The math framework in any RPG is really too big to explain in a forum post, and that applies to 5E. What is constraining about it is that it doesn't do what I want it to do, yet things are interconnected to the point where it's hard to change things without messing other things up.
It wouldn't be hard, for instance, to just amplify the range of Bounded Accuracy. Instead of +4 over 20 levels, +10 over 20 levels.
5E math more or less works, it's not as tight as 4E but it is a lower priority from a system standpoint so the bugs don't stand out as much, but as I've established in this thread I'm not happy with 5E 'as is' and trying to houserule it to where I want it to be would involve picking a fight with the math.
Bounded Accuracy is pretty tight. It's a narrow range, it doesn't get broken out of a lot.
Here's a simple variant that might help a bit:
Instead of proficiency adding +2 to +6 over 20 levels, it just adds +2 (+4 with Expertise - yeah, that 'nerfs' expertise a bit, maybe give the Rogue something to compensate - the Bard'd be fine even without it).
Every check gets the +4 over 20 levels, across the board. So does AC.
For more evident advancement and/or more meaningful specialization, just increase the numbers. +5 or 10 over 20 levels and/or +3 or +5 for proficiency.
if you were going to be hit by an attack, there were numerous tricks you could utilize to mitigate the hit, if you chose such options when creating your character (you could give them up to hit harder or whatever if you wanted). This is much less true in 5E--such things do exist, but tend to be more costly (a daily spell slot, or an every-4th-level feat).
A feat is costly, but it'll usually give you something very significant or several things (or only 'cost half' in the sense of still giving you a +1 to a specific stat). A daily spell slot is not that big an expense - you get a lot more of them in 5e.
The gap between the "skilled" and the "unskilled" has grown smaller.
At low level, but it expands with level (see above about tweaking proficiency for a 'solution'), and expertise is gasoline on that fire.
The fact that the number you add to the d20 is now much smaller and you have fewer "fiddly bits" to invest in to make it bigger means that someone who is proficient in a skill is only going to succeed more often than someone else of similar caliber who is not proficient on 3 out of 20 die rolls. This is an issue caused by the bounded accuracy system
Yes, but (I'm getting tired of saying that), that's also a built-in solution to a different issue. 5e doesn't have any structured sub-system for resolving non-combat encounters that would draw everyone into those challenges. What the smaller proficiency bonus and bounded accuracy in general does, though, /is/ let everyone participate in spite of that. You don't have to angle for a skill you're good at, or intentionally 'ground' your turn with an aid-another check or anything, you can just jump in and roll that skill you're no good at, because it /is/ random enough that you might carry the day some of the time.
5E's swingy, quick combat also is a boon at first that I am starting to see holes in. Notably, a climactic, exciting, cinematic battle to finish things off. And I'm having trouble pulling this off in 5th edition.
Prettymuch what Legendary monsters are for. Have you tried a few of them? This is also where you can take more of the resolution behind the screen, create an air of mystery around the enemy, and adjust specifics on the fly to assure the climactic battle you're shooting for.
The problem is, for as flexible as 5th edition claims to be, I find that 5th edition PCs are simply not capable of handling a longer, challenging, dynamic battle (or at least, the majority are not). If the battle is deadly, it must be over quick or the PCs simply will not be able to keep up with the damage/control the enemy is throwing at them.
More true of larger combats in terms of number of foes. And, again, this is something you can fine-tune on the fly.
And, there are solid support-capable classes in 5e (Cleric, Bard, Druid, Paladin) and tough 'tank' classes (Fighter, Paladin, Barbarian). Play the monsters just a little 'badly' here and there - focus a bit more on the tank, leave the 'healer' alone - and the party can come back from some dramatic, threat-establishing damage.
I'm still trying things here--certainly, one key is having the PCs be fighting the "lair" as much as they fight the "boss", but I'm not entirely certain I want to stick to the lair/legendary action structure--it seems a little rigid to me
It does so neatly adapt the sole-monster threat to the number of PC, though. It's slightly brilliant that way.
There are also fewer monsters on the board. As CR increases, the amount you can put on the board before the encounter turns "deadly" becomes quite small. 5E combat works best when dealing with small groups of monsters
That's the flip side of Bounded Accuracy. Just statistically, a big enough horde becomes deadly to anyone. Early on there were threads about a hundred or so rubes with bows killing legendary dragons and such. One solution you can lift from 3e/4e is consolidating large numbers of foes into Swarms. 5e /does/ have swarms, even if it doesn't apply the mechancis to less teeny monsters. It wouldn't be hard to extrapolate.
I'm stating mine (and never claimed to be speaking for everyone else) and in mine they created long, drawn out, slogs...
That is not how you stated it, you phrased it universally. You can compare more detailed combat with more options and more enemies one side and greater durability on the PC side as 'slower,' because it does take more rounds to finish and more table time to resolve, relative to less detailed combat vs fewer foes and less resilient PCs, without making one sound execrable and the other like the holy grail. You can express your preference for one or the other. You could even go into how the opposite was readily achievable under either system, if the DM chose to design encounters differently...
so please don't do that thing where you passive aggressively reword what I said
I quoted what you said. If you didn't mean for it to be taken a certain way, by all means, retract or further clarify it. It's clear now that you were talking about a personal preference and a personal experience, and just couched that opinion as a quality of the system in familiar-from-the-edition-war terms. You've rectified that mistake.
If the price is enduring a few more snide insults for pointing it out to you, I'll pay it.
I also found if a challenge to keep up with the errata. Though doing a little research I have found a lot of builds that can do insane damage.
The frequency of 'updates' was an issue, but they did tamp down stuff like that. Oddly, WotC's response to complaints about the game needing too-frequent errata wasn't to release less broken material in the Essentials era, but to just not fix it so much.
The issue is play not meeting expectations. I have (at least tried to) point out that it's my own expectations and preferences towards the system as opposed to the system in isolation.
D&D does have a certain history of past performance, and if your expectations of D&D were shaped by that history (if, like me, you've played the game since the 80s - or, like some others around here, since the very beginning, if not since Chainmail), then 5e doesn't exactly confound your expectations. It's mainly a matter of default emphasis, though, not system, and can be changed substantially by the DM...
You say that but I don't exactly see how I can do that without changing my expectations and preferences, which I'm not exactly inclined to do.
You can't as a player, directly. As a DM, you can. See above for one example.
I know you're not looking for solutions, per se, but you have gotten a number of recommendations in the preceding pages. Find a good enough DM working towards similar expectations, and 5e will deliver on them. All but guaranteed.
