• The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!

D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

In 4e nearly anything can be knocked over by anything else... a halfling can knock a storm titan prone... for some that's heroic adventure at it's best... to me it gets kind of silly at a certain point.

This is one of my bigger issues with 4e standardization of stunting or improvisation... everything shouldn't always balance out or be equally possible... it should be personalized for the feel and tone of each GM's campaign... but then one of the greatest features/flaws of 4e is that it seeks to standardize everyone's games across the board. IMO it's akin to painting a picture by numbers vs. painting a picture however you want with a few guidelines. The first is going to produce great results for those who like the assigned colors and probably bad to mediocre results (as well as feeling stifling) for anyone that doesn't like the assigned palette of colors. The other is going to produce greater variation both great and bad and feel too loose for those that need step by step instructions. Personally I, and quite a few players of D&D, think that variation between games is a good thing but apparently some want us all running a particular type of campaign with a specific playstyle for D&D across all tables... go figure.

My bolded.

I think the problem with a lot of these commentaries is that, taken as a whole, they start to become greatly at tension with one another. Further, they completely bear no resemblance to the experience of proficient, tenured users of the rulset(s). Removing 4e to take the rancor out of the debate for a moment, consider Dungeon World (or any of the PBtA systems). Just take the fundamental principle of the system:

Math-centered, outcome-based, resolution mechanics whereby the bounded (but fiction-triggered) PC build inputs all orbit around the production of a bell curve, the majority of which fall into the "Success With Complications" (7-9) range. This produces a disproportionate number of dynamic, genre-relevant results that propel the fiction forward in interesting ways.

Presumably, the transparent, unified mechanics - eg play procedure standardization and simplification - of Dungeon World inherently creates less variation/dynamism than, say, D&D 5e? Is that the thesis (that isn't rhetorical, I'm asking)?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Ashkelon

First Post
Hey, you made it a giant. How easy do you think that would be? In this instance it's his action, it requires a lot more effort than pulling a lever and is more akin to grappling than an attack.

The problem is using your action to knock the giant over is almost never a worthwhile use of an action when the warrior could instead attack the giant. Also the player wanted to attack and knock the giant over at the same time.


In both cases your words not mine, and it's a lot more likely than RAW, where you can't do it at all.
you were the one who said you wouldn't allow it for the whirlwind or would require a special feat to do it. You are the one who said you would require a Strength contest as an action to knock the giant over. I'm merely pointing out what that means for the player.


It wouldn't be automatic, I'd want a to hit with improvised ranged weapon with really short range. long range over 1, max 2 sounds right.
and now you have a situation where the action is unease still hard to pull off and no longer worthwhile if you first need to hit with an improvised range attack, then the target gets to make a saving throw. If such an attack used your action, you would be better off merely attacking.


But contrarily how long would a ruleset that covered these eventualities be? I used to play and run Chivalry and Sorcery when it came out. Land of the Rising Sun streamlined it somewhat, but it is clunky because it is thorough. And it still didn't cover your Giant example because it also didn't allow called strikes, largely because it had a similar philosophy with regard to hit points, but did split HP and FP.

I'm not really sure you are comparing apples with apples though, a cold spell freezing water is a reach compared to knocking a giant down by hitting it's knee? Is this WWE all of a sudden? Isn't the point of the wizard his flexibility?

And as that is my table, why are you bothered?

A rule set can cover all this and be quite small though. The trick is not to cover every situation, but to give conditions that make improvising easy to rule for the DM.

For example, Savage Worlds can do all of this very easily and has about 25% of the rules of 5e. This is partly due to called shots, but mostly due to Acrobatic and Smarts tricks and the Shaken condition. The shaken condition is a wonderful catch all condition that can be used to show that an enemy has been hindered in some way as a result of a stunt.

Also, 4e has significantly fewer rules than 5e, but it is also much easier to improvise these actions in 4e (they are all examples from my 4e games). This is for a combination of reasons. First, in 4e, the baseline assumption is that you can do something interesting every round. Everyone knows at-will maneuvers that are better than basic attacks. This means when you improvise an action that is better than an at will attack, you don't need to be unnecessary penalized. Additionally, you have encounter and daily powers that can be used as a trade off for particularly powerful improvised actions.

For example, the attack at the knees can be a basic attack that if it hits, you initiate an Athletics contest to try and knock your target prone. The whirlwind can be a close burst 1 attack that requires you to give up your encounter power to perform. The creating a patch of frozen ground can merely create a zone where any creature that enters gets an OP attack that does no damage but knocks them prone. The drink in the eyes could use the Dazed condition, a powerful condition that is similar to Shaken in savage worlds because it is super versatile without being overpowered.

My point is not that you were doing things wrong. Whatever works fine in your games is great. But for players who have a solid grasp on the math and mechanics of the game, they often find improvisation to be lacking because of the exact traps you fell into. A game with more robust rules for stunts that are balanced in the system as a whole typically leads to more and better improvisation. I am merely pointing out that I find 5es lack of robust guidelines has lead to far less improvisation in boy games I have run and games I have played in.
 

BryonD

Hero
Which ones did you like? I really only found one area where I really thought 5e improved, and that was simplification of bonuses and action economy. Advantage is a great trick for streamlining the whole twiddly bonus nonsense that really was ugly in previous editions. I think getting rid of the minor action was probably a good idea too, though I don't like the way 5e pretends that actions don't exist separately from what you do with them, it creates awkward rules text and some confusion. Still, I think those are at least incremental improvements, probably the only ones in the whole game IMHO.
I like bounded accuracy and I like the way spellcasting works (spell level slot more important, flexible casting)

Advantage works great for me because and only because of the way it plays off of the bounded system.
I would happily go back to playing PF and would not use Advantage.

Obviously there are a lot of details in the mix. But an elevator speech version of my houserules would be: use PF or 5E class however you prefer. If you use a PF class ditch BAB for prof bonus and ditch PF spellcasting for 5E. If you use A 5E class ditch skill profs for a tighter version of PF skill points.

I've got my own language rules I've used across multiple editions now, I've got a weapon focus built back in, I've expanded the range of the bounding because I want more variation and room for a few more bonuses (more number range than 5E but still bounded and far less than PF), etc...

Your phrasing strongly implies you are looking for "improvements" relative to 4E. Please keep in mind that I'm coming from PF. I don't see it as strictly "improvements" either way so much as innovations. But, no offense, me personally comparing 5E to 4E would be a waste of time.

I'm not looking to persuade anyone to play 5E or stop playing any other game. I'm just answering the question from my perspective.
 

BryonD

Hero
Cool. It's rare to see a Pathfinder fan defecting back to D&D. :)
I've always been for playing whatever is the best thing out there.
I'm not brand loyal in the least.

D&D has been groundbreaking as a leader in the marketplace three different times now and I've been happy to use it every time. D&D has been seriously off the mark, or at least left far behind by other options, twice and I had zero issue with walking away.

That will continue to be the way I approach it in the future. If a better game comes along, I'll play that.
I don't "defect", I simply demand excellence because the marketplace allows me that option.
 

tyrlaan

Explorer
In 4e nearly anything can be knocked over by anything else... a halfling can knock a storm titan prone... for some that's heroic adventure at it's best... to me it gets kind of silly at a certain point.

This is one of my bigger issues with 4e standardization of stunting or improvisation... everything shouldn't always balance out or be equally possible... it should be personalized for the feel and tone of each GM's campaign... but then one of the greatest features/flaws of 4e is that it seeks to standardize everyone's games across the board. IMO it's akin to painting a picture by numbers vs. painting a picture however you want with a few guidelines. The first is going to produce great results for those who like the assigned colors and probably bad to mediocre results (as well as feeling stifling) for anyone that doesn't like the assigned palette of colors. The other is going to produce greater variation both great and bad and feel too loose for those that need step by step instructions. Personally I, and quite a few players of D&D, think that variation between games is a good thing but apparently some want us all running a particular type of campaign with a specific playstyle for D&D across all tables... go figure.

I think your post would be a lot more palatable if the section I bolded was either not there or instead delivered without the not-so-subtle subtext that you are right and those that disagree with you are wrong.


More to the point, I feel like we've sort of beat the dead horse, buried it, exhumed the corpse to smack it around some more, took a breath, and then got back to beating on it when it comes to trying to "prove" which system is better for improvisation. Isn't this well past being on topic for "why does 5e suck" and probably better in it's own thread if the conversation carries on?


Personally I'd be more interested to read/participate in some discussion on spells in monster stats, and CR calculations, both of which are at least concrete aspects of 5e and also happen to be ballywicks I have with the system, but then I'm selfish like that :)
 

Imaro

Legend
Presumably, the transparent, unified mechanics - eg play procedure standardization and simplification - of Dungeon World inherently creates less variation/dynamism than, say, D&D 5e? Is that the thesis (that isn't rhetorical, I'm asking)?

If used as given... I would assume so. Can DW using it's default play procedures create a gritty feeling game? One where only those who are competent and skilled succeed? One where everyone has a chance to succeed at everything... and so on. And note if your answer is yes, just ignore the play procedures... well we can do that with any game and thus it only really works for those who want the default play style /campaign style that DW offers. When you standardize something you're by nature limiting its possibilities (both good and bad) that's kind of the point...isn't it?
 

Imaro

Legend
I think your post would be a lot more palatable if the section I bolded was either not there or instead delivered without the not-so-subtle subtext that you are right and those that disagree with you are wrong.

Really... seriously. I've seen that "subtext" in nearly everyone's posts, including yours (it's hard not to when you're telling someone their choice is objectively inferior to the one you prefer)... if you or I thought the people disagreeing with us were right, we probably wouldn't be discussing the subject.
 

tyrlaan

Explorer
Really... seriously. I've seen that "subtext" in nearly everyone's posts, including yours (it's hard not to when you're telling someone their choice is objectively inferior to the one you prefer)... if you or I thought the people disagreeing with us were right, we probably wouldn't be discussing the subject.

Please inform me where I have done this.
 


Ashkelon

First Post
I really love how Imaro's argument went from 5e has better improvisation rules than 4e, to 5e has just as good improvisation rules, to you shouldn't be able to improvise awesome stunts and any game that allows for such stunts is bad.

Listen, I'm not trying to force a playstyle on anyone. In fact, having strong improvisational rules cannot possibly do that, as it is ultimately up to you what your PC attempts to do. Also, I am not saying game A is better than game B as a whole. After all, I wouldn't be here if I didn't prefer to play 5e. But this thread is asking about what areas 5e could have done better. In my experience, improvisation is one of those areas. A game like Savage Worlds with a stronger stunting system does it much better.
 

Remove ads

Top