D&D 5E 5E imbalance: Don't want to play it

[Ichneumon]

I'm not sure how this post applies to anything I've posted in this thread, can you point out specifics?

It was about constructive criticism in general, not specifically about you.

 

[Lanefan]

[MENTION=83996]Lokiare[/MENTION] - in the same post when replying to my point you said:

Anyone can role play a complex or simple character with or without the rules, which is why we focus on the rules. What is 'more to a character than just its rule-based game mechanics' is brought by the player, not the rules. WotC brings the rules to us and for the most part we can't change them with sweeping changes if we want any kind of consistency from table to table:

"Yeah, I played a fighter that flipped around the battlefield dual wielding great axes and slicing monsters in half if I rolled 18-20 on the dice. 5E is great."

"Huh, that's not my experience. I could only move or attack when using my one great sword. I would drop it on a 1-5 on the roll because it was so heavy and I rarely hit because the DM said my attacks were slow. My character eventually died of a heart attack because of too much exertion."

Later, when replying to someone else's point you said:

Look. I'm trying to salvage my play style from the next version of the game (which is supposed to support all play styles).

Your two examples in response to me clearly represent (the extreme ends of) two different playstyles, which is kind of the point in that 5e is in theory intended to support all kinds of different styles. Yet you present them as part of a complaint that there may not be consistency from table to table....er, huh?

Personally if I'm running or playing in a 5e game (or a game in any 'e' for that matter) the only table I care about is the one I'm sitting at right then and there. How Joe down the street or Bob across town are running/playing the same edition is irrelevant.

In fact, I'd go a step further and say that if there aren't somewhat significant differences within 5e from one table to the next then the designers have failed; as part of the point is to be able to take the base game and morph/twist/kitbash it into your own.

======

Different topics raised within same thread:

"Squares" as a unit of measurement are hideous. Use feet for everything, let circles be round as the game world should not be in 5' (or worse, 10') pixels, and make pieces of measuring string your friend.

"Freeze frame" combat is the inevitable awful outcome of a strictly turn-based combat system where only one participant is assumed to be doing anything while everyone else freezes in place. Far better is to clearly state (as is done in 1e) that people are in motion all the time and the combat roll merely sums up the round's worth of actions at the best opportune moment. Strictly cyclical initiative is another culprit here, in reality everyone's "best opportune moment" would not come up in the same exact sequence time after time!

Lan-"still waiting for my initiative to come up"-efan

 

[Hussar]

"Squares" as a unit of measurement are hideous. Use feet for everything, let circles be round as the game world should not be in 5' (or worse, 10') pixels, and make pieces of measuring string your friend.

Meh, this one is something that bothers me not one whit. Pixelated circles make almost no difference from round ones and are significantly easier to use. This is one thing that 4e got very right. Square fireballs might seem strange, but, in play, are so, so much easier to use.

"Freeze frame" combat is the inevitable awful outcome of a strictly turn-based combat system where only one participant is assumed to be doing anything while everyone else freezes in place. Far better is to clearly state (as is done in 1e) that people are in motion all the time and the combat roll merely sums up the round's worth of actions at the best opportune moment. Strictly cyclical initiative is another culprit here, in reality everyone's "best opportune moment" would not come up in the same exact sequence time after time!

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...nce-Don-t-want-to-play-it/page9#ixzz2tTzuhwOP

Meh, they might have stated that in 1e, but that's certainly not the way it's played. 1e is every bit as "freeze frame" as any other edition.

The only way to break out of "freeze frame" is to allow players to take actions during other player's turns. Which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.

 

[Lokiare]

@Lokiare - in the same post when replying to my point you said:


Later, when replying to someone else's point you said:
Your two examples in response to me clearly represent (the extreme ends of) two different playstyles, which is kind of the point in that 5e is in theory intended to support all kinds of different styles. Yet you present them as part of a complaint that there may not be consistency from table to table....er, huh?

Personally if I'm running or playing in a 5e game (or a game in any 'e' for that matter) the only table I care about is the one I'm sitting at right then and there. How Joe down the street or Bob across town are running/playing the same edition is irrelevant.

In fact, I'd go a step further and say that if there aren't somewhat significant differences within 5e from one table to the next then the designers have failed; as part of the point is to be able to take the base game and morph/twist/kitbash it into your own.

======

Different topics raised within same thread:

"Squares" as a unit of measurement are hideous. Use feet for everything, let circles be round as the game world should not be in 5' (or worse, 10') pixels, and make pieces of measuring string your friend.

"Freeze frame" combat is the inevitable awful outcome of a strictly turn-based combat system where only one participant is assumed to be doing anything while everyone else freezes in place. Far better is to clearly state (as is done in 1e) that people are in motion all the time and the combat roll merely sums up the round's worth of actions at the best opportune moment. Strictly cyclical initiative is another culprit here, in reality everyone's "best opportune moment" would not come up in the same exact sequence time after time!

Lan-"still waiting for my initiative to come up"-efan

Your mistake here is in assuming the two examples I gave were play styles, instead they are extreme examples of DM's house ruling.

Its an entirely different thing to say "here read this 383 page book of house rules we use at this table." than it is to say "We are using the Tactical options". Where that entails using pre-tested and approved specific changes to the rules that will be consistent from table to table that chooses to use the Tactical options. So all I have to look for is a game that says "We use the Tactical options." and that's it instead of going table to table and reading each one's huge book of house rules.

 

[ExploderWizard]

Meh, they might have stated that in 1e, but that's certainly not the way it's played. 1e is every bit as "freeze frame" as any other edition.

The only way to break out of "freeze frame" is to allow players to take actions during other player's turns. Which opens up a whole 'nother can of worms.

If you will look at what you said there and square it with AD&D/OD&D initiative rules then you will see it doesn't make a lot of sense.

There is no concept of "player X's turn". Initiative is rolled per side and when during a particular side's turn an individual gets to act depends on what they are doing. Also a given side may lose initiative one turn and win it on the next, effectively giving that side the chance to act twice before their opponents can respond. Such is the chaotic nature of combat.

 

[Hussar]

It's been a long time but isn't rerolling initiative a 2e thing. B/E didn't use it and iirc 1e didn't either.

But looking at the initiative rules they are totally freeze frame. I shoot arrows you shoot arrows. I move and attack you move and attack. Wash, rinse, repeat.

IOW no one takes any actions outside of their turn. Besides a possible attack if someone retreats.

 

[Lanefan]

It's been a long time but isn't rerolling initiative a 2e thing. B/E didn't use it and iirc 1e didn't either.

But looking at the initiative rules they are totally freeze frame. I shoot arrows you shoot arrows. I move and attack you move and attack. Wash, rinse, repeat.

IOW no one takes any actions outside of their turn. Besides a possible attack if someone retreats.

The assumption, however, is that things are still happening during other peoples' turns; if I'm a fighter in an open field in combat with a thief, for example, the thief can't step around and backstrike me because the assumption is that I can turn and follow his progress even though it's not "my turn". If my action is to move and the magic-user's action is to cast a lightning bolt we need to figure out whether I've just stepped into his blast or not. And so on. (this last example is one of many reasons we went to individual initiatives in 1e rather than init.-by-side - if my action is to move and my initiative is 'x' then I'm assumed to get where I'm going on my init. and it's pretty easy to figure out where I am at init. x-1, x-2 and so on in case anything happens to me en route)

The dice rolling is freeze frame in 1e, the intent (as stated in the DMG) is that the actions by the characters are much more flowing. 3e as written lost this free flow, leading to occasional silly situations I've mentioned before on these boards.

Lanefan

 

[M.L. Martin]

I would remind folks that the man in charge of D&D is a man famous for his 3E supplement that made martial characters badass. The Chicken Little approach to martial imbalances in 5E is very illogical.

The man in charge is also somewhat notorious for having radically shifted on what he says D&D should be like over the years.

On the original topic, it's the kind of stuff shown off in last summer's demo and the ghoul encounter therein that worries me.

 

[Hussar]

Lanefan- the same assumptions apply in 3e as well. That's why you can't run around and sneak attack.

There may have been assumptions about the action but there is no actual support for those assumptions.

 

[pemerton]

Lokiare, your whole premise is that 5e contains 'imbalances' that make you not want to play it.

All I've heard so far are system differences, not imbalances. Just becuase D&D Next has things that are different from 4e, does not mean they are imbalanced. I'd love to hear and discuss some actual imbalances you percieve are in the game. Things like classes doing too much damage, spells that are too powerful, builds or combinations that are abusive and overpowered, etc.

What can you tell me about Polymorph. Even with the latest Rule of 3 answer, it still looks broken to me as an attack spell.

Web, Stinking Cloud, etc, are much harder to land than expected (Web especially). The amount of saves creatures get, as well as concentration, as well as the specific spell requirements make the spells far more situational (and prone to failure).

Why is Web hard to land? At 3rd level the save DC is 10+stat - let's say 13, or 14 at 4th level.

Looking through some typical low level monsters (kobolds, goblins, hobgoblins, gnolls, carnivorous apes, orcs) I saw DEX bonuses from +0 to +2. That's a 50% chance or better at being restrained, which looks like fairly good control to me.

What am I missing?

(Likewise for Stinking Cloud, although a lot of creatures seem to have higher CON than DEX.)