D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Manbearcat]

I don't look at it in this fashion. The way I see it is a return to the time when you wing it with some loose rules for how to do it. The focus is on the imagination. You make up what you want to do.

For example, a 5E DM could incorporate a 4E skill challenge. He would write out what he wants accomplished like say negotiating with a steward to gain entrance to a castle. He turns it into a skill challenge. You have the rogue make a Deception and Sleight of Hand check to acquire a letter providing information on deliveries to the castle. You could then have the Paladin use persuasion to get the group hired as delivery men to the castle. Then you have the wizard make an intelligence check with a Forgery kit to properly forge the documents for the delivery. You set the DCs according to what you deem each tasks relatively difficulty. Let the players roll, resolve the situation without combat using skill checks. ALl very possible in 5E.

Or you can use DCs if a rogue is climbing a cliff and he is suddenly catches on a series of slippery stones. You have him make Athletics checks to get past the slippery area.

You can use the DC system in whatever fashion suits you. You may wing it at times forcing checks on the fly to create some dramatic tension. You may plan it all out in advance having the skill challenged written out. There are not inherent limitations in 5E that disallow you from using a 4E skill challenge or a 3E DC for acrobatics. I don't understand why anyone believes there is something in place to stop them from doing so. If you want the world to seem static and real, write up a bunch of DCs for common acts. Problem solved. If you don't, then don't. The 5E skill and DC system can be used in a similar fashion to either 3E or 4E. The complaint seems to be "It isn't codified for us like 3E or 4E." It isn't. That doesn't mean you can't use either system or devise one to your liking. There is nothing in 5E to stop you from doing so.

Couple thoughts here (a bit discrete and a bit synergistic):

1) This position is a little tough to swallow after enduring the never-ending cavalcade of histrionics about the verisimilitude holocaust that was the utterly non-prolific Damage on a Miss and 1 measly 7th level Fighter Encounter Power (against 19th other choices) during the 4e era and on through the 5e playtest.

2) Treating GM Force as the answer, more than that...a virtue (you don't have to worry about testing the veracity of your heroic mettle in the crucible of the resolution mechanics because I'll just always spin a yarn when the system's vulnerabilities, which would render that veracity untenable and your archetype illegitimate, stare us in the face), isn't a selling point for a GM like me who abhors the practice.

3) Finally, sure. Let us accept that I am inclined (I'm not but let us accept it) to do the math through the levels to sort out median ability checks for each archetype (Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Diplomacy, Nature, Religion, Stealth, et al) through the levels. From there, I can discern what the Medium and High DC should be for the percentages I feel would yield "archetype legitimacy" (let us just say 85 % and 60 % for the sake of argument). There are still lots of problems:

a) With the deflation of bonuses due to the Bounded Accuracy directive, you have severe contraction of "archetype separation". In 4e, a Fighter's Athletics check dramatically outweighs (i) the randomness of the d20 and (ii) the Athletics check of the Wizard (and that ilk). For 5e, neither is true and deeply not true by comparison. This has an irrevocable effect on (GM Forceless) play.

b) I still have to perform the necessary maths to map a 5e SC analogue to the expectant math success rate in 4e's 1-5 complexities such that the percentage chance of success for the overall challenge achieves relative equilibrium. This will include sorting out the implication of Advantages and Hard DCs to be deployed.

c) The standard cost in a 4e SC for micro-failure and macro-failure of Healing Surges has no analogue in 5e. Hit Dice do not remotely carry the same thematic or mechanical implications on pacing generally or the adventuring day and the encounter (ESPECIALLY the encounter) specifically. Another "failure tax" entirely would need to be sorted out.

d) How does the deployment of other commodities (such as gold but especially daily spell slots) interface with the 5e SC derivative for noncombat conflict resolution? You can't just carry over how DMG2 handles this (1/10 an of level item in gold for auto-success or 2 successes for a fictional positioning relevant daily expenditure). You're going to have to figure that out.

e) Secondary Skill Augments? How do you incorporate that in to the maths? And what kind of augments? Advantage? That seems too powerful but not using Advantage sort of breaks from the spirit of the system.

There is a lot more to it than (involving the utility encounter power structure) that but I've spilt enough virtual ink already.

Suffice to say, 5e's overall design ethos, GMing ethos, combat resolution system, noncombat resolution system, pacing infrastructure and expectations, and a whole host of other things are not remotely compatible with 4e. And that is fine. I do not mind at all. I enjoy several systems, 4e being one of them. I'm not going to behave like a jilted lover and lose my mind over lack of current support from WotC. I'll still run 4e. I'll run Dungeon World. I'll run Cortex + Fantasy Heroic/MHRP/SMALLVILLE. I'll run Apocalypse World. I'll run Dread. I'll run Dogs in the Vineyard. I'll run RC or 1e D&D when I just want to do a one-off dungeon crawl with old friends.

I'm actually quite happy that a lot of old 2e advocates have a svelte, modernized version of their beloved system. They have been waiting for a very long time and they are a very large contingent of lapsed D&Ders.

It would just be nice if we could admit this reality at a consensus level and not try to whitewash the whole "Big Tent" messaging by the design team (that engendered and kept the momentum of the good-fath, non-rancorous buy-in into the exhaustive playtest) and the anti-4e crowd during the playtest wringing their hands at everything that remotely resembled 4e in the playtest materials, subsequently fist-bumping every time that material was removed/eroded, while simultaneously trying to quell an obnoxious deluge of a forum assault from unified 4e advocate uproar (which never came for various reasons...thankfully so) with HEY YOU 4E GUY STOP BEING A DRAMA QUEEN AND JUST WAIT FOR THE MODULES IT WILL BE OK...BIG TENT REMEMBER...OK...Cool?

 

[S_Dalsgaard]

Cool, so you agree that the fighter doesn't bring anything cool or meaningful to non-combat situations.

Sure, if the entire campaign is dealing with one door, without any time constraints, then a party really don't need a fighter and will probably work best with wizards who all have memorized the Knock spell and have maxed their strength.

In fact I would say that most games could work perfectly well without a fighter in the group, just like they could work perfectly well without any wizards (or any other specific class).

I think our group plays the game differently from many others, or so it would seem from many of the comments I see here. Our fighter is just as likely to negotiate with the merchant as the bard is. The fighter will take the lead when talking to the martially inclined king, while the bard uses his charms on the young music-loving princess. The fighter will use his strength to Intimidate the captured bandit, while the sorcerer uses his charisma (bad cop, good cop) and they will both have more or less equal chance of getting the information they need.

 

[Erechel]

What are you talking about? I specifically raised ability checks - not skill checks - as a consequence of bounded accuracy leading to some weird circumstances in game. You can spout maths all you want, I don't care, I see this happening more in 5e than previous versions of the game.

Not only that, If I say B, you can't use C as some kind of proof.

The DMG actually goes into detail about this weirdness so even the designers identify it as a potential issue.

My wrong. I actually understand that you were talking about skill checks, not ability checks. But that is not a matter of BA at all, because you are talking about non trained skills which does not count as a BA problem, because BA matters where there is a skill check, not an Ability Check. And then here comes the importance of fighter's Remarkable Athlete feature.

And an easy solve to your problem is that to have the sightiest chance to accomplish a task you have to fulfill a prerequisite (a mechanic already used for several things, like feats and multiclass): for example, having at leat 15 St to smash a particular type of door, or having to use tools like a ram if you don't.

 

[Manbearcat]

Cool, so you agree that the fighter doesn't bring anything cool or meaningful to non-combat situations.

Nope. I suspect he also finds it a big plus that the fighter actually has a chance to erect walls of stone to cut off pursuit, turn into another person, fly/teleport, see into the future, and gate in an overwhelmingly powerful creature when the party doesn't include a wizard.

 

[Celtavian]

Couple thoughts here (a bit discrete and a bit synergistic):

1) This position is a little tough to swallow after enduring the never-ending cavalcade of histrionics about the verisimilitude holocaust that was the utterly non-prolific Damage on a Miss and 1 measly 7th level Fighter Encounter Power (against 19th other choices) during the 4e era and on through the 5e playtest.

This has nothing to do with the discussion. Completely separate discussion.

Treatting GM Force as the answer, more than that...a virtue (you don't have to worry about testing the veracity of your heroic mettle in the crucible of the resolution mechanics because I'll just always spin a yarn when the system's vulnerabilities, which would render that veracity untenable and your archetype illegitimate, stare us in the face), isn't a selling point for a GM like me who abhors the practice.

GM force is always used. Even in 4E, the GM or module designer chooses what the mechanic will be used for. I never have and never will understand the belief that anything else occurs. Even the few times I DMed 4E, I created the skill challenges. I decided when they occurred, what skills or abilities would be involved, and the entire fiction behind the resolution process. This aspect of the game is no different in 5E...or 3E...or 2E...or 1E. When there is a game with a DM, he always has GM force or authority. Always. The mechanics are the illusion that he uses like a stage magician doing a magic trick.

3) Finally, sure. Let us accept that I am inclined (I'm not but let us accept it) to do the math through the levels to sort out median ability checks for each archetype (Acrobatics, Arcana, Athletics, Diplomacy, Nature, Religion, Stealth, et al) through the levels. From there, I can discern what the Medium and High DC should be for the percentages I feel would yield "archetype legitimacy" (let us just say 85 % and 60 % for the sake of argument). There are still lots of problems:

a) With the deflation of bonuses due to the Bounded Accuracy directive, you have severe contraction of "archetype separation". In 4e, a Fighter's Athletics check dramatically outweighs (i) the randomness of the d20 and (ii) the Athletics check of the Wizard (and that ilk). For 5e, neither is true and deeply not true by comparison. This has an irrevocable effect on (GM Forceless) play.

You can make it true quite easily. Then again if a wizard chooses to have an 18 strength and athletics, he should be able to accomplish similar tasks. If he has a 10 strength, I've already explained how to use this skill system to make it so the wizard can't accomplish the same task by using ability thresholds to determine if it is even possible. Your criticism doesn't hold up. You can easily put the same tasks out of the reach of a low strength character.

b) I still have to perform the necessary maths to map a 5e SC analogue to the expectant math success rate in 4e's 1-5 complexities such that the percentage chance of success for the overall challenge achieves relative equilibrium. This will include sorting out the implication of Advantages and Hard DCs to be deployed.

The complexities were not that complex. We're not talking advanced physics. It's basic percentages. Most people can do this in their head. I used to calculate percentages in 3E all the time. I calculated DPR for particular ACs during encounter design in my head all the time for 3E to make sure a challenge was where I wanted it. The simple math of RPGs isn't hard. If it takes you more than a minute or so to calculate percentages, I will be very surprised. It's all very easy.

c) The standard cost in a 4e SC for micro-failure and macro-failure of Healing Surges has no analogue in 5e. Hit Dice do not remotely carry the same thematic or mechanical implications on pacing generally or the adventuring day and the encounter (ESPECIALLY the encounter) specifically. Another "failure tax" entirely would need to be sorted out.

You can spend hit dice? You could easily transfer a mechanic that allows you to spend short rest hit dice in place of healing surges or you could use levels of exhaustion or reduced maximum hit points to show the fatigue or failure effect in 5E. It is an easy analogue. Get creative. In the DMG they have an optional rule for healing surges.

d) How does the deployment of other commodities (such as gold but especially daily spell slots) interface with the 5e SC derivative for noncombat conflict resolution? You can't just carry over how DMG2 handles this (1/10 an of level item in gold for auto-success or 2 successes for a fictional positioning relevant daily expenditure). You're going to have to figure that out.

Couldn't you allow someone to spend a spell slot or an action surge to accomplish the same thing? Or some lay on hands? Or something else that requires a long rest? Get creative.

e) Secondary Skill Augments? How do you incorporate that in to the maths? And what kind of augments? Advantage? That seems too powerful but not using Advantage sort of breaks from the spirit of the system.

Or a 1d4 like guidance? Or 1d8 like superiority dice? Nothing requires you use only advantage/disadvantage. The spirit of the system is "DM do as you wish to make what you wish happen. We have no say in your game." The only rule the players require is making it fun, interesting, and challenging.

Suffice to say, 5e's overall design ethos, GMing ethos, combat resolution system, noncombat resolution system, pacing infrastructure and expectations, and a whole host of other things are not remotely compatible with 4e. And that is fine. I do not mind at all. I enjoy several systems, 4e being one of them. I'm not going to behave like a jilted lover and lose my mind over lack of current support from WotC. I'll still run 4e. I'll run Dungeon World. I'll run Cortex + Fantasy Heroic/MHRP/SMALLVILLE. I'll run Apocalypse World. I'll run Dread. I'll run Dogs in the Vineyard. I'll run RC or 1e D&D when I just want to do a one-off dungeon crawl with old friends.

I'm actually quite happy that a lot of old 2e advocates have a svelte, modernized version of their beloved system. They have been waiting for a very long time and they are a very large contingent of lapsed D&Ders.

It would just be nice if we could admit this reality at a consensus level and not try to whitewash the whole "Big Tent" messaging by the design team (that engendered and kept the momentum of the good-fath, non-rancorous buy-in into the exhaustive playtest) and the anti-4e crowd during the playtest wringing their hands at everything that remotely resembled 4e in the playtest materials, subsequently fist-bumping every time that material was removed/eroded, while simultaneously trying to quell an obnoxious deluge of a forum assault from unified 4e advocate uproar (which never came for various reasons...thankfully so) with HEY YOU 4E GUY STOP BEING A DRAMA QUEEN AND JUST WAIT FOR THE MODULES IT WILL BE OK...BIG TENT REMEMBER...OK...Cool?

This system is adaptable to what a person wants to do. It is very customizable. Pretending this system is hardcoded is false.

I've played every edition of D&D. This is the more barebones, customizable edition of D&D I've ever played. You can literally tack on rulesets from other editions and get them to work pretty easily. It's very modular. You could add on more feats and not break the game. You could use healing surges and not break the game. People have gotten rid of concentration and not broken the game.

I feel at the moment the critics are saying "I prefer this other system that already does what I want." And that's fine. But pretending this incredibly adaptive edition of D&D can't incorporate other play-styles is false. You have to do the work yourself. If you don't want to do it, then that is fine. Saying it can't be done in this edition is false. You could even raise the stats to 40 or higher and create an epic game easier than any previous edition. The numbers in this edition are so simple that you can do almost any play-style adaptation with it.

That is why I don't get the complaints. If you want to play 5E, play it. Port in what you like from 4E and adapt 5E. If you prefer 4E, play that. Don't claim 5E can't incorporate any play-style including 4E style skill challenges or static world DCs. Just thinking it should be done for you by the game designers is not a flaw of 5E.

 

[Celtavian]

Cool, so you agree that the fighter doesn't bring anything cool or meaningful to non-combat situations.

A fighter doesn't have skills? A fighter can't choose to be a caster as well? A fighter can't be an academic?

What exactly do you expect a fighter to be able to do?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

That is why I don't get the complaints. If you want to play 5E, play it. Port in what you like from 4E and adapt 5E. If you prefer 4E, play that. Don't claim 5E can't incorporate any play-style including 4E style skill challenges or static world DCs. Just thinking it should be done for you by the game designers is not a flaw of 5E.

If all this is true, then why can't you accept that 4e is equally flexible? It has basically the same DC/check type system, same ability score mechanics, etc. Its absolutely just as flexible and generalized a system as you claim 5e is. If 5e can do basically any flavor of D&D, etc, then so can 4e. I mean we've SEEN with 4e almost completely redesigning the core classes. They did it and maintained total compatibility with the existing classes. Without that constraint the sky is the limit. The flat out truth of the matter is that 4e could have had a book added to it the size of the 5e PHB to provide the same style of play that 5e affords.

And the reason [MENTION=80414]Bearcat[/MENTION]man objects is perfectly understandable to me. The only reason this is 5th edition and not a 4e supplement is fan outrage. So you gotta understand, we're tired of all the "4e bad, couldn't have done X, Y, Z, didn't work, wasn't D&D, blah blah blah blah blah." Its all about 'PR' not what you can do with mechanics. The only thing worth talking about is what the mechanics ARE and what we prefer, that's all. Every time someone sticks an edition label on a comment that isn't identifying the edition for the purpose of clarity when discussing a specific mechanic, they're bashing.

 

[Ashkelon]

A fighter doesn't have skills? A fighter can't choose to be a caster as well? A fighter can't be an academic?

What exactly do you expect a fighter to be able to do?

But those are all things other players already have access to, and generally are more competent at than a fighter. After all, if the 10 STR wizard still has a chance to succeed at pretty much any STR related challenge you might face, what is the fighter actually bringing to the table that is unique?

As for abilities I think would be great for the fighter to have access to, I have stated them many times in this thread, but here are just a few examples.

The ability to treat the result of a STR (Athletics) check as your fighter level instead of your roll.

The ability to jump 2x as far as normal without using a resource.

The ability use Action surge to gain a +10 bonus to a STR or CON check you are about to make.

The ability to deal double damage to objects and structures.

Getting to use Athletics in place of any STR check you make.

The ability to gain a climb and swim speed so you don't need to make checks to climb or swim.

Doubling your carrying capacity (or more at higher levels) so you can lift giant boulders, move terrain features too massive for others to interact with, etc.

Basically, I want the party to say "cool, I'm glad we have this Strength based warrior here to help us deal with this situation" instead of saying, well Jim the 10 STR wizard can already do everything the fighter does outside of combat well enough, so we are fine leaving the the fighter at home.

 

[Bluenose]

Nope. I suspect he also finds it a big plus that the fighter actually has a chance to erect walls of stone to cut off pursuit, turn into another person, fly/teleport, see into the future, and gate in an overwhelmingly powerful creature when the party doesn't include a wizard.

Be fair. The Fighter should have to roll unusually high to do those things. Not that there's any skill involved in casting spells, but the poor casters will no doubt feel very hard done by if their strengths can be easily duplicated by someone who doesn't even have to roll a high score.

A fighter doesn't have skills? A fighter can't choose to be a caster as well? A fighter can't be an academic?

What exactly do you expect a fighter to be able to do?

I want each class and each character to bring something unique and amazing that the other classes don't provide to the table. I want each class to have high level abilities that are appropriate for the sort of challenges they face at that level. I want to feel like I can pick any class and over the course of an adventure expect to be as useful as any other class, unless that adventure is exceptionally focused on a single area of adventuring, and if it is exceptionally focused I want the class(es) that are good in that area to be good at that, and the ones that aren't to be poor, and I don't want classes that can change entirely from being good in one area to being good in another the next day. If you're going to have classes that are highly specialised and classes that are a Jack of All Trades, that JoAT should not be able to approach the performance of the specialist in their area of expertise - half as good is too much, frankly.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I don't see why it is a combat ability. From Basic PDF, p 28:

If your attack misses a target within range, you can turn the miss into a hit. Alternatively, if you fail an ability check, you can treat the d20 roll as a 20.​

Nothing there about combat.

Well, except 'attack.' So, maybe the odd archery contest or something, but mostly combat.

Not playing a fighter doesn't sound like a very good fix for someone who wanted to play (say) a Conan-esque character. Conan is notably effective out of combat.

They'd obviously play a Barbarian.

Rewriting a class or a skill system is something I'd rather pay someone else to do, rather than have to do myself.

5e classes aren't all that elaborate, really. But it's an option for a DM who finds a class sufficiently lacking as presented.

The bits about "arbitrary" ruling and hammering caster limits push towards a GMing style that I personally find pretty unattractive. More on this below.

That's a matter of taste, of course. It was a very useful strategy, from the early days of D&D on through 3.5, so a 'fix' available to more experienced DMs.

If the GM is entitled to override the system at any point and declare that a player's declared action fails, what is the point of the system?

The point is exactly what EGG said it was in the 1e DMG, and what Mearls has been saying since the playtest if not before: A 'starting' point.

The DM runs by the rules (which do tell him to make rulings from the get-go), until such times as they would give a poor result, at which point he overrides the system and presents a better result.

If the system is just unfettered GM fiat, I don't even see the point of all the numbers. What are they for?

They're the curtain. They give the players the impression that it's not just all unfettered GM fiat, and the illusion that they have some idea of their characters' abilities and some control over their characters' success or failure. (If that were true, PCs would fail a lot more often!)

Now, 5e is coming back and saying essentially, "yeah, that wasn't such a great idea, we're going to leave the d20 in place, but were going to encourage the DM to rule by fiat." At least that's what I'm hearing in this thread, that only some very narrow envisaged set of things is actually handled by the d20, and the rest is totally DM whim.

I certainly don't want to play that way at all.

I understand. I have very little interest in 5e as a player, myself. But, I'm delighted to run it, and there's no shortage of players, so far.

Right, in the context of D&D, early versions were intended to be almost entirely a puzzle-solving type of challenge game.

Later, during the later parts of 1e, say post-1985, the idea of telling a story with a game began to gain some real traction. ..There had always of course been 'high level play' where the rules got fuzzy and players did things outside of 'crawl mode', but 2e tried to embrace that for the first time. The result was VERY incoherent. ...They kept the game working by fiat.

3e was a response in 2 senses. First they said "Back to the dungeon!" which literally meant "This didn't really work, better to concentrate on dungeon crawls", and secondly, they rewrote the game around a coherent d20 resolution system that can be generalized and thus at least suggests that anything you want to attempt can be handled by the rules to some degree.

Now, 5e is coming back and saying essentially, "yeah, that wasn't such a great idea, we're going to leave the d20 in place, but were going to encourage the DM to rule by fiat."

A good overview of the shifting philosophies behind resolution systems in the evolution of D&D. (Omitting of course, the 'not D&D' anathema that was 4e.)