D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[AbdulAlhazred]

Well yes he evolves but it's 4e's limited multi-classing that makes it hard to model Conan's evolution without wholesale changes to his classes... thus my assertion that 4e wouldn't model a character as broadly proficient as him very well. At the end of the day D&D (all editions) don't really support single protagonist adventurers who can pretty much handle all challenges... Even with open multi-classing like 3.x your effectiveness suffers with the more classes you take

Well, this isn't really a 4e thread, but IMHO 4e can do it rather well. You have class, MC, hybrid, and then all the feats, PPs, and EDs to work with, as well as just a vast array of different power choices. Conan could start out as say a BRV (MP1) fighter, that would work quite well. Give him Nature (Maybe he MCs into Ranger) at level 1, he's human and gets an extra feat after all. I THINK that covers your low level Conan. He can then acquire some roguish abilities (all he really needs is Stealth, I don't recall him ever picking a lock or such). Truthfully he could just start out with the Rogue MC. While Conan was familiar with Nature it seems to me he didn't generally evince any deep knowledge about it.

Later on he could pick up some fighter powers that provide some level of leader ability, maybe retrain his MC into warlord to get a Battle Captain PP or something. Alternately he could just start out as a Hybrid Warlord|Fighter with a Rogue MC or something like that if you want to get fancy.

I think there's sufficient scope within the bounds of 4e to do it. My only complaint with 4e is that it demands a fair amount of rules awareness to have a decent handle on what the options are and how they can best be employed. Also with a character like this you get the sort of "plan it all for 30 levels to get it right" effect, but then the game wasn't really designed to EXACTLY reproduce a specific character, its always an edge case.

Tying this back to 5e though.... I think 5e, for the most common use cases, has succeeded pretty well in allowing for generally creating a character sorta like X concept. You make a few pretty broad choices and you get mostly what you want. The problem is it lacks some sort of way to fill in the blanks from there. You can take feats, but it really is much less flexible than 4e was, especially later on. Its also annoying that you have to start out as this sort of 'rump' version of your character concept. In 4e you might need to fill it out and evolve it, but you have your signature from day 1. If you want to be a magic-wielding fighter in 5e? You have EK, but you have to wait a couple levels to get it. Nor does 5e's ala-carte MCing system seem particularly well-conceived. I would MUCH rather have seen something along the lines of PP/ED and maybe a "steal a bit of another class' shtick" line of feats instead. It would have removed the need for the silly 300xp band 'level 1' that only exists to stop cherry-picking MCs and is an optional system that twists the whole game's design.

Beyond that, on an unrelated note, I just don't like 5e's AD&D flavor. We did that to death. I really appreciated the much more free-wheeling heroic action figure motif of 4e. 5e just bores me to death. I've played through all the same scenarios a 1000 times in OD&D, Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, etc.

 

[Umbran]

Well we did used to get those marvel handbooks (not sure if they are still around or not) that ranked hereos objectively and were supposed to be cannon... so if were using those as a basis, no it doesn't model the actual characters well.

Yeah, but really, if you look at those, and at the comics, the Handbook writeup was so frequently inaccurate... it was more an *average* of the observed qualities, with quite a spread depending on the story and who was writing. This being backed up by the first game to try to model those same characters, put out by TSR, and it included mechanics for characters to significantly exceed their nominal performance.

EDIT: This is also the issue I have with the Eldritch Knight being considered an invalid archetype by some... there are plenty of legends, myths, etc. (at least in cultures outside the European baseline) where fighters and warriors are gifted with some mystical abilities... so why is a subclass that uses magic not a valid fighter archetype?

I am not too sure there are too many "warrior who casts spells" archetypes out there. The major objection I see is the difference between "has mystic ability" and "casts spells". Because D&D has spells, and when all you have is a hammer...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I am not too sure there are too many "warrior who casts spells" archetypes out there. The major objection I see is the difference between "has mystic ability" and "casts spells". Because D&D has spells, and when all you have is a hammer...

Which is a reason I REALLY liked the 4e concept of 'powers'. It generalized the whole thing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I thought that was the whole idea of bounded accuracy, so that your average commoner can eventually accomplish mostly everything.

Not how I've ever heard the idea explained. Usually it's something about keeping lower level monsters relevant at higher levels, having 'smaller numbers' overall, letting untrained characters participate meaningfully when checks are called for - things of that nature.

 

[Imaro]

Tying this back to 5e though.... I think 5e, for the most common use cases, has succeeded pretty well in allowing for generally creating a character sorta like X concept. You make a few pretty broad choices and you get mostly what you want. The problem is it lacks some sort of way to fill in the blanks from there. You can take feats, but it really is much less flexible than 4e was, especially later on. Its also annoying that you have to start out as this sort of 'rump' version of your character concept. In 4e you might need to fill it out and evolve it, but you have your signature from day 1. If you want to be a magic-wielding fighter in 5e? You have EK, but you have to wait a couple levels to get it. Nor does 5e's ala-carte MCing system seem particularly well-conceived. I would MUCH rather have seen something along the lines of PP/ED and maybe a "steal a bit of another class' shtick" line of feats instead. It would have removed the need for the silly 300xp band 'level 1' that only exists to stop cherry-picking MCs and is an optional system that twists the whole game's design.

Well I do think it's a little lopsided to compare 5e year one vs. 4e complete. That said, 5e specifically calls out the lower levels 1-3 (or is it 4) as apprentice levels for those who want the experience of playing a character who is an apprentice adventurer... I think this was an answer to many who had missed that starting play in 4e. Now whether you did or did not enjoy the low level play of previous editions... I think it's trivial to start at 4th level or above for a game that starts with more proficient adventurers... 4e on the other hand didn't really offer this option.

I'm not sure I agree with your filling in the blanks statement... I mean there's ways to get new skills... combat styles, broad based proficiencies, etc. Maybe I'm not understanding what gaps you are speaking too, could you elaborate some?

Also there are steal a little bit of a class feats... Magic Intitiate, Dungeon Delver, Healer, Inspiring Leader, Martial Adept, Ritual Caster, etc. With these plus the ability to freely multi-class (and the ability requirements to stop you from taking a trap class...4e I'm looking at you and your hybrids)... I think 5e is pretty flexible. But again maybe I'm not understanding the gaps you are trying to fill in.

Beyond that, on an unrelated note, I just don't like 5e's AD&D flavor. We did that to death. I really appreciated the much more free-wheeling heroic action figure motif of 4e. 5e just bores me to death. I've played through all the same scenarios a 1000 times in OD&D, Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, etc.

This I can understand because 4e's gonzo superhero-esque default wasn't my groups cup of tea, especially long-term, either. We just like a grittier/more down to earth feel for our D&D. On top of that combat dragged for us and shuffling through the multitude of cards trying to pick a power grew less and less enjoyable as we got higher in level. I don't really run published adventures or campaign settings so we don't have a feeling of running through the same scenarios 1000 times... to each their own I guess.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Well, this isn't really a 4e thread, but IMHO 4e can do it rather well. Conan could start out as say a {Battle Ranger?} (MP1) fighter, that would work quite well. Give him Nature (Maybe he MCs into Ranger) {or via a background} at level 1, he's human and gets an extra feat after all. I THINK that covers your low level Conan. He can then acquire some roguish abilities (all he really needs is Stealth, I don't recall him ever picking a lock or such)....Later on he could pick up some fighter powers that provide some level of leader ability, maybe retrain his MC into warlord to get a Battle Captain PP or something. Alternately he could just start out as a Hybrid Warlord|Fighter with a Rogue MC or something like that if you want to get fancy.

And finish up with Legendary Monarch, I suppose.

Yes, among Race, Backgrounds, Themes, Class, Build, Alternate Class features, Feats (including MC feats), Hybrids, PPs & EDs - and complete openness to re-fluffing - you could manage just about any imaginable character in 4e. Even things that had no business being in a traditional D&D fantasy campaign - like John Steed & Emma Peel investigating the Legacy of the Crystal Shard for the Harpers.

Also with a character like this you get the sort of "plan it all for 30 levels to get it right" effect,

Not as much as 3.x, since re-training was available every level.

In 5e re-training (or even completely re-building) a character is the kind of thing the DM could just decide to give the nod to if it seemed like a good idea (or not if it didn't).

Tying this back to 5e though.... I think 5e, for the most common use cases, has succeeded pretty well in allowing for generally creating a character sorta like X concept. You make a few pretty broad choices and you get mostly what you want. The problem is it lacks some sort of way to fill in the blanks from there. You can take feats, but it really is much less flexible than 4e was, especially later on. Its also annoying that you have to start out as this sort of 'rump' version of your character concept.

You can always start at 3rd. By then, PCs are a bit less fragile and everyone has their sub-class.

5e is less open to re-fluffing, but more open to outright changing things or making new ones from whole cloth. It suggests that the DM might add new Backgrounds, for instance.

Nor does 5e's ala-carte MCing system seem particularly well-conceived.

It's learned from some of the mistakes in it's 3.x incarnation. Mixing caster classes works much better, for instance. Proficiency is based on overall character level, making attacks, saves & skills much simpler. The attempt at limiting front-loading and 'dips' was maybe a little inelegant, but at least partially successful.

And the basic idea, as it was in 3e, is just wildly flexible. Conan could start as a Barbarian with Outlander background, choose Berserker, later gain levels in Rogue, then Fighter ... and, well, he'd be out of non-spellcasting options at that point, but you get the idea. Actually, he could do that in either 3.x or 5e.

Ironically, in old-school attempts at Conan, he'd be given Fighter and Thief levels and arbitrary special abilities, resulting in something you could never do as PC. Even when Gygax ranted against the Schwarzenegger Conan movie, then created a Barbarian class just to do Conan, it didn't capture him that well.

Beyond that, on an unrelated note, I just don't like 5e's AD&D flavor. We did that to death. 5e just bores me to death. I've played through all the same scenarios a 1000 times in OD&D, Holmes Basic, 1e, 2e, etc.

Yeah, I get that the nostalgia can wear thin quickly. I tend to have that reaction when I try to play 5e - but when I'm running it, I'm free to do more interesting things with it. I can reprise something old, if I want, but throw in a twist, or lampshade it - or, a tweak here, and a few rulings there, and it spins off in some other direction, entirely.

 

[Imaro]

Yeah, but really, if you look at those, and at the comics, the Handbook writeup was so frequently inaccurate... it was more an *average* of the observed qualities, with quite a spread depending on the story and who was writing. This being backed up by the first game to try to model those same characters, put out by TSR, and it included mechanics for characters to significantly exceed their nominal performance.

Eh, going to disagree. As a kid me and my friends loved them because they were pretty precise (we used them to settle those deeply intellectual playground arguments that kids have). Spiderman can lift a maximum of...blah blah blah.... Wolverine is definitely not as strong as the Hulk. It was the comics where things got wonky with different writers or story needs that ignored the canon in the handbooks. That's why I feel that MHRpg is a great comic book roleplaying game... instead of sticking to the canon of the handbooks where the characters are objectively defined... it goes for the handwavium of the comics and succeeds greatly at replicating those stories.

I am not too sure there are too many "warrior who casts spells" archetypes out there. The major objection I see is the difference between "has mystic ability" and "casts spells". Because D&D has spells, and when all you have is a hammer...

Again we are not translating the exact stories... but warriors who have some mystic power is a pretty common theme in legends and myths, it's just like you said, in the D&D world mystic power basically equates to spells.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Again we are not translating the exact stories... but warriors who have some mystic power is a pretty common theme in legends and myths, it's just like you said, in the D&D world mystic power basically equates to spells.

Right, I think Vanamoinen is pretty much an archetypal hero, and he DEFINITELY does magic. At times so do a number of the Greek, Norse, etc heroes, and as stated a few posts back mystic powers are almost definitional for eastern heroes. If you don't have some mystic 'Chi' force or some sort of destiny-powered supernatural plot bending ability then you're pretty much not hero material (there are some more 'legendary character' types, like the characters in Water Margin that lack much of a magical aspect, but there's still some magic about them).

 

[Tony Vargas]

Right, I think Vanamoinen is pretty much an archetypal hero, and he DEFINITELY does magic.

Well, and deity. And, he's an old man with a long white beard who does magic and makes magical items...

 

[Shasarak]

Not how I've ever heard the idea explained. Usually it's something about keeping lower level monsters relevant at higher levels, having 'smaller numbers' overall, letting untrained characters participate meaningfully when checks are called for - things of that nature.

I do not think you can get many monsters lower level or as "untrained" then a commoner.

So Bounded Accuracy working as intended I am guessing.