What 5e got wrong

[Staffan]

The problem that I had with the 4e version of Darksun was that it essentially made all of the restrictions of Darksun meaningless. Like for example you do not need heavy armour to get a good AC so that negates the shortage of metal.

That's a balance thing. 2e didn't care much for balance, and heaped some limitations on non-weapon-using classes as well (such as arcane magic being outlawed pretty much everywhere), so there it was kind of OK to say that the best available armor was scale and hide - even if you could afford metal armor at 100x inflated prices, you were heavily penalized for using it in the desert heat. But 4e was much more balance-focused - fighters were supposed to have scale armor (which was a lot tougher in 4e than previous editions) as a baseline, so depriving them of that would warp the all-important game balance. So the options essentially were "make the primitive nature of weapons and armor cosmetic" or "mess up game balance" - and the designers chose #1. That was, BTW, also the option chosen by the people at athas.org who got Wizards' approval for making a 3e version of Dark Sun.

 

[Shasarak]

That's a balance thing. 2e didn't care much for balance, and heaped some limitations on non-weapon-using classes as well (such as arcane magic being outlawed pretty much everywhere), so there it was kind of OK to say that the best available armor was scale and hide - even if you could afford metal armor at 100x inflated prices, you were heavily penalized for using it in the desert heat. But 4e was much more balance-focused - fighters were supposed to have scale armor (which was a lot tougher in 4e than previous editions) as a baseline, so depriving them of that would warp the all-important game balance. So the options essentially were "make the primitive nature of weapons and armor cosmetic" or "mess up game balance" - and the designers chose #1. That was, BTW, also the option chosen by the people at athas.org who got Wizards' approval for making a 3e version of Dark Sun.

Which is kinda of surprising, considering the general angst towards things like adding Gnomes, that making the game easy gets a free pass.

 

[Tony Vargas]

The problem that I had with the 4e version of Darksun was that it essentially made all of the restrictions of Darksun meaningless. Like for example you do not need heavy armour to get a good AC so that negates the shortage of metal.

Some classes did 'need' heavy armor...

That's a balance thing. 2e didn't care much for balance, so there it was kind of OK to say that the best available armor was scale and hide. But 4e was much more balance-focused - fighters were supposed to have scale armor as a baseline, so depriving them of that would warp the all-important game balance.

Except you just said that scale had been available, anyway.

So the options essentially were "make the primitive nature of weapons and armor cosmetic"

Exactly what your armor
was made of was prettymuch cosmetic, anyway. There were already non-metallic 'masterwork' heavy armor types, for instance. So, yeah, that's a given.

Armor-dependence was always a major failing of D&D, though. Some classes were 'balanced' by being banned from using armor, others by being proficient in it; the combat system didn't work if ACs fell out of a functional range, etc. It did mean that migrating the system to a different 'tech level' meant completely either completely re-doing it - or just altering gear 'cosmetically.' The latter makes more sense than it might seem to, because weapons & armor have been in a constant arms race throughout history, and it's only rarely that one comes out on top for long. At most points, be it more 'primitive' or 'advanced' than the D&D baseline, it wouldn't be unfair to have weapons of the day being about as effective as ever against armors of the day. Whether that's stone spear vs hide, or steel sword vs maile.

or "mess up game balance" - and the designers chose #1. That was, BTW, also the option chosen by the people at athas.org who got Wizards' approval for making a 3e version of Dark Sun.

5e bounded accuracy makes everyone being in the right kind of armor as vital as ever. It wouldn't be a bad idea to go that way if adapting to it, as well.

 

[Morlock]

There's no such thing as a dump stat.

Easy to do with a computer game. You just balance the attribute checks in your adventures. No real way to do that for an RPG, outside of your published adventures. It's on the GM to make sure there are no dump stats.

Or, What Jester said on the first page.

Considering that the D&D six stats were cooked up in the late seventies, and pretty much everything they did was without precedent, I think those fellows did a bang-up job of it. That said, I never liked the D&D stats back in the day, and was always coming up with more than six stats in every system I home-brewed. I take a more sanguine approach these days. I'd rather buy into a good system that everyone plays, than a great one that few do.

The only thing 5e got wrong were all our table's house rules we've had to implement.

I see what you did there.

nobody will ever convince me that having stats that are overtly unequal in usefulness makes any sense whatsoever.

Except in, say, realistic games.

Nothing remotely realistic about having all stats be equally useful. Just ask the nearest brawny fella how much money that makes him.

 

[Morlock]

Initiative is based of reaction time ability. Which is what dexterity covers.

ETA: another quote:

I could see an argument for Wisdom possibly being a factor in initiative and possibly even Strength, though I feel that is a real stretch. But it doesn't make any sense to connect initiative with Constitution, Intelligence and Charisma in my opinion.

Reaction time is related to brain power, too. More than "Dex," maybe. Where people get confused is muscle speed, which isn't the same thing.

E.g., a video-gamer can have excellent reaction time, but also be a spaz who dodges like a slug in real life. Stimulus is conveyed to brain > brain makes decision > brain sends signal to body > body moves. Dex is the stat for how fast you can get your sword out, but Int is the stat for how fast you process and respond to the info that made you decide to draw it.

correlation IQ reaction time

If mental stats get short shrift, maybe roll Int and Wis in together (e.g., "intellect")? They've always seemed like the same thing to me, anyway, with the counterexamples seeming more like anecdotes about non-neurotypical people.

ETA2: yeah, in an "ideal" and "realistic" system, initiative seems more like something I'd use Int bonus for, given some kind of mechanic to model the time it takes to carry out an action. E.g., the quick-witted wizard tends to go first in the round, starting his action before the dull-witted but fleet-footed archer, but depending on how long it takes him to cast his spell, he may or may not "release" before the archer nocks and looses his arrow.

 

[MerricB]

Actually, I do have one really big criticism of 5E. It's too hard to run a no- or low-magic game like Dark Sun because so many class features are delivered through spells. I know many people have problems with 4E's powers, but they are great packets for delivering abilities and features, and because of 5E's reluctance to do the same there is an over-reliance on spell lists.

In 4E, there were four martial classes:
* Fighter
* Ranger
* Rogue
* Warlord

The Fighter and Rogue remain as martial in 5E.

The Fighter killed the Warlord and took his stuff.
The Fighter also killed the Martial Ranger and took his stuff, if you use the UA Scout archetype.

That's the thing: 5E actually handles low-magic pretty well, but there aren't that many martial classes to deal with. Archetypes and Backgrounds allow the customisation. (And most of the 4E "Powers" were pretty samey when you got down to it; just bigger dice and modifiers were involved).

 

[Tony Vargas]

That's the thing: 5E actually handles low-magic pretty well

It's OK with low-magic in the sense of not many magic items, or even in the sense of not very many NPC casters. You could easily run Standard D&D in a setting like Primeval Thule that way, for instance - the party may have tons of magical resources, but they encounter relatively little magic in the world.

But low-magic in the sense of no full-caster PCs, that cuts out half the PC options (8 wizard sub-classes, 7 cleric, 2 each Bard & Druid, 2 Sorcerer). And no magic, in the sense of no PC magic-wielding classes at all, the game's not just lacking choices (only 5 non-magical sub-classes in the PH), it's non-functional.

but there aren't that many martial classes to deal with.

And they're all pretty heavily focused on DPR.

(And most of the 4E "Powers" were pretty samey when you got down to it; just bigger dice and modifiers were involved).

Even if the Fighter's 400+ maneuvers over 30 levels were 'really just' 130 maneuvers over 10 with different dice/modifiers at different tiers, that's still a still a whole lot more than the Battlemaster's 17 or so maneuvers at 3rd and nothing else.

Archetypes and Backgrounds allow the customisation.

As Builds & Backgrounds (& Themes) did.

It's not just a question of raw number of choices (which remain paltry even if you use UA & SCAG), but of the resources & contributions you need to have a functional adventuring party (which hasn't improved noticeably).

5e has a lot going for it. It delivers the ol' classic feel of D&D in the 20th century really well. There's not much you could've done with a D&D character before 2000 that you can't do in 2e, and plenty more besides. But compared to the sheer volume of choices in 3.5 or the breadth and viability of martial choices in 4e, it's still falling far short. There's nothing systemic keeping it from getting there, it's just a matter of offering more optional material.

In 4E, there were four martial classes:
* Fighter
* Ranger
* Rogue
* Warlord

The Fighter and Rogue remain as martial in 5E.

Apart from the fact that both can literally cast spells (EK & AT).

The Fighter killed the Warlord and took his stuff.

The fighter might have made off with some of the Warlord's pocket lint.

Perhaps more to the point, the fighter threw away a lot of his own stuff: the 5e fighter is a DPR 'tank' - toughish Striker in 4e terms, like the Essentials Slayer was.

The Fighter also killed the Martial Ranger and took his stuff,

If the fighter simply got a little more non-combat stuff up-front or in each archetype (if each archetype had Expertise in a skill or two, for instance), it really could stand in pretty well for the functionality (DPR with strong wilderness/dungeoneering skills) of the Ranger. It is essentially a striker, afterall.

if you use the UA Scout archetype.

Or, heck, Outlander.

The fluff is willing, the crunch is weak.

 

[Morlock]

I walk away from arguments with creationists all the time.

Why in Heaven's name would you get into an argument with a Creationist in the first place? Let alone do it on a regular enough basis for there to be an "all the time" aspect to it?

Arguments about Creationism, I mean.

ETA: Not actually asking. It's a rhetorical question, given the context of the thread.

 

[Zardnaar]

4E totally missed the feel of DS wit the healing surges and the balance in regards to the armor as you weere fine in light armor AC wise. IN 2E DS you tended to have lower ACs than a standard D&D game and you had penalties with crappy weapons made out of stone and bone- another feel that 4E missed on along with the no clerics thing and shoe horning in the 4E races from the PHB.

No plate mail was available on DS and anyhting over AC 15 was kind of rare out side magic, high ability scores or thri kreen with a high de. 2E made no assumptions about the AC/to hit treadmill so in 2E things were a lot tougher if you actually played up the difference DS had.

Running a wizard in Darksun for example should be like running the Jedi in the rebelion or dark times era in Star Wars. Show off your flashy powers to much and Vader/The Dragon/Sorcerer King just out right smacks you down dead if not somewhat arbitrarily.

Things like that get missed in the mindless pursuit of balance. DS never was balanced to begin with and that is part of the charm and appeal of it. Currently playing a shadow force user in the Dark Times and used force lightning all of twice and that was with the rest of the party unconscious. Expecting DS to run like any other D&D setting is part of the problem IMHO. Let it be what it is -along with Ravenloft, Spelljammer, Planescape and the other non generic settings.

 

[Maxperson]

4E totally missed the feel of DS wit the healing surges and the balance in regards to the armor as you weere fine in light armor AC wise. IN 2E DS you tended to have lower ACs than a standard D&D game and you had penalties with crappy weapons made out of stone and bone- another feel that 4E missed on along with the no clerics thing and shoe horning in the 4E races from the PHB.

No plate mail was available on DS and anyhting over AC 15 was kind of rare out side magic, high ability scores or thri kreen with a high de. 2E made no assumptions about the AC/to hit treadmill so in 2E things were a lot tougher if you actually played up the difference DS had.

Under armor class 5