This is the third in a series of posts.

1st: my high level critique of D&D 5e’s game design issues.

2nd: specific issues, 1 through 6.

Today we will be picking up with specific issues 7 to 13.

7. Make proficiency a flat bonus

Go back to my rule for a +1. It takes level 1 to level 13 for the proficiency bonus change enough for it to matter. That is only 1 “real” change in the lifetime of the character. Just set it to a flat +3 or +4 and let’s all ignore it and move on. Expertise feels good at mid and high level games. At the lowest levels it feels crappy so setting a flat number also sets a flat expertise which is far simpler and feels better. This inflation makes it so lower and higher level characters can offer very little to each other. It actually makes story sense for a party of high level players to go find a 3rd level rogue for their sleight of hand… unless their sleight of hand expertise is nerfed by the scaling proficiency. 

8. Don’t make the DM roll saving throws. 

This just slows down the game. As the DM, I have to track 6 things on my enemies: to hit, damage, health, AC, movement, and special abilities. With me rolling saving throws I now have to track their 6 stats, note which are and aren’t saving throws, and note what it’s proficiency bonus is. Great, that just took it from 6 things per enemy to 19 things per enemy. Yes, if you do the prep work that brings it back down to 12, but 12 is still way too much per enemy and I have to pause the fight to look it up. Right now I pick one stat per enemy and give them a large bonus, everything else is a 0 and I set all movement to 30 unless there is something special happening. That change removed about 60% of the times I had to look something up on a creature while running the game because it lowered the number of things to track to 6 (hit, damage, health, AC, special abilities, and the special stat). 

If this monster is special and needs a special rule for saving because that is how it is unique, great! Lean into that. Do not place that rule tax on every other creature. 

I get why this is here. It is to give magic users more options to play with and it makes their cantrips more interesting. 4th edition did this but they streamlined it down to 3 options which were set up like alternatives to AC. If this was reworked so the player rolled it and it targeted the caster’s “magic complexity” level or something like that I would be ok with it. Giving magic users a way to cheat around a high AC is fine. 

To spell this out in detail 

• Basic Attack: roll to hit, 1d10+2 damage, most enemies have AC 14 but some have AC 18. Normally great, weaker against the high AC creatures 
• Complex Magic Attack: 1d8 damage, all enemies have a DC 14 because the player is rolling their own spell complexity magic check. Normally a worse option against creatures, but against the high AC creatures it is better. 

The player is still taking the action, the DM gets to track 6 things instead of 19, the player still gets the reward for using their special Complex Magic Attack against high AC enemies… but if it is the only thing they ever cast then they actually do less damage than normal. This gives the player a choice instead of giving the DM more to track, it encourages the player to “figure out” the enemy, and it rewards the player for taking different kinds of cantrips. 

9. Monster design is boring 

So right now the leader in monster design is not D&D. It is World of Warcraft. Back in their 3rd expansion they reworked all of their enemies so they did something cool and interesting. D&D… did not and enemies are mostly large stats blocks. Some enemies have special abilities… but they are not much more than powerful versions of their base attacks. That is the problem, you can just power through them. This goes back to the idea of impact: it should change how players approach the enemy. If it does not change their actions then that special ability has no impact. Mechanics should reward players to take specific actions like moving out of a charged attack, maintaining distance, or casting resistance against a spell damage type.

If the basic attack is 1d20+4 with 1d8 damage but sometimes it is the special attack of 1d20+6 with 1d10 damage… then the design sucks. Those attacks are nearly identical and the player would approach them in an identical manner. Try instead changing the damage type… but only if they could play around that with magic items or spells to counter it. How about the attack include a knock back effect. How about just 1d20 to hit but it hits for 4d6? Low AC characters should run away more than normal. How about it can hit two adjacent targets? This area of effect element means the party should not bunch up. Make a powerful range attack happen if no one is in melee range. These would all allow for optimal play via a change in player behavior. This rewards players switching up their tactics. 

10. If the result of the saving throw is I can’t do anything… then why are you wasting my time by being here.

Here is a list of better ideas then “you lose a turn”. 

• Take 1 damage for every space you move 
• Movement is half 
• Make a dex/wisdom save if you move more than half 
• Spells cost 2 spell slots
• When you cast a spell, deal 1d6 damage to yourself 
• You are confused. When you cast a spell roll 1d4. If you get a 1, target the closest friendly unit instead of the enemy. 
• -4 to attack rolls 
• You can either attack or move, but not both 
• Your weapon is knocked out of your hand and now it is over there. Go get it. 
• You can either try and break the grapple or attack the enemy. You think something bad will happen to you if you stay grappled. 

All of these allow players to still make a choice on their turn. Their turn is weakened and they may not accomplish anything, but at least they still get to try. They still have player agency. Abilities that just tax turns feel really crappy. Disabling attacks from enemies should actually enable different kinds of choices on the player, not remove their ability to play. 

11. The crafting system sucks… more specifically, there is not a crafting system

Quick note of tools. I love this idea, it is a super interesting way to flesh out a character and I really think it rounds out the world… but the Players Handbook needs to include a list of items players can produce with cost, sell price, and production time in them. Great idea, but they totally dropped the ball on fleshing out the details. There is 1 page to cover all tools and instruments, it can easily be 10 pages information. In Xanathar’s there are 7 pages talking about how tools interact with skills., but not a list of “Use X to make Y, it costs this much”. They have published 7 rule books and none contain a crisp simple table of craftable items by tool. 

The big problem with this is when you pair it with the skills bloat. Players are given these tools as part of their background or class. They want to use them and frankly, it is actually hard to avoid getting a tool proficiency. You do not give them enough information to use them. Imagine making the Wizard class with all the details on spell books and spell slots and subclasses focusing on different types of spells… but then you leave out all the spells. That is what they did, but worse. Most backgrounds as well as some classes and some races give out tools. You broke the majority of character by leaving out basic information on crafting but then force players to be crafters. If you are not going to support a system, don’t put it in the game and absolutely do not systematically weave it into the majority of the player characters.

12. Races are boring… so boring they were just retconned… twice … neither of which isn’t going to help 

First off, we have already talked about +1 and +2 mechanics, which is the driving carrot for which race you select. The second most common carrot is dark vision… which is great in a dungeon crawl unless anyone has the light cantrip or a free hand for a torch at which point the DM just hand waves the whole light issue because it is kind of a pain. So, meh at best. Some races get a low level spell… which they can only use once a day. 

Look at OD&D for a second. There are only 3 classes… but an elf can freely switch between 2 of the classes at the start of each adventure. That is interesting and because they are still only playing one class at a time, no balance issues or complex multiclassing rules. That is way more interesting than a 5e high elf with a cantrip and a proficiency in long swords. Seriously, the difference is “always have a cantrip” vs. “sometimes be a full magic user” and “always have a longsword” vs. “sometimes be a full fighter”. How did the races get so watered down? 

Dwarves got big bonuses to saving throws and they take half damage from giants and ogres. That changes how they play depending on the enemy they are fighting and both sets of bonuses make them feel sturdy. It also encourages them to seek out those fights… which fits their story as a race. Good stuff. Way more flavorful than you can wear medium armor. Oh wait, we will give you tons of default options so you will either already have medium armor or have access to an option that is just as good if not better. Yes, Dwarves will almost always have access to a better option than what they are given by their race… which means that racial bonus means nothing.  

Xanathar’s tried to fix this by creating a bunch of racial feats. Some fun ideas here… but not alot of impact. Some are ok but most are meh. Tasha’s tried to fix this by creating a template where you can just build a race with flexible rules for modifying current ones. This is better… but this option uses the previous system which lacks impact so races still feel bland. Congrats, now you can make your own unique flavor… as long as that flavor is vanilla. 

So what should we do here? I actually like how the cleric subclass handles this question. It does not define the pantheon but gives a framework for one without pigeonholing the DM’s lore. The Cleric now has their default healing skills and their subclass abilities. This works because they can choose to heal or choose an action from their domain. Races need this kind of mechanic. We can do our class thing or this racial thing. The problem here is there is no real universal shared mechanic between classes except for hit dice or special types of actions, but maybe that is enough. Maybe only Dwarves get access to the defense action and they gain the rogue’s evasion action as well. Maybe Elves can use their hit dice to heal others as an action. This gives players specific choices during play, not bland bonuses. 

Here is a second alternative: Instead of just race, why not merge race and background? We really don’t need both, instead use one to influence the other. DM’s can use these as a way to make your campaign feel different from other campaigns and introduce the world’s lore, cultures, or political issues to your players. Thematically this makes sense. Wood Elves as outlanders, dwarves as guild craftsmen. Yea, that fits the common flavors. It is still not great but it is more engaging than another +2. 

Have the DM pick types of kingdoms then assign the races/background combos to those kingdoms. This would even give DM’s the ability to do things like assign multiple castes within a kingdom or multiple races to a kingdom. All members of the kingdom could share a specific background or different subgroups could have different backgrounds. We already have the noble and urchin background, what does it say about a kingdom if all your elves are nobles and all your halflings are urchins? What does it say about a kingdom’s politics if neither background is available? What if only one human kingdom has access to the paladins class and another has access to the warlocks class and both those Kingdoms gain a bonus when fighting the other one. This would require the DM to do a bit of work upfront… but frankly it is the kind of work they are already doing and now players are fitting into their world right out of the gate. Your character choices at the start are your exposition dump and one the min/max will actively engage in. 

These two better alternative systems are a great example of the problem with granularity. Granularity creates the illusion of difference. And that illusion can quietly block an opportunity to tell a better story. 

13. Health, just list it. 

Forcing a complex calculation and modifiers and special rules for mixed classes for a health pool is a lot of complexity for a simple outcome. Just set the health by level and move on. If you want players to mess around with this, use the feat. But Sean, this means the constitution score is almost completely worthless! Yes, yes it does. Kill that sacred cow and move on. The toughness feat is great and let players take it multiple times. Solved. If the constitution is no longer needed… then remove it.

---

Thank you for reading. Next time we will pick back up with our 4th and final post in this series: why should play D&D 5e anyways.