Things I hate about DnD 5e

 Okay so -

I want to preface this by saying I love DnD 5e in general. My hatred towards some of its aspects doesn't distract from the fun I have at all. With that out of the way I have two things to talk about...

Feats

 The idea of using feats to improve your character sounds great, but then when you make a feat that becomes mandatory it is no longer a "feat" but instead a core feature. An example of this would be War Caster and Great Weapon Master. Both of these offer such a gargantuan boost in power you practically must take them in order to function more effectively (And in GWM's case in order to actually keep up with spellcasters). But there's an even bigger issue I have with it: Feats that offer a tremendous boon while still offering ability score improvements. There is no trade off here. You get a boost to your stat and a full feature, which isn't okay. There are extremely few examples I have less issue with like skill expert. Skill Expert allows the player more flexibility with a skill, which is unrelated to combat (usually).

Spoon Feeding

I really don't like how 5e spoon feeds the player everything they need. There's no planning, you get significantly more than you need and then never capitalizes on it. An example is each class offering 2+ skills, then when you choose a subclass it gives another skill. I would much rather prefer if a subclass required you to have the skill first, and then improve upon the skill in its own way. In real life you don’t work at a wood shop then suddenly you have proficiency with woodworking tools day 1, you need to be able to use it in the first place.

Perhaps 5e’s intention is that gaining proficiency with the skill when you reach the subclass is a sign that your character was training to use it, but I very rarely see anyone talk about enforcing a player to role play learning how to use the skill. Imagine if a cleric was actually studying medicine as a part of being a Life cleric. Wouldn’t that add so much more flavor? I’m not demanding a player to study each and every day, but incorporating it more into role play would make their character feel more “down to earth”, like you could reach out and touch the character.

Anyway. Thanks for coming to one of my shorter blogs!

Musing: Charisma (And other abilities)

 Man,

 defining ability scores is hard. 

    I want ability scores that can succinctly define an aspect of a character without leaving question to what it can be used for. Let's take D&D and Pathfinder for example using Wisdom. It defines both your ability to determine if someone is leaving out details they're giving... and... also the ability to perceive. What? How does my ability to discern lies also mean I can spot fine details with my eyes? I can see how if you bend it just enough to be something like "your observational power", which I can agree with if that's the case. Wisdom is also used to solve philosophical questions like what love is. But I don't like Wisdom is also used for Nature and Medicine. I get using Wisdom for Medicine is about piecing together things you have observed to create an accurate image of what's going on, but learning medicine is entirely about knowing what a body is made of and how it functions, which is entirely Intelligence. Intelligence is the ability to problem solve practical problems, like math. Imagine if your doctor knew you had internal bleeding (Wisdom), but lacked the knowledge of how to fix it (Intelligence), so they decide that they want to bleed you out so your body doesn't bloat from blood. Yikes. I wonder if using a combination of abilities together would make a more complete image.

    So what about Charisma? Here's an excerpt from my post about Thaumaturgy:

... "This problem is: What type of ability score can represent fate? My first thought was Charisma, but I like neither D&D nor Pathfinder's definition of it (that's a muse for another time). Charisma is defined as both your ability to interact with people but also your force of personality? Someone can be impressionable but be really bad when interacting with people. Think about an online user with a strong presence because they're anonymous, but would be terribly shaken and maybe even incapable of verbalization if forced to personally interact with people."

 

         I don't like how Charisma is presented within the game. But let me quickly touch on something: Ability scores within the game are simplified to keep things short. At least that's what I've noticed from my insight. It would be really crunchy if you had to keep track of 14 ability scores, more than half of which you likely wouldn't use.

     On the topic of Charisma, I'm usually not fond of how it's often used for attacks and spell casting. Why can the Sorcerer and Bard in D&D swoon magic to be cast at their behest? Of course, Charisma in that game also represents will power, so I'll let it slide. But what if Charisma was solely a people skill? This is where things can be fun. Imagine what type of character relies on Charisma for getting an attack in. Suave pirates and deceptive assassins come into mind. They still need precision, but by fooling their opponents they create an opening for themselves. That's really fun and flavorful! But why stop there? Let's look at spell casters!

    What sort of spell caster needs to fool their opponents? The schools of Enchantment and Illusion come to mind. It's not enough that you have the Intelligence to create an illusion with a spell, you need to control it to make it seem convincing. You can make a pot for boiling food but that doesn't mean you know how to cook. Thus, I am in full support for spells requiring different casting abilities, rather than being defined by your "class" (Sorcerer, Wizard, and so forth). What if a spell caster that used spells for plants and animals used Nature for their spell casting? They would naturally be amazing with Nature skill checks too.

 

Before I go, I would like to say one last thing about Charisma. I think Insight should be a Charisma skill, and not wisdom. It's a people skill. Investigation is the best non-person observation. 

 

- Red