D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[Velderan]

That's one area where we'll probably disagree at a core level: in general where there's a choice I want the game to be more random, not less.

Here that would be reflected by re-rolling initative each round, for example.

What I took from what @Ruin Explorer said about initiative being super RNG heavy is in 5e the difference between a low dexterity and a high dexterity is less impactful on initiative order because you're rolling a d20. It's pretty easy for a Rogue with a 20 dex to roll a 1 and go after a character with a dex of 10 because they rolled a 12.

Meanwhile in 2e, even if you're rerolling initiative each round, it's unlikely a character swinging a two-handed sword is going to go before a character using a dagger because the initiative roll is on a d10 and the weapon speed modifier difference is so large. There's still a chance, it's just less impacted by RNG and more by the decisions made by the player to select a particular weapon type.

 

[Lanefan]

What I took from what @Ruin Explorer said about initiative being super RNG heavy is in 5e the difference between a low dexterity and a high dexterity is less impactful on initiative order because you're rolling a d20. It's pretty easy for a Rogue with a 20 dex to roll a 1 and go after a character with a dex of 10 because they rolled a 12.

Meanwhile in 2e, even if you're rerolling initiative each round, it's unlikely a character swinging a two-handed sword is going to go before a character using a dagger because the initiative roll is on a d10 and the weapon speed modifier difference is so large. There's still a chance, it's just less impacted by RNG and more by the decisions made by the player to select a particular weapon type.

That's assuming you use weapon speed modifiers...

 

[JAMUMU]

Bigby's Invisible Hand.

Halaster's End of History.

 

[Velderan]

That's assuming you use weapon speed modifiers...

I don't recall it being an optional rule, but it's an edition of D&D so what isn't an optional rule really? lol

 

[Minigiant]

It didn't, but then again how many tables would use that paradigm?

A lot.​

That's the issue.

6-8 encounters of 5e requires a ton of time or multiple sessions. Many of Today's D&D games lack the time to run sessions that can handle 8 encounters and 5e quickly becomes so much resource management that stops and restarting within the resource recordings and mindset is very unfeasible for 3-6 people.

 

[jmartkdr2]

One thing I don't think is actually a problem is the "expected" 6-8 encounters because it isn't actually expected. All I've ever been able to find about this amount of encounters is in the DMG and all it is saying is that a typical party can handle around 6-8 medium or hard encounters, it never says that it's an expected or required number. People seem to have taken that as some sort of gospel to the point where some will say people are playing wrong if you don't have that number of encounters, something like "X DM doesn't run 6-8 encounters a day and complains that they can't challenge their PCs ".

I totally agree; this misconception annoys me as well.

But a lot of people don’t have more than one encounter per several in-game days, and that does mess with balance after level 6 or so. I’m not sure this is a problem so much as not realizing the Big Tent includes a large group no one expected to show up in the first place.

 

[Parmandur]

One thing I don't think is actually a problem is the "expected" 6-8 encounters because it isn't actually expected. All I've ever been able to find about this amount of encounters is in the DMG and all it is saying is that a typical party can handle around 6-8 medium or hard encounters, it never says that it's an expected or required number. People seem to have taken that as some sort of gospel to the point where some will say people are playing wrong if you don't have that number of encounters, something like "X DM doesn't run 6-8 encounters a day and complains that they can't challenge their PCs ".

Well, sure, it's the maximum not a norm. But there has been a strong correlation for a decade between people complaining about balance, who when they pride details admit they are veering way off the book expectations. If the players aren't pushed, they won't be challenged in the resource management game...which isn't necessarily a problem. But not challenging a party, and then saying the game doesn't provide a challenge...

 

[Parmandur]

I totally agree; this misconception annoys me as well.

But a lot of people don’t have more than one encounter per several in-game days, and that does mess with balance after level 6 or so. I’m not sure this is a problem so much as not realizing the Big Tent includes a large group no one expected to show up in the first place.

Well, there's no reason a table can't play that way. But, if they do...then characters won't be pushed, and will steamroller challenges. If that's what a group wants, groovy. But if a challenge is desired...the DM has gotta ramp it up.

 

[kilpatds]

I don't know if this was mentioned, because this is a fast growing thread, but tubthumping? ("I get knocked down, I get up again, you'll never ever keep me down")

P2 has a "wounds" mechanism that is roughly equivalent to "if you go down again during the same combat, gain a number of death saving throw failures equal to the number of times you've previously gone down", but that's also combined with healing that is strong enough to possibly outheal a single monster's hit.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Well, there's no reason a table can't play that way. But, if they do...then characters won't be pushed, and will steamroller challenges. If that's what a group wants, groovy. But if a challenge is desired...the DM has gotta ramp it up.

But what if the dm doesn’t want to run a game that’s all about long days of battle? What if they want intrigue and exploration with an occasional fight?

5e doesn’t support that, nor are there easy houserule options to achieve it.