Best/Worst Changes in 5e compared to earlier editions [Archive]

Waazraath

2020-04-16, 02:49 AM

Best:
- over all good balance
- easy to master, while keeping enough tactical and building options for those who want to go deeper
- not too much needless book keeping
- different classes with different mechanics, giving a lot of variaty between characters, classes and builds, especially while keeping the balance.
- over all: combination of races, backgrounds and (sub)classes allow a lot of different fantasy archtypes.
- generally fantastic edition.

worst:
- skill descriptions / difficulties are a bit too vague
- especially regarding wizards: they should have split up the class in several classes, like 3.5 late beguiler, dread necro, war mage. The current setup doesn't make it rewarding to play something like a 'fire mage', excluding a lot of archtypical fantasy characters, who are all covered by a generic 'wizard' which in general pick the best spells from all different schools, instead of focusing on a theme.
- in addition to the following: they should have removed a lot of spells with specific psionic themes (telepathy, telekinesis, mind reading kinda stuff) so it could be included later in a psion, who would have its own niche.
- the way it is designed makes it almost impossible to add different systems, like soulbinding, incarnum, tome of battle maneuvers; I understand why it is done, but it is a shame, cause those were fantastic additions to late 3.x.
- some archetypes are still missing: grappling monk, shape shifter (without casting), too name a few I personally miss (but there are more).
- publishing rate: I could do with more player options, and less settings / adventure modules 1-15. It's personal, but before one of my group finishes one, I'm years and years further, while player options for one shots or short campaigns always come in handy.

MrStabby

2020-04-16, 03:55 AM

Big step forward in balance

Big step forwards in trimming out a lot of dead options (thematically unexciting and mechanically weak bloat in previous editions didn't inspire me)

Love the relatively simple system

Love bounded accuracy

Love that more people can contribute in more areas of the game; there is a chance that the barbarian might persuade the noble where the bard fails excludes fewer people from fewer parts of the game.

I dislike:
The spell system - to be the best at something you pick up the spell that lets you do it. No investment or specialisation required.

The spell balance is terrible. If you are playing at even a moderately optimised table you are going to see the same spells again and again and others never. There is too big a gap between the top and bottom 10% of spells.

Lack of new high level abilities. There are some exceptions but past level 10 most classes don't get the ability to do new things - just the same old things a bit better. The exception is spells. Levelling up post 10 is less exciting than it could be as the game experience isn't qualitatively different.

Weapons are so simplified. We have hundreds of spells but basically about 5 different weapon rules? I wish they had kept exotic weapons with more interesting rules.

But one great feature worth adding in the context of the downsides...

Super easy to homebrew fixes and additional content.

Pleh

2020-04-16, 07:35 AM

- the way it is designed makes it almost impossible to add different systems, like soulbinding, incarnum, tome of battle maneuvers; I understand why it is done, but it is a shame, cause those were fantastic additions to late 3.x.

You could probably reflavor 5e magic item attunement as Incarnum. Instead of looting a magic sword, your character undergoes a ritual, gaining a magic tattoo and engraving their weapon with a corresponding rune that allows them to pour a portion of their soul into their weapon to give it magic properties.

Mikal

2020-04-16, 07:38 AM

Good: got rid of the mtg style “gotcha” rules or working towards it.

Bad: the mindset it’s promoted amongst players that anything beyond the most marginal of efforts to keep track of is “too complex”. See: people complaining about the psionic die in the newest UA thread.

Waazraath

2020-04-16, 07:41 AM

You could probably reflavor 5e magic item attunement as Incarnum. Instead of looting a magic sword, your character undergoes a ritual, gaining a magic tattoo and engraving their weapon with a corresponding rune that allows them to pour a portion of their soul into their weapon to give it magic properties.

Oh, yeah, true, and I think I could homebrew a workign soulbinding class / system for 5e as well if I made the effort and had a lot of spare time (I don't, alas).... but homebrew isn't alwas acceted, and that things can be fixed with homebrew doesn't mean they aren't missing in the core system (actually, the opposite - if they were present in the core system, we wouldn't have need to homebrew).

Chronos

2020-04-16, 07:58 AM

Worst: Bounded Accuracy. It's now impossible to become competent at anything.

The decision to avoid clear, unambiguous language in the rules. Yeah, yeah, it's the DM's job to make rulings, but you're still selling us a rulebook, here. And it vastly increases the amount of rules lawyering.

Best: No (well, almost no) class creep. There's a set number of classes, and everything is a subclass of one of them.

Backgrounds. Easy way to make your character more than just their race and class.

The whole trait/bond/ideal/flaw thing. Makes it easier to create character personalities.

Keravath

2020-04-16, 09:17 AM

Best:
-bounded accuracy - low level foes are never irrelevant
-class balance - this is way better than previous versions especially AD&D. Martials are still useful at high levels and even if Wizards still have Wish, high level casters aren't as broken as previous editions.
- The flavor and design get back to the roots of D&D
- d20 system :) ... this beats the entire THAC0 approach hands down
- concentration mechanic which prevents spamming spells
- limited power creep and bloat (there is some but far less than earlier editions with splat books with many OP options)
- the game is far more playable 1-20 than it ever has been. Many campaigns run out of steam before level 10, one reason in previous editions was the expanding power level and difficulty of setting up appropriate opponents and adventures, bounded accuracy and better balance does a great job of opening up higher level adventures (my highest level 5e character is 17 and I have multiple in the teens) so far while 1e AD&D, I think the highest I ever reached was about 12 at which point they were wealthy beyond measure, laden with magical items, owned a keep and really had little motivation to keep adventuring.
- Attunement - limits magic items to 3 attuned items plus a few utility/armor/weapons not requiring attunement - helps reduce Monty Haul issues
- typically lower level of magic (though this is DM and game dependent). The 5e default though has far fewer and less powerful magic items in the hands of the players at low levels.

Needs work?
- weapon fluff. Weapons are bludgeoning, piercing or slashing with damage die from d4, d6, d8, d10, d12 and one example of 2d6. Ranged, melee or melee+thrown, reach 5' or 10', one handed or two handed, magical or not, heavy, regular or light, finesse or not - most of the weapon options are described in terms of relatively simple mechanical terms. You can take any d6 bludgeoning weapon and describe it as a club or a short staff or a longer staff used with one hand, or any number of different weapons. For folks who like the idea of different weapons having different properties the weapon system can feel quite simplified. However, in D&D terms, there really isn't that much difference between real life weapons that could all be categorized as d6 slashing or d8 slashing these are just bundled into short swords and long swords for simplicity. This can mostly be addressed by the players describing their weapons however they like since the mechanical differences of a 6" longer blade in D&D terms are probably negligible.

Worst? (I'm not sure these are actually bad but they are the things that I notice most as feeling a bit out of place).

-coming from roots in AD&D, the long rest full healing mechanic feels a bit strange. However, players enjoy playing the game, the enjoyment doesn't come from sitting around for a week getting healed up so I can understand the motivation - the game is about adventuring, not recovering from adventures.
-yo-yo healing - at 0 hit points you are incapacitated and at 1 hit point you are fully functional. Monsters and spells do far more damage than healing spells can heal. The most efficient use of healing is to get a character off 0 hit points and back into the fight. This can be mitigated by intelligent monsters who attack downed characters to make sure that they don't get up again motivating earlier healing ... but players can be bothered by feeling picked on when monsters attack their defenseless character.

However, if interested, the DMG contains optional rules to address the long rest healing and change the game time scale in terms of rest mechanics.

---

Overall, I think 5e is the best version of D&D published so far ...

P.S. Just for reference .. I started with AD&D but have played varying amounts of all the version in between including Pathfinder (but not Pathfinder 2).

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-16, 10:17 AM

Worst: Bounded Accuracy. It's now impossible to become competent at anything.

I'm curious about which aspect you're talking about? Do you mean in skills or combat?

I've only played 5e so I'm wondering where the perspective is coming from, the characters I build always feel competent in the aspects I've aimed at for them. My inquisitive rogue was extremely capable in both investigation and perception, my blood hunter in arcana and survival and my paladin in persuasion and insight.

Trask

2020-04-16, 10:24 AM

Best
- Very modular, easily houseruled
- Pretty good class balanced
- Simple but satisfying mechanics
- Bounded accuracy keeps enemies relevant
- CONCENTRATION

Worst
- Spell balance is terrible
- Feats/Multiclassing are a vestigial and unbalanced mess
- Skills are vestigial and vague
- Expertise overwhelms bounded accuracy
- HP bloat is ridiculous, fights of attrition are too common

Boci

2020-04-16, 10:38 AM

I'm curious about which aspect you're talking about? Do you mean in skills or combat?

I've only played 5e so I'm wondering where the perspective is coming from, the characters I build always feel competent in the aspects I've aimed at for them. My inquisitive rogue was extremely capable in both investigation and perception, my blood hunter in arcana and survival and my paladin in persuasion and insight.

In 3.5 you sometimes couldn't succeed on skill checks even on a 20, if you didn't have training in the skill, so a paladin trained in persuasion was late game guranteed to be better at it than the shy wizard with 8 charisma and nothing boosting it, even if he rolled a 1 and the wizards got a 20, the paladins result would still be higher after all modifiers. Coming to 5th ed, where the 8 charimsa wizards even at level 20 can still get a 19, whilst the paladin can roll a one for a total of 18 with expertise can be jarring.

Its unlikely to happen sure, but the simple possibility that a shy bookworm wizard can actually get a better result than the eloquent paladin who has been negotiation for years is strange for some. Good? Bad? That's subjective, but it is a feature of bonded accuracy, for better or for worse.

Eldariel

2020-04-16, 01:02 PM

Let's see. It's impossible to answer generally, because the point of comparison obviously differs from edition to edition. Compared to 3e specifically:

Good:
- Movement! Being able to move freely around actions is a vast improvement
- Better codification of action economy
- Going back to extra attack as a class feature
- Concentration
- Bounded accuracy as an idea => Scaling reigned in
- More powerful feats
- ASI cap
- Simplified combat maneuver system
- Class design in general better
- Less bonus bookkeeping
- AC is actually relevant
- Damage spells are actually worth casting occasionally
- Cantrips at will are cool

Bad:
- Minionmancy is even stronger (byproduct of bounded accuracy)
- Advantage/disadvantage is too reductionist; being blind, poisoned, and attacking with too big a weapon doesn't matter if you're attacking a prone target in melee
- Feats and ASIs as either/or things; way too little fun with the feat system and way too few ASIs to really max out more than your primary stat
- Int was made a dump stat in addition to Cha and Str. Dex/Con > Wis > Int/Cha/Str is even more pronounced now
- Hardcap of stats at 30 makes things like Tarrasque ridiculously weak. It should be many times stronger than a Storm Giant but now the difference is barely visible in practice. In general, it's hard to achieve the feel of truly godlike ability
- Combat maneuvers being reduced to skills; this means it's pretty trivial to grapple/shove anything within one category of you even if it's literally the strongest, biggest thing on the planet (case in point: Expertise Athletics and Huge size makes Tarrasque a pushover, let alone if we account for penalties like Cutting Words
- They boosted some spells ridiculously. Wall of Force was great in 3e. Now it's basically a level 5 Force Cage. WTF, WotC?
- Spell balance in general is even worse, especially due to Concentration making most spells not worth knowing.
- Cantrips include few blatantly overpowered ones (Minor Illusion is ridiculous, though few others are also insanely strong).
- Lacking a proper melee system. Tome of Battle was the most fun I've ever had playing a melee character in D&D and Path of War one-upped it but 5e went back to "I attack again" with no regard for turn-from-turn options varying, no regard for an interplay of different attacks and defenses, no regard for anything really.
- Lack of description and nuance in the skill system. As a DM, I pretty much gotta fart numbers outta my arse and that's not very rewarding for the players nor for the DM.

Overall, I like 5e for it being quicker to run especially for less experienced players but martials got done dirty and spell balance is even worse in 5e than in 3e for whatever reason (and 3e spell balance was bad). And there's literally no reason to ever play anything but full casters in 5e since they're so far ahead of the pack from level 1 to level 20. The short rest/long rest argument doesn't even work since a party with only casters has so many LR resources that they don't really need SRs and comparatively, they get more out of each LR resource than from an SR one.

Keravath

2020-04-16, 01:02 PM

In 3.5 you sometimes couldn't succeed on skill checks even on a 20, if you didn't have training in the skill, so a paladin trained in persuasion was late game guranteed to be better at it than the shy wizard with 8 charisma and nothing boosting it, even if he rolled a 1 and the wizards got a 20, the paladins result would still be higher after all modifiers. Coming to 5th ed, where the 8 charimsa wizards even at level 20 can still get a 19, whilst the paladin can roll a one for a total of 18 with expertise can be jarring.

Its unlikely to happen sure, but the simple possibility that a shy bookworm wizard can actually get a better result than the eloquent paladin who has been negotiation for years is strange for some. Good? Bad? That's subjective, but it is a feature of bonded accuracy, for better or for worse.

I tend to use passive skills to help mitigate that. If a character is involved in a conversation trying to convince or persuade and it is more than one statement that lasts a while, I am likely to use the passive persuasion as a floor value for the attempt. As a result, a paladin with expertise and a +17 (level 17+, expertise and cha 20) modifier vs an untrained wizard with a -1 modifier will naturally succeed on most checks where the wizard would fail. In addition, the wizard automatically fails checks that require a DC greater than 19 while the paladin will automatically succeed anything with a DC of 18 or less. A charismatic rogue with 20 cha at that level has a minimum possible roll of 27 with reliable talent so they will often succeed.

However, expertise does tend to break the bounded accuracy system when it comes to skills. A character with expertise is much better than one without but with skills it isn't such a big deal.

Pex

2020-04-16, 02:09 PM

The Good

A character can move as far as his speed allows and do whatever he wants. He can move, do what he wants, and move again. This includes warriors getting all their attacks when they can attack more than once per round.

Cantrips that remain effective throughout the levels and unlimited use giving spellcasters something useful to do to conserve spell slots. It is also aesthetically pleasing to say "I cast <spell>" in combat instead of "I attack with my crossbow".

Advantage/Disadvantage system is easier to remember than getting lots of +1s, -1s, +2s, -2s, from all sorts of sources. 5E still has a few plus number buffs here and there, but their infrequency make them easier to remember. Sometimes the buff is an extra die which is easy to remember because it's fun and exciting to roll an extra die.

The Bad

Incomplete skill system. The game gives values for what is easy or hard but doesn't define what makes something easy or hard. It advises DMs to just let the character do what he wants when it's trivial but doesn't define what makes something trivial. The DM has to make everything up which can get tiring after awhile. Eventually every ability (skill) check is player roll high succeed, player rolls low fail, player rolls middle succeed or fail based on DM liking the idea of what is to happen. In addition, because the DM has to make everything up it leads to inconsistency between games which is a problem for those who play multiple campaigns. What one DM says you just do it don't roll another DM says you have to roll with a DC 10. A third DM says you have to roll but the DC is 15. The ability of your character to do something is based on who is DM that day, not your choices as a player.

Vague rules. There are a significant number of cases where interaction between rules are unclear. The DM has to make it up leading to inconsistency between campaigns. Among the more commonly known are: Does great weapon style work on paladin smites? Can an owl familiar use its flyby ability to help someone get advantage on an attack? Can use you the bonus action to shove with Shield Master feat before you make your attacks? What does it mean to "know" a spell from Magic Initiate feat? Can you Counterspell on your turn someone else Counterspelling the spell you are casting?

Point Buy System. Its existance is fine. Its implementation is bad. It absolutely refuses to let you have an 18 at 1st level. I disagree it's such a horrible thing to have an 18 at first level. The game does not fall apart. Your character is not overpowered. You can have a 20 at first level if you rolled for scores - be lucky to roll an 18 and put it in a score where racial modifier gives +2.

The game forbids PCs crafting magic items. There are rules for it, but they are ineffective. A PC can't do it and play the game. In my opinion they didn't want PCs to craft magic items but didn't have the courage to do it, so they passive aggressively got rid of it by giving rules no one could actually use.

The Ugly

The concentration mechanic for spellcasting. Its existance is fine but it limits too much. You may only ever concentrate on one spell, and some spells are concentration limited which shouldn't be. The ones that shouldn't are the buffs meant to be used in melee where you'll definitely get hit and damaged forcing you to make a concentration check and could lose the spell wasting everything.

Having to choose between getting a feat or increasing ability scores. Both are good, but the cost is too high. The math of the game needs your prime to eventually get a 20 but feats give you versatility or a needed buff. This is subjective. Personal opinion you need an 18 by 8th level and 20 by 16th, so you have room for feats. The choice is up to the player who may not even mind either way. The Point Buy system is what causes trouble. If you rolled for scores you can have an easier time with it.

Sage Advice clarifying vague rules. I noticed a pattern. When ever someone asks Sage Advice for clarification among the vague rules they almost always rule against whatever would make the player happy. They aren't official and DMs are still free to rule how they want even if it differs, but Sage Advice rules against the player. Therefore, great weapon style does not work on smites. You may only cast the 1st level spell known from Magic Initiate using your own slots if it is on your normal spell list. You cannot shove before you attack using Shield Master. In the beginning of 5E some of these rulings became official. For example, Evokers used to be able to use their Overchannel ability on Cantrips for free, but now they can't. Fire based Dragon Sorcerers used to be able to add their CH modifier to the damage roll of each Scorching Ray. Now they can't.

Do not let anyone tell you 5E is meant to be played without magic items. That is wrong. Magic items are part of 5E. The game does not fall apart when PCs have permanent magic items that help them in combat. It is true no PC needs any specific magic item to remain effective throughout the levels. That is a good thing. However, that is not the same thing as PCs should never have magic items.

Willie the Duck

2020-04-16, 02:28 PM

What do you feel are the best and worst changes made to D&D in 5th edition?

It is going to depend on to what you are comparing it. I have played nearly all the versions of the game, and I will say that each of the other editions had one or two things that I really liked and dearly miss, however in each case there are enough things that 5e did right that they did not that 5e is my general suggestion for a D&D to suggest to someone looking to learn one. Since others are focusing on minutia, I will mostly focus on the broad sweeping issues.

Good
First and foremost is accessibility. D&D 5e is not a simple game. Heck, with each spell being a modular exception to the basic rules, it would be hard for it not to be. However, it is a type of complexity that is accessible to someone new to gaming. And that's who I think a game ruleset needs to be made. Me and my friends who have been gaming for closing in on 40 years? We barely need dice, much less rules for what they mean*. But to bring our half-interested relations (some of them ages 7-17), having an accessible system with which they can learn pretty much outpaces any middling concerns about this or that edition doing XYZ better.
*I understand that people for whom the rules are a common framework within which to compete, trying to get a 'personal high score' or the equivalent, will still want codified rules regardless of experience level

Aside: TSR-era D&D tried that. And I will say that B/X's starting dungeon, or better yet BECMI's 'choose your own adventure'-style intro were very good for what they were. But what they did was very well explain the basic rules of a game system which they didn't change in any way to make it more accessible. And that game system was not what most kids, I feel, thought they were getting into (and that choose your own adventure left out huge swaths of what the game really was like). All the 8-12 year olds who learned to play with them, only to completely miss the importance of the morale rules, or how difficult decisions while buying dungeoneering supplies was supposed to be part of the game's fun, or made up their own rules for protecting magic users because no one was champing at the bit for a retinue of henchmen and didn't realize that a screen of allies between your MU and the enemy was supposed to be your armor-equivalent, they would have loved something like 5e.

Likewise, an advantage of 5e is that it is default-set to easy. I know that sounds strange coming from a grognard, but remember that I think the base rules are meant for beginners. Hit points come back at a long rest, a mid-high level caster no longer needs a separate half-day to rememorize their spells, and there are few if any save-or-die effects. Most encounters are designed more to deplete your resources than offer major risks individually, and after about 3rd level, it becomes hard to die in 5e unless you press on past the point where you should have turned back. I know a lot of people whine about that, but they seem to have missed that several methods for altering this dynamic (in a more systematic way than simply throwing greater challenges at the party) exist in the DMG in a section specifically for such purposes.

Another good thing they did was attempt to address the (mostly inter-class) balance issues. Mind you, they actually did address the balance issues once before, and that was 4th edition*. 5e stepped back from that level of balance and came up with... a good try. Spellcasters still do seem to run away with the game (or at least, DM intervention is needed, particularly if you playing a champion fighter or a barbarian or rogue or the like) at a certain point, but that point is a lot higher in level. More to the point, they didn't try to balance the classes either by 1) giving the martial types castles and thieves' guilds to run while all a magic user could do was wield ultimate power, or 2) balance out the power of a magic user by making playing them annoying.
*Of which I will say nothing bad, as it wasn't a bad system, but merely divergent enough that it didn't feel like D&D to a lot of people.

Bad
I think I feel a bad part of 5e, particularly compared to previous editions, is that there doesn't seem to be as much to win, lose, or interact with.

On winning, you fight monsters, gain XP for defeating them, gain levels for doing so, and possibly collect some magic items. Gold doesn't matter much mechanically after a certain level, unless the DM or players find uses for it*, and given that you don't get xp for gp collected like in most TSR editions, it's unclear why you would go after it after a certain point (again, barring reasons that the DM and players decide upon). Add to that a lower expected magic item loadout, and there's likely nothing at the bottom of a dungeon other than the xp of the monsters you fight**, reinforcing the 'murderhobo' schtick.
*This part isn't actually bad, as money can now actually be used for things like bribing guards or ship's passage, as opposed to being devoted to the GPL maths that 3e had.
**Again, other than the plot trigger that the DM puts down there, which is not a bad thing, I'm just treating it separately, since any system supports that.

On losing, the game has pared down most forms of medium or longer term (non-story-related) setbacks and costs. Healing happens quickly, undead no longer drain levels or attributes (although ghosts do still age you). High powered spells* cost money but not age or xp. I understand why, as 'annoying' is not a great cost structure (see magic reference above), but the lack of replacing it with anything makes the characters feel very... porcelain -- not as in fragile, but in unstaining. Nothing sticks. No scars, or erase marks on the character sheet, or the like.
*Wish being its own little insanity, again.

On interaction, again I think this was instigated with good intentions, pertaining to common complaints by the player base (along with the general removal of granularity in the system as a whole). No one liked encumbrance so the encumbrance system is downplayed (and perhaps more importantly sources of food and lighting, a common place where encumbrance regularly used to change, can be worked around with low level spells like Goodberry and Light cantrips). Likewise, a Ranger, who you don't bother picking unless interacting with the wilderness is something you thematically want, mostly interacts with the wilderness by eliminated disadvantage in perception checks or in halving of speeds caused by being in the wild (penalties which everyone, DM included, might have completely forgotten right up until someone brought a Ranger into the party).

Mind you, it isn't like A/D&D was great at it in the past, with most of such interactions being modifiers to travel time and maybe survival-based non-weapon proficiencies allowing one to 'create' days of rations with good rolls, but this edition does seem to have done its level best to trivialize or make vestigial as many non-combat environmental interaction subsystems that existed in previous editions.

Laserlight

2020-04-16, 02:44 PM

Bad:
The D20 result is more important than your skill.
A lot of martials are basically "I hit him. I hit him again." Would it have killed them to give every melee guy a set of options like Quick Strike, Heavy Strike, Defensive Strike, Yield Ground?
Can't modify spells. You want to cast Fireball so it only covers a 25ft circle, and have the damage split half radiant half fire? Too bad! You want to upcast a spell so it lasts longer instead of doing more damage? Sorry! Some of it you can do if you step on a sorcerer's shtick but some you can't do at all.

Good:
Marketing. If I want to find a player for Barbarians of Lemuria or Runequest or Champions, that takes a lot of searching, but if I say D&D, everyone has at least a vague idea what it is and I can probably find players within a week.

Eldariel

2020-04-16, 02:46 PM

Do not let anyone tell you 5E is meant to be played without magic items. That is wrong. Magic items are part of 5E. The game does not fall apart when PCs have permanent magic items that help them in combat. It is true no PC needs any specific magic item to remain effective throughout the levels. That is a good thing. However, that is not the same thing as PCs should never have magic items.

Actually, there's one class of characters that does need a magic item to function. Warriors without magic items will be unable to properly damage like every single slightly more powerful enemy. Resistance to non-magical physical starts to rear its head already in Tier 1, and immunity comes in eventually. It's completely impractical for martial characters to try and behave without a magic weapon. Now, Magic Weapon does exist but it's a cruddy spell with the Concentration just limiting way too much. And yeah, you could just play casters with their Shillelaghs and what-not, but somehow I'm imagining martials are meant to be playable too. Of course, flight, darkvision, etc. are pretty much item-based and pretty necessary for many martial characters past certain point too. At least this does concern casters too in part now, since Concentration makes e.g. getting spell-based flight less trivial.

Sam113097

2020-04-16, 02:50 PM

Pros:
-Single concentration
-Some classes have been revamped and made a lot more interesting (Paladins, Warlocks, arguably Fighters)
-Subclasses give classes a simple way to add specialization and variety
-Cantrips make it more fun to play full casters at low levels
-Less defined "roles" (You can have a party without a tank, healer, etc.)
-I personally love advantage/disadvantage as a mechanic
-Backgrounds

Cons:
-Even though 4e had issues, I miss some of the classes (Warlord, Swordmage, and Martial Ranger were cool)
-Some subclasses are numerically stronger than others (though this has always been a problem)
-There are spells and cantrips that are not worth taking (like True Strike), reducing spell variety

Daphne

2020-04-16, 03:01 PM

I dislike the saving throw system in 5e, it feels like you get worse at saves you're not proficient in as you level up.

KorvinStarmast

2020-04-16, 03:03 PM

Worst: Bounded Accuracy. It's now impossible to become competent at anything.
One of the Best: Bounded Accuracy. I disagree with your point on competence.

Worst: The decision to avoid clear, unambiguous language in the rules. Yeah, yeah, it's the DM's job to make rulings, but you're still selling us a rulebook, here. And it vastly increases the amount of rules lawyering.

Yeah. As time has gone on, I have begun to see the "let's not use 50 words with 90 words will do" as less than admirable.

Backgrounds. Easy way to make your character more than just their race and class.

The whole trait/bond/ideal/flaw thing. Makes it easier to create character personalities. Yeah, I lke how this fits, and it is super helpful for new players.

Lastly, a personal pet peeve: in old D&D all of your saves went up every few levels as you leveled up, and the distinction on what you were better at was tied to class.

What 5e did with that is, well, for me very jarring. Still don't like it that much, but I have learned how to adapt to it.

Personal likes:
At will cantrips.
Advantage/disadvantage.

Massive dislike: Charisma as a spell casting stat.
Sorry, WoTC, no.
You got that wrong.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-16, 03:06 PM

I dislike the saving throw system in 5e, it feels like you get worse at saves you're not proficient in as you level up.

I think of it from a different angle, you're challenging more powerful creatures (typically) and if you're not actively improving in that area it's going to showcase that more as the enemies get stronger. Example, Adult Red Dragon vs Ancient Red Dragon. You're not any worse at saving against the Frightful Presence of the Ancient Red Dragon, the dragon is more powerful.

There's also the player side aspect. Goblins are not any worse than they were at low levels saving from your spells, you are more powerful and your magic has become more difficult to resist.

It's not that you're worse, it's that you haven't improved in those aspects.

sithlordnergal

2020-04-16, 03:29 PM

---Best---

- Bounded Accuracy. Not only does it keep creatures relevant, but it also gives a reason for things like armies to exist. Back in 3.5, it wouldn't matter how many guards you had, they could not take down a single dragon if that dragon was old enough. Lets just use a Very Old Black Dragon. Those suckers had 35 AC, Damage Reduction 15, and 350 HP. A regular guard carried a short bow and a longsword, and had a +2 to hit with the bow. Even if the Guard crit, they'd need to roll another attack roll to see if they deal the crit damage. They'd basically need to roll 2 nat 20s in a row, then roll higher than a 15 with 3d6 in order to harm the dragon. With 5e, you can actually kill a similar dragon with enough guards.

- Rule Simplification. I played 3.5 DnD for 3 years, I barely understood the magic system in that game. Gone are the days where you have different spell DCs for each spell level, or having to prepare spells for each spell slot/level, or the confusing mess of Full Attack, Attack, Movement, ect.

- Concentration. Love it or hate it, Concentration helps to bring spellcasters down to a manageable level. You can't really buff stack anymore as well as you could in the past. And while you can pull of awesome combos, you need to work together to do them.

- Classes and subclasses. I feel like they did a mostly good job with the different classes in 5e. Sure some are weaker than others, but they aren't 100% useless. Even a standard, PHB, non-variant Beastmaster Ranger can stand out and be effective. There really isn't a 5e equivalent of the 3.5 Samurai, where you can literally make that entire class but better by going pure Fighter.

- Attunement, this also really helps to keep player power in check. Sure, there are plenty of magical items that don't require attunement, but the best always do.

---The Worst---

- Balance issues. These range from spells, to classes, to some class abilities. Certain spells are just better then others, without question. Meanwhile certain classes should have been tested more before they were released. One good example is the Ranger. Its class abilities are all over the place, and range from being useless to incredibly OP in the right circumstances.

- Lack of equipment variety. Don't get me wrong, they did a good job simplifying things. But sometimes I kinda wish they had kept some weapon complexity in order to differentiate the weapons. Tell me, what's the difference between a Spear and a Trident? How about the Flail and Morningstar? The only difference is their price, one costs 5gp more than the other. Same goes for shields. You just get one basic shield, you don't have bucklers or tower shields any more. You just get a single, basic shield.

Azuresun

2020-04-16, 03:44 PM

- Lack of equipment variety. Don't get me wrong, they did a good job simplifying things. But sometimes I kinda wish they had kept some weapon complexity in order to differentiate the weapons. Tell me, what's the difference between a Spear and a Trident? How about the Flail and Morningstar? The only difference is their price, one costs 5gp more than the other. Same goes for shields. You just get one basic shield, you don't have bucklers or tower shields any more. You just get a single, basic shield.

I actually quite like that, because it means weapon choice is now more of a style thing. Why a flail? Because I think it looks cool. We all remember the Spiked Chain from 3e, right?

That said, I would like to see feats like Polearm Master or Great Weapon Master that let you specialise in certain weapons and pull off unique manouveres with them.

Luccan

2020-04-16, 03:48 PM

sithlordnergal

2020-04-16, 04:11 PM

I actually quite like that, because it means weapon choice is now more of a style thing. Why a flail? Because I think it looks cool. We all remember the Spiked Chain from 3e, right?

That said, I would like to see feats like Polearm Master or Great Weapon Master that let you specialise in certain weapons and pull off unique manouveres with them.

I actually do, it was pretty useful if you had the right build for it, and you were rewarded more for specializing into what it could do. Sure, you had to specialize into Opportunity Attacks, which was annoying because 3.5 OoA rules were tricky to learn and master, but it was still very effective.

Same with the flail and morningstar. Sure, the flail and morningstar did the same amount of damage in 3.5, but they had subtle but important differences. The morningstar was a simple weapon that did Bludgeoning and Piercing damage, which was a lot more important in 3.5 since a lot more creatures resisted the different types of melee damage. On the other hand the flail did Bludgeoning damage, but you got a small bonus when you used it to disarm people, and you could trip people without worrying about being tripped in return.

Chronos

2020-04-16, 04:19 PM

OK, bounded accuracy keeps armies relevant. I'd care about that if this were a game about armies. What keeps the adventurers relevant? If an army of peasants can take out a dragon, what do you need the PCs for?

Another one to put in the "bad" column: The decision to go back to the game's roots. Why is that bad? Because the designers couldn't agree on what the game's roots were. To some, the game's roots were a tabletop wargame that could be used to go on endless dungeon-delving, and with detailed rules to cover everything that might come up in dungeon-delving. To others, the game's roots were freeform collaborative storytelling, with just enough rules to hold it together. I think that a lot of the other issues with the game ultimately stem from this disagreement by the developers on just what the game is.

Daphne

2020-04-16, 04:21 PM

snip

I'm not necessarily opposed to saves getting harder, but you only get proficiency in 2 out of 6 saves, not even half! Additionally, that Frightful Presence of the Ancient Red Dragon has a DC of 21, it's impossible for someone who didn't specialize to succeed.

sithlordnergal

2020-04-16, 04:29 PM

OK, bounded accuracy keeps armies relevant. I'd care about that if this were a game about armies. What keeps the adventurers relevant? If an army of peasants can take out a dragon, what do you need the PCs for?
.

Simple, its a numbers game. A dragon could kill tons of peasants before they take it out, while the PCs might only sustain a single casualty. This can also be flipped on its head. A dungeon filled to the brim with Kobolds could be a legitimate threat to a party of PCs, no matter what their level is. Sure, in 3.5 you could set things up to be threatening like that, but it required a lot more work. Bounded Accuracy makes sure no one can really ascend to God-hood and be completely untouchable.

As for the skill checks, there's really nothing wrong with a Wizard that has an 8 Charisma being able to get a higher persuasion then the Paladin with 20 Charisma and proficiency in persuasion. Occasionally the guy who doesn't say much can say just the right thing at just the right time, and occasionally the guy who's known for being good with their words can be standoffish. Its just a matter of consistency.

Dienekes

2020-04-16, 04:39 PM

OK, bounded accuracy keeps armies relevant. I'd care about that if this were a game about armies. What keeps the adventurers relevant? If an army of peasants can take out a dragon, what do you need the PCs for?

Most peasants don't want or have the means of gathering 500 of their closest friends and family to try and take down the dragon and pray they're going to be one of the 10 that will survive the victory.

PCs are professionals. 5 can do the job of hundreds, and they'll get the reward for it.

Anyway for me the good:

Ease of use but still customizable. Probably the easiest D&D game to get into, with a steady ramping up of choices. Race, Background, Class at first level, then giving you some time to ponder about subclasses to fine tune. That's a good set up for me.
Backgrounds
Mathematical parity between attacks, saves, and skills allows for a decent system of throwing one against the other, without getting insanity like the diplomancer from 3.5.

The Bad:
Not customizable enough, especially at later levels.
Martial classes play patterns are all really similar
Martial classes essentially stop getting new things after level 11.
Spells are a bit of a toss up in terms of balance
Expertise messes up that previously touted mathematical parity, and the better solution for showing a characters amazing skills (Reliable Talent) became a Rogue exclusive.
Skills in general need to be fleshed out better.
Exploration
I actually like that every ability is a save, some effects make more sense that they're testing the target's Strength as opposed to their Constitution. But they did a really half-assed job of making certain they're at all relevant. I get the 3 important, 3 unimportant split. But even among the unimportant Strength is way more important than the other two.
I think all PCs should have half proficiency in all non-proficient saves.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-16, 04:49 PM

I'm not necessarily opposed to saves getting harder, but you only get proficiency in 2 out of 6 saves, not even half! Additionally, that Frightful Presence of the Ancient Red Dragon has a DC of 21, it's impossible for someone who didn't specialize to succeed.

All it takes to have a chance of success is having a higher wisdom modifier than a commoner, which is probably something you don't should have if you're an adventurer.

Some classes also get proficiency in 3 (or more) saves as they level: Rogues gain Wisdom saves while Monk gains all saves. Further, some classes have abilities that give them a flat bonus to their saves or an ability to give others a bonus: Artificer, Paladin, Bard. Even more classes have subclasses that give them saving throw proficiency: Samurai and Gloom Stalker give their respective classes Wisdom saving throw proficiency. I'm sure this isn't the whole list either, these are just those I recall off the top of my head.

Wisdom is a great saving throw proficiency example, since it's probably the most essential mental ability score, the only classes that don't have any way to improve their Wisdom saves (whether through proficiency, subclass features or extra modifier bonuses) are Barbarian and Sorcerer. All of the other classes either start with the proficiency or can improve it through class features. Whether or not you play with Feats is also a good deciding factor, an idea way of looking at Resilient Con and Wis are as taking half of your ASI and gaining proficiency as a bonus, very powerful feats for two incredibly important saving throws.

I don't think it's all that difficult to avoid putting yourself into an impossible situation unless you've been extraordinarily unlucky with your stats.

Sorinth

2020-04-16, 05:03 PM

OK, bounded accuracy keeps armies relevant. I'd care about that if this were a game about armies. What keeps the adventurers relevant? If an army of peasants can take out a dragon, what do you need the PCs for?

Assuming these peasants wanted to attack the lair they would probably lose since they couldn't all get within range. It's also certain death for those in the front ranks so convincing them to enter would be tough. That's why they need adventurers, they are the ones crazy enough to actually go first.

Sorinth

2020-04-16, 05:35 PM

I definitely like bounded accuracy, and I do think the vagueness of what skills can accomplish is overall a good thing, though they could have done a better job with the DMG to help inexperienced DMs.

I'm not sure what I would put as the worst, there's no overall mechanic that I really dislike even though there are features that could have been done better.

Trask

2020-04-16, 06:14 PM

Dr. Cliché

2020-04-16, 06:29 PM

I really dislike the Damage Reduction/Resistance system in 5e. I hate that everything is now just 'half damage'.

I miss 3.5 where something could have Fire Resistance 10 or Fire Resistance 20 or DR5. I like that small amounts of damage were blocked entirely (so you could have fun with fire-resistant monsters walking through a fire without being harmed, whereas now anyone trying to do that will still get burned). I also liked that it added a lot of flexibility for different levels of resistance to physical or elemental damage.

Also, I hate that magic is basically just a magic key now that overcomes virtually all damage reduction. All too often it means that past a certain point damage reduction might as well not exist. It also bugs me that requirements for special materials can be likewise overcome just with basic magic. So instead of needing silver to be effective against werewolves, anyone with a magic weapon can do just fine.

I dislike the saving throw system in 5e, it feels like you get worse at saves you're not proficient in as you level up.

Regarding saves, I think it cuts both ways.

On the one hand, yeah, it sucks that your non-proficient saves effectively get worse as you level up.

On the other hand, I like that, say, dragons no longer get a +25 Reflex save just for being high level, even though they're the size of a pregnant mountain. :smallwink:

Petrocorus

2020-04-16, 07:02 PM

The Good:
I won't insist on it, most have already described the good points of 5E.
- Overall balance. Despite some glaring issues here and there.
- Simplicity.
- Bounded Accuracy.
- More versatility for everyone.
- Action and movement economy.

The Neutral:
- I miss the wealth of character options of 3.5. You could play the X-Men if you wanted. I understand why they decided to limit that, it was necessary for balance, but i do miss it.

- The maneuvers system deserve to be expanded. I totally see Monk, Paladin, and Ranger with a Maneuver subclass each.

The Evil:
- Bounded Accuracy is a bit too bounded, making the game too random on many instances.

- The willing conscious vagueness of the rules. Worst design concept ever. And contrary to what they think, it doesn't help DM at all or gives them more freedom, It's the exact opposite. Rule O already give freedom to DM, it just need to be emphasised.
It is particularly glaring with skills, but also with the equipment and the lack of variety among weapons and armors.

- The atrocious publishing pace. Notably when it comes to settings and additional rules. For the first 3 years of the game, they focused on big long campaigns and only half of a setting was published.
Some players are still waiting for Greyhawk, Dark Sun, Spelljammer maybe, and Dragonlance even if there are copyright issue IIRC. I'm still waiting for a proper psionic iteration.

- Personal point. I really dislike the Eldritch Knight spell selection. This is not what i wanted from the number one gish subclass. I know it's a feature and not a bud, but it does bug me.

- The whole mess about item creation. Even scribing scrolls is difficult and over-expensive.
500 GP for scribing a level 3 spell? Your cleric is not scribing scroll of Revivify until much later in the game.

- They never fix anything properly. And i could go on and on on it.

They "fixed" the Pact of the Blade by publishing the Hexblade, which is its own (rather big) issue.
They "fixed" the 4 Element Monk by publishing the Sun Soul Monk.
They "fixed" the Ranger inability to be a proper tracker and survivalist by publishing the Scout, a Rogue subclass. Only a recent UA finally solved the issue. And i'm still waiting for an explanation on why the Ranger has a limit of spells known.
They don't care about fixing the Berserker, even if its issue comes from a single line of rule.
They don't care about fixing two-weapons fighting. Even if everybody know it's underwhelming.
They "fixed" the Lucky feat with a proposition on how to fix it in the Sage Advice Compendium.
They didn't really fixed item creation, only made it a bit less messy.

And the Sage Advice Compendium is not helping most of the time.

And what is really annoying is that a lot of this things could be easily avoided, much more than some of the issues they did avoid, like many balance issues.They are actually conscious decisions on their part.

diplomancer

2020-04-16, 08:53 PM

Wisdom is a great saving throw proficiency example, since it's probably the most essential mental ability score, the only classes that don't have any way to improve their Wisdom saves (whether through proficiency, subclass features or extra modifier bonuses) are Barbarian and Sorcerer. All of the other classes either start with the proficiency or can improve it through class features. Whether or not you play with Feats is also a good deciding factor, an idea way of looking at Resilient Con and Wis are as taking half of your ASI and gaining proficiency as a bonus, very powerful feats for two incredibly important saving throws.

I don't think it's all that difficult to avoid putting yourself into an impossible situation unless you've been extraordinarily unlucky with your stats.

Bards don't. Bards are a great class, my favourite, but their saving throws are by far the worst of all classes. Only full caster that does not start with either Con or Wis (creating a tough choice in which ability to take Resilient, by RAW you can only take resilient once), only class with Dex saves that does not get evasion or something similar.

Adding insult to injury, they can boost everyone else's saving throws, but not their own.

Daphne

2020-04-16, 09:02 PM

On the other hand, I like that, say, dragons no longer get a +25 Reflex save just for being high level, even though they're the size of a pregnant mountain. :smallwink:

Ironically, Ancient Dragons do have proficiency in DEX saving throws. It wouldn't be necessary if DCs didn't get so high.

Dr. Cliché

2020-04-17, 03:42 AM

Ironically, Ancient Dragons do have proficiency in DEX saving throws.

Ugh, I'd missed that.

Pleh

2020-04-17, 06:30 AM

- Advantage/disadvantage is too reductionist; being blind, poisoned, and attacking with too big a weapon doesn't matter if you're attacking a prone target in melee

Point of order, in this case, the DM could simply make the ruling that too many disadvantageous effects are in play and that there is no reasonable chance to hit theur target. A DM doesn't have to allow an attack to have a chance for success.

Eldariel

2020-04-17, 07:00 AM

Point of order, in this case, the DM could simply make the ruling that too many disadvantageous effects are in play and that there is no reasonable chance to hit theur target. A DM doesn't have to allow an attack to have a chance for success.

DM can of course do whatever he wants but far as the rules set is concerned, that's a standard attack with no penalties. This is the downside of removing the stacking bonuses á la 3e.

Pleh

2020-04-17, 07:18 AM

DM can of course do whatever he wants but far as the rules set is concerned, that's a standard attack with no penalties. This is the downside of removing the stacking bonuses á la 3e.

But the upside is you reach your mathematical conclusions faster. Lose a little simulationism to streamline actual gameplay. Rather than flipping through the rulebook to follow a step by step recipe to set up an equation (flashbacks to 3e grappling with various circumstance bonuses), you either resolve (dis)advantage in one step, or the DM rules the task to be unfeasible.

I think in the exchange, we still came out on top.

Boci

2020-04-17, 07:20 AM

But the upside is you reach your mathematical conclusions faster. Lose a little simulationism to streamline actual gameplay. Rather than flipping through the rulebook to follow a step by step recipe to set up an equation (flashbacks to 3e grappling with various circumstance bonuses), you either resolve (dis)advantage in one step, or the DM rules the task to be unfeasible.

I think in the exchange, we still came out on top.

Not quite. Now the DM has ruled that disadvantage stacking can result in attacks auto-missing, which the players will be interested since they can now use that on monsters as a poor-man's incapacitate. They will, rightfully, want to know the details of when disadvantage stacking will make monster auto miss.

Willie the Duck

2020-04-17, 07:21 AM

I actually do, it was pretty useful if you had the right build for it, and you were rewarded more for specializing into what it could do. Sure, you had to specialize into Opportunity Attacks, which was annoying because 3.5 OoA rules were tricky to learn and master, but it was still very effective.

I mean, spiked chains, improbable as they were, actually did have mechanical differences from other weapons. You might as well just put "WeaponA/WeaponB" as the entry for all the differences there are between some weapons.
I'm pretty sure that was the point. As in, 'remember the spiked chain, and how it was the strictly-best-option for a huge swath of martial characters?' I agree both that weapon variance was fun, and that it is hard to do without making simply better options.

OK, bounded accuracy keeps armies relevant. I'd care about that if this were a game about armies. What keeps the adventurers relevant? If an army of peasants can take out a dragon, what do you need the PCs for?

You are correct, this is a player-facing game and what armies can do about dragons should not dictate the system design. It is really about kobolds and 20th level adventurers (armies and dragons being simply a byproduct).

Pleh

2020-04-17, 07:30 AM

Not quite. Now the DM has ruled that disadvantage stacking can result in attacks auto-missing, which the players will be interested since they can now use that on monsters as a poor-man's incapacitate. They will, rightfully, want to know the details of when disadvantage stacking will make monster auto miss.

Rogues should be able to coup de grace sleeping foes who haven't noticed them (haven't been woken by their approach). This is mostly a DM call, because the rules rather presume a struggle if you're using them.

I don't have any problem with players trying to trivialize combat by setting up auto kills. That is a victory of flawless tactical savvy.

I should set up my encounters so that is not an easy achievement.

Boci

2020-04-17, 07:35 AM

Rogues should be able to coup de grace sleeping foes who haven't noticed them (haven't been woken by their approach). This is mostly a DM call, because the rules rather presume a struggle if you're using them.

I don't have any problem with players trying to trivialize combat by setting up auto kills. That is a victory of flawless tactical savvy.

I should set up my encounters so that is not an easy achievement.

That's not relevant to what I said. You said that a DM could reasonable rule that a blind, poisoned creature wielding a too big weapon will auto miss a prone target, even though by the rules that a straigh attack role. I'm saying yes, the DM can rule that, but then the players may, quite reasonable, wish to know when disadvantage stacking will result in an auto miss, because normally there's no point to disadvantage stacking but under this houserule of the DM there can be.

EggKookoo

2020-04-17, 07:41 AM

Good

De-emphasis on fiddly rules: It's okay to have some detailed rules on a thing here or there. I feel like some older editions would add them without taking into consideration the cumulative effect of all the others. This is why, I think, 5e tries to avoid stacking bonuses and penalties. Doing it here or there is okay, but if you go too far it starts to overwhelm things.
Streamlined combat: I started a high-level 3e campaign about five years ago. Combat was ridiculous. My players weren't new to D&D but hadn't played 3e with 17th level characters before, and there was a lot of frustration with what felt like unnecessary detail in combat. I remember putting together a "One Round" coaster that listed all the different options you had for a single round. I switched to 5e after three or four sessions (rebuilding all their PCs for them) and suddenly everything just clicked.
Better flavor to magic items: Not that there was anything preventing this in previous editions, but I enjoy how 5e encourages magic items to have fun/weird/special abilities over straight up mechanical bonuses (although of course they have those as well). It makes me feel better about dropping a magic item on a 1st level PC that, say, lets them briefly turn undead once a day. It's not quite useless, but it takes some imagination on the part of the player to get real value out of it.
Backgrounds: Great idea. I know 5e didn't invent this. I'm just glad to see it implemented.

Bad

Healing feels too fast: As others have said, this probably comes from my experience with previous editions. The idea that you get all your HP back after a long rest feels... strong. I mean, it's okay. I get that's how the resource economy works. It's just jarring.
Inconsistent terminology: What the game refers to as an "action" should be a "main action" to go along with "bonus action." That one change would clear up a lot of confusion over features like Action Surge. And whenever the rules mean an attack roll, it should say that, rather than shorthanding it into "attack."
Rules presentation: 5e has a lot of powerful tools for the DM, but the DMG could be organized better. A lot of CR calc stuff and monster/encounter creature rules were cleaned up in Xanathar's, so that's good, but I almost feel like the DMG should have been multiple books. Also, it would be nice to have more structure around what a D&D game actually is -- I mean things like an "encouter" as a component in a "quest," which is part of an "adventure," which might be an element of a "campaign." Or something like that. Not a problem unique to this edition, more of a missed opportunity.

Pleh

2020-04-17, 07:46 AM

That's not relevant to what I said. You said that a DM could reasonable rule that a blind, poisoned creature wielding a too big weapon will auto miss a prone target, even though by the rules that a straigh attack role. I'm saying yes, the DM can rule that, but then the players may, quite reasonable, wish to know when disadvantage stacking will result in an auto miss, because normally there's no point to disadvantage stacking but under this houserule of the DM there can be.

It's relevant. It speaks to the fact that there are scenarios the DM should be able to set the rules aside to make a ruling.

And I don't think the threshold should be codified so the players can enforce it against the DM. Sure, they can always ask, "this monster is blind, poisoned, and his weapon is oversized, can we rule he can't reasonably hit us?"

But there shouldn't be a guarantee of an answer. Yeah, the players should know it's possible and they have the opportunity to take advantage of it, but don't paint the DM in a corner with a set criteria. Let them make a judgement call on a case by case basis.

Boci

2020-04-17, 07:50 AM

It's relevant. It speaks to the fact that there are scenarios the DM should be able to set the rules aside to make a ruling.

And I don't think the threshold should be codified so the players can enforce it against the DM.

You seem to have a rather DM vs. player mindset, which is bad, because DM vs. player mindset only works well when there is complete transparancy and codified rulings where possible to level the playing field.

Pleh

2020-04-17, 07:56 AM

You seem to have a rather DM vs. player mindset, which is bad, because DM vs. player mindset only works well when there is complete transparancy and codified rulings where possible to level the playing field.

Ironic, because I feel like needing a level playing field and codified rulings is more indicative of DM vs player mindset than trusting each other to act in good faith.

But I guess we'll probably never truly see eye to eye on that.

Boci

2020-04-17, 08:00 AM

Ironic, because I feel like needing a level playing field and codified rulings is more indicative of DM vs player mindset

No, that's how you make the mindset work. Complaining about codified rulings because then "the players can enforce it against the DM" is also a DM vs. player mindset, but not that will work.

Pleh

2020-04-17, 08:14 AM

No, that's how you make the mindset work. Complaining about codified rulings because then "the players can enforce it against the DM" is also a DM vs. player mindset, but not that will work.

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just pointing out that players don't need codified rulings for the DM to be able to fairly make non RAW rulings. Nothing adversarial about it. It's just not necessary.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-17, 08:17 AM

Bards don't. Bards are a great class, my favourite, but their saving throws are by far the worst of all classes. Only full caster that does not start with either Con or Wis (creating a tough choice in which ability to take Resilient, by RAW you can only take resilient once), only class with Dex saves that does not get evasion or something similar.

Adding insult to injury, they can boost everyone else's saving throws, but not their own.

My mistake, I had it in my head that they could inspire themselves. Still, while it's a shame for Bards, it doesn't take much away from my point that most classes have a way to overcome a lack of proficiency in most saves.

Boci

2020-04-17, 08:18 AM

I'm not complaining at all. I'm just pointing out that players don't need codified rulings for the DM to be able to fairly make non RAW rulings. Nothing adversarial about it. It's just not necessary.

Maybe it was a poor choice of words, but "against the DM" reads as a adversarial mindset, to me at least. A DM should not be worried that their rulings could be used "against" by the PCs. They should be. It means the players are engaging with the DM's rulings and trying to use them too, which sounds like a good thing to me.

Pleh

2020-04-17, 08:28 AM

Maybe it was a poor choice of words, but "against the DM" reads as a adversarial mindset, to me at least. A DM should not be worried that their rulings could be used "against" by the PCs. They should be. It means the players are engaging with the DM's rulings and trying to use them too, which sounds like a good thing to me.

Let me explain my stance by example.

Early in the adventure, a DM allows a player to auto kill a sleeping character.

Later, the players remember this and try to use it again. The DM initially rules the start of combat, but the players argue it should be an auto kill. They don't realize the target has advantages their earlier target didn't, but the DM can't reveal that without showing their hand and revealing encounter secrets.

I think the DM should be free to fiat the call without presenting justification, as it will be a better game for them to figure out the secrets through play, rather than through parsing out the ruling codifications.

The DM should wink and say, "yes, it should have worked like it did last time. You are caught off guard that the sleeping foe seemed somehow prepared to be attacked in their sleep."

WadeWay33

2020-04-17, 08:30 AM

My mistake, I had it in my head that they could inspire themselves. Still, while it's a shame for Bards, it doesn't take much away from my point that most classes have a way to overcome a lack of proficiency in most saves.

Lore bards can, but at level 14, so most people don’t usually get it.

Boci

2020-04-17, 08:33 AM

Let me explain my stance by example.

But this isn't the example we're talking about. They're related, in that they both involve DM's calls, byt they're different because the disadvantage stacking doesn't involve unknown factos like your unconcious example.

And again, this seems fairly codified. "Vulnerable targets can be autokilled". The first target was vulnerable, the second wasn't. So it is codified.

diplomancer

2020-04-17, 09:04 AM

Lore bards can, but at level 14, so most people don’t usually get it.

Away from book, but I am pretty sure that this is only to ability checks, not saving throws.

Sorinth

2020-04-17, 09:13 AM

Rogues should be able to coup de grace sleeping foes who haven't noticed them (haven't been woken by their approach). This is mostly a DM call, because the rules rather presume a struggle if you're using them.

I don't have any problem with players trying to trivialize combat by setting up auto kills. That is a victory of flawless tactical savvy.

I should set up my encounters so that is not an easy achievement.

So should a level 1 Rogue who manages to sneak up to a sleeping Ancient Dragon be able to coup de grace it?

Attacking sleeping targets grants an auto-crit, if you can't kill a creature with an auto-crit then there's a decent case to be made that you shouldn't auto kill them. That said I could see an argument for getting an additional bonuses to damage beyond just a crit, maybe max the weapon damage die for the crit. Also why should it be restricted to Rogues, surely the fighter with a great axe should be able to chop off the head of a sleeping enemy just as easily as a Rogue slits his throat.

Also keep in mind it's quite common for sleeping PCs to get ambushed, very few DMs would be willing to use a coup de grace instant death rule against the players, so they become rules/tactics that are only used by the PCs.

Dienekes

2020-04-17, 09:55 AM

So should a level 1 Rogue who manages to sneak up to a sleeping Ancient Dragon be able to coup de grace it?

Attacking sleeping targets grants an auto-crit, if you can't kill a creature with an auto-crit then there's a decent case to be made that you shouldn't auto kill them. That said I could see an argument for getting an additional bonuses to damage beyond just a crit, maybe max the weapon damage die for the crit. Also why should it be restricted to Rogues, surely the fighter with a great axe should be able to chop off the head of a sleeping enemy just as easily as a Rogue slits his throat.

Also keep in mind it's quite common for sleeping PCs to get ambushed, very few DMs would be willing to use a coup de grace instant death rule against the players, so they become rules/tactics that are only used by the PCs.

Personally, already implemented in my games the insta-death rule.

When a creature is completely unable to defend themselves (not just ambushed) dealing damage equal or greater than their Constitution total starts them on death saving throws, or worse. Creatures of Huge or larger cannot be killed in this way.

It allows situations where the enemy has hostages to actually be terrifying.

As to sleeping PCs, maybe it’s because of how long ago I started playing, but it’s expected for my players to have nights watch. If my players went into unfriendly territory and went to sleep unprotected, yeah, I don’t see a problem killing them.

EggKookoo

2020-04-17, 10:51 AM

So should a level 1 Rogue who manages to sneak up to a sleeping Ancient Dragon be able to coup de grace it?

My only logistical issue with this is the dragon's sheer size. Very few weapons a human-sized creature could carry can do enough structural damage in a single blow to kill such a large creature. Like trying to kill an elephant with an x-acto blade. I tend to assume the dragon's large amount of hit points is at least partly represented by the amount of meat you'd need to cut through to be life-threatening. More than could probably be done in single strike.

But another human-scale high-CR creature? Unless its high HP come from a kind of indestructible nature, I have no problem with that.

carnomancy

2020-04-17, 10:51 AM

My responses are shaped heavily by my experiences with 3e, so bear with me. I don't have a stand out best. 5e does a lot of things right. I want to gush about how level adjustment is dead in this edition, but that was a 4e thing. I do like that 5e is a return to form and lessens the wide yawning gap that 3e had between it's magic classes and the martials. Bonus stacking being gone and advantage and disadvantage are great.

Unfortunately I have a much more concrete Worst to talk about. I hate the glacial release pace of this edition combined with the conservative attitude the the edition has with allowing new things into the system. We get teased with all these new ideas from unearthed arcana, but they all seem to be condemned to death by focus group. I fear for great ideas like the Mercy Monk or the Beast Barbarian. This has lead to my opinion of the edition worsening as things like Psionics get kept out of the edition while we get playtest after playtest for them, only to hear that they changed their minds because they got some negative feedback. Makes me feel like they don't have faith in their own ideas, and that they're leaning on the DnD community to fill holes. Then we get stuff like MtG crossovers and the Critical Role people writing splat books.

We don't need the crazy release schedules that 3E and 4E had, but I feel like we should have more stuff out by now. Even if we get some clunkers like Magic of Incarnum it would still be worth it to see the new weird thing. I'd even like this edition to take a swing at making something like a brand new class that's quintessentially 5e rather than just reiterating the past.

OldTrees1

2020-04-17, 11:50 AM

Best

Features at every level. When I look at the Rogue I see something useful at every level. In 5E there are very few dead levels even when we count ribbons as dead. That is a great way to handle balancing multiclassing. If every level has value, then there is always a balancing opportunity cost.
It made some character concepts easier to create. The magically assisted dungeoneer with constant mage hand legerdemain (Arcane Trickster) and Aura based protective paladin (Ancients Paladin). Those used to take a decent amount of system mastery in order to instantiate.
Balance in general.
Less magic item dependency. There are still high level encounters that I cannot run depending on the party composition unless they have paid a magic item tax. However they are fewer in number. I still want the party to be able to fight a Red Dragon underwater lava in its Volcano lair.

Worst

Bounded Accuracy in general, and especially as implemented, is intended to cap growth below the point of competency. Areas of the game that show growth do so by breaking the bounded accuracy in some way. Attacks, the poster child of bounded accuracy, break the bounded accuracy by hiding their growth in the second damage roll. Skills can use Expertise to break bounded accuracy. Spells either never had bounded accuracy, or follow attack's example and hide the growth in the effect.
Too few features. While I did say every level has a feature, I feel like the classes could have readily supported twice the features. This is especially apparent at higher levels when the features (excluding spells), although valuable, don't feel level appropriate anymore. I would have preferred a Necromancer with 1-2 features every level in addition to spells, and a Rogue with 2 features every level. This has caused me to tax the skill system as a means of filling in the feature dearth, however this is hard at higher levels unless they have Expertise.
Skill Points are gone! As a casualty of bounded accuracy, the customization potential of skill points was replaced with 0x,0.5x,1x,2x proficiency. And growing into a new skill now requires a feature rather than just leveling.
Some character concepts were lost. A Necromancer building a fledgling post scarcity free nation by using their legion of skeletons would not be possible / balanced in 5E. However I loved the Dread Necromancer in 3.5 that could have 5-6 OoM of skeletons and a leadership basis for building a nation.

Luccan

2020-04-17, 02:47 PM

Best:

In most ways, multiclassing is better than any previous edition. You don't continuously fall behind at the things your previous class was good at even if you don't continue getting all benefits. You get many of the benefits of gestalting or the theurge prestige classes of 3e, in fact. Partly this is because of bounded accuracy and proficincies, partly it's just because game balance isn't inclined towards invalidating early class abilities (if anything it overly favors them).

Also, I like proficiency bonuses more than skill points. One, because it's easy to track and do the math for: anything you're supposed to be decent at uses the same number, usually +a relevant modifier. Occasionally you double or halve it, but that's as complex as it gets. Two, things like cross-class skills and skill bonuses made each skill either something you almost always succeeded at or something never worth bothering with. Perhaps the d20 has too much influence this edition, but 3.X is largely responsible for the "just have the highest mod character do it" mentality.

Worst:
Multiclassing has some bugs, still. Dipping is hugely encouraged by the mechanics over a 10/10 or even 5/15 character. Some classes synergize so well builds using them are almost discussed like a distinct class and some classes simply don't Multiclass well at all.

High levels often see little influence from one's subclass. Most subclasses either stop before 15 or have a huge gap from mid level until tier 4. Capstones are also all over the place in terms of power and relevance.

Sorinth

2020-04-17, 04:57 PM

My only logistical issue with this is the dragon's sheer size. Very few weapons a human-sized creature could carry can do enough structural damage in a single blow to kill such a large creature. Like trying to kill an elephant with an x-acto blade. I tend to assume the dragon's large amount of hit points is at least partly represented by the amount of meat you'd need to cut through to be life-threatening. More than could probably be done in single strike.

But another human-scale high-CR creature? Unless its high HP come from a kind of indestructible nature, I have no problem with that.

If a high level human can survive an ancient red dragon breathing fire on him, or hit by a great axe multiple times then shouldn't he being stabbed by a dagger in his sleep. Even if hit points is some sort of abstraction for luck/heoric last minute dodges and losing hit points don't necessarily being stabbed/burnt/etc... then they should still apply to the sleeping person.

But the bigger problem is really what happens if the PCs are on the receiving end. If the campaign villain sends some assassins after your party, and you are sleeping at an inn. The DM rolls a stealth check for the assassins and that it's your PC is now dead without you having a chance to do anything. It would suck, and at the end of the day the PCs shouldn't have tactics/abilities that the DM can't use against the party.

ZeshinX

2020-04-17, 05:11 PM

...A dungeon filled to the brim with Kobolds could be a legitimate threat to a party of PCs...

I still have nightmares of the Firewine Bridge dungeon and it's population of bow-wielding kobolds :eek: (Baldur's Gate 1 video game).

Powerdork

2020-04-17, 05:32 PM

Warforged are squishy humanoid things rather than golems. 4e got away with it for mechanics tightness reasons, but 5e's got a lot more emphasis on fictional positioning and people gaming with warforged (without knowledge of what they actually are) see the stats on D&D Beyond and get a particular impresion, "sure, it's a robot that's weirdly like a people", and warforged are less distinct from elves and other skin-havers as a result.

EggKookoo

2020-04-17, 06:27 PM

If a high level human can survive an ancient red dragon breathing fire on him, or hit by a great axe multiple times then shouldn't he being stabbed by a dagger in his sleep. Even if hit points is some sort of abstraction for luck/heoric last minute dodges and losing hit points don't necessarily being stabbed/burnt/etc... then they should still apply to the sleeping person.

The thing I want to avoid is the notion that you can get a drop on someone, hold your knife to his exposed throat, and have him think "well, the knife does 1d4 + something damage, and I have 60 hit points, so whatever..." In-game characters should never be able to make decisions based on knowledge of game rules. The guy with the knife at his throat should see it as a real threat, regardless of HP. His high HP might translate into confidence, perhaps, but it should never just be a case of running the numbers.

Hit points are a tool for players. They don't actually exist in the fiction of the game. A dragon has no hit points. He doesn't have zero. They don't exist. He has flesh and bone and scales. A lot of flesh and bone and scales, which makes it hard to accept you could just kill him with a flick of a dagger.

A human with 60 HP is still made of flesh and bone and skin. A good flick of your knife will kill the most experienced human if that human is helpless or completely unaware (the latter is unlikely if he's conscious). If he has even the slightest ability to react to the attempt, then attack rolls and hit points come into play. They're tools to model the unpredictability of combat. Someone with 60 hit points isn't 10 times more durable than someone with 6. Rather, the person with 60 is 10 times more likely to survive an attack than someone with 6, but it depends on him being able to react to the attack.

I know inanimate object have hit points, but that's really only because creatures use hit points and it's more streamlined to just apply them to stone walls and wooden doors than it would be to come up with a separate durability mechanic. But that just underscores that hit points aren't meant to represent something literal in the fiction. No matter how experienced you get at swinging your sword around, you'll never be tougher than granite. Yet a high level fighter can have more HP than a chunk of stone. He certainly can have more HP than a full-grown horse.

The luck factor of hit points could apply to the helpless or sleeping creature (I doubt the last-minute dodge could, unless he randomly dodges in his sleep or something). But the spirit of hit points is that you don't just "luck out" and take less damage than you would otherwise. It's that you happen to get lucky in how you position or angle yourself. Again, HP is meant to model the chaos and unpredictability of combat, and even represents the attacker maybe not hitting square on. You know the cliche of trial by combat? That existed because combat was so unpredictable it was thought the gods or fate had to step in, and the winner was as much selected by those gods as by their own skill. Hit points exist in that spirit.

If a 60 HP person and a 6 HP person both jump into a pool of lava, they die at the same time. Unless they're fighting each other.

But the bigger problem is really what happens if the PCs are on the receiving end. If the campaign villain sends some assassins after your party, and you are sleeping at an inn. The DM rolls a stealth check for the assassins and that it's your PC is now dead without you having a chance to do anything. It would suck, and at the end of the day the PCs shouldn't have tactics/abilities that the DM can't use against the party.

Well, except they do. I mean, the DM can just "win" by sending a bunch of creatures with CRs way above what the party can handle. You know, the 3rd level PCs piss off some BBEG, so he sends in his elite 9th level hit squad. TPK. Why can't the DM just do that? Because it sucks and no one has fun. So the DM self-limits. It's the same reason he doesn't just send stealthy assassins after the PCs all the time, or if the PCs live in a world where death-by-stealthy-assassin was a likely thing, they would know to have safeguards, like never sleeping without someone on watch, even at an inn.

Sorinth

2020-04-17, 07:19 PM

The thing I want to avoid is the notion that you can get a drop on someone, hold your knife to his exposed throat, and have him think "well, the knife does 1d4 + something damage, and I have 60 hit points, so whatever..." In-game characters should never be able to make decisions based on knowledge of game rules. The guy with the knife at his throat should see it as a real threat, regardless of HP. His high HP might translate into confidence, perhaps, but it should never just be a case of running the numbers.

Hit points are a tool for players. They don't actually exist in the fiction of the game. A dragon has no hit points. He doesn't have zero. They don't exist. He has flesh and bone and scales. A lot of flesh and bone and scales, which makes it hard to accept you could just kill him with a flick of a dagger.

A human with 60 HP is still made of flesh and bone and skin. A good flick of your knife will kill the most experienced human if that human is helpless or completely unaware (the latter is unlikely if he's conscious). If he has even the slightest ability to react to the attempt, then attack rolls and hit points come into play. They're tools to model the unpredictability of combat. Someone with 60 hit points isn't 10 times more durable than someone with 6. Rather, the person with 60 is 10 times more likely to survive an attack than someone with 6, but it depends on him being able to react to the attack.

To a certain extent I agree, but there are plenty of instances where that type of logic fails. Like you even mentioned a high level human can survive face planting into a pool of lava or acid, but if he's really just flesh and bone like everybody else then he shouldn't be able to do that. So should we also change lava to instantly kill someone, where does it end, you'll need 1000s of rules for instant killing?

In the end it's always going to come down to the person caring more about RP then in "winning". Putting it in the rules that certain action cause insta-death is just going to cause more inconsistencies/problems.

I know inanimate object have hit points, but that's really only because creatures use hit points and it's more streamlined to just apply them to stone walls and wooden doors than it would be to come up with a separate durability mechanic. But that just underscores that hit points aren't meant to represent something literal in the fiction. No matter how experienced you get at swinging your sword around, you'll never be tougher than granite. Yet a high level fighter can have more HP than a chunk of stone. He certainly can have more HP than a full-grown horse.

And yet the player can survive something that a chunk of granite can't like a disintegration ray. So if a player is hit by a Disentegration ray should he now have a giant hole in his body that requires immediate magical healing or he dies?

You'll never have a system that allows the PCs to fight and survive against powerful enemies if at the same time they are supposed to be human. So having some things cause automatic death and others not will always suffer logical problems.

The luck factor of hit points could apply to the helpless or sleeping creature (I doubt the last-minute dodge could, unless he randomly dodges in his sleep or something). But the spirit of hit points is that you don't just "luck out" and take less damage than you would otherwise. It's that you happen to get lucky in how you position or angle yourself. Again, HP is meant to model the chaos and unpredictability of combat, and even represents the attacker maybe not hitting square on. You know the cliche of trial by combat? That existed because combat was so unpredictable it was thought the gods or fate had to step in, and the winner was as much selected by those gods as by their own skill. Hit points exist in that spirit.

If a 60 HP person and a 6 HP person both jump into a pool of lava, they die at the same time. Unless they're fighting each other.

In real life there has never been someone with 60 HP, just like there's never been someone who can cast magic, or wildshape, nor has there ever been a fire breating dragon, etc...

The idea that someone can survive a giant lizard breathing fire that's hot enough to melt stone while wearing nothing but a loincloth and carrying a greataxe is less preposterous as someone surviving a dagger to the throat.

[QUOTE=EggKookoo;24457152]Well, except they do. I mean, the DM can just "win" by sending a bunch of creatures with CRs way above what the party can handle. You know, the 3rd level PCs piss off some BBEG, so he sends in his elite 9th level hit squad. TPK. Why can't the DM just do that? Because it sucks and no one has fun. So the DM self-limits. It's the same reason he doesn't just send stealthy assassins after the PCs all the time, or if the PCs live in a world where death-by-stealthy-assassin was a likely thing, they would know to have safeguards, like never sleeping without someone on watch, even at an inn.

The party can run and still survive a battle way above their CR level. But the BBEG can't hire an elite squad for the the same reasons the PCs can't just hire even more powerful adventures to help them kill the BBEG, they don't have the resources to do it. That's much different then preventing a tactic from being used/work.

EggKookoo

2020-04-17, 08:22 PM

To a certain extent I agree, but there are plenty of instances where that type of logic fails. Like you even mentioned a high level human can survive face planting into a pool of lava or acid, but if he's really just flesh and bone like everybody else then he shouldn't be able to do that. So should we also change lava to instantly kill someone, where does it end, you'll need 1000s of rules for instant killing?

No. just a few parameters.

Is the target helpless and without nearby allies?
Are there no distractions going on that would interfere with the attempt (nearby combat, time is of the essence, etc.)?
Could the action taken realistically end the creature's life?

Yes, yes, and yes? Then the creature can be insta-killed. And even then, if the creature is powerful/experienced enough, death might not be instant. It might be able to make a last-ditch retaliation.

In the end it's always going to come down to the person caring more about RP then in "winning". Putting it in the rules that certain action cause insta-death is just going to cause more inconsistencies/problems.

It's pretty easy to manage. If I don't want the party insta-killing my BBEG, I'll give him a few bodyguards. Which he would have anyway.

And yet the player can survive something that a chunk of granite can't like a disintegration ray. So if a player is hit by a Disentegration ray should he now have a giant hole in his body that requires immediate magical healing or he dies?

Disintegration against a helpless target as outlined above will vaporize it. Against a huge or larger creature, it will carve out a 10 foot cube (possibly also killing it outright). Also, magic, so I can see how the target's force of will can have a mitigating effect.

You'll never have a system that allows the PCs to fight and survive against powerful enemies if at the same time they are supposed to be human. So having some things cause automatic death and others not will always suffer logical problems.

Logical problems are only a problem if the DM is a computer.

The idea that someone can survive a giant lizard breathing fire that's hot enough to melt stone while wearing nothing but a loincloth and carrying a greataxe is less preposterous as someone surviving a dagger to the throat.

Surviving a dragon's breath is cool and fun.

Sneaking up on a sleeping guard and slitting its throat is fun. I mean, if you're the sneaky/assassiny type.

Sneaking up on a sleeping guard, slitting its throat, and having the guard wake up because his throat is somehow made of kevlar is... weird.

The party can run and still survive a battle way above their CR level. But the BBEG can't hire an elite squad for the the same reasons the PCs can't just hire even more powerful adventures to help them kill the BBEG, they don't have the resources to do it. That's much different then preventing a tactic from being used/work.

I'm the DM. The BBEG can afford the elite killers because I say they can.

JNAProductions

2020-04-17, 08:38 PM

Surviving a dragon's breath is cool and fun.

Sneaking up on a sleeping guard and slitting its throat is fun. I mean, if you're the sneaky/assassiny type.

Sneaking up on a sleeping guard, slitting its throat, and having the guard wake up because his throat is somehow made of kevlar is... weird.

At level one, a Rogue's doing 4d6+3 (min 7, max 27, average 17) against 11 HP. That's a 97.3% chance of knocking a guard from full HP to dying in one cut with a short sword.

Drop it to a dagger, you get 2d4+2d6+3, for ONLY a 93.92% chance of murder. But then again, you're level 1-it makes sense that you might be hasty, or make a mistake.

Check in again at level 5. 2d4+6d6+4, average of 30 damage. The MINIMUM damage is now enough to one-shot a guard. To have less than a 90% chance of death, you'd need a guard with 25 HP or more.

Luccan

2020-04-17, 09:11 PM

EggKookoo

2020-04-17, 09:52 PM

At level one, a Rogue's doing 4d6+3 (min 7, max 27, average 17) against 11 HP. That's a 97.3% chance of knocking a guard from full HP to dying in one cut with a short sword.

Drop it to a dagger, you get 2d4+2d6+3, for ONLY a 93.92% chance of murder. But then again, you're level 1-it makes sense that you might be hasty, or make a mistake.

Check in again at level 5. 2d4+6d6+4, average of 30 damage. The MINIMUM damage is now enough to one-shot a guard. To have less than a 90% chance of death, you'd need a guard with 25 HP or more.

This came up in our last session. The party was sneaking through a complex and came across a sleeping goblin guard. The goblin had something like 5 HP. I just let them kill him after making a successful Stealth check to make sure the PC could get in close without waking him.

Actually, they felt kind of guilty about it afterward. I might have the goblin's ghost come back to haunt them...

Eldariel

2020-04-17, 10:38 PM

3e's Coup de Grace rules were good in that regard. While anyone could survive, spending a full turn attacking a helpless target autohit, gave you a free critical and required a very high DC Fortitude (Constitution) save (10+damage dealt) vs. death meaning surviving one is a miracle. It does happen but it's not commonplace (and basically means the would-be killer somehow screwed up). Of course, this does make Sleep (the spell) a bit stronger but on the other hand, enemies downed by Sleep are more or less out of combat anyways. I do run my games with CDG rules because it just doesn't make sense that attacking a helpless target is somehow basically the same as attacking a normal, awake target.

MrStabby

2020-04-18, 03:09 AM

I dont have so much of a problem with some instant kills as long as it is a whole party activity.

I have an issue if it let's one person be awesome whilst the rest of the party stands about waiting for them to finish or are relegated to playing bit parts distracting guards or whatever.

What is fun for one single player must always be subservient to what is fun for the table as a whole.

Pleh

2020-04-18, 10:32 AM

But this isn't the example we're talking about. They're related, in that they both involve DM's calls, byt they're different because the disadvantage stacking doesn't involve unknown factos like your unconcious example.

And again, this seems fairly codified. "Vulnerable targets can be autokilled". The first target was vulnerable, the second wasn't. So it is codified.

Anything and everything *could* be justification for (dis)advantage stacking. Anything that hasn't been ruled on yet is an unknown factor.

Point being that codified rules lead to bizarre outcomes based on loose similarities (like making a melee attack at the same odds as a straight roll while poisoned, blinded, and wielding an oversized weapon just because their target is prone).

I'm saying players should always have to ask if the rules will be set aside. It isn't creating a new rule. It's making a ruling that is an exception to the code, breaking it momentarily to reassert it thereafter.

Sure, there can be a precedent for, "we could bypass the normal rules by tactically setting up an exceptional circumstance that trivializes the contest." That shouldn't be so much built on a set of rules and codes as much as a conversation with the DM. Case by case, not a code.

So should a level 1 Rogue who manages to sneak up to a sleeping Ancient Dragon be able to coup de grace it?

That's a judgement call by the DM. In general, I don't think I would allow it because they can't simply cut the dragon's throat like they could with a commoner or a goblin. I would want more information on how they intend to kill the dragon. If they say I cut his throat with a dagger, I'll say it won't do enough damage and the dragon wakes up.

If they say they drop the ceiling on the dragon, it might make more sense that it might die instantly.

Then again, if I'm having a 1st level adventurer encounter an Ancient Dragon, my game has OTHER problems.

Also keep in mind it's quite common for sleeping PCs to get ambushed, very few DMs would be willing to use a coup de grace instant death rule against the players, so they become rules/tactics that are only used by the PCs.

Why is that really a problem? It's not like 5e subscribes to PC/NPC parity like 3e did. There are many attacks monsters make that players don't.

In general, when I want to have NPCs use unfair tactics like this that are hard to use against PCs because it feels like cheating, I just have them use them against other NPCs the party wants to protect.

Gnolls have Rampage, which only triggers if they are dropping their target to 0 HP. This means that in order for the players to see these guys doing what they were designed to be good at doing, they have to be snowballing their enemies. If this means the party, that can lead to a TPK fast, as by definition, they had to drop a player to get their extra attack (that might drop another player). This directly threatens the PC chance of victory, as it hurts their action economy, which is the breadwinner in 5e combat.

So instead, I have a group of Gnolls attack the Commoners (who they can drop in about 1 hit and they have a great chance of successfully hitting). The players now need to race to kill all the Gnolls before they Gnolls decimate the village population, leaving too few left to keep the community alive. In this case, a proper tactic is to try to aggro the Gnolls onto the players, as they are much less likely to drop in one hit as the Commoners are.

I could easily use a similar trick with an assassin character. Instead of targeting the PCs directly, they are on a murder mystery, trying to stop the killing spree as soon as possible, with the Assassin getting an auto kill if they catch their victim sleeping, making it hard to determine who is doing the killing.

Eldariel

2020-04-18, 10:39 AM

Why is that really a problem? It's not like 5e subscribes to PC/NPC parity like 3e did. There are many attacks monsters make that players don't.

In general, when I want to have NPCs use unfair tactics like this that are hard to use against PCs because it feels like cheating, I just have them use them against other NPCs the party wants to protect.

Gnolls have Rampage, which only triggers if they are dropping their target to 0 HP. This means that in order for the players to see these guys doing what they were designed to be good at doing, they have to be snowballing their enemies. If this means the party, that can lead to a TPK fast, as by definition, they had to drop a player to get their extra attack (that might drop another player). This directly threatens the PC chance of victory, as it hurts their action economy, which is the breadwinner in 5e combat.

So instead, I have a group of Gnolls attack the Commoners (who they can drop in about 1 hit and they have a great chance of successfully hitting). The players now need to race to kill all the Gnolls before they Gnolls decimate the village population, leaving too few left to keep the community alive. In this case, a proper tactic is to try to aggro the Gnolls onto the players, as they are much less likely to drop in one hit as the Commoners are.

I could easily use a similar trick with an assassin character. Instead of targeting the PCs directly, they are on a murder mystery, trying to stop the killing spree as soon as possible, with the Assassin getting an auto kill if they catch their victim sleeping, making it hard to determine who is doing the killing.

In this edition more than any, that's just unnecessary coddling. 0HP is not only not that dangerous but it's actually designed to be pretty commonplace; monster damage is through the roof while PC defenses are capped. So your Gnolls can easily down a PC (who has taken some beating), and go after another. Then the 0 HP character gets Healing Worded and is right back at it until he gets downed again giving them another free attack. If anything, these types of abilities are a good way to punish yo-yo healing.

Pleh

2020-04-18, 10:51 AM

In this edition more than any, that's just unnecessary coddling. 0HP is not only not that dangerous but it's actually designed to be pretty commonplace; monster damage is through the roof while PC defenses are capped. So your Gnolls can easily down a PC (who has taken some beating), and go after another. Then the 0 HP character gets Healing Worded and is right back at it until he gets downed again giving them another free attack. If anything, these types of abilities are a good way to punish yo-yo healing.

And in later levels, Death isn't all that much of a problem, either. So you're suggesting we should allow Auto Killing Sleeping PCs because their party members can resurrect them in the morning?

There's nothing wrong with an occasional escort mission like the one I described, but it had been so long since I devised that encounter that I had forgotten I built it for a 2 Player Party consisting of a pair of Drow Rogues (I gave them healing potions that reset between sessions). I apologize for forgetting the details behind my thought process.

Eldariel

2020-04-18, 11:09 AM

And in later levels, Death isn't all that much of a problem, either. So you're suggesting we should allow Auto Killing Sleeping PCs because their party members can resurrect them in the morning?

If someone manages to sneak in on the PCs while they're sleeping, that's on the PCs. They can have night guards, they can sleep in extradimensional spaces, they can divine upcoming assassinations, they can spy on their enemies, if their enemy fully outplays them and outrolls them on top of it, a character dying is more than fair. I definitely think you should allow a coup de grace of some kind, though with a save to survive (since saves progress twice slower than in 3e, perhaps autocrit and DC 10+½ damage in this edition as an action + bonus action that doesn't allow movement; it takes a full round to line-up CDG).

Pleh

2020-04-18, 07:54 PM

If someone manages to sneak in on the PCs while they're sleeping, that's on the PCs. They can have night guards, they can sleep in extradimensional spaces, they can divine upcoming assassinations, they can spy on their enemies, if their enemy fully outplays them and outrolls them on top of it, a character dying is more than fair. I definitely think you should allow a coup de grace of some kind, though with a save to survive (since saves progress twice slower than in 3e, perhaps autocrit and DC 10+½ damage in this edition as an action + bonus action that doesn't allow movement; it takes a full round to line-up CDG).

I feel like this just comes down to the question of exactly how much of a challenge you expect your games to be. You said I was coddling, I would call the endless arms race of targeting players trying to rest unnecessary for the game experience.

Sure, at high levels, extradimensional assassins can try to TPK a party while they rest and it's totally fair. I don't think that is the most fun way to set up encounters for my table. Maybe once as a way of changing the pace of gameplay and giving them a reason to guard themselves while resting, but unless they are stuck trying to rest in a dungeon or wilderness where there aren't any safe places to rest, I don't see a reason to really push the issue.

I guess some folks get tired of just storming the castle and the simpler scenarios, itching to push the game's boundaries and really play out the arms race of power and tactics. Just seems odd to consider that to be somehow the default style of play and anything less to be coddling.

Tanarii

2020-04-19, 05:37 AM

Best:
- freeform DCs not locked in by example tables, but also that don't scale with PC level
- rulings not rules design
- bounded accuracy design
- evergreen policy
- slow splatbook release policy

Worst:
- martials are boring again
- tries to be old school without actually enabling any of the things that made old school what it was.

Mixed good and bad:
- Theatre of the Mind design

Bad things continued from previous editions:
- archer and casters suffer low downsides to balance the advantages of being a ranged attacker
- level range is presented as 1-20, giving the impression that levels 11+ are a normal, even expected, range of play.

EggKookoo

2020-04-19, 05:46 AM

- level range is presented as 1-20, giving the impression that levels 11+ are a normal, even expected, range of play.

Yeah, if they ever make a 6th edition, I hope they scale it so the cap is really like 12. Then do a boon-like thing where every 30k experience you can pick an epic class feature (designed around what used to be 13-20 class features), until you have 8 of those. Then it's every 50k and you can pick epic boons as normal. That might require recalibrating ASIs and Prof Bonus, but it could be done. Not sure how to fold multiclassing into that, though.

Eldariel

2020-04-19, 06:19 AM

Yeah, if they ever make a 6th edition, I hope they scale it so the cap is really like 12. Then do a boon-like thing where every 30k experience you can pick an epic class feature (designed around what used to be 13-20 class features), until you have 8 of those. Then it's every 50k and you can pick epic boons as normal. That might require recalibrating ASIs and Prof Bonus, but it could be done. Not sure how to fold multiclassing into that, though.
I rather prefer how 4e codified it into Paragon/Epic. Each tier felt like it was supposed to and epic levels were an actual, supported part of play for the first time ever. Too bad that system has the 4e stamp to it and thus we'll probably never see it again.

ZRN

2020-04-19, 06:59 AM

Best:
3e-style multiclassing with reasonable-enough balance to make it at least somewhat viable to multiclass for RP purposes (e.g. your fighter finds religion and takes a level of cleric).

Concentration, attunement, proficiency, and a bunch of other system changes that not only improve character balance, but also make it easier for future designers and homebrew to avoid power creep.

Lots of new subclasses, but almost no new classes. Makes it easier to set up a baseline for what characters can do in the party.

Worst:
They cut way down on ritual spells from 4e. It would add a lot of flexibility to party composition if more actually relevant exploration spells (e.g. teleportation circle, some types of resurrection) were rituals.

I like the 5e warlock, but it definitely takes away from one of the core benefits of the 3.5 warlock, which was having a magic-user class that didn't require you to read the 100+ page Spells chapter. (If you think about it, it's pretty crazy that WOTC made a lot of attempts to have fighter builds with varying levels of complexity to satisfy different types of players, but they assume every player who wants to fly around and zap people with magic also wants to master dozens of pages of details exception-based spell rules.) They did this with sorcerers too: took a class whose whole raison d'etre in 3e was to make a wizard class with less bookkeeping, and in 5e they actually made it take MORE bookkeeping than the wizard thanks to sorcery points.

Lots of subclasses, but almost no new classes. As the flip side of the positive point above, there are quite a few cases where a whole new class is probably warranted but their conservative approach to new classes keeps it from happening. Most notably, it's impossible to design a specialist magic user (e.g. beguiler, fire mage, psychic) because the base classes have access to a ton of powerful spells that don't fit those niches. (Theoretically, since sorcerer subclasses start at level 1, you could just replace their entire spell list as a first level subclass ability, but no official subclasses or UAs have tried this to my knowledge.)

ZRN

2020-04-19, 07:19 AM

The thing I want to avoid is the notion that you can get a drop on someone, hold your knife to his exposed throat, and have him think "well, the knife does 1d4 + something damage, and I have 60 hit points, so whatever..."

I feel like this exact trope has happened about a billion times in action movies, etc. Some scared civilian holds a gun/knife to the neck/head of James Bond or Bruce Lee or Rambo or whoever and he doesn't even blink because he knows he has the reflexes and training to avoid the attack if he needs to.

In-game characters should never be able to make decisions based on knowledge of game rules. The guy with the knife at his throat should see it as a real threat, regardless of HP. His high HP might translate into confidence, perhaps, but it should never just be a case of running the numbers.

In those cases, it's not the character understanding the game rules - it's the character understanding (their) reality, wherein a cool badass is powerful and tough and quick enough to avoid a knife to the throat or a point-blank gunshot. It's obviously not true to life, but that's why it's a power fantasy.

I'd say this is actually an example of game rules doing what they're supposed to do: model the "reality" of the game world so that players can make competent decisions on behalf of their characters. If my character has to fear death when a goblin holds a knife to his throat, that means he's a low-level character. If my high-level character is supposed to be scared when someone holds a knife to his throat, it better be because that assailant is powerful/scary themselves - and certainly a high-level assassin can do 60+ damage in one hit.

patchyman

2020-04-19, 07:28 AM

Rules presentation: 5e has a lot of powerful tools for the DM, but the DMG could be organized better. A lot of CR calc stuff and monster/encounter creature rules were cleaned up in Xanathar's, so that's good, but I almost feel like the DMG should have been multiple books. Also, it would be nice to have more structure around what a D&D game actually is -- I mean things like an "encouter" as a component in a "quest," which is part of an "adventure," which might be an element of a "campaign." Or something like that. Not a problem unique to this edition, more of a missed opportunity.

I agree 100% with this. The DMG is badly organized and there are some glaring omissions (and some sections that are not technically omitted, but could have been done much better).

As for the positive, I absolutely love bounded accuracy and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic.

Waazraath

2020-04-19, 08:15 AM

Worst:

Lots of subclasses, but almost no new classes. As the flip side of the positive point above, there are quite a few cases where a whole new class is probably warranted but their conservative approach to new classes keeps it from happening. Most notably, it's impossible to design a specialist magic user (e.g. beguiler, fire mage, psychic) because the base classes have access to a ton of powerful spells that don't fit those niches. (Theoretically, since sorcerer subclasses start at level 1, you could just replace their entire spell list as a first level subclass ability, but no official subclasses or UAs have tried this to my knowledge.)

Yes. Thinking about it, not only are the specialist options simply not there (a bloody shame), but the fact that 5e doesn't have the bloat of spells, feats and prestige classes that 3.5 had (generally a good thing) also means that you can't build them yourself, since there aren't enough building blocks. I mean, I can't make an ice mage, summoner or shape shifter (to name a random few) but I'm damn sure I could in 5e from a number of base classes in a number of different ways.

In this way, the plus (no bloat and balance) is at the same time a con (no bloat to build your own balanced (and in this case: thematic) option).

EggKookoo

2020-04-19, 08:18 AM

I feel like this exact trope has happened about a billion times in action movies, etc. Some scared civilian holds a gun/knife to the neck/head of James Bond or Bruce Lee or Rambo or whoever and he doesn't even blink because he knows he has the reflexes and training to avoid the attack if he needs to.

Which works if hit points aren't really meat points, which is the way I prefer to visualize it. Many folks here, though, interpret it as meat points, which means Bond's throat is made of something other than normal flesh.

Also, despite Bond's extreme confidence, he still has to be wary of that knife. He just has a way to intimidate the attacker, which has its own model in D&D. And this still doesn't explain why a drugged, unconscious, tied up Bond would be able to withstand multiple slashes to his neck before dying.

Of course the real reason Bond can't have his throat slit by a flunkie is because he's a main character, and that's just not how storytelling narratives work most of the time. But D&D isn't a storytelling narrative, and the PC isn't a main character.

In those cases, it's not the character understanding the game rules - it's the character understanding (their) reality, wherein a cool badass is powerful and tough and quick enough to avoid a knife to the throat or a point-blank gunshot. It's obviously not true to life, but that's why it's a power fantasy.

And such a character wouldn't be classified as helpless. As soon as the threatened character has any way of resisting, avoiding, or otherwise mitigating the throat slash, hit points, armor class, attack and damage rolls, and all the regular mechanics come into play. If you take a 20th level human fighter, knock him out, tie him up, and drag a regular (but sharp) knife across his unarmored throat, what happens?

Daphne

2020-04-19, 09:09 AM

Bad things continued from previous editions:
- archer and casters suffer low downsides to balance the advantages of being a ranged attacker
I'd say there are downsides, but they can be hand-waved away with feats. What kind of downsides do you have in mind, if any?

Petrocorus

2020-04-19, 10:14 AM

Best:
- freeform DCs not locked in by example tables, but also that don't scale with PC level
- rulings not rules design
- slow splatbook release policy

You like exactly the things i dislike.
I guess this edition has really something for everyone.

- evergreen policy

What is this?

Worst:
- martials are boring again

The BM's maneuvers system really deserve to see more uses.

Mixed good and bad:
- Theatre of the Mind design

+1 on this.

Bad things continued from previous editions:
- archer and casters suffer low downsides to balance the advantages of being a ranged attacker

Do you mean the downsides are not big enough?
I'm not sure i agree on the archer case. It was more much difficult to make an effective archer in 3.5 than a two-handed weapon power attacker.
And in AD&D, it was even more difficult.
I don't know about 4E.

Tanarii

2020-04-19, 10:36 AM

I'd say there are downsides, but they can be hand-waved away with feats. What kind of downsides do you have in mind, if any?

Do you mean the downsides are not big enough?
I'm not sure i agree on the archer case. It was more much difficult to make an effective archer in 3.5 than a two-handed weapon power attacker.
And in AD&D, it was even more difficult.
I don't know about 4E.Some downsides that have been lost over time:
- triggering Oa when done in melee (or in BECMI flat out being unable to attack)
- firing into melee being a crapshoot
- automatically losing spells if hit when casting, and melee/archers usually going before casters in init making that likely

That's one of the reasons casters had supremacy in 3e. They've rejiggered and rebalanced, but there's still a large advantage to being a ranged attacker. even if your DM doesn't ignore that you (for the typical party) don't have a real line of combat and instead just has enemies Focus just focuses on melee characters, you can still handle being in melee fairly well. :smallamused:

What is this?
The evergreen policy is Not issuing errata that drastically changes a class or rule for balancing purposes, only ones that fix a mistake. The purpose is that someone that picks up the PHB today and sits down with someone that bought the first printing 5 years ago is actually playing the same game. For the last two editions that was not true.

The BM's maneuvers system really deserve to see more uses.Its a pale substitute for what Fighters, Rogues and Warlords got from Powers. Especially At-Will Powers. Fighters especially the battle at tactical maneuvering was top notch. At least Rangers and Paladins got some spells as a booby prize.

Ignimortis

2020-04-19, 10:55 AM

What do you feel are the best and worst changes made to D&D in 5th edition?

Best:

Accessibility. Anyone can pick up 5e. Some classes are simple enough you don't need to remember anything beyond how to roll to-hit and damage.
Balancing. No power creep (people saying Hexblade is blatant and high power creep wouldn't recognize actual power creep if it hit them in the face). Classes are mostly well-balanced between each other, and the differences in combat effectiveness aren't high enough to stop you from picking a class altogether.

Partial successes:

Class design. I would nominate Barbarian, Monk, Paladin and Rogue as the best versions of those classes D&D has ever seen. Ranger is fine if you use Revised/UA features. Bard and Warlock both have huge mistakes in design (one shouldn't be a full caster, the other should have less power concentrated in Eldritch Blast spam if you actually want other classes to be able to grab it for some reason, and more power out of it). Fighter and full casters have the same fundamental problems as they did since time immemorial except for maybe 4e.
Getting rid of magic item Christmas trees. Magic items are not required, aside from +1 weapons for martials, but they sure make things more fun/exciting. There are too few attunement slots, though - I'd put them at 4 or 5 instead of 3. Maybe equal to proficiency bonus, even?

Worst:

Bounded accuracy. I am not opposed to the concept in general (though I don't necessarily approve of it), but 5e whiffed it at least with skills - expertise is a must if you want to be relatively sure of success when using skills, and it's not easy to get. Furthermore, you can still get to a level of protection where low-level enemies can't hit you - I actually like this, but that wasn't intentional, I presume.
Flattened power curve. 5e doesn't actually need 20 levels - it's a game with about 5-6 distinct power levels, mostly around proficiency bonus steps and AL tiers. Other levels are often inconsequential and provide small benefits. A level 20 character isn't really 20 times as powerful as a level 1 character, unless they're a full caster. Otherwise, they have 20 times the HP, and about 4-5 times the offensive power, which leads us into...
HP bloat. HP growth in 5e is much quicker than damage growth. After CR2 or 3, you're unlikely to find an enemy you can kill in one action even at level 20 without expending resources - an enemy 15 levels below you is still durable enough to withstand at least two attack actions.

Eldariel

2020-04-19, 11:06 AM

Flattened power curve. 5e doesn't actually need 20 levels - it's a game with about 5-6 distinct power levels, mostly around proficiency bonus steps and AL tiers. Other levels are often inconsequential and provide small benefits. A level 20 character isn't really 20 times as powerful as a level 1 character, unless they're a full caster. Otherwise, they have 20 times the HP, and about 4-5 times the offensive power, which leads us into...

I disagree; every single spell level is a huge departure from the last one (with the curious potential exception of level 8 spells). Level 2 spells are way better than level 1 at many places, level 3 spells are a massive departure, level 4 spells have the likes of Polymorph and Conjure Woodland Beings, level 5 spells redefine the game, level 6 spells move the game to a different axis, level 7 spells suddenly remove spatial obstacles and makes you seriously ridiculous being, level 8 spells are oddly irrelevant (Demiplane, Clone, Dominate Monster are perhaps the most relevant, but only Demiplane really opens up new worlds - I guess Control Weather/Earthquake give you some city-leveling power?) and level 9 spells make you pretty much a demigod.

So the big break points are level 3, level 5, level 7, level 9, level 11, level 13, level 15 (kinda) and level 17. Or others for Bards (since they often need to wait until Magical Secrets to truly make the most out of their new spell level) and multiclassed characters. Obviously this doesn't apply to martial characters but whatever.

HP bloat. HP growth in 5e is much quicker than damage growth. After CR2 or 3, you're unlikely to find an enemy you can kill in one action even at level 20 without expending resources - an enemy 15 levels below you is still durable enough to withstand at least two attack actions.

However, enemies do manage to retain their one-shot ability especially on crits. Tough melee brutes can get rather serious damage bonuses on higher levels. Even martial PCs can kinda-sorta one-shot things once they get most of their bonuses to "I kill you" but it's true that enemies generally have far higher level-based HP-vs-level-based damage scaling than the PCs.

Ignimortis

2020-04-19, 11:25 AM

So the big break points are level 3, level 5, level 7, level 9, level 11, level 13, level 15 (kinda) and level 17. Or others for Bards (since they often need to wait until Magical Secrets to truly make the most out of their new spell level) and multiclassed characters. Obviously this doesn't apply to martial characters but whatever.

As someone who's played a caster 1-14 and a non-caster 7-20, I'd say that you're overestimating a few of these. Level 5, level 11 and level 13 have all been somewhat significant. Level 2 spells are better than level 1 spells (obviously), but level 3 spells are gamechanging for casters, unlike most level 2s outside of Hold Person. Likewise, getting Polymorph at level 7 isn't that big of a deal, and level 9 is mostly Raise Dead and Restoration, while arcane magic isn't really breaking its' limits yet. Level 11 and level 13 are significant, in particular due to access to Plane Shift and Teleport, that is true, but level 8 and 9 spells, outside of True Polymorph and Wish, didn't seem like much to me in my only campaign that went to 20.

Petrocorus

2020-04-19, 11:44 AM

- firing into melee being a crapshoot

I'm with you on this one.
You get disadvantage when you shoot while being into melee, but you definitely should get a disadvantage when you're shooting into melee.

The evergreen policy is Not issuing errata that drastically changes a class or rule for balancing purposes, only ones that fix a mistake. The purpose is that someone that picks up the PHB today and sits down with someone that bought the first printing 5 years ago is actually playing the same game. For the last two editions that was not true.

5E is certainly better than previous editions, but not completely devoid of it. Some rulings from the Sage Advice Compendium do change the way some features, feats or spells are played. And i noticed it's usually in hindrance of martial characters.

Its a pale substitute for what Fighters, Rogues and Warlords got from Powers. Especially At-Will Powers. Fighters especially the battle at tactical maneuvering was top notch. At least Rangers and Paladins got some spells as a booby prize.
I don't know 4E, but i remember the Tome of Battle and really liked it.
I'm all in favour of having a chapter about maneuvers in a splatbook with a maneuvers subclass for the Paladin, the Ranger and maybe the Monk.

Eldariel

2020-04-19, 11:46 AM

As someone who's played a caster 1-14 and a non-caster 7-20, I'd say that you're overestimating a few of these. Level 5, level 11 and level 13 have all been somewhat significant. Level 2 spells are better than level 1 spells (obviously), but level 3 spells are gamechanging for casters, unlike most level 2s outside of Hold Person. Likewise, getting Polymorph at level 7 isn't that big of a deal, and level 9 is mostly Raise Dead and Restoration, while arcane magic isn't really breaking its' limits yet. Level 11 and level 13 are significant, in particular due to access to Plane Shift and Teleport, that is true, but level 8 and 9 spells, outside of True Polymorph and Wish, didn't seem like much to me in my only campaign that went to 20.

I strongly disagree. Level 2 has Web (a very powerful AOE CC), Suggestion (incredibly powerful both in and out of combat), Levitate (first real save or lose without additional saves while also providing you with a way to negate many disadvantages), Detect Thoughts (a very powerful non-combat effect, allowing you to gain a lot of information that you just simply can't access otherwise), etc. They're worlds away from level 1 spells.

And level 5, really? The spell level has Wall of Force, which no creature without teleportation simply can't escape and it has no save. It has Planar Binding giving you 24 hour+ minions. It has Bigby's and Telekinesis completely clowning Legendary Resistance. It was Wall of Stone for permanent stone structures. Level 5 spells are probably the biggest departure in spell power from level 1; there's a reason we found level 9 the lowest level where a single character could reasonably expect to have a chance of defeating Zariel with planning 1v1 (the whole setup relies on multiple level 5 spells) (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?610039-Can-a-13th-level-pc-beat-zariel/page5). I should also mention Animate Objects, which gives you 8 nasty minions as a standard action.

Level 4 too; Polymorph as a buff is a complete gamechanger. Suddenly you can give your allies 150+ temporary HP and make anyone able to smash for 40+ damage a turn. It also doubles as a spell that can disable Pit Fiends, Balors or even Solars in conjunction with Portent 1 on a diviner. Against more reasonable opponents you don't even need Portent. Then you have Banishment too, as a Cha-based "remove an enemy from combat with an action" effect and Summon Greater Demon as an immensely powerful minionmancy spell able to access Babau (for an array of level 2-3 spells at will), Barlgura (great beat 'em up and a bunch of spells), Tanarukk, etc. Conveniently on the same level you get Charm Monster, which you can combine with Summon Greater Demon to give the demon a disadvantage on the save if you call the demon beforehand and charm it and make it give you its truename (this is explicitly allowed). Your mobility is also greatly enhanced with the best teleportation effect before ECL13 in Dimension Door. It's also worth noting Greater Invisibility, Black Tentacles, Resilient Sphere et al.

Ignimortis

2020-04-19, 12:12 PM

snip.

Most of the things you list are just "stronger CC", "better buffs" or "better minions". Those aren't new effects, per se, it's just better numbers/less counterplay, which I don't consider gamechanging - it's just "better Hold Person" or "better Animate Dead" or "better Haste" most of the time. All in all, I'd say that the spells that really matter in that context are Detect Thoughts and Suggestion at level 2, maybe Planar Binding because of really unusual abilities those creatures can bring at level 5.

Compare those to new options level 3 tends to present: Fly is a whole new method of movement, Counterspell presents active defense against magic (unseen before), Create Food and Water neutralizes resource starvation scenarios, Revivify is the first way to resurrect the dead, and is much more useful than Raise Dead most of the time, etc. Plane Shift at level 6 is the only way of travelling between dimensions RAW. Teleport eliminates travel times, unless the GM blocks it.

But even then, martials don't get those things at all. They have 4 proper breakpoints, depending on class, but usually they are something like this: level 1, level 5, level 11 (14 for Monk, IMO), level 20 (capstones are pretty powerful for Fighter/Paladin/Barbarian/Rogue, Monk and Ranger are eh and get better at 17, I think).

Pleh

2020-04-19, 12:31 PM

I don't know 4E, but i remember the Tome of Battle and really liked it.
I'm all in favour of having a chapter about maneuvers in a splatbook with a maneuvers subclass for the Paladin, the Ranger and maybe the Monk.

I'd add the Barbarian, if I could. They don't need a ton of maneuvers, but maybe building off of Reckless Attack with a Menacing Attack would be straight in a textbook Barbarian power play.

Eldariel

2020-04-19, 12:37 PM

Most of the things you list are just "stronger CC", "better buffs" or "better minions". Those aren't new effects, per se, it's just better numbers/less counterplay, which I don't consider gamechanging - it's just "better Hold Person" or "better Animate Dead" or "better Haste" most of the time. All in all, I'd say that the spells that really matter in that context are Detect Thoughts and Suggestion at level 2, maybe Planar Binding because of really unusual abilities those creatures can bring at level 5.

Compare those to new options level 3 tends to present: Fly is a whole new method of movement, Counterspell presents active defense against magic (unseen before), Create Food and Water neutralizes resource starvation scenarios, Revivify is the first way to resurrect the dead, and is much more useful than Raise Dead most of the time, etc. Plane Shift at level 6 is the only way of travelling between dimensions RAW. Teleport eliminates travel times, unless the GM blocks it.

Getting better enough things does matter though. Getting what amounts to Heal in Polymorph for instance is something that shouldn't come before level 6. Same with being able to completely negate enemy getting a save. It's disingenious if we determine caster tiers by utility since martial tiers are defined by combat power out of necessity. If a caster gets better enough at doing stuff (AOE CC instead of single target CC, unconditional CC instead of conditional CC, long duration CC instead of short duration CC, etc.) that definitely increases their power by a tier. Of course, getting better at noncombat stuff is huge as well, but e.g. level 5 spells giving you the ability to permanently create matter certainly should count.

Waazraath

2020-04-19, 01:11 PM

Eldariel

2020-04-19, 01:54 PM

Remarkable. I really don't consider level 2 spells for casters a power jump at all, the contrary: I think it is, like it was in older editions btw, the bit dissapointing sub level between 1st and 3rd level spells. And if I see hold person as mentioned as one of the power houses: like, what? It's a save or suck spell. Yes, if it works, great, and if it doesn't, it still sucks, but very much for you, the caster, since you wasted an action and your most powerful long rest resource on something that did zip, nada, zilch, 0, nothing. Level 2 is a bit more damage (but not too much), a bit more range (shatter vs thunderwave for bards and tempest clerics, scorching ray vs chormatic orb or magic missile)...

I can name plenty of iconic 1st and 3rd level spells, but 2nd...?

The really good spells that stay useful are either lvl 1 (AoA, shield, absorb elements, mage armor, hex, hunter's mark, find familiar, goodberry, healing word, disguise self, or less useful at later levels but really good: sleep), or level 3 (fly, counterspell, fireball, spiritual guardians). Some rare exceptions like spiritual weapon, and invisibility level 2 spells are quite meh, in my experience.

Funny. When I make a level 3 character I always make it a full caster simply because 2nd level spells are so far above and beyond what anyone else can do on that level. Suggestion is mean. Levitate is great (both ends of it). Invisibility is great. Detect Thoughts is great. Misty Step is awesome. Web is good. Pyrotechnics is great. Rope Trick is at least a safe short rest. Pass without Trace is superb. You also get Locate Object. It changes party capabilities a ton: suddenly you can just read peoples' minds instead of having to ask them questions, you can go around entirely unseen effortlessly, you can teleport through keyholes, you can force doors open, you can levitate to high places, etc. Particularly arcane spells open up basically all the avenues you'll later improve on (teleportation, flight, mind reading, divination, passing unnoticed) with Druids also getting a lot of cool stuff (Spike Growth to take down Tarrasque, Healing Spirit for still full party heals, Heat Metal for a no-save "**** you" against armored enemies - though this isn't really that big in the grand scheme of things - etc.). Hell, even Clerics at least get 2nd attack among other things (Augury is also great).

Overall, I'd say level 2 spells are one of the biggest paradigm shifts in the entire game, particularly far as intrigue goes. Combat-wise they also give significant power-ups compared to level 1 options, though they don't invalidate level 1 entirely as such. They do a lot of things level 1 spells don't and most of what level 3 spells do, level 2 does too to a lesser degree. Overall, I can't but imagine it's mostly lack of iconics rather than the lack of power that gives people this idea that 2nd level spells wouldn't be a big deal. When your martials are still doing that one attack a turn shtick, getting to drop 2nd level spells is pretty huge.

Sorinth

2020-04-19, 02:30 PM

No. just a few parameters.

Is the target helpless and without nearby allies?
Are there no distractions going on that would interfere with the attempt (nearby combat, time is of the essence, etc.)?
Could the action taken realistically end the creature's life?

Yes, yes, and yes? Then the creature can be insta-killed. And even then, if the creature is powerful/experienced enough, death might not be instant. It might be able to make a last-ditch retaliation.

So a PC walking alone falls into a pool of lava and he's instantly killed, but if two goblins are fighting each other 15ft away he's able to pick himself up and walk out? How does that make any sense.

Logical problems are only a problem if the DM is a computer.

Your entire argument based on the premise that it's not logical for someone to survive their throat being cut and therefore it should be insta death.

I'm the DM. The BBEG can afford the elite killers because I say they can.

Maybe I'm not being clear, as the DM I don't want to insta kill PCs. But I also want my villain to be able to use tactics such as sending assassins who are smart enough to wait for the PCs to lower their guard, and then try to kill them in their sleep. It's a fairly normal tactic that I would now either never use because a few stealth checks against a low DC is enough to TPK, I fudge it so the PCs will automatically wake up, or I apply a different set of rules for the NPCs vs PCs.

None of those is a good solution. So adding that kind of rule is not a good idea, especially considering if the PCs sneak up on a sleeping guard and slit his throat then min damage is probably going to be enough to kill the guard since it's an auto-crit. It only fails to insta kill high hit point NPCs/monsters which is good gameplay, a smart plan and some skill checks have resulted in gaining a great advantage rather then turned a tough challenge into a simple stealth roll.

Anyways I feel this is getting a bit off topic so this will probably be my last word on the matter.

Elves

2020-04-20, 10:29 PM

The idea of reducing arbitrary number scaling was good, but bounded accuracy goes too far. All you need to do is remove arbitrary bonuses and create a gradual curve that fits the game's level range. Not everyone needs to be capable of radical success. The d20 doesn't always need to be the major component of a check, it only needs to be capable of preventing success.

Bounded values is an idea they fell in love with with 5e, but looking back, it creates grotesque outcomes and a reduced range of expressiveness. Stats shouldn't be capped, and for NPCs (like the storm giant vs tarrasque issue mentioned earlier) this is crucial. Bounded AC is also bad. I think the whole term "bounded x" needs to be ditched. No hard caps.

Basically, it was the right idea, but they need to find a happy medium. Right now, 5e is talked about as a synthesis, but in retrospect it will look, in its own ways, just as reactionary as 4e. There is space for a 6e that actually focuses on being a synthesis. No wild reaction to the last edition, just a focus on fundamental and enduring ideas. That's what 5e is marketed as, but if you look at it, it's not true.

One of those fundamental ideas that's from both 5e and 4e is the scaling at-will cantrips.

One of those fundamental ideas that's from 3e and 4e is a power or maneuver system for martial characters who don't just want to make basic attacks all day.

Another of those fundamental ideas is prestige classes, or paragon paths, or whatever you want to call them. Base classes alone just don't have enough expressive power for a modern RPG.

Advantage is another case where you see that 5e is extremist in its own way, not the great conciliator it's marketed as. "Best/worst of 2d20" is a good mechanic, but it's not capable of describing cumulative circumstances. At the very least, you need to be able to stack advantage or disadvantage for multiple circumstances, going to best or worst of 3d20, 4d20, etc.

Creating vague rules in the name of DM empowerment is a case where the devs got caught up on their own juice instead of focusing on fundamentals.

Just like with the reduction of number scaling, a good idea that they went too far with is simple wording.

My point is that although 5th Edition is marketed as the great synthesis, D&D's final form, "we finally got it right", in reality it's an overreaction to 4e in the same way 4e was, in many peoples' view, an overreaction to 3e. It has some good ideas, but those ideas are overcorrections that need tempering.

That's not to say it's a bad game, it has its niche and does it well. But just as people said 4e felt like a D&D computer game, 5e often feels like a D&D boardgame, not like it's the actual flagship RPG. I think there's a space for a 6e that actually does create a stable, enduring but more expressive system.

Petrocorus

2020-04-20, 11:06 PM

One of those fundamental ideas that's from 3e and 4e is a power or maneuver system for martial characters who don't just want to make basic attacks all day.

Wholeheartly agree. I'm all for an expansion of the maneuvers system in 5E.

Another of those fundamental ideas is prestige classes, or paragon paths, or whatever you want to call them. Base classes alone just don't have enough expressive power for a modern RPG.

I think the prestige classes could be represented with Prestige Feats. There surely some room for feats with big prerequisite that modify a class feature and give a bonus.

The Knight Phantom for instance could be retooled into a feat that gives the Phantom Steed spell with a bonus duration and speed and a bonus to AC to the caster when he's riding it.

Creating vague rules in the name of DM empowerment is a case where the devs got caught up on their own juice instead of focusing on fundamentals.

+1

My point is that although 5th Edition is marketed as the great synthesis, D&D's final form, "we finally got it right", in reality it's an overreaction to 4e in the same way 4e was, in many peoples' view, an overreaction to 3e. It has some good ideas, but those ideas are overcorrections that need tempering.
I'm under the impression that bounded accuracy is a reaction to 3.5 optimisation.

Luccan

2020-04-20, 11:23 PM

I really don't think Prestige Classes should make a return without serious work. The ones worth taking were mostly worth taking because they were better than your base class. That's not really a choice, at that point, it's a requirement. So why not just build it into the classes? I think Paragons worked like that, but I also don't remember much about them.

Elves

2020-04-21, 01:11 AM

Wholeheartly agree. I'm all for an expansion of the maneuvers system in 5E.
And IMO it should be represented in a way that's like 4e powers or TOB maneuvers, or computer game abilities -- the whole "martial spells" thing that older players didn't like in 4e (I personally find that complaint a little silly because there's nothing that makes either approach fundamentally more like using a sword IRL). I actually think these should be separate classes, too. There's a divide in how people want to play their martial characters, and the classes have to reflect that.

I'm under the impression that bounded accuracy is a reaction to 3.5 optimisation.
5e is definitely reacting to 3e as well as 4e, but the apex of arbitrary number scaling has to be in 4e where there's an arbitrary 1/2 level bonus added to everything simply for the sake of artificially differentiating creatures of different levels.

I really don't think Prestige Classes should make a return without serious work. The ones worth taking were mostly worth taking because they were better than your base class. That's not really a choice, at that point, it's a requirement.
That's not an issue with prestige classes so much as an issue with early 3e's base class design, where there were huge amounts of dead levels. (The most infamous example being the cleric, which got literally 0 class features after 1st level, giving you no reason not to prestige out.) With a modern class design where base classes actually have real class features, that's not a problem.

Paragon paths in 4e were something you had to take, a form of forced specialization. I don't think that's the way to go. But the expressive power of 3e is anchored in its huge swath of prestige classes. After playing 3e, there's just no way you can go back to the bland world of paladin 20s or wizard 20s.

It's clear Wizards doesn't want to go back to a character building system as intricate as 3e's, but there could be a very solid middle ground where you don't get as much freedom to dip around randomly.

I think the prestige classes could be represented with Prestige Feats. There surely some room for feats with big prerequisite that modify a class feature and give a bonus.

The Knight Phantom for instance could be retooled into a feat that gives the Phantom Steed spell with a bonus duration and speed and a bonus to AC to the caster when he's riding it.

Sure, you could have a category of Prestige Feats, though that example sounds a little simplified...IMO though there's an undeniable charm to it actually being represented as class levels you take, if only to break up the tedium of seeing that "paladin 20", "wizard 20" ad nauseam and add more sense of spice.

Petrocorus

2020-04-21, 02:50 AM

Sure, you could have a category of Prestige Feats, though that example sounds a little simplified...

I was just launching this idea, it clearly needs some work.

IMO though there's an undeniable charm to it actually being represented as class levels you take, if only to break up the tedium of seeing that "paladin 20", "wizard 20" ad nauseam and add more sense of spice.
I feel you there. I loved character building so much in 3.5.
When i transitioned i almost felt like there were no character building in 5E.

Tanarii

2020-04-21, 03:19 AM

The idea that bonuses should be more than the size of the die involved needs to stay dead.

3e was an outlier among RPGs. The vast majority of them have a typical range of success from around 25%-75%, with some exceptionally characters or situations pushing close to 0 or 100% or so. The idea of a success range of -100% to 200% for characters of comparable power was a failure.

What 5e does that is a little weird is drop the idea of being 'trained' to quality for a check in the first place.

Powerdork

2020-04-21, 06:27 AM

Alucard89

2020-04-21, 07:23 AM

Tanarii

2020-04-21, 09:19 AM

Waazraath

2020-04-21, 09:32 AM

I hate one thing in 5e and that is minimum attributes requirements for multiclassing.

I know they probably did that to prevent "min-maxing" and diping 1 levels of everything, but you should never balance game around min-maxers, becasue those will always find a way to break system anyway. Sorcadins, Hexadins, Sorlocks, Nuclear Wizards etc. will always be done one way or another.

Meanwhile it prevents tons of cool character concepts like Barbarian/Monk, old-school Wizard/Cleric, or Monk/Druid or Barbarian/Cleric or Paladin/Wizard etc.

I don't like it becasue you can always break a game if you are powerbuilder becasue that is the nature of RPGs - there is always a broken combination somewhere to be exploited.

But many cool concepts can't be done because of this dumb rule.

I fundamentally disagree with the bolded statement. Given that DND is a game that is still often played in game stores, with folks you don't know, and it's a game that is appealing for a large diversity of players (inclusing min-maxers), you must take min/maxing into account, because big differences in power can greatly detract from the fun of other players, in a group with mixed power levels. If anything, 3.x has shown that. And 5e has shown itself so far a great example on how these issues can mostly be avoided. Yes, we have the nuclear wizard, and wish/simulacrum nonsense, and coffeelocks, but 1) most are obviously a bit silly and never show up in real games and 2) especially since the rest of the edition is balanced quite well, it is obvious that these are a bit silly rules anomalies that the designers are skipped over. I can't stress enough how much this is influenced by the edition: 3.5, where everything was broken as heck and the general attitude on every new broken thing was "don't whine it's RAW so I'm allowed to use it" vs 5e's casual "rulings not rules" attitude where the few obvious glitches in the game balance are in general looked at as 'hey that's a fun exploit but hey we're never gonna use it anyway right?'.

The examples you give by the way seem a bit odd: a cleric dip is standard suggestion as dip for wizards, even in those (powergaming) online handbooks; combining the classes is not difficult. The way casting works in 5e, even half/half multiclassing doesn't cost you your higher spell slots (and plenty of lower ones are worth upcasting). Monk/druid is easily possible, since both require wisdom, so no problem there, and again, it's a pretty standard multiclass suggestion. Barbarian/monk is mostly affected by both types of unarmored defense not stacking, more than with ability scores not stacking. In addition to that, 5e is so well balanced that even with suboptimal choices like wizard/pally or bbn / cleric, the game stays playable. And even then, what makes those builds suboptimal isn't the ability requirements....

Luccan

2020-04-21, 09:40 AM

Also, unless you're playing point buy, its not like those builds are impossible to achieve. You can probably even do them in point buy if you're willing to shuffle around you tertiary stats a bit. Though it takes a bit of a sacrifice in both Strength and Charisma, wizard/cleric can be achieved on any character at level 2. The only ones where it's generally a pain are the classes with two stats required. And while I do think that's an inconsistency that could stand to be fixed, its still not impossible to overcome, even in point buy. You just might have to delay a little bit.

Alucard89

2020-04-21, 09:43 AM

I fundamentally disagree with the bolded statement. Given that DND is a game that is still often played in game stores, with folks you don't know, and it's a game that is appealing for a large diversity of players (inclusing min-maxers), you must take min/maxing into account, because big differences in power can greatly detract from the fun of other players, in a group with mixed power levels. If anything, 3.x has shown that. And 5e has shown itself so far a great example on how these issues can mostly be avoided. Yes, we have the nuclear wizard, and wish/simulacrum nonsense, and coffeelocks, but 1) most are obviously a bit silly and never show up in real games and 2) especially since the rest of the edition is balanced quite well, it is obvious that these are a bit silly rules anomalies that the designers are skipped over. I can't stress enough how much this is influenced by the edition: 3.5, where everything was broken as heck and the general attitude on every new broken thing was "don't whine it's RAW so I'm allowed to use it" vs 5e's casual "rulings not rules" attitude where the few obvious glitches in the game balance are in general looked at as 'hey that's a fun exploit but hey we're never gonna use it anyway right?'.

The examples you give by the way seem a bit odd: a cleric dip is standard suggestion as dip for wizards, even in those (powergaming) online handbooks; combining the classes is not difficult. The way casting works in 5e, even half/half multiclassing doesn't cost you your higher spell slots (and plenty of lower ones are worth upcasting). Monk/druid is easily possible, since both require wisdom, so no problem there, and again, it's a pretty standard multiclass suggestion. Barbarian/monk is mostly affected by both types of unarmored defense not stacking, more than with ability scores not stacking. In addition to that, 5e is so well balanced that even with suboptimal choices like wizard/pally or bbn / cleric, the game stays playable. And even then, what makes those builds suboptimal isn't the ability requirements....

MADness of those builds if you use Standard Array or Point Buy is what makes them just no good choices. You can "make" any build you want, but you will feel like it costs you more than it was worth. 13 Wisdom to multiclass Wizard/Cleric - which race has both +1 INT/+1 WIS or +1/+2 to those? You will end up having worse rounded stats or even being ASI behind with that. So yes, you can make them, but they are not worth the trouble. Same with Barbarian/Monk. You need DEX, CON, STR and WIS to multiclass and have relevant HP and/or armor.

Sure, if you roll stats and have 15+ everywhere - you can make every build. But for folks who prefer fair Point Buy for everyone at table - multiclass rulings just closes many thematic doors.

And I still stand by saying that RPG should not be balanced around min-maxers. For example I played 3.5 for a very long time and I was the only real min-maxer/powerbuilder in every table I ever played. Mostly casual/normal gamers still just go for the flavour and for "rule of cool" characters.

Same is with 5e. I have yet to meet another min-maxer than myself at 5e tables. Powerbuilders are miniority among players. Yes, they are visible once you have one, but most tables don't min-max at all.

Also the whole idea of "optional" rule for feats + multiclass is also idiotic to me. It's like cutting half of the game and saying "it's optional". Of course people with play with those. Feats and multiclass are what makes DnD so good and how 3 Fighters in party can be totally different characters mechanically.

I have played a lot of systems which were considered "balanced" or "harsh" and you can always min-max in most of them. People like me will always find a way, that's our quirk. So I don't think that rest of normal players base should pay a price for that. For me - it's silly way of balancing system.

diplomancer

2020-04-21, 09:49 AM

I am not a fan of the multiclass requirements, but in many cases they work as a warning signal to prevent multiclasses that don't synergize at all. It actually helps newbies. It's worth noting that, apart from dips, you usually don't want to multiclass too far into classes that have different ability score dependency.

There might be cases where they prevent multiclasses that synergize too much, but, apart from making it more difficult to build a Dex Sorcadin or Paladock, I can't think of any.

I still think Rangers should have as their requirement (Str or Dex)/Wis. I don't think Aragorn ever uses a bow (and definitely not finesse weapons) in the book.

Tanarii

2020-04-21, 09:58 AM

I can't stress enough how much this is influenced by the edition: 3.5, where everything was broken as heck and the general attitude on every new broken thing was "don't whine it's RAW so I'm allowed to use it" vs 5e's casual "rulings not rules" attitude where the few obvious glitches in the game balance are in general looked at as 'hey that's a fun exploit but hey we're never gonna use it anyway right?'.
The sad part is 3e was "let's clean up all these wonky 2e subsystems with weird edge cases, and have a unified mechanic and codified rules that are clear". Possibly with a subtext of "to stop all this silly mix-maxing' but maybe that's just me reading into it.

The problem was splats and the advent of forms, which led to optimization, which led to abuse. And of course the Stormwind-Fallacy fallacy.

KorvinStarmast

2020-04-21, 10:32 AM

I really don't think Prestige Classes should make a return without serious work. There already is one: the Warlock dip. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, I'd like to see the prestige class never come back. I realize that's a matter of taste.

MrStabby

2020-04-21, 10:47 AM

There already is one: the Warlock dip. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, I'd like to see the prestige class never come back. I realize that's a matter of taste.

I see it as a kind of risk/reward thing. Done well, I think it would be a great addition to the game. So many of what we saw before were really evocative, great theme and often with interesting mechanics... but really badly balanced. Do we have faith that WotC would release prestige classes that were balanced or not?

I think if they can do it well then prestige classes would be a great addition to the game. I suspect that they can't and if it were up to me I would not be encouraging them to take the risk.

OldTrees1

2020-04-21, 10:55 AM

There already is one: the Warlock dip. :smallbiggrin:

But seriously, I'd like to see the prestige class never come back. I realize that's a matter of taste.

Prestige classes act like alternate class features that are not class specific and are balanced for / require a higher level. If the game designers wanted an interesting alternate class feature for Tier 3 martial characters, a prestige class or a feat would be a good way of handling that. Characters get less feats than levels (barring low level 3.5 Fighter) so it can make sense to have some of the ACFs cost a level (via a prestige class) instead of a feat to avoid overloading one limited resource. Alternative game designers could add a rule letting you forgo a level's worth of features in exchange for a feat.

However 5E's subclass system is not prepared for a conversion to a more general or generic alternate class feature system. This means prestige classes don't fit 5E well.

So while I like the benefits prestige classes (in the absence of better innovations) add to the game, I would not want to see them in 5E as it is now.

Now if 6E were designed so at level up you could forgo the level's features in exchange for a Feat, and Feats could have reasonable level limiting requirements, then Prestige classes could exist but would be redundant by Feats. Feats = Features.

Petrocorus

2020-04-21, 12:57 PM

3e was an outlier among RPGs. The vast majority of them have a typical range of success from around 25%-75%,
I disagree with this.
Even in WarHammer 1 & 2, where PC were supposedly quite weak, you generally started with 35+ in your main stat and could go up to 80+ with a lot of experience.
In Star Wars D6, you could start with 6 D in your main stat and an average DC was below 15.
In Basic RPG games, having 60 % in a main skill at beginning was not difficult and there were no theoretical limit preventing to reach 100%, even if that was very difficult.
In oWoD (including all 20th anniversary games), and nWoD AFAIK, even an normal human character can have 6 or 7 dice in his speciality, and that more than enough to reliably succeed at average task almost always.
In Shadowrun V5, a starting PC can reliably succeed an average task in his speciality 60 to 70 % of time.
And that's just the tip of my mind.
Even in Star Wars FFG, where PC start rather weak, they can become good enough succeed an average task in their speciality 90% of the time.
Maybe it's common in some recent games i haven't tried, but in my experience, DD5 where a very experienced PC still has 15% chance to fail an average task and 40% chance to fail a difficult task in it's main speciality does stand out.

Nuclear Wizards etc.
What exactly is a nuclear wizard?

5e's casual "rulings not rules" attitude where the few obvious glitches in the game balance are in general looked at as 'hey that's a fun exploit but hey we're never gonna use it anyway right?'.
TBH, there are not that many broken glitches in the game, beside the simulacrum and the coffeelock.
TBH, i sometime would like to play a coffeelock just for the sake of having tons of cantrips while never going into infinite spell slots stuff.

You will end up having worse rounded stats or even being ASI behind with that. So yes, you can make them, but they are not worth the trouble. Same with Barbarian/Monk. You need DEX, CON, STR and WIS to multiclass and have relevant HP and/or armor.

That's more with the fact that Barbarian already need Dex and Con to max out their AC. But if you simple forgo unarmored defence and use a breastplate, you can be fine with 14 in Con and Dex, and that's quite possible, depending on your race, to get this with point buy if you drop Int and Cha.

I still think Rangers should have as their requirement (Str or Dex)/Wis. I don't think Aragorn ever uses a bow (and definitely not finesse weapons) in the book.
I agree with this. And fot the Pally too.
They're basically saying that Strength Ranger and Dex Paladin should not multiclass and probably should not be a thing.

The sad part is 3e was "let's clean up all these wonky 2e subsystems with weird edge cases, and have a unified mechanic and codified rules that are clear". Possibly with a subtext of "to stop all this silly mix-maxing' but maybe that's just me reading into it.

I think there was a generation of players and writers who were just fed up with having a game with a specific subsystem for each kind of action.
With limitations like that only a non-Rogue could not even try to be stealthy in ADD1. And ADD2 still had a lot of this despite the implementation of non-martial proficiencies.
I know i myself hated this.

I see it as a kind of risk/reward thing. Done well, I think it would be a great addition to the game. So many of what we saw before were really evocative, great theme and often with interesting mechanics... but really badly balanced. Do we have faith that WotC would release prestige classes that were balanced or not?

The problem comes from the facts that too many PrC were just unbalance or even broken like the Incantatrix.
More common among Wizard PrC, but true for other classes too.
The fact that many classes, the Cleric notably, had very few class features also made PrCing to easy, because you didn't lost anything by doing so.
But there were indeed some flavourful and balance PrC.

EggKookoo

2020-04-21, 01:26 PM

I think there was a generation of players and writers who were just fed up with having a game with a specific subsystem for each kind of action.

My guess is that there was a decision at WotC that too much reliance on system mastery -- and with it's "a subsystem for each thing" mindset 2e required a lot of system mastery -- was bad for bringing in new players. The decision to go all d20 for 3e was driven by the desire to promote the game as conceptually simplified and modernized. When 3e came out, most other TTRPGs I played worked that way, with one major backbone mechanic that handled 90% of the actions.

This led to a significant simplification of the rules over 2e, which was good. But then they kind of backfilled that with more complexity at both the player-build level (chuck full o'feats) and at the table (competing bonuses and penalties). D&D 3e played a lot more smoothly than 2e, at least at low levels, but the complexity ramped up rapidly. A new kind of system mastery blight set in.

Fifth is at least partly an attempt to backpedal from the complexity that 3e added to character builds and table-play, while retaining its "one mechanic to rule them all" mindset.

Willie the Duck

2020-04-21, 01:44 PM

The 3e designers have been relatively mum about exactly what their goals were (outside of the actual press release style material from the time). Given that Monte Cook is still living down a reputation in no small part based on that one System Mastery interview I'm sure someone has a link to, I really don't blame them. Clearly they were trying to modernize D&D, but exactly what that meant we can mostly only infer. Universal resolution mechanic seems likely. Semi-rigorous fictional world emulator--what with actual hit points and hardness for various types of walls, rules for creating things other than weapons and armor (stuff that 2e nonweapon proficiencies covered, that is), and so on. Putting PCs and NPCs on a similar framework (and despite the insane expansion of the monster stat blocks, it did resolve issues such as what happens if a monster gets hit with energy drain or other effect which only has player-facing consequences) is another guess. Overall my impression (very subjective) is that they just thought the basic D&D/AD&D engine had been played out and a direct 'AD&D, take 3' or the like would never sell, so they needed to try to capture the same audience, hit the same notes, etc., but with a new system. And along the way they were going to 'fix' whatever they saw as broken (or just worn out) about the old system.

Pex

2020-04-21, 01:48 PM

You shouldn't be considering success rates, you should be considering the worth of failure. D&D provides no incentive for GMs to say that anything happens on a failed roll other than "You don't do it yet, try again", which is a waste of everyone's time.

Yes, that's one of 5e's best changes was to fix that, and also another industry standard nowadays.

3E fixed it first, in D&D, with Take 10 and Take 20. You don't have to keep rolling until you do it. When you can't Take 10/20 there are reasons/consequences why you can't.

Alucard89

2020-04-21, 01:50 PM

What exactly is a nuclear wizard?

1 Hexblade/17 Evocation Wizard/2 Fighter abusing Magic Missle singe roll rule and stacking extra +11 damage per missle + Action Surge + Simulacrum + Simulacrum Action Surge. You can delete anything in 1-2 turns.

king_steve

2020-04-21, 02:18 PM

1 Hexblade/17 Evocation Wizard/2 Fighter abusing Magic Missle singe roll rule and stacking extra +11 damage per missle + Action Surge + Simulacrum + Simulacrum Action Surge. You can delete anything in 1-2 turns.

I don't think this works, the Empowered Evocation only applies to 1 damage roll. Magic Missile doesn't say whether you roll damage once and apply it to each date or if you roll damage per dart, but I'm not sure how common it is to only use a single roll.

Despite that, if you roll damager per dart would be +11 for 1 date, then +6 for the rest, that still adds up to a lot of damage.

Alucard89

2020-04-21, 02:46 PM

I don't think this works, the Empowered Evocation only applies to 1 damage roll. Magic Missile doesn't say whether you roll damage once and apply it to each date or if you roll damage per dart, but I'm not sure how common it is to only use a single roll.

Despite that, if you roll damager per dart would be +11 for 1 date, then +6 for the rest, that still adds up to a lot of damage.

No, EE applies to all Magic Missliles because RAW you roll ONCE for all magic missiles.

Here you have tweet: https://twitter.com/jeremyecrawford/status/774030989894955008

It's because of how MM spell is worded.

So at level 6th MM you create 8x (1d4 + 1 + Curse + Empowered Evocation).

Waazraath

2020-04-21, 03:09 PM

MADness of those builds if you use Standard Array or Point Buy is what makes them just no good choices. You can "make" any build you want, but you will feel like it costs you more than it was worth. 13 Wisdom to multiclass Wizard/Cleric - which race has both +1 INT/+1 WIS or +1/+2 to those?

Eh... trick question? Human, vhuman, half-elf, vedalken, githzerai, and at least 3 dragonmarked races?

You will end up having worse rounded stats or even being ASI behind with that. So yes, you can make them, but they are not worth the trouble. Same with Barbarian/Monk. You need DEX, CON, STR and WIS to multiclass and have relevant HP and/or armor.

Sure, if you roll stats and have 15+ everywhere - you can make every build. But for folks who prefer fair Point Buy for everyone at table - multiclass rulings just closes many thematic doors.

Sorry, but nonsense. Also with point buy, not having a 16 or higher in a primary stat by no means is the same as that a build isn't viable or relevant.

And I still stand by saying that RPG should not be balanced around min-maxers. For example I played 3.5 for a very long time and I was the only real min-maxer/powerbuilder in every table I ever played. Mostly casual/normal gamers still just go for the flavour and for "rule of cool" characters.

Same is with 5e. I have yet to meet another min-maxer than myself at 5e tables. Powerbuilders are miniority among players. Yes, they are visible once you have one, but most tables don't min-max at all.

Also the whole idea of "optional" rule for feats + multiclass is also idiotic to me. It's like cutting half of the game and saying "it's optional". Of course people with play with those. Feats and multiclass are what makes DnD so good and how 3 Fighters in party can be totally different characters mechanically.

I have played a lot of systems which were considered "balanced" or "harsh" and you can always min-max in most of them. People like me will always find a way, that's our quirk. So I don't think that rest of normal players base should pay a price for that. For me - it's silly way of balancing system.

Your experience is valid, but not the point. Personally, the potential disbalance in 3.x never bothered me either cause I play with friends that are either 1) casual gamers 2) harcore optimizers but nice enough to take the rest of the table in to account (resulting in beautifully made optimized buff bots that are really strong but mostly empower the casual gamers in the group, making it fun for everybody). But it's not about me either. It's about the many, many folks who have less fun that they could because disbalanced parties. Go look for some examples in any 3.x forum you'll find plenty. It's for those tables, and they rightfully got attention from the designers.

And I think it's a logial fallacy to claim that when a game prevents powergamers to disrupt the balance, it automatically closes a lot of options. Those 2 don't need to exclude each other.

What makes your claimes even less convincing is that the options you give that are supposed to be impossible in 5e are very logic, even from an optimizers point of view. Moon druid with a bit of monk (for extra AC in animal forms), monk with a dip of druid (versatility with little cost), pally with 2 levels war wizard (+2 to AC or +4 to save every round, in addition to a bonus to initiative, a familiar and some versatility).... etc. etc. Those are strong, solid builds, in no way hampered by the system.

And finally: any optimizer worth his salt should be encouraged by a challange: optimizing isn't (or imo: shouldn't) be about getting the strongest build possible, it's about making something optimal given certain parameters. Making that wizard/pally work is a challange and fun, not something you skip 'cause you can't have a 16 in str, cha AND int from level 1 onwards'.

Petrocorus

2020-04-21, 05:26 PM

1 Hexblade/17 Evocation Wizard/2 Fighter abusing Magic Missle singe roll rule and stacking extra +11 damage per missle + Action Surge + Simulacrum + Simulacrum Action Surge. You can delete anything in 1-2 turns.

Oh... That one.
The guy that can do 100+ dmg on a single casting of Magic Missile at level 12.
Ididn't pick up the name.

TBH, one could consider the player earned this trick, by investing 1 level into Warlock and 9 levels into a Wizard school that up to this point is not so good compared to some others.
But it's sure this trick, once in line, quickly make every body else in the party feel redundant.

FaerieGodfather

2020-04-21, 06:17 PM

So I have very strong negative feelings about 5e-- it is my least favorite edition by a wide margin-- but I'm not trying to insult or pick a fight with anyone who likes it. It's a good game that seems to do what it's designed to do very well, and I recommend it to people who've never played D&D before as the easiest game for a newbie to get into, and... unfortunately, the direction the entire D&D fandom appears to be moving for the foreseeable future.

Which is, you see, why I hate it. There are different editions of D&D that are more or less to my tastes, but 5e is the first and only D&D that feels deliberately designed to be the opposite of what I want from D&D and what I think D&D should be. I'm glad that the current edition of the game is the most popular ever-- for several reasons-- but I'd be lying if I said it didn't bother me that the one thing all the grognards and the new kids agree on is that the playstyle I grew up with isn't "real D&D".

Just a little context for the rest of my opinions, here.

Best Changes:

Advantage/Disadvantage - a clean, simple, easy to remember mechanic that replaces dozens of fiddly little modifiers.
Attribute Saving Throws - again, an elegant mechanic that splits the difference between AD&D's "what you're saving against" and 3.X's "how you're saving against it"; if there's more than one way to resist an effect, just use the one that makes sense
Subclasses - this adds a lot of variety to every individual class and reduces (but does not eliminate) the need to add more main classes
Feats - big, meaty character choices that open up new avenues of play; much better than their 3.X and 4e counterparts.
At-Will Cantrips - PF did it first, but 5e's cantrips are much more substantial in utility and in combat.
Pact Magic - this is just a great mechanic. Shame it's only one class.

Worst Changes:

Bounded Accuracy - high-level characters simply do not feel different enough from low-level characters. unless they're spellcasters, of course. 3e and 4e were steps in the right direction, this is a huge step back.
ASI Cap - everyone's got the same 20 in their main score by 12th level, racial mods don't matter
Saving Throw Math - like 3.X, your best saving throws get stronger slower than level-appropriate save DCs. Unlike 3.X, your worst saving throws don't get better at all.
Skills - proficiency bonuses are too small, leading to too little difference beween trained/untrained and low-level/high-level.
Cantrip Damage - at-will ranged attacks do more damage than melee or ranged weapons? practically the only thing based on character level instead of class level?
Multiclassing -- Literally. Everything.

Pex

2020-04-21, 09:27 PM

Cantrip Damage - at-will ranged attacks do more damage than melee or ranged weapons? practically the only thing based on character level instead of class level?

That's not quite true. Except for Eldritch Blast they do deal more damage in one attack but not in one turn. When Cantrips are getting their second die warriors are getting their second attack. When Cantrips get their third die warriors are getting a boost to their attacks - extra damage or in Fighter's case another attack. When Cantrips get their next die you sort of have a point. Fighters get their fourth attack. Others get a boost somewhere. Weapon attacks always add modifier to damage. Cantrips only sometimes do. Since 5E lowered the number of spell slots spellcasters have Cantrips give them something to do in casting that sounds better than "I fire my crossbow" to conserve spell slots and still contribute meaningfully. You still don't have to like that, but using a Cantrip doesn't make a spellcaster a better warrior than a warrior.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-21, 09:31 PM

What do you feel are the best and worst changes made to D&D in 5th edition?

I've only played 5e a little, but so far I would say I would say that that complete healing with an 8 hour rest bugs me the most.

I do like that they got rid of fire and forget casting. {The party is assailed by a horde of gibbering critters. The wizard throws a fireball and fries a sizable portion of them. The fighter says 'That was great, throw another one.' The wizard says 'Sorry, I forgot how. If we survive I can learn it again tonight.'}

Better:
Bounded Accuracy - Scaling is contained, it's okay to not be super min-maxed since you'll be able to get your main stat to 20 no matter what and you're no longer permanently gimped for not starting with a maximum possible score in one stat or playing a non-normal race/class combo that would have just been terrible in the past [Orc Wizard, for example], and there's room to spend your feats/ASI's on things that are actually fun and fluffy. Also, there's only so far that powergaing will go, even poorly optimized characters feel valuable. This is really the biggest improvement by far.
Sharpshooter & GWM - Martials have good damage output now! Also, makes damage output scale a little better [though this is still a problem of D&D].
Simple - Chargen is quick and easy. So is gameplay.
Fewer Classes - There didn't need to be so many classes, the existing classes cover things great, and are easy to learn.
No More Magic Item Christmas Tree - Magic Items are Magical again, and feel special for the GM to pick out as a special reward, not something for the players to bake in and assume for part of their builds.

Worse:
Bounded Accuracy - Spellsave DC's are so low that I often feel that offensive spells that don't do half on pass are basically not worth casting if the odds are at best like 50% that your turn and once-per-day resource will just be wasted.
Legendary Resistance - and thus was both bounded accuracy ignored, the player's most valuable resource pre-emptively wasted or creative combat maneuver idea pre-emptively kiboshed, all for the sake of never again having a story about how the GM's Big Scary was stunned or charmed or immobilized or tripped or pushed off a cliff and thus was killed without downing at least one PC.
Low Spell Slot count - Compounds with bounded accuracy and legendary resistance, spells are too valuable to waste when there's like a 50/50 chance of your once or twice per day ability just not doing anything.
No More Engineering or Knowledge Skills - Seriously, there's no less than 3 skills represent talking to somebody to get them to do what you want them to do that are all actually mechanically the same [Deceive, Persuade, Intimidate], but there's no skill for designing & building things or knowing facts about things other than what berries are safe to eat.
Advantage/Disadvantage - It doesn't matter how many times it stacks, as long as you have it, you have it. And if you have 2 sources of advantage, and one source of disadvantage, it's still a net wash. There's no discretization.
Skill Proficiency - Even more than ever, stats matter way too much in determining how good you are at a skill, and you're either proficient or not.
Fewer "Characterful" Options - For once, thanks to bounded accuracy, there's room to take options that are just fun. Unfortunately, there's not that many of those options to take, and many just don't scale that well.
Lots of Weapon Names, Not So Many Weapon Profiles - Basically what it says on the tin. There are a lot of weapons that are just the same as other weapons.

Unchanged Weaknesses:
Lots of HP - Combat is still a painful slog. HP still goes up faster than damage does, the gamestate doesn't change round to round meaningfully, and battles boil down into "move into contact, race to bottom, repeat".
DEX is The God Stat - Now it even adds to damage too!
5ft Squares - On one hand, it works nicely with 25mm/32mm Heroic scale wargaming models. On the other hand, 5' square is a really awkward size to consider a single person occupying and to limit movement too if you assume people are realistically proportioned and not wearing Space Marine shoulder pads while standing in a half-squat with their legs as far apart as physically possible.
Class/Level Based Character Progression - There's not a lot of freedom to deviate from your build in a mechanical sense so your build is kind of picked when you start your character as opposed to evolving naturally as the demands of the game an your character changes, and character improvements are infrequent and sharp versus frequent and small.

- publishing rate: I could do with more player options, and less settings / adventure modules 1-15. It's personal, but before one of my group finishes one, I'm years and years further, while player options for one shots or short campaigns always come in handy.

Definitely. I don't care about the "official" settings or preconned adventures, I don't run them, and all but one GM I know doesn't use them either. It's expected that a GM has her own game in her own setting.

FaerieGodfather

2020-04-21, 10:02 PM

That's not quite true.

Yeah, all of this is fair-- I absolutely don't have a problem with at-will spells. I just find it troublesome that unless you're a warrior your cantrip spells are automatically going to be a better option than weapon combat, and that they are definitely going to be better than your lower-level daily spell slots. It's a weird and uncomfortable balance point for me.

Pex

2020-04-21, 10:49 PM

Yeah, all of this is fair-- I absolutely don't have a problem with at-will spells. I just find it troublesome that unless you're a warrior your cantrip spells are automatically going to be a better option than weapon combat, and that they are definitely going to be better than your lower-level daily spell slots. It's a weird and uncomfortable balance point for me.

I'm confused by this. If you're a spellcaster your spells should be better than using a weapon. There are particular builds that allow a spellcaster to be decent in using a weapon, but I don't see how a wizard firing a crossbow or swinging a quarterstaff should be preferred over casting Fire Bolt. However, this thread is about opinions, so I don't fault you having a different perspective.

It is true Cantrips are better than a few 1st level spells, but the fault lies in those 1st level spells being garbage. Many 1st level spells remain useful through out the levels.

Telok

2020-04-21, 11:11 PM

I'm confused by this. If you're a spellcaster your spells should be better than using a weapon. There are particular builds that allow a spellcaster to be decent in using a weapon, but I don't see how a wizard firing a crossbow or swinging a quarterstaff should be preferred over casting Fire Bolt. However, this thread is about opinions, so I don't fault you having a different perspective.

It is true Cantrips are better than a few 1st level spells, but the fault lies in those 1st level spells being garbage. Many 1st level spells remain useful through out the levels.

Actually a big part of it is the assumption that unless you're attacking and doing damage then you aren't contributing. Back in AD&D, yes people whine about only having one spell a day as a first level wizard, you were playing the "smart guy" of the group and could do more than just throw darts/shoot a crossbow. The game wasn't 'balanced' on attack+ac+damage = dps/hp = appropriate level encounter that is required to drain appropriate level resources to make a certain number of encounters a day.

The modern game style has made 0 hit points the only meaningful combat outcome and magic users aren't... something, magical maybe... unless they cast spells non-stop all day.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-22, 03:12 AM

Actually a big part of it is the assumption that unless you're attacking and doing damage then you aren't contributing. Back in AD&D, yes people whine about only having one spell a day as a first level wizard, you were playing the "smart guy" of the group and could do more than just throw darts/shoot a crossbow. The game wasn't 'balanced' on attack+ac+damage = dps/hp = appropriate level encounter that is required to drain appropriate level resources to make a certain number of encounters a day.

The modern game style has made 0 hit points the only meaningful combat outcome and magic users aren't... something, magical maybe... unless they cast spells non-stop all day.

You don't have to be attacking [since healing and buffing are also valid contributions that mitigate enemy damage or let your team deal more damage], but if you're not adding to the race to the bottom in some way then yeah you're not really contributing.

Anyway, I don't like the paradigm of D&D combat [I would rather a system where maneuver is actually relevant, position matters more than damage, and the game state and tactics evolve meaningfully between rounds; or at least play rocket tag instead of this race to the bottom with absurd amounts of HP where there's no degradation in capability until sudden death], but it is what it is, and a wizard shooting a crossbow is pretty much non-contributing. Actually, a wizard shooting a cantrip is pretty close to non-contributing even with scaling cantrip damage.

As for being the smart guy, anyone can be the smart guy, not just the wizard, if they put points in INT. That's not even an exclusive product of 5e, since people often play characters that attack on one stat and have another feature or or skills that operate off another. Though 5e improves this, since it's way more possible to have multiple good stats with bounded accuracy making it noncritical to put all your points in one stat, and it's one of the best things about 5e.

I don't really believe in the idea that some classes contribute in combat, some classes contribute in social, and some classes contribute in exploration. It is my belief that everybody should always be participating in the game. This is a cooperative storytelling game, not a wargame, and people being sidelined because of "enforced role" is only slightly less bad than a person making a speech or dialogue and then declaring that another player whose CHA is better than theirs said it instead.

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 05:23 AM

The modern game style has made 0 hit points the only meaningful combat outcome and magic users aren't... something, magical maybe... unless they cast spells non-stop all day.

IMHO, that's a lazy DM problem. Sneaking past sleeping guards should be worth the same as killing them in combat, assuming you were killing them to get past them.

Heck, I had a sewer base set up with a secret door near the back that bypassed nearly the entire thing, and would let the party get to a hostage that they could theoretically rescue without a single fight. Had they done that, I would have awarded them the experience equivalent to taking out everything in it. They didn't notice the secret door and went around the long way...

Alucard89

2020-04-22, 06:18 AM

Legendary Resistance - and thus was both bounded accuracy ignored, the player's most valuable resource pre-emptively wasted or creative combat maneuver idea pre-emptively kiboshed, all for the sake of never again having a story about how the GM's Big Scary was stunned or charmed or immobilized or tripped or pushed off a cliff and thus was killed without downing at least one PC.

I want to add on that.

What I don't like in 5e is how CC spells (apart from no-save CC like Forcecage or Reverse Gravity etc.) becoming really useless on higher tiers where every relevant enemy has immunity to charmed, exhaustion, frightened, poisoned. They also get Legendary Resistances, which are just unfair to players, especially casters.

Also I don't like changes to tons of CC spells that they allow repeating saving throws every turn + add another saves when target takes damage etc.

It promotes going for the damage at higher tiers, because every strong enemy boss is immune to hard CC, or for building character that can bypass mechanic (like Quicken Hold Person/Monster).

Many subclasses suffer a lot because of that on higher tier - like Conquest Paladin where every enemy is suddenly immune to being frightened or Enchanter Wizard where everything that is worth using slots has immunity to charm and so on.

I don't like that end-game enemies all have not only legendary resistances but also immunities to all kinds of CC. Makes unique playstyles suffer, while flat damage just gets stronger and stronger (Paladins, Warlocks, Sorlocks, Padlocks etc.) because they don't care about those things. Clever tactics are forgotten, it's just damage, damage or finding loopholes in mechanics (like posted by someone Telekinesis Lore Bard) to be able to do something else vs LR enemies.

Pleh

2020-04-22, 06:55 AM

I want to add on that.

What I don't like in 5e is how CC spells (apart from no-save CC like Forcecage or Reverse Gravity etc.) becoming really useless on higher tiers where every relevant enemy has immunity to charmed, exhaustion, frightened, poisoned. They also get Legendary Resistances, which are just unfair to players, especially casters.

Also I don't like changes to tons of CC spells that they allow repeating saving throws every turn + add another saves when target takes damage etc.

It promotes going for the damage at higher tiers, because every strong enemy boss is immune to hard CC, or for building character that can bypass mechanic (like Quicken Hold Person/Monster).

Many subclasses suffer a lot because of that on higher tier - like Conquest Paladin where every enemy is suddenly immune to being frightened or Enchanter Wizard where everything that is worth using slots has immunity to charm and so on.

I don't like that end-game enemies all have not only legendary resistances but also immunities to all kinds of CC. Makes unique playstyles suffer, while flat damage just gets stronger and stronger (Paladins, Warlocks, Sorlocks, Padlocks etc.) because they don't care about those things. Clever tactics are forgotten, it's just damage, damage or finding loopholes in mechanics (like posted by someone Telekinesis Lore Bard) to be able to do something else vs LR enemies.

I actually see this as a feature, not a bug. End game threats really shouldn't be trivialized away with a single spell. That's not really rewarding, it just means only one player at the table got to actually play the last session of the game. You've had the whole campaign to trivialize encounters with clever tactics. Maybe let the big climax require more grit and actual teamwork.

Now, I could see an argument that maybe these effects should have a partial effectiveness. Maybe if Legendary Resistance cost the creature their next action, so the creature has to choose what's more important, eat the spell effect, or miss their next turn to act. They still have any Legendary Actions to make up for this. So players can use clever tactics to force an end boss to start burning their legendary abilities faster.

I'm not hurt that gandalf can't just enchant sauron into stopping his conquest of middle earth. Immunities near end game tell players not to rely on gimmicks exclusively. An oath of conquest paladin surely ought to be just as effective with smites and their sword as their fear gimmick. I'm playing an evil oath of conquest paladin (haven't gotten past 3rd level yet), and I think after several levels of making enemies wet their pants and run away before ever using my sword, my character would relish beating down a more worthy foe, who actually had a spine.

We shouldn't need to be able to enchant, poison, frighten, and paralyze every encounter into oblivion. It's cool to have a niche, less cool to need it to feel like you are able to have fun.

Small edit: I could see immunities having HP limits. Like they might weaken into resistance at half health and disappear at quarter health. There are plenty of tropes about wearing down the big bad until he is vulnerable to a killing stroke.

Tanarii

2020-04-22, 07:06 AM

Technically the damage equivalent of Legendary Resistance is slapping on moar hit points.

patchyman

2020-04-22, 07:55 AM

Alucard89

2020-04-22, 08:03 AM

Technically the damage equivalent of Legendary Resistance is slapping on moar hit points.

Yes, but then your awesome CC spells have a chance to work. It's less about killing as fast as possible (then just have 3 Paladins and any boss is dead in 2 turns) and more about giving satisfaction to other classes.

Same as Bards without taking damage spells or dipping have problems in adventures with undeads or enemies again immune to fear, charm etc.

While damage starts and stays at top all the time.

I don't think it would hurt to let bard CC dragon and look as awesome as Paladin smiting it to hell.

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 08:03 AM

Anyway, I don't like the paradigm of D&D combat [I would rather a system where maneuver is actually relevant, position matters more than damage, and the game state and tactics evolve meaningfully between rounds; or at least play rocket tag instead of this race to the bottom with absurd amounts of HP where there's no degradation in capability until sudden death], but it is what it is, and a wizard shooting a crossbow is pretty much non-contributing. Actually, a wizard shooting a cantrip is pretty close to non-contributing even with scaling cantrip damage.

Regarding the lack of degradation of capability, there is in a sense. The closer you get to 0 HP, the more likely you are to die. The degradation is handled by the reduction in HP.

Side note: I used to play oWoD, where you had health levels, and actions involved dice pools. You typically threw 6-10 d10s and counted "successes," which were results that met or beat a DC set by the GM. When you were injured and your health level was reduced, it imposed a die pool penalty based on how injured you were. This reduced the number of dice you had access to for your actions or attacks. It's one of those thing that sounds like a good idea, but in practice it was a pain. For one, we often forgot about them (and worse, we'd remember mid-fight that we're rolling too many dice and now the fight felt skewed). And also, it created a positive feedback loop where once you were injured, it became easier to injure you further as you had fewer and fewer available dice to use in your defense or damage. It wasn't really a race to the bottom the way D&D HP works, but rather a race to "first damage," which then usually made the rest of the combat superfluous.

D&D damage has a built-in survivability degradation that's not immediately obvious. If I have 60 HP, and you deal 6 points of damage, my relatively high level of hit points functions as a kind of damage resistance or avoidance. You just dealt 6:60, which is a minor flesh wound at most. Let's say you continue to deal 6 points of damage each round (you're a really consistent roller). Those 6 points become, relatively speaking, a greater and greater proportion of my available HP. Even though you're still dealing 6 points with each strike, the severity of the injury increases. When I'm down to 6 HP, your strike becomes devastating, hitting an internal organ or nicking a blood vessel or otherwise doing something so serious that it renders me incapacitated and possibly dying. Your last 6-pt strike dealt as much damage mechanically as your first 6-pt strike, but from my perspective that last one was the one that "got" me.

Another way of looking at that is that as my HP is reduced, there's a kind of intensity multiplier applied to any further damage. If my HP is restored during the fight via cure wounds or whatever, that multiplier is reduced. This is all wrapped up in how HP work, and the game doesn't burden players with having to keep track of that degradation. Sure, there's no degradation of offensive capability, but I think that's meant to represent things like adrenaline and delayed shock. Injuries don't always hurt immediately, and most combats last less than 30 seconds of in-game time.

Tanarii

2020-04-22, 08:37 AM

Yes, but then your awesome CC spells have a chance to work. It's less about killing as fast as possible (then just have 3 Paladins and any boss is dead in 2 turns) and more about giving satisfaction to other classes.I think you missed my point. Taking more damage to kill is often invisible to the players, at least at first. But it's there and it exists, contrived parties aside.

Visibility wise, it is the other way around from Legendary Resistance, which is highly visible immediately. But functionally, it provides the same protection, N number of extra rounds of actions.

Control-type casters aren't being singled out for punishment.

Luccan

2020-04-22, 08:54 AM

Alucard89

2020-04-22, 08:59 AM

And condition immunities are just a thing in D&D, it's not exclusive to 5e

Correct, but I hoped with less power-spike in 5e compare to previous edition - we will be able to spread it more.

For example if some enemies are immune to charm, maybe they should have disadvantage vs fear, or counterwise.

If creature has immunity to fire, maybe it should have vulnerability to cold or lighting? Etc.

Currently in Tier 3-4 tons of enemies just have immunity to everything, resistance to everything but no vulnerabilities.

So mybe it's not 5e "changes" but I hoped for them.

stoutstien

2020-04-22, 09:52 AM

The good:
Very new player friendly. you can take the average person with zero experience with tabletop RPGs and have them create and start playing a character in less than 30 minutes with a rudimentary understanding of the rules.

Low buy-in needed. You got a PHB? Then good to go. Everything else is nice but unnecessary. Heck you can play a good game with the free stuff they put out.

The elimination of trap player options. You have to try really hard to make a useless PC.

There is no gear/weapon treadmill. At no point in time does a player need a +X weapon to maintain a relevant chance to hit.

Low level NPCs stay dangerous and relevant. The pack of kobolds with the dragon are a factor regardless of level. It also helps maintain a certain level of game world logic.

the balance point between all the player options are the closest they have ever been.

Rulings > rules

The middle ground:

Slow release schedule. I think it was a very good move for them to not rush a bunch of material out but at the same time I would like some more general material instead of the critical role/ acquisition Incorporated stuff.

Social media based Q and A. sage advice is great to have instant clarification of intentions of published materials but can also cause more confusion than it's worth.

Artwork. For the most part it's nice but reusing material seems lazy. Also radioactive cabbage patch kid halflings.

Skills. There is a reason they are a frequent point of contention.

The bad:

Not new DM friendly. 5e is probably the worse game to try to run without prior experience. Even the DMG is formated in a way to be more useful to players than the DM. Just about every 'bad' thing about 5e is rooted in this.

Formating. Everything from the order of setting up a new PC to lack of page references for spells is aggravating. If I had to pick one thing to change this would be it.

Building encounters and adventuring days based if exp and CR. It's a lot of fiddly math that amounts to nothing you wouldn't get from eyeballing it. Trying to balance out a game based on how deadly each encounter is a bad system that promotes nova damage and shorter recovery cycles.

HP bloat. They removed alot of the pointless numbers increasing with level but kept HP and damage doing it for some reason.

ZRN

2020-04-22, 09:58 AM

The 3e designers have been relatively mum about exactly what their goals were (outside of the actual press release style material from the time).

There's a series of blog posts on ENWorld (https://www.enworld.org/ewr-porta/authors/jonathan-tweet.74672/)where 3e designer Jonathan Tweet talks about their process and goals, if you're interested.

Dienekes

2020-04-22, 10:01 AM

ZRN

2020-04-22, 10:07 AM

I actually think legendary resistance is a good way to avoid arbitrarily high saves. The main difference is that Legendary Resistances can run out, so if you get the Lich to burn through them they're as vulnerable as any other undead (well, not all of them, but it is a boss). It's kind of meta to do so, but Legendary Resistances are meta so I don't see an issue.

I don't think it's necessarily "meta" for players to recognize the limits of an enemy's legendary resistances and try to work around them. You're "wearing down his defenses," just like you're "wearing down" his hit points.

It can add a lot more to the strategy element of boss fights, because players can try to "burn through" legendary resistances by using mid-tier effects, and the DM has to decide whether to resist them and risk getting hit by the big guns later. It's good that casters can't just end the fight in round 1, but it's also good that they're incentivized to use a variety of spells strategically. If you can force a BBEG to waste a legendary resistance against a low-level spell, you've usually done something strategically more interesting than just starting at your highest-level spell and working your way down.

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 10:10 AM

There's a series of blog posts on ENWorld (https://www.enworld.org/ewr-porta/authors/jonathan-tweet.74672/)where 3e designer Jonathan Tweet talks about their process and goals, if you're interested.

Oh no. There goes my productivity for the day...

Alucard89

2020-04-22, 10:29 AM

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with legendary resistances has these components

1) in the comparison between damage dealing and resistances, burning through damage is still the victory condition. So to deal with a creature with a lot of HP for martials the solution is deal more damage. Which is what they want to do anyway. They still feel like they’re contributing. But with legendary resistances, the Mages casting their save or suck spells are only ever contributing to the defeat if they actually do succeed in burning through those resistances before the creature dies. Which does not always happen. Actually I can think of several times in my own games which ended with the mage character effectively contributing nothing because the boss died before a single spell wasn’t resisted. Now this has a bit to do with the party composition. My group is a Rogue and a Fighter who have built their characters on dealing damage together, and one Wizard. Were my group to have an additional mage to burn through those resistances it probably wouldn’t feel as bad, since the resistances would be burned through twice as fast.

2) On a turn for turn basis it doesn’t feel good. The Fighter focused on damage chucking as much damage as they can against their meat sink of an opponent still feels like they’re contributing. In fact it feels like they’re contributing to the best of their ability. If they run in and Nova the enemy boss with a full Action Surge of attacks each stacked with as much bonuses as they could wrangle, they feel that they’re working to the best of their capabilities. And they’re going to to be rewarded at the end when someone knocks that last hit point away. While resistances feel like the boss is just saying no to the caster. For smart players it creates a situation where the caster is spending a few rounds trying to trick the boss to burn resistance on smaller spells. Which some might find rewarding, but even then only if their strategy is actually rewarded reasonably often. I.E. the villain isn’t nuked down before their spells start to work. And still others, you know, actually want to use their big new spells against the boss. That’s why they picked up all these cool new big spells in the first place.

As to Immunities, I’d be more upset with them, if this was a game that required precise focus in single strategies from the characters. Conquest Paladin not being able to fear a bunch of opponents is annoying seeing their primary strategy turned off, but the Paladin class still has a bunch of secondary effective options, like Smite. There’s always something they can do so they feel like they’re still effective in combat. Even if I do agree immunities can be over saturated at high level.

Yup, I second on that. Each time I hear "LR is fixed resources that needs to be burnt" I am thinking "what kind of party did you have? 12 DEX Rogue and 13 STR Zealot Barbarian using crossbow?". From my experience so far any boss is lucky to be alive for more than 4 turns. Assuming people didn't min-max, they just know what to do with their class abilities.

For example our Wizard pretty much just tossed Haste on me (Vengeance Hexadin) and our Cleric tossed Holy Weapon on our XBE Battlemaster. There was no point for them to even try to do something with their spells because it was more efficient for us to Nova boss in 2 turns than trying to play around it's super saves + LR. Damage kills enemy- that's it. I don't think Wizard getting lucky Hold Monster or Dominate Monster would change much in terms of that. But it would change feeling for some classes.

Hence why Nuclear Wizard is such a good build. You can actually just piss on those LRs as caster and nuke the boss down.

It's too late for change now because system was balanced around the idea of LR, but I still don't like it. Damage will always work, that's the DnD thing. However, I don't think damage should be answer in Tier4 all the time when it comes to combat. Immunities + LRs just enforce the neverending race for more DPR.

KorvinStarmast

2020-04-22, 10:38 AM

Damage will always work, that's the DnD thing. However, I don't think damage should be answer in Tier4 all the time when it comes to combat. Immunities + LRs just enforce the neverending race for more DPR. Damage will always work is a core principle, otherwise the 400 and 600 HP monsters would not have 400 or 600 HP.

Corsair14

2020-04-22, 10:55 AM

Good:
-Easy system to pick up, make a character and play even for newbs.
-System is very simplified making the DM's job very simple, especially in early levels

Bad:
-very simplistic, very few weapon options and abilities
-Infinite cantrips is a crutch and makes resource management a non-issue
-Healing to full every night is ridiculous
-Proficiencies by the rules are useless
-Crafting like every other edition is worthless.
-The mass numbers of player abilities at medium levels and higher makes coming up with challenging encounters that are not too easy or too deadly very difficult.
-Hard to shoehorn other types of campaign worlds in either due to lack of rules or that everything is so magical based. For example, trying to play Dark Sun is kinda hard since everything in DS is psionic to a degree and there are no 5th edition psionic rules. Or conversely, unlike previous editions where you could play a rare or no magic campaign, every single class has magic and the game is balanced around that so simply removing the magic abilities really neuters some of the classes.

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 10:56 AM

Makes me think we need more monsters that have an unlimited version of fortitude but can only use it if they're not under some combo set of conditions (stunned & afraid, blind & deafened, etc.). Or if they suffer a given condition for three consecutive rounds, they lose it.

OldTrees1

2020-04-22, 11:04 AM

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-22, 11:41 AM

I actually see this as a feature, not a bug. End game threats really shouldn't be trivialized away with a single spell. That's not really rewarding, it just means only one player at the table got to actually play the last session of the game. You've had the whole campaign to trivialize encounters with clever tactics. Maybe let the big climax require more grit and actual teamwork.

Now, I could see an argument that maybe these effects should have a partial effectiveness. Maybe if Legendary Resistance cost the creature their next action, so the creature has to choose what's more important, eat the spell effect, or miss their next turn to act. They still have any Legendary Actions to make up for this. So players can use clever tactics to force an end boss to start burning their legendary abilities faster.

I'm not hurt that gandalf can't just enchant sauron into stopping his conquest of middle earth. Immunities near end game tell players not to rely on gimmicks exclusively. An oath of conquest paladin surely ought to be just as effective with smites and their sword as their fear gimmick. I'm playing an evil oath of conquest paladin (haven't gotten past 3rd level yet), and I think after several levels of making enemies wet their pants and run away before ever using my sword, my character would relish beating down a more worthy foe, who actually had a spine.

We shouldn't need to be able to enchant, poison, frighten, and paralyze every encounter into oblivion. It's cool to have a niche, less cool to need it to feel like you are able to have fun.

Small edit: I could see immunities having HP limits. Like they might weaken into resistance at half health and disappear at quarter health. There are plenty of tropes about wearing down the big bad until he is vulnerable to a killing stroke.

Nobody remembers or has fond memories of yet another "all players move into contact/firing positions, take attack action until he runs out of HP", excruciatingly slow boss fight built around the bad guy's impressive number of essentially meaningless HP and periodic ability to whack a player unconscious.

Players do remember when the bad guy failed his save to the bard's "Tasha's Laughter" and was rolling on the floor giggling while the paladin smote him, or when the fighter tripped him into a bottomless pit in his throne room and he fell to his death, or when the Rogue shot him and he failed his save and just up and died.

Immunities are a thing. Not a problem IMO, they exist and will make the players at least vary their weapons from "normal" or take actions to circumvent it, and become less complacent. They're known and fixed. Legendary Resistance has no way of circumventing and are all powerful: they're using after failing to convert a fail into a pass and don't have to be used on the first fail, so they basically just negate the three highest level nondamage abilities used against it that it doesn't pass natively. There's do going around it or responding to it's existence, just falling into the race to the bottom and hitting it for more direct damage.

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 11:51 AM

Not new DM friendly. 5e is probably the worse game to try to run without prior experience. Even the DMG is formated in a way to be more useful to players than the DM. Just about every 'bad' thing about 5e is rooted in this.

-System is very simplified making the DM's job very simple, especially in early levels

:confused:

Dienekes

2020-04-22, 12:00 PM

Nobody remembers or has fond memories of yet another "all players move into contact/firing positions, take attack action until he runs out of HP", excruciatingly slow boss fight built around the bad guy's impressive number of essentially meaningless HP and periodic ability to whack a player unconscious.

Players do remember when the bad guy failed his save to the bard's "Tasha's Laughter" and was rolling on the floor giggling while the paladin smote him, or when the fighter tripped him into a bottomless pit in his throne room and he fell to his death, or when the Rogue shot him and he failed his save and just up and died.

Immunities are a thing. Not a problem IMO, they exist and will make the players at least vary their weapons from "normal" or take actions to circumvent it, and become less complacent. They're known and fixed. Legendary Resistance has no way of circumventing and are all powerful: they're using after failing to convert a fail into a pass and don't have to be used on the first fail, so they basically just negate the three highest level nondamage abilities used against it that it doesn't pass natively. There's do going around it or responding to it's existence, just falling into the race to the bottom and hitting it for more direct damage.

And on the other side of things, I remember all too vividly the hundred times in 3.5 where the mage turned the end boss into a joke while my fighter stood there twiddling his thumbs until it was safe to just walk up and mercy kill the sucker. That sucked.

The perfect system involves making all the players feel like they're contributing mostly equally. Sure it's great if some bosses get taken out by a well placed spell, or the assassin rogue doing their perfect nuke, or the warrior batting down everything the boss can throw at them. When that happens occasionally it's awesome. When that becomes the continuous cycle of play then it's not.

Legendary Resistances were a method of making certain that every encounter doesn't end with a single spell from the mages. And that's a good goal and as things should be. However, I do think they went too far. It works, but it also lowers the fun of some of the players. Personally, I have my own method of making bosses function the way I want them to. It just is definitely too complicated for the streamlined version of D&D that 5e is going for. And that's the rub with a lot of the little issues with 5e I have. I understand why they're in place, and fixing them winds up with more complication than the designers wanted.

KorvinStarmast

2020-04-22, 12:03 PM

Legendary Resistances were a method of making certain that every encounter doesn't end with a single spell from the mages. And that's a good goal and as things should be. However, I do think they went too far. I had not thought of it that way, but I like the way you put that.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-22, 12:21 PM

The good:
Very new player friendly. you can take the average person with zero experience with tabletop RPGs and have them create and start playing a character in less than 30 minutes with a rudimentary understanding of the rules.
The bad:
Not new DM friendly. 5e is probably the worse game to try to run without prior experience. Even the DMG is formated in a way to be more useful to players than the DM. Just about every 'bad' thing about 5e is rooted in this.

This seems a bit contradictory don't you think? If the information is as accessible to the player as the DM, doesn't that mean that simply learning how to play teaches you most of what you need to run a game?

That's been my experience with 5E anyway, there are very few things you need to learn while running a game that you shouldn't have touched on while learning to play.

Think about all the crucial things you need to run and play a game, they're in the Basic Rules, a guideline designed for both the DM and Players. They really are a good set of rules, you can run a perfectly serviceable game of DND 5E with just those rules.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-22, 12:52 PM

And on the other side of things, I remember all too vividly the hundred times in 3.5 where the mage turned the end boss into a joke while my fighter stood there twiddling his thumbs until it was safe to just walk up and mercy kill the sucker. That sucked.

The perfect system involves making all the players feel like they're contributing mostly equally. Sure it's great if some bosses get taken out by a well placed spell, or the assassin rogue doing their perfect nuke, or the warrior batting down everything the boss can throw at them. When that happens occasionally it's awesome. When that becomes the continuous cycle of play then it's not.

Legendary Resistances were a method of making certain that every encounter doesn't end with a single spell from the mages. And that's a good goal and as things should be. However, I do think they went too far. It works, but it also lowers the fun of some of the players. Personally, I have my own method of making bosses function the way I want them to. It just is definitely too complicated for the streamlined version of D&D that 5e is going for. And that's the rub with a lot of the little issues with 5e I have. I understand why they're in place, and fixing them winds up with more complication than the designers wanted.

Given that the fighter is still required to deal the damage and gets to swing the sword and do the heavy lifting, I think the fighter is still having an essential contribution and presumably having fun. I've had this sort of dynamic many times in games, where the caster hits the enemy with something that incapacitates them, and then the fighter kills them. Or sometimes the caster isolates part of the battlefield, the fighter kills everything there, and then the caster changes the isolation and the fighter kills the rest. This is a kind of dynamic I like to encourage as a GM. The caster wouldn't be able to kill the bad guys herself since she's busy concentrating and spending her slots on the suppression abilities and the enemy would just wait out the ability and kill her [even shooting, spell single target damage isn't very good IMO], and the fighter would be overwhelmed if she was just trading blows with someone or a group who could well fight back.

We've had this many times, and my players always talk about the martial's contribution more than the suppression. We've had:
Bard puts laughter on the enemy, Paladin smites them
Wizard puts sleep on the enemy, shapeshifted Druid tramples them to death
Cleric knocks enemy prone and stunned, Fighter multiattacks them
etc.

I plan final fights along the following lines:
Troops: Lots of base troops of the type that have been being fought throughout this adventure.
Elites: Some elite troops, that are basically upgraded versions of the base troops and each individually very threatening and require quick servicing. The party should have also encountered these before, but in fewer numbers.
The Boss: The Big Bag Evil Guy usually plays a supporting role for his troops, using his action to give them buffs or debuff the players. At all costs I avoid the "bag of meat with a big stick boss". The "real fighting" is done by the troops.
Shield: Some reason the party isn't going to just shoot the BBEG right away. Often, this is exclusively because the elites and the troops are threatening to overwhelm them if they don't deal with it first, but this could also just be good old-fashioned shield, or the BBEG is behind the door in the control room, or something. It's not really a problem if they do, though. Sometimes it's intended that they just snipe him, so that lieutenants squabble or something.
Environment: The fight area is usually arraigned to allow the enemy to use their advantages that should have been showcased earlier in the adventure to their maximum extent. There are also means to use maneuver to mitigate these advantages, or outright turn it into a liability. Flank a defensive position so it no longer gives cover,

Thus, the final fight is, instead of a bag of meat that periodically swats down a player for the Cleric to stand them back up again and continue standing there and wailing on it until it runs out of HP and suddenly drops from fully operational to dead, a culmination of showcasing all the abilities, tactics, fighting style, and character of the enemy faction while the party puts into play the things they've learned about the enemy and their tactics, their strengths, and their weaknesses. That's my 2c on boss fights. I really try to avoid the "bag o' meat boss", because that take everything that's bad about D&D combat and turns it up to 12, while not really engaging with any of the strengths.

jmartkdr

2020-04-22, 12:59 PM

Honestly, I think the biggest problem with legendary resistances has these components

1) in the comparison between damage dealing and resistances, burning through damage is still the victory condition. So to deal with a creature with a lot of HP for martials the solution is deal more damage. Which is what they want to do anyway. They still feel like they’re contributing. But with legendary resistances, the Mages casting their save or suck spells are only ever contributing to the defeat if they actually do succeed in burning through those resistances before the creature dies. Which does not always happen. Actually I can think of several times in my own games which ended with the mage character effectively contributing nothing because the boss died before a single spell wasn’t resisted. Now this has a bit to do with the party composition. My group is a Rogue and a Fighter who have built their characters on dealing damage together, and one Wizard. Were my group to have an additional mage to burn through those resistances it probably wouldn’t feel as bad, since the resistances would be burned through twice as fast.

2) On a turn for turn basis it doesn’t feel good. The Fighter focused on damage chucking as much damage as they can against their meat sink of an opponent still feels like they’re contributing. In fact it feels like they’re contributing to the best of their ability. If they run in and Nova the enemy boss with a full Action Surge of attacks each stacked with as much bonuses as they could wrangle, they feel that they’re working to the best of their capabilities. And they’re going to to be rewarded at the end when someone knocks that last hit point away. While resistances feel like the boss is just saying no to the caster. For smart players it creates a situation where the caster is spending a few rounds trying to trick the boss to burn resistance on smaller spells. Which some might find rewarding, but even then only if their strategy is actually rewarded reasonably often. I.E. the villain isn’t nuked down before their spells start to work. And still others, you know, actually want to use their big new spells against the boss. That’s why they picked up all these cool new big spells in the first place.

As to Immunities, I’d be more upset with them, if this was a game that required precise focus in single strategies from the characters. Conquest Paladin not being able to fear a bunch of opponents is annoying seeing their primary strategy turned off, but the Paladin class still has a bunch of secondary effective options, like Smite. There’s always something they can do so they feel like they’re still effective in combat. Even if I do agree immunities can be over saturated at high level.

I wonder if this could be mitigated by having the number of resistances vary based on party composition? Because I've found that in a caster-heavy party you got through LR in a round or two no sweat, and then the damage starts happening. I can see how having more non-casters than casters would make a defense that specifically works against magic wonky.

By the by, it also annoys me how grappling is not affected by this, since that's just as big a save-or-suck as any spell, and save-or-suck makes the whole boss fight unfun.)

Or maybe have LR cost some number of hit points? That way the caster is definitely doing something?

Dienekes

2020-04-22, 01:27 PM

Given that the fighter is still required to deal the damage and gets to swing the sword and do the heavy lifting, I think the fighter is still having an essential contribution and presumably having fun.

In my experience you would be wrong. There's a reason high level fighters were given nicknames like the package mule and why caster/warrior balance is still a huge arguing point in D&D to this day. Being on clean up duty is not fun if it always happens.

I've had this sort of dynamic many times in games, where the caster hits the enemy with something that incapacitates them, and then the fighter kills them. Or sometimes the caster isolates part of the battlefield, the fighter kills everything there, and then the caster changes the isolation and the fighter kills the rest. This is a kind of dynamic I like to encourage as a GM. The caster wouldn't be able to kill the bad guys herself since she's busy concentrating and spending her slots on the suppression abilities and the enemy would just wait out the ability and kill her [even shooting, spell single target damage isn't very good IMO], and the fighter would be overwhelmed if she was just trading blows with someone or a group who could well fight back.

We've had this many times, and my players always talk about the martial's contribution more than the suppression. We've had:
Bard puts laughter on the enemy, Paladin smites them
Wizard puts sleep on the enemy, shapeshifted Druid tramples them to death
Cleric knocks enemy prone and stunned, Fighter multiattacks them
etc.

And these are all a lot of interesting and fun tactics. That's all well and good. What happens when every single boss encounter begins with the mage essentially making the boss unable to take actions. Every single time. It no longer becomes something you remember, it becomes routine. Worse it becomes routine in a way that de-emphasizes the contribution of everyone who isn't the mage. I've sat through this. Hell, I played 3.5 basically from release to 5e. By the end I never went past level 8ish because mage dominance got so bad it was no longer fun.

I plan final fights along the following lines:
Troops: Lots of base troops of the type that have been being fought throughout this adventure.
Elites: Some elite troops, that are basically upgraded versions of the base troops and each individually very threatening and require quick servicing. The party should have also encountered these before, but in fewer numbers.

For the record all these mitigate the problem with Legendary Resistance, since you have plenty of targets for the mage to CC without.

The Boss: The Big Bag Evil Guy usually plays a supporting role for his troops, using his action to give them buffs or debuff the players. At all costs I avoid the "bag of meat with a big stick boss". The "real fighting" is done by the troops.
Shield: Some reason the party isn't going to just shoot the BBEG right away. Often, this is exclusively because the elites and the troops are threatening to overwhelm them if they don't deal with it first, but this could also just be good old-fashioned shield, or the BBEG is behind the door in the control room, or something. It's not really a problem if they do, though. Sometimes it's intended that they just snipe him, so that lieutenants squabble or something.
Environment: The fight area is usually arraigned to allow the enemy to use their advantages that should have been showcased earlier in the adventure to their maximum extent. There are also means to use maneuver to mitigate these advantages, or outright turn it into a liability. Flank a defensive position so it no longer gives cover,

Thus, the final fight is, instead of a bag of meat that periodically swats down a player for the Cleric to stand them back up again and continue standing there and wailing on it until it runs out of HP and suddenly drops from fully operational to dead, a culmination of showcasing all the abilities, tactics, fighting style, and character of the enemy faction while the party puts into play the things they've learned about the enemy and their tactics, their strengths, and their weaknesses. That's my 2c on boss fights. I really try to avoid the "bag o' meat boss", because that take everything that's bad about D&D combat and turns it up to 12, while not really engaging with any of the strengths.

Well here's where I agree with you. Having complicated boss encounters that aren't just bags of meat are so much better than the alternative. But interesting boss design is tangential to the discussion of Legendary Resistances. You can have compelling boss encounters with and without, at fairly equal measure in my opinion.

What makes them interesting is player risk, surprise, humor, storytelling engagement, tactics/planning, and a dynamic battlefield (though not every boss needs to have all of them, my personal favorite had no real source of humor at all). Legendary Resistance doesn't negate any of that, though it does change how tactics are set up. In some ways for the better, and in some ways for the worse.

I wonder if this could be mitigated by having the number of resistances vary based on party composition? Because I've found that in a caster-heavy party you got through LR in a round or two no sweat, and then the damage starts happening. I can see how having more non-casters than casters would make a defense that specifically works against magic wonky.

By the by, it also annoys me how grappling is not affected by this, since that's just as big a save-or-suck as any spell, and save-or-suck makes the whole boss fight unfun.)

Or maybe have LR cost some number of hit points? That way the caster is definitely doing something?

I hadn't thought of that. LR costing hit points is probably the easiest to implement (also the most boring, but that's irrelevant).

But putting a system in place where LR is a formula of save-or-suck focused classes is interesting. Though we would have to figure out what constitutes a save or suck class. I'd argue that the Monk and Wizard definitely is, while Paladin might depend on the subclass.

Telok

2020-04-22, 01:30 PM

:confused:

DMing anything beyond what the rules explicitly cover has an issue. Power = responsibility = chance to royally mess up.

At it's most basic (combat with move, attack, cast simple spells) it's really easy. That's about 90% of the first 4 levels.

Once you get to mid-power illusions, strength 13 characters trying to jump 15 foot gaps, and 8 charisma outlander barbarians out doing the 18 charisma noble bard in court etiquette then you're out where D&D no longer has rules or guidelines. That's where the inexperienced DMs start floundering and getting frustrated because they don't know what to do and the books aren't helping.

That's where and why I've been seeing new DMs rage quit in this edition. People who have DMed 5+ years don't have that issue.

stoutstien

2020-04-22, 01:44 PM

This seems a bit contradictory don't you think? If the information is as accessible to the player as the DM, doesn't that mean that simply learning how to play teaches you most of what you need to run a game?

That's been my experience with 5E anyway, there are very few things you need to learn while running a game that you shouldn't have touched on while learning to play.

Think about all the crucial things you need to run and play a game, they're in the Basic Rules, a guideline designed for both the DM and Players. They really are a good set of rules, you can run a perfectly serviceable game of DND 5E with just those rules.

The game is based on the DM having a good grasp of the rules AND have the ablity to make snap rulings based on those guildlines. 90% of 5e come down to simply "ask your DM." Cool. Now give a new DM the PHB and the DMG and ask them to make a ruling on what a gang of goblins would do if a player attempts to use disguise self to make themselves appear like a bugbear and bully them into releasing a hostage.

Luccan

2020-04-22, 02:04 PM

The game is based on the DM having a good grasp of the rules AND have the ablity to make snap rulings based on those guildlines. 90% of 5e come down to simply "ask your DM." Cool. Now give a new DM the PHB and the DMG and ask them to make a ruling on what a gang of goblins would do if a player attempts to use disguise self to make themselves appear like a bugbear and bully them into releasing a hostage.

Deception and Intimidation checks, probably. The only thing the rules don't cover here is a set DC. You already know how the spell works. You already know goblins how goblins act (which isn't even mechanical, you could change it up based on the setting). And at least based on the argument, you already know the skills and correlating ability scores, so what's there to not know here?

Edit: I say this as someone who has played under new DMs. If they genuinely understand the player side of things, they can figure out a lot about how to handle a situation that isn't explicitly covered in the rules. There are things only the DMG can say (and some it should say that it doesn't) and some you have to learn through play. But assuming they're a competent player who understands that portion of the game, the new DM isn't gonna be an idiot

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 02:12 PM

Deception and Intimidation checks, probably. The only thing the rules don't cover here is a set DC. You already know how the spell works. You already know goblins how goblins act (which isn't even mechanical, you could change it up based on the setting). And at least based on the argument, you already know the skills and correlating ability scores, so what's there to not know here?

Edit: I say this as someone who has played under new DMs. If they genuinely understand the player side of things, they can figure out a lot about how to handle a situation that isn't explicitly covered in the rules. There are things only the DMG can say (and some it should say that it doesn't) and some you have to learn through play. But assuming they're a competent player who understands that portion of the game, the new DM isn't gonna be an idiot

I suppose it depends on how new is new.

One thing the game should emphasize is that you really shouldn't take up the DM reins until you've spent some time playing. It really only takes a few sessions for a DM-minded newbie player to get a handle on how to handle these oddball situations.

I would never recommend anyone ever GM a TTRPG without playing it first, and the more playing the better. Or at least without having some GM experience in some other system.

EdenIndustries

2020-04-22, 02:18 PM

I suppose it depends on how new is new.

One thing the game should emphasize is that you really shouldn't take up the DM reins until you've spent some time playing. It really only takes a few sessions for a DM-minded newbie player to get a handle on how to handle these oddball situations.

I would never recommend anyone ever GM a TTRPG without playing it first, and the more playing the better. Or at least without having some GM experience in some other system.

For what it's worth, I DM'd 5e without ever playing it, or any TTRPG before (ok except for 2 short sessions of 3e 15 years ago), having only watched some streams of people play which excited me to try DM'ing. I found it easy to DM 5e despite all that.

patchyman

2020-04-22, 02:22 PM

Same as Bards without taking damage spells or dipping have problems in adventures with undeads or enemies again immune to fear, charm etc.

A Bard who chooses not to take any damage spells in a campaign with lots of undead or enemies immune to fear and charm has nothing to fall back on. Except for one of the best spell lists for buffing. And being a master of skills. And Bardic Inspiration. And his trusty rapier. And debuff spells that aren’t charms or fear based.

EggKookoo

2020-04-22, 02:51 PM

For what it's worth, I DM'd 5e without ever playing it, or any TTRPG before (ok except for 2 short sessions of 3e 15 years ago), having only watched some streams of people play which excited me to try DM'ing. I found it easy to DM 5e despite all that.

Sure, it will vary and you'll find people who take to it naturally. Don't discount watching streams, too (I wish we had that when I was a kid). You can learn a lot there.

For me, 5e was easy to DM and 3e was hard (specifically, 3e felt cumbersome), but I was hardly a newbie coming to either.

Sam113097

2020-04-22, 02:59 PM

Well here's where I agree with you. Having complicated boss encounters that aren't just bags of meat are so much better than the alternative. But interesting boss design is tangential to the discussion of Legendary Resistances. You can have compelling boss encounters with and without, at fairly equal measure in my opinion.

What makes them interesting is player risk, surprise, humor, storytelling engagement, tactics/planning, and a dynamic battlefield (though not every boss needs to have all of them, my personal favorite had no real source of humor at all). Legendary Resistance doesn't negate any of that, though it does change how tactics are set up. In some ways for the better, and in some ways for the worse.

Building on the importance of good boss battle design, I'm a big fan of the way that 5e uses Lair Actions and Legendary Actions. It is a great way to make a dynamic battlefield or really highlight the unique abilities of enemy bosses. It also helps balance out the action economy. (Action economy is one of my few major gripes with 5e. Without Lair/Legendary Actions, even a small party can quickly overwhelm single enemies, leading to some anticlimactic fights.)

stoutstien

2020-04-22, 03:05 PM

Deception and Intimidation checks, probably. The only thing the rules don't cover here is a set DC. You already know how the spell works. You already know goblins how goblins act (which isn't even mechanical, you could change it up based on the setting). And at least based on the argument, you already know the skills and correlating ability scores, so what's there to not know here?

Edit: I say this as someone who has played under new DMs. If they genuinely understand the player side of things, they can figure out a lot about how to handle a situation that isn't explicitly covered in the rules. There are things only the DMG can say (and some it should say that it doesn't) and some you have to learn through play. But assuming they're a competent player who understands that portion of the game, the new DM isn't gonna be an idiot
....New DM looks at the goblin stat block and doesn't see intimidation or deception...

There's actually a great example of where new DMs trip up because skill checks don't exist. They are ablity checks that a skill could potentially add proficiency towards.
Then how do they decided if it's a check or a contest? Do the all the goblins make individual checks or as a group? Does the players acting skill influence the difficulty of a check? Does the Character know what a bugbear looks like? If the encounter is based on defeating the goblins how much exp do they get for tricking them? What are the odds of the PC passing a DC of 15?

A lot of these questions are actually answered in the PHB and DMG but are scattered around and hidden.

I was handing out non-combat exp for about a year thinking I was using a house rule before i caught it in the DMG on my 5-6th read through. I didn't catch it in the index because it's listed under Non-combat challenges.

Pleh

2020-04-22, 05:08 PM

Pex

2020-04-22, 05:13 PM

This seems a bit contradictory don't you think? If the information is as accessible to the player as the DM, doesn't that mean that simply learning how to play teaches you most of what you need to run a game?

That's been my experience with 5E anyway, there are very few things you need to learn while running a game that you shouldn't have touched on while learning to play.

Think about all the crucial things you need to run and play a game, they're in the Basic Rules, a guideline designed for both the DM and Players. They really are a good set of rules, you can run a perfectly serviceable game of DND 5E with just those rules.

No.

Playing the game is a far different experience than running a game. There's more to DMing than knowing what the written rules are. Same can be said for playing but not to the same degree.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-22, 05:31 PM

No.

Playing the game is a far different experience than running a game. There's more to DMing than knowing what the written rules are. Same can be said for playing but not to the same degree.

I didn't say the experience is the same, the knowledge required is similar. You can run the game quite easily without the DMG, don't forget that this edition released without the DMG.

All you need to run a fine game of 5E is the basic rules. Less than half of the basic rules focuses on dungeon master tools.

Tanarii

2020-04-22, 06:11 PM

I didn't say the experience is the same, the knowledge required is similar. You can run the game quite easily without the DMG, don't forget that this edition released without the DMG.

All you need to run a fine game of 5E is the basic rules. Less than half of the basic rules focuses on dungeon master tools.

Not really. The DMG has a critical read for DMs in chapter 8 running the game: how to use ability scores and checks.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-22, 06:25 PM

Is that because it breaks our sense of immersion for the big plot important NPC to go down like a chump? I'm not buying it.

If tackling the BBEG with slow HP attrition is boring, seems like the DM should be shaking up the environment and throwing in a few more minions. Change the scene a bit and don't let HP draining the BBEG be the only goal. Keeping the fight interesting seems just as important in keeping it fun as it is to keep the fight from becoming a lame, trivially resolved matter.

D&D combat when you're fighting against several enemies who aren't a giant pile of meat is already slow and boring and painful. I will say that, at least playing, 5e feels like it improved on this a bit since Sharpshooter and GWM increase damage pretty significantly so it doesn't scale nearly as poorly with the rate HP goes up, but it could be a lot better.

I have a couple of issues with D&D combat in general:
First off, it's slow. Targets have a lot of hit points relative to damage dealt, and hit points go up faster than damage does. Accounting for sharpshooter/GWM, 1 attack does about 2-3 levels worth of HP, which is less than the 5 levels of HP you'll have for your extra attack. Spell damage is even worse since it has no baked in scaling to increase the damage per turn [theoretically, you're supposed to use higher level spell slots to keep pace with damage, but they both get rarer and rarer as you level up and damage per slot spent still doesn't keep pace with HP]. And without GWM/SS... you get to do 1 level worth of damage for every 5 levels worth of HP you get. It takes a lot to kill anything.

Second, deriving from the first problem, the game state just doesn't ever seem to evolve meaningfully from turn to turn. Many turns go by where each player takes the same action, even without moving, because it take several rounds of whacking on even a normal grade at-CR enemy to down it. There's no loss or change in capability from damage sustained, so really, if Fighter X hits Bad Guy Y and doesn't kill it, and Bad Guy Y hits Fighter X and doesn't kill her, the game state is effectively unchanged. They stand there, and next round they repeat. It never feels like you accomplish anything [unless you like rolling damage dice to add up numbers], because most actions don't meaningfully change the state of the game by themselves. Some spells do, this is kind of why I only play full spellcasters now, because hitting things for damage is boring and there's sure to be somebody else in my party who enjoys just rolling the dice and adding up the numbers.

Finally, it never feels very tactical. Part of this is being melee centered with few meaningful tactical states around melee. There's three: you're in melee, you're in melee and flanking a target, or you're not in melee. There's no charging, no facing, movement is essentially free and fixed, no formation, etc. There's also not a lot of personal scale detail around it either, there's no stances, guards, attack lines, etc. You move into base contact, you hit the target until you or it dies, and you move onto the next target. And whether you or it dies is essentially independent from what you did to get into base contact, it's essentially solely a question of "do you deal damage faster than it depletes your HP." That's not to say it's entirely tacticless; you can achieve skirmishing-based suppression, especially with Sentinel, and there is flanking, but all in all, there feel like a lot. Hit the target, repeatedly. And you don't actually need to have complex rule systems to make a game tactically deep, "natural consequences" are almost always better than having a rule for it, but as a consequence of the other two problems, D&D doesn't manage to have natural results because every alternative action is essentially weaker than "move into B2B, Bonk!" and few single actions have consequences.

Now, there's room for improvement in a normal encounter, but it's not that bad. As mentioned, there's room for skirmishing, spells can have instantaneous effect by applying conditions, and things do die after a couple of rounds of hitting it, and in a complex battlefield there's some terrain interaction with the threats posed by multiple hostiles.
But then, we introduce, to the shock and horror, the "single bag o' meat boss fight": in which there is one enemy with big numbers. Lots of HP, lots of damage. Lots of HP so that it doesn't die when the entire party focuses it, lots of damage so it can make up for action economy. This fight takes all the existing weaknesses of the system, which could be passed over or mitigated in normal encounters with a good GM, and turns them up to 11 and eliminates the usual mechanisms of mitigating them. It's got lots of HP, and the fight doesn't end until it dies, so the game state really just doesn't change for the entire fight. All party members engage it, and they're often designed to be proofed against any single potentially game-state-changing action, be it a crippling spell or a trip or a shove or a grapple. Everybody really is just taking the same action: the only valid action is attack-for-damage, everybody does their version of it, and do it doesn't affect anything until suddenly it goes pop and the encounter is over. Movement optional, and irrelevant if lower than the speed of the melee characters, and mostly irrelevant if enough people can shoot.

Witty Username

2020-04-22, 07:01 PM

In boss fights, I find we players don't remember its HP very well, but we remember whether one of us got dusted or not. 3 rounds can be intense if the disables, high damage effects and the dreaded save or die come into play against the party.
5e doesn't have as many effects to throw around, especially ones that cause lasting effects. Survival is often both yes/no and pretty easy to guarantee, no being stuck in the middle of an enemy camp debilitated by strength draining poison.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-22, 08:57 PM

Not really. The DMG has a critical read for DMs in chapter 8 running the game: how to use ability scores and checks.

Chapter 7 of the basic rules and PHB cover the same thing.

There's very little difference between those and the DMG version, notable differences being a few variant rules and a little bit of useful but ultimately non-essential clarifications. You may notice that the DMG frequently references the Player's Handbook, which in turn is using the same rules found in the Basic Rules.

EDIT: Let's not forget also, this is about whether 5E has improved on this aspect. I have very little experience playing 3.5E, however with the months I tried to spend with it I don't think I managed to get a good grasp on how to play it let along a good enough grasp to run it.

In 5E I immediately started as a group DM with a homebrew campaign, I didn't even own a copy of the core 3 rulebooks. I suppose I had the advantage of having observed the game through other mediums (Critical Role, Acq Inc, DCA) but as far as actually playing the game it was a new experience.

Everyone in my group has enough table knowledge to run a game, we've all taken our turns at the DM seat for one shots or full campaigns. None of us have played DND regularly for more than 3 years. Only myself (being someone who finds great satisfaction in talking about and learning this game system) and my like minded DM spend a huge amount of time actually reading through the material. The remaining 4 regulars only play on the weekends and don't spend much of their free time thinking about DND, but if they wanted to they could run a game, as we did a few weeks ago when one of them ran their first game. Very minimal interjection required from myself or the regular DM.

This is of course anecdotal but accessibility is a huge part of DND 5E's appeal and I believe more evidence points towards accessibility being improved from every angle, not just the players side.

Tanarii

2020-04-23, 12:04 AM

Chapter 7 of the basic rules and PHB cover the same thing.

There's very little difference between those and the DMG version, notable differences being a few variant rules and a little bit of useful but ultimately non-essential clarifications. You may notice that the DMG frequently references the Player's Handbook,
Nope. The DMG is where when to call for checks and how to set DCs are explained.

Pex

2020-04-23, 12:12 AM

I didn't say the experience is the same, the knowledge required is similar. You can run the game quite easily without the DMG, don't forget that this edition released without the DMG.

All you need to run a fine game of 5E is the basic rules. Less than half of the basic rules focuses on dungeon master tools.

Just because the PHB was released before the DMG doesn't mean that was a good idea. A new DM has to start somewhere. Not all will be good at it in the beginning, but a DM needs to know more rules than the players. Some of those rules include the metahow to run the game - the social contract.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 12:28 AM

Just because the PHB was released before the DMG doesn't mean that was a good idea. A new DM has to start somewhere. Not all will be good at it in the beginning, but a DM needs to know more rules than the players. Some of those rules include the metahow to run the game - the social contract.

So you're saying that all of the DM's who adopted the edition on release were definitively worse because they didn't have a DMG to tell them what to do?

I'm kind of shocked that you'd consider the social contract to be an essential part of the DMG as well, it seems more like padding considering a social contract is something I would expect people to have put together regardless of whether they're playing DND or Risk, or Poker. You should know how to treat people you've gathered at a table with, you shouldn't need a rule book for that much.

By this logic, those early adopters couldn't possibly have made any sort of social contract for their tables. There were no rules, how could they have managed?

I suppose since the rules say it's fundamental, the players must bring snacks. I'm going to have to remember to postmate my DM some pizza, seeing as he lives thousands of miles away.

Besides, I never said it was a good idea (most of us know how much HoTDQ suffered because of its development window), I just don't agree at all that picking up DMing is that large a step up from learning the basic rules of 5E. Everything you need to know to run a game of 5E can be found in the basic rules. Your starting point, as a player and DM, should be the basic rules. It has a majority of the essential rules, for both DM's and Players, at the very least more than enough to create characters and run an adventure.

You seem to have experience with prior editions Pex. Which edition would you recommend to me, having only played 5E (and a very small amount of 3.5), that you would consider to be as simple to pick up? Could I learn the fundamentals of that edition before my next session on Saturday and teach it to my players?

Nope. The DMG is where when to call for checks and how to set DCs are explained.
Also explained in the basic rules, it has a table for DC's exactly like the one in the DMG and each ability score lists a few examples of what would call for such a check. It's helpful that the DMG offers more information, but do you consider that information absolutely essential?

Does the DMG have to explain that you thinking "hmm this task should be difficult" means you might consider setting the DC at 20? The basic rules already tell me that a "hard" DC is 20, if I'm trying to make something hard for the players that's the bare minimum I need to know, everything else is only extra.

OldTrees1

2020-04-23, 12:49 AM

I'm kind of shocked that you'd consider the social contract to be an essential part of the DMG as well, it seems more like padding considering a social contract is something I would expect people to have put together regardless of whether they're playing DND or Risk, or Poker. You should know how to treat people you've gathered at a table with, you shouldn't need a rule book for that much.

The DMG could have a section on the social contract without specifying any details of the social contract.

D&D is neither a typical competitive game like chess nor a typical cooperative game like pandemic. I often think about it as a cooperative game where one player cooperates by running the competition. So it might be new social territory for a new DM. The mixture of teammate, opponent, and referee is full of apparent contradictions.

D&D, like other RPGs can go into broader and murkier topics than most games. It can touch upon morality, politics, sexuality, and other touchy subjects. Having talks about boundaries rarely comes up with Risk unless it is country lines. Even remarking on possibly wanting to talk about boundaries in advance could be useful advice to a new DM.

When I started DMing I did not encounter any such guidance. However my group of friends were already able to talk politics and I had experience playing D&D under another DM. So there are groups that would not benefit from such guidance being in the DMG.

However we both read this forum. I have seen groups that might have benefited from talking amongst themselves about the social contract. So it might make sense to include some guidance about how to broach the topic in the DMG.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 12:59 AM

However we both read this forum. I have seen groups that might have benefited from talking amongst themselves about the social contract. So it might make sense to include some guidance about how to broach the topic in the DMG.
Then I guess we have to define what exactly a social contract means in regards to DND. My expectation is that it's not something you need the rules to tell you about, you respect the people you sat down with and treat them in a way that ends with all of you having enjoyed yourself. If someone at my table ever crosses a line, I'm not pulling out my DMG to work out a solution.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of setting guidelines, but from a strictly rules point of view, is that something essential to being able to run 5E? Does your ability to understand the game system and its mechanics hinge on knowing where to set social boundaries outside of the game?

The social contract isn't unique to 5E, or tabletop games period. Strictly speaking its something that should be in your mind at any social gathering, what should you be doing to respect the boundaries of people around you, what is acceptable at this time and place?

It's unfair, in my opinion, to leverage it for or against the ease of access in running the game. It's good that the DMG goes more in depth here, but it could have skipped this part and it wouldn't have made running 5E any more or less difficult.

OldTrees1

2020-04-23, 01:10 AM

Then I guess we have to define what exactly a social contract means in regards to DND. My expectation is that it's not something you need the rules to tell you about, you respect the people you sat down with and treat them in a way that ends with all of you having enjoyed yourself. If someone at my table ever crosses a line, I'm not pulling out my DMG to work out a solution.

I'm not trying to downplay the importance of setting guidelines

Wait, I said Guidance not Guidelines.

Are people born knowing how to respect each other or is that something they learn from multiple sources of guidance?

If you were going to run a campaign that broached dangerous topics and common phobias, you might broach a conversation about boundaries with your group. Would guidance on how to broach that conversation help some DMs?

but from a strictly rules point of view, is that something essential to being able to run 5E? Does your ability to understand the game system and its mechanics hinge on knowing where to set social boundaries outside of the game?

The social contract isn't unique to 5E, or tabletop games period. Strictly speaking its something that should be in your mind at any social gathering, what should you be doing to respect the boundaries of people around you, what is acceptable at this time and place?

It's unfair, in my opinion, to leverage it for or against the ease of access in running the game. It's good that the DMG goes more in depth here, but it could have skipped this part and it wouldn't have made running 5E any more or less difficult.

Edit: Post got cut in half

If by "from a strictly rules point of view" you are dividing running the inner game from running the outer game, then it begs a tautology. However I consider the most important part of D&D to happen in the outer game. So running the game usually involves the outer game. I want the players to enjoy the game rather than just play the game.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 01:19 AM

Wait, I said Guidance not Guidelines.

Are people born knowing how to respect each other or is that something they learn from multiple sources of guidance?

Are setting boundaries not literally the same as setting guidelines?

I thought the point being argue was that a DM needs guidance (written instruction) on how to set Guidelines/Boundaries (expecations that are to be met/not crossed) from the DMG rather than that being something they should have intuitively learned prior to even playing DND.

Are you saying that the DMG is what teaches people how to act appropriately with eachother? It would certainly explain my issues in grade school, I didn't even know about DND to start learning my social graces.

If you were going to run a campaign that broached dangerous topics and common phobias, you might broach a conversation about boundaries with your group. Would guidance on how to broach that conversation help some DMs?
Sure, but let me pose a question in response: Would you not already be considering how sensitive those players are to these topics? It's something most people do naturally, there are conversations and topics you know instinctively are not appropriate in certain places.

Imagine that instead of running a game of DND, you're simply trying to have a conversation about the same topics. Would you go straight into those things with strangers? Are you even comfortable going straight into these things with your close friends? My hunch is that you would approach those things cautiously as you've already learned that these are sensitive topics and should be treated as such.

If by "from a strictly rules point of view" you are dividing running the inner game from running the outer game, then it begs a tautology. However I consider the most important part of D&D to happen in the outer game. So running the game usually involves the outer game. I want the players to enjoy the game rather than just play the game.
My position is that you shouldn't need a rulebook to tell you how you should be treating people at your table. If the argument is that you need the DMG to run 5E because it tells you how a social contract works then I don't agree.

The advice in the DMG is helpful and good but not essential to knowing how to run 5E, or to attend any social gathering. I would expect most people that are taking part in this hobby already know these things, the DMG's mention of them being a friendly reminder more than a necessity.

OldTrees1

2020-04-23, 01:28 AM

Are setting boundaries not literally the same as setting guidelines?

I thought the point being argue was that a DM needs guidance (written instruction) on how to set Guidelines/Boundaries (expecations that are to be met/not crossed) from the DMG rather than that being something they should have intuitively learned prior to even playing DND.

Are you saying that the DMG is what teaches people how to act appropriately with eachother? It would certainly explain my issues in grade school, I didn't even know about DND to start learning my social graces.

Sorry my post got cut in half. Edited in some above.

Hmm. I did not specifically talk about setting boundaries did I. I have to check. I did mention talking about boundaries. For example you might talk to your group and find out where there hard and soft boundaries are on various topics. This is less about setting boundaries than it is about understanding the shape of people's comfort zone and the nature of the boundary around them. Player A might have a phobia but be willing to test it out a bit. Player B might have a phobia and not be comfortable testing it at all. The same could hold for deeply held beliefs or political topics.

I understand why you might presume all the relevant conversations already happened prior to the DM picking up the DMG, but campaign specific circumstances can bring up topics that Poker never has.

Sure, but let me pose a question in response: Would you not already be considering how sensitive those players are to these topics? It's something most people do naturally, there are conversations and topics you know instinctively are not appropriate in certain places.

Imagine that instead of running a game of DND, you're simply trying to have a conversation about the same topics. Would you go straight into those things with strangers? Are you even comfortable going straight into these things with your close friends? My hunch is that you would approach those things cautiously as you've already learned that these are sensitive topics and should be treated as such.

Would I already be considering how sensitive those players are to those topics?
1) Not specifically unless I already knew they were sensitive. Causality exists.
2) Generally yes, but generally is limited by the ability to predict a topic could be sensitive. That takes empathy and social skills. A good place for guidance.
3) Having a tricky conversation is tricky. Guidance can help make it easier to have the conversation than to skip the conversation and hope.

Basically the reason I might be cautions about some topics in general and some specific topics with specific people is because I had guidance (albeit not from the DMG) that helped me train empathy and get better at broaching conversations.

I also notice I am much better at this now than I was when I first started DMing in middle school. Kids can benefit from extra guidance since they have not had their full childhood yet.

My position is that you shouldn't need a rulebook to tell you how you should be treating people at your table. If the argument is that you need the DMG to run 5E because it tells you how a social contract works then I don't agree.

The advice in the DMG is helpful and good but not essential to knowing how to run 5E, or to attend any social gathering. I would expect most people that are taking part in this hobby already know these things, the DMG's mention of them being a friendly reminder more than a necessity.

Edit:
I agree it is not necessarily needed. Some DMs did not need the guidance. Some new DM needed and did not have such guidance. We hear about / from them every so often on this forum. But I am skeptical about worrying only about the essential (using the definition you are using). Nothing in the DMG is essential, you can DM from the PHB alone (or even without books). But some non essentials do make it easier or better run.

Eldariel

2020-04-23, 01:36 AM

Yup, I second on that. Each time I hear "LR is fixed resources that needs to be burnt" I am thinking "what kind of party did you have? 12 DEX Rogue and 13 STR Zealot Barbarian using crossbow?". From my experience so far any boss is lucky to be alive for more than 4 turns. Assuming people didn't min-max, they just know what to do with their class abilities.

For example our Wizard pretty much just tossed Haste on me (Vengeance Hexadin) and our Cleric tossed Holy Weapon on our XBE Battlemaster. There was no point for them to even try to do something with their spells because it was more efficient for us to Nova boss in 2 turns than trying to play around it's super saves + LR. Damage kills enemy- that's it. I don't think Wizard getting lucky Hold Monster or Dominate Monster would change much in terms of that. But it would change feeling for some classes.

Hence why Nuclear Wizard is such a good build. You can actually just piss on those LRs as caster and nuke the boss down.

It's too late for change now because system was balanced around the idea of LR, but I still don't like it. Damage will always work, that's the DnD thing. However, I don't think damage should be answer in Tier4 all the time when it comes to combat. Immunities + LRs just enforce the neverending race for more DPR.

Honestly, all LR does is mean that Mages simply don't cast save-or-X spells against such a target. Basically it's only sensible to try and punch through it if you have 3-4 casters or a Monk and if you do have 3-4 mages against a Legendary Resistance creature, you'll probably pick some other approach. So the only class that really cares about this is the Monk, who now needs to land 4 Stunning Fists instead of 1 to screw over the target.

Which is the principal issue: Mages have Animate Object, Wall of Force, Wall of Stone, Forcecage, Pyrotechnics, Polymorph (buff), Haste, X Image, Summon Greater Demon, Conjure Fey, Conjure Celestial, Conjure Woodland Beings, Conjure Animals, etc. as no-save effects so why in the world would they cast save-or-X effects? Hell, a Wizard can go ham with Tenser's and Haste if they so feel like. All this does is force casters to fall back on their more powerful/reliable spells. Nuclear Wizard or not, casters have lots of options that simply don't have saves.

Of course, one can use save-for-half spells as well but those are largely so inefficient if you know they'll be saved against that you're generally better off picking the reliable effect. It's similar to the issue of magic resistance: I built an anti-Fiend caster for a campaign and all that really meant was that they didn't know more than a few spells that allow saves (the character in question was a Diviner so they were able to punch through magic resistance one-three times per day quite reliably as Portent replaces the whole save, so they had some good spells to that effect). It's eminently doable.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 01:45 AM

I understand why you might presume all the relevant conversations already happened prior to the DM picking up the DMG, but campaign specific circumstances can bring up topics that Poker never has.

I've also edited in some responses.

I'm not saying that all taboo topics will always be addressed ahead of time, just that the DMG's advice on this isn't what I would expect most people to rely on. My expectation (from personal experience) is that people are forthright with the things they are uncomfortable with and those who might make such things a part of the campaign are also forthright about their inclusion because for a lot of people it's a common expectation that it may make people uncomfortable.

I don't want to make the people I play with uncomfortable, I didn't need the DMG to tell me that I should make efforts not to. I was already capable of creating table rules (a social contract) before I'd opened my DMG.

To try and steer this slightly more on topic, the 3.5E DMG has more coverage of advice than the 5E DMG does, specifically about advice relating to the mechanics of the game that may breach into the social space. The biggest offender is usually charm or domination effects. This is a point where I can agree that a DND specific social contract is important, when mechanics directly interact with the players. There are no charm effects in real life, so having advice on how to deal with these when it makes a player uncomfortable is both useful and necessary, 5E doesn't have such advice where 3.5E did.

I agree it is not necessarily needed. Some DMs did not need the guidance. Some new DM needed and did not have such guidance. We hear about / from them every so often on this forum. But I am skeptical about worrying only about the essential (using the definition you are using). Nothing in the DMG is essential, you can DM from the PHB alone (or even without books). But some non essentials do make it easier or better run.

This is exactly what I'd been trying to say from then beginning. I never meant to say that there was no benefit to having the extra resources, just that the game has been designed in such a way that it isn't all that difficult to run it even without them.

OldTrees1

2020-04-23, 02:19 AM

I've also edited in some responses.

I'm not saying that all taboo topics will always be addressed ahead of time, just that the DMG's advice on this isn't what I would expect most people to rely on. My expectation (from personal experience) is that people are forthright with the things they are uncomfortable with and those who might make such things a part of the campaign are also forthright about their inclusion because for a lot of people it's a common expectation that it may make people uncomfortable.

I don't want to make the people I play with uncomfortable, I didn't need the DMG to tell me that I should make efforts not to. I was already capable of creating table rules (a social contract) before I'd opened my DMG.

To try and steer this slightly more on topic, the 3.5E DMG has more coverage of advice than the 5E DMG does, specifically about advice relating to the mechanics of the game that may breach into the social space. The biggest offender is usually charm or domination effects. This is a point where I can agree that a DND specific social contract is important, when mechanics directly interact with the players. There are no charm effects in real life, so having advice on how to deal with these when it makes a player uncomfortable is both useful and necessary, 5E doesn't have such advice where 3.5E did.

My expectation (from personal experience) is that people are not always forthright with things they are uncomfortable with. Especially ones they are uncomfortable talking about. Usually people are forthright, but not always. I wish I had learned that earlier.

While I share your expectation that DMs would be forthright about inclusion of topics and it does match my personal experience, it does not appear to be universal.

I also share your expectation that DMs don't want to make the people they play with uncomfortable. The DMG does not need to instill that motive in the DMs. Execution, not motivation seems to be a better place for guidance.

Good example with the 3.5 DMG on Charm / Dominate. Although it would be even better with some general guidance first and then using D&D specific specific examples as the only examples. For example tips for getting players to speak about their discomforts (or preferences) would be applicable to many cases. **

This is exactly what I'd been trying to say from then beginning. I never meant to say that there was no benefit to having the extra resources, just that the game has been designed in such a way that it isn't all that difficult to run it even without them.
While a new DM could run D&D without any of the books, those extra resources like the PHB and DMG do make it easier. Saying it is possible is not the same as saying it is "not all that difficult". Nor does it mean every new DM could run with only the essentials, because some new DMs need more than the minimum essentials. A section giving guidance about the meta part of the game falls in this category.

So if I were designing a DMG, I would include such guidance. That way more new DMs would find it "not all that difficult" rather than fewer finding it so. Depending on the exact values of "more" and "fewer", I might consider the section an essential component of the product even if not essential to every DM.

** One piece of advice I only learned in the last year: Have a way for players to abort a topic without judgement or justification. The specific idea was a bowl of a handful of marbles that a player could grab if they were uncomfortable. Grabbing the marbles ended the current topic without exception. I did not implement the specific idea but I did implement the general idea.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 02:31 AM

So if I were designing a DMG, I would include such guidance. That way more new DMs would find it "not all that difficult" rather than fewer finding it so. Depending on the exact values of "more" and "fewer", I might consider the section an essential component of the product even if not essential to every DM.

If we want to get technical about what the designers considered essential, they're even looser than I am. We have the Starter Set, which is specifically marketed as containing all of the essential rules.

It's a massive 32 pages long. Combine it with the 64 page attached adventure and it has everything you need to run 5E. It even comes with dice.

I think I might even recommend the starter set over the basic rules, not only does it have a short blurb about the social expectations of the game but it also explains specifically how to apply skill DC's, covering both complaints that were discussed previously.

OldTrees1

2020-04-23, 02:37 AM

Tanarii

2020-04-23, 08:11 AM

Social contract in D&D boils down to talk out your differences. Because you can't use guidelines like "treat others as you would have them treat you". If I did that no one would ever talk to me again.

Also explained in the basic rules, it has a table for DC's exactly like the one in the DMG and each ability score lists a few examples of what would call for such a check. It's helpful that the DMG offers more information, but do you consider that information absolutely essential?

Does the DMG have to explain that you thinking "hmm this task should be difficult" means you might consider setting the DC at 20? The basic rules already tell me that a "hard" DC is 20, if I'm trying to make something hard for the players that's the bare minimum I need to know, everything else is only extra.
At this point, I have to take it as you haven't read the DMG how to run the game chapter. I'd have to recommend you do so, no insult intended. Because then you can tell me if you agree with me if it's essential info, or disagree.

stoutstien

2020-04-23, 08:13 AM

If we want to get technical about what the designers considered essential, they're even looser than I am. We have the Starter Set, which is specifically marketed as containing all of the essential rules.

It's a massive 32 pages long. Combine it with the 64 page attached adventure and it has everything you need to run 5E. It even comes with dice.

I think I might even recommend the starter set over the basic rules, not only does it have a short blurb about the social expectations of the game but it also explains specifically how to apply skill DC's, covering both complaints that were discussed previously.

That is mostly my point. 5e has done a pretty good job of making the rules set easy to pick up and run. then they turned around and scattered it across multiple books with horrid layouts. The DMG/PHB could have easily put all the meat for a new DM together in a single section. It's not like wizard has a problem with reprinted material.

The stuff a new DM needs to run a game could be comfortably condensed down to 20 odd pages( players information can be trimmed down to about 3). A new DM shouldn't need to guess which part of which book to double-check how concentration checks work, how many hit dice a PC can spend on a short rest, or how much surprise will impact an encounter.

An Ikea bookshelf is easy to slap together unless the instructions are mixed into a VCR manual.

Pleh

2020-04-23, 08:18 AM

D&D combat when you're fighting against several enemies who aren't a giant pile of meat is already slow and boring and painful. I will say that, at least playing, 5e feels like it improved on this a bit since Sharpshooter and GWM increase damage pretty significantly so it doesn't scale nearly as poorly with the rate HP goes up, but it could be a lot better.

I have a couple of issues with D&D combat in general:
First off, it's slow. Targets have a lot of hit points relative to damage dealt, and hit points go up faster than damage does. Accounting for sharpshooter/GWM, 1 attack does about 2-3 levels worth of HP, which is less than the 5 levels of HP you'll have for your extra attack. Spell damage is even worse since it has no baked in scaling to increase the damage per turn [theoretically, you're supposed to use higher level spell slots to keep pace with damage, but they both get rarer and rarer as you level up and damage per slot spent still doesn't keep pace with HP]. And without GWM/SS... you get to do 1 level worth of damage for every 5 levels worth of HP you get. It takes a lot to kill anything.

Second, deriving from the first problem, the game state just doesn't ever seem to evolve meaningfully from turn to turn. Many turns go by where each player takes the same action, even without moving, because it take several rounds of whacking on even a normal grade at-CR enemy to down it. There's no loss or change in capability from damage sustained, so really, if Fighter X hits Bad Guy Y and doesn't kill it, and Bad Guy Y hits Fighter X and doesn't kill her, the game state is effectively unchanged. They stand there, and next round they repeat. It never feels like you accomplish anything [unless you like rolling damage dice to add up numbers], because most actions don't meaningfully change the state of the game by themselves. Some spells do, this is kind of why I only play full spellcasters now, because hitting things for damage is boring and there's sure to be somebody else in my party who enjoys just rolling the dice and adding up the numbers.

Finally, it never feels very tactical. Part of this is being melee centered with few meaningful tactical states around melee. There's three: you're in melee, you're in melee and flanking a target, or you're not in melee. There's no charging, no facing, movement is essentially free and fixed, no formation, etc. There's also not a lot of personal scale detail around it either, there's no stances, guards, attack lines, etc. You move into base contact, you hit the target until you or it dies, and you move onto the next target. And whether you or it dies is essentially independent from what you did to get into base contact, it's essentially solely a question of "do you deal damage faster than it depletes your HP." That's not to say it's entirely tacticless; you can achieve skirmishing-based suppression, especially with Sentinel, and there is flanking, but all in all, there feel like a lot. Hit the target, repeatedly. And you don't actually need to have complex rule systems to make a game tactically deep, "natural consequences" are almost always better than having a rule for it, but as a consequence of the other two problems, D&D doesn't manage to have natural results because every alternative action is essentially weaker than "move into B2B, Bonk!" and few single actions have consequences.

Now, there's room for improvement in a normal encounter, but it's not that bad. As mentioned, there's room for skirmishing, spells can have instantaneous effect by applying conditions, and things do die after a couple of rounds of hitting it, and in a complex battlefield there's some terrain interaction with the threats posed by multiple hostiles.
But then, we introduce, to the shock and horror, the "single bag o' meat boss fight": in which there is one enemy with big numbers. Lots of HP, lots of damage. Lots of HP so that it doesn't die when the entire party focuses it, lots of damage so it can make up for action economy. This fight takes all the existing weaknesses of the system, which could be passed over or mitigated in normal encounters with a good GM, and turns them up to 11 and eliminates the usual mechanisms of mitigating them. It's got lots of HP, and the fight doesn't end until it dies, so the game state really just doesn't change for the entire fight. All party members engage it, and they're often designed to be proofed against any single potentially game-state-changing action, be it a crippling spell or a trip or a shove or a grapple. Everybody really is just taking the same action: the only valid action is attack-for-damage, everybody does their version of it, and do it doesn't affect anything until suddenly it goes pop and the encounter is over. Movement optional, and irrelevant if lower than the speed of the melee characters, and mostly irrelevant if enough people can shoot.

All of this feels like your table always plays in the equivalent of a white room encounter. The goal is always explicitly just killing the monster and only monster and character abilities remain relevant. Seem like that is more the reason it all seem boring and unimaginative.

Movement is exciting and tactical when it is meaningful and relevant to the combat. So mix up the scene. Have the combat next to a cliff or pit of lava and now the melee fighter has the option to try and maneuver the bag of hit points boss to the edge and shove them over the edge. Put ornate chandeliers and statues around the room so they can try dropping something heavy on the monster to deal massive damage. Make the floor a system of conveyors that keep shifting people's positions relative to one another.

You're right the game is missing something if you play the way you describe, but ensuring a combat will take at least 3 to 4 rounds of hacking and slashing isn't a bug. It's a feature. Easy 1 round fights shouldn't be too common, or the game really is just too easy and there isn't much point to using combat rules at all.

If the boss is tough enough the fight will take 10 rounds, the DM should add layers to the fight so those rounds come in waves and require tactical audibles on the field.

If that still isn't exciting for you and you just want to save or suck the boss and move on, maybe it's not the game's fault and maybe it's more that this just isn't your game. Having less of the game to play shouldn't be more fun.

Pex

2020-04-23, 11:41 AM

So you're saying that all of the DM's who adopted the edition on release were definitively worse because they didn't have a DMG to tell them what to do?

I'm kind of shocked that you'd consider the social contract to be an essential part of the DMG as well, it seems more like padding considering a social contract is something I would expect people to have put together regardless of whether they're playing DND or Risk, or Poker. You should know how to treat people you've gathered at a table with, you shouldn't need a rule book for that much.

By this logic, those early adopters couldn't possibly have made any sort of social contract for their tables. There were no rules, how could they have managed?

Those DMs were already DMs of 3E/Pathfinder/4E, so they already knew the metahow. However, I was insufficient. Metahow is not only the social contract. It's the ability to balance encounters, know if you erred when the encounter happens, and what to do about it even if it's not do a thing. It's the ability to say no to a player request and the ability to say yes to a player request.

If you go back far enough in D&D history at some point you reach those first DMs who couldn't possibly know any of it at first. DMing had to start somewhere. It took time and experience to get where we are today. Now players have the benefit of playing first to learn how to DM before being a DM themselves. They don't have to of course. There are no D&D police to stop someone from being a DM first, but they still need to know more rules than a player because they have more responsibility.

For the peanut gallery: I know full well the irony of me being so gung ho DM supportive here. I'm flabbergasted myself. :smallbiggrin:

KorvinStarmast

2020-04-23, 12:28 PM

....New DM looks at the goblin stat block and doesn't see intimidation or deception...
There's actually a great example of where new DMs trip up because skill checks don't exist. They are ablity checks that a skill could potentially add proficiency towards. DMs maybe not reading chapter 7 thoroughly is I think a contributor to about half of this. Full Confession: until I read the whole chapter, by itself, beginning to end, I didn't feel that I grasped how that was working.

The thing about chapter 7 is that is explains what an ability check is, and yet some people are still hung up on the "proficiency" being "trained I have this skill" when in fact ANYONE can try anything, and you pick an ability scored to apply to it.

Proficiency just makes some characters better at it. Seems to me that people are porting stuff in from previous editions, which is a common mistake (and one I made early on)

As to illusions: they've been hard to do since the first edition. Nothing new there. Great narratively, mechanically a bit messy ... still.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 12:54 PM

At this point, I have to take it as you haven't read the DMG how to run the game chapter. I'd have to recommend you do so, no insult intended. Because then you can tell me if you agree with me if it's essential info, or disagree.
I put the two resources side by side, physically right next to each other, and found very little different. From the very start I read through each chapter and compared the two, I did a bit of research.

Both resources go over what each ability score does, how proficiency works, what an ability check is, what ability scores affect which skills, when you make an ability check, what a DC is, what a contest is, what a passive check is, what a group check is and what a saving throw is.

What the DMG doesn't share in common with the Basic Rules is a section on Inspiration (a mechanic that many still don't use at their table) and advice on how to adjust success or failure at a cost, as well as a variant rule on automatic success.

What the Basic Rules go over that the DMG doesn't is knowing your modifier as it applies to an ability score (having a 20 Dex means your modifier is +5). I'm actually surprised that with all the redundancy of the two chapters something that is actually quite important is missing from the DMG.

Otherwise, the only real differences are in the internal wordings of each explanation behind the mechanics.

DMs maybe not reading chapter 7 thoroughly is I think a contributor to about half of this. Full Confession: until I read the whole chapter, by itself, beginning to end, I didn't feel that I grasped how that was working.
Exactly, for reference, it shows up multiple times in the chapter to properly explain that checks are ability based and not proficiency based, this is one example from the Basic Rules:

Sometimes, the DM might ask for an ability check using a specific skill--for example, “Make a Wisdom (Perception) check.” At other times, a player might ask the DM if proficiency in a particular skill applies to a check. In either case, proficiency in a skill means an individual can add his or her proficiency bonus to ability checks that involve that skill. Without proficiency in the skill, the individual makes a normal ability check.

For example, if a character attempts to climb up a dangerous cliff, the DM might ask for a Strength (Athletics) check. If the character is proficient in Athletics, the character's proficiency bonus is added to the Strength check. If the character lacks that proficiency, he or she just makes a Strength check.

EggKookoo

2020-04-23, 02:01 PM

DMs maybe not reading chapter 7 thoroughly is I think a contributor to about half of this. Full Confession: until I read the whole chapter, by itself, beginning to end, I didn't feel that I grasped how that was working.

When I started with 5e (around 2015, I think?) I thought I was losing my mind because I couldn't find anything on skills. It took me a while to actually believe that 5e doesn't really have them. A good case of bias from previous editions (and other games entirely) affecting comprehension. I think that still exists for a lot of folks (myself no exception) in subtle ways.

Waazraath

2020-04-23, 02:45 PM

When I started with 5e (around 2015, I think?) I thought I was losing my mind because I couldn't find anything on skills. It took me a while to actually believe that 5e doesn't really have them. A good case of bias from previous editions (and other games entirely) affecting comprehension. I think that still exists for a lot of folks (myself no exception) in subtle ways.

Well, I think part of the reason is that because replacing the entire (former) skill system just with ability checks makes no sense, versimilitude wise. I have this almost illiterate barbarian grown up in a tiny village on a middle of nowhere mountain, and he can just as easily pick locks or pockets with his 10 dex, or explain something about the history of another country 100 years earlier? No. "trained only" had merits. Of course the DM can make these rulings on the fly or figure out something else, but would it really have hurt to add some guidelines for this? Just as for stuff like take 10 or 20?

As for the DMG itself: it is the worst book of the core 3, imo. And I don't know why they didn't fall back on earlier published material. The first 50 or so pages of DMG2 of 3.5 was a very nice 'sociology of D&D", differnt types of players, different types of game elements and how they appealed to different players, how to handle different goals. That was quite good, why not just copy/paste? Also campaign building: the 3.5 DMG described 2 ways how to create your campaign, 'from small to big' or 'from big to small' (respectively: either create a world spawning background, or start with 1 villige). DMG 5e just picked one of those, but both were valid. And earlier DMG's were just more fun to read, though I understand this is personal.

I love 5e as an edition, but the quality of this book... meh.

ZRN

2020-04-23, 02:47 PM

stoutstien

2020-04-23, 02:55 PM

Party composition is obviously a big deal here; if the party has 4 casters in it you can be done with legendary resistances in the first round, whereas if you've got one wizard and a few heavy damage-dealers that won't work.

The obvious solution here is for the DM to scale boss HP and/or resistances to the party's composition; seems like something the DMG should have guidance on (if it doesn't already).

If you mold encounters based the party composition you're completely negating their choices. The common one is adding HP to NPCs if they take SS/GWM. What's the point of the game if the only reason you succeed or fail is when and if the DM allows it?

EggKookoo

2020-04-23, 03:59 PM

Well, I think part of the reason is that because replacing the entire (former) skill system just with ability checks makes no sense, versimilitude wise. I have this almost illiterate barbarian grown up in a tiny village on a middle of nowhere mountain, and he can just as easily pick locks or pockets with his 10 dex, or explain something about the history of another country 100 years earlier? No. "trained only" had merits. Of course the DM can make these rulings on the fly or figure out something else, but would it really have hurt to add some guidelines for this? Just as for stuff like take 10 or 20?

Well, sorta. The DM is well within RAW to simply declare the barbarian simply doesn't know that history. Checks are called for by the DM when appropriate. They're not made by the player when they want to accomplish something. So if your DM is having your barbarian make a history check, the DM is declaring that it's reasonable that the barb might know something about it. If that's not reasonable, it's the DM's fault. Same with lockpicking without proficiency in thieves tools.

Granted, this is largely due to your subsequent criticism of the DMG. It's not the 1e DMG by a long shot, but it's still pretty muddy.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-23, 05:14 PM

All of this feels like your table always plays in the equivalent of a white room encounter. The goal is always explicitly just killing the monster and only monster and character abilities remain relevant. Seem like that is more the reason it all seem boring and unimaginative.

Movement is exciting and tactical when it is meaningful and relevant to the combat. So mix up the scene. Have the combat next to a cliff or pit of lava and now the melee fighter has the option to try and maneuver the bag of hit points boss to the edge and shove them over the edge. Put ornate chandeliers and statues around the room so they can try dropping something heavy on the monster to deal massive damage. Make the floor a system of conveyors that keep shifting people's positions relative to one another.

You're right the game is missing something if you play the way you describe, but ensuring a combat will take at least 3 to 4 rounds of hacking and slashing isn't a bug. It's a feature. Easy 1 round fights shouldn't be too common, or the game really is just too easy and there isn't much point to using combat rules at all.

If the boss is tough enough the fight will take 10 rounds, the DM should add layers to the fight so those rounds come in waves and require tactical audibles on the field.

If that still isn't exciting for you and you just want to save or suck the boss and move on, maybe it's not the game's fault and maybe it's more that this just isn't your game. Having less of the game to play shouldn't be more fun.

I don't want there to be a boss. Boss monsters are videogamey and terrible, and I've described why. This isn't Dark Souls, there's no mastery of reading attack patterns and timing dodges to make a boss fight against a big pile of HP an engaging experience, and there's no reason to have one big baddie with big numbers for the party to wail on at the end. Walk up and click-click-click is only entertaining in a video game because there's reflexes involved, it's actually really fast, and there's two slider bars you're watching going down. When each combat round takes 10 minutes, and you're basically doing click-click-click for the better part of an hour before anything seems to happen.

That is why, as I described previously, I chose to construct my final fights such that the leader of the bad guys is a leader [seriously, actually, how many generals, presidents, or warlords are better fighters than their elite troops?] and there are a lot of bad guys everywhere that are doing things and do die when engaged.

I've described how I construct my encounters, I don't consider that white room. But I feel that anything I do to improve the experience is in spite of the system, not aided by the system. I usually design enemies so that they die in 1-2 rounds, and so that they can eat the player's HP in 1-2 rounds. Then I deploy a lot of them with terrain, and the encounter lasts a while.

And oh, the fighter wants to pushing attack the bag of meat into the lava? Legendary Resistance on the strength save.

EggKookoo

2020-04-23, 06:26 PM

And oh, the fighter wants to pushing attack the bag of meat into the lava? Legendary Resistance on the strength save.

Isn't shoving a contested strength check, rather than a save? Does LR apply to checks?

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-23, 06:42 PM

Isn't shoving a contested strength check, rather than a save? Does LR apply to checks?

It is and it doesn't.

However, I think they were referring to the Battle Master's maneuver rather than the general shoving rules.

Alucard89

2020-04-24, 10:12 AM

Snails

2020-04-24, 11:19 AM

Ah, forgot.

I also don't like that ASI levels are either attribute increase of feat.

I miss days of +1 attribute increase levels, which were seperate from feats. You could make much more unique and fun but still viable characters with that. I generally would like to be able to pick more feats.

Then you should convince your DM to simply give out feats, on top of the existing rewards for leveling.

IMHO the ASI vs Feat conundrum is a brilliant design choice for most gaming groups, because it gives casual players a very simple option that will reliably benefit them.

I love 3e, but it could suffer from Too Much Of A Good Thing. "Oh, you want to roll up a 3rd level PC? Here, look in these four books for your feats."

EggKookoo

2020-04-24, 11:29 AM

IMHO the ASI vs Feat conundrum is a brilliant design choice for most gaming groups, because it gives casual players a very simple option that will reliably benefit them.

Also, feats in 5e are technically an optional rule. I still don't know why they (and multiclassing) are in the PHB instead of the DMG, aside from WotC wanted to make sure people knew they were included and the DMG didn't come out right away.

Alucard89

2020-04-24, 12:12 PM

Then you should convince your DM to simply give out feats, on top of the existing rewards for leveling.

IMHO the ASI vs Feat conundrum is a brilliant design choice for most gaming groups, because it gives casual players a very simple option that will reliably benefit them.

I love 3e, but it could suffer from Too Much Of A Good Thing. "Oh, you want to roll up a 3rd level PC? Here, look in these four books for your feats."

But that was because 3e had just too many source books and tons and tons of feats, and many of those feats were seperated by sub feats like Weapon Focus: X, Weapon Specialization: X, weapon proficiency: X etc. Right now we have very limited number of feats. I don't think being abile to pick every 4th level a feat and every 3rd level a +1 to attribute would have any impact on casual player. It rather simple I think. I am not asking for more feats, just to seperate them from attribute increase.

OldTrees1

2020-04-24, 12:13 PM

Also, feats in 5e are technically an optional rule. I still don't know why they (and multiclassing) are in the PHB instead of the DMG, aside from WotC wanted to make sure people knew they were included and the DMG didn't come out right away.

Feats are in the PHB for the same reason Halflings are. In a given campaign, Halfings may or may not be available to the PCs. Better put them in the PHB for the times when the DM allows the Halfling race. It would make session 0 easier if the Players reference their PHB rather than both the PHB and the DM's DMG.

Multiclassing rules, that is less obvious. In 3.5 the multiclassing rules were just rules, not content. They could have been in the DMG as an optional rule. When allowed the Players would only need to know, npt reference the 3.5 multiclassing rules. However in 5E the multiclassing rules are more complicated. Is there enough content in those rules such that the players would need to reference the rules while leveling up? In 5E maybe, so maybe be in the PHB.

Alucard89

2020-04-24, 12:15 PM

Also, feats in 5e are technically an optional rule. I still don't know why they (and multiclassing) are in the PHB instead of the DMG, aside from WotC wanted to make sure people knew they were included and the DMG didn't come out right away.

Becasue deeply they understood that multiclass and feats are big part of what makes DnD. I still think it stupid idea to try make those 2 "optional". Even at most casual tables I have played where people were making Half-Orc Sorcerers - everybody play with feats and multiclass.

I only played at once table without those, but just becasue it was veteran group who just wanted to see how it would be without them.

But playing DnD without MC and feats? That's like playing Vampire without Blood points and clans.

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-04-24, 12:30 PM

2e v 5e

5e has way less hot garbage than that of 2e. While I think 2e is a lot of fun under the right mindset, and if 3e - 5e wasn't a thing, I don't think there's really anything 5e does specifically worse.

3e v 5e

5e took the ideologies of 4e and made them look like 3e. 5e is like 90% better than 3e.

About the biggest things that 3e does better than 5e is...

Character customization is crap in 5e compared to 3e. However, a lot of 3e went wild and they didn't have a unified clause saying "Core Book +1" or "Core Book +2". Honestly, if DMs pushed that idea more then a lot of the crazy stuff would go away. 5e's base rule simplicity is very nice, but being able to have a lot options is nicer.

3e had three saving throws. While the mechanics behind it sucked for many, the idea of three general saving throws works rather well.

Having martials that aren't just "move and attack" was amazing once they came out!

4e v 5e

5e took the ideologies of 4e and made them look like 3e. 5e is like a weird alternate dimension of

About the biggest things that 3e 4e does better than 5e is...

Character customization is crap in 5e compared to 3e 4e. However, a lot of 3e 4e went wild and they didn't have a unified clause saying "Core Book +1" or "Core Book +2". Honestly, if DMs pushed that idea more then a lot of the crazy stuff would go away. 5e's base rule simplicity is very nice, but being able to have a lot options is nicer.

3e 4e had three saving throws non-AC defenses. While the mechanics behind it sucked for many, people prefer saving throws the idea of three general saving throws non-AC defenses works rather well.

Having martials that aren't just "move and attack" was amazing once they came out!

5e

5e is essentially the ideologies of 4e, which have the mechanics of 3e Unearthed Arcana, and the looks of 3e.

It's got the best base rules but really drops the ball in character customization and honestly a lot of the system looks rushed despite the long playtest. Feats in particular look like they forgot feats were going to be a thing and then 3 people just slapped them on at the end before realizing that each person made feats with something different in mind.

Also, the exploration and social side of the game is trash when it comes to the rules. Boils down to "make stuff up".

https://i.imgflip.com/3xzibh.jpg

5e did use the 3e mentality of telling martial players that they need to ask their DM's permission to do cool things and that it will totally take too much time in combat to give them options... But here casters you get all the cool things!

Tanarii

2020-04-24, 03:18 PM

Also, feats in 5e are technically an optional rule. I still don't know why they (and multiclassing) are in the PHB instead of the DMG, aside from WotC wanted to make sure people knew they were included and the DMG didn't come out right away.Indeed. One of the best parr's is they are optional. The worst part is they come before a bunch of rules stuff in the PHB. They should have been an appendix.

stoutstien

2020-04-24, 03:20 PM

Indeed. One of the best parr's is they are optional. The worst part is they come before a bunch of rules stuff in the PHB. They should have been an appendix.
Better yet, inside the DMG.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-24, 03:45 PM

Better yet, inside the DMG.

Why should player options be found in the DMG? I like Tanarii's suggestion more, the entirety of Chapter 6 could have been moved to either be a later chapter or an appendix.

The issue with taking it out of the PHB is that it could cause issues when players go to level up and suddenly need to start referencing an additional book for all of their options. A book that isn't really meant for them, all for two optional rules. Better to leave it as a player resource that they take to the DM than a DM resource that they need to take to the players, other variant rules that are much simpler (disarming, cleaving, flanking) aren't something the player needs direct reference for, explaining them is quick and simple and not something you'll go back to often. Those quick and easy rules are good in the DMG, rules that will be referenced frequently by the players belongs in the PHB.

diplomancer

2020-04-24, 04:05 PM

Why should player options be found in the DMG? I like Tanarii's suggestion more, the entirety of Chapter 6 could have been moved to either be a later chapter or an appendix.

The issue with taking it out of the PHB is that it could cause issues when players go to level up and suddenly need to start referencing an additional book for all of their options. A book that isn't really meant for them, all for two optional rules. Better to leave it as a player resource that they take to the DM than a DM resource that they need to take to the players, other variant rules that are much simpler (disarming, cleaving, flanking) aren't something the player needs direct reference for, explaining them is quick and simple and not something you'll go back to often. Those quick and easy rules are good in the DMG, rules that will be referenced frequently by the players belongs in the PHB.

And a book they would have to buy... I can hear the complaints about greedy corporations already.

Pex

2020-04-24, 04:12 PM

Then you should convince your DM to simply give out feats, on top of the existing rewards for leveling.

IMHO the ASI vs Feat conundrum is a brilliant design choice for most gaming groups, because it gives casual players a very simple option that will reliably benefit them.

I love 3e, but it could suffer from Too Much Of A Good Thing. "Oh, you want to roll up a 3rd level PC? Here, look in these four books for your feats."

Not having to choose between an ASI or a Feat does not mean the result is 100s of feats across four books. Overall 5E feats are well designed. People nitpick the details of a few, but the general concept of their make-up is sound. We're not saying there aren't enough feats*. There are plenty. We don't find having to choose between them or an ASI was a good idea. Getting the ASI every four class levels and Feats every 5 class levels would be fine.

*There might be those who want new feats for particular play styles not yet supported, but they're asking for one or two more, not 100s.

stoutstien

2020-04-24, 04:52 PM

Why should player options be found in the DMG? I like Tanarii's suggestion more, the entirety of Chapter 6 could have been moved to either be a later chapter or an appendix.

The issue with taking it out of the PHB is that it could cause issues when players go to level up and suddenly need to start referencing an additional book for all of their options. A book that isn't really meant for them, all for two optional rules. Better to leave it as a player resource that they take to the DM than a DM resource that they need to take to the players, other variant rules that are much simpler (disarming, cleaving, flanking) aren't something the player needs direct reference for, explaining them is quick and simple and not something you'll go back to often. Those quick and easy rules are good in the DMG, rules that will be referenced frequently by the players belongs in the PHB.

The problem is that feats and multiclass rules are optional rules that are viewed as less optional than other rules because they are in the PHB. I've even heard people say that the feats in xanathar's guide are somehow more optional than the one the player handbook just because they're in a different book

I could see keeping them in the player handbook if the entire book was restructured.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-24, 05:09 PM

The problem is that feats and multiclass rules are optional rules that are viewed as less optional than other rules because they are in the PHB.

They can be seen/used more often due to the fact that they're in a book that players and DM's use for reference but that doesn't equate to them being less optional.

An obscure variant rule like Proficiency Dice is just as optional as one that is given its own rules and mechanics like Multiclassing. They're not any more or less optional because of how frequently the box is checked.

There's no denying that they were given more visibility than most other optional rules though, but again, that doesn't make them any more or less optional to use.

stoutstien

2020-04-24, 05:14 PM

They can be seen/used more often due to the fact that they're in a book that players and DM's use for reference but that doesn't equate to them being less optional.

An obscure variant rule like Proficiency Dice is just as optional as one that is given its own rules and mechanics like Multiclassing. They're not any more or less optional because of how frequently the box is checked.

There's no denying that they were given more visibility than most other optional rules though, but again, that doesn't make them any more or less optional to use.

I know that and you know that but because they are in the player handbook they're almost universally considered standard options. How often do you hear somebody saying that their table doesn't allow multiclassing when in reality that is the standard mode?

I think it unnecessarily puts DM, especially new ones, in an awkward position if they don't want to play with them.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-24, 05:22 PM

I know that and you know that but because they are in the player handbook they're almost universally considered standard options. How often do you hear somebody saying that their table doesn't allow multiclassing when in reality that is the standard mode?

I think it unnecessarily puts DM, especially new ones, in an awkward position if they don't want to play with them.

It's not the standard even if many are making the exception, there's no reason for new DM's to feel awkward at all for running the game how they want to. Who exactly is making them feel awkward? Are you saying that there are people who would push new DM's to play against their own interests? I don't think that would be a fault of the PHB's formatting.

Most times when I see someone specifying whether or not they allow multiclassing it's because its relevant to the discussion or question they're posing, very rarely do I see someone randomly feel the need to point out how they're playing the game. Saying it ahead of time takes away a question that would naturally be asked by forum goers like us who are more likely to have checked that option on.

We see it a lot here, but don't forget that this is only a small sampling of the player base.

Tanarii

2020-04-24, 06:28 PM

Who exactly is making them feel awkward? Are you saying that there are people who would push new DM's to play against their own interests?

Many posters on these boards have expressed sentiments that they aren't really optional rules.

stoutstien

2020-04-24, 06:34 PM

Many posters on these boards have expressed sentiments that they aren't really optional rules.

And that is a sentiment I've seen IRL at local gaming locations. Partly due to how AL is set up and partly due to the location of the options in the PHB and the formatting of such.

When I get new players I've never had to say that I don't use flanking because it's considered something that is bought in but if I say no feats it's always views as that I'm opt out.
*I rarely do no feat games but the point stands*

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-24, 06:46 PM

Many posters on these boards have expressed sentiments that they aren't really optional rules.

And it's been stated on more than one occasion, forum goers like you and I aren't exactly a large sample size or the typical player. However, I see your point, more on that below.

When I get new players I've never had to say that I don't use flanking because it's considered something that is bought in but if I say no feats it's always views as that I'm opt out.
*I rarely do no feat games but the point stands*
This is a way of putting it that I can understand a bit more, but I have a followup question: Are these new players to your table or new players to this edition? Are they coming from an old edition?

A lot of what this thread has highlighted is that there are lingering biases coming from an old edition. Expectations have been kept and have deeply influenced some posters perceptions on game mechanics, to the degree that there can be a fundamental disagreement on whether one feature is good or bad, as it is found on some users "best" list and other users "worst" list.

I'd come into this thread to see how veteran players thought of the edition and am sharing my perspective as someone who has virtually no experience with DND prior to 5E.

My personal experience, and the experience of those at my table as we were all new to DND, was to "opt in" to feats. We read at face value that they were optional and chose that we would use them. I'm coming to understand that this perception can be very different for players who have come from earlier editions where feats weren't just a core part of the game, but essential to optimization.

OldTrees1

2020-04-24, 06:57 PM

And that is a sentiment I've seen IRL at local gaming locations. Partly due to how AL is set up and partly due to the location of the options in the PHB and the formatting of such.

When I get new players I've never had to say that I don't use flanking because it's considered something that is bought in but if I say no feats it's always views as that I'm opt out.
*I rarely do no feat games but the point stands*

I feel brought in/opt out is different than optional.

Popular optional rules are part of the player base default assumptions. Unpopular optional rules are not part of the player base default assumptions. Even when player base default assumptions don't match RAW default assumptions. Encumbrance is an optional rule that is not labeled as optional. However it is unpopular enough that the smart bet, if forced to bet, is on it not being used in a given game. Feats are an optional rule that is specifically called out as optional. However it is popular enough that the smart bet, if forced to bet, is on it being used in a given game.

That is not players not understanding and accepting Feats are an optional rule. Rather it is the common meta results in rational assumption that feats are included given they are more likely to be included than not included.

Now there probably is someone out there that literally does not believe Feats are an optional rule. I will not rule out that possibility. But I don't think players expecting common events to be the same.

Tanarii

2020-04-24, 09:22 PM

And that is a sentiment I've seen IRL at local gaming locations. Partly due to how AL is set up and partly due to the location of the options in the PHB and the formatting of such.

When I get new players I've never had to say that I don't use flanking because it's considered something that is bought in but if I say no feats it's always views as that I'm opt out.
*I rarely do no feat games but the point stands*
I ran a successful 5e no feat and no multiclassing campaign for several years at three different game stores near colleges, which I typically sold to potential players as not being like AL (also in those same stores): persistent world with old school adventuring feels, and not allowing cheesy optimization builds.

And it's been stated on more than one occasion, forum goers like you and I aren't exactly a large sample size or the typical player. However, I see your point, more on that below.It's not just forum goers, and as I say there's even backlash by those who have seen the results in official play. Given the limited ability to cheese 5e it's a little surprising. I remember the previous editions in official play. :smallamused:

OTOH game store players, while a much larger sample of the player base than forum goers, are definitely still a subset.

Edit: As to opt-in, I came up from AD&D / BECMI through 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e. And I've loved every edition! At the time. 5e feats an multiclassing are fine optional rules, if I'm forced to be fair. But I was definitely on an old school and a little bit anti official play kick when I went looking for setting up my own campaign after initially starting 5e as a player in AL. And it's since colored my feelings pretty strongly, as I'm sure the tone of the above makes clear. :smallwink:

stoutstien

2020-04-24, 09:54 PM

I ran a successful 5e no feat and no multiclassing campaign for several years at three different game stores near colleges, which I typically sold to potential players as not being like AL (also in those same stores): persistent world with old school adventuring feels, and not allowing cheesy optimization builds.

It's not just forum goers, and as I say there's even backlash by those who have seen the results in official play. Given the limited ability to cheese 5e it's a little surprising. I remember the previous editions in official play. :smallamused:

OTOH game store players, while a much larger sample of the player base than forum goers, are definitely still a subset.

Edit: As to opt-in, I came up from AD&D / BECMI through 2e to 3e to 4e to 5e. And I've loved every edition! At the time. 5e feats an multiclassing are fine optional rules, if I'm forced to be fair. But I was definitely on an old school and a little bit anti official play kick when I went looking for setting up my own campaign after initially starting 5e as a player in AL. And it's since colored my feelings pretty strongly, as I'm sure the tone of the above makes clear. :smallwink:

My longest standard 5e game is a no feat/ no multiclass game. It even involves tracking arrows and encumbrance which apparently is a novelty now days.
I personally find feats more restricting than most because a lot of them are things I would just allow players to do but once someone takes something as a feat it makes that difficult.

Pleh

2020-04-25, 08:57 AM

I ran a successful 5e no feat and no multiclassing campaign for several years at three different game stores near colleges, which I typically sold to potential players as not being like AL (also in those same stores): persistent world with old school adventuring feels, and not allowing cheesy optimization builds.

See, I don't mind cheesy optimization in my games. Seems like that's a tradition of the game at this point. It just means I need to adjust my encounters to let the challenges keep pace.

What irks me is when they want to mask it behind wanting more diverse character options. They don't say they want optimized cheese, they say they want this special concept that they can't do because 5e is more limited in class options.

Fine and fair enough if there's an archetype they want to port into the game, I get that and I want to help make that happen for them, but all too often it's a trojan argument for letting them bring in something more powerful. Again, powerful PCs are fine, just communicate with me what you're going for so I can account for your power level and keep things balanced, because that's the DM's job.

By all means, let's expand character options together, but let's try to account for how it shifts the meta.

Tanarii

2020-04-25, 09:03 AM

See, I don't mind cheesy optimization in my games. Seems like that's a tradition of the game at this point. It just means I need to adjust my encounters to let the challenges keep pace.

It became a tradition with 3e feats and multiclassing. And of course prestige classes. And point buy.

Technically with 2e Skills and Powers but splat content is splat. Although the stuff that comes out right at the end does have a strong influence on the next edition. 2e combat & tactics, 3e tomb of battle. 4e essentials was, per Mearls at the time, his testing ground for how to roll back 4e changes for the next edition, so it was rather an extreme case.

stoutstien

2020-04-25, 09:28 AM

See, I don't mind cheesy optimization in my games. Seems like that's a tradition of the game at this point. It just means I need to adjust my encounters to let the challenges keep pace.

What irks me is when they want to mask it behind wanting more diverse character options. They don't say they want optimized cheese, they say they want this special concept that they can't do because 5e is more limited in class options.

Fine and fair enough if there's an archetype they want to port into the game, I get that and I want to help make that happen for them, but all too often it's a trojan argument for letting them bring in something more powerful. Again, powerful PCs are fine, just communicate with me what you're going for so I can account for your power level and keep things balanced, because that's the DM's job.

By all means, let's expand character options together, but let's try to account for how it shifts the meta.

There's a lot of truth of this and it's actually pretty funny. 5e is closer to 4e in regards do diminishing returns are trying to optimize. Especially for damage.
As long as the encounters are diverse you don't have to worry about player A dealing 30% more damage than player B or player B has a better chance at passing an ablity check than player C. It's pretty hard to create a PC that can trivialize others nor is it required for classes to optimize to keep up.

Waazraath

2020-04-25, 12:05 PM

The sad part is 3e was "let's clean up all these wonky 2e subsystems with weird edge cases, and have a unified mechanic and codified rules that are clear". Possibly with a subtext of "to stop all this silly mix-maxing' but maybe that's just me reading into it.

The problem was splats and the advent of forms, which led to optimization, which led to abuse. And of course the Stormwind-Fallacy fallacy.

Just curious: what do you mean by that?

Tanarii

2020-04-25, 12:21 PM

Just curious: what do you mean by that?
Trying to apply the Stormwind fallacy to claim that all optimization does not negatively impact 'roleplaying'. Or gameplay and character building in general. The stormwind fallacy is merely that it doesn't automatically negatively impact roleplaying.

Of course that doesn't even get into problematic definitions of role-playing. :smallamused:

Waazraath

2020-04-25, 12:41 PM

Pex

2020-04-25, 01:44 PM

jas61292

2020-04-25, 03:20 PM

Trying to apply the Stormwind fallacy to claim that all optimization does not negatively impact 'roleplaying'. Or gameplay and character building in general. The stormwind fallacy is merely that it doesn't automatically negatively impact roleplaying.

Of course that doesn't even get into problematic definitions of role-playing. :smallamused:

Basically, "Stormwind Fallacy" is a fancy way of saying correlation does not imply causation, with regard to this specific situation. Obviously there is somewhat of a correlation, or else the issue wouldn't come up as much as it does, but that does not mean they are causally related. One can be a good optimizer and a good roleplayer.

Your "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" is therefore just the fallacy fallacy, applied to this specific case. That is to say that people try to dismiss criticism of their personal roleplay/optimization by calling the other people out for their use of the Stormwind Fallacy, and ignore actually addressing the criticism.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-25, 03:43 PM

Also, feats in 5e are technically an optional rule. I still don't know why they (and multiclassing) are in the PHB instead of the DMG, aside from WotC wanted to make sure people knew they were included and the DMG didn't come out right away.

I honestly don't know why Feats are an optional rule. I wouldn't play in a game without them.

Like, what am I going to do with the like 7 ASI's that Fighters get without Feats? Hell, what am I going to do with the 5 I get as a sorcerer?

Pex

2020-04-25, 04:05 PM

I honestly don't know why Feats are an optional rule. I wouldn't play in a game without them.

Like, what am I going to do with the like 7 ASI's that Fighters get without Feats? Hell, what am I going to do with the 5 I get as a sorcerer?

I like feats too, but it does help a Fighter to boost CO after ST/DX is 20. One boost to WI couldn't hurt. Sorcerer likes CO too for the Concentration in addition to the hit points. DX also for the AC. It might be boring and predictable, but it's not useless.

Tanarii

2020-04-25, 04:40 PM

Basically, "Stormwind Fallacy" is a fancy way of saying correlation does not imply causation, with regard to this specific situation. Obviously there is somewhat of a correlation, or else the issue wouldn't come up as much as it does, but that does not mean they are causally related. One can be a good optimizer and a good roleplayer.

Your "Stormwind Fallacy Fallacy" is therefore just the fallacy fallacy, applied to this specific case. That is to say that people try to dismiss criticism of their personal roleplay/optimization by calling the other people out for their use of the Stormwind Fallacy, and ignore actually addressing the criticism.
Yes on the latter. As to the former, I don't think there is necessarily an actual a strong correlation. The correlation that caused stormwind to write his fallacy was between those complaining about optimization being a thing typically being One True Way Roleplaying Elitists. That's not to say that being such an elitist causes one to complain about optimization, nor vice versa, of course. :smalltongue:

But there definitely are some folks who focus on optimization to the detriment of table play or characterization.

stoutstien

2020-04-25, 07:13 PM

I honestly don't know why Feats are an optional rule. I wouldn't play in a game without them.

Like, what am I going to do with the like 7 ASI's that Fighters get without Feats? Hell, what am I going to do with the 5 I get as a sorcerer?

Complexity toggle for new players and particularly new DMs who are trying feel out the system.

Not to mention feats don't actually add options as much as restrict them for players.

Boci

2020-04-25, 07:22 PM

Not to mention feats don't actually add options as much as restrict them for players.

Only if you care about strict optimization, which most groups don't. Even on the forums, which has a bias for optimizers, you still see characters posted with suboptimal feats.

LordCdrMilitant

2020-04-25, 07:37 PM

stoutstien

2020-04-25, 07:41 PM

Only if you care about strict optimization, which most groups don't. Even on the forums, which has a bias for optimizers, you still see characters posted with suboptimal feats.

I was more referring to that once you apply something like feats to a game you're effectively putting a permission slip on those options.

Once a dm gets a handle on the relative power each action type it allows players to try stuff beyond what's written on their character sheet.

5e was a big step away from finicky little rules that must be applied for each individual action that they might do. Feats in a way are adding them back in

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-25, 08:28 PM

Complexity toggle for new players and particularly new DMs who are trying feel out the system.

Not to mention feats don't actually add options as much as restrict them for players.

I'll have to second what LordCdrMilitant asks... How does it restrict options exactly? Most feats actually give players additional options and they very rarely conflict with other actions.

Are you suggesting that a Fighter with the option to take Magic Initiate has had their options restricted? Which feats are you suggesting would restrict their options?

I was more referring to that once you apply something like feats to a game you're effectively putting a permission slip on those options.
This doesn't really clarify either, having permission to do more things isn't what I would call restrictive.

My best guess at what you might mean is that if feats are allowed a DM is no longer able to allow a character to improvise those types of actions, which I suppose in very rare cases could be a problem. However just because a Fighter could have taken Magic Initiate on their level up doesn't stop a DM from still giving them the ability to cast some spell once per day as a character development thing. Just because Grappler is available doesn't mean the DM can't allow a player to restrain a creature through clever positioning rather than magic.

stoutstien

2020-04-25, 10:07 PM

I'll have to second what LordCdrMilitant asks... How does it restrict options exactly? Most feats actually give players additional options and they very rarely conflict with other actions.

Are you suggesting that a Fighter with the option to take Magic Initiate has had their options restricted? Which feats are you suggesting would restrict their options?

This doesn't really clarify either, having permission to do more things isn't what I would call restrictive.

My best guess at what you might mean is that if feats are allowed a DM is no longer able to allow a character to improvise those types of actions, which I suppose in very rare cases could be a problem. However just because a Fighter could have taken Magic Initiate on their level up doesn't stop a DM from still giving them the ability to cast some spell once per day as a character development thing. Just because Grappler is available doesn't mean the DM can't allow a player to restrain a creature through clever positioning rather than magic.

If a player takes the magic initiative feat it would prevent the DM from introducing it by other means. If player A picked up the feat and player B acquired the same effect as a reward I doubt player A doesn't feel ripped off.

ProsecutorGodot

2020-04-25, 10:18 PM

If a player takes the magic initiative feat it would prevent the DM from introducing it by other means. If player A picked up the feat and player B acquired the same effect as a reward I doubt player A doesn't feel ripped off.

So it's not a restriction on the player, but the DM, because if their player makes certain choices they're incentivized not to make a players choices feel worse.

Player's are not restricted in any way in this example. The DM isn't really restricted either, because Player B most likely isn't receiving Magic Initiate for free, it was probably earned as a reward that the group worked for together. Sure, if Player B received it for doing nothing Player A has every right to feel a bit upset, but once again that's the DM's fault here and not at all a restriction on the players.

I'm really not understanding how this has restricted the players choice. You can choose to take Magic Initiate with a feat, guaranteeing that you have it, or take a gamble that sometime in the unknowable future your DM will grant it to you as a reward for something or other. If I want Magic Initiate I'd rather have the option to take it when I want rather than having to wait for my DM to give it to me.

SpawnOfMorbo

2020-04-25, 10:20 PM

If a player takes the magic initiative feat it would prevent the DM from introducing it by other means. If player A picked up the feat and player B acquired the same effect as a reward I doubt player A doesn't feel ripped off.

Why would the DM award player B something that player A took?

Seems like the DM should figure something else out. Not saying you can't give feats as rewards, but maybe change things around?

Maybe give player A an award at the same time that enhances their feat. Perhaps they gain an additional 1st level spell (still 1/long rest) and then a 2nd level spell that is usable 1/long rest?

I mean... If you know your players you probably would be able to deal with this situation.

OldTrees1

2020-04-25, 10:26 PM

If a player takes the magic initiative feat it would prevent the DM from introducing it by other means. If player A picked up the feat and player B acquired the same effect as a reward I doubt player A doesn't feel ripped off.

I think your argument can be summed up in two cases:

Case 1: Could I already do that?
Consider Power Attack in various editions. You have the option to take an attack penalty in exchange for a damage boost. Could you do that before taking the feat?

When a feat provides an ability, it might signal the ability requires the feat.

Say my Barbarian wants to be able to send foes flying 10+ ft away when hit with his club. Is that a Strength check on each attack that hits? If a Knockback Feat is printed, does the Barbarian now need that feat before they can knockback foes again?

I share this concern.

Case 2: Could I already learn how to do that?
This is that magic initiate vs quest reward example. Player A took the Feat Magic Initiate, could they have already learned the effect another way?

I don't think this is a problem. Basically you are granting a feature as a reward for the quest. Both players got a feature as a reward (despite us not hearing about Player A's reward). Player A used a Feat to gain an equivalent ability as the quest reward that Player B got, but that just raises the value of quest rewards, it did not lower the value of Feats. Player A got a quest reward at the same time, I wonder what it should be.

Eldariel

2020-04-25, 10:34 PM

I think your argument can be summed up in two cases:

Case 1: Could I already do that?
Consider Power Attack in various editions. You have the option to take an attack penalty in exchange for a damage boost. Could you do that before taking the feat?

When a feat provides an ability, it might signal the ability requires the feat.

Say my Barbarian wants to be able to send foes flying 10+ ft away when hit with his club. Is that a Strength check on each attack that hits? If a Knockback Feat is printed, does the Barbarian now need that feat before they can knockback foes again?

I share this concern.

Kinda agreed, but note that generally you autosucceed with a feat while without it you can still do these. I've mimicked someone's voice with a Deception-check, I've read someone's lips with a Perception-check, etc. I've never had the feats that let me do those things. If I did, I could do it automatically without a check too and that's what I think it boils down to: everyone can do X but doing so without a feat requires a (rather tough) check.

Case 2: Could I already learn how to do that?
This is that magic initiate vs quest reward example. Player A took the Feat Magic Initiate, could they have already learned the effect another way?

[QUOTE=OldTrees1;24472379]I don't think this is a problem. Basically you are granting a feature as a reward for the quest. Both players got a feature as a reward (despite us not hearing about Player A's reward). Player A used a Feat to gain an equivalent ability as the quest reward that Player B got, but that just raises the value of quest rewards, it did not lower the value of Feats. Player A got a quest reward at the same time, I wonder what it should be.

Xanathar's has the rules for learning new proficiencies and languages with downtime, which kinda steps on feats like Skilled already, but someone with those feats will just learn more in the same time (same with quest rewards). I agree that this is really not a problem as such.