D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Erechel]

I'm having a hard time accepting this as meaning anything other than : "actively protect players from the system"

As I've seen espoused, the 5e DCs are "world-set".

So I'm having problems figuring out how you'd sell the idea that though you have a very reasonable chance to succeed, you actually don't get to try...

I'm seeing it play out like :
Strong peasant (Str 14) vs 20th level Barb = no check
Strong low-level Fighter vs 20th level Barb = ? perhaps a check
Average (Str 10) 20th level fighter vs 20th level Barb = check*
Strong peasant (Str 14) vs 20th level Dex Fighter (10 Str) = ???

*I would assume this one gets to try, even if it has, by 5e's principals, a lower chance of success than the stronger peasant - which leaves me in a state of ???

The main point is actually the impossibility for me to know which situation would allow for a contest.

See above - you are completely correct. If this is meant as the way it is supposed to be, then I completely mis-understood the books.


Bolded 1 - no one is saying they are worthless. They (and I) are saying they have nothing particular to offer. They are worse than everyone else (note that "worse" is a relative term - it does not mean "bad", it simply means "not as good"). They are not abysmal, they simply have no tools to improve upon the baseline while every other class has a few.

Bolded 2 - I fail to see how AS gives out-of-turn options. But that could be a very appropriate house-rule.

Bolded 3 - in the way you are implying, yes, it can be done. (You're implying a great deal of use in broad situations where AS would give a significant advantage.) AS is very limited in use with short rests being so long - there is very little guarantee that it will be available. The examples you give don't work very well - having +33% speed for one round, would impact a chase only in the case were the target would be very, very close. Unless you're using it as a form of "you spent a relevant resource and so I shall reward you with appropriate success" - which is great! But not how the ability works in the "base game" - so we're definitely entering house-rule territory.

First of all, thank you for carefully reading the propositions I made. For Action Surge, the non-combat applications are some of the "uniqueness" of the class: the fighter is stronger, faster than everyone else. Chases are one example of timeframed situations where AS can be used, but rescue operations, catching bullets with your body (as a bodyguard, for example), or anything else that has to be resolved with a quick action. But also, you have one more ASI/ feat, expendable in things were other classes wont, because of the lesser feat economy. This actually is a lot, because you then can pick miscelaneous, non build-specific feats (like Mobile or Athlete) that increase your speed, or increase the amount of turns you can dash (increasing Constitution). And increasing 33% your speed is actually a lot, both to escape or to follow. You also has lesser obstacles to consider, because you probably have high Athletics or at least Remarkable Athlete (which gives only 1 point lesser than being proficient with the skill). The DMG in Urban Chase Complications gives at least three obstacles surpassable by sheer strenght, and 3 by Acrobatics (RA gives you the equivalent of a 4th level character proficiency on them, and Indomitable gives you a reroll on saving throws). AS gives you an edge, but not the ultimate solution to all problems. On the contrary, Cunning Action is actually a Combat ability only, so you can catch those squishy thiefs with your speed. Only the monk can surpass you, as he has actually improved speed, but with Athlete or Mobile you are on par if not faster than him (if you want to be faster, Mobile is actually a great feat, as it even increases combat effectivity). Not to mention that running also applies on escaping (EG) a volcano eruption, the Ultimate Doomy Doom Explosion (cool guys don't look at explosions, so you MUST NOT look at them too ), or a flooding.

As I said earlier, the RA ability gives an edge were no other class actually gives it. You are trying to escape from ropes? RA gives you an edge. Prevent a boulder from squish your party? Yeah. You are the equivalent of a 4th level proficient guy on things don't covered by the actual skills.

Again, you are not flawless, and you are not an especialist, you are a generalist with a few edges above others on certain situations. And yes

Point is : AS can be very useful out of combat, but that usefulness is very DM-dependant. A more "neutral" reading offers some use, that is certain, but not so impressive as that. But it is something!

That is the area of the DM. This is explicitly stated both in the DMG and in the PHB; there is also room for improvisation (stated on PHB), so it's expected to do that. And the system is actually great for that, it is robust enough to fit everyone's game. And your DM must be a jerk if he does not let you improvise an action with your action resource, because it is part of the rules. Even Written In Stone Attorneys can be outmatched by this. Rememeber that RA gives you low proficiency (+2 at 7th level) whenever you are improvising a physical action. No other class has this advantage.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is false. You seem to have missed the part that the DM decides when a roll is needed. It scales exactly as the DM allows it to scale. The DM decides if something is possible in a given situation for a given character. Then he decides whether it would require the PC to make a roll or not. He decides the DC. He could decide lifting a mountain is hard for a Titan, but impossible for a human. He could give the titan a DC 15 to lift the mountain and say it is impossible for the strength 20 fighter.

You don't seem to grasp how 5E set things up going by what you wrote. Nothing is static. It's all up to the DM as to how it works. That very much means you can construct any fiction you want with the system.

So, how about the super strong fighter vs the only modestly strong wizard? If he gives the fighter a DC 25 to lift the mountain then the wizard could get lucky and lift it, so now what, the DM is decreeing which PCs can and cannot even try various skill checks? Based on what? Isn't this what the rules are supposed to cover?

Sorry, I think its a significant problem if setting a DC can only be used if the fiction meets certain criteria. That's a sign that the system isn't properly handling things that are within its genre conventions. In this case its illustrating that the genre conventions of 4e can be wider or narrower, but in 5e they are really fairly pre-set. Sure, any criticism of any game system can be met with "but the DM can just rule X", but last I recall that generally has a label, "Oberonni Fallacy" IIRC. lol.

 

[Erechel]

So, how about the super strong fighter vs the only modestly strong wizard? If he gives the fighter a DC 25 to lift the mountain then the wizard could get lucky and lift it, so now what, the DM is decreeing which PCs can and cannot even try various skill checks? Based on what? Isn't this what the rules are supposed to cover?

Sorry, I think its a significant problem if setting a DC can only be used if the fiction meets certain criteria. That's a sign that the system isn't properly handling things that are within its genre conventions. In this case its illustrating that the genre conventions of 4e can be wider or narrower, but in 5e they are really fairly pre-set. Sure, any criticism of any game system can be met with "but the DM can just rule X", but last I recall that generally has a label, "Oberonni Fallacy" IIRC. lol.

You are forgetting that Strenght also handles the amount of weight you are capable to lift. It is a convention, true, but it is a non-check restrainer.

And, from 4th edition PHB, p. 222:
"Multiply your Strength score by 10. That’s the weight, in pounds, that you can carry around without penalty. This amount of weight is considered a normal load.

Double that number (Strength × 20). That’s the maximum weight you can lift off the ground. If you try to carry that weight, though, you’re slowed. Carrying such a load requires both hands, so you’re not particularly effective while you’re doing so. This amount of weight is considered a heavy load.

Five times your normal load (Strength × 50) is the most weight you can push or drag along the ground. You’re slowed if you try to push or drag more weight than you can carry without penalty, and you can’t push or drag such a heavy load over difficult terrain. This amount of weight is referred to as your maximum drag load."

So, if you are ruling that your fighter can lift a mountain in 4th edition, you also are tweaking the rules. And it circunscribes to the very same problem: the moderately strong wizard can lift the mountain if the fighter can, given the checks made.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

First there are more than 6 DC set points... since the game makes it pretty clear that it's a range of numbers not a single number that represents difficulty and those listed are the typical DC's. That said...

Yes, but this isn't what I'm talking about. The game only envisages one range of difficulty, measured against a level 1 PC (apparently from what I can see). Obviously you can set any numbers you want, in theory, but how does that change the argument?

No 4e doesn't...If you follow the procedures of 4e (because if you're not then all that guidance and examples and p42 are all worthless) it has already (numerically) decided for you what Easy/Medium/Hard is based on character level... this in turn sets a mathematical probability for 4e PC's to succeed that is basically the same at every level... roughly 65% (I believe but I could be wrong). Now that suuccess rate might be great for an heroic game of gonzo action... but that ain't everyone's D&D.

You are clearly missing my point. We know that in 4e a level 10 medium DC is 18, but what FICTIONALLY does that represent? There are SOME conventions, an 18 represents a running broad jump of about 15' IIRC, a 20 will let you break through a barred wooden door, and a 26 is required to break through a wooden wall. So we DO have a bit of a baseline, what the authors envisaged, but we have a lot of freedom. The most capable 'ordinary human' might have a +4 Ability Bonus, and maybe a Skill Bonus of +5 if the feat uses a skill they are trained in (on the assumption that ordinary people even get +5 trained bonuses, 4e doesn't apply character rules to NPCS). So, a strong non-leveled NPC might achieve checks up to say 29 at the most extreme. He might break a barred door, or crash through the wall of a village house, or jump over a 20' wide chasm, in the default setting.

So, assuming we don't want to radically amplify the abilities of low level non-adventurers, we'd probably rescale things in a bit of an exponential fashion. a check result of 30 is the top of realistic human potential, a 35 is quite a bit beyond it, a 40 might be 'less than godlike' and a 45 might represent moving a mountain. This is quite a bit beyond what the default fiction envisages, but because there's a large scale difference in the numbers that heroic/paragon/epic PCs can achieve its quite possible to radically rescale the fiction attached to the different numbers. You simply cannot do that in 5e. If the hardest attainable DCs are super fantastic things, then low level characters will be achieve them. Not often, but if even one guard captain can say throw a giant, its going to be a pretty odd setting...

Just as one example to help clarify what I mean and why it affects worldbuilding...let's say someone wants to play a more gritty game where success is reserved for only those who have actually trained in a skill... but 4e's DC's by level and automated prof bonuses work in tangent to create a game and world that are at odds with this. In 5e I could make tasks only have easy (you have proficiency in the skill) or very hard DC's (You don't have proficiency in the skill)... so if you can somehow bring magic or help or other forms of aid to bear, you have a slim chance of succeeding without training... but you will not succeed without some form of aid if you don't have proficiency in a skill.

Sure, you can create a different skill system in essence. But as with my example above, I can make 4e's fiction much grittier without much effort. I can simply set the DC for cracking through a barred door at 35, not 18. I can simply subtract 10' from broad jump results, so that even a 35 only gets you just barely beyond olympic record distance (or make up some other formula). In general most fiction doesn't even have ANY mechanical tie to a specific DC in 4e, so I can just set the DCs such that even 20th level 4e PCs can only accomplish modestly astounding things, not stupidly ridiculous things.

So disregard the play procedures, advice, information and page 42... and 4e can do exactly what we're saying 5e can do... do you see now why some feel that stuff isn't worth much or can actively hinder the type of game they want to run?

EDIT: As I said earlier if your D&D style aligne with 4e's default playstyle you're well catered to by it's advice, play procedures, etc. However if your style doesn't align with it it doesn't offer any support and can actively hinder the type of game you want to play

No, I don't understand. The critical problem here in the 5e setup is the small growth in bonuses means you can't differentiate between heroes and ordinary people in terms of abilities and skills. The game simply cannot do it. No amount of picking different DCs will change that unless you start picking them purely on fictional grounds and ignoring mechanics.

You mean you can't scale much by level... right? That's not the only way to scale and 5e doesn't prescribe a particular way to scale like 4e does... you're assuming all of us want to scale by level... but that's not true.

D&D is a level-based game, that's the whole core conceit is that as you level up you scale up in power. I don't think this is something I invented for rhetorical reasons. Its so core to D&D that I would dare say that a game where you use some other scaling system ISN'T D&D AT ALL. In a much more fundamental way than people said that about 4e! I don't think its 5e either TBH. I mean I can do anything I want if I just homebrew my own system. Heck, I was already lambasted once on this thread today for even making a contrast with my own homebrew. I think you need stronger arguments.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Where I was saying that 4th edition was obliterating the prior editions, I was saying that there was an effort on saying that the edition is "superior" to every other edition prior, in every aspect possible. "New", "Better maths" and such.

OK. Because it sounded like you were just taking another stab at the old edition war saw that 4e somehow "wasn't D&D."

Sure, 4e mechanics were much improved in clarity, balance, and (eventually) functionality over prior eds, but that's only 'better' in a very narrow and technical sense. 5e, in contrast, both rolls back some of those improvements and advises the DM to throw away the resulting mechanics at the slightest provocation - which creates an impression that they might not be very good mechanics - but the practice of running an RPG by GM fiat /can/ produce much 'better' games in a very different, more personal and immediate sense of 'better.'

So claims of 'superiority' of a system of edition should never be taken too seriously. Mechanical details, and qualities like class or encounter balance can be quantified and judged objectively, but the full sweep & quality of play both depends on the DM (and players), and can be quite subjective.

About the "ironical" reading of the thread name, it is not the case. It is a clear statement.

Ironic statements often are.

But, lets do the exercise: I hardly see keeping low level armies relevant as a flaw, or a tone-down of epicness.

Two very different things. It's only a flaw if the game was meant to foster a sense of PCs as larger-than-life heroes able to defeat foes that even armies couldn't.

One thing about the more recent versions of D&D is that they've done a better job of hitting their design goals than previous ones. Both editions of AD&D tried to deliver some semblance of class balance, and largely failed. 4e succeeded neatly. 3.0 tried to empower the DM with Rule 0, yet RAW became the byword of the community. 5e has, so far, succeeded in an even more ambitious goal of DM empowerment.

I don't think the continued relevance of armies is anything but another example of that. Bounded Accuracy makes lower-level enemies a more credible threat. That means large numbers of lower-level enemies are extremely dangerous, if they can all be brought to bear. That delivers on a setting where PCs start out as 'apprentices' of little import - who can still accomplish /something/ because no one's every quite completley helpless - who rise in skill and ability, but don't become superhuman and untouchable without, that is, some sort of magic over and above merely gaining experience. Thus PCs will often need to make stealth checks to get past an encamped army, rather than just wiping it out.

I also love the subsystems. It requires a little mastery to know everything in the game, but the classes itself are fairly simple, with enough general mechanics to keep the game balanced, and enough variety to make a wizard feel and play different than a warlock or a sorcerer.

Again, to the design-to-goals point, balanced classes isn't really a 5e design goal, but, while the classes may not be balanced in any strict sense, the DM is empowered to maintain a sort of 'spotlight balance' (that is, to make sure each PC has moments when his contributions are critical, important, or at least highlighted).

And, yes, even though wizards, sorcerers & warlocks (and Clerics & Druids) may use many of the same spells, and wizards, clerics & druids (and Paladins, Rangers, EKs, & ATs) may use basically the same 'neo-Vancian' magic sub-system, each class still manages to play differently, thanks to different class features and a few spells unique to them, or at least, not common to all.

Celtavian, the dragon itself is a terrifying presence that almost every archer has never encountered before. I, as a GM, would check morale every round. And you can easily justify by this means why a dragon would Polymorph to keep low profile, or command/ hire goblins, orcs or whatever.

I do wonder why the Dragon's classic 'fear aura' rarely gets mentioned, they'd scatter an army, initially, giving them time to retire to some lair or hiding place until the next raid.

I forgot them, but:
Supreme Sneak: Hide is one of the main features of the rogue, and with Expertise already there it is hardly ground breaker, only a minor boost. But at this time, the champion has both Remarkable Athlete and one more feat/ASI.

Proficiency in stealth is strictly superior to adding RA to stealth, and a Rogue is likely to prioritize DEX first - even if the Champion maked DEX his top priority (an archer, for instance), he'll only have a higher DEX than the Rogue for a couple of levels (most likely, level 6 and 7). So, Rogue, proficient in Stealth already edges out RA+ASI, /and/ Expertise layers strict superiority over that. /And/ Supreme Sneak is on top of that. Leaving even a DEX-specialized fighter completely inferior compared to the rogue at sneaking. (Which, y'know: sneaking is kinda the Rogue's thing. Well, one of them, in addition to Sneak Attacking, finding/disarming traps, &c)

For Action Surge, the non-combat applications are some of the "uniqueness" of the class: the fighter is stronger, faster than everyone else.

Action Surge does not make you stronger. It can make you faster, by using it for a second Dash action in one round. That makes you 50%, for 6 seconds, and it takes a 1-hour 'short' rest before he can do it again. For comparison, the Rogue's Cunning Action can also be used to Dash, and makes him 50% faster, for as long as he wants, since it's at-will and Haste grants a 100% increase speed (among other things) for up to 60 seconds.

Chases are one example of timeframed situations where AS can be used, but rescue operations, catching bullets with your body (as a bodyguard, for example), or anything else that has to be resolved with a quick action.

Those sound like Reactions, actually - and Action Surge can't be used for those.

But also, you have one more ASI/ feat, expendable in things were other classes wont, because of the lesser feat economy. This actually is a lot, because you then can pick miscelaneous, non build-specific feats

Not quite as rosy as it sounds. When a human, for instance, gets a bonus feat at 1st level, that's a big deal. You pick your 1st-choice, most desirable feat and have it for 3 levels before anyone else can get it. But, once you reach 4th, and pick the 2nd-best feat you can think of, everyone else who wants it has that 1st-choice feat. So your bonus feat from 1st is actually getting you your 2nd-best feat, now.

The fighter doesn't get his bonus feat until 6th, so it's not nearly as good. It give the fighter his 2nd-best feat two levels early, then it shifts to getting his 3rd-choice of feat 4 levels early, and so on. Just like the extra ASI, which gets you to 20 a level or two faster, the value of the 'bonus' feat declines with level.

As I said earlier, the RA ability gives an edge were no other class actually gives it. You are trying to escape from ropes? RA gives you an edge.

Over someone untrained, yes. Over an escape artist, no, he has the edge.

Like the extra ASI, the bonus from RA can never give you an advantage over someone competent. If RA stacked with proficiency, it'd be more useful - still only half as good as Expertise, but not virtually worthless.

That is the area of the DM. This is explicitly stated both in the DMG and in the PHB; there is also room for improvisation (stated on PHB), so it's expected to do that. And the system is actually great for that, it is robust enough to fit everyone's game. And your DM must be a jerk if he does not let you improvise an action with your action resource, because it is part of the rules.

Improvisation and other DM rulings-notwithstanding-the-rules are not the system being robust, they're the system tapping out. Not that the DM-empowerment pushed by 5e isn't a great thing - I love it, it's easily the best thing about 5e - just that it's not the system being robust. Quite the opposite: it's the system being so delicate, that you wisely put it in a safe place and don't use it when you know it'd break if you did.

Rememeber that RA gives you low proficiency (+2 at 7th level) whenever you are improvising a physical action. No other class has this advantage.

RA is inferior to actual proficiency, which is available to all. Most fighters are going to be proficient in some physical skills, anyway, rendering RA moot. The fact that it's the Champion's only thing outside of combat is a clear illustration of how profoundly lack-luster a sub-class it is for anything but DPR.

 

[Erechel]

I clearly fail to see a difference between the two editions in the aspect you brought to the table, carzy arabian, besides the narrower liberty of the 4th edition DM to accomplish certain tasks. In the 5 Edition DMG (and in PHB if my mind isn't slippering) there are listed several examples of how to adjudicate difficulty. The outcome is not given by level, but by several factors.

And you are constructing a strawman. Both editions have similar rules to varying in tone, but you like more 4th, which is clearly focused on one aspect (combat). Every other aspect is only streamlined, but there is not a significant variation in tone than prior or this edition. Your complaint is "I cannot be as powerful as I use to be": this is a genre convention too. And is true and false at the same time. You can be as powerful with optional rules.

D&D has clearly a niche of genres that can fulfill optimally. It is a broad spectrum, though, as you could easily go from crime fiction to the super duper heroes that can overcome fearsome feats of valor and strength (AKA killing dragons/demons/whatever), to the clashing of armies like A Song of Ice and Fire. It can replicate other genres too (Space Opera is an example, but post apocalyptic zombi survival too, and also superheroic fantasy with the optional DMG rules, which aren't houserules at all, because they are brought from 4th edition and listed as variants in the DMG). You also can make a politicaly intrincated campaign, and add Reputation, Loyalty, Honor, etc. Or a lovecraftian horror genre: add madness (DMG).

Clearly, the fact you don't like is the flatter numbers. You want that level 13 were superheroes or demigods, capable of things than nothing else can accomplish. Fine. All you want is that numbers don't give any strenght at all, keeping irrelevant entire chunks of world construction (you can say the opposite in earlier editions: why a king bothers in gather an army, guards or a knightly order, if they are made irrelevant by a single champion? Nothing except the Big Damn Heroes can oppose a threat to +5 level enemies). But this is hardly a sign of bad design, and it can be hacked if you don't like it.

 

[Imaro]

No, I don't understand. The critical problem here in the 5e setup is the small growth in bonuses means you can't differentiate between heroes and ordinary people in terms of abilities and skills. The game simply cannot do it. No amount of picking different DCs will change that unless you start picking them purely on fictional grounds and ignoring mechanics.

This just isn't true... did you see my comparison of DC's vs. ability/proficiency bonuses earlier in the thread. There are DC's Mr. 10 in ability scores across the board and no training can't reach... that a hero with ability score 20 and prof bonus +4 can...


EDIT: This was in response to [MENTION=996]Tony Vargas[/MENTION] making the same claim...

Bolded for emphasis... you've made claims like this throughout this discussion... but they are patently false. Let's compare the range between someone who has maxed out an ability and taken training in a relevant skill vs. one with a 10 and no proficiency...

LVL	MaxAttribute+Prof	MaxAttribute	10Attribute+Prof	10Attribute
1	+6	+4	+2	0
5	+7	+4	+3	0
9	+8	+4	+4	0
13	+9	+4	+5	0
17	+10	+4	+6	0

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but tell me again how anyone with a 10 attribute and no proficiency has a chance to accomplish the same things as anyone else...


So even at first level the 20 attribute + prof character can complete tasks in the very hard range and will never fail a a difficulty of very easy... the 10 has no chance to tackle a very hard task and can fail at very easy tasks...


By level 17 a character with 20 attribute and prof has a chance to do the nearly impossible (DC 30)... Can someone with a 10 accomplish the same... can they even accomplish a very hard task? No. Even with advantage they can never accomplish either.


EDIT: Now I understand why the wizard is wasting spells to climb and jump, he doesn't have a choice... he's probably dumped strength so has a -1 instead of zero and is untrained... He can fail at the simplest of climbs and can't even make a hard check...

 

[Tony Vargas]

Yeah, that's just sort of an odd answer. It just seems to me that the 5e edge case has a greater implication for the fiction. Clearly all such edge cases devolve down to "don't do that!", never was it a totally satisfying answer...

"You fail" or "You succeed" are both legitimate resolutions, without rolls, to any action in 5e. The DM is inserted into the resolution system. Call it 'fiat in the middle,' if you like.

So, any absurd, unsavory, weird, or undesirable implications of the mechanics can be swept away. Rules imply that even a small army can bring down a dragon? Ignore them, and describe the dragon as scattering and decimating the army.

I dunno. I guess I never felt the constraints that so many people talk about. 5e is a set of rules, just like all others, you make it work to your service. Perhaps my attitude is left over from 0e days. Consequently I don't find there to be some advantage to 5e in terms of 'make stuff up'.

It's not a technique that constitutes a unique advantage of 5e, but 5e is designed with the clear intent that you use that technique, frequently, and as a matter of course. Other games use DM fiat only as a safety net.

My criteria is always "how much stuff do I HAVE to make up." If I buy a game, why not have it work as intended from day one?

Because it would take a lot of design work? Because someone else might not /like/ the way it was intended to work?

In the end none of this is any tragic flaw. 5e works OK, and you don't have to paper over anything substantially more than you would in older editions, generally speaking. 5e just seems to be designed to produce a more 'low fantasy' type of result where even your really boss hero guys are still basically qualitatively in the same realm as the rest of the ordinary world.

Bounded Accuracy points that way, but the DM doesn't have to follow. If a player says his character runs on the wall like in Prince of Persia, the DM is free to make that easy or impossible or just let it work or fail automatically.

 

[Erechel]

This just isn't true... did you see my comparison of DC's vs. ability/proficiency bonuses earlier in the thread. There are DC's Mr. 10 in ability scores across the board and no training can't reach... that a hero with ability score 20 and prof bonus +4 can...

Absolutelly true. The maximum that a Mister Average can do is a Hard task without any magical help or special training, and only 5% of the time. A slightly difficultier task (21) is above him.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Absolutelly true. The maximum that a Mister Average can do is a Hard task without any magical help or special training, and only 5% of the time. A slightly difficultier task (21) is above him.

Yes. A character with a bonus can hit a DC of 21 that a character without a bonus can't, as Imaro pointed out:

Let's compare the range between someone who has maxed out an ability and taken training in a relevant skill vs. one with a 10 and no proficiency...

LVL	MaxAttribute+Prof	MaxAttribute	10Attribute+Prof	10Attribute
1	+6	+4	+2	0
5	+7	+4	+3	0
9	+8	+4	+4	0
13	+9	+4	+5	0
17	+10	+4	+6	0

Maybe I'm doing something wrong but tell me again how anyone with a 10 attribute and no proficiency has a chance to accomplish the same things as anyone else...


So even at first level the 20 attribute + prof character can complete tasks in the very hard range and will never fail a a difficulty of very easy... the 10 has no chance to tackle a very hard task and can fail at very easy tasks...

But, a character with no bonus can also do as well or beat a character with maxed stat bonus and proficiency at +11, because (again) 5e met the Bounded Accuracy design goal. A d20 can overwhelm a +11. Mr. +11 rolls a 3, scores a 14, and fails a DC 15. Mr. +0 rolls a 16 and succeeds. Mr. 0 has saved the day, where Mr. 11 has failed. Que spotlight.

That's the basis for the idea that most characters can participate or even contribute in most out of combat checks, most of the time. And that, in turn, is the basis for the Fighter being able to do much of anything out of combat, at all. That even though other characters may have proficiency or other stacking bonuses, those bonuses can be overwhelmed by a bit of d20 luck.

I clearly fail to see a difference between the two editions in the aspect you brought to the table, carzy arabian

Am I remembering correctly, from a prior, thread, that you were not here for the edition war? Because, you seem intent on creating a new 4v5 war, and you'd be virtually alone in that desire.

Most fans of 4e are the type who simply play (and, perhaps, defend on-line) the current edition. The current edition is now 5e, and most of us are dutifully playing it.

The 'h4ters' were not-too-visibly split between 3.5/Pathfinder hold-outs and OSR grognards/classic D&D fans. The latter, particularly 2e fans, are mostly pretty happy with 5e, and the former seem content that they 'won' with the demise 4e, and see 5e as a symbol of that victory, even if they're not about to play it in favor of Pathfinder.

In short, the war is over, you missed it. Stop shooting.