D&D 5E Considering "taking the 5th" (Edition); questions for those more experienced.

[Blackbird71]

First, a little background as a way of introduction (feel free to skip down a couple of paragraphs if you don't care about this part; plus the gist of the post is summed up in the final paragraph in case you have an attention span less suited for a Robert Jordan novel of a post): I cut my gaming teeth on 2nd Edition (I know, 2E gets a lot of flak, but I enjoyed it). When 3 and 3.5 rolled around, I didn't have an active group, so I experienced those mostly through computer games (such as Neverwinter Nights). I started getting back into gaming around the time that 4th came on the scene, and after a disappointing few months with that, went over to Pathfinder and have been there ever since.

Now I find myself preparing to start a new campaign, and looking for a good system to support it. while I have enjoyed my time with Pathfinder, it has its issues. Personally, I've always felt the mechanics of the 3.0/3.5/PF system were better suited to computer games than tabletop, as they have so many calculations and fiddly bits which are handled so much easier by a computer than a player or DM. Also, the heavy reliance on vast amounts of magical gear annoys me.

I've been asking myself whether 5E might be right for me and my campaign. So far, my only experience with 5th has been reading through the free PDFs as well as several reviews and discussions online. I've never actually played with any of it, so while I could say I have a passing familiarity with the basics, I'm still missing a lot of detail which could make a big difference. So now I turn to online forums in hopes that those who know more than I can help.

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world? As I understand it, 5th edition characters are a lot less reliant on magic items to maintain an appropriate power level (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not too concerned on that front. However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities. I understand that there are a lot of options with how characters are built, and taking different paths will give different abilities of different natures, but in not knowing the specifics I don't have a grasp of how prevalent these magical paths are. Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability? Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability? Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety? This alone is probably the issue that will determine whether I convert over to using 5E.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

In my experience, some of the most memorable moments at the table, the sort of moments that you talk about for years, often include those times when the party is outmatched and in a bad spot, the villain has the upper hand, and everything comes down to one roll. The players know that their chances are slim, as the only way they can succeed is if they manage to roll a crit. It's a long shot, but it's their best hope. One player tosses the die, and... natural 20! Almost certain defeat has been turned into a victory! Yes, it is a rare situation, and even rarer that it works out in the players' favor, but at a 1/20 chance it is still enough within the realm of possibility to offer hope, and to be thrilling when it happens.

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance - a near impossibility that a disadvantaged natural 20 would coincide with such a critical moment. Maybe I misunderstand how disadvantage will be used, or maybe I missed a change to the crit system. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but if I'm not I feel that many potentially epic moments will be lost. It may not be enough on its own to turn me from 5E entirely, but I would mourn the loss of future memories.

Is the Advantage/Disadvantage system a part of the rules that can be omitted in favor of something else? Or can anyone who has played the system offer some encouragement or clarification as to why it may not be as bad as I am expecting?

Thanks for your patience with my long-windedness. I suppose the condensed version of this post would be: 1) Does 5th Edition work well with a low magic/rare caster campaign, and 2) does "Disadvantage" really rob players of those epic "one crit saves the day" moments? I'd really appreciate any input, advice, or feedback that can be offered.

 

[pukunui]

Personally, I've always felt the mechanics of the 3.0/3.5/PF system were better suited to computer games than tabletop, as they have so many calculations and fiddly bits which are handled so much easier by a computer than a player or DM.

This is precisely why the advantage/disadvantage mechanic exists.

1) Does 5th Edition work well with a low magic/rare caster campaign

Absolutely. If you don't want the PCs to have access to lots of magic, limit what subclasses the PCs can take. Otherwise, you can say the world is low magic in general but the party happens to be an exception to that, as it is a group of rare individuals who have come together to pool their rare magical talents. Either way works.

... and 2) does "Disadvantage" really rob players of those epic "one crit saves the day" moments?

Not at all. In fact, it can make those moments even more epic. One of the other players in one of my groups rolled a natural 20 on an attack roll. Then someone reminded him he had disadvantage. So he rolled again ... and got another natural 20!

Also, I think you're reading too much into the mechanic. "Being disadvantaged" does not automatically impose disadvantage on a roll. There are specific things in the game that trigger advantage or disadvantage, and the DM can also apply them as s/he sees fit.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance - a near impossibility that a disadvantaged natural 20 would coincide with such a critical moment. Maybe I misunderstand how disadvantage will be used, or maybe I missed a change to the crit system. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but if I'm not I feel that many potentially epic moments will be lost. It may not be enough on its own to turn me from 5E entirely, but I would mourn the loss of future memories.

Is the Advantage/Disadvantage system a part of the rules that can be omitted in favor of something else? Or can anyone who has played the system offer some encouragement or clarification as to why it may not be as bad as I am expecting?

I would honestly give it a try before you dismiss it. It sounds like you're losing a lot, because you can't stack modifiers, but it more than makes up for it with ease of use. I was in exactly your position, before I ran a campaign with it, and saw how well it worked out.

Since Disadvantage doesn't stack with anything, it's almost impossible to find yourself in a 1/400 situation. Because of Bounded Accuracy, it's highly unlikely that you'll find yourself in a situation where you need a 20 on the die to succeed. Almost everything grants Disadvantage, and almost nothing increases the DC of a check by a flat amount.

It's more likely that you'll find yourself in a 1/16 situation or a 1/25 situation, because you need 16 or 17 on the die and you have Disadvantage.

 

[SilverfireSage]

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world? As I understand it, 5th edition characters are a lot less reliant on magic items to maintain an appropriate power level (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not too concerned on that front.

Luckily for you, not even the designers plan for the PCs to have magic items. All the math in the DM's Guide and the Monster Manual are done magic item free.

However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities.

Every class except for the Barbarian and Rogue have access to some spells. However, these are only found in specific subclasses, so you could always ban those subclasses.

Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability?

The default party configuration is Fighter, Rogue, Cleric, Wizard, so yeah, that would be completely reasonable, and even expected.

Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability? Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety?

They would function perfectly well. None of them presume magical ability. Only one subclass for each of the main "non magic" classes has magical abilities, so you should be fine cutting them out. Shouldn't be a problem at all.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

Characters are only disadvantaged at specific points by specific conditions. It happens maybe once an encounter for me and my group, and I award Advantage to both sides far more often than Disadvantage.

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance - a near impossibility that a disadvantaged natural 20 would coincide with such a critical moment. Maybe I misunderstand how disadvantage will be used, or maybe I missed a change to the crit system. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but if I'm not I feel that many potentially epic moments will be lost. It may not be enough on its own to turn me from 5E entirely, but I would mourn the loss of future memories.

I wouldn't worry about it. Disadvantage happens rarely. We've had many epic moments in my campaign due to well rolled 20s.

 

[Zelc]

Think of (dis)advantage as replacing those finicky +/- 2 bonuses. You get advantage for attacking someone prone in melee. You have disadvantage attacking someone you can't see. Etc.

 

[Blackbird71]

This is precisely why the advantage/disadvantage mechanic exists.

That part I understand, which is why I'm not completely opposed to the idea. I just feel that the mechanic itself severely penalizes disadvantaged players by moving the chance for a critical success further out of reach in a way that flat bonuses/penalties never would.

Absolutely. If you don't want the PCs to have access to lots of magic, limit what subclasses the PCs can take. Otherwise, you can say the world is low magic in general but the party happens to be an exception to that, as it is a group of rare individuals who have come together to pool their rare magical talents. Either way works.

So if I were to limit which subclasses can be taken, or limit the number of players that can take magical subclasses, are there still enough choices and variety to go around? Or will I be cutting out a significant portion of the choices available and leaving each class with (for example) only one subclass to choose?

Not at all. In fact, it can make those moments even more epic. One of the other players in one of my groups rolled a natural 20 on an attack roll. Then someone reminded him he had disadvantage. So he rolled again ... and got another natural 20!

Yes, I can see the excitement in such a moment, but that doesn't change the fact that those moments are now 20 times less likely to happen. If something only has a 1/400 chance of success (as opposed to 1/20), then it tends to build a lot less hope and anticipation, as no one expects it to succeed. It is definitely more surprising when it happens, but the build up is a big part of what makes those moments special. Having them occur 20 times less frequently

Also, I think you're reading too much into the mechanic. "Being disadvantaged" does not automatically impose disadvantage on a roll. There are specific things in the game that trigger advantage or disadvantage, and the DM can also apply them as s/he sees fit.

I probably am, which is why I ask. What I've read so far hasn't been entirely clear on what exactly constitutes and advantage or disadvantage (although it does seem that there can be many factors).

Thanks for the response!

 

[redrick]

First, a little background as a way of introduction (feel free to skip down a couple of paragraphs if you don't care about this part; plus the gist of the post is summed up in the final paragraph in case you have an attention span less suited for a Robert Jordan novel of a post): I cut my gaming teeth on 2nd Edition (I know, 2E gets a lot of flak, but I enjoyed it). When 3 and 3.5 rolled around, I didn't have an active group, so I experienced those mostly through computer games (such as Neverwinter Nights). I started getting back into gaming around the time that 4th came on the scene, and after a disappointing few months with that, went over to Pathfinder and have been there ever since.

Now I find myself preparing to start a new campaign, and looking for a good system to support it. while I have enjoyed my time with Pathfinder, it has its issues. Personally, I've always felt the mechanics of the 3.0/3.5/PF system were better suited to computer games than tabletop, as they have so many calculations and fiddly bits which are handled so much easier by a computer than a player or DM. Also, the heavy reliance on vast amounts of magical gear annoys me.

I've been asking myself whether 5E might be right for me and my campaign. So far, my only experience with 5th has been reading through the free PDFs as well as several reviews and discussions online. I've never actually played with any of it, so while I could say I have a passing familiarity with the basics, I'm still missing a lot of detail which could make a big difference. So now I turn to online forums in hopes that those who know more than I can help.

My chief concern is of how well the system will work with my campaign world. The campaign is intended to be low magic, a setting in which arcane casters and magic items are a rarity. Divine casters are somewhat less rare, but still a very uncommon occurrence. How well would 5E support such a world? As I understand it, 5th edition characters are a lot less reliant on magic items to maintain an appropriate power level (correct me if I'm wrong), so I'm not too concerned on that front. However, I have seen a lot of character examples in which classes that I would not normally associate with magic by default have some level of casting abilities. I understand that there are a lot of options with how characters are built, and taking different paths will give different abilities of different natures, but in not knowing the specifics I don't have a grasp of how prevalent these magical paths are. Would it be possible or even reasonable in 5th to have a party of six players with only one character among them who has access to arcane spells? And one with full access to divine, or maybe two with limited divine ability? Can rogues, fighters, etc. be played completely without any magical ability? Would placing such restrictions on a group severely limit character options, or does 5th give enough non-magical choices for characters to still offer some variety? This alone is probably the issue that will determine whether I convert over to using 5E.

While not nearly as pressing of an issue, I did have another concern with one 5th Edition mechanic I had been reading about: the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I don't think I've read a single bad thing about this system, and from what I've seen it seems to be universally liked as a useful simplification over previous systems (which is a good thing). I understand the basic mechanics of it (roll 2d20, use higher or lower depending on situation), but I admit I don't have a good knowledge of what all determines advantage or disadvantage. That may color my perception, but as I see it the game loses something in this mechanic.

In my experience, some of the most memorable moments at the table, the sort of moments that you talk about for years, often include those times when the party is outmatched and in a bad spot, the villain has the upper hand, and everything comes down to one roll. The players know that their chances are slim, as the only way they can succeed is if they manage to roll a crit. It's a long shot, but it's their best hope. One player tosses the die, and... natural 20! Almost certain defeat has been turned into a victory! Yes, it is a rare situation, and even rarer that it works out in the players' favor, but at a 1/20 chance it is still enough within the realm of possibility to offer hope, and to be thrilling when it happens.

With the Advantage/Disadvantage system, I think that moments like this will be lost. It seems to me that if the players are in a tough situation, they are likely to be disadvantaged, and as such that 1/20 chance gets turned into a 1/400 chance - a near impossibility that a disadvantaged natural 20 would coincide with such a critical moment. Maybe I misunderstand how disadvantage will be used, or maybe I missed a change to the crit system. I'd be happy to be wrong about this, but if I'm not I feel that many potentially epic moments will be lost. It may not be enough on its own to turn me from 5E entirely, but I would mourn the loss of future memories.

Is the Advantage/Disadvantage system a part of the rules that can be omitted in favor of something else? Or can anyone who has played the system offer some encouragement or clarification as to why it may not be as bad as I am expecting?

Thanks for your patience with my long-windedness. I suppose the condensed version of this post would be: 1) Does 5th Edition work well with a low magic/rare caster campaign, and 2) does "Disadvantage" really rob players of those epic "one crit saves the day" moments? I'd really appreciate any input, advice, or feedback that can be offered.

Re: casters, 5e definitely has a lot of caster classes. That being said, you can certainly deal with this by just banning those classes and subclasses outright, if that's what works for your table. The game does a very good job at allowing "unbalanced" parties a decent shot at success, so, if your players are cool with the non-magical options, they will still be a viable party. You can also check out this thread for ideas on allowing arcane player characters, but trying to modify them to keep a more "magic is rare feel": Low magic player characters in D&D 5e.

Fighters and Rogues both work out of the box without any divine magic. Wizards recently published a suggested variant to the Ranger which does not have any spell-casting. You can read about it in their Unearthed Arcana column. The barbarian has some quasi-magical properties, as does the monk. It's up to you as to whether or not those fit in your world. The bard is a full caster in this edition, as are, obviously, Wizards, Warlocks, Sorcerers and Clerics. (Paladins are still Paladins as well, but they're no more or less cast-y than their predecessors.) Banning casters outright will certainly mean taking a bunch of classes of the table, but you don't need them.

As for advantage. You can still get the "need to crit!" situation. Advantage and disadvantage are common, but they are related to specific tactical concerns, not general "you're outnumbered and at a disadvantage." Basically, advantage comes from things like: attacking while hidden, attacking a prone enemy with a melee weapon, attacking an enemy who is restrained (I think), having some spell or class feature that grants advantage in a specific circumstance, and, sometimes, DM fiat. Disadvantage is a similar list. Generally speaking, the DM would only grant situational advantage/disadvantage when a character is significantly hampered by their environment. For instance, you might give disadvantage to somebody attacking an opponent standing above them (say on a ledge), or attacking while swinging from a rope, or simply attempting to do something that seems particularly tricky.

So, yes, if you are restrained and attacking a monster that you can only hit on a natural 20, you will have a very low chance of success. Most of the time, however, these "against the odds" moments just come up because of being outnumbered, out of resources, or otherwise in a tight spot.

Advantage is considered roughly equivalent to a +5 bonus, but replacing the roll with the bonus will cause lots of problems in the upper and lower bounds of difficulty classes. Basically, advantage is one of the tools that allows "bounded accuracy" (ie a fairly tight range of difficulty classes, allowing any character some marginal chance of success, even against high level challenges) to function. I would recommend giving it a spin, and I think you'll find it works very intuitively and doesn't do anything to take away from those nail-biting moments.

 

[pukunui]

That part I understand, which is why I'm not completely opposed to the idea. I just feel that the mechanic itself severely penalizes disadvantaged players by moving the chance for a critical success further out of reach in a way that flat bonuses/penalties never would.

Speaking as someone who has played with both static modifiers and the advantage/disadvantage mechanic, I would pick the latter every single time. Yes, statistically, disadvantage greatly reduces your chances of success. However, because there is no actual mechanical penalty to the roll, you can still theoretically roll high enough to succeed with both dice that it doesn't matter that you had disadvantage.

Also, there are plenty of ways to gain advantage to cancel out the disadvantage as well.

So if I were to limit which subclasses can be taken, or limit the number of players that can take magical subclasses, are there still enough choices and variety to go around? Or will I be cutting out a significant portion of the choices available and leaving each class with (for example) only one subclass to choose?

I think it would be fine.

Barbarian: Totem barbarians can cast speak with animals and commune with nature as rituals. If that bothers you, you could always refluff it so they're gaining the effects of those spells without actually using any magic.

Fighter: Eldritch knight is the only subclass that uses magic. Champion and Battlemaster are still perfectly viable options.

Monk: Monks would be limited to the Way of the Open Hand, as both the ninja and the bender use magic.

Ranger: WotC recently released a "spell-less" variant for the ranger.

Rogue: The arcane trickster is the only magical rogue subclass. The thief and the assassin are still options.

 

[Blackbird71]

Since Disadvantage doesn't stack with anything, it's almost impossible to find yourself in a 1/400 situation. Because of Bounded Accuracy, it's highly unlikely that you'll find yourself in a situation where you need a 20 on the die to succeed. Almost everything grants Disadvantage, and almost nothing increases the DC of a check by a flat amount.

So it sounds like there are other mechanics in place to help mitigate some of these extremes; that is good to know, thanks.

Luckily for you, not even the designers plan for the PCs to have magic items. All the math in the DM's Guide and the Monster Manual are done magic item free.

Very good news!

Every class except for the Barbarian and Rogue have access to some spells. However, these are only found in specific subclasses, so you could always ban those subclasses.

I had thought I had seen Arcane Trickster mentioned as a casting Rogue variant?

They would function perfectly well. None of them presume magical ability. Only one subclass for each of the main "non magic" classes has magical abilities, so you should be fine cutting them out. Shouldn't be a problem at all.

Also good to know; some of what I had read gave the impression that there were generally more magical subclasses than non-magical.

Characters are only disadvantaged at specific points by specific conditions. It happens maybe once an encounter for me and my group, and I award Advantage to both sides far more often than Disadvantage.

I wouldn't worry about it. Disadvantage happens rarely. We've had many epic moments in my campaign due to well rolled 20s.

That is reassuring; I wasn't clear as to whether advantage could be given to opposing parties simultaneously, or if one had advantage, it automatically meant that their opponent had disadvantage.

Think of (dis)advantage as replacing those finicky +/- 2 bonuses.

As I mentioned in my response to pukuuni, those "finicky +/- bonuses" never had the result of making critical successes more difficult to reach. There was always that 1/20 chance. I appreciate the streamlining and simplicity, but have to wonder if it could have been done in a way that didn't create this cost.


A lot of helpful responses in such a short time; thanks for all the feedback so far!

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

I echo others' comments.

Controlling casters by limiting subclasses is simple but still allows a range of subclasses to choose from.

Advantage/Disadvantage is simple, elegant and really only comes into play in a situation where in another system there'd be a bunch of modifiers to add and subtract and it keeps it simple and quick.

It doesn't occur too often. Torch blows out and you're fighting in the dark without Darkvision? Disadvantage. Your enemy is lying prone? You get Advantage.

You're focusing on the chance to Crit - but the mechanic has wider applications outside of combat which makes it an across the board mechanism that's easy to rule on, implement and understand - eg for skill checks, saving throws, perception checks, etc.

Don't knock it til you've tried it.