What 5e got wrong

[Einlanzer0]

Now that I've caught up and read through the previous pages; I don't really feel that every stat needs to be useful for every part of the game. If only wizards are getting the benefit of a high intelligence in combat then that is fine, they are also going to shine outside of combat when it comes to making intelligence checks. It's the same with wisdom and charisma. PCs who are built to take advantage of the physical stats so that they can be a melee machine are going to suffer when the combat is over. I've seen some games on youtube where, in two hours, they have a single combat; otherwise the players are making history checks, perception checks, investigation and persuasion checks, and those who have an 8 in the required stat are suffering unless they have a lucky die roll. It's perfectly fine for certain stats to have a greater impact on different pillars of the game, they don't all need to be equal in every scenario.

Here's one issue I have with this - one character tends to carry the party during non-combat engagements, and more often than not, it's unnecessary and arguably detrimental to have several PCs with the same skillset. This is part of the reason why Int kind of sucks in 5e. Because most of its mechanical benefits (unless you're a wizard) are vague and tied to non-combat engagements, you get diminishing returns from having more than one high-int PC in the party, which is going to default to the wizard if the party contains one. If not, you're likely to just collectively decide who the Int person is in order to mitigate waste.

I mean, really, how lame is that? Wouldn't it make way more sense if Int had some use in combat that wasn't specifically tied only to wizard spells?

 

[Jeff Carlsen]

What else they got wrong:

1.) 3 books (kudos, though to basic rules package)
2.) format & layout (indexes, tables, & references particularly)
3.) XP & encounter building (math is solid for encounter building & leveling but the explanations for encounter building are arcane. They also lack meaningful non-math difficulty modification and advice).
4.) Monster building (good system, bad explanation).
5.) adventure & campaign writing advice.
6.) lacking "modules" (over promised; under-delivered

Overall: great game, poorly explained.

I think there's a fair argument for each of these, though some, like format & layout are more of a slight miss than an abject failure.

I agree that the encounter building rules could have used another writing pass. It was a mistake to use the term Challenge Rating. It sets the wrong expectations.

I think the way fighter subclasses turned out is flawed, as shown by the discussion of the Kits Unearthed Arcana.

They zoomed in way to close on the cover image of the PHB. The full size artwork as seen on the inside cover is far more dramatic.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Snip

You're actually arguing that it's totally okay for WotC to spend years writing elaborate rules for their game, then publish that game for purchase with horribly imbalanced rules, as long as they don't tell us it's balanced and try to prevent players from rewriting them for their games? I mean, really? Are you serious? That's so irrational I don't even know how to argue against it.

I mean, maybe we're getting lost in the semantics of the term "balance" here, which I already suggested in a previous post. But, I urge you to re-think what you just asserted. Or, if I'm misunderstanding, clarify your meaning.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

In any case, trying to make the game fair for different ability scores is what got us into the madness of the 4e Battlemind attacking with his Constitution (or the ConLock for that matter). Nobody really argues that Constitution isn't fairly treated in 5e; in fact, because of 5e's bounded accuracy and bounded ability score maximums, Constitution is the ability score everyone wants to invest in. Likewise, all abilities are worth investing in by almost any and every character to some extent. 5e finally throws off the shackles of the 1 or 2 ability score using characters that were common in 3rd and 4th editions (remember that I loved 4th edition, in spite of this flaw).

No, the battlemind and conlock use their COn because they are drawing upon their physical endurance as a power source/power conduit, which is 100% sensible for both a magic user and a psionic character.

Agree with the rest, though.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You're actually arguing that it's totally okay for WotC to spend years writing elaborate rules for their game, then publish that game for purchase with horribly imbalanced rules

Yes.

as long as they don't tell us it's balanced and allow players to rewrite them for their games?

Not rewrite, but overrule in play, yes.

I mean, really?

Really.

Are you serious?

Yes.

I don't even know how to argue against it.

OK. Don't feel obligated.

I mean, maybe we're getting lost in the semantics of the term "balance" here, which I already suggested in a previous post.

I'm not arguing that 5e is balanced. Just that it doesn't 'need' to be, or, perhaps, can't be expected to be given it's goals.

But, I urge you to re-think what you just asserted. Or, if I'm misunderstanding, clarify your meaning.

Aside from the distinction between changing, fixing, or house-ruling the existing rules and simply making rulings, I think you've got it.

 

[Einlanzer0]

Yes. Not rewrite, but overrule in play, yes. Really. Yes. I'll take that as conceding defeat, thank you.

I'm not arguing that 5e is balanced. Just that it doesn't 'need' to be, or, perhaps, can't be expected to be given it's goals. Aside from the distinction between changing, fixing, or house-ruling the existing rules and simply making rulings, I think you've got it.

I would not call that "conceding defeat". I walk away from arguments with creationists all the time. Does that make me wrong? It's more like acquiescing that there's no way to make the other person see reason.

I mean, maybe you're right if we assume WotC cares absolutely nothing about their brand image or sales prospects, but that clearly isn't the case. I still think maybe we're conceptualizing the term "balance" differently. Your argument seems to hinge on labeling 4e as "balanced" and 5e as "not balanced". I would argue that in most respects 5e is very carefully balanced, it's just also streamlined, and that's why it's more popular than 4e (well, that and that it's more "traditional"). My complaint is regarding a very specific issue I have, not with 5e taken as a whole.

Do you honestly think 5e would be doing so well if the gameplay felt grossly imbalanced to such a degree that it required constant player rule changes and refinement? No, it wouldn't.

 

[shadowoflameth]

Falling is a proud nail for me. 1d6 per square up to 20d6 is a lot but even if you maximize it, still survivable by many higher level characters. Some could even keep adventuring effectively the same day. In my lifetime, I've seen people who fell from cliffs, down elevator shafts, even skydiving and lived, so I understand that it can happen, but they all injuries that remain for the rest of their lives. If we're in a fantasy setting and magic fixes it fine. Magic ought to be better because it's magic, but still short of being healed by magic or protected by the divine, falling 100' off anything should be a life changer.

Then there's sundering. In 3e breaking a weapon was hard to pull off, and it would take a special ability or something weird going on to 'limb' someone. Yet the troll continues to describe that it can overcome this happening as if were ever to come up. historical digs though in many battle sites show the terrible propensity of medieval and ancient weapons to do this. It should not come up constantly, maybe make a mechanic akin to the massive damage rules, but think of the drama of the villain getting the ancient holy sword and then our hero relieves him of it, or his hand, only to have him come back later with the hand of Vecna.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I would not call that "conceding defeat".

I wasn't being serious with that bit, already dropped it.

I mean, maybe you're right if we assume WotC cares absolutely nothing about their brand image or sales prospects, but that clearly isn't the case.

I think it's precisely because they do care about brand image and sales prospects that they haven't made balance a priority for 5e, leaving it largely to the DM to engineer how he likes. It seems to be working for them.

Do you honestly think 5e would be doing so well if the gameplay felt grossly imbalanced to such a degree that it required constant player rule changes and refinement?

DM rulings, not player rule changes. Aside, from that, yes, it would, and it is. It's how classic D&D tended to play, and that feel and familiarity has been drawing lapsed players back to the game. it's been very successful, precisely because it hasn't embraced 'RAW' the way 3.5 did nor prioritized balance the way 4e did.

I still think maybe we're conceptualizing the term "balance" differently.

A definition of game balance I like is that a game is balanced when it provides the players with many choices that are both viable and meaningful. Don't know if that helps, since we're not primarily disagreeing about whether the game is balanced or not.

 

[Einlanzer0]

I wasn't being serious with that bit, already dropped it.
I think it's precisely because they do care about brand image and sales prospects that they haven't made balance a priority for 5e, leaving it largely to the DM to engineer how he likes. It seems to be working for them.

DM rulings, not player rule changes. Aside, from that, yes, it would, and it is.

A definition of game balance I like is that a game is balanced when it provides the players with many choices that are both viable and meaningful. Don't know if that helps, since we're not primarily disagreeing about whether the game is balanced or not.

Edited my post above in case you didn't see it. A lot of the changes made to 5e were actually pro-balance changes, such as striving to narrow the utility gap between non-casters and casters. What can happen is that you focus on balance so much that it bogs down the gameplay, and that definitely can be to a game's detriment, but that isn't what I'm talking about. The design goals for any game should include both balance and smooth/streamlined gameplay. The best games pull both off simultaneously. Any game that fails too hard at either or both is going to not be received well.

edit: apparently you did and subsequently edited yours =P
btw - DMs are also players.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Edited my post above in case you didn't see it. A lot of the changes made to 5e were actually pro-balance changes.

Changes relative to what, exactly? It's a game that borrows from all it's own prior editions, more so than using one of them as a starting point and making changes to it.

The design goals for any game should include both balance and smooth/streamlined gameplay. The best games pull both off simultaneously.

I'd agree that for just any game (of any sort) off the shelf, balance and playability are vitally important goals, and nothing about them is innately incompatible (normally). RPGs are a little different (if anything, balance is more important for most RPGs), and D&D is downright unique due to its legacy.

Whether a game feels 'smooth' or 'streamlined' though depends both on the qualities of the game, and the familiarity players have with it. D&D has been around since 1974, and didn't really change much until 2000. It's first 10 years or so were also the period when the most people, by far, actually played it. Both long-time and returning players have a certain familiarity with those versions of D&D, and to the extent that 5e evokes those games, it gains a familiarity that lends it that feel of being 'simpler' (or 'streamlined' or whatever you want to call it), relative to the more complex/innovative d20 games like 3.5/PF, or the simply less familiar (if not obscure ones) that constitute prettymuch the whole (tiny) industry apart from D&D and it's closest imitators.

By the same token, D&D has never been all that exemplary when it comes to game balance. Longtime DMs have necessarily become accustomed to compensating for that. And designers trying too hard to balance the system, mechanically, damage that familiarity its built up over decades.
It simply doesn't need to be balanced - quite the opposite.
It simply needs to be D&D.

You might notice that stats are 'imbalanced' - that what stat you put your highest roll or most points into isn't one of those meaningful/viable choices. There are dump stats, there prime requisites. Thing is, those stats are deeply ingrained in D&D, part of what makes it so familiar it doesn't feel complicated anymore. You can't mess with 'em.

btw - DMs are also players.

But rulings aren't rule changes. And it's only DMs that make rulings.