D&D 5E Action Types - Rules As Written

[Horwath]

See this? This right here? This is what I'm talking about. Guess what, remove the 1/2 per level and you get 5e. Instead of a treadmill, you get flat math where you start on the treadmill at 1st level and never get off. Your odds of success barely change from 1st to 20th level. Which, in play, is pretty much exactly the way 4e worked. But, because they phrase it differently, people think it's a big change.

Every class was the same. Unlike now where 33 out of the 36 classes cast spells. Yeah, that's a HUGE difference.

No, it is not.

If you take away +1/2 per level then at 10th level, 1st level orc is still a threat. maybe not one, but 5 are.
But with added +5 attack and +5 AC, 10 orcs are a pushover.

About spell casting in 5e.

Yes, lot's of classes have spells, but they cast it at diferent power level, get them at a different rate and different number.

 

[John Brebeuf]

It's actually really, really amusing to me to watch people try to say how much they hated 4e while loving 5e at the same time.

I wonder if part of the reason is that combat in 5e takes a fraction of the time to resolve as it did in 4e, which would also indicate that the mechanics are not as similar as you make it out.

 

[Ganymede81]

We've had years of Crawford providing feedback and clarification on these issues. This is not exactly untrodden ground.

 

[5ekyu]

No, it is not.

If you take away +1/2 per level then at 10th level, 1st level orc is still a threat. maybe not one, but 5 are.
But with added +5 attack and +5 AC, 10 orcs are a pushover.

About spell casting in 5e.

Yes, lot's of classes have spells, but they cast it at diferent power level, get them at a different rate and different number.

Also frankly the distinction of "uses spells" vs " not uses spells" is more ephemeral than substantive.

There is only flavor and depiction separating barbarian rage and casting a spell.

The use of a few common frameworks/containers to package abilities into while filling those containers with thematic packages reduces the mechanical overhead greatly.

A gm can easily envision and depict divine "spells" as "blessings" and ranger or druid spells as animistic conjurations etc if they want it to be more distinct.



Sent from my VS995 using EN World mobile app

 

[DEFCON 1]

If a person insists on using Rules As Written... then determines that characters are only allowed to speak on their own turns... and then the person finds it ridiculous that they CAN'T speak on other character's turns and that it's a stupid rule...

...perhaps that person shouldn't think playing Rules As Written is anything worth doing in the first place.

You aren't awarded any points from any scorekeeper-on-high for playing Rules As Written rather than your own interpretation of Rules As Intended or Rules As Fun. So if playing RAW results in situations you don't like... then just don't worry about playing RAW. You'll be happier and nobody else cares one way or the other how you do it anyway.

 

[jaelis]

In 5e, the rules as written for when a character can do things, sometimes seems vague, odd, or incomplete.

Neat thing about living in modern times is that you can hop on the computer and see a ton of videos of expert DMs running enjoyable games. So if you have real confusion about what kind of approach to take, you can see some examples of how they work to help decide.

OTOH if you would prefer restrictive rules that are more like a computer game or chess, then you can either modify 5e to suit or look for a different system that works better for what you want. The base game isn't really written that way.

 

[Charlaquin]

I wonder if part of the reason is that combat in 5e takes a fraction of the time to resolve as it did in 4e, which would also indicate that the mechanics are not as similar as you make it out.

4e combats took longer because hp totals were much higher, there were more abilities that focused on manipulating positions on a grid, and the encounter building guidelines were written for groups of multiple enemies to be the rule rather than the exception. The length of combat had almost nothing to do with the mechanics of 4e’s action economy. A lot of people blame multiple off-turn actions, but in practice that came up a lot less often than people make it out to have done. Apart from being limited to one Reaction per round and movement being a resource instead of a type of action, 5e’s action economy is almost identical to 4e’s, it’s just written in a way that attempts to hide that fact (and apparently succeeds for many people).

No, it is not.

If you take away +1/2 per level then at 10th level, 1st level orc is still a threat. maybe not one, but 5 are.

Just like in 5e, which I’m pretty sure was Hussar’s point.

About spell casting in 5e.

Yes, lot's of classes have spells, but they cast it at diferent power level, get them at a different rate and different number.

Every class’ Proficiency Bonus scales at the same rate. Every spellcasting class except the Warlock uses the same spell slots by level table, and the partial casters advance on it on every other or every third level. Every class gives ability Score increases every 4 levels.

More importantly, just because every class got Powers of the same frequency of use at the same levels (and even that’s a dubious statement because utility powers could be at-will, encounter, or daily) doesn’t mean every class actually played the same. And on top of that, Essentials even broke that mold, every Essentials character has its own progression, getting different powers of different categories at different levels, and even getting class features that weren’t powers at all at several levels. Anyone who still says all 4e classes were the same clearly didn’t play much 4e.

Again, there are a lot of reasons people disliked 4e. Many of them are poorly founded. Can we please not have this argument in this thread?

 

[cmad1977]

I’m not seeing the vagueness.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Imaro]

See this? This right here? This is what I'm talking about. Guess what, remove the 1/2 per level and you get 5e. Instead of a treadmill, you get flat math where you start on the treadmill at 1st level and never get off. Your odds of success barely change from 1st to 20th level. Which, in play, is pretty much exactly the way 4e worked. But, because they phrase it differently, people think it's a big change.

Wait... what??
In 5e...

a 20th level character with a score of 10-15 and proficiency bonus still has a chance to fail a DC 10 check.
a 20th level character with a score of 10-20 and no proficiency bonus still has a chance to fail a DC 10 check.
a 20th level character with a score of 16+ and proficiency bonus will auto-succeed on a DC 10 check.

In 4e...

a 20th level character with a score of 10-15 and trained bonus auto-succeeds a DC 10 check.
a 20th level character with a score of 10-20 and no trained bonus still auto-succeeds a DC 10 check.
a 20th level character with a score of 16+ and trained bonus will auto-succeed on a DC 10 check.

How are these chances of success the same??

Every class was the same. Unlike now where 33 out of the 36 classes cast spells. Yeah, that's a HUGE difference.

Eh, the spellcasitng thing has already been addressed by other posters but there's also the fact that resources are gained and expended differently depending on the class, spell lists are different depending on the class... even among the spellcasters.

 

[jaelis]

4e vs 5e arguments are funny. I wonder if the ice cream forums still have flame wars about chocolate vs vanilla?