D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Shasarak]

So, first of all, you're conflating freedom with options, second, you're missing that the system can't say that the DM "MUST" do something. Well, it can say it, it's just powerless to enforce it.

So if you have 10 canned options, or the option of just making something up yourself, you have 11 options. If you have 100 canned options, and the option of just making up something yourself, you have 101 options.

Since when did the option to do anything you want become just "one option"?

 

[Celtavian]

That's D&D in a nutshell, sure. You see the same 'best' spells and combat options used relentlessly in every day (then rest to get them back). Casters all draw from the same spell lists, so you can't tell the players apart without a scorecard.

You can't blame 5e for that, it's just the nature of the beast. Every edition has had it's obvious best choices, and re-use of mechanics and/or overlapping spell lists.

So Clerics, Druids, Bards, Warlords, Artificers, Paladins, Shamans, Psionics, Priests, and other classes have all been able to heal in one ed or another, it doesn't make them all Clerics, even though several of them all used the exact same Cure..Wounds spells to do it.

You mean you can't blame 4E. My concerns with 5E are extremely minor. I very much like the new system they use for 5E. I think once people master the system creating their DC tables for things players can do with skills, we'll see the creative and spontaneous actions return.

You had a lot of different types of spellcasters in 3E. I built lots of different spell strategies in 3E. I could not do that in 4E. 5E allows you to do it again, though not as good as 3E...at least not yet. You had lots of fighting options in 3E. You build a highly effective grappler, archer, two-weapon fighter, two-hander fight, sword and board, puncher, dagger user, acrobatic-type, pure brute, something in-between. Pathfinder took it to a whole new level for options that went beyond even 3.5. The system was very robust for character creation of all kinds. It reached a point where they could not longer vet the crazy, imbalanced options. That's one of the major reasons I'm ok with the slow 5E release schedule. I definitely don't want to see the system get overloaded like it did in 3E/Pathfinder.

 

[Celtavian]

That's how I see it anyway. Unfortunately for people like me this is why 5e 'sucks', it definitely doesn't cater so well to the high action kind of game. Its not quite the gritty low-fantasy grinder that 1e was and 2e could be if you played it that way. At the same time it feels a lot more like low fantasy and a lot less like you're really a fantastical character, at least for the first 6 levels.

I think they made it that way because it is easier to customize a game adding new features to suit your play-style than it is to remove options. They built a real barebones D&D system that was customizable. You figure if you start with the base system designed with no feats and no magic items with a Bounded Accuracy system, you can play a very gritty, low magic type of game out of the box. Then for those that want more can easily add feats and magic items to make their game a bit more high action utilizing the monster creation rules to increase the challenge against a more powerful party. If you take the time, it would be easy to add options to the game to allow the same types of actions you allowed in 4E or even 3E.

Some players have removed concentration to allow spellcasting similar to 3E. Some are engaging in extremely high powered monster development to give a high magic feel. If you took some of what you like out of 4E and fit it on to the 5E chassis, you could probably do it with minimal work. The 5E chassis is very adaptable.

 

[tyrlaan]

I think they made it that way because it is easier to customize a game adding new features to suit your play-style than it is to remove options. They built a real barebones D&D system that was customizable. You figure if you start with the base system designed with no feats and no magic items with a Bounded Accuracy system, you can play a very gritty, low magic type of game out of the box.

and

If you take the time, it would be easy to add options to the game to allow the same types of actions you allowed in 4E or even 3E.

I definitely agree with you on this. The question this leaves me with (and perhaps others) is if that becomes a negative or a positive. Basically, when I next run a game, will I want to use 5e and modify to my tastes, or instead look to an established system that meets my needs?

Then for those that want more can easily add feats and magic items to make their game a bit more high action utilizing the monster creation rules to increase the challenge against a more powerful party.

This reminded me of something I'd put down as "do not like" in 5e; the rules for calculating the CR of a monster. Oi vey. Actually monsters in general I'm kind of meh about, mostly because I don't like the return of having to cross reference spells to run them.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You mean you can't blame 4E. My concerns with 5E are extremely minor. I very much like the new system they use for 5E. I think once people master the system creating their DC tables for things players can do with skills, we'll see the creative and spontaneous actions return.

You had a lot of different types of spellcasters in 3E. I built lots of different spell strategies in 3E. I could not do that in 4E. 5E allows you to do it again, though not as good as 3E...at least not yet. You had lots of fighting options in 3E. You build a highly effective grappler, archer, two-weapon fighter, two-hander fight, sword and board, puncher, dagger user, acrobatic-type, pure brute, something in-between. Pathfinder took it to a whole new level for options that went beyond even 3.5. The system was very robust for character creation of all kinds. It reached a point where they could not longer vet the crazy, imbalanced options. That's one of the major reasons I'm ok with the slow 5E release schedule. I definitely don't want to see the system get overloaded like it did in 3E/Pathfinder.

3.x/PF is kind of a two-edged sword though. The classes are HIGHLY asymmetric in what they can do. Without trying to belabor the shortcomings of that system too much its really true that there are drastically different power level 'tiers' of classes, with tier one classes basically playing an entirely different game from tier 2. At low levels they kinda mix OK, but the system really has a LOT of issues, the table has to be in considerable agreement about what sort of game they're playing or it can break down pretty hard.

4e OTOH isn't as limited as you like to make out. I referenced my 'utility wizard' in an earlier post. The character could do a LOT. In fact he was in some respects MORE powerful than my old AD&D wizard at game-equivalent levels. I consider 2e level 7 and 4e level 11 to be about on par. The level 7 2e wizard has 4th level spells, the 11th level 4e wizard has a PP and the various bumps that come with the transition to Paragon Tier. Both are now pretty much playing in the 'big leagues'. These are sweet spots for each system too. At this level my utility wizard has LOTS of ritual magic, which is slow to cast but almost unlimited use (a few rituals are rather expensive to cast, but most of them have fairly negligible costs by this level). He's got a pretty good array of powers, and at least 3 utility powers (and with his spell book etc he actually had IIRC 4 utility powers/day, 12 to choose from, and the ability to do one on-the-fly swap).

My recollection of level 7 for my 2e wizard was he had a pretty decent spell book (due to looting of dead companions books mostly), and several quite nasty magic items (he could fly due to getting a GW mutation, had a cloak of displacement, and some sort of ring and a staff, plus some way to cast some extra fireballs if he really needed it, plus several scrolls he'd made or found). Still, he could only cast 4/3/2/1 spells and there aren't any such thing as rituals in 2e.

The 4e wizard also had some items, giving him a couple more powers he could use, a familiar, an MC into warlord so he could learn practices, several of those, and a whole bunch of alchemical items and potions he'd made. These included nice things like smoke generating, resistance potions, and some stuff that allowed adding damage types or getting a one-attack hit or damage bonus, etc.

Both wizards could fly (one innately, the other by casting a modest cost ritual with a 50/50 chance or so to get flying steeds for the whole party). They could both do invisibility (requiring concentration in 4e, but otherwise pretty similar). They could each do various other things, cast a Wall spell of some sort, some kind of nasty AoE, etc.

I'm not sure what a 3e version of my AD&D wizard would get, but as I understand it probably the ability to cast in the middle of combat (note that 4e wizards don't have any specific limitations on when or where they can cast, nor do 4e spells require a casting time, though they may be subject to an OA potentially). So maybe the 3e version would be more powerful, probably so if it was tweaked or depending on how the table played. The 4e wizard certainly is a better combat caster than the 2e wizard, but each spell is usually weaker. OTOH he can cast at least some of them all day, eventually the 2e or 3e wizard is reduced to throwing knives or something equally pathetic.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I think they made it that way because it is easier to customize a game adding new features to suit your play-style than it is to remove options. They built a real barebones D&D system that was customizable. You figure if you start with the base system designed with no feats and no magic items with a Bounded Accuracy system, you can play a very gritty, low magic type of game out of the box. Then for those that want more can easily add feats and magic items to make their game a bit more high action utilizing the monster creation rules to increase the challenge against a more powerful party. If you take the time, it would be easy to add options to the game to allow the same types of actions you allowed in 4E or even 3E.

Some players have removed concentration to allow spellcasting similar to 3E. Some are engaging in extremely high powered monster development to give a high magic feel. If you took some of what you like out of 4E and fit it on to the 5E chassis, you could probably do it with minimal work. The 5E chassis is very adaptable.

IMHO 5e isn't adaptable to the style of play that I appreciated with 4e. Nor are certain fundamental approaches to the rules and game design things that can be addressed by a supplement. In any case WotC has NO PLANS to produce any such supplements, and at best it would require a pretty large and complex supplement that would have to address a large subset of all the 5e PHB rules.

 

[AriochQ]

IMHO 5e isn't adaptable to the style of play that I appreciated with 4e. Nor are certain fundamental approaches to the rules and game design things that can be addressed by a supplement. In any case WotC has NO PLANS to produce any such supplements, and at best it would require a pretty large and complex supplement that would have to address a large subset of all the 5e PHB rules.

I would be interested in a breakdown what percentage of players like 4th Ed. compaired to what edition they first played.

My guess would be that 4th Ed is most liked by those who started with 4th Ed., followed by 3rd Ed., and with 1st and 2nd bringing up the rear.

Personally, I enjoyed the support for 4th Ed. Everything else I found distasteful. (I started playing in 1st Ed.)

 

[Tony Vargas]

You had a lot of different types of spellcasters in 3E. I built lots of different spell strategies in 3E. 5E allows you to, though not as good as 3E...at least not yet.

'Good' depends on what you're evaluating. If 'good' is Tier 1 caster dominance in play, sure, 3e did a 'better' job of presenting a range of spell-casting strategies than 5e, and 5e is, indeed, not on the same level - yet. OTOH, if 'good' is balanced classes that don't relegate a whole swath of typical heroic fantasy archetypes to irrelevance, then 3e was terrible, and 5e isn't as bad - yet.

You had lots of fighting options in 3E. You build a highly effective grappler, archer, two-weapon fighter, two-hander fight, sword and board, puncher, dagger user, acrobatic-type, pure brute, something in-between.

And, yes, you have fewer explicit options in 5e by default, mainly due to the insistence on TotM as the default mode of play. But, there is a tactical module that adds a little granularity, opening up the possibility of more options. But, the biggest culprit in failing to capture the range of fighter options and builds possible in 3e is 5e's heavy emphasis on DPR as the fighter's (and berserker's) only significant contribution - and, to an only lesser extent, the same goes for the two no-casting Rogue sub-classes, as well, being DPR-only in combat, but having some non-trivial non-combat contributions, as well.

Another difference is community attitude. The 3.x era had a reverence for "the RAW" that was positively problematic for the DM. While the system gave characters a lot of build options, combat options, skill options, &c, the DM was discouraged from modding or adding to those options by the overemphasis on RAW. In 5e, OTOH, the community has, so far, been willing to accept 5e's professed DM empowerment, so even though 5e might present far fewer options, to players, than 3.x, it presents the DM with one very powerful option, that the community has not balked at: adding new options (whether formal house rules or off-the-cuff rulings) for the players, himself.

It reached a point where they could not longer vet the crazy, imbalanced options. That's one of the major reasons I'm ok with the slow 5E release schedule. I definitely don't want to see the system get overloaded like it did in 3E.

Agreed.

Since when did the option to do anything you want become just "one option"?

The option isn't 'do anything you want' it's 'make something up,' and it's a DM option.

The point is that it's an option that is present in absolutely every RPG, and that cannot be removed or curtailed.

So when you say "Game A has far fewer options than Game B, but in Game A you can 'do anything," all you've really said is that Game B has more options than Game A, because you can always 'do anything,' in either game - and indeed, any RPG.

Where the 'less is more' koan applies to RPGs is in regards to balanced choices. If Game A has fewer choices than Game B, but one of the choices in Game B is flatly superior to all the others, Game A has more viable/meaningful/'real' choices than Game B.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would be interested in a breakdown what percentage of players like 4th Ed. compaired to what edition they first played.

It's just my impression, but it seems like each edition is most-fanatically preferred by those who have only ever played that edition. If you play other editions (or even *gasp* other games) you probably get a little more open-minded.

4e wasn't around long enough (2 years, in it's original form, 2 more as the bowdlerized Essentials) to acquire the large following of starting-with-that-edition fans that 2e (10 years) and 3e (8 years & OGL), let along 1e (10-13yrs, and height of the fad) accumulated, though in that brief time, it did retain a surprising number of the few new players who tried it. It was also enjoyed, at the time, by those who played D&D for a long time (starting with 1st or earlier and progressing through 3.5). That same group is relatively satisfied with 5e. Sort of the loyal, long-time fan demographic.

3e/Pathfinder has a contingent of very loyal fans who either started with 3e, or came back to D&D with the announcement of 3e after a long absence. At the time, though, the long-time loyal fans were playing it enthusiastically, of course.

5e seems to be most wildly popular with fans who started with 2e (or, perhaps, BECMI), and skipped 3e or 4e or both - and of course, with longtime 'loyal' fans who generally play the current ed, regardless. It hasn't attracted/retained a meaningful number of new players as yet.

OSR is worth mentioning, too, it seems to appeal to fans who started with 0e or 1e or B/X and dropped out of the hobby before 3e or 4e (or possibly even 2e), only to return ~20 years later.

Remember those are just my impressions, not hard data.

Personally, I enjoyed the support for 4th Ed. Everything else I found distasteful. (I started playing in 1st Ed.)

I thoroughly enjoyed 4e and wish it could have had a full run. (I started with 1e - technically with Basic, for a few sessions - in 1980). But, I'm shy of fitting the 'long time loyal fan' demographic, since I gave up on the second half of the 2e run, playing Storyteller and Hero in the interim.

 

[Celtavian]

The game won't please everyone. I don't think it is has anything to do with creativity. It's personal preference and nothing empirical. Plenty of folks had a blast with 4E making characters they liked. I played the game and did not enjoy it, yet I enjoy 5E a great deal. I'm glad to be back playing D&D as that is what I started with. Pathfinder was fun. I still like their modules more than any other company. I might even entertain a return to Pathfinder if they simplify their system and reset things. As far as I'm concerned Paizo has the best module designers in the business. It's unfortunate their game system has reached a bloat point I can't take the game any longer.

The ability to prepare adventures in a short time in 5E is probably the thing I like the most about the system. It's even easy to convert Pathfinder modules. I love the ability to customize 5E. Huge plus for me.