D&D 5E In Depth Critique of Part 3 of Basic Rules
Remathilis
Legend
The gist I got from this is "D&D would be easy if it wasn't for those meddling PCs and their magic."
Most of the problems listed aren't unique to 5e. Raise Dead is a problem throughout all of D&D, even 4e. Some of them (Magic Missile) might even be called features. Basically, this read like a diatribe against D&D magic not being some other system (spell points, spell rolls, insanity) with the thinnest veil of GNS smeared on it. Half the time, I thought he was actually still complaining about 3e. (esp the wealth per level guide, which doesn't exist in 5e).
The good news for the OP is there are plenty of other RPGS that does what he wants better: I suggest he check out the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG for starters. 5e was a return for form after the attempt to "do something different" with 4e didn't produce desired results: to complain about it being like D&D is like complaining that an elephant isn't like a spider.
Most of the problems listed aren't unique to 5e. Raise Dead is a problem throughout all of D&D, even 4e. Some of them (Magic Missile) might even be called features. Basically, this read like a diatribe against D&D magic not being some other system (spell points, spell rolls, insanity) with the thinnest veil of GNS smeared on it. Half the time, I thought he was actually still complaining about 3e. (esp the wealth per level guide, which doesn't exist in 5e).
The good news for the OP is there are plenty of other RPGS that does what he wants better: I suggest he check out the Dungeon Crawl Classics RPG for starters. 5e was a return for form after the attempt to "do something different" with 4e didn't produce desired results: to complain about it being like D&D is like complaining that an elephant isn't like a spider.
Tony Vargas
Legend
One source of confusion in this article is whether magic in the sense of spellcasters is assumed to be rare or not. If casters are fairly commonplace, then PC casters can expect their 'clever' or systematic uses of spells to be prepared for, guarded against, and countered by more challenging foes. If casters are fairly rare, then, while PC casters may run rampant through the world, the overall impact of magic on society would be muted - no 'Minority Report' divination scenarios, for instance.
A campaign might suffer from either problem, but is unlikely to suffer from /both/ (which the article seems to imply would be the case).
That those results constituted the casus belli for the edition war could not easily have been anticipated, though, in retrospect it was inevitable.
5e is thus walking a tight-rope of fragile balance in an attempt to please both those who want a game balanced enough to be playable, and those who want a more readily-breakable one (whether out of tradition or a desire to abuse it doesn't really matter). The OP paid too much attention to the features intended for the latter, and not enough to those meant to be of use to the former. He also very clearly conflated 5e and 3e issues - not surprising, given the similarities, but something he should have taken greater pains to avoid, as even a few slips like WoCLW or wealth/level create the impression he hasn't really looked at 5e hard enough to see that it is more than just a re-hash of 3.x and earlier editions.
A campaign might suffer from either problem, but is unlikely to suffer from /both/ (which the article seems to imply would be the case).
As much as it pains me to agree with you, he really did come off as having Post Traumatic 3e Disorder. The one that really stood out for me was the reference to the Wand of Cure Light Wounds, which has yet to make an appearance in the playtest or any leaks of the forthcoming game, and would seem to be entirely at odds with the way healing is otherwise handled. That is, that healing is fairly scarce and/or a poor use of time/resources during the day, but automatic & full overnight - which looks like it may be calculated help preserve the intended 4-5 encounter/day pacing around which 5e is precariously balanced. 3.x-style WoCLW would completely disrupt that, potentially leading to harder encounters and longer days.
It produced the intended results: a clearer, better-balanced, more approachable game that remained playable over a wider range of levels and styles.
That those results constituted the casus belli for the edition war could not easily have been anticipated, though, in retrospect it was inevitable.
5e is thus walking a tight-rope of fragile balance in an attempt to please both those who want a game balanced enough to be playable, and those who want a more readily-breakable one (whether out of tradition or a desire to abuse it doesn't really matter). The OP paid too much attention to the features intended for the latter, and not enough to those meant to be of use to the former. He also very clearly conflated 5e and 3e issues - not surprising, given the similarities, but something he should have taken greater pains to avoid, as even a few slips like WoCLW or wealth/level create the impression he hasn't really looked at 5e hard enough to see that it is more than just a re-hash of 3.x and earlier editions.
Last edited:
Mistwell
Crusty Old Meatwad (he/him)
Sir I have called the Whambulance, and it will arrive shortly. Just take long, deep breaths, and hold on until it arrives. You're going to be OK, we've seen this before and believe you will survive.
On a more serious note, I find your criticism to be mostly subjective opinion disguised as objective fact, and most of it does not match my experience well at all. Also, much of your criticism seems to be of D&D in general, and really fantasy RPGs in general. And, there's a lot of "this thing is self-evident as horrible" language in there when it's neither self-evidence nor horrible. I would suggest you might want to go through your article with a fine tooth comb, and ask yourself for every single sentence "Is this statement backed up by direct articulated evidence that I have included immediately with this statement, or immediately preceding it or following it?" and if the answer is ever no (and I think you will find it often is) then remove that sentence or re-work it to include the necessary support for your claim.
On a more serious note, I find your criticism to be mostly subjective opinion disguised as objective fact, and most of it does not match my experience well at all. Also, much of your criticism seems to be of D&D in general, and really fantasy RPGs in general. And, there's a lot of "this thing is self-evident as horrible" language in there when it's neither self-evidence nor horrible. I would suggest you might want to go through your article with a fine tooth comb, and ask yourself for every single sentence "Is this statement backed up by direct articulated evidence that I have included immediately with this statement, or immediately preceding it or following it?" and if the answer is ever no (and I think you will find it often is) then remove that sentence or re-work it to include the necessary support for your claim.
Last edited:
Remathilis
Legend
Yeah, there are a lot of "it was that way in 3e, and since I haven't seen the DM rules yet, I'll just assumed they are the same." This is very clear in the area of magic items (which are nothing like 3e's or 4e's item treadmill).
Still, about half his "problems" are as old as Gygax: magic missile, sleep, power words, teleport, etc. The OP seemed to have a real problem with any spell that did anything but direct damage, and then turned around and lambasted direct damage for being too good! (Seriously, he takes issue with magic missile's auto-hit, sleep putting people to sleep, fly and spider climb avoiding obstacles, precognition giving people immunity to ambush, cure spells healing people without cost, and meteor swarm potentially killing people. He could have saved 10,000 words by saying "I don't like D&D magic" and left it there.)
My euphemism is too cute by half; I meant it didn't do well enough to avoid having 5e made relatively quickly. Since I don't feel like rehashing that argument, let's agree to move on.
Tony Vargas
Legend
There are indeed very old issues, and legitimate enough in old D&D, but 5e /has/ tried to address some of them, and deserves some credit for that. Sleep for instance. It was originally designed to be an incredibly good spell at 1st level, when the magic-user had only 1 spell and it /needed/ to be incredibly good, but to fade in usefulness quickly. No save, only affected very low-level monsters. 3e lost sight of that and made it a regular saving throw (albeit, one with DC based on level, so it was only effective at high level if you Heightened it). 5e got back to the original intent - the small amount of 'hp threshold' in the playtest worked perfectly, it could could automatically knock out a few low-hp monsters but rapidly became meaningless an enemies got tougher. If it were a just a save like in 3e, it'd be brutal, because saving throw DCs are based on proficiency, now, instead of spell level. Of course, the intent is mitigated by the 5e magic-user having more than one spell - and two at-will cantrips. :shrug:
Sorry, from the context I just assumed 'intended' in the system sense, not the business sense.
Pallidore
Explorer
The OP responds
Yes, it’s me, the “OP.” People have brought up points that should be addressed by me. Here goes:
Save or die spells are fine for those who are plenty okay with losing a lovingly detailed and carefully developed character like that. But if they’re not, then there’s a problem. Yes, I agree, only having damage, rather than save or gak, CAN be boring. But getting killed might become boring too, especially with there being no chance of failure on Revivify. It seems to me that the game would have been better served by having the save or die spells become very rare, impose some penalty, etc. Or at least just be made an option for a DM/playing group with a higher tolerance for character mortality.
DnD does not have to be a simulation. It’s obvious that it would fail at that. What it should be, not primarily for me or for experienced players, but for newbies, is PLAUSIBLE. Many new players will come to the game with a set of expectations of the plausible necessary for them to continue their suspension of disbelief. The game should not turn away the intelligent new players of it with too many, as I said, “wait, why would there be…” or “wait, if that’s so, why WOULDN’T there be…” type questioning statements.
I do not believe I have criticized 5E magic in a dismissive way. I don’t want to head out the DnD door. I criticize it because I want it to be better and think it can be better. I care enough to because I’m a supporter of DnD and believe its potential could be even better reached than it has. The long treatise on Part 3, like my review of Parts 1 and 2 before it, came from an affection for the game.
Yes, my review in Part 3 could have used a bit more refining, editing, and polishing. After reviewing Parts 1 and 2, reviewing Part 3 ran me out of available time to do so, partially because my job’s been tasking me, but also because with the imminent release of the PHB, the timeliness would have been lost by further delay.
You folks are right that some things slipped through my self-editing. There is, AS YET, no predefined wealth per level. It seems difficult, though, to postulate how higher level characters could not have greater assumed wealth, at least for outfitting (for those starting at higher level).
But I was even more talking about the non-PC wealth available in settled areas, and that wealth’s ability to buy magic (for security, for power, for convenience, etc.).
Still, I was actually expecting more disputing of the other points. Wealth was a pretty minor one.
I did not think that settings would suffer from both caster rarity and caster commonplace at the same time. I did, however, not dedicate enough word space to the difficulties of caster rarity, devoting only a few sentences, and so acknowledge that I may have contributed to confusion.
Healing in 5E does not seem that scarce to me, nor that its use during the day is a poor use of resources. Please expound more on that, if you would.
With wands being now self-charging, what premise would there be that cure wounds wands would not exist? The game has to this point not given strong contraindication. In fact, with potions of healing being so ubiquitous that they are on the adventuring gear list, with a set cost just like arrows, torches, and waterskins, it’s not much of a stretch to extrapolate to other healing magic forms.
I am well aware that 5E is more than a mere rehash of 3E. Even though I think in the realm of Magic (the Part 3), it has retained the most similarities, I acknowledge and give credit for what modifications have taken place: alterations of some spells, some new rules (like Concentration) to reduce or minimize broken combos, largely standardization of durations and ranges, and streamlining of other rules. And also that the expectation of magic items among NPCs is not there, and magic, while desired, is not NECESSARY for character power (appearing to go past even 4E’s reduced position). It’s just that the changes, from this first look vantage point, appear to be insufficient, especially as the insufficiency contrasts with the stated objective of immersion/social interaction/background, etc. as well as contrasts with the partial de-emphasis on combat and tactics. However, I did say that months from now, I could change my mind after extensive actual play.
I would ask, however, for help to understand your contrasting experiences vis a vis DnD Magic, and how you believe that 5E will differ or not differ with that. Or, if that’s more investment than you want to make, maybe you could point out some specific contrasting or contradicting pieces from what I wrote. Of course, if you want to tell me that in today’s time-starved, hard to focus, and entertainment-saturated world, that campaigns, if they even get off the ground, get neither the deep looks nor the continued investitures by players/DMs that they once might have, I would like to get confirmations on that as well.
The spells that are problematic are that way not just because of their immediate or localized effects, but because of their campaign-setting affecting ways AND because they are so repeatable, predictable, and with nominal cost to the character(s). I do like D&D magic, but recognize that because it IS so repeatable and predictable, some parts of it can de-stabilize heroic-fantasy expectation, suspension of disbelief, and willingness by the participants to go on with the game.
Looking away from, or having no responses for, those problem areas, does not, IMO, well-serve the D&D game that we are fond of.
Yes, it’s me, the “OP.” People have brought up points that should be addressed by me. Here goes:
Save or die spells are fine for those who are plenty okay with losing a lovingly detailed and carefully developed character like that. But if they’re not, then there’s a problem. Yes, I agree, only having damage, rather than save or gak, CAN be boring. But getting killed might become boring too, especially with there being no chance of failure on Revivify. It seems to me that the game would have been better served by having the save or die spells become very rare, impose some penalty, etc. Or at least just be made an option for a DM/playing group with a higher tolerance for character mortality.
DnD does not have to be a simulation. It’s obvious that it would fail at that. What it should be, not primarily for me or for experienced players, but for newbies, is PLAUSIBLE. Many new players will come to the game with a set of expectations of the plausible necessary for them to continue their suspension of disbelief. The game should not turn away the intelligent new players of it with too many, as I said, “wait, why would there be…” or “wait, if that’s so, why WOULDN’T there be…” type questioning statements.
I do not believe I have criticized 5E magic in a dismissive way. I don’t want to head out the DnD door. I criticize it because I want it to be better and think it can be better. I care enough to because I’m a supporter of DnD and believe its potential could be even better reached than it has. The long treatise on Part 3, like my review of Parts 1 and 2 before it, came from an affection for the game.
Yes, my review in Part 3 could have used a bit more refining, editing, and polishing. After reviewing Parts 1 and 2, reviewing Part 3 ran me out of available time to do so, partially because my job’s been tasking me, but also because with the imminent release of the PHB, the timeliness would have been lost by further delay.
You folks are right that some things slipped through my self-editing. There is, AS YET, no predefined wealth per level. It seems difficult, though, to postulate how higher level characters could not have greater assumed wealth, at least for outfitting (for those starting at higher level).
But I was even more talking about the non-PC wealth available in settled areas, and that wealth’s ability to buy magic (for security, for power, for convenience, etc.).
Still, I was actually expecting more disputing of the other points. Wealth was a pretty minor one.
I did not think that settings would suffer from both caster rarity and caster commonplace at the same time. I did, however, not dedicate enough word space to the difficulties of caster rarity, devoting only a few sentences, and so acknowledge that I may have contributed to confusion.
Healing in 5E does not seem that scarce to me, nor that its use during the day is a poor use of resources. Please expound more on that, if you would.
With wands being now self-charging, what premise would there be that cure wounds wands would not exist? The game has to this point not given strong contraindication. In fact, with potions of healing being so ubiquitous that they are on the adventuring gear list, with a set cost just like arrows, torches, and waterskins, it’s not much of a stretch to extrapolate to other healing magic forms.
I am well aware that 5E is more than a mere rehash of 3E. Even though I think in the realm of Magic (the Part 3), it has retained the most similarities, I acknowledge and give credit for what modifications have taken place: alterations of some spells, some new rules (like Concentration) to reduce or minimize broken combos, largely standardization of durations and ranges, and streamlining of other rules. And also that the expectation of magic items among NPCs is not there, and magic, while desired, is not NECESSARY for character power (appearing to go past even 4E’s reduced position). It’s just that the changes, from this first look vantage point, appear to be insufficient, especially as the insufficiency contrasts with the stated objective of immersion/social interaction/background, etc. as well as contrasts with the partial de-emphasis on combat and tactics. However, I did say that months from now, I could change my mind after extensive actual play.
I would ask, however, for help to understand your contrasting experiences vis a vis DnD Magic, and how you believe that 5E will differ or not differ with that. Or, if that’s more investment than you want to make, maybe you could point out some specific contrasting or contradicting pieces from what I wrote. Of course, if you want to tell me that in today’s time-starved, hard to focus, and entertainment-saturated world, that campaigns, if they even get off the ground, get neither the deep looks nor the continued investitures by players/DMs that they once might have, I would like to get confirmations on that as well.
The spells that are problematic are that way not just because of their immediate or localized effects, but because of their campaign-setting affecting ways AND because they are so repeatable, predictable, and with nominal cost to the character(s). I do like D&D magic, but recognize that because it IS so repeatable and predictable, some parts of it can de-stabilize heroic-fantasy expectation, suspension of disbelief, and willingness by the participants to go on with the game.
Looking away from, or having no responses for, those problem areas, does not, IMO, well-serve the D&D game that we are fond of.
What save or die spells are you talking about?
The only one in the entire Basic Rules is Disintegrate and then, only if the creature is brought to 0 hit points by the damage of it. Not too much different than just taking damage from any source (only the unconscious buffer zone is missing). A DM can easily control this one spell by not letting the NPCs have it, but even that's not necessary.
The vast majority of the save spells in the Basic Rules are take x damage if save failed, take x/2 damage if save is made. There are a few for some additional effects (like blindness for a short period or charm), but none of them are save or die.
It really sounds as though you are talking about 3E on this issue.
Pallidore
Explorer
Finger of Death is the other, but even Hold Person could be considered that in the right circumstances.
I probably should have called them Save/No Save and Die spells. Because the Power Words can be that, as I said, and are even more ideal because the target gets no save.
I readily acknowledge that a number of things are cleaned up from 3E. My main concern is a question: cleaned up enough? From a first look, it appears no. Massive damage spells (especially those with a twist) are great against monsters; they can be hell when used against characters.
Huh?
From page 90 of Basic D&D:
The target must make a Constitution saving throw. It takes 7d8 + 30 necrotic damage on a failed save, or half as much damage on a successful one.
A humanoid killed by this spell rises at the start of your next turn as a zombie . . .
A humanoid killed by this spell rises at the start of your next turn as a zombie . . .
That is not save-or-die. It's not even save-or-suck.
Similar Threads
