TheRPGSite

I've bene playing 5E off and on for a few years, mostly in one shot games or short campaigns, and never past 3rd level. By now, I imagine the problems (if any) of the game are well-known. What are the main issues?

Quote from: Aglondir;1106950I've bene playing 5E off and on for a few years, mostly in one shot games or short campaigns, and never past 3rd level. By now, I imagine the problems (if any) of the game are well-known. What are the main issues?

Many people will defend 5E, and tell you there aren't any glaring problems.  It's a great game, that may not be everyone's cup of tea; but a lot of people like it enough to play it.  It's very popular.

The biggest "problem" would be it is an already baked cake in terms of playstyle. Unlike older barebones TSR D&D, where you can build up to a more heroic playstyle by adding subsequent optional adjustments, you start with WotC's Unleashed Heroics! tm (albeit in their most restrained version yet) and have to subtract for adjustments -- however there are still more options to make it even MOAR heroic! That is a personal aesthetics issue, one that every table endures on any game, but it is still very much an issue because analysis and re-synthesis is more delicate than synthesis atop a bare-bones foundation. :)

That is actually a complaint I had from the beginning, mentioned here on this forum too, and it has born out for my tastes. ;) But AiME and others has shown the promise in the chassis to handle a thorough analysis & re-synthesis into a new-feeling product. So, all in all 5e is a solid WotC product, easily its best D&D effort to date, IME.

There's a very heavy reliance on spellcasting, with around 80% of PCs having spell slots - only Barbarians and (I think) Monks don't have a spellcasting path option, while Paladins and Rangers are casting more spells than old school Magic-Users. I don't like this as a flavour thing in lower-magic settings like Primeval Thule. Works fine for a high magic world like Golarion.

Combat runs faster than 4e and I think 3e, but much slower than old school D&D. A session can easily end up mostly combat, though it's not exhausting like 4e combat.

People who like high-crunch thing 5e lacks crunch.
People who like low-crunch think 5e is too crunchy.

The 5e DMG is missing some important stuff like generic encounter tables. These are in Xanathar's; which also has better ideas for a lot of DMG systems like crafting and downtime.

It lacks a robust system for magic item crafting & purchase, which annoys some 3e/PF fans in particular.

Overall the problems are minor; it is a great game and my favourite version of D&D.

1. The skill system is bad. So bad, that no skill system would work better. People will defend this system forever.

2. The monster manual is full of boring sacks of HP. You'll start to feel it at higher levels, but the HP boat is why I consider 5e so much like 4e, but without all the robust mechanics that made 4e it's own thing.

3. DMG magic items include tons of broken ones that will let PCs stomp way higher CR creatures.

4. Class features are overtuned.

5. A lot of spells are really vague and have mechanical details fleshed out in other editions.

For me, it's the monster stat blocks and the monster creation rules. They're a massive step backwards from 4E and that's a big problem for me even if it doesn't seem to bother too many other people. I don't like having to look up spells; 4E spoiled me with stat blocks that contained all the information I needed to run the monster.

As usual, Rhedyn's bitter grudge against 5E should be considered when reading his input on the subject.

The modular aspects of 5E are mostly well done, or at least serviceable.  The default settings leave a lot to be desired in the "plays like D&D" realm.  You can make it play more like D&D, but you'll get there by monkeying with the modules and ignoring a great deal of the "advice" in the books.  Cyclic initiative is from the devil. :)

Backgrounds and class "paths" are well designed, but lacking in execution for many of the core classes.  The ranger is especially a missed opportunity, as it would have been trivially easy to have made the base class a non caster, and then added the casting back in on only some of the paths.  On the plus side, some of the paladin options are both flavorful and fun.  The bard is the best one they've ever done.  (They finally realized that jack of all trades doesn't work in D&D.  The 5E Bard is a full caster with a lot of skills.)

Backgrounds are rather bland and cookie cutter.  They could have had a little more variety mechanically that would have let the flavor shine through more.  Still, those are easy enough to spindle, fold, and mutilate.

Tome of Beasts (by Kobold Press) has monsters done better than the base Monster Manual.  The two books together make a good mix, though.  

Spells are organized poorly and on the cheap.  Nothing wrong with alphabetical order for the main listing, but the spot in the books, the location of the lists, the lack of an index by wizard school, etc. leaves a lot to be desired.

There is a general sense of using traditional D&D terms in non D&D ways that contributes to the overall confusion.  It's easy enough to figure out once you work at it, but unnecessarily troublesome for both experienced and new players.  

Dexterity is too important.  The game has shifted to make it more important, but the ability scores are mired in tradition.  Either keep the tradition and the links that go with it, or change it and let the change run through the system.  Halfway is just bad design.

Quote from: Rhedyn;11070135. A lot of spells are really vague and have mechanical details fleshed out in other editions.

I played 5th for a couple years, and am done with the system pretty much forever now, but this is a definitive PLUS of the system. After playing with rules-lawyers so much, it was nice to see spells that required DM interpretation.

The biggest issue for me is that it tries too hard to keep the classes balanced. I'm completely uninterested in balance that results in uniformity, and at some point all the classes seem to just turn into essentially the same thing. This is probably the 4th edition DNA showing. It's not a bad system, but requires more work than I'm willing to do anymore. I can get really drunk and run Castles and Crusades or B/X, 5th requires a lot more brain power to keep track of everything.

Advantage/Disadvantage is the best thing about the game, though. Totally worth ripping off.

Quote from: Brad;1107018Advantage/Disadvantage is the best thing about the game, though. Totally worth ripping off.

Tangent, but I love how The Black Hack 2e makes use of the mechanic.

One thing they did was apply advantage/disadvantage to roll under "skill" checks. Which I found to be a really elegant way to flesh out that not-skill system.

I like 5E, and have both played and DM'd in several campaigns, going all the way back to the Next playtest. When I weigh the pros and cons, it stands as my favourite edition of D&D. However, I do have several issues with the system:

1) The skills system is worse than useless. There's little difference in individual outcome between highly trained and not trained at all. Worse, there's no downside to every PC rolling for every check, rendering failure highly unlikely. We've had to houserule the shit out of the skill system to make it work.

2) Monsters, for the most part, are just big sacks of hit points. Fighting an ogre doesn't feel much different from an owlbear or a minotaur. Roll to hit, whittle down the big bag of hit points, repeat.

3) Beyond the first couple levels, it's very difficult to place the PCs under real jeopardy. It's an attritional system, but the PCs have robust powers of recovery. It more or less works if you stick to the default assumption of 6-8 combats per long rest. But stray from that, and it loses all tension.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1106953The biggest "problem" would be it is an already baked cake in terms of playstyle. Unlike older barebones TSR D&D, where you can build up to a more heroic playstyle by adding subsequent optional adjustments, you start with WotC's Unleashed Heroics! tm (albeit in their most restrained version yet) and have to subtract for adjustments -- however there are still more options to make it even MOAR heroic! That is a personal aesthetics issue, one that every table endures on any game, but it is still very much an issue because analysis and re-synthesis is more delicate than synthesis atop a bare-bones foundation. :)

Quote from: S'mon;1106987There's a very heavy reliance on spellcasting, with around 80% of PCs having spell slots - only Barbarians and (I think) Monks don't have a spellcasting path option, while Paladins and Rangers are casting more spells than old school Magic-Users. I don't like this as a flavour thing in lower-magic settings...

Combat runs faster than 4e and I think 3e, but much slower than old school D&D. A session can easily end up mostly combat, though it's not exhausting like 4e combat.


The 5e DMG is missing some important stuff like generic encounter tables.

These things.   The loss of encounter tables, and more importantly, the loss of cultural memory about how to use randomized adventure generators like encounter tables to generate compelling play is IMO one of the greatest losses from the first generation of gaming.

From my engagement with 5E, it seems so determined to cover the various forms of what D&D has been (although some more than others--I feel stronger preferences for 1E and 3E in its nostalgia bits and tone and style, but that may be my own negative bias) that it winds up feeling like neither fish nor fowl. Maybe that's why the strongest impression it makes on me is cumbersome and overproduced--it's trying to be a 'simple, light D&D', but it can't quite pull it off with the tumid spell lists and massive options and details.

It's just tons of magic, hit points, and class-based super powers everywhere. Like all WotC D&D, it also removed the turn based dungeon exploration structure. It's totally usable and I think it's the best WotC D&D. That said, when someone in my gaming group pitches a session, I tend to skip those sessions.

Quote from: Haffrung;11070403) Beyond the first couple levels, it's very difficult to place the PCs under real jeopardy. It's an attritional system, but the PCs have robust powers of recovery. It more or less works if you stick to the default assumption of 6-8 combats per long rest. But stray from that, and it loses all tension.

You just have to make a lesser amount of stronger combats. 6-8 is for medium encounters.

You could have 3-4 hard encounters instead, or 1-2 deadly.

I think that 5E as a game isn't that bad, but I have had nothing but trouble from the local Adventurer's League (mainly because I play games other than the latest version of WotC D&D).

Quote from: Rhedyn;11070131. The skill system is bad.

• Skills are my main complaint. I tend to like a larger skill list than the current reductive trend in game design.
• I keep thinking that Advantages and Disadvantages ought to add up, so 3 Ads - 1 Dis = Advantage.
• The rogue seems to have gone from backstab, to flank-stab, to just be close to a friend -stab.
• Firing cantrips every round seems too goofy.
• AoO's are an improvement.
• I like the milestone XP system.
• Backgrounds and those alignment questions seem mostly ignored.
• Something seems off with Inspiration, but I'm not sure what.
• Do people still argue about Crossbow Expert?

Yet, I don't consider any of those things Big Problems, more like just not my cup of tea / anecdotal experiences.

Quote from: Aglondir;1107096

• Something seems off with Inspiration, but I'm not sure what.

It's tacked on without any serious integration with the rest of the system, and it shows.  Worse, as written it is too heavy for the tiny bit of whatever it may bring to the session.  Consider if you have 5 players.  By rule, the GM is somehow supposed to keep in mind 5 subjective things for each of those players that they could do that would award inspiration.  Or at least stop and think every time they do something that might qualify.  

It's only redeeming virtue is that it is so tacked on and so useless that dropping it is easy.  Kind of like 5E alignment in that respect.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107100It's tacked on without any serious integration with the rest of the system, and it shows.  Worse, as written it is too heavy for the tiny bit of whatever it may bring to the session.  Consider if you have 5 players.  By rule, the GM is somehow supposed to keep in mind 5 subjective things for each of those players that they could do that would award inspiration.  Or at least stop and think every time they do something that might qualify.  

It's only redeeming virtue is that it is so tacked on and so useless that dropping it is easy.  Kind of like 5E alignment in that respect.

What I do to deal with it is just start each player with 1 Inspiration at the start of each session and it's up to them to invoke it before a roll dealing with one of their traits.

Quote from: S'mon;1106987Paladins and Rangers are casting more spells than old school Magic-Users.

OD&D magic-users have at least as many spell slots as a ranger or paladin in 5e at every level, and mostly more.

Quote from: Haffrung;1107040I like 5E, and have both played and DM'd in several campaigns, going all the way back to the Next playtest. When I weigh the pros and cons, it stands as my favourite edition of D&D. However, I do have several issues with the system:

1) The skills system is worse than useless. There's little difference in individual outcome between highly trained and not trained at all. Worse, there's no downside to every PC rolling for every check, rendering failure highly unlikely. We've had to houserule the shit out of the skill system to make it work.

Same experience; I do rule a lot more things impossible without proficiency than the rules contain, I houserule against group checks in many cases, and Guidance is really tiresome. There are simultaneously too many and too few skills, however they managed that.

Fourth tier (17th level and above) is not as broken as I feared it would be, but it doesn't work as well as the other tiers.

Passive perception to avoid being surprised annoys me; the perceptive character can never be surprised if a less perceptive character is not, so no chance they are looking the wrong way when trouble appears.

There are no superoptimal choices of class, race, feats or whatever, but there are some combinations that you see tiresomely often.

Quote from: rawma;1107131There are simultaneously too many and too few skills, however they managed that.

True.  I think it is because some of the skills are ill-chosen to try to make the game more open-ended and support more settings, but the list is incomplete for some of the settings where those skills would aptly apply. For example, if you want to run a classic D&D dungeon crawl, then "History" and "Religion" are not that useful.  You'd be better off with something like "Legends" and probably something else unrelated to religion or at least only barely so.  But if you are running a more naturalistic game where "History" matters, then it is a little too broad.  

It's also a case of the skills not being of roughly the same detail.  Athletics is broad.  Acrobatics is narrow.  I get that they don't want to make Swimming and Climbing separate skills, and thus make the list too long.  But once it gets broad, it needs to stay pretty broad across the full list.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107147True.  I think it is because some of the skills are ill-chosen to try to make the game more open-ended and support more settings, but the list is incomplete for some of the settings where those skills would aptly apply. For example, if you want to run a classic D&D dungeon crawl, then "History" and "Religion" are not that useful.  You'd be better off with something like "Legends" and probably something else unrelated to religion or at least only barely so.  But if you are running a more naturalistic game where "History" matters, then it is a little too broad.  

It's also a case of the skills not being of roughly the same detail.  Athletics is broad.  Acrobatics is narrow.  I get that they don't want to make Swimming and Climbing separate skills, and thus make the list too long.  But once it gets broad, it needs to stay pretty broad across the full list.

Another issue is that there are categories of skills that I think ought to be treated differently; tools, knowledge skills, negotiation skills, sensory skills and various physical skills are rather different but all forced into the same structure. At the very least the ratio of proficiency to ability benefit would seem to vary among these, and helping let alone group checks might differ. Or maybe that's the same issue you describe, or the previously described issue that proficiency bonus that's one size fits all doesn't quite work for all skills.

Quote from: rawma;1107159Another issue is that there are categories of skills that I think ought to be treated differently; tools, knowledge skills, negotiation skills, sensory skills and various physical skills are rather different but all forced into the same structure. At the very least the ratio of proficiency to ability benefit would seem to vary among these, and helping let alone group checks might differ. Or maybe that's the same issue you describe, or the previously described issue that proficiency bonus that's one size fits all doesn't quite work for all skills.

You also get weirdness like being able to use downtime to learn tools and languages but not skills. Somehow you can study to learn the Draconic language but not Arcana. Likewise you can learn the art of being a smith, carpenter, or mason but not Animal Handling or Medicine.

Quote from: rawma;1107131OD&D magic-users have at least as many spell slots as a ranger or paladin in 5e at every level, and mostly more.

But they cast fewer spells because they have to memorise specific spells in specific slots, whereas a 5e caster burns slots to cast the desired spell. So in practice the OD&D caster casts fewer spells.

I actually appreciate 5e "flex-casting" as a concession to modern players used to video game Magic Points economy.

Skills bothers me none because it is deliberately vague so as to be GM behind-the-screen tool, so variable table by table. It's the only real way to compromise between all the editions, as it is the closest desigj saddle point I could imagine. Anything more defined, like DC "examples" (to be read like Holy Writ immediately after,) and I'd drop 5e like a hot potato and never look back. It's a total old v. new school divide. Everyone's unhappy which means it's closest to the best of all worlds. :p They got that design as a hole-in-one, IME.

Rest economy and Natural Recovery is about as good as one can get as a compromise between everyone (looking at you, 4e outlier :mad: ) forcing everyone to tinker to get to their happy place. Some want Adventure Paths (bowling alleys) and others want Sandbox, some want CR "balance" and others want "fuck it, let's roll!", and S/L Rest and Hit Dice economy waves away a lot of that into a MANAGEABLE abstraction. As is we are all "unhappy," but it is remarkably easy to adjust as desired.

I knew a 'baked by committee' cake was coming; it is hard to do modular given how hard WotC's games deviate from each other, let alone the rest of TSR D&D. But as is it is surprisingly restrained design on their part. I did not expect this much happiness, let alone robust flexibility, from the end product. :) I complain, but it is a grognard grouse for ye olden days more than utter aesthetic incompatibility.

Quote from: S'mon;1106987There's a very heavy reliance on spellcasting, with around 80% of PCs having spell slots - only Barbarians and (I think) Monks don't have a spellcasting path option, while Paladins and Rangers are casting more spells than old school Magic-Users. I don't like this as a flavour thing in lower-magic settings like Primeval Thule. Works fine for a high magic world like Golarion.

Combat runs faster than 4e and I think 3e, but much slower than old school D&D. A session can easily end up mostly combat, though it's not exhausting like 4e combat.

The 5e DMG is missing some important stuff like generic encounter tables. These are in Xanathar's; which also has better ideas for a lot of DMG systems like crafting and downtime.

It lacks a robust system for magic item crafting & purchase, which annoys some 3e/PF fans in particular.

1: I would not so much say there is a heavy reliance on spellcasting as there is at this point a class path for pretty much every class now.
(The Monk has a spellcasting path right out the gate. And Id have to look it up but Barbarians either allready do, or will soon have a minor spellcasting path, if the playtest goes through.)
The 5e Ranger does not have more spells than a MU of old. Their progression is only to level 5 spells and then cuts off there. Id have to do a comparison. But AD&D and 2e MUs by level 10 and 20 had a fair number of spells. Keep in mind too that for these two those spell slots are being likely mostly burned to fuel their class abilities that were converted into spells, smites and arrow tricks.

2: From DMing 5e and playing it since playtest I have to say its actually running pretty fast usually. Not positive but it may be going at about the same pace as AD&D combat. Not as fast as BX combat though which tended to go pretty quick due to fewer moving parts and pretty much everyone doing melee or range as spells needed to be kept in reserve more.

3 & 4: The DMG was actually interesting in that it was pushing the idea of the DM making their own encounter tables for an area. This actually harkens back to AD&D which suggests the same. 5e just dropped any tables as a fallback.

Xanithar adds all this and adds some complexity to crafting. YMMV if thats a good or bad thing. I liked the original system from the DMG a bit more as crafting magic items takes alot longer. Xanithar's rules changes vastly shorten the time requirement. But adds things like complications, rivals and having to quest for components.

Personal gripes with the system.

1: Long Rests are virtually impossible to interrupt. You'd literally have to keep the PCs in combat or very active for 600 rounds. It is just not normally going to happen by the rules just short of ever. You'd have to house rule it to something more sane.

2: PCs popping back up if they are knocked to 0 HP and then healed rather than stabalized. The DMG does have some optional systems that can be used. Or you can do something as simple as making use of the very neglected exhaustion rules and every time someone is taken to 0 HP they gain a level of exhaustion.

3: Beastmaster ranger companion. Compared to some of the other classes that can have companions, the Ranger seems to get levied with more restrictions than even the wizard familliar. And now with the Essentials sidekick rules you can have a beast companion that is autonomous and does not need an action to command, or even a bonus action. Easiest fix is to just change the ranger companion command from an action to a bonus action. Which is how some other companion or summon creatures work.

4: The Monster Manual and most of the expansion books are way way way way too demon happy. No really. Alot of monsters in 5e have been changed to be one way or another some sort of demon spawn or demon influenced transformation. There are now at least two campaign modules where hellish beings play a major role.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107181Skills bothers me none because it is deliberately vague so as to be GM behind-the-screen tool, so variable table by table. It's the only real way to compromise between all the editions, as it is the closest desigj saddle point I could imagine. Anything more defined, like DC "examples" (to be read like Holy Writ immediately after,) and I'd drop 5e like a hot potato and never look back. It's a total old v. new school divide. Everyone's unhappy which means it's closest to the best of all worlds. :p They got that design as a hole-in-one, IME.

You are right that it is a middle point, as someone who likes every other version of D&D, it's a middle point without value.

For the purpose of letting people squint and see their favorite D&D, then yes it succeeded, at the cost it being a waste of page count.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107181Skills bothers me none because it is deliberately vague so as to be GM behind-the-screen tool, so variable table by table. It's the only real way to compromise between all the editions, as it is the closest desigj saddle point I could imagine. Anything more defined, like DC "examples" (to be read like Holy Writ immediately after,) and I'd drop 5e like a hot potato and never look back. It's a total old v. new school divide. Everyone's unhappy which means it's closest to the best of all worlds. :p They got that design as a hole-in-one, IME.

Rest economy and Natural Recovery is about as good as one can get as a compromise between everyone (looking at you, 4e outlier :mad: ) forcing everyone to tinker to get to their happy place. Some want Adventure Paths (bowling alleys) and others want Sandbox, some want CR "balance" and others want "fuck it, let's roll!", and S/L Rest and Hit Dice economy waves away a lot of that into a MANAGEABLE abstraction. As is we are all "unhappy," but it is remarkably easy to adjust as desired.

There's one big difference between the 5E design of rests/recovery versus skills:  The recovery system is designed to change, and then well-implemented to support that change.  It's obvious how to tweak it for any GM with even half a brain and moderate proficiency with grade school math. If that isn't enough, the DMG even spells out some ideas to get the GM started.   The defaults are as you say, in the compromise spot, but the defaults are easy to change.  Whereas skills are designed to hit the default, compromise spot.  Changing them is superficially easy, but filled with land mines.  

I'm not saying you can't change the skills.  It's a list of things that interacts with the rest of the system in many places.  It can be changed the same way any other such mechanic can be changed.  However, the system doesn't help you much, and to do it well, you really need to know the system inside and out.  Or you can, of course, scattershot wing it to fit a setting, making it up as you go.  With a good GM, that will even work.  But that's because of what the GM brings to the table, not because of the system.

I don't entirely blame the design team for this problem, however.  Designing a good skill system is difficult.  Making a modular skill system even more so.  Plus, the traditional D&D chassis is not the easiest place to do it.

Well another factor in this is that D&D 5e has to meet the demands to justify its existence for a major corporation, that pretty much all other RPG's couldn't possibly muster.

It's doomed to fall into the odd design-space that it has, needing to be all things to all people while embracing whatever business strategy the beancounters determine will make it "evergreen" while placating the older edition-fans.

None of which has anything to do with what goes on at my table other than my decision of "Does it work for me?" Short answer is no. Do I hate it? Not at all. Do I like it? Not particularly.

Reasons (which I think are fixable):

1) I think the scaling is off. It doesn't play well beyond 12th lvl. It's *better* than the previous two editions, imo. But it's still off.
2) Skills - They're weird. The choices of which skills they use and *how* they're used seem inconsistent to me.
3) Encounter Design As The Game - This weird continuation from 3e, which hit its apex in 4e and seems to still be a thing for a lot of people (and I confess this could just be a byproduct of noob GM's trying to learn how to GM procedurally). Again - totally fixable.
4)Weird Class design choices - I've said this many times before - Estar and I have gone back and forth on this, I think 5e's classes in some cases exist as mini-games to justify external mechanics rather than as an expression of core-mechanics in play.
5) "Balance" - I don't believe in balance in mechanical terms alone. I want the game setting to demand balance as an expression of what the setting realities *are* and the mechanics should enforce those realities. 5e wants it both ways and produces weird results in its downstream products because there is a distinct bifurcation in what the mechanics of the books RAW imply vs. what has been established in their settings. Again easily, and necessarily fixable at the table. But I think it should be done in the books from the jump.

Most importantly - NONE of these things make 5e a *bad* game. *I* am not the targeted demographic of 5e, despite me, until recently, being a nearly lifelong D&D player. 5e helped me greatly come to that realization. My "itch" has evolved in ways that 5e is not designed to scratch - by intent, and that's fine. I've taken great solace in accepting some positive things about 5e in crystallizing some opinions about what is truly great in the OSR and 1e/2e. And for me, that alone is good enough.

Quote from: Omega;11071904: The Monster Manual and most of the expansion books are way way way way too demon happy. No really. Alot of monsters in 5e have been changed to be one way or another some sort of demon spawn or demon influenced transformation. There are now at least two campaign modules where hellish beings play a major role.

  The game's been oversaturated with fiends since WotC took over, perhaps as a backlash against TSR sidelining them, perhaps due to the game becoming more and more self-involved with its lore. Paizo's run on Dragon was even worse for both the daemonophilia and the deep dives into D&D history.

Quote from: tenbones;1107206Most importantly - NONE of these things make 5e a *bad* game. *I* am not the targeted demographic of 5e, despite me, until recently, being a nearly lifelong D&D player. 5e helped me greatly come to that realization. My "itch" has evolved in ways that 5e is not designed to scratch - by intent, and that's fine. I've taken great solace in accepting some positive things about 5e in crystallizing some opinions about what is truly great in the OSR and 1e/2e. And for me, that alone is good enough.

That's where I'm at, but it's driven me back to 3.5. I like 3.5's robust skill system, core classes, combat engine, and the concept of feats. It needs some definite mods to shape it into something I like, just like OSR stuff needs mods.

5e is not a bad game, but "ok" isn't good enough for the table. It's a similar problem I have with PF2e or Starfinder, they are OK but why would OK ever be acceptable when you could play something great?

Maybe that's only a problem you get when you can GM. You run into the issue of "even though I prefer playing, I'd rather run X system than play an OK system".

5e is so comprised that I consider it the 2nd worst game of the line. Yeah 4e is a great particular kind of game and really mastered the "Encounter Design as Game" philosophy, that didn't jive with a lot of people, but it is still great for what it is. 5e is just 4e with a lot of the guts ripped out and covered with a thick nostalgia veneer. For those of you that love 5e but hate 4e, you just love a more thematic presentation and layout. It only has less rules because they took them out and didn't replace them with anything. Even the 5e skill system is actually just a small part of the 4e skill system.
3.5 is great game after you learn the system and rules, the prospect of actually learning all those rules is so terrible, that I would say overall 3e is a bad game and actually worse than 5e. I'd rather pay 3.5 than 5e, but that is because I know the rules.

Quote from: Rhedyn;11072195e is not a bad game, but "ok" isn't good enough for the table. It's a similar problem I have with PF2e or Starfinder, they are OK but why would OK ever be acceptable when you could play something great?

Maybe that's only a problem you get when you can GM. You run into the issue of "even though I prefer playing, I'd rather run X system than play an OK system".

5e is so comprised that I consider it the 2nd worst game of the line. Yeah 4e is a great particular kind of game and really mastered the "Encounter Design as Game" philosophy, that didn't jive with a lot of people, but it is still great for what it is. 5e is just 4e with a lot of the guts ripped out and covered with a thick nostalgia veneer. For those of you that love 5e but hate 4e, you just love a more thematic presentation and layout. It only has less rules because they took them out and didn't replace them with anything. Even the 5e skill system is actually just a small part of the 4e skill system.
3.5 is great game after you learn the system and rules, the prospect of actually learning all those rules is so terrible, that I would say overall 3e is a bad game and actually worse than 5e. I'd rather pay 3.5 than 5e, but that is because I know the rules.

The "OK" system gets played because I can easily find 4-6 players that agree that it is OK. The "great" systems are often only seen that way by 1-2 players and the rest think it's crap, so it doesn't see play.

Quote from: Aglondir;1107212That's where I'm at, but it's driven me back to 3.5. I like 3.5's robust skill system, core classes, combat engine, and the concept of feats. It needs some definite mods to shape it into something I like, just like OSR stuff needs mods.

So... since you went back to 3.5, based on your response I have to ask - did you consider trying Fantasy Craft?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1107230The "OK" system gets played because I can easily find 4-6 players that agree that it is OK. The "great" systems are often only seen that way by 1-2 players and the rest think it's crap, so it doesn't see play.

I would add that since we're talking about D&D... THAT is the game that gets most new players into the hobby...

And if it sticks - they are often the ones that become introduced to other systems/settings and they become one of those 1-2 players over time. Assuming they get beyond their D&D Edition Tribe of the Moment.

Quote from: tenbones;1107233I would add that since we're talking about D&D... THAT is the game that gets most new players into the hobby...

And if it sticks - they are often the ones that become introduced to other systems/settings and they become one of those 1-2 players over time. Assuming they get beyond their D&D Edition Tribe of the Moment.

The realities between an established group and people who need to pug are very different.

Our established group plays whatever we want, but enough of us dislike 5e that we do not bother with it anymore.

But yes, the 1-2 players that think a storygame is great when no one else likes storygames would be an issue in most online pug groups (where storygame enthusiast get basically all of their RPG time from)

How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

Quote from: tenbones;1107242How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

It's six of one, half a dozen of the other.  Conventions are naturally going to converge around a subset of ways to do things--sometimes so slowly as to not matter much at that time and place but real nonetheless.  This will cause people who aren't into the convergence to be less likely to go.  Rinse and repeat.  

Unless kept explicitly and vigorously open, any group will become a clique sooner or later.  It doesn't necessarily have to be political, but something will close it.

Quote from: tenbones;1107242How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

My suspicion is that pugging is majority of what people who post on forums do. I consider all online play "pugging". Once you've played with a person 6 months, they aren't a stranger and basically any campaign is going to take longer than that. I think the MMO idea of pugging random people every session is not common, but I suspect that the majority of RPG play is people pugging online for campaigns (to different extents, some people just pug from their rp discord groups).

Quote from: tenbones;1107242How prevalent do you think Pugging is over Established groups? That's a very good point and one I am completely ignorant of as I've pretty much the guy that has maintained my own established group from the start.

The best answer is to go a convention or frequent a game store and ask enough people to get a sense of how it works socially. My opinion it happens, it not infrequent, there are nuances, but most people game with a steady group.

What new the equation is the rise of Roll20/Fantasy Ground and other VTTs to game over the internet.  Many VTTs have a feature or site to allow you to browse for open groups.

But again it is naunced but my opinion most play with a steady group.

Quote from: tenbones;1107242The idea of pugging as my "normal" mode of gaming outside of Conventions (which I don't even do anymore) - is pretty antithetical to my gaming instincts.

What I find that some people develop social relationship centered on the game store and more infrequently conventions. That they become "regulars". All the game stores I gamed regularly at had a core group that showed up week after week.

What different with a game store group over my home (or online group) that it is generally expected that you will allow strangers to join if there is room. It not your space but the store's so basically the store's pool of customers are eligible to play. But again it is nuanced and not like super formal or anything except for organized play events.

Yeah - it's one of the reasons I'm not a big fan of online play. Tried it a few times - with close friends from LA into my Dallas group... it didn't feel right.

When we stopped at a natural place, we went out separate ways with zero problems. We all agreed the face-to-face elements missing got in the way of the level of gaming we all wanted. And I'm more than confident that most people from the outside would never have noticed (like I said it wasn't bad. It just didn't hit the mark I normally shoot for).

So another facet to this discussion - what *is* that level of play you're shooting for? It's one of the reasons I stopped running adventures at conventions - it felt too "one note" to me. I simply want a more in-depth and expansive experience than I can typically get in a one-shot. Especially in the environment of a convention.

Don't get me wrong - I've had INSANELY good games at Cons. But they're very rare, compared to what I normally consume outside of cons.

So I fully submit, it might be entirely me. I don't typically "play casually".

I'm glad for the last few posts telling me what "pugging" is because I thought it was crossing over to the BDSM thread (and I'm glad it's not).

Quote from: Rhedyn;1107249My suspicion is that pugging is majority of what people who post on forums do. I consider all online play "pugging".

That would be a mistaken assumption. Sure it is possible to be more open on the internet if that what one wants to do. But the vast majority of people I know who play regularly on-line with VTTs have their own long term group. But instead of meeting at a house, everybody meets on-line.

In general the current era of VTTs feels a lot like circa 1980 to 1982 for me when a large number of my junior high and senior high classmate were playing D&D. I had my friends and did most of my gaming with them. But in regards to gaming the school functioned like a blog or forum where we all were aware of who was gaming and what they were doing.

Occasionally people who know each other but don't hang out would get together and game. With the usual range of good to bad you hear from cons, stores, etc. For example one of my friends had to go chasing after a kid after a session at somebody house because the kid stole his dice.

With VTTs it easy for people who know each other through blogging and forum to get together and run some tabletop.

Quote from: tenbones;1107257So another facet to this discussion - what *is* that level of play you're shooting for? It's one of the reasons I stopped running adventures at conventions - it felt too "one note" to me. I simply want a more in-depth and expansive experience than I can typically get in a one-shot. Especially in the environment of a convention.

It about the situation depicted by the adventure. Scourge of the Demon works, want I ran this Monday wouldn't. Both reflect how I run things in my campaign but it just happens Scourge is self-contained enough that with OD&D I can run it within a four hour time block without undue time pressure. With 5th edition I need about 5 hours or I face severe time crunch.

Not the difference between 5e and OD&D is not just a Scourge thing, it has happened on several adventures, I ran.

Quote from: tenbones;1107257So I fully submit, it might be entirely me. I don't typically "play casually".

Random Con Players take Scourge just as "seriously" as my home table did when I ran it for them. As well as the other con adventures that I am playtesting and haven't published.

Again I found that some adventures and situations work good for a con and other don't. I keep a log of all sessions I run, (most of them are just a date so it not that special) and maybe out the ten years I been logging stuff ten sessions produced something I used later in a con. Which is OK because I go to Cons once or twice a year so I don't need that much material.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1107258I'm glad for the last few posts telling me what "pugging" is because I thought it was crossing over to the BDSM thread (and I'm glad it's not).

HAHAHAHAHAH!! Woo! that made it uncomfortable.

PUG - Pick Up Group.

I have gotten a few d20 & OSR rule sets in the past year as I want to run a mini old school style D&D campaign after my starwars game is up, and I am system hunting. (Going to be hardcore: roll abilities 3d6 in order, roll for starting HP, dice fall where they lay kind of game that will not last past level 5 or 6. TPK's expected.)

So while I am familiar with how d20 systems work, I have not played any actual D&D since I was a youngster playing B/X. Although I do know that high level B/X being was NOT my cup of tea at all. I did not like the effects of hit point bloat and have avoided zero-to hero style class / level games in the intervening years.

  But it has been awhile, and with one game night deciding to play the 5e waterdeep heist, I thought it would be a good experience for me to buy the 5e rules and play official fucking D&D.

A few clicks on Amazon and a few weeks later...

My impressions after a read through and several sessions of play:

The 5e rules are a total design by committee, and it shows. I find the books overproduced, and filled with lots of illustrations and an overly high volume of descriptive fluff to actual system stuff. Coffee table book or rules books? You decide, because evidently WOTC couldn't.

Nothing wrong with the underlying d20 mechanics...

The skill system: Feels like a tacked on subsystem that someone wants to integrate into the basic rules set. I see what they want to do, but D&D d20 isn't a skill based game system at it's core. It's not RQ , SW, CoD or Gurps. I can't shake the impression that a 'background' style skill system as seen in barbarians of Lemuria or 13 age would be a far better fit for the type of heroic play 5e seems to want to portray.

The races are very star trek. Humans with makeup prosthetics. Elves and dwarves with mechanically different cultures and classes? Nope. Just a paragraph of (Insert race here) act like x. and you can be a wood elf paladin, dwarf paladin, gnome paladin, tiefling paladin, human paladin, Halfling paladin, dragon born paladin. Paladin for everyone! We're all the same!

A cosmology that was put together by people that don't know how religions actually work, a weapons list put together by people who believed everything they heard at a renn-fair. Not really complaining about realism per se, more about the lack of consistency. And other posters above have pointed out the inconsistent mechanical choices in odd places. I could list even more, especially some of the odd choices in character generation. Most of this has to be due to the left hand not knowing what the right hand is doing with such a long list of book authors.

No problem with class abilities / feats /proficiencies, but the official character sheet is not really set up to list them systematically – which is odd seeing as how they are so central to playing your PC.

The spell system, so, you have blank slots now that can fill at will – why not just embrace that you have hit points for everyone – and you can also have Magic points for the spell casters… Oh and Clerics are just another spell caster. Their religion is just their mage college. And don't get me started on the universal spell list. Because everyone has to have access to the useful spells. Heaven forbid a clerics and wizards don't have a magic light source each. Someone might feel left out.

But, the system is "good enough" for D&D and people love it.

So take my comments with a grain of salt: I am NOT the target audience for the default D&D: Kitchen sink renn-fair Fantasy setting, zero to superhero style of play. It is just not my preference. At all.

Our game works, because our group works, and I can still enjoy role playing around the system quirks. Which is mostly due to the fact that the module we are playing through is low level; 1-5, and we will not run into the knock on effects that hit point bloat will eventually induce.

Quote from: estar;1107263It about the situation depicted by the adventure. Scourge of the Demon works, want I ran this Monday wouldn't. Both reflect how I run things in my campaign but it just happens Scourge is self-contained enough that with OD&D I can run it within a four hour time block without undue time pressure. With 5th edition I need about 5 hours or I face severe time crunch.

Not the difference between 5e and OD&D is not just a Scourge thing, it has happened on several adventures, I ran.

Yep I hear you.

And I know we're drifting here - but I don't look at 5e as "best for one-shot" gaming. I don't *think* you're saying that (neither am I) but I find that this line of discussion is more of a sub-point about the expectations of the modern playerbase that flocks around 5e.

Unless of course you *are* saying 5e is that... I personally don't see it. As you pointed out, OD&D/5e/any other RPG is perfectly fine for Con-play.

Quote from: estar;1107263Random Con Players take Scourge just as "seriously" as my home table did when I ran it for them. As well as the other con adventures that I am playtesting and haven't published.

Again I found that some adventures and situations work good for a con and other don't. I keep a log of all sessions I run, (most of them are just a date so it not that special) and maybe out the ten years I been logging stuff ten sessions produced something I used later in a con. Which is OK because I go to Cons once or twice a year so I don't need that much material.

The caveat here is YOU are GMing. You're setting the standard of what transpires and presumably since you wrote the adventure (like I wrote mine when I did my tours of duty in the LA Con-scene for years) I suspect you wouldn't have used 5e if you believed it didn't work.

Since I've drifted away from running one-shots at cons, I've found 5e isn't really for me and what I want to achieve in my games. I think it's a good system, better than many others. Just not better than the ones I use for what I want.

Since 5e IS the hotness right now... I don't blame anyone for playing/designing/running it. But due to the point of this thread - I'm not going to say it's the best version of D&D ever either (but it could be with some "fixes")

Quote from: tenbones;1107257So another facet to this discussion - what *is* that level of play you're shooting for? It's one of the reasons I stopped running adventures at conventions - it felt too "one note" to me. I simply want a more in-depth and expansive experience than I can typically get in a one-shot. Especially in the environment of a convention.

By far the best experience I had a convention was when it replicated more the at home environment.  Specifically, I had a 4 hour slot starting at 2:00 PM.  There were relatively few scheduled games after dinner, but open tables.  We have six players playing something written for my home campaign.  At the end, five of the players asked if I'd run another adventure for them with the same characters.  When the sixth guy dropped out, another player called a friend to pick up the sixth pregen.  I had my complete set of home game notes with me, because I'd planned to work on during dead time.  We played two more adventures with the same characters, and even managed to give it a bit of a mini-campaign ending, stopping in the wee hours of the morning.  

If I hadn't been completely overworked in my day job, I'd have picked up a whole new gaming group that day.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107270By far the best experience I had a convention was when it replicated more the at home environment.  Specifically, I had a 4 hour slot starting at 2:00 PM.  There were relatively few scheduled games after dinner, but open tables.  We have six players playing something written for my home campaign.  At the end, five of the players asked if I'd run another adventure for them with the same characters.  When the sixth guy dropped out, another player called a friend to pick up the sixth pregen.  I had my complete set of home game notes with me, because I'd planned to work on during dead time.  We played two more adventures with the same characters, and even managed to give it a bit of a mini-campaign ending, stopping in the wee hours of the morning.  

If I hadn't been completely overworked in my day job, I'd have picked up a whole new gaming group that day.

I had a similar experience - I wrote an 80-page Cyberpunk2020 adventure to run over two days, in three 4-hr sessions. The goal being on day three - we'd have the survivors of both groups team up for the final session.

Well the first group got completely wasted TPK right at the end of the session using pre-gens. The second group rolled in and they asked if they could use their own characters from their home campaign. I warned them this adventure was super dangerous and "high-level". I looked their characters over, and they were around maybe slightly less powerful than my pre-gens, but obviously very veteran-level PC's. So I told them sure. Their GM - who was playing then told them - "this adventure is canon for our game", which caused me to raise my eyebrows in appreciation.

Anyhow the game was *phenomenal*. They worked like a well-oiled killing machine. They caught literally *every* single sub-plot, every single machination by talking it through with themselves and executing. I was really pleasantly dumbfounded. They made it to the very end and won, took two casualties - and it broke everyone's hearts. But they loved the adventure. They found me later at the bar and gave me the best ego-strokes(and drinks) and wanted to take me away with them back to AZ where they were from.

But see - that's the thing - those are the kinds of games I want *every* session, which I can't quite squeeze out of long-term play in 5e. Which might be the real issue... scalability.

Quote from: tenbones;1107272But see - that's the thing - those are the kinds of games I want *every* session, which I can't quite squeeze out of long-term play in 5e. Which might be the real issue... scalability.

Yeah, you had two PC deaths. That probably doesn't work for every session in a campaign. If you want players to play longer with the same characters, the average risk must decrease - but then the sense of challenge will probably also drop for your players.

Quote from: Alexander Kalinowski;1107276Yeah, you had two PC deaths. That probably doesn't work for every session in a campaign. If you want players to play longer with the same characters, the average risk must decrease - but then the sense of challenge will probably also drop for your players.

Well in fairness - if this were a D&D module it would have been like a 17th level adventure - ala Bloodstone Pass. For me, if I'm writing an adventure for a Con... I had pre-gens, so I felt nothing about going hard. And you know... CP2020... death is everywhere.

My D&D games - certainly my Con adventure D&D games were not designed to be that lethal - but probably more lethal than most people today assume.

But your point stands.

I'm used to playing with the younger crowd, so pick-up-groups and friends-of-a-friend drop-ins are common. :) Eventually they go through a wacky, razzing, youngster phase and cannot cooperate for shit. And then they want to give GMing a try which often devolves into tears and frustration. :( But those growing pains are common, and I don't mind helping 'birth' new GMs and Players. ;)

So I prefer to have a new hotness, simplified compromise as an RPG option in my repertoir. Don't prefer it as my main choice, but helps keep things going as individuals and groups mature. And it being WotC trying its hardest to rip out the 3e and 4e out of its new D&D, it is well appreciated by me. (Doesn't go far enough for my tastes, but is passable for what I need to cross the age gap. :p)

Quote from: Aglondir;1106950What are the main issues?

It's dickless....by design. The concept was "an edition everyone can tolerate" and thus, its 1e+4e or 2e+3e depending on your viewpoint and it does its job of being the compromise edition.

Except I don't need compromises. There are 100s of RPGs on the market and I'd rather a bold and flawed game over a corporate compromise any day of the week.

I always compare fantasy RPGs to Palladium Fantasy 1e. That book gives off sparks. Sometimes because the system is short circuiting, but mostly because Crazy Kevin's energy and love of fantasy is infectious and leaps off the page.

5e doesn't spark. No crackle. No pop.

Quote from: Rhedyn;11070131. The skill system is bad. So bad, that no skill system would work better. People will defend this system forever.

2. The monster manual is full of boring sacks of HP. You'll start to feel it at higher levels, but the HP boat is why I consider 5e so much like 4e, but without all the robust mechanics that made 4e it's own thing.

3. DMG magic items include tons of broken ones that will let PCs stomp way higher CR creatures.

4. Class features are overtuned.

5. A lot of spells are really vague and have mechanical details fleshed out in other editions.

The skill system is pretty weak...you could look at this as a feature. Trying to list all possible skills all possible characters have an all possible ways is hopeless, so WotC's tossing of their arms in the air and putting a minimal system (laughable so, compared to the mostly busted 3e) is understandable. I'm not sure "no skill system" would work better, because you could just ignore the very minimal system easy enough.

2) Big time. These monsters come from 2E-land, and have no idea of the kinds of abilities PCs have. Essentially no monster can deal with the Rogue's free disengage ability, for example, and that's not exactly a high level ability. Bottom line, these monsters were decent when "I attack" was basically all most characters could do, but are woefully underpowered against PCs of 5e, and this becomes very noticeable at mid-levels and up.

3) Perhaps, although the intense overpowering power of magic (as others have noted) make this something of a non-issue. Much as Skyrim snaps in half in a dozen different ways if you want to, so pointing out that one way is broken means nothing, it's about the same here. And it's not like other editions of D&D (and possibly 4e) didn't have broken items...

4) I'm  not sure what "overtuned" means, but there are too many features. When I have a player who hasn't spent a decade playing D&D play, he/she gets overwhelmed by all the buttons a character can press after a few levels.

5) A lot of spells are flat out stupid-good, to the point that they're "Must-Haves".


But...you can work around much of this (although snipping class features is admittedly way too hard to do in anything resembling a fair way).

Overall, the weakest parts of 5e are the overwhelming magic/spells, and the multitudinous character abilities--most noticeable with primary spellcaster classes.

Quote from: Doom;11073305) A lot of spells are flat out stupid-good, to the point that they're "Must-Haves".

Which ones should I look out for, as a GM?

Quote from: Aglondir;1107337Which ones should I look out for, as a GM?

It's not until you hit the higher levels (character level 7+) that breakers pop up like Wizard Eye or (to a lesser extent) Polymorph.

It's the bonus action/reaction spells that are really overbearing. Healing Word (a level 1 ranged bonus healing spell) causes the "Weebles" effect where players get knocked to 0 round after round with no real harm done. Shield allows wizards to "tank" with surprising effectiveness (always combined with Mage Armor, of course), Counterspell is stupid-good, Misty Step is a bonus free-escape action...these are all "utility" spells, but their "narrow" use is greatly offset by the infinite use cantrips, which means many spellcasters won't need to worry about taking damaging spells. That's the big issue, is spellcasters just get so much power...they get all the bonus abilities every other class gets as levels are gained, in addition getting their choicest picks from the spell lists, in addition to the same BAB as fighters, in addition the ability to cast more spells at the same level compared to previous editions, in addition to few ways (none reliable) for non-spellcasters to do much about it--the latter really shows up with the monsters' utter lack of real abilities (Tome of Beasts helps a little, though). Oh, and there are also infinite use rituals also.

In 2e and prior editions, the monsters had abilities the characters couldn't match, only put up with...it's flipped in 5e, most monsters will be pretty helpless against many player abilities. Even golems are extremely vulnerable to spellcasters who even try a little to be effective, as "spell resistance" gets nerfed down to "advantage on saving throws," useless against the many spells which have no save.s

Quote from: Doom;1107338It's not until you hit the higher levels (character level 7+) that breakers pop up like Wizard Eye or (to a lesser extent) Polymorph.

It's the bonus action/reaction spells that are really overbearing. Healing Word (a level 1 ranged bonus healing spell) causes the "Weebles" effect where players get knocked to 0 round after round with no real harm done. Shield allows wizards to "tank" with surprising effectiveness (always combined with Mage Armor, of course), Counterspell is stupid-good, Misty Step is a bonus free-escape action...these are all "utility" spells, but their "narrow" use is greatly offset by the infinite use cantrips, which means many spellcasters won't need to worry about taking damaging spells. That's the big issue, is spellcasters just get so much power...they get all the bonus abilities every other class gets as levels are gained, in addition getting their choicest picks from the spell lists, in addition to the same BAB as fighters, in addition the ability to cast more spells at the same level compared to previous editions, in addition to few ways (none reliable) for non-spellcasters to do much about it--the latter really shows up with the monsters' utter lack of real abilities (Tome of Beasts helps a little, though). Oh, and there are also infinite use rituals also.

In 2e and prior editions, the monsters had abilities the characters couldn't match, only put up with...it's flipped in 5e, most monsters will be pretty helpless against many player abilities. Even golems are extremely vulnerable to spellcasters who even try a little to be effective, as "spell resistance" gets nerfed down to "advantage on saving throws," useless against the many spells which have no save.s

Thanks for the analysis.

Why don't the fighters have a better BAB progression than the casters?

Quote from: Aglondir;1107341Thanks for the analysis.

Why don't the fighters have a better BAB progression than the casters?

Your base attack to hit is "proficiency." It starts at +2, and goes up incrementally, based on your character level (not class, so everyone at the same level has the same proficiency).

Added to this is the appropriate ability score. So, a level 1 fighter with 16 strength adds 3 if he uses a strength based weapon. He'd be adding +5 to his attacks.

A wizard also starts with +2 proficiency, of course, and could just as easily have a 16 IQ. So the wizard will be adding +5 to his attacks, also.

All attacks are made against AC (there's no "touch" per se outside of arguable exceptions, nor are there three types of defenses). The wizard has infinite cantrips, and while they generally do less damage, they are ranged attacks (and often have bonus effects, eg, fire damage, or slowing--overall, this is better, especially at low levels where the spellcaster can really exploit his innate "magical" weapon against certain resistant creatures).

Now, there are certain feats or class abilities that might give an additional mighty +1 to hit with certain weapons or whatever...but I assure you the spellcaster-appropriate feats/abilities are every bit as good as +1 to hit.

Granted, the fighter will get extra attacks at higher levels, but in my opinion, an extra attack doesn't quite match the often unstoppable reality-bending affects of spells at higher levels (and cantrips do more damage at higher levels, so always at least a little useful even if the spellcaster doesn't use a feat or ability to make them more useful). What's really interesting here is the fighter gets that extra attack as a class ability, while the cantrips auto-upgrade damage AND the spellcaster will get a class ability.

Yeah, capping the gameplay experience of D&D to 6~10 levels in general, and then you play a Named Level Domain Game, seems to be the sweet spot across editions. ;) But that makes sense as nothing scales well forever -- and if it does then it is a treadmill of "always fighting orcs." D&D is not alone in this; it's a play-expectations issue.

That said, waaaaay too many widgets accrue too fast. Everything has a feature. The "No Dead Levels! :mad:" whinge from nu-skool leads to a rapid bookkeeping hell that devolves the game closer to a combat sim than a complex world with time for other 'pillar options'.That's been there since WotC's first crack at the bat, and some people prefer this outcome. I vehemently oppose it, to the point I won't play crunchy games anymore (I have adult coloring to do! :p).

And yes, spells are definitely a case by case basis. Some early issue ones are common complaints: Guidance, Healing Word, Shield, Find Familiar, Goodberry, Healing Spirit, Leomund's Tiny Hut, Find Steed, etc. The weakest of these just heal or offer perfect 3/4 cover until next turn, others do power projection economy or end whole pillars of strategic play outright. :rolleyes: Yeah, it's a problem. They need to be vetted before play to one's campaign playstyle.

The big issue I also see, that Doom also mentioned, is the dearth of monster defenses. It was quite glaring when I've been doing my MtG to D&D 5e monster conversions, how exposed to magic everything is. There's 13 damage types: three for physical attacks, TEN for magic... it is literally over three times the physical vectors to penetrate a monster's defenses! And yet the most Dmg Resistance or Immunities is for those 3 physical ones. It's patently stupid oversight. :rolleyes: If you ever create your own monster be sure to sprinkle 3+ Magical Dmg Resist/Immune (or Condition Immune) values before you run it. Easiest fix to a glaring oversight.

Quote from: Doom;1107338It's the bonus action/reaction spells that are really overbearing. Healing Word (a level 1 ranged bonus healing spell) causes the "Weebles" effect where players get knocked to 0 round after round with no real harm done.

Shield allows wizards to "tank" with surprising effectiveness (always combined with Mage Armor, of course),

Counterspell is stupid-good,

Misty Step is a bonus free-escape action...

these are all "utility" spells, but their "narrow" use is greatly offset by the infinite use cantrips, which means many spellcasters won't need to worry about taking damaging spells.

That's the big issue, is spellcasters just get so much power...they get all the bonus abilities every other class gets as levels are gained, in addition getting their choicest picks from the spell lists, in addition to the same BAB as fighters,

 in addition the ability to cast more spells at the same level compared to previous editions,

 in addition to few ways (none reliable) for non-spellcasters to do much about it--the latter really shows up with the monsters' utter lack of real abilities (Tome of Beasts helps a little, though). Oh, and there are also infinite use rituals also.

In 2e and prior editions, the monsters had abilities the characters couldn't match, only put up with...it's flipped in 5e, most monsters will be pretty helpless against many player abilities. Even golems are extremely vulnerable to spellcasters who even try a little to be effective, as "spell resistance" gets nerfed down to "advantage on saving throws," useless against the many spells which have no save.s

There is some right and some wrong in this post. Lets dissect it.

1:  Two things here. First off The PC might be up and down again and never get a hit in during that. Go ahead and play pop goes the weasel. Second off this has been a thing since AD&D. Though I could have sworn even magic could not offset the massive weakness effect from being at 0hp and brought back in AD&D. But can not find it at a quick glance.

2: Shield lasts only 1 round. For that round yes if you have mage armour up you have an effective AC of 18+DEX mod. So no it does not allow you to tank much unless you blow through spell slots to keep re-casting it every round. But for as long as a caster is willing to keep throwing up shield and combined with mage armour, they are pretty hard to land a hit on. Enemy casters with counterspell might be able to cancel it.

3: Counterspell is good. Especially if you are willing to burn higher level slots to guarantee countering spells over level 3. Bemusingly. You can counterspell counterspell. We asked. You can.

4: Misty Step is a good escape spell. But everyone gets access to the Disengage action anyhoo so Misty Step is not as big as you make it to be.

5: oh you think its bad now. We convinced WOTC to actually TONE DOWN the combat cantrips. I still do not think they toned them down enough.

6: Not quite. Depending on the caster class some do not get really all that much in comparison till late in the levels. They may have the same basic bonuses as every other class. And some might see that as a positive rather than a negative. I am neutral on it. It works. Could be better. Could easily be much worse. The real trick though is that non-magical combatants have access to magic weapons sooner or later. Usually sooner even with the lower emphasis on magic items. This has allways been the melee types advantage over casters and allowed them to actually still out DPS a wizard if outfitted and statted even moderately well.

7: True at the early levels. But AD&D MUs eventually match, then exceed 5e slot capacity. Not counting cantrips and ritual spells. At level 5 a 5e wizard has 9 spell slots while an AD&D MU has 7. At 10th level a 5e and AD&D wizard/mu have 15 spell lots each. At level 20 a 5e wizard has 22 while an AD&D one has 36. The big difference is that, depending on the class, some casters can recover a few spell slots during a short rest. Wizards can on a single short rest per day recover up to half their level in slots. Assuming they can get that short rest a level 10 5e Wizard would have potentially 20 slots worth of spells compared to the MU's 15. The level 20 AD&D MU still comes out slightly ahead at 36 to 5e wizards potential 32.

8: YMMV on that. Alot of monsters have some spells, or rather potent mundane attacks. And as of last check. Spell resistances in 5e were split up into effect resistances and then there is a Spell resistance ability which grants advantage on saves. Quite a few monsters have one or more effect resistances. And several have outright immunities to effects. Resistances in 5e halve damage from that element. PHB 198. Quick example from the PHB, the Imp, has Resistance to Cold, and resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non magical or silvered weapons. Is Immune to Fire and Poison, and Immune to the Poisoned condition. And has the Magic Resistance ability which is the advantage on saves.

Quote from: Aglondir;1107337Which ones should I look out for, as a GM?

Very much depends upon your GM style and the setting you want to evoke.  For some GM's the 1st level "Goodberry" spell is the kiss of death, and for others it is a barely noticeable speed bump or even useful.  

Your biggest advantage in 5E is to cut down on magic items, hard, at least at first.  It's perfectly possible to play the game without them, though that will make casters even more powerful at high levels.  Instead, once you have a sense of which particular spells and abilities are being abused by the players in your groups, then first try to mitigate by giving items that fit the other characters.  If that's not enough, then step on the spells that are still causing the game to diverge too much from your setting expectations.

For example, you could just ban cantrips from the start.  It's probably overkill unless you are going for a very early D&D feel from the get go.  OTOH, a house rule that says cantrips don't scale by caster level will probably solve 90% of the cantrip issue.  It's useful early, when the casters can run out of spell slots easily, but quickly gets to the point where it is a mere backup option, not a go to thing.  (For that matter, letting them scale only at 5th level and then freezing would probably solve most of the issues for most campaigns.)

Rangers aren't very good.  Give them some +1 arrows or even a +1 bow faster than you plan to otherwise hand out arrows, they'll feel fine.  Fighter start to drag a little?  Put a magic sword in the game to find.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107367Very much depends upon your GM style and the setting you want to evoke.  For some GM's the 1st level "Goodberry" spell is the kiss of death, and for others it is a barely noticeable speed bump or even useful.  

Your biggest advantage in 5E is to cut down on magic items, hard, at least at first.  It's perfectly possible to play the game without them, though that will make casters even more powerful at high levels.  Instead, once you have a sense of which particular spells and abilities are being abused by the players in your groups, then first try to mitigate by giving items that fit the other characters.  If that's not enough, then step on the spells that are still causing the game to diverge too much from your setting expectations.

For example, you could just ban cantrips from the start.  It's probably overkill unless you are going for a very early D&D feel from the get go.  OTOH, a house rule that says cantrips don't scale by caster level will probably solve 90% of the cantrip issue.  It's useful early, when the casters can run out of spell slots easily, but quickly gets to the point where it is a mere backup option, not a go to thing.  (For that matter, letting them scale only at 5th level and then freezing would probably solve most of the issues for most campaigns.)

Rangers aren't very good.  Give them some +1 arrows or even a +1 bow faster than you plan to otherwise hand out arrows, they'll feel fine.  Fighter start to drag a little?  Put a magic sword in the game to find.

I agree. But to me this goes back to several other threads where I've said repeatedly, the issue *really* is that the system should be supporting the conceits of the setting. Since 5e only partially does this, it creates a lack of coherence between what is implied by the system, the conceit of the default core setting (The Realms), and the attempts at fan-service to previous editions by design are precisely what makes it feel weird and inconsistent.

As you pointed out astutely, Steven, it depends on how as a GM you want to approach it - and for veteran GM's this is really not that big of a deal. But for relatively new GM's or at the very least GM's new to 5e... this is a design flaw and makes it harder to the point where I ask "Is the mechanical bang for the buck really there?" Is the point of playing in setting necessary to use system to get the fullest experience?

That might be the real question? (and likely for another thread - which I'll create!) And I don't wanna derail the thread...

Quote from: Omega;1107356There is some right and some wrong in this post. Lets dissect it.

1:  Two things here. First off The PC might be up and down again and never get a hit in during that. Go ahead and play pop goes the weasel. Second off this has been a thing since AD&D. Though I could have sworn even magic could not offset the massive weakness effect from being at 0hp and brought back in AD&D. But can not find it at a quick glance.

2: Shield lasts only 1 round. For that round yes if you have mage armour up you have an effective AC of 18+DEX mod. So no it does not allow you to tank much unless you blow through spell slots to keep re-casting it every round. But for as long as a caster is willing to keep throwing up shield and combined with mage armour, they are pretty hard to land a hit on. Enemy casters with counterspell might be able to cancel it. The real point here is mages aren't vulnerable in direct melee unless you pound on them for 4 rounds first, at the very least. That's...not a vulnerability.

3: Counterspell is good. Especially if you are willing to burn higher level slots to guarantee countering spells over level 3. Bemusingly. You can counterspell counterspell. We asked. You can.

4: Misty Step is a good escape spell. But everyone gets access to the Disengage action anyhoo so Misty Step is not as big as you make it to be.

5: oh you think its bad now. We convinced WOTC to actually TONE DOWN the combat cantrips. I still do not think they toned them down enough.

6: Not quite. Depending on the caster class some do not get really all that much in comparison till late in the levels. They may have the same basic bonuses as every other class. And some might see that as a positive rather than a negative. I am neutral on it. It works. Could be better. Could easily be much worse. The real trick though is that non-magical combatants have access to magic weapons sooner or later. Usually sooner even with the lower emphasis on magic items. This has allways been the melee types advantage over casters and allowed them to actually still out DPS a wizard if outfitted and statted even moderately well.

7: True at the early levels. But AD&D MUs eventually match, then exceed 5e slot capacity. Not counting cantrips and ritual spells. At level 5 a 5e wizard has 9 spell slots while an AD&D MU has 7. At 10th level a 5e and AD&D wizard/mu have 15 spell lots each. At level 20 a 5e wizard has 22 while an AD&D one has 36. The big difference is that, depending on the class, some casters can recover a few spell slots during a short rest. Wizards can on a single short rest per day recover up to half their level in slots. Assuming they can get that short rest a level 10 5e Wizard would have potentially 20 slots worth of spells compared to the MU's 15. The level 20 AD&D MU still comes out slightly ahead at 36 to 5e wizards potential 32.

8: YMMV on that. Alot of monsters have some spells, or rather potent mundane attacks. And as of last check. Spell resistances in 5e were split up into effect resistances and then there is a Spell resistance ability which grants advantage on saves. Quite a few monsters have one or more effect resistances. And several have outright immunities to effects. Resistances in 5e halve damage from that element. PHB 198. Quick example from the PHB, the Imp, has Resistance to Cold, and resistance to bludgeoning, piercing and slashing damage from non magical or silvered weapons. Is Immune to Fire and Poison, and Immune to the Poisoned condition. And has the Magic Resistance ability which is the advantage on saves.

Some ridiculous here.

1) AD&D didn't have ranged healing at first level, and even the most generous "0 hp" rules allowed a character to die when knocked to -10, whereas in 5e characters don't drop to negative (so even the very weak healing of Healing Word is all you need no matter how much the character got knocked to 0). Yes, there are some coup-de-gras rules, but realistically most monsters simply can't hit hard enough to kill a character past a few levels, only knock him to zero. So, the giant can drop a boulder on a character, who's brought back to 1hp...another boulder, another 1hp. I can see how some might find that silly, though I use exhaustion as a house rule so at least the boulders will eventually tire a character out.

2) Correct, shield only lasts one round. But you have lots of spare spell slots, it's a reaction, and you only get it when you need it or feel like having it. Toss in that you can easily get an AC better than the fighter at low levels and...yeah, that's a bit much. The "only get it when you feel like having it" is the big deal, since you might not use a level 1 spell slot every round (and if you run out, you get the option to use a higher slot) as monsters can miss, or simply give and instead go after targets in chain mail, since they're easier to hit...just use it when you want to. Yes, mages are vulnerable in melee, but only after at least 4 rounds of bad luck...in other words, they aren't vulnerable at all unless the player really works to keep himself in melee round after round after round.

4) I didn't know Disengage lets you automatically escape any grapple. Where does it say that? Note that Disengage will use up your attack (unless you're a rogue), while Misty Step is a bonus action, so you'll get to attack as well. And, again, you only use this when you feel like it, so not exactly a burden to have.

7) Eliminate the infinite use spells, eliminate the short rest ability to regain spell slots, and eliminate the free use rituals...and 5e wizards have fewer spells than AD&D wizards. Heh, and? Noting that at level 20 under these assumptions you might sort-of have a weak point...but most of the game is played at levels far below that.  If you eliminate 80% of fighter's HP, they have fewer HPs than any other class...a normal response to such an argument would be "and?" as well.

Really, not much of a counter-argument here at all, sorry.

Quote from: Doom;1107372Yes, there are some coup-de-gras rules, but realistically most monsters simply can't hit hard enough to kill a character past a few levels, only knock him to zero. So, the giant can drop a boulder on a character, who's brought back to 1hp...another boulder, another 1hp.

I find in practice the heal-from-0hp rule gives the PCs a fighting chance while maintaining a sense of desperation, which IMO is a lot better than 3e/PF "I'm fine... I'm fine... oops I'm dead." 2 melee attacks on a 0 hp PC will kill them (4 failed death saves) which is easy enough with multiple monsters or multi-attack monsters. I do fine 5e works best with Deadly+ fights, and the converse of that is PCs will be hitting 0 hp a lot.

Quote from: S'mon;1107387I find in practice the heal-from-0hp rule gives the PCs a fighting chance while maintaining a sense of desperation, which IMO is a lot better than 3e/PF "I'm fine... I'm fine... oops I'm dead." 2 melee attacks on a 0 hp PC will kill them (4 failed death saves) which is easy enough with multiple monsters or multi-attack monsters. I do fine 5e works best with Deadly+ fights, and the converse of that is PCs will be hitting 0 hp a lot.

Agree, it does work once you get used to it, it's definitely a YMMV thing, and monsters absolutely need to change their tactics from older D&D games (where hitting a character who was at 0hp or less wasn't usually worthwhile).

The rules are set up like that so PCs rarely die and rarely lose.

4e D&D was a lot more limited with healing surges and most heal powers either being 2x per encounter or one of a characters few dailies.

But your HP bouncing around was part of the shonen anime feel of each fight.

Quote from: S'mon;1107387I find in practice the heal-from-0hp rule gives the PCs a fighting chance while maintaining a sense of desperation, which IMO is a lot better than 3e/PF "I'm fine... I'm fine... oops I'm dead." 2 melee attacks on a 0 hp PC will kill them (4 failed death saves) which is easy enough with multiple monsters or multi-attack monsters. I do fine 5e works best with Deadly+ fights, and the converse of that is PCs will be hitting 0 hp a lot.

Yes.  The GM makes undead scary in 5E not because of level drain, but because they'll keep ripping on downed opponent.  Same thing works with any creature that you want to thematically make scary in 5E--or at least does if you are in the habit of playing monster tactics according to their personality instead of always trying to milk every once of tactics out of their declared abilities.  In my current campaign, I've got some reskinned gnolls as "demon dogs".  The players are terrified of them, because a pack will try to isolate and kill party members and seldom break off.  Plus, once a pack gets a scent, they'll follow for days.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107201I don't entirely blame the design team for this problem, however.  Designing a good skill system is difficult.  Making a modular skill system even more so.  Plus, the traditional D&D chassis is not the easiest place to do it.

The sacred cow of STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA is the root of a lot of the problems with skills. Have a Perception attribute would clean a lot of things up.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107292I'm used to playing with the younger crowd, so pick-up-groups and friends-of-a-friend drop-ins are common.

Can you explain why younger = pick up groups? Because when I was 15-30 I was always hanging out with my friends and didn't have any problem finding time to play tabletop games with them. It's when I got older that it became harder to stay on contact and maintain regular sessions with the same group.

Quote from: Haffrung;1107437The sacred cow of STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA is the root of a lot of the problems with skills. Have a Perception attribute would clean a lot of things up.

The first part is an interesting idea. But how would a PER attribute fix it?

I'm not a fan of the constant call for Percpetion checks in 5E. Although it may be something localized to the (four different) groups I have played with. But they all do this nonsense:

GM: You enter the house. You see a fireplace, a counch, and an easy chair. Everyone roll Perception.
Player 1: I made it
Player 2: Missed
Player 3: I made it
Player 4: Natuiral 20!
GM: Those of you have made the checks notice a letter on the fireplace mantle.

Last time I played 5E there were a dozen PER checks of that nature. It seems like it started in 5E, and is now creeping into other games. For the love of Gygax folks, just elminate the pointless PER checks and tell the damn story!

Quote from: Aglondir;1107455The first part is an interesting idea. But how would a PER attribute fix it?

I'm not a fan of the constant call for Percpetion checks in 5E. Although it may be something localized to the (four different) groups I have played with. But they all do this nonsense:

GM: You enter the house. You see a fireplace, a counch, and an easy chair. Everyone roll Perception.
Player 1: I made it
Player 2: Missed
Player 3: I made it
Player 4: Natuiral 20!
GM: Those of you have made the checks notice a letter on the fireplace mantle.

Last time I played 5E there were a dozen PER checks of that nature. It seems like it started in 5E, and is now creeping into other games. For the love of Gygax folks, just elminate the pointless PER checks and tell the damn story!

Why are you guys making perception checks for that stuff? That's what passive perception is for. When you need to make lots of repetitive checks or just see if you notice something basic. They already fixed that problem!

Nowadays you're supposed to only roll perception when you do a deep dive on checking something out, not general awareness.

I've been running 5e since it was first released and run adventures for characters up to about level 12.
I haven't run any RPGs for a few months now mind, as I'm kind of burned out with RPGs atm.

Some issues I encountered with 5e.

1: As usual with DnD games for a while now, once you hit about level 11+, characters get unwieldy and REALLY powerful. It's no longer that fun as a GM to run RPGs for high level characters. But then it was just as bad or worse with Pathfinder, 3.5 and so on anyway.

2: Concentration.  I understand why limits were put on it, but the only ONE concentration spell at a time really limits things. There' should have been a better way to handle this than just use this limitation.  Perhaps changing some spells to NOT concentration would be an easy way to fix it.

3: The skills for the various tools is really ill defined in the book and and feels very unwieldy. Actually I'm found the skill system a bit broken how it works in general. But this has already been pointed out in this thread.

Still. I've had some GREAT times with 5e. It's probably my favourite version of DnD.  But I don't think I'll be running DnD in it's form as it is.
I might get the Middle Earth books and give them a go some time. It seems to have toned down some of the issues with 5e.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1107460Why are you guys making perception checks for that stuff? That's what passive perception is for. When you need to make lots of repetitive checks or just see if you notice something basic. They already fixed that problem!

Nowadays you're supposed to only roll perception when you do a deep dive on checking something out, not general awareness.

You're right! It annoys me to no end, but I can't get them to stop.

The thing I liked least about 5E from my play experience is character creation. Too many options and page flipping just to make a first level character. This is exacerbated by the philosophical aversion to subtraction the game seems to have. It's like trying to order a meal at a restaurant. That comes with soup or salad. Salad. Ranch of vinaigrette? Vinaigrette. Raspberry or balsamic? Enough with the long form application. I said I wanted a steak, get me a steak.

I can't just say "I wanna play a cleric." I got a sphere, and a background, and a skill selection, et cetera etcetera. Why can't there just be a regular old cleric, and if I want to play some sort of specialty priest or cleric of specific god, the rules can say something like "Okay, you give up the ability to turn undead, but you get three singing chipmunk companions" or whatever. Nope. Can't do that. Can't subtract that turn undead power. We gotta strip down the class to a Mr. Potato Head, and you get to spend a whole ton of time accessorizing it, with a lot of page-flipping if you aren't familiar with the rules.

My next biggest gripe I didn't have to experience first hand, but the special abilities classes acquired at higher levels were cringe-worthy. Level 17 fighters regenerating 10 hp a round is beyond silly.

The lack of differentiation of skill levels bugged me at first. But then I realized, when you account for the fighters weapon specialty, doubling the proficiency bonus, it kind of syncs up loosely with the old 1st Ed hit tables. And that worked really well. And would work well in 5E, too, if it weren't for the aversion to probabilities going close to 1 and 0. It seems like the system is designed around keeping probability of success in the 35-70% range. Whereas in 1E, by 9th level fighters have virtually guaranteed hits against the majority of monsters in the game. And between 1st and 9th the game progresses from being like craps to being like chess. It provides a range of different play styles, and it's not that hard to focus on a level range your group finds the most fun. Or just traverse the full range if you prefer.

Quote from: Lunamancer;1107478The thing I liked least about 5E from my play experience is character creation. Too many options and page flipping just to make a first level character. This is exacerbated by the philosophical aversion to subtraction the game seems to have. It's like trying to order a meal at a restaurant. That comes with soup or salad. Salad. Ranch of vinaigrette? Vinaigrette. Raspberry or balsamic? Enough with the long form application. I said I wanted a steak, get me a steak.

I can't just say "I wanna play a cleric." I got a sphere, and a background, and a skill selection, et cetera etcetera. Why can't there just be a regular old cleric, and if I want to play some sort of specialty priest or cleric of specific god, the rules can say something like "Okay, you give up the ability to turn undead, but you get three singing chipmunk companions" or whatever. Nope. Can't do that. Can't subtract that turn undead power. We gotta strip down the class to a Mr. Potato Head, and you get to spend a whole ton of time accessorizing it, with a lot of page-flipping if you aren't familiar with the rules.

My next biggest gripe I didn't have to experience first hand, but the special abilities classes acquired at higher levels were cringe-worthy. Level 17 fighters regenerating 10 hp a round is beyond silly.

The lack of differentiation of skill levels bugged me at first. But then I realized, when you account for the fighters weapon specialty, doubling the proficiency bonus, it kind of syncs up loosely with the old 1st Ed hit tables. And that worked really well. And would work well in 5E, too, if it weren't for the aversion to probabilities going close to 1 and 0. It seems like the system is designed around keeping probability of success in the 35-70% range. Whereas in 1E, by 9th level fighters have virtually guaranteed hits against the majority of monsters in the game. And between 1st and 9th the game progresses from being like craps to being like chess. It provides a range of different play styles, and it's not that hard to focus on a level range your group finds the most fun. Or just traverse the full range if you prefer.

That probability you're detecting is 5e's bounded accuracy, where everything is designed to still be a threat throughout the game, instead of goblins basically being literally impossible to hurt you.

Luckily that's easily to fix by just changing what monsters the players face.

I like your idea of a "simple class," kind of like Fighter with the champion subclass, but for every class. A default. It's funny you say this since the recent trend has been people saying 5e is too simple and that Pathfinder 2 offers all the customization 5e is missing.

Quote from: Doom;1107372Some ridiculous here.

1) AD&D didn't have ranged healing at first level, and even the most generous "0 hp" rules allowed a character to die when knocked to -10, whereas in 5e characters don't drop to negative (so even the very weak healing of Healing Word is all you need no matter how much the character got knocked to 0). Yes, there are some coup-de-gras rules, but realistically most monsters simply can't hit hard enough to kill a character past a few levels, only knock him to zero. So, the giant can drop a boulder on a character, who's brought back to 1hp...another boulder, another 1hp. I can see how some might find that silly, though I use exhaustion as a house rule so at least the boulders will eventually tire a character out.

2) Correct, shield only lasts one round. But you have lots of spare spell slots, it's a reaction, and you only get it when you need it or feel like having it. Toss in that you can easily get an AC better than the fighter at low levels and...yeah, that's a bit much. The "only get it when you feel like having it" is the big deal, since you might not use a level 1 spell slot every round (and if you run out, you get the option to use a higher slot) as monsters can miss, or simply give and instead go after targets in chain mail, since they're easier to hit...just use it when you want to. Yes, mages are vulnerable in melee, but only after at least 4 rounds of bad luck...in other words, they aren't vulnerable at all unless the player really works to keep himself in melee round after round after round.

4) I didn't know Disengage lets you automatically escape any grapple. Where does it say that? Note that Disengage will use up your attack (unless you're a rogue), while Misty Step is a bonus action, so you'll get to attack as well. And, again, you only use this when you feel like it, so not exactly a burden to have.

7) Eliminate the infinite use spells, eliminate the short rest ability to regain spell slots, and eliminate the free use rituals...and 5e wizards have fewer spells than AD&D wizards. Heh, and? Noting that at level 20 under these assumptions you might sort-of have a weak point...but most of the game is played at levels far below that.  If you eliminate 80% of fighter's HP, they have fewer HPs than any other class...a normal response to such an argument would be "and?" as well.

Really, not much of a counter-argument here at all, sorry.

x: Yes indeed. And you just keep on giving the ridiculous. Bravo.

1: Um. You apparently missed the part where every hit on a downed character counts as a critical hit AND counts as two failed saves didn't you? The lowly bullywug can exterminate a PC.
Lets say a storm giant drops the rock. That is 28 average damage doubled to 56. Which is enough to flat out kill most PCs up to possibly level 10. More or less if you roll the dice.
Instead look at the monsters that cannot either hit more than once a round, or cannot output alot of damage in one go. Which happens to be most low level monsters. Gosh. They are having a hard time killing a high level character? What outrage! hmm. Except they can gang up on the downed character and off them in one to two rounds.

Yes. It is a stupid rule. No one has said it is not. We've bashed it to death right out the gate and even during final playtest.

2: Except your example was for tanking... Not situational one-offs. Different things. Try again please.

4: Nice goal post moving there with your misty step.

7: Oh goodie. You played both the old worn out "But no one plays over level 10!" card and the equally worn out "But these count too!" card. Bravo on your failure. But we can play your game. If cantrips and rituals count then I guess for AD&D throwing darts and resting to recover a few spells counts too? Right? Because combat cantrips are essentially magic darts and crossbows, and you can rest and recover spells in AD&D. It takes longer. But you can recover as many as you are willing to spend time meditating on. Usually a prohibitive maneuver. But totally valid.

Instead lets look at that end game you dismissed. Because here is where the 5e wizard really overtakes the AD&D one. Because at level 18 the wizard gains the ability to cast one signature 1st and 2nd level spell AT WILL. Yes they are at their basic level of power. But a wizard at this point becomes a magic missile chaingun. Name yourself Sandman and blanket a town in sleep by just walking around and casting willy nilly. Or become a living flamethrower casting scorching ray at will. Play spider Man and web a whole city.

x+1: No kidding. You failed at just about every step even when cherrypicking.

Psst! Unconscious condition requires an attack to be within 5 feet before it grants being a Critical. And it is being a Critical hit that grants 2 failed Death Saves. :p So before you two go at each other in a pedantic grudge match, please reconsider for everyone else here in this topic. :) Thank you!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1107460Nowadays you're supposed to only roll perception when you do a deep dive on checking something out, not general awareness.

Exactly! That's why "Find Secret Doors" was the Perception in Old School D&D. It was for finding secret stuff, not noticing stuff in the open.

You tell them there's a letter on the fireplace mantle when they enter the room...because its a trap! Or might be a trap. Or its fun to make players paranoid. Either way, drawing the players attention to the letter on the mantle lets you surprise attack them easier when nobody looks inside the fireplace!

Quote from: Aglondir;1107473You're right! It annoys me to no end, but I can't get them to stop.

There's a simple but not easy fix to this.  I go through it with almost every new players until I break them of the habit.  Don't let them declare the roll, for any skill, ever.  They tell you what they want to accomplish.  You decide who needs to roll, and what roll it is, if any.  If there is a roll, ask them to roll it.  Either way, narrate the results.  

If they persist in rolling first, then do something like:  "That nice.  Now what are you trying to accomplish?  OK, give me a roll for that."  Usually, it doesn't go that far with me.  I merely state to the group that they don't declare the rolls--over and over until it sinks in.

Quote from: Omega;1107493Instead lets look at that end game you dismissed. Because here is where the 5e wizard really overtakes the AD&D one. Because at level 18 the wizard gains the ability to cast one signature 1st and 2nd level spell AT WILL. Yes they are at their basic level of power. But a wizard at this point becomes a magic missile chaingun. Name yourself Sandman and blanket a town in sleep by just walking around and casting willy nilly. Or become a living flamethrower casting scorching ray at will. Play spider Man and web a whole city.

Alright let's optimize properly. Your 1st level spell is shield and your second level spell is Misty Step. You now have +5 AC and teleport at will.

Now the best Wizard actually starts out as a fighter then takes 18 levels of Wizard and then one more of fighter. See the fighter action surge bypasses the one spell per turn limit, which makes it a far better capstone.

Now you start fighter to have con save Prof, plate, defense style, and a shield. Which all stacks with the shield spell. Before even magical items your at-will shield spell buffs your AC to 26. That's before layering any other buff spell.

Huh, and I thought optimized at-will 1st & 2nd Lvl is Charm Person & Suggestion... :D Silly me! (Eh, once you are over 10th lvl D&D got habitually unwieldy over the editions. :o)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107610Huh, and I thought optimized at-will 1st & 2nd Lvl is Charm Person & Suggestion... :D Silly me! (Eh, once you are over 10th lvl D&D got habitually unwieldy over the editions. :o)

Depends on your DM, oddly all the high level challenges are where no other mortal is willing to go.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1107501Psst! Unconscious condition requires an attack to be within 5 feet before it grants being a Critical. And it is being a Critical hit that grants 2 failed Death Saves. :p So before you two go at each other in a pedantic grudge match, please reconsider for everyone else here in this topic. :) Thank you!

Hush you. I am waiting for his next bout of pedantry so I can spring my next trap. :cool:

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1107490That probability you're detecting is 5e's bounded accuracy, where everything is designed to still be a threat throughout the game, instead of goblins basically being literally impossible to hurt you.

Yeah, I get what it's doing. I've even had people tell me how this is scientifically more fun and linked me to psychology research, and further argue if this is what casinos do. And I'm like, meh. There's just a lot of stuff that's left out of this equation. Like the context. A hail Mary pass at the end of a football game is exciting. Only 2.5% of them result in a touch down. But they're still attractive because they are used in situations where there is nothing left to lose yet offer that small probability of winning. Players certainly can make similar decisions throughout the game.

A lone goblin may launch a hail mary strike at an armored knight. A goblin (19 THAC0) with a short sword (-3 vs plate & shield) versus a 0th level human in plate and shield (AC 2) needs a 20 to hit. Suppose the human has 4 hp. The goblin then needs a 4 or better on the d6 damage roll. That puts the odds at about 2.5%. If the goblin is cornered and has nothing to lose, why not go for a hail Mary strike.

The 5E motif is something like, make that hit probability a lot more common, to say 30%, just within that 30-70 zone. Now adjust the knight's hit points upwards 6-fold (or have a really generous negative hit point system that has similar effect) to counter the goblin's 6-fold hit probability increase. So all told, in terms of the "expected number" of attacks the goblin will need to take to fell the fighting man will be roughly the same. It's just that now there is zero chance of coming up with a one-hit-kill hail Mary strike. That's the excitement that gets lost in the science. And it's not something that can be fixed by adding a Hail Mary Strike feat.

QuoteI like your idea of a "simple class," kind of like Fighter with the champion subclass, but for every class. A default. It's funny you say this since the recent trend has been people saying 5e is too simple and that Pathfinder 2 offers all the customization 5e is missing.

One inescapable fact is, the more detail and more options you have, the more time it takes to plan and create your character. And that's time that could be spent playing the game.

Some people really just would rather plan to play RPGs, think about playing RPGs, or talk about playing RPGs than actually play RPGs. As a life long DM, I fall prey to this myself often. Of my entire game group, for instance, I'm the only one who posts on any internet forum anywhere about RPGs. Most real gamers will never grace these or any other pages, never let their opinions be known, and WotC doesn't know the first thing about them. And I don't think the opinions or preferences of me or anyone else necessarily syncs up with them.

Most of what i consider big problems with 5th edition can be house ruled away easily. Even the DMG has optional rules for using ability checks over skill checks.

Beyond that, the biggest problem I've personally had with 5th Edition is the culture of its players and the unyielding attitude many have on maintaining balance, fairness, and a dependence on rules as written. I much prefer a game where the GM can be adaptable by making informed rulings based on the situation and use house rules that help to portray a certain setting or style of play.

Secondary, I just don't like the class system, because I feel wotc has taken lengths to ensure every class is competent in combat. I prefer classes that have a specific role in the game. You need the Rogue to explore safely. You need the Magic User to have spells  that create on the spot solutions through preparedness. You need a fighter to crush some skulls when things get violent. You need a cleric for support, and to be the face of the party when alignment becomes a factor for the purposes of social encounters. Everyone gets to shine and each class' function is baked into the system.

All this can be fixed with the right group, which is easy to say if you live in the Americas or Europe. In my timezone (Oceania), it's not easy to find groups that play anything outside of mainstream games. Even when you check roll20, or other VTTs, rarely do you see games listed using anything but pathfinder or 5th edition. The occasional PbtA, Genesis, Vampire, or Cypher System game might pop up but I'm not fond of story games too much. I like the OSR style and it just isn't a thing here, though perhaps I'm not looking hard enough.

Quote from: Lunamancer;1107691The 5E motif is something like, make that hit probability a lot more common, to say 30%, just within that 30-70 zone. Now adjust the knight's hit points upwards 6-fold (or have a really generous negative hit point system that has similar effect) to counter the goblin's 6-fold hit probability increase. So all told, in terms of the "expected number" of attacks the goblin will need to take to fell the fighting man will be roughly the same. It's just that now there is zero chance of coming up with a one-hit-kill hail Mary strike. That's the excitement that gets lost in the science. And it's not something that can be fixed by adding a Hail Mary Strike feat.

The equivalent of the 1e F0 with 4 hp is a 5e Guard with 11 hp, while the equivalent of a 1e Goblin doing d6 is a 5e Goblin doing d6+2 damage. 5e Goblin ATT +4, vs 5e Plate & Shield AC 20. So hit on a 16+, or 1 in 4. But 1 in 20 chance of a crit doing 2d6+2. The chance of an immediate kill is a bit lower, but the chance of killing in 2-3 rounds is much higher.

Quote from: Lunamancer;1107478The thing I liked least about 5E from my play experience is character creation. Too many options and page flipping just to make a first level character. This is exacerbated by the philosophical aversion to subtraction the game seems to have. It's like trying to order a meal at a restaurant. That comes with soup or salad. Salad. Ranch of vinaigrette? Vinaigrette. Raspberry or balsamic? Enough with the long form application. I said I wanted a steak, get me a steak.

I can't just say "I wanna play a cleric." I got a sphere, and a background, and a skill selection, et cetera etcetera. Why can't there just be a regular old cleric, and if I want to play some sort of specialty priest or cleric of specific god, the rules can say something like "Okay, you give up the ability to turn undead, but you get three singing chipmunk companions" or whatever. Nope. Can't do that. Can't subtract that turn undead power. We gotta strip down the class to a Mr. Potato Head, and you get to spend a whole ton of time accessorizing it, with a lot of page-flipping if you aren't familiar with the rules.

This. I don't want to build-a-character at the Character-Building-Buffet, I want to roll up a few stats, think about what that suggests and go forward, you know with my imagination. I can do that with 5E I expect but too much mucking about to get there.

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;1107702This. I don't want to build-a-character at the Character-Building-Buffet, I want to roll up a few stats, think about what that suggests and go forward, you know with my imagination. I can do that with 5E I expect but too much mucking about to get there.

Rolling stats in order solves many problems.

Quote from: Omega;1107688Hush you. I am waiting for his next bout of pedantry so I can spring my next trap. :cool:

Heh, like the trap where you claim a level 20 wizard has fewer spells, which you reinforce as true by pointing out a level 18 wizard has more? Damn, dude, I know better than try to pierce that logic. You've humiliated yourself sufficiently, I'll let you go though if Rhedyn wants to embarrass you some more, I have popcorn.

I don't see why rolling stats or building a character from a character building buffet. Neither has to be mutually exlusive. Both have their flaws and merits.

No reason to draw lines in the sand or say that one method is worse or better than the other. Why some in the hobby insist on doing so is beyond me

Quote from: sureshot;1107735I don't see why rolling stats or building a character from a character building buffet. Neither has to be mutually exlusive. Both have their flaws and merits.

No reason to draw lines in the sand or say that one method is worse or better than the other. Why some in the hobby insist on doing so is beyond me

Maybe they have preferences? :)

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;1107702This. I don't want to build-a-character at the Character-Building-Buffet, I want to roll up a few stats, think about what that suggests and go forward, you know with my imagination. I can do that with 5E I expect but too much mucking about to get there.

Quite a bit though is fairly frontloaded or simple decisions. Roll or assign stats, choose race and class. Depending on the class you have a level or two before you have to chose a path. Path choice is usually pretty straightforward too other than the Warlock.

Its still more moving parts than AD&D and definitly more moving parts than BX. But you do not need a spreadsheet or app just to figure out HOW to arrange your character. (Lookin at you 3e!)

Quote from: Omega;1107742Quite a bit though is fairly frontloaded or simple decisions. Roll or assign stats, choose race and class. Depending on the class you have a level or two before you have to chose a path. Path choice is usually pretty straightforward too other than the Warlock.

Its still more moving parts than AD&D and definitly more moving parts than BX. But you do not need a spreadsheet or app just to figure out HOW to arrange your character. (Lookin at you 3e!)

Yeah it's all the moving parts. Stats, race, class. I'm quite happy with those for D&D, others may vary.

Quote from: S'mon;1107738Maybe they have preferences? :)

Which is why it's good to offer alternatives.

Personally I loathe random rolls in my chargen. The system I'm writing has an option for that though because some people like that and I made sure the method isn't even mutually exclusive with the default (array - my first choice for chargen these days) or other alternate (point buy). You can also role your species, background and/or general class if you really want to (though rolling class in addition to everything else is one of the few ways you can actually break a character without deliberate intent since it could shove you into a class that doesn't best fit your attributes... just rolling attributes, species and background then picking your class will get you a PC every bit as viable as one where you pick it all though).

My experience is quite similar to Doom's. The power of spells (particularly Polymorph as both a huge healing spell and force multiplier, and Healing Word) combined with "Bounded Accuracy" against low defenses resulted in pretty predictable combats. My players could easily faceroll through most encounters. And that made anything but the most extreme encounters less memorable to my group of good players.

And I don't think thats really a "problem" for the default, all ages, all inclusive RPG. it ought to be accessible and forgiving. I think its a great gateway into the hobby.

Personally, I've found other systems to be a better fit for what I'm trying to accomplish on the tabletop. Some more complex, some less. I also don't particularly care for the "Star Wars Cantina" type environment as the default expectation for a setting, with "monster" races so heavily encouraged. For a SF game or alternate setting, sure.

I think the Star Wars Cantina though is kinda the logical conclusion of a moderate-to-high magic setting where interventionalist (and often competing) gods and high-level spells like wish exist.

I know 4E doesn't get a lot of love here, but one of the things that 4E did have going for it was a setting that didn't pretend that throwing all the magic into a world would end up with a stereotypical medieval world and I think their default setting was the better for it (certainly more sensible than the unholy abomination that is the Forgotten Realms).

Quote from: BarefootGaijin;1107758Yeah it's all the moving parts. Stats, race, class. I'm quite happy with those for D&D, others may vary.

Most RPGs have stats and those that done tent to have rather complex freeform equivalents or a big roster of traits to select from. And usually stats are one and done, Either a simple roll or point buy.
Probably like 75% of all RPGs have some manner of race selection. This is usually the easiest one to do. Just choose something that interests you. The min/maxers and char-oppers can go straight to Hell. How hard is this?
Class as noted above isnt all that hard in 5e. Just choose something that interest you and run. How hard is this? Same for selecting a path.
Same with skills. You get to select usually two from a small list. How hard is this? Same for background.

Anyone finding that too 'complex' really needs to get the hell out of RPG gaming and try something like storygaming or better yet, no game or RPG at all. Just plain storytelling.

Quote from: Omega;1107841Most RPGs

Sorry. I'm going to have to stop you right there. The question posed is "What are the big problems of 5E?" That's kind of vague and without much in the way of parameters. So let me fill you in on my parameters.

Speaking for myself, when I answered this question, I'm in part thinking back to when I first learned D&D. I started with zero knowledge but was able to jump right into playing right away. I barely knew any rules. I know I had to roll 3d6 for my stats. I knew by default I should pick fighter because they were simple and straight forward to play for a bigger, and in BX you don't choose race and class separately. I knew I had to roll my hit points. The only time-consuming part was initial equipment purchase, and that sort of thing is not an RPG-specific skill, so it's not like I needed to know any special rules for that. Then for playing the game, pretty much all I knew was d20 was to hit and save, damage depended on what weapon I was using, and I'd sometimes use a d6 to find secret doors, avoid surprise, or avoid traps.

Fast forward to 5E. I'm not saying it is worse than "most RPGs." I'm not even saying its worse than some of the other editions of D&D. I'm basically saying that after decades of playing D&D, I should have an easier time, not a harder time, just jumping in. And I haven't found that to be the case with 5E, and I consider that a big problem. Just because "most RPGs" are far worse does not mean that there is not a big problem here.

QuoteProbably like 75% of all RPGs have some manner of race selection. This is usually the easiest one to do. Just choose something that interests you. The min/maxers and char-oppers can go straight to Hell. How hard is this?
Class as noted above isnt all that hard in 5e. Just choose something that interest you and run. How hard is this? Same for selecting a path.
Same with skills. You get to select usually two from a small list. How hard is this? Same for background.

Anyone finding that too 'complex' really needs to get the hell out of RPG gaming and try something like storygaming or better yet, no game or RPG at all. Just plain storytelling.

I don't know that anybody finds that too "complex". Complexity isn't the point. The point is these choices do slow down character creation to some degree. Maybe not a lot to someone who knows the game inside and out, but it's really not possible to make any of those choices without understanding what the options are and what it all means. On someone's first time at-bat, it can take hours before you can even start playing the game. There is no longer any straight-forward "human fighter" option in the sense there used to be that you can point a newb through to jump right in. Humans now have a versatility adjustment. Fighters now have special abilities.

The other odd thing I find about this statement, though, is this notion that somehow going simpler means get out of gaming and try storygaming? Again, I'll condition this by saying I don't care what's happening in "most RPGs." I don't care if "most storygames" are simpler than "most RPGs." What I've noticed about RPGs in general is the more character customized and detail-oriented they become, the better they fit the motif of "rag tag band of borderline psychopaths wander around getting caught up in wacky adventures"--which is VERY story centered--and the less it resembles a game.

I like how 5e gives you your equipment as part of chargen; makes character creation much faster. I like to minimise the decision points for charbuilding, I find roll in order and replace 1 stat with a 15 works really well at the table. Choose race & class doesn't take long.

I think the awkward slow bit roughly equivalent to buying equipment in old school is choosing skills & background, especially the nasty recursive loop of choosing class skills then finding they are in your preferred background and having to re-choose.

It's a challenge, and I've seen the returning-D&D vet dithering, because Races and the like feel as if there are "wrong choices" embedded with all the features that come included. I blame that in part of how consistent, and important, Mod Progression is; old skool had larger ranges that gave little to no bonuses, meaning it was less critical to survival. That and the previous two editions were notorious for "trap options" and "build projections."

It's a perception thing, I get it. :( That said, it's really hard to make a worthless character in 5e! :) Feel free to select with (campaign coherent ;) ) abandon!

One thing I am still not exactly keen on is the Challenge Rating system and how it works, or in some cases, does not work.

It is best as a vague guideline. But Ive seen several trying to use it as a hard definition of what the PCs can face. And that going right out the window one direction or the other. That and the CR calculation system seems wayyyy too complex for what should be a fairly straightforward procedure.

That character creation and advancement feels like putting together a deck for playing MtG.

Quote from: Omega;1107907One thing I am still not exactly keen on is the Challenge Rating system and how it works, or in some cases, does not work.

It is best as a vague guideline. But Ive seen several trying to use it as a hard definition of what the PCs can face. And that going right out the window one direction or the other. That and the CR calculation system seems wayyyy too complex for what should be a fairly straightforward procedure.

Most of the "rules" for DMs are more in the "vague guideline" realm. Depending on personal preferences, this can be a bug or a feature.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1107534If they persist in rolling first, then do something like:  "That nice.  Now what are you trying to accomplish?  OK, give me a roll for that."  Usually, it doesn't go that far with me.  I merely state to the group that they don't declare the rolls--over and over until it sinks in.

I do the same. Although I don't get them to roll again. I just ask them what they are searching, e.g. the fireplace, the couch, the chair, or something else. I try not to ask for a general perception check. A letter on the mantelpiece is somewhat obvious. I doubt I'd ask for a check for that unless it was hidden. I'd just say, "there's a letter on the mantelpiece" in the description of the room.

Quote from: Aglondir;1107455Last time I played 5E there were a dozen PER checks of that nature. It seems like it started in 5E, and is now creeping into other games. For the love of Gygax folks, just elminate the pointless PER checks and tell the damn story!

Unfortunately, this isn't unique to 5E.  I've been watching groups use various perception checks just like you describe since I stared RQ back in about 1980.  I hate it.  I've always defaulted to describing what they see and only using perception checks for things the character won't naturally see in from the player description.  I do like how 5E has the passive perception, so the GM can roll it secretly when necessary.

In fact, I dislike a lot of how skill checks are done in RPGs, but I don't see 5E as being particularly at fault here.

Quote from: S'mon;1107858I like how 5e gives you your equipment as part of chargen; makes character creation much faster. I like to minimise the decision points for charbuilding, I find roll in order and replace 1 stat with a 15 works really well at the table. Choose race & class doesn't take long.

I agree.  One of the good things 5E has done is sped character creation back up substantially over the last couple of versions of D&D.  It may well be as fast as AD&D was, though not up there with OD&D.

Quote from: Omega;1107907One thing I am still not exactly keen on is the Challenge Rating system and how it works, or in some cases, does not work.

I don't use it.  I've found that 5E is so easy and straightforward to design for that I can just build setting pieces like I did in old school D&D.  That's probably the best thing about 5E.  It returns to a game that I can use and run just like I ran D&D in 1980 and it works pretty close - with just a couple of tweaks.  Yet, the character building and customization appeals to the players, and the lack of random deaths appeals to them too.

It's actual problems in play are pretty minor, really.  It lacks many of the tools for old school play, but I already know those and just incorporate them:  morale, reactions, etc.  (They're half-assed in it, but not really up to snuff.)  It irons out a lot of issues those games, but primarily feels like what most people were trying to do with AD&D:  not what the rules stated, but how people were trying to use it.

I don't really like the bounded accuracy as the game feels relatively mundane compared to the massive power level of early D&D.  However, it works fine.  This is just personal preference.

Quote from: Bren;1107925That character creation and advancement feels like putting together a deck for playing MtG.

That was 3e.

If you disable multiclassing and feats then it doesn't seem like it should be that much work to make a character. You'll have the most trouble with spellcasters, but picking a ton of spells is an issue in every edition isn't it?

Quote from: Omega;1107978That was 3e.

Never played 3E. I'm 4 sessions into playing D&D 5E. That's what it feels like to me so far.

I think D & D 5E is a very cool game.  I'd rather there be a slightly more simple jump start, to get straight to the action more quickly; without mandatory system mastery for the DM, prior to session 1.

I really like the NPC Codex for Pathfinder.  It details examples of characters in all the core classes, at every character level.  It would be super cool if D & D 5E had such a book.

If I suddenly need complete stats for a 5th level Wizard, 7th level Rogue, 3rd level Ranger, or 11th level Cleric; I can flip straight to them in the Pathfinder NPC Codex.  But no such book exists for D & D 5E, that I know of.

Aside from the skill system as mentioned (although it's not as much of a problem once you realise that 5E doesn't really have as much a skill system as it does a 'proficiency getting system'), the biggest problem I've seen discussed is the failure of saving throws to scale at high levels.

I can't swear to it myself.  I understand the maths argument but I've not played at high enough level to see if player abilities mitigate this issue as others have claimed.

Yeah, the CR system only "works" if you take it as a raw guideline to get you started, and then mostly ignore it from then on.  Never mind "balance" in the mechanics--variation in player abilities is enough to completely torpedo a much more resilient CR system, of which the 5E one is not.  

I see it as with any system, the GM will eventually need to come to terms with the relative abilities of various foes--if only to put things into the world that makes sense and can be learned in play.  (Even the rawest of GM, for example, needs to know that a powerful dragon hanging out 2 miles from a major town is probably not a stable situation.)  All the CR system does is allow a new 5E GM to get in the ballpark of where they want to be with little experience.  After that, it's back to learning from experience the old fashioned way.  Unfortunately, the CR thing can get in the way of that later learning, if one takes it for more than it is.

Right. It is good for a general idea. But it fails miserably at being an accurate gauge of challenge. And is needlessly complex. As is the monster modding section which rolls into calculatings its CR. Which is a mess.

Quote from: TJS;1107999the biggest problem I've seen discussed is the failure of saving throws to scale at high levels.

I can't swear to it myself.  I understand the maths argument but I've not played at high enough level to see if player abilities mitigate this issue as others have claimed.

It sure feels like they do not scale. But I am fairly sure they do scale. Its just not as much as in prior editions possibly.

A quick test.

A 5th level Druid with say 16 WIS tossing a spell that needs say a CON save to resist. The save is 8+3+3=14. Someone without a wisdom proficiency save bonus is is just the base stat bonus added onto the roll. Say that is a +3 as well. Someone with a WIS save proficiency adds that in too. So if the target were a level 5 character then that is another +3 for a total of +6. Monsters though without any save bonuses use just their base stat bonus. A Hill Giant has a -1 on its save so is going to fail WIS saves a-lot as it has no spell save proficiency. Those with a save prof scale the same as a PC it seems.

So overall it seems to balance out and scale.

Quote from: Omega;1108017It sure feels like they do not scale. But I am fairly sure they do scale. Its just not as much as in prior editions possibly.

A quick test.

A 5th level Druid with say 16 WIS tossing a spell that needs say a CON save to resist. The save is 8+3+3=14. Someone without a wisdom proficiency save bonus is is just the base stat bonus added onto the roll. Say that is a +3 as well. Someone with a WIS save proficiency adds that in too. So if the target were a level 5 character then that is another +3 for a total of +6. Monsters though without any save bonuses use just their base stat bonus. A Hill Giant has a -1 on its save so is going to fail WIS saves a-lot as it has no spell save proficiency. Those with a save prof scale the same as a PC it seems.

So overall it seems to balance out and scale.

The thing is that the non-proficient saves are also usually a class' unimportant stats, so the odds are you're more likely to see a +1 at best, -1 (or even less if you're rolling) at worst. And it doesn't increase.

Even ability score increases don't measurably help... each one can net you a grant total of +1 to one save. You get four and need two of them just to cap your class' key ability score (This is actually an unstated reason why so many fighters build for Dexterity in 5e instead of Strength... they can use Dex for melee and ranged attacks, for their AC and to boost their non-proficient Dex save... or they can boost STR which has a handful of saves and lets them use weapons that might do 1 extra damage per attack vs. a dex-based weapon). If feats are the in the game, forget about it, you'll get literally 6 times the benefit from a single feat (giving you proficiency in another save, but still leaving you with one common save that's hosed).

In the upper tiers several monsters have saves with DCs of 22+ and the rules say a nat 20 on a save doesn't automatically succeed the way an attack does. Thus, it's just a matter of "who does the DM want to dick over with impossible saves in this encounter?" (exaggerating for emphasis... few DMs are deliberately setting out to do this, but 5e is sloppy enough it can happen by accident). And even if its only in the DC 18+ range... if your save is -1 you're looking at a 10% success rate.

The main math problem is that save DCs are almost always based off the best ability score a PC or critter has and are always proficient (if they weren't they wouldn't be casting spells at all) so it keeps getting harder and harder to resist while only one common and one rare save ever improves for the PCs.

Honestly, if I didn't know they were doing their own thing, I'd swear WotC had the guys who wrote the Arcanis RPG doing their math (I think I've mentioned them before; they're the ones who thought 2d10 would produce the same results as 1d20 while keeping their DCs based on a linear distribution. 5e succeeds in SPITE of its math, not because of it.

I'm waiting to see if the saves are still a problem when we hit higher levels.  If they are, I'm tempted to simply grant (proficiency -2) to all non-proficient saves.  Doesn't change anything until 5th level, but means that every non-proficient save goes up by 1 to 4 over the course of the remaining levels.  Probably still leaves the math a little off, but might get it close enough to live with for a casual campaign.  Plus, I can always toss in a few magic items to help.

It's a terribly clunky house rule to express, but easy enough in practice with my crowd to implement.  Hey, your proficiency went up.  Bump all your saves by 1.

That's basically reverse engineering the way defence scales in 4e (and in 13th Age for that matter).

It's actually possible to simplify 5E's maths greatly.  If instead of adding ability mods = 1/2 Abilitly Score - 10 round down you just make them = ability score -10.  Then you just get rid of proficiencies altogether.  When PCs would normally get a proficiency bonus they just get +1 to all stats.  (The beginning +2 is directly factored into the fact that scores are worth more).

You wouldn't need passive anything (or skills) - in the case of opposed rolls you would just roll against the flat ability score.

Not worth the trouble to do in 5e (you'd have to rewrite all the races for one) - but if I was going to make a simple OSR style hack of 4E that is definitely what I would do.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108083I'm waiting to see if the saves are still a problem when we hit higher levels.  If they are, I'm tempted to simply grant (proficiency -2) to all non-proficient saves. .

FWIW I do pretty much the same thing. Everyone adds their proficiency to all saves (and again to favored saves), and I move all save DCs up by 2. It's not a strong drift, but at least the higher level character will have an easier time saving against things than the lower level characters. You still have the "half-orc has almost never saves against charm" spells issue, but that may be more of a feature than a bug.

Quote from: blackiyto;1108093I've bene playing 5E off and on for a few years, mostly in one shot games or short campaigns, and never past 3rd level.

Did you mean to quote my post? (post #1, even with the typo)

Quote from: tenbones;1107232So... since you went back to 3.5, based on your response I have to ask - did you consider trying Fantasy Craft?

I've been looking at FC for some time now, since I like VP/WP and the FC classes rock. As soon as I can snag a good copy on Ebay.

Quote from: Chris24601;1108076Even ability score increases don't measurably help... each one can net you a grant total of +1 to one save.

You get four and need two of them just to cap your class' key ability score

(This is actually an unstated reason why so many fighters build for Dexterity in 5e instead of Strength... they can use Dex for melee and ranged attacks, for their AC and to boost their non-proficient Dex save... or they can boost STR which has a handful of saves and lets them use weapons that might do 1 extra damage per attack vs. a dex-based weapon).

If feats are the in the game, forget about it, you'll get literally 6 times the benefit from a single feat (giving you proficiency in another save, but still leaving you with one common save that's hosed).

1a: Yes. But that allso applies to spell DCs. And both character bonus from stats for DCs and Saves cap at stat 20/+6. (with one notable exception before we get to any magic boosts beyond that.)

1b: um... you haven't actually played 5e then have you? Every class gets 5 ability score boosts. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Fighters get another at 6 & 14 and Rogues get one at level 10, while Barbarians at level 20 get +4 to STR & CON.

1c: What fighters are these? I have never seen this or heard of it? Who would think something so stupid? Car-oppers? Min-Maxers? Theory-crafters who seem to never actually play? Also... again... you haven't actually played have you? DEX for any class using armour gets increasingly more useless. (could have sworn there was a feat that allowed you to bypass that. But seems not.)

The Rogue for example though does eventually gain proficiency in WIS saves. Some of the other classes get something like this too from class paths.

1d: er... what? Feats in 5e do not all grant stat bonuses or add more save profs. Those that do add a stat bonus tend to only add 1 point to a stat. Resilient allows you to gain a save proficiency if you ass the +1 to a stat you do not allready have a save prof in. You'd have to blow usually 4 of your 5 stat ups to cover every save prof and would gain only 4 more stat points instead of 8. Mage Slayer grants advantage on all saves vs spells cast by creatureswithin 5ft of the character. This is a tradeoff in stats vs feats a player has to weigh. Especially if the stat array is being used. Which is required for Adventurer League play.

There are though some class abilities that grant bonuses to saves. Such as the Bardic Inspiration ability.

x: Really. WTF?

Instead lets look at a real problem here instead of a virtually made up one. That being the ability of some classes or spells to either impose a disadvantage on saves, add a negative to a save (rare) or to bypass resistances. THIS is where some situations arise where things can go wayyyyy off the rails and end possibly badly for monster or PC. Sorcerers come to mind right off. In fact Sorcerers can potentially end up with elements of all the factors depending on how they are set up. Impose disadvantage on the save, bypass any resistance vs certain damage types, add more damage.

Probably some oddballs in the expansion books too.

Quote from: tenbones;1107232So... since you went back to 3.5, based on your response I have to ask - did you consider trying Fantasy Craft?

What's the difference between 1st and 2nd printing?
1st is cheap on Noble Knight.com.

I've run 5e 1-20 twice. Re saves, the thing is that failing a save in 5e is not like failing a save in 1e. It's almost never instant death, in fact it's expected that creatures & PCs will fail a lot of saves. There are a few spells like Hypnotic Pattern & Banishment that remove victims from combat on a failed save; even these have workarounds such as bash the wizard to disrupt, or shake the victim awake. These spells tend to be more powerful in the hands of PCs than NPCs, since NPCs rarely appear in balanced groups of casters & bashers.

My current Epic-20 game, a new player brought in a Paladin, and with CHA now +6 that gives +6 to all ally saves in 30'. The result is that PCs with proficient saves & good attribute tend to be saving on a 2 (I'm using 1 fails & 20 succeeds) and non-proficient with mediocre attribute make their saves around half the time.

Quote from: Aglondir;1108181I've been looking at FC for some time now, since I like VP/WP and the FC classes rock. As soon as I can snag a good copy on Ebay.

It is my opinion that *anyone* that enjoys 3.x/PF as a GM, that pores over the FC tome and actually puts in the effort to let it sink in - will never look back. I wish you luck on your search!

Quote from: Aglondir;1108205What's the difference between 1st and 2nd printing?
1st is cheap on Noble Knight.com.

ALWAYS go 2nd printing. They fixed a lot of the errata that came out after 1st. Also! Purchase The Adventurers Companion too. It's basically a TON of stuff they simply couldn't pack into the main book. And it has about four mini-campaign settings inside it plus a ton of good classes and supporting Feats and gear etc. I rate this book as a *MUST HAVE* alongside the core book.

Those are the only two books you'll ever need.

Quote from: S'mon;1108227My current Epic-20 game, a new player brought in a Paladin, and with CHA now +6 that gives +6 to all ally saves in 30'. The result is that PCs with proficient saves & good attribute tend to be saving on a 2 (I'm using 1 fails & 20 succeeds) and non-proficient with mediocre attribute make their saves around half the time.

I've had 4 paladins out of over 20 characters. That ratio might be why I haven't seen a problem.  There is definitely a "run and hide next to the paladin when the nasty effects start coming out" thing.  Well, except for fireballs and the like, which make such tactics kind of a bad idea.  Then it's scatter and pick up the pieces of the poor character that bravely draws the fire.  Ooh boy did a rogue and barbarian get the short end of that stick last weekend.  First time I've seen a 9th level barbarian lose 2/3 of his hit points in one blast.

Quote from: tenbones;1108274ALWAYS go 2nd printing. They fixed a lot of the errata that came out after 1st. Also! Purchase The Adventurers Companion too. It's basically a TON of stuff they simply couldn't pack into the main book. And it has about four mini-campaign settings inside it plus a ton of good classes and supporting Feats and gear etc. I rate this book as a *MUST HAVE* alongside the core book.

Those are the only two books you'll ever need.

   And there's only one other book available in print. :) There are some class options and a Hammer Horror-style adventure that are PDF-only.

   I own and have read FantasyCraft and the Adventure Companion, and I respect it as probably the epitome of what 3E and PF tried to be ... but I think it's probably just a bit too rich for my tastes nowadays, and/or I'm too old to internalize it.

yeah, that internalization issue is a thing. Especially these days when from my perspective there are many other ways to skin-that-cat without having to digest FC.

You have to *want* to play 3.x style gaming.

If I ever go back to it - I'll pull FC out. But I don't know the circumstances under which that will happen without my group pushing me for it, for the exact reasons you cited.

Quote from: tenbones;1108273It is my opinion that *anyone* that enjoys 3.x/PF as a GM, that pores over the FC tome and actually puts in the effort to let it sink in - will never look back.

Yeah, FC is legitimately kick-ass. Keep in mind this is coming from someone who lacks a general fondness for D20 games, too.

I honestly wished they would have taken some queues from FC when designing 5e. The reality is the guts of FC is quite small in size (it just looks daunting because it's a PHB/DMG/MM all in one book). But there are mechanical rigor applied to its core elements that would have made 5e *really* shine.

I'll even go on the record to say I prefer FC to 5e if I had to make a choice - and I'd do so without hesitation. The attempts at tossing bones to all of the different editions is what makes 5e weird and less than what it could be. It's probably unavoidable.

Quote from: Omega;11081981b: um... you haven't actually played 5e then have you? Every class gets 5 ability score boosts. At levels 4, 8, 12, 16, and 19. Fighters get another at 6 & 14 and Rogues get one at level 10, while Barbarians at level 20 get +4 to STR & CON.

I have played it actually. It was a year ago though and I don't own the books on account of refusing to pay WotC money so am going off memory. I remembered every four levels but not level 20 so I went off 4, 8, 12, 16 to get four. Forgive me for going from memory instead of handing the SJWs at WotC money to be 100% accurate. The point remains that there's not enough ASIs, particularly if trading them off for feats is an option, to make them a valid alternative to fix the gaping holes in the saving throw math at high levels.

As to the Dex fighters... yeah, they were a thing in my area. Their net AC was 17 (studded leather + Dex 20) vs. an AC 18 for plate armor (and Dex doesn't apply). They also got +5 to their Dex save and +5 to their initiative, acrobatics and stealth checks, ranged weapon attacks/damage in addition to with finesse weapons (which, since they're one-handed by definition, can either be dual wielded with your bonus action or you can carry a shield for +2 AC). Throw in whatever the feat was that gave you proficiency in another save (and choose Wisdom) and you've actually got your bases mostly covered for attacks and defenses. And that's before you add magic into the mix. With the way carry capacity worked in 5e even an 8 Str is enough to carry 120 lb. of gear without being slowed down and your armor is about 50 lb. lighter than the STR fighter's to boot with no disadvantage to stealth.

Putting your best score in Strength meant is wasn't doing double duty covering a common save (Dex, Con and Wis), didn't help with ranged attacks. In exchange you eventually get plate armor for +1 AC over the Dex fighter, a better athletics score, and can wield melee weapons that do about 1 extra damage on average per hit while sucking at ranged attacks.

Quote1d: er... what? Feats in 5e do not all grant stat bonuses or add more save profs.

I never said they did. But to get a feat you have to give up the Ability Score Increase at that level. Which makes more sense? Spend an ASI on bumping an 8 ability score to a 10 (+1 to saves with it) or picking up the feat that gives you proficiency in a save and nets you a +2-6 modifier to the save for one ASI. Or pick something else that useful because you're always going to be hosed on that ability save as it is.

QuoteMage Slayer grants advantage on all saves vs spells cast by creatureswithin 5ft of the character. This is a tradeoff in stats vs feats a player has to weigh. Especially if the stat array is being used. Which is required for Adventurer League play.

Advantage is awesome for certain things... fixing the really poor saves at high levels isn't one of them. If you're only playing the low levels where the save DCs are 11-15 or so then giving advantage to someone with a +0 or even -1 ability score on that save can really help them. If you need to roll a 21 on a 20-sided die with a +0 to the roll, rolling twice isn't going to help at all.

5e's math is entirely held together by spit, bailing wire and the goodwill of the players/DMs.

Quote from: Chris24601;1108452I have played it actually. It was a year ago though and I don't own the books on account of refusing to pay WotC money so am going off memory. I remembered every four levels but not level 20 so I went off 4, 8, 12, 16 to get four. Forgive me for going from memory instead of handing the SJWs at WotC money to be 100% accurate. The point remains that there's not enough ASIs, particularly if trading them off for feats is an option, to make them a valid alternative to fix the gaping holes in the saving throw math at high levels.

As to the Dex fighters... yeah, they were a thing in my area. Their net AC was 17 (studded leather + Dex 20) vs. an AC 18 for plate armor (and Dex doesn't apply). They also got +5 to their Dex save and +5 to their initiative, acrobatics and stealth checks, ranged weapon attacks/damage in addition to with finesse weapons (which, since they're one-handed by definition, can either be dual wielded with your bonus action or you can carry a shield for +2 AC). Throw in whatever the feat was that gave you proficiency in another save (and choose Wisdom) and you've actually got your bases mostly covered for attacks and defenses. And that's before you add magic into the mix. With the way carry capacity worked in 5e even an 8 Str is enough to carry 120 lb. of gear without being slowed down and your armor is about 50 lb. lighter than the STR fighter's to boot with no disadvantage to stealth.

Putting your best score in Strength meant is wasn't doing double duty covering a common save (Dex, Con and Wis), didn't help with ranged attacks. In exchange you eventually get plate armor for +1 AC over the Dex fighter, a better athletics score, and can wield melee weapons that do about 1 extra damage on average per hit while sucking at ranged attacks.


I never said they did. But to get a feat you have to give up the Ability Score Increase at that level. Which makes more sense? Spend an ASI on bumping an 8 ability score to a 10 (+1 to saves with it) or picking up the feat that gives you proficiency in a save and nets you a +2-6 modifier to the save for one ASI. Or pick something else that useful because you're always going to be hosed on that ability save as it is.


Advantage is awesome for certain things... fixing the really poor saves at high levels isn't one of them. If you're only playing the low levels where the save DCs are 11-15 or so then giving advantage to someone with a +0 or even -1 ability score on that save can really help them. If you need to roll a 21 on a 20-sided die with a +0 to the roll, rolling twice isn't going to help at all.

5e's math is entirely held together by spit, bailing wire and the goodwill of the players/DMs.

I've made heavy armor (and thus Strength) more attractive by ruling that magic armor (unless it specifies otherwise) is 50% heavy armor, 30% medium armor, and 20% light armor. I let my players know this up front.

It's a bit depressing how good the combo of Rapier with Dueling style and Shield is for the sword and board style fighter.

Because it doesn't feel like it's meant to work that way.

But of course if you have the system knowledge to know that you're probably going to be bored playing the Fighter anyway.

Quote from: Chris24601;1108452Advantage is awesome for certain things... fixing the really poor saves at high levels isn't one of them. If you're only playing the low levels where the save DCs are 11-15 or so then giving advantage to someone with a +0 or even -1 ability score on that save can really help them. If you need to roll a 21 on a 20-sided die with a +0 to the roll, rolling twice isn't going to help at all.

5e's math is entirely held together by spit, bailing wire and the goodwill of the players/DMs.

1: True. The bigger the margin for error, the more oomph you get out of advantage or disadvantage. But that is one more chance to roll a 1 which is allways a fail. Also note I underlined the "within 5 ft" part to emphasize just how little this feat does. Not that it is a great feat.

But as noted there is bardic inspiration which does add numbers to the save roll. a d6 and growing slowly from there to a d12.

2: Not quite. But it overfocuses on balancing one thing and misses other elements.

x: Looking at it is may be that the problem is not that saves scale poorly. They scale fairly well. But that they scale really fast!
Right out the gate a caster using array and taking a standard human will have a save DC of 13 (8+2+3). By level 5 that has likely jumped to 15 (8+3+4) At level 10 its probably creeping up to 17 (8+4+5). The PCs save rolls may be climbing as well. Or not.

I understand what you are trying to get at. That without a prof save bonus or stats, a PC or monsters saves drop off. But it seems to be intentional. And others did point this issue out during late playtest.

One suggestion was removing the stat bonus on the save DC. Looking back. That might have been what needed to be done. And/Or at say level 10 add another save prof.

On the other hand it can lend some role play elements. Studying a foe to try and figure out what their weaknesses may be and then hammering them with spells they will have the hardest time resisting.

Quote from: TJS;1108460It's a bit depressing how good the combo of Rapier with Dueling style and Shield is for the sword and board style fighter.

Because it doesn't feel like it's meant to work that way.

But of course if you have the system knowledge to know that you're probably going to be bored playing the Fighter anyway.

Maybe it's just my game, but I find that front line fighters who dump STR for DEX are really regretting it when they're rolling -1 on Athletics checks vs being grappled, shoved, knocked prone et al.

Quote from: S'mon;1108481Maybe it's just my game, but I find that front line fighters who dump STR for DEX are really regretting it when they're rolling -1 on Athletics checks vs being grappled, shoved, knocked prone et al.

Yeah it's not without it's trade offs.  Although the smart play would be to not entirely dump Str.

If the GMs uses grapples and shoves they can suffer.
Conversely if you go sword and board and the GM uses minis and interesting terrain than Shield Master is a good feat to have which also benefits more from Strength.

Of course you can also take a level of rogue, and make up for lower Strength by getting expertise in Athletics (Plus the other benefits of taking a level in Rogue).

I'm not saying it's so good as too be a no brainer - it's just very strong and...something that doesn't feel intentional.

Quote from: TJS;1108486I'm not saying it's so good as too be a no brainer - it's just very strong and...something that doesn't feel intentional.

I agree; and I definitely find the stats aren't well balanced against each other, which means Point Buy doesn't work well, you get a ton of STR 8 & INT 8 PCs in 5e (and a ton of DEX 14 & CON 14). These days I prefer roll-in-order, but replace one stat with a 15 so the players can always have a good number in their class's primary attribute.

Edit re intention: Well one of the two starting Fighter equipment packages has leather armour, so they must expect many Fighters to be DEX based.

I've been avoiding tinkering with 5E, confining myself to the things absolutely necessary to produce the campaign I want.  Partly it is natural conservatism with rule changes, and partly that I don't want to spend my game design time tinkering with a WotC product instead of something more long-term useful.  Also that once I unleash that genie, it's difficult to get back in the bottle. :)

All that said, I've been really tempted more than once to drop every Hit Die by one level.  Pretty easy since wizards start at 1d6 now.  Then have the Str mod affect hit points, same as Con does.  That devalues Con a little, but I could live with it, I think.  If nothing else, it means that anyone using Str as a drop stat better think long and hard about shifting some of those points into Con to compensate.  Plus, the drop in Hit Die size makes the recovery a bit more difficult.  (Since I'm using the optional rule to only allow natural healing with Hit Die, even more so for my game.)

It's not nearly as effective a solution as revamping the ability scores and skill system from the ground up, but a lot easier one.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108505I've been avoiding tinkering with 5E, confining myself to the things absolutely necessary to produce the campaign I want.  Partly it is natural conservatism with rule changes, and partly that I don't want to spend my game design time tinkering with a WotC product instead of something more long-term useful.  Also that once I unleash that genie, it's difficult to get back in the bottle. :)

All that said, I've been really tempted more than once to drop every Hit Die by one level.  Pretty easy since wizards start at 1d6 now.  Then have the Str mod affect hit points, same as Con does.  That devalues Con a little, but I could live with it, I think.  If nothing else, it means that anyone using Str as a drop stat better think long and hard about shifting some of those points into Con to compensate.  Plus, the drop in Hit Die size makes the recovery a bit more difficult.  (Since I'm using the optional rule to only allow natural healing with Hit Die, even more so for my game.)

It's not nearly as effective a solution as revamping the ability scores and skill system from the ground up, but a lot easier one.

Hm, this is making me think about adding the STR score to PC hit points. In my Thule game I had full CON score instead of bonus added to starting hp as a way to create robust PCs out the gate, but adding STR score would solve several issues - it would make STR no longer a dump stat, and it would deal with the simulationist issue that IRL resilience is tied to muscle mass whereas in D&D they're unrelated.

So eg a PC would have STR + (hd+CON bonus)xlevel. A STR 16 Fighter-1 (d10 hd) with CON 12 (+1) would have 16+10+1 = 27 hp.

Quote from: S'mon;1108510Hm, this is making me think about adding the STR score to PC hit points. In my Thule game I had full CON score instead of bonus added to starting hp as a way to create robust PCs out the gate, but adding STR score would solve several issues - it would make STR no longer a dump stat, and it would deal with the simulationist issue that IRL resilience is tied to muscle mass whereas in D&D they're unrelated.

So eg a PC would have STR + (hd+CON bonus)xlevel. A STR 16 Fighter-1 (d10 hd) with CON 12 (+1) would have 16+10+1 = 27 hp.

Interesting idea.

Another take might be to say - you get max starting class HP, +Str and Con. And that's IT - outside of magic items/spells etc. Or a standard progression across all classes?

The issue is coming up with a similar schema for Monsters... that reduces HP bloat that kind of currently exists. But I think if done right it would solve that issue while keeping things very dangerous.

Or another idea would be doing the HP/VP route - with Crits bypassing Vitality.

Having 27hp at 1st level, sounds like 4th Edition levels of resilience?  That might be fine as long as you kept a lid on any further HP accumulation; but at levels 1-3, traditional foes would no longer challenge the PCs.

AXIOM.
"Between Bloat or Trim: the better Player Munchkin answer is Bloat, the better GM Design answer is trim." -- opaopajr

"...in bed! :D" -- Confucius' avenging ghost

Quote from: Opaopajr;1108542AXIOM.
"Between Bloat or Trim: the better Player Munchkin answer is Bloat, the better GM Design answer is trim." -- opaopajr

"...in bed! :D" -- Confucius' avenging ghost

Brilliant!!!!

it's totally true.

Quote from: Razor 007;1108533Having 27hp at 1st level, sounds like 4th Edition levels of resilience?  That might be fine as long as you kept a lid on any further HP accumulation; but at levels 1-3, traditional foes would no longer challenge the PCs.

But what if that's ALL they ever get?

And then you create a system to scale monsters (like in FC) along a HD-flat HP scale? That would eliminate the whole CR issue that has plagued noob GM's since 3.x. It would make 5e lean and mean.

Optional Rules - everyone gets a flat 2HP per level.

Quote from: tenbones;1108546But what if that's ALL they ever get?

https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177622/The-Heros-Journey-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Swords--Wizardry

Not exactly an original idea, but I really like how The Hero's Journey does hit points. You start off with two or three hit dice over the first couple levels, then you get one or two per level. Keeps the grittiness and chance of death high while still allowing "epic adventures". Hit point inflation is the #1 reason I dislike modern versions of D&D. "Combat takes too long!" Yeah, try running combat against an ancient red dragon in AD&D or B/X with high level characters and see if it takes longer than four or five rounds...

Quote from: S'mon;1108510Hm, this is making me think about adding the STR score to PC hit points. In my Thule game I had full CON score instead of bonus added to starting hp as a way to create robust PCs out the gate, but adding STR score would solve several issues - it would make STR no longer a dump stat, and it would deal with the simulationist issue that IRL resilience is tied to muscle mass whereas in D&D they're unrelated.

So eg a PC would have STR + (hd+CON bonus)xlevel. A STR 16 Fighter-1 (d10 hd) with CON 12 (+1) would have 16+10+1 = 27 hp.

One interesting system took Hit Points as both physical (muscle mass, fatigue) and non-physical (skill, luck) to the logical extreme and just made the starting value the sum of the PC's ability modifiers (it wasn't a d20-based system though so taking this directly to 5e with its modifier is (stat-10)/2 rounded down wouldn't be the cleanest fit though unless you counted the half modifiers somehow... say HP = (sum of all ability scores - 60) / 2).

A similar but more restrained approach would be to simply use the best ability score as the modifier.

The system is so ramshackle overall that I almost think you'd be better served just starting over from first principles instead of adding more duct tape, spit and bailing wire to 5e.

Quote from: Brad;1108548https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/177622/The-Heros-Journey-Fantasy-Roleplaying-Swords--Wizardry

Not exactly an original idea, but I really like how The Hero's Journey does hit points. You start off with two or three hit dice over the first couple levels, then you get one or two per level. Keeps the grittiness and chance of death high while still allowing "epic adventures". Hit point inflation is the #1 reason I dislike modern versions of D&D. "Combat takes too long!" Yeah, try running combat against an ancient red dragon in AD&D or B/X with high level characters and see if it takes longer than four or five rounds...

yeah... that's pretty attractive.

It's on my bucket list to do my 10-lvl D&D Fantasy heartbreaker... it'll happen. Stuff like this really strikes at that nerve and fires me up for it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1108549The system is so ramshackle overall that I almost think you'd be better served just starting over from first principles instead of adding more duct tape, spit and bailing wire to 5e.

And this is precisely why I wish they took their queues from FantasyCraft when designing 5e. They didn't need to copy it - they just needed to wire things together in balance with one another at the core. Then build their sub-systems from that core as modules. This would have served *everyone* better.

It might be a fun thread to do that as an examination... FantasyCraft-5e.

Quote from: tenbones;1108546But what if that's ALL they ever get?

And then you create a system to scale monsters (like in FC) along a HD-flat HP scale? That would eliminate the whole CR issue that has plagued noob GM's since 3.x. It would make 5e lean and mean.

Optional Rules - everyone gets a flat 2HP per level.

If I'm going that route on a 5E framework, don't give any extra hit points per level.  (Might have feat-like options to pick up a few.)  Instead, let the 5E "hit dice" for recovery thing continue to scale.

So Fighter with 16 Str and 14 Con, starts with Str + Con + 1d10 hit points (31 to 40).  Or for a slightly better scale, subtract 10 from the formula answer.  Same fighter has 1d10+2 Hit Die for recovery.  Add a Hit Die every odd level instead of every level.  Set recovery options to rests as normal to fit the campaign.  

In one fight, a higher level character can't take much more punishment than a 1st level.  But he hits more accurately and dishes it out a little better.   After he rests, he can do it again, maybe even two or three times, whereas the first level guy can semi-recover one time.  Higher level resilience is thus defined at the adventure level, not as much the fight level.  

The real problem isn't so much the monsters as the magic.  You'd have to either severely cap or almost rewrite the magic.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108560If I'm going that route on a 5E framework, don't give any extra hit points per level.  (Might have feat-like options to pick up a few.)  Instead, let the 5E "hit dice" for recovery thing continue to scale.

So Fighter with 16 Str and 14 Con, starts with Str + Con + 1d10 hit points (31 to 40).  Or for a slightly better scale, subtract 10 from the formula answer.  Same fighter has 1d10+2 Hit Die for recovery.  Add a Hit Die every odd level instead of every level.  Set recovery options to rests as normal to fit the campaign.  

In one fight, a higher level character can't take much more punishment than a 1st level.  But he hits more accurately and dishes it out a little better.   After he rests, he can do it again, maybe even two or three times, whereas the first level guy can semi-recover one time.  Higher level resilience is thus defined at the adventure level, not as much the fight level.  

The real problem isn't so much the monsters as the magic.  You'd have to either severely cap or almost rewrite the magic.

That's pretty strong. I very much like your sensibilities on this. I agree that magic would need a re-write. But I've felt that way about D&D for years. I know it can be done.

Another thing I'd do to help "even things out" - Make Magic a skill-check to roll. This is balanced by splitting the derived stat bonuses across more stats in Magic. FC's idea is Int bonus determines the bonus to your spellcasting check which has a skill associated with it (DC based on the level of the spell), Wisdom bonus determines the number of spells you can know and what you start with initially, Charisma bonus is the penalty to any saving throws vs. your spells. This makes casters have more skin in the game like non-casters.

It also keeps casters from dumpstatting. Reworking the magic system as a whole this allows you to plug and play things like Schools and Specialization into the classes. It also lets you have multiple magical systems interacting with the same core principles. You can have Spellpoint and Effect based magic right alongside Vancian spellcasting. It can be completely modular, integrated, or segregated to the needs of your setting.

A few simple effect formulas allows many spells to scale appropriately in direct mechanical cohesion with non-casters. Vancian spells can be built on this same chassis. There's some details that need to be determined still, but it could be done.

Quote from: S'mon;1108481Maybe it's just my game, but I find that front line fighters who dump STR for DEX are really regretting it when they're rolling -1 on Athletics checks vs being grappled, shoved, knocked prone et al.

One word. Pack of Wolves. :D

Quote from: tenbones;1108562Another thing I'd do to help "even things out" - Make Magic a skill-check to roll. This is balanced by splitting the derived stat bonuses across more stats in Magic. FC's idea is Int bonus determines the bonus to your spellcasting check which has a skill associated with it (DC based on the level of the spell), Wisdom bonus determines the number of spells you can know and what you start with initially, Charisma bonus is the penalty to any saving throws vs. your spells. This makes casters have more skin in the game like non-casters.

I know this is getting into the "tinkering gone too far" part for a D&D clone, but that's why I can't bring myself to do that work.  I just don't like Int/Wis/Cha as the basis for that kind of system.  I'd rather have Int/Wis combined (call it Wisdom, leaving Intelligence to what the player brings, but vice versa works too).  Then add "Perception" as the 6th stat, analogous to Con in that everyone needs some.  

Using your set of things then, Cha affects your saving throws as you said, but also provides the amount of magic (whether slots, spell points, or whatever).  Then Wisdom affects your skill roll and the spells known to some extent, though part of the latter will always be supplemented by classes or whatever replaces them.  Make magic take longer than 1 action to cast for the standard, but let good skill rolls bump up the speed.  Thus Cha is raw power--in individual spells and numbers, while Wis is efficiency, scope of effects, etc.

Quote from: Chris24601;1108549One interesting system took Hit Points as both physical (muscle mass, fatigue) and non-physical (skill, luck) to the logical extreme and just made the starting value the sum of the PC's ability modifiers (it wasn't a d20-based system though so taking this directly to 5e with its modifier is (stat-10)/2 rounded down wouldn't be the cleanest fit though unless you counted the half modifiers somehow... say HP = (sum of all ability scores - 60) / 2).

I've been thinking of HP = sum of physical attributes (the 3 to 18 range) somewhat  like in a Mongoose Traveller:

Once Dex = 0, you are -2 to physical rolls. Additional damage rolls over to Str.
Once Str = 0, you must make Con checks to stay unconscious. Additional damage rolls over to Con.
Once Con = 0, dead.

That makes total HP range from 9 / 31.5 / 54 (min/avg/max) but "operational" HP is really just Dex + Str, which makes it 6 / 21 / 36. I like that range, since it evokes a low fantasy feel. One possible criticism is that it ditches a classic D&D concept, which is fighters have more HP than mages. You can allow fighters buy some fighter-only feats to compensate:

Tough: You do not suffer the -2 penalty.
Pain Tolerance: You do not need to make Con rolls to stay conscious.
Diehard: You die at -Con rather than Con.

More HP is the last thing 5e needs.

From playtest to print the Bard and Rogue went from d6s to d8s. And during playtest Wizards went from d4s to d6s and Warlocks from a d6 to a d8.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108567I know this is getting into the "tinkering gone too far" part for a D&D clone, but that's why I can't bring myself to do that work.  I just don't like Int/Wis/Cha as the basis for that kind of system.  I'd rather have Int/Wis combined (call it Wisdom, leaving Intelligence to what the player brings, but vice versa works too).  Then add "Perception" as the 6th stat, analogous to Con in that everyone needs some.  

Using your set of things then, Cha affects your saving throws as you said, but also provides the amount of magic (whether slots, spell points, or whatever).  Then Wisdom affects your skill roll and the spells known to some extent, though part of the latter will always be supplemented by classes or whatever replaces them.  Make magic take longer than 1 action to cast for the standard, but let good skill rolls bump up the speed.  Thus Cha is raw power--in individual spells and numbers, while Wis is efficiency, scope of effects, etc.

Yeah that's the rub. It's largely why I haven't just sat down and ground it all out. It's a lot of work.

With your system - yeah it can be done that way, for sure. It would be simpler on the surface, but a lot of other questions would need to be answered - the magic system itself and what precisely it is (Vancian?).

The point of my division is I didn't wanna divert too far from the established stat norms, *while* spreading out the significance of stats required to customize your caster from a foundational level, with the assumed caveats:

1- Let's just admit Casters are powerful and more complex than non-casters
2- This gap has varied widely in the previous editions.

So with this method I'm suggesting is kind of a holistic one that 5e, I feel sort of half-assed. I'm taking established things that already exist in D&D (in one edition or another) "Number of Spells Known", "Spell power", and you're only adding a Skill check to cast a spell. Which mirrors what non-casters have to do, in mechanical parallel to do their "non-caster things". It further mirrors the stat-spread that traditionally non-casters have *always* had to wrestle with. These few changes immediately shrink the gap - not totally, but it brings the classes much closer by mechanical weight.

Then you establish your Magic System and Spells. Be it spellpoints, Vancian, effects-based, or all of the above. You can backwards engineer it to get the power-level right.

Then you establish what "exceptions" and rules modifications that classes will allow. These are all well established items that appear in one or more editions of D&D. My suggestion is that by addressing it at a mechanical level from the core - and keeping the primary elements separate but connected in a taxonomy of Stat>Class>Magic System, the points where you can make corollary sub-systems that impact one or more of those three (Feats, Items, Specialization, School etc) will neatly fit into an obvious space.

Done right - you literally can replicate OSR magic, 1e/2e Vancian, 2e Unearthed Arcana Spellpoint, Effects-based scalable magic like FC, and it can be done *all* in one system without missing a beat. AND it will give more value and play better than any of them individually as represented in mainline D&D to date, imo.

But it's a big undertaking. heh.

10 + 1d6 hp at first level is very reasonable.

No chance of having less than 11, or more than 16 at 1st level.  Add 1d4 hp at each level thereafter.

Quote from: Omega;1108571More HP is the last thing 5e needs.

From playtest to print the Bard and Rogue went from d6s to d8s. And during playtest Wizards went from d4s to d6s and Warlocks from a d6 to a d8.

Was that the 5E playtest?

Quote from: Aglondir;1108583Was that the 5E playtest?

At various points. I kept as much of my playtest material as I could, but unfortunately lost a chunk to a computer crash. The system changed alot over the course. Early iterations had a much more variable proficiency system, like a mix of AD&D's to hit progression with 3es rapidly escalating one. Also several classes were outputting huge amounts of bonus melee damage.

Quote from: Omega;1108571More HP is the last thing 5e needs.

From playtest to print the Bard and Rogue went from d6s to d8s. And during playtest Wizards went from d4s to d6s and Warlocks from a d6 to a d8.

You do realize we are discussing more hit points early with the idea of far less hit points later, right?

I think the main problems with 5e are:

1. No danger. No escape rules.
2. Too much magic everywhere. Magic is too reliable and doesnt feel like magic.
3. At level 11+ game breaks down quick

It's an ok game - fun enough with a good group and GM. But it's not as good as say, 2e, even with thaco etc.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1108595I think the main problems with 5e are:

1. No danger. No escape rules.
2. Too much magic everywhere. Magic is too reliable and doesnt feel like magic.
3. At level 11+ game breaks down quick

It's an ok game - fun enough with a good group and GM. But it's not as good as say, 2e, even with thaco etc.

I think we can talk good point here, bad point there with just about any system, but most of that gets dwarfed by what happens when that good group and/or good GM get annoyed as hell by something in the system.  After that, we are headed for the exits.  Might be a slow exit, but it is coming.  

I can intellectually talk about pros and cons of all versions of D&D, but when I'm going to pick the thing that I'll put the effort into running, I'm forced to admit that there are raw edges to 2E, 3E, and 4E that just rub me the wrong way, even out of proportion to what it takes to run them.  Though I've never been a perfect for for any version of D&D--merely close enough to bend them to a game I'll run.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108601I think we can talk good point here, bad point there with just about any system, but most of that gets dwarfed by what happens when that good group and/or good GM get annoyed as hell by something in the system.  After that, we are headed for the exits.  Might be a slow exit, but it is coming.  

I can intellectually talk about pros and cons of all versions of D&D, but when I'm going to pick the thing that I'll put the effort into running, I'm forced to admit that there are raw edges to 2E, 3E, and 4E that just rub me the wrong way, even out of proportion to what it takes to run them.  Though I've never been a perfect for for any version of D&D--merely close enough to bend them to a game I'll run.

I completely agree with this.

The problem I have REALLY... is there are other systems that for me, and my group - all of whom are *DIE-HARD* D&D players, simply do D&D-style fantasy better for us with way less overhead.

5e - I'd play it. I have no intention of ever running it again.

Quote from: Razor 007;110857710 + 1d6 hp at first level is very reasonable.

No chance of having less than 11, or more than 16 at 1st level.  Add 1d4 hp at each level thereafter.

Thus, your average HP at 10th level would be about half way between a Lion and a Hell Hound.

Or, you could bump HP 1d6 per level, from level 2 to level 10; and at level 10 you would average the HP of a hell hound.  The PCs would become heroes, but not super heroes.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108590You do realize we are discussing more hit points early with the idea of far less hit points later, right?

At what point. And why more HP at the start when in 5e the PCs allready start out with more? I mean the recurring bitching across fora has been that there is too much HP. Adding another bonus early on is just going to throw it off kilter. Even more hilariously pathetic is that the PCs have more HP because you the players bitched that they did not have enough HP!

People keep forgetting the system is, more or less, balanced to this higher HP count. Everything does more damage and it scales upwards to a point. Adding more HP to the PCs just makes them even harder to threaten than they allready are. And if you cut it off at a point then at higher levels the PCs may not have enough HP to actually handle some of the threats they can face due to how the system plays out.

Looks good on paper, potentially fails in practice. I say potentially because I havent sat down and looked at the logistics yet.

*cough*
Because the game is based on Bounded Accuracy, and favors a greater than 65% hit rate, the combat mitigation game is about HP Bloat.

Because the Ability Modifier is a tightly consistent progression of + & - , and all Abilities (Stats) are weighed equally, each even value matters.

*cough* There is only two major universal RAW ways to adjust HP: CON mod and (optional) Feats. *cough*

If you want to change HP Bloat why add a new discreet subsystem? Why not just go to the root of cascading mechanics?

More whiff and less HP? Alter the Ability Modifier Progression, unequally even!, with larger gaps of no bonus. ;)

Quote from: Omega;1108645At what point. And why more HP at the start when in 5e the PCs allready start out with more? I mean the recurring bitching across fora has been that there is too much HP. Adding another bonus early on is just going to throw it off kilter. Even more hilariously pathetic is that the PCs have more HP because you the players bitched that they did not have enough HP!

It's right there in the posts, not too far up.  I know you can do the math.  The one I suggested has hit points matching the standard somewhere between 3rd and 5th level, depending upon what options are selected, and then rapidly declining thereafter.  Tenbones version is much the same.  In the exact same posts are discussions of some of the things you think you are telling us about as if we didn't know.

It is as if you read the words we wrote, but the thoughts in them made no impression on your brain.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1108651More whiff and less HP? Alter the Ability Modifier Progression, unequally even!, with larger gaps of no bonus. ;)

And then we are tight back to the incessant bitching about "oh noes! I missed three times in a row! END OF THE WORLD!" and "Oh noes! I got killed by a kobold with a dagger! END OF THE WORLD!"

So we'll have to fix the fix which fixed the fix that these morons demanded be fixed.

So fuck you all. Im just going to roll on the Wandering Damage Table instead! :cool:

It occurs to me that you could tweak it slightly so that Strength adds to Max HP mod but Con adds to HP recovery mod.

So a Level 2 Fighter with 18 Str + 10 Con would have 24 total hps but would only gain 1d10 back for each hit dice rolled during a short rest.

If doing this I would probably use the rules variant that you can only recover HP by rolling Hit Dice.

This is the minimalist approach that requires the least maths changes.

Quote from: TJS;1108676If doing this I would probably use the rules variant that you can only recover HP by rolling Hit Dice.

This is the minimalist approach that requires the least maths changes.

That one change, if you're referring to LR not topping off the HP tanks, has been enough for me. I'm OK with the idea of lots of hit points and of whittling them down, but I'm not OK with the idea that all damage disappears after every LR.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108601I think we can talk good point here, bad point there with just about any system, but most of that gets dwarfed by what happens when that good group and/or good GM get annoyed as hell by something in the system.  After that, we are headed for the exits.  Might be a slow exit, but it is coming.  

I can intellectually talk about pros and cons of all versions of D&D, but when I'm going to pick the thing that I'll put the effort into running, I'm forced to admit that there are raw edges to 2E, 3E, and 4E that just rub me the wrong way, even out of proportion to what it takes to run them.  Though I've never been a perfect for for any version of D&D--merely close enough to bend them to a game I'll run.

Yes true the only way you'll get your perfect game is to make it yourself. And even then, you'll probably change your mind about something a couple years later.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1108677That one change, if you're referring to LR not topping off the HP tanks, has been enough for me. I'm OK with the idea of lots of hit points and of whittling them down, but I'm not OK with the idea that all damage disappears after every LR.

This is me too. Lots of hp isnt a problem (it's just an indicator you are playing an attrition style game, with regular moderate threat fights, as opposed to say a shadowrun kill or be killed firefight which happens once/session). The problem with 5e is that if you actually get reduced to zero hp, it's meaningless. Pop healing word or a potion and its like it never happened. Or indeed if you die pop revivify. Takes all the danger (and consequently the fun) out of the game. And yeah the standard long rest is ridiculously generous, making it even more difficult to sap the party's resources.

Quote from: Psikerlord;1108689This is me too. Lots of hp isnt a problem (it's just an indicator you are playing an attrition style game, with regular moderate threat fights, as opposed to say a shadowrun kill or be killed firefight which happens once/session). The problem with 5e is that if you actually get reduced to zero hp, it's meaningless. Pop healing word or a potion and its like it never happened. Or indeed if you die pop revivify. Takes all the danger (and consequently the fun) out of the game. And yeah the standard long rest is ridiculously generous, making it even more difficult to sap the party's resources.

Common house rule for this is:
- Get reduced to 0hp, gain a level of exhaustion.
- Failed a Death Save, gain another.

Quote from: TJS;1108692Common house rule for this is:
- Get reduced to 0hp, gain a level of exhaustion.
- Failed a Death Save, gain another.

Yes.  Some variation of that, coupled with scaling the default rests back a bit (either in frequency or effect) and/or mixed with no natural healing except via hit dice--and you are most of the way to something close to BECMI/RC with a small chunk of bonus hit points at level 1.  It's not as if you even need to house rule to get most of it.  The DMG options aren't perfect, but they'll do most of the heavy lifting.  Then slab a little house rule on top of that to get closer to perfect.

It is far easier to fix this in 5E than it is to make early editions less deadly.  Not that the early editions were all that terrible, though some of the options were clunky.  Rather, the scaling of danger via options is one of things that 5E got right in the design.

Quote from: TJS;1108692Common house rule for this is:
- Get reduced to 0hp, gain a level of exhaustion.
- Failed a Death Save, gain another.

I mentioned that earlier. Exhaustion would be a good fit for being taken to 0hp and it has a built in stacking system even so you can only go down and pop up so many times.

Quote from: Omega;1108734I mentioned that earlier. Exhaustion would be a good fit for being taken to 0hp and it has a built in stacking system even so you can only go down and pop up so many times.

Seems like a good fix.

The problem with hitting them with Exhaustion is that (and I've used this before) it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day.

Went down once? Time to camp!

If the player characters get exhausted at 0 HP, but their enemies die at 0 HP; that's too fake for me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1108842The problem with hitting them with Exhaustion is that (and I've used this before) it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day.

Went down once? Time to camp!

That's circular logic.  If you have the 15 minute adventuring day, then it is because you are running the type of game where it would have also been a problem using AD&D.  Either characters have some means to partially bounce back from being hurt, or they don't.  To the extent that they don't, they'll want to get somewhere safe and cope with it when they are hurt enough.  Once you move the game towards "depleting resources over time" (whatever version of the game and whatever house rules you use), then the responsibility moves back on you as the GM to set up situations where the characters will want to continue while so depleted.

A GM can pull some stunts to set up the illusion of being depleted without them actually being depleted, and thus escape that circle.  At least for a little time.  Eventually, as with all illusionism techniques, you'll drop the ball and the whole thing will splatter.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108871That's circular logic.  If you have the 15 minute adventuring day, then it is because you are running the type of game where it would have also been a problem using AD&D.  Either characters have some means to partially bounce back from being hurt, or they don't.  To the extent that they don't, they'll want to get somewhere safe and cope with it when they are hurt enough.  Once you move the game towards "depleting resources over time" (whatever version of the game and whatever house rules you use), then the responsibility moves back on you as the GM to set up situations where the characters will want to continue while so depleted.

A GM can pull some stunts to set up the illusion of being depleted without them actually being depleted, and thus escape that circle.  At least for a little time.  Eventually, as with all illusionism techniques, you'll drop the ball and the whole thing will splatter.

I feel the same about "long rest = 1 week" "short rest = 1 day", it doesn't really solve the problem.

Kevin Crawford's systems seem to handle this well, you can be brought back from 0 HP, but if you get knock down there again before a long rest, you die. The exact details change from system to system but one example is in Stars Without Number, healing is pretty easy to do but eats system strain, which recharges at a rate of 1 per day. He seems to be of the logic that your Party can have high action days if they plan for them but it will have a strategic cost.

The reason that the 5E design has hit points, hit dice, two types of rests, and exhaustion, is that no one of those things can solve all the problems for everyone.  In fact, if you analyze what most groups are trying to achieve, you'll need at least 3 of them, and often all of them.  

So no, applying one tweak here or there will not make the game magically do exactly what you want. All of those things together are a subsystem that has to be considered in its entirety.  Granted, 5E does a lousy job of making that clear, scatting it all over the place, and setting the defaults near one of the extremes.  But it isn't rocket science.

5e is a toolkit.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

Quote from: RandyB;11088845e is a toolkit.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

"It's a dumb craftsman that buy more expensive worse tools"

Let's not pretend 5e is a very good toolkit for running OSR games. It's like hammering a screw in. You can do it and people not familiar with the work will think it looks right, but you know you are being ridiculous.

Quote from: RandyB;11088845e is a toolkit.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

"It's a dumb craftsman that buys more expensive worse tools"

Let's not pretend 5e is a very good toolkit for running OSR games. It's like hammering a screw in. You can do it and people not familiar with the work will think it looks right, but you know you are being ridiculous.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1108842The problem with hitting them with Exhaustion is that (and I've used this before) it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day.

Went down once? Time to camp!

They cant camp everywhere and anything still in the area is going to have time to prep, or hit them while they are trying to recover. So they cant recover.

Quote from: Razor 007;1108845If the player characters get exhausted at 0 HP, but their enemies die at 0 HP; that's too fake for me.

5e mentions a DM can apply the same rules to monsters as they do to players. I do. Monster goes down? Others may try to revive or stabalize it. The reason why not to use it for monsters is that it can drag out combats. Which a few here allready bitch are too long.

I like to use it when it makes sense to happen. Enemies with good group unity like kobolds will. But more rough and tumble sorts like orcs and goblins might not. Depending on the individual and even their beliefs. Some orcs might see going down as a sign of weakness and do nothing to revive a fallen member. Others might move to save friends and so on. Situational.

Also situational what resources enemies have to help downed comrades. Can they even get to the downed individual? Do they have any potions or spells to apply? Which also applies to PCs. Sometimes you cant revive a fallen party member or have to take risks to do so.

Yes, I have characters try to save downed foes all the time. Sometimes it works; sometimes it doesn't.  I've had a few cases where it mattered to me, and I rolled to see if a monster could make the death saves.  Sometimes they do; sometimes they don't.  But you don't have to be a slave to the exact system.  If 20 Goblins are left for dead, I assume one or two probably revive.  Then what?  They are 1 or 2 injured goblins wandering around in the wild without their buddies.  Most likely, something eats them.  Revenge is seldom on their minds.

Quote from: RandyB;11088845e is a toolkit.

"It's a poor craftsman who blames his tools."

"I tried using my toolkit to build a house. But it was a medical toolkit and my house of Ace-bandages, lubricant, tongue depressors, cottonballs and anti-microbial jelly collapsed in on my family. We barely felt it. Fortunately."

- 'The Fable of the Craftsman that Hammered with a Stethoscope'

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108871That's circular logic.  If you have the 15 minute adventuring day, then it is because you are running the type of game where it would have also been a problem using AD&D.  Either characters have some means to partially bounce back from being hurt, or they don't.  To the extent that they don't, they'll want to get somewhere safe and cope with it when they are hurt enough.  Once you move the game towards "depleting resources over time" (whatever version of the game and whatever house rules you use), then the responsibility moves back on you as the GM to set up situations where the characters will want to continue while so depleted.

A GM can pull some stunts to set up the illusion of being depleted without them actually being depleted, and thus escape that circle.  At least for a little time.  Eventually, as with all illusionism techniques, you'll drop the ball and the whole thing will splatter.

   I think 4E's matrix of Hit Points, Healing Surges, and milestones/Action Points/magic item uses was an attempt to address this problem, but for various reasons on both the design and user base sides, it didn't work out.

Quote from: tenbones;1108895"I tried using my toolkit to build a house. But it was a medical toolkit and my house of Ace-bandages, lubricant, tongue depressors, cottonballs and anti-microbial jelly collapsed in on my family. We barely felt it. Fortunately."

- 'The Fable of the Craftsman that Hammered with a Stethoscope'

Implied in my comment is "don't blame the toolkit if it isn't the right kit for your purpose". "It isn't suitable for Y" is valid, especially when you want to do Y. "It sucks because it doesn't make everybody do Y" is not valid. And there is a range of critiques between those extremes.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108900I think 4E's matrix of Hit Points, Healing Surges, and milestones/Action Points/magic item uses was an attempt to address this problem, but for various reasons on both the design and user base sides, it didn't work out.

I disagree, the system actually works out very well.

The issue is when combat takes forever. Not every fight needs to be "challenging" aka taking more than an hour as everyone carefully plans their turns.

Oh, 4E worked really well... as a warband skirmish game.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108900I think 4E's matrix of Hit Points, Healing Surges, and milestones/Action Points/magic item uses was an attempt to address this problem, but for various reasons on both the design and user base sides, it didn't work out.

No kidding.  Half-baked implementations with gaping design flaws that are poorly tested and even more poorly explained?  It's a wonder that it worked as well as it did, and a testament to the resilience of GMs everywhere.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108911No kidding.  Half-baked implementations with gaping design flaws that are poorly tested and even more poorly explained?  It's a wonder that it worked as well as it did, and a testament to the resilience of GMs everywhere.

Gaping design flaws?

No that wasn't 4e's malfunction. 4e perfected the Adventure Design as Encounter Design of 3e while still having mechanics that allowed for other kinds of adventuring.

5e has plenty of design gaps because it's just 4e with a bunch of mechanics removed and reflavored + lots of nastolgia.

4e has problems, mainly MM1 and when the combat drags, it drags.

Quote from: Brendan;1108909Oh, 4E worked really well... as a warband skirmish game.

That's my take. I've always wondered why people insisted otherwise as if this is a bad thing. 4e fans *wanted* this to be the end-all, be-all... and lets face it, anyone that's done the Edition Rodeo long enough should know *no* edition will ever be the end-all-be-all.

5e is serviceable. It has issues. "fixing" those issues depends entirely on what you as a GM want in your game. As this thread attests to. One person's big problems are not problems at all to others.

When you want to get into the weeds of specifics - look at me and Steve's mini-discussion. We agree on 99.9% of what we'd like to change, but our specific needs are fairly (but not too much) different.

So the flipside of the question to the OP is: what are you willing to do to fix any perceived "Big Problem"? THAT is the real question.

Quote from: tenbones;1108916So the flipside of the question to the OP is: what are you willing to do to fix any perceived "Big Problem"? THAT is the real question.

Oh I know!

I don't play 5e. I play OSR games like The Black Hack 2e or some Kevin Crawford game when I am feeling like D&D.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1108908I disagree, the system actually works out very well.

 
    You may be right--I just got the impression, from reading, observing the online community and limited play opportunities, that the mix was never quite fine-tuned, presented or understood well enough to gel into the 'balance resting between pushing onward' approach they were shooting for.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108936You may be right--I just got the impression, from reading, observing the online community and limited play opportunities, that the mix was never quite fine-tuned, presented or understood well enough to gel into the 'balance resting between pushing onward' approach they were shooting for.

That's the trick with 4e, either is a valid option because the DM can design encounters for both. 5e requires are pretty fixed pace in reference to amount of mechanical resting. 3e also handled variable pacing, but it was so easy to bork a 15 minute work day that high levels tended to boil down to one encounter/buff duration per long rest.

4e healing surges are actually a fairly good mechanic to add HP management back to an encounter based adventure. They are a strategic resource and a tactical one since a lot of classes can trigger a mid-combat surge. My fighter pretty routinely spends 2-4 surges in a combat, so he can lose his max HP a couple of times each fight which actually allows him to defend his allies. Unlike in both 5e and 3e where the fighter is likely down in two rounds from a serious threat. In 5e he just keeps getting popped back up each round like a wack-mole-with healing word. In 4e that behavior consumed healing surges which run out eventually.

Level one 4e characters actually have a total HP pool equal to level 10+ OSR characters. I kind of see 4e as a game built around the idea of high level OSR characters still traveling around like normal adventurers. Most OSR games end at those levels, while 4e starts off with players as big damn heroes made of mythic flesh. In comparison to OSR games at level 10, 4e handles that level of fantasy a lot better. Though DMs seem to fall into the trap of longer and longer combats because the system supports it so well.

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1108936You may be right--I just got the impression, from reading, observing the online community and limited play opportunities, that the mix was never quite fine-tuned, presented or understood well enough to gel into the 'balance resting between pushing onward' approach they were shooting for.

Compared to the 5E design, 4E is more finely tuned but also more brittle and narrow because of that.  Or in another words:

- The core flaw with 4E is that if you don't want to do what it is doing, it's mechanics don't leave you many levers for change.
- The core flaw with 5E is that it is expressly designed as a compromise edition that should be changed to suit, which means that its defaults are frequently unsuitable for a good game.

If you don't care what kind of game you play, you just want to play some game, any game, out of the box as is, then 4E is the "better" design.

Whereas the presentation flaws with both are also different:

- The presentation flaw of 4E is that is bi-polar, in that half the advice pushes towards a game that is not suited to 4E at all, while the rest of it glories in what 4E is, but gives you no help in adapting it.
- The presentation flaw of 5E is that it hides important pieces of information in blandly expressed mush.  So people with short attention spans don't pay attention to it, and people with better attention spans spend as little time with it as humanly possible, get the important bits, and then never look at it again.

The edge that 5E has over 4E is primarily that it's virtues are more sellable to a wider swath of people and its flaws easier to manage if even one person in each group understands it.  Well, that and while the 5E testing definitely missed things, it was better tested and less rushed.  Plus, the nature of their relative pros and cons are such that for the average person, a 5E game will start so/so but improve over time, while a 4E game will start hot but steadily decline.

Y'know, I haven't tried "Dead at 0 HP" in 5e yet. :) I wonder what that may solve?

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108952Compared to the 5E design, 4E is more finely tuned but also more brittle and narrow because of that.  Or in another words:

- The core flaw with 4E is that if you don't want to do what it is doing, it's mechanics don't leave you many levers for change.
- The core flaw with 5E is that it is expressly designed as a compromise edition that should be changed to suit, which means that its defaults are frequently unsuitable for a good game.

If you don't care what kind of game you play, you just want to play some game, any game, out of the box as is, then 4E is the "better" design.

Whereas the presentation flaws with both are also different:

- The presentation flaw of 4E is that is bi-polar, in that half the advice pushes towards a game that is not suited to 4E at all, while the rest of it glories in what 4E is, but gives you no help in adapting it.
- The presentation flaw of 5E is that it hides important pieces of information in blandly expressed mush.  So people with short attention spans don't pay attention to it, and people with better attention spans spend as little time with it as humanly possible, get the important bits, and then never look at it again.

The edge that 5E has over 4E is primarily that it's virtues are more sellable to a wider swath of people and its flaws easier to manage if even one person in each group understands it.  Well, that and while the 5E testing definitely missed things, it was better tested and less rushed.  Plus, the nature of their relative pros and cons are such that for the average person, a 5E game will start so/so but improve over time, while a 4E game will start hot but steadily decline.

That's a very astute comparison. I've run both systems a lot; I'd say you were pretty much dead on.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1108978Y'know, I haven't tried "Dead at 0 HP" in 5e yet. :) I wonder what that may solve?

I've been doing it in a Diablo-based 5e game, with a revival mechanic.

You die at 0 hit points, but you come back with corruption, which is like losing humanity in Dark Souls. It's worked well so far to model the way characters become distorted over time in Diablo and makes people very scared of combat. But I also overhauled healing, magic items, class features, etc., to make it a "run and gun" style action game like Diablo.

Speaking of dead at 0 hit points. I don't go that far, but I have turned death saves into a single roll resolution based on the % chance of success or failure over the course of death saves. This has the double benefit of not having to remember to get players to make death saves every turn, and it also creates a little more suspense because the other players don't know the result. On roll20, I make players roll it secretly to the gm, so the other players can't meta-game how long they have.

When a creature's hit points are zero or less, they must immediately roll 1d20.

1: Unconscious and will die in 2 rounds
2-3: Unconscious and will die in 3 rounds
4-5: Unconscious and will die in 4 rounds
6-8: Unconscious and will die in 5 rounds
9-12: Unconscious and will wake in 2 hours.
13-16: Unconscious and will wake in 1 hour.
17-19: Unconscious and will wake after combat finishes.
20: Fight on! Gain 1 hit point.

I also impose disadvantage on the roll if the blow was a critical hit. Advantage on the roll if the blow was nonlethal (there should always be a chance for accidental deaths)

You can always make a roll of a 1 instant death and shuffle the number of rounds until death along.

So without treatment, a nonlethal blow actually is lethal 16% of the time?

Quote from: Bren;1109071So without treatment, a nonlethal blow actually is lethal 16% of the time?

In real life, there is no such thing as a non-lethal blow

Quote from: S'mon;1107172But they cast fewer spells because they have to memorise specific spells in specific slots, whereas a 5e caster burns slots to cast the desired spell. So in practice the OD&D caster casts fewer spells.

In practice, 5e paladins use a lot of spell slots to smite; rangers cast hunter's mark a lot, though, so maybe. In OD&D, even 3rd level mages cast a lot of spells in advance of an expedition (get everyone invisible), relearning the spell as needed, or magic mouth to ward off thieves. At higher levels, OD&D mages would carry a few must-have-in-limited-situations spells, but generally they had and used spells they could use (and unlike rangers and paladins, there wasn't much else the magic-user could do).

Quote from: Doom;1107330The skill system is pretty weak...you could look at this as a feature.

Yes on both points.

Quote2) Big time. These monsters come from 2E-land, and have no idea of the kinds of abilities PCs have. Essentially no monster can deal with the Rogue's free disengage ability, for example, and that's not exactly a high level ability. Bottom line, these monsters were decent when "I attack" was basically all most characters could do, but are woefully underpowered against PCs of 5e, and this becomes very noticeable at mid-levels and up.

Most monsters can deal with the rogue's disengage by ... running after them? At least a few are fast enough, and mostly outnumbering the characters makes them more effective. Legendary saves and actions, and lair actions, manage to make the very toughest monsters still challenging. I am annoyed that particularly strong PC abilities are not granted to any NPCs, and the standard spell list for most NPC casters seem intentionally chosen badly.

Quote from: Haffrung;1107437The sacred cow of STR INT WIS DEX CON CHA is the root of a lot of the problems with skills. Have a Perception attribute would clean a lot of things up.

That would be Wisdom; it just happens to also be used incidentally for clerics. The most clownishly foolish puppy you ever met still has more Wisdom than a commoner.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1107536Alright let's optimize properly. Your 1st level spell is shield and your second level spell is Misty Step. You now have +5 AC and teleport at will.

At high level you usually have to save the reaction for Counterspell; every 4th tier adventure I've experienced came down to which side brought more Counterspell casters.

Quote from: S'mon;1107858I think the awkward slow bit roughly equivalent to buying equipment in old school is choosing skills & background, especially the nasty recursive loop of choosing class skills then finding they are in your preferred background and having to re-choose.

I'd like backgrounds better if they didn't carry specifics for the skill system; that is, if they were more a generic potential benefit in relevant situations. Since you can customize a background, you can just choose the additional skills, tools or languages you want.

Quote from: TJS;1107999Aside from the skill system as mentioned (although it's not as much of a problem once you realise that 5E doesn't really have as much a skill system as it does a 'proficiency getting system'), the biggest problem I've seen discussed is the failure of saving throws to scale at high levels.

I can't swear to it myself.  I understand the maths argument but I've not played at high enough level to see if player abilities mitigate this issue as others have claimed.

Always bring the high level paladin. Conceal a gnome or halfling paladin in your backpack if necessary. Bless and bardic inspiration can help a bit with saving throws. I have seen the problem at higher levels with the character who can't escape from the save each round to end the spell effect because of a low save bonus. Somebody needs to cast dispel magic if that character is that important.

Quote from: Chris24601;1108076The main math problem is that save DCs are almost always based off the best ability score a PC or critter has and are always proficient (if they weren't they wouldn't be casting spells at all) so it keeps getting harder and harder to resist while only one common and one rare save ever improves for the PCs.

Honestly, if I didn't know they were doing their own thing, I'd swear WotC had the guys who wrote the Arcanis RPG doing their math (I think I've mentioned them before; they're the ones who thought 2d10 would produce the same results as 1d20 while keeping their DCs based on a linear distribution. 5e succeeds in SPITE of its math, not because of it.

Generally, effects that call for a save are expected to be missed often but still mostly survivable. Back when, high level casters used damage spells a lot because everything saved too well to get nothing for their effort, even though the effect might kill the target. It's not much consolation to the 5e player whose character is stuck in "unable to act, impossible save to end effect", though.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108333I've had 4 paladins out of over 20 characters. That ratio might be why I haven't seen a problem.  There is definitely a "run and hide next to the paladin when the nasty effects start coming out" thing.  Well, except for fireballs and the like, which make such tactics kind of a bad idea.  Then it's scatter and pick up the pieces of the poor character that bravely draws the fire.  Ooh boy did a rogue and barbarian get the short end of that stick last weekend.  First time I've seen a 9th level barbarian lose 2/3 of his hit points in one blast.

I ran a 3rd tier adventure with a very large number of Yuan-ti with suggestion and so forth. The players had a high level paladin who negated charm and fear within their aura (and of course significantly better saving throws for everyone); I did get the two characters who left the group (the flying wizard with suggestion and a rogue circling around with fear).

Quote from: S'mon;1108481Maybe it's just my game, but I find that front line fighters who dump STR for DEX are really regretting it when they're rolling -1 on Athletics checks vs being grappled, shoved, knocked prone et al.

You can defend against grappling with Strength (Athletics) or Dexterity (Acrobatics). They can't use grappling effectively without strength, though. Mostly I see the high DEX fighters who take archery style and use bows. AC is pretty close to even; studded leather with +5 from DEX versus plate armor, with decent stealth, +5 initiative and DEX saving throws compensating.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1108842The problem with hitting them with Exhaustion is that (and I've used this before) it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day.

Went down once? Time to camp!

Part of what worked against short adventuring days back when was the prospect that the party would miss out on treasure; clear out all the lead up guards and then somebody else (other players, if the DM had multiple groups, or NPC adventurers) takes the big treasure. I think I would almost like an explicit rule to that effect: early treasures are reduced and later treasure are increased by some percentage. Almost.

I don't like the camp anywhere (especially easy with Leomund's Tiny Hut) to recover everything and, worst of all, level up in the middle of the dungeon. Totally unrealistic! Every time I've slept outside or in an airport/train station/bus terminal waiting for my connection, I've recovered absolutely no hit points and no spells! None! :D

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108952- The core flaw with 4E is that if you don't want to do what it is doing, it's mechanics don't leave you many levers for change.
- The core flaw with 5E is that it is expressly designed as a compromise edition that should be changed to suit, which means that its defaults are frequently unsuitable for a good game.

Quote- The presentation flaw of 5E is that it hides important pieces of information in blandly expressed mush.  So people with short attention spans don't pay attention to it, and people with better attention spans spend as little time with it as humanly possible, get the important bits, and then never look at it again.

The edge that 5E has over 4E is primarily that it's virtues are more sellable to a wider swath of people and its flaws easier to manage if even one person in each group understands it.  Well, that and while the 5E testing definitely missed things, it was better tested and less rushed.  Plus, the nature of their relative pros and cons are such that for the average person, a 5E game will start so/so but improve over time, while a 4E game will start hot but steadily decline.

The default 5e is very strongly presented, and the ways to change it are more obscure. But they would probably have lost more by being like a toolkit where you have to choose all the options to play at all. At least the modifications exist, even if they didn't get to actual modular design.

Quote from: Aglondir;1106950I've bene playing 5E off and on for a few years, mostly in one shot games or short campaigns, and never past 3rd level. By now, I imagine the problems (if any) of the game are well-known. What are the main issues?

BIG problems, I'm not sure. I kinda like 5e. Here are my personal peeves:

- Bounded accuracy goes too far, IMO. A 20th level character has a few obvious fales (a fighter with athletics proficiency with have a +1 bonus... potentially beatable by a 1st level wizard). OTOH, players are flying and becoming invisible at, what, level 5? So there is this strange tension between "epic" and "realistic"
- Too many spells and spellcasters; choosing spells often takes a while.
- Too many options at first level, IMO.
- Lacks good morale and reaction rules.
- The whole "Inflatable Punching Bag" thing, meaning, 0 HP is nothing serious - if you have someone nearby to heal 1 hp you can act again without missing a beat.
- I'm sure that's just me, but I really like (non-magical) weapons, and 5e is poor at this when compared to, say, 3.x, 4e or PF 1 or 2 - even AD&D (ok, AD&D might be TOO complex...). I'm writing a few booklets and blog posts addressing this issue.

In short, the whole "ordinary combat x magic" bother me a bit. 50 weapons, a dozen fighting styles... But 500 spells, more than a dozen spell-casting subclasses, and so on.

But, again, these are not HUGE flaws... 5e is decent enough for me.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1108842The problem with hitting them with Exhaustion is that (and I've used this before) it encourages the 15 minute adventuring day.

Went down once? Time to camp!

There is that - but at least in this case it makes a kind of sense.  You want to camp because you've got a seriously injured person.  Narratively it feels like a fitting time to retreat.

(The exhaustion rules actually work much better for modelling injury then they do for modelling exhaustion - they're too harsh for actaul exhaustion.)

Hopefully what it will lead to is people trying to get healing in before someone gets to 0 (because it's actually more efficient to wait until then).

But I made some notes for an alternate version of modelling exhaustion here. (https://www.rpgpub.com/threads/new-exhaustion-mechanics-for-5e.3530/)

Quote from: Bren;1109071So without treatment, a nonlethal blow actually is lethal 16% of the time?

When the last 5 attacks was the fighter stabbing them to death, the paladin smiting them, or the wizard frying them with a lightning bolt, sure. I think 16% is fair.

Is this (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) accurate?

Quote from: MythcreatesThere are six saves, but only three of them matter. Anyone who invests in Strength, Intelligence, or Charisma saves will be sorely disappointed.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1109120But, again, these are not HUGE flaws... 5e is decent enough for me.

Your skill proficiency system (on your blog (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/03/one-page-rules-or-taking-page-from.html)) is a nice piece of work. Next time I run B/X I'm going to try it.

Quote from: Eric DiazPrimary skill bonuses are equal to character level, while secondary skills are equal to 2/3 of character level and secondary skills 1/3 of character level.

Quote from: Aglondir;1109136Is this (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) accurate?

I don't consider it entirely accurate and it is also very biased. As for the saves part, it is true that three saves (Dex, Con, Wis) come up far more frequently, but the others--while less common--can be pretty nasty if you fail them too. Besides, it's not as if someone really invests much directly into saves for their own sake (with the exception of the Resilient feat).

Quote from: Aglondir;1109136Is this (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) accurate?

Not necessarily but it could be.

If you only have one or two combats a day - and you do nothing to adjust how often a long rest can take place - then casters can dominate.

I actually think this is one of the bigger issues in the game.  It could do with being more robust - or at least putting the importance of adjusting the rest mechanic by game style front and centre, rather than tucked away at the back of the DMG without a lot of guidelines about why you would want to very the length and frequency of the rest types.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1108978Y'know, I haven't tried "Dead at 0 HP" in 5e yet. :) I wonder what that may solve?

There would be a huge shift to reliance on revival magics and knowing the locations of temples that can. And having to weigh lugging bodies back, or treasure.

Effectively BX D&D as in that its Dead at 0.

A less potentially onerous fix is to just return the damage limit to how negative you can go. Such as 10, or the characters CON score. Past that is dead. Rather than the stupid mechanic 5e has.

The "virtually infinite negative HP" and "virtually impossible to break long rest" are two of the most idiotic things in 5e.

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1109120- I'm sure that's just me, but I really like (non-magical) weapons, and 5e is poor at this when compared to, say, 3.x, 4e or PF 1 or 2 - even AD&D (ok, AD&D might be TOO complex...). I'm writing a few booklets and blog posts addressing this issue.

You arent alone in that. But 5e is at least geared to a lower magic item rate. Only leaders tend to have even coin on them much less a magic item. And one of the reasons I love the Tyranny of Dragons modules is that both are very stingy with magic items.

Quote from: Aglondir;1109136Is this (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) accurate?

No. unless you are min-maxing or char-opping. And even that will fail miserably depending on the situation.

Flatline your CHA because its "useless"? Well better hope you dont run into any of the creatures that toss around charm type spells that target CHA, or spells in general that do. Yes they are few and far between. But they are out there. Not even getting into interpersonal charisma checks because you are really hosed then.

CHA is indeed woefully underused for saves to the point WIS seems over-used as a defense for things perhaps CHA should be covering. This was noted early on so it is not a new issue.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1109104In real life, there is no such thing as a non-lethal blow

It seems odd to tweak D&D to try for greater realism regarding physical damage in this one regard. I wouldn't expect high fantasy, magic everywhere of D&D to be more realistic regarding damage than say, 1930s pulps and film noir, where characters routinely get hit in the head and knocked out without brain damage or death all the time.

Quote from: Graytung;1109130When the last 5 attacks was the fighter stabbing them to death, the paladin smiting them, or the wizard frying them with a lightning bolt, sure. I think 16% is fair.

That's not what the table says though. All the attacks could be nonlethal and you would still have a 16% chance of death. If the odds were truly that high in the real world, boxing would be a much more dangerous sport than it already is.

Quote from: Omega;1109168There would be a huge shift to reliance on revival magics and knowing the locations of temples that can. And having to weigh lugging bodies back, or treasure.

Effectively BX D&D as in that its Dead at 0.

A less potentially onerous fix is to just return the damage limit to how negative you can go. Such as 10, or the characters CON score. Past that is dead. Rather than the stupid mechanic 5e has.

Yeah, that is what I would expect. :) And I think that may be a light-stepping houserule in returning 5e to a B/X aesthetic! :D That way rez spells become a tighter purview of setiing restraint.

And I might be able to lower bloat all around by recalibrating the Ability Mod progressions... ;) Throw in GP for XP and I think that triumvate of houserules could emulate 0D&D and old skool "Fantasy Fuckin' Vietnam!" aesthetics.

Quote from: Omega;1109168The "virtually infinite negative HP" and "virtually impossible to break long rest" are two of the most idiotic things in 5e.

I'd agree to that.

That latter one I account to a bone-headed Sage Advice Ruling (slash) Designer Intent Revelation. If mortal combat cannot interrupt one's rest unless it lasts longer than eight hours, then what can? Not even most natural disasters, like earthquakes and tsunamis, last eight hours continuously... Blindingly stupid Ruling AND Rules As Intended wording; crazier still because the Rules As Written is ambiguous enough for GMs to rationally interpret strenuous interruptions as enough to break rest. All.WotC.Had.To.Do.Was.Smile.And.Shut.Up. :mad:

DEX CON WIS as prime saves is a legacy hold over from 3e. And it makes zero design sense, as it is a half-assing blend of old skool 5 saves -- which could totally work given there are 6 Ability scores! -- and 3e favoring of 3 saves because they wanted to copy-pasta old WotC-worded spells. It's lazy in the guise of compromise.

The ability-as-saves still can easily work, but you'd have to compile the 5e saves and redistribute accordingly to your campaign.

Sad thing is they could have saved the GM this work in the DMG by showing a chart of familiar Spells & Effects, their TSR Save, their WotC 3e Save, and then the new 5e Ability Save suggestion. :) Then that Saves Over Editions compilation chart could open up their Adventures back catalogue to new-&-timid GMs. Still there, so the opportunity is not lost... but their UA is busy widget spamming new Races, Clases, and Archetypes. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Aglondir;1109138Your skill proficiency system (on your blog (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2016/03/one-page-rules-or-taking-page-from.html)) is a nice piece of work. Next time I run B/X I'm going to try it.

Thanks! Yeah, this 1/3, 2/3, 3/3 progression is ideal for me. A fighter has around +18 to 20 attack bonus at level 15 (maximum level in most of my games), and maybe +13 or +14 for athletics checks, etc. This is based on the classic progression of 2/3, 2/4 and 2/5 of B/X and BECMI, which also works for me.

Compared to both 5e (around +10 at level 15, +11 level 20) or things like PF2 (potentially +24 at level 15), seems like a better range, IMO.

BTW, I ended up making an entire book of my B/X house rules (well, with some 5e too), called Dark Fantasy Basic (https://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/229046/Dark-Fantasy-Basic--Players-Guide?src=newest_recent&coverSizeTestPhase2=true&word-variants=true). Will add that to the post.

Quote from: Aglondir;1109136Is this (https://mythcreants.com/blog/5th-edition-dungeons-and-dragons-hasnt-learned-from-its-mistakes/) accurate?

More or less, I'd say. Let's see:

The Classes Aren't Balanced - they are balanced enough IMO, better than 3e. The ranger is a bit weak, yes; barbarian and fighters are decent enough. Paladin is good not only because of spells, but because of spell slots (they use them to smite) and other powers. But yes, the game has long rests and short rests, and if you use onyl one of them, you'll benefit some classes over others.

The Class Specializations Aren't Balanced - half-truth. Yes, beast master ranger is bad, and "wild" sorcerer is a subclass I don't quite get, but for the rest of the (30+ subclasses) there is enough balance that you don't feel them at the table, in my experience.

The Gear Grind Is Worse Than Ever - nah, that's just not true. You can even play the game without magical gear. You basically need magic weapons to hit some monsters efficiently, but that's it.

It's Easy to Fail Character Creation - again, not true. There is enough guidance in the game to let you know that Intelligence is not an ability your barabarian wants to raise in most circumstances.

Physics Issues Persist - This is just silly. "the spell states that any damage immediately wakes the target up. But [...] what about lifting a really big rock over the target and dropping it on them?". Come on!

Building Encounters Is Really Hard - he means "Building BALANCED Encounters Is Really Hard". Well, is not as easy as 4e, I guess, but not that hard either... Specially with Xanathar's Guide to Everything.

EDIT: if you were asking only about the save issue, yes, it is a thing. Dex, con, and Wis are the most important saves. Str is number four. Int and Cha are not really for saves, so they can easily become dump stats for non-spellcasters, which is bad. Here is my fix (http://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2015/06/saving-throws-fortitudereflexwill-in.html); IMMV.

Quote from: Omega;1109168A less potentially onerous fix is to just return the damage limit to how negative you can go. Such as 10, or the characters CON score. Past that is dead. Rather than the stupid mechanic 5e has.

The "virtually infinite negative HP" and "virtually impossible to break long rest" are two of the most idiotic things in 5e.

A simple fix would be to dole out failed death saves for every multiple of something (10, or CON, or 10+CON bonus) below zero. At first level, a slightly injured character can easily die from a critical hit from a monster with a substantial attack (first ever PC kill in my 5e DMing was a critical hit by a bugbear on an injured 1st level paladin, running the starter set first chapter). But a high level character, even on their last 10 HP, is not likely to see any single attack that could outright kill them (only a coordinated set of attacks to knock them down and then pound them for failed death saves). But if they would die outright from the same hit that could have killed them at first level, things would be a lot more risky and healers might step in (or be called for) when characters are only close to zero.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1109195That latter one I account to a bone-headed Sage Advice Ruling (slash) Designer Intent Revelation. If mortal combat cannot interrupt one's rest unless it lasts longer than eight hours, then what can? Not even most natural disasters, like earthquakes and tsunamis, last eight hours continuously... Blindingly stupid Ruling AND Rules As Intended wording; crazier still because the Rules As Written is ambiguous enough for GMs to rationally interpret strenuous interruptions as enough to break rest. All.WotC.Had.To.Do.Was.Smile.And.Shut.Up. :mad:

Personally, I think a worrisome environment alone could interrupt a long rest. Some modules have built in "places suitable for a long rest" so apparently some module authors think that you don't get a long rest just because you plopped down for a while in the middle of a swamp or dungeon.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1109195Yeah, that is what I would expect. :) And I think that may be a light-stepping houserule in returning 5e to a B/X aesthetic! :D That way rez spells become a tighter purview of setiing restraint.

And I might be able to lower bloat all around by recalibrating the Ability Mod progressions... ;) Throw in GP for XP and I think that triumvate of houserules could emulate 0D&D and old skool "Fantasy Fuckin' Vietnam!" aesthetics.

I'd agree to that.

That latter one I account to a bone-headed Sage Advice Ruling (slash) Designer Intent Revelation. If mortal combat cannot interrupt one's rest unless it lasts longer than eight hours, then what can? Not even most natural disasters, like earthquakes and tsunamis, last eight hours continuously... Blindingly stupid Ruling AND Rules As Intended wording; crazier still because the Rules As Written is ambiguous enough for GMs to rationally interpret strenuous interruptions as enough to break rest. All.WotC.Had.To.Do.Was.Smile.And.Shut.Up. :mad:

1: In BX Clerics do not get Raise Dead till level 7. Wizards get Reincarnate at level 11. In 5e Clerics and Bards get Raise at level 9, Paladins get Raise at level 17 and Druids get Reincarnate at level 9 and Wizards no longer gain Reincarnate.

2: That isnt going to help and may make things worse in the opposite direction. And XP for GP in 5e is a poor idea since like OD&D and BX, wandering monsters do not have treasure. On top of that in 5e non "leader" type monsters do not have treasure either. It just does not work in a gold starved setting like 5e unless you are allowing the sale of magic items. Which are also now fewer and further between. That and it will actually speed up levelling. As noted in many other threads on 5e EXP. This is bemusingly one of the non problems that people keep assuming is a problem. 5e's levelling curve is very close to an average of AD&D's levelling curve.

3: Of course. I am allways right! :rolleyes:

4: Its actually just 1 hour needed of continuous uninterrupted activity/combat. That is still 10x longer than any combat in 5e ever tends to last. And keep in mind that What Crawford and Mearls say in their tweets can and will oft contradict eachother and even what is in the book sometimes. Which just makes a bad situation exponentially worse sometimes. That and Crawford seems to invariably give the worst answers. The SA and UA articles though tend to be more reasonable. But not allways. At least this is not the SA from Dragon when they had someone who hated gamers and flat out stated she gave snide and bad advice on purpose to "discourage them from playing so they can go outside and do real things." :rolleyes:

x: In the early playtests going to 0 HP was a little different. Once at 0 you made death saves as in 5e, but they were CON saves vs a DC 10 rather than a flat d20 vs DC10. Each failed save meant the character took 1d6 more damage. They had to succeed 3 saves. They died if the cumulative damage was equal to their HP+their level. So if you were level 10 with say 50hp, you could go to negative 60 HP before croaking.

There was also in later playtests the Coup de Grace move that could be performed on sleeping, unconscious or 0hp targets. Advantage on attack if within 5ft. Automatic critical if within 5ft and hit. And if you are within 5ft and hit and they are at 0hp... Automatic Death.

Revivify (rez w/in one minute) is 3rd spell lvl, Raise Dead (rez w/in 10 days) is 5th spell lvl, Resurrection (rez w/in one century) is 7th spell lvl. For Clerics that is Class lvl 5th, 9th, and 13th respectively. ;) That's more than enough, and easily placed within setting, let alone create a costly enchanted Revivify item. Great way to raise disposability and tone down pyrotechnic heroics.

So they have to frontload their healing, be cautious, and use tactics. Good. That's what I want the rules to reflect for my desired playstyle. ;)

As for GP for XP, the old modules make it rain Golden Showers; you can easily port old skool adventures (and loot aesthetics) without missing a beat. So you cannot do the same with 5e adventures. Not a problem given you just sprinkle more loot in for 5e published adventures -- and it opens such a large back catalog (and a lot of similar playstyle OSR stuff). :)

I see the same things you do, but I don't worry about the translation issues. As houserule converting goes, that's light work doing heavy lifting. :D

ooh thanks! Revivify! I could have sworn there was a lower level poor-man's raise dead. But could not recall it as no one has ever taken it.

Clerics get it at 5th level, Paladins at 9th. Only a minute though on the expiration date. But few combats go longer than 10 rounds. I can see though now why no one took it. Eats 300gp in diamonds every time. And spell focus does not cover it.

This spell has some horrific potential though in the hands of villains as, unlike Raise Dead, it does not require consent of the creature being raised. Torture someone to death. Raise them. Rinse and repeat as long as you can afford your evil addiction.

Don't forget Revivify has a component cost.

Another way to make hitting 0 hp be more lethal is that your death saves don't reset until a long rest. So if you fail a death save, you automatically have 1 failed save with you all day. You could even make going down to 0 itself result in a failed save, so at most you could go down 3 times, without the degradation of ability that exhaustion gives you. It also means people won't want to hit 0 at all before healing.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1109313Another way to make hitting 0 hp be more lethal is that your death saves don't reset until a long rest. So if you fail a death save, you automatically have 1 failed save with you all day.

I've done exactly that in all my 5E games.  I don't know that it ends up making it more lethal in the long run, but it makes the players a lot more aggressive about trying not to hit zero in the first place.  Which is what I wanted when I put the change in.

When you've got a later fight where one of the main melee characters is encouraged by the rest of the group to hang back and use ranged attacks because, "You've been beat up too much already today," then I can live with it.

Quote from: Omega;1109211It just does not work in a gold starved setting like 5e ...

I just want to tangent on this one little quote - it was highly amusing since I was recently in an argument on TBP where people were claiming that 5E has *too much* gold.

(Their argument seemed to be that gold doesn't mean anything unless you can use it to buy something to make your characters more mechanically powerful, because modern D&D deemphasises all the other uses. Sigh.)

Quote from: Naburimannu;1109853I just want to tangent on this one little quote - it was highly amusing since I was recently in an argument on TBP where people were claiming that 5E has *too much* gold.

(Their argument seemed to be that gold doesn't mean anything unless you can use it to buy something to make your characters more mechanically powerful, because modern D&D deemphasises all the other uses. Sigh.)

Weird as 5e has lots of non adventuring stuff that requires gold, sometimes lots of. But the monsters don't carry gold except for leaders and lairs usually. This actually harkens back to older editions of D&D where wandering monsters for example never had treasure.

The main thing is that gold has meaning when you make it have meaning. If no one is paying for upkeep or food or anything else then of course gold is too plentiful even starved for it as 5e can be. That is not a fault of the system.

Quote from: Omega;1109869That is not a fault of the system.

Man you hear this a lot from anyone defending 5e.

That's one of my beefs with 5e, the culture around it to blame any and all problems on the GM or players.

No, it's the system. The DMG and PH do not give good ways to spend gold and lean heavily on DMs just knowing how to make gold important if they want too, which 5e is made to accommodate those who don't want gold to be important too.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1109882Man you hear this a lot from anyone defending 5e.

That's one of my beefs with 5e, the culture around it to blame any and all problems on the GM or players.

   As the vanguard of the Glorious People's Revolution, 5E cannot fail, it can only be failed ... until 6E launches, at which point WotC will throw 5E under the bus in favor of whatever elements of 1E AD&D they want to hype this time around. (My guess? 5E will be "too homogenized and compromised by the Dominant Culture", so 6E will merge SJW-friendly agendas with the quasi-Satanic 'teen rebel' feeling often attributed to 1E.)

Quote from: Rhedyn;1109882Man you hear this a lot from anyone defending 5e.

Nice cherry picking there. Try again please.

5e is my favorite system and I can say gold is pretty much non-present in the system, outside of the initial items you buy. After that it doesn't really matter.

But, that is by design -- it's easy enough for the DM to add it back in, just like with everything else. I certainly have.

5e is awesome!  Hardly flawless though.  Here are my 5 biggest gripes, and the things I'd change if I were designing it:

1) Certain balance decisions are totally inexplicable.  For example, in a setting wherein you are using small numbers with small bonuses, which features an advantage/disadvantage system, how in the world does Pass Without Trace give a +10 bonus to stealth, rather than just providing advantage?  Numerous examples like that exist.  They come up with a great way to do things consistently, and then seemingly abandon it on a whim for no reason in ways that are blatantly game-breaking and should have been easily identifiable during playtesting.  

2) It's pretty barebones.  Things like, as an example, Naval Combat between vessels are totally unexplored.  Besieging castles, and how those play out, totally unexplored.  Economic systems, political systems, diplomatic systems, you're all on your own for most activities beyond basic combat.  Even within that realm, some really basic stuff like aerial combat during a storm requires heavy prep or modification by the DM to make it remotely viable in actual gameplay.  It works well when running a "standard" adventure and / or using their modules, but as a framework for a freeform sandbox it's really rather bare.

3) It has a level based system, and like most level based systems, it invalidates its own content through HP.  A large amount of content which otherwise would work really well, based on how they have everything else set up, simply does not work well at all with high level characters due to the amount of HP they have to work with.  This is exacerbated by the next problem, but overall, I see no real benefits gained by having HP grow during level gain, and a lot of problems needlessly introduced.

4) There is no fatigue system, and no damage system beyond death.  A large part of the final issue is that combat boils down far too often to "I whittle away at your HP pool, cool, let's keep going until someone dies".  There's very little drama in it because nothing is Actually happening prior to character death.  Called shots to the eyes to blind someone with a handful of mud, an arrow to the leg to cripple someone running away, grabbing the shield from a shield wielder and then bashing them to death with it, a LOT of the events of the most cinematic battles we've seen are simply beyond the scope of the combat system in 5e, or worse are gated off behind specialized and limited use abilities and a byzantine system of checks.  The fact that a strong character can't at will simply grab something an opposing character is holding, and rip it out of their hands with an opposed strength check (advantage if it's strapped in) is a huge failing of the system, and the idea that someone at 15 of 150 HP who has been fighting for 10 minutes straight is exactly as combat ready as they were when they started the battle is crazy.

5) Wizards have all the fun.  As with almost all D&D systems, nearly half the book is devoted to cool things spellcasters can do, carefully and individually spelled out, while martial characters are left with the deeply flawed and shallow system described above.  This means that there is HUGE imbalance of power levels for classes in and out of combat, and while Wizards can explicitly perform miraculous actions at a moment's notice, martial characters rely on DM adjudication to perform even some basic stuff like unhooking a chandelier and letting it fall on the enemies as they ride the rope to an upper level or the rafters, and probably have to perform multiple checks to make it happen.  As such actions rarely have significant impact and definitely slow down the pace of an already sluggish (thanks to HP bloat) system, in practice almost all martial characters I've seen eventually abandon efforts to do such things in favor of simply bashing away relentlessly with their favored weapon of choice and the largest bonuses they can get, while the spellcasters perform one miracle after another.

@Octopodes: I generally agree with your post, but some caveats:

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;11099702) It's pretty barebones.  Things like, as an example, Naval Combat between vessels are totally unexplored.  Besieging castles, and how those play out, totally unexplored.  Economic systems, political systems, diplomatic systems, you're all on your own for most activities beyond basic combat.  Even within that realm, some really basic stuff like aerial combat during a storm requires heavy prep or modification by the DM to make it remotely viable in actual gameplay.  It works well when running a "standard" adventure and / or using their modules, but as a framework for a freeform sandbox it's really rather bare.

At first I didn't like this, but I've grown to like it as my favorite part. When I open thick rulebooks like Pathfinder 1 or 2, I instantly feel all energy leave me. As a DM, it just makes my eyes gloss over. But when I'm making my OWN additions to the rules, it's an act of creative fun, and I've loved doing that with 5e. If I had to guess, they decided to slow roll it to avoid splat bloat, and package each set of rules with an appropriate adventure (ie, Saltmarsh has ship stuff). Still, I don't need that now that I've got my own DMing chops figured out thanks to making it all myself.

Quote4) There is no fatigue system, and no damage system beyond death.  A large part of the final issue is that combat boils down far too often to "I whittle away at your HP pool, cool, let's keep going until someone dies".  There's very little drama in it because nothing is Actually happening prior to character death.  Called shots to the eyes to blind someone with a handful of mud, an arrow to the leg to cripple someone running away, grabbing the shield from a shield wielder and then bashing them to death with it, a LOT of the events of the most cinematic battles we've seen are simply beyond the scope of the combat system in 5e, or worse are gated off behind specialized and limited use abilities and a byzantine system of checks.  The fact that a strong character can't at will simply grab something an opposing character is holding, and rip it out of their hands with an opposed strength check (advantage if it's strapped in) is a huge failing of the system, and the idea that someone at 15 of 150 HP who has been fighting for 10 minutes straight is exactly as combat ready as they were when they started the battle is crazy.

A character actually CAN just disarm someone of something and it IS a strength check. It's an optional rule in the DMG, but it's there for DMs to use. That said I agree a lot of more specific stuff could be fun to do instead of just whittling hit points -- but luckily we can add that in.

Quote5) Wizards have all the fun.  As with almost all D&D systems, nearly half the book is devoted to cool things spellcasters can do, carefully and individually spelled out, while martial characters are left with the deeply flawed and shallow system described above.  This means that there is HUGE imbalance of power levels for classes in and out of combat, and while Wizards can explicitly perform miraculous actions at a moment's notice, martial characters rely on DM adjudication to perform even some basic stuff like unhooking a chandelier and letting it fall on the enemies as they ride the rope to an upper level or the rafters, and probably have to perform multiple checks to make it happen.  As such actions rarely have significant impact and definitely slow down the pace of an already sluggish (thanks to HP bloat) system, in practice almost all martial characters I've seen eventually abandon efforts to do such things in favor of simply bashing away relentlessly with their favored weapon of choice and the largest bonuses they can get, while the spellcasters perform one miracle after another.

If you mean balance wise, martials and mages in 5e are very close. As far as encouraging creativity, I agree. Players will stick to what they know works, and that's what is spelled out. The PHB does make an allowance for "improvised actions" though. I think this is more relative to the DM and how open they are to creative stuff.

5e has alot of warts and some really severe issues. Most of which can be worked out with optional rules, house rules, or just flat out removing some bits that interfere. Or returning one or two rules from the playtests that should not have been removed.

1: Pass without Trace has its limitations. It does not provide cover and its kinda useless in an open or well lit area. But yeah it is an odd one with that +10 after all the advantage/disadvantage use throughout the books. The apparent reason was it is supposed to make the caster or target really really hard to track. YMMV in if this was the way to go.

2: Naval combat gets a Unearthed Arcanna entry I believe. Seems like they plan to add it into some later supplement. But so far have not seen it appear.
Same for castles. But there is actually rules for siege engines and how much damage a section of wall can take in the warfare section.
Economic systems? Why? Believe there is a section on different political systems. About a paragraph each?
er. There is a negotiation/diplomacy section in the DMG.

3: YMMV on HP. I think PCs get a bit too much HP. But the system is oddly balanced to it when running PCs vs NPCs with classes. Against monsters its pretty YMMV. But seems to kinda, maybee balance. Im still dubious on that. But so far theres been a sort of pattern to how many rounds combats last at each level/tier. The system seems to be aiming for about 5 rounds. 10 max and most battles are over unless everyine is really playing defense or using some of the odder defensive tricks.
As for "cinematic combat" ... You want a different RPG for that or a DM that allows various distractions and interference. Just remember. If you can do it. They can too. And several of the things you list can be done with various applications of skills or stat checks. I sure have reminded players these things are possible. We had the groups paladin make a diving leap to shield a downed companion from a killing blow. We had the groups wizard blast some huge icicles with a spell to try and cause them to crash down on a dragon. We had the groups warlock make a called shot to zap an opponents weapon out of her hand. And so on.

5: No. Half the book is devoted to spells various classes can use. But not all of them. That in no way means the game is caster-centric. Though whoooo does it feel that way now and then. And youd need a DMs call on some trick uses of spells too. The real problem is several spells have some really dodgy wording that is rife for abuse. Or are so badly worded they can make certain styles of adventure hard to pull off without alot of tricks to neutralize the spell.

x: Welcome to the site by the way.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11099595e is my favorite system and I can say gold is pretty much non-present in the system, outside of the initial items you buy. After that it doesn't really matter. .

Curse of Strahd has ALOT of electrum pieces as treasure. Coins with his picture on it.  The true terror is not Strahd, the Vampire but Strahd, the Currency Debaser!

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1109989At first I didn't like this, but I've grown to like it as my favorite part. When I open thick rulebooks like Pathfinder 1 or 2, I instantly feel all energy leave me. As a DM, it just makes my eyes gloss over.

Would it surprise you to know that 5e is exactly as thick as PF2?

Quote from: Rhedyn;1109882The DMG and PH do not give good ways to spend gold and lean heavily on DMs just knowing how to make gold important if they want too, which 5e is made to accommodate those who don't want gold to be important too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;11099595e is my favorite system and I can say gold is pretty much non-present in the system, outside of the initial items you buy. After that it doesn't really matter.

I cast Greater Restoration and Heroes' Feast a lot as a Druid; various spells to return people to life are nice too, as is Simulacrum, and they can consume a lot of gold. Fighters who want heavy armor are going to want to buy plate, so it's not likely to be part of initial equipment. And wizards will want to copy spells they find into their spellbooks, and probably make a copy of their spellbook as a backup. Buying healing potions is a reasonable way to spend some gold. You can craft stuff for reduced cost but still consuming gold. (My Druid bought an estate in Chult, for the chance to see dinosaurs, for 5000GP - an AL cert available at Fai Chen's in that season.)

The current season of AL bounds the amount of gold per level that characters can find; to afford plate armor you'd have to reach 10th level. Soul coins seem to be the currency of the day anyway.

Quote from: rawma;1110082to afford plate armor you'd have to reach 10th level.

...so while the wizard is learning how to communicate with other planes, summon elementals, and bind people to his will, the fighter is excited because he finally gets plate.

Not even magical plate.

That's retarded.

Quote from: Shasarak;1110071Would it surprise you to know that 5e is exactly as thick as PF2?

In page count, but the actual rules are way simpler in 5e. The PF2 DM section is way smaller than the 5e one, and the 5e DMG is mostly optional stuff. So that right there is a big drop in complexity.

Definitely simpler than PF1 though.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110092In page count.

Well, yes.  That is how you measure thickness.

There was a time when it wasn't very popular to criticize D & D 5E.  It appears that has changed a little recently.  People are more willing to poke it with a stick now, just to see what happens.

Quote from: Shasarak;1110096Well, yes.  That is how you measure thickness.

OK, but I was talking about complexity. I assume there was a reason you raised that point, ie, to say that them being the same length means they were somewhat comparable in complexity. If not then carry on.

Quote from: Razor 007;1110098There was a time when it wasn't very popular to criticize D & D 5E.  It appears that has changed a little recently.  People are more willing to poke it with a stick now, just to see what happens.

With any new game that reaches any wider notice at all, but especially a D&D version, there will always be criticism of three stark types (at minimum):

- Criticism based on misunderstandings, ivory tower theorizing, and general, willful ignorance.
- Criticism with design goals declared as failures of implementation--usually because of narrow tastes coupled with a failure to understand that not everything is designed for you.
- Criticism that the implementation fails to reach the design goals--ranging from dispassionate observation to extremely hot regret.

You'll also often get a mixture, from people that understand the distinctions, enjoy parts of the game but not others, or discussion of why some design goals are thought to be off.  But these aren't as stark as those above, and necessarily require experience with actual play of multiple systems combined with some reflection on how design and implementation works.  Not every critic is capable of this, but they won't let that stop them.

All of this to say that there was criticism of 5E from the very beginning.  However, most of the more thoughtful criticism tended to get drowned out in the noise of the other kinds.  And to be fair, the noise of the less thoughtful support, too.  What you are seeing is that the game has been out long enough now for some of the more ridiculous, stupid criticism (and cheer leading) to tone down enough for the other kind to be noticed.  As well, it has been out long enough for many more people to have useful experiences with it, and thus the pool of potentially thoughtful critics is larger.

For me in the current game I'm playing in I find Proficiencies to be bland.

In my opinion: I think proficiencies should be one of the main ways you get character differentiation between classes and even within the same class.

Selecting your Proficiency should be a meaningful choice every time.

But right at 5e character creation they give them away like candy. You get the armor Prof you want, a whole range of weapons, and several skills you want. Basically you are set from level 1.

If it were me...

You'd only get 4-6 proficiency picks at character generation depending on class. Any PC can already use any weapon or armor, so I'd make Proficiencies weapon and armor specific, not a free whole range.

For me that would make the choices more meaningful, because as the current system  for 5e now is it seems just like a way to give everyone a blanket +2 to class actions.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110104OK, but I was talking about complexity. I assume there was a reason you raised that point, ie, to say that them being the same length means they were somewhat comparable in complexity. If not then carry on.

I thought that when you said that you dont like thick books that you meant you dont like thick books.  My mistake.

Quote from: Giant Octopodes;11099705e is awesome!  Hardly flawless though.  Here are my 5 biggest gripes, and the things I'd change if I were designing it:

1) Certain balance decisions are totally inexplicable.  For example, in a setting wherein you are using small numbers with small bonuses, which features an advantage/disadvantage system, how in the world does Pass Without Trace give a +10 bonus to stealth, rather than just providing advantage?  Numerous examples like that exist.  They come up with a great way to do things consistently, and then seemingly abandon it on a whim for no reason in ways that are blatantly game-breaking and should have been easily identifiable during playtesting.  

2) It's pretty barebones.  Things like, as an example, Naval Combat between vessels are totally unexplored.  Besieging castles, and how those play out, totally unexplored.  Economic systems, political systems, diplomatic systems, you're all on your own for most activities beyond basic combat.  Even within that realm, some really basic stuff like aerial combat during a storm requires heavy prep or modification by the DM to make it remotely viable in actual gameplay.  It works well when running a "standard" adventure and / or using their modules, but as a framework for a freeform sandbox it's really rather bare.

3) It has a level based system, and like most level based systems, it invalidates its own content through HP.  A large amount of content which otherwise would work really well, based on how they have everything else set up, simply does not work well at all with high level characters due to the amount of HP they have to work with.  This is exacerbated by the next problem, but overall, I see no real benefits gained by having HP grow during level gain, and a lot of problems needlessly introduced.

4) There is no fatigue system, and no damage system beyond death.  A large part of the final issue is that combat boils down far too often to "I whittle away at your HP pool, cool, let's keep going until someone dies".  There's very little drama in it because nothing is Actually happening prior to character death.  Called shots to the eyes to blind someone with a handful of mud, an arrow to the leg to cripple someone running away, grabbing the shield from a shield wielder and then bashing them to death with it, a LOT of the events of the most cinematic battles we've seen are simply beyond the scope of the combat system in 5e, or worse are gated off behind specialized and limited use abilities and a byzantine system of checks.  The fact that a strong character can't at will simply grab something an opposing character is holding, and rip it out of their hands with an opposed strength check (advantage if it's strapped in) is a huge failing of the system, and the idea that someone at 15 of 150 HP who has been fighting for 10 minutes straight is exactly as combat ready as they were when they started the battle is crazy.

5) Wizards have all the fun.  As with almost all D&D systems, nearly half the book is devoted to cool things spellcasters can do, carefully and individually spelled out, while martial characters are left with the deeply flawed and shallow system described above.  This means that there is HUGE imbalance of power levels for classes in and out of combat, and while Wizards can explicitly perform miraculous actions at a moment's notice, martial characters rely on DM adjudication to perform even some basic stuff like unhooking a chandelier and letting it fall on the enemies as they ride the rope to an upper level or the rafters, and probably have to perform multiple checks to make it happen.  As such actions rarely have significant impact and definitely slow down the pace of an already sluggish (thanks to HP bloat) system, in practice almost all martial characters I've seen eventually abandon efforts to do such things in favor of simply bashing away relentlessly with their favored weapon of choice and the largest bonuses they can get, while the spellcasters perform one miracle after another.

There are Exhaustion rules, which some DMs have implemented in a variety of ways. All the other issues are true of every edition of D&D from AD&D 1e on. If one can't accept these issues they're better off playing Mythras rather than endlessly tinkering with D&D.

Quote from: Omega;11099932: Naval combat gets a Unearthed Arcanna entry I believe. Seems like they plan to add it into some later supplement. But so far have not seen it appear.
Same for castles. But there is actually rules for siege engines and how much damage a section of wall can take in the warfare section.
Economic systems? Why? Believe there is a section on different political systems. About a paragraph each?
er. There is a negotiation/diplomacy section in the DMG.

Believe there are naval rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

Quote from: Rhiannon;1110292There are Exhaustion rules, which some DMs have implemented in a variety of ways. All the other issues are true of every edition of D&D from AD&D 1e on. If one can't accept these issues they're better off playing Mythras rather than endlessly tinkering with D&D.

Believe there are naval rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

Yes, even discussed in this thread and the HP thread.

If it was going to appear anywhere that would be a good module to introduce it.

Quote from: Rhiannon;1110292There are Exhaustion rules, which some DMs have implemented in a variety of ways. All the other issues are true of every edition of D&D from AD&D 1e on. If one can't accept these issues they're better off playing Mythras rather than endlessly tinkering with D&D.



Believe there are naval rules in Ghosts of Saltmarsh.

Very true, and again I still enjoy D&D despite what I consider to be the flaws in it.  I do, however, play other systems as well.  Paranoia, World of Darkness, Palladium, Deathwatch, Rogue Trader, Star Wars RPG Legacy Edition, and if you consider it a different system Pathfinder being the ones which I can recall offhand.  D&D was my first however, and we always remember fondly our first :-)  It's also more DM friendly and easier to run IMHO than most of the other systems, at least if you're running 5e, the balance for combat is decent, encounter difficulty is easy to calculate, and there's a wide breadth of available baddies.  Still, I do tinker with it, routinely, and as with most people, I think I'm continually tinkering with a homebrew system which I'll finish and properly playtest and balance "one of these days" which attempts to address what I perceive as the issues with the system.  Whether or not it does so successfully remains to be seen of course :-)  Either way I think that just because the issues are relatively common and inherent to the system and series as a whole, it doesn't mean they can't be perceived as issues.

On a whim, I just went to look at some examples of the 5e art. It seems largely decent, if somewhat "sanitized" and uninspired (although the style and quality seem pretty unified?). Not as cartoony and silly as the 4e art.

What are your opinions of the 5e art in general?

Quote from: Antiquation!;1110576On a whim, I just went to look at some examples of the 5e art. It seems largely decent, if somewhat "sanitized" and uninspired (although the style and quality seem pretty unified?). Not as cartoony and silly as the 4e art.

What are your opinions of the 5e art in general?

Not an art person.  But I think 5E is improved compared previous WotC offerings by having little to no Wayne Reynolds art in it (both actual Reynolds art and those influenced by his style).  If you cover up all the halfling and gnome art with brown paper, it improves the average throughout the books, too.  Though that's a little like saying that a football defense played a great game, except for allowing 4 long TD passes.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1110583Not an art person.  But I think 5E is improved compared previous WotC offerings by having little to no Wayne Reynolds art in it (both actual Reynolds art and those influenced by his style).  If you cover up all the halfling and gnome art with brown paper, it improves the average throughout the books, too.  Though that's a little like saying that a football defense played a great game, except for allowing 4 long TD passes.

The Reynolds art was pretty goofy, although I admit at the time I did sort of like the general "dungeonpunk" aesthetic. Felt to me like a natural reaction to the 90's in some ways.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1110576On a whim, I just went to look at some examples of the 5e art. It seems largely decent, if somewhat "sanitized" and uninspired (although the style and quality seem pretty unified?). Not as cartoony and silly as the 4e art.

What are your opinions of the 5e art in general?

The PhB is mostly "meh" with a few awful pieces (halfling feet.) However, the modules (Strahd, Princes of the Apocolypse, Out of the Abyss) range from good to excellent. The Mike Schley cartography is gorgeous, even rivalling some of the old MERPS books. Here's a few of my favorite pieces from CoS:

Denizens of Barovia

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3923[/ATTACH]


Krezyk, a dying village at the foot of a haunted abbey

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3924[/ATTACH]


Old Bonegrinder, a windmill that three hags use to grind the bones of children

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3925[/ATTACH]

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1110083...so while the wizard is learning how to communicate with other planes, summon elementals, and bind people to his will, the fighter is excited because he finally gets plate.

Not even magical plate.

That's retarded.

Read the post again; I was only disputing that there was nothing to buy after initial equipment (and that there was nothing to use it for in general). 10th level is completely ludicrous, but "not being able to buy the best armor right away" is not unusual (even a very slight chance of that in OD&D). Traditionally fighters saved up for castles and baronies, and to pay hirelings; those elements are somewhat neglected in 5e.

The fighter should be excited that he can afford expensive spell casting services; my Druid cast Heroes Feast but the cost was shared, including by fighters who benefited from it.

Quote from: Antiquation!;1110576On a whim, I just went to look at some examples of the 5e art. It seems largely decent, if somewhat "sanitized" and uninspired (although the style and quality seem pretty unified?). Not as cartoony and silly as the 4e art.

What are your opinions of the 5e art in general?

The core books art is bland and inoffensive. Princes of the Apocalypse has thematic art I like a lot. From what I've leafed through of the Tiamat AP, it has some nice art too.

I would like to go back and expand my original answer.

The encounter building rules are pretty bad. They are based upon the Challenge ratings being balanced, but they are pretty rough themselves. This means that encounter design can either use the formulas or just wing it, and you'll probably end up shifting from the former to the latter in any event once you're experienced with the game. For new DMs, this is a real problem.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1110712I would like to go back and expand my original answer.

The encounter building rules are pretty bad. They are based upon the Challenge ratings being balanced, but they are pretty rough themselves. This means that encounter design can either use the formulas or just wing it, and you'll probably end up shifting from the former to the latter in any event once you're experienced with the game. For new DMs, this is a real problem.

Yes, the CR system is quite borked, but it works well enough for levels 1 and 2, and mostly for 3 (just avoid that CR 2 level 5 wizard with the pair of fireballs).

By the time the party hits level 4 and the CR system is basicallly useless, however, the DM isn't exactly "new."

Quote from: Antiquation!;1110576On a whim, I just went to look at some examples of the 5e art. It seems largely decent, if somewhat "sanitized" and uninspired (although the style and quality seem pretty unified?). Not as cartoony and silly as the 4e art.

What are your opinions of the 5e art in general?

Some of the most hideous halflings ever rendered. Otherwise mostly good. I really like the bard pic among others. I think they stumbled on one or two monsters. But not the botches of 3e.
The art is not consistent at all though and some of the styles clash a little are can be potentially jarring to go from soft style to hard edge style and everything in between.

Quote from: Doom;1110726(just avoid that CR 2 level 5 wizard with the pair of fireballs)

Where does this CR2 level 5 wizard come from? The Priest NPC is 5th level, but a cleric and maybe not the best spell list. Princes of the Apocalypse had level 5 wizards who were CR3, not CR2.

Quote from: rawma;1110754Where does this CR2 level 5 wizard come from? The Priest NPC is 5th level, but a cleric and maybe not the best spell list. Princes of the Apocalypse had level 5 wizards who were CR3, not CR2.

Hrm, mea culpa. Could have sworn that came up before. That said, with the Priest, Lizardman Shaman, and Sahuagin priestess all being basically level 5 spellcasters of CR2, I can see how someone might think a level 5 wizard would also be CR2.

Well, there is a CR 2 pyromancer with 2 fireballs (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Amalj%27aa_Pyromancer_(5e_Creature)), so I wasn't that far off.

Quote from: Doom;1110759Well, there is a CR 2 pyromancer with 2 fireballs (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Amalj%27aa_Pyromancer_(5e_Creature)), so I wasn't that far off.

A homebrew mage? Using a CR calculator at https://5e.tools/crcalculator.html and treating its AC as 18 (using shield for at least 3 rounds) and its average DPR as 43 (two FBs hitting 2 characters failing their saves for 28 , and one 2nd level burning hands for 14 on 2 targets), I got a CR of 4, or 3 by checking "vulnerabilities", although vulnerability to cold might not be "vulnerability to common damage" as most characters can't inflict it, and to water seems even harder to use if there isn't any immediately available. Without the CON bonus and with no vulnerabilities, it comes out to CR3. which would probably describe a typical 5th level fireball mage. (I don't know if this is a correct implementation of the 5e guidelines for CR, but it seems reasonable.)

A homebrew CR calculator? But if you change all the assumptions you made around, you get a different number. Avoiding such irrelevancies and typical idiocies, we still see that CR really doesn't work well once you get past CR 2.

My impression was that it implemented the 5e DMG system, although there are a lot of special cases. Mages have a terrible defensive CR (few hit points, middling AC even with shield) but high offensive CR (based on average damage per round over 3 rounds, assuming for area of effect that they hit two targets who do not save; 2 fireballs plus their next best spell); these two are averaged. There's fiddling for various special traits and I don't know if those are official, but I think the main computation is what the DMG puts forth - I'll check when I have the DMG at hand. I run hardcovers and modules and so rarely create a new monster, only NPCs and I eyeball their difficulty based on existing NPCs.

CR is like an after the fact computation of the point cost for a system that might resemble spending points in Gurps Supers or Champions, and there are ways to manipulate any such system; NPC mages would be one such way. Fireball is overpowered for its level.

Agreed, CR doesn't really work past the lowest levels and mages are overpowered. I bet someone could show the CR 3 Mummy is far more powerful than the CR 3 Bugbear Chief, and there are no fireballs there.

I think it breaks down as you note for two big reasons:
1. It may be reasonably accurate for boring monsters (big sack of HP with a fixed AC and a single fixed attack routine, where all of these are in line with each other) but those are, happily, relatively rare and rarer for tough monsters. Once you get odd specials or a mismatch between offense and defense, things vary widely - a vulnerability or an immunity are irrelevant if they don't come up, but pretty important if they do.
2. PCs vary more and more as they go up levels; choice of spells, choice of feats, clever multiclass combinations, magic items, but also just hard to value class features. Just inflation of HPs (and healing to keep them up) will give more scope for things that seem less important to influence outcomes.

Mages are a major example from the first, and maybe a little the second since spell choice can vary a lot with NPC casters. I'm not sure I agree that mages are overpowered overall; as NPCs, they are because the limited number of spell slots has little effect for balancing - I don't think I've seen a hostile NPC caster last long enough to run out of slots.

Quote from: rawma;1110805I'm not sure I agree that mages are overpowered overall; as NPCs, they are because the limited number of spell slots has little effect for balancing - I don't think I've seen a hostile NPC caster last long enough to run out of slots.

Mages tend to be force multipliers to their allies, and deadly in ambush, trivial when ambushed. The MM Mage (Wiz-9, CR 6) is deadly when protected by low CR mooks, pre-buffed and using AoE on the PCs, whereas with 40 hp he can go down in a single blow from an Assassin Rogue or other high-DPR PC.

I found the fireballing CR 3 priests in PoTA are definitely overpowered for their CR.

The lowly bullywog with its double attack can be a serious threat for its CR rating. There are a couple like that which can pose a larger threat than their CR suggests.

Wolf packs. Very much wolf packs. Groups of kobolds and a few other creatures with group advantages have the potential too.

Back on the subject of saves in 5e.

I did some calculations and comparisons and some general thoughts here.

In AD&D PCs saved at level 10 anywhere from an average of 9.5 for a cleric and 9.4 for a fighter or most monsters. To a sucky 11.2 for a thief and magic user. (these two have the worst saves overall)

In 5e at level 10 the base save DC is 12 before any stat bonuses. Adding in stat bonus, then the save DC can range at level 10 from the base 12 all the way up to 17 as it is possible for a PC to have capped their primary stat by now using stat array, or a good roll. Subtracted from this is the targets stat mod, which for a PC is going to range also from a 0 to a +5 potentially. Assuming the same level as the caster then a +4 on the save if they have the appropriate save prof. So at this point the save DC can effectively range from a 3 up to a 17.
Monsters though get no roll bonus unless they specifically have a save bonus stat. And very few monsters have save bonuses. Couple of demons do for example. One I found at cr 10 had around a +6 on several save types. So it would save on a 6 to 11 if the spell happened to be one of the several its got skill on. Depending on the casters stats.

So in 5e spells are usually harder to resist than in older editions. But there is huge amount of variance due to player choices. A player that focused on non primary stats or feats that grant no stat points in their casting stat is going to be probably easier to resist than one who has hit the books and improved themselves instead with a focus on their primary.

All this assuming my math is right. Im pretty sure it is. Which means I probably goofed it. :o

Make of that what you will. Boon or Flaw. But to me seems monsters overall get shafted in 5e. I'd at least give them their stat mod to the save just like PCs. Its what I have been doing as I keep forgetting that "gets no bonus unless has a save listing" bit.

Quote from: Omega;1110896I'd at least give them their stat mod to the save just like PCs.

Pretty sure that is the RAW.

Yes, all monsters just use their stat bonuses for saves. When a specific save is called out, it's because the monster is PROFICIENT in the save, just like a PC with their proficient saves.

It's still pretty easy for monsters to fail certain saves, but, you have an infinite supply of monsters, so it's fine. If it's a monster that needs to be especially resilient, give it Legendary Resistance (auto succeeds 3 saves/day) or boost it up.

Quote from: Basic Player RulesAbility checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps.

1. Roll the die and add a modifier. Roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier. This is typically the modifier derived from one of the six ability scores, and it sometimes includes a proficiency bonus to reflect a character's particular skill. (See chapter 1 for details on each ability and how to determine an ability's modifier.)

Copied from a 2015 version, but I seriously doubt this has changed. Save bonuses in stat blocks are listed only where they differ from the ability score bonus (i.e., where a proficiency bonus is included).

One should note that the bad effect of missing a saving throw is much reduced from earlier editions. "Save or be briefly inconvenienced" is not as pithy as "save or die" but more accurate for most saves.

5e is probably the most boring, shallow, and poorly-written game that I've ever read or played; it's even worse than 4e. I have to assume that it was written by a retarded chimpanzee.

Problems:

(1.) The writing for 5e is boring, and the rules are vague.

(2.) The index is terrible. I'll look for x, and then it will say, "see y", and then sometimes y will say, "see z". It's the most frustrating index I've ever used. I hate it. Just once, I'd like to look something up in the index, and have it say.....see page 55. That almost never happens. :mad:

(3.) The page numbers are faint, and difficult to read.

(4.) The system for crafting magic items is objectively stupid. Seeing people feebly trying to defend the concept of anyone spending 55 fucking years to craft a weak magic item.....boggles my fucking mind. After running a cost/benefit ratio analysis of the magic items in the DMG, I came to the conclusion that roughly 75% of the magic items in the book would never be crafted....and that's not including the sentient items or artifacts in the DMG.

(5.) It's almost impossible to sell a magic item you crafted for profit. The system used on page 130 of the DMG implies that a potential customer actually knows how much it cost you to craft an item, but will deliberately low-ball you in the most insulting way possible.....and in most cases, will only offer you between 10% to 50% of what it cost for you to craft it. You have a very small chance of selling a "common" or "uncommon" magic item for a profit. It is impossible to sell a "rare" or "very rare" magic item for a profit, and you cannot sell a "legendary" magic item at all.....even though "legendary" magic items are pathetically weak, and have a very limited effect on their environment.

(6.) The CR system is useless, and doesn't tell a DM how strong a monster is. I don't know what to do with it. It would have to be completely rewritten.

(7.) There are no useful rules for naval combat or siege warfare. At this point, I see it as a glaring oversight.

(8.) Primary casters are still objectively better than non-primary casters in 5e, by a huge margin. Even if the high-level Magic-User/Wizard was significantly more powerful than the Fighter in earlier editions of D&D, my 10th-level Dwarven Fighter (either AD&D or 3e) could still feel like a champion.....by throttling the 30 goblins that attack him in the woods. In 5e, it's a horrible idea for even a high-level Fighter to attack 30 goblins by himself. In a sense, high-level characters don't even exist in 5e....but that's a separate discussion.

(9.) Monsters are largely boring and interchangeable sacks of hit points. BORING. :(

(10.) Gold is (mostly) useless. In other editions, there was an INCENTIVE to acquire gold when you adventured. In 1e, acquiring gp during an adventure could bring you experience points. In 3e, acquiring gp could enable you to buy or craft magic items. What does gold buy you in 5e? Mostly nothing. You can buy some crappy non-magical gear with it, or buy a manor house that you rarely use. You could rent hirelings, but that creates a new problem. Because of bounded accuracy, having 80 NPC guards do something for you is cheaper and more efficient than having four 10th-level characters do something for you.....which entirely defeats the purpose and concept of having high-level characters (at all).

(11.) "Bounded accuracy" is a festering pile of dog shit, or at least 5e's particular implementation of it. Bounded accuracy would have made so much more sense in a game that uses a bell curve, but is pure stupidity for a game that uses a d20. Bounded accuracy creates a weird situation where you're never really very good at anything. In previous editions, I would be confident that my 12th-level Paladin would win a knight's tournament, unless some high-level black knight marches in. In 5e, bounded accuracy creates weird situations where my high-level Paladin isn't very proficient at archery and isn't appreciably better at fighting with breakable lances than NPC gimps. It's pure idiocy.

(12.) 5e ties with 4e as being the least modular game I've ever played. If you don't like bounded accuracy, guess what? You're fucked. There is no 5e without bounded accuracy. If you try to remove bounded accuracy, then it affects:

* armor class for monsters
* armor class for non-magical armor
* the magic item crafting system
* the skill system
* saving throws
* physical attacks

AD&D was modular enough that you could change a couple game mechanics, without the system falling apart. You want ascending armor class? Fine. You want to convert initiative to a d10? Fine. You want to add new spells that enable you to craft magic weapons and magic armor, without risking losing a point of Constitution? Fine. Such modularity simply does not exist in 5e.

(13.) 5e is a game of padded sumo. It's impossible for a character to have a lasting injury. You lie down for 8 hours, and you get all your hit points back.....without using magic. I sense that the reason for this is that the authors wanted people to be less reliant upon clerics. But this is just so weird, that it mentally takes me out of the game.....and makes me focus on the game mechanics instead. In other editions, you needed bed rest and time to get your hit points back, and it could take many days to recover (if you didn't have magic). Not any more.

(14.) Advantage/disadvantage sucks. This system is binary. You either have (dis)advantage or you don't. Once your opponents fire arrows at you from [a.] multiple directions, [b.] from higher ground, and [c.] from behind cover.....there's virtually nothing you can do to negate that, because even if you hide behind a log (for cover).....you are only negating one form of advantage, therefore, your opponents will still have advantage. Would it have killed WoTC to create some sensible LAYERS to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic? This is annoying, stupid, and lazy game writing. And I'm tired of non-luck-based characters constantly engaging in rerolls. To Hell with that.

(15.) Character concepts in 5e are limited. There are far fewer legitimate character concepts in 5e than virtually any other iteration of D&D. In 3e, I could create a luck-based character with the Luck Domain and various luck feats. In 5e, everyone has advantage/disadvantage and uses bounded accuracy, which DILUTES the concept of luck. I can't give large luck-based numeric bonuses to a d20 for 5e (because bounded accuracy prevents this), and the concept of advantage/disadvantage rerolls dilutes the very concept of luck-based reroll game mechanics...since everyone in 5e engages in d20 rerolls anyway (due to the advantage/disadvantage game mechanic). Because of the failures of the magic item crafting system in 5e, the concept of an Artificer is meaningfully gone. And forget becoming an incredibly skilled archer in 5e, because your accuracy is garbage. Meanwhile, if I wanted to create the concept of a truly amazing archer in AD&D (for example), I could do it. I could have a 17th-level Fighter or Ranger with weapon specialization with the bow, who would unambiguously be drastically more accurate and efficient with a bow than your typical zero-level gimp. He'd be Hawkeye; he'd be Green Arrow; he'd be awesome. But in 5e, you're not big in the pants any more, especially if you're not a spellcaster. No matter your level in 5e, you're very likely to lose an archery contest. :rolleyes:

(16.) For 5e spellcasters, resource management is mostly gone. My Sorcerer or Wizard never runs out of magic.....because cantrips can be used "at-will". This means that your Wizard can attack with Fire Bolt every single round of every single day. You never run out of "juice". This issue might simply be a matter of personal taste, but I hate it......because there are no alternatives. If we're being honest, this is just another version of the D&D 3.5 Warlock class using an Eldritch Blast (but renamed as a "cantrip"). The funny thing is that I don't even have an issue with "at-will" magic existing, but my objection is that this is not how either a Magic-User or Wizard is supposed to be played. In 3e, I could use "fire and forget", or I could use "at-will magic". I previously had a choice, but now that choice is gone.

(17.) In 5e, you simply cannot affect your environment in a meaningful way. In AD&D, my Magic-User could illuminate a city with Continual Light spells. He could have a retinue of charmed servants. He could cast Enlarge or Reduce on the front door to a castle. The high-level Fighter could have a castle and a small army of loyal soldiers, which could attack the Cleric's temple and cult of fanatical followers. Meanwhile, the Cleric's undead servitors have been sitting in a cave for the past 10 years, waiting silently to be used......as a secret weapon.....with no re-enchantment necessary. Does anything in 5e sound that interesting? Hell, no.

(18.) Most characters in 5e have magic abilities. Granted, these magic abilities are largely boring and barely affect their environment in a meaningful way....but character magic is common and formulaic. Every character class in the Player's Hand book either has automatic access to spells, or potential access to spells. Every single one. Yes, even the Barbarian. Seeing this surprised me, and I find it to be a disappointing change.

(19.) The so-called "skill system" in 5e is awful, boring, and vague. There's not much in the way of meaningful guidelines for using these "skills". I know that people complained about the 3e skill system, but at least you had a mostly solid idea of what you were capable of. Mostly. I don't have that certainty in 5e. And frankly, even Thief skills and non-weapon proficiencies from AD&D were far more interesting than the 5e skill system. And because of "bounded accuracy", most characters will fail most skill tests....unless they are "Very Easy" (DC 5) or "Easy" (DC 10). Your Fighter will practically never be able to perform any skill test that is "Very Hard" (DC 25), no matter his level. Just forget it. You suck at anything not involving "swording" people to death, and you're really not great at that either......because bounded accuracy creates scenarios where your 10th-level Fighter gets pimp-slapped by moderately-sized groups of bow-wielding goblins.

(20.) 5e culture blows. This is weird, but I noticed that white masculine men were largely (although not completely) absent from the artwork. This is important, because artwork sets a tone. I'm expecting that when 6e comes out, every character will become a black pansexual female of color. Not to mention, nobody seems to be willing to critique this system in a meaningful way. I've never seen anything like this before. Every other edition of D&D receives real constructive criticism, but any real critical examination of 5e seems largely absent from the Internet. Maybe Google is hiding it, since the people who control Google probably also control Hasbro. But in any case, the lack of unflattering critique and in-depth examination of 5e is actually creepy. Nobody seems to openly delve into the system, and tear it to pieces......in order to understand how things actually work. :cool:

So there's my top 20 list, of why 5e sucks.

this is amazing

OK after being amused by the sheer OUTRAGE in the post, I have to say after actually reading it that you're right about a good deal of it. However, stuff like Bounded Accuracy is intentional and the things you don't like are just the direction they deliberately went. It's supposed to be lower powered with everyone still having a fighting chance, with the levels not being as hugely different.

I don't think it's worth being that strident about it though, there's plenty of worse systems and it's good at what it does. Based on this I feel like you'd like Pathfinder 2 (for lack of BA and increased complexity). Although your dislike for magic makes me think maybe something older because PF2 has magic everywhere.

Though on a closer reading, you are wrong about a few things. Resource management is still very much present, it's just up to the DM to make sure they have enough encounters. Cantrips don't really cut it in combat against level appropriate foes if you aren't like level 2.

Also, re: advantage/disadvantage, I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean, but they don't stack. So if there's 3 sources of advantage and 1 of disadvantage, they all cancel out to a normal roll.

Man, someone really needs to switch to decaf. I could go over some of this, but...damn.

Bottom line, it's not enough to say "it sucks," you're supposed to follow up with solutions.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110918Lots of stuff

Sir, EVERY Game Designer who wants to make a better product needs someone like you to review their work with such zeal and lack of mercy (ideally BEFORE it is published).

Quote from: S'mon;1110900Pretty sure that is the RAW.

In the PHB it says yes. But in the MM it says monsters only get bonuses to saves if listed. But. That might mean they only get the prof bonus if listed. So I am going to assume that is how they meant. Which means one of the designers has, or will claim no the do not get any bonuses unless listed. :mad:

Quote from: Omega;1110928In the PHB it says yes. But in the MM it says monsters only get bonuses to saves if listed. But. That might mean they only get the prof bonus if listed. So I am going to assume that is how they meant. Which means one of the designers has, or will claim no the do not get any bonuses unless listed. :mad:

You might be talking about this section:

QuoteMost creatures don't have special saving throw bonuses, in which case this section is absent.

But note that it says, SPECIAL saving throw bonuses. That means proficiency. Saving throws in general add the ability bonus though. That is not considered a "special" bonus.

You were misreading it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1110927Sir, EVERY Game Designer who wants to make a better product needs someone like you to review their work with such zeal and lack of mercy (ideally BEFORE it is published).

Only if they want to make their game worse. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;1110928In the PHB it says yes. But in the MM it says monsters only get bonuses to saves if listed. But. That might mean they only get the prof bonus if listed. So I am going to assume that is how they meant. Which means one of the designers has, or will claim no the do not get any bonuses unless listed. :mad:

It says in the MM that they have ability scores and the corresponding modifiers, and refers to the PHB for their effect...

Edit: Sorry, mAcular Chaotic already covered this while I was writing and then abandoning a long response to Sacrificial Lamb.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;11109185e is probably the most boring, shallow, and poorly-written game that I've ever read or played; it's even worse than 4e. I have to assume that it was written by a retarded chimpanzee.

(1.) The writing for 5e is boring, and the rules are vague.

(2.) The index is terrible.

(3.) The page numbers are faint, and difficult to read.

(4.) The system for crafting magic items is objectively stupid.

(5.) It's almost impossible to sell a magic item you crafted for profit.

(6.) The CR system is useless, and doesn't tell a DM how strong a monster is. I don't know what to do with it. It would have to be completely rewritten.

(7.) There are no useful rules for naval combat or siege warfare. At this point, I see it as a glaring oversight.

(8.) Primary casters are still objectively better than non-primary casters in 5e, by a huge margin. Even if the high-level Magic-User/Wizard was significantly more powerful than the Fighter in earlier editions of D&D, my 10th-level Dwarven Fighter (either AD&D or 3e) could still feel like a champion.....by throttling the 30 goblins that attack him in the woods. In 5e, it's a horrible idea for even a high-level Fighter to attack 30 goblins by himself. In a sense, high-level characters don't even exist in 5e....but that's a separate discussion.

(9.) Monsters are largely boring and interchangeable sacks of hit points. BORING. :(

(10.) Gold is (mostly) useless.

(12.) 5e ties with 4e as being the least modular game I've ever played.

(13.) 5e is a game of padded sumo. It's impossible for a character to have a lasting injury. You lie down for 8 hours, and you get all your hit points back.....without using magic.

(14.) Advantage/disadvantage sucks.

(15.) Character concepts in 5e are limited. There are far fewer legitimate character concepts in 5e than virtually any other iteration of D&D.

(16.) For 5e spellcasters, resource management is mostly gone.

(17.) In 5e, you simply cannot affect your environment in a meaningful way.

(18.) Most characters in 5e have magic abilities. Granted, these magic abilities are largely boring and barely affect their environment in a meaningful way....but character magic is common and formulaic. Every character class in the Player's Hand book either has automatic access to spells, or potential access to spells. Every single one. Yes, even the Barbarian. Seeing this surprised me, and I find it to be a disappointing change.

(19.) The so-called "skill system" in 5e is awful, boring, and vague.

(20.) 5e culture blows. This is weird, but I noticed that white masculine men were largely (although not completely) absent from the artwork.

Village idiot application #739 received. sigh...

X: Hey now. Dont be so mean to Mearls and co. Being Woke AND Trendy is hard to juggle you know. (Jesus Christ someone please muzzle Mearls and especially some of the other staff before they dig themselves and the game any deeper!)

1: Older editions were sometimes even more vague. But the real problem is that they tossed in alot of oddball stuff that would have been better suited in an expansion book and the space freed up for other things. That said I can see what they were trying to do. Which is present tools for the new DM and DMs in need of a quick, or springboard, idea with a few rolls.

2: The index is written in freaking microfiche. I have to use a damn magnifying glass to read it. They did correct this in the DMG at least. And you are not the only one to jab WOTC for the oddball index that indexes the index. It feels like half the index refferrences itself.  

3: I can read them with my damaged eyes? Yes they are faint as that sepia tone blends in with the parchment background. Least it is not the utter HELL if trying to read the d20m Gamma World books where every third chapter the background was... dark grey speckles and slpotches.

4: You truly are obsessed.

5: um, No. Its fairly easy to sell magic items. Its just not easy getting the sale price you want. Supply and demand is a bitch.

6: Um the CR system is fairly well explained? Its just not very good at doing what it was created to do. It works best as a really loose guideline. Much like in older editions a monsters HD was a really loose guideline. We've been over the CR systems flaws in a couple of threads now.

7: No core edition has had extensive naval combat rules. AD&D was the closest and even that was still fairly basic. That is something best left to an expansion book. Which apparently naval combat got in the Saltmarsh module. But have not had a chance to check. The UA article on naval combat has been out a year or more though.

8: Here we go again. Actually in most editions of D&D fighters have equaled or more often potentially outperformed wizards. This carries over to 5e. Though not as big a gap as was prior. The fighter can still hold their own. But every class is getting overwhelmed now by what were prior nuisance monsters. This seems intentional from comments from the designers. Some like it that way. Others rather dont. It is harder to be awesome when at level 20 a bunch of lowly bullywogs ganged up and killed you.

9: um... that could be said of every edition if you dont actually read the background material. In older editions it was often intermingled a bit. Which actually made it harder to sort out the mechanics from the background in some cases.

10: You are mostly useless. But we dont hold that against you. Much. :rolleyes:
We've dissected your screeds on this before. And you are still wrong. Get over it. You have been given examples of gold in use. Try them instead of fabricating reasons to be fake outraged.

12: Pundit disagrees to some degree. But we all seem to have very different ideas of what modular is.

13: That is because 5e's HP are more like fatigue points and are easier to recover from. There are ample threads dissecting the problem and solutions. Even the DMG offers some variants.

14: Ad/Disad is a weird one. 5e seems really obsessed with the idea that gamers hate math. But this is a mindset being extolled in board game design too that ref tables and addition and subtraction are "too complex" for modern gamers. I guess reading will be too complex for modern gamers next and 6e will be the D&D See Spot Run edition. Advantage/disad works. To a point. Its neat and simple. But its too simple and does not scale well at all. Theres an older thread where someone dissected the net effect of it in percentile.

15: You can still do concepts in 5e. You just have to work within the system to get similar results. And some just are not really viable in 5e without some tweaking. And some concepts were more or less impossible in older editions. Some editions moreso than others. But one of D&Ds strengths is that if you cant do it via normal avenues with a class. You can probably pull it off with magic items or custom ones. That was easier in older editions.

16: Spell focuses. Remove those and things change somewhat. Yes, 5e is really lenient on the component requirements. But players have been bitching about having to deal with spell components since nearly day one of OD&D. And bitching about tracking food and water and other resources. But really. Eliminate spell focus and it changes things quite a bit potentially. Eliminate or alter some "resource tracking elimination" spells like goodberry and this changes things as well.

17: Actually yes they can. Just usually not on the potentially grand scales of 3e. A fighter can own a castle and amass an army, The cleric's raised army, not so easy via spell. But nothing is stopping the cleric from researching and finding or creating a spell or item that can raise more or not require upkeep. Its obvious why the limits are there. But there are potential workarounds. The rest depends on what the players go out into the world to do. They can impact the land however they may. Just not the same or as extensive out the gate as prior.  And its rather funny after the complaining that mages are too powerful then to complain they arent powerful enough. :rolleyes:

18: No. Every class has a magic, or magic-like path. That is not the same. And these magic using alternate paths are no different from the myriad legion of variant classes that have been created over the decades and seen print in some expansion book or more often Dragon. They are there because players wanted them. Or created them.

19: Actually the skill system works just fine. Its weird. But it works once you understand tool proficiencies. Its very open ended. But guess what? So were the equivalents in pre-3e editions.

20: WOTC is getting gradually infested with SJWs with agendas. And/or listening to SJWs with agendas. Mearls and at least one other WOTC staffer have made that painfully clear.
But so far at least its not eating too badly into the actual D&D community. Instead they cluster together at infested forums they have practically co-opted and now control. Who knows where all this will lead. Probably some big blow up. One can hope.

x2: and this is my top 20 minus 1 of why you may not suck. Village idiot application rejected! We have too many as is. And I obviously agree with some points. Sometimes meaner than you.

Quote from: rawma;1110954It says in the MM that they have ability scores and the corresponding modifiers, and refers to the PHB for their effect...

Edit: Sorry, mAcular Chaotic already covered this while I was writing and then abandoning a long response to Sacrificial Lamb.

Come on, show us the goods.

Quote from: Omega;11109612: The index is written in freaking microfiche. I have to use a damn magnifying glass to read it. They did correct this in the DMG at least. And you are not the only one to jab WOTC for the oddball index that indexes the index. It feels like half the index refferrences itself.  

I've had to use my phone's camera to zoom in on the index more than once. Old eyes and all...

Yeah, that index is a hate crime, and I hate the faint ink for the page numbers...wth, it's quite the combo of uselessness. You finally get the page number, and the page numbers are unreadable. Wthx2.

I'm still trying to figure out how a high level fighter will "almost never" make a DC 25 skill check in Athletics. If he has strength of 20, a +4 proficiency bonus, and is trained in Athletics (all quite achievable well before level 20), he'll make that roll on a 16+, a solid 25% chance--higher than "almost never." If he happens to be on the a path that gives advantage to Athletics rolls, we're nearly in the coin toss range.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110921Also, re: advantage/disadvantage, I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean, but they don't stack. So if there's 3 sources of advantage and 1 of disadvantage, they all cancel out to a normal roll.

Yes, one source of Disadvantage cancels ALL sources of Advantage, resulting in a single roll.

5e is just a game that runs much better than it reads. And there is actually a lot of clever design work in there that deals with many of the apparent issues. Concentration for instance stops casters dominating; as does spell recovery being on the same schedule as hit point recovery. Rogue Expertise & Reliable Talent overcomes Bounded Accuracy, as does stuff like the Barbarian always getting at least his STR score on STR checks - this is a big deal when you're running Epic-20 with STR 30 Barbarians. :D

In practice I find that high level non-casters can indeed demolish large numbers of weak foes; at the top end a 340 hp Barbarian Raging for half damage can go through hundreds of orcs; a Champion with Fast Healing on & base 3-4 attacks/round can do similar, especially with Feats like Heavy Armour Master. The system is balanced though around 6-8 fights per long rest, not 15 minute adventuring day.

Another thing it takes a while to grok about 5e is that they did compress the power level; 1-20 in 5e is more like 1-10 in AD&D (or 3e, leaving aside issues with monster statting esp in 3.5 where Balors are CR 20). You only start to be 'high level' 11+ and even then are much more grounded than 1e Name Level PCs, never mind 3e/PF level 11+ demigods. It gives a playable heroic-fantasy experience 1-20 (well, arguably 3-20 or 5-20); you only start to feel Epic at 17+, and the high level game works great with a more grounded tone than in 3e or 4e, though it can also accommodate more wahoo play.

Quote from: S'mon;1111001Another thing it takes a while to grok about 5e is that they did compress the power level; 1-20 in 5e is more like 1-10 in AD&D (or 3e, leaving aside issues with monster statting esp in 3.5 where Balors are CR 20). You only start to be 'high level' 11+ and even then are much more grounded than 1e Name Level PCs, never mind 3e/PF level 11+ demigods. It gives a playable heroic-fantasy experience 1-20 (well, arguably 3-20 or 5-20); you only start to feel Epic at 17+, and the high level game works great with a more grounded tone than in 3e or 4e, though it can also accommodate more wahoo play.

Further supplemented by the deliberate skewing of the experience charts so that the majority of play time will be concentrated in a range of about levels 5 to 16 (or 4 to 16 or several other possibilities).

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1111090Further supplemented by the deliberate skewing of the experience charts so that the majority of play time will be concentrated in a range of about levels 5 to 16 (or 4 to 16 or several other possibilities).

5-10 actually as that was what Mearls believed was the "sweet spot" for modern players with ADD or something.

That said. the level curve for 5e actually follows something close to the average of the levelling curves in AD&D when compared by just adding a 0 to 5e's EXP needs.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110970Come on, show us the goods.

Is there any point to replying to the Darrin Kelley of 5e? Some of the points are amusing in juxtaposition: anyone with no comment on the tiny type in the index shouldn't have any trouble reading the page numbers; monsters are boring interchangeable sacks of HPs but CR gives no information on toughness even though its based mostly on HPs, damage, AC and chance to hit; gold is useless but not getting more of it for selling magic items is the worst thing ever; the game isn't modular but ignoring the modularity for changing length of long rests in the DMG; casters don't need resource management because cantrips, but primary casters being far better isn't likely without spell slots.

Sacrificial Lamb apparently does not seem to know the game very well (misconception about advantage, what's modular, how skills work, what gold can be used for, limits created by spell concentration), but is mostly disputing design decisions (the crafting system, naval and siege rules, fewer permanent spells to change the environment, bounded accuracy). There's a few complaints we've already discussed in this thread followed by claims that nobody will examine the game.

A few specifics:
12. it's the least modular game ever, because bounded accuracy can't be pulled out the way things that were peripheral to AD&D could be; pull out unbounded accuracy from earlier D&D and you would have to adjust as much to make it playable.
15. all the character classes and class paths seem playable. there is no great synergy that ends up forcing everyone into a few viable "builds".
17. There's not much in the way of meaningful guidelines for using these "skills"? - if only the PHB had an entire chapter explaining how the skills are used! Wait, it does.
20. somebody worries that RPG art is excluding characters who look like them, and nobody bit their head off? OK, it's about manly white men, and not having them be the tone.

This was already too long spent on this.

Quote from: Omega;11111265-10 actually as that was what Mearls believed was the "sweet spot" for modern players with ADD or something.

I find it a bit ironic considering that IME 5e is by far the best edition ever for playing at 11-16, and you can run 5-10 adventures for 11-16 doing little more than double the monster numbers! On Sunday I ran the Sacred Stone Monastery (http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2019/10/971491-dr-attack-on-sacred-stone.html) from Princes of the Apocalypse. It's written for 4 PCs of level 5, I ran it with 6 PCs of level 8 plus 8 allied NPC Feathergale Knights, and the players were sweating buckets. All I did was increase opponent numbers a bit (eg 2 guards +1 priest >4 guards +1 priest), make them fairly well organised, and add a CR 5 Bulette with a bonus action leap, so I could use my Bulette mini (it critted on bite and took a Ftr-8 from full hp to 0 hp in 2 turns) :cool:

Quote from: S'mon;1111167I find it a bit ironic considering that IME 5e is by far the best edition ever for playing at 11-16, and you can run 5-10 adventures for 11-16 doing little more than double the monster numbers! On Sunday I ran the Sacred Stone Monastery (http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2019/10/971491-dr-attack-on-sacred-stone.html) from Princes of the Apocalypse. It's written for 4 PCs of level 5, I ran it with 6 PCs of level 8 plus 8 allied NPC Feathergale Knights, and the players were sweating buckets. All I did was increase opponent numbers a bit (eg 2 guards >4 guards), make them fairly well organised, and add a CR 5 Bulette with a bonus action leap, so I could use my Bulette mini (it critted on bite and took a Ftr-8 from full hp to 0 hp in 2 turns) :cool:

Greetings!

That's fucking right, my friend! BULETTE'S LEAPING AND BITING!!!!!! Just the visual alone makes me want to light up a fine cigar in joy at the monster's awesome victory! CHOMP! CHOMP! CHOMP! Make the players howl and squirm! Make them dig down deep for victory!

Many years ago, it was during my first character as a player. My DM had my character--a Human Paladin, I think he was level 6 to 10, maybe level 8. All of my companions had been killed, or sold off into slavery. My character was given to a tribe of evil Yetis that lived in an ancient fortress, with a prison deep in the earth. My character was naked, stripped of all his glorious armour, gear, and his +5 Holy Avenger sword. The Yetis tortured me.

After many days, I managed to break free from my chains, and my prison cell. A yeti guard had fought with me, hand to hand, biting me with his fanged mouth and powerful jaws. Bleeding, wounded, I knelt in prayer, resigned that all my gear was gone forever, and I would likely die in the great Yeti Fortress.

Something in me snapped. The next Yeti guard I encountered, I leaped upon him, naked, and wrestled with him. I used my mouth to bite the Yeti. Over and over, I strangled him, twisting his neck, I tore his ear off, and got to the place where I bit his furry throat out with my teeth. Rising victorious, now armed with just a simple club of polished, worked stone, I began stalking the dark hallways, ambushing Yetis as I went. My character remained in the darkness, and harried the Yetis for long days, and weeks. I had no desire to find a way of escape. I wanted only to bring terror and blood to the evil Yetis, even if it meant I might be overwhelmed and eaten alive. Before that sure defeat, I would eat the Yetis. They would hear the distant cries of their brothers in the darkness, as I ambushed them and devoured them!

Covered in bright gore, a rough skin of a slain Yeti, a simple necklace of Yeti Teeth, and my stone club....I became the terror that haunted the Yeti Fortress.

Eventually, the day came, when I found my chest, and rejoined my gear, my armour, and my beloved sword.

The final conflict between my character and the Yeti Warlord saw me beating him down with my sword, and then grabbing him at the top of the stairway, with his loyal fellows looking on, as I grappled with him, hand to hand, biting him over and over, and howling in frenzied triumph, as the chewed body of the Yet fell down the steps far below.

I emerged victorious, in the dawn of a new day. I returned to the kingdom, and regathered my companions, but my character had changed forever.

I strangled Yeti warriors with fishing rope. I clawed and bit them, and used a lantern to cave their heads in. I poured oil down their throats, and shoved a burning torch into their mouths. I fought with a grappling hook, and used my polished stone club. A dozen ways of combat, a dozen ways of ambush, and slaughter. A dozen displays of slaughtered Yeti foes, to use psychological warfare on them. All with no magic, no armour, no special healing or power, beyond the basic powers as a Paladin. Alone, outnumbered, and afraid. I resolved that if I was to die, I would die gloriously, with a legend growing from my exploits. If I did not die, the Yeti would learn fear. They would learn death, blood, and terror. I would rise, victorious.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3938[/ATTACH]

SHARK's Paladin when the Yetis draw First Blood.

:confused: But what about breaking rations together with the Yetis, communicating the power of friendship through hand signs and sharing?

Quote from: S'mon;1111167I find it a bit ironic considering that IME 5e is by far the best edition ever for playing at 11-16, and you can run 5-10 adventures for 11-16 doing little more than double the monster numbers! On Sunday I ran the Sacred Stone Monastery (http://frloudwater.blogspot.com/2019/10/971491-dr-attack-on-sacred-stone.html) from Princes of the Apocalypse. It's written for 4 PCs of level 5, I ran it with 6 PCs of level 8 plus 8 allied NPC Feathergale Knights, and the players were sweating buckets. All I did was increase opponent numbers a bit (eg 2 guards +1 priest >4 guards +1 priest), make them fairly well organised, and add a CR 5 Bulette with a bonus action leap, so I could use my Bulette mini (it critted on bite and took a Ftr-8 from full hp to 0 hp in 2 turns) :cool:

Well, it is why I said approximate in my original statement.  There are odd little slow downs just before you cross ever tier boundary, for example.  However it is otherwise characterized, I think it is fair to say that the intent was to spend the least time in levels 1-4, and the time spent there heavily skewed towards the end.  Then levels 17-20 are meant to be next lowest (assuming campaigns go that far).  Yes, 11-16 is meant to be less time than 5-10, but it is still intended to be a slight ratchet in speed to help with a change in tone for that tier.  Again, for campaigns that go that far.  

Among its numerous virtues, one thing I enjoy about this leveling scheme is that it gives natural campaign break points and/or endings.  You can do low end, where the players hit 4 pretty fast, then do a lot of stuff at 5, and then it ends.  Or you can do the "sweet spot" 1 to 11 or 3 to 11 or 5 to 11, in much the same way.  And if a few characters manage to push to 12 during one of those, nothing will break, either.  I suspect the upper end has a similar dynamic, but have no experience with it to say.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110918(13.) 5e is a game of padded sumo. It's impossible for a character to have a lasting injury. You lie down for 8 hours, and you get all your hit points back.....without using magic. I sense that the reason for this is that the authors wanted people to be less reliant upon clerics. But this is just so weird, that it mentally takes me out of the game.....and makes me focus on the game mechanics instead. In other editions, you needed bed rest and time to get your hit points back, and it could take many days to recover (if you didn't have magic). Not any more.

I think you're correct that the recovery times are much faster, but I think you've applied the wrong word to it.  Padded Sumo is about having big piles of hit points without anyway to get through them.  In 1st and 2nd edition, even a powerful demon (god) like Lolth had a small number of hit points.  With the right weapon getting to attack 2x in a round, you could hope to kill her outright in a couple of rounds.  In 3.x, hit points increased dramatically, but damage output GENERALLY didn't.  You had to put together a 'trick' like a pounce/charge to deal the type of hit point damage to get through your opponents.  4th edition was worse.  

I don't think enemies take an unreasonable number of hits to drop in combat.  And if you drop someone, you can kill them and not give them 8 hours of rest.  So fast healing doesn't really apply...

5E sells despite any criticism.  It's the opposite of what happened with 4E.  It's like Mearls & Co. made a deal this time.....

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1111191I suspect the upper end has a similar dynamic, but have no experience with it to say.

Yeah, 17-20+ works fine too. Nothing breaks. Even the infinite Wildshape Druid-20 isn't OP in practice, and can play beside a Rogue-17.

Exactly. What Mearls and co say and thing gets contradicted by actual play.

From experience DMin t 5e for years now what I saw fairly often is that the system seems to cluter alot of goodies within that 5-10 level range. Then things even out to a more sedate pace. Which balances out the tendency of the early levels for items gained. On the flip side several classes get some interesting perks approaching level 20. Which makes reliance on items less a need.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1111191There are odd little slow downs just before you cross ever tier boundary, for example.

When Adventurers League still had advancement by XP, there were options to use downtime awarded to advance from 4th to 5th level and from 10th to 11th level. In part I think this was to keep players together if they wanted (since adventures were mostly strictly by tier) but also because it was a hard slog at those levels if you were only getting XP appropriate for the bottom of the tier - especially level 4.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111192I think you're correct that the recovery times are much faster, but I think you've applied the wrong word to it.  Padded Sumo is about having big piles of hit points without anyway to get through them.  In 1st and 2nd edition, even a powerful demon (god) like Lolth had a small number of hit points.  With the right weapon getting to attack 2x in a round, you could hope to kill her outright in a couple of rounds.  In 3.x, hit points increased dramatically, but damage output GENERALLY didn't.  You had to put together a 'trick' like a pounce/charge to deal the type of hit point damage to get through your opponents.  4th edition was worse.  

I don't think enemies take an unreasonable number of hits to drop in combat.  And if you drop someone, you can kill them and not give them 8 hours of rest.  So fast healing doesn't really apply...

I think you're right; I'm probably using the wrong term on that one......but you still get my point.

Quote from: Razor 0075e sells despite any criticism. It's the opposite of what happened with 4E. It's like Mearls & Co. made a deal this time.....

Does 5e really sell though? Mearls said that it sold more than 3e or 4e, but I can't seem to find any sales numbers anywhere.....and without precise sales numbers, it's all bullshit to me. I don't mean to be a Doubting Thomas, but I'm much more cynical now in regards to either human or corporate ethical behavior than I used to be. :cool:

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1111318Does 5e really sell though? Mearls said that it sold more than 3e or 4e, but I can't seem to find any sales numbers anywhere.....and without precise sales numbers, it's all bullshit to me. I don't mean to be a Doubting Thomas, but I'm much more cynical now in regards to either human or corporate ethical behavior than I used to be. :cool:

I don't think 5e is selling because the D&D department at Wizards of the Coast are smart - I honestly think they could have done things a lot better.  But people on this forum have been saying for a decade or more that there should be a 'boxed set' for sale at major retailers (like Target) that makes entry into the game simple.  So, that's one thing.

Anecdotal though it may be, at the local Barnes and Noble there is a whole book shelf for 5e - it's at least 6' tall and 4' wide.  There's a different bookshelf for all other RPG books.  It's roughly the same size, but the RPGs are maybe two shelves (mostly split between Zwiehander and Pathfinder [both editions]) and the rest is actually Computer Gaming books and/or art books.

As of last check its gone through at least 10 print runs. And the early ones were fairly large according to some retailers back then.

I think one of the slowdowns is the lack of a D&D movie or animated series. But that is just not likely to happen as long as Solomon can keep blockading WOTC on that front. But. He has not put out another D&D movie since Book of Vile Darkness it seems. And he has to put one out regularly or have his control contested or lost. S who knows where that will go. But according to IMDb Book of Vile Darkness was not one of his? But. Apparently he is part of an upcoming D&D movie in 2021? Weird.

Quote from: Omega;1111280Exactly. What Mearls and co say and thing gets contradicted by actual play.

From experience DMin t 5e for years now what I saw fairly often is that the system seems to cluter alot of goodies within that 5-10 level range. Then things even out to a more sedate pace. Which balances out the tendency of the early levels for items gained. On the flip side several classes get some interesting perks approaching level 20. Which makes reliance on items less a need.

Yup, that's exactly right IME.

Re your first comment, I often get the impression that whoever actually designed 5e, it certainly wasn't Mearls or Crawford! :D They really don't seem to know their own game very well. A lot of Sage Advice and Unearthed Arcana is completely borked and seems to misunderstand fundamental design elements of the system. The PHB credits say "Rules Development Rodney Thompson, Peter Lee", so maybe they are the secret design geniuses, along with all the playtesters (who were actually listened to?!) and of course Pundit & Zak S.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1111330It's roughly the same size, but the RPGs are maybe two shelves (mostly split between Zwiehander and Pathfinder [both editions]...

Jeez. :(

I don't normally wish ill on anyone (really!), but afaiac that Daniel 'Penises!' Fox guy can fuck right off. Seeing his shilling so successful does stick in my craw.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1111318Does 5e really sell though? Mearls said that it sold more than 3e or 4e, but I can't seem to find any sales numbers anywhere.....and without precise sales numbers, it's all bullshit to me. I don't mean to be a Doubting Thomas, but I'm much more cynical now in regards to either human or corporate ethical behavior than I used to be. :cool:

Relative but not absolute number, from https://www.amazon.co.uk/Dungeons-Dragons-Players-Handbook-Rulebooks/dp/0786965606:

Amazon Bestsellers Rank: 270 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Hobbies & Games References

https://www.amazon.com/Players-Handbook-Dungeons-Dragons-Wizards/dp/0786965606/

Amazon Best Sellers Rank: #130 in Books (See Top 100 in Books)
#1 in Puzzle & Game Reference (Books)
#1 in Dungeons & Dragons Game
#21 in Reference (Books)

Links like https://www.idealog.com/blog/changing-book-business-seems-flowing-downhill-amazon/ and https://www.bloomberg.com/graphics/2019-amazon-reach-across-markets/ suggest that Amazon is 50% or more of the USA book market; I know my family has such obscure taste that anything we aren't ordering directly from the publisher comes from Amazon (he says, looking at the copy of Van de Mieroop's "The Ancient Mesopotamian City" peeking out of his commuting-jacket pocket).

A cheesy site like https://okdork.com/hit-1-amazons-bestseller-list/ suggests 3k sales per day for #1, 300 per day for top 10. Let's assume this is Zipf-law distributed, and so 5ePHB is probably selling 20-30 per day in the USA through Amazon, which means 15k-20k copies per year (since Amazon is around half the market). Add a few thousand for international sales.

Not precise, but the numbers you can find quickly suggest that 5 years after release, it's still an excellent seller on Amazon, grossing more than half a million dollars a year from the Players Handbook alone.

So my party pretty much lives in darkness.

1. Gloomstalker ranger subclass - can see 120' in darkness. is invisible to monsters who have darkvision.
2. Every other player has a character who has darkvision.

It becomes the opposite of the normal danger of the dungeon. My players are BETTER when it is completely dark. Good luck running a human fighter in this group. You'll be useless. T

here is no fear of darkness (the ranger can see in dark as if it is light). It trivializes a huge element of the dangers of the dungeon. EVERY monster in the game can't see the ranger and always has to attack at disadvantage. Darkness spells are easy for the warlock to cast every encounter (recoverable on a short rest). There is never an encounter where the PCs are at any kind of disadvantage... they have advantage even against naturally dwelling darkness creatures.

5E just goes way too far with a combination of trying to have grand sweeping abilities and creating these grand sweeping abilities without concern for how they will play in game. The game creates options that eliminate whole swathes of player character concepts. One player's choice can dictate the choices for everyone else in the game.

For example in my game... one player took gloomstalker ranger... as a result this dictates that you have to have darkvision to be effective.

The game goes WAY WAY too far in giving PCs campaign altering abilities.

Nearly all monsters have darkvision. In my dungeon crawl games I just let pcs buy goggles of night, so everyone sees in the dark and we just ignore it.

Eh, about Gloomstalker Darvision I agree and have my issues on widgets post-PHB-playtest, such as Race, Class, Archetypes, Spells... many of them just tightened versions of UA flung spaghetti.

But my table, my campaign, my demographics. I don't care if a player chooses to pick Underdark:the Munchkining, if my game's scope is above ground, in daylight, on horseback, then "FU Player, Suck Up the Daylight, Nub." Passive-aggressive Overton Window pulling of my Campaign Scope gets duly ignored, as does their complaints. I Pitch a Premise, Define a Scope, and Supply a Demographics... if you absolutely need to be a snowflake you need to clear it by me, I may give a trial period, and then best not be whiny when you discover it does not pull MY GAME into YOUR ORBIT. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1111692Eh, about Gloomstalker Darvision I agree and have my issues on widgets post-PHB-playtest, such as Race, Class, Archetypes, Spells... many of them just tightened versions of UA flung spaghetti.

But my table, my campaign, my demographics. I don't care if a player chooses to pick Underdark:the Munchkining, if my game's scope is above ground, in daylight, on horseback, then "FU Player, Suck Up the Daylight, Nub." Passive-aggressive Overton Window pulling of my Campaign Scope gets duly ignored, as does their complaints. I Pitch a Premise, Define a Scope, and Supply a Demographics... if you absolutely need to be a snowflake you need to clear it by me, I may give a trial period, and then best not be whiny when you discover it does not pull MY GAME into YOUR ORBIT. ;)

Yep. I'm going to tweak this. I run a sandbox campaign in 5E. It's your classic mega dungeon tent-pole + wilderness style game. Lately, by player choice, it has been dungeon delving. As a result their baseline UA Gloomstalker abilities are WAY OP. I think it should give an advantage but I think since general 5E rules design is broad strokes and miss details that I'm going to have to rein in, I have to make an adjustment.

Any ideas on how to rein in Gloomstalker but still have it better than darkvision only... but not break the game?

;) I am also a CCGer, and one of the best lessons from there is "Banning is like Laser Surgery," highest precision, lowest amount of cascading effects from the game state change (its absence being the 'game state change').

Set your demographics: choose allowable Races, Classes, Archetypes, Backgrounds, Gear, Spells, Feats, etc.

Banning is good. Banning is healthy. Embrace the laser surgery solution! :D

(Easiest is just attaching Darkvision 60' as a ribbon that stacks with the Race. This way Drow go to DV 180', Dwarves etc to DV 120', Humans & Halflings to DV 60'. Superdarkvision! (tm) is just stupid. ;))

I simply call this "Discernment".

Kids today call it "-Ism, -Phobe, -Ist" and run away screaming, looking for their exclusionary safe-space which only exists in their heads. /shrug.

Quote from: fixable;1111686So my party pretty much lives in darkness.

Yeah, I have a similar situation in the group I'm playing with. It often seems like my normal, human character is just bumbling around in the dark. Even encounters outside the dungeon mostly seem to be creatures of the night. I spent a while arguing with some fellow party members about why my human rogue did not want to go to sleep outside without any light source while we waited for the monsters who were terrorizing the local farmers to show up - in the dark.

You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

In 5e, darkvision isn't "see in the dark as if it was daylight." It's just "see as if it was dim light," which would be like seeing dark silhouettes on a moonlit night while outside. You can't see that much that way. (Also you take -5 to passive perception.)

(http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/14/51f2f222-aee4-4640-bd38-f0512ccc638d/thumbnail/620x350/b66158b052a7aa9b9bce0c5cfa1de5c6/rtr3y8lt.jpg)

Now imagine that against a dark forest's backdrop...

Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight has an additional clause beyond the "Adds DV" clause.

"You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you."

Which makes it Superdarkvision! (tm) :rolleyes:

I get the thematics -- you know how to spoof or mask silhouettes in the gloom -- however I'd just negate that with other senses, like Sound, Smell, etc. ;) And if I am being conscientious like that about the 5 senses, then why do I need this secondary clause that could be misread into Superdarkvision! (tm)? :p It's one of those "Throw Spaghetti on the Wall and See What Sticks" UA designs formalized and compiled into published text. ;)

Quote from: Opaopajr;1111861Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight has an additional clause beyond the "Adds DV" clause.

"You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you."

Which makes it Superdarkvision! (tm) :rolleyes:

I get the thematics -- you know how to spoof or mask silhouettes in the gloom -- however I'd just negate that with other senses, like Sound, Smell, etc. ;) And if I am being conscientious like that about the 5 senses, then why do I need this secondary clause that could be misread into Superdarkvision! (tm)? :p It's one of those "Throw Spaghetti on the Wall and See What Sticks" UA designs formalized and compiled into published text. ;)

Well, a creature that can't see you has disadvantage either way. The big difference with other senses is that they'd be able to find you easier if you're hiding.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1111861Gloomstalker's Umbral Sight has an additional clause beyond the "Adds DV" clause.

"You are also adept at evading creatures that rely on darkvision. While in darkness, you are invisible to any creature that relies on darkvision to see you."

Oh yeah, I remember I had to disallow that when running Stonehell Dungeon, since SD is based around traditional BX/LL Infravision, and I make Invisibility more powerful than RAW. I just gave the Gloomstalker advantage on Hide checks in darkness.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1111861It's one of those "Throw Spaghetti on the Wall and See What Sticks" UA designs formalized and compiled into published text. ;)

Yes, although frankly I'm a bit surprised how little broken stuff made it into XGTE.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111827You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

It may be more that my DM is forgetting.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111827You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

In 5e, darkvision isn't "see in the dark as if it was daylight." It's just "see as if it was dim light," which would be like seeing dark silhouettes on a moonlit night while outside. You can't see that much that way. (Also you take -5 to passive perception.)

(http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/14/51f2f222-aee4-4640-bd38-f0512ccc638d/thumbnail/620x350/b66158b052a7aa9b9bce0c5cfa1de5c6/rtr3y8lt.jpg)

Now imagine that against a dark forest's backdrop...

That reminds me of another issue with 5e: light and vision.

The rules are a big mess... and I'm not sure the errata fixed everything, IIRC.

Cannot find the specifics. But it involves something like blind archers hitting each other, the moon being invisible beacuse darkness blocks light (or maybe that you can see throug mist but not isnide the mist - not sure), etc.

Of course, these are rules that you don't really need and are easily ignored, so not a great issue anyway.

I wrote a few thoughts on light and vision here:

https://methodsetmadness.blogspot.com/2019/03/encounter-distance-light-vision-etc.html

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1111961That reminds me of another issue with 5e: light and vision.

The rules are a big mess... and I'm not sure the errata fixed everything, IIRC.

This gets even more screwy with the 5e "spells only do exactly what they say they do" which results in a wall of fire giving off no light and many other kinds of strangeness.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111965This gets even more screwy with the 5e "spells only do exactly what they say they do" which results in a wall of fire giving off no light and many other kinds of strangeness.

I wouldn't interpret it like that to be honest. I would more so view it as the spells were left to be more vague for DM fiat and ruling, but I could be attributing genius where there is none.

I would say that if a spell creates 'fire' then it pretty precisely gives off lightt.

Quote from: S'mon;1111878Oh yeah, I remember I had to disallow that when running Stonehell Dungeon, since SD is based around traditional BX/LL Infravision, and I make Invisibility more powerful than RAW. I just gave the Gloomstalker advantage on Hide checks in darkness.

5e Invisibility by RAW is actually not too far off from pre-3e inviso powers. Problem is. The rest of the rules are squirreled away elsewhere. Attacking someone invisible has the listed spell effects. But also you flat out miss if you target the wrong space the invisible foe is in. Even on a critical hit you still miss because you critted thin air.

As for the Gloomstalker. Folk should re-read the entry. It says while in darkness you are invisible to creatures that use darkvision. It says nothing about the character gaining 'super darkvision' themselves and by the rules they are invisible even to another gloomstalker. They gain normal darkvision and if they allready had it, then the range is extended by 30ft. That is it. Even the gloomstalker is still blinded in magical darkness.

Instead look to the Warlock who can pick up a Devils Sight that allows them to see normally in darkness out to 120ft and see even in magical darkness.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1111965This gets even more screwy with the 5e "spells only do exactly what they say they do" which results in a wall of fire giving off no light and many other kinds of strangeness.

Or maybee they did not expect the players to need their hand not just held, but manacled and shackled for good measure because apparently they are that fucking literal minded? Really? Who the hell is that stupid? Oh... yeah... :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;1112061Or maybee they did not expect the players to need their hand not just held, but manacled and shackled for good measure because apparently they are that fucking literal minded? Really? Who the hell is that stupid? Oh... yeah... :rolleyes:

I would assume that was the original intent as well, but as the developers go on to answer customer service questions, you see that have quite different ideas now. The game has evolved--largely thanks to needing consistent rules for organized play--to requiring rules over rulings. This results in magical fires that give off no light because the rules do not say that they do. So the stupid is RAW and will be applied as law in their organized play, but hopefully it doesn't hit too many home games.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1111827You guys are forgetting something about darkvision.

In 5e, darkvision isn't "see in the dark as if it was daylight." It's just "see as if it was dim light," which would be like seeing dark silhouettes on a moonlit night while outside. You can't see that much that way. (Also you take -5 to passive perception.)

(http://cbsnews2.cbsistatic.com/hub/i/r/2014/07/14/51f2f222-aee4-4640-bd38-f0512ccc638d/thumbnail/620x350/b66158b052a7aa9b9bce0c5cfa1de5c6/rtr3y8lt.jpg)

Now imagine that against a dark forest's backdrop...

There is Warlock Devil Sight that can see normally in darkness. There is also Gloomstalker ability where it is invisible to any creature with Darkvison. These are both abilities that are WAY too easy to obtain and they dramatically change the dynamic of an adventuring party (you can't play a human fighter with this group).

Yeah, there was quite a bit about the Warlock that I felt was a half-baked class. Very cobbled together and thrown onto the table to see who eats it up. That said, Devil's Sight was one of the lesser annoying of the troublesome Invocations, IMO. Still not wholly pleased with that class, even though I am assured it was thoroughly playtested (and then there's multi-classing. /cough "Sorlock" :rolleyes: )

Like some other spells and powers in 5e Devil Sight is very situational. Under the right circumstances it can be really usefull.Such as a campaign set mostly underground or in very dark or magically dark areas, or where you are facing foes that drop darkness alot. But elsewhere? Not so much as its essentially improved goggles of night. Same for the Gloomstalker, Goodberry, etc.

As for how much playtesting the Warlock and Sorcerer got. Hard to say really as they pulled both from public playtests early on. And even late game several classes changed notably from what had been playtested to what finally saw print. Same with the Artificer. Thats gone through a near total overhaul after feedback and so far has not seen print.

Remember my comment that PCs cant swim through lava?

Well in Tomb they can. No. Really. WTF???

Starting or ending a turn in molten lava or molten metal does 55(10d10) damage. Which means anything with enough movement can wade or swim through lava unharmed if they can make it across in one go. And anything with enough HP can swim in it for a round or two, or more...

Im pretty sure this contradicts info in the DMG and will have to look that up. And a quick glance through the environment section had no entry for lava.

Quote from: Omega;1112835Remember my comment that PCs cant swim through lava?

Well in Tomb they can. No. Really. WTF???

Starting or ending a turn in molten lava or molten metal does 55(10d10) damage. Which means anything with enough movement can wade or swim through lava unharmed if they can make it across in one go. And anything with enough HP can swim in it for a round or two, or more...

Im pretty sure this contradicts info in the DMG and will have to look that up. And a quick glance through the environment section had no entry for lava.

Are you sure? Usually it specifies something if they enter it during their turn too.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112849Are you sure? Usually it specifies something if they enter it during their turn too.

Wall of Fire works the same way. You will take no damage if you can approach within inches of the "hot side" of the wall (without moving through it), move alongside it for most of your movement, and then end your move at least 10 feet away from it.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1112849Are you sure? Usually it specifies something if they enter it during their turn too.

In the two entries, Lava or Molten metal. All it says is if someone falls in, or starts their turn in it, they take damage. Nothing about damage on entry by just moving into the stuff. There might be an entry later. I'll post if I find anything. We still have the problem of someone surviving falling into or standing in molten rock or metal. That should be an insta-death.

Found it. Kinda. DMG page 249. Improvising damage. One of those is Wading through Lava, the other is Being submerged in lava. So going by that. Id say it seems to be implying that entry into it will cause damage. So no speed wading across a pool and avoiding damage.

Quote from: Omega;1112851In the two entries, Lava or Molten metal. All it says is if someone falls in, or starts their turn in it, they take damage. Nothing about damage on entry by just moving into the stuff. There might be an entry later. I'll post if I find anything. We still have the problem of someone surviving falling into or standing in molten rock or metal. That should be an insta-death.

Situations like that are literally why I rewrote my falling rules from the gound up with entirely non-physical "hit points."

Hit point loss is based on the difficulty of avoiding falling entirely (i.e you lose fewer "hit points" if there's a sturdy railing you could grab next to a 1000' drop than you would lose from falling while climbing a slick brick wall in a rainstorm while 30' off the ground).

As long as you have points remaining your luck and skill leave you clinging to some feature just before the plunge (i.e. the classic hanging from a ledge by your fingernails).

If you run out, then you failed to catch yourself and plunge to your death (or perhaps just to unconsciousness and the dying condition if the situation allows; ex. falling 30' onto a lawn would probably put you at dying... lava would require some deity-level magic to bring someone back since all normal resurrection magic in my setting requires a mostly intact body).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112850Wall of Fire works the same way. You will take no damage if you can approach within inches of the "hot side" of the wall (without moving through it), move alongside it for most of your movement, and then end your move at least 10 feet away from it.

It still damages you for entering the actual fire though. You take damage the first time you enter it each turn.

So there are rules for lava damage if you start your turn or if you end your turn in the lava. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would actually need a specific rule stating that spending part of your turn (but not the beginning and/or ending your turn) swimming through lava will also cause you to incur damage. Isn't it obvious?

Quote from: Omega;1112851In the two entries, Lava or Molten metal. All it says is if someone falls in, or starts their turn in it, they take damage. Nothing about damage on entry by just moving into the stuff. There might be an entry later. I'll post if I find anything. We still have the problem of someone surviving falling into or standing in molten rock or metal. That should be an insta-death.

It should be, but not with hit points RAW.

Quote from: Bren;1112884So there are rules for lava damage if you start your turn or if you end your turn in the lava. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would actually need a specific rule stating that spending part of your turn (but not the beginning and/or ending your turn) swimming through lava will also cause you to incur damage. Isn't it obvious?

Not a matter of obvious.

It's about continually inflating hit points and D&D RAW.

As much as people talk about wanting to "tell stories" with their RPG, they will also gladly game the fuck out of the system if it means their PC won't die.

Quote from: Jaeger;1112885It should be, but not with hit points RAW.

Whether it should or should not depends on what hit points actually represent in the setting. In many anime settings particularly tough or skilled character survive all sorts of things that would be fatal in our world. Darth Managed to survive one contact with lava, albeit he was not unscathed, but he did live. Personally I prefer systems that don't use D&D style inflating hit points, but that's neither here nor there as the issue as described remains even if hit points are fixed.

QuoteNot a matter of obvious.

It seems obvious to me. Whether 10D10 dice of damage is fatal is about hit points (and what they represent). Whether immersion in lava inflicts damage even if you don't start or end your turn in the lava is a matter of what should be common sense. That it apparently is not, seems to me to be a function of people who treat RPG rules like the rules to a board game.

QuoteAs much as people talk about wanting to "tell stories" with their RPG, they will also gladly game the fuck out of the system if it means their PC won't die.

I think narrative considerations or wanting to "tell stories" is orthogonal to system gaming. It's true, some people will try to twist rules out of all recognition in their quest for character survival so they can tell a story, but others will do the same sort of thing in the interest of retaining a character they like or acquiring power regardless of any story or just because they want to one up the rest of the table. The tendency of some people to game the system and twist the rules is one of the reasons that many games (sports for example) include a referee. And here, the job of the referee is to say, "No you cannot avoid all damage by starting your turn just outside the lava, wading through it for 40' using using your Dash move, and then moving out of the lava before the end of your 60' move. You still take damage."

Swimming through lava just damages mental durability, the will to live, and luck until that last Hit Point! :p (Honestly, it feels like falling damage misunderstanding all over again. Better to leave some things to GM fiat. :D)

Quote from: Bren;1112884So there are rules for lava damage if you start your turn or if you end your turn in the lava. I'm a bit surprised that anyone would actually need a specific rule stating that spending part of your turn (but not the beginning and/or ending your turn) swimming through lava will also cause you to incur damage. Isn't it obvious?

With gamers? No.
With how other cases in the rules might imply otherwise? No.
With 5es designers. Definitely No.

Keep in mind that they carried over the WRONG and INCOMPLETE falling damage rules from pre-3e probably just so they could snicker at it and feel superior.

Quote from: Bren;1112897Whether immersion in lava inflicts damage even if you don't start or end your turn in the lava is a matter of what should be common sense. That it apparently is not, seems to me to be a function of people who treat RPG rules like the rules to a board game.

You'd think the same re: wall of fire. It makes no sense that it only sends out individually directeded waves of damaging heat at the end of each creature's turn (unless the creature actually passes through the wall on it's turn, then it doesn't get a puff of heat even if it ends its turn in the danger zone). Of course, it technically also doesn't create any light by RAW...

To be fair on the "no light" assumption. Some fires do not produce a-lot of light. Or at least not any great amount of radiant light. Sich as some of the more blue/purple-ish flames?

But I think the assumption was that they thought they did not need to spell out everything.

Quote from: Omega;1112975But I think the assumption was that they thought they did not need to spell out everything.

That may have been the original assumption, but Sage Advice has shifted to "everything not explicitly spelled out in a spell description doesn't happen."

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112922You'd think the same re: wall of fire. It makes no sense that it only sends out individually directeded waves of damaging heat at the end of each creature's turn (unless the creature actually passes through the wall on it's turn, then it doesn't get a puff of heat even if it ends its turn in the danger zone). Of course, it technically also doesn't create any light by RAW...

Yeah I'd heard that no light thing recently. :rolleyes: That too is stupid. If they didn't want the light effect of flames they should have called it Wall of Heat.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112979That may have been the original assumption, but Sage Advice has shifted to "everything not explicitly spelled out in a spell description doesn't happen."

To be fair, though, has there ever been a time when Sage Advice wasn't complete shit?

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1113000To be fair, though, has there ever been a time when Sage Advice wasn't complete shit?

I think Crawford has raised it to new levels of shitness compared to previous editions.

Quote from: S'mon;1113009I think Crawford has raised it to new levels of shitness compared to previous editions.

Crawford is nothing compared to the spite of Jean Wells in the early Dragon SA. She apparently admitted to deliberately giving bad advice because she thought kids should not be playing D&D and should go outside and to real things. I have alot of the early editions and yeah that was apparent even then. The transition to I believe Skip Williams is notable in the change of tone. Though Skip could be mercurial too. Just not spiteful.

Crawford I have no clue on. His answers sometimes feel as if he doesnt even know his own game.

Quote from: Omega;1113014Crawford is nothing compared to the spite of Jean Wells in the early Dragon SA. She apparently admitted to deliberately giving bad advice because she thought kids should not be playing D&D and should go outside and to real things. I have alot of the early editions and yeah that was apparent even then. The transition to I believe Skip Williams is notable in the change of tone. Though Skip could be mercurial too. Just not spiteful.

Crawford I have no clue on. His answers sometimes feel as if he doesnt even know his own game.

I admit I have not read Wells' Sage Advice, it may be worse. However a bunch of TSR staffers seem to have really hated her so I dunno. Skip got it wrong sometimes but was not terrible. Crawford I agree - he seems to have no real grasp on the game in the 5e PHB and the design principles by which it was put together. I'd say his 'advice' is worse than you'd get off a random on the Internet. He seems to have an uncanny ability to pick the worst possible interpretation - if there are 2 reasonable interpretations he typically finds a third, nonsensical one to promulgate. Just doing the opposite of whatever he says would probably give a better game!

Quote from: S'mon;1113009I think Crawford has raised it to new levels of shitness compared to previous editions.

Well, since he gets his shit on everything he touches, I don't know why we would expect Sage Advice to be any different.

Quote from: S'mon;1113016I admit I have not read Wells' Sage Advice, it may be worse. However a bunch of TSR staffers seem to have really hated her so I dunno. Skip got it wrong sometimes but was not terrible. Crawford I agree - he seems to have no real grasp on the game in the 5e PHB and the design principles by which it was put together. I'd say his 'advice' is worse than you'd get off a random on the Internet. He seems to have an uncanny ability to pick the worst possible interpretation - if there are 2 reasonable interpretations he typically finds a third, nonsensical one to promulgate. Just doing the opposite of whatever he says would probably give a better game!

This makes me wonder if I was right with my original interpretation of the intention behind duelist style (that it could not be used with a shield).

Quote from: TJS;1113296This makes me wonder if I was right with my original interpretation of the intention behind duelist style (that it could not be used with a shield).

It's the plain meaning of the original text that it can't be.  The whole point of the style is to make certain character concepts more viable than they would be otherwise (and they would be in reality, for that matter).

Quote from: TJS;1113296This makes me wonder if I was right with my original interpretation of the intention behind duelist style (that it could not be used with a shield).

Well I think the wording allows a shield, but it would be much better balanced vs the other styles if no shield. I don't know about intent.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1112979That may have been the original assumption, but Sage Advice has shifted to "everything not explicitly spelled out in a spell description doesn't happen."

The consequence of being bombarded with hundreds if not thousands of questions all asking for THE answer. I run into this all the time when answering 5e questions over on rpg.stackexchange.com.

I generally give both a plain English interpretation and a RAW intrepetation. Most of my answers have a handful of downvotes because of that. Something I know from the comments I get from my answers.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1113313It's the plain meaning of the original text that it can't be.  The whole point of the style is to make certain character concepts more viable than they would be otherwise (and they would be in reality, for that matter).

Quote from: S'mon;1113323Well I think the wording allows a shield, but it would be much better balanced vs the other styles if no shield. I don't know about intent.

This is from one of my playtest packs I still have. The intent is very obviously here a single weapon style with no shield.

QuoteDuelist
Your fighting style is like that of a swashbuckling fencer, focusing on mobility and misdirection.
Suggested Background: Noble
Suggested Specialty: Skill specialist
Suggested Equipment:
Studded leather armor, rapier, light crossbow, 10 crossbow bolts, adventurer's kit, and 65 gp
Level Maneuver
1 Spring Attack
2 Tumbling Dodge
4 Glancing Blow
8 Lightning Reflexes
10 Opportunist

Though I think if they had kept the Buckler it would have fit with duelist. A larger shield? No.

Had a large battle last night. The PCs were knocked down to 0 hp and then back up a few times. It makes you wonder why the bad guys don't coup de grace anymore. No, I don't want to deliberately seek out a TPK, but in-world it is probably pretty obvious that there is a difference between all dead and mostly dead...and leaving a foe in the latter condition is just asking for them to be returned to the fight.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113332Had a large battle last night. The PCs were knocked down to 0 hp and then back up a few times. It makes you wonder why the bad guys don't coup de grace anymore. No, I don't want to deliberately seek out a TPK, but in-world it is probably pretty obvious that there is a difference between all dead and mostly dead...and leaving a foe in the latter condition is just asking for them to be returned to the fight.

Well, you don't have much choice but to have enemies coup-de-grace at every opportunity. It's a bit of a paradigm shift, but in a world where recovering from grievous wounds is super easy, barely an inconvenience, "always stab a downed enemy before moving on to the next" becomes basic strategy.

Of course, once players hit 5th level, that might not be enough either...

See, it's just like I said. Hitting 0 in 5e is more like being downed onto one knee in Gears of War.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113332Had a large battle last night. The PCs were knocked down to 0 hp and then back up a few times. It makes you wonder why the bad guys don't coup de grace anymore. No, I don't want to deliberately seek out a TPK, but in-world it is probably pretty obvious that there is a difference between all dead and mostly dead...and leaving a foe in the latter condition is just asking for them to be returned to the fight.

Have some enemies kill immediately when they get a downed foe.  Have others sometimes do it (if they think they can get away with it, maybe, but not if this might enrage a still fighting target).  Have others never do it.  Play them according to their personality, and let that shine through in other ways (reputation, conversation, etc.)  

Players will pick up on this method and start to treat being downed as potentially dangerous, and thus will try to avoid being in that state any longer than they must.  Psychological research suggests that for many situations, one sharp instance out of 20 is sufficient to establish a problem.  Or rather, 20 times of getting away with it is necessary to wean people off the fear of one time where they didn't.  Of course, the exact ratio will vary for particularly cautious or reckless groups, but the principle is the same.  If you make 1/10th of the monster obviously blood-thirsty, rampaging killers, the players will then treat being at zero as a very bad state.

Quote from: Omega;1113329This is from one of my playtest packs I still have. The intent is very obviously here a single weapon style with no shield.


Though I think if they had kept the Buckler it would have fit with duelist. A larger shield? No.

Thanks for that, it confirms what I had thought.  It's there to make the single rapier fighter comparable with other fighters who forgo shields (If they're not, the problem is Great Weapon Master is too good - but you don't fix problem abilitiies by messing with everything else).

Of course it remains uncertain if it was consciously changed before final release or the predominant interpretation is just an artifact of sage advice.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1113348Have some enemies kill immediately when they get a downed foe.  

If my monsters see 0 hp PCs being brought up, they ALWAYS go for the CDG. Before then it depends, but I generally have multi-attack monsters and high level monsters finish off fallen PCs, while orcs vs low level PCs likely won't to start with.

On the subject of HP.

Something that has been bugging me since release of 5e is not the HP itself. It seems to be balanced to the monsters and higher damage output nearly everything feels like it has now.

Instead its that quite a few classes or class paths get some form of temp, extra or phantom HP somehow.
Phantom HP could be from resistance. For example the Barbarian while raging has resistance to normal combat damage. Which means they essentially have twice as many HP as it takes 2x the normal damage needed. And the Bear totem path gets resistance to ALL damage types except psychic.
The Draconic Sorcerer path gets +1 HP per level. Its not alot, but it is still eventually 20 more HP.
The Warlock can gain the Armor of Agathys spell which grants 5 temp HP per level of slot spent. That is 45 extra HP.
The Druid heals when they revert back from a beast form. And they get 2 uses of this and depending on the form they took and how much damage it soaked. That could be with say the Brown Bear 34 HP a pop. 68 potential total right there. More if they can grab a short rest.
The Champion path for Fighter at the high levels gains essentially regeneration of 5+CON mod HP every round HP are below 50%.

There are others. But this to me seems a more pressing issue. Resistance in particular. But that said. Quite a few monsters have this or that resistance as well.

Quote from: Doom;1113336Well, you don't have much choice but to have enemies coup-de-grace at every opportunity. It's a bit of a paradigm shift, but in a world where recovering from grievous wounds is super easy, barely an inconvenience, "always stab a downed enemy before moving on to the next" becomes basic strategy.

Of course, once players hit 5th level, that might not be enough either...

Always stabbing downed enemies is tight.

Quote from: Aglondir;1113501Always stabbing downed enemies is tight.

Put enemies with healing magic against the PCs and see what they do. If they stab downed enemies, then they can probably expect that the same is going to happen to them someday soon.

Quote from: Aglondir;1113501Always stabbing downed enemies is tight.

Yeahyeahyeah. But why is it tight? ;)

You have to hit them twice for a guaranteed kill. Thats an automatic 2 failed saves. One hit is probably not going to do it.

Or you could just re-instate the bleed out rules from the playtest. Every round lose 1d6 HP till stabalized. Can go to negative equal to HP+CON. Healing has to deal with the negative damage first.

That sounds less lethal.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1113510That sounds less lethal.

Still not anywhere as potentially off kilter as the current 5e system. Its similar to AD&D, just with eventually a-lot more negative HP. Remember that any damage taken adds to that negative. The older system also still had the coup de grace move.

Which is the main problem with 5e's 0 hp system. As discussed in many threads now here and elsewhere. The downed character has just short of unlimited HP as long as any damage taken while down does not exceed their HP total.  So in theory a PC with 21 HP could go negative 80 HP before shuffling off the mortal if every hit was 20 damage and the hit that downed them did not exceed 20. More likely though the PC will expire before that due to the other factors that either increase damage or double the save fails.

This and the impossible to break long rests are my two big irks with 5e. At least you can work around the 0hp problem as needed with various tactics.

The death saves is more lethal than having to bleed out to negative hit points.

Let's say you have 50 hit points. You get put to 0. You have to get put to -50+CON before you actually die? But you're losing 1d6 a turn? You literally will never bleed out. At least with death saves, the longest it will take one way or the other is a maximum of 5 saves.

And if the monster is attacking to try and put them to negative -50, then they probably will have given them 3 failed death saves by then anyway through their attacks.

I agree though that it always felt weird that you can absorb effectively infinite damage over time, when at 0 hit points, but that's less about lethality and more about realism/verisimilitude for me.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1113504Put enemies with healing magic against the PCs and see what they do. If they stab downed enemies, then they can probably expect that the same is going to happen to them someday soon.

As a GM, I once had a group where their... we'll call him the "orc barbarian," which is close enough, was basically nigh-impossible to kill, and was an absolute wrecking ball in combat.

So the adventuring party hired by the BBEG to hunt them down managed to alpha-strike his ass into unconsciousness as the PCs were coming out of a bottle-necked dungeon, then time hop'd his body something like 18 rounds into the future.

They did not appreciate that tactic.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1113519The death saves is more lethal than having to bleed out to negative hit points.

Let's say you have 50 hit points. You get put to 0. You have to get put to -50+CON before you actually die? But you're losing 1d6 a turn? You literally will never bleed out. At least with death saves, the longest it will take one way or the other is a maximum of 5 saves.

And if the monster is attacking to try and put them to negative -50, then they probably will have given them 3 failed death saves by then anyway through their attacks.

I agree though that it always felt weird that you can absorb effectively infinite damage over time, when at 0 hit points, but that's less about lethality and more about realism/verisimilitude for me.

Actually I misremembered it.
From the packet.

0 HP and Death
At 0HP each round make a con save vs DC 10. On each failure take 1d6 damage.
Stable after 3 successes at current HP.
Does not regain consciousness unless healed back to positive HP.
PC is Dead if damage equals CON+Level.

The Coup De Grace
You make a attack on an unconcious target within 5ft. If it hits then they either go instantly to 0 HP, or if they were at 0 HP, they die.

Long Rest was slightly stronger though as you regained all HD rather than half as in the final. But could be broken by combat strenuous activity. Rather than 1 freaking hour of it in the final.
Short Rest was only 10 min long and required a healing kit to be able to spend healing HD.

There was also this sidebar that might prove of use.

QuoteExperimental Rule 2: Healing and Rests
This rule replaces the rules for Hit Dice and resting.
Bloodied:
You have a bloodied value equal to half your hit point maximum.
When your hit points are less than or equal to your bloodied value, you are bloodied.
Resting:
For every 5 minutes you rest, you regain hit points equal to 1 + your level + your Constitution modifier (minimum equal to your level).
You can regain up to your hit point maximum, unless you are bloodied. In that case, you can regain hit points only up to your bloodied value.
Refocus:
You can use your action to attempt to draw on your inner strength and endurance.
Make a DC 10 Constitution check. If you succeed, you regain hit points equal to 1 + your Constitution modifier.

This was used with an experimental alternate rest system. Short rests healed per hour a flat rate of level + con mod. Long rest was essentially an extended series of short rests over at least 8 hours, which netted the healing each hour spent and an additional healing equal to con score.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1113519I agree though that it always felt weird that you can absorb effectively infinite damage over time, when at 0 hit points, but that's less about lethality and more about realism/verisimilitude for me.

The system as designed isn't about making it deliberately lethal or about realism/verisimilitude.  Rather, it's all about speed of the game at the table--handling time by the players, not anything about the characters.  Monkeying around with negative hit points is just trying to get something slightly less lethal than no saves at all, without using the levers that are there.  Instead, you'd be better off to lower the limits on death saves or eliminate them all together (death at zero hit points), depending upon how you nasty you want it.

For example, if you want to emphasize the fear for a downed player, keep one death save for all the marbles.  It's either dead or stable, and that's that.  Maybe don't make it until someone checks the downed character or tries to heal them.  If you don't mind a little extra handling time tacked onto that, then modify the roll slightly the longer someone waits to check (not 1:1 on rounds, but escalating time periods, e.g. -1 for 1 round, -2 for end of battle, -3 for an hour, etc.)  Though at that point, I'd rather just have the GM make a judgement on whether to roll the death save straight or at advantage or disadvantage, depending upon whatever parameters made sense to that GM.

There's really only two lethal level feels you can't easily get by tweaking the levers that 5E provides:

- It cannot do the the "anyone might die from a single hit" at any time thing past low-levels, because D&D just doesn't work that way (at least not consistently).  If you want that, you need to replace Armor as AC and escalating hit points with maneuvers, defensive rolls, and such.  Or play Rune Quest or GURPS or something else that has that built in.

- It cannot easily set up a lethalness illusion--where it pretends to be something it is not.  The flow of the game is too wired to setting up the opposite--the idea that you might lose, but probably won't die--to encourage players to try ridiculous things.  Specifically, it cannot easily make things where as the GM you can get a bunch of character deaths without either pushing the players hard and/or using the levers to make the system more obviously deadly.

Quote from: Doom;1113506Yeahyeahyeah. But why is it tight? ;)

I don't know!

Quote from: Aglondir;1113562I don't know!

Well, ok then.

38 pages of problems in 5E?

5E must be broken....

Quote from: Razor 007;111371538 pages of problems in 5E?

5E must be broken....

You fail miserably at trolling.

Quote from: GnomeWorks;1113526They did not appreciate that tactic.

IME, players get pretty emotional when their opposition approaches anything resembling tactics or brutal practicality.

Quote from: Omega;1113747You fail miserably at trolling.

Indeed. I can find thousands of pages of problems with 3.0/3.5, and no pages of problems of my fantasy heartbreaker I never published...

An aggressive fanbase that's errant about dismissing any criticism. Id says that's the worst part about 5e.

I am not feeling the new UA release which provides the core PHB content with new customization, a la MMORPG power creep "balancing" to satisfy a whinging fanbase. :( But given it took WotC over 5 years to reach this similar point, one could almost say "our childrens iz learning." :) I think the slow release is one of the best things to happen to WotC's strategic plan.

Quote from: Omega;1113747You fail miserably at trolling.

Hey now, don't you recognize true humor when you see it?

Quote from: Opaopajr;1113784I am not feeling the new UA release which provides the core PHB content with new customization, a la MMORPG power creep "balancing" to satisfy a whinging fanbase. :( But given it took WotC over 5 years to reach this similar point, one could almost say "our childrens iz learning." :) I think the slow release is one of the best things to happen to WotC's strategic plan.

I think it's good. The player base has had long enough to digest the material that some more complexity won't overload everyone.

Quote from: Doom;1113765Indeed. I can find thousands of pages of problems with 3.0/3.5, and no pages of problems of my fantasy heartbreaker I never published...

See. Your game is practically the pinnacle of perfection. :D

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1113768An aggressive fanbase that's errant about dismissing any criticism. Id says that's the worst part about 5e.

Let us know when you find that because we've been ruthlessly bashing 5e here for several pages.

You too fail miserably at trolling.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1113784I am not feeling the new UA release which provides the core PHB content with new customization, a la MMORPG power creep "balancing" to satisfy a whinging fanbase. :( But given it took WotC over 5 years to reach this similar point, one could almost say "our childrens iz learning." :) I think the slow release is one of the best things to happen to WotC's strategic plan.

um... you missed the part where UA is not a set of expansions usually? These are mostly playtest packets. Hence the eventual review before it moves on towards whatever they plan to do with it.

As for power creep. eh. So far. Aside from the Artificer. There has not been any real power creep in 5e. Which I have honestly been expecting. They surprisingly toned down and retooled the Artificer for playtest round 2 which surprised me even more. It is still a bit too strong. But it does not now overshadow all the other classes as it did prior. Same for a few others that show up in UA.

The rest has been relatively tame. With a few notable exceptions. The Sidekick system I thought needed toning down a little. But its nearly unchanged in Essentials other than how it is formatted.

The Hexblade and Bladesinger were for a time complained about. But it seems that died down some? Sometimes it feels like the stuff that did not go through UA playtest tends to be the ones with some issues. Or at least feels a little... off.

Like the College of Whispers for the Bard. To me at least it feels a bit out of place and not very...well. Bard-ish? But Xanithar has a couple of these. Paths that feel like they should have been for a different class. Whispers feels more like a Warlock path, Arcane archer for Ranger rather than Fighter, Kensai for Fighter rather than Monk, etc.

Quote from: Omega;1113823Let us know when you find that because we've been ruthlessly bashing 5e here for several pages.

We have very different definitions of "Ruthlessly". Also trolling I suppose.
I would want to play 5e more than 4e. But I also respect 4e more than 5e. Because I felt 4e did its dunderheaded decisions with pizzaz and pride and with ambitious. While I find 5e the least ambitious edition of D&D.

Quote from: Razor 007;1113787Hey now, don't you recognize true humor when you see it?

Derp, my bad.

Honestly, if a young me were just starting RPGs today, I would just quit and do something else and never look back. 5e leaves me ice cold, just as 4e and 3e before it. I guess it works for a lot of people, but for myself and perhaps a few others like me, it just does not inspire my imagination at all. My interest grew out of an interest in history... I loved seeing the illustrations of men in realistic-looking suits of armour, the castle architecture of the dungeons, tables comparing weapon vs armour and other things. As an adult, I realize now that these are all game mechanics and more about verisimilitude rather than "realism," but at the same time they were all based heavily in research, even if it was by an amateur historian (talking specifically about Gygax's AD&D). 5e, just like 4e and 3e is all about the player-character, defining their powers and giving them a spotlight. I've never felt the need for a spotlight... I don't need to play a talking game where I talk-up my fictional deeds. With AD&D, I am far more interested in a game experience that lets me think about life and death in a pseudo-medieval society, even if that also regularly means my player-character's death.

Quote from: Theros;1113847Honestly, if a young me were just starting RPGs today, I would just quit and do something else and never look back. 5e leaves me ice cold, just as 4e and 3e before it. I guess it works for a lot of people, but for myself and perhaps a few others like me, it just does not inspire my imagination at all. My interest grew out of an interest in history... I loved seeing the illustrations of men in realistic-looking suits of armour, the castle architecture of the dungeons, tables comparing weapon vs armour and other things. As an adult, I realize now that these are all game mechanics and more about verisimilitude rather than "realism," but at the same time they were all based heavily in research, even if it was by an amateur historian (talking specifically about Gygax's AD&D). 5e, just like 4e and 3e is all about the player-character, defining their powers and giving them a spotlight. I've never felt the need for a spotlight... I don't need to play a talking game where I talk-up my fictional deeds. With AD&D, I am far more interested in a game experience that lets me think about life and death in a pseudo-medieval society, even if that also regularly means my player-character's death.

You give a lot of reasons here, but it seems to me that the core problem you have with WotC D&D is that the PCs are too powerful. They have lots of mechanics to get there and they aren't historically accurate because history didn't have hobby demi-gods taking odd jobs.

Quote from: Rhedyn;1113874You give a lot of reasons here, but it seems to me that the core problem you have with WotC D&D is that the PCs are too powerful. They have lots of mechanics to get there and they aren't historically accurate because history didn't have hobby demi-gods taking odd jobs.

High level AD&D characters are also quite powerful. A historical purist would not want the fantasy to ever play a role. I don't see myself as a purist... it's just that the 5e game itself seems to be more interested in itself as a game than in simulating anything at all. It's probably great for people who have a very well formed concept of fantasy as being something entirely distinct from history, but that is just not who I am. I started with history and added elements of fantasy to it when I discovered that world. I was reading Once and Future King and the Hornblower books as a kid and that kind of stuff remains my source of imagination.

Quote from: Theros;1113882it's just that the 5e game itself seems to be more interested in itself as a game than in simulating anything at all. It's probably great for people who have a very well formed concept of fantasy as being something entirely distinct from history

  This has been WotC's approach to D&D since they started putting their own stamp on it. See this article by Jonathan Tweet (https://www.enworld.org/threads/3e-and-the-feel-of-d-d.667269/), where he states that 3E was about "D&D characters in a D&D world."

Quote from: Armchair Gamer;1113886This has been WotC's approach to D&D since they started putting their own stamp on it. See this article by Jonathan Tweet (https://www.enworld.org/threads/3e-and-the-feel-of-d-d.667269/), where he states that 3E was about "D&D characters in a D&D world."

Thanks, never read that, but interesting to see that it was very deliberate. Reading that, it now just seems like a corporation trying to consolidate it's new IP actually... not only in terms of narrowing down and unifying how D&D was marketed as a product, but also shaping consumer behavior in how they use that product so that even people's private home games would be "on message" with the marketing strategy (and connect the players in that game back to new products etc.) For example, they paired down the things that would distract from, or fragment the player activity from, "being morally good heroic types." So no individual awards (encourages players to seek their own goals), no strongholds (encourages players to have their own problems), no evil characters (makes players respond to campaign events too differently), no separate XP tables (makes classes advance unevenly). The party is boiled down to a sacrosanct 4 individuals who go around doing good and conquering evil. The stories that come from that formula, of course, are super narrowly conceived, but that's the point... the next splatbook or supplement or adventure module that comes out from WotC will literally slot into everyone's home campaign with little to no trouble, and if an imitator RPG comes along consumers will instantly think "Oh... so it's like D&D, then?"

By the way, this quote from the article is exactly what I am talking about:

QuoteIn 2nd Ed, the rules referred to history and to historical legends to describe the game, such as referring to Merlin to explain what a wizard was or to Hiawatha as an archetype for a fighter. But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source.

Connection to history gets expunged, D&D becomes entirely self-referential. Not my bag. At all.

I dunno... I found 3.X/d20 with Codex Martialis suitable for historical play.

Edit: You could also try Ken Hood's Grim and Gritty rules. There have been alternatives to D&D superheroes for years... but people love to complain more.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1113898I dunno... I found 3.X/d20 with Codex Martialis suitable for historical play.

Edit: You could also try Ken Hood's Grim and Gritty rules. There have been alternatives to D&D superheroes for years... but people love to complain more.

Or I could just keep playing AD&D! Do they do something that is so much better than AD&D that it is worth learning a whole new system and spending money on all new books? Just that it is "newer" is not an argument for me...

Quote from: Theros;1113847My interest grew out of an interest in history... I loved seeing the illustrations of men in realistic-looking suits of armour, the castle architecture of the dungeons, tables comparing weapon vs armour and other things. As an adult, I realize now that these are all game mechanics and more about verisimilitude rather than "realism," but at the same time they were all based heavily in research, even if it was by an amateur historian (talking specifically about Gygax's AD&D). 5e, just like 4e and 3e is all about the player-character, defining their powers and giving them a spotlight.

To the interest in history, I'd add an interest in heroic literature e.g. 20th century Swords & Sorcery stories, Tolkien, Greek Mythology, the Iliad and the Odyssey, the Norse Eddas and Sagas, the Epic of Gilgamesh, and Le Morte d'Arthur.

Quote from: Theros;1113892By the way, this quote from the article is exactly what I am talking about:

QuoteIn 2nd Ed, the rules referred to history and to historical legends to describe the game, such as referring to Merlin to explain what a wizard was or to Hiawatha as an archetype for a fighter. But by the time we were working on 3rd Ed, D&D had had such a big impact on fantasy that we basically used D&D as its own source.

Connection to history gets expunged, D&D becomes entirely self-referential.

Interesting thoughts. The lack of historical grounding bothers me too. The 5E I've played so far (set in the Forgotten Realms) feels like I've been dropped in the middle of an anime where the author picked random bits and pieces from all over world history and mythology and stirred them into a potpourri such that the typical party of adventurers consists of Legolas the skateboarding elf from the Peter Jackson movies, but with spells, a female gnome viking berserker who is 3' tall and stronger than anyone else in the party, a French musketeer without a musket - who just happens to be a reptile descended from some sort of dragon, Sir Galahad who is actually a half-drow warlock-paladin, Robin Hood who is great with a  bow, and can also cast illusions, has an invisible hand that can pick your pocket from 30 feet away, and, oh yeah, she's a half-elf, and Friar Tuck who is fat, but he worships some deity you've never heard, has healing and smiting spells, and is actually an orc.

Quote from: Theros;1113882…the 5e game itself seems to be more interested in itself as a game than in simulating anything at all.

Yes, I've noticed that 5E in play is very gamey and each character has their set of named special abilities that act like specialty cards in a deck, with the play feel of power-move style anime.

Quote from: Bren;1113905Interesting thoughts. The lack of historical grounding bothers me too. The 5E I've played so far (set in the Forgotten Realms) feels like I've been dropped in the middle of an anime where the author picked random bits and pieces from all over world history and mythology and stirred them into a potpourri such that the typical party of adventurers consists of Legolas the skateboarding elf from the Peter Jackson movies, but with spells, a female gnome viking berserker who is 3' tall and stronger than anyone else in the party, a French musketeer without a musket - who just happens to be a reptile descended from some sort of dragon, Sir Galahad who is actually a half-drow warlock-paladin, Robin Hood who is great with a  bow, and can also cast illusions, has an invisible hand that can pick your pocket from 30 feet away, and, oh yeah, she's a half-elf, and Friar Tuck who is fat, but he worships some deity you've never heard, has healing and smiting spells, and is actually an orc.

That just sounds like a kitschy pop-cultural pastiche. I'd love for young D&D players to read some Joseph Campbell, some of the classical sagas you mention and then a whole lot of actual history books. I bet they would really learn to enjoy the history angle and it would give them more depth of experience.

Quote from: Theros;1113902Or I could just keep playing AD&D! Do they do something that is so much better than AD&D that it is worth learning a whole new system and spending money on all new books? Just that it is "newer" is not an argument for me...

I could say 'yes' and elaborate but again, unlike most people, I see where this is going... are you actually playing an AD&D game right now?

Quote from: Theros;1113908That just sounds like a kitschy pop-cultural pastiche.

Because it is.

QuoteI'd love for young D&D players to read some Joseph Campbell, some of the classical sagas you mention and then a whole lot of actual history books. I bet they would really learn to enjoy the history angle and it would give them more depth of experience.

Some would. Most probably would not. People in general are pretty uninterested in anything that happened before they were a teenager and they aren't interested in reading anything without pictures...and celebrities.

Quote from: DeadUematsu;1113909I could say 'yes' and elaborate but again, unlike most people, I see where this is going... are you actually playing an AD&D game right now?

Yes, and an OD&D game... why? Also, out of curiosity, where was it going?

Theranos, if that is the case, then complaining about the current edition is a waste of your time.

Greetings!

Well, I can't say I'm in favour of expunging historical references from the game. To my mind, *Historical References* and *Inspiration* have always been a foundation of the D&D game. In addition, of course, with numerous elements of sword and sorcery, fantasy, and mythology. The self-referencing trend of D&D has, as noted, been intentional and progressive since 3E. Certainly, some elements of such are perhaps unavoidable, but to purposely pursue such, on a continuous basis, gradually over time has a distinct impact on the game, as to expectations and foundational assumptions of a given miliue. The current state of 5E has arrived which as Bren details, made many 5E games so strange and goofy as to actually diffuse and fracture game play in many regards, at least for many "Old School" gamers. I certainly have experienced that sense of dissonance, as have friends of mine when we have played in Adventure League for example.

Interestingly, many of the younger players--say, under the age of 30--eagerly embrace the weird, ultra-Anime Zoo-style of game without batting an eye. They see no dissonance in having a party composed of four or five Dragonborn, Half-Drow, Pink Gnomes and gay rainbow-striped half-elemental Centaurs, and one normal human and one normal Grey Elf. Of course, also embracing the most ridiculous class combinations--i.e. Warlock/Paladins and so on. I and a buddy of mine played in a campaign of Adventure's League where we were asked, "You're just a normal human?" My buddy rolled up a human Cleric, and I had rolled up a human Barbarian. Everyone else, through rotations of several drop-ins, were all crazy Anime-Zoo freaks of one kind or another.

These trends started in 3E, and have continued with increased momentum in 5E. Yes, back in 1E days, there were strange characters as well, but most were normal. It seems like the distinction to me was that then, the Zoo-Toolbox was separated, and kept firmly in the DM's control, with the base assumtions being normal historical and mythology based icons. Now, such a Zoo-Toolbox is brought out, more front and center, in the hands of the players, and throughout the core rulebooks and supplements as well, with a more normal baseline somewhat relegated to a small sidebar. The emphasis is very clear, hence why in game after game, the majority of players embrace a Zoo-freak train. Such Zoo-freaktrain parties tend to be far more inspired by Anime and Superheroes-style characters, than more traditional historical and mythology-based standards.

Admittedly, it is distracting, and generates a myriad of disconnections within play for many. *shrugs* That is what the newer generations embrace--as well as the Wizards leadership. My solution is to run my own campaigns by a ruthless "Old School" hand, heavily inspired by history and mythology, and ignoring the whole Anime/Superhero Zoo-Freaktrain trends of the current edition. Players in my campaigns soon learn that SHARK's world is certainly not a Happy Rainbow Barney Land. Weird minorities and Zoo-freaktrains are often burned at the stake, tortured and killed swiftly. Such characters typically have a short lifespan in the campaign, and likewise, weird, uber-super-hero quasi-villain-like classes. Those seeking to "Use Dark Powers for Good!" (TM). (Laughs)--generally have a brief career as well, and much for the same reasons as Zoo-freaktrain characters.

The emphasis creates a very different dynamic for the campaign--a base that is relatively normal, and reliably based in history and mythology, *occasionally* sprinkled with something weird or unusual--instead of the majority of the population being Seattle 2019 inspired Zoo-freaktrains, with the occasional sprinkling of more normal characters.Imagine a 90/10 or 80/20 ratios, but reversed. Such ratios create very different campaigns, based on what the campaign emphasizes and focuses on.

I recommend maintaining a rough, strict hand as the DM. Unless you specifically want to run a "Kitchen-Sink" style game where Anime and Superhero style characters are the norm. Otherwise, maintaining a rough and strict hand allows you to create and maintain a more traditional, normal world that is more consistent and believable. Strangely, it is in just such a traditional, "Old School" environment that the heralded "Zoo-freaktrain/special Snowflake" character actually embraces something of a genuine aura of specialness. In a world of Zoo-freaktrains, none of them are special, because they have all become the standard and the norm.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Theros;1113913Yes, and an OD&D game... why? Also, out of curiosity, where was it going?

Yes!!!  Another OD&D fan.

Quote from: SHARK;1113925These trends started in 3E, and have continued with increased momentum in 5E. Yes, back in 1E days, there were strange characters as well, but most were normal. It seems like the distinction to me was that then, the Zoo-Toolbox was separated, and kept firmly in the DM's control, with the base assumtions being normal historical and mythology based icons. Now, such a Zoo-Toolbox is brought out, more front and center, in the hands of the players, and throughout the core rulebooks and supplements as well, with a more normal baseline somewhat relegated to a small sidebar. The emphasis is very clear, hence why in game after game, the majority of players embrace a Zoo-freak train. Such Zoo-freaktrain parties tend to be far more inspired by Anime and Superheroes-style characters, than more traditional historical and mythology-based standards.

Come on SHARK, these trends did not start in 3e.  How can you remember the Drow in Unearthed Arcana from ADnD published 1985 and then look me in the face and tell me honestly hand on heart that the Anime Zoo_toolbox started 15 years later with 3e.

Gary Gygax even had players in his campaign playing Balrog and Vampire characters and somehow I am supposed to believe that "real" DnD players only ever played white male human characters for thirty years until those dirty MtG people fucked it all up for everyone.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113928Come on SHARK, these trends did not start in 3e.  How can you remember the Drow in Unearthed Arcana from ADnD published 1985 and then look me in the face and tell me honestly hand on heart that the Anime Zoo_toolbox started 15 years later with 3e.

Gary Gygax even had players in his campaign playing Balrog and Vampire characters and somehow I am supposed to believe that "real" DnD players only ever played white male human characters for thirty years until those dirty MtG people fucked it all up for everyone.

Greetings!

Hello, Shasarak! Well, I did mention that weird characters and races had been done before, back in AD&D, my friend. In my mind, and my experience, Shasarak, it has been more or less a *spectrum* through the years. Also in my commentary, I described *ratios*. In the old days, the spectrum favoured more traditional characters and races. Nowadays, as I described in Adventurer's League, that spectrum has seemed to have swung to the opposite, favouring the Zoo-trainwreck characters. That's what I have seen, in Adventurer's League groups over many months. In my home games, that isn't the case, of course. If you have more normal groups at home, well, that's a good thing, Shasarak!

If your groups are more Zoo-trainwrecks, well, as mentioned by Bren and myself, it presents some more insidious negative-leaning implications and dynamics for a campaign, in my view. Naturally, with the caveat that if you are running a more "Kitchen-Sink" kind of campaign, which embraces multitudes of aliens and freaktrains, then no such problem dynamics are likely to present themselves. However, as others have noted, if on the other hand as a DM you desire to present a milieu that is more historically and mythologically based, embracing such Zoo-freaktrain characters can decisively change your campaign in ways that are not desired, and otherwise difficult to recover from.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1113925Yes, back in 1E days, there were strange characters as well, but most were normal. It seems like the distinction to me was that then, the Zoo-Toolbox was separated, and kept firmly in the DM's control, with the base assumtions being normal historical and mythology based icons. Now, such a Zoo-Toolbox is brought out, more front and center, in the hands of the players, and throughout the core rulebooks and supplements as well, with a more normal baseline somewhat relegated to a small sidebar. The emphasis is very clear, hence why in game after game, the majority of players embrace a Zoo-freak train. Such Zoo-freaktrain parties tend to be far more inspired by Anime and Superheroes-style characters, than more traditional historical and mythology-based standards.

Whaaaaaat? ...Um. not quite. I do remember how well Arduin was originally received in the 0D&D/1eAD&D community. Arduin chargen featured a full Zoo-Toolbox of player critters, that the players could play. There were Rainbow Unicorns, and insectoid Phraints, Centaurs (three different races!), goblins, gnomes, hobbits, kobbits, and Khai-Shang. There were Khai-Zirin (Think Khajit!), Knoblins, Orcs,  four-armed Throon, and Saurigs. There were Urukks, Deodanth, Elves, Amazon, and Mermen, as well as Dragons, and fourteen different human variations. There were demons, sea demons, octorillas, wobras, and Hellmaidens.

Quote from: GameDaddy;1113933Whaaaaaat? ...Um. not quite. I do remember how well Arduin was originally received in the 0D&D/1eAD&D community. Arduin chargen featured a full Zoo-Toolbox of player critters, that the players could play. There were Rainbow Unicorns, and insectoid Phraints, Centaurs (three different races!), goblins, gnomes, hobbits, kobbits, and Khai-Shang. There were Khai-Zirin (Think Khajit!), Knoblins, Orcs,  four-armed Throon, and Saurigs. There were Urukks, Deodanth, Elves, Amazon, and Mermen, as well as Dragons, and fourteen different human variations. There were demons, sea demons, octorillas, wobras, and Hellmaidens.

And of course Metamorphosis Alpha and Gamma World.

Quote from: SHARK;1113931Greetings!

Hello, Shasarak! Well, I did mention that weird characters and races had been done before, back in AD&D, my friend. In my mind, and my experience, Shasarak, it has been more or less a *spectrum* through the years. Also in my commentary, I described *ratios*. In the old days, the spectrum favoured more traditional characters and races. Nowadays, as I described in Adventurer's League, that spectrum has seemed to have swung to the opposite, favouring the Zoo-trainwreck characters. That's what I have seen, in Adventurer's League groups over many months. In my home games, that isn't the case, of course. If you have more normal groups at home, well, that's a good thing, Shasarak!

If your groups are more Zoo-trainwrecks, well, as mentioned by Bren and myself, it presents some more insidious negative-leaning implications and dynamics for a campaign, in my view. Naturally, with the caveat that if you are running a more "Kitchen-Sink" kind of campaign, which embraces multitudes of aliens and freaktrains, then no such problem dynamics are likely to present themselves. However, as others have noted, if on the other hand as a DM you desire to present a milieu that is more historically and mythologically based, embracing such Zoo-freaktrain characters can decisively change your campaign in ways that are not desired, and otherwise difficult to recover from.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

SHARK there are a lot of things that you can lay the blame for at the feet of 3e and on the other hand it makes your argument look so much weaker when the things you blame it for just are not true.  If you look at just the core 3e rules then you only have the standard races Human, Elf, Half Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome and Half Orc.  Which one of those is the start of the trend of Zoo-trainwreck races?

If you want to complain about Adventurer's League then go ahead, not my circus, not my monkeys.  But for Gawds sake I have played Drow, Minotaur, Giff, Half-Giant and Thi-kreen characters that I can remember off the top of my head and none of them were 3e characters.  And for the DMs that want to play up their "realistic racist" game settings then just remember that my murder hobo characters get as much XP from your precious NPCs as they do from monsters so a mob of KKK villages is just a target rich environment with the added benefit that you dont need to poke around a trap filled dungeon.

Yeah, I am a fan of regional demographics too, Shark. :) A lot of that "bleeding edge" outlier stuff was solidly and explicitly under GM purview in TSR products, regardless of what anecdotes people recall at their table... we have the receipts (texts). That said, 5e tried explicitly stating that GM manages the table, too, but apparently "Optional Means Official" just like "Temporary Becomes Permanent." :rolleyes:

This is definitely a sub-cultural or generational issue, because I have seen its rise in WotC era D&D. And even though 5e tried to walk things back for this compromise edition, it is just ignored frequently, AL or not, IME. Not much you can do beyond run your own game and apply your own setting coherency.

And yes, the unusual feels special when it is rare. ;) Almost definitional, yet here we are.

Quote from: SHARK;1113925The current state of 5E has arrived which as Bren details, made many 5E games so strange and goofy as to actually diffuse and fracture game play in many regards, at least for many "Old School" gamers. I certainly have experienced that sense of dissonance, as have friends of mine when we have played in Adventure League for example.

That has been my experience (which admittedly is limited) with Adventurer League play.

Quote from: Opaopajr;1113940That said, 5e tried explicitly stating that GM manages the table, too, but apparently "Optional Means Official" just like "Temporary Becomes Permanent." :rolleyes:

As I understand it, insofar as optional is allowed in Adventurer League play, optional is official.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113928Come on SHARK, these trends did not start in 3e.  How can you remember the Drow in Unearthed Arcana from ADnD published 1985 and then look me in the face and tell me honestly hand on heart that the Anime Zoo_toolbox started 15 years later with 3e.

Gary Gygax even had players in his campaign playing Balrog and Vampire characters and somehow I am supposed to believe that "real" DnD players only ever played white male human characters for thirty years until those dirty MtG people fucked it all up for everyone.

I don't have an issue with occasionally seeing a very unusual or weird character in play. My problem is when the majority of every party is composed of very unusual and weird characters or with that one player who will not ever play anything that isn't weird and out of place.

Gronan has mentioned that when he played OD&D infravision worked for monsters, but it didn't work for players because (as I understand it) that would eliminate part of the challenge and resource management of exploring underground. Clearly somewhere along the way that changed. In last night's session we had a party of five characters and every one had darkvision. As most of what we did was explore an evil underground temple that recently became active, not needing to use light sources made a big difference in our ability to sneak and how that adventure played out.

And in OD&D elves, dwarves, and hobbits (the species listed for use as player characters) each had limits on their level advancement.

Quote from: SHARK;1113931Nowadays, as I described in Adventurer's League, that spectrum has seemed to have swung to the opposite, favouring the Zoo-trainwreck characters. That's what I have seen, in Adventurer's League groups over many months.

Quote from: Bren;1113980That has been my experience (which admittedly is limited) with Adventurer League play.

As I understand it, insofar as optional is allowed in Adventurer League play, optional is official.

I don't have an issue with occasionally seeing a very unusual or weird character in play. My problem is when the majority of every party is composed of very unusual and weird characters or with that one player who will not ever play anything that isn't weird and out of place.

Beyond taking place in the Forgotten Realms (mostly) which is filled with all those weird races, Adventurers League actually restricts character choices from what are available in the official 5e books. The last 30 or so characters I ran for at conventions were almost all within the AD&D 1e races (there was a tabaxi and kenku pair, though, but none from Volo or other sources). Even without Arduin Grimoire, our OD&D campaign had green Martians, Vulcans, half-elves, Myrrhym, and even a large assortment of monster races from the reincarnation spell. And the Forgotten Realms seem a lot more consistent than the features ascribed to, say, Castle Greyhawk in OD&D.

QuoteGronan has mentioned that when he played OD&D infravision worked for monsters, but it didn't work for players because (as I understand it) that would eliminate part of the challenge and resource management of exploring underground. Clearly somewhere along the way that changed. In last night's session we had a party of five characters and every one had darkvision. As most of what we did was explore an evil underground temple that recently became active, not needing to use light sources made a big difference in our ability to sneak and how that adventure played out.

And in OD&D elves, dwarves, and hobbits (the species listed for use as player characters) each had limits on their level advancement.

In the original books, yes, only player characters (without infravision spell) could not see in the dark in the dungeon, and dungeon doors opened automatically for monsters unless held against them.

But elves and dwarves had infravision in the Greyhawk supplement, and non-humans had no limit as thieves (so I imagine any leader of those races in the usual D&D meritocracy would be a thief, or at least have thief as one of their classes). Note also that some later classes were human only but also had limits; I always guessed that was a divide between Gygax (favored more competent non-humans without level limits) and Arneson (favored humans and level limits even for some human only classes), but neither Gronan nor chirine ba kal ever gave any support for that speculation. (And Gygax did not change level limits much in AD&D).

Hm. This makes me wonder, where does a zoo-trainwreck begin and end?

In one of my settings, the following races are present and most are playable with proper justification (although humans are by far the dominant species and cultures, at least on the mainlands, and some of the below are quite rare insomuch as most people will live their entire lives never having seen one):

1. Humans
2. True elves or "Brinesouls," very rare as of the end of the vampire war.
3. Brine Devils or "Grindylow." Generally unplayable, tend to be evil. Saltwater-dwelling eel people / viper fish, opportunistic, aquatic telepathy and powerful shamanic magic traditions.
4. Hawkken or "Garuda," nomadic bird people communists.
5. Ents or "Firstmen." Reproduce by growing each other, rare, considered a delicacy in some regions and greatly fear herbivores.
6. Dorfs or "Stonechildren." Mysterious mute rock people responsible for many bizarre overnight geographical changes.
7. Vaesir / Vaesirians, precursor race (OK these are considered extinct).
8. Weavers or "Arachen," intelligent spiders that use pattern magic via web weaving.
9. Goblins. Usually encountered in civilized parts as slaves or indentured servants, often utilized in dangerous industrial settings.
10. Forktongues or "Ith'Liss" ('scaleskins' if you want to be rude about it), pretty much only found in hot climates such as the Ashuthari Glass Deserts or the Koganese jungles.
11. Mantids or "Kokoro." Basically Thri-Kreen.
12. Lillyworts or "Vodyanoi." Short, fat, freshwater-dwelling frogmen. Use "watercraeft," can make solid objects out of water
13. Ratfolk or "Skritt." Two variants, one evil-tending "tunnel skrit" (think rat-like Skaven but slightly less crazy), and "field Skritt" (closer to mice than rats).
14. Beastmen. (these are generally non-playable, being mostly insane mutant freaks warped by Blight)
15. Revenant Kings, powerful, well-preserved vampire liches which since their creation have managed to enslave the larger of the two elven isles and run a partially undead society all to themselves, having won the vampire war. Almost always unplayable. Practically all were originally elven; they enjoy "land hunts" for humanoids on the eastern coasts for sport, and due to their undead navy they are the only entities capable of sailing the icy northern seas and exploring the crystalline wastes.

These are not generally culturally homogenous, save for xenophobic/isolated ones like the Brinesouls. In cases where you find diverse races settled together, they will generally share many of the same cultural sensibilities unless they are migrants.

Now, just looking at the above list; FIFTEEEN RACES?! Probably looks like a zoo, except that generally you won't find many of them all in the same place breaking bread together outside of intensely urban metropolitan cities (and even then, often times non-standard groups for that region will be forced or shunned into ghettos) and again, many are quite rare in general or are very isolated.

In fact, I can think of only one instance where I had more than "just humans" or "humans, plus the odd Ent" or the like in the same party together. The human cultures in this setting have a great deal of variety from region to region, geography to geography, which I think helps a lot with the feeling of variety even within that single race. Too often I see settings where all humans are all equally and blandly/generically Western European-flavored.

Quote from: rawma;1114009Beyond taking place in the Forgotten Realms (mostly) which is filled with all those weird races, Adventurers League actually restricts character choices from what are available in the official 5e books.

How big a restriction is that though?  

QuoteEven without Arduin Grimoire, our OD&D campaign had green Martians, Vulcans, half-elves, Myrrhym, and even a large assortment of monster races from the reincarnation spell.

Ours did not.

QuoteAnd the Forgotten Realms seem a lot more consistent than the features ascribed to, say, Castle Greyhawk in OD&D.

Never used Greyhawk as a setting. It didn't really appeal. And by the time it was published everybody already had their own settings anyway.

Quote from: Shasarak;1113939SHARK there are a lot of things that you can lay the blame for at the feet of 3e and on the other hand it makes your argument look so much weaker when the things you blame it for just are not true.  If you look at just the core 3e rules then you only have the standard races Human, Elf, Half Elf, Dwarf, Halfling, Gnome and Half Orc.  Which one of those is the start of the trend of Zoo-trainwreck races?

If you want to complain about Adventurer's League then go ahead, not my circus, not my monkeys.  But for Gawds sake I have played Drow, Minotaur, Giff, Half-Giant and Thi-kreen characters that I can remember off the top of my head and none of them were 3e characters.  And for the DMs that want to play up their "realistic racist" game settings then just remember that my murder hobo characters get as much XP from your precious NPCs as they do from monsters so a mob of KKK villages is just a target rich environment with the added benefit that you dont need to poke around a trap filled dungeon.

Greetings!

Well, Shasarak, I am not making any kind of *argument*, my friend. I am making some observations, commentary, and sharing some experiences I have had--both back in the day, and currently. Again, as I mentioned, indeed, back in the day we had Zoo-trainwreck characters, but in my experience, they were a *minority* and their inclusion, as Opapajr made clear--was strictly under the DM's approval and supervision. Currently, in many groups I have been in, with Adventurer's League, the *majority* of such parties have been filled with Zoo-freaktrain characters, with normal humans, elves, or dwarves being a noticeable minority.

That dynamic has, in my view, a huge impact on the campaign milieu, that embracing a standard historical and mythological campaign generally avoids. It plays with believability, theology, story development, demographics, and all kinds of things besides I'm certainly overlooking.

Personally, I happen to really enjoy the occasional Zoo-freaktrain character, as i and Opapajr also noted, when such characters are rare in the campaign, they do become very unusual and interesting--and even *special*. When the whole world is full of Zoo-freaktrain characters, and embracing "Seattle 2019" flavour--there is much that is *LOST* from the DM, the players, and the campaign as a whole, in my view, whether people are entirely conscious of such loss or not.

Again, in my experience, I have played with the demographic dynamics through the years, and through various campaigns. For example, in 3E, there was a growing preference--pushed by a gazillion books with dozens of race and character options--where for some time it seemed like everyone was playing some kind of uber half-elf, half-dragon *Vampire/Demon/Angel/Elemental* misfit character. The scope and impact of such on a campaign--then, as similar to the same things now--can be very significant.

In contrast, when I began a new 5E campaign where the party was five humans, 1 elf and 1 dwarf, and all were normal, straight classes--the whole campaign played again, distinctly differently.

I have experienced very different dynamics in such campaigns. I KNOW there are differences and huge changes in campaign dynamics. You do not have to agree with me, Shasarak, or anyone else, for that matter. However, it does not change the fact that I have seen and experienced such different campaign dynamics from embracing one kind of group or another.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: Opaopajr;1113940Yeah, I am a fan of regional demographics too, Shark. :) A lot of that "bleeding edge" outlier stuff was solidly and explicitly under GM purview in TSR products, regardless of what anecdotes people recall at their table... we have the receipts (texts). That said, 5e tried explicitly stating that GM manages the table, too, but apparently "Optional Means Official" just like "Temporary Becomes Permanent." :rolleyes:

This is definitely a sub-cultural or generational issue, because I have seen its rise in WotC era D&D. And even though 5e tried to walk things back for this compromise edition, it is just ignored frequently, AL or not, IME. Not much you can do beyond run your own game and apply your own setting coherency.

And yes, the unusual feels special when it is rare. ;) Almost definitional, yet here we are.

Greetings!

Good to see you, my friend! Am I really making any sense, Opaopajr? Sometimes I wonder what the fuck I'm talking about, like I must have been living in some kind of bubble.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1114042I have experienced very different dynamics in such campaigns. I KNOW there are differences and huge changes in campaign dynamics. You do not have to agree with me, Shasarak, or anyone else, for that matter. However, it does not change the fact that I have seen and experienced such different campaign dynamics from embracing one kind of group or another.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

So what I am hearing is that in your home games mostly everyone plays humans and then when you played in Adventurer League you noticed that other people mostly play different races.  

Well of course different groups have different ways to play.  The real reason for that though is that some people have Fluoride added to their water and some dont.

Quote from: Bren;1113980As I understand it, insofar as optional is allowed in Adventurer League play, optional is official.

Not really. 5e AL actually disallows certain options and some things that are standard are disallowed.

The one that comes to mind right off is that in AL you use stat array. You can not use point by or roll stats.
Alignment is restricted. Most, or all, Evil alignment choices are not allowed.
Another is you are limited to two books. The PHB+1

Quote from: Omega;1114048

Quote from: Bren;1113980As I understand it, insofar as optional is allowed in Adventurer League play, optional is official.

Not really. 5e AL actually disallows certain options and some things that are standard are disallowed.

:confused: You are not contradicting with what I said.

Quote from: SHARK;1114043Greetings!

Good to see you, my friend! Am I really making any sense, Opaopajr? Sometimes I wonder what the fuck I'm talking about, like I must have been living in some kind of bubble.:D

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Yes you are, even to this "Left-Coast-istan, commie-pinko, poo-dodging fart-whiffing, post-modern nihilist, those-who-can't grievance-studies peddler." (:p I'll be any and all the epithets we throw out here. Kumbaya. :D I'll be anyone's SJW Pumpkin Spice Savanarola "burning (straw)man." :p)

In my eye, this is an issue of the young novice wanting to do all the things, immediately, in one plate (or on one canvas). To chase the brash and shocking, strike out different and define self against the past... basically to be a teenager in spirit. :o There is also a disconnect to history, just as there is a disconnect to most disciplines of late, due to technology's instant gratification short-circuiting the process of curiosity and learning beyond the spectacle. And that Teenage Rebellion with "Cult of the Spectacle" does a feedback loop on social media, leading to ecstatic 'Bonfires of the Vanities'.

Which, in the RPG hobby, means 'subverting expectations' while 'not being teh n00b'... leading to what you, Bren, I and others have already seen (again in Org Play and off). It is an incoherent fictional mishmash married to min-maxing for that last +1 to-hit and damage per round. And when questioned, it becomes defensive, castigating critics as "you just don't understand! :mad:" In a word it's... youth. :o

There's a deep gamer isolation (anomie) out there which I don't remember having when growing up, where technology has insulated us from encounters that challenge our views. (Maybe having to go outside to go to the arcade, b-ball court, or skatepark is part of our elderly advantage? :p) And yet a lot of the kids do get over wanting to "eat the whole buffet in one sitting." But it takes time because it seems tech (or maybe our culture's obsession with safety? too much scheduled extra curriculars; lack of unstructured play?) has created a social development delay, IMHO.

I am happy they are tabletop gaming now, and with such enthusiasm. :) It's not what playstyle I now want, but it may be the start of what they need -- even if to get it out of their system in college what we already did in grade and high school. So much of genre entertainment, from comics, video games, to music, movies, etc., has been incorporated into megacorps and homogenized into Disney-Channel safe-spaces that I think kids are starved for authenticity and rebellion -- yet may not really know how, let alone why. Anime-Zoo (Panty) Explosion! tm might actually be their first expressive finger-paint paintings outside such structured (and sheltered?) childhoods. :( You gotta start somewhere to find your voice. :)

Quote from: Bren;1114053:confused: You are not contradicting with what I said.

Actually. Yes I am. Just not 100% as you seem to want.
Try again please.
What options are used? Stat Array. Gender Fluid Elf blessing, reskinning a race, race variants, tortles. A quick section from the Player Guide.

Quote• Variant Human Traits (PHB)
• Half-Elf and Tiefling Variants (SCAG/ToF)
• Option: Human Languages (SCAG)
• Blessing of Corellon (ToF)
NOTE: Races with flight at 1st level, and options from any resource other than those listed above (such as the Dungeon Master's Guide, Guild Adept products, or Unearthed Arcana articles) aren't available without specific campaign documentation (i.e., certs, etc.).

It is unclear if these count towards the PHB+1 rule or not. Seems like not, but Tortles are noted as being part of Xanithar so maybee yes?

The structuring reminds me somewhat of how the RPGA ran their various "Living" settings like Ravens Bluff or Living Jungle. (the only two I am familiar with.)

Quote from: Bren;1114032How big a restriction is that though?

Very little; AL is (mostly) in the Forgotten Realms where all of the races described exist. It excludes races that start with a flying speed. Also excludes any options in the DMG (like the death domain cleric, but also no guns, etc). They also don't allow mixing books beyond the PHB, so you couldn't take a race from one and a class path or spells from another. You can reskin a race if the DM allows it; mechanically the same as an existing race but described as whatever (the only time I ever saw this was a mind flayer which used the half-elf rules; I wouldn't have allowed it if I had been DM).

QuoteOurs did not.

OK, OK. I'm not claiming that ours was representative of most groups, but I am also pretty sure neither of our groups was unique. And as I observed, AL play today is not always filled with the weirdest races; human remains quite popular, and races like firbolgs and tortles only made a brief splash when their rules came out (tabaxi seems to be the only non-PHB race that is still consistently popular, either because players like cat people or for the broken double-move that recharges by not moving in a turn). OD&D explicitly provided for any race the DM chose to allow; that's not the case in AL, despite reskinning, and not really in the 5e rules that I have seen. While every later version of D&D seems to have restricted reincarnation to coming back as a humanoid, OD&D says roll at random on the Character Alignment table under the reincarnated character's alignment; hello, centaurs, giants, pixies and more!

QuoteNever used Greyhawk as a setting. It didn't really appeal. And by the time it was published everybody already had their own settings anyway.

I never saw it as a published setting; I'm just referencing the things alluded to in OD&D rules (including, obviously, the Greyhawk supplement).

Quote from: Omega;1114065Actually. Yes I am. Just not 100% as you seem to want.

I said if an optional rule is allowed in AL play  then it is an official rule in AL play. You disagree with that? How, exactly?

QuoteTry again please.

Yes, why don't you.

QuoteThe structuring reminds me somewhat of how the RPGA ran their various "Living" settings like Ravens Bluff or Living Jungle. (the only two I am familiar with.)

Yes it seems to have similar issues.

Quote from: rawma;1114067Very little; AL is (mostly) in the Forgotten Realms where all of the races described exist.

That's the impression I've gotten from the parties I've been in and from some of their other PCs that players have described.

QuoteOK, OK. I'm not claiming that ours was representative of most groups, but I am also pretty sure neither of our groups was unique. And as I observed, AL play today is not always filled with the weirdest races...

I'm only going on what I've seen and heard from my fellow players. My sample size is very limited. And there certainly are some human PCs, but in that sample, one party has an elf, half-elf, half-drow, tabaxi, gnome, two humans, and one probably human who is a warlock of some kind who has darkvision and seems kind of like he is half-undead. (I don't know what his pact is. Seems fairly dark though he isn't evil.) The other party was a tiefling, a dwarf, and 3 gnomes -- no humans. The players who described other PCs they run/ran seemed to run about 4-1 nonhuman to human. But that sample could be skewed since many people are inclined to describe their more unusual PCs.

Quotethe only non-PHB race that is still consistently popular, either because players like cat people or for the broken double-move that recharges by not moving in a turn.

And they climb really well too, I think. Certainly better than my average strength rogue.

QuoteOD&D explicitly provided for any race the DM chose to allow; that's not the case in AL

I don't recall that OD&D explicitly provided for any race. It explicitly provided for humans, elves, dwarves, and hobbits. It didn't explicitly forbid any race though. OD&D was very much DIY. For example, although one of the wandering monster tables included martians, a la John Carter of Mars, there weren't any stats for Martians, Tharks, airships, or radium rifles. Creating that was left up to the DM. Although for a brief time you could by game rules for ERB's Mars. I believe that game eventually got pulled after a cease and desist from the lawyers representing the heirs of ERB or the owners of the publishing rights.

QuoteWhile every later version of D&D seems to have restricted reincarnation to coming back as a humanoid, OD&D says roll at random on the Character Alignment table under the reincarnated character's alignment; hello, centaurs, giants, pixies and more!

Why not play a bear? Sure your armor and weapons will need to be custom crafted, but your practically immune to bees and get to eat all that sweet, sweet honey. :D

QuoteI never saw it as a published setting; I'm just referencing the things alluded to in OD&D rules (including, obviously, the Greyhawk supplement).

There were some good things, some interesting things, and some crap things in Greyhawk. (The stat bonuses definitely promoted using alternate methods of rolling up PCs. Roll 4 dice and keep 3 was very popular.) As I recall, Blackmoor was mostly crap. The Temple of the Frog...what a waste of space. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Bren;1114106That's the impression I've gotten from the parties I've been in and from some of their other PCs that players have described.

I'm only going on what I've seen and heard from my fellow players. My sample size is very limited. And there certainly are some human PCs, but in that sample, one party has an elf, half-elf, half-drow, tabaxi, gnome, two humans, and one probably human who is a warlock of some kind who has darkvision and seems kind of like he is half-undead. (I don't know what his pact is. Seems fairly dark though he isn't evil.) The other party was a tiefling, a dwarf, and 3 gnomes -- no humans. The players who described other PCs they run/ran seemed to run about 4-1 nonhuman to human. But that sample could be skewed since many people are inclined to describe their more unusual PCs.

We clearly differ on what's unusual for PC races; the only non-PHB race you name is the tabaxi, and the distribution doesn't seem too strange (but 3 gnomes and no humans is a bit of an outlier, even by my standards). Warlocks often have Devil's Sight, which lets them see normally in darkness, normal or magical, to 120 feet. "Half-undead" sounds like the Undying patron rather than a race/subrace/modifier, but it could be something else. Speaking of tabaxi:

QuoteAnd they climb really well too, I think. Certainly better than my average strength rogue.

The climbing speed of tabaxi is broken if you let them climb like a spider. I interpret it as climbing at that speed without needing an ability check but not able to climb something that a human couldn't climb with an ability check, and that's more than enough. Climbing of that sort doesn't seem to come up often; the additional move lets tabaxi monks or rogues cover the range of almost every spell in a single 6 second round, and can affect every combat.

QuoteI don't recall that OD&D explicitly provided for any race. It explicitly provided for humans, elves, dwarves, and hobbits. It didn't explicitly forbid any race though. OD&D was very much DIY.

   

Quote from: Men & MagicOther Character Types: There is no reason that players cannot be allowed to play as virtually anything, provided they begin relatively weak and work up to the top, i.e., a player wishing to be a Dragon would have to begin as let us say, a "young" one and progress upwards in the usual manner, steps being predetermined by the campaign referee.

That's more than you get from AL rules for races. You are correct about Warriors of Mars by Gary Gygax and Brian Blume; along with cyborgs, robots and androids, they suggest more of a kitchen sink game world than the Forgotten Realms.

QuoteWhy not play a bear? Sure your armor and weapons will need to be custom crafted, but your practically immune to bees and get to eat all that sweet, sweet honey. :D

If you don't allow bears or force them to go unarmed, then anyone who values the right to bear arms will hate you.

Animals were on the list for neutrals, so presumably you could be reincarnated as a bear. Werebear was on both the lawful and neutral lists. I can't recall anyone chaotic being reincarnated as an undead, which seems theologically suspect to me. From our campaign, I specifically recall a metallic dragon, a centaur and a giant squid (who had to retire from adventuring, pretty much). I played a badger (bipedal and rapier wielding) once but not as a result of reincarnation.

QuoteThere were some good things, some interesting things, and some crap things in Greyhawk. (The stat bonuses definitely promoted using alternate methods of rolling up PCs. Roll 4 dice and keep 3 was very popular.) As I recall, Blackmoor was mostly crap. The Temple of the Frog...what a waste of space. :rolleyes:

I'd say there was a bigger jump from OD&D to OD&D+Greyhawk than from OD&D+Greyhawk to AD&D 1e, or any subsequent change of edition. Greyhawk defined D&D thereafter to a large extent; the minimal bonuses for ability scores and the fewer classes (if not races) of the original books seem very strange to anyone who started with a later D&D. Blackmoor contained much less interesting content (two human-only classes with limited members above a certain level; underwater monsters, treasure and adventuring; hit location rules; the Temple of the Frog which is more how not to present a module) than Strategic Review (rangers, illusionists, bards; monsters and magic items; explanations of alignment and the magic system).

Quote from: rawma;1114115We clearly differ on what's unusual for PC races

While tabaxi and tieflings both are unusual to me, what I was commenting on was parties that are entirely or mostly non-human and no parties that are entirely or mostly human. That implies a Star Wars cantina style setting with lots of species all mingled together as if that meant no more than brown, black, or blond hair coloring. To be fair, that seems in keeping with what I've seen of the NPCs in Forgotten Realms so its not inconsistent with the setting, I just don't particularly like that setting for a fantasy RPG. (I already have the cantina effect in Star Wars.)

Quote(but 3 gnomes and no humans is a bit of an outlier, even by my standards).

Actually a party of all gnomes would make more sense to me.

QuoteWarlocks often have Devil's Sight, which lets them see normally in darkness, normal or magical, to 120 feet. "Half-undead" sounds like the Undying patron rather than a race/subrace/modifier, but it could be something else.

That sounds like what he probably is.

Given how many characters can have darkvision (10 of 12 in my sample size), there's a fairly strong disencentive for playing a normal human.

QuoteYou are correct about Warriors of Mars by Gary Gygax and Brian Blume; along with cyborgs, robots and androids, they suggest more of a kitchen sink game world than the Forgotten Realms.

To be fair, cyborgs, robots, and androids weren't on the wandering monster tables and Mars, being a different planet (and probably a different solar system and/or galaxy and universe), than the planet for Greyhawk, emphasizes that those things don't have to all be in the same campaign. Though the Lake Geneva house campaign did have space ships and other sci-fi things.

QuoteIf you don't allow bears or force them to go unarmed, then anyone who values the right to bear arms will hate you.

I'm a firm supporter of the right to keep and arm bears. Fairs, fair after all.

QuoteAnimals were on the list for neutrals, so presumably you could be reincarnated as a bear. Werebear was on both the lawful and neutral lists. I can't recall anyone chaotic being reincarnated as an undead, which seems theologically suspect to me.

Reincarnating as another living creature leaves undead off the table, so to speak.

QuoteI'd say there was a bigger jump from OD&D to OD&D+Greyhawk than from OD&D+Greyhawk to AD&D 1e, or any subsequent change of edition.

I'd agree there is a good case supporting your first half of your statement. I find the second half a bit doubtful, but as I haven't played any of the versions between AD&D and 5E I don't have a lot beyond internet gossip to support my scepticism.

Quote from: Bren;1114117While tabaxi and tieflings both are unusual to me, what I was commenting on was parties that are entirely or mostly non-human and no parties that are entirely or mostly human.

QuoteActually a party of all gnomes would make more sense to me.

OK, I see. The +1 to each ability score (or +1 to each of two and a feat) is maybe not attractive enough mechanically to tempt players, but in my experience enough AL players still play humans anyway. But I'm OK with the Star Wars cantina feel (or the variability of any comic book superhero team) in an FRPG.

Since AL is a bunch of pickup games, it's really unlikely you'll get a single race party. We once had an all fighter (but one rogue) party of six, which was weird and also not effective for certain challenges. Also I once was in a (racially mixed) group of Bards and Barbarians, and we declared the last character who then joined to be a B'Monk to preserve our newly coined "Killer Bees" party name.

QuoteGiven how many characters can have darkvision (10 of 12 in my sample size), there's a fairly strong disencentive for playing a normal human.

Dragonborn and halflings also lack darkvision and are also popular. The cost of providing light (e.g., a light cantrip) is little enough that darkvision isn't so big an advantage (unless you plan a lot of group stealth, which excludes the heavy armor low dexterity types of any race). (Plus two half elves or half orcs give you a human! :p)

Re: changes in D&D edition:

QuoteI'd agree there is a good case supporting your first half of your statement. I find the second half a bit doubtful, but as I haven't played any of the versions between AD&D and 5E I don't have a lot beyond internet gossip to support my scepticism.

I mean a single edition step, and I'm giving short shrift to the D&D versus AD&D branch (someone with more experience of the former can comment on that comparison). 1e and 2e are very similar, so the candidates would be 2e TSR to 3e WOTC, from 3e or 3.5e to 4e, and from 4e to 5e. 4e seems unusual compared to any of the other editions, but mostly as a matter of emphasis and it failed to (re)define future D&D. A lot of this could just be the usual tendency toward the mean; the Greyhawk supplement was possible in 1975 in a way that equivalently dramatic changes at the time of 3e or 4e were not.

In any case OD&D alone versus OD&D+Greyhawk(+anything else) should be carefully distinguished.

Quote from: rawma;1114121We once had an all fighter (but one rogue) party of six, which was weird and also not effective for certain challenges. Also I once was in a (racially mixed) group of Bards and Barbarians, and we declared the last character who then joined to be a B'Monk to preserve our newly coined "Killer Bees" party name.

He's a monk. Medieval monks were brothers. I'd have gone with Brother Monk.

Quote from: Bren;1114122He's a monk. Medieval monks were brothers. I'd have gone with Brother Monk.

D'oh! I was an unlettered barbarian ;) but the bards should have thought of that.

Quote from: Bren;1114117

Quote from: rawma;1114115We clearly differ on what's unusual for PC races

While tabaxi and tieflings both are unusual to me, what I was commenting on was parties that are entirely or mostly non-human and no parties that are entirely or mostly human. That implies a Star Wars cantina style setting with lots of species all mingled together as if that meant no more than brown, black, or blond hair coloring. To be fair, that seems in keeping with what I've seen of the NPCs in Forgotten Realms so its not inconsistent with the setting, I just don't particularly like that setting for a fantasy RPG. (I already have the cantina effect in Star Wars.)

OD&D lets players play as any race with the referee's permission, as you point out. My printing explicitly talks about players choosing to play Balrog PCs. Moreover, OD&D expects the players to have a coterie of monsters at their service. In my last game, players had a Lawful Werebear, a Brass Dragon, a Hill Giant and some other fun things in their retinue.

Quote from: Bren;1114117Given how many characters can have darkvision (10 of 12 in my sample size), there's a fairly strong disencentive for playing a normal human.

Note that in OD&D, player-characters and their allies can never see in the dark in the underworld. Only the referee's monsters (including regular humans) can do that.

Quote from: rawma;1114115

Quote from: Bren;1114106There were some good things, some interesting things, and some crap things in Greyhawk. (The stat bonuses definitely promoted using alternate methods of rolling up PCs. Roll 4 dice and keep 3 was very popular.) As I recall, Blackmoor was mostly crap. The Temple of the Frog...what a waste of space. :rolleyes:

I'd say there was a bigger jump from OD&D to OD&D+Greyhawk than from OD&D+Greyhawk to AD&D 1e, or any subsequent change of edition. Greyhawk defined D&D thereafter to a large extent; the minimal bonuses for ability scores and the fewer classes (if not races) of the original books seem very strange to anyone who started with a later D&D. Blackmoor contained much less interesting content (two human-only classes with limited members above a certain level; underwater monsters, treasure and adventuring; hit location rules; the Temple of the Frog which is more how not to present a module) than Strategic Review (rangers, illusionists, bards; monsters and magic items; explanations of alignment and the magic system).

Even allowing for subjective tastes, this is an objectively crazy thing to say that makes you two look crazy in your crazy heads. Supplement II is just behind Supplement III as best OD&D products after Books I-III. Greyhawk may have had more influence but that was for two reasons: first, it was a ridiculously over the top example of power creep, so players loved it. Second, it was written by Gygax, who also happened to be the guy that wrote AD&D. Surprise, surprise that it had a lasting influence.

Without Supplement II, however, you wouldn't have:
• Assassins
• Monks
• An admittedly stupid hit location system that is nevertheless fun to use on occasion (such as a joust or duel)
• Lots of new monsters, including dinosaurs, tons of aquatic monsters and the entire civilization of Sahuagin
• Rules for the players becoming lycanthropes (I mean seriously, how did Book II include lycanthropes and no lycanthropy...)
• A raft of magic items
• The Temple of the Frog setting and adventure (if you don't see the genius of that adventure, read this (https://dmdavid.com/tag/why-the-temple-of-the-frog-dungeons-dragons-first-printed-dungeon-seemed-unplayable/))
• Some basic guidelines for underwater adventures
• Rules for sages
• Rules for diseases

Quote from: Theros;1114147Note that in OD&D, player-characters and their allies can never see in the dark in the underworld. Only the referee's monsters (including regular humans) can do that.

Noted. Damn, that was some stupidly arbitrary shit. Glad the game moved away from that one.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114148Noted. Damn, that was some stupidly arbitrary shit. Glad the game moved away from that one.

Not arbitrary. It just indicates that there is something unnatural about the underworld. For example, all doors are automatically stuck in the underworld, but swing open for the monsters. Even if you spike a door open, it will at least try to close when you are out of sight, blocking off escape routes. If you think in terms of horror movie tropes, all this stuff makes a lot of sense.

You don't know D&D until you know OD&D.

Quote from: Theros;1114151Not arbitrary. It just indicates that there is something unnatural about the underworld. For example, all doors are automatically stuck in the underworld, but swing open for the monsters. Even if you spike a door open, it will at least try to close when you are out of sight, blocking off escape routes. If you think in terms of horror movie tropes, all this stuff makes a lot of sense.

You don't know D&D until you know OD&D.

Justify it to yourself if you like, but I still call it arbitrary bullshit. I have no reverence for early D&D's stupidity even though I played it back in the day.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114160Justify it to yourself if you like, but I still call it arbitrary bullshit. I have no reverence for early D&D's stupidity even though I played it back in the day.

How is it arbitrary? No monster has an innate racial ability to "see in the dark" in OD&D. Elves don't get infravision as a race. That doesn't exist in 3LBB. If a player plays an Elf, he gets ALL the abilities listed in the entry in the monster section. If he didn't, then THAT would be arbitrary.

Anyway, if all the teenagers had Jason's supernatural stealth, then Friday the 13th would be a boring movie. If a player in a horror RPG expected those powers, I'd call him an entitled idiot. I'm not saying D&D is a horror RPG, of course, but it has horror elements (vampires, werewolves, zombies etc.) that are best understood in that framework. If you disregard that, then yes, it looks arbitrary.

Quote from: Theros;1114151Not arbitrary. It just indicates that there is something unnatural about the underworld. For example, all doors are automatically stuck in the underworld, but swing open for the monsters. Even if you spike a door open, it will at least try to close when you are out of sight, blocking off escape routes. If you think in terms of horror movie tropes, all this stuff makes a lot of sense.

You don't know D&D until you know OD&D.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114160Justify it to yourself if you like, but I still call it arbitrary bullshit. I have no reverence for early D&D's stupidity even though I played it back in the day.

Quote from: Theros;1114174How is it arbitrary? No monster has an innate racial ability to "see in the dark" in OD&D. Elves don't get infravision as a race. That doesn't exist in 3LBB. If a player plays an Elf, he gets ALL the abilities listed in the entry in the monster section. If he didn't, then THAT would be arbitrary.

Anyway, if all the teenagers had Jason's supernatural stealth, then Friday the 13th would be a boring movie. If a player in a horror RPG expected those powers, I'd call him an entitled idiot. I'm not saying D&D is a horror RPG, of course, but it has horror elements (vampires, werewolves, zombies etc.) that are best understood in that framework. If you disregard that, then yes, it looks arbitrary.

The "mythic underworld" has been making a comeback in recent years. It's been explained as "living dungeons" based on dungeon management simulator video games, but the concept is identical. It even shows up in anime based on D&D by way of JRPGs.

What I don't like are the irrational resistance to mythic underworlds and living dungeons I see occasionally. Faux realistic dungeons with ecologies (https://dmdavid.com/tag/3-reasons-science-and-ecology-make-a-bad-mix-for-some-monsters/) can't replicate the OD&D dungeons. Why are dungeons full of slimes and undead acceptable, but explaining other monsters with things like minion hives and summoning portals is unacceptable?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114179What I don't like are the irrational resistance to mythic underworlds and living dungeons I see occasionally. Faux realistic dungeons with ecologies (https://dmdavid.com/tag/3-reasons-science-and-ecology-make-a-bad-mix-for-some-monsters/) can't replicate the OD&D dungeons. Why are dungeons full of slimes and undead acceptable, but explaining other monsters with things like minion hives and summoning portals is unacceptable?

I don't mind some dungeons being gonzo-weird like old D&D dungeons, but I do prefer for those to be the exception rather than the norm.

Quote from: Theros;1114147OD&D lets players...

I may be crankier than usual, but I do get tired of people explaining  OD&D to me. Unless you played the game before it was published in 1974 you aren't telling me anything I didn't at one time know.

QuoteNote that in OD&D, player-characters and their allies can never see in the dark in the underworld. Only the referee's monsters (including regular humans) can do that.

Note that this was already covered in posts #406-407.

QuoteWithout Supplement II, however, you wouldn't have:
• Assassins
Never felt the need for them.
• Monks
How I wish the Monk class had been skipped. Damn 1970s TV show. Snatch the pebble from your own goddamn hand!  
• An admittedly stupid hit location system...
I'd say "admittedly stupid" says all that needs saying.
• Lots of new monsters, including dinosaurs, tons of aquatic monsters and the entire civilization of Sahuagin
Never used them.
• Rules for the players becoming lycanthropes (I mean seriously, how did Book II include lycanthropes and no lycanthropy...)
I'd already created my own for the guy who wanted to run a wereleopard. Which is what Gygax originally figured DMs would do.
• A raft of magic items
Since I never used any of the additional aquatic monsters, I also never needed the raft.
• The Temple of the Frog setting and adventure (if you don't see the genius of that adventure, read this (https://dmdavid.com/tag/why-the-temple-of-the-frog-dungeons-dragons-first-printed-dungeon-seemed-unplayable/))
I didn't say it was unplayable. I said it was a waste of space.
• Some basic guidelines for underwater adventures
I didn't need an entire supplement for this. An article in the Strategic Review would have covered it.
• Rules for sages
Ditto.
• Rules for diseases
Because everyone wants Conan or Ffahrd and the Gray Mouser to come down with some nasty diseases. That's just got to really improve your Swords & Sorcery style game. :rolleyes:

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114148Noted. Damn, that was some stupidly arbitrary shit. Glad the game moved away from that one.

It wasn't arbitrary. Like doors opening automatically for monsters, the rule on darkness was intended to maintain darkness as both a risk and a constraint in dungeon exploration for all PCs because the designer thought that would make a better play experience. So it wasn't arbitrary. There wasn't a particularly good in-game explanation for the difference, but it wasn't arbitrary.

Quote from: Bren;1114230I may be crankier than usual, but I do get tired of people explaining  OD&D to me. Unless you played the game before it was published in 1974 you aren't telling me anything I didn't at one time know.

Definitely "crankier than usual." It is a forum, I am speaking to everyone, even when I am replying to someone. I get tired of "Original Gamers" pulling the "Don't talk to me about D&D! I was there! Get off my lawn!" card. Not everything is about your personal history.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114179The "mythic underworld" has been making a comeback in recent years. It's been explained as "living dungeons" based on dungeon management simulator video games, but the concept is identical. It even shows up in anime based on D&D by way of JRPGs.

Both Delicious in Dungeon and Is it Wrong to Try and Pick Up Girls in the Dungeon have that element in some way. In DiD dungeons are apparently part of the magic cycle and mages actually have to learn how to make dungeons in order to maintain magic in the world. In DanMachi the dungeon is essentially a being unto itself and monsters spawn regularly from the very walls. The lower down the stronger they get and adventurers have to delve to kill monsters to keep them from eventually boiling up out of the dungeon. Overlord has the Death Spiral where once undead start appearing, if they arent put down then eventually stronger types appear, working progressively through the D&D undead tiers till a lich or other top tier type manifests. Log Horizon has the fantasy world linked to a fantasy MMO to try and curb a god level curse that every time an 'npc' from that world died, instead of being reincarnated, a monster was spawned. The gold players found after slaying monsters actually has a mechanism in place.

Meikyuu Kingdom is a Japanese RPG where the whole world is now one huge dungeon that acts almost like a spreading disease and has to be constantly cleared around towns and kingdoms or they and the people are converted into monsters and dungeon.

Probably others with interesting takes on the idea but those are the few Im familiar with.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114227I don't mind some dungeons being gonzo-weird like old D&D dungeons, but I do prefer for those to be the exception rather than the norm.

The problem is that the majority of dungeons can't work without an in-universe intelligent designer, whether that be a dungeon heart, a traditional evil overlord, or the modrons. Furthermore, the "non-weird" dungeons stretch my SoD more than the weird ones. The article I linked (https://dmdavid.com/tag/3-reasons-science-and-ecology-make-a-bad-mix-for-some-monsters/) explains this in more detail.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114263The problem is that the majority of dungeons can't work without an in-universe intelligent designer, whether that be a dungeon heart, a traditional evil overlord, or the modrons. Furthermore, the "non-weird" dungeons stretch my SoD more than the weird ones. The article I linked (https://dmdavid.com/tag/3-reasons-science-and-ecology-make-a-bad-mix-for-some-monsters/) explains this in more detail.

I get around the non-weird suspension of disbelief by the simple expedient of a relatively recent cataclysm that wiped out a globe-spanning advanced magitech civilization.

What's left of civilization hangs by a thread inside walled compounds that are themselves typically re-purposed ruins (one of the larger towns is literally built up inside an abandoned stadium situated next to a major river because once they had the entrances fortified they had high walls to protect themselves, some pre-built areas to shelter inside and the field to keep livestock in... over time they replaced the seating sections with purpose-built structures and the vast parking lots were broken up and turned into fields for crops).

Most of the dungeons are other nearby ruins from the same overgrown city (including basements, sub-basements and tunnels) that are being used by monsters as lairs without even necessarily being aware of what's on other levels of the ruins they're inhabiting.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114179The "mythic underworld" has been making a comeback in recent years. It's been explained as "living dungeons" based on dungeon management simulator video games, but the concept is identical. It even shows up in anime based on D&D by way of JRPGs.

What I don't like are the irrational resistance to mythic underworlds and living dungeons I see occasionally. Faux realistic dungeons with ecologies (https://dmdavid.com/tag/3-reasons-science-and-ecology-make-a-bad-mix-for-some-monsters/) can't replicate the OD&D dungeons. Why are dungeons full of slimes and undead acceptable, but explaining other monsters with things like minion hives and summoning portals is unacceptable?

The idea I've had rolling around in my head for a while, is that many (not all) dungeons are a battleground between good and evil. A no-man's land where the monsters and adventurers are the proxy agents. In order to keep it mysterious and mythical, I wouldn't blurt it out in such blatant words. Just a bit of background lore to keep in mind when stocking dungeons.

For example, the dungeon in the old AD&D Coloring album had this vibe, with armies of humanoids cursed to battle each other, and an encounter where a Ki-Rin aids the party.

http://monsterbrains.blogspot.com/2011/10/greg-irons-advanced-dungeons-and.html

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114263The problem is that the majority of dungeons can't work without an in-universe intelligent designer, whether that be a dungeon heart, a traditional evil overlord, or the modrons. Furthermore, the "non-weird" dungeons stretch my SoD more than the weird ones. The article I linked (https://dmdavid.com/tag/3-reasons-science-and-ecology-make-a-bad-mix-for-some-monsters/) explains this in more detail.

I read your article, but I do not entirely agree with it. If the majority don't work, then I don't use them and replace them with what does work. It probably wouldn't be the game you're looking for, but it's still D&D.

I read through the last couple of pages and nearly all the complaints are about the "stuff" the lists of classes, races, magic items, etc along with how they are used in various campaigns like the Adventurer's League.

I believe Adventure in Middle Earth decisively settled what you can do with the D&D system provided you are willing to do the work changing the "stuff" to suit your idea. Pick any of the other style or campaign ideas mention thus far here and you can alter 5e to suit.

As for RAW, I had no issues using it with two Majestic Wilderlands campaign. I do not emphasized the same things in the same way as the Adventurer's League does or the published WoTC adventures do. Instead I did what I always I done with any RPG I used for my setting and focused on the elements that work with the setting.

In general if you allow the entire contents of the kitchen expect some issues with any specifics of a fantasy setting you designed that didn't take into account the ideas behind the stuff of RAW 5e. However with reasonable editing, 5e can be adapted to a wide variety of campaigns without having to come up with a AiME worth of new "stuff".

Which is why, when my players wanted to play a kitchen sink 5e campaign, I opted to use Blackmarsh and not the Majestic Wilderlands. I wrote Blackmarsh with the D&D tropes in mind so it was easy to fit in the vast majority of the "stuff" from 5e.

However given my interest I have worked on a Majestic Wilderlands for 5e enough to see what it's design is broad also very specific in some area. For example the 20 level class progression. This multiplied the work enough compared to alternatives that I haven't been interested in coming out a 5e supplement. Although I continue to create material here and there and may have enough now to do some kind of supplement.

For example the Halfling Shadow (http://www.batintheattic.com/downloads/MW%205e%20Halfling%20Shadow.pdf).

Quote from: Bren;1114230I may be crankier than usual, but I do get tired of people explaining  OD&D to me. Unless you played the game before it was published in 1974 you aren't telling me anything I didn't at one time know.
.

He wasn't explaining OD&D to you. He was pointing out how oddball races existed from the start of the hobby. For example Gronan playing a Balrog PC.

Why should today's mix should be considered unusual?  Especially one knowledgeable about the history of the hobby.

I remember the party with the "token" human was present in the days of AD&D 1st edition.

Quote from: estar;1114301He wasn't explaining OD&D to you. He was pointing out how oddball races existed from the start of the hobby. For example Gronan playing a Balrog PC.

I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114303I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

Why personal weariness is with the continued accummulation more than anything.

It's not Tieflings instead Elves.  It's Tieflings AND elves.

Quote from: estar;1114301Why should today's mix should be considered unusual?

Simply, because it seems unusual to me.

You or anyone else are entitled to have motley patchwork parties in your kitchen sink campaign. I'm entitled to dislike kitchen sink settings and motley patchwork parties. Out of curiosity, is that sort of patchwork party typical of your Majestic Wilderlands?

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114303I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

Because people like what they like and I don't happen to like them.

I like consistency. Open worlds and gonzo kitchen sink settings sacrifice consistency to include everything.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114303I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

My view it is an arbitrary preference little different then if I like red paint on my car and if you like blue paint job.

The only objective considerable is how much time do you want to spend explaining your particular setup. If you going with Jorune, you better have a good writeup. If you go with elves, dwarves, and halflings, chances are players will "get" right off.

The problem is that people equate the "stuff" as being the system. That if I include Tieflings as one of the main races then you have to let players play tiefling if you use that RPG.

Now I can understand gripes about something common not being included or having an inferior presentation. That likely generate work for a good many referees who were expecting X to be included.

However omitting stuff is generally easily. System could be designed where everything a integrated whole and if you omit something it fall apart. However D&D in the form of 5th edition is not such a system. In fact purposely over designed to support different styles of play from multiple eras of the D&D hobby.

But if one has trouble separating stuff from system then complaints will ensue.

Another problem is organized play and published adventures. At some point for each book or each season of league play, a creative decision has to be made as to what it will be about. Like movies, novels, etc, it not hard to imagine that X sucks because the creative ideas behind it are bad.

Published RPG supplement do labor under a constraints similar to that have comics. That there is an estabilshed canon while flexible it has bounds. There only so far you can go with Superman, or Captain America before people go this may be interesting but it not a X book.

With RPGs you are contained by the stuff presented in your core books. While flexible it is also as bounds.  Imagine the next adventure book where only Wizards are focused on. All other character classes would be at a distinct disadvantage. A lot of hobbyists would gripe because many don't have any interest in playing Wizards. So D&D adventures may mix it up, most of the core classes will support one way or another in the adventure.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114303I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

**GENERALLY**

Because the conception of the world of Middle-Earth has all these races as part of the creation-myth.

Tieflings, Warforged, and Dragonborn - were more or less, like all of the other races that creeped in via other settings - tacked on.

Individually I have no problem with any of them. But when you start to hit maximum capacity of a world with all these new races, you lose the "vibe" of the setting. ALL of these races have very specific conceits to them that inherently makes me squint when thinking of them just running around the Realms or Greyhawk. I mean I find it ludicrous that Tieflings would just be "accepted" without batting an eye in those settings. But if you create a setting specifically - like in Golarion where you have devil-worshipping nations... it makes a lot more sense. And even then...

 Planescape and Spelljammer are huge exceptions to this. Gonzo to the max. I've let all kinds of crazy into those campaigns I've run.

Aesthetics tastes are subjective, but they can have patterns and reasons that can be objectively discussed.  Some groups can share these reasons.  

For example, I enjoy something like D&D wood elves or high elves for player races, something like fairy tale amoral elves (e.g. Anderson's "Three Hearts and Three Lions", but any number of stories will do) as NPCs or foes, and don't care for "urban fantasy" elves as either PC or NPC or monster.   I also don't like "elf quest" elves and any number of other twists on them, whether subverted from the original or something else.  It's a taste thing, and I know it.

No doubt the taste is partially rooted in my various views, both from reality and fantasy (e.g. how human nature works, how narratives work, what it means to be "done well" as a concept, etc.).  Which is why my view is largely shared by everyone in my gaming groups.  

When oddball races are wildly appreciated this is usually a sign that the person appreciating them is coming from a different set of views.  It's not 100%, of course, because people that are otherwise aligned can have those areas where they have their own twists on the thing.  My appreciation for classic Warner Brothers cartoons affects my views on comedy in fantasy RPGs in ways that do not exactly align with everyone in my gaming groups.  Other players tolerate it in me because it is a small thing that doesn't manifest itself very often.  By the same token, I've yet to meet a single person that was gung ho about playing a tielfling that would also have enjoyed any of our games.  Not saying it is impossible, but it would be highly unlikely.

Of course, I'm temperamentally disinclined to suffer a player that thinks the purpose of the game is to let them play anything they want, without regards to the setting or the work the GM has put into it.  Since I have 20 odd players that are quite happy to use the constraints of a setting to springboard their creativity in the characters they do play, I have no drive to accommodate such players, either.

So I think you'll find that the extreme dislike for tielfings (and to a lesser extent dragonborn and other such options) is a function of both aesthetic dislike for the thing itself and a strong suspicion that the player wanting to play it is not a good fit for the group.  Thus why I've said before that I have no issue with them being in the system, since they serve as useful "tells" while I happily exclude them.  

Finally, I think it important to note that these decisions exists on a gradient.  I'll not allow tieflings in any case, but I will grudgingly allow dragonborn occasionally--particularly with younger players who seem to get really excited about them.

Quote from: tenbones;1114314Planescape and Spelljammer are huge exceptions to this. Gonzo to the max. I've let all kinds of crazy into those campaigns I've run.

These are not so much exceptions, but stronger proof to your well-explained aesthetic rule. :) These settings HAVE THE SPACE for these demographics; they were built with such by their very cosmology. They are merely far more vast play scopes, emphasizing that coherency needs rationale and consistency. Planescape and Spelljammer have them due to an explained enormous size shortened by a playable conceit.

It is hard to make a better aesthetic argument than you already made here. :)

Quote from: Bren;1114312Simply, because it seems unusual to me.

You or anyone else are entitled to have motley patchwork parties in your kitchen sink campaign. I'm entitled to dislike kitchen sink settings and motley patchwork parties.

Same here, but I long learned it is futile to debate it, as it is a preference issue.

Quote from: Bren;1114312Out of curiosity, is that sort of patchwork party typical of your Majestic Wilderlands?

No, in general parties are majority humans. Because it very clear to the players from the materials I provide and my answers to their question about the setting that my take on the Wilderlands is dominated by humans.

It took a couple of decades to tweak this for the campaign along with a handful of mechanics. Most of the critical development of my version of the Wilderlands was done under Fantasy Hero and GURPS where you have to PAY to a member of a different races. By the time I started using D&D 3.X and Swords & Wizardry. I had tons of interesting roleplaying background options for human characters.

In the current set of rules I am using based on Swords & Wizardry, I do give humans a +15% XP bonus.  This is more of a sweetener than absolutely necessary.  I played around with different numbers for 5 years until I found +15% being the sweet spot.

I am however prepared if a party is majority non-humans. I have notes on all the races I allow and there are enough regions dominated by non-humans that I could run a campaign without the players having to deal (much) with human civilization.

My experience that there is a small group of hobbyist who enjoy roleplaying specific races and will do so even if not favored by the mechanics of the system.

Finally, in my current OD&D campaign, I had a player picked a full blood Virdian ( a demonic race) largely because it benefited him mechanically in terms of Swords & Wizardry. In the middle of summer he leapt at the chance of being turned into human because he was tired of his social status.

Similarly the players went hogwild with the polymorph spell and transformed themselves into a variety of monsters. For example doppleganger. At first they really exploited this but as the campaign wore on they founded what it truly meant to be a doppleganger and reverted back to their original form (or human in the case of the ex-Viridian).

I was willing to continue the campaign with most of the group transformed as doppleganger. But I wasn't going to cut any slack as to the consequences.

Specifically the dopplegangers have a hive mind. Eventually the characters would lose their individuality and become one with one of the clans. This was represented by periodic saving throws and a small bit of roleplaying.

Quote from: Bren;1114312I like consistency. Open worlds and gonzo kitchen sink settings sacrifice consistency to include everything.

You can be consistent with the kitchen sink nor does it has to be gonzo. But you can't just shove it into an arbitrary setting and expect it to work. I share the same basic preference as you on this.

I have a battered notebook where I categorized all the monsters from MM, MMII, and Fiend Folio. I found that there are dozens of culture forming races listed through just those three books.

I did this at the time when AD&D 1st was my main system (early to mid 80s). This many races posed a quandary. So while I pared the list somewhat over the years, my solution was to have most of them. Their existence was justified by the adding that during the Uttermost War at the dawn of Time between the gods and demons, the demons mutated mankind into all the races listed in their quest for the perfect servitor race.

Because I was using the Wilderlands with its 18 huge fucking maps, because I just recently expanded the scale from 5 miles to 12.5 mile (Harn). I was able to find various areas where cultures for these races existed. In a way that preserved the fact that the Wilderlands were dominated by humans. Which was due because most of my early campaigns ended in wargame exercises where the players conquered a region as their characters.

Over time I consolidated races like bugbears, hobgoblins, kobolds, etc into just orc and goblins with multiple cultures. So my "hobgoblins" are goblin with better technology and more organized society. Bugbears were replaced by orc tribes that noted for physical size and ferocity.

With Blackmarsh and the Points of Light settings, I just built in multiple races in from the get go. But I also limited myself to the list in Swords & Wizardry so didn't have to go crazy finding spots for a multitude of cultures.

Quote from: tenbones;1114314makes me squint when thinking of them just running around the Realms or Greyhawk. I mean I find it ludicrous that Tieflings would just be "accepted" without batting an eye in those settings.

I agree that races Tieflings appear and be accepted in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms is a head scratcher.

My own (unintended) solution is that I had the Viridistan Empire which in Judges Guild canon as an empire ruled by a race of half demons half mermen (the Viridians).

That morphed into it being ruled by a lesser race of demons (the Viridians still).

Then the empire collapsed into anarchy and civil war because, (again JG Canon) there were not a lot of Viridians left and the PCs killed the Emperor and his wife in an epic adventure.

Then when the civil war was winding down in later campaigns that were set in Viridistan, I stared to flesh out what it was like to live in a Demon ruled empire, so came up with the idea of half-Viridians. Bastards children of the Viridian ruling race. Plus I expanded the number of surviving Viridians but none of the survivors have the "Imperial Blood" so had no claim to the throne (except for one that I kept from JG Canon)

So the cultural situation is that half-Viridians existed, many of them were despised as a reminder of the days when demons ruled. But could and did prosper. However surviving full blood Viridians had to remain underground would be hunted and killed.

So this developed around the time that Tieflings became a things in the aughts. So I never had trouble adapting the mechanics of Tieflings to representing half-Viridians when ran D&D 3.X, 4e, or 5e in the Wilderlands.

However I did not use the RAW backstory each of those editions gave them and had my own list of what constituted demonic features.

Quote from: estar;1114301He wasn't explaining OD&D to you. He was pointing out how oddball races existed from the start of the hobby. For example Gronan playing a Balrog PC.

Why should today's mix should be considered unusual?  Especially one knowledgeable about the history of the hobby.

I remember the party with the "token" human was present in the days of AD&D 1st edition.

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114303I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

My feeling is that people like Africans but dislike Elbonians because everyone knows about Africa and have seen people from Africa but Elbonia is just super unrealistic full of people and strange things that no one has ever heard of.

Quote from: tenbones;1114314**GENERALLY**

Because the conception of the world of Middle-Earth has all these races as part of the creation-myth.

Tieflings, Warforged, and Dragonborn - were more or less, like all of the other races that creeped in via other settings - tacked on.

Individually I have no problem with any of them. But when you start to hit maximum capacity of a world with all these new races, you lose the "vibe" of the setting. ALL of these races have very specific conceits to them that inherently makes me squint when thinking of them just running around the Realms or Greyhawk. I mean I find it ludicrous that Tieflings would just be "accepted" without batting an eye in those settings. But if you create a setting specifically - like in Golarion where you have devil-worshipping nations... it makes a lot more sense. And even then...

 Planescape and Spelljammer are huge exceptions to this. Gonzo to the max. I've let all kinds of crazy into those campaigns I've run.

Ok, Tieflings and Greyhawk - has anyone ever heard of Iuz?  Is he a thing in Greyhawk or is he something that was tacked on to the setting in a way that does not make sense?

I would be the first to admit my knowledge of Greyhawk is patchy at best but maybe one of the older Grognards could tell me what I dont understand about half breed planar characters in Greyhawk and how they dont fit the "vibe" of Greyhawk.

Quote from: tenbones;1114314**GENERALLY**

Because the conception of the world of Middle-Earth has all these races as part of the creation-myth.

Tieflings, Warforged, and Dragonborn - were more or less, like all of the other races that creeped in via other settings - tacked on.

So if you're NOT playing Middle Earth, but a setting where tieflings, dragonborn and warforged are woven into it instead of tacked on there shouldn't be any problems with having them.

Which is just about any WotC setting out there (ex. Eberron, Nentir Vale, post-Spellplague FR).

In my home setting 'malfeans' (elemental-themed tieflings), dwarves (who are also arcane cyborgs... warforged are "full-conversion" cyborg dwarves), eldritch (embodied nature spirits not good enough for heaven nor wicked enough for hell) and humans are central to the creation myth while Beastmen (minotaurs, wolfen, crocodin, etc.) are central to the fall of the first human empire and rise of worship of the astral gods.

Elves are far more tacked on to that setting; they literally showed up because a magic cataclysm just a century or two back ripped open the barriers between worlds and dumped them into the setting.

If not for their usefulness as opportunistic antagonists (because of how they arrived they were MUCH more numerous and organized than the native survivors) with a truly alien culture, I probably would have just skipped them entirely and included an elf-like option among the Eldritch (an array that already includes everything from sprites to giants to talking animals, dryads, undine, sylphs, unicorns, werebeasts and dragons).

Middle Earth is a fine setting, but insisting that every other setting be Tolkein-based is nonsense to me; just play in Middle Earth if all you want are humans, elves, dwarves and hobb... er, halflings. I'd much rather play in a setting where human, tiefling, dragonborn and warforged were the core races than another Tolkein rip-off.

Quote from: estar;1114323I agree that races Tieflings appear and be accepted in Greyhawk and Forgotten Realms is a head scratcher.

I thought the tiefling that's the face for The Faithful Quartermasters of Iuz (I'm serious) in Ghosts of Saltmarsh was worse than a head scratcher. Because of course Keoland is OK with a demonic demigod-backed business that trades in magical items...they have something similar in Seattle, right?

Quote from: Shasarak;1114326Ok, Tieflings and Greyhawk - has anyone ever heard of Iuz?  Is he a thing in Greyhawk or is he something that was tacked on to the setting in a way that does not make sense?

I would be the first to admit my knowledge of Greyhawk is patchy at best but maybe one of the older Grognards could tell me what I dont understand about half breed planar characters in Greyhawk and how they dont fit the "vibe" of Greyhawk.

Iuz is definitely Greyhawk, but he is a cambion/demigod, not a tiefling. The tieflings are a whole race (or species if you prefer) of devilish origin while Iuz was a singlular being of demonic  origin (of Graz'zt). Iuz grew from a bandit lord to a demigod in a relatively short period of time, but he wasn't tacked on.

If you want to use 5e tieflings in Greyhawk, they would not come from Iuz. Far better to have them start popping out of Great Kingdom nobility as a consequence of voided infernal contracts after the fall of Rauxes. Those Aerdy nobles were pretty naughty, and now their lands are a fallen empire of Hell on Oerth (with few actual fields remaining thanks to that asshole from Veluna).

Quote from: Shasarak;1114326Ok, Tieflings and Greyhawk - has anyone ever heard of Iuz?  Is he a thing in Greyhawk or is he something that was tacked on to the setting in a way that does not make sense?

But but he is a cambion! ;)

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114333Iuz is definitely Greyhawk, but he is a cambion/demigod, not a tiefling. The tieflings are a whole race (or species if you prefer) of devilish origin while Iuz was a singlular being of demonic  origin (of Graz'zt). Iuz grew from a bandit lord to a demigod in a relatively short period of time, but he wasn't tacked on.

If you want to use 5e tieflings in Greyhawk, they would not come from Iuz. Far better to have them start popping out of Great Kingdom nobility as a consequence of voided infernal contracts after the fall of Rauxes. Those Aerdy nobles were pretty naughty, and now their lands are a fallen empire of Hell on Oerth (with few actual fields remaining thanks to that asshole from Veluna).

If we are quibling about Demonic half-breeds as opposed to Hellish half-breeds then we have already accepted the fact that there are half-breeds.

Whether there is actually a "race" of half-breeds or not is a pretty fluid idea within the DnD cosmology because you could look at Half-Elves and Half-Orcs and ask the same question of them, were their parents Human and Elf (for example) or are Half-Elves actually a new race of people that breed true.  Certainly the oringinal Planescape Tiefling was an individual more then a race and there is no good reason to suppose that any individual PC Tiefling lacks a unique backstory similar to the way that Iuz does.

If you are hell bent (heh) on having Tieflings descend from Devils then sure your idea is a perfect way to integrate a Tiefling into Greyhawk.

As for Cambion they are found in the Monster Manual 2 on page 37.

QuoteWhen a human female mates with a demon, the offspring is always a cambion male. The general characteristics and abilities of a cambion depend upon its parentage.

....

Any cambion can range from 6-7' feet in height. Their build is stocky and strong. Many cambions will have demonic features such as an odd-colored complexion, scaly skin, misshapen ears, fangs, small horns, etc. There is no set pattern, cambions being nearly as varied in appearance as humans.

There is enough information in the entry to allow Cambions as PC race if you want to go that route.

Tieflings first appeared as part of the AD&D 2nd edition Planescape setting.

Quote from: rawma;1114121In any case OD&D alone versus OD&D+Greyhawk(+anything else) should be carefully distinguished.

Good point. OD&D could not, in my opinion, be run Rules as Written because there were almost no rules. That made DMing rather difficult but it also led to a healthy variety among the campaigns of those who could hack it. On Wednesday nights I had to choose between two great campaigns run by brilliant GMs. It took ingenuity to take a character from one campaign to another because they were so different. But it was all "D&D."

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales;1114303I don't understand why there is so much opposition to oddball races. Why exactly would Tolkien races be kosher, but tieflings, warforged, and dragonborn not?

For me, it is the number of species that causes problems, not their identity. I find that the survival of so many bashes against my suspension of disbelief.

Quote from: estar;1114345As for Cambion they are found in the Monster Manual 2 on page 37.

There is enough information in the entry to allow Cambions as PC race if you want to go that route.

Tieflings first appeared as part of the AD&D 2nd edition Planescape setting.

I dont know if the Gord the Rogue books are supposed to be canonical of not, but I am sure Gord is supposed to be related in someway to the Cat Lord.

So much complaint about too wide a variety of races!

In my view, a great strength of D&D, pickup games in particular, is the weird mix of ideas that people come up with for player characters, more in their interests and attitudes than in race. A game with one GM and one player, or any number of players who all manifest exactly the same tastes in fantasy, is going to miss out on the opportunity for creativity when disparate elements clash. (OK, I was going to say "is like kissing your sister" but I don't want to know who thinks that would be an endorsement.) Letting source material dictate how a player character is played seems antithetical to RPGs; do you forbid players from playing, say, an elf unless they are certified in Middle Earth trivia and promise to abide by it?

I adventured with what was, for Barovia, a wildly mixed set of player character races, but they were there because we all wandered through a fog bank from somewhere else. I can see the decision that "there is no tiefling community in this world, even if your character is a tiefling", but D&D worlds probably have hundreds of sentient races of monsters, and DMs deal with that, so why not twenty that can be player characters?

(OK, D&D Beyond (https://www.dndbeyond.com/races) says 39 races, not counting subraces, some of which seem distinct to me, but 12 are not legal for AL. So many! I must swell up with ineffectual nerd rage at this travesty of -- hmm, no, still good with it. :D)

Quote from: tenbones;1114314**GENERALLY**

Because the conception of the world of Middle-Earth has all these races as part of the creation-myth.

Tieflings, Warforged, and Dragonborn - were more or less, like all of the other races that creeped in via other settings - tacked on.

Individually I have no problem with any of them. But when you start to hit maximum capacity of a world with all these new races, you lose the "vibe" of the setting. ALL of these races have very specific conceits to them that inherently makes me squint when thinking of them just running around the Realms or Greyhawk. I mean I find it ludicrous that Tieflings would just be "accepted" without batting an eye in those settings. But if you create a setting specifically - like in Golarion where you have devil-worshipping nations... it makes a lot more sense. And even then...

 Planescape and Spelljammer are huge exceptions to this. Gonzo to the max. I've let all kinds of crazy into those campaigns I've run.

From the get-go the idea was the DM could "prune the race tree" as they saw fit. Its in most if not all the rulebooks and sure as hell is in several setting books. No orcs? Done, Human only? Done, No halflings? Done. And so on. The Creature Crucible series for BECMI pretty much were all about playing non-standard races. (or optionally meeting them and their strange worlds.)
Others opened up just a handfull of raves specific to the area. Which tended to be more the norm for D&D settings. Red Steel introduced Lupin, Rakasta and Tortles for example. Which you didnt see much anywhere else.

But at the end of the day the DM can just say "No gnomes" and poof, gnomes are not a PC race, or dont exist in that setting. They were not a PC choice for my 5e Known World campaign as they were not a PC race in BX. Dragonborn are not a race unto themselves and are only an option for Dragon Blooded Sorcerers. (because that was how I was introduced to them.) and so on.

Here that old list I was talking about earlier.
[ATTACH=CONFIG]3988[/ATTACH]

Quote from: rawma;1114354In my view, a great strength of D&D, pickup games in particular, is the weird mix of ideas that people come up with for player characters, more in their interests and attitudes than in race. A game with one GM and one player, or any number of players who all manifest exactly the same tastes in fantasy, is going to miss out on the opportunity for creativity when disparate elements clash.

One kind of creativity is lost, yes, but another is gained.  Creativity that springs out of restraints can be muted but satisfying.  Also, note that I did not say "exactly" the same tastes.  There is a lot of overlap--enough to have something coherent that appeals to our joint tastes--but also differences.  The differences can be small, but are magnified in the game because of the base similarity.  

There is also the tonal preference for subtle or over the top.  We prefer something that leans somewhat towards the subtle, or at least allows room for it.  Spelljammer and the like simply doesn't appeal.

Wow. Several of you said what I would have said, but more articulately. Thanks, I guess. :)

Quote from: Shasarak;1114343If we are quibling about Demonic half-breeds as opposed to Hellish half-breeds then we have already accepted the fact that there are half-breeds.

Whether there is actually a "race" of half-breeds or not is a pretty fluid idea within the DnD cosmology because you could look at Half-Elves and Half-Orcs and ask the same question of them, were their parents Human and Elf (for example) or are Half-Elves actually a new race of people that breed true.  Certainly the oringinal Planescape Tiefling was an individual more then a race and there is no good reason to suppose that any individual PC Tiefling lacks a unique backstory similar to the way that Iuz does.

If you are hell bent (heh) on having Tieflings descend from Devils then sure your idea is a perfect way to integrate a Tiefling into Greyhawk.

I choose to differentiate between demons and devils. Just because they are both fiends doesn't mean that they both produce tieflings in 5e anymore than lizardfolk should be able to produce half-breeds with humans just like elves since both are humanoids.

You second paragraph is not about 5e, so it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

Your third paragraph is appreciated. Thank you.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114372You second paragraph is not about 5e, so it's entirely irrelevant to this discussion.

As far as I am aware there is no 5e version of Greyhawk.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1114364One kind of creativity is lost, yes, but another is gained.  Creativity that springs out of restraints can be muted but satisfying.  Also, note that I did not say "exactly" the same tastes.  There is a lot of overlap--enough to have something coherent that appeals to our joint tastes--but also differences.  The differences can be small, but are magnified in the game because of the base similarity.  

There is also the tonal preference for subtle or over the top.  We prefer something that leans somewhat towards the subtle, or at least allows room for it.  Spelljammer and the like simply doesn't appeal.

I understand and I'm not trying to be critical, just defending my preferences. I have played in games with relatively restrained player character races, but that doesn't feel like D&D to me. I never played Spelljammer but it probably wouldn't feel like D&D to me, either. Like A Fire Upon the Deep or the Star Wars cantina or Jedi Council, I think D&D needs lots of races and doesn't have to be humanocentric, but equally I wouldn't confuse any of those.

But nor does restricting races solve all problems; given a choice between a player with a tiefling (or dragonborn or firbolg or kenku or tortle or yuan-ti pureblood or whatever) role-played according to the race description in the PHB or Volo's or the Tortle Package or whatever, a player with an elf based off of Keebler cookie commercials, and a player with a human who does nothing but (mis)quote Monty Python, I'll take the first player and you and Bren can fight over the elf and the human.

Deal? :p

Quote from: Shasarak;1114378As far as I am aware there is no 5e version of Greyhawk.

Ghosts of Saltmarsh presents a piece of Greyhawk (the southern coast of Keoland) and is where the tiefling captain working for Iuz that I mentioned upthread is found. The same book also makes brief references to a few other parts of the Flanaess.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114382Ghosts of Saltmarsh presents a piece of Greyhawk (the southern coast of Keoland) and is where the tiefling captain working for Iuz that I mentioned upthread is found. The same book also makes brief references to a few other parts of the Flanaess.

Yes it is set in Greyhawk and indeed has all sorts of races present. I have it on order. Had a glance at it at a store but couldnt pick it up then. If I recall right wasnt there a half-dragon NPC in there too? Among other things. This is Greyhawk though and theres alot of odd races dotting the land. Some created by magic, or originally hailing from some other world/dimension. That was noted in my old boxed set.

Quote from: rawma;1114381I understand and I'm not trying to be critical, just defending my preferences. I have played in games with relatively restrained player character races, but that doesn't feel like D&D to me. I never played Spelljammer but it probably wouldn't feel like D&D to me, either. Like A Fire Upon the Deep or the Star Wars cantina or Jedi Council, I think D&D needs lots of races and doesn't have to be humanocentric, but equally I wouldn't confuse any of those.

But nor does restricting races solve all problems; given a choice between a player with a tiefling (or dragonborn or firbolg or kenku or tortle or yuan-ti pureblood or whatever) role-played according to the race description in the PHB or Volo's or the Tortle Package or whatever, a player with an elf based off of Keebler cookie commercials, and a player with a human who does nothing but (mis)quote Monty Python, I'll take the first player and you and Bren can fight over the elf and the human.

Deal? :p

There's a big pool of players and a lot of games for them to play in.  I'll stake no claims on any of those three.  They'll find a game somewhere. :)

Anyway as for my personal issues with 5e:

Characters don't feel distinct from one another. The nature of the underlining resolution mechanic is that characters vary rarely differ in their success rates. But its also easy to succeed on most things without investment. While it means you rarely feel excluded, you also rarely feel exceptional.
Also every other general issue of D&D is lessened, but at a much more proportional loss of fun those issues had with them.
Also it feels downright unfinished in places. Not in a rules-lite "Make your own stuff" but more like "We ran out of stuff to do".
Monsters feel very inconsistent. Some feel like 4e damage sponges while others feel like 1e or 2e "Suprise kill" monsters.

I also have many more specific issues but those are the larger points.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114437Anyway as for my personal issues with 5e:

Characters don't feel distinct from one another. The nature of the underlining resolution mechanic is that characters vary rarely differ in their success rates. But its also easy to succeed on most things without investment. While it means you rarely feel excluded, you also rarely feel exceptional.
Also every other general issue of D&D is lessened, but at a much more proportional loss of fun those issues had with them.
Also it feels downright unfinished in places. Not in a rules-lite "Make your own stuff" but more like "We ran out of stuff to do".
Monsters feel very inconsistent. Some feel like 4e damage sponges while others feel like 1e or 2e "Suprise kill" monsters.

I also have many more specific issues but those are the larger points.

So PCs are too predictably similar while monsters are wildly unpredictable?

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114440So PCs are too predictably similar while monsters are wildly unpredictable?

Yeah a big part of it. I don't care what Gorgnards say, instakill monsters are BS. I mean it can be a thing if everybody knows what game they are playing, but in general its just a punishment for not poking every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole because they didn't guess accurately what the GM was thinking that day.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114441Yeah a big part of it. I don't care what Gorgnards say, instakill monsters are BS. I mean it can be a thing if everybody knows what game they are playing, but in general its just a punishment for not poking every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole because they didn't guess accurately what the GM was thinking that day.

I have also seen the other side of that with really swingy PC abilities. A good turn or two and the PCs can bulldoze through what should have been a challenging encounter, but a bad turn or two can quickly result in a TPK. If you have both the monsters and the PCs highly variable, the ability to accurately gauge challenges becomes a total asspull. If both monsters and PCs are tightly similar and predictable, then the game is boring (to me) and entirely a resource management chore. Since one side needs to be relatively stable for a good mix between predictability and swing, I prefer the 5e idea that PCs (which are involved in every encounter) being the more predictable element. The DM can always avoid using the worst of the swingy monsters.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114444If both monsters and PCs are tightly similar and predictable, then the game is boring (to me) and entirely a resource management chore.

I can see that argument as well. I didn't feel like 5e wasn't that. As a GM I don't find instakills satisfying. Since again that's just a lucky roll.

I prefer to make an impossible challenge and have the PCs think their way out of it. I didn't find 5e provided that on a level that wasn't mostly fiat.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114441Yeah a big part of it. I don't care what Gorgnards say, instakill monsters are BS. I mean it can be a thing if everybody knows what game they are playing, but in general its just a punishment for not poking every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole because they didn't guess accurately what the GM was thinking that day.

If Amos Doe, 1st level Fighter, tries to confront Ancelegorn the Black a 16 HD Red Dragon, it will be a instakill.

Situation A
Amos decides based on a treasure map that a cave of kobolds is likely place for a novice to make an initial score but then runs into Ancelegorn in the second chamber, dies, and the referee goes "Ha Ha, the map was a trap put out by the dragon to lure unsuspecting adventurers."

That that a failure in my book. Why? Because the situation stretch plausibility to the breaking point for a variety of reason.

Situation B
Now take a different situation where Amos gets ahold of a map that shows that a cave is the lair of Ancelgorn an ancient Red Dragon. The player decides that despite being 1st level that it would a good things to visit that cave. The players for whatever reason things it is red herring and that the referee would never kill a PC instantly. A few minutes of real time later Amos is dead. I have to no problem with this outcome although the player will still have complaints.

The difference is the world being build around the encounter and the information imparted to the player.

In general the problem with instakill anything is that there is no build up by the referee. No process of discovery or learning that give the PCs the information to calculate the risks.

The problem in your statement is not the instakill, the problem is the lack of information. If one see a flight of stairs descending into darkness and just merrily follows that path then yes it is likely horrible bad things will happen to the character. If instead they try to investigate why these stair are there then they will have more information on which to evaluate whether it is worth the risk.

Then there are time when something is just found that nobody knows about. In those cases you are literally going into the unknown. The smart play is to poke every wall, floor, ceiling, chest, skull, door, house, mouse, louse, blouse, and bauhaus painting with a 10 foot pole. You have no information what down there, you have no way of getting that information.

What I would do as a player, is poke around just enough to identify why the place was built. Retreat, do some research, and come back better prepared.

This is not old school, new school, or middle school. This how thing work in this type of situation. Of course a referee can make it easier to the players by only having level appropriate encounters. Use a system where the mechanics allow character to nearly always survive the first assault. And so on.

I've watched 5E games posted to YouTube, wherein the players succeed at least 90% of the time.  "I rolled a 6, but I get plus 3 for this, and plus 2 for that; so I have an 11."

Quote from: rawma;1114381But nor does restricting races solve all problems; given a choice between a player with a tiefling (or dragonborn or firbolg or kenku or tortle or yuan-ti pureblood or whatever) role-played according to the race description in the PHB or Volo's or the Tortle Package or whatever, a player with an elf based off of Keebler cookie commercials, and a player with a human who does nothing but (mis)quote Monty Python, I'll take the first player and you and Bren can fight over the elf and the human.

Deal? :p

I'm a generous soul. You can have all three of them. :)

Quote from: Razor 007;1114456I've watched 5E games posted to YouTube, wherein the players succeed at least 90% of the time.  "I rolled a 6, but I get plus 3 for this, and plus 2 for that; so I have an 11."

That is terrible forcing a Player to go through simple addition.  Monsters!

Quote from: Shasarak;1114463That is terrible forcing a Player to go through simple addition.  Monsters!

No, I was complaining about the almost guaranteed success at everything the players try to do.  They might as well just tell their story, and omit the dice rolls.....

Quote from: Shasarak;1114463That is terrible forcing a Player to go through simple addition.  Monsters!

I have had a couple players who legitimately could not properly add the results of 3d6 together, using either numerals or pips. Other players at the table would constantly have to read their rolls for them or correct their declarations ("I got a 14!" "actually bud, that's a 13..."). You should have seen the looks on their faces trying to puzzle out "cutting damage: multiply damage that exceeds DR by 1.5 and round down."

Absolutely mystifying and downright frustrating.

Quote from: Razor 007;1114456I've watched 5E games posted to YouTube, wherein the players succeed at least 90% of the time.  "I rolled a 6, but I get plus 3 for this, and plus 2 for that; so I have an 11."

Yup thats mostly how I found it working. But eventually I found that super unsatisfying as a player.

Quote from: estar;1114455If Amos Doe, 1st level Fighter, tries to confront Ancelegorn the Black a 16 HD Red Dragon, it will be a instakill.

I should have been more specific: the actual "Save or die" monsters.

But if you're going to talk about that design philosophy in specific: It can go to hell (Where other grognards that enjoy it are invited to have fun).

Now just to be clear: I don't pussyfoot around with my players. If they go to invade the HQ of their foes unprepared and at the doors prepare to just die. That's actually what I have had done before where players just stormed the gate of an enemy stronghold and all proceeded to get mostly shot to death by the defenders (And flame-grilled by traps). To be fair they tried to stealth it at first, but then when that failed, they tried to force their way in. Made so much noise it attracted all the defenders.

But past grognard design was much more GM Vs player. The designers wouldn't have described their joy in killing other players' characters in brutal nonsensical deathtraps otherwise.
There are bestiaries FULL of monsters and traps that exist for no reason but to punish logical expectations. "That's not a werewolf, that's actually an ooze that looks like a werewolf and feeds off of silver weapons". Makes about as much sense as half the stuff in those books.

The GM still has to structure the world in a way that won't penalize players in just existing in it.
For instance, why does it break suspension of disbelief that a map was put out by a dragon to lure in fools? Plausibility just can't be your only reason for the design. Because everyone's plausibility is different. Especially in a fantasy world.

Because anything is plausible in one, so the answer is to move an inch per minute and plan for every possible and impossible eventuality?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114468(And flame-grilled by traps)

The Burger King truly is merciless in his stronghold design.

Quote from: Razor 007;1114466No, I was complaining about the almost guaranteed success at everything the players try to do.  They might as well just tell their story, and omit the dice rolls.....

Oh, it seemed like you were complaining about having to add numbers.  That made more sense to me then complaining about succeeding on an 11.

Quote from: Razor 007;1114466No, I was complaining about the almost guaranteed success at everything the players try to do.  They might as well just tell their story, and omit the dice rolls.....

This is 5e? In the 5e game I'm running, the characters are just getting to level 3, but the failure rate at levels 1-2 has been really high.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114478This is 5e? In the 5e game I'm running, the characters are just getting to level 3, but the failure rate at levels 1-2 has been really high.

May have something to do with the guidelines of difficulty being so vague that success rates vary wildly between tables?

Hm. Shouldn't success be based on the decisions of the players? Or at least influenced by them?

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114479May have something to do with the guidelines of difficulty being so vague that success rates vary wildly between tables?

A big part of it is that some of the most basic mooks (like Bandits) are pretty tough 1v1 fights for 1st-level PCs, and it gets worse when the numbers of bad guys go up.

Quote from: Ratman_tf;1114480Hm. Shouldn't success be based on the decisions of the players? Or at least influenced by them?

Sure, but at least in my games, the unpredictability of the d20 for resolution is still a big determiner of success/failure. Well that and rolling 5 damage (on 3d6) for that "alpha strike" burning hands and then watching two of the three bad guys make their saves (so, that's 2 pts, 2pts, and 5pts--they're lightly singed and really pissed off now).

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114481A big part of it is that some of the most basic mooks (like Bandits) are pretty tough 1v1 fights for 1st-level PCs, and it gets worse when the numbers of bad guys go up.

Oh there is that as well. But thats a universal true-ism in D&D, low levels are lethal.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114484Oh there is that as well. But thats a universal true-ism in D&D, low levels are lethal.

Greetings!

*Sigh* I'm not *quite* sold on the idea that 5E makes player characters nigh invincible. I had an encounter where the group--5 characters--(1 NPC, and 4 Player characters)--encountered a group of bandits on a wilderness road. There were 7 Bandits. Two Bandits were engrossed in plundering a merchant's wagon, picking over the Merchant's body, two dead bodyguards bodies, and raping his young daughter. The other 5 Bandits responded to the approach of the Player group. The Player group's Ranger approached, and was pincushioned by arrows from three of the Bandits, while two Bandits charged forth to engage in hand-to-hand combat.

The rest of the group raced to their wounded comrade. The next round, the Ranger was finished off with concentrated arrow fire, and the Party Cleric charged. The Player group fought two engaged Bandits, while the Bandits crushed the Cleric. Then a Bandit was killed. Two Bandits maintained concentrated archery fire, while a third Bandit charged into hand-to-hand combat. The party Cleric was killed, and the NPC wizard was reduced with critical wounds and captured. The NPC wizard was carried off by one Bandit, while one Bandit remained on guard, and two Bandits remained on Overwatch. The remaining two Players attempted to pursue the captured NPC wizard, but were stopped cold by the Bandit wielding a two-handed sword, who scored a critical, and supported by more concentrated archery fire. The surviving player characters--both heavily wounded--were forced to make a swift retreat. The Bandits were then rejoined by their two wicked comrades, and they regrouped deeper into the forest where their lair was. The NPC Wizard was tortured, raped, and sold into slavery. The surviving two Player characters gradually made their way back along a three day journey to town, where they had to recruit new members of the party, to refit and rebuild the group's membership after such a dismal beginning fighting bandits in the forest.

5 Bandits took on 5 Player Characters, and wiped the floor with them. The Bandits had I recall equal or mostly less hit points than the Player characters. End of the encounter, two Player characters died, one NPC Wizard captured and sold into slavery, and two surviving Player characters that were heavily wounded and forced to retreat in disgrace.

My initial thoughts, based on the CR and looking at the Bandits having 6 to 8 hit points each, fairly modestly armoured and geared, that the Players would stomp them. The Bandits had no wizards, and no healers. They didn't need any. A few criticals, a few good rolls, and arguably, a few less than ideal rolls for the Player characters, and the Player group was annihilated.

The Bandits were armoured in Studded Leather Armour, shortbows, arrows, scimitars, dagger and hand axe. One Bandit had a two-handed sword.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1114488*Sigh* I'm not *quite* sold on the idea that 5E makes player characters nigh invincible.

Depends on the level and the party layout. I remember my time just being the punching bag being knocked unconscious and then the cleric buffing me back up.
5e D&Ds bounded accuracy means that a bunch of mooks with ranged attacks is almost always better than even high levels.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114489Depends on the level and the party layout. I remember my time just being the punching bag being knocked unconscious and then the cleric buffing me back up.
5e D&Ds bounded accuracy means that a bunch of mooks with ranged attacks is almost always better than even high levels.

Greetings!

Yeah, I carefully noted how the two Bandits in melee, kind of worked in synergy with their three comrades providing archery fire. The Player characters suffered a critical, some more damage, and once one Player went down, the Bandits focused on the Cleric, and he quickly went down, and it sort of snowballed from there. Even without getting another critical, or a few lucky rolls, the deluge of fire and attacks were simply overwhelming for the Player characters to resist effectively. The Players never recovered, and just continued to be annihilated. Even when they killed one Bandit, it was not enough of a counter-attack to turn the tide in their favour. the two surviving Player characters knew if they had stayed, they would have been killed in another round or two. Even three rounds, as they had no illusions about the two of them killing four mostly full-strength Bandits.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1114493Greetings!

Yeah, I carefully noted how the two Bandits in melee, kind of worked in synergy with their three comrades providing archery fire.

This is in part because of the death saves system. As long as you're not being targetted after being down and then are healed your generally indestructible. If they attack you while you're down your generally not.
And depending on how each GM determines what makes sense for them your gonna get either easy TPKs or nearly impossible ones.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114496This is in part because of the death saves system. As long as you're not being targetted after being down and then are healed your generally indestructible. If they attack you while you're down your generally not.
And depending on how each GM determines what makes sense for them your gonna get either easy TPKs or nearly impossible ones.

It also matters if the GM remembers that your downed ass is still in the AoE of the boom-booms targeting the rest of the party! Splash damage against the downed is ugly stuff.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114496This is in part because of the death saves system. As long as you're not being targetted after being down and then are healed your generally indestructible. If they attack you while you're down your generally not.
And depending on how each GM determines what makes sense for them your gonna get either easy TPKs or nearly impossible ones.

Greetings!

Indeed, just like how the Player characters are ruthless, and make sure their enemies are dead, their enemies likewise make sure to cut a downed foe's throat, or stick them in the heart with a savage dagger thrust, to ensure their enemies are finished off entirely. On occasion, a Player will balk at such, but history reminds us that even in actual historical battles and raids, bandits, marauders, and soldiers alike often were ruthless in such policies as well, making sure to finish off enemies that may otherwise just be wounded. So, such a ruthless attitude is more or less common amongst warriors and peoples accustomed to violence.

Within 5E, you are right, my friend. I generally prefer a violent, unforgiving world, as such seems more realistic and authentic to me. However, while i am not given to too much leniency towards Player Characters from such, some of the game mechancs actually encourage me design-wise to kind of hold up a bit. After all, no one wants to endlessly make up batches of level one characters, merely because the characters are weak, and the world is a brutal place. I occasionally provide the Players with a little bit of slack, providing they are not stupid. After all, though my players would no doubt insist that I am a ruthless bastard DM, I do cheer for them, and want them to succeed and make progress with their characters. Ruthless Bastardism must be spiced with a bit of mercy!:D

Indeed, at higher levels, as the Player characters become stronger, and gain even more resources and sponge-like power, it is also necessary for a good DM to ratchet up the pressure, and not be afraid to be ruthless and harsh, otherwise the game can become too easy, and such challenges would then be phony, and ultimately unsatisfying. I like knowing that whatever the level of the Player Characters, they live in a harsh and brutal world, where death and defeat is at their elbow, waiting. They must fight and struggle to become great heroes!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1114507Greetings!

Indeed, just like how the Player characters are ruthless, and make sure their enemies are dead, their enemies likewise make sure to cut a downed foe's throat, or stick them in the heart with a savage dagger thrust, to ensure their enemies are finished off entirely.

Which is completely subjective. It so speaks to how D&Ds death system is so gamey it feels artificial. This isn't a realistic choice. It's a GM choice.
Mauraders and such made sure to double-tap downed enemies....Did they do it while they still had enemies around? Much less so....Did they stab the same downed guy 3 times because 3 is the magic number to kill downed people no matter how much pressure you put to bear? Id wager no.



As for player death....Its a question I super struggle with. Because I feel like a Player dying is more a punishment for me than for them. It just encourages players to not really get invested in their characters, or the world and just become just builds to kill stuff with. And I guess that's not something I'm interested in.

I try to punish them with longstanding story and character penalties, but its still kinda a wash. How do others handle this sort of thing?

I handle it by lowering the stakes. Further you can do this by lateral shift of the threat, such as delays, unknowns, or increased exposure.

A quick example: Had an PC ROFLstomp a trio of kobolds by surprising them and charging. One was killed outright, the other knocked out, the third fled. PC thought they had a new prisoner pet and tied it up, carrying it around. After carrying the kobold around for a day, and much hostile pigin conversation, clicking noises, and strange knocking on trees the tied-up kobold is propped against, PC beds for the night.

PC wakes in pitch darkness to what sounds like the prisoner kobold speaking right next to its ear. Fumbles in the dark, realizes PC's weapon is not at their bedside, gets a torch going, notices the prisoner kobold is free, there is more than one kobold tracks, and that the PC's waterskins are emptied out -- punctured. Rations are either missing or scattered. Pursuit is suicidal in the dark, alone, with kobolds in unknown allied numbers, and low supplies. No need to kill.

Lowered stakes, delayed threat, unknowns, & increased exposure. :) To the pain, GMs, to the pain. ;)

Quote from: Razor 007;1114456I've watched 5E games posted to YouTube, wherein the players succeed at least 90% of the time.

I don't have a problem with a 90% success rate in itself. An outstanding old-school style player will achieve the same success rate by making excellent choices. I think success on the dice depends more on which die rolls your character chooses to make -- and in which circumstances, and with which situational advantages -- than upon anything else.

Isn't the goal of the game to increase your character's success rate on the dice? If not, then what is the point of player choice?

Now it may be that the games you were watching displayed no such thing, and everything was utterly random and still wound up being 90% in the characters' favor. But if the rules are "imbalanced" like that, what happens when the PCs fight a bunch of classed and leveled NPCs? The point being that if the players are making no meaningful choices, and the game is still set up to favor one side or another in a battle, how is that the rules of the game create that favorable side? Because it seems to me that the chosen encounters in that case are the meaningful aspect.

Quote from: Razor 007;1114466No, I was complaining about the almost guaranteed success at everything the players try to do.  They might as well just tell their story, and omit the dice rolls.....

I missed that the first time through.  

When you make an attack roll and you hit, that's success by one measure, but you might not drop the opponent.  Even a 90% success rate means a lot of 'failures'.  If those failures have consequences then omitting the roll doesn't make sense.

If you imagine that most combats take 3 rounds and each round you get one chance to take an action.  In this case there is a high probability, out of every 8 fights there is one where you will miss every single time; in one you will hit every time.  I don't know how many fights you're likely to see in a campaign, but I think having a better than even chance feels more satisfying - especially if the rounds take a long time.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114575I missed that the first time through.  

When you make an attack roll and you hit, that's success by one measure, but you might not drop the opponent.  Even a 90% success rate means a lot of 'failures'.  If those failures have consequences then omitting the roll doesn't make sense.

If you imagine that most combats take 3 rounds and each round you get one chance to take an action.  In this case there is a high probability, out of every 8 fights there is one where you will miss every single time; in one you will hit every time.  I don't know how many fights you're likely to see in a campaign, but I think having a better than even chance feels more satisfying - especially if the rounds take a long time.

I've been thinking how to put this. Thank you.

I've had fights where I miss two or three times in a row. Honestly, I start checking out, playing games on my tablet or stacking my dice. D&D especially is not very well configured to have player input affect combat dice rolls.
Attack score +1d20 versus target's AC. Roll dice, hit or miss. Maybe get a +2 for flanking.
"Best" is when nearly everyone misses, and I start wondering about how we spent a whole turn spinning our wheels. Wake me up when the fight's over, man.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114437Characters don't feel distinct from one another. The nature of the underlining resolution mechanic is that characters vary rarely differ in their success rates. But its also easy to succeed on most things without investment. While it means you rarely feel excluded, you also rarely feel exceptional.

That feeling of a sort of 'sameness' I get too. But for me it stems from the fact that at this point every class has either a spellcaster path for non-casters, or a melee path for casters. Moreso if you factor in the UA playtests. Though so far a couple have not yet seen print far as I know.

It does add more options though and some of the new paths fit really. Others feel like they could have been better off in a different class.

As for monsters. If you only look at the stag block then all the way back to OD&D monsters will look a bit same-ish. Its the background info and whatever tactics and skills they have that really set each apart. 5e insted pads out the data section a bit too much in many areas and to me spends more words saying less than pre-3e did.

The interesting thing is that 5e makes you miss MORE attacks in higher levels, when compared to old-school editions.

In 5e, you often need a number of around 8+ on the d20 to hit. In AD&D, for example, your "to-hit" chance raises a lot faster, while monster AC remais similar, making you hit a lot more often (there are even rules in OSRIC for that cases when you'd ALWAYS hit, which is rare in 5e).

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1114822The interesting thing is that 5e makes you miss MORE attacks in higher levels, when compared to old-school editions.

This is somewhat true, but running high level 5e I still see a lot of "hit on a 2". The Barbarian in my E20 game attacks at +19 (+6 prof +10 STR +3 sword). Most monster ACs are in the AC 18-20 range, with a 'very high' AC being 24-25. Ancient red dragon AC 24, Tarrasque AC 25.  I cap roll bonus at +20 and target numbers at 30 but this rarely comes up in practice, basically only with PC/NPC spell stacking.

Quote from: S'mon;1114868The Barbarian in my E20 game attacks at +19 (+6 prof +10 STR +3 sword).

Where'd the barbarian get a 30 strength from? Storm giant strength is only 29 and +9.

Quote from: rawma;1114877Where'd the barbarian get a 30 strength from? Storm giant strength is only 29 and +9.

DMG Epic Boons.

Quote from: S'mon;1114886DMG Epic Boons.

They're past 20th level and you feel it's worth commenting that the character can hit lots of monsters, but not all, with a 2? :rolleyes:

Quote from: rawma;1114889They're past 20th level and you feel it's worth commenting that the character can hit lots of monsters, but not all, with a 2? :rolleyes:

Yes.

That's not really a fair representation though, at least of 5e in general.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1114899That's not really a fair representation though, at least of 5e in general.

I was replying to a post that said you miss more at high level. IME PCs hit more often at high level, though not to the extent of always hitting on a 2, because typical monster AC caps around 19 as per the DMG table.

That's what I get for skimming!

Then I agree, you don't really miss anymore at high level.

The scaling comes from higher hit points and damage.

Quote from: S'mon;1114924I was replying to a post that said you miss more at high level. IME PCs hit more often at high level, though not to the extent of always hitting on a 2, because typical monster AC caps around 19 as per the DMG table.

I think the comparison is that compared to earlier editions of D&D, low level characters hit more often while high level characters hit less often. If so, this is the intended effect of bounded accuracy, so it's a feature rather than a bug. If you don't like bounded accuracy, you may not see it that way, but that's how 5e was made.

Quote from: HappyDaze;1114929I think the comparison is that compared to earlier editions of D&D, low level characters hit more often while high level characters hit less often.

Yes, and that's true - compared to 1e 2e and I think 3e, 5e PCs hit more at low level (typically roll of 8+, eg level 1-3 +5 to hit vs AC 13) and less at high level (typically 5+, eg at level 17-20 it's typically +14 to hit vs AC 19). 5e to-hit probability is very similar to 4e though. I think in 4e it tends towards 8+ at all levels vs similar level opponents.

Quote from: S'mon;1114934Yes, and that's true - compared to 1e 2e and I think 3e, 5e PCs hit more at low level (typically roll of 8+, eg level 1-3 +5 to hit vs AC 13) and less at high level (typically 5+, eg at level 17-20 it's typically +14 to hit vs AC 19). 5e to-hit probability is very similar to 4e though. I think in 4e it tends towards 8+ at all levels vs similar level opponents.

Well, I will admit that I try not to think of 4e when I speak of earlier editions of D&D as it really never felt the same to me.

For a more sensible comparison than post-20th level outlier characters: the median AC for creatures up to CR4 is 13; a few monsters reach AC 19 or 20, and as low as 8 is not uncommon (zombies and oozes). At CRs above 20, I don't see any standard monsters above AC 25, with the median around 20 and the bottom around 17. Even with only normal increases to ability scores, it is not unreasonable that a 17th-20th level character (specializing in weapon attacks) will have increased from at most 16 (assuming point buy) to 20, and likely obtained a weapon with a bonus, and of course gain +4 in proficiency from levels. More significantly, high level characters will have other features contributing to chance to hit through advantage and usually get more attacks, while the characters who do not specialize in weapons probably tend to try to hit less. So for level equivalent targets, there's a swing in favor of hitting at higher levels, but it's only slight; high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

The more significant feature is that no class becomes massively more effective than another; to challenge fighters in early editions was to freeze out clerics or thieves as high levels resulted in very different combat bonuses. My 17th level rogue has a bonus of +14 (proficiency +6, dexterity +5, bow +3) and often attacks with advantage (from hiding); my 19th level druid lags S'mon's barbarian by only +1 (belt of storm giant strength, proficiency and weapon).

Quote from: rawma;1114984So for level equivalent targets, there's a swing in favor of hitting at higher levels, but it's only slight; high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

Not very likely. Because as AC is actually quite hard to increase, large amounts of mooks with any kind of coordination are almost always better then singular elites. The game heavily discourages taking on any amount of large groups of enemies.

Quote from: rawma;1114984For a more sensible comparison than post-20th level outlier characters: the median AC for creatures up to CR4 is 13; a few monsters reach AC 19 or 20, and as low as 8 is not uncommon (zombies and oozes). At CRs above 20, I don't see any standard monsters above AC 25, with the median around 20 and the bottom around 17. Even with only normal increases to ability scores, it is not unreasonable that a 17th-20th level character (specializing in weapon attacks) will have increased from at most 16 (assuming point buy) to 20, and likely obtained a weapon with a bonus, and of course gain +4 in proficiency from levels. More significantly, high level characters will have other features contributing to chance to hit through advantage and usually get more attacks, while the characters who do not specialize in weapons probably tend to try to hit less. So for level equivalent targets, there's a swing in favor of hitting at higher levels, but it's only slight; high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

The more significant feature is that no class becomes massively more effective than another; to challenge fighters in early editions was to freeze out clerics or thieves as high levels resulted in very different combat bonuses. My 17th level rogue has a bonus of +14 (proficiency +6, dexterity +5, bow +3) and often attacks with advantage (from hiding); my 19th level druid lags S'mon's barbarian by only +1 (belt of storm giant strength, proficiency and weapon).

Yeah, this is exactly right. As I said, you typically go from needing an 8+ at low level to a 5+ at high level, though it's not too uncommon for high level PCs to be hitting on a 2+. The difference between Tier I and Tier IV is only about 3 or 4 points, about the same as the Proficiency bonus increase. It is noticeable in play, but very unlike earlier editions.

Re mooks - this is extremely swingy IME, I see high level PCs with AC 18 and high level PCs with AC 24. With a typical mook attacking at +4 (+2 Prof, +2 stat) they can be hitting on anything from a 14 to a 20. A PC hit only on a 20 is highly mook-resistant, and if they can impose Disad on enemy attacks they are effectively immune. If hit on a 14 and not Resistant they won't last long.

I find that in mook-heavy campaigns the players tend to seek to maximise AC, whereas in my Pathfinder-converted campaigns with small numbers of high CR monsters some players don't worry about AC and just focus on damage. For the Barbarian it can even make sense to delibersately keep AC low to seem like an enticing target, then just soak the damage.

Edit: I don't see any of this as a problem with 5e; IME it works well and gives some reasonable choices to players. The potential mook threat makes 5e more resemble most heroic fiction, compared to editions like 3e where weak enemies are no threat at all.

While so far it has not come up in actual play. One of  my early concerns was just how high can AC be jacked vs how high To hit can. And using various buffs and class combo tricks its possible to crank AC up really high.

Some quick ones.
A Cleric, Fighter or Paladin decked out in +3 magic armour & shield, and a +1 ring & cloak can hit AC 29. 30 for a Fighter or Paladin taking the defensive style. 32 if a cleric, or paladin (or a fighter with Magic Initiate) and Shield of Faith casts it on them or self. A maxed out level 20 Barbarian can potentially hit an AC of 27 unarmoured with a +3 shield. Then 29 with the ring and cloak, and 31 with Shield of Faith.

The generally low magic item acquisition rate and unlikelyness of getting everything to come together makes this relatively unlikely to happen unless PCs or foes are really prepping intensely.

Meanwhile to hit maxes at something like 6 prof + 5 stat + up to a +3 weapon = +14 on a roll.

So did we get to the center of this Tootsie-Pop yet?

I believe that people are generally enamored with D&D as an investment in gaming, as opposed to it being "the best system ever". Which is fine. But 52+ pages of debating what "bad" about it... I mean, you know, what's been said that hasn't been said already?

I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

Not even a little. I got disillusioned early in the "playtest" and had resolved to develop my own system shortly after the finished product turned up. I'm now 99% done with mechanics and playtesting them and 90% through writing my own system so I'm not going to reverse course on that now.

Where this discussion has been enlightening for me is in highlighting the areas of 5e people are dissatisfied with and that I handled differently. That suggests areas I should be pushing when it comes time to actually promote my game in earnest.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

It would be the equivalent of me budging on liking the taste of Melons because other people like them. I still think that 5e, as it stands, could have been better even for the people that like 5e (which I don't). I still stand by 5e being a lucky flash in the pan propelled by just the right timing of internet fame than any innate quality.  D&D 6e won't be as lucky.

Quote from: Omega;1115047While so far it has not come up in actual play. One of  my early concerns was just how high can AC be jacked vs how high To hit can. And using various buffs and class combo tricks its possible to crank AC up really high.

Yes, this is definitely an issue. To deal with this I cap AC at 30, which is the same as the AC -10 cap in 1e.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

I'm in the same place I was before with 5E:  It's got warts, but it is convenient and easy to run, while stretching it into something I can enjoy doing.  If I want to run something much different than D&D, then I want to move away from D&D entirely.  Certainly, my homebrew system (for which I finally got to do a play test recently) is radically different than any D&D game.  My issues with 3.*/PF/4E are that they take too much work to get them to behave at the table the way I want (even though I can).  With earlier D&D, I'm handicapped by just never quite liking some of the locations of the game boundaries (class functions, level limits, access to things, etc.)  I can appreciate them as good games, but they don't quite work the way I want at the table.  I'd need to rebuild them from the ground up, as we have discussed before.  That's too much work for "Steve's D&D Heartbreaker".

It's funny, but I ran the 5E play test for months when it started.  The players were having a fairly good time with it.  However, I didn't like some of the changes they made mid-stream and thus dropped out.  (Rather, I kept running our campaign using the play test materials, but stopped updating with the WotC changes.)  The final piece is not exactly the choices I would have made, but again, less hassle.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053So did we get to the center of this Tootsie-Pop yet?

I believe that people are generally enamored with D&D as an investment in gaming, as opposed to it being "the best system ever". Which is fine. But 52+ pages of debating what "bad" about it... I mean, you know, what's been said that hasn't been said already?

I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

I get the impression that this topic is more about venting and bitching about what people don't like about 5e--which is fine, particularly since I happen to agree with most of the bitching. And also find venting to be therapeutic from time to time. I haven't joined in mostly because this thread was already quite long by the time I started to post here regularly (and just kept getting longer) and also because I haven't actually played 5e yet (played mostly 2e and 3e, and briefly 0e when introduced into tabletop), so most of what I have are impressions from what I've read in the PHB.

From a more productive POV I think this discussion could be veered into what people would prefer or have done differently, which could lead to ideas to house rule the F out of it or creating an alternate system that avoids the pitfalls of 5e.

Quote from: Chris24601;1115062Not even a little. I got disillusioned early in the "playtest" and had resolved to develop my own system shortly after the finished product turned up. I'm now 99% done with mechanics and playtesting them and 90% through writing my own system so I'm not going to reverse course on that now.

Where this discussion has been enlightening for me is in highlighting the areas of 5e people are dissatisfied with and that I handled differently. That suggests areas I should be pushing when it comes time to actually promote my game in earnest.

In my case I wasn't really active in tabletop around the time 5e was being developed and had already given up on D&D since past editions, cuz I always had a love/hate relationship with the game, with some mechanical elements I liked and others I absolutely hated. I've been working on my own system on an off for years (which got sidetracked a bunch of times and even put in the backburner for a couple years) and grudgingly playing D&D 3e when I get the chance to play tabletop.

As it happens I happen to agree with some aspects of the direction they took with 5e (namely making everything a skill and toning down the ability ranges) but dislike the implementation. I've come to prefer skill-based systems but hate classes and have qualms about level-based progression (considering it the main source of the bloat and power creep in D&D, preferring freeform progression instead.

One thing I really don't like about 5e, which has come up in this discussion, is the samey feel that the system creates, which I think comes from there being no variability between Skills/Proficiency values beyond stat differences, making all characters of the same level have mostly the same ability roll values. You either have Proficiency or you don't, and the differences between training or no training are slightly more minimal than I would've preferred. Fighters and Wizards of the same level now have the EXACT same hit probability, provided they each have "Proficiency" in their respective weapons and comparable attributes. Yay? *big think emoji*

My solution would probably be to make skill progression individual, slightly increase skill ranges (to +8 or more) and probably ditch class and level-based progression. Which is totally my preference (and kinda what I already do in my own system), but not sure what people look for in D&D.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1115064It would be the equivalent of me budging on liking the taste of Melons because other people like them. I still think that 5e, as it stands, could have been better even for the people that like 5e (which I don't). I still stand by 5e being a lucky flash in the pan propelled by just the right timing of internet fame than any innate quality.  D&D 6e won't be as lucky.

I give 5e slightly more credit in that it (over) simplified a bunch of things, making the system overall more accessible to normies. Now people don't have to "waste" time individually leveling a bunch of skills or looking at separate combat or saving through progressions. They all have same samey "Proficiency" values based on whether or not they actually have training instead. Speeding things up and dumbing things down considerably for the TTRPG illiterate. Conversely, they've also doubled down on the class ability bloat to justify a 20 level progression, which is something I think works counter to that end, but still manages to meet expectations for those coming from video game RPGs, where the focus is getting "something" every level.

Quote from: VisionStorm;1115070I give 5e slightly more credit in that it (over) simplified a bunch of things, making the system overall more accessible to normies. Now people don't have to "waste" time individually leveling a bunch of skills or looking at separate combat or saving through progressions. They all have same samey "Proficiency" values based on whether or not they actually have training instead. Speeding things up and dumbing things down considerably for the TTRPG illiterate. Conversely, they've also doubled down on the class ability bloat to justify a 20 level progression, which is something I think works counter to that end, but still manages to meet expectations for those coming from video game RPGs, where the focus is getting "something" every level.

This is basically the thing with 5e. Any attempt to make 5e into a more detailed game will just turn it into the complicated mess of 3e which too few people are going to sink time into in order to play it "right". You can "fix" 5e into the game you want by toning down magic or whatever, but there's no way to simplify 3e, everything is too unified.

Everyone is perfectly entitled to vent and bitch. The thread *is* about what's "wrong" with 5e, after all. And let me be clear here - I'm talking about the system, not the settings.

I think part of it is purely generational and branding.

Generational in the sense that many of us old folks have been doing this for so long 1) we're used to the assumptions of D&D so with only a few exceptions it's easy for us to parse 2) those of us that have GMed D&D for a long period of time have become used to the "bad" parts of previous editions. We put up with those issues. And then there exists a sub-division of us D&D GM's that took one hit too many and we moved on to other systems for *reasons*.

Branding, in the sense that many of us got into gaming via D&D. We naturally feel loyalty. But casual observation of the history of D&D... WotC ain't TSR. And now we're a couple of generations into WotC control of the brand... and it's not hard to see there have been differences in design direction. A lot of it has to do with ideological shifts, biases on the playerbase and the generation gap that exists between them. The game iterations have reflected that.

So the real question is - how much of that Brand Loyalty and Generational inertia informs your view?

For me personally - Brand Loyalty stopped being a thing around 4e for me. And for Generational inertia, I'm one of those guys that was spun out of D&D as a go-to system because frankly, I've never felt comfortable that WotC was "fixing" anything even when I was writing for them and Paizo. There are certainly genius design mechanics that have sprouted up over the years in d20... but without fail, they never made it into the core editions which became insulated by the all the new younger players who were just getting their foot into the door and were filled with that Nerdzerker edition partisanship we all had when we were new to the hobby.

I'm not gonna crap on people because they *loooooove* (I definitely have mine). I'm merely wondering in the big picture of gaming - how much of that is because of habit or branding? I can run D&D settings better, faster, stronger with at least a half-dozen other systems with fidelity (with the only issue being conversion work if anything) - so it makes me question "Is 5e *really* that good/bad vs. any other available alternative?" Because whenever I get around to running a Fantasy game... my *die-hard* D&D group... has asked me to run D&D (any edition) exactly zero-times in the last 5-years. It's not the settings... it most certainly is the system. And that says a lot to me.

NONE of my players hates 5e either. None of them. Neither do I. But in realities of competing interests in terms of what system we use to game with - 5e is almost never on the menu these days.

It's curious.

Quote from: Doom;1115072This is basically the thing with 5e. Any attempt to make 5e into a more detailed game will just turn it into the complicated mess of 3e which too few people are going to sink time into in order to play it "right". You can "fix" 5e into the game you want by toning down magic or whatever, but there's no way to simplify 3e, everything is too unified.

I don't want to make this a tangent...

but wouldn't Mutants & Masterminds 3e be that simplification to D&D3e? It's pretty simple. It's 3e... mutated into another thing. But it's all right there. Pretty easy (and quite powerful in its flexibility).

I think the REAL issue is the emergent herd of Sacred Cows(tm) that are hallmarks of D&D itself that are the issue.

I am so thankful for primarily playing a game that doesn't suffer from edition wars at all... :o Borderline unanimous opinion shared across a given fanbase is so hard to come by, particularly with such divisive niche hobbies like RPG's.

Too much angst! I've got enough of my own home-grown angst to handle anyway. :p

Quote from: tenbones;1115053So did we get to the center of this Tootsie-Pop yet?

I believe that people are generally enamored with D&D as an investment in gaming, as opposed to it being "the best system ever". Which is fine. But 52+ pages of debating what "bad" about it... I mean, you know, what's been said that hasn't been said already?

I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

Very rarely is it ever the game itself, it is the general tendencies of the people attracted to the game who play it that turn people off. WotC's deep dive into SJW wankery as displayed in the writing of the product, the public statements of their writers, and (for me at least) the behavior of that unpaid advertising arm known as the Adventurer's League all have contributed since the playtest to erode interest in the game itself.

Quote from: tenbones;1115074So the real question is - how much of that Brand Loyalty and Generational inertia informs your view?

I don't develop Brand Loyalty for much of anything, gaming included.  For whatever reason, my mind doesn't work that way.  To mix your terms, there is a little "Brand Inertia".  That is, if I've appreciated a thing for a long time, I might be a bit hesitant to drop it when it first starts to decline.  However, once the decline registers for me, I'm out so fast it will make your eyes bleed.  (I bought a different brand of shoes a few weeks ago, the first time I've changed in over 25 years.  Two pairs ago, thought it might have been a little substandard, but nothing really noticeable.  Last pair was definitely bad.  I knew I was out a few weeks after wearing those shoes.  I prefer to think of this as "Quality Loyalty", but maybe that's just me rationalizing it.)

The Generational Inertia, maybe somewhat explains it, though it isn't my whole reasons for doing things.  I'm not nostalgic for games.  I really do enjoy running something very much like D&D.  A lot of the pet bugaboos don't bother me, and most of them I appreciate them for what they are.  It helps that I run for players with a similar attitude.  I remember one conversation we had about AC and hit points and D&D magic and the like, where the upshot was that they said that not every game needed those things but D&D did need them.  When they played D&D, they expect that stuff to be there, and they enjoy it.  When they play something else, they don't.  

Suppose for a minute that all D&D products that had every been simply vanished in a puff of smoke, but the knowledge of them remained.  And for whatever reason, no one is putting out a set I can conveniently use.  Then I'd make my own--and it would include some items that are "D&D" to me that I wouldn't necessarily include in my own designs.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

I've moved from "not particularly interested" to "confident 5e offers me nothing of value".

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1115079I don't develop Brand Loyalty for much of anything, gaming included.  For whatever reason, my mind doesn't work that way.  To mix your terms, there is a little "Brand Inertia".  That is, if I've appreciated a thing for a long time, I might be a bit hesitant to drop it when it first starts to decline.  However, once the decline registers for me, I'm out so fast it will make your eyes bleed.  (I bought a different brand of shoes a few weeks ago, the first time I've changed in over 25 years.  Two pairs ago, thought it might have been a little substandard, but nothing really noticeable.  Last pair was definitely bad.  I knew I was out a few weeks after wearing those shoes.  I prefer to think of this as "Quality Loyalty", but maybe that's just me rationalizing it.)

This resembles my own view. I fully admit I'm much more "sensitive" to it as my experience as a GM gives me a very large bandwidth - I came this conclusion that my love for "D&D" was based in my experiences running the settings - not the systems themselves. Which was an odd thing to realize so many years ago, but now seems pretty logical.

Brand Inertia... I'm not so certain of. It's like Bob Iger saying "There is Star Wars fatigue" - I don't personally buy that. There is "Bad Idea Fatigue". If it happens to be hung on a brand... then so be it, we're on the same page. I always maintain "Reasonable people LOVE GOOD THINGS". "The Brand Inertia" comes from lack of innovation within the way we engage with these systems. Granted there has been SOME innovation... but if I'm honest, compared to other systems coming from more agile organizations with, imo, more invested interest in the hobby - do it as good if not better.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1115079The Generational Inertia, maybe somewhat explains it, though it isn't my whole reasons for doing things.  I'm not nostalgic for games.  I really do enjoy running something very much like D&D.  A lot of the pet bugaboos don't bother me, and most of them I appreciate them for what they are.  It helps that I run for players with a similar attitude.  I remember one conversation we had about AC and hit points and D&D magic and the like, where the upshot was that they said that not every game needed those things but D&D did need them.  When they played D&D, they expect that stuff to be there, and they enjoy it.  When they play something else, they don't.

Me either! But with age has come some wisdom. I'm *not* nostalgic for D&D as a system (literally nothing stops me from running Basic through 3e) - I'm nostalgic for the experiences I was able to generate using those settings that *happened* to be using those systems. Now I'm finding I can do that with much more ease due to 1) my experience as a GM (time in the saddle/age) and 2) honesty about what precisely I like/don't like as a GM in terms of "best practices". Plus years of doing design-work and playing a whole lot of other systems certainly informed that.

D&D 5e feels like... a "fantasy heartbreaker" to me. Which I realize the question becomes "what ISN'T a fantasy-heartbreaker" - which really simplifies the REAL underlying question: Which system *really* does the D&D-style fantasy genre best? To me that is the question. Because it opens up a LOT of other possibilities beyond the usual hand-wringing about D&D-specific Sacred Cows that only exist IN D&D...

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1115079Suppose for a minute that all D&D products that had every been simply vanished in a puff of smoke, but the knowledge of them remained.  And for whatever reason, no one is putting out a set I can conveniently use.  Then I'd make my own--and it would include some items that are "D&D" to me that I wouldn't necessarily include in my own designs.

:) And thus you're illustrating the challenge of my question succinctly. "D&D 5e" is merely a fantasy heartbreaker pointed at people vested in the "idea" of D&D. It's exists only to service what people come think of "D&D-style Fantasy". Why leave it in competition with itself when there is nothing particularly innovative about how it presents its own genre?

Quote from: tenbones;1115074Everyone is perfectly entitled to vent and bitch. The thread *is* about what's "wrong" with 5e, after all. And let me be clear here - I'm talking about the system, not the settings.

I think part of it is purely generational and branding.

Generational in the sense that many of us old folks have been doing this for so long 1) we're used to the assumptions of D&D so with only a few exceptions it's easy for us to parse 2) those of us that have GMed D&D for a long period of time have become used to the "bad" parts of previous editions. We put up with those issues. And then there exists a sub-division of us D&D GM's that took one hit too many and we moved on to other systems for *reasons*.

Branding, in the sense that many of us got into gaming via D&D. We naturally feel loyalty. But casual observation of the history of D&D... WotC ain't TSR. And now we're a couple of generations into WotC control of the brand... and it's not hard to see there have been differences in design direction. A lot of it has to do with ideological shifts, biases on the playerbase and the generation gap that exists between them. The game iterations have reflected that.

So the real question is - how much of that Brand Loyalty and Generational inertia informs your view?

For me personally - Brand Loyalty stopped being a thing around 4e for me. And for Generational inertia, I'm one of those guys that was spun out of D&D as a go-to system because frankly, I've never felt comfortable that WotC was "fixing" anything even when I was writing for them and Paizo. There are certainly genius design mechanics that have sprouted up over the years in d20... but without fail, they never made it into the core editions which became insulated by the all the new younger players who were just getting their foot into the door and were filled with that Nerdzerker edition partisanship we all had when we were new to the hobby.

I'm not gonna crap on people because they *loooooove* (I definitely have mine). I'm merely wondering in the big picture of gaming - how much of that is because of habit or branding? I can run D&D settings better, faster, stronger with at least a half-dozen other systems with fidelity (with the only issue being conversion work if anything) - so it makes me question "Is 5e *really* that good/bad vs. any other available alternative?" Because whenever I get around to running a Fantasy game... my *die-hard* D&D group... has asked me to run D&D (any edition) exactly zero-times in the last 5-years. It's not the settings... it most certainly is the system. And that says a lot to me.

NONE of my players hates 5e either. None of them. Neither do I. But in realities of competing interests in terms of what system we use to game with - 5e is almost never on the menu these days.

It's curious.

In my case at least I was never affected by brand loyalty too much because 1) I've never been one to become fanatical about brands (I may prefer certain products sometimes, but based on their own merits), and 2) that was pretty much squashed down for me from the get-go since being introduced with 0e, since I never liked that edition and always felt like there was something missing when playing that game. I felt like I wanted to like D&D more than I actually did and that it should be something I liked more than I did, but didn't, because I felt too limited playing 0e.

It wasn't till I tried 2e that I started liking the game (I skipped 1e, since I started playing shortly after 2e was released), since it seemed to provide a lot of the options and flexibility I felt were missing from 0e. And even then the feeling started to creep back in over the years as I started running into mechanical issues I didn't like. Exposure to other systems also contributed to that, since I started to learn different ways to handle things mechanically that seemed more efficient sometimes than how D&D handled things, and I started to favor skill-based systems over class-based systems till my motto became "Everything classes can do skill can do better", which is a hill I will die on to this day.

It wasn't long till I started tinkering with every system I played and making massive changes or homebrewed systems to "fix" issues I perceived with D&D and other games. I even figured out d20+Mod was a more efficient mechanics years before 3e (though, I partly stole that idea from the d10+Mod mechanic used in Cyberpunk 2020) and even toyed with the idea of reducing saving throws to just Physical, Reflexes and Mental (I called Reflex saves Reflexes, Will saves Willpower and don't recall what I called Fortitude--maybe Toughness).

I was also never an edition warrior, even though I preferred 2e (at least in the 90s), because to me 2e was just a means to an end--not the pinnacle of RPGs, just something less limited than 0e (or how I used to call it EXTRA Basic). I did run into a lot of 0e edition warriors back in the day, though, and I admittedly used to be apprehensive about the OSR due to bad experiences with people who couldn't process anything that wasn't Basic D&D.

Quote from: tenbones;1115082D&D 5e feels like... a "fantasy heartbreaker" to me. Which I realize the question becomes "what ISN'T a fantasy-heartbreaker" - which really simplifies the REAL underlying question: Which system *really* does the D&D-style fantasy genre best? To me that is the question. Because it opens up a LOT of other possibilities beyond the usual hand-wringing about D&D-specific Sacred Cows that only exist IN D&D...

None of them do, D&D or otherwise.  D&D-style fantasy is too wide a genre for any one system to do it best.  5E's popularity is that it hits a good chunk of the range close enough that you can get there with a little thought and effort.  You may be underestimating the appeal of "good enough" in our world. :)  

I don't spend a lot of design energy on D&D (any edition).  5E hits close enough to the parts of the genre that appeal to me.  Plus, I wanted a place that I could do a setting and run a game that required minimal other work--so that I can devote my energy to my own design.  I can't do that if I'm also trying to make D&D a better game, because not enough hours in the day.  

Quote:) And thus you're illustrating the challenge of my question succinctly. "D&D 5e" is merely a fantasy heartbreaker pointed at people vested in the "idea" of D&D. It's exists only to service what people come think of "D&D-style Fantasy". Why leave it in competition with itself when there is nothing particularly innovative about how it presents its own genre?

WotC aspired to do for tabletop what Blizzard did for MMORPG's.  It took them 5 tries (counting intermediate versions) to finally understand that the key to Blizzard's success with World of Warcraft had zip to do with innovation or gimmicks or external stuff.  All Blizzard did was take ideas others had innovated and implement them more cleanly.  While also selectively pruning some of the stuff that didn't work and/or that people didn't much like even when it did work.  Almost no one picks World of Warcraft as their favorite MMORPG, unless they haven't played anything else or have only played other games that are seriously deficient.  A lot of people played WoW while also playing several other games, because it was good enough, quirky fun, and a bunch of their friends were also playing it.  Sound familiar?

Of course, like Blizzard, WotC is actively forgetting what got them to this place, and managing to piss away their reputation in the process.  It hasn't gone yet, but it is one of those things that will be "slow, then all at once," if they don't pull their collective heads out.

I learned that brand loyalty is a fools game. Its not if a brand goes bad but when. My only interest in 5e is as a industry leader. Nothing else.

Quote from: tenbones;1115074I can run D&D settings better, faster, stronger with at least a half-dozen other systems with fidelity (with the only issue being conversion work if anything)

What are the other systems that you prefer?  Just curious.

D&D 5e is ok, but I want to branch out and try other fantasy RPGs.

Quote from: tenbones;1115075I don't want to make this a tangent...

but wouldn't Mutants & Masterminds 3e be that simplification to D&D3e? It's pretty simple. It's 3e... mutated into another thing. But it's all right there. Pretty easy (and quite powerful in its flexibility).

I think the REAL issue is the emergent herd of Sacred Cows(tm) that are hallmarks of D&D itself that are the issue.

I think there were a lot of people that expected simplification of 3.x with 4th edition, but that's not what was provided at all.  3.x can be simplified.  Unfortunately, the thing that made money in 3.x was supplement bloat.  Producing thousands of feats or spells is easy to do and all of those options interact with the game in unexpected ways.  Feats were new in 3.x, and they were too conservative with them, both in quantity characters received and in what they did - there's no reason to take Two-Weapon Fighting Feats 5 times - that could just be one feat.  The action economy also evolved over time; allowing people to move while taking a standard (or full attack) would help with a lot of martial/caster disparity issues.  More thematic spell lists would help even more.  

But if you have a spell list that is 'complete', there isn't much reason for you to spend money on a new supplement that includes 40 new spells that you can't access.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1115095I think there were a lot of people that expected simplification of 3.x with 4th edition, but that's not what was provided at all.  3.x can be simplified.  Unfortunately, the thing that made money in 3.x was supplement bloat.  Producing thousands of feats or spells is easy to do and all of those options interact with the game in unexpected ways.  Feats were new in 3.x, and they were too conservative with them, both in quantity characters received and in what they did - there's no reason to take Two-Weapon Fighting Feats 5 times - that could just be one feat.  The action economy also evolved over time; allowing people to move while taking a standard (or full attack) would help with a lot of martial/caster disparity issues.  More thematic spell lists would help even more.  

But if you have a spell list that is 'complete', there isn't much reason for you to spend money on a new supplement that includes 40 new spells that you can't access.

Say...Have you checked out Spheres of Power and Might...For Pathfinder (3rd edition works too).
Its a "Feat" based system of advancement for Magic and Might.

What makes it great is that you get a ton more talents then feat, talents are generally more powerful then feats, and talents are designed so you can take them in any order (Mostly).
It also allows you (And kinda forces you) to make thematic casters, and allows for customization of your casting tradition.
It also Makes Martials more engaging and flexible, and allows them to potentially dip into "Myths of Legend" mechanics type deals without requiring you to be level 10+. And the martial combat system is designed to bypass full attacks.

To be clear I may or may not be an author on one of the books, but I'm keeping my identity hidden just in case.

Quote from: rawma;1114984high level parties may meet large numbers of lower CR opponents and enjoy hitting easily what was previously challenging.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114996Not very likely. Because as AC is actually quite hard to increase, large amounts of mooks with any kind of coordination are almost always better then singular elites. The game heavily discourages taking on any amount of large groups of enemies.

I didn't say they wouldn't die, only that they can enjoy hitting easily. :D Survival may hinge on avoiding too many attacks at a time and what the casters bring, depending on what "large numbers" means. Against a single 20th level character, 16 dire wolves is ranked a deadly encounter, but with a wall behind, only two can attack per round. Some martial 20th level characters could beat that encounter with fair certainty.

Quote from: S'mon;1115016Edit: I don't see any of this as a problem with 5e; IME it works well and gives some reasonable choices to players. The potential mook threat makes 5e more resemble most heroic fiction, compared to editions like 3e where weak enemies are no threat at all.

This seems right to me. The modest increase in proficiency seemed odd when I first encountered it, but it works better than previous editions.

Quote from: Omega;1115047While so far it has not come up in actual play. One of  my early concerns was just how high can AC be jacked vs how high To hit can. And using various buffs and class combo tricks its possible to crank AC up really high.

Some quick ones.
A Cleric, Fighter or Paladin decked out in +3 magic armour & shield, and a +1 ring & cloak can hit AC 29. 30 for a Fighter or Paladin taking the defensive style. 32 if a cleric, or paladin (or a fighter with Magic Initiate) and Shield of Faith casts it on them or self. A maxed out level 20 Barbarian can potentially hit an AC of 27 unarmoured with a +3 shield. Then 29 with the ring and cloak, and 31 with Shield of Faith.

The generally low magic item acquisition rate and unlikelyness of getting everything to come together makes this relatively unlikely to happen unless PCs or foes are really prepping intensely.

Meanwhile to hit maxes at something like 6 prof + 5 stat + up to a +3 weapon = +14 on a roll.

If you're going to assume +3 armor (legendary), why don't you assume a belt of giant strength for the strength based attacks, or the appropriate manual or tome for attacks based on other abilities? My ranger might manage +17 with a +3 weapon and a manual of quickness of action. I've seen +2 armor and +2 shields, and a number of +3 weapons and on several occasions a belt of storm giant strength, but no +3 armor or shield (except the allied NPC in Storm King's Thunder). Also, a devotion paladin could wield a +6 weapon by channeling divinity, if they can get a 22 charisma.

On the other hand, you neglected to equip your super-AC characters with a ring of spell storing with 5 shield spells.

On the whole, worrying about the extreme top levels is probably pretty silly; I think 5e is less broken there than other editions, but my experience is that tier IV (levels 17-20) is less interesting and fun than the other tiers.

Quote from: tenbones;1115053I'm more curious to know whether anyone changed their views at all? Who here budged on their feelings/opinions and in regards to what? I'm genuinely curious.

Overall. Not really. Its an overall good system with some glaring flaws. Some of which, like carrying over for the now 4th time the incorrect and incomplete falling damage rules, seem to have been put in just so someone could write a line somewhere mocking it. Others just seem to be cases of a designer being too caught up in making EVERYTHING AWESOME ALL THE TIME!!! that they lost sight of actual gameplay or common sense. Yet at the same time is relatively balanced as long as you reign things in a little and arent to free with the magic items, etc and work to curb players trying to game the system. Which due to some of the dodgy writing, is vexingly easy in 5e.

Conversely my attitude towards 4e has gone from annoyance to a more neutral stance as I learn more about it little by little.

And my opinion of 3e has gone from "huh? interesting" to a gradually increasing dislike of its system. Though alot of local players love it for its complexity and ability to make totally overpowered characters if you put some effort into it. They also love Gurps for the same reason.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1115064It would be the equivalent of me budging on liking the taste of Melons because other people like them. I still think that 5e, as it stands, could have been better even for the people that like 5e (which I don't). I still stand by 5e being a lucky flash in the pan propelled by just the right timing of internet fame than any innate quality.  D&D 6e won't be as lucky.

Part of the problem may be sabotage from 4e fanatics. Not fans. Fanatics. The number of things that were working fine in the playtest that ended up removed or replaced suggests something went wrong between playtest and publication.

As for 5es success. Its in large part due to the playtest that got alot of people involved from the start. They seemed to be listening to feedback. And most importantly. Fallout from 4e which is also what allowed Paizo to take 3e forward and kick WOTCs ass for years to the point Hasbro had WOTC on a tight budget leash near the last quarter of 4e. It was not luck. It was a series of failures that set things up. Had WOTC gone a different route 5e would have likely crashed and that would have been the end of D&D as an officially published RPG or even as a brand possibly.

Problem is WOTC loves to steal defeat from the jaws of victory. The odds of them coming out with a 6th ed increases with each passing year and that will likely be the end. People are increasingly fed up with edition treadmills. Its amazing 5e has lasted nearly 8 years now considering WOTCs obsession with the damn "5 year plan" which can burn in hell along with all its advocates.

Quote from: rawma;1115106If you're going to assume +3 armor (legendary), why don't you assume a belt of giant strength for the strength based attacks, or the appropriate manual or tome for attacks based on other abilities?

As said was just some quick estimates and also keeping it more or less within some vague sort of reason. And also within the limitations of attunement. Adding Shield of Faith is the iffy part because it is limited by how much it can be cast. Hence why its at the tail end of the progression and why I think it is overall unlikely to happen normally. But it is an example of how far you can reasonably crank AC with  top end gear and one spell. 5es overall lower magic item rate will usually make it even less likely. (barring overly generous DMs)

Id be very surprised if someone has not thought up ways to take it higher. But that was not the point of my post. Merely to illustrate how high it can go with simple basics.

Quote from: tenbones;1115075I don't want to make this a tangent...

but wouldn't Mutants & Masterminds 3e be that simplification to D&D3e? It's pretty simple. It's 3e... mutated into another thing. But it's all right there. Pretty easy (and quite powerful in its flexibility).

I think the REAL issue is the emergent herd of Sacred Cows(tm) that are hallmarks of D&D itself that are the issue.

Mutants & Masterminds is pretty close to my preference as a core/universal system for RPGs in general. There are still some issues in that it allows total roll modifiers to potentially reach absurdly high levels--which is a hallmark of 3e that I actually agree with 5e for reigning in--and there are some things I would do differently. But overall it's along the lines of what I've been trying to do and very similar to my own system, except I use a different attribute/skill layout that's even more consolidated, but supplemented by a secondary class of abilities called Techniques that expands on what skills can do and handles more specific aspects of skills (like specific stuff you've actually trained to do, specializations, training related benefits, etc.).

I also use my own damage system that I call a "point-based condition monitor"* and includes a few others of my own idiosyncrasies, but overall it's just a Skill & Effect-based d20+Mod system, just like M&M.

*Characters take HP-like damage reduced by their damage resistance; once they reach a certain threshold (like 50 or so--maybe variable by setting/campaign style lethality) they are in "critical condition" and must make continued Survival checks to avoid dying from further damage--system works for keeping track of non-physical damage types as well, like Mental/Sanity, Social/Reputation, etc.

Quote from: Crusader X;1115088What are the other systems that you prefer?  Just curious.

D&D 5e is ok, but I want to branch out and try other fantasy RPGs.

Well I've played a lot of systems. And I'm always looking at new systems etc.

These days I favor lighter systems that gravitate towards scalability in power. Savage Worlds covers most of my bases in that regard. Fast, easy to use, flexible as hell. There are others in its weight-class that are probably "as flexible" - but it seems to rub me the right way.

There are other systems I have *deep* love for... and for the record: no system is perfect. You'll notice the obvious pattern being they're all skill-based systems and they're all light-to-medium crunch.

In no particular order:

Open D6/West End D6 - A really solid system.
Talislanta/Atlantis - Not only do I love the setting(s), I'm in love with the system. All 6 editions are compatible - the core task-resolution has not changed.
Marvel Super Heroes (FASERIP) - Fantastically scalable, probably one of the most flexible systems around. An amazing piece of design that was *way* ahead of its time.
Interlock - Fast, gritty, dangerous. Brilliant design - but it is a *very* specific kind of feel, I don't use this for "over the top". It's best of gritty-cinematic John Wick type action...

Honorable mentions (i.e. things I'd run if my group asked me)

NWoD - Not a fan of the cosmology, but I do like the core mechanics of the system.
DC Heroes - If I could convince my group to let me use it... but they're die-hard MSH fans for supers.
Mutants and Masterminds - See DC Heroes
Fantasycraft - If I were going to run an out of the box d20 fantasy game... this is what I'd use. I'd have to meditate for about a week before doing a re-read tho... (and this is the only Class-based game on this list)

Quote from: Omega;1115124Merely to illustrate how high it can go with simple basics.

My point was that you downplay the extremes of bonuses to hit; it doesn't max out at +14.

It is true that there are fewer adds to hit probability than to AC, though; armor, shield, ring, cloak, Ioun stone can all add bonuses to AC, but only one item can add bonuses, and any other bonuses by increasing ability score. Dexterity based attacks can get a 22 dexterity, +3 weapon and +2 archery fighting style; strength based can get giant strength; but there's not as much for spell attack rolls. It's a curious asymmetry in the standard items and class features. Also interesting that strength, often a dump stat since dexterity can cover for a lot of characters, is the only one that can reach such high values.