D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Manbearcat]

But in 5th edition we aren't talking about something that is outside the rules, that is all a part of the rules.

I'm not talking about changing Necrotic to Fire types of changes. Straight up changing a power can have serious implications in 4th edition.

All you need in 5th edition is Imagination + Ability Scores to do what you want to do. That is the way the game was designed. If I want to flip over a rail, grab a chandelier and come down on an enemy with my sword; all I need is to roll a Dex check first followed by my attack roll. 4th edition has a hard coded way of handling things because it was specifically designed with the grid in mind while 5th edition was not. Theatre of the Mind gives you a lot more freedom than grid based.

What happens in 4e if you attempt an action that you don't have a power that you can specifically attemp, the same thing that happens in 5e. Except in 4e you have better guidelines for improvisation so it is actually easier to improvise certain actions.

If you don't allow players to improvise, at least in 4e they will have significantly more options on a round by round basis than in 5e, where martial characters are limited to repeating the same basic attack over and over.

This is certainly the red-herring of the conversation because the truth is that it all totally depends on the DM. It's not like 5e all of a sudden introduced something that didn't exist before in RPG's. Nothing in 4e prevented you from using Imagination + Something Else either. In essence, the base of the systems is the same.

In both systems this is an ad-hoc ruling, but 5e gives the DM precious little to guide how to consistently make that ruling. In addition, in 5e it is always a DM ruling with variable certainty.

Agreed with Ashkelon and D'karr here. The core rules for stunting in 4e couldn't be more transparent and codified.

Want to do an Indiana Jones vine/whip across the chasm or a swashbuckley swing from the chandelier across the common room? Cool. Move Action. Roll Athletics Medium DC. Success? You move from the starting square to the end point along the rope/whip (etc) path. Failure? Either you're still at the starting point or maybe you make it across but you give up CA UtEoYNT. Want to not provoke OAs? Hard DC.

Want to shoot a stalagmite down on a group of enemies in a cavern? Cool. Limited Use Standard Action. Roll Dungeoneering Medium DC. Success? Ranged Burst 1 centered on point below stalagmite. Medium Damage Expression. Level + 3 vs Reflex attack. Miss: half damage. Difficult Terrain for the duration of the encounter.

This is trivially easy and core, p42 stunting rules in 4e. The terrain powers are littered with examples of this.

You could certainly do this as well in 5e. It is just that you're required to perform the necessary mental overhead on the spot and deal with the table handling time of negotiation/adjudication of effects (math and balance considerations) and DCs rather than having systemitized, robust stunting infrastructure (with a vast array of mechanical exemplars of such genre tropes at your disposal).

 

[Imaro]

I'm sorry, when did this turn to the "Why does 4e SUCK?" Thread?

I guess for a few... 5e sucks because it's not 4e. Of course a lot of us see that as a feature, not a flaw.

 

[AriochQ]

In both systems this is an ad-hoc ruling, but 5e gives the DM precious little to guide how to consistently make that ruling. In addition, in 5e it is always a DM ruling with variable certainty. What is the DC of vaulting over the rail, if the DC doesn't already exist in a table somewhere how do I determine it consistently, how about DC of grabbing the chandelier, does the PC take damage from landing on the enemy, does the PC need to make 4 rolls or simply one (flip, jump, grab, attack)? If DM A decides to use Dex Check (flip rail, grab, jump, land) + Attack Roll to determine the outcome, but DM B decides to use DEX Check (flip rail) + DEX Check (grab) + STR Check (jump) + Dex Check (land) + Attack roll for the same the odds of accomplishing the task are possible in one instance and almost impossible on the other instance.

I still view this as an advantage of 5th edition. Using your example from above...If I am running a high adventure swashbuckling campaign, make a Dex check and an attack roll. If I am running a super realistic type campaign, Dex Dex Str Dex and Attack.

 

[Corpsetaker]

Agreed with Ashkelon and D'karr here. The core rules for stunting in 4e couldn't be more transparent and codified.

Want to do an Indiana Jones vine/whip across the chasm or a swashbuckley swing from the chandelier across the common room? Cool. Move Action. Roll Athletics Medium DC. Success? You move from the starting square to the end point along the rope/whip (etc) path. Failure? Either you're still at the starting point or maybe you make it across but you give up CA UtEoYNT. Want to not provoke OAs? Hard DC.

Want to shoot a stalagmite down on a group of enemies in a cavern? Cool. Limited Use Standard Action. Roll Dungeoneering Medium DC. Success? Ranged Burst 1 centered on point below stalagmite. Medium Damage Expression. Level + 3 vs Reflex attack. Miss: half damage. Difficult Terrain for the duration of the encounter.

This is trivially easy and core, p42 stunting rules in 4e. The terrain powers are littered with examples of this.

You could certainly do this as well in 5e. It is just that you're required to perform the necessary mental overhead on the spot and deal with the table handling time of negotiation/adjudication of effects (math and balance considerations) and DCs rather than having systemitized, robust stunting infrastructure (with a vast array of mechanical exemplars of such genre tropes at your disposal).

What makes that more easier than Ability check + attack roll?

 

[Manbearcat]

What makes that more easier than Ability check + attack roll?

The math of (a) to hit vs (b) target number and (c) relevant effect has already been constrained (bounded if you'd like!) by level with consideration for (d) action economy.

You're getting balanced, genre-coherent, dynamic effects (that interface nicely with the rest of the combat engine) from the stunting system (consistently) with minimal mental overhead and table handling time (for consideration, table negotiation, and ultimate adjudication) required to resolve the action declaration.

 

[Corpsetaker]

The math of (a) to hit vs (b) target number and (c) relevant effect has already been constrained (bounded if you'd like!) by level with consideration for (d) action economy.

You're getting balanced, genre-coherent, dynamic effects (that interface nicely with the rest of the combat engine) from the stunting system (consistently) with minimal mental overhead and table handling time (for consideration, table negotiation, and ultimate adjudication) required to resolve the action declaration.

Why are you bringing up the math? Math is involved in both cases and in 5th edition it's just as simple. Roll 20 and add your Ability mod. Simple.

5th edition brings you a balance and consistency as well because the math doesn't change no matter how complicated the specific player describes what it is he wants to do.

What happens if there is something you want to do in 4th edition but you run out of actions?

 

[Ashkelon]

What makes that more easier than Ability check + attack roll?

You do realize that is how you resolve improvised actions in 4e as well, don't you? The difference is that 4e gives better guidelines for adjudicating them (pg 42 DMG) and has more examples of what is appropriate for certain levels (powers). On top of that, if you have a DM who doesn't allow for martial improvisation to be effective (most DMs add unnecessary punishment to improvisation that makes it less useful than merely attacking), you still have a variety of interesting combat actions to fall back on.

 

[spinozajack]

There is a reason I did not mention it. The Eldritch Knight "cheats." That is, I freely agree that it provides utility to the class, but only because it fundamentally alters what the class is. The EK is a caster. Half, sure, but "a caster" nonetheless. No other type of Fighter is a caster. Utility benefits are, thus, still gated behind choosing to play a spellcasting class, and I think that's a pile of sh*t.

Wow, they really can't please anyone, can they. It's extremely easy to get access to powerful and interesting magic in any class you play, but you want to go further, and make it so that non-magic using classes can do everything that magic using classes can do in terms of utility? Some things are impossible to do without magic. Fly, for example. Invisibility, for example. Teleport, for example.

How do you propose to give those things to the fighter without giving him access to magic explicitly? You could easily achieve it like in 4th edition, by making magic nigh-worthless to cast outside of combat (Fly spell 1x / day for 5 minutes max at level 16? Terrible, an affront to wizardry that was), or by giving fighters access to non-traditional magic like the in "Martial" power source.

Again with the anti-magic creed, even to the point of naked hatred. The rest of your post makes it clear you don't see a difference between the Wizard being able to cast knock using one of his precious spell slots, and the rogue being able to unlock hundreds of locks per day. Between a wizard casting invisibility but being severely hampered and detectable, and a rogue sneaking around everywhere.

I'm glad they made magic actually powerful again, it's central to what D&D means to a lot of people. And it's not like fighters are weak in 5th edition, either. Out of combat utility doesn't make the wizard unstoppable. They can't fly for hours upon hours like they could in 2nd edition. They can't stack tons of buffs on everyone in the group including themselves. They can't fly whilst invisible and with stoneskin.

If you want a fighter who can charm creatures or dominate their will, while magic is severely limp to the point of being castrato, I suggest you stick to games like 4th edition. You will be much happier.

Magic is actually powerful and interesting, and useful in 5th edition, like it was in earlier D&D. That alone is probably one of the main reasons why 5th edition is such a success and selling so well. To be honest, the only people who seem to hate it are the die hard 4vengers who feel slighted that the game's design seems to invalidate their own preference for class balance so rigid that it's like a straightjacket.

 

[Imaro]

All the examples and information [MENTION=6696971]Manbearcat[/MENTION], [MENTION=6774887]Ashkelon[/MENTION] and a few others are claiming is superior in 4e for adjudication of tasks is there in the 5e DMG...

 

[Greg K]

Regarding 4e, it did some things well. However, I consider p.42 overrated, because I had no idea how much "rider" effects were worth in the math. (Yes, I know a community member named Wrecan, eventually, came up with something, but as far as I know WOTC never published anything official in a book).