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

[EzekielRaiden]

Maybe, just maybe, and I'm just spit-balling here but maybe the fact that they don't try to tell people how to play their game is one of the (many) reasons that it's the best selling version of D&D in recent history. I'd say best selling ever but it's not like TSR knew how to keep records. While there are a lot of other factors at play you don't get to be the best selling TTRPG by far with a crap product*.

There's plenty of supplemental material from modules to streams to approximately a bazillion blogs out there giving advice on how to run the game. If I want to pick up just about any hobby nowadays all I need is an internet connection and I have more advice than I know what to do with. But the fact that after hundreds of posts the only thing we can consistently say is bad is the layout of the DMG and the index? Really? Have you ever tried to use the indexes in older editions? Some were decent but most left, if we're being charitable, something to be desired.

*and of course the standard disclaimer that there are other high quality products out there, saying D&D is not total garbage is not saying it's the best design ever, yada, yada, yada.

It's so good that we know the one and only way for something to be financially successful is for every part of it to be designed extremely well. That those two could not possibly have less than 100% positive correlation.

 

[Cadence]

Why couldn't you just require more xp to level?

People like cookies. They don't like waiting for them

That DM clearly didn't want 4th level spells in their game. Ideally, they should have just said so.

That seems like getting that but I. In advance would have been good .

 

[Micah Sweet]

Low level play, mid level play, and high level play are different styles of play.

Some people like Low level play and want to do low level play style from level 1 to level 20 for the whole campaign. That's 1e.

Some people like Mid level play and want to do mid level play style from level 1 to level 20 for the whole campaign. That's 4e.

Some people like high level play and want to do high level play style from level 1 to level 20 for the whole campaign. That's err..err Exalted or something

Perhaps we should use different terms then. Personally, I'm happy with B/X-derived, where the cut off is 14 and you jump into the domain game before that.

 

[Composer99]

It's so good that we know the one and only way for something to be financially successful is for every part of it to be designed extremely well. That those two could not possibly have less than 100% positive correlation.

 

[Micah Sweet]

People like cookies. They don't like waiting for them


That seems like getting that but I. In advance would have been good .

Six levels spread out over 20 yields so pretty small cookies. I'm really curious how that would even work?

 

[Cadence]

Six levels spread out over 20 yields so pretty small cookies. I'm really curious how that would even work?

Could do something like the staggered advancement at Unchained Classes – d20PFSRD
but also split the various other class abilities up to... and then call the partial levels full levels?

Is 1/4 cookie every other session better or worse than a full cookie every 8 sessions? (Not sure)

 

[James Gasik]

I mean, it's not that there's a wrong way to play D&D, it just comes down to which way is best for you and your group. But the thing that always bothered me about people who never really want D&D to stretch into the realm of high fantasy (even though it's always kind of been there, really), is if you work backwards.

Ok so what is level 20? If you say you want level 20 to be, say, d'Artagnan, a peak level human and debatably the best swordsman in France, what is level 15? Level 10? Level 5? Level 1?

I mean, depending on the era, the maximum level in D&D has been 20, 30, 36, 50, or 100 (I can't be the only one who remembers the finale of Bloodstone)!

It's like saying "well, I think a level should only be about a 0.05% improvement, so by level 20, you'll be as strong as two 1st level guys".

Don't get me wrong, higher level D&D can absolutely break down if you keep playing the same way; I've been in a campaign for like 35 years now and my character has advanced to the point that I don't even use a character sheet anymore; most anything I want to do, I succeed at.

The issues are more that I can only do so many things at once, and they take time. So do I want to stop the evil God who is killing all potential Paladins before they are even born? Marshal forces to prevent an entire world from being overrun by a vast evil army? Craft an artifact to keep a promise to a powerful immortal? Train my apprentice so that they can eventually take on my duties as the Guardian of Magic Itself? Find my wayward daughter who ran off to have an adventure and make sure nothing happens to her?

Decisions, decisions.

If 5e has any problem, really, it's that the game no longer presents you with goals anymore.

Like, look at AD&D (1 and 2). Early on, you're trying to make a name for yourself, and maybe earn a fortune with some glory. Each success pushes you a bit farther, as what you earn is always necessary for the next step.

Treasure buys better armor, horses, wagons, supplies, eventually going towards things like building your own keep or guild, and the upkeep on your retinue.

The name and glory you earn for yourself leads to powerful NPC's recruiting you, which leads to even more dramatic adventures.

But these days, if you go by the treasure guidelines, even if you pay for all the stuff needed to go on an adventure, you can have thousands of gp laying around because we no longer have base-building, retinue gathering, or domain building as a default part of the game.

Spellcasters are the only ones who can really use money, and they can often leverage their magic into ways to earn vast wealth unless the DM is really careful about their world building.

Magic loot is no longer a guarantee, and even if you find it, there's a sharp limit on how many items you can realistically make use of anyways.

Even leveling can lead to diminishing returns, as some classes really don't have a lot to look forward to for several levels at a time.

The things necessary to keep a D&D game interesting for a high level game almost all have to come from the DM, it's not built into the system, and the DMG doesn't provide nearly enough guidance.

I'll parrot something that was said by others upthread; 5e really seems built assuming you're already a veteran DM and know how to do this stuff. If you're not, the things you'll need to learn, you won't learn from WotC.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Could do something like the staggered advancement at Unchained Classes – d20PFSRD
but also split the various other class abilities up to... and then call the partial levels full levels?

Is 1/4 cookie every other session better or worse than a full cookie every 8 sessions? (Not sure)

That second one for me, but everybody's different.

 

[Cadence]

That second one for me, but everybody's different.

Does only getting big discrete advances in capability go against realism/versimilitude? (Do students become more skillful after each course or two they finish in their major? Or only after they earn they finish their BS, MS, and PhD?)

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Ohhhhh. Right. They need a stat block to be believable.

There’s probably the biggest issue in 5e. Gamers who were trained by 3e and its antecedent games that everyone and everything needs game stats.

It's one of the reasons why I find the "you need a rule for everything" screed so hilarious when thrown at 4e. 4e very intentionally didn't have a rule for everything, and far less than 3e did. But the ways 3e had such rules are totally cool or even necessary, while the far fewer ways 4e did are utterly unacceptable and in need of elimination with prejudice.

Just goes back to my long-standing point that the problem with 4e was that it felt unfamiliar. Literally nothing to do with the rules design. 5e looks almost exactly like 3e, by design, and actively courted 1e/2e fans, so it's familiar, and thus treated positively. All while assiduously working to conceal any lingering connections to 4e (or, in probably my most popular post on this forum, taking only the most superficial understanding of 4e's rule design and turning that into something else, usually diametrically opposite.)

I invalidate the Bard, every time. A Bard with a stupid idea and high Charisma will do better than a Fighter with the same idea, but a Fighter with a good idea will win the day

I am not just rolling Persuasion, you have to persuade first, that then gives you the DC

Is that actually an issue? Like at all? Bards can have good ideas too. And if the Fighter has a good idea...why wouldn't they tell the Bard who is more likely to succeed on a good idea too?

Plus, Charm Person. You don't even need a good idea. Just an idea that isn't so obviously stupid/awful that a feverish five year old could see through it. Where's your "Fighter with a good idea" equivalent there?

Slowly coming to the realization that 'superhero' is the new 'anime' or 'WoW': a dogwhistle mean to invoke negative feelings for people who have no idea what the thing is, only that they're supposed to hate it.

Honestly, about the "likes low level play", I'm reminded of a guy I used to play D&D with, Tom. One day, he got to talking about the game he wanted to run, and it sounded really cool; there was this island with ruins and monsters, the players would have to hire a ship to get there and back, there were no services there other than what you brought with you, so there was always this risk that if you didn't snag enough treasure, you wouldn't be able to afford another expedition. Thus we had to be careful with our money.

But we started off with quite a bit for whatever reason, so I suggested we pool our resources to buy a lot of equipment, and good armor for the fighter and cleric, and Tom was like "wait, you shouldn't do that."

"Why is that?", we asked.

"Well, you need to afford training or you won't be able to level." He then showed us his training cost rules, and they didn't start off bad, but after level 5, they spiked.

So we played for a bit, and it was fun, but even though we were able to do more on later expeditions, the treasure to xp (this was a 2e game) started getting very skewed. As in, we quickly ended up with characters who had the xp to level up, but we couldn't afford it.

I brought my concerns to Tom, and this is what he said, pretty much verbatim:

"That's why I like training so much. It keeps you from being able to level up past the point where the game is fun."

In light of this revelation, us players got together at Steak & Shake one night to discuss the game. We decided to pool our gold to put the Wizard through training, as we felt he needed more hit points (and his 4th level spells would be a great thing to have).

A session or two later, we announced the Wizard was level 7, Tom cried foul, we showed him how we'd divided the wealth, and he actually sulked, saying "we didn't get how to play D&D the right way".

And then he said he had to put in more hours at work, and we never got back to that campaign.

Sounds like yet another perfect example of DMs not understanding the perverse incentives of their adjudications or rules changes.