bestiary if the opt into this to vaguely threaten their PCs.

Also of the 9 a couple of them are really boring compaired to the much stronger gifts.

An example advantage only for those nears you but not yourself and a one time use per long rest ability usable again only if people are near you vs 10 rounds of all attacks against you being made at disadvantage and permanent necrotic and radiant damage resistance.

Lifelong Companion

• Boon Aura. Your allies within 5 feet of you have advantage on saving throws against being frightened or charmed, provided you aren't incapacitated.
  
• Companion's Protection. When a creature you can see within 5 feet of you is hit by an attack roll, you can use your reaction to cause the attack to hit you instead. Once you use this trait, you can't do so again until you finish a long rest

Nyxborn

• Cloak of Stars. As an action, you wrap yourself in a starry cloak, appearing like a silhouette formed of the night sky. When you do, attack rolls have disadvantage against you. This cloak lasts for 1 minute, until you doff it (no action required), or until you die. Once you use this trait, you can't use it again until you finish a long rest.
  
• Nyxborn Resistance. You have resistance to necrotic and radiant damage.

As for the new piety system it generally follows this set up:

Level 3: Cast x spell number of times equal to ability score modifier. Gain expended uses back after long rest.

Level 10: Cast x spell once (or number of times equal to ability score modifier if a weaker spell) gain it back after long rest. Some gods instead (sometimes in addition) give some permanent buff that gives you advantage for something.

Level 25: Some gods give unique abilities or here while others give permanent advantage for TWO things.

• Example: One lets you summon enough wine that acts as the equivalent as three healing potions that expire after twenty-four hours once every long rest while another just gives advantage against fear and charm.
• A Better one lets missed attacks while hidden not reveal your position.

Level 50: The final level of piety while good is still really boring. Each god increases a ability score by two between either a physical or mental attribute of your choice and in addition to increasing your maximum for that score by two.

• Example: You'll have a choice between Strength or Intelligence and increases your score by two and cap by two. So if you pick intelligence and its at 20 already it'll be 22 now.

It just feels wrong that so many of these are not unique abilities just copy paste spell. I don't like gods giving spells to classes outside of clerics even if it's a extremely limited list of two or three. Boons & blessings sure but letting anyone other than a Cleric draw directly upon they're magic I'm against it.

Also don't like classes getting access to spells that are not associated with them. As a example if warriors, paladins, monks, druids and rangers devote themselves to Kruphix and reach piety level 3 you now get permanent access to the mage hand cantrip. At 25 piety that Mage Hand now gives you +2 AC against ranged attacks so long as it's within five feet of you.

 

[Elex]

He is right, you are wrong. The way the game is designed is to be without challenge and have a bunch of repetitive encounters, like 8 per fucking day.

You can do it differently, going the fewer but deadlier encounter routes by going against what it is recommended you do, though this will offset balance, as a lot of classes have very limited but powerful abilities they can burn through in a couple encounters, instead of rationing them.

6-8 per day is the number of MEDIUM encounter the player can do before going out of resource, it can be 3 deadly encounter or 1 deadly 3 hard etc etc is not mandatory to consume all the player resource is just a balance guideline.

deadly encounter are perfectly fine when the player have the resource for them, they are the most balanced and fun encounter of 5e.

so basically is exactly the opposite!

 

[Bara]

Well Keith Baker finally released his exploring Eberron book on DMsguild if anyone wants more Eberron. But $30 bucks just for the pdf version feels a bit much.

 

[Gyor]

The Midnight setting from 3e is getting an update to 5e according to Gencon Online.

 

[Gyor]

I found this post below on enworld on a thread about making D&D 6e more inclusive (using secret mode on my phone because I stood up to these assholes and got myself banned). I'm very leftwing, support multiculturalism, and like Diversity, but I still increasingly fucking hate the woke and their movement and I look forward to a backlash against them because of shit like I found below.


"Hopping in late, sorry if this was already covered.

If 6e is going to be more inclusive; it's time to hit the third rail: classes.

Assuming we keep classes in D&D, there are a few names that need rethinking.

• Barbarian: "a person from an alien land, culture, or group believed to be inferior, uncivilized, or violent" The class has all the negative connotations that we have associated with Orcs and other "savage" humanoids.
• Druid: Very culturally specific and doesn't have any connection to shapechanging nature-priests in game. In addition, it refers to a living religion (as part of the neopagan/Wiccan tradition).
• Monk: Obviously, a stand-in for Shaolin/Eastern mysticism, it is a sliver of all the OA troublesome tropes put in a single class.
• Paladin: Probably the least offensive of the list, but very specific to a certain time/era and deserves to remain a class about as much as samurai, cavalier/chevalier, and any other single order of warriors does.
• Warlock: Assuming the masculine of witch, we run into similar problems with neopaganism and add on a dose of negative stereotyping of being "evil devil worshippers"

(As an aside, the fact that 5e seems unable to provide rangers and sorcerers with a strong mechanical niche probably would mean if we are removing the above classes, those two could also go not for inclusionary purposes but for mechanical redundancy.)

Now, to replace these options, we have a few choices: One is to rename them (barbarian = berserker, paladin = champion) but that seems a band-aid at best. Some could become sub-classes to much more flexible/broader archetype classes (warrior, cleric, rogue, mage) or possibly builds in a more "build your own class" system (akin to 2e's skills and powers or even Mutants and Masterminds)."

The funny thing is is that the woke whine none stop about colonialism and imperialism, then go into various subcultures like D&D and making increasingly absurd demands and expect everyone to bend over backwards to change everything to their expectations, ruining the sub cultural in the process, then try and kick out loyal life long fans who stand up to their stupidity, THEY ARE CULTURALLY IMPERIALISTS AND COLONIALISTS. They squat on the subcultural feeding on it and spewing their taint upon it until it hits the go woke go broke tipping point, and its fucking dies. We saw it with comic books, ghostbusters, certain video games and more. The woke are cultural locusts that can't be reasoned with.

 

[infidel]

Now, to replace these options, we have a few choices: One is to rename them (barbarian = berserker, paladin = champion) but that seems a band-aid at best.

Tell them that berserker is even more problematic. It's obviously someone who goes berserk, i.e., does not control their actions, someone basically mentally ill, this is just plain derogatory class name, I'm surprised they didn't notice it. Champion, on the other hand, is someone who is the best among equals, that's totally inequality right there. You can't have any champions in an inclusive environment of 6e. Unless they're an orc, maybe? idk

 

[Bara]

Okay I still enjoy and can play 5e anytime with the right group but why does everyone hoping on the TTRPG wagon have to use 5th edition for their rules engine.

Hellboy is launching a 5e kickstarter soon.

A brand-new Hellboy roleplaying experience, based on the visionary Hellboy graphic novels by Mike Mignola and powered by 5th Edition.

I feel like OSR would be a better fit or anything else built for modularity or flexability.

I guess we'll get some more cool art and hopefully some interesting monsters at least.

 

[Gyor]

Okay I still enjoy and can play 5e anytime with the right group but why does everyone hoping on the TTRPG wagon have to use 5th edition for their rules engine.

Hellboy is launching a 5e kickstarter soon.

A brand-new Hellboy roleplaying experience, based on the visionary Hellboy graphic novels by Mike Mignola and powered by 5th Edition.

I feel like OSR would be a better fit or anything else built for modularity or flexability.

I guess we'll get some more cool art and hopefully some interesting monsters at least.

Market size plus elegent rules that can be easily modified and beginner friendly, but with enough depth for variety. Expect a lot more 5e and 5e deverive systems settings.

Stargate and Dark matter are both 5e powered for example and I was not expecting that.

 

[Alex]

Okay I still enjoy and can play 5e anytime with the right group but why does everyone hoping on the TTRPG wagon have to use 5th edition for their rules engine.

Hellboy is launching a 5e kickstarter soon.

A brand-new Hellboy roleplaying experience, based on the visionary Hellboy graphic novels by Mike Mignola and powered by 5th Edition.

I feel like OSR would be a better fit or anything else built for modularity or flexability.

(snip...)

Yeah. I mean, if only Hellboy was ported to a system known for its modularity and flexibility. But no, that would never happen...

(RIP GURPS, you will be missed)

 

[Cryomancer]

I readed just a little of ravenloft setting from 5e and is trash...

Is not only because Strahd is no longer lv 16 necromancer and is now a lv 9 caster. Is because they killed all sense of dread on that module and seems that Ravenloft is now ONLY BAROVIA!!! No longer dozens of realms of dread with dozens of dark powers. And you can do evil things and use nasty necromantic spells with no consequence. 2e made this spells soo strong, that even the caster can suffer...

Spells works differently depending on the setting. For eg, Wail of the Banshee if casted on 2e Ravenloft , has twice the range and any female slayed by it raises as a Banshee hostile towards the caster(source : AD&D: 2nd edition Domains of Dread - Page 291) , finger of death OHK if the targets fails a save with -2 penalty and the target can raise as a juju zombie which can be hostile or not towards the caster depending on a save. Necromantic powers on ravenloft(2e) are so powerful but the power is dangerous even for the necromancer himself and always required a "power check" which can drawn unwanted attention from the dark powers that control the plane.

For those who don't know, failing in "power checks" can make your character each step more corrupted until he becomes a Dark Lord... Image bellow about the stages of corruption, on domains of dread - page 249