D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[tyrlaan]

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.

So your argument that improvisation works better in 5e is because the rules are more vague and therefore force you to improvise? Please clarify if this is incorrect because that's the only way I'm reading it as I try to parse this.

 

[MoutonRustique]

To atone for my striking a match (very sorry about that btw), here is my [as much on topic as possible] post :

I dislike (i.e. not hate, these are irksome - I'm not tearing out my hair here. What little of it is have left... *sniff*) :
- the obfuscation of the balance points
- the presentation (mostly the spells, man I hate the page flipping... so much flipping!)
- that many creatures are hp bags w/o the mechanical tools to have them do what I've come to expect them to do
- the "unreliable-ness" of unexperienced encounter building
- the many sacred cows everywhere (abilities over modifiers, the weapon and armour tables that try so hard to make sense, but end up not making any (to me), etc)
- the healing
- the magical item treatment with regards to : world building advice, game impact, etc.
- the ambiguity of martial-based non-combat capabilities
- the extra actions that are not bonus actions (divergence from what is presented as a core precept)
- the 3 round (or less) combats - goes with...
- the immense impact of surprise and initiative
- the lack of TotM tools (everything being given in fixed unit measurements, etc)

... and probably a few more things, but I feel this is enough for this post.

 

[Sacrosanct]

re: ease of improv, this is how I view it.

In other editions, you have a 64 color paint set. Lots of paints. But you can't mix them; they each have to have their own color.

In 5e, you have 12 colors. But you are told these are just generalities, so you can mix and match all you want.

Some people like 64 well defined colors and instructions how to use each one. Some like 12 colors because they feel it sets them more free for their own creativity. I.e., you know you can just grab and do what you want without having to check to see if it's allowed first. And IMO, that's an environment that's more improv friendly.

 

[Imaro]

re: ease of improv, this is how I view it.

In other editions, you have a 64 color paint set. Lots of paints. But you can't mix them; they each have to have their own color.

In 5e, you have 12 colors. But you are told these are just generalities, so you can mix and match all you want.

Some people like 64 well defined colors and instructions how to use each one. Some like 12 colors because they feel it sets them more free for their own creativity. I.e., you know you can just grab and do what you want without having to check to see if it's allowed first. And IMO, that's an environment that's more improv friendly.

I see it differently... There are apparently quite a few posters who are commenting on 5e's improvisation advice and examples... without having actually read the DMG... which is exactly where this info was in 4e as well.

 

[spinozajack]

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).

p42 isn't just overrated, it's totally worthless. People who like it blow it way out of proportion. It guarantees that you spend a ton of time in game and slow down everybody's turn, trying to do something unique that will never mechanically be superior to something you can do without even thinking, namely mash your power buttons. Talk about a disincentive. Meanwhile, in 5th, like in other D&D, if you lie in wait then lure the big bad and roll a huge boulder down on him, and succeed, your reward is probably an instant kill, unless your DM is being a total d*ck.

There has to be a huge upside to not using your default attacks, which are designed to be efficient and effective. Taking game time and real time to do something exciting or spectacular should come with greater risks but greater rewards. Not definite time sink, for no additional mechanical benefit.

Anyone who quotes p42 like it's a good thing immediately betrays their lack of understanding of what a positive or negative incentive for player behavior is. I've seen p42 being used a couple times, it was always a complete waste of time. Because the damage is laid out the way it is, because each attack you could ever possibly come up with has to be "balanced" with your Button Y. That rule was really, one of the worst things I've had the displeasure of experiencing while playing that game.

Improvised actions work in 5th edition because it doesn't define in advance what damage you should be doing then shoehorn all possible actions players could ever imagine into those neat little buckets.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

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...

I see it differently... There are apparently quite a few posters who are commenting on 5e's improvisation advice and examples... without having actually read the DMG... which is exactly where this info was in 4e as well.

Imaro, you seem to be working overtime here to frame this as an edition-war and put a few posters (myself included presumably) in the role of invective-throwing haters of 5e. If I've somehow been cast as someone that either (a) hates 5e or (b) has, is, or will do that, I'd like to know how that came to be. I've had commentary on noncombat action resolution (contrasting it with various systems and techniques) and a few other bits and bobs now and again. I've called it a cleaned-up, much more elegant, modernized, 3rd edition of AD&D (with some storygaming influence and, a 3.x saving throw paradigm, and a la carte multiclassing). That is precisely how I see this ruleset. I said this toward the end of the playtest and people scoffed and then later many of the same people use the same classification as a term of endearment during their advocacy. That wasn't edition warring then and my evaluations now aren't edition warring.

So can we just talk about the systems' play procedures for stunting and dissect what may come out of that?

Contrary to your assertion directly above, I have actually read the 5e DMG. Before I go into a deeper post contrasting the two systems' handling of improv actions, let me make sure what you're referring to. I'm assuming you're referring to Chapter 5 Adventuring Environment; Traps page 121. This gives Save DCs and Attack Bonuses for Traps @ Setback, Dangerous, and Deadly Qualifications and gives (single target? AoE? Single-Use? Limited-Use?) damage expressions (using aggregate large dice; d10s) for for a broad spectrum of levels; 4, then 6, then 6 again, then 4 again. Then on 249, you have the damage expressions repeated again (without the DCs/Attack Bonuses) and 6 of the 12 expressions are handily tied to the fiction.

I'll reply to your reply tomorrow evening (hopefully).

 

[tyrlaan]

I see it differently... There are apparently quite a few posters who are commenting on 5e's improvisation advice and examples... without having actually read the DMG... which is exactly where this info was in 4e as well.

Sorry Imaro, but this feels out of line to me, so I'm calling it out.

You start a sentence with "I see it differently" and then the rest of your comment is about other people, not about how you see it differently. How does your comment build on Sacrosanct's post you replied to? How does it add constructively to the conversation? I ask you to please provide me background to see this as arguing in good faith, because I struggle to see it.

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.

The entire discussion about non-combat and the fighter was in no way about making fighters be able to do everything. Methinks you may want to revisit some of the threads you are getting upset about.


Now as far as improv goes, this debate feels a lot like arguing over which apple tastes the best. You can improv in any RPG, period. How is that a strength specific to 5e? How is that a weakness specific to 5e? I agree with [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] on this one and it comes down to a matter of taste.

 

[spinozajack]

5th edition has plenty enough issues to gripe about, honestly, but magic being overpowered isn't one of them. In general it's been severely nerfed from 3rd ed and 2nd ed, but not stomped into a mundane box like it was in 4th. There are less spell slots, no automatic caster-level scaling (a good thing), lower durations (in some cases, quite lower), concentration buff stacking prevention, more restrictions. But magic still feels powerful and special, as it should. There is no way to balance Fly with any non-magical fighter power for the exploration pillar of the game, so they shouldn't even try. It's futile. People like magic being impressive stuff that mortals can't do without years of studying dusty tomes or making a blood pact with some demon or something along those lines.

I should re-read the DMG where it discusses improvisation before posting further. I just assumed it always worked the way it should (DM decides effect based on his or her common sense). But 5th ed has lots of surprises where you think it works one way but then find out it doesn't.

 

[Tony Vargas]

5th edition gives loads more room for the DM than in 4th edition. All you have to do is go back and compare the 4th edition PHB to the 5th edition one and you will see which gives more options and which gives more freedom to players and DM's.

I'm pretty familiar, and you're just confused over what 'more options' and 'more freedom' means.

The GM in any RPG can change the rules, add to them, or toss them out. That's an innate freedom that every GM has in every system. Some games, like 5e and Storyteller (and, ironically, 3e) come right out and tell you that you have this freedom. And some feel that doing so absolves such games from providing complete, playable, or even functional rules - going so far as to opine that rules are all just a red herring, anyway, and that the OneTrueWay is essentially Freestyle RP. Happily I haven't seen anyone trying to drag 5e down that particular rabbithole, yet. But, Storyteller sure got more than it's fair share of that when it was big.

So, the DM always has total freedom, whether the game provides him with many rules or few, and whether those rules are good or bad.

So, yes, the DM has absolute freedom in 5e, and it's nice that 5e hammers that point so relentlessly, because it makes it less likely that players will rebel against the idea like they did in 3.x/Pathfinder with the community-wide RAW-obsession.

And, I do like that about 5e, but it's as far as it goes in 'empowering' the DM. As a DM, I have the same power in any system. It's a matter of attitude. It's 'soft support.' I really shouldn't be trying to explain this to you, afterall, you might be a player at my table some day, and the last thing I'd want to do is dissuade you of the impression that I'm uniquely empowered as a 5e DM and you don't dare challenge any of my rulings. (I'm an experienced DM, my rulings are pretty good, anyway).

4th edition is too heavily relied on the powers and staying with in the confines of those powers. Can you change anything? Sure you can, you can do that in any edition of D&D it's just that 5th edition gives more power for that sort of thing.

There's no such thing as 'more power,' when you already have absolute power.


Options, OTOH, can be seen differently. 5e presents the players with some options: 12 classes and 38 sub-classes. The Warlord, Psion, Avenger, Psychic Warrior, Scout, Shaman, Beguiler, Battlemind, and many others from other editions are not among those classes. All those 5e classes can cast spells, and the 5 sub-classes that eschew any sort of spell or magical abilities are all unalterably specialized in DPR in combat.

So there are some options you don't have in 5e, as a player. You can't play a 'martial' character with a speciality other than DPR, like a Warlord. You can't play a psionic (yet). Etc The DM could always add to that list of options, but you as the player lack both options and freedom.

The DM, OTOH, in addition to his inevitable absolute freedom, is presented with a fair number of options. The DMG is full of optional rules, and even the PH has rules that the DM must decide to 'opt into.'


5e is very much a DM's game. That 'DM empowerment' is real, in a sense, even though the DM's 'power' to change a system he is running is absolute, regardless of system. Perhaps the dis-empowerment of players is the more significant factor. The DM's absolute freedom to change/mod/add-to the game is made more evident by the Players' constricted options and absolute lack of such freedom.

 

[Tony Vargas]

p42 isn't just overrated, it's totally worthless. People who like it blow it way out of proportion.

As I pointed out, above, any improvisation 'system,' be it burried in a DMG, or implicit in the basic dice mechanic, is essentially meaningless, as the DM has the power to rule on actions case-by-case, anyway, regardless of system.

But, it is nice for game to acknowledge that power.

Refer to my previous post, the idea of 'glass balance' in 4e is ludicrous.

True, 4e's balance is fairly robust. You won't 'break' the game by introducing or modding one power or race or theme or whatever. But, whatever you change or introduce might suffer by comparison to what already exists in the game. It might be obviously a bit over- or under- powered or clunky or inelegant or unclear.

I'm failing to see the problem here. Whatever it was that 5e was designed to 'solve', it was a non-problem and the game 'sucks' (to borrow the theme of the thread) because of it. That's my position.

5e was very clearly trying to 'solve' the problem that '4e wasn't really D&D' - and, by extension the whole raft of similar edition-war era, let's call them 'misapprehensions.' Whether you agree that 'not being D&D' was a real problem or not, 5e has most certainly solved it. 5e is very firmly D&D. Fans of classic D&D seem prettymuch unanimous in praising it's retro feel. Even 3.5/Pathfinder fans and outright h4ters grudgingly admit that they can't pretend 5e isn't 'really D&D,' the way they could with 4e.