D&D 5E How is 5E like 4E?

[Garthanos]

My point from the start is that 4e and 5e both support the fluff, but are aimed in different directions for what fluff they support. The math, however, isn't very divergent at all.

The fluff 5es math supports is a mayor who can readily resist the intimidation of round table knights and demigod heroes unless they focused on Charisma. You as DM have to override that to make it otherwise OR not since 5e DMs have been not been shown or taught to expect any such general competence ... "you didnt spend design resources on it then suffer your ignominy" seems to be the lesson.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

For the more realistic encounter with only 4-10 monsters and 126 damage from a fireball, the fighter only has to attack for a little more than 12 rounds to match that...and has the rest of the day to beat it.

So, really, the fighter's not that far behind.

I just want to highlight the analysis here:
A single spell, when used at a moderately effective time (explicitly not an especially favorable time, just a generally good one), is the equivalent of twelve rounds of Fighter attacks. Meaning, the Fighter needs approximately three full combats just to catch up to what the Wizard did in one combat. With one spell.

This is what's supposed to be "not that far behind." A Wizard that still has cantrips, and numerous lower-level spells, can literally sit on his butt for the next 11 rounds of combat and be contributing the same amount as the Fighter did working her butt off that whole time.

And I haven't even touched the fact that Overgeeked is wrong--the 5th level Wizard can do this twice per day. You don't start getting only 1 spell slot for a given spell level until you get 4th level spells. Plus, they can in theory actually do it three times, if they're feeling especially spicy (Arcane Recovery, which after 24 rounds of combat, I would damn well hope the party has taken a short rest!)

So yeah. A Wizard blowing all of his highest spell slots on fireballs for the day literally has all the rest of his spells to take advantage of, while the Fighter needs 36 rounds of combat. Even if you assume 6 rounds apiece, which I've been repeatedly told would be an INSANELY long combat by 5e standards if it happened even once, let alone consistently, you're still needing 6 combat encounters a day just so the Fighter can catch up. The Wizard still has three 2nd and four 1st level spells to play with....and it's also worth noting that, even in 5e, direct-damage spells are usually seen as slightly sub-optimal, as you can get more (metaphorical) bang for your buck with other spells instead.

If you really want the fighter to cry, just tell them how all the casters' cantrips scale better than the fighter's attacks. LOL. Poor fighters. WotC must really...really hate fighters.

And then there's this problem on top.

Yet people wonder why 4e fans weren't happy with cantrips, since they're "exactly like at-wills"!

 

[Hussar]

I'll admit, I've only been sort of half following this bit about skills. But, I do think that we're getting a bit lost in the weeds so to speak.

In 5e, skill DC's are always supposed to be somewhere in that 5-25 range with nearly all checks being between 10 and 20. Anything over 25 is described as basically super human. And, by the description of skills in 5e, you're not really supposed to use the skills to tell the story. Random checks are only made if there are consequences of failure. That's an important element that often gets glossed over.

So, you really never have any DC's for locks, not really. If the party has someone trained in Thieves Tools, they will automatically open any lock. The only time you'd actually make a check is if there was some sort of time pressure or some reason why the character couldn't just do it until the character succeeds. This is one of the main departures from 3e and 4e really where skills and skill checks were a major story element. Can you open that door at all? Is that lock just too difficult? Yes? Then you need to find another way around it.

In 5e, skill checks aren't there to do that. The basic assumption is that you will succeed. The only difference is, is there some sort of cost of failure? If there is no cost of failure, then you automatically succeed. This is why they don't really have "knowledge" checks in 5e. They kinda/sorta do, but, certainly not codified like they were in 3e or 4e. Is your character trained in history? Then don't bother making a "history" check to get the DM to parcel out information. The DM is encouraged to automatically parcel out that information. The history check would be for trying to recall some bit of information while that bit of information is trying to eat your face.

Otherwise, the DM should just tell you. Which is actually one of the biggest shifts between 5e and earlier skill systems. This presumption that the PC's are always competent. You should never call for a check if there is no consequence for failure. Look at how Jumping has changed for a perfect example. Used to be, in 3e, you'd roll, add your bonus and that would be how far you jump. IIRC, 4e did the same thing. In 5e, there's no roll at all. You jump your Str score in feet. Full stop. Every time. No check at all. Do you have an 18 Str? Yes, then you can ALWAYS jump 18 feet. A check would be there to jump further than that.

 

[Neonchameleon]

I started to reply in parts to this, but realized something along the way. Bear with me.

4e assumes competence for all characters, right -- this is your argument that you just keep getting better as you level at all things because you're out there doing them. But, the assumption is that you'll be doing things that are level appropriate. The upshot of this is that your assumed competence puts you on a treadmill -- the DCs increase at the easy end in perfect tune with the baseline improvement, while the hard end they increase with the "normal" invested skill increases (ASIs, feats, race bonuses, etc.). So, you really maintain the level of competence you start with, you're just doing more leveled things as you go along.

The odd thing to this is that your chance of success at the easy end for neglected skills is always pretty much the same. It doesn't move. And hard challenges rapidly outpace your ability, getting harder and harder until they become impossible.

So, then, let's look to 5e. It's very similar, actually, in that if you neglect a skill, your odds of success remain the same for easy challenges. They also remain the same for medium and hard challenges. If you're good at a skill, you actually improve over time, making hard challenges easier -- to the point that you can even trivialize them without more than the class abilities. And there's still the assumption that you'll be dealing mostly with level appropriate things, although that window is wider.

My point? 5e is also assuming competence, they've just moved where it exists. In 4e, there's a constant increase in skill bonus, yes, but there's also a similar constant increase in DC -- you stay in about the same place. 4e retains parity in challenges. 5e fixes DCs, and so needs to fix automatic increases as well to maintain that parity in challenges. Both systems are actually simulating competence, they're just doing it in different ways. And people are getting hung up on whether or not the number next to the skill goes up.

My point? 5e has moved the realm where competence exists out of the actual rules and into a realm of pure imagination you claim exists that is not actually supported by the rules as published by WotC.

• When I look at monsters (as shown) the abilities that use PC skill DCs have them fixed. A level 1 and a level 20 wizard have exactly the same DC for escaping from a grab or engulf by e.g. a gelatinous cube.
• When I look at traps whether in the DMG or the complex traps of Xanathar's the DCs to spot, avoid, and disarm remain the same and a level 20 wizard untrained in perception is exactly as likely to bimble into the same uncovered pit trap they did at level 1 at level 20.
• When I look at adventures there are set DCs in the adventure - so if it's not one of your areas of focus you get no better at it.

5e has indeed moved where "assumed competence" exists. They've moved it into the "things left behind with 4e" file.

And you're arguing two contradictory things about 5e:

• A monster (and for that matter a trap) has a flat DC because it is a functional object in the world independent of the player characters
• The player characters improve by lowering the DCs they require.

These can not both at the same time be true.

Meanwhile the 4e situation is that a level 1 fighter needs a 10 to hit a goblin and a level 10 fighter needs a 10 to hit a giant. I guess the whole of pre-5e D&D got this wrong and the 5e bullet sponge enemies are the best?

 

[Garthanos]

I'll admit, I've only been sort of half following this bit about skills. But, I do think that we're getting a bit lost in the weeds so to speak.

In 5e, skill DC's are always supposed to be somewhere in that 5-25 range with nearly all checks being between 10 and 20. Anything over 25 is described as basically super human. And, by the description of skills in 5e, you're not really supposed to use the skills to tell the story. Random checks are only made if there are consequences of failure.

That isn't the same as competence. Consequences or not, are not a good enough measure. Not being able to intimidate that mayor in my example could likely have consequences and once you say yes it could have consequences if your abilities are not invested they are mechanically stagnate like an untrained level 1 character, identical in fact. Just like the saving throws you are not trained in get worse and worse relative to the adversaries save requirements (do DMs get to fiat one out of saving throws too /sarcasm). In other words that general competence is not represented by anything mechanically... at best you may get DM fiat, I do not generally trust that. In 4e the general competence grows as you level and its obvious. Enter hyperbole mode => level is supposed to have meaning in D&D and not just for hit points.

 

[Garthanos]

My point? 5e has moved the realm where competence exists out of the actual rules and into a realm of pure imagination you claim exists that is not actually supported by the rules as published by WotC.

• When I look at monsters (as shown) the abilities that use PC skill DCs have them fixed. A level 1 and a level 20 wizard have exactly the same DC for escaping from a grab or engulf by e.g. a gelatinous cube.

Same as a saving throw against a wizards spell who is of comparable party level, looks like progressive incompetence there too.

• When I look at traps whether in the DMG or the complex traps of Xanathar's the DCs to spot, avoid, and disarm remain the same and a level 20 wizard untrained in perception is exactly as likely to bimble into the same uncovered pit trap they did at level 1 at level 20.
• When I look at adventures there are set DCs in the adventure - so if it's not one of your areas of focus you get no better at it.

5e has indeed moved where "assumed competence" exists. They've moved it into the "things left behind with 4e" file.

And in 4e and gets higher and higher as you level.

If it exists in 5e it exists in selective arenas by way of an italian car.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I think this is describing the effect of favoring random chance over decisions.

I don't see how when, by the guidance in the book, your choice of what action you take goes into determining the DC. If you pick something that's hard, how it that favoring random chance over decisions -- you picked it?

so the adventure is picking them? oh right the DM picks them based on what? I do not buy the supposed reversal ... its mirrors and smoke

The GM is picking the monster based on the threat of the monster. Vice picking the threat of the adventure and then choosing from the allowed menu of monsters that fit that threat in 4e. In 4e, I am very much supposed to build encounters that fit within the narrow level bands of the structure of the game. I am not putting a purple worm, level 16 solo, out for a 12th level party, or for a 20th level party. My choice is constrained by the level guides.

In 5e, I can say I want a purple worm, and all I need to consider is the threat of that monster vs the party. I can toss a CR 15 purple worm at a 10th level party -- it's not that bad of a fight for them. But a 5 level difference in 4e, because of the treadmill math, means that this threat should not be considered -- the level of the adventure controls the bands for which I can look at threats.

The fluff 5es math supports is a mayor who can readily resist the intimidation of round table knights and demigod heroes unless they focused on Charisma. You as DM have to override that to make it otherwise OR not since 5e DMs have been not been shown or taught to expect any such general competence ... "you didnt spend design resources on it then suffer your ignominy" seems to be the lesson.

This example is very odd. To get here, you're saying that a GM has built a mayor with impressive, way above ordinary, wisdom scores and giving the mayor proficiency with WIS saving throws. And then you're saying that the Knights have no proficiencies with negotiation and have dump statted CHA. And then you're saying that whatever the Knights have to do involves intimidating the mayor, who is built to be a pretty serious guy with high stats and save proficiencies (uncommon in 5e for NPCs). Essentially, you're claiming this mayor is a low level guy, but he's built with high level stats, and then you're claiming the Knights are high level, but need to, for some reason, just intimidate this weird low-but-not-low threat mayor guy.

OK. Let's say the Mayor has a +5 WIS, and proficiency in WIS saves. That's starts at +2. That's a +7 WIS saving throw. The Knights wander into town and randomly decide to intimidate this really impressive mayor guy, renowned for his iron will and wisdom, but they suck at it, having never ever had to negotiate anything as a Knight of the Table (weird) and having dump statted CHA (as paladins and cavaliers often do), so they're -1 on their Intimidate check. Of course, these buff knights choose sly manipulation over physical threats so they choose to lean on the -1 CHA instead of their +4/5 STR, but they don't make good choices, clearly. They roll. Of course, they represent the King, and are the heroes of the land, and are talking to a town mayor, so they're likely to get advantage on this roll, but let's ignore that. The spread here is 8, so the knights need to beat the mayor's roll by 9 (ties to defender). The mayor wins so long as he rolls as 12+, then the knights have an increasing chance the lower that goes. Overall, the knight's chance to intimidate is 16.5%. But, they chose to make their builds bad at this kind of sly intimidation. They chose to engage in sly manipulation. They chose to target this mayor (who the GM purposefully built to stymie them, so we're already in bad faith play examples).

Let's say the nights knights roll up and threaten him physically. That's a +4 on the check vs an +7 WIS save. In this case, the chance to successfully intimidate is 34%. Here, the knights still chose to not put any build resources into intimidation, but made a play choice to leverage a better stat for the situation. The mayor is still the GM's pet built to stymie these knights, but their odds have doubled from a single choice. That seems like choices matter quite a lot!

And, all of that said, the actual situation shouldn't be that weird. You seem to think that it should be impossible for a high level character to not get their way against any low level threat, but, to me, there's very much a good story here. Maybe the mayor is protecting someone they love or making a bad decision. Why can't he successfully stand up to two knights, even if they are good at intimidation? If the dice say he stands up, the story gets interesting, as the easy option for the knights is off the table, and now they have to consider how they're going to balance the honor of the Table versus the need to solve this situation. In other words, to me, the issue here isn't that a mayor might stand up to high level characters -- that's a boring challenge -- but why that might be so and where that puts the Knights in making choices about what to do next.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I agree. I wouldn't ask my level 20 5e characters to bother with it, either. I was looking for a quick example to showcase how approach matters and can fold in all of the things you were touting for 4e and picked starting a fire. Eh.

Sure, that sounds really hard to me! So that level 20 EPIC 4e guy who's learned a bit along and along has... no chance of starting that fire. They're +10, maybe +12, and the DC is 34. Granted, because that sounds really hard, the 5e guy can't do it either, so same same. If it was just hard, though, the 5e guy has a 5% chance.

This is my point -- the bounded nature of the DCs in 5e actually means that the impact is pretty similar between the systems.

Oh, sure, Skill Challenges is definitely a tool I very much like. I added it to my 5e games.

DISCLAIMER: again, I feel the need to say that I really like 4e. It's a great system for which my esteem has only grown over time. I'm not putting 4e down, and I'm certainly not claiming 5e is better, in any way. My druthers would have been for an iterated 4e system rather than 5e, but I like 5e well enough.

Yeah, all I'm really trying to get across to people is that 5e didn't 'break the treadmill', NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. It just made it really really obtuse, because now you have to go through all the arguments you and I just had to arrive at "gosh, I should raise the DCs of meaningful tasks to significant (IE you will often fail) levels relative to the PCs skills." Yeah, DUH! Why can't 5e just friggin' say that? Instead it has to be obtuse and half the GMs in existence WILL get it wrong, because they don't have years of experience, and/or a lot of game fu.

Skill checks are just one example of this, and it is really unfortunate. I would never recommend 5e as a game to use to learn to GM. It is not a good GM game. IMHO this was not a necessary design choice which impacts the popularity of 5e. It is popular because the rules are relatively clean and yet reproduce a fairly reasonable facsimile of pre-WotC TSR D&D.

 

[Ovinomancer]

My point? 5e has moved the realm where competence exists out of the actual rules and into a realm of pure imagination you claim exists that is not actually supported by the rules as published by WotC.

• When I look at monsters (as shown) the abilities that use PC skill DCs have them fixed. A level 1 and a level 20 wizard have exactly the same DC for escaping from a grab or engulf by e.g. a gelatinous cube.
• When I look at traps whether in the DMG or the complex traps of Xanathar's the DCs to spot, avoid, and disarm remain the same and a level 20 wizard untrained in perception is exactly as likely to bimble into the same uncovered pit trap they did at level 1 at level 20.
• When I look at adventures there are set DCs in the adventure - so if it's not one of your areas of focus you get no better at it.

5e has indeed moved where "assumed competence" exists. They've moved it into the "things left behind with 4e" file.

Except the math is pretty much the same. You keep bring up these "fixed DCs" but it's not the point you imagine it is. A Gelatinous Cube is a CR 2 threat. If you face it as a 20th level character, it's still not much of a threat even if you can fail the saving throw. So, the cube engulfs you, does some damage, of which you have lots of hp, and then, next turn, it's dead. Probably before you get to go. If it isn't, you take a bit more damage, and then you kill it. Or teleport out. Or whatever it is you'd do at 20th level. The calculus of 5e moved from "this can never, ever do anything at all to you, ever" to "this might be able to hurt you a touch, but, in the scheme of things, not much."

Whereas a Purple Worm is a higher level threat. It's a danger even in 4e to level appropriate parties, just like it is in 5e. And the math is worst for level appropriate characters in 4e than it is in 5e!

You say 5e left competence on the floor, but it didn't -- it's still there in the system, just not in the same treadmill form that didn't actually increase competence against leveled threats in 4e. 4e keeps you at the same level of competence in play throughout the game -- you either aren't good at a thing, and get worse at it along the way, or you are good at a thing and you have to keep putting in build resources to make sure you stay that way. 5e ditched this treadmill. Now, if you're bad at a thing, you stay there -- you don't get worse or better. If you put build resources into a thing to get better, you get better as you level and you don't have to put any more build resources into this to remain good at it. If you do put additional build resources into it, you get lots better and you keep getting better as you go, outstripping the DC models.

The only way this breaks is when you say that 5e still allows low level threats and you don't get better at their shticks if you don't put any build resources into that thing, but this doesn't happen in 4e. Except, you never face low level threats in 4e at all! If you face an orc at low level, it's a challenge. Then you face better orcs, but not the original orc, and they're still a challenge. Then orcs become minions, which get better at hurting you and not getting hit by you, but do down if you hit them. The orcs get better as you get better -- you're not even seeing that first orc in 4e after you outlevel it. So this comparison to 5e is bunk -- it's not a thing that happens in 4e, so claiming you get better at something that doesn't happen is moot. What does happen is the monsters are on the same treadmill you are -- you're always facing orcs that are threats. But orcs that stay the same and but still can do stuff? BAD, NO COMPETENCE PCS! Sheesh.

And you're arguing two contradictory things about 5e:

• A monster (and for that matter a trap) has a flat DC because it is a functional object in the world independent of the player characters
• The player characters improve by lowering the DCs they require.

These can not both at the same time be true.

Your second bullet is a complete misrepresentation of what I've said. I said that DCs are set by the actions the PCs take. If they take a clever action, or one that addresses the problem well, the DC can change based on what their actually trying to do. IE, jumping across a gap can have a different DC from pole vaulting across the same gap, or walking a tightrope over the gap, or.... If you are in a grapple and pick "fight my way out of the grapple" then, well, that's pretty much the expected action so there's not going to be any changes to the DC. It's going to be set according to the rules for contests. Maybe, if you want a different DC, you should try a different action.

Your first bullet is also somewhat of a misrepresentation, but I'm not clear on it, because I'd never define any part of the game as a functional object in the world independent of the player characters. There are concepts in there I don't consider to be rational.

Meanwhile the 4e situation is that a level 1 fighter needs a 10 to hit a goblin and a level 10 fighter needs a 10 to hit a giant. I guess the whole of pre-5e D&D got this wrong and the 5e bullet sponge enemies are the best?

Or the level 10 fighter need a 10 to hit a goblin that's been moved along the treadmill with them. One of the things I really liked about 4e was that monster names and descriptions were discardable and swappable. I could have level X whatever by finding something close and filing off the numbers to make it my whatever. The math did the work for me so I didn't have to worry about it. Just pick a monster of the right level and with the powers in the envelop I wanted and, bam, it's a level X whatever!

But, as a side point, the level 1 5e fighter (+5 to hit) needs a 10 or better to hit a goblin, and that same level 1 fighter needs a 13 to hit a Fire Giant. The 10th level 5e fighter (+9 to hit) needs a 6 to hit the goblin and a... wait for it... 9 to hit the Fire Giant. The level 1 4e fighter cannot hit the 10th level Giant. This showcases the oddity of the argument, to me: that competence is only about relegating lower level threats that you do not face into trivialities. A failure to do this is apparently grounds to say PCs are not competent anymore. However, those same PCs can actually do things that the other game's PCs cannot -- challenges far above their station can be, with luck and numbers, addressed. This, however, is not viewed as competence, but rather reinforcement of incompetence. I just don't get it.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Yeah, all I'm really trying to get across to people is that 5e didn't 'break the treadmill', NOT EVEN A LITTLE BIT. It just made it really really obtuse, because now you have to go through all the arguments you and I just had to arrive at "gosh, I should raise the DCs of meaningful tasks to significant (IE you will often fail) levels relative to the PCs skills." Yeah, DUH! Why can't 5e just friggin' say that? Instead it has to be obtuse and half the GMs in existence WILL get it wrong, because they don't have years of experience, and/or a lot of game fu.

Skill checks are just one example of this, and it is really unfortunate. I would never recommend 5e as a game to use to learn to GM. It is not a good GM game. IMHO this was not a necessary design choice which impacts the popularity of 5e. It is popular because the rules are relatively clean and yet reproduce a fairly reasonable facsimile of pre-WotC TSR D&D.

Oh, no, 5e didn't really break the treadmill at all. They altered it a bit, but largely it's still there. I feel they were much more honest about the treadmill effect in some ways, though -- bounded accuracy is effectively telling you you're gonna be put in a narrow zone. The difference is that 4e did this exact same thing but never mentioned it -- they just did it through the treadmill. I'm not arguing this at all. I'm trying to figure out why some are adamant that 4e meant you got better because of some white room analysis that you can totes crush low level stuff and 5e means you don't get better because that low level stuff can still do things to you, when, in actual play, the difference doesn't exist. You never go rolfstomping level 1 goblins as a level 20 character in 4e. If you face goblins, they're level 20 (or level 18-22) goblins. And you don't roflstomp them at all.