D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[AbdulAlhazred]

I diagree.

They are two different ways of achieving the same result but I feel that one is better.

What happens if you can't find a 4th edition power that enables you to do what you want to do or you just don't have that power chosen?

Remember, just changing a power in 4th edition can have serious issues with balance and you have to be in a group that will allow you because you are going outside the core rules.

Refer to my previous post, the idea of 'glass balance' in 4e is ludicrous.

Beyond that there are about 12,000 powers now listed in 4e, you CAN find one that does pretty much what you want, its virtually a statement of fact at this point, not even conjecture.

As for not having a power chosen.... I don't understand what you're getting at here. Of course nobody anticipates everything. Is it now a flaw in the game system that you have to plan ahead and anticipate what might come up? In 4e or in any 'classic' D&D you have some rules for doing things that aren't on your character sheet (actually I'm being generous here, 3e has such rules, pre-3rd versions of D&D have the hint of the possibility of homebrewing such a thing). In 4e you also have some things you can explicitly do, and the subsystem for those things is parallel in all classes, making it easier to use those powers in new and different ways.

I'm failing to see the problem here. Whatever it was that 5e was designed to 'solve', it was a non-problem and the game 'sucks' (to borrow the theme of the thread) because of it. That's my position.

 

[Jeff Albertson]

I'm failing to see the problem here. Whatever it was that 5e was designed to 'solve', it was a non-problem and the game 'sucks' (to borrow the theme of the thread) because of it. That's my position.

of with your kiddie, board game fandom.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

But in 5th edition we aren't talking about something that is outside the rules, that is all a part of the rules.

No, it isn't. There are no specific rules in 5e for ad-hoc actions. Certainly none that are in any way shape or form more explicit or useful than 4e's.

I'm not talking about changing Necrotic to Fire types of changes. Straight up changing a power can have serious implications in 4th edition.

No it doesn't, not unless you are so utterly fixated on perfect balance that you aren't playing the same game, and then you're comparing some balance-obsessed 4e player to someone who doesn't give a crud in 5e. Obviously one attitude is easier to houserule for than the other, but that's NOT THE SYSTEM.

All you need in 5th edition is Imagination + Ability Scores to do what you want to do. That is the way the game was designed. If I want to flip over a rail, grab a chandelier and come down on an enemy with my sword; all I need is to roll a Dex check first followed by my attack roll. 4th edition has a hard coded way of handling things because it was specifically designed with the grid in mind while 5th edition was not. Theatre of the Mind gives you a lot more freedom than grid based.

Bah humbug! The characters in my 4e campaigns (I've run I think now about 7 4e campaigns to at least paragon tier) did all sorts of crazy off-the-wall stuff. Sometimes they did it by using a power, sometimes they did it by stunting pure and simple. Sometimes they did other things that are not clearly one or the other, or that involved some weird creative use of a ritual, etc. I play 5e as well, there's no magical increased 'creativity' in 5e. In fact I find that the players and GM in my 5e game are more inhibited by the lack of real understanding of the tactical situation at hand than they are inspired. Furthermore the non-casting characters options are highly constrained and stereotyped, so they rarely get to do much that isn't stock moves, while the wizard (my character) does all sorts of crazy stuff. Clearly, in our experience, having an additional repertoire of 'powers' is quite helpful. 4e's mechanism of insuring that you couldn't just always spam the most effective ones was also pretty ingenious.

Besides, nothing really stops you from playing 4e largely 'in your head'. Many, if not most, situations don't have to be straight up fights, or often a fight is simple enough that you really don't need a grid anyway. There's a whole world of stuff that happens in a game that isn't detailed tactical combat, so just how much difference does it really make?

 

[D'karr]

4e is dead easy to re-skin, making it easy to adapt to far more concepts than one might expect from the fairly consistent class & power formats. It's also easy to 'tweak' in small ways for the reasons you state.

It is just exhausting, though, to try to add to extensively. Creating a new class is a Herculean task. Extensively re-working rules is a minefield, because they are already so neatly balanced.

I agree with the first paragraph and completely disagree with the second paragraph. I have made extensive additions and modifications to the game with little effort, and have heard of many in these forums that have done something similar. Creating a class in any game is a chore, if you try to do it all in one sitting. In 4e with the common base framework, the creation effort does not have to be Herculean, and can actually be broken into much smaller chunks by tier, which can be much easier. Anybody can make it very difficult, but it is not necessary to do so.

In classic D&D, extensive re-working or additions were, in contrast, low-risk. One more broken magic item, class, race, or whatever wasn't going to break the game that much more. And, they were readily accepted by players.

Classic D&D has so much re-working and additions not because it was low-risk but because the internal systems had so many issues/problems. Binders full of house-rules were not the exception but the norm. 3.x ended up taking a lot of these fixes and implementing them into the system and made more streamlined core. Unfortunately, it also went off the deep-end by attempting to use rules for everything. And placing so much dependency on the rules. 4e also made a balancing effort, and placed a lot of reliance on the rules, but in its case the rules were rather flexible because at it's heart the system was predicated on exceptions. In addition the system gave the DM solid tools to determine expectations, rather that making rulings with few or no guidelines.

5e very successfully aims for those same qualities.

I would say that 5e learned from the mistakes of classic by implementing a solid consistent core. I'm a lot more hesitant to say that it provides solid rework guidelines that are any better than simply saying, "you are on your own, make it up as you go".

The issue of class dependency on rests comes to mind as part of that framework. It is one thing to provide a variant rule that tells the DM that they can adjust rest periods to something that is more suitable to their desired timeframe. It is another to actually describe to them the synergies that are involved in rest periods and what classes will be impacted by the adjustment.

 

[Ashkelon]

I diagree.

They are two different ways of achieving the same result but I feel that one is better.

What happens if you can't find a 4th edition power that enables you to do what you want to do or you just don't have that power chosen?

Remember, just changing a power in 4th edition can have serious issues with balance and you have to be in a group that will allow you because you are going outside the core rules.

What happens in 4e if you attempt an action that you don't have a power that you can specifically attemp, the same thing that happens in 5e. Except in 4e you have better guidelines for improvisation so it is actually easier to improvise certain actions.

If you don't allow players to improvise, at least in 4e they will have significantly more options on a round by round basis than in 5e, where martial characters are limited to repeating the same basic attack over and over.

 

[D'karr]

But in 5th edition we aren't talking about something that is outside the rules, that is all a part of the rules.

What is part of the rules, changing a spell? What are the guidelines for that?

I'm not talking about changing Necrotic to Fire types of changes. Straight up changing a power can have serious implications in 4th edition.

Like I said before, no more serious or self correcting than changing a spell in 5e. This argument of balance is an additional red-herring. Yes, 4e is more balanced, as a whole, than most other forms of D&D. But there are still plenty of things that can be unbalanced/broken in it, but it still remains quite balanced as a whole. The notion that changing a power has such serious implications is, for lack of a better word, ludicrous.

All you need in 5th edition is Imagination + Ability Scores to do what you want to do. That is the way the game was designed. If I want to flip over a rail, grab a chandelier and come down on an enemy with my sword; all I need is to roll a Dex check first followed by my attack roll.

This is certainly the red-herring of the conversation because the truth is that it all totally depends on the DM. It's not like 5e all of a sudden introduced something that didn't exist before in RPG's. Nothing in 4e prevented you from using Imagination + Something Else either. In essence, the base of the systems is the same.

In both systems this is an ad-hoc ruling, but 5e gives the DM precious little to guide how to consistently make that ruling. In addition, in 5e it is always a DM ruling with variable certainty. What is the DC of vaulting over the rail, if the DC doesn't already exist in a table somewhere how do I determine it consistently, how about DC of grabbing the chandelier, does the PC take damage from landing on the enemy, does the PC need to make 4 rolls or simply one (flip, jump, grab, attack)? If DM A decides to use Dex Check (flip rail, grab, jump, land) + Attack Roll to determine the outcome, but DM B decides to use DEX Check (flip rail) + DEX Check (grab) + STR Check (jump) + Dex Check (land) + Attack roll for the same the odds of accomplishing the task are possible in one instance and almost impossible on the other instance.

In 4e the variable certainty is reduced allowing both the DM and player to have a better idea of the real chances of success, because there are solid guidelines to make an ad-hoc ruling. For example, there are not 4 rolls to make but one (Acrobatics). What 4e also provides to the players are concise pieces that don't require ad-hoc ruling. If the player had a power that allowed him to do a "Death from Above" maneuver the DM can simply use that as the basis for the action. And if the "Death from Above" maneuver doesn't exist for the class but it does for another class the DM can use that as a basis also. One system gives the DM robust tools for adjudication and extrapolation, the other kind of gives him the idea that he can make these ruling but little in the way of tools.

4th edition has a hard coded way of handling things because it was specifically designed with the grid in mind while 5th edition was not. Theatre of the Mind gives you a lot more freedom than grid based.

4e had effects based powers to give players certainty in the execution of their actions. That has little to do with the grid. After all a 5e fireball does Xd6 damage consistently and the DM doesn't get to arbitrarily change that. That also has nothing to do with a grid. DM rulings are great, but as a DM and a player I prefer when my rulings can actually be consistent across the board, and also across game tables. I DM and play with several groups. If I play with group A today and group B tomorrow, as much as possible, I'd like my character to be able to do similar things without DM fiat. The discussions on these boards about, "My DM is screwing my warlock" are the kind of thing that dishearten me about 5e and its "rulings not rules" mantra.

 

[Remathilis]

I'm sorry, when did this turn to the "Why does 4e SUCK?" Thread?

 

[Corpsetaker]

What happens in 4e if you attempt an action that you don't have a power that you can specifically attemp, the same thing that happens in 5e. Except in 4e you have better guidelines for improvisation so it is actually easier to improvise certain actions.

If you don't allow players to improvise, at least in 4e they will have significantly more options on a round by round basis than in 5e, where martial characters are limited to repeating the same basic attack over and over.

What improvisation rules in 4th edition?

What do you mean if you don't allow improv in 4th they have more options than 5th? I'm wondering if you are actually familiar with 5th edition.

You can't have more options than 6 ability scores plus the imagination.

 

[Corpsetaker]

I'm sorry, when did this turn to the "Why does 4e SUCK?" Thread?

Basically when it was said that 4th edition does it better.

 

[Corpsetaker]

This is certainly the red-herring of the conversation because the truth is that it all totally depends on the DM. It's not like 5e all of a sudden introduced something that didn't exist before in RPG's. Nothing in 4e prevented you from using Imagination + Something Else either. In essence, the base of the systems is the same.

In both systems this is an ad-hoc ruling, but 5e gives the DM precious little to guide how to consistently make that ruling.

Excuse me?

5th edition gives loads more room for the DM than in 4th edition. All you have to do is go back and compare the 4th edition PHB to the 5th edition one and you will see which gives more options and which gives more freedom to players and DM's.

If you go and look at the chapter on skills in the 5th PHB you see a list of "examples" that are given for each ability score. Notice how they are "examples" and not a specific list of things you can only do.

If you look under the 4th edition PHB in the skills section you will see Acrobatics. You will see that performing a stunt is a standard action or a move action depending on the stunt while actions are not taken into account in 5th edition. If my action is to flip over the goblin and stab him from behind then there is no action economy. All I have to do is take my appropriate move, execute the Dex check, and then use my attack to make the stab.

4th edition is too heavily relied on the powers and staying with in the confines of those powers. Can you change anything? Sure you can, you can do that in any edition of D&D it's just that 5th edition gives more power for that sort of thing.