D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

AbdulAlhazred · Jun 25, 2015

Imaro said:
But D&D (I feel using DW is confusing my initital point) is billed as a game where I can create my own campaign world with it's own set of assumptions (as long as they don't directly contradict the broadest of D&D tropes... and even then arguably it can work with enough elbow grease)... This is why for me it's better if the DM decides what easy difficulty, medium difficulty, hard, etc. mean in his world. The minute I am given a specific range someone else is deciding the assumptions of my world as opposed to me... the only way this can be better, IMO, is if the assumptions standardization enforces align with the ones I want to set up in my world.

But that's exactly what 4e DOES! In 5e you have just the existing 6 DC set points to work with. If something is hard, it is definitionally hard for everyone, always. So you are sort of stuck. With 4e you have the ability to scale the fiction. The NUMBERS are set, because those are the numbers that will work, but what they REPRESENT is largely up to you.

Ignoring a few minor places where concrete performance values are given (mostly athletics with jumping) you can make the 4e DC values mean anything you want. If you want a ridiculously scaled game where 30th level PCs are basically gods, then make a medium DC level 30 check allow the fighter to pick up a mountain, a level 30 medium DC CON check to let him drink a river, etc. Now you have Cuchulain. You could make a much more grounded game just by letting those DCs represent the limits of known realistic human performance.

The problem with 5e is you CAN'T scale much, because otherwise low level PCs, monsters, etc would be lifting mountains and such. Its a much more restricted game in which the fiction simply cannot be pushed beyond a certain point unless you want some very odd results indeed!

Kaychsea · Jun 25, 2015

Ashkelon said:
T

I realized I had mispoke when I said STR contest before. Because the fighter isn't trying to force the giant over with brute strength, but rather with a well placed hit, I would have had the fighter roll Athletics but the giant would roll Acrobatics to stay standing. This is all in addition to the basic attack.

Which is different from called shots how?
In any case that is much worse for the giants as the fighter can apply his proficiency to the roll.

AbdulAlhazred · Jun 25, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
The opposite worked pretty well for Gamma World: don't boost stats, have enhancement or other pulled-together bonus accumulation, just have a flat +1/level to everything. Only over 10 levels, but it kept it simple.

Bounded Accuracy accomplishes much the same thing as a fast 'treadmill' running at-level, though it's tuned to hit more often in favor of faster combats. The weakest creatures you can face can still plink at the strongest, for instance - and with great enough numbers, even wipe them (or you) out. The impact on on encounter design is that being outnumbered becomes as or more significant than being out-leveled. So you can't just add creatures to an encounter to make it more challenging based on their CR or their exp value, because the numerical advantage tilts the combat against the party much faster than either of those measures would indicate. That's why 5e added a multiplier that kicks up the estimated difficulty whenever you face more than one monster.

In a faster treadmill there's an illusion that you aren't really advancing at all, when you consistently face same-level foes, but it vanishes when you face even somewhat lower or higher level ones, and you find the reality is that you're advancing rapidly. With a slower treadmill, there's an illusion that you're not advancing at all, when you consistently face same-level foes, and a reality that you're not really advancing, much, that is revealed when you face very different level foes.

5e is basically a 10 level game in terms of progression that has been divided up into 20 levels where half of them are pretty meaningless. They really could just make it a 10 level system with a +1 to one ability score at each level, a 1/2 level bonus, and stuff like spell slots refactored slightly to correspond to caster level, etc. There just isn't a lot of real progression in this game. To preserve SOME of the sense of D&D style progression they've made hit points scale up at about 150% 4e's rate (a CR 20 5e monster has about 300, a level 30 4e monster has about the same, while nominal 4e 20th level standard is 186). PC hit points likewise scale faster (they start a bit lower but 20th level PCs can quite easily have 200 hit points, a 20th level 4 Warden won't touch that).

You could basically achieve the same sort of 4e game by playing heroic and maybe some of paragon tier, lets say to level 15. At that point the toughest standard orcs are 9 levels below you, so they are just barely irrelevant (minionized at 5 levels below, now obsolete minions). Enemies you fought at level 5 can still hit you at level 10 and be some threat if you were to use them en-mass, you'd minionize them for efficiency and allow for a LOT of them to appear. A BIG threat for a level 5 PC, a level 9 Solo Monster, its still a serious monster for the level 10 guy, and a substantial monster if recast as a level 15 or so Elite monster for the level 15 PCs.

So honestly, I don't think that 5e is really offering something you couldn't get with earlier editions. Its just offering that as the default. If you want bigger scaling though, you're kind of SOL with 5e. With 4e you just play on up into Epic, you get all you want, orcs become bugs that you can squish under foot.

Tony Vargas · Jun 25, 2015

AbdulAlhazred said:
In 5e you have just the existing 6 DC set points to work with. If something is hard, it is definitionally hard for everyone, always. So you are sort of stuck.

The problem with 5e is you CAN'T scale much, because otherwise low level PCs, monsters, etc would be lifting mountains and such. Its a much more restricted game in which the fiction simply cannot be pushed beyond a certain point unless you want some very odd results indeed!

I'm not sure why setting DCs would be that important to world-building. It seems like what monsters, types of magic, cultures, artifacts, gods, and history the world has would all be far more important (and much less trivial to come up with) than whether you can lift a portcullis on a DC 15 vs 20.

One thing D&D hasn't usually done well is make it fairly intuitive and non-disruptive to remove types of magic or vary the prevalence of magic items. Dark Sun, for instance, required new classes and extensive re-jiggering to do away with Divine magic. Running low-magic-item campaigns was problematic in editions where they were assumed into class & encounter balance. No-magic campaigns were unworkable in most editions of D&D, too.

5e hasn't improved on that record much. Magic items are supposedly factored out of encounter balance. All classes have access to magic of their own in some form, so with the right sub-classes, you presumably don't need magic items to make up the gap between casters and non-casters at high levels. Removing a type of magic, or going no-magic, though, would be problematic.

Ashkelon · Jun 25, 2015

Kaychsea said:
Which is different from called shots how?
In any case that is much worse for the giants as the fighter can apply his proficiency to the roll.

I was talking about how I would handle the attack in 4e. In 5e it is significantly more difficult.

This is because in 4e, you can easily create an improvised action that is worse than an at-will attack but better than a basic attack. This gives players a means of improvising without reducing their combat effectiveness significantly.

In 5e, you only have basic attacks. To improvise an action and have it be balanced, it must therefore be worse than your basic attack. You cannot perform the attack that also has a chance to knock the giant prone like you could with 4e. At least not without throwing on significant penalties that make such an action non-viable.

Tony Vargas · Jun 25, 2015

AbdulAlhazred said:
5e is basically a 10 level game in terms of progression that has been divided up into 20 levels where half of them are pretty meaningless. There just isn't a lot of real progression in this game. To preserve SOME of the sense of D&D style progression they've made hit points scale faster.

So honestly, I don't think that 5e is really offering something you couldn't get with earlier editions. Its just offering that as the default. If you want bigger scaling though, you're kind of SOL with 5e.

That makes sense, actually. One issue you had in 3.x and earlier was the 'sweet spot.' In 3.5, it might have been 1-10 or 1-6 (E6 certainly suggests the latter), in AD&D maybe 3rd-8th. So if they take 3.5's arguably-playable 10 levels, and pad it out to 20 levels, problem solved. It's pretty obvious that 5e's sweet spot doesn't start at 1st level, though, so maybe omit apprentice tier.

Erechel · Jun 26, 2015

pemerton said:
Some examples have been given upthread by [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION].

Other possibilities would include an ability to ignore difficult terrain, to ignore (or overcome) fatigue,

Remarkable Athlete could do the trick pretty well. Also, the high Constitution given by superior Ability Increase capacity and/or Athlete feat can make it.

pemerton said:
to instil fear into ordinary people (an interaction ability), to remove the frightened condition from allies (or perhaps allied troops), etc.

Given by the Pirate background, as Bad Reputation. Also, it can be achieved by Intimidation (that can be ruled as a Strenght check also). Not unique at all. Leadership is made by Folk Hero or the Leadership feat. It is also a Paladin feature (as an aura) so not unique.

pemerton said:
The general structure of these abilities might (i) exemplify what [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] has been stressing in this thread, namely, rationed abilities that bring the fighter player into the resource-management aspect of gameplay, and (ii) be able to be auto-successes rather than skill checks, because they are rationed and hence can occupy the same functional and mechanical space as other no-at-will abilities.

The whole point of fighters in 5ed is to be a reliable, steady character, not subject to resource management. Yes, he has a limited number of "special" actions (IE Action Surge & Second Wind), but overall, he is a capable "core" character. He plays by the core, by the skills and basic attacks/maneuvers.

I think that you are a little biased by 4th Edition, where every class has a "unique" fluff, and so, you don't really trust in base skills checks. Yes, the Fighter don't have a "Unique" out of combat fluff, but still he is very competent in that aspect (arguably, thanks to their higher stats or more feats, the second best in every area, as he hasn't limited resources as wizards and clerics).
The resolution of most out of combat situations is generally made by means of Skill Checks and careful roleplaying. You could also say that neither the wizard or the cleric have "unique" means outside combat (almost every spell that they could be casted or replicated too by a Bard, a Warlock or a Sorcerer... or even a Druid, a Ranger and an EK). One can not cease to admit that the versatility of the Druid is insane as he can shapeshift to acomplish anything he likes, but the fighter is very capable in most areas.
With this argument, one can say that the Rogue (like the Fighter) can't really do anything "special" outside combat: anyone can hide, be stealthy or be acrobatic (E.G. the Monk -specially the ninja- is usually better at this because Ki). And even search for traps, using Thieve's Tools, poison or disguise (EG Alter Self, Disguise Self). But the Rogue is usually better in SC, and more reliable than most classes which depend on spells or such. Same thing with the Fighter: he has more feats/ better scores than any other class. In risky situations (EG failing a SC to climb in a difficult mountain, moving against water courses, or whatever) he can use the Panic Button of Action Surge, a feat that a spell could not. The fighter has a better core, as the Rogue. Here resides his "uniqueness".

Tony Vargas · Jun 26, 2015

Erechel said:
Remarkable Athlete could do the trick pretty well.

+ Proficiency/2 in untrained checks? Not really. Having proficiency is always better than Remarkable Athlete. Everyone gets some proficiencies.

Also, the high Constitution given by superior Ability Increase capacity and/or Athlete feat can make it.

Click to expand...

If those ASI's don't go for feats, the fighter gets a +1 to one ability check advantage over the next guy, from levels 6 through 13. Most campaigns never reach 13, let alone 14, when the fighter's 6th-best feat/ASI tried to compete with a 7th level spell for usefulness.

The whole point of fighters in 5ed is to be a reliable, steady character, not subject to resource management.

Click to expand...

That's the same as saying they're purpose is to be a baseline from which all other classes measure how superior they are.

It's closer to being wrong than it was in classic D&D, at least. In 5e, the fighter's DPR is the 'best' at many levels. 'Best' really meaning no one exceeds by a large amount or with any consistency. Other classes do use the fighter's DPR as a touchstone or baseline, but they mostly strive for it. They may not have to strive terribly hard, but they don't just start there and go up.

Outside of combat, OTOH, the fighter is the everyman baseline. He can't do much of anything everyone else can do just as well, and everyone else has some things they do better.

Sadly, that's not far from true in combat, outside of DPR, either.

I think that you are a little biased by 4th Edition,

Click to expand...

That's silly. We've all been far more biased by the 33 years of D&D in which the fighter was strictly inferior, than by the 2 years that it was balanced before Essentials pushed it back into the beatstick pigeonhole.

The resolution of most out of combat situations is generally made by means of Skill Checks and careful roleplaying. You could also say that neither the wizard or the cleric have "unique" means outside combat (almost every spell that they could be casted or replicated too by a Bard, a Warlock or a Sorcerer... or even a Druid, a Ranger and an EK).

Click to expand...

Lol. Yeah, a Warlock, Bard, Sorcerer & Druid might, among them be able to cast all the same non-combat spells as a Wizard, that makes the wizard 'not unique.' Tell us another one.

Absolutely everyone can make checks. Making a check does not make you 'unique' or exceptional, unless you can make it was a bonus most others can't touch. All the fighter can do outside of combat is make checks, the same checks everyone else can make. Below 13th level, he /might/ make 1/6th of the with a +1 higher bonus than if he hadn't been a fighter - but that probably won't translate to a higher, or even as high, a bonus as the other proficient PCs in the party.

With this argument, one can say that the Rogue (like the Fighter) can't really do anything "special" outside combat: anyone can hide, be stealthy or be acrobatic.

Click to expand...

Yep, anyone and everyone can at least attempt all those things - they're just checks.

But, the Rogue can be significantly better at a few of them due to Expertise.

Same thing with the Fighter: he has more feats/ better scores than any other class.

Click to expand...

Expertise. +2 to two proficiencies starting at 2nd level and rising to +6 with 4 proficiencies at high level. Those bonuses let the Rogue substantially out-do anyone with Expertise in the same proficiencies - at high level, even if they have a much better stat.

Fighter bonus ASIs: +1 to one ability check starting at 6th level, and +1 to a second starting at 14th, but neither of those +1's can actually make him /better/ than another character who has also maxed out the sat in question to 20.

Don't pretend to find those equivalent.

In risky situations (EG failing a SC to climb in a difficult mountain, moving against water courses, or whatever) he can use the Panic Button of Action Surge, a feat that a spell could not. The fighter has a better core, as the Rogue. Here resides his "uniqueness".

Click to expand...

The situations you mention would be using the extra action to take another move - a Dash action - once or twice between rests. The Rogue can use cunning action to do the same, at-will.

Click to expand...

pemerton · Jun 26, 2015

Erechel said:
neither the wizard or the cleric have "unique" means outside combat

Well, they tend to have unique blends of spells. Plus wizards have a strong ritual feature.

Erechel said:
With this argument, one can say that the Rogue (like the Fighter) can't really do anything "special" outside combat: anyone can hide, be stealthy or be acrobatic (E.G. the Monk -specially the ninja- is usually better at this because Ki). And even search for traps, using Thieve's Tools, poison or disguise (EG Alter Self, Disguise Self).

The rogue has various dice-manipulation abilities on top of expertise, meaning that skill checks aren't just a roll of the d20.

Erechel said:
The whole point of fighters in 5ed is to be a reliable, steady character

Part of the point is that, out of combat, they are not reliable at all! All they get to do is make skill checks with no very special bonuses, no spells to make checks unnecessary, and no dice-manipulation tricks to overcome the vagaries of random rolling.

Erechel · Jun 26, 2015

Of course having proficiency/ expertise is better than not having them. That's the whole point of having Proficiency or Expertise, Tony. But the Fighter can do everything very well, without having to waste resources with it. The Feats/ Ability Score Increase of the fighter are his uniqueness. Maybe you are not the "best" at everything, but you are reliable, and can count with him. And also, have you read the NAME of the class? Is Fighter. You are the best at fighting, (and please, please you can't say that you can "only make base attacks", that's plain false: you have several "special" attacks listed in the PHB, let alone the DMG; grapple, pushing, tripping, etc.; and we aren't counting the Battle Master tactics, that could be modeled -as said in the DMG and Improvising Actions) as base attacks by the rules but substracting th Superiority Dice) not interacting with people.

And YES, anyone can make a Skill Check. This is the whole point of Skill Checks. You do not have to have a Power to made one: that is the bias of 4th edition players. You only have to try, and apply modifiers. And because BA, a +1 is a significant modifier, so higher stats count a lot, even if you aren't using feats. And, with Remarkable Athlete, any non-trained physical SC has a +2, not +1, as is rounded up (3/2= 1,5): is equal as being trained from 1st to 4th level. Add the higher scores. IN EVERY CHECK. It is hardly insignificant, both in or out combat. Even if the SC isn't covered by a skill at all: you are better than average in every way possible. Remember the most powerful weapons? they are +3 (legendary). Off course, for certain skills, the rogues are superior (as they have Expertise). But the rogues are (and always were) the skill monkeys, and their expertise hardly cover every physical check possible (you have to have proficiency with them, RA covers the non-trained spectrum). By core, you gain proficiency as a 4th level to Athletics, Acrobatics, Seight of Hand, Stealth, and sometimes Intimidation; but also:
*Forcing doors
*Break free of bonds
*Push through small places
*Keep a boulder from rolling
*Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
*Hold your breath,
*March or labor for hours without rest,
*Go without sleep
*Survive without food or water (being less subject to fatigue)
*Drinking (or being drugged, and arguably poisoned)
*Pick a lock
*Disable a trap
*Securely tie up a prisoner
*Shouting loud
*Wriggle free of bonds
*Driving vehicles
*Playing a musical instrument (dexterity)
*Thieves' tools
*Artisan's tools
...most of which (save the tools and instruments) aren't covered by skills, so no Expertise or Proficiency applied to this. So you are better than anyone at this. Yes, a Guidance spell can bump a cleric in some of this, but they better use this to aid a Fighter attempt, which has "proficiency" and maybe +1 modifier (or a feat) to the cleric. Of course, a spell can make some of this, but you have to have it prepared or available at the time. Which gives a lot of versatility to the fighter.
In other words: the rogue/bard is the better specialist (a Heavy Metal guitarist), and the fighter is the better generalist (a professional musician: even by core, the 7th Level Fighter is as proficient as a 4th level Bard... with every musical instrument, while the bard is only with three or four, if Entertainer or Outlander. The Fighter has at least +2 in 10+ instruments). Spell casters are one-hit wonders (as popstars), or second-liner support cast (as we say in Argentina, plomos).

Of course, feats are "optional rules", as every other rule in the PHB -modular system, remember?-, but why don't using them, if you want more "uniqueness"? Also, if you are not using them, the Variant Human (the only type of human worth playing, IMO) is worthless.
Also, the point of the "baseline" was discussed several times: you aren't the "baseliner", because you have better scores. And you have Indomitable, which can reroll any save. And RA. And you have Second Wind, which is a one timer FUAAA! effect to boost your stamina, even if you failed a check and are near death.

Also, the Action Surge can be used to make every action. Cunning Action has a limited arrange of possibilities/ things that can be done. Make another Skill Check is not, only Dash (which as I see it, cannot stack with the actual action), Hide or Disengage. PHB, pp 96: "Starting at 2nd level, your quick thinking and agility allow you to move and act quickly. You can take a bonus action on each of your turns in combat. This action can be used only to take the Dash, Disengage or Hide action". So in a chase, the Fighter is actually faster. Your statement about Cunning Action to be superior as Action Surge outside combat is false, because Cunning Action is a combat-based ability by RAW.

As for the bias of 4th Ed, is here done. In the 3X pages, it was the whole point of this thread. Some of you like more 4th edition: OK. Play it. I won't.

D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Kaychsea

Explorer

AbdulAlhazred

Legend

Tony Vargas

Legend

Ashkelon

First Post

Tony Vargas

Legend

Erechel

Explorer

Tony Vargas

Legend

pemerton

Legend

Erechel

Explorer

Similar Threads