Scared of trying 5e

[GilesTheCleric]

Hey, all. I'm going to have a chance to play the release version of 5e this summer with a friend's group for a session or two, so I thought I would pop on over to this board and see what you all thought about it. While doing so, I saw this thread, "Tiamat unbeatable by a standard party", and thought, "oh, that looks like a neat thread. I was just responding to a 3.5 thread about killing 20 CR 20 creatures in one day, and another one about killing gods. I wonder how they compare between editions?". I got to reading, and it does seem like gods are much more powerful in 5e, which I think is good. However, while reading the thread I got more and more worried about how people were arguing for their perspectives.

I've been playing 3.5 for 10+ years, played a year of heavily homebrewed 2e (which I enjoyed), a few sessions of 4e (maybe with essentials? I played a cleric), which I enjoyed, and a few playtest sessions of 5e, which I also enjoyed. I've also played and enjoyed Whitewolf, Shadowrun, and Eclipse Phase. So please understand where I'm coming from with my concern -- I really would like to play this edition and enjoy it, and feel like I can. My friend is having a blast so far, it sounds like. I'm optimistic.

Here's a bunch of quotes from the thread, and what concerned me about them.

This is my biggest concern, so I have a whole bunch of quotes to make sure I'm not misunderstanding things. Sorry it's a bit long.

You know as well as I do that is not an object. Nor does this fit into RAW or RAI. I just read the spell.


Can I at least turn a gnat into the Moon and drop it on her head? Surely the Moon is an object.

In all seriousness, true polymorph is a spell I really wouldn't even pretend to guess at RAI. There's no effort to define an "object," no limitations on size or mass. I guess you just have to negotiate with the DM: Can I turn the gnat into a rock? Okay, how about a boulder? Asteroid? Moon? Why are objects not defined within the game? This seems like a pretty important distinction coming from 3.5, where it's important if things like spells or attacks can affect only creatures or only objects, or if when you swing to sunder something if you're only doing half damage and have to deal with hardness. Are the sunder rules unusable on things like doors or chests?


Totally this. All of 5e is flavored with "DM needs to arbitrate this" and I believe Tiamat is an example of the same.


Secondly, this is D&D. Technically, there are no concrete rules other than what the DM says. If the DM says the giant dragon deity is unhumanly strong and has special powers, then it does. The DM can't cheat. But then the game turns into just asking the GM "mother may I?". Maybe that works in some games, but it can sometimes be really frustrating, not to mention that it requires a heck of a lot more work on the part of the GM.


So, let's agree to not abuse RAW in this thread to prevent such "instant world death" scenario shenanigans, and use RAI instead please. All agreed? Quotes like this unsettle me the most. To make sure that I'm not misunderstanding, you all are using RAI to mean either "rules as interpreted" or "rules as intended", right? And that regardless of what the acronym means, it's going to vary from person to person and GM to GM. Wouldn't using individual's interpretations lead to more arguments, misunderstandings, and even just honest mistakes or miscommunication?


Historically, those PCs have cheated and it wasn't in 5th edition. Wizards are no longer God Mode. Defeating a god has historically required finding and destroying the One Ring. That word "cheated" makes me worry, too. How is following the rules cheating? In the 3.5 forum, using very over-powered combos or abilities is typically called "cheese", because it's within the rules, but often makes for an unfun, unfair, or unbalanced game; most folks abide by gentlemen's agreements not to use those things. However, it's not cheating unless combination X has been banned at a table as part of that table's houserules.

I'd like to especially note that normally cheesy options don't have to be game-destroying. For example, suppose I'm playing a cleric, and want to go into a prestige class that lets me turn into a newt that only that prestige class can turn into. We'll say that this prestige class's powers give me essentially no benefit other than being able to look like a normal, nonmagical newt -- it's just something cool that I want my character to do. Unfortunately, the requirements to get in require arcane casting ability, which a cleric doesn't have (it's divine). In 3.5, I could make use of a combo that would grant me arcane casting with just a feat or two, and thus qualify for the PrC. Even though gaining arcane casting as a cleric could end up being very overpowered and thus cheesy, using that same ability to be able to turn into a newt because it fits my character's theme isn't cheesy at all, and might even make my character weaker than if I hadn't spent those feats toward the goal of becoming that unique newt.


Wish chaining clones would not work, even if you ignored the RAI and used the most favorable interpretation of RAW (you can have more than one simulacrum, and owning a simulacrum is not a status that is coppied to your simulacrum). You might get enough gold to get 3-4 simulacrum in-gam, ever, and you will not have any time to create any of them as a 12 hour ritual once you finally get to the final battle. It's literally a "run as fast as you can and pray you can stop the ritual" ending, which kind of prevents simulacrum chaining in and of itself. This confuses me more than it scares me. By my understanding, RAW is rules as written, and there is no "interpretation" required -- you read the rules, do what they say, and everyone with the ability to read them all agrees that they mean that single thing. Perhaps someone could clarify how this works, or if the poster just mis-typed?


The wizard would get a saving throw against that second wish. It would be a DC 24 wisdom saving throw, targetting a class that doesn't actually have that much wisdom (10-12 typically) and proficiency in wisdom saves. So the wizard only makes it on a 17-20... A 25% chance of never simulacrum abusing again, and it's 100% RAW. This post, responded to by this next one:


It's also 100% rules lawyer. I'd actually rather the DM come up with some reasonable excuse for why infinite simulacrums wouldn't work, maybe even claiming each one is like shredding my soul, rather than have him depend on extremely gimmicky mechanical tactics that only work in a world where we know all the numbers in advance and can posit probability and the most effective option. In this instance, the GM coming up with a reason for something not working despite the rules saying that it does is a houserule. Houserules are fine. My problem is with the requirement of there being an in-universe reason of it for not working. What's wrong with just saying that a combination is not allowed in a game, and leaving it at that?


However, like you said, I would rather just not have to deal with the infinite simulacrum issue, and would say no to it in my games (the RAI are obviously one simulacrum per character, no matter what), but if a DM did allow it then wish is an option that allows them to reverse that lapse in judgement, letting them challenge the party again. Again this "RAI are obviously" concerns me. When people come from different backgrounds, groups, and games with different expectations and understandings, how is it possible for any interpretation to be obvious?


The overwhelming majority also does not see an exploit like this. Also I don't care if it's RAW it's not RAI. RAI is that only one Simulacrum of the same creature can exist. This and the next quote were the ones that prompted me to put this whole post together with the quotes and everything. In any game I've played in and in the 3.5 forum, trying to argue "but this is what it's supposed to be!" gets a player absolutely nowhere. It's pointless to even try.


It may be strictly RAW usable, but it violates RAI pretty obviously, and really that's all that matters.

I'll give an example from 3.5 to show how non-obvious RAI can be. The Monk is infamous for being dysfunctional, and one dysfunction is its bonus feats. Its bonus feats special ability reads (in part) "A monk need not have any of the prerequisites normally required for these feats to select them." (PHB 41) Later on in the PHB in the feats chapter, the rules read "Some feats have prerequisites. Your character must have the indicated ability score, class feature, feat, skill, base attack bonus, or other quality designated in order to select or use that feat." (PHB 87). Here, the monk is allowed to select feats for free as part of a class feature, but if they pick one that they do not meet the prerequisites for, cannot then use the feat. So the question is, did the designers mean for the monk to also be able to use those feats, or simply for them to acquire them ahead of time so that they're already on the character sheet once the player meets the prereqs? It's not clear, and the errata for the PHB did not address this. So, the most that anyone can assume is that the monk may select feats, but then not use them if they do not meet the prereqs, because that is what the rules say. Now, a GM could make a houserule for this situation and say "in my games, monks may both select and use feats as part of their class feature", but that would be a houserule, not something that you could take to an online forum or another game and expect to work the same way.

TL;DR, this is my primary fear with 5e. If 5e is filled with GM adjucation everywhere, how can I know what to expect? How can I build a character before getting to the table so I'm not wasting everyone's time asking about GM interpretations? How could I bring a character from one table to another and (barring houseruled items or things) expect it to be exactly the same character, especially if a key component of my character rests on how a single GM interprets a rule?

I know that I could try and build something that's an unquestionable as possible, but that's not why I play dnd. I play dnd because of the versatility it gives me, because of the nearly infinite combinations and unique characters I can make. I want to find some unexpected interaction between two rules, then make that an important part of my character's rp and backstory. I want to make a character that nobody has ever made before, and make that character unique both through their fluff and their mechanics.

An example to make it clear what I mean: In 3.5, there's a feat called Umbral Spell, which adds the [darkness] descriptor to your spells, and so they can then dispel lower-leveled [light] spells. I built a character who used this feat with their [light] spells (which also dispel [darkness] spells of lower level), so that their spells would dispel both [light] and [darkness] spells. Note that being able to do this make barely any impact on the game, doesn't make my character any stronger, and generally would be considered a waste of feats.

My character's entire backstory and rp is based on their being able to use this combination -- in short, they're afraid of the dark, and always have a (bright) light source active, even while sleeping or sneaking about or when it would otherwise be detrimental. The character is so afraid of the dark that they don't trust others with dealing with it for them, and thus make sure that they are in control of the light around them by dispelling any magical light sources they don't control (compare with the OCD behaviour of checking if the oven is off personally (several times, just to be sure), even if someone else says they've done it).

Without that rules interaction, the character's relationship with the world would be entirely different, such as by a GM saying "no, it's silly for a [light] spell to dispel both [light] and [darkness]. I won't allow it". I would have to entirely rebuild my character, write up a new backstory, and figure out a new personality to rp. In 3.5, I can take my character to any table where the GM doesn't have a houserule against [light]+[darkness] spells, and it will work. I can spend 10+ hours building it without having to constantly bother my GM about a rules interaction that I have to know the result of before being able to continue figuring out my character. It's RAW.

This section is a combination of concerns about acceptable rules sources, and time spent hunting things down. On the 3.5 boards, it's generally considered unwise to follow rules clarifications posted by WotC custserv or the official FAQ, because the responses from both have a much lower degree of accuracy than they ought to for being "official" rules. They have lost their ethos because they are frequently wrong, and are thus ignored. Further, even the game designers themselves have made errors in explaining or using rules in places like WotC's web articles, even those that are explicitly written to explain the rules to new players. So my first hope (not a concern!): are the designers now much more accurate and the Sage/FAQ/custserv not wrong in 5e? If so, that's great.

Second, time spent hunting things down. The way the below posts read makes it sound like rules clarifications could be posted anywhere (twitter, blogs, WotC web articles, wherever). Is this true, or is there some sort of WotC Gatherer-type database that includes a live/always updated list of all errata and rules clarifications? Or perhaps do they publish errata frequently for each book and post it online?

that reminds me. has anybody tweeted about the grappler feat to clarify that exception to a rule that doesn't exist? maybe they'll give better answer than emailing customer support did.


Contagion is confirmed to require failed saves to take effect. Please don't quote the rules text at me, its poorly written, people have asked questions, Wizards confirms that the negative effects take place after failed saves. Other interpretation lead to every single boss monster being defeated by a level 5 spell. The flavor of the spell indicates its a long duration disease, not a insta stun forever.


Too bad the creators say it's the later. It does not come into effect until after and it does not work on Tiamat as she is can't be affect by disease and is immune to the stunned condition.
However, all of these posts make me worry about the quality of the writing in the 5e PHB. Sure, the 3.5 PHB had a whole ton of errors, but most of those weren't poorly written (ie open to multiple interpretations) as they were simply unfunctioning or functioning in a way other to what might have been expected (the RAI).

3.5's expansive book catalogue, permissive rules, and singularity of rules (everything in the entire system uses the same rules) means that with enough book diving and clever building, nearly anything is possible, whether it's a copy of a favourite character from some media, or the universe-whipping God-Wizard.

From the quotes, it seems like a lot of this flexibility is lost. Characters can't play monsters? What? Why should I be unable to be a baby dragon or a Thri-Kreen or a sentient plant? Or on the flipside, the BBEG for my game can't be a mostly-blind katana-wielding 5' tall rat with four oversized turtles (each specializing in a different ninja weapon) as his henchmen?

No, I don't think the monster rules are fair either. For example, monsters should be able to have character classes. Why can't my BBEG ancient red dragon also be a warlock/sorcerer? And it's completely messed up that orcs have d8 hit dice. They're like the ultimate barbarians; they should have d12s and be able to rage. This game is massively unbalanced in favor of PCs. It's almost like the devs wanted the monsters to lose every battle! I know I can just make a house rule that buffs up the monsters so that they kill the PCs half the time, but I shouldn't have to.


First, monsters and legendary creatures can't cheat. They are what they are. Expecting monsters to follow the same standards that humans and similar folk do is just absurd. In fact, creatures like this should be more powerful and have better stats, proficiencies, etc. It just makes sense.


So wait, where is a werebear among the playable races? I still don't understand how it has 8 attacks naturally, my MM claims it has 2.


yes, he is. Because he lives in Eslin land, where being a giant, raging bear monster is just something that normal people do for marginal mechanical benefit. I object to this very strongly. Dnd is a game of both using and breaking stereotypes. In Tokien's world, giant eagles are somehow not strange, scary, and shunned because you expect them to swoop down on your cattle and cart them off. They're respected as wise, good creatures. If all werebears are known to be good (this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread; I'll assume it's correct), what's wrong with them in society? That's breaking stereotypes.

What about adhering to them, where the hero goes out and does something risky to themselves so that they can fight for the greater good? Perhaps they are implanted with adamantine bones and claws, and then can hulk out in order to defeat Magneto? Or if in real life, a new type of steroid was developed that had few or non-important side effects, and would increase your strength or endurance? And it were available to everyone at minimum opportunity cost? Why would anyone not take something like that to improve themselves, even if it's just a small increase? Don't people drink coffee or tea or 5 hour energy to stay awake at work? How is that any different?


Now, you can stop naysaying and move on to other points that have been brought up or you can continue telling me how wrong I am or demeriting my posts by claiming char OP but I'm think I've explained in enough dept to make clear my intentions of my posts. Now, on this point some folks might disagree with me, and I accept that. To me, charOP is the means to an end. If I can lever my system mastery in order to make a character that is unique, why should I be looked down on or punished for that? My method is to be as efficient as possible (optimizing) the basic needs for my character so that I can free up as many options as possible to add unique, flavourful things. In my example way above of the OCD [light] caster, I would not be able to create such a character and expect to be able to contribute to a party if I didn't use a base class that was already very strong, and that allowed for many efficient options to fill its role (cleric).

TL;DR: Coming from 3.5, it seems like RAW and RAI have been switched, and that makes me uncomfortable because people have different interpretations of RAI. I'm afraid that characters I build might not transfer between tables/be buildable without GM babysitting because of this.

Are errata/ rules clarifications easy to get to? And is it official? And not incorrect?

Can I make nearly any character concept I like, and not be looked down on or penalized for optimizing in order to make it happen? Does the system support me being able to make any concept?




Please, 5e regulars. Tell me that everything is going to be okay, and that my fears are unfounded. I hope to have misunderstood things, or just to have been more afraid of the unknown than I should be. I'm really looking forward to 5e.

[also, a disclaimer: that thread looked a little heated, so let's all please ignore all of that arguing and whatnot?]

[DivisibleByZero]

I've also played and enjoyed Whitewolf

I didn't read everything in all of those spoilers. I just read a tiny bit of the first one, and stopped after you asked about why things weren't defined.
Here's the thing about D&D 5e. Don't think of it like, or compare it to, D&D 3e.
Just don't do it. They're basically completely different games that just run on a very similar chassis.
Think of 5e more like a d20 version of a White Wolf game.

Seriously. Think of it that way.

Now you should have an idea of why the rules don't necessarily need to spell out every single little tiny insignificant detail.
It just isn't needed.
The rules lawyers that are used to 3e and 4e *want* it done that way, but that doesn't make it necessary by any means. Think of the DM of a 5e game like you would think of a GM in a White Wolf game. He's not there to nitpick over every little rule. He's there to tell a story.
And that's why you should be there as well.
Use the common sense that every person should have, and the game not only plays fine, but plays extremely well.

[Kane0]

Everything is okay, and your fears are (mostly) unfounded. That thread has a lot of theorycrafting, and a lot of theorycrafting wont see action at the table. The vast majority of things you might want to do wont be ambiguous, and in actuality because there is less content at the moment, there are fewer unforseen combinations that could complicate a game that is designed to be rather simple and straightforward compared to 3.pf (which you shouldnt do, they look superficially similar but play very differently. sit down and read the phb and youll see that rules lawyers and nitpickers can have a field day with it if they so choose because its written in plain english rather than legalese).

There should be an intro to 5e guide somewhere on the guides index, its a good primer to what to expect and how 5e differs from 3.x (in mindset as well as mechanics).

[Asmotherion]

Personal Feedback about 5e compared to other editions:

First, I will make a minor evaluation on editions I have played:

D&D 1e: Played a session once, as a tribute. Was nice, considering when it was made, but I wouldn't play a whole campain on it, as it can be tireing

D&D 2e: Also played a couple of sessions. I liked it a lot, as I always play a spellcaster, and spellcasters used to be way OP there. The other players were pissed about it though, and we moved on from it. To be honest, it was a bit unfair to slay someone unless they got a 20 on their dice.

D&D 3,5e: Most of my player experiance is there. I actually never got to play 3e, directly going to 3.5. It's awesome with all the customisation options at first, but it gets tireing to have to read 10+ books over and over just to make a character. Templates, Paragons, 100+ races and just a many prestige classes. Really too much work. Yes it was awesome, but way too complex, and the classes were way unbalanced (a melee fighter/barbarian could make just as much dammage as a caster in a round, without even using a spell slot). Also, the stats could go skyhigh, and you didn't know what to focus on, balance or glass build. I think the 20 cap (with a rare exception up to 30) was the best thing that ever happened to D&D, together with the at-will cantrips in 5e)

D&D 4e: Ok, it's a tabletop game. It still isn't D&D. Don't play it. Or do, but at your own risk. Don't expect it to have anything to do with D&D though. D20 classless, and even Pokemon Tabletop Adventures are more D&D like than D&D 4e. >_>

D&D 5e: Simplified system, balanced classes, balanced races, cantrips at-will that are actually usefull, and a lot of versality. In my own experiance, both as a DM and as a Player, it's the best system that has ever come out yet. Sure, it lacks some templates (for example, an aspiring Lich will only manange to become an NPC-like character) and could benefit from some of 3.5 prestige classes to make it more fun, but if this is the price for ballanced gameplay, I am willing to pay it. After all, a suplement could come out at any time, with a way to access all this, without destroying the balance, or even a DM could create a way for players to access them, if they really want to. :) D&D 5e is the best D&D I've ever played.

[Solusek]

You're right, op. 5E has a lot of issues when it comes to the details of the rules. I started out *super* excited for it after getting the books, but I'm not so sure anymore. We have a half dozen sessions under our belt at my home table and I'm already feeling nervous about the way the game is going mechanically. Way too much stuff the DM is just randomly adjudicating on the fly, because that's all he can do given the rules. This was never a problem during the 10+ years I played under him during 3.X, but I'm not liking whats happening in 5th so far.

[coredump]

Horrible DMs will be horrible regardless of the rules, they will just be horrible in different ways.

5E is built for Players to use the system to play a game. Instead of attempting to game the system. I really liked 3E, but it came down to how could I manipulate the system the best, the story of what we did was almost unimportant except as a backdrop to highlight how well I manipulated the system.

5E is different. Build the character you want.... play the game. The fun isn't in building the right combo of feats and abilities (though there is still some of that), but in beating up the Kobolds, or rescuing the princess, or defeating the demons.

There are a few 'troubled' areas... but only a few, and most of them are easy to resolve. In all of the Simulacrum discussions I have seen, I don't recall *anyone* that says they would allow an army.... just arguing on if it is technically possible. Just like no DM would allow Pun Pun.... but there were long threads about the possibility.

There are other areas that are *intentionally* left flexible (such as Hiding and Stealth), which is because an RPG has the tremendous advantage over other games in having a human being assigned to adjudicating situations. So 5E stopped trying to act like a computer game, and has gone back to allowing DMs to adjudicate what is going on. I think this is a great thing, I think it leverages the biggest advantage RPGs have over other games.... but if you don't want that. If you want all rules to be hard-coded, then 5E may not be for you.

[Mr.Moron]

If you want a lot of wacky character versatility available written in books that says "You can have this. This is what it does." 5e probably isn't your game.

If you want a lot of strict rules constructs that handle a lot of edge cases, 5e probably isn't your game.

If you want a lot of diverse charOP with a high system mastery ceiling, 5e probably isn't your game.

If you want every game entity to be running with the exact same back-end mechanics "under the hood" as players do, 5e probably isn't your game.

On the whole given what you've listed as concerns and the sort of overall feel I'm getting for your plastyle (as much as I can in a brief post), you will probably enjoy 5e less than you would 3.P games or at least find more things that bother you about it in the long run.

This doesn't mean you can't enjoy it I just wouldn't personally recommend making a switch if you can avoid it.

[DivisibleByZero]

On the whole given what you've listed as concerns and the sort of overall feel I'm getting for your plastyle (as much as I can in a brief post), you will probably enjoy 5e less than you would 3.P games or at least find more things that bother you about it in the long run.

I wouldn't necessarily say that.
That's why I lead with the tiny quote that I did and told him not to think of it like 3e, but to think of it like a d20 game of White Wolf.
He's played and enjoyed WW. The feeling here in 5e is similar. He doesn't need to change systems to enjoy it, he needs to change his mindset.

[TheDeadlyShoe]

Can I make nearly any character concept I like, and not be looked down on or penalized for optimizing in order to make it happen? Does the system support me being able to make any concept?

Please, 5e regulars. Tell me that everything is going to be okay, and that my fears are unfounded. I hope to have misunderstood things, or just to have been more afraid of the unknown than I should be. I'm really looking forward to 5e.

I get what you are saying. But any way you slice it there's way less danger of this in 5e than in 3.5e. Most DMs had different thoughts on what books were acceptable, and whether certain characters broke the game too hard or were too powerful for a given adventure a DM wanted to plan. Or for that matter, were too weak! That's not the case in 5e. There's very few things you can do to optimize that break the game. Even ones that break the game don't break it too badly. And it would be a struggle to make a character that has a tough time contributing.


I object to this very strongly. Dnd is a game of both using and breaking stereotypes. In Tokien's world, giant eagles are somehow not strange, scary, and shunned because you expect them to swoop down on your cattle and cart them off. They're respected as wise, good creatures. If all werebears are known to be good (this was mentioned elsewhere in the thread; I'll assume it's correct), what's wrong with them in society? That's breaking stereotypes.

What about adhering to them, where the hero goes out and does something risky to themselves so that they can fight for the greater good? Perhaps they are implanted with adamantine bones and claws, and then can hulk out in order to defeat Magneto? Or if in real life, a new type of steroid was developed that had few or non-important side effects, and would increase your strength or endurance? And it were available to everyone at minimum opportunity cost? Why would anyone not take something like that to improve themselves, even if it's just a small increase? Don't people drink coffee or tea or 5 hour energy to stay awake at work? How is that any different?

IMO it's a Tippyverse thing. if you start shaping the universe (characterizing things as straightforward rational decisions) based on some things that are powerful in the rules (perhaps unintentionally) then the end result is dramatically distorted from the world the game supposedly takes place in. in this case, certain interpretations of the lycanthropy rules (they are somewhat loose and much is left up to the DM) can imply that anyone of a given alignment should be trying to were out in a specific way. you don't have Tolkien, you have werebear elves vs wererat goblins.

Also, werebears are not all good. i'd love to say more on this, but i think that's as far as i can go without actually starting another side-argument about lycanthropy.

[ProphetSword]

If you played a year of 2e, you have nothing to fear from 5e. I find the two games to be very similar, except 5e has rules that are modern and consistent.

[Mr.Moron]

I wouldn't necessarily say that.
That's why I lead with the tiny quote that I did and told him not to think of it like 3e, but to think of it like a d20 game of White Wolf.
He's played and enjoyed WW. The feeling here in 5e is similar. He doesn't need to change systems to enjoy it, he needs to change his mindset.

Really? I've never really enjoyed any WW game I've played, but quite like 5e. I've played a fair bit of WW games too, since it's the only thing my RPG group would touch for years. Maybe I'm letting my absolute hatred of the setting(s) overall tone & attitude color perceptions but I just don't see any parallels at all.

[DivisibleByZero]

but I just don't see any parallels at all.

I meant regarding the rules. WW games are much more open to interpretation and less spelled out for every situation than D&D has historically been.
If he goes in with that mindset, that the rules aren't set in stone and the DM is going to need to make judgement calls about things, then he'll be fine.
If he goes in thinking he's getting every conceivable situation coming with rules attached like in 3e, he's going to be in for a big disappointment.

[Shining Wrath]

There's only 3 books out, so 5e is much cleaner and simpler than 3.5. It's also much less extensive. OTOH, there is some stuff that's new; I can't think of anything in 3.5 that really matchs up well with an Oath of the Ancient Paladin (no, Paladin of Freedom isn't the same).

Lesson 1: There's a lot of class abilities, races, and spells that aren't in the 3 books. If you want a Malconvoker, it doesn't exist ... yet. You can adapt existing stuff.

The attitude of "rulings, not rules" requires a DM to think things through before starting play - reading these fora would be a good idea, as people find a lot of the "bugs". For example, I've houseruled explicitly that the Infinite Simulacrum Army doesn't work, you can't get rich with Fabricate, True Polymorph can't create magical items or creatures with class levels, and so on, because I've read things here.

Lesson 2: DM needs to prepare; players need to give the DM grace to come back and improve an off-the-cuff ruling after some thought. It's gonna happen at some point.

Alignment is a lot less important for character classes now. There's no "evil" descriptor on spells. OTOH, mindless undead (skeletons and zombies) are listed as evil in the MM.

Lesson 3: There's some character concepts right there (Lawful Barbarians, Chaotic Good Druids) that just opened up.

Conclusion: it's a different game. Over time, a lot of the incompleteness will presumably go away. There's some flexibility built into the system compared to 3.5.

[ruy343]

The biggest advantage of 5e is simplicity: it's pretty easy to understand and play.

Also, many of us like that the DM is given more leeway in the rules, although some suggestions are given in the DM's guide to help players weigh in if necessary.

Regarding the thread that's giving you the heebie-jeebies, bear in mind that it's about a specific monster in a specific campaign that's been released. The fact that players are coming up with crazy ideas for what to do to counter a nigh-on-impossible challenge based on free-thinking and DM interpretation is actually a good sign: it shows that the system is encouraging creativity, which is where much of the fun comes from.

However, if you have a crappy DM, you're going to have a crappy DM: there's no way around that.

[Forum Explorer]

That's a big post, so I'm not going to address all of it.


RAW vs RAI:

There will be some interpretation and variance in the rules, yes. And things aren't rigerously defined. Instead they took a 'common sense' approach to the rules. What is an object? Well, what do you think it is? The words are designed more along a normal manner of speaking, and as a result there are some situations where RAW says something is possible, but the wording of the entire spell/ability/rule clearly paints a picture of forbidding that specific thing (Simulacrum chaining for example)

In general they don't give you a specific list of things to do. The attitude in the rules is that you can do anything within the rules of common sense, and you just either do it, or need a roll. And the roll is determined by the difficulty of the circumstances. All in all, it's meant to be easy to read and understand, not a legal document to be poured over. And so simplicity is favored over complexity, which makes RAW potentially misleading, and RAI the order of the day.


Errata:

Again, it's more a matter of common sense then anything, and a misunderstanding of how some sentences can be read. Contagion is the only one I'm really aware of, where the ability present is incredible and powerful, but is sorta vague on when it started. So there was some arguement of RAW vs RAI, where the RAW people were saying that the specific words used meant the effect was immediate, while the RAI people were saying that was much too unbalanced for the spell, and thus it was likely intended that the effect was later.

From what I've seen, most Errata and requests for errata have been people wanting a RAW result, rather then something that's more or less clear from a RAI perspective.

Versatility and CharOP

Some Versatility is admittedly lost, though this is more a factor of there only being 3 books, and only one of those books is really aimed at the players. Again, the system doesn't go into gritty details for every option they could think of. Instead the DMG provides general guidelines for how to make custom races or how to customize monsters. Doing so feels really easy from my perspective, though others may disagree, preferring a more rigid set of rules and guidelines on how to customize stuff. It is worth noting though, that the attitude is much more painted towards keeping new player options balanced. And indeed, the recent UA (a series of articles that are basically providing new content and extra rules), has a minotaur as a option to play as, but the minotaur for players is much weaker then the one in the MM. It still feels like a minotaur, but not a monstrous minotaur if that makes sense to you.

CharOP is in a good place right now, IMO. Right now, there aren't a lot of options that really break the game (and most of those are questionable at best). Similarly, there aren't a lot of options that are really weak and useless. Even the 'trap' options really aren't that bad. So system mastery isn't really penalized, you can be stronger then most of your team with a good build, but the newb who has built a gnome barbarian who duel wields axes will be able to keep up with you anyways. He won't be forced to sit by and watch you 'win' and will be able to contribute to all the same fights as you do in a noticeable way. Which very much is a good thing.

[ChubbyRain]

Giles the Cleric, well if you are the same guy from Pittsburgh that I recall then I think you will really like playing a cleric in 5e... Just DO NOT play a low level Cleric as they are good but don't really show the power that they will have.

A Cleric starting around level 4 or 5 plays a lot like the 3e cleric. You can throw around a big spell in each fight as the game is balanced around this idea. You don't need to heal people all that much so you can focus on blowing stuff up or controlling the battle.

There are two key rules for spell casting in 5e.

1: Make sure to take spells that target different defenses.

2: Spells are very 4e when it comes to how long they last. Most spells are save ends and a target will be able to get out of the spell in a round or two. Don't think of spells as long lasting buff/debuffs but as one shot effects. Then when they do last longer (higher levels) you feel like it is special.

They took the wording and power of 3e spells and gave them the duration of 4e spells. I actually wanted 4e to do this. Keep the power of 3e but raise everyone else to that level.

Note: 4e is more of D&D than really any edition of D&D so far. As any character can play a fantasy character and not just specific classes (3e Fighter is more simulation of realistic person than a fantasy warrior). The other editions of D&D restricts so much that it is more of a (as my last DM said) magic fiction than a fantasy game. Like a science fiction game or story, those with X are the ones playing the game or the ones that wins unless the plot has to be the other way. 4e clerics play a lot like 3e clerics who have been optimized, bit the magic system was needed overall.

If you like caster being supreme then yeah, 4e isn't for you, but if you want everyone at the table playing the same game and you want to play a fantasy warrior that actually gets to be fantasy (and not some ****ty tolkien "fantasy" warrior) then 4e works.

[Xetheral]

Errata:

Again, it's more a matter of common sense then anything, and a misunderstanding of how some sentences can be read. Contagion is the only one I'm really aware of, where the ability present is incredible and powerful, but is sorta vague on when it started. So there was some arguement of RAW vs RAI, where the RAW people were saying that the specific words used meant the effect was immediate, while the RAI people were saying that was much too unbalanced for the spell, and thus it was likely intended that the effect was later.

From what I've seen, most Errata and requests for errata have been people wanting a RAW result, rather then something that's more or less clear from a RAI perspective.

I disagree. The sheer number of threads where different posters all think they're using the "common sense" interpretation--and all of those interpretations are different--strongly suggests that the RAI can be quite murky in 5e. Sure, objectively, someone is likely to be misunderstanding whatever the developers intended, but without errata (and/or developer commentary, if appropriate at your table) we've no good way to tell which interpretation is mistaken.

A short list of examples from recent threads:
Hiding rules (meaning of "hidden", interpretation of prerequisites, interpretation of loss of prerequisites, interaction with invisibility/blindness, attacks from hiding)
Reach rules (threatened areas, interaction with abilities that say "within 5 feet")
Grappling rules (can prone opponent be grappled without going prone, does "prone" mean facedown)
Surprise rules (interpretation of non-stealth-based ambushes, late arrivals to a fight, opponent-specific surprise)
True Polymorph spell (meaning of "creature", meaning of "kind of creature", interpretation of "permanent", retained abilities, experience gain while polymorphed)
Chances are, most people reading this list think most of them aren't ambiguous at all, and can be easily resolved with common sense. That's great, but when everyone's common sense leads to a different interpretation we're stuck without consensus.

[Icewraith]

Here is how to enjoy 5e:

1: If something has the same name as something from a previous edition, don't assume it does the same thing. Your first few sessions are going to be full of people reverting to 3.5 terminology/assumptions, doing something wrong, claiming that something is unbalanced and THEN looking up the rules- if you remember this you can skip a lot of that confusion.

2: Only roll dice when there's a reasonable (appropriate) chance of failure, or use DC 5 checks. The system doesn't incorporate scaling math to keep the numbers from bloating. Most characters will not RELIABLY hit DC15 checks (they can, but not reliably), even trained characters with reasonable stat bonuses. A DC 15 check is a hard check where even a trained character with a good stat will fail 25-45% of the time, depending on level. Don't reflexively use DC 15 checks.

3: RAW is dead. Use RAMS and try to be fair. Your interpretation might not fly at someone else's table, but you're not at someone else's table, are you?

4: First level characters are still fragile. Full plate is a big deal.

5: Unless the game system allows adding a static bonus to a roll (aid?), stick to disadvantage/advantage. Don't grant ad-hoc +2s. Seriously.

6: Have fun. This is a speedy system if you don't houserule extra bells and whistles onto it.

[Forum Explorer]

I disagree. The sheer number of threads where different posters all think they're using the "common sense" interpretation--and all of those interpretations are different--strongly suggests that the RAI can be quite murky in 5e. Sure, objectively, someone is likely to be misunderstanding whatever the developers intended, but without errata (and/or developer commentary, if appropriate at your table) we've no good way to tell which interpretation is mistaken.

A short list of examples from recent threads:
Hiding rules (meaning of "hidden", interpretation of prerequisites, interpretation of loss of prerequisites, interaction with invisibility/blindness, attacks from hiding)
Reach rules (threatened areas, interaction with abilities that say "within 5 feet")
Grappling rules (can prone opponent be grappled without going prone, does "prone" mean facedown)
Surprise rules (interpretation of non-stealth-based ambushes, late arrivals to a fight, opponent-specific surprise)
True Polymorph spell (meaning of "creature", meaning of "kind of creature", interpretation of "permanent", retained abilities, experience gain while polymorphed)
Chances are, most people reading this list think most of them aren't ambiguous at all, and can be easily resolved with common sense. That's great, but when everyone's common sense leads to a different interpretation we're stuck without consensus.

Only murky in the sense that multiple interpretations are possible. I doubt that any of those would cause much of a discussion or debate about what the DM rules. And while a lack of consensus might be a problem on a forum discussion, on the table it generally boils down the the DM makes an interpretation, and that's the one you get.

To be fully honest, in my experience, the legalese wording of 3.5 caused more discussions and arguments at the table then 5e is having. This may because of a different attitude between editions, or maybe something else.

[Xetheral]

Only murky in the sense that multiple interpretations are possible. I doubt that any of those would cause much of a discussion or debate about what the DM rules. And while a lack of consensus might be a problem on a forum discussion, on the table it generally boils down the the DM makes an interpretation, and that's the one you get.

True, although since most of the interpretations heavily affect character creation choices, it's annoying to have to have a lengthy list of topics to discuss with a new group in advance, even in a game without house rules. I'd rather the space in my campaign introduction packets be taken up with fluff and setting information, rather than clarifying how I interpret a dozen or more vague rules issues.


To be fully honest, in my experience, the legalese wording of 3.5 caused more discussions and arguments at the table then 5e is having. This may because of a different attitude between editions, or maybe something else.

I (almost) never had a problem with rules debates in 3.5. The groups I played with usually interpreted the rules very similarly, and only on a couple occasions did a rules misunderstanding call for rebuilding a character. On the other hand, you're right that other factors may be in play: my system mastery was higher than any of my players, and that usually meant I could anticipate and head off any confusion long before someone based their concept on a disputed portion of the rules. In 5e, everyone's starting from scratch, and no one yet has enough mastery to pre-emptively address all the problems, so it's more likely that a character unknowingly built on a particular interpretation of a vague rule can reach play.

[Urpriest]

Only murky in the sense that multiple interpretations are possible. I doubt that any of those would cause much of a discussion or debate about what the DM rules. And while a lack of consensus might be a problem on a forum discussion, on the table it generally boils down the the DM makes an interpretation, and that's the one you get.

Problem is, only one of the many possible interpretations was playtested, otherwise they would have caught the ambiguity. We have no guarantee that the others are balanced in the long run, even if they seem reasonable at first, nor do we know which rules future splatbooks will assume we're using.

[Shining Wrath]

Problem is, only one of the many possible interpretations was playtested, otherwise they would have caught the ambiguity. We have no guarantee that the others are balanced in the long run, even if they seem reasonable at first, nor do we know which rules future splatbooks will assume we're using.

Given the sheer size of the playtests - hundreds or even thousands of tables - I imagine that most of the plausible variations were tried at least once. It's the stuff that snuck in during final edits that has not been tried, and of course the number of tables where people got to level 20 is a lot lower.

[ChubbyRain]

Given the sheer size of the playtests - hundreds or even thousands of tables - I imagine that most of the plausible variations were tried at least once. It's the stuff that snuck in during final edits that has not been tried, and of course the number of tables where people got to level 20 is a lot lower.

Well... You can have a million people give you feedback but you can still have horrible issues. Just because people tried something doesn't mean their feedback was acknowledged.

1: WotC has a horrendous track record of asking questions that are way to vague and any sensible person can see how you don't actually get information from those questions.

Saying "is the sorcerer too powerful" is a bad question as the term powerful is open ended and yo have no clue how the person answering is determining "power".

So you can have 1,000 people rate the sorcerer as " too powerful" and 1,000 people rate the sorcerer as "under powered". However both groups may think that the Sorcerer is perfect and the other classes need to be fixed around it.

2: How reliable are fans? Just look on this forum, how many people get basic things wrong and have huge misconceptions about the rules.

3: How many people straight up lied on surveys? How do you determine if a bunch of people saw a class feature, decided it was way too 4e, and automatically hated it and thus rated it low? You can't determine the reliability of the responses because you have no clue.

I personally know people who are Pathfinder fans and they admitted to taking the surveys to sabotage certain elements. They wanted a weak, striker, restricted fighter in 5e so that the game would be held back.

Now if 15 guys I know did that, how many out there could have been dishonest on the surveys? It scares me how close the final fighter is to what they wanted.

[Raimun]

Eh, D&D 5e is a mediocre and generic fantasy roleplaying game. It has some nifty ideas but nothing to write home about. Sure, playing it is not a horrible experience but not that great either. And of course I'm only talking about the rules. Game companies can only sell rules (and setting notes) but not imagination. So, I only review the rules. I've had fun while playing 5th edition but that was because of the other people around the table. The rules had nothing to do with it.

In a nutshell, prepare to be underwhelmed.

Sure, battles take now less time but we really need to ask ourselves:

"Was it worth it? Was it really?"

I think we "lost" more than we "gained" with this edition. I use quoutation marks because other editions, other games are still here.


If you want a lot of wacky character versatility available written in books that says "You can have this. This is what it does." 5e probably isn't your game.

If you want a lot of strict rules constructs that handle a lot of edge cases, 5e probably isn't your game.

If you want a lot of diverse charOP with a high system mastery ceiling, 5e probably isn't your game.

If you want every game entity to be running with the exact same back-end mechanics "under the hood" as players do, 5e probably isn't your game.

Thanks, that's very well said. I like to have all of the above in RPG. Just thinking about all that makes me go to a happy place. :smalltongue:

[ghost_warlock]

Eh, D&D 5e is a mediocre and generic fantasy roleplaying game. It has some nifty ideas but nothing to write home about. Sure, playing it is not a horrible experience but not that great either. And of course I'm only talking about the rules. Game companies can only sell rules (and setting notes) but not imagination.

I'm highly amused by this considering how many people seem to love that so much of 5e comes down to "ask your DM." If we're supposed to be buying the rules from WotC, and they're telling us to ask our DM, what exactly are we paying WotC for? :smalltongue:

[MeeposFire]

The more loosely defined rules in my experience do tend to lead to more possible rules discussions but also tend to be resolved in an easier manner. True rules lawyers prefer tighter rules like 3e and 4e since that adds weight to their claims (not saying being a rules lawyer is bad).

The reason for this is that the more open rules allows for more legitimate interpretations of the rules. Since you could have more than one interpretation and it is expected it is therefor expected that the DM comes to a decision on which he wants. A rules lawyer can only get as far as the persuasiveness of their argument over the other interpretation as their reading may have no more validity than the other (assuming both versions are fully rule legal).

In a very rules tight edition the expectation is that there should be no alternate interpretations and thus this gives rules lawyers a lot of power. In these editions if a rules lawyer sees an exploit he can claim that the rules support it and since the rules generally are written with only very precise language you certainly have more power to your claim that you should use that rule. In that situation the DM may feel he has to use the dreaded house rule to overrule this issue (granted I think the fear of house rules is way overstated on this forum). In the less defined rules the extra play reduces the need to make official house rules since you can claim that either interpretation is valid but you are going to go with the first option instead of the second.


Of course the potential issue is that more open rules allow for more questioning but it has not been that bad in my experience, certainly no worse than 3e and 4e where even more tight rules could not save you from lots of rules questions on how things work.

[Gwendol]

"Rulings not rules" may look like a cop-out on behalf of the designers, but what they did was to emphasise improvised actions in a way not really supported by 3e. Gone are the lists of DC's for various skill applications, and the list of circumstantial bonuses to apply. Instead, the player rolls an ability check given by the DM, sometimes given advantage on the roll (for example). It empowers the players, and makes life a little easier for the DM.

I prefer this version over 3e, both as a player and as a DM.

[archaeo]

To the OP: I encourage you to go in with an open mind and try to enjoy yourself. TRPGs are a funny thing; sure, they need to be good games, but they also need to be good tools for keeping a story or a dungeon crawl going around a table. How well a ruleset works will vary person by person, table by table. 5e's just one game in an industry with more games than ever, after all, so if it's not your cup of tea, there are dozens of other TRPGs to crack open and try, or your tired-and-true 3.5.

But I bet you'll have fun.


True, although since most of the interpretations heavily affect character creation choices, it's annoying to have to have a lengthy list of topics to discuss with a new group in advance, even in a game without house rules.

While a lot of questions are great grist for the forum debates, I think you'll agree that a) most of the "ambiguities" have pretty clearly balanced readings available and b) most of them are edge cases or single spells that require no discussion, just a red pen. Everything else doesn't seem like it'll be anything more than a bit of additional stuff you'll have any time you start playing a new game; between learning the rules and getting used to the system, a bit of added discussion in the first months of playing is going to happen no matter what system you pick up.


We have no guarantee that the others are balanced in the long run, even if they seem reasonable at first, nor do we know which rules future splatbooks will assume we're using.

Luckily, WotC hasn't even hinted at future splat outside of the UA column, which pretty prominently calls out the fact it's beta material. They have, however, promised to continue assessing the rules, so I expect we'll see errata and clarification before it gets too dicey.


I personally know people who are Pathfinder fans and they admitted to taking the surveys to sabotage certain elements. They wanted a weak, striker, restricted fighter in 5e so that the game would be held back.

Now if 15 guys I know did that, how many out there could have been dishonest on the surveys? It scares me how close the final fighter is to what they wanted.

This sounds like a ridiculous conspiracy theory. Your dismissal of the surveys aside, which seems to assume that WotC doesn't have the resources necessary to create a survey they think will be useful, the company also has endless access to forums and criticism, which I have to imagine informs their work. I doubt very much that a few dishonest survey participants are going to manage to tank the edition.


I'm highly amused by this considering how many people seem to love that so much of 5e comes down to "ask your DM." If we're supposed to be buying the rules from WotC, and they're telling us to ask our DM, what exactly are we paying WotC for? :smalltongue:

Did you read the books? Because you're paying for a thousand pages of rules, advice, and options, a pretty hefty amount of information.

There is also a great deal of value in knowing when the system needs rigorous rules (handling magic, adjudicating combat) and when it needs to get out of the way so DMs can tell their own stories and react intelligently to the creativity of their players. I think 5e gets this mix just right, and I suspect that many of the others who "love" the DM-centric approach feel the same way.

[Mr.Moron]

I'm highly amused by this considering how many people seem to love that so much of 5e comes down to "ask your DM." If we're supposed to be buying the rules from WotC, and they're telling us to ask our DM, what exactly are we paying WotC for? :smalltongue:

A framework and flexibility. The rules-for-everything approach is really rigid and can honestly be less helpful than a looser approach.

Let's take diplomacy for example. Let's imagine you have Bob and Pete.

Bob killed pete's father. Tortured him to death in fact, while keeping pete prisoner for years. He starved pete, beat pete. Years later Pete escapes, and starts a family. Only for bob to track him down, kidnap his children, set his dog on fire and frame his wife for tax evasion.

Understandably Pete is likely rather hostile towards bob. In 5e, if Bob then approaches pete and goes

"Hey Pete, can you give me $20.00 and bake me a pie? Just a favor to friend?"

In 5e, the GM is free to say "No. Pete doesn't do that. That check is impossible (or effectively impossible)".

In 3.5, Bob has to roll a 50. There system makes no accommodation for the check being anything other than 50. Making a call otherwise is a violating/changing the rules. That's the DC, it's 50.

[Tehnar]

A framework and flexibility. The rules-for-everything approach is really rigid and can honestly be less helpful than a looser approach.

Let's take diplomacy for example. Let's imagine you have Bob and Pete.

Bob killed pete's father. Tortured him to death in fact, while keeping pete prisoner for years. He starved pete, beat pete. Years later Pete escapes, and starts a family. Only for bob to track him down, kidnap his children, set his dog on fire and frame his wife for tax evasion.

Understandably Pete is likely rather hostile towards bob. In 5e, if Bob then approaches pete and goes

"Hey Pete, can you give me $20.00 and bake me a pie? Just a favor to friend?"

In 5e, the GM is free to say "No. Pete doesn't do that. That check is impossible (or effectively impossible)".

In 3.5, Bob has to roll a 50. There system makes no accommodation for the check being anything other than 50. Making a call otherwise is a violating/changing the rules. That's the DC, it's 50.

Aside from being morbid, this is a great example of how 5e limits characters. Characters in 5e are not limited in rules, but what the DM expects them to be capable of.

Maybe Bob is such a suave charismatic fellow that he can sweet talk Pete into baking him a pie. It all depends on the resources invested in a character; it takes significant resource investment to be able to make such a check in 3.x, exploits aside so why not let a character do a seemingly impossible task. That is precisely why the rules are there, to calibrate expectations between the players and the DM. So player and character actions are not limited by peoples expectations.

In 5e you never know what your character can do

[Mr.Moron]

Aside from being morbid, this is a great example of how 5e limits characters. Characters in 5e are not limited in rules, but what the DM expects them to be capable of.

Maybe Bob is such a suave charismatic fellow that he can sweet talk Pete into baking him a pie

Right. And as insane and bizzaro-world as that would be, in 5e you can do just that. The GM is even free to make it "Very Easy" DC(5) if that fits for the tone and style of the game being played.

In 3.5 it's a 50. Even if that defies all narrative expectations for the particular campaign being played.

The 3.5 approach is more rigid and more narrow. These aren't inherently bad things but they hardly have universal appeal.


That is precisely why the rules are there, to calibrate expectations between the players and the DM. So player and character actions are not limited by peoples expectations.

In 5e you never know what your character can do

Or people could do this themselves:

"I'm going to be running a game. It's going to be in [Setting], starting at [level] and probably running to [level] or so. It's going to start with [conditions] and have this sort of tone. I want to bring elements like [thing] and another [thing]. Think [this tv show] meets [this video game], but with a bit more of this element.

In general you can expect things to be pretty [down to earth/over the top] so expect your characters to be able to [do this] or [this] but probably not [this]. If [famous character] could do it, we'll try to make it so you can but if you're thinking of [other famous character], it's probably not the best idea.

If you like the idea join up or feel free to ask me any questions"

[archaeo]

Aside from being morbid, this is a great example of how 5e limits characters. Characters in 5e are not limited in rules, but what the DM expects them to be capable of.

Maybe Bob is such a suave charismatic fellow that he can sweet talk Pete into baking him a pie. It all depends on the resources invested in a character; it takes significant resource investment to be able to make such a check in 3.x, exploits aside so why not let a character do a seemingly impossible task. That is precisely why the rules are there, to calibrate expectations between the players and the DM. So player and character actions are not limited by peoples expectations.

In 5e you never know what your character can do

The rules aren't there for "calibrating" anything, Tehnar. The rules are there so you have the framework of a game when you sit down to play. "Calibrating expectations" is such a nebulous, social thing that no ruleset could ever really hope to accomplish. There are certainly some bugs in the rules that might need a discussion, but at a functioning table where the players and DM are all trying to have a good time, expectations will calibrate themselves.

This also neatly wipes away the fact that houserules and expectation adjustment have been part of every TRPG ever. When's the last time you sat down for a game of RAW, Strictly-By-The-Book 3.5? Have you ever played an un-houseruled skill challenge in 4e? Have you ever had a DM say, "These PF resources are hereby banned"? Or been introduced to a big host of homebrew that must be digested and understood?

5e just embraces that ethos. Glitches aside, the rules simply understand that every table is different, so 5e tries to offer a lot of open space and optional content to make for a customizable experience. Bemoaning this admirable flexibility as "you never know what your character can do" is one of the most tiresome 5e criticism memes; you never did in previous editions, the rules just lulled you into that false sense of security. Now, the game just expects that a) you're grown up enough to play nice with your table and communicate openly and b) you'll want to tweak 5e perfect for your table. How is this a bad thing?

[Tehnar]

Right. And as insane and bizzaro-world as that would be, in 5e you can do just that. The GM is even free to make it "Very Easy" DC(5) if that fits for the tone and style of the game being played.

In 3.5 it's a 50. Even if that defies all narrative expectations for the particular campaign being played.

The 3.5 approach is more rigid and more narrow. These aren't inherently bad things but they hardly have universal appeal.



Or people could do this themselves:

"I'm going to be running a game. It's going to be in [Setting], starting at [level] and probably running to [level] or so. It's going to start with [conditions] and have this sort of tone. I want to bring elements like [thing] and another [thing]. Think [this tv show] meets [this video game], but with a bit more of this element.

In general you can expect things to be pretty [down to earth/over the top] so expect your characters to be able to [do this] or [this] but probably not [this]. If [famous character] could do it, we'll try to make it so you can but if you're thinking of [other famous character], it's probably not the best idea.

If you like the idea join up or feel free to ask me any questions"


The rules aren't there for "calibrating" anything, Tehnar. The rules are there so you have the framework of a game when you sit down to play. "Calibrating expectations" is such a nebulous, social thing that no ruleset could ever really hope to accomplish. There are certainly some bugs in the rules that might need a discussion, but at a functioning table where the players and DM are all trying to have a good time, expectations will calibrate themselves.

This also neatly wipes away the fact that houserules and expectation adjustment have been part of every TRPG ever. When's the last time you sat down for a game of RAW, Strictly-By-The-Book 3.5? Have you ever played an un-houseruled skill challenge in 4e? Have you ever had a DM say, "These PF resources are hereby banned"? Or been introduced to a big host of homebrew that must be digested and understood?

5e just embraces that ethos. Glitches aside, the rules simply understand that every table is different, so 5e tries to offer a lot of open space and optional content to make for a customizable experience. Bemoaning this admirable flexibility as "you never know what your character can do" is one of the most tiresome 5e criticism memes; you never did in previous editions, the rules just lulled you into that false sense of security. Now, the game just expects that a) you're grown up enough to play nice with your table and communicate openly and b) you'll want to tweak 5e perfect for your table. How is this a bad thing?

Ill reply to both of you at the same time, since you are presenting similar ideas.

Calibrating expectations via rules means that you don't have to have a tedious conversation with the DM everytime you think your character can do something he doesn't feel it can. Its written right there in the book, and you can use that information to plan ahead. Because as try as you might, having the same or very similar expectations of what a character can do is nearly impossible for two or more people, and if you can that means you don't really need rules anymore, do you?

I agree with you when you say that having completely calibrated expectations between players is impossible, but it is possible to do a pretty good job. Note that I am not saying 3.x did a great job at it, there is a lot of room for improvement there. But it was on the right track. It means every time I want my character to perform a action I don't have to ask the DM what the DC is (even in descriptive terms) before I decide if my character performs a action.

Houserules are a argument that rules work to calibrate expectations. It means that the DM is not happy with how the current rules work, and will implement his own fix. Though the rules changed, they are still there. And they exist before the DM posits a situation for the players to resolve. Written down, they don't depend on on how the DM feels about the player, what state he is in, the time of day, if you bought pizza, etc. Fixed written rules don't change from the beginning of the session to when its half past 3 in the morning and the DM is half drunk.

Making consistent rulings requires rules. That is why we as a society invented laws, and that is considered a good thing. Laws are rules made to calibrate peoples behavior. When we have a imaginary construct in a TTRPG, rules are there to calibrate everyone expectations, or in other words to calibrate the way characters interact with each other and the enviroment.

[Icewraith]

Ill reply to both of you at the same time, since you are presenting similar ideas.

Calibrating expectations via rules means that you don't have to have a tedious conversation with the DM everytime you think your character can do something he doesn't feel it can. Its written right there in the book, and you can use that information to plan ahead. Because as try as you might, having the same or very similar expectations of what a character can do is nearly impossible for two or more people, and if you can that means you don't really need rules anymore, do you?

I agree with you when you say that having completely calibrated expectations between players is impossible, but it is possible to do a pretty good job. Note that I am not saying 3.x did a great job at it, there is a lot of room for improvement there. But it was on the right track. It means every time I want my character to perform a action I don't have to ask the DM what the DC is (even in descriptive terms) before I decide if my character performs a action.

Houserules are a argument that rules work to calibrate expectations. It means that the DM is not happy with how the current rules work, and will implement his own fix. Though the rules changed, they are still there. And they exist before the DM posits a situation for the players to resolve. Written down, they don't depend on on how the DM feels about the player, what state he is in, the time of day, if you bought pizza, etc. Fixed written rules don't change from the beginning of the session to when its half past 3 in the morning and the DM is half drunk.

Making consistent rulings requires rules. That is why we as a society invented laws, and that is considered a good thing. Laws are rules made to calibrate peoples behavior. When we have a imaginary construct in a TTRPG, rules are there to calibrate everyone expectations, or in other words to calibrate the way characters interact with each other and the enviroment.

Yeah, but there's not actually that much value in having big lists of DCs and modifiers. Yes, the majority of the things the designers expect your character to be able to do end up codified in some fashion, but the simulationist approach usually ends up with apparently arbitrarily determined DC charts. In 5e, the DM figures out how hard the task is, determines advantage/disadvantage, the player rolls, the dm determines the outcome, and play progresses. It's faster and the DM is free to override the rules when they don't reflect the particularities of the situation. Even with the charts, the players are always free to argue that a particular DC is too high or too low, so the DM ends up houseruling those things to reflect the table's expectations anyways.

[archaeo]

Calibrating expectations via rules means that you don't have to have a tedious conversation with the DM everytime you think your character can do something he doesn't feel it can. Its written right there in the book, and you can use that information to plan ahead. Because as try as you might, having the same or very similar expectations of what a character can do is nearly impossible for two or more people, and if you can that means you don't really need rules anymore, do you?

No game as complicated or as open-ended as D&D can really be free of these "tedious conversations." There will always be elements of mediation, of subverted or upheld expectations, etc. I'm willing to bet that, at the average table, the conversation you're talking about won't ever have to happen, because the DM wants their players to have fun, and meeting their expectations is part of that fun. At a good table, there won't be anything tedious about the communication, as it will all be in service of having a better time.

In other words, if you and a DM have an outright tedious conversation, I bet it has nothing to do with the rules.


I agree with you when you say that having completely calibrated expectations between players is impossible, but it is possible to do a pretty good job. Note that I am not saying 3.x did a great job at it, there is a lot of room for improvement there. But it was on the right track. It means every time I want my character to perform a action I don't have to ask the DM what the DC is (even in descriptive terms) before I decide if my character performs a action.

Let's think about all the problems with this design paradigm. It necessitates and expects that players are familiar with a big table of DCs. It requires you to think about all the described actions that list includes. If you deviate at all from that list, you're facing one of those expectation failures, by your reckoning. It's about as subtle as a brick and inspirational as a, well, something that fails to inspire.

All of that is just my opinion, of course, but I'd urge you to read the text around the rules, especially the DMG's guide on handling ability checks and DCs, which does a really good job of explaining how to best make use of the system and a few variants for changing things up. The game doesn't expect lengthy arguments, but quick and fair resolution. Of course,


Houserules are a argument that rules work to calibrate expectations. It means that the DM is not happy with how the current rules work, and will implement his own fix. Though the rules changed, they are still there. And they exist before the DM posits a situation for the players to resolve. Written down, they don't depend on on how the DM feels about the player, what state he is in, the time of day, if you bought pizza, etc. Fixed written rules don't change from the beginning of the session to when its half past 3 in the morning and the DM is half drunk.

Making consistent rulings requires rules. That is why we as a society invented laws, and that is considered a good thing. Laws are rules made to calibrate peoples behavior. When we have a imaginary construct in a TTRPG, rules are there to calibrate everyone expectations, or in other words to calibrate the way characters interact with each other and the enviroment.

The idea that we need "rules as laws" in order to mediate the table is patently absurd, in 5e or any other game. If you feel like your DM is being capricious and it's ruining your fun, talk to them; maybe they just don't even know! If it can't be worked out, find another table and don't game with people who aren't fun to play with.

5e can't solve obnoxious people. Not without sacrificing all of the flexibility that makes it so much fun for tables where everyone's on the same page (or working toward it).

[Mr.Moron]

No game as complicated or as open-ended as D&D can really be free of these "tedious conversations." There will always be elements of mediation, of subverted or upheld expectations, etc. I'm willing to bet that, at the average table, the conversation you're talking about won't ever have to happen, because the DM wants their players to have fun, and meeting their expectations is part of that fun. At a good table, there won't be anything tedious about the communication, as it will all be in service of having a better time.


I can count the number of times I've had real rules disputes with my players on one hand. I can count the number of disputes that actually dampened the mood at the table on exactly one finger. I think this is mostly because they trust my judgement and I'm open about how and why I'm making decisions. Even at times when I can tell the players don't agree with my ruling or kind of think it's weird they almost always just run with it. I'm not a mind reader so I can't tell you why for sure but I think it's because they understand I'm making a good faith effort.

My goal is to be engaged with the game in a way that's fulfilling and part is of that is that is being able to see that the other people at the table are are finding the experience to be positive.

[Shining Wrath]

I can count the number of times I've had real rules disputes with my players on one hand. I can count the number of disputes that actually damped the mood at the table on exactly one finger. I think this is mostly because they trust my judgement and I'm open about how and why I'm making decisions. Even at times when I can tell the players don't agree with my ruling or kind of think it's weird they almost always just run with it. I'm not a mind reader so I can't tell you why for sure but I think it's because they understand I'm making a good faith effort.

My goal is to be engaged with the game in a way that's fulfilling and part is of that is that is being able to see that the other people at the table are are finding the experience to be positive.

I'm about to start a new campaign with 2 new players joining, and I fully intend to have the "this is how I'd like to handle rules disputes" conversation up front and friendly-toned. Because no matter what version you're playing, it's gonna happen. I've seen it while DMing:
Original Box Set
2nd Edition
3.5
and anticipate it in 5e.
My time playing 4e was short enough it didn't happen.

I've seen rules debates in Tunnels and Trolls, for pity's sake.

Too much RAW means Bob can get Pete to bake him a pie for DC 50 if, visible behind Bob, Pete's wife is being slain by a mind flayer working for Bob. The 3.5 Diplomancer was a legendary broken build because player characters are not subject to NPC Diplomacy rolls. If you make Pete the PC and Bob the NPC, and instead of "bake me a pie" the request is "give me everything of value you possess", watch every player of 3.5 ever agree that it's not reasonable for Pete to be Diplomacy-checked into agreeing.

[GilesTheCleric]

In my experience gaming, arguments have usually been over rp-related things, such as silly things characters have done. Rules disputes can be pretty easily solved as long as the PC agrees that the GM has the final say, and the GM is reasonable. I'm not too worried about that, since that's an aspect related to people, not the gaming system.

That said, it does sound like a lot of 5e is fairly open-ended. As a poster mentioned, I've enjoyed that method of playing in both 2e and WW, so hopefully I'll enjoy 5e's take on it as well. I think that changing my expectations are really what's key here. After playing the two latest versions of dnd, 3e and 4e, I understood dnd as embracing a rules-heavy, calculable gaming method, and moving away from free-form rp closer to that of 1e and 2e.

I'm both sad and pleased to see that 5e is more loose. I'm sad that it has moved away from the rules-based versatility and corner-case adjucation I'm used to, and will be sad that the high skill/system mastery cap for playing+building is lowered (hooray for the skill floor being raised, though!). It sounds like this edition will probably be one that I spend most of my time playing at a table and not putting much more effort into, unlike 3e, where I have probably a 4:1 ratio of character building:playtime. It also means I won't be able to "play" this edition when I don't have a gaming group to play with (in 3.5, I can build characters to my heart's content when I'm not in a group).

However, after poking around more in these boards and reading the 4e > 5e mechanics thread on the 4e board, I'm looking forward to a very fast-paced, simple game where I can use my out-of-character skill much more directly to solve difficult challenges (with bounded accuracy and linear scaling, I can take on CR 20 challenges at CR 3 or 4 with good tactics and creativity rather than straight-up op, right?), so I don't have to build as much of that into my character sheet.

I do have a question about skill checks, though. Since everything is now linear and DC 15 is difficult, are there rules/guidelines about how "if a skillcheck isn't going to affect play, let the characters auto-pass" or something to that effect? From what I remember of the playtest, for non-trained skills I can expect to have +0 or +1 in them for a long time, and only get up to like +6 or something by level twenty, meaning that even a DC 5 can be failed ~20% of the time.

Edit: Also in the 4e-5e mechanics thread, it sounded like a lot of bonuses and synergies were being decoupled, like all races getting +3 to their stats to distribute however they please. This opens up way more options without making me feel like I'm making poor choices; are there any other significant decouplings like this I can look forward to/expect?

[JFahy]

...I do have a question about skill checks, though. Since everything is now linear and DC 15 is difficult, are there rules/guidelines about how "if a skillcheck isn't going to affect play, let the characters auto-pass" or something to that effect? From what I remember of the playtest, for non-trained skills I can expect to have +0 or +1 in them for a long time, and only get up to like +6 or something by level twenty, meaning that even a DC 5 can be failed ~20% of the time.


On the other end, a bard or rogue can specialize in a skill to get double their proficiency bonus, which combined with a maxed ability score can land you at +17.

You'll probably want to adjust your, and your players', expectations for DCs. I use checks in the 5-15 range a lot for my 7th level party,
and go into the low twenties for things that I think probably shouldn't work. (The 'let them auto-pass' is an idea I have respect for, but
if failure would be interesting I'll sometimes call for a check with a DC in the 4 to 8 neighborhood just to see what happens.)

[Madfellow]

I do have a question about skill checks, though. Since everything is now linear and DC 15 is difficult, are there rules/guidelines about how "if a skillcheck isn't going to affect play, let the characters auto-pass" or something to that effect? From what I remember of the playtest, for non-trained skills I can expect to have +0 or +1 in them for a long time, and only get up to like +6 or something by level twenty, meaning that even a DC 5 can be failed ~20% of the time.

From the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide:

"If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one. Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such tasks without making a check.

"Then ask yourself, 'Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate or hard?' If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt."


Edit: Also in the 4e-5e mechanics thread, it sounded like a lot of bonuses and synergies were being decoupled, like all races getting +3 to their stats to distribute however they please. This opens up way more options without making me feel like I'm making poor choices; are there any other significant decouplings like this I can look forward to/expect?

Not quite. Most races get a +2 to one ability score, with a couple different options for subraces that each get a +1 to a different score. It's not universal though; just a trend.

Here, have a look at the basic rules if you haven't yet. They may help:
http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules

[huttj509]

From the 5e Dungeon Master's Guide:

"If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one. Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such tasks without making a check.

"Then ask yourself, 'Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate or hard?' If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an easy task around 50 percent of the time. A moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a hard task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt."


Perhaps more pertinent is page 237, which contains both:

"When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. [...] Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure."

As well as suggesting that if the only penalty for failure is time, assume a character spending 10 times the ordinary time can automatically succeed (unless the task is impossible).

[Xetheral]

True, although since most of the interpretations heavily affect character creation choices, it's annoying to have to have a lengthy list of topics to discuss with a new group in advance, even in a game without house rules.While a lot of questions are great grist for the forum debates, I think you'll agree that a) most of the "ambiguities" have pretty clearly balanced readings available and b) most of them are edge cases or single spells that require no discussion, just a red pen. Everything else doesn't seem like it'll be anything more than a bit of additional stuff you'll have any time you start playing a new game; between learning the rules and getting used to the system, a bit of added discussion in the first months of playing is going to happen no matter what system you pick up.

Other than hiding and it's related issues (e.g. invisibility) I agree that it's simple enough to select a balanced interpretation for a particular game. The problem is the overhead... I've found that (for any system) if I include more than a page or two of house-rules/interpretations in my campaign materials, people won't be able to remember them all. As it stands, in every 5e game I run some of that space has to be devoted to (e.g.) reach, grappling, surprise, and hiding. The first two can be a single bullet point each, but the latter two require at least a paragraph apiece. That gives me less room for house rules (e.g. feat changes, advantage/disadvantage stacking, magic item pricing/creation, etc.) and setting-specific crunch (e.g. rumor system, "great market" mechanics, etc.).

An additional problem crops up for games that don't usually come with table-specific documentation, such as most PBP-games, pick-up games, one-shots, and AL. In all of those cases, character creation is fraught with uncertainty for a wide variety of builds. For example, potential Tavern Brawlers don't know how effective the grapple-shove combination will be, potential Polearm Masters don't know how effective reach weapons will be, potential Actors don't know if they'll be able to use Deception to get surprise, and no one knows how effective hiding/invisibility is going to be.

For some laissez-faire styles of character creation, this may not matter... you throw together a few fun-sounding choices, whip-up a backstory, and you're ready--if things don't work out exactly how you expect, who cares? But for more intensive styles of character creation, this is a huge problem... if you spent hours deliberating between various mechanical and backstory options and tweaking both to work in harmony with each other, it really sucks to find out that due to a differing DM interpretation (or more than one!) your character works very differently than you expected. Eventually, enough of the ambiguities in the system will be found by the community and it will be simple for players to anticipate potential problems and ask in advance (although this doesn't work for AL) which of the well-known interpretations is in use. Until then, however, short of pestering the DM by asking for a range of rulings on issues they may not have even considered yet isn't likely to ingratiate you with someone you may not know very well. (For reference, I personally use both styles of character creation, depending on the circumstances.)


In 3.5, Bob has to roll a 50. There system makes no accommodation for the check being anything other than 50. Making a call otherwise is a violating/changing the rules.

3.5 certainly makes such accommodation: ad-hoc bonuses and penalties. Sure, if you're playing 3.5 diplomacy RAW, the DC is set, but a small-to-large circumstance penalty gets around that for the occasional circumstance where the fixed DC is inappropriate. 5e, by contrast, lacking fixed DCs, is analogous to playing 3.5 where on every roll the DM is expected to hand out an ad-hoc bonus or penalty up to +/- 10.


The rules aren't there for "calibrating" anything, Tehnar. The rules are there so you have the framework of a game when you sit down to play. "Calibrating expectations" is such a nebulous, social thing that no ruleset could ever really hope to accomplish. There are certainly some bugs in the rules that might need a discussion, but at a functioning table where the players and DM are all trying to have a good time, expectations will calibrate themselves.

I agree entirely with your statement that "[t]he rules are there so you have the framework of a game when you sit down to play". But despite agreeing with your premise, I reach an entirely opposite conclusion: to be useful, everyone needs to agree on what the framework actually is (in other words, expectations need to be "calibrated"), otherwise it isn't a usable framework. Ambiguities in the rules make it harder for everyone to agree. Sure, some/all of the ambiguity can be resolved through discussion and deliberation, but, as I discussed above, that requires additional effort (not practical in all play modes). That the framework inherently requires effort to fix isn't a good thing.


5e just embraces that ethos. Glitches aside, the rules simply understand that every table is different, so 5e tries to offer a lot of open space and optional content to make for a customizable experience. Bemoaning this admirable flexibility as "you never know what your character can do" is one of the most tiresome 5e criticism memes; you never did in previous editions, the rules just lulled you into that false sense of security. Now, the game just expects that a) you're grown up enough to play nice with your table and communicate openly and b) you'll want to tweak 5e perfect for your table. How is this a bad thing?

I'm sorry that you find the complaint "you never know what your character can do" to be tiresome, because I consider it be succinct and apt. Here's an realistic hypothetical of the type of situation where it comes up:

You're a new player joining an established group starting up a new 5e campaign, described as an urban setting, beginning at 5th level. You've decided you want to play a second-story burglar/archer, and are considering how best to design your build and your backstory to match the concept. Arcane Trickster sounds amazing, but a second-story burglar needs to be able to reach the rooftops, and AT can't take Levitate or Spider Climb until 8th level, and even then you're sharply limited by spell slots. So even though you'd prefer AT, you decide to go with Thief instead for the Second-Story Work subclass feature, so that you can realize your concept by climbing fast enough to reach rooftops during combat. You put a 14 in strength even though the stat doesn't help you much, and you take Expertise in Athletics. You've got a climb modifier of +8... pretty good for 5th level. The character isn't quite what you were hoping for, but you write your backstory and head off to the first session.

In your first street fight you go to climb up the side of a one-story building so that you can shoot from relative safety. You tell the DM that you're going to climb up the wall, and roll Strength (Athletics), getting a total of 17... and fall prone, taking falling damage? It turns out that this DM is an experienced climber, and knows that free-climbing well-built masonry walls at 2.5 ft/s (normal D&D climbing speed without your special class feature) is very difficult, not to mention dangerous. He likes your concept though, and so picked the "hard" difficulty of DC 20, rather than "very hard" DC 25. You sit there, looking at your sheet, knowing that you've less than a 50% chance of succeeding at the very task you built your character to do, and that you won't get any better for many levels. Meanwhile, another player reminds that DM that in their last campaign he had indeed picked DC 25 for free-climbing masonry walls, but the DM explains that he's a firm believer in the rule of cool, and doesn't want to shut down the new player's concept.

You speak up, pointing out that even at DC 20 you're unlikely to succeed. The DM suggests that you use a rope and grappling hook... that would bring the DC down to 10, making your odds of success 95%. So you use the rest of your movement to stand up, your free item interaction to take out your rope, and your Action to throw the hook. You go to make a Strength (Athletics) check, but the DM asks for an unmodified Dexterity check instead, since using rope is listed in the examples of such checks on PHB 177. With your 16 dexterity, you've got a 70% chance to succeed at the DC 10 check, but that still is going to fail almost a third of a time. Another player helpfully reminds the DM about the rules for using skills with alternate abilities, and the DM thinks this is a great idea, and so asks for a Dexterity (Athletics) check instead, and now it's an automatic success.

Ten RL minutes after you first tried to climb, on your next turn you easily make the DC10 Strength (Athletics) check to climb the rope, use your free item interaction to draw your bow, and shoot at an enemy, hitting him. Hooray! You shoot again on the third round of combat, this time missing. On the fourth round, the enemy's morale breaks, and they start to run away, and the rest of the party declares that they're going to chase them. The DM sees a great chance to help facilitate your concept, and points out that if you climb down the opposite side you climbed up, you'll be on the other side of a wall and be able to head off the enemy. You smile back, but then sickeningly realize that even if the DM decides that releasing or manually securing a grappling hook is an item interaction rather than an Action, it's still going to take you two rounds to put away your bow, pick up the hook, cross the roof, secure the hook, and climb down....

At the end of the session you're disappointed, and trying hard not to show it. The concept isn't working the way you thought it would--it turned out that under this particular DM's interpretation of climbing skill DC's, your concept only kind-of-sort-of works. Put simply, you didn't know that your character couldn't do what you expected it to do. You feel worse after another player "helpfully" points out that next time, you'd be better off spending your actions attacking more, rather than messing with ropes, using your Bonus Action Disengage to get most of the safety advantage that you'd have gotten from climbing buildings.

In the end, no one did anything wrong. The DM was accommodating, the group maturely accepted the change in skill DC precedent, and your character concept wasn't completely shut down. But, the choices you made in character creation aren't letting you do what you thought you could do. The extra action cost now means climbing buildings for your character is now mostly an out-of-combat thing, and so climbing speed doesn't matter, but you've missed out on the options that you'd have preferred to take. You go home sad, and icky-feeling, wondering if it's worth asking your DM if you can respec as an Arcane Trickster. Next time, you'll know to ask first what DCs the DM uses for climbing--hopefully he'll have them already typed up so he can send you a copy--but that doesn't make you feel any better now.

By contrast, in 3.5 you could look up the climb DC (25) in the PHB, and design a 5th level rogue to get enough climb skill to be able to make it easily (e.g. Belt of Ultimate Athleticism, or skip the skill and go for Slippers of Spider Climbing).
The reason I think the ambiguity you love is a "bad thing" is because just being "grown up enough to play nice" doesn't mean everyone is automatically on the same page. Sure, it means you can maturely get past the misunderstandings, but people will still go away unhappy when they're disappointed. In previous editions you did have an expectation of what your character could do according to the rules, and what your character can do is an important part of who your character is. In the spoilered example, the second-story burglar/archer's backstory likely included anecdotes of free-climbing buildings that at that particular table the character can't actually do reliably. In 5e, no matter how you design your character, before you write climbing into your backstory you need to go to your DM and say: "My character has a +x to athletics... how good is he at climbing in your world?"

[Kajorma]

In my experience gaming, arguments have usually been over rp-related things, such as silly things characters have done. Rules disputes can be pretty easily solved as long as the PC agrees that the GM has the final say, and the GM is reasonable. I'm not too worried about that, since that's an aspect related to people, not the gaming system.

I think that right there is the key.
If your gaming table can interact like adults, then you shouldn't have too many issues.

As an example, my GM has recently ruled that a spell I thought was awesome is somewhat less awesome. Well, that's sad. I guess. And it may cause me to prepare other spells instead.

And the game goes on.

No big deal.

[Mr.Moron]

3.5 certainly makes such accommodation: ad-hoc bonuses and penalties. Sure, if you're playing 3.5 diplomacy RAW, the DC is set, but a small-to-large circumstance penalty gets around that for the occasional circumstance where the fixed DC is inappropriate.

Circumstance modifiers were +/- 2. Bob has to make a 52. Well a 54, I guess if you're applying it on both ends.




Favorable And Unfavorable Conditions
Some situations may make a skill easier or harder to use, resulting in a bonus or penalty to the skill modifier for a skill check or a change to the DC of the skill check.



The chance of success can be altered in four ways to take into account exceptional circumstances.

Give the skill user a +2 circumstance bonus to represent conditions that improve performance, such as having the perfect tool for the job, getting help from another character (see Combining Skill Attempts), or possessing unusually accurate information.
Give the skill user a -2 circumstance penalty to represent conditions that hamper performance, such as being forced to use improvised tools or having misleading information.
Reduce the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task easier, such as having a friendly audience or doing work that can be subpar.
Increase the DC by 2 to represent circumstances that make the task harder, such as having an uncooperative audience or doing work that must be flawless.
Conditions that affect your character’s ability to perform the skill change the skill modifier. Conditions that modify how well the character has to perform the skill to succeed change the DC. A bonus to the skill modifier and a reduction in the check’s DC have the same result: They create a better chance of success. But they represent different circumstances, and sometimes that difference is important.

Note the lack of flexibility again. There are four, and exactly four ways circumstances can change a roll.

+2 Bonus
-2 Penalty
+2 DC
-2 DC

There is no room in the rules for a +3 or +10 or a +1. The game spells out the only possibilities and anything that isn't +/- isn't one of them. If it isn't +2/-2 it's breaking the rules/house ruling. Certainly "Impossible" isn't close to being in the framework.

[archaeo]

Following a bit of snipping,


I'm sorry that you find the complaint "you never know what your character can do" to be tiresome, because I consider it be succinct and apt.

I find it tiresome because it assumes, as a baseline, complete and utter dysfunction when it comes to people working together at the table. It assumes that one needs to sign a contract with one's players before getting started, because they can't be trusted to just accept your rulings as they come up. It assumes that players and DMs have an adversarial relationship instead of one of mutual understanding. And it also assumes that nobody is going to be talking about their character concepts or build options with anyone, just showing up at the table with a fresh character sheet in hand.

These are assumptions that I find unreasonable. However, to your more specific point:


...In 5e, no matter how you design your character, before you write climbing into your backstory you need to go to your DM and say: "My character has a +x to athletics... how good is he at climbing in your world?"

First, in your games, Xetheral, I find it hard to swallow the idea that an extra page of rulings is really such an onerous task when you're already handing out big stacks of house rules too. I don't think it's strictly necessary, either; you could just as easily tell players "If you're thinking about focusing on stealth, reach weapons, or grappling, please talk to me before hand." Indeed, your entire story could've been avoided had your hypothetical player brought things up with the hypothetical DM, a conversation that's going to happen anyway in any system at some point, even if it's not over DCs and climbing, unless you assume that everybody who sits down at a table has attained perfect rules mastery before getting started.

It's also "extra work" you have to do just once with a table, after which everyone will be on the same page. Not a big deal to me. I use the scare quotes because, in case it wasn't obvious from my presence here, I do not find it to be "work" to talk about D&D. :smallbiggrin:

I think reasonable people can disagree about this, of course. But it doesn't really change the fact that what you're complaining about in 5e is an aspect of every TRPG, where players need to sit around and talk about how and why they're playing a game, and how they think the rules comes together.

[huttj509]

You're a new player joining an established group starting up a new 5e campaign, described as an urban setting, beginning at 5th level. You've decided you want to play a second-story burglar/archer, and are considering how best to design your build and your backstory to match the concept. Arcane Trickster sounds amazing, but a second-story burglar needs to be able to reach the rooftops, and AT can't take Levitate or Spider Climb until 8th level, and even then you're sharply limited by spell slots. So even though you'd prefer AT, you decide to go with Thief instead for the Second-Story Work subclass feature, so that you can realize your concept by climbing fast enough to reach rooftops during combat. You put a 14 in strength even though the stat doesn't help you much, and you take Expertise in Athletics. You've got a climb modifier of +8... pretty good for 5th level. The character isn't quite what you were hoping for, but you write your backstory and head off to the first session.

In your first street fight you go to climb up the side of a one-story building so that you can shoot from relative safety. You tell the DM that you're going to climb up the wall, and roll Strength (Athletics), getting a total of 17... and fall prone, taking falling damage? It turns out that this DM is an experienced climber, and knows that free-climbing well-built masonry walls at 2.5 ft/s (normal D&D climbing speed without your special class feature) is very difficult, not to mention dangerous. He likes your concept though, and so picked the "hard" difficulty of DC 20, rather than "very hard" DC 25. You sit there, looking at your sheet, knowing that you've less than a 50% chance of succeeding at the very task you built your character to do, and that you won't get any better for many levels. Meanwhile, another player reminds that DM that in their last campaign he had indeed picked DC 25 for free-climbing masonry walls, but the DM explains that he's a firm believer in the rule of cool, and doesn't want to shut down the new player's concept.

You speak up, pointing out that even at DC 20 you're unlikely to succeed. The DM suggests that you use a rope and grappling hook... that would bring the DC down to 10, making your odds of success 95%. So you use the rest of your movement to stand up, your free item interaction to take out your rope, and your Action to throw the hook. You go to make a Strength (Athletics) check, but the DM asks for an unmodified Dexterity check instead, since using rope is listed in the examples of such checks on PHB 177. With your 16 dexterity, you've got a 70% chance to succeed at the DC 10 check, but that still is going to fail almost a third of a time. Another player helpfully reminds the DM about the rules for using skills with alternate abilities, and the DM thinks this is a great idea, and so asks for a Dexterity (Athletics) check instead, and now it's an automatic success.

Ten RL minutes after you first tried to climb, on your next turn you easily make the DC10 Strength (Athletics) check to climb the rope, use your free item interaction to draw your bow, and shoot at an enemy, hitting him. Hooray! You shoot again on the third round of combat, this time missing. On the fourth round, the enemy's morale breaks, and they start to run away, and the rest of the party declares that they're going to chase them. The DM sees a great chance to help facilitate your concept, and points out that if you climb down the opposite side you climbed up, you'll be on the other side of a wall and be able to head off the enemy. You smile back, but then sickeningly realize that even if the DM decides that releasing or manually securing a grappling hook is an item interaction rather than an Action, it's still going to take you two rounds to put away your bow, pick up the hook, cross the roof, secure the hook, and climb down....

At the end of the session you're disappointed, and trying hard not to show it. The concept isn't working the way you thought it would--it turned out that under this particular DM's interpretation of climbing skill DC's, your concept only kind-of-sort-of works. Put simply, you didn't know that your character couldn't do what you expected it to do. You feel worse after another player "helpfully" points out that next time, you'd be better off spending your actions attacking more, rather than messing with ropes, using your Bonus Action Disengage to get most of the safety advantage that you'd have gotten from climbing buildings.

In the end, no one did anything wrong. The DM was accommodating, the group maturely accepted the change in skill DC precedent, and your character concept wasn't completely shut down. But, the choices you made in character creation aren't letting you do what you thought you could do. The extra action cost now means climbing buildings for your character is now mostly an out-of-combat thing, and so climbing speed doesn't matter, but you've missed out on the options that you'd have preferred to take. You go home sad, and icky-feeling, wondering if it's worth asking your DM if you can respec as an Arcane Trickster. Next time, you'll know to ask first what DCs the DM uses for climbing--hopefully he'll have them already typed up so he can send you a copy--but that doesn't make you feel any better now.

By contrast, in 3.5 you could look up the climb DC (25) in the PHB, and design a 5th level rogue to get enough climb skill to be able to make it easily (e.g. Belt of Ultimate Athleticism, or skip the skill and go for Slippers of Spider Climbing).


Do people not run character concept by the GM to make sure it's a party/campaign style fit? I've been in enough different campaigns to consider that a no brainer, even if the answer's 95% of the time been "sure, no problem."

If your main shtick is X, firing off an e-mail with "I'm planning my character's shtick to be X, does that sound cool?" seems easy...though I'm still waiting to hear back from the GM on my latest character for that one (in his defense, work picked up, and he was preparing for GREs for grad school admission...I'll bug him tomorrow).

[goto124]

If the DC was a very high 20, why was there absolutely no indication of its difficulty...?

[Gwendol]

I'm sorry that you find the complaint "you never know what your character can do" to be tiresome, because I consider it be succinct and apt. Here's an realistic hypothetical of the type of situation where it comes up:

You're a new player joining an established group starting up a new 5e campaign, described as an urban setting, beginning at 5th level. You've decided you want to play a second-story burglar/archer, and are considering how best to design your build and your backstory to match the concept. Arcane Trickster sounds amazing, but a second-story burglar needs to be able to reach the rooftops, and AT can't take Levitate or Spider Climb until 8th level, and even then you're sharply limited by spell slots. So even though you'd prefer AT, you decide to go with Thief instead for the Second-Story Work subclass feature, so that you can realize your concept by climbing fast enough to reach rooftops during combat. You put a 14 in strength even though the stat doesn't help you much, and you take Expertise in Athletics. You've got a climb modifier of +8... pretty good for 5th level. The character isn't quite what you were hoping for, but you write your backstory and head off to the first session.

In your first street fight you go to climb up the side of a one-story building so that you can shoot from relative safety. You tell the DM that you're going to climb up the wall, and roll Strength (Athletics), getting a total of 17... and fall prone, taking falling damage? It turns out that this DM is an experienced climber, and knows that free-climbing well-built masonry walls at 2.5 ft/s (normal D&D climbing speed without your special class feature) is very difficult, not to mention dangerous. He likes your concept though, and so picked the "hard" difficulty of DC 20, rather than "very hard" DC 25. You sit there, looking at your sheet, knowing that you've less than a 50% chance of succeeding at the very task you built your character to do, and that you won't get any better for many levels. Meanwhile, another player reminds that DM that in their last campaign he had indeed picked DC 25 for free-climbing masonry walls, but the DM explains that he's a firm believer in the rule of cool, and doesn't want to shut down the new player's concept.

You speak up, pointing out that even at DC 20 you're unlikely to succeed. The DM suggests that you use a rope and grappling hook... that would bring the DC down to 10, making your odds of success 95%. So you use the rest of your movement to stand up, your free item interaction to take out your rope, and your Action to throw the hook. You go to make a Strength (Athletics) check, but the DM asks for an unmodified Dexterity check instead, since using rope is listed in the examples of such checks on PHB 177. With your 16 dexterity, you've got a 70% chance to succeed at the DC 10 check, but that still is going to fail almost a third of a time. Another player helpfully reminds the DM about the rules for using skills with alternate abilities, and the DM thinks this is a great idea, and so asks for a Dexterity (Athletics) check instead, and now it's an automatic success.

Ten RL minutes after you first tried to climb, on your next turn you easily make the DC10 Strength (Athletics) check to climb the rope, use your free item interaction to draw your bow, and shoot at an enemy, hitting him. Hooray! You shoot again on the third round of combat, this time missing. On the fourth round, the enemy's morale breaks, and they start to run away, and the rest of the party declares that they're going to chase them. The DM sees a great chance to help facilitate your concept, and points out that if you climb down the opposite side you climbed up, you'll be on the other side of a wall and be able to head off the enemy. You smile back, but then sickeningly realize that even if the DM decides that releasing or manually securing a grappling hook is an item interaction rather than an Action, it's still going to take you two rounds to put away your bow, pick up the hook, cross the roof, secure the hook, and climb down....

At the end of the session you're disappointed, and trying hard not to show it. The concept isn't working the way you thought it would--it turned out that under this particular DM's interpretation of climbing skill DC's, your concept only kind-of-sort-of works. Put simply, you didn't know that your character couldn't do what you expected it to do. You feel worse after another player "helpfully" points out that next time, you'd be better off spending your actions attacking more, rather than messing with ropes, using your Bonus Action Disengage to get most of the safety advantage that you'd have gotten from climbing buildings.

In the end, no one did anything wrong. The DM was accommodating, the group maturely accepted the change in skill DC precedent, and your character concept wasn't completely shut down. But, the choices you made in character creation aren't letting you do what you thought you could do. The extra action cost now means climbing buildings for your character is now mostly an out-of-combat thing, and so climbing speed doesn't matter, but you've missed out on the options that you'd have preferred to take. You go home sad, and icky-feeling, wondering if it's worth asking your DM if you can respec as an Arcane Trickster. Next time, you'll know to ask first what DCs the DM uses for climbing--hopefully he'll have them already typed up so he can send you a copy--but that doesn't make you feel any better now.

By contrast, in 3.5 you could look up the climb DC (25) in the PHB, and design a 5th level rogue to get enough climb skill to be able to make it easily (e.g. Belt of Ultimate Athleticism, or skip the skill and go for Slippers of Spider Climbing).
The reason I think the ambiguity you love is a "bad thing" is because just being "grown up enough to play nice" doesn't mean everyone is automatically on the same page. Sure, it means you can maturely get past the misunderstandings, but people will still go away unhappy when they're disappointed. In previous editions you did have an expectation of what your character could do according to the rules, and what your character can do is an important part of who your character is. In the spoilered example, the second-story burglar/archer's backstory likely included anecdotes of free-climbing buildings that at that particular table the character can't actually do reliably. In 5e, no matter how you design your character, before you write climbing into your backstory you need to go to your DM and say: "My character has a +x to athletics... how good is he at climbing in your world?"

While your hypothetical scenario may be possible, the DM doesn't follow the spirit of the rules evidenced by this description of when to call for an athletics check:

Athletics. Your Strength (Athletics) check covers
difficult situations you encounter while climbing,
jumping, or swimming. Examples include the
following activities:
• You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid
hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface
while something is trying to knock you off.

In this case it is not unreasonable for the DM to rule that climbing up the wall isn't considered a difficult situation, judging from the examples given in the PHB.

[GilesTheCleric]

Do people not run character concept by the GM to make sure it's a party/campaign style fit? I've been in enough different campaigns to consider that a no brainer, even if the answer's 95% of the time been "sure, no problem."

I'm pretty sure most folks do, and I'm planning to as well, even if I'm just joining a game for one session as a guest. However, this approach has some aspects to it that make it not as effective as it could be in all situations.

I'm a new player, with only a few sessions of playtest material under my belt, and the session will be roughly three weeks from now. Between packing up to move, my job, and life, I don't know how much system mastery I will have attained. In short, things that might turn up to be problems might be things I simply didn't think would, or didn't know enough to be concerned about.

My favourite aspect of dnd is character building. So, I like to devote a lot of time to it. (I spend 10-40 hours per build in 3.5, typically, not because building in the system is inherently time-consuming, but because I optimize every facet of my character towards whatever goal I've decided, and that often takes some complex and creative workarounds). 5e doesn't have as many options as 3.5 for me to pour through, but as more material is released (right now it's just the core 3 + UA web articles + Elemental Evil, right?), the same problem of having lots to go through will eventually appear. As a build gets more complex, there's more interactions to worry about, and some of them might not be obvious when starting a build.

In addition to the above, I need to respect the GM's time. If I have a whole bunch of questions about my build, I know that it can be irritating to even a reasonable GM. Whether it's the case or not, they might think that I'm trying to powergame, or somehow dupe them into letting me cheat. Further, in my specific case, I'm only going to be playing for one session anyway. It seems pretty disrespectful for me to take up a lot of the GM's time if it's not going to matter a week later for his/her group.

I'm scared of rejection. If I've come up with a neat/ deep character concept and want to effectively build it, the part of going to the GM with my character fills me with dread. If they say it's not going to work, then I have to abandon the concept I was excited about and start all over. Sure, that's fine with things like essays, since I have less emotional attachment to them and fewer hopes for their future, but with a character you've sketched out a backstory for, it's like never getting to know this cool new friend you just met. Since this is effectively a one-shot for me, this aspect matters less in the case.

Like the first point, even with system mastery, things can come up in a game that are unexpected by both the GM and the player. Usually this can be worked out, but sometimes it can't. I don't know enough about the op ceiling of 5e to say that this can be ignored through building in redundancies and layered abilities such that a character's concept isn't broken if one of their tricks ends up not working or not being acceptable in a given campaign after seeing how it actually works in play with that group. In 3.5 there's enough splat support for nearly anything to be able to be created in several ways, but that might not be the case with 5e for a while (assuming the devs tried not to make too much overlap in core, which makes sense).

[goto124]

5e has Champion Fighter, which is meant to be easy to play isn't it?

Actually, OP may not like it, but could be worth one look at least?

[Malifice]

Please, 5e regulars. Tell me that everything is going to be okay, and that my fears are unfounded.

Your fears are justified. Once more the DM is king.

The DMG is basically chock full of variant rules. In fact, it pretty much only contains variant rules (it looks more like an Unearthed Arcana than a DMG). Variant healing, variant races, variant rests, variant classes, variant ability scores, variant campaign themes, etc etc etc.

It actively encourages a DM to make the game, the rules, and the campaign to the individual groups tastes.

Even the PHB contains variants; Feats, Multiclassing and even the a second Human race is included as an optional extra/ variant.

As a consequence you will rarely see two groups playing the same game.

Some people hate it, some people like it.

I love it.


"I'm going to be running a game. It's going to be in [Setting], starting at [level] and probably running to [level] or so. It's going to start with [conditions] and have this sort of tone. I want to bring elements like [thing] and another [thing]. Think [this tv show] meets [this video game], but with a bit more of this element.

In general you can expect things to be pretty [down to earth/over the top] so expect your characters to be able to [do this] or [this] but probably not [this]. If [famous character] could do it, we'll try to make it so you can but if you're thinking of [other famous character], it's probably not the best idea.

If you like the idea join up or feel free to ask me any questions"

And you sir. I also love you.

[Inchoroi]

--snip--


Eh. I wouldn't trust comparisons to the Tyranny of Dragons adventure; it's...not the best written in the world. Really, don't be scared of 5e; as has been mentioned, if you liked 2e, you'll like 5e. They have a very similar feel.


You're right, op. 5E has a lot of issues when it comes to the details of the rules. I started out *super* excited for it after getting the books, but I'm not so sure anymore. We have a half dozen sessions under our belt at my home table and I'm already feeling nervous about the way the game is going mechanically. Way too much stuff the DM is just randomly adjudicating on the fly, because that's all he can do given the rules. This was never a problem during the 10+ years I played under him during 3.X, but I'm not liking whats happening in 5th so far.

I find this happening to be odd, honestly. As a DM (three games at the moment...) I rarely have to randomly adjudicate on the fly; I'd be interested in hearing examples. Because of the onus of the work being on the DM, it can happen where you get a DM who hasn't gotten everything down yet, and the game will suffer a bit; additionally, if the DM is still stuck on the 3.pf ideals, it can also cause issues. One of my friends played 3.5 for years and years, and now runs 5e, but still thinks spells work like 3.5, including using their system terms, like Will saves and such (it causes issues, and I have to quietly remind him on occasion). One thing you can do to compensate is to be aware of what your character can and can't do, especially how your character interacts with the small number of subsystems present (e.g. hiding, jumping, etc). I love one of my players, because for every character she memorizes every single thing that her character can do, so I don't have to worry about it.



--snip--


Wow. That's a case of a bad DM, not a system issue, at least in my opinion.

[GilesTheCleric]

The DMG is basically chock full of variant rules. In fact, it pretty much only contains variant rules (it looks more like an Unearthed Arcana than a DMG). Variant healing, variant races, variant rests, variant classes, variant ability scores, variant campaign themes, etc etc etc.

It actively encourages a DM to make the game, the rules, and the campaign to the individual groups tastes.

Even the PHB contains variants; Feats, Multiclassing and even the a second Human race is included as an optional extra/ variant.

As a consequence you will rarely see two groups playing the same game.

After looking through handbooks, it seemed like the feat and multiclassing rules were assumed to be in play. Do I recall correctly from the playtest that the variant rule was that you can either get +1 ability score or a feat every X levels?

What other rules are assumed by the playground, or by individual folks here?

[Celcey]

I think in general, 5e is really meant to be played with common sense. If you, your DM, and your fellow players all have it, the game will run fine, even if switching characters from game to game. If you try and get into the exact details of whether this or that is possible, yes, you may get a simulacrum army, or be able to turn a gnat into the moon. But both of those things require a) being very high-leveled and b) the DM allowing you to do them, which comes back to common sense. The simulacrum I might allow because an army of them is not necessarily game breaking, but the moon thing (unless t was your goal to destroy everyone who would be crushed underneath it), I obviously would not. Common sense.

To an extent, it's also (in my opinion) meant to follow the Rule of Cool, but this really depends on what kind of people the players are. If they're the type to meta-game and try and squeeze every possible bonus out of every situation, the Rule of Cool should be ignored, but if they're not, the Rule of Cool can be the way to go.

[Malifice]

After looking through handbooks, it seemed like the feat and multiclassing rules were assumed to be in play. Do I recall correctly from the playtest that the variant rule was that you can either get +1 ability score or a feat every X levels?

What other rules are assumed by the playground, or by individual folks here?

Feats, multi-classing and Humans (with a bonus feat) are called out in the PHB as variant rules (ask your DM). There is no assumption other than 'ask your DM' (although many of us use these rules).

Ability score increases are baked into class levels now (not character level). You get +2 to one stat, or +1 to two stats, recurring every 4th level in that class (as your class feature for that level)

In games that use feats, you can exchange an ability score increase you gain at a level for a feat (you get one or the other). Feats are much more powerful, and many contain a +1 bonus to an ability score themselves (called 'half-feats' colloquially). Fighters and Rouges get extra feats/ ability score increases over the other classes (two for the fighter, one for the rogue).

[Xetheral]

I find it tiresome because it assumes, as a baseline, complete and utter dysfunction when it comes to people working together at the table. It assumes that one needs to sign a contract with one's players before getting started, because they can't be trusted to just accept your rulings as they come up. It assumes that players and DMs have an adversarial relationship instead of one of mutual understanding. And it also assumes that nobody is going to be talking about their character concepts or build options with anyone, just showing up at the table with a fresh character sheet in hand.

One can legitimately complain that "you never know what your character can do" without making any of those assumptions. I've never run a game for a table that wasn't mature and collaborative, and yet I'm still troubled and frustrated by the lack of a meaningful gauge for what skill checks mean.


First, in your games, Xetheral, I find it hard to swallow the idea that an extra page of rulings is really such an onerous task when you're already handing out big stacks of house rules too.

As I (slowly) prepare to move my main weekly game to 5e this summer, I'm trying very, very hard to keep the list of rulings and house rules in the campaign introduction packet to one double-sided page.


you could just as easily tell players "If you're thinking about focusing on stealth, reach weapons, or grappling, please talk to me before hand."

All the players need to have access to the game's rulings, simply because I'll likely want to use opponents that take advantage of those options.


Indeed, your entire story could've been avoided had your hypothetical player brought things up with the hypothetical DM, a conversation that's going to happen anyway in any system at some point, even if it's not over DCs and climbing, unless you assume that everybody who sits down at a table has attained perfect rules mastery before getting started.


Do people not run character concept by the GM to make sure it's a party/campaign style fit? I've been in enough different campaigns to consider that a no brainer, even if the answer's 95% of the time been "sure, no problem."

If your main shtick is X, firing off an e-mail with "I'm planning my character's shtick to be X, does that sound cool?" seems easy...though I'm still waiting to hear back from the GM on my latest character for that one (in his defense, work picked up, and he was preparing for GREs for grad school admission...I'll bug him tomorrow).

In my hypothetical, there is no guarantee that even a thorough pre-game conversation would have revealed the differing opinions about climbing DCs. Even if the player explicitly described his interest as climbing up on buildings to get a safe vantage for archery, the DM may not realize the player intends to free-climb challenging surfaces. Maybe the DM is assuming the tactic would apply to ambushes, or maybe the DM assumes the player will use a rope. The DM might love the concept without spotting a potential conflict based on skill DCs.

It's of course best to go over things in advance, but catching everything upfront is unlikely, particularly in 5e where every skill has the potential to lead to different expectations.


I think reasonable people can disagree about this, of course. But it doesn't really change the fact that what you're complaining about in 5e is an aspect of every TRPG, where players need to sit around and talk about how and why they're playing a game, and how they think the rules comes together.

In 3.5, I didn't need to get the group together to sit down and discuss how I plan to approach skill DCs... they could simply look them up in their book. In 5e, looking up DCs only reveals context-less labels such as "easy" and "very hard", without offering any way to relate those to specific challenges in the game world. So if you want to know what your character's +5 means in the game world, you'll have to ask your DM.


If the DC was a very high 20, why was there absolutely no indication of its difficulty...?

In the hypothetical I'm assuming the DM described the wall as well-maintained masonry. In my experience, it isn't common practice to announce the DC of a check ahead of time.


While your hypothetical scenario may be possible, the DM doesn't follow the spirit of the rules evidenced by this description of when to call for an athletics check:

In this case it is not unreasonable for the DM to rule that climbing up the wall isn't considered a difficult situation, judging from the examples given in the PHB.

Sure, it wouldn't be unreasonable for the hypothetical DM to decide a check isn't needed, but if the DM thinks it's a challenging and dangerous task, it's also just as reasonable to rule the DC is 20.


Wow. That's a case of a bad DM, not a system issue, at least in my opinion.

Really? It seems to me the hypothetical DM did everything right. He used the rules as presented and set a difficulty based on his common sense and real-world experience (because 5e doesn't offer anything else to go on). He tried to help the character realize the concept, bending the previously-established DC in the player's favor and modifying the encounter to try to let the player gain an advantage from climbing (i.e. potentially heading off the foes).
My replies to individual comments about my hypothetical are in the spoiler above.

In general, to those who think the hypothetical DM erred by setting the athletics DC at 20, you're proving my point that the rules don't provide enough guidance on skill DCs. It's not fair to laud the flexibility of 5e's skill system on the one hand and on the other condemn as a "bad DM" anyone who sets the DC's "wrong". If there is a reasonable way to determine what DCs are set by "good" DMs, and what DCs are set by "bad" DMs, then that rubric should be included in the rules.

[Gwendol]

I'm not sure those are the two sides of the story. In my opinion, the DM doesn't need to declare the DC of the task, but he should be giving the player an indication of the percieved difficulty, which is what I think most here are reacting to. A DC20 task for someone who can muster a +8 modifier to the roll carries significant risk of failure. Furthermore, there is a question of what not meeting the DC means in this case. Falling seems like too harsh an outcome for someone not rolling a 1; not making progress, or realizing there aren't enough foot- and handholds and not start the climb seems a more appropriate ruling based on the character (being proficient, and having climbing as a focus).

[silveralen]

I'm sorry that you find the complaint "you never know what your character can do" to be tiresome, because I consider it be succinct and apt. Here's an realistic hypothetical of the type of situation where it comes up:

You're a new player joining an established group starting up a new 5e campaign, described as an urban setting, beginning at 5th level. You've decided you want to play a second-story burglar/archer, and are considering how best to design your build and your backstory to match the concept. Arcane Trickster sounds amazing, but a second-story burglar needs to be able to reach the rooftops, and AT can't take Levitate or Spider Climb until 8th level, and even then you're sharply limited by spell slots. So even though you'd prefer AT, you decide to go with Thief instead for the Second-Story Work subclass feature, so that you can realize your concept by climbing fast enough to reach rooftops during combat. You put a 14 in strength even though the stat doesn't help you much, and you take Expertise in Athletics. You've got a climb modifier of +8... pretty good for 5th level. The character isn't quite what you were hoping for, but you write your backstory and head off to the first session.

In your first street fight you go to climb up the side of a one-story building so that you can shoot from relative safety. You tell the DM that you're going to climb up the wall, and roll Strength (Athletics), getting a total of 17... and fall prone, taking falling damage? It turns out that this DM is an experienced climber, and knows that free-climbing well-built masonry walls at 2.5 ft/s (normal D&D climbing speed without your special class feature) is very difficult, not to mention dangerous. He likes your concept though, and so picked the "hard" difficulty of DC 20, rather than "very hard" DC 25. You sit there, looking at your sheet, knowing that you've less than a 50% chance of succeeding at the very task you built your character to do, and that you won't get any better for many levels. Meanwhile, another player reminds that DM that in their last campaign he had indeed picked DC 25 for free-climbing masonry walls, but the DM explains that he's a firm believer in the rule of cool, and doesn't want to shut down the new player's concept.

You speak up, pointing out that even at DC 20 you're unlikely to succeed. The DM suggests that you use a rope and grappling hook... that would bring the DC down to 10, making your odds of success 95%. So you use the rest of your movement to stand up, your free item interaction to take out your rope, and your Action to throw the hook. You go to make a Strength (Athletics) check, but the DM asks for an unmodified Dexterity check instead, since using rope is listed in the examples of such checks on PHB 177. With your 16 dexterity, you've got a 70% chance to succeed at the DC 10 check, but that still is going to fail almost a third of a time. Another player helpfully reminds the DM about the rules for using skills with alternate abilities, and the DM thinks this is a great idea, and so asks for a Dexterity (Athletics) check instead, and now it's an automatic success.

Ten RL minutes after you first tried to climb, on your next turn you easily make the DC10 Strength (Athletics) check to climb the rope, use your free item interaction to draw your bow, and shoot at an enemy, hitting him. Hooray! You shoot again on the third round of combat, this time missing. On the fourth round, the enemy's morale breaks, and they start to run away, and the rest of the party declares that they're going to chase them. The DM sees a great chance to help facilitate your concept, and points out that if you climb down the opposite side you climbed up, you'll be on the other side of a wall and be able to head off the enemy. You smile back, but then sickeningly realize that even if the DM decides that releasing or manually securing a grappling hook is an item interaction rather than an Action, it's still going to take you two rounds to put away your bow, pick up the hook, cross the roof, secure the hook, and climb down....

At the end of the session you're disappointed, and trying hard not to show it. The concept isn't working the way you thought it would--it turned out that under this particular DM's interpretation of climbing skill DC's, your concept only kind-of-sort-of works. Put simply, you didn't know that your character couldn't do what you expected it to do. You feel worse after another player "helpfully" points out that next time, you'd be better off spending your actions attacking more, rather than messing with ropes, using your Bonus Action Disengage to get most of the safety advantage that you'd have gotten from climbing buildings.

In the end, no one did anything wrong. The DM was accommodating, the group maturely accepted the change in skill DC precedent, and your character concept wasn't completely shut down. But, the choices you made in character creation aren't letting you do what you thought you could do. The extra action cost now means climbing buildings for your character is now mostly an out-of-combat thing, and so climbing speed doesn't matter, but you've missed out on the options that you'd have preferred to take. You go home sad, and icky-feeling, wondering if it's worth asking your DM if you can respec as an Arcane Trickster. Next time, you'll know to ask first what DCs the DM uses for climbing--hopefully he'll have them already typed up so he can send you a copy--but that doesn't make you feel any better now.

By contrast, in 3.5 you could look up the climb DC (25) in the PHB, and design a 5th level rogue to get enough climb skill to be able to make it easily (e.g. Belt of Ultimate Athleticism, or skip the skill and go for Slippers of Spider Climbing).
The reason I think the ambiguity you love is a "bad thing" is because just being "grown up enough to play nice" doesn't mean everyone is automatically on the same page. Sure, it means you can maturely get past the misunderstandings, but people will still go away unhappy when they're disappointed. In previous editions you did have an expectation of what your character could do according to the rules, and what your character can do is an important part of who your character is. In the spoilered example, the second-story burglar/archer's backstory likely included anecdotes of free-climbing buildings that at that particular table the character can't actually do reliably. In 5e, no matter how you design your character, before you write climbing into your backstory you need to go to your DM and say: "My character has a +x to athletics... how good is he at climbing in your world?"

But, to be honest, your example was pone that was never going to be optimal regardless. Climbing might be occasionally be useful in combat for hitting enemies hiding behind cover you can't normally flank or something, but it gives no real advantage for doing it every single time.

Furthermore, the thief archetype has a rather handy ability that lets them use an object, such as a grappling hook, as a bonus action. Very nifty for this character concept.

So, once the player remembered they had that ability and the DM settled on dex+athletics, it works almost exactly how the character expected it to. Tosses rope as bonus action, climbs up, then draws and shoots.

It still isn't useful, but it never was at any point in the PHB indicated to actually be useful in combat so I fail to see how that is an expectation issue, the other player would be right no matter what the time spent climbing around is not going to have a real effect. Nor do I have any idea why the character thought a faster climbing speed was somehow worth taking an archetype that apparently lacks any other ability he found particularly engaging, it does have another ability that is relevant but the character and DM both seem to be unaware of it.

Compared to the alternative you gave, where in 3.5 you could just take a magic item to fulfill your character concept and ignore the actual skills your character would be expected to have, in effect bypassing the skill check rules entirely using magic, I'm much happier with 5e in the example you gave. Nor is it impossible to do the same thing in 5e, it has a table for giving magic items for characters who start at mid-high levels. Not every campaign or DM will sue them, but if you think that every campaign or DM would actually let you start with a magic item of your choice you are making assumptions that I have trouble accepting given my own 3.5 experience. The fact that 5e actually allows you to realize the character concept by talk with your DM and hashing things out (and being aware of all your abilities) rather than forcing you into a dramatically sub-optimal build or leaning on magic items as crutches put it leagues ahead.

[PlaygroundPixie]

In my hypothetical, there is no guarantee that even a thorough pre-game conversation would have revealed the differing opinions about climbing DCs. Even if the player explicitly described his interest as climbing up on buildings to get a safe vantage for archery, the DM may not realize the player intends to free-climb challenging surfaces. Maybe the DM is assuming the tactic would apply to ambushes, or maybe the DM assumes the player will use a rope. The DM might love the concept without spotting a potential conflict based on skill DCs.

In this hypothetical campaign, is the DM giving the players opportunities to set up such ambushes on a reasonably frequent basis? If so, the player is probably only somewhat put out, rather than having the entire concept of their character shredded - unfortunate, but they'll still likely have fun with the character.

If he's expecting the character to spend turns using tools, though, I don't see why he wouldn't point out that he'll be spending half of his combat time climbing instead of fighting - it's pretty obvious to anyone that such a limitation would be a big deal to any character.

It's been quite a while since I last had the opportunity to play a game myself, but the way my group used to do things was say, "Hey, my character concept is [x]. She's going to do [a], , and [c], by means of [q], [r], and [s]. Will that work for you?", with a reply of either "Sounds great!", "I'm sorry, but [x] doesn't really fit my setting... Would [y] or [z] work for you instead?", "I'm sorry, but [b] is a bit overpowered for my campaign - would you mind leaving it out, or maybe substituting [d] instead?" or "Oh, sorry, but I don't think [s] is really appropriate... [t] should still let you do [c], though.". Basically, taking about a paragraph of conversation to explain the core of the concept, it's biggest and/or most used tricks, and the rules by which it accomplishes those tricks, and about as much time to see if there were any obvious issues. I assume most other people do something similar, circumstances permitting.

To apply that method to the proposed example, I'd assume the conversation would have gone "Hey, my character concept is a cat burgler who spends fights peppering the enemy with arrows from above! Out of combat, she'll be able to sneak into places through windows to steal plot tokens unnoticed and set up ropes to help the party scale difficult climbs, and in combat she'll climb to the highest point to use her bow to fight from safety. She'll do this by means of the Second-Story Work subclass feature, 14 points in strength, and expertise(athletics)", followed by "Oh, I'm sorry, I'm planning an urban campaign... The setting really doesn't work well for free-climbing. Maybe I could give you some magic gloves to help, though? We could say you stole them from your mentor - I could work it into the story pretty well.", or "Oh, I'm sorry, but that's really not very realistic - people just can't climb that fast. It would be bad for everyone's immersion. Maybe you should take Arcane Trickster for Levitate instead?", or even "Oh, dear, that's going to eat up several rounds every climbing every combat... Are you sure you really want to do this? I'll tell you what, why don't we let you take a custom feat to let you use climbing equipment as a bonus action?".

However you imagine the conversation going, though, when the line "I'm going to spend my fights getting to a high point and using ranged attacks" comes up, the answer should always be "That's going to be pretty difficult and make you noticeably weaker than the rest of the party - are you okay with that, or should we find a way to make it easier?". It should never be a surprise that your main routine is noticeably ineffective compared to the rest of your party, if you have good communication with your party and DM.

The problem in your hypothetical, from my perspective, isn't that the climbing rules were unclear - rather, it was that the DM didn't make it clear that she viewed the climbing rules as a significant obstacle to the character concept. And I'd suggest that the answer for the player's next campaign isn't, "ask what DCs she uses for climbing", but rather to ask "Without equipment, can I reliably climb to roofs to shoot while during combat? I have a really neat character concept, but I've had DMs veto it in the past".



Really? It seems to me the hypothetical DM did everything right. He used the rules as presented and set a difficulty based on his common sense and real-world experience (because 5e doesn't offer anything else to go on). [b]He tried to help the character realize the concept, bending the previously-established DC in the player's favor and modifying the encounter to try to let the player gain an advantage from climbing (i.e. potentially heading off the foes).

He really didn't, though. The time for that was when they were designing the characters, or he was designing the setting.

If, in 3.5, I didn't tell the party rogue that we were going to be exclusively fighting the undead for the entire campaign, would you say that I was helping the character realize their concept by ruling that the zombie's armor was pretty rotted so the rogue could ignore their AC? Or would you say that I was being a bad DM by not letting her know ahead of time that a character based around sneak attack was going to be completely useless in the campaign I had envisioned?

I don't really think it appropriate to invite a character heavily invested in climbing if I don't intend to allow for circumstances where climbing would be useful.

[GilesTheCleric]

The fact that 5e actually allows you to realize the character concept by talk with your DM and hashing things out (and being aware of all your abilities) rather than forcing you into a dramatically sub-optimal build or leaning on magic items as crutches put it leagues ahead.

In 3.5, reliance on magical items is built in as part of the expectations of scaling levels. Since 5e is bounded accuracy, that means magic items aren't assumed, correct? That's a nice change -- it means they can be focused on unique things rather than +5 to saves or something.

[Gwendol]

In 3.5, reliance on magical items is built in as part of the expectations of scaling levels. Since 5e is bounded accuracy, that means magic items aren't assumed, correct? That's a nice change -- it means they can be focused on unique things rather than +5 to saves or something.

Absolutely. Also, the stat boosting items don't boost all stats, and rather than give a +2, 4, etc they set the STR, INT, etc to a fixed number (19, for example).

[MinotaurWarrior]

MaRo, in his blogs about WotC far more financially successful product, sometimes talks about how M:tG is successful not only as a "game bigger than the box" but also as a game bigger than the game. The vast majority of the time most M:tG players spend having fun with the game isn't spent actually sitting down with a friend and having a duel.

5e is a pretty terrible game when you're not playing it. Right now, I'm DMing 5e and playing in PF. I'm an alchemist, and I can precisely calculate my GDP, and look forward to saying things like, "My GDP is higher than that of Djibouti" "My GDP is higher than that of Tajikistan" and, eventually, at level 18, "My GDP is a double-digit multiplier of the US's." It makes me smirk a little just thinking about it - because PF has robust, precise rules for crafting, for selling, and for the amount of gold contained within a GP. I can make a game of min-maxing or playing around with anything in the system, even something so seemingly unrelated to the core of an adventure game as selling alchemical items. You can't do that in 5e. And playing around with, say, options for a min-maxed striker is far less satisfying because (1) there will be a whole lot more caveats when you lay it all out and (2) you really can't get as crazy. It's not terrifically fun to ponder some crazy character concept during the commute to end up just saying, "If the DM allows this, and this, and this, I can deal 10% more damage."

In play is really a different story. I think anyone who's played WW games by the rules (read: at very low XP starting values and slow growth) will be fine with it. Rules are unambiguous about core mechanics, a bunch of other rules come down to "you can do this when you can" (stealth), and others are left for the DM to just make up (recognizing monster weaknesses, a lot of object rules). It works, it's quick, it's fun. It's sometimes a different sort of fun from DnD 3.5 - I'd say it's somewhere between WW's typical 'most times you deal with the rules will basically result in 1-5 rolls of the dice, often including combat' and 3.x's 'the type of corner I'm dealing with matters immensely'.

[Inchoroi]

Really? It seems to me the hypothetical DM did everything right. He used the rules as presented and set a difficulty based on his common sense and real-world experience (because 5e doesn't offer anything else to go on). He tried to help the character realize the concept, bending the previously-established DC in the player's favor and modifying the encounter to try to let the player gain an advantage from climbing (i.e. potentially heading off the foes).[/SPOILER]
My replies to individual comments about my hypothetical are in the spoiler above.

In general, to those who think the hypothetical DM erred by setting the athletics DC at 20, you're proving my point that the rules don't provide enough guidance on skill DCs. It's not fair to laud the flexibility of 5e's skill system on the one hand and on the other condemn as a "bad DM" anyone who sets the DC's "wrong". If there is a reasonable way to determine what DCs are set by "good" DMs, and what DCs are set by "bad" DMs, then that rubric should be included in the rules.

I, speaking as my opinion only and with respect, have to disagree with the idea that the Hypothetical DM didn't make a bad call on the DC, for one reason: Parkour. Unless he planned specifically to screw the character's concept with this building (which, on occasion, can be fun; especially if the bad guy is aware of the player characters in a tactical and strategic sense), there would be no instance where a building (save skyscrapers in a setting such as New York, for example) would not have window ledges, outcroppings, drain pipes, etc, i.e. many things with which to climb on. Given that idea, then, his setting of the DC at 20 means a disconnect between common sense/real-world experience and what the DM rules as the DC--which can happen, and it's okay because the player and DM are expected to be adults and work out the fact that the DM made a mistake in that instance and move on and not do it again.



5e is a pretty terrible game when you're not playing it. Right now, I'm DMing 5e and playing in PF. I'm an alchemist, and I can precisely calculate my GDP, and look forward to saying things like, "My GDP is higher than that of Djibouti" "My GDP is higher than that of Tajikistan" and, eventually, at level 18, "My GDP is a double-digit multiplier of the US's." It makes me smirk a little just thinking about it - because PF has robust, precise rules for crafting, for selling, and for the amount of gold contained within a GP. I can make a game of min-maxing or playing around with anything in the system, even something so seemingly unrelated to the core of an adventure game as selling alchemical items. You can't do that in 5e. And playing around with, say, options for a min-maxed striker is far less satisfying because (1) there will be a whole lot more caveats when you lay it all out and (2) you really can't get as crazy. It's not terrifically fun to ponder some crazy character concept during the commute to end up just saying, "If the DM allows this, and this, and this, I can deal 10% more damage."

In play is really a different story. I think anyone who's played WW games by the rules (read: at very low XP starting values and slow growth) will be fine with it. Rules are unambiguous about core mechanics, a bunch of other rules come down to "you can do this when you can" (stealth), and others are left for the DM to just make up (recognizing monster weaknesses, a lot of object rules). It works, it's quick, it's fun. It's sometimes a different sort of fun from DnD 3.5 - I'd say it's somewhere between WW's typical 'most times you deal with the rules will basically result in 1-5 rolls of the dice, often including combat' and 3.x's 'the type of corner I'm dealing with matters immensely'.

I cannot say that 5e is a terrible game when you're not playing it; as a DM and a player, I still enjoy making campaigns, interesting encounters, and such, and planning my character's advancement. However, I will say that I wouldn't say no to an expanded economy system, because I know that several of my players enjoy that sort of thing--it can be done with the core system right now, however; it just requires your DM to understand and plan for the idea that your character is going to be a world-class merchant and businessman. If you wanted to play that in 5e, the rest of the party should be aware of it as well, so their characters aren't all murder-hobos and have ways of helping you should you need it with your business adventures.

The point, I suppose, is that 5e expects a good-to-decent level of communication from all players and the DM. If you don't have that (which can happen, of course) then it might color your experiences in the game; its not really a fault of the system itself.

As a DM, I tend to give a short document and summary which explains the kind of things that the group will be exploring, with the stated expectation that what is presented is Out-of-Character Knowledge and the players shouldn't metagame with that knowledge; for the most part, my players don't. I, in addition, give a lot of setting information that will be of direct use in the campaign; for example, when I ran Rise of the Runelords, I had three pages of details on Sandpoint for the characters to skim through, so they'll be aware of what is and isn't in the town (not every DM will be able to do this, however, I am aware; I type 90cwpm, so I may be an exception to the rule). My players also know me well enough to know that my first and biggest rule is, as mentioned above, the Rule Of Cool. If it's awesome, I'll probably let you do it; I don't like saying "No". I'll say "Yes, but..." of course, but that's where the fun begins, because of the communicated expectation that I would make the game to fit their characters and they would make characters to fit the game's premise.

[GilesTheCleric]

Standing aside from the above discussion for a moment, I have another question. I've been reading more of the threads in this sub forum, and a goodly number of them have made me wonder: are there any reserved game terms in 5e? In 3.5, many words had a specific game-only definition (things like "concealed" or "sleep"). Are there reserved words in 5e, or is everything just run with the dictionary definition? And if in instances like mentioned in the sleep thread, how do interactions between game terms (assuming conscious is a game term) with non-game terms (assuming semiconscious is used connotatively) work?

[Madfellow]

Standing aside from the above discussion for a moment, I have another question. I've been reading more of the threads in this sub forum, and a goodly number of them have made me wonder: are there any reserved game terms in 5e? In 3.5, many words had a specific game-only definition (things like "concealed" or "sleep"). Are there reserved words in 5e, or is everything just run with the dictionary definition? And if in instances like mentioned in the sleep thread, how do interactions between game terms (assuming conscious is a game term) with non-game terms (assuming semiconscious is used connotatively) work?

If you read through the basic rules or the Player's Handbook, basically any word that shows up in bold is one of those. Stuff like sleep, charm, fear, exhaustion, unconscious, etc.

[ghost_warlock]

Absolutely. Also, the stat boosting items don't boost all stats, and rather than give a +2, 4, etc they set the STR, INT, etc to a fixed number (19, for example).

Note that items such as the Belt of Dwarvenkind as well as various ioun stones do, in fact, give a +2 to relevant stats. They do retain the cap of 20, though.

And, of course, those magic books (Bodily Health, Gainful Exercise, etc.) still give +2 to a stat and also increase the cap for that ability as well.

[Telwar]

I cannot say that 5e is a terrible game when you're not playing it; as a DM and a player, I still enjoy making campaigns, interesting encounters, and such, and planning my character's advancement. However, I will say that I wouldn't say no to an expanded economy system, because I know that several of my players enjoy that sort of thing--it can be done with the core system right now, however; it just requires your DM to understand and plan for the idea that your character is going to be a world-class merchant and businessman. If you wanted to play that in 5e, the rest of the party should be aware of it as well, so their characters aren't all murder-hobos and have ways of helping you should you need it with your business adventures.


You can make campaigns and interesting encounters, and plan things in any game, though. In our 4e game right now, my sorcerer is trying to rebuild the lost city of Al-Anwar, which includes trying to find revenue sources and reasons for people to resettle. And I could do that in any edition of D&D, too. Or almost any other FRPG I'm aware of.

All of those other games, though, have many, many more choices to make when building or leveling a character than 5e. I can think about a character's backstory and personality all the livelong day, but mechanically there are almost no choices to make, and that, I think, is what MinotaurWarrior was getting at. I can even understand the stated reasons of trying to make the game simpler (...which I think is a horrific mistake, but that's my opinion). But there's no contesting that you make far more decisions in leveling a character in 3e or 4e than you do in 5e.

[KiltieMacPipes]

When I was running games in 3.5, it always felt like my players were trying to get away with whatever they could. It could become pretty adversarial, and it seemed like so long as it was in a book somewhere I HAD to allow it or I was somehow being unfair.

I'd have a regular party, say, a human fighter, halfling rogue, elf wizard, and some guy who wants to play a half-goliath/half air genasi sorceror/psion/fighter/rogue/monk/ninja of the crescent moon lich. There's no way that crazy abomination is going to mesh with the rest of the party, besides just being ridiculous, but dude's gonna get hella butthurt when I tell him no regardless of if he can find canon rules to support it.

It felt like Rule 1 was constantly overruled by Rule 1,485,311 from Suchandsuchabook pg. 214 paragraph 2, verse 3.

A specific example from 3.5 where RAW needed to be trumped by RAI:

In Libris Mortis, the Corpsecrafter feat tree never says that the CR of the created undead is altered.

An NPC necromancer with all the Feats can make hordes of zombies with +4 STR, +2hp/HD, +4 Turn resist, +1d6 cold damage/attack, +2 Nat Armor, +4 Init, +10' to speed, and does 1d6+1d6/2HD in a 10' radius (Ref 15 for Half) when it dies, and that's negative energy, so it will heal the other undead.

Considering a human zombie, they're CR 1/2 each.

If it was a template, the ecl would be at least 2 if not more. But since it's all coming from the feats taken by a character with levels, it's just considered a function of HIS CR. So he'd be easy to take down in a solo fight, but good luck getting to him, because he can have all those feats as a 12th level Human Cleric and can make 60 of them per day with just Animate Dead (assuming the Death Domain), 120 if he used Desecrate, which he most certainly will. Not to mention the 3 Ghasts a day with all the same buffs using Create Undead that are still only CR 3 each.

Should be able to overrun a kingdom in short order, and I'd be pretty surprised if a 12th level party could stop it, especially if he's been building up for a while.

[Gwendol]

Note that items such as the Belt of Dwarvenkind as well as various ioun stones do, in fact, give a +2 to relevant stats. They do retain the cap of 20, though.

And, of course, those magic books (Bodily Health, Gainful Exercise, etc.) still give +2 to a stat and also increase the cap for that ability as well.

Sure, but it's not like everyone is required to have those to function. And the number of items that give those bonuses have been reduced.

Giles: conditions are still listed in the PHB, such as blinded, stunned, prone, etc. Lately, the Hide action and being hidden has been a point of discussion. There is still some confusion to what that is, stemming mostly from the way these are presented in the PHB. The skill used is Stealth (a specific DEX ability roll), the Action is Hide, which leads the character to eventually become hidden. Hidden is not a condition, or status, meaning it can't be reached other than through a successful outcome of the Hide action.
There are a few other examples where the editing leads to some confusion over what the rules actually say, and where it would have been good to have better clarity.

[Tehnar]

A specific example from 3.5 where RAW needed to be trumped by RAI:

In Libris Mortis, the Corpsecrafter feat tree never says that the CR of the created undead is altered.

An NPC necromancer with all the Feats can make hordes of zombies with +4 STR, +2hp/HD, +4 Turn resist, +1d6 cold damage/attack, +2 Nat Armor, +4 Init, +10' to speed, and does 1d6+1d6/2HD in a 10' radius (Ref 15 for Half) when it dies, and that's negative energy, so it will heal the other undead.

Considering a human zombie, they're CR 1/2 each.

If it was a template, the ecl would be at least 2 if not more. But since it's all coming from the feats taken by a character with levels, it's just considered a function of HIS CR. So he'd be easy to take down in a solo fight, but good luck getting to him, because he can have all those feats as a 12th level Human Cleric and can make 60 of them per day with just Animate Dead (assuming the Death Domain), 120 if he used Desecrate, which he most certainly will. Not to mention the 3 Ghasts a day with all the same buffs using Create Undead that are still only CR 3 each.

Should be able to overrun a kingdom in short order, and I'd be pretty surprised if a 12th level party could stop it, especially if he's been building up for a while.

You are joking right? Excluding the necromancer itself, what you described above is tough challenge for a level 5 party, may be a challenge for a level 7-9 (but probably is not), but anything above is just funny. No way do those zombies do anything to high level characters. And he can't control them all anyway (or even most).

There can be abuse in the CR system with template stacking and feats, but the example you showed most certainly is not.

[ad_hoc]

One thing that people often have a problem with in 5e is that they need to first unlearn 3.x.

In 3.x everything requires a check, in 5e checks are much more rare.

Someone earlier quoted the guide to checks for climbing, it is only when something happens to make it suddenly precarious that a check is made.

I assume that a character will be taking a route that they are comfortable taking. Just as I don't ask for checks for walking under normal circumstances I don't ask for checks for climbing under normal circumstances.

The DC for that should not have been 20, there just should not have been a check in the first place.

This is a case of the DM not understanding the rules. Something that is going to happen (and is worse in games like 3.x) especially so early on.

In 3.x if you want a character that can climb things like this you need to buy a magic item that will allow you to do it. Otherwise you are making climb checks all the time and will eventually fail them. In 5e you can do this with character ability, not because your character went to the magic mart and bought the appropriate item.

[Icewraith]

You can make campaigns and interesting encounters, and plan things in any game, though. In our 4e game right now, my sorcerer is trying to rebuild the lost city of Al-Anwar, which includes trying to find revenue sources and reasons for people to resettle. And I could do that in any edition of D&D, too. Or almost any other FRPG I'm aware of.

All of those other games, though, have many, many more choices to make when building or leveling a character than 5e. I can think about a character's backstory and personality all the livelong day, but mechanically there are almost no choices to make, and that, I think, is what MinotaurWarrior was getting at. I can even understand the stated reasons of trying to make the game simpler (...which I think is a horrific mistake, but that's my opinion). But there's no contesting that you make far more decisions in leveling a character in 3e or 4e than you do in 5e.

It's great! 4e and 3.5 had so many options and complexity as you leveled that by late 4e you NEEDED the character builder for creation past all but the lowest levels. Also, a bunch of those choices, in 3 and 4e, were flavorful but would make your character terrible in a fight. Thus, a lot of your effort went into not accidentally gimping your character instead of making meaningful character-specific choices. By cutting out most of the effort involved in not making your character suck, character creation is incredibly fast, easy, and the classes are fairly well balanced against each other. Players still get to make some meaningful choices in determining ability scores (The standard point buy doesn't have a whole lot of room for this but higher point buys and open rolling results in more freedom in stat allocation), feats (if playing with them), class (by picking a subclass, some of which offer additional choices), race (most of which are well balanced against each other), and complete control over the character's personality (with a list of suggestions and random rolling possible if you can't decide).

Bells and whistles are nice and all, but there's a lot to be said for fast and easy. It especially reduces the bar of entry for new players, and it even benefits higher difficulty campaigns since replacement characters are faster to roll up. Characters are also easy to level, so it takes five minutes instead of "whoops, can I get on the character builder for half an hour before we start?"

This is the edition where (metaphorically) the designers saw the writing on the wall and just gave druids Natural Spell at 6th level instead of gaining a feat.

The difference is a lot like the old vs new talent system in WoW, where technically you had an immense amount of customization in terms of where you put your points, and you got a point every level. However, there were really only a couple ways you could actually distribute your points without giving up key abilities. In the more recent system, you pick between one of three abilities every few levels, all the abilities that gave you something like +1% crit for every point you put into it are baked into the character, and the fewer existing choices are (mostly) significantly more meaningful.

[Xetheral]

The DC for [free climbing a well-maintained masonry wall in combat] should not have been 20, there just should not have been a check in the first place.

I'd like to reiterate that one of my points in creating that example was that different DMs are going to have wildly different ideas of how to handle skills. By claiming that the DC should not have been 20, you're proving that point. Furthermore, since you'd go so far as to not call for a check at all, you're illustrating just how big the disparity can be in terms of what identical characters can accomplish.


Someone earlier quoted the guide to checks for climbing, it is only when something happens to make it suddenly precarious that a check is made.

The athletics skill check examples include climbing slick or sheer surfaces. Climbing well-maintained masonry wall is arguably much harder to climb than, e.g., a slick tree, and certainly qualified as sheer.



I assume that a character will be taking a route that they are comfortable taking. Just as I don't ask for checks for walking under normal circumstances I don't ask for checks for climbing under normal circumstances.

Sadly, everyone's definition of "normal" will be different. You consider it "normal" to make a technically very challenging 10-foot free climb in 6 seconds. But it's at least as reasonable to think that's anything-but-normal.


This is a case of the DM not understanding the rules.

Here I'm going to disagree strenuously. Let's look at what the DMG says:


If you've decided that an ability check is called for, then most likely the task at hand isn't a very easy one. Most people can accomplish a DC 5 task with little chance of failure. Unless circumstances are unusual, let characters succeed at such tasks without making a check.

Then ask yourself, 'Is this task's difficulty easy, moderate or hard?' If the only DCs you ever use are 10, 15, and 20, your game will run just fine. Keep in mind that a character with a 10 in the associated ability and no proficiency will succeed at an*easy*task around 50 percent of the time. A*moderate task requires a higher score or proficiency for success, whereas a*hard*task typically requires both. A big dose of luck with the d20 also doesn't hurt.

and


"When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. [...] Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure."

Since failing a climbing roll can cause damage, there is a very meaningful consequence for failure. Furthermore, the only tasks the DMG specifically recommends allowing to auto-succeed are "very easy" ones and those without failure consequences. You're absolutely permitted by the rules to decline to call for the check for harder tasks, but it's the DM's choice. So even a DM who perfectly understands the rules might set the DC at 20 if that makes sense to them.


Something that is going to happen (and is worse in games like 3.x) especially so early on.

I don't understand why you think 3.5 would be worse in terms of a DM setting a DC that defies player expectations. Under 3.5 the DC for the climb check in the hypothetical would be 25. Sure, DMs can change that, but there's a big difference between having a changeable default and telling DMs to pick a DC based on their own personal idea of the difficulty of certain tasks.

[Telwar]

It's great! 4e and 3.5 had so many options and complexity as you leveled that by late 4e you NEEDED the character builder for creation past all but the lowest levels. Also, a bunch of those choices, in 3 and 4e, were flavorful but would make your character terrible in a fight. Thus, a lot of your effort went into not accidentally gimping your character instead of making meaningful character-specific choices. By cutting out most of the effort involved in not making your character suck, character creation is incredibly fast, easy, and the classes are fairly well balanced against each other. Players still get to make some meaningful choices in determining ability scores (The standard point buy doesn't have a whole lot of room for this but higher point buys and open rolling results in more freedom in stat allocation), feats (if playing with them), class (by picking a subclass, some of which offer additional choices), race (most of which are well balanced against each other), and complete control over the character's personality (with a list of suggestions and random rolling possible if you can't decide).

Bells and whistles are nice and all, but there's a lot to be said for fast and easy. It especially reduces the bar of entry for new players, and it even benefits higher difficulty campaigns since replacement characters are faster to roll up. Characters are also easy to level, so it takes five minutes instead of "whoops, can I get on the character builder for half an hour before we start?"

And yet, even though you had the opportunity to make bad choices, you still also had the opportunity to make good ones. Taking that away means the parts of the game at the table are significantly less entertaining for people who like that (like, for example, me).

Fast'n'easy has its cost.

[ad_hoc]

I'd like to reiterate that one of my points in creating that example was that different DMs are going to have wildly different ideas of how to handle skills. By claiming that the DC should not have been 20, you're proving that point. Furthermore, since you'd go so far as to not call for a check at all, you're illustrating just how big the disparity can be in terms of what identical characters can accomplish.


Some people are going to run 5e as though it is an update to 3.x. That is not a problem with 5e.



Sadly, everyone's definition of "normal" will be different. You consider it "normal" to make a technically very challenging 10-foot free climb in 6 seconds. But it's at least as reasonable to think that's anything-but-normal.

The circumstances are normal.

Further, the situation is normal for that character who has incredible climbing skill and special abilities related to climbing from their class.





I don't understand why you think 3.5 would be worse in terms of a DM setting a DC that defies player expectations. Under 3.5 the DC for the climb check in the hypothetical would be 25. Sure, DMs can change that, but there's a big difference between having a changeable default and telling DMs to pick a DC based on their own personal idea of the difficulty of certain tasks.

Some people get the rules wrong in 3.x.

Some people get the rules wrong in 5e.

Some people are going to choose to play the game in a way that is not fun for people. That can't be helped.

There are key differences to the design of 5e that I find give the player a lot more control over knowing what their character can and cannot do. There is a reason, for example, why there is no longer an option to take 10. It simply isn't necessary anymore. You are just able to do things.

I will admit that I was guilty of calling for far too many checks in the first couple session of 5e that I ran. Once I went over the books again after that and really understood the rules separate from the influence of other editions I stopped doing that and my games are more fun and more exciting.

I will never go back to 3.x. If that is your thing then that's fine, though I think you ought to give 5e a fair chance.

[goto124]

And yet, even though you had the opportunity to make bad choices, you still also had the opportunity to make good ones. Taking that away means the parts of the game at the table are significantly less entertaining for people who like that (like, for example, me).

Fast'n'easy has its cost.

That's why 3.5e and similar are still being played.

You don't join a political campaign if you want hack and slash.

If you want to enjoy 5e, you need to break out of the 3.5e mindset.

[Toadkiller]

Haven't played 5e much, just a few sessions. But have role played for a long time.

In a recent session our FM made a rules call that I thought was an error. Since it was very much in my (and the party's for that matter) favor I gave him an 'are you sure' prompt. He said yep and we went on.

It turned into the best scene of the campaign and a battle resolution we will be talking about for months. Was it RAW, nope. Was is perfect, yes it was. He saw a way for the story to have an awesome moment where several characters got a time to shine because I set them up. RAW, right then, would have made things a lot less fun and not given some new-to-rpg players a chance to be the big heros.

This could be done in any system of course. But 5e makes it a little easier by building the DM's improv skills and getting the players to trust them via frequent opportunity.

Before the next session I will chat with him about how the spell will work moving forward. But the rules are much less important than having fun.

[Xetheral]

I'd like to reiterate that one of my points in creating that example was that different DMs are going to have wildly different ideas of how to handle skills. By claiming that the DC should not have been 20, you're proving that point. Furthermore, since you'd go so far as to not call for a check at all, you're illustrating just how big the disparity can be in terms of what identical characters can accomplish.Some people are going to run 5e as though it is an update to 3.x. That is not a problem with 5e.

That doesn't address what I wrote.



Sadly, everyone's definition of "normal" will be different. You consider it "normal" to make a technically very challenging 10-foot free climb in 6 seconds. But it's at least as reasonable to think that's anything-but-normal.

The circumstances are normal.

I understand that you think the circumstances are normal. But other DMs will reasonably consider the circumstances extraordinary. There is nothing in the rules of 5e that makes your opinion any more correct that anyone else's. That's a necessary consequence of leaving so much of skill resolution to the DM: no matter what the DM honestly believes the difficulty to be, he's following the rules.


Further, the situation is normal for that character who has incredible climbing skill and special abilities related to climbing from their class.

There is nothing in the rules to indicate that "normal" should be evaluated relative to the ability of the character rather than in relation to a fixed reference. One can run it either way and still adhere to the rules.



I don't understand why you think 3.5 would be worse in terms of a DM setting a DC that defies player expectations. Under 3.5 the DC for the climb check in the hypothetical would be 25. Sure, DMs can change that, but there's a big difference between having a changeable default and telling DMs to pick a DC based on their own personal idea of the difficulty of certain tasks.

Some people get the rules wrong in 3.x.

Some people get the rules wrong in 5e.

Except that setting a DC the DM considers reflective of the difficulty of the task is never "get[ting] the rules wrong in 5e". The rules are that the DM decides based on what he thinks is reasonable.


There are key differences to the design of 5e that I find give the player a lot more control over knowing what their character can and cannot do. There is a reason, for example, why there is no longer an option to take 10. It simply isn't necessary anymore. You are just able to do things.

Could you please share what you think these differences are? I'm curious. I've not before encountered anyone suggesting that 5e gives players more knowledge of what can and cannot be done. (And I don't see how your take 10 example supports your claim. What you "are just able to do" is entirely up to the DM... until a player learns a particular DM's style, there is no way to know what that DM considers an automatic success.)


I will admit that I was guilty of calling for far too many checks in the first couple session of 5e that I ran. Once I went over the books again after that and really understood the rules separate from the influence of other editions I stopped doing that and my games are more fun and more exciting.

I don't see anything in the rules of 5e that do anything other than give the DM vague non-skill-specific guidelines on what may or may not require a check and, if a check is called for, what DC to set.


I will never go back to 3.x. If that is your thing then that's fine, though I think you ought to give 5e a fair chance.

I'm trying very hard. I love some of the improvements over prior editions that 5e has made--I just wish those improvements hadn't come at the cost of requiring the DM to make up so many of the mechanics in addition to creating the campaign.

[Tehnar]

The circumstances are normal.

Further, the situation is normal for that character who has incredible climbing skill and special abilities related to climbing from their class.


So I am curious, what constitutes a incredible climbing skill for you? A high modifier? Expertise in said skill? The PC backstory?

Also what is normal, or not normal? If climbing a wall sheer wall is normal that doesn't take a roll, can anyone with a climbing proficiency do it? OR do you need expertise? OR a good backstory? Can a rogue with a +2 total modifier in climb but with expertise make the climb without rolling, but what about a character with +8 modifier but no expertise? Where is the breakpoint for you?

Take these characters:
Bob, expertise in climbing, +8 modifier
Joe, expertise in climbing, +2 modifier
Sal, no expertise, +8 modifier
Tom, no expertise, +2 modifier

They all want to climb a sheer stone wall:
Scenario A: they are not in a hurry, no outside factors
Scenario B: they are in a hurry or someone is shooting at them

What is the DC in each scenario, and who can make the climb without rolling?

[archaeo]

All of those other games, though, have many, many more choices to make when building or leveling a character than 5e. I can think about a character's backstory and personality all the livelong day, but mechanically there are almost no choices to make, and that, I think, is what MinotaurWarrior was getting at. I can even understand the stated reasons of trying to make the game simpler (...which I think is a horrific mistake, but that's my opinion). But there's no contesting that you make far more decisions in leveling a character in 3e or 4e than you do in 5e.

First off, you're making a bit of an unfair comparison; does 5e really offer fewer choices than 3e and 4e offered at the same period in their development? There's a lot of merit to playing a mature game as opposed to an immature game.

That said, I think it's probably true that 5e is a simpler game than any of the other WotC D&D editions. There are advantages and disadvantages to that, though I think Mearls & Co. have made the correct decision. We just finished an era where Paizo and WotC more or less competed on complexity and mechanics, with PF and 4e both filling up with a ton of content and choices. Indeed, if you look at the history of TRPGs, there's been a tendency toward increasing complexity. WotC is banking on the fact that there's a whole new generation of players that the complexity treadmill leaves behind.

Take me, for example. I've always been interested in D&D, but 3.5 and 4e both seemed like too much to ever learn. Even knowing that you only really needed the Player's Handbook to get started, those shelves filled to bursting with D&D make the game look awfully imposing. A fresh start with a new edition is a great time to get into the game, a strategy that hasn't escaped WotC's notice.

By simplifying D&D, Mearls & Co. are trying to reposition the game toward the broad middle, toward new players and former players. If you wanted to draw parallels with another nerd pastime, I'd say WotC wants to be the Nintendo of TRPGs: friendly, easy to pick up, but with a ton of polish and the obvious production values given to classic franchises. It's a suitable role to occupy for the caretakers of the flagship TRPG brand.


Except that setting a DC the DM considers reflective of the difficulty of the task is never "get[ting] the rules wrong in 5e". The rules are that the DM decides based on what he thinks is reasonable.

Well, except for the fact that, inevitably, this really means that the rules are whatever the table thinks is reasonable. If players find themselves dealing with a DM who sets dumb DCs or puts a whole bunch of obnoxious rules into play, the players aren't going to stay at the table.

Not that it's hard to get right, of course. The books practically tell you everything except the exact probabilities of hitting the suggested DC benchmarks across a range of skill levels, after all. I'm not suggesting it's perfectly easy, and there's no such thing as an idiot-proof TRPG, but figuring out how to balance skill checks, encounters, and everything else in 5e just isn't really so onerous.


I love some of the improvements over prior editions that 5e has made--I just wish those improvements hadn't come at the cost of requiring the DM to make up so many of the mechanics in addition to creating the campaign.

Can you (or anybody else, if they like) give some examples of all the extra work they have to do? 5e certainly seems to expect that, instead of coming up with firm rulings ahead of time, DMs remain flexible and do a lot of the work on the fly. Is the extra work mostly just doing it all ahead of time?

To me, I see the best of both worlds. For new DMs, the books offer plenty of guidance and advice, more than enough to develop solid DMing skills. For experienced DMs, the system's mechanics are simple enough that they can be molded into several shapes, including the complexity Telwar is asking for.

[silveralen]

I understand that you think the circumstances are normal. But other DMs will reasonably consider the circumstances extraordinary. There is nothing in the rules of 5e that makes your opinion any more correct that anyone else's. That's a necessary consequence of leaving so much of skill resolution to the DM: no matter what the DM honestly believes the difficulty to be, he's following the rules.

So, in 3.5, we have a situation where the rogue flat out can't perform the skill check on his own due to the rules at that level.

In 5e we have a rogue who might be able to depending on DM, with the book generally slanted towards allowing it.

Why is this, in your mind, an endorsement of the 3.5 method? Because the only thing that has changed is a level 5 character not being assumed to get magic items, and thus not being able to spend said magic items on something like slippers of spider climb or the like. The ambiguity in this case works in the rogue's favor, as the answer goes from no to maybe. Technically even in your example the final answer was yes though the player didn't realize.

3.5 is the quintessential example of why hard and fast rules will always struggle to handle every case, especially in regards to skills. 3.5's skill system really is not going to ever be a thing being praised, 4e had some illogical stuff in it but even 4e did it far better than 3.5. There are examples of hard skill rules done reasonably well, but they still tend to give the DM a lot of room to assign penalties and bonuses as he sees fit. In fact, the majority of systems give DM's carte blanch to adjust difficulty in such a manner, usually with examples but rarely outright "only change for x, y, or z, and only for x amount". It is one of those things that has been understood in the majority of games for years.

Now, would specific examples possibly benefit 5e by giving a better idea what the various checks levels represent? Sure. But that's still not a guarantee that, if you have x level skill, you alwyas succeed at y level task. DMs, GMs, and storytellers alike are always given methods to adjust those numbers. 5e might benefit from a bit more in this regard, but it hardly needs 3.5's level of nonfunctional nonsense.

[Xetheral]

Except that setting a DC the DM considers reflective of the difficulty of the task is never "get[ting] the rules wrong in 5e". The rules are that the DM decides based on what he thinks is reasonable.

Well, except for the fact that, inevitably, this really means that the rules are whatever the table thinks is reasonable. If players find themselves dealing with a DM who sets dumb DCs or puts a whole bunch of obnoxious rules into play, the players aren't going to stay at the table.

I agree that the DM is constrained by what the table thinks is reasonable. I don't, however, find that constraint useful to the DM as a tool for choosing what DC to set, as the table's preferences are only likely to be made known after a (disagreeable) DC is chosen.


Not that it's hard to get right, of course. The books practically tell you everything except the exact probabilities of hitting the suggested DC benchmarks across a range of skill levels, after all. I'm not suggesting it's perfectly easy, and there's no such thing as an idiot-proof TRPG, but figuring out how to balance skill checks, encounters, and everything else in 5e just isn't really so onerous.

The books are missing skill-specific information translating DCs into descriptive terms. If the PCs encounter a nine-foot gap they need to cross, nothing in the rules gives the players any indication of whether that's easily jumpable, risky, or suicidal. Unless that DM has previously selected DCs for particular jump distances and is going to the effort to be consistent, the players are left having to ask the DM outright what the jump DC would be before deciding whether or not they want to jump. Is asking before deciding workable? Sure. Is it desirable? Not at my table. (And based on the number of posters in other thread encouraging affirmative descriptions of player actions, I'm assuming I'm not alone.)



I love some of the improvements over prior editions that 5e has made--I just wish those improvements hadn't come at the cost of requiring the DM to make up so many of the mechanics in addition to creating the campaign.

Can you (or anybody else, if they like) give some examples of all the extra work they have to do? 5e certainly seems to expect that, instead of coming up with firm rulings ahead of time, DMs remain flexible and do a lot of the work on the fly. Is the extra work mostly just doing it all ahead of time?

The extra work comes from the desire to be consistent. If a nine-foot long jump is DC 15 one session, it should still be DC 15 three sessions from now. That can be done ahead of time, making up descriptive DC tables for the necessary skills (i.e. writing a significant addition to the PHB), or it can be done on the fly via copious in-game note-taking (recording DCs and the in-game description you gave players) and careful post-game organization. Both methods are problematic, and each is a lot of work.

On the plus side, careful DC-tracking doesn't need to be done for every skill. (If it did I would have given up on 5e a long time ago.) The skills it's important for are ones where the IC description is the primary component of the difficulty. Knowledge checks, for example, don't have (as much of) a problem with consistency because the relative obscurity of each piece of knowledge is never relayed to the PCs, and rarely is the exact same check attempted in different sessions. The most problematic skills are:

Athletics
Acrobatics
Endurance-related Constitution checks
Medicine
Sleight of Hand
Survival

Out of curiosity, how important is it to you that you be consistent setting DCs? If you set a DC at 10 one week, only to forget and set a comparable DC at 15 the next, how badly does that damage immersion at your table, or seem unfair? Or do your players just not care? At my table, a discrepancy of 10 vs 15 (in any edition) will frequently be noticed by an affected player, but it won't be more than a minor irritant except for the 25% of the time where the DC change makes the difference between success and failure--then it becomes a problem. Still, the goal is having fun, and avoiding minor irritants is (in my opinion) an important part of good DMing.

On top of setting DC's, 5e has the additional problem of trying to be consistent as to what circumstances call for a check and what don't. Is inconsistency here is a problem for you or your players?

[silveralen]

Out of curiosity, how important is it to you that you be consistent setting DCs? If you set a DC at 10 one week, only to forget and set a comparable DC at 15 the next, how badly does that damage immersion at your table, or seem unfair? Or do your players just not care? At my table, a discrepancy of 10 vs 15 (in any edition) will frequently be noticed by an affected player, but it won't be more than a minor irritant except for the 25% of the time where the DC change makes the difference between success and failure--then it becomes a problem. Still, the goal is having fun, and avoiding minor irritants is (in my opinion) an important part of good DMing.

Is it weird to anyone the idea that the player's remember the DC of the last attempt but the DM forgets? I could see it being something the player makes note of "I want to do this again, so let me remember it was x dc", in which case as soon as you mention it being something else this time the player will likely point it out so you correct the DC to the previous value, and the table moves on with literally no issue unless "it was dc 10 last time" "oh, right it was. My mistake. Okay you succeed then, he is what happens..."

It shouldn't be an irritant unless you somehow have this weird idea that, if you decide a DC for this action at this instant, it becomes immutably set in stone for this particular check regardless. Or if the player having to remind you of something causes problems.

Now, if you think you set the DC too low or high before and want to change it, then yeah that deserves a warning. But it is unlikely for you to change your mind without some reason, which in turn means you are unlikely to forget the previous DC as it obviously stuck out or why else make the change.

Do your players just grit their teeth and seethe when this happens, not pointing it out? Does pointing out such an inconsistency and correcting it in idk 10 seconds really take everyone out of it? It seems... so very minor.

[Xetheral]

So, in 3.5, we have a situation where the rogue flat out can't perform the skill check on his own due to the rules at that level.

In 5e we have a rogue who might be able to depending on DM, with the book generally slanted towards allowing it.

Why is this, in your mind, an endorsement of the 3.5 method?

Because in the 3.5 situation the player knows the concept won't work at that level (unless a +skill item or Belt of Ultimate Athleticism is available, or an item giving a climb speed). The player can then either move on to a new concept, or request houserules to permit it.


3.5 is the quintessential example of why hard and fast rules will always struggle to handle every case, especially in regards to skills. 3.5's skill system really is not going to ever be a thing being praised

I quite like 3.5's system, even with its imperfections. I house-rule Diplomacy et. al. and monster-knowledge DCs and otherwise it works well at the table. When the guidelines give patently-silly results, I modify them, but it doesn't happen often. It does have creation-side annoyances too, but my players decided they'd rather put up with them than deal with what they saw as 4e's overly-simplified system.


Now, would specific examples possibly benefit 5e by giving a better idea what the various checks levels represent? Sure. But that's still not a guarantee that, if you have x level skill, you alwyas succeed at y level task. DMs, GMs, and storytellers alike are always given methods to adjust those numbers. 5e might benefit from a bit more in this regard, but it hardly needs 3.5's level of nonfunctional nonsense.

More game-world descriptions of skill-specific DCs would help a ton.

Even with it's shortcomings, I consider 3.5's skill system far more functional than 4e or 5e.


Is it weird to anyone the idea that the player's remember the DC of the last attempt but the DM forgets? I could see it being something the player makes note of "I want to do this again, so let me remember it was x dc", in which case as soon as you mention it being something else this time the player will likely point it out so you correct the DC to the previous value, and the table moves on with literally no issue unless "it was dc 10 last time" "oh, right it was. My mistake. Okay you succeed then, he is what happens..."

It shouldn't be an irritant unless you somehow have this weird idea that, if you decide a DC for this action at this instant, it becomes immutably set in stone for this particular check regardless. Or if the player having to remind you of something causes problems.

Now, if you think you set the DC too low or high before and want to change it, then yeah that deserves a warning. But it is unlikely for you to change your mind without some reason, which in turn means you are unlikely to forget the previous DC as it obviously stuck out or why else make the change.

Do your players just grit their teeth and seethe when this happens, not pointing it out? Does pointing out such an inconsistency and correcting it in idk 10 seconds really take everyone out of it? It seems... so very minor.

There is the general idea that what the DM says goes, so yes, players try to avoid pointing it out. When they do point out a mistake I made, I absolutely change it and we go forward. But in my mind, relying on the players to remember table conventions for DCs seriously weakens the players' sense that the DM is being fair. (However much DCs, in practice, are pulled out of thin air, it's important to suspension of disbelief that the players not be constantly reminded of this fact.)

[archaeo]

I agree that the DM is constrained by what the table thinks is reasonable. I don't, however, find that constraint useful to the DM as a tool for choosing what DC to set, as the table's preferences are only likely to be made known after a (disagreeable) DC is chosen.

This is true for so many aspects of D&D as to make it a worthless piece of critique. There are tons of things about any TRPG that the DM can't really know until they sit down and play the game. Setting DCs that meet the players' expectations is nothing when compared to "craft a story the players will like" or similar things the DM is expected to handle.


The books are missing skill-specific information translating DCs into descriptive terms. If the PCs encounter a nine-foot gap they need to cross, nothing in the rules gives the players any indication of whether that's easily jumpable, risky, or suicidal. Unless that DM has previously selected DCs for particular jump distances and is going to the effort to be consistent, the players are left having to ask the DM outright what the jump DC would be before deciding whether or not they want to jump. Is asking before deciding workable? Sure. Is it desirable? Not at my table. (And based on the number of posters in other thread encouraging affirmative descriptions of player actions, I'm assuming I'm not alone.)

Using jumping isn't the best example here, since the system's expectations w/r/t jumping are spelled out directly on PHB page 182. But more to your point, do your players not ask about the task at hand? Can't you clue them in on how you're going to treat the DC without rattling the number off at them?


Out of curiosity, how important is it to you that you be consistent setting DCs? If you set a DC at 10 one week, only to forget and set a comparable DC at 15 the next, how badly does that damage immersion at your table, or seem unfair? Or do your players just not care? At my table, a discrepancy of 10 vs 15 (in any edition) will frequently be noticed by an affected player, but it won't be more than a minor irritant except for the 25% of the time where the DC change makes the difference between success and failure--then it becomes a problem. Still, the goal is having fun, and avoiding minor irritants is (in my opinion) an important part of good DMing.

On top of setting DC's, 5e has the additional problem of trying to be consistent as to what circumstances call for a check and what don't. Is inconsistency here is a problem for you or your players?

Since 5e doesn't expect you to announce to the players "the DC was 15, you failed," I don't see the benefit to having perfectly consistent numbers, frankly. But that said, I think the effective DC range is so small as to render this issue moot; for the vast majority of the game, the only checks I'd use are 10, 15, and 20, as the DMG suggests, and it isn't hard to distinguish between "easy," "medium," and "hard."

As for "when to call a check," I'd let myself be guided by the players again. Really, both of these questions seem like they're ripe for a quick 5-minute chat at the beginning of the game, especially in situations where most of the players are new to 5e.

[ad_hoc]

What is the DC in each scenario, and who can make the climb without rolling?

I don't have enough information about this wall. Let's assume that it is a regular stone wall but with fewer than normal handholds.

a. No check. You just do it.

There is no point wasting time making checks. In a weird situation where the characters had no rope, had a lot of gear they wanted to carry up, and all had abysmal athletics scores I would probably just rule that they can't do it. You either can do it and you do or you can't and you don't.

In this situation we're probably montaging this entire section of play as there is no interesting challenge.

b. This depends on the specific circumstances. I won't make it more difficult just because the character has an ability related to climbing. I also will let the player know how hard it will be and the result of failure before making the check. If they don't have proficiency in athletics I may make the description hazy, rather than saying specific numbers I would just say that it is risky.

In this case DC 15 otherwise waste your movement trying to climb.

If you are already climbing and the wall crumbles or something then you need to make a check to hang on. The DC will again depend on the specific circumstances.

In most situations like climbing on buildings with ample hand holds, ledges, other buildings next to them, etc. then no check.


The thing is, 5e is not 3.x. It is not designed in the same way. A lot of it looks similar. But it is different. These rules are intentional. There is no taking 10 for a reason.

For an example look at pg 182. "At the DM's option, climbing a slippery vertical surface or one with few handholds requires a successful Strength (Athletics) check.

In 3.x you are making a check to climb anything and everything. In 5e even a slippery vertical surface doesn't always require a check.

It's a fundamental difference in design philosophy. It may not be your thing, but it is intentional. This is said too much now but it remains true, it is a feature, not a bug.

[Icewraith]

And yet, even though you had the opportunity to make bad choices, you still also had the opportunity to make good ones. Taking that away means the parts of the game at the table are significantly less entertaining for people who like that (like, for example, me).

Fast'n'easy has its cost.

An experienced player understands the system and avoids the bad choices because they are bad. A new player doesn't understand the system and makes bad choices. The player is subsequently disappointed when their character doesn't do what they want it to do. The player's character doesn't compare to anyone else's character in an experienced group. Alternatively, the player has to be indoctrinated into why most of the cool things he wants to do are traps in the game.

Whereas before you had to make good and bad choices, now you simply decide what you want your character to be good at and you'll probably end up with a character that is good at it. Compared to core, you probably have more good-but-not-broken feats and abilities available to you in 5e than you did in 3.5, you therefore have a larger viable design space than you did in 3.5 (core). If you can choose 40 things but you know 35 of them suck, you're actually choosing 5 things.

There's also the thing in 3.5 where a number of character concepts didn't come online until mid to high levels because of stacking feat prerequisites. Now just about everything is recognizable as the early stage of its character archetype at 4th.

[KorvinStarmast]

Use the common sense that every person should have, and the game not only plays fine, but plays extremely well.
You had me all the way to this point. :smallyuk:

But your conclusion I support.

Though other factors were involved, versions 3, 3.5, and 4 were three good reasons not to play DnD anymore. So I didn't.

The reapplication of the KISS principle were a reason to try 5e. The effort to bring the best of all things in the various efforts to date was going to be hard to achieve, but IMO they mostly achieved that objective.

5e is very playable.
EDIT
A few points from further up the thread:

So 5E stopped trying to act like a computer game, and has gone back to allowing DMs to adjudicate what is going on. This is one way that the attempt to bring back the original feel seems to have succeeded.

Post by archaeo

5e just embraces that ethos. Glitches aside, the rules simply understand that every table is different, so 5e tries to offer a lot of open space and optional content to make for a customizable experience.

Bemoaning this admirable flexibility as "you never know what your character can do" is one of the most tiresome 5e criticism memes; you never did in previous editions, the rules just lulled you into that false sense of security.

Now, the game just expects that
a) you're grown up enough to play nice with your table and communicate openly and
b) you'll want to tweak 5e perfect for your table.
How is this a bad thing?
Well said.

[Waywardson]

As a brand new roleplayer (and DM) I can't contribute much to the conversation above. I never played 3.5 or earlier and only played a couple of sessions of 4E. I can say, however, that as a new player attempting to run a campaign, 5E's simplicity is welcomed. Not having to memorize books upon books of rules and mechanics makes the game smoother for our whole group (mostly comprised of newbies) and keeps the focus on adventures, story, monster slaying and ridiculous shenanigans.

I can see a lot of versatility in the system, though they do seem to expect you to house rule and make some of it up. My opinion may change as I get to know the system better, but right now it's a great experience and we're all having a blast.