PDA

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



Pages : [1] 2

MonkeySage
2014-11-07, 09:46 PM
3.X games had their problems, sure, but to date they are still a personal fave. I recently got involved with 5e, and while I will say that the game does not suck... 3.X had something that this new edition seems to totally lack. I can't foresee this game being anywhere near as fun for me as 3. I can't help but look at this game through 3.X lenses, nostalgically wishing I knew someone who was running a 3.X game.
What of the rest of you? which do you prefer? why?

jaydubs
2014-11-07, 10:33 PM
I honestly prefer switching back and forth. That probably sounds indecisive, but I really do prefer playing campaigns in both rather than a single system.

Sometimes, I really like the in depth rules of 3.x, and how they let you build really different and unique characters. The intricate rules and oceans of content can actually be fun to learn and read through. Fighting on a grid, worrying about positioning, juggling all these decisions to maximize my action economy - that can be fun. Just not all the time.

Sometimes, I want to relax more and tell a story without worrying so much about the details. Or maybe I'm playing with newer players, or players who just find the 3.x system too rule-heavy. Sometimes I just want something more casual (this really shouldn't be a dirty word). And 5e does that a lot better.

It's like the difference between Hearts of Iron and Tropico. Sure, I can be an evil dictator in both. But some days I'm in the mood for managing tech trees and industrial production. And other days I just want to cover a tropical island in propaganda and cigar factories.

ProphetSword
2014-11-07, 10:41 PM
I'm a fan of 5e, personally. But, that's probably because I spent most of the years everyone was playing 3.x/4e wishing that people wanted to play 2e again. So, it's a return to the kind of game I want.

So, I don't agree with the opinion that 5e doesn't stack up well against 3.x. I think it's a far better game. But, to each their own, I guess.

Gavran
2014-11-07, 10:46 PM
I mean, lots of people prefer their native edition though? I'd be surprised if any edition of D&D ever convinced someone it was totally better than the one they already preferred. Or maybe that's my newness to the scene speaking a bit: I prefer 4E and 5th is way too much like 3rd to sway me; if it could, I'd have been swayed by 3rd. You like 3rd and 5th is like 3rd but with less stuff and some things not being the way you expect them to. Maybe somewhere in pre-3rd times it was different.

WOTC has (so far) succeeded in making 5th more palatable to me than 3rd, but not so much I'd want to switch to it, and I see no reason a 3rd favorer would either.

Dienekes
2014-11-07, 10:54 PM
I mean, lots of people prefer their native edition though? I'd be surprised if any edition of D&D ever convinced someone it was totally better than the one they already preferred. Or maybe that's my newness to the scene speaking a bit: I prefer 4E and 5th is way too much like 3rd to sway me; if it could, I'd have been swayed by 3rd. You like 3rd and 5th is like 3rd but with less stuff and some things not being the way you expect them to. Maybe somewhere in pre-3rd times it was different.

WOTC has (so far) succeeded in making 5th more palatable to me than 3rd, but not so much I'd want to switch to it, and I see no reason a 3rd favorer would either.

I don't know, I know a few people who were really into 3.5 who switched and raved about 4e. And (though it's not technically an addition of D&D I think it's similar enough to make this comparison), I would easily switch to FantasyCraft from 3.5 if I ever found a consistent group to play it with.

SirAshley
2014-11-07, 11:09 PM
Ah, the age old debate. I guess the best way to sum it up is different strokes for different folks. I believe most of the other points have already been made. It's hard to convince someone to stray from their native edition. As someone who began playing D&D 3.5, I thoroughly enjoy it, Pathfinder, and now that I've played some game sessions in 5e, I enjoy it too. Each of the games is still D&D for me, I just play different editions based on what I want out of that particular game/experience.

Jigawatts
2014-11-07, 11:16 PM
As was previously noted, the difference between 3E and 5E boils down to the difference between a rules-heavy game and a rules-light game (though I would consider 5E more of a rules-medium game). If you like complexity and a plethora of character options you are going to favor 3E/PF/d20, if you like a more free flowing game you are going to favor 5E or one of the older editions of D&D.

I started with 2E, and if 5E had used the same exact spellcasting system that was present in 1E-3E I would most likely be looking to switch to it as my main game. That is its biggest detractor for me on a personal level. Also the lack of symmetry in a lot of its mechanics also bugs me (the spells per day chart, the levels you get your stat boost/feat, the levels you get your extra attacks, etc).

Forum Explorer
2014-11-08, 04:33 AM
I like 5e so much more then 3e. I don't think I'll ever play another 3e game again. The game is so nice and streamlined, while still being a challenge. And it really feels like the tier system has more or less been destroyed. No more uber wizards, druids, or clerics to make things difficult for the DM.

Also I really prefer the emphasis on RAI over RAW.

Somebloke
2014-11-08, 05:43 AM
I definitely prefer 5e to 3e, but I'm the sort of guy to get exited about Barbarians of Lemuria or Fate accelerated- the less crunchy the system, the better. So 5e feels better for me.

BRKNdevil
2014-11-08, 06:20 AM
I like 5e currently over 3.5 because it has better class balance. At least currently. Also i find the argument that 3.5 has more class options a bit unfair considering that 5e just came out this year and only has 2 books minus any adventures. Also, I prefer my fights not taking 20 to 30 min. a round like in 3.5 because people had to determine the "most efficient" way of doing things.

Gnomes2169
2014-11-08, 06:20 AM
I'm one of those weirdos that switched from his native edition (3.0/3.5/PF) to 5e, and it's not really because I can't handle/ don't like 3.5's rules heavy system. I'm honestly fine with massive stacking bonuses, and it's fun to theory craft bonuses up and up past the stratosphere... But I grew tired of monsters and players progressing in the same way, with the same powers for the most part, and the monsters either being horrendously overpowered to the point where they either one-shot the party (or just ground them down without taking any perceptable damage), or the players were so overpowered that they couldn't fail. At anything. Ever. The drama just died immediately, and campaigns honestly were starting to get boring.

And then we get to 5e. Everything still scales their basic competence off of one base mechanic (Proficiency bonus), but it scales at different rates (character level for players, CR for creatures), the maximum bonuses are much, much more sanely curbed (+17 to a skill with expertise and a maxed stat for PC's, +28 for monsters with the same... which is very, very rare, and only happens at CR30), and despite using the same saving throws/ proficiency/ stats, monsters have things that either the PC's cannot use, and that they cannot learn to use without blatant DM approval, preventing them from being able to predict everything an enemy can use/ use the same overpowered toy against them. Leaving some things in the hands of NPC's only, I've found, makes encounters more interesting, dynamic, easy to DM/ Homebrew for, and the players that I've played with really don't seem to mind that much that they don't get to be, say, beholders just because of their particular build.

The elimination of buff stacking via the Concentration mechanic as well, unless you have multiple casters (which gets you 1 extra buff per caster), really, really speeds up pre-combat preperations. And in combat spell casting. And... Pretty much all of the spellcasting time sink arguments that keep all but 2 players and maybe the DM out of the game for anywhere from 20 minutes to 1 1/2 hours (no seriously. Turns were taking so long I could walk to Taco Johns, eat there and then walk back and it's the same person's turn. It was sort of silly) really seem to have gone away. Choosing your "most effective spell" for a situation from 60-80 prepared spells of differing spell slots suddenly becomes a lot easier when you have 25 spells that you have memorized (maximum) and can cast out of pretty much any spell slot of their level or higher (for great profit).

And adding in backgrounds and going out of their way to sell roleplay, not roll-play, really did get all my <3. Roleplay, you are my best friend, and I missed you.

Eslin
2014-11-08, 07:57 AM
3.X games had their problems, sure, but to date they are still a personal fave. I recently got involved with 5e, and while I will say that the game does not suck... 3.X had something that this new edition seems to totally lack. I can't foresee this game being anywhere near as fun for me as 3. I can't help but look at this game through 3.X lenses, nostalgically wishing I knew someone who was running a 3.X game.
What of the rest of you? which do you prefer? why?

You didn't actually mention a thing about either edition. What do you prefer about 3.X?

Nagash
2014-11-08, 08:13 AM
Well first off this "native edition" idea is crap. I started with AD&D and happily moved to 3e because it was closer to how I had houseruled that over the years then the original. Then when Pathfinder came out I jumped ship and havent touched a 3X game since. And D20 anything isnt even close to my favorite game system.

But if I were to compare PF to 5e I would say this.

5e looks good for a one shot or very short campaign. Other then that the extremely limited character growth over time seems to me to severely limit the growth of a campaign story.

I like starting small. I disliked 4e's idea of everyone being heroes from the get go. I like the farm boy to great hero story.

But that means farm boy to king arthur, beowulf or merlin.

In 5e over 20 levels its more like farm boy to sergeant #2 somewhere in the background in the movie credits of the campaign.

The rules simply dont allow you to be a bigger then life hero, no matter what your level is. And to me that means I would never want to play in or run a long term campaign with those rules. Theres simply no point. I can play once a week for 3 weeks or once a week for 60 weeks and the difference between the 2 characters will be so small it seems like there was no point.

So for me its pathfinder over 5e. But not 3e. I would never touch 3e again.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 09:10 AM
But that means farm boy to king arthur, beowulf or merlin.

In 5e over 20 levels its more like farm boy to sergeant #2 somewhere in the background in the movie credits of the campaign.

I think you're either vastly overestimating the capabilities of these characters, or vastly underestimating the capabilities of the classes that would represent them.

It's not

"3.5 Wizard is Merlin, 5e Wizard is Teenage Harry Potter"

It's

"5e Wizard is Merlin. 3.5 Wizard is God."

Nagash
2014-11-08, 09:19 AM
I think you're either vastly overestimating the capabilities of these characters, or vastly underestimating the capabilities of the classes that would represent them.

It's not

"3.5 Wizard is Merlin, 5e Wizard is Teenage Harry Potter"

It's

"5e Wizard is Merlin. 3.5 Wizard is God."

Closer to 5E 20th level wizard is the chick who runs the hippy shop on the corner and reads your palm for 20 bucks and the 3e wizard of any level is well.. a wizard.

ProphetSword
2014-11-08, 09:19 AM
Well first off this "native edition" idea is crap.

Depends on the person. I know plenty of folks who are stuck in the mindset that AD&D 1st Edition is the one-true way and everything else pales in comparison. The idea that things might have improved after 1st Edition is something they won't even consider. I see a lot of people who started with 3.x clinging to it as the one-true way these days too.

I'm not like that. Even though I started with Basic/AD&D back in the very early 1980s, I moved on. For years, I was nostalgic about my favorite edition (2nd Edition) and I grew to really dislike both 3.x and 4e because the rules kept getting in the way of the fun. 5e turned all that around, and has replaced 2nd Edition as my favorite edition (something I didn't think would happen, but I'm ecstatic that it did).

But, yeah, some people are definitely stuck in their "native edition" and refuse to budge.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 09:23 AM
Closer to 5E 20th level wizard is the chick who runs the hippy shop on the corner and reads your palm for 20 bucks and the 3e wizard of any level is well.. a wizard.

Yeah, you obviously have no idea what you're talking about.

Sartharina
2014-11-08, 09:35 AM
5e looks good for a one shot or very short campaign. Other then that the extremely limited character growth over time seems to me to severely limit the growth of a campaign story.On the contrary, I find that the more limited growth allows for significantly greater growth o a campaign story, as players aren't rushed from one plot point to the next to keep them from outleveling their current to-do list.


But that means farm boy to king arthur, beowulf or merlin.

In 5e over 20 levels its more like farm boy to sergeant #2 somewhere in the background in the movie credits of the campaign.

The rules simply dont allow you to be a bigger then life hero, no matter what your level is. And to me that means I would never want to play in or run a long term campaign with those rules. Theres simply no point. I can play once a week for 3 weeks or once a week for 60 weeks and the difference between the 2 characters will be so small it seems like there was no point.

So for me its pathfinder over 5e. But not 3e. I would never touch 3e again.Actually, you still get to King Arthur, Beowulf, Merlin, Conan, and anyone else in classic mythology. 3.P had you going to a point so far beyond any character in Western literature/mythology that there aren't even frames of references until you start looking at Chinese Wuxia heroes and Indian Gods.

Nagash
2014-11-08, 10:08 AM
Depends on the person. I know plenty of folks who are stuck in the mindset that AD&D 1st Edition is the one-true way and everything else pales in comparison. The idea that things might have improved after 1st Edition is something they won't even consider. I see a lot of people who started with 3.x clinging to it as the one-true way these days too.

I'm not like that. Even though I started with Basic/AD&D back in the very early 1980s, I moved on. For years, I was nostalgic about my favorite edition (2nd Edition) and I grew to really dislike both 3.x and 4e because the rules kept getting in the way of the fun. 5e turned all that around, and has replaced 2nd Edition as my favorite edition (something I didn't think would happen, but I'm ecstatic that it did).

But, yeah, some people are definitely stuck in their "native edition" and refuse to budge.


Maybe its just that I started with AD&D and now find any edition of D&D to be behind roleplaying games like most of the storyteller games, warhammer 1st and 2nd edition RPG, true 20, dragon age and shadowrun. But I have 0 loyalty to the D&D franchise and strongly dislike most of the design decisions its made over the last 20 years.

Madfellow
2014-11-08, 10:08 AM
Myself, I started in 3.5 and always felt dissatisfied with it. There were too many numbers to track, too many splatbooks to dig through, too many magic items to buy, too many house rules to remember, and too many wizards walking around making my factotum (it's kinda like an intelligence-based bard) look useless.

I dipped my toe into 4e and actually preferred it to 3.5. Fewer books, Inherent Bonuses made magic items easier, no need for house rules unless you want to re-fluff something (which was really easy, btw), and no god-mode wizards. Really the only complaint left was that there were still a lot of numbers to track. I wanted to run a campaign in 4e, but conflicting schedules and a competing campaign quickly killed it. :smallfrown:

And now 5e is out, and I'm loving every minute of it. :smallbiggrin: I'm running Hoard of the Dragon Queen with my old college buddies, and it seems to be going well. The system is easy to grasp and it makes the game run smooth. Also, no god mode wizards.

Nagash
2014-11-08, 10:14 AM
On the contrary, I find that the more limited growth allows for significantly greater growth o a campaign story, as players aren't rushed from one plot point to the next to keep them from outleveling their current to-do list.

Actually, you still get to King Arthur, Beowulf, Merlin, Conan, and anyone else in classic mythology. 3.P had you going to a point so far beyond any character in Western literature/mythology that there aren't even frames of references until you start looking at Chinese Wuxia heroes and Indian Gods.

Wuxia can die in a fire for all I care.

But other then that how does a near complete lack of growth of character competence lead to greater growth in a campaign?

I mean sure as GM's we might like that idea. But lets be realistic. Once a week over 20 levels your talking about at least a year. Probably more. And not everyone plays every week so for a lot of players its more like 2 or 3 years to advance what 2 or 3 pts in what your character is good at? That laughable.

The reality is this edition is going to crash and burn just from being unplayable long term from a player standpoint because theres no satisfaction or sense of getting better.

Sartharina
2014-11-08, 10:16 AM
Wuxia can die in a fire for all I care.

But other then that how does a near complete lack of growth of character competence lead to greater growth?

I mean sure as GM's we might like that idea. But lets be realistic. Once a week over 20 levels your talking about at least a year. Probably more. And not everyone plays every week so for a lot of players its more like 2 or 3 years to advance what 2 or 3 pts in what your character is good at? That laughable.

The reality is this edition is going to crash and burn just from being unplayable long term from a player standpoint because theres no satisfaction or sense of getting better.

The "Wah, player characters don't get any better as they level up!" is unsubstantiated by actual play.

Madfellow
2014-11-08, 10:35 AM
Wuxia can die in a fire for all I care.

But other then that how does a near complete lack of growth of character competence lead to greater growth in a campaign?

I mean sure as GM's we might like that idea. But lets be realistic. Once a week over 20 levels your talking about at least a year. Probably more. And not everyone plays every week so for a lot of players its more like 2 or 3 years to advance what 2 or 3 pts in what your character is good at? That laughable.

The reality is this edition is going to crash and burn just from being unplayable long term from a player standpoint because theres no satisfaction or sense of getting better.

HP and damage output scale in 5e just as fast as they did in 3.5. Attack accuracy, saves, and skills have slowed down, yes, but they do still grow by a substantial margin. Players do not need +1 to everything every level to feel like they're getting stronger. 5e doesn't rely on numbers alone to represent ability, and that is why every level characters get some new feature from their class that lets them do something entirely new that they couldn't do before. This is what they get instead of a marginal +1 increase to everything they could already do. It makes the system far more rich and engaging.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 10:46 AM
The "Wah, player characters don't get any better as they level up!" is unsubstantiated by actual play.

It's also unsubstantiated by... actually reading or even casually perusing the book, which I suspect Nagash hasn't done.

Milodiah
2014-11-08, 10:58 AM
I personally prefer 3.5 over 5e, but I may change my opinion as more supplementary stuff trickles out and the kinks get ironed out (the "Tarrasque can't kick down a door according to RAW" type of stuff). As a DM I tend to slow down the leveling past 10 anyway, so I never really get to the "can kill physical gods with between one to three combat rounds, depending on how much thought they feel like putting into breaking the action economy today" phase. Moreover, I'm blessed with players whose idea of optimization can be summed up as the fire-themed warmage taking the Pyro feat to deal 1 more damage per die rolled.

Granted, my main issues with D&D do stem from things like the number of sword stabs per chest needed to kill quadrupling over a month of questing, which are things 5e wanted to tone down. But I know 3.5, I run 3.5 (and am running it right now, so as far as I care I'm not changing mid-campaign even if the rest of the world were on 15e right now), and I like 3.5, since one of its only major issues stems from an optimization arms-race that my players miraculously don't partake in.

Besides, I'm a Call of Cthulhu player even more than D&D. When I want a game where your characters don't advance like someone put Beowulf in a time-dilation bubble with a personal trainer and a 55-gallon drum of anabolic steroids, I go one step further and go play the game where optimization advice consists of "bring an automatic weapon if you can and pray to God that bullets can even hurt it".

MonkeySage
2014-11-08, 11:26 AM
I'm running a pathfinder game right now, loving how it pretty much stuck to the 3.5 formula, loving the changes they've made. Lets see:
I can really control the speed of the game- I'm running it on fast progression right now, because even that is enouch. it takes a while to reach new levels, giving me the opportunity to build on the story.

Sky is the limit: this is why I loved 3.5, too. as someone earlier mentioned, you can go from being a nobody to beowulf or dumbledore in this game. I enjoyed the challenge, back when I was a player(miss those days) of working towards lichdom, seemed like an achievable goal in 3.X, not so much in 5e.

Creativity, lots of room for customization, both as a player and as a dm. part of the fun of that I'm as a dm is the ability to easily stat out a frost giant sorcerer if I was so inclined. 5e, I'm struggling to create a new monster(the formulae are not there).

A 3.X-3.P game felt very different in tone. it made the player feel like they were going from being a nobody to being the big hero, and was mechanically very good at conveying that tone. 5e, characters don't really grow much at all.

Also, milo, I would love your help designing a call of cthulhu scenario, sometime.

Madfellow
2014-11-08, 11:29 AM
Sky is the limit: this is why I loved 3.5, too. as someone earlier mentioned, you can go from being a nobody to beowulf or dumbledore in this game. I enjoyed the challenge, back when I was a player(miss those days) of working towards lichdom, seemed like an achievable goal in 3.X, not so much in 5e.

Creativity, lots of room for customization, both as a player and as a dm. part of the fun of that I'm as a dm is the ability to easily stat out a frost giant sorcerer if I was so inclined. 5e, I'm struggling to create a new monster(the formulae are not there).

A 3.X-3.P game felt very different in tone. it made the player feel like they were going from being a nobody to being the big hero, and was mechanically very good at conveying that tone. 5e, characters don't really grow much at all.

Allow me to direct you to my earlier post:


HP and damage output scale in 5e just as fast as they did in 3.5. Attack accuracy, saves, and skills have slowed down, yes, but they do still grow by a substantial margin. Players do not need +1 to everything every level to feel like they're getting stronger. 5e doesn't rely on numbers alone to represent ability, and that is why every level characters get some new feature from their class that lets them do something entirely new that they couldn't do before. This is what they get instead of a marginal +1 increase to everything they could already do. It makes the system far more rich and engaging.

EccentricCircle
2014-11-08, 11:42 AM
I do really like 5e, its precisely what I wanted it to be, which is a simpler alternative to 3.5 which largely feels the same in play. I am not about to stop running 3.5 games, some of my campaigns are so rooted in that edition that there wouldn't be much point. but it's nice to have an option where things like character creation can go a bit quicker.

Milodiah
2014-11-08, 11:46 AM
HP and damage output scale in 5e just as fast as they did in 3.5. Attack accuracy, saves, and skills have slowed down, yes, but they do still grow by a substantial margin.

Really? That's unfortunate, I was under the impression that had been toned down. From that I kinda feel like they gave the inverse of what I had hoped, which was that while it totally makes sense that attack bonuses and skills can increase in relatively short periods from frequent practice/use, a human being goes through his/her life with with the same "amount of chest-stabbing before death" numbers from the ages of 16 to 60 or so.

On a related note, one thing that's always bothered me about D&D is that armor class is a relatively stable number in the absence of gear upgrades, feats, or class features, which as a fencer I can promise is completely wrong. I always chalk it down to the alteration of the AC/THAC0 system, but it's always bothered me that while your fighter can practically have a PhD in stabbing people at level 10, he doesn't inherently get better at parrying, which oddly enough is the inverse to my experience as a fencer. On the contrary, I feel like my stabbing people technique was more or less stable until the full-on technical stuff started sinking in, whereas the first thing I started learning and improving on were defensive techniques. I've tried to houserule that kind of thing in, but it never did fully satisfy me, and I've pretty much compromised on 'drop all base ACs by one, point is regained when armed to represent parrying ability, shields add double AC'.

Out of curiosity, is that fixed in 5e?



Also, milo, I would love your help designing a call of cthulhu scenario, sometime.
Any time, just message me your questions and I'd be happy to help.

Madfellow
2014-11-08, 11:51 AM
Really? That's unfortunate, I was under the impression that had been toned down. From that I kinda feel like they gave the inverse of what I had hoped, which was that while it totally makes sense that attack bonuses and skills can increase in relatively short periods from frequent practice/use, a human being goes through his/her life with with the same "amount of chest-stabbing before death" numbers from the ages of 16 to 60 or so.

The logic goes like this: HP no longer represents just "meat damage;" it's a combination of that and stamina, willpower, and luck that lets you power through minor cuts and bruises. When you hit 0 HP, you finally take a life-threatening blow that knocks you off your feet.

The way things scale now, hoards of weaker mobs can still threaten even high-level adventurers, provided they brought enough cannon fodder.

Milodiah
2014-11-08, 11:55 AM
Right, that's kind of the way I've interpreted HP as working the whole time though. It's more a descriptive narration issue than anything else, but that was my desperate mental rationalization of how someone could do max damage with a longsword on two different people, and one could shrug it off as a 10% drop while the other guy just drops dead.

Sartharina
2014-11-08, 12:16 PM
The logic goes like this: HP no longer represents just "meat damage;" it's a combination of that and stamina, willpower, and luck that lets you power through minor cuts and bruises. When you hit 0 HP, you finally take a life-threatening blow that knocks you off your feet.It's always been more than just 'meat damage'

jaydubs
2014-11-08, 12:45 PM
The point has already been made by some in this thread, but I'm still going to drop this article here. The basic gist is that most fantasy characters we've read about or seen in movies aren't anywhere close to level 20 3rd edition characters. If people like Merlin, Gandalf, King Arthur, Robin Hood, etc. are your goalposts for how powerful player characters should become, you shouldn't be trying to get to high levels in any of the 3.x's.

http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/587/roleplaying-games/dd-calibrating-your-expectations-2

mephnick
2014-11-08, 01:39 PM
3.5 characters have nothing to do with fantasy literature once they hit mid-level. It's not even close. It's why I played solely e6 at the end of 3.5.

5e does a much better job at retaining that fantasy feel all the way through.

Exediron
2014-11-08, 03:34 PM
3.5 characters have nothing to do with fantasy literature once they hit mid-level. It's not even close. It's why I played solely e6 at the end of 3.5.

5e does a much better job at retaining that fantasy feel all the way through.

That depends on what fantasy literature you're reading. If you're going for something like Elric of Melniboné snuffing gods every other adventure - or god help us, the Wheel of Time - then 3.5 isn't that far outside the pale if at all; a high level wizard has nothing on a top channeler in WoT. If you're looking for more down and gritty fantasy like the Lord of the Rings then yeah, it can get a bit much.

Demonic Spoon
2014-11-08, 03:42 PM
I like a lot of things about 5.0 over 3.5, but one of the big things I haven't seen talked about yet is the streamlined combat. Combat in 3.5 took so long because of all the looking stuff up and stacking modifiers. It was difficult to get more than 1 encounter per session while also having time for non-combat stuff and RP

PersonMan
2014-11-08, 03:49 PM
On the contrary, I find that the more limited growth allows for significantly greater growth o a campaign story, as players aren't rushed from one plot point to the next to keep them from outleveling their current to-do list.

I don't understand this criticism - what about 3.5's leveling system forces one to pre-make all obstacles, make them stationary and then rush the players along a track of preset battles?

I understand that one can dislike the fast leveling because it forces either a houseruling, a shorter campaign or a plot that ramps up in scale, but what you've outlined sounds like a problem with a DM / playstyle than the system itself. Unless 5e has built-in rules for anti-railroading?


[E]very level characters get some new feature from their class that lets them do something entirely new that they couldn't do before. This is what they get instead of a marginal +1 increase to everything they could already do. It makes the system far more rich and engaging.

I get the appeal, but an entirely new ability every level does sound a bit odd. You get marginally better at what you've been doing all your life, but constantly gain entirely new abilities?

EDIT: @ Combat Length: I've only played a bit of 5e, but combat doesn't seem especially easy compared to 3.5. Is there a lot of DM-side streamlining (I've only been a player so far)?

jaydubs
2014-11-08, 04:15 PM
EDIT: @ Combat Length: I've only played a bit of 5e, but combat doesn't seem especially easy compared to 3.5. Is there a lot of DM-side streamlining (I've only been a player so far)?

I can only add the datapoint of my personal experiences. But 5e with new players seems to run about as fast as 3.x with experienced players. Some examples of streamlining:

-Concentration mechanic reduces number of buffs that must be counted.
-You can move and attack, and vice versa, so less to worry about in terms of 5-foot steps, full attacks, etc. Actions in general are just easier to manage.
-A lot of things that had specific modifiers in 3.x are now boiled down to advantage and disadvantage.
-Using a general proficiency mod simplifies and makes many things faster to track.

Sidmen
2014-11-08, 04:16 PM
I don't understand this criticism - what about 3.5's leveling system forces one to pre-make all obstacles, make them stationary and then rush the players along a track of preset battles?

I understand that one can dislike the fast leveling because it forces either a houseruling, a shorter campaign or a plot that ramps up in scale, but what you've outlined sounds like a problem with a DM / playstyle than the system itself. Unless 5e has built-in rules for anti-railroading?

You seem to have missed his point. Say, you begin play with a Goblin problem in town. You play a few sessions and level up to level 3. Those goblins are no longer a threat, not unless you grab supplements that vastly expand goblins or build your own (annoying and time consuming).

In 5e, those same goblins can easily be a threat (in only slightly increased numbers) well up to level 5 or even higher.

You don't have to "move on" to the next area or zone for a long time in 5e, whereas it becomes harder and harder to stay in the same area with 3.5, as the foes become more and more trivial as you level.

Tengu_temp
2014-11-08, 04:25 PM
I like DND 4e more than both 3e and 5e. And I don't really like 4e.

ProphetSword
2014-11-08, 04:59 PM
In 5e, those same goblins can easily be a threat (in only slightly increased numbers) well up to level 5 or even higher.


I can vouch for this. I recently attacked an 8th level party with goblins and kobolds. In previous versions of D&D, this would have been laughable. In 5e, this nearly caused a TPK that seriously made the players come to respect how deadly these creatures can be.

Being able to get better over time is great. But, when you reach a point where you can obliterate an army of enemies at level 8, something is wrong with the power scale. For me, 5e gets it right.

ProphetSword
2014-11-08, 05:07 PM
EDIT: @ Combat Length: I've only played a bit of 5e, but combat doesn't seem especially easy compared to 3.5. Is there a lot of DM-side streamlining (I've only been a player so far)?

Two points here:

1) The players never see what goes on behind the screens. It is a lot harder to run combats behind the screen than it is on the player side when it comes to tracking everything. Players usually only have to track the things they do and what affects them...DMs have to track everything. 3.x and Pathfinder, especially as the levels increase, require a lot of work on the part of the DM to run accurately. There are tons of feats, skills and conditions to track at any given moment. It's hard work and I was often exhausted after a few combats. Not so with 5e.

2) Low level 3.x games and 5e are similar in speed. But once you get past 7th or 8th level, it changes drastically. But, that's not true with 5e, as it continues to run quick and easy as the levels continue to rise. There's still some added time to the combats due to hit points going up, but that just means there are more rounds to combat, not necessarily more work to be done.

Aidan305
2014-11-08, 06:25 PM
I've yet to have to opportunity to try 5e from a players perspective, other than a long time ago back when the playtest was just starting, so I can't properly comment on it from that perspective.

From the GMs perspective however, I love it. I love how easy it is to throw together an interesting encounter that challenges the players in more ways than simply combat. I love how easy it is to throw together an interesting combat that involves more than simply fighting. I can put together epic set pieces in a way that I couldn't in 3.x, and I can do it in a matter of a couple of minutes.

While there isn't as much variety of classes as there was in 3.x, there is still a significant amount, far more than either 3.x or 4e had when they first came out, and I feel that this bodes well for the future of the edition.

3.x had its good points, but as time went on with it I got tired of how…cluttered it was. There were just too many things to keep track of, a problem that 4th ed. failed to fix. The numbers would eventually get out of hand to a ridiculous degree. 5e's bounded numbers however mean that I don't have to worry as much about the numbers any more and can focus more on simply running a fun and interesting encounter.

Milo v3
2014-11-08, 06:33 PM
So far the only thing I've liked from 5e was the change to darkvision. I dislike the lowered range of power, which can affectively be created in 3.5e by just putting in a level cap to your campaign. I dislike how they handled monsters making them further away from the PC rules. Not having any ability to play things like werewolves or vampires.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 08:11 PM
Really? That's unfortunate, I was under the impression that had been toned down. From that I kinda feel like they gave the inverse of what I had hoped, which was that while it totally makes sense that attack bonuses and skills can increase in relatively short periods from frequent practice/use, a human being goes through his/her life with with the same "amount of chest-stabbing before death" numbers from the ages of 16 to 60 or so.

On a related note, one thing that's always bothered me about D&D is that armor class is a relatively stable number in the absence of gear upgrades, feats, or class features, which as a fencer I can promise is completely wrong. I always chalk it down to the alteration of the AC/THAC0 system, but it's always bothered me that while your fighter can practically have a PhD in stabbing people at level 10, he doesn't inherently get better at parrying, which oddly enough is the inverse to my experience as a fencer.


AC doesn't scale at all. A Fighter with Full Plate, a shield and the defense style will have 21 AC at level 1 and he'll have 21 AC at level 20. Mind you, the same applies to opponents; a challenge 2 Orc in full plate has 18 AC. A challenge 19 Balor has 19. At first I agreed with you - it's weird that these values don't scale even as the character improves in all other areas.
But then I realised it actually makes perfect sense if you assume that parrying and defensive capabilties are part of the abstraction of HP. Doing this also ties into your concern about HP scaling.

I think the reason they did this, is to aid the impression of escalating power and threat. Sure, your to hit going from +5 to +10 looks like progress on the character sheet. But if your enemies' AC have increased from 15 to 20 in the same space of time, it doesn't feel like progress because you still need exactly the same roll to hit them. And it works the other way around - if your opponents attack rolls are scaling with your AC then they always need the same rolls too, so it doesn't seem like they're getting any more threatening.

However, if AC remains static while Attack bonus increases, then the rolls required to hit gradually decrease. You find yourself hitting enemies more often, and being hit more often. That makes you feel like you've progressed as a fighter, while the opposition's threat level has escalated proportionally.

And of course, your defensive progress - which could include physical toughness, but also defensive technique - is modelled by HP. You're getting hit more often, but you're also shrugging off a lot more damage than you once did, and the enemies are tougher too. Progress.

If they did it the other way around, with AC scaling and HP remaining relatively static, you'd lose that. You wouldn't feel like you're getting better at hitting opponents, or that they're getting better at hitting you. And you wouldn't feel like you can take more of a beating either. You'd only ever feel the progress you've made against much weaker enemies, as opposed to level appropriate ones.

Nagash
2014-11-08, 08:20 PM
It's also unsubstantiated by... actually reading or even casually perusing the book, which I suspect Nagash hasn't done.

And you would be completely wrong.

Also no they dont get meaningfully better. Becoming a bigger bag of HP is not meaningfully better or more interesting. It just means you can get hit with more sticks before dying.

Nagash
2014-11-08, 08:22 PM
The "Wah, player characters don't get any better as they level up!" is unsubstantiated by actual play.

Given that the game hasnt been out long enough for anyone to run a 1-20 campaign you have absolutely no basis in "actual play" for this statement.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 09:09 PM
And you would be completely wrong.

Also no they dont get meaningfully better. Becoming a bigger bag of HP is not meaningfully better or more interesting. It just means you can get hit with more sticks before dying.
That's not the only way in which they scale though
- Ability scores increase +2 every four levels - that's twice as fast as 3.5, by the way.
- Saves and Attack rolls scale from +2 to +6. It seems small, but in a system where save DCs also scale slowly, and AC doesn't scale at all, the difference is definitely significant. 3.5 characters can get up to +20, sure, but when CR 20 opponents can also go up to like 40 AC what does it matter?
- Characters get a new or improved ability at almost every level.
- Spell Levels scale in exactly the same way they always did, and most of the spells are largely the same (with system relevant changes). Spell slots scale a little diffrently, with 3.5 Wizards getting more high level slots, but that's it; the 5e Wizard is actually ahead on spell slots for the first 10 levels (tie at 11 thanks to arcane recovery, and the 5e wizard is slightly more versatile with what slots he has) and he has unlimited cantrips, more HP and more class features all the while. Paladins and Rangers on the other hand have more spell slots than before even at 20th and even get an additional spell level.
- Martial characters get more attacks and bonus damage as they level. Fighters can have up to four attacks, and unlike the 3.5 fighter he makes every attack at maximum capacity instead of each attack having a -5 compared to the last. Because of bounded accuracy this means the 5e Fighter is actually better at attacking level appropriate foes than the 3.5 Fighter.
- Damaging cantrips scale in similar manner to martial attacks
-Sneak Attack scales the same as 3.5 but is much easier to use.
- Many other things that I can't be bothered listing

In fact, aside from the numerical progression of saves and attack bonus being compressed (which still scales proportionately to opponents and works in the system as a whole), and the removal of high level spell slots (which obviously needed to happen anyway because 3.5 casters are ridiculously overpowered at high levels), most 5e characters progress similarly to and in some ways better than their 3.5 counterparts. A major way in which 3.5 characters surpassed 5e characters was Magic Items, but that's not actually character progression at all, and we haven't even seen all the 5e magic items anyway.
3.5 characters also get more feats, but also had many feat taxes. 5e feats aren't as necessary for builds, and if you do use them they're usually stronger than 3.5 feats.

But apparently you missed all that in your obviously very thorough read of the PHB.

ProphetSword
2014-11-08, 09:28 PM
That's not the only way in which they scale though
- Ability scores increase +2 every four levels - that's twice as fast as 3.5, by the way.
- Saves and Attack rolls scale from +2 to +6. It seems small, but in a system where save DCs also scale slowly, and AC doesn't scale at all, the difference is definitely significant. 3.5 characters can get up to +20, sure, but when CR 20 opponents can also go up to like 40 AC what does it matter?
- Characters get a new or improved ability at almost every level.
- Spell Levels scale in exactly the same way they always did, and most of the spells are largely the same (with system relevant changes). Spell slots scale a little diffrently, with 3.5 Wizards getting more high level slots, but that's it; the 5e Wizard is actually ahead on spell slots for the first 10 levels (tie at 11 thanks to arcane recovery, and the 5e wizard is slightly more versatile with what slots he has) and he has unlimited cantrips, more HP and more class features all the while. Paladins and Rangers on the other hand have more spell slots than before even at 20th and even get an additional spell level.
- Martial characters get more attacks and bonus damage as they level. Fighters can have up to four attacks, and unlike the 3.5 fighter he makes every attack at maximum capacity instead of each attack having a -5 compared to the last. Because of bounded accuracy this means the 5e Fighter is actually better at attacking level appropriate foes than the 3.5 Fighter.
- Damaging cantrips scale in similar manner to martial attacks
-Sneak Attack scales the same as 3.5 but is much easier to use.
- Many other things that I can't be bothered listing

In fact, aside from the numerical progressions of saves and attack bonus being compressed (which works in the system as a whole), and the removal of high level spell slots (which obviously needed to happen anyway because 3.5 casters are ridiculously overpowered at high levels), most 5e characters progress similarly to and in some ways better than their 3.5 counterparts. A major way in which 3.5 characters surpassed 5e characters was Magic Items, but that's not actually character progression at all, and we haven't even seen all the 5e magic items anyway.
3.5 characters also get more feats, but also had many feat taxes. 5e feats aren't as necessary for builds, and if you do use them they're usually stronger than 3.5 feats.

But apparently you missed all that in your obviously very thorough read of the PHB.

I hope you don't mind, but I am going to copy all this down and use it every time someone complains to me about how 3.x characters are better.

Milodiah
2014-11-08, 09:34 PM
\But then I realised it actually makes perfect sense if you assume that parrying and defensive capabilties are part of the abstraction of HP. Doing this also ties into your concern about HP scaling.

No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't have to go to the hospital and be healed after fencing. Obviously because we try not to harm each other, but if we were, in no way does successfully parrying an attack hurt me. If I get hit I would take damage, not if I were to parry.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 09:46 PM
Haha go ahead ProphetSword

Admittedly, one area in which 3.5 characters absolutely surpass 5e characters is against low level enemies. When your attack bonus is +20, that's an autohit against the enemies of your early career and they can likely do nothing in return.

But a level 20 Fighter is still mowing down way more goblins than he was at level one. With action surge he can potentially attack 16 times in 2 rounds, and hits Goblins with a 4 or higher (85% hit chance, assuming nothing boosts his accuracy). And he can actually move between attacks too, so he's probably dropping close to 16 goblins. And even if he loses the initiaive and all the goblins attack him, and every single goblin hits on both turns (unlikely), they still only take about half of the Fighter's HP and he can restore 25 of that as a bonus action.

If a Level 1 Fighter goes up against the same 16 Goblins he can maybe kill one of them (on an 8 or higher, 65% hit chance) before they kill him 5 times over (if they all hit- still unlikely, but it only takes three of 15 remaining goblins to kill him) before he can even think about using his pitiful second wind.

If that's not a significant increase in ability I don't know what is, and that's ignoring all the other abilities the Fighter picked up over his career.


No, that doesn't make any sense at all.

I don't have to go to the hospital and be healed after fencing. Obviously because we try not to harm each other, but if we were, in no way does successfully parrying an attack hurt me. If I get hit I would take damage, not if I were to parry.

But it's tiring, right? Parrying an attack still requires you to expend effort and energy, which when taken into account with other attacks actually hitting you and the general wear and tear of battle it adds up. The more tired you are, the harder it will be to parry against attacks, including the killing blow. Having more HP means you have more stamina, allowing you to effectively parry more attacks without tiring.

It's not a perfect representation, but I think it's good enough.

Dienekes
2014-11-08, 10:59 PM
I hope you don't mind, but I am going to copy all this down and use it every time someone complains to me about how 3.x characters are better.

Ehh, some of the points are good, others seem to only tell half of things.

Yeah, every 4 levels you get a +2 to stats or a feat. You have to choose, a decision that is not in 3.5. Assuming you spend half of your bonuses on feats there really isn't that much difference. In fact it kind of evens out. let's say each individual 5e feat is worth 2 3.5e feats (which I think is roughly fair, sure no 5e feat I've seen has been as good as say Shock Trooper, but none are as bad as Dodge either). Then in 3.5 you have 7 feats so 7/2=3 1/2 plus 5 single point stat bonuses to a total of 8 1/2 to 5e's 10. So it is ahead, but not nearly double.

Attack increases by far more than 20 over the course of 20 levels to the point that with even a moderate investment 40 AC is really easy to hit.

No dead levels: This is true, and 3.5 has a lot of classes with dead levels. Mind you, some of what they chose to fill those dead levels don't seem pretty interesting. For martial characters they add in additional attacks and ability score/feat advancements, which would have not even been considered abilities in 3.5. It's still an improvement, I will not deny that, but if you start toting that around as a big improvement this can always be used as a counter argument.

No attack roll penalties is an improvement, and a much needed one.

Sneak Attacks are easier to use, but only once per turn. I honestly can see this one going either way as to whether it's an improvement or not.

One thing that definitely can't be argued, I think anyway, is that 5e characters aren't as powerful when compared to low level creatures than 3.5e characters. This is of course by design, but at 20th level the most poorly optimized monk can take on a horde of goblins and come out on top. Which is not really the case in 5e. Whether this is good or bad depends on the individual (good, in my opinion).

Milodiah
2014-11-08, 11:23 PM
Whatever helps you rationalize the absurdity of the d20/D&D health system, I suppose, I've had to do it myself. I just think the problem with that interpretation is that if the cleric has to cast a Cure X Wounds spell on you, it's because you're wounded, not winded.

Psyren
2014-11-08, 11:39 PM
That's not the only way in which they scale though
- Ability scores increase +2 every four levels - that's twice as fast as 3.5, by the way.
- Saves and Attack rolls scale from +2 to +6. It seems small, but in a system where save DCs also scale slowly, and AC doesn't scale at all, the difference is definitely significant. 3.5 characters can get up to +20, sure, but when CR 20 opponents can also go up to like 40 AC what does it matter?
- Characters get a new or improved ability at almost every level.
- Spell Levels scale in exactly the same way they always did, and most of the spells are largely the same (with system relevant changes). Spell slots scale a little diffrently, with 3.5 Wizards getting more high level slots, but that's it; the 5e Wizard is actually ahead on spell slots for the first 10 levels (tie at 11 thanks to arcane recovery, and the 5e wizard is slightly more versatile with what slots he has) and he has unlimited cantrips, more HP and more class features all the while. Paladins and Rangers on the other hand have more spell slots than before even at 20th and even get an additional spell level.
- Martial characters get more attacks and bonus damage as they level. Fighters can have up to four attacks, and unlike the 3.5 fighter he makes every attack at maximum capacity instead of each attack having a -5 compared to the last. Because of bounded accuracy this means the 5e Fighter is actually better at attacking level appropriate foes than the 3.5 Fighter.
- Damaging cantrips scale in similar manner to martial attacks
-Sneak Attack scales the same as 3.5 but is much easier to use.
- Many other things that I can't be bothered listing

In fact, aside from the numerical progression of saves and attack bonus being compressed (which still scales proportionately to opponents and works in the system as a whole), and the removal of high level spell slots (which obviously needed to happen anyway because 3.5 casters are ridiculously overpowered at high levels), most 5e characters progress similarly to and in some ways better than their 3.5 counterparts. A major way in which 3.5 characters surpassed 5e characters was Magic Items, but that's not actually character progression at all, and we haven't even seen all the 5e magic items anyway.
3.5 characters also get more feats, but also had many feat taxes. 5e feats aren't as necessary for builds, and if you do use them they're usually stronger than 3.5 feats.

But apparently you missed all that in your obviously very thorough read of the PHB.

1) Yeah, and you give up all your feats to do it, so that speed is not going to be realized by many builds.
2) Bounded accuracy does not appeal to everyone.
3) In PF you get new toys at every level too.
4) Sneak Attack is far easier to shut off in 5e, all you need is disadvantage.

I'm happy 5e exists and I'm happy folks are happy with it. But it's not for me, and I'm damn sure not going to make the plunge until (a) the DMG is out and (b) they have a SRD of some kind. Basic is too barebones and I'm not paying for the rest sight-unseen.

Hytheter
2014-11-08, 11:42 PM
Ehh, some of the points are good, others seem to only tell half of things.
[snipped for length]

Keep in mind, I'm only comparing 5e to 3.5 to illustrate my points. The only stance I'm actually arguing is that 5e characters do, in fact, meaningfully progress from level to level and are significantly stronger at level 20 than they are at level 1.
Your rebuttals would be valid if I were attempting to make a 5e versus 3.5 argument, but all I'm trying to say is that both systems, despite their differences, both have a comparably meaningful progression of character abilities.
I'm pretty sure you're with me there, but Nagash is of the opinion that 5e characters do not advance in any meaningful way and that 5e wizards are akin to back alley fortune tellers even at level 20.

edit: Psyren, same applies to your post too.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-09, 12:25 AM
Does Asmodeus still fail at recognizing himself in a mirror 100% of the time?

If so then I couldn't care less about any arguments in favor of 5e. "Verisimilitude" was all I heard for five years while everyone on this site bitched about 4e and some of the earlier skill system drafts for 5e were downright ridiculously terrible with regards to what you could and could not pull off reliably at level 20.

Alabenson
2014-11-09, 12:29 AM
You seem to have missed his point. Say, you begin play with a Goblin problem in town. You play a few sessions and level up to level 3. Those goblins are no longer a threat, not unless you grab supplements that vastly expand goblins or build your own (annoying and time consuming).

In 5e, those same goblins can easily be a threat (in only slightly increased numbers) well up to level 5 or even higher.

You don't have to "move on" to the next area or zone for a long time in 5e, whereas it becomes harder and harder to stay in the same area with 3.5, as the foes become more and more trivial as you level.

I've seen this argument in favor of 5e a few times, and I feel compelled to point out that, for many players, this is not in fact a positive feature of 5e.

To be blunt, I HATE the concept of bounded accuracy. I HATE it more than all of 3.5e's many flaws put together. There are approximately 3.2 billion base pairs in my genome, and if the word HATE was inscribed on each one of those base pairs it would not equal one-billionth of the HATE I have for that design concept. Bounded accuracy is one of the primary reasons I have no intention of moving from 3.5e to 5e, and I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise.

Psyren
2014-11-09, 01:13 AM
Keep in mind, I'm only comparing 5e to 3.5 to illustrate my points. The only stance I'm actually arguing is that 5e characters do, in fact, meaningfully progress from level to level and are significantly stronger at level 20 than they are at level 1.
Your rebuttals would be valid if I were attempting to make a 5e versus 3.5 argument, but all I'm trying to say is that both systems, despite their differences, both have a comparably meaningful progression of character abilities.
I'm pretty sure you're with me there, but Nagash is of the opinion that 5e characters do not advance in any meaningful way and that 5e wizards are akin to back alley fortune tellers even at level 20.

edit: Psyren, same applies to your post too.

My post said nothing about character progression so I'm not sure why you're directing me to this rebuttal. I'm not denying for a moment that a 20th-level 5e character feels different from a 1st-level one. But what you can't deny is that the gap between them is indeed smaller than it was in 3.PF, or that the monster gap isn't smaller too. With the highest player stat being 20 and the highest monster stat being 30, there is less design space there to make {really strong monster A} distinct from {really strong monster B.} '

Some players and DMs are okay with that, and consider it on acceptable tradeoff for avoiding the higher power levels of 3.5 and PF. But plenty of us aren't and think the game will be lesser for such a change.


I've seen this argument in favor of 5e a few times, and I feel compelled to point out that, for many players, this is not in fact a positive feature of 5e.

To be blunt, I HATE the concept of bounded accuracy. I HATE it more than all of 3.5e's many flaws put together. There are approximately 3.2 billion base pairs in my genome, and if the word HATE was inscribed on each one of those base pairs it would not equal one-billionth of the HATE I have for that design concept. Bounded accuracy is one of the primary reasons I have no intention of moving from 3.5e to 5e, and I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise.

Basically that, though a little less fervently on my part.

Sidmen
2014-11-09, 02:52 AM
I've seen this argument in favor of 5e a few times, and I feel compelled to point out that, for many players, this is not in fact a positive feature of 5e.

To be blunt, I HATE the concept of bounded accuracy. I HATE it more than all of 3.5e's many flaws put together. There are approximately 3.2 billion base pairs in my genome, and if the word HATE was inscribed on each one of those base pairs it would not equal one-billionth of the HATE I have for that design concept. Bounded accuracy is one of the primary reasons I have no intention of moving from 3.5e to 5e, and I am unlikely to be persuaded otherwise.
And I'd like to point out that many players DO like this kind of thing. What I HATE, is when people come into discussions and assume that their personal preferences are universal, then from that point start lambasting an edition that was not designed for them. Most of the time, I just roll my eyes at that kinda thing.

Personally, I find it utterly ridiculous that after only a handful of sessions a person goes from being in mortal danger from zombies, goblins, and kobolds - to riding around a wave of their blood on fashionable undead waterskis.

I am, by law, required to inform you that I'm not accusing you of the above, thus far you seem to actually be having a reasonable discussion.

Milo v3
2014-11-09, 03:00 AM
On the bounded accuracy thing, how come people say that you can battle kobolds and goblins at any level and it be reasonable in 5e but not in 3.P? You just give the kobold more levels.... In my campaigns most of the high-level enemies are humanoids with 0 LA.

Also, how are low-level monsters available for a higher range of levels when there is no advancement rules (at least so far) in 5e?

Sidmen
2014-11-09, 03:12 AM
On the bounded accuracy thing, how come people say that you can battle kobolds and goblins at any level and it be reasonable in 5e but not in 3.P? You just give the kobold more levels.... In my campaigns most of the high-level enemies are humanoids with 0 LA.

Also, how are low-level monsters available for a higher range of levels when there is no advancement rules (at least so far) in 5e?

We're saying it is a boon because you don't HAVE to put in the work (as the GM) to make a goblin a threat to a higher-level party. In 3.5 you need to add class levels to the basic goblin stat block to make him threatening; that takes a lot of work every time you want to use a lower-level creature.

In 5e, you don't. You can still grab the generic Goblin from the Monster Manual and use him. I just did so (not with a goblin, but with a Needle Blight (CR 1/4)). Against a level 5 party of 5, 4 of these creatures effectively pinned down the group while they engaged a trio of CR 2 critters. The important thing is that the party can and did miss their attacks against these low level foes, and these foes could still hit them. The PCs numbers didn't inflate as much as they would have in 3.5.

Psyren
2014-11-09, 04:11 AM
Personally, I find it utterly ridiculous that after only a handful of sessions a person goes from being in mortal danger from zombies, goblins, and kobolds - to riding around a wave of their blood on fashionable undead waterskis.

I don't think it's "ridiculous" at all. How many regular goblins or human skeletons should be a threat for an adult red dragon? 14? 40? 400? If a high-level adventurer can match that dragon's prowess (or outright transform into one even,) why should it be any different? How in 5e could you ever get a scene like this? (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0439.html)


We're saying it is a boon because you don't HAVE to put in the work (as the GM) to make a goblin a threat to a higher-level party. In 3.5 you need to add class levels to the basic goblin stat block to make him threatening; that takes a lot of work every time you want to use a lower-level creature.

But the point is that I can power up that goblin if I want to - and if it really is too much work to do it, there are so many other monsters I can just pull out of the bestiary to use instead, making it a non-issue.

Besides which, 5e can be just as much work, just in the other direction. If I want to use a mid or high-CR monster they haven't statted up yet, I'm left on my own as to how to kludge and cram that monster into the brackets of bounded accuracy. For instance, an Ancient Red in 5e has a fly speed of 80ft. In Pathfinder it has 250. If I want to translate a 100ft. or 120ft. flier into 5e, how fast should it be? In PF the Tarrasque is stronger and tougher than an ancient red dragon. In 5e they are equal. How strong do I make a Colossus, or a Kraken? Have they done Balors and Solars yet? Any unique creatures like Aspects or Great Old Ones? In 3.5 and PF I have everything I need to locate or estimate stats for such beings, in 5e bounded accuracy creates too much stat parity.

Milo v3
2014-11-09, 04:24 AM
In 5e, you don't. You can still grab the generic Goblin from the Monster Manual and use him. I just did so (not with a goblin, but with a Needle Blight (CR 1/4)). Against a level 5 party of 5, 4 of these creatures effectively pinned down the group while they engaged a trio of CR 2 critters. The important thing is that the party can and did miss their attacks against these low level foes, and these foes could still hit them. The PCs numbers didn't inflate as much as they would have in 3.5.

A generic goblin with no modification against a level twenty warlock, is that a fair fight in 5e? No, closest there would be to battling goblins at that level are goblin bosses which would get severely curb stomped.

3.P, give goblin 20 warlock/kineticist levels.

Nagash
2014-11-09, 04:33 AM
That's not the only way in which they scale though
... bunch of meaningless crap.....

Lets take the fighter.

Over 20 levels he gets 6 pts better at his schtich (hitting people) compared to 20 pts better in 3e.

He gets 12 extra ability points, but in 3e he got 5 and magic boosters were easier to come by and there wasnt a 20 max cap so he realistically would advance a good 12 pts in addition to ability scores. At least. So thats 12 extra abilities with a 20 cap versus 17 ability points with no cap. meaning 3e let you make your character much better at what you actually want to do, rather then forcing you to spread points around like 5e. AND he doesnt have to sacrifice his feats to do it.

3 extra attacks same as 3e.

Reroll saves 3 times between long rests, which kinda sucks compared to all the save boosting feats fighters could take in 3e.

2 uses of weak sauce action surge. (free potion of cure light wounds, saving the 20th level fighter 100gp per use, which naturally will just break the bank of a 20th level character)

2 action surges between rests, which is 1 bonus attack twice a day...... sucks.

Compared to all the variety of a PF fighter with the feat choices the 5e fighter is a weaksauce joke. Sure they made all the other classes suck more too so the tier discrepancy isnt so bad, but everyone suck equally is NOT a good solution to the imbalance issue of 3e.


We're saying it is a boon because you don't HAVE to put in the work (as the GM) to make a goblin a threat to a higher-level party. In 3.5 you need to add class levels to the basic goblin stat block to make him threatening; that takes a lot of work every time you want to use a lower-level creature.


actually it takes about 90 seconds and with any decent digital monster builder, or even an excel spreadsheet that work is done FOREVER. It only needs to be done once and then you hit "save". You dont need to super optimize the enemy, you think about their class and culture, pick a few feats that seem logical, some skills that seem logical and save it. When you need a higher level one you copy and paste the low level one, add a few things and hit SAVE again on your program. Done.

I have monster spreadsheets going back to 2006. As long as you save your work its quick and easy as pie and only needs to ever be done once.

PersonMan
2014-11-09, 05:10 AM
Playing a 3.5 campaign at the moment myself, I find the description of 'goblins are a threat for a few sessions then stop being one' inaccurate as well - even if you don't scale them* they can be a threat for several levels. I've been playing this game for about...2 years? And in that time we've only gained a handful of levels. If your games are a bloodbath of four or five on-CR combats every in-game day all the time, then you'd advance faster, but even then you'd still have more than "a couple sessions" in which goblins and orcs would be a threat. You're also mowing down something like 8 orcs every day, which will cause a very fast decrease in the local orc population. Unless you plan to kill literally every orc in an area, it likely can't sustain that level of loss for more than "a few levels".

*Which is as easy as saying "Elite Mook Goblin Fighter 3, +16.5 HP, +3 BAB, Toughness, Weapon Focus". If you fiddle with every skill point for a nameless enemy then the problem is you wasting your time with meaningless details that don't need to be filled out as much as it is the system being complex.

EDIT: Assuming you don't take easy power amplification templates like Lolth-Touched and toss them onto your monsters. Large attack bonus, large damage bonus, significant increase in HP, all for +1 CR. You can easily put together an elite orc mook with something like +9 attack, 2d6+7 damage, which is enough to be a threat in packs even if the PCs are of 6th level or higher.


1) The players never see what goes on behind the screens. It is a lot harder to run combats behind the screen than it is on the player side when it comes to tracking everything. Players usually only have to track the things they do and what affects them...DMs have to track everything. 3.x and Pathfinder, especially as the levels increase, require a lot of work on the part of the DM to run accurately. There are tons of feats, skills and conditions to track at any given moment. It's hard work and I was often exhausted after a few combats. Not so with 5e.

First: I apologize, I worded that badly - I have DMed 3.5, but not 5e.

That said, I disagree that 3.5 has a massive number of things to track at every moment. Perhaps it's just that my groups didn't do things in an overly complex way, but I never ran into a situation where I needed to track Toughness, Knowledge (Arcana) +17 and Sickened at the same time and I can't think of one in which I'd need to track feats, skills and conditions.

Sidmen
2014-11-09, 07:38 AM
Its like talking with an alien species here.

I mention that I like how you can push a CR 1/4 creature to be a threat at levels 5-7 if you want, with no work, and I get responses that don't refute anything, but which somehow seemingly disagree with me.

Milo v3
2014-11-09, 07:49 AM
Its like talking with an alien species here.

I mention that I like how you can push a CR 1/4 creature to be a threat at levels 5-7 if you want, with no work, and I get responses that don't refute anything, but which somehow seemingly disagree with me.

My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th. So I don't see having CR 1/4's at 5th level as impressive or a benefit in anyway. Just makes it seem like things are weaker overall if a level one commoner is a threat to a 5-7 level character.

ProphetSword
2014-11-09, 08:47 AM
My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th. So I don't see having CR 1/4's at 5th level as impressive or a benefit in anyway. Just makes it seem like things are weaker overall if a level one commoner is a threat to a 5-7 level character.

And yet, they should be. In realistic terms, no matter how good you are at a style of fighting, a group of untrained armed men in large numbers should still be a danger to you. You will be better than they are, but a dozen or so of them can overwhelm you when they come at you from all sides. 5e illustrates this very well.

In 3.x, this would be a joke.

I guess it comes down to what kind of game you want to play. Neither is wrong. There is gritty reality, where you get better but, when caught unaware, can still face death at every turn. Or, there's god-like ability where you can wade through 1,000 orcs without ever feeling the sting of their swords.

Obviously some people wanted more reality, or 3.x modifications like E6 wouldn't exist.

Madfellow
2014-11-09, 10:51 AM
Besides which, 5e can be just as much work, just in the other direction. If I want to use a mid or high-CR monster they haven't statted up yet, I'm left on my own as to how to kludge and cram that monster into the brackets of bounded accuracy. For instance, an Ancient Red in 5e has a fly speed of 80ft. In Pathfinder it has 250. If I want to translate a 100ft. or 120ft. flier into 5e, how fast should it be? In PF the Tarrasque is stronger and tougher than an ancient red dragon. In 5e they are equal. How strong do I make a Colossus, or a Kraken? Have they done Balors and Solars yet? Any unique creatures like Aspects or Great Old Ones? In 3.5 and PF I have everything I need to locate or estimate stats for such beings, in 5e bounded accuracy creates too much stat parity.

The Monster Manual and the Basic Rules DM Guide have guidelines for monster stats. They're based on its intended CR, its hit dice, and its size. You take that basic chassis and add whatever you feel is appropriate.


A generic goblin with no modification against a level twenty warlock, is that a fair fight in 5e? No, closest there would be to battling goblins at that level are goblin bosses which would get severely curb stomped.

They were talking about mobs of goblins, not individuals.


2 uses of weak sauce action surge. (free potion of cure light wounds, saving the 20th level fighter 100gp per use, which naturally will just break the bank of a 20th level character)

2 action surges between rests, which is 1 bonus attack twice a day...... sucks.

Compared to all the variety of a PF fighter with the feat choices the 5e fighter is a weaksauce joke. Sure they made all the other classes suck more too so the tier discrepancy isnt so bad, but everyone suck equally is NOT a good solution to the imbalance issue of 3e.

Nobody on the 5e subforum would call Action Surge "weak sauce." Quite the opposite, really, it's one of the most powerful abilities in the game. And the Fighter gets exclusive access to it at level 2. Action Surge gives you a second action in combat, which you can use for basically anything. You can move, attack, heal, or do whatever else your heart desires with it. It practically gives you a second turn. If you have multiple attacks, which the Fighter gets at level 5, Action Surge lets you double the number of attacks you make in that round.

Feats in 3.5 were a joke. If you took enough of them, sure you could do some nifty combat trick, but said tricks did not scale well with level and did nothing to help martial types who wanted to contribute as much as their spellcaster buddies.

3.5 spellcasters were basically gods. Bringing them back down to Earth so they're not wrecking the game balance is a good thing.

Sartharina
2014-11-09, 12:49 PM
On the bounded accuracy thing, how come people say that you can battle kobolds and goblins at any level and it be reasonable in 5e but not in 3.P? You just give the kobold more levels.... In my campaigns most of the high-level enemies are humanoids with 0 LA. Wait... every kobold in your setting becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses?


Also, how are low-level monsters available for a higher range of levels when there is no advancement rules (at least so far) in 5e?Because they're a threat based on stat block alone - they can generally take at least two hits each, have a fair chance of hitting, and deal enough damage for even high-level characters to take notice. But mostly because they have a fair chance of hitting, and fair chance of high-level heroes missing them.

Milodiah
2014-11-09, 03:09 PM
The thing about 3.5 group combat is that should you want to make your level 10 players face off against 40 run of the mill axe-and-loincloth orcs, you've either got 40 individual enemies for whom numbers somehow don't matter (plus everyone at the table including yourself hates you for being psychotic and putting 40 entries on the initiative list), or you use obscure rules from DMG II originally meant to simulate angry mobs to turn the 50 individuals into a single somehow-more-dangerous enemy that handles conspicuously like a Gargantuan-size ooze. It's a weird and mechanically awkward solution that in my opinion cuts to the heart of the issue- when you've got a situation in which an identical situation can be turned into two completely different ones by taking different paths through the rulebooks, then the issue rests 100% on the game system in question. Especially if the phrase "the angry mob dodges your arrow" can be uttered without intentional parody.

5e's actually starting to appeal to me more and more after reading this, but in the 7e Call of Cthulhu way...some of it sounds atrocious, but at the same time there are specific gems in it that I'd love to try backbrewing into 3.5. Obviously I want to wait until a decent amount of material is released for 5e, not having the DMG available at launch sounds ridiculous to me, but I'd certainly be more interested now than I was before...

jaydubs
2014-11-09, 03:13 PM
In Final Fantasy VII, I can go from having a hundred or so hitpoints and doing a couple dozen damage per attack, to having 9999 hitpoints, doing 9999 damage with every attack, and casting all manner of super-powerful magic almost at-will. You can't do that in Baldur's Gate. Therefore, high level characters are just flimsy and useless in Baldur's Gate, and character progression is near non-existent.

To give another example, lets say I homebrew a ruleset that I call 3.XTREME. 3.XTREME is exactly the same as 3.5, except all numerical increases (BAB, saves, HP, # of attacks, etc.) are doubled. Does that mean 3.XTREME is better than 3.5, because it has bigger character improvement?

Of course not. That's a silly argument. And so is saying 3.x is outright better (rather than just appealing to a different preference on power levels) because it gives larger numerical bonuses, or has a higher maximum power progression. There are lots of good reasons to prefer 3.x over 5e. Many of them have been mentioned in this thread. But +20 > +6 is not one of them.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-09, 05:12 PM
Why does any of this matter?

If my DM tried to make me fight goblins for 20 levels I'd quit about 3 levels in.

Milodiah
2014-11-09, 05:38 PM
Why does any of this matter?

If my DM tried to make me fight goblins for 20 levels I'd quit about 3 levels in.

...sigh.

It's about having the option to have a good fight with stuff of different CRs, as opposed to 'anything less than 2 levels below the players is just to annoy them'.

Sidmen
2014-11-09, 09:08 PM
My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th. So I don't see having CR 1/4's at 5th level as impressive or a benefit in anyway. Just makes it seem like things are weaker overall if a level one commoner is a threat to a 5-7 level character.

Thanks. I was really having trouble understanding where some of y'all were coming from. I really don't consider making a new, different creature the same as being able to use something from the Monster Manual for longer. I mean, sure, you can see the evolution from a baseline goblin or kobold or whatever, but by the time you add three class levels you may as well just ignore the whole goblin part.

Oh, and I know it's just an off-the-cuff remark, but a commoner isn't even a threat against a level 1 character.

Really, what it comes down to is that a low-level combatant is going to be able to hit you with a good dice roll pretty much all the way through your character's life, while you won't be certain of hitting it (ALWAYS). It gets harder as you level, sure. But the attack bonuses and ACs don't explode like crazy. You'll be able to take more hits, and flat-out kill with less effort, but you won't be able to just sit back and laugh as your 30+ AC ignores the goblin attacks.

Sartharina
2014-11-09, 09:13 PM
My point is that CR 1/4 creature is permanently going to be a CR 1/4 creature. With 3.5e I can have that CR 1/4 creature be a viable threat from first level to 20th.
Not in 3.5. You can make it stop being a CR 1/4 creature... but in 5e, a Skeleton with a bow is a skeleton with a bow at level 1 and at level 20. An Orc remains 6' of muscle from level 1 through level 20 (He CAN knock you on your ass no matter what level you are.)

A Pixie can be used to harrass and annoy a party at level 20 almost as much as at level 1, just out of the book.

As they level up, heroes gain the ability to take more hits and dish out more damage, but they still need to be wary of becoming outnumbered, and hits will stack up.

Milo v3
2014-11-09, 09:23 PM
They were talking about mobs of goblins, not individuals.
That doesn't really change anything.... :smallconfused:
Mob of goblins can function in 3.5e just as well if not better, because I can scale the goblin mob to whichever power range I want using the advancement rules. If I want to make a mob that will be curbstopped, I can, if I want to make a mob that will be a challenge I can. In 5e, the only change you make to those goblins is increasing the number in the mob and deciding whether those goblins are goblins or goblin bosses.


Wait... every kobold in your setting becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses?

Whoa, slow down there strawman.... :smallconfused:

I'm saying kobolds are sentient beings, they can gain levels. If there are high-level humans and elves and dwarves, why wouldn't there be high level kobolds? Then from the fact that high-level kobolds can be expected to exist, there is no reason why those kobolds cannot be opponents at high-level.

Unless your suggesting that every human in your settings becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses, simply because they can gain levels?

EDIT:


Thanks. I was really having trouble understanding where some of y'all were coming from. I really don't consider making a new, different creature the same as being able to use something from the Monster Manual for longer. I mean, sure, you can see the evolution from a baseline goblin or kobold or whatever, but by the time you add three class levels you may as well just ignore the whole goblin part.

Oh, and I know it's just an off-the-cuff remark, but a commoner isn't even a threat against a level 1 character.

Really, what it comes down to is that a low-level combatant is going to be able to hit you with a good dice roll pretty much all the way through your character's life, while you won't be certain of hitting it (ALWAYS). It gets harder as you level, sure. But the attack bonuses and ACs don't explode like crazy. You'll be able to take more hits, and flat-out kill with less effort, but you won't be able to just sit back and laugh as your 30+ AC ignores the goblin attacks.

So a crappy guy who has a single fighter level always has a chance to hit a masterswordsmen, to me this goes against the flavour of a masterswordsman. It means no matter how skilled you are, a crappy weak guy can still hit you.


in 5e, a Skeleton with a bow is a skeleton with a bow at level 1 and at level 20. An Orc remains 6' of muscle from level 1 through level 20 (He CAN knock you on your ass no matter what level you are.)
I don't understand how this is a good thing.

Alberic Strein
2014-11-09, 09:24 PM
Yeah, every 4 levels you get a +2 to stats or a feat. You have to choose, a decision that is not in 3.5.

(among other things)

Late to the party, but I would like to say that I LOVE that. It's not a malus, it's not a bad thing, it's an opportunity.

Maybe not the best ever, since I like feats and the amount of personalization they give your character (and hey, I can't really say no to +2 to stats) but the choice, the fact that this exists as a possibility is better than it not existing.

The fact that you have to choose and that the decision does not exist in 3.5 is an argument in favor of 5e, not against it.

I, however, hate with every fiber of my being the HP growth. I hated that about 4e, even though I like the edition a whole lot, even with its flaws, and I hated that about 3.5 or even PF.

Whether you're lvl1 or 10 a crossbow bolt that somehow bypasses armor (AC in a nutshell) has very good odds of killing you, not goes from '3/4 odds of dying' to 'shaved a bit of my hp' damnit.

I can buy the explications about it being more than your 'meat points' but then for the love of Amok don't refer to the full hp when those factors (proficiency, luck, will to live) don't apply.

(this is of course just me ranting, if you like having the king survive a bolt to the chest in the middle of his coronation because he took three levels of fighter, please do. It irks me but it's not 'wrong')

edit: Milo v3 > Wait, wasn't that a D&D thing as a whole?

Commoner 1 attacks masterswordsman with pitchfork. Nat 20. Cannot be confirmed, but auto hit, masterswordsman just got hit by the most absolute novice. He takes (level) shame damage.

Sartharina
2014-11-09, 09:28 PM
Whoa, slow down there strawman.... :smallconfused:

I'm saying kobolds are sentient beings, they can gain levels. If there are high-level humans and elves and dwarves, why wouldn't there be high level kobolds? Then from the fact that high-level kobolds can be expected to exist, there is no reason why those kobolds cannot be opponents at high-level.

Unless your suggesting that every human in your settings becomes a high-level dragonslayer as the party progresses, simply because they can gain levels?Demographics. If they have more than 10 levels, they're Legendary. Or did you miss that rule?
That doesn't really change anything.... :smallconfused:
Mob of goblins can function in 3.5e just as well if not better, because I can scale the goblin mob to whichever power range I want using the advancement rules. If I want to make a mob that will be curbstopped, I can, if I want to make a mob that will be a challenge I can. In 5e, the only change you make to those goblins is increasing the number in the mob and deciding whether those goblins are goblins or goblin bosses.
If you're scaling the mob of goblins so that they have 3 or more levels individually, then you're throwing a mob of Sergeants at the party. If you're scaling a mob so it has 6 or more class levels, it's a mob of Heroic goblins, or Goblin Cheiftans at the party. If you're throwing a mob of goblins with more than 10 levels individually, you're throwing a mob of legendary goblins at the party.

Milo v3
2014-11-09, 09:33 PM
Demographics. If they have more than 10 levels, they're Legendary. Or did you miss that rule?

Sooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooooo?????

How does that stop there being a legendary mercenary group of kobolds, or a tribe of goblins that every stays away from because they live and thrive amongst 13th level wild monsters? You are playing a fantasy game, if you cannot think of a way for a humanoid group to be legendary, you probably shouldn't be playing.


edit: Milo v3 > Wait, wasn't that a D&D thing as a whole?

Commoner 1 attacks masterswordsman with pitchfork. Nat 20. Cannot be confirmed, but auto hit, masterswordsman just got hit by the most absolute novice. He takes (level) shame damage.


Yes, but there is a difference between fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and does a scratch and fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and it's a threat.

Milodiah
2014-11-09, 09:56 PM
You're missing the point by a mile.

It's not that we can't engineer a level-appropriate threat with deliberate work, it's that we shouldn't have to, and it strains credibility when we do constantly engineer level-appropriate encounters in situations where it wouldn't make sense just to make the game *look* balanced.

The City Watch, for example, aren't going to scale with the party's level to a heavy degree. Sure, there's a totally anachronistic 'anti-legendary SWAT team' that can perhaps be a unit of level 10 guys because such a thing kinda has to exist in D&D, but in 3.5 a high-level anything will roll his/her eyes at the DM when he mentions the half-dozen men with chain-mail shirts and halberds who are telling him/her to stop slamming that person's head into the wall, simply because either A) the DM is being consistent and these watchmen are still the same watchmen the PCs saw one month and 8 levels ago and are therefore no longer a slight threat, or B) the DM is being obnoxious and making them all somehow level up with the player characters just so some semblance of law enforcement can come when the PCs get rowdy.

Gnomes2169
2014-11-10, 12:58 AM
Yes, but there is a difference between fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and does a scratch and fighter level 1 attacks swordsman and it's a threat.

Ummmmmm... A 2d6+3 damage attack from a 13 HP fighter is somehow a threat to a 213 HP fighter who's average damage 1-shots the other fighter how now? Being able to hit a target does not automatically make you a threat to it in any edition, and the rule is the same for 5e.

Hytheter
2014-11-10, 01:04 AM
Lets take the fighter.

Over 20 levels he gets 6 pts better at his schtich (hitting people) compared to 20 pts better in 3e.

Again, +6 looks small compared to +20 but both numbers are proportionate to the scaling of the opposition. +6 under 5e's bounded accuracy isn't the same as +6 in 3.5. If you don't like Bounded Accuracy that's fine - it's a matter of opinion and there are people on both sides. But you can't just compare the raw numbers of each system without also considering the context in which those numbers are used.



He gets 12 extra ability points, but in 3e he got 5 and magic boosters were easier to come by and there wasnt a 20 max cap so he realistically would advance a good 12 pts in addition to ability scores. At least. So thats 12 extra abilities with a 20 cap versus 17 ability points with no cap. meaning 3e let you make your character much better at what you actually want to do, rather then forcing you to spread points around like 5e. AND he doesnt have to sacrifice his feats to do it.

Again, this comes down to the differences in the system's design philosophy and bounded accuracy. The 3.5 Fighter has no cap on abilities and tons of magic items - but without them he wouldn't be able to keep up with the rest of the system at all (and some would argue that he still doesn't). Besides which, relying on magic items isn't actually character advancement at all. 5e characters are designed to be able to stand at any level without extra help.
And yes, feats require you to give up some ability points. However, feats in 5e are both quite powerful and yet paradoxically less important - characters get enough class features that they don't necessarily need feats at all.



3 extra attacks same as 3e.

Reroll saves 3 times between long rests, which kinda sucks compared to all the save boosting feats fighters could take in 3e.

Indomitable is pretty bad. But then, the Save Boosting feats in 3.5 are also pretty bad (and they aren't Fighter Bonus Feats anyway).


2 uses of weak sauce action surge. (free potion of cure light wounds, saving the 20th level fighter 100gp per use, which naturally will just break the bank of a 20th level character)
I'm assuming you means Second Wind? d10+20 is obviously better than cure light wounds' d8+5. And it only takes you a bonus action; potions take an action to drink. It's not the most powerful ability in the world, but it heals a good portion of HP and saves you a trip the magic shop.


2 action surges between rests, which is 1 bonus attack twice a day...... sucks.
Action Surge isn't just one bonus attack... it's as many as 4, with the possibility of using any other action as well, which can include spells. It's a pretty powerful nova tool.

You also completely ignored all the subclass features, many of which are quite useful. Unless you're a Champion...


Compared to all the variety of a PF fighter with the feat choices the 5e fighter is a weaksauce joke

3.5e/PF also has a lot of feat taxes that don't exist in 5e, and you often need several just to make one particular trick work. For example, If you want to play a DEX fighter in PF you have to spend two feats for Weapon Finesse and Dervish Dancer just to get DEX to Attack and Damage rolls on a scimitar. In 5e you can just pick up the Scimitar (or other finesse weapon) and go. Not to mention that many feats barely have any scaling and are often terrible.

And again, I'm not trying to claim that 5e fighters are better than 3.5 Fighters. All I'm saying is that both advance in a meaningful and significant way which, considering the context of the system they exist in, is actually very similar. 3.5 has more feats, 5e has actual class features but either way they're constantly gaining new tools and tricks. Both gradually increase their general competencies in such a way that, while different from a purely numerical perspective, are roughly equivelant in the context in which they are used. They both have enough HP to survive a fall at terminal velocity and eventually gain the ability to make 4 or more attacks in a mere 6 seconds. And most important, both Fighters are epic heroes who can fight a dragon and live to tell about it. You wanted Beowulf? Too bad. You're better than Beowulf; after all, Beowulf was killed by the Dragon.

The only dramatic differences are a result of Bounded Accuracy. If you want rapid escalation of power, annihilating foes that you struggled against only a few levels ago and eventually becoming far more powerful than any known human, real or fictional, go 3.5. If you want a grittier experience in which in which weaker enemies remain threatening for a longer time, becoming an epic hero but not an unstoppable one, go 5e. It's a matter of preference and I'm in no way saying that one is right and one is wrong.

But don't sit there and tell me that the 5e Fighter is totally incompetent, failing to advance in any meaningful way, akin to a teenager with a katana even at level 20. Because that's bull****.

Lanaya
2014-11-10, 02:12 AM
Making weak foes like goblins and common guardsmen a threat to the PCs in 3.5 is just as easy as it is in 5th. Just don't hand out a bunch of levels and each puny kobold can be a threat to your average PCs without any modifications. Once/if you want PCs to be strong enough that they can ignore kobolds, you can give them enough levels to make that the case. Obviously 5th edition works better for that brand of gritty low fantasy, but it's not like you're forced to make your PCs level 10 after two weeks of goblin slaying if you still want further goblins to threaten them.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-10, 04:12 AM
Making weak foes like goblins and common guardsmen a threat to the PCs in 3.5 is just as easy as it is in 5th. Just don't hand out a bunch of levels and each puny kobold can be a threat to your average PCs without any modifications. Once/if you want PCs to be strong enough that they can ignore kobolds, you can give them enough levels to make that the case. Obviously 5th edition works better for that brand of gritty low fantasy, but it's not like you're forced to make your PCs level 10 after two weeks of goblin slaying if you still want further goblins to threaten them.

Except then you have to deny your players the extra stuff that comes with leveling. With 5e you don't have to deny your players anything, you don't have to put any extra work in, and it maintains realism of the game.

Yes, 3.5 can have low level characters be a threat, but always at a cost. Not really the case with 5e.

Hytheter
2014-11-10, 05:00 AM
I was bored, and curious, and decided to some Maths. Obviously the 5e Fighter doesn't advance quite as highly as 3.5 Fighter, but I am curious how well he'd perform against large numbers of weak opponents as he levels.

The target is a number of Goblins, straight out of the Monster Manual. 7 HP, 15 AC, +4 to hit for 5 Damage, both melee and ranged.

Our player is a Fighter, first at level 1 then at Level 20. We're going to find out how many Goblins he can face and win.

At level 1 he's armed with a Greatsword and Full Plate Armor. Great Weapon Style. Point Buy; 15 in both CON and STR. But we'll be generous; he's a Mountain Dwarf, so both go up to 17. So he has +5 to hit, 18 AC and and 13 HP.

He needs a 10 or higher to hit 15 AC. Nice, an easy 50/50. He deals 2D6+3 damage, which requires a 4 or higher to drop a Goblin. That's two ones or a 1 and a 2, a 3/36 (~90%) chance to kill... but with Great Weapon Fighting he can reroll both ones and twos so let's be generous and say he kills every goblin he hits, letting him kill 1 goblin every two rounds on average.

The goblins need a 14 or higher to hit, a 35% chance. So they're doing an average of 1.75 damage per round per goblin, ignoring crits.

Let's be generous and say the Fighter wins initiative and drops a Goblin on the first turn.

9 Goblins will kill him in a single turn (8*1.75=14)
5 Goblins will kill him in 2 turns (4*1.75=7, 7*2=14)
Against 4 Goblins, he drops a second one in round three but they still kill him that round (3*2*1.75+2*1.75=14)
Against 3 Goblins he kills the last on round 5! finally... (2*2*1.75+1*2*1.75=10.5) but he's on his last legs.
Of course the rolls could go differently, letting him win against more, or killing him earlier, but in general he'll probably win against 3 or fewer Goblins.

This time we'll be generous to the Goblins. The Fighter is a Battle Master (so he won't be regenerating like a Champion) but he foolishly blew all of his superiority dice showing off at the village nearby. He also neglected to take any feats, and he left his +2 Greatsword and Armor at home. But he has maxed his STR and Con, and has the same equipment he did at level 1. So he's got 18 AC and +11 to hit. His HP is 205 (on average), but he can restore 25 HP as a bonus action so it's essentially 230.

He's still one hit killing Goblins (obviously) but he now only needs a 4 or higher to hit them (85% chance). With four attacks per round, he's dropping 3.4 Goblins with every turn - twice that with action surge. For the goblins nothing has changed, they still do 1.75 damage per round.

If they get the initiative, 118 Goblins can kill him in one round before he even gets to use Second Wind (118*1.75=206), assuming they can all even see the Fighter through the crowd.
So let's drop to 50. They do 87.5. Action surge and Second Wind, 6 goblins down. 44 Goblins do 77, totalling 139.5. Action surge again. 38 Goblins do 66.5, taking him to a deadly 206.
40 do 70. 34 do 59.5. 28 do 49. After Second Wind, it's 153, but no more action surges. He can only kill 3 per round now. They kill him in 2 more rounds.
After 3 rounds 30 Goblins do (30+24+18)*1.75-25=101 damage. No more action surge. In the next five rounds it's (15+12+9+6+3)*1.75+101=179.5 damage, before he cleans them up. He won, with 25 HP to spare!
That's at least a 10x increase in Goblin slaying. But of course, I was rounding down for the Fighters attacks even when I should've rounded up. Using the actual 6.8 and 3.4 values in excel I get a max of 33.
If he had a +2 or higher weapon - likely at level 20 - he'd be missing only on a 1. So, he'd be killing 3.8 per turn or 7.6 with action surge, which bumps it up to 35 or maybe 36 with good rolls.
Defense is a bigger game changer. +2 Armor would drop Goblin damage to 1.25, which with the sword let's him kill 41 Goblins, or 39 without it.
What about feats?
Spending just a single feat on Heavy Armor Master makes things hilarious. Suddenly the Goblins 0.7 damage around, or 0.5 with Magic Armor. Kills 51 without magic items, 64 with them.
Throw Great Weapon Master into the mix, allowing a bonus attack on every round in which he doesn't use second wind, and he can kill 69.

I don't know about you, but I think 10-20x improved Goblinslaying counts as a significant improvement.

For the sake of comparison, and because it'll be fun let's see the 3.5 Fighter 20 vs some 3.5 goblins. This is gonna be bloody folks

3.5 let's you point buy 18s, so he'll have them for both STR and Con. No standard Race boosts both though. We'll boost his CON to 20 with Dwarfiness since STR probably won't matter here that much. As before, he left his magic stuff at home and somehow avoided taking any useful feats. But he does have a permanent +5 inherent bonus from magic items in both stats, and put his ability boosts in STR. That's 30 STR, 25 CON. He probably has enough DEX for the mod to AC with full plate. All in all he has 19 AC, 245 HP and Attack Bonus is +30/+25/+20/+15. Needless to say every non 1 is a hit and a ko against Goblins, so he gets 3.8 kills per round.
Said Goblins are much weaker than 5e Goblins with only +2 to hit (needs a 17!) and no damage mod on their D6 (let's pretend they have shortbows instead of d4 javelins, it'll hurt the fighter a little bit more more but ugh i'm not calculating two different damage dice) weapons. So they do... 0.7 per round haha this is gonna be a massacre.

Let's see... yep, 49, a noted improvement over the 5e guy (as expected).
Giving him a magic weapon doesn't do jack, but magic armor can easily make it so that Goblins only hit on a 20. That makes it 0.175 per round and let's him kill 101 Goblins.
After that no mere +1s are gonna make a difference, so let's do some feats... the classic Power Attack is worthless but leads on to Cleave and Great Cleave, which gives an extra ~3.61 attacks per round, for a total of 7.41. Assuming there are always 8 Goblins surrounding him at the start of the turn... 140. Whew.

On the other hand, if the Goblins stand far enough apart and just rain arrows, the 3.5 Fighter will be in trouble unless he has Spring Attack. Without it he'll have to either pull out his own Bow or be content with 1 kill per round since he can't move between Melee attacks. That at least is one small victory for the 5e Fighter. Plus, the 3.5 Goblins are obviously weaker despite having a higher challenge rating. On the other other hand, 3.5 has tons of Magic Items and the fighter gets way more feats, so who knows just how many Goblins he can solo, especially if he's explicitly optimised for horde slaying. Those poor defenseless Goblins.

In summary:
- 5e Fighter gets a lot better at Goblin Slaying as he level.
- 3.5 Fighter gets hilariously better at goblin slaying as he levels
- Hytheter has too much time on his hands

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 09:53 AM
...sigh.

It's about having the option to have a good fight with stuff of different CRs, as opposed to 'anything less than 2 levels below the players is just to annoy them'.

Yeah but...why?

Why are stronger heroes wasting their time cleaning up amateur threats?

When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

D&D shouldn't be modeled like a group versus an army. If you're ever fighting more than 20 of something at a time your DM has picked the wrong system to use.

Madfellow
2014-11-10, 09:57 AM
In summary:
- 5e Fighter gets a lot better at Goblin Slaying as he level.
- 3.5 Fighter gets hilariously better at goblin slaying as he levels
- Hytheter has too much time on his hands

I admire your dedication, sir!

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 10:03 AM
Yeah but...why?

Why are stronger heroes wasting their time cleaning up amateur threats?Because they're not "Ameteur threats". They're a very real threat. And, they have treasure.

McBars
2014-11-10, 10:05 AM
Because they're not "Ameteur threats". They're a very real threat. And, they have treasure.

To say nothing of the threat they pose to innocent catfolk everywhere

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 10:08 AM
Because they're not "Ameteur threats". They're a very real threat. And, they have treasure.

But why?

Why are they a threat?

How many goblins would it take to challenge a well-established civilization? Why are these goblins gathered together in such an unseemly horde? Why are the heroes required to fight them with no further assistance?

Every scenario leads this to making zero sense.

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 10:09 AM
When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.So, in half an edition of the game, and in what's largely considered an excommunicated edition of the game, you have this power scale. It's not a universal one, and a LOT of players balk at the bonkers escalation.

Now, compare that to AD&D 2e, AD&D 1e, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, and White Box D&D editions. In 5e, you still gain the capacity to deal with ever-mounting threats, but the ones before aren't invalidated, and the ones above are best handled by mobilizing the allies you've made before to help.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 10:11 AM
So, in half an edition of the game, and in what's largely considered an excommunicated edition of the game, you have this power scale. It's not a universal one, and a LOT of players balk at the bonkers escalation.

Now, compare that to AD&D 2e, AD&D 1e, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, and White Box D&D editions. In 5e, you still gain the capacity to deal with ever-mounting threats, but the ones before aren't invalidated, and the ones above are best handled by mobilizing the allies you've made before to help.

Nobody worth listening to excommunicated 4e.

Power rises exponentially, both in real-life and in fantasy. 100 math students are not going to be as good at math as 1 person with a PhD. 100 six-year olds will not beat a martial arts master in a fight.

Progression is not linear. Not in real life. I don't know why so many of you cling to the notion that it should be in fantasy.

Knaight
2014-11-10, 10:11 AM
When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

This is the primary point of contention. I'd much rather not have that cycle, and 5e removing it and extending 20 levels over the part I care about is a feature in my eyes. By level 20 the characters are generally pretty impressive at what they do (sans skills, which I'd consider poorly implemented). The spells are impressive by normal standards, as shown above a fighter can potentially win in a fight against dozens of foes, so on and so forth. It never gets to routine saving of countries, but that's really not a problem as far as I'm concerned.


Power rises exponentially, both in real-life and in fantasy. 100 math students are not going to be as good at math as 1 person with a PhD. 100 six-year olds will not beat a martial arts master in a fight.
The math case is completely deceptive, as it outright ignores a lot of what makes combat a special case - plus, when it comes to things like getting through a large quantity of easy math the 100 students could easily be better, as they can divide up the task. As for the six year olds, the case made was with adults, who are armed. 100 armed adults will likely beat an armed martial arts master just fine.

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 10:16 AM
But why?

Why are they a threat?

How many goblins would it take to challenge a well-established civilization? Why are these goblins gathered together in such an unseemly horde? Why are the heroes required to fight them with no further assistance?

Every scenario leads this to making zero sense.It only takes a handful of unchecked goblins to wreak incredible mayhem. And if they come in large numbers (Such as by being indigenous or invasive to the area), they can threaten small, weaker towns in borderlands.

They're a threat because they exist and they have stuff our heroes need to take. They're gathered together in such an unseemly horde because that's where they live in their cities of wickedness beyond civilization The heroes recieve no assistance because the towns would rather tend to their own business than face the overwhelming Goblin Threat just over the next hill. Anyone from that town calling our heroes genocidal maniacs are just worthless ingrates unable to appreciate the service provided by the heroes.
100 six-year olds will not beat a martial arts master in a fight.100 six-year-olds can't, but 100 sufficiently-motivated nerds with no combat training whatsoever can.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 10:22 AM
This is the primary point of contention. I'd much rather not have that cycle, and 5e removing it and extending 20 levels over the part I care about is a feature in my eyes. By level 20 the characters are generally pretty impressive at what they do (sans skills, which I'd consider poorly implemented). The spells are impressive by normal standards, as shown above a fighter can potentially win in a fight against dozens of foes, so on and so forth. It never gets to routine saving of countries, but that's really not a problem as far as I'm concerned.


The math case is completely deceptive, as it outright ignores a lot of what makes combat a special case - plus, when it comes to things like getting through a large quantity of easy math the 100 students could easily be better, as they can divide up the task. As for the six year olds, the case made was with adults, who are armed. 100 armed adults will likely beat an armed martial arts master just fine.

A level 20 fighter is much more than a "martial arts master," just as a level 20 wizard is much more brilliant than a mathematician with a PhD.

What makes combat so special? At level 20 you get magical equipment. You're durable enough to survive a fall from hundreds of feat in the air. Fireballs do not instantly vaporize you.

Why can 100 goblins all of a sudden almost murder you when only about ten of them can even realistically attack you at a time?

D&D has a problematic history of underestimating what actual people are capable of physically, probably because demographically, the people that design and play it have no concept of physical aptitude.

People climb greased poles on a regular basis. People can break iron chains with their biceps merely by flexing. The strongest man in the world would have needed to have a str of 28 in D&D terms.

Keep under-estimating the limits of physical fitness all you want, but 100 unarmed nerds won't even tire out a master martial artist. No matter how motivated they are.

And this?


They're a threat because they exist and they have stuff our heroes need to take. They're gathered together in such an unseemly horde because that's where they live in their cities of wickedness beyond civilization The heroes recieve no assistance because the towns would rather tend to their own business than face the overwhelming Goblin Threat just over the next hill. Anyone from that town calling our heroes genocidal maniacs are just worthless ingrates unable to appreciate the service provided by the heroes.


This is ad-hoc, development-less storytelling with no insight into how a fictional-world needs to operate to make sense. If that's the best you can do to make goblins seem worthwhile at level 20 from a storytelling perspective then there is no point to them.

Knaight
2014-11-10, 11:03 AM
Keep under-estimating the limits of physical fitness all you want, but 100 unarmed nerds won't even tire out a master martial artist. No matter how motivated they are.

Keep underestimating tools and numbers all you want. Weapons are assumed here, and the thing about weapons is that it tends not to take any particularly exceptional strength to seriously injure someone with one. If a ten year old hits you with an ax with anything more than the most glancing of blows, odds are good that it will do some real damage. If there are a hundred of them all trying to kill you, odds are pretty good at least one will get through regardless of how good you are. Armor mitigates this pretty well, but 100 against 1 is completely and utterly ridiculous odds once weapons are involved.

Plus, I note that your example explicitly involved choosing a group that is disproportionately composed of people who are relatively physically weak. Somehow, I think 100 untrained, unarmed. manual laborers could threaten a martial artist just fine.


A level 20 fighter is much more than a "martial arts master," just as a level 20 wizard is much more brilliant than a mathematician with a PhD.

What makes combat so special? At level 20 you get magical equipment. You're durable enough to survive a fall from hundreds of feat in the air. Fireballs do not instantly vaporize you.
A level 20 fighter pretty much has to be more than most modern martial arts masters, just because they've been in lots of actual combat to the death. There's no particular reason they have to be all that much better than historical figures who were extremely capable combatants who did get in fights to the death. Said historical figures generally didn't win fights with dozens of enemies and no allies.

jaydubs
2014-11-10, 11:18 AM
Plus, I note that your example explicitly involved choosing a group that is disproportionately composed of people who are relatively physically weak. Somehow, I think 100 untrained, unarmed. manual laborers could threaten a martial artist just fine.

While I generally agree that 100 untrained adults will beat 1 trained adult, the reference to nerds was from:


100 six-year-olds can't, but 100 sufficiently-motivated nerds with no combat training whatsoever can.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 11:44 AM
Keep underestimating tools and numbers all you want. Weapons are assumed here, and the thing about weapons is that it tends not to take any particularly exceptional strength to seriously injure someone with one. If a ten year old hits you with an ax with anything more than the most glancing of blows, odds are good that it will do some real damage. If there are a hundred of them all trying to kill you, odds are pretty good at least one will get through regardless of how good you are. Armor mitigates this pretty well, but 100 against 1 is completely and utterly ridiculous odds once weapons are involved.

If you can land a serious blow, sure. That's what the critical hit is meant to indicate. It's an attack that most-assuredly hits, rather than being a glancing blow or an avoidance altogether.

You keep bringing up real-world examples like that's supposed to be peak D&D. Do you play D&D to feel like the best you could expect from a regular human being? Seriously? That's the limits of how powerful you want to feel? 5e is definitely the weakest end-game of any edition of D&D yet. Level 20 5e D&D heroes are strictly worse than the best real people in the world at just about everything. You just don't have the option to play a high-powered game, and that's a long-term weakness. If you want to play low-powered in any other D&D edition, you do. You play levels 1-5 and cut exp by whatever ratio you desire to stretch the game out, and the game does not suffer. But if you want to play a plane-jumping hero capable of battling the gods themselves? The game is simply not for you.

The game that tried to be the MOST INCLUSIVE edition of D&D ever cannot properly replicate an entire tier of play. How is that not a glaring weakness in the system? 3.5 can do high or low power, admittedly it doesn't handle high-power well beyond level 23 or 24. Same with 4e, it begins to break down at the last five levels unless you homebrew all your creatures. But with 5e you don't even have a system capable of illustrating those characters.


Plus, I note that your example explicitly involved choosing a group that is disproportionately composed of people who are relatively physically weak. Somehow, I think 100 untrained, unarmed. manual laborers could threaten a martial artist just fine.

Not my example, chief.



A level 20 fighter pretty much has to be more than most modern martial arts masters, just because they've been in lots of actual combat to the death. There's no particular reason they have to be all that much better than historical figures who were extremely capable combatants who did get in fights to the death. Said historical figures generally didn't win fights with dozens of enemies and no allies.

Who the hell cares what historical figures can and cannot do? This is a fantasy table RPG not a historical simulation. I'd like my heroes to AT LEAST be able to pull off mythological levels of strength, not top-out at "strictly worse than Aragorn."

Knaight
2014-11-10, 12:02 PM
I generally avoid D&D, and stick to games where the best in the setting are the best that can be expected from a regular human being, and the player characters are a few cuts below that. There are exceptions here (e.g. magic in a fantasy game, technology beyond modernity in futuristic games, etc). There are still some issues with 5e - skills are the big one here, and flat doubling proficiency is something I'm pretty much on board with.

As for levels 1-5, the issue there is that it creates a situation where there are a whopping 5 discrete mechanical character points. Sure, the area is covered, but not particularly well - the game does suffer. Expanding it to 20 levels drastically improves that particular set of the game. It's specialization, but I'd argue it's entirely warranted.

[QUOTE=Nicol Bolas;18383824]Who the hell cares what historical figures can and cannot do? This is a fantasy table RPG not a historical simulation. I'd like my heroes to AT LEAST be able to pull off mythological levels of strength, not top-out at "strictly worse than Aragorn."
It's a fantasy game based on a genre that pulls strongly from particular historical periods. That makes the history relevant.

ProphetSword
2014-11-10, 12:18 PM
You keep bringing up real-world examples like that's supposed to be peak D&D. Do you play D&D to feel like the best you could expect from a regular human being? Seriously? That's the limits of how powerful you want to feel?


What I find interesting here is that in the olden days of yore (OD&D, 1st Edition AD&D, etc), that's exactly what people wanted. D&D evolved from war games, where realistic accuracy was important. I suppose times have changed now, with kids growing up watching anime and seeing larger than life heroes on the movie screen, but gritty realism in a fantastical world is what D&D started out as. So, I think you should accept that what you want isn't necessarily what everyone wants...but certainly, there are others who do.

I have no issues with someone who wants to play a larger-than-life style of D&D that involves jumping planes and fighting gods. It's not for me, though. And, you seem to have a hard time understanding that there are people who don't desire that kind of thing in their games at all.



The game that tried to be the MOST INCLUSIVE edition of D&D ever cannot properly replicate an entire tier of play. How is that not a glaring weakness in the system? 3.5 can do high or low power, admittedly it doesn't handle high-power well beyond level 23 or 24. Same with 4e, it begins to break down at the last five levels unless you homebrew all your creatures. But with 5e you don't even have a system capable of illustrating those characters.


For one thing, there have only been two books released. We have no idea if there will be epic level play beyond level 20 at this point.

Also, who says it can't replicate that style of play just because lower level creatures can still be dangerous in large numbers? Why are you equating "low level creatures are still a threat in large numbers" with "high level characters cannot deal with high level threats?" That isn't true at all.



Who the hell cares what historical figures can and cannot do? This is a fantasy table RPG not a historical simulation. I'd like my heroes to AT LEAST be able to pull off mythological levels of strength, not top-out at "strictly worse than Aragorn."

As pointed out, D&D started from war games, and some people like to keep their games bounded to some realistic reality. As a friend of mine recently said when a party wizard attempted to do something really ridiculous with his powers: "As cool as that sounds, you still can't break the laws of physics that way." Something to think about.

Gnomes2169
2014-11-10, 01:21 PM
To say nothing of the threat they pose to innocent catfolk everywhere

Truly, the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.


But why?

Why are they a threat?

How many goblins would it take to challenge a well-established civilization? Why are these goblins gathered together in such an unseemly horde? Why are the heroes required to fight them with no further assistance?

Every scenario leads this to making zero sense.

... So we're ignoring all written fantasy ever (outside of particular manga) where a massive army is still a threat, even if the PC's are a high level? I suppose we're going to ignore Azure City entirely then, even though we are on the OotS boards, and skip immediately to something completely contradictory to your point with the power level you seem to desire...

In the Wheel of Time series, the army of casters that is capable of crushing any army of 10-100,000 soldiers is still able to be overwhelmed and wiped out by all of the "mook" Trollocks due to the later's sheer numbers. Swordsmen were remarkable if they could kill more than 6 trollocks before succumbing to their wounds, and even warders or other mythically empowered soldiers only seemed capable of killing a little more than a few dozen. Hell, the only thing that wasn't threatened by a big enough army in the series was Padan Fain (who was basically an eldritch horror at that point), and he was killed by one of the lowest level PC (Mathrim had no special powers beyond his godlike luck and average looks. He still killed Fain because he was immune to the monster's death aura). One of the major themes of the series is that despite the raw power of many individuals, and complaints that the main party is still completely overpowered, no one is able to solo an entire army, no matter how powerful they are. Sure, a few hundred mooks are easily in the capabilities of a few channelers, and certain skilled and mystically powered swordsmen are capable of taking out dozens of trollocks without being slain, but no one can take on hundreds of thousands of enemies alone and expect to live. This is a staple in almost all literature I can think of, broken only by the Belgariad, where the party starts out with a few demi-gods and then goes around roflstomping armies of millions and their god with a god-killing artifact in the main character's hands.

No one praises the Belgariad on its realism, and it's probably the closest thing to what you are looking for outside of 3.5 as far as power scaling goes. That 5e cannot model the Belgariad is not an actual weakness of the system, just like 3.5 being unable to model Wheel of Time is not a weakness of the system. If anything, it's a weakness of 3.5 that armiesjust aren't a threat at higher levels, as that removes an entire genre of encounters/ plot lines from the DM's table.


While I generally agree that 100 untrained adults will beat 1 trained adult, the reference to nerds was from:

The quote in question was not talking about nerds, but rather the quote from Nicol Bolas that said that 100 unarmed children would not do any real harm to a solitary martial arts expert.

It was then brought up that goblins wouldn't be as helpless as children, and would be closer to nerds instead. And I'm going a bit farther, since most goblins will be armed instead of unarmed. So it's 100 nerds armed with chairs, sling shots (that have very sharp rocks) and D&D books, vs 1 martial arts expert. If all 100 are pushing forward/ charging at the same time, despite only being able to attack the one guy 10 at a time at most, they will still beat him down and kick him for a while after only a few seconds. Simply overwelming the martial arts dude with beatings and bodies will be too much for the man's fisticuffs, regardless of the dude's training.

MonkeySage
2014-11-10, 01:36 PM
Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

Sidmen
2014-11-10, 01:40 PM
Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

It's almost as if the stated goal of bringing casters into balance with mundanes was successful! Oh the humanity! How will the spellcasters ever cope with the shame of not being completely overpowered anymore?

McBars
2014-11-10, 01:43 PM
Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

What kind of wizard are you playing? I have a level 15 diviner right now and he is just dominant. So much fun, especially with the way casting works in fifth edition.

MonkeySage
2014-11-10, 01:45 PM
They didn't balance them out, they went a step farther. What kind of conjuror only knows one conjuration, and its not even a summon monster?
I went into this wanting to play a conjuration focused character, I've always been a sucker for teleports and monster summoning, that's what made that particular school fun for me. I didn't care if the class is less powerful, I care that they've lost what made them good in the first place.

ProphetSword
2014-11-10, 01:55 PM
It was then brought up that goblins wouldn't be as helpless as children, and would be closer to nerds instead. And I'm going a bit farther, since most goblins will be armed instead of unarmed. So it's 100 nerds armed with chairs, sling shots (that have very sharp rocks) and D&D books, vs 1 martial arts expert. If all 100 are pushing forward/ charging at the same time, despite only being able to attack the one guy 10 at a time at most, they will still beat him down and kick him for a while after only a few seconds. Simply overwelming the martial arts dude with beatings and bodies will be too much for the man's fisticuffs, regardless of the dude's training.

To switch up genres a bit for comparison, why is it no one seems to have an issue with the idea that a single man, regardless of his training in fighting and weaponry, will certainly face death if he is surrounded by hundreds of slow-moving, flesh-eating zombies in a post-apocalyptic setting...

...but it is somehow ridiculous that a man who is a master with a sword could possibly be taken out by fast-moving, stealth-using goblins with sharp weapons?

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 01:58 PM
What I find interesting here is that in the olden days of yore (OD&D, 1st Edition AD&D, etc), that's exactly what people wanted. D&D evolved from war games, where realistic accuracy was important. I suppose times have changed now, with kids growing up watching anime and seeing larger than life heroes on the movie screen, but gritty realism in a fantastical world is what D&D started out as. So, I think you should accept that what you want isn't necessarily what everyone wants...but certainly, there are others who do.

I have no issues with someone who wants to play a larger-than-life style of D&D that involves jumping planes and fighting gods. It's not for me, though. And, you seem to have a hard time understanding that there are people who don't desire that kind of thing in their games at all.

The key word there I would highlight is "D&D evolved from.." which is sort of the last time that happened. 5e is a regression if anything, in a lot of ways. It does some things new, but for the most part it tosses aside 20 years of game development to carry favor with an exceptionally vocal group of people. My point is the other editions can already model what you want, along with what I want. This edition can only model what you want. Do you see why that's a problem? A deadening of focus which serves to deaden the attachment for people like me?


For one thing, there have only been two books released. We have no idea if there will be epic level play beyond level 20 at this point.

Also, who says it can't replicate that style of play just because lower level creatures can still be dangerous in large numbers? Why are you equating "low level creatures are still a threat in large numbers" with "high level characters cannot deal with high level threats?" That isn't true at all.

I'm not exceptionally thrilled about how well 5e will handle epic tier. Characters already struggle to break iron manacles at level 20 now. There's no way they'll make up that kind of lost distance in 10 levels of play. Anyway, the point is even high-level monsters are bland and lifeless. They just aren't scary. The heroes aren't given abilities that would let them deal with something that is scary. And even if you gave them the abilities, the core aspects of the game that are useful at immersing one in play (how skills interact with the game world) are so stunted that it's unbelievable. My hero can kill Asmodeus but can't break iron manacles? That Asmodeus can't break either? Some god. Where's the fulfillment?


... So we're ignoring all written fantasy ever (outside of particular manga) where a massive army is still a threat, even if the PC's are a high level? I suppose we're going to ignore Azure City entirely then, even though we are on the OotS boards, and skip immediately to something completely contradictory to your point with the power level you seem to desire...

Not at all. They're just not level 20 heroes. Nobody in LotR is much higher than 5. The order topped out at what? 14? And each of them could still handle hundreds of goblins over the course of the battle without risking serious death. It wasn't until other, even higher-level forces got involved that anybody died. Would they have died if they stayed? Sure. But if you throw 10,000 goblins at anybody and don't give them an option to retreat, even 3.5 wizards will eventually run out of spells and have to escape.

What I'm saying is just straight slugging-it-out is not an approach heroes are going to take with an army. They are going to use other means to defeat it. And those means should work once a sufficient power level is reached.


n the Wheel of Time series, the army of casters that is capable of crushing any army of 10-100,000 soldiers is still able to be overwhelmed and wiped out by all of the "mook" Trollocks due to the later's sheer numbers.

That is considerably higher than 100. I don't see your point. You seem to think I'm advocating that level 20 heroes can take on an infinite amount of goblins. I'm not. I'm saying that by the time you reach a point where the PCs cannot realistically handle the number of goblins that it would require, your DM should have already been kicked out of your gaming session for trying to put you in that scenario in a straight-up fight. Armies should be dealt with through subtlety and battlefield tactics, not a fist-fight.

I would argue 3.5 and 4e actually model Wheel of Time exceptionally well for what it's worth.


It was then brought up that goblins wouldn't be as helpless as children, and would be closer to nerds instead. And I'm going a bit farther, since most goblins will be armed instead of unarmed. So it's 100 nerds armed with chairs, sling shots (that have very sharp rocks) and D&D books, vs 1 martial arts expert. If all 100 are pushing forward/ charging at the same time, despite only being able to attack the one guy 10 at a time at most, they will still beat him down and kick him for a while after only a few seconds. Simply overwelming the martial arts dude with beatings and bodies will be too much for the man's fisticuffs, regardless of the dude's training.

Goblins should be less than adults since goblins are, as far as I know, usually physically inferior than grown men in most ways. If you really want to continue this pointless example that 100 nerds could beat a martial artist, go for it. But plenty of martial artists have taken on armed gangs, both in fiction and in history, and come out on top. Ip Man ring a bell? Great movie, see it if you haven't.

A mob cannot coordinate effectively enough to be a threat to a trained warrior unless they somehow surround him on all sides and throw themselves at him with utter disregard for their own well being. And that will never happen. Nobody wants to be the first guy to die.

Gnomes2169
2014-11-10, 02:00 PM
Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

Um... There are a good handful of summoning spells (conjure woodland beings, conjure animals, conjure minor elementals, conjure elemental, conjure fey, conjure celestial, planar ally, unseen servant, phantom steed, find steed, find familiar, drawmiji's instant summons, mordenkainen's faithful hound and, before I forget about it, GATE). Wizards get a good chunk of these to use as they need, and the fact that other classes might be more specialized for summoning (Druid or Cleric) does not mean that their summoning capabilities are completely negligible.

You want to get a few undead? Animate Dead and Create Undead are both there for you, and they cover pretty much everything you could want.

You want to be a lich? Talk to your DM, if they have the Monster Manual, they can decide if they want to let you be one, and what the ritual entails... just like in 3.5.

So, where is the problem again?

Sidmen
2014-11-10, 02:05 PM
They didn't balance them out, they went a step farther. What kind of conjuror only knows one conjuration, and its not even a summon monster?
I went into this wanting to play a conjuration focused character, I've always been a sucker for teleports and monster summoning, that's what made that particular school fun for me. I didn't care if the class is less powerful, I care that they've lost what made them good in the first place.

One would suspect that the indicated conjurer didn't look through the conjuration spells in 5th edition and chose his profession poorly. Summoning was pushed back to spell levels 3 and 4, for quite obvious reasons (not sure why Conjure Animal isn't a wizard spell...). In the meantime, misty step (a 2nd level spell) is a short ranged teleportation spell that sees a LOT of use in my games.

Knaight
2014-11-10, 02:10 PM
The key word there I would highlight is "D&D evolved from.." which is sort of the last time that happened. 5e is a regression if anything, in a lot of ways. It does some things new, but for the most part it tosses aside 20 years of game development to carry favor with an exceptionally vocal group of people. My point is the other editions can already model what you want, along with what I want. This edition can only model what you want. Do you see why that's a problem? A deadening of focus which serves to deaden the attachment for people like me?

If there were a whopping one game to choose from, I might be sympathetic to this argument. As is, there are a ton of RPGs, a lot of which are specialized. Early editions of D&D are not the last time low powered settings happened, the bulk of non-D&D RPGs do exactly that. If anything, 3e-4e were the throwbacks in that way. As for tossing aside 20 years of game development, that's a D&D tradition. Outside of D&D, class and level systems are pretty much seen as antiquated design, invoked only to deliberately create a retro aesthetic. Outside of D&D, maintaining 3 core books needed to play is considered completely ridiculous, and 2 is pushing it.

5e is not a regression in this regard. It's a progression towards the state of the rest of the industry, where D&D has lagged behind. It can be welcomed into modern design (or mid-1990's design, given that it still clings to a lot of the retro aesthetic). 20 years of game development might still be being tossed out, but I'd argue that 3e was tossing the last 30, and in this particular respect 4e was as well.

Moreover, specialization is really not a problem at this point. There are tens of thousands of RPGs, and at least hundreds with somewhat wide visibility. While your tastes do contradict the bulk of them, there are still plenty that cater to them. There's Exalted, Mythender, several generic systems that handle high powered settings well (HERO, Fudge with the right tweaks, Fate with some tweaking). There's D&D 3 and 4.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 02:13 PM
If there were a whopping one game to choose from, I might be sympathetic to this argument. As is, there are a ton of RPGs, a lot of which are specialized. Early editions of D&D are not the last time low powered settings happened, the bulk of non-D&D RPGs do exactly that. If anything, 3e-4e were the throwbacks in that way. As for tossing aside 20 years of game development, that's a D&D tradition. Outside of D&D, class and level systems are pretty much seen as antiquated design, invoked only to deliberately create a retro aesthetic. Outside of D&D, maintaining 3 core books needed to play is considered completely ridiculous, and 2 is pushing it.

5e is not a regression in this regard. It's a progression towards the state of the rest of the industry, where D&D has lagged behind. It can be welcomed into modern design (or mid-1990's design, given that it still clings to a lot of the retro aesthetic). 20 years of game development might still be being tossed out, but I'd argue that 3e was tossing the last 30, and in this particular respect 4e was as well.

Moreover, specialization is really not a problem at this point. There are tens of thousands of RPGs, and at least hundreds with somewhat wide visibility. While your tastes do contradict the bulk of them, there are still plenty that cater to them. There's Exalted, Mythender, several generic systems that handle high powered settings well (HERO, Fudge with the right tweaks, Fate with some tweaking). There's D&D 3 and 4.

I unfortunately agree with everything you're saying. But as an aspiring game designer, I guess it kills me inside. I wish D&D could progress. I wish the people that enjoyed D&D would let it progress.

ProphetSword
2014-11-10, 02:13 PM
The key word there I would highlight is "D&D evolved from.." which is sort of the last time that happened. 5e is a regression if anything, in a lot of ways. It does some things new, but for the most part it tosses aside 20 years of game development to carry favor with an exceptionally vocal group of people. My point is the other editions can already model what you want, along with what I want. This edition can only model what you want. Do you see why that's a problem? A deadening of focus which serves to deaden the attachment for people like me?

I see why it's a problem for you. That does not mean it's a problem for everyone else in the world, though.

I already stated in my response that there's nothing wrong with wanting to play the way that you play and have heroes as powerful as you want them. It's just as valid as playing in a gritty, difficult world where death lurks around every corner, which is how I like it. There's room in the world for both play styles.

If 5e is not giving you the kind of game that you want, it is totally valid to find one that will. Personally, I think 5e can give you what you want. PCs do become far more powerful than the numbers suggest, even if they can't beat an army of 200 orcs single-handedly anymore.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-10, 02:27 PM
Yeah but...why?

Why are stronger heroes wasting their time cleaning up amateur threats?

When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

D&D shouldn't be modeled like a group versus an army. If you're ever fighting more than 20 of something at a time your DM has picked the wrong system to use.

Facing a horde of monsters is a classic story. It doesn't even have to be monsters. Invading army, civil war, even a defending good army are all possible to use now. And in the majority of fiction I've read, a massive army is still a threat to pretty much anybody who isn't a god. The only examples I can think where it's otherwise is DBZ-style Manga and books by Ed Greenwood.

And you can still beat armies. You just can't waltz in there and ignore them. You have to use actual clever tactics to break them into manageable chunks. And if you don't want to fight armies, well good news; there are lots of high level monsters that you can fight instead like dragons, liches, and krakens.

Basically this allows us to tell more stories that weren't really possible, or easy to do, with 3.5e. But you can still tell most of the stories you could in 3.5e (except for Epic stuff because the level currently stops at 20).

Knaight
2014-11-10, 02:27 PM
I unfortunately agree with everything you're saying. But as an aspiring game designer, I guess it kills me inside. I wish D&D could progress. I wish the people that enjoyed D&D would let it progress.

I'd argue that it is progressing. Sure, it's a slow process - the game I play most (Fudge) was released in 1995, and it still feels more modern than 5e does, which says something about the rate of advancement in D&D. Still, 5e is something that I don't mind playing, though there are some substantial tweaks. That's predicated on specifically wanting a throwback, but even as a throwback it feels more modern than other editions.

As for your LotR example earlier - in the books, the entire fellowship is threatened by 13 orcs in Moria. They're hardly cutting them down by the hundreds, and are much more consistent with highly skilled individuals than superhumans, which generally holds throughout. When it comes to combat and magic, 5e manages highly skilled fairly well. The rest of the skill system warrants tweaking.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 02:31 PM
I'd argue that it is progressing. Sure, it's a slow process - the game I play most (Fudge) was released in 1995, and it still feels more modern than 5e does, which says something about the rate of advancement in D&D. Still, 5e is something that I don't mind playing, though there are some substantial tweaks. That's predicated on specifically wanting a throwback, but even as a throwback it feels more modern than other editions.

As for your LotR example earlier - in the books, the entire fellowship is threatened by 13 orcs in Moria. They're hardly cutting them down by the hundreds, and are much more consistent with highly skilled individuals than superhumans, which generally holds throughout. When it comes to combat and magic, 5e manages highly skilled fairly well. The rest of the skill system warrants tweaking.

My point is the LotR world is not a world where 20th level characters exist. Nobody tops out past 5th level there. It's decidedly low-power. They're highly-skilled regular people.

Now, in 5e, highly-skilled regular people is now that peak. And that idea...just is not intriguing to me at all.

Like, as an example, M&M 3e is a game that can handle regular highly-skilled people AND cosmic level deities, all on the same scale, without trouble. Why can't D&D 5e handle that same spread, with the same level of competency? They've had how many years and how much talent to get to this point? I personally can't understand how Mike Mearls keeps getting work.

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 02:44 PM
Keep under-estimating the limits of physical fitness all you want, but 100 unarmed nerds won't even tire out a master martial artist. No matter how motivated they are.And 100 goblins can't really tire a level 20 fighter if they attack one-on-one. But the 100 nerds WILL take out the martial artist if they engage en-mass. Especially if they have weapons, or start picking up their fallen to bludgeon the martial artist with (Even if it takes four of them to lift and swing one of them)


This is ad-hoc, development-less storytelling with no insight into how a fictional-world needs to operate to make sense. If that's the best you can do to make goblins seem worthwhile at level 20 from a storytelling perspective then there is no point to them.Actually, exploring a new world and setting the foundations of expanding a civilization are a worthy level 20 goal. At this level, you're Duke Nuke'm trying to raid the Alien homeworld to get back all the kidnapped women (Where most of the aliens will be level 1 soldiers or nobodies that you have to chew through), or Hernando Cortez expanding the Spanish Empire into what was Latin American territories. Or you're John Wane defending a border settlement from the natives.
Like, as an example, M&M 3e is a game that can handle regular highly-skilled people AND cosmic level deities, all on the same scale, without trouble. Why can't D&D 5e handle that same spread, with the same level of competency? They've had how many years and how much talent to get to this point? I personally can't understand how Mike Mearls keeps getting work.
M&M 3e is a point-buy system with power caps and infinite scaleability, and horizontal progression within a power level. D&D is a level-based system with constant, fluid progression from one level to the next, with linear power increases. You can run a five-year-long campaign in M&M 3e and never move past low power level. You can't do that in D&D - if you try, you either have to have the party stop gaining levels (And stop progressing), or find your players ending up in high-power play anyway. D&D is built around a single tier of power, and that tier is "Conan in Middle Earth"

ComaVision
2014-11-10, 02:45 PM
Firstly, let me admit that my understanding of 5e is limited to having read the basic rules once.

Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 02:51 PM
Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?If they all get magic items, yes. Otherwise they can't hurt it. Technically. However... who the **** is going to throw their life away like that?


I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.Adventurers are needed, because they can do the work of (2-40) men, and nobody else will step up to what amounts to Certain Doom. Yes, you can throw 200 commoners at a dragon - but doing so throws away thousands of man-hours of work. Yes, the king can send his army to take down a dragon - but then he doesn't have an army because the dragon destroys most of it. Or, the army finds its target elusive, and it gets picked and torn apart because it can't coordinate against a single skilled, powerful opponent.

One man doing the work of forty is always impressive.

ComaVision
2014-11-10, 03:10 PM
If they all get magic items, yes. Otherwise they can't hurt it. Technically. However... who the **** is going to throw their life away like that?


You could say that about any army ever though. I think armies realise that most of them will die but it sure beats being at the mercy of the dragon (or other deadly force) constantly.

Why would they need magic items? I found the stat block for the dragon and don't see DR (is DR a thing in 5e?). Is a nat 20 not a guaranteed hit in 5e? If the entire mob would need magic items then that cost would be prohibitive enough to prevent a mob defending the city.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-10, 03:18 PM
Firstly, let me admit that my understanding of 5e is limited to having read the basic rules once.

Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

If the Dragon just flat up attacks them? Yes.

If the dragon plays smart? It will kill a good 50 of them, retreat, rest for an hour, rinse repeat til everyone is dead. Or it just flies over, burns all their homes and food supplies and lets them starve to death. A target like that is incredibly hard if not impossible to defeat with anything other then a high level adventuring party.

Knaight
2014-11-10, 03:22 PM
Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

The existence of large armies that are capable of violence hardly precludes a role for adventurers. After all, there have been specialized small paramilitary groups in historical contexts, the whole concept of the knight errant and similar has some historical basis and a strong basis in older fiction, etc. Both of these generally involve a whole lot less in the way of gigantic monsters.

As for that ancient red dragon example, taking it out is going to involve going on the offensive, and armies are not exactly known for being sneaky. Supplying an army is also going to be highly expensive, and if levies or similar are used it will deplete population to some degree. Said dragon could also have minions which can be circumvented by a small group a lot better than by an army. The economics and logistics favor the small group in a lot of ways. Enter adventurers.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-10, 03:33 PM
You could say that about any army ever though. I think armies realise that most of them will die but it sure beats being at the mercy of the dragon (or other deadly force) constantly.

Why would they need magic items? I found the stat block for the dragon and don't see DR (is DR a thing in 5e?). Is a nat 20 not a guaranteed hit in 5e? If the entire mob would need magic items then that cost would be prohibitive enough to prevent a mob defending the city.

This man raises a fantastic point and I love it.

Sidmen
2014-11-10, 03:33 PM
Firstly, let me admit that my understanding of 5e is limited to having read the basic rules once.

Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

Could a mob take out a dragon? No. An adult dragon would just fly over them breathing fire down on them till they all died; but most would fail their fear checks and run away LONG before that.

Could a trained army of archers take out a dragon? Possibly; it'd take hundreds of them and the dragon would have to be utterly stupid and engage them in the open - but it could be done. But dragons are intelligent; if you sent your army out to kill it, it'd probably just circle around and burn the city to the ground in retaliation.

Instead of all that, you could send out a handful of adventurers to slay the creature in its cave (a place where it'd be hazardous to even go with an army - let alone using that army effectively). And the adventurers are going to have better than average odds of surviving the encounter (if level appropriate).

Forum Explorer
2014-11-10, 03:44 PM
Could a mob take out a dragon? No. An adult dragon would just fly over them breathing fire down on them till they all died; but most would fail their fear checks and run away LONG before that.

Could a trained army of archers take out a dragon? Possibly; it'd take hundreds of them and the dragon would have to be utterly stupid and engage them in the open - but it could be done. But dragons are intelligent; if you sent your army out to kill it, it'd probably just circle around and burn the city to the ground in retaliation.

Instead of all that, you could send out a handful of adventurers to slay the creature in its cave (a place where it'd be hazardous to even go with an army - let alone using that army effectively). And the adventurers are going to have better than average odds of surviving the encounter (if level appropriate).

Honestly armies being able to maybe kill large monsters actually explains why kingdoms exist at all, and aren't just smoking ruins or being ruled by draconic overlords. But it's costly to fight straight up and there isn't much you can do about a dragon that just raids and pillages beyond getting an adventuring group.

Gnomes2169
2014-11-10, 03:50 PM
Not at all. They're just not level 20 heroes. Nobody in LotR is much higher than 5. The order topped out at what? 14? And each of them could still handle hundreds of goblins over the course of the battle without risking serious death. It wasn't until other, even higher-level forces got involved that anybody died. Would they have died if they stayed? Sure. But if you throw 10,000 goblins at anybody and don't give them an option to retreat, even 3.5 wizards will eventually run out of spells and have to escape.

So what you are saying is, level 20 is a magical point where nothing low level should threaten the party? Or... What? Honestly, rereading your arguments before and then this, it seems like you're back pedaling a bit here... Should an army of low CR creatures be a threat to a party of high level characters, or should they be a laughable show of force? If they should be a threat, then what makes them a ridiculous tool to use?


What I'm saying is just straight slugging-it-out is not an approach heroes are going to take with an army. They are going to use other means to defeat it. And those means should work once a sufficient power level is reached.

The confusion comes in once you imply that the heroes should still be able to slug it out on top of the other options. What I and other posters have been trying to point out is that 5e models "find some other ways to take out an army" better than 3.5 mechanically, simply because the later makes high-level characters so laughably overpowered that the army will do next to nothing to them.


That is considerably higher than 100.
It's also an army of 1000-ish level 17-25 wizardclerics with their bonded level 12-18 fighterrangerkensai. They will be killing a little more than 100 mooks, methinks.


I don't see your point. You seem to think I'm advocating that level 20 heroes can take on an infinite amount of goblins. I'm not. I'm saying that by the time you reach a point where the PCs cannot realistically handle the number of goblins that it would require, your DM should have already been kicked out of your gaming session for trying to put you in that scenario in a straight-up fight. Armies should be dealt with through subtlety and battlefield tactics, not a fist-fight.

The point was that in 3.5, if you had to take on the army with a no hold barred bout of fisticuffs, you could easily do it unless the armies literally numbered in the hundreds of thousands. And even then, it was more than a little debatable whether or not it would actually stop your PC's. Even in the Wheel of Time where you literally have characters that the universe itself grants favor to, this is not possible. And you really have been arguing for this by arguing that the PC's should be basically untouchable by lower level threats, so once again, are you or are you not arguing that an army should actually be a threat to level 20 characters? ("Army" in this case being less than 1000 creatures.)


I would argue 3.5 and 4e actually model Wheel of Time exceptionally well for what it's worth.

... Only with heavy-handed homebrewing, since the magic system is basically, "Spend some energy, do whatever you can think of."


Goblins should be less than adults since goblins are, as far as I know, usually physically inferior than grown men in most ways. If you really want to continue this pointless example that 100 nerds could beat a martial artist, go for it. But plenty of martial artists have taken on armed gangs, both in fiction and in history, and come out on top. Ip Man ring a bell? Great movie, see it if you haven't.

I wasn't aware that nerds in your world had strength, con and dex scores equal to or higher than the average person's. To get that, one usually has to work out once a week or have a moderate-labor intensive job, and that typically only gives a 9-12. While it might be stereotyping to say that most nerds don't work out and that they tend to have higher paying jobs than janitorial work or food bussing, I would guess it to hold true that your average "nerdy nerd" will probably fall into the 7-9 strength, 9-12 dex (twitch reflexes on video games, man) and 7-9 con range. Oddly, that's about where we find goblins. Children, though, tend to have 2-6 strength, to say nothing about their terrible dexterity and constitution scores (on average).

As well, an armed gang will typically be less than 100 people in the same place at the same time. On top of that, if you want to change your "single encounter" of 1 person vs 100 people simultaneously to 1 person vs 100 people split up into 20 groups of 5 (and thus 20 encounters), I'll gladly change my tune from "impossible" to "highly improbable." However, one person in real life cannot defeat 100 people if they are armed in the exact same or anywhere near a roughly equal way. The one guy can have an AK-47 and the mob can have only flintlock muskets, and that one guy is going to die in the first volley.

So, do you want to simulate realism, or do you want to have a system where you ignore common sense when it comes to who can beat up who? Because 3.5 and 4e after a certain level (we'll say 11) and exhalted all model the second one superbly, while 1e, 2e and 5e as well as Ironclaw and most Warhammer 40k books (Dark Heresy and Rogue Trader) model "realism" a bit better.


A mob cannot coordinate effectively enough to be a threat to a trained warrior unless they somehow surround him on all sides and throw themselves at him with utter disregard for their own well being. And that will never happen. Nobody wants to be the first guy to die.

Raw numbers makes up for coordination. Mobs have mob mentality, the front lines are so charged with endorphins, anger and enthusiasm that they will do things they never considered before (see: violent mobs attacking a line of police men holding riot shields) and people in a mob tend not to care about being injured (or even notice it at first). You are applying rational thinking (possessed by individuals and small groups) to an irrational entity (mobs and countries) instead of looking at the logic of the irrational entity as has been observed in history. I'm not sure where this "lone immortal in real life" idea of yours is coming from, but a single person will not scare a mob enough to make them stop (actually, the lone person will not scare them at all), and they will gladly and easily swarm the lone person and rip them limb from limb.

Sartharina
2014-11-10, 03:58 PM
You could say that about any army ever though. I think armies realise that most of them will die but it sure beats being at the mercy of the dragon (or other deadly force) constantly.Armies have the discipline needed. Mobs don't. Armies are hard to wield against a dragon, though.


Why would they need magic items? I found the stat block for the dragon and don't see DR (is DR a thing in 5e?). Is a nat 20 not a guaranteed hit in 5e? If the entire mob would need magic items then that cost would be prohibitive enough to prevent a mob defending the city.Hmm... I can't remember of dragons are immune to nonmagical weapons or not...

Gnomes2169
2014-11-10, 04:03 PM
Armies have the discipline needed. Mobs don't. Armies are hard to wield against a dragon, though.

Hmm... I can't remember of dragons are immune to nonmagical weapons or not...

Not immune, but resistant. So unless the mob has magic bows, they are only dealing 1/2 damage.

Finieous
2014-11-10, 04:12 PM
My "native edition" was AD&D and I've played every edition*, including OD&D. Every edition has had its strengths, weaknesses and quirks, and I've had a great time with all of 'em. There's a list of factors that make a good D&D campaign -- DM, players, setting, the D&D IP, playstyle, etc. -- and the particular edition of the rules doesn't really even show up on it. Edition warring makes everyone dumber.

* I only played "4E" in the context of the boardgames, but the boardgames were great...I hope they keep doing them.

Knaight
2014-11-10, 04:39 PM
Honestly armies being able to maybe kill large monsters actually explains why kingdoms exist at all, and aren't just smoking ruins or being ruled by draconic overlords. But it's costly to fight straight up and there isn't much you can do about a dragon that just raids and pillages beyond getting an adventuring group.

There's also the matter of how much territory is held where. Small raiding groups weren't capable of seriously threatening large civilizations through direct combat - there's a reason that raids tended to hit monasteries, outlying villages, etc. and not big cities. Raiders still affected how raided civilizations grew, and in aggregate often did do a lot of damage.

A dragon is similar. They're roughly equivalent to a medium sized raiding group, with way more mobility than they would otherwise have. They're capable of threatening less central areas by themselves, even without surprise. They aren't capable of flying right up to a major city hosting an army and directly attacking it. Personally, I don't have a problem with this. It's pretty much on board with much of the literature - there's a lot more of monsters existing at the fringes of society (which can include being in a city, for more covert entities) than of them going up and terrorizing armies.

Psyren
2014-11-10, 05:16 PM
@ Dragons, armies and adventurers - you need the adventurers to get the dragon because the army is slow and cannot be in two places at once. You send the army out to fight the dragon and he circles around to roast the village before they get home, followed by starvation and death. You leave the army at home and the dragon can raid the countryside unchecked like he's been doing. And if you split the army, you just end up with half of it dead (or a portion of the attacking half dead and the dragon fled to get the other portions later) which goes right back to scenario b.

But both 5e and 3.PF have armies, dragons and adventurers so I'm not sure why we're arguing about this. Bounded accuracy means the army has a better chance against the dragon but that doesn't appreciably change the above paradigm - dragons are still faster than armies so they can still harry the flanks or circle to the goal.

Alberic Strein
2014-11-10, 05:29 PM
A dragon is similar. They're roughly equivalent to a medium sized raiding group, with way more mobility than they would otherwise have.

Wait, you're comparing a dragon with a real life boat full of vikings?!

You noted the increased mobility of flight, but still, even discounting the breath attack, and the possible resistance to magic weapons, there is a huge difference between one big creature and a group of smaller individuals. If a dragon attacks an armed ost and after a long battle retreats, with both sides having done around the same damage and being about half dead/destroyed. The dragon will remain a dragon, with just as much power, just less hp, while the army will have lost half its members, crippling its strength.

Powerful monsters are much worse than a powerful group of humans.

For the whole 100 unskilled Vs 1 master debate, and to add to the whole 'mob mentality' bit, I would like people to remember we belong to a species who regularly trample its own members to death. Sometimes for fear of death (turns out that during a fire the 'fire' bit isn't the most likely to kill you) and sometimes to get the best out of Black Friday.

Personally I don't think a mob would have issues surrounding a single skilled individual and then dogpiling him. Even if they were unarmed and unarmoured. Of course in normal circumstances that wouldn't happen, 'motivated' wouldn't cut it, however 'experiencing a severe panic attack' would.

Knaight
2014-11-10, 05:34 PM
Wait, you're comparing a dragon with a real life boat full of vikings?!

You noted the increased mobility of flight, but still, even discounting the breath attack, and the possible resistance to magic weapons, there is a huge difference between one big creature and a group of smaller individuals. If a dragon attacks an armed ost and after a long battle retreats, with both sides having done around the same damage and being about half dead/destroyed. The dragon will remain a dragon, with just as much power, just less hp, while the army will have lost half its members, crippling its strength.

Vikings are among the groups which would work here, though there are a lot of others. You've also highlighted another point here, regarding how a single large entity has a pretty major advantage regarding attrition - though the nature of raiding is striking at comparatively undefended targets, so it's not like the attrition was usually that bad unless something went really wrong.

Hytheter
2014-11-10, 08:23 PM
You know, assuming the six year olds are sufficiently motivated, actually fighting to kill and won't just cry and run at the first sign of trouble, 100 of them will totally kill you no matter how good you are with a sword.
How many do you really think you can kill before you get swarmed? How do you plan on fighting back once four kids have grabbed your legs and pushed you over, two are holding down each arm, 1 is scratching at your eyes and one is repeatedly kicking you in the nads? And there are still like 50 more, assuming you already killed 40 before that happened, somehow.
And if they're armed? You don't need a lot of strength to hurt someone with a knife; a knife wielded by a 6 year old can still kill you, let alone a hundred.

I really think some of you are severely underestimating the sheer force of numbers here.

huttj509
2014-11-10, 08:37 PM
Firstly, let me admit that my understanding of 5e is limited to having read the basic rules once.

Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

Adventurers are unneeded if you have a sufficiently large mob, sufficiently motivated that they don't care if, say, 10 of them survive.

"Hey guys, we saved the city...I mean, there's not much city left, but the dragon's dead, now about those 100 funerals..."

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 01:24 AM
D&D is built around a single tier of power, and that tier is "Conan in Middle Earth"

Man, if that were only true. I would play the hell out of that game.

runeghost
2014-11-11, 02:09 AM
Depends on the person. I know plenty of folks who are stuck in the mindset that AD&D 1st Edition is the one-true way and everything else pales in comparison. The idea that things might have improved after 1st Edition is something they won't even consider. I see a lot of people who started with 3.x clinging to it as the one-true way these days too.

I'm not like that. Even though I started with Basic/AD&D back in the very early 1980s, I moved on. For years, I was nostalgic about my favorite edition (2nd Edition) and I grew to really dislike both 3.x and 4e because the rules kept getting in the way of the fun. 5e turned all that around, and has replaced 2nd Edition as my favorite edition (something I didn't think would happen, but I'm ecstatic that it did).

But, yeah, some people are definitely stuck in their "native edition" and refuse to budge.


I started with AD&D (well, OD&D, technically, but swiftly moved to AD&D 1st Edition). Played with various house-ruled mixes of 1st and 2nd from junior high through college. After a few years of break from any sort of fantasy game (did most WW and SR for those years), I got back into D&D with 3.0, and soon moved to 3.5. I loathed 4th, and have only dabbled in 5th. Currently playing in one pure 1st campaign, and another much "looser" casually retro game.

I've had fun with almost all the D&D I've played over the years, but the systems are quite different. 1st and 2nd are close - each has its quirks, and I enjoy them both depending on what I want to do. (90% of all the bards I've ever seen were 2nd ed bards.) 3rd and its variants are really a different but similar game. You can do some very fun things with it, but there are also some classic D&D things you just can't do cleanly. (Multiclassing is the biggest, off the top of my head. I think 3rd also went a very wrong direction with Monks.) My biggest complaint with 3rd & Co is how easy it is for it to become a heavily min-maxed tactical combat game, and how some players will get irritated (to put it mildly) if it isn't played that way. It's also awfully crunchy for a D&D.

I can take casual roleplayers, who have never played any edition of D&D, and get them up and running on their own, making their own *useful* choices about what character they want and what they want that character to do in a single evening, with 1st, 2nd, OD&D or most of the retroclones. I can't really do that in 3rd and its sisters. I think I can do it in 5th, which feels to me like a half-way point between 1st/2nd and 3rd (in a good way), but I haven't done so, because, well, I have a massive investment in other editions, and own exactly one 5th Edition book.

And, I guess that's what it comes down to. 1st/2nd is like a well-built and familiar tool in my hands. It has its quirks, but I can use it well. 3rd is a different tool, good for what its good for. (The less said of 4th the better.) 5th, looks to be decently built, but I don't see it as bringing anything new and valuable enough to the table to warrant the outlay in money and time to use it.

Sartharina
2014-11-11, 01:53 PM
Man, if that were only true. I would play the hell out of that game.
The only editions that don't restrict themselves to that power level are 3rd and 4th.

mephnick
2014-11-11, 02:44 PM
Honestly 3rd and 4th edition are the editions least like traditional D&D, so when someone is adamant that 3.5 is the TRUE edition of D&D I am always a little confused and assume it's the only one they've played. :smallconfused:

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 03:02 PM
The only editions that don't restrict themselves to that power level are 3rd and 4th.

I don't want to get into an argument of semantics, but I have never played a D&D PC that feels like Conan or in a world that feels like Middle Earth. I have played in every edition, and every single one had loads of arbitrary restrictions placed on characters and had a setting that was constantly trying to top itself with increasingly more magic, bigger monsters, epic plots, and powerful NPCs.


Honestly 3rd and 4th edition are the editions least like traditional D&D, so when someone is adamant that 3.5 is the TRUE edition of D&D I am always a little confused and assume it's the only one they've played. :smallconfused:

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

AD&D had the best balance and feel, but the rules were wonky. Sometimes you want to roll high, sometimes low. Sometimes high numbers are good, sometimes bad. Ability scores give bonuses at seemingly random rates. The crazy saving throw categories. Exceptional strength. The wrestling and boxing tables. Demihuman level limits and race / class restrictions. The wackiness of dual classing. Monsters generally not having ability scores. 10% bonus XP for having a high stat in your primary score. No attempt to balance weapons. The list just goes on and on.

I like 3e the best because the rules are somewhat streamlined and consistent. The three saving throw system and positive BaB and AC systems are brilliant in concept (although not always in execution). The only things mechanically I really hate are cross class skills and iterative attacks, but that is a minor peeve.

I really wish they would make a 2.5 edition, with the feel and balance of 2e but the streamlined rules of the d20 system. I am sure there is some OGL game out there that fills that niche, but man is it hard to find players for non D&D games.

Sartharina
2014-11-11, 03:05 PM
I really wish they would make a 2.5 edition, with the feel and balance of 2e but the streamlined rules of the d20 system. I am sure there is some OGL game out there that fills that niche, but man is it hard to find players for non D&D games.Have you tried 5e?

ProphetSword
2014-11-11, 03:08 PM
I really wish they would make a 2.5 edition, with the feel and balance of 2e but the streamlined rules of the d20 system.

They did. It's called 5th Edition.


Edit: Sartharina beat me to the punch by just a few seconds...

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 03:24 PM
Have you tried 5e?

Yeah, it looked really promising, but the whole bounded accuracy thing kills it for me. Skills and saving throws are just too pathetic and unreliable, and you could never make someone like Conan in this edition. I am told that is by design, as it is supposed to be a team game and independent minded and self sufficient heroes therefore have no place in it.


They did. It's called 5th Edition.


Edit: Sartharina beat me to the punch by just a few seconds...

I will admit 5E feels closer to 2E than 3E, but it still falls well short. While the math may be a bit more streamlined (although again it falls well short of 3E) it doesn't actually work as well a 2E did as far as I can tell.

Madfellow
2014-11-11, 05:01 PM
I am told that is by design, as it is supposed to be a team game and independent minded and self sufficient heroes therefore have no place in it.

That's every edition, man. D&D is a co-op game, remember.

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 05:19 PM
That's every edition, man. D&D is a co-op game, remember.

That is true, but it is especially bad in 5e. In earlier editions f I want to focus on something I can be pretty much guaranteed to succeed on standard tasks within that area. My 3E Monk or 2E fighter doesn't need a paladin's help to reliably make saving throws against low level effects or the assistance of a bard to succeed on routine tasks using their class skills.

For example in 2E is I have an 18 in my the relevant stat I have a 90% chance to succeed on ability or proficiency tests, which means 90% success rate. In 5E the best a level 20 character can achieve is a +11 (unless they are a bard or rogue), which means they have a 80% chance to fail that same test. A level 20 5E character is twice as likely to fail the same skill test as a level 1 2E character.

3E admittedly took it a bit too far as you could stack crazy combos from dozens of different books and get obscene numbers, but given the choice I would prefer being overly competent in my area of expertise to inept any day. It also had too many restrictions hard coded into classes with class skills, good and bad saves and attack bonuses. I do really like that in 5E you can take a feat to add proficiency to skills or saves, its just not enough.

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-11, 05:47 PM
I've been following this thread for awhile now, because I've been wanting to check out 5e without dropping money on it, and the conversation mystifies me.

When I DM'd DnD for the first time in 4e, I was flipping through the Monster Manual looking for monsters to put in my campaign and it occurred to me that I had this gigantic number of monsters in the book, but only a tiny section of them was going to be usable at any point in the campaign because the numbers don't match up. Back then, it seemed silly to me that 4e gave every character a +1 bonus to basically everything at every 2 levels because if that bonus did not exist, I would be probably be able to poach monsters from one more level up or down and use them in the session without the D20 system breaking down as it does when target numbers are too high or too low. Bounded accuracy is great. The reduced power curve means everything becomes relevant for longer in the campaign. It means that I, as the DM, can use, say 15% of the monster manual at any one time rather than 10%, and it means I can run the same monster-themed story arc for 2 levels longer than I would in 4e. It seems like an objective improvement to the game to me.

Now, some players I've seen in this thread are saying bounded accuracy is bad, because it doesn't make them feel powerful, or it doesn't make them feel like their character is growing. Well, I have an easy cure for that. Go into your character sheet, and add +10 to your to-hit and AC for every level you currently have. So if you're level 5, you had +50 to both. Now go into your monster manual, and do the same for every monster, adding +10 to the to-hit and AC for every level of CR the monster have. Now you will realize that you haven't done anything to change the state of the game when you're fighting level appropriate monsters. All you've done is make it stupid to fight monsters 1 CR above or below you, and outright impossible to fight monsters 2 CR above or below you. All you've done is narrow the variety of monsters you could fight on a given day in your campaign without breaking the D20 system.

I can't wrap my head about the complaint that bounded accuracy makes it impossible for your high level character to plow through a million and one goblins. That's not a feature! That's a problem! The DM having fewer options is objectively bad!

Knaight
2014-11-11, 07:05 PM
Now, some players I've seen in this thread are saying bounded accuracy is bad, because it doesn't make them feel powerful, or it doesn't make them feel like their character is growing. Well, I have an easy cure for that. Go into your character sheet, and add +10 to your to-hit and AC for every level you currently have. So if you're level 5, you had +50 to both. Now go into your monster manual, and do the same for every monster, adding +10 to the to-hit and AC for every level of CR the monster have. Now you will realize that you haven't done anything to change the state of the game when you're fighting level appropriate monsters. All you've done is make it stupid to fight monsters 1 CR above or below you, and outright impossible to fight monsters 2 CR above or below you. All you've done is narrow the variety of monsters you could fight on a given day in your campaign without breaking the D20 system.

I'd focus more on the effect of bounded accuracy on skills, from a modeling perspective. +6 proficiency and +5 ability gets only a +11 on a d20 system. So, the theoretical masters of their craft have problems with tasks they should find fairly easy (DC 15) all the time. Meanwhile, completely untrained chumps are surprisingly good at succeeding on these same tasks. A more curved scale can help a lot here - 3d6 instead of 1d20 makes that +11 absolutely spectacular - but the 1-20 range is generally lost there, which causes problems with the system math.

Now, say proficiency changes a bit. Maybe you get +2 per proficiency change instead of +1. That +11 is now a +17, where the odds look a bit better in a lot of ways. Doubling proficiency does cause some issues elsewhere, such as the combat system, though it's pretty easy to mitigate most of them. At that level of change, it also doesn't narrow the variety of monsters. You've highlighted that +/- 10 is ridiculous, but that doesn't make the current bounding system good.

Milo v3
2014-11-11, 07:11 PM
Go into your character sheet, and add +10 to your to-hit and AC for every level you currently have. So if you're level 5, you had +50 to both. Now go into your monster manual, and do the same for every monster, adding +10 to the to-hit and AC for every level of CR the monster have. Now you will realize that you haven't done anything to change the state of the game when you're fighting level appropriate monsters.

Bounded accuracy isn't a problem because we want higher numbers. Increasing the numbers on both sides does nothing to fix the issue.

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 07:32 PM
@ vitruviansquid:

Bigger numbers is not the problem. Nor is the inability to mow through hordes of orcs. Imo those are both good things.

The problems are not being able to reliableass routine skill tests no matter how good you are and saving throws not scaling much with level, which means that a character who can defeat a hundred first level fighters will probably be brought low by a couple dozen first level wizards.

Also, while it is a commendable goal that monsters can be used at more levels, this has the unintended side effect of making summoning spells really OP and leaving epic level monsters easilly dealt with by mundane armies.

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-11, 07:42 PM
I'd focus more on the effect of bounded accuracy on skills, from a modeling perspective. +6 proficiency and +5 ability gets only a +11 on a d20 system. So, the theoretical masters of their craft have problems with tasks they should find fairly easy (DC 15) all the time. Meanwhile, completely untrained chumps are surprisingly good at succeeding on these same tasks. A more curved scale can help a lot here - 3d6 instead of 1d20 makes that +11 absolutely spectacular - but the 1-20 range is generally lost there, which causes problems with the system math.

Now, say proficiency changes a bit. Maybe you get +2 per proficiency change instead of +1. That +11 is now a +17, where the odds look a bit better in a lot of ways. Doubling proficiency does cause some issues elsewhere, such as the combat system, though it's pretty easy to mitigate most of them. At that level of change, it also doesn't narrow the variety of monsters. You've highlighted that +/- 10 is ridiculous, but that doesn't make the current bounding system good.

Let's put aside skill challenges right now, because people in the thread are talking about whether or not it's cool to have an army be able to kill a dragon, not about picking locks. I was, however, under the impression that a lot of the silliness in 3.5's system arose from skills becoming too easy for characters specialized at them, such as sir bearington here. http://imgur.com/r/gametales/tAV3wHl

Now, the part I underlined is patently false. Any bonus you give players just for leveling up does narrow the variety of monsters. It might not narrow the variety enough to sour me on an entire system (I still enjoy 4e despite its +1 bonus every 2 levels) but it's still there and all it achieves is limiting your DM's options, which is objectively bad.

Knaight
2014-11-11, 07:43 PM
Also, while it is a commendable goal that monsters can be used at more levels, this has the unintended side effect of ... leaving epic level monsters easilly dealt with by mundane armies.

This particular side affect is considered a feature by many (including myself), and even it being unintended is unclear.


Let's put aside skill challenges right now, because people in the thread are talking about whether or not it's cool to have an army be able to kill a dragon, not about picking locks. I was, however, under the impression that a lot of the silliness in 3.5's system arose from skills becoming too easy for characters specialized at them, such as sir bearington here. http://imgur.com/r/gametales/tAV3wHl

Now, the part I underlined is patently false. Any bonus you give players just for leveling up does narrow the variety of monsters. It might not narrow the variety enough to sour me on an entire system (I still enjoy 4e despite its +1 bonus every 2 levels) but it's still there and all it achieves is limiting your DM's options, which is objectively bad.
Skills and saves are the big two issues, attacks and AC are way down the list. As for the silliness in 3.5s system, that was part of it. However, that's way beyond 5e's range that those sorts of problems start coming up. Getting +20 to a skill without using either ability scores or attributes is downright easy, and it's ridiculous. Totals of +50 and similar weren't uncommon, which is over twice the dice range. 5e meanwhile gets to +11. There's a lot of middle ground there, and a case to be made for 5e being overcorrected past a usable middle.

As for your "patently false" part, there's a necessary threshold to obsolete enemies. Changes below that threshold aren't going to do that - they might encourage somewhat larger groups, but that's about it. Limiting GM options is also hardly objectively bad - I generally GM, and the very first thing I do is limit options dramatically, generally through picking a genre and setting in conjunction with the players. I'd also note that the logical extension of your point is the complete removal of levels or having literally every increase on a level (which in D&D would include HP and HD) be optional. Plus, the shortening of the scale actually creates limits, in that the feeble horde of once formidable foes is removed as a potential setting element. There's objective badness in all situations if limiting the GM options is inherently bad. As a GM, I look at the removal of that option with an attitude along the lines of "good riddance".

Vitruviansquid
2014-11-11, 07:56 PM
@ vitruviansquid:

Bigger numbers is not the problem. Nor is the inability to mow through hordes of orcs. Imo those are both good things.

The problems are not being able to reliableass routine skill tests no matter how good you are and saving throws not scaling much with level, which means that a character who can defeat a hundred first level fighters will probably be brought low by a couple dozen first level wizards.

Also, while it is a commendable goal that monsters can be used at more levels, this has the unintended side effect of making summoning spells really OP and leaving epic level monsters easilly dealt with by mundane armies.

When have you or anyone you know ever run a combat between a dragon and an army of 100 peasants in RAW? You don't, because the D20 system breaks down at that extreme level disparity - it would be incredibly, ridiculously annoying to run through 101 turns for every round, and roll so many dice at virtually guaranteed success or virtually guaranteed failure. You would DM fiat that. Being disappointed that a dragon no longer runs over 100 peasants is basically saying you're sad that the new system doesn't force you to DM fiat fights in more situations.

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 07:56 PM
This particular side affect is considered a feature by many (including myself), and even it being unintended is unclear.

Really? That makes it awfully hard to tell a lot stories. The whole Lord of the Rings trilogy would never have happened if the dwarves of Erebor had been able to defend their mountain against Smaug (ditto the dwarves of Moria vs. a balrog). Hercules labors wouldn't have meant much if any war band could have killed the monsters, and "Kaiju" stories are right out.


When have you or anyone you know ever run a combat between a dragon and an army of 100 peasants in RAW? You don't, because the D20 system breaks down at that extreme level disparity - it would be incredibly, ridiculously annoying to run through 101 turns for every round, and roll so many dice at virtually guaranteed success or virtually guaranteed failure. You would DM fiat that. Being disappointed that a dragon no longer runs over 100 peasants is basically saying you're sad that the new system doesn't force you to DM fiat fights in more situations.

I have had PCs hire mercenaries to back them up, and I have had PCs animate or summon large groups of monsters. I have also had adventurers where the PCs have conscripted a town to fight off a threat. I remember one low level game when the PCs failed to drive off an ogre war band that was raiding towns in the region to they instead fortified the next town in the ogre's path and trained the people of the town to fight and I ran the whole thing as a big set piece RAW combat.

The problem isn't too bard when you are dealing with a narrative hypothetical between NPCs. It does become a problem when the players start hiring a mercenary company to follow them around or the mage's minions outdo the martial members of their party.

Knaight
2014-11-11, 08:02 PM
Really? That makes it awfully hard to tell a lot stories. The whole Lord of the Rings trilogy would never have happened if the dwarves of Erebor had been able to defend their mountain against Smaug (ditto the dwarves of Moria vs. a balrog). Hercules labors wouldn't have meant much if any war band could have killed the monsters, and "Kaiju" stories are right out.

Sure, but keeping it in also makes it harder to tell a lot of stories, starting with basically anything with populist undertones. Also, Smaug died to one arrow in the end, from an archer who was capable but by no means superhuman - that story could not have been told if Smaug was just invincible.

McBars
2014-11-11, 08:14 PM
As a fan of both editions, I think 5e's skill system is FAR superior to the tangled mess that is 3.5's.


Way less to keep track of while avoiding a dumbed-down feel.
Explicitly tied to ability scores & proficiency, rather than a separate system altogether.
Any character can become proficient at any skill without penalty, vs class & cross-class nonsense.
Mechanically distinguishing tasks requiring tools vs those that do not.


As far as reliability of performance at "routine skill checks" scaling with level (or not doing so as other posters have implied), during passive checks (which would be used for "routine" checks) the level 20 character ALWAYS succeed at Hard DCs (DC 20) while the level 1 character ALWAYS fails. How is that unreliable?

Rallicus
2014-11-11, 08:17 PM
Giving NPCs disadvantage against any "ludicrous" encounter might be a slight fix for the problem with bounded accuracy. Of course this would never apply to the PCs, cause they're PCs, but...

Why do people always make comparisons between media/stories/etc and D&D? They're totally different things. I've seen people try to stat Gandalf, even though he had no relation to the rules of the D&D universe. Why all these comparisons? D&D is its own thing, can't you base it off itself rather than other things?

I don't have a problem with bounded accuracy, personally. Makes sense as far as I'm concerned; low-level NPCs should have some weight to throw around. And does nobody else see the glaring hypocrisy here? Wasn't 3.X's cat as powerful (if not more) than a level 1 PC?

McBars
2014-11-11, 08:26 PM
Really? That makes it awfully hard to tell a lot stories. The whole Lord of the Rings trilogy would never have happened if the dwarves of Erebor had been able to defend their mountain against Smaug (ditto the dwarves of Moria vs. a balrog). Hercules labors wouldn't have meant much if any war band could have killed the monsters, and "Kaiju" stories are right out.

People play this game primarily to have fun, not to tell stories, though a fun game almost always leads to memorable stories.

Though theoretically an epic-level monster could be threatened by enough bumpkins, in the context of a game what epic-level monster (and by proxy the DM) of any reasonable cunning or intelligence would allow themselves to be endangered by a rag-tag band of rabble? They take precautions, lay plans, set traps, fight battles on their terms & their turf whenever possible, and/or act through minions or agents rather than expose themselves directly to danger.

Lanaya
2014-11-11, 08:35 PM
Though theoretically an epic-level monster could be threatened by enough bumpkins, in the context of a game what epic-level monster (and by proxy the DM) of any reasonable cunning or intelligence would allow themselves to be endangered by a rag-tag band of rabble? They take precautions, lay plans, set traps, fight battles on their terms & their turf whenever possible, and/or act through minions or agents rather than expose themselves directly to danger.

Well that's the problem right there. Not all big bad monsters are or should be cunning. Having some super powered evil masterminds is great, and they do make for fantastic BBEGs, but not every enemy should be played as cautiously as what you're talking about. It's nice to be able to run something really big and stupid (the Tarrasque, for instance) without your apocalyptic god-monster being comparable in raw power to a moderately-sized group of angry Vikings.

5e feels like a 3d6 game that accidentally ended up using a d20 instead. All the bounded accuracy and small numbers would work so well if you fixed up the probability a little, but as it is the weird swings you get from the d20 system end up giving you so many weird results and so much "just ignore the system and let the DM do everything".

Knaight
2014-11-11, 08:41 PM
As a fan of both editions, I think 5e's skill system is FAR superior to the tangled mess that is 3.5's.


Way less to keep track of while avoiding a dumbed-down feel.
Explicitly tied to ability scores & proficiency, rather than a separate system altogether.
Any character can become proficient at any skill without penalty, vs class & cross-class nonsense.
Mechanically distinguishing tasks requiring tools vs those that do not.


As far as reliability of performance at "routine skill checks" scaling with level (or not doing so as other posters have implied), during passive checks (which would be used for "routine" checks) the level 20 character ALWAYS succeed at Hard DCs (DC 20) while the level 1 character ALWAYS fails. How is that unreliable?

If the skill system is only functional until something is rolled, then it's a broken mess. It's unreliable. I'd agree with you that it is better than 3.5, for precisely the reasons you highlighted (though I'd probably emphasize class & cross class skills more, because that's the sort of mechanic that I could see designing if I were deliberately trying to make the mechanics more obtuse and restrict the characters even more than the class system already does). Unfortunately for 5e's skill system, other editions of D&D are hardly the only other options for skill systems. It's entirely reasonable to compare it to other games, and it suddenly stops looking so good. GURPS has a better skill system. Fudge has a better skill system. Cortex has a better skill system. Burning Wheel has a better skill system. Shadowrun has a better skill system. Savage Worlds has a better skill system, and the Savage Worlds skill system is part of the reason I dislike that game. So on and so forth.

Talakeal
2014-11-11, 08:59 PM
As a fan of both editions, I think 5e's skill system is FAR superior to the tangled mess that is 3.5's.


Way less to keep track of while avoiding a dumbed-down feel.
Explicitly tied to ability scores & proficiency, rather than a separate system altogether.
Any character can become proficient at any skill without penalty, vs class & cross-class nonsense.
Mechanically distinguishing tasks requiring tools vs those that do not.


As far as reliability of performance at "routine skill checks" scaling with level (or not doing so as other posters have implied), during passive checks (which would be used for "routine" checks) the level 20 character ALWAYS succeed at Hard DCs (DC 20) while the level 1 character ALWAYS fails. How is that unreliable?

I believe taking 10 is only an option for rogues. Also, that means that any character without a +10 bonus (anyone who is level 16 or less, anyone who is level 17+ without an 18+ in the key score, or anyone who is 19+ without a 16+ in the relevant ability score) will always fail at hard DCs.


People play this game primarily to have fun, not to tell stories, though a fun game almost always leads to memorable stories.

Though theoretically an epic-level monster could be threatened by enough bumpkins, in the context of a game what epic-level monster (and by proxy the DM) of any reasonable cunning or intelligence would allow themselves to be endangered by a rag-tag band of rabble? They take precautions, lay plans, set traps, fight battles on their terms & their turf whenever possible, and/or act through minions or agents rather than expose themselves directly to danger.

Would you prefer it if I said limits the scenarios you can run rather than stories you can tell?


Sure, but keeping it in also makes it harder to tell a lot of stories, starting with basically anything with populist undertones. Also, Smaug died to one arrow in the end, from an archer who was capable but by no means superhuman - that story could not have been told if Smaug was just invincible.

True, but it was a single arrow shot by the master archer who was the rightful ruler of the town using a special black arrow.

While I do like the appeal of a populist story (its part of the reason I dislike super hero stories or settings like Exalted, Warhammer 40k, or Star Wars where normal humans can never accomplish anything) I don't think you need to shoehorn every monster into one. If you want a story about mustering the people to unite against a foe you can do that by just using a slightly smaller monster. If I was playing a common man story I would look at the biggest monsters as natural disasters rather than enemies, you can't kill them, but how you prepare for and recover for them is a story in itself.

McBars
2014-11-11, 09:15 PM
I believe taking 10 is only an option for rogues. Also, that means that any character without a +10 bonus (anyone who is level 16 or less, anyone who is level 17+ without an 18+ in the key score, or anyone who is 19+ without a 16+ in the relevant ability score) will always fail at hard DCs.



Would you prefer it if I said limits the scenarios you can run rather than stories you can tell?

You are thinking of reliable talent which is superior to taking 10; Any character can make a passive check in 5e under the right circumstances which is 10+all relevant modifiers. And all those characters youve referred to have the chance to succeed @ a single rolled attempt, but you are indeed correct that less proficient characters will fail at a passive check (representing the average result as n rolls -> infinity) vs a hard dc of 20...which is why they are less proficient.

Also it is easy breezy to get those kind of ability scores by those levels.


Just as well that you call it scenarios, my point is that the average joe commoner x 100 should really be a force of little consequence when determining which encounters are built, even if they pose a not insignificant threat to epic level monsters on a blank combat grid.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-11, 11:02 PM
I'd focus more on the effect of bounded accuracy on skills, from a modeling perspective. +6 proficiency and +5 ability gets only a +11 on a d20 system. So, the theoretical masters of their craft have problems with tasks they should find fairly easy (DC 15) all the time. Meanwhile, completely untrained chumps are surprisingly good at succeeding on these same tasks. A more curved scale can help a lot here - 3d6 instead of 1d20 makes that +11 absolutely spectacular - but the 1-20 range is generally lost there, which causes problems with the system math.

Now, say proficiency changes a bit. Maybe you get +2 per proficiency change instead of +1. That +11 is now a +17, where the odds look a bit better in a lot of ways. Doubling proficiency does cause some issues elsewhere, such as the combat system, though it's pretty easy to mitigate most of them. At that level of change, it also doesn't narrow the variety of monsters. You've highlighted that +/- 10 is ridiculous, but that doesn't make the current bounding system good.

An easy task is a DC of 10, and cannot be failed with a +11. And the DC is literally determined by difficulty, not by what the task is. So its very reasonable that an expert would find a task easier ( and thus face a lower DC) then a beginner, or untrained pleb.


@ vitruviansquid:

Bigger numbers is not the problem. Nor is the inability to mow through hordes of orcs. Imo those are both good things.

The problems are not being able to reliableass routine skill tests no matter how good you are and saving throws not scaling much with level, which means that a character who can defeat a hundred first level fighters will probably be brought low by a couple dozen first level wizards.

Also, while it is a commendable goal that monsters can be used at more levels, this has the unintended side effect of making summoning spells really OP and leaving epic level monsters easilly dealt with by mundane armies.

I doubt that. Most of the overly powerful spells have been nerfed, so that isn't much of a problem anymore.

Sidmen
2014-11-12, 01:42 AM
I'd like to pop back in here to say: yeah, the 5e design team really goofed when it came to Skill target numbers.

It really should've started at 9 for "Normal" and +2/3 for every tier above that. Instead, they just kept the same table as older games whilst changing all the other math.

Talakeal
2014-11-12, 01:53 AM
I doubt that. Most of the overly powerful spells have been nerfed, so that isn't much of a problem anymore.

True, you can't just Save or Die someone, or even directly immobilize them while you coup de grace them (that I have seen).

However, depending on DM ruling, I can see dozens of ways which you can make them helpless and then rob, delay, imprison, humiliate, or do a thousand other unspeakable things to them without actually inflicting injury, or force them to sit by and watch while you kill their loved ones, or simply sit idle and fail in whatever task or duty they had committed themself to.

Also, I still don't see why you can't, say, Polymorph the fighter into a tape worm and then lock it in an iron safe and just let him suffocate once the spell runs out.

Knaight
2014-11-12, 02:30 AM
An easy task is a DC of 10, and cannot be failed with a +11. And the DC is literally determined by difficulty, not by what the task is. So its very reasonable that an expert would find a task easier ( and thus face a lower DC) then a beginner, or untrained pleb.

While the rules are somewhat vague here, generally tables of difficulty like this are for some sort of hypothetical norm, not evaluated against the character - evaluating it against the character tends to turn into a weird overly subjective mess with too many moving parts. By DC 15, which is nominally a moderate difficulty, the expert is failing surprisingly often.

ProphetSword
2014-11-12, 07:37 AM
The expert will only fail when rolls are made. Not every use of a skill requires a roll anymore. According to the rules, a roll is only made if the outcome is in doubt. People are applying the thought process of previous editions again.

If someone should succeed at a task, the chance is automatic. Same for if someone has no chance of success. No roll is required. It only comes into play if the DM has doubt something should succeed.

In the playtest DM materials, the rule was also that a character could automatically succeed at most tasks if they had enough time. This usually meant spending 20x the normal amount of time.

An expert shouldn't be rolling against easy or moderate tasks if they have plenty of time or the DM feels their expertise is sufficient.

Fra Antonio
2014-11-12, 07:56 AM
The expert will only fail when rolls are made. Not every use of a skill requires a roll anymore. According to the rules, a roll is only made if the outcome is in doubt. People are applying the thought process of previous editions again.

If someone should succeed at a task, the chance is automatic. Same for if someone has no chance of success. No roll is required. It only comes into play if the DM has doubt something should succeed.

Yep, people just look at the numbers and skip the actual rules.
Depending on the situation, even a failed roll may still be a success, albeit with a setback determined by the DM (spent a lot of time trying, broke something in the process, got wounded, set off the alarm etc.)

Hytheter
2014-11-12, 08:17 AM
An easy task is a DC of 10, and cannot be failed with a +11. And the DC is literally determined by difficulty, not by what the task is. So its very reasonable that an expert would find a task easier ( and thus face a lower DC) then a beginner, or untrained pleb.

The fact that an expert will find the task easier is obviously represented by proficiency bonus.

Milo v3
2014-11-12, 08:57 AM
The expert will only fail when rolls are made. Not every use of a skill requires a roll anymore. According to the rules, a roll is only made if the outcome is in doubt. People are applying the thought process of previous editions again.
Some would say that only comes into place if the person literally cannot fail at the outcome, if a 1 would cause a failure then the outcome is in doubt.

Sartharina
2014-11-12, 09:51 AM
While the rules are somewhat vague here, generally tables of difficulty like this are for some sort of hypothetical norm, not evaluated against the character - evaluating it against the character tends to turn into a weird overly subjective mess with too many moving parts. By DC 15, which is nominally a moderate difficulty, the expert is failing surprisingly often.

A big problem here is what skill checks and DCs are supposed to measure. You cannot fail Routine tasks, because you cannot Roll for them. Tasks become routine by doing them regularly, though, not by boosting your skill modifier to the stratosphere.

Also, the DCs are a bit off. An "Easy" DC is one the average person is as likely to succeed on as not. It's not 'easy' in the sense of being able to be done regularly without fail.

If an expert is hitting a Moderate DC at least as often as not, it's Working As Intended.
Some would say that only comes into place if the person literally cannot fail at the outcome, if a 1 would cause a failure then the outcome is in doubt.Those people are wrong.

Milo v3
2014-11-12, 10:00 AM
Those people are wrong.

... but if there is a chance of failure, that means success is in doubt... :smallconfused:

Madfellow
2014-11-12, 10:12 AM
I made a graph, thinking maybe it'll help the discussion:

http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t591/Madfellow/Picture1_zps4da6c49f.jpg

This graph displays a character's chances to succeed at a given task, presented as a percentage.

McBars
2014-11-12, 10:23 AM
I made a graph, thinking maybe it'll help the discussion:

http://i1315.photobucket.com/albums/t591/Madfellow/Picture1_zps4da6c49f.jpg

This graph displays a character's chances to succeed at a given task, presented as a percentage.

It's off; Looks like you're measuring success as "roll > DC" When it is in fact "Roll >/= DC" e.g. Proficiency = 11 should have a 10% chance of success vs DC 30 as a roll of 19 or 20 equals or exceeds the DC.

Sartharina
2014-11-12, 10:52 AM
... but if there is a chance of failure, that means success is in doubt... :smallconfused:Only because you've got the adjudication wrong. 5e doesn't use fixed DCs for specific tasks. Failure is only in doubt if it's dramatically appropriate to be so. There are NO routine tasks that you roll for in 5e.

When you make an ability check in 5e, you're largely casting your fate to luck and chance, with a little bit of help from your skill and training. You only have to make a check if there are too many variables affecting the outcome to track... things like:

1. Trying to control a wagon after the animals panic and/or a wheel or other operating mechanism breaks.
2. Trying to land a plane that you've never flown before, in inclement weather, while everyone keeps calling you 'Shirley' and reminding you everyone's counting on you... and mission-control's gone back to drinking, smoking, and sniffing glue.
3. Getting an untested prototype Dwarf Magma Cannon to work without flooding the fortress with lava or water. (Assuming you're proficient with Dwarf Fortress)
4. Jumping further than you normally can.
5. Clinging to a cliff face after taking a damaging blow.
6. Happening to know anything about something you just stumbled upon.
7. Recognizing a monster on the first time you've seen one in-person.
8. Successfully evading the notice of someone else.
9. Reacting to a situation before someone else can.
10. Seeing someone trying to hide from you
11. Finding a trap you don't know exists, hidden by means you aren't aware of, in a place you're not expecting (Not all DC 15 traps are hidden in the same way)
12. Disarming a mechanism you've never/rarely worked with before. (Not all DC 15 traps are created equal)
13. Getting a person or animal to like or trust you.

Psyren
2014-11-12, 12:42 PM
Failure is only in doubt if it's dramatically appropriate to be so.

And this is one of the problems I have with 5e. If I wanted to fiat whether something would work ahead of time I don't need to buy a rulebook to tell me that. Sometimes a Hail Mary pass does result in a touchdown, or a sure thing can be fumbled horribly, and those are plenty dramatic in their own right.

Also, a lot of your scenarios are hardly complicated ones. "Evading the notice of someone else" for instance, is pretty much every Stealth check ever, so what you're basically saying is that Stealth always needs to be rolled. But that appears to contradict the 5e policy as stated by you and others. Similarly, finding a trap you're not aware of in a place you don't expect is presumably 99% of traps, at least if the guy making it had even the remotest clue of how traps work.

Not to mention your statement - "not all DC 15 traps are hidden the same way" - that raises the obvious question of, how do you distinguish them if not by DC? Just arbitrarily choose the ones you want the players to have a chance at finding and the ones you don't? This is bordering on freeform.


The expert will only fail when rolls are made. Not every use of a skill requires a roll anymore. According to the rules, a roll is only made if the outcome is in doubt. People are applying the thought process of previous editions again.

But that is 5e's failure to communicate/rationalize properly. If something is listed as "medium DC," someone reading it is going to think "medium means average, so an expert practitioner of X should be succeeding much more than average." It's not an outlandish assumption to make. Yet it is in 5e, apparently.

Sartharina
2014-11-12, 01:48 PM
Also, a lot of your scenarios are hardly complicated ones. "Evading the notice of someone else" for instance, is pretty much every Stealth check ever, so what you're basically saying is that Stealth always needs to be rolled. But that appears to contradict the 5e policy as stated by you and others. Similarly, finding a trap you're not aware of in a place you don't expect is presumably 99% of traps, at least if the guy making it had even the remotest clue of how traps work.Of course you're expected to roll these things... but they are not 'routine'. Hiding is a contest against another agent, as is perception. Ducking behind a barrel is auto-success - but not being seen doing so by a serendipitous observer is not.

And yes - finding traps that you didn't place yourself or aren't familiar with the workings of is always something you need to roll for, and is not something you can be expected to auto-succeed at. Even Sherlock Holmes might fail to find a remote hidden behind the beer in a refrigerator.


Not to mention your statement - "not all DC 15 traps are hidden the same way" - that raises the obvious question of, how do you distinguish them if not by DC? Just arbitrarily choose the ones you want the players to have a chance at finding and the ones you don't? This is bordering on freeform.Traps are distinguished by their mechanics. On DC 15 trap may be nothing more than a tiny hole in the wall with a poison-release triggered to a pressure plate in the room. Another might be a door rigged to deliver a powerful shock to someone who puts an invalid key in the lock. Another may be a net buried under dirt and leaves. One "Flood the room trap" may be a few hoses in the ceiling connected to a reservoir somewhere else in the ceiling. Another might be a series of water-creating gargoyles. Yet another might be a false wall with a massive flood on the other side.

ProphetSword
2014-11-12, 02:53 PM
Some examples of how skill rolls should be working:

If a character needs to climb a slope and the DM knows it can be done successfully if they aren't in a hurry and they take precautions, no roll is required. They will climb the slope if they take their time and go slow. If a monster is chasing them, however, then their success is in doubt, the DM can call for a roll.

If a player is searching a room full of ruined furniture for a key, which is hidden in a desk drawer, and they never search the desk drawer then no skill roll is needed. There is no chance of success if they aren't searching where the key is hidden. If they do search the drawer and the key is the only thing in there, there's no chance of failure, so no roll is required.

If a character is attempting to pick a lock of a type he is familiar with and he has plenty of time to pull it off, success is guaranteed after the time passes. No roll is needed. If, however, the character needs to pick the lock before guards turn a corner and find him, the DM will call for the skill roll.


The other thing I think people might be missing (I know my players did) is that players never call for skill rolls anymore. Players can't say things like "I will make a climb check to see if I can get to the top." In 5e the DM tells players when to make a check. It is only when the DM decides that the players have a chance of failure. This is a habit I had to break in my players. No rolls are required unless the DM tells you so.

So, going back to someone's previous discussion about a 1st level character being as good as a master blacksmith...that wouldn't happen. The DM would never have that master blacksmith make a roll. He would auto-succeed. The 1st level character wouldn't. The DM also has the option to say that a high level character might be better at something than a low level character, and can call for a skill roll only for the 1st level character.

So, I'll say it again: Rolls are only made if the DM decides that the chance of success is in doubt.

Nagash
2014-11-13, 03:47 AM
Some would say that only comes into place if the person literally cannot fail at the outcome, if a 1 would cause a failure then the outcome is in doubt.

Exactly.

If the system only makes sense if you dont roll dice its a bad system.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 09:21 AM
Of course you're expected to roll these things... but they are not 'routine'. Hiding is a contest against another agent, as is perception. Ducking behind a barrel is auto-success - but not being seen doing so by a serendipitous observer is not.

How is that different from 3.P? If nobody is watching you, you don't have to roll to duck behind a barrel there either.


And yes - finding traps that you didn't place yourself or aren't familiar with the workings of is always something you need to roll for, and is not something you can be expected to auto-succeed at. Even Sherlock Holmes might fail to find a remote hidden behind the beer in a refrigerator.

Again, how is this different from 3.P?



Traps are distinguished by their mechanics. On DC 15 trap may be nothing more than a tiny hole in the wall with a poison-release triggered to a pressure plate in the room. Another might be a door rigged to deliver a powerful shock to someone who puts an invalid key in the lock. Another may be a net buried under dirt and leaves. One "Flood the room trap" may be a few hoses in the ceiling connected to a reservoir somewhere else in the ceiling. Another might be a series of water-creating gargoyles. Yet another might be a false wall with a massive flood on the other side.

And in 3.P, you could roll to find all of those. Is the same not true in 5e?

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 09:43 AM
How is that different from 3.P? If nobody is watching you, you don't have to roll to duck behind a barrel there either.



Again, how is this different from 3.P?



And in 3.P, you could roll to find all of those. Is the same not true in 5e?

In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

Nicol Bolas
2014-11-13, 10:42 AM
Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 10:44 AM
Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?Because it doesn't anymore?

Knaight
2014-11-13, 10:46 AM
In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

Yes, which is why 5e toned that down - that doesn't mean they didn't over correct. +50 in a d20 system is ridiculous, +11 max is as well.

McBars
2014-11-13, 10:47 AM
Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

Like what? Furnish us with some examples, Because as far as I know there's simply a set of DC's at the beginning of the skills section and none of them refer to any specific tasks or specific skills.

McBars
2014-11-13, 10:49 AM
Yes, which is why 5e toned that down - that doesn't mean they didn't over correct. +50 in a d20 system is ridiculous, +11 max is as well.

Not when the most difficult of tasks rings in at a DC of 30

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 10:49 AM
Yes, which is why 5e toned that down - that doesn't mean they didn't over correct. +50 in a d20 system is ridiculous, +11 max is as well.No, +11 Max isn't ridiculous, considering that it's over half the RNG.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 10:57 AM
No, +11 Max isn't ridiculous, considering that it's over half the RNG.

The RNG is a linear distribution, which makes that +11 still lose to a completely untrained person with no natural ability 11.25% of the time in opposed checks. Once you get to a novice in the field with a knack for it, that goes up to 22.75%. Those are hefty numbers there, and really don't make proper mastery seem all that impressive.

Curving the scale fixes this - with a 3d6 scale that 11.25% becomes a 0.45% and that 22.75% becomes a 6.08%. Absent the curve though, the other option is to increase the maximum. Doubling proficiency gets to +17, which gets a 1.5% and 7%. Notice that this is actually less significant than the +11 with 3d6.

ProphetSword
2014-11-13, 11:31 AM
The RNG is a linear distribution, which makes that +11 still lose to a completely untrained person with no natural ability 11.25% of the time in opposed checks. Once you get to a novice in the field with a knack for it, that goes up to 22.75%. Those are hefty numbers there, and really don't make proper mastery seem all that impressive.


If we reverse that, it becomes an 89.75% success rate for the person with more training, or an 78.25% success rate against someone who has some talent. Those are hefty numbers.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 11:34 AM
In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

The DM can optimize too, and indeed is supposed to thanks to the CR system. If you want a DC with a 50% or 35% chance of failure you can make one easily, no matter how high the players pump their checks. And it does so far more effectively by not telling the DM and the players that "DC 30 = Nearly Impossible."

Also, a lot of the more egregious skill boosters from 3.5 did not make it to PF at all. No Guidance of the Avatar for instance.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 11:41 AM
The DM can optimize too, and indeed is supposed to thanks to the CR system. If you want a DC with a 50% or 35% chance of failure you can make one easily, no matter how high the players pump their checks. And it does so far more effectively by not telling the DM and the players that "DC 30 = Nearly Impossible."

Sure, it is technically possible to pump DCs up to some arbitrary number, but I don't see how competitive optimization here is somehow helpful. What's the point of even having a difficulty class system if it isn't tied to the difficulties of the task, but instead arbitrarily scales with the players to impose a percent chance of failure?


If we reverse that, it becomes an 89.75% success rate for the person with more training, or an 78.25% success rate against someone who has some talent. Those are hefty numbers.

Hardly. An olympic swimmer is going to win against some generic person close to 100% of the time. An expert scientist can routinely deal with complex parts of their field which lay people will fail at, and will likely have more knowledge of the basics close to 100% of the time. That 78.25% is downright anemic, and given that the 89.75% is against a no-talent untrained person it's even worse.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 11:55 AM
Sure, it is technically possible to pump DCs up to some arbitrary number, but I don't see how competitive optimization here is somehow helpful. What's the point of even having a difficulty class system if it isn't tied to the difficulties of the task, but instead arbitrarily scales with the players to impose a percent chance of failure?



Hardly. An olympic swimmer is going to win against some generic person close to 100% of the time. An expert scientist can routinely deal with complex parts of their field which lay people will fail at, and will likely have more knowledge of the basics close to 100% of the time. That 78.25% is downright anemic, and given that the 89.75% is against a no-talent untrained person it's even worse.

The second half of your post is answering the question in the first - it allows the DC to be such that 5% or 0% success for the untrained person is possible, as opposed to the incongruous 11.25% and 22.75% chance they get in 5e. If I go to Vecna's Oubliette pocket dimension I would expect the traps to be impossible for a layperson to find (say... DC 50) and indeed they are. But a near-epic plane-hopping thief has a chance.

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 02:39 PM
Hardly. An olympic swimmer is going to win against some generic person close to 100% of the time. An expert scientist can routinely deal with complex parts of their field which lay people will fail at, and will likely have more knowledge of the basics close to 100% of the time. That 78.25% is downright anemic, and given that the 89.75% is against a no-talent untrained person it's even worse.

5e doesn't measure or model nonheroic incompetence.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 03:04 PM
5e doesn't measure or model nonheroic incompetence.

What about heroic incompetence? There's plenty of that - just ask Bilbo, Po, Rincewind, Bink, Skeeve, Caramon Majere, Ronald Weasley, the entire Order of the Stick...

Should we just not roll, or do they have no place in 5e at all?

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 03:05 PM
What about heroic incompetence? There's plenty of that - just ask Bilbo, Po, Rincewind, Bink, Skeeve, Caramon Majere, Ronald Weasley, the entire Order of the Stick...

They can do heroic things. They just tend to fumble them. Or succeed despite their fumbles.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 03:05 PM
They can do heroic things. They just tend to fumble them.

And how do you model that without rolling? Arbitrarily deciding what they succeed and fail at? Why adapt anything to a game at all?

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 03:09 PM
And how do you model that without rolling? Arbitrarily deciding what they succeed and fail at? Why adapt anything to a game at all?Simple - you roll, and have a chance of succeeding or failing.

After all - Bilbo's a middle-class homebody who managed to kill several spiders, and rob a dragon blind. With just a little bit of training, Po (If you're thinking the same one I am), managed to single-handedly destroy someone who could destroy armies, and found a hidden cache of cookies as well. Rincewind has been to space. Twice. I don't know Bink. Skeeve is the Dragon Poker Champion, and has cheated and outwitted Deveels.

And on the flip side, Aragorn failed to fall off a Warg and fell over a cliff.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 03:12 PM
Simple - you roll, and have a chance of succeeding or failing.

After all - Bilbo's a middle-class homebody who managed to kill several spiders, and rob a dragon blind. With just a little bit of training, Po (If you're thinking the same one I am), managed to single-handedly destroy someone who could destroy armies, and found a hidden cache of cookies as well. Rincewind has been to space. Twice. I don't know Bink. Skeeve is the Dragon Poker Champion, and has cheated and outwitted Deveels.

And on the flip side, Aragorn failed to fall off a Warg and fell over a cliff.

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.)

Talakeal
2014-11-13, 03:39 PM
In 3.P, it was trivial to optimize you 'skill' to the point that you auto-succeed on a 1... your character suddenly ends up knowing everything about everything. Some people like this... a lot don't.

3.5 is a bit too easy to cheese out or power game. I personally don't like it, but prefer 3E over competence to 5E incompetence.

Even in 3E you need to try for it, and if you don't want to don't. For example there is very little a core only fighter can be good at aside from making fortitude saves and full attacks, he simply doesn't have the skill points or ability scores to be good at much else. You need to go out of your way taking feats and prestige classes from a bunch of different books if that is what you want.

People want to be fantastic heroes. I can't imagine a real world expert or a fairly down to earth heroic character like Sherlock Holmes failing as often as a 5E character.


Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?

I am pretty sure I brought that up earlier, although maybe not in those exact words.

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 03:47 PM
3.5 is a bit too easy to cheese out or power game. I personally don't like it, but prefer 3E over competence to 5E incompetence.

Even in 3E you need to try for it, and if you don't want to don't. For example there is very little a core only fighter can be good at aside from making fortitude saves and full attacks, he simply doesn't have the skill points or ability scores to be good at much else. You need to go out of your way taking feats and prestige classes from a bunch of different books if that is what you want.And a fighter in 5e is competent across the board. Even a fighter untrained in perception isn't completely hosed when faced by a lurker (Something that saved my party last session). Having a <10% chance of failing an opposed check is NOT a fun thing.


People want to be fantastic heroes. I can't imagine a real world expert or a fairly down to earth heroic character like Sherlock Holmes failing as often as a 5E character.Except they do, when they're at a situation they need to roll for. 5e has a lot fewer areas you need to roll for.

McBars
2014-11-13, 03:54 PM
Why is nobody bringing up the fact that 5e has a number of skills with DCs that are near impossible for even specialized level-20 characters to succeed at that ordinary humans consistently pull off with little difficulty?


I am pretty sure I brought that up earlier, although maybe not in those exact words.

Well, you're both incorrect. DCs are not skill-specific in 5e; there is only the 5,10,15...30 scale corresponding to very easy, easy, medium...impossible tasks as a reference tool/guide for DMs.

Just the fact that level 20 characters CAN succeed at impossible DC'd (DC 30) tasks, while less proficient characters have 0 chance to do so, makes them incredibly skilled compared to the Average Joe Peasant. I'd rather maintain the level of difficulty rather than trivialize supposedly "near impossible" tasks with absurd skill scores that we saw in 3e.

Also, please furnish us with some examples of what you're referring to Nicol, cause last I checked DC tops out at 30 for "Impossible" tasks, so perhaps your DM has incorrectly assigned these mundane tasks an improperly high DC

Forum Explorer
2014-11-13, 03:55 PM
Exactly.

If the system only makes sense if you dont roll dice its a bad system.

If a system makes you roll dice needlessly, it's a bad system.

If a system has DC's that are arbitrary, rather then based on logic then it's a bad system.

I'll admit the system does struggle to represent Olympic Swimmer vs Commoner, but that's necessary because a guard spotting a high class thief is something that can happen no matter how good at hiding the thief may be, because the thief can mess up in a tense situation.

And quite frankly the latter is exponentially more likely to come up in play then a physical contest between a level 20 character and a peasant.

And it also prevents ridiculous stuff like this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0767.html)and it's lesser form of this (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0965.html)

Knaight
2014-11-13, 03:59 PM
I'll admit the system does struggle to represent Olympic Swimmer vs Commoner, but that's necessary because a guard spotting a high class thief is something that can happen no matter how good at hiding the thief may be, because the thief can mess up in a tense situation.

And quite frankly the latter is exponentially more likely to come up in play then a physical contest between a level 20 character and a peasant.

Sure, but penalties handle the first one, and there's still a case to be made that the odds are too high in the guard's favor - particularly as a system of multiple guards pretty much covers things, and the guards likely have some degree of training in guarding things.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 04:17 PM
I'll admit the system does struggle to represent Olympic Swimmer vs Commoner, but that's necessary because a guard spotting a high class thief is something that can happen no matter how good at hiding the thief may be, because the thief can mess up in a tense situation.

But PF manages to do both. The fighter can actually be good at keeping watch, and the Olympic Swimmer can trounce the weak, untrained commoner. And as for the thief "messing up in a tense situation" - if it really is that disadvantageous for him, that's what circumstance penalties are for, but most of the time if a class is designed to be good at X it's expected that they have trained to do X under pressure and so most "tense situations" shouldn't matter.

You can also represent a posted sentry by them taking 20 - they're literally standing there doing nothing but watching. So you have to be able to beat 20+whatever their mods are if you're just strolling up to the gate.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-13, 04:22 PM
Sure, but penalties handle the first one, and there's still a case to be made that the odds are too high in the guard's favor - particularly as a system of multiple guards pretty much covers things, and the guards likely have some degree of training in guarding things.

Penalties handle which one? :smallconfused: The Olympic Swimmer? I thought you said you didn't like how 5e handled that, or are you referring to 3.5? But what penalties would there be in 3.5?


Well I disagree with it being too high in the guard's favor. If it were trivial to sneak by them, then there isn't really a point to having guards now is it? Yeah some character should have it easy (like master assassins) but their class actually gives further bonus to their rolls and other abilities to sneak with. (Giving them stuff like +16 to hide, can't get beneath 10, and/or have advantage on all Stealth rolls)

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 04:23 PM
The thief messing up in a tense situation is represented by the d20 roll.

Yes, D&D would probably be better as a 3d6 system instead of d20, but one of the defining features of D&D at a lot of tables (Especially those that don't know anything about this site and the 3.X metagame) is the exaggerated chances of unlikely successes and failures.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 04:35 PM
Penalties handle which one? :smallconfused: The Olympic Swimmer? I thought you said you didn't like how 5e handled that, or are you referring to 3.5? But what penalties would there be in 3.5?


Penalties handle the thief-guard situation fairly well, though the whole matter of the guards being trained probably means they aren't needed. Still, the person doing the sneaking is going into an area with specially posted guards positioned such that they can see intruders. There's only a certain number of places worth sneaking to that are known in advance. So on and so forth.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-13, 04:37 PM
But PF manages to do both. The fighter can actually be good at keeping watch, and the Olympic Swimmer can trounce the weak, untrained commoner. And as for the thief "messing up in a tense situation" - if it really is that disadvantageous for him, that's what circumstance penalties are for, but most of the time if a class is designed to be good at X it's expected that they have trained to do X under pressure and so most "tense situations" shouldn't matter.

You can also represent a posted sentry by them taking 20 - they're literally standing there doing nothing but watching. So you have to be able to beat 20+whatever their mods are if you're just strolling up to the gate.

Can it? I'm under the impression that unless the fighter is min-maxed for detection, and within a certain level gap, they have no chance of detecting a high level stealth character.

Sneaking into a fortress shouldn't be trivial, and should be tense. It is literally designed to prevent people from sneaking in. In fact I'll go as far to say that sneaking should always be a degree of tense. It's a skill where yes, sometimes things just all go wrong. You sneeze. You startle a mouse that knocks over a cup. A guard turns around at the perfect time to see you (breaking his routine expectantly). It's not like remembering something or building something where random chance isn't a factor.

If you are giving him circumstance penalties, then he'd always have them, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Take 20? That's kinda the opposite situation of it, but sure. Let's say they are level 3 guards, giving them a plus 6+ability score in Perception. Let's be generous and say they've got a 18 in Wisdom. So +10 total. And because it's a fortress let's say they have a magic item to give them +5 in detection, maxing them out at +35 when taking 20. That's pretty trivial to beat for a high level stealth character in 3.5.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 04:56 PM
Can it? I'm under the impression that unless the fighter is min-maxed for detection, and within a certain level gap, they have no chance of detecting a high level stealth character.

1) Err yeah, "within a certain level gap" is the whole point. I wouldn't expect the Cliffport PD to detect Nale. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0360.html)

2) You don't need to be "min-maxed for detection." Again, a guard being actively vigilant throughout his shift is most likely taking 20, so it is in fact the thief who has to be optimized for stealth - as it should be.



Sneaking into a fortress shouldn't be trivial, and should be tense.

It is only trivial in 3.P if your DM is clueless or inexperienced. That is not a fault of the system.

But conversely, 5e Corvo Attano or 5e Ezio Auditore would be spotted more than once on every mission regardless of skill.



If you are giving him circumstance penalties, then he'd always have them, which kinda defeats the purpose.

Not at all. "They guard the first line of defense a lot better than the second line." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0454.html) So assigning a penalty at the outer wall but not further in is perfectly logical.



Take 20? That's kinda the opposite situation of it, but sure. Let's say they are level 3 guards, giving them a plus 6+ability score in Perception. Let's be generous and say they've got a 18 in Wisdom. So +10 total. And because it's a fortress let's say they have a magic item to give them +5 in detection, maxing them out at +35 when taking 20. That's pretty trivial to beat for a high level stealth character in 3.5.

And that is precisely why you and I are failing to agree - because I believe a high level stealth character should be beating level 3 guards.

But level 15 guards? That's another story.

Talakeal
2014-11-13, 05:07 PM
Well, you're both incorrect. DCs are not skill-specific in 5e; there is only the 5,10,15...30 scale corresponding to very easy, easy, medium...impossible tasks as a reference tool/guide for DMs.

Just the fact that level 20 characters CAN succeed at impossible DC'd (DC 30) tasks, while less proficient characters have 0 chance to do so, makes them incredibly skilled compared to the Average Joe Peasant. I'd rather maintain the level of difficulty rather than trivialize supposedly "near impossible" tasks with absurd skill scores that we saw in 3e.

Also, please furnish us with some examples of what you're referring to Nicol, cause last I checked DC tops out at 30 for "Impossible" tasks, so perhaps your DM has incorrectly assigned these mundane tasks an improperly high DC

If we are going to be correcting each other, it is actually listed as Nearly Impossible, not Impossible.

Still, that just highlights one of the big problems with the system. We don't actually know what these terms mean, and they are almost completely subjective. Is winning a gold metal in the Olympics Hard, Very Hard, or Nearly Impossible? How about coming up with Special Relativity? Scaring away an angry grizzly with a look? Forging Excalibur? Inventing the Steam Engine? Writing War and Peace?

The PHB doesn't actually give us very many guidelines on what to classify a given task as, and thus I prefer to focus on how hard it is for trained characters to succeed on Easy and Medium tasks instead. I find it much harder to believe that Einstein can only revolutionize world physics 10% of the time than he will fail to complete a college level math problem 20% of the time (assuming he is a level 20 character with a 20 intelligence).

McBars
2014-11-13, 05:20 PM
If we are going to be correcting each other, it is actually listed as Nearly Impossible, not Impossible.

Still, that just highlights one of the big problems with the system. We don't actually know what these terms mean, and they are almost completely subjective. Is winning a gold metal in the Olympics Hard, Very Hard, or Nearly Impossible? How about coming up with Special Relativity? Scaring away an angry grizzly with a look? Forging Excalibur? Inventing the Steam Engine? Writing War and Peace?

The PHB doesn't actually give us very many guidelines on what to classify a given task as, and thus I prefer to focus on how hard it is for trained characters to succeed on Easy and Medium tasks instead. I find it much harder to believe that Einstein can only revolutionize world physics 10% of the time than he will fail to complete a college level math problem 20% of the time (assuming he is a level 20 character with a 20 intelligence).

Well, that's where you as the DM come in; it's up to you to assign the DC.

Likely, the DC's should be somewhat subjective with respect to the character in question. A college level math problem should be rated DC < 5 for Einstein, and 30 for Caramon.

Those 2 procedures will no doubt drive some people crazy, and be met with petulant complaints like "What were the lazy devs thinking?" but it works great for my table.

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 05:24 PM
1) Err yeah, "within a certain level gap" is the whole point. I wouldn't expect the Cliffport PD to detect Nale. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0360.html)And this "You must be this high to play" is one of the complaints about 3.5. I consider this much stratification to be a detriment to the game.


2) You don't need to be "min-maxed for detection." Again, a guard being actively vigilant throughout his shift is most likely taking 20, so it is in fact the thief who has to be optimized for stealth - as it should be.You can't take 20 on perception checks. At best, you can rely on a passive 10.


But conversely, 5e Corvo Attano or 5e Ezio Auditore would be spotted more than once on every mission regardless of skill.At which point they use their other skills to recover from such a fumble. Part of this problem, though, is using dice as a resolution system.


But level 15 guards? That's another story.How are you getting so many legendary heroes to settle for guard work? :smallconfused:

Psyren
2014-11-13, 05:45 PM
And this "You must be this high to play" is one of the complaints about 3.5. I consider this much stratification to be a detriment to the game.

And it is perfectly fine to feel that way; I'm just trying to convey the reasons why not everyone is eager to jump on the 5e bandwagon with you guys. One such reason is that bounded accuracy limits the kinds of stories you can tell, such as a rogueish villain who can effortlessly evade the authorities.


You can't take 20 on perception checks. At best, you can rely on a passive 10.

False. You can try again and there is no penalty for failing. (It is in fact specifically listed as a valid take 20 example.)



At which point they use their other skills to recover from such a fumble. Part of this problem, though, is using dice as a resolution system.

Isn't that the whole point of a dice-based game?



How are you getting so many legendary heroes to settle for guard work? :smallconfused:

Er, have you been to Faerun and Krynn? There are literally legendary heroes serving drinks :smalltongue:

Less facetiously - I would expect level 15 guards in the 9 Hells for instance, or guarding the City of Brass, or other such seats of power.

McBars
2014-11-13, 05:51 PM
And it is perfectly fine to feel that way; I'm just trying to convey the reasons why not everyone is eager to jump on the 5e bandwagon with you guys. One such reason is that bounded accuracy limits the kinds of stories you can tell, such as a rogueish villain who can effortlessly evade the authorities.



False. You can try again and there is no penalty for failing. (It is in fact specifically listed as a valid take 20 example.)



Isn't that the whole point of a dice-based game?



Er, have you been to Faerun and Krynn? There are literally legendary heroes serving drinks :smalltongue:

maybe Faerun, not so much Krynn.

People don't play this game to tell stories, rather to have fun; of course, when you have fun, awesome stories usually follow.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 05:59 PM
maybe Faerun, not so much Krynn.

Tika was a Hero of the Lance actually.



People don't play this game to tell stories, rather to have fun; of course, when you have fun, awesome stories usually follow.

I'm not saying you can't tell awesome stories with 5e though; just that there are less options for doing so mechanically using bounded accuracy.

It's less constrained than 4e was - truly the nadir of D&D - but still not as free as 3.5/PF.

McBars
2014-11-13, 06:06 PM
Tika was a Hero of the Lance actually.

I thought that's who you were referring to; not to derail the thread, but she was an inexperienced barmaid who eventually became a hero. She was so raw she didnt know how to put on armor and frequently was as much a threat to her allies as her enemies with a sword in her hands.

Hardly a high level character.

jaydubs
2014-11-13, 06:10 PM
2) You don't need to be "min-maxed for detection." Again, a guard being actively vigilant throughout his shift is most likely taking 20, so it is in fact the thief who has to be optimized for stealth - as it should be.


You can't take 20 on perception checks. At best, you can rely on a passive 10.


False. You can try again and there is no penalty for failing. (It is in fact specifically listed as a valid take 20 example.).

I haven't followed the context of the whole conversation, so I could be misinterpreting here. But the 3.x entry for taking 20 requires both no penalties for failing, and lots of time. The example given in PF that specifically lists perception is limited to finding traps, which don't move and so you generally don't need to be in a rush to detect. A thief doesn't fit that, since if a guard doesn't detect the thief within a certain time period, the thief may have already moved past his post. Though, you could take 20 to find a thief that is hiding in one place rather than trying to move past a guard.

So while Sartharina's post is incorrect as a broad statement, it is valid when talking about guards trying to keep out thieves.

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 06:22 PM
Isn't that the whole point of a dice-based game?While it does a decent job of giving abstract results based on unreliable skill levels, it runs into problems when actually modeling skill-based things. Especially when everything depends on a single roll, as stealth tends to be treated. (Nobody ever second-guesses themselves in tabletop games)

Nagash
2014-11-13, 06:24 PM
If a system makes you roll dice needlessly, it's a bad system.

fortunately no such system has ever existed in d&d. burn strawman, burn.


If a system has DC's that are arbitrary, rather then based on logic then it's a bad system.

you mean like 5e completely arbitrarily deciding the DC's of every task? I completely agree. Welcome to our team buddy.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-13, 06:32 PM
1) Err yeah, "within a certain level gap" is the whole point. I wouldn't expect the Cliffport PD to detect Nale. (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0360.html)

2) You don't need to be "min-maxed for detection." Again, a guard being actively vigilant throughout his shift is most likely taking 20, so it is in fact the thief who has to be optimized for stealth - as it should be.



It is only trivial in 3.P if your DM is clueless or inexperienced. That is not a fault of the system.

But conversely, 5e Corvo Attano or 5e Ezio Auditore would be spotted more than once on every mission regardless of skill.



Not at all. "They guard the first line of defense a lot better than the second line." (http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0454.html) So assigning a penalty at the outer wall but not further in is perfectly logical.



And that is precisely why you and I are failing to agree - because I believe a high level stealth character should be beating level 3 guards.

But level 15 guards? That's another story.

It is the whole point, the point of why I think 5e is superior to 3.5.

That is a houserule you know that right? By RAW you'd have to roll. Regardless beating that DC is still really really easy to do.

Not really. Or rather how is it not trivial to get above a 35 in a skill you've decided to specialize in? The DM would have to actively forbid items and character builds to prevent it. (and then you make him cry by just buying a Wand of Invisibility)

I don't know about you, but I certainly got spotted 3-5 times when I was playing those games. :smallwink: More seriously, in 5e, Rouges and their subtypes get a lot of sneaky specialization stuff. They are higher then the proposed +11. To the point where I think the guards need something like a +6 in detection to spot them when rolling a natural 20.

That's not my point. In general I think a character should always be able to fail a stealth check. Always. If they can only fail due to circumstance penalties, then that violates what I believe should be possible.

True, that is a primary point of disagreement between us. Because I really do like bounded accuracy, and I don't like the idea of the guards leveling up as you play the game, or starting off at such a high level because then why aren't they saving the kingdom instead of you and your low level friends?

Also if they are level 15, why don't they have tens of thousands of gold? (AKA why are they working as a guard?)


I thought that's who you were referring to; not to derail the thread, but she was an inexperienced barmaid who eventually became a hero. She was so raw she didnt know how to put on armor and frequently was as much a threat to her allies as her enemies with a sword in her hands.

Hardly a high level character.

Caramon then. But also, its worth noting that they are one couple in a low magic game. They didn't get a massive amount of money in their quest, either of them.

McBars
2014-11-13, 06:33 PM
you mean like 5e completely arbitrarily deciding the DC's of every task? I completely agree. Welcome to our team buddy.

Is that really how you interpret it? It actually assigns no DC to ANY task, rather it gives you general guidelines for what the DC ought to be for tasks of varying difficulty.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 06:33 PM
I thought that's who you were referring to; not to derail the thread, but she was an inexperienced barmaid who eventually became a hero. She was so raw she didnt know how to put on armor and frequently was as much a threat to her allies as her enemies with a sword in her hands.

Hardly a high level character.

And Raistlin's most powerful spell was Sleep once, so whats your point?


I haven't followed the context of the whole conversation, so I could be misinterpreting here. But the 3.x entry for taking 20 requires both no penalties for failing, and lots of time. The example given in PF that specifically lists perception is limited to finding traps, which don't move and so you generally don't need to be in a rush to detect. A thief doesn't fit that, since if a guard doesn't detect the thief within a certain time period, the thief may have already moved past his post. Though, you could take 20 to find a thief that is hiding in one place rather than trying to move past a guard.

The stimulus merely has to be "present." So the fact that the thief is moving about (which isn't even necessarily the case) doesn't matter if he is still in range.


While it does a decent job of giving abstract results based on unreliable skill levels, it runs into problems when actually modeling skill-based things. Especially when everything depends on a single roll, as stealth tends to be treated. (Nobody ever second-guesses themselves in tabletop games)

So the alternative is to not roll at all and freeform it?

Deciding a complex opposed interaction with a single die roll may not be perfect, but it beats fiat. Besides which, 3.5 has a solution for that too. (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/variant/buildingCharacters/complexSkillChecks.htm)

Forum Explorer
2014-11-13, 06:47 PM
fortunately no such system has ever existed in d&d. burn strawman, burn.



you mean like 5e completely arbitrarily deciding the DC's of every task? I completely agree. Welcome to our team buddy.

3.5 has some really stupid RAW logic, which is the entire basis of the story Harry Potter and the Natural 20. (Which I highly recommend because it's hilarious). Anyways, point is, I'd say that 3.5 did have unnecessary rolling. Like Swim checks.



It doesn't decide the DC of any task. So you are flat out wrong.

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 06:49 PM
you mean like 5e completely arbitrarily deciding the DC's of every task? I completely agree. Welcome to our team buddy.Actually, 5e's DCs are set by the DM after taking all the fiddly bits of the circumstances surrounding a task into account, while 3.5's are arbitrary, fixed numbers that can be extremely inflexible.

Talakeal
2014-11-13, 07:49 PM
I thought that's who you were referring to; not to derail the thread, but she was an inexperienced barmaid who eventually became a hero. She was so raw she didnt know how to put on armor and frequently was as much a threat to her allies as her enemies with a sword in her hands.

Hardly a high level character.

After the adventure was over Tika (and to a lesser extent Caramon) went back to running the Inn of the Last Home. I don't know of their exact levels, but the modules assume the heroes will be level ~14 by the time you finish them.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 09:11 PM
Likely, the DC's should be somewhat subjective with respect to the character in question. A college level math problem should be rated DC < 5 for Einstein, and 30 for Caramon.

The entire point of variable character skill is that they get applied to the same DCs, and as such have an influence. Changing the DCs around per character based on how the GM sees that character pretty much takes the power to define their character away from the PCs as regards skills.

Lanaya
2014-11-13, 09:13 PM
Actually, 5e's DCs are set by the DM after taking all the fiddly bits of the circumstances surrounding a task into account, while 3.5's are arbitrary, fixed numbers that can be extremely inflexible.

There's nothing stopping the DM from setting all DCs in 3.5, and fiddly bits of the circumstances of tasks are absolutely factored into the difficulty by the DM in the form of circumstance modifiers. The difference between the two games is that 3.5 offers extensive guidelines for the DM to use if they'd rather not just invoke Rule Zero and make it up, while 5th doesn't bother.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 09:16 PM
There's nothing stopping the DM from setting all DCs in 3.5, and fiddly bits of the circumstances of tasks are absolutely factored into the difficulty by the DM in the form of circumstance modifiers. The difference between the two games is that 3.5 offers extensive guidelines for the DM to use if they'd rather not just invoke Rule Zero and make it up, while 5th doesn't bother.

Deciding which adjective applies to a task is hardly Rule Zero. That's not changing the rules, it's applying them.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 10:08 PM
Deciding which adjective applies to a task is hardly Rule Zero. That's not changing the rules, it's applying them.

It is when you have no guidelines on which to use when. Talakeal said it best:


If we are going to be correcting each other, it is actually listed as Nearly Impossible, not Impossible.

Still, that just highlights one of the big problems with the system. We don't actually know what these terms mean, and they are almost completely subjective. Is winning a gold metal in the Olympics Hard, Very Hard, or Nearly Impossible? How about coming up with Special Relativity? Scaring away an angry grizzly with a look? Forging Excalibur? Inventing the Steam Engine? Writing War and Peace?

The PHB doesn't actually give us very many guidelines on what to classify a given task as, and thus I prefer to focus on how hard it is for trained characters to succeed on Easy and Medium tasks instead. I find it much harder to believe that Einstein can only revolutionize world physics 10% of the time than he will fail to complete a college level math problem 20% of the time (assuming he is a level 20 character with a 20 intelligence).

Also, per you and Sarathrina they also have to decide when to arbitrarily throw the adjectives out altogether and deny a roll. In 3.5 it's obvious when rolling shouldn't make a difference because math is involved. In 5e it's all nebulous, fluffy gut sentiment.

Sartharina
2014-11-13, 10:09 PM
The difference between the two games is that 3.5 offers extensive guidelines for the DM to use if they'd rather not just invoke Rule Zero and make it up, while 5th doesn't bother.3.5 has rigid prescriptions for DCs, not extensive guidelines.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 10:19 PM
3.5 has rigid prescriptions for DCs, not extensive guidelines.

PF is much closer to the latter.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 10:24 PM
It is when you have no guidelines on which to use when. Talakeal said it best:

The adjectives are the guidelines. If there were a list of DCs with no labels attached, then assigning difficulties to them would qualify as houseruling, as is it's interpretation. The GM has a setting element in their head, a PC tries to do something to the setting element, and then the GM interprets the difficulty of interacting with that setting element in that manner. It's application of the rules.


Also, per you and Sarathrina they also have to decide when to arbitrarily throw the adjectives out altogether and deny a roll. In 3.5 it's obvious when rolling shouldn't make a difference because math is involved. In 5e it's all nebulous, fluffy gut sentiment.
It's hardly arbitrary to decide that something is off the scale, and that's where denying a roll comes in (with my position anyways, Sarathrina and I hold some pretty distinct positions on 5e skills). Moreover, this is the same in 3.5 - if a player says that their character is going to flap their arms to try and fly, the GM is generally just not going to allow it. Similarly, very few GMs require rolling for doing things like walking down the street, because that's a waste of everyone's time. This also holds with the adjective scale - once a task gets beyond nearly impossible, it's over the scale. If it would be rated under easy, it's under the scale. Done.

Psyren
2014-11-13, 10:43 PM
The adjectives are the guidelines.

Right, and they are poor. When does something count as "hard" vs. "very hard?" When exactly is someone "heroic" or "nonheroic" enough to preclude rolling? And as you yourself noted in #165, "moderate" is misnamed because the expert fails it more often than expected. It is not an egregious failure, but it is a failure.



It's hardly arbitrary to decide that something is off the scale, and that's where denying a roll comes in (with my position anyways, Sarathrina and I hold some pretty distinct positions on 5e skills).

The fact that both of you can look at literally basic rules like this and draw such divergent conclusions is a testament to how nebulous/subjective 5e was designed to be. Great if that's what you're going for, but many folks prefer to pay for bright line tests.



Moreover, this is the same in 3.5 - if a player says that their character is going to flap their arms to try and fly, the GM is generally just not going to allow it. Similarly, very few GMs require rolling for doing things like walking down the street, because that's a waste of everyone's time. This also holds with the adjective scale - once a task gets beyond nearly impossible, it's over the scale. If it would be rated under easy, it's under the scale. Done.

But those are things with either no chance of success (flapping your arms to fly) or no chance of failure (walking down an uncluttered street.) 5e goes a step further by telling you not to roll for things where you actually do have a chance of succeeding (or failing!), even as much as 22%, thanks to the tight reins of bounded accuracy. And whether you get to roll or not might as well be dependent on the brand of oatmeal your DM had that morning.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-13, 11:20 PM
Right, and they are poor. When does something count as "hard" vs. "very hard?" When exactly is someone "heroic" or "nonheroic" enough to preclude rolling? And as you yourself noted in #165, "moderate" is misnamed because the expert fails it more often than expected. It is not an egregious failure, but it is a failure.



The fact that both of you can look at literally basic rules like this and draw such divergent conclusions is a testament to how nebulous/subjective 5e was designed to be. Great if that's what you're going for, but many folks prefer to pay for bright line tests.



But those are things with either no chance of success (flapping your arms to fly) or no chance of failure (walking down an uncluttered street.) 5e goes a step further by telling you not to roll for things where you actually do have a chance of succeeding (or failing!), even as much as 22%, thanks to the tight reins of bounded accuracy. And whether you get to roll or not might as well be dependent on the brand of oatmeal your DM had that morning.

When it is hard it's hard, and when it's very hard it's very hard. :smalltongue:


What I find is a good guideline? Look at the consequences for failure. If the consequences are just 'try again' then you don't need to roll. (Assuming that you're not on a time limit, because then wasted time is a major consequence).

Another good guide is 'can this problem be solved with sufficient time and effort?' If yes, you don't need to roll.

Another good thing to just remember is failure to make your roll doesn't necessarily mean you've completely failed. It means something has gone wrong in some way. Perhaps if I was swimming and I failed my check, it means that I just took three times as long, or I'm extra tired afterwards.

They've also really simplified the skills. There's no crafting or anything like that in the system. That isn't determined by a roll, but by simple time and cost investment, because random chance isn't really a factor in that sort of activity.


In short, the system is really easy to understand and use, because it's based off common sense. Which brings us to another guideline; 'does it make sense for this character to be able to fail this?' If no, don't roll.

Knaight
2014-11-13, 11:48 PM
Right, and they are poor. When does something count as "hard" vs. "very hard?" When exactly is someone "heroic" or "nonheroic" enough to preclude rolling? And as you yourself noted in #165, "moderate" is misnamed because the expert fails it more often than expected. It is not an egregious failure, but it is a failure.
I'd agree that the names are poorly assigned given the probabilities involved, though that's more a general trait of the skill system being screwy. It's also far from my favorite system of ranked adjectives, though part of that is that I'm pretty partisan to the Fudge ladder by this point. Still, that doesn't change whether using the list is an application of rules or rule zero.

Plus, the same ambiguities are elsewhere. Assigning a level to an NPC is just as arbitrary and based in even less data for the specifics, that doesn't make assigning a level to an NPC a house rule. Then there's ability scores on the GM side of things. All of these are applications, all come down to GM experience and preference. I don't see this as an issue.


But those are things with either no chance of success (flapping your arms to fly) or no chance of failure (walking down an uncluttered street.) 5e goes a step further by telling you not to roll for things where you actually do have a chance of succeeding (or failing!), even as much as 22%, thanks to the tight reins of bounded accuracy. And whether you get to roll or not might as well be dependent on the brand of oatmeal your DM had that morning.
I'd agree that there's a bit of an issue with where 5e delineates it. As you've seen this thread, I'm a proponent of doubling proficiency for skills.

Nagash
2014-11-14, 12:26 AM
Is that really how you interpret it? It actually assigns no DC to ANY task, rather it gives you general guidelines for what the DC ought to be for tasks of varying difficulty.

Umm you do realize you just said EXACTLY the same thing I said but in a slightly different way right? Thx for the support.

With no set DC's ALL DC's are necessarily arbitrary.


3.5 has some really stupid RAW logic, which is the entire basis of the story Harry Potter and the Natural 20. (Which I highly recommend because it's hilarious). Anyways, point is, I'd say that 3.5 did have unnecessary rolling. Like Swim checks.

Actually swim is fine. I was a lifeguard through highschool and there are lots of people even in the modern world who either cant swim at all or swim so poorly you have to watch them like a hawk so you can jump in in time when they start going under. And thats in a pool. Never mind any sort of natural water. So no, thats not unnecessary rolling. Its perfectly reasonable rolling. Especially when you consider the results of the roll determine how fast you can go.




It doesn't decide the DC of any task. So you are flat out wrong.

Again With no set DC's ALL DC's are necessarily arbitrary.
So no, your flat out wrong.


Actually, 5e's DCs are set by the DM after taking all the fiddly bits of the circumstances surrounding a task into account, while 3.5's are arbitrary, fixed numbers that can be extremely inflexible.

Again no, no their not. All those fiddly bits that went into figuring the DC in 3e are the same fiddly bits you should be using to determine the DC of a task in 5e.

The only difference is that in 3e you would say "climbing a wet tree in the dark is DC 20"
and in 5e you would say "climbing is easy (or moderate, or hard, arbitrarily up to the GM where you start) but its dark, so that makes it moderate, oh and its wet, so now its hard.

Same process either way. 3e just saved you some hassle by doing it for you.

*** i did not verify climb DC's, this was a hypothetical example because i'm in a rush.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-14, 12:55 AM
Actually swim is fine. I was a lifeguard through highschool and there are lots of people even in the modern world who either cant swim at all or swim so poorly you have to watch them like a hawk so you can jump in in time when they start going under. And thats in a pool. Never mind any sort of natural water. So no, thats not unnecessary rolling. Its perfectly reasonable rolling. Especially when you consider the results of the roll determine how fast you can go.





Again With no set DC's ALL DC's are necessarily arbitrary.
So no, your flat out wrong.



Again no, no their not. All those fiddly bits that went into figuring the DC in 3e are the same fiddly bits you should be using to determine the DC of a task in 5e.

The only difference is that in 3e you would say "climbing a wet tree in the dark is DC 20"
and in 5e you would say "climbing is easy (or moderate, or hard, arbitrarily up to the GM where you start) but its dark, so that makes it moderate, oh and its wet, so now its hard.

Same process either way. 3e just saved you some hassle by doing it for you.

*** i did not verify climb DC's, this was a hypothetical example because i'm in a rush.

I'll have to take your word for that because someone being that bad at swimming is almost incomprehensible to me. I can understand a child having difficulty but an adult should be able to pick it up within an hour.

Wrong! An arbitrary decision is one made off whim or randomly. 5e is set up so that should not happen because the DM needs to reason what the difficulty is rather then looking up a number in a book without consulting the circumstances. (key word, should. Bad DMs are a problem) 3.5 is much more guilty of seemingly being a random number. (Take Handle Animal for example which doesn't take into account who trained the animal, or the intelligence of the animal, or my personal favorite, the language the animal was trained in.)


All those fiddly bits slow down the game, while the DM looks up numbers and does the math, while in 5e the DM just thinks how difficult would be and just use that difficulty. It's much more streamlined and easier to use.

1337 b4k4
2014-11-14, 01:45 AM
With no set DC's ALL DC's are necessarily arbitrary.


All DCs, whether they are assigned with extremely corse grained criteria (5e) or fine grained (3e) are arbitrary. They are set to precisely the level the DM intends. If the DM tells you "it's going to be Hard (DC 20) to climb this tree, or they tell you "this tree (DC 10) has particularly weak branches (+2), it's rainy (+2), it's dark (+2), it's windy (+2) and the branches have thorns on them (+2) it's the exact same thing and equally as arbitrary. The only difference is 3e wants the DM to justify it with more keywords.

This is so because ultimately the game isn't about making your fighter the best in the land at climbing a standard tree with standard grease on the limbs in the dark and in the rain. It's a game about overcoming obstacles and challenges, and those obstacles and challenges will be picked and assigned by the DM to be obstacles and challenges for your characters as they are, not against some nebulous standard adventurer.

Nagash
2014-11-14, 02:10 AM
I'll have to take your word for that because someone being that bad at swimming is almost incomprehensible to me. I can understand a child having difficulty but an adult should be able to pick it up within an hour.

Wrong! An arbitrary decision is one made off whim or randomly. 5e is set up so that should not happen because the DM needs to reason what the difficulty is rather then looking up a number in a book without consulting the circumstances. (key word, should. Bad DMs are a problem) 3.5 is much more guilty of seemingly being a random number. (Take Handle Animal for example which doesn't take into account who trained the animal, or the intelligence of the animal, or my personal favorite, the language the animal was trained in.)


All those fiddly bits slow down the game, while the DM looks up numbers and does the math, while in 5e the DM just thinks how difficult would be and just use that difficulty. It's much more streamlined and easier to use.

Easier doesnt make it better.

No matter how you slice it the DC's ARE going to be arbitrary based on whatever your GM happens assume they should be which is arbitrary. And that means as a player you can never really accurately guess your odds of succeeding at something no matter how much you have tried to optimize for that skill.

And to me thats bad. No matter how fast or easy the resolution is.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-14, 04:18 AM
Easier doesnt make it better.

No matter how you slice it the DC's ARE going to be arbitrary based on whatever your GM happens assume they should be which is arbitrary. And that means as a player you can never really accurately guess your odds of succeeding at something no matter how much you have tried to optimize for that skill.

And to me thats bad. No matter how fast or easy the resolution is.

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.

Sindeloke
2014-11-14, 04:44 AM
I'd agree that there's a bit of an issue with where 5e delineates it. As you've seen this thread, I'm a proponent of doubling proficiency for skills.

Setting aside all attempts to tell people their preferences are wrong, how would you implement this idea? Do you do half-steps (ie, put an eleven skill somewhere between prof 5 and 6), or just do two-point jumps for simplicity? How would it interact with rogue and bard prof-doubling features?

Sartharina
2014-11-14, 07:10 AM
All DCs are arbitrary. Whether they're arbitrarily set by a DM (5e), or arbitrarily set by a committee that's not at your table and doesn't know you or the situation that's in question (3.5/Pathfinder).

Psyren
2014-11-14, 10:40 AM
When it is hard it's hard, and when it's very hard it's very hard. :smalltongue:

http://xkcd.com/703/



What I find is a good guideline? Look at the consequences for failure. If the consequences are just 'try again' then you don't need to roll. (Assuming that you're not on a time limit, because then wasted time is a major consequence).

Another good guide is 'can this problem be solved with sufficient time and effort?' If yes, you don't need to roll.

Another good thing to just remember is failure to make your roll doesn't necessarily mean you've completely failed. It means something has gone wrong in some way. Perhaps if I was swimming and I failed my check, it means that I just took three times as long, or I'm extra tired afterwards.

This throws out a lot of common checks, like perception and open lock, that have no consequences for failure beyond "the thing you were trying didn't happen." And it will do this even if the PC had a chance to succeed. That doesn't bother you?

It also does not take into account degrees of success - some checks get better the better you do. Disable Device lets you disable a trap, or if you're really skilled you can bypass a trap without turning it off to protect the party from pursuers, or if you're even more skilled than that you can take the trap with you and set it up someplace else. It works in the other direction too - if I'm stronger than someone else, you would say I don't have to roll for bull rushing them, yet rolling lets me know things like how far I can push them - another "degrees of success" metric.

Your latter statement is a recipe for bickering. "Last time I failed that swimming check you said I made it, but it just took longer. Why am I getting sucked into the whirlpool now?" "Because the plot wants you down the- I mean, because I said so." Or "The other day I failed a similar climb check you just said I didn't make any progress. Now you're saying I fell 5 feet. And yesterday you said I dropped my dagger. Consistency would be nice."


They've also really simplified the skills. There's no crafting or anything like that in the system. That isn't determined by a roll, but by simple time and cost investment, because random chance isn't really a factor in that sort of activity.

Crafting generally doesn't require a roll in PF either because you can take 10 and the conditions are usually calm/unthreatening.



In short, the system is really easy to understand and use, because it's based off common sense. Which brings us to another guideline; 'does it make sense for this character to be able to fail this?' If no, don't roll.

This is once again no different from 3.5/PF. If you're attempting something trivial (walking down the street, again) or impossible (flapping your arms to fly, again) then you don't roll their either.

The difference is that 3x gives both the player and the DM a clear picture of what should be "able to fail" vs. "not able to fail." Namely, anything where their modifier is 19 or more above the DC of the activity to be performed. It is not left solely up to the DM's whims or guesswork.


All DCs are arbitrary. Whether they're arbitrarily set by a DM (5e), or arbitrarily set by a committee that's not at your table and doesn't know you or the situation that's in question (3.5/Pathfinder).

Said committee (a) design games for a living, and (b) are specifically being paid by me to do exactly that.

If I didn't want the help of the "committee" I would be freeforming, not paying for a professionally designed book. This is not to say their numbers are perfect, but it's a far simpler exercise to tweak DCs or add a circumstance modifier (representing "the situation in question," as you put it)

5e is only as successful with its nebulous design as it is because it has 3e's extensive rules to build on. Where 5e might say something like "Use a constitution check to adjudicate a character who wants to hold their breath" - 3e actually gives you guidelines like how often they should make the check, when they should start making checks, what kinds of creatures do and don't have to make this check, what kind of situations might not allow that as a defense, etc. If you were completely new to RPGs there are a lot of these situations you wouldn't think about until someone at your table asks the question and then you end up DMing by the seat of your pants. And that's not a ruleset I would consider to be worth the money.

ProphetSword
2014-11-14, 12:16 PM
It also does not take into account degrees of success - some checks get better the better you do. Disable Device lets you disable a trap, or if you're really skilled you can bypass a trap without turning it off to protect the party from pursuers, or if you're even more skilled than that you can take the trap with you and set it up someplace else. It works in the other direction too - if I'm stronger than someone else, you would say I don't have to roll for bull rushing them, yet rolling lets me know things like how far I can push them - another "degrees of success" metric.


None of this exists in 5th Edition, though (at least, not at this point). There are no degrees of success, except as decided upon by the DM. It's up to the DM to decide if your skill is good enough for these things to happen.

The rules on page 174 of the PHB are pretty straightforward:
"For every ability check, the DM decides which of the six abilities is relevant to the task at hand and the difficulty of the task, represented by a Difficulty Class. The more difficult a task, the higher its DC."

"To make an ability check, roll a d20 and add the relevant ability modifier. As with other d20 rolls, apply bonuses and penalties, and compare the total to the DC. If the total equals or exceeds the DC, the ability check is a success-the creature overcomes the challenge
at hand. Otherwise, it's a failure, which means the character or monster makes no progress toward the objective or makes progress combined with a setback determined by the DM."

1337 b4k4
2014-11-14, 01:22 PM
5e is only as successful with its nebulous design as it is because it has 3e's extensive rules to build on. Where 5e might say something like "Use a constitution check to adjudicate a character who wants to hold their breath" - 3e actually gives you guidelines like how often they should make the check, when they should start making checks, what kinds of creatures do and don't have to make this check, what kind of situations might not allow that as a defense, etc. If you were completely new to RPGs there are a lot of these situations you wouldn't think about until someone at your table asks the question and then you end up DMing by the seat of your pants. And that's not a ruleset I would consider to be worth the money.

This ignores the success both of pre-3e D&D and all the other RPGs that use a skills system less granular than 3e.

ProphetSword
2014-11-14, 02:12 PM
This ignores the success both of pre-3e D&D and all the other RPGs that use a skills system less granular than 3e.

I was just about to say the same thing. An RPG can definitely survive without a skill system, and 3e's approach is not the only one out there.

Psyren
2014-11-14, 03:41 PM
None of this exists in 5th Edition, though (at least, not at this point). There are no degrees of success, except as decided upon by the DM. It's up to the DM to decide if your skill is good enough for these things to happen.

I'm well aware that 5e does not have these things, or at least does not bother to codify them. And a 5e DM can indeed decide to make these things just happen because fiat is the name of the game. But think of someone inexperienced or new to tabletop games entirely - would they have considered the possibility of bypassing a trap while leaving it active, or recovering a trap for later use, if the rules didn't explicitly mention them as possibilities? The only word 5e Basic uses for interacting with traps is "disable" - a binary switch, either the trap is there and working or it isn't.

Which is a strong reason I favor 3e - it gives you fun things to think about, and mechanics like this lead smoothly to narrative. Like a murder mystery where the wealthy victim's heavily trapped/dimensionally locked mansion still has all the doors barred and traps intact, yet their master already lies dead within. Immediately the PC rogue, who is sufficiently savvy at his trade to think about this, considers the possibility that the clueless authorities did not - that the murderer was someone talented enough to bypass every defense via mundane means and leave them all intact. Both the DM and the players can arrive at this conclusion just by reading the rulebook, and it makes the entire world feel more alive.

If I'm going to pay for rules, I'm going to pay for the ones that give me all kinds of plothooks to consider - not the ones that just tell me "handwave something, who cares."


This ignores the success both of pre-3e D&D and all the other RPGs that use a skills system less granular than 3e.

That wasn't my intention, but 3e was (and continues to be!) orders of magnitude more successful than its predecessors. It was a refinement/distillation of what came before. The rules were so good that you can scrape the D&D name off them and result in something that's still #1 best-selling RPG material - which is exactly what happened.

Geostationary
2014-11-14, 04:38 PM
But think of someone inexperienced or new to tabletop games entirely - would they have considered the possibility of bypassing a trap while leaving it active, or recovering a trap for later use, if the rules didn't explicitly mention them as possibilities? The only word 5e Basic uses for interacting with traps is "disable" - a binary switch, either the trap is there and working or it isn't.

Probably. I generally believe my players to be able to approach the game without a slavish devotion to rule minutiae. We are playing a ttrpg, after all. Coming up with cool/original solutions comes with the territory; if anything I'd probably expect them to do it more, because by virtue of their newness they lack familiarity with the rules.


Which is a strong reason I favor 3e - it gives you fun things to think about, and mechanics like this lead smoothly to narrative. Like a murder mystery where the wealthy victim's heavily trapped/dimensionally locked mansion still has all the doors barred and traps intact, yet their master already lies dead within. Immediately the PC rogue, who is sufficiently savvy at his trade to think about this, considers the possibility that the clueless authorities did not - that the murderer was someone talented enough to bypass every defense via mundane means and leave them all intact. Both the DM and the players can arrive at this conclusion just by reading the rulebook, and it makes the entire world feel more alive.

I fail to see how knowledge of the ruleset is necessary to reach that conclusion. Hell, 3e as a system is unnecessary for that set-up. Traditional skill systems aren't even necessary for justifying it.


If I'm going to pay for rules, I'm going to pay for the ones that give me all kinds of plothooks to consider - not the ones that just tell me "handwave something, who cares."

You base your plots on the idiosyncrasies of the rules? I generally like my rules to be capable of telling the stories I want to tell rather than letting them dictate them a priori.


That wasn't my intention, but 3e was (and continues to be!) orders of magnitude more successful than its predecessors. It was a refinement/distillation of what came before. The rules were so good that you can scrape the D&D name off them and result in something that's still #1 best-selling RPG material - which is exactly what happened.
This... isn't actually an argument for anything.

mephnick
2014-11-14, 04:56 PM
But think of someone inexperienced or new to tabletop games entirely - would they have considered the possibility of bypassing a trap while leaving it active, or recovering a trap for later use, if the rules didn't explicitly mention them as possibilities?

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.

Forum Explorer
2014-11-14, 05:12 PM
http://xkcd.com/703/



This throws out a lot of common checks, like perception and open lock, that have no consequences for failure beyond "the thing you were trying didn't happen." And it will do this even if the PC had a chance to succeed. That doesn't bother you?

It also does not take into account degrees of success - some checks get better the better you do. Disable Device lets you disable a trap, or if you're really skilled you can bypass a trap without turning it off to protect the party from pursuers, or if you're even more skilled than that you can take the trap with you and set it up someplace else. It works in the other direction too - if I'm stronger than someone else, you would say I don't have to roll for bull rushing them, yet rolling lets me know things like how far I can push them - another "degrees of success" metric.

Your latter statement is a recipe for bickering. "Last time I failed that swimming check you said I made it, but it just took longer. Why am I getting sucked into the whirlpool now?" "Because the plot wants you down the- I mean, because I said so." Or "The other day I failed a similar climb check you just said I didn't make any progress. Now you're saying I fell 5 feet. And yesterday you said I dropped my dagger. Consistency would be nice."



Crafting generally doesn't require a roll in PF either because you can take 10 and the conditions are usually calm/unthreatening.



This is once again no different from 3.5/PF. If you're attempting something trivial (walking down the street, again) or impossible (flapping your arms to fly, again) then you don't roll their either.

The difference is that 3x gives both the player and the DM a clear picture of what should be "able to fail" vs. "not able to fail." Namely, anything where their modifier is 19 or more above the DC of the activity to be performed. It is not left solely up to the DM's whims or guesswork.



5e is only as successful with its nebulous design as it is because it has 3e's extensive rules to build on. Where 5e might say something like "Use a constitution check to adjudicate a character who wants to hold their breath" - 3e actually gives you guidelines like how often they should make the check, when they should start making checks, what kinds of creatures do and don't have to make this check, what kind of situations might not allow that as a defense, etc. If you were completely new to RPGs there are a lot of these situations you wouldn't think about until someone at your table asks the question and then you end up DMing by the seat of your pants. And that's not a ruleset I would consider to be worth the money.

Tautology is fun. :smallwink:

Not really, you fail a preception check, generally it means whatever is sneaking on you gets to ambush you now or you are not aware of other options the DM would give you (such as a secret passageway.) Open locks, unless there is some sort of time limit or danger generally I'd let it either be a success or a failure. Just like taking 20 in 3.5. Either you have the skill to beat the lock or not.

Degrees of success are still a thing, but those are all situations where you would need to roll, and yes it makes sense for you to roll then, because the consequences of failure are not just wasted time (they can be you get pushed back, or you set off the trap.)

Sure.

And in this one it's common sense. None of the crazy RAW stuff of being unable to identify what species you are. And again, eventually you do outscale some tasks, because the scale starts at very easy (DC 8). That hasn't changed either.

'Because last time it was a lake and this time it's a whirlpool!' :smalltongue: Seriously, unless the circumstance is exactly the same, why would you expect the same result? And if the circumstance is exactly the same, why wouldn't you give the same result? Common sense.

Prove it. Prove that 5e ambiguous rules (with specific examples) are only usable because 3.5 came out first. Because I'm calling BS on that claim.


I'm well aware that 5e does not have these things, or at least does not bother to codify them. And a 5e DM can indeed decide to make these things just happen because fiat is the name of the game. But think of someone inexperienced or new to tabletop games entirely - would they have considered the possibility of bypassing a trap while leaving it active, or recovering a trap for later use, if the rules didn't explicitly mention them as possibilities? The only word 5e Basic uses for interacting with traps is "disable" - a binary switch, either the trap is there and working or it isn't.

Which is a strong reason I favor 3e - it gives you fun things to think about, and mechanics like this lead smoothly to narrative. Like a murder mystery where the wealthy victim's heavily trapped/dimensionally locked mansion still has all the doors barred and traps intact, yet their master already lies dead within. Immediately the PC rogue, who is sufficiently savvy at his trade to think about this, considers the possibility that the clueless authorities did not - that the murderer was someone talented enough to bypass every defense via mundane means and leave them all intact. Both the DM and the players can arrive at this conclusion just by reading the rulebook, and it makes the entire world feel more alive.

If I'm going to pay for rules, I'm going to pay for the ones that give me all kinds of plothooks to consider - not the ones that just tell me "handwave something, who cares."



That wasn't my intention, but 3e was (and continues to be!) orders of magnitude more successful than its predecessors. It was a refinement/distillation of what came before. The rules were so good that you can scrape the D&D name off them and result in something that's still #1 best-selling RPG material - which is exactly what happened.

Unfamiliar to D&D perhaps, but not unfamiliar with fiction, where bypassing a trap and reusing on your opponents isn't exactly unknown. Plus traps don't just appear from a RNG. The DM has to put them there, and generally that means that they've thought how the players are going to get past it. And generally, it's on the players to consider the tactic of reusing a trap against their opponent, and telling the DM that they wish to do that.


I disagree. I feel the mechanics of 3.5 shut down storytelling and gave me less options. Because there was always a 'right' option. (Usually magic). And that through specialization of skills, you could make almost any challenge trivial unless the DM is basically flat out saying you can't succeed (or that you have a strict percentage chance) and because you have the list of DCs, you know exactly why and how the DM is nerfing you, and it makes things less fun.


5e isn't even fully out yet and it's already got stronger raw sales (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?1889-5E-s-Initial-Raw-Sales-Numbers-Stronger-Than-3E-s!#.VGZ9bDSjOSo)then 3.5 or 4e. If this keeps up prepare to be toppled. :smallamused:

Knaight
2014-11-14, 05:57 PM
Setting aside all attempts to tell people their preferences are wrong, how would you implement this idea? Do you do half-steps (ie, put an eleven skill somewhere between prof 5 and 6), or just do two-point jumps for simplicity? How would it interact with rogue and bard prof-doubling features?
Probably just two point jumps (though either works), prof-doubling adds 1 more instance of proficiency (so you get +12 to +18, not +24).


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.
Plus, from what I've seen the creativity tends to emerge just from playing an RPG, largely regardless of rules. I've seen some very clever problem solving from players who never even read the rulebook.