How well is the game holding up at high levels?

[Tehnar]

Not really, as then it allows for ridiculous rules lawyering which were clearly not RAI or RACS.

The ridiculous abuses are a corner cases that can be easily handled. That is the Pun Pun level of rules lawyering that is easy to handle. Its the other kind of broken that really messes the game up. Things like I want to Animate Dead, or use Contagion or Summon Nature Ally (to name a few). Those things are much harder to handle at the table then saying: "Don't be stupid of course you can't play Pun Pun."

[Wartex1]

Except that those don't require deliberately asinine interpretation or twisting of the rules to perform.

[Malifice]

That aside you just deciding that a spell that never needed an attack roll now suddenly does just because 'situation' breeds animosity among players. You're effectively dampening their creativity, their fairly logical plans. That's bad DMing, and you should feel bad about it.

Lol.

The rules for using Forcecage and Wall of Force are quite clear however, and everything that happened in that encounter follow those rules.

Assuming the dragon fit in the force-cage (debatable at best).

You however have demonstrated a lack of knowledge how those spells work

You've displayed a far worse lack of knowledge of the clear design intent of 5th edition, and a complete lack of understanding of rule 0.

Apparently DM fiat or increasing the difficulty of certain tasks due to environment and circumstance on the fly only really applies to skills and combat actions and not to spells. For some reason.

Would you have a problem with (say) a DM spontaneously declaring the Fighter got sprayed in blood (after inflicting a vicious critical that downed a dragon) and then calling for an acrobatics check to avoid slipping in the pool of blood? Say awarding inspiration (Come at me bro!) if he makes the check, or disadvantage on his next attack (unstable) if he fails?

I don't recall RulesJD saying the other party members were useless, more like they are use impaired. The wizard took down 50% of the foes on his own, thus he is much more effective then the average party member. What some people call broken, but I say overpowered.

Again, this being the case, why on earth did no fewer than three dragons ignore the threat that he apparently posed to focus on those 'less than effective and under-powered compared to the Wizard' threats?

The rules of the game are a language that the players and the DM use to calibrate their expectations.

Yep. What part of the language of 'Rule 0' do you want me to explain for you?

Basically you have 5e advocates going "5e is not broken because the DM can step in and make the required changes." Guess what that applies to every system ever.

You're assuming the DM is making 'changes to the rules' by improvising on the spot, calling for checks to accomplish tasks, changing the difficulty of certain actions due to environment and circumstance and so forth.

He's not. Those are the actual rules. Thats the actual role of the DM. In fact thats the way the game is supposed to be played.

I'm not saying 'you're doing it wrong' by sticking to inflexible codified RAW if thats how you like your DnD. I just cant help but shake the fact that youre missing one of the best elements of the game.

[Ralanr]

Honestly I'm just thinking RulesJD isn't as RAW as he says.

[Tehnar]

You've displayed a far worse lack of knowledge of the clear design intent of 5th edition, and a complete lack of understanding of rule 0.
Yep. What part of the language of 'Rule 0' do you want me to explain for you?
You're assuming the DM is making 'changes to the rules' by improvising on the spot, calling for checks to accomplish tasks, changing the difficulty of certain actions due to environment and circumstance and so forth.

He's not. Those are the actual rules. Thats the actual role of the DM. In fact thats the way the game is supposed to be played.

I'm not saying 'you're doing it wrong' by sticking to inflexible codified RAW if thats how you like your DnD. I just cant help but shake the fact that youre missing one of the best elements of the game.

I don't understand why you think rule 0 is endemic to 5e and only 5e benefits from its use. Rule 0 or variants are written into every rpg system I played so I don't really see why 5e has this huge benefit over all the others, unless you want to count vague and confusing rules where you have to use rule 0 as its design intent?

Did Mearls purposely include Contagion in 5e in its current form just so DMs can exercise their rule 0 muscles and ban/change it?

Allowing DM's and players to make judgement calls is not a design intent. Its baked into the very nature of TTRPGs.

[Mara]

The ridiculous abuses are a corner cases that can be easily handled. That is the Pun Pun level of rules lawyering that is easy to handle. Its the other kind of broken that really messes the game up. Things like I want to Animate Dead, or use Contagion or Summon Nature Ally (to name a few). Those things are much harder to handle at the table then saying: "Don't be stupid of course you can't play Pun Pun."

I didn't see the issue with contagion. It takes forever to go off.

The difference between 3.5 and 5e is mainly the lack of spell combos and single save or sucks. Saves just don't get all that high and even when they do land, you can keep saving against the effect. The concentration mechanic stomps combos like fly+invisibility and other such combos which would invalidate skills and martials.

[-Jynx-]

I agree that the dragons in that encounter should have clearly ignored the lesser threats in favor of the greater threat. I think dragons (or any 'smart' creature) should be played to its intellect level.

But if I, as a player, had to say start rolling for something like magic missile (for example) just because you suddenly decide it so I personally would be a bit salty.

You can create situations (like the dragons deciding well lets get that wizard guy) which adds in pressure and complications without suddenly bending the rules of a players magic. Maybe if I were DMing in the situation I'd feel differently than I do now, I just think that suddenly allowing a roll on the spell is unfair to the player. But "life ain't fair" I suppose.

[Malifice]

I don't understand why you think rule 0 is endemic to 5e and only 5e benefits from its use. Rule 0 or variants are written into every rpg system I played so I don't really see why 5e has this huge benefit over all the others, unless you want to count vague and confusing rules where you have to use rule 0 as its design intent?

Did Mearls purposely include Contagion in 5e in its current form just so DMs can exercise their rule 0 muscles and ban/change it?

Allowing DM's and players to make judgement calls is not a design intent. Its baked into the very nature of TTRPGs.

I make the argument for two reasons. Actually 3.

1. 5e was specifically designed for DM empowerment. Whereas in 3rd and 4th, we had much more complex formulaic rules. The rules in 5th are streamlined and cut down not just to speed things up. Look at the offical FAQ on the rules for Hiding for example. The official answer? Screw the RAW, ask your DM. Look also at the DMG. It's full of optional rules and suggestions (as is the PHB with feats, variant humans and multi classing all being expressly optional rules). The Devs have been emphatic in their desire to hand the game back to DMs and away from the RAW obsession that has plauged the game since 3rd edition.

2. You seem totally content for a DM to improvise conditions and the environment and difficulty of actions for attacks and skills. Requiring checks mid battle for unforeseen events, allowing player improvisation of skills and combat actions and so forth. But when the same gets applied to spell casting - you seem caught up in the utter rigidity of all spells, as if they exist as isolated little pockets of objective RAW fact, somehow unable to be made more difficult by the DM due to environment or other factors, or (on the flipside) able to have reasonable effects or uses outside the bare bones 'RAW'. It's an odd distinction to make.

3. When it comes to improvisation and common sense over Individual rules (like a grapple check, or a spell) RAF is king. I mean you'd probably be complaining if a DM allowed an ogre to pin your wizards hands behind the Wizards back via strength athletics check (imposing the grappled condition and stopping your wizard casting somatic spells) or maybe clamping a big meaty hand on the Wizards mouth with the same, despite both things being perfectly valid and realistic things to happen as 'grapple checks don't stop casting in the RAW'.

Maybe it's the simulationist and story teller in me, but RAW can take a backseat to RAF any day of the week.

[Malifice]

I agree that the dragons in that encounter should have clearly ignored the lesser threats in favor of the greater threat. I think dragons (or any 'smart' creature) should be played to its intellect level.

But if I, as a player, had to say start rolling for something like magic missile (for example) just because you suddenly decide it so I personally would be a bit salty.

You can create situations (like the dragons deciding well lets get that wizard guy) which adds in pressure and complications without suddenly bending the rules of a players magic. Maybe if I were DMing in the situation I'd feel differently than I do now, I just think that suddenly allowing a roll on the spell is unfair to the player. But "life ain't fair" I suppose.

It's not bending the rules of his magic anymore than allowing a firebolt to ignite a campfire is, or adjusting the DC of a skill check due to increased difficulty is. The added skill check requirement (in that particular spells case) is simply reflecting an increased difficulty of taking that one shot. It's up to the player to decide to take the shot or not, and risk having the fireball explode on the outside of the WOF.

It's no different to how a DM adjudicates skill use or combat actions (or any other action). increasing DC, awarding advantage or disadvantage, requiring additional skill checks or attack rolls for success. I'm not sure why it's such a big deal in this one example?

[silveralen]

I don't understand why you think rule 0 is endemic to 5e and only 5e benefits from its use. Rule 0 or variants are written into every rpg system I played so I don't really see why 5e has this huge benefit over all the others, unless you want to count vague and confusing rules where you have to use rule 0 as its design intent?

Did Mearls purposely include Contagion in 5e in its current form just so DMs can exercise their rule 0 muscles and ban/change it?

Allowing DM's and players to make judgement calls is not a design intent. Its baked into the very nature of TTRPGs.

Here is why: Some spells literally do not have a pure RAW version that works with zero interpretation from the DM. These spells require the DM to make a RAI judgment intentionally.

Two common examples of this are forcecage and suggestion.

Forecage specifies no part of the creature may be outside the forcecage. The size section of the player handbook specifically states that size categories are not representative of pure physical dimensions. That means there is no strict 100% RAW answer for what does and doesn't fit in a forcecage outside of occasional monster manual entries that mention specific heights, and even then creatures certainly vary in height.

Suggestion states an action must be reasonable. It gives examples of potential actions that might be reasonable or unreasonable, but the DM is the final arbitrator. No, every action not explicitly mentioned as being unreasonable is not immediately reasonable by RAW, that's not how examples work.

Now, is this good? It can be. It allows a less bogged down game. It can also end badly, when DM's constantly provide incredibly favorable to the point of nonsense rulings. Like a dragon whose reach on all sides equaling 40x35 being always trapped by forcecage, or suggestion being a better version of dominate cast at a lower level. It works great when everyone is out to enjoy themselves, less fun when a player sets out to marginalize and ruin their fellow player's time and the DM actively helps the player do so, but such a table as the latter is typically doomed regardless.

[archaeo]

Now, is this good? It can be. It allows a less bogged down game.

Well, in all fairness, it mostly just moves the bog from the designers' offices to the DM's table, to some extent. In my opinion, said bog is vastly smaller for DMs. A game designer might need to think about every situation and corner case, seeking out a perfect ruling that makes a mechanic do precisely what it is intended to do. By moving a lot of those decisions to the table, the DM can make on-the-fly decisions that are balance within the context of their own game.

This is totally a matter of taste, to wit:

It works great when everyone is out to enjoy themselves, less fun when a player sets out to marginalize and ruin their fellow player's time and the DM actively helps the player do so, but such a table as the latter is typically doomed regardless.

It's just a matter of fact that, no matter how exhaustively one balances and designs a TRPG, each individual table's social dynamic and skill level will have a far greater impact on how the game plays. You can nudge players, you can poke at DMs -- every page of 5e tries to foster a DM-is-the-arbiter dynamic while simultaneously instructing the DM to run the game in a way that maximizes player fun -- but in the end, there is no game that can fix a broken or lopsided social group.

So many of the problems brought up in this thread disappear with even a modicum of good and sensible DMing, the sort of approach modeled by the rules themselves at every opportunity. On the other hand, for some tables, having firm rules that work exactly the same way every time is really important for a whole host of reasons. I tend to believe that 5e's clarity will only improve as the game matures, so for many people, the system is going to be dramatically better this time next year. In the meantime, muddling on is exactly what the system expects.

But y'all can continue arguing, too!

---------------------------

edited to add:

Did Mearls purposely include Contagion in 5e in its current form just so DMs can exercise their rule 0 muscles and ban/change it?

Nah, I think we should all basically agree that contagion is just written incorrectly. Maybe Crawford was having a bad morning, maybe while reading the text he was actually remembering the way he knew it was supposed to work, maybe he got a phone call in the middle of looking at it, etc.

It's a broken spell. The PHB is a huge, ridiculous text that was the final iteration of a writing process that went on for literal years. I'm cool with a few mistakes.

Allowing DM's and players to make judgement calls is not a design intent. Its baked into the very nature of TTRPGs.

I think other people have covered this well, but in my opinion, 5e simply expects the DM to meet them halfway. 3.5/PF has endless tables and text covering every possible part of the simulation, even in the core books; 4e gets out of the way for exploration/interaction while providing M:TG-style combat crunch. Other systems, like FATE, go even further than 5e in leaving a ton of space for the DM to make decisions, or open the decision space up to the players as well.

5e is getting lauded for its "rule 0" approach because it's just obviously baked into the rules at every turn and is very clearly a major part of its design philosophy. Sure, it's a part of every TRPG, but there's a continuum, and 5e is the furthest toward "DM sets the rules" that D&D has been since 2e, probably.

[Forum Explorer]

I agree that the dragons in that encounter should have clearly ignored the lesser threats in favor of the greater threat. I think dragons (or any 'smart' creature) should be played to its intellect level.

But if I, as a player, had to say start rolling for something like magic missile (for example) just because you suddenly decide it so I personally would be a bit salty.

You can create situations (like the dragons deciding well lets get that wizard guy) which adds in pressure and complications without suddenly bending the rules of a players magic. Maybe if I were DMing in the situation I'd feel differently than I do now, I just think that suddenly allowing a roll on the spell is unfair to the player. But "life ain't fair" I suppose.

It's not really bending the rules. It's basically asking for a skill check when things are actually more difficult. Like climbing a rope on a ship is generally just done. No roll, it just happens. But when you are in the middle of a storm and under attack by a kraken? Now you need to make a skill check.

So just throwing a fireball at a dragon or even a dragon taking cover behind a house? No roll needed. Trapping the dragon with a cheezy Wall of Force spell and leaving yourself an inch to launch the fireball through and activate so you can hurt the dragon and it can't do anything? You damn well bet I'm saying you need to make a roll. Nothing else would be fair to the other players, or make for a fun fight. It would just be rewarding you for being a jerk. (Though honestly in that particular situation, I'd rule that the dragon has full cover unless you were within something like 10 feet of distance.)

So it's not suddenly. It's very much in response to a unique scenario, and one that the players likely had part in setting it up.

Nah, I think we should all basically agree that contagion is just written incorrectly. Maybe Crawford was having a bad morning, maybe while reading the text he was actually remembering the way he knew it was supposed to work, maybe he got a phone call in the middle of looking at it, etc.

It's a broken spell. The PHB is a huge, ridiculous text that was the final iteration of a writing process that went on for literal years. I'm cool with a few mistakes.

I think they literally came out and said it was a mistake, and that they intended for the spell to take effect after the target had failed three saves.

[Pex]

The 'Rules of the game' do not exist in as an objective thing. Stop suggesting this. The text of the rules is open to interpretation, and the text itself expressly requires the DM to adjudicate, interpret and improvise actions and rules.



Where is that rule in the RAW? From where I sit, most DM's invoke the rule of 0 to adjudicate actions that dont seem to make sense, or sit outside the boundaries of how the rule in question is supposed to resolve the action. No rule for an action (a spell, skill, attack, or whatever) can fully cover all the different permutations of how, what where when and why (and under what conditions) that action could be performed.

DM interpretation and adjudication is what this edition clearly supports. Look at the whole skill system as a clear example. Its expressly entirely up to DM judgement; not only are example DC's not featured for most tasks, but the very tasks themselves are left up the DM.

Unless you are suggesting that spells should be free from DM intervention, interpretation, improvisation and adjudication for some reason, while every other action is not? Because I disagree. For the same reason it should be perfectly permissable to use a fire bolt to set a tapestry on fire, or try and knock something off a table with an eldritch blast, it should be a lot more difficult to precisely lob a fireball through a very small crack at maximum distance while wounded, blinking in and out of existence, under attack from five dragons and concentrating on a spell holding one of the creatures at bay.

And far from the above 'deviating from RAW', it is simply invoking it.

The bolded part has already had its debate in earlier threads and which some people argue is a bug, not a feature, and thus would not hold weight to your argument. I think the game is ok at all levels, including magic, but the lack of clearly defined rules is what causes the problems some people are having. Using Rule 0 to defend everything is saying 5E is the Oberoni Fallacy edition. Using Rule 0 to make a house rule is fine. Using Rule 0 to claim nothing is broken is not.

[Forum Explorer]

The bolded part has already had its debate in earlier threads and which some people argue is a bug, not a feature, and thus would not hold weight to your argument. I think the game is ok at all levels, including magic, but the lack of clearly defined rules is what causes the problems some people are having. Using Rule 0 to defend everything is saying 5E is the Oberoni Fallacy edition. Using Rule 0 to make a house rule is fine. Using Rule 0 to claim nothing is broken is not.

There needs to be something along the lines of a reverse Oberoni Fallacy. Something like,

"Just because the DM lets you break the game, doesn't mean the game is broken."

[Mara]

There is a difference between rule 0 and having the DM make rulings as appropriate for their game.

I love the 5e skill system. Sure it's not a brilliant construct of intricate mechanics. Instead it is just general guidelines that do all that is really needed to distinguish aptitude. Honestly, 5e skill system is how many DMs ran skills before they memorized all the rules. It's fun, intuitive, and plays to the strength of TTRPGs, having a DM/GM.

If you have perfect rules, then you can just make perfect video games. A TTRPG only needs good guidelines to make a great game.

[Ralanr]

"Just because the DM lets you break the game, doesn't mean the game is broken."

I like this. May I put it in my signature?

If you have perfect rules, then you can just make perfect video games. A TTRPG only needs good guidelines to make a great game.

Why is everyone so obsessed with perfection? Why would anyone want to play a perfect game? That sounds boring to me. Perfection means no improvements, no changes. Something can't be more perfect, it just is.

Perfection is nothing more than a dead end without a tool to carve forward or tweak around with. I'd rather always have my tools.

[Forum Explorer]

I like this. May I put it in my signature?

Go for it.

[SharkForce]

it may not mean the game is definitely broken. but it sure doesn't mean there aren't any problems.

[Ralanr]

it may not mean the game is definitely broken. but it sure doesn't mean there aren't any problems.

There are always problems. Tables deal with them differently. No one (I'm guessing) is playing 100% RAW.

[ekestrel]

I'm actually somewhat grateful to you all for this thread, as I was checking on 5e for when I'm back somewhere where I can tabletop again.

I then saw the rules-lawyering and powergaming going on here that happened at my old table.

Suffice to say, I'm not nearly as inclined to try to find a group anytime soon.

In fact, the only one addressing the core issue of this thread in the last ten pages is this dude right here:

I want to make sure I'm tracking here.

To sum up: the game holds up fairly well at high levels. Maybe. Unless it doesn't, in which case it's again Angel Summoner and BMX Bandit. Only Angel Summoner can only summon one angel instead of all of heaven's hordes, and BMX Bandit's bike was built by Tony Stark. And Angel Summoner gets squished fairly easily without BMX Bandit. Sound right?

To get back on track, can anyone tell me a little about their experiences with a mid- to high-level ranger?

[Forum Explorer]

I'm actually somewhat grateful to you all for this thread, as I was checking on 5e for when I'm back somewhere where I can tabletop again.

I then saw the rules-lawyering and powergaming going on here that happened at my old table.

Suffice to say, I'm not nearly as inclined to try to find a group anytime soon.

In fact, the only one addressing the core issue of this thread in the last ten pages is this dude right here:



To get back on track, can anyone tell me a little about their experiences with a mid- to high-level ranger?

The powergamey style is atypical for this edition, in my experience and what I've heard, and the rules lawyering stuff was mostly because an argument that got way out of hand about a wizards power (with the claim being they outshined all martial classes by a massive amount unless RAW was being broken by the DM)

Basically don't get discouraged, that crap shouldn't actually happen at a table.


Are you talking Beastmaster or Hunter? Because from what I've heard, Beastmaster actually does pretty well for damage and utility (from spells) in the mid game. No personal experience on the matter, sorry.

[Gwendol]

I have a little experience with playing hunter ranger archers. They are a little tricky what with class features hidden among the spells, but you'll figure it out.
On the ground they're great: solid in combat and with some utility especially outdoors.

[silveralen]

To get back on track, can anyone tell me a little about their experiences with a mid- to high-level ranger?

Ranger is hard to say. I haven't played one but I've seen one in play. It's the class I'm most torn about. Certain abilities (hide in plain sight and primeval awareness) just don't seem to work in any useful manner without some house rules, and combat wise they are very swingy due to things like swift quiver only working for ranged Rangers and doubling the number of single target attacks at high levels.

It is also the one class you can pretty much build a better version of with very little work. Mixing fighter+valor bard/rogue feels more functional and less gimmicky imo.

[Mara]

Well I do not have much experience playing at high levels. All I can say is that I am far more likely to play a 5e ranger than I ever was a 3.5 or PF ranger.

[Gwendol]

I've played and DM'd rangers in 3.X as well, and that was harder. Not that they weren't ok classes, but archery was harder, the pet was an afterthought, etc.
This iteration has some really cool features, and some more lackluster.

[ekestrel]

Are you talking Beastmaster or Hunter? Because from what I've heard, Beastmaster actually does pretty well for damage and utility (from spells) in the mid game. No personal experience on the matter, sorry.

Thanks for the replies, all.

I was looking at Hunter, because of the subpar pet performance in 3.x, and because I rarely feel like having a pet seems to contribute much to the story of the character. (Though Sagani from Pillars of Eternity has an excellent pet that flows well with her backstory). From what I've read, pet HP is pretty low at higher levels and they need some careful micromanaging.

Basically, I've read folks dismissing ranger in favor of full casters or martials, which makes me wonder if the character would perform better as a ranged-oriented fighter instead, as previous groups (as mentioned) tended to be munchkin-filled. Any notes on commonly used house rules or fixes?

[Gnomes2169]

I have a few ranger houserules in my signature if you wanted to look at them, just as an attempt to close the gap between them and more typical class power levels. Alternately, you could try taking a look at the no-magic ranger variant in the most recent UA article since that one seems to give a small boost to the ranger over-all (though it steps on the battlemaster's toes a bit much)

[Xetheral]

Well I do not have much experience playing at high levels. All I can say is that I am far more likely to play a 5e ranger than I ever was a 3.5 or PF ranger.

I've played and DM'd rangers in 3.X as well, and that was harder. Not that they weren't ok classes, but archery was harder, the pet was an afterthought, etc.
This iteration has some really cool features, and some more lackluster.

I disagree. Particularly as 3.5 publishing was wrapping up, I found more and more of my characters wanted to include either a splash or a significant investment in Ranger levels. There were just so many ACFs and possible substitutions available (both mechanically and thematically) to tweak a fantastic chassis into whatever one wanted.

In 5th edition, I find Ranger 5 an attractive way to get Extra Attack on a gish spellcaster, and most martials I build would benefit a lot from Horde Breaker (but usually have more immediate needs). Other than that though, I see very little reason to play as the class, particularly not if the game is starting at 1st level, where the Ranger gets almost nothing.

[ekestrel]

I have a few ranger houserules in my signature if you wanted to look at them, just as an attempt to close the gap between them and more typical class power levels. Alternately, you could try taking a look at the no-magic ranger variant in the most recent UA article since that one seems to give a small boost to the ranger over-all (though it steps on the battlemaster's toes a bit much)

Hm, some interesting stuff there to consider. Thank you.

[archaeo]

I'm actually somewhat grateful to you all for this thread, as I was checking on 5e for when I'm back somewhere where I can tabletop again.

I then saw the rules-lawyering and powergaming going on here that happened at my old table.

Suffice to say, I'm not nearly as inclined to try to find a group anytime soon.

In all fairness, you are 15 pages deep in a thread that's just about arguing at this point. I'm completely sure that most of what's being said here isn't at all representative of the 5e playerbase as a whole, nor is it really representative of how people are going to handle the rules. It's easy to argue about what's written in the book; at the table, the whole thing works a lot more smoothly.