D&D 5E What are the "True Issues" with 5e?

[mamba]

Really?

Ummm…. Have I been doing it wrong?

you tell me

 

[W'rkncacnter]

you not agreeing <> ridiculous

it's not ridiculous because i disagree with it. it's ridiculous because it's so obviously false that the very idea is laughable.

like - half-dragons exist. which means dragons can breed with humanoids (and no, fizban's doesn't retcon this, it simply gives alternatives). are you going to tell me dragons have similar capabilities to humans?

 

[teitan]

Also GOT barely has characters over level 3.

This is the disconnect.

5e provides a 20 level game, describes the 20 levels with magic spells and magic items, says both of those are optional, then doesn't provide a replacement.

So you has a level 10 human with no description of what it is.

They absolutely do because magic items aren’t essential to 5e play. There doesn’t need to be a replacement because it’s a built in assumption.

 

[teitan]

That fact that something can be fixed doesn't mean it isn't broken. It means we've identified where it is broken.

Given how often this issue comes up on various fora, I'd say "adventuring day pacing" is a significant issue.

I beg to differ because alternate options are provided in the DMG to choose from.

 

[Cadence]

No. It's not about it being "all or nothing" here. It's about how this is weaponized only against specific things, and then completely ignored everywhere else. That conveniences for a smoother, easier, more reasonable gaming experience are great only until they run afoul of some nebulous personal line, and as soon as they do, nope, absolutely not, doesn't matter how serious a design problem it may introduce, absolutely never ever, and how DARE you say otherwise, you fun-ruiner you.

"Verisimilitude only for the things I care a lot about" is one thing. "Verisimilitude only for the things I care about and especially against the things you care about" is a pretty serious problem. One I have personally seen, repeatedly, both on this forum and in general stuff, sincerely and explicitly expressed. Especially when, as stated, it is used as a justification for current design or for why serious ongoing problems other people have should never, ever be changed no matter what.

Some verismilitude is fine. Verisimilitude that doesn't hurt anyone else's fun is great. Verisimilitude that DOES hurt others' fun should be, at the very least, treated as a serious imposition only to be levied in truly dire circumstances.

I've had someone say, directly and explicitly on this forum, that being overtly racist toward dragonborn PCs unless and until the player chooses to start playing something else, is a proper and appropriate approach to play. Specifically because of alleged verisimilitude.

That (bolded part) is awful!!!

I have no idea what it has to do with some people finding that non-mystixc martial heroes not being crankable up to demi-god levels, or more real world encumbrance linits or falling damage, or liking to have arrows counted fits more with how they view the inspirational literature and would like the rules to be.

I find it strange to imagine that all the posters who dislike the non-magic fighters exceeding cetain limits are doing so to spite those who llike it - anymore than those who want martials pumped up are doing so just to spite the versimilitude crowd.

It feels like a game having enforcied genre conventions in the default rules one way or the other about martial power maxes, or counting arrows or not, or making falls lethal or not isn't hurting someone's fun any more than a designer making a sci-fi game instead of a fantasy one, or a PbtA one instead of a d20 one, or a high power focused one instead of a low power focussed one .

I would certainly be sad if my playgroup always picked games/genres/systems I didn't particularly like instead of rotating them. Especially if I was in an area that didn't have other players. Random folks on an Internet board wanting the game they play to reflect their preferences seems different and impersonal (as an idea, not in the presentation sometimes when it's snide and insulting).

I'm glad some boards have block features for when matters of taste clash repeatedly and rancorously, and strong moderators to help in the bad cases of personal attacks and racism.

 

[mamba]

it's not ridiculous because i disagree with it. it's ridiculous because it's so obviously false that the very idea is laughable.

like - half-dragons exist. which means dragons can breed with humanoids (and no, fizban's doesn't retcon this, it simply gives alternatives). are you going to tell me dragons have similar capabilities to humans?

so you disagree with the premise that it should be based on biology. Nothing wrong with that.

As I said, they asked for a biological reason, that was not my idea, so you can take it up with them…

Also, humans cannot interbreed with dragons to create dragonborn

“Shaped by draconic gods or the dragons themselves, dragonborn originally hatched from dragon eggs as a unique race”

“The blood of a particular type of dragon runs very strong through some dragonborn clans. These dragonborn often boast scales that more closely match those of their dragon ancestor”

 

[Vaalingrade]

In all editions you can buy items - there were just fairly arbitrary specific prices in 4E tand earlier editions hat resulted in very powerful items being cheaper than much less powerful items. You could, for example, in 3E buy a ring that allows you to 100% of the time counterspell a specific spell (which you can change) for 4K gold ... or buy a pair of rings that can, essentially warding bond for 50K GP. You had certain items every PC was buying because tghey were undercosted ... but the DMG did specify a price and a lot of DMs didn't feel right ignoring it.

Did I just trip out of an alternate dimension, or is this pretty rich coming as a defense of the edition that threw its hands up and said 'I dunno, 500gp for most everything?' And wandered off to eat nachos out of the bin?

Why we don't have an Arms and Equipment guide full of neat gear you can stuff your masterwork backpacks with is more than a little strange. Pathfinder 1e had a wonderfully stuffed gear list, with great things like survival gear, alchemical items, masterwork comestibles that provide benefits for eating them, and even sundries to make life a little easier, like a collapsible bathtub or a mithral waffle iron (mithral, like teflon, is non-stick!).

D&D used to have a history of such things, like Aurora's Whole Realms catalogue, the various Arms & Equipments, and so on. But WotC has decided to barely touch on expanding the lists of weapons and armor or adventuring gear.

Best book of any edition ever.

But that's never coming back while we're just doing the broad strokes of everything and every book having the bare minimum of actual content of any given type.

 

[Minigiant]

They absolutely do because magic items aren’t essential to 5e play. There doesn’t need to be a replacement because it’s a built in assumption.

Magic items aren't required for combat.

Magic items or some other variant rule is required for noncombat if you roll in noncombat.

Rolling in noncombat is a valid playstyle.

 

[Vaalingrade]

They absolutely do because magic items aren’t essential to 5e play. There doesn’t need to be a replacement because it’s a built in assumption.

A faulty assumption.

 

[Minigiant]

Let's go to the 3E Rules, then. What exactly do you think was in the PHB and DMG that gave PCs something to do with their gold

3e assumed magic items crafting and purchasing which cost gold.

But what else did they have rules for in terms of spending money in the DMG and PHB for 3E that high level adventurers would utilize?

5e lacks an assumption of magic items crafting and purchasing.

And what about 3E prevented the rest-nova? We lacked the short rest mechanic, the concentration mechanic, and metamagic was not restricted to sorcerers. As a result, you often saw higher level spellcasters casting a dozen spells before combat, multiple spells per round during combat, and burning up all their spells early and often. They also had less spells per level until about 6th to 8th level. So what was giving them more endurance to avoid the rest-nova we see in 5E?

3e had the same problem. Just less because you need to cast spells to heal.

It's not "5e has an issue that not edition has." It is "5e has a issue 3e has but makes it ten times worse."

Or did we want to focus on 4E? Where in the 4E rules do you find things to do other than buy magic items? They had rituals which you could pay money to master (if you had the feature/feat). That was something for PCs to contribute to - but is it that different than hiring a spellcaster that can cast the spells in other editions?

Rituals. Exactly.

Major magical effects in 4e are all rituals. You need to spend money for long distance teleportation.
This costs gold.

4E also had the rest nova issue as EVERY PC had their strongest abilities recharge on a full rest. A common discussion in 4E, in many games, was, "When do we rest so that we can have our dailies for the big bad?" The entire edition was built to feel more like a video game than all the other editions ... and that mentality pushed people to treat it like a video game and less like a storytelling game. Thus, more "I think we need to go somewhere and camp because I just used my daily.

4e has an encounter system that was built on PCs having all or most of their power every encounter.

The attrition was on Healing surges. If you rest-nova, the next fight is still the same difficulty even if you have all your HP and dailies.