5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[Alexander Moonbeam]

I had the opportunity to play Pathfinder 2nd Edition at a convention this weekend. My first impression, having not actually read the rulebook, was good.

I was taken in by the three-actions-per-round system. It's a lot more elegant than 4e/5e D&D's standard/minor/bonus/move/reaction divisions, but it offered enough options that I felt like I was playing a little resource-management minigame every round, trying to get the most effective combination of spells, movements, and attacks. And, we ended up luring a monster away from a wall so our rogue could get behind it to backstab! Tactics! Actual tactical decisions in a current-day RPG!

The whole thing felt very much like what I think D&D 4th Edition was trying to be. It's not old-school, but it's not supposed to be.

I am telling you man --- 3rd edition nostalgia is up next! Every generation...like clockwork.

The Legend of Dnd 3.5 | Mixed Signals

Straight-forward and open gaming. Ideas you can use, GM tools you need, reviews and podcasts you love.

mixedsignals.ml

Thank goodness we are almost done with B/X.

There is something ironic about the 4e, 5e, and Shadowrun books in the banner of this page. No 3.x material in sight.

First post, hello!

 

[Hemlock]

Yes. I will finally learn the rules! --- from the retroclone, that's my condition.

I played 4E a few times and absolutely hated it, in part because my DM had apparently taken advice from the Internet and cut all the monsters' HP in half while doubling their damage in order to "speed up combat." All I noticed was the asymmetry: the monsters hit like trucks while we hit like limp noodles, and that wasn't fun or realistic-seeming even if the monsters did also seem to be glass cannons.

Presumably it would also have been a good strategy for us to recruit some of those glass cannons to fight on our side while we soaked up damage to buy them time, but I bowed out before that became relevant.

I loathe systems with a needlessly large large PC/NPC asymmetry. It breaks my willing suspension of disbelief and even challenges my basic sense of fairness. (Simplifications however are fine and not needlessly large; NPCs who don't need stats beyond name and physical appearance don't have to have them, although in principle they still do. Then again, PCs who don't need certain stats e.g. languages known also don't need to have them until it matters, so arguably that's not an asymmetry.)

Edit to add: for Beoric's sake, let me clarify that I'm primarily hating on the bad advice that my DM took. I think 4E had enough asymmetry built in that I would probably have drifted away anyway, but the house rule he created exacerbated the issue to the point where I didn't last four sessions.

 

[The1True]

I am telling you man --- 3rd edition nostalgia is up next! Every generation...like clockwork.

The Legend of Dnd 3.5 | Mixed Signals

Straight-forward and open gaming. Ideas you can use, GM tools you need, reviews and podcasts you love.

mixedsignals.ml

Thank goodness we are almost done with B/X.

That was... very soothing...

 

[Beoric]

Edit to add: for Beoric's sake, let me clarify that I'm primarily hating on the bad advice that my DM took. I think 4E had enough asymmetry built in that I would probably have drifted away anyway, but the house rule he created exacerbated the issue to the point where I didn't last four sessions.

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what you mean by "asymmetry".

If you mean PCs and NPCs are built differently, that is true, they are. The reason is to both simplify NPC creation and speed of play in combat.

If you mean they are weaker than PCs, that is not necessarily true. An elite NPC is very close in power to a PC of the same level; that is, the odds of a party of 5 PCs defeating a party of 5 elite NPCs of the same level are about 50/50. However, most encounters in published adventures use standard NPCs, which are half as powerful as a PC or an elite NPC of the same level. So it isn't a game design issue so much as an encounter design issue.

 

[Hemlock]

Fair enough, but I'm not sure what you mean by "asymmetry".

If you mean PCs and NPCs are built differently, that is true, they are. The reason is to both simplify NPC creation and speed of play in combat.

If you mean they are weaker than PCs, that is not necessarily true. An elite NPC is very close in power to a PC of the same level; that is, the odds of a party of 5 PCs defeating a party of 5 elite NPCs of the same level are about 50/50. However, most encounters in published adventures use standard NPCs, which are half as powerful as a PC or an elite NPC of the same level. So it isn't a game design issue so much as an encounter design issue.

I don't mean "weaker." I mean when they play by different rules. If you can look at a story about a now-past game session and tell by what physically happens in the game world who's a PC and who's an NPC, that is a turnoff for me. In theory I can imagine a system where PCs are "built differently" than NPCs but it doesn't bother me because it doesn't affect gameplay--e.g. if NPCs must roll race and class randomly but PCs get to have the player choose. But if NPCs die when they hit zero HP and PCs do not, that for example turns me off.

You would know better than I would how much player/non-player asymmetry 4E actually has. My impression is that it has enough that I wouldn't have really gotten into it, but that is only an impression based on a few game sessions and what I've read on the Internet about it being suited for cinematic gameplay.

 

[Beoric]

I don't mean "weaker." I mean when they play by different rules. If you can look at a story about a now-past game session and tell by what physically happens in the game world who's a PC and who's an NPC, that is a turnoff for me. In theory I can imagine a system where PCs are "built differently" than NPCs but it doesn't bother me because it doesn't affect gameplay--e.g. if NPCs must roll race and class randomly but PCs get to have the player choose. But if NPCs die when they hit zero HP and PCs do not, that for example turns me off.

You would know better than I would how much player/non-player asymmetry 4E actually has. My impression is that it has enough that I wouldn't have really gotten into it, but that is only an impression based on a few game sessions and what I've read on the Internet about it being suited for cinematic gameplay.

Yeah, by RAW NPCs do die when they hit zero HP. This is expressly to avoid the squickiness of PCs finishing off NPCs or having to deal with prisoners; I expect it is also to simplify combat.

Considering the odds of survival if nobody is helping a PC after he drops to zero, it makes very little practical difference unless you have characters that have both the ability and the inclination to help them in the middle of combat; that is often not the case for team NPC. In those instances where it might make a difference, I usually ignore the rule and let them use the PC mechanic.

Mounted combat rules are also different by RAW; I have modified them in my campaign to make them the same.

My combat encounters tend more toward gritty than cinematic; it has more to do with how you narrate them than with the system itself.

 

[Hemlock]

Yeah, by RAW NPCs do die when they hit zero HP. This is expressly to avoid the squickiness of PCs finishing off NPCs or having to deal with prisoners; I expect it is also to simplify combat.

Considering the odds of survival if nobody is helping a PC after he drops to zero, it makes very little practical difference unless you have characters that have both the ability and the inclination to help them in the middle of combat; that is often not the case for team NPC. In those instances where it might make a difference, I usually ignore the rule and let them use the PC mechanic.

Mounted combat rules are also different by RAW; I have modified them in my campaign to make them the same.

My combat encounters tend more toward gritty than cinematic; it has more to do with how you narrate them than with the system itself.

Yeah, I took a similar approach towards 5E: modifying the rules to make them more realistic. Interesting that 4E's mounted combat rules are problematic, because 5E's are too--in 5E's case they are extremely overpowered, and also a bit ambiguous (especially once WotC employees started weighing in on Twitter to confuse the issue). 5E can be made realistic to a certain degree, but there are limits due to the gamist (game jargon-oriented) way the rules are written. (This thread came up today on another forum and is a good example of something I have to just shrug and live with.)

In any case, I don't pretend to know very much about 4E the system, as opposed to 4E the way I briefly experienced it under that DM. Glad you are able to make it work for you and yours.

 

[Beoric]

Yeah, I took a similar approach towards 5E: modifying the rules to make them more realistic. Interesting that 4E's mounted combat rules are problematic, because 5E's are too--in 5E's case they are extremely overpowered, and also a bit ambiguous (especially once WotC employees started weighing in on Twitter to confuse the issue).

In any case, I don't pretend to know very much about 4E the system, as opposed to 4E the way I briefly experienced it under that DM. Glad you are able to make it work for you and yours.

The major difference in mounted combat is that for team monster, the rider and mount both get to attack (and you get XPs when you kill them both), whereas for team PC, either the rider or the mount get to attack. That is, a PC's mount, while statistically a monster is treated as an item for these purposes. The reason for the rule is to prevent the PC from effectively doubling his attacks while getting full experience for the battle (i.e. not sharing the experience with the mount).

To balance this, I distinguish between a mount that is is dependent on the PC for direction, in which case they get one attack between them and the player does not have to share experience; the mount is effectively an item. Or a mount that can act independently, in which case both get to attack but the player must share the experience (and the mount can in some cases rise in level); here the mount is effectively a party member.

I do the same thing for team monster. For them, a dependent mount is essentially treasure that can be used as a dependent mount by the PCs if they capture it., and an independent mount is a monster that has to be dealt with like any other monster (and could theoretically become a PC party member if offered appropriate inducements).

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I look forward to the eventual 4e revival. I am sure you will all be on board.

I would argue this has already started but is going on mainly over on RPG.net. All of the various "retroclone" projects of 4e have threads over there in the D&D forum.

 

[Beoric]

I would argue this has already started but is going on mainly over on RPG.net. All of the various "retroclone" projects of 4e have threads over there in the D&D forum.

Thanks for that, although the only one I saw with remotely current posts was Orcus. If you are aware of others that I missed please link them.

I may check out Orcus, though. I was following its development at GITP and was skeptical, but it may have some traction at rpg.net.

 

[Alexander Moonbeam]

There is a 4th Edition Discord which is quite lively. The mood there is one of a revival. No-one seems to be sharing adventures, though, so that may limit it.

4e was discontinued...what? Nine years ago? Longer ago than that if you're a partisan who doesn't count D&D Essentials. That's long enough to start thinking about a revival.

 

[Two orcs]

Now I've played some 5e, the DM is good, the adventure is supposedly one of the better ones, I think the game sucks.

 

[squeen]

Can't knock it until you've tried it.

 

[Hemlock]

Now I've played some 5e, the DM is good, the adventure is supposedly one of the better ones, I think the game sucks.

I'd like to hear more specifics.

 

[Beoric]

I'd like to hear more specifics.

@Two orcs yes, please.

 

[The1True]

Can't knock it until you've tried it.

You should consider taking your own advice

 

[Beoric]

You should consider taking your own advice

DON'T POKE THE BEAR!

 

[squeen]

You should consider taking your own advice

I was aware of the irony...

 

[Two orcs]

I'd like to hear more specifics.

I have a hard time putting my finger on it, but it feels like it is without weight. Replenishing resources is trivial, traversal is de-emphasized (and many characters have access to teleportation and similar abilities from level 1), equipment is a matter of optimization to the character's skillset rather than a tradeoff between weight and utility. Combat is at least at low levels as dangerous as any OSR game blow for blow but getting back up if knocked out is also trivial. The abundance and general weakness of spells (many are just missile attacks for mages) makes magic seem more like pyrotechnics than deadly sorcery.

 

[squeen]

Personally, on reading through the 5e SRD at DP's request, it came across as toothless --- hard choices were avoided. The game was not intended to challenge or frustrate. DP summed it up with "What's wrong with just having fun?".

I tuned out.