Why the hate on 5e?

[Aergentum]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

[Safety Sword]

Typical elitist behaviour. Been the same way since every new version of a game came out. This more seems to be a problem with the people (your DM) than the systems themselves.

Everyone has their preferred system. Find people who play yours and have a good time. :smallbiggrin:

I played D&D 3.5E for many years and loved it. I DM'd it and hated it. :smallfrown:

D&D 5E is easier on both sides, but I guess some people like to torture themselves by making high level spell casters in D&D 3.5E :smallamused:

[Mordaedil]

This is what we call a grognard. He didn't even bother helping the player out, instead choosing to be a **** about what edition they play and prefer.

Everybody has their preferences, but some people stick their guns into one edition and plays No True Scotsman while they Gatekeep the hobby in this way. It's not great and you just kinda gotta point out that each edition has their weaknesses and strengths.

Yeah, 5e is simpler than 3.5, but it still manages to be extremely rich in customization at little sacrifice compared to 3.5.

3.5 meanwhile is a deluge of content unbalanced to hell and back, with a lot of obscure mechanics, poorly written sourcebooks with a huge emphasis on mechanics that bog the game down more than they assist making a more interesting game.

3.5 is still my favorite edition, but I've grown really fond of 5e as well. I think picking favorites between them like he did is really foolish.

[LittleCaesar]

Well of course you're going to be not-as-good at an edition you haven't played in a while. That has nothing to do with the merits of either system, or of your proficiency as a player. You're just rusty, and the DM sounds like an ass.

My own subjective view is that a "good player" is a person who's fun to play with. Since it's a roleplaying game, this has more to do with whether they are fun to interact with at your table, than with their strategic prowess or thespian prowess. Someone could be good at tactics, or roleplaying, or funny voices, or at bringing snacks and cracking lame puns but that doesn't automatically make them good or bad at DnD.

If the DM wanted a strategic mastermind running off years of fresh experience in 3.5, then he probably should have sculpted his table to match, or matched his expectations to the table. Either way he could have engaged with the players in front of him without being such an jerk.

[Zerubbabel]

Whatever is the best balanced version between complexity and storytelling. That's why 5e shines.

The DM isn't wrong, he's entitled to his opinion. Sounds like he'd probably love Pathfinder!

To me 5e is far more story driven, but still very complicated - particularly if you add in feats and multi-classing (which I don't).

[Evil DM Mark3]

Heh, back in my day I would sit down to a game of 3rd edition and be exposed to the over-loud and pointed comments of the rotund gentlemen sat at the table behind us, claiming we were playing baby's first DnD for people who couldn't work out Thaco and who didn't enjoy a challenge. Us young kids with our 4d6 drop one and skill points and our fancy feats and easy multi-classing, consarnit.

We didn't listen to them much either. Mind you they eventually picked up NWoD over Revised. Heathens.:smallwink:

I do sort of get the idea, I've played 5e and had to work really hard to feel like was playing MY character, not generic Lore Bard #472, and there is a lot of simplifying of a lot of the "detail" rules IMO. I'd play it again mind you, but I'd prefer Pathfinder, much easier to put your own stamp on that (although conversely it is much easier to create an unplayable mess, so...)

[Anymage]

I've seen very little hate on 5e. I'm guessing largely due to the fact that it followed 4e, which drew the bulk of hater attention to itself.

I find it especially telling that this guy's attitude was "every game that isn't 3.5 sucks". There are games I'll excuse myself from playing because I don't think they'll be any fun, but I find myself very wary of people who insist that there's one game to rule them all.

[MoiMagnus]

If you want an answer from peoples who hate it, you would have more chances by asking on the 3e/3.5e/d20 subforum. But even there, few will actually hate it, most will just says they don't like it.

A lot of peoples hated 3e when it was released, as it gave almighty powers to munchkins and minmaxers, and was turned by some DM into something more like a boardgame than a RPG. A lot of peoples hated 4e for essentially trying to being a fully balanced boardgame. And 5e is hated for the converse of the 2 previous editions: it threw away most of the complexity in character creation, get rid of tactical positioning (flanking, ...), ...
(Which means that 5e is most likely the nearest in spirit to the second edition, by the way)

But that does not fully answer "why the hate?", because the reasons I gave are only reason to "not like" 5e. The reason why peoples hate an edition or another is because it creates expectations in players they don't want to meet as a DM, or expectation as a DM the players don't want to meet. Additionally, peoples having a preference with older editions can feel let down by the community shifting to the most recent ones (and react aggressively to the world essentially saying "your hobby is obsolete, 5e is objectively better, deal with it"). This is particularly true for 3e, which remained in a dominant position even through the 4e era, but now lost a significant portion of its players and DMs to 5e.

Last note: Probably not a DM I would like to have for more than one session. I don't want to play with a DM that will latter says "Oh, you're dead, but that's because you're so bad at playing you didn't take the OP feat you can unlock by making those choices during the 5 previous levels, and was required to have a chance to survive. Even a noob would have seen that this feat was mandatory for your build, guess you should read more online guides.".

[Jerrykhor]

I think there's more hate on 4e than 5e, if anything. Most grognards i spoke to approve of 5e's overall design.

Though once in a while you can still find the odd one who still prefers 3.5. They are a bunch of elitist gatekeepers who usually bash 5e for being 'dumbed down'.

[Aergentum]

For sure I will not go back there and play one shots (let alone campaigns) with them. Maybe I will consider the idea to use their rooms with my group and play there our adventures with 5e. The place is nice and looks like an old tavern ripped out of a fantasy novel.

I'd love to play 3.5 adventures once in a while, but not with people who claims I can't play because I usually play 5e.

At least with 5e I can play a decent Monk without the need of multiclass...

[Knaight]

This sounds like a 3.x specific fanbase quirk more than a general dislike of 5e. Somehow a subcultural meme of "I play more mechanically complicated games because I'm smarter than you" got pretty deeply embedded there, and while most of the player base either takes that with a giant grain of salt or actively disagrees with it there's enough that don't to be really obnoxious. Beyond that, public groups also tend to be enriched in players and GMs who can't get a home group together - again, it's not all or even most of them, but it's enough to be really obnoxious.

[Randomthom]

DM is entitled to his opinion, he's not entitled to belittel other people because they don't agree with his opinion.

This DM reminds me of that wonderful line in The Big Lebowski

"You're not wrong Walter, you're just an *******"

[Corsair14]

Well 2nd is the one true and best system but 5e isn't bad. I don't mind 3.5 either, especially if you limit the splat books to core and maybe advanced races guide. I prefer to play 3.5 over 5e due to customization and options(no I am not a power gamer), but I prefer to DM 5e(or 2nd) due to the lack of player options :P thus making it extremely easy to run a game with little preparation.

This guy the OP was playing under seems to be a **** and not a good representative of the prior system. Hey, at least they weren't playing 4th.

[elyktsorb]

To be fair, isn't the popularity of 5e also a cause for people to more easily notice when others dislike it?

[patchyman]

Typical elitist behaviour. Been the same way since every new version of a game came out. This more seems to be a problem with the people (your DM) than the systems themselves.


I am shocked, SHOCKED, that some tabletop players have poor social skills. [/End Sarcasm].

[Sigreid]

To be fair, isn't the popularity of 5e also a cause for people to more easily notice when others dislike it?

There's a big difference between not liking a system and "you like x system so clearly you suck. Here, let me prove to you that you objectively suck as a player."

[Arkhios]

Elitist Grognards unwilling to pull their own heads out of their own asses.

[CNagy]

If you're not playing AD&D 2nd Edition with Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books, then you're running around in one of those baby walkers with the harness that helps you stand and the wheels that keep you balanced.

[Sigreid]

If you're not playing AD&D 2nd Edition with Combat & Tactics and Skills & Powers books, then you're running around in one of those baby walkers with the harness that helps you stand and the wheels that keep you balanced.

1st edition or you're just a poser.

[CNagy]

1st edition or you're just a poser.

The only posing I do is with my Gygax-signed copy of Chainmail.

[BloodSnake'sCha]

The DM was an bad person (I use 3 levels: humans, moving objects in space and human trash).


I do think that 3.5e is better because it looks to me that 5e have no real customisation(personal feel).

I also think that the edition is not important as the game is the group you are in.

That is why a person like me play an edition he hates.

[Eldariel]

Heh, back in my day I would sit down to a game of 3rd edition and be exposed to the over-loud and pointed comments of the rotund gentlemen sat at the table behind us, claiming we were playing baby's first DnD for people who couldn't work out Thaco and who didn't enjoy a challenge. Us young kids with our 4d6 drop one and skill points and our fancy feats and easy multi-classing, consarnit.

Hey, AD&D 2e is certainly a far superior system for teaching kids geometry. Make them all play Magic-users and watch them puzzle out the AOE of their Fireball or Lightning Bolt. Even THAC0 is good algebra practice 😄

[truemane]

Whatever is the best balanced version between complexity and storytelling. That's why 5e shines.

Just remember that there is no such thing as a "best balanced version between complexity and storytelling" only the version that best balances your personal taste in complexity against your personal taste in storytelling. 5E definitely leans hard away from complexity, but whether that means better storytelling or not is very much a matter of personal taste. It's certainly very popular, and I do think that popularity is largely because of how easy it is to sit down and get started.

But that doesn't make it the best. Because there is no best.

And being old, I remember very clearly when 2nd Edition was released and the Combat Matrices (a table for every class, cross-referencing every AC from -10 to +10, with every level, and what number you needed to hit) were replaced with THAC0 (basically just a mathematical to-hit progression, slightly wonked out to deal with the fact that low AC was better than high, and that there was a 0 in the middle of the scale), and so many people were all SO COMPLICATED and many others were all NOT COMPLICATED ENOUGH.

I also remember having a (mercifully) quick conversation with a guy shortly after the release of 3.0, and it was his opinion that "3rd Edition is a game by and for people who have NO idea how to run a d20 system."

And, just a couple of weeks ago, I was perusing used RPG books in a LGS, and I overheard two 20-somethings saying, "5th Edition isn't a role-playing game, it's Wizards handing you a book that just says Use Your Imagination." Gatekeeping is eternal.

Death, taxes, and the kids don't know nuthin: the only constants in life.

[MarkVIIIMarc]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

First off, it could be because of the Big Bang Theory guys or something but 5e is LOVED more than any other edition of D&D I played.

Perhaps he's the "Real Rock Radio KSHE95" guy who can't understand why they've become an oldies station after decades of calling new artists posers who weren't as good as "Skynard man".

Maybe he's an incompetent 5e player but good at 3.5.

He, I knew this guy, maybe he can rebuild Holly carburetors blindfolded and recalibrate them for altitude while refueling but can't figure out how to plug in and pull a OBDII code to tell where his misfire is.

Some of us (myself included) are just stuck doing things a certain way and see other ways as inferior. He's probably upset the world has largely moved on from 3.5. Maybe he has fond memories of the 3.5 days. Who knows.

[Segev]

The DM in question was being a mean jerk, because there's nothing about playing 5e that would make playing 3e "harder." If anything, a 5e player who remembers that he has different class features in 3e than in 5e will find a lot of mechanics more forgiving in terms of what they permit you to do. Not all, but a lot. AoOs happen more often (though, yes, this conversely means it's easier to provoke them...but that's generally to the party's benefit as few monsters are built around them). Concentration is nastier, but on far, far fewer spells, meaning you can keep more things up at once.

And other than that, while there ARE lots of differences, they're mostly transparent to the player. The DM tells you when you get a bonus to your die roll in 3e just as he tells you when you get Advantage in 5e.

I could see making a few tactical mistakes based on 5e assumptions, but nothing party-destroying unless you play a finely-tuned game of 5e tactics (which, let's be honest, 5e does NOT need you to do to win fights fairly handily).

I personally like both editions for different things. 5e has a lot of moments where I react with surprise that the writers lost their fear of handing PCs cool stuff. But 3.PF has a ton more options and ways to customize. I prefer 3e's skill system, even though I know most people say the granularity isn't actually useful. I disagree, personally, as it grants more flexibility to being "somewhat" skilled in things, enabling a choice of breadth over depth that has some meaning to it. Especially in PF, where that first rank of a skill can be a +4!

But yeah, the kind of "5e hate" you saw here was just a guy being an elitist jerk.

[strangebloke]

Just to add one point: It's obviously stupid elitist behavior, sure, but there's another axis to this problem.

5e has brought millions of newbs to the game. Newbs, are, fundamentally, a great thing for the life of the game. It means you can find actual tables to play at. It means you'll still be able to find players 2-3 years from now when your current group ultimately splits up.

But newbs are also, well, newbs. Playing with my old 3.5 group feels like putting on a favorite shirt. They know how **** works, they know how to show good table etiquette... conversely, my 5e group is way out of shape and bumbles around constantly. This has nothing to do with the edition and everything to do with their relative (out of character) experience levels.

[Warwick]

The DM in question was being a mean jerk, because there's nothing about playing 5e that would make playing 3e "harder."

The biggest issue is that it's fairly easy to fail character creation in 3.5 while you mostly have to try to do so in 5e, and the 'punishment' for making a bad character is generally more severe.

[GlenSmash!]

5e is extremely popular and popularity always breeds some resentment.

Still this DM could have been decent and said, we prefer 3.5 to 5e but you are welcome to play with us. But they didn't.

If it were me I would definitely contact the organizers of this Tabletop Games Social Club and inform them of how rude and disrespectful this DM was.

[KorvinStarmast]

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

At that point, we pick up our dice bag and wish this person a fine evening.

Life's too short to hang out with people like this.

Here's what would be a cool thing;
"OK, I'll help you over the rough spots since there are some differences, let's go for it!"

That would be a good DM. Not the one you ran into.


The only posing I do is with my Gygax-signed copy of Chainmail. And my EGG signed copies of the three little brown books ... and Greyhawk ...
Gatekeeping is eternal.

Death, taxes, and the kids don't know nuthin: the only constants in life. Well said.

About grognards: it's about being old and complaining. It's not necessarily about hating new editions. (look up the etymology of the term).

The OSR movement arose for a bunch of reasons, and I was out of the game when this great "fracture" arose. I am glad I missed the drama.

I would likely have played a bit more 3.5 (I got three core books and a few others) had life not changed a lot in those days (My brother and nephew and a few buddies back in Virginia all got on board the 3.x train) but life didn't work out that way. I had so much AD&D 1e material, and BX stuff, that I played a hybrid of that with my kiids.

4e: didn't buy since by then we'd stopped D&Ding in at the house due to spousal objections and me loving my wife more than an RPG.

5e, Invited by a friend after the kids had grown up. Had an on line platform. It was GREAT to get back into the hobby again. 5e brought in some stuff from 0E, 1E, BECMI, 2E, 3.xE, 4E: they really did try to unify the community. I say the effort is "good enough" but I have some 4e loving friends who just can't find any love for 5.

But they'd never pull a line like that on me.

[JNAProductions]

Yeah, sounds like you dealt with a butthead. It's totally fine to prefer 3.5 to 5E, or Mutants And Masterminds to Powered By The Apocalypse, or FATE to GURPS, or whatever. What's NOT cool is to crap on someone else for liking something else.

I haven't seen much hate for 5E, though-I've seen plenty of people assuming it's just as unbalanced as 3.5, but that's usually ignorance, not malice.

[HappyDaze]

5e is extremely popular and popularity always breeds some resentment.


I will say that it is easier to get a group together to play D&D 5e than many of the games I would prefer to play, but that's more because 5e isn't hated by any of the players than a matter of it being anyone's first choice. There are many games that individuals at the table would rather be playing/running, but 5e is the "settled on" point of commonality. That's not intended to be praise.

[Sigreid]

I will say that it is easier to get a group together to play D&D 5e than many of the games I would prefer to play, but that's more because 5e isn't hated by any of the players than a matter of it being anyone's first choice. There are many games that individuals at the table would rather be playing/running, but 5e is the "settled on" point of commonality. That's not intended to be praise.

I think my table mostly like how we just dont have to look things up very often.

[GlenSmash!]

I will say that it is easier to get a group together to play D&D 5e than many of the games I would prefer to play, but that's more because 5e isn't hated by any of the players than a matter of it being anyone's first choice. There are many games that individuals at the table would rather be playing/running, but 5e is the "settled on" point of commonality. That's not intended to be praise.

I have often referred to 5e as the "good enough edition".

But I do intend that to be praise.

[KorvinStarmast]

There are many games that individuals at the table would rather be playing/running, but 5e is the "settled on" point of commonality. That's not intended to be praise.They did try to make it more newbie friendly, which I think they achieved. :smallsmile:
(PS: sig addition completed! :smallbiggrin: )

I think my table mostly like how we just dont have to look things up very often. Yep.

[Drache64]

In 5e my hands feel tied. In 3.5 if I can dream of a character I can play it. In 5e my imagination is extremely limited.

More than that, 3.5 gave me a lot more agency in combat in terms of combat tactics.

The "no" style DM has a lot more he can say no to and it really limits what characters I can build and play.

[Sigreid]

In 5e my hands feel tied. In 3.5 if I can dream of a character I can play it. In 5e my imagination is extremely limited.

More than that, 3.5 gave me a lot more agency in combat in terms of combat tactics.

The "no" style DM has a lot more he can say no to and it really limits what characters I can build and play.

Interesting. Because they didn't try to code in every possibility I find 5e far more open for what you can try. This may be a table thing.

[MilkmanDanimal]

And, just a couple of weeks ago, I was perusing used RPG books in a LGS, and I overheard two 20-somethings saying, "5th Edition isn't a role-playing game, it's Wizards handing you a book that just says Use Your Imagination." Gatekeeping is eternal.

I simply do not have the words to even vaguely express how hilarious I find it that somebody thought "Use Your Imagination" was a sick burn in talking about a fantasy-based tabletop RPG.

"Yeah, sure, Overwatch is supposed to be a good console experience, but I feel like it's Blizzard handing you a controller and saying 'Use Your Thumbs'."

SICK BURN.

[JNAProductions]

Interesting. Because they didn't try to code in every possibility I find 5e far more open for what you can try. This may be a table thing.

True in some ways, not as true in others.

3.5 has more options than 5E. That's straight-up a fact.

But it also gates a lot of stuff-such as grappling, tripping, shoving/bullrushing, two-weapon fighting (at least to be vaguely competent at it) just to name a few.

It also has a higher power ceiling-without bounded accuracy, even a Fighter can become virtually immune to low level foes before too long. Sure, they can TECHNICALLY hurt the Fighter, but when you only hit on a 20 and only crit on a 20 AFTER that... It's gonna take a while.

[Tvtyrant]

TTRPGs are a bunch of mini games cobbled together, and which one you like most influences how much you like the edition.

There is character creation minigames, combat minigames, social roleplaying minigames, loot optimization, etc.

If you like getting rewarded for system mastery, then 3.5 probably is the best edition. You can accomplish almost anything through sufficient mastery of it due to the sheer number of mechanics involved. 4E has probably the best combat minigame, 5E does probably the best job balancing them so everyone gets some of what they like.

It isn't necessarily everyone's favorite edition, but it is probably no ones least favorite.

Edit: This guy is engaging in a No True Scotsman fallacy. Playing a game that rewards system mastery less has nothing to do with your RPG playing abilities.

[GlenSmash!]

In 5e my hands feel tied. In 3.5 if I can dream of a character I can play it. In 5e my imagination is extremely limited.

More than that, 3.5 gave me a lot more agency in combat in terms of combat tactics.

The "no" style DM has a lot more he can say no to and it really limits what characters I can build and play.

It's totally fine to have this preference. And I would agree that the DM is more empowered to say No in 5e, though I like that.

It's not okay to do what the DM in the OP did because of this preference.

[Witty Username]

I haven't played much if any 1st. 4th is death.
2nd I rather like, classes leveling differently and multi-classing being accessible from level 1 is nice. Thaco is complex but fast in play at least for me.
3-3.5th is very flexible, all things exist, and the effort to learn it is very rewarding.
5th is well balanced and easy to learn, and the use of subclasses allows for a significant amount of options out of the phb. It does have the drawback of very little direction, for example skill DC's, there is no guidance on what numbers make sense according to the difficulty and that can make more work for the DM.

All are d&d the same yet different, even 4th edition.

[CantigThimble]

I wouldn't say that I HATE 5E, but I definitely don't like it anymore. Right now I run games of Earthdawn and Dungeon World, which are, respectively, significantly more mechanically complex and significantly less mechanically complex than 5e. Part of that is just that those work well for the different groups I run for, part of it is that I adore the lore of Earthdawn and the mechanics are worth it because they're built to mesh with that lore, but the more important part is that I really dislike 5e adventuring days and encounter balancing. I hate how the system is built on having a series of encounters that do nothing but deplete resources, all of which can be immediately recovered by a night's rest. I tried for a while to make my GMing style and 5e work together, but I eventually gave up and moved on.

Another part of this is that I am the eternal GM in both of my gaming groups. When other people run it I don't mind playing, but running it is a nightmare for me.

[Reevh]

Perhaps this is silly, but I always seem to have a lot less fun in roleplaying games that don't use a d20. Games that have you roll a varying number of d6's, and then have you total the number of hits or misses built into the sides of the custom d6 dice just don't feel right to me.

Maybe that's the way that a number of 3.5 players feel about 5e?

That said, I would never run a 5e game and then criticize the hell out of other players for usually playing a different game.

[RedMage125]

So quick, short version is that people on here are correct and the DM was a butt head.

I got started on 2e back in the late 90s in high school. I played a Cleric as my first character, and my high school history teacher ran a game after school. He ran Ravenloft (I have had people learn that I started D&D as a cleric in Ravenloft, and were surprised I continued to play, lol). 2e was my introduction to RPGs in general. It was a lot of fun, but the mechanics were sometimes byzantine and not very intuitive. Negative Armor Class, THAC0, six bizarre types of Saving Throws...once that teacher stopped being able to run games, some other friends of mine ran RPGs, but they didn't like D&D's mechanics, so we used homebrewed stuff. But I still kept an eye on D&D stuff, even bought the Council of Wyrms boxed set when that was still fairly new.

I was still in HS when 3.0 came out. I was fortunate that the mall near me had a Wizards of the Coast outlet store (yes, that was once a thing). I got the core books and I fell in love. The artwork was better (and less sexist), the numbers were easier, and things made sense. Higher Number = Better. Very simple. I played a bit up to and into college, but it wasn't until Sophmore year of college that I tried my hand as a DM. I ran a campaign with one continuous story (had some players drop in and out) from level 1 to 18. Had to transition to 3.5e in the middle of that.

Played 3.5e for years, loved it. Didn't need a new edition. Heard about 4th coming out and rolled my eyes. Then I read the 4e preview books (Races&Classes and Worlds&Monsters) and I was very intrigued. Some of the ideas they broached...complete balance between classes across all levels of play...minion and solo monsters...warlord class...this all seemed very good, I resolved to check it out. By this point in my life, I was pretty much exclusively a DM, so all but a handful of sessions in my 4e play experience was as a DM.
AND
I
LOVED IT.
4e is seriously so easy to DM. And I could rant forever on why I think it "still felt like D&D" to my players when so many on the forums had different experience with it. But...to each their own. I will say that during 4e's run, I would have preferred to play 3.5e if I was a player. But even now, 5 years into 5e's run, I maintain that 4e was the easiest to DM.

I only got intorduced to Pathfinder briefly a few month before 5e came out. It's 3.5e+. 5e combines a lot of what was good about 3e, with a lot of more laid back "rulings not rules" from 2e. I think it also poaches some of the best toppings from 4e (Warlock class*, at-will spells, removal of skill points, etc). It's made an edition that is fun to play AND easy to DM.

Every edition has its own merits. And every player has their own preferences. I might not have cared for 2e very much. But some of the same thing I cite as "cons" make other people's "pros" lists. it's important to always couch one's opinions and preferences as such. D&D is gaining popularity, but there's still some remaining stigma to it. There's absolutely no need for us to turn on each other. No one gets to tell you that THEIR pretend-fantasy-elf-and-dragon-game is somehow "superior" to YOUR pretend-fantasy-elf-and-dragon-game. If someone tries to tell you why they prefer their edition over your own just say "I get that you have your preference, but it's just not my bag". If you want to be extra nice and extend the olive branch, ask them to tell you why they like their preferred edition, if they will let you explain why you like yours. You may both find a lot more in common than previously thought. If nothing else, you can just tell them "I respect your opinion, but do not share it" and walk away. Never, however, put up with this kind of abuse, don't tolerate it happening to others in front of you, and don't do it yourself. We're all NPCs in someone's story. No need to be the BBEG.

*I know Warlocks were in 3.5e, but the 5e warlock more closely resembles the 4e warlock with Pacts and Boons being defining class abilities.

[Pex]

Cynical answer: There is nothing about 5E to make it immune to people hating it how dare they. Some people just don't like it.

That said, the DM in question was out of line. It's fine he doesn't like it, but yes, how dare he call someone an inferior player for liking 5E. The problem is him, not 5E, and not 3E.

[Drache64]

Interesting. Because they didn't try to code in every possibility I find 5e far more open for what you can try. This may be a table thing.

It could be a table thing but I've sat at a lot of tables.

The biggest reason I can't play a thrallherd ilithid or an eye of gruumsh barbarian, or an extremely palpatine-esque political virtuoso is because they don't exist in 5e.

[Kane0]

I'm currently a player in a PF game and DM a 5e game. I really prefer 5e but I got my start with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights so I've never really disliked any edition really. Even 4e, which I was a player in for a campaign and had fun with.

I don't really see why one would hate any particular edition, that seems more a personal thing than anything to do with the ruleset.



The biggest reason I can't play a thrallherd ilithid or an eye of gruumsh barbarian, or an extremely palpatine-esque political virtuoso is because they don't exist in 5e.

Not sure about the Thrallherd (GOO lock maybe?) but the barbarian sounds like a Zealot and the palpatine sounds like perhaps a glamor bard.

[MaxWilson]

It could be a table thing but I've sat at a lot of tables.

The biggest reason I can't play a thrallherd ilithid or an eye of gruumsh barbarian, or an extremely palpatine-esque political virtuoso is because they don't exist in 5e.

Well, that and the fact that 5E's ruleset doesn't really support non-combat activities like politics, at any level of detail beyond the DM basically winging it. I'm going to go ahead and quote Justin Alexander's analogy here:

To understand what I mean by that, consider a game which says: “Here are a half dozen fighting-related skills (Melee Weapons, Brawling, Shooting, Dodging, Parrying, Armor Use) and here are some rules for making skill checks.”

If you got into a fight in that game, how would you resolve it?

We’ve all been conditioned to expect a combat system in our RPGs. But what if your RPG didn’t have a combat system? It would be up to the GM and the players to figure out how to use those skills to resolve the fight. They’d be left with the heavy lifting.

And when it comes to the vast majority of RPGs, that’s largely what you have: Skill resolution and a combat system. (Science fiction games tend to pick up a couple of additional systems for hacking, starship combat, and the like. Horror games often have some form of Sanity/Terror mechanic derived from Call of Cthulhu.)

So when it comes to anything other than combat — heists, mercantile trading, exploration, investigation, con artistry, etc. — most RPGs leave you to do the heavy lifting again: Here are some skills. Figure it out.

More here: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43568/roleplaying-games/game-structures-addendum-system-matters

[Drache64]

I'm currently a player in a PF game and DM a 5e game. I really prefer 5e but I got my start with Baldur's Gate and Neverwinter Nights so I've never really disliked any edition really. Even 4e, which I was a player in for a campaign and had fun with.

I don't really see why one would hate any particular edition, that seems more a personal thing than anything to do with the ruleset.



Not sure about the Thrallherd (GOO lock maybe?) but the barbarian sounds like a Zealot and the palpatine sounds like perhaps a glamor bard.

A witch, an anti-paladin, a necromancer, a gunslinger, a summoner, etc.

The point is it's up to the DM to allow me to play these things the way I want. They can say no to these types of things and I really have no leg to stand on.

I feel the biggest thing is the lack of feats, feats were a great way to customize any build

[Contrast]

Just to add one point: It's obviously stupid elitist behavior, sure, but there's another axis to this problem.

5e has brought millions of newbs to the game. Newbs, are, fundamentally, a great thing for the life of the game. It means you can find actual tables to play at. It means you'll still be able to find players 2-3 years from now when your current group ultimately splits up.

But newbs are also, well, newbs. Playing with my old 3.5 group feels like putting on a favorite shirt. They know how **** works, they know how to show good table etiquette... conversely, my 5e group is way out of shape and bumbles around constantly. This has nothing to do with the edition and everything to do with their relative (out of character) experience levels.

I play at a game club and one of the main struggles we have is convincing newer players to join games for anything other than 5E - not because we're hating on 5E but just because there's more to the hobby than only 5E.

[Luccan]

A witch, an anti-paladin, a necromancer, a gunslinger, a summoner, etc.

The point is it's up to the DM to allow me to play these things the way I want. They can say no to these types of things and I really have no leg to stand on.

1. Depends on what you define "witch" as mechanically. There are certainly many options for iconic folklore abilities on a caster.

2. If you mean evil paladin equivalent, there are options for that.

3. There's literally a wizard subclass for it, plus Death Cleric, Spores Druid, you can make a decent necromancer with a Warlock...

4. DM has to allow guns in the first place (something plenty of 3.5 DMs won't do), but there's not much that needs to be done to make such a character feasible beyond that.

5. Summoning is kinda weak in 5e, but there are certainly summoning focused subclasses.

There are things 5e can't do within 1st party material because it doesn't have mechanical support, but most broad archetypes are touched on somewhere.

[Kane0]

I feel the biggest thing is the lack of feats, feats were a great way to customize any build

A fair criticism. 5e doesn't handle feats the same way so adding in bunches more of them wouldn't add that customizability you're looking for, and there is no real alternative for that besides backgrounds and boons. Warlocks have invocations but thats one class out of 12.

There have been homebrew solutions to that conundrum, but you are right in saying that 5e has less overall customizability than 3.5

[Drache64]

1. Depends on what you define "witch" as mechanically. There are certainly many options for iconic folklore abilities on a caster.

2. If you mean evil paladin equivalent, there are options for that.

3. There's literally a wizard subclass for it, plus Death Cleric, Spores Druid, you can make a decent necromancer with a Warlock...

4. DM has to allow guns in the first place (something plenty of 3.5 DMs won't do), but there's not much that needs to be done to make such a character feasible beyond that.

5. Summoning is kinda weak in 5e, but there are certainly summoning focused subclasses.

There are things 5e can't do within 1st party material because it doesn't have mechanical support, but most broad archetypes are touched on somewhere.

That's the problem, it's just not as fun. Its extremely pigeon-holed. It's settling. An eye of gruumsh is fun because of their third eye prophetic powers, a witch is fun because of its ability to summon and possess, a virtuoso is fun because of its dialogue based spell like effects (such as making everyone a racist).

You can drink diet Coke and call it coke, but it's just not going to work for people who love Coke and hate diet

That being said I currently play 5e exclusively but would love to find a 3.5 group.

[Monster Manuel]

Here's a question: is the owner of the club (with whom you enjoyed a nice conversation) and the DM the same person? Or did the owner get someone else in to run the game?

Because I think it's fair to say you won't be joining this game again. If you still plan to, please don't. The toxicity will get worse, not better.

The owner of the club needs to know that the bad attitude of the DM is driving people away. If the DM is the owner, they REALLY need to re-think their customer relation skillset. If the owner had someone else come in, they may not be aware of the hostility, and they would probably appreciate knowing. Make it constructive, something like "Thanks for hosting it, but we don't think we'll come back to any future events, here. The DM who was running your game came across as extremely hostile and insulting, called us "bad players" and made it clear we weren't welcome. If you want to bring new people in, you may need to be careful of that"

You're not under any obligation to try to fix this guy, it would be 100% right to just ghost. But if I were trying to build a community gaming club, I would want to know if one of my DMs was being an arse...

[Sigreid]

A witch, an anti-paladin, a necromancer, a gunslinger, a summoner, etc.

The point is it's up to the DM to allow me to play these things the way I want. They can say no to these types of things and I really have no leg to stand on.

I feel the biggest thing is the lack of feats, feats were a great way to customize any build

Well, in 3.5 DMs said no to things released in the books all the time, and you still had no leg to stand on.

[Drache64]

Well, in 3.5 DMs said no to things released in the books all the time, and you still had no leg to stand on.

Never had that problem, but even so, a DM who says no to official classes published by WoTC is an extreme no DM. Probably not a table I'd sit at anyways.

[HappyDaze]

Never had that problem, but even so, a DM who says no to official classes published by WoTC is an extreme no DM. Probably not a table I'd sit at anyways.

I said no to several of the brown books of 2e, a few 3e books (Nine Swords and Incarnum were banned) and even SCAG for 5e, so I guess I'm an EXTREME NO DM then, and I'm OK with that.

[Sir_Chivalry]

Never had that problem, but even so, a DM who says no to official classes published by WoTC is an extreme no DM. Probably not a table I'd sit at anyways.

At the risk of disagreeing with you....necromancer is the only class in your list published by WotC (as a school specialist or the dread necromancer)

The others are Paizo

And are not 3.5 classes.

[Drache64]

I said no to several of the brown books of 2e, a few 3e books (Nine Swords and Incarnum were banned) and even SCAG for 5e, so I guess I'm an EXTREME NO DM then, and I'm OK with that.

Hey no problem man, as long as you and your players had fun.

Unless they didn't have fun, then you did it wrong.

[PoeticallyPsyco]

5e's in a weird spot. Its strength is that it's easy to learn and easy to make new characters in, but that 1st one only matters until you get system mastery. After that, it lacks both the customization of 3.5 and the highly tactical/cinematic combat of 4e. I'd rather spend a little longer creating a more interesting character, so 5e my least favorite of the three editions.

None of which changes that your DM was being a real jerk about the whole thing.

[Safety Sword]

So in conclusion, your honour, don't play with jerks and don't be one.

All editions of D&D can be great depending on if you personally like them and have a nice bunch of people to play with.

The defence rests.

:amused:

[KorvinStarmast]

So in conclusion, your honour, don't play with jerks and don't be one.

All editions of D&D can be great depending on if you personally like them and have a nice bunch of people to play with. The defence rests.

:amused: I am intrigued by your answer and wish to subscribe :smallcool: to your newsletter.

[Safety Sword]

I am intrigued by your answer and wish to subscribe :smallcool: to your newsletter.

I don't have time for a newsletter.

I'm too busy having a life and running a D&D campaign with 9 players...

And get off my lawn!

[EggKookoo]

Don't worry, when 6e eventually comes out we 5e-players can gang up on it. :smallsmile:

[Toadkiller]

It basically comes down to the idea that some people like to be mean. The DM in the OP didn’t have a different venue available so he decided to mar both and the poster’s recreational time by being mean. Which sucks. Hopefully he also found it to be not-fun and won’t do it again.

The system is just rules. The whole point is to have fun.

[Sigreid]

Never had that problem, but even so, a DM who says no to official classes published by WoTC is an extreme no DM. Probably not a table I'd sit at anyways.

Not necessarily. I don't think it's an extreme no DM to say "I don't want firearms in my game" for example. Any more than it would be an extreme no DM to say "Um, no. You can't have the spell for the Rain of colorless fire in my campaign world. I'm not interested in you burning the whole thing, and yourself to the ground".

Now if they are saying no to all the options, then the DM may be the too controlling type.

[HappyDaze]

Not necessarily. I don't think it's an extreme no DM to say "I don't want firearms in my game" for example. Any more than it would be an extreme no DM to say "Um, no. You can't have the spell for the Rain of colorless fire in my campaign world. I'm not interested in you burning the whole thing, and yourself to the ground".

Now if they are saying no to all the options, then the DM may be the too controlling type.

I have decided that I do not want dragonborn or tiefling PCs in my 5e Greyhawk game. I am also not allow dark elf PCs and the rest of the racial options are as set in the PHB (options from other books are not available at the start of play but may become available if the campaign makes them so). This might be seen as controlling, and I'm OK with that descriptor.

[Arkhios]

I have decided that I do not want dragonborn or tiefling PCs in my 5e Greyhawk game. I am also not allow dark elf PCs and the rest of the racial options are as set in the PHB (options from other books are not available at the start of play but may become available if the campaign makes them so). This might be seen as controlling, and I'm OK with that descriptor.

I don't want to derail the thread, but I have to say I agree on the sentiment. If I had my way, I wouldn't allow dragonborn anywhere. Ever since 4th edition I've felt adding the race was redundant. Technically I have nothing against Tieflings, but I can understand the wish not to allow them. Likewise, Drow often come with a heavy baggage. In most settings, and Greyhawk's not any different, drow are thoroughly evil, elves or not, and should remain as "monsters".

In any case: your game, your rules. Even if the campaign is set in a world that has those races, the campaign might be set in a corner of that world where those races are uncommon, rare or entirely alien to the region. You might seem like overly controlling, but if a rules element doesn't fit into your vision of the campaign, then it doesn't. Period.

[Aergentum]

Here's a question: is the owner of the club (with whom you enjoyed a nice conversation) and the DM the same person? Or did the owner get someone else in to run the game?

Because I think it's fair to say you won't be joining this game again. If you still plan to, please don't. The toxicity will get worse, not better.
No, the DM was another guy, not the owner. The club is pretty far away from where I live, but close to where I work, so I will check it out on fridays, but I don't expect to go there midweek or weekend.

[Foff]

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.

This sounds to me much like the kind of behaviour i used to experience in the League of Legends community, which was at the time (and may still be) one if not the most toxic online community out there. It's the kind of talk i would expect to Hear from a child who wants everyone to play with the same toys as him.

Pay It no mind at all, he Is most likely a troll feeding on everybody else's misery.
Leave the table, play your own Fair game elsewhere and notify the organisers of the event of this person's disruptive behaviour

[EggKookoo]

I have decided that I do not want dragonborn or tiefling PCs in my 5e Greyhawk game. I am also not allow dark elf PCs and the rest of the racial options are as set in the PHB (options from other books are not available at the start of play but may become available if the campaign makes them so). This might be seen as controlling, and I'm OK with that descriptor.

Agreed, there's nothing wrong with customizing your setting. In fact I'd be happier playing in a setting where the DM made some changes than in one that allows every RAW thing. I feel like the former DM has a stronger vision for their setting.

[KorvinStarmast]

And get off my lawn! Hey, that's my line! :smalleek:

This sounds to me much like the kind of behaviour i used to experience in the League of Legends community, which was at the time (and may still be) one if not the most toxic online community out there. Yeah, Riot had an uphill battle with the hostility on line. I hope it has improved, but it's been a few years since I played.

[GreyBlack]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

Because 5e is... let's put this delicately.

5e is not a complex system. It is not a hard system, and it's not nearly simulationist for some. Without being degrading about it, I tend to call 5e an excellent "baby's first RPG," because it's a great way to get your feet wet and discover what parts of the RPG experience you enjoy without having to get bogged down in the parts you don't.

By comparison, 3.x and its ilk tend to be far harder (on Moh's scale of RPG hardness, not in difficulty) a system than 5e, with significantly more varied options and many, many more rules in place. It's not as free wheeling as 5e and less reliant on DM rulings than other, softer adventures. It also can more exactly emulate the type of character you want to play, rather than the fairly arch 5e characters; 2 Devotion paladins will tend to play similarly, while 2 paladins in 3.x are going to vary wildly depending on prestige classes, feats, and other character options.

That type of game tends to be for people who want huge amounts of character customization to mimic a really specific type of character. When players like that look at the, let's be honest, rather pithy customization offerings in 5e, they're going to be horrified and mock 5e for not being their game. So the problem is not that 5e is a bad system; it's just lacking what 3.x players want in their design philosophy.

[KorvinStarmast]

5e is not a complex system. I snipped the rest of your post, but it's a good one. Nice job. :smallsmile:

IMO, the core issue with 3.x and its "barrier to entry" rests on Monte Cook's belief in System Mastery as a virtue (and as an old AD&D player, I see where he is coming from on that). The unfortunate existence of "trap options." (I won't discuss balance, but that is related) almost requires system mastery, or so it seems.

I think 4e tried initially to clean up a lot of that (I'll let 4e experts elaborate on that if they'd like) which led eventually to the 4e D&D Essentials release. But at this point they were (I think) realizing that TSR had a good idea that they'd overlooked.

The original "reduce barrier to entry" effort in original D&D Basic (Holmes), and the follow on Cook/Moldvay B/X game, early 80's, was a big success in getting new players into the game. AD&D 2e never bothered with that; it seems that the AD&D branch at TSR saw BECMI as "entry level D&D" - which brings to what I think was a mistake that WoTC made. In unifying the brand with D&D (folding AD&D 2 and BECMI together, and making a bunch of (IMO) excellent organizational changes overall) they lost out on the "remove barrier to entry" success that B/X and BECMI had created as its own family of game products.

5e succeeds at "lower barrier to entry" as a whole system and "allows optional rules" to open up the "make it as complex as you like" to option: which is an appeal to the system mastery folks. That latter effort I am sure - "systems mastery light" if you will - has not pleased any number of 3.x fans who love the system mastery element of D&D. (I get the appeal. It's a great way to geek out! :smallbiggrin: )
Pathfinder is also a fine option for those whose passion for a system-mastery style game is a motivator to play.

When you try to be all things to all people, as 5e tries to be in the WoTC "unify the player base" goal, there are bound to be some folks who will not care for that. Which is understandable.

What isn't helpful is the chip on the shoulder that the OP described the DM as having.

[Max_Killjoy]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.


That's just the DM being a tool. Some people are simply looking for an excuse to be tools.

[stoutstien]

Because 5e is... let's put this delicately.

5e is not a complex system. It is not a hard system, and it's not nearly simulationist for some. Without being degrading about it, I tend to call 5e an excellent "baby's first RPG," because it's a great way to get your feet wet and discover what parts of the RPG experience you enjoy without having to get bogged down in the parts you don't.

By comparison, 3.x and its ilk tend to be far harder (on Moh's scale of RPG hardness, not in difficulty) a system than 5e, with significantly more varied options and many, many more rules in place. It's not as free wheeling as 5e and less reliant on DM rulings than other, softer adventures. It also can more exactly emulate the type of character you want to play, rather than the fairly arch 5e characters; 2 Devotion paladins will tend to play similarly, while 2 paladins in 3.x are going to vary wildly depending on prestige classes, feats, and other character options.

That type of game tends to be for people who want huge amounts of character customization to mimic a really specific type of character. When players like that look at the, let's be honest, rather pithy customization offerings in 5e, they're going to be horrified and mock 5e for not being their game. So the problem is not that 5e is a bad system; it's just lacking what 3.x players want in their design philosophy.

To counter this point 3.X has a lot of bad/trap options available. A player has to almost reverse-engineer their entire character plan from top to bottom to make sure they don't make a poor choice somewhere along the line and lock themselves into a useless character where it's a challenge to make a bad character in 5e.
I play and run both games and I'd say I see way more variety of builds in 5e than 3.x.
Using your devotion Paladin example: in 5e you can have two players with the same subclass have entirely different characters with little to no thought where in 3.x, excluding free casting crusader cheese, there are few ways to built paladin's that aren't going to completely fall off at one point or another.

you just can't have the number of options that ended up occurring in the system and have a balanced game. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 options if only 12 of them are good.

[KorvinStarmast]

you just can't have the number of options that ended up occurring in the system and have a balanced game. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 options if only 12 of them are good. Nicely said. But isn't that why the E6 movement started?

[Great Dragon]

I'm lucky in that I rarely encounter rude Elitist Gamers.
I've played almost every D&D Edition, and for me each stands on its own merit.

@Mordaedil: As a Friendly Grognard, I tend to think that it is more the fact that an older edition is prefered over a newer one that makes one a Grognard.

As Safety Swordstated: Elitist attitudes have always been a problem with D&D (and some of the more Number/Rule based tRPGs) and a**hats are just that.

Honestly, I DMed 3.5 D&D and it was my favorite Edition until 5e came along.
But, yeah - it’s been over 10 years since I really did this (no players from 2008-2015) so I’m very rusty at doing this edition.

No offense to those that liked 4e, but doing a tMMO wasn’t my thing.
Though 4e does have some interesting Class abilities that maybe someday I’ll get around to figuring out how to put into 5e.

Heck, while I’m most likely going to complain in true Grognard style when 6e comes along, I’m still going to check it out.



My own subjective view is that a "good player" is a person who's fun to play with. Since it's a roleplaying game, this has more to do with whether they are fun to interact with at your table, than with their strategic prowess or thespian prowess. Someone could be good at tactics, or roleplaying, or funny voices, or at bringing snacks and cracking lame puns but that doesn't automatically make them good or bad at DnD.

If the DM wanted a strategic mastermind running off years of fresh experience in 3.5, then he probably should have sculpted his table to match, or matched his expectations to the table. Either way he could have engaged with the players in front of him without being such an jerk.

Nicely Put. On both parts.

@Zerubbabel : sure the DM is allowed his opinion, but his attitude still needs adjustment, for the sake of the continuation of the game.
Remember - It wasn’t just the Satanic Panic that nearly killed D&D 2e, folks. It was too many Elitist jerks that was the true problem.

@Evil DM Mark3 I always teased those THACo guys that their skills never really changed, despite their Level.
- I don’t have any exp with Pathfinder - mostly due to not having anyone to play with - see above.
PF 2e seems ok.

@Jerrykhor Those 3x Gatekeepers aren’t alone. I still find Gatekeepers for AD&D and even all the way back to Classic D&D (And Retro Clones).


78% of DM's started their first campaign in a tavern. If you're one of the 22% that didn't, copy and paste this into your signature.

Where did you start yours?
OmG! Um…..This won’t fit in my Sig - but IiRC I started them out running from a 2e Orc Horde.

@Corsair14 While I like the new extra Races in both Volo’s and Mord’s, and the Subclass options from Xan’s Guide - I’m seeing more and more “splat books” coming out for 5e. Planes Walk and Ravica that blends D&D with 5e. Kalashtar Bear Barbarian anyone?
(I made Mr T with the attitude of Lobo for a villian!!)

@Arkhios “Elitist Grognards” is a term for them I can accept.

BloodSnake'sCha “I do think that 3.5e is better because it looks to me that 5e have no real customisation(personal feel).”
I like trying to make both 3x Class and Prestige Classes into 5e Subclasses.
Lot of interesting stuff.

MarkVIIIMarc “it could be because of the Big Bang Theory guys or something but 5e is LOVED more…”
That, plus The Matt Mercer Effect from Critical Roll, boosted by Acquisitions Inc and even showboated on Stranger Things. Heck, even Rick and Morty are on the Boat.

Am I the only one that wanted signatures from Dave Arneson?
Sure, I respect EGG, but he didn’t build the game alone.


(Yes, I often refer to myself in the third person. We likes it!)
I had to stop at post #41 (Witty Username) due to eye strain.
I’ll be back later to add more.

[Max_Killjoy]

Well, that and the fact that 5E's ruleset doesn't really support non-combat activities like politics, at any level of detail beyond the DM basically winging it. I'm going to go ahead and quote Justin Alexander's analogy here:

To understand what I mean by that, consider a game which says: “Here are a half dozen fighting-related skills (Melee Weapons, Brawling, Shooting, Dodging, Parrying, Armor Use) and here are some rules for making skill checks.”

If you got into a fight in that game, how would you resolve it?

We’ve all been conditioned to expect a combat system in our RPGs. But what if your RPG didn’t have a combat system? It would be up to the GM and the players to figure out how to use those skills to resolve the fight. They’d be left with the heavy lifting.

And when it comes to the vast majority of RPGs, that’s largely what you have: Skill resolution and a combat system. (Science fiction games tend to pick up a couple of additional systems for hacking, starship combat, and the like. Horror games often have some form of Sanity/Terror mechanic derived from Call of Cthulhu.)

So when it comes to anything other than combat — heists, mercantile trading, exploration, investigation, con artistry, etc. — most RPGs leave you to do the heavy lifting again: Here are some skills. Figure it out.

More here: https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/43568/roleplaying-games/game-structures-addendum-system-matters

My gut reaction to that is that compared to politics, socializing, investigation, cons and heists, etc... combat is simple, and simple things are easier to create at least decent rules for. I know a lot of people will disagree about simplicity there, but to me there's no question. The number of variables and data points for combat is lower.

And over the too-many-decades of gaming and reading through game systems, I've found a lot of games that try very hard to give other aspects of the characters' experience the same level of treatment as combat, and fall down. It ends up either feeling really klunky, or feels like everything is just following the dice around with little role-playing... or runs into the problem of "social combat", treating every social encounter as adversarial, win-lose, attrition.

So "just add more mechanics" is to me a non-trivial problem, it can't just be reskinned combat or grossly simplistic.

That said, 5e also largely falls down in terms of Skills, making skill-based or knowledge-based characters, etc. Instead of trying, it appears to barely try at all.

[Reevh]

I don't have time for a newsletter.

I'm too busy having a life and running a D&D campaign with 9 players...

And get off my lawn!

Holy ****, 9 players? How the hell?

[KorvinStarmast]

Am I the only one that wanted signatures from Dave Arneson?
Sure, I respect EGG, but he didn’t build the game alone. But he got it published, which DA wasn't organized enough to do, for all of his remarkable talents.
My gut reaction to that is that compared to politics, socializing, investigation, cons and heists, etc... combat is simple, and simple things are easier to create at least decent rules for. I know people a lot of people will disagree about simplicity there, but to me there's no question. The number of variables and data points for combat is lower.
Yes. IME: role play is a thing that you get better at the more you do it.

I still have a hard time grokking the "but I have poor social skills, I am not good at role play" complaint.
Uh, try it, and like the rest of us, trip now and again, fall down, then get up and try again. If you are in a good group, we'll all have fun doing it.

Mike Mornard had a great post at one of the grognardish forums about just that thing: role playing itself grew from play in general. He pointed out that a lot of the original fanatics for RPGs (D&D, EPT, TNT, etc) had already played games like Diplomacy which are all role playing and no dice.

Hence the "who needs dice to role play?" response once we begin to see the numerization of social skills and social interactions.

I still feel that way most of the time. The only dice I roll as a DM is the reaction dice for the NPC, and I only do that if I am not sure how the NPC feels about the situation. Usually, I already have an idea so no dice are needed.

[stoutstien]

Nicely said. But isn't that why the E6 movement started?

I've played, but never ran a game using it so no idea on the overall impact. It would seem to help.

I also just got my copy of Pathfinder 2E in from the local. It seems like they adressed a lot of the issues but I'm already seeing clear winners and losers for options.

I think at the heart of it the bones of 5th edition is better(action resolution is pretty much the same which makes game play smoother) where 3.5 has a better grasp of providing a better feel for encounter preparation( 5e really is a big stinker here) and character development.

A good game system is taking from everything and fitting it to each individual group. Most of my games use elements from 3 or more systems. trying to write a universally-accepted perfect system is a fool's errand but it's a fun ride.

[KorvinStarmast]

Holy ****, 9 players? How the hell?

not that hard. We did it all the time in Old D&D and AD&D 1e days. The key is to keep the pace of play moving.
Be ready when it's your turn. That is the core responsibility of the player. If you aren't ready when it's yoru turn, you get to pass / dodge / defend and the action passes to the next player.

[stoutstien]

not that hard. We did it all the time in Old D&D and AD&D 1e days. The key is to keep the pace of play moving.
Be ready when it's your turn. That is the core responsibility of the player. If you aren't ready when it's yoru turn, you get to pass / dodge / defend and the action passes to the next player.

Agreed. definitely something that takes a little bit of practice to get used to but the number of players isn't a big factor once you get a groove going. it's having a table big enough and running out of food early.

[EggKookoo]

That type of game tends to be for people who want huge amounts of character customization to mimic a really specific type of character. When players like that look at the, let's be honest, rather pithy customization offerings in 5e, they're going to be horrified and mock 5e for not being their game. So the problem is not that 5e is a bad system; it's just lacking what 3.x players want in their design philosophy.

While this isn't false, really a lot of hate for 5e just comes from it being the new kid. People hated 3e when it came out because it wasn't 2e.

Also, 5e is coming at a time of a resurgence in D&D popularity (and by some assessments is a contributing factor to that resurgence). It ruffles feathers of some older edition fans. Especially since 5e's central philosophy can be interpreted as a refutation of 3e's and a kind of soft reinforcement of 2e's. Adding insult to injury is that most people agree that 4e did nothing to knock 3e off its perch, whereas Pathfinder could be seen as supporting it. 5e is the first edition to really consign 3e to the past.

If you came to D&D with 3e, it can feel like what you like about the game is being retroactively invalidated.

[JackPhoenix]

That's the problem, it's just not as fun. Its extremely pigeon-holed. It's settling. An eye of gruumsh is fun because of their third eye prophetic powers, a witch is fun because of its ability to summon and possess, a virtuoso is fun because of its dialogue based spell like effects (such as making everyone a racist).

You can drink diet Coke and call it coke, but it's just not going to work for people who love Coke and hate diet

That being said I currently play 5e exclusively but would love to find a 3.5 group.

So you are not after archetypes, but about specific mechanics you wouldn't even think of if the classes with those specific mechanics weren't created in the first place. Well, obviously game that uses different mechanics won't replicate that.

[ZorroGames]

The only posing I do is with my Gygax-signed copy of Chainmail.

Yeah, man! I remember when the Greyhawk paperback supplement to the the “Three Booklets” came out and used a D20 system instead of the Chainmail system. Heretics!.

Then the ultimate abomination was AD&D (there was no first edition initially because Second Edition AD&D had not been spawned in Hell yet.)

All of the above is said in fun of course. I love 5e because it isn’t requiring hours of prep to DM and because of portability for AL gaming. If I had the time (Wife, Wargaming, Dog crimp my FRPG time,) I probably would home brew my own world and use modified 5e rules with Feats and MCing included just because I enjoy the wide open world potential I found in 0D&D that 5e has the potential to be.

Play Nice, Have Fun.

[ZorroGames]

not that hard. We did it all the time in Old D&D and AD&D 1e days. The key is to keep the pace of play moving.
Be ready when it's your turn. That is the core responsibility of the player. If you aren't ready when it's yoru turn, you get to pass / dodge / defend and the action passes to the next player.

Right.

My max was two sessions of 20 (3 generations one family) for a couple of games before some players discovered LARP and I announced I was moving next month. But you need great players for that to really work and lots of prep time for the DM.

Never again. Maybe 7 if all experienced or fellow players guiding newbies. 9 “doable” with 5e but that was as a player so...

[prabe]

If you came to D&D with 3e, it can feel like what you like about the game is being retroactively invalidated.

Indeed, this was my initial experience with 3E (I remember throwing the PHB across the room when I first read it). I ended up playing a lot of 3E and 3.5 and Pathfinder over the years.

I picked up 5E late, for complicated reasons, and it more or less just clicked for me. For the most part, the system does what I expect it to, and it's streamlined enough that I can run two campaigns (with 6-player tables) without it taking up all my time and brainspace.

I suspect that in addition to the ... reluctance to abandon a game one knows well, many of the people who dump on 5E don't see bounded accuracy as a fix (probably because they don't see the disparity in bonuses in 3.Pathfinder as a bug). As someone who's played in a party where the Perception bonuses ranged from +1 to >+30, I am inclined to disagree with that, but YMMV.

[Willie the Duck]

To the OP -- there's a meme floating around of Lisa Simpson in front of a Power Point-like presentation, stating, "hating something popular does not make you an interesting person." I don't know if it's part of an actual show, or a text-swap, but it seems appropriate to the situation.


And my EGG signed copies of the three little brown books ... and Greyhawk ... Well said.

Heck, Rob Kuntz, Ernie Gygax, and Mike Mornard are still alive and present on the internet. There are people out there who not only are so hipster they have the shirts showing they were at concerts before the band got famous, but have documented evidence that they were there when the members said, 'hey, let's start a band.' :smalltongue:


About grognards: it's about being old and complaining. It's not necessarily about hating new editions. (look up the etymology of the term).

One thing that I didn't realize until I hit middle age (recently... well, somewhat recently... well, I remember it happening... okay, I remember this about when it happened...) is that you really do feel resentful that you and your interests* are no longer considered pertinent, relevant, and primary. When you realize that your not even in advertisers preferred demographics, it genuinely hurts. And every generation seems to react in the same way -- trying to make diminutive the likes, accomplishments, or traits of the upcoming generations. This is the same reason that people who have no children keep talking about 'kids these days' and re-sharing amongst themselves articles which support that narrative.
*and/or your parents' interests. I still want the 1960s to be a decade or so ago, and 'oldies' stations to be playing 'Rock Around the Clock,' and some of that actually hits home harder than my own stuff being outdated.



Yeah, sounds like you dealt with a butthead. It's totally fine to prefer 3.5 to 5E, or Mutants And Masterminds to Powered By The Apocalypse, or FATE to GURPS, or whatever. What's NOT cool is to crap on someone else for liking something else.

That's what gets me. The total space between 3e and 5e, compared to the total spectra of Tabletop RPGs is so small, you have to assume that someone is only familiar with the two of them, if they try to imply that one is X and the other is some far-extremely different Y. Neither of them are far extremes in anything. They are both moderate depth, moderate crunch, moderate rigor, and based around a system which itself is a mongrel beast (I say that as a good thing) compared to systems built on some purist notion. Further, they were both the 'mainstream game' of their respective era, meaning that both extremely skilled gamers and absolute newbies/casuals/etc. appear in both their fanbases. One is not going to be the 'babies' first' game, because both were the first TTRPG played by plenty of people.

[MossyMeow]

I think humans have a tendency to feel like their enjoyment of something (i.e 3.5e) is invalidated if other people enjoy something else (i.e 5e). It's a toxic and frankly stupid mindset that it is all too rampant among the Internet nowadays. Personally, I love 5e, because I feel it's the easiest to learn and play, and that is an objectively good thing. Because of it, many more people have gotten into the hobby, and there is also a lot more diversity among players. And yet, 3.5e has its charms, though I've never even played it (I mostly know the rules from OOTS :smalltongue:). I just think that people want to believe that their preferred edition of D&D, or whatever, is best, even if that means putting down other people...especially if that means putting down other people.

[Gryndle]

Sunday evening I went to an opening event for a Tabletop Games Social Club with my girlfriend and an other firend. We had fun chatting with the owner of the club and other people, then we agreed to play a one shot with them.
It's been ages since I last played a 3.5 game and I didn't remember at all how different it was from the 5th, and the other friend had actually no experience with 3.5. Making the character sheets took too much and the master got upset and asked us if anything was wrong with it.

DM: "So? Are these sheets ready?"
AG: "Not yet, 3.5 it's a little different from the 5th and I'm having issues with ability scores and abilities..."
DM: "Oh, so you're a 5th player..."
AG: "Yes, is there a problem with it? I'm fine with playing this one shot with the 3.5"
DM: "Yeah but, you play that ****ty edition, so you're not a good player."
AG: "We'll see about that..."

We finished the sheets and started the game. We got our asses roeasted by the DM who claimed it was because we couldn't play properly due to our background as a 5th player.
I didn't got mad about it, but I felt hurt. I really enjoyed 3.5 in the past, but now I'd rather play with the 5th because I find it easyer to master the games, and as a player I have more fun than I had in the past.

I really don't get why the hate on the 5th edition. I'm not saying one is better than the other, they are different editions with different focus, but it hutrs to be labeled as an incompetent player just because I play another edition.

What you experienced there is not actually an edition problem. It's that the DM in question suffers from an unfortunately common medical condition called rectal-cranial inversion. He has his head up his pooper. That kind of personality, it doesn't really matter what the topic is. If you don't agree with them or have a different preference or point of view then they are going to a problem.

on the edition hate: I personally really dislike 3rd/3.5/pathfinder. I refuse to DM those systems or buy books from those editions. It is highly unlikely I would join a new group running those editions. That said, if one of my friends wanted to run a game in those, then I would absolutely play, and probably still enjoy it (and have in the past). And if I couldn't, then I would excuse myself. I certainly wouldn't try to force my preferences or make the game unpleasant for anyone else because of my preferences.

[EggKookoo]

I suspect that in addition to the ... reluctance to abandon a game one knows well, many of the people who dump on 5E don't see bounded accuracy as a fix (probably because they don't see the disparity in bonuses in 3.Pathfinder as a bug). As someone who's played in a party where the Perception bonuses ranged from +1 to >+30, I am inclined to disagree with that, but YMMV.

Another thing to keep in mind is that 3e is functionally a pro-player system, and was built that way in response to feedback gathered by WotC. It restricts the DM to being mostly a narrator and rule-Googler, and philosophically suggests the DM has no real power to affect the outcome of the game aside from making individual NPC decisions. Meanwhile 5e is very much a pro-DM system, with many rules and followup tweets and errata encouraging the DM to make sweeping creative decisions that affect the overall system. This is a fairly deep distinction that, I think, gets obscured by complaints about 5e being too simple.

People who like 3e often do so because it's a game that empowers the player over the DM through system mastery. It's the "peoples D&D" in many respects. 5e comes along and tells us system mastery isn't as important as what the DM wants to have happen. That has to stick in a lot of craws.

[MoiMagnus]

Another thing to keep in mind is that 3e is functionally a pro-player system, and was built that way in response to feedback gathered by WotC. It restricts the DM to being mostly a narrator and rule-Googler, and philosophically suggests the DM has no real power to affect the outcome of the game aside from making individual NPC decisions. Meanwhile 5e is very much a pro-DM system, with many rules and followup tweets and errata encouraging the DM to make sweeping creative decisions that affect the overall system. This is a fairly deep distinction that, I think, gets obscured by complaints about 5e being too simple.

People who like 3e often do so because it's a game that empowers the player over the DM through system mastery. It's the "peoples D&D" in many respects. 5e comes along and tells us system mastery isn't as important as what the DM wants to have happen. That has to stick in a lot of craws.

True. Though 5e was also build in response to feedback by WotC, and tried to tackles the few complains against 3e. (One of them being complexity of character creation at level 1, and the complexity of the game in general.)

But I feel that the main complain they tried to tackle was "I have toxic peoples on my table, could you make a system that does not push them to be even more toxic?", for example:
+ DM as a NPC-player can often degenerate as an "Adversarial DM". While a story-teller DM is supposed to be on the same side as players.
+ A lot of toxic players tend to ruin the fun once they reach a high enough level of system mastery. By making system mastery irrelevant, you reduce their influence on the table.
+ In 3.X, a new player can end up with a near-unplayable character (or at least very ineffective). And can remain locked in this situation if on top of that, the DM is kind of a jerk and is too rule-abiding to allow the player to change of character (without starting back from zero), or houserule a little. In 5e, making an unplayable character by mistake is near impossible, and the DM is much more encouraged to adapt the rules.

[KorvinStarmast]

While this isn't false, really a lot of hate for 5e just comes from it being the new kid. People hated 3e when it came out because it wasn't 2e. And becuase a few hundred dollars worth of books are slowly being made redundant? :smalleek: And about all that money invested in those books
If you came to D&D with 3e, it can feel like what you like about the game is being retroactively invalidated. Seems to happen with each major release.

Yeah, man! I remember when the Greyhawk paperback supplement to the the “Three Booklets” came out and used a D20 system instead of the Chainmail system. Heretics!. The alternate combat system was in Men and Magic, pre Greyhawk. :smallwink: Most people found the ACS better though all them funny shaped dice were kinda weird at first.

Heck, Rob Kuntz, Ernie Gygax, and Mike Mornard are still alive and present on the internet. I didn't meet EGG, I acquired those books second hand.

is that you really do feel resentful that you and your interests* are no longer considered pertinent, relevant, and primary. When you realize that your not even in advertisers preferred demographics, it genuinely hurts. Hmm. I just ignore more ads than I used to. I am aware that the 18-45 demographic is the sweet spot for advertisers, and I was out of that box over a decade ago. AARP loves me, but little of what they offer me besides room rate discouts appeals to me.

And every generation seems to react in the same way -- trying to make diminutive the likes, accomplishments, or traits of the upcoming generations. The folks who grew up during the Depression (my parent's generation) did likewise. It's a thing, I guess. As to your take on 3e and 5e.

They are both moderate depth, moderate crunch, moderate rigor, and based around a system which itself is a mongrel beast (I say that as a good thing) compared to systems built on some purist notion. Well said, Sir William.

[EggKookoo]

And becuase a few hundred dollars worth of books are slowly being made redundant? :smalleek: And about all that money invested in those books

Of course, but that's also more predictable. I mean, your 5e investments (such as they may be) are going to eventually be made worthless by 6e. You know that now, not much point getting too mad about it when it happens.

But if you're a die hard 5e fan and 6e turns out to be a return to a 3e-style systems-mastery-diminished-DM structure and is like an order of magnitude more successful and popular than 5e out of the gate? Break out the pitchforks!


Seems to happen with each major release.

To some degree or another. Second edition didn't invalidate 1e too much. I've said before that by modern standards, 2e is really 1.5e. It's almost the same exact game. There was definitely some resentment from old 1e players toward 2e because it was new and shiny, but that's always going to happen.

Third edition was a major departure from 2e, and caused quite a bit of resentment. Many players I know simply refused to change, and continue to play 2e to this day (although at least one solid 2e fan I know IRL has admitted to liking 5e).

3.5 did the book-invalidation thing without changing the rules or philosophy behind them much. That definitely caused some pitchfork-sharpening (enough for Paizo to take advantage of it), but mainly because 3.5 came out so soon after 3.0. The outrage would have been less if 3.5 came out just three years later.

I don't know who the market for 4e was. Was it disgruntled 3e players? Leftover 1e players? World of Warcraft players? I have trouble imagining it wooed too many older edition players away from their favorite.

5e upended 3e like 3e upended 2e. I think part of the pain isn't just that 5e changed things, but that it changed things back. It made 3e feel like less of a significant step toward some utopian D&D perfection and more like a misstep.

[Dudu]

Sorry, this is ridiculous.

Did that DM truly think players of 5ed were less capable than 3.5ed players? The cluesness is astounding.

I was introduced to 3.5 right when it shifted from 3.0 to 3.5 (in fact, I own the 3 core rulebooks of 3.0 to this day).
There's absolutely nothing more challenging in 3.5. There is something more confusing about it, though. But the typical 3.5 campaign isn't more challenging than the 5.0 one. In fact, it probably is less challenging, since 3.5 is so abusable, you can be a wizard who scry and die the final boss, a cleric who stocks up with persistent uber buffs and a druid who casts spells while shapeshifts into a broken dinosaur. The lack of so many broken options in 5.0 forces the players to actually devise a clever strategy instead of relying on crazy combos to obliterate stuff that has more CR than you have HP.

On the hate on 5ed, never saw it. I do see some people who likes 3.5 more, and it's natural. 3.5, broken as it is, still is more lively somehow, with it's thousands of feats, spells and prestige classes. You can lose yourself into dozens of splatbooks just to make that unique, uber powerful character you have in mind. But even those 3.5 lovers recognize that 5.0 is quite an elegant system.

[KorvinStarmast]

your 5e investments (such as they may be) are going to eventually be made worthless by 6e. Heh, I still have my AD&D 1e books, I can run that whenever I want to. :)

Break out the pitchforks!
*Chuckle* I'll vote with my dollars.

Second edition didn't invalidate 1e too much. I've said before that by modern standards, 2e is really 1.5e. It's almost the same exact game. Yes, with a lot of stuff cleaned up and some good ideas folded in from 15 years of Dragon Magazine, etc ...

Third edition was a major departure from 2e, and caused quite a bit of resentment. Many players I know simply refused to change, and continue to play 2e to this day (although at least one solid 2e fan I know IRL has admitted to liking 5e).I bought some 3e and 3.5e stuff so I could play with my brother and my nephew. The 3 core books were not all that big of a bit to my hobby budget.

5e upended 3e like 3e upended 2e. I've not seen it that way, but that's an interesting perspective. I think that Pathfinder versus 4e is what drove the decision to 5e, but I may be wrong about that.

It made 3e feel like less of a significant step toward some utopian D&D perfection and more like a misstep. Which is too bad since 3.x did some nice cleaning up and reorganizing of things across the board, structurally.
I just ran out of time and hobby money/interest to get invested in it. A lot of people had a lot of fun with that edition.

[EggKookoo]

I've not seen it that way, but that's an interesting perspective. I think that Pathfinder versus 4e is what drove the decision to 5e, but I may be wrong about that.

I don't disagree in principle, but I'm not sure 4e had enough impact to drive anyone anywhere.


Which is too bad since 3.x did some nice cleaning up and reorganizing of things across the board, structurally.

Oh, totally agree! There's a lot to admire in 3e. I just think they went too far with some concepts, like building NPCs as PCs with creature levels and whatnot. And the runaway bonuses. It made DMing a pain, especially at higher levels. Again, DMing is hard at high levels for any edition, but 3e is in a class by itself.

I did read not long after it was released that Fifth Edition was the "best version of Third Edition yet!"

[Max_Killjoy]

Funny thing is, from an outside perspective, 3.x and 5e share far more than they don't.

As for "system mastery" in the context of 3.x ... to me that always came across as an excuse for the trap options, convoluted builds, needing to plot out your entire character progression before putting anything on the character sheet just to come vaguely close to your concept a year or more into the campaign, counter-intuitive and contradictory rules, etc.

[Keravath]

Never had that problem, but even so, a DM who says no to official classes published by WoTC is an extreme no DM. Probably not a table I'd sit at anyways.

I'd have to disagree with that. Most of the 5e published content is "balanced" compared to some of the material in officially published splat books (or even core books) for the earlier editions. There were options in earlier editions that would totally dominate other choices. It is a perfectly reasonable choice for a DM to say No to official content on the basis that it wasn't balanced or didn't fit with the lore of their game world.

5e on the other hand hasn't officially published anything that is so much better than everything else. "Tier" lists for 5e are possible but pretty much every character built can contribute whereas tier lists in earlier versions could define which classes were clearly better than others and at what levels.

In games where official content varies widely in balance and quantity because they want to sell splat books ... the DM is perfectly justified leaving some of that content out of their game worlds.

[MaxWilson]

IMO, the core issue with 3.x and its "barrier to entry" rests on Monte Cook's belief in System Mastery as a virtue (and as an old AD&D player, I see where he is coming from on that). The unfortunate existence of "trap options." (I won't discuss balance, but that is related) almost requires system mastery, or so it seems.

Monte Cook's position on trap options is entirely reasonable IMO, although lots of people missed his point. Quoting from Monte Cook's essay (emphasis mine):



Magic also has a concept of "Timmy cards." These are cards that look cool, but aren't actually that great in the game. The purpose of such cards is to reward people for really mastering the game, and making players feel smart when they've figured out that one card is better than the other. While D&D doesn't exactly do that, it is true that certain game choices are deliberately better than others.

Toughness, for example, has its uses, but in most cases it's not the best choice of feat. If you can use martial weapons, a longsword is better than many other one-handed weapons. And so on -- there are many other, far more intricate examples. (Arguably, this kind of thing has always existed in D&D. Mostly, we just made sure that we didn't design it away -- we wanted to reward mastery of the game.)

There's a third concept that we took from Magic-style rules design, though. Only with six years of hindsight do I call the concept "Ivory Tower Game Design." (Perhaps a bit of misnomer, but it's got a ring to it.) This is the approach we took in 3rd Edition: basically just laying out the rules without a lot of advice or help. This strategy relates tangentially to the second point above. The idea here is that the game just gives the rules, and players figure out the ins and outs for themselves -- players are rewarded for achieving mastery of the rules and making good choices rather than poor ones.

Perhaps as is obvious from the name I've coined for this rules writing style, I no longer think this is entirely a good idea. I was just reading a passage from a recent book, and I found it rather obtuse. But it wasn't the writer's fault. He was just following the lead the core books offered him. Nevertheless, the whole thing would have been much better if the writer had just broken through the barrier this kind of design sets up between designer and player and just told the reader what the heck he was talking about.

To continue to use the simplistic example above, the Toughness feat could have been written to make it clear that it was for 1st-level elf wizards (where it is likely to give them a 100 percent increase in hit points). It's also handy when you know you're playing a one-shot session with 1st-level characters, like at a convention (you sure don't want to take item creation feats in such an instance, for example).

Ivory Tower Game Design requires a two-step process on the part of the reader. You read the rule, and then you think about how it fits in with the rest of the game. There's a moment of understanding, and then a moment of comprehension. That's not a terrible thing, but neither is just providing the reader with both steps, at least some of the time.

Translation: "I wish we had given more player guidance about when to use what."

Notice that 5E still has trap options, i.e. highly-situational options like Weapon Master, and is still written from the Ivory Tower perspective. You've got a table of weapons in the PHB, and some of them like the greatsword (2d6) are just straight-up better than others (maul for 1d10), and the reader is still expected to just figure out the relationship between them as opposed to the PHB saying, "A greatsword is more expensive than a maul but the upgrade is worthwhile if you can afford it!"

In fact, the whole reason Internet "guides" for spells and class features exist is to fill the gap for people who want to consume this kind of editorializing but don't get it from the actual game books. Monte Cook's point was that maybe the game books should have at least some editorializing, and IMO he's probably correct.

[GreyBlack]

To counter this point 3.X has a lot of bad/trap options available. A player has to almost reverse-engineer their entire character plan from top to bottom to make sure they don't make a poor choice somewhere along the line and lock themselves into a useless character where it's a challenge to make a bad character in 5e.
I play and run both games and I'd say I see way more variety of builds in 5e than 3.x.
Using your devotion Paladin example: in 5e you can have two players with the same subclass have entirely different characters with little to no thought where in 3.x, excluding free casting crusader cheese, there are few ways to built paladin's that aren't going to completely fall off at one point or another.

you just can't have the number of options that ended up occurring in the system and have a balanced game. It doesn't matter if you have 10,000 options if only 12 of them are good.

If you're only looking at relative power levels, sure. That said... many players like that idea of system mastery. Are you going to tell them they're having fun wrong because it's what they like?

It may not be what you're into, but that's why I worded it that way. 5e has options like that, but they're incredibly limited compared to the mind boggling breadth available in 3.x and it turns players who like that system mastery off.

Not for you? Great. Keep playing 5e.

[Keravath]

To the OP, the DM in question was being rude. They are completely welcome to their opinion on any version of any game but denigrating someone else based on their preferences isn't appropriate.

I've played everything from AD&D 1e to 5e, I didn't play Chainmail but a friend did have the original D&D box set. Anyway, each version of D&D has had its strengths and weaknesses. Like a lot of folks I didn't care that much for 4e. I didn't like the lack of differentiation in class mechanics, everything felt the same to me no matter which class I was playing but I only have experience with low level play in 4e.

1e was fun but "balance" was in the imagination. Save or suck spells. Level caps for non-humans. Multi-classing vs dual classing. The wizard was unbelievably bad for the first few levels while fighters were great. At high levels, one spell could change an encounter.

2e was a clean up and additional content on 1e

3e was a re-write which tried to streamline some of the mechanics and make it a bit easier to understand while 3->3.5->PF layered rules/classes/feats/extended splat books into what became a mechanically very heavy system. Characters could specialize in some skills or abilities to the point where they seemed almost unstoppable. Prestige classes, ultra high level advancement, epic levels and epic playstyles. Power gamer and min/max paradise in some ways but for the rest there were opportunities to create characters that could just not compete with the "optimal" choices.

4e tried to go in the completely opposite direction with balance across classes and levels being a goal and mechanics that I honestly think were intended to make mapping it to a video game very straight forward. Some folks loved it, others didn't like it because it felt completely different from the previous versions of D&D with the exception of the "lore" or "fluff".

5e is a compromise. Better balance and character power scaling reigned in. Re-introduce the mechanical flavor and differences between classes that were the hallmark of 1e-3e. Overall, I think it was successful at this goal and I think this is reflected in the increased popularity. The game is a lot more accessible without concepts like Thac0 and without hundreds of feats/classes/races that leave gaps for optimization (even 5e has a few of these optimization issues but nothing like 3.5).

Some people love mechanics so 5e lets them down and they don't like it. Others have fond memories of games in specific versions and they are most comfortable with the mechanics so 5e feels foreign. There are lots of reasons but preference of game version is not a good basis for deciding player skill :).

I've played all the versions to some extent or another, and personally, I like 5e the best of the D&D systems so far, it seems to hit a sweet spot for me in terms of role play and mechanics. (I've also played Traveller, GURPS, Shadowrun, Rolemaster (now that one is detailed :) .. if I remember correctly, it was a while ago), MERPS and others to varying degrees ... each has their strengths and weaknesses but I started with D&D and usually come back to it :) ).

[Waazraath]

Monte Cook's position on trap options is entirely reasonable IMO, although lots of people missed his point. Quoting from Monte Cook's essay:



Notice that 5E still has trap options, i.e. highly-situational options like Weapon Master, and is still written from the Ivory Tower perspective. You've got a table of weapons in the PHB, and some of them like the greatsword (2d6) are just straight-up better than others (maul for 1d10), and the reader is still expected to just figure out the relationship between them as opposed to the PHB saying, "A greatsword is more expensive than a maul but the upgrade is worthwhile if you can afford it!"

In fact, the whole reason Internet "guides" for spells and class features exist is to fill the gap for people who want to consume this kind of editorializing but don't get it from the actual game books. Monte Cook's point was that maybe the game books should have at least some editorializing, and IMO he's probably correct.

Nitpick: a maul does 2d6 damage.

More in general, imo: rewarding system mastery: fine. Trap options: not fine. Ivory Tower perspective is a helluva lot less in 5e, there are much fewer trap options, and the game is designed that even picking a bad feat doesn't cripple a character. The only classes that can really cripple a build are classes like Sorcerer and Warlock, who are depending on a few choices in spells / invocations / metamagic. Mess up those, and you can be a lot less useful. A sidebar 'new player be careful with this class' wouldn't have hurt. But besides this (casters with limited spell selection), you can't really mess up a character, unless you pick up a bbn with 8 str and 7 con. But at this point, somebody probably is playing a game that's too difficult anyway.

[MaxWilson]

Nitpick: a maul does 2d6 damage.

Heh. You're right, I should have checked the table. I think I'm probably thinking of the greatclub.


More in general, imo: rewarding system mastery: fine. Trap options: not fine. Ivory Tower perspective is a ----- lot less in 5e, there are much fewer trap options, and the game is designed that even picking a bad feat doesn't cripple a character. The only classes that can really cripple a build are classes like Sorcerer and Warlock, who are depending on a few choices in spells / invocations / metamagic. Mess up those, and you can be a lot less useful. A sidebar 'new player be careful with this class' wouldn't have hurt. But besides this (casters with limited spell selection), you can't really mess up a character, unless you pick up a bbn with 8 str and 7 con. But at this point, somebody probably is playing a game that's too difficult anyway.

Ivory Tower perspective is ubiquitous in 5E. It's always just, "Here's a rule/option/spell," never "Here's a rule/option/spell and some editorializing on when to use it." (Edit to add: and I think that's okay actually. I'm not as anti-Ivory Tower as Monte Cook is, especially since (A)D&D has been Ivory Tower since the very beginning. My point is simply that Monte Cook's point was not that trap options are good, it was that they maybe should be communicated more clearly.)

Maybe you mean "Ivory Tower is not as harmful in 5E as in 3E," and for all I know you're right (I never played 3E except for IWD2 and ToEE CRPGs), but it's certainly prevalent, and 5E does have a ton of trap options. The main reason this doesn't cause serious harm in 5E is that the game is calibrated to be almost impossible to fail, even if you do take all of the trap options instead of powerful options, but that doesn't mean that large power gaps don't exist: a well-built PC party can take on at least 2x to 3x as many monsters per adventuring day as a poorly-built one, even if both are played intelligently.

[stoutstien]

If you're only looking at relative power levels, sure. That said... many players like that idea of system mastery. Are you going to tell them they're having fun wrong because it's what they like?

It may not be what you're into, but that's why I worded it that way. 5e has options like that, but they're incredibly limited compared to the mind boggling breadth available in 3.x and it turns players who like that system mastery off.

Not for you? Great. Keep playing 5e.

Like I said I play both. I was just pointing out when you take in all the factors the number of real options dwindle if you want to have the whole table on the same relative power level.

I would like to see a mix of the two in the future.

[Waazraath]

Heh. You're right, I should have checked the table. I think I'm probably thinking of the greatclub.

...

Maybe you mean "Ivory Tower is not as harmful in 5E as in 3E," and for all I know you're right (I never played 3E except for IWD2 and ToEE CRPGs), but it's certainly prevalent, and 5E does have a ton of trap options. The main reason this doesn't cause serious harm in 5E is that the game is calibrated to be almost impossible to fail, even if you do take all of the trap options instead of powerful options, but that doesn't mean that large power gaps don't exist: a well-built PC party can take on at least 2x to 3x as many monsters per adventuring day as a poorly-built one, even if both are played intelligently.

Yeah, that's indeed what I meant. In 3.x, picking bad options would cripple a build into unplayability really easy. In 5e, bad choices aren't that bad in effect (which is why I wouldn't use the word 'trap' their too easily, but that's semantics - I think we agree on the contents).

[Warwick]

Trap options are an implicit consequence of allowing system mastery to have a significant impact - in order for some things to be good, other things have to be bad. A bigger issue was that the trap options were core archetypes. There was a high probability that if you had "fighter" written anywhere on your character sheet you had failed character creation.

Trap options are also a risk greater character options (not a necessary consequence, but balance becomes too complex very quickly). 5e handles this by giving fewer options to players and making it much harder to cross the streams (feats and multiclassing are optional rules, if ones everyone plays with, and prestige classes are replaced with class-specific subclasses that are locked in at lvl 1-3). The tradeoff is that you don't get people rolling up to the table with some absurd combination that snaps the game's power expectations in half.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah, that's indeed what I meant. In 3.x, picking bad options would cripple a build into unplayability really easy. In 5e, bad choices aren't that bad in effect (which is why I wouldn't use the word 'trap' their too easily, but that's semantics - I think we agree on the contents).

I agree that "trap" isn't a great word, and I wouldn't use it at all normally outside the context of this thread where someone else said "trap" first--I'd say "highly situational." Monte Cook's example was the Toughness feat, useful in a specific handful of situations, which isn't quite the same thing as a trap that deliberately and maliciously harms you.

I think we're basically on the same page, except for me not knowing much about 3E except that they ditched most of AD&D's restrictions on spellcasters and spellcasting, gave clerics a bunch of extra attacks, and made crafting magic items extremely easy.

In 5E, strong build choices are overkill really unless you or your DM has cranked the difficulty way up. That doesn't mean huge power gaps don't exist, it just means there's no practical difference between successfully completing a WotC adventure, and successfully soloing a WotC adventure without using up more than 20% of your spell slots or losing more than 30% of your HP. Do we agree on that?

[Segev]

"Trap options" is deceptive, too. If you take it to mean, "There must be feats that are worse than others," then no, you're wrong. Yes, that does constitute a shallow level of system mastery for people to be able to recognize that not all feats are created equal, and to avoid those which are just bad. Or which are only good on very specific builds.

But you can have system mastery be rewarded without having such blatantly schmuck-bait trap options. Taking Power Attack and Great Cleave on your archer or your wizard is probably a bad idea, and would be a "Trap Option" in that it's valid to take. System mastery tells you it's a bad idea.

In addition, however, system mastery can be rewarded by having seemingly weaker options which shine when combined cleverly with certain other options. They're made less "oh you're so clever" if they are also gated behind those options, but that can still be good to prevent traps. That said, synnergy can be across multiple combinations, so gating won't always be appropriate.

But a well-designed system doesn't need trap options of the shallow, schmuck-baity sort to reward system mastery. 3.PF has plenty of perfectly good options, and even some great high-optimization choices, which take system mastery to figure out; the trap options that are just never taken are just never taken for a reason, and don't really reward system mastery.

[MaxWilson]

Trap options are also a risk greater character options (not a necessary consequence, but balance becomes too complex very quickly). 5e handles this by giving fewer options to players and making it much harder to cross the streams (feats and multiclassing are optional rules, if ones everyone plays with, and prestige classes are replaced with class-specific subclasses that are locked in at lvl 1-3). The tradeoff is that you don't get people rolling up to the table with some absurd combination that snaps the game's power expectations in half.

5E has plenty of these. Healing 2000+ HP per long rest by 10th level snaps the game's power assumptions in half. So does Planar Binding a dozen Air and Earth Elementals. To a lesser extent, so does Shepherd Druid Conjure Animals V + Bear Totem, or a squishy wizard Magic Jarring into a werebear's body for weapon immunity + extra HP. Do you want to play a Champion sword-and-shield Fighter in a game where the werebear-wearing wizard is tanking better than you are thanks to his weapon immunity?

If you want to tell me that 3E has even more gamebreaking combinations, I'll believe you, but don't try to tell me that 5E doesn't have them too. It's still a WotC game.

[Bigmouth]

First off, that GM was a d*ck, nothing to do with the game edition.

Personally I haven't seen/met anyone who HATES 5E. Conversely I haven't met any who LOVE it either. At least once the shiny glow of "It's not 4E part 2" was over. It seems to fall safely into the realm of "It's okay." One of my wife's friend was deeply in love with it when we got it at GenCon. Raved about it the entire 8 hour drive back home, comparing it flatteringly to 'Mathfinder" and 4E. His love affair lasted about 4 sessions. (Sadly, as it was one of the few chance for me to play rather than run). Several other gamers from IRL fell along the wayside in similar fashion.

I get liking 3.5 more than 5 (though I understand less liking 3.5 more than Pathfinder). Enjoying the character building mini-game is a real thing and one that seems pretty lacking in 5E. Combat seems dumbed down. Concentration too limiting. Some simplifications don't seem like enhancements (like removing low light vision). But hating it? Hate seems like a stretch when they are still pretty close. But I suppose there are people out there who can hate things pretty easily.

For the record, I liked 4E (And got a large group of haters to end up liking it as well). If it weren't for the fact it loses so much when a battlemap is being used, I'd probably be switching back. (Overly simplified of course, plenty of other reasons).

[Segev]

I really like it. I would put it in the same ballpark of quality as 3.5/PF, though I will acknowledge that there is more material and options in the latter. They're different enough that I would use them for different things, despite both being recognizably "D&D." In some sense, I'd actually give 5e the "more D&D-like" award between the two, but not so much that I would call it detracting from 3e's claim to being D&D. 5e just did a really good job of deliberately recapturing some of the older-school flavor while keeping a lot of the good (not all, but a lot) from 3e.

It also was bold in introducing new, cool toys, which is refreshing.

[Kane0]

Personally I haven't seen/met anyone who HATES 5E. Conversely I haven't met any who LOVE it either. At least once the shiny glow of "It's not 4E part 2" was over. It seems to fall safely into the realm of "It's okay."

*Raises hand*

[EggKookoo]

*Raises hand*

Me too. It's certainly my favorite edition, and by a large margin (I liked a lot about 2e, too). But then, these days I'm all DMing and no playing, and 5e is a DM's dream.

[MaxWilson]

*Raises hand*

As a lover or a hater?

[ZorroGames]

When you say you “love” or “hate” 5e does it matter if it is AL or Homebrew?

I prefer 5e over any version after OD&D with the original AD&D (before ‘2nd edition’) a clear third choice. Just reading 3.x or 4 in the PHB tomes totally made me retch then sell the books at a loss. If I want a “complicated” game I will pull out some 1970s ancients rules - there some doozies there... including one by Gygax.

Play what you enjoy and let others do the same.

BTW, your DM, OP, was a classic jerk of the first water. “ Wow, all he could say was wow,” to quote a children’s book from my youngest two kids’ days of bed time stories.

🤯

[Luccan]

First off, that GM was a d*ck, nothing to do with the game edition.

Personally I haven't seen/met anyone who HATES 5E. Conversely I haven't met any who LOVE it either. At least once the shiny glow of "It's not 4E part 2" was over. It seems to fall safely into the realm of "It's okay." One of my wife's friend was deeply in love with it when we got it at GenCon. Raved about it the entire 8 hour drive back home, comparing it flatteringly to 'Mathfinder" and 4E. His love affair lasted about 4 sessions. (Sadly, as it was one of the few chance for me to play rather than run). Several other gamers from IRL fell along the wayside in similar fashion.

I get liking 3.5 more than 5 (though I understand less liking 3.5 more than Pathfinder). Enjoying the character building mini-game is a real thing and one that seems pretty lacking in 5E. Combat seems dumbed down. Concentration too limiting. Some simplifications don't seem like enhancements (like removing low light vision). But hating it? Hate seems like a stretch when they are still pretty close. But I suppose there are people out there who can hate things pretty easily.

For the record, I liked 4E (And got a large group of haters to end up liking it as well). If it weren't for the fact it loses so much when a battlemap is being used, I'd probably be switching back. (Overly simplified of course, plenty of other reasons).

I'd say it's probably my favorite edition overall. I like things about all the versions of D&D I've played, but 5e hits the sweetspot for me. Other systems I've had experience with don't usually grab me in the same way D&D does, even if they're mechanically solid. I suspect a good setting with a system tied into it would give 5e a run for its money, but I'll admit my experience there is pretty limited. So I'd say I love 5e as much as I can love a system of game rules with some loose setting expectations.

[prabe]

I'd count myself as another one who loves 5E. I'll admit I'm not doing AL or even published adventures, but it's wonderfully straightforward for what I'm doing and it rarely behaves in ways I don't anticipate.

[EggKookoo]

What I like about D&D in general and 5e in particular is how it walks a quirky line between concrete nuts & bolts mechanics and quantum-mechanics-like abstraction. There are more grounded and logical systems out there but they lack sufficient gaps to stimulate my imagination. There are more abstract and pure "theater of the mind" systems but they feel loose and floaty. D&D has an alchemy that feels right for me.

I mean, just for an example, I love the ridiculous non-logic of how magic missile can unerringly strike a creature that the player selects even if the caster can't isolate it in a crowd. The player knowing that the creature is there is enough for the spell to work. That's insane, but it's also great. Few other systems would have the guts to do that.

And it's not just nostalgia. I played many hours of Villains & Vigilantes, World of Darkness (mostly Werewolf: The Apocalypse), DC Heroes, and probably some number of game-years (or at least many game-months) of Call of Cthulhu before I played more than a token session of D&D. Once I started with D&D in earnest back in the 2e days, I was hooked.

[Kane0]

As a lover or a hater?

Lover. It's very easy to play, DM and 'brew.

[Max_Killjoy]

Something to ponder when looking at varied opinions on systems and approaches.

http://arsludi.lamemage.com/index.php/29/same-description-same-rule/
https://thealexandrian.net/wordpress/3924/roleplaying-games/rules-vs-rulings

[CorporateSlave]

The DM isn't wrong, he's entitled to his opinion.

The DM is wrong. He is insulting to his players and left (at least) one feeling hurt after the game.

Congrats, ******y DM, you found the one way to lose at an RPG...to make it so the players don't have fun.

[KorvinStarmast]

Lover. It's very easy to play, DM and 'brew. I feel the love.
5e brought me back to the game after a long absence.

And to the hobby.

In the last two years, I have also played Honey Heist, Great Ork Gods, Golden Sky Stories, Dungeon world, and recently a Tunnels and Trolls game has cropped up that I hope becomes an ongoing campaign. One of these days I hope to run a Lady Blackbird session, but I need to get the right group of people together.

5e does a lot of things well, and it returns the game to "here's my ruling, play on" which is how it was supposed to happen.

My favorite Dave Arneson quote: Rules lawyers are the enemy

(Or worlds almost exactly like that)

[Morty]

I don't like 5E a lot, but what elevates it above 3E (which, to be fair, isn't hard, as 3E is my least favorite system of all I've seen or played) is that it plays to its strengths a lot more.

3E tries to be varied, customizable and whatnot, but the class/level system will directly hinder any attempts at doing so. So it needs mountains of supplementary material to even get close to its goal. 5E tries to deliver a predictable, recognisable and accessible D&D experience, which levels and classes do actually help with.

[Ignimortis]

Personally I haven't seen/met anyone who HATES 5E. Conversely I haven't met any who LOVE it either.

I wouldn't call it hate, but I dislike 5e deeply despite playing it from time to time (then again, each time I play it, I remember why I dislike it). It takes everything I didn't like about 3.5 and Pathfinder (boring core classes, insistence on "mundane martials and fantastic casters", resource-driven extended adventure day) and drops everything I liked about 3.5 or Pathfinder (wacky and cool subsystems, more limited casters in supplements, flexible adventuring day once you got into aforementioned subsystems, the ability to optimize a subpar concept to workable levels, the progression from zero to demigod).

Worst part is, most people seem to genuinely like this and so there's very little hope that further releases will be anything far removed from 5e.

[GreyBlack]

Like I said I play both. I was just pointing out when you take in all the factors the number of real options dwindle if you want to have the whole table on the same relative power level.

I would like to see a mix of the two in the future.

Oh, apologies. Meant the royal "you". Again, 5e is very middle ground in approach, so it allows new players to explore which parts of the game are appealing and which aren't. And part of the appeal of 3.x is some of the trash options because it makes you feel that much smarter and better at the game when you pick the right ones.

Not a game for everyone; some will prefer the 4e model over that, some will go for 1e/2e, etc.

[EggKookoo]

Worst part is, most people seem to genuinely like this and so there's very little hope that further releases will be anything far removed from 5e.

I suspect it will be a good long time before we see a new edition. WotC knows what they have here, in terms of sales.

[Waazraath]

I agree that "trap" isn't a great word, and I wouldn't use it at all normally outside the context of this thread where someone else said "trap" first--I'd say "highly situational." Monte Cook's example was the Toughness feat, useful in a specific handful of situations, which isn't quite the same thing as a trap that deliberately and maliciously harms you.

I think we're basically on the same page, except for me not knowing much about 3E except that they ditched most of AD&D's restrictions on spellcasters and spellcasting, gave clerics a bunch of extra attacks, and made crafting magic items extremely easy.

In 5E, strong build choices are overkill really unless you or your DM has cranked the difficulty way up. That doesn't mean huge power gaps don't exist, it just means there's no practical difference between successfully completing a WotC adventure, and successfully soloing a WotC adventure without using up more than 20% of your spell slots or losing more than 30% of your HP. Do we agree on that?

Yeah, think we are mostly on the same page here.

[ZorroGames]

I suspect it will be a good long time before we see a new edition. WotC knows what they have here, in terms of sales.

Thank you {Scrubbed}

I for one really do not want another edition in the near future ( say several years.)

The people who like 0D&D, AD&D both versions, 3.x, PF, 4e, all can play those happily without trying to force 5e into a clone of their preferences. Yes I play AL but I have begun to sketch out a world (my third since the early 1970s counting befor D&D was published) for playing that probably will be about 90+% AL like.

I know, heresy!

If you dislike a game system - don’t play it. There, wasn’t that easy?!

[Bigmouth]

*Raises hand*

Heh. If I was including people I met online, then yes, I suppose I would have to say I have met people who love 5E. Oddly, they mostly seem to be found on 5E forums that I frequent. :smallsmile:

In the meat world, the people I know who like nuts and bolts prefer PF. The people who don't like all that mechanical stuff prefer Dungeon World or FATE. 5E seems to occupy the middle ground. My PFers don't like it more than DW or FATE and my DW/FATE crew don't hate it the way that they hate "Mathfinder".

[GreyBlack]

Heh. If I was including people I met online, then yes, I suppose I would have to say I have met people who love 5E. Oddly, they mostly seem to be found on 5E forums that I frequent. :smallsmile:

In the meat world, the people I know who like nuts and bolts prefer PF. The people who don't like all that mechanical stuff prefer Dungeon World or FATE. 5E seems to occupy the middle ground. My PFers don't like it more than DW or FATE and my DW/FATE crew don't hate it the way that they hate "Mathfinder".

Whoah there, you can't go bringing the meat world into a 5e internet forum. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules of the internet.

[ZorroGames]

Whoah there, you can't go bringing the meat world into a 5e internet forum. I'm pretty sure that's against the rules of the internet.

OMG, how true! LOL! 😉😅😂🤪

[patchyman]

Count me as one of the fans of 5e. The people I play with mostly have families and careers, so they don’t have the time/inclination to master a new complex rule set.

On the other hand, FATE and similar systems work well if you grok the ruleset, but some of my players don’t, and it feels a bit too freeform for my taste.

[MilkmanDanimal]

Have been playing TTRPGs for almost 40 years, and 5e's my favorite game ever. It's intuitive, fits together, and provides just enough of a rules framework so I can get moving, and, while it's not perfect, it's balanced well-enough that you can just play any character you want and be fine. Half-Orc Wizard? Sure, why not. Goliath DEX-based Rogue? What the heck. Sure, you're not optimal, but 5e punishes you far, far less for being non-optimal than so many other games, and the thing I grew to really dislike about 3.5 was not that you could optimize, but you HAD to optimize. If one person at your table has the right build and has planned the right classes/prestige classes/feats, they'll so far outshine the non-optimized characters that they might as well not show up. There's a massive gulf in terms of character capability in 3.5, and all those options wound up making the game have way less flexibility in the long run, because you were locked into your build from level 1 on and could just switch on the fly to something that sounded interesting, which I've been able to do in 5e without an issue.

People who really know 3.5 know how to more or less beat the system, and find all the ways to make their characters basically walking gods, and 5e doesn't have that. For me, that's a huge, huge advantage, because I don't want homework; I want fun.

[ZorroGames]

Snip

People who really know 3.5 know how to more or less beat the system, and find all the ways to make their characters basically walking gods, and 5e doesn't have that. For me, that's a huge, huge advantage, because I don't want homework; I want fun.

Roger that. If it is work but not fun - Why play the system? To show off your brilliance in a game?

[Kane0]

In the meat world, the people I know who like nuts and bolts prefer PF. The people who don't like all that mechanical stuff prefer Dungeon World or FATE. 5E seems to occupy the middle ground. My PFers don't like it more than DW or FATE and my DW/FATE crew don't hate it the way that they hate "Mathfinder".

I would see more if all the FLGS in my area hadn't died off like flies :smallannoyed:

I've slowly been winning over the PF group one by one to 5e, ironically I think the PF2 playtest did to them what 4e did to many 3.5 players.

[FilthyLucre]

IMO 5e absolutely does lack for crunch/options. The only reason I play it over 3.5 is because of bounded accuracy.

[Morty]

When it comes to comparing flexibility, I think it's worthwhile to take a look at 5E's core rules versus 3E's core rules, without taking supplementary materials into account. I think 5E is actually more flexible if you just take the basic books. There's some concepts you can't realize in 3E without splatbooks but that are plug and play in 5E.

[MoiMagnus]

When it comes to comparing flexibility, I think it's worthwhile to take a look at 5E's core rules versus 3E's core rules, without taking supplementary materials into account. I think 5E is actually more flexible if you just take the basic books. There's some concepts you can't realize in 3E without splatbooks but that are plug and play in 5E.

I feel like it kind of depends on when do you consider a character concept is realized in a system.

Is it when you manage to build a character that mostly behave as what the character concept should, or is it when the system is precise enough to make your character concept be mechanically different from other character concepts that are similar?

As a simple example, we can take "forbidden school" from the wizard from 3e. You can build a 5e Wizard that does not take any spell of a certain school for background reasons, but does that count as the character concept of "a wizard that cannot cast spells of school X" as realized?

[Great Dragon]

IMO 5e absolutely does lack for crunch/options.
The only reason I play it over 3.5 is because of bounded accuracy.

Personally, I don't play D&D to be The Guy at the Gym (but that's another Rant)

I'm still not 100% sold on Bounded Accuracy.
Sure, it's great for 'regular' play. And spells aren't overwhelming because of it.

But honestly, adding any magical weapons/armor into the game automatically breaks Bounded Accuracy.

But then, I don't really see that big a deal that the Base CR 1/8 monster (or 1st level NPC) can't hit the 17+ level PC/s. By the time the PC/s are in Fourth Tier, things from Tier One shouldn't even be on their Radar as something to worry about. It's nice that those poor Newby PC/s still have a 10% chance of not insta-dying from the (Evil) Mage King's Death Ray - but really why are those Newbies anywhere near the 20th level BBEG anyway?

That said, I do like 5e - while more 'Good' options from past Editions could have been included and fewer 'Bad' options could have been dropped (I sometimes wonder if any of the Devs actually play the game) 5e is a great Gateway for getting more New Players into the game. And like it or not, us Grognards need to recognize that we need more Newbies, for the Game to survive.

But, I still like 3x D&D, although I'm going to bring some of the 5e stuff back into it, if I ever DM it again.

5e Backgrounds with Traits/Ideals/Bonds/Flaws.

All the different Tieflings and Aasimar.

Figuring out what Class or Prestige Class a 5e Archetype/Subclass is - could be fun.

[Morty]

I feel like it kind of depends on when do you consider a character concept is realized in a system.

Is it when you manage to build a character that mostly behave as what the character concept should, or is it when the system is precise enough to make your character concept be mechanically different from other character concepts that are similar?

As a simple example, we can take "forbidden school" from the wizard from 3e. You can build a 5e Wizard that does not take any spell of a certain school for background reasons, but does that count as the character concept of "a wizard that cannot cast spells of school X" as realized?

I'm talking about things like gishes, dual-wielding characters, finesse fighters that aren't rogues or archers, who are weak, borderline unplayable or just straight-up unplayable in core 3E, but at least somewhat viable in 5E.

[Rolero]

I think one of the first answers nailed it: because elitism. There is a lot of players out there that enjoy the complexity and power-gaming that D&D3,5 (and by extension Pathfinder) offers. And, frequently, DM's have to adapt to that mentality to give them a proper challenge. However, to the not munchkin players or those who come from a different edition this may not be fun. So, one of the typical approaches I've seen is that elite attitude towards the newcomers, patronazing them because they come from an "easier" game.

However, I remember my days playing 2nd edition, and it was much more like 5th edition than the mathematical nighmare 3ed edition can be with all its micro-management.

Another statement I hear a lot about the latest iteration of the game is that it doesn't offer a lot of customization. To those people I say, you are only limited by your imagination not the options of your class. Also, 5th edition already has a good variaty of races, classes, backgrounds and progression available, even with only PH.

Finally, I may get were the criticism comes from. Once you get used to D&D5e it can be a bit daunting to go back and play in a more complex system. I am currently DMing a 5e game, but also playing another in Pathfinder, and let me tell you, I am enjoying the last edition of D&D a lot more than the works of Paizo. Everything has a rule, a modifier or specific nuance that constantly stops the game or make it complex for the shake of being complex and it is a bit stressful sometimes.

So, long story short, I think both games are really good, but both have a very different public for its player demographic. Hence, the elitism you see when an oldschooler gets a newbie on his game that may slow him down when doing his munchkin shenanigans.

[Max_Killjoy]

I feel like it kind of depends on when do you consider a character concept is realized in a system.

Is it when you manage to build a character that mostly behave as what the character concept should, or is it when the system is precise enough to make your character concept be mechanically different from other character concepts that are similar?

As a simple example, we can take "forbidden school" from the wizard from 3e. You can build a 5e Wizard that does not take any spell of a certain school for background reasons, but does that count as the character concept of "a wizard that cannot cast spells of school X" as realized?



I'm talking about things like gishes, dual-wielding characters, finesse fighters that aren't rogues or archers, who are weak, borderline unplayable or just straight-up unplayable in core 3E, but at least somewhat viable in 5E.


Any concept that doesn't involve starting out small and then steep progression towards much greater power... immediately falls down.

Any concept that involves a specific ability that's locked behind several levels of progression through a class granting abilities that don't fir the character... immediately falls down.

And in 5e (I honestly don't recall this detail for 3.x any more), any concept for a character who is skill and/or knowledge based, but isn't a sneak or an entertainer... immediately falls down.




Another statement I hear a lot about the latest iteration of the game is that it doesn't offer a lot of customization. To those people I say, you are only limited by your imagination not the options of your class. Also, 5th edition already has a good variaty of races, classes, backgrounds and progression available, even with only PH.


Part of this comes down to the endless and unsolvable dispute between "character class as a codification of archetype" vs "character class as a tool in a toolkit for translating a character into the system". 5e is a lot more customizable if you're allowed to ignore or rewrite the "fluff" for a Class -- Warlock is a really versatile tool if you just ignore the "fluff" of a Patron and granted powers, and just use the mechanics to model things... but if you're bound by the "fluff", it's not very versatile at all in the context at hand.

[Great Dragon]

I think one of the first answers nailed it: because elitism. {Snip} Hence, the elitism you see when an oldschooler gets a newbie on his game that may slow him down when doing his munchkin shenanigans.

From what I've seen on a lot of places on the net is the "Power/DPR" and "Super Defense" or "Niche Class" people complianing that they don't have the ability to recreate their Favorite PC to be just as 'broken' or "break the DM's Game".

But, then I've kinda become a bit of a meenie to "Elitist" and "Power" Players as a DM, pretty much as far back as 2e.

I tend to prefer a "Balanced" Game, where neither Crunch or Fluff dominate, but are blended together.

Doing a "Munchkin" Game (optimized PCs aren't the problem, it's the "me first" and "I'm Supierior" attitudes) can be fun, but only if everyone is on board.

[diplomancer]

And in 5e (I honestly don't recall this detail for 3.x any more), any concept for a character who is skill and/or knowledge based, but isn't a sneak or an entertainer... immediately falls down.

Knowledge Cleric. There are many words to describe a flamboyant swashbuckler or a strength rogue, but sneak isn't one of them. Likewise, there are many words to describe a Dragonborn Valor Bard, but "entertainer" isn't one of them.

(Oh, and the Prodigy feat from Xanathar's, and, if your DM allows UA, the skill feats too)

[EggKookoo]

And like it or not, us Grognards need to recognize that we need more Newbies, for the Game to survive.

That moment I realize someone who came to D&D with 3e can be called a "grognard." :smalleek:

[Morty]

Any concept that doesn't involve starting out small and then steep progression towards much greater power... immediately falls down.

Any concept that involves a specific ability that's locked behind several levels of progression through a class granting abilities that don't fir the character... immediately falls down.

And in 5e (I honestly don't recall this detail for 3.x any more), any concept for a character who is skill and/or knowledge based, but isn't a sneak or an entertainer... immediately falls down.

I'm not going to argue that 5E is varied, just that 3E's variety is overstated and reliant on the sheer volume of material. And some of the concepts that require splat-diving are fairly basic.

[EggKookoo]

I'm not going to argue that 5E is varied, just that 3E's variety is overstated and reliant on the sheer volume of material. And some of the concepts that require splat-diving are fairly basic.

There's also a thing about expectations. If I ask for a concept you realized to your satisfaction in 3e, and I tried to realize it for you with 5e, you may well decide I failed because you're used to the specific ways 3e's mechanics did something and have bound that up with the concept itself.

I can think of a number of ways to make a skill-based build in 5e but it won't play at all like a skill-based build from 3e.

[Willie the Duck]

That moment I realize someone who came to D&D with 3e can be called a "grognard." :smalleek:

Eh, everybody is a newbie to someone else. When D&D was first published, people who just came into gaming with this newfangled D&D thing were considered the new fresh faces (for good or ill) for people who had been doing wargaming (or some of the proto/pre-RPG games like En Guarde) for years.

[Max_Killjoy]

I'm not going to argue that 5E is varied, just that 3E's variety is overstated and reliant on the sheer volume of material. And some of the concepts that require splat-diving are fairly basic.


My comment was directed at 5e.

3.x has a very similar end problem for different reasons, as you indicate.




Knowledge Cleric. There are many words to describe a flamboyant swashbuckler or a strength rogue, but sneak isn't one of them. Likewise, there are many words to describe a Dragonborn Valor Bard, but "entertainer" isn't one of them.

(Oh, and the Prodigy feat from Xanathar's, and, if your DM allows UA, the skill feats too)


Knowledge Cleric is less Skill or Knowledge based, than it is "using magic to emulate skills and knowledge" based. Plus the below applies.

If you're focusing in on the "sneak" part or the "entertainer" part of the comment, you're missing the point -- that every way to build a Skill and/or Knowledge based character makes those things secondary to some other core concept element, that every way to build a Skill and/or Knowledge based character drags in a lot of unrelated Abilities and stuff while making the character wait for things directly related to the desired concept.

Build a S/K character using Bard, ANY Bard, and you drag in a bunch of "inspiration" and "musician" stuff (three musical instruments are part of the core starting abilities), and everything is based on your Charisma, not your Intelligence. The spells are largely based on an assumption of performances and music and charm and such. The only way around this is if your DM is willing to reskin the inspiration stuff as tactical or lore advice shouted out during fights, change the primary characteristic to Intelligence, change up the spell list, etc.


PS: and this loops back to the unending and unresolvable debate between "class as tool in a kit" vs "class as a codification of archetype" approaches. If one complains that their concept is unworkable in an edition of D&D, the toolkit folks will explain how it's done using the existing classes.... and then you present that character, and the archetype folks will object on the grounds that it violates the intent of the class(es).

[Kuu Lightwing]

While I don't hate any edition of DnD, I can see people being dissatisfied with 5e. Sure it has some strengths, and simplicity of character creation is one of them. However, I can say that I often find situations where our table needs more clear rules for some interaction, and Jeremy's tweets hardly help so we need to make ruling on the fly. The skill system is basically "these are the things that skills are related to, let DM come up with a difficulty class for it" which I guess some would like, but some don't.

Not to say 3.5e is without its flaws. Some concepts are kinda unworkable in 3.5e, full attack being a collar around martials neck, caster supremacy, yadda yadda yadda... There's a lot of problems with 3.5e and building characters is an excersize of grabbing an entire library of books and searching it for that one option you really want... then repeat it with the next book. I guess you could say you are roleplaying your wizard, though. And, all things considered, building a character like a puzzle could be rather fun, too.

I guess one thing that I like about 3.5e is how it has a lot of different mechanics to play with. There's Tome of Battle, there's Psionics, there's stuff like Duskblade with spell channeling, you name it. I would love to play something like a Tome of Battle class in 5e, but there's none. There's Battlemaster, which to be honest is nothing compared to Warblade, because it's just a fighter who gets to add an extra dice to the damage sometimes, and a rider. And I see same approach applied to Psionics, and as we saw recently - Truenaming.

And what bothers me is that recently I read a reddit thread where a person asked for more different mechanics, and there was a particular response telling that person how people like him ruin the game, and if they want new mechanics, they are shallow uncreative people who should go to the basement and play videogames alone instead (never understood this smug hatered for videogames, but I digress). Is this really how players feel about more and new mechanics?

[JNAProductions]

While I don't hate any edition of DnD, I can see people being dissatisfied with 5e. Sure it has some strengths, and simplicity of character creation is one of them. However, I can say that I often find situations where our table needs more clear rules for some interaction, and Jeremy's tweets hardly help so we need to make ruling on the fly. The skill system is basically "these are the things that skills are related to, let DM come up with a difficulty class for it" which I guess some would like, but some don't.

Not to say 3.5e is without its flaws. Some concepts are kinda unworkable in 3.5e, full attack being a collar around martials neck, caster supremacy, yadda yadda yadda... There's a lot of problems with 3.5e and building characters is an excersize of grabbing an entire library of books and searching it for that one option you really want... then repeat it with the next book. I guess you could say you are roleplaying your wizard, though. And, all things considered, building a character like a puzzle could be rather fun, too.

I guess one thing that I like about 3.5e is how it has a lot of different mechanics to play with. There's Tome of Battle, there's Psionics, there's stuff like Duskblade with spell channeling, you name it. I would love to play something like a Tome of Battle class in 5e, but there's none. There's Battlemaster, which to be honest is nothing compared to Warblade, because it's just a fighter who gets to add an extra dice to the damage sometimes, and a rider. And I see same approach applied to Psionics, and as we saw recently - Truenaming.

And what bothers me is that recently I read a reddit thread where a person asked for more different mechanics, and there was a particular response telling that person how people like him ruin the game, and if they want new mechanics, they are shallow uncreative people who should go to the basement and play videogames alone instead (never understood this smug hatered for videogames, but I digress). Is this really how players feel about more and new mechanics?

I like the KISS approach to 5E. That being said, I'd be perfectly okay with a new book or UA or something to get more complex mechanics, as an optional additional.

I enjoy character creation in 3.5 more than 5E, when I'm in the mood for making a character. But actual playing goes to 5E, and actual DMing goes to 5E by a light-year. But, I can completely understand those who want more complexities. I'd prefer they stay optional, and actually optional (unlike Feats and Mutliclassing, which might just be this forum, but they're really assumed).

In other words, the people who rant and rave and rail against more options and call people stupid for wanting more and all that? They're jackheels and are best ignored. The people who say "I'm perfectly happy with 5E as it is now, and don't need more complex mechanics,"? Are just satisfied customers.

[Sigreid]

While I don't hate any edition of DnD, I can see people being dissatisfied with 5e. Sure it has some strengths, and simplicity of character creation is one of them. However, I can say that I often find situations where our table needs more clear rules for some interaction, and Jeremy's tweets hardly help so we need to make ruling on the fly. The skill system is basically "these are the things that skills are related to, let DM come up with a difficulty class for it" which I guess some would like, but some don't.

Not to say 3.5e is without its flaws. Some concepts are kinda unworkable in 3.5e, full attack being a collar around martials neck, caster supremacy, yadda yadda yadda... There's a lot of problems with 3.5e and building characters is an excersize of grabbing an entire library of books and searching it for that one option you really want... then repeat it with the next book. I guess you could say you are roleplaying your wizard, though. And, all things considered, building a character like a puzzle could be rather fun, too.

I guess one thing that I like about 3.5e is how it has a lot of different mechanics to play with. There's Tome of Battle, there's Psionics, there's stuff like Duskblade with spell channeling, you name it. I would love to play something like a Tome of Battle class in 5e, but there's none. There's Battlemaster, which to be honest is nothing compared to Warblade, because it's just a fighter who gets to add an extra dice to the damage sometimes, and a rider. And I see same approach applied to Psionics, and as we saw recently - Truenaming.

And what bothers me is that recently I read a reddit thread where a person asked for more different mechanics, and there was a particular response telling that person how people like him ruin the game, and if they want new mechanics, they are shallow uncreative people who should go to the basement and play videogames alone instead (never understood this smug hatered for videogames, but I digress). Is this really how players feel about more and new mechanics?

This is interesting to me because at my table we find that the rules there are enough of a skeleton for the DM to make a call and we move on. I can see the appeal of having lots of different designed rules so you can look for the edge cases where they work to a massive benefit, but I really like that we don't spend any game time really looking things up because we don't know the rule for that weird thing.

[EggKookoo]

I like the KISS approach to 5E. That being said, I'd be perfectly okay with a new book or UA or something to get more complex mechanics, as an optional additional.

My guess is WotC avoids doing that, even if labeling it "optional," for the concern over it becoming a de facto standard. I mean, imagine if the 5e DMG had a chapter on how to make complex 3e-style PCs, complete with that list of two dozen skills, rules for three different ACs, all of the unused 3.x feats, and so on. How long before people started clamoring for that in their 5e games? I think WotC drew a line in the sand and to their credit are mostly abiding by it.

As it is I wish they moved the multiclassing rules to Chapter 9 of the DMG.

[Willie the Duck]

As it is I wish they moved the multiclassing rules to Chapter 9 of the DMG.

Oh wouldn't that have been nice?

[stoutstien]

My guess is WotC avoids doing that, even if labeling it "optional," for the concern over it becoming a de facto standard. I mean, imagine if the 5e DMG had a chapter on how to make complex 3e-style PCs, complete with that list of two dozen skills, rules for three different ACs, all of the unused 3.x feats, and so on. How long before people started clamoring for that in their 5e games? I think WotC drew a line in the sand and to their credit are mostly abiding by it.

As it is I wish they moved the multiclassing rules to Chapter 9 of the DMG.

They could have just made the requirements a little steeper. Like every class has 2 stat minimums and make them 14 each. 13 is just a tad to cheap.

[Max_Killjoy]

What I don't understand is the hate for multiclassing...

[Asmotherion]

personally i enjoy the diferent aspects of both editions equaly.

DM was probably a powergamer who wanted to play a high OP game.

[Pex]

This is interesting to me because at my table we find that the rules there are enough of a skeleton for the DM to make a call and we move on. I can see the appeal of having lots of different designed rules so you can look for the edge cases where they work to a massive benefit, but I really like that we don't spend any game time really looking things up because we don't know the rule for that weird thing.

My trouble is not the need to know what the game rules are for edge cases but the lack of game rules for general play, specifically skill use. It is impractical and impossible to have something for every possible scenario of everything, and I'm not asking for that. What is needed are example benchmarks of difficulty for the common uses of skills, then the DM can work from there. The DM doesn't have to make something up, and in cases where he does he has framework to work around. In addition players will have a general sense of what their characters can do instead of depending on the DM mood at the moment.


What I don't understand is the hate for multiclassing...

Cynical answer: knee-jerk reaction of thinking players only want POWER!

[Sigreid]

My trouble is not the need to know what the game rules are for edge cases but the lack of game rules for general play, specifically skill use. It is impractical and impossible to have something for every possible scenario of everything, and I'm not asking for that. What is needed are example benchmarks of difficulty for the common uses of skills, then the DM can work from there. The DM doesn't have to make something up, and in cases where he does he has framework to work around. In addition players will have a general sense of what their characters can do instead of depending on the DM mood at the moment.

Yeah, you and I have gone round and round on this before. This is a topic we are unlikely to ever agree on. 😁

Edit: as for how I do it, I use the ordinary competent individual standard. For example, a ordinary blacksmith should be able to make horseshoes no problem. He's got +2 proficiency and that's it. Clearly that's a very easy smithing task since he almost never buggers it uo.

[stoutstien]

What I don't understand is the hate for multiclassing...

I have nothing against it and I tend to use quite a bit of it in the few characters I actually get to play but from a DM perspective a lot multiclass effects are strictly superior to a single class. All reward with no cost.

[Max_Killjoy]

I have nothing against it and I tend to use quite a bit of it in the few characters I actually get to play but from a DM perspective a lot multiclass effects are strictly superior to a single class. All reward with no cost.


The cost is opportunity cost, giving up access to higher-level abilities from the individual classes until later... or never.

[Luccan]

The cost is opportunity cost, giving up access to higher-level abilities from the individual classes until later... or never.

Though I see nothing wrong with multiclassing, you can generally get more from a two or three level dip than two later levels in another class. Most people aren't going 10/10 or even 15/5 on their classes. The main exception is casters, but losing higher level spells is a lot less of an opportunity cost in 5e. Especially since if you're multiclassing two or more casters, you still get higher level spell slots to beef up your low-level spells.

[MaxWilson]

Edit: as for how I do it, I use the ordinary competent individual standard. For example, a ordinary blacksmith should be able to make horseshoes no problem. He's got +2 proficiency and that's it. Clearly that's a very easy smithing task since he almost never buggers it uo.

If it's DC 5 so the blacksmith only messes up 10% of the time, an ordinary untrained individual (+0) would only mess up 20% of the time, in which case... why does the blacksmith have a job? Who needs a dedicated blacksmith?

[stoutstien]

The cost is opportunity cost, giving up access to higher-level abilities from the individual classes until later... or never.
Most games never break out of tier 2 so the the higher level features are usually not a factor. That combined with half the classes high level features are just plain worse than a single level in another class is why I have an issue with it.
It's why I suggested the 14 minimum stat for multiclassing. It adds a little more cost/risk thought in those earlier levels.

[Sigreid]

If it's DC 5 so the blacksmith only messes up 10% of the time, an ordinary untrained individual (+0) would only mess up 20% of the time, in which case... why does the blacksmith have a job? Who needs a dedicated blacksmith?

Well, there's not having the tools and having other things you need to do. There's also more complex metal working that takes longer because of the higher chance of failure and needing to correct or start over. Not knowing how to see a problem, etc.

[EggKookoo]

What I don't understand is the hate for multiclassing...

Multiclassing is so third edition...

[diplomancer]

Well, there's not having the tools and having other things you need to do. There's also more complex metal working that takes longer because of the higher chance of failure and needing to correct or start over. Not knowing how to see a problem, etc.

Away from book, but I think you cannot make a skill check for a tool without being proficient in it, it's not just a matter of not adding your proficiency bonus.

And you should not roll for "making horseshoes" anyhow, unless there are things like significant time constraints.

[Eldariel]

Most games never break out of tier 2 so the the higher level features are usually not a factor.

Do you have statistics on that? 'cause I see lots of statements like this flying around but it doesn't match my experience nor the experience of many other posters on this board as I understand.

[MaxWilson]

Away from book, but I think you cannot make a skill check for a tool without being proficient in it, it's not just a matter of not adding your proficiency bonus.

That's not a rule except for some special cases, e.g. Thieves Tools I think might be that way. Usually though, tool proficiency just lets you add your proficiency bonus to ability checks, which means it's basically irrelevant especially for low-level NPCs.

[stoutstien]

Do you have statistics on that? 'cause I see lots of statements like this flying around but it doesn't match my experience nor the experience of many other posters on this board as I understand.

https://www.enworld.org/threads/90-of-d-d-games-stop-by-level-10-wizards-more-popular-at-higher-levels.666097/

For multiclassing info

https://www.enworld.org/threads/whos-multiclassing-with-who-more-d-d-beyond-stats.666122/

Obviously it's only a small sample of the community as a whole but it's what we have that has somewhat of a control group feel.

[diplomancer]

That's not a rule except for some special cases, e.g. Thieves Tools I think might be that way. Usually though, tool proficiency just lets you add your proficiency bonus to ability checks, which means it's basically irrelevant especially for low-level NPCs.

I went to check the book. When you read the session on tools, there is, indeed, nothing that says that you cannot use a tool if you are not proficient with it. This includes also thieves' tools.

However, if you read the section on helping with ability checks, it says that you can't, "for example", use thieves' tools without proficiency, and so you can't help an ability check that requires thieves' tools either.

I always assumed that this is a general rule for tools, and I still think this is the RAI, since there is no difference between the text describing thieves tools and the other tool texts.

[tomjon]

What are you all talking about elf is a class not a race. What that’s changed!!! When?

[Sigreid]

Away from book, but I think you cannot make a skill check for a tool without being proficient in it, it's not just a matter of not adding your proficiency bonus.

And you should not roll for "making horseshoes" anyhow, unless there are things like significant time constraints.

Yes, I'm aware you ordinarily wouldn't roll. I was just giving an example of how I evaluate the difficulty of things and that was an easy one to do.

[Pex]

Away from book, but I think you cannot make a skill check for a tool without being proficient in it, it's not just a matter of not adding your proficiency bonus.

And you should not roll for "making horseshoes" anyhow, unless there are things like significant time constraints.

Aha! There in lies the problem. You say no roll is needed. Another person says a roll is needed. The rules change depending on who is DM that day, but no need to derail the thread any further. :smallwink:

[EggKookoo]

Aha! There in lies the problem. You say no roll is needed. Another person says a roll is needed. The rules change depending on who is DM that day, but no need to derail the thread any further. :smallwink:

Honestly I think your post is very much on-topic for this thread.

[Eldariel]

https://www.enworld.org/threads/90-of-d-d-games-stop-by-level-10-wizards-more-popular-at-higher-levels.666097/

For multiclassing info

https://www.enworld.org/threads/whos-multiclassing-with-who-more-d-d-beyond-stats.666122/

Obviously it's only a small sample of the community as a whole but it's what we have that has somewhat of a control group feel.

Cheers. That's at least a rough indicator if nothing else; of course, it's probably not an unbiased sample but it'll do.

[Pex]

Interesting for me is that before 5E I very rarely multiclassed. I had done it, but there were particular circumstances involved. It wasn't something I thought of doing as a matter of course. In 5E I'm more open to do it and have done it more often than my 2E/3E days combined already. My barbarian character is actually triple classed - 8 barbarian/4 fighter/1 rogue, planning on taking on more rogue levels. I don't apologize I did it for the game mechanics for the fun and effectiveness of using it. I wield a long sword and don't care about not using sneak attack. The other rogue stuff is more important. The roleplay is for the campaign story. It's a positive 5E thing for me that I am willing to multiclass. It opens up character options and ideas. Another plus for 5E is the ease to multiclass spellcasters, because high level spells are great, yay, go them, but many low level spells retain their usefulness as the game progresses you don't feel weakened and aren't.

There are other things about 5E I like. For all the gripes I do have for it I don't hate the game. I enjoy it very much.

[MaxWilson]

Interesting for me is that before 5E I very rarely multiclassed. I had done it, but there were particular circumstances involved.

Before 5E I rarely multiclassed, but I dual-classed frequently. I just hate bumping into level limits, or even the thought of someday maybe bumping into level limits, so humans have always been my favorite race. It's the same mentality that in 5E prevents me from multiclassing Moon Druids with any other class although I will multiclass Shepherd Druids early and often.

[EggKookoo]

Another plus for 5E is the ease to multiclass spellcasters, because high level spells are great, yay, go them, but many low level spells retain their usefulness as the game progresses you don't feel weakened and aren't.

So speaking of derailing the thread, this put a thought into my head.

Has anyone tried an E6 variant where instead of a level cap across the board, you can only level a spellcaster level to the point where it reaches 3rd level spells? Once that class reaches that point, you must multiclass (even to another spellcaster, but the spell level cap always applies).

So full casters are all capped at 6. Arcane trickster and EK can go to 18. Ranger and paladin can go to 12. And so on with any Xanathar subclasses.

[NOMster]

The thing I've heard more than anything is that 5e is trying to make a video game out of dnd. I don't agree with that, but I've heard it.

[Max_Killjoy]

The thing I've heard more than anything is that 5e is trying to make a video game out of dnd. I don't agree with that, but I've heard it.

That was a legitimate complaint about 4e.

But for 5e? I'd really like to know where they're getting that impression other than "what's a thing I can say to attack a system I don't like".

[EggKookoo]

That was a legitimate complaint about 4e.

But for 5e? I'd really like to know where they're getting that impression other than "what's a thing I can say to attack a system I don't like".

Yeah, that's a tough sell for 5e.

[Bohandas]

For me personally the issue is less that 5e is necessarily bad in and of itself, and more that one is a sucker for buying it. Same for anyone who buys Pathfinder 2e. The only thing "wrong" with the third edition was that everyone who wanted them already had the core rulebooks, so they had to make a forth edition and a fifth edition in order to sell more books, and regardless of their relative advantages or disadvantages that's the ONLY reason 4e and 5e exist.

[EggKookoo]

For me personally the issue is less that 5e is necessarily bad in and of itself, and more that one is a sucker for buying it. Same for anyone who buys Pathfinder 2e. The only thing "wrong" with the third edition was that everyone who wanted them already had the core rulebooks, so they had to make a forth edition and a fifth edition in order to sell more books, and regardless of their relative advantages or disadvantages that's the ONLY reason 4e and 5e exist.


https://i.imgflip.com/23spvr.jpg

[diplomancer]

For me personally the issue is less that 5e is necessarily bad in and of itself, and more that one is a sucker for buying it. Same for anyone who buys Pathfinder 2e. The only thing "wrong" with the third edition was that everyone who wanted them already had the core rulebooks, so they had to make a forth edition and a fifth edition in order to sell more books, and regardless of their relative advantages or disadvantages that's the ONLY reason 4e and 5e exist.

Considering how many more people 5e brought to the hobby, both newbies and grognards like me, this is obviously not true.

(Started playing in the mid 80s, basic D&D and later AD&D 2nd edition. Never played 3rd edition. Considering the general attitude of its outspoken fans, happy to say I never will. Enjoyed 4th edition as a standalone game, but didn't feel like D&D. Love 5th edition, best edition I've played)

[Waazraath]

For me personally the issue is less that 5e is necessarily bad in and of itself, and more that one is a sucker for buying it. Same for anyone who buys Pathfinder 2e. The only thing "wrong" with the third edition was that everyone who wanted them already had the core rulebooks, so they had to make a forth edition and a fifth edition in order to sell more books, and regardless of their relative advantages or disadvantages that's the ONLY reason 4e and 5e exist.

Meh. Love 3.x, owe the majority of the published books, and think that they could have lasted a few years, bringing out more books building on the new sub-systems (soulbinding, tome of battle, incarnum, psionics), and maybe a large overhaul / fix / errata to eliminate the biggest faults in balance.

But then again: the edition was totally bloated. Was very beginner unfriendly. Had balance issues in its very core. Took a lot of prep time. And they covered most angels that were there to cover: books on demons, devils, undead, dragons, abberations, celestials; numerous source books for all classes; 5 or 6 additional power systems in addition to what was in the core books; 5 or 6 monster manuals (depending on wether you count fiend folio); thousands and thousands of feats and spells, hundreds of races, thousands (I think) prestige classes... I think the edition was 'done' in a way. I didn't like 4e enough to buy/play it, but 5e is definitely an improvement in many (and all fundamental) ways.

[noob]

I think 5e could have decided to not make attacks utterly confusing: it would have been a great thing if people did not have to talk about melee melee physical weapon attacks and other complex nuances that seems to bloat the rules for no good reason.
Then I think the skill system should have the difficulty ranks renamed.
Otherwise from what I did read unless you start involving rage, concentration and other weird class abilities the game is not too complex which makes it nearly understandable for humans that does not lives only to lose time by reading rulebooks like me.

[Bohandas]

Meh. Love 3.x, owe the majority of the published books, and think that they could have lasted a few years, bringing out more books building on the new sub-systems (soulbinding, tome of battle, incarnum, psionics), and maybe a large overhaul / fix / errata to eliminate the biggest faults in balance.

But then again: the edition was totally bloated. Was very beginner unfriendly. Had balance issues in its very core. Took a lot of prep time. And they covered most angels that were there to cover: books on demons, devils, undead, dragons, abberations, celestials;

they never did Fey book or a Construct book though. And the environment books skipped forests, swamps, and mountains

[JNAProductions]

I think 5e could have decided to not make attacks utterly confusing: it would have been a great thing if people did not have to talk about melee melee physical weapon attacks and other complex nuances that seems to bloat the rules for no good reason.
Then I think the skill system should have the difficulty ranks renamed.
Otherwise from what I did read unless you start involving rage, concentration and other weird class abilities the game is not too complex which makes it nearly understandable for humans that does not lives only to lose time by reading rulebooks like me.

I think you vastly overestimate how complicated 5E is to a newcomer. While I do agree that there's issues lacking clarity, the details are nitpicky enough that for a casual player, it won't ever come up or be an issue.

It's sort of like saying 3.5 is bad because Monks aren't proficient in Unarmed Strikes. While technically true by RAW (at least, I think so) it's such a minor and easily corrected error that it's never going to be an actual issue at any but the most pedantic of tables.

[Waazraath]

they never did Fey book or a Construct book though. And the environment books skipped forests, swamps, and mountains

Very true (except that mountains were covered in frostburn, including relevant prestige class). But do you really think they also should have done those, before closing the edition? I don't think I missed them (though I would have gotten the fey one).

[stoutstien]

Cheers. That's at least a rough indicator if nothing else; of course, it's probably not an unbiased sample but it'll do.
It's something at least.
I've always looked at it like this: everyone sees level 1 and then every level after has less and less play time. Some tables do start at later levels but almost always in a one shot or predetermined session count games.

V Human isn't considered one of if not the best race choice because they get an extra feat but that they get a feat at lv one so will be guaranteed to see play. Same holds true for multiclassing for low level features vs holding out for usually pretty meh high level features.

It's common ground for every DND edition but due to the lack of complexity of 3.X it's just more apparent in 5e.

[Max_Killjoy]

I think 5e could have decided to not make attacks utterly confusing: it would have been a great thing if people did not have to talk about melee melee physical weapon attacks and other complex nuances that seems to bloat the rules for no good reason.


That, and the random "this word means something specific here" vs "this word should be read as natural language here"... for the same exact word.

[MaxWilson]

That, and the random "this word means something specific here" vs "this word should be read as natural language here"... for the same exact word.

Without even bothering to put the technical jargon words on bold font or give a page reference to the definition.

That's how we wind up with Create Thrall that seems awesome the first time you read the PHB because of no-save perma-charm, and incredibly lame once you've internalized the appendix at the back that defines "charmed" for 5E. The definitions aren't even at the front, they're at the back!

[Sabeta]

I'd imagine the hate for Fifth Edition is the same as why Super Smash Bros Melee players hate Smash 4 / Ultimate. Why Morrowind fans hate Skyrim. Why WoW Classic fans hate modern Wow.
The majority of these people have simply found that they like what they have, don't want to learn what the new hotness is like, and are simultaneously jealous of the fun people are having with it. (Not to disrespect anyone here; Loss Aversion is a powerful stimulus and seeing people have fun with something you're not included in tends to trigger a fierce response.)

5E does have a lot of problems though. The lack of clarity on rules has borderline turned me into a rules lawyer, and I've never really been that kind of person before. It can be frustrating when the game grinds to a halt because the DM wants to make sure their rulings are fair and allows everyone at the table to voice their opinions on strange / contradictory rules. (I almost would prefer them to make a quick ruling and move on to keep the game moving)

[Mongobear]

Speaking from personal experience...

Ive played 3.5e for its entire lifespan, and fully through 4e until 5e came when we switched. As a player, I liked 3.5e more, because characters and builds overall felt more unique, you just had to be sure and not break the system and self-balance.

As a DM, 5e is much easier, characters are less powerful, enemies more resilient, and you can focus on the story more-so than 3.5e. However, its also a bit frustrating because of the intentionally designed vagueness in the system. There are no tables for suggested DCs for skills, there are very vague grey areas that some people will try and abuse, and there are no guidelines for how to decide, other than "youre the DM, make a ruling!".

Sometimes, I just want to loo up a skill in the book, and tell a player his climb attempt up a cliff is DC 25, instead of having to guess based on weather, terrain, chance of a tectonic event mid climb, and how old his rope is and realize all he gets is Advantage/Disadvantage. I love the simplicity, but I wish it was just slightly less simple.

[Kane0]

On the other hand, when I cast Scorching Ray I don’t want to have to factor in AC (no not that one, the other one) with all my various plusses and minuses, damage resistance, spell resistance or spell absorbtion, miss chance, caster level, casting defensively check and whichever of my class features and feats change any of those.
And then the damage roll of course.

[Ignimortis]

On the other hand, when I cast Scorching Ray I don’t want to have to factor in AC (no not that one, the other one) with all my various plusses and minuses, damage resistance, spell resistance or spell absorbtion, miss chance, caster level, casting defensively check and whichever of my class features and feats change any of those.
And then the damage roll of course.

The lack of Touch AC and Flat-Footed/Immobilized AC is actually pretty annoying, because it doesn't really make sense not to have those things and it's not that complex.

Damage resistance is still there, as are miss chances. Spell resistance got turned into "magic damage resistance" or "advantage on saves".

So basically there are less plusses and minuses (which should already be calculated into your attack values anyway, that's what charsheets are for), no caster level (but slot level is still there) and no casting defensively check (which only exists if you cast in melee (why?) and which is a flat 15, IIRC, so it stops being a thing you roll at levels past 7 or so, less if you have to take Combat Casting for some reason).

[Bohandas]

Very true (except that mountains were covered in frostburn, including relevant prestige class). But do you really think they also should have done those, before closing the edition? I don't think I missed them (though I would have gotten the fey one).

I would have gotten the swamp book and fey book if they had them.

[EggKookoo]

Sometimes, I just want to loo up a skill in the book, and tell a player his climb attempt up a cliff is DC 25, instead of having to guess based on weather, terrain, chance of a tectonic event mid climb, and how old his rope is and realize all he gets is Advantage/Disadvantage. I love the simplicity, but I wish it was just slightly less simple.

I don't mean to come across as condescending but I've found that trying to explain what I'm about to say often sounds that way.

Setting DCs off the cuff isn't that hard. The way one-off instances of probability work, it really, honestly, doesn't matter if you set the DC of a task to 10 or 15. It might matter somewhat if you're "off" by a large amount -- say the DC should be something like 15 and you set it to 5. The only context in which it matters that you have a precise and consistent DC for a given task is in when you look at attempting that exact task under identical conditions over time.

If you flip a coin, the DC for getting heads is 11 (well, 10.5 but dice can't do fractions). It is, obviously, a 50-50 chance. But if you actually flip a coin three times, you could easily get three heads in a row because of the chunky way probability works. The only way to get a functional 50-50 outcome is to flip the coin many, many times. Despite it being a DC of 11, you got three successes. How important is it, then, that if you were modeling this at the table, that you got that DC exactly right? You could just say, well, sure, the DC is 15 to get heads. And then the player gets heads three times in a row. Reality doesn't shatter.

Unless a feature gives me a DC (like spell saves and such), I set the DC to 12 for everything. If I want to convey to the player that the task is a little harder than normal, i set it to 15. If I want to scare the player, I set it to 20. But these numbers are there purely to stimulate an emotional response in the players. "Ooh, DC 20, this is gonna be tough!" The player succeeds when the DC is 20 and feels like they made an accomplishment. They fail when it's 12 and they feel like they flubbed something. But it's laughable to think the DCs (in any edition) correlate to any kind of realistic assessment of how hard a task is. Any more than AC relates in any kind of realistic way to how getting hit in combat would really work. It's just a tool to enhance storytelling and immersion.

[Max_Killjoy]

I don't mean to come across as condescending but I've found that trying to explain what I'm about to say often sounds that way.

Setting DCs off the cuff isn't that hard. The way one-off instances of probability work, it really, honestly, doesn't matter if you set the DC of a task to 10 or 15. It might matter somewhat if you're "off" by a large amount -- say the DC should be something like 15 and you set it to 5. The only context in which it matters that you have a precise and consistent DC for a given task is in when you look at attempting that exact task under identical conditions over time.

If you flip a coin, the DC for getting heads is 11 (well, 10.5 but dice can't do fractions). It is, obviously, a 50-50 chance. But if you actually flip a coin three times, you could easily get three heads in a row because of the chunky way probability works. The only way to get a functional 50-50 outcome is to flip the coin many, many times. Despite it being a DC of 11, you got three successes. How important is it, then, that if you were modeling this at the table, that you got that DC exactly right? You could just say, well, sure, the DC is 15 to get heads. And then the player gets heads three times in a row. Reality doesn't shatter.

Unless a feature gives me a DC (like spell saves and such), I set the DC to 12 for everything. If I want to convey to the player that the task is a little harder than normal, i set it to 15. If I want to scare the player, I set it to 20. But these numbers are there purely to stimulate an emotional response in the players. "Ooh, DC 20, this is gonna be tough!" The player succeeds when the DC is 20 and feels like they made an accomplishment. They fail when it's 12 and they feel like they flubbed something. But it's laughable to think the DCs (in any edition) correlate to any kind of realistic assessment of how hard a task is. Any more than AC relates in any kind of realistic way to how getting hit in combat would really work. It's just a tool to enhance storytelling and immersion.

If I found out a GM was trying to manipulate my "experience" in that manner, I'd be deeply disappointed.

Regardless of what system we're using, I want the difficulty of the roll to be based on about how hard the task is on a consistent scale, NOT on how the GM thinks it will make me "feel", NOT on narrative or cinematic appropriateness, NOT on fulfilling an archetype, etc. My character is interacting with the world around them, those rolls are part of the interaction, they need to reflect what's going on -- the situation, the character's abilities, etc.

[Ignimortis]

If I found out a GM was trying to manipulate my "experience" in that manner, I'd be deeply disappointed.

Regardless of what system we're using, I want the difficulty of the roll to be based on about how hard the task is on a consistent scale, NOT on how the GM thinks it will make me "feel", NOT on narrative or cinematic appropriateness, NOT on fulfilling an archetype, etc. My character is interacting with the world around them, those rolls are part of the interaction, they need to reflect what's going on -- the situation, the character's abilities, etc.

Otherwise progression isn't really meaningful and it doesn't feel like your character actually achieved something, it just feels like you got lucky or you got thrown a bone.

[crayzz]

Otherwise progression isn't really meaningful and it doesn't feel like your character actually achieved something, it just feels like you got lucky or you got thrown a bone.

I think their point is that any kind of rigorous DC system is going to be swamped by randomness anyway, so ballparking it gets you almost all the benefit of a rigourous system minus the hassle of managing fiddly details.

They're not saying to invent values for narrative or ~feelings~, but that the purpose of DCs is to give players experience of granular difficulty: some tasks are harder than others, and you can still fail the easier tasks from time to time. You just don't gain a whole lot going from coarse grained to fine grained.

Now I like fine grained details in and of themselves, so I'm usually going to prefer a finer grained system just out of personal preference. But as a matter of course, going "this task feels like a DC15" is often going to be better for the game than stopping to look up the tables and counting up all the relevant factors to find out it's actually a DC17.

[noob]

I think their point is that any kind of rigorous DC system is going to be swamped by randomness anyway, so ballparking it gets you almost all the benefit of a rigourous system minus the hassle of managing fiddly details.

They're not saying to invent values for narrative or ~feelings~, but that the purpose of DCs is to give players experience of granular difficulty: some tasks are harder than others, and you can still fail the easier tasks from time to time. You just don't gain a whole lot going from coarse grained to fine grained.

Now I like fine grained details in and of themselves, so I'm usually going to prefer a finer grained system just out of personal preference. But as a matter of course, going "this task feels like a DC15" is often going to be better for the game than stopping to look up the tables and counting up all the relevant factors to find out it's actually a DC17.

The complaint is more about "ok so today it is the gm that always imagine walls as being near impossible to climb so right now it is a dc 25 to climb one that looks like stairs while tomorrow I play another game with another gm that is used to climbing walls and so there will not be even a check for a straight brick wall"
Lacking consistence in how dcs works can make investment in skills have a very random efficiency and therefore make problems with the balance between skills and other options(since skill efficiency is going to be very variable).

Essentially it is completely impossible to balance the skill system with the rest of the system if there is only vague guidelines on when skills should be used and the difficulty of doing so that makes skills vary from one extreme to the other depending on the gm.

That or avoid making class abilities and feats based on using skills.(to reduce the interaction of skills with the other parts of character building)

[stoutstien]

the complaint is more about "ok so today it is the gm that always imagine walls as being near impossible to climb so right now it is a dc 25 to climb one tomorrow I play another game with another gm that is used to climbing walls and so there will not be even a check"
I think the logical on how each DM sets ablity check DC is fine but the books should have suggested (strongly) that it an important part of the pre game conversation. I have an example of each DC printed on the out side of my screen so the players know where I stand as far as setting them.
Giving the DM the authority to set DCs was great but they needed to make sure they are aware they also have the responsibilities that come with it.

[EggKookoo]

Regardless of what system we're using, I want the difficulty of the roll to be based on about how hard the task is on a consistent scale, NOT on how the GM thinks it will make me "feel", NOT on narrative or cinematic appropriateness, NOT on fulfilling an archetype, etc. My character is interacting with the world around them, those rolls are part of the interaction, they need to reflect what's going on -- the situation, the character's abilities, etc.

Every single game system in existence is providing you an experience based on narrative, cinematic, or some other similar emotional metric. Every single one. You can't possibly model (especially in a TTRPG) all of the variables that would be involved "in real life" task-resolution. Having a list of DCs does literally nothing for that. It just sets a bunch of arbitrary numbers that are no more reality-based than the DM setting something to 12 for most cases, and then adjusting perhaps based on circumstance. Not to mention that "climbing a rope" is not the same task each time you attempt to climb a rope. Each rope is different, each situation is different. You're different. Having a carved-in-stone DC for climbing a rope is just creating an illusion of consistency (which you need, of course, for emotional and narrative-based reasons).

What's even weirder is that I've seen some folks say the DC for a given task (and I mean literally a given instance of a task) should vary depending on how hard it is for a given creature. Like, the DC should be 12 for PC #1 but 15 for PC #2. I don't get that at all. If the task is easier for PC #1 that's reflected in PC #1 having a higher bonus.

I get the impulse to say "climbing a rope should always be DC X" but again, which rope?


I think their point is that any kind of rigorous DC system is going to be swamped by randomness anyway, so ballparking it gets you almost all the benefit of a rigourous system minus the hassle of managing fiddly details.

They're not saying to invent values for narrative or ~feelings~, but that the purpose of DCs is to give players experience of granular difficulty: some tasks are harder than others, and you can still fail the easier tasks from time to time. You just don't gain a whole lot going from coarse grained to fine grained.

Mostly, yes.

The PC can't know the difficulty of a task ahead of time with any mathematical precision. Certainly not to within 5% chances of success or failure (unless, I guess, your PC is Spock or something). All the PC can do is feel confident they can complete the task, or lack that confidence. There's some granularity there (very confident, not so confident, no freaking way, etc.), but in the end the PC is more or less making an educated guess if they can complete the task. The dice are going to reveal if they did it. If the d20 comes up a 1, doesn't matter how good the PC is or mostly what the DC was, chances are they failed. Where's your precious stone-carved DC now?

[Max_Killjoy]

Every single game system in existence is providing you an experience based on narrative, cinematic, or some other similar emotional metric. Every single one.

If you insist on telling other people how and why they play, and what the experience of playing an RPG actually is for them even if they say otherwise... then there's nothing left for us to discuss.

[LordEntrails]

I get the impulse to say "climbing a rope should always be DC X" but again, which rope?
A 1" diameter cotton 4 braid rope knotted every 14-15" inches with a simple overhand knot hanging vertically from 50 to 53.2 feet from a 4' diameter steel ring mounted vertically to a fixed surface and unattached at the bottom.

[EggKookoo]

If you insist on telling other people how and why they play, and what the experience of playing an RPG actually is for them even if they say otherwise... then there's nothing left for use to discuss.

I'm describing game systems. Or do you have a system in mind that gives you an accurate, reliable metric for a task that accounts for all variables?

I'm saying "the DM says it's moderately difficult" is no different than the book listing a DC that could be interpreted as "moderately difficult." I've seen complaints about how DM #1 says "moderate" for a given task and DM #2 says "hard" but that's no different than DM #1 looking at the DC chart and agreeing that the task is what the chart says and DM #2 looking at the chart and deciding that in this case it's a little harder than typical. In the end, the DM sets the DC in both cases, and does so for narrative reasons.

[Mongobear]

It seems my response about DCs struck a bit of a nerve. I should clarify my PoV on the subject.

When I say I want a more rigid list of DCs, I mean a better table with examples of similar situation for several DC tiers of difficulty. The 3.5e PHB had this, DC examples for each skill with actual examples of a situation.

What I don't want is a list of minor incremental bonuses that you have to figure out on the fly, (Dis)Advantage works fine for that, just a little bit of guidance on appropriate DC setting other than the generic easy/medium/hard table.

[EggKookoo]

A 1" diameter cotton 4 braid rope knotted every 14-15" inches with a simple overhand knot hanging vertically from 50 to 53.2 feet from a 4' diameter steel ring mounted vertically to a fixed surface and unattached at the bottom.

African or European?

[crayzz]

The complaint is more about "ok so today it is the gm that always imagine walls as being near impossible to climb so right now it is a dc 25 to climb one that looks like stairs while tomorrow I play another game with another gm that is used to climbing walls and so there will not be even a check for a straight brick wall"
Lacking consistence in how dcs works can make investment in skills have a very random efficiency and therefore make problems with the balance between skills and other options(since skill efficiency is going to be very variable).

Essentially it is completely impossible to balance the skill system with the rest of the system if there is only vague guidelines on when skills should be used and the difficulty of doing so that makes skills vary from one extreme to the other depending on the gm.

That or avoid making class abilities and feats based on using skills.(to reduce the interaction of skills with the other parts of character building)

Eh, enough falls under GM purview that expecting consistency between GMs doesnt seem realistic to me. Whether or not you'll even have to make a skill check is never going to be consistent: pushing for precise DC consistency feels like putting the cart before the horse to me. There is a table provided for setting DCs, so as long as the GM isnt setting simple mechanical locks at DC25, people probably are not going to notice the difference.

If the DC feels appropriate and GM is consistent with themselves, I dont think theres much to really complain about outside not satisfying aesthetic preferences for fine granularity.

[Eldariel]

Eh, enough falls under GM purview that expecting consistency between GMs doesnt seem realistic to me. Whether or not you'll even have to make a skill check is never going to be consistent: pushing for precise DC consistency feels like putting the cart before the horse to me. There is a table provided for setting DCs, so as long as the GM isnt setting simple mechanical locks at DC25, people probably are not going to notice the difference.

If the DC feels appropriate and GM is consistent with themselves, I dont think theres much to really complain about outside not satisfying aesthetic preferences for fine granularity.

As a GM it's a royal pain not having a convenient reference table. Without a table, it's also far likelier that I adjust it subconsciously based on how I'd like for the situation to go or based on how this particular rope feels. Honestly, I find a consistent list of DCs to make it much easier to let the players feel like they're interacting with the world rather than my, ultimately very limited, knowledge and experience.

[EggKookoo]

As a GM it's a royal pain not having a convenient reference table. Without a table, it's also far likelier that I adjust it subconsciously based on how I'd like for the situation to go or based on how this particular rope feels. Honestly, I find a consistent list of DCs to make it much easier to let the players feel like they're interacting with the world rather than my, ultimately very limited, knowledge and experience.

You could just make your own list.

[Eldariel]

You could just make your own list.

I'm not paid to, though, and that's out of my own DMing time. It's way more convenient for a list to exist within the system, so not every DM has to make their (inevitably subjective) lists but can instead rely on a roughly balanced, semi-logical system that somewhat corresponds to how much practice doing something in reality would require (3e actually did this fairly well not counting magical bonuses; then they went totally gaga with those, especially the +30 Bluff from Glibness but that's another story).

[EggKookoo]

I'm not paid to, though, and that's out of my own DMing time.

If the game provided a list, you'd quickly encounter a situation that wasn't on that list and then you'd be stuck. You obviously can't estimate one on your own time like some kind of sucker. :smallwink:

[noob]

If the game provided a list, you'd quickly encounter a situation that wasn't on that list and then you'd be stuck. You obviously can't estimate one on your own time like some kind of sucker. :smallwink:

people are better at relative judgement than at absolute judgement one such example is that if you give a list with a lot of products(ex: different computers) most people will fall back to local relative judgement because they can not just process each product and make an absolute judgement.
So if you can look at other dcs for tasks not too unsimilar you might have an easier time judging the task in relative than just using some sort of ability that most humans does not develops much and make an absolute judgement.
Furthermore if the most classical cases or cases very close to those have already defined dcs you will not have a too much hard time judging when meeting one of those common cases.

Sure dcs tables are not a perfect tool to give an answer at each time but it can feel more convenient than looking through all your previous adventures you gmed to check if your skill check is consistent with the arbitrary judgements you made before.

A possibility if you plan ahead is to write down dcs as you pick them on the fly on some document in order to make your own scale but it can be more effort than if you do not have to write stuff down.

[Luccan]

I don't think they're necessary, but Skill DC tables would be helpful. Looking over the 3.5 skill tables, most give a pretty good idea of the majority of tasks you'll be using the skill for (Climb is particularly close to being all-encompassing) and finicky modifiers have been replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage in 5e, which would significantly reduce the need to look things up. I do think there's the possibility of freezing up games when a situation not easily covered by such tables comes up, because I think having those tables will lead to DMs (particularly new ones) being overly reliant on them. Writing up some consistent tables for yourself, since 5e doesn't have any, could help give a feeling of consistency if any of your players are worried about it. You could even mostly borrow from 3.5's tables (though I might reduce the numbers in some cases, since bonuses won't be as high most of the time).

[EggKookoo]

I don't think they're necessary, but Skill DC tables would be helpful. Looking over the 3.5 skill tables, most give a pretty good idea of the majority of tasks you'll be using the skill for (Climb is particularly close to being all-encompassing) and finicky modifiers have been replaced with Advantage/Disadvantage in 5e, which would significantly reduce the need to look things up. I do think there's the possibility of freezing up games when a situation not easily covered by such tables comes up, because I think having those tables will lead to DMs (particularly new ones) being overly reliant on them. Writing up some consistent tables for yourself, since 5e doesn't have any, could help give a feeling of consistency if any of your players are worried about it. You could even mostly borrow from 3.5's tables (though I might reduce the numbers in some cases, since bonuses won't be as high most of the time).

I think you are onto a good insight with that reference to advantage/disadvantage. The 3e DCs were designed around a system reliant upon lots of little linear bonuses and penalties, so you needed a list that broke out DCs down to the individual value. Doing X is DC 20 but doing a slight variation on X is DC 21. With 5e, that's all replaced by advantage/disadvantage, so the DCs lose a lot of that fine resolution. It really just doesn't matter beyond the basic easy/medium/hard breakdown.

[Mongobear]

It really just doesn't matter beyond the basic easy/medium/hard breakdown.

The issue with just using Easy/Medium/Hard is that the default DCs table lists like 7-8 levels of difficulty. So, differentiating between a DC 10 vs DC 15 can be somewhat difficult depending on the situation. if they only had examples of, say DC 10/20/30 it would be much easier, but with DC breakdowns so close to one another, it becomes difficult to really distinguish DC 10 and DC 15, especially as levels advance.

Also, those DCs don't scale well, what may be "Medium" difficulty at level 1, is borderline trivial by level 10, after ASIs and proficiency increases. DC 15 is an entirely different goal, yet its still listed as "medium".

[Luccan]

A difference of 5 is actually pretty large on a d20.

Honestly, if I had a complaint to lodge with 5e skills, it would be that in most cases your stat mod does more than your proficiency bonus to determine what you're good at. But it doesn't make the game unplayable.

[LordEntrails]

Also, those DCs don't scale well, what may be "Medium" difficulty at level 1, is borderline trivial by level 10, after ASIs and proficiency increases. DC 15 is an entirely different goal, yet its still listed as "medium".

"Easy/Medium/Hard" is not, nor is it intended, in 5E to be relative to the party's abilities. It is relative to what a common person could do. When in doubt, use a common human.

'That would be pretty hard for a commoner to do.' = DC20. But, it could very well be very easy for legendary hero, or any other master at the skill to do.

There are cliff faces that would be very hard for me to climb, but experts climb them all the time. A consistent way is to base difficulty on how hard it is for a commoner. Don't try and metagame and say 'this should be hard for my party.' This is a lot like passive perception, sure, the PC (who is NOT a commoner) who has totally tuned their character to have a high passive perception, sure almost nothing slips past them but they are not common, they are uncommon, and maybe even legendary!

[Max_Killjoy]

If the game provided a list, you'd quickly encounter a situation that wasn't on that list and then you'd be stuck.


Assumes a false dichotomy of "game provides no framework at all" or "game must provide all answers for all possible situations".

A game can provide examples, as a starting point, as a framework for the players (GM and otherwise) to build on, without anyone being under the mistaken impression that the game is providing difficulties for all possible circumstances.

[Mongobear]

"Easy/Medium/Hard" is not, nor is it intended, in 5E to be relative to the party's abilities. It is relative to what a common person could do. When in doubt, use a common human.

'That would be pretty hard for a commoner to do.' = DC20. But, it could very well be very easy for legendary hero, or any other master at the skill to do.

There are cliff faces that would be very hard for me to climb, but experts climb them all the time. A consistent way is to base difficulty on how hard it is for a commoner. Don't try and metagame and say 'this should be hard for my party.' This is a lot like passive perception, sure, the PC (who is NOT a commoner) who has totally tuned their character to have a high passive perception, sure almost nothing slips past them but they are not common, they are uncommon, and maybe even legendary!

That's the part I can't get past. I want a way to figure out "easy/medium/hard" DCs based on a relative factor of party level. This is partially because of me 'cutting my teeth' in 3.5e, where skill ranks and DCs grew faster and there was a much larger difference between level 1 and level 10. In 5e, short of Expertise classes, the difference is minor, and I'm having trouble adjusting my design process to that fact.

[EggKookoo]

That's the part I can't get past. I want a way to figure out "easy/medium/hard" DCs based on a relative factor of party level. This is partially because of me 'cutting my teeth' in 3.5e, where skill ranks and DCs grew faster and there was a much larger difference between level 1 and level 10. In 5e, short of Expertise classes, the difference is minor, and I'm having trouble adjusting my design process to that fact.

You need to decide what you think a common person has for a roll mod. Say it's +1 (it's likely 0, but for now we'll go with +1). If DC 20 is hard for a commoner with +1, that means the commoner will most likely roll an 11, +1 = 12, so hard = -8 on the DC.

if you want to come up with a DC that's relatively equally hard for your expert with +9 (+3 ability mod +6 for Prof Bonus), just increase the DC to 28. Such a task is basically impossible for the commoner, of course.

[Pex]

I'm describing game systems. Or do you have a system in mind that gives you an accurate, reliable metric for a task that accounts for all variables?

I'm saying "the DM says it's moderately difficult" is no different than the book listing a DC that could be interpreted as "moderately difficult." I've seen complaints about how DM #1 says "moderate" for a given task and DM #2 says "hard" but that's no different than DM #1 looking at the DC chart and agreeing that the task is what the chart says and DM #2 looking at the chart and deciding that in this case it's a little harder than typical. In the end, the DM sets the DC in both cases, and does so for narrative reasons.

When there's a chart there's a reason for a DC to be harder other than DM whim. The chart itself would provide those reasons. Since a chart cannot cover every possible scenario for everything there will be a rule to cover that. In 3E that's the "DM's best friend" plus or minus 2. In 5E it would be apply Advantage/Disadvantage provided there's a set DC. 5E does have set DC charts for some things. There are charts for object hardness, NPC reactions, and tool use, so the concept of having set chart DCs is not anathema to 5E. The complaint is they don't exist for skills.

Still, it's fine for a DM to say a DC is harder, but there's a reason other than DM fiat. For the generic average case the DC will be by the chart. The DC to climb a tree is X. The player knows it's X. He knows how well his character can climb a tree. When a tree comes along the player wants to climb but the DC is X + Y, even if he doesn't know the reason he knows there's something special about that tree. It's in character knowledge because the character is right there trying to climb it. The fact that it's harder to climb than normal is a known fact, and it's up to the player to figure out why if he cares to. When the DC is whatever the DM feels like then his character's ability to climb a tree is irrelevant and it becomes Mother May I, to coin an old phrase.

[Yogibear41]

5th edition is easier than 3.5. Its very easy to make a useless character in 3.5 if you don't know what you are doing. Its harder to do that in 5th edition.

I would say 5th edition is easier for beginners to pick up and play decently. 3.5 is not at all, past the first few levels.

[Luccan]

That's the part I can't get past. I want a way to figure out "easy/medium/hard" DCs based on a relative factor of party level. This is partially because of me 'cutting my teeth' in 3.5e, where skill ranks and DCs grew faster and there was a much larger difference between level 1 and level 10. In 5e, short of Expertise classes, the difference is minor, and I'm having trouble adjusting my design process to that fact.

Well, for the first few levels the vast majority of character won't have more than a +4/+5 to any check, at least by point-buy standards, and that's only if the skill is in their primary stat. Expertise is supposed to break the system a bit, so you shouldn't throw in skill challenges just to make the Rogue or Bard's life harder. But a + 4 or 5 makes checks of 15 possible about half the time. So from an early point, dedicated characters really will find a DC of 10 easy. By this measure, we see that Medium means a 50% chance of failure for a gifted but low-level individual. Meanwhile, a high-level character usually maxes out at +11 without magic or expertise, maybe +10 for a skill in a secondary stat. At this point, they fail checks of 20 a little less than 50% of the time and checks of 25 about 75% of the time. Even high level characters will find checks above twenty less reliable. So, in terms of PCs, a challenge that is (very easy/easy/medium/hard) should increase by about 2 every 4 levels. I wouldn't go messing with the number above a [hard] difficulty though. Checks above 30 are clearly intended to be near impossible full stop, so ranking things up to 40 or more should almost never be necessary.

[Mutazoia]

There are always going to be people who consider "their" version of a game to be the penultimate version. Any version that came after (or before) is crap, as are the people who play them. They may even go so far as to bend the rules, and fudge dice rolls, in order to "punish" said players, and prove the inherent superiority of "their" version.

[Ignimortis]

That's the part I can't get past. I want a way to figure out "easy/medium/hard" DCs based on a relative factor of party level. This is partially because of me 'cutting my teeth' in 3.5e, where skill ranks and DCs grew faster and there was a much larger difference between level 1 and level 10. In 5e, short of Expertise classes, the difference is minor, and I'm having trouble adjusting my design process to that fact.

But...DCs didn't grow in 3.5. That was the whole point. Your rogue could have a lot of trouble with a good lock (DC 30) at level 1, up to only being able to open it on a roll of 20 (18 DEX+4 ranks+2 circumstance from tools), but at level 5 it gets a lot easier (8 ranks, 20 DEX) and at level 10 it's trivial (13 ranks, 24+ DEX, probably some sort of enchanted gloves for +10 bonus). And above that would be only an amazing lock (DC 40), which would still be beatable at level 10 and afterwards you just get better and the world stays the same. At level 20, you basically look at a lock and it opens itself as soon as you touch it. And that goes for basically every skill which isn't a contest depending on the target's stats/HD.


I wouldn't go messing with the number above a [hard] difficulty though. Checks above 30 are clearly intended to be near impossible full stop, so ranking things up to 40 or more should almost never be necessary.

My current character has 28 passive perception, and it'll be 30 next level. At this point, the DM just throws his hands up and automatically reveals everything hidden when I'm close enough to see/hear those things.

[Mongobear]

But...DCs didn't grow in 3.5. That was the whole point.


Except they did.

A standard lock doesn't suddenly change its DC, but there were harder locks to open that you could substitute for it, to actually challenge a higher level Rogue.

There were higher CR traps that were harder to find/harder to disarm for higher level characters.

Figuring out obscure Lore about a topic/creature grew based on it's Hit Dice/challenge rating.

Walking across a narrow ledge, affected by Grease, in high winds, during an earthquake was next to impossible in 3.5e, but in 5e, it's DC 25 with Disadvantage? And the disadvantage can be cancelled out if the PC has help or Inspiration.

This is really my only gripe with 5e, Skills other than Athletics and Perception could be removed entirely from the game, and there wouldn't be much impact. DMs could handle social interactions by actually having conversations in character, knowledge could be handled with actual background knowledge and in-character learning, etc.

It feels to me that they went a little heavy handed on the intentionally vague design decision. I just wish/hope they print a new book soon with a section that helps DM with DCs, grey areas, and similar situations. It's honestly becoming an issue having to explain why certain decisions are being made, and why I set a DC higher than before, or why someone has Disadvantage on a skill check. I actually WANT a book with a table that says why, pulling the "because I'm the DM and I said so" card is even starting to get on my nerves as it isn't a real answer.

[Ignimortis]

Except they did.

A standard lock doesn't suddenly change its DC, but there were harder locks to open that you could substitute for it, to actually challenge a higher level Rogue.

That isn't really DCs changing, that's the situation changing. So the same situation would have the same DC in 3.5. And a DC50 lock would raise quite a few eyebrows unless it was something one-of-a-kind. So it's not scaling Skyrim-style, the DCs are pre-set depending on the situation.

5e DCs are basically whatever the GM wants them to be at the moment.

[Great Dragon]

I'm not paid to, though, and that's out of my own DMing time. {Snip} (3e actually did this fairly well not counting magical bonuses; then they went totally gaga with those, especially the +30 Bluff from Glibness but that's another story).

Although I'm not expecting to get rewarded (paid) to do things related to running the game as a GM, I also agree that I shouldn't be required to burn my rare Downtime between RL Duties and GM Homework just to satisfy the random Rule Lawyer.

I tend to agree that at least a better idea for what higher DCs (especially past 20) achieve would be nice.

I'm constantly annoyed at what 5e DCs expect of a PC.

DC 10: Honestly, this is only difficult for the NPC has both no Proficiency and no Ability Modifier, where only a Lucky Roll on a 50/50 bet achieves the task. All 1st level PCs get +2 from Proficiency and most have a +2 (14) in Class important Abilities. Thus, for the atypical PC doing a Class skill, only a Roll below 5 on the die fails.

DC 15: Usually becomes easy after 9th level. +4 Prof plus +4 Ability (on average) means a Roll of 7 on the Die. Expertise kills this DC as early as Fifth level.
+3 p +3 e + 3 a = 9 +6 Roll = 15!!

DC 20 is supposed to Super Hard, but as mentioned, only for NPC Average Joe. Both the 5th level Expertised PC now only needs an 11+ on Die, a 50/50 bet, and the above 9th level PC needs one extra point on the Die!!!

At 20th Level

The Rogue literally can't fail at a DC 20 check at the Skills they chose at 1st level.
+6 (p) +4 (a) plus never below 10 = 20!!

Expertise is nearly pointless for a Rogue with Bounded Accuracy setting the DC forever at 20.

The 10% Fail chance is mostly meaningless now. Especially since bad things are only supposed to happen if the DC is missed by at least 5 points.

But what gets my goat, especially as a Player, is when the Expert PC fails and the Clueless PC succeeds because the E rolled Super Low and C rolled - like - a Natural 20!! If everything is locked behind a good Die Roll, why bother even making a Class with Expertise at all?
Rogue can still be kinda useful, since automatic success at Perception/Investigation and Thieves Tools to bypass Traps and Locks (and detection of Secret Doors) can be useful.

But, a Scout Rogue and Lore Bards need not apply.

[Mongobear]

My issue I guess is lack of a way to back up my "whimsical DC decisions" short of the "DM is always right" card.

I've been on both sides of the screen to witness this issue. Some DMs have set DCs too low, and we don't even need to roll, others set it too high, and we literally failed every skill check that wasn't a contested check, until we just stopped trying to use skills and just murderhobo'd everything.

Would it really be that bad if 5e has a 2-3 page chapter that set example DCs for every skill like the 3.5 PHB did? Along with appropriate examples of circumstances to apply (Dis)Advantage? I would wholeheartedly welcome such material.

EDIT--I do agree with the point above about the swinginess of dice rolls for an Expert vs a Novice. I've began not even allowing rolls from PCs without proper training.

Ex: We had a Barbarian who was superstitious about magical items, and spellcasters in general. He refused to use anything not obviously weapon based, and had to be convinced by the party to use a Belt of Fire Giant Strength. They encountered a Mirror of Life Trapping, and literally nobody knew what it was.

Everybody gets an Arcana roll to figure it out, with a Bard throwing Inspiration(d8), and a Cleric using Guidance(d4). Nobody made the DC 30 check. Mr Rage Monkey's turn for the last shot. Nat 20, 7, 4, and a -1 Int mod. The DM literally had to stop for like 20 minutes to figure out how the Barbarian, of all people, knew what this was.

This shouldn't be a possible outcome, yet we have seen similar things multiple times across multiple campaigns.

[qube]

Would it really be that bad if 5e has a 2-3 page chapter that set example DCs for every skill like the 3.5 PHB did? Along with appropriate examples of circumstances to apply (Dis)Advantage? I would wholeheartedly welcome such material.inherently? no.

But this kind of goes against the idea of 5E (as it tries to be lighter on the rules, compared to 3.5). And that's kind of the problem with the argument: it's the slippery slope.

(warning, obvious hyperbole and simplfied maths - just to note the slippery slope) If 3.5 is 50 lb and 5E is 10 lb (get it? "heavy" on rules :smallwink: ) ... you're absolutely right that 0.1 lb isn't much. 10.1 lb is still way lighter then 50 lb
... But why skills? Because you find that important?
... by that logic, with way over 10000 players, 5E now at 1000 lb.


ESPECIALLY if you don't want to pull the "DM is always right" card - realise it's MUCH easier to ADD something that the book didn't specify ( like a chart with DCs ) over saying "screw what the rules say, we're going to to it my way".

[Knaight]

In the meat world, the people I know who like nuts and bolts prefer PF. The people who don't like all that mechanical stuff prefer Dungeon World or FATE. 5E seems to occupy the middle ground. My PFers don't like it more than DW or FATE and my DW/FATE crew don't hate it the way that they hate "Mathfinder".

The problem with meat world analysis is that anyone you know the RPG tastes of is in a biased sample group of people who you end up talking RPGs with. This can really distort things, especially once the overlap of "people who you end up talking RPGs with" and "people influenced by your taste in RPGs" start blurring into each other.

I know a fair few people interested in my particular corner of the indie scene. If I extrapolate that outwards that particular corner of the indie scene is vastly popular, and what people in real life are interested. That and D&D. I'd see the same thing based on "data" where I just extrapolate my personal experience in online spaces without considering the biases of those spaces, though it would at least expand significantly and contradict some of the more ridiculous results from extrapolating from just people I know in person.

[Mongobear]

It's not like I'm asking for an entire book devoted to every terrain type, every outer plane, the various hybrid planes, and an expansion for every flavor of arcane/divine/martial/skillmonkey class. Just 2-3 pages of tables and examples to aid in setting DCs. Hell, it could even be an unofficial source like UA for all I care.

[diplomancer]

Although I'm not expecting to get rewarded (paid) to do things related to running the game as a GM, I also agree that I shouldn't be required to burn my rare Downtime between RL Duties and GM Homework just to satisfy the random Rule Lawyer.

I tend to agree that at least a better idea for what higher DCs (especially past 20) achieve would be nice.

I'm constantly annoyed at what 5e DCs expect of a PC.

DC 10: Honestly, this is only difficult for the NPC has both no Proficiency and no Ability Modifier, where only a Lucky Roll on a 50/50 bet achieves the task. All 1st level PCs get +2 from Proficiency and most have a +2 (14) in Class important Abilities. Thus, for the atypical PC doing a Class skill, only a Roll below 5 on the die fails.

DC 15: Usually becomes easy after 9th level. +4 Prof plus +4 Ability (on average) means a Roll of 7 on the Die. Expertise kills this DC as early as Fifth level.
+3 p +3 e + 3 a = 9 +6 Roll = 15!!

DC 20 is supposed to Super Hard, but as mentioned, only for NPC Average Joe. Both the 5th level Expertised PC now only needs an 11+ on Die, a 50/50 bet, and the above 9th level PC needs one extra point on the Die!!!

At 20th Level

The Rogue literally can't fail at a DC 20 check at the Skills they chose at 1st level.
+6 (p) +4 (a) plus never below 10 = 20!!

Expertise is nearly pointless for a Rogue with Bounded Accuracy setting the DC forever at 20.

The 10% Fail chance is mostly meaningless now. Especially since bad things are only supposed to happen if the DC is missed by at least 5 points.

But what gets my goat, especially as a Player, is when the Expert PC fails and the Clueless PC succeeds because the E rolled Super Low and C rolled - like - a Natural 20!! If everything is locked behind a good Die Roll, why bother even making a Class with Expertise at all?
Rogue can still be kinda useful, since automatic success at Perception/Investigation and Thieves Tools to bypass Traps and Locks (and detection of Secret Doors) can be useful.

But, a Scout Rogue and Lore Bards need not apply.


The Wizard gets Wish. The rogue gets to succeed in whatever they are skilled at with 0% of failure. If he's got Expertise, he can automatically suceed in things that are impossible for a trained low-level NPC with a 14 in the relevant ability (DC25). If that is unbalanced in anyway, it's to the Wizard's favor. Raising DCs arbitrarily because the PC is high level is a great way to nerf rogues. If you think this subtracts from the excitement of the game, ask your casters how much they would enjoy having to roll an increasing DC just to cast their spells, because "rolling is fun".

The name of the class feature is "reliable talent" for a reason.

[noob]

inherently? no.

But this kind of goes against the idea of 5E (as it tries to be lighter on the rules, compared to 3.5). And that's kind of the problem with the argument: it's the slippery slope.

(warning, obvious hyperbole and simplfied maths - just to note the slippery slope) If 3.5 is 50 lb and 5E is 10 lb (get it? "heavy" on rules :smallwink: ) ... you're absolutely right that 0.1 lb isn't much. 10.1 lb is still way lighter then 50 lb
... But why skills? Because you find that important?
... by that logic, with way over 10000 players, 5E now at 1000 lb.


ESPECIALLY if you don't want to pull the "DM is always right" card - realise it's MUCH easier to ADD something that the book didn't specify ( like a chart with DCs ) over saying "screw what the rules say, we're going to to it my way".
except that example skill dcs are not rules it is content: nothing forces you to follow the examples.
If there is a table with written "here are some example of tasks and of possible difficulties you could assign to those" how is it more "rules" than a campaign book which does mentions difficulties for some tasks(like "you need to succeed at a dc 30 check to succeed in climbing this smooth 5 degree slope because it rained last year")?
do you consider that adding an extra monster or adding an extra adventure or adding more flavour text is increasing the amount of rules?

If you tell me that adventures are extra rules then I will be very confused and proceed to make dnd 5e be literally infinitely complex in rules by scribbling a procedural dnd adventure generator that makes all the combination of words possible.

[diplomancer]

except that example skill dcs are not rules it is content: nothing forces you to follow the examples.
If there is a table with written "here are some example of tasks and of possible difficulties you could assign to those" how is it more "rules" than a campaign book which does mentions difficulties for some tasks(like "you need to succeed at a dc 30 check to succeed in climbing this smooth 5 degree slope because it rained last year")?
do you consider that adding an extra monster or adding an extra adventure or adding more flavour text is increasing the amount of rules?

If you tell me that adventures are extra rules then I will be very confused and proceed to make dnd 5e be literally infinitely complex in rules by scribbling a procedural dnd adventure generator that makes all the combination of words possible.

Players are not supposed to know the DC in published adventures. If I was DM'ing a published campaign and a player said "actually, the DC for this trap is X, not Y", I would say something like "rocks fall, your character dies. Everyone else, was your character standing also where the rocks fell?". Also, since the DC is right there on the text of the adventure (and supposedly the DM is reading from the room description or whatever), it does not slow down the game at all.

But DCs in the DMG or PHB would work very differently both in terms of player knowledge and expectations, AND slowing down the game to look things up.

[Ignimortis]

ESPECIALLY if you don't want to pull the "DM is always right" card - realise it's MUCH easier to ADD something that the book didn't specify ( like a chart with DCs ) over saying "screw what the rules say, we're going to to it my way".

Well that's your personal opinion. I prefer going by the book most of the time, and sometimes saying "it's not like the book says" instead of having to invent stuff because the book doesn't say anything.

[Knaight]

except that example skill dcs are not rules it is content: nothing forces you to follow the examples.
If there is a table with written "here are some example of tasks and of possible difficulties you could assign to those" how is it more "rules" than a campaign book which does mentions difficulties for some tasks(like "you need to succeed at a dc 30 check to succeed in climbing this smooth 5 degree slope because it rained last year")?
do you consider that adding an extra monster or adding an extra adventure or adding more flavour text is increasing the amount of rules?

If you tell me that adventures are extra rules then I will be very confused and proceed to make dnd 5e be literally infinitely complex in rules by scribbling a procedural dnd adventure generator that makes all the combination of words possible.

Nothing forces you to do anything at all - what it does is create expectations, and content can do that just as well as explicit rules.

As for you making D&D infinitely complex, that doesn't work well for a few reasons. The generator itself contains a finite amount of content, and the ability to create expectations requires a certain level of credibility. You don't have it, the core books do, various sufficiently popular other books can do so as well.

Extra monsters? Adventures? More flavor text? All of those increase expectations, just like rules content does (and example DCs are rules content). The D&D ruleset can be used to run a game without elves, dwarves, orcs, etc., but because they're in the PHB races section people expect them to exist in your setting when you DM. The D&D ruleset can be used to run a game with human conflicts between people in a setting that doesn't have monsters, but when one of the three core books is literally a monster manual people expect monsters. Adventures are a bit more peripheral here, mostly because none of them are actually included in the core books and they don't have the cachet to directly create expectations. On the other hand when there's as much learning by emulation as there is in this hobby the decades of modules through the editions have definitely had an impact on what people expect D&D to look like.

Expectations aren't necessarily a bad thing; generally the reason you'd choose to play a specific game is because you expect to get to play whatever attracted you to it. Maybe these are the actual rules of the game, maybe it's setting info, maybe it's the art, maybe it's even the tone of the writing (a.k.a. more flavor text). Still, there's a point where they stop supporting the process and start constraining it, and while that point varies hugely it can be crossed. D&D in particular also tends to be everyone's first game, and as such the expectations involved tend to be disproportionately strong. This pushes the constraint side a bit, and while it can also push the support side for the same reason (new GMs tend to need a bit more system/setting support) that can make things that would be examples that can safely be disregarded in other systems be ironclad constraints on the GM in D&D.

For me personally a list of specific DCs tend to be in that constraint category. The example DC table is support. That particular design decision is actually the main reason D&D Next caught my attention back in the playtest.

[EggKookoo]

When there's a chart there's a reason for a DC to be harder other than DM whim. The chart itself would provide those reasons.

If you can look at the 53-point spread of the DC chart in the 3e DMG and come away with a way to extrapolate special cases without prompting more arguments around the table, you are one outstanding DM. I mean, without checking, is "resist the wail of the banshee spell" easier or harder that "shoot an armored guard through an arrow slit"? It's a trick question -- they're both DC 24. How in the world are you supposed to make non-whim-based additions to that list? Especially in a game where a difference of just one point is significant?


When the DC is whatever the DM feels like then his character's ability to climb a tree is irrelevant and it becomes Mother May I, to coin an old phrase.

I guess this is where I get tripped up. In 3e, a DM is certainly going to set a DC higher if he wants the task to be harder. You say (I think) that at least the player knows the DM is doing that, but it seems like you're aware when a 5e DM is doing it as well, otherwise what's the complaint? And knowing the 3e DM is deviating from an established DC helps you... how? I mean you still need to roll against that DC so mechanically it makes no difference. And you can assume this specific instance is an outlier and more difficult than usual, but so what? Chances are the DM just wanted to make hit harder for narrative reasons. You can chase your tail searching for an in-game reason why, but the campaign is going to move on.

In the end, having the listed DCs just gives you ammunition for any righteous outrage you feel over the DM setting an ad hoc DC. The funny thing is, 5e doesn't even rob you of that, as evidenced by your argument. It just shifts it to the edition itself, but you can't blame the game if you chose to play it.


Players are not supposed to know the DC in published adventures.

From what I've been reading in this forum, to some 3.x players you just spoke the purest gibberish. What's weirder is it seems as though the argument is that the PCs (not just the players) seem to be aware of the DCs. Like with Pex's tree-climber. He somehow knows a given tree just seems harder than typical to climb. Further, he knows that it wasn't just a normal tree that he just happened to fail to climb because by extrapolation of knowing the DC, he must also know the die roll his player made.

This is very much what 5e is trying to get away from, and get back to the pre-3.x philosophy that the players just describe what they're trying to do and the DM describes the outcome, and dice only come into play situationally.

[Max_Killjoy]

From what I've been reading in this forum, to some 3.x players you just spoke the purest gibberish. What's weirder is it seems as though the argument is that the PCs (not just the players) seem to be aware of the DCs. Like with Pex's tree-climber. He somehow knows a given tree just seems harder than typical to climb. Further, he knows that it wasn't just a normal tree that he just happened to fail to climb because by extrapolation of knowing the DC, he must also know the die roll his player made.


(Emphasis added.)

Are you suggesting that the character, who has a better view of the tree than any of us, has no idea that the pine tree with no branches for the first 30 feet will be harder to climb than the gnarled hardwood with branches starting within arms' reach from the ground?

[EggKookoo]

(Emphasis added.)

Are you suggesting that the character, who has a better view of the tree than any of us, has no idea that the pine tree with no branches for the first 30 feet will be harder to climb than the gnarled hardwood with branches starting within arms' reach from the ground?

I'm suggesting the character in his fictional reality has no concept of a "difficulty class" that applies to all trees. In other words, there's no single number that would apply to every tree, and really that there's no such thing as an "average tree" in practice. Trees are all different and therefore the complexities in climbing them will vary, and quite a bit. Having a set "tree climb" DC in the rules works against this, and only encourages arguments when the DM decides that just because it's more interesting he's going to set the DC 5 points higher for this particular tree.

What if the DM had a habit of taking some set, published DC and applying 1d6 - 3 to the value just to simulate the natural randomness of reality? Would that feel any different than the DM just deciding to increase (or I guess decrease) the DC arbitrarily?

[diplomancer]

From what I've been reading in this forum, to some 3.x players you just spoke the purest gibberish. What's weirder is it seems as though the argument is that the PCs (not just the players) seem to be aware of the DCs. Like with Pex's tree-climber. He somehow knows a given tree just seems harder than typical to climb. Further, he knows that it wasn't just a normal tree that he just happened to fail to climb because by extrapolation of knowing the DC, he must also know the die roll his player made.

This is very much what 5e is trying to get away from, and get back to the pre-3.x philosophy that the players just describe what they're trying to do and the DM describes the outcome, and dice only come into play situationally.

I agree with your point, but I was thinking of something else. I have no problem with a DM telling the players the DC beforehand, I suppose it would vary depending on the group (I might have a problem with a dialogue that goes -"I want to try this" -"Are you sure, it's really hard" -"I don't care, I wanna roll" -"Ok, DC 25" -"On the other hand, I will try something else"). But if the published adventure says it's, say DC 12 and I, for whatever reason, decide to make it a DC 13 or a DC 11, I'm going to have a big problem with the player who says "actually, it's DC 12".

About the "tree-climbing". A case can be made that the skill-set for climbing a palm tree which -from what I've seen a coconut cutter doing without any equipment- depends mostly on core and lower body strength, is very different than the skill set to climb a tree full of branches, where upper body strength is more important. Do people really want a game that takes that sort of granularity into consideration?

[noob]

Nothing forces you to do anything at all - what it does is create expectations, and content can do that just as well as explicit rules.

As for you making D&D infinitely complex, that doesn't work well for a few reasons. The generator itself contains a finite amount of content, and the ability to create expectations requires a certain level of credibility. You don't have it, the core books do, various sufficiently popular other books can do so as well.

Extra monsters? Adventures? More flavor text? All of those increase expectations, just like rules content does (and example DCs are rules content). The D&D ruleset can be used to run a game without elves, dwarves, orcs, etc., but because they're in the PHB races section people expect them to exist in your setting when you DM. The D&D ruleset can be used to run a game with human conflicts between people in a setting that doesn't have monsters, but when one of the three core books is literally a monster manual people expect monsters. Adventures are a bit more peripheral here, mostly because none of them are actually included in the core books and they don't have the cachet to directly create expectations. On the other hand when there's as much learning by emulation as there is in this hobby the decades of modules through the editions have definitely had an impact on what people expect D&D to look like.

Expectations aren't necessarily a bad thing; generally the reason you'd choose to play a specific game is because you expect to get to play whatever attracted you to it. Maybe these are the actual rules of the game, maybe it's setting info, maybe it's the art, maybe it's even the tone of the writing (a.k.a. more flavor text). Still, there's a point where they stop supporting the process and start constraining it, and while that point varies hugely it can be crossed. D&D in particular also tends to be everyone's first game, and as such the expectations involved tend to be disproportionately strong. This pushes the constraint side a bit, and while it can also push the support side for the same reason (new GMs tend to need a bit more system/setting support) that can make things that would be examples that can safely be disregarded in other systems be ironclad constraints on the GM in D&D.

For me personally a list of specific DCs tend to be in that constraint category. The example DC table is support. That particular design decision is actually the main reason D&D Next caught my attention back in the playtest.

So you are saying that making new adventures makes dnd 5e less expectation light?
Also were players not supposed to ignore content from the dungeon master guide?



As for you making D&D infinitely complex, that doesn't work well for a few reasons. The generator itself contains a finite amount of content, and the ability to create expectations requires a certain level of credibility. You don't have it, the core books do, various sufficiently popular other books can do so as well.
but my generator literally creates all the adventures that use words.
It is "for each ordered group of words create an adventure that have as content that group of words"
the generator is finite but it creates all the adventures(the majority of them does not makes any sense but my generator also generated all the adventures that made sense).
I did not say a computer algorithm I said an algorithm.

[EggKookoo]

I agree with your point, but I was thinking of something else. I have no problem with a DM telling the players the DC beforehand, I suppose it would vary depending on the group (I might have a problem with a dialogue that goes -"I want to try this" -"Are you sure, it's really hard" -"I don't care, I wanna roll" -"Ok, DC 25" -"On the other hand, I will try something else"). But if the published adventure says it's, say DC 12 and I, for whatever reason, decide to make it a DC 13 or a DC 11, I'm going to have a big problem with the player who says "actually, it's DC 12".

Yes, I almost always tell my players the DC before they roll. With occasional exceptions for emphasis and contrast, I'm not usually interested in playing that kind of guessing game with my players, and neither are they. I also tell them their foes' ACs. Just makes the game simpler and quicker. None of us assume it means the PCs themselves have gained some kind of supernatural knowledge about the inherent difficulty of the task, aside from unavoidable metagame thinking. But you can't eliminate that entirely anyway.

And yes, I agree about a player trying to insist a DC is X because it was written down somewhere. All DCs (and ACs when you get down to it) are baseline suggestions. They're there in case the DM doesn't feel like coming up with something more tailored or specific. This level of DM fiat is very high around DCs -- possibly the highest level of it in the game. I mean a DM could also arbitrarily rework how a given spell works but that's much less common, and usually is the kind of thing that's done once and then applies across the entire campaign. DCs fluctuate, and can do so quite rapidly. I have no problem, for example, incrementing up the DC for repeated attempts at the same task (not that I typically do, but to my mind it's a perfectly legit tactic).


About the "tree-climbing". A case can be made that the skill-set for climbing a palm tree which -from what I've seen a coconut cutter doing without any equipment- depends mostly on core and lower body strength, is very different than the skill set to climb a tree full of branches, where upper body strength is more important. Do people really want a game that takes that sort of granularity into consideration?

And it gets worse. What if it's raining? What if it's not raining but had rained with the past X minutes? Once you start down the path of extreme granularity, forever will it dominate your destiny.