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

[Lanefan]

"Grounded."

A work, a world, that is grounded is one that fully earns whatever deviations from reality it offers. It gives a solid, reasonable explanation for its weirdness, or at least assures you that there is one if the reason is secret/mysterious (often, in part, by taking the consequences of such weirdness very seriously.)

OK, grounded works.

When you are bringing in limits and denying that something can be done or allowed, the burden of proof is on you. "It isn't contradicted by the text" isn't enough. "It is reasonable" isn't enough...and, as far as I'm concerned, it isn't reasonable. A typical town guard is like level 2ish, and can survive all but the worst 20' falls with no serious injuries, and most 30' falls, since they have 11 HP. As long as there's someone at the bottom to stabilize them, they very frequently survive a full 50' fall and be right as rain the next morning.

That's objective. Baked straight into the rules. Falling is 1d6 per 10'. Town guards have 2d8+2 HP, static 11. Instant death only occurs at -100%, which would be 22 total HP. 5d6>21 only 15.2% of the time. Even a 60' fall is still more survivable than not (45.36% chance of instant death.) IRL humans, even in safety equipment, die from falls as short as six feet, and have fatality rates on the order of 30% or more from falls as short as 20'.

I take the opposite tack, and assume that real-world limits exist until and unless the game both tells me they don't and explains why they don't. Put another way, the burden of proof is on the game to explain itself, not on me to explain reality.

 

[nevin]

OK, grounded works.

I take the opposite tack, and assume that real-world limits exist until and unless the game both tells me they don't and explains why they don't. Put another way, the burden of proof is on the game to explain itself, not on me to explain reality.

which means 1000 page rule books no thanks.

 

[Lanefan]

Which of these fighters in GoT do we see easily or routinely take on several ordinary soldiers or warriors at once? Or go toe to toe with a Wildling giant or similar monster?

As far as I remember (it's been a bunch of years since I read them) we never see any of them take on a whole crowd of normal (1-2 HD) soldiers, which would be an easy feat for a tier 2 or 3 D&D Fighter.

My impression is that GRRM tried to keep his fighters grounded pretty close to reality.

He usually sets it up such that high-level Fighters are taking on other high-level Fighters, one-on-one most of the time; but in the TV series there's numerous examples of people like Brienne or Jon chopping their way through lots of soldiers during the big battles (which the books never got to).

 

[EzekielRaiden]

OK, grounded works.

I take the opposite tack, and assume that real-world limits exist until and unless the game both tells me they don't and explains why they don't. Put another way, the burden of proof is on the game to explain itself, not on me to explain reality.

When you are coming in and telling others they can't have their fun because it's unrealistic, it's on you to show why their fun is wrong.

If you don't want that in your game, that's fine. Do what you like. But when we start designing games around this need for "realism" that doesn't even actually reflect reality--let alone the clear requirements of the fictional space in question!--the burden is upon those who want to put in limits, not on those who want to reserve judgment and let each group make up their own mind.

Which is, and remains, the huge problem. One set of character options is adamantly required to remain bound beneath an incredibly strict, unrealistically weak set of limitations, while the other is given carte blanche to warp reality nearly as they see fit.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

which means 1000 page rule books no thanks.

No. It doesn't. But it's a really nice discussion-ender, isn't it? Just dismissing what others say without any examination or thought.

 

[Minigiant]

Higher level fighters are Captain America or the Black Panther

Captain America and Black Panther are both enhanced beyond biological normal standards.

Now if 5e says a 10th level fighter chugged enough magic potions that they are magic, that would be 5e making a stance.

5e doesn't make a stance. It's almost annoyingly wishy washy.

 

[nevin]

How many pages would it take to justify just the spells alone. I think you way underestimate how far off the rails of logic all those individual things go. Explaining every single deviation from reality in a fantasy game would be a huge undertaking.

 

[Lanefan]

It's no more nonsensical than the MM making all Orcs have the same statline, which was standard in every pre-WotC edition. We all know that you can make people vary, but generic commoner #234 is assumed to have no particularly high or low stats.

Those older-edition MM entries for entire species, where they gave stats at all, are called out as being guidelines or averages; with the expectation that there'll be some variance among individuals. I see no such call-out in that Commoner write-up.

 

[jmartkdr2]

Those older-edition MM entries for entire species, where they gave stats at all, are called out as being guidelines or averages; with the expectation that there'll be some variance among individuals. I see no such call-out in that Commoner write-up.

It'3 three pages earlier under the "Nonplayer characters" heading; right before the Acolyte stat block.

 

[Lanefan]

which means 1000 page rule books no thanks.

Not necessarily. A great amount of it could be explained in maybe two pages (or less!) that explain the basic science behind how magic works in the game and-or setting, and how - if at all - it affects the everyday lives and-or physical attributes of the world's inhabitants.