What can you tell me about D&D 5e?

[Drakeburn]

Quite lately, I couldn't help but to notice how people feel about Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. A lot are enthusiastic about it, some are skeptical.

And I have taken a peek at the D&D Basic Rules online, and I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition looks pretty promising compared to 4th edition, I'll admit. D&D 4e is okay in my opinion, since I was a video gamer before I converted to tabletop RPGs, but I'm well aware of its weaknesses as well as its strengths.

I've looked at a couple of reviews on Youtube, and now I'm turning to the Giant In The Playground forum for thoughts on the system, and is it worth getting into? :smallconfused:

[AvatarVecna]

In 3.5, there were several dozen classes, hundreds of prestige classes, thousands of feats, and thousands of spells. With how many combinations there are, and the incredibly legalistic way the rules could be read, a game's overall power/versatility levels could range all over the scale...although it could also make character creation drag on quite a bit. Magic was ridiculously superior to non-magic unless there was very limited magic, and even then could shine brighter. With so many magic items available to choose from, you could mix and match for ultimate optimization combos, or even create your own custom magic items.

In 4e, all classes were balanced against each other using a universal level progression system. The fluff of the higher level options made them out to be very high power level, but ultimately the game's optimization was limited to high numbers, and those generally had a hard cap. Nothing was ever particularly overpowered or underpowered for its level, although the number of options available could be almost paralyzing at times. One really great thing about 4e is that it completely revolutionized encounter design, simplifying things by an order of magnitude for the DM.

5e, above all else, is simple in its design. Character creation is as thus: choose a race (and if available, a subrace) from the 15 (sub)races available, choose a class (and if high enough level, a sub-class) from the 12 classes available (most have 2 or 3 sub-classes, but some have as many as 8), choose trained skills (2 for most classes, 3-4 for some), and choose a background (from the 13 available). You now have a mostly-complete character. Use the basic equipment suggestions, make some class-specific choices (not that hard) and maybe pick some spells, and you're done.

In 5e, RAW is less important than RAI, which is less important than RAF (Rules as Fun); in 5e, not all options are immediately available, but virtually everything can be an optional rule your group uses, including feats. Speaking of feats, there's a couple dozen of them in the PH, and they'e balanced against the Ability Score increases. Virtually all of them are of interest to some character. Tons of tons of options granting tiny bonuses that could be stacked together have been replaced with an almost universal advantage/disadvantage system (roll 2d20, take the best/worst, respectively); what options are left that offer bonuses generally offer bonus dice instead, making things easier to keep track of. Most importantly of all, rather than setting hard rules for some things that are hard to define by rules, they leave a lot of things up to the individual DM to decide. The big place where this comes into effect is the hiding rules: it's now basically "DM decides if the situation warrants you making a Stealth check; if yes, make a Stealth check". There's a lot of questionable areas of the rules where it's assumed that a DM will step in and make a ruling one way or another. All classes are relevant at all levels, although some options are more optimal than others. Even then, though, it's not to the same ridiculous degree it could reach in 3.5 because magic is far harder to nova with in this edition...and there's a lot less of it available. Magic items are much rarer, but are cooler and more valuable by the laws of supply and demand.

If you're wanting more versatility, both in character capabilities and overall gameplay...if you prefer your characters to go to the beach decked in magic items from head to toe...if you want characters capable of going toe to toe with deities at the highest levels without trouble...than 5e might not be for you. If you're fine with a game where the theoretically impossible becomes merely improbable by 5th level for the more capable practitioners...if you're fine with a game where killing Tiamat with 20th level characters has to be croudsourced (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?379445-Tiamat-unbeatable-by-a-standard-4-person-party)...if you're fine with a game where the worst you can be is Aragorn...then 5e might be for you.

[Ninja_Prawn]

I agree with Avatar Vecna. 5e is all about simple, clear rules and letting the DM do their job.

PCs aren't indestructible, wizards aren't gods, and the game 'feels' like D&D again.

In my opinion, it combines the best parts of all the previous editions. I'm not saying it's perfect, but there's nothing else I'd rather play right now.

[woodlandkammao]

Pretty good summary, basically 5e takes 3.5 rules, simplifies it, and adds 'bounded accuracy'. Basically, instead of having a massive increase in power each level and having enemy power increase to match, 5e only has small increases with a lot more 'optional abilities' instead of straight up upgrades. This means that characters a few levels behind can still be useful, and you don't get auto-smashed by a too-tough encounter. I've seen a 9th level party fight off a dragon meant for 15th level, (was meant to be there to railroad them, a supposed to lose encounter.)

Also, it adds advantage/disadvantage mechanics, so much of the time +X bonuses are replaced by roll 2 pick highest and -X is roll 2 pick lower. It means less arithmetic, so faster combat. (there are still some bonuses)

One big problem with the rules? The action economy is awful. I love pet-keeping classes, and the only pet-focused subclass, beastmaster, has stupid restrictions on when it's pet can take an action. Long story short, it winds up being you do something or the pet does it. And your pet isn't more powerful than you, so it's no more powerful than if you had no pet.

[Lollerabe]

Well Avatar sums it up nicely.

Im currently playing with 4 irl friends, and we all started playing dnd with the release of 3e. And I gotta say not one of us miss pathfinder/3,5e the least. We are having a blast!

Battle is so smooth in 5e, no more number crunching every single f****** round, no more 23532 buffs and 213 summons to keep track off. Just battle with plenty of time for the players and the DM, to be descriptive about every move they make.

The fact that bounded accuracy, dis/advantage and proficiency all are core mechanics, just makes playing the game so smooth and intuitive.

As Ninja said, there's nothing else i'd rather play right now.

I wholeheartedly recommend it :)

[Tenmujiin]

It also takes some of the better aspects of 4e while dropping most of the homogenization of classes (and by extent some of the balance).

[MrStabby]

3rd has detail
4th has balance
5th has fun

I see these as the major strengths of the editions.

There are a lot of things you could do in 3rd that you cannot do in 5th yet and the ability to meaningfully differentiate your character mechanically is low. In exchange combat is smoother and coupled with raw numbers being less important you spend more time focussed on character and less on computation.

5th is pretty good, I am liking it so far. Homebrew is common, easy and sometimes necessary but with a good DM I would say it is probably the best edition yet.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Battle is so smooth in 5e, no more number crunching every single f****** round, no more 23532 buffs and 213 summons to keep track off. Just battle with plenty of time for the players and the DM, to be descriptive about every move they make.

The fact that bounded accuracy, dis/advantage and proficiency all are core mechanics, just makes playing the game so smooth and intuitive.

Yeah, at a glance, 5e is like 3.5 with:

Bounded accuracy. Anyone can do anything, some are just a bit more likely to succeed.
Advantage/disadvantage. Easy to use, no more tracking lots of bonuses and penalties.
Skills and tools for everyone. Everyone has something useful to contribute in non-combat scenarios.
Concentration. Spellcasters can only have one buff/debuff active at a time (with some exceptions).

[Aharon]

It's pretty good for low-level play. But it doesn't achieve its goal of tiers of play - you don't become legendary at higher levels, you always stay in reach of mundane humans. At 20th level, peak ability, you can still fail at a task a lucky 1st level commoner can do (DC 20, 1st level commoner, no proficiency, rolls a 20. You, 20th level rogue, 20 in relevant ability score, +6 proficiency bonus doubled => +18 bonus, roll a 1). This isn't possible in 3e and 4e .

[Ninja_Prawn]

It's pretty good for low-level play. But it doesn't achieve its goal of tiers of play - you don't become legendary at higher levels, you always stay in reach of mundane humans. At 20th level, peak ability, you can still fail at a task a lucky 1st level commoner can do (DC 20, 1st level commoner, no proficiency, rolls a 20. You, 20th level rogue, 20 in relevant ability score, +6 proficiency bonus doubled => +18 bonus, roll a 1). This isn't possible in 3e and 4e .

Spectacularly bad example: rogues get the class feature Reliable Talent that means they can always take 10 on a check they're proficient in. (And nitpick: that's a +17 modifier, meaning an expert rogue can never roll less than 27 on something they're good at, automatically beating a 'very hard' DC).

But in general, yeah, that's how bounded accuracy works. And to be honest, *never failing* at something is not that great. Rolling dice is fun!

[Aharon]

Spectacularly bad example: rogues get the class feature Reliable Talent that means they can always take 10 on a check they're proficient in. (And nitpick: that's a +17 modifier, meaning an expert rogue can never roll less than 27 on something they're good at, automatically beating a 'very hard' DC).

But in general, yeah, that's how bounded accuracy works. And to be honest, *never failing* at something is not that great. Rolling dice is fun!

Forgot about that ability, kudos to you.

I don't ever fail at some of the stuff my 5 year old niece fails at (saying all the letters of the alphabet, multiplying 9 and 10,...). This is, in the kind of game I like, at high levels, akin to the difference between commoners and a PC. That was achievable in 3.5, but isn't in 5e. I don't say that's neccessarily bad for individual home games (currently, our campaign is at level 2 anyway, and seeing how we only play once a month, it will be a year or two before we hit level 10), but it is a failure to implement the Tiers of Play mentioned in the PHB and the DMG.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Forgot about that ability, kudos to you.

I don't ever fail at some of the stuff my 5 year old niece fails at (saying all the letters of the alphabet, multiplying 9 and 10,...). This is, in the kind of game I like, at high levels, akin to the difference between commoners and a PC. That was achievable in 3.5, but isn't in 5e. I don't say that's neccessarily bad for individual home games (currently, our campaign is at level 2 anyway, and seeing how we only play once a month, it will be a year or two before we hit level 10), but it is a failure to implement the Tiers of Play mentioned in the PHB and the DMG.

Maybe it's a failure to achieve the design goals, but it doesn't spoil the game. And I would counter that by saying that if a level 20 PC says they want to do something that should be trivial for them (even if it wouldn't be for a commoner), the DM has the power to say "yes, that works. You don't need to roll."

[busterswd]

3.5 was full of traps. If you attempt things your characters were designed to do, by a good system design, you should be successful. And that just wasn't the case. (Fighters with unique fighter feats weren't good at fighting, clerics shouldn't heal, wizards shouldn't rely on flinging fireballs). In return, it had a TON of material, and allowed you to create just about any high character concept you could possibly desire. Like a friend said, "the world is your oyster in 3.5".

I loved 4E but you pretty much needed character builder or encyclopedic knowledge of what all your powers did; it also kind off ruined the out of combat side of things. Support for classes was also pretty badly lopsided; even if you loved a character concept, if the designers didn't, you were SOL.

5e is simple, but also gives you neat little incentives to keep playing. Classes really feel unique, the perks for sticking to a class are generally flavorful and useful, and you don't need to keep a whole list of every single circumstantial bonus/buff/item effect in order to play. It does tend to break apart at higher levels a little.

[Merellis]

Forgot about that ability, kudos to you.

I don't ever fail at some of the stuff my 5 year old niece fails at (saying all the letters of the alphabet, multiplying 9 and 10,...). This is, in the kind of game I like, at high levels, akin to the difference between commoners and a PC. That was achievable in 3.5, but isn't in 5e. I don't say that's neccessarily bad for individual home games (currently, our campaign is at level 2 anyway, and seeing how we only play once a month, it will be a year or two before we hit level 10), but it is a failure to implement the Tiers of Play mentioned in the PHB and the DMG.

Issue there is that you're sort of comparing yourself to your niece in a way that doesn't make sense. As a 5 year old,you wouldn't expect her to have even fully learned the alphabet, much less be able to multiply. This is less of a game issue and more of a common sense one.

Instead turn it towards a physical activity that you both can handle, like attempting to balance on a beam or something. While you as the adult have a far better chance of doing it, there's also a good chance of her rolling a 20 and you falling off the beam. :smallbiggrin:

[Aharon]

Issue there is that you're sort of comparing yourself to your niece in a way that doesn't make sense. As a 5 year old,you wouldn't expect her to have even fully learned the alphabet, much less be able to multiply. This is less of a game issue and more of a common sense one.

Instead turn it towards a physical activity that you both can handle, like attempting to balance on a beam or something. While you as the adult have a far better chance of doing it, there's also a good chance of her rolling a 20 and you falling off the beam. :smallbiggrin:

Well, that's the point. I want my superheroes to have abilities that I don't - I'm to a superhero what my 5-year old niece is to me.

In the game, I would like my high level characters able to climb clouds, track a pixie by the air currents it left when fleeing, that kind of thing (Legend does that very well, as do Frank&K. In 3.5, you had to use the epic rules, but those simulated this in an ok way).

[KorvinStarmast]

5e brought me back to D&D. I got rid of my 3.0 and 3.5 books because the game had become clogged with detail that ground fun play to a halt. (Not trying to dis the people who produced it with the best of intentions, but somewhere, someone seems to have lost sight of the core of the game).

5e feels like D&D again, while folding in some of the best features from all previous editions, and getting rid of most of the Monty Haul tendencies.

I still think the Ranger needs some work, particularly the Beast Master, but all in all the game has a lot to offer in terms of variety and flexibility.

[Kane0]

You just missed the 20+ page thread about much the same topic actually (sell me on 5e).
I wouldmt advise reading more then the first 3 pages or so, but a lot of good points are raised.

[Hawkstar]

Forgot about that ability, kudos to you.

I don't ever fail at some of the stuff my 5 year old niece fails at (saying all the letters of the alphabet, multiplying 9 and 10,...). This is, in the kind of game I like, at high levels, akin to the difference between commoners and a PC. That was achievable in 3.5, but isn't in 5e. I don't say that's neccessarily bad for individual home games (currently, our campaign is at level 2 anyway, and seeing how we only play once a month, it will be a year or two before we hit level 10), but it is a failure to implement the Tiers of Play mentioned in the PHB and the DMG.

Ehh... I'd consider the Prince of Persia a legend, and he can still accidentally fall off the walls he's running on.


Well, that's the point. I want my superheroes to have abilities that I don't - I'm to a superhero what my 5-year old niece is to me.

In the game, I would like my high level characters able to climb clouds, track a pixie by the air currents it left when fleeing, that kind of thing (Legend does that very well, as do Frank&K. In 3.5, you had to use the epic rules, but those simulated this in an ok way).

This is a difference in expectations. D&D says at level 1-5, you're struggling to survive against orcs, kobolds, and a few funny-looking animals. By level 20, you're killing Dragons and Giants.

[choryukami]

Forgot about that ability, kudos to you.

I don't ever fail at some of the stuff my 5 year old niece fails at (saying all the letters of the alphabet, multiplying 9 and 10,...). This is, in the kind of game I like, at high levels, akin to the difference between commoners and a PC. That was achievable in 3.5, but isn't in 5e. I don't say that's neccessarily bad for individual home games (currently, our campaign is at level 2 anyway, and seeing how we only play once a month, it will be a year or two before we hit level 10), but it is a failure to implement the Tiers of Play mentioned in the PHB and the DMG.

Stuff that you will never fail at shouldn't require a check. Like walking, for example. I might rule that somebody with a +17 to do something will always succeed at DC 10 checks. Like a +17 athletics could climb a rope with no check required.

[R.Shackleford]

Quite lately, I couldn't help but to notice how people feel about Dungeons and Dragons 5th edition. A lot are enthusiastic about it, some are skeptical.

And I have taken a peek at the D&D Basic Rules online, and I'm liking what I'm seeing so far. Dungeons and Dragons 5th Edition looks pretty promising compared to 4th edition, I'll admit. D&D 4e is okay in my opinion, since I was a video gamer before I converted to tabletop RPGs, but I'm well aware of its weaknesses as well as its strengths.

I've looked at a couple of reviews on Youtube, and now I'm turning to the Giant In The Playground forum for thoughts on the system, and is it worth getting into? :smallconfused:

5e had a good core idea surrounded by a lot of problems that made 3e unappealing to me.

I've found that there are some really good homebrew that fixes these problems.

5E is no where as bad as what people say but it is no where as good as what others say. On a scale of 1 to 10, D&D 5e is a 7 which is about where I would put 4e *but for drastically different reasons*. I would put 3e, as a whole, as a 4 rating.

Some key issues with 5e.

All martials are strikers, they get very little to do other than damage (that they do effectively). There are also only three martials (Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues). The stuff they do get stagnates at mid levels (around 5-8) and they learn nothing new or effective that they didn't already have. The things they do get is things anyone can do. And no, Monks are not a martial, their class description even says that they use a type of magic.

Caster domination. The fact that casters or partial casters make up a majority of the game alone shows how Wotc views magic. When you play a caster or partial caster you can shape your character to take any type of role. You can be an effective Contoller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. Sometimes you can be more than one and sometimes you can be all (cleric).

Bounded accuracy is awesome. However, the saving throw system favors the casters and the skill system is based on the relationship you have with your DM. I would either replace the current system with the 4e NADs or make it a 3 saving throw system (like 3e, 4e NADs in reverse) and cut down on the casters being able to cherry pick their target's saves. Perhaps a system where each ability gives the defender an option of one of two saves or make everything work on a contest +shrug+.

5e is a combat role-playing game that pretends to be something else, anything else, but when 90% of the rules are based around combat you can't really argue with that. This isn't a bad thing as you pick up d&d to do awesome fantasy carp that you throw a story on top of. I view this as a positive. 5e should embrace the combat role-playing game that it is.

Thanks to homebrew and just ignoring that martials even exist I'm warming up to 5e. It still has some glaring problems but it is a nice step in the right direction in some areas.

A 4e5e mixed system would be fantastic. Perhaps eventually we will get a 13th Age (3e4e) type system that combines 4e and 5e.

[Regitnui]

Well, that's the point. I want my superheroes to have abilities that I don't - I'm to a superhero what my 5-year old niece is to me.

In the game, I would like my high level characters able to climb clouds, track a pixie by the air currents it left when fleeing, that kind of thing (Legend does that very well, as do Frank&K. In 3.5, you had to use the epic rules, but those simulated this in an ok way).

Well, in the case of Legend System, things like jumping off clouds and tracking via air currents are given a DC35. Give that sort of thing a DC of 20+ and you've got a similar effect. It's not impossible, but it is near as dammit is to swearing to impossible for ordinary people.

[Aharon]

Well, in the case of Legend System, things like jumping off clouds and tracking via air currents are given a DC35. Give that sort of thing a DC of 20+ and you've got a similar effect. It's not impossible, but it is near as dammit is to swearing to impossible for ordinary people.

No. If the DC is exactly 20, random commoners can do it 5% of the time. If it is 25, a first level char with proficiency and a 14 in the relevant ability score can do it 5% of the time. In Legend, the DC 35 Check isn't reachable at all before at least level 8(-ish; 8 for training + 7 for the ability, rolling a 20, disregarding any other stuff because I'm a bit rusty. Feal free to correct me if you think this sets in lower).

Also, in 5e, the higher check can't be reliably reached by most high-level characters either - a 20th level char with proficiency, but not expertise, and ability score 20 can reach the DC 25 30% of the time (vs. at least 50%, maybe higher, for the 20th level Legend Char against the DC 35 check).

[MinotaurWarrior]

I think the legendary stuff is covered by class abilities instead of numbers. The issue for people like you who want "pure" martials to do the impossible is that 5e says that all of the martial classes legendary abilities are fluffed as having magical origins. E.g a monk can run faster than a wizard can teleport, but thats linked to Ki, not just leg excercise. A barbarian can make spot checks nobody else can even attempt, but it's because of a totem spirit. There are a few exceptions - like the berserker who swims through magma and lives because he's just that tough, or the rogue who can take 10 indefinitely to spend an arbitrary amount of time hidden, but 5e usually says "if you can do the impossible, it's because you're supernatural."

Honestly, I don't know why you can't just ignore that fluff and say that Ki is just physical energy, barbarian totems are animal ideals and nothing else, et cetera. This isn't 3.X where the difference between ex, su, and sp was a huge mechanical issue.

I do however understand your position regarding non-EK fighters. Outside of the incredibly rare case of the BM coming up against someone trying to hide their true power and, say, uncovering that the poor displaced noble in the tavern is actually a very powerful red dragon, they really don't get anything truly amazing. The problem is, I think, that if you give the fighter too many non-fighting abilities, he stops being a fighter and becomes something more like a ranger. I haven't DMed for a 5e fighter yet, but I'd likely give a BM more super-tactical genius abilities and allow a Champion to do some more truly amazing physical feats.

[R.Shackleford]

I think the legendary stuff is covered by class abilities instead of numbers. The issue for people like you who want "pure" martials to do the impossible is that 5e says that all of the martial classes legendary abilities are fluffed as having magical origins. E.g a monk can run faster than a wizard can teleport, but thats linked to Ki, not just leg excercise. A barbarian can make spot checks nobody else can even attempt, but it's because of a totem spirit. There are a few exceptions - like the berserker who swims through magma and lives because he's just that tough, or the rogue who can take 10 indefinitely to spend an arbitrary amount of time hidden, but 5e usually says "if you can do the impossible, it's because you're supernatural."

Honestly, I don't know why you can't just ignore that fluff and say that Ki is just physical energy, barbarian totems are animal ideals and nothing else, et cetera. This isn't 3.X where the difference between ex, su, and sp was a huge mechanical issue.

I do however understand your position regarding non-EK fighters. Outside of the incredibly rare case of the BM coming up against someone trying to hide their true power and, say, uncovering that the poor displaced noble in the tavern is actually a very powerful red dragon, they really don't get anything truly amazing. The problem is, I think, that if you give the fighter too many non-fighting abilities, he stops being a fighter and becomes something more like a ranger. I haven't DMed for a 5e fighter yet, but I'd likely give a BM more super-tactical genius abilities and allow a Champion to do some more truly amazing physical feats.

You can't ignore fluff when it has mechanical impacts. Magic can be "turned off" via other magic and abilities.

If magic couldn't be turned off or wasn't separated mechanically from non-magic then it wouldn't be a problem to refluff.

Saying "I'm purely martial" and then getting shut down by a dispel magic or counter spell doesn't add up.

[MinotaurWarrior]

You can't ignore fluff when it has mechanical impacts. Magic can be "turned off" via other magic and abilities.

If magic couldn't be turned off or wasn't separated mechanically from non-magic then it wouldn't be a problem to refluff.

Saying "I'm purely martial" and then getting shut down by a dispel magic or counter spell doesn't add up.

Right. EKs and ATs aren't pure martial classes. But totem barbs and monks don't have their class abilities turned off by AMFs nor can you coubterspell a quivering palm.

5e calls basically anything that let's you do the impossible "supernatural" - but a lot of that isn't mechanically tied to the magic system. So, if you dislike the idea that everything "legendary" is supernatural, why not just refluff the stuff like totems and ki that don't get turned off by AMFs?

[Dizlag]

It doesn't look like this has been mentioned, but 5E really makes things easier on game preparation on the Dungeon Master. Granted, you still have to put in the time to tell a great story and interesting encounters whether they be social or combat encounters. The crunchiness of the badguys has been simplified as much as the character's crunchiness.

The Mines of Phandelver Starter Set Adventure really does a great job of introducing DMs and Players alike to the game too.

The Hoard of the Dragon Queen wasn't extremely spectacular or anything. Didn't play much of the follow on adventure. Didn't play much Prince of the Apocalypse ... just a handful of sessions ... and thought it was better than the other two.

I'm just starting to read Out of the Abyss because I'll be DMing it for the Adventurer's League at my FLGS on wednesday nights. Man! That book is packed with goodies from page 1 to the end of the book. Cover to cover adventure info. Well done!

Dizlag

[Fwiffo86]

5e is a combat role-playing game that pretends to be something else, anything else, but when 90% of the rules are based around combat you can't really argue with that. This isn't a bad thing as you pick up d&d to do awesome fantasy carp that you throw a story on top of. I view this as a positive. 5e should embrace the combat role-playing game that it is.


What other rules do you need for a role playing game?

There are rules on how to hit/magic things. There are rules for using skills. There are rules for equipment and physical/mental exertion. What else could you need for a game?

Unless you mean requiring rules for non-relevant tasks such as bathroom visits, how quickly food rots, and that sort of thing.

[R.Shackleford]

What other rules do you need for a role playing game?

There are rules on how to hit/magic things. There are rules for using skills. There are rules for equipment and physical/mental exertion. What else could you need for a game?

Unless you mean requiring rules for non-relevant tasks such as bathroom visits, how quickly food rots, and that sort of thing.

If they are going to separate martial and magic and make the game 20 levels, then they shouldn't ignore martials past level 5.

Martials stagnate.

A good skill system would be nice.

A good saving throw system would be nice.

These three things have been lazily placed into the game by Wotc. I shouldn't need to homebrew or find homebrew for a complete game. This game, as being sold, isn't really complete.

Barbarian are the only Magic-ish partial mage that can't be turned off. However they still stagnate in the martial side. All of their abilities are +more damage+ or things that could already be done. Their eagle ability for Hulk Jumps is a gem among rubble but it isn't enough to save an entire class.

5e D&D feels like a game where half way through the company told the workers "you don't get paid till you are done" and the workers just lazily put things together.

It isn't James Cameron "Spider-Man" level of bad, but essentially the same type of deal. There is potential, but it really feels like either the passion went out or something behind the scene stopped 5E from being complete.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Unless you mean requiring rules for ... how quickly food rots

My houserule is 1d4+4 days for most perishable items. I'd be willing to develop a table if people want one. :smallcool:

[MinotaurWarrior]

What other rules do you need for a role playing game?

There are rules on how to hit/magic things. There are rules for using skills. There are rules for equipment and physical/mental exertion. What else could you need for a game?

Unless you mean requiring rules for non-relevant tasks such as bathroom visits, how quickly food rots, and that sort of thing.

My current PF character is a business man. I've played an architect and a guy who used animal handling heavily. In WoD I've played characters for whom the lifting / pushing / pulling rules were very important, and characters based around saying mean things to people.

I don't think 5e needs to have rules for these things, but I think it's poor form to compare them to rules for going to the bathroom.

[EggKookoo]

Stuff that you will never fail at shouldn't require a check. Like walking, for example. I might rule that somebody with a +17 to do something will always succeed at DC 10 checks. Like a +17 athletics could climb a rope with no check required.

Just want to second this. If it's so easy you should never fail, or there's no real consequence of failing, you should just be able to do it if it makes sense that your character could do it at all.

You might not fail multiplying two simple numbers -- unless you need to do it in 1.5 seconds and your life depends on you being right. Adrenaline and fear do funky things.

[JAL_1138]

Just want to second this. If it's so easy you should never fail, or there's no real consequence of failing, you should just be able to do it if it makes sense that your character could do it at all.

You might not fail multiplying two simple numbers -- unless you need to do it in 1.5 seconds and your life depends on you being right. Adrenaline and fear do funky things.

To clarify for the OP, this isn't a statement of personal philosophy or a houserule; it's how the PHB and DMG say skills work. Rolls are only supposed to be used when there is a chance for failure and/or a(n appreciable) consequence for failure.

[R.Shackleford]

To clarify for the OP, this isn't a statement of personal philosophy or a houserule; it's how the PHB and DMG say skills work. Rolls are only supposed to be used when there is a chance for failure and/or a(n appreciable) consequence for failure.

Sadly, like cover, how it should work and how it is being worked is differently.

This is why I like player empowerment when it comes to their character and not DM fiat when it comes to skills and class features.

[Kurald Galain]

Martials stagnate.

A good skill system would be nice.

A good saving throw system would be nice.

These three things have been lazily placed into the game by Wotc. I shouldn't need to homebrew or find homebrew for a complete game. This game, as being sold, isn't really complete.

Well said.

Well, every edition needs at least one element that is heavily controversial and that some players really hate. In 3E, it was monks. In 4E, it was rituals, In 5E, it's the skill rules; we get a thread debating what is (or isn't) wrong with it every week now.

[R.Shackleford]

Well said.

Well, every edition needs at least one element that is heavily controversial and that some players really hate. In 3E, it was monks. In 4E, it was rituals, In 5E, it's the skill rules; we get a thread debating what is (or isn't) wrong with it every week now.

I personally think it is a design choice. Have one part, small or not, that is controversial and you get tons of fan coverage.

Or laziness.

[obryn]

The "skill issue" is the rather inevitable result of taking the only tool you have and using it for everything.

Bounded accuracy works best when there's multiple rolls determining success or failure. Multiple rolls create an essential curve which partially mutes the outsized contribution of the d20 RNG, and gives a noticeable advantage to those with higher numbers.

Attacks are a prime example of where it works great. Each individual attack is swingy, but over time they add up to consistency.

Bounded accuracy does a lot worse when there's a single roll - here, saving throws and skill checks. The latter tend to receive more focus because while it's kinda easy to believe that a character always has a chance to fail a saving throw, it's rather less conceivable that experts should fail regularly at moderate tasks.

[Ninja_Prawn]

it's rather less conceivable that experts should fail regularly at moderate tasks.

Part of the problem is DMs calling for rolls when they should be using passive scores.

If you can take multiple attempts at a task, you shouldn't be rolling. It's like, can the expert thief pick this lock? Yeah, of course. Can they pick it in 6 seconds flat? Roll and find out!

[EggKookoo]

If you can take multiple attempts at a task, you shouldn't be rolling. It's like, can the expert thief pick this lock? Yeah, of course. Can they pick it in 6 seconds flat? Roll and find out!

Right, part of 5e's appeal (to me) is this loosening up the need to roll for every little thing. Other game systems were adopting this approach for some time.

[Sigreid]

Well, that's the point. I want my superheroes to have abilities that I don't - I'm to a superhero what my 5-year old niece is to me.

In the game, I would like my high level characters able to climb clouds, track a pixie by the air currents it left when fleeing, that kind of thing (Legend does that very well, as do Frank&K. In 3.5, you had to use the epic rules, but those simulated this in an ok way).

To me, this is boon territory.

[Fwiffo86]

It isn't James Cameron "Spider-Man" level of bad, but essentially the same type of deal. There is potential, but it really feels like either the passion went out or something behind the scene stopped 5E from being complete.

Is it possible that your expectations of what you desire is playing a part in your reaction?



My current PF character is a business man. I've played an architect and a guy who used animal handling heavily. In WoD I've played characters for whom the lifting / pushing / pulling rules were very important, and characters based around saying mean things to people.

I don't think 5e needs to have rules for these things, but I think it's poor form to compare them to rules for going to the bathroom.

Rules for lifting/pushing/pulling are covered under my list of "physical/mental exertion". I apologize if it sounded like I was bashing those, I really didn't mean to. I was attempting to qualify what additional rules are needed for Shackleford to gain additional enjoyment from the game.

[EggKookoo]

Is it possible that your expectations of what you desire is playing a part in your reaction?

Not all games are the same. Not all games will appeal to all players.

You couldn't pay me to DM a 3.P game any more (and you'd have to convince me to play one), but I certainly get that it's very popular and the people who like it aren't idiots.

[Ninja_Prawn]

Not all games are the same. Not all games will appeal to all players.

You couldn't pay me to DM a 3.P game any more (and you'd have to convince me to play one), but I certainly get that it's very popular and the people who like it aren't idiots.

Agreed. Which means the OP should try 5e and find out if it suits him!

[MinotaurWarrior]

The "skill issue" is the rather inevitable result of taking the only tool you have and using it for everything.

Bounded accuracy works best when there's multiple rolls determining success or failure. Multiple rolls create an essential curve which partially mutes the outsized contribution of the d20 RNG, and gives a noticeable advantage to those with higher numbers.

Attacks are a prime example of where it works great. Each individual attack is swingy, but over time they add up to consistency.

Bounded accuracy does a lot worse when there's a single roll - here, saving throws and skill checks. The latter tend to receive more focus because while it's kinda easy to believe that a character always has a chance to fail a saving throw, it's rather less conceivable that experts should fail regularly at moderate tasks.

Combat rolls are more gaussian because of the large N, but you can still have a level 20 perform worse than a level 1. 5% of the time, you still end up two standard deviations from the mean.

I think the issue is really just for skills that don't have class abilities attached, and so never let an expert do something that a novice couldn't, or let the expert just do certain things that a novice would have to work hard for. I personally think that having the chance to fail anything is good - sometimes PhD scientists mess up counting objects - but agree that the way these chances get compressed in 5e is kinda bad.

My favorite system for mundane skills is actually the NWoD system, where it's essentially all about the mean time between events, and having more dice never guarantees success, but does make *failure exponentially less likely.

But within the d20 paradigm, you can't do that. Advantage / Disadvantage helps a bit, but you're essentially working in 5% increments. A level 20 character with no relevant class features gets a +55% point bonus on their %chance to succeed on a task, meaning that they still have a 5% chance to fail things that normal people can do 40% of the time, and things that normal people can do 5% of the time, they can do 40% of the time. Square the %chance to fail for advantage, and the chance to succeed for disadvantage.

Maybe with a certain definition of DCs, this could generate the right feel without requiring class abilities, but I definitely agree that level 20 fighters with tool proficiency (blacksmith) and an athletics proficiency do not feel like legendary smiths and athletes.

[JAL_1138]

Part of the problem is DMs calling for rolls when they should be using passive scores.

If you can take multiple attempts at a task, you shouldn't be rolling. It's like, can the expert thief pick this lock? Yeah, of course. Can they pick it in 6 seconds flat? Roll and find out!

To clarify, this is also in the rules, not a houserule. If you can take multiple attempts, you either use passive scores (PHB 175) or can autosucceed in 10x the normal time (DMG 237).

[obryn]

Combat rolls are more gaussian because of the large N, but you can still have a level 20 perform worse than a level 1. 5% of the time, you still end up two standard deviations from the mean.
Well, yeah, that's just statistics for you. :smallbiggrin: I was just pointing out that I think there are proper and improper applications of bounded accuracy, and that 5e seems to have invented it for the 'good' use case (combat rolls) and then - like a toddler with a hammer - decided that skills and saves needed the same pounding.

I think Advantage/Disadvantage is important to note, though, because that's where you start to get more normality. It's just weird that it only works 'well' when there's advantage or disadvantage on the table.

[Ninja_Prawn]

To clarify, this is also in the rules, not a houserule. If you can take multiple attempts, you either use passive scores (PHB 175) or can autosucceed in 10x the normal time (DMG 237).

And credit to 5e's designers for making it explicit and clear in the books. It just seems like some DMs haven't picked up on it, which contributes to negative experiences and therefore perceptions.

[Safety Sword]

And credit to 5e's designers for making it explicit and clear in the books. It just seems like some DMs haven't picked up on it, which contributes to negative experiences and therefore perceptions.

You can't blame the system for people not having mastered the system.

You can blame complainers who don't bother to master the system and complain about all of its perceived failings.

How many times have people on these forums been proven to have read a rule incorrectly or made an incorrect assumption and still ploughed ahead with their bad reasoning? Lots.

[Albions_Angel]

Just to throw the opposite opinion out there, I preferred 3.5e's battle complexity. Sure it took longer, but you had to think way harder about it. My DMs for 3.5 had a rule that no tactics could be discussed out of turn, and only tactics that could fit into 6 seconds each. You could chat, oooh and ah as characters took or gave devastating blows, but you couldnt tell the barbarian not to charge until next turn. So combat became this wonderful fast paced multiplayer chess game where in the run up to your turn, you created a plan, edited it every time someone moved, then on your turn yelled something like "Ragnar! Take his left flank!" before moving 5 feet and prepping something. It became all about snagging that extra +2 to hit, or figuring out just how much to power attack on the fly because Salamance missed on a 17 but Fredrik hit on a 21, but also had flanking, so is the enemy's AC 21 or 23? And if you took too long, you were delayed, and if you called out tactics at the wrong point the enemy could respond.

With 5th, you can still flank, you can still shout orders, but it matters less. You are still at the whim of the dice, though you get the better of 2. With 3.5, a team which worked could silently get into positions, throw up the right buffs, work off each other, in such a way that the whole party was more or less only constrained by "not rolling a 1". In 5, there is a lot more roll playing for fun, than roll playing battles and tactics and strategy.

Maybe its just me. Or maybe its because my intro to 5e is with a Homebrew happy DM who is very new to DnD as a whole, while my experience has been with 3.5e with DMs who are by the book, or whos homerules are spelled out at the beginning. But 5e I find more comedic and, well, less real. 3.5 I can lose myself in, fall in love with my own character, mourn their death and celebrate their triumph. I can live in the complex, twisting world. In 5e, I feel shut in and at the whim of the DM's sense of humour and the RNG gods. At which point, I would be happier if it was all hidden behind a screen and I just clicked.

Give me 3.5 and I will spend hours writing back story before I even begin playing. Give me 5 and I just want to play Diablo.

[Hawkstar]

Bounded accuracy does a lot worse when there's a single roll - here, saving throws and skill checks. The latter tend to receive more focus because while it's kinda easy to believe that a character always has a chance to fail a saving throw, it's rather less conceivable that experts should fail regularly at moderate tasks.The bounded accuracy also works great when the primary element in success or failure is circumstance and luck instead of skill. Like "Can I keep my chariot from being flipped in this windstorm!"


Part of the problem is DMs calling for rolls when they should be using passive scores.
Not passive scores (There's no difference, mechanically, between passive scores of 10-14 against static-DC tasks). Intuition of a character's ability.

I found the RPG Violence has an interesting take on handling skills, using a 'roll under your skill/attribute" system. There, you have a skill/score that ranges from 3-18 (To start), and goes to, I think, possibly over 30. Task difficulties are assigned dice - d4 to d6 to d8 to d10 to d12 to d16 to d20 to d30 to d40 to d60 to d80 to d100 (IIRC)

[MinotaurWarrior]

Just to throw the opposite opinion out there, I preferred 3.5e's battle complexity. Sure it took longer, but you had to think way harder about it. My DMs for 3.5 had a rule that no tactics could be discussed out of turn, and only tactics that could fit into 6 seconds each. You could chat, oooh and ah as characters took or gave devastating blows, but you couldnt tell the barbarian not to charge until next turn. So combat became this wonderful fast paced multiplayer chess game where in the run up to your turn, you created a plan, edited it every time someone moved, then on your turn yelled something like "Ragnar! Take his left flank!" before moving 5 feet and prepping something. It became all about snagging that extra +2 to hit, or figuring out just how much to power attack on the fly because Salamance missed on a 17 but Fredrik hit on a 21, but also had flanking, so is the enemy's AC 21 or 23? And if you took too long, you were delayed, and if you called out tactics at the wrong point the enemy could respond.

With 5th, you can still flank, you can still shout orders, but it matters less. You are still at the whim of the dice, though you get the better of 2. With 3.5, a team which worked could silently get into positions, throw up the right buffs, work off each other, in such a way that the whole party was more or less only constrained by "not rolling a 1". In 5, there is a lot more roll playing for fun, than roll playing battles and tactics and strategy.

Maybe its just me. Or maybe its because my intro to 5e is with a Homebrew happy DM who is very new to DnD as a whole, while my experience has been with 3.5e with DMs who are by the book, or whos homerules are spelled out at the beginning. But 5e I find more comedic and, well, less real. 3.5 I can lose myself in, fall in love with my own character, mourn their death and celebrate their triumph. I can live in the complex, twisting world. In 5e, I feel shut in and at the whim of the DM's sense of humour and the RNG gods. At which point, I would be happier if it was all hidden behind a screen and I just clicked.

Give me 3.5 and I will spend hours writing back story before I even begin playing. Give me 5 and I just want to play Diablo.

That's very strange.

My experience is that in 3.X, flanking mattered much, much less. To start with, it didn't effect spell DCs, but also, if my AC was "CR appropriate monsters need 20's" I didn't care if I got flanked, and if my party is competent, any needed tactical positioning was either automatic or impossible (only ratfolk can flank a man as he steps through his front door).

With bounded accuracy, I can't ever buff myself out of caring about tactical positioning. Flanking always increases my chances of success.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

That's very strange.

My experience is that in 3.X, flanking mattered much, much less. To start with, it didn't effect spell DCs, but also, if my AC was "CR appropriate monsters need 20's" I didn't care if I got flanked, and if my party is competent, any needed tactical positioning was either automatic or impossible (only ratfolk can flank a man as he steps through his front door).

With bounded accuracy, I can't ever buff myself out of caring about tactical positioning. Flanking always increases my chances of success.This has been my experience as well. In the one big 3.5 game I ran, battles late game just turned into stacking buffs on the party (Greater Invisibility! Haste! Flight!) and just kind of tore the place up. In 5e, where buffs don't stack as well (thanks to concentration rules) and the gap between PCs' and enemies' stats is narrower (thanks to bounded accuracy and the use of advantage/disadvantage over many, many stacking bonuses/penalties) fights tend to be more competitive and good tactics and jockeying for advantages (whether or not it's actually "advantage") are more important.

Minor point, however: Flanking per se isn't in the 5e rules, unless you're playing with a houserule.

[Albions_Angel]

Maybe thats the issue. Most of my 3.5 games dont run to the late game. They run to the midgame. We start level 1 and play once a week during uni term times. We get to about level 12 or so. Also, we play open world, not many dungeons. Lots of big battles (10+ adversaries, ranged, melee and spellcasting) so its all about quickly taking out those you can flank, without getting flanked, picking which ones to kill first. The encounters err on the hard side. Its almost never down to RNG by the end of it. In 5e, even after all the tactics are in place, the best you can hope for is the better of 2 rolls. And I have noticed fights are smaller.

As for flanking, guess my 5e DM homeruled it in (or rather, his dm from last year did and he has continued it).

EDIT: out of interest, why werent your 3.5e players up against high level mages, or greater undead in anti-magic zones, or parties of other adventurers? Not saying they should have been, but by mid game, I tend to be facing people with just as many tricks as the party.

[Grimstaff]

{scrubbed}

[Lord Il Palazzo]

EDIT: out of interest, why werent your 3.5e players up against high level mages, or greater undead in anti-magic zones, or parties of other adventurers? Not saying they should have been, but by mid game, I tend to be facing people with just as many tricks as the party.They sometimes were. The problem was, the main plot of the game culminated with a big magical invasion and against a lot of foot soldiers and the like, mid-high level characters are like lawnmowers. The higher level generals and giant siege-monsters and such were suitably challenging but the PCs were still buffed to hell and back. Even if they only kept some of them for a turn or two before enemies start throwing out dispels and whatnot, they still manage to lay down at lot of their best spells and martial maneuvers and gotten off any readied actions/sudden strikes/sneak attacks they had set up and such.

[Grimstaff]

is it worth getting into? :smallconfused:

It was for my group. One hour of 5E and they dropped PFRPG like a bad habit.

Tastes vary though - in these threads I always recommend the curious print out the basic rules, drop $12 on the starter set, and give it a run.

It takes about 1-2 hours to set up characters and run through the first part of the starter set's adventure. Less time than most board or card games. I think you'll know by then if you like it.

[Lord Il Palazzo]

It takes about 1-2 hours to set up characters and run through the first part of the starter set's adventure. Less time than most board or card games. I think you'll know by then if you like it.This touches a little on one of the things I really love in this edition; character creation is so smooth and so easy! I've run a lot of one-shots for new or fairly new players and would typically talk to my players extensively to make characters for them rather than just having a bunch of premade characters. I had a lot of players get kind of overwhelmed with all the feats, dividing up skill points, planning what spells they wanted to prepare and how many times per day they'd want it.

With 5th Edition, most characters don't need to worry about feats at low levels and if one would be great for what they want to play, it's easy for me to suggest one feet rather than having to help them pick out up to three or four off a significantly longer list with lots of little bonuses that are hard to gauge if you've never played before. ("Is +1 on attacks with my longsword worth it? What about this one? It's +2 on two different skills!")
Skill points have gone from "Divide 64 points up among the skills I checked; you can't go above 8 on any of these skills. If there are any skills I didn't check on the list, you can spend your points two-for-one on them, but you can't go above 4. Try to get above 5 on this, this and this skill because that gives you an extra +2 here, here and here." to "Pick four of the things on this list of 11 options. If you want something that isn't on the list, we can pick a background that gets it for you."
Spell selection are still a bit complicated, but it is much easier since "Pick the X that look good to you. You probably want one or two for each level" since you don't have to worry about preparing multiples or filling as many spell slots before you ever start playing.

And magic items feel special! I can give my PCs a magic sword in a game and it's worth having even if it isn't a +2 Holy Scimitar of Speed and Free Cookies. In 3.5, a fifth level character needed 9000 GP worth of assorted magical trinkets, doodads and bric-a-brac to be as strong as the game assumed they were which made magical loot seem kind of uninteresting. What makes this magic amulet so special; the DM was handing these things out like Halloween candy before we even got to the table?

In 5e, I've been able to get players a lot more involved in what goes into building their characters which is great as it gives them more idea what all they didn't pick which can get them interested to play more later to try the paths they didn't take.

[R.Shackleford]

They literally had 50k playtesters running this game for 2 years, constantly refining the rules. 5E is very likely the most fully developed RPG ever.

I know you like to show up and sh!tpost in every "sell me on 5E" thread and share how you dislike it, if that's your thing, but your hyperbole is getting a bit strained lol!

You could have every single person on earth, who likes battle bass ttrpgs, become a playtester and that doesn't matter one bit of you half ass the final product.

For all we know they have done absolutely nothing with the playtest information and just used that as a marketing ploy.

[Jetstream]

You could have every single person on earth, who likes battle bass ttrpgs, become a playtester and that doesn't matter one bit of you half ass the final product.

For all we know they have done absolutely nothing with the playtest information and just used that as a marketing ploy.

That's a level of cynicism that I can't even fathom, and I'd consider myself unhealthily cynical.

[Grimstaff]

For all we know they have done absolutely nothing with the playtest information and just used that as a marketing ploy.

As a playtester, I can assure we received detailed surveys, results, and changes implemented on a regular basis. It was a pretty thorough process, and a lot of fun too (the first test adventure was a proto-5e keep on the Borderlands).

5e is obviously not your cup of tea, and that's perfectly ok, but it's the way it is because 50k people put it through its paces and it worked and was fun. Implying it was a slapped together by a couple of bored clerks is just so way off base it's laughable.

[R.Shackleford]

That's a level of cynicism that I can't even fathom, and I'd consider myself unhealthily cynical.

I'm being realistic, looking at then play test material and the final product one of two things must have happened.

1: They used the play test as a marketing ploy. Then they put out a lazy, half finished product.

Or

2: They did look at the play test material, didn't care as they already had their own goals, and then put out a lazy half completed product.


As a playtester, I can assure we received detailed surveys, results, and changes implemented on a regular basis. It was a pretty thorough process, and a lot of fun too (the first test adventure was a proto-5e keep on the Borderlands).

5e is obviously not your cup of tea, and that's perfectly ok, but it's the way it is because 50k people put it through its paces and it worked and was fun. Implying it was a slapped together by a couple of bored clerks is just so way off base it's laughable.

I know what surveys you speak of, my friends did the play testing. As I recall those surveys were worded really horribly. So much so that you couldn't get any real information from them. One of my friends does psych research for a living and straight up explained how those surveys were essentially crap and wouldn't give real information back to Wotc.

5e has a lot of potential to be a fully created game, but what they gave the people (who were solo excited to be part of it they feel attachment to it) isn't finished. Or is finished, but lazily slopped together.

[YossarianLives]

Can I just pop in here and say something. Last Sunday I ran my RPG group through a 5E one-shot using the basic rules in an attempt to ascertain what we thought of the system.

They enjoyed the character creation and they rolled up a wizard and fighter. Then they entered a short dungeon I had designed. Every combat encounter was much the same, despite my attempts at adding interesting terrain. The fighter would walk into melee and hack with his greatsword while the wizard shot with his cantrips, occasionally casting spell. Eventually the party was TPKed because of bad rolls, and there was nothing the party could have done to prevent.

My opinion is: If I want to run a gritty, high-lethality, old-school, Gygaxian, dungeon-crawl, I'd probably use 5e for it's simplicity and ease of character creation. For a long campaign I'd never think twice about using 5E.

[Malifice]

Stuff that you will never fail at shouldn't require a check. Like walking, for example.

It doesnt.


I might rule that somebody with a +17 to do something will always succeed at DC 10 checks.
They already do.


Like a +17 athletics could climb a rope with no check required.

Climbing a rope is DC10? Heh. Try 'no check required in 99 percent of circumstances, and even then it should be more than DC5 unless youre attempting in a hailstorm while encumbered'

I'm reminded of the other thread on rope climbing.


5e had a good core idea surrounded by a lot of problems that made 3e unappealing to me.

I've found that there are some really good homebrew that fixes these problems.

5E is no where as bad as what people say but it is no where as good as what others say. On a scale of 1 to 10, D&D 5e is a 7 which is about where I would put 4e *but for drastically different reasons*. I would put 3e, as a whole, as a 4 rating.

Some key issues with 5e.

All martials are strikers, they get very little to do other than damage (that they do effectively). There are also only three martials (Barbarians, Fighters, and Rogues). The stuff they do get stagnates at mid levels (around 5-8) and they learn nothing new or effective that they didn't already have. The things they do get is things anyone can do. And no, Monks are not a martial, their class description even says that they use a type of magic.

Caster domination. The fact that casters or partial casters make up a majority of the game alone shows how Wotc views magic. When you play a caster or partial caster you can shape your character to take any type of role. You can be an effective Contoller, Defender, Leader, or Striker. Sometimes you can be more than one and sometimes you can be all (cleric).

Bounded accuracy is awesome. However, the saving throw system favors the casters and the skill system is based on the relationship you have with your DM. I would either replace the current system with the 4e NADs or make it a 3 saving throw system (like 3e, 4e NADs in reverse) and cut down on the casters being able to cherry pick their target's saves. Perhaps a system where each ability gives the defender an option of one of two saves or make everything work on a contest +shrug+.

5e is a combat role-playing game that pretends to be something else, anything else, but when 90% of the rules are based around combat you can't really argue with that. This isn't a bad thing as you pick up d&d to do awesome fantasy carp that you throw a story on top of. I view this as a positive. 5e should embrace the combat role-playing game that it is.

Thanks to homebrew and just ignoring that martials even exist I'm warming up to 5e. It still has some glaring problems but it is a nice step in the right direction in some areas.

A 4e5e mixed system would be fantastic. Perhaps eventually we will get a 13th Age (3e4e) type system that combines 4e and 5e.

4E rules blah blah, 'martials' suck blah blah.

Every. Single. Thread.

[obryn]

They literally had 50k playtesters running this game for 2 years, constantly refining the rules. 5E is very likely the most fully developed RPG ever.
I ran through the playtests for a good part of it, but they eventually - due to the extended nature - became really 'echo chambery.' The ones who liked the initial presentation enough to bear it through the awful horrible no good Keep on the Borderlands Rat Swarm stuck on through the end. When it was clear that the game was being dragged backwards by extremely vocal playtesters and the designers themselves, well... the dissenting voices started getting fewer and fewer.

I'd much rather have had a group of professional designers sit down and really make a game of their own vision. Playtesting is important, but it's best used for bug-catching and refinement, not for stuff like tone. YMMV, of course, but I don't think it was a positive influence, overall.

[busterswd]

Can I just pop in here and say something. Last Sunday I ran my RPG group through a 5E one-shot using the basic rules in an attempt to ascertain what we thought of the system.

They enjoyed the character creation and they rolled up a wizard and fighter. Then they entered a short dungeon I had designed. Every combat encounter was much the same, despite my attempts at adding interesting terrain. The fighter would walk into melee and hack with his greatsword while the wizard shot with his cantrips, occasionally casting spell. Eventually the party was TPKed because of bad rolls, and there was nothing the party could have done to prevent.

My opinion is: If I want to run a gritty, high-lethality, old-school, Gygaxian, dungeon-crawl, I'd probably use 5e for it's simplicity and ease of character creation. For a long campaign I'd never think twice about using 5E.

I've been playing the official adventures and lethal, gritty, and old school have not been my experience at all (well... HotDQ is stupidly swingy, but it's just badly done).

I'm guessing you ran this at level 1? Level 1 is the "training wheels" portion of the game; you simply don't have most options unlocked yet. It's also the level most prone to bad luck, as you don't quite have the HP buffer yet to protect your characters from swingy dice. Also, you ran a module with a wizard and a fighter alone? That's going to contribute towards causing your swing/cantrip yet again experience, as well as raise the threat of a TPK.

It's fine if you decide you don't like the system, but it sounds like you set yourself up for a bad time before you guys started even playing. Try getting a better rounded party, and try to get your hands on one of the official encounters. You may be surprised at how different things are.

[georgie_leech]

I ran through the playtests for a good part of it, but they eventually - due to the extended nature - became really 'echo chambery.' The ones who liked the initial presentation enough to bear it through the awful horrible no good Keep on the Borderlands Rat Swarm stuck on through the end. When it was clear that the game was being dragged backwards by extremely vocal playtesters and the designers themselves, well... the dissenting voices started getting fewer and fewer.

I'd much rather have had a group of professional designers sit down and really make a game of their own vision. Playtesting is important, but it's best used for bug-catching and refinement, not for stuff like tone. YMMV, of course, but I don't think it was a positive influence, overall.

This might be relevant. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=on7endO4lPY)

[EggKookoo]

And magic items feel special! I can give my PCs a magic sword in a game and it's worth having even if it isn't a +2 Holy Scimitar of Speed and Free Cookies. In 3.5, a fifth level character needed 9000 GP worth of assorted magical trinkets, doodads and bric-a-brac to be as strong as the game assumed they were which made magical loot seem kind of uninteresting. What makes this magic amulet so special; the DM was handing these things out like Halloween candy before we even got to the table?

One thing I like about 5e's approach to magic items is that they're so rare that I feel like it's worth it to give a name and backstory to every single one. It's a ton of fun and it grounds the items into the game world.

I also like making magic items that scale with character level, so they feel like minor characters in and of themselves. My players never really seem to want new items. They just want cool items.

[Mara]

The skill issue is solved if you use relative difficulty DCs. The DC is set to the difficulty of the task, when I DM I interpret that as difficulty for the character in question to perform the feat. Since you can roll Athletics checks to jump farther and lift more weight than normal.

[YossarianLives]

I've been playing the official adventures and lethal, gritty, and old school have not been my experience at all (well... HotDQ is stupidly swingy, but it's just badly done).

I'm guessing you ran this at level 1? Level 1 is the "training wheels" portion of the game; you simply don't have most options unlocked yet. It's also the level most prone to bad luck, as you don't quite have the HP buffer yet to protect your characters from swingy dice. Also, you ran a module with a wizard and a fighter alone? That's going to contribute towards causing your swing/cantrip yet again experience, as well as raise the threat of a TPK.

It's fine if you decide you don't like the system, but it sounds like you set yourself up for a bad time before you guys started even playing. Try getting a better rounded party, and try to get your hands on one of the official encounters. You may be surprised at how different things are.
You're most likely correct, however it feels to me like 5E embraces the OSR attitude of "ask your DM" and with a lower focus on system mastery. I quite like this, but it's something that many, many, people despise.

In 5E as with many older editions of D&D, you can show up to the table, quickly roll up a character that contributes to the party and jump into the action. For more experienced players it lacks depth.

[Kurald Galain]

I ran through the playtests for a good part of it, but they eventually - due to the extended nature - became really 'echo chambery.' The ones who liked the initial presentation enough to bear it through the awful horrible no good Keep on the Borderlands Rat Swarm stuck on through the end. When it was clear that the game was being dragged backwards by extremely vocal playtesters and the designers themselves, well... the dissenting voices started getting fewer and fewer.

I'd much rather have had a group of professional designers sit down and really make a game of their own vision. Playtesting is important, but it's best used for bug-catching and refinement, not for stuff like tone. YMMV, of course, but I don't think it was a positive influence, overall.

I found those playtest rules very funny. "Version two! We've made improvements! Clerics now have channel divinty!" "Version three! We've made it even better and removed channel from clerics!" "Version four! Yet more improvements! Clerics have channel divinity again!" :smallamused:

It strikes me that the playtests turned a lot of people away from the game. WOTC probably could have handled that better.

[JAL_1138]

5e tends to be fairly easy to prep if you're DMing. Challenge + XP Budget tends to work pretty well, and the monster creation rules are pretty good. The only thing that needs looked up or crossreferenced when it comes to monsters is what their spells are if they're casters. Everything else is in their statblock with enough description to use with no flipping through books (you don't need to flip to a list of ex/su/spell-like/etc, or feats, or equipment in order to run the critter). My encounter prep takes practically no time (I also cheat a bit and steal premade encounters from Adventurers' League modules since I DM for that too, but even if I don't it's still a cinch). That frees up my prep time for scenarios, environments, and other worldbuilding. Actually DMing at the table, once the prep is done and the game starts, is a breeze.

As a player, combat moves quickly (and positioning has been fairly important in my experience; getting surrounded is very bad news, and cover can be absolutely vital against ranged opponents) and classes feel distinct. Combat at mid levels is still almost as quick as at low levels, just somewhat less swingy and with more options.

Skills (in instances where passive scores or repeated attempts aren't an option) can be swingy, as Obryn and others have mentioned, sometimes as a result of setting DCs too high (DC20 should generally be a rare thing even at mid-level). Easy, Medium, or Hard were bad terms to use, since a character with no bonus to the stat and no proficiency (thus using a straight d20 roll) fails an "Easy" DC10 check 50% of the time. Saves can be a little swingy but that's not necessarily a bad thing.

Despite the theorycrafting regarding caster superiority, in my experience in home games and Adventurers' League, up through mid-levels (I haven't played high level) the casters tend to feel starved for spell slots and desperate for a long rest to regain spells, while the noncasters and partial-casters keep ticking along fine, with a short rest here and there. Rituals can ease that somewhat, time permitting. (Warlocks are a slightly odd case, being desperate for short rests due to having very few leveled spells per fight but being reasonably decent waiting until the Fighter needs a short rest too, due to Eldritch Blast.)

It does a good job of capturing the classic "feel" of TSR-era D&D and AD&D, at least at the table. The writing and the art aren't the same, and the mechanics are largely derived from 3rd with a splash of 4th, but it's made plenty of grognards like me fairly happy with it overall, even if some areas are disappointing. Somehow or another, for all its differences, it "feels" right, for the most part. At the same time, it's not perfect. There are unfocused areas, poor wording, swingy math and peculiar design decisions in several places. I didn't playtest, so no comment there.

It's not perfect. But it's pretty darn good. I haven't really liked much of anything that happened with D&D since the TSR name got shelved, until this edition. There are aspects of old-school D&D I wish had made it in and aspects of newer editions I wish hadn't, and things the newer editions did well that didn't make it in and things that bugged the heck out of me back in 2e that are still alive and kicking, but on the whole I'm pretty pleased with it and am playing and running more than I have in a decade.

Give it a try, and play it to at least level 3 (and run it a bit at 3) when subclasses kick in.

[Ninja_Prawn]

(There's no difference, mechanically, between passive scores of 10-14 against static-DC tasks)

Again, if a DM only ever uses DCs that are a multiple of 5, that's because they're a... less good... DM, not because the system doesn't work. DCs of 12 and 13 are immensely useful for tasks that are between 'easy' and 'moderate'.

[JAL_1138]

Again, if a DM only ever uses DCs that are a multiple of 5, that's because they're a... less good... DM, not because the system doesn't work. DCs of 12 and 13 are immensely useful for tasks that are between 'easy' and 'moderate'.

I sometimes like to roll some FUDGE dice (sometimes one, sometimes the full four) and see what that does to the base multiple-of-5 DC. I don't always do it but it's a fun way to add a little variation. Most of the time if using four they cancel out and result in either no modification or a +/- 1, but sometimes they make the challenge much easier or harder--I still haven't rolled a + or - 4 on them and rarely ever see 3s, but a jump of 2 from 15 to 17 makes for a very difficult task at low/mid levels or for nonproficient characters, whereas a 13 is quite a bit easier but still a reasonable challenge.

[Kurald Galain]

Again, if a DM only ever uses DCs that are a multiple of 5, that's because they're a... less good... DM, not because the system doesn't work. DCs of 12 and 13 are immensely useful for tasks that are between 'easy' and 'moderate'.

To clarify, this is also in the rules, not a houserule. The DCs in the book go 10, 15, 20; they don't specify "immensely useful" (but only marginally different) tasks in between.

[Malifice]

To clarify, this is also in the rules, not a houserule. The DCs in the book go 10, 15, 20; they don't specify "immensely useful" (but only marginally different) tasks in between.

All published adventures have DCs not in multiples of 5.

[JAL_1138]

To clarify, this is also in the rules, not a houserule. The DCs in the book go 10, 15, 20; they don't specify "immensely useful" (but only marginally different) tasks in between.

Lol. Nice :P

And correct; they never suggest anything but multiples of 5 on p. 238, which is a problem. DCs of 12-17 come up fairly often in AL modules (edit: ninja'd), but there is absolutely zero indication of their usefulness in the DMG; the closest it gets is calling those multiples-of-5 "typical" DCs rather than "the only possible" DCs. Greater guidance on interim difficulties (and better probability-math advice) should have been given.

[MinotaurWarrior]

You're most likely correct, however it feels to me like 5E embraces the OSR attitude of "ask your DM" and with a lower focus on system mastery. I quite like this, but it's something that many, many, people despise.

In 5E as with many older editions of D&D, you can show up to the table, quickly roll up a character that contributes to the party and jump into the action. For more experienced players it lacks depth.

I disagree, because of the optional rules (multiclassing, feats, and magic items). You can make somewhere in the neighborhood of five choices at level 1 and just stick with it and be good. "I'm a woodelf on the path to be an open hand monk." Done. "I'm thinking of being a variant human spell sniper warlock 2+ / Sorceror 3+ / IDK, with repelling blast, extend spell, and eldritch spear, to be the ultimate sniping battlefield controller" - the player can then sink a really good amount of time trying to optimize around that. And in the end, they will genuinely be the best at something, but not the best at everything.

The fact that, when you go in deep, you come out with a very different direction for your character, instead of simply being better, is a big + for 5e, in my book. Especially considering that the system still only has PhB classes.

But it is true that you can't use system mastery to essentially trivialize level-appropriate encounters, which I respect as a thing that people like to do. 5e does lack the sort of depth that some people like. I just don't think it lacks depth over all.

[EggKookoo]

You're most likely correct, however it feels to me like 5E embraces the OSR attitude of "ask your DM" and with a lower focus on system mastery. I quite like this, but it's something that many, many, people despise.

In 5E as with many older editions of D&D, you can show up to the table, quickly roll up a character that contributes to the party and jump into the action. For more experienced players it lacks depth.

I like "ask your DM" so that there's really only one authority in any given game. It smooths things out immensely.

As a player, the only time I even think to challenge a DM ruling is if it's blatantly nonsensical. Like, a "what is this I can't even" kind of thing. Otherwise, it's his table. As a DM, I make sure my players know I take ownership -- for good or bad -- of my own rulings. I'm very open to discussing them but please do not get into an argument during gameplay, unless the majority of other players also feel like we need to stop and go over something.

Of course, I'm an old 1e/2e player and that's how those games ran, so maybe it's just what I'm used to. 5e feels like D&D to me. 3e felt like, I dunno. Kind of like how Hollywood movies feel now compared to how they felt in the 70s and 80s... Kind of formulaic and soulless.

[mephnick]

Easy, Medium, or Hard were bad terms to use, since a character with no bonus to the stat and no proficiency (thus using a straight d20 roll) fails an "Easy" DC10 check 50% of the time.

Never really thought about it, but I agree. The "Easy, Medium, Hard" terminology sets expectations that are totally false, especially if you're coming from 3.5. I'm not sure how those DCs should have been labeled, but something more descriptive may have combated the "This is an easy check, so I should pass it 100% of the time, just like 3.5" mindset, at least initially.

A DC 10 is not an "Easy" task for someone untrained, but if you tell a player that it's an "Easy" DC, they'll feel stupid for failing it, even if they had a 40% chance to do so.

[KorvinStarmast]

And magic items feel special! I can give my PCs a magic sword in a game and it's worth having even if it isn't a +2 Holy Scimitar of Speed and Free Cookies.
Yet another badly made magic item: speed freaks don't eat much. :smallbiggrin:

[Ninja_Prawn]

Never really thought about it, but I agree. The "Easy, Medium, Hard" terminology sets expectations that are totally false, especially if you're coming from 3.5. I'm not sure how those DCs should have been labeled, but something more descriptive may have combated the "This is an easy check, so I should pass it 100% of the time, just like 3.5" mindset, at least initially.

A DC 10 is not an "Easy" task for someone untrained, but if you tell a player that it's an "Easy" DC, they'll feel stupid for failing it, even if they had a 40% chance to do so.

Yeah, "more descriptive" would have helped. Even just reframing them in terms of an ordinary commoner's chances of success ('easy', is 55%, 'medium' is 30%, 'hard' is 5%) is quite instructive.

I'd like to see them write something like "a DC 10 task is challenging but achievable for someone with no particular skill or aptitude. An expert will succeed at it most of the time. Example: spot a mundane tripwire while looking around a room."


And magic items feel special! I can give my PCs a magic sword in a game and it's worth having even if it isn't a +2 Holy Scimitar of Speed and Free Cookies.

Just noticed this (because or Korvin's response) and wanted to second it. I was excited about the prospect of giving away a set of Cook's Utensils +1, for Ao's sake!

[KorvinStarmast]

My opinion is: If I want to run a gritty, high-lethality, old-school, Gygaxian, dungeon-crawl, I'd probably use 5e for it's simplicity and ease of character creation. For a long campaign I'd never think twice about using 5E. Our group has been playing for not quite a year. We've had two of six lost, due to a bad decision that led to something near to a party wipe, and of course rolled up two new chars to join the party and proceed on. (One of the dead was called KorvinStarmast).

Yes, 5e can be swingy, and not just at first level. It's a good game, very enjoyable. I just with we could play more often. Sadly, six adults, and RL, the play gets sporadic but we enjoy it when we can.

Climbing a rope is DC10? Heh. Try 'no check required in 99 percent of circumstances, and even then it should be more than DC5 unless youre attempting in a hailstorm while encumbered'
Bingo. And the more often people do it, the less necessary it is for the DM to roll a check.
@Chris

5e feels like D&D to me. 3e felt like, I dunno. Kind of like how Hollywood movies feel now compared to how they felt in the 70s and 80s... Kind of formulaic and soulless. Yep.

[JAL_1138]

5e feels like D&D to me. 3e felt like, I dunno. Kind of like how Hollywood movies feel now compared to how they felt in the 70s and 80s... Kind of formulaic and soulless.

Good way to describe it, to me. I didn't care much for 3rd (or 4th), and that sort of encapsulates a fair part of why.

5e has a lot of the old charm to it again. (Of course, that's purely subjective, and opinions will differ. Not trying to start an edition war.)

[Kurald Galain]

Climbing a rope is DC10? Heh. Try 'no check required in 99 percent of circumstances, and even then it should be more than DC5 unless youre attempting in a hailstorm while encumbered'

I'm sure some DMs will say that. However, other DMs will say that climbing a rope is easy (therefore DC 10). Or a DM that can't climb a rope himself might decide that this is hard (therefore DC 20). Or a DM might decide that it's DC 10 for elves but DC 20 for dwarves, because everybody knows elves are good at climbing.

All four of these have exactly as much support by RAW.

[TopCheese]

I don't think magic items are any more special now than they were in previous editions.

Even in 3e and 4e I played in a ton of low magic/no magic item games.

I'm glad that they took the 4e darksun ideaology and ran with it. Not needing magic items to stay relevant, or not needing outside help, to stay relevant is the way to go. I've always been displeased with the Christmas tree effect.

5e skills in Adventure league has been a mess. When a player says "I'm going to use my athletic ability to jump through the window with the woman in my arms" the DM shouldn't force the player to use sleight of hand, athletics, and then stealth to land. Yeah, stealth to land, not even acrobatics which I think is called out in the book. The house was on fire so we weren't exactly trying to be stealthy, a bit late for that.

[Ninja_Prawn]

5e skills in Adventure league has been a mess. When a player says "I'm going to use my athletic ability to jump through the window with the woman in my arms" the DM shouldn't force the player to use sleight of hand, athletics, and then stealth to land. Yeah, stealth to land, not even acrobatics which I think is called out in the book. The house was on fire so we weren't exactly trying to be stealthy, a bit late for that.

*Facepalm*

That DM needs a stern talking-to.

[Hawkstar]

5e tried to move away from 3e and 4e's skill checks. They're called Ability checks for a reason. However, I think the writers forgot they were moving away from 'skill checks' halfway through writing the PHB. But there's a reason there isn't a chapter called Skills.

[JAL_1138]

I don't think magic items are any more special now than they were in previous editions.

Even in 3e and 4e I played in a ton of low magic/no magic item games.

I'm glad that they took the 4e darksun ideaology and ran with it. Not needing magic items to stay relevant, or not needing outside help, to stay relevant is the way to go. I've always been displeased with the Christmas tree effect.

5e skills in Adventure league has been a mess. When a player says "I'm going to use my athletic ability to jump through the window with the woman in my arms" the DM shouldn't force the player to use sleight of hand, athletics, and then stealth to land. Yeah, stealth to land, not even acrobatics which I think is called out in the book. The house was on fire so we weren't exactly trying to be stealthy, a bit late for that.


...I'd have to look in the module to see if that's written in there, but I don't think it is. When I played that that one with my bard, we just needed sufficient carrying capacity (took two or three since none of us had positive Str mods or Athletics) to hang onto her while lowering her to the paladin on the ground with a rope (since anything we could tie it to was currently on fire and nobody had a grappling hook). I can't remember what the pally rolled for sure when he jumped out, but I think he just used an Acrobatics check to stick the landing and avoid some or all damage when he jumped out. (We sent the pally down so he could catch her if the rope broke, since everything was on fire, and then guard her afterward).

[TopCheese]

*Facepalm*

That DM needs a stern talking-to.

Yup, but I think a big reason stuff like this happens is that...


5e tried to move away from 3e and 4e's skill checks. They're called Ability checks for a reason. However, I think the writers forgot they were moving away from 'skill checks' halfway through writing the PHB. But there's a reason there isn't a chapter called Skills.

There is a chapter called skills in the online free stuff. Last I checked at least.


...I'd have to look in the module to see if that's written in there, but I don't think it is. When I played that that one with my bard, we just needed sufficient carrying capacity (took two or three since none of us had positive Str mods or Athletics) to hang onto her while lowering her to the paladin on the ground with a rope (since anything we could tie it to was currently on fire and nobody had a grappling hook). I can't remember what the pally rolled for sure when he jumped out, but I think he just used an Acrobatics check to stick the landing and avoid some or all damage when he jumped out. (We sent the pally down so he could catch her if the rope broke, since everything was on fire, and then guard her afterward).

16 str... I want to say war cleric? Rogue 2/Cleric 1... 16 strength and expertise in athletics and acrobatics (12 dex). Was sad when he couldn't do this. Next time it was window or bust, I just flung my body out the window and didn't even use a skill/ability check.

[Hawkstar]

There is a chapter called skills in the online free stuff. Last I checked at least
The chapter is called "Using Ability Scores"

[obryn]

You're most likely correct, however it feels to me like 5E embraces the OSR attitude of "ask your DM" and with a lower focus on system mastery. I quite like this, but it's something that many, many, people despise.
I'm cool with lighter rules, but even as a DM, I think "Ask your DM" is pretty flawed. Ideally, a rules-light game is more collaborative than that. You don't ask your DM; you figure it out. The GM can veto, mind you, or make suggestions, but that plays much differently than asking permission.


I found those playtest rules very funny. "Version two! We've made improvements! Clerics now have channel divinty!" "Version three! We've made it even better and removed channel from clerics!" "Version four! Yet more improvements! Clerics have channel divinity again!" :smallamused:

It strikes me that the playtests turned a lot of people away from the game. WOTC probably could have handled that better.
Yyyyep. Dull, near-systemless slogs like Murder in Baldur's Gate certainly didn't help either. MiBG could have been run using Monopoly rules.

They also walked back a lot of their more innovative stuff because D&D fans (as a group) tend to be pretty regressive.


5e skills in Adventure league has been a mess. When a player says "I'm going to use my athletic ability to jump through the window with the woman in my arms" the DM shouldn't force the player to use sleight of hand, athletics, and then stealth to land. Yeah, stealth to land, not even acrobatics which I think is called out in the book. The house was on fire so we weren't exactly trying to be stealthy, a bit late for that.
:smalleek: This is why it's important for the DMG to give DMs some lessons in math and probability.

I well remember the 3d6 probability curve from my AD&D (1e) DMG. It blew my 9-year-old mind.

[JAL_1138]

16 str... I want to say war cleric? Rogue 2/Cleric 1... 16 strength and expertise in athletics and acrobatics (12 dex). Was sad when he couldn't do this. Next time it was window or bust, I just flung my body out the window and didn't even use a skill/ability check.

I could understand it if, like, the module writer was insane and actually called for such nonsense, which is why I wondered if it might have been written there. But I think it's far more likely the DM was simply off their rocker.

(I don't think the 3e skill system would help, either; that DM sounds like they would probably have called for bonkers checks in 3e too.)

[Breltar]

You're most likely correct, however it feels to me like 5E embraces the OSR attitude of "ask your DM" and with a lower focus on system mastery. I quite like this, but it's something that many, many, people despise.

In 5E as with many older editions of D&D, you can show up to the table, quickly roll up a character that contributes to the party and jump into the action. For more experienced players it lacks depth.

Experienced players will find that starting at 3rd level is probably the best. As others have said the 1-3 levels are 'training wheels' and sort of a way to show new players that they can die very easily if they aren't careful when confronting thing.s

At 3rd this changes with the archetypes coming into play and the customization really taking off. Players of 3.x and 4E will like it at this point as they will have lots of abilities, options, powers and customization compared to level 1.

I start all my games with veteran D&D/RPG gamers at level 3 now because they don't need to pause often to have things to be explained, which is what the beginning levels are for.

[Kurald Galain]

I could understand it if, like, the module writer was insane and actually called for such nonsense, which is why I wondered if it might have been written there. But I think it's far more likely the DM was simply off their rocker.

I've found that, regardless of what advice the DMG might give, beginning DMs tend to take their cues and inspiration from official adventures. As a result, if some of the markted early adventures are lacking, then a lot of DMs are going to get wrong ideas about how to deal with the game...

[obryn]

I've found that, regardless of what advice the DMG might give, beginning DMs tend to take their cues and inspiration from official adventures. As a result, if some of the markted early adventures are lacking, then a lot of DMs are going to get wrong ideas about how to deal with the game...
Case in point: The 4e DMG had some really good advice for running the game, all of which was totally ignored in the official, execrable HPE line of slogfestsadventures.

[JAL_1138]

I'm cool with lighter rules, but even as a DM, I think "Ask your DM" is pretty flawed. Ideally, a rules-light game is more collaborative than that. You don't ask your DM; you figure it out. The GM can veto, mind you, or make suggestions, but that plays much differently than asking permission.
The ability to veto and say no is critical, though. You need to be able to set a tone and avoid someone showing up to the all-commoner campaign with a half-dragon-half-angel-half-fiend ex-deity trying to reclaim the throne of Olympus from Zeus and demanding the ability to hurl mountains with a Str check. Or worse, showing up with a Kender. At the same time, it shouldn't be overused.


:smalleek: This is why it's important for the DMG to give DMs some lessons in math and probability.

I well remember the 3d6 probability curve from my AD&D (1e) DMG. It blew my 9-year-old mind.

Despite my preference for 2e rules over 1e, the 1e DMG was a far, far better book and resource. There were tables for everything.

[Kurald Galain]

Case in point: The 4e DMG had some really good advice for running the game, all of which was totally ignored in the official, execrable HPE line of slogfestsadventures.

Yep. For that matter, many Living Forgotten Realms adventures weren't much better than that, leading to many beginning DMs getting a crash course in how to write a boring linear excuse plot with unimaginative grindfest combats.

For example, an infamous first-year adventure has a combat in the mud (which gives to-hit penalties) against monsters with stealth (which gives to-hit penalties) that debuff the players (which gives to-hit penalties). Good luck not doing anything on a roll of 1-16. Another one had a fight against insubstantial (i.e. taking half damage) monsters that weaken you (causing you to deal half damage) and that regenerate. And that's not even getting into the 100+ hit point boss monsters that don't do enough damage to be an actual threat, but that take forever to put down.

Yes, it got (a bit) better. No, many players didn't stay around to notice.

[JAL_1138]

I've found that, regardless of what advice the DMG might give, beginning DMs tend to take their cues and inspiration from official adventures. As a result, if some of the markted early adventures are lacking, then a lot of DMs are going to get wrong ideas about how to deal with the game...

Aside from linearity issues, the ones I've seen for AL have been fairly decent. Balanced-ish encounters and passable ability checks.

Except one midlevel one, and I haven't read it, just played it, but the DM claimed it was written that way and I'm inclined to believe him, where five (5!) opposed checks /contests are required to pass something unless you cheat and use a mezzing spell.

The rest have just been slightly railroady, sort of necessary due to the nature of AL.

[TopCheese]

Experienced players will find that starting at 3rd level is probably the best. As others have said the 1-3 levels are 'training wheels' and sort of a way to show new players that they can die very easily if they aren't careful when confronting thing.s

At 3rd this changes with the archetypes coming into play and the customization really taking off. Players of 3.x and 4E will like it at this point as they will have lots of abilities, options, powers and customization compared to level 1.

I start all my games with veteran D&D/RPG gamers at level 3 now because they don't need to pause often to have things to be explained, which is what the beginning levels are for.

I really think level 4 or 5 for 5e should be the starting point for veteran players.

Playing level 1-3 makes me want to bash my head against a wall and levels 4 or 5 is where classes and characters start to pick up steam (level 4 feat especially).

[obryn]

Yep. For that matter, many Living Forgotten Realms adventures weren't much better than that, leading to many beginning DMs getting a crash course in how to write a boring linear excuse plot with unimaginative grindfest combats.
yyyyep. From what I understand, HotDQ for 5e isn't much better.

It's also notable how most early 1e AD&D adventures were written for tournaments rather than home play. That really changed the tone for AD&D adventures, as well.


For example, an infamous first-year adventure has a combat in the mud (which gives to-hit penalties) against monsters with stealth (which gives to-hit penalties) that debuff the players (which gives to-hit penalties). Good luck not doing anything on a roll of 1-16. Another one had a fight against insubstantial (i.e. taking half damage) monsters that weaken you (causing you to deal half damage) and that regenerate. And that's not even getting into the 100+ hit point boss monsters that don't do enough damage to be an actual threat, but that take forever to put down.
Oh yes, the famous MM1 Wraiths. Oh goodness, what were they thinking? Sword Wraiths were seriously the worst. Insubstantial (1/2 damage) + Weaken (1/2 damage) + Regenerate 10. So effectively they healed 40 damage every round. Just terrible design. I am so glad they got overhauled in the Monster Vault.

[Breltar]

I really think level 4 or 5 for 5e should be the starting point for veteran players.

Playing level 1-3 makes me want to bash my head against a wall and levels 4 or 5 is where classes and characters start to pick up steam (level 4 feat especially).

Yeah I wouldn't mind starting there but usually with veterans I have to break them of thinking about bad habits from previous editions...

"You mean I can attack, move then attack again without a feat?" Yes.

"Attacks of Opportunity happen when I leave?" Yes.

That sort of thing. If they are vets of rpgs and vets of 5E, nothing stopping you from gaming at any level really.

[JAL_1138]

Yeah I wouldn't mind starting there but usually with veterans I have to break them of thinking about bad habits from previous editions...

"You mean I can attack, move then attack again without a feat?" Yes.

"Attacks of Opportunity happen when I leave?" Yes.

That sort of thing. If they are vets of rpgs and vets of 5E, nothing stopping you from gaming at any level really.


Yuuup.

I had a player get his character killed by trying to grab and trip a Gelatinous Cube because "it worked in 4e." The thing rolled crazy damage and he bought it instantly.

And in AL, I have to keep explaining AoOs don't work like they did in 3.PF to people who've made it from level 1 to level 5.

[TopCheese]

Yeah I wouldn't mind starting there but usually with veterans I have to break them of thinking about bad habits from previous editions...

"You mean I can attack, move then attack again without a feat?" Yes.

"Attacks of Opportunity happen when I leave?" Yes.

That sort of thing. If they are vets of rpgs and vets of 5E, nothing stopping you from gaming at any level really.

A lot of veteran probably played with houserules, one of the big house rules I remember is giving everyone spring attack which 5e out into their core rules.

I don't think veteran players take much more than one session to get 5e down. The veterans I've played with didn't seem to have any trouble with 5e and viewed it kinda like people view Final fantasy 1 or 3.

I'm not saying 5e is dumbed down, I love the simplistic rules, but Wotc has this feeling that they think D&D players or potential D&D players aren't very bright.

Maybe it's just me but... I can't shake that feeling.

Maybe it was made with that in mind and not directed at people specifically but... Yeah weird feeling.

Edit


Yuuup.

I had a player get his character killed by trying to grab and trip a Gelatinous Cube because "it worked in 4e." The thing rolled crazy damage and he bought it instantly.

And in AL, I have to keep explaining AoOs don't work like they did in 3.PF to people who've made it from level 1 to level 5.

See, that player gets it though, trying things out of the box isn't a horrible thing.

I would have role played it as a background thing. As a child or young adult the player was always told of a famous warrior, so great she was, that she could trip oozes.

Or something like that you know. Perfect folk lore kinda thing.

[EggKookoo]

I'm cool with lighter rules, but even as a DM, I think "Ask your DM" is pretty flawed. Ideally, a rules-light game is more collaborative than that. You don't ask your DM; you figure it out. The GM can veto, mind you, or make suggestions, but that plays much differently than asking permission.

Well, that's how it's supposed to work. "Ask your DM" doesn't mean the DM is the sole source and arbiter of rulings. It's supposed to be collaborative. But it does mean that the DM is the final word, and you shouldn't tie up the game debating things. Sometimes the DM has to say "ok, this is how it has to work for now, we have a game to play."

Then, during a pause or snacks or between sessions, you revisit any problems and address questions.

[Breltar]

A lot of veteran probably played with houserules, one of the big house rules I remember is giving everyone spring attack which 5e out into their core rules.

I don't think veteran players take much more than one session to get 5e down. The veterans I've played with didn't seem to have any trouble with 5e and viewed it kinda like people view Final fantasy 1 or 3.

I'm not saying 5e is dumbed down, I love the simplistic rules, but Wotc has this feeling that they think D&D players or potential D&D players aren't very bright.

Maybe it's just me but... I can't shake that feeling.

Maybe it was made with that in mind and not directed at people specifically but... Yeah weird feeling.


It was made so even kids can pick it up without being drowned in rules and numbers.

I dm for my 9 & 12 year old kids and they can figure it out really easily, I think that was part of the process.

I've had friends try out D&D, look at the PHB then go "I have to know all that?! Maybe we should play something else." and I think WotC was trying to alleviate that a bit. Most of the new players in 3rd that I dmed for hate, hate, hated skill ranks *shrug*.

I agree though, it usually only takes one session or so to get the Vets used to the new rules, though they usually know where to look in a PHB to figure out things they don't know as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not saying 5e is dumbed down, I love the simplistic rules, but Wotc has this feeling that they think D&D players or potential D&D players aren't very bright. I'll suggest to you that WoTC believes that new players who they are trying to attract to the game aren't game savvy.

Reducing complexity reduces barriers to entry.

[TopCheese]

I'll suggest to you that WoTC believes that new players who they are trying to attract to the game aren't game savvy.

Reducing complexity reduces barriers to entry.

I've DMed for kids who think the game is too simple and are going back to videogames.

It was some of their comments that got me thinking about this.

[EggKookoo]

I'll suggest to you that WoTC believes that new players who they are trying to attract to the game aren't game savvy.

Reducing complexity reduces barriers to entry.

This is exactly it. WotC was clearly designed at least in part to make it easy to bring casual players into the fold.

I've said before I kind of wish they made two games. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS should be a streamlined game for new players and casual players (casual not in enthusiasm but in terms of wanting to become rules masters). It would look much like 5e but maybe even a bit simpler with regard to race and class options. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS would take the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules and go wild with them in a 3.P manner, with splatbooks galore, feats, sub-races, sub-classes, prestige classes, "epic" classes, "oddball" classes, tweaks, minutia, and so forth.

You should be able to bring your D&D characters over to AD&D with little trouble, and even bring AD&D characters to D&D with only minor tweaking. Both games should use the same fundamental ruleset, with AD&D filled with more fiddly options (stacking dis/adv, facing rules, etc.).

This way they could cater to both types of players but maintain a kind of core ruleset.

[Breltar]

This is exactly it. WotC was clearly designed at least in part to make it easy to bring casual players into the fold.

I've said before I kind of wish they made two games. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS should be a streamlined game for new players and casual players (casual not in enthusiasm but in terms of wanting to become rules masters). It would look much like 5e but maybe even a bit simpler with regard to race and class options. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS would take the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules and go wild with them in a 3.P manner, with splatbooks galore, feats, sub-races, sub-classes, prestige classes, "epic" classes, "oddball" classes, tweaks, minutia, and so forth.

You should be able to bring your D&D characters over to AD&D with little trouble, and even bring AD&D characters to D&D with only minor tweaking. Both games should use the same fundamental ruleset, with AD&D filled with more fiddly options (stacking dis/adv, facing rules, etc.).

This way they could cater to both types of players but maintain a kind of core ruleset.

What we have with the 3 rulebooks is the advanced rules...

The basic rules are the free ones they put out on their site, just the 4 races (and subraces) and 4 classes with no archetypes.


I didn't dumb down the adventures when I played with my kids. I did have to remind them they could do anything rather than just "enter room, attack goblin, rinse and repeat" and I think that is the aspect that can't be 'ruled in' to the game.

[Hawkstar]

See, that player gets it though, trying things out of the box isn't a horrible thing.
Except that example isn't "Thinking out of the box". That's "Thinking inside the wrong box"

[TopCheese]

Except that example isn't "Thinking out of the box". That's "Thinking inside the wrong box"

No such thing.

Taking previous experiences and trying to emulate them and expand upon them is exactly what D&D 5e is all about.

A DM should never just say "no". Players should fall forward.

Player wants to trip an ooze?

No but...
Yes but...
No and...
Yes and...

One mistake shouldn't always result in death and trying to emulate or expand upon previous D&D experience shouldn't be punished.

[EggKookoo]

I've DMed for kids who think the game is too simple and are going back to videogames.

Not knowing those particular kids, I tend to believe they really found it too slow, rather than too simple.


What we have with the 3 rulebooks is the advanced rules...

The basic rules are the free ones they put out on their site, just the 4 races (and subraces) and 4 classes with no archetypes.

Right, but this leaves out the folks who like a rules-dense game. They can find it with PF, but that doesn't help WotC or D&D.


I didn't dumb down the adventures when I played with my kids. I did have to remind them they could do anything rather than just "enter room, attack goblin, rinse and repeat" and I think that is the aspect that can't be 'ruled in' to the game.

There's a world of difference between dumbing something down and streamlining it. A game with 10 feats isn't dumbed down compared to a game with 1,000 feats. A game with advantage/disadvantage isn't dumbed down compared to a game with a multitude of stacking +2/-2. This isn't what it means to be dumbed down.

A game that's dumbed down holds your hand and tells you what to do. World of Warcraft is arguably more complex than D&D 5e, but it's also dumbed down in comparison.

[JAL_1138]

Edit



See, that player gets it though, trying things out of the box isn't a horrible thing.

I would have role played it as a background thing. As a child or young adult the player was always told of a famous warrior, so great she was, that she could trip oozes.

Or something like that you know. Perfect folk lore kinda thing.

It's a cube made of sticky gelatinous acid. It doesn't have an "upright." If you flip it onto another face, it doesn't notice, because it's a cube. Of sticky gelatinous acid. He ran up and stuck both his arms and one leg in it. Which he did not because it was out of the box, but rather because it worked in another edition, where, the way he played it, there was only "use power-->mechanical effect happens because the text of the power says so" with no consideration of how the thing would actually work or be accomplished.

Anyway, he got much better later at trying things that were actually out of the box, that do work. Use the back of an axe as a mace on a skeleton for the bludgeoning damage, lasso a flying creature with a grappling hook...or quite recently, got the mage to cast Silence, then scaled a cliff and chopped down a large dead pine-tree, which fell onto the orc camp below, and tossed three lit flasks of oil on it (I did NOT see that plan coming. It ruined the orcs' day. Dry dead pine burns really well, and so did the dry dead thornbushes the orcs had made a perimeter against animals with, and so did their tents...so they fled, of course--right into the rest of the party, who had readied actions and killed them off quick, while he shot from on top of the cliff with a longbow).

[Kurald Galain]

A DM should never just say "no". Players should fall forward.
I disagree. If the players try something that clearly shouldn't work, and the theme of the campaign is heroic fantasy, then the DM should absolutely say "no".

If the campaign theme is slapstick or beer-and-pretzels then it's a different matter, of course.

(also, what you just said has nothing to do with "failing forward")

[EggKookoo]

I disagree. If the players try something that clearly shouldn't work, and the theme of the campaign is heroic fantasy, then the DM should absolutely say "no".

If the campaign theme is slapstick or beer-and-pretzels then it's a different matter, of course.

(also, what you just said has nothing to do with "failing forward")

If you're building your own adventures and encounters, the key is to leave wiggle room for players to come up with solutions. Example from a W:tA game a few weeks ago:

The players were up against an animated suit of armor that was serving as the guardian to a Mage's stronghold. I gave the armor specs as you would for any NPC, but I didn't bother coming up with an explanation for how it worked. Was it just animated metal, controlled by the Mage? Was it a robot? Was it a living statue of some kind?

After trading blows with it and not make a lot of progress, one of my players flipped over his char sheet and noticed he had Spirit Ward (or Spirit Shield, I forget which one it was). This is a Garou Gift that allows him to project protective energy out to about 30' which spirits have trouble penetrating. Basically a spirit force field.

I decided to reward this decision. The players are normally so effective at melee combat that they often forget what other powers they have. On the fly (in my head, the players didn't know this) I decided the armor was a spirit form bound into the metal by the Mage, so the shield would work on him. Using the shield to keep it at bay, the PCs could move into range and hit it, and they dispatched it without taking any more damage themselves.

[Kurald Galain]

If you're building your own adventures and encounters, the key is to leave wiggle room for players to come up with solutions.

Obviously.

But that is not the same as saying "yes" to every silly thing the players come up with.

[TopCheese]

It's a cube made of sticky gelatinous acid. It doesn't have an "upright." If you flip it onto another face, it doesn't notice, because it's a cube. Of sticky gelatinous acid. He ran up and stuck both his arms and one leg in it. Which he did not because it was out of the box, but rather because it worked in another edition, where, the way he played it, there was only "use power-->mechanical effect happens because the text of the power says so" with no consideration of how the thing would actually work or be accomplished.

Anyway, he got much better later at trying things that were actually out of the box, that do work. Use the back of an axe as a mace on a skeleton for the bludgeoning damage, lasso a flying creature with a grappling hook...or quite recently, got the mage to cast Silence, then scaled a cliff and chopped down a large dead pine-tree, which fell onto the orc camp below, and tossed three lit flasks of oil on it (I did NOT see that plan coming. It ruined the orcs' day. Dry dead pine burns really well, and so did the dry dead thornbushes the orcs had made a perimeter against animals with, and so did their tents...so they fled, of course--right into the rest of the party, who had readied actions and killed them off quick, while he shot from on top of the cliff with a longbow).

Again sounds like someone is being punished for doing exactly what 5e intends to do.

Emulate and extend what could be done in previous editions. To turn all of D&D into one edition.

The player was taking previous experiences and trying to enhance gameplay. It sounds like that just became the rule was from 4e, that is your problem with this player.

Stop trying to alienate 4e as if it is wrong to have ever played that edition.


Edit

I disagree. If the players try something that clearly shouldn't work, and the theme of the campaign is heroic fantasy, then the DM should absolutely say "no".

If the campaign theme is slapstick or beer-and-pretzels then it's a different matter, of course.

(also, what you just said has nothing to do with "failing forward")

A DM should never say No. That is bad DMing. Use the phrase "No, but..." Or "No, and" instead. Just saying no has a negative impact and enforces the Player versus DM mentality.

It absolutely had everything to do with dialing forward. The player, in this specific game, can not trip an ooze. Just trying means they fail and that's the end of it. However, by using the idea of failing forward you bring about

"Your trip attempt didn't work as the ooze is an ooze (no), but when trying to trip the ooze you push into it and will push the ooze back 5'. The ooze is attempting to suck you inside"

Or

"Your trip attempt didn't work as the ooze is just an ooze (no), and you realize that if you continue your assault on the ooze in such a way the ooze may try to engulf you."

They failed at their task but they learned something or did something they didn't expect. Unentended consequences should work for and against players. Players also should never be punished for this long outside the box or using prior experiences in a game built upon the idea of brining fans of every D&D edition together.

[EggKookoo]

Obviously.

But that is not the same as saying "yes" to every silly thing the players come up with.

Agreed, I was trying to support your point.

I find if I do what I suggested, I don't fall into a situation where I need to "fail forward."

[TopCheese]

Agreed, I was trying to support your point.

I find if I do what I suggested, I don't fall into a situation where I need to "fail forward."

It isn't about saying yes to ever silly little thing. This isn't a black and white or yes and no type situation.

Yes and, yes but, no and, no but.

Can I trip the ooze?

Yes but it will engulf you and automatically be back to normal play the start of its next turn.

Yes and it will engulf you and with a knowledge check you can determine how well this tripping will do against an ooze (unless trained in +skill+ or they have a decent Int or Wis).

[Kurald Galain]

It absolutely had everything to do with dialing forward.

Lol. Dude, the phrase is FAILING forward. Not falling forward, not dialing forward, FALLING :smallbiggrin: Also, that still has nothing to do with what you're trying to say.

[KorvinStarmast]

I've DMed for kids who think the game is too simple and are going back to videogames.

It was some of their comments that got me thinking about this. It's a pity they don't read ... but I'll not start a rant on that. Thanks for explaining what you are faced with. TTRPG competing with video games when kids are over-exposed to the video channel in learning at far too early an age isn't something we can solve here. :smallfurious:

[obryn]

The ability to veto and say no is critical, though. You need to be able to set a tone and avoid someone showing up to the all-commoner campaign with a half-dragon-half-angel-half-fiend ex-deity trying to reclaim the throne of Olympus from Zeus and demanding the ability to hurl mountains with a Str check. Or worse, showing up with a Kender. At the same time, it shouldn't be overused.
You do need a director or chairman or whatever, yeah, to keep things on course. That's different from asking permission for everything not explicitly covered by the rules, though.


Despite my preference for 2e rules over 1e, the 1e DMG was a far, far better book and resource. There were tables for everything.
I've seen the light. The Rules Cyclopedia is better than either. :smallbiggrin:

[JAL_1138]

The player was taking previous experiences and trying to enhance gameplay. It sounds like that just became the rule was from 4e, that is your problem with this player.

Stop trying to alienate 4e as if it is wrong to have ever played that edition.

I'm not. That is literally how that player described his 4e play to me. It was not my experience with 4e at all when I played it, though admittedly I disliked it for other reasons. His previous group did not put any consideration into how activities were actually done or how they would look to an observer.

(Btw, Cubes are immune to prone in 5th, in the MM. It can't be done. And I warned him it wouldn't work, and he insisted on attempting anyway. If a player says "I jump down Tiamat's gullet and slash my way out" because it worked in another game, and you warn them it won't work, and they do it anyway, you're not under an obligation to let the PC survive.)

Had he played in the 4e group I did, if the DM was going to allow the RAW to work, would have given an explanation such as "The acid stings your arms but you're not in contact long enough for serious damage. You tip the cube onto another of its faces and the sudden jolt from the flip briefly disorients it as though it had the prone condition," giving a description of how it worked. FAR more likely, though, would have probably said "No, A) that's metagaming and B) lacking immunity to prone condition in the MM entry was an oversight. That won't work." And then hit me with damage if I insisted and tried anyway.

Had the cube not been right next in initiative and not rolled ridiculously good on damage, he'd have made it, taking a bit of acid damage and probably making the check to extricate himself or being pulled out by another party member. Bad luck got him as much there as anything.

[obryn]

It's a cube made of sticky gelatinous acid. It doesn't have an "upright." If you flip it onto another face, it doesn't notice, because it's a cube. Of sticky gelatinous acid. He ran up and stuck both his arms and one leg in it. Which he did not because it was out of the box, but rather because it worked in another edition, where, the way he played it, there was only "use power-->mechanical effect happens because the text of the power says so" with no consideration of how the thing would actually work or be accomplished.
Don't you think that might have been a good pointer to inform the player of when they announced it? :smallannoyed:

It's a difference in expectations and mechanics; in 4e 'prone' was tied to specific mechanical effects with a variable narrative flavor. 5e is less like that.

Heck; you can 'prone' oozes in Pillars of Eternity, too, and it works fine. :smallsmile:

e: It looks like by your post above, that you did warn him, so cool. In my own 4e games, I just consider 'prone' a disruption of the ooze's structure.

[JAL_1138]

Don't you think that might have been a good pointer to inform the player of when they announced it? :smallannoyed:

It's a difference in expectations and mechanics; in 4e 'prone' was tied to specific mechanical effects with a variable narrative flavor. 5e is less like that.

Heck; you can 'prone' oozes in Pillars of Eternity, too, and it works fine. :smallsmile:

See above, I did tell him it wouldn't work. He then insisted on attempting anyway.

[EggKookoo]

You do need a director or chairman or whatever, yeah, to keep things on course. That's different from asking permission for everything not explicitly covered by the rules, though.

My players don't ask permission per se. They ask questions about what's going on, of course. "Can I see the thing from here?" "How far is it to that thing?" "Does he look badly hurt?" "How high is that wall?" And so on. But they usually tell me what they intend to do once they have the info they're looking for.

Occasionally, some of my more newbie players will ask if they can do something. Unless they're asking for something blatantly impossible (which, frankly, almost never happens) I usually respond with "I don't know. Can you?"

If one of these players tells me he's going to do something unadvisable (but not impossible) I'll still let them do it but tell them their gut tells them it's a bad idea.

Player: I'm going to run across that lava pool, maybe I can go fast enough not to die.
Me: Well, okay, but you know enough about lava to know you're pretty much going to die doing that.

If he insists on doing something like that, I make extra sure he knows he's courting death but then I let him try with enough penalties to his rolls that it's almost impossible to succeed. Usually, the other players dissuade him before he kills himself.

[JAL_1138]

I do note that I left out the fact that I warned him from the first couple of posts, so I see why people were bothered. If I had just sprung it on him with nothing, it'd have been a jerk move.


By the way, I wasn't trying to say the way that previous player's group played 4e, taking no consideration of how abilities would be done in the game world and just saying "ok you use X, which causes Y mechanical effect," is how 4e always worked. It wasn't. Like I said, it wasn't my experience with it at all. That's not even a 4e phenomenon--it's been around since AD&D at least. Probably goes as far back as Kriegsspiel.

[TopCheese]

Lol. Dude, the phrase is FAILING forward. Not falling forward, not dialing forward, FALLING :smallbiggrin: Also, that still has nothing to do with what you're trying to say.

First off, new phone (I highly suggest the LG G4 btw, awesome phone) and I'm still fixing the auto correct and getting used to not having a Nexus. Outside of that, the phone is fan frickentastic (I'm not the most tech savvy person).

And yes it does.

The person is saying that you can't do something you are trying to do. They failed at their action. Instead of making it +you can never proceed with tripping+ and leaving it at that. The DM should have, instead of just stopping the flow of the game, used that as a way to push the game forward.

Just like when you fail a skill check, it shouldn't be the end of the road. You should be able to learn something, do something, or whatever to keep the game going.

If you don't then all it does is slow down the game and enforce a DM versus player mentality.

Saying NO and leaving it at that is being a bad DM. You should really try out "No but", "No, and".

Collaberation between DM and player will make for a better game AND story than just lording the DM powers over the players.

[Ninja_Prawn]

First off, new phone (I highly suggest the LG G4 btw, awesome phone) and I'm still fixing the auto correct and getting used to not having a Nexus. Outside of that, the phone is fan frickentastic (I'm not the most tech savvy person).

I know, these new phones are crazy. Sometimes I'll type in a whole sentence and look back to find that auto-correct has replaced half the words with completely different ones. Especially if I've used an 'unusual' word (e.g. 'human-sized') before, it tends to assume I want to use it again (e.g. auto-correcting 'human-shaped' to 'human-sized').

#D&DjargonVSautocorrectProblems

[obryn]

See above, I did tell him it wouldn't work. He then insisted on attempting anyway.
Yeah, I edited my post once I saw the new one you posted before I was done typing.

[KorvinStarmast]

The person is saying that you can't do something you are trying to do. .
OK, let's get back to basics and tripping a gelatinous cube. No, you can't do it.
It takes a certain kind of stupid to think you can trip a large and lethal cube of Jello.

How about a little immersion and a little less obsession with gamist mechanics?

I don't care if somehow, in 4e, that kind of stupidity was a game mechanic. It makes no sense, at all. I sometimes go back to something Gary Gygax said about trying to apply some logic to a more or less illogical game setting (fantasy).

The practical rendering of that for a DM is: don't encourage, and don't reward that which is stupid.

(rant on)
Not at work
Not in your kids
Not at play
Not in stores who you choose or don't choose to patronize
Not in your public servants.
etc
(rant off)

Don't encourage, and don't reward, stupidity.

There, is that clear enough for anyone, player of DM, to grasp?

This is a version neutral suggestion.

Oh, and while I'm at it ... Get Offa My Lawn!
There, got that out of my system.

[obryn]

OK, let's get back to basics and tripping a gelatinous cube. No, you can't do it.
It takes a certain kind of stupid to think you can trip a large and lethal cube of Jello.

How about a little immersion and a little less obsession with gamist mechanics?
I don't see why. If you work from mechanics -> narrative, the mechanics make complete narrative sense with little to no effort.

There's three basic parts of 'Prone'

1. The name itself.
2. The mechanical effects.
3. The narrative flavor.

Your error is in an assumption - shared by many but certainly not all older RPGs - that (1) and (3) need to always be the same thing. If instead you operate from a position that the name is just a keyword for certain mechanics, that the mechanics are always true, and that the narrative must follow from those mechanics in a sensible manner, the problem disappears.

I wonder how many bytes of internet traffic would have been saved if the mechanical condition had been called 'Hobbled' or 'Disrupted' or something as vague as 'Dazed' instead of 'Prone.' :smallbiggrin:

[KorvinStarmast]

I don't see why. If you work from mechanics -> narrative, the mechanics make complete narrative sense with little to no effort.
OK, to recapitulate, the basics are:
A big cube of Jello. (Go back to solid geometry and look up what a Cube is. It looks a lot like a d6).
No feet. Nothing to trip. But beyond a lack of feet, Prone for this being doesn't exist. For our next exercise, try to trip a snake.
CAUTION OSHA SAFETY WARNING
Suggest you not try this on a poisonous species.

Thanks for playing, but I think you are really missing my point.

There's three basic parts of 'Prone'

1. The name itself.
2. The mechanical effects.
3. The narrative flavor.

Your error is in an assumption - shared by many but certainly not all older RPGs - that (1) and (3) need to always be the same thing. If instead you operate from a position that the name is just a keyword for certain mechanics, that the mechanics are always true, and that the narrative must follow from those mechanics in a sensible manner, the problem disappears.
How about we go back to what it means to be prone, and what initial conditions are for something to be tripped. You can't trip a bowling ball either.

[obryn]

OK, to recapitulate, the basics are:
A big cube of Jello. (Go back to solid geometry and look up what a Cube is. It looks a lot like a d6).
No feet. Nothing to trip. But beyond a lack of feet, Prone for this being doesn't exist. For our next exercise, try to trip a snake.
CAUTION OSHA SAFETY WARNING
Suggest you not try this on a poisonous species.

Thanks for playing, but I think you are really missing my point.

How about we go back to what it means to be prone, and what initial conditions are for something to be tripped. You can't trip a bowling ball either.
I don't think you actually read a word I said. :smallbiggrin:

So let me try again.

There are specific mechanical effects of the "Prone" condition, none of which require the character or being affected to actually be prone in the game's narrative.

Prone-the-mechanical-keyword is different from prone-the-narrative-descriptor.

[georgie_leech]

OK, to recapitulate, the basics are:
A big cube of Jello. (Go back to solid geometry and look up what a Cube is. It looks a lot like a d6).
No feet. Nothing to trip. But beyond a lack of feet, Prone for this being doesn't exist. For our next exercise, try to trip a snake.
CAUTION OSHA SAFETY WARNING
Suggest you not try this on a poisonous species.

Thanks for playing, but I think you are really missing my point.

How about we go back to what it means to be prone, and what initial conditions are for something to be tripped. You can't trip a bowling ball either.

4e also calls out that the various powers are explicitly not a one-size fits all maneuver, pointing out that a Power that knocks prone could be a trip, or grabbing a limb and dragging them to the ground, or a series of overhead blows that forces a humanoid opponent to their knees... Is it so hard to accept a trained Fighter knowing just the right places to hit to temporarily inhibit movement on a GC?

[Hawkstar]

4e also calls out that the various powers are explicitly not a one-size fits all maneuver, pointing out that a Power that knocks prone could be a trip, or grabbing a limb and dragging them to the ground, or a series of overhead blows that forces a humanoid opponent to their knees... Is it so hard to accept a trained Fighter knowing just the right places to hit to temporarily inhibit movement on a GC?Please note that all those 'variations' on Prone all still leave the character knocked down. Prone is prone, not 'inhibited movement. "Prone" means "not standing up", with extra mechanical consideration behind that. And, cubes are explicitly immune to said condition anyway.

[georgie_leech]

Please note that all those 'variations' on Prone all still leave the character knocked down. Prone is prone, not 'inhibited movement. "Prone" means "not standing up", with extra mechanical consideration behind that. And, cubes are explicitly immune to said condition anyway.

*Checks* Well, look at that. Been ages since it's come up. Carry on.

[KorvinStarmast]

4e also calls out that the various powers are explicitly not a one-size fits all maneuver, pointing out that a Power that knocks prone could be a trip, or grabbing a limb and dragging them to the ground, or a series of overhead blows that forces a humanoid opponent to their knees... Is it so hard to accept a trained Fighter knowing just the right places to hit to temporarily inhibit movement on a GC? Georgie, your position would be easier to support if you weren't applying it to something that doesn't have a metastable condition. I'll take a slight step forward to suggest that a GC is a bit of an edge case, since most monsters or combat opponents have a metastable condition that could be exploited. The GC? Not so much.

For our next example, how does a trained fighter trip a snake?

Show your work.

When it comes to immunities, many of them appear to be arbitrary and just because, not because a fire immune thing is made of asbestos. :smallbiggrin: At least the immunity to prone for a cube has some basis in simple real world mechanics/physics.

[obryn]

For our next example, how does a trained fighter trip a snake?

Show your work.
Nobody is arguing that the snake - which has no legs - is being tripped in the same way that an orc would be.

The answer to, "How does a Fighter mess with a snake enough that the snake is granting combat advantage, can't move around very well, and needs to spend part of its action economy to get back to normal" is the Fighter is awesome at fighting and messed that snake up good.

Perhaps he's stepping on and/or has hold of the snake's tail. Perhaps he's rolled the snake onto its belly. Perhaps he's knocked the wind out of it and it needs to collect itself. There's three narrative descriptors of the mechanical effects, right there.

[KorvinStarmast]

Nobody is arguing that the snake - which has no legs - is being tripped in the same way that an orc would be.

The answer to, "How does a Fighter mess with a snake enough that the snake is granting combat advantage, can't move around very well, and needs to spend part of its action economy to get back to normal" is the Fighter is awesome at fighting and messed that snake up good.

Perhaps he's stepping on and/or has hold of the snake's tail. Perhaps he's rolled the snake onto its belly. Perhaps he's knocked the wind out of it and it needs to collect itself. There's three narrative descriptors of the mechanical effects, right there. More efficient and more effective to cut the bugger in half, with that sword, and stop messing about with snake tripping.

Just an idea ...

[obryn]

More efficient and more effective to cut the bugger in half, with that sword, and stop messing about with snake tripping.

Just an idea ...
Hey, I'm 100% in favor of Martial characters getting a "Decapitate" ability to let them bypass hit points as easily as casters can, but until then, I'll have to settle for letting them mess with their opponents while hurting them.

(And keep assuming they're canny and capable enough combatants to adapt their tactics to whichever foe they're facing.)

[TopCheese]

More efficient and more effective to cut the bugger in half, with that sword, and stop messing about with snake tripping.

Just an idea ...

You obviously have never seen a controller, defender, or leader in action in any iteration of D&D.

Sometimes performing an action that debuffs the enemy in such a way that helps allies is the best course of action.

Or do you think Hold Person (and a ton of other spells) aren't effective?

Granting the rogue sneak attack and a bonus to hit helps kill things. That's all that matters.

[Hawkstar]

More efficient and more effective to cut the bugger in half, with that sword, and stop messing about with snake tripping.

Just an idea ...
The problem is the sword just can't manage to cut the slippery, rubbery bugger in half. It's got too many HP!

[TopCheese]

The problem is the sword just can't manage to cut the slippery, rubbery bugger in half. It's got too many HP!

Or it is resistant to weapon damage unless it is +tripped+, +proned+, or +grabbed+. Soft underbelly is soft after all.

[Vogonjeltz]

Can I just pop in here and say something. Last Sunday I ran my RPG group through a 5E one-shot using the basic rules in an attempt to ascertain what we thought of the system.

They enjoyed the character creation and they rolled up a wizard and fighter. Then they entered a short dungeon I had designed. Every combat encounter was much the same, despite my attempts at adding interesting terrain. The fighter would walk into melee and hack with his greatsword while the wizard shot with his cantrips, occasionally casting spell. Eventually the party was TPKed because of bad rolls, and there was nothing the party could have done to prevent.

My opinion is: If I want to run a gritty, high-lethality, old-school, Gygaxian, dungeon-crawl, I'd probably use 5e for it's simplicity and ease of character creation. For a long campaign I'd never think twice about using 5E.

So...you designed a series of combat encounters that may or may not have been CR appropriate for only two characters (what were those encounters anyway? did the players rest to get back on their feet or plow ahead even when resources were dangerously low?) who used no imagination at all in combat and died due to bad luck, therefore you don't like 5e for long campaigns? That's what you wrote, I just want to confirm that's what you intended to write.


I'm sure some DMs will say that. However, other DMs will say that climbing a rope is easy (therefore DC 10). Or a DM that can't climb a rope himself might decide that this is hard (therefore DC 20). Or a DM might decide that it's DC 10 for elves but DC 20 for dwarves, because everybody knows elves are good at climbing.

All four of these have exactly as much support by RAW.

Yes, I agree with your determination that some DMs are bad at DMing and have the reading comprehension of gerbils. That can't be helped.

However, I disagree with your claim that there is any support for any of those things in the rules. Requiring a check for climbing a rope under no duress has no RAW support at all for an ability check. PHB Quote: "Your Strength (Athletics) check covers difficult situations you encounter while climbing.... Examples include the following activities:" "You attempt to climb a sheer or slippery cliff, avoid hazards while scaling a wall, or cling to a surface while something is trying to knock you off."


There is a chapter called skills in the online free stuff. Last I checked at least.

PHB has Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores, and a small subsection that reads "Skills" that discusses the association between Ability checks and skills. That might be what you're seeing in the basic rules.

[JAL_1138]

Found on the soon-to-go-extinct WotC forums:

From the Rules Compendium, under Conditions, Prone, pages 232-233:

"This condition can affect limbless creatures, such as fish and snakes, as well as amorphous creatures, such as oozes. When such a creature falls prone, imagine it is writhing or unsteady, rather than literally lying down. The game effect on that creature is the same as for other creatures."


Here's the deal. It worked in 4th, by RAW, they weren't immune to going prone in that edition. How? I even gave an example of how it could be explained if you went with the RAW, based on how I think my 4e DM would've explained it they'd allowed the RAW. You flip it onto another face quickly enough the acid doesn't burn you, it's not ready to Engulf and you don't sink in, and while it's painful because of the acid you don't touch it long enough to take damage. Flipping it onto another face could disrupt it, cause seismic ripples and throw off its internal equilibrium due to fluid inertia that it's affected in a way that gives it the game-mechanical effect of the Prone condition.


In 5th, they're immune to the condition, which has a different mechanical meaning and effect despite having the same name, partly because they're cubes--and mostly because the MM says so in the stat block.

Replying to another question, "how do you trip a snake?" If the statblock doesn't say they're immune and you(r DM) want(s) to allow it, look at the Rules Compendium quote (I think the Compendium was an Essentials book?). You, for example, kick it on its back and it struggles to get back onto its belly for a few seconds, or just thwack or roll or tie a knot in it, performing some sort of action that makes it writhe or otherwise giving it the game-mechanical effect despite it not being dictionary-definition prone.

That's fine.
Different edition, different rules, different mechanical condition, same name.

(It's still an extremely useful condition in 5e, as it halves movement and grants Advantage in melee, doubling crit chance for anyone attacking the prone creature, and guaranteeing a melee Rogue a Sneak Attack if they hit. Unless you're at the tail end of initiative, it's rarely ever a wasted action if you need to di single-target damage in a hurry.)

The player who attempted to trip the Cube in my game was warned it wouldn't work and insisted anyway because he was using metagame knowledge of an oddity in the rules terminology and creature stats of prior edition, coupled with following a gameplay style his previous DM used but I did not and made clear that I did not, then got extremely unlucky when the cube rolled damage.

He has learned from this and is currently an extremely crafty player who manages to utterly wreck some of my Evil SchemesTM, and contribute greatly to the party when not outright wrecking my Evil SchemesTM, by using environments, objects, and abilities or some combination thereof in plausible but unusual or unexpected ways.

[Kurald Galain]

There are specific mechanical effects of the "Prone" condition, none of which require the character or being affected to actually be prone in the game's narrative.

Prone-the-mechanical-keyword is different from prone-the-narrative-descriptor.

The point is that your argument makes perfect sense from a gamist perspective, but from a narrativist or simulationist, it does not.

From those perspectives, instead of thinking "this is the mechanic, can I justify that somehow?", you should think "what is my character doing, and what mechanic represents that best". It's precisely the other way around.

Not all roleplayers are gamist, after all.

[TopCheese]

PHB has Chapter 7: Using Ability Scores, and a small subsection that reads "Skills" that discusses the association between Ability checks and skills. That might be what you're seeing in the basic rules.

I was thinking of the online srd, I thought they had it under skills and not "using ability scores".

[georgie_leech]

I was thinking of the online srd, I thought they had it under skills and not "using ability scores".

Which online SRD? The one for 3.5? Or were you thinking of the free PDF (found here (http://dnd.wizards.com/articles/features/basicrules)) which has "skills" as a subsection of "Ability Checks," which are in turn a subsection of "Using Ability Scores?"

[obryn]

The point is that your argument makes perfect sense from a gamist perspective, but from a narrativist or simulationist, it does not.

From those perspectives, instead of thinking "this is the mechanic, can I justify that somehow?", you should think "what is my character doing, and what mechanic represents that best". It's precisely the other way around.

Not all roleplayers are gamist, after all.
Not really relevant to the discussion at hand. It's not about peoples' preferences; it's about the built-in assumptions of an individual game system. The poster I was replying to apparently lacked the necessary context, given the 'hahah how dum, you'd have to be an idiot to try and prone a gelatinous cube' tone.

So, I am explaining how an apparently senseless concept like "proning an ooze" is completely sensible and logical within some games' paradigm, without at all asserting that it'd make an equal amount of sense in every other game.

[JAL_1138]

Not really relevant to the discussion at hand. It's not about peoples' preferences; it's about the built-in assumptions of an individual game system. The poster I was replying to apparently lacked the necessary context, given the 'hahah how dum, you'd have to be an idiot to try and prone a gelatinous cube' tone.

So, I am explaining how an apparently senseless concept like "proning an ooze" is completely sensible and logical within some games' paradigm, without at all asserting that it'd make an equal amount of sense in every other game.

Exactly this.

It's the same as calling a stone golem "bloodied" at half HP in 4th. It doesn't have blood. It's made of rock. And the system isn't telling you that you made it bleed anyway. The particular system tells you outright in the rulebooks not to take the terms literally in some cases.

Whether one likes that or not is for an entirely different (but still important) discussion.

[TopCheese]

Exactly this.

It's the same as calling a stone golem "bloodied" at half HP in 4th. It doesn't have blood. It's made of rock. And the system isn't telling you that you made it bleed anyway. The particular system tells you outright in the rulebooks not to take the terms literally in some cases.

Whether one likes that or not is for an entirely different (but still important) discussion.

Screw that, I punched that stone golem so hard it did bleed...

At least that's what my character will tell his grandchildren. Epic Destiny: Grandfather (requires Bard or Bard MC).

[JAL_1138]

Screw that, I punched that stone golem so hard it did bleed...

At least that's what my character will tell his grandchildren. Epic Destiny: Grandfather (requires Bard or Bard MC).

As someone who's been playing bards since descending armor class was the standard, two comments:

1) Epic Destiny: Grandparent doesn't require the bard class, but all straight or bi bards eventually get it, usually accidentally. And they're rarely the same species.
2) As for what a Bard tells their grandchildren--or anybody else, for that matter--consider the source. :smalltongue:

[Malifice]

Screw that, I punched that stone golem so hard it did bleed...

You... might want to check your hand bro.

[Dimers]

about a little immersion and a little less obsession with gamist mechanics?

Oh, by all accounts, the dude got immersed. In acid. :smallbiggrin:

[Regitnui]

Exactly this.

It's the same as calling a stone golem "bloodied" at half HP in 4th. It doesn't have blood. It's made of rock. And the system isn't telling you that you made it bleed anyway. The particular system tells you outright in the rulebooks not to take the terms literally in some cases.

Whether one likes that or not is for an entirely different (but still important) discussion.

Let me add to this with an example from WoTC's other absurdly popular fantasy game: A player in Magic the Gathering can equip Swfitfoot Boots (shoes) to a Pelakka Wurm (Giant, legless, reptilian annelid). Does it make any narrative sense? No. Can it be reasoned to? Yes; the Wurm could have swallowed the Boots, the Boots are tied by the laces onto the Wurm's nose, the Boots are reshaped into greaves, the Wurm has vestigial back legs...

[Kurald Galain]

Let me add to this with an example from WoTC's other absurdly popular fantasy game: A player in Magic the Gathering can equip Swfitfoot Boots (shoes) to a Pelakka Wurm (Giant, legless, reptilian annelid).

That's indeed a good example, considering MtG is not a roleplaying game.

Note how most RPGs do not have this kind of mechanics, and for those RPGs that do, there are a lot of complaints about it. Like I said, this is because it's a gamist mechanic, and many roleplayers just aren't very gamist (whereas most card game players are).

[TopCheese]

You... might want to check your hand bro.

100% pure stone golem blood, can confirm with science medicine check.

(plot wist, it is my blood but I'm part stone golem, my grandpappy was a stone golem and my grandma was a druid... )

[Regitnui]

100% pure stone golem blood, can confirm with science medicine check.

(plot wist, it is my blood but I'm part stone golem, my grandpappy was a stone golem and my grandma was a druid... )

That sounds more like a bored wizard student than a frisky druid. Half-lycanthrope or half-dryad? That's a bored druid.

[TopCheese]

That sounds more like a bored wizard student than a frisky druid. Half-lycanthrope or half-dryad? That's a bored druid.

Sure it was forbidden, crazy even, but what they had was real, REAL I TELL YOU.

[Regitnui]

Sure it was forbidden, crazy even, but what they had was real, REAL I TELL YOU.

I'm not debating the romance, I'm debating the class of the organic half. Could be a wild magic sorcerer in a more BoEF campaign too, I guess.

[TopCheese]

I'm not debating the romance, I'm debating the class of the organic half. Could be a wild magic sorcerer in a more BoEF campaign too, I guess.

100% Druid Hippy Chick, sorry to blow your mind.

[Baptor]

This is exactly it. WotC was clearly designed at least in part to make it easy to bring casual players into the fold.

I've said before I kind of wish they made two games. DUNGEONS & DRAGONS should be a streamlined game for new players and casual players (casual not in enthusiasm but in terms of wanting to become rules masters). It would look much like 5e but maybe even a bit simpler with regard to race and class options. ADVANCED DUNGEONS & DRAGONS would take the DUNGEONS & DRAGONS rules and go wild with them in a 3.P manner, with splatbooks galore, feats, sub-races, sub-classes, prestige classes, "epic" classes, "oddball" classes, tweaks, minutia, and so forth.

You should be able to bring your D&D characters over to AD&D with little trouble, and even bring AD&D characters to D&D with only minor tweaking. Both games should use the same fundamental ruleset, with AD&D filled with more fiddly options (stacking dis/adv, facing rules, etc.).

This way they could cater to both types of players but maintain a kind of core ruleset.

I totally agree with you. I've always liked simplicity, so me and mine would probably stick with "d&d" but I know people love the complexity of "ad&d" too and both should exist. I for one would love something similar to the Rules Cyclopedia for 5e.

[Phanixis]

The whole tripping the ooze thing is why I could never get into 4th edition. Sure, you could always justify the effect by altering the narrative description, but the question people should be asking is "Is allowing trip to be applied unconditionally a good idea?" By making the ooze immune to tripping, the players are forced to alter their tactics. This helps make fights against oozes different from fighting your average orc. By altering the narrative to allow what would otherwise be completely nonsensical actions, you blurr the mechanical distinctions between what should be unique fights and challenges.

So bravo to the GM who had the gelatinous cube engulf the hero who was foolish enough to attempt to trip it. It seems that decision resulted in the desired effect, as the player did change tactics after the character death.

[KorvinStarmast]

You obviously have never seen a controller, defender, or leader in action in any iteration of D&D.
Wrong, by a lot, and in too many ways to waste further time. Good day.

[TopCheese]

The whole tripping the ooze thing is why I could never get into 4th edition. Sure, you could always justify the effect by altering the narrative description, but the question people should be asking is "Is allowing trip to be applied unconditionally a good idea?" By making the ooze immune to tripping, the players are forced to alter their tactics. This helps make fights against oozes different from fighting your average orc. By altering the narrative to allow what would otherwise be completely nonsensical actions, you blurr the mechanical distinctions between what should be unique fights and challenges.

So bravo to the GM who had the gelatinous cube engulf the hero who was foolish enough to attempt to trip it. It seems that decision resulted in the desired effect, as the player did change tactics after the character death.

We are also talking about a game where oozes are a type of creature that exists.

If that isn't completely nonsensical than I don't know what is.

What is happening here is that you are playing a fantasy game but then limiting what can be fantasy within that game to a large degree. The very fact that oozes exist is pretty nonsensical and if you can get over that hurdle then why is it you can't get over *ooze + prone condition* via roleplaying?

I thought D&D was a role playing game?

This is why I've always thought, and still do, that 4e is the best role playing game out of all of Wotc editions. It gives you the mechanics which you can apply to almost any situation if you role play it. It doesn't stop you as much as other editions (3e/5e).

Here are the mechanics, you figure out how it happened is a fantastic way to encourage role playing.

[Hawkstar]

Oozes and slimes exist in the real world too... just not as big or fast as the D&D ones. (Though, IIRC, slimes can move remarkably quickly when motivated)

[Kurald Galain]

The whole tripping the ooze thing is why I could never get into 4th edition. Sure, you could always justify the effect by altering the narrative description, but the question people should be asking is "Is allowing trip to be applied unconditionally a good idea?" By making the ooze immune to tripping, the players are forced to alter their tactics. This helps make fights against oozes different from fighting your average orc. By altering the narrative to allow what would otherwise be completely nonsensical actions, you blurr the mechanical distinctions between what should be unique fights and challenges.

So bravo to the GM who had the gelatinous cube engulf the hero who was foolish enough to attempt to trip it. It seems that decision resulted in the desired effect, as the player did change tactics after the character death.

Well said. Roleplaying is about playing a role, not about mandating a mechanic and figuring out how to justify it.

[TopCheese]

This reminds me of when sneak attack opened up to include more types of enemies. People where saying it was nonsense and you shouldn't be able to sneak attack a skeleton.

Eventually people realized, "hey from a roleplaying perspective, when you think about it, you CAN sneak attack a skeleton".

Instead of limiting your imagination one should try to expand their thoughts when it comes to fantasy... Since you know, that's the entire purpose of fantasy. D&D players are some of the most conservative minded (when it comes to fantasy) people that I've ever seen.

Also, I can't believe I have to clarify a statement about oozes, it is pretty nonsensical that oozes of the sizes and shapes (some are just squares) that D&D represents are a creature that has a high enough population that walking into any dungeon can grant you acess to said ooze. There are other more nonsensical issues in D&D, flying talking dragons that don't just murderlate all humans for example, but the ooze stuff was more relevant.

[Kurald Galain]

This reminds me of when sneak attack opened up to include more types of enemies. People where saying it was nonsense and you shouldn't be able to sneak attack a skeleton.

Eventually people realized, "hey from a roleplaying perspective, when you think about it, you CAN sneak attack a skeleton".


You're missing the nuance here.

Paizo decided that sneak attack means striking a weak spot in the anatomy, so this works on anything with a true anatomy, including skeletons. This works from a role-playing perspective, because its crunch is based on the fluff.

4e decides that sneak attack means dealing extra damage mechanically, regardless of what your character is doing, and that it works on everything. This does not work from a role-playing perspective, because its fluff is either based on the crunch, or is ignored entirely.

There's a very clear difference here, and while it's a matter of taste, it appears that few people object to the former, and a lot of players object to the latter.