D&D 5E (2014) 15 Petty Reasons I Won't Buy 5e

[Ruin Explorer]

"The system" has to account for this?

Isn't that what a DM is for?

Not to do it alone and unaided, no.

The system, eeyore, the CL system, the encounter-building system. WotC have talked about it quite a bit, and it's in evidence in the previews (and to a lesser extent, in the playtests).

WotC have SPECIFICALLY STATED that they intend for magic items to be possible to account for when building encounters, and that they will have guidelines for that. WotC. Not me. WotC.

WotC have also stated that they intend the encounter building system to be robust and reliable, something that 3E's system was absolutely not, and that 4E's system was. So they have a clear goal - to build a robust, reliable system that allows you account for magic items in a way that doesn't make the system less robust or reliable.

The DM is there to design the encounters and so on, but frankly, most DMs need or at least can benefit from help/advice on designing appropriate encounters, and having some stuff called out. This is very evident from years of play, being on both sides of the table. The unaided style of play from 2E lead to a lot of misjudged encounters, and worse, a lot of scrutinizing monsters for things that could be problematic, which took a lot of time and effort, and which it's quite possible for WotC to do FOR us. And they are, or claim to be. And that's a good thing, because at worst, you can ignore this system. It doesn't PRESCRIBE what monsters you can use, it merely suggests and/or shows you the likely consequences.

(Of course, as discussed, this kind of system can be a bad thing - but not because it's prescriptive - there are no gaming police - but rather because it's actively misleading, as the CR system of 3E was, or judging solely or primarily by HD was in 2E).

 

[evileeyore]

No, no... I get it. i don't agree with the "ideal" but I get it.

I just think it's... something special when DM's complain that the "system isn't balanced" or whatever, and they can't rely on it blindly to "craft encounters" the way they want.





Probably just me being curmudgeonly and feeling the need to wave my cane (good arm exercise) at youths and complain about lawns being trod on (which is what lawns are for anyway).

 

[Ruin Explorer]

No, no... I get it. i don't agree with the "ideal" but I get it.

I just think it's... something special when DM's complain that the "system isn't balanced" or whatever, and they can't rely on it blindly to "craft encounters" the way they want.

No-one is saying it should be relied on blindly (even 4E isn't there). Just that it should be robust and reliable in terms of telling you the likely outcome. I.e. is this likely a black, red, blue or green run for the PCs (to borrow from skiing)? I want them to actually try and make a good system for flagging encounter difficulty, because god, it saved me so much time and heartache and fudging in 4E (as compared to 2E and 3E). It still had to use my brain, but it was a massive asset.

Probably just me being curmudgeonly and feeling the need to wave my cane (good arm exercise) at youths and complain about lawns being trod on (which is what lawns are for anyway).

I think we've all been there!

 

[evileeyore]

No-one is saying it should be relied on blindly (even 4E isn't there).

Not in this thread, no.

Just that it should be robust and reliable in terms of telling you the likely outcome. I.e. is this likely a black, red, blue or green run for the PCs (to borrow from skiing)? I want them to actually try and make a good system for flagging encounter difficulty, because god, it saved me so much time and heartache and fudging in 4E (as compared to 2E and 3E). It still had to use my brain, but it was a massive asset.

I never ran 3e D&D and the campaign I ran for 4e... I did what I always do, I ran it my way. Which is to say the PCs got exp when I thought it was needed, they fought monsters I felt were right and etc, etc. Encounter balance? I never did cotton to that idea


But I've run GURPS for 20+ years, and there is nothing even remotely like "a way to build combat/scene/encounter/whatzits in a balanced way". The ST just builds what feels right, so that's what I'm used to (side notedly, GURPS is a vastly different beast than D&D for those not experienced with it).



Mostly I feel that if a system is designed for a type of game play/genre style, then if you diverge from that, the onus is on the DM to understand the rules well enough to fix any breaks, fill any holes, shore up any weakness. No game will ever be robust enough to do everything.

At least not without needing 200+ (and growing) supplementary books to cover it... someday I hate GURPS 4e (note for the simulationistas - this is what happens when too much simulation is in a rules set).

I think we've all been there!

It was mostly triggered by something I read a few days ago in another thread that's been rattling aorund. 5e feels (to me) like a call back to to "old days" before "balanced encounters" were even a term so these mentions of "But will it allow me to do X to Y with Z in a balanced fashion" almost feel foreign again.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

Yeah, I disagree, I'm not saying you said it wouldn't make a difference. I'm saying that +2 to hit and damage on multiple attacks WILL definitely be noticeable, in practice, and a party with several pieces of magic armour and magic weapons WILL be stronger than one without to the point where it might impact encounter difficulty (esp. if they also have other combat-influencing items).

My math in my previous post says otherwise. Yes, that will cause a difference. It will be noticeable. However, it will likely cause a round round difference in encounter length in most combats. That's easy to correct for, add more monsters so that it takes them an extra round to finish the encounter.

I'm positive there will be guidelines on how to do this in the DMG. Likely showing how much to increase the XP budget based on the magic items.

I mean, if you're saying "One +2 weapon is unlikely to change an encounter", I agree, but we're not talking about that. We're talking about multiple PCs, likely with multiple items, and the need for the system to account for that in some way, because it's apparently tuned for zero items by default.

I still don't think you need to account for it. The difference is still small in comparison to the bonuses the PCs are getting from everything else. But, if you want to, I assume there will be guidelines for it. If not, I'm fairly certain it will be very intuitive to do so yourself. I've been adjusting encounters based on how easy they've been for the PCs since I started running the playtest on the fly with no issues at all.

Totally agree, but we're told that isn't the assumption.

The assumption is few magic items. Which is what most people will give out precisely because it IS the assumption. I've switched to that being the assumption in my playtest games. In my 3rd level campaign they have 1 magic item across the entire group

In my 5th level game, the PCs now have 5 magic items across the whole group. One is a shield and one is armor. They have no weapons.

So, they are designing the game around what the majority will end up using. Those people who choose to deviate from the majority will have to sometimes figure things out on their own. I don't really have an issue with that.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

But I've run GURPS for 20+ years, and there is nothing even remotely like "a way to build combat/scene/encounter/whatzits in a balanced way". The ST just builds what feels right, so that's what I'm used to (side notedly, GURPS is a vastly different beast than D&D for those not experienced with it).

If you don't constantly wipe out your PCs, you are probably subconsciously doing some kind of encounter balancing (at least in terms of the adventure design).

Mostly I feel that if a system is designed for a type of game play/genre style, then if you diverge from that, the onus is on the DM to understand the rules well enough to fix any breaks, fill any holes, shore up any weakness. No game will ever be robust enough to do everything.

Sure, but if you want to make a truly mass-audience game and make fun and reliable to run, so people stick with it and love it, you need to make it as solid and reliable as possible. This sort of guidance can help so much in making the game feel fun and the DM feel like he's done a good job. I wouldn't have believed it would help so much before I saw a working system that did it, to be fair.

It was mostly triggered by something I read a few days ago in another thread that's been rattling aorund. 5e feels (to me) like a call back to to "old days" before "balanced encounters" were even a term so these mentions of "But will it allow me to do X to Y with Z in a balanced fashion" almost feel foreign again.

Balanced encounters have always been there, even though that wasn't the term. DMs didn't just design encounters to wipe the PCs out, or the like, they had expectations about PC levels and numbers, and built encounters to certain difficulties accordingly. It's just that it was very easy to make serious misjudgments, and the only way to correct those was fudging (alternately, letting a TPK you didn't intend and that the PCs didn't deserve, and that didn't enhance the game, just happen).

Anyway, giving help here is a great idea for WotC if they want people to like their game and reliably have fun. It's not prescriptive. If you want a really tough encounter intended to be avoided, you can put it there - it's just that you'll have a good idea as to how deadly it would be.

So, they are designing the game around what the majority will end up using. Those people who choose to deviate from the majority will have to sometimes figure things out on their own. I don't really have an issue with that.

I really think you're being very arrogant here, to assume that your play mode, which is "few" magic items, is "the norm". My experience of D&D from 2E through 4E is that most groups have a hell of a lot more than 1 permanent item/level.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I really think you're being very arrogant here, to assume that your play mode, which is "few" magic items, is "the norm". My experience of D&D from 2E through 4E is that most groups have a hell of a lot more than 1 permanent item/level.

Nope, I'm saying that this will BECOME the norm because most people will look at the rules and say "Oh, this game assumes 1 permanent item per level. Well then, I should endeavor to hand out that many magic items in order to stay within the expectations of the game. That'll make it the easiest on me because that means I don't have to change anything."

I handed out WAY more magic items in 2e, 3e and 4e. I won't in 5e because I'd like to stick to what the game expects. Which is the same reason I handed out the expected number of items in 3e and 4e. I like less magic items better because I find that it makes magic items more appreciated and special. But I handed lots of them out in 3e and 4e because if I didn't, I'd have to change the difficulty of every encounter to make up for it. I don't have the time or energy for that.

Plus, I didn't want to hear the complaining of my players when someone says "Look here in the rules, it says we're supposed to have 150,000 gp at our level. We only have 50,000. Where is the other 100,000?"

 

[Ahnehnois]

If you don't constantly wipe out your PCs, you are probably subconsciously doing some kind of encounter balancing (at least in terms of the adventure design).

I don't think that necessarily follows. I imagine most people are subconsciously doing some kind of encounter balancing, but I think that even if you just picked creatures out of the monster manual at random and populated the players' surroundings with them, you wouldn't be constantly wiping out your PCs.

The world is a functioning ecosystem. Creatures die only when there's some reason for them to. If a party of level 1 characters meets a red dragon, the outcome is not likely to be their deaths, simply because the dragon does not meaningfully gain anything by killing them. As in nature, battles will be fought over something, and combatants will behave rationally, retreating or negotiating if it makes sense to do so.

So I don't think one needs to titrate encounter difficulty to avoid player character death. It just feels that way because the DMG implies that it's true.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I don't think that necessarily follows. I imagine most people are subconsciously doing some kind of encounter balancing, but I think that even if you just picked creatures out of the monster manual at random and populated the players' surroundings with them, you wouldn't be constantly wiping out your PCs.

The world is a functioning ecosystem. Creatures die only when there's some reason for them to. If a party of level 1 characters meets a red dragon, the outcome is not likely to be their deaths, simply because the dragon does not meaningfully gain anything by killing them. As in nature, battles will be fought over something, and combatants will behave rationally, retreating or negotiating if it makes sense to do so.

So I don't think one needs to titrate encounter difficulty to avoid player character death. It just feels that way because the DMG implies that it's true.

This sounds like a really seriously bonkers-hard-work. I feel like I'd really need a book on constructing an entire fantasy ecology to make that approach work, but to be fair, Ahn, you often promote approaches which imply truly huge amounts of work on the part of the DM.

If you're doing that sort of amazing hardcore work, I guess it explains why you seemed to be so attached to your monsters/NPCs!

Nope, I'm saying that this will BECOME the norm because most people will look at the rules and say "Oh, this game assumes 1 permanent item per level. Well then, I should endeavor to hand out that many magic items in order to stay within the expectations of the game. That'll make it the easiest on me because that means I don't have to change anything."

So you want the game to make a particular, peculiar, unusual assumption, and then make it hard for DMs to play any different way in order to promote this low-magic playstyle for some reason? That seems strange. Am I misunderstanding?

Plus, I didn't want to hear the complaining of my players when someone says "Look here in the rules, it says we're supposed to have 150,000 gp at our level. We only have 50,000. Where is the other 100,000?"

I'm not seeing a huge difference between players complaining about GP/level and them complaining about magic items/level, but you seem to actually want the latter to be a thing.

 

[Majoru Oakheart]

I'm not seeing a huge difference between players complaining about GP/level and them complaining about magic items/level, but you seem to actually want the latter to be a thing.

They won't complain about magic items per level, because I'll give them what the book expects. Just like they didn't complain when I gave them proper gold/level in 3e.