Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Shiroiken" data-source="post: 7510243" data-attributes="member: 6775477">Pro1.  This was a design goal. IME it's actually easier to teach new players 5E than 3E/PF, because of the simplicity.2.  See Pro #13.  More intentional design. Characters can take as long or short as desired to create & level.4.  Sadly, this isn't quite true IME, but a rules lawyer is going to find a way...5.  By allowing the DM the freedom to make the call, rather than a game designer, allows the DM to make what is (hopefully) the best rule for the group/table/game. 6.  Everything in the game boils down to "what do you want to do?" which is very intuitive for most players. I think they had a better setup during the playtest (the DM never chose a skill, only an ability, and the players could try to justify a skill, encouraging imagination), but the current system is designed to appeal to the largest number of players. 7.  If you think that's bad, you should have tried 4E. iME, the average combat took about an hour or two. An epic battle could easily stretch multiple sessions.8.  Combat is more deadly than some prior editions, but once you reach 3rd - 4th level, it becomes fairly uncommon. It's more deadly that 4E ever was, but less so than 3E, mostly because of the full overnight healing.9.  Numbers have almost always mattered, but because of bounded accuracy, hordes of creatures can be devastating unless area of effect spells can be brought into play.10.  While you don't automatically full heal after every fight, unfortunately you do full heal overnight. This can create the 5 minute work day, where the players have 1 combat, then find a place to take a Long Rest. It's obnoxious, and while it can be circumvented by a good DM, a bad one will have a very hard time with it.11.  Magic items now actually feel special, as their impact is significant due to bounded accuracy.12.  I remember that in 3E, cool abilities had a hidden cost of a +X bonus to the item. This made us have some odd situations, because items with abilities were often considered worse than items with abilities, because they could be sold for more.13.  I can't comment on AL, because I don't participate in any organized play anymore. When they started charging the DM to run events, I quit and never looked back.Cons:A.  The best that a DM can do is be consistent. If they say something is easy, they should set an according DC (I actually drop the DCs by 5 when using their chart, since an easy thing should be better than a 50% chance IMO). The biggest downside of this is when dealing with multiple DMs, such as with AL. The best suggestion I can give is to ask how hard you think something would be, and when he says something (like hard), reply with "so, about an 20?" This can help you gauge how the DM is likely to run things, but remember that some DMs are going to suck (by your standards of how the game should be run).B.  Unfortunately, this isn't due to lack of options, but a set number of "optimal" options. If feats are allowed, most martial characters are likely to employ either Great Weapon Master or Sharpshooter, because they are two of the best combat feats. Most players don't mind playing "sub-optimal" characters, so you will get some variety, but the majority are going to fall into those two molds. Also, damage spells are always going to be the most commonly used for two reasons: they're simple to use and they don't require DM judgement. Illusions, charms, and summons all require some level of DM participation, and unfortunately there are many lazy DMs that will shut down ideas that don't have clear rules.C.  The character build ‘sub-game’ was a flaw that hurt the game. If you give people an option, but punish them for choosing it, it makes new players leave and not come back. Conversely, if you create choices that are better options than others, experienced players will choose those options exclusively.D.  Unlike 3E and 4E, which tried to make it easy for DMs by providing rules for everything, now they have to be just as imaginative as the players are. When I learned to become a DM (about 26-27 years ago), my DM mentored me, showing me HOW to properly DM, not just the mechanics involved. While anyone can just pickup the DMG and start running a game, DMs really need to learn HOW to run a good game. Fortunately, there are a ton of videos and blogs on the subject, but unfortunately they can also be bad advice (or advice not suited for your group).E.  In 5E, players all hit at about the same frequency, with the difference usually being made up in the damage output. Players should hit regularly, but the damage output will vary. Conversely, Monsters tend to hit less frequently, but usually for greater damage. In the example of the fighter vs. rogue, the fighter will hit just as often, dealing slightly less damage (due to sneak attack), but should have better HP and slightly higher AC.F.  They provide a chart, but DMs often forget it exists and are not consistent with their DCs. Additionally, dice are only supposed to be rolled if their is a consequence for failure. Assuming you have an axe, even the weakest of characters will eventually break down a door. G.  I agree with you about skills. They had other options during the playtest, but this was found the be the best for the largest pool of players. I've seen several house-rules designed to fix this, but that doesn't help if you primarily do AL.H.  Adventurer’s League. Again, not in a position to comment about AL, but I will say that it has been the most consistently available organized play for D&D IME.</blockquote>

Verification