Survey (A5E) Survey Results #1: Broad Outlines

[tetrasodium]

Yes, and... I recall in the PF2 handbook a formula for the core roll that was something along the lines of d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus + circumstance bonus + status bonus + item bonus - (circumstance penalty + status penalty + item penalty + all untyped penalties) = result. That’s a lot of fiddly math to do every time you roll a d20. In 5e, you do d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus and sometimes + item bonus. All the rest of that crap gets rolled into setting the DC, and you can add advantage or disadvantage for an additional circumstantial bonus/penalty if necessary. Much simpler, much smoother.

You make it sound like d&d characters are constantly going through sailor moon-esque equipment swaps with random collections of gear they need to learn & reindex multiple times per round. In practice it's not nearly as complicated as you are bending over backwards to suggest.

On top of that, PF2 has a whole table for setting DCs based on level, with another table you have to cross-reference it with for modifiers based on difficulty... Again, way more work than should need to be done to determine a target number. 5e just says an easy task is DC 10, Medium is 15, Hard is 20, pick one and let bounded accuracy do the rest of the work.

Oh, and in PF2 you add your level to basically every d20 roll (except untrained rolls) and DCs and monster ACs scale accordingly, which I’ve hated ever since 4e as it’s just useless numbers inflation and creates a bonus treadmill. 5e again answers that with bounded accuracy.


Yeah, it’s good that fiddly systems exist for the folks who like to fiddle. But it’s frustrating that there isn’t an option for folks like me who can’t stand that stuff but do still want a high degree of character customizability. Doubly frustrating that when I express a desire for more customizability people tell me “PF2 already exists.” Hopefully A5E will hit the sweet spot. We will see.

No 5e removed basically all of the designspace where those "fiddly" subjective bonuses & modifiers existed in its endless quest for simplicity. You can't have a "high degree of customizability" without the designspace for that to operate within. Cheer up you can pretty much customize your height, weight, age, sex, hair color, eye color, hair length, shoe size, & so on as much as you want to give you that mindlessly simple highly customizable character creation experience in both 5e & a5e.
\

 

[glass]

Yes, and... I recall in the PF2 handbook a formula for the core roll that was something along the lines of d20 + ability modifier + proficiency bonus + circumstance bonus + status bonus + item bonus - (circumstance penalty + status penalty + item penalty + all untyped penalties) = result. That’s a lot of fiddly math to do every time you roll a d20.

The only ones that you need to do for "every d20 roll" are the situational bonuses and penalties (status and circumstance), and then only if there are actual circumstnces applying them. The proficiency bonus, ability bonus, and item bonus are all precalculated and written onto the character sheet, just the same as they are in 5e.

_
glass.

 

[Charlaquin]

You make it sound like d&d characters are constantly going through sailor moon-esque equipment swaps with random collections of gear they need to learn & reindex multiple times per round. In practice it's not nearly as complicated as you are bending over backwards to suggest.

The item bonus/penalty is not a particularly egregious offender here. The much bigger issues are the circumstantial bonuses/penalties, the status bonuses/penalties, and the “all other untyped penalties.” All of that should be part of setting the DC and/or a simple system like advantage/disadvantage.

No 5e removed basically all of the designspace where those "fiddly" subjective bonuses & modifiers existed in its endless quest for simplicity. You can't have a "high degree of customizability" without the designspace for that to operate within.

This is simply not true. It is entirely possible to have a high degree of customizability without endless fiddly bonuses and penalties. You just have to utilize design space outside of small numerical adjustments.

Cheer up you can pretty much customize your height, weight, age, sex, hair color, eye color, hair length, shoe size, & so on as much as you want to give you that mindlessly simple highly customizable character creation experience in both 5e & a5e.

Don’t patronize me.

 

[Charlaquin]

The only ones that you need to do for "every d20 roll" are the situational bonuses and penalties (status and circumstance), and then only if there are actual circumstnces applying them.

Yes, and they add unnecessary complexity.

The proficiency bonus, ability bonus, and item bonus are all precalculated and written onto the character sheet, just the same as they are in 5e.

_
glass.

Which I acknowledged in my post.

 

[tetrasodium]

The item bonus/penalty is not a particularly egregious offender here. The much bigger issues are the circumstantial bonuses/penalties, the status bonuses/penalties, and the “all other untyped penalties.” All of that should be part of setting the DC and/or a simple system like advantage/disadvantage.


This is simply not true. It is entirely possible to have a high degree of customizability without endless fiddly bonuses and penalties. You just have to utilize design space outside of small numerical adjustments.


Don’t patronize me.

d&d is a game of numbers. When they remove too many of the hooks to place those numbers in there's no more design space to utilize without going into exciting areas like waist size, hair length, & eye color. Don't complain about being patronized when you need to start out by qualifying your original complaint by admitting that much of it was nonsense to begin with.

 

[Charlaquin]

d&d is a game of numbers. When they remove too many of the hooks to place those numbers in there's no more design space to utilize without going into exciting areas like waist size, hair length, & eye color.

There’s plenty of design space outside of +1 to hit. Don’t be silly.

Don't complain about being patronized when you need to start out by qualifying your original complaint by admitting that much of it was nonsense to begin with.

It was not nonsense, and you’re being extremely disrespectful right now.

 

[Micah Sweet]

There’s plenty of design space outside of +1 to hit. Don’t be silly.


It was not nonsense, and you’re being extremely disrespectful right now.

Can you give me an example of the design space that's not being utilized? As it is now, the advantage/disadvantage mechanic covers everything with a very broad brush.

 

[tetrasodium]

There’s plenty of design space outside of +1 to hit. Don’t be silly.


It was not nonsense, and you’re being extremely disrespectful right now.

I'm sure you can easily elaborate on "an assortment of fiddly ribbons" or even a good number of areas where the designspace left in 5e is not being utilized that could justify your claim that"There’s plenty of design space outside of +1 to hit. Don’t be silly.".... While doing so keep in mind that "plenty" implies a significant number so you should have no problem listing five or ten meaningful examples of design space since you are pulling from the entire system while I can name that many limiting myself to just weapons & armor 5e overly simplified from past editions alone & many of those allowed expanded designspace within other niche areas of the system.

 

[Umbran]

Don't complain about being patronized when you need to start out by qualifying your original complaint by admitting that much of it was nonsense to begin with.

Mod Note:

We expect you to treat folks here with respect, no matter how sensible you, or they, feel their thoughts are. If you cannot manage that, you should probably walk away from the keyboard before it becomes a problem.

 

[Charlaquin]

Can you give me an example of the design space that's not being utilized? As it is now, the advantage/disadvantage mechanic covers everything with a very broad brush.

Advantage and disadvantage covers situational bonuses and penalties to attacks and checks with a very broad brush, yes. That’s the point, to streamline the basic system math. If you can’t think of ways that characters might be mechanically differentiated from each other outside of simple bonuses to attacks and checks, I don’t know what to tell you. Such avenues of mechanical expression are all over gaming. Hell, the classes in 5e are pretty well differentiated from each other without such fiddly modifiers. It doesn’t take a lot to imagine how such design space could be expanded upon with more build decision points. That’s kind of the mission statement of A5E.