D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Tony Vargas]

But if one interpretation leads to nonsense, and the other to a coherent system, why would you choose the former?

Because you're looking for an excuse to hate it that you can use to convince other people to hate it sight-unseen, obviously.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Just to be clear, because you've changed your terminology here, do you consider 4e to be not an RPG or not a traditional RPG?

Sorry about that. When I refer to an RPG, I mean a traditional RPG. So Shadowrun and GURPS and Pathfinder are traditional RPGs, but 4E and Marvel Heroic and Fate are... something else. I guess you could call them "non-traditional RPGs". They aren't RPGs in the traditional sense of the term, at least.

And, do you think that your feelings are unique to you, or are part of the system?

It seems probable that my opinion on this matter is characteristic of a significant portion of the player-base. The chance that such ideas would be unique to only one person seems improbable.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You mean 4E, right? In 5E, the game is driving you to generate the fiction that you like, and then tells you what the appropriate DCs are for that fiction. The process goes in the opposite direction.

LOL! See, now you can't tell the difference, and that's because its all just splitting hairs. I mean you're going to start out with something, either a DC, or a fictional description of something, and you're going to engineer those two things so that they each make sense WRT each other and your agenda. So, maybe you start with the fiction in your 5e game, but then the issue is you have immovable rocks when it would be cool if the player could move a rock. Or you start with the fiction in your 4e game, in which case you always insure that said fiction is filled with interesting challenges for the characters at hand.

One of the benefits of Bounded Accuracy is that it's unlikely to accidentally include something that requires a check beyond the scope of what the PCs can access. This solves the 4E problem where the DM needs to constantly be aware of the world around the PCs, to ensure that they encounter level-appropriate environment. As a specific example, the DM of a 4E game needs to keep the party level in mind when describing the doors and locks and chandeliers, and the DM of a 5E game can more-or-less forget about it until it actually becomes relevant.

That, at most has to do with the fact that there's less different possible DCs, but the truth is that the difference of 5 points in a DC in 5e really will make a difference as it makes medium into hard. I think there's more need to be careful with that. And I have no idea why it would be necessary to 'keep the party level in mind' in one system and not the other. If you describe the boulders as giant immovable rocks then in either system there better be a really high DC that makes them giant and immovable! Maybe that DC is passable by the hulking high level super STR barbarian, but you still have to have, in every system, your fiction in mind at all times. Or just not worry about it too much and realize that now and then you miss a chance to make something cooler.

Although I suppose you could also just go full Feng Shui mode, and leave everything vague until the PCs actually try to do something, at which point there's obviously a level-appropriate lighting fixture exactly where they need it to be.

Its hard to do in 4e, because it uses a detailed combat system with maps. You COULD, in principle, allow for this kind of thing. It would be better if there were plot coupons or doom pools or something though. 4e isn't really equipped for this sort of play any more than 5e is, though its a bit closer in some sense.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Sorry about that. When I refer to an RPG, I mean a traditional RPG. So Shadowrun and GURPS and Pathfinder are traditional RPGs, but 4E and Marvel Heroic and Fate are... something else.

They're RPGs, Saelorn.
They're just RPGs from the 21st century.

(Technically, I know, Pathfinder was published in the 21st century, but it was a rip-off of a game published in 2000, which, just as technically, was still the 20th century.)

It seems probable that my opinion on this matter is characteristic of a significant portion of the player-base. The chance that such ideas would be unique to only one person seems improbable.

You always jump to that unfounded conclusion. You're not the center of the universe, dude, not even the RPG community's infinitesimal little universe.

And, you usually /are/ the only one arguing one of these bizarre little - whatever they are, 'theory' is definitely not the word - that you come up with.

 

[BryonD]

You always jump to that unfounded conclusion. You're not the center of the universe, dude, not even the RPG community's infinitesimal little universe.

And, you usually /are/ the only one arguing one of these bizarre little - whatever they are, 'theory' is definitely not the word - that you come up with.

You may be right. But this is highly ironic coming from a guy who insists that the widespread dislike of 4E is the result of a grand conspiracy of h4ters and not actual first hand opinions.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

They're RPGs, Saelorn.
They're just RPGs from the 21st century.

Fine, they're all RPGs. Pathfinder and 4E and 5E and Shadowrun and GURPS and World of Warcraft and Final Fantasy XIII-2 are all RPGs.

Pathfinder and Shadowrun and GURPS, and possibly 5E depending on how you play it, are also Traditional RPGs. They belong to one particular subset of the RPG category, and are distinguished by their use of exactly one mechanical representation for each fictional construct.

 

[Celtavian]

One interesting thing 4e did was show concrete progress. Not in skill DCs, of course, but in monster categories.

At PC level 4, an Ogre might be a Solo or an Elite.

At PC level 8, an Ogre might be a normal monster.

At PC level 12, an Ogre might be a Minion -- you're so awesome, you can drop an Ogre with a single hit.

That can be viewed as a "progress indicator" for PC prowess.

Sure, a level-appropriate Elite is always going to be a challenge -- but from the standpoint of the fiction, you don't need to see it as an Elite. Instead, you can see it as an Ogre, and you can see that in the fiction, the PCs make a lot of progress relative to Ogres.

I hated the minion mechanic. Felt too much like looking behind The Wizard's curtain.

 

[pemerton]

I think there are probably some mechanical reasons for the spread as well. For instance, ability to add a bunch of bonuses from various sources (powers, etc.) and still not overwhelm the 'base' modifier.

Good point.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I hated the minion mechanic. Felt too much like looking behind The Wizard's curtain.

Too bad. The "minion takes no damage from a miss" mechanic, alone, made them so much better than just low-hp/level monster hordes.

They were a really cool innovation. Can't recall if it was GURPS or BESM that innovated them, thought...

Fine, they're all RPGs. Pathfinder and 4E and 5E and Shadowrun and GURPS

Are all TTRPGs

and World of Warcraft

MMO(RPG)

and Final Fantasy XIII-2

CRPG

These are real categories that already exist.

 

[Celtavian]

Just to further discuss DCs and the 5E system. I'm convertingPathfinder material to 5E. 5E's open-ended DC system with loose guidelines has encouraged me to design traps, haunts, and the like in a fashion that suits my tastes using DCs appropriate to the level of the PCs. I've been deciding DCs based on how dangerous I want the trap or haunt to be. The PCs are low level, so I want around a 50% success rate on the trap or haunt. I calculate that percentage based on a PC with a 12 stat and no proficiency in the saving throw I'm using. The examples set out by 5E encourage the use of natural language to explain the trap versus mechanical language including how to defeat it.

One of the things I always hated about 3E/Pathfinder was that a roll defeated nearly any trap whether it made sense or not. In 5E you are encouraged to write the trap out so that it explains how to disarm it using thieves' tools or some alternate method. I never liked haunts being destroyed with positive energy regardless of type. For haunts immunity to fear made you immune to haunts. That did not fit my view of how haunts should work. Supernatural powers can affect the physical world in fiction, no reason to make immunity to fear circumvent a haunt.

Here' some material I wrote to handle it using the 5E feel:

RESTLESS PLAGUE VICTIMS HAUNT: Challenge: CR1 (200 XP)
Notice: DC 12 Perception check to notice stench of burning flesh. Trigger: Proximity
Avoidance: Do not enter haunt area.
Effect: Burning plague victims appear on bedframes, sitting straight up and screaming, their mouths full of fire and ashes. All characters in the room must make a DC 11 Wisdom saving throw or be frightened. They can make a new saving throw at the end of their turn to end the frightened condition.
Destruction: Cast a hallow and lesser restoration on the area while invoking Iomedae to cleanse her church.

Interlinked Bear Trap: Challenge CR 3 (700)
Type: Mechanical
Perception Traps covered with rubble, trash, and offal. DC 15 Perception to notice.
Disarm: DC 15 Thieves’ tools Dex check to disarm. You can also disarm the trap by using a staff or similar device and making a DC 10 strength check to activate it.
Effect: Each square in the area is trapped. Sharp jaws spring shut. DC 13 Dexterity saving throw or take 2d4 piercing damage and stop moving. Action to make a DC 13 strength check to free self from trap. Each failed check does one point of piercing damage. A DC 15 Thieves’ tool disarm check can dismantle the trap.


I'm finding 5E to be very friendly to design as a DM. I can write in a very naturalistic fashion how I believe something should work. I can convert that to a game rule for resolution very easily. I focus less on a preset static world DC and more on how to make the trap, haunt, or hazard interesting for the PCs. 5E encourages naturalistic design versus mechanical design. No more do rolls make no sense. Instead what the PC is rolling to accomplish is clearly defined and the DM has a lot of latitude in how he designs a particular world feature. There is no preset template for how they work. Instead, you design the fiction you want to accomplish prior to designing the world feature. Then you write a resolution rule that you feel accomplishes the dramatic purpose you were seeking in the fiction. You can even focus on a single character that may not be as competent as another character. For example, you could make crossing a river interesting for the no Athletics skill swimmer, while allowing the high Athletics skill swimmer to cross without difficulty. You could turn a fairly minor encounter into a difficult encounter for the player that writes his character is afraid of water or hasn't learned to swim but is too prideful or shy to mention it to his fellows. You require he make checks to cross the river turning a boring encounter into a bit of fictional dramatic tension. I find this is the method of resolution the 5E DC system encourages with its very light rules and no preset DCs. I feel 5E encourages less of a focus on a unified mechanic and more of a focus on the fiction. I very much prefer that to prior editions of D&D that often relied on static world DCs or a very clear mechanical resolution that felt more constricting.

At least that is how I see 5E's DC system. It seems very open-ended and allows a DM a lot of freedom to interpret the world in whatever way he sees fits fictionally and mechanically. I feel very inspired rather than limited when it comes to encounter design in 5E in all aspects of the game.