D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[EzekielRaiden]

Wow, they really can't please anyone, can they.

I've quit the thread, so you won't get a substantive response out of me--I'm only making this one as a courtesy, since it seems rude to be directly quoted and ignore it.

That said? The strawmanning and personal attacks that persuaded me to leave the thread are even worse in this post.

 

[Ashkelon]

It is kind of sad that people are such fanatics about 5e that they can't take any criticism of the system at all and must rely on name calling and strawmanning because they can't come up with substantial arguments.

Look, I like 5e better than 4e. That doesn't mean I can't see some of the issues in the 5e system. Anything I could do in 5e through improvisation I can also do in 4e. The core of the systems is the same (ability checks and attack rolls). The difference is that 4e gives more robust guidelines to both the player and DM which makes a adjudicating actions easier.

Both systems though had a very real problem with the lack of non-combat capabilities for the warrior type classes. 5e is a little worse in this regard due to lack of a theme, lack of martial practices, and fewer total feats.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I don't see how it is "out of line" at all... The original post is about ease of improvisation in 5e vs. earlier editions... I am disagreeing with Sacrosanct's assertion that the difference is around the number of ways and generalities... and saying I think it's a lack of knowledge around the advice, math and methods presented within the 5e DMG... and that I feel some are posting about the differences without having read the sections in the 5e DMG surrounding improvisation... Does that clear things up for you?

EDIT: And just so it's clear I'm not saying 4e was bad or worse than 5e in the improv department... I'm saying I really don't see a significant difference in the advice, examples or information given in either edition to support improv. The claim was made that 4e was better than 5e in this department, but I don't see it.

 

[Imaro]

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.

I'm not casting anyone in any light... but I disagree with the assertion you and a few others made about 4e advice, procedures etc. around improvisation vs. 5e. Is that edition warring now?

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).

That is only a piece of what I am referring to... some other sections in the DMG around improv...

Ability Checks (With examples): pg. 237
Difficulty Class (Typical DC's): pg. 238
Improvising Damage: pg.249
Modifying Monsters: pg.273
Creating Quick Monster Stats: pg. 274
Spell Damage: pg. 284
Examples of Wilderness Hazards: pg. 110
Foraging DC's: pg. 111
Wilderness Navigation DC's: pg. 112
Trap Save DC's/Attack Bonuses/Damage severity by level: pg. 121
Sample Traps: pg. 122/123
Tracking Example DC's: pg. 244
Reaction Example DC's: pg. 245
Object Example AC's & Hit points: pg. 246/247
Combat Options: pg. 271

There is probably more but I don't have the time right now to go through the DMG page by page... but in general this is what I am speaking too... IMO, when taken as a whole, 5e has a robust framework for improvisation and quite a few examples.

 

[Imaro]

Both systems though had a very real problem with the lack of non-combat capabilities for the warrior type classes. 5e is a little worse in this regard due to lack of a theme, lack of martial practices, and fewer total feats.

Were themes or martial practices in the 1st PHB? And comparing feats is like comparing apples and oranges in the 2 editions they serve different purposes and are built differently... though they share the same name.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What improvisation rules in 4th edition?

What do you mean if you don't allow improv in 4th they have more options than 5th? I'm wondering if you are actually familiar with 5th edition.

You can't have more options than 6 ability scores plus the imagination.

You clearly know nothing about 4e if you are asking this question. 4e has a very specific and well-thought-out improvisation rule. Beyond that it has SCs that allow you to deal with more complex situations.

Arguing about the number of options available in each edition is pretty pointless. I've played both. 5e characters generally have several options. At low levels they're probably roughly comparable, but there's no comparison between a low paragon 4e fighter with 4 daily powers, potentially 5 or 6 encounter powers, 2-3 at-wills, and most likely some variations on these things based on feat use or just reasonable optimization of charging, bull rushing, etc.

Sure you can have more options than '6 ability scores plus the imagination'. If character A has 4 things on his sheet that he can do explicitly, and B has 3, then by gosh A has more options! Beyond that you haven't listened. The improvisation rules in 5e are notorious by their virtual non-existence. Yeah, you're told 'set a DC and use Skill/Proficiency/Ability checks' but since the DCs have NO LEVEL ATTACHED there's no good guideline as to what DC to use, none at all! In 4e its quite simple, I know that I'm using a level equivalent DC that makes the moderate DC likely to succeed for a character who would normally be expected to face this hazard/task/whatever. If the situation makes the task easier then I use Easy DC, or if its harder than usual I use Hard DC. There's room for DM judgement there, but I can pull a DC for anything without any need to think hard about it.

I think 4e's system can be improved even more, but it is very much a step up from 5e's.

 

[Imaro]

You clearly know nothing about 4e if you are asking this question. 4e has a very specific and well-thought-out improvisation rule. Beyond that it has SCs that allow you to deal with more complex situations.

Arguing about the number of options available in each edition is pretty pointless. I've played both. 5e characters generally have several options. At low levels they're probably roughly comparable, but there's no comparison between a low paragon 4e fighter with 4 daily powers, potentially 5 or 6 encounter powers, 2-3 at-wills, and most likely some variations on these things based on feat use or just reasonable optimization of charging, bull rushing, etc.

Sure you can have more options than '6 ability scores plus the imagination'. If character A has 4 things on his sheet that he can do explicitly, and B has 3, then by gosh A has more options! Beyond that you haven't listened. The improvisation rules in 5e are notorious by their virtual non-existence. Yeah, you're told 'set a DC and use Skill/Proficiency/Ability checks' but since the DCs have NO LEVEL ATTACHED there's no good guideline as to what DC to use, none at all! In 4e its quite simple, I know that I'm using a level equivalent DC that makes the moderate DC likely to succeed for a character who would normally be expected to face this hazard/task/whatever. If the situation makes the task easier then I use Easy DC, or if its harder than usual I use Hard DC. There's room for DM judgement there, but I can pull a DC for anything without any need to think hard about it.

I think 4e's system can be improved even more, but it is very much a step up from 5e's.

5e has simplified this even more than in 4e. The DMG states that one can use 10/15/20 for easy/med/hard tasks and run into no problems with their game... it even goes on to tell you the success rates around these as well. So now I only need to know 3 numbers... instead of referencing new ones at various levels.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

Against what DC? And what are the effects? In 4e the DC is right off a chart, the damage is right off a chart, the possible conditions and AoE, duration, etc are all highly standardized. None of these things is standardized in 5e. I don't know if its an easy, medium, or hard DC (which are hugely different!), nor is there any neatly bounded list of effects. I don't know which characters are in the AoE, nor is there such a convenient set of AoE mechanics. Beyond that, if I have some very special story situation in 4e that absolutely DEMANDS that I make up something really unique (never happened in all my years, but lets imagine) then 4e leaves you with all the "its your imagination" that 5e does. You never LOSE anything with 4e's approach.

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.

I have no idea what this means. The math in 4e situations is entirely consistent. In 5e its not a matter of it 'changing' or not changing, its just not that clearly specified!

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

Then you do it in your next turn! That's exactly what actions are all about, you can do a certain amount of stuff per turn and that's it. Sometimes you can also do certain very simple things without a defined limit (free action). If a situation arose where the action economy seemed to be grossly at variance with the fictional situation, the DM is always free to simply grant additional actions, but I would note that every 4e character comes equipped with APs, which the player can always expend if they really desire to bend the action economy in a big way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.

And quite frankly the non-casters in 5e are strictly second-stringers by 5th level. Between my Wizard (who's hit points are 2/3 of the fighters and who's AC is in a practical sense several points BETTER) and the Cleric, we leave the 2 fighters in the dust in an overall sense. That's with an EK and a Battlemaster that is an Elf and so has a pretty respectable Fire Bolt. Likewise, the Rogue is useful, but a 3rd caster, maybe an illusionist or something focused particularly on sneakiness, would probably serve better overall (and again, the rogue is an Arcane Trickster, so HAS some useful magic).

I'd be far from saying that the non-casters are useless, they're perfectly capable, in their limited ways. The ranger certainly has plenty of offensive capability and his wilderness stuff is generally handy. The elves and the druid can cover that too though, and overall he's not vital.

I haven't seen level 6-10 yet, but the trend is clear. The fighters keep getting more damage, the druid, cleric, and wizard keep getting large amounts of additional plot power, flexibility, and perfectly adequate defenses and damage.

5e certainly doesn't go mad with caster power as 3.x does, but its hardly even-handed. Beyond that the variances in resource management between classes tends to hurt the non-casters, adding insult to injury.

Every system has had to wrestle with the 'fighters are mundane, wizards are special' meme. 4e just handled it better than any other D&D has. Having played 4e wizards and 5e wizards I don't find the 4e ones less wizardly or less fun, just less endowed with an overabundance of 'stuff'.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

All the examples and information @Manbearcat, @Ashkelon and a few others are claiming is superior in 4e for adjudication of tasks is there in the 5e DMG...

There's an improvising damage table, yes, though it is a bit less detailed than the one in 4e, and there's no explicit procedure for using it. Nor does it dovetail with damage outputs of character and monster powers in the game very cleanly.

The DCs in 5e are much harder to use, there are 6 DCs, so the DM has to assess everything against 6 shades of difficulty, is this task 'very easy' or 'easy'? What is appropriate for a given situation? We just don't know, and the increments are pretty hefty! Beyond that a 4e game can easily 'slide' the scale depending on the tone that is desired, whereas that really isn't touched on in 5e and would be a bit more awkward.

Personally I like 4e's handling of this whole aspect of play better, and this is before we even touch on SCs.