D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Celtavian]

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!

This is false. You seem to have missed the part that the DM decides when a roll is needed. It scales exactly as the DM allows it to scale. The DM decides if something is possible in a given situation for a given character. Then he decides whether it would require the PC to make a roll or not. He decides the DC. He could decide lifting a mountain is hard for a Titan, but impossible for a human. He could give the titan a DC 15 to lift the mountain and say it is impossible for the strength 20 fighter.

You don't seem to grasp how 5E set things up going by what you wrote. Nothing is static. It's all up to the DM as to how it works. That very much means you can construct any fiction you want with the system.

 

[Manbearcat]

If used as given... I would assume so. Can DW using it's default play procedures create a gritty feeling game? One where only those who are competent and skilled succeed? One where everyone has a chance to succeed at everything... and so on. And note if your answer is yes, just ignore the play procedures... well we can do that with any game and thus it only really works for those who want the default play style /campaign style that DW offers. When you standardize something you're by nature limiting its possibilities (both good and bad) that's kind of the point...isn't it?

You likely aren't interested in the system enough to self-educate (or I'm sure you would have already), but here is the SRD and here is a lengthy, in-progress play by post that should be illuminating.

1) The Powered By the Apocalypse systems (of which Vincent Baker's Apocalypse World is the original) are capable of an extraordinary amount of genre drift. Apocalypse World (as I'm sure you figured out) is a grim, post-apoc set game, kind of Mad Max meets The Road meets Fallout.

2) Dungeon World's default is a Story-Now system that is sort of a mash-up of B/X, 4e, and a smidge of Burning Wheel but it is easily driftable to something like Clinton R Nixon's post-apoc Sword & Sorcery of Shadows of Yesterday.

As mentioned prior, the basic resolution mechanic is a fiction-triggered "move" > roll 2d6 + stat mod > 6 - is a hard failure with major complications and mark 1 xp, 7-9 is success with complications/worse outcome, 10 + is success at intent (outcome-based design to generate the aforementioned bell curve). The basic resolution mechanics, the GMing protocol, and the fiction-first play procedures generate an enormous range of possible outcomes on any given roll of the dice (rather than binary pass:fail outputs, content generation/fiction evolution by way of dice is considerably less bounded in DW). Beyond that:

1) Armor is DR
2) HPs are low @ class (4, 6, 8, 10) + Con and don't change (unless you stat up Con - you get + 1 per level)
3) Combat with multiple opponents gets very dangerous so you have to find ways to deal with that
4) There is no action economy. Again, every move (GM or player) is triggered by the fiction and the snowball effect of the basic resolution mechanic's output.
5) Keyword tech drives a generous portion of the game (Near, Far, Forceful, Messy, etc)
6) There are open descriptor resources that can be deployed to avoid danger or augment your ability to mitigate it (Adventuring Gear uses being a primary one)
7) Magic is quite magical, heroes are heroic, danger is dangerous (and everywhere) and adventure is meant to be generated spontaneously by virtue of faithfully following the rules/play procedures. Play can easily be drifted from the mythical heroics of 4e to the bloody meatgrinder of old school dungeon crawls.
8) But everyone works off the same rules/basic resolution mechanic. In that, there is uniformity or standardization in systemization of play procedures.

Wizards and Clerics Cast a Spell and roll 2d6 + Int/Wis to find out what happens. Fighters Hack and Slash and roll 2d6 + Str to find out what happens. Paladins Lay on Hands and roll 2d6 + Cha to find out what happens. Rangers Hunt and Track and roll 2d6 + Wis to find out what happens.

You get the idea.

As to your premise of "when you standardize something (i) you're by nature limiting its possibilities (both good and bad) (ii) that's kind of the point...isn't it?" No, I wouldn't say that (i) isn't correct and, accordingly, (ii) can then not be correct. In TTRPGs, uniformity in structure and composition serves a few discrete (yet synergistic when taken as a whole) purposes:

A) It minimizes mental overhead and/or table handling time by simplifying play procedures to intuitive necessaries. You aren't referencing several subsystems or tables that interface with one another. Consequently, this serves as grease for the basic conversation and pace of play.

B) It minimizes the prospects of 2nd and 3rd order effects, happening when dissimilar/discordant subsystems/procedures interface, causing unintended mechanical artifacts to throw a monkey wrench in the system's machinery.

Taken together, these allow players (GM included) to hone in on themes of interest, the conflict therein, genre fidelity, and "playing to find out what happens" as interesting, genre-coherent story can unfold organically rather than being forced.

 

[Erechel]

Where I was saying that 4th edition was obliterating the prior editions, I was saying that there was an effort on saying that the edition is "superior" to every other edition prior, in every aspect possible. "New", "Better maths" and such. Also, I was saying that, where 3rd edition take the time to make conversion guides of characters of prior editions, 4th edition don't (at least not as a baseline). I'm also talking about the fanbase, not the system itself, claiming its superiority (even here), and claiming how "better" they are for accepting change (I entered in a long discussion a few months ago because of this). Let's not forget that it was the edition that skyrocketeed the Edition Wars. And that is not simply because the product itself is better/worse than others, but by publicity, fanbase, and everything else around the game. It iIs all the circle around the system, not the system itself what I'm critizicing (which, by the way I don't quite like for several reasons, but YMMV and the waters are already revolted, so...)

About the "ironical" reading of the thread name, it is not the case. It is a clear statement. But, lets do the exercise: I hardly see keeping low level armies relevant as a flaw, or a tone-down of epicness. So, you say that the Fall of Húrin in the Nirnaeth Aernoediad isn't epic? He was standing with a decaying army at the top of a cliff, his brother fallen at his side, crying Aurë entuluva! but ultimately being defeated by a massive orc army. This is not epic? Or the Battle of Whispering Wood, where Jaime Lannister was captured? Or the trolloc invasion on Two Rivers in WOT? Epic battles all of them, with massive or discrete numbers. And the main characters reveal to be very relevant, but not flawless. It's not the Big Damn Hero fighting alone against hordes without a sweat, but leading his limited resources to success, sacrificing, taking harsh choices, being injured or in the brink of death. It is one of the reasons why Batman is usually more popular than Superman: because we know that a lucky bullet can kill Batman, and still he fights gods (and beats the crap of them: Dark Knight Returns, Final Crisis, etc). Wits over superpowers.

I think that keeping armies relevant adds another layer to the game, and there is plenty of space in 5ed to simulate it. Several of my campaigns are centered around colliding armies, or amasing enough resources to rise one, equip it and train it well. In the DMG they are several optional rules to keep loyalty, morale, honor and such things important to keep the game in this level. It is also a safe ward against psychotic characters to easily overthrowing kings only because they can. Of course, they could still assassinate them, but they have to be stealthy, cunning, and overall it's more difficult. And at the same time, the BA keeps meaningful the low level characters. I absolutely love this factor.

I also love the subsystems. It requires a little mastery to know everything in the game, but the classes itself are fairly simple, with enough general mechanics to keep the game balanced, and enough variety to make a wizard feel and play different than a warlock or a sorcerer. I usually play fighters and wizards, but in a campaign mastered by a friend I've tried the warlock, and I absolutely love how different it is to the wizard. I had a harsh time deciding which Invocations take to second level: my warlock has a Great Other patron (and I chose Lord Morpheus, from Sandman, that is utterly alien although in some way familiar), and given this, I finally chose Misty Visions (to reflect the Shaper aspect of the Dream, and to tell stories with the phantasmagory of Silent Image) and Mask of Many Faces (Dream of the Endless shows different faces to everyone watching it, and changes is aspect quite often even in the same scene). Also, I've given the Awakened Mind voice a monotone sound, to reflect better the creepy voice of Dream, although my character is calishite, so his voice sounds arabian.

Celtavian, the dragon itself is a terrifying presence that almost every archer has never encountered before. I, as a GM, would check morale every round. And you can easily justify by this means why a dragon would Polymorph to keep low profile, or command/ hire goblins, orcs or whatever. But nevertheless, I've encountered with this problem in every edition, only to be resolved by the "wild card" factor of the heroes. I see the heroes as a breakage of the status quo: an advantage in a risky situation. This was always a factor in my games, and I've considered a lot. I don't quite like the Faerûn approach to adventurers; I keep my adventurers grounded with loyalty, duty or plain profit. They can be part of the archers that are going to attack the dragon, the captains commanding them, or the sneaky adventurers that drive the dragon insane enough to go out and be distracted from the archers.

 

[Imaro]

@Celtavian pretty much covered this in his post... and answers @Tony Vargas question about why DC's affect worldbuilding... but I do want to touch on a few points...

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.

First there are more than 6 DC set points... since the game makes it pretty clear that it's a range of numbers not a single number that represents difficulty and those listed are the typical DC's. That said...

No 4e doesn't...If you follow the procedures of 4e (because if you're not then all that guidance and examples and p42 are all worthless) it has already (numerically) decided for you what Easy/Medium/Hard is based on character level... this in turn sets a mathematical probability for 4e PC's to succeed that is basically the same at every level... roughly 65% (I believe but I could be wrong). Now that suuccess rate might be great for an heroic game of gonzo action... but that ain't everyone's D&D.

Just as one example to help clarify what I mean and why it affects worldbuilding...let's say someone wants to play a more gritty game where success is reserved for only those who have actually trained in a skill... but 4e's DC's by level and automated prof bonuses work in tangent to create a game and world that are at odds with this. In 5e I could make tasks only have easy (you have proficiency in the skill) or very hard DC's (You don't have proficiency in the skill)... so if you can somehow bring magic or help or other forms of aid to bear, you have a slim chance of succeeding without training... but you will not succeed without some form of aid if you don't have proficiency in a skill.

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.

So disregard the play procedures, advice, information and page 42... and 4e can do exactly what we're saying 5e can do... do you see now why some feel that stuff isn't worth much or can actively hinder the type of game they want to run?

EDIT: As I said earlier if your D&D style aligne with 4e's default playstyle you're well catered to by it's advice, play procedures, etc. However if your style doesn't align with it it doesn't offer any support and can actively hinder the type of game you want to play

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!

You mean you can't scale much by level... right? That's not the only way to scale and 5e doesn't prescribe a particular way to scale like 4e does... you're assuming all of us want to scale by level... but that's not true.

 

[Erechel]

There is also Supreme Sneak for 9th level thieves, and Stroke of Luck at 20th level.

I forgot them, but:
Supreme Sneak: Hide is one of the main features of the rogue, and with Expertise already there it is hardly ground breaker, only a minor boost. But at this time, the champion has both Remarkable Athlete and one more feat/ASI. And this ability also has a limited usage (Hide and walk slowly has advantage... I even give this for free sometimes). And a wizard has two 5 level slots. I'm not saying it isn't useful, but I don't think that is a big deal.

Stroke of Luck: Same case of Cunning Action, as it is a combat ability, and a limited resource. And requires Level 20, where fighters have 7 ASI or feats (granted, the rogues are the second best at this, as they have 6 ASI, but other classes have 5). I think we were talking about non combat pillars, and low to mid level. By this time, Fighters have three Indomitable uses, two Action Surges and an ASI more than the rogues.

This ultimately fails to disprove what many people is saying: the Fighter is far from worthless outside combat. In situations were time is key, an Action Surge, being a generalistic action, comes in handy (in a chase for example, or saving your companions from falling while you are holding still). No one can deny this utility, and if you aren't playing with limited timeframes outside combat, it's your loss. Ship wreckages, accidents, collapsing walls or chases are a few examples where timing is a key factor.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

level 1 seems to be both an anti-cherrypicking measure and to some extent a gimme to those who want either a 'meatgrinder level' or an 'apprentice level'. Though IMHO 5e's level 1 PCs are rather tougher and more capable than either of those use cases would prefer. They're definitely 'beyond normal', the wizard can throw Fire Bolt all day, the Fighter has something like 2x the hit points of a normal human, etc. So they aren't apprentices exactly, at least not quite to the degree that other games have had 'level 0' PCs. Nor are they the monster-equivalent skulking would-be tomb raiders of 0e or B/X days, they have substantial staying power, resources, and options.

I think they were divided on how level 1 should work, and the result is sort of neither fish nor fowl. Its not too bad from my perspective, you get to level 3 in 2 sessions and move on, without drastic mortality.

So yeah, I think level 3 is about equivalent to 4e level 1, and from there 5e's next 17 levels roughly approximate the next 10 or so levels of 4e, except wizards get a huge break, they benefit from all the rapid hit point increases, but they also get high level spells plus the 5e version of ritual casting, pretty sweet if you're a wizard!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Facts:
*you are heavy modding 4th edition. You could easily mod 5th the same way. It does not count. Base game still has some of this
*5th Edition is not (as it was 4th) a loud obliteration of every prior edition, but a convergence. It supposedly has to unify the editions in one. Several 4ed rules are present in DMG, so as several 1st, 2nd an 3rd edition.

My comments about my own rules modifications aren't meant as a commentary on how superior they are to 5e. They were meant only to illustrate certain factors in the design of D&D-like game engines and the tradeoffs that are involved. They also may illustrate alternative approaches to the issues addressed by 5e, and thus again highlight things that had to be given up to get there. The thread is intended to be a critique of 5e after all.

I could simply tell you in what ways 4e is better, but that wouldn't be as informative, and has been done to death already anyhow.

Aside from the numbers, the 20th level barbarian actually kicks a lot of ass. This is what I said earlier about bad intentioned claims. Among multiattack, superior scores, superior hit points and almost everything else, a "random local kid" has not the slightest chance to beat a raging barbarian. Maybe a platoon of orcs can, but they are orcs, and they are a platoon, not "one" kid. And one 8 year old kid can enter in your house and stab you in real life, even if you are a US marine.

Sure, IN REAL LIFE. In real life said marine can get popped in a fire fight by some 14 yr old jihadi too. Real life doesn't have the fantastical concept of mighty heroes who operate on a whole different level than normal people. In 5e, oddly, even the mightiest of these heroes can sometimes fail where an ordinary person can succeed. In one of my threads I talk about the peculiar consequence of this that you cannot tie truly fantastical actions to skills, because peasants might move mountains. This kind of limitation doesn't exist in systems with a more bonus-based progression.

THis is, as you said earlier, an old question, appliable to almost every edition. There are plenty of reasons why, but for some respect, we have to say that very little 1st level characters draw the king's attention to themselves. And also there is the fact of the amount of lives risked: an ancient red dragon can kill almost anything that comes around, even if he is capable of killing armies before going down. If you were the king, and have to choose between risking your entire army to be erased (half by the dragon, half by other armies when yours is weakened) or five acclaimed heroes that have nothing to do with your army, what do you choose? I prefer to save my army and risk the stupid mercenaries, thank you. You also can be trying to kill the dragon for your own glory and gain, before the army is there yet. Maybe you are in the right place at the right time. Maybe the army is too busy fighting the raiding orcs/marauders to attend the dragon. Or maybe you are the king, or the army's general, champion, whatever.

Sure, but in 5e you have to ask why send the 15th level PCs to fight the dragon when 100 crossbowmen will clean up that problem in a trice. Now, granted, you can always invent some plot reason for whatever to happen, but the point is that 5e high level PCs aren't really that unique. They are absolutely undoubtedly individually much superior, but in terms of combat a mess of low level NPCs can accomplish the same thing. This was entirely not true in 4e or really in 3e much past a certain point.

Again, there's no doubt that certain things are only possible for say high level casters, but again this brings up the question of what actually makes high level non-casters unique? Not much!

Otherwise, why the evil 20th level Lich haven't conquered the world yet with the flaming demons army, when clearly there is no other hero but the stupid 1st level party? Were are the overwhelming masses of 10th level hobgoblins that the heroes fight at 10th level before the heroes reach 10 level?

I don't know what any of this has to do with 5e particularly. These problems are simply MORE ACUTE in 5e than they were in 4e or 3e (past 6th level or so).

You see Tyrlaan? this is the kind of posts that brought to the table my ranting against 4th Edition (and I've not critiziced it in this post)

Look, its a 'rant about 5e' thread. If you don't like the subject, you don't have to participate. We get that you genuinely qualify as a h4ter, OK? Your creds are secure there, sheesh! The point here was comparison and contrast, and the fact is 4e is the most relevant contrast. If you want to launch a 4e bashing thread, be my guest, I won't be showing up. lol.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In 5E, you would not even roll for an ordinary strength level 1 figure. Ability/Skill checks of nearly any kind are only required if the DM deems it necessary. The DM would only require rolls against those strong enough to challenged the barbarian. If an 12 Str kobold decides to arm wrestle, he doesn't get to roll. He loses. That's how 5E runs.

Well, that example is how you might run it. Other DM's judgement about 'strong enough to challenge the barbarian,' might be different. So the 12 STR Kobold might get to roll. The DM would also be fully within his rights to rule that the Kobold won.

This part is a bit goofy I admit. This was clearly shown by Hemlock where his 26 skeleton archers can kill an Adult Green Dragon. That means any king with an army can hire a few hundred archers to kill a dragon as long as he can get it in the open.

The way this is handled in 5E is for the DM to narrate that this cannot be accomplished by that army. I don't know if I love this method. It is sort of off-putting that a few hundred level 1 bowman can kill a dragon.

It's just a mathematical consequence of Bounded Accuracy. The solution is the same as with the Kobold vs Barbarian arm-wrestling. The DM rules that the army's arrows bounce of the dragon's scales and it eats the lot of 'em. End of story: ruling, not rules.

5E is pretty much the "This is your game. Do with it what you wish." edition more than any other one. They are literally leaving almost everything up to the DM.

It is. And I'm embarrassingly pleased with that fact. I learned to run games using 1e, and creating variants and over-ruling the system and improvising were big parts of running it well. I'm comfortable doing that again (though, so far, mostly ruling & improvising, not so much creating variants, as yet - maybe if I get a campaign going). In fact, I'm doing more of it, now, even when I run 4e, even though I don't really need to.

But, I can see how it's uncomfortable for folks accustomed to following the RAW, something typified be 3.x, in spite of it's articulation of rule 0.

Warning: American 'Football' analogy coming...
From that point of view, the 5e resolution system calling for DM judgement every time is like 'punting on the first down.' It's the last resort, so do it first. Conversely, the 3.5 zeitgeist of sticking to the RAW even as your campaign goes down the tubes, is like running down the center on fourth and long.

 

[MoutonRustique]

In 5E, you would not even roll for an ordinary strength level 1 figure. The DM would only require rolls against those strong enough to challenged the barbarian. If an 12 Str kobold decides to arm wrestle, he doesn't get to roll. He loses. That's how 5E runs. Ability/Skill checks of nearly any kind are only required if the DM deems it necessary.

I'm having a hard time accepting this as meaning anything other than : "actively protect players from the system"

As I've seen espoused, the 5e DCs are "world-set".

So I'm having problems figuring out how you'd sell the idea that though you have a very reasonable chance to succeed, you actually don't get to try...

I'm seeing it play out like :
Strong peasant (Str 14) vs 20th level Barb = no check
Strong low-level Fighter vs 20th level Barb = ? perhaps a check
Average (Str 10) 20th level fighter vs 20th level Barb = check*
Strong peasant (Str 14) vs 20th level Dex Fighter (10 Str) = ???

*I would assume this one gets to try, even if it has, by 5e's principals, a lower chance of success than the stronger peasant - which leaves me in a state of ???

The main point is actually the impossibility for me to know which situation would allow for a contest.

You don't seem to grasp how 5E set things up going by what you wrote. Nothing is static. It's all up to the DM as to how it works. That very much means you can construct any fiction you want with the system.

See above - you are completely correct. If this is meant as the way it is supposed to be, then I completely mis-understood the books.

This ultimately fails to disprove what many people is saying: the Fighter is far from worthless outside combat. In situations were time is key, an Action Surge, being a generalistic action, comes in handy (in a chase for example, or saving your companions from falling while you are holding still). No one can deny this utility, and if you aren't playing with limited timeframes outside combat, it's your loss. Ship wreckages, accidents, collapsing walls or chases are a few examples where timing is a key factor.

Bolded 1 - no one is saying they are worthless. They (and I) are saying they have nothing particular to offer. They are worse than everyone else (note that "worse" is a relative term - it does not mean "bad", it simply means "not as good"). They are not abysmal, they simply have no tools to improve upon the baseline while every other class has a few.

Bolded 2 - I fail to see how AS gives out-of-turn options. But that could be a very appropriate house-rule.

Bolded 3 - in the way you are implying, yes, it can be done. (You're implying a great deal of use in broad situations where AS would give a significant advantage.) AS is very limited in use with short rests being so long - there is very little guarantee that it will be available. The examples you give don't work very well - having +33% speed for one round, would impact a chase only in the case were the target would be very, very close. Unless you're using it as a form of "you spent a relevant resource and so I shall reward you with appropriate success" - which is great! But not how the ability works in the "base game" - so we're definitely entering house-rule territory.

Point is : AS can be very useful out of combat, but that usefulness is very DM-dependant. A more "neutral" reading offers some use, that is certain, but not so impressive as that. But it is something!

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

In 5E, you would not even roll for an ordinary strength level 1 figure. The DM would only require rolls against those strong enough to challenged the barbarian. If an 12 Str kobold decides to arm wrestle, he doesn't get to roll. He loses. That's how 5E runs. Ability/Skill checks of nearly any kind are only required if the DM deems it necessary.

Yeah, that's just sort of an odd answer. I mean in 4e by contrast if your level 20 fighter wanders around a level 1 village he can pick any lock, the level 20 wizard can win any arm wrestling contest, etc. Both of these are kind of edge cases, it just seems to me that the 5e edge case has a greater implication for the fiction. Clearly all such edge cases devolve down to "don't do that!", never was it a totally satisfying answer...

This part is a bit goofy I admit. This was clearly shown by Hemlock where his 26 skeleton archers can kill an Adult Green Dragon. That means any king with an army can hire a few hundred archers to kill a dragon as long as he can get it in the open.

The way this is handled in 5E is for the DM to narrate that this cannot be accomplished by that army. I don't know if I love this method. It is sort of off-putting that a few hundred level 1 bowman can kill a dragon. I can change some of the dragon abilities to alter this and I probably will. I plan to give dragons DR and damage reduction I think. Dragons seem badly designed in this edition for what they should be.

Fortunately, monster design is easy to fix as is just about anything in 5E. 5E is extremely easy to modify. There are no hard and fast rules in 5E. You modify to accomplish the fiction you want to accomplish. Right now people are used to codified rules, even 4E players like yourself are having trouble setting DCs. 5E is pretty much the "This is your game. Do with it what you wish." edition more than any other one. They are literally leaving almost everything up to the DM.

I dunno. I guess I never felt the constraints that so many people talk about. 5e is a set of rules, just like all others, you make it work to your service. Perhaps my attitude is left over from 0e days. Consequently I don't find there to be some advantage to 5e in terms of 'make stuff up'.

My criteria is always "how much stuff do I HAVE to make up." If I buy a game, why not have it work as intended from day one? I guess I could simply reinvent many specific monsters to have attributes that make them unbeatable to masses of lower level people (probably just require magic weapons to hit them). It just seems a bit more contrived than "The dragon is just so incredibly huge and tough that he can literally eat 100 crossbowmen" which would be the 4e variation.

In the end none of this is any tragic flaw. 5e works OK, and you don't have to paper over anything substantially more than you would in older editions, generally speaking. So, yeah, its an oddity and a reason I liked the general power curve that 4e had a bit better. 5e just seems to be designed to produce a more 'low fantasy' type of result where even your really boss hero guys are still basically qualitatively in the same realm as the rest of the ordinary world.