D&D 5E Why does 5E SUCK?

[AbdulAlhazred]

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.



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

No, even in 4e it could have been more explicit, 4e isn't the last word in D&D-likes. But 5e didn't even TRY to make the obvious improvements. They were just left on the table.

 

[Manbearcat]

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.

AA, do me a favor.

You're playing the Wizard in my 4e game. How do you feel about that stunt (see above)? Would you pull the trigger if given those resolution mechanics for that limited use stunt and do you think we could accomplish (adjudicate, negotiate, resolve) that quickly enough at the table?

Now you're playing the Wizard in my 5e game. How do you feel about that stunt (see above)? Would you pull the trigger if given those resolution mechanics for that limited-use stunt and do you think we could accomplish (adjudicate, negotiate, resolve) that quickly enough at the table?

 

[Imaro]

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

It's not much of an interesting choice if success is a given... is it?

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

Well that isn't listed as one of the damage expressions but whatever...

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.

It's magical fire... thus IMO, it's power level centers around how powerful the wizard, sorcerer, etc. who created it is... otherwise what's the point of using Arcana??

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

In 5e there is a precedent ofr AoE spells having saves for half damage...not sure what being an Evoker has to do with an AoE granting a save for half damage or not, especially since you claimed it wasn't magic above but an environmental effect... If this is going to work you should probably stay consistent.

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!

Why not? The thing is you're only attacked if you enter the area of the rug... and anyone can be burned by it so what exactly is the issue...at? A CR 3 monster is equal to a medium threat to a 6th level character it does 21-26 points of damage per round according to the monster rules... average damage for 3d10 (16.5 dmg) is slightly below this range and that's without successful saves... So what's the problem 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.

Doesn't this depend on the state the character is in and the environmental factors? In 4e with no real loss of effectiveness (with the possible exception of spent dailies) the characters decision points don't really change... see you have to make it on parity with an encounter power because characters will almost always have those in an battle... 5e is different, there is attrition so the point at which a decision is valid changes depending on the circumstances.

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?

So you're saying it's a choice that must be weighed (what if he spent his high level spells already, what if more enemies are on the rug vs. the one with firebolt, etc.)... IMO, that's a good thing. And I don't see any reason why your players automatically accept your 4e judgments but not your 5e ones... unless you somehow convey to them that you yourself aren't sure/comfortable when it comes to 5e

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.

And for me 5e does the same thing but much quicker...

 

[Imaro]

AA, do me a favor.

You're playing the Wizard in my 4e game. How do you feel about that stunt (see above)? Would you pull the trigger if given those resolution mechanics for that limited use stunt and do you think we could accomplish (adjudicate, negotiate, resolve) that quickly enough at the table?

Now you're playing the Wizard in my 5e game. How do you feel about that stunt (see above)? Would you pull the trigger if given those resolution mechanics for that limited-use stunt and do you think we could accomplish (adjudicate, negotiate, resolve) that quickly enough at the table?

Yeah... because this answer won't be biased at all... C'mon man.

 

[Sacrosanct]

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. .

You do realize that the first 1e book was first published in 1977, right? So "long before" that really makes me highly dubious of this claim. Especially since your posts give me an impression of a game style that was the opposite of how the game was played back then, along with outright false claims you've made (about there being no rules). If you like, I can point you to the Strategic Review articles that outline exactly what you said never existed. There's a reason why most people used the same rule for ability checks and used terms like "THAC0" before they became official rules, and it wasn't because everyone spontaneously came up with the same ruling all at once.

 

[Imaro]

No, even in 4e it could have been more explicit, 4e isn't the last word in D&D-likes. But 5e didn't even TRY to make the obvious improvements. They were just left on the table.

What?

You said...

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.

Now we've already established that both have damage expressions for levels... so the only thing left is the relationship to effects... which neither edition has.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

AA, do me a favor.

You're playing the Wizard in my 4e game. How do you feel about that stunt (see above)? Would you pull the trigger if given those resolution mechanics for that limited use stunt and do you think we could accomplish (adjudicate, negotiate, resolve) that quickly enough at the table?

Now you're playing the Wizard in my 5e game. How do you feel about that stunt (see above)? Would you pull the trigger if given those resolution mechanics for that limited-use stunt and do you think we could accomplish (adjudicate, negotiate, resolve) that quickly enough at the table?

Sure, I think either one of them is reasonably clear, but I do feel like I have a firmer basis with the 4e version. Damage expressions are particularly well stereotyped in 4e, so even without reference to a particular power to compare with I can think "OK, a low level encounter effect is worthwhile at about a 60% hit rate, 2d6+INT damage, and a small tactically-useful effect" Now, your proposal is a bit lighter on the damage, but the effect is a bit stronger (a zone) than most encounter spells, so I'd figure it was a good trade off, and I can make that judgment pretty close to instantaneously. I can also discount a bit because I've still got my actual encounter slot (assuming that I set the fire with an at-will or somesuch).

Now, on the 5e front. Assuming I'm not using a spell slot (IE I use Fire Bolt) the question is a bit trickier, because I am keeping a spell slot, but we need to know which level slot. That asks us to question what level the effect is, and here I can only guess at what the DM will decide. If he considers it to be much like a level 3 spell slot, then boo-ya! If he decides its pretty much just a cantrip plus a bit of a zone effect, I might well just throw a spell. Its a bit murkier, so I will want to negotiate a little bit. Once that question is answered, then the damage expression part is probably about equivalently well specified as in 4e, but its relation to other effects is a lot less clear. I think 3d10 or 4d10 are OK, but with only about 33% of the targets taking full effect at best this is going to be a marginal call. I might do it for tactical or narrative reasons anyway, but I'm on the fence.

I think 5e is about 90% of the way there, but it seems reluctant to take that last 10%, and the whole nature of the game makes these questions a bit less clear cut. As I said in my two previous posts, I'd have liked to see 5e take 4e's page 42 and improve on it, something that is quite clearly possible, especially if you have an overall clearer vision of what the game is aiming to accomplish.

This last point is a big one, and is a problem with D&D these days in general. For instance my own 4e hack is aimed at amplifying the 'heroic action' aspect of the game. It has a clear goal there. So when I deal with these questions I have a very clear goal that I evaluate the results against. I get that the 5e (and even 4e to a lesser extent) designers have a legacy and some sort of 'big tent' theory that they are burdened with, but it really shows sometimes. I won't claim I can design a better game, I am just purely hacking together elements of existing games and molding it to suite my purposes, which doesn't require a lot of clarity, but it has sure reinforced in my mind the centrality of vision in the design process. Modern D&D serves too many masters.

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

What?

You said...


Now we've already established that bith have damage expressions for levels... so the only thing left is the relationship to effects... which neither edition has.

EVERY 4e power underscores what the common relation is. I could author right here and now on this page a 4e power block and everyone who has some experience with 4e will have an immediate idea of whether or not it falls within the conventional damage and effect envelope for a power of its type and level. Even minor variances will be noted and if it was something presented as homebrew for people's inspection a detailed critique would ensue in which the power was analyzed in charops style WRT its tactical utility, overall strengths and weakness vis-a-vis other powers, and whether it would be a useful addition to whatever class' repertoire of powers.

Now, you could have the same discussion about a 5e spell, feat, class feature, whatever, but it would be a looser and more nebulous discussion without nearly as much clarity as to what is usual and how it would fit into the game.

This is where 4e derives its understanding of power damage/effect trades and other related stuff. Every player will perforce be familiar with at least half-a-dozen powers even as a new starting player, so they are immediately exposed to these conventions, which cross all classes and levels. THAT is what forms the basis for these things and is the context of page 42. I think Sly Flourish did a great thing by adding explicit instructions to that process. This is what I mean when I say 5e failed to improve on 4e, and even moved back a bit. They could have copied page 42, with suitable number changes, and added something akin to Sly's adjustments, but nothing like that happened. I think the reason is twofold, they came to the, IMHO crazy, idea that 'vague is better', and they lacked a solid baseline to build those adjustments on.

 

[Manbearcat]

It's not much of an interesting choice if success is a given... is it?

1) Not all PCs are going to have 100 % efficacy in their ability check modifier relative to the medium DC and certainly not the hard. It will be close for the medium when it is your specialty.

2) Stunting costs that wizard his natural to hit vs NAD (which would probably be either + 8 or + 9 to hit) so he is losing 10 - 15 % efficacy on their attack roll.

3) Again, if you want people to stunt...it needs to have some level of mechanical parity or some sort of gain at reasonable cost/risk.

4) 4e is about protagonism. The success ratio of PCs on any given check is going to exceed that of 5e (which is not centered around protagonism)

Well that isn't listed as one of the damage expressions but whatever...

Look man, I'm trying to have a good-faith, polite conversation with someone I consider a TTRPG peer. I won't say "just sayin'", "whatever", or throw out random DOTDOTDOTs to you out of courtesy and respect and want for a dispute to not escalate. Can you maybe reciprocate?

It's magical fire... thus IMO, it's power level centers around how powerful the wizard, sorcerer, etc. who created it is... otherwise what's the point of using Arcana??

I guess we see that differently. I see the ability to manifest and control the fire (Firebolt, Scorching Burst) as the magical part. I don't consider the fire itself to be anything beyond mundane fire.

It hits the rug, the Wizard is creating a fire hazard as a stunt with his deployment of a fire spell. As such, the environmental DCs are in play.

In 5e there is a precedent ofr AoE spells having saves for half damage...not sure what being an Evoker has to do with an AoE granting a save for half damage or not, especially since you claimed it wasn't magic above but an environmental effect... If this is going to work you should probably stay consistent.

1) Sculpt Spell allows for 1/2 damage with Cantrips. Firebolt is a Cantrip that was deployed to create a fire hazard. I want the player to keep their feature, so it applies.

2) I think it would be needed for balance concerns. Personally, as a player, I wouldn't use this stunt as the cost:benefit doesn't match up, especially in a game like 5e where combat is very short and very Rocket Taggey and thus any lost Action early will be costly.

Why not? The thing is you're only attacked if you enter the area of the rug... and anyone can be burned by it so what exactly is the issue...at? A CR 3 monster is equal to a medium threat to a 6th level character it does 21-26 points of damage per round according to the monster rules... average damage for 3d10 (16.5 dmg) is slightly below this range and that's without successful saves... So what's the problem again?

I was thinking of a spirit-soaked common room area rug spanning most of the floor. Multiple tables, lots of bad guys on the rug. So (a) you have the immediate AoE followed by (b) the burning zone residual damage. Sorting out the balance of various AoE increments, based on #s affected rather than the unit itself (eg radius 5 = n damage of the total budget), on the fly is burdensome mental overhead that bogs down the adjudication and negotiation process of the stunt.

And for me 5e does the same thing but much quicker...

Cool. I think we've probably played this out enough for the moment. I have to head out.

I'll do the Fighter pushing over the wall onto foes this evening.

 

[Manbearcat]

Yeah... because this answer won't be biased at all... C'mon man.

You answer the same. You've got some experience in 4e and you know 5e.

You're my Wizard player in both systems. What do you think? What would you want to negotiate to make it worth your while to pull the trigger, if anything? You've already shown that you disagree with the DC so that is 1 part. How many AoE targets would convince you to pull the trigger despite a 35 % chance to outright waste your action? What kind of zone burn effect?

Do you think the loss of 10-15 % efficacy on your to-hit in the 4e one is worth it (even with the miss damage and the resultant zone)?