• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

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...

Are all TTRPGs

MMO(RPG)

CRPG

These are real categories that already exist.

Not sure, I really haven't ever played modern GURPS. I did P/T some of the early 'proto-GURPS' systems. I profess total ignorance of BESM. In any case, it was definitely out there quite a while back, so 4e didn't invent it.

The only thing I didn't really like about 4e minions was just the sheer prevalence of auto-damage. It made them rather less interesting as time went on. Granting minions a 'damage threshold' is a good variation (IE they have notionally 'one hit point' but it takes several points of damage delivered all at once to 'pop' them). You can also in that case optionally give them a bloodied status if you wish, though it tends to work against the sheer simplicity factor. I figure about 1 point of threshold per 2 levels is about adequate. It just about negates most auto-damage minion popping.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

But when it comes to skill challenges, I tend to stick to on-level DCs and use complexity to moderate degree and duration of challenge. I personally haven't felt that varying the level of a skill challenge (as opposed to complexity) adds much to the play experience.

I didn't think much of varying levels of SCs either. Its sort of one lever too many, though it is certainly possible and you might do it if the party is 'out of their league' or something.

One of the things 5e is a bit short on in the SC department is a simple partial success mechanic. It isn't always needed, or perhaps its as well to say that in some situations narrative is perfectly adequate, but its nice in 'contest' type SCs where you can ask questions like "just how many hours ahead of us are the bad guys?"
 

We had a lot of conversations in the past about the system dictating the world to me.

It seems to me that it is really just the D&D concept of character progression in general that is doing the dictating here, isn't it? I mean you can't just fight orcs all day every day for your whole career in AD&D, but nobody would call this a problem with the game 'dictating the fiction' (IE telling the DM to put in Ogres at some point). So it hardly seems like a criticism of any specific version of the game. Nor is something like Cave Slime so critical an element of the game that saying it is being dictated really makes that much sense. You can leave out Cave Slime, nobody will miss it. You can use it once at one level and decree that in your world all Cave Slime is level 10, nobody will even raise an eyebrow. Frankly I doubt in all my time of DMing 4e I ever used one of these terrain types more than once anyway, so the whole thing is one of those mountainous molehills.
 

pemerton

Legend
It seems to me that it is really just the D&D concept of character progression in general that is doing the dictating here, isn't it? I mean you can't just fight orcs all day every day for your whole career in AD&D, but nobody would call this a problem with the game 'dictating the fiction' (IE telling the DM to put in Ogres at some point). So it hardly seems like a criticism of any specific version of the game.
Agreed. The idea of PC progression, in some form or other, seems pretty integral to D&D. Whether that's modelled through DC scaling, or damage/hit-point/condition scaling, or both (4e uses both) seems like a technical matter rather than an issue of deep principle.

That's not to say that some people mightn't prefer one form of technical implementation over another, but I find it hard to imagine seeing it as an issue of principle that (say) a minion's mechanical buffer against automatic one-shotting consist in it having more than 1 hp rather than having a "level-appropriate" AC.

Nor is something like Cave Slime so critical an element of the game that saying it is being dictated really makes that much sense. You can leave out Cave Slime, nobody will miss it. You can use it once at one level and decree that in your world all Cave Slime is level 10, nobody will even raise an eyebrow. Frankly I doubt in all my time of DMing 4e I ever used one of these terrain types more than once anyway, so the whole thing is one of those mountainous molehills.
I think the issue of actual vs counterfactual is a big deal for some players/posters who don't like 4e.

In the context of Cave Slime, for instance, it is a big deal that the rulebook permits and contemplates the existence of 20th level as well as 10th level Cave Slime, and the fact that you don't actually use it in your game doesn't resolve that concern.

You can see it also in [MENTION=6775031]Saelorn[/MENTION]'s concern about the hobgoblin phalanxes statted as swarms. It is possible, within the game rules, that instead of using a 3x3 swarm to represent around three dozen hobgoblins in a phalanx, I might have dropped down 36 hobgoblin minions instead. Undoubtedly that combat would have turned out differently (and personally I think less interestingly). The fact that the game permits or contemplates this possibility matters, in Saelorn's view, to the actual resolution of the actual situation that I framed.

And you can see it in [MENTION=2067]Kamikaze Midget[/MENTION]'s response to the 10-level Neverwinter campaign: the fact that the system as a whole contemplates 30 levels of progression casts a shadow over that game, even though the Neverwinter book explicitly states that it is set up for a 10-level campaign that includes the fiction that a default game would include only in paragon. I think you can also see it in KM's concern that there is nothing inherent in the game's mechanics to prevent running demigods vs demon kings using 1st level stats, or framing the Secret Diary of Vecna as a hard challenge for 5th level PCs if that is what the fiction of the campaign calls for.

From my point of view, these counterfactuals aren't a problem. What matters to a given campaign isn't what might have been done with respect to fiction and mechanics, but what was done.

I'm cool with 5e's way of handling the same situation - lower level critters naturally become one-turn-kills due to the way damage scales.

<snip>

It hides the meta-effect well, but has the same effect. A little more dice rolling and math perhaps, but I think this even adds to the feeling of accomplishment - a recognition that it is as much about the high score of a big damage roll as it is about the in-game and in-fiction effect of a dead monster.
I think this has to be player-relative. Given how meta- the hit point and damage systems are, scaling them rather than AC doesn't seem to me to hide any meta-effects.

And similarly I don't feel that it is more of an accomplishment to gain levels, and therefore boost my damage, rather than gain levels, and therefore boost my ability to hit higher ACs. Bigger damage dice/bonus and bigger to-hit bonus are, divorced from fiction, just numbers. And in the fiction of either game, they represent the same thing: getting more powerful, mechanically mediated through the XP/level system.
 

pemerton

Legend
Another thought on Cave Slime.

Consider a system (of which some posters at least think 5e is an instance) which simply says: Cave Slime, DC 10 DEX (Acro) to avoid slipping prone when you walk on it.

How does this differ from 4e?

First, it doesn't expressly suggest that you might want to scale up your slime (from Green Cave Slime to, say, Ultra-violet Cave Slime) in encounters in more fantastic locations of the sort that higher-level PCs are more likely to engage with. Maybe there is even an implicit suggestion that higher-level PCs aren't more likely to have adventures in locations that are more fantastical.

Second, it suggests that rolling even for small chances is important. The 4e rules give the opposite suggestion: namely, don't leave DC 10 slime hanging around for parties where most of the PCs have +8 or better bonuses, but rather scale it up to slicker slime!

A further implication that might be derived from non-4e approach, in combination with 5e's bonus progression, is that it is good for the game that high level PCs have even a slight chance of slipping on bog-standard Cave Slime. There is a sense that nothing is beneath the notice of even high level PCs. Whereas 4e has a very robust sense that, as the PCs gain levels, the scale of their concerns, and of things that might trouble them, changes fundamentally.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
Another thought on Cave Slime.

Consider a system (of which some posters at least think 5e is an instance) which simply says: Cave Slime, DC 10 DEX (Acro) to avoid slipping prone when you walk on it.

How does this differ from 4e?

First, it doesn't expressly suggest that you might want to scale up your slime (from Green Cave Slime to, say, Ultra-violet Cave Slime) in encounters in more fantastic locations of the sort that higher-level PCs are more likely to engage with. Maybe there is even an implicit suggestion that higher-level PCs aren't more likely to have adventures in locations that are more fantastical.

Second, it suggests that rolling even for small chances is important. The 4e rules give the opposite suggestion: namely, don't leave DC 10 slime hanging around for parties where most of the PCs have +8 or better bonuses, but rather scale it up to slicker slime!

A further implication that might be derived from non-4e approach, in combination with 5e's bonus progression, is that it is good for the game that high level PCs have even a slight chance of slipping on bog-standard Cave Slime. There is a sense that nothing is beneath the notice of even high level PCs. Whereas 4e has a very robust sense that, as the PCs gain levels, the scale of their concerns, and of things that might trouble them, changes fundamentally.

I don't know enough about 4E to comment.

As far as your assessment of 5E, I think that is a valid assessment. I must say I prefer the idea that slipping or falling is still dangerous to high level characters. I never liked the extreme high levels in 3E. When we reached high levels in 1E and 2E, were usually playing god-like beings. No idea what high level was like in 4E. High level in 5E feels like my preferred ballpark. Characters are still powerful, but not god-like beings or anime or superhero type characters. I've never wanted my D&D to be that type of game. I've always preferred it in the fantasy range of a somewhat more powerful Lord of the Rings or Arthurian Legend. 5E really hits in that ball park with its overall rules.
 

pemerton

Legend
No idea what high level was like in 4E.
At 21st level every PC gets an epic destiny. Some of the more memorable (and self-explanatory) ones are demi-god, Prince of Hell, Emergent Primordial, Legendary Sovereign - hopefully you get the idea.

I find that idea of a demigod slipping on a patch of cave slime at the entrance to a kobold's cave unbearably silly, but that might just say something about me.

Rolemaster is closer to what we have agreed is the 5e style: even the highest level PCs can roll fumbles. But PCs in RM never become as untouchable as D&D PCs because damage in RM is based on a crit system (basically condition/debuff infliction, where death is one possible condition), rather than hit point ablation.

I personally find it a bit incongruous that a high level PC can slip on the kobold's cave slime (missing the DC 10 check) but can't be stabbed to death by the kobold's dagger (a few hit points of damage is almost nothing to a PC with one- to two hundred hit points). 4e resolves the incongruity for me by taking rolls for kobold-level cave slime off the table once the PCs gets a few levels under their belts.
 

If you are arguing that 4e should have explained itself better, I'm not going to fight you there. It should have. I wish it did.

But shouldn't people have an "ahh hah" moment as soon as someone explains how it is suppose to work (or if 'suppose to' is a loaded phase, 'how it would work better')?

You still might not like it but at least you'd be basing the decision on a system that works (or at the least the system the other side is advocating).

Sure. And that's exactly what happened in post #811 in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?456928-Why-does-5E-SUCK/page82
 

Hemlock said:
Ah, so you just didn't know about Aura of Vitality? I will explain.

At 6th level, the Lore Bard gets Magical Secrets: two spells off any class's list. He can steal the 3rd level Paladin spell Aura of Healing. It heals 2d6 hit points with a bonus action every round for a minute, or 70 points of damage on average. This is two and a half times more efficient than Cure Wounds with 20 Wisdom. That's why I say clerical healing is inefficient.

Sounds to me like some devs didn't quite do their homework. I mean if you are going to have a cleric then surely its shtick should be healing, and neither archetypes nor past edition experience points to bards as healics. So my conclusion would be that this is RAW differing from RAI.

Not all clerics are healers of course, but if you wanted to make Clerics of Life actual good healers, you could replace their 3rd level domain spell Revivify with Aura of Vitality. That would instantly make them the best healers in the game. It still leaves 7/8 of the clerics as mediocre healers, but at least bards would no longer be top dog.
 

Celtavian

Dragon Lord
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...

I don't recall GURPS having minion rules. I haven't played for years. GURPS didn't really have hit points. You could die so quickly in GURPS if using the Called Shot rules, minions seem unnecessary. A head shot was pretty much anything dead.
 

Remove ads

Top