5e doesn't suck... but it doesn't really stack up well against 3.X

[Nicol Bolas]

You know who does skill checks really well?

Fate.

[Hytheter]

You know who does skill checks really well?

Fate.

My only problem with Fate's method is that while DnD sometimes feels too swingy, Fate sometimes doesn't feel swingy enough.

[Nagash]

If that's how you feel, then I should point that it is fully true for every edition and tabletop game I've played. The GM sets the difficulty of the skill rolls you need (or the circumstance modifiers if you prefer) and can make it however likely or unlikely a player is to pass each one, without any input from the players.

You are just as much at the GM's mercy in 5th then you are in any other edition.

in other editions there are at least guidelines. In 5e the guideline is "it could be anywhere from 5-20, for any task at any time, depending on what your GM had for breakfast that morning... goodluck".

Actual posted guidelines helped a lot and avoided a lot of arguments.

[Geostationary]

in other editions there are at least guidelines. In 5e the guideline is "it could be anywhere from 5-20, for any task at any time, depending on what your GM had for breakfast that morning... goodluck".

Actual posted guidelines helped a lot and avoided a lot of arguments.

See, I don't quite get this argument. You're already trusting them to run the entirety of the non-PC game world with some degree of fairness; why does any charity in this regard go out the window once possibly vague skill checks get involved? Yes, the adjectives may not be sufficient to you, but they are there. They are, to some degree, intuitive if imperfect.

[mephnick]

If you're really worried your DM will screw you over with arbitrary nonsense DC's then you should probably find a new DM.

I play Numenera, the entire damn game is pretty arbitrary and I have zero problems being consistent with my checks.

[Nagash]

See, I don't quite get this argument. You're already trusting them to run the entirety of the non-PC game world with some degree of fairness; why does any charity in this regard go out the window once possibly vague skill checks get involved?

Because "fairness" is completely subjective. As bad as the CR system could be sometimes all we were really trusting them to do was run a game roughly according to it most of the time.

When it comes to these skill checks there are literally no guidelines more detailed then whatever the hell the GM feels like. And some people are a heck of a lot better at guessing things like this then others. And even that wouldnt be terrible if figuring out how a skill works didnt involve so much real world experience with real skills that most GM's just dont have.

No one is saying a GM is going to deliberately screw players, we are saying they are likely to often accidentally screw players and there are no guidelines or recourse to deal with it.

This skill system absolutely fails at every aspect of being a skill system other then "fast". And thats really not even close to the most important aspect of things.

[Forum Explorer]

Because "fairness" is completely subjective. As bad as the CR system could be sometimes all we were really trusting them to do was run a game roughly according to it most of the time.

When it comes to these skill checks there are literally no guidelines more detailed then whatever the hell the GM feels like. And some people are a heck of a lot better at guessing things like this then others. And even that wouldnt be terrible if figuring out how a skill works didnt involve so much real world experience with real skills that most GM's just dont have.

No one is saying a GM is going to deliberately screw players, we are saying they are likely to often accidentally screw players and there are no guidelines or recourse to deal with it.

This skill system absolutely fails at every aspect of being a skill system other then "fast". And thats really not even close to the most important aspect of things.

I disagree so much. Yeah a new DM will make mistakes here and there (actually they will make a metric ton of mistakes if I'm any indication.) But they learn, adapt, and generally stop making those mistakes as they learn how to be a DM. And 5e is much friendlier to new DMs. Because they've got one list, and common sense to guide them, instead of a ton of lists and an extensive list of circumstance modifiers that constantly bog down the game as they constantly have to look up every DC. They will make mistakes (in both systems) as they make the wrong call. But in 5e, they'll learn what's appropriate, while in 3.5 even experienced DMs still feel the need to double check those lists to make sure they haven't forgotten something.

As for experienced DMs, unless you are incredibly dependent on those lists, you'll find adapting to be really easy. You might make a few mistakes as you overestimate the characters (because they are weaker then characters from 3.5 and 4e), but once you learn from those mistakes, generally you'll stop making them.

And in the end you'll have a fast, efficient skill system that can cover an incredibly wide number of circumstances, that's easy to learn and understand for both new and old players. How is that not superior in to 3.5's skill system?

Yes it's not perfect. I've yet to see a game system that is, and it does seem to be an improvement.

[ProphetSword]

Yes. My inexperienced players are waayyyyy more inventive than my experienced players that have been beaten down by rules that seemingly exist only to scrap their good ideas.

In addition, my players are far more inventive and willing to try interesting things since we moved from Pathfinder to 5e.

The numbers on the sheet don't limit them anymore. I don't hear them say things like "Well, I won't bother to try to jump over that. My skill is at -2 and everyone else has +16." They love that everyone always has a chance, no matter what.

That, to me, is far more important than having someone feel like a special snowflake because their skill is so high. And I think it's being overlooked in this argument.

[Knaight]

You know who does skill checks really well?

Fate.

Fate does have a nice curve and scale to it, mostly because it stole it from Fudge and practically neglected to mention doing so at all in the text.

[Nagash]

[QUOTE=Forum Explorer;18407125]I disagree so much. Yeah a new DM will make mistakes here and there (actually they will make a metric ton of mistakes if I'm any indication.) But they learn, adapt, and generally stop making those mistakes as they learn how to be a DM. And 5e is much friendlier to new DMs. Because they've got one list, and common sense to guide them, [QUOTE]

see theres the problem. Most of these skills ARENT common sense. And so called common sense will often lead to wildly unrealistic difficulties either high or low.

Most people have no basis whatsoever for how difficult rockclimbing is. Much less climbing in challenging conditions while carrying way more crap then any sane rock climber would ever try to carry.

Most people have never swam upriver, or against a strong current.

Most people (especially in America) only speak 1 language and have no idea how hard it would be to try to decipher a foreign language from a single scroll ( thats rosetta stone crap, seriously. And it took teams of experts 20 years to do that, AND it had the same thing written in other known languages on it)

Heck even crafting. Most people are not carpenters, and even fewer are blacksmiths. The idea of your nerdy GMs "common sense" idea of how hard any of these should be at any given time being even close to realistic is laughably small.

It does not produce a better system. Just a faster one. And all those "fiddly modifiers" from before? Thats the exact same stuff a 5E gm should be thinking about when deciding the DC of a task, not just pulling a random # out of his ***. So no, its not a simplification over older systems.

Heck all the fiddly skill DC's from before were printed on DM screens. You didnt have to stop anything to look them up. You just glance at your screen.

[Talakeal]

I am strongly in favor of written guidelines for skills and a game designer, but still I have to admit that most game designers are not experts at those tasks themselves, and that I doubt their informed oppinions are that much better than your average DM.

Still, consistency and working math / rules are a lot better than nothing regardless of how much irl experiance they are based on.

[Geostationary]

see theres the problem. Most of these skills ARENT common sense. And so called common sense will often lead to wildly unrealistic difficulties either high or low.

Did it ever claim to be realistic? The point is to create an enjoyable play experience, not to accurately model the world as we understand it. If you want that, I understand GURPS to be better at that sort of thing. If it becomes a problem, then the DM should notice and fix it or the players should notice and talk to the DM.


It does not produce a better system. Just a faster one. And all those "fiddly modifiers" from before? Thats the exact same stuff a 5E gm should be thinking about when deciding the DC of a task, not just pulling a random # out of his ***. So no, its not a simplification over older systems.
"Ah yes, the room is on fire. I think this lockpicking challenge went from "hard" to "very hard"." Now was that so bad?


Heck all the fiddly skill DC's from before were printed on DM screens. You didnt have to stop anything to look them up. You just glance at your screen.
You do realize that there are people who don't use those, right? Most people are probably making the modifiers up on the spot around what they remember and what "sounds reasonable", anyways.

[Nagash]

I am strongly in favor of written guidelines for skills and a game designer, but still I have to admit that most game designers are not experts at those tasks themselves, and that I doubt their informed oppinions are that much better than your average DM.

Still, consistency and working math / rules are a lot better than nothing regardless of how much irl experiance they are based on.

Well thats the thing. They dont have to be 100% realistic. But if there are guidelines then they will be consistent within the game world. And that consistency makes them believable, understandable and "realistic" in the context of the game world.


Did it ever claim to be realistic? The point is to create an enjoyable play experience.

Which by not being consistent if fails to do.




"Ah yes, the room is on fire. I think this lockpicking challenge went from "hard" to "very hard"." Now was that so bad?

Yes. emphatically so.

That "fire" might be a single chair across the room. And the DC might have started on hard today and gone to very hard today but next time it might be easy and go to moderate. Or not affect the roll at all. Whatever the GM happens to feel like. The player has absolutely no way to plan odds of anything succeeding ahead of time.

And with the craptasticness of how they implemented bounded accuracy even if they did know the numbers ahead of time its still ridiculously random whether you succeed on anything or not.

So the system creates no consistency, no predictability, little payoff for taking skills and no believability. Its a poorly thought out loser of a skill system.



You do realize that there are people who don't use those, right? Most people are probably making the modifiers up on the spot around what they remember and what "sounds reasonable", anyways.

There are people who dont bother to learn any of the rules in the first place either. Is lazy Joe half *** the measure of who were are designing for now?

I'd rather this game NOT devolve to the lowest common denominator.

[GuilherWolfang]

And with the craptasticness of how they implemented bounded accuracy even if they did know the numbers ahead of time its still ridiculously random whether you succeed on anything or not.

So the system creates no consistency, no predictability, little payoff for taking skills and no believability. Its a poorly thought out loser of a skill system.

I agree with this, they implemented bounded accuracy in a poor way and it's still too much random.

Actually I fell like I've been stolen lol when 4E came out I was so disappointed that I made a new system(that I used ever since with some exceptions to test new other systems). My system is a little similar to DnD because it makes easier for other to learn, its familiar. But I did bounded accuracy in my system when I created it, and I did the advantage/disavantage too(and in the EXACT SAME WAY, 2d20 using best/worst for advantage/disadvantage), and that was some years ago.

Now comes DnD 5E, using some of "my" rules, and in a inconsistent and bad way u.u I'm sad

[Madfellow]

For most of the game, the DM will only ever have to worry about three numbers when it comes to setting DCs: 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), and 20 (hard). Once the party reaches high levels, DC 10 might be phased out since at that point it starts to become trivial for most of the PCs. So instead the DM might use 15 (easy for you), 20 (moderate for you), and 25 (hard for you). I say "for you," because for anyone else in the game world those same DCs would be far more difficult. And if a character has Expertise, those same DCs are much easier.

The same DCs of 10, 15, and 20 remain relevant for a majority of the game, and throughout the game the PCs get incrementally better at them. In 3.5, those DCs become obsolete much sooner, and have to be replaced constantly as the PCs continue to maximize their most important skills. PCs are technically progressing, but it doesn't feel like it because they continually run into arbitrarily higher DCs. In 5e, that doesn't happen.

[Sartharina]

"Ah yes, the room is on fire. I think this lockpicking challenge went from "hard" to "very hard"." Now was that so bad?


Nah. This sort of situation is "But you have disadvantage". The only thing that's supposed to key into the difficulty in picking the lock is the quality of said lock.


There is no reason that 5e should be inconsistent. Consistency is System Agnostic DMing 101. The only 'inconsistency' should be from game to game/table to table, depending on the DM and campaign's style and genre.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The same DCs of 10, 15, and 20 remain relevant for a majority of the game, and throughout the game the PCs get incrementally better at them. In 3.5, those DCs become obsolete much sooner, and have to be replaced constantly as the PCs continue to maximize their most important skills. PCs are technically progressing, but it doesn't feel like it because they continually run into arbitrarily higher DCs. In 5e, that doesn't happen.

I'm not sure why people in this thread are assuming that in 3e PCs are on the same make-DCs-arbitrarily-higher treadmill that you're suggesting for 5e, as the whole point of having standard benchmark DCs is that you don't arbitrarily increase them as the PCs level.

If you get to 11th level in 3e (the point the game defines a character as "legendary") and the party's...
gray elf factotum/exemplar has focused on thievery to the point that he can automatically find and disarm any trap in the game without leaving signs of tampering and unlock any lock in the game in one round with a Search, Disable Device, and Open Lock result of 41 (take 10 + 14 ranks + 6 Int [18 base + 2 racial + 2 item] + 6 Dex + 2 Nimble Fingers/Investigator +3 Skill Focus) vs. trap max DC 25 + 5 to hide tampering or lock max DC 40 for Superior locks (plus knock as an SLA to deal with arcane lock),
Dark whisper gnome factotum/shadowdancer has focused on stealth to the point that he can walk around unseen in anything less than broad daylight thanks to Hide +46 and Move Silently +44 (14 ranks + 6 Dex [18 base + 2 racial + 2 item] +6 Int + 8/6 Dark + 2 Stealthy + 10 shadow silent moves armor)
goliath fighter/barbarian/war hulk has focused on breaking objects to the point that he can smash through everything weaker than a 3-foot-thick hewn stone wall (DC 50) in one round by taking 10 with a Str check mod of +33 (Str mod +15 [Str 40 = 18 base + 4 racial + 2 level + 4 rage + 2 Reckless Rage + 2 Mountain Rage + 8 war hulk] + 8 Destructive Rage + 10 Dungeon Crasher) and can still smash through that wall given a few rounds,
and similar, then you congratulate them on the fact that, as legendary badasses, they can do awesome things and can now waltz through the Temple of Doom, cartwheel unseen through a busy marketplace, or casually mosey through iron walls, all without breaking a sweat.

You don't make it so that suddenly every single building in every city in the world has arcane locks on every door, window, and desk drawer and 5-foot-thick hewn stone walls with level 20 factotum guards optimized for Spot and Listen at every entrance. You don't need to (and shouldn't) negate the party's strengths to challenge them, and indeed it makes the game less fun if you go out of your way to do so, just like it doesn't make a good Superman story to give every random henchman Kryptonite bullets. The DM should be saying "How do I make things challenging given that they have these capabilities," just like he should take a caster's ability to fly, turn invisible, teleport, etc. into account when building adventures instead of setting all adventures from that point on in dimension locked, glitterdusted wind tunnels to negate them.

(Incidentally, the above party isn't a hyperbolic example, they're three of the six PCs in a party of spies and commandos that I ran a game for, and no, the game did not fall apart just because they were immune to glyphs of warding and didn't need to go in through the front door.)

[mephnick]

I can see this being a problem for people that play with multiple GMs in multiple settings. I did this when I was younger and the experience variation was EXTREMELY wide, even with 3.5's "concrete" DC's. I also think this situation of multiple groups is fairly rare these days. I think the average player has a single group he plays with and that's probably it.

So if you have multiple GM's, yes, you may have to learn the style of each one and plan your actions accordingly. Just like any edition of DnD.

If you play with one DM, he should be fairly consistent on his rulings and this isn't a problem. If he isn't and it is a problem, why is he your DM?

[Geostationary]

Nah. This sort of situation is "But you have disadvantage". The only thing that's supposed to key into the difficulty in picking the lock is the quality of said lock.



Actually, this is a good point. How often is advantage/disadvantage going to show up, especially in the context of contested rolls? How much of an impact do they make on average (it's been a while since I looked at the calcs)?


And the DC might have started on hard today and gone to very hard today but next time it might be easy and go to moderate. Or not affect the roll at all. Whatever the GM happens to feel like. The player has absolutely no way to plan odds of anything succeeding ahead of time.
In all honesty, how is this different from any other edition? If you DM is unable to be consistent it doesn't matter what game you're playing, they're going to be pulling numbers from the irrational void. If they are consistent, then you can generally trust them to remember what they've done in the past. Like Sartharina said, this is system-agnostic stuff. You can argue all you want about the math of bounded accuracy, but consistency between skill checks is solely the realm of the DM.

[Sartharina]

If you get to 11th level in 3e (the point the game defines a character as "legendary") and the party's...
gray elf factotum/exemplar has focused on thievery to the point that he can automatically find and disarm any trap in the game without leaving signs of tampering and unlock any lock in the game in one round with a Search, Disable Device, and Open Lock result of 41 (take 10 + 14 ranks + 6 Int [18 base + 2 racial + 2 item] + 6 Dex + 2 Nimble Fingers/Investigator +3 Skill Focus) vs. trap max DC 25 + 5 to hide tampering or lock max DC 40 for Superior locks (plus knock as an SLA to deal with arcane lock),
Dark whisper gnome factotum/shadowdancer has focused on stealth to the point that he can walk around unseen in anything less than broad daylight thanks to Hide +46 and Move Silently +44 (14 ranks + 6 Dex [18 base + 2 racial + 2 item] +6 Int + 8/6 Dark + 2 Stealthy + 10 shadow silent moves armor)
goliath fighter/barbarian/war hulk has focused on breaking objects to the point that he can smash through everything weaker than a 3-foot-thick hewn stone wall (DC 50) in one round by taking 10 with a Str check mod of +33 (Str mod +15 [Str 40 = 18 base + 4 racial + 2 level + 4 rage + 2 Reckless Rage + 2 Mountain Rage + 8 war hulk] + 8 Destructive Rage + 10 Dungeon Crasher) and can still smash through that wall given a few rounds,
and similar, then you congratulate them on the fact that, as legendary badasses, they can do awesome things and can now waltz through the Temple of Doom, cartwheel unseen through a busy marketplace, or casually mosey through iron walls, all without breaking a sweat.And yet, the level 11 fighter doesn't have the ability to kill everything ever in one round.

[Lanaya]

And yet, the level 11 fighter doesn't have the ability to kill everything ever in one round.

What's your point? The level 11 fighter can effortlessly defeat foes that would be a threat to lower level PCs, but can't effortlessly defeat a legendary threat. Likewise, the shadowdancer can effortlessly sneak past guards that would have detected lower level PCs, but can't effortlessly sneak past the super powerful guards of Asmodeus's palace.

[PairO'Dice Lost]

I can see this being a problem for people that play with multiple GMs in multiple settings. I did this when I was younger and the experience variation was EXTREMELY wide, even with 3.5's "concrete" DC's. I also think this situation of multiple groups is fairly rare these days. I think the average player has a single group he plays with and that's probably it.

So if you have multiple GM's, yes, you may have to learn the style of each one and plan your actions accordingly. Just like any edition of DnD.

Most groups these days probably have just one DM, sure, but that doesn't mean it's not a problem for those groups that do have multiple DMs. In my current group of seven people, I'm the primary DM but two of the other players run one-shots and mini campaigns when I'm not there, when the group want to try out new characters or adventures, or when I want a break from DMing; also, two of the players play in a second group (each has their own different second group, not both in the same second group).

I'm a very player-empowering but by-the-RAW DM who allows pretty much everything as long as the PCs are fine with NPCs using the same rules and tactics, DM #2 is a "the DM is God" DM who makes a lot of houserules and rulings (not usually good ones, frankly; there's a reason he's not the primary DM), and DM #3 is fairly permissive with the characters he likes (divine casters, psionicists, and skillmonkeys) and nitpicky with the ones he doesn't (arcanists and martial types) and allows a smaller set of books per campaign, while as far as I've heard Other Group 1 is run by another mostly-by-RAW DM like me but who has a quite different approach to encounter- and adventure-building and Other Group 2 is run by a "core only, Tolkien races only, Final Destination" DM.

All of this is to say that everyone in my group has to be able to adapt to at least two and sometimes three different DMing styles on a regular basis, and there have been a few instances where the differences in assumptions have come up during the game (not to session-derailing extents, but leading to major changes in plans, miscommunications in combat, and such). Two of the other players and I started on AD&D and have almost always had multiple DMs in a group as was more common back then, and we all switched to 3e shortly after it came out in large part because a standardized ruleset makes hopping between groups and DMs so much easier and the extra work to read up on houserules and learn DM idiosyncrasies is drastically reduced. So those of us who value rules that promote inter-DM consistency have a very good reason to do so.


And yet, the level 11 fighter doesn't have the ability to kill everything ever in one round.

And your point is...?

[mephnick]

So those of us who value rules that promote inter-DM consistency have a very good reason to do so.

They promoted consistency, but I never got it. I'm glad your experience was different.

I still think the fears of the skill system come down to the difference between DM's, like it always has.

If you play with 3 DM's, you should eventually learn that:

DM 1 generally makes things a bit easy to empower the players and get the story going.
DM 2 is obsessed with "realism" so checks are harder.
DM 3 wavers back and forth because he sucks. You play with him cause he's your wife's boss or something.

You still need to learn each DM and make judgement calls on your builds and actions based on their tendencies, just like you always did.

[ProphetSword]

For most of the game, the DM will only ever have to worry about three numbers when it comes to setting DCs: 10 (easy), 15 (moderate), and 20 (hard). Once the party reaches high levels, DC 10 might be phased out since at that point it starts to become trivial for most of the PCs. So instead the DM might use 15 (easy for you), 20 (moderate for you), and 25 (hard for you). I say "for you," because for anyone else in the game world those same DCs would be far more difficult. And if a character has Expertise, those same DCs are much easier.

The same DCs of 10, 15, and 20 remain relevant for a majority of the game, and throughout the game the PCs get incrementally better at them. In 3.5, those DCs become obsolete much sooner, and have to be replaced constantly as the PCs continue to maximize their most important skills. PCs are technically progressing, but it doesn't feel like it because they continually run into arbitrarily higher DCs. In 5e, that doesn't happen.


This is counter to how bounded accuracy works.

Earlier in this thread, people were complaining that they didn't feel empowered enough because they couldn't automatically beat a challenge, and now someone is suggesting raising the DCs. A hard wood door that was a DC 15 to open at level 1 is still a DC 15 to open at level 20. If you have gotten better to the point where you have a +13 to open that door now, then congratulations, you are now better than someone who only has a +3 at level 1. That's the whole reason bounded accuracy exists, so that each additional +1 means a 5% increase to do something.

Continually raising the DC of the challenge not only breaks logic, it keeps the characters from ever making progress.

[Madfellow]

This is counter to how bounded accuracy works.

Earlier in this thread, people were complaining that they didn't feel empowered enough because they couldn't automatically beat a challenge, and now someone is suggesting raising the DCs. A hard wood door that was a DC 15 to open at level 1 is still a DC 15 to open at level 20. If you have gotten better to the point where you have a +13 to open that door now, then congratulations, you are now better than someone who only has a +3 at level 1. That's the whole reason bounded accuracy exists, so that each additional +1 means a 5% increase to do something.

Continually raising the DC of the challenge not only breaks logic, it keeps the characters from ever making progress.

You're misinterpreting what I wrote. When I said, "phase out dc10 and bring in dc25," what I meant was that dc10 challenges, being no longer challenging, would likely be handwaved as, "you can't actually fail at that. You succeed," and the party would start encountering dc25 challenges (a door forged by stone giants, as an example).

The difference between fifth and third is that in fifth, this doesn't happen until level fifteen or so. In the meantime, characters still encounter mundane challenges but get continually better at them. In third, if the dm wants to challenge his pcs he has to do this much sooner and keep doing it as the party progresses. 20s become 25s, 30s, 35s, and so on. You have to run as fast as you can just to stay in the same place.

[Sartharina]

The number of people who enjoy having encounters numerically trivialized is dramatically smaller than the number of people who'd prefer a pit trap to be a semi-viable threat to unsuspecting level 20s as well as level 1s.

[Lanaya]

The number of people who enjoy having encounters numerically trivialized is dramatically smaller than the number of people who'd prefer a pit trap to be a semi-viable threat to unsuspecting level 20s as well as level 1s.

Mind giving us a source on that?

[1337 b4k4]

Mind giving us a source on that?

I can't speak for Sartharina's source, but it's certainly something you could extrapolate from some observation:

1) It's the approach 5e is taking.
2) It's something many successful non-D&D games do (it's rather unusual for games like GURPS or Traveller or Eclipse Phase or CoC to allow you to advance so much over the course of a campaign that you numerically outclass part of the sytem)
3) Even in 3.x, many campaigns saw DCs increasing to match the party (see complaints about number escalation and the number of discussions had over "I want to have my party do X but they're bypassing all the DCs"
4) The common interpretation of 4e's Page 42 was that DCs scaled with player level and it's how many (most?) groups used it.
5) Most people talk about 3.x's sweet spot. Part of that sweet spot is a period wherein DCs are fairly reliably beatable, but still present a challenge.

[Knaight]

There are people who dont bother to learn any of the rules in the first place either. Is lazy Joe half *** the measure of who were are designing for now?

I'd rather this game NOT devolve to the lowest common denominator.

This can be pushed either way easily enough. There's a case to be made that explicitly listing as much as 3.5 did panders to the lower common denominator without even the GMing skill to interpret the difficulty of setting tasks with a descriptive skill, instead needing to consult a table that explicitly lists it. It would be an unfair description, but so is characterizing the people who favor that technique as "lazy Joe half ***".

The idea that having more rules makes a game better and playing a game with more rules is somehow an indicator of intelligence got floated around during the emergence of 4e as well, and it was just as ridiculous there. The case could easily have been made that a rules heavy game is just spoon feeding the GM a bunch of lists on the basis that they aren't creative enough or consistent enough to handle making decisions, and yet that didn't happen - probably because the rules light group generally considers rules heavy games good for other people and not for them, instead of a prop by which to enhance their egos through poorly conceived attacks on the intellect of those who don't share their preferences.

[Sartharina]

There are people who dont bother to learn any of the rules in the first place either. Is lazy Joe half *** the measure of who were are designing for now? They're designing for people who actually play the game, sitting at a table and keeping the action and flow of the game moving quickly and uninterrupted, with only maps, adventure notes, character sheets, miniatures, dice, snacks, and pencils at the table, with books buried underneath adventure notes, backup character sheets, pizza boxes, etc, and only consulted for character generation and an occassional (once per hour at most) niche rules clarification.

It is NOT built for people who sit around at desks arguing on internet forums with dozens of books open in front of them.

The more intuitive and simple the rules are to use on-the fly without needing consulting, the better it is for the game.

[mephnick]

You act as if grinding the momentum to a halt to find the official DC for wading through rapid water downhill during a hailstorm isn't "playing the game".

Shame on you. :smallmad:

[Sartharina]

You act as if grinding the momentum to a halt to find the official DC for wading through rapid water downhill during a hailstorm isn't "playing the game".

Shame on you. :smallmad:No, it's not playing the game. At least not playing the game as it's designed or intended to be played. The rules (Noted in the DMG and PHB) state that you are NOT supposed to bring the game to a halt to look up rules mid-session. (Quick references are okay)

[Gnomes2169]

You act as if grinding the momentum to a halt to find the official DC for wading through rapid water downhill during a hailstorm isn't "playing the game".

Shame on you. :smallmad:

This beautiful bit of sarcasm beeds to be sig'd. Can I do that? :smallbiggrin:

[PairO'Dice Lost]

The number of people who enjoy having encounters numerically trivialized is dramatically smaller than the number of people who'd prefer a pit trap to be a semi-viable threat to unsuspecting level 20s as well as level 1s.


2) It's something many successful non-D&D games do (it's rather unusual for games like GURPS or Traveller or Eclipse Phase or CoC to allow you to advance so much over the course of a campaign that you numerically outclass part of the sytem)

First off, in most games there are challenges that you just outclass because of the nature of those challenges. For instance, pit traps challenging the equivalent of level 20 characters is...
...definitely supposed to happen in CoC, because CoC's power scale goes from "random average dude who knows nothing about the Mythos" to "random average dude who knows just about the Mythos to know that getting involved with it was a terrible and sanity-shattering idea."
...only likely to happen at Traveller's tech level 0, as high-lifepath characters in Traveller's other 35 tech levels are highly likely to have some form of transportation making pit traps trivially bypassed.
...something that may or may not happen in GURPS, depending entirely on the setting you're in. Low-power/-tech settings might make pit traps challenging for high-point-value characters, but pretty much everything outside of GURPS Horror and GURPS Mysteries gives you something (whether flight spells, jet packs, kung-fu super leaps, or something else) to again trivialize pit traps.
...not a thing in Eclipse Phase, as your disembodied swarm of flying ninja nanobots cares nothing for piddly physical obstacles, and any character who falls afoul of a pit trap can just reload from backup to the sounds of the mocking laughter of said ninja swarm. :smallwink:
Whether something is outclassed because you have a +100 vs. DC 80 in your Foo skill or because your starship doesn't care about ground-bound obstacles, there are just some things that go out of challenge scope as you grow in power, just like there are things that start out outside of the challenge scope (dragons, shoggoths, disembodied malevolent AIs) and come into them as you gain power. Those other games don't try to shoehorn pit traps and tiger fights into interstellar exploration campaigns, so why should 5e go out of its way to shoehorn arrow traps and orc fights into high-level campaigns?


Secondly, D&D's rapid and large power scaling is part of what makes it different from those other games. From the beginning it's been a zero-to-hero game where you become superhuman before the midway point of the level range; while everyone says 3e was a huge jump in power from AD&D, 1e still had fighters who were literally titled Superheroes at level 8 and adventures that ended in killing gods at level 14. Even BECMI, supposedly a lower-power game than AD&D, had a rule allowing fighters to attack one 0th-level enemy (i.e. your rank and file conscript soldiers) per fighter level in one round and ended up with characters becoming the titular Immortals with godlike powers.

The idea that a mundane army of orcs, humans, or any other monster whose special powers consist of "can speak" and "has opposable thumbs," or that running into pit traps, deadfalls, and other noncombat stuff a real-world human could deal with, have ever been, or should ever be, a challenge to high-level characters--who regularly travel to alternate dimensions and gained their own armies as an afterthought back in the day--is frankly bizarre to me.


3) Even in 3.x, many campaigns saw DCs increasing to match the party (see complaints about number escalation and the number of discussions had over "I want to have my party do X but they're bypassing all the DCs"

And pretty much all of those discussions were answered with "Your Lord of the Rings ripoff campaign isn't a 15th-level adventure. Your PCs can fly, teleport, sneak past or slay hundreds of uruk-hai, and otherwise trounce those 'challenges', so an adventure about walking everywhere and being scared of a single big spider isn't going to cut it anymore."

At some point, PCs can (for example) know everything knowable by a Knowledge check. That's fine; "let's figure out this plot-related piece of lore" isn't something covered by Knowledge anyway, and if your high-level PCs are on an adventure to discover something known to no one else in the multiverse, the party Knowledge guy being able to identify every monster, spell, and random inscription on the walls along the way is a fitting bit of flavor, not a problem to be solved. The same holds for high movement skills and "let's get to this plot-relevant place" or any other skill: competent PCs being competent is a feature, not a bug.


5) Most people talk about 3.x's sweet spot. Part of that sweet spot is a period wherein DCs are fairly reliably beatable, but still present a challenge.

The "sweet spot" of 3e isn't about a sweet spot between not succeeding on any checks and not failing any checks, it's a sweet spot between noncasters dominating at low levels (roughly 1-5, though the tier 1s are still doing okay in that range) and casters dominating at high levels (roughly 13+, though the tier 5s fall behind around level 8ish); skillmonkey types can already go off the RNG with respect to skills in the sweet spot, but then being good at skills is kind of their thing.

Taking levels 6-13 and stretching them out over 20 or 30 levels is certainly one solution to the issue, but it's the lazy way out and hardly the most satisfying to people who actually like the vulnerability of low levels and the Logistics & Dragons of high levels.

[1337 b4k4]

First off, in most games there are challenges that you just outclass because of the nature of those challenges. For instance, pit traps challenging the equivalent of level 20 characters is...

I was mostly referring to the overall concept that your PCs don't outlevel the world they started in rather then the the pit trap specifically. Sorry for not being clear.



And pretty much all of those discussions were answered with "Your Lord of the Rings ripoff campaign isn't a 15th-level adventure. Your PCs can fly, teleport, sneak past or slay hundreds of uruk-hai, and otherwise trounce those 'challenges', so an adventure about walking everywhere and being scared of a single big spider isn't going to cut it anymore."

That may be how it's answered, but it's still evidence that there are people (and if you judge by how often it comes up, quite a few people) who want that. They want the sort of game with characters with the survivability of higher level D&D characters without the world out leveling that comes with it.


The same holds for high movement skills and "let's get to this plot-relevant place" or any other skill: competent PCs being competent is a feature, not a bug.

Agreed, but competence is not necessarily equal to complete domination. Even Indiana Jones tripped traps, no one (I don't think) would argue he wasn't competent.

I'm not arguing that games (and even D&D in particular) should not allow characters to out level the world if that's what the players want. I was just pointing out that an observation of the TTRPG world could certainly lead one to conclude that there are definitely a lot of people who don't want their players or characters to numerically out level the world around them. And even for people that do, at least a lot of the ones I've talked to aren't satisfied by D&D's approach of simply scaling the numbers higher and higher because it often amounts to playing the same game at level 1 as at level 30, just with stronger doors and bigger pits.

As a personal preference, if WotC were to release newer books with even more levels (as they probably will) I would love to see game play with a completely different feel, not "level 1 with +30 added to every number"

[mephnick]

This beautiful bit of sarcasm beeds to be sig'd. Can I do that? :smallbiggrin:

Sure you can

[Lanaya]

I can't speak for Sartharina's source, but it's certainly something you could extrapolate from some observation

In other words, the closest thing you can get to actual evidence is a few people saying that they're pretty sure that most people like X more than Y, based on random hunches and guesswork. I'm rather unconvinced by this argument. And even if it were true, who cares? Since when has popularity been a direct measurement of quality?

[warty goblin]

And even if it were true, who cares? Since when has popularity been a direct measurement of quality?

When producing something for people to use, it's often considered beneficial if it does in fact do what they want it to.

[Lanaya]

When producing something for people to use, it's often considered beneficial if it does in fact do what they want it to.

Sure, but we've established long ago that some people like bounded accuracy and some people don't. This debate has long since moved into the territory of everyone insisting that their personal favourite edition is objectively better than all the others.

[warty goblin]

Sure, but we've established long ago that some people like bounded accuracy and some people don't. This debate has long since moved into the territory of everyone insisting that their personal favourite edition is objectively better than all the others.

In which case popularity is really the only sensibly objective standard on offer, and the data isn't in yet.

[Gavran]

Sure, but we've established long ago that some people like bounded accuracy and some people don't. This debate has long since moved into the territory of everyone insisting that their personal favourite edition is objectively better than all the others.

To be fair that claim was more or less made in the OP. (Though OP had the grace to use the words "personal fave")

Still, what more do you want for evidence? We could make a poll but it'd hardly be useful statistically.

I think the more important point here is "5E fixes some problems a group of people had with 3E. Some other group of people thinks the way 5E handles those issues are inferior. Both groups are perfectly capable of playing whichever system they prefer and arguing about which group is correct is surely pointless."

And indeed, while popularity is not a measure of quality unpopularity certainly isn't either. Time will tell how successful 5E becomes, and I imagine we can all agree it won't have anything to do with a sudden spike in the popularity of the medium.

[Lanaya]

Still, what more do you want for evidence? We could make a poll but it'd hardly be useful statistically.

Indeed. Gathering any real evidence on the matter would be very difficult, and because we have no accurate way to determine what's more popular nobody should be acting like they know which game mechanic is more popular than the other. It's intellectually dishonest at best.

[McBars]

It's intellectually dishonest at best.

Oh come on. We're not making submissions to the NEJM, we're spitballing on a forum.

[Sartharina]

In other words, the closest thing you can get to actual evidence is a few people saying that they're pretty sure that most people like X more than Y, based on random hunches and guesswork. I'm rather unconvinced by this argument. And even if it were true, who cares? Since when has popularity been a direct measurement of quality?I'd have to go digging through 5e playtest commentary. But Mike Mearls was talking about the value of having parties not outlevel their challenges.


To return to the pit trap example... I think a net trap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35lvNne21KM) might be better to demonstrate that even high-level parties can find themselves relevantly disadvantaged (If momentarily) by low-level threats. As opposed to Math! saying "Now you're immune to this sort of thing"

[Lanaya]

To return to the pit trap example... I think a net trap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35lvNne21KM) might be better to demonstrate that even high-level parties can find themselves relevantly disadvantaged (If momentarily) by low-level threats. As opposed to Math! saying "Now you're immune to this sort of thing"

That's not a very good example of high level characters being threatened by a low level trap, considering the people tied up in the net trap are basically ordinary humans with a tad of plot armour and so it makes perfect sense. Try doing the same thing to a minor deity and you'll be rather less successful, and that's what a high level 3.5 character is.

[ProphetSword]

That's not a very good example of high level characters being threatened by a low level trap, considering the people tied up in the net trap are basically ordinary humans with a tad of plot armour and so it makes perfect sense. Try doing the same thing to a minor deity and you'll be rather less successful, and that's what a high level 3.5 character is.

That's part of the problem. Some of us want high level characters to be heroes who can be challenged...not gods who are unstoppable.

[Sartharina]

That's not a very good example of high level characters being threatened by a low level trap, considering the people tied up in the net trap are basically ordinary humans with a tad of plot armour and so it makes perfect sense. Try doing the same thing to a minor deity and you'll be rather less successful, and that's what a high level 3.5 character is.I'm sorry - at what point in 3.5 do characters get Divine Ranks in the course of leveling up? If they don't, then they should NEVER be classified as 'minor dieties'. High-level characters are people with above-average-but-still-human ability, a lot of plot armor(Hit points), and ability to negate other's plot armor (Increased damage). And cool special abilities that are still human(oid) in scope. Even if it's magic.

[ComaVision]

I'm sorry - at what point in 3.5 do characters get Divine Ranks in the course of leveling up? If they don't, then they should NEVER be classified as 'minor dieties'. High-level characters are people with above-average-but-still-human ability, a lot of plot armor(Hit points), and ability to negate other's plot armor (Increased damage). And cool special abilities that are still human(oid) in scope. Even if it's magic.

So Epic levels are people with above-average-but-still-human ability?




No.

[Sartharina]

So Epic levels are people with above-average-but-still-human ability?

No.Actually, yes. Even at epic levels, they're still human. See: Any Ray Harryhausen movie, or remake of such.

[1337 b4k4]

So Epic levels are people with above-average-but-still-human ability?




No.

Why not? I mean, short of Hercules, I really can't think of any major fantasy "epics" in which you would classify the hero(es) as "minor-deities". I suppose Gandalf was, but certainly the rest of the fellowship wasn't. Jason and the Argonauts were hardly deities. Odysseus wasn't. Conan isn't. Beowulf? Harry Potter?

[Lanaya]

That's part of the problem. Some of us want high level characters to be heroes who can be challenged...not gods who are unstoppable.

I know. Some people like certain things, other people don't.


I'm sorry - at what point in 3.5 do characters get Divine Ranks in the course of leveling up? If they don't, then they should NEVER be classified as 'minor dieties'. High-level characters are people with above-average-but-still-human ability, a lot of plot armor(Hit points), and ability to negate other's plot armor (Increased damage). And cool special abilities that are still human(oid) in scope. Even if it's magic.

Well evidently this isn't true, and that's what you've been arguing is a fault of 3.5. A high level character can walk on clouds, swim up a waterfall made of lava, directly override someone's free will by speaking real good, crawl through the gaps in a completely solid wall, accurately forge handwriting they've never seen before, ascertain someone's moral and ethical leanings by glancing at their face for half a second, disable a complex pit trap or open a masterfully made lock in such a small amount of time it doesn't even take an action, see an invisible, motionless zombie floating in midair and, after falling from space, effortlessly land on their feet without taking a single point of damage. And that's without even touching class features, or the good ol' classics such as killing an army of hundreds of thousands without taking a scratch. If that's above-average-but-still-human then I want to meet the humans you've been hanging out with.

[Nicol Bolas]

I'd have to go digging through 5e playtest commentary. But Mike Mearls was talking about the value of having parties not outlevel their challenges.


To return to the pit trap example... I think a net trap (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=35lvNne21KM) might be better to demonstrate that even high-level parties can find themselves relevantly disadvantaged (If momentarily) by low-level threats. As opposed to Math! saying "Now you're immune to this sort of thing"

Mike Mearls is a hack.

Anything he says about roleplaying games you just go ahead and assume the opposite is better.

[McBars]

Mike Mearls is a hack.

Anything he says about roleplaying games you just go ahead and assume the opposite is better.

Why is that?

In that case better stick to other editions, cause he apparently was fairly involved with this edition.

[Sartharina]

Mike Mearls is a hack.

Anything he says about roleplaying games you just go ahead and assume the opposite is better.

Mike Mearls is one of the better RPG designers, especially for D&D. He just sucked with 4e, because he was trying to get the system to do something it couldn't, and he couldn't get the system to work. Yes, he wrote a system that he wasn't fit for (It was designed by others before he got onboard, and then he misunderstood it and screwed it all up)

[Nicol Bolas]

Why is that?

In that case better stick to other editions, cause he apparently was fairly involved with this edition.

A number of problems occurred when he took over 4e. He tried to turn it into some sick idea of what he believed was D&D, and that's coincidentally exactly when 4e disappeared from all the best-seller lists. Essentials was an utter failure, and he wrote what is widely considered the worst 4e supplements of all, Heroes of Shadow and BoVD.

Not to mention if you go back through the archives and follow all of his 5e design articles it's comedy gold. The transparency of the 5e design process demonstrated that Mearls had no idea what he was doing at basically any stage.

If 5e is functional, it is in spite of Mike Mearls, not thanks to him.

[Knaight]

Why not? I mean, short of Hercules, I really can't think of any major fantasy "epics" in which you would classify the hero(es) as "minor-deities". I suppose Gandalf was, but certainly the rest of the fellowship wasn't. Jason and the Argonauts were hardly deities. Odysseus wasn't. Conan isn't. Beowulf? Harry Potter?

The Epic of Gilgamesh comes to mind, at least as regards what Gilgamesh does. Achilles somewhat qualifies.

[Nagash]

They're designing for people who actually play the game, sitting at a table and keeping the action and flow of the game moving quickly and uninterrupted, with only maps, adventure notes, character sheets, miniatures, dice, snacks, and pencils at the table, with books buried underneath adventure notes, backup character sheets, pizza boxes, etc, and only consulted for character generation and an occassional (once per hour at most) niche rules clarification.


{{Scrubbed}}

[McBars]

{{Scrubbed the original, scrub the quote}}

Yup. Gamers in general are not noted for attention to cleanliness. Most games don't take place at the little Lord Fauntleroy Academy for albino hemophiliacs with a chamber music quartet playing in the background and a tray of cucumber sandwiches nearby.

I find your notion of equating a DM having to make judgment calls in his or her game with a system designed to be marketed towards stupid people or slobs to be ridiculous & offensive to people who enjoy 5e. This isn't Warhammer; there aren't predetermined values assigned to every challenge in every situation.

[Svata]

Precisely - so writing off anyone as "nonheroic" or "heroic" and precluding them from rolling solely on either basis is silly. There are circumstances where rolling makes no difference, but that should be determined by the situation, not whether the character is "heroic" or not.

(Bink is from Xanth.)

Incidentally, Bink would be WAY OP in just about any edition of D&D.

[Sartharina]

Precisely - so writing off anyone as "nonheroic" or "heroic" and precluding them from rolling solely on either basis is silly. There are circumstances where rolling makes no difference, but that should be determined by the situation, not whether the character is "heroic" or not.The point is everyone/thing is heroic. Odds of success and failure are dramatically and deliberately increased in d20 systems.

And whether you roll or not is determined by the situation... that situation being "Will rolling make the game more interesting?"

[Alberic Strein]

Is it just me or has the conversation not advanced for half a dozen of pages?

Not to be completely out of subject, while 'minor deity' is stretching it, most of the major greek heroes in epics are demi-gods, or are the descendant of a demigod, or are at the very least inferred to have some divine blood in them. Not hard, considering Zeus's tendencies. And they are not that different from minor deities. Basically in a number of greek mythos I can remember, divines are mostly like humans, they just exist with a higher power level and sometimes with a nice divine trick. Dominion over a realm or aspect is reserved for the most powerful ones. So technically an absurdly powerful human is a minor deity. Sure, unless he has magic he can't have the nifty power of springs, but always striking true with a bow and arrow no matter what? Doable. Immortality? Well, unless magic is involved, true immortality is impossible, but if you were already a crazy powerful warrior by the time of your believer's grandparents and you are still undefeated on the battlefield, you are functionally immortal for them. Also, some deities are just very powerful beings, Sobek's job is to look scary and devour the unworthy, mechanically he isn't that different from a top level 3.5 druid. Heck, he doesn't even have spellcasting.

Now, what do greek mythos have to do with egyptian gods? I raise you the roman pantheon.

[mephnick]

Is it just me or has the conversation not advanced for half a dozen of pages?

That's because the real answer is:

People like this, other people like this.

None of us care which one anyone else likes.

There is no valid discussion to be had. The fact that these things go on for a dozen pages is ridiculous.

[Madfellow]

That's because the real answer is:

People like this, other people like this.

None of us care which one anyone else likes.

There is no valid discussion to be had. The fact that these things go on for a dozen pages is ridiculous.

Seconded. As much as the phrase annoys me, I guess this forum will just have to agree to disagree.

[Sartharina]

seconded. As much as the phrase annoys me, i guess this forum will just have to agree to disagree.We shall never surrender! We shall fight on some more forever! The flame war shall burn on and on until the end of time! BWAHAHAHAHAHA!