D&D General Hot Take: D&D Has Not Recovered From 2E to 3.0 Transition

[Oofta]

I missed that post, who said it sucks?

because you seek out any idea to improve the game to shout it down with 'but it sells'

I disagree with the OP. I think bounded accuracy while not always perfect is a step in the right direction. You apparently don't want anyone saying anything positive about the game though.

Sorry I'm not sorry that I actually like the game and so do a lot of other people.

 

[Zardnaar]

Given those two options, and no others, I would say the correct design choice is to tone down the powers. I'd rather have a decent ability that works a normal percentage of the time, than an absolutely OP ability that only works a tiny percentage of the time. The latter is in most cases simply bad design, IMO.

That's what they seem to be going with. BuT there's still enough things that shut you down witha 80%+ failure rate so even a save every round isn't that great.

 

[Oofta]

Well, I mean, you could have in 4e. It just would have been "cannon fodder minions" rather than "cannon fodder level 8 monsters."

They would've been level 13ish minions, so yes. That was kind of the beauty of how 4e scaled monsters.

But you needed the entire minion concept because level 8 monsters couldn't have touched those 17th level PCs in 4E. Which, if you want sell more books with versions of monsters at higher levels is a good thing. From a world building point of view? I didn't think so. To me it didn't make sense that the orcs that showed up at higher levels could suddenly hit much more often than their brethren.

 

[payn]

no but 4xparty size 15th level minions (so if your party is 4 16 of them) will do about the same as throwing a bunch of level 8 monsters in 5e... BUT it will run quicker (wow who would ever think 4e and run quicker would be the answere...lol not me) and easier then running 10ish level 8 monsters in 5e

Thing is, those level 14s wont be the level 8 things. One point of BA that folks often overlook is it makes large number of things always relevant. So, you don't graduate to invulnerability from things, but are able to handle them easier, and in increasing numbers. You may not like that, but a lot of folks do.

 

[Zardnaar]

I disagree with the OP. I think bounded accuracy while not always perfect is a step in the right direction. You apparently don't want anyone saying anything positive about the game though.

Sorry I'm not sorry that I actually like the game and so do a lot of other people.

Bounded accuracy just means smaller numbers.

What if the difference between a good and bad save was 2-4 points vs 8 or more?

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Contradictory though with the power levels. If the spellcasters can make their stuff stick they shut down the martials.

So you either need to remove those spellcaster abilities (4E) or make it harder to stick (OSR).

my argument is that feast/famine is not the way wotc should go... so I would rather (mostly) lower effects.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

You apparently don't want anyone saying anything positive about the game though.

yeah, cause god knows I have never said anything positive about D&D

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

I feel there's too much discrepency between good saves and bad saves in 5E. With things like the paladin granting a +5 to saves, they clearly don't follow their own concept of bounded accuracy/defenses. Saves are either a joke, or nearly impossible.

PF2E's numbers work more to my liking for basically everything. You have degrees of training, Trained through Legendary, which give a proficiency bonus of +2 to +8. You add your stat and level as well. Most classes bad save is only one degree of training off from their good saves, so a difference of +2. Plus, PF 2 gives more stat bumps, and with raising stats above 18 requiring more points, characters tend to be more well rounded stat wise. Each effect requiring a save has critical success (beating DC by 10), success, failure, and critical failure (failing by 10+), resulting in a wider variety of effects possible other than 5E's overly simplistic binary pass/fail.

 

[Oofta]

Bounded accuracy just means smaller numbers.

What if the difference between a good and bad save was 2-4 points vs 8 or more?

I have a bit of a mixed feelings about saves to be honest even if thematically they make sense. I think they've moved in the right direction but there are issues. Dex based PCs, especially those that get proficiency in dex saves, are too far ahead of the curve. Great for my monk, not so great for my strength based fighter.

It is up to the DM to spread the love with saves I suppose. Not sure how to fix it, but strength saving throws are rarely used while dex is every other effect. Maybe everybody gets half proficiency bonus unless they are proficient? Have a feat that gives you a plus to all saves you aren't proficient in, not just 1? Not sure.

 

[Jefe Bergenstein]

Well, I mean, you could have in 4e. It just would have been "cannon fodder minions" rather than "cannon fodder level 8 monsters."

With the added benefit of not tracking chump hit points.