D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[Imaro]

I can adjudicate that and we can resolve it at the table in about 30 seconds with no quibbling, haggling, rules-lawyering by any parties. If 30 seconds for adjudication and resolution is "bogged down" then I guess we live life at very different speeds.

And using Sly Flourish isn't "telling." It is the exact same procedure as using the updated math from p42. Exact same procedure. I just use the level by level version (which is in the MM3 monster creation), rather than the few levels pushed together, as personal preference because I like the granularity.

You are still using sources outside the books regardless of why... anyway here's how I'd resolve it in 5e...

In 5e I'd rule it like this... Arcana skill check, hard DC (My Far North campaign is gritty, especially with regards to the use of magic otherwise I'd use medium or even an easy DC depending upon how easy or hard magic is to modify in the campaign world) ... so 6th level wizard with proficiency and let's say 18 INT... +4 Ability/+3 Prof= +7 vs. 20...35% chance (or if in a less gritty setting 65% for the DC 15... 85% for DC10, if there's no chance for failure why not just give the wizard a new spell??). The wizards spell Save DC is 15 and attack bonus is +7 which puts him in the dangerous category for traps... so let's say 4d10 at his level. Another way to adjudicate the damage would be to look at the improv table... more damage than hot coals but not as damaging as a lava stream... again 4d10. Dex save for half damage to anyone who gets caught by or enters the rug area. the effect lasts for 1d4 rounds. This actually seems pretty on point when compared with the fireball spell... slightly lower damage but with a chance for a slightly longer duration... Now how would anything in 4e have made this easier?

EDIT: Summary

Arcana: check DC 20 (though variable depending on the feel of magic in the camapign)
Damage: 4d10
Duration: 1d4 rounds
Save: Dex for half damage for anyone starting their turn on or entering the rug area

 

[Imaro]

Its not even close to lite. The definition of lite is of course pretty loose. However, its at one end of a spectrum. Rules lite games certainly include 1 page rule sets. I'd say they might include rules with 10 pages of crunch, but I'm not sure where to draw the line. 5e isn't even close. Its no more lite than 4e was, the core books weigh in pretty much the same and they're largely rules, procedure, and 'game structure' if not outright crunch in both editions. If D&D (and 2e/3.x/4e/5e are all roughly the same heft) is 'medium' then there's no such thing as a heavy rules game. So I can't really use the term 'medium' either. I'd more reserve that for games like Dungeon World perhaps, where the mechanics are very simple, but there's a fair amount of procedural support, so that it isn't really a 'lite' game either. Something like Traveler might also be a 'medium' game, it has very simple core rules, a few elaborated subsystems, and then gigatons of setting and other material has accrued onto the core. Still, when you play its quite simple and straightforward.

I don't think number of pages is a good gauge of whether a game is rules lite or not...

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

My first thoughts... this does not seem quick or practical in a game where I want to keep things moving and not get bogged down. It also is telling that you are using outside sources to create this stunt, but I was under the impression we were comparing what was in the actual rulebooks...

Interesting. So lets see what the 4e DMG1 has to say. It says "Cast the Action as a Check", if its an attack, then make the DC one of the target's defenses. If its opposed, make it an opposed check. If its not an attack make it a skill or ability check. If damage is required then use a normal damage expression for something that could be repeated, or a limited damage expression if its one-time only, or if the effect would cause 'massive damage'. Within each of these 2 categories there is Low, Medium, and High dice expressions. Later editions and revisions simplified damage expressions and adjusted the low level DCs down a bit and the higher level ones up a bunch (experience showed that the original "+1/2 levels" rate was MUCH too slow, PCs gained skill bonuses are more like +1/level in reality).

And that's it. Page 42 doesn't explicitly touch on non-damage effects, but anyone who's even casually familiar with the terrain/hazard rules, the general run of powers (both PC and monster), etc has plenty of 'juice' to adjudicate that from. Most powers have SOME kind of effect, so even a highly repeatable stunt can be justified as doing low normal damage plus some minor effect (slow, grant CA, minor attack penalty, etc, all shortest duration). More significant effects would by examples include half damage on a miss, save ends minor effects, shortest duration significant effects (daze, immobilize, knock prone, pushed, etc). 'Super effects' (you really pulled off a whammy, something equal to a daily, hard DC, etc) and you can get into the stunned, save ends, etc. Power analogies also suggest a damage trade-off, with daily level effects getting a step down on damage expression if they have both a really good effect and a miss effect.

Sly Flourish's writeup on all this is pretty good, but he's not really inventing anything new. He's just taken page 42, the errata to DC/damage expression, and the common understanding of power vis-a-vis trading of damage vs effect and put it on a page. It would have been nice if the RC would have done that.

Now, if you compare that to the 5e DMG, the real beef I have is that 5e lacks anything like a common understanding of damage expressions and their relation to effects. The best place to achieve that might be monster attacks, but most specialized monster effects emulate spells or just plain lack significant effects. Spells aren't a good source, they're all over the map and 5e's damage scaling is really steep too, making it trickier. They do have a damage expression table, so its not 'all is lost' by any means. Still its neither quite as clean, nor really all wrapped up in one page of rules like it is in 4e. Honestly, I think 5e INTENDS to present the same thing in essence, but the 5e rules presentation IMHO is scattered and erratic, hard to reference, and not worded in a way that draws out a firm ruling, let alone presents a hard rule.

I think both of them leave a bit to be desired, but the 4e version is still pretty solid.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I don't think number of pages is a good gauge of whether a game is rules lite or not...

Agreed. But rather it's how many rules are mandatory or implied mandatory. When you take just the core rules of 5e (like the Basic version), it's much more rules lite than any other edition with the exception of the old Basic set.

 

[Sacrosanct]

My first thoughts... this does not seem quick or practical in a game where I want to keep things moving and not get bogged down. It also is telling that you are using outside sources to create this stunt, but I was under the impression we were comparing what was in the actual rulebooks...

Additionally, I have a hard time seeing how something is "better" if it takes a page to explain how it works (and a highly proficient understanding of the entire rules), compared to a couple sentences that a complete new player can pick up easily.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

Additionally, I have a hard time seeing how something is "better" if it takes a page to explain how it works (and a highly proficient understanding of the entire rules), compared to a couple sentences that a complete new player can pick up easily.

Where's the couple of sentences in any edition? Honestly before 3e there WAS no procedure. It was sometimes stated in various AD&D books that you could do some sort of an 'ability check', but it was never clearly defined as a standard mechanic, and the sheer number of alternate systems in those rules certainly didn't produce it as a de-facto standard either. In both d20 systems (3e, etc) and 4e, and 5e the 'core mechanic' is presented right up front virtually on page one of the rules. Its then only a question of presentation and elaboration of process, which 4e does on one single additional page in a pretty succinct form, which is paraphrased in my post.

5e doesn't really have that one page. It talks about different types of checks in a few places. Skills are presented as non-core rules and their explanation is actually pretty obtuse if you go and just read it cold. In fact they're almost not explained, though anyone who knows modernish D&D and understands the core mechanic will 'get it'. 4e is much more concise and explicit in this sense.

I find this to be an issue with 5e, so many of its core systems are presented as 'options' that later on when they talk about game process they have a hard time formulating an overall vision of how play proceeds at the table. Thus really needed expositions like 4e's page 42 simply don't exist AT ALL in 5e, instead we get scattered around the books some suggestions that aren't very well cohered together.

 

[Manbearcat]

You are still using sources outside the books regardless of why... anyway here's how I'd resolve it in 5e...

In 5e I'd rule it like this... Arcana skill check, hard DC (My Far North campaign is gritty, especially with regards to the use of magic otherwise I'd use medium or even an easy DC depending upon how easy or hard magic is to modify in the campaign world) ... so 6th level wizard with proficiency and let's say 18 INT... +4 Ability/+3 Prof= +7 vs. 20...35% chance (or if in a less gritty setting 65% for the DC 15... 85% for DC10, if there's no chance for failure why not just give the wizard a new spell??). The wizards spell Save DC is 15 and attack bonus is +7 which puts him in the dangerous category for traps... so let's say 4d10 at his level. Another way to adjudicate the damage would be to look at the improv table... more damage than hot coals but not as damaging as a lava stream... again 4d10. Dex save for half damage to anyone who gets caught by or enters the rug area. the effect lasts for 1d4 rounds. This actually seems pretty on point when compared with the fireball spell... slightly lower damage but with a chance for a slightly longer duration... Now how would anything in 4e have made this easier?

EDIT: Summary

Arcana: check DC 20 (though variable depending on the feel of magic in the camapign)
Damage: 4d10
Duration: 1d4 rounds
Save: Dex for half damage for anyone starting their turn on or entering the rug area

I was going to go with the exact same setup:

+ 3 Prof, + 4 Int = + 7 Arcana.

However, I was going to go with:

1) Medium DC 15 = 35 % chance to waste your Action by attempting the stunt.

2) 3d10 damage (I would put it somewhere between falling into a firepit and an outright cave-in so between 2d10 and 4d10)

4) This is a save versus an environmental effect, not save vs spell. Therefore the environmental DCs should apply. I would give the player the DC 12 (low end of Dangerous) even though it is halfway between Setback and Dangerous. The save would be Dex as you have. The Dex save for level 6 would run the gamut from + 1 to probably + 5ish. Let us just call it + 3. So we have the 35 % failure at the ability check level compounded by another ~ 55 % chance for failure at the save level.

5) If they're an Evoker (Scult Spell @ level 6), I'd give them 1/2 damage on a successful save.

6) What to do about AoE and duration? What are the mechanical concerns on this? Where is the guidance? With respect to the fiction, the burning rug should be an AoE, but there has to be balance constraints here. With respect to duration, 1d4 rounds seems reasonable enough. I see that in a few hazards and traps here and there. Sure, let us go with that. But 1d4 of what? What is the residual burn damage? Surely not 3d10 again!

Really what I'm looking to accomplish is:

(a) something cool and thematic

(b) something that is powerful enough and of which the player can reasonably expect to accomplish it such that it achieves reasonable parity with an alternative action, from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, thereby creating a legitimate decision-point for the player.

If there isn't reasonable parity, or reasonable potential return from a cost-benefit analysis perspective, then the stunting system is useless for actual play because pushing the reliable basic attack or spell button will always win out over the stunt option. If the stunting system is too powerful then the decision-point for the player is muted (or outright goes away). It is a fine line to walk.


If the Evoker player is facing the prospect of Firebolting (2d10 on single target, + 7 hit) or a more powerful limited use spell (eg Fireball @ 8d6, 20 ft radius, save 1/2, DC 15) vs an outright 35 % loss of the Action and a subsequent 55 % chance of failure (but save 1/2) @ 3d10 damage, DC 12, save 1/2, on maybe a 5 ft radius AoE (or maybe 10 ft?...how do I sort out the standardized radius for such a stunt)...do they go with the stunt or do they say EFF IT FIREBOLT/FIREBALL? I don't know. And even if I feel comfortable, and the table agrees with me, on the Ability Check DC, the Setback/Dangerous/Deadly qualification (and the picking out the DC # within that 2 to 4 number spread) there are variables in adjucation that are still difficult for me to sort out. AoE? If so, does that eat into the total damage budget of the effect? How big is standardized AoE or that achieves parity with an of-level effect? Duration or other effects? If I go 1d4 round duration, how much burn damage for entering the hazard or being there at the beginning (or end?) of your turn?

What I do know is that the procedure for the Arcana > Fire stunt in 4e is quick, requires minimal mental overhead on my part, minimal table handling time and achieves an interesting effect that results in relative parity (from a math and effects perspective) with an encounter power of that tier, thus attaining consistent relevance and resulting in a player decision-point.

EDIT - Oh and 5e is not remotely even in the same universe as Rules-Lite. Not even close. For the highest threshold of a Rules-Lite qualification, I would with the Powered by the Apocalypse systems. Core, simple, unified resolution mechanics that are applied in all situations and achieve interesting outcomes that properly model genre/tropes and achieve play agenda. They don't require GM force or an abundance of rulings and/or referencing of rules/charts. You just apply straight-forward, transparent play procedures and the system's inertia and proficient GMing/playing will spin out a rewarding experience. 5e has tons of intersecting resolution mechanics, PC build schemes, massive spell lists, etc. Not Rules-Lite.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Where's the couple of sentences in any edition? Honestly before 3e there WAS no procedure.

I've implied this before, but I see I need to specifically spell it out. Just because you can't figure it out, doesn't mean no one else did. Pretty much everyone found ways to handle it, and most used the same type of ability check even if it wasn't specifically spelled out in a book as a rule. There was a procedure. It was, "Come up with what works for your table." I wish you stop trying imply that unless something is spelled out in a book, it never happened.

In early editions (and 5e is leaning the same way), it is "tell me what you want to do. Maybe there's an ability check here. Or maybe another check there. We'll deal with it in a way that is reasonable and move the game forward." Personally, and I know this is a matter of personal taste, I would hate to have to go look up a half dozen rules and mechanics just to try an improvised action. You said earlier you wouldn't even try an action without a clearly defined rule? Well, I wouldn't want to try an action if I had to go through a dozen steps and reference a half dozen other rules.

I think 5e handles these things exceptionally well, because most everything can be handled with a simple, "Determine a DC and which attribute to make that check against." That's it. And that's super easy for casual players to pick up on rather than that full page description earlier with a lot of 4e-only phrases and terms.

 

[Imaro]

Interesting. So lets see what the 4e DMG1 has to say. It says "Cast the Action as a Check", if its an attack, then make the DC one of the target's defenses. If its opposed, make it an opposed check. If its not an attack make it a skill or ability check. If damage is required then use a normal damage expression for something that could be repeated, or a limited damage expression if its one-time only, or if the effect would cause 'massive damage'. Within each of these 2 categories there is Low, Medium, and High dice expressions. Later editions and revisions simplified damage expressions and adjusted the low level DCs down a bit and the higher level ones up a bunch (experience showed that the original "+1/2 levels" rate was MUCH too slow, PCs gained skill bonuses are more like +1/level in reality).

And that's it. Page 42 doesn't explicitly touch on non-damage effects, but anyone who's even casually familiar with the terrain/hazard rules, the general run of powers (both PC and monster), etc has plenty of 'juice' to adjudicate that from. Most powers have SOME kind of effect, so even a highly repeatable stunt can be justified as doing low normal damage plus some minor effect (slow, grant CA, minor attack penalty, etc, all shortest duration). More significant effects would by examples include half damage on a miss, save ends minor effects, shortest duration significant effects (daze, immobilize, knock prone, pushed, etc). 'Super effects' (you really pulled off a whammy, something equal to a daily, hard DC, etc) and you can get into the stunned, save ends, etc. Power analogies also suggest a damage trade-off, with daily level effects getting a step down on damage expression if they have both a really good effect and a miss effect.

Sly Flourish's writeup on all this is pretty good, but he's not really inventing anything new. He's just taken page 42, the errata to DC/damage expression, and the common understanding of power vis-a-vis trading of damage vs effect and put it on a page. It would have been nice if the RC would have done that.

So Sly Flourish is adding something that isn't in the books. The 4e books never touched on effects... the original comparison was between the information and advice in the actual books.

Now, if you compare that to the 5e DMG, the real beef I have is that 5e lacks anything like a common understanding of damage expressions and their relation to effects.

So your real beef is that 5e is lacking something that was also lacking in the 4e books?

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

I've implied this before, but I see I need to specifically spell it out. Just because you can't figure it out, doesn't mean no one else did. Pretty much everyone found ways to handle it, and most used the same type of ability check even if it wasn't specifically spelled out in a book as a rule. There was a procedure. It was, "Come up with what works for your table." I wish you stop trying imply that unless something is spelled out in a book, it never happened.

In early editions (and 5e is leaning the same way), it is "tell me what you want to do. Maybe there's an ability check here. Or maybe another check there. We'll deal with it in a way that is reasonable and move the game forward." Personally, and I know this is a matter of personal taste, I would hate to have to go look up a half dozen rules and mechanics just to try an improvised action. You said earlier you wouldn't even try an action without a clearly defined rule? Well, I wouldn't want to try an action if I had to go through a dozen steps and reference a half dozen other rules.

I think 5e handles these things exceptionally well, because most everything can be handled with a simple, "Determine a DC and which attribute to make that check against." That's it. And that's super easy for casual players to pick up on rather than that full page description earlier with a lot of 4e-only phrases and terms.

Look, we've all GMed 1000's of hours of D&D in all likelihood. We all figured out SOME WAY of dealing with these issues. In my case it was long before 1e was even written. So that isn't the issue. The question at hand was how well does an individual set of rules explicate this kind of thing, how high is the utility of its explanation, and is the process better or worse than "we just know how to do this kind of thing."

My contention is that if you read the 4e core books and the 5e core books that the 4e core books would give you a better handle on this. That's all. As for wanting a rule for things, yeah, I want to be able to feel like I have a handle on how things are going to go when I tell the GM I'm going to set the rug on fire with a spell. I've played in plenty of games where a minute later I was rolling my eyes and gnashing my teeth. At least 3e made clear what the dice mechanic should be, and had some handy skills that MIGHT apply, although there were issues with that. 4e stepped that up a really good notch with an explicit page of "here's what to do". It could STILL get better, but instead of cranking it up to the next notch (say publishing basically Sly Flourish's explanation of what should happen in 4e, or Wreccan's explication of it) they kinda at best went sideways, and mostly went a bit backwards. I think 5e still improves on 3e, and vastly on 2e, but its a bit disappointing it didn't achieve the clarity of 4e, and sad that it left the obvious possible further improvements on the table for the heartbreakers to eat. This is why I'm not really that impressed with the scope and vision of 5e, its lacking.