What 5e got wrong

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

Since we're quoting the books:



Even as early as the 1e DMG, they are noting that people basically cheated when they rolled 3d6 in order. "extended periods of attempts at finding a suitable one" indeed. IOW, since many people already cheat when they roll 3d6 in order, you might as well use these systems which will give you better results without having to roll and reroll over and over until you get a character you want to play.


I started playing in 1980, so, I can't speak to before that, but, I'm thinking that 1979 is far enough back to pretty much count as pretty much always. And, I certainly am not going to begin to attempt to claim to know how much "most people" were or were not aware of rolling rules. I know our group, in the very first session, rolled 4d6 drop lowest, so, it mustn't have been too hard to find the rules.

So, basically, we're talking about the 2 years from the 1e PHB to the DMG being released where 3d6 may have been the default. But, since that point, unless you were playing Holmes or Mentzer Basic, there is actually no listing for 3d6 in order in AD&D.

Since we're playing duelling anecdotes, I never saw a single group play 3d6 in order. Ever. I'm sure that some did though, I've certainly heard about this mythical beast, but, every where I went, every group I played with, 4d6 drop lowest was always the standard.

Again, the quote you mention confirms 3d6 as the default method - the 1E DMG just strongly suggests the Methods I-IV as "alternatives" to ensure better score generation.

The game acknowledged houserules practically from he beginning, but they weren't inherent in the system - I played with plenty groups that used each of the alternative systems as well, in addition to other variants, but addressed it as a houserule and left it at that.

Though we keep beating this dead horse, we're digressing from the topic at hand: what 5E got wrong (or what it didn't). I can accept that we're going to continue to disagree on this, which is fine -- I have true appreciation for valid debate on most topics.

IMHO, 5E, with its more evenly spread ability score modifiers and bounded accuracy has allowed for a more unified task resolution system, as an evolution of the d20 system. While 1E/2E may have seen less of a spread in apparent modifiers (direct combat adjustments being the most readily acknowledged), the scores' effects on multiple aspects of the game went much deeper (Strength was likely the least impacting, in this sense -- on the other hand, Intelligence determined maximum spell level and chance to learn spells, which could be incredibly limiting, and Wisdom determined both maximum spell level and bonus spells, both incredibly impacting).

My initial response was primarily regarding ability score generation and opportunity provided by ability scores to effectively create a preferred character, either with or without multiclassing, and I think it holds. Both score requirements and the impact of scores on being effective in a chosen class and level limits in that class with multiclass characters were simply a matter of fact in 1E/2E, while in 5E, ability generation can be considered after every other aspect of character creation, given the inherent option to assign scores, whether by standard array or rolling 4d6 and dropping the lowest die.

Ability scores are neither barrier nor crutch in 5E, which I believe, can be be attributed to one of the design philosophies of 5E - classes and races affording and defining effective archetypes, with ability scores being king in action resolution beyond that. Sure, the score modifiers can affect effectiveness of certain class features to a certain degree, but it doesn't restrict options -- a potential detractor in prior editions of the game.

 

[TheWriterFantastic™]

???

I've just checked the Basic Rules, and the 4d6 method is presented first with the standard array following. (Point Buy is called out as a Variant Rule.)

Though I'm not sure I'd necessarily describe either as the default method - the Basic Rules make it clear that you can choose to roll or use the array; obviously, one of them had to be presented first.

You're right - my bad. 4d6 is the primary for 5e, with standard array as the accepted alternative -- I'm recalling the default for public play. My argument for score generation and definition not being something that 5E got wrong still holds water, though I clearly should have double-checked my references.

 

[delericho]

In general, my list of things 5e got wrong has very little to do with the game, and is more about things that are around the game. Fortunately some, though not all, of these have been fixed by the community.

For example:

- The index has already been mentioned, as has the community generated version. (And yes, I know 5e actually compares well with other RPGs in terms of an index. But that's no credit to 5e - it's a mark of how badly other games do in this area.)

- The official character sheet is very poor. Again, the community have rectified this.

- I've found the Monster Creation rules to be extremely poorly explained. Here, again, Angry DM did a series of articles that totally turn them around, and make them very useful, but I do wish they'd written them differently (that is, better) in the first place.

But my big, #1 complaint:

- The bindings of the Core Rulebooks are simply not good enough for a $50 book. My DMG had pages coming loose before I completed even a read-through of the book, with no at-table use whatsoever. Given that I have a 1st Ed "Unearthed Arcana" with a solid binding (despite that book being notorious for the same), this really isn't good enough.

Don't get me wrong, WotC have created a great game, but there's just a few things that really grate.

 

[overbyte]

I think 5e got several things wrong, but did a LOT more right.

I think DM's have to work too hard to properly attrition players down. The DMG recommends a day having something like 6-8 fights, which in my opinion is nuts.

Sorcerers just don't quite fit in right. They're not unique enough, in my opinion, and probably should have just been scrapped.

The XP table is just flat out screwed up. Basically no one uses it and everyone goes by milestones. If you don't, it's ... well, it sucks. You fly up the table.

The feats are not balanced, and really needed some more passes before being pulled into the PHB. Some of them are just broken.

A 4d6 stat roll system can easily set you up with low level characters that can be game-breakingly strong in a system where you get ASI's every 4 levels. The point buy system they came up with is, actually, quite excellent. I'd recommend everyone use point buy as the default in 5e. It makes the decision of "feat vs ASI" much more meaningful.

Also, I think the game has way too much healing. Overnight healing to 100%, as well as the ability to recover all your HD+CON in an hour is like giving a party two full heals in a day before they touch their healing potions or spells. There's no resource management. I'm not advocating 1e/2e days of 1hp/day, or 3e days of 1hp/level/day, but I think something in-between would have been more reasonable. I think it would have made sense if they made healing potions a little more expensive, and made healing a little less accessible. Then players would have some decent gold sinks (healing potions and healing services!), at least in early game.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[overbyte]

Also, initiative. The initiative system in 5e is broken, but it's been broken in every version of D&D. People just don't know it's broken. It's broken because it stops the flow of the game and forces people to transition from one line of thinking into another.
I've said this on other forums, but I use an app that computes initiative for everything and rerolls initiative behind the DM screen every round. And I don't tell people when initiative starts. I simply describe the scene in detail and ask people what they are doing. What results is that people simply play their characters, and the immersion is much better. Every round people are watching the combat, not knowing who's going next, not knowing what's going to happen next. It's more exciting and keeps everyone's attention.
I've used this in 7 sessions now, and have already had 3 cases where players were actually in combat (initiative had started), and had no idea. In one situation, the player was in combat and managed to end combat peacefully without ever knowing he was about to be attacked. I play with a group of players who've played everything from OD&D through 4e (one of them has his own published game system), and they've said it's the best version of initiative they've ever played. I said, "That's because initiative is broken, but you never knew it"

 

[delericho]

Woah. Which printing?

No idea, sorry.

 

[OB1]

[MENTION=6813023]overbyte[/MENTION] just curious if you've tried to do a session or two using the 6-8 encounter guideline? If not it's really worth a shot, I feel like it makes a lot of the pieces of 5e fall into place.