D&D 5E Parts of the game that get a lot of hate but you love

[Tony Vargas]

Yep, no D&D rules can be good enough to overcome the Dreaded Bad DM.

Of course, there's that line between the incompetent and malicious senses of 'bad.' A DM who merely lacks skill can be greatly aided by a better system.

But the willfully BAD DM, well, no system can protect you from him. At best, a better system will make it more evident what's going on. The clearer & simpler, the more robust, consistent & intuitive the system, the harder it will be to use it as camouflage. Unfair rulings, miss-applied rules, and the like will more likely stand out.

Take the horror story, above. Hiding is one of the more confused 5e sub-systems, and 'surprise rounds' are a feature of past editions. It's not odd for a DM to rule without regard to a clunky sub-system to move the game along - good DMs will do that, for good reasons. It's not odd for a whole table to follow an out of date rule they all happened to be accustomed to. It might have swiftly become clear enough to the victim what was going on, but he couldn't salvage the situation - bailing was the right thing to do.

As tired as I got of rule debates in 3e, a Bad DM probably wouldn't have gotten away with something quite that blatant, quite that easily. He might have been argued into relenting, or lost more players as a consequence, for instance. Or not, depending on relative system knowledge around the table. The zeitgeist of the day just fostered less trust of the DM and more in the RAW, I suppose. Now, a Bad Player in the 3.x era....

... the solution to the Bad DM Problem is obvious, though: run.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

There is controversy over whether, if you go behind a tree and Hide, you are actually hidden, or whether the fact that I know you went behind the tree means you're not hidden. Also, there's controversy over whether if I go behind the tree too, you are still hidden, or if I automatically see you. There is also controversy over whether taking the Hide action is the only way to hide, or whether improvised actions or certain circumstances can also make you hidden without Hiding. E.g. a Shadow Monk using Pass Without Trace uses his Cloak of Shadows ability to become invisible and then Shadow Steps across the room. Is he hidden from his opponent automatically? Could that be considered an improvised/circumstantial action which justifies a Stealth roll vs. Wisdom (Perception/Hearing) to become hidden (that's how I'd run it)? If he just automatically not hidden because he didn't Hide? What if his opponent is deaf or within Silence? If a deaf guy can't see you or hear you or see your tracks, how can you not​ be hidden? People argue it both ways.

None of those warrant controversy since they're all easily answerable with absolute certainty by the rules. There's really no argument to any of them. Whoever is creating these sorts of arguments should try reading the rules first.

 

[Flamestrike]

... for instance, if I decide a monster is going to surprise the party, I don't have to delve into the minutiae of the stealth rules and make contested checks out in the open or anything, I can just rule that the poor suckers are surprised - and give the monster Advantage if I want...

I knew I recognized you from somewhere!

 

[Lanliss]

It's more the ambiguity that does that. If it were all that simple, players wouldn't need rulings. Rules that need rulings put the ball back in the DM's court. Organized play has not been that nightmarish for me, as a DM. While you do have to stick to the groundrules (so there are feats & the odd MC or Variant Human character, for instance), the game still gives you plenty of latitude, in play....



... for instance, if I decide a monster is going to surprise the party, I don't have to delve into the minutiae of the stealth rules and make contested checks out in the open or anything, I can just rule that the poor suckers are surprised - and give the monster Advantage if I want...

I want to ask you, seriously, did you read the post above yours before posting this, or not? Either way it gets a laugh.

 

[guachi]

Encumbrance
Spell components

 

[Tony Vargas]

I want to ask you, seriously, did you read the post above yours before posting this, or not? Either way it gets a laugh.

Yes, I 'seriously' did, and thank you, I'll be here all week!

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

None of those warrant controversy since they're all easily answerable with absolute certainty by the rules. There's really no argument to any of them. Whoever is creating these sorts of arguments should try reading the rules first.

Perhaps. It's even possible I'd agree with you on all of the rulings! Of course, people on both sides of these arguments think the answers are obvious and the other side should "try reading the rules first."

The main thing is that, as a DM, I don't have to care what everyone else thinks. As a player, I only need to care what my current DM thinks. You plays the game you's at. 5E is not a single game; it's a toolkit for constructing games. And if your table is playing with some unusual rules, you adapt. E.g. at a table where ogres can gain advantage and surprise rounds for standing behind rocks, having a "face" in the party with the Alert feat becomes more of a thing, and you try to keep the rest of the party further back during negotiations...

(Or you quit and find another table, if that game isn't to your taste.)

 

[Shiroiken]

For a DM its fantastic. You can shrug and say 'ruling' and win.

The only time it's a "win" is if you have a Rules Lawyer to deal with. 5E does a pretty good job of cutting the legs out from underneath them, since it doesn't try to have rules for everything.

Bad DMs gonna bad DM, no matter what system you put in front of them.

Ooof

Yea, no matter what edition (or game system for that matter), nothing can save you from a bad DM!

 

[Shiroiken]

It's more the ambiguity that does that. If it were all that simple, players wouldn't need rulings. Rules that need rulings put the ball back in the DM's court.

In an open ended game like RPGs, where the players can literally try anything, simplicity means ambiguity. 3E tried to have rules for everything, which reduced ambiguity, but the rules were overly complicated. 4E was less complicated with about the same level of clarity, and AD&D was complicated with lots of ambiguity. 5E has simple rules, but it leaves a LOT to the discretion of the DM.

It's fair to note that some things in 5E were left ambiguous not for simplicity, but for style preference. Stealth is the most notable example of this (and has probably caused the most arguments). While I understand this (everyone can run Stealth the way that works best for their group) I also see this as a major pain in the ass, especially for new players/DMs.

 

[cmad1977]

I don't get why people have difficulty with hiding. Either you're hidden, or you're not and you can't hide if you don't have something to hide behind. Simple.


Every conversation I've seen about CR has been that it's a total mess and, if anything, misleading.


I'm currently on the fence about it. I've never liked multi-classing and I love this edition's rules for it because it's so restrictive and requires a lot of thought. BUt on the flip-side, players love to multi-class. It's probably the one thing that I could say almost every player wants to do, and because the multi-classing rules are so well balanced and restrictive, it ends up being a huge trap for those without at least a moderate degree of system mastery. So I have to warn players and disencourage it, simply so that they're not left with a character that falls significantly behind everyone else's.

Re: CR
A lot of people on this site have griped about it a lot, so I was a bit worried about it when I was using it.
However, at the end of each adventure I built with the CR guidelines, I've looked back and found that things pretty much worked as advertised.

By the finale players are scraping by with their spells basically exhausted, low on HP, have made/failed death saves and are generally worried about their wellbeing which has led them to interesting and creative methods of solving problems.

I'm sure it doesn't work fr everyone. However a number of the complaints I've seen say things like
"I designed a medium encounter and the wizard ended it with a fireball and burning hands". I've had. The same experience, but in the long run, that's part of the design. Another medium encounter or two and that same player is saying
"Uh... Guys... Maybe we should be a little more careful... I'm low on spells"



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk