5e doesn't need fixing
it's just how it supposed to be
it isn't too sour and it isn't too bitter
it's actually sweet if you use it what it is intended for
The only thing 5e was intended for is to get fools to give WotC their money.
I was lucky enough to have friends who let me see how bad it is for free, before I wasted any money on it myself.
110% this. The only way to fix this trainwreck of a game is to change SO much about it that it stops being D&D, and at that point you were better off just playing a better game right from the start.
I tried with the former using the goofball Modern Magic UA as a setting basis but it sucked. Had to make up a new firearms table because the two existing ones sucked for widespread use, had to make up vehicle rules, half the classes sucked with ranged weapons even when I gave them 'Power Weapons' with STR-scaling.
Switched to Shadow of the Demon Lord, the Godless supplement in that was tailored to exactly what I needed and the class system and boon/banes are substantially more compelling than D&D's equivalents.
>can you fix a game with long turns by making turns take even longer and requiring more bookkeeping on the GM side to keep track of each player's hirelings?
There have been several attempts at adapting Pokémon to tabletop, the fundamental issue is each player essentially has 7 characters with complete stat blocks and their own abilities.
Yeah, as long as you also: >fix/remove (dis)advantage >remove the redundancies with skills and codify the functions of skills instead of "DM decides"; rename skills to "sub-attributes" >change "intelligence", "wisdom", and "charisma" attributes to concepts that are actually measurable on a linear scale >either differentiate magic through its spells and resources or don't claim magic coming from different sources >reflect the fact that magic is everywhere and intertwined in everything, and reinforce the fact that PCs are supposed to be exceptional, by changing the classes to have magical abilities OR make magic more rare and give PCs non-magical means to properly defend against evil magic users instead of making magic an auto-win >make every class able to significantly engage with challenges, instead of having purposely worthless options, or those only able to have one obscure niche >instead of having a single AC that represents blocking and dodging, have different kinds of AC based on attributes; this will also eliminate the need for saves >discourage breaking game structure in the middle of a session; advise all rules be agreed upon before play, and what's agreed upon is how things will go without any fudging or other meta bullshit
>either differentiate magic through its spells and resources or don't claim magic coming from different sources
This doesn’t really make sense to me. Rogues and barbarians both attack with weapons, but they get there via different means. Why can’t magic be the same way?
Rogues and barbarians can both swing, slice, stab, and smash. These things are not different from each other.
But it is funny you should mention those classes, because rage and stealth actually do function differently and are different bonuses from different sources.
So, why can't magic be the same way? Why does everything magic have to be tied to spell slots, spell levels, rests, and the master spell list, despite the vehement claims that they're from different sources?
The problem you'll have with trying to 'fix' systems is that the fix you make will likely break a different part of the system that was 'functional'. By the time you fix that, you'll have broken more parts of the system.
In many cases, it's better to just start over, because most design problems turn out to be root issues at the foundational level, or close to the core.
The above isn't so much countering your point, it's more backing you up.
But, I will say that most of your post of suggested fixes are a bit dumb, and an example of what I'm talking about. >Suggests a fix or removal of dis/advantage, but with no explaination >Renaming means nothing in mechanism, and skills are not the problem >Suggesting a linear scale measurement without explaining what that means in context >Desire to change fluff behind magic for at best a lore cohesion improvement and not a gameplay improvement
For dis/advantage, I agree, it's a weak mechanism, because you can only have it or not have it. Trying to increase your odds futher is implicitly disallowed. Removal would demand a replacement; >Just +2 per advantage
Can't. Because of Bounded Accuracy.
We've made a fix, and it's caused more problems down the line.
Changing Int/Wis/Cha would also demand a change to every save and skill that uses those attributes >instead of having a single AC that represents blocking and dodging, have different kinds of AC based on attributes; this will also eliminate the need for saves
This could help here, good thinking!
But now, spells like Fireball are tedious. Is the caster rolling THAC for every dickhead caught in the blast? When it's 3 PCs rolling Dex Save, they all roll at once - they should have their own d20s - and clockwise call out if they pass or not. 1 PC rolling the same d20 5 times takes so much longer.
What, the defenders still roll? That's just saves again, but renamed!
We didn't try to "fix" it because it is what it is, but we did add plenty of both. For example, rules for cannon, culverin, swivel gun, rocket launcher and pneumatic cannon. And at the empire, all are born unequal, and just two deities of the pantheon oppose slavery.
Except alignment. Frick having cosmic objective forces of good/evil and chaos/order.
Those are both settings where it's treated as explicitly evil and the player characters are encouraged to do a Conan the Barbarian type slave uprising, correct.
5e doesn't need fixing
it's just how it supposed to be
it isn't too sour and it isn't too bitter
it's actually sweet if you use it what it is intended for
May you live in interesting times
>you use it what it is intended for
Picking up alt chicks?
The only thing 5e was intended for is to get fools to give WotC their money.
I was lucky enough to have friends who let me see how bad it is for free, before I wasted any money on it myself.
in what world does anyone actually spend money on it? everything they've ever published is online for free.
The world where almost a million morons have dropped money on it.
checked, but holy shit that's ridiculous.
Yeah.
And I reiterate: the only thing 5e was intended for is to get fools to give WotC their money.
Trying to "fix" anything related to DnDogshit 5e is like trying to fix a decapitation wound with bandaids.
You are definitely the most tryhard of /tg/'s trolls.
110% this. The only way to fix this trainwreck of a game is to change SO much about it that it stops being D&D, and at that point you were better off just playing a better game right from the start.
I tried with the former using the goofball Modern Magic UA as a setting basis but it sucked. Had to make up a new firearms table because the two existing ones sucked for widespread use, had to make up vehicle rules, half the classes sucked with ranged weapons even when I gave them 'Power Weapons' with STR-scaling.
Switched to Shadow of the Demon Lord, the Godless supplement in that was tailored to exactly what I needed and the class system and boon/banes are substantially more compelling than D&D's equivalents.
also poo hehe
>can you fix a game with long turns by making turns take even longer and requiring more bookkeeping on the GM side to keep track of each player's hirelings?
There have been several attempts at adapting Pokémon to tabletop, the fundamental issue is each player essentially has 7 characters with complete stat blocks and their own abilities.
Yeah you'd need to make your guys around the Youngster to Super Nerd power level, 2-3 Pokemon at most.
pokemon is a wargame
... Huh
Use miniatures in an arena with terrain. Units have different stats is normal in wargames. gg.
You're describing Pokemon Conquest.
Right. So pokemon is a wargame. Thanks for putting in the effort to figure it out.
Only if the slaves are used to immobilize legendary mechanics while the guns execute said mechanics.
What do you mean your 5e game doesn't already have guns and slavery?
I'll just play the poop game which already is a fixed 5e with copious amounts of guns and slavery
Yeah, as long as you also:
>fix/remove (dis)advantage
>remove the redundancies with skills and codify the functions of skills instead of "DM decides"; rename skills to "sub-attributes"
>change "intelligence", "wisdom", and "charisma" attributes to concepts that are actually measurable on a linear scale
>either differentiate magic through its spells and resources or don't claim magic coming from different sources
>reflect the fact that magic is everywhere and intertwined in everything, and reinforce the fact that PCs are supposed to be exceptional, by changing the classes to have magical abilities OR make magic more rare and give PCs non-magical means to properly defend against evil magic users instead of making magic an auto-win
>make every class able to significantly engage with challenges, instead of having purposely worthless options, or those only able to have one obscure niche
>instead of having a single AC that represents blocking and dodging, have different kinds of AC based on attributes; this will also eliminate the need for saves
>discourage breaking game structure in the middle of a session; advise all rules be agreed upon before play, and what's agreed upon is how things will go without any fudging or other meta bullshit
>either differentiate magic through its spells and resources or don't claim magic coming from different sources
This doesn’t really make sense to me. Rogues and barbarians both attack with weapons, but they get there via different means. Why can’t magic be the same way?
Rogues and barbarians can both swing, slice, stab, and smash. These things are not different from each other.
But it is funny you should mention those classes, because rage and stealth actually do function differently and are different bonuses from different sources.
So, why can't magic be the same way? Why does everything magic have to be tied to spell slots, spell levels, rests, and the master spell list, despite the vehement claims that they're from different sources?
The problem you'll have with trying to 'fix' systems is that the fix you make will likely break a different part of the system that was 'functional'. By the time you fix that, you'll have broken more parts of the system.
In many cases, it's better to just start over, because most design problems turn out to be root issues at the foundational level, or close to the core.
The above isn't so much countering your point, it's more backing you up.
But, I will say that most of your post of suggested fixes are a bit dumb, and an example of what I'm talking about.
>Suggests a fix or removal of dis/advantage, but with no explaination
>Renaming means nothing in mechanism, and skills are not the problem
>Suggesting a linear scale measurement without explaining what that means in context
>Desire to change fluff behind magic for at best a lore cohesion improvement and not a gameplay improvement
For dis/advantage, I agree, it's a weak mechanism, because you can only have it or not have it. Trying to increase your odds futher is implicitly disallowed. Removal would demand a replacement;
>Just +2 per advantage
Can't. Because of Bounded Accuracy.
We've made a fix, and it's caused more problems down the line.
Changing Int/Wis/Cha would also demand a change to every save and skill that uses those attributes
>instead of having a single AC that represents blocking and dodging, have different kinds of AC based on attributes; this will also eliminate the need for saves
This could help here, good thinking!
But now, spells like Fireball are tedious. Is the caster rolling THAC for every dickhead caught in the blast? When it's 3 PCs rolling Dex Save, they all roll at once - they should have their own d20s - and clockwise call out if they pass or not. 1 PC rolling the same d20 5 times takes so much longer.
What, the defenders still roll? That's just saves again, but renamed!
We didn't try to "fix" it because it is what it is, but we did add plenty of both. For example, rules for cannon, culverin, swivel gun, rocket launcher and pneumatic cannon. And at the empire, all are born unequal, and just two deities of the pantheon oppose slavery.
Except alignment. Frick having cosmic objective forces of good/evil and chaos/order.
Guns are for homosexuals so they'd fit right in, I suppose.
Made it the dominant global power? 5e already has that in the ttrpg space
DnD has always had slavery
Downplayed and branded explicitly evil in recent editions sadly. But it's not just D&D, even in the new RuneQuest thralls are barely mentioned.
Slavery was always explicitly evil.
Didn’t stop it from being used to clear the tomb of horrors blind without a PC death
Black Sun, Forgotten Realms
Lllloool what a freudian, meant Dark Sun of course.
Those are both settings where it's treated as explicitly evil and the player characters are encouraged to do a Conan the Barbarian type slave uprising, correct.
Isn't that Palladium?
But my campaign already has guns and slavery. The campaign takes place in Not-Puerto Rico during the Not-18th century.
>guns
>5e
You don't play games, you just wanted to shitpost about palworld.
5e already has guns though.
You could only fix dnd by breaking it entirely and changing core systems. There is a lot of moronic jank that they simply won't change at this point.