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

[Clint_L]

I like this…

I really like it. Could be a fun experiment. This edition goes so fast compacted to 1e. I don’t want insta- advance.

Any idea how much faster would get to level 5 or 6? Or would you just try to drop treasure at a rate they would go about the same. It start to live gold again?

I already give xp for “overcoming” vs . Just killing…

Would love to see people light up like the old days when they find gold…

For that matter does anyone have experience with gold for xp in 5e?

I haven't used exp in ages (I'm never going back from milestone advancement), so can't comment on that, but I can tell you that my group hated gold for exp back in our AD&D days. It makes no sense - why would killing a troll who has a full treasure chest grant you 5x the experience of killing a broke troll? And it skewed story design, so that you had to make sure there were piles of treasure even when it made no sense in the plot, or you were screwing your players.

 

[Maxperson]

How do you make a history check other than thinking about it. How does it add value to state "I'm thinking about what I know of the history of this" instead of "History check?"

Roleplaying. "I make a history check" isn't very good roleplay. "I look the Maltese Sparrow over trying to recall if I've ever heard anything about it?" is much better roleplay. What's more, there may be no historical information about it at all, but perhaps there is arcane lore about it. By using the better roleplay, you leave it to the DM to ask for a roll(if one is even needed) using the appropriate skill. Otherwise we just end up with...

Player: I roll history. :::noise of a die rolling::: 15!
DM: You don't know anything.
Player: I roll arcana. :::noise of a die rolling::: 8!
DM: You don't know anything.
Player: I roll nature. :::noise of a die rolling::: 13!
DM: You don't know anything.
Player: I roll nature. :::noise of a die rolling::: 19!
DM: Finally! Okay, Maltese Sparrows are used in a ritual for the goddess Mielikki on the midsummer night holy day.

Just roleplay what you do and I will ask for the appropriate check if one is needed.

I just don't believe in one true way.

I don't either. I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong, but rather why I do what I do. Players asking for a bunch of different checks is super annoying to me and often doesn't even tell me what the PC is doing, so I can't adjudicate the action. In my game players are required to tell me what their PC is doing and leave the check requests up to me.

Also, you mentioned in your previous post that you don't requires players to describe how they attack. This is a false equivalence. A PC generally uses one specific weapon and we know what the attack action does. You swing your sword(or whatever weapon) at the enemy trying to hit it.

Saying I attack or I attack the troll if you are engaged with a troll is enough. It also happens so often that trying to describe every different swing is tedious and you just end up with players coming up with one stock way they attack which is silly. Saying I roll stealth isn't enough. It tells me nothing that I can adjudicate since there are many different things you can be stealthing to do and ways to do it.

 

[Maxperson]

Enhh. I think in most conversations people are just listening to what people are saying and taking it at face value unless they have reason not to trust the other person.

Oh you sweet summer child. Do you live in the real world with the rest of us?

 

[Oofta]

Because it doesn't tell me enough to adjudicate anything. Is the PC going to try and sneak past? Is he going to try and sneak away? Is he going to try and sneak up to them and stick a banana in the tailpipe? Is it something other than those three things?

I'm not going to assume what I think is most likely, because I could be wrong. Especially when it comes to players. They try some crazy things sometimes. Give me a declaration of what the PC is doing, especially since once I have that I can determine if a roll is even needed. It could be auto success or failure.

If it's ever unclear I'll simply ask for clarification. Most of the times I don't need to know exact details and I will almost always ask for a roll unless of course the PC isn't close enough to be noticed.

 

[Maxperson]

Use gold for xp for the first 4 levels. 2:1 ratio. Watch how important gold becomes. Also downtime activities and lifestyle expenses are a fun, off camera way to use gold.

So you use gold as XP during the levels where gold actually does matter, but not at the higher levels where all the excess gold comes in? At levels 1-4 PC are still usually saving up for plate mail or some other mundane thing.

Keep in mind that I don't think gold use needs to be spelled out since players can and do come up with all kinds of ways to spend it, but at those levels it isn't hasn't yet reached the "problem" amounts that people are complaining about.

 

[Oofta]

Roleplaying. "I make a history check" isn't very good roleplay. "I look the Maltese Sparrow over trying to recall if I've ever heard anything about it?" is much better roleplay. What's more, there may be no historical information about it at all, but perhaps there is arcane lore about it. By using the better roleplay, you leave it to the DM to ask for a roll(if one is even needed) using the appropriate skill. Otherwise we just end up with...

Player: I roll history. :::noise of a die rolling::: 15!
DM: You don't know anything.
Player: I roll arcana. :::noise of a die rolling::: 8!
DM: You don't know anything.
Player: I roll nature. :::noise of a die rolling::: 13!
DM: You don't know anything.
Player: I roll nature. :::noise of a die rolling::: 19!
DM: Finally! Okay, Maltese Sparrows are used in a ritual for the goddess Mielikki on the midsummer night holy day.

Just roleplay what you do and I will ask for the appropriate check if one is needed.

I don't either. I'm not going to tell you that you are wrong, but rather why I do what I do. Players asking for a bunch of different checks is super annoying to me and often doesn't even tell me what the PC is doing, so I can't adjudicate the action. In my game players are required to tell me what their PC is doing and leave the check requests up to me.

Also, you mentioned in your previous post that you don't requires players to describe how they attack. This is a false equivalence. A PC generally uses one specific weapon and we know what the attack action does. You swing your sword(or whatever weapon) at the enemy trying to hit it.

Saying I attack or I attack the troll if you are engaged with a troll is enough. It also happens so often that trying to describe every different swing is tedious and you just end up with players coming up with one stock way they attack which is silly. Saying I roll stealth isn't enough. It tells me nothing that I can adjudicate since there are many different things you can be stealthing to do and ways to do it.

We just disagree. I don't think forcing people to come up with explanations on the spot add anything. If I was in a game where we had to do this I'd likely just come up with flash cards for the 2-4 different ways to say "History check?" without using those exact words. There's plenty of RP in my games, just not for specifics of many skill checks.

If people want to add fluff that's fine, but it's the PC doing the activity, not the player so the skill level of the PC is what matters to me.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

The DM just needs to ask for what the PC is doing, rather than accepting requests for rolls like that.

"I watch the Duke closely, looking for any tells that could indicate that he is lying." - active insight.

"While we are standing in the room waiting for the Duke to see us, I will look around the room carefully taking in each object." - active perception.

Those are player initiated active insight and perception checks. Alternatively, every time the DM asks the players to roll insight or perception, those are also active checks. Active = roll the dice. Passive = use the passive number without rolling. It doesn't necessarily mean that the players are asking for the roll or initiating the check.

I wouldn't. When I talk to people sometimes I am and sometimes I'm not.

Again, this conflates active with the players doing something to get a check. All it takes is the DM asking for a roll for it to be active. Even if you assume that the PC is going to be observant during the whole conversation, you don't have to rely on passive numbers. You can ask the player for a roll to see if the PC notices something.

That's actually a misuse of the skill. It just plain doesn't function that way. If a player asked me that I'd reply, "That's up to you." Insight will only reveal if the NPC is nervous or something else that the player will have to interpret himself.

I like this however not the the extent I beat request for rolls totally out of players…

 

[Maxperson]

I like this however not the the extent I beat request for rolls totally out of players…

Woah! Woah! Woah! You'd pass up on a chance to beat the players?! Turn in your DM card right now.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

Woah! Woah! Woah! You'd pass up on a chance to beat the players?! Turn in your DM card right now.

Haha I was crabby the last time I DM’d! Earning that geezer card more everyday…

50 is around the corner

 

[Micah Sweet]

So, there is one other true issue (TM) that I haven't seen discussed here.
Active Insight and perception roles (Players are allowed to do active insight and perception checks) and the whole check declaration by players.
Usually players have to declare an action, the DM decides if a roll is necessary and what attributes and skill proficiencies are applicable if a roll is necessary.

The first problem is, that a lot of tables play with players declaring "I roll stealth" "I roll sleight of hand" "I roll nature ..." - which already is bad and shouldn't been done.
But that the problem gets worse when Insight, Perception and Knowledge checks (do I know this? Can I roll arcana for that?) come into play.
What does an active insight or perception check actually look like?
In the game World it would be: I'm looking very hard.
Like, if a player thinks a NPC is lying, when he asks for an Insight check, that is not an action. I would assume that he is observant during the whole conversation.

So Insight and Perception checks shouldn't exist. Their should be only passive Insight and Perception and NPCs roll against the passive Insight Score to see if they ate lying or not.

Because insight is used like a Liedetector. "Do I believe him?" is like used as a shorthand for I want to roll Insight. But as a DM I can't tell the player if his character believes something or not. That is totally up to the player.
The DM should only tell the player what the character sees, hears, feels (or any of the other senses), but not give the Character drawn conclusions.

Also if the DM rolls, it reduces Metaknowledge. A low perception or insight roll by a player tells him "Okay, maybe I missed something" while a high perception or insight roll tells the player "maybe I didn't miss anything". So if the DM rolls such checks for the NPCs against the Characters passive Insight and Perception scores, the game gets better and unwanted metaknowledge is reduced.

I have long complained about this, and been told the same thing: its a game. Apparently that's the answer for everything I don't like.