D&D 5E What is "broken" in 5e?

[CapnZapp]

Heh. 5e isn't really balanced around the 6-8 encounter/2-3 short rest day, that's just the point it gets closest. ;P Seriously, though, that guideline is perhaps the clearest example of Mike 'promising' us something in the playtest and coming through with it as promised. It's that "crystal clear guidance" he committed to. It's funny that so many people are so upset to see WotC deliver.

Sorry but now I must say you're getting intentionally inflammatory, Tony.

Why talk about this as if it's something entirely benign? What do you gain by phrasing the disrupture of people's games as something as wholly positive like the phrase "see WotC deliver".

It's not just "guidelines", Tony! It's a built-in balance-point. You can't just run the game like Blue any more if you want Warlocks and Wizards to be equals.

What is so hard about understanding that WotC no longer supports their chosen way of playing the game, and to respect that by not reframing their anguish into glossed-over sales-pitch language?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Mathematically speaking, if you had disadvantage on attempts to grapple anyone larger than yourself, that would go a long way.

I think creatures larger than yourself typically have higher strength scores, unless you are at or nearing the limits of what I character can normally have, goes plenty far enough to make these situations "an unlikely task for mere mortals".

But I'm sure my threshold for what is allowed in a fantasy world, even without explicit magic or divinity, is simply much higher than yours.

...and are you sure about Odysseus having divine heritage? I don't remember either of his parents being a god of anything, but it has been quite a while since I've read the relevant materials.

 

[Caliban]

Maybe if it was a level 1 spell, bonus action, you gain advantage on your attacks this turn.

How about keeping it the same, but instead of Advantage it gives you a +5 bonus on your next attack? I'm not sure if that would swing it too far the other way or not.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

I think creatures larger than yourself typically have higher strength scores, unless you are at or nearing the limits of what I character can normally have, goes plenty far enough to make these situations "an unlikely task for mere mortals".

Except they don't, largely because of bounded accuracy. An ogre, for example, has Strength 19. The chances of any random human having Strength 19, given 3d6 distribution rather than 4d6 drop lowest, is 1 in 216. In a typical village of 2160 muggles, you will have about ten people who are as strong as an ogre, where being equally as strong as someone means you have a ~50% of holding them in place with one hand.

It gets worse, because the system doesn't account for size as a relevant factor, but it does account for skill. And since the Monster Manual treats monsters as third-class citizens (right behind NPCs) when determining skill proficiencies, that means ogres generally aren't proficient in Athletics where just about any PC or NPC with Strength 16 or higher will be. The net effect of these interacting rule decisions is that a substantial number of blacksmiths and farmhands have a better-than-even chance of holding an ogre down with one hand.

...and are you sure about Odysseus having divine heritage? I don't remember either of his parents being a god of anything, but it has been quite a while since I've read the relevant materials.

There are conflicting accounts as to whether his grandfather was or was not Zeus. As with any superhero origin story, it underwent several revisions, and there is no single definitive source on that.

If he could wrestle a giant to the ground with one hand, that would certainly lend weight to a claim of divine heritage. It's not something that any normal strongman could do.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It's not just "guidelines", Tony! It's a built-in balance-point.

OK, to be fair, most editions (Ok, except 4e, further fanning the "Not D&D" fire), when they balanced at all, had a built-in balance point like that, they just didn't /tell you were it was/. Mike promised to share that bit of wisdom (or, at least, where he meant to put it) this time around. And. He. Did.

You can't just run the game like Blue any more if you want Warlocks and Wizards to be equals.

Also to be fair, you've only been able to play Warlocks since 2004, and only remotely 'equal to Wizards' (yeah, right, they're not Warlocks of the Coast, y'know, whaddaya expect?) from 2008-12 (even then it was debatable, 'A' vs 'V' vs 'X' classes, the eMage power-up of Wizards, etc... so, maybe, briefly, in 2009 or 2010 sometime?)

Sorry but now I must say you're getting intentionally inflammatory, Tony.

Why talk about this as if it's something entirely benign? What do you gain by phrasing the disrupture of people's games as something as wholly positive like the phrase "see WotC deliver".

I am so sorry. I guess I just went too far.
I mean, what could be more inflammatory than a positive attitude?
I don't know what I was thinking. I'll try to be more dismal going forward.





:goes to get sack-cloth & ashes:

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Except they don't, largely because of bounded accuracy. An ogre, for example, has Strength 19. The chances of any random human having Strength 19, given 3d6 distribution rather than 4d6 drop lowest, is 1 in 216. In a typical village of 2160 muggles, you will have about ten people who are as strong as an ogre, where being equally as strong as someone means you have a ~50% of holding them in place with one hand.

Except they do.

Your assumption that the villagers living in a typical village have their ability scores determined by 3d6 roll, and thus about 10 of the lot of them are as strong as an ogre, is not actually supported by the rules of the 5th edition game.

What is supported by the 5th edition game would be that all commoners in a village use the commoner stat-block from the monster manual, so 0 of them are as strong as an ogre. Or that the DM is following the guidance for creating NPCs that is found in the DMG, wherein an NPC's strength need not even be given a score, and if given one is not even suggested for it to be forced to adhere to a 3d6 distribution.

The net effect of these interacting rule decisions is that a substantial number of blacksmiths and farmhands have a better-than-even chance of holding an ogre down with one hand.

If that is true at your table, it is because you have made choices as the DM that result in it being true.

At my table, the only smiths or farmhands that even have a chance worth getting the dice involve to wrestle an ogre are the ones that, for what ever reason, I have intentionally given that chance (and it is usually because they are actually the player characters, who with their 16+ Strength score and relevant skill proficiency are meant to be great, which is obvious by the fact they they - unlike normal folks - have fair chances of wrestling ogres.

It's not something that any normal strongman could do.

D&D 5th edition characters are not "any normal strongman" by definition - they are heroes, it says so right on the cover of the PHB.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Your assumption that the villagers living in a typical village have their ability scores determined by 3d6 roll, and thus about 10 of the lot of them are as strong as an ogre, is not actually supported by the rules of the 5th edition game.

What is supported by the 5th edition game would be that all commoners in a village use the commoner stat-block from the monster manual, so 0 of them are as strong as an ogre. Or that the DM is following the guidance for creating NPCs that is found in the DMG, wherein an NPC's strength need not even be given a score, and if given one is not even suggested for it to be forced to adhere to a 3d6 distribution.

If NPC statistical distribution cannot be inferred or derived from PC rules, then that is another rule of the game which is fundamentally broken, and even more problematic than the grappling rules.

Whether it is actually the case, or whether you have merely interpreted the rules incorrectly, is something I will confirm later. It seems probable that there are multiple options presented, or that there are multiple interpretations possible, and you are only remembering the rules which are used at your own table.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If NPC statistical distribution cannot be inferred or derived from PC rules, then that is another rule of the game which is fundamentally broken

No, it works just fine and the game is perfectly playable - it's just another rule that you would prefer be handled differently, which doesn't inherently make it broken.

...and you are only remembering the rules which are used at your own table.

That sounds like a pot making comments about a kettle, but I'll leave that at that.

I will say, however, that I do not make claims as to what the rules say without referencing the relevant rules material in the process of doing so, unless I am also stating clearly within the claim that I am going from memory. Please try to remember that in the future, so you don't make incorrect assumptions and say things which seem rude as a result.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

No, it works just fine and the game is perfectly playable - it's just another rule that you would prefer be handled differently, which doesn't inherently make it broken.

If PC rules don't apply to NPCs, then we don't have any real rules for governing NPCs, which is a massive shortcoming of the game. It would make the game unplayable in exactly the same manner which 4E was unplayable, and they really should have learned their lesson from that.

I will say, however, that I do not make claims as to what the rules say without referencing the relevant rules material in the process of doing so, unless I am also stating clearly within the claim that I am going from memory. Please try to remember that in the future, so you don't make incorrect assumptions and say things which seem rude as a result.

I'll just block you again. Maybe it will actually work this time.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

If PC rules don't apply to NPCs, then we don't have any real rules for governing NPCs

That's false. Rule for governing NPCs can exist without being the same rules that govern PCs. That's an objective fact.

What is subjective is whether or not a particular person likes that approach. For example, I do, and you clearly don't - and neither of us are wrong.

It would make the game unplayable in exactly the same manner which 4E was unplayable, and they really should have learned their lesson from that.

4E is playable. I don't personally like playing it, but it is absolutely playable.

I'll just block you again. Maybe it will actually work this time.

If you feel that blocking me because I don't like the way you rudely implied that I must be some kind of idiot that can't interpret or remember rules correctly, and/or because I disagree with your opinions that you've stated as objective facts and have pointed out that they are not objective facts, then that is your prerogative.

But publicly stating that you are going to do that... isn't that frowned upon here?