What 5e got wrong

[Einlanzer0]

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.

Well, I'll answer anyway - because I'm from rural East Texas, where it describes about 60% of the population. Of course, I don't still live there, so it doesn't happen as much as it used to.

 

[cmad1977]

We could argue dex, wisdom and Int if we want to not do everything

Dex is reaction

Wisdom because of experience and knowledge you gain advantages from seeing opening

Intelligence is so smart that you can see tactics opening etc

I can get not using all the stats but it be nice to have multiple stats that could effect initiative giving us a little more diversity

I'd say other stats wouldn't apply as, to me, initiative is about how quickly you can get 'off the line' as it were.
When the starting gun goes off it isn't the runners int or wis score that applies.
But that's just my interpretation of initiative.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I'd say other stats wouldn't apply as, to me, initiative is about how quickly you can get 'off the line' as it were.
When the starting gun goes off it isn't the runners int or wis score that applies.
But that's just my interpretation of initiative.

Except for the fact that since a complete action in a round is 6 seconds long... the split-second starting-pistol-going-off reaction is so miniscule in comparison to the entire time you get to act that (at least in my opinion) there's no reason why any one stat is or needs to be the "end and and be all" to initiative. Yeah, someone's reaction time would be mightily important when the totality of action occurs between when the first person acts and then the second person acts (like say in a pistol duel)... but when the first person gets to do a complete set of actions over 6 whole seconds, who's to say whether the person's reflexes allowed them to it, the person's intellect to scout and anticipate what the action needed to be allowed them to do it, the person's perception allowed them to see what had to happen to do it, or even so far as to say that the person mere presence overwhelmed the reaction time of the enemy for that moment which allowed them to act first?

And on top of that... it doesn't even actually matter what the "real world" application is, because the person still gets to do a full six seconds worth of activity before anyone else gets to go. Which basically means the whole thing about Initiative is merely a game construct to determine who gets to play the game first. And thus, ANY abstraction you want to use to figure that out is just as "realistic" as any other-- which is to say, not realistic at all.

The game says "Add your Dexterity Modifier to your initiative roll", because the game required a game rule to adjudicate it. But it could and can be anything else, because the rules for it are just game constructs and nothing more. There's no "real world" involvement here at all.

 

[cmad1977]

Except for the fact that since a complete action in a round is 6 seconds long... the split-second starting-pistol-going-off reaction is so miniscule in comparison to the entire time you get to act that (at least in my opinion) there's no reason why any one stat is or needs to be the "end and and be all" to initiative. Yeah, someone's reaction time would be mightily important when the totality of action occurs between when the first person acts and then the second person acts (like say in a pistol duel)... but when the first person gets to do a complete set of actions over 6 whole seconds, who's to say whether the person's reflexes allowed them to it, the person's intellect to scout and anticipate what the action needed to be allowed them to do it, the person's perception allowed them to see what had to happen to do it, or even so far as to say that the person mere presence overwhelmed the reaction time of the enemy for that moment which allowed them to act first?

And on top of that... it doesn't even actually matter what the "real world" application is, because the person still gets to do a full six seconds worth of activity before anyone else gets to go. Which basically means the whole thing about Initiative is merely a game construct to determine who gets to play the game first. And thus, ANY abstraction you want to use to figure that out is just as "realistic" as any other-- which is to say, not realistic at all.

The game says "Add your Dexterity Modifier to your initiative roll", because the game required a game rule to adjudicate it. But it could and can be anything else, because the rules for it are just game constructs and nothing more. There's no "real world" involvement here at all.

Ok. To me the only thing that matters in a fight is how quickly ones muscles can move in response to the commencement of said fight. All that other stuff happens before the fight starts, before the muscles begin to move.
Besides which I don't see it as people performing 6 second actions one at a time, actions are roughly simultaneous.

 

[I'm A Banana]

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).

5e does low-magic parties fine, but it'd be nice to have more official options that don't cast spells or do magic-y things. Not exactly necessary, and I wouldn't say that 4e did it better, but it'd be useful.

 

[Tony Vargas]

4E totally missed the feel of 2E DS

'Feel' is one of those things, though. Not only subjective, but including both the setting/sub-genre the game was aiming for, and what it actually delivered, no matter how far wide of the mark or marred by system artifacts that might have been.

4e handled DS neatly, in 2e it was tortuous to adapt the system to the setting. Maybe having to fight the system added to Athas's air of bleak despair and struggle for survival in a way that the closer modeling of skill challenges & 'survival days' didn't - at least for those who formed their impression from that earlier edition. :shrug:

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

So your AC was lower and your weapons had penalties. Nice for 'process-sim' purists, I suppose, but it sounds like a wash. ;P

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.

That's a system-independent setting-based RP consideration, yes.

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.

Balance is a good quality for a game to have, it lets each player (DM included) have 'agency' in defining the game-elements under their respective control, while minimizing the risk that they'll interfere with eachother. And, the process of designing balance into a system is certainly a mindful one.

 

[TwoSix]

5e does low-magic parties fine, but it'd be nice to have more official options that don't cast spells or do magic-y things. Not exactly necessary, and I wouldn't say that 4e did it better, but it'd be useful.

Mayhaps one could create a class that uses the spell slot paradigm, but their spells known are actually various weapon techniques. I see no part of this idea that would be remotely controversial.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Mayhaps one could create a class that uses the spell slot paradigm, but their spells known are actually various weapon techniques. I see no part of this idea that would be remotely controversial.

Heh. Taking the idea seriously for a sec, I think the main hurdle would be 5e's insistence on narrative coherence - there'd have to be some reason that they can only do it X/day, for instance, and that immediately begins to truck with the supernatural. The main reason 4e's martial dailies were A-OK was because one valued the gameplay goals over the suspension of disbelief - it matters less why you could only do your daily 1/day and more that you could nova-spike, too. 5e cares about that why quite a bit.

Though I could maybe see a Warlock model working OK! It's usually easier to buy a "you're too tired" explanation in the span of a couple of minutes during an encounter. And Warlocks already have at-will stuff.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5e does low-magic parties fine

Low-magic in the sense of low-magic-items, certainly, and even low-magic in the sense of no-full-caster PCs (you loose half the PC options, but you still have Paladins to offer some support, and a range of other contributions from the remaining half-casters, and the technically magical Monk).

but it'd be nice to have more official options that don't cast spells or do magic-y things. Not exactly necessary, and I wouldn't say that 4e did it better, but it'd be useful.

It's not exactly necessary for an FRPG to handle a complete lack of magic, certainly - except that 5e is trying to broaden the range of playstyles it supports to at least encompass those past editions did, and low-/no-magic is one of 'em.
The 5e PH offers 0 non-magical classes, and 5 non-magical sub-classes out of 38. All 5 of those sub-classes are DPR-focused ('Strikers'), they are virtually choiceless compared to the unprecedented flexibility of the neo-Vancian caster classes. The 4e PH offered 4 non-magical classes out of 8, and 8 non-magical builds out of 18, covering 3 out of 4 roles (the most dispensable role, Controller, being the one left out). All 8 classes were robustly balanced and only the Wizard had a little more choice/flexibility than the others. It's hard to characterize that as anything but 'better.' Indeed, even if you would say 'did it better,' you'd be guilty of a profound understatement.

5e however, as the current edition, and one that emphasizes modularity and the potential to support multiple play styles, still has every chance to make up that gap. A couple of really engaging, flexible new classes with all/mostly non-casting sub-classes, able to handle the rest of the informal/implied roles needed in a 5e party could do it.

Mayhaps one could create a class that uses the spell slot paradigm, but their spells known are actually various weapon techniques. I see no part of this idea that would be remotely controversial.

Very funny. Actually, Battlemaster CS dice are pretty close to Warlock spell slots. If Warlocks could only learn 6 spells, out of list of only 17, and all of them being 1st level, that is.

 

[TwoSix]

Though I could maybe see a Warlock model working OK! It's usually easier to buy a "you're too tired" explanation in the span of a couple of minutes during an encounter. And Warlocks already have at-will stuff.

I love the Warlock model. I'll be honest, I wish all of the caster classes had been built similarly to the Warlock chassis. I think it would be a great model for a Warblade/Swordsage type class as well.

You mean like why the non-magical Berserker can only Rage n/day? No, there's really not much of a hurdle, there. Aside from lingering edition-war animosity.

Pathfinder has a large number of X/day abilities on non-magical classes, with nary a peep of a hint of damage to anyone's verisimilitude. Presentation, presentation, presentation, I think.