D&D 5E Critiquing the System

[Fanaelialae]

I think that the proficient+prof bonus/not proficient was a good change, but at the same time expertise is too drastic a bonus that scales too well & they did away or downplayed things like skill synergy bonuses, things that add flat values to skills, & collapsed the skills in on themselves. making it too easy for a high school math teacher to be just as good at theoretical physics as stephen hawking was because it's just part of the "math" skill

I would say that the rules of 5e (unlike 3e) are intended to specifically model the types of adventurers the game focuses on. You don't have NPC classes like Commoner or Artisan. Hence, the system isn't really intended to model a high school math teacher or Stephen Hawking. To me, that criticism is like saying that Ferraris are bad cars because they can't haul truck trailers. They're great cars; hauling trailers simply isn't something they're meant to do.

Based on how 5e works, if you really wanted to hack it to allow these two concepts, Stephen Hawking would likely be a legendary "creature" with his own unique physics based features, while the high school math teacher would likely just be a generic teacher with math proficiency.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would say that the rules of 5e (unlike 3e) are intended to specifically model the types of adventurers the game focuses on. You don't have NPC classes like Commoner or Artisan. Hence, the system isn't really intended to model a high school math teacher or Stephen Hawking. To me, that criticism is like saying that Ferraris are bad cars because they can't haul truck trailers. They're great cars; hauling trailers simply isn't something they're meant to do.

Based on how 5e works, if you really wanted to hack it to allow these two concepts, Stephen Hawking would likely be a legendary "creature" with his own unique physics based features, while the high school math teacher would likely just be a generic teacher with math proficiency.

It was more of an example. Take a 15 int wizard who may have spent years learning magic & arcana proficiency based on this bit from the wizard class on phb112 "Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump o f exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study." and a rogue with 10 int & arcana expertise. At Level 1 the wizard has +4 arcana... so does the rogue. at 5th the wizard spent his level 4 ASI on +2 int & has +6 arcana, the rogue took an awesome feat and also has +6arcana. At 9 the wizard took an awesome feat and has +7 arcana to the rogue's +8 arcana with things only getting worse from there.

If the rogue's arcana were limited to the magical wards/traps/locks that made expertise acrana worth it, then the wizard's much more broad arcana knowledge would still shine when it came to being able to "recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.(phb177)". In that context the theoretical physicist/high school math teacher & "Math" skill analogy works perfect. Also I'm not sure I agree on the "legendary creature" tag just because it might work in FR where there realy aren't any universities comperable to modern universities... Other settings have high end universities like the arcanix/library of korranberg/etc where he would fit right in as another professor*.


*not to belittle him, just he was a professor & those universities fulfill a similar role as the colleges he was a professor at.

 

[DND_Reborn]

It was more of an example. Take a 15 int wizard who may have spent years learning magic & arcana proficiency based on this bit from the wizard class on phb112 "Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump o f exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study." and a rogue with 10 int & arcana expertise. At Level 1 the wizard has +4 arcana... so does the rogue. at 5th the wizard spent his level 4 ASI on +2 int & has +6 arcana, the rogue took an awesome feat and also has +6arcana. At 9 the wizard took an awesome feat and has +7 arcana to the rogue's +8 arcana with things only getting worse from there.

If the rogue's arcana were limited to the magical wards/traps/locks that made expertise acrana worth it, then the wizard's much more broad arcana knowledge would still shine when it came to being able to "recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.(phb177)". In that context the theoretical physicist/high school math teacher & "Math" skill analogy works perfect. Also I'm not sure I agree on the "legendary creature" tag just because it might work in FR where there realy aren't any universities comperable to modern universities... Other settings have high end universities like the arcanix/library of korranberg/etc where he would fit right in as another professor*.


*not to belittle him, just he was a professor & those universities fulfill a similar role as the colleges he was a professor at.

This has long been my issue with expertise RAW. A 17th level Wizard with INT 20 is +11, a 17th level Rogue with INT 10 and expertise is +12, so better than the "best" a wizard can be.

This is why we changed expertise to advantage as it doesn't raise the ceiling or floor, but makes the rogue better in a different way.

The same Rogue with INT 10 with advantage is still capped at 26, while the Wizard is capped at 31.

 

[shadowoflameth]

The short version - Hit points, low at low levels but not too bad. Not game breaking bad or ridiculous bad (usually).

The sub-classes I like, but having 4-5 or so options just doesn't cover some character concepts well. There's definitely room IMHO for an official book dedicated to sub-classes and feats (which are optional but many games use). A PHB2 could, I think be well received.

Ability scores do what they do. I haven't seen that change a lot and I wouldn't expect to. The value of skills and ability checks vary by the house and players as always have well shown in this edition that there is value in some builds for a character with an unusual ability combo. Got a Bard with an 18 strength? There will be times when it helps. Wizard with a 20 constitution? not typical but not a bad choice. Neither is a barbarian with a high Intelligence necessarily. The fun is in how much you enjoy the character you're playing.

 

[ChaosOS]

The sub-classes I like, but having 4-5 or so options just doesn't cover some character concepts well. There's definitely room IMHO for an official book dedicated to sub-classes and feats (which are optional but many games use). A PHB2 could, I think be well received.

I'd suggest checking out Xanathar's Guide to Everything in case you haven't. It's PHB2, but not called that because market research shows that names like "PHB2" drive people away.

 

[Fanaelialae]

It was more of an example. Take a 15 int wizard who may have spent years learning magic & arcana proficiency based on this bit from the wizard class on phb112 "Though the casting of a typical spell requires merely the utterance of a few strange words, fleeting gestures, and sometimes a pinch or clump o f exotic materials, these surface components barely hint at the expertise attained after years of apprenticeship and countless hours of study." and a rogue with 10 int & arcana expertise. At Level 1 the wizard has +4 arcana... so does the rogue. at 5th the wizard spent his level 4 ASI on +2 int & has +6 arcana, the rogue took an awesome feat and also has +6arcana. At 9 the wizard took an awesome feat and has +7 arcana to the rogue's +8 arcana with things only getting worse from there.

If the rogue's arcana were limited to the magical wards/traps/locks that made expertise acrana worth it, then the wizard's much more broad arcana knowledge would still shine when it came to being able to "recall lore about spells, magic items, eldritch symbols, magical traditions, the planes of existence, and the inhabitants of those planes.(phb177)". In that context the theoretical physicist/high school math teacher & "Math" skill analogy works perfect. Also I'm not sure I agree on the "legendary creature" tag just because it might work in FR where there realy aren't any universities comperable to modern universities... Other settings have high end universities like the arcanix/library of korranberg/etc where he would fit right in as another professor*.


*not to belittle him, just he was a professor & those universities fulfill a similar role as the colleges he was a professor at.

At level 20, the rogue with expertise and 10 Int is going to have a +1 greater than the wizard with 20 Int who is trained in Arcana. That's not much of a difference.

The rogue (and bars) is the "skill guy". They get to be better than other classes in their expertise. But in the end it is all theoretical. The rogue lacks one critical factor that means he will never match the wizard in magic. The 20th level wizard can cast 9th level spells, and the rogue will never be anywhere close to that.

It's like the argument that a wizard with sword proficiency is just as good as the fighter. It seems true at first glance until you realize that the fighter will almost certainly have a higher strength and also gets fighting features the wizard doesn't (like extra attack and action surge).

Finally, I've yet to see a rogue spend their expertise on Arcana. It's basically always Perception, Stealth, Deception, or Thieves Tools. Maybe it's different at your table, but I've never seen anyone pick Rogue just so that they could be a second rate mage.

 

[Nebulous]

In general when looking at the system,...

* Boring Monster Design: quite possibly the worst of the WotC Era

* Hit Point Bloat

* Game balance between Short Rest and Long Rest classes is dependent on GM pacing

* Action Economy: Bonus Action often feels like a design crutch that incidentally screwed over a variety of different options that are tied to it, such as two-weapon fighting. And IME the interaction between the Attack Action and other actions is often confusing for new players.

* IME, for a variety of reasons, play tends to breakdown at around level 6-8

* Inspiration: IME, it feels like WotC did not even apply half-effort when designing this mechanic, which often fails to engage those who like Fate-like meta mechanics while also irritating those who dislike Fate-like meta mechanics, while also feeling disassociated from the character (even more than it is in Fate). Sure, there are ardent defenders of Inspiration - not interested in how they use it - because, overall, Inspiration feels like it's mostly regarded as a dud design.

* Skills: kinda boring and uninteresting. Maybe would have preferred just ability checks without the skills. Players, IME, tend towards one of the problems of d20 D&D where they engage the skill rather than the action in the fiction (e.g., "I would like to roll Perception."). While this is something that a DM can "correct" through framing, the system tends to reinforce and encourage player engagement with skills.

* Saves: Still leaning too heavily on reskinned Fortitude, Reflex, and Will saves, which leaves Strength, Intellect, and Charisma saves lacking.

* Character Build Choice: Great if you want a basic build and locked into your choice, but not exactly a tremendous amount of choice unless one opts for multiclassing characters. IMO, part the attractiveness for MCing for players is in how it empowers player choice more than pure-classing does. Unless you pick a mage (and even then there is sometimes the illusion of choice and trap options), your choices amount to mostly race, class, subclass, which means that typically your build choices end at around level 3.

* Advantage/Disadvantage: an elegant design, but its ubiquity kinda dulls the game and now comes across as uninspiring with each new addition of how characters can gain advantage

* Expertise: It seems a bit extreme in how it scales. It's one of the few ways that players can improve their skills, which leads to people complaining that rogues and bards can do use "their skills" better than they can, which leads to people trying to find ways to gain Expertise. There could have been better ways to implement the design intent of Expertise without some of its problems.

* Less modular than the initial sales pitch. Sure, there are a lot of dials and knobs, but that was also true of every edition.

I agree with most of what you said. I find myself awfully critical of a game I DO like though, but I guess I can (after years of playing now) see ways in which I would like it better. If it is any consolation though, 5e is easy to kitbash and mod. I have found the bland monsters very easy to make more interesting. I think one of my biggest problems is the bland Skills and how Expertise interacts. And the old player standby - "I want to roll Perception." " Me too! I'll give her advantage." Ugh.

 

[Lanefan]

Nah that's not true, an encounter holds the chance to diminish some of the party resources, in no way this has actually to happen! It is risk and reward:

E.g.

The PCs botch the social skill checks, and the NPC who is a high level mage gets angry and attacks causing a near TPK, so in how is this encounter not to be awarded higher as some hapless goblins draining a spell slot and five HP of the fighter?

The PC jumps a wide chasm to attach a rope bridge to allow for the party to cross safely. If he falls, it is almost certain death and his body would be difficult to recover for a resurrection. It is just an athletics check so it is not counting as an encounter?

Absolutely; and in the chasm-jumping case the jumper - and only the jumper - should get xp for it, as the jumper is the one who took the risk.

But yes, luck is a major factor - sometimes the party might sail through six encounters in a day and still be in pretty good shape, other times they might be out of gas after three; where all encounters are of about-equal potential difficulty, just because of how the dice fall.

 

[tetrasodium]

At level 20, the rogue with expertise and 10 Int is going to have a +1 greater than the wizard with 20 Int who is trained in Arcana. That's not much of a difference.

The rogue (and bars) is the "skill guy". They get to be better than other classes in their expertise. But in the end it is all theoretical. The rogue lacks one critical factor that means he will never match the wizard in magic. The 20th level wizard can cast 9th level spells, and the rogue will never be anywhere close to that.

It's like the argument that a wizard with sword proficiency is just as good as the fighter. It seems true at first glance until you realize that the fighter will almost certainly have a higher strength and also gets fighting features the wizard doesn't (like extra attack and action surge).

Finally, I've yet to see a rogue spend their expertise on Arcana. It's basically always Perception, Stealth, Deception, or Thieves Tools. Maybe it's different at your table, but I've never seen anyone pick Rogue just so that they could be a second rate mage.

The wizard in that example spent a bunch of ASIs on +1 int, the rogue still has 10 int & a bunch of different ASIs or feats at their disposal. If the rogue had been 8 int dumpstat they would be even with the wizard who devoted everything to advancing arcana via int boosts. In the past there were more skills & synergy bonuses that mitigated the ability of a skillmonkey character to meet & exceed the specialized character's more narrow focus.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I think one of my biggest problems is the bland Skills and how Expertise interacts. And the old player standby - "I want to roll Perception." " Me too! I'll give her advantage." Ugh.

That one made me crazy almost as soon as D&D switched to skills with 3e. When 4e introduced Group Checks I had a solution: When one character asks for a roll, fine, and others pile on, it becomes a Group Check. If the majority fail, well, their kibitzing and debating ruined their chance. (Hey, it's even realistic.)

Another, much more generous trick I've seen is when several PCs are cooperating, have them all roll, and take the highest roll as the result, with the others counting towards Aid Another bonuses. I guess if you want the players to, like, succeed all the time and feel good about themselves. ;( It avoids the frustration of one player declaring to help the expert, then rolling really well, while the 'expert' craps out, and the mere +2 can't save him.

The 5e play-loop also suggests, indirectly, a solution, in that you can stick to the Goal & Approach style, and insist no on ever call out a roll, but describe an actual action they're doing. That cuts down on piling on, because it can get implausible pretty quickly, and players realize that when they try to come up with approaches to pile on. But, also, 5e hasn't thrown away Group Checks, so that option remains open, as well.