D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[doctorbadwolf]

Right, most material is going to assume you actually use levels 1, and 2, in 5e, so its a bit annoying to have to skip it and adjust things. There was an 'official' level 0 option in one of the Dragon magazines, and a companion adventure in Dungeon, but I didn't actually like their take very much. It was cut down a lot more than I would have done, or what your example indicates. I think your spin on it is about what I'd have done, had the issue ever come up.

Yeah, our group now starts at level 3, and usually we have a bonus feat at level 1, because that puts us about at our sweet spot.

I really miss certain aspects of 4e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Yeah, our group now starts at level 3, and usually we have a bonus feat at level 1, because that puts us about at our sweet spot.

I really miss certain aspects of 4e.

It is still there!

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Personally, I still think 5e characters begin too competent in their class. When I compare 1st level 3e or BX characters to their 5e counterparts, the 5e characters blow the others out of the water.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

It is still there!

Indeed, but with a group that doesn’t have a strong preference for an old edition over the new one, it’s hard to get new games started in the old edition. My group has some who prefer 4e, some who prefer 5e, and some who don’t care that much.

And I keep wanting to tinker with it every time I think too long about it.

 

[Ragmon]

Most of what you list is front loaded stuff you pick at level 1.

5e backgrounds are entirely non-rigid. The skills are 100% suggestions. You can, without any DM review beyond the normal DM right to veto legal options, just create a “variant” background with 2 skills, and 2 of languages or tools, and a feature+starting gear either chosen from the existing backgrounds or worked out with your DM.

Now that you said it and got to think about it, yea those are very front loaded options. That and a fair amount of stuff usually needs to be planned out ahead if you want to make a very specific character.

But it still stands that 3.X offer significantly more post-character creation options the 5e.
- The racial substitution classes can still be taken at later levels.
- The class variants can also be taken at later levels if you multiclass (if you take a different class).
- Multi-Classing without meeting requirements (not a big thing).
- Prestige classes.
- Much more feats.
- The skill system alone.
- Creature Templates for characters (yea some can only be taken at level 1).

I for one always take the custom option for backgrounds, cause I come up with my own ideas most of the time.

I'm gonna drop the the background thing, I just think it could have been done much better, instead of what we have now.

 

[Ragmon]

Representing people who like 5e as "scared" of 3.5's complexity is a pretty biased and overly simplistic stance. People's tastes just differ from yours.

Wasen't the point, some people don't like to play complex systems but still like RPGs. 5e is a less complex system them many other major systems, thus these people like playing 5e. 1+1=2 (why do I have to spell this out).

3.5: Theoretically possible but first you have to know if there is already a feat which can do this specifically and, if there is, then not just anyone can try it without the feat as that would be stepping on the toes of players who chose that feat. But, if there is not a feat, then the complexity of the jump rules, acrobatics rules, movement rules as they combine with acrobatics, attack to kick the barrels, check barrel weight and barrel hardness and material breaking rules, oil splash pattern to strike the fire, fire damage and spread, etc.. All that is just a lot of rules to look up, and most players would probably get bugged you're not just attacking with your bow and multiple attacks and known set of attack and damage routines from your character sheet.

5e: Probably just an acrobatics check and role damage with DM deciding on the fly anything unclear. The rules don't discourage that sort of procedure and are streamlined such that a player could reasonably do that with a single check, and so are less inclined to always look at their character sheet to decide what to do. It's a more complex decision for the player to make those choices, but it's less rules complexity than imagination based complexity.

Thats all up to the GM how they handle it. Player describes what they would like to do, GM says roll this and that. GM decides if the player fails/succeeds, based on the system played or based on their whim. This a completely different topic on how GM handle system and rules.

Why? I love the backgrounds. That's where some deep role playing complexity comes in at character creation. You no longer need to class to reflect "I am a pirate" or "I am a noble", and can do it with any class.

It never did, you never needed to. Its all up to your imagination. If you limited your character's style to their Race and Class, that was all up to you. Yes some classes have suggestion on what they are about, but hey, thats just a suggestion.

Those situations, while limited in frequency, are often very important when they do come up. Why do you think they're not?

If you are thinking of the Feature that come with the background, then its to make the game go more smoother.
Instead of rolling you just say that you have the Outlander background, no survival check needed when traveling from point A to B. Also you don't have to bother with counting rations cause the background provides food too. Simplification/streamlining is the name of the game.

 

[NiClerigo]

What I really dislike about 5e has to do with its lore rather than its rules, and is the fact that the only setting actually supported is the Forgotten Realms

 

[houser2112]

Case 2: All skills go up by 1 at 5th level or: add two points to this skill and one point to this skill and one point to this one. Did you make a real appreciable difference in modeling your archetype? "well, Gandalf knew a bunch about religion and history, but I really wish he could only go up one point in religion but two in history...this game is so static!" Said no one...most hopefully because they made a character COOLER than Gandalf

You use scare quotes around "this game is so static" as if it's not, but it really is. 5E does not let you spread your skill expertise as thinly as you may want. If it's not a class skill for your 1st level class, and it's not offered by your background, you will only ever get better at it by increasing ability scores (a very precious resource in 5E) or spending a feat (the SAME very precious resource as it would take to increase ability scores) to get proficiency. In 3.x, if you didn't have enough skill points to reflect all the skills you wanted your character to have at 1st level, you could make up for it later.

 

[Warpiglet]

You use scare quotes around "this game is so static" as if it's not, but it really is. 5E does not let you spread your skill expertise as thinly as you may want. If it's not a class skill for your 1st level class, and it's not offered by your background, you will only ever get better at it by increasing ability scores (a very precious resource in 5E) or spending a feat (the SAME very precious resource as it would take to increase ability scores) to get proficiency. In 3.x, if you didn't have enough skill points to reflect all the skills you wanted your character to have at 1st level, you could make up for it later.

The difference is how we think about the same fact. My point is that this particular additional granularity doesn't do much for many players. You are right, one could take a feat or multiclass, whatever but is has a cost. I am fine with that too.

From a narrative point it doesn't bother me either. If I was good at sneaking early on I am ok with more levels meaning I get better in similar proportions to my use of thieve's tools. Being able to be barely competent in a skills doesn't do much for me personally since it's just the difference between being skilled or unskilled since ability modifier is still there.

At relatively middle career being skilled or unskilled is 4 points. Being able to have one or 2 fewer points at a given time does not (for me) increase immersion.

I understand that is just my opinion.

Overall, I feel no loss with any of the simplifications. They just don't seem to come up in game, only in debates/analysis.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Not gaining skills on a somewhat regular basis is a missed opportunity. Each class should have a few points where getting a new proficiency is expected. Never being able to adapt to new situations is bad... relying on a feat that gives 3 skills and is optional is also bad...
There is an alternate reward that allows you to spend downtime to aquire a skill... but that is also locked behind the dm courtain. Oneof the few problematic things in 5e.