D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Ze game... remains ze same... Doesn't sound like advertising as a departure. YMMV of course.

Well, I haven't seen every 4e or 5e bit of advertising. I strongly doubt that the message was 100% consistent, and it may even have been tailored to different audiences. Anyway, its far afield from questions about what we do/don't like about 5e.

 

[tyrlaan]

If you pick Vecna's lock as a level 5 character, at a hard DC (because the story took you there) then it is hard to feel like when you're picking tomb locks as a level 10 character at a hard DC (because that's where the story is then) that you've actually gained much mastery.

That's the show vs. tell distinction.

Maybe I'm joining this chat late to the party, but why is a level 5 character picking Vecna's lock?

If I'm running a game and a level 5 character is in the position to pick "Vecna's lock", it's either because I wanted it to be a possibility or because the character is very much where he/she shouldn't be. If the lock can be picked at level 5, it's because I gave it a DC to make it achievable at that level. I really don't care what system you want to claim this fiction is occurring. Likewise, if in the same game the same character is picking "standard" tomb locks at level 10, they're not going to be a challenge unless there are some pretty impressive explanations to justify the discrepancy.

My question is - what does this have to do with what system you're playing? Sounds like just doing your job as a GM to me.

But it's up to the DM to determine what those DC's mean in the fiction, they don't have any inherent qualities. So there's no reason presume that an adamantium dwarven lock or a rusty tin lock have ANY particular DC - they have the DC that seems relevant to the DM at the time, whatever offers the players that narrow band of success.

Exactly.

It's hard to feel that sense of accomplishment when there's no objective basis for determining what you've actually accomplished.

The Rules Compendium even explicitly talks about this: "Some DC's are fixed, while others scale with level. A fixed DC represents a task that gets easier as an adventurer gains levels...In contrast, a DC that sales with level represents a task that remains at least a little challenging throughout an adventurer's career."

5e just decided that its DC's are fixed by default (and they can do that because even an easy DC has some chance of failure for even high-level characters and even a difficult DC has some chance of success even for low-level characters).

I see what you're trying to say, but I struggle to understand why you feel this way.

If I'm running a game with this "Vecna lock" in it, let a level 5 character crack it open, and then inform the player that it worked because I made the DC really low... well, yeah the sense of accomplishment will be tanked.

I don't agree that 5e is addressing anything with fixed DCs other than simplification. What you explain as the merit of 5e DC style is just something any GM can do in any game. Considering that the underlying principle of 5e is "hey GM, here is a backbone for you, the rest is on your shoulders to sort out", it seems reasonable to accept that this can be done in other games.

Good DM's magically fix all problems, yes. You can't use the best case scenario as the basis for rules discussions, though. My argument was never that all 4e tables inevitably must always have this problem, merely that 4e's structure can create this problem.

Create what problem? What intelligence level is to be assumed of the GM for any game system when written and do you assume different levels for different games? I ask because I don't understand how a GM could hose up the DC of a terrible lock in 4e and yet somehow have little to no risk of the same error in 5e.

Neverwinter mindflayers and aboleths are a signifier of what I'm talking about. If you save the world at level 7, when there's 23 levels left to go in the game, there's no mechanical accomplishment there, so it can make the fiction feel entirely empty of relevance.

I don't follow this either. If I play a game from 1 to 7 and save the world in it, I'm probably going to feel accomplished. And I'm going to feel mechanical accomplishment too because after all I started at level 1 and made it to level 7. And if I saved the world at level 7, maybe that's the end of the campaign. Or maybe some new universe spanning threat comes to bare. Or whatever. Really just not understanding what you are getting at with this comment.

Bounded accuracy means that you might go up against that dragon at level 11 or level 20 rather than level 17, if the story leads you there, and it will still be the same threat. It doesn't change into a lower-tier threat just because you're confronting it at level 5. That consistency is key for this feeling of achievement, because it means there's something to measure yourself against.

If you always fight precisely on-level monsters, I imagine it would indeed feel more like a treadmill than it currently does. Some tables have a high treadmill tolerance and appreciate a more regular experience. That's possible to achieve fairly easily. Bounded accuracy introduces a flexibility - you can fight divergent threats. At a table where the treadmill is a concern, the DM just doesn't worry too much about the level of his monsters, and the game works just fine. The option to get off the treadmill is there.

Why do you think this is different in 4e?

Why do you think a 5e GM, if planning to have an encounter with a dragon for the players at level 11 due to story development, might not adjust it's difficulty?

I think you're conflating encounter design with plot design. If I have something high level planned and the PCs aren't ready for it, as a GM I decide how I want to handle it. I don't, in 4e, suddenly decide to recalibrate the opponents just because they stumbled on them. I wouldn't do the same in 5e either. But if the story is ramping up faster than expected and something is coming to a head, I may choose to adjust the difficulty of an encounter because it's more interesting and satisfying to present a feasible challenge to the party rather than either handing them their assess because they did well and advanced the plot faster than expected or coming up with flimsy delaying tactics and random encounters so they can level up for the real fight.

In 5e, monster AC's are not a bad poster child for this. The AC of CR 1/2 svirfneblin is 15 - tough to hit! The AC of a CR 13 storm giant is 16. At first level, you were cursing that slippery little gnome. At 13th level, you are comfortably hitting that massive giant, and it's AC is nearly the same! The intervening months of story have done something.

Unsure how this is different from fighting orcs at low levels and giants at high levels in 4e. Actually, wouldn't it feel like an even bigger accomplishment because now you're going toe-to-toe with giants and can squish orcs like grapes!

Really I think what you're explaining is just what mechanical accomplishment will feel like to someone playing 5e. The reality is however, that accomplishment will feel different based on the rules of the game in which you play. So sure, that's how it works in 5e. It's just different.

Well, since I've got it open - rules compendium, skill DC's: "the goal is to pick a DC that is an appropriate challenge for a particular scenario or encounter."

IE: "stay within these careful guidelines because the game kind of breaks if you don't."

or: "Don't do anything too weird, that would be inappropriate."

Or it means, "if you want to challenge your players, be mindful of what numbers are challenging to them." Which is good advice for any game and any edition.

 

[bert1000]

If you pick Vecna's lock as a level 5 character, at a hard DC (because the story took you there) then it is hard to feel like when you're picking tomb locks as a level 10 character at a hard DC (because that's where the story is then) that you've actually gained much mastery.

That's the show vs. tell distinction.

DCs are subjective but they are not at all meant to be arbitrary. The DM is suppose to consider the world/genre being played in AND the PCs level to set a DC that makes sense.

Why would you assign Venca's lock a Hard DC for a low level character? In most traditional D&D settings it's likely impossible for a low level character.

You know, you don't have to assign something a level appropriate DC? You assign something a level appropriate DC when it's a level appropriate challenge. If it's a trivial challenge you just say yes, if it's an impossible task you just say no.

But it's up to the DM to determine what those DC's mean in the fiction, they don't have any inherent qualities. So there's no reason presume that an adamantium dwarven lock or a rusty tin lock have ANY particular DC - they have the DC that seems relevant to the DM at the time, whatever offers the players that narrow band of success.

It's hard to feel that sense of accomplishment when there's no objective basis for determining what you've actually accomplished.

This seems like one of those "if you use poor judgement while you play, your game is going to be bad" arguments.

There IS of course reason to assume that an adamantium lock or a rusty tin lock have a certain DC. The fiction tells you. It's just that DC will vary depending on PC level. The variability is just the way 4e was set up mechanically, nothing more or less.

So try this for the adamantium lock:
1) determine if the lock is a challenge for PC at their level based on the fiction
2) if it is decide what type of DC to assign (Easy/Medium/Hard based) then roll
3) if it's trivially easy then they just say they pick it. if it's impossibly hard then rule it's impossible.

If your gripe is that it's difficult for some people to make these rulings on the fly and keep them consistent, then fine. I don't think it's particularly difficult but might take some practice. (there's also nothing stopping you from figuring on the DC ruling ahead of time)

I fail to see how it ruins your sense of sense of accomplishment if you somehow find the Venca lock early on in your career and can't pick it and then come back later and can.

Or if you go from picking normal locks with 50-60% success early in your career to picking fiendish soul locks with 50-60% later in your career (and not bothering to roll for normal locks -- they aren't a level appropriate challenge anymore).

I really hate these arguments that seem to come from the worst possible interpretation of DM/players behavior. Of course, if the DM is giving you a Hard DC for Venca's lock at 5th level and a Hard DC for a no-name tomb lock at 15th level, you aren't going to feel that sense of accomplishment. But this is a disconnect between in fiction and the ruling not a flaw inherent in the mechanics.


I think you can argue that its easier on the DM with fixed DCs, or that you really like rolling for things even when they are impossible or trivially easy. Or that the act of rolling and knowing that you will always succeed at high level gives you a feeling of accomplishment. That's fine, but I think you really undermine your position when you paint the most unfavorable execution of 4e mechanics (DCs set that are inconsistent with the fiction) and blame the outcome on the mechanics themselves.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, I don't think we disagree on the fundamental point, but I don't consider it a bonus that a rule set makes it impossible to do the fantastical. I guess what I'm saying is for instance 5e seems to encourage higher DCs, and certainly seems to encourage the DM to use high DCs even in a low level context. That and your more limited recovery ability and certain other things means you will not really get the same level of craziness. Crazy 'giant tipping' scenes just don't exist in 5e, the rules say "nope, that can't happen"

Again this is a function of the DM and the table... If a DM wants stuff like halflings tipping giants over to be commonplace he will give it a pretty easy DC... if he doesn't then he won't. I suggested earlier that if your 5e game isn't seeing the types of fantastical things then perhaps you and your DM aren't on the same page as far as what the tone, and mood of the campaign is supposed to be.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That's like saying "We found that 4e played fine when everyone played a Leader". Sure, you can play that way. Your party is dysfunctional WRT the expected capabilities for a group of its level. Without a cleric in 5e you have drastically reduced survivability, and you could use any and all of the methods you list, but adding a cleric to that is still a quantum leap in resiliency.

Are you speaking from experience with 5E, or analysis of 5E rules, or are you just assuming? Where do you get this idea that a cleric is "expected" in 5E and that a party is dysfunctional without it?

I don't see it anywhere in the rules structure. On the contrary, I see healing or self-healing built into a number of classes including the Fighter, Bard, Paladin, Fiend Warlock, Abjuror Wizard, and anyone who takes the Healer and/or Inspirating Leader feats, in a way which makes it clear that "playing without a cleric should work" is a design consideration. I also see that clerical healing is pretty inefficient.

I don't see it anywhere in play. You baldly assert that a group without a cleric will be underpowered, but since I habitually let my players tackle challenges which weigh as between Deadly and Deadly x10 on the DMG scale, it seems quite odd for you to be telling me that they're dysfunctional and under-powered by that lack, with drastically reduced survivability. In short, you're wrong about clerics being mandatory. They're one way to survive but not the only and best way, and they have an opportunity cost. I'm not one of those idiots who trumpets "actual game experience" over analysis, because they're actually complementary--but having run lots of extremely deadly fights against unoptimized PCs run by non-powergaming players with only moderately brilliant tactics, and having seen the players win most of these fights (due partly to luck--we've come one die roll away from disaster more times than I can easily enumerate, and as a DM I'm often flabberghasted how improbably few deaths have occurred), I am quite sanguine that cleric-less parties are perfectly viable and fun in 5E, even for non-brilliant players.

But you're not entirely wrong:

It's good to have a healer in the party, and when I build my own parties I like to have a paladin and a bard so they can heal each other if necessary, but you haven't yet elucidated the utility of the healer in 5E so I'll do it for you: a healer is for reversing high single-target damage so you can either win the fight or continue adventuring, depending on the situation, without bottlenecking on a single character's HP. Without a healer, you can't afford to lose 60 HP to a bunch of fire trolls before taking on an Adult Blue Dragon, because you don't want to take on that dragon when any PC is only 30 HP away from death. If everybody is down 30 HP each the presence of a healer becomes a non-issue since you can't continue anyway without resting first, but a healer lets you smooth out spikes. But there's an opportunity cost. During combat with the dragon, a healer can (but doesn't have to) spend his action to reverse some of that 70 HP of damage that the dragon just inflicted on you, and that may or may not be better than having another Sharpshooter dealing 50 HP right back to the dragon. Healing you lets the other party members have more time to kill the dragon; so does Polymorphing you into a tyrannosaur instead of healing you. If you can arrange to have a healer in the party without giving up anything else important (e.g. a paladin/sorc can cover tank/summoner/melee/counterspeller/healer roles easily, or a Lore bardlock could do healer/ranged damage/defense/summoner/skill monkey) it is certainly worth adding that capability to your repertoire. But everything has an opportunity cost, and playing without a cleric or even a healer is valid and can be fun and effective.

 

[Bluenose]

No it was an example that the mechanics enabling or not enabling a DM to create interesting (first it was awesome, then amazing... now interesting) fiction is a subjective thing... which you seem to be agreeing with since you don't feel long, booring combats that tend to cause a drop in attention would have any effect on continuously coming up with interesting fiction to describe it... I disagree.

There are literally thousands of pre-existing descriptions for different things people try and do to each other in combat situations. Why don't you crib from those? It's surely easier than finding yet another original way to describe an entirely fictional spell.

 

[Imaro]

There are literally thousands of pre-existing descriptions for different things people try and do to each other in combat situations. Why don't you crib from those? It's surely easier than finding yet another original way to describe an entirely fictional spell.

But that wouldn't be "amazing", "awesome" or "interesting" fiction... Also what do spells have to do with it?

 

[Celtavian]

Yeah, I don't think we disagree on the fundamental point, but I don't consider it a bonus that a rule set makes it impossible to do the fantastical. I guess what I'm saying is for instance 5e seems to encourage higher DCs, and certainly seems to encourage the DM to use high DCs even in a low level context. That and your more limited recovery ability and certain other things means you will not really get the same level of craziness. Crazy 'giant tipping' scenes just don't exist in 5e, the rules say "nope, that can't happen"

Show me where it says it can't happen?

 

[Bluenose]

But that wouldn't be "amazing", "awesome" or "interesting" fiction... Also what do spells have to do with it?

Why not? Just because it's not an entirely original description doesn't have to make it dull. And as for spells, if you find it hard coming up with descriptions for things that happen in 4e combat, well spells also happen in 4e combat, so I assume they're part of the problem. And there's a lot less existing vocabulary to describe those.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Maybe I'm joining this chat late to the party, but why is a level 5 character picking Vecna's lock?

If I'm running a game and a level 5 character is in the position to pick "Vecna's lock", it's either because I wanted it to be a possibility or because the character is very much where he/she shouldn't be. If the lock can be picked at level 5, it's because I gave it a DC to make it achievable at that level. I really don't care what system you want to claim this fiction is occurring. Likewise, if in the same game the same character is picking "standard" tomb locks at level 10, they're not going to be a challenge unless there are some pretty impressive explanations to justify the discrepancy.

That's all great, but it's your DMing skills coming into play, not how the game is written. In 4e, if I was designing a 5th-level adventure that included Vecna's Very Secret Diary in it (maybe it's in the same room as the MacGuffin) and I want the PC's to have a chance to open it, maybe I'll give picking the lock a hard DC...for 5th level characters. In 5e, that same diary would be a hard DC period. They've got a chance to open it, just as in 4e, but now that DC is a property of the item.

If later on in 4e, I've got a dungeon crawl and I want to have hard locks for the 10th-level party, I'll again use a hard DC. That'll make it harder than opening Vecna's Very Secret Diary. In 5e, that same dungeon crawl might just have locks that have a hard DC in them. Now they're as hard as opening Vecna's Very Secret Diary.

If I'm running a game with this "Vecna lock" in it, let a level 5 character crack it open, and then inform the player that it worked because I made the DC really low... well, yeah the sense of accomplishment will be tanked.

Even a DC that is high for a 5th level character will be really low for a character of 15th level in 4e. In 5e, these DC's are the same - hard is hard. In 4e, these DC's vary with the level of the character - hard for a 1st level character isn't hard for an 11th level character.

Create what problem? What intelligence level is to be assumed of the GM for any game system when written and do you assume different levels for different games? I ask because I don't understand how a GM could hose up the DC of a terrible lock in 4e and yet somehow have little to no risk of the same error in 5e.

The "tradmill" problem that can wreck the feeling of achievement. The issue isn't one lock, it's the comparison between the two challenges (and how similar they are in 4e despite the intervening levels).

I don't follow this either. If I play a game from 1 to 7 and save the world in it, I'm probably going to feel accomplished.
And I'm going to feel mechanical accomplishment too because after all I started at level 1 and made it to level 7.

Maybe you would, but there's a lot of folks who would see that and say "Hah, well, I guess these other 23 levels are completely unnecessary. Why did I even need 7? If it's just going to be the same thing with bigger numbers, this number doesn't represent me achieving anything."

I mean, to illustrate with extremity, the DM could just declare that your characters are like unto gods and can kill demon kings on a roll of 4, and you aren't going to feel that accomplished killing demon kings because your ability to do so had nothing to do with anything you did as a player.

Mechanically, you haven't moved the needle. It's crystal clear that the DM just gives you a DC that bears no real relation to the game-world, that is calibrated exactly for your level, and that isn't related to the things you do as a player.

And if I saved the world at level 7, maybe that's the end of the campaign. Or maybe some new universe spanning threat comes to bare. Or whatever. Really just not understanding what you are getting at with this comment.

The fact that Level 7 is meaningless. The fact that you can do that at level 7 supports that point.

Why do you think this is different in 4e?

The maths are intolerant. You try hitting the AC of a level 13 monster at level 1 in 4e and tell me how it turns out.

Why do you think a 5e GM, if planning to have an encounter with a dragon for the players at level 11 due to story development, might not adjust it's difficulty?

Because they don't need to. They can just let the chips fall as they may. The DM doesn't need to know the outcome going into it - maybe folks die, maybe they get clever, maybe they run away.

The adventure that 5e uses to teach new DMs how to play - Lost Mine of Phandelver - has a CR 8 dragon in an adventure designed for characters of level 1-3 or so. It's better because of that beyond-deadly threat.

I think you're conflating encounter design with plot design. If I have something high level planned and the PCs aren't ready for it, as a GM I decide how I want to handle it. I don't, in 4e, suddenly decide to recalibrate the opponents just because they stumbled on them. I wouldn't do the same in 5e either. But if the story is ramping up faster than expected and something is coming to a head, I may choose to adjust the difficulty of an encounter because it's more interesting and satisfying to present a feasible challenge to the party rather than either handing them their assess because they did well and advanced the plot faster than expected or coming up with flimsy delaying tactics and random encounters so they can level up for the real fight.

In 5e, you don't have to make the decision to adjust the difficulty of an encounter. You can just let the players handle the fallout. Maybe they'll handle it quite well! Maybe not. Either way, it'll be interesting!

Unsure how this is different from fighting orcs at low levels and giants at high levels in 4e. Actually, wouldn't it feel like an even bigger accomplishment because now you're going toe-to-toe with giants and can squish orcs like grapes!

The fiction isn't relevant - what's relevant is that the difficulty you're trying to hit hasn't changed. It's the same number, you're just better at it now.

You know your 4th time through a boss fight in Dark Souls? The boss hasn't become any easier, but you're dodging and hitting and getting its rhythm down and you used less estus to get there and you're doing better and maybe you've got it this time okay! You've become better at the game - you're a better legendary undead whatits, a better protagonist, a better hero, a better player. In 5e, that feeling comes from whiffing on svirfneblin at level 1 and solidly hitting giants at level 13. They haven't gotten any harder - your character has just gotten better at hitting.

Or it means, "if you want to challenge your players, be mindful of what numbers are challenging to them." Which is good advice for any game and any edition.

If your game wants to preserve careful balance, sure.

If your game's got no real problem dropping a CR 8 dragon into a level 3 party, the advice should rather be, "This thing will probably kill people. Have fun."