D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Too bad. The "minion takes no damage from a miss" mechanic, alone, made them so much better than just low-hp/level monster hordes.

They were a really cool innovation. Can't recall if it was GURPS or BESM that innovated them, thought...

I don't know whether BESM had it before GURPS, but GURPS had this in 1999 as part of a 75-point Advantage for Black Ops characters:

'If it isn't important, you can just kill it: That's without a die- roll of any kind. By taking a one-second Attack maneuver, any Scrub becomes dead. Or they can become unconscious or maimed, if you feel like it. They must be within reach (or yards equal to your DX, for ranged weapons). Characters or foes of signifigance (GMs discretion) are immune to this. If you have multiple attacks you can make multiple kills.'

http://www222.pair.com/sjohn/blueroom/grip.htm

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Whereas in 5e, as both Saelorn and you point out, there is no support for thinking of the fiction in terms of its mechanically-determined pacing/dramatic relationship to the PCs. Eg there is no indication of what DC will generate a default 60% chance for what level of PC.

Fifth Edition doesn't have rules taking into account that you're trying to tell a story, and in my opinion, it is stronger for it. Since 5E isn't trying to tell a story - and rather, just lets the story happen however it unfolds, without regard to its dramatic or narrative weight - the place of the PCs within the story is irrelevant to the rules.

And somewhat as a side-effect, to prevent narrative dead-ends, it chooses to define the world in such a way that Bounded Accuracy is the result.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The chance that such ideas would be unique to only one person seems improbable.

I doubt it.

Empirically, AbdulAlhazred, you are wrong and Saelorn is correct. Saelorn's concerns are not unique, as witnessed by posters in this thread (including myself) who agree with several of them, whether or not they use the same terminology (or same strict definitions for "traditional RPG"). That's not an argumentum ad populum that Saelorn's concerns are dispositive or that 4E is therefore bad or unplayable--that's just a simple empirical observation that you've strayed into territory where your beliefs are factually and provably incorrect. Someone who is not Saelorn agrees with Saelorn, ergo you are incorrect in doubting his non-uniqueness on this issue.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

And maybe there is just a lot more variation and different concepts in RPG design than you ever conceived was possible. Its a very large field and I suspect there's still a whole lot of things you've not encountered or at least not wrapped your head around.

That doesn't mean that any of those other games will be as enjoyable, or as satisfying, as the core concept I already know and appreciate. The major reason why I enjoy RPGs is because they represent an objective reality that I can explore by taking the role of a character, with physical laws simplified enough that we don't need computers to represent any of it.

Other games may have other things to offer, but if they lose that, then they're not the same thing in any way that matters to me. Once the players are given authorial powers within the world (beyond what their characters control), or once characters can draw on the powers of narrative causality to distinguish themselves from NPCs, it spoils the illusion. There might still be some merit to it, as a game or story-telling exercise or what-have-you, but it's just not the same sort of thing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Another thought on Cave Slime.

Consider a system (of which some posters at least think 5e is an instance) which simply says: Cave Slime, DC 10 DEX (Acro) to avoid slipping prone when you walk on it.

How does this differ from 4e?

First, it doesn't expressly suggest that you might want to scale up your slime (from Green Cave Slime to, say, Ultra-violet Cave Slime) in encounters in more fantastic locations of the sort that higher-level PCs are more likely to engage with. Maybe there is even an implicit suggestion that higher-level PCs aren't more likely to have adventures in locations that are more fantastical.

Alternately, there is an implicit suggestion that challenges in high-level locations will involve things other than Cave Slime. That's how I would read it anyway: in a hypothetical 5E system where you get +1 prof bonus/level instead of +1/4, knowing that Cave Slime is DC 10 implies "high-level adventurers don't have to worry about cave slime (unless they're untrained in Acrobatics)." Instead of worrying about slipping on cave slime you worry about a qualitatively different threat, like whether the dragon whose cave you're slipping into has emplaced Symbols of Insanity in the chokepoints. Or rigged an Explosive Runes to blow up the dam and drown you.

To me, qualitative threat progression (tactical ==> operational ==> strategic) is way more interesting than just scaling up the quantitative DC ("it's really, really slippery slime") of a familiar threat. E.g. Aboleths aren't just upgraded orcs, they're qualitatively different and operate on a completely different, more strategic scale which could involve creating three minions a day every day for a thousand years and sending those minions out to capture more potential minions for you to dominate. If you think a Necromancer with 100 skeletons is bad news, consider that a master Vampire can vampirize an entire army of thousands of hobgoblins. Rakshasas infiltrate your organization and subvert it from within with telepathy and illusions (a la X-Men's Mystique) to defeat it in a way completely different from an orc chieftain or a hobgoblin warlord. Fixed DCs encourage graduation to new types of threats instead of just variations on the same old threat: Ultra Slippery Acidic Cave Slime.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Someone who is not Saelorn agrees with Saelorn, ergo you are incorrect in doubting his non-uniqueness on this issue.

To be fair, it hasn't been proven that you're not a sock-puppet account which I am using to make my ideas seem more popular than they actually are. I could theoretically be the source behind all h4ters on the entire internet, which would explain why so many people claim to have only encountered this perspective online and never in real life.

The prior improbability of that is pretty low, though, so it's much more likely that there was actual significant backlash against 4E, for whatever reasons that probably include opinions similar to the ones I've expressed above.

 

[Celtavian]

At 21st level every PC gets an epic destiny. Some of the more memorable (and self-explanatory) ones are demi-god, Prince of Hell, Emergent Primordial, Legendary Sovereign - hopefully you get the idea.

I find that idea of a demigod slipping on a patch of cave slime at the entrance to a kobold's cave unbearably silly, but that might just say something about me.

That would be silly. I wouldn't bother having a PC of that magnitude roll in any system. The fact that 4E spelled it out doesn't change that most DMs wouldn't require such a check.

I personally find it a bit incongruous that a high level PC can slip on the kobold's cave slime (missing the DC 10 check) but can't be stabbed to death by the kobold's dagger (a few hit points of damage is almost nothing to a PC with one- to two hundred hit points). 4e resolves the incongruity for me by taking rolls for kobold-level cave slime off the table once the PCs gets a few levels under their belts.

5E solves this incongruity in a similar fashion by allowing the DM to determine either during play or encounter creation if he thinks the kobold cave slime is interesting enough to require a roll. If the DM determines the slime isn't dangerous enough to be interesting, he says, "You cross over some slimy ground that sticks to your boots." If the cave slime is interesting, he determines the DC to cross it using Acrobatics or lets them figure out how to do it. If they come up with a means to do so that is foolproof, he allows it to work without bothering with rolls. 5E encourages very naturalistic play and rolling for non-combat challenges when it is interesting or appropriate to do so. If it isn't interesting or appropriate, don't bother rolling. 5E discourages unnecessary dice rolling.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What you are calling a traditional RPG is really something that became the norm in the mid-to-late 80s, under the influence of systems like HERO and Runequest and Rolemaster (which then affected D&D design in 3E).

+1: informative
Fair enough. It hasn't been traditional since the beginning of time, but merely for my entire existence. What's a better term, then? "Silver Age"? If I wanted to keep using the same terms, I could refer to anything before the mid-eighties reformation as a "Proto-RPG". You know, as though everything before that decision was just them kicking ideas around before they really settled on how to do things. That doesn't seem very productive, though.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To be fair, it hasn't been proven that you're not a sock-puppet account which I am using to make my ideas seem more popular than they actually are. I could theoretically be the source behind all h4ters on the entire internet, which would explain why so many people claim to have only encountered this perspective online and never in real life.

Shush! You're giving away our secret, Precious! Nasty hobbitses must never, ever find out the truth!

Gollum!

 

[Celtavian]

Not all clerics are healers of course, but if you wanted to make Clerics of Life actual good healers, you could replace their 3rd level domain spell Revivify with Aura of Vitality. That would instantly make them the best healers in the game. It still leaves 7/8 of the clerics as mediocre healers, but at least bards would no longer be top dog.

I like that clerics are no longer purely healers. They feel more like holy warriors now. No longer there to support the other members, but to hammer down as servants of their god. Clerics feel like they have real combat purpose and power now.