D&D 5E (2014) Why you shouldn't allow optional rules.

[keterys]

The real problem, however, is that the CR system is out of whack. A party should only expect to emerge victorious against an opponent with CR equal to their level 50% of the time, and should expect to suffer a few fatalities while doing so.

Err, did they say that? I mean, as far as I know, equal CR just means it _might_ take someone out, not that it's a particularly deadly encounter.

CR lets us know that a Flameskull shouldn't go up against 1st and 2nd level PCs cause their hp are too low (fireball - make a dex save die save for only dying). Ditto some dragons.

The overall XP budget is the bigger question. But yes, just like every edition of D&D, you can figure out ways to be more powerful than someone else. It doesn't even necessarily take feats or multiclassing.

 

[Remathilis]

I found the game works a LOT smoother if you just ban magic.

 

[SavageCole]

So do your players' foes get access to GWM and Sharpshooter feats, too? When optional rules cut both ways lethal balance is restored.

 

[Mistwell]

The real problem, however, is that the CR system is out of whack. A party should only expect to emerge victorious against an opponent with CR equal to their level 50% of the time, and should expect to suffer a few fatalities while doing so.

That is not what CR means, not what it says in any way, and I think perhaps that might be the source of your distress with the system.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I have a lot of fears about running an actual campaign in this system... the few short term and one shots I have run and played have shown a less then 3e but much greater then 4e inbalance... LFQW is still in effect, and when things aren't taken into account it baffles me.

a level 1 fighting based character at level 1 has +4-+6 to hit
a level 12 fighting based character has between +6- +12 to hit... but the rules seam to think it will be much closer to +6... why is this? well from what I can see the Monsters where play tested against the default array, not upping stats, and not having magic items... god I hope I find something in the DMG when I get it to help adjust...

 

[ExploderWizard]

I have a lot of fears about running an actual campaign in this system... the few short term and one shots I have run and played have shown a less then 3e but much greater then 4e inbalance... LFQW is still in effect, and when things aren't taken into account it baffles me.

a level 1 fighting based character at level 1 has +4-+6 to hit
a level 12 fighting based character has between +6- +12 to hit... but the rules seam to think it will be much closer to +6... why is this? well from what I can see the Monsters where play tested against the default array, not upping stats, and not having magic items... god I hope I find something in the DMG when I get it to help adjust...

I am running two 5E campaigns now. There is nothing to fear.

LFQW? If the concentration rules are actually used this isn't a problem. A caster can't have umpteen buffs and utility spells going at once. Using spells alone for example, one cannot fly while invisible.

A level 12 fighter with a 20 STR will have +9 to hit without a magic weapon. Remember that + items cap at three and anything above +1 is fairly rare. +10-11 to hit at those levels is hardly game breaking. Monsters at those levels have a LOT of hit points so they can take getting hit often and keep bringing the hurt.

Anecdotes from the internet will only tell you so much. Actual play in a campaign will show you so much more.

 

[Derren]

god I hope I find something in the DMG when I get it to help adjust...

You are out of luck. The motto of 5E is "Figure it out yourself. Thats a feature btw"

 

[ExploderWizard]

You are out of luck. The motto of 5E is "Figure it out yourself. Thats a feature btw"

It certainly is. If nothing else comes from 5E other than re-introducing the idea that DMs should be able to THINK when running a roleplaying game then it will have done more than its share for the hobby.

 

[Mallus]

You are out of luck. The motto of 5E is "Figure it out yourself. Thats a feature btw"

The motto is closer to: "Here are some tools. Here's (some) advice on how to use them. Figure the rest out for yourself. It's your game."

That's more feature than bug in my book.

(it's also not substantially different from any previous edition of D&D)

 

[Sacrosanct]

The motto is closer to: "Here are some tools. Here's (some) advice on how to use them. Figure the rest out for yourself. It's your game."

That's more feature than bug in my book.

(it's also not substantially different from any previous edition of D&D)

Very much so. I strongly disagree with the assertion earlier about the DEV team just throwing their hands up. As a designer (game designer by hobby and software designer/tester by trade), I think the most probable scenario was where they said, "Our data shows that most people want some freedom, and only a small group wants everything spelled out for them. So let's have a design philosophy that supports the majority of what people want."

Judging by the success of 5e so far, I think they made the right decision.


As so far as the "Overpowered" discussion goes, I have found that in the majority of cases where someone is claiming that combination or class X is overpowered, they have either forgotten/ignored mitigating factors (like concentration for example) or are relying solely on white room scenarios rather than actual play, or both. I.e., I am currently in 2 5e campaigns and have played a lot of one-offs, and I really haven't seen anything that was such a big discrepancy that it caused disruption at the game table.