D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[BryonD]

Well, which market results are those?

That marketplace that leads you to say: "And yet here I am, I play 5e, unlike all you people who made a choice to be so rigid that you wouldn't even play with us. Here we are. What exactly more is it you require of us? eh? We took all the crap and we're still being sports and now what? We have to shut up and pretend we like it so you can feel better?"

Nobody really knows the story there. I've heard reams of speculation by 4e detractors, and that's about it. Nobody, except possibly WotC, fully understands the factors, but I see that since 2000 a new edition has arisen ever 3-6 years (3.0 in 2000, 3.5 in 2003, 4th in 2008, 5th in 2014).

Yeah, cuz this is a fair reflection of what happened.....
Are you going to claim that 3E was hurting in 2002 when they started working of 3.5? 2002 has been called, by many, the "second golden age". 3.5 was a cash in on huge success. It backfired in many ways, but it does not reflect the market success of the 3E game. And funny that you count 3.5 but ignore essentials, which is generally agreed to have been an emergency recovery effort.

You also ignore the STILL booming success of PF, which amusingly goes back and forth from "being 3E" when 4E fans want to say 4E got a raw deal to "not being 3E" when 4E fans want to fudge the edition cycle numbers.

Really, the whole "edition war narrative" doesn't seem very compelling to me. I think some MBAs would be much better at explaining what WotC has been up to than some D&D fans.

Some D&D fans have substantial Business Management experience. But whatever, we are in a place where you are expressing significant frustration. So I'll just say "the market result where you didn't get what you would have liked"

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

You are missing the point.
People knew that they didn't LIKE 4E. Offering the chance to play 4E at your table is all well and good. But if they don't like 4E, they don't like 4E.
You have said that what they offered was not "productive" but you are framing the debate in such a way that asking to have the game be made into something they would like (which would demand a great deal of change) is off the table. None of the choices you permit include playing a game they actually like. That is turning their backs on them.

So, you're turning your back on me now? lol. I'm sorry, but you come off sounding all hurt. I expected people to be a bit more mature. I'm not running all over 5e boards telling people that it isn't an RPG and how each and every little thing about it 'sucks' etc. No, in fact, long before WotC even suggested they would like to write another edition of the game, I and any number of others were having lengthy discussions about the pros and cons of 4e, other games, what could '4.5' look like. What would address some of the more cogent objections to elements of 4e, and many other such topics. Most of that discussion probably took place on the WotC boards, but a good bit of it happened here too.

Now, I'm not complaining about fans of 5e, as such either, are they 'turning their back on me?' Am I 'screwed by WotC?' WTF? I don't even understand the meaning of such questions, they're ridiculous and childish, just like they were 7 years ago. Nobody is obligated to serve me, any more than they were obligated to serve you, but you seem to think they WERE actually obligated to give YOU what you wanted. Forgive me if I see a discrepancy in attitudes.

OK, this is wild double standard here. YOU are the one that started complaining about the unfair tactics of the other side. I've been saying it was equal on both sides all along. Your blinders are showing.

It wasn't equal, that's all there is to it. Now of course there are jerks everywhere, but WE weren't the ones crapping on someone else's game. You're the one saying WotC was OBLIGATED to serve YOU.

My feedback on NEXT was ignored as well.....

And yet you got largely what you wanted, apparently. Which I'm perfectly happy for you about.

As to "big tent", I don't know. On this day in July 2015 5E appears to be vastly more popular than 4E was. So I'd say, "the big tent is right over there." I'd add, no one will turn there back on you if you want to join a table.
I already said it is absurd to expect it to appeal to everyone. "Big tent" does not mean perfection and universal harmony. If just means "big enough", which 4E was not.

Your interpretation of course, and your suppositions about differences in popularity, etc. Its always interesting how its 'bias' if we say something like that, and 'just the facts' if you say it...

If you dislike 5E to the same extent that a lot of people I know dislike 4E, then I'd say you are being foolish to play it when you have better options.
I don't require ANYTHING of you with regard to 5E and I've never asked anything of you. I'm replying to your characterization of people who didn't like 4E.

Which was a response to the same old 4e denigrating junk that I've been hearing for 7 years, or did you forget that part?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Nope, not at all. Because I didn't say "well, Aragorn or Conan" could do this" and I didn't say "my PCs are like them". I said I'd use what they could do to judge where the DCs should be.
It may be that I say it is too hard for Conan, so the DC is higher. Or it might be that it is trivially simple and the DC are lower. Note that "my PCs" have not yet entered the conversation and I've set the DCs.

Now you're trying to split hairs! You're still doing exactly what I was saying, whether you think Conan is 'the same as' or 'better than' your PCs you're still setting your DCs based on that analysis, which is a meta-game analysis.

 

[BryonD]

So, you're turning your back on me now? lol. I'm sorry, but you come off sounding all hurt.

What am I hurt about?

I expected people to be a bit more mature. I'm not running all over 5e boards telling people that it isn't an RPG and how each and every little thing about it 'sucks' etc. No, in fact, long before WotC even suggested they would like to write another edition of the game, I and any number of others were having lengthy discussions about the pros and cons of 4e, other games, what could '4.5' look like. What would address some of the more cogent objections to elements of 4e, and many other such topics. Most of that discussion probably took place on the WotC boards, but a good bit of it happened here too.

This is a 5E thread in a 5E board and you can't get past talkign about how badly you think 4E was treated.

Now, I'm not complaining about fans of 5e, as such either, are they 'turning their back on me?' Am I 'screwed by WotC?' WTF? I don't even understand the meaning of such questions, they're ridiculous and childish, just like they were 7 years ago. Nobody is obligated to serve me, any more than they were obligated to serve you, but you seem to think they WERE actually obligated to give YOU what you wanted. Forgive me if I see a discrepancy in attitudes.

I don't think you are even reading what I wrote. You must just be skimming and blasting here. You are now saying I said things that are 100% the opposite of what I said.

It wasn't equal, that's all there is to it.

It was equal.

You're the one saying WotC was OBLIGATED to serve YOU.

Except I'm the one who said the OPPOSITE of that.

Your interpretation of course, and your suppositions about differences in popularity, etc. Its always interesting how its 'bias' if we say something like that, and 'just the facts' if you say it...

Actually, I'm surprised it is doing quite as well with regard to sales as it is. And it remains to be seen if it can maintain.

Which was a response to the same old 4e denigrating junk that I've been hearing for 7 years, or did you forget that part?

So you agree it is equal. Thanks

 

[BryonD]

Now you're trying to split hairs! You're still doing exactly what I was saying, whether you think Conan is 'the same as' or 'better than' your PCs you're still setting your DCs based on that analysis, which is a meta-game analysis.

No, it is night and day.
What I am doing is vastly different.

 

[Celtavian]

Surely if DCs in 4e are, at least partly, driven by dramatic considerations by virtue of their being 'subjective' then just as surely DCs are, at least partly, driven by simulationist considerations in 5e by virtue of their being 'objective'.

Think of it this way, you need SOME criterion for a given DC. In 4e it might well be "well, these are paragon PCs, so climbing the mountain in the blizzard is DC 28. In 5e how do you decide the corresponding DC? If its based purely on the basis of a pre-determined fiction, one not generated on-the-fly to appeal to level 12 PCs, then presumably that DC is determined by objectively examining what the real-world difficulty of climbing a mountain in a blizzard is.

The alternative is to assume that you in fact don't care about the world-centered DC concept in the first place and you aught to be using PC-centered DCs. If that's the case then why is there any advantage to the system that sets DCs with reference to the world?

Why do you think there has to be any advantage? You're way overcomplicating a simple system. You're attaching more meaning than is necessary to belabor a point you want to win on behalf of 4E.

5E doesn't care which approach you use it. Is it completely up to the DM to write up what he feels is appropriate. If he wants to set his world up as set DCs regardless of the capabilities of the PCs, he can do so. If he wants to use DCs designed specifically to challenge PCs according to their level, he can do that. 5E puts no shackles on a DM for how they want to resolve such events.

For some reason, you don't want to accept this. I don't know why. It is what is written in the game book. 5E is intentionally open to customization by design. A huge part of the marketing is letting DM's know, "This is your world. Design it as you wish. Here are some guidelines and advice. You are beholden to none of it."

 

[Celtavian]

What makes you the spokesman, or think you have an understanding of, these people? In our current group there are 7 people. Without even speculating I know that 2 of them have positively never heard of Enworld. 2 others have positively never posted online about D&D and may or may not know it exists, and have certainly never read it. 2 others conceivably might, they play some other RPGs like DW, but I'm pretty sure I've never run into them online. That leaves 2, including myself, that I know positively post about D&D, and one of those has never posted to any WotC forum and thus has had little impact on 5e.

None of the people that agreed to play in my 4e games every expressed any deep criticism of 4e on this point. Many times we discussed characters and what they could do, etc.

So, you really cannot say that there was some 'silent majority' that agreed with you, that's really wishful thinking and unsupported by any observation. The only thing I observed was people who were turned off by listening to some die-hard who insisted it was all crap for some reasons that most players IME didn't agree with when they actually played.

I'd bet you money on it, easily. I'd take your money without a problem. The magic system was a huge point of contention with the new system. You can try to pretend it wasn't, but you would be wrong.

Again, you have no idea that this is true. In fact the degree of complaining about 3e casters was pretty high. The same GM who now runs our 5e game refused to run anything but E6 in 3.5 due to these issues. I know that group abandoned SEVERAL campaigns and started over at low levels before settling on E6 for exactly the reason that the options available to spell casters simply made the game unappealing after a certain point (around 9th level). This is such a common complaint that a whole cottage industry of 'fixes' grew up around it.

I do have a very good idea that it is true. It's pretty apparent in 5E. If the 4E magic system weren't a huge problem, they would have kept it, right?

Again, IME that just isn't what happened. 99% of those people just went on playing what was on offer and were perfectly happy. A certain very vociferous and bitter segment of really active players that post a lot didn't like the changes and went rampant all over the boards. 5 of the 7 people in our group never even heard of those debates, could care less, and 4 of those 7 (plus 2 others that played 4e with me) would be perfectly happy to play in a 4e game. I have exactly one holdout, a guy that has never even read one bit of 4e, hasn't played it for even 5 minutes, and doesn't read or post anywhere. Heck, he doesn't even like 5e, but since he's married to the DM he's pretty much stuck there.


I think very many of those players fully recognized the reasons why a less open-ended magic system was a good thing. Some of them, like you simply refused to accept it. Many of them, like myself, were quite happy with it. I can say with some reliability that VAST numbers of DMs were quite pleased that they no longer had to play the silly "oops, you wrecked the whole story arc with one clever spell" game anymore.

I think there's a bunch of lazy players out there that got their crutch taken away and didn't like it. Meanwhile my 5e wizard is totally running the show and the DM is making noises about some sort of E6 again...

I would say there are bunch of lazy DMs that don't want to learn how to handle the caster-martial disparity.

We will see over time if your DM and yourself as the minority opinion as I believe they are. Caster players that prefer magic be powerful in D&D are the majority. The dollar will tell in time won't it? These little debates are amusing. But economic votes are the strongest. We'll see if WotC wins back the lost caster customers with a magic system that allows caster players the power they crave to feel like a D&D wizard.

You paint it as you wish. You pretend you don't know the problem with 4E. I'll continue to see clearly what 5E changed and know absolutely that the magic system was THE BIGGEST factor in a new edition. They took the 4E magic system and tossed most of it in the trash. You keep on believing 4E wasn't a failure by WotC regardless of the fact that for the first time in the history of D&D, they were unseated as the top dog in the TTRPG market, by their previous game. The D&D team instead of continuing to build on 4E decided to return to older editions for design inspiration. I guess they did that in your mind just because? They completely scrapped the 4E magic system just because? They went back to Vancian magic just because?

There's mountains of evidence the 4E casting system was the main element of contention. WotC all but admitted it with their 5E design goals. I wouldn't be surprised if Mearls outright admitted at some point during the data collection process that the 4E magic system was a huge mistake that they worked hard to correct this edition. But I get it, you don't want to believe that and are using the "You don't know argument", when it is clear by the design choices that returning caster power was a huge part of 5E's goal. Not to the insane 3E level, but definitely back to where magic felt like a powerful force that exceeds the capabilities of mundane swingers of weapons.

This debate will be decided by economics. I'd be lying if I said I didn't hope you and your group will be playing E6 if you can't DM for the 5E caster-martial disparity, while my group gets to return to the D&D fold with caster power much closer to what it is was prior. We all like magic as an extremely powerful force in the D&D world.

And with that, I bid you good gaming. I know I'm glad to be back in the D&D fold. I missed playing the game with the name I grew up on.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Did it ever occur to anyone that a huge part of the D&D player base that enjoyed playing casters like magic being this way? A larger percentage than cared about the caster-martial disparity?

Vancian was subject to a lot of entirely justified criticism early on. But, it took 25 years before a meaningful alternative (the 3.0 Sorcerer) was officially introduced.

Is it really that strange that most of the people who really didn't like Vancian and Caster Supremacy didn't wait all 25 of those years before giving up on D&D for good?

For that matter, that they simply tried D&D, found that it failed to feel remotely like the Tolkien-esque fantasy that they were expecting, and never touched another RPG again?

Consider that D&D briefly out-sold Monopoly in the 80s. Far more people tried D&D than play it now.

Eh, MM wasn't really a problem there, at least the wizard had to dedicate an attack to zotting a minion, so it tied well to the fiction and truthfully a standard action to kill one minion? Hardly efficient.

Narrow end of the wedge, I guess.

It was things like spreading around curse damage, 'auras' (think Rain of Steel), or some other forms of unavoidable zone damage where no to-hit role is required.

Nod. I guess, in theory, zone damage is avoidable by avoiding the zone. Even if the zone damages on the start of the minion's turn, they might be moved out of it by some leader or controller power before then.

In fact I had a couple scenarios where they pummeled upper heroic parties. 20 orc archer minions were a famous one that nearly decimated an 8th level party. It was an at-level encounter that really hurt them quite a bit.

That'd add up, sure. That's where the controller has to earn his salt - the oft' over-looked minion-sweeping aspect of that role.

 

[tyrlaan]

Anyway, the DCs for whatever happens during the challenge? I'd say they can be set as desired, but like I keep saying, narrative consistency still indicates that if something is a 'paragon challenge' then it has to have an overall difficulty that matches. One of the problems I see with the 'objective DC' thing is, you don't really set the overall difficulty of an endeavor by one DC. 4e's DCs are intended to be strung together in a long series. There was never any intention that there would need to be a single very hard to surmount DC that the party would check against, except maybe in some very special situation (IE maybe you get one last chance to survive being lost at night in the blizzard on the mountain, make a hard Endurance check and you don't turn popsicle even after the SC was lost).

Well I think my point was more worrying about the DC is kind of like putting the cart before the horse. If you want a paragon challenge, you build a paragon-level challenge. Then, by the sheer fact that the challenge you have crafted is designed to feel like something fit for paragon characters to tackle, it will make sense to have a paragon-level DC.

The other thing you can easily extrapolate from that is there is no actual difference between objective and subjective DCs other than the angle at which you look at them. After all, couldn't I say something like this...

"Okay, I want a challenge befit my paragon PCs. Let's go with mountain climbing during a blizzard while an avalanche is happening. That sounds sufficiently over the top for paragon. Okay, what DC would that skill check be..."

From there, I could look at a table, like the one presented by 4e, and find a DC based on what I crafted. OR... if I'm using some other system, I might look up what the DC is for climbing a mountain, DC modifiers for blizzards and avalanches (or similar obstacles) and establish my DC.

At the end of the day, I have a DC that's probably the same and the whole objective/subjective thing is just semantics.

 

[Celtavian]

I always pictured 4E minions like balloons popping. That's what I felt like I was doing as a 4E wizard with my at will AoE...popping balloons. One of those strange little rules that ruined verisimilitude for me. I know many loved the minion rules. I just couldn't get into using them.