A 5E non-fan plays Curse of Strahd

[Casualoblivion]

I'm not really a fan of 5E D&D. 4E is more my game, and before that I was an enthusiastic(if somewhat frustrated) player of high powered, splatbook heavy 3.5E D&D. I participated in the 5E playtest before abandoning it due to the direction things were heading, and was disappointed with the final game when it was released. Due to some family circumstances, I am now halfway through playing Curse of Strahd.

I originally discussed this topic in another forum, but I'm restarting it here because this place has a different perspective I'm interested in hearing.

My observations so far, halfway through CoS:

1. The randomness of 5E bothers me. The game is dominated by the random whims of the dice more than any other edition I played. I have come the conclusion that this is due to the combination of Bounded Accuracy with the fact that 5E tries to resolve actions as fast as possible. In 2E, where I started, it was very random at the lowest levels but got less random the higher level you got, while 5E is random like low level 2E but stays that way forever. 3E and 4E were less random in general.

2. Characters seem more fragile in 5E. Its more of a feeling than anything. After a few levels, it's very hard to die in 5E but even at level 5 where we are now in CoS it seems very easy to be knocked to 0hp. It's not so much that it happens that bothers me so much as that there doesn't seem to be anything I can do about it. In earlier editions, if I played smart I didn't get destroyed. In 5E it seems like I can do everything right and still get pummeled into the ground.

3. I miss the roles of 4E. Most 5E classes lack focus and don't really seem like they have any sort of plan. Playing a tank or a support character doesn't feel as good as 4E either. Playing a tank feels futile, thankless and harder to pull off, and playing support feels more like taking one for the team.

4. I'm seeing problems with the whole 6-8 encounter adventuring day, though from what I hear Curse of Strahd makes the problem worse. Game balance between daily spellcasters and short rest and Rogue classes seems to get drastically worse as you stray from the assumed adventuring day. Speaking to other people online, I'm hearing that the adventure we're playing doesn't do a good job at maintaining the 6-8 encounter day and our play at the table has born this out. Even with the balance issues, I'm not really sold on that the adventuring day should run that long. I'd prefer it if the game could run just as well if there were 2 encounters or 7.

5. The class options are a bit lackluster to me, a step backwards from what I'm used to. I like the deep character creation of 3E and 4E, and 5E doesn't give me quite enough in that area IMO. It doesn't help that the game has been out this long with little more than a Dragon magazine worth of new player options.

6. I'm not a big fan of "traditional" D&D. The 3E and 4E I played was far from traditional by early D&D standards, and the 2E we played in the 90s was also houseruled pretty far in a direction away from "tradition". That 5E brings the game back to the old days doesn't really appeal to me, and is sometimes a negative.


Despite all these complaints, I am enjoying the campaign. The DM keeps the game fun and we have w good group. I'm finding I don't hate 5E, but I would rather be playing one of the other editions. One compliment I do have for it is that it plays well out of the box without modifications, more than any other D&D. 2E and 3E didn't play nearly as well right out of the book, and while 4E played well out of the book, there was always this sense of wanting more options than just the PHB.

For people that are curious, I'm playing a Paladin in this game. I went with a Greatsword(somebody told me there was a +2 Greatsword somewhere in this adventure, we haven't found it yet) so my AC isn't that great. The Clerics often and I occasionally cast Shield of Faith on myself but I haven't noticed much of any difference in survivability between 16 and 18 AC. I'm an Oath of Vengence Paladin of Helm, and I really like the Oath of Enmity. I've gotten a lot of mileage out of Smite. It makes me seem like the top damage dealer in the party(it helps that I optimize both mechanically and tactically more than they do). I almost always use my spells for Smite, I don't think I've ever cast a spell other than the one or two times I cast Shield of Fatih on myself. I'm at level 5 now and with 6 smites and two Greatsword swings I'm holding my own.

[MrStabby]

Glad it picks up in your estimation.

Some of the things you mention, I actually like - like the randomness aspect to a game. Now it means that good planning is not having a plan that is very likely to work, but having instead a series of contingency plans for when something fails. I like the excitement of not knowing what will happen.

Lack of options is also something I feel. I think the internet makes it worse though. When you see every other character people talk about be like yours (mechanically anyway) it makes the world seem a bit narrow.

Fragility? Kind of depends on the DM (as always). Nice balanced encounters that telegraph when they are tough, can be scouted and researched and are level appropriate shouldn't kill you past level 5 or so. How CoS is set up - I don't know though. On the other hand the DM can make it tough - smart monsters who summon reinforcements, use expendable items, impose the surprised condition on you and so on can be pretty nasty. At level 5 you are probably beginning to come up against more area of effect spells as well - a seeming safe but unconscious player can quickly die to a misplaced fireball. Enemies that use spells like silence to stop healing word or can restrain a healer can also make what looked like a safe fight pose much more of a risk. The DM should adjust to the group, give them time and they may take you to the edge of your life once or twice.

It is also worth noting that even tough fights are not always supposed to put you at a major risk of death - there is an understanding that they are there to drain resources to make later fights tougher. If you think of how days you nearly die on instead of in how many fights, it can seem a harsher world.

[pwykersotz]

This seems like a fairly well balanced critique. I'll offer my perspectives.

Several of the symptoms you mention (2, 4, and 6) are probably just the module you are playing. Curse of Strahd is a brutal campaign. I don't really see either of those issues at my regular table.

The randomness of 5e is one of the great dividers of the community. Some love it, some hate it. Those who dislike it say that their character can never really be good at something because the dice are so swingy. Those who like it say that it allows all characters the chance to attempt tasks and doesn't contain a "you must be this tall to ride" bar. But yeah, you have lots of friends in this camp. There are some ideas for homebrew adjustments on these forums, if your table is interested. They're pretty neat.

I personally find roles to be a negative thing in a TTRPG, so take that for what you will. As for tanking, yeah, D&D has never had a great tanking mechanic, because the very nature of it fights the free choice of players and GM alike. To my understanding 4e was the first and only to implement it strongly. I don't really have strong feelings either way about it.

Bloat of options is one of the things this edition is trying desperately to avoid. Instead what is being heavily encouraged is homebrew, rulings, and making the game your own. I personally love this part of the game, but again, your mileage may vary. Suffice it to say if you want to avoid needing to work things out with a GM, this edition won't be nearly as appealing. On the plus side, options aren't massively out of whack with each other either. Less is more in terms of the ability to have an eye for a more balanced game than 3.5 while not having the super heavy ruleset/treadmill of 4e.

Those said, I'm happy to hear you're finding things to enjoy about the game. It sounds like it's been worthwhile to try, even if you hop right back to 4e after the module ends. :smallsmile:

[djreynolds]

In this addition, every player is an adventurer first. I like that every class is capable of really holding its own. And the lack of enormous skill pools, really makes team work even in social situations important.

What you miss is the exactness of 3 and 4? This is a wizard and this is fighter, and that is still there, but there is lots of flexibility as well.

No more, do wizards run around in clean robes. They can acquire the ability to wear armor. And that staff is not just a walking stick, they're trained to use it.

But for CoS, because of the mist, one is forced to get to safety. Also CoS is a sandbox, so watch where you step. We basically got TPKd by night hags, they were out of our league. So it is very dangerous.

I like all editions, but here in 5E, the dice rule. That fireball can fizzle, and you can roll 1s. Or it can slam down hard, and the enemy has resistance.

As for the rogue, move and attack, don't get stuck in the back with a longbow. Move in and out of melee and switch weapons. That sneak attack is always on. 6th level rogue can deliver 3d6 once a turn, if they are not hitting, try the bless spell. And he has uncanny dodge, so pull out 2 light weapons and if one hits then sneak attack and disengage. And if that 1st attack misses, use that bonus action for the off hand strike and uncanny dodge should help out if you get hit.

Have the cleric use bless, it is very potent early on. It affects saves and attacks.

Paladins rule once again, IMO, the ability to add smite post hit is awesome, so awesome you can use a shield and just go S&B and rely on your smites for damage. And you get bless also.

And in CoS, it is tough to really enforce any rest system, because the mist forces you to cover. And remember you channel divinity, oath of enmity, recharges on short rests, so take them if you used it.

A short rest is 1 hour, so after a battle, find shelter and take one, certain classes like the fighter, monk and warlock need this.

Try this out, prepare movement from town to town and long rest there, and after every encounter on the road, if it is safe or worth the risk, take a short rest and have the cleric save his spells for more than just healing. The aid spell and many others are not concentration, so use them.

I hope this helps, see an adventuring party as the Squad from Saving Private Ryan, and see each as capable combatants and forget classes.

[Casualoblivion]

This seems like a fairly well balanced critique. I'll offer my perspectives.

Several of the symptoms you mention (2, 4, and 6) are probably just the module you are playing. Curse of Strahd is a brutal campaign. I don't really see either of those issues at my regular table.From talking to other people, CoS does seem to be impacting my experience so far, but I don't think that's the whole story.

For #2 and fragility, the part that bothers me is that smart play doesn't feel like it makes you less fragile. It's hard to die, but easy to be knocked to zero, and being knocked to zero seems more random than avoidable. Reading play experiences beyond CoS, this seems like a general thing.

For #4 and the adventuring day, I see a lot of complaints and discussions about it. CoS has seemed to do a particularly bad job of handling it, but it does seem like a wider issue.

For #6, 'traditional' D&D feel seems pervasive in this edition as written, though that would naturally apply doubly to published adventures.


The randomness of 5e is one of the great dividers of the community. Some love it, some hate it. Those who dislike it say that their character can never really be good at something because the dice are so swingy. Those who like it say that it allows all characters the chance to attempt tasks and doesn't contain a "you must be this tall to ride" bar. But yeah, you have lots of friends in this camp. There are some ideas for homebrew adjustments on these forums, if your table is interested. They're pretty neat.Sounds interesting, I'd be interested in reading some.



Bloat of options is one of the things this edition is trying desperately to avoid. Instead what is being heavily encouraged is homebrew, rulings, and making the game your own. I personally love this part of the game, but again, your mileage may vary. Suffice it to say if you want to avoid needing to work things out with a GM, this edition won't be nearly as appealing. On the plus side, options aren't massively out of whack with each other either. Less is more in terms of the ability to have an eye for a more balanced game than 3.5 while not having the super heavy ruleset/treadmill of 4e.

It is pretty clear that the lack of options is intentional. That being said, I liked having the bloat of options in 3E and 4E and I miss them in 5E. I also find what options do exist in 5E to be rather mundane compared to what you could do in 3E or 4E.


Those said, I'm happy to hear you're finding things to enjoy about the game. It sounds like it's been worthwhile to try, even if you hop right back to 4e after the module ends. :smallsmile:I'm probably going to keep going, given that I'm in this game because of other people. We'll see how it goes.

[Dr. Cliché]

I speak as someone who absolutely abhorred 4th, so feel free to take this with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, going through your points:

1) This doesn't particularly bother me, but nor am I enamoured with it.

2) I think this is a result of characters typically having relatively high ACs, but comparatively few hit points. So, especially with the aforementioned randomness, it's pretty swingy.

That said, 4th seemed way too easy in this regard. During the entirety of my group's campaign and adventures, not one of our characters were ever reduced to 0hp.

3) Personally, this is something I much prefer about 5th. I want to play an RPG, not WoW. I want to be able to choose my own role - not have one handed to me with my class.
"You've chosen wizard. You are now the blaster."
"But I want to play a cunning wizard who uses trickery to-"
"WRONG ANSWER. Now take your 20 spells that are all variations on 'zap' and be happy with them."

4) As a DM, I cringe when I hear my players say 'No, we can manage a bit longer without resting.' as they limp onwards, blood still oozing from a multitude of wounds, their spells and powers almost completely expended. Especially when I look at the monsters waiting ahead.

5) This surprises me. I can understand missing complex character creation in 3rd, but in 4th? 4th's character creation was virtually non-existent. Everyone just steps out of a cloning vat and makes maybe 3 choices.

Don't get me wrong - 5th certainly doesn't offer a great deal of variety in characters beyond spell selection, but I certainly wouldn't pick 4th edition as a positive comparison on the choice front.

6) What is it that you dislike about more traditional D&D?

[Grod_The_Giant]

Sounds interesting, I'd be interested in reading some.
The simplest option is to double Proficiency to skills. Combat is broken up into enough rolls that the randomness is less of an issue (and perhaps also better balanced; I ran the math once and you pretty consistently need to roll an 8 to hit the recommended AC/save for your level), but skills are where the game really suffers. Replace Expertise (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?483815-Replacing-Expertise) with actual class abilities.

The more advanced option is to increase Proficiency in general. Proficiency=1/2 level+3 is a pretty solid rule, and as a fun bonus means your modifier roughly caps out at +20 at level 20, which is a neat bit of symmetry. You have to boost defenses to match, obviously. Adding 1/2 Proficiency to AC and nonproficient saves does the trick, and also adds what-- in my opinion-- is an otherwise painfully lacking element of scaling. (A level 20 fighter without equipment is just as vulnerable to being stabbed or fireballed as a level 1 schmuck).

On the subject of character homogeneity... part of it is intentional, which makes me sad. 5e doesn't like to innovate in the same way that late-game 3.5 did, and it doesn't like options for the sake of options like early-game 3.5 did. Part of it is in the name of simplicity, which is I think healthy overall. The bit that really bugs me is the homogeneity of ability scores, because of how much the math emphasizes the need for them to be as good as possible. I did a lot of work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485818-Grod-s-5e-Revisions-Structual) on how to cut them out of the game entirely, and I think the results are worth it-- your combat math follows the expected curve while you're free to focus your skills and roleplaying on whatever personality aspects you want.

[Casualoblivion]

I speak as someone who absolutely abhorred 4th, so feel free to take this with a pinch of salt.

Anyway, going through your points:

1) This doesn't particularly bother me, but nor am I enamoured with it.It bothers me more than a little. I prefer my actions and choices to matter more than die rolls, and 5E too often feels like the opposite.


2) I think this is a result of characters typically having relatively high ACs, but comparatively few hit points. So, especially with the aforementioned randomness, it's pretty swingy.

That said, 4th seemed way too easy in this regard. During the entirety of my group's campaign and adventures, not one of our characters were ever reduced to 0hp. I don't know that I agree on ACs. It seems to me that unless you go out of your way to get your AC to 21+, you get hit a lot. Hit Points do seem very low compared to the damage you seem to take round per round.


3) Personally, this is something I much prefer about 5th. I want to play an RPG, not WoW. I want to be able to choose my own role - not have one handed to me with my class.
"You've chosen wizard. You are now the blaster."
"But I want to play a cunning wizard who uses trickery to-"
"WRONG ANSWER. Now take your 20 spells that are all variations on 'zap' and be happy with them."

What you describe too often results in no role at all, or not really excelling at anything significant. With 5E, some roles are barely supported or poorly supported. To be a front line Defender, in 5E you seem to have to devote your entire character top to bottom into it, and the end result still feels half-@&$ed compared to what the 4E Fighter got for free. Healing/support in 5E usually requires you to sacrifice your action, where in 4E doing so was something you did in addition to or as part of your attack. It made playing a healer/support a lot more fun.


4) As a DM, I cringe when I hear my players say 'No, we can manage a bit longer without resting.' as they limp onwards, blood still oozing from a multitude of wounds, their spells and powers almost completely expended. Especially when I look at the monsters waiting ahead. The more I play 5E, the more I come to believe that the resting mechanics are the point where 5E is most likely to break.


5) This surprises me. I can understand missing complex character creation in 3rd, but in 4th? 4th's character creation was virtually non-existent. Everyone just steps out of a cloning vat and makes maybe 3 choices.

Don't get me wrong - 5th certainly doesn't offer a great deal of variety in characters beyond spell selection, but I certainly wouldn't pick 4th edition as a positive comparison on the choice front.4E had tactical depth, and not everybody grokked that. If you understood that, every choice meant something and the game was incredibly deep. If you didn't understand tactical play everything could seem samey.


6) What is it that you dislike about more traditional D&D?
My preferred a aesthetic for fantasy is more Naruto than Game of Thrones. Also, if I'm being honest the way I was treated by fans of traditional D&D who disliked 4E during that era did more than a little to sour me on it.

[Dr. Cliché]

On the subject of character homogeneity... part of it is intentional, which makes me sad. 5e doesn't like to innovate in the same way that late-game 3.5 did, and it doesn't like options for the sake of options like early-game 3.5 did. Part of it is in the name of simplicity, which is I think healthy overall. The bit that really bugs me is the homogeneity of ability scores, because of how much the math emphasizes the need for them to be as good as possible. I did a lot of work (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?485818-Grod-s-5e-Revisions-Structual) on how to cut them out of the game entirely, and I think the results are worth it-- your combat math follows the expected curve while you're free to focus your skills and roleplaying on whatever personality aspects you want.

As a question, do you not think that your solution causes ability scores to be even more homogenised? Rather than any sort of real customisation, you just have 'good' and 'average', much like how you're either trained in a skill or you're not - there's no level or rank. Any character who identifies as 'strong' is exactly as strong as any other 'strong' character.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As a question, do you not think that your solution causes ability scores to be even more homogenised? Rather than any sort of real customisation, you just have 'good' and 'average', much like how you're either trained in a skill or you're not - there's no level or rank. Any character who identifies as 'strong' is exactly as strong as any other 'strong' character.
For a couple reasons, I think the answer is "no." Firstly, 5e's modifiers are small enough relative to the d20 that there's not very much difference between, say, 10 Str and 12, meaning that the supposed granularity is largely non-apparent. Secondly, I think the default is a sort of false choice-- you either care about a stat and invest heavily in it, or you don't. And overall... I think whatever customization you lose from not being able to distinguish between a 10 and a 12 is much less meaningful than the customization you gain from being able to have a smart cleric or a charismatic fighter without actively weakening yourself.

I'd be happy to discuss more over PM, but I don't want to derail this thread too much.

[Dr. Cliché]

It bothers me more than a little. I prefer my actions and choices to matter more than die rolls, and 5E too often feels like the opposite.

Fair enough.



What you describe too often results in no role at all, or not really excelling at anything significant.

The thing is though, I've never demanded that every class conform to a WoW role. It's never been something I've wanted in the first place.

I can still build a 3.5 or 5e wizard to be blasty, but I can also build him as an illusionist or a buffer/debuffer* or a necromancer/miniomancer* or just go 'to hell with it' and take a bunch of random spells that don't conform to any theme.

I don't like to be tied into a specific role during character creation any more than I have to me.

*Granted, 3.5 did these better, but you get the idea.


With 5E, some roles are barely supported or poorly supported. To be a front line Defender, in 5E you seem to have to devote your entire character top to bottom into it, and the end result still feels half-@&$ed compared to what the 4E Fighter got for free.

All well and good for the guy who wants to play a fighter-tank, but what about the wizard who doesn't want to play a blaster?


Healing/support in 5E usually requires you to sacrifice your action, where in 4E doing so was something you did in addition to or as part of your attack. It made playing a healer/support a lot more fun.

It also made heals way too easy. As I said before, none of us were even reduced to 0hp in 4th edition, let alone had characters die.

In any case, I don't see why it's so essential that characters should get to eat their cake and have it too. Why should support/healing not cost an action?

That said, I do feel that the concentration mechanic in 5th goes too far in punishing support characters. Only being able to maintain 1 buff/debuff at a time is pretty damn harsh.

Regardless, the thing that put me off 4th was less it's in-combat mechanics (which were just about tolerable), and more its out of combat mechanics (which were virtually nonexistant). There were just far too few spells or abilities that mattered outside of combat - everything was just damage, reposition and/or healing. What little there was was pathetic. e.g. Invisibility was a once-per-day power that made a creature invisible as long as you sustained it. Oh, and you had to remain just 25ft behind the creature or the spell ended. Hope you didn't need the target to scout more than 25ft ahead, otherwise your very visible self will have to trail after him feeling very exposed indeed.

What's more, you had absolutely no control over which spells you memorized. Want to play a wizard who focuses more on out of combat abilities? Tough. Utility and combat spells can't be swapped. Nor can you prepare fewer of one and more of another. This sort of thing just turns me off completely.



The more I play 5E, the more I come to believe that the resting mechanics are the point where 5E is most likely to break.

Something I've noticed is that the concept of short rests seems to have changed my player's opinion on long rests.

In 3.5, they're content to rest for 8 hours whenever they run low on resources. In 5th, there's this desire to avoid long rests unless absolutely necessary - instead making do with short rests for as long as possible.



4E had tactical depth, and not everybody grokked that. If you understood that, every choice meant something and the game was incredibly deep. If you didn't understand tactical play everything could seem samey.

Sigh. Please don't start down the ad hominem route. I understand tactical depth very well, it does not equal customisation (especially when there are so few options in the first place). But even then, 4e was pretty shallow tactics-wise. Most of what you could do with powers/spells was pretty obvious (even in terms of synergy), and required no imagination or inventiveness.

Also, in my experience tactics only mattered for the first half of most battles. After that, people have generally used up all their encounter powers and so are just spamming the same stuff over and over. :smalltongue:

The thing is though, this harks back to one of my main problems with 4e - it feels more like a miniature skirmish game than an RPG. 4e in general just feels far too rigid - as if it was being designed as the template for a computer game, rather than as a tabletop game.



My preferred a aesthetic for fantasy is more Naruto than Game of Thrones. Also, if I'm being honest the way I was treated by fans of traditional D&D who disliked 4E during that era did more than a little to sour me on it.

I fear I've never watched Naruto, so that's not a helpful reference. :smallconfused:

Sorry to hear you were treated badly by traditional players though.

[Belac93]

Curse of Strahd is a deadly game. I've play Rage of Demons (supposed to be really deadly), and a supposed 'high mortality' game online. Rage of demons had 1 character killed by level 3, and the high mortality game hasn't had anyone die (at level 2). Curse of Strahd has had 2 characters die by level 2 (luckily the dark powers brought us back).

[Temperjoke]

Everyone is entitled to their opinion. One thing I will note, based on personal experience, at low levels the game is drastically swingy and dice-luck dependent. You don't have much in the way of subclass flavoring, which means you don't have a lot of the damage reduction or performing options that you get starting at level 3 (for most classes). Part of why they did this was to keep people from getting too powerful of a boost with a 1 level dip multiclass, you have to commit a bit to get a lot of the power. Unfortunately, this means that for the first couple of levels (assuming you start at level 1) your DM has to be careful of the encounters that are set up, unless he/she wants a massacre.

[Saintsqc]

I'm not really a fan of 5E D&D. 4E is more my game, and before that I was an enthusiastic(if somewhat frustrated) player of high powered, splatbook heavy 3.5E D&D. I participated in the 5E playtest before abandoning it due to the direction things were heading, and was disappointed with the final game when it was released. Due to some family circumstances, I am now halfway through playing Curse of Strahd.

I originally discussed this topic in another forum, but I'm restarting it here because this place has a different perspective I'm interested in hearing.

My observations so far, halfway through CoS:

1. The randomness of 5E bothers me. The game is dominated by the random whims of the dice more than any other edition I played. I have come the conclusion that this is due to the combination of Bounded Accuracy with the fact that 5E tries to resolve actions as fast as possible. In 2E, where I started, it was very random at the lowest levels but got less random the higher level you got, while 5E is random like low level 2E but stays that way forever. 3E and 4E were less random in general.


From my limited experience with 5E (and longer experience with 3.5), I dont understand this point. I play a front-liner in 5E with heavy armor. He doesnt get hit often and he hits enemy very often. The % that ennemies hit him are higher when compared to a tank in 3.5...but where is the randomness ? If it's previsible, it's not randomn, right ?

[Dr. Cliché]

With regard to the luck/randomness aspect, I think it usually works out okay. Usually.

However, I'll note that in our very first 5e session our Lv3 characters couldn't hit the broad side of a barn door. Every - and I really do mean *every* - attack roll was a miss. Meanwhile, the goblins were were "fighting" landed hit after hit on us, with one guy getting knocked to 0hp. This was literally the first encounter of the entire campaign, against maybe 3 goblins.

I get that this is anecdotal, but it's the sort of thing that lingers in the mind. :smallwink:

[Grod_The_Giant]

Randomness is more noticeable in skill checks than combat-- it takes a number of rolls to resolve a fight, meaning that the good and the bad tend to average out. Meanwhile, the Rogue only needs to blow one Stealth check for the consequences to appear.

[Jakinbandw]

An idea I've been throwing around is using 2d10 for skills instead of 1d20. It removes a lot of the swinginess without having to change any numbers around. Advantage means you roll 3d10 take the best 2, and disadvantage is 3d10 take the lowest 2. Should work pretty well at making skills feel less swingy and having a high skill more important.

[Mr.Moron]

From my limited experience with 5E (and longer experience with 3.5), I dont understand this point. I play a front-liner in 5E with heavy armor. He doesnt get hit often and he hits enemy very often. The % that ennemies hit him are higher when compared to a tank in 3.5...but where is the randomness ? If it's previsible, it's not randomn, right ?

For players coming from high-power spaltbook heavy 3.X missing on anything but a "1" is considered unacceptable and getting hit on anything but a "20" is similarly so. 5% failure chance is considered the minimum baseline charop goal. Usually with miss chances etc.. on top to cut it down more. This is why if you browse the 3.X forums you'll see a lot of strict advocacy for no save/no sr type stuff and a general mentality that any failure chance at all is in and of itself a failure for the game if not by the designers than by the player. While I wouldn't go so far as to ascribe this mentality to the OP specifically it is pervasive in the community and definitely is going to color the perceptions of anyone coming from those games to this one. 5e is built with "failure should always be a distinct possibility" as core part of the design and that's anathema to the approach fostered in 3.X communities.

[Sigreid]

Interestingly, from my perspective I consider 5e to require more tactical play than 4e.

The reason is that in with my limited experience of 4e, characters have a suite of powers that can force opponents to do things (attack a certain person, move, whatever) and combat is largely about figuring how to line up those abilities for maximum effectiveness. Build a multi-character super combo, so to speak.

In 5e you have to figure out how to bait or manipulate your opponents into actions that give you the advantage. You also have to be able to adapt on the fly when they don't follow your plan. That, to me, is real tactical play. It's not just triggering abilities, it's out thinking your adversary. This kind of tactical play does require a DM that isn't going to have the opponents all know your abilities and plans though.

[pwykersotz]

Interestingly, from my perspective I consider 5e to require more tactical play than 4e.

The reason is that in with my limited experience of 4e, characters have a suite of powers that can force opponents to do things (attack a certain person, move, whatever) and combat is largely about figuring how to line up those abilities for maximum effectiveness. Build a multi-character super combo, so to speak.

In 5e you have to figure out how to bait or manipulate your opponents into actions that give you the advantage. You also have to be able to adapt on the fly when they don't follow your plan. That, to me, is real tactical play. It's not just triggering abilities, it's out thinking your adversary. This kind of tactical play does require a DM that isn't going to have the opponents all know your abilities and plans though.

They're both tactical in different ways. It's associated mechanics (5e) vs disassociated mechanics (4e). (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer) 4e has tactical moves with rigidly defined effects that are predictable and understood on a rules level. 5e requires more associated actions, requiring what you mention above but not having as many explicitly defined options.

But yeah, both are tactical with different styles. I prefer 5e out of D&D as a whole.

[Regulas]

I've always found the notion that 5e is too random bizarre, other then the fact that things are rarely 100% guaranteed, even by 5th level I've found the bonus' large enough in practise to be reasonably secure since in spite of the lower bonus values the DC's/saves you're rolling against tend not to scale much if at all.

In contrast I often felt that in 3.x dice were essentially pointless save for things you weren't good at because the odds often rapidly became way too far in your favour (unless the DM was rigging it against you), not to mention taking 10 allowing you to have guaranteed insane results.

[Sigreid]

They're both tactical in different ways. It's associated mechanics (5e) vs disassociated mechanics (4e). (http://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/17231/roleplaying-games/dissociated-mechanics-a-brief-primer) 4e has tactical moves with rigidly defined effects that are predictable and understood on a rules level. 5e requires more associated actions, requiring what you mention above but not having as many explicitly defined options.

But yeah, both are tactical with different styles. I prefer 5e out of D&D as a whole.

Yep, we pretty much agree about the tactics. I actually think this is why people often compare 4e to a computer game. Since a computer has a very limited ability to figure things out, all powers in and effects have to very well defined.

[djreynolds]

Yep, we pretty much agree about the tactics. I actually think this is why people often compare 4e to a computer game. Since a computer has a very limited ability to figure things out, all powers in and effects have to very well defined.

That is so true, if you haven't played PnP D&D, and have been on a computer, D&D stinks.

The whole fun of the game is working as a team... or bending others to you will....

Play PoE, 5E is best PnP edition.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I've always found the notion that 5e is too random bizarre, other then the fact that things are rarely 100% guaranteed, even by 5th level I've found the bonus' large enough in practise to be reasonably secure since in spite of the lower bonus values the DC's/saves you're rolling against tend not to scale much if at all.

In contrast I often felt that in 3.x dice were essentially pointless save for things you weren't good at because the odds often rapidly became way too far in your favour (unless the DM was rigging it against you), not to mention taking 10 allowing you to have guaranteed insane results.
I worked out the math once (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20685794&postcount=81), and without Expertise it's pretty ugly. You have fairly crappy odds of accomplishing a roughly level-appropriate task-- which I define as a Moderate* DC for a first level character with training and a good Ability modifier, Hard** for a 10th level, and Very Hard*** for a 20th level. I'd say about a 70-75% chance is good, adjusted up or down a bit by Advantage/Disadvantage for external circumstances. You get a little less than that with Expertise, and as little as half of that without it (55% for a first-level to hit a Moderate DC, and 35% for a 20th level to hit a Very Hard).

It's actually interesting if you look at the math as a whole. I've argued before that either Expertise was a patch on the skill system, or that the DCs were written with the expectation of Expertise, because the numbers line up very nicely when you have it. If you compared a maxed-out attack stat to the recommended ACs in the DMG, you consistently need to roll an 8 or more to hit a monster whose CR equals your level-- a 65% chance of success. If you have Expertise, then to hit what I guessed is a level-appropriate DC, you need to roll... and 8 or more.

Which may sound about right, but... it's not. A maxed-out attack stat is the base assumption. Every character will have that. Expertise is sharply limited, almost unattainable if you're not allowing multiclass. You have[ to be Rouge 1 or Bard 3, and you need to have Expertise in skills that match your primary stats. It takes a heavy investment to hit the expected, baseline success rate, compared to the basic investment to hit your expected attack modifier.

So yeah. The game expects you to have about a 2/3 success rate, which is a little less than I'd like but still acceptable... but you can only get that with skills if you invest heavily. Any less and your success rate plummets. Thus, complaints about randomness.

(And also the feeling. It's as hard to hit an AC 13 with a +5 modifier as it is to hit an AC of 23 with a +15, but because your modifier is so large relative to the die roll it feels like it's doing more work, even if it's really not)

[Regulas]

Snip

The only mitigation here is I find this stuff depends more on the DM then anything else and how much he thinks things should fail, as well as if he's considering your character individually. In fact the DMG doesn't even appear to give examples for what actually might constitute an easy, moderate or hard save (in fact your examples may even be a tier to high each), although it does however in some area's (like on advantage and disadvantage) specifically state taking a characters skills and circumstance into account.

For example my current DM is likely to say, with a knowledge check, only ask certain characters to make such a check and leave it as an easy check rather then letting everyone roll and setting it moderate (if someone else insisted he'd probably give them a separate higher DC). Or if there's loot that's hidden he will allow the stuff he wants us for sure to have to be found with an easy check while special loot might take a hard check, in which case the not assured result is just an extra bonus and you still get something even if you don't make the low odds check (instead of putting everything under a moderate check because "it's hidden").

Basically if things are really too random it might just be because the DM is making them too random and not really considering circumstances and odds when applying DC's.

Not to mention things like group checks that even out the odds.

[Grod_The_Giant]

The only mitigation here is I find this stuff depends more on the DM then anything else and how much he thinks things should fail, as well as if he's considering your character individually. In fact the DMG doesn't even appear to give examples for what actually might constitute an easy, moderate or hard save (in fact your examples may even be a tier to high each), although it does however in some area's (like on advantage and disadvantage) specifically state taking a characters skills and circumstance into account.

For example my current DM is likely to say, with a knowledge check, only ask certain characters to make such a check and leave it as an easy check rather then letting everyone roll and setting it moderate (if someone else insisted he'd probably give them a separate higher DC). Or if there's loot that's hidden he will allow the stuff he wants us for sure to have to be found with an easy check while special loot might take a hard check, in which case the not assured result is just an extra bonus and you still get something even if you don't make the low odds check (instead of putting everything under a moderate check because "it's hidden").

Basically if things are really too random it might just be because the DM is making them too random and not really considering circumstances and odds when applying DC's.

Not to mention things like group checks that even out the odds.
The DCs are pulled straight from the DMG-- tracking is on page 244 (DC 15 for "dirt or grass," DC 20 for "bare stone," +5 for every day since the creature passed) and social interaction is on 245 (For "Friendly Creature's Reaction," DC 20: "The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.") The DM can certainly help-- I played with one guy who made the gnome make Acrobatics checks to hop up and down from a barstool without falling-- but... yeah. There have been lots of interpretive suggestions on how to reduce randomness, such as only calling for checks when failure is interesting*, setting DCs based on who's attempting the check**, giving different results depending on who succeeds on the checks***, and so on. It's certainly not a major problem, and not one that bothers everyone, but it's a very valid criticism.


*Standard good practice
**Somewhat undermining the point of having dice bonuses
***Which somewhat helps the "barbarian outrolled the wizard" issue, but not the "wizard has a poor chance of success" issue

[Dr. Cliché]

By the way, Grod, what are your thoughts on randomness regarding save DCs in 5th?

[2D8HP]

My preferred a aesthetic for fantasy is more Naruto than Game of Thrones. Also, if I'm being honest the way I was treated by fans of traditional D&D who disliked 4E during that era did more than a little to sour me on it.
My 11 year old son loves Naruto!
When my son turn the same age that I was when I discovered (and fell in love with) D&D back in the 70's, I went out and got what is now in the stores (5e) for him. 5e is close enough to the D&D that I remembered and loved, so I've been digging it, but my son? He prefers Magic the Gathering :smallfrown:
Maybe he would like 4e?

[Grod_The_Giant]

By the way, Grod, what are your thoughts on randomness regarding save DCs in 5th?
Eh... I'm not a big fan of the scaling, but they're okay randomness-wise-- again, combat tends not to be an issue since it's resolved by a whole bunch of rolls. You need an 8 or better to save if you're proficient, and... substantially more if you're not. Personally, I'd rather see better success chances if you're proficient (say, 5 or more) and at least a bit of scaling if you're not, but that's just me.

[Regulas]

The DCs are pulled straight from the DMG-- tracking is on page 244 (DC 15 for "dirt or grass," DC 20 for "bare stone," +5 for every day since the creature passed) and social interaction is on 245 (For "Friendly Creature's Reaction," DC 20: "The creature accepts a significant risk or sacrifice to do as asked.") The DM can certainly help-- I played with one guy who made the gnome make Acrobatics checks to hop up and down from a barstool without falling-- but... yeah. There have been lots of interpretive suggestions on how to reduce randomness, such as only calling for checks when failure is interesting*, setting DCs based on who's attempting the check**, giving different results depending on who succeeds on the checks***, and so on. It's certainly not a major problem, and not one that bothers everyone, but it's a very valid criticism.


*Standard good practice
**Somewhat undermining the point of having dice bonuses
***Which somewhat helps the "barbarian outrolled the wizard" issue, but not the "wizard has a poor chance of success" issue

(Side bar: we've had this convo before)

Ah well you just had less context then the DMG has on those paticular examples making them seem less severe.


As for the rest, how is applying context and common sense "interpretive suggestions"? From my perspective your allowing the Barbarian to cheat because the rules don't technically forbid it, even though that doesn't actually make it logical for him to know something he can't possibly know.

Also *** does solve the wizard has a poor chance of success issue, because even on a failure a wizard would still know something on the subject. If a wizard has studied dragons and rolls a 1 his result should not be "You don't know what a dragon is", that's just not logical. It is logical however for the second character that's never seen a dragon before.

While your stool example was an extreme case it gives the impression still that you have DM's that just like to roll far too much when it doesn't make any sense.

[Grod_The_Giant]

As for the rest, how is applying context and common sense "interpretive suggestions"? From my perspective your allowing the Barbarian to cheat because the rules don't technically forbid it, even though that doesn't actually make it logical for him to know something he can't possibly know.
It's the Oberoni Fallacy. The fact that you can fiddle with, overrule, or apply the rules in odd ways doesn't mean they're not flawed.


Also *** does solve the wizard has a poor chance of success issue, because even on a failure a wizard would still know something on the subject. If a wizard has studied dragons and rolls a 1 his result should not be "You don't know what a dragon is", that's just not logical.
If it's "you know X, roll for X+Y," I classify that as more of an "only roll if failure is interesting" issue.


While your stool example was an extreme case it gives the impression still that you have DM's that just like to roll far too much when it doesn't make any sense.
The stool thing was nuts. I did not return to that game. The one I'm in now is much better. But in any case, as you mentioned this is an old argument. Let's not clutter up a new thread with it.

[Tehnar]

It bothers me more than a little. I prefer my actions and choices to matter more than die rolls, and 5E too often feels like the opposite.

That is basically one of my chief complaints with 5e, that player choices do not matter. Either you resort to essentially random outputs, or the DM decides the outcome of the situation. This is most evident with skill and ability checks.

The other is lack of support.

[Dr. Cliché]

That is basically one of my chief complaints with 5e, that player choices do not matter. Either you resort to essentially random outputs, or the DM decides the outcome of the situation. This is most evident with skill and ability checks.

The other is lack of support.

Could you give some examples of this, compared with other D&D systems?

[Mr.Moron]

That is basically one of my chief complaints with 5e, that player choices do not matter. Either you resort to essentially random outputs, or the DM decides the outcome of the situation. This is most evident with skill and ability checks.

The other is lack of support.

What is the maximal amount of risk one can undertake and still have one's choice to undertake that risk count as making a choice?

[MrStabby]

What is the maximal amount of risk one can undertake and still have one's choice to undertake that risk count as making a choice?

So a lot of this comes down to knowing the odds. If you are choosing between actions with different odds then your choices are meaningful no matter what the risk is.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Could you give some examples of this, compared with other D&D systems?
See my previous posts about probability. Essentially, 5e has two largely-unrelated but compounding issues with DCs:

The bonuses are small relative to the die, meaning that how well you roll is a significant factor in whether or not you succeed.
There is little guidance about how to set DCs, apart from a few tables buried in the DMG that seem to have been generated with little thought to the descriptions in the PHB. (Ex: it probably shouldn't be Hard to convince a friend to take a risk for you).

Both lead to things feeling arbitrary: the DM sets the DC however he wants, and the die determines if you hit it or not. The "rules" don't really seem to be involved in the process.

Personally, I don't have a problem with the second; I think groups should spend some time discussing what they want Easy/Moderate/Hard to mean, but it makes for a smoother game than a big list of tables.

[Tehnar]

Could you give some examples of this, compared with other D&D systems?


What is the maximal amount of risk one can undertake and still have one's choice to undertake that risk count as making a choice?

The fault of the system is the resolution system...a single roll resolution system with bonuses small compared to the size of the d20. This means that the chance to succeed, for the vast majority of characters (Except high level rogues or bards) is decided by the dice roll.

The question is not if there is a chance of failure and how big, what Mr. Moron defines as risk, but how can you allocate your resources to mitigate the failure state. In 5e there is very little you can do to be able to be mechanically good at a skill or ability check. IF you want a sorcerer that is good at acrobatics for example all you can do is pick the skill and pump dex, but you are likely to be within 5 points of most of the party that didn't pump dex and choose acrobatics for the majority of your career. And with a single roll resolution system, that means you will be able to tell that you are better at acrobatics then others is every 4 acrobatic checks on average, which is usually more then are called for in a single session. This means, you the player, are unlikely to notice that you indeed did make a resource investment (a choice).

This all means that any mechanical differentiation of characters based on their skill choices and ability scores is minimal, and thus all characters kind of feel the sameish to play. I don't know about you, but I prefer that different characters can perform different things with a radically different success chances, dependent on resources invested.

The essence of choice in any TTRPG with a mechanical resolution system is the question a player asks themselves: "Given what I invested in my characters ability to do X, and what I know of the difficulty of X, do I attempt X or do something else?" In 5e the answer to that question is that regardless of what resources I invested in my character the dice will dominate the success of the attempt. By this I mean that having a higher ability score or being higher level for a bigger proficiency bonus is the same thing as having a fiddly +1 or +2 bonus people rightly despise about 3.x, in the end it does not matter.

You can readily see this when a DM calls for a check with no consequence for failure, such as a knowledge checks. Everyone rolls on those in 5e.

[Mr.Moron]

The fault of the system is the resolution system...a single roll resolution system with bonuses small compared to the size of the d20. This means that the chance to succeed, for the vast majority of characters (Except high level rogues or bards) is decided by the dice roll.

The question is not if there is a chance of failure and how big, what Mr. Moron defines as risk, but how can you allocate your resources to mitigate the failure state. In 5e there is very little you can do to be able to be mechanically good at a skill or ability check. IF you want a sorcerer that is good at acrobatics for example all you can do is pick the skill and pump dex, but you are likely to be within 5 points of most of the party that didn't pump dex and choose acrobatics for the majority of your career. And with a single roll resolution system, that means you will be able to tell that you are better at acrobatics then others is every 4 acrobatic checks on average, which is usually more then are called for in a single session. This means, you the player, are unlikely to notice that you indeed did make a resource investment (a choice).

This all means that any mechanical differentiation of characters based on their skill choices and ability scores is minimal, and thus all characters kind of feel the sameish to play. I don't know about you, but I prefer that different characters can perform different things with a radically different success chances, dependent on resources invested.

The essence of choice in any TTRPG with a mechanical resolution system is the question a player asks themselves: "Given what I invested in my characters ability to do X, and what I know of the difficulty of X, do I attempt X or do something else?" In 5e the answer to that question is that regardless of what resources I invested in my character the dice will dominate the success of the attempt. By this I mean that having a higher ability score or being higher level for a bigger proficiency bonus is the same thing as having a fiddly +1 or +2 bonus people rightly despise about 3.x, in the end it does not matter.

You can readily see this when a DM calls for a check with no consequence for failure, such as a knowledge checks. Everyone rolls on those in 5e.

This has nothing to do with an absence of meaningful choice. This rant is entirely about build diversity and general play feel. Your argument here doesn't support your previous assertion. Meaningful choice would still exist in a system where everyone was handed an identical character sheet from the outset. Meaningful choice is about being freely presented with a non-coercive possibility space where your actions have consequences. Unless I guess the only choices that matter are the ones you can make before play during the CharOP step.

The rest of this is rather subjective. What is or isn't a "minimal" bonus is entirely subjective. You frame a +5 difference as "only being better 1 in 4 times", I can just easily frame it as someone 50% likely to succeed is twice as good as someone with a 25% chance. I frame that as someone with 100% chance can never fail, while someone with a 75% chance has a real risk. It can be framed that someone with a 25% chance has some hope while someone with a 0% chance is dead in the water. Again though.

In general I've grown to hate games with massive competency dispensaries in common capabilities because it makes for what I consider degenerate play dynamics. It makes the parts of the game world the players can interact with extremely segregated. In fact some of the most interesting and engaging games I've played in have been ones where the PCs are all more/less mechanically interchangeable and the focus is on our approaches to problems and the perspectives of the characters more than what numbers they have on a sheet.

[Tehnar]

This has nothing to do with an absence of meaningful choice. This rant is entirely about build diversity and general play feel. Your argument here doesn't support your previous assertion. Meaningful choice would still exist in a system where everyone was handed an identical character sheet from the outset. Meaningful choice is about being freely presented with a non-coercive possibility space where your actions have consequences. Unless I guess the only choices that matter are the ones you can make before play during the CharOP step.

I state you cannot make meaningful choices in a TTRPG without having a character that has strengths and weaknesses. You can make meaningful choices if everyone in the party has the same character, but it has to be a specific character, with specific strengths and weaknesses.

If a character has no strengths or weaknesses, then no choices he makes are meaningful since any choice a character makes is either biased already, or any option has a similar chance to resolve.

Lets say a player knows he can knock down a door 50% of the time, and pick a lock 50% of the time. This is not a meaningful choice since assuming said character is in a dungeon it is preferable to pick a lock instead of making noise, the choice is biased toward lockpicking and thus is not a choice at all. If there is no fear of alerting anyone then there is no difference in either knocking down a door or lockpicking since both have the same probability of getting past a obstacle so it doesn't matter which a player chooses.

[Mr.Moron]

I state you cannot make meaningful choices in a TTRPG without having a character that has strengths and weaknesses. You can make meaningful choices if everyone in the party has the same character, but it has to be a specific character, with specific strengths and weaknesses.

This just isn't the case.

You are playing Bill the guy name Bill. Bill has no strength and no weaknesses. Putting aside his actual built for a moment Bill has +5 in basically everything , with 50hp basic weapons and 1st level spells. Bill by whatever means of luck, expert play or just plain game premise contrive is in possession of the McGuffin. There are two major powers within his ability to travel to that could use the McGuffin to push their agendas and journeys are relatively safe. Power A is his homeland where his brother is in the army, but the king is kind of evil and will use to finish his war of agression and oppression the people. Power B is a rival to his kingdom currently under attack, they're the good guys and will win the war if they get it but his family and especially brother will be in danger. Additionally he also knows he can bring to the temple of RealUtlimatePower to become the worlds greatest ninja, but the road there is perilous. He also knows that T-Bone and his McGuffin Seeking posse are after him.


Now these aren't the only options available to him. Your GM isn't railroader or anything these are just the most obvious factors and possible decisions established the campaign until this point. You can do anything you can think of really.

Is it your assertion that you as bill have no meaning choices you can make because you have no particular strengths or weaknesses mechanically?

[Zalabim]

I worked out the math once (http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showsinglepost.php?p=20685794&postcount=81), and without Expertise it's pretty ugly. You have fairly crappy odds of accomplishing a roughly level-appropriate task-- which I define as a Moderate* DC for a first level character with training and a good Ability modifier, Hard** for a 10th level, and Very Hard*** for a 20th level. I'd say about a 70-75% chance is good, adjusted up or down a bit by Advantage/Disadvantage for external circumstances. You get a little less than that with Expertise, and as little as half of that without it (55% for a first-level to hit a Moderate DC, and 35% for a 20th level to hit a Very Hard).

The math for ability checks, attack rolls, and saving throws is all the same. D20+Ability modifier+proficiency if you have it. If you arbitrarily pick ability check DCs ~5 points higher than common saving throw DCs and ACs to hit, then you'll naturally see that ability checks fail more often. No one calls 25 AC level-appropriate at level 20.

Even so, more than in any other area of the game, non-level-appropriate DCs work out for ability checks because a check is supposed to have an interesting result pass or fail. This isn't supposed to be like combat where the results are "nothing" or "you're out of the fight" for a failure.

To paraphrase the Oberoni Fallacy. The fact that you can fiddle with, overrule, or apply the rules in odd ways doesn't mean they're flawed. If you aren't choosing appropriate DCs, and aren't choosing appropriate consequences, that's really a personal flaw. That the game doesn't tell everyone exactly what DCs and consequences to use for every probable situation is a matter of taste. I know some people don't like it.

[Grod_The_Giant]

No one calls 25 AC level-appropriate at level 20.
No, but I think that a well trained first level character should be able to reliably do Moderately difficult things, and at twentieth level he should be doing Very Difficult things, because otherwise what the hell was the point of all those levels? For most characters skills are the only way they interact with the world other than stabbing it.

[Firechanter]

I never liked 4E, but still I share some of your criticism:

#1 randomness. My DM loves it. I don't. I've just come to accept it. For instance, as soon as I had pushed my Con save to +9, he introduced "auto-fail on 1". Bleh.

#2 Fragility. Oh yes. If you play anything but a super-defensive characters, you are fragile. See below.

#5: Options: yes, these do seem lackluster and weaksauce when you come from 3rd or 4th. It gets better once you clear your mindset and start from zero.

Paladins:
I also play a Paladin of Vengeance (currently lv 10) with Greatsword and he was a glass cannon for a long time, until I got some excellent items. I basically started to think of him as having "3 hitpoints", due to the absurd damage many many Monsters dish out - they easily take ~30% off your health with a single hit.
Particularly, AC 16 or 18 hardly makes a difference. If you can't get your AC beyond 20, you don't need to try at all. But at AC21 and up, every extra point becomes increasingly more effective.

Depending on the biases of your DM, offensive (GWF) builds can rock the house, or they can be pointless or even totally unplayable. It just depends.

[Dr. Cliché]

Paladins:
I also play a Paladin of Vengeance (currently lv 10) with Greatsword and he was a glass cannon for a long time, until I got some excellent items. I basically started to think of him as having "3 hitpoints", due to the absurd damage many many Monsters dish out - they easily take ~30% off your health with a single hit.
Particularly, AC 16 or 18 hardly makes a difference. If you can't get your AC beyond 20, you don't need to try at all. But at AC21 and up, every extra point becomes increasingly more effective.

Depending on the biases of your DM, offensive (GWF) builds can rock the house, or they can be pointless or even totally unplayable. It just depends.

Just wanted to say that I've had similar experiences DMing a party (currently Lv5). A lot of monsters just seem to do insane amounts of damage for their CR, relative to my players' hp.

[BrianDavion]

my first time running 5th edition I had a rather nasty experiance when I realized the wolves dealed 2d6 instead of 1d6 damage.

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

This is why if you browse the 3.X forums you'll see a lot of strict advocacy for no save/no sr type stuff and a general mentality that any failure chance at all is in and of itself a failure for the game if not by the designers than by the player.This is a gross misunderstanding of character optimization in 3.5. Focusing on avoiding saves/SR and using miss chances is all about avoiding the enemy's perfect/semi-perfect defenses and offenses, not creating them for yourself. This is because in a high-op 3.5 game, HD (which brings with it attack bonuses and save bonuses) scales far faster than PC defenses can hope to accomplish outside specialized builds or cheese, and this is exacerbated by the fact that a high-op game will have high-CR/HD enemies by necessity. Avoiding SR and Saves, and focusing on miss chances as opposed to AC (a point often missed), is a necessity to have any chance of success in these sorts of games.

[Tehnar]

This just isn't the case.

You are playing Bill the guy name Bill. Bill has no strength and no weaknesses. Putting aside his actual built for a moment Bill has +5 in basically everything , with 50hp basic weapons and 1st level spells. Bill by whatever means of luck, expert play or just plain game premise contrive is in possession of the McGuffin. There are two major powers within his ability to travel to that could use the McGuffin to push their agendas and journeys are relatively safe. Power A is his homeland where his brother is in the army, but the king is kind of evil and will use to finish his war of agression and oppression the people. Power B is a rival to his kingdom currently under attack, they're the good guys and will win the war if they get it but his family and especially brother will be in danger. Additionally he also knows he can bring to the temple of RealUtlimatePower to become the worlds greatest ninja, but the road there is perilous. He also knows that T-Bone and his McGuffin Seeking posse are after him.


Now these aren't the only options available to him. Your GM isn't railroader or anything these are just the most obvious factors and possible decisions established the campaign until this point. You can do anything you can think of really.

Is it your assertion that you as bill have no meaning choices you can make because you have no particular strengths or weaknesses mechanically?

I dont see how this example is of any use since we are discussing choice in a context of mechanical resolution, ie by making a choice of of what rolls to make.

[Gizmogidget]

On the randomness I believe it can be addressed of course with some minor changes.

Persuade your DM to allow reduced DC's on checks if the party comes up with a good plan. This may alleviate the randomness of skill checks.

Also I do realize that combat can be very swingy. Advice- Make sure the swinginess is in your advantage.

[Mr.Moron]

I dont see how this example is of any use since we are discussing choice in a context of mechanical resolution, ie by making a choice of of what rolls to make.

Because that was never the scope to which you limited your original point:


That is basically one of my chief complaints with 5e, that player choices do not matter. Either you resort to essentially random outputs, or the DM decides the outcome of the situation. This is most evident with skill and ability checks.

The other is lack of support.

Your statement was that there is no player choices that matter and mechanical skill check resolution is just the most evident area. You keep on moving these goal posts dude. However even in this newly reduced scope you're still off, I think.

You or Bill';s theortical player decide to go to the temple of real ulimate power to become a master ninja that can flip out and kill people all the time. He comes to the gorge eternal peanut butter, which he must cross (the gorge actually has nothing to do with peanut butter it's just name. It's really just regular old gorge with pointy rocks at the bottom).

There are two immediately obvious passages.

The climb along the side or hopping in between the many tall skinny rocks to the other side. The climb and the skinny rocks are both announced as "Hard" checks. The climbs athletics, the skinny rocks arcobatics. Bill has the same value in both skill checks. However it is obvious that these two checks have different benefits for success and consequences for failure:

If he passes the skinny rocks check he will make it over very rapidly to the other side and put considerable distance between him and the terrible posse that's after him. In fact it's a near guaranteed escape given the situation at the moment. However if he fails it's obvious he will plummet down and if not instantly killed by the sharp rocks will certainly be facing knock-out damage and those gosh-darned death saving throws.

If he passes the climb check he will similarly make it across, albeit extremely slowly. He will in fact give up ground to his pursuers making a later conflict with the heavily armed group that outnumbers him, and also has the habit of torturing people for the lulz a sure thing. However, a failure will simply see him slide somewhat down the face as climbable surface (really almost crawable) isn't a sheer plummet. He can then repeat the check but each attempt is going to take more time.

In addition like before these aren't the only options just the most obvious ones. For example perhaps bill might want to explore the mountain (with his identical surival and perception checks) to finding a better crossing or a hiding place. Really anything you can think of but all your skills are the same.

Do you now assert in this strictly mechanics based choose-which-skill-to-rill scope that bill/the player/you still have no meaningful choices to make?
(bill is out of spells for the day, so he'll need to stop and take a long rest if wants any of those to help).