Combat in 5e vs 3.5

[sammyp03]

I haven't had a chance to run or play a 5e game yet, but was wondering what are some pros and cons of each and which combat system you prefer.

[Slipperychicken]

I prefer 5e; it's a lot faster and simpler. You'd think advantage/disadvantage would sacrifice immersion, but in several campaigns, I haven't seen it happen. There's also a much easier and more usable system for maneuvers like grappling, pushing, disarming, and so on.

In comparison, I'm having trouble trying to think of things 3.5 does better. I guess it has more detailed rules for extremely obscure situations (i.e. In space, trying to blow up the moon), but that's more a matter of its sheer size and age than any kind of systemic quality.

[Brendanicus]

Advantage is fun and cuts down on having to do a lot of mental math and remembering modifiers every turn. Plus, rolling more dice always makes things feel more intense.

I've only played one one-shot of 5E, but I've been a 3.5 fan for about 2 years before first playing 5E. Since the rules are simpler, my group didn't reference the rules once during the one-shot, despite everyone, including the my co-DM and me, being new to the system. In 3.5, we usually consulted the books about once per session, despite us having played the system for a while. 5E's simplified skill system makes martials more intuitive to play, as well as eliminating a ton of unnecessary rules, feats, and skills.

I prefer 5E because it is simpler and more balanced without being meaningfully watered-down. Sure 3.5 has more depth, but it's better to spend more time playing the game than looking up feats and character options outside of the game.

Little off-topic there, but I hope it helps.

[Stan]

In 5e, flanking doesn't exist, aside from a few special abilities where you benefit from having someone else attacking the same target (but actual flanking isn't required in those cases). AoO are nerfed and only come up when an opponent moves away, which makes tripping much less powerful. Grappling isn't as useful in 5e as it mostly prevents movement.

On the whole, 5e is a simpler, quicker system that still allows lots of build and tactical options. But if you like builds built around AoO and specific maneuvers such as tripping or intimidation, you're better off with Pathfinder.

I've gotten tired of all the layers of chrome in Pathfinder - a million options with small differences and only a small subset of the builds are viable. I prefer the fast fun of 5e; enough tactical options but the combats are quick enough to allow more time for plot and character.


Advantage is fun and cuts down on having to do a lot of mental math and remembering modifiers every turn. Plus, rolling more dice always makes things feel more intense.


Oh yea, there are far fewer mods to track for a few reasons. Due to the concentration rules, a given caster will usually have only one good buff at a time. The base assumption is also fewer magic items with modifiers.

[JAL_1138]

I haven't played 3rd in...years, probably a decade. I wasn't a fan when I tried it the first few sessions I played, and quit. So I am a) not particularly experienced with 3rd and b) probably misremembering quite a lot.

5e has this going for it. Combat is fast. Maybe not quite as fast as TSR-era D&D, maybe faster, depending on which rules variants you used and whether you used a lot of hirelings and henchmen or not back in those days. But either way, it's fast. There's virtually no modifiers to keep track of except Dis/Advantage, conditions (e.g., restrained, paralyzed, prone), and cover (which is the only one with numerical penalties to attacks). You can move--AoOs only trigger when you leave reach, so you can literally run circles around opponents without triggering. You can cast spells in melee, with disadvantage if it's a ranged attack roll and no penalty otherwise. Touch AC and Flat-Footed AC are gone. Grappling is extremely simple (and effective). You can move between attacks if you have multiattack. Spellcasters have damage cantrips that are useful instead of hanging back and plinking with a crossbow when they're out of spells (though it's debatable whether that's good or bad). No buff-stacking means it's harder to replace the Fighter. Rocket-tag "instant win" spellcasting is virtually (though not completely) gone. CR is...still not perfect, but usually pretty good. Monsters are easy to run, requiring crossreferencing only when they have spells, rather than a big list of feats. Since they're not built like characters, even high-level monsters are quick-ish to build. Flanking has gone from the default rules to an optional rule in the DMG, averting the "conga line of death" problem--but the new movement rules can also lead to the Goblin Conga Line, AKA the Goblin Chainsaw problem, in which a large number of creatures form a sort of chainsaw rotating line and chew a character to shreds (I *think* it might have been errata'd out though?). Party composition by class is no longer quite as restrictive.

Cons include a few nonsensical situations that come up from Dis/Advantage. They never stack, so craziness crops up such as it always being in your best interest to drop probe if firing a longbow into darkness. The disadvantage doesn't stack, so there's no downside to being prone, and return fire now has disadvantage against you. It can become a scramble for advantage-disadvantage and gaming that rather than the relative 'ok, that makes sense' of the 3e modifiers. The leaving-reach-only AoO trigger hampers polearms in close combat, but on the other hand you can still move around more when attacking with one. Certain formerly-untouchable monsters can now be defeated in an open plain by a sufficiently large army, which is good or bad depending on your perspective of how high power levels should get.

[Brendanicus]

In 5e, flanking doesn't exist, aside from a few special abilities where you benefit from having someone else attacking the same target (but actual flanking isn't required in those cases). AoO are nerfed and only come up when an opponent moves away, which makes tripping much less powerful. Grappling isn't as useful in 5e as it mostly prevents movement.Now, bear in mind that most of these changes benefit Rogues, who are way more mobile in 5E than 3.5. On every turn, they can use their bonus action to either double their movement speed or avoid any AoO. Sneak Attacks don't occur with flanking anymore, because there is no more flanking. Instead, you perform Sneak Attacks any time your target is next to an enemy of theirs. Sure, it's less back-stabby than 3.5, but it also makes ranged Rogues way more viable.

Honestly, the only thing I like about 3.5 more than 5E is the AoO rules. They don't occur very often in 5E.

[Slipperychicken]

Honestly, the only thing I like about 3.5 more than 5E is the AoO rules. They don't occur very often in 5E.

I think that's intentional. AoOs in 3.5 shut down whole combat styles and classes of maneuvers, as just about every action aside from attacking provoked AoOs. You needed feats just to do basic combat maneuvers (grappling, tripping, disarming, etc) without provoking. It got to the point where martials couldn't do much besides stick to an enemy and full-attack (or repeat whatever their one trick was), partly because nothing else was worth the actions, and partly because enemies would get free attacks if they tried anything else.

[zinycor]

I think that's intentional. AoOs in 3.5 shut down whole combat styles and classes of maneuvers, as just about every action aside from attacking provoked AoOs. You needed feats just to do basic combat maneuvers (grappling, tripping, disarming, etc) without provoking. It got to the point where martials couldn't do much besides stick to an enemy and full-attack (or repeat whatever their one trick was), partly because nothing else was worth the actions, and partly because enemies would get free attacks if they tried anything else.

That's so true!!! The tables on PF of what provokes an AoO are gigantic!!.

[Inevitability]

5e is less rocket-taggy. Sure, wizards can still cast spells able to end an encounter in a single round, but Legendary Resistance, a system that allows for more battles with a large number of monsters, and the fact casters get less slots and their spells have been toned down a bit mean encounters usually take enough time to be fun.

[dropbear8mybaby]

In 5e, flanking doesn't exist...
Yes it does. DMG, p. 251.


AoO are nerfed and only come up when an opponent moves away...

No they're not, and no they don't.

You're applying a base metric of 3.5e to evaluate a different base metric in 5e. Power is relative in each system based on different metrics. In 5e, an opportunity attack is quite powerful for many reasons, they're just different reasons to how they're measured in 3.5e. And there are several abilities which change the dynamic (specific beats general) in 5e, Polearm Master as just one example.


...which makes tripping much less powerful.
Again, same thing. Tripping in 5e is actually quite good and can be gained by a number of classes in various ways. Knocking someone prone gives advantage on melee attacks. That's massive and amounts to an effective +5 to hit the target. They also lose half their movement just to be able to stand up from prone, again a significant downside in 5e. 3.5e is just different, not more powerful since you have to consider that it's two different metrics being used to determine power.


Grappling isn't as useful in 5e as it mostly prevents movement.
Grappling is very useful. Reducing movement is a big thing in 5e since, again, it's a different system to 3.5e and movement is a much bigger core part of the mechanics so denying a target movement is quite significant.


On the whole, 5e is a simpler, quicker system that still allows lots of build and tactical options. But if you like builds built around AoO and specific maneuvers such as tripping or intimidation, you're better off with Pathfinder.
I highly disagree. A Battle Master with Polearm Master and Sentinel is incredibly powerful and very tactical. And Fear is a very deleterious effect and can be enacted even by a Battle Master.

[DragonLordIT]

The con is surely simplicity, as someone mentioned before.
Monsters (even the hard ones) can be handled in an easier way by the master, that helps (at least helps me when I am the master and my master when I am the player :smalleek::smalleek:) focusing on the surroundings and interaction with it. We really find easier to think the improvised actions such using tables as shields, throwing chairs, hanging in dangerous positions and so on.
It is easier to track conditions and lasting effects without forgetting them and with the "teather of the mind" movement becomes less . . .chained to square grids; in 3rd and mainly in 4th edition we found ourself as in front of a chessboard, most of the time was wasted try to understand wich square was better than the other . . . :smallmad::smallmad::smallmad: it was starting to become annoyng.

[some guy]

I like 5e in general more than 3.5, but a big stickler for me is the difficulty for a group to retreat from a fight. Withdrawing in 3.5 was bad, but in 5e a withdraw action only allows for one move action. Certain individuals can withdraw more effecient, but that still leaves the rest of a party in problems.

I'm thinking of an houserule that if the party wants to retreat, at least half of the party must succeed on acrobatics/athletics check versus the check of the creatures the want to retreat from.

[dropbear8mybaby]

I like 5e in general more than 3.5, but a big stickler for me is the difficulty for a group to retreat from a fight. Withdrawing in 3.5 was bad, but in 5e a withdraw action only allows for one move action. Certain individuals can withdraw more effecient, but that still leaves the rest of a party in problems.

I don't see how it's worse in 5e. You don't have to take a Disengage action, it's simply safer if you do so. If you choose to run away after a certain tipping point where it's become too dangerous for you to run away, then that's on you, not the system.

[DragonLordIT]

I like 5e in general more than 3.5, but a big stickler for me is the difficulty for a group to retreat from a fight. Withdrawing in 3.5 was bad, but in 5e a withdraw action only allows for one move action. Certain individuals can withdraw more effecient, but that still leaves the rest of a party in problems.

I'm thinking of an houserule that if the party wants to retreat, at least half of the party must succeed on acrobatics/athletics check versus the check of the creatures the want to retreat from.

I see your option a bit too easy, I always think players should carefully choose if starting a fight or not, they should plan an emergency exit plan when planning to fight something or at least keep an emergency object/tactic to use when things goes bad.
I think it would be too easy to say "lets try to fight that, if it goes wrong we can retreat . . " it is really terrible thinking at the roleplaing, you have a bunch of "heroes" that would try to attack everything.

[some guy]

I don't see how it's worse in 5e. You don't have to take a Disengage action, it's simply safer if you do so. If you choose to run away after a certain tipping point where it's become too dangerous for you to run away, then that's on you, not the system.

In 3.5 you could withdraw as a full-round action to move your double speed away from an enemy. In 5e a disengage action allows you only to move up to your speed to safety. In 5e an enemy can simply move up to you and hit you again.
And sometimes the tipping point is after the first hit, especially in the lower levels.

I agree that recognizing danger is necessary and the player is responsible, but ambushes at lower levels make survival very hard on a party with these withdraw rules.

Edit:

I see your option a bit too easy, I always think players should carefully choose if starting a fight or not, they should plan an emergency exit plan when planning to fight something or at least keep an emergency object/tactic to use when things goes bad.
I think it would be too easy to say "lets try to fight that, if it goes wrong we can retreat . . " it is really terrible thinking at the roleplaing, you have a bunch of "heroes" that would try to attack everything.

Yes, it's probably too easy. And I am a big fan of emergency contigencies, but some situations and monsters can negate the lower level escape plans a bit too easy.

I also thought about allowing extra movement during a withdraw action, but I think that creates problems with rogues and monks.

[dropbear8mybaby]

In 3.5 you could take a full-round action to move your double speed away from an enemy. In 5e you can only move up to your speed to safety. In 5e an enemy can simply move up to you and hit you again.
Umm, no. The Dash action allows you to move up to your movement speed again, which is effectively the same as double-move.

[some guy]

Umm, no. The Dash action allows you to move up to your movement speed again, which is effectively the same as double-move.

Yeah, the dash action does, but the disengage action doesn't. I shall edit my post to be more clear.

[Stan]

You're applying a base metric of 3.5e to evaluate a different base metric in 5e. Power is relative in each system based on different metrics.

Well yea, the whole thread is about comparing 3e to 5e. In 5e, AoO and maneuvers come up less. There are feats and archetypes that make use of them but, across the board, they don't happen as often.

Flanking is now only optional, not part of the base rules. I wouldn't add it back in without also adjusting opportunity attacks to be closer to 3e. Otherwise, flanking is too easy to achieve.

[dropbear8mybaby]

Yeah, the dash action does, but the disengage action doesn't. I shall edit my post to be more clear.
Right, but you can still double move, you just take a risk doing so.


Well yea, the whole thread is about comparing 3e to 5e.
Yes but you're comparing them on a 1 for 1 basis rather than in context within their own systems. The relative power of an opportunity attack in either system has a different value based on their own internal structure, not on an external structure. So to compare fairly you have to do so in their own context. The relative value of an opportunity attack in 3.5e is therefore much the same as it is in 5e.

[Daishain]

Right, but you can still double move, you just take a risk doing so.
At which point, (unless he has reason not to follow or is slower than you) your opponent double moves to catch up. He won't be able to attack, but you provoke another AOO when you try to move again. Rinse and repeat. If you don't have a means to throw a wrench in the works, he'll stick hack you to death.

[charlesk]

The last major character I played at high levels in 3.5e was a battle cleric. I had to play with a laptop computer by my side. One reason I needed it was to be able to look up my spells. It also ran Microsoft Excel with a custom spreadsheet I made so I could easily turn on and off various buffs and effects so I'd know what my BAB was, and my pluses and minuses to hit and damage. Without the spreadsheet, I would have been hopelessly lost, and spent half of each combat doing math.

That in a nutshell is why I prefer 5e combat.

That said, things I don't like about 5e combat:
- The blanding down of armor class. I prefer having the guy in full plate and the guy in robes with a high dex be better or worse against certain attack types.
- Advantage/disadvantage is mostly a good mechanism but has some flaws (like rogues getting sneak attack damage due to advantage granted in ways that have nothing to do with making them sneakier).
- The way advantage and disadvantage don't stack (which I change by houserule when I DM).
- Lack of flanking. 3.5e already didn't have all that much in terms of tactics, and 5e has less.
- Easily-obtained feats that make cover meaningless.

[Daishain]

(like rogues getting sneak attack damage due to advantage granted in ways that have nothing to do with making them sneakier).

I agree with most of your post, but this one I don't have a problem with (outside of a few cases)

Sneak attack damage is a factor of being able to lay in a very precise blow. Normally, you can do it as a factor of the opponent not expecting an attack, but any other situation where the opponent is unable to limit your precision (whether or not you're sneaking at all)would do just as well.

[dropbear8mybaby]

At which point, (unless he has reason not to follow or is slower than you) your opponent double moves to catch up.
That's a DM choice though not necessarily a system choice. I, for one, use the chase rules in the DMG, p. 252 once it gets to that point.

[charlesk]

I agree with most of your post, but this one I don't have a problem with (outside of a few cases)

Sneak attack damage is a factor of being able to lay in a very precise blow. Normally, you can do it as a factor of the opponent not expecting an attack, but any other situation where the opponent is unable to limit your precision (whether or not you're sneaking at all)would do just as well.

This is a valid argument, and I agree in some cases. But others are IMHO silly, like the "mounted combatant rogue" for example. I also am not a fan of rogues getting SA damage on someone merely because they are on the ground.

[dropbear8mybaby]

This is a valid argument, and I agree in some cases. But others are IMHO silly, like the "mounted combatant rogue" for example. I also am not a fan of rogues getting SA damage on someone merely because they are on the ground.
Are you saying it's not easier to hit someone when they're on the ground?

https://i.imgur.com/9JUphiF.gif

[Brendanicus]

I think that's intentional. AoOs in 3.5 shut down whole combat styles and classes of maneuvers, as just about every action aside from attacking provoked AoOs. You needed feats just to do basic combat maneuvers (grappling, tripping, disarming, etc) without provoking. It got to the point where martials couldn't do much besides stick to an enemy and full-attack (or repeat whatever their one trick was), partly because nothing else was worth the actions, and partly because enemies would get free attacks if they tried anything else. I'm not saying that 3.5 handeled AoOs perfectly, as you brought up with 3.5's Improved-itis. It's just silly that in 5E you could take stuff out of your pack, dance around randomly, and shotgun a beer next to your enemy and RAW, no AoO occurs.

[Daishain]

I'm not saying that 3.5 handeled AoOs perfectly, as you brought up with 3.5's Improved-itis. It's just silly that in 5E you could take stuff out of your pack, dance around randomly, and shotgun a beer next to your enemy and RAW, no AoO occurs.
Another DM I know had a player drop his weapon, unsheathe his 'weapon', and urinate on the enemy while crabwalking around him in a circle. By RAW, no AOO.

A new houserule was born that night.

[charlesk]

Are you saying it's not easier to hit someone when they're on the ground?


It's probably easier to hit them somewhere, but arguably harder to hit them in a specific spot.

It's not a huge deal for me, I just think this version makes it a bit too easy to get SA.

[Raphite1]

People have already discussed many of the nuts and bolts here, so I'll just add this:

I play Pathfinder with a group that has been playing the system (and 3.5) since it was created. We STILL often run into situations where we have to pull out the books, reference our notes, etc. in the middle of combat or other situations. During combat, everyone is starting down at their character sheets and the battle mat, trying to add up modifiers and untangle ability interactions.

I started playing 5th Edition with a new group, and everything is different. During combat, we're still able to talk and RP and laugh and socialize. We're still making tactical decisions and feeling like strategy is critical, and yet we're able to engage in it with far less stress and constant preoccupation with fiddly details. We pay attention to each other's characters and the party's situation more than our character sheets or book pages. We've gained this without feeling like we've lost any meaningful "realism" or tactical engagement.

I still have fun in my Pathfinder group and the GM is running a great game, but since I've also started playing 5th Edition, I feel like I've suddenly realized that I've been in an abusive relationship with the Pathfinder/3.5 rules for years.

[TheOOB]

With the various optional rules in the DMG you can make combat more or less like 3.5 as you see fit. The base system in 5e is really simple, but also really flexible.

[JAL_1138]

I mentioned the speed but I didn't go into detail enough. The average fight in my experience lasts probably ten or fifteen minutes. The average "boss" fight lasts probably fifteen to thirty minutes. And not due to rocket tag. That's with everyone whaling on each other with weapons and throwing 3rd-level-or-lower spells.

There's an adventure in AL with a hard time-limit of four hours (or else you pretty much just die) to meet your party, get the exposition, explore a ruined city, find and rescue and/or persuade three or more NPCs to help you, and deal with around a half-dozen tough fights. My group of 6 PCs, with combats adjusted to party size (we came close to biting the dust in half of them), still came in well-under the time limit.

I haven't played 3.5 in too long to have a really definite recollection, but from the little I remember I suspect that wouldn't fly in 3.5 without some highly-optimized casters able to rocket-tag through the encounters.

[Once a Fool]

Advantage is fun and cuts down on having to do a lot of mental math and remembering modifiers every turn. Plus, rolling more dice always makes things feel more intense.

One of the subtle things I really like about 5e is how it handles bonuses. If you're expected to apply it to every attack or related check (such as from a fighting style or Jack of all Trades/Remarkable Athelete) it will be a static bonus (or reroll) because, hey, you're not going to forget that bonus.

If the bonus is situational or of limited duration (such as sneak attack, bless, or bardic inspiration), it almost always involves at least one extra die--so you can have a physical representation sitting in front of you to remind you that you can use it.


...which makes tripping much less powerful. Grappling isn't as useful in 5e as it mostly prevents movement.

Gotta disagree with this sentiment. Pushing (including pushing prone) and Grappling are two of the most potent options a strength character can pull off in 5e, especially combined. First, a prone character not only grants advantage to attackers within 5 feet, it also suffers disadvantage on attacks. Plus it takes half its movement to stand up.

A grappled character can be moved all over the battlefield, but, more significantly, has its speed dropped to zero and requires its one and only action to merely attempt to escape.

Put the two together, and you have a foe who cannot stand up from prone until it first successfully escapes at the cost of an action. And it is quite possible to build characters that take advantage of this consistently.


Flanking is now only optional, not part of the base rules. I wouldn't add it back in without also adjusting opportunity attacks to be closer to 3e. Otherwise, flanking is too easy to achieve.

Just want to point out that the optional Facing rules fix that problem--so elegantly that they seem designed to be used together.

Because Facing reduces your threatened area to the front half of you, it is impossible for two enemies (adjacent to you) to circle around you in such that they end up on opposite sides of you without one of them provoking an OA. To avoid this, they either have to move in from opposite sides, or start their turns in flanking position.

Of course, the optional flanking rule does have a different problem--advantage is just too potent a bonus for it. I would personally (if I were using it, at all) change it so that being in a flanking position with someone allows a flanker to use a bonus action to help another flanker with an attack (instead of the normal action it would take).

This means that: 1) the first attacker would never get advantage from a flank, 2) the advantage would not apply to more than one attack per turn, and 3) each attack made with advantage will have cost someone a bonus action.

[Demonic Spoon]

Because Facing reduces your threatened area to the front half of you, it is impossible for two enemies (adjacent to you) to circle around you in such that they end up on opposite sides of you without one of them provoking an OA. To avoid this, they either have to move in from opposite sides, or start their turns in flanking position.


It breaks at high levels, unfortunately, when taking an OA isn't actually that big a deal. Though that's a more general problem with OAs.

[Once a Fool]

It breaks at high levels, unfortunately, when taking an OA isn't actually that big a deal. Though that's a more general problem with OAs.

Yeah--that is a completely separate issue. And one that is present without the optional rules being discussed.

I wonder if allowing Grappling or Prone attempts at high level in substitution for OAs would break things. It could certainly stop a foe in its tracks. Too much like Sentinel, maybe.

[Waazraath]

What I like about 5e is how it's much less complicated then 3.5 was; especially at the higher levels, keeping track of all options and modifiers was a chore in 3.5.

I do think that 5e combat is a bit more lethal at the earlier levels. There aren't as many ways to optmize at the early levels (while 3.5 had tons of options as the abrupt jaunt wizard, or really high AC builds, or hit and run-tactics with travel devotion/reach weapon, or etc. etc.); and the new 'death saves' system makes it easier to die; a character going to -1 hp in 3.5 had 9 rounds left before death, in 5e a character in the same situation immediately starts rolling death saves, which can be lethal in 2 rounds with 1 unlucy '1'. (of course, characters getting enough damage to go to -8 or lower are better off with the 5e system, but in my experience that's more rare at lower levels then going 'just below zero'.)

[Stan]

Gotta disagree with this sentiment. Pushing (including pushing prone) and Grappling are two of the most potent options a strength character can pull off in 5e, especially combined. First, a prone character not only grants advantage to attackers within 5 feet, it also suffers disadvantage on attacks. Plus it takes half its movement to stand up.

A grappled character can be moved all over the battlefield, but, more significantly, has its speed dropped to zero and requires its one and only action to merely attempt to escape.

Put the two together, and you have a foe who cannot stand up from prone until it first successfully escapes at the cost of an action. And it is quite possible to build characters that take advantage of this consistently.


It's still useful but not the same way. In 3e/Pathinder (mainly pathfinder as it's nearly a decade since I played actual 3e), I saw grappling/tripping almost never used or used almost exclusively by characters built for it. In the latter case, an opponent susceptible to it was nearly doomed. Since standing up triggered an AoO (and took a full move if I remember), a downed opponent could rarely get up again. A grappled character in 3e was pretty much shut down unless they escaped - vs. a grapple optimized opponent, that rarely happened. In 5e, if an opponent doesn't care about moving, they can attack their grappler just fine - it's a good way for a tank to force an opponent to focus on them but being grappled isn't a death sentence.

On the other hand, you don't have to tailor every part of your build to one maneuver to make use of it. Even characters not particularly built for it can try it as it doesn't trigger an attack in 5e. Tripping/grappling also feel more like part of team play to me in 5e. If you push someone down, it benefits you slightly as they'll be up by your next turn. But it sets up your allies.

[EggKookoo]

Another DM I know had a player drop his weapon, unsheathe his 'weapon', and urinate on the enemy while crabwalking around him in a circle. By RAW, no AOO.

A new houserule was born that night.

Keep in mind that 5e encourages liberal interpretation of the rules in a way that 3.x didn't. DM fiat is more emphasized by design.

If you needed such a houserule under 3e, that's a sign that there's something wrong with the rules. If you need one in 5e... working as intended.

[Demonic Spoon]

Yeah--that is a completely separate issue. And one that is present without the optional rules being discussed.

I wonder if allowing Grappling or Prone attempts at high level in substitution for OAs would break things. It could certainly stop a foe in its tracks. Too much like Sentinel, maybe.

I think the obvious way to do it is to just great it as an attack action - if you get 3 attacks normally (as many monsters do), you get to make 3 on an AOO.

Another alternative if you wanted the fluff to work as making a single deadly attack, is just double/triple/etc damage based on # of attacks.

[Once a Fool]

I think the obvious way to do it is to just great it as an attack action - if you get 3 attacks normally (as many monsters do), you get to make 3 on an AOO.

Another alternative if you wanted the fluff to work as making a single deadly attack, is just double/triple/etc damage based on # of attacks.

Thinking on it, I'm not sure it's such a problem, after all. Everyone (all the melee types) has ways of adding damage in. And, in the case of the battlemaster, riders, as well. Could be working as intended.

[Mith]

As someone who is planning to be running 5e at some point in the future, this thread is wonderful news.

[INDYSTAR188]

As someone who is planning to be running 5e at some point in the future, this thread is wonderful news.

Ditto. As it happens I'm ending a 4E game and my buddy's running a 3.5 game where I'm a divination focused Wizard (with levels in Divine Oracle). I'm really wishing it was 5E but the other players wanted to use 3.5 for all the character customization options (arguing that they would prefer 5E to have a splatbook released before running it).

[Kurt Kurageous]

I never played 3.5, so perhaps I'm off topic.

But I bought the 5e books, made the characters, and ran the party solo versus a random dungeon for about ten hours looking up rules by myself for myself. I was able to learn the combat, skills, and magic enough to DM a game that week with no complaints from the players who'd been playing longer. Sure, there were lookups, but not many.

This wasn't hard because I wanted to do it. Based on what I've heard, becoming a 3.5 DM in a weekend would be DC 15. Doing it in 4e would be DC 30. 5e? DC10.

[Dralnu]

It's been a couple years since I played 3.5, so my knowledge is a bit rusty:

3.5 pros:
- there's so much splatbook and support!
- you have a diverse array of combat systems to choose from -- vancian spellcasters vs. psionics vs. invocations vs. Tome of Magic, mundanes vs. Tome of Battle vs. psionics vs. Incarnum, find what feels right to you
- a ton of offbeat build support for certain character types that you find fun. Ex. you want to be a knife thrower? special halfling rogue base class, PrC's dedicated to daggers / doing throwing "tricks" / ToB PrC that gives your thrown weapon the returning quality (though even then it's not optimal). In 5e, builds like that still exist they're just not unique feeling because they have no specific support.


5e pros:
- advantage/disadvantage is awesome
- Concentration mechanic to spells (when designers are smart with it) is awesome
- so much stacking nonsense was removed
- far less broken things in the game, much closer to "balance"
- everything feels more streamlined and intuitive, lots of clunky stuff has been removed, Proficiency is (for the most part) awesome
- no more goddamn feat taxes like Weapon Finesse and Point Blank Shot UGHHH
- multiclassing feels like a legit tradeoff whereas in 3.5 convoluted multiclass builds are the norm

All in all, much prefer 5e, without a doubt. Would very much like Tome of Battle though.

[sammyp03]

Awesome Guys! cant wait to try 5e!

[Dimolyth]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html

"And that never struck you as needlessly complicated?"
"Not until this moment, no."

That is extremely what I think (and tell others) about comparison of 3.5 against 5e.

[Brendanicus]

http://www.giantitp.com/comics/oots0050.html

"And that never struck you as needlessly complicated?"
"Not until this moment, no."

That is extremely what I think (and tell others) about comparison of 3.5 against 5e.This sums up my feelings so hard. Once you play 5E (provided that you're not an optimizer) for the first time, things like having three types of armor classes, prestige classes, skill ranks, having separate non-lethal damage, possible crits, having feat-based Fighters, having WAY too many feats, and having to read the 3.5 MM seem so unnecessary. 5E trims the fat. It makes the game much less convoluted, while adding better flavor to all of the classes, and having everything be smoother.

[WampDiesel]

One of my favorite things about 5e vs. 3.5 is the removal of stacking bonuses. There were too many types of bonuses in 3.5: enhancement, morale, magical, luck, divine etc. Trying to remember if this bonus stacks with that bonus or to use the higher number made attack rolls constantly changing. 5th takes care of all of this elegantly by either the advantage / disadvantage system or by adding an extra die rolled (add 1d4 for bless).

We have a player who could NEVER remember his attack mod in 3.5. Every turn he would be counting up all his bonuses then subtracting for power attack and then minus 5 for each subsequent attack in the full attack. This has never happened with this player in 5e. You have one attack modifier and not that many ways to change it. Really speeds up combat.

Also I really like the removal of restrictions on movement for a full attack. In 5e you get your attacks no matter how far you move. Makes for more interesting tactics as the fighters don't have to stand still and fight all the time.

[WampDiesel]

This sums up my feelings so hard. Once you play 5E (provided that you're not an optimizer) for the first time, things like having three types of armor classes, prestige classes, skill ranks, having separate non-lethal damage, possible crits, having feat-based Fighters, having WAY too many feats, and having to read the 3.5 MM seem so unnecessary. 5E trims the fat. It makes the game much less convoluted, while adding better flavor to all of the classes, and having everything be smoother.

I am an optimizer. When we played 3.5 I used to love scouring books for different feats and alternate class features in order to make a multi class monster with godly saves and abilities. I remember a multi class ranger/cleric/bard I played who could give himself +13 to attack and damage using knowledge devotion and inspiration. He had crazy number of uses of his devotion abilities per day because they were based on CHA. If he ever dropped he would get fast healing from life devotion and pop back up. This character hit as hard and was as hard to kill as our barbarian and he was a support spellcaster.

He was the only character to survive an almost TPK in that campaign and not knowing how raise dead works (keeps the body as it died) he cut off the last knuckle of the left pinky of his friends. Everyone in the party was missing their left pinky knuckles from then on because he kept them as a necklace in case his friends ever died again.

This was my favorite character i ever made but I knew he was broken and OP because once you got to a level of system mastery in 3.5 you had to do crazy character builds in order to keep up. In 5e I like the fact that builds are fluid and there aren't a lot of trap options. In 3.5 it was all about squeezing the most out of your abilities and feats as possible. In 5e I am having much more fun coming at a character from many different angles and allowing the flavor and cool factor drive my decision making.

In short, I am an optimizer who prefers 5e because the options are broader for a particular concept and the system really promotes creating a well thought out character instead of worrying about some people call "fiddly bits"

[coredump]

Another DM I know had a player drop his weapon, unsheathe his 'weapon', and urinate on the enemy while crabwalking around him in a circle. By RAW, no AOO.

A new houserule was born that night.
No need. If the target is intentionally not defending himself, the subsequent attacks can either auto hit or get advantage.
All clearly within the rules....

[dropbear8mybaby]

If the target is intentionally not defending himself, the subsequent attacks can either auto hit or get advantage.

Where does it say that?

[Slipperychicken]

Where does it say that?

I think he's extrapolating this from conditions like stunned, unconscious, restrained, and paralyzed. In each of those, the creature's ability to defend itself is impeded or removed, and attackers get advantage to hit the creature.

It's not RAW as far as I can tell, but seems like an appropriate ruling given the precedent.

[coredump]

Where does it say that?
The rules say a DM only asks for a roll if he determined the outcome is uncertain.
The rules also say the DM determines when the situation calls for advantage or disadvantage.



On another note.... While I agree with most of the love fest here, it is a 5E forum. I imagine a very different response if the same question was asked in the 3.PF forum

[dropbear8mybaby]

I think he's extrapolating this from conditions like stunned, unconscious, restrained, and paralyzed. In each of those, the creature's ability to defend itself is impeded or removed, and attackers get advantage to hit the creature.

Yes, but not auto-hits.

[WampDiesel]

On another note.... While I agree with most of the love fest here, it is a 5E forum. I imagine a very different response if the same question was asked in the 3.PF forum

But then again. How many of those people have not even tried 5e because they don't want to learn new rules / buy new books?

The one thing definitely I miss from 3.5 was the customization options. When I started playing most of the splat books were already out and the SRD was a great resource for character creation. But that has nothing to do with battle, the original topic.

I also sometimes miss being a super buffed Christmas tree who had 7 levels of magic around him at all times

[Mith]

Are there plans for the release of splatbooks over time? Or is WotC trying to keep 5e books to a minimum?

[Mara]

5e to 3.5

con: More things are subject to DM interpretation.

Pros: Better guidelines for DMs to interpret. More is possible to do in Combat. More options. Faster combat. Overall just better.

[EggKookoo]

5e to 3.5

con: More things are subject to DM interpretation.

I consider this a pro.

[zinycor]

5e to 3.5

con: More things are subject to DM interpretation.


completely a pro

[Mith]

Considering that my introduction to D&D was 1 edition, I also consider that a pro.

[Dralnu]

I consider this a pro.

I'll disagree here.

There are a few things in 5e left so vague that it just comes off as lazy design to me.

Big example: Stealth rules. When a halfling rogue can hide in combat. Things like that. Developers left it intentionally vague. This led to countless debate, not in a good way.

When I'm buying a Player's Handbook, I want them to tell me how the game is played. When I come across the "Stealth" section and they're like, "eh, figure it out," that irks me.

[Pex]

I cannot disagree. In 3E/Pathfinder you do a lot of adding up of numbers from various buffs you can accumulate to determine your total to hit number, AC, damage, and saving throws. In 5E that happens a lot less if at all. I think it is personal taste as to which one is "better". I happen to like adding up the buff numbers. I do like being able to walk and chew gum at the same time without having to concentrate. I have found 5E combat to be simpler but simpler does not equate to better. The complexities of 3E/Pathfinder combat I find to be engaging, offering interesting decisions to be made of tactics.

Combat is a major component of both systems. To prefer one over the other is to prefer the whole system over the other. That preference doesn't make the other system atrocious (my word of exaggeration).

[EggKookoo]

I'll disagree here.

There are a few things in 5e left so vague that it just comes off as lazy design to me.

This is how D&D was for 1e and 2e. 5e was a conscious effort to return to that approach. It wasn't done out of laziness.


Big example: Stealth rules. When a halfling rogue can hide in combat. Things like that. Developers left it intentionally vague. This led to countless debate, not in a good way.

5e requires your DM to be imaginative, rather than just some kind of rules jockey. You make a ruling. If the ruling is bad, you refine it later on. The ruling doesn't have to be perfect, it just has to be good enough to work. This is a feature of 5e, not a bug.

Don't confuse online debates with debates at a table. Two DMs arguing on a forum about how to handle a ruling doesn't mean there's a real problem so long as each DM is handling things well at his or her table.


When I'm buying a Player's Handbook, I want them to tell me how the game is played. When I come across the "Stealth" section and they're like, "eh, figure it out," that irks me.

Most of the time I agree. But in the case of stealth, it's so situational that they couldn't come up with anything more specific than "eh, figure it out" and keep in line with the streamlined approach to the overall rules.

And really, it's not so hard. Figure it out.

[mephnick]

The complexities of 3E/Pathfinder combat I find to be engaging, offering interesting decisions to be made of tactics.

That's odd, I found 3.5 no more tactical than 5e. I think interesting tactics stem from the players and a good DM, regardless of system.

On the contrary, I believe 3.5 was a system set up entirely to not let you do things, unless you were built specifically for that thing.

"Oh, you want to trip your opponent? Lol. How quaint. Did you take the required feat taxes?"

[georgie_leech]

"Oh, you want to trip your opponent? Lol. How quaint. Did you take the required feat taxes?"

"You did? Shame he's bigger than you. And has 4 legs. And can also fly."

[Mara]

One of the reasons I think a better game can still be made is because of how vague 5e is. They didn't make perfect crystal clear mechanics that were easy to use. They made crystal clear guidelines to handle nearly every scenario. It's not "perfect", but I think 5e does a great job of actually making use of the DM there without it becoming "DM play time" like some truly rules light games.

The vagueness is a negative to me, but in other games that are less vague, the rules are so cumbersome that it far outweighs the gain from less vagueness.

[Inevitability]

I'll disagree here.

There are a few things in 5e left so vague that it just comes off as lazy design to me.

Big example: Stealth rules. When a halfling rogue can hide in combat. Things like that. Developers left it intentionally vague. This led to countless debate, not in a good way.

When I'm buying a Player's Handbook, I want them to tell me how the game is played. When I come across the "Stealth" section and they're like, "eh, figure it out," that irks me.

Stealth rules have always been poorly designed. I believe those from 4e were errata'ed multiple times, and those from 3.5 have never been clear to me either.

[coredump]

Its because you *can't* make good stealth rules, there are way to many variables and environmential factors to take into account. ONce you try and codify it, the systems becomes either easily breakable, stupid, too cumbersome, or non-sensical in its application.

Better to give some guidelines for mechanics that can be used, and guidelines for when and how to adjudicate, and let the DM/Player knowledge work out the exact details.

[D.U.P.A.]

I never played 3.5, only 4e, I really like that in 5e there are basic attacks, it was very annoying with at will powers which along the damage it dealt other effects, many tied on other stats which made things even more confusing, encounter powers, which were even more complicated and in the end daily powers. Now you just attack, maybe multiple times, without strange effect that you must calculate, count squares, modifiers, depending on your stats. Also the spells (most of them) are not complicated, they just resolve an effect (besides damage), which is usually rather simple and not tied to certain numbers based on your stats.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

It's really more about where you want to be on a sliding scale of complexity and simplicity, given you want the D&D feel.

I'm currently playing a mundane character in 5e - a Battle Master, so more complex than some other mundane options - and most of my combat turns boil down to a little bit of movement, using the attack action, and choosing when to use BM dice and the surge. Other options, such as shoving/grappling, are rarely better than the attack action. And there are still plenty of enemies a BM can't deal with very well.

An equivalent character in 3e would be a Warblade. Similar in sheer power, but far more capable of using novel tactics through maneuvers and combinations. Happily, both characters are mobile, but the Warblade actually has special movement (and detection) capabilities beyond racial features. The Warblade in general is far less likely to find a foe he simply can't deal with well. That said, he's also more likely to be paired up with spellcasting allies who are way too good at dealing with everything.

So it depends on what you value. 3.5's relative strengths are options, breadth, and diversity. 5e's relative strengths are ease, speed, and (relative) balance. One man's fat cutting is another man's system gutting, as it were.

Oh, and since it's being debated: "Mother May I" is not a good design choice. The Giant said it best: The DM already has the power to do what he wants. I want a system that I can use. And besides that, if I wanted to play super rules lite with D&D feel I'd play Dungeon World. Stick to your rules-medium niche, WotC. Having codified rules for stealth is a good thing, even if it's breakable. At the very least some crunchier optional rules are in order.

[EggKookoo]

Oh, and since it's being debated: "Mother May I" is not a good design choice.

Disagree.

As a player, I don't want to worry about rules minutia. I'm much happier asking the DM if I can do X and letting him worry about how it's balanced.

As a DM, I want to be able to massage the system without my players naysaying me because obscure rule Y says something different.

[MeeposFire]

After being a 3.5 DM from level 1-20 I will say that if it is up to me I will NEVER do that again if I have any choice in the matter. It takes too much work for what you get. 5e is a lot better in this regard. I also thought 4e was better in that regard as well but 4e has a definite tactical minigame that 5e does not have so it still has that niche and I play 5e when I want something a bit more modern than AD&D but less tactical than 4e.

Thankfully my players agree too since it was a pain in the butt for them too (though nowhere near as much as it is on the DM).

I will say though that the creating a character minigame in 3e is very fun and is probably the best part of the system but actually playing it is not anywhere near as fun.

[Diamondeye]

5E is faster, more streamlined, simpler, and easier to deal with.

3.5 is more detailed, more granular, and allows for more tradeoffs and more variety of approach.

[Dimcair]

I like 3.75 way more, just because of the options. I would disagree with anyone saying you have the same amount of choices in 5th.

That being said, I would rather play pathfinder with peeps who are familiar to the whole dnd 'logic/mechanics' and who actually picked up the phb and gave it a read.

I'd prefer 5th when playing with people who are new to the systems and never read anything else than their class entry

[Pex]

Disagree.

As a player, I don't want to worry about rules minutia. I'm much happier asking the DM if I can do X and letting him worry about how it's balanced.

As a DM, I want to be able to massage the system without my players naysaying me because obscure rule Y says something different.

Why bother having players at all if the DM determines everything that happens at his whim?

[zinycor]

Why bother having players at all if the DM determines everything that happens at his whim?

Nobody has said that. What they have said is that the rules for that situation should be decided at each table.

[EggKookoo]

Why bother having players at all if the DM determines everything that happens at his whim?

How do you have a game with no players?

I get the point you're making but you're exaggerating for effect. Obviously the DM doesn't just decide everything on a whim.

I look at it like this. A game like D&D uses rules to help model a fictional reality in which everyone plays. Those rules are good for helping the DM and players determine the likely outcome of any given decision. But ultimately, the rules can't cover every conceivable decision the players are going to make. Eventually (and pretty quickly with some players, like mine) someone is going to say "hey, I do X" where X is reasonable in the context of what's going on with the characters but not covered in the rules.

My job, then, as a DM, is to make a ruling on how to handle X. I do this by using the existing rules as a framework on which to build my ruling. Basically, I extrapolate a ruling that makes sense and is consistent with RAW, or if not, at least with RAI. This is the spirit of how AD&D worked in 1e and 2e (often made explicit in 1e), and it seems to me that this is what WotC's intent is behind 5e.

I like 3e. I didn't like it when it came out, for a host of reasons that I don't need to get into here, but it's grown on me. But -- and it's a big but -- when they came up with 3e they kind of outsmarted themselves (IMO) when it came to these kind of "unusual circumstances" rules. I don't know what the core of it was, but it emerged over 3e's early life that there was or should be a rule for just about everything. I believe Gygax himself criticized 3e for having "too many rules." The prevalence of rules covering so many situations created a mindset that there should be a rule in there for X somewhere, dammit! We just need to dig it out.

I dunno. Maybe 3e's popularity or a generational changing of the guard or something also seems to have created an influx of bad DMs. Or perhaps players not raised on playing 1e/2e who bristled at the concept of DM fiat, regardless of the DM's actual skill and ability. While I have encountered truly bad DMs, most of that in my experience was well prior to 3e so I don't think I went through whatever it was that caused this kind of cultural shift away from freeform DMing.

In any event, it seems like there was a trend away from trusting the DM to interpret rules and create rulings and toward the DM being just a custodian of the rules. Essentially a kind of "Google" player who exists mainly to go find that rule on that thing. This just exacerbated the problem of rules minutia.

I never played 4e so I don't know how that all went down, but from what I've read of it, the DM was relegated even further to the role of human search engine.

With 5e, the DM is restored to its rightful role as the player who runs the game. The rules are still there, but simplified and streamlined, and it's expected that the DM will fill in the gaps as appropriate for his or her table. As an old school RPGer, this is great for me, and is how I've been running games since forever. But now it seems like we have a generation of players trained to distrust DMs -- possibly rightly so in some cases -- and they look at this new deference to the DM with suspicion. But overall, I think this is good for the game and healthy for its future survival.

[Dimcair]

Filling in the rules because he is the player who runs the game sounds like whim to me.

The obscure rules in pathfinder are there that at any given table, the whim decisions are reduced to a minimum.

[EggKookoo]

Filling in the rules because he is the player who runs the game sounds like whim to me.

I feel bad for all these players who have only played under sucky DMs. Are you saying you've only experienced whimsical houserulings?

[zinycor]

I feel bad for all these players who have only played under sucky DMs. Are you saying you've only experienced whimsical houserulings?

yeah, so far everything seems nice

[Vogonjeltz]

I haven't had a chance to run or play a 5e game yet, but was wondering what are some pros and cons of each and which combat system you prefer.

Combat rounds in 5e are faster than 3.5e because of the streamlining, fewer modifiers, fewer total attacks per character, easier to comprehend action types.

Overall I give it a 10/10 over 3.5e.


I'll disagree here.

There are a few things in 5e left so vague that it just comes off as lazy design to me.

Big example: Stealth rules. When a halfling rogue can hide in combat. Things like that. Developers left it intentionally vague. This led to countless debate, not in a good way.

When I'm buying a Player's Handbook, I want them to tell me how the game is played. When I come across the "Stealth" section and they're like, "eh, figure it out," that irks me.

Lightfoot Halflings can hide whenever obscured by a creature that is at least one size larger. Stout Halflings only get the normal stealth rules. I don't see that as being vague at all, but perhaps you could elaborate on what you are finding as vague about that very specific phrase.


Why bother having players at all if the DM determines everything that happens at his whim?

That's the nature of the game. The DM presents a situation; the Player, based on this presentation, decides on a course of action; the DM adjudicates the results.

Situation->Action->Results (New Situation).

[Raimun]

Sure, 5e plays faster but that's because it's dumbed down version of 3.5. Objectively speaking, 3.5 combat system is deeper and more variable and versatile.

Also, bounded accuracy was kind of a bad move. Everyone feels a bit too same-y, skill-wise and that same-y level of skill is pretty damn low. It's not that rare to spend a couple of rounds where absolutely no combatant manages to hit anyone. Oh, the excitement.

[pwykersotz]

Sure, 5e plays faster but that's because it's dumbed down version of 3.5. Objectively speaking, 3.5 combat system is deeper and more variable and versatile.

Also, bounded accuracy was kind of a bad move. Everyone feels a bit too same-y, skill-wise and that same-y level of skill is pretty damn low. It's not that rare to spend a couple of rounds where absolutely no combatant manages to hit anyone. Oh, the excitement.

I'd call it streamlined, myself.

As to your last point, I actually find that compared to 3.5, both monsters and players hit far MORE often. Now I'm curious which one of us has the more statistically normal experiences.

[Pex]

I feel bad for all these players who have only played under sucky DMs. Are you saying you've only experienced whimsical houserulings?

I've only experienced them playing 2E & 5E, never in 3E or Pathfinder, the ones which have defined rules and lots of player choice. I don't find it coincidental the "sucky" DMs, the "tyrants", come out in systems having less defined rules and less player choice. Not every 2E DM I played with, just never since I switched to 3E then Pathfinder only to run into one the first time I try out a 5E campaign. I fully acknowledge 5E does not encourage or promote the tyrannical DM, but it does make it easier for them to exist than in 3E, Pathfinder, & 4E (never played, just supposition) due to the lack of defined rules and limited player choice.

[georgie_leech]

I've only experienced them playing 2E & 5E, never in 3E or Pathfinder, the ones which have defined rules and lots of player choice. I don't find it coincidental the "sucky" DMs, the "tyrants", come out in systems having less defined rules and less player choice. Not every 2E DM I played with, just never since I switched to 3E then Pathfinder only to run into one the first time I try out a 5E campaign. I fully acknowledge 5E does not encourage or promote the tyrannical DM, but it does make it easier for them to exist than in 3E, Pathfinder, & 4E (never played, just supposition) due to the lack of defined rules and limited player choice.

In my experience, the sucky DM will deny player agency regardless of what the rules say. It might be more fair to say that it's easier to accidentally be a bad DM in rules-light(er) systems, but the Tyrant will be a Tyrant anyway.

[ghost_warlock]

Oh, and since it's being debated: "Mother May I" is not a good design choice. The Giant said it best: The DM already has the power to do what he wants. I want a system that I can use. And besides that, if I wanted to play super rules lite with D&D feel I'd play Dungeon World. Stick to your rules-medium niche, WotC. Having codified rules for stealth is a good thing, even if it's breakable. At the very least some crunchier optional rules are in order.

Agreed.

This is exactly why the wild magic sorcerer is thematically fun, but shunned heavily by actual players. It may as well not even exist. Having to rely on the DM's permission to use your class features is horrible game design.

[JNAProductions]

Which is why the proper way (in my opinion, of course) to play 5E is not "DM, can I do this?" it's "DM, I'm going to do this. What's the DC?"

And a good DM will (barring ridiculous things) let them attempt their cool stunt with an appropriate DC and skill check.

[EggKookoo]

In my experience, the sucky DM will deny player agency regardless of what the rules say. It might be more fair to say that it's easier to accidentally be a bad DM in rules-light(er) systems, but the Tyrant will be a Tyrant anyway.

I totally agree here. 5e (and 1e/2e) separated the men from the boys in terms of DMs. 3e can mask a bad DM in a way 5e can't. But 5e can free up a good DM who might feel stifled under 3e.

I consider myself a decent DM simply based on the fact that my players keep coming back and appear to have a lot of fun playing my games. I also make off the cuff rulings a lot. Granted, I also strive for player mandate and if a player has a problem with one of my homebrew rules, I revisit it and either change it or clarify how it works so that the player is satisfied.

Likewise, when I play, I not only don't mind a GM who house rules things but I actually appreciate it. It tells me the GM has thought about rules coherence and believes he has made an improvement to the benefit of the game. He might be wrong, of course. I might feel like I need to challenge his ruling, but not the fact that he made the ruling in the first place. A GM should never feel like he can't override RAW as long as he's doing it in good faith.

Again, comes back to sucky GMs ruining the game. I've played under a bad GM. I understand that pain. But the problem was with that specific GM, not a system that allowed him to make ad hoc rulings.


Which is why the proper way (in my opinion, of course) to play 5E is not "DM, can I do this?" it's "DM, I'm going to do this. What's the DC?"

And a good DM will (barring ridiculous things) let them attempt their cool stunt with an appropriate DC and skill check.

I think most people would agree here, except you'll run into a problem trying to get everyone to use the same definition of "ridiculous thing."

[D.U.P.A.]

I hope it is not too offtopic, but how was combat in 3e (or 3.5, pathfinder, ... ) compared to 4e? Which was more time consuming and complicated?

[Daishain]

I hope it is not too offtopic, but how was combat in 3e (or 3.5, pathfinder, ... ) compared to 4e? Which was more time consuming and complicated?
Depends.

By default, 4e. Lots of constantly changing numbers that needed to be added together. 3e had problems with such too, but to a lesser degree.

If however some of the players don't have their complicated characters nailed down, or someone invokes one of the more unintelligible rules (grappling rules in particular were a nigh legendary offender), 3e 'wins' that comparison.

[Pex]

I totally agree here. 5e (and 1e/2e) separated the men from the boys in terms of DMs. 3e can mask a bad DM in a way 5e can't. But 5e can free up a good DM who might feel stifled under 3e.


I see it as the opposite. 3E has defined rules. When the DM goes against them, the players know. "What ever the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players go too." In 5E the rules tend to be vague and WOTC is telling DMs to make up their own rulings. Therefore, the bad DMs have WOTC's permission to do whatever the heck they want, and if the players don't like it, tough because it's their rulings. The players can still vote with their feet, but the bad DM has no reason to change. The players become powergaming rollplaying munchkin whiners in their opinion and in their superiority complex will continue to be a bad DM looking for other players who don't know any better how a DM is supposed to be or don't know of no game being better than a bad game.

[pwykersotz]

I see it as the opposite. 3E has defined rules. When the DM goes against them, the players know. "What ever the DM says, goes. If he says enough stupid stuff, the players go too." In 5E the rules tend to be vague and WOTC is telling DMs to make up their own rulings. Therefore, the bad DMs have WOTC's permission to do whatever the heck they want, and if the players don't like it, tough because it's their rulings. The players can still vote with their feet, but the bad DM has no reason to change. The players become powergaming rollplaying munchkin whiners in their opinion and in their superiority complex will continue to be a bad DM looking for other players who don't know any better how a DM is supposed to be or don't know of no game being better than a bad game.

I was a bad DM once. I got better, and I did it at a time when I used guidelines instead of hard rules and I had a captive player base. I deny completely that the blame can be laid at the feet of the system.

[Pex]

I was a bad DM once. I got better, and I did it at a time when I used guidelines instead of hard rules and I had a captive player base. I deny completely that the blame can be laid at the feet of the system.

I've only claimed 2E promotes bad DMs because the rules generally tell the DM to say no to everything and anything the player wants. Exaggeration, hyperbole, perhaps, but it is the general tone I get from reading the 2E DMG. I do not think, believe, or claim 3E, Pathfinder, 4E, or 5E cause bad DMs. I am just saying they are easier to spot and deal with in 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E because of the defined rules where as 5E makes it easier for them to exist due to vagueness and WOTC telling DMs to do whatever they want. If you interpret that to mean I'm saying it's the system's fault, there's not much more I can say to convince you otherwise. The 5E DMG does clearly give the DM advice on how to be a good DM.

Players voting with their feet in a bad DM 3E game can point to the rules, show how the DM is ignoring, changing, outright making things up to make the play of the game miserable. The DM can learn from it or not, but the fault is known. In 5E, there are no rules to point to. The players can still vote with their feet, but the bad DM has the confidence in himself with the backing of WOTC that he is Right and the players Wrong because he is making "rulings". He does not see anything in himself to change. It's still the bad DM's fault for being a bad DM, not 5E making him a bad DM, and ideally he should change. It's just not so easy for the bad DM to accept it's his fault when he's doing exactly as WOTC is telling him he's permitted to do.

[EggKookoo]

I do not think, believe, or claim 3E, Pathfinder, 4E, or 5E cause bad DMs. I am just saying they are easier to spot and deal with in 3E, Pathfinder, and 4E because of the defined rules where as 5E makes it easier for them to exist due to vagueness and WOTC telling DMs to do whatever they want.

I agree that no system creates bad DMs. Even 2e, which I don't have the books for anymore so I can't go check out its tone, wouldn't really create a bad DM so much as it might make it easier for bad DMs to thrive. A good DM would ignore nonsense about always saying "no" to players.

I keep wanting to get further into this but I keep bumping up against how we define a "good" vs. "bad" DM in this context. To me, a good DM isn't just someone who has memorized the rules. It's someone who is going to actively create a game, using the rules as a foundation but personalizing it for his own campaign or setting. Someone that James Carse would have called an "infinite player." I can memorize rules, or reference them quickly enough that it doesn't matter, even as a player. That's not being a DM, that's being Google.

I suspect that as D&D grew more complex, it gave rise to the "Googlebot DM," who could be a DM by virtue of his ability to store massive amounts of rules in his head. It's possible this gave rise to the massive rules systems of 3e/3.5e/PF (and 4e?). But we're at an age where anyone can retrieve information with a mouseclick, what with D&D wikis and whatnot. So the ability to hold a ton of rules in one's head is no longer really enough to qualify one for being a DM. Other characteristics -- being able to adjudicate rulings, for example -- gained prominence. And so 5e embraced that by deprecating rules minutia and emphasizing off the cuff houserulings.

Anyway, I'm veering off both the thread topic and this sub-discussion topic.

[LaserFace]

... Therefore, the bad DMs have WOTC's permission to do whatever the heck they want, and if the players don't like it, tough because it's their rulings. The players can still vote with their feet, but the bad DM has no reason to change. The players become powergaming rollplaying munchkin whiners in their opinion and in their superiority complex will continue to be a bad DM looking for other players who don't know any better how a DM is supposed to be or don't know of no game being better than a bad game.

Have you actually encountered people who act like this? If so, you have my sympathy.

[ghost_warlock]

Have you actually encountered people who act like this? If so, you have my sympathy.

I've played in D&D 2e, d6 Star Wars, and Alternity with DMs who were basically just reveling in a power trip and would kill your character, no save, just because they thought the lightweight rules meant it wasn't cheating if they did.

"A predator spear suddenly pierces your chest, dealing (*rolls*) eight mortal damage. You're dead."

I found, in those games, there was often refuge in audacity or, at least, in keeping them laughing - an amused DM was less likely to be capricious.

But, in any case, 5e certainly didn't invent the jerkface DM, nor does it have a monopoly on them. I would be nice if, after all we've learned over the years writing RPG rulebooks, they would have at least put "with great power comes great responsibility - don't be a jerk and screw over your players just because you can" in the "how to run a game" section. :P

[EggKookoo]

I've played in D&D 2e, d6 Star Wars, and Alternity with DMs who were basically just reveling in a power trip and would kill your character, no save, just because they thought the lightweight rules meant it wasn't cheating if they did.

"A predator spear suddenly pierces your chest, dealing (*rolls*) eight mortal damage. You're dead."

I've had similar experiences. I have to think if the game systems were excessively complex, I might not have understood if it was the GM sucking or the game system sucking. I really believe that with the simpler game systems, it's more obvious when the game is garbage or the GM is incompetent or malicious. I mean, this is basically true even for a complex game -- the more familiar you are with the system the easier it is to see -- there's just less to parse with a simpler game.

Of course, you could have a DM on a power trip who likes to manipulate players. That can happen regardless of the edition. It's not quite what I'm talking about. I'm talking about DMs whose hearts are in the right places but just aren't made of the right stuff to be DMs. Like, here's a hypothetical. If you're playing 5e and the DM says "ok, here's how stealth works" and rattles off a bunch of lousy conditions or rules or whatever, you know to go "BREEP BREEP BREEP DM doesn't know what he's doing!" But if that happens with 3e, you need to know what the actual 3e stealth rules are and how the DM is deviating from them. Technically it's the same thing but there's a bigger barrier to that determination with a more complex game like 3e.


But, in any case, 5e certainly didn't invent the jerkface DM, nor does it have a monopoly on them. I would be nice if, after all we've learned over the years writing RPG rulebooks, they would have at least put "with great power comes great responsibility - don't be a jerk and screw over your players just because you can" in the "how to run a game" section. :P

It's sad that it's even brought up that this should be necessary. I can understand guarding against ignorance, but I would think it's understood that you shouldn't be actively trying to screw over your fellow players. Both the PHB and the DMG repeatedly give examples of how D&D is a team-oriented cooperative game. If one can't infer from all that that one shouldn't be deliberately attempt to mess up one's players, one has no business being a DM. Not everyone's cut out for it. It took me years to stop sucking.

[Telwar]

Depends.By default, 4e. Lots of constantly changing numbers that needed to be added together. 3e had problems with such too, but to a lesser degree.

The impression I had was they wound up at about the same amount of overall time, but 3e combats only lasted a few, albeit very long, rounds, whereas 4e combats had more but shorter rounds.

I do recall the last 3.5 game I played, it took me the other players' and all the NPC rounds to calculate my raging power attack smites' damage. And I distinctly recall one fight where it took nearly an hour for a round to pass.

[Pex]

Have you actually encountered people who act like this? If so, you have my sympathy.

Yes. In 2E, but not every 2E DM I played with. Never in 3E or Pathfinder. First time I tried 5E, there he was. He admitted it out loud he's a DM who believed a player should never get what he wants.

[EggKookoo]

Players voting with their feet in a bad DM 3E game can point to the rules, show how the DM is ignoring, changing, outright making things up to make the play of the game miserable. The DM can learn from it or not, but the fault is known. In 5E, there are no rules to point to. The players can still vote with their feet, but the bad DM has the confidence in himself with the backing of WOTC that he is Right and the players Wrong because he is making "rulings". He does not see anything in himself to change. It's still the bad DM's fault for being a bad DM, not 5E making him a bad DM, and ideally he should change. It's just not so easy for the bad DM to accept it's his fault when he's doing exactly as WOTC is telling him he's permitted to do.

I have to admit I don't understand this.

If a DM (3e or 5e) is losing players, he has every incentive to look at what's going on. In 3e, the DM can say "well, I'm playing by 3e rules, so if my players are leaving they must not like 3e." In 5e, he can say the same kind of thing, but he's also likely to say "hm, since so much of the game depends on my ad hoc interpretations and rulings, maybe I should take a deeper look at those."

I don't get how the 5e player has some kind of confidence himself while the 3e player doesn't have more confidence in the rules. In 3e, this DM is justified in blaming the game, since he's mostly playing the same exact game every other 3e DM is. In 5e, one DM's game is likely to be pretty unique, and different from another 5e DM's game. It's only reasonable that the 5e DM would look to those unique aspects as culprits.

This is especially true because...


The 5E DMG does clearly give the DM advice on how to be a good DM.

The 5e DMG goes out of its way many times to explain how, if the DM modifies rules, he should take care to test them out and be prepared to tweak them if his players don't find them satisfying. Nowhere does it say or even imply that the DM can "do whatever he wants" and actually states the opposite. It gives guidance on how to change rules, how to create rulings, examples for variant rules, and so forth. If a DM reads the 5e DMG and comes away with "cool, I can do whatever the frack I want and if the players don't like it, they just must not like 5e" has some serious reading comprehension problems.

[MrStabby]

I have only played 3rd and 5th edition so I can't comment on the others but 5th is massively better in most important ways but i do miss a bit of the depth from 3rd.

In 5th combat is faster, more plot driven and much more dependant on the choices you make during combat rather than the choices you made during character creation and levelling up. Games of 5th Edition are much more fun than 3rd (and I did really like 3rd).

The one thing I do mis in 5th is the breadth of characters. Now I find that it is difficult to get close to a lot of character concepts without homebrew whereas in 3rd there was a prestige class that made about anything possible (although it did **** up the power levels of some of them though). I think that the core system, especially multiclassing is much better executed in 5th than 3rd - the balance of ASIs, spell slots and everything is so much better.

I think that as the content of 5th grows it will become an even better game, but already it outshines 3rd. When i sit at a table I want to play D&D not spreadsheets. I don't mind complex calculations building a character but I want playing one to be a bit more dynamic.

[MeeposFire]

Yes. In 2E, but not every 2E DM I played with. Never in 3E or Pathfinder. First time I tried 5E, there he was. He admitted it out loud he's a DM who believed a player should never get what he wants.

Funny I see them all the time in several different states around the US. However the way they do it is different. You don't like 2e because the DM would make up rules. Well the 3e and 4e version of this is that a bad DM USES the rules to screw over their players. Hey the DM does not like monks but you want to play one? Well the DM says "sure play a monk but realize that they are not proficient with their fists" or take your pick of various ways a DM can just decide to screw you with potential rules in the book.

If a DM wants to be a jerk no system will stop it. None are designed to stop and none can stop it.

This also ignores the fact rule 0 explicitly exists in 3e and therefor can be used even by a savy rules oriented guy.

Also notice that in the end in both cases in AD&D and 5e a Dm can screw you over with the rules and in areas with ill defined rules and 3e/4e DMs can do the same. The only way to not have a bad DM is to not play with one or convince them to change. The rules of the game will NOT save you.

What is actually important is how you like dealing with rules as a DM in particular. Do you want to have a bunch of specified rules for nearly everything that you potentially have to remember or do you want more general rules that may require more rulings on more fringe cases? Technically no wrong answer it is a personal preference.

[Pex]

I have to admit I don't understand this.

If a DM (3e or 5e) is losing players, he has every incentive to look at what's going on. In 3e, the DM can say "well, I'm playing by 3e rules, so if my players are leaving they must not like 3e." In 5e, he can say the same kind of thing, but he's also likely to say "hm, since so much of the game depends on my ad hoc interpretations and rulings, maybe I should take a deeper look at those."

I don't get how the 5e player has some kind of confidence himself while the 3e player doesn't have more confidence in the rules. In 3e, this DM is justified in blaming the game, since he's mostly playing the same exact game every other 3e DM is. In 5e, one DM's game is likely to be pretty unique, and different from another 5e DM's game. It's only reasonable that the 5e DM would look to those unique aspects as culprits.

This is especially true because...



The 5e DMG goes out of its way many times to explain how, if the DM modifies rules, he should take care to test them out and be prepared to tweak them if his players don't find them satisfying. Nowhere does it say or even imply that the DM can "do whatever he wants" and actually states the opposite. It gives guidance on how to change rules, how to create rulings, examples for variant rules, and so forth. If a DM reads the 5e DMG and comes away with "cool, I can do whatever the frack I want and if the players don't like it, they just must not like 5e" has some serious reading comprehension problems.

3E has clearly defined rules. When the bad DM changes or ignores them or makes things up, it's known. I'm not talking about house rules. Well, I suppose house rules are involved, but it's when everything the DM does that makes the players miserable - railroading, rules change at his whim whenever he wants, a PC dies at least once a session if not more than that, PCs can never succeed at anything that's outside the box thinking, the player know it and can call him on it. If the player summons Air Elementals and uses the Tongues spell to command them to scout up a cliff then report back, the player knows if the DM makes Tongues not work or cause the elementals to attack them because they're summoned and need to attack someone the DM is being a donkey cavity. The DM did this because he wants the party ambushed on top of the cliff. Yes, a bad 3E DM could be obtuse and refuse to budge, but for those who want to improve and stop losing players they know they're ignoring the rules and need to stop.

In 5E, it's not so easy. Railroading and changing some rules on a whim can be pointed out, but as a recent debate could show, what is a player to do when he casts Conjure Animals and wanted wolves but the DM gives him mice? What is a player to do when he wants to climb a wall but the DM puts the DC at 25 and gives disadvantage because he's not proficient? There's nothing in the rules to say the DM is doing wrong. The DM can point to the WOTC and claim "I'm making rulings". Players who hate the rulings will leave. The DM blames them for whining and doesn't change his ways.

[Mr.Moron]

Adherence to lots of strictly defined rules is as easily a straight jacket as anything else. In 5e I far more confident saying "apply your profiency here because you grew up in this city, even if you don't have the appropriate lore skill".

In the end of you want lots of rules so you can windmill slam a page in front of the GM and go " NUH UHHHHH". A: That just indicates poor group dynamics as a whole, and B: Rule zero is still a thing, you can't "win" the rules arms race against a GM. Play Warmachine or MTG if you want a competitive rules-rule experience, those games are better at providing it.

[EggKookoo]

3E has clearly defined rules. When the bad DM changes or ignores them or makes things up, it's known. I'm not talking about house rules. Well, I suppose house rules are involved, but it's when everything the DM does that makes the players miserable - railroading, rules change at his whim whenever he wants, a PC dies at least once a session if not more than that, PCs can never succeed at anything that's outside the box thinking, the player know it and can call him on it. If the player summons Air Elementals and uses the Tongues spell to command them to scout up a cliff then report back, the player knows if the DM makes Tongues not work or cause the elementals to attack them because they're summoned and need to attack someone the DM is being a donkey cavity. The DM did this because he wants the party ambushed on top of the cliff. Yes, a bad 3E DM could be obtuse and refuse to budge, but for those who want to improve and stop losing players they know they're ignoring the rules and need to stop.

In 5E, it's not so easy. Railroading and changing some rules on a whim can be pointed out, but as a recent debate could show, what is a player to do when he casts Conjure Animals and wanted wolves but the DM gives him mice? What is a player to do when he wants to climb a wall but the DM puts the DC at 25 and gives disadvantage because he's not proficient? There's nothing in the rules to say the DM is doing wrong. The DM can point to the WOTC and claim "I'm making rulings". Players who hate the rulings will leave. The DM blames them for whining and doesn't change his ways.

I don't think 5e is largely about rewriting existing spells or abilities. If Conjure Animals gives you wolves, it gives you wolves. The kind of homebrewing that makes it give you mice isn't really what 5e is all about. 5e is more like "stealth is too complex and situational to create universal comprehensive rules for, so just make it work using common sense" or "grappling is too detailed and slows down combat, but if you want to do it by extending basic combat rules, knock yourself out." It's not "magic missile does X damage but hey, make it do Y for ****s & giggles." At most, it says "if you want magic missile to do Y damage, you can, but understand you're changing the spell pretty fundamentally, so you might need to adjust its level and for the love of Bob tell your players ahead of time and don't make these kinds of changes on a whim."

And that's really the crux of it. Repeatedly and unambiguously, the 5e DMG says you should never blindside your players with a rule change. Granted, if a circumstance comes up in the middle of play, the DM must make a ruling to deal with it (the same is true for 3e). But even then, the DMG says that if that ruling isn't well-accepted by all players, the DM should revisit it during some downtime and address any problems. It almost literally, explicitly, prohibits donkey cavity behavior.

I also think you're assuming greater player knowledge than is likely. I would bet most 3e players are not thoroughly versed in all of the rules. I'm sure most of them wouldn't be sure if something was an esoteric bit of RAW or a DM ruling. This might be exacerbated by the sheer volume of 3e rules. This may be equally true for 5e players but 1) 5e is generally simpler, so there's less to be ignorant about, and 2) 5e has a stronger "DM ruling" reputation, which might lead players to assume a rule is a ruling rather than RAW.

[coredump]

There were *plenty* of ways to screw over your players in 3.PF...without breaking any rules.

[Pex]

I'd like to remind everyone that I don't think 5E makes bad DMs. Bad DMs are such through their own fault. I'm just saying it's easier for bad DMs to exist in 5E than in previous editions (except for 2E).

[Forum Explorer]

Adherence to lots of strictly defined rules is as easily a straight jacket as anything else. In 5e I far more confident saying "apply your profiency here because you grew up in this city, even if you don't have the appropriate lore skill".

In the end of you want lots of rules so you can windmill slam a page in front of the GM and go " NUH UHHHHH". A: That just indicates poor group dynamics as a whole, and B: Rule zero is still a thing, you can't "win" the rules arms race against a GM. Play Warmachine or MTG if you want a competitive rules-rule experience, those games are better at providing it.

Agreed. For example, I feel perfectly fine just giving my players info and telling them 'decide if your character would know this from their life'.

In 3rd, I'd feel like it must require a Knowledge test of some sort.

I don't see why it would be harder to spot a bad DM in 5th. For me it's a formula of am I unhappy? Can blame for me being unhappy be laid directly at the deliberate actions of the DM? Are those actions fair? Two yes, and a no makes me think I'm with a bad DM

[georgie_leech]

I'd like to remind everyone that I don't think 5E makes bad DMs. Bad DMs are such through their own fault. I'm just saying it's easier for bad DMs to exist in 5E than in previous editions (except for 2E).

I'd disagree. None of the bad GM's I've experienced were in any way hindered or all that hidden by the rules. What made them bad was trying to take control and keeping the game from being fun, regardless of how they used (or didn't) the rules.

[MeeposFire]

I'd like to remind everyone that I don't think 5E makes bad DMs. Bad DMs are such through their own fault. I'm just saying it's easier for bad DMs to exist in 5E than in previous editions (except for 2E).

100% disagree. It is just as easy to be a bad DM playing 3e. 3e is a bad DM who is a rules lawyer dream edition (note I am not saying being a rules lawyer is bad but if you are a rules lawyer AND a bad DM this would be up in your favorite editions) as it allows them to screw over players without even having to make a ruling.

Bad DMs will get you regardless of which edition you pick.

[pwykersotz]

I'd like to remind everyone that I don't think 5E makes bad DMs. Bad DMs are such through their own fault. I'm just saying it's easier for bad DMs to exist in 5E than in previous editions (except for 2E).

Players know when they're being screwed with, regardless of rules. If they go traipsing waist deep through a mosquito infested swamp and have to make a save vs an exotic disease, that's legit. If they're walking along and they have to roll just because the DM decided for X reason that the area was infectious with no warning or purpose, that's not. Both might or might not be by the rules, but one is clearly screwing with the players.

Heavy rules can easily make for worse players AND DM's. Insistence on adhering to the technical letter of the rules as opposed to the spirit can destroy a game from both sides. The same can be said for improperly applied guidelines. The system is not relevant in the amount of screw, only the how.

[Once a Fool]

I look at it this way: since I am not a bad DM, I don't need a system designed to keep me from being one. I'd much rather use a system that I don't have to fight with in order to run a good--and quick-paced--game.

For me, that means one that is not needlessly complicated, nor one that overly rewards players who have system mastery and punishes the lack. In my experience, these things don't prevent good DMing, but they do tend to get in the way.

[Knaight]

I'd like to remind everyone that I don't think 5E makes bad DMs. Bad DMs are such through their own fault. I'm just saying it's easier for bad DMs to exist in 5E than in previous editions (except for 2E).

I'd disagree with just about all of this to some extent. Some bad DMs are bad DMs because of their own faults, and the ones who tend to get into player horror stories and the like almost all are. Some bad DMs that are more towards the mediocre and uninspiring part of the spectrum than the spectacularly atrocious end are bad because they are faithfully trying to implement advice found in the DMG. For instance, I personally had to unlearn several habits I got from the 3.5 DMG when starting out to get any good as a DM, because it had page after page about the importance of little details, on systematic preparation in setting design, and all that sort of stuff. So I would have town layouts with every inhabitant named and page after page of detail*, and it just got in the way. The 3.5 DMG 2 had a section about how strings of shorter episodic adventures had several advantages, with the comparative ease of railroading players being highlighted. Trying to faithfully follow that advice is going to make for worse DMing.

5e continues some of the same trends. The DMG still encourages really heavy preparatory work, particular DM-player relationships, and plenty of text designed to highlight the importance of the DM role that is probably just going to overwhelm and overpressure new DMs, tanking their performance in the process.

*To be fair, someone who was a bit older than 12 would have been more likely to blow that advice off to some degree. It also only happens in the context of someone entering the hobby through the books rather than joining a gaming group with already experienced gamers; this seems like it isn't the predominant case.

[EggKookoo]

For me, that means one that is not needlessly complicated, nor one that overly rewards players who have system mastery and punishes the lack. In my experience, these things don't prevent good DMing, but they do tend to get in the way.

This is my position as well.

Part of how I define a good DM is that he understands the basic philosophy behind the rules, so when the time comes to invent a ruling, he can make one that fits well with that philosophy. And regardless of edition, sooner or later a DM is going to have to make up how something happens.

You can decipher a core philosophy behind 3.x/PF. It's there. It was easier when it was just 3.0, but it's still there. But it's also buried under a mountain of minutia and specialized sub-rules. There's a reason people view 5e as simpler. It's easier to grok the core philosophy of 5e. Therefore it's easier to come up with a ruling that jives with the system.

This is what I meant before when I said 5e separates the men from the boys. 5e assumes the DM has the confidence to come up with rulings and gets out of his way. It also means the burden of those rulings fall squarely (or mostly) on the DM's shoulders. 3e assumes the DM shouldn't be making up rulings nearly as often, and with its plethora of rules, it's much more likely there's an esoteric rule buried deep in the system somewhere that the 3e DM can exploit. But then he can also hide behind the system, since it's "a 3e rule," not something he was asked to take on the responsibility of crafting himself.


5e continues some of the same trends. The DMG still encourages really heavy preparatory work, particular DM-player relationships, and plenty of text designed to highlight the importance of the DM role that is probably just going to overwhelm and overpressure new DMs, tanking their performance in the process.

This is worth addressing. DMing is not for the faint of heart. It's not for half-assed players. DMing is work -- at least an order of magnitude more work than just being a player. If someone new to D&D (or any RPG) wants to DM, he'd best first start out as a player where he can observe how his DM does things. He needs to be driven with a desire to world-build, and to create plot hooks, and be secure enough to handle his players ripping them to shreds without succumbing to the temptation to railroad. He needs to hold in his head the seemingly contradictory attitudes of both designing encounters that can likely kill his players' PCs, and also being his players' cheerleader -- essentially playing against himself on some level. He needs to understand that as a DM, he becomes custodian of the rules, which he should learn as best he can before he starts breaking them. He'll find almost none of this stuff in a book anywhere.

Being a DM is kind of like being a little insane, but then using it to your (and your players') advantage.

[KorvinStarmast]

"A predator spear suddenly pierces your chest, dealing (*rolls*) eight mortal damage. You're dead."
I see that you've played with Joss Whedon. (It was a Reaver spear, by the way. :smallbiggrin:)

@Pex:

5E makes it easier for them to exist due to vagueness and WOTC telling DMs to do whatever they want. No, they don't, your hyperbole isn't worth posting if you won't bother to look at the reams of advice in the DMG ...

By the way, OD&D and 1e were a system to enable play, not over-describe and over proscribe it. It is my opinion **grodnard moment now arrives** that thanks to the oversaturation in our society with

computers & computer programming (without a rule it doesn't work!!)
obsession with laws and corner cases bombarding us in the media, and loophole diving as a national pastime
helicopter parents and the attempt to bubble wrap people
zero tolerance policies in schools and elsewhere


the free form activity once called "play" is being eroded from within.
**grognard moment hath ended**

(Oh, and to whomever it applies a gratuitous "get offa my lawn" if offered, but it comes with cake and lemonade. My wife has a generous heart ... )

Now, the above is a bit broad brush, and a bit OTT, and maybe even OT for a 3.5 versus 5 "how's the combat" discussion. The core issue to me is "how much to you need to be told and instructed in how to have fun?"

But, in any case, 5e certainly didn't invent the jerkface DM, nor does it have a monopoly on them.
This is full of Much Truth.

[EggKookoo]

By the way, OD&D and 1e were a system to enable play, not over-describe and over proscribe it.

Eggs over zactly.

[Knaight]

This is worth addressing. DMing is not for the faint of heart. It's not for half-assed players. DMing is work -- at least an order of magnitude more work than just being a player. If someone new to D&D (or any RPG) wants to DM, he'd best first start out as a player where he can observe how his DM does things. He needs to be driven with a desire to world-build, and to create plot hooks, and be secure enough to handle his players ripping them to shreds without succumbing to the temptation to railroad. He needs to hold in his head the seemingly contradictory attitudes of both designing encounters that can likely kill his players' PCs, and also being his players' cheerleader -- essentially playing against himself on some level. He needs to understand that as a DM, he becomes custodian of the rules, which he should learn as best he can before he starts breaking them. He'll find almost none of this stuff in a book anywhere.

Yes, and it's much easier work to do when you don't first have to unlearn a whole bunch of actively detrimental habits that you picked up by faithfully following the DMG. It's not laziness that caused the problems I highlighted. Reading and rereading the DMG, following its advice, using table after table, doing lots of calculations, that was work. It was wasted work that got in the way of competent DMing until I had enough experience under my belt to learn to just blow it off, and even that only came with heavy use of a different system with different advice.

The point is, systems can produce bad GMs. They also tend to do a terrible job encouraging good GMing practices. I'd say that every edition of D&D has bad DM advice, and outside of D&D there are only a few instances of bad advice, largely because it's been mostly replaced with having absolutely nothing at all.

[KorvinStarmast]

Yes, and it's much easier work to do when you don't first have to unlearn a whole bunch of actively detrimental habits that you picked up by faithfully following the DMG. It's not laziness that caused the problems I highlighted. Reading and rereading the DMG, following its advice, using table after table, doing lots of calculations, that was work. It was wasted work that got in the way of competent DMing until I had enough experience under my belt to learn to just blow it off, and even that only came with heavy use of a different system with different advice.

The point is, systems can produce bad GMs. They also tend to do a terrible job encouraging good GMing practices. I'd say that every edition of D&D has bad DM advice, and outside of D&D there are only a few instances of bad advice, largely because it's been mostly replaced with having absolutely nothing at all.
A core competency of a DM is interpersonal skills.

Maybe the DMG should just issue a copy of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

(That was a joke),

You can't package interpersonal skills, no matter how many pages you write.

[Knaight]

A core competency of a DM is interpersonal skills.

Maybe the DMG should just issue a copy of Dale Carnegie's "How to Win Friends and Influence People."

(That was a joke),

You can't package interpersonal skills, no matter how many pages you write.

So what? There are a bunch of other skills that you can highlight, and you can at least avoid giving concrete advice that is actively detrimental. That not every single useful DMing skill can be supported by a DMG doesn't mean that they have no influence whatsoever. It doesn't mean that actively bad advice can't make bad DMs, at least until experience erodes the bad habits they would never have had in the first place if the advice wasn't there.

[KorvinStarmast]

So what? There are a bunch of other skills that you can highlight, and you can at least avoid giving concrete advice that is actively detrimental. That not every single useful DMing skill can be supported by a DMG doesn't mean that they have no influence whatsoever. It doesn't mean that actively bad advice can't make bad DMs, at least until experience erodes the bad habits they would never have had in the first place if the advice wasn't there.
I don't find "systems produce bad GM's" a sound premise.

"Some systems make the GM's job more difficult" I think you and I will agree 100%.

I'll go back to my point on core competency: interpersonal skills are a core GM requirement.

From our other thread, GM/DM requires work.

Lastly: if players go out of their way to break/exploit stuff, there is more to this problem than a GM. The players, who have agency, owe the GM a "don't be a jerk" effort as much as a GM owes players a "don't be a jerk" effort.

[EggKookoo]

Yes, and it's much easier work to do when you don't first have to unlearn a whole bunch of actively detrimental habits that you picked up by faithfully following the DMG. It's not laziness that caused the problems I highlighted. Reading and rereading the DMG, following its advice, using table after table, doing lots of calculations, that was work. It was wasted work that got in the way of competent DMing until I had enough experience under my belt to learn to just blow it off, and even that only came with heavy use of a different system with different advice.

It was hardy wasted work, unless you labored under the misunderstanding that what works for one RPG will work for them all. It's only wasted work if you blindly tried to apply what you learn from RPG A to RPG B.

Besides, there's truth in the idea that you should master the rules before you break them. You were only ready to blow off what you had defined as useless after you went through the process of assimilating all of it. Another DM would have likely gone through the same process and ended up with a different set of detrimental habits, depending on his nature and the types of games he prefers to run.


The point is, systems can produce bad GMs. They also tend to do a terrible job encouraging good GMing practices. I'd say that every edition of D&D has bad DM advice, and outside of D&D there are only a few instances of bad advice, largely because it's been mostly replaced with having absolutely nothing at all.

Are you suggesting that 5e is lacking in DM advice? Have you read the 5e DMG? The whole thing is pretty much advice.


So what? There are a bunch of other skills that you can highlight, and you can at least avoid giving concrete advice that is actively detrimental. That not every single useful DMing skill can be supported by a DMG doesn't mean that they have no influence whatsoever. It doesn't mean that actively bad advice can't make bad DMs, at least until experience erodes the bad habits they would never have had in the first place if the advice wasn't there.

What's an example of some bad advice that a DMG may have given? Bear in mind that a given edition's DMG might have given DMing advice that is unsound when applied to another edition, but that's not the same thing.

[Knaight]

What's an example of some bad advice that a DMG may have given? Bear in mind that a given edition's DMG might have given DMing advice that is unsound when applied to another edition, but that's not the same thing.

I'm going to pick on 3.5 again here, because it has some egregious examples. The DMG II explicitly encouraging railroading stands out, but even in the DMG I there's what does and doesn't get attention. There's a whole lot about precise population levels, profession demographics, small details, and the like. It's the sort of thing that it is helpful to have a sense for, but it's far less important than any number of other things which didn't get included. There's nothing on setting up interesting conflicts between organizations, there's essentially nothing on tying in the discrete adventures the DMG pushes into a larger structure, so on and so forth. It directs the focus to the wrong place, even when using it for 3.5.

The 5e DMG is better, but it still directs way too much focus to things like mechanical encounter building, to the detriment of things like setting mood and tone.

[EggKookoo]

The 5e DMG is better, but it still directs way too much focus to things like mechanical encounter building, to the detriment of things like setting mood and tone.

But of course it does have some content regarding setting mood and tone. I do see that there's a much larger fraction spent on encounter building and magical items and similar mechanical aspects. I think I know why -- mood and tone are hard to explain in a universal way. Each DM is going to approach those kinds of things from different angles, and the DMG would be five times larger (at least) if it tried to encompass all of them. Further, unlike many other RPGs, D&D doesn't have a single setting to work from. Are you playing in FR? Greyhawk? Dragonlance? Some homebrewed setting? Depending on your answer, you'll have different tone and mood needs. I don't know if they've released any setting splatbooks yet (I suspect not), but it seems like those would be the places for that kind of information.

On top of that, if you're building a campaign that depends heavily on tone, and cross-faction conflict, and things along those lines, you're taking on a pretty advanced challenge. Beginning DMs are encouraged to stick to dungeon crawls until they gain the confidence to move onto more complex things. The DMG needs to consider DMs new to the game at least as much as it needs to consider the veterans -- moreso IMHO because the vets kind of know what they're doing and just need to understand the nuts & bolts, and also because it's important for the health of the game (as a product) for it to be attractive to new players.

I'm sorry to say I still don't quite agree that any DMG has created bad DMs. Focusing on one aspect over another or even leaving an aspect out isn't going to do this. I get your point about the 3e DMG II having something about encouraging railroading, but I don't have that particular book (just the 3.0 DMG from the 3.x editions), so it's hard for me to be convinced by that. I take you at your word, but I just would need to know exactly what it says to understand.

[D.U.P.A.]

The impression I had was they wound up at about the same amount of overall time, but 3e combats only lasted a few, albeit very long, rounds, whereas 4e combats had more but shorter rounds.

I do recall the last 3.5 game I played, it took me the other players' and all the NPC rounds to calculate my raging power attack smites' damage. And I distinctly recall one fight where it took nearly an hour for a round to pass.

I really hate long rounds. If I am not quickly enough on your turn, I quickly get bored, which breaks immersion and forget why is going on. If there are more shorter rounds at least you are more involved in action.

[Waazraath]

I'm going to pick on 3.5 again here, because it has some egregious examples. The DMG II explicitly encouraging railroading stands out, but even in the DMG I there's what does and doesn't get attention.

Just curious: where?

[KorvinStarmast]

I really hate long rounds. If I am not quickly enough on your turn, I quickly get bored, which breaks immersion and forget why is going on. If there are more shorter rounds at least you are more involved in action. Yes, and the action moves forward at a better pace for all involved.

[Knaight]

Just curious: where?

I don't have a page number, but it's in a section comparing the pros and cons of a long campaign format and a series of short adventures, listed as a pro for short adventures.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

As far as Mother May I is concerned, I haven't actually seen anyone respond to my idea that it's bad for the DM, and not just the players. With D&D, I don't want to play game designer, or worse have to judge what the rules should be and make them up whole cloth, on the spot, every single time. I'm busy doing important DM things. If I'm going to DM a rules-medium game, I want rules-medium tools to help me, even if they're just alternate rules that I tweak. In most of 5e, I do get these tools... and then there's rules like stealth that would be welcome in an actual free form game.

It's inconsistent and frustrating for both parties. Again, if I wanted every major decision to be decided by fiat, I'd play a free form game. I'm not playing that.

[zinycor]

What is the problem with the sneak rules? I haven't run into any problems on my campaign regarding that, but maybe I just haven't realized...

[EggKookoo]

I don't have a page number, but it's in a section comparing the pros and cons of a long campaign format and a series of short adventures, listed as a pro for short adventures.

Given the right context, it might be. Railroading isn't bad per se. You just need to make sure your players don't perceive that they're being railroaded.

I view railroading like sleight-of-hand. You know the magician pocketed the playing card, but the fun is in not being able to see him do it. You enjoy his skill in manipulating you.

I guess "railroading" is really shorthand for "obvious railroading" but I think the overall concept gets a bum rap.


As far as Mother May I is concerned, I haven't actually seen anyone respond to my idea that it's bad for the DM, and not just the players. With D&D, I don't want to play game designer, or worse have to judge what the rules should be and make them up whole cloth, on the spot, every single time.

The problem is that a RPG like D&D isn't a board game. It's basically a world-simulator. There's no way for the core rules to cover every possible contingency or outcome. Sooner or later, as DM, you're going to have to fill in the gaps. Personally, I like the core rules to be simple and broad, so when the time comes for me to fill in gaps I can take some basic, simple principles and extrapolate them out to make an ad hoc ruling. I've found it's easier to make a ruling that fits with a looser core ruleset than it is to make a ruling fit with a very complex, intricate ruleset.

As for "every single time," really, you shouldn't be running into that. Once you make a ruling on something, you just reuse it later. That becomes part of your houserules. Maybe write it down. When you first get into a new system, say like 5e, you may find yourself conjuring up houserules a lot at first, but it will slow down once the gaps have all been bridged.

I'm sorry if this is a bias, but personally I don't think you can be a good DM (or GM in general) if you don't embrace a bit of game design. It's like being a painter who only wants to duplicate existing paintings, or something. You could be very good at it but you're not embracing the medium and getting everything out of it you could be.

There's no shame in not being passionate about DMing.

[georgie_leech]

Given the right context, it might be. Railroading isn't bad per se. You just need to make sure your players don't perceive that they're being railroaded.

I view railroading like sleight-of-hand. You know the magician pocketed the playing card, but the fun is in not being able to see him do it. You enjoy his skill in manipulating you.

I guess "railroading" is really shorthand for "obvious railroading" but I think the overall concept gets a bum rap.


There's nothing wrong with wanting the occasional Ye Olde Dungeone Crawle and not having to worry about your players turning around and setting sail for the other side of the world because why not.

[EggKookoo]

What is the problem with the sneak rules? I haven't run into any problems on my campaign regarding that, but maybe I just haven't realized...

The 5e stealth rules are shockingly simple, especially compared to previous editions. It boils down to "you can be hide when no one sees you, and no one can see you when you're hiding."

For people used to PF and 3.x, this is as good as saying there are no stealth rules in 5e.


There's nothing wrong with wanting the occasional Ye Olde Dungeone Crawle and not having to worry about your players turning around and setting sail for the other side of the world because why not.

I began my current campaign with the party in the middle of combat. No explanation for how they got there (that did come later). They were all at about 2/3 health. As soon as they had a chance to do something, the guy they were fighting turned and ran. Without missing a beat, the players all took off after him, which I knew they would do because they had no idea what was going on and they (correctly) assumed that dude had some answers.

After they caught up with him and questioned him, they acted on all the clues and hints he dropped. Completely railroaded, yet they felt like it was entirely their own doing. They're loving it.

[Waazraath]

I don't have a page number, but it's in a section comparing the pros and cons of a long campaign format and a series of short adventures, listed as a pro for short adventures.

I'm not sure if I'm looking at the place you're refering too, but at page 74-75 there is a text on 'campaign structure', that talks about 'episodic campaigns' and 'continuity campaigns'. In no way to I read there something that is 'explicitly encouraging railroading'. The sentence that resembles this the most is probably "Short, disconnected adventures offer fewer opportunities for players to hit you with plot curveballs you're not ready to handle". It doesn't say this is wrong (let alone that the DM should railroad). For the rest, it stretches that there are different players with different tastes, and that for some players one campaign structure is more fit than the other. As for DM's, since the 'continuity campaign' asks more improvisation ability from DM's, which not everybody has.

Actually, it seems like quite a good piece, stressing that there is no 'badwrongfun', but giving opportunities for different styles of play, and encouraging the DM to take into account everybodies preference.

But maybe I'm looking in the wrong place?

[Knaight]

The problem is that a RPG like D&D isn't a board game. It's basically a world-simulator. There's no way for the core rules to cover every possible contingency or outcome. Sooner or later, as DM, you're going to have to fill in the gaps. Personally, I like the core rules to be simple and broad, so when the time comes for me to fill in gaps I can take some basic, simple principles and extrapolate them out to make an ad hoc ruling. I've found it's easier to make a ruling that fits with a looser core ruleset than it is to make a ruling fit with a very complex, intricate ruleset.
I'd agree with this, but there's a difference between rewriting existing systems and applying broad rules. As an example of the latter, consider attribute checks and the advantage/disadvantage system. Those require DM adjudication in choosing which attribute is applicable and whether the circumstances warrant an advantage or disadvantage, but the mechanical backbone is there and can be applied really broadly. Getting 5e to support a low magic setting is more of a rewriting problem (and one probably solved best just by picking a better suited system).


I'm not sure if I'm looking at the place you're refering too, but at page 74-75 there is a text on 'campaign structure', that talks about 'episodic campaigns' and 'continuity campaigns'. In no way to I read there something that is 'explicitly encouraging railroading'. The sentence that resembles this the most is probably "Short, disconnected adventures offer fewer opportunities for players to hit you with plot curveballs you're not ready to handle". It doesn't say this is wrong (let alone that the DM should railroad). For the rest, it stretches that there are different players with different tastes, and that for some players one campaign structure is more fit than the other. As for DM's, since the 'continuity campaign' asks more improvisation ability from DM's, which not everybody has.

Or in other words, "Short, disconnected adventures make it easier for the DM to have a stranglehold on the adventure without the players getting their grubby little hands on what happens". I'll admit some degree of bias here - I'm someone for whom improvisation is a DMing strength - but that bit of advice reads like a mandate to railroad to me.

[EggKookoo]

Or in other words, "Short, disconnected adventures make it easier for the DM to have a stranglehold on the adventure without the players getting their grubby little hands on what happens". I'll admit some degree of bias here - I'm someone for whom improvisation is a DMing strength - but that bit of advice reads like a mandate to railroad to me.

Out of curiosity, are you a DM?

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

The problem is that a RPG like D&D isn't a board game. It's basically a world-simulator.And here I thought an RPG was a toolbox to make interesting collaborative stories and determine conflicts in a game-like fashion (often with a random element).
There's no way for the core rules to cover every possible contingency or outcome. Sooner or later, as DM, you're going to have to fill in the gaps.Irrelevant, because you can create adequate rules for stealth that fit with the rest of the rule set.
Personally, I like the core rules to be simple and broad, so when the time comes for me to fill in gaps I can take some basic, simple principles and extrapolate them out to make an ad hoc ruling. I've found it's easier to make a ruling that fits with a looser core ruleset than it is to make a ruling fit with a very complex, intricate ruleset.When I want to do that, I play Dungeon World. Because Dungeon World is a much better set of "basic, simple principles" upon which one can build, and it's entirely in keeping with the D&D feel. 5e's strength is in part that it's crunchy enough.
As for "every single time," really, you shouldn't be running into that.Every single time new circumstances arise, which is often. And yes, you end up eventually bridging all these gaps and document a long list of house rules through trial and error, which is exactly what a professional game designer who wants me to buy their product could be doing.
I'm sorry if this is a bias, but personally I don't think you can be a good DM (or GM in general) if you don't embrace a bit of game design. It's like being a painter who only wants to duplicate existing paintings, or something. You could be very good at it but you're not embracing the medium and getting everything out of it you could be.

There's no shame in not being passionate about DMing.Let's make your completely-incorrect metaphor work. A DM who doesn't do his own game design is like a painter who doesn't make his own canvasses and brushes. Sometimes you want a bunch of weird supplies and are willing to lug them around (rules heavy). Sometimes you want to finger paint (free form). But sometimes you want a regular set of brushes, WotC either forgets or chooses not to deliver one of them, and then when you complain someone condescends "You don't just make your own? You can't be a good painter if you don't make your own brushes and canvas. There's no shame in not being passionate about painting."

[EggKookoo]

And here I thought an RPG was a toolbox to make interesting collaborative stories and determine conflicts in a game-like fashion (often with a random element).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

You're only seeing part of the picture.


Irrelevant, because you can create adequate rules for stealth that fit with the rest of the rule set.

Not while keeping with 5e's "less is more" design philosophy. Stealth has so many subjective permutations you'd end up with some kind of sprawling modifier list. I admit I was also really surprised at the simplicity of 5e's stealth rules until I got more into how the overall system is intended to work. We're supposed to handle it realtime, as circumstances dictate, using common sense.

And really, it's not very hard. You can hide as long as no one sees you ducking into that shadow or whatever. If you're hidden, no one can attack you, basically because they don't know you're there. If you do something to draw attention to yourself, those around you are allowed to make rolls to see if they can determine your position. If they succeed, they know where you are and you are no longer hidden. Do we really need rules to govern that?


When I want to do that, I play Dungeon World. Because Dungeon World is a much better set of "basic, simple principles" upon which one can build, and it's entirely in keeping with the D&D feel. 5e's strength is in part that it's crunchy enough.

You have to do that with D&D, or any RPG that allows any real degree of player freedom. Sooner or later your players will do something that the rules don't cover. This is going to happen in any edition. When that happens, you'll have no choice but to come up with a ruling. A loose, flexible system is going to make that easier for you.


Every single time new circumstances arise, which is often. And yes, you end up eventually bridging all these gaps and document a long list of house rules through trial and error, which is exactly what a professional game designer who wants me to buy their product could be doing.

You seem to think there's one objective solution to each problem, and if WotC just figured it out, there would be no need for the DM to bridge gaps. If this is what you think, please think again.


Let's make your completely-incorrect metaphor work. A DM who doesn't do his own game design is like a painter who doesn't make his own canvasses and brushes. Sometimes you want a bunch of weird supplies and are willing to lug them around (rules heavy). Sometimes you want to finger paint (free form). But sometimes you want a regular set of brushes, WotC either forgets or chooses not to deliver one of them, and then when you complain someone condescends "You don't just make your own? You can't be a good painter if you don't make your own brushes and canvas. There's no shame in not being passionate about painting."

Oh boy, metaphor wars!

A DM who doesn't want to do at least a bit of game design is like a painter who doesn't want to experiment with painting to go somewhere that hasn't already been mapped out for him by earlier artists. I didn't say you had to invent the game from ground up (making your own brushes, etc.). But unless you explore and push your own limits and boundaries, you're just painting by numbers. Which is a fine pastime, but it doesn't give you the credibility to offer criticism of painting as an art form, especially compared to artists who are motivated to problem-solve.

See, I agree with you in some circumstances. White Wolf is notorious for "the GM makes up what happens" stuff. They'd create supernatural powers with descriptions that amount to "eh, whatever you want." That drives me nuts. Why create a "spell" only to skimp on describing what the spell does? It's not like we have a real-world analog to work from (unlike, say, being sneaky). But to my mind that's completely different from abstracting out something that you could figure out just by remembering when you used to play hide & seek as a kid.

[Waazraath]

Or in other words, "Short, disconnected adventures make it easier for the DM to have a stranglehold on the adventure without the players getting their grubby little hands on what happens". I'll admit some degree of bias here - I'm someone for whom improvisation is a DMing strength - but that bit of advice reads like a mandate to railroad to me.

While I agree that improvisation is an important DM skill, in no way do I read this as a mandate to railroading. They present the option of, instead of running a sandbox world (which I think is meant with the 'continuity campaign'), to drop the party off at the entrance of a dungeon every now and then, if this fits the style of players and DM. That's not railroading, that is a group of players (including the DM) deciding together that this is the way they want to run a campaign. In no way does this encourage railroading. What happens in the dungeon (to stay with this example), which rooms are entered, which NPC's are talked to or killed, how problems are solved: al up to the PC's. Again, imo it's a very strong point of DMG2 to explicitly give attention to players preferences and the DM's own ability, to see what type of adventures / campaigns fit the group.

I like sandbox campaigns, where PC's can wonder of in any direction they want to. That's how I build my own, usually. But especially at higher levels (in 3.5), it takes a helluvalot time to prepare good encounters, in which all players can use their abilities and for which challanges aren't outright deadly, or way too easy. To have players then teleport to the other end of the world 'to see what's happening there' can be bloody annoying; I had a to cancel a session once halfway: "ok guys, if you want to teleport there, you can do that, no sweat, but we'll continu next week because I really need some time to prepare it". Maybe my lacking improvisation skills, but definitely a minus point for the 'continuity approach'.

As a player, I've also played in campaigns that were heavily railroaded, but as long as it lead to fun and a good story, it never bothered me too much. 'Total player freedom' can be fun, but it's not the only way. It's no fun to play a Ravenloft campaign and then have the players not enter the gate to the lands of Ravenloft, no matter how highly I value player's choice.

[EggKookoo]

Let's make your completely-incorrect metaphor work. A DM who doesn't do his own game design is like a painter who doesn't make his own canvasses and brushes. Sometimes you want a bunch of weird supplies and are willing to lug them around (rules heavy). Sometimes you want to finger paint (free form). But sometimes you want a regular set of brushes, WotC either forgets or chooses not to deliver one of them, and then when you complain someone condescends "You don't just make your own? You can't be a good painter if you don't make your own brushes and canvas. There's no shame in not being passionate about painting."

Ok, a better way to work this painting metaphor came to me this morning. It's like the paints themselves.

Expert painters -- pros and serious hobbyists -- tend to mix their own paint colors. If you want a particular shade, it's unlikely you'll find a tube of pigment that matches exactly what you want. Mixing paints and creating your own palette is a skill that is generally considered part of the overall craft and art of painting.

Painters who only use paint straight from the tubes are considered amateurs, or at best inexperienced tinkerers. This is because no paint manufacturer will be able to create every shade that every painter would want for every painting. While they do often produce specialty colors, and perhaps a range of popular shades, it's understood that to truly get the colors you want, you have to roll your own.

This maps to DMing. If you want to "get the colors" you want, you need to develop the basic skill of "color mixing" (houseruling). Sure, you can just use the colors (rules) as provided by the manufacturer, but they know they're not going to be able to create a rule for every possible circumstance and it's understood that, at some point, you're going to have to create your own.

5e is better than previous editions at this (at least, better then 3e, PF, and I'm guessing 4e but I've never played it). It's better because it -- finally -- seems to understand this principle and takes it to heart. 3e et al tried to fill in the gaps as much as it could, which just adds complexity without necessarily providing depth. It creates the mentality among the players that the only good rule is a WotC rule. But WotC is no more up to the task of handling all the possible circumstances and player styles than a paint manufacturer is up to the task of creating paint in every possible shade of color.

This is why I say a DM who doesn't engage in even a little game theory is less than a DM who does. TSR understood that. It seems like WotC is finally catching on, too.

[EggKookoo]

As a player, I've also played in campaigns that were heavily railroaded, but as long as it lead to fun and a good story, it never bothered me too much. 'Total player freedom' can be fun, but it's not the only way. It's no fun to play a Ravenloft campaign and then have the players not enter the gate to the lands of Ravenloft, no matter how highly I value player's choice.

I don't mind being railroaded as long as I can't see the tracks. :smallbiggrin:

Bad railroad example:

Playing Call of Cthulhu, my investigator had skill points in Ride Carriage (keep in mind this is set in the 1920s, that's a perfectly reasonable skill to have). I forget what his skill value was but it's not really relevant. The Keeper (GM) had us all board a carriage, and at a certain point on the ride something killed the driver and spooked the horses, and the carriage took off like a rocket down a bumpy and dangerous road.

I enthusiastically exclaimed I had points in Ride Carriage (or Drive Carriage, or whatever it was called) and I said I was going to try to grab the reins and calm the horses. He wouldn't let me on the grounds that the skill wouldn't prepare me to handle spooked horses, which I said was preposterous. He flat out refused to let me roll, even with a penalty.

The spooked horses eventually took us to the lair of the villain, and it became clear he refused to let me make my roll simply because he had planned out us being delivered to the bad guy this way, and hadn't planned any contingencies for us avoiding that fate.

Another bad railroad example:

Also Call of Cthulhu. We were investigating a murder and the evidence pointed us to a particular farmer. At night, we snuck onto the farmer's property with the intent of checking out his tool shed in the hopes of finding the murder weapon or at least some evidence of such.

When we got there, the shed was locked, which was reasonable. But we were toolkit-carrying, hands-on investigator types, so I suggested we just unscrew the hinges on the door. The GM refused to let us, mainly because he knew there was evidence in the shed and he wasn't ready for us to get it yet (I think we figured out his villain's dastardly plan before the GM thought we would). Again, no letting us try with a penalty, or letting us try and then having the farmer (and no doubt his big hunting dog) hear us. Just, "nope, there are no hinges you can see" kind of response.

Same GM in both cases. We ended up ousting him.

[EvanescentHero]

-choo choo-

Sounds to me like this guy was simply not cut out for running the game. He didn't seem to know his players' abilities when designing his sessions, or simply wanted to dismiss them as inconveniences that could be worked around. Maybe he was just terrible at improv and didn't like being surprised by player ingenuity.

Though I don't understand what he thought was going to happen when you showed up at the shed. I can understand being surprised by you trying to take over the cart, but obviously your group would attempt to get into the tool shed.

Anyway, I love when my players surprise me. It tells me they're invested in the game: considering their options, thinking about their characters and their abilities, coming up with things I hadn't even considered. When planning out sessions, I don't bother trying to cover everything they might do; I cover what I think they will, but I'm not going to force those options upon them.

Being a DM is tough work. You have to consider your players' abilities to make sure they have options, and you have to be able to improvise when they use those options in unexpected ways. If a DM who is unable to improvise is presented with an unexpected outcome, the game is going to come to a screeching halt as he or she tries to figure out what to do next. Or, even worse, the DM will simply disallow it from happening.

Frankly, one of the best sessions I ever had was when I completely messed up my DM's plans for the session. Fortunately, it was a solo campaign, so no one else was there to get mad at me, and she was very good at improv, so after the laughter subsided, she didn't really miss a beat in continuing.

[EggKookoo]

Sounds to me like this guy was simply not cut out for running the game. He didn't seem to know his players' abilities when designing his sessions, or simply wanted to dismiss them as inconveniences that could be worked around. Maybe he was just terrible at improv and didn't like being surprised by player ingenuity.

He was notorious. I think he was certainly the type who though he was telling a story and didn't want to consider that the players also tell the story. He wanted us to basically be his audience except for certain specific points where we'd get to make decisions.


Though I don't understand what he thought was going to happen when you showed up at the shed. I can understand being surprised by you trying to take over the cart, but obviously your group would attempt to get into the tool shed.

I think he thought "locked tool shed" would be enough to deter us, so we'd go confront the farmer or something. In all honesty I forget how we proceeded from there; I lost a lot of interest when it became clear he was trying to lead us around by the nose. I'm sure we ended up doing what he wanted but I kinda phoned it in from that point on.

IIRC we had one more CoC episode with him doing something like this, after which we (the players) got together and unanimously decided that we didn't want him running the game any more. We switched over to one of the guys who was GMing previously and fun resumed. The bad GM was invited to play but he declined.


Anyway, I love when my players surprise me. It tells me they're invested in the game: considering their options, thinking about their characters and their abilities, coming up with things I hadn't even considered. When planning out sessions, I don't bother trying to cover everything they might do; I cover what I think they will, but I'm not going to force those options upon them.

Same. I've even considered rewarding them for doing it, although that's a slippery slope.


Frankly, one of the best sessions I ever had was when I completely messed up my DM's plans for the session. Fortunately, it was a solo campaign, so no one else was there to get mad at me, and she was very good at improv, so after the laughter subsided, she didn't really miss a beat in continuing.

Last session, I had a mini-boss and his gang go after the PCs. My plan was for the mini-boss to flee once the PCs had defeated half of his minions, only to return later in the campaign with tougher allies.

The PCs killed him in the first round. Combination of focus fire and me misjudging how tough the mini-boss was (or wasn't, in this case). I congratulated my players on completely messing up my plans, and after the session ended, went back to the drawing board to account for the dead NPC. I honestly think it improved the game, but we'll find out in a few sessions when it comes to fruition.

[EvanescentHero]

Same. I've even considered rewarding them for doing it, although that's a slippery slope.

What sort of reward? I guess inspiration is a good starting point, since that's supposed to be given for good RPing and such.


Last session, I had a mini-boss and his gang go after the PCs. My plan was for the mini-boss to flee once the PCs had defeated half of his minions, only to return later in the campaign with tougher allies.

The PCs killed him in the first round. Combination of focus fire and me misjudging how tough the mini-boss was (or wasn't, in this case). I congratulated my players on completely messing up my plans, and after the session ended, went back to the drawing board to account for the dead NPC. I honestly think it improved the game, but we'll find out in a few sessions when it comes to fruition.

Heh, sounds like fun.

In my example, we were scaling a mountain to check out this thief's hideout. My character was from the desert and had never set foot outside of it before the campaign. The DM's character failed a skill check and rolled back down a good section of the mountain. My character, having no idea of the dangers of snow and avalanches, yelled back down to ask if she was okay, which...well, you see where that went.

Basically this ended up forcing her to make a new part of the world and history for it, because the avalanche carried us somewhere completely new to us. Then our characters had to survive and find a way back to civilization. It was a lot of fun.

[mephnick]

Last session, I had a mini-boss and his gang go after the PCs. My plan was for the mini-boss to flee once the PCs had defeated half of his minions, only to return later in the campaign with tougher allies.

The PCs killed him in the first round. Combination of focus fire and me misjudging how tough the mini-boss was (or wasn't, in this case). I congratulated my players on completely messing up my plans, and after the session ended, went back to the drawing board to account for the dead NPC. I honestly think it improved the game, but we'll find out in a few sessions when it comes to fruition.

Exact same thing happened to me. The "mid-boss" of the campaign came to town and held a public execution. The PC's planned an escape perfectly and actually assassinated the guy at the same time..about 20 minutes into his existence. He had a demon familiar that he used as a mount who could change into human form and was hidden in the crowd. After the session I immediately changed focus to the familiar as the new "mid-boss" and she became a much better character than the first guy ever would have been, eventually completely outshining the BBEG. Made the campaign waaaayyy more interesting. Now I never plan narratives because going with the flow almost always leads to better results.

[silverkyo]

Exact same thing happened to me. The "mid-boss" of the campaign came to town and held a public execution. The PC's planned an escape perfectly and actually assassinated the guy at the same time..about 20 minutes into his existence. He had a demon familiar that he used as a mount who could change into human form and was hidden in the crowd. After the session I immediately changed focus to the familiar as the new "mid-boss" and she became a much better character than the first guy ever would have been, eventually completely outshining the BBEG. Made the campaign waaaayyy more interesting. Now I never plan narratives because going with the flow almost always leads to better results.

As a rule I've found when building campaigns to never plan out full story points one after the other, because I learned the hard way that it makes it much more difficult to react when the PC's deviate from or break those plans, which they always do. It's much better to define the characters personalities with goals and flaws, give them a rough plan of how they want to achieve that goal, and then release them into the world. That way, when the plans get derailed by the PC's I just have to revisit their personality and goals and figure how they move forward from there.

It's much easier to run D&D with only a vague end-goal in mind and no set in stone path to get there because players will always break that stone path, every time. And that's what makes D&D so much fun, the journey of how players and NPC's try to reach some goal. I feel this is where 5e shines the most, because it allows me to be very fluid with how I respond to things that happen in the encounters. I get to be less concerned with if someone can mechanically do something and more get to focus on how they might achieve a goal.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fLrpBLDWyCI

You're only seeing part of the picture.Keep patting yourself on the back there, Yoda. Some people just don't have the passion to form an actual argument, and that's okay.
Not while keeping with 5e's "less is more" design philosophy. Stealth has so many subjective permutations you'd end up with some kind of sprawling modifier list. I admit I was also really surprised at the simplicity of 5e's stealth rules until I got more into how the overall system is intended to work. We're supposed to handle it realtime, as circumstances dictate, using common sense.

And really, it's not very hard. You can hide as long as no one sees you ducking into that shadow or whatever. If you're hidden, no one can attack you, basically because they don't know you're there. If you do something to draw attention to yourself, those around you are allowed to make rolls to see if they can determine your position. If they succeed, they know where you are and you are no longer hidden. Do we really need rules to govern that?Given that I care about being fair and consistent with my players, it's important that I'm not arbitrarily just fiating that someone either saw the player or not (and hence they're even capable of making a check). And it's important that doing "something to draw attention to yourself" is consistent. And it's important to know when to dole out advantage or disadvantage, consistently, to situations that merit such a big reward or penalty. Having a baseline, even as optional rules, would have been helpful. Honestly, 3e's main stealth problem was that it was too easy to break skill checks; since 5e already fixed that they could have easily ported in something similar to that system. But nope, either the DM thinks you get to roll, or he doesn't.

All stealth rules (all rules) will eventually run into holes where the DM has to adjudicate. That's fine. But my complaint, as it has been all along, is that there are not even basic rules to fall back on, like in the rest of the system. This false dichotomy is tiresome; the options aren't just "cover every possible situation" or "no rules." There's a middle ground that 5e manages to achieve almost everywhere else, where they provide basic rules that will cover most situations and leave the DM to cover the rest. Yes, there will be corner cases and points of judgment, just like in any other part of the game; no one is asking for them to eliminate that entirely. But there are no tools at all for stealth, just a shrug of the shoulders because stealth is apparently too complicated to make basic rules for (hint: it's not). All of the baseline must be re-invented by each individual DM, which is a waste of time for everyone who doesn't make it a hobby to feel superior about putting in extraneous work.
You have to do that with D&D, or any RPG that allows any real degree of player freedom. Sooner or later your players will do something that the rules don't cover. This is going to happen in any edition. When that happens, you'll have no choice but to come up with a ruling. A loose, flexible system is going to make that easier for you.Nope. A loose, flexible system just makes it happen more often. If you have a reasonable group playing a crunchy system, and the players do something that the rules might cover but you're not sure, you can still make a spot ruling. Again, as long as there's trust between the players and the DM, and the ruling is in good faith (i.e. the DM earns the trust) then there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe the player points out the discrepancy afterward and the rule changes, or there's a houserule. But that's it. The game grinding to a halt because of a rules lawyer is in the same example-territory as playing with a tyrant DM who can only be reined in by rules-based browbeating.

Now, some people find that all those rules create a steep learning curve, that it's annoying to remember everything, that it's harder to balance, that it gets in the way of the story and the RP, etc. That's fine. There are good reasons to play rules-lite games. But the existence of a rule doesn't stop you from house ruling.
You seem to think there's one objective solution to each problem, and if WotC just figured it out, there would be no need for the DM to bridge gaps. If this is what you think, please think again.I'm glad you added the "If" qualifier there, because however it seems, only your straw man actually thinks this.

I do, however, think that WotC could have covered the majority of cases in a paragraph and let me deal with the rest.
Oh boy, metaphor wars!*snip*Eh, I'm done with the metaphors, including the other post. Let's be direct so we don't dance around anything. The rules system provides structure (and inspiration, when done well) to the game; the actual human beings provide the substance. To tweak the system is not a necessary or sufficient requirement to providing good DMing to a game.

Spot rulings are necessary to fill in the gaps, and certainly there are diminishing returns to trying to have a rule for every possible permutation (hello, GURPS), but holes in the rules don't have their own value. Having to fill in your own content for an incomplete ruleset isn't a badge of honor, nor a serious way to look down on other parts of the RPG community.

[EggKookoo]

Keep patting yourself on the back there, Yoda. Some people just don't have the passion to form an actual argument, and that's okay.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j7ftfRiWlg


Given that I care about being fair and consistent with my players, it's important that I'm not arbitrarily just fiating that someone either saw the player or not (and hence they're even capable of making a check). And it's important that doing "something to draw attention to yourself" is consistent.

And you need rules to keep your decisions consistent? How about, oh, I don't know... just making consistent decisions?


And it's important to know when to dole out advantage or disadvantage, consistently, to situations that merit such a big reward or penalty. Having a baseline, even as optional rules, would have been helpful.

The DMG is full of examples. You can build your own baseline, based on your own life experiences and guided by the intended tone of your campaign. Again, this is not terribly difficult.


Honestly, 3e's main stealth problem was that it was too easy to break skill checks; since 5e already fixed that they could have easily ported in something similar to that system. But nope, either the DM thinks you get to roll, or he doesn't.

Right. Nice and simple, but there is wiggle room. The DM could look at the circumstances and assign a bonus or penalty, or advantage or disadvantage. Yes, that means he'd have to press the starter switch on his brain and actually think.

I don't like personal attacks and please don't take this as directed specifically at you (I just happen to be discussing it with you), but I find it hilarious that your argument boils down to "don't make me use my own brain!"


All stealth rules (all rules) will eventually run into holes where the DM has to adjudicate. That's fine. But my complaint, as it has been all along, is that there are not even basic rules to fall back on, like in the rest of the system. This false dichotomy is tiresome; the options aren't just "cover every possible situation" or "no rules." There's a middle ground that 5e manages to achieve almost everywhere else, where they provide basic rules that will cover most situations and leave the DM to cover the rest. Yes, there will be corner cases and points of judgment, just like in any other part of the game; no one is asking for them to eliminate that entirely. But there are no tools at all for stealth, just a shrug of the shoulders because stealth is apparently too complicated to make basic rules for (hint: it's not).

PHB, p177.


All of the baseline must be re-invented by each individual DM, which is a waste of time for everyone who doesn't make it a hobby to feel superior about putting in extraneous work.

I'm not sure, but I believe it's remotely possible you're taking a dig at me, my good man!


Nope. A loose, flexible system just makes it happen more often.

Not for me. 3e was such a mess that I ended up rewriting half of it before I gave up and moved to 5e.


If you have a reasonable group playing a crunchy system, and the players do something that the rules might cover but you're not sure, you can still make a spot ruling. Again, as long as there's trust between the players and the DM, and the ruling is in good faith (i.e. the DM earns the trust) then there shouldn't be a problem. Maybe the player points out the discrepancy afterward and the rule changes, or there's a houserule. But that's it. The game grinding to a halt because of a rules lawyer is in the same example-territory as playing with a tyrant DM who can only be reined in by rules-based browbeating.

Perhaps, but 3e is rules-lawyer heaven. As a DM, I don't want to have to memorize all that stuff, especially if I can come up with a houserule on the fly that makes as much sense. I mean, why bother?


Now, some people find that all those rules create a steep learning curve, that it's annoying to remember everything, that it's harder to balance, that it gets in the way of the story and the RP, etc. That's fine. There are good reasons to play rules-lite games. But the existence of a rule doesn't stop you from house ruling.

Wait, can you read my mind?


I'm glad you added the "If" qualifier there, because however it seems, only your straw man actually thinks this.

He's hanging out with your subconscious.


I do, however, think that WotC could have covered the majority of cases in a paragraph and let me deal with the rest.

They devote at least four of your Earth paragraphs to stealth. You should suddenly become 4x less grouchy about it.


Eh, I'm done with the metaphors, including the other post. Let's be direct so we don't dance around anything. The rules system provides structure (and inspiration, when done well) to the game; the actual human beings provide the substance. To tweak the system is not a necessary or sufficient requirement to providing good DMing to a game.

Agreed, tweaking isn't a requirement. Being willing and able to tweak it is a requirement for being a good DM. Tweaking it with vision and passion is a requirement for being a great DM. Everything else is paint by numbers (oops, sorry, slipped back to that pesky metaphor).


Spot rulings are necessary to fill in the gaps, and certainly there are diminishing returns to trying to have a rule for every possible permutation (hello, GURPS), but holes in the rules don't have their own value. Having to fill in your own content for an incomplete ruleset isn't a badge of honor, nor a serious way to look down on other parts of the RPG community.

I know, I'm an arrogant jerk. It's amazing I can live with myself. No no, don't worry, I'll manage to survive... Somehow...

[EggKookoo]

As a rule I've found when building campaigns to never plan out full story points one after the other, because I learned the hard way that it makes it much more difficult to react when the PC's deviate from or break those plans, which they always do. It's much better to define the characters personalities with goals and flaws, give them a rough plan of how they want to achieve that goal, and then release them into the world. That way, when the plans get derailed by the PC's I just have to revisit their personality and goals and figure how they move forward from there.

In my current campaign, I have a bunch of plot hooks that the PCs could get, well, hooked into. I also have an overarching story. If they choose to follow a hook, great, it's a little adventure in and of itself. But then I also drop pointers and bits that pertain to the overarching story. I drop those bits in regardless of which hooks they take, so they have the freedom to choose their own path but I'm also kind of steering them along the main story.


It's much easier to run D&D with only a vague end-goal in mind and no set in stone path to get there because players will always break that stone path, every time. And that's what makes D&D so much fun, the journey of how players and NPC's try to reach some goal. I feel this is where 5e shines the most, because it allows me to be very fluid with how I respond to things that happen in the encounters. I get to be less concerned with if someone can mechanically do something and more get to focus on how they might achieve a goal.

If I have an end goal ("level up and take out the lich boss in that underground keep") I try to make sure the players learn about it as soon as possible, so they can make their decisions with that end goal in mind. It helps keep them in line with that end goal but also lets them take control of how they get there.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5j7ftfRiWlg
[description of how an RPG works]
[Link to Yoda saying "That is why you fail"Great joke.
And you need rules to keep your decisions consistent? How about, oh, I don't know... just making consistent decisions?This, among other things, is why I'm starting to doubt you actually make consistent rulings; maybe your players just don't call you out on it.
The DMG is full of examples.Gonna have to ask you to quote the page number.
You can build your own baseline, based on your own life experiences and guided by the intended tone of your campaign. Again, this is not terribly difficult.It's also not terribly difficult to run a free form game, and yet people don't do it because they want structure and consistent expectations.
Right. Nice and simple, but there is wiggle room. The DM could look at the circumstances and assign a bonus or penalty, or advantage or disadvantage. Yes, that means he'd have to press the starter switch on his brain and actually think.

I don't like personal attacks and please don't take this as directed specifically at you (I just happen to be discussing it with you), but I find it hilarious that your argument boils down to "don't make me use my own brain!"Silly me, valuing my time, since I could be using my brain to do something like help craft the story.
PHB, p177.Yes, that is the location of the stealth/hiding passages. Here's the extensive section on when you can hide:
You can't hide from a creature that can see you.
[...]
One of the main factors in determining whether you can find a hidden creature or object is how well you can see in an area, which might be lightly or heavily obscured, as explained in chapter 8.Yup, answers all questions and perfectly sets expectations. Lots of good stuff on when to apply advantage/disadvantage.
Perhaps, but 3e is rules-lawyer heaven. As a DM, I don't want to have to memorize all that stuff, especially if I can come up with a houserule on the fly that makes as much sense. I mean, why bother?I seem to remember an argument brought up by Pex of how much a loose system is a haven for tyrannical DMs. Funny how things change. It does seem to me that empowering one group or another will let the bad ones in that group act worse, either way.
Wait, can you read my mind?Serious suggestion: Try Dungeon World. No blue text, no snark. Try it out.
He's hanging out with your subconscious.Okay, Dr. Freud. Do you have any evidence or are you just more confident in that armchair that my repeated desire for a basic framework is actually a call for ye olde set of tables?
They devote at least four of your Earth paragraphs to stealth. You should suddenly become 4x less grouchy about it.And like I pointed out, they devote one sentence (and then repeat it, and then refer to obscurity rules) to when you can actually hide. Read literally, it's complete crap (although quite clear, to be fair; there is no such thing as visual stealth, since you can only attempt to hide when you are effectively invisible), so you're pretty much forced to invent rules on what counts as sufficient conditions to hide based on your own judgement/whims - and again, I could just play free form or Dungeon World (which, hilariously enough, is clearer) if that's what I wanted.

To re-iterate my original point: As the DM, I can do what I want, when I want. If I'm going to buy a system, I want it to give me well-structured (not necessarily super crunchy!) tools to help me do what I want. I'm not paying money to have someone else tell me to make my own game system. Maybe I end up changing some of the system, but it's easier to modify and refine than it is to create.
Agreed, tweaking isn't a requirement. Being willing and able to tweak it is a requirement for being a good DM. Tweaking it with vision and passion is a requirement for being a great DM. Everything else is paint by numbers (oops, sorry, slipped back to that pesky metaphor).The difference here is between willingness and desire. If the situation arises, and there is a hole in the rules, you have to patch it up quickly and keep the game flowing. Sure. But as far as the system goes, that's a bug, not a feature.
I know, I'm an arrogant jerk. It's amazing I can live with myself. No no, don't worry, I'll manage to survive... Somehow...Would you at least admit to some level of elitism here? If someone isn't willing to devote the spare time into game design that you are, even if they're really good at improv/motivating characters/setting up story arcs/creating tension, they're somehow a bad DM. That's elitism right there.

[EggKookoo]

Ok, sure, you can have the last word on the stealth stuff. If I haven't made my point by now I doubt it's going to get any pointier.

Although I will respond to that bit about making consistent rulings. I play with three other GMs who are most certainly not shy about calling me out on bull**** (as I am not with them). We all play in each others' games, so we know how the other side plays and GMs. I've made ruling mistakes, certainly, but I'd know if I was all over the place.


Would you at least admit to some level of elitism here? If someone isn't willing to devote the spare time into game design that you are, even if they're really good at improv/motivating characters/setting up story arcs/creating tension, they're somehow a bad DM. That's elitism right there.

I have an opinion. I said, back when I first brought it up, that it's biased. I believe I even preemptively apologized for the bias. I don't apologize for having a bias, only that I was about to trot it out in a public forum. You then felt the need to tell me my bias was wrong. Maybe I should apologize again for telling you why I'm entitled to it (as we all are).

Although I do feel like I'm explaining things to children sometimes, so maybe that's elitism. There are worse things to be accused of.

[DemonSlayer6]

5e is way simpler, in my opinion. While both use the "1d20+mod" combat mechanics, there are less mods to keep track of in 5e. For example, my Bard in Pathfinder (3.XX) has these factored to an attack with a rapier:

Base Attack Bonus, dependent upon level of each class.
Strength modifier, because it's a melee attack.
Dexterity modifier, because I have the "Weapon Finesse" feat that lets me choose.
"Weapon Focus" feat, which requires BAB +1 to gain and gives a bonus when using that weapon.
Magic Weapon bonus.


My Bard in 5e, meanwhile, factors:

Proficiency bonus, dependent upon whole character level.
Strength or Dexterity since Rapiers are "finesse weapons", so you choose which you want to use.
Magic weapon bonus, if applicable.


If a weapon has an ability or feature, then anyone can use that feature or ability.

As well, combat tactics are moderately reduced in their availability while also proving pretty powerful. Grappling is the only "battle maneuver" a character can take without having "Superiority dice" (gained only by a feat, or by Fighters who take the Battle Master path). And it's a simple "Athletics skill check to hold" versus "Acrobatics or Athletics skill check to escape". Instead of 3.X's "CMB vs CMD" mechanic.

Getting downed is also easier to handle: there's no negative HP in 5e, and you need to make three Death Save successes to stabilize. Further, this is a solid DC: if an attack didn't outright kill (which happens when an attack would reduce you to your max HP below zero) then you are knocked unconscious and have to make only DC 10 death saves until you either die or stabilize. This is in direct contrast to Pathfinder where there's a max amount of negative health (specifically your Con mod) and that the difficulty of the saving throw is increased with an increase in negative health.

So a character with Constitution 20 gets to -19 HP. The effective DC is 10+19=29. Con 20 gives a mod of +5, so the player still needs to roll a 24 on a 20-sided die or else the character will die.

Critical hits are easier as well: if the roll is a critical hit, then it is automatically a critical hit. Unlike in 3.X where you have to confirm critical hits. And unless you are a specific path of a specific class in 5e, then you will only crit on a natural 20.

-----

Although the best thing is that in 5e, every character can do something. In Pathfinder, my Bard has 4 spells per day that can affect battle. The most effective? "Cure Light Wounds". I spend combat alternating between being a mediocre ranged character and being a mediocre melee character most of the time. Cantrips, and most spells, are of low effect or influence. In fact, if I had known how ineffective the spells would be I would have become a focused ranged character with helpful spells.

In 5e, so long as I am not gagged I can still do 1d4 Psychic damage to someone every round of combat because of the cantrip "Vicious Mockery". Hell, I used this outside of combat to great effect by decreasing the cultists' morale.

In short, 5e is a lot simpler and easier to manage than 3.XX (whether 3.0 or 3.5 or Pathfinder or whatever).