D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Eric V]

There's no need to stick to only explicit options, in /any/ game. That's why more explicit options is more options - because the option of not using them was always there.

And there's plenty of instances where 5e decides to go that way, instead of leaving everything undefined. Spells for instance, it devotes a large portion of PH pagecount to spells, when it could have gone and presented some kind of freeform DM-ruling-driven verb/object system like Ars Magica, and let the player describe the spell they're trying to cast and the DM describe the results of the attempt, calling for a Spellcraft roll of whatever DC seemed reasonable if he wanted.

Why didn't D&D go all the way and make everything as vague as checks (or even less defined, still)? Because 5e isn't really trying to be rules-lite, it's trying to be familiar to D&Ders across edition preferences, and D&D had no skill system at all, initially, then tried o na new with each later ed. So a desultory, vague system doesn't impede anyone's sense of familiarity with the game, while a detailed rank-based system, for instance, might have.

I think this is a great point. 5e is definitely not rules-lite, but it is rules-vague. Part of trying to appeal to all players, I guess.

 

[Celtavian]

I think I'm considered a rather creative, one might say cunning and resourceful, player (and DM, but that's aside). So I don't think I fall into the category of people who can't color outside the lines and want a roadmap for every possible thing. I just said that it is empowering when there is a good solid structure and details that cover certain things because then we have some rules for those things. I feel like there's this 'strawman 4e player' that has been created who can't think outside of a box and only wants to endlessly roll checks that pass on an 8+ or something.

Obviously every game has its sweet spots and it will be better or worse received by different people. The whole thread was about things that people think 'suck' in 5e. I don't think it was intended to be all that serious or lead to acrimony.

Its a fact that 4e can lead to highly creative and imaginative game play. I've seen lots of it. That doesn't mean 5e can't. IME the play in our 5e game has been MUCH more stereotyped. Nothing really surprising has happened. Its been interesting enough, the characters have some potential, the personality/goals/etc thing works OK and has produced some fodder for RP. Its a perfectly workable system. I just thought 4e was more inspired. It reaches further. What bothers me about 5e is how very limited its goals really seem to be.

You're making this claim after the release of three books and a few modules? Way too soon to make such a claim.

Core 4E was boring as all get up to me. Maybe it became better as more books and information came out. Don't try to sell me that Core 4E was very creative. That is pure poppycock. They told you exactly what your abilities did. You picked from a very short list initially. Illusions were worthless in core 4E. Creativity? Really? Using an encounter power with a very limited set of abilities and duration is what you consider creative compare to a longer duration illusion or utility spell capable of uses that are far outside the box. That is what came out in Core 4E. Not sure why your players found such a system creative. My players certainly did not.

So far 5E is far less limited than 4E. What you seem to want is more guidance. I don't see how having it is creative. As a DM, I make everything up in advance. If a player wants to do something, I make a quick decision as to the DC using the basic guidelines and let the player go for it. I don't see how that in anyway lacks creativity.

Limited goals? What's limited? Can you even explain that? I see no limited goals. I see a game system that leaves most of the stuff up to the DM. Even the monster creation system is open-ended allowing DMs to craft whatever monster comes to mind without making the process overly complicated. The only limited goals are the ones you're imposing on yourself. Your argument has zero basis in fact and is what is little more than a lackluster attempt to say, "I like 4E better than 5E." That's nothing more than personal opinion. I see no merit whatsoever in any of your other points.

 

[Imaro]

I think this is a great point. 5e is definitely not rules-lite, but it is rules-vague. Part of trying to appeal to all players, I guess.

If not rules lite... what would you classify 5e as?

EDIT: Just to be transparent... I think it lies somewhere between the medium to lite continuum, but think it's kinda hard to definitively classify it...

 

[Celtavian]

They're just different goals. "Create as clear/balanced/playable a game as possible," is a difficult goal, but not an expansive one, it's really pretty basic. "Create a game that resonates with fans of every past edition of D&D, and 'feels' undeniably to /be/ D&D to all of them," is actually a pretty broad goal, it's almost unrealistic in it's ambition, yet it's a goal 5e has met to a large degree. Even people who dislike 5e don't pretend it's somehow "not D&D."

The only goal I see with 5E was to create a game that is fun to play even if you don't have a lot of time that cleaves closer to past editions of D&D than the previous edition. It was a distillation of previous editions of D&D into a simpler format that allowed for quicker play and preparation.

 

[Manbearcat]

I didn't mention the Ability Checks and Setting DCs section as that is pretty much fundamental. The traps section and the Improvised Damage section is the foundation for 5e stunting I would think. I'll have to check the Wilderness Hazards section again to see if there is similar support (of the strain I'm thinking of).

There was nothing in the Wilderness Hazards section of that strain that I was looking for (the sucking bog/quicksand hazard is certainly interesting, if fiddly, mechanics...but it doesn't help quick, consistent, and balanced adjudication of improvisational actions/stunting).

I'll do 2 examples tonight in both systems. I already did a few above for 4e.

1) A Wizard doing a stunt with a fire spell.

2) A Fighter pushing over a partially ruined stone wall onto foes.

I'm going to use level 6 for this (it is as good as any I suppose).

---

4e

Quick tutorial on 4e stunting. A basic attack is roughly Level + 8 damage or the medium at-will damage expression. The high at-will damage expression is your at-will powers that include a rider, so Level + 8 damage + minor rider. An AoE effect is roughly worth 25 % budget or typically a drop down one step. An encounter/limited-use ability is worth around 25 % more budget than the high at-will. I've been using Sly Flourish's (I think since MM3) as it is more granular at the level by level basis. 4e is about competent, mythical fantasy protagonists, ever engaged in high-octane action/adventure and ensconced in dynamic/dramatic conflicts. Folks who are stunting are typically going to be leveraging (a) a trained skill and (b) an ability modifier that is either top-end or respectable. Consequently, the DCs for such situations orbit around an extremely high success rate for the ability check portion of stunting (typically auto-success or near it for Medium DC, which makes up the majority of ability checks in stunting).

So I have a 6th level Wizard with + 14 Arcana (+ 3 lvl + 5 trained + 4 Int + 2 either from Race, Theme, Background). This Arcana check automatically passes the medium DC @ 15 and passes the hard DC @ 23 at a 55 % clip. He has an At-Will with the Fire Keyword....say Scorching Burst. This interacts with the fiction/set-dressing as being capable of ignition. The player makes the following action declaration:

"I want to set the spirits-soaked area rug covering the common room ablaze!"

I think "...cool, that is exactly the kind of move I want to encourage." I say; "Cool. That doesn't seem to crazy...not like slagging metal to weld a door shut. We'll go with medium DC."

He auto-passes the DC 15 Arcana check so we're on to adjudicating/negotiating the effect. This is obviously Limited Use (can't set the common room rug ablaze repeatedly) for his level so we're at ~ 21. He wants an AoE so let us bump it down. He wants an effect so let us bump it down again. Should probably have a miss for half so bump it down again. So we're at low, at-will or roughly 11ish damage. Since it is a Fire effect, let us make it 4 Fire damage and 5 Ongoing (worth ~ 7ish damage) Fire, save ends.

What kind of effect makes sense. A Hazard. A zone where if you enter the fire hazard or end your turn in the fire hazard, you take 5 fire damage. Also, the fire spreads to adjacent squares (up to the edge of the rug) at the end of each of the Wizard player's turns. So if I were to write that out as a Terrain Power, it would like look this:

Burnin Down the House! Single-Use
Standard Action - Ranged 10 Burst 1
Check: Arcana (Medium DC) with a Fire Spell to light the spirit-soaked Common Room rug.
Success: The rug is set ablaze, make a burst 1 attack.
Attack: + 6 (Lvl + 3) vs Reflex (NPC Reflex at this level is typically 16-18 with a stray 19 and very rare 20).
Damage: 1d6 fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends).
Miss: 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends).
Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of the encounter. Any creature that enters the zone or ends its turn there takes 5 fire damage. The fire spreads to each adjacent square, until it reaches the perimeter of the rug, at the end of your turn.

---

Don't have time to continue. I'll do the 5e analogue later today/this evening and then have some commentary. I'll do the Fighter pushing over a ruined wall tomorrow.

 

[Celtavian]

4E versus 5E doesn't matter. Creativity doesn't have anything to do with the game system and everything to do with the individual players. You could have used Stunting in 3E. You could have used it in 1E. It's nothing more than a set of checks to accomplish something. Could be skills, ability, or some other modifier. The thing that made Stunting unique was someone getting creative with a skill and dice roll mechanic and codifying it. Anyone could have done this with their game in any edition of D&D.

Creativity existed in every edition of D&D in equal measure according to the creative capabilities of the people involved.

 

[Imaro]

There was nothing in the Wilderness Hazards section of that strain that I was looking for (the sucking bog/quicksand hazard is certainly interesting, if fiddly, mechanics...but it doesn't help quick, consistent, and balanced adjudication of improvisational actions/stunting).



I'm going to use level 6 for this (it is as good as any I suppose).

---

4e

Quick tutorial on 4e stunting. A basic attack is roughly Level + 8 damage or the medium at-will damage expression. The high at-will damage expression is your at-will powers that include a rider, so Level + 8 damage + minor rider. An AoE effect is roughly worth 25 % budget or typically a drop down one step. An encounter/limited-use ability is worth around 25 % more budget than the high at-will. I've been using Sly Flourish's (I think since MM3) as it is more granular at the level by level basis. 4e is about competent, mythical fantasy protagonists, ever engaged in high-octane action/adventure and ensconced in dynamic/dramatic conflicts. Folks who are stunting are typically going to be leveraging (a) a trained skill and (b) an ability modifier that is either top-end or respectable. Consequently, the DCs for such situations orbit around an extremely high success rate for the ability check portion of stunting (typically auto-success or near it for Medium DC, which makes up the majority of ability checks in stunting).

So I have a 6th level Wizard with + 14 Arcana (+ 3 lvl + 5 trained + 4 Int + 2 either from Race, Theme, Background). This Arcana check automatically passes the medium DC @ 15 and passes the hard DC @ 23 at a 55 % clip. He has an At-Will with the Fire Keyword....say Scorching Burst. This interacts with the fiction/set-dressing as being capable of ignition. The player makes the following action declaration:

"I want to set the spirits-soaked area rug covering the common room ablaze!"

I think "...cool, that is exactly the kind of move I want to encourage." I say; "Cool. That doesn't seem to crazy...not like slagging metal to weld a door shut. We'll go with medium DC."

He auto-passes the DC 15 Arcana check so we're on to adjudicating/negotiating the effect. This is obviously Limited Use (can't set the common room rug ablaze repeatedly) for his level so we're at ~ 21. He wants an AoE so let us bump it down. He wants an effect so let us bump it down again. Should probably have a miss for half so bump it down again. So we're at low, at-will or roughly 11ish damage. Since it is a Fire effect, let us make it 4 Fire damage and 5 Ongoing (worth ~ 7ish damage) Fire, save ends.

What kind of effect makes sense. A Hazard. A zone where if you enter the fire hazard or end your turn in the fire hazard, you take 5 fire damage. Also, the fire spreads to adjacent squares (up to the edge of the rug) at the end of each of the Wizard player's turns. So if I were to write that out as a Terrain Power, it would like look this:

Burnin Down the House! Single-Use
Standard Action - Ranged 10 Burst 1
Check: Arcana (Medium DC) with a Fire Spell to light the spirit-soaked Common Room rug.
Success: The rug is set ablaze, make a burst 1 attack.
Attack: + 6 (Lvl + 3) vs Reflex (NPC Reflex at this level is typically 16-18 with a stray 19 and very rare 20).
Damage: 1d6 fire damage and 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends).
Miss: 5 ongoing fire damage (save ends).
Effect: The burst creates a zone that lasts until the end of the encounter. Any creature that enters the zone or ends its turn there takes 5 fire damage. The fire spreads to each adjacent square, until it reaches the perimeter of the rug, at the end of your turn.

---

Don't have time to continue. I'll do the 5e analogue later today/this evening and then have some commentary. I'll do the Fighter pushing over a ruined wall tomorrow.

My first thoughts... this does not seem quick or practical in a game where I want to keep things moving and not get bogged down. It also is telling that you are using outside sources to create this stunt, but I was under the impression we were comparing what was in the actual rulebooks...

 

[Manbearcat]

My first thoughts... this does not seem quick or practical in a game where I want to keep things moving and not get bogged down. It also is telling that you are using outside sources to create this stunt, but I was under the impression we were comparing what was in the actual rulebooks...

I can adjudicate that and we can resolve it at the table in about 30 seconds with no quibbling, haggling, rules-lawyering by any parties. If 30 seconds for adjudication and resolution is "bogged down" then I guess we live life at very different speeds.

And using Sly Flourish isn't "telling." It is the exact same procedure as using the updated math from p42. Exact same procedure. I just use the level by level version (which is in the MM3 monster creation), rather than the few levels pushed together, as personal preference because I like the granularity.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You're making this claim after the release of three books and a few modules? Way too soon to make such a claim.

Core 4E was boring as all get up to me. Maybe it became better as more books and information came out. Don't try to sell me that Core 4E was very creative. That is pure poppycock. They told you exactly what your abilities did. You picked from a very short list initially. Illusions were worthless in core 4E. Creativity? Really? Using an encounter power with a very limited set of abilities and duration is what you consider creative compare to a longer duration illusion or utility spell capable of uses that are far outside the box. That is what came out in Core 4E. Not sure why your players found such a system creative. My players certainly did not.

So far 5E is far less limited than 4E. What you seem to want is more guidance. I don't see how having it is creative. As a DM, I make everything up in advance. If a player wants to do something, I make a quick decision as to the DC using the basic guidelines and let the player go for it. I don't see how that in anyway lacks creativity.

Limited goals? What's limited? Can you even explain that? I see no limited goals. I see a game system that leaves most of the stuff up to the DM. Even the monster creation system is open-ended allowing DMs to craft whatever monster comes to mind without making the process overly complicated. The only limited goals are the ones you're imposing on yourself. Your argument has zero basis in fact and is what is little more than a lackluster attempt to say, "I like 4E better than 5E." That's nothing more than personal opinion. I see no merit whatsoever in any of your other points.

Gosh, for a guy that posts a very nice recapitulation of the edition war above you think anyone wants to listen? I don't want to join that war, we've had a lot of debate, maybe some verging on crossing the line, but I'd appreciate if you wouldn't go there.

Yes, I think 5e is limited in scope. Honestly I think its perfectly fair to compare all of 4e to 5e because frankly I don't think there's any ambition to make anything more of 5e. I don't think WotC has ANY intention of publishing another 5e book. Inevitably there will be a little nibbling around the edges, but I think they quite clearly heard from a substantial subset of fans that new and original stuff isn't really appreciated and that they're sick of crunch. So, yes, I think 5e is quite limited in scope. Its only ambition is to reproduce the game play and conventions of 2e without straying too far from the structure of 3e (mindful of PF and its fans, clearly one of the two major target constituencies along with AD&D 'grognards').

Obviously you didn't like 4e, fine, good for you. Now, do a little mind-expanding exercise and realize that not everyone else is exactly like you and we all get have our opinions, yours aren't sacred and everyone else's aren't 'poppycock' or 'have no merit' etc. OK? The thread IS titled 'Why does 5E SUCK?', its point is really to ask what did/do we want 5e to be. I want it to be a visionary game that continues to take D&D in new and interesting directions, and its not. That's what 'sucks' about it.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

If not rules lite... what would you classify 5e as?

EDIT: Just to be transparent... I think it lies somewhere between the medium to lite continuum, but think it's kinda hard to definitively classify it...

Its not even close to lite. The definition of lite is of course pretty loose. However, its at one end of a spectrum. Rules lite games certainly include 1 page rule sets. I'd say they might include rules with 10 pages of crunch, but I'm not sure where to draw the line. 5e isn't even close. Its no more lite than 4e was, the core books weigh in pretty much the same and they're largely rules, procedure, and 'game structure' if not outright crunch in both editions. If D&D (and 2e/3.x/4e/5e are all roughly the same heft) is 'medium' then there's no such thing as a heavy rules game. So I can't really use the term 'medium' either. I'd more reserve that for games like Dungeon World perhaps, where the mechanics are very simple, but there's a fair amount of procedural support, so that it isn't really a 'lite' game either. Something like Traveler might also be a 'medium' game, it has very simple core rules, a few elaborated subsystems, and then gigatons of setting and other material has accrued onto the core. Still, when you play its quite simple and straightforward.