D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[Ovinomancer]

See, I was not even aware that this is literally RAW while doing it like that, still feels good to have the RAW on my side

Have you never read a post by @iserith?

 

[jasper]

I've pondered bows after reading up on medieval bows and warfare (e.g. why a crossbow vs. longbow). By the end, even a shortbow requires over 100 pounds of pull. There was a shipwreck with a career archer who had deformities from pulling the bow so often.

However, then there's the Lord of the Rings elf who pulls his bow all day long but clearly isn't as muscular. So, by the end, maybe we have elven style bows that somehow bypass physics and historical bows, and you can pick

Elves always cheat. At love, strength, making toys.

 

[jasper]

Triage and resource management are a major boon to a campaign.

And precious is the player who enjoys playing a well-run healer. They must be cherished and humored.

Or just pour a little bit of whiskey in them, and stick into a box until you need them. Like cigars.

 

[jasper]

To paraphrase my firt 5E DM, 5E is auto set to easy mode to prevent deaths. After running for a few years, and reading these forums, it seems most people prefer this.

I do agree with those who say the AC on monsters are a little too low. Inspiration is a game metagame mechanic but I do like giving it out to my players.

@Iry maybe I would change the bonus action casting rule. Some of my players always have trouble with it.

@Jd Smith1 resource management (RM) works if all players enjoy or tolerate management. One player I knows if he want to worry about rm, he would have stayed an accountant.

What would I change? Death due to aging effects. Would not happen a lot to long live races but it would be just as sweet. Already said add some more AC to monsters. A few more weapons say maybe 6. Give a small damage bonus for spell casters having high stat in x. Say up to 2x the stat bonus.

Finally make all those voices in my head and on those on the internet pay for the great ideas I am beaming into their brains, pay for them.

 

[Jd Smith1]

CR is not very reliable in determining the Strength of a particular (group of) monster(s) vs. a party of every possible constellation.

This is so true. I dumped CR a long time ago.

The 5e combat system can work well if the GM will apply proper tactics, abandons the CR system, and builds encounters to really test his PCs.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Deciding that certain characters can't make certain checks is RAW. The DM is always allowed to determine whether an action automatically succeeds, auto fails, or requires a check. They also have all the leeway in deciding why to do so.

It's ambiguous. The criteria for making that decision isn't spell out specifically. However, if the criteria that the DM uses (to decide who succeeds, fails, or needs to roll) is anything other than "roll when the DC is within 20 points of your modifier, fail if the DC is more than 20 points higher, and succeed if a 1 would be sufficient on the die roll," then you introduce massive inconsistencies within the mechanics. If you have two methods for resolving uncertainty (DM fiat, and the d20 roll), and they give wildly different outcomes, then the deciding factor becomes the arbitrary choice of which method to use.

Note that the d20 system, un-fettered by Bounded Accuracy, doesn't have this problem. In 3.x, you can let someone roll whenever they're within 20 points of the DC, and you get reasonable results. This issue is solely a result of Bounded Accuracy.

 

[Jd Smith1]

What does RAW stand for?

 

[Lanefan]

What does RAW stand for?

Rules As Written.

A corollary acronym you'll see sometimes is RAI, which stands for Rules As Intended; relevant in situations when RAW and RAI don't entirely agree.

 

[Jd Smith1]

Rules As Written.

A corollary acronym you'll see sometimes is RAI, which stands for Rules As Intended; relevant in situations when RAW and RAI don't entirely agree.

Thank you.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It's ambiguous. The criteria for making that decision isn't spell out specifically. However, if the criteria that the DM uses (to decide who succeeds, fails, or needs to roll) is anything other than "roll when the DC is within 20 points of your modifier, fail if the DC is more than 20 points higher, and succeed if a 1 would be sufficient on the die roll," then you introduce massive inconsistencies within the mechanics. If you have two methods for resolving uncertainty (DM fiat, and the d20 roll), and they give wildly different outcomes, then the deciding factor becomes the arbitrary choice of which method to use.

I disagree. It's not ambiguous so much as leveraging the greatest strength any RPG has - the ability to rely on the human mind for decision making.

You can avoid inconsistency by being consistent in your rulings as a DM. Sure, if Steve Urkel and Dwayne Johnson arm wrestle, and one week I declare that Johnson auto-wins while the next week I have them dice off for it (with no meaningful differences between the two bouts) that's inconsistent. If I'm consistent in my rulings each time, I'm being consistent.

The DM is also free to assign advantage and disadvantage as they see fit. So maybe rather than having Urkel auto fail, I give Urkel disadvantage on the check or Johnson advantage, or both. At that point, while some possibility may exist of Urkel beating Johnson, it will be fairly miniscule to be certain.

Note that the d20 system, un-fettered by Bounded Accuracy, doesn't have this problem. In 3.x, you can let someone roll whenever they're within 20 points of the DC, and you get reasonable results. This issue is solely a result of Bounded Accuracy.

So you're saying that a 5e character with a +6 athletics bonus trying to climb a wall produces unreasonable results?

But a 3e character with the same +6 bonus in climb produces reasonable results?

IME, d20 was capable of producing outright insane results. Characters who, through various combinations had such high bonuses that they couldn't fail at tasks that should be virtually impossible. And conversely, high level characters who had never invested in a skill who would essentially auto fail any level appropriate check because any DC intended to challenge the skilled guy meant the unskilled guy might as well not touch their dice.

I certainly didn't find the results produced by d20 to be more reasonable.