Level Up (A5E) 3.99 Edition

Lucas Yew · Aug 16, 2020

Saelorn said:
I strongly disagree with the premise that 5E has anything to do with 3E (rules-as-physics, long-term consequences, symmetrical rules), when it is so clearly derived from 4E in every way that matters (infinite magic, trivial healing, rules-as-game). Maybe you could argue that it's purely its own thing, taking different things from different editions; but it's definitely not an iteration of 3E.

When 5E was finalized I wished the bolded parts were kept/returned, but only the latter ones did. Too bad for me, and nowdays I've turned more skeptical in that if even a 1/3 of players actually like the former bolded 2 like I do...

GMMichael · Aug 16, 2020

Lucas Yew said:
When 5E was finalized I wished the bolded parts were kept/returned, but only the latter ones did. Too bad for me, and nowdays I've turned more skeptical in that if even a 1/3 of players actually like the former bolded 2 like I do...

What are some examples of rules-as-physics and symmetrical rules that you liked?

Micah Sweet said:
I understand. I just don't think that's worth having characters basically be good at all saves. I like weaknesses.

I also like weaknesses. 5e has them, sort of, in Flaws. I suppose the three-item-limit for attunement could result in weaknesses too. It's also why I'd like to see casters with fewer hit points. And a thief (to use a pre-evolution term) that relies on non-combat skills, since engaging in combat is likely a fatal endeavor...(think this guy from Conan the Destroyer)

KnightOfTheGrey said:
Not sure you'd end up with characters who were good at all saves. There's still the proficiency bonus, and characters still won't have good stats for all three saves.

The monks would find a way. Here's what I wonder about the 6-save system: did it simplify or complicate the game? On the one hand, they pulled out a chunk of unnecessary rules: what was essentially a conversion of ability checks into three saves, and their application to each class. On the other, they added to player/DM options by introducing twice as many saving throws.

Side note: the Proficiency bonus can thank 3e saving throws for its existence - since they both do the same thing: provide a bonus that increases by level and applies across all classes.

Micah Sweet · Aug 16, 2020

DMMike said:
What are some examples of rules-as-physics and symmetrical rules that you liked?

I also like weaknesses. 5e has them, sort of, in Flaws. I suppose the three-item-limit for attunement could result in weaknesses too. It's also why I'd like to see casters with fewer hit points. And a thief (to use a pre-evolution term) that relies on non-combat skills, since engaging in combat is likely a fatal endeavor...(think this guy from Conan the Destroyer)
View attachment 124753

The monks would find a way. Here's what I wonder about the 6-save system: did it simplify or complicate the game? On the one hand, they pulled out a chunk of unnecessary rules: what was essentially a conversion of ability checks into three saves, and their application to each class. On the other, they added to player/DM options by introducing twice as many saving throws.

Side note: the Proficiency bonus can thank 3e saving throws for its existence - since they both do the same thing: provide a bonus that increases by level and applies across all classes.

See, I've never had any of my players use the personality notes in the background, so I've never taken them seriously as a feature.

Lucas Yew · Aug 18, 2020

DMMike said:
What are some examples of rules-as-physics and symmetrical rules that you liked?

First, all skills having definite DCs per task specifics. Like "you need this amount of Climbing bonus to successfully climb a wall made of material X with friction coefficient Y," for example.

Secondly, stuff like monsters following the same Feat/HD ratio, specific creature types sharing the same BAB rate and skill points per level, etc. And to add to this point, I was quite fine with monsters having "arbitrary" math bonuses like those big ones to natural armor, as they could be easily argued as racial features of each "monster race" (though as a tangent, I prefer PF2's everyone naturally benefitting from base AC growth as a superior feeling method).

And finally, humanoid enemies of "potentially playable" race/class combos having unique, unreplicable abilies learned through internal training (in contrast to help from custom items/artifacts) very, VERY sparingly (compared to 5E, at least in my perception).

All these things (and others I can't remind up as of now) let me feel much better immersed in an imaginary universe which runs on its own law of physics, however much they would deviate from those of our world...

P.S. And yes, I do know 5E's more loose core rules make things easier for DMs making extras up. The above is merely my preference which I'd enforce on my own hypothetical "fix" of 5E.

NaturalZero · Aug 18, 2020

Infinite cantrips, built-in short rest healing resources, tieflings + dragonborn as core, focuses/implements for casting, universal numerical bonus to everything tied to character level, et at, 5e gets a lot of 4e that I like. I would be have been alright with keeping the 3e style saving throws if you got to pick one of 2 ability score, like in 4e.

glass · Aug 18, 2020

NaturalZero said:
Infinite cantrips, built-in short rest healing resources, tieflings + dragonborn as core, focuses/implements for casting, universal numerical bonus to everything tied to character level, et at, 5e gets a lot of 4e that I like.

Another one of those "let show how similar to 4e 5e is by listing a bunch of things that are not remotely similar and in come cases are literal opposites" posts. For the record:

4e does not really have "cantrips" in the 3e/5e sense, and at-will abilities are hardly unique to 4e. A closer & more likely antecedent for 5e cantrips is Pathfinder.

Unless you bring in optional variants, short rests are very different in 4e and 5e. Also, HD are a extra healing resource (if you ever get to spend them), healing surges are a sem-hard limit on total healing.

Focuse in 5e and implements in 4e are very different things, mechanically.

4e has a universal bonus tied to character level. 5e does literally the opposite.

Tieflings and dragonborn in the (first) PHB I will give you (warlocks too). Group Skill checks were also taken from 4e, and a few spells were inspired by 4e powers (healing word, vicious mockery). But that's still not a great batting average.

_
glass.

GMMichael · Aug 18, 2020

Class kits are a pre-evolution feature, but they were fun and crunchy. As I recall, if you'd meet a role-playing element and had the requirements, your character would pick up a minor fluff and mechanical feature or two without needing additional XP for them. Endless possibilities, there.

Lucas Yew said:
First, all skills having definite DCs per task specifics. Like "you need this amount of Climbing bonus to successfully climb a wall made of material X with friction coefficient Y," for example.

Secondly, stuff like monsters following the same Feat/HD ratio, specific creature types sharing the same BAB rate and skill points per level, etc. And to add to this point, I was quite fine with monsters having "arbitrary" math bonuses like those big ones to natural armor, as they could be easily argued as racial features of each "monster race" (though as a tangent, I prefer PF2's everyone naturally benefitting from base AC growth as a superior feeling method). . .

Ah. Well, that would definitely count as crunchy. Here's the thing: it's 2020. Games can use more tables. It should take seconds to type into a (pdf?) search: "climbing table." There could literally be a different table for every skill, and it wouldn't increase page-turning because page-turning is a thing of the past.

The 3e monster templates system made perfect sense to me. I don't see a lot of reasons to create NPCs with a different system than the one for PCs. Monster Generator would be a good Level Up feature.