D&D 5E With the Holy Trinity out, let's take stock of 5E

[Blackbrrd]

Originally Posted by Blackbrrd

You also get flatter math when it comes to attack bonuses/defenses (bounded accuracy) which makes life a lot easier for the DM, mostly due to the much more linear scaling of monsters as opposed to the quadratic scaling from earlier editions.

Read more: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...t-let-s-take-stock-of-5E/page12#ixzz3LUZOmPhI
​

True but it's just arithmetic. Never had much of an issue with it.
....

Great. I'm not trying to score edition points and I've no doubt 5e will be easier to DM, though I enjoy the effort 3e takes; it's part of why I play D&D in the first place. I'm just saying certain aspects of 3e are more to my taste and - here's a thing - I actually have all this 3e stuff already, along with a group of friends who enjoy it with me once a month. So I'm looking forward to buying, reading and running 5e games but I'm unlikely to abandon 3e because of it.

I like driving modern, well-equipped cars. I also enjoy belting along country roads in a classic sports car that has no ABS, power steering, lane-departure warning indicators or parking proximity sensors.

Actually, my point about flatter math isn't that it's easier to calculate to-hit/defenses, that's just arithmetic, just as you say. My point was that you can use a wider range of monsters. In 3e, the to-hit/defenses scale pretty steeply, so you want to avoid using low level monsters because they just can't hit the PC's - or vice versa.

Regarding not abandoning a game that runs well? I really see your point here. I am currently running a really cool low-level 4e campaign (level 1-8, currently at 3), and I am not abandoning it even if I like 5e better. I have started a paralell 5e campaign though with the starter set, mostly to see how 5e is actually like, not just on paper. So far, I really like it and am confident that it will run really well up until level 10-ish.

I think I would need to run a high level campaign to see if the changes they made to 5e high level play actually are improvements, and if they are good enough to make high level play enjoyable. For me, it's not so important, I have always preferred level 3-7 anyway due to the different campaign style high level play often entails.

 

[Mercurius]

I haven't really seen this, but then I'm not sure what you mean by "house rules". Is using Twist of Space (7th level wizard teleport attack) to free an NPC trapped inside a mirror (something that happened in my game) a house rule or not? The game's tight design supports rather than hinders that sort of play.

I don't really see that as a house rule, more of a house ruling - the idea being that the RAW are guidelines for the DM to employ in crafting play experience. In other words, a rule--house or official--is structural, whereas a ruling is more fluid and has to do with how you use the structure of the rules.

Making up new weapons, magic items, monsters, spells, etc is no harder than its ever been.

Agreed, but these aren't really house rules. Or rather, if they are, they are of a different variety. I think we could posit two general types of house rules - the first being new stuff as you describe, the second being actual structural changes. Perhaps we can call them shallow and deep house rules, with a spectrum in-between.

Plenty of people who post on these boards have house ruled skill challenges, recovery times, lingering injuries (based on the disease/curse track), etc.

To be honest, 5e strikes me as being quite similar to 4e in many respects: fairly tightly balanced class abilities (including the spell designs, with a few apparent exceptions), a very general non-combat resolution mechanic based around broadly-defined skill and stat checks (5e has a handful of slightly more pedantic skills), and integrated encounter design and rest/recovery mechanics.

Yes. And in that regard, it has incorporated many of the strengths of 4e - the internal, structural integrity of the system (as opposed to the "heapism" of 1E).

What sorts of house rules do you have in mind that you think are easier in 5e than 4e?

is

What I was calling "deep house rules" (OK, now it sounds like we're talking about music ). Stuff like critical hit systems, alternate healing, tactics, etc. I found that beyond surface things, making house rules in 4E often had hidden problems, or at least things to adjust. It is sort of like the game Pick Up Sticks - you move one stick and you're in danger of moving many others. I haven't dabbled much with 5E yet, it just seems like there's more wiggle room - perhaps largely because it is a simpler game.

This isn't a criticism of 4E, by the way. It is more a feature, a positive one I would say, of 5E. Part of the strength of 4E, in my mind, was how tightly it was designed. But it is more difficult to "hack" than other editions, in my opinion. Some of this is cultural - for instance, the reliance on Character Builder, which was such a useful tool that everyone (or most folks) used it and came to rely upon it. But it was also difficult (if not impossible) to work house rules in, new classes and such.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Now that I've got all three books and have run some sessions I'll say without a doubt I like this edition better than 3e/3.5/PF. As a DM I despise those games, and as a player I merely think they are tedious and boring in play. Getting rid of the constantly shifting bonuses from buffs, feats, situational mods, etc and replacing most of that with Advantage/Disadvantage is wonderful. The flatter math makes mixed level parties much more viable, and makes weaker monsters still a threat, especially in numbers, without me having to add levels to them. I prefer the setup of monsters in this game, smaller stat blocks, easier to run. Classes are interesting and have options but don't appear like they will be nearly as much a min/max paradise like 3e. Combat is cool but I"ll spice it up with a couple more options. The wolverine level healing is a bit much, but workable and easily modified. Modified spell system is great, and very versatile. Leveling i s a bit quick but fixable. Seems easy to house rule too. Overall its fun. I"m glad I'm having fun playing D&D again after the past two editions, though I skipped 4e entirely so I can't really comment on it beyond reading the books. One problem is one of the other players runs a 3.5 game and I really don't want to play it anymore. I only played it since one guy wanted to run it and I like my group but after this man 3.x really seems like a chore.

 

[howandwhy99]

I don't think that [MENTION=22260]TerraDave[/MENTION] is counting the 1980s as "early D&D". I think the original campaigns are being referred to.

People making up a game and trying out rules on the fly aren't playing a game. That's not some recent observation. That's an understanding that's been around for centuries. Rules are set before play for a reason, so games can be played at all.

But in fact there was plenty of improvisation in 1980s D&D too. Moldvay, in his Basic rulebook, even gave advice on how to handle it. (So does Gygax, less prominently, in his DMG discussion of optional secondary skills: he suggests that the GM should consider one of the skills in which s/he has some degree of proficiency, work out what that lets him/her accomplish in that particular field of endeavour, and then extrapolate to the various other fields of activity that the secondary skill table encompasses.)

The DMG is advice to DMs to build their game prior to play, not rules for how to play with the DM as a player. I can't speak for Moldvay, but the basic games starting with Holmes were aimed at kids.

Upthread you compared D&D to computer games, but the permissible moves in D&D are not bound in the same way they are as for a computer game (especially computer games 25 or 30 years ago). The same is true when D&D is compared to Mastermind and Chess, other games that you have mentioned.

All of these games, including D&D, are predicated on the act of game play, that players are deciphering an underlying code to attain objectives in a pattern, i.e. a game. Actions in D&D are bound to the game. "I'm going to pick up some lunch on my way over, Thomas". That isn't possible in the game because the speaker is referring to the world outside it. All games are bounded. Even D&D is bound. For example, players are limited by what they can capably communicate to the DM.

For instance, what are the rules to determine if a character can use an iron spike and a mallet to break a portcullis mechanism, thereby rapidly dropping the bars so as to hold off some approaching orcish soldiers? That is a permissible move that a player might declare, but the AD&D and B/X games provide no rules for adjudicating it. The closest we get is the STR chart for opening doors and (in AD&D) bending bars/lifting gates.

To Hit, damage, and Hit Point stats are obviously all over D&D. That they are based on underlying patterns so items like hammers and pitons and portcullis mechanism (a winch or chain pulley?) can also be derived from the same is less obvious. But many wargames did exactly that. They derived results from the game's design. This was how many used to read D&D too, akin to a game rules manual as you might find in a boardgame or wargame. Of course it's a guide for DMs to set up the code behind the screen before play, but that's extrapolated. All those designs are suggestions.

 

[howandwhy99]

Can I make a Save vs. Anecdote?



Seriously, you've no idea what the "majority of players" knew. Your experience in the 80s certainly doesn't match my own, or that of many people I know.

I think your point would be much better served if you avoided broad generalizations like what you think the majority of players were doing.

So it was said that,

And of course early D&D was all about the DM improvising.

A blatant mischaracterization or misunderstanding about early D&D and certainly not everyone's memory of that time. 1970s D&D players were mostly adults and part of the wargaming community. They were hard-nosed, very focused, mathematically literate individuals who probably worked as engineers or in similar fields. They broke out the compass and protractor to make movements in the game. The counted and recounted to double check their answers.

These were not people who played games so they could hand wave away the rules. They are certainly not the progenitors of the 1-page storygame. They are the kinds of people who would refer to authorities who have the actual state of the game held by a Referee (The Sage column?) to answer fine point questions. And as more and more creative actions were attempted, the rules ballooned too.

IMO, these are the kinds of people who make the most famous games in history. Magic: the Gathering was made by a mathematician and it's obvious from design. (Does math have stranglehold on "fun"? No, but neither do the the humanities. A good understanding of narrative theory won't necessarily result in a fun game even with the recent attempt to conflate the two.)

Most kids, at least in the Milwaukee area in the early to mid-1980s, knew the DM wasn't supposed to make things up behind the screen. That's why all the rules were there. They were playing a game like a computer RPG before computer games were out of the arcade. And D&D was a massive hit because of this design. Much like PacMan it was highly addictive because it was built on pattern recognition (much like most music). Players may not have known clearly what was going on, but no one is denying their enjoyment.

Only later did derogatory statements get said about the game: "You're really pretending to be an elf in your basement", "The DM doesn't need to roll dice or use a screen, it's all made up." and like ideas.Spread far enough those prejudices become common and common knowledge is later confused for common history. I mean, "role playing" was a term used to differentiate from people who were improvising. How reversed is our understanding of that practice now?

 

[Saplatt]

5e has already established itself as my favorite edition. The only question at this point is the "margin of victory." If it plays reasonably well at levels 10 and up it will be an absolute blowout.

 

[Hussar]

People making up a game and trying out rules on the fly aren't playing a game. That's not some recent observation. That's an understanding that's been around for centuries. Rules are set before play for a reason, so games can be played at all.

The DMG is advice to DMs to build their game prior to play, not rules for how to play with the DM as a player. I can't speak for Moldvay, but the basic games starting with Holmes were aimed at kids.
/snip

Sigh. It would really, REALLY help your argument if you would actually read the rules. Both AD&D and Moldvay Basic/Expert talk numerous times about how the DM should use judgement to over rule the rules and flat out change things whenever the DM feels it is necessary.

Note, AD&D was also written for kids. it was not presumed that adults would be playing. Do you really think that they were that oblivious to who was buying and playing the game by the time AD&D was published?

Also, the idea that rules are set before play is ballocks. There are numerous games, such as "let's pretend" where you can make up rules on the fly. D&D has a huge tradition of making up rules on the fly. Good grief, in AD&D, how you do adjudicate someone jumping over a pit. You could do a Str Check, you could do a Dex Check, you could rule by fiat, you could choose a Saving Throw, and i'm sure there are other ways.

If the rules were set before play started, how would you perform actions that aren't listed in the game?

 

[Hussar]

I don't really see that as a house rule, more of a house ruling - the idea being that the RAW are guidelines for the DM to employ in crafting play experience. In other words, a rule--house or official--is structural, whereas a ruling is more fluid and has to do with how you use the structure of the rules.



Agreed, but these aren't really house rules. Or rather, if they are, they are of a different variety. I think we could posit two general types of house rules - the first being new stuff as you describe, the second being actual structural changes. Perhaps we can call them shallow and deep house rules, with a spectrum in-between.



Yes. And in that regard, it has incorporated many of the strengths of 4e - the internal, structural integrity of the system (as opposed to the "heapism" of 1E).

is

What I was calling "deep house rules" (OK, now it sounds like we're talking about music ). Stuff like critical hit systems, alternate healing, tactics, etc. I found that beyond surface things, making house rules in 4E often had hidden problems, or at least things to adjust. It is sort of like the game Pick Up Sticks - you move one stick and you're in danger of moving many others. I haven't dabbled much with 5E yet, it just seems like there's more wiggle room - perhaps largely because it is a simpler game.

This isn't a criticism of 4E, by the way. It is more a feature, a positive one I would say, of 5E. Part of the strength of 4E, in my mind, was how tightly it was designed. But it is more difficult to "hack" than other editions, in my opinion. Some of this is cultural - for instance, the reliance on Character Builder, which was such a useful tool that everyone (or most folks) used it and came to rely upon it. But it was also difficult (if not impossible) to work house rules in, new classes and such.

Really? Now, this is something I didn't notice in 4e. We added a Morale Module, long term wounds module (using the disease track), and changing HP and healing was a breeze. You could go full on Monty Haul or no treasure at all and the game still worked.

About the only really difficult thing would be creating a complete class. That would be a PITA and a lot of work. But, outside of that, I really don't see the problems in house ruling 4e. Or, at least, that wasn't my experience.

 

[Mouseferatu]

About the only really difficult thing would be creating a complete class. That would be a PITA and a lot of work.

As the guy who wrote Expeditious Retreat's Advanced Player's Guide way back in the infant days of 4E... Yes. Yes, it really, really is a PITA and a lot of work.

I think, by word count, that was one of the most grueling projects I've worked on, professionally.

 

[Ranes]

Actually, my point about flatter math isn't that it's easier to calculate to-hit/defenses, that's just arithmetic, just as you say. My point was that you can use a wider range of monsters. In 3e, the to-hit/defenses scale pretty steeply, so you want to avoid using low level monsters because they just can't hit the PC's - or vice versa.

The point is taken.