Is 5e *too* good?

[MrFahrenheit]

I've had this thought for a little while, but was curious to share it with others: is 5e, as a system, *too* good?

We can nitpick over small specific things, sure (does the phb ranger suck? Is the four elements monk underpowered? Are vhumans overpowered? Wouldn't it be cool if...? Etc.), but it seems like the system as a whole is just so well rounded by and large. Gone are earlier editions' days of having one class vastly outperform the others by mid-campaign, or an incredibly breakable feat system, or too many/not enough (given the edition or setting) skills/abilities.

I see very few complaints about the system itself, and those I have seen have, in my experience, been more often a result of the poster not understanding a rule. With errata, any mechanical issues can be (and so far, have been) addressed without upgrading the edition by half.

I'm not saying Wizards won't put out a new edition in a few years...what I'm saying is, it seems like the game wouldn't need it.

[LtPowers]

It certainly seems like they're getting really close to having an ideal system. There are still balance issues here and there... like sub-optimal choices for weapons, skills, archetypes, and spells. And still a few holes in feat selection, skills, and class concepts. But it's got an awful lot going for it. Bounded accuracy solved so many problems.

But is it too good? Too good for what?


Powers &8^]

[Hrugner]

Quite the opposite really. 5e is too bare bones. So much is left to the DM that balance will vary from table to table. There's also the broad swath of play styles that are no longer supported, on top of those that keep with the tradition of never supporting them. It's not a bad system, but it solves most old balance issues by removing the issues and replacing them with nothing.

[DivisibleByZero]

In before the skills/expertise/unknown-DC argument commences.

[Yuki Akuma]

There's no such thing as "too good", and no objective way to determine an RPG's "goodness" anyway.

To say something is too good is absurd. Goodness is the platonic ideal we're striving for, here.

Side note: People complain about 5e all the time. What forum are you reading?

[Hackulator]

From the perspective of actually playing the game, it is far and away the best version of the game they have created in my opinion.

If you are an insane power gamer, 3.5 has much more fun character creation.

Most of the play styles that were removed were terrible, problematic play styles that had a tendency to ruin the game for other people.



There's no such thing as "too good", and no objective way to determine an RPG's "goodness" anyway.

To say something is too good is absurd. Goodness is the platonic ideal we're striving for, here.

Side note: People complain about 5e all the time. What forum are you reading?

I think it could be too good from WIZARD'S perspective if it ended up being so good they couldn't eventually sell another edition cause nobdy wanted to leave 5e, but I doubt that could actually happen.

[Willie the Duck]

I think it could be too good from WIZARD'S perspective if it ended up being so good they couldn't eventually sell another edition cause nobdy wanted to leave 5e, but I doubt that could actually happen.

Except that that is exactly what WotC says they want.

[Hackulator]

Except that that is exactly what WotC says they want.

Well clearly large companies are never wrong or misleading.

[2D8HP]

Benefits of 5e, compared to old D&D:

Easier to survive First level.

PC's get to Second level fast.

More options.

Still fun to play.


Disadvantages of 5e, compared to old D&D:

Upper level PC's have so many abilities/powers that it's difficult (for me) to keep track of them all.

PC's get to upper levels too fast (for me).

Intimidating to DM, many more players per DM's than old D&D had.


The DM shortage is the biggest problem (I see) with 5e.
Less intimidating rules to DM (may) make it less fun for players (less options), but actually playing the game is more fun (for me) than a huge verity of "awesome builds".

[Malifice]

In before the skills/expertise/unknown-DC argument commences.

Too late. Nice try though you were close.

[MrFahrenheit]

I think it could be too good from WIZARD'S perspective if it ended up being so good they couldn't eventually sell another edition cause nobdy wanted to leave 5e, but I doubt that could actually happen.

This is what I mean by "too good." I'm inclined to agree. Sure there are some "would've been nice if..." situations, but they're minimal in this edition.

[Steampunkette]

Bounded Accuracy as a concept is not "Too Good" but it is a nigh-perfect solution to previous editions "Bonus Bonanza" issues, and fixes some of the more massive issues. So much so that Paizo has lifted the concept to implement it as a core function of Starfinder (Which makes me giddy inside).

5e's biggest flaw is the lack of depth in mechanics. The balance is -fairly- close, certainly close enough that many tables have little issue with the core system and instead have issues with specific radials. This could be best solved by slowly performing the same structural analysis and resolution as was performed on the core mechanic. Creating new systems of magic for increased sense of difference between caster types, adding in a more robust skill system which gives exploration and social pillars a strong sense of utility, and so forth. All as optional attachments to the core system itself.

Such changes would need to happen slowly, over an extended period of playtesting, to ensure that they are equal to, rather than overshadowing of, the core mechanics.

And, once this series of changes has been completed, with each optional system brought up to speed, a new "Sub-Edition" or Rules Collection edition of the core rulebooks to take up the systems that have been improved to provide a central entry point to new players which takes advantage of the continued improvements on the game itself.

5th Edition could be the last "True" edition of D&D, with further modifications being accessories to the central material. Optional sourcebooks.

[Waterdeep Merch]

It's very close to my ideal combat-heavy RPG system. Not necessarily because it does absolutely everything right, but because it both gets enough right and is, at its heart, a simple system.

This is the easiest system to write balanced *combat heavy* campaigns for in my history with roleplaying (I cannot stress combat heavy enough). We're mostly talking 2e, 3.0-3.5, Pathfinder, 4e, Dragon Age TRPG, oWoD, Mechaton, and GGG, and a bunch of one-offs I'm probably forgetting. Creating interesting encounters that aren't too easy or too hard is a cinch, and I love that.

It's really easy to teach new players how to play, too. A player that had difficulty wrapping their head around 4e's mechanics picked up 5e in a single session, and my PF converts understood it pretty much on sight. I've trained three completely new players to TTRPG's on 5e, and it took no time at all.

Most importantly, homebrewing is extremely simple here. The few problems people know exist have at least a dozen possible fixes on this site alone, if not hundreds. There's an extremely healthy homebrewing scene, in no small part thanks to WotC finally realizing we players love making custom classes, races, items, and systems, and has been openly encouraging it. UA is basically in-house homebrew that has the potential to one day be printed in a book.

It's not perfect, though. 5e's system is remarkably flexible even using just the core rulebooks, but it can't cover every niche and they've been extremely slow addressing this. It's also just plain fun getting new character options once in a while. The regularity of splats in past editions was way too much, but this isn't just slow. Cosmic warming is happening at a faster rate.

And no matter how good the core system is, eventually you'll get bored with it if you over play it. I'm already starting to mix in my usual non-standard games between 5e sessions. If this keeps up, I might have to make 5e my off-game after the completion of my current campaign. I doubt it, because plenty of other toys are coming in, but if I feel like I've already had my fill, that's all there is to it.

TL;DR: 5e is flexible, easy to learn, easy to play, and fun. But material hasn't been coming in quick enough, and without variety it can get boring.

[MrFahrenheit]

Benefits of 5e, compared to old D&D:

Easier to survive First level.

PC's get to Second level fast.

More options.

Still fun to play.


Disadvantages of 5e, compared to old D&D:

Upper level PC's have so many abilities/powers that it's difficult (for me) to keep track of them all.

PC's get to upper levels too fast (for me).

Intimidating to DM, many more players per DM's than old D&D had.


The DM shortage is the biggest problem (I see) with 5e.
Less intimidating rules to DM (may) make it less fun for players (less options), but actually playing the game is more fun (for me) than a huge verity of "awesome builds".

So I just completed a campaign that went from 1-20. I will say that the "too many abilities" problem wasn't as bad for the folks who were with the group from (or near enough to) the beginning. Actual features are accumulated slowly, so that you get used to one before getting another. Those who joined later (past level five...but especially past 11) did have this problem. Problem is worse the more spells you have access to.

As for PCs leveling too fast...IMO, that's not a bad thing - one of the few issues that needed to be addressed, otherwise boss monsters become mooks ("another pit fiend? Really?!"). And it means the game can actually be completed, so the 20th level builds we see on boards like this aren't just for the fun of it.

Is the PC-to-DM ratio issue really that new? I feel like that's always been the case, regardless of edition or setting.

I actually found this edition to be the least intimidating to DM, tbh. Rules are simple and straightforward, while covering enough ground so that you don't feel lost when something unexpected surfaces.

I will say that what annoys me is the lack of real weapon variety. Dex martials will want a rapier; str either a longsword, greatsword, greataxe or polearm/glaive (depending on race); small ranged characters want a longbow, and medium ranged ones want a heavy crossbow. Even something as simple as a different critical effect per weapon could make the difference here (martials offering better crit effects than simple, lower damage dice offering better crit effects than higher ones, to increase the appeal of things like flails).

[MrFahrenheit]

@Waterdeep Merch: it's funny you mention that 5e is the best combat heavy rpg system. I agree, but in my experience it's also the best non-combat rpg as well. A little bit of interpretation of what each skill does (performance not just meaning gigging with a band or acting in a play; intimidation including things like hitting on someone; nature to properly carve meat) has given me a much wider leeway in the non-combat encounters.

My problem with something like 3.5, 4e or GURPS was that those editions/setting had too many skills to try and encompass all possible situations (for example in GURPS, you basically had social interaction keyed off charisma, and then further broken up into large group addresses, small group interaction, and one on one settings; 3.5's "use rope?" I'd let my players use athletics instead, or maybe acrobatics given the situation), that it left no room to imagination. In keeping things more pared down, 5e accomplished for me what all those more buckshot systems couldn't.

[ThurlRavenscrof]

I agree (with it being extremely good, not too good). I DM a LOT of new players and BM ranger is one of the most popular classes with them - not even the revised one. They aren't trying to play optimally and no one at the table is either so they can't even tell that the BM is underpowered. They just know they look like a badass with a pet panther.

I think 5e set out to be a certain type of game and it succeeded. If you think 5e puts too much emphasis on rules and not enough on story telling, maybe you should play Fate, Dread, or Fiasco. If you think 5e puts too little emphasis on rules and too many abstractions, maybe you should play Pathfinder or Shadowrun. If you want a simpler system, maybe Numenera - a more complicated system, maybe 3.5.

I think 5e wants to be a catch-all, first RPG I ever played, type of feel. They want to be a flexible system that adapts to the group but still have structure and tactics. And I think that only people who care enough to talk about it on a forum even notice the minor balance and metagame issues. The majority of players are happy with the system.

[Knaight]

Disadvantages of 5e, compared to old D&D:

...
Intimidating to DM, many more players per DM's than old D&D had.


I'm less than convinced about this one - not least because 5e is built practically assuming a 4-5 player group, whereas early editions routinely had groups much bigger than that.

[Grod_The_Giant]

@Waterdeep Merch: it's funny you mention that 5e is the best combat heavy rpg system. I agree, but in my experience it's also the best non-combat rpg as well. A little bit of interpretation of what each skill does (performance not just meaning gigging with a band or acting in a play; intimidation including things like hitting on someone; nature to properly carve meat) has given me a much wider leeway in the non-combat encounters.

My problem with something like 3.5, 4e or GURPS was that those editions/setting had too many skills to try and encompass all possible situations (for example in GURPS, you basically had social interaction keyed off charisma, and then further broken up into large group addresses, small group interaction, and one on one settings; 3.5's "use rope?" I'd let my players use athletics instead, or maybe acrobatics given the situation), that it left no room to imagination. In keeping things more pared down, 5e accomplished for me what all those more buckshot systems couldn't.
It has a good skill list, sure, but it really doesn't have anything apart from that. Compare it to, say, Exalted, where you have actual defined rules for talking people into things and where you can pick up dozens of special non-combat abilities as easily as you can combat.

5e is a solid game, but I would hardly call it "too good." It's simple and it does combat ok, but it's much too light on the exploration and social pillars, it doesn't do enough to make sure non-casters feel more capable at high levels, the balance is much too closely tied to the "6-8 encounters/long rest with a heavy focus on attrition" model, and-- at least so far-- they've been too slow to open up the mechanics in interesting ways.

[2D8HP]

I'm less than convinced about this one - not least because 5e is built practically assuming a 4-5 player group, whereas early editions routinely had groups much bigger than that.


Amend to "Too few needed DM's per groups of players.

[Knaight]

@Waterdeep Merch: it's funny you mention that 5e is the best combat heavy rpg system. I agree, but in my experience it's also the best non-combat rpg as well. A little bit of interpretation of what each skill does (performance not just meaning gigging with a band or acting in a play; intimidation including things like hitting on someone; nature to properly carve meat) has given me a much wider leeway in the non-combat encounters.
5e is hardly the only system to have a pared down skill list, and in plenty of those other systems actually being good at a skill counts for something. Just look at Fate, which has a very solid core skill system* and relatively few broad skills. Look at Chronica Feudalis, which has a solid system for handling skills, handling tools across all skills (including social skills), and which gives chases, stealth, and parley just as much attention as they give combat without any of it being too cumbersome.


I see very few complaints about the system itself, and those I have seen have, in my experience, been more often a result of the poster not understanding a rule. With errata, any mechanical issues can be (and so far, have been) addressed without upgrading the edition by half.
There are some big ones left. More than a few of us fundamentally dislike the proficiency mechanic (or more accurately, fundamentally dislike the application of the proficiency mechanic to skills), there's some deep hatred towards skills not having example DCs on a per skill basis (just get Pex started on it), one of the developers has outright called the bonus action system hacky, and there are a few other similar flaws.

It's still my favorite edition of D&D by far, but it's also in no danger of actually seeing all that much play, as there's a whole host of non-D&D systems that I'd consider better than it.

*Complements of Fudge, not that they bother to credit it anymore.

[Findulidas]

I quite like it. Its not the worst for sure. Too good is probably not true though. Even if its the best in its field there will still be others anyway.

[Honest Tiefling]

I don't think the lack of depth is a bad thing, because if you want a simple game, there it is. I'd rather that there be more optional rules so that a DM can add or not add them as is necessary for the table and game, but I assume those will be coming out eventually. I mean, there's the mass combat UA, so I think that idea has some merit.

Adding an optional system that has been refined is easier then yanking a sub-system out that has been baked into the rules in my opinion.

[BoutsofInsanity]

I think it's close.

It does some amazing things, and the biggest complaints I see are from players who have nostalgia for previous editions. I'm at a game store, and I watch, as more and more new people pick up the game easily. It takes a session at most, starting at level 2 to pick up and play the game.

For advanced players, I feel is the only issue. The system lacks a mechanical depth to it to keep MTG players interested like Pathfinder does.

I would like to see more mechanically interesting or different ways of casting spells or attacking. Newer and more fun feats. Alternate classes and features, and a couple of splat books.

I really feel like we are due a PHB2.

Further, some optional rules for different settings. Science Fiction, Modern, or a full on Ebberon Setting would be welcome.

[MeeposFire]

Benefits of 5e, compared to old D&D:

Easier to survive First level.

PC's get to Second level fast.

More options.

Still fun to play.


Disadvantages of 5e, compared to old D&D:

Upper level PC's have so many abilities/powers that it's difficult (for me) to keep track of them all.

PC's get to upper levels too fast (for me).

Intimidating to DM, many more players per DM's than old D&D had.


The DM shortage is the biggest problem (I see) with 5e.
Less intimidating rules to DM (may) make it less fun for players (less options), but actually playing the game is more fun (for me) than a huge verity of "awesome builds".

I think DM (or similar) shortages have been a problem in ALL game systems that have such things since about forever so I do not know it is specifically a 5e problem. I remember back in the day having lots of trouble finding people to DM AD&D, 2e, 3e, and 4e which is why I had to DM most of the time. It is a problem but I would not call it a 5e problem so much as a gaming problem.

As for leveling too fast yea the game is designed to do that though that is an easy fix by just expanding the required XP at later levels if you want or by going to the alternative leveling systems they gave you such as mile stones and the like. I do not really feel like that is a problem that the game cannot easily handle.

High level abilities I can see making some uncomfortable though I would say that the game does give you some options for limiting high level abilities for instance you can play a rogue or something like a champion fighter and that really limits that problem. Now if you are speaking from a DM well it might be slightly harder than some editions in some ways but it quite a bit easier than other editions in other ways for high level stuff so I think it is a bit of a wash.

In terms of intimidation 5e for me was less intimidating than 3e and similar to AD&D and 4e (though in very different ways). 4e had additional work in learning system bits that was a bit more extensive than some but as very easy to create encounters which made life very easy. AD&D was easier to game with in some ways but finding what you want can be a chore, there are a lot of restrictions you either have to live with or change, and encounters are harder to design effectively since if you want to create encounters the rules are very vague (they were not really designed in that fashion and they never got a good update to really help you in that regard just some very vague guidelines). 5e is a middle ground in all of this for me so I find it easier than some and harder than others depending on what aspect we are talking about.

[Demonslayer666]

5th definitely isn't perfect, and even if it was, they would still try something different in the next iteration, WoTC wants to make money.

[Findulidas]

Have to say that there is bound to be bias to put this up on the 5e board.

[Rynjin]

Been playing a lot of 5e recently, and I don't think it's anywhere close to "too good". Most classes of a specific role play very similarly (a melee class is a melee class, a caster is a caster pretty much). There are very few ways beyond extremely low levels to take enemies out of the fight using any tactic besides "Kill it with damage", leaving a lot of combats feeling lackluster. The game is excruciatingly slow in combats with more enemies than there are PCs because multiple attacks are hard to come by, and generally speaking the bounded accuracy/damage will make it so you kill that Umber Hulk in 3-4 rounds bah gawd and there's no way to change that. If a 4 man party is fighting 6 Umber Hulks, it's gonna take you 7-8 rounds to do it most likely (completely discounting the every round gaze, this was just a frustrating example). Pain in the ass. What social skills (Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidate particularly) can do is ill-defined (can I Intimidate mid-combat to drive off an enemy? If so, what effect does it have? How long does Persuasion take?).

This on top of the little nitpicks and baffling design decisions. Disarm is no longer something any class can do, you need a special class ability for it. Scimitars weigh a pound more than a rapier but are light weapons where the rapier isn't because GOTTA HAVE DRIZZ'T. The Ring of Free Action only works on magical effects, so for some reason I can walk through a web spell but get caught by normal spider webs. Etc., etc.

It's not a bad system, but it's not great either. Certainly not "too good".

[Matrix_Walker]

Too good? No. That's crazy-talk.

I wouldn't put it in my top 5 RP game systems, and if I learned three more, it's ranking would probably drop.
It's best feature isn't even a part of the system, it's it's exposure and ease of finding people to play with.

[JAL_1138]

5th definitely isn't perfect, and even if it was, they would still try something different in the next iteration, WoTC wants to make money.

Aye. I suspect we'll get a 5.5 or 6e as soon it makes financial and marketing sense to do it--although hopefully they've learned how to tell when that point is, and avoid having it look like a blatant cash grab.

(EDIT: I'm not opposed to the company making money, or doing things intended primarily to make money. Every edition has been done to some extent for that purpose. But if it looks like they're just doing it for revenue, it'll be poorly-received.)

[MrFahrenheit]

Been playing a lot of 5e recently, and I don't think it's anywhere close to "too good". Most classes of a specific role play very similarly (a melee class is a melee class, a caster is a caster pretty much). There are very few ways beyond extremely low levels to take enemies out of the fight using any tactic besides "Kill it with damage", leaving a lot of combats feeling lackluster. The game is excruciatingly slow in combats with more enemies than there are PCs because multiple attacks are hard to come by, and generally speaking the bounded accuracy/damage will make it so you kill that Umber Hulk in 3-4 rounds bah gawd and there's no way to change that. If a 4 man party is fighting 6 Umber Hulks, it's gonna take you 7-8 rounds to do it most likely (completely discounting the every round gaze, this was just a frustrating example). Pain in the ass. What social skills (Deception, Persuasion, and Intimidate particularly) can do is ill-defined (can I Intimidate mid-combat to drive off an enemy? If so, what effect does it have? How long does Persuasion take?).

This on top of the little nitpicks and baffling design decisions. Disarm is no longer something any class can do, you need a special class ability for it. Scimitars weigh a pound more than a rapier but are light weapons where the rapier isn't because GOTTA HAVE DRIZZ'T. The Ring of Free Action only works on magical effects, so for some reason I can walk through a web spell but get caught by normal spider webs. Etc., etc.

It's not a bad system, but it's not great either. Certainly not "too good".

"Kill it with damage" has long been the bane of many RPGs. In past editions/settings, combat = two trees chopping each other till one fell. There are some tricks in 5e (banishment coming to mind) that let parties finish a fight without a lot of damage needing to be dealt, but I can't see a more general way around this issue once combat commences.

[Knaight]

"Kill it with damage" has long been the bane of many RPGs. In past editions/settings, combat = two trees chopping each other till one fell. There are some tricks in 5e (banishment coming to mind) that let parties finish a fight without a lot of damage needing to be dealt, but I can't see a more general way around this issue once combat commences.

I wouldn't say many RPGs. D&D in particular tends to favor it taking a lot of shots to kill something, but that's not always the case. There's plenty of systems where killing things with damage is the only way to kill them, but it still goes quickly because a lot of the time one good shot is all that's needed. Take Shadowrun, where a well placed grenade can kill basically anything and often several somethings complements of the chunky salsa rule.

[Hrugner]

I wouldn't say many RPGs. D&D in particular tends to favor it taking a lot of shots to kill something, but that's not always the case. There's plenty of systems where killing things with damage is the only way to kill them, but it still goes quickly because a lot of the time one good shot is all that's needed. Take Shadowrun, where a well placed grenade can kill basically anything and often several somethings complements of the chunky salsa rule.

GURPS is my favorite for the low damage to kill ratio. Most things are significantly disabled after a shot or two and focus firing becomes much less important as each attack weakens the creatures ability to press the encounter. D&D generates the MMO approach where you chose either to disable or to kill, but you are punished for not focus firing and disabling a creature is often more resource expensive than killing it.

But D&D has always been like this, so I don't consider that a weakness. Crippling blows are a bit too complicated for D&D and seem best suited for games that disregard balance as much as GURPS does.

[Vaz]

I've had this thought for a little while, but was curious to share it with others: is 5e, as a system, *too* good?

We can nitpick over small specific things, sure (does the phb ranger suck? Is the four elements monk underpowered? Are vhumans overpowered? Wouldn't it be cool if...? Etc.), but it seems like the system as a whole is just so well rounded by and large. Gone are earlier editions' days of having one class vastly outperform the others by mid-campaign, or an incredibly breakable feat system, or too many/not enough (given the edition or setting) skills/abilities.

I see very few complaints about the system itself, and those I have seen have, in my experience, been more often a result of the poster not understanding a rule. With errata, any mechanical issues can be (and so far, have been) addressed without upgrading the edition by half.

I'm not saying Wizards won't put out a new edition in a few years...what I'm saying is, it seems like the game wouldn't need it.

Lol **** no.

[CantigThimble]

Well, if you're looking for criticism for 5e then there are basically 2 main issues I have with it.
1. The 6-8 encounter day with 2-3 short rests is far too rigidly built into the system in my opinion. You can stretch it, bend it and twist it but you can't remove it, and I just hate its presence in any form.

2. The rules are much too heavily biased towards combat for my taste, not to say that there's not noncombat stuff, but the way character creation and the rules are set up means that players almost always spend way more time thinking about combat than other potential parts of an RPG.

[Ninja-Radish]

It's not a terrible system, but I have huge problems with it. For one thing, this is the worst version of the saving throw mechanic I've ever seen. There's almost no situation that calls for a Charisma or Intelligence save, so why do they exist? Also, if you're not proficient in a save, you actually get WORSE at it over time because the DCs increase. Seriously, a lvl 20 character has a lower chance to make a save than a lvl 1 character unless they have proficiency in it.

Personally, I'm also not a fan of the extremely limited character customization options.

Also, skills. They're too vaguely described and I have no idea what half of them even do. In addition, I'm not a fan of how some skill proficiencies morphed into tool proficiencies in this edition.

My group wants to play so I go along with it but man, this edition has been a huge step back for me personally. Obviously I'm in the minority, I understand that.

[Pex]

There are flaws to the game, not just "nitpicks", but for some people their flaws are others' features. A few of those others take offense some people find flaws of the game and chastise them for the audacity of criticizing 5E. A game can have flaws and still be a fine game to play that works well and players have fun with it. That's 5E, that's 3E, that's Pathfinder, and even 4E to name a game I personally despise.

[Grod_The_Giant]

You know what I'd really like to see for 5e, given how it's supposed to be all modular and such?

A "Skills Handbook."

Think about it. Classes are pretty much entirely combat-focused, with the very odd movement ability here and there. At the same time, all classes access skills in the same way and at the same speed, but with virtually no rules attached to them. It strikes me that there's tremendous room to work with, there. You could write an entire new subsystem to compliment (or even entirely replace, really) the existing skill system and drop it into the existing game with virtually no seams.

Imagine, if you will, a book with six chapters. Each chapter is focused on one Ability. First, they expand on the common uses for the Ability, with rules and frameworks beyond "roll high." The Intelligence chapter, for example, might have rules for how knowledge-type checks works, for researching questions, for crafting things, for CSI-work. The Charisma chapter might have social conflict/conversation rules. And then you present a set of Skill Tricks. Things that work sort of like the new skill feats, or skill-based feats like Actor and Stealthy. Characters would have a number equal to their Proficiency Bonus, and they'd be things like, oh...


Pocket Craftsman: Once per short rest, you can take one minute to quickly piece together a piece of mundane equipment, consuming up to half the item's market cost in raw materials. The crafted item is visually crude, but otherwise functions normally-- though its appearance is usually sufficient to keep it from being sold at full price. You're also permitted to assemble a stock of raw materials, similar to a spell component pouch, at any reasonably well-stocked market or general store.
Tightrope Walker: You automatically succeed on Dexterity checks to balance on sturdy objects of one inch in diameter or more. At 10th level, you can automatically balance on objects of any width, or on ones that are wide enough but would not normally support your weight.
Forked Tongue: When attempting to persuade people to take a course of action, your suggests will always sound inoffensive, if not downright appealing. You cannot decrease your reputation* with a failed Persuade attempt.

To keep things neat, Tricks would presumably require Proficiency in the associated skill or tool, and would have a level (or Proficiency Bonus!) requirement so that you could have increasingly powerful ones. You should probably have them scale, too, so the final versions might look like...


Pocket Craftsman (Any Artisan's Tool, Proficiency +2): Once per short rest, you can take one minute to quickly piece together a piece of mundane equipment, consuming up to half the item's market cost in raw materials. The crafted item is visually crude, but otherwise functions normally-- though its appearance is usually sufficient to keep it from being sold at full price. You're also permitted to assemble a stock of raw materials, similar to a spell component pouch, at any reasonably well-stocked market or general store. At 10th level, the objects you make are indistinguishable from normal ones, and work well enough to provide a 1d4 bonus on ability checks made using them once/short rest. At 15th level, you may use this trick at-will, and the crafted items always provide the bonus.
Tightrope Walker (Acrobatics, Proficiency +3): You automatically succeed on Dexterity checks to balance on sturdy objects of one inch in diameter or more. At 10th level, you can automatically balance on objects of any width, or on ones that are wide enough but would not normally support your weight. At 15th level, you can automatically balance on any physical object, regardless of its size or sturdiness, as well as on the surface of liquids such as water.
Forked Tongue (Persuasion, Proficiency +2): When attempting to persuade people to take a course of action, your suggests will always sound inoffensive, if not downright appealing. You cannot decrease your reputation* with a failed Persuade attempt. At 5th level, you extend this benefit to allies, explaining their bumbles away such that you both look good. At 10th level, you can turn this on enemies, causing them to suffer reputation loss even with successful Persuade attempts and doubling the loss on unsuccessful ones.

The end result would be that every character has a set of up to six cool, level-relevant, non-combat-related special powers. The noncombat pillars of the game will be vastly strengthened, while combat remains the same.



*We'll pretend that's part of the social rules we mentioned; "social hit points" or some such.

[Kane0]

At the end of the day it's all subjective really. One man's great is anothers terrible, especially true in the field of game design. Many aspects are more of a slider than a yes/no, depth vs accessibility for example. Not to say theres pitfalls to avoid of course.

Heh, actually reminds me of

http://i.imgur.com/NgDOCe3.jpg

[Logosloki]

5th edition is a really solid framework. It is good but not too good. The problems areas are non-combat where it can't decide whether it wants to be completely free-form or have a solid underpinning, the caster vs martial in the upper levels (though to be fair it is screeds better) and the lack of updated setting.

What I would like to see would be a more helpful DMG to newer DMs with the very least a DC skill guide with examples. Setting books or at least pdfs like the MTG settings. A UA process with UA material actually leaving UA to become playable or moving out of UA to make room for other things and for the team actually coming out and saying so. Also a martial powers subsystem. Honestly an expanded maneuvers subsystem would be a good start where the goal is to supplement the attack action.

Also a rework of warlock. Either to make them the mystic rather than mystic the early access.

[Vogonjeltz]

Quite the opposite really. 5e is too bare bones. So much is left to the DM that balance will vary from table to table. There's also the broad swath of play styles that are no longer supported, on top of those that keep with the tradition of never supporting them. It's not a bad system, but it solves most old balance issues by removing the issues and replacing them with nothing.

If you go through the DMGs of 3.5 and 5 you'll find they are nearly identical in the latitude provided to the DM.

The key difference is that 5 cut out all the fiddly modifiers which made 3.5 a nightmare slog to Moderate.


In before the skills/expertise/unknown-DC argument commences.

Too late! (See previous)

[Psikerlord]

5e is pretty fun for a while but it definitely has room for improvement:

1. More dangerous please, maybe 1 death save.

2. Delete passive perception. It just breaks stuff.

3. A low magic variant would be my preference.

4. Go back to roll equal or under stat; make attributes useful/relevant again and easy to layer on degrees of success, too.

[Potato_Priest]

I like it on the whole, but I feel as though it has 1 basic flaw, at least for me.

6-8 encounters/day is not much fun, and doesn't really make sense.

When have you went for a walk in the woods and had 6-8 seperate encounters with dangerous creatures? Never. That just doesn't happen, and it's kind of ridiculous to make it happen in a game.

When you fight 6-8 encounters per day, the first ones aren't even going to feel like a challenge, and that's a bad design. Every time I have to fight a non-threat enemy, the whole group has to roll initiative, make an optimal strategy, etc... It takes time that I'd rather spend roleplaying, or, if combat is necessary, in a real life-or-death situation.

Not to say that 6-8 encounters/day doesn't work for some, but for my preferred playstyle it's very inoptimal.

[TrinculoLives]

"Kill it with damage" has long been the bane of many RPGs. In past editions/settings, combat = two trees chopping each other till one fell. There are some tricks in 5e (banishment coming to mind) that let parties finish a fight without a lot of damage needing to be dealt, but I can't see a more general way around this issue once combat commences.
As with any other shortcomings of the edition, this is something the DM has to take care of.

[pwykersotz]

Yes. 5e is too good. I cannot bear it. I'm going back to 3.5. :smalltongue:

In honesty though, I hope it's too good by the standards you set out. I want this game to be evergreen, or at least to have a good 10 to 15 year run. D&D will never give me what I want from a magic system, but the rest of 5e is gravy as far as I'm concerned.

[mephnick]

I like it on the whole, but I feel as though it has 1 basic flaw, at least for me.

6-8 encounters/day is not much fun, and doesn't really make sense.

When have you went for a walk in the woods and had 6-8 seperate encounters with dangerous creatures? Never. .

Long rest variant helps a lot but it's still a problem for anyone that doesn't want to run a pure single adventure day dungeon crawl.

[PeteNutButter]

I like it on the whole, but I feel as though it has 1 basic flaw, at least for me.

6-8 encounters/day is not much fun, and doesn't really make sense.

When have you went for a walk in the woods and had 6-8 seperate encounters with dangerous creatures? Never. That just doesn't happen, and it's kind of ridiculous to make it happen in a game.

When you fight 6-8 encounters per day, the first ones aren't even going to feel like a challenge, and that's a bad design. Every time I have to fight a non-threat enemy, the whole group has to roll initiative, make an optimal strategy, etc... It takes time that I'd rather spend roleplaying, or, if combat is necessary, in a real life-or-death situation.

Not to say that 6-8 encounters/day doesn't work for some, but for my preferred playstyle it's very inoptimal.

For an RPG that put so much effort into combat, my complaints are all about its combat.

The alternative to the 6-8 fights I've done in my own games is just to make every fight life or death, super deadly. Short of railroading or a severe time crunch, it's the only way players will ever actually be challenged. ("I spent 2 first levels spells in that fight. I'm going to start ritualling Leomund's Tiny Hut..." Other PC: "Dude, it's 8 AM.")

My other main problem with 5e is also listed as its strength: Bounded accuracy. It makes PCs in tier 2 or above capable of taking on things way above their CR.

Also solo big bads? Forget about em in this edition. They better have a truckload of hitpoints and legendary actions and saves, and be able to one shot a PC a round to actually threaten an optimized party in combat.

Basically 5e feels like it's an RPG with a default difficulty setting of very easy for the players.

[BoxANT]

5e feels like D&D and playes like D&D. It has enough crunch to satisfy my optimization needs, but not too much as to scare off new players. The freedom given to the DM is great, and most mechanical "issues" with the game can be taken care of with a good DM.

I would like to see a "advanced rules" book, but honestly, I really like the state of the game as it is.

[Potato_Priest]

The alternative to the 6-8 fights I've done in my own games is just to make every fight life or death, super deadly. Short of railroading or a severe time crunch, it's the only way players will ever actually be challenged. ("I spent 2 first levels spells in that fight. I'm going to start ritualling Leomund's Tiny Hut..." Other PC: "Dude, it's 8 AM.")


I've done that too, but that approach tends to unbalance the game in favor of full casters and barbarians, while the rest of the martials and warlocks get left in the dust.

That's why I think they either should have designed the game for those deadly fights, rather than a 6-8 battle daily grind, or they should have made all classes equally dependent on expendable resources and the different types of rests, so that any sort of adventuring day would tax all characters equivalently.

[JellyPooga]

I like it on the whole, but I feel as though it has 1 basic flaw, at least for me.

6-8 encounters/day is not much fun, and doesn't really make sense.

When have you went for a walk in the woods and had 6-8 seperate encounters with dangerous creatures? Never. That just doesn't happen, and it's kind of ridiculous to make it happen in a game.

When you fight 6-8 encounters per day, the first ones aren't even going to feel like a challenge, and that's a bad design. Every time I have to fight a non-threat enemy, the whole group has to roll initiative, make an optimal strategy, etc... It takes time that I'd rather spend roleplaying, or, if combat is necessary, in a real life-or-death situation.

Not to say that 6-8 encounters/day doesn't work for some, but for my preferred playstyle it's very inoptimal.

1 Encounter =/= 1 Fight.

6-8 fights a day is ridiculous, yes, but the game does not assume that. It assumes 6-8 encounters. To use your "walk in the woods" as an example;

- an unexpected fork in the road
- a traveler passing in the other direction
- a friendly tree spirit offering a reward for the answer to a riddle
- a tree falls, blocking passage to the caves you're heading for

That's four pretty generic (non-plot relevent) encounters off the top of my head, for a "walk in the woods" sort of day. Adventurers are supposed to come across adventure and that's what the 6-8 encounters a day thing is supposed to do, not pitch the players into the grim darkness of the far future where there is only war (that's 40k's job!).

[Malifice]

5e's biggest flaw is the lack of depth in mechanics.

I dont mind the lack of crunch and 'rulings over rules'. I kind of prefer winging it to constantly flicking through the book to find the DC for juggling while standing on one leg on a moving slippery boat (or whatver) or flowcharts for grappling etc.

It does mean the system is only as good as the DM that runs it, but since when has that not been the case anyway?

My greatest gripe with the system is the design choice to set the 'balance point' for classes and encounter difficulty at the expectation of 6-8 encounters/ 2-3 short rests (each 1 hour long) mark.

Its hard to effectively maintain a campaign that hits that mark with enough frequency that the game balances for everyone.

I feel 4-5 encounters, and turning 'X/short rest' powers into (slightly toned down) 'X/encounter' powers would have been better.

Im also a little disspointed by how death has become nothing more than a minor economic annoyance from 5th level onwards. I mean, I get why this decision was made, but it rubs me a little raw for some reason.

Maybe its just my inner grognard.

[90sMusic]

5th Edition solved all of the issues I had with pathfinder...

DCs not being attached to spell slot level made spells of ALL levels useful.

Scaling, spammable cantrips to give casters a means of contributing something useful if they run out of spells.

Removing the ridiculous bookkeeping needed with preparing specific spells in advance every single day, making everyone spontaneous casters was a huge boon.

Fixing all the scaling issues was pathfinder was also huge. Grappling became next to impossible without explicitly specializing for it in pathfinder very quickly and even if you dedicated your entire build to it, it was still useless against most enemies and still difficult to pull off and eventually impossible by the end game.

5e is the best D&D system that's been developed so far. They might be able to make something better one day, but for now it is fantastic. The only thing I miss from pathfinder is the diversity of options for building your character. There isn't anywhere near as large of a diversity in 5e and it would be very easy and simple to homebrew new archetypes or races for virtually anything you could imagine because the template and guidelines are so easy to follow, but lazy/bad DMs hate anything homebrew or different and refuse everything that isn't printed in the PHB.

[JellyPooga]

My greatest gripe with the system is the design choice to set the 'balance point' for classes and encounter difficulty at the expectation of 6-8 encounters/ 2-3 short rests (each 1 hour long) mark.

Its hard to effectively maintain a campaign that hits that mark with enough frequency that the game balances for everyone.

I feel 4-5 encounters, and turning 'X/short rest' powers into (slightly toned down) 'X/encounter' powers would have been better.

I think there's a little too much focus on the 6-8 encounters thing being such a core notion. Yes, that's the recommendation, but it's by no means a requirement. So long as you (as GM) are pitching at least 4 and probably no more than 12 encounters a day for your players, it's all golden.

Bear in mind that player agency also takes a part the number of encounters they actually face in a day, which is why I think the "baseline" of 6-8 is so high; some of those encounters will be easy or bypassed altogether, so by assuming that your players want at least some kind of challenge without pitching deadly+ encounters at them all the time (which is just as daft as the "Only War" day), you kinda need to overcompensate on frequency.

Just my 2p on it.


Im also a little disspointed by how death has become nothing more than a minor economic annoyance from 5th level onwards. I mean, I get why this decision was made, but it rubs me a little raw for some reason.

Maybe its just my inner grognard.

This has been a peeve of mine since 3ed and there was actually a penalty for it back then! Death really should have more impact and I would rather see something narrative or metagamey like rules for "heroic deaths" giving your party temporary bonuses for the loss of a companion than the "revolving door afterlife" we have in 5ed.

[Willie the Duck]

Im also a little disspointed by how death has become nothing more than a minor economic annoyance from 5th level onwards. I mean, I get why this decision was made, but it rubs me a little raw for some reason.

Maybe its just my inner grognard.

The same was true for basic/classic D&D at level 9 (and before then whatever level when the cost to pay a temple became reasonable) though. And characters' bodies can still be made irretrievable.

[ahyangyi]

5th Edition solved all of the issues I had with pathfinder...

DCs not being attached to spell slot level made spells of ALL levels useful.

Scaling, spammable cantrips to give casters a means of contributing something useful if they run out of spells.

Removing the ridiculous bookkeeping needed with preparing specific spells in advance every single day, making everyone spontaneous casters was a huge boon.

Fixing all the scaling issues was pathfinder was also huge. Grappling became next to impossible without explicitly specializing for it in pathfinder very quickly and even if you dedicated your entire build to it, it was still useless against most enemies and still difficult to pull off and eventually impossible by the end game.

5e is the best D&D system that's been developed so far. They might be able to make something better one day, but for now it is fantastic. The only thing I miss from pathfinder is the diversity of options for building your character. There isn't anywhere near as large of a diversity in 5e and it would be very easy and simple to homebrew new archetypes or races for virtually anything you could imagine because the template and guidelines are so easy to follow, but lazy/bad DMs hate anything homebrew or different and refuse everything that isn't printed in the PHB.

I attribute most of these fixes to the 4E system (at-will powers, streamlining all classes to use "powers", and scaling AB with level). Sadly 4E is still a terrible system but I'm glad WotC seemed to manage to salvage and integrate the good parts of it to 5E.

[Grod_The_Giant]

1 Encounter =/= 1 Fight.

6-8 fights a day is ridiculous, yes, but the game does not assume that. It assumes 6-8 encounters. To use your "walk in the woods" as an example;

- an unexpected fork in the road
- a traveler passing in the other direction
- a friendly tree spirit offering a reward for the answer to a riddle
- a tree falls, blocking passage to the caves you're heading for

That's four pretty generic (non-plot relevent) encounters off the top of my head, for a "walk in the woods" sort of day. Adventurers are supposed to come across adventure and that's what the 6-8 encounters a day thing is supposed to do, not pitch the players into the grim darkness of the far future where there is only war (that's 40k's job!).
They don't technically have to be combat, but they have to be intense enough to cause resource attrition, which-- given how tied to combat everything is-- is hard to do without some threat to life and limb.

I think the Short Rest/Long Rest structure was good, but it was implemented poorly. Mostly in the way some classes (coughWarlockscough) have wild power fluctuations if you have too many or too few rests/day... They probably should have either stuck to their guns and made them ToB/4e style per-encounter powers, or else put everyone's main shtick on a per-day cooldown.

[JellyPooga]

They don't technically have to be combat, but they have to be intense enough to cause resource attrition, which-- given how tied to combat everything is-- is hard to do without some threat to life and limb.

I agree that most of D&D is focused toward combat, making resource depletion a bit trickier to implement without the threat of death/injury, but it's by no means impossible or even difficult, per se.

To use the example of an unexpected fork in the road from my last post; there's no danger here, but simply guessing may result in danger, delays or even failing your quest. Expending a resource, such as a divination spell, to continue on your way is the price a party has to pay to proceed if they want any assurance. It might not look like an "encounter" to simply come to a fork in the road that's not marked on your map, but it fulfills the requirements of one; there's a challenge to overcome (choose the right path), a consequence of failure (going the wrong way) and the option of resource expenditure (divination magic, the likes of Bardic Inspiration to boost a skill check, etc.).

As for "per short rest" issues, while on paper it looks like a nightmare to resolve this so-called "balance issue", in my experience it tends to balance out. Sometimes the Warlock will get loads of short rests and really take the spotlight, other times the Wizard will alpha strike the Big-Bad and steal the show, sometimes the Rogue will persuade the party to carry on without rest, other times the Cleric will insist they stop for the night.

Of course, if the campaign is very focused on one style of gameplay (combat-heavy, investigative, etc.) then of course some Classes/characters will shine and others pale by comparison; that this is the case is one of 5eds strengths, in my opinion. The failure of 4ed was that Classes were too well balanced; it was very homogenous and that was boring (for me, at least); the difference in gameplay style didn't exist and that lack of difference bred too little dissonance between characters such that no-one really had a chance to shine compared to their party-mates.

[mephnick]

I'm not sure why short rests even exist. They should have just balanced everyone on long rests and just given the "go all day" classes 3x the resources. It's a nightmare as a DM to make sure classes are getting short rests, but not too many short rests, especilly if you're switching between travel, exploration and dungeons. I prefer to use the long rest variant which makes short rest classes stronger, but it's not ideal. I think the whole short rest system should be done away with and let short rest classes choose when to recharge their powers twice per long rest with a second wind or estus flask type ability.

[Tanarii]

Quite the opposite really. 5e is too bare bones. So much is left to the DM that balance will vary from table to table. There's also the broad swath of play styles that are no longer supported, on top of those that keep with the tradition of never supporting them. It's not a bad system, but it solves most old balance issues by removing the issues and replacing them with nothing.One mans flaws are another mans vast improvements. For example, I Find the 5e way of an overarching fast streamlined resolution system (aka Ability Checks), and find it a vast improvement over 3e skill checks when running the game. Others don't.


There are flaws to the game, not just "nitpicks", but for some people their flaws are others' features. A few of those others take offense some people find flaws of the game and chastise them for the audacity of criticizing 5E. A game can have flaws and still be a fine game to play that works well and players have fun with it. That's 5E, that's 3E, that's Pathfinder, and even 4E to name a game I personally despise.Whereas I loved 4e. But I for one appreciate criticism, even as I defend something I like. And being someone that loves to argue, I can defend a little too forcefully. But (for example) the multiple criticisms of the 5e skill system and stated preference for something closer to the 3e way has helped me understand that the system is catering to that, it's not an purely positive improvement in the system. Basically, it's allowed me to understand why there's another valid point of view on doing things another way.

That was especially important in allowing me to switch mental rails when leaving 4e, which as I said, I *loved*. OTOH I've come to love every new edition of D&D as I wrap my head around the intended style of play, and come to understand where they've tweaked vast improvements into the game to support that style of play.

But I understand it sucks for those people that either don't want to play that style of play, or are looking at the system from some other perspective. To pick a not-random example, that of more precise player knowledge of their capabilities, as opposed to 5e's design goal of vastly lowering the burden on the DM for resolution and speeding up play. Which IMO after running games for large groups for some time, it totally succeeded at compared to the previous two editions.

Tl;dr don't stop reminding occasionally about the things you don't like, and pointing out where they are a merely a preference or style of play. ;)

[JellyPooga]

It's a nightmare as a DM to make sure classes are getting short rests, but not too many short rests, especilly if you're switching between travel, exploration and dungeons.

I disagree. It's not the GMs prerogative to manage the parties short rests, but if s/he is doing so then a "three pillars" campaign is where it's easiest. It's important as a GM to realise that not all things have to be balanced at all times; sometimes players will take lots of short rests and others they won't (or you won't give them that opportunity) and that's absolutely fine. It balances out over the course of the adventure.

That's what I'm talking about different characters/classes having their own spotlight time, more so than merely their skill sets and ability foci (i.e. combat, social, etc.). E.g. A Bard and a Warlock might both have Charm Person but because of their different recharge times, sometimes the Bard will shine and others it'll be the Warlock. Remove the difference in recharge and it becomes almost completely redundant to have both characters with that spell in a given party.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is 5e *too* good?

No, but it's good enough to have gotten me back into the hobby after some years. (As I have posted before, some years ago I took my 3.5 books to the Second Hand book store, got a few dollars for them, and began to put all of my D&D stuff up into the attic to wait for when the grandkids came and got old enough to play with grandpa. )

Mostly gorgnardish in experience, I find 5e to be enough like the old game, with enough of the newer forms of cleaning up some of the overly fiddly bits, to be fun to play.

Short rest/long rest. Once you get used to the system, it's not a problem. (But it is a bit meta gamey ...)

6-8 encounters per day: that does not mean 6-8 combats per day. We found 4-5 a pretty good number in our first campaign, though our DM tended toward hard for most, a few easy here and there, and the now and again deadly. '

I have just joined a high level game, we'll see how that goes. No comment so far beside a nice group of people.

[Pex]

But I understand it sucks for those people that either don't want to play that style of play, or are looking at the system from some other perspective. To pick a not-random example, that of more precise player knowledge of their capabilities, as opposed to 5e's design goal of vastly lowering the burden on the DM for resolution and speeding up play. Which IMO after running games for large groups for some time, it totally succeeded at compared to the previous two editions.


5E puts a high burden on the DM for skill resolution because he has to come up with a DC for everything at a moment's notice. If players want to use a skill in a certain way repeatedly, usually in knowledge checks such as identifying a spell an NPC is casting or what does his character know about a monster, the DM has to design his own resolution method. When I DMed a 5E game I got exhausted from it. I eventually just cheated. If the player rolled high he succeeded. If he rolled low he failed. If it was in the middle I made a quick lazy determination of how easy or hard the task was. Easy, made it. Hard, fail. I still had to figure out if a roll was even needed.

In 3E/Pathfinder that work is done for him. Having joined a new Pathfinder group, the DM uses a laptop instead of books. When it comes to skills of course he hadn't memorized all the tables, but he doesn't have to. He could reference the rules right in front of him. It was no big deal, and it even helped if a player did know the specifics, such as me knowing the formula for identifying a spell being cast or a player could reference the rule on his own laptop while the DM does something else. I do the same thing when I DM, though I prefer the physical book. The book is opened to the skill rules should I need it and not have to burden myself with creating DCs or methods of resolution for everything.

[Socratov]

Too good? No, not by a long shot. An improvement over previous editions? Most assuredly.

So, I always felt daunted by DMing 3.5, now in 5e I actually did it. This does not prove anything but a personal and anecdotal preference for DMing 5e over 3.5.

But I digress.

5e has some really great aspects: the gap between casters and martials is closer then it has ever been (or as far as I recall). The concept of bounded accuracy is great and the magic items are way more interesting then they were before (where numerical boni were more or less assumed to be had). I love what they did to spellcasting: less spells, but more useful spells and less niche spells. I love how the druid, cleric, wizard, sorcerer and bard are actually different for once and how the martials have their own inherent design assumptions to offer. Subclasses are definitely a better thing then prestige classes. I love dis- and advantage: huge gain, simple way to buff or debuff a character in combat.

However, there is a big, fat, hairy but(t) comin' round the corner.

You see, to my taste the ability scores mean little now. sure the modifiers are a huge impact, but the scores themselves is pretty much windowdressing. I love how the feats are not chains anymore, however, I think that more feats and the separation of ASI used to be a good thing. On the topic of ASI's, let's talk about the connection to bounded accuracy: ASI's are one of the very, very few things to affect it. And talking about BA, I think that the d20 has too much of an influence and I think that proficiency could have scaled over a wider gap in the sense of numbers. this edition to me is the most random edition of DnD out there. IMO it could use a tweak as by lvl 5 armour does not exactly matter anymore. I also think that the weapons could have benefitted form a little more distinction, well, either that, or create classes of weapons and let the weapons themselves be all flavour where its category dictates what it does in game. As they are now it's neither here, nor there and honestly, either option would work well. Also, I hate how d20 works skill challenges. Really, a second system just for skill challenges would be very welcome

So, that's that off the top of my head. Please don't mistake this for me hating the system or not liking it: this might be the very best edition of DnD yet, despite what IMO could be improvements.

[Waterdeep Merch]

5E puts a high burden on the DM for skill resolution because he has to come up with a DC for everything at a moment's notice. If players want to use a skill in a certain way repeatedly, usually in knowledge checks such as identifying a spell an NPC is casting or what does his character know about a monster, the DM has to design his own resolution method. When I DMed a 5E game I got exhausted from it. I eventually just cheated. If the player rolled high he succeeded. If he rolled low he failed. If it was in the middle I made a quick lazy determination of how easy or hard the task was. Easy, made it. Hard, fail. I still had to figure out if a roll was even needed.

In 3E/Pathfinder that work is done for him. Having joined a new Pathfinder group, the DM uses a laptop instead of books. When it comes to skills of course he hadn't memorized all the tables, but he doesn't have to. He could reference the rules right in front of him. It was no big deal, and it even helped if a player did know the specifics, such as me knowing the formula for identifying a spell being cast or a player could reference the rule on his own laptop while the DM does something else. I do the same thing when I DM, though I prefer the physical book. The book is opened to the skill rules should I need it and not have to burden myself with creating DCs or methods of resolution for everything.

This is interesting, because I have something of an opposite feeling about it. I like that I can just decide out of nowhere if a skill is good enough. I've even started ignoring NPC's rolling things like perception and insight, instead just making up static numbers based on what the player is trying to do. That part's usually based on math- I use passive perception alongside a similarly calculated passive insight- then modify the situation + or - up to 5 on the fly, and determine if advantage or disadvantage is called for.

While not every situation is directly stated, there's decent guidelines. Something that should be practically un-fail-able is a 5, and should rarely be rolled by anyone. 10 means it's your standard use of the skill with some chance for failure. I'll wave it a lot of the times for those trained in the skill. 15 is for something with a moderate chance at failure, something a novice will only occasionally succeed but a specialist will usually pass. At this level, it's always rolled. 20 is for things that are plausible, but require luck as much as skill to actually accomplish. 25+ means we've reached world-class skill, something only the best at any particular skill are capable of. 30+ is for events that break the laws of physics, and need to be played by the seat of your pants as a DM. For example, if a fighter wanted to grab onto an iron golem's chassis and rip it off mid-fight, I'll let him if he can surpass 30+ on the Athletics. Rogue wants to hide behind a pole skinnier than he is but breaks 30+? I'll allow it.

But I can understand where you're coming from. This sort of DMing is about 'rule of cool'. I can allow things and even make them easier if the player wants to do something I think is cool, and then there's some soft rules that can govern it. If you want a more grounded game, I can see where it can be infuriating.

[Tanarii]

5E puts a high burden on the DM for skill resolution because he has to come up with a DC for everything at a moment's notice. If players want to use a skill in a certain way repeatedly, usually in knowledge checks such as identifying a spell an NPC is casting or what does his character know about a monster, the DM has to design his own resolution method. When I DMed a 5E game I got exhausted from it. I eventually just cheated. If the player rolled high he succeeded. If he rolled low he failed. If it was in the middle I made a quick lazy determination of how easy or hard the task was. Easy, made it. Hard, fail. I still had to figure out if a roll was even needed.

In 3E/Pathfinder that work is done for him. Having joined a new Pathfinder group, the DM uses a laptop instead of books. When it comes to skills of course he hadn't memorized all the tables, but he doesn't have to. He could reference the rules right in front of him. It was no big deal, and it even helped if a player did know the specifics, such as me knowing the formula for identifying a spell being cast or a player could reference the rule on his own laptop while the DM does something else. I do the same thing when I DM, though I prefer the physical book. The book is opened to the skill rules should I need it and not have to burden myself with creating DCs or methods of resolution for everything.
Whereas as a DM I have never felt exhausted from having to make rulings. That's before I actually sat down* to read the strong DMG guidelines in 5e on the range of values to use and the role of dice, which just made it even easier.

Conversely, having to look things up on a laptop or in the book always without exception destroys the pace/flow of play, whether I am DMing or a Player. That was my least favorite thing about 3e/4e. I'm a huge fan of tables that ban books/laptops at the table.

*I should have known better but I made the same classic mistake I see many others regularly make, thinking you already understand how resolution is 'supposed' to work. As opposed to reading DMG Chapter 8, which IMO is BY FAR the most important section of the DMG rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm a huge fan of tables that ban books/laptops at the table. yep, but that's the grognard in me talking. One PHB or 2 PHB's for the players incase they need to look something up outside of combat.


*I should have known better but I made the same classic mistake I see many others regularly make, thinking you already understand how resolution is 'supposed' to work. As opposed to reading DMG Chapter 8, which IMO is BY FAR the most important section of the DMG rules. Yeah.

[Vaz]

I also dislike using Wheels when I need to go to someplace. Back in my day, we had to walk uphill both ways to school, and we enjoyed it.

[Dr. Cliché]

I certainly wouldn't call 5e "too good".

There's a lot to like, but also quite a bit to criticise.

- Combat tends to flow a bit faster than in 5e, which is nice (I'm glad they got rid of the full-attack-only-when-stationary stuff). However, this seems to have come at the expense of a lot of interesting monsters - with even the 'boss' ones being stripped down to their bare bones. As a player, I usually have quite a lot of options in combat. As a DM though, I'm usually left with nothing to do but attack. I really do miss the spells and options from 3.5.

- Also, on the subject of actions, it's really weird that you can't trade a move or action for a bonus action.

- I don't like the excessive hp recovery on short or long rests. It's one of the things that just rubs me the wrong way, probably because they don't even make an attempt to explain it. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to clerics using divine magic to heal, but why is it that ordinary people can just rest for an hour and recover completely from a sword to the chest. :smallconfused:

- The whole long rest/short rest thing seems badly implemented. I think it's a bad idea to have some classes that really need short rests and others that basically get nothing out of them at all.

- Some of the mechanics bug me - especially the transformation ones. They seem really unintuitive and read like they were supposed to represent some weird body-snatching ability rather than actual transformation.

- The saving throws can go die in a fire.

- I think some more guidelines regarding magic items would have been useful.

There are almost certainly more, but these are just a few that sprang to mind.

[Grod_The_Giant]

Whereas as a DM I have never felt exhausted from having to make rulings. That's before I actually sat down* to read the strong DMG guidelines in 5e on the range of values to use and the role of dice, which just made it even easier.
Do you mean the ones that were just repeating the definitions of "easy, moderate, and hard" in slightly more words, or the ones that say "eh, you can roll for almost everything, or almost nothing, or only some things! Whatever, you decide!"

I am not, ultimately, opposed to setting DCs based on "easy/moderate/hard" descriptors. I mean, I used them in my homewbrew system. But when I did, I spent several pages discussing how to decide which level to use, and how that should change based on what style of game you're running. 5e offers basically no guidance there, not even in the DMG. There's not a whisper about how DCs can be used to set tone, about the consequences of rolling too many checks with swingy dice, about how opposed d20 rolls work to reduce the effect of a higher modifier, or anything. There's barely a suggestion about what a "moderate" check should let you do, apart from the tracking and social rules. It's this awkward halfway point; it implicitly gives you the tools to be extremely flexible, but doesn't really explain what it's done.

(Bleh. Sorry; we really don't need to re-hash this argument yet again.)

+1 to the "boring monsters" issue, though. I miss the 4e ones that all had unique powers.

[GreatWyrmGold]

@Waterdeep Merch: it's funny you mention that 5e is the best combat heavy rpg system. I agree, but in my experience it's also the best non-combat rpg as well. A little bit of interpretation of what each skill does (performance not just meaning gigging with a band or acting in a play; intimidation including things like hitting on someone; nature to properly carve meat) has given me a much wider leeway in the non-combat encounters.
5e is definitely the best version of D&D for non-combat elements, but it's far from the best RPG. GURPS has a lot more support for that kind of thing, and I don't see why having a lot of different social skills for different situations is bad. (Would you complain about there being a bunch of different weapon skills for use in different combat scenarios?) Then there are a wide variety of other RPGs which have well-fleshed-out non-combat mechanics. One major example which needs a hell of a lot more attention is New Gods of Mankind, which has entire chapters about nurturing and leading your tribe.



I think 5e wants to be a catch-all, first RPG I ever played, type of feel. They want to be a flexible system that adapts to the group but still have structure and tactics. And I think that only people who care enough to talk about it on a forum even notice the minor balance and metagame issues. The majority of players are happy with the system.
Which is good, because people who have never played tabletop RPGs are likely to have only heard of D&D. Someone wanting to try it out without a friend to introduce them is going to try D&D first, and if it's not a beginner-friendly game there won't be a second.



"Kill it with damage" has long been the bane of many RPGs. In past editions/settings, combat = two trees chopping each other till one fell. There are some tricks in 5e (banishment coming to mind) that let parties finish a fight without a lot of damage needing to be dealt, but I can't see a more general way around this issue once combat commences.
In this as with many areas, I'd suggest that tabletop RPGs try to learn from video games. They could either pick up methods of making combat non-HP-based but engaging, or of making tactical gameplay important, easy to learn, and full of interesting choices.



Also, if you're not proficient in a save, you actually get WORSE at it over time because the DCs increase. Seriously, a lvl 20 character has a lower chance to make a save than a lvl 1 character unless they have proficiency in it.
Aren't those supposed to be more difficult saves? Though it is odd that experienced warriors never get better at dodging fireballs...



The alternative to the 6-8 fights I've done in my own games is just to make every fight life or death, super deadly. Short of railroading or a severe time crunch, it's the only way players will ever actually be challenged. ("I spent 2 first levels spells in that fight. I'm going to start ritualling Leomund's Tiny Hut..." Other PC: "Dude, it's 8 AM.")
That's a problem D&D has had since its earliest days. I think it's telling that few other tabletop RPGs have any Vancian mechanics. (Some video games do, but they're usually better at forcing players not to do stupid stuff like walk out on a dungeon halfway through just to take a nap.)



Conversely, having to look things up on a laptop or in the book always without exception destroys the pace/flow of play, whether I am DMing or a Player. That was my least favorite thing about 3e/4e. I'm a huge fan of tables that ban books/laptops at the table.
...What do you do when someone wants to do something they don't normally do? Make crap up? There's nothing wrong with that, but if I wanted to make crap up I wouldn't need a bunch of $30 rulebooks to help me with that.


-----

There are a lot of things I like about 5e, but a lot of things that just feel wrong. I think most of them have been covered (except how they butchered the warlock, but that's a highly-opinionated story for another time). I would like to say one thing.
D&D Next feels like it's trying to move away from the combat-centric nature of, well, basically every RPG ever (with a few exceptions—another excuse to mention New Gods of Mankind). But for all of its struggles, it's only inched forward. Backgrounds are a good mechanic; they give even the inexperienced or hack-and-slash players a reason and jumping-off point to think about their characters as people. But outside of that, it's just "make crap up". Again, you don't need a rulebook for that; if you're going to base so much on glorified DM fiat, why play a published RPG in the first place?
It seems like video games are passing tabletop RPGs in basically every field. Even the ever-vaunted "infinite freedom" is mere illusion. I've had more freedom to choose my path in most video games I've played recently than in most tabletop RPGs, especially in the published modules, which is where the intended playstyle should ring out most clearly. If D&D Next were truly a game about exploration, social situations, and freedom as much as killing dragons in dungeons, why does the official adventure path I'm playing feel like a linear string of dungeons constructed from a near-linear set of combat encounters, with occasional story cutscenes to break it up?

[Willie the Duck]

5E puts a high burden on the DM for skill resolution because he has to come up with a DC for everything at a moment's notice. If players want to use a skill in a certain way repeatedly, usually in knowledge checks such as identifying a spell an NPC is casting or what does his character know about a monster, the DM has to design his own resolution method. When I DMed a 5E game I got exhausted from it. I eventually just cheated. If the player rolled high he succeeded. If he rolled low he failed. If it was in the middle I made a quick lazy determination of how easy or hard the task was. Easy, made it. Hard, fail. I still had to figure out if a roll was even needed.

In 3E/Pathfinder that work is done for him. Having joined a new Pathfinder group, the DM uses a laptop instead of books. When it comes to skills of course he hadn't memorized all the tables, but he doesn't have to. He could reference the rules right in front of him. It was no big deal, and it even helped if a player did know the specifics, such as me knowing the formula for identifying a spell being cast or a player could reference the rule on his own laptop while the DM does something else. I do the same thing when I DM, though I prefer the physical book. The book is opened to the skill rules should I need it and not have to burden myself with creating DCs or methods of resolution for everything.

Yes. Unfortunately, if you put the DCs (and similar target #s) in the books, you have a much higher burden to not just be right in your DC determination, but be unfailingly right. I don't know about Pathfinder, but one of the biggest complaints my circle of friends had with 3.5 was that the numbers were formulaic, well-presented, consistent, and awful! The most well known examples are probably diplomacy DCs, calculated spell saves, grapple checks, and dragon CRs (although this one is said to be deliberate), but many others exist (e.g. the DMG sample characters show that the designers had no idea what kind of insanity people would get up to with things like total attack bonus or AC, etc.). For that reason (better to be vague than to be precisely disappointed), I tend to prefer the loosey-goosey way they did it in 5e, although in a perfect world the 3e method has some real appeal.

[Corsair14]

I think its far from perfect. It has some good points but some really bad ones too.. My biggest beefs are the Proficiency system is absolutely asinine. I mean really, everyone can do everything. What utter crap is that? Out of all the DnD editions, 2e was by far the best when it came to proficiencies. You were limited in slots, people specialized in certain things and so forth. If they would have kept the 2e prof system and kept the rest of the current system we would be talking a really good system.

I think there are far too many powers that let people do everything. I much preferred the 2E system where roles were really well defined and multiclassing was determined at level 1, not instantaneously when a PC levels. The current system simply encourages power gaming to a much greater degree and the game is less about the character and more about how well they can work the system(if they so choose).

[Tanarii]

Do you mean the ones that were just repeating the definitions of "easy, moderate, and hard" in slightly more words, or the ones that say "eh, you can roll for almost everything, or almost nothing, or only some things! Whatever, you decide!"Yes, I mean the part that tells you first think if a roll is even needed or it should be automatic success or failure, then if you decide a roll is needed to decide if it's DC 10, DC 15 or DC 20. After it first has a section on the pros and cons of calling for rolls rarely vs frequently.

That's pretty critical information on how to resolve actions. I mean they could have spent 5000 words on it and it would have also been good. But most people don't read that. They read stuff that's concise and to the point. But if that's what you're looking for, someone already did that: http://angrydm.com/2013/04/adjudicate-actions-like-a-boss/


+1 to the "boring monsters" issue, though. I miss the 4e ones that all had unique powers.
Yeah, there's definitely a balance between 'easy to run' and 'interesting'. That holds true for many parts of the game, and everyone has their own place they peg it. I'm a huge fan of 'easy to run' ... because IMX complicated tends to either bog down play and make things less interesting. But that's just one crazy internet poster's opinion. :smallbiggrin:


...What do you do when someone wants to do something they don't normally do? Make crap up? There's nothing wrong with that, but if I wanted to make crap up I wouldn't need a bunch of $30 rulebooks to help me with that.Lucky you. 5e doesn't require you to buy a bunch of $30 rulebooks to help you make stuff up. It has one $50 rulebook to help players when they're creating characters, and two $50 rulebook for DMs to reference when designing encounters/adventures/campaigns.

I'll admit that printing out the Basic Rules Combat Chapter (which matches the PHB Combat Chapter) for the DM or even players to occasionally reference at the table can be useful. But everything else pretty much just gets in the way of running the game. D&D is one of those things where having more info available to reference during actual play interferes with a smooth game.

Edit: I should probably add a bunch of IMOs or IMXs in here, but just take it all that way.

[Scots Dragon]

+1 to the "boring monsters" issue, though. I miss the 4e ones that all had unique powers.

I'm gonna have to voice a dissenting opinion on that one. The 4E monsters were easily one of the worst bits about it in my opinion, and a good example of everything that was wrong with the game as a whole. They looked like packets of experience you broke open to progress far more than they looked like creatures which could inhabit a world.

It's easy to see how those monsters work in game terms on a fixed grid, but I have no idea what half of those abilities are even remotely meant to translate into in non-gaming terms. What other skills or abilities do those monsters have that would actually translate into their position in the world around them? It never felt like D&D 4E even really considered that for anything in its world or its monsters.

[Pex]

This is interesting, because I have something of an opposite feeling about it. I like that I can just decide out of nowhere if a skill is good enough. I've even started ignoring NPC's rolling things like perception and insight, instead just making up static numbers based on what the player is trying to do. That part's usually based on math- I use passive perception alongside a similarly calculated passive insight- then modify the situation + or - up to 5 on the fly, and determine if advantage or disadvantage is called for.

While not every situation is directly stated, there's decent guidelines. Something that should be practically un-fail-able is a 5, and should rarely be rolled by anyone. 10 means it's your standard use of the skill with some chance for failure. I'll wave it a lot of the times for those trained in the skill. 15 is for something with a moderate chance at failure, something a novice will only occasionally succeed but a specialist will usually pass. At this level, it's always rolled. 20 is for things that are plausible, but require luck as much as skill to actually accomplish. 25+ means we've reached world-class skill, something only the best at any particular skill are capable of. 30+ is for events that break the laws of physics, and need to be played by the seat of your pants as a DM. For example, if a fighter wanted to grab onto an iron golem's chassis and rip it off mid-fight, I'll let him if he can surpass 30+ on the Athletics. Rogue wants to hide behind a pole skinnier than he is but breaks 30+? I'll allow it.

But I can understand where you're coming from. This sort of DMing is about 'rule of cool'. I can allow things and even make them easier if the player wants to do something I think is cool, and then there's some soft rules that can govern it. If you want a more grounded game, I can see where it can be infuriating.

What is easy? What is hard? If the DM and players agree, all is well. If they don't then the player's sense of awareness becomes moot since the DM's has to prevail. Gets worse when it's two DMs in two different games. What is easy in one game is hard in the other. The player has to relearn the game, metaphorically speaking.


Whereas as a DM I have never felt exhausted from having to make rulings. That's before I actually sat down* to read the strong DMG guidelines in 5e on the range of values to use and the role of dice, which just made it even easier.

Conversely, having to look things up on a laptop or in the book always without exception destroys the pace/flow of play, whether I am DMing or a Player. That was my least favorite thing about 3e/4e. I'm a huge fan of tables that ban books/laptops at the table.

*I should have known better but I made the same classic mistake I see many others regularly make, thinking you already understand how resolution is 'supposed' to work. As opposed to reading DMG Chapter 8, which IMO is BY FAR the most important section of the DMG rules.

Ergo my earlier point one player's flaw is another player's feature. Fortunately no one in this thread complained against someone having fault with 5E. That was more prevalent the first few months after this 5E specific forum was created. It has died down a lot since then, but I still see it every once in a while.

I don't mind someone liking the 5E skills system for the precise reason I don't, but I do mind being told off on how dare I not like it. You haven't. Waterdeep Merch hasn't. I have been in earlier threads.

[Willie the Duck]

Aren't those supposed to be more difficult saves? Though it is odd that experienced warriors never get better at dodging fireballs...

Here's the dirty little secret that is conveniently ignored whenever the lack of non-proficient save non-progression is brought up: they do. As you level up your bard gets increases their ability to modify your fireball saves, your paladin can start adding his charisma to your fireball saves, your wizard or druid get more and more spells to protect you from fireballs, you have more hp, which are part meat, part luck, and part ability to dodge fireballs. Further, compared to previous editions, this game is clearly balanced around the idea that failing an individual save will rarely doom a character and almost never doom a party. Yes, the saves you roll vs saves you are proficient in go up in a formulaic manner along with the DCs of the spellcasters you are likely facing, while the rest of your saves do not. That, however, is hardly the end of the matter. It clearly sticks in a lot of peoples craws though. I'm not sure if it's because they've actually had trouble playing because of this rule, or if it merely breaks some internal sense of symmetry or fairness.


I think its far from perfect. It has some good points but some really bad ones too.. My biggest beefs are the Proficiency system is absolutely asinine. I mean really, everyone can do everything. What utter crap is that?

Omni-competence was the name of the game through almost all of oD&D-basicD&D, and much of 1e AD&D's run. Every system ever where they did gatekeep attempting things since has had serious detractors and complainers. I absolutely get why they went this way.


I much preferred the 2E system where roles were really well defined and multiclassing was determined at level 1, not instantaneously when a PC levels. The current system simply encourages power gaming to a much greater degree and the game is less about the character and more about how well they can work the system(if they so choose).

What they do now is what used to be called dual classing in 2e, they just swapped names. As to power gaming, huh, that's really surprising to hear. My group considers this system infinitely harder to power-game than any of 2e (which was exceedingly easy to power game in), 3e, or 4e. Virtually every gimmick we've thought up has ended up being a rabbit-hole/resource trap.

[Grod_The_Giant]

I'm gonna have to voice a dissenting opinion on that one. The 4E monsters were easily one of the worst bits about it in my opinion, and a good example of everything that was wrong with the game as a whole. They looked like packets of experience you broke open to progress far more than they looked like creatures which could inhabit a world.

It's easy to see how those monsters work in game terms on a fixed grid, but I have no idea what half of those abilities are even remotely meant to translate into in non-gaming terms. What other skills or abilities do those monsters have that would actually translate into their position in the world around them? It never felt like D&D 4E even really considered that for anything in its world or its monsters.
4e in general broke down if you took it off the battlemap, in my memory. I don't need to go back to 100% 4e-style monster blocks, but... 5e monsters are almost aggressively bland. This was my biggest problem when I was running the game; very few monsters had the special abilities to make them more than big lumps of hit points and attack rolls. If you gave everyone just one or two special abilities and/or vulnerabilities... if Kobolds can Disengage as a bonus action while Orcs knock you back with every hit... that goes a long way towards making the different fights feel different. Abilities that let you build a fight around them, as opposed to having to build a fight to give the monsters interesting abilities.

(Oh, and every monster should have at least two skills, preferably four. There's no excuse for neglecting that)

[Rynjin]

Here's the dirty little secret that is conveniently ignored whenever the lack of non-proficient save non-progression is brought up: they do. As you level up your bard gets increases their ability to modify your fireball saves, your paladin can start adding his charisma to your fireball saves, your wizard or druid get more and more spells to protect you from fireballs, you have more hp, which are part meat, part luck, and part ability to dodge fireballs. Further, compared to previous editions, this game is clearly balanced around the idea that failing an individual save will rarely doom a character and almost never doom a party. Yes, the saves you roll vs saves you are proficient in go up in a formulaic manner along with the DCs of the spellcasters you are likely facing, while the rest of your saves do not. That, however, is hardly the end of the matter. It clearly sticks in a lot of peoples craws though. I'm not sure if it's because they've actually had trouble playing because of this rule, or if it merely breaks some internal sense of symmetry or fairness.

The problem is all of those options are just that: Options. There's no assuming any or all of them will be available. Not to mention that clustering into a 10 ft. radius around a guy isn't a good idea even if he does increase your saves.

Failing nearly every save you make except the one you're proficient in (because let's face it, Int and Cha save don't really come up at all, and Str is barely more common) that comes up often doesn't feel good. I don't like having a 10% chance of not getting taken out of the fight every time my Rogue has to make a Wisdom save vs Hold Person or a Con save vs some sleep poison.

It's a pain in the ass at the level we're at now (12th) and has been since around 8th where the difficulty curve for saves started ramping up considerably.

It's something they actively made WORSE from previous editions, because at least there almost every character I made had at least two Good saves out of three (2/3 of saves) and the bad ones scaled instead of having 1/3 of saves Good and the rest never scaling. It all adds up to the same issue I started having with my Slayer around 10th or 11th (where I spent 10 rounds Stunned by a Mind Flayer once. Fun.) but even worse because the percentage chance of success is even lower.

[Dr. Cliché]

+1 to the "boring monsters" issue, though. I miss the 4e ones that all had unique powers.

I'm a bit on the fence about 4e monsters (probably because I hated a lot of 4e and find them hard to separate).

On the one hand, you're right about many them having interesting abilities. On the other hand, none of them had any spells and the vast majority of unique abilities were pretty similar (though there were some real standouts).

Regardless, I struggle to give 4e points because it was by far my worst experience of D&D when it came to combat. So many of the monsters had stupidly high pools of hp, so that you'd expend all your encounter powers and then just be stuck wailing on the thing for the next 10 rounds or so. Likewise, most of the monsters would fall into their own routine, which was usually 'use special attack and then attack normally until it recharges'.

Lack of spells aside, this could be a problem more with player characters or with the combat in general.


but... 5e monsters are almost aggressively bland. This was my biggest problem when I was running the game; very few monsters had the special abilities to make them more than big lumps of hit points and attack rolls. If you gave everyone just one or two special abilities and/or vulnerabilities... if Kobolds can Disengage as a bonus action while Orcs knock you back with every hit... that goes a long way towards making the different fights feel different. Abilities that let you build a fight around them, as opposed to having to build a fight to give the monsters interesting abilities.

(Oh, and every monster should have at least two skills, preferably four. There's no excuse for neglecting that)

I'm less bothered about 'horde' enemies like Orcs not having special abilities (agreed about skills though) and more bothered about the lack of special abilities on stuff like Dragons or the high-CR devils and demons.

That aside, I absolutely agree with you.

I'd also suggest that a further problem is that most monster abilities aren't unique or interesting. Sure, Advantage when two or more of them are attacking the same target is functional, but it's not particularly fun or interesting. Where's the imp-thing from 4e that could make duplicates of itself or devour them for hp? Where's the huge devourer that had souls embedded on its spikes? Where's the Tarrasque's super-regeneration?

[Ninja-Radish]

Here's the dirty little secret that is conveniently ignored whenever the lack of non-proficient save non-progression is brought up: they do. As you level up your bard gets increases their ability to modify your fireball saves, your paladin can start adding his charisma to your fireball saves, your wizard or druid get more and more spells to protect you from fireballs, you have more hp, which are part meat, part luck, and part ability to dodge fireballs. Further, compared to previous editions, this game is clearly balanced around the idea that failing an individual save will rarely doom a character and almost never doom a party. Yes, the saves you roll vs saves you are proficient in go up in a formulaic manner along with the DCs of the spellcasters you are likely facing, while the rest of your saves do not. That, however, is hardly the end of the matter. It clearly sticks in a lot of peoples craws though. I'm not sure if it's because they've actually had trouble playing because of this rule, or if it merely breaks some internal sense of symmetry or fairness.

Defensive spells and class abilities don't matter here, I'm talking about the raw math behind saving throws, which is awful. The poor Fighter gets progressively worse at dodging fireballs over time. One would think he'd get better with practice, but I guess he ended up with some brain damage or something because he quite literally never learns. He took too many traps/fireballs to the face, poor guy.

[Tanarii]

Ergo my earlier point one player's flaw is another player's feature.Absolutely. Not only that, it's possible to like the 'features' of several different editions (or separate RPGs) and dislike their various flaws, and enjoy playing them all for what they are. Or even adapt bringing on-board features from other games that still work within the contextual (or design) framework of the original game.

I don't mind someone liking the 5E skills system for the precise reason I don't, but I do mind being told off on how dare I not like it. You haven't. Waterdeep Merch hasn't. I have been in earlier threads.
It's easy when defending something you like, for someone else to perceive it as attacking their point of view. Especially in an online thread. For that matter, lots of people think they are defending when they ARE attacking.

[Ninja-Radish]

The problem is all of those options are just that: Options. There's no assuming any or all of them will be available. Not to mention that clustering into a 10 ft. radius around a guy isn't a good idea even if he does increase your saves.

Failing nearly every save you make except the one you're proficient in (because let's face it, Int and Cha save don't really come up at all, and Str is barely more common) that comes up often doesn't feel good. I don't like having a 10% chance of not getting taken out of the fight every time my Rogue has to make a Wisdom save vs Hold Person or a Con save vs some sleep poison.

It's a pain in the ass at the level we're at now (12th) and has been since around 8th where the difficulty curve for saves started ramping up considerably.

It's something they actively made WORSE from previous editions, because at least there almost every character I made had at least two Good saves out of three (2/3 of saves) and the bad ones scaled instead of having 1/3 of saves Good and the rest never scaling. It all adds up to the same issue I started having with my Slayer around 10th or 11th (where I spent 10 rounds Stunned by a Mind Flayer once. Fun.) but even worse because the percentage chance of success is even lower.

This is what I'm talking about. As a DM there's a reason why I never use monsters that cause Fear: because there's almost no chance that the "brave" Fighter doesn't end up p*ssing himself and quivering in a corner because he's not proficient in Wis saves. It breaks the mood I find, and aggravates my players to no end.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Lucky you. 5e doesn't require you to buy a bunch of $30 rulebooks to help you make stuff up. It has one $50 rulebook to help players when they're creating characters, and two $50 rulebook for DMs to reference when designing encounters/adventures/campaigns.
...I can't tell if you're misrepresenting my point or if you just missed it.
Having areas where the DM is intended to make something up from scratch is never a strength for an RPG. Anyone can make things up from scratch, with or without $50* rulebooks. Rulebooks are expected to contain, you know, rules (or at least guidelines) on how to handle situations expected to come up in a game. Individual DMs can use those rules or throw them out or modify them or replace them with something made up from scratch, but if they're not there, what's the point?

*Last time I bought a D&D rulebook was 3.5; I've just been borrowing my father's for 5e. I guess prices have gone up?



Here's the dirty little secret that is conveniently ignored whenever the lack of non-proficient save non-progression is brought up: they do. As you level up your bard gets increases their ability to modify your fireball saves, your paladin can start adding his charisma to your fireball saves, your wizard or druid get more and more spells to protect you from fireballs...
...Further, compared to previous editions, this game is clearly balanced around the idea that failing an individual save will rarely doom a character and almost never doom a party. Yes, the saves you roll vs saves you are proficient in go up in a formulaic manner along with the DCs of the spellcasters you are likely facing, while the rest of your saves do not.
Not sure what any of that has to do with what I said. Other people helping is not the same as you being able to do something. The fact that dodging isn't critical doesn't change how you don't get better at it.
Maybe the mechanics work out in the end, if your buddies give you a helping hand. That's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about the implications that the mechanical components of the game have on the "narrative"/fluff ones. Speaking of which...


...you have more hp, which are part meat, part luck, and part ability to dodge fireballs.
No matter how much people say that—for any system—it never makes any more sense. What, do cure spells restore your ability to dodge fireballs, which got lost somehow? I thought they cured wounds. If game designers want HP to represent something other than wounds, they should put a bit of effort into how they're handled.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e is definitely the best version of D&D for non-combat elements, but it's far from the best RPG.----- If D&D Next were truly a game about exploration, social situations, and freedom as much as killing dragons in dungeons, why does the official adventure path I'm playing feel like a linear string of dungeons constructed from a near-linear set of combat encounters, with occasional story cutscenes to break it up? Because the "module" model of adventuring, which arose from convention and tournament play in the 70's and 80's, found that was the best way to put together an adventure that you could score.

D&D at a con or a tournament is quite different from the normal campaign run by a DM. See also Bobby Jones on golf: there is golf, and then there is tournament golf. Having played both, I know exactly what he means by that.

About "make crap up"

The books are the bread. The "make crap up" (use your brain, your imagination) is the salami, the smoked turkey, the PB&J, the swiss cheese, the mustard, the pickles, the mayo .. sprouts ... whatever .. that YOU provide to make the sandwich. Been like that since the first book came out.

[Talionis]

I'd like to see a 5.5 at some point. They have balanced things really well. The only thing that might be missing the feeling that a 20th level character is far stronger than a 5th level character. In previous editions, there was no question that a level 15 character would destroy a 5th level character. But in this edition the gap is much smaller.

My table really enjoyed 3.5 broken high level play. We didn't do it all the time, but it was fun to be able to have godly and near godly power in the hands of players.

With the power levels of 5th Edition, I think you might be able to have over level 20 characters that could potentially be playable. So maybe at some point Wizards puts out a players handbook for levels 21-40!

[Finieous]

I think it's really solid, really fun with my current groups, and most of the internet's opinions on how to "improve" it do the opposite.

I do think all the "encounter design" and "adventuring day" systems are flawed and fundamentally ill-advised, so when I DM I completely ignore them. I don't try to "balance" encounters -- I create the environment and let the players figure out how to deal with it and the things that are in it. Sometimes rests are easy to come by, sometimes they're few and far between; the players never know what to expect, so they do their best to manage their resources under conditions of uncertainty. Works great. I'm still on my first campaign as a DM, and we're at 19th level.

As a player, my only real complaint is that it's almost impossible to die and stay dead unless there's a TPK. I also accept that the game has moved on and most players don't share my preferences in this regard.

[Tanarii]

...I can't tell if you're misrepresenting my point or if you just missed it.
Having areas where the DM is intended to make something up from scratch is never a strength for an RPG. Anyone can make things up from scratch, with or without $50* rulebooks. Rulebooks are expected to contain, you know, rules (or at least guidelines) on how to handle situations expected to come up in a game. Individual DMs can use those rules or throw them out or modify them or replace them with something made up from scratch, but if they're not there, what's the point?I understood your point. I just disagree. In the general, because rule books leaving areas for the DM to make things up is very much a strength. And in the specifics, in that 5e has lots of rules and guidelines, but done in such a way as to minimize the requirement to look up rules or guidelines during actual play.

[Willie the Duck]

The problem is all of those options are just that: Options. There's no assuming any or all of them will be available. Not to mention that clustering into a 10 ft. radius around a guy isn't a good idea even if he does increase your saves.

If something may or may not be there, do you balance the system for when it is or it isn't? Likely, you try to balance it to be slightly too easy when it is and slightly too hard when it isn't. Regardless, these abilities exist as methods within the system to mitigate the lack of save scaling.


I don't like having a 10% chance of not getting taken out of the fight every time my Rogue has to make a Wisdom save vs Hold Person or a Con save vs some sleep poison.

This is the primary difference between 5e and other editions-- a save does not take you out of the fight. A given failed save vs. hold person removes from you one turn of acting, and gives your opponents some advantages on attacking you. There are no coup de grace in the game. There's pretty much no fail-single-save-and-die effects. Even the sleep poison is most likely only a knock you out type if you fail by 5 (and wake up if you take any damage). That's part of the rebalancing of the system. Compared to 3e and earlier (3e where there were tons of save-or-die effects and saves were often hard to make, and TSR era where there were tons of save-or-die effects but at high levels you almost always made your saves), the actual capacity to survive being subject to saving throws seems to have increased.


It's a pain in the ass at the level we're at now (12th) and has been since around 8th where the difficulty curve for saves started ramping up considerably.

It's something they actively made WORSE from previous editions, because at least there almost every character I made had at least two Good saves out of three (2/3 of saves) and the bad ones scaled instead of having 1/3 of saves Good and the rest never scaling. It all adds up to the same issue I started having with my Slayer around 10th or 11th (where I spent 10 rounds Stunned by a Mind Flayer once. Fun.) but even worse because the percentage chance of success is even lower.

Okay, here's where we start getting to the meat of the issue: actual play. Compared to at least a few other editions, would you say that it is harder to play your PC? Not, mind you, harder to make your saves. Harder to play the character? Always getting taken out of fights (other than with the mind flayer? Sorry to hear about that. Mind flayers appear to be a race that gets a lot of complaints because of the one-save and then you need someone else to free you)? Moreso than other editions. Because I played a lot of 3e, and boy did my characters get taken out of a lot of fights, and it usually cost me 25k gp to get back in the fights, cause they were often from 'actual save or die' effects.

I'm not discounting your experiences, I want your honest recollection. I have my expectations, but I'm prepared to be wrong.


Defensive spells and class abilities don't matter here, I'm talking about the raw math behind saving throws, which is awful. The poor Fighter gets progressively worse at dodging fireballs over time. One would think he'd get better with practice, but I guess he ended up with some brain damage or something because he quite literally never learns. He took too many traps/fireballs to the face, poor guy.

Does the poor fighter end up dying to fireballs as they progress in level? Given that the dodging-fireball mechanic already is a save-for half mechanic, it is clearly part of the combat abstraction. If at level 5 they make their save and still lose 40% of their hp, but at level 13 can fail it and only lose 25% of their hp, then perhaps they are getting better at dodging fireballs after all.

Either way, this seems to be evidence to my point. This opposition to the way this mechanic is set up seems to be motivated by a sense of symmetry or fairness (or I guess verisimilitude), and not on whether the new save mechanic makes the game actually play worse than previous editions.

[Kish]

Quite the opposite really. 5e is too bare bones. So much is left to the DM that balance will vary from table to table. There's also the broad swath of play styles that are no longer supported, on top of those that keep with the tradition of never supporting them. It's not a bad system, but it solves most old balance issues by removing the issues and replacing them with nothing.
Thank you.

5ed is an edition that some people will continue to play for the rest of their lives no matter what comes out...like each previous edition. It's an edition some D&D players will never play, like each edition after the very first one. And it's an edition that the people who go automatically to the most recent edition will play until 6ed comes out and no longer, like each previous edition.

[Ninja-Radish]

If something may or may not be there, do you balance the system for when it is or it isn't? Likely, you try to balance it to be slightly too easy when it is and slightly too hard when it isn't. Regardless, these abilities exist as methods within the system to mitigate the lack of save scaling.



This is the primary difference between 5e and other editions-- a save does not take you out of the fight. A given failed save vs. hold person removes from you one turn of acting, and gives your opponents some advantages on attacking you. There are no coup de grace in the game. There's pretty much no fail-single-save-and-die effects. Even the sleep poison is most likely only a knock you out type if you fail by 5 (and wake up if you take any damage). That's part of the rebalancing of the system. Compared to 3e and earlier (3e where there were tons of save-or-die effects and saves were often hard to make, and TSR era where there were tons of save-or-die effects but at high levels you almost always made your saves), the actual capacity to survive being subject to saving throws seems to have increased.



Okay, here's where we start getting to the meat of the issue: actual play. Compared to at least a few other editions, would you say that it is harder to play your PC? Not, mind you, harder to make your saves. Harder to play the character? Always getting taken out of fights (other than with the mind flayer? Sorry to hear about that. Mind flayers appear to be a race that gets a lot of complaints because of the one-save and then you need someone else to free you)? Moreso than other editions. Because I played a lot of 3e, and boy did my characters get taken out of a lot of fights, and it usually cost me 25k gp to get back in the fights, cause they were often from 'actual save or die' effects.

I'm not discounting your experiences, I want your honest recollection. I have my expectations, but I'm prepared to be wrong.



Does the poor fighter end up dying to fireballs as they progress in level? Given that the dodging-fireball mechanic already is a save-for half mechanic, it is clearly part of the combat abstraction. If at level 5 they make their save and still lose 40% of their hp, but at level 13 can fail it and only lose 25% of their hp, then perhaps they are getting better at dodging fireballs after all.

Either way, this seems to be evidence to my point. This opposition to the way this mechanic is set up seems to be motivated by a sense of symmetry or fairness (or I guess verisimilitude), and not on whether the new save mechanic makes the game actually play worse than previous editions.

I understand what you're saying, but getting more HPs as you level up has always been part of D&D. This issue of progressively getting worse at saves as you level up is new to 5th edition. That's why I'm focusing on the saving throw math in particular, because that's the new part, and the part that troubles me.

As a DM, I have trouble explaining this mechanic to my players other than saying "Sorry but the system assumes your characters are stupid".

[Knaight]

5E puts a high burden on the DM for skill resolution because he has to come up with a DC for everything at a moment's notice. If players want to use a skill in a certain way repeatedly, usually in knowledge checks such as identifying a spell an NPC is casting or what does his character know about a monster, the DM has to design his own resolution method. When I DMed a 5E game I got exhausted from it. I eventually just cheated. If the player rolled high he succeeded. If he rolled low he failed. If it was in the middle I made a quick lazy determination of how easy or hard the task was. Easy, made it. Hard, fail. I still had to figure out if a roll was even needed.

It depends on the DM. I find adjudicating DCs at a moment's notice a nothing task - it's not quite effortless, but it's pretty close. Memorizing the skill tables for 30+ skills? That's not happening.

[Finieous]

This is the primary difference between 5e and other editions-- a save does not take you out of the fight. A given failed save vs. hold person removes from you one turn of acting, and gives your opponents some advantages on attacking you.

I've also found that it really emphasizes the team concept and actual teamwork. "Team concept" in that, even in my game at 19th level, every character has some vulnerabilities so no one can go it alone. And "teamwork" in the sense that characters will need to work together (with bardic inspiration, auras, spells, and other abilities) to counter hostile effects that you can't reliably make go away with a dice roll.

[KorvinStarmast]

It depends on the DM. I find adjudicating DCs at a moment's notice a nothing task - it's not quite effortless, but it's pretty close. Memorizing the skill tables for 30+ skills? That's not happening. Agreed, and my experience as well. (Then again, that is why we used to use DM screens ...

I've also found that it really emphasizes the team concept and actual teamwork. "Team concept" in that, even in my game at 19th level, every character has some vulnerabilities so no one can go it alone. And "teamwork" in the sense that characters will need to work together (with bardic inspiration, auras, spells, and other abilities) to counter hostile effects that you can't reliably make go away with a dice roll. Team concept is something us old grognardish sorts are all about.

[Rynjin]

This is the primary difference between 5e and other editions-- a save does not take you out of the fight. A given failed save vs. hold person removes from you one turn of acting, and gives your opponents some advantages on attacking you. There are no coup de grace in the game. There's pretty much no fail-single-save-and-die effects. Even the sleep poison is most likely only a knock you out type if you fail by 5 (and wake up if you take any damage). That's part of the rebalancing of the system. Compared to 3e and earlier (3e where there were tons of save-or-die effects and saves were often hard to make, and TSR era where there were tons of save-or-die effects but at high levels you almost always made your saves), the actual capacity to survive being subject to saving throws seems to have increased.

Survive, certainly. But Hold Person still eats as many actions as ever. It lasts up to a minute, and you don't get a save to break free until the end of your turn. With how crappy my Wisdom saves are (a +3...I have 14 Wis and a Luckstone, which probably puts me well AHEAD of the curve), last time I got hit by it I was out of 5 rounds of a combat. Haven't run the math but I think the average for a non-proficient skill would be 3-4 rounds down and out.

In my opinion, which may vary from others, being taken out of the fight in that manner is WORSE than being killed. Certainly less fun, since I like building new characters so much.




Okay, here's where we start getting to the meat of the issue: actual play. Compared to at least a few other editions, would you say that it is harder to play your PC? Not, mind you, harder to make your saves. Harder to play the character? Always getting taken out of fights (other than with the mind flayer? Sorry to hear about that. Mind flayers appear to be a race that gets a lot of complaints because of the one-save and then you need someone else to free you)? Moreso than other editions. Because I played a lot of 3e, and boy did my characters get taken out of a lot of fights, and it usually cost me 25k gp to get back in the fights, cause they were often from 'actual save or die' effects.

I'm not discounting your experiences, I want your honest recollection. I have my expectations, but I'm prepared to be wrong.

About the same, honestly. If I didn't have the Luck Feat in 5e it'd probably be a bit worse. It's hard to gauge since I've only played 3 games of 5e: A play by post here on the forum whose GM hasn't posted in a bit; it's had one combat. The 11th level game where I'm playing the Rogue, and it's based on a CRPG based on 2e rules, so encounter design may be skewed. And a Yawning Portal game where we just hit 3rd level the session before last.

Going just by the 11th level 5e game I'd definitely say I've been unable to play MORE. Playing Pathfinder (and even other, unrelated systems like Savage Worlds) I generally have some way of negating or mitigating the effect available to my own character (particularly using Path of War). Even with just 1st party options, I am allowed to considerably boost even my poor saves, making it a 50/50 shot of success instead of an 80% chance of failure.

The NUMBER of effects is roughly the same, though 5e notably lacks "Suck or Suck" effects like Wave of Exhaustion.

5e as a whole feels more binary, for good or bad. If I pass the save, it's all good. If I don't (more often than not for saves I'm not proficient in) I browse the forums for 15 minutes while everybody else plays. Pathfinder meanwhile has more effects where if I pass (which is FAR more likely) I have some minor debuff, and if I fail I'm out...but the latter effect happens way less often.

[Knaight]

Agreed, and my experience as well. (Then again, that is why we used to use DM screens ...
Team concept is something us old grognardish sorts are all about.

I'm not big on DM screens, partially because I don't like the obstructed vision and partly because I already usually have multiple pages of notes to reference in front of me and don't need yet more paper. There's also the matter of how space is limited, and covering every skill's charts eats a lot of space. Add in whatever else is usually there for quick reference and you probably run out pretty quickly.

[KorvinStarmast]

I'm not big on DM screens, partially because I don't like the obstructed vision and partly because I already usually have multiple pages of notes to reference in front of me and don't need yet more paper. Yeah, space management at a table is an art.

[Finieous]

Survive, certainly. But Hold Person still eats as many actions as ever. It lasts up to a minute, and you don't get a save to break free until the end of your turn. With how crappy my Wisdom saves are (a +3...I have 14 Wis and a Luckstone, which probably puts me well AHEAD of the curve), last time I got hit by it I was out of 5 rounds of a combat. Haven't run the math but I think the average for a non-proficient skill would be 3-4 rounds down and out.


Assuming a high-level caster with save DC 19, there's a 31.6% chance you'd fail that save four times. In any case, did your team mates have no way to remove the effect? Did they not do any damage to the caster, or did the caster make all its concentration checks? Might need to have a talk about effective teamwork.

[mephnick]

It depends on the DM. I find adjudicating DCs at a moment's notice a nothing task - it's not quite effortless, but it's pretty close. Memorizing the skill tables for 30+ skills? That's not happening.

Especially since the DMG says that 90% of rolls should be between 10-20. It's not too hard to look at a situation and adjudicate something in that range on the fly. And since players should know that a check will almost always fall between 10-20 they can generally figure out how good they'll be on a regular basis. If you're following the DMG guidelines the DM shouldn't just be tossing out "uhhhh...DC 26?" for no reason. It's not 5e's fault that your DM didn't read the DMG.

[Rynjin]

Assuming a high-level caster with save DC 19, there's a 31.6% chance you'd fail that save four times. In any case, did your team mates have no way to remove the effect? Did they not do any damage to the caster, or did the caster make all its concentration checks? Might need to have a talk about effective teamwork.

It was kind of the perfect storm of random bull****. We got hit by Harpies, so of course I got captivated, and then the mage used Hold Person when I got separated from the group. The party was busy fighting Redcaps at the same time, and yeah...the Druid and Battlemaster aren't really the tactical sorts, generally speaking. They're fairly new to the RPG scene. The Bard came to help me when he could, but by that point two rounds were down, and the mage made his Concentration check when the Bard Fireballed everybody over there, then died the next round.

So all in all I sat out the entire combat between Captivating Voice and Hold Person.

[Finieous]

It was kind of the perfect storm of random bull****.

Well, if there's anything good about perfect storms of random bull****, it's that they don't happen very often. :smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

It's not the GMs prerogative to manage the parties short rests

Yes actually it is. Just like it's the DMs prerogative to manage their long rests.

Policing the adventuring day (resource management) is one of the DMs jobs.

You can choose not to police the 5 minute adventuring day, but that's a management decision in and of itself.

It can be anything from a decision to use gritty realism rests making them harder to come by, to using heroic realism rests shortening them to 5 minutes making them easy to come by, imposing time limits on quest completion, dictating environmental constraints that make resting harder or impossible, informing the players that resting at present is impossible (or that due to the current threat or environment is ineffective in restoring resources) to even having an OOG chat with the players about refraining from short or long resting all the time.

You don't have to do any of the above, but that's a decision in and of itself.

[ZorroGames]

I certainly wouldn't call 5e "too good".

There's a lot to like, but also quite a bit to criticise.

{snip}

- I don't like the excessive hp recovery on short or long rests. It's one of the things that just rubs me the wrong way, probably because they don't even make an attempt to explain it. I can suspend my disbelief when it comes to clerics using divine magic to heal, but why is it that ordinary people can just rest for an hour and recover completely from a sword to the chest. :smallconfused:

{snip}

There are almost certainly more, but these are just a few that sprang to mind.

Coming out of skirmish war gam s in OD&D it seemed odd at first to me.

But they are not doing that. Despite what they tried to do with hit location notwithstanding. It is an abstract case of what might kill a zero level character only wears down the luck, skill, stamina of a higher level character.

[ZorroGames]

As for bland monsters IIRC (not looking it up right now) in the beginning Gygax made reference (paraphrased) was that the most deadly/dangerous monsters were PC analogues of the players. Especially humans back when few Dwarf/Elf/etc. races made it into double digits. I know today that race as class madness is gone but the principle is worth considering.

Fighting another group of opposed adventurers of similar level should be very dangerous but how often anymore do you see that at all much less the "boss" level of an adventure.

[Pex]

It depends on the DM. I find adjudicating DCs at a moment's notice a nothing task - it's not quite effortless, but it's pretty close. Memorizing the skill tables for 30+ skills? That's not happening.

I don't memorize the tables either, just the variable formulas that crop up over and over by osmosis. That's why I have the rule book open to the skills section for immediate look up. That doesn't bother me. That act of looking up the table for the info bothers others. Even in 5E I often have the rule book opened to my class section for easy reference of class abilities. When it's not my turn I go to the spell section as needed. I don't have the time or inclination to memorize everything. That's what's having the rule book with me is for.

[oxybe]

My main problems with 5th is that it doesn't really do anything I don't already have.

Character customization is first and firmly in the camp of 3.5 and Pathfinder. While I have problems with these games, and boy do I have problems, I can often find something new that looks interesting in play.

Quick play is basically covered by 2nd ed for me. If I want quick, dirty and no nonsense character generation and battles, I'd just whip out 2nd ed. The system is a bit of a mess, but I can get by without too much hassle. It's the game I cut my teeth on, I just need to take it out for a spin to get my bearings back.

Teamwork focus and engaging combat is the realm of 4th ed in my books. If I want a game that features a bunch of characters actively working together to run in an adventure, 4th is my jam. It's got it's fare share of problems with some fiddly numbers and early monster design, but i've worked out some of those kinks (inherent bonuses, free expertise feats, MM3+Monster vault) for the most part.

5th ed isn't bad, it's just... not doing anything for me. It's kinda situated somewhere in the middle of those three but doesn't do anything to stand out in my eyes, even if it's the game i technically have less issues with.

I'll play it if someone offers to run, but given a choice I'd pick any other edition over 5th as those games get me excited to play, bugbears and all. It's the first and only edition I don't have any material for (my 1st ed stuff is more because it was cheap at the time and I knew a guy who ran that system).

[JellyPooga]

Policing the adventuring day (resource management) is one of the DMs jobs.

But it's still up to the players whether or not they follow whatever guidelines you, as GM, set down. You cannot force the players to take a rest any more than you can force them to take any action or engage with any given encounter. i.e. you can do it, but should only do it after careful consideration over whether or not you're impinging on their agency as players.

It's your right as GM to enforce resource management and resting limitations (if any) but it's the players prerogative to manage their own resting schedule under whatever conditions the GM has laid down.

[Malifice]

5E puts a high burden on the DM for skill resolution because he has to come up with a DC for everything at a moment's notice.

DC 15 if it warrants a check. If its hard, DC 20. Super hard (and a PC has a chance of pulling it off to warrant the roll) DC 25.

Thats... not hard.


In 3E/Pathfinder that work is done for him. Having joined a new Pathfinder group, the DM uses a laptop instead of books. When it comes to skills of course he hadn't memorized all the tables, but he doesn't have to. He could reference the rules right in front of him. It was no big deal, and it even helped if a player did know the specifics, such as me knowing the formula for identifying a spell being cast or a player could reference the rule on his own laptop while the DM does something else. I do the same thing when I DM, though I prefer the physical book. The book is opened to the skill rules should I need it and not have to burden myself with creating DCs or methods of resolution for everything.

I would rather not waste my leisure spend time looking up skill matrixes for a thousand skill DCs, or decyphering flowcharts for grappling, or doing math.

And Im a former Rolemaster DM.

[Rynjin]

I would rather not waste my leisure spend time looking up skill matrixes for a thousand skill DCs, or decyphering flowcharts for grappling, or doing math.

The only math to be done is adding bonuses or penalties to checks, which is simple arithmetic with numbers less than 20. Not sure what you're on about with the rest of this.

[Malifice]

It was kind of the perfect storm of random bull****. We got hit by Harpies, so of course I got captivated, and then the mage used Hold Person when I got separated from the group. The party was busy fighting Redcaps at the same time, and yeah...the Druid and Battlemaster aren't really the tactical sorts, generally speaking. They're fairly new to the RPG scene. The Bard came to help me when he could, but by that point two rounds were down, and the mage made his Concentration check when the Bard Fireballed everybody over there, then died the next round.

So all in all I sat out the entire combat between Captivating Voice and Hold Person.

Harpies got you and the Bard didn't use countersong? Or give you bardic inspiration for your saves? He was high enough level for fireball so had both abilities.

His bardic inspiration alone grants you plus 1d10 to the save which coupled with countersong saves you in a round.

Sounds like a combination of bad tactics, newbism and bad luck.

[Malifice]

The only math to be done is adding bonuses or penalties to checks, which is simple arithmetic with numbers less than 20. Not sure what you're on about with the rest of this.

I'm taking about looking up a bunch of DCs for other games like 3e and so forth. I don't mind not having to do this anymore in 5e.

I like savage world's even better where the DC is always 4.

[Beelzebubba]

This is the primary difference between 5e and other editions-- a save does not take you out of the fight. A given failed save vs. hold person removes from you one turn of acting, and gives your opponents some advantages on attacking you. There are no coup de grace in the game. There's pretty much no fail-single-save-and-die effects. Even the sleep poison is most likely only a knock you out type if you fail by 5 (and wake up if you take any damage). That's part of the rebalancing of the system. Compared to 3e and earlier

Yeah, where do you think they got that mechanic from?

Did you happen to skip an entire edition of the game and forget to give it credit?

:smallbiggrin:

[Malifice]

Yeah, where do you think they got that mechanic from?

Did you happen to skip an entire edition of the game and forget to give it credit?

:smallbiggrin:

I skipped it.

[Rynjin]

Harpies got you and the Bard didn't use countersong? Or give you bardic inspiration for your saves? He was high enough level for fireball so had both abilities.

His bardic inspiration alone grants you plus 1d10 to the save which coupled with countersong saves you in a round.

Sounds like a combination of bad tactics, newbism and bad luck.

Fireball was the better use of the action, rather than giving me Advantage to the save. The former removed the harpies from the equation and had the chance of doing the same to Hold Person.

Can't remember if he Inspired me or not. Would have been d8 at that level, pretty sure it was 8th. He didn't have Dimension Door yet. Might have helped.

@Malifice: Savage Worlds is pretty rad, yeah.

[Kurald Galain]

I agree that the saving throws could have been designed better. Fort/Ref/Will just makes more sense than saying that each ability score needs a saving throw even though several of those are almost never relevant.

More importantly, compared to level-appropriate enemies,

In 2E, all your saving throws improve as you level up, to the point where you almost always make them.
In 3E, your strong saving throws improve (as above) and your weak saving throws stay the same.
In 5E, your strong saving throws stay the same and your weak saving throws get worse, to the point where you almost always fail them.


To make it worse, most classes in 3E "strong" progression for most of their saves; and classes in 5E have "weak" progression for most of their saves. That's something I'd definitely like to see changed in the inevitable 5.5 or 6E.

[RoboEmperor]

For people who don't like to play the standard paladin on a quest to slay an evil monster, or a wizard that spams fireball and lightning bolt all day, 5e is awful.

For people who do like to play a standard paladin, with his holy sword and shield, fighting wrongs and delivering justice, or a wizard that just spams fireball and lightning bolt all day, 5e is good.

In 3.5, you could win with anything, so you can create the most weird/unique/unconventional builds and everyone has a blast.

To be honest I did ditch 5e pretty early so I don't know what supplemental materials it has now, but when i ditched it, there was no way to permanently change my race, a way to play some kind of demon/devil master, and sorcerers were forced to go blaster. Even pure summoners to my knowledge was impossible to play.

Either slash or blast. The end. No shadow master, no chicken bomber, no summoner, etc.

So no, 5e is far from being *too* good.

[90sMusic]

I think the skill system is totally fine. They give a good guideline for it in the PHB or DMG, one or the other and explains each rank as being a different difficulty.

30 being next to impossible and it would be unattainable by someone who wasn't proficient in a skill and even with proficiency and 20 in the given stat, you still need a 19 or 20 to get it even at max level. Expertise does make it a bit easier, but that is the whole point of expertise to be really really good at something and able to pull off those amazing feats.

The Short Rest-Long Rest debate is an interesting one. I've never had a problem with short rests in my games. And while some classes get specific mechanics that refresh during short rests, everyone can use them to recover hit points. Besides, it is pretty reasonable to take a break after exhausting yourself in battle. If you deny short rests you are screwing over the classes that need them to recover features. If you change them to long rest and give them 3 times as much, that seriously messes with game balance. 3 Action Surges in a row? Geeeez.

[90sMusic]

For people who don't like to play the standard paladin on a quest to slay an evil monster, or a wizard that spams fireball and lightning bolt all day, 5e is awful.

For people who do like to play a standard paladin, with his holy sword and shield, fighting wrongs and delivering justice, or a wizard that just spams fireball and lightning bolt all day, 5e is good.

In 3.5, you could win with anything, so you can create the most weird/unique/unconventional builds and everyone has a blast.

To be honest I did ditch 5e pretty early so I don't know what supplemental materials it has now, but when i ditched it, there was no way to permanently change my race, a way to play some kind of demon/devil master, and sorcerers were forced to go blaster. Even pure summoners to my knowledge was impossible to play.

Either slash or blast. The end. No shadow master, no chicken bomber, no summoner, etc.

So no, 5e is far from being *too* good.

You still needed a viable build to work in 3.5 and pathfinder, you couldn't just "make whatever" and be fine unless you were playing an incredibly easy campaign.

As I said in my original post in this thread, 5e lacks the diversity of older editions. I think they should've had a handful more archetypes for every class and also maybe some ability to swap racials around like you could in pathfinder. I liked custom tailoring my race to more specifically reflect how I wanted to play.

But I think more options and possibilities will come in time with 5e.

[JellyPooga]

As I said in my original post in this thread, 5e lacks the diversity of older editions. I think they should've had a handful more archetypes for every class and also maybe some ability to swap racials around like you could in pathfinder. I liked custom tailoring my race to more specifically reflect how I wanted to play.

But I think more options and possibilities will come in time with 5e.

I like the direction 5ed took with regards to diversity of characters; by using Backgrounds.

The difference between an Acolyte Paladin and an Urchin Paladin, for example, is relatively small, but it is distinct. One has the favour of his/her church and the Lore skills you'd expect from someone trained by their faith. The other has a minor focus on stealth and urban environments, encouraging a different weapon/armour loadout and play style. Do we really need a "Stealth Paladin" subclass to differentiate the latter from the former? Not really (IMO).

This is the reason I'm not a fan of most UA material and I don't think there's a need to introduce system bloat by making a subclass for every conceivable character concept. Want a "Scout" Fighter? Play a Fighter with the Wanderer Background. Want an "Arcane Archer"? Play an archery focused EK, a Ranger or an AT Rogue with the Scholar Background. Between Class, Subclass and Background (not to mention Race), there are literally thousands of concepts right there in the Core PHB and that's before you get into the possibilities of custom Backgrounds.

Character concept is (or should be) more about how you play your character, not the mechanical benefits of whatever obscure prestige class or subclass you have; that was the failing of 3ed and the massive bloat it suffered from the kajillion splat-books that were released for it. I would not see 5ed go down that route. In 5ed, your Class gives you a basic framework, your subclass nails down a few more general points, so you feel like whatever you're aiming for and your Background gives you the specifics of who and what your character actually is and that's a strong basis to build almost any character you might want to play.

It's why Multiclassing is very much an optional rule; yes, it opens up a plethora of mechanical diversity, but from a conceptual point of view, Backgrounds already do most of the heavy lifting. I mean, what is really the difference between an Urchin Paladin and, say, a Sailor Paladin with a Rogue dip? The latter has a little more encouragement to utilise Finesse weapons for Sneak Attack and has better skills due to Expertise, but both are likely to want to use lighter armour that won't impede stealth (or sink them at sea!) and both are going to favour a campaign/setting that they can use their thieves tools and their respective Background Features. Their actual play style is likely to be very similar, but the quality of it is dependant not on their Class, but their Background.

[JAL_1138]

Buffer, controller, and general-utility wizards work well in 5e. Between spells like Dominate Monster, Hypnotic Pattern, Mass Suggestion, Polymorph, Haste, Greater Invisibility, Banishment, Fly, Forcecage, etc., etc., so on and so forth, you could make a viable and useful wizard who never learns a single direct-damage spell.

Paladin Classic is one subclass; you've also got The Punisher (oath of Vengeance) and a Green Knight druid-like nature pally (Ancients) in the PHB, and the Oath of the Crown in SCAG is more of a national champion/war hero than strictly a goody-two-shoes. And there's some non-goodly ones in UA, probably coming out in Xanathar's.

[Willie the Duck]

Yeah, where do you think they got that mechanic from?

Did you happen to skip an entire edition of the game and forget to give it credit?

:smallbiggrin:

Not really, no. 4e's relationship to status effects and save mechanics is definitely worth unpacking in its' own post, if you'd like to have a go at it.

[Mafilux]

I can't really say for the previous versions since I haven't played them, but I was surprised at how easy it was to get into 5e. The rules are fairly easy to understand after just a couple sessions, and from what I've heard of previous versions the rules could get really complicated. I've heard people say that 5e is the most noob friendly version they've had, I guess I'm inclined to agree since it's the version that actually got me wanting to finally try the game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Im also a little disspointed by how death has become nothing more than a minor economic annoyance from 5th level onwards. I mean, I get why this decision was made, but it rubs me a little raw for some reason.

Maybe its just my inner grognard.

Ever browse the DMG loot tables to see when qualifying diamonds start dropping?

There's only one table with Diamonds on it: 5,000 GP Gemstones.

So, 300gp worth of diamonds? Basically doesn't exist until you start getting treasure hoards from CR 17+ challenges.

[Finieous]

Ever browse the DMG loot tables to see when qualifying diamonds start dropping?

There's only one table with Diamonds on it: 5,000 GP Gemstones.

So, 300gp worth of diamonds? Basically doesn't exist until you start getting treasure hoards from CR 17+ challenges.

Does your world not have mines and jewelers? The treasure hoards of high-level monsters are the only way to find gemstones?

[Tanarii]

DC 15 if it warrants a check. If its hard, DC 20. Super hard (and a PC has a chance of pulling it off to warrant the roll) DC 25.

Thats... not hard.What's apparently hard is actually getting the numbers in the recommended ranges.

DC 10 if it warrants a check. Likely to fail / difficult, DC 15. Very likely to fail unless very skilled / very difficult, DC 20.

DC 25 shouldn't be happening unless the player is determined to do something they're very likely to fail at, they're very skilled at and still willing to risk failure, or its a task that only a skilled character not rushing (ie automatic success rule for spending 10 times as long) should be trying.

I don't think it's hard to set DCs on the fly either. But it IS hard to know when you shouldn't even call for a check, and what values are appropriate when you do. That's where the DMG guidelines are helpful to read, along with understanding that a DC 10 check is something the average character will fail 50% of the time unless they have a high ability score / proficiency, and even then they'll still fail it fairly often.

[GreatWyrmGold]

Because the "module" model of adventuring, which arose from convention and tournament play in the 70's and 80's, found that was the best way to put together an adventure that you could score.
D&D at a con or a tournament is quite different from the normal campaign run by a DM. See also Bobby Jones on golf: there is golf, and then there is tournament golf. Having played both, I know exactly what he means by that.
I've never played at a con or tournament. I'm talking about normal games run by "normal" DMs at local game shops and homes.


About "make crap up"
The books are the bread. The "make crap up" (use your brain, your imagination) is the salami, the smoked turkey, the PB&J, the swiss cheese, the mustard, the pickles, the mayo .. sprouts ... whatever .. that YOU provide to make the sandwich. Been like that since the first book came out.
Analogies are not arguments. I have no idea why the rules are the bread and not the filling, why skill rules should not be part of the bread, why there needs to be a distinction in the first place, etc, except that it fits your pre-existing beliefs.



I understood your point. I just disagree. In the general, because rule books leaving areas for the DM to make things up is very much a strength. And in the specifics, in that 5e has lots of rules and guidelines, but done in such a way as to minimize the requirement to look up rules or guidelines during actual play.
I'm not sure how that contradicts my point. "Providing rules for various situations reduces DM freedom somehow"? What, does being forced to use the numbers in the book affect play that much?
And the argument that you have to look things up is just stupid. If you don't want to...you can still just wing it. There is no Game Police forcing you to use every rule in the rulebook as printed.



I agree that the saving throws could have been designed better. Fort/Ref/Will just makes more sense than saying that each ability score needs a saving throw even though several of those are almost never relevant.
One thing I liked in 4e* was that those three saves could be tied to different abilities. No ability was worthless for saving throws, and there weren't any this-never-comes-up saves. Best of both worlds, really.
*I think it was in 4e?



You still needed a viable build to work in 3.5 and pathfinder, you couldn't just "make whatever" and be fine unless you were playing an incredibly easy campaign.
Speaking as someone who didn't understand why monks were so terrible, I never felt much pressure to optimize. I mean, stupid wizards and weak barbarians are going to fail, but it's not like you need to look up guides to figure that out.



Does your world not have mines and jewelers? The treasure hoards of high-level monsters are the only way to find gemstones?
I know I'm not the first to say this, but a world where monsters' treasure hoards are the only place you can find a lot of important resources could be interesting. You'd need a dedicated worldbuilder to pull it off, though.

[Pex]

DC 15 if it warrants a check. If its hard, DC 20. Super hard (and a PC has a chance of pulling it off to warrant the roll) DC 25.

Thats... not hard.

What makes a skill use action warrant a check? What skill use is hard? What skill use is easy? What's the DC to climb a slippery rope when orcs are attacking? The DM has to make it up at the moment for everything. What's easy for one DM is hard for another.



I would rather not waste my leisure spend time looking up skill matrixes for a thousand skill DCs, or decyphering flowcharts for grappling, or doing math.

And Im a former Rolemaster DM.

Like I said, that act of looking it up bothers some people. Doesn't change it doesn't bother me nor the DM of my new Pathfinder group. It's also not a thousand DCs despite the exaggeration. Grappling I give you, but that's 3E. Pathfinder does make it easier. Even in 5E the game is all about the math. At the minimum you have to utilize the formula class ability DC = 8 + proficiency + ability modifier.

[Tanarii]

I'm not sure how that contradicts my point. "Providing rules for various situations reduces DM freedom somehow"?Yes. Because it sets the expectations of the players. And that matters. A lot. DMs have a lot of power to set expectations for their tables, but the ruleset they choose sets them even more.


What, does being forced to use the numbers in the book affect play that much?
And the argument that you have to look things up is just stupid. If you don't want to...you can still just wing it. There is no Game Police forcing you to use every rule in the rulebook as printed.Yes there are. They are called 'players', and the rules set their expectations. I mean, personally as a player I get upset if the DM is 'arbitrarily' changing the rules. Don't you? On these forums, we see regular threads of players complaining about that kind of thing (even in 5e), and our fellow forumites regularly advice such players to leave the group of such DM.

To be fair, many DMs are also 'Game Police' during their games. :smallbiggrin:

[Kurald Galain]

One thing I liked in 4e* was that those three saves could be tied to different abilities. No ability was worthless for saving throws, and there weren't any this-never-comes-up saves. Best of both worlds, really.
*I think it was in 4e?
Yes, but not quite. Since each save in 4E is tied to the best of two abilities, this means that three abilities are always worhtless for saving throws. In other words, every 4E character has three dump stats.


DC 15 if it warrants a check.
What this means is that if it warrants a check, PCs will usually fail. That's the same as with saving throws: if the DM decides that something warrants a saving throw, PCs will usually fail it. Not all DMs are aware of that.

[JellyPooga]

On the subject of good/bad saves, I would express my opinion that failure can be just as fun as success; often more so. The 2ed paradigm where high level characters had little chance of failure at anything breeds...well, boredom and the desire to start over from lower levels. Having a weakness is not a bad thing from a gameplay point of view and is frequently fun, either because it shakes things up by having to overcome a setback or merely making plans and tactical decisions to compensate for, avoid or mitigate those setbacks.

The same applies to skills.

[Ninja-Radish]

Backgrounds are another issue I have with this system. I like that each background has one unique feature and some appropriate equipment, but I hate that the skills are chosen for you. Every background should have the unique feature and equipment, plus 2 skills of your choice, and one language.

Because the skills are already selected, choosing a background is always the worst part of character creation cause I have to look through all of them for the combination of skills I want.

[obryn]

I've had this thought for a little while, but was curious to share it with others: is 5e, as a system, *too* good?
No, and simply asking the question displays a remarkable lack of insight into the world of RPGs as a whole.

[JellyPooga]

Backgrounds are another issue I have with this system. I like that each background has one unique feature and some appropriate equipment, but I hate that the skills are chosen for you. Every background should have the unique feature and equipment, plus 2 skills of your choice, and one language.

Because the skills are already selected, choosing a background is always the worst part of character creation cause I have to look through all of them for the combination of skills I want.

The skills being chosen for you are customisable (pending GM approval), but are an integral part of what makes the Background make any kind of sense. A Scholar that picks Athletics and Sleight of Hand as his Background skills, for example, had better have a darned good reason why being a scholar made him fit and dextrous. I'm not saying it's totally out of the question; perhaps he was on the college football team and was a member of the Circus Society at university, but that explanation needs to be there.

The point of a Background isn't to get some nifty features and extra skill proficiencies; it's to give character to your "build".

[Ninja-Radish]

The skills being chosen for you are customisable (pending GM approval), but are an integral part of what makes the Background make any kind of sense. A Scholar that picks Athletics and Sleight of Hand as his Background skills, for example, had better have a darned good reason why being a scholar made him fit and dextrous. I'm not saying it's totally out of the question; perhaps he was on the college football team and was a member of the Circus Society at university, but that explanation needs to be there.

The point of a Background isn't to get some nifty features and extra skill proficiencies; it's to give character to your "build".

That may be true but it's a terrible inconvenience considering there's no way for most characters to ever learn a new skill. Maybe each class should have 4 skills and the background not have any at all?

I for one am sick of the "appropriate" background for my character having useless skills that apply to my dump stat.

[JAL_1138]

Backgrounds are another issue I have with this system. I like that each background has one unique feature and some appropriate equipment, but I hate that the skills are chosen for you. Every background should have the unique feature and equipment, plus 2 skills of your choice, and one language.

Because the skills are already selected, choosing a background is always the worst part of character creation cause I have to look through all of them for the combination of skills I want.

Customizing backgrounds is already in the PHB...in pretty much exactly the way you described wanting. Pick one background feature and starting gear package, any two skills, and any two tools or languages (i.e., two tools, one language and one tool, or two tools). Page 125.

[Willie the Duck]

On the subject of good/bad saves, I would express my opinion that failure can be just as fun as success; often more so. The 2ed paradigm where high level characters had little chance of failure at anything breeds...well, boredom and the desire to start over from lower levels.

At the very least, the little-chance-of-failure paradigm engenders a system that allows the thing you are saving against to be very, very bad. Thus the save-or-die/suck system.

[Kurald Galain]

That may be true but it's a terrible inconvenience considering there's no way for most characters to ever learn a new skill.
Yep. I like the idea that characters learn new skills as they level up (e.g. like in 2E).

Also, I like the idea of having backgrounds that make a mechanical difference. I find 5E's implementation thereof pretty weak when compared to 2E, 4E, or PF.

[JellyPooga]

That may be true but it's a terrible inconvenience considering there's no way for most characters to ever learn a new skill. Maybe each class should have 4 skills and the background not have any at all?

I for one am sick of the "appropriate" background for my character having useless skills that apply to my dump stat.

Perhaps what you think of as "appropriate" isn't as fitting as you think. I mean, let's say you want to be a Wanderer (for the free food feature); what sense does it make if you decide you don't want Survival proficiency? Can you really claim that your background was in "wandering" if your Background skills are Arcana and Persuasion? Are you, in fact, not building a character, but rather a favourable set of stats? Leave the crunch in your Class; there's plenty there to play with. Let your Background do its job and give a semblance of life to your stats. So what if it's not "optimal"?

[GreatWyrmGold]

Yes. Because it sets the expectations of the players. And that matters. A lot. DMs have a lot of power to set expectations for their tables, but the ruleset they choose sets them even more.

Yes there are. They are called 'players', and the rules set their expectations. I mean, personally as a player I get upset if the DM is 'arbitrarily' changing the rules. Don't you? On these forums, we see regular threads of players complaining about that kind of thing (even in 5e), and our fellow forumites regularly advice such players to leave the group of such DM.

To be fair, many DMs are also 'Game Police' during their games. :smallbiggrin:
I've never seen a player complain about a DM setting a number without checking the book. And even if that came up, what of it? "Oh, my bad, I thought 30 was a good number to roll against. I guess the real DC is 26 after all." Then you get back to playing. That's the worst-case scenario, assuming your players aren't anal-retentive jerks who not only refuse to use anything but the rules and can't use an index to save their life, but even then the worst-case scenario is losing 10 minutes to looking up rules. It's a small price compared to providing no guideline for the DMs who want guidelines, or for those same players. (And the worst-case scenario with an anal-retentive jerk would be losing 15-20 minutes verifying that there aren't any rules on the subject.) Worse, if the question favors one player over another, or hurts the party in general, they'll feel cheated.
Actually, let's do a specific example. Recently, my group took a break from our regularly-scheduled adventures to do a PvP arena. One player had a spell or something which would deal damage to anyone who attacked him; given our low level, one or two attacks could easily kill the attacker. So I had the bright idea of grappling him and forcing him into a nearby body of water. The only problem is that 5e doesn't have any rules for moving people you're grappled with. (Or doing much of anything else with a grapple. Side note: Finding the rules on something there weren't rules for, that takes a lot longer than trying to find the rules for something that there are rules for.) The DM had to make something up on the fly, and obviously it would favor one of us over the other. Of course, PvP isn't the default mode for D&D, but it shouldn't be hard to see how rules adjudications could harm individual PCs or the whole party even if this was transplanted to a PvE situation.
Sure, this is arguably an edge case, and the rulebook can't be expected to provide rules for every situation. But forcing DM adjudications for a swathe of rules is another matter entirely. At best, you're saying these situations are unimportant, that skills rolls not specifically mentioned in the module are comparable in importance to these edge cases. At worst, you're making a significant chunk of the game dependent on how a given DM reads the rules—which could be avoided by just.



Yes, but not quite. Since each save in 4E is tied to the best of two abilities, this means that three abilities are always worhtless for saving throws. In other words, every 4E character has three dump stats.
Well, yeah, but no character ever uses every stat. Except monks, but that's why they're mocked by everyone.



On the subject of good/bad saves, I would express my opinion that failure can be just as fun as success; often more so.
I would express my opinion that yours is wrong. By which I mean not that failure isn't fun or that success is more fun, but rather that considering difficulty and fun in terms of "success" and "failure" is wrong. I think "challenge" and "success," or at least the feeling of challenge and the feeling of success, are more important—and, equally-important, not mutually exclusive.

[obryn]

I can't be bothered to write this all out in some way that flows, so here's a bulleted list real quick with my input on the skill thing.

* Thing that doesn't bother me about 5e: DM adjudication of DCs based on loosey-goosey standards. I consider it a core DMing responsibility, and easy/medium/hard is fine.

* Thing that does bother me about 5e despite this: The lack of differentiation between different characters for proficiency, and the slow progression of competence to make hard checks better than a coin flip.

* Thing I like about 5e, if they didn't stick it into the optional rules at least: Really, just use Backgrounds as Skills. All the cool kids are doing it these days.

* Great alternate system to 5e which covers a lot of the same ground but does it better: Shadow of the Demon Lord. It's a really, really slick system for D&D-style fantasy. Also, Robert Schwalb is a writing machine who has produced literally dozens of short $1-$5 pdf supplements since the game's release. (It's also right now in the Bundle of Holding, where you can get a boatload of the pdf books and supplements for either $15 for the low tier or $26 for the high tier, while also donating to a worthy charity.)

[Kurald Galain]

Well, yeah, but no character ever uses every stat. Except monks, but that's why they're mocked by everyone.
True, I like it if a character benefits from (almost) every stat, and it's up to the player to decide which stats he prefers. So that's a middleground between "all stats are absolutely necessary" (the aforementioned monk) and "this stat won't do anything for you ever" (i.e. a dump stat).

[JellyPooga]

I would express my opinion that yours is wrong. By which I mean not that failure isn't fun or that success is more fun, but rather that considering difficulty and fun in terms of "success" and "failure" is wrong. I think "challenge" and "success," or at least the feeling of challenge and the feeling of success, are more important—and, equally-important, not mutually exclusive.

That's rather my point. It's not a case of success and failure, but (as you say) the challenge and the consequence, whether that be success or failure, that is important. If the consequence is always the same (i.e. success), then the challenge is irrelevant and isn't worth playing. By having Saves be weak and strong, the consequence is in doubt and the challenge is something worth spending time overcoming.

[Tanarii]

I've never seen a player complain about a DM setting a number without checking the book.Lucky you. Rules lawyers abound. (And again, to be fair, many of them are DMs)


And even if that came up, what of it? "Oh, my bad, I thought 30 was a good number to roll against. I guess the real DC is 26 after all." Then you get back to playing.Sadly, it's usually a stupid argument of the DM insisting his judgement call is what matters, and the player insisting it's the actual rule. Given there may be a situation where the DM wants to override the rule, a player jumping in to say "actually, that should be a DC 26" is interrupting the game and slowing things down. Your example is perfect for how a hard rule limits DM freedom.


even then the worst-case scenario is losing 10 minutes to looking up rules.Losing 10 minutes to look up a rule is a catastrophe! That's an entire Easy combat! It's 1/12th of a session. I'd have players up in arms if I allowed someone slowed down the game that much. Or not coming back if I did that as a DM. Totally unacceptable.

[ZorroGames]

I would like more background possibilities myself. Given the style of character I tend to play (L/N, N/G, L/G, C/G; anti-Evil heroes) I find some of these limited in application and there are some gaps. Hmm, that needs its own thread - "Backgrounds I would like available."

[ZorroGames]

No, and simply asking the question displays a remarkable lack of insight into the world of RPGs as a whole.

Well I can only speak for myself on his:

After decades happily away from RPGs I am now playing D&D, 5th Edition, and honestly do not give a darn about other RPGs like Pathfinder or any other games does. Neither do I care how it was done in any other edition of D&D.

The arrogance that somehow not knowing how games I do not have an interest of playing do something diminishes me is offensive.

You are entitled to your opinion but I find it lacking.

[Pex]

Lucky you. Rules lawyers abound. (And again, to be fair, many of them are DMs)

Not all rules lawyers are bad, but yeah. I've experienced them in 5E games too. It's a player-type thing regardless of game system.


Sadly, it's usually a stupid argument of the DM insisting his judgement call is what matters, and the player insisting it's the actual rule. Given there may be a situation where the DM wants to override the rule, a player jumping in to say "actually, that should be a DC 26" is interrupting the game and slowing things down. Your example is perfect for how a hard rule limits DM freedom.

Alternatively the DM could just as easily say, "Oh, ok, DC 26 it is." when he's not specifically wanting to override anything but winged up a number he thought was right and be grateful a player knew the actual tidbit already or looked it up himself. The DM doesn't have to resent anything. The DM wasn't overridden. He wanted to use the rule in the first place. If he actually does want to overrule the official rule he can still do so, and the resentful rules lawyer player should be told to shut up, if in kindlier words. If the DM wants to overrule everything that's a separate issue. Cynical Extreme - Tyrannical DMing. Benign Extreme - The game system isn't a fit for the DM's style.


Losing 10 minutes to look up a rule is a catastrophe! That's an entire Easy combat! It's 1/12th of a session. I'd have players up in arms if I allowed someone slowed down the game that much. Or not coming back if I did that as a DM. Totally unacceptable.

Perhaps GreatWyrmGold didn't mean 10 minutes literally but rather as a figure of speech. I would agree taking 10 minutes to look up a rule is way too much. It should never take that long, and the DM should have just decided on an answer already beforehand. In my typical Pathfinder games it takes seconds.

[gooddragon1]

Quite the opposite really. 5e is too bare bones. So much is left to the DM that balance will vary from table to table. There's also the broad swath of play styles that are no longer supported, on top of those that keep with the tradition of never supporting them. It's not a bad system, but it solves most old balance issues by removing the issues and replacing them with nothing.

I'm somewhat worried by this. I think it did a better job than 4e which had the same resource system for everything. However, it still has the "Thou shalt not exceed these hard caps on attack rolls, damage, etc." That sort of rigid balance is balanced and ensures that no one outshines anyone else, but I worry that it loses something about p&p that computer games can never have. A worthwhile tradeoff? I couldn't say. I've never played 5e and I don't feel like putting in the effort to do so. I could be wrong, but I am a bit judgmental about these things.

[Tanarii]

In my typical Pathfinder games it takes seconds.That sounds like Hyperbole. I've never experienced a rule lookup that resolved that fast. My experience is it takes about a minute or two to look up a rule in a book or a pdf document, provided the DM/player knows approximately where it is. If they don't, I can see it might take 10 minutes, especially in a rules heavy game with multiple sources like 3.P or 4e.

15-30 seconds would be super fast, maybe something that's a simple chart reference on a DM screen that is referenced frequently, no book referencing required. So if that's what you mean by "it takes seconds" fair enough.

[Socratov]

Not all rules lawyers are bad, but yeah. I've experienced them in 5E games too. It's a player-type thing regardless of game system.

snip
When done right rules lawyering can enhance the game: it could lead to hilarious results where the actual rules are, well, bonkers. Like drown healing in 3.5. Mad as a hatter, but see it used once and you will remember that as a moment of funny business. If anything it can hilariously highlight how bad some portions of the book were written.

Consider Wolf Totem Barbarian: the rules imply that anybody hostile to the party within your melee range grants advantage on attacks against them.

But then you read it word for word and see that only those hostile to you specifically and you'll notice that once someone has not taken hostile actions against you, they don't count as hostile towards you. Bonkers, and this one lead to a really weird situation when my barbarian got charmed.

But I agree that ruleslawyering often turns into a scripture quoting battle.

[KorvinStarmast]

So I had the bright idea of grappling him and forcing him into a nearby body of water.
Good idea.

The only problem is that 5e doesn't have any rules for moving people you're grappled with.
Incorrect statement.

Moving a Grappled Creature. When you move, you can drag or carry the grappled creature with you, but your speed is halved, unless the creature is two or more sizes smaller than you. If your character had movement of 30, you'd be able to move that caster 15' while you've grappled it.
The cited rule is the last sub heading under Grappling in the PHB, after Escaping a Grapple. (In the SRD it is on page 96, don't have page number for PHB at the moment; in the Basic Rules it's on page 74).

If you are going to complain about the game (there are things each of us dislikes) it helps to know what's in it first.
For example:
I have some reservations about the constitution scores on a variety of monsters in the MM, as well as some of the other chosen attribute levels. But it's not a deal breaker.


I have no idea why the rules are the bread and not the filling, why skill rules should not be part of the bread, why there needs to be a distinction in the first place, etc, except that it fits your pre-existing beliefs. Dave Arneson wept.

Being able to use one's imagination is key to role playing, and being able to make a decision is key to being DM. This is not rocket surgery.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Not all rules lawyers are bad, but yeah. I've experienced them in 5E games too. It's a player-type thing regardless of game system.
Can confirm. I've got a player that insists on looking up precise rules in friggin' Munchkin.

The irony is not lost on me.

[Socratov]

Can confirm. I've got a player that insists on looking up precise rules in friggin' Munchkin.

The irony is not lost on me.

That's not irony, that's is how you play the friggin' game...

[KorvinStarmast]

I would like more background possibilities myself. Given the style of character I tend to play (L/N, N/G, L/G, C/G; anti-Evil heroes) I find some of these limited in application and there are some gaps. Hmm, that needs its own thread - "Backgrounds I would like available." DMG has a nice section on custom backgrounds, and there's some guidance in PHB (p. 125) on "mix and match for your own background" as well. Backgrounds don't have to be restricted to "just what's in the book (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/65842/22566)."

[Waterdeep Merch]

That's not irony, that's is how you play the friggin' game...

That is the irony. The point is that they'll rules lawyer anything. It just happens that in this one, seemingly unnecessary situation, it's also done in the spirit of the game.

Same player cheats every game, too, palming cards and just not playing honestly in general. He's pretty giddy about it. Yes that's part of the rules, but he's so insistent on doing it every time that we basically can't play the game anymore.

Which is, further, exactly what a munchkin does in D&D.

It's fridge brilliance at its best.

[ZorroGames]

DMG has a nice section on custom backgrounds, and there's some guidance in PHB (p. 125) on "mix and match for your own background" as well. Backgrounds don't have to be restricted to "just what's in the book (https://rpg.stackexchange.com/a/65842/22566)."

Thanks, I will reread that information. Playing AL as a starter only right now but when I find a campaign to join I will talk it over with the DM to be sure it doesn't upset anyone's liver.

[leugren]

I will say that what annoys me is the lack of real weapon variety. Dex martials will want a rapier; str either a longsword, greatsword, greataxe or polearm/glaive (depending on race); small ranged characters want a longbow, and medium ranged ones want a heavy crossbow. Even something as simple as a different critical effect per weapon could make the difference here (martials offering better crit effects than simple, lower damage dice offering better crit effects than higher ones, to increase the appeal of things like flails).
Small ranged characters cannot use a longbow because it has the "heavy" qualifier. Perhaps you meant light crossbow. If you're DM'ing and you deplore the lack of weapon variety, you can always drop an interesting alternate weapon such as a +2 whip of goblin flaying or a +3 war pick of dragon trephination.

[Knaight]

After decades happily away from RPGs I am now playing D&D, 5th Edition, and honestly do not give a darn about other RPGs like Pathfinder or any other games does. Neither do I care how it was done in any other edition of D&D.

The arrogance that somehow not knowing how games I do not have an interest of playing do something diminishes me is offensive.

That's not what was said. What was said was more along the lines of how you probably shouldn't be asking about whether 5e is so good that it can't be improved if you don't have a background in RPGs as a whole to see what improvements might be out there.

[Pex]

That sounds like Hyperbole. I've never experienced a rule lookup that resolved that fast. My experience is it takes about a minute or two to look up a rule in a book or a pdf document, provided the DM/player knows approximately where it is. If they don't, I can see it might take 10 minutes, especially in a rules heavy game with multiple sources like 3.P or 4e.

15-30 seconds would be super fast, maybe something that's a simple chart reference on a DM screen that is referenced frequently, no book referencing required. So if that's what you mean by "it takes seconds" fair enough.

I never timed it. I won't say is never took at least a minute in a particular instance or two when it's something that never came up before after a real world year of playing, but it's rare enough not to be annoying and not noticeable at all if the game is in a natural pause anyway because the DM is in the little player's room or the host is dealing with the delivery guy. It's not 1 second either, but seconds is to mean 20 or so which is not bothersome. I'd say it's not so much hyperbole but rather you getting so hung up on taking it literally, wanting to know the exact length of time as if one second longer than some arbitrary number is proof of horrendous proportion. :smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

I'd say it's not so much hyperbole but rather you getting so hung up on taking it literally, wanting to know the exact length of time as if one second longer than some arbitrary number is proof of horrendous proportion. :smallbiggrin:
lol okay you're right I was being far too literal and nitpicky. I don't personally consider 15-20 seconds of time looking up necessary info to make a resolution a good thing, since that's enough time for a player to resolve a combat round. But that's a personal judgement.

[obryn]

Well I can only speak for myself on his:

After decades happily away from RPGs I am now playing D&D, 5th Edition, and honestly do not give a darn about other RPGs like Pathfinder or any other games does. Neither do I care how it was done in any other edition of D&D.

The arrogance that somehow not knowing how games I do not have an interest of playing do something diminishes me is offensive.

You are entitled to your opinion but I find it lacking.
It doesn't diminish you as a person, but it certainly diminishes the value of any opinions about whether - as the OP asked - 5e is just *too* good.

If all you want to play is 5e D&D, hey, you do you. You can feel free not to care, but you can't feel entitled to arrogance in your ignorance.


That's not what was said. What was said was more along the lines of how you probably shouldn't be asking about whether 5e is so good that it can't be improved if you don't have a background in RPGs as a whole to see what improvements might be out there.
Yah, pretty much.

[gooddragon1]

It doesn't diminish you as a person, but it certainly diminishes the value of any opinions about whether - as the OP asked - 5e is just *too* good.

If all you want to play is 5e D&D, hey, you do you. You can feel free not to care, but you can't feel entitled to arrogance in your ignorance.


Yah, pretty much.

But there's nothing better than 3.5.

[Ninja-Radish]

Thanks, I will reread that information. Playing AL as a starter only right now but when I find a campaign to join I will talk it over with the DM to be sure it doesn't upset anyone's liver.

Huh. I didn't realize that either. Thanks for the information!

[Scots Dragon]

But there's nothing better than AD&D 2E.

Fixed slightly.

[JAL_1138]

Thanks, I will reread that information. Playing AL as a starter only right now but when I find a campaign to join I will talk it over with the DM to be sure it doesn't upset anyone's liver.

AL expressly allows custom backgrounds, right in the AL Player's Guide. (Or maybe it was the FAQ. One of the two, though.) Just take a given background's feature and starting equipment package (from the same background)—note that you cannot roll for starting gold in League—then pick any two skills, then pick any two languages or tool proficiencies (to reiterate from the previous page, you can take two tool proficiencies, one language and one tool proficiency, or two languages), as described on PHB pg. 125.

[GlenSmash!]

Small ranged characters cannot use a longbow because it has the "heavy" qualifier.

I think they can, but they would have disadvantage, so they probably won't.

[Hrugner]

I'm somewhat worried by this. I think it did a better job than 4e which had the same resource system for everything. However, it still has the "Thou shalt not exceed these hard caps on attack rolls, damage, etc." That sort of rigid balance is balanced and ensures that no one outshines anyone else, but I worry that it loses something about p&p that computer games can never have. A worthwhile tradeoff? I couldn't say. I've never played 5e and I don't feel like putting in the effort to do so. I could be wrong, but I am a bit judgmental about these things.

That's pretty much my take on the system as well. I don't really think it's a worthwhile trade off. You generate a variety of balancing factors by having multiple tweaks to the combat equation available. It gets easier to balance with fewer variables, but you end up with a very turgid system where each ability is very similar. Each character having one action, bonus action, reaction per round encourages players to fill those slots and seek ways of gaining more rounds through haste, twinned spells, quickened spells, or the fighter ability. This sways the game's balance in favor of those who have access to those four abilities. This should be mitigated by encounter per adventure day, but it's hard to justify that number of encounters narratively.

Generally speaking, a game should be able to handle a wide variety of equations for balancing, and allow many of them to commingle freely with limits on how many of each function is available to each player per equation. 5e backs off from the problem entirely by making the equation tiny.

It's functional and easy to teach and learn. I play it when someone at our table wants to DM it, but I won't bother DMing it.

[Vogonjeltz]

Does your world not have mines and jewelers? The treasure hoards of high-level monsters are the only way to find gemstones?

Of course it does, but unlike reality, where their value is predicated on a cartel limiting the market supply, Diamonds are extremely rare in D&D. Pretty much nobody outside nobility has the income that Adventurers do, so there's probably only a jeweler with higher end things (i.e. potentially a diamond) in cities.

And it's not high level monsters per se, it's high level Hoards. So, yes an old Dragon, or an entire Orcish treasury has a 24% chance to have 1-8 gemstones of the correct valuation, but there's also only a 25% chance of those gemstones being diamonds (rather than say, Black sapphires, Jacinth, or Rubies). That puts it at about a 6% chance of getting a diamond from a CR 17+ hoard.

So, for every 17 hoards, every 17 dragons or entire armies that the Adventurers lay waste to, they probably got a couple diamonds that would allow one of them to be revived. Playing it by the book, there's next to no way to bring people back to life.

[Pex]

But there's nothing better than 3.5.


Fixed slightly.

Pathfinder

Answered

[mephnick]

Pathfinder

I think Pathfinder may be the most bloated system in TTRPG history now. I went to the forums after a couple years off and had no idea what anyone was talking about. Or is there just a ton of third party stuff getting thrown in?

[obryn]

I think Pathfinder may be the most bloated system in TTRPG history now. I went to the forums after a couple years off and had no idea what anyone was talking about. Or is there just a ton of third party stuff getting thrown in?
No, it's comically bloated and has been for a long time.

[Finieous]

Of course it does, but unlike reality, where their value is predicated on a cartel limiting the market supply, Diamonds are extremely rare in D&D. Pretty much nobody outside nobility has the income that Adventurers do, so there's probably only a jeweler with higher end things (i.e. potentially a diamond) in cities.


Makes sense. Let's stipulate that they're very rare. Why wouldn't adventurers with the cash on hand go to the city to buy one and raise a fallen companion? Or buy out the available supply every time they visit a city? Or put brokers on retainer to buy them at auction whenever one shows up, if that's the kind of thing you have in your world?

You can make it as difficult as you want, but "by the book," the characters will have money to spend and there's no setting-neutral reason they couldn't spend it on diamonds. In our world, they've been mined since the 4th century BC. So they can be rare, sure, but that's exactly the kind of problem that money solves.

[MeeposFire]

I think Pathfinder may be the most bloated system in TTRPG history now. I went to the forums after a couple years off and had no idea what anyone was talking about. Or is there just a ton of third party stuff getting thrown in?

No it is just bloated (though you may see some 3rd party stuff too depending on which forum).

Also if I wanted to answer the original joke question it would probably be the modified AD&D/Rules Cyclopedia mish mash that I had going for a while.

[Scots Dragon]

Pathfinder

Answered

Pathfinder not only isn't even the best retroclone/remake of a Dungeons & Dragons edition, it isn't even the best retroclone/remake of D&D 3.5E.

[Ninja-Radish]

Pathfinder not only isn't even the best retroclone/remake of a Dungeons & Dragons edition, it isn't even the best retroclone/remake of D&D 3.5E.

Speaking just for myself, PF and 4E are my fave versions of D&D by a huge margin. Apparently it's supposed to be a crime or something to be a fan of both those systems, but I absolutely love them both.

[MeeposFire]

Speaking just for myself, PF and 4E are my fave versions of D&D by a huge margin. Apparently it's supposed to be a crime or something to be a fan of both those systems, but I absolutely love them both.

I do like 4e especially if I want my tactical version of D&D (and I want to emphasise that aspect love me some bard and warlord).

I like to make characters in 3e when I am not going to play them (making playable characters in that system for me requires a lot more work because I have to make sure it is always decent rather than just good at the end or has a gimmick that is fun to think about but not so much in play, this is especially problematic since I love playing warrior types but the full attack action is the single greatest burden and flaw in the entire game and is a pain to truly deal with). Playing 3e is ok but not great for me (not really much of a niche for me anymore considering if I want it simpler experience I can pay an earlier version of D&D or 5e or if I want a more tactical experience I play 4e) especially since as I said I like playing non-casters so how fun it will be is heavily dependent on what I am allowed to work with.

The one area I refuse to do anymore (and I have held to it for many years now) is that I will NOT DM 3e anymore. It just takes way too much effort for the fun involved in my experience. I did a 1-20 campaign and it became an absolute chore. After a while I was wondering why I was hating the experience so much after enjoying doing AD&D/D&D (Cyclopedia type) as a DM. After doing 4e I realized that it was due to how much extra work I was doing in 3e compared to what I was doing in 4e a the time. 4e required far less time to do even at the higher levels for in terms of preparation.

3e's biggest strength for me is also sadly a weakness and it is the sheer detail and random subsystems and what not. Fun for me to mess with but not always fun for me in practice (but hey helping somebody build a shadow based ninja out of Naruto using the psionic rules was fun).

I like playing 3e more than not playing but it would probably now be at the bottom of the list though it could always change for a while I liked it more than previous editions and that is no longer true (though to be honest I built more characters than I did playing them so perhaps just like now I liked creating more than playing).

[Tanarii]

Speaking just for myself, PF and 4E are my fave versions of D&D by a huge margin. Apparently it's supposed to be a crime or something to be a fan of both those systems, but I absolutely love them both.
Yeah, I ran and played BECMI, 1e/1.5, 2e/C&T, 3e/3.5, and 4e. For years in each case. I like them all. They each had their strengths and weaknesses. Just as 5e does.

[mephnick]

The one area I refuse to do anymore (and I have held to it for many years now) is that I will NOT DM 3e anymore. It just takes way too much effort for the fun involved in my experience.

Just like me. I ran a few very successful Pathfinder open table campaigns some years back and I still have former players contacting me and asking me to run another PF game. I just have to say "Nah, sorry." I really ended up hating the system by the end of it.

[GreatWyrmGold]

That's rather my point. It's not a case of success and failure, but (as you say) the challenge and the consequence, whether that be success or failure, that is important. If the consequence is always the same (i.e. success), then the challenge is irrelevant and isn't worth playing. By having Saves be weak and strong, the consequence is in doubt and the challenge is something worth spending time overcoming.
I'd argue that there's more to challenge than that, but it requires extensive redesign and bringing in all sorts of extraneous topics. For now, I'll say that there needs to be more to challenge than making numbers bigger.



Sadly, it's usually a stupid argument of the DM insisting his judgement call is what matters, and the player insisting it's the actual rule. Given there may be a situation where the DM wants to override the rule, a player jumping in to say "actually, that should be a DC 26" is interrupting the game and slowing things down.
I'm not sure how that's worse than a DM insisting on his judgement call and the player saying it's unfair/illogical/inconsistent.


Your example is perfect for how a hard rule limits DM freedom.
...Four points of DC is that much of a restriction? You need to re-evaluate your priorities, man.


Losing 10 minutes to look up a rule is a catastrophe! That's an entire Easy combat! It's 1/12th of a session. I'd have players up in arms if I allowed someone slowed down the game that much. Or not coming back if I did that as a DM. Totally unacceptable.
1. You can complete combats in ten minutes? Share your secrets, please!
2. You're...just gonna ignore my point about how not having rules doesn't preclude arguments? Is that how you handle challenges in general?



Incorrect statement. [snip]
One important thing you didn't notice is the difference between moving a creature and moving with a creature. The latter requires you to also move to the same place. It would be rather counterproductive to move both of us underwater to drown, now wouldn't it?


If you are going to complain about the game...
All else aside, that wasn't the point of that example. The point of the example was to bring up a situation where a lack of rules caused issues.


Being able to use one's imagination is key to role playing, and being able to make a decision is key to being DM. This is not rocket surgery.
I'm not sure what this has to do with anything. How do rules impede a DM's ability to make decisions, and how the flying feck do they impede imagination? I've never understood that argument...

[Malifice]

DC 25 shouldn't be happening unless the player is determined to do something they're very likely to fail at, they're very skilled at and still willing to risk failure, or its a task that only a skilled character not rushing (ie automatic success rule for spending 10 times as long) should be trying.


Im using DC25 for the (very rare) super hard difficulty stuff.

The campaign is 16th level now. The Rogue is rocking around with +14 skill modifiers, and can roll no roll less than a 10 thanks to reliable talent (meaning he hits DC 25 on a 50/50, or automatically with bardic inspiration or guidance). This lets him show off doing (super hard) things from time to time that the other PCs who are 'merely' profficient in dont have much of a chance at unless they roll 15+.

He automatically succeeds in DC 10, 15 and 20 checks, and is 50/50 with DC 25.

[Contrast]

One important thing you didn't notice is the difference between moving a creature and moving with a creature. The latter requires you to also move to the same place. It would be rather counterproductive to move both of us underwater to drown, now wouldn't it?


That would be known as using your attack to shove someone. So if you want to throw someone you grappled into water you could move up to half your speed up to the edge and then make an athletics test opposed by their atheltics/acrobatics to toss them off the edge. The rules for this are right next to the rules for grappling in the book...

[Kurald Galain]

The campaign is 16th level now. The Rogue is rocking around with +14 skill modifiers, and can roll no roll less than a 10 thanks to reliable talent (meaning he hits DC 25 on a 50/50, or automatically with bardic inspiration or guidance). This lets him show off doing (super hard) things from time to time that the other PCs who are 'merely' profficient in dont have much of a chance at unless they roll 15+.

I agree that this is cool to have characters show off doing hard things from time to time. I just wish it were possible at a (much) lower level, considering how most campaigns don't even get close to level 16.

[KorvinStarmast]

For now, I'll say that there needs to be more to challenge than making numbers bigger. This is sort of what bounded accuracy was trying to achieve.

1. You can complete combats in ten minutes? Share your secrets, please! We've done that with some frequency. If you have players who are engaged and paying attention, who think and are ready to act on their turn, combat can go quite quickly. We've done a few in about 10 minutes, but more of them take 15-20 when we are on a roll. When people are not paying attention and not focused, well ... we've all seen that one.

One important thing you didn't notice is the difference between moving a creature and moving with a creature. The latter requires you to also move to the same place. It would be rather counterproductive to move both of us underwater to drown, now wouldn't it? Hold that grappled one's head under water, keep yours above water. Probably a strength check. Not hard to figure out.

The point of the example was to bring up a situation where a lack of rules caused issues. My rejoinder remains: a lack of imagination and the lack of making a decision is the issue. Do not be rules dependent.

How do rules impede a DM's ability to make decisions, and how the flying feck do they impede imagination? I've never understood that argument... Given that's not what I said, I am not sure why you are asking that question. If you choose to misconstrue what I've written, then I'll guess you wish to be contrarian for the sake of keeping an argument going. Best wishes, the others will keep you entertained.

[Pex]

I agree that this is cool to have characters show off doing hard things from time to time. I just wish it were possible at a (much) lower level, considering how most campaigns don't even get close to level 16.

Also not having to be a Rogue or Bard to do it.

[Tanarii]

1. You can complete combats in ten minutes? Share your secrets, please!
2. You're...just gonna ignore my point about how not having rules doesn't preclude arguments? Is that how you handle challenges in general?1. You can't complete a 5e Easy combat in 5-10 min? That's scary. I can do it in 5 with 4 players, and 10 for 8. It takes special effort to go longer than that IMX.
Please note I'm specifically talking about Easy combats. Those are wandering monsters, filler combats. But that's a large bulk filler of many play sessions. A Deadly combat with complicated terrain will of course take significantly longer. IMX an 'adventuring day' takes about a single two hour session. I can expect to run anything 10-12 Easy encounters (Easy combats, or any non-combat challenge not expected to require significant resources) to 3 Deadly combat encounters, with a little bit of exploring in between. (More typically it's some mix of Hard and Easy encounters.)
(Edit: note, I play 5e ToTM. That probably speeds things up a little bit. But IMO problems with combat speed are primarily about DM setting expectations and pacing. Feel free to read this Angry DM article it might change how you run combats. http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/ )

2. Having rules doesn't preclude them. But it certainly sets player expectations that they are the 'default'. And again, 5e doesn't not have rules. For example, a rule is for the DM to use his judgement in deciding if a check is required, then set the DC from 5 to 30 if so, with the typical range being 10 to 20. That's a rule. It's just a flexible one that sets different player expectations. That causes FAR less arguments when the DM uses his judgement within that range than it does if he sets aside the value and uses a different value. If you claim it's causing more arguments at tables to allow DM judgement within a defined range, you live in a completely different universe from the one I spent the last 17 years playing D&D in.

[JAL_1138]

1. You can complete combats in ten minutes? Share your secrets, please

What secrets? An Easy combat just doesn't take many rounds. As long as the players know their characters well, and the DM isn't looking up fiddly bits of stats and rules every round, ten minutes is in the right ballpark.

Figure about 30 seconds, give or take, per creature's turn. 4 enemies, and 4 PCs. Combat lasts 2-3 rounds. Puts you at around 8-12 minutes for the whole thing.

EDIT: For a single monster, 5-8 minutes for a two-to-three round combat. Assuming everyone's turn takes 30 seconds on average, which isn't a given--they can go a fair bit faster for some, particularly at lower levels. Also, dealing with a combat in this case that either can be handled theater-of-the-mind or put onto an already-drawn map; drawing one up and counting that time as part of combat would stretch it out longer.

EDIT: Ninja'd Shadow Monk'd.

[2D8HP]

5e is pretty fun for a .....



Is 5e *too* good?....



Thank you.

5ed is an...



It depends on....



I pretty much agree word for word with the above quotes (and many others, but I haven't read the whole thread, which has exploded!).

I've had great fun playing D&D again, but my gripes about 5e mostly remain the same.

As I get more familiar with 5e (I'm a slow learner), I like it more and more (helped by the fact that I've recently gotten to play my "favorite" RPG from the 1980's, which when you use all the options has a lot more annoying book keeping than I remember!).

Can 5e be improved?

Sure, but I hope they don't soon, because one new edition every 15 years is about all I can handle.

[Hrugner]

Speaking just for myself, PF and 4E are my fave versions of D&D by a huge margin. Apparently it's supposed to be a crime or something to be a fan of both those systems, but I absolutely love them both.

I'm a big fan of Pathfinder, but 4e got dropped by my table of gamers within a month. It was gone so fast I missed it due to vacation. All I heard was that it played like a video game.



1. You can complete combats in ten minutes? Share your secrets, please!


Ten minutes seems pretty short. Between a setup description, terrain, monster's maneuvering and all that, it tends to take a bit longer. Playing entirely on roll20, with everyone having their usual turn macroed, it tends to take much longer than ten. However, using http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder as a guide to see what's considered "easy", I don't think I've ever played in a game where a DM used easy encounters. They're encounters with a foregone conclusion that shouldn't spend party resources, my players would get annoyed that I wasted their time.

Looking up rules normally doesn't take ten minutes either though, so I wonder what's going on there. Usually the DM assigns whoever just took their turn to find the rules for something and the previous ruling stands till the correct one is found. Usually one or two turns.

[Tanarii]

Ten minutes seems pretty short. Between a setup description, terrain, monster's maneuvering and all that, it tends to take a bit longer. Playing entirely on roll20, with everyone having their usual turn macroed, it tends to take much longer than ten. However, using http://kobold.club/fight/#/encounter-builder as a guide to see what's considered "easy", I don't think I've ever played in a game where a DM used easy encounters. They're encounters with a foregone conclusion that shouldn't spend party resources, my players would get annoyed that I wasted their time.I use Easy encounters primarily for Wandering monsters. Sometimes they end up being a large chunk of the combats. The players are supposed to get annoyed that it's 'wasting' their time. But they also know it's a direct consequence of their characters 'wasting' time.

But of course not everyone plays that way. Still, wasting 1/3-1/6 of a Hard / Deadly combat looking up a rule isn't much better IMO.


Looking up rules normally doesn't take ten minutes either though, so I wonder what's going on there. Usually the DM assigns whoever just took their turn to find the rules for something and the previous ruling stands till the correct one is found. Usually one or two turns.It's worth noting he said ten minutes in the context of "worst case".

[Hrugner]

It's worth noting he said ten minutes in the context of "worst case".

Fair enough.

[Rhedyn]

I've had this thought for a little while, but was curious to share it with others: is 5e, as a system, *too* good?

We can nitpick over small specific things, sure (does the phb ranger suck? Is the four elements monk underpowered? Are vhumans overpowered? Wouldn't it be cool if...? Etc.), but it seems like the system as a whole is just so well rounded by and large. Gone are earlier editions' days of having one class vastly outperform the others by mid-campaign, or an incredibly breakable feat system, or too many/not enough (given the edition or setting) skills/abilities.

I see very few complaints about the system itself, and those I have seen have, in my experience, been more often a result of the poster not understanding a rule. With errata, any mechanical issues can be (and so far, have been) addressed without upgrading the edition by half.

I'm not saying Wizards won't put out a new edition in a few years...what I'm saying is, it seems like the game wouldn't need it.
5e is incomplete tosh that decided skill rules were optional.

It's so poorly balanced that any good party of level 7 or higher should be able to stomp the whole MM with ease.

And then if you want to avoid breaking the game, you need to just avoid most of the player content.

Compounds with the monsters being barely competent with little in the way of real tactical options. So that the bar for breaking the game is much lower.

Oh and I love how PC classes can't be used as balanced villains. Even an anti party just doesn't work for the combat system.

5e is good for getting people started on RPGs. Once you're players solve the game, it because unplayable without antagonistic DMing.

Our group has dropped it and our 5e games switched back to pathfinder because the campaigns were fun despite the system.

[pwykersotz]

5e is incomplete tosh that decided skill rules were optional.

It's so poorly balanced that any good party of level 7 or higher should be able to stomp the whole MM with ease.

And then if you want to avoid breaking the game, you need to just avoid most of the player content.

Compounds with the monsters being barely competent with little in the way of real tactical options. So that the bar for breaking the game is much lower.

Oh and I love how PC classes can't be used as balanced villains. Even an anti party just doesn't work for the combat system.

5e is good for getting people started on RPGs. Once you're players solve the game, it because unplayable without antagonistic DMing.

Our group has dropped it and our 5e games switched back to pathfinder because the campaigns were fun despite the system.

I'm intrigued that you find that Pathfinder is better balanced and gives less opportunities for players to break the game than 5e. I played it for a while, and I found it to be pretty darned abusable. Not that I'm trying to start an edition war, I think Pathfinder is great, but my experiences do not match yours. (I'm assuming here that you find 5e to be more broken than Pathfinder. If you meant that Pathfinder is still more broken but you just like the campaigns that are tooled for the system, then I'm mistaken.)

[Beelzebubba]

Pathfinder 13th Age

T,FTFY :smallsmile:

[Willie the Duck]

5e is incomplete tosh that decided skill rules were optional.

It's so poorly balanced that any good party of level 7 or higher should be able to stomp the whole MM with ease.

And then if you want to avoid breaking the game, you need to just avoid most of the player content.
...

etc etc.

I am interested to hear what you were doing that broke the game so easily. Can you tell us what it is? was it a specific rules-exploit or anything you can specifically point to?

[Beelzebubba]

It's so poorly balanced that any good party of level 7 or higher should be able to stomp the whole MM with ease.

Thanks, that's all I needed. Next!

[Beelzebubba]

Let's face it, it's not too good, it's just that it feels like the game most of us house-ruled into existence in one way or another early on, while not having anything that's too bad.

4.X class mechanics that felt interchangeable and same-y? Gone.
3.X ridiculous caster overkill, trap options, and rules bloat? Gone.
2.X railroad modules, THAC0, tanar'ri/baatezu censorship? Gone.
1.X race restrictions, and five zillion charts that nobody could find let alone use? Gone.

BUT

4.X healing surges, combat cantrips, save-or-suck mechanics changes? Kept!
3.X consistency of mechanics, feats, ability score increases? Kept!
2.X Ravenloft, specialty Clerics? Kept!
1.X prose style that feels organic and conversational? Kept (somewhat)!

I have to hand it to them. It feels even a little like Basic, and Advantage/Disadvantage is brilliant. And they mitigated the linear fighter / quadratic wizard more than I thought possible.

But it's still D&D. The flawed masterpiece that launched a thousand 'what if we ___ instead' RPGs.

[Vogonjeltz]

Does your world not have mines and jewelers? The treasure hoards of high-level monsters are the only way to find gemstones?

Of course it does, but unlike reality, where their value is predicated on a cartel limiting the market supply, Diamonds are extremely rare in D&D. Pretty much nobody outside nobility has the income that Adventurers do, so there's probably only a jeweler with higher end things (i.e. potentially a diamond) in cities.

And it's not high level monsters per se, it's high level Hoards. So, yes an old Dragon, or an entire Orcish treasury has a 24% chance to have 1-8 gemstones of the correct valuation, but there's also only a 25% chance of those gemstones being diamonds (rather than say, Black sapphires, Jacinth, or Rubies). That puts it at about a 6% chance of getting a diamond from a CR 17+ hoard.

So, for every 17 hoards, every 17 dragons or entire armies that the Adventurers lay waste to, they probably got a couple diamonds that would allow one of them to be revived. Playing it by the book, there's next to no way to bring people back to life.

[Tanarii]

Of course it does, but unlike reality, where their value is predicated on a cartel limiting the market supply, Diamonds are extremely rare in D&D. Pretty much nobody outside nobility has the income that Adventurers do, so there's probably only a jeweler with higher end things (i.e. potentially a diamond) in cities.That's what downtime is for. Buying and selling stuff. Of course, that basically boils down to 'up to the DM'. Which is another of the things that I call a feature that others call a problem. :smallwink:


Playing it by the book, there's next to no way to bring people back to life.That's not by the book. The book makes no restriction saying 'the only way to get diamonds is from hoards'. Just as it makes no restriction saying 'the only way to get scrolls to learn spells from is hoards'. Not providing an explicit method for methods other than hoards is not the same as prohibiting any other method than hoards.

(I mention the latter because I've brought up your example 'if you only get them from hoards' arguments in regards to the balance of Wizards being allowed unlimited scrolls purchased for their spellbooks. But at least with scrolls there's explicit commentary on the difficulty of buying magic items. Not so with buying gems.)

[Pex]

That's what downtime is for. Buying and selling stuff. Of course, that basically boils down to 'up to the DM'. Which is another of the things that I call a feature that others call a problem. :smallwink:

That's not by the book. The book makes no restriction saying 'the only way to get diamonds is from hoards'. Just as it makes no restriction saying 'the only way to get scrolls to learn spells from is hoards'. Not providing an explicit method for methods other than hoards is not the same as prohibiting any other method than hoards.

(I mention the latter because I've brought up your example 'if you only get them from hoards' arguments in regards to the balance of Wizards being allowed unlimited scrolls purchased for their spellbooks. But at least with scrolls there's explicit commentary on the difficulty of buying magic items. Not so with buying gems.)

That's a DMing issue, not an edition issue. I can agree it's reasonable for a DM to say there aren't any diamonds to be sold in a hamlet or small village. For a prosperous town or a city, there will be diamonds. For a DM to say there are never diamonds ever I would question whether he's a passive aggressive jerk banning Revivify, Raise Dead etc. without having to actually say he is doing so to rub it in the players' faces, but I'm being ornery on purpose. If the 5th level cleric takes it upon himself and possibly urging the party to do so as well to invest in 300 gp of diamonds each during downtime in a city, that's being prudent and not a problem. (Raises own hand.) If they didn't take such precautions and the unfortunate happens, hopefully the cleric was caring enough to prepare Gentle Repose. (Raises hand again.)

[Tanarii]

For a DM to say there are never diamonds ever I would question whether he's a passive aggressive jerk banning Revivify, Raise Dead etc. without having to actually say he is doing so to rub it in the players' faces, but I'm being ornery on purpose.I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I was told in advance.
"Hey guys, I'm going to make Revify, Raise Dead, etc much harder. And the way that's going to happen is you have to get the diamonds by finding them as treasure."
Of course, at that point we might as well make them a special component called "Rez stones" or something instead, that are only handed out when the DM wants to hand them out in treasure. Or whatever.

[Pex]

I mean, I wouldn't have a problem with it. If I was told in advance.
"Hey guys, I'm going to make Revify, Raise Dead, etc much harder. And the way that's going to happen is you have to get the diamonds by finding them as treasure."
Of course, at that point we might as well make them a special component called "Rez stones" or something instead, that are only handed out when the DM wants to hand them out in treasure. Or whatever.

Sure. It took awhile even before 5E was published for me to be ok with a game where raising is rare or non-existent, but the why and how recovery from injury works matters. It's one of those I'll know it when I see it when the DM bans it out of malice hatred of his players as I facetiously like to say, but I accept that's not inherent to the concept and still have a great, fun, character death is the normal rare rate as any other game that would have those spells.

[Zakhara]

5e scratches an itch I had for a long time after 3.5--4e didn't do it for me, nor Essentials. It closely strikes a middle ground between other editions, and learned a lot from its forebears. But it's not perfect, either.

The good:
+Bounded accuracy keeps numbers restrained, even around high levels.
+Systems/keywording like Advantage/Resistances/Attribute Saves/etc. keep the rules nicely systematized.
+Interesting builds remain possible with Feats, but inoptimal characters aren't terrible either.
+Class diversity is strong. Class paths are sensibly integrated.
+Skill list is mercifully restrained.
+Backgrounds serve a twofold purpose: establish character with minimal detail, and offer something for gameplay.
+Oodles of optional and variant rules (and setting/tone ideas) encourage new players and groups to tinker with what they have.
+Lends itself very well to houseruling.

The bad:
+Bounded accuracy causes hypercompetent characters to have (perhaps implausibly) higher chances of failure.
+Some classes (like core Ranger, Elements Monk) seem to have had someone fall asleep at the wheel.
+Caster dominance remains. "Built-in" subclasses like EK are improved since you need not lean on multiclassing, but remain second banana.
+Skills still feel, at times, redundant. Passive Perception is so much more important than other Passive skills that I forgot they even existed.
+Said skills make Backgrounds "competitive", which rubs me the wrong way.
+Managing combat resources feels like too much of a numbers game (for my tastes). It's seemingly designed with the expectation of multiple encounters per Rest, which is oddly restrictive.

[Ninja-Radish]

After spending a bit of time as a DM with 5e I will say that the simplicity of running the system is pretty nice. I hate it as a player because I love to customize my guy and create intricate builds. However as a DM, it's not bad at all.

I do lament the loss of cool monsters that actually have interesting powers and tactics though, like in 4e. Most 5e monsters just seem so bland: two attacks and a bucket of hit points.

[ghost_warlock]

After spending a bit of time as a DM with 5e I will say that the simplicity of running the system is pretty nice. I hate it as a player because I love to customize my guy and create intricate builds. However as a DM, it's not bad at all.

I do lament the loss of cool monsters that actually have interesting powers and tactics though, like in 4e. Most 5e monsters just seem so bland: two attacks and a bucket of hit points.

To be fair, your complaint about monsters also applies fairly well to most player characters. Some have binary choices, such as whether or not to rage, or a small number of maneuvers they can utilize now and then, but otherwise default to just spamming the same attack or two round after round.

That's actually one of the things that I feel 5e absolutely did not do right. Combat is boring. Unless you really go out of your way as a martial character, combat is just a bunch of creatures standing in basically the same spot and trading basic attacks. Spellcasters have more variety, as in every other edition, but with the loss of flanking rules and other positioning that matters, combat isn't particularly dynamic. I really miss the pushes, pulls, and slides from 4e that changed the layout of the battlefield on almost a round-by-round basis.

Also, as much as everyone loves the advantage/disadvantage system, it's made the game dull for me as well because, other than a few cases, every condition in the game results in either advantage or disadvantage. Poisoned? Disadvantage. Restrained? Disadvantage and you can't move. Frightened? Disadvantage. Prone? Disadvantage. A bard insulted you really hard? Disadvantage. Blind? Disadvantage. :smallsigh: Worse, other than rogues and sneak attack, there's not a large number of different ways that characters/monsters play off of having advantage against an opponent. It'd be nice to see more abilities that let characters do a little something extra when they have advantage on attacks. Not necessarily extra damage, as that steps on the rogue's toes, but maybe a bit of forced movement or maybe characters could have resistance to damage if a creature they have advantage against attacks them. Advantage is great in and of itself, but it'd be nice to see more subsystems to take advantage of advantage. :smallwink:

Also, tying ability score increases to class level, rather than character level like they did proficiency bonus, results in copy-pasting the same paragraph into every class description. So that's one way to increase word count, I guess.

Edit: Oh, and 'bloodied.' They really should have kept 'bloodied.' Right there would've been a condition that doesn't necessarily just boil down to advantage/disadvantage. Life clerics can't use Preserve Life to heal a character past their bloodied value. Some monsters get special abilities they can use when they become bloodied. Monsters with abilities that recharge automatically recharge when they become bloodied. That sort of stuff would have added a lot to the game.

[Lombra]

That's actually one of the things that I feel 5e absolutely did not do right. Combat is boring. Unless you really go out of your way as a martial character, combat is just a bunch of creatures standing in basically the same spot and trading basic attacks. Spellcasters have more variety, as in every other edition, but with the loss of flanking rules and other positioning that matters, combat isn't particularly dynamic. I really miss the pushes, pulls, and slides from 4e that changed the layout of the battlefield on almost a round-by-round basis.


I don't know what game do you play but all the things that you addressed are possible and covered by the rules: flanking, sliding, climbing, shoving, pushing, every character can do that. Some are listed in the DMG and there's no reason not to use them. Not to mention that fighting in a white room is boring anyways, there should be terrain features and hazards, and it's not the system's fault if the DM doesn't do it.

[Zippdementia]

Eventually there will be another edition. Of course there will! But i hope that fifth edition has an epic run akin to 2nd edition and Pathfinder. I love it and i think there is so much more that can still be done with it.

[Scots Dragon]

Eventually there will be another edition. Of course there will! But i hope that fifth edition has an epic run akin to 2nd edition and Pathfinder. I love it and i think there is so much more that can still be done with it.

Here's hoping that it eventually starts getting more new material than its currently glacial release schedule. It's been three years so far and there are at most two supplementary rulebooks and a smattering of adventures for D&D 5E. Even being generous, D&D 3E in the same time period had released not only more adventures, and at least a dozen rulebooks, but also an entirely revised set of core rules and was going by the label D&D 3.5E at that time.

[Tanarii]

After spending a bit of time as a DM with 5e I will say that the simplicity of running the system is pretty nice. I hate it as a player because I love to customize my guy and create intricate builds. However as a DM, it's not bad at all.I loved it as a player, although I mostly DM now. Because I could knock out a character in 10 minutes, and if I want to make choices as I level, as opposed to being forced to make a 'build' to remain competitive.

Basically, 5e is tailored for playing the game. That's when it shines! Not for giving people out of game time sinks. What I call 'build pr0n', mentally wasting time for small bursts of enjoyment, in the form of making characters, few of which will ever see play.

That sucks if you have lots of free time, D&D is your hobby, and you like to think about complex interacting parts as a way to use your free time. For anyone like that getting into DMing is the key. Suddenly find there's a whole new world of overly-complex time sink at your disposal. Monster building, adventure building, campaign building, world setting building! The mental time waster pr0n is endless!

Not sure if this post needs some blue text or not. I'll have to think about it. :smallbiggrin:

[Pex]

Here's hoping that it eventually starts getting more new material than its currently glacial release schedule. It's been three years so far and there are at most two supplementary rulebooks and a smattering of adventures for D&D 5E. Even being generous, D&D 3E in the same time period had released not only more adventures, and at least a dozen rulebooks, but also an entirely revised set of core rules and was going by the label D&D 3.5E at that time.

That's on purpose because a lot of criticism of it was that so many source books led to power creep and craziness and Pun Pun and all sorts of reasons to make the game unplayable for their tastes. It's not entirely without merit in that presuming everything that was ever published exists in the game world could lead to a great big mess of a campaign, but the concept of pick and choose what fits for your game and let others pick and choose what fits their game you don't need to use everything got drowned out by the Tier System Cult and their rants against the Player's Handbook itself.

Oh, is my bias showing? :smallyuk:

[Scots Dragon]

That's on purpose because a lot of criticism of it was that so many source books led to power creep and craziness and Pun Pun and all sorts of reasons to make the game unplayable for their tastes. It's not entirely without merit in that presuming everything that was ever published exists in the game world could lead to a great big mess of a campaign, but the concept of pick and choose what fits for your game and let others pick and choose what fits their game you don't need to use everything got drowned out by the Tier System Cult and their rants against the Player's Handbook itself.

Oh, is my bias showing? :smallyuk:
The really galling thing is that about ninety percent of that unbalance relies on deliberate misreadings and/or ignoring a whole lot of contextual rules as intended.

[Luccan]

I like not having prestige classes. In 3.0, they started as cool ways to refocus your character, maybe add some spell casting or unique abilities to a character. By the time 3.5 rolled around, it was a hugely unbalanced mess with completely useless options and options that were so good other options that were good before became obsolete. Basically all the prestige classes introduced in 3.0 DMG were pointless, even after being updated. The archetypes for each class is enough (with multiclassing) to make pretty much whatever character you want.

I don't like that some skills got dropped for tool proficiencies. And while combining skills makes it easier to build a character, things like Stealth replacing Move Silently and Hide don't actually make sense. Just because I can hide well doesn't mean I'm quite. I know this started in 4e, I'm just not sure I like that it carried over.

I don't like that multiclassing and feats are optional. Why can't my fighter learn new skills? Why can't my wizard learn to use a sword? Is a rogue incapable of performing maneuvers? I think feats, at least, should be an assumed part of the system. There a bunch that represent acquiring abilities not inherent in your class, that you could have picked up for any number of reasons.

And I'm not crazy about having to choose between ASIs and feats, but that's not too bad. I just wish either feats or ASIs were something you were guaranteed every X levels.

I actually like 5e, there are just some things that don't entirely fit my tastes.

[Hrugner]

I don't know what game do you play but all the things that you addressed are possible and covered by the rules: flanking, sliding, climbing, shoving, pushing, every character can do that. Some are listed in the DMG and there's no reason not to use them. Not to mention that fighting in a white room is boring anyways, there should be terrain features and hazards, and it's not the system's fault if the DM doesn't do it.

There is definitely a cost involved, and a rather large one really. Flanking is optional of course. If flanking is used, then a fair few abilities become useless such as wolf totem's first ability, some monsters have similar abilities as well. Most repositioning costs all of your action which presents a large cost, others require spending resources of some sort, either class resources like ki points, or acquiring feats. If your players already have methods of gaining advantage, then repositioning isn't terribly important even if flanking is involved. Repositioning loses even more value with reach weapons and threatened areas behaving differently. And it's value decreases further now that you can use your action at any point during your movement.

If I have the opportunity to grapple(action) and shove someone over a cliff edge(my second action apparently*) I'll take it, but generally it's less valuable than other uses of the resources expended.

*or bonus action from battlemaster, open hand monk, shield master etc. I know I know.

[Rhedyn]

I'm intrigued that you find that Pathfinder is better balanced and gives less opportunities for players to break the game than 5e. I played it for a while, and I found it to be pretty darned abusable. Not that I'm trying to start an edition war, I think Pathfinder is great, but my experiences do not match yours. (I'm assuming here that you find 5e to be more broken than Pathfinder. If you meant that Pathfinder is still more broken but you just like the campaigns that are tooled for the system, then I'm mistaken.)

We trend to avoid game breaking mechanics as players. Doing that in 5e removes so much content that it barely functions as a system. Part of that is just how little the monsters can defend themselves and our GMs like singular "big bads" and rarely have more than 3 combat encounters in a day.

5e not being designed to handle our campaigning style is the fault of 5e not our campaigns. Systems are tools for our stories our stories aren't tools for the system.

[PhoenixPhyre]

We trend to avoid game breaking mechanics as players. Doing that in 5e removes so much content that it barely functions as a system. Part of that is just how little the monsters can defend themselves and our GMs like singular "big bads" and rarely have more than 3 combat encounters in a day.

5e not being designed to handle our campaigning style is the fault of 5e not our campaigns. Systems are tools for our stories our stories aren't tools for the system.

You have yet to give any specifics...

Oh, and if you play the way the game tells you not to, don't blame the game when it doesn't work.

[Socratov]

Seriously!

What in the name of Odin is breaking the game in 5e?

Barring wish->simulacrum shenanigans 5e is about as tame as you can make DnD before it becomes generic slurry.

3.5 had fantastic ways to break the game, some were easy, other required a more adventurous approach to the rules, but it was not if, but rather how you could break the game.

People playing 5e think that a combo is broken if it allows you to do 10 additional damage to an attack for the slight penalty of 5 points deducted from your to-hit. Of if you can get about 24 AC. Or if you heavily invest in a skill, that you can reach a 50-50 chance on passing DC 25!

For the love of Odin! that's not broken! That is the class or ability doing as it is supposed to. Be that increasing the damage dealt for a hefty accuracy penalty (to which the simple solution is more HP on the monster). Maybe investing heavily into not getting hit. What with getting hit risks death not getting hit is a fair tactic if you ask me. And 24 AC is for T2 or T3 play easy. Also, that's why saves are still a thing.

On the topic of skills, yeah that wasn't doen to my satisfaction as well, however, the bard and rogue are supposed to be awesome at skills. Let them have their 2 to 3 skills that they rock the world on. let them show why they are awesome. If Usain Bolt is running you don't tell them that he will need to run a second faster the the rest to win, no you accept that he is the fastest man alive in a 100 m dash.

The fact that someone maximises his or her potential at a given task means that he ignores the opportunity to become good at something else. That is not breaking the game, that is playing the game as intended.

[mephnick]

5e not being designed to handle our campaigning style is the fault of 5e not our campaigns. Systems are tools for our stories our stories aren't tools for the system.

Wrong. You must choose the system that best fits your gaming style. D&D is actually designed around a very specific gaming style. Exploration of dangerous sites, fighting monsters and getting loot over the course of an adventuring day. It's not D&D's fault you haven't tried one of the hundreds of other games that would suit your style better. That's why I cringe when I hear about RP only D&D sessions. Like...pick a better system! CMON

[Unoriginal]

Nothing in D&D stop you from having a full session of RP only, in any edition.

On the other hand, I'm utterly puzzled by the idea that some people consider 5e to be mostly broken, and by the one that it's more broken than Pathfinder.


There is a difference between a system that doesn't fit your playstyle and a broken system.

[mephnick]

Nothing in D&D stop you from having a full session of RP only, in any edition.

Of course not. But if that's the kind of thing you like there are other systems that actually promote and facilitate that kind of play. I more meant people who try and run like.. a mystery game in 5e and decide it's hard and clunky, then post about the system not being flexible enough. No one whines that Call of Cthulhu is bad at running high heroic fantasy. But apparently D&D is supposed to facilitate and reward all gaming styles when the mechanics very plainly show you what kind of game the system runs well: Resource attrition combat, with some exploration and social avenues available to save those resources.

[Hrugner]

Resource attrition combat is a really specific type of play. Certainly being hyper focused on not only combat but specifically paced combat is a weakness of the system.

[mephnick]

It is the system and has been since the turn of the millenium. You'd think people would have made peace with it by now.

[Rhedyn]

It is the system and has been since the turn of the millenium. You'd think people would have made peace with it by now.

This problem is more unique to 5e than any of the 3.x versions.

[mephnick]

This problem is more unique to 5e than any of the 3.x versions.

Man no way. Single monsters and short adventuring days were absolute travesties in 3.5. It may not be much better in 5e but it is in no way worse.

[Kurald Galain]

Of course not. But if that's the kind of thing you like there are other systems that actually promote and facilitate that kind of play. I more meant people who try and run like.. a mystery game in 5e and decide it's hard and clunky, then post about the system not being flexible enough. No one whines that Call of Cthulhu is bad at running high heroic fantasy. But apparently D&D is supposed to facilitate and reward all gaming styles when the mechanics very plainly show you what kind of game the system runs well:

"What kind of game the system runs well" depends rather a lot on what edition you're talking of (and some editions can handle more different styles than others).

Of course, most players don't give a crap about how many styles a system supports; they want to know if it supports their one favorite style :smallsmile:

[CantigThimble]

"What kind of game the system runs well" depends rather a lot on what edition you're talking of (and some editions can handle more different styles than others).

Of course, most players don't give a crap about how many styles a system supports; they want to know if it supports their one favorite style :smallsmile:

Or at least one of their top five favorite styles.

[Beelzebubba]

This problem is more unique to 5e than any of the 3.x versions.

Yeah, you gotta explain how. I'm a Blue Box Grognard, and I'm seeing 5e doing a bang-up job. I'm seeing more new players coming to D&D with 5th edition than any time since the early 80's.

[Vaz]

Accessible =/= too good though.

There just becomes a time when the lack of material means that people lose fun, especially when you have some restrictive DM's who only allow certain classes, or subclasses based on their interpretations or biases.

[Willie the Duck]

This problem is more unique to 5e than any of the 3.x versions.



We trend to avoid game breaking mechanics as players. Doing that in 5e removes so much content that it barely functions as a system. Part of that is just how little the monsters can defend themselves and our GMs like singular "big bads" and rarely have more than 3 combat encounters in a day.

5e not being designed to handle our campaigning style is the fault of 5e not our campaigns. Systems are tools for our stories our stories aren't tools for the system.

I'm not sure where the rest of us are supposed to go from here. You refuse to give examples of how it is broken, how someone could defeat everything in the MM at 7th level, or how 5e is worse than other editions. You make assertions no one else finds to be the case (such a the problem being greater in 5e than in 3e), and insist that the edition is broken because it does not perfectly match your preferred playstyle.

Further, you accept that you "avoid game breaking mechanics as players" in discussion of how you play Pathfinder. This makes one wonder if you and your group have simply come up with a ceasefire-agreement-version of PF that suites your needs, and ignore the homerule in that when comparing it towards 5e.

I'm not trying to dismiss your experience, but as far as a cohesive and explained position for us to agree with or not or debate, you've given us next to nothing to hang a hat on.


Resource attrition combat is a really specific type of play. Certainly being hyper focused on not only combat but specifically paced combat is a weakness of the system.

All types of play are specific types of play. Our brains simply gloss over the weaknesses of the system we prefer. Toss out a different edition of D&D, or another RPG for that matter, and I'm sure we can come up with a weakness of that one.

[Rhedyn]

I'm not sure where the rest of us are supposed to go from here. You refuse to give examples of how it is broken, how someone could defeat everything in the MM at 7th level, or how 5e is worse than other editions. You make assertions no one else finds to be the case (such a the problem being greater in 5e than in 3e), and insist that the edition is broken because it does not perfectly match your preferred playstyle.

Further, you accept that you "avoid game breaking mechanics as players" in discussion of how you play Pathfinder. This makes one wonder if you and your group have simply come up with a ceasefire-agreement-version of PF that suites your needs, and ignore the homerule in that when comparing it towards 5e.

I'm not trying to dismiss your experience, but as far as a cohesive and explained position for us to agree with or not or debate, you've given us next to nothing to hang a hat on.



All types of play are specific types of play. Our brains simply gloss over the weaknesses of the system we prefer. Toss out a different edition of D&D, or another RPG for that matter, and I'm sure we can come up with a weakness of that one.
I most certainly take the ability to avoid broken stuff and still have options as part of the overall balance comparison. PF also benefits over 5e in that any PC option is an NPC option, while in 5e you shouldn't have NPCs with PC classes.

I take issue with many of 5e's feats, magic items, spells, and class features. I don't actually take issue with core mechanics (aside from skills) but many of the issues I do have compound on them.

PF can handle a wider variety of campaign types even beyond flavors of combat. You can have no combat campaigns or even play a macro 4X sim, and all of them can be pretty fun and in the same campaign. In 5e, you better be dungeon crawling or doing something where combat pacing is contrived as a dungeon crawl, or the game just doesn't work well after the lowest levels.

[Unoriginal]

Puttting the other issues aside for now, I'm still curious about what you think is so "broken" about 5e. Especially compared to Pathfinder.

[LordFluffy]

The crafting and grappling rules have issues. Healing requires major suspension of disbelief as written, but works in the system. Combat's good, but I wish weapons were a little less generic.

Other than that, I think 5e is awesome.

[Rhedyn]

Puttting the other issues aside for now, I'm still curious about what you think is so "broken" about 5e. Especially compared to Pathfinder.

Bounded accuracy makes action economy stronger and feats that trade accuracy for damage stronger. Magic items further increase the efficacy of those feats. This isn't an issue until your BBEG has at most 2 rounds against the party before dying. Or you have ridiculous apl+12 encounters that are merely a challenge because your martial characters have capped in damage (for the most part) and you found a way to defend them.

Spells like polymorph or summons add free HP and tip the action economy in your favor. Furthermore spells like banishment, fear, or turning abilities can isolate a BBEG who then dies anticlimacticly.

Then there are classes like the paladin that have save boosting auras that plug any holes you may have found in the previously mentioned grievances. Once your damage and saves (because of paladin) clear the expected values of level 20 characters, all you need is HP meat and nothing in the MM is beyond your party. Paladins also excel at crushing bosses and require no optimization to be dominate and problematic. The whole class quickly puts the party in a place to fight well above their weight class.

In pathfinder an apl+12 encounters will wipe your party with one at-will SLA or laugh at your feeble attempts to assault it. In 5e there is no hard cap in what you can kill with proper planing. Nothing is beyond you and a solid group can trivialize the concept of a BBEG long before the party should be the most powerful things in the cosmos.

[Kurald Galain]

This isn't an issue until your BBEG has at most 2 rounds against the party before dying. Or you have ridiculous apl+12 encounters that are merely a challenge because your martial characters have capped in damage (for the most part) and you found a way to defend them.

It strikes me as an explicit design goal of 5E that a low-level party is a credible threat to a 20th level boss monster, for the same reason that a squad of basic goblins is intended to be a threat to a 20th-level party. I don't see what's so broken about that.

[Scripten]

Bounded accuracy makes action economy stronger and feats that trade accuracy for damage stronger. Magic items further increase the efficacy of those feats. This isn't an issue until your BBEG has at most 2 rounds against the party before dying. Or you have ridiculous apl+12 encounters that are merely a challenge because your martial characters have capped in damage (for the most part) and you found a way to defend them.

Spells like polymorph or summons add free HP and tip the action economy in your favor. Furthermore spells like banishment, fear, or turning abilities can isolate a BBEG who then dies anticlimacticly.


That doesn't sound like a broken system; it sounds like an issue with DMing. There's no reason why a suitably prepared BBEG couldn't negate just about any of your examples. Also if your entire campaign, every time, hinges on a single person being killed, then perhaps your DM needs to up their game.

A BBEG with Antimagic Field and some sort of damage-negating effect (or just enough meatshields) would completely undermine your argument.



Then there are classes like the paladin that have save boosting auras that plug any holes you may have found in the previously mentioned grievances. Once your damage and saves (because of paladin) clear the expected values of level 20 characters, all you need is HP meat and nothing in the MM is beyond your party. Paladins also excel at crushing bosses and require no optimization to be dominate and problematic. The whole class quickly puts the party in a place to fight well above their weight class.


A +5 bonus to every saving throw is great, sure, but there are plenty of effects that still do half damage on a successful save. If you've got a system-breaking Paladin build, then by all means please share it!



In pathfinder an apl+12 encounters will wipe your party with one at-will SLA or laugh at your feeble attempts to assault it. In 5e there is no hard cap in what you can kill with proper planing. Nothing is beyond you and a solid group can trivialize the concept of a BBEG long before the party should be the most powerful things in the cosmos.

So your problem here, if I'm understanding correctly, is that there aren't enough creatures that cause immediate death upon the party looking at them? At that point, you're essentially complaining that there's not enough DM Fiat built into the rules.

[Unoriginal]

If I understand you right, then apl+12 means appropriate level +12, right?

Well, your problem might be that CR aren't calculated the same way in 5e than in PF.

Also, I'm not sure what you mean about PF bosses.

As for spells trivializing an encounter... well, it's Pathfinder.

[KorvinStarmast]

The crafting and grappling rules have issues. At a given table, crafting is taken care of by DM, but I agree that the grappling rules seem ... incomplete? Not a big enough issue to make me upset about the game, but like mounted combat I'd like to see them tweak this a bit.

Just beware: as soon as grappling becomes more attractive, those bugbears and fire giants will be grappling and one-shotting some of your PC's. IS that what you want?

[Waterdeep Merch]

At a given table, crafting is taken care of by DM, but I agree that the grappling rules seem ... incomplete? Not a big enough issue to make me upset about the game, but like mounted combat I'd like to see them tweak this a bit.

Just beware: as soon as grappling becomes more attractive, those bugbears and fire giants will be grappling and one-shotting some of your PC's. IS that what you want?

I added the following options in my games-

If you are already grappling someone one size larger than you or smaller, you may make a second grapple attempt as an action to pin them. If successful, the target is now restrained. Breaking a pin has disadvantage.
If you are pinning someone, you may-
-Tie them up as an action
-Put them in manacles as a bonus action
-Cover their mouth as a bonus action
-Take a small item from them as a bonus action (Dexterity(Sleight of Hand) to do so without their knowledge)
-Unequip one of their worn items as an action
-Knock them unconscious for 1d6 hours as an action (Strength(Athletics) vs. Constitution saving throw)
-Snap their neck (if any) to instantly kill them as an action (Strength(Athletics) vs. Constitution saving throw)

My monsters do this, too. Strong grapplers are feared in my games on both sides of the aisle.

[KorvinStarmast]

If you are already grappling someone one size larger than you or smaller, you may make a second grapple attempt as an action to pin them. If successful, the target is now restrained. Breaking a pin has disadvantage. Interesting variation, but the "larger than" is a deal breaker for me. That said, I am not surprised that grapplers are feared in your games. You've set them up for success.

[Waterdeep Merch]

Interesting variation, but the "larger than" is a deal breaker for me. That said, I am not surprised that grapplers are feared in your games. You've set them up for success.
Is it weird that I've never considered the size thing ridiculous until you mentioned it? It was born of a more game-ist attitude to open up gameplay options than a sensible one.

I'll have to see if an equal size restriction upsets anyone at my table, but I don't see that being much of an issue. I'll still get the old 'Can I pin the dragon's wings?' questions, but writing out rules that could encompass those situations would be monstrously complicated and finicky. Best left to moment-to-moment discretion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Is it weird that I've never considered the size thing ridiculous until you mentioned it? It was born of a more game-ist attitude to open up gameplay options than a sensible one.

I'll have to see if an equal size restriction upsets anyone at my table, but I don't see that being much of an issue. I'll still get the old 'Can I pin the dragon's wings?' questions, but writing out rules that could encompass those situations would be monstrously complicated and finicky. Best left to moment-to-moment discretion. I like the grappling one size larger calling for disadvantage as the general case, since that will often create a need for something to give you advantage, for you to set up advantage, etc. Tests/teases the mind a bit. If the people at your table like this, I'd say roll with it. If they push back, tweak it a bit ...

[Rynjin]

Interesting variation, but the "larger than" is a deal breaker for me. That said, I am not surprised that grapplers are feared in your games. You've set them up for success.

Still a pretty hefty nerf from previous editions where there was no hard cap on size and Grappling/Pinning.

Given a solid 80% of monsters are Large or larger, a change like that is necessary for grappling to be useful on anything but humanoids. And still disallows cool cinematic moments like grappling and pinning a dragon.

[Rhedyn]

That doesn't sound like a broken system; it sounds like an issue with DMing. There's no reason why a suitably prepared BBEG couldn't negate just about any of your examples. Also if your entire campaign, every time, hinges on a single person being killed, then perhaps your DM needs to up their game.

A BBEG with Antimagic Field and some sort of damage-negating effect (or just enough meatshields) would completely undermine your argument.



A +5 bonus to every saving throw is great, sure, but there are plenty of effects that still do half damage on a successful save. If you've got a system-breaking Paladin build, then by all means please share it!



So your problem here, if I'm understanding correctly, is that there aren't enough creatures that cause immediate death upon the party looking at them? At that point, you're essentially complaining that there's not enough DM Fiat built into the rules.

People ****ting on my DM rather than recognizing game problems is another reason we dropped the game. Having problems is one thing, having everyone tell your DM he is just bad when he goes online for help just makes working with this game a chore. Online DMing suggestions boil down to, "Break the rules to F over the PCs", "Add random abilities to the NPCs", or "Idk how the rules work, but they are perfect, so the problem is you". Bad game, worse community.

[Vogonjeltz]

That's what downtime is for. Buying and selling stuff. Of course, that basically boils down to 'up to the DM'. Which is another of the things that I call a feature that others call a problem.

I agree, it's a feature! But...I'll have to check the modules, but I don't recall offhand any particular access to diamonds of the appropriate value so far. I'm not saying you can't ad-hoc something, I'm just saying they don't really exist in nature insofar as random treasure generation goes.


That's not by the book. The book makes no restriction saying 'the only way to get diamonds is from hoards'. Just as it makes no restriction saying 'the only way to get scrolls to learn spells from is hoards'. Not providing an explicit method for methods other than hoards is not the same as prohibiting any other method than hoards.

(I mention the latter because I've brought up your example 'if you only get them from hoards' arguments in regards to the balance of Wizards being allowed unlimited scrolls purchased for their spellbooks. But at least with scrolls there's explicit commentary on the difficulty of buying magic items. Not so with buying gems.)

Nobody was saying the DM can't ad hoc something, but be assured, it is a DM fiat at that point and not a system event.

The rules only actually create a space to find diamonds at the CR17+ hoard level, and not prior. I assume that's so that a DM can avoid the messy business of having to allow resurrection in their game if they don't want to.

By default, the players simply won't encounter diamonds without the DM literally inserting them, or their taking a very active approach.

[Contrast]

By default, the players simply won't encounter diamonds without the DM literally inserting them, or their taking a very active approach.

I would point out the level 1 spell Chromatic Orb has a diamond as a component, albeit not consumed by the spell. I think its a general assumption of the game that casting classes will have access to the components of their spells if they search them out and I would expect any DM to warn me otherwise beforehand if they did not intend this to be the case.

And Rhedyn - apologies if you feel attacked but you are literally the only person I've ever encountered (and it seems for others as well) who feels that 5E is less balanced than 3.x. In my experience the things you can do to unbalance a 5E game on purpose pale in comparison to what you can do to unbalance a 3.x game on accident.

Edit - For clarity, I don't believe I and many others are trying to edition war here. There are certainly styles of game and player that are better suited to different editions. But, if someone asks 'Which is the more balanced system of D&D, 3.x or 5e' I think you are giving them bad advice by suggesting 3.X. With an understanding of tier levels, good system knowledge, carefully selected access to splat material and a group of willing players can you play a pretty balanced 3.x game? Sure - and that seems to be your experience. To do the same in 5e you don't really need any of those things (well...willing players I guess - you don't need rules to be disruptive).

[Rynjin]

Nobody was saying the DM can't ad hoc something, but be assured, it is a DM fiat at that point and not a system event.

The rules only actually create a space to find diamonds at the CR17+ hoard level, and not prior. I assume that's so that a DM can avoid the messy business of having to allow resurrection in their game if they don't want to.

By default, the players simply won't encounter diamonds without the DM literally inserting them, or their taking a very active approach.

...Loot tables are not, and have NEVER been the be-all, end-all of rules on loot. They're meant to be a guideline or a help, not a concrete set of rules for what must appear where or what cannot appear elsewhere. Claiming otherwise is ludicrous.

A DM doesn't need loot tables to determine whether resurrection is available. They can either ban it (a houserule) or simply not make diamonds show up inn loot (one of the DM's job being to determine what the enemies are carrying).

Sometimes "What is the loot" coincides with what's in the table, but that's just because you often have more important things to do than determine random amounts of gold for hobgoblins to be carrying.

As an aside, PLEASE tell me you don't use random tables for loot in every game you run. That must be hell for your players.

[Unoriginal]

Random tables for loots are to give you an idea of how valuable things are. You could replace 300 GP with 300 GP worth of rubies without much trouble.

[Scripten]

People ****ting on my DM rather than recognizing game problems is another reason we dropped the game. Having problems is one thing, having everyone tell your DM he is just bad when he goes online for help just makes working with this game a chore. Online DMing suggestions boil down to, "Break the rules to F over the PCs", "Add random abilities to the NPCs", or "Idk how the rules work, but they are perfect, so the problem is you". Bad game, worse community.

I never said your DM was bad, just that he wasn't using the options available to him in the Monster Manual and DMG. So far, every example that you've given has been solvable without breaking rules or adding random abilities to monsters. I am sorry if you feel attacked by that, but I (and I imagine a number of others) legitimately cannot understand where the problem lies, if not in the way that your DM is preparing his content.

[KorvinStarmast]

People ****ting on my DM rather than recognizing game problems is another reason we dropped the game.
Who did this?

Having problems is one thing, having everyone tell your DM he is just bad when he goes online for help just makes working with this game a chore. Who did this?

Online DMing suggestions boil down to, "Break the rules to F over the PCs", "Add random abilities to the NPCs", or "Idk how the rules work, but they are perfect, so the problem is you". Bad game, worse community. Rant noted, but I'd be interested to know how many sessions you have DM'd.

...Loot tables are not, and have NEVER been the be-all, end-all of rules on loot. They're meant to be a guideline or a help, not a concrete set of rules for what must appear where or what cannot appear elsewhere.
Generally agree.

As an aside, PLEASE tell me you don't use random tables for loot in every game you run. That must be hell for your players.
I used loot tables for years, in previous editions going back to the original, and it caused no mayhem nor problem for my players. Que?

well of course that combo is strong" well it shouldn't be in the game then! Uh, wrong. You can still miss on any given attack, be it ranged or melee.

So much sheer idiocy directed at my DM because people just can't accept that obviously broken things are obviously broken. Twinned polymorph is a problem for what reason, exactly? There is more to combat than DPS. Enemies who are spell casters can do interesting things. Take a look at CR 7 and CR 8 opponents. Also, how many encounters per day are the players exposed to?

No I don't feel like talking specifics. I felt like answering the OP. Hand wave noted.

No 5e isn't too good.
Agree.

It's trash. Worse than 4e, worse than PF, worse than 3.5.
Disagree

It's a gateway system to get noobies started without much fuss.
That's funny, I've been playing since 1975-ish and I'd stopped for a while. 3.x was what tipped it for me, in terms of the game changing in ways I didn't care for.
5e brought me back.

Our experiences are almost 180 out.

[Scripten]

Your suggestions were just to add random abilities to the creature.

Or involved the obvious answer of adding more meat shields which both doesn't work (you can still isolate the BBEG) and isn't what the DM wants to be forced to run every time.

Edit: Why do I even bother with someone who can't read their own words? "I'm not blaming your DM, I just think it's all his fault". At least be honest with yourself.

Your DM is making mistakes =/= Your DM is bad

The ad hom is unappreciated, by the way.

Look, I honestly don't know what you're asking for, here. You're saying that the DM has absolutely no way to prevent the party from isolating and killing his main bad guy, which makes the campaign fall apart, right? If that's the case, then he's just not coming up with proper solutions. The base Arch-Mage NPC from the MM has the spell Globe of Invulnerability, which it can cast at a higher level if it so chooses, as well as Mind Blank and Time Stop, all of which can totally shut down a party of 7th level adventurers fairly easily. Time Stop, at the very least, lets it escape if all else somehow fails (which shouldn't happen unless the DM is setting himself up for failure) and that's not even getting into the offensive spells it can use or into non-humanoid enemies' powers.

Also, from p.10 of the MM:


You can change the spells that a monster knows or has prepared, replacing any spell on a monster 's spell list with a different spell of the same level and from the same class list. If you do so, you might cause the monster to be a greater or lesser threat than suggested by its challenge rating.

Changing the Arch-Mage to have the spell Antimagic Field is perfectly within the RAW and is not even a particularly errant suggestion. I also find it more than a bit ironic that you complain about my suggestions "adding random features to monsters" (which are perfectly supported by the base rules) whilst simultaneously complaining about optional rules that were stated in the books as unbalanced compared to the rest of the system.

I say again: your DM is not using the tools available to him and is therefore not using the system as designed. While 5E is not perfect, what you've described is not a system fault but a flaw in the DM's use of it. Obviously, you're not obligated to use the system, but the statements you've made thus far are demonstrably incorrect and needlessly inflammatory.

[Rhedyn]

Not worth it. Enjoy your games.

[Rynjin]

I used loot tables for years, in previous editions going back to the original, and it caused no mayhem nor problem for my players. Que?


Slight rephrase: Do you use ONLY random loot tables, never sprinkling in any handpicked treasure you felt would be appropriate to the monster or enemy or good for the party to have moving forward?

That seems like a good way to make sure players rarely, if ever get anything unique or interesting to themselves or that will be useful in the future.

[Psyren]

I'm not saying Wizards won't put out a new edition in a few years...what I'm saying is, it seems like the game wouldn't need it.

I agree they don't need one. That doesn't mean the system is perfect, but it does mean it does more or less what it needs to do for its core audience.

Does that make 5e the best game for all people - hell no.

[Willie the Duck]

Not worth it. Enjoy your games.

You continue to refuse to engage on every level. You are not acting in good faith. I doubt you will do so, but I suggest you inspect your behavior here and do some genuine reflection on how you could have acted differently and gotten a different response from people. Enjoy your games as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

Slight rephrase: Do you use ONLY random loot tables, never sprinkling in any handpicked treasure you felt would be appropriate to the monster or enemy or good for the party to have moving forward? In the active verb sense, of course not. Only using random loot tables, while it's interesting in terms of watching what people do with odd assortments of stuff, eventually gets old.

Even back in the beginning I messed about with making my own custom made magic items, some of which were OK and some of which were not.

I am now a "low magic" fan and prefer to mostly place certain items, with a few "random what the heck is in there" episodes.