D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Tony Vargas]

What I didn't like about 4th edition was the challenge treadmill. I like the fact that in 5th edition, creatures of a lower challenge rating are still a threat.

Nod. Slower advancement does that. D&D has always had trouble with that Conan-standing-on-a-pile-of-bodies trope. In classic and 3e, by the time you could mow through goblins or orcs or whatever, they couldn't touch you. 4e neatly solved that with minions, 5e addressed it with Bounded Accuracy. (Swarms/mobs were another mechanic that could address the issue, and were first introduced in 3.x, sometime.)

Bounded Accuracy meant slowing progressions of attacks, AC, saves and DCs - and incidentally, other checks. So PCs don't get much better over 20 levels. Something they could fail at 1st level by rolling a 9, they can still fail 19 levels later, by rolling a 4. You might hit a Kobold on a natural 8 at 1st level, and a Demon Lord on a natural 8 at level 19. You're still on a treadmill, it's just a slower one.

The numbers are different in 4e & 5e, but the system is similar, that way.

By the same token, 1e attack matrices, 2e THAC0, and 3.x BAB were cosmetically different, but shaped the systems in similar ways.

I hated that I had to use Gods and beyond to challenge high level PCs.

Avatars - outside the Immortals Set, I don't think you could ever challenge actual gods - and, of course, Demon Princes and Lords of Hell and the like. DMs had been doing that since Gods, Demi-Gods, & Heroes (1976). 5e's hasn't published any stats for avatars, yet. But, if Bounded Accuracy holds true, not only could high level characters challenge a hypothetical 5e Avatar, a large enough mob of mid-level ones could probably annihilate it.

Actually, isn't it completely fair to say all (or most; i'm sure there are exceptions out there) level-based RPGs have a "treadmill"?

You can avoid it with very un-even progressions. Though that's not really 'avoiding the treadmill' so much as 'failing to have level mean anything' or 'sucking at encounter balance.'

For instance, in 3e, a character with maxxed ranks in a trained, in-class skill would be on a sort of treadmill vs the sorts of DCs he'd face in critical rolls, like finding & disarming traps or spotting same-level hidden monsters. But, everyone else - everyone not putting ranks in the skill or having it cross-classed - would be falling behind, rapidly.

Conversely, also in 3e, Diplomacy had fixed DCs based on the attitude of the subjects, not their level or relative level, so as you put ranks in it, you could make friends & influence people, and, well, anything else you could communicate with. Definitely not a treadmill.

Similar examples, where either the PCs don't get better at things even as they face harder challenges, or advance in near-lock step, or outpace challenges, can be found in classic D&D, as well.

 

[Ashkelon]

It's still a treadmill though, just with a different "shape to the tread" so to speak, right? In either game you can toss easier or harder tasks/obstacles at the party.

Actually, isn't it completely fair to say all (or most; i'm sure there are exceptions out there) level-based RPGs have a "treadmill"?

This is so true, the difference really just lay with the scale of things. In 5e, your numbers grow by about +5 to +10 over the course of 20 levels. In 4e, your numbers grow by about +20 in that same period.

4e actually works much better IMHO if you remove the 1/2 level bonus from both players and monsters.
(or keep it for players, but get rid of scaling feat bonuses, enhancement bonuses, and attribute increases from leveling).

 

[Bacon Bits]

The 4e 'treadmill' was notorious, and was a real, mathematical, intentional thing: PCs advanced evenly and substantially as they leveled, but the DM could always provide challenges for them, regardless. As long as you played everything the same level, you walked on the 'treadmill.' Bounded Accuracy is no different, there's just much less advancement in terms of absolute numbers. A much slower treadmill.

I'm not so sure I agree. When the AC of creatures that are listed as challenge 15 and up have the same AC as those below 5, there's clearly something going on. A Veteran at Challenge 3 has an AC of 17. Nothing short of the oldest dragons has an AC over 20 that I can tell, and a level 9 PC hits that 50% of the time. I mean, part of the reason that Sharpshooter and Great Weapon Master are kind of absurd at high level is because when you have a +11 to hit, the -5 penalty is often not enough to make the damage bonus a gamble when you're fighting stuff with AC 15; it's more of a self-evident choice. Scan through Rise of Tiamat sometime and look at the ACs in there. That's what really had me saying, "hmmm" about those feats. Scaling isn't really done on the d20 anymore. Your proficiency bonus is almost entirely you getting ahead of the curve.

Saving throws still scale with monster level (aka, challenge) somewhat, and certainly hit points and damage do, but of course damage increases with level for PCs as well (better spells and extra attacks) and spells of higher level are more potent in other ways, so they scale in a slightly orthogonal way (they do more damage or have more potent effects, but overall have the same hit rate).

I'd also argue that there's a significant difference between putting magic items on a schedule so that you stay on pace on the treadmill, and magic items getting you ahead of the treadmill.

And I think there's a significant difference in encounter design, too. In 4e, you're expected to fight creatures within 1-3 CR of your level. In 5e, you're expected to be able to hit anything in the game from level 1. You'll get overwhelmed by the damage and the hp of high challenge enemies, but they won't be bulletproof to you like they have been in previous editions.

 

[Imaro]

Every game is good at what it is good at. It may be good at several things, it may be good at only one thing. DW is quite good at emulating the NARRATIVE of 'classic' B/X D&D, but with a completely different type of mechanics and a wholly different type of game. B/X is a procedural player-challenge game of hidden knowledge and logistical problem-solving, with some tactics thrown in. DW is a story-telling game.

So, when you ask "Is DW 'gritty'?" there isn't an answer to that. It should produce the narrative of a group of characters grittily grubbing through dungeons and such trying to husband their torches, find and avoid hazards, etc. However the players DO NOT in any sense in DW keep track of inventories or anything like that. Instead the DM might 'Reveal an Unwelcome Truth' with "your last torch is showing signs of burning down, you have maybe 10 more minutes of light and then you'll have to continue in pitch darkness..."

Now, there's a narrative consistency aspect to the game, like any RPG, so if the party has explicitly acquired a vast stockpile of torches you'd have to explain how they're no longer available. Still, its very hard to use the sorts of terminology with DW that you would use with procedural exploration games like D&D, although 4e is in some sense in a bit different class.

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.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I've been playing 5e for a while now and the trend I have noticed is to focus on complete obliteration of enemies HP through stacking accuracy bonuses (bless, advantage, etc) with GWM and SS. Why waste an action improvising when HP damage can simply eliminate a foe.

That (except for the specific names of the stacking hit & damage bonuses) has been and will likely remain true of D&D as long as it uses hit points. Hit points, which leave an enemy fighting at full effectiveness until it drops at 0hp, just make focusing on enemies and downing them one at a time efficient. Other games, that use systems that impose penalities for being hit, wounded, or even just attacked, make spreading out attacks or using other tactics than just piling on damage more viable. They also produce very un-fun 'death spirals.'

4e actually works much better IMHO if you remove the 1/2 level bonus from both players and monsters.
(or keep it for players, but get rid of scaling feat bonuses, enhancement bonuses, and attribute increases from leveling).

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.

I'm not so sure I agree. When the AC of creatures that are listed as challenge 15 and up have the same AC as those below 5, there's clearly something going on.

There's scaling, and there's variation. Compare lowest AC at a given level to lowest AC's at another, do the same for highest ACs. I think you'll see it, then.

Scaling isn't really done on the d20 anymore. Your proficiency bonus is almost entirely you getting ahead of the curve.

Scaling is small in magnitude compared to the d20, so if you're off the level-appropriate reservation, the d20's randomness can easily overwhelm the small difference in proficiency. Only magic items really put you /ahead/ of the curve, though.

Saving throws still scale with monster level

Yes, and save DCs with caster level.

And I think there's a significant difference in encounter design, too.

There is.

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.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've been playing 5e for a while now and the trend I have noticed is to focus on complete obliteration of enemies HP through stacking accuracy bonuses (bless, advantage, etc) with GWM and SS. Why waste an action improvising when HP damage can simply eliminate a foe.

In all fairness, the group I play with is not nearly so optimized in their tactics, but in 5 full levels of play I haven't seen a character do anything unusual except with spells (and my character is the wizard). The battlemaster uses his tricks efficiently, the rogue usually attacks someone he can get his extra damage dice on, but nobody has SS or GWM. The cleric spends most of his time healing etc. We've had bad luck with clerics though, they die like flies, now we have a new guy that brought in a level 5 cleric of the fire god. He mostly pretends to be a wizard and burninates things (pretty well too) in between CLWs.

My point is, even without playing some sort of highly tactical min/max game I don't see any real big push to pull stunts. All our players are experienced (we probably have 100+ years of D&D playing collectively). Its not like we don't have the idea of stunting. Outside of combat PCs have definitely leveraged their skills and "done stuff", but in fights, the casters perform control and general damage infliction, the fighters tromp on everything else, the rogue does basic sneak tactics, and the cleric heals. It hasn't been blazingly innovative play at all.

I will confess though, I don't think our DM is pushing us too hard with fights. Now and then a character gets ganked due to basically bad luck, but in the last couple levels the fights haven't really been that hard.

 

[Corpsetaker]

In 5e, you're expected to be able to hit anything in the game from level 1. You'll get overwhelmed by the damage and the hp of high challenge enemies, but they won't be bulletproof to you like they have been in previous editions.

This is what I really like about the new edition.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm glad it works for you.

Nope. You are missing out. But that is ok because you obviously have a game you love.

Bounded accuracy brings a substantial new dimension to the game, IME. And while Advantage obviously works perfectly well from a pure mechanical perspective in other Roll + Mod style systems, the nuance of how it fits into the overall balance and intersection between story and model of story is quite different within the bounded range.

If you don't observe that, I'm already finding it quite easy to live with your difference in perception.

Hey, you seem to think there's some sort of subtlety here I'm missing. What can I say? If you wish to expound on it then perhaps it will cease being a mystery. Otherwise I can do no more than to observe that in every respect I know of Advantage works fine in all of these systems, and it achieves the same thing. Tony noted above that 4e had both a simpler form of advantage (CA for +2 and acted as a trigger for a lot of things) as well.

BA is nothing more than tweaking down the normal d20 bonus growth that has been roughly +1/level in all previous editions to about +1/2 levels. The effects are pretty minor really. It somewhat amplifies the value of multiple attacks, because damage rates had to be increased. Overall I preferred the more traditional bonus curve. The only respect in which 4e really pushed was in explicitly extending the game to 30 levels, which does create a more distinct tiering effect. If you rescaled 4e mechanics to a 20 level progression you'd get rid of roughly 10 points of bonus growth, and the two systems start to really look pretty much alike.

 

[Tony Vargas]

BA is nothing more than tweaking down the normal d20 bonus growth that has been roughly +1/level in all previous editions to about +1/2 levels.

Or less. Or more wth expertise. Though, you'd have to include proficiency, stat boosts, and magic items (which, supposedly, are supposed to be entirely optional), to get up to +10 at 20th relative to 1st. (1st, typically 3 stat, 2 proficiency, +4 - 20th with +6 prof would need +5 stat, a +3 weapon, and still come up 1 shy at only 9 better than 1st - though I guess that could just be rounding down).

Expertise, OTOH, since you don't get at level 1, can add 6 to that progression. So from barely +1/2, to +3/4.

The effects are pretty minor really. It somewhat amplifies the value of multiple attacks, because damage rates had to be increased. Overall I preferred the more traditional bonus curve.

Multiple attacks have been problematic in every edition. Even 'somewhat' could be an issue.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is so true, the difference really just lay with the scale of things. In 5e, your numbers grow by about +5 to +10 over the course of 20 levels. In 4e, your numbers grow by about +20 in that same period.

4e actually works much better IMHO if you remove the 1/2 level bonus from both players and monsters.
(or keep it for players, but get rid of scaling feat bonuses, enhancement bonuses, and attribute increases from leveling).

In my hack I got rid of attribute increases, I just never liked the whole "lets change the fundamental RP attributes of your character" that much, though you can still get a bonus at levels 7 and 16. Progression also only goes to 20. Assuming +1/tier magic items and the fact that pretty much no permanent bonuses outside level, proficiency, and ability stack means you can get 10 for levels, 2 for ability score increase (but all chars are capped at +5 anyway, so +1 is typical) and 3 for everything else (6 if you weren't proficient starting out and got it later). So you won't get more than about +14 over 20 levels, which is only 5 points more than 5e grants.

One of the problems with 5e's stunted bonus growth is that it really is impossible for most characters to get to the point where they can't be outperformed by a high roll by a much weaker opponent. Even a STR 20 barbarian can't win more than about 90% of his arm-wrestling contests against ordinary strength level 1 figures. Its a little peculiar when he's level 20 and some random local kid beats him an appreciable fraction of the time.

Another consequence of this is the old "why are they hiring heroes" question. If the king's guards can kill the dragon, is there really a need for the heroes to ride in and save the day? Oddly enough its 5e that needs levels 21-30, far more than 4e does, which handles this point quite convincingly.