D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[pemerton]

how long would a ruleset that covered these eventualities be?

I can fit the rules for Marvel Heroic RP onto an A4 sheet of paper, with small but readable type.

The key to this is uniformity of mechanics combined with a readiness to use very general mechanical elements to represent a great diversity of fictional states of affairs (eg mechanically, a knife and a gun behave the same, and the fact that one is for fighting up close and the other for fighting at range is handled via fictional positioning and GM arbitration of the permissibility of action declarations).

MHRP is arguably a rules lite game. No version of D&D is, in my view. 4e comes fairly close out of combat, but its combat resolution is tightly consistent but not rules light. But that tight consistency does support improvisation, in my experience.

in 5e clarity would almost be superfluous beyond the key explanation of the core resolution mechanic, which is a sentence, not a page. Along the lines of: the player describes an action, the DM decides if a roll is required (if so the player and/or DM might roll) and describes the results of the action.

That's really the bottom line across the board, everything else is window dressing.

I don't agree with this, because it disregards the huge role played in action resolution by spells (and also non-spell-but-mechanically-similar character abilities).

In some abstract sense we could replace all spell-casting in 5e with GM resolution of declared ability checks - much as, in some abstract sense, a 4e group might use the skill challenge rules to resolve all combats - but I don't think either of these would count as a remotely standard, let alone typical, approach to 4e or 5e play.

In 5e, you're expected to be able to hit anything in the game from level 1. You'll get overwhelmed by the damage and the hp of high challenge enemies, but they won't be bulletproof to you like they have been in previous editions.

This is what I really like about the new edition.

Shifting the mechanics of "impossible to defeat in combat" from AC to hit points is a mechanical change, but I'm not sure that it produces any profound difference in the fiction of the game or the play experience. Does it?

 

[Erechel]

Well, they tend to have unique blends of spells. Plus wizards have a strong ritual feature.

The rogue has various dice-manipulation abilities on top of expertise, meaning that skill checks aren't just a roll of the d20.

Part of the point is that, out of combat, they are not reliable at all! All they get to do is make skill checks with no very special bonuses, no spells to make checks unnecessary, and no dice-manipulation tricks to overcome the vagaries of random rolling.

I understand what you are saying, Pemerton. But they actually are reliable. As I've pointed out, RA covers a whole specter of possible Skill Checks. Yes, the fighter isn't the very best at any given area (with the possible exeption of Athletics covered area, and in situations where an Action Surge and Indomitable actually give an edge; EG scaping a whirling pool, saving another drowning character thanks to their strenght, interpose in the blast of a trap, throwing a rope or keeping his hand to aid another character to climb off a difficult situation are life-or-death examples), but where as physicall challenges, he is really reliable. He usually have higher stats or more feats (probably both, as feats like Athlete or Heavy Armor Master, and even Tavern Brawler pump a +1 to a physical stat above giving their own benefit). As for Reliable Talent (the only dice manipulation ability the Rogue has), it is only appliable on skills he already has proficiency on, and comes late at his adventurer life. And is arguably inferior to a feat as Lucky that the Fighter can achieve at 6 level (or 4th, or 1st, if human). The strength of the Rogue class (again, the Skill Monkey) is due to Expertise and superior number of skills, not reliable talent (which only prevents from a failure on an Average task).

That said, of course the thief is better at certain tasks than the fighter (I have to see yet an Athletics Expertise rogue; that could be an interesting build). But the fighter, without having to use spells, is better than anyone else. And the champion is better in a lot of situations where no skill proficiency apply. A bit better, or a lot better, depending on his level, stats and such. With spells (again, the cleric/ bard better pump him rather than themselves; the EK can pump himself rather easily), he is great, even if not exceptional. He is not the baseliner, he really is above average. Agreed, he is not a flawless champion, but in most situations he is going to be useful.
And it's silly to compare it with exceptional builds as a 18 strenght wizards (which sucks as magician or have tremendous luck with initial dice). A Paladin may be on par at some level, but he has to devote at least his second score to Charisma, and at 6th level the Fighter gains a real pump up. The fighter is a generalist, as I said earlier. The specialist is the thief or the bard, and it goes to a limited amount of tasks. Also, you haven't denied that the shadow monk, with his ki, is better at acrobatics and stealthy infiltration than the rogue.

 

[tyrlaan]

Of course having proficiency/ expertise is better than not having them. That's the whole point of having Proficiency or Expertise, Tony. But the Fighter can do everything very well, without having to waste resources with it. The Feats/ Ability Score Increase of the fighter are his uniqueness. Maybe you are not the "best" at everything, but you are reliable, and can count with him. And also, have you read the NAME of the class? Is Fighter.

I'm kind of struggling with this. Honestly, this reads to me as "the fighter is fine in non-combat scenarios because it can do everything at an 'ok' level, which should be considered acceptable because the class's name is fighter after all, so all we should really expect from it is fighting". Is that what you're saying?

And YES, anyone can make a Skill Check. This is the whole point of Skill Checks. You do not have to have a Power to made one: that is the bias of 4th edition players.

What counterpoint are you making in this case and what does it have to do with 4th edition?

And, with Remarkable Athlete, any non-trained physical SC has a +2, not +1, as is rounded up (3/2= 1,5): is equal as being trained from 1st to 4th level. Add the higher scores. IN EVERY CHECK. It is hardly insignificant, both in or out combat. Even if the SC isn't covered by a skill at all: you are better than average in every way possible. Remember the most powerful weapons? they are +3 (legendary). Off course, for certain skills, the rogues are superior (as they have Expertise). But the rogues are (and always were) the skill monkeys, and their expertise hardly cover every physical check possible (you have to have proficiency with them, RA covers the non-trained spectrum). By core, you gain proficiency as a 4th level to Athletics, Acrobatics, Seight of Hand, Stealth, and sometimes Intimidation; but also:
*Forcing doors
*Break free of bonds
*Push through small places
*Keep a boulder from rolling
*Hang on to a wagon while being dragged behind it
*Hold your breath,
*March or labor for hours without rest,
*Go without sleep
*Survive without food or water (being less subject to fatigue)
*Drinking (or being drugged, and arguably poisoned)
*Pick a lock
*Disable a trap
*Securely tie up a prisoner
*Shouting loud
*Wriggle free of bonds
*Driving vehicles
*Playing a musical instrument (dexterity)
*Thieves' tools
*Artisan's tools

I get that this is a dump of all examples of Str/Con/Dex ability checks from the book, but for me applying RA to anything on this list from pick lock or lower feels like following the letter of the rule rather than the spirit of the rule.

As for the bias of 4th Ed, is here done. In the 3X pages, it was the whole point of this thread. Some of you like more 4th edition: OK. Play it. I won't.

Don't understand the point of your first sentence here, but either way it seems like you have some words you'd still like to say to 4e. I'm really not following why you continue to drag 4e into your conversation.

 

[pemerton]

Reliable Talent (the only dice manipulation ability the Rogue has)

There is also Supreme Sneak for 9th level thieves, and Stroke of Luck at 20th level.

 

[Erechel]

I'm kind of struggling with this. Honestly, this reads to me as "the fighter is fine in non-combat scenarios because it can do everything at an 'ok' level, which should be considered acceptable because the class's name is fighter after all, so all we should really expect from it is fighting". Is that what you're saying?

Almost. The classes shine in one or more aspects of the game, and Fighters shine in combat, mostly. But they are far from worthless everywhere else (and they shine wherever the Strenght/Athletics come to play, if they are such characters). I can be ok if they are very capable in fighting but nothing else. Here, it is not the fact. They are superior to most people in almost every area, only outshined (why not?) from people exceptional at those areas, not average nor great.

What counterpoint are you making in this case and what does it have to do with 4th edition?

I get that this is a dump of all examples of Str/Con/Dex ability checks from the book, but for me applying RA to anything on this list from pick lock or lower feels like following the letter of the rule rather than the spirit of the rule.

I'm following the letter, yes. But this is also possible. This are examples of where RA can apply besides the skills (tool proficiencies are a rather extreme examples, as they are explicitly covered by the rules) The DM has to mediate to control this. But, RAW, it is possible.

Don't understand the point of your first sentence here, but either way it seems like you have some words you'd still like to say to 4e. I'm really not following why you continue to drag 4e into your conversation.

I'm not shure either (I have sometimes difficulties to make sense in English, because I'm a Spanish native speaker), but: the very name of the thread sounds a lot as an Edition War thread, and mostly I have heard complains of 4th edition fans (only one AD&D fan that I've read has ever complained from this edition).

Most complains are utterly false (as the borderline utility of Action Surge or RA), or bad intentioned (as the thread itself) .

In my hack I got rid of attribute increases, I just never liked the whole "lets change the fundamental RP attributes of your character" that much, though you can still get a bonus at levels 7 and 16. Progression also only goes to 20. Assuming +1/tier magic items and the fact that pretty much no permanent bonuses outside level, proficiency, and ability stack means you can get 10 for levels, 2 for ability score increase (but all chars are capped at +5 anyway, so +1 is typical) and 3 for everything else (6 if you weren't proficient starting out and got it later). So you won't get more than about +14 over 20 levels, which is only 5 points more than 5e grants.

Facts:
*you are heavy modding 4th edition. You could easily mod 5th the same way. It does not count. Base game still has some of this
*5th Edition is not (as it was 4th) a loud obliteration of every prior edition, but a convergence. It supposedly has to unify the editions in one. Several 4ed rules are present in DMG, so as several 1st, 2nd an 3rd edition.

One of the problems with 5e's stunted bonus growth is that it really is impossible for most characters to get to the point where they can't be outperformed by a high roll by a much weaker opponent. Even a STR 20 barbarian can't win more than about 90% of his arm-wrestling contests against ordinary strength level 1 figures. Its a little peculiar when he's level 20 and some random local kid beats him an appreciable fraction of the time.

Aside from the numbers, the 20th level barbarian actually kicks a lot of ass. This is what I said earlier about bad intentioned claims. Among multiattack, superior scores, superior hit points and almost everything else, a "random local kid" has not the slightest chance to beat a raging barbarian. Maybe a platoon of orcs can, but they are orcs, and they are a platoon, not "one" kid. And one 8 year old kid can enter in your house and stab you in real life, even if you are a US marine.

Another consequence of this is the old "why are they hiring heroes" question. If the king's guards can kill the dragon, is there really a need for the heroes to ride in and save the day? Oddly enough its 5e that needs levels 21-30, far more than 4e does, which handles this point quite convincingly.

THis is, as you said earlier, an old question, appliable to almost every edition. There are plenty of reasons why, but for some respect, we have to say that very little 1st level characters draw the king's attention to themselves. And also there is the fact of the amount of lives risked: an ancient red dragon can kill almost anything that comes around, even if he is capable of killing armies before going down. If you were the king, and have to choose between risking your entire army to be erased (half by the dragon, half by other armies when yours is weakened) or five acclaimed heroes that have nothing to do with your army, what do you choose? I prefer to save my army and risk the stupid mercenaries, thank you. You also can be trying to kill the dragon for your own glory and gain, before the army is there yet. Maybe you are in the right place at the right time. Maybe the army is too busy fighting the raiding orcs/marauders to attend the dragon. Or maybe you are the king, or the army's general, champion, whatever.
Otherwise, why the evil 20th level Lich haven't conquered the world yet with the flaming demons army, when clearly there is no other hero but the stupid 1st level party? Were are the overwhelming masses of 10th level hobgoblins that the heroes fight at 10th level before the heroes reach 10 level?

You see Tyrlaan? this is the kind of posts that brought to the table my ranting against 4th Edition (and I've not critiziced it in this post)

 

[Tony Vargas]

I'm not shure either (I have sometimes difficulties to make sense in English, because I'm a Spanish native speaker), but: the very name of the thread sounds a lot as an Edition War thread

It's possible to take the thread title ironically, and respond with things you like about 5e. And it's not an 'edition war' thread, because it doesn't draw battle lines between any editions. It's 5e that's the subject, not other editions.


4e gets dragged into it, because even people trying not to seem compelled to make unwarranted criticism of it, even after it's untimely demise. For instance:

*5th Edition is not (as it was 4th) a loud obliteration of every prior edition

See, that's pretty harsh. You just claimed 4e 'loudly' obliterated every prior edition.

Not remotely a true statement.

Many things from prior eds, especially 3.5, made it into 4e, and a few things from pre-3.x eds that had been absent made it /back/.

Another consequence of this is the old "why are they hiring heroes" question. If the king's guards can kill the dragon, is there really a need for the heroes to ride in and save the day? Oddly enough its 5e that needs levels 21-30, far more than 4e does, which handles this point quite convincingly.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?456928-Why-does-5E-SUCK/page33#ixzz3e9JV3yBz

this is the kind of posts that brought to the table my ranting against 4th Edition

What's wrong with it? It's true - the issue was always there, and 4e did neatly address it, because 4e PCs were uniquely capable and 'heroic' from 1st level on, via mechanics like surges, action points, second wind and powers, that monsters and NPCs lacked or had in fewer numbers and less variety. 4e PCs tended to stand out. In other editions, they need some levels under their belt to differentiate themselves from the various NPCs with classes and NPC- or non- classed individuals who don't have the potential to rise in level. They also need those levels to have a decent chance of survival.

(and I've not critiziced it in this post)

In fact, you did. You histrionically accused it of 'obliterating' all prior eds. Not only a criticism, but a wildly exaggerated one.

I don't agree with this, because it disregards the huge role played in action resolution by spells (and also non-spell-but-mechanically-similar character abilities).

You're not wrong. Spells are presented as push-button effects that the player could reasonably expect to work as described. So, if a DM described the effects of a spell in a way entirely at odds with the spell description, a player might feel justified in confronting him about it, in a way he wouldn't when the DM described the effects of some other action not explicitly covered in the rules.

But that's the only difference: how the player feels about it. That's not insignificant, but the DM has as much right to call for a roll, or not, and describe the results as he see fits to rule them, whether the action described by a player is an improvised stunt or a spell.

I doubt many DMs will go that far as a matter of course, and, IMX, players of spellcasters aren't adverse to the DM plunging into deeper descriptions and rationales for the functions of their spells, nor shy about improvising based on the possible implications of a spell description.

Shifting the mechanics of "impossible to defeat in combat" from AC to hit points is a mechanical change, but I'm not sure that it produces any profound difference in the fiction of the game or the play experience. Does it?

Yes. It makes being outnumbered significantly more telling. A horde of 100 minions who hit for 5 points only on a 20 inflict about 25 DRP, crits don't even come into it. A horde of 100 low-level creatures might hit for 5 points on a 17, and 10 on a 20. Their DPR would be 125. 5e monsters have more hps than ever - but not quintuple the hps.

In 5e, armies are prettymuch always dangerous, unless you have some magical protection against the damage they do, like a 'hit only by magic weapons' type defense, for instance. That has a theoretical impact on the fiction - though not so much on play, since PCs rarely fight whole armies (though they may ask "why don't you just have your army slay the monsters?" and the DM should have a ready answer - the monsters hide in a cramped dungeon, they're immune to normal weapon, the have a huge fear aura, etc...)

 

[kalil]

See, that's pretty harsh. You just claimed 4e 'loudly' obliterated every prior edition.

In terms of playability it certainly did.

 

[pemerton]

Shifting the mechanics of "impossible to defeat in combat" from AC to hit points is a mechanical change, but I'm not sure that it produces any profound difference in the fiction of the game or the play experience. Does it?

<snip>

In 5e, armies are pretty much always dangerous

<snip>

That has a theoretical impact on the fiction - though not so much on play, since PCs rarely fight whole armies

Thanks for the reply - I had thought about this before I posted, and I think it warrants some further discussion. I think your point about armies is illustrative of a pretty basic design difference between 4e and 5e - not in respect of the minutiae of action resolution (eg is it AC or damage/hp where the real action is?) but in respect of the way fiction is built out of mechanics and vice versa.

In 4e, at least as I GM it - and I think I'm following the lead of the rules pretty closely in this respect - the question of whether or not an army is always dangerous isn't answered by considering the mechanics. It answered by considering the fiction - are these characters vulnerable to an army? - and then, having answered one way or another, statting up an army in the mechanically appropriate way.

Thus, at low-to-mid paragon the PCs in my game fought hobgoblin phalanxes, statted up as swarms. At low-ish epic, they fought a small demon army, also statted as a couple of swarms. At mid-epic, when they had to cut their way through an army of Torog's shrivers to shut down his soul abattoir, most of that was resolved as a skill challenge.

I think, when this point is generalised, it connects to [MENTION=82106]AbdulAlhazred[/MENTION]'s complaint, upthread, about the 5e approach to setting DCs. In 4e (at least as I run it), the "direction of fit" for fiction and mechanics isn't to stat up the world in some "objective" fashion and then find out, via play, whether it is impossible, hard or easy for the PCs to deal with it. Rather, the GM decides on something that seems like it would make for a fun situation (factoring in everything s/he knows about prior episodes of play, the expressed and implied preferences of his/her players, etc) and then uses the mechanical tools the game provides (including, when it comes to armies, the swarm rules) to set it up.

My sense from reading Chris Perkins columns talking about his Iomandra campaign is that he would, in that campaign, have treated an army of hobgoblins as still posing a threat even to his epic level PCs. Which means that he would give them different stats from me - the PCs in my game are about to try and escape from Thanatos just having killed Orcus, and the demon armies they have to deal with will likely be framed in skill challenge terms rather than with combat stats. Which is not a problem: our games are based around slightly different fictional/genre conceits, and we use the system tools to realise that fiction.

Much as AbdulAlhazred wants to know what levels a given DC is intended to be hard for, so that he can use the tools of the game to realise some particular fiction (eg in his vision of the D&D world Vecna's lock is probably Hard even for upper epic PCs, and so he imposes the appropriate DC from the DCs-by-level chart).

You just claimed 4e 'loudly' obliterated every prior edition.

In terms of playability it certainly did.

What do you mean?

 

[Manbearcat]

In terms of playability it certainly did.

What do you mean?

Making a joke (and a funny one!) playing off the "obliterated prior editions" citation. "Playability" is jargon for quality of gameplay.

 

[Celtavian]

One of the problems with 5e's stunted bonus growth is that it really is impossible for most characters to get to the point where they can't be outperformed by a high roll by a much weaker opponent. Even a STR 20 barbarian can't win more than about 90% of his arm-wrestling contests against ordinary strength level 1 figures. Its a little peculiar when he's level 20 and some random local kid beats him an appreciable fraction of the time.

In 5E, you would not even roll for an ordinary strength level 1 figure. The DM would only require rolls against those strong enough to challenged the barbarian. If an 12 Str kobold decides to arm wrestle, he doesn't get to roll. He loses. That's how 5E runs. Ability/Skill checks of nearly any kind are only required if the DM deems it necessary.

Another consequence of this is the old "why are they hiring heroes" question. If the king's guards can kill the dragon, is there really a need for the heroes to ride in and save the day? Oddly enough its 5e that needs levels 21-30, far more than 4e does, which handles this point quite convincingly.

This part is a bit goofy I admit. This was clearly shown by Hemlock where his 26 skeleton archers can kill an Adult Green Dragon. That means any king with an army can hire a few hundred archers to kill a dragon as long as he can get it in the open.

The way this is handled in 5E is for the DM to narrate that this cannot be accomplished by that army. I don't know if I love this method. It is sort of off-putting that a few hundred level 1 bowman can kill a dragon. I can change some of the dragon abilities to alter this and I probably will. I plan to give dragons DR and damage reduction I think. Dragons seem badly designed in this edition for what they should be.

Fortunately, monster design is easy to fix as is just about anything in 5E. 5E is extremely easy to modify. There are no hard and fast rules in 5E. You modify to accomplish the fiction you want to accomplish. Right now people are used to codified rules, even 4E players like yourself are having trouble setting DCs. 5E is pretty much the "This is your game. Do with it what you wish." edition more than any other one. They are literally leaving almost everything up to the DM.