D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Here is a bit of advice I wrote and circulated to my players at the start of our campaign (it refers to 3E and RM because those are the game my players had previously been playing):

Unlike 3E or Rolemaster, a lot of the 4e mechanics work best if they are not treated as a literal model of what is going on in the gameworld. So keep in mind that the main thing the mechanics tell you is what, mechanically, you can have your PC do. What your PC’s actions actually mean in the gameworld is up to you to decide (in collaboration with the GM and the other players at the table).

Some corollaries of this:

Character Levels
Levels for PCs, for NPCs and for monsters set the mechanical parameters for encounters. They don’t necessarily have any determinate meaning in the gameworld (eg in some encounters a given NPC might be implemented as an elite monster, and in other encounters – when the PCs are higher level – as a minion). As your PC gains levels, you certainly open up more character build space (more options for powers, more feats, etc). The only definite effect in the gameworld, however, is taking your paragon path and realising your epic destiny. How to handle the rest of it – is your PC becoming tougher, or more lucky, or not changing much at all in power level relative to the rest of the gameworld – is something that will have to come out in the course of play as the story of your PC unfolds.

PC Rebuilding
The rules for retraining, swapping in new powers, background feats etc, don’t have to be interpreted as literally meaning that your PC has forgotten how to do things or suddenly learned something new. Feel free to treat this as just emphasising a different aspect of your PC that was always there, but hadn’t yet come up in the course of play.​

Yeah, I read this and immediately think, "Yow, this game is not for me!" Heisenmonsters, no thanks.

 

[pemerton]

Levels for PCs, for NPCs and for monsters set the mechanical parameters for encounters. They don’t necessarily have any determinate meaning in the gameworld (eg in some encounters a given NPC might be implemented as an elite monster, and in other encounters – when the PCs are higher level – as a minion).

Yeah, I read this and immediately think, "Yow, this game is not for me!" Heisenmonsters, no thanks.

In AD&D this is handled on the player-side: certain PCs (fighters and their subclasses/variants) get bonus attacks against NPCs/monsters below a certain HD threshold. (In 1st ed AD&D the threshold was 1 HD; in Combat & Tactics I think it was a threshold of "N less than your level".)

In 4e it's handled on the GM side: the GM increases the level of the NPC/monster and restats it as a minion (basically, higher defences but 1 hp, and higher attack bonus but damage typically reduced).

I don't see any difference of principle between "Heisen-attack-rate" and "Heisen-monsters". They're just mechanical devices for giving effect to the underlying fiction of "these opponents are noticeably lesser than this combatant". From the point of view of technical design, I think minions work better in a system built around scaling bonuses and defences, as they reduce the likelihood of play getting bogged down or distorted at the mechanial (and probabilistic) margins of the system.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

In AD&D this is handled on the player-side: certain PCs (fighters and their subclasses/variants) get bonus attacks against NPCs/monsters below a certain HD threshold. (In 1st ed AD&D the threshold was 1 HD; in Combat & Tactics I think it was a threshold of "N less than your level".)

In 4e it's handled on the GM side: the GM increases the level of the NPC/monster and restats it as a minion (basically, higher defences but 1 hp, and higher attack bonus but damage typically reduced).

I don't see any difference of principle between "Heisen-attack-rate" and "Heisen-monsters". They're just mechanical devices for giving effect to the underlying fiction of "these opponents are noticeably lesser than this combatant". From the point of view of technical design, I think minions work better in a system built around scaling bonuses and defences, as they reduce the likelihood of play getting bogged down or distorted at the mechanial (and probabilistic) margins of the system.

I'm surprised you can't see a difference between fighter "sweeps" and monster stats that change depending on who they're facing. Sweeping is a well-defined action which simply happens to have a tight restriction on who it can be used against. There's nothing heisenburgy about that at all. Monster stats that change with the observer are something completely different.

 

[Celtavian]

Not all the 5e players in this thread use the same approach for setting DCs.

You, and [MENTION=6784868]Erechel[/MENTION], use "objective" DCs.

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] uses 4e-style "subjective" DCs, though without a handy chart to help.

I hand wave a lot of stuff as well. I only want to waste time rolling skills if its relevant to the campaign. I don't want skills overcoming every challenge anymore than I want spells doing it. I used the take 10 rule extensively in 3E as well.

My basic philosophy through nearly every edition is only roll when it matters. If it matters, make it feel like something is being accomplished with the rolls. Nothing leads to that glazed over look in player's eyes or a loss of engagement more than rolling unnecessarily or making their character look stupid because of unlucky skill checks.

On a side note, I do like 5Es limited spell slots and lack of disposable magic items that allowed a character to overuse things. I like that the friends cantrip has a role-playing penalty for its use. I prefer these methods for limiting spell abuse.

 

[pemerton]

I'm surprised you can't see a difference between fighter "sweeps" and monster stats that change depending on who they're facing. Sweeping is a well-defined action which simply happens to have a tight restriction on who it can be used against. There's nothing heisenburgy about that at all. Monster stats that change with the observer are something completely different.

I could equally say - "I'm surprised you can't see the difference between a monster which lacks the skill and luck to avoid a skilled combatant's blow (ie has 1 hp), and an attack rate and capability that varies depending on who the attack is declared against."

Leaving aside that the AD&D attack isn't a "sweep" in any literal sense - there is no requirement, for instance, that the targets be adjacent; and it is not resolved as an area attack with a saving throw, which is the default AD&D resolution method for such things - why can a fighter not attempt it (say, with a penalty to hit) against higher HD monsters? It's not just that it has tight restriction on who it can be used against, but that those restrictions are defined in purely abstract mechanical terms, and without any sort of interface with the general rules for determining attack rates, damage and the like.

The idea that a monster's mechanical representation - ie its level and hit points - might change depending on who, in the fiction, it is fighting, strikes me as no different in principle from the idea that a fighter's mechanical representation - ie its permitted action economy - might change depending on who, in the fiction, it is fighting.

The question "but how many hit points does the monster really have?" seems to me like asking "but how many attacks does the fighter really have?" Neither hit points nor action economy is a real property of a monster or character (ie something that is true of it in the fiction) - on this I follow Gygax in his DMG, where he explains the abstract nature of the action economy on p 61, and the abstract nature of hit points on the same page and also pages 81-82 and 111-12.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm not really interested in persuading you to see Heisenmonsters my way, so I'll just reiterate that your handout is very good in the sense that it immediately turns me off to your game as opposed to me having to gradually figure out what it is about the game that I dislike. Setting clear expectations is a key to success, and anyone who wouldn't enjoy your game would never begin, so that's a win/win. You'll only have players who are interested in the types of games you want to run.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Hey, I have to admit I have not followed this whole discussion - I'm not even QUITE sure what's being argued. But I'll give you my impressions of what happens in my game vis-a-vis magic vs skills. AbdulAlhazred (I really hate typing that, Tod), says that 5e's spell descriptions are tighter than 2e's; I would agree that they tend to use language more specifically than in 2e, which makes it easier to make decisions - when they refer to searching for something, they're going to specifically refer to the perception check, unlike in 2e, which might refer to "looking for" something in one spell, and "searching" in another. Neither referred to a specific task with a specific resolution. So 5e is a bit easier to adjudicate in many circumstances.

The time they killed off AN owlbear - I think he means the BUGbear in the opening adventure of Phandelver - they had a higher level druid PC with them; a friend joined the game for ONE session, and he misunderstood what level the PCs were - he created a 4th lvl druid, and I let him run it because he was only here that one session - so they had that extra bonus - and it was still a VERY tough fight. My notes for the encounter read as follows:

"Continuing up the main passage, Doodle examined the side route, and decide it was too risky to climb. She spotted the goblin on the bridge , but it did not see her (she made her perception check, it failed its passive perception vs her stealth). Daringly, Alzardel and Theron both firebolted the goblin, and killed it without any alert being given. At this point they realized that they needed light for their fighter (Gia) to be able to see in the caves. Sindre (the 4th level druid) cast Darkvision on her and was able to allow her to see in the dark. For himself, he wildshaped into an owl. He was able to fly into the main caves and see all the goblins, and locate Sildar where he was imprisoned. (in this case, I did feel I was too generous allowing the druid to scout, but I was not expecting the situation, and did not challenge him much; he made at least one stealth check to avoid being spotted by the goblins as he flew around).

With this scouting info, the whole group decided it was too risky to take on either group with the other free to react. Theron threw a rope up to the bridge, and Sindre flew up the passage to the west, then reverted to his own form; he threw thornspike and locked the goblins down. Then the whole group went up the trail into the eastern cave - the three goblins there were not quite surprised, as they'd heard the goblins yelling about the thornspike, but were not expecting an assault. Combat was joined; Gia got hit by one goblin, but two of the three fell swiftly, and the party was able to position themselves for the arrival of the bugbear Klarg and Ripper the Wolf. Alzardel slept the goblins, Theron finished off the last of the first three goblins, and Doodle threw handfuls of ball-bearings in Klarg's path, causing him to fall prone and not be able to rush into combat. Ripper lept over his fallen master and attacked, however. Gia, Theron and Doodle engaged him; he bit Gia savagely, but fell to Gia's blade. Klarg rose and advanced. He nearly struck Doodle with his first blow, and the terrified thief retreated. Sindre had two cure potions; he passed them off to Theron, who drank one and then passed the second on to Gia. She drank the second, and they both advanced after the halfling to engage the bugbear. Alzardel finally hit with his firebolt, putting the first damage on the bugbear. Klarg hit Sindre, and badly wounded the hobbyt. Gia and Theron both landed blows, and were finally able to slay the brute. They then kicked one of the sleeping goblins awake, and quickly questioned it about where Sildar and Gundren were. It told them that Gundren had been sent to Cragmaw Castle, at the behest of King Grol. They managed to get rough directions from him to Cragmaw Castle before slaying him."

I think it was a good mix of spells and skill use here; intimidation by the fighter got them good info from the goblin - their real advantage was in the Druid's higher level spells and HP. If he'd not been there to take a blow or two from the bugbear, as well, that fight would have slain at least one PC. Theron (elf fighter) was already hurt by the goblins, and would have been killed by any blow either Ripper or Klarg landed. Gia (human fighter) wasn't much better off.

And they never killed a dragon - Alzardel is BOASTING with that! They DID capture Venomfang behind a wall of force - which was something they found and turned into a very clever trap. The tower of an ancient wizard was encased in a wall of force, and they figured out how to raise and lower it with a lever. They used their wits, good timing, Alzardel's alarm spell, and the Rogue's silver tongue (and its own youthful naivete) to lure it to the seemingly wide-open and harmless upper roof of the tower, then retriggered the wall of force, trapping it there. The PCs who were trapped with it then fled down the tower stairs (their henchman cleric dying in the dragon's breath as they fled) and barely escaped via use of careful timing to get them out of the tower and the forcewall back up while the dragon was busily destroying the tower a stone at a time. So, ancient and powerful magic. Yes, magic won the day, but it was in many ways the rogue's ability to convice the dragon to follow them to the tower for a chance at treasure that was the real success.

Fnally, the bugbear king - Alzardel did fight him single-handedly, but a) I toned King Grol down a good bit to avoid a quick and brutal slaughter, b) he had a potion of firebreath with him that he used to very good effect, and c) when King Grol tried to call his wolf into battle with him (treachery!) the rogue shot it and critted, removing it from the equation. And if I recall, Alzardel was one HP from death at the end - if at any time I had rolled slightly better damage, the battle would have gone the other way.

So, maybe I am a wimpy DM, but we all had LOTS of fun in every one of these encounters, and I doubt anyone feels that they got a "walkover" in any of the contests.

I just thought, when we fought the three owlbears under the dead wizard's tower for instance, that the wizard kinda had the day there. I forced one back with CoD, and a 2nd one back with T-Wave, and then both got murderized with ranged attacks. I don't know if we would have survived in close combat with several owlbears at once. It seemed like the linchpin of the Dragon Slaying/Trapping was the Alarm spell. Without some sort of magic along those lines we'd have had no plan at all.

Fighting the bugbear king wasn't really so special, you're right, it could have been anyone. The fighters would have probably done it better. It was simply interesting that the wizard was tough enough to pull it off. Maybe that was more DM artifice than "wizards are tough", I don't know. Alzardel certainly thought he was pretty tough!

More recently we have other PC full casters, they seem pretty good too. At the same time, I don't think the casters dominate combat, but they seem fully capable of handling it. The two fighters, and the rogue too, certainly beat the bad guys down pretty hard. I just think it would be vastly tougher without casters, but less vastly tougher without fighters. Tactics would change, but a party of 5 casters would be pretty nice, and I think the old formula of casters ramping up more at higher levels overall is still true. 5e actively helps the non-casters, unlike 3e which seemed to undermine them, but it still runs on "arcane/divine/primal magic outweighs mundane skills" to a pretty large extent.

I think some people were just arguing about how much that's true. Maybe when we're 20th level we'll be thinking everyone's character is an indispensable member of the team, and maybe not. We'll see, if we ever get there...

 

[SpikeTailDrake]

To answer OP: I feel like certain feats are too powerful and would like to see actual changes beyond RAW clarification in errata. Namely I've had issues with the power spikes provided in GWM and Sharpshooter: monsters are not designed with feats in mind and are annihilated way faster than intended.

I get that feats are "optional," but they're a given when you're doing AL. I also think sticking "optional" to things is a poor excuse to have them improperly balanced.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I'm surprised you can't see a difference between fighter "sweeps" and monster stats that change depending on who they're facing. Sweeping is a well-defined action which simply happens to have a tight restriction on who it can be used against. There's nothing heisenburgy about that at all. Monster stats that change with the observer are something completely different.

It seems pretty jarring when my level 5 fighter gets 1 attack per round against orcs, but 5 attacks per round against goblins, which are only marginally inferior to orcs. If the goblin boss shows up, 1 attack per round on him. I don't think this was a vast problem, but it was jarring at times. The fact that the boundaries of that bonus never changed was odd too. The PC got more and more skilled but even at 12th level he still didn't outclass an orc enough to get bonus attacks, yet he could kill 12 goblins with a single blow. I guess C&T addressed that, but it wasn't very commonly put in practice in our games (we just ignored most 2e supplements as being too poorly written mechanically to be useful).

The 4e minion thing OTOH, how jarring really is it? PC damage output increases pretty steeply. A level 1 goblin warrior has 29 hit points. A level 7 fighter, using an at-will power and assuming he rolls reasonably well, can get a one-hit kill. He can get a one-hit kill on a level 8 hobgoblin warrior (minion) too of course. In fact he can probably kill 2-3 of them in a round, maybe even 4 or 5 in a 'perfect storm' (IE they trigger his CC and OA, he gets to use Cleave, etc). So there's SOME difference there, but its not huge. 4e minions aren't a perfect emulation of weaker lower level enemies, but they certainly aren't any more crazy than many oddities of other editions, and they do add a fun dramatic element to the game.

EDIT: And [MENTION=42582]pemerton[/MENTION]'s response is very germane here too. There's no such thing as "sweeps" or even a modeling of attacks into any specific fiction in AD&D. A combat round is 1 minute long, there are no absolute rules about positioning and thus no hard-and-fast positional requirements, etc. Its perfectly reasonable to model a 5th level fighter's 5 goblin attacks/round as systematically hunting down and slaughtering 5 individual goblins one at a time. No fictional disconnect would happen if orcs were treated the same way. There's simply a MECHANICAL convention which is used to provide support for a fiction that certain creatures are very trivial opponents for that level of character. Its quirky, like minions, but it works.

 

[bert1000]

[MENTION=29013]bert1000[/MENTION] (and anyone else who is interested): here are some examples of DC-setting and the adjudication of the ensuing action resolution that might help illustrate how "subjective DCs" in 4e, and the associated "looseness of fit" between fiction and mechanics, differs from a system based on "objective" DCs.

snip

For me, at least, the common theme of these examples is that a subjective DC framework strongly encourages players to engage the situation "fiction first", thinking about what their PCs might try and do given who they are - this is a huge deal in D&D with its class and level system, and 4e just amps that up with its paragon paths and epic destinies - and given how they are fictionally positioned.

The fact that DCs are level-appropriate is a secondary concern.

snip

I hope this further illustrates how what is going in with the objective/subjective contrast is more than just a contrast between sand-boxing techniques and scene-framing techniques.

Thanks for these. It’s always nice to talk concrete examples vs. generalities.

I do see some difference in what you are describing in some of the examples. Maybe I just object to the terminology. “Objective DC” and “Subjective DC” don’t get to the heart of the matter for me and also seem to have a bunch of baggage attached to the terms that further cloud things.

In the Dwarf and forge example, I imagine in the “objective DC” system you would look for an already established DC that indicates super hot – say resisting the heat of Hell – and set the DC close to that. But you’re right, that doesn’t take into consideration the PCs narrative place in the world. When the Dwarf makes the Endurance check it’s not really a straight up ‘can my skin handle this fire’. It’s more like ‘can this Dwarven paragon of XYZ pit himself against the forces of Moradin’s fire and magic forge and prevail’. There are ways to model this in the “objective system” if you had an exhaustive list of DCs and/or modifiers say

Regular Forge DC20
Forge of Moradin +10
Paragon of Moradin sticking hands into a fire created by moradin-10
Etc

But the “subjective system” has already pre-loaded all these assumptions into the math. This pre-loading might be the essence of “subjective”. It’s more like “narratively empowered skill checks”.

The “subjective DC” system involves loose definitions of what a skill check can mean. Encourages you to make sure you’re in the right ballpark in terms of appropriate challenge, and then use the level appropriate DC that gives you higher levels of drama. It also certainly encourages the ‘just in time’ DMing you talk about.

Thanks. I agree there is definitely something here that is independent of sandbox/exploration-led and scene framing/drama-led split.