D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Imaro]

First I never talked about "Mr Hobo McTen", you guys made that up. I talked about a high stat ordinary person, who has at least a +4 (possibly a +5) stat bonus. I'll assume that 'ordinary people' have nothing like a proficiency bonus, but that's not established, and presumably if an NPC '0 level' human had one it would be +2, right?

Anyway, the point is you can certainly achieve a 24 as a basic human. Making the same assumptions in 4e yields the same results, except that a 24 is a hard level 5 DC in 4e. So the limit of hard checks a normal 4e human can make is level 5. In 5e its hard to say what it is, its a 'hard check' for what its worth. Now you can make 'lifting a mountain' etc however hard you want, DC 30 whatever. There's just not a huge amount of room there between 'maybe a peasant can do it' and 'pretty much nobody can do it at all' (DC 30 being almost the limit of what you can do on an ability check).

So, all the hyperbole about "Mr McTen" aside, there's a very narrow range in 5e such that if you need to push something off the top of the range for low level or even ordinary people you have to almost push it off the range for even 20th level PCs. That's the downside of BA. You guys don't seem to be able to acknowledge ANY downside, but that doesn't make it go away. This effect does put a hard limitation on the range of fiction you can attach to the check system in 5e.

Its fine if you don't care about any of this, but trying to argue that it doesn't exist is just plain silly.

We're arguing that your original assertion was wrong... if you'd like to revise what it is you're saying then fine, state it and we can go from there... but there is a difference in "heroes" vs commoners, you're even admitting it here... maybe the range is not to your personal liking but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also we're using straight 10's because a commoner as defined in the Monster Manual has straight 10's across the board and no proficiency bonuses... That's the baseline common man in default 5e.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Really... there was a time some monsters scaled by hit die... some would argue hit die size for classes scales by class... so no everything hasn't always scaled based on level. The point is you're assuming that's the way things must scale and it's not.

I'm not sure at all what you mean. In 'classic' D&D hit dice and level were exactly equivalent. An ogre, at 4+4 hit dice was effectively a level 5 figure. It saved and attacked on the same chart as a level 5 fighter and had the same hit points in OD&D. 1e and up granted fighters a bonus, making them d10 hit dice instead of d8 (rangers remained d8, but got a bonus die at level 1). B/X retained the d8 hit die fighter IIRC right to the end.

So it wasn't a matter of scaling 'by something else'. Monsters in fact don't advance, so in a sense the progression is only across what you take on, but clearly each tougher rank of monsters has another hit die and mainly appears on the corresponding dungeon level wandering monster table. Now, high level monsters, like high level PCs, tend to be more defined by other things than hit dice/level, but it is still a good overall measure (a 10 HD giant is quite a bit weaker than a 10 HD demon, but both are pretty dangerous).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, I would think maybe a character with more of a repertoire of self-targeting buffs. Its hard to be sure which spells fall into the EK's usual repertoire given the lack of an index of spell schools, but IIRC most of the good self-buffs are transmutations. You CAN get some of those, and I guess with the way spell slots work you could always burn all your casting chances on them, but the wizard list isn't really the best one for such spells.

So, maybe I'd like to see a more tailored list, with Haste, Strength, Stone Skin, etc sort of stuff on it (again, the EK does get some of these). Really, the EK is NOT bad, and I have always said that I think 5e covers the majority of archetypes in a more convenient way than pretty much any other edition.

I see, so melee-combat-useful spells, mainly. No reason you couldn't adjust the EK's list or create a few new spells (or bring back a few from prior eds).

Honestly, my big beef with it is it just doesn't do the particular style of game that we seem to play these days.

It can probably be made to do that particular style.

First I never talked about "Mr Hobo McTen", you guys made that up. I talked about a high stat ordinary person, who has at least a +4 (possibly a +5) stat bonus. I'll assume that 'ordinary people' have nothing like a proficiency bonus, but that's not established, and presumably if an NPC '0 level' human had one it would be +2, right?

1/8th level Kobolds have proficiency bonuses with their weapons - based on reverse-engineering from their stats, that is, so, yeah, if we want to go the rules-as-laws-of-physics rout, it would appear that ordinary folk would have proficiency bonuses - in things they've learned to do. Nothing forces a DM to abide by that reverse-engineered mechanical consistency, of course.

Anyway, the point is you can certainly achieve a 24 as a basic human. Now you can make 'lifting a mountain' etc however hard you want, DC 30 whatever. There's just not a huge amount of room there between 'maybe a peasant can do it' and 'pretty much nobody can do it at all' (DC 30 being almost the limit of what you can do on an ability check).

30 would be 'nearly impossible,' which would presumably be too easy for lifting a mountain, since it's impossible. This is where the DM simply doesn't call for a roll. "No, you can't lift mountains." (Or, "you lift the mountain, you're taking 55 (10d10) damage per round from the strain, what do you do next?")

The thing is, the DM can always do that. The peasant sees the hero juggle boulders and tries, he doesn't succeed on a natural 20 (even if that would hit the same DC as the hero did), he just fails without rolling.

there's a very narrow range in 5e such that if you need to push something off the top of the range for low level or even ordinary people you have to almost push it off the range for even 20th level PCs. That's the downside of BA. You guys don't seem to be able to acknowledge ANY downside, but that doesn't make it go away. This effect does put a hard limitation on the range of fiction you can attach to the check system in 5e.

Sure. Bounded Accuracy is meant to keep the lower echelons (whether lower level, or lesser ability within a pillar or with a specific skill or ability or whatever) relevant longer. It does that. It may mean that checks can't model some of the more extreme things you might find in genre, but checks are something the DM can call for, or not. So if you run your story off the Bounded Accuracy cliff, you can just make it fly.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

We're arguing that your original assertion was wrong... if you'd like to revise what it is you're saying then fine, state it and we can go from there... but there is a difference in "heroes" vs commoners, you're even admitting it here... maybe the range is not to your personal liking but that doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Also we're using straight 10's because a commoner as defined in the Monster Manual has straight 10's across the board and no proficiency bonuses... That's the baseline common man in default 5e.

Well, you chose that. My argument was more that "black smith's apprentice" could do some pretty fantastic feats of STR if you were to set the higher parts of the check range to represent really fantastical things. Because 4e has a much wider range of check bonuses from bottom to top, you can set the part of the range that represents amazing feats of STR beyond the top of what the village strong guy can hit, and STILL have a goodly range to work with so that you can differentiate between the merely impossible (IE lifting a house) and the entirely fantastical (IE lifting a Hill). Thus 4e can be used to represent that sort of environment (which covers a good bit of legendary material BTW, though not much modern fiction goes there). You just wouldn't want to do that with 5e, or you would have to A) retreat to DM fiat or B) Propose some sort of 'Mythic Tier of Play' that isn't detailed in the current rules and move that kind of thing into it with different rules. It just seemed that it was a more accessible range of play in 4e. I would say in some sense it was more accessible in earlier 'classic' D&D as well, where you had Girdles of Storm Giant Strength that allowed you to access the 'godlike' stat range (IE a 25 STR in 1e is the highest possible STR, and a PC can access it, though probably only at very high levels). Ability scores above 18 were also in those days considered to be a 'non-linear' range, so 19-25 represent probably geometric increases in raw physical power.

Now, 5e could explore that option too, although they seem to have already defined ability score bonuses for the higher range. It wouldn't help with problems of checks, but at least it would provide some more formalized basis for a GM to say "OK, the fighter's STR is 22, he can lift the 1 ton stone lid, the 17 STR Cleric, he can't even try."

 

[Imaro]

Well, you chose that.

Dude I've quoted exactly what you asserted about 5e numerous times... I didn't choose it, you posted it and I responded.

 

[Erechel]

I talked about a high stat ordinary person, who has at least a +4 (possibly a +5) stat bonus.

I want to believe that you actually acknowledge that a 18 strenght peasant is rather unique, and shines in his own, special way. Base soldiers actually have 14 St, and even Orcs and trained veteran knights are actually weaker than him (16 St). Hell, a variant human fighter is weaker than him most times (17 strength at best). But they also have a few more hit points, and access to armor and better weapons, and miscelaneous abilities that put him behind them. You are clearly creating a strawman argument.

Honestly, my big beef with it is it just doesn't do the particular style of game that 4e was especially good at all that well, and that's the type we seem to play these days.

Honesty appreciated. But you understand that it isn't a fail of 5th Edition, which accomplish quite well his objectives, but a fail between your expectations and the realization of the game, and that it is exactly the catch that many of the D&D fans had when 4th edition was brought.

So, D&D 5th Edition does not suck at all, it only does not shine (as much) in the very particular aspect that you actually like (the exponential, animesque -and please didn't take that as an insult, I really like Dragon Ball and One Piece- power growth of the characters), but it can accomplish quite well a narrower power growth, without neither Dump Stats nor worthless or iterative classes, and overall simplicity of the system, and actual swiftness of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, you chose that. My argument was more that "black smith's apprentice" could do some pretty fantastic feats of STR if you were to set the higher parts of the check range to represent really fantastical things.

Nothing stops you from tweaking 5e that way, but the DCs top out at 'nearly impossible' - not sure how much room is left between that and actually impossible, for fantastical to squeeze in.

But, if it's 35, you're talking only max-stat, proficient-with-expertise, high-level characters being able to touch it. No danger of anyone remotely 'normal' rolling a 35 with a +0 or +4 or whatever. Not too much danger of the +17 ubercharacter doing it, either, of course.

But, as always, the DM needn't call for a check.

You just wouldn't want to do that with 5e, or you would have to A) retreat to DM fiat or B) Propose some sort of 'Mythic Tier of Play' that isn't detailed in the current rules and move that kind of thing into it with different rules.

5e doesn't "retreat to DM fiat" - it may not be called that, but it jumps in with the more modestly phrased "How to Play" on page 3 of the Basic pdf, and makes it clear, up front, that DM may call for rolls, and that it is he who decides how all actions are resolved and describes the results of that resolution.

Adding something like B would be doable, I'm sure. Given the extensive rules for check difficulties in the first 20 levels of play (one DC table), it shouldn't take much.

Honesty appreciated. But you understand that it isn't a fail of 5th Edition, which accomplish quite well his objectives, but a fail between your expectations and the realization of the game

5e did have an objective of inclusiveness, so, yes, any fan finding their 'style' unsupported is a failure in that sense. 5e tried to be inclusive with a fairly large number of PC options (for a PH1, obviously, it can't compare to whole editions), some optional rules in the PH, and more than a few alternate rule 'modules' (variants) in the DMG, but it was never going to be able to please absolutely everyone.

That it mostly failed to please 4e and Pathfinder fans is only to be expected, given that capturing the classic feel of the game was also a goal, and clearly a very important one.

So, D&D 5th Edition does not suck at all, it only does not shine in the aspect that you actually like, but it can accomplish quite well a narrower power growth, without neither Dump Stats nor worthless or iterative classes, and overall simplicity of the system, and actual swiftness of the game.

Really, it's a little overblown. Bounded Accuracy is just smaller numbers - just like, really, hps are just bigger numbers. It's not hard to adjust numbers.

 

[Imaro]

Well, you chose that. My argument was more that "black smith's apprentice" could do some pretty fantastic feats of STR if you were to set the higher parts of the check range to represent really fantastical things. Because 4e has a much wider range of check bonuses from bottom to top, you can set the part of the range that represents amazing feats of STR beyond the top of what the village strong guy can hit, and STILL have a goodly range to work with so that you can differentiate between the merely impossible (IE lifting a house) and the entirely fantastical (IE lifting a Hill). Thus 4e can be used to represent that sort of environment (which covers a good bit of legendary material BTW, though not much modern fiction goes there). You just wouldn't want to do that with 5e, or you would have to A) retreat to DM fiat or B) Propose some sort of 'Mythic Tier of Play' that isn't detailed in the current rules and move that kind of thing into it with different rules. It just seemed that it was a more accessible range of play in 4e. I would say in some sense it was more accessible in earlier 'classic' D&D as well, where you had Girdles of Storm Giant Strength that allowed you to access the 'godlike' stat range (IE a 25 STR in 1e is the highest possible STR, and a PC can access it, though probably only at very high levels). Ability scores above 18 were also in those days considered to be a 'non-linear' range, so 19-25 represent probably geometric increases in raw physical power.

Now, 5e could explore that option too, although they seem to have already defined ability score bonuses for the higher range. It wouldn't help with problems of checks, but at least it would provide some more formalized basis for a GM to say "OK, the fighter's STR is 22, he can lift the 1 ton stone lid, the 17 STR Cleric, he can't even try."

I don't know if at this point you are genuinely interested in a mythological feeling 5e... but I don't think, at least how I would do it, it would feel much like 4e... well except for the fact that I would use the variant rest rules in the DMG from 4e. Otherwise I would use the rules for awarding Boons in the DMG as a baseline for mythological play... thrown in hero points, some magic items and possibly a blessing or two you've got a pretty high powered game, but in a different way than 4e. These are pretty much demi-gods.. but like many of the old myths but moreso legends and folktales they can still be bested (Albeit very, very rarely) in a task, contest, etc. by a mortal. I think this is a better fit for my playstyle and stories... where humans can possibly but rarely best the gods... but I can understand if it's not your cup of tea.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I want to believe that you actually acknowledge that a 18 strenght peasant is rather unique, and shines in his own, special way. Base soldiers actually have 14 St, and even Orcs and trained veteran knights are actually weaker than him (16 St). Hell, a variant human fighter is weaker than him most times (17 strength at best). But they also have a few more hit points, and access to armor and better weapons, and miscelaneous abilities that put him behind them. You are clearly creating a strawman argument.

There's no strawman argument here, assuming you don't count proficiency, a 'normal human', albeit one that is 'the best guy in this small town', but still a person you will encounter commonly in your normal life, can get more than 2/3 of the way to the top of the DC curve by rolling a 20 (24 total with his ability bonus) and potentially might be worth another +2 for proficiency. This gets him to the Very Hard DC, which is nearly the top of the chart. Most 20th level PCs will have some trouble hitting this DC on most checks.

Honesty appreciated. But you understand that it isn't a fail of 5th Edition, which accomplish quite well his objectives, but a fail between your expectations and the realization of the game, and that it is exactly the catch that many of the D&D fans had when 4th edition was brought.

So, D&D 5th Edition does not suck at all, it only does not shine (as much) in the very particular aspect that you actually like (the exponential, animesque -and please didn't take that as an insult, I really like Dragon Ball and One Piece- power growth of the characters), but it can accomplish quite well a narrower power growth, without neither Dump Stats nor worthless or iterative classes, and overall simplicity of the system, and actual swiftness of the game.

Well, I am not sure I appreciate your drive-by attacks on 4th edition, they're still not very transparent, but be that as it may... I'm not sure what the big 'honesty' is. I've never stated that I hated or had a real problem with 5e. This is just a thread that was about stating the negative side of the 5e equation. I don't think there are huge negatives. If you want to play basically 2e AD&D then 5e is an excellent game. You should perhaps learn to appreciate more games though, its more fun that way.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I don't know if at this point you are genuinely interested in a mythological feeling 5e... but I don't think, at least how I would do it, it would feel much like 4e... well except for the fact that I would use the variant rest rules in the DMG from 4e. Otherwise I would use the rules for awarding Boons in the DMG as a baseline for mythological play... thrown in hero points, some magic items and possibly a blessing or two you've got a pretty high powered game, but in a different way than 4e. These are pretty much demi-gods.. but like many of the old myths but moreso legends and folktales they can still be bested (Albeit very, very rarely) in a task, contest, etc. by a mortal. I think this is a better fit for my playstyle and stories... where humans can possibly but rarely best the gods... but I can understand if it's not your cup of tea.

I'm not sure if it is or not. I think 4e's epic characters both succeed AND fail in various ways to capture that sort of thing. The MAIN issue, really, with 4e is mostly the same issue that has dogged D&D from day one. Low level play 'works' in all editions. It works a bit differently in each one perhaps, but it works reasonably well. Then your characters start on the loot and advance cycle, which is great, except there's always got to be another widget or two, another class feature/feat/ASI/power/spell/whatever, etc. All that cruft adds up. In every version of the game high level PC character sheets are filled with cruft. It would be nicer if the character would remain cleaner, but D&D has never figured it out. You always have all those low level items, and then higher level items and on and on.

So 4e sort of failed in that department. Your epic characters are festooned with an amazing amount of cruft. Not that 1e, 2e, or 3e really had it better. I've always wanted to have a system be more crafted to less of that, but I don't really see 5e being a big advance there either. I keep hearing people say it has 'simpler rules', but IMHO that's not the case. Characters are certainly no simpler, my level 5 character has a 3 page sheet already.

So, yes, in mythological play I'd be happy with a few simple boons, but I'd be happy with that in standard play too...