D&D 5E Is 5e really that different?

[billd91]

I'm sorry, but, I don't see the difference.

+level means that by and large, success is floating around that 66% chance. Yes, there is variation, I know, but, the baseline is always that 66%. Be more focused and that percent goes up, be less focused and it goes down.

Bounded accuracy means the same thing. Success for the majority of tasks is around 66%. At least, that's the baseline presumption. Yup, you can increase or decrease from there, but, it always comes back to 66%.

But that's really not what bounded accuracy means. A crucial element of bounded accuracy is the fact that the target numbers don't go up much and that keeps the numbers from growing far outside a lower level character/monster's reach. That's the bounded part of bounded accuracy. 4e and PF2 numbers grow together to keep the accuracy of same-level conflicts the same - that may be keeping the same level of accuracy (what they referred to as extending the sweet spot), but it sure isn't bounded since lower level monsters and PCs are increasingly irrelevant to higher level encounters.
That's a significant design difference even if some of the mechanical aspects (the same proficiency bonus for every class) are the same.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

The reason I used quotation marks because it seemed to be an eye(s) of the beholder thing. I've seen 5e lauded as a much heralded return to 1e, 2e, and 3e. But that's a sentiment that hasn't come around as much in recent years.

It's an area 4e might have been served better by taking an even bigger page from MMO's. A warrior in WoW can be either a striker (dps) or defender (tank). A fighter in 4e is a defender that can lean more towards striker or controller. The former is more obviously flexible and feels like a more consequential choice.

4e had striker materials they were just called the Ranger and Slayer.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

But that's really not what bounded accuracy means. A crucial element of bounded accuracy is the fact that the target numbers don't go up much and that keeps the numbers from growing far outside a lower level character/monster's reach. That's the bounded part of bounded accuracy. 4e and PF2 numbers grow together to keep the accuracy of same-level conflicts the same - that may be keeping the same level of accuracy (what they referred to as extending the sweet spot), but it sure isn't bounded since lower level monsters and PCs are increasingly irrelevant to higher level encounters.
That's a significant design difference even if some of the mechanical aspects (the same proficiency bonus for every class) are the same.

Very well stated - thank you!

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

double post

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

Well, if AD&D had the most changes, then I would respectfully suggest your feel from AD&D might be very different from others. I had only a few pages of house-rules in AD&D (due to the inclusion of 2E really), but have over 60 for 5E.

So much of 1e didn’t work that we need tons of house rules to make it work

 

[DND_Reborn]

So much of 1e didn’t work that we need tons of house rules to make it work

YMMV, of course.

 

[Uni-the-Unicorn!]

YMMV, of course.

Of course.

 

[Hussar]

But that's really not what bounded accuracy means. A crucial element of bounded accuracy is the fact that the target numbers don't go up much and that keeps the numbers from growing far outside a lower level character/monster's reach. That's the bounded part of bounded accuracy. 4e and PF2 numbers grow together to keep the accuracy of same-level conflicts the same - that may be keeping the same level of accuracy (what they referred to as extending the sweet spot), but it sure isn't bounded since lower level monsters and PCs are increasingly irrelevant to higher level encounters.
That's a significant design difference even if some of the mechanical aspects (the same proficiency bonus for every class) are the same.

But, frankly, who cares?

What does it matter that a 3rd level character can still hit a CR 17 creature? Is it going to come up in game? I suppose we could look at summonings, but, then, in 4e, summonings would get attack bonuses based on the summoner - so, the end result is the same.

The point being, at it's heart, it's still the same system. Sure, there might be corner case examples (like a lower level character not being able to hit -this is why 5e isn't like 3e or earlier D&D), but, in play, that's not going to come up.

And, let's not forget here, within the tier, in 4e, you had about a 5 level range up or down that the PC's could reasonably face without much of an issue. A 10th level party could be challenged by anything from CR 5 to CR 15 creatures without any issue. Again, this wasn't true in 3e at all - a 10th level party couldn't reasonably be challenged by CR 5 creatures (even if you used a LOT of them) and a single CR 15 creature had a reasonably decent chance of killing the entire party. But in 5e? Yeah, +/- 5 CR creatures are perfectly viable.

I'd argue that the difference is pretty insignificant when it comes to actual play. How often in an adventure, do you have a +/-10 CR spread between the party and whatever it's facing? Yes, I admit that it does happen, but, it's pretty rare. That 5 range is far more common and works well. The thing to remember too is that 4e spread things out considerably more. 30 level spread vs 20. So, sure, there are going to be differences. But, again, Bounded Accuracy in play is 4e's bonus grind with the bonus numbers filed off.

 

[FrogReaver]

But, frankly, who cares?

What does it matter that a 3rd level character can still hit a CR 17 creature? Is it going to come up in game? I suppose we could look at summonings, but, then, in 4e, summonings would get attack bonuses based on the summoner - so, the end result is the same.

The point being, at it's heart, it's still the same system. Sure, there might be corner case examples (like a lower level character not being able to hit -this is why 5e isn't like 3e or earlier D&D), but, in play, that's not going to come up.

And, let's not forget here, within the tier, in 4e, you had about a 5 level range up or down that the PC's could reasonably face without much of an issue. A 10th level party could be challenged by anything from CR 5 to CR 15 creatures without any issue. Again, this wasn't true in 3e at all - a 10th level party couldn't reasonably be challenged by CR 5 creatures (even if you used a LOT of them) and a single CR 15 creature had a reasonably decent chance of killing the entire party. But in 5e? Yeah, +/- 5 CR creatures are perfectly viable.

I'd argue that the difference is pretty insignificant when it comes to actual play. How often in an adventure, do you have a +/-10 CR spread between the party and whatever it's facing? Yes, I admit that it does happen, but, it's pretty rare. That 5 range is far more common and works well. The thing to remember too is that 4e spread things out considerably more. 30 level spread vs 20. So, sure, there are going to be differences. But, again, Bounded Accuracy in play is 4e's bonus grind with the bonus numbers filed off.

In 4e, both AC and hit bonuses scaled regularly. Those bonuses scaled so much that the d20 was overtaken. This created a treadmill effect without bounded accuracy.

In 5e, only hit bonuses regularly scale. AC mostly stops scaling by level 10. Save DC's are even worse as most don't scale any past level 1. The bonuses that do scale also never overtake the d20. This creates a non-treadmill bounded accuracy style system.

To me, while there's many similarities here, the constraints placed on the 5e system while seemingly minor create a much different system and feel than the 4e system created.

 

[teitan]

I would posit that 90% of the criticism I see about 5e now has nothing to do with mechanics any longer, but with how "WotC is ruining D&D by being woke". In the early days there were criticisms about mechanics, and there are still a few of those going around, but no one is really upset about 5e mechanically anymore. I think we can all agree that those complaining about the increased inclusivity don't have much of a valid argument anyway. So really, 5e isn't upsetting in a general sense. For me, it's my second favorite after AD&D.

5e was pretty inclusive from the beginning so I don't know why they are even complaining. It's been there from the PHB on and it's just been spotlighted more but I can't really see an increase in it, just a bolder spotlight to address some of the more superficial criticism. I don't think saying "alignment is not inherent" is being 'woke' but more pedantic for the sake of the people in the back and to make it a little more apparent that fluff rules like alignment are suggestive and easy to ignore.