Best/Worst Changes in 5e compared to earlier editions

[Pex]

You can't avoid DCs being set by DM whim. Even if you had a great list of DCs that near-everyone agreed mapped to reality and we all loved it, a DM needs the ability to override it. And even if you built a mechanism to govern overriding it (how far to change from the list value), the DM still needs the ability to go outside that. In the end, any path a DM can take to make a DC what they want it to be for the purposes of their campaign, they're going to take. All a list can do for the player is give them a reason to argue about it, but it doesn't change that the DM is still going to make the DC what they want it to be. And if we're not picking sides or being tribal about it, there's nothing that says the player is inherently correct. The DM could well be the sensible one. So I'm not sure I know how to solve that, given the nature of a TTRPG with a human DM.

What I'm trying to do is solve the solvable problem: to provide a means by which a DM who doesn't have a DC in mind can quickly get one that jives with the capabilities of the PCs. A list does that, sort of, but it has gaps, and its line-item-specific nature invites real-world experts to quibble over its realism. But making it loosely scale with encounter challenge switches the focus from the inherent difficulty of the task to the difficulty of accomplishing it while under duress. And again, this would only be for those times when the DM needs to come up with a DC but isn't really sure what it would be and didn't have a pre-set DC in mind.

We're even. I'm not liking your idea of setting the DC based on the level of the guard who is approaching, and you're not liking my idea of giving skill challenges Tier levels. We're back where we started, and yes I can avoid DCs being set by DM whim. Provide example DCs and DMs will have a guideline to arrive at a DC fairly.

[ProsecutorGodot]

Provide example DCs and DMs will have a guideline to arrive at a DC fairly.

And we've rolled right back to "There are example DC's, the DM decides if the task is Easy, Medium, Hard etc. and arrives at a DC fairly."

[LordCdrMilitant]

I set DC's on a whim anyway.
Actually, I don't even set DC's, I just get the die+modifier from the players and decide how good that is.


I think this system is a feature, not a bug.

[KorvinStarmast]

"This is not a game about being a hero, this is a game about finding out if you live to become a hero. We don't know who's Luke, who's Wedge, who's Biggs, and who's Porkins until we play."

And that's a problem with WoTC era games, for all that they cleaned up a lot of small details.

They've lost that feel; I am not sure if this is due to community expectations, or the fact that WoTC is a card game company that is now part of Hasbro.

What I like about 5e is that they flat out tell you: for the first 4 levels, you aren't a hero yet. You are an apprentice adventurer.

[LordCdrMilitant]

And that's a problem with WoTC era games, for all that they cleaned up a lot of small details.

They've lost that feel; I am not sure if this is due to community expectations, or the fact that WoTC is a card game company that is now part of Hasbro.

What I like about 5e is that they flat out tell you: for the first 4 levels, you aren't a hero yet. You are an apprentice adventurer.

Honestly, I vastly prefer this feel than a more deadly grindmill of characters.

This is a cooperative storytelling game, not a wargame. Having frequent and meaningless character death undermines one of the things that I consider most important: your character is not a game piece with tactical features for a puzzle. Your character is a person who is living in the world, whom you are developing the story of and is one of the main characters of the story in a game about how they overcome the challenges they face in their lives. They don't have to be heroes, many characters and games are set where they're largely normal folk, but the whole tactical wargame thing is not something I want in my RPG's.

I play 3 different tabletop miniatures wargames, quite a few hex based old-fashioned wargames, and my entirely video game library is basically RTS's. My Role-Playing experience should not be a crappy tactical game.

[ProsecutorGodot]

And that's a problem with WoTC era games, for all that they cleaned up a lot of small details.

They've lost that feel; I am not sure if this is due to community expectations, or the fact that WoTC is a card game company that is now part of Hasbro.

What I like about 5e is that they flat out tell you: for the first 4 levels, you aren't a hero yet. You are an apprentice adventurer.

A lot of people tend to cite big name NPC showing up in campaigns as a negative, but I like having an actual representation of what genuinely heroic characters look like.

It's one of my favorite aspects of the Waterdeep series of modules. We are powerful and very wealthy Adventures with our own business and survive regular ventures into Undermountain but we're still not the biggest fish in Waterdeep by a large margin. There are still people more powerful than us, and there will probably be people more powerful than us even when we reach the peak of our power.

That doesn't diminish my enjoyment of our success, that we are strong and powerful heroes.

[stoutstien]

Actually, I don't even set DC's, I just get the die+modifier from the players and decide how good that is.


I think this system is a feature, not a bug.

That is really not a good idea. It works fine with systems like dungeon world but DND has a lot of mechanics to alter dice rolls for ablity checks that only work with a fixed DC. if anything you put more emphasis on the randomness of the d20 instead of player choices.

.
This is why I initially said that 5e is not new DM friendly. It's not necessarily complicated math but it's really important and at the same time badly explained.

[Pex]

And we've rolled right back to "There are example DC's, the DM decides if the task is Easy, Medium, Hard etc. and arrives at a DC fairly."

What one DM says is easy another will say is hard which is the problem, etc. etc. etc.

[ProsecutorGodot]

What one DM says is easy another will say is hard which is the problem, etc. etc. etc.

I don't see an issue with that, unless I'm very literally picking the same lock at two different tables at the same circumstance I'm perfectly capable of accepting that one of those locks might be more difficult than the other.

What I'd be less able to accept is that every door of similar make should be equally easy to punch or pick my way through, and every guard stationed at that door should be equally easy to talk or intimidate past, or that every crime scene of a murder would be just as easily identifiable as a murder scene rather than a violent kidnapping.

Why bother with the DC tables when you can have your DM, who I assume is a reasonable person, set the DC under the information they already have under guidelines that are quite generous in scope? It's extra steps and book keeping being done*, skip those unnecessary steps and play D&D, make the ruling as the DM.
*Either wasting prep time to set the DC ahead of time using all of the information you know of or having to open the book again to check how the DC changed with variables were introduced when the players invariably did something you didn't expect. You'll probably be doing both

Advantage/Disadvantage works perfectly fine on its own as a circumstantial modifier. It's effectively an entire increase/reduction in difficult tier. Say you want to make a challenge "Hard" but setting it to DC 20 seems just a bit too harsh, how about instead it's DC 15 at disadvantage? This can reward investment in tools to gain advantage on a check, effectively making a straight roll to a medium DC or having help with the task.

I will concede though that having more rigid guidelines would be useful for those playing in AL where having the games run as closely to each other as possible is the goal. That could easily be made as an AL supplement though and I don't think is really required for the general player base.

That is really not a good idea. It works fine with systems like dungeon world but DND has a lot of mechanics to alter dice rolls for ablity checks that only work with a fixed DC. if anything you put more emphasis on the randomness of the d20 instead of player choices.

.
This is why I initially said that 5e is not new DM friendly. It's not necessarily complicated math but it's really important and at the same time badly explained.

I don't understand how adding more reference material that they'd have to go back to on a regular basis is making it easier on a new DM rather than giving them permission to pick a number within this range if you think they should be able to do it.

Objectively, which of these is easier: "Pick a number within this range of difficulties that you think is reasonable if you think they can succeed" or "Consult this table for a DC that will be set, whether they can succeed or not, making sure to consider these modifiers and coming back to this modifier table if anything changes from when you set the DC". Assume that both situations are being handled in good faith.

[EggKookoo]

Actually, I don't even set DC's, I just get the die+modifier from the players and decide how good that is.

The vast majority of the time I call for a check, the DC is derived from some formula anyway. Stealth? The DC is based on an observer's Perception. Insight? The DC is based on the subject's Charisma. And so on.

But way back months or even years ago, in some earlier incarnation of this debate, I said I more or less just go with 12. Thinking on it now, I've basically been using CR as a guide without realizing it.

[Pex]

I don't see an issue with that, unless I'm very literally picking the same lock at two different tables at the same circumstance I'm perfectly capable of accepting that one of those locks might be more difficult than the other.

What I'd be less able to accept is that every door of similar make should be equally easy to punch or pick my way through, and every guard stationed at that door should be equally easy to talk or intimidate past, or that every crime scene of a murder would be just as easily identifiable as a murder scene rather than a violent kidnapping.

Why bother with the DC tables when you can have your DM, who I assume is a reasonable person, set the DC under the information they already have under guidelines that are quite generous in scope? It's extra steps and book keeping being done*, skip those unnecessary steps and play D&D, make the ruling as the DM.
*Either wasting prep time to set the DC ahead of time using all of the information you know of or having to open the book again to check how the DC changed with variables were introduced when the players invariably did something you didn't expect. You'll probably be doing both

Advantage/Disadvantage works perfectly fine on its own as a circumstantial modifier. It's effectively an entire increase/reduction in difficult tier. Say you want to make a challenge "Hard" but setting it to DC 20 seems just a bit too harsh, how about instead it's DC 15 at disadvantage? This can reward investment in tools to gain advantage on a check, effectively making a straight roll to a medium DC or having help with the task.

I will concede though that having more rigid guidelines would be useful for those playing in AL where having the games run as closely to each other as possible is the goal. That could easily be made as an AL supplement though and I don't think is really required for the general player base.


I don't understand how adding more reference material that they'd have to go back to on a regular basis is making it easier on a new DM rather than giving them permission to pick a number within this range if you think they should be able to do it.

Objectively, which of these is easier: "Pick a number within this range of difficulties that you think is reasonable if you think they can succeed" or "Consult this table for a DC that will be set, whether they can succeed or not, making sure to consider these modifiers and coming back to this modifier table if anything changes from when you set the DC". Assume that both situations are being handled in good faith.

All non-magical platemails are the same.
All non-magical long swords are the same.
All Bless spells are the same.
All class ability DCs are the same.
All generic stone walls being the same, no that's impossible. I don't think so.

[Lucas Yew]

What one DM says is easy another will say is hard which is the problem, etc. etc. etc.

As a pro-science guy I cannot stand this phenomenon. Hence my pro-simulationist attitude with most roleplaying games and an adamant refusal to treat them as collaborative storytelling first, rules governed game second.

All non-magical platemails are the same.
All non-magical long swords are the same.
All Bless spells are the same.
All class ability DCs are the same.
All generic stone walls being the same, no that's impossible. I don't think so.

I'm reciting this wise ment again and again for my fragile sanity...

[NorthernPhoenix]

All non-magical platemails are the same.
All non-magical long swords are the same.
All Bless spells are the same.
All class ability DCs are the same.
All generic stone walls being the same, no that's impossible. I don't think so.

Again, that's a false comparison. You're comparing Player side factors to a DM side one. Walls are as variable as enemy weapons, enemy spells, and enemy ability DCs.

[ProsecutorGodot]

All non-magical platemails are the same.
All non-magical long swords are the same.
All Bless spells are the same.
All class ability DCs are the same.
All generic stone walls being the same, no that's impossible. I don't think so.

I don't see what those have to do with it, they don't have to be the same either. In the case of class ability DC's, they often aren't the same.

I don't recall saying anything about stone walls either. To be honest, it would be difficult to make a stone wall very much different than another stone wall, granted not impossibly difficult. Good thing I never said anything about stone walls. Now, stone doors on the other hand, that leaves plenty of room for differences and I'd be pretty well and truly surprised if every stone door across the realm was carved and hinged in the same manner with the same level of security and the same bored guard stationed in front of it.

Obviously we don't agree. I think the system is fine and workable, you clearly take issue with it. Far be it from me to tell you how your game should be played.

[EggKookoo]

I don't see what those have to do with it, they don't have to be the same either. In the case of class ability DC's, they often aren't the same.

And they're not always the same. Case in point, I'm putting together some content right now. One of the encounters features a monster thematically of my own creation. I'm using a creature from the MM for the stat block. The creature has natural armor and an AC derived from that (looks like it's calculated like leather armor). Thematically, I don't want my monster to have armor. Mechanically, I like the stat block and the associated CR. So... poof. The creature has no armor but its AC is still basically 11+dex mod. Sure, I could create a feature (Extra Durable: The creature gains +1 to AC) but really, who cares? My players aren't going to see the stat block.

Incidentally, this is one thing I find superior to 3x. In that edition, I felt like I was cheating if I did something like that. I felt like I had to insert a feature to give the creature +1 AC. And it felt like that feature had to come from a piece of equipment or a feat or something. In 5e, I can just do it and the rules don't look at me like I'm trying to get away with something.

[stoutstien]

And they're not always the same. Case in point, I'm putting together some content right now. One of the encounters features a monster thematically of my own creation. I'm using a creature from the MM for the stat block. The creature has natural armor and an AC derived from that (looks like it's calculated like leather armor). Thematically, I don't want my monster to have armor. Mechanically, I like the stat block and the associated CR. So... poof. The creature has no armor but its AC is still basically 11+dex mod. Sure, I could create a feature (Extra Durable: The creature gains +1 to AC) but really, who cares? My players aren't going to see the stat block.

Incidentally, this is one thing I find superior to 3x. In that edition, I felt like I was cheating if I did something like that. I felt like I had to insert a feature to give the creature +1 AC. And it felt like that feature had to come from a piece of equipment or a feat or something. In 5e, I can just do it and the rules don't look at me like I'm trying to get away with something.

You really don't even need to do that. Some NPCs that wear manufactured armor have similar ways of calculating AC as the PCs but most are just eyeballed. Same is true for most of the numbers for NPCs.

This is another area that has the framework for an amazing DM tool but they don't provide much explanation and what they do provide is backwards.

[Tanarii]

Honestly the better argument against DC tables is constantly having to look up tables (or any rule really) is exhausting as a DM. As well as screwing up pacing. Being able to make up DCs on the fly is liberating an enabling.

The one thing it's not is confidence building for those that don't like or enjoy or have faith in improvisation skills. And there definitely are plenty of DMs out there like that. And yes, it's definitely newer DMs that tend to fall into that category, just because they don't have the practice yet.

I certainly remember back in the days of yore when my first thought was "not sure how this works, there must be a rule for that somewhere". And it's one reason I peruse rulebooks so much. Knowing where the rules are gives me confidence to freeform them where they give me that ability, including the parameters to freeform within. Which is very different from "there's no rule so just make one up" so don't try to straw man me with that Oberoni crap.

[Pex]

Honestly the better argument against DC tables is constantly having to look up tables (or any rule really) is exhausting as a DM. As well as screwing up pacing. Being able to make up DCs on the fly is liberating an enabling.

The one thing it's not is confidence building for those that don't like or enjoy or have faith in improvisation skills. And there definitely are plenty of DMs out there like that. And yes, it's definitely newer DMs that tend to fall into that category, just because they don't have the practice yet.

I certainly remember back in the days of yore when my first thought was "not sure how this works, there must be a rule for that somewhere". And it's one reason I peruse rulebooks so much. Knowing where the rules are gives me confidence to freeform them where they give me that ability, including the parameters to freeform within. Which is very different from "there's no rule so just make one up" so don't try to straw man me with that Oberoni crap.

People are still looking up how spells, class abilities, and feats work. Eventually the more common ones that come up repeatedly are memorized. If what the player wants to do doesn't affect another player's action the player's moment is paused so he can look up the table while the DM's attention goes to the other player. The player could look it up before his turn to have it ready when it is. There are now published spells on indexed cards players have to reference. If there were DC tables they might be published on indexed cards. Way back when in 2E there were DM screens that had various tables and charts printed on them for the DM to reference. If playing online the DM could have a tab in his web browser set to the DC tables. Still, you're right. The physical act of looking up the DC number could be a bother to some people. It doesn't bother me.

[LordCdrMilitant]

That is really not a good idea. It works fine with systems like dungeon world but DND has a lot of mechanics to alter dice rolls for ablity checks that only work with a fixed DC. if anything you put more emphasis on the randomness of the d20 instead of player choices.

.
This is why I initially said that 5e is not new DM friendly. It's not necessarily complicated math but it's really important and at the same time badly explained.

I think it works great. Usually they tell me like "23" or something, and Ill estimate how many degrees of success that is and give a response appropriate. A 15 might result in them scrabbling to and having a tough time of it, but a 28 might result in them climbing up it in unmatched time.

I'm not certain which features only trigger for ability checks with fixed DC's.

[stoutstien]

I think it works great. Usually they tell me like "23" or something, and Ill estimate how many degrees of success that is and give a response appropriate. A 15 might result in them scrabbling to and having a tough time of it, but a 28 might result in them climbing up it in unmatched time.

I'm not certain which features only trigger for ability checks with fixed DC's.

But why roll at all if you don't have an idea of a DC to start with? The 15 and 28 are only relevant when compared to a DC. If you just base it on how high they roll you're stacking the odds against the players because 15 is actually a pretty high roll to beat for an ablity check.

ask for an example of game features that rely on knowing what the check is look at the hobgoblin's saving face.

[Luccan]

But why roll at all if you don't have an idea of a DC to start with? The 15 and 28 are only relevant when compared to a DC. If you just base it on how high they roll you're stacking the odds against the players because 15 is actually a pretty high roll to beat for an ablity check.

ask for an example of game features that rely on knowing what the check is look at the hobgoblin's saving face.

It does not rely on knowing the check. While I agree that you should set a DC before asking for a roll, whether by fiat or table, Saving Face can activate whenever you fail a check and provides a bonus of up to 5. Yes, it's significantly more useful if you know the DC and basically a ribbon without the DM setting an actual DC, but it doesn't require that you know it or that the DC be within a certain range. So, technically, it works without a set DC. In a game actually setting DCs this would probably come up in Stealth Vs Perception scenarios where the DC isn't set until the DM rolls so it will always vary.

[stoutstien]

It does not rely on knowing the check. While I agree that you should set a DC before asking for a roll, whether by fiat or table, Saving Face can activate whenever you fail a check and provides a bonus of up to 5. Yes, it's significantly more useful if you know the DC and basically a ribbon without the DM setting an actual DC, but it doesn't require that you know it or that the DC be within a certain range. So, technically, it works without a set DC. In a game actually setting DCs this would probably come up in Stealth Vs Perception scenarios where the DC isn't set until the DM rolls so it will always vary.

Aye that's fair. It wouldn't make those features useless but it does take them down to ribbon status.

I might not like the DC table in the PHB/DMG but at least players can make some form of informed decision other than a straight up gamble.

[EggKookoo]

It does not rely on knowing the check. While I agree that you should set a DC before asking for a roll, whether by fiat or table, Saving Face can activate whenever you fail a check and provides a bonus of up to 5. Yes, it's significantly more useful if you know the DC and basically a ribbon without the DM setting an actual DC, but it doesn't require that you know it or that the DC be within a certain range. So, technically, it works without a set DC. In a game actually setting DCs this would probably come up in Stealth Vs Perception scenarios where the DC isn't set until the DM rolls so it will always vary.

Well, you could argue you need to know the DC in order to know if it failed.

[Telok]

Ok, on topic: worst change is the constant streams of threads across the forums I follow where people haven't been able to agree how to stealth, surprise, and non-combat check. No agreement on when to roll, if you need to roll, or what final number needs to be rolled. Freaking years this has been going now. Won't touch AL for love or money because a Str14+prof jumping a 15' gap could be anything from 'no', 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 'yes', based on who DMs that day.

Best change is that nobody can tell if I'm using my d30 to set DCs.

[Tanarii]

Ok, on topic: worst change is the constant streams of threads across the forums I follow where people haven't been able to agree how to stealth, surprise, and non-combat check. No agreement on when to roll, if you need to roll, or what final number needs to be rolled. Freaking years this has been going now. Won't touch AL for love or money because a Str14+prof jumping a 15' gap could be anything from 'no', 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 'yes', based on who DMs that day.

Best change is that nobody can tell if I'm using my d30 to set DCs.

That is not a change. Okay, maybe it's a change, but for the better. 5e has some of the least "forum contentious" rules out of the last 3 editions. I can't speak to 2e or 1e because I wasn't a USENET type guy.

If you think it's worse you either have on rose colored glasses or didn't participate in WoTC and other forums back in the day.

[Telok]

That is not a change. Okay, maybe it's a change, but for the better. 5e has some of the least "forum contentious" rules out of the last 3 editions. I can't speak to 2e or 1e because I wasn't a USENET type guy.

If you think it's worse you either have on rose colored glasses or didn't participate in WoTC and other forums back in the day.

I caught a bit of the tail end of the usenet stuff. I don't recall much fire but I could have just been on the wrong boards for that stuff. And no, I studiously avoided the WotC forums. Official, corporation run forums tend to either have people vanish for thought crimes because no form of dissent is tolerated, or be hideous pits of acidic fiery depravity and hate.

But it's on this and the other forums of decent, rational people that only in 5e have I seen such a complete lack of consensus over such basic core rules questions like "is my character allowed to try to jump a pit". It's what, six or seven years on now? There's still a constant stream of threads over these things.

[Pex]

Ok, on topic: worst change is the constant streams of threads across the forums I follow where people haven't been able to agree how to stealth, surprise, and non-combat check. No agreement on when to roll, if you need to roll, or what final number needs to be rolled. Freaking years this has been going now. Won't touch AL for love or money because a Str14+prof jumping a 15' gap could be anything from 'no', 5, 10, 15, 20, 25, 'yes', based on who DMs that day.

Best change is that nobody can tell if I'm using my d30 to set DCs.

3E had its own share of endless arguments. However, 5E's endless arguments are about different topics, so I agree.

[Feast]

I particularly dislike the death save system. If you have a healer it's basically impossible for you to die and any damage taken no matter what is just a failed save, it could be as simple as a cat scratching your unconscious body or an ogre crushing your head with a three-hundred pound boulder.

The sentiment that having dangerous and deadly encounters discourages players from being invested in their characters seems mind-boggling to me. I think it's rather the opposite, if there is no genuine threat to my characters life or any need to be cautious, then I will be far less likely to act out my character in a believable fashion.

[EggKookoo]

I particularly dislike the death save system. If you have a healer it's basically impossible for you to die and any damage taken no matter what is just a failed save, it could be as simple as a cat scratching your unconscious body or an ogre crushing your head with a three-hundred pound boulder.

5e is not a simulationist system. The death save mechanic is just a manifestation of that. You, as a player, don't really know what's happening to your PC until after the dice results are in. When you reach 0 HP and start making death saves, your PC might be dying. Or they might be fine. You won't know until that third success or failure.

The dice don't cause things to happen in the game. They reveal to you what happened. Your PC hits not because you rolled high. Your high result reveals to you that the PC hit. People push back on this interpretation but it's the only one (that I've found) that jives with the mechanics.

The sentiment that having dangerous and deadly encounters discourages players from being invested in their characters seems mind-boggling to me. I think it's rather the opposite, if there is no genuine threat to my characters life or any need to be cautious, then I will be far less likely to act out my character in a believable fashion.

My players get terrified when their PCs get low on HP. They're very invested in their characters. You don't need a high chance of dying for the fear of death to kick in. A PC will go through hundreds of fight encounters leveling from 1 to 20. If the chance of dying in any given fight was 1%, it means most PCs won't make it all the way.

[NorthernPhoenix]

I particularly dislike the death save system. If you have a healer it's basically impossible for you to die and any damage taken no matter what is just a failed save, it could be as simple as a cat scratching your unconscious body or an ogre crushing your head with a three-hundred pound boulder.

The sentiment that having dangerous and deadly encounters discourages players from being invested in their characters seems mind-boggling to me. I think it's rather the opposite, if there is no genuine threat to my characters life or any need to be cautious, then I will be far less likely to act out my character in a believable fashion.

The DMG has official optional rules for more lethality and for stronger Death Spirals.

That said, i don't agree with investment. Being close to death does encourage investment. But dying all the time does the opposite. If you have a conveyor belt of different characters, you're almost certainly less likely to care as much about each one.