5th Edition Is A Mess

[hogarth]

I do think that Dungeoneering is the fucking stupidest name for a skill, but Andy Collins had been flogging that horse raw since 3.5.

Of course the Dungeoneer's Survival Guide came out in 1986.

Uhmm...you do realize that Dungeoneer is not the name of a skill, right? Unless you also think there are people with proficiency in Wildernessing, Volo, or Rangering or something.

Maybe I'm not following your point. Are you saying that the word "Dungeoneer" is perfectly harmonious to your ears but "Dungeoneering" is fucking stupid? (They both sound pretty stupid to me.)

How do you feel about "Mountaineer" and "Mountaineering"?

[Prak]

Is Dungeoneering worse than "Esocology?" Which is what I named the knowledge that combines Dungeoneering and Planes for my Dragonstar game...

Possibly? It depends what you think the Esoc prefix means.

And that is how I found out "eso-" means "within."

*sigh* Fucking context-based word understandings.

[Eikre]

5e's streamlining has something to say for it, in much the same way as 4e's skill list was the best D&D had ever seen even though their skill system was a dumpster fire.

I'd assert that 4E's abbreviated skill list aggravated the failings of Skill Challenges. When the crux of the system is for each player to use three different skills and teaparty up an amusing justification for why they're useful in a particular situation, you really want to have a few dozen proficiencies in things like "Astronomy," "Use Rope," "Autohypnosis," and "Gambling" instead of four proficiencies in things like "Arcane" and "Athletics" and "Diplomacy."

[Voss]

5e's streamlining has something to say for it, in much the same way as 4e's skill list was the best D&D had ever seen even though their skill system was a dumpster fire.

I'd assert that 4E's abbreviated skill list aggravated the failings of Skill Challenges. When the crux of the system is for each player to use three different skills and teaparty up an amusing justification for why they're useful in a particular situation, you really want to have a few dozen proficiencies in things like "Astronomy," "Use Rope," "Autohypnosis," and "Gambling" instead of four proficiencies in things like "Arcane" and "Athletics" and "Diplomacy."

So you think lowering the chance they'd have relevant skills for a skill challenge would... help?

[Mask_De_H]

5e's streamlining has something to say for it, in much the same way as 4e's skill list was the best D&D had ever seen even though their skill system was a dumpster fire.

I'd assert that 4E's abbreviated skill list aggravated the failings of Skill Challenges. When the crux of the system is for each player to use three different skills and teaparty up an amusing justification for why they're useful in a particular situation, you really want to have a few dozen proficiencies in things like "Astronomy," "Use Rope," "Autohypnosis," and "Gambling" instead of four proficiencies in things like "Arcane" and "Athletics" and "Diplomacy."

So you think lowering the chance they'd have relevant skills for a skill challenge would... help?

No, in a system where you justify your skill use with bullshit, you want more bullshit to use for justification. If it's all magical tea party anyway, having more options increases the chance they have a relevant skill because there's a better chance of bullshiting your way through with one of them.

[Voss]

I'd assert that 4E's abbreviated skill list aggravated the failings of Skill Challenges. When the crux of the system is for each player to use three different skills and teaparty up an amusing justification for why they're useful in a particular situation, you really want to have a few dozen proficiencies in things like "Astronomy," "Use Rope," "Autohypnosis," and "Gambling" instead of four proficiencies in things like "Arcane" and "Athletics" and "Diplomacy."

So you think lowering the chance they'd have relevant skills for a skill challenge would... help?

No, in a system where you justify your skill use with bullshit, you want more bullshit to use for justification. If it's all magical tea party anyway, having more options increases the chance they have a relevant skill because there's a better chance of bullshiting your way through with one of them.

I don't remember ever bullshitting through 4e skill challenges. Just rolling Arcana checks 10 times until <bad math threshold> says pass/fail. At no point did anyone except the single person with the highest bonus matter, which was pretty much the opposite of the proposed intent Mearls went on and on about (and repeatedly failed to fix).

It was pretty much the opposite of magical tea party. Just a pile of straight die rolls disconnected from the setting or story.

[Mask_De_H]

Eikre is working under the assumption that since there is a complete disconnect between mechanics and justification for the mechanics, bridging the gap would be to make the justification the mechanics.

"I roll Arcana" xN is a failure state. "I roll [MTP Proficiency]" xN is a proposed solution.

[Eikre]

Really all I'm saying is that I'd have more fun in a world where my assets for convincing the King Of All Elves to lend the party aid were "Racist Jokes," "Really Good Whistling," and "Circus Penis" instead of Diplomacy x3.

[Prak]

*Makes a note for future Oglaf RPG*

[Iduno]

The most impressive part wasn't that they "fixed" class balance by making classes identical except for the ability to cast spells or not. I wasn't that they removed any choices to differentiate your character. It wasn't that they decided to cover up the lack of effort in making rules by saying everything came down to GM decisions, so don't even bother buying the book.

I was truly impressed when I realized they didn't even half-ass it by copy-pasting badly. Mediocrity would have taken less effort. Do you know what the spell "protection from good/evil" protects from? Fucking golems, or elementals, or animals, or something. I don't think (and can't be bothered to look) it can protect from celestials or fiends, let alone human-ish npcs with extreme alignments.

5th edition is actively putting effort into trolling customers by ignoring the meaning of words, in addition to screwing up everything else they could manage to before they sobered up.

[Voss]

I was truly impressed when I realized they didn't even half-ass it by copy-pasting badly. Mediocrity would have taken less effort. Do you know what the spell "protection from good/evil" protects from? Fucking golems, or elementals, or animals, or something. I don't think (and can't be bothered to look) it can protect from celestials or fiends, let alone human-ish npcs with extreme alignments.

Aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends and undead. What this has to do with evil and good I'm not sure, but it is way, way better. The target can't be charmed, frightened or possessed, and creatures of all six types have disadvantage on all attacks against the protected target.

Protection from evil/good and Magic Circle are actually really amazing against a huge list of critters. Doesn't affect saves beyond the listed conditions, but most 5e monsters are just closet trolls anyway, so effectively it's a creature-type selective 1st level version of blur or a 3rd level area version.

But... 5e is rather minimal when it comes to actual work. I actually think mediocrity describes it really well. It's mostly 2nd edition with a few layers of poop smeared on from 3rd (feats, if you can find a way to take them) and 4th (homogenized progression). And a lot of systems that were just set on fire and forgotten, mostly the parts that make it an RPG rather than a board game (which is another 4th edition trait).

[shinimasu]

Aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends and undead. What this has to do with evil and good I'm not sure, but it is way, way better.

I think those are all the "outsider" monster races or at least most of them. So it's less "protection from evil/good" and more "protection from outsiders of any alignment." The name makes no sense but wizards have been moving further and further away from the idea of alignment having actual mechanical effect.

Something something "roleplay" something something "muh paladin"

[Voss]

Aberrations, celestials, elementals, fey, fiends and undead. What this has to do with evil and good I'm not sure, but it is way, way better.

I think those are all the "outsider" monster races or at least most of them. So it's less "protection from evil/good" and more "protection from outsiders of any alignment." The name makes no sense but wizards have been moving further and further away from the idea of alignment having actual mechanical effect.

Yes, shame they can't make mechanical progress (or mechanical treading water, for that matter) along with jettisoning gibberish philosophical garbage.

Not sure undead or fey would be 'outsiders,' though I admit I have no idea what 5e aberrations are supposed to be. That particularly type always reads as 'miscellaneous whatever-the-fuck monster that probably includes the words 'viscous,' 'slime' and/or 'tentacle' in its description' to me.

[shinimasu]

I think it's a 4e/Forgotten Realms thing where fey were.... I forget if they were actual outsiders or sort of pseudo outsiders but the point is they existed in their own little fairy realm and only interacted with the real world through portals and summoners. Granted I really liked the concept of the feywilds, it made for good jumanji or pans labyrinth style games.

Aberrations are basically great old one spawn, probably has tentacles and lots of eyes. May or may not have mindfuck powers.

Undead are the odd one out because you don't summon them but I guess they're almost always reanimated with evil magic? Except when they're not? I dunno I got nothing.

[Judging__Eagle]

Not sure how bad the 5e UA articles are; but I came across a complied PDF of it on an RPG Facebook group I'm a member of:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/0B4jAv0 ... RXMWc/view

[Voss]

Aberrations are basically great old one spawn, probably has tentacles and lots of eyes. May or may not have mindfuck powers.
.

Eh. I was thinking more in game terms. Here's the entire text (at least on the 5e SRD)

Aberrations are utterly alien beings. Many of them have innate magical abilities drawn from the creature’s alien mind rather than the mystical forces of the world. The quintessential aberrations are aboleths, beholders, mind flayers, and slaadi.

Slaad are aberrations? Nevermind. Slaad don't have 5e stats so it doesn't fucking matter how theoretical monsters are defined.

Anyway, it took some effort to find it, and I looked at Aboleths first, which, once again was a mistake. 5e monster write-ups offend me.

Anyone remember when aboleths were scary fuck monsters that were piled behind layered illusions and craziness? Yeah, that don't do that anymore. They've still got creepy mucous diseases, but they lost all of their psionics, enslave is reduced to charm (with an extra save every single time they take any damage), and charm itself is a bullshit condition in 5e: can't attack or target the charmer with harmful abilities, and the charmer gets advantage on social interaction ability checks. The end (and I don't really know what the latter really means in terms of effects. Ok, roll twice, and...? It's fighting your party, it hasn't changed your loyalty at all, what social interactions are you having?)

Enslave also prevents the charmed creature from making reactions...for reasons. But the enslaved target can still slaughter all the aboleth's minions, family and friends during its normal actions, or buff/heal the party members still fighting the aboleth

And enslave is 3/day. And DC 14... which, well, fuck. At 10th level, any individual player can reasonably expect to have anything from a +9 (+4 proficiency bonus and 20 wisdom cleric or druid) to a +0 save (not a class save proficiency and fuck you, you haven't had time to tweak a tertiary stat) on this. Worst saving throw system yet.

So, yeah. Other than that, it moves to melee and triple attacks with tentacles. There are 3 legendary actions too, one of which is 'make perception check.' Tail swipe (a non-mucous tentacle attack) is another, and the final one is to damage a charm victim to heal itself, but that costs 2 of its 'legendary' actions.

Oh, and it has nearly double the HP of the 3.5 version, which is pretty baffling since 3.5 damage output at 7-10th level is significantly higher in 3.5.

But hey, the CR also jumped from 7 to 10 because... it lost all its illusions and psionic powers?

Fuck these guys. They're closet trolls with a very limited ability to prevent party members from stabbing them.

[Chamomile]

Slaad are aberrations? Nevermind. Slaad don't have 5e stats so it doesn't fucking matter how theoretical monsters are defined.

Slaadi are in the 5e Monster Manual.

[Voss]

Slaad are aberrations? Nevermind. Slaad don't have 5e stats so it doesn't fucking matter how theoretical monsters are defined.

Slaadi are in the 5e Monster Manual.

Huh. I guess they're somehow IP enough to be excluded from the SRD.
Humanoid frog demons, who knew? Any explanation for why they're aberrations rather than chaotic outsiders?

[Chamomile]

"Outsider" is not a creature type in 5e.

[Voss]

"Outsider" is not a creature type in 5e.

Fiend, then. Who gives a shit?
Aboleth, beholder, mind flayer, slaad is still a disjointed pile of what the fuck?

[amethal]

Huh. I guess they're somehow IP enough to be excluded from the SRD.

As far as I can tell, everything (like Slaadi) that was excluded from the 3rd edition SRD has been excluded from the 5th edition one as well.

Of course, given that pixies are also excluded from the 5th edition SRD (despite being mentioned as an example under the "Fey" type) looking for logic in WotC's decisions is probably futile.

[Chamomile]

So the latest Unearthed Arcana is about mass combat. Considering how 5e strongholds worked out, it shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that it's a mixed bag, where the mixture is of cat feces and the viscera of a plague victim. Units have a battle rating, and that battle rating goes up based on the CR and number of creatures in that unit, and when attacking you roll and add that battle rating to an opposed check and if you win the check you hurt the enemy unit.

We've already got some problems with stuff like hard-hitting but vulnerable units not being represented, but the math is a total failure even for a very simple system whose only objective is to model field battles between armies comprised purely of heavy infantry units. The math on the CR to BR calculation is just completely borked. Ten CR 1/4 goblins are supposed to be the equal of 1 CR 2 ogre. In normal skirmish rules, 5e goblins hit 5e ogres 70% of the time and deal 5.5 damage per hit, so that's 3.85 damage on average per attack. An ogre deals 13 damage on average and hits a goblin 60% of the time, so that's 7.8 damage on average per round. Goblins have 7 HP, so we'll be generous and say that the ogre kills one goblin per round, and we'll also assume he wins initiative. Round one, ogre splatters one goblin, nine remaining goblins hit for an average of 34.65 of the ogre's 59 HP total. Round two, ogre splatters one more goblin, eight remaining goblins deal an additional 30.8 damage on average and that's him dead. If he's lucky he might make it to round three and kill three goblins before being brought down.

Goblins have ranged attacks that are identical in to-hit and damage to their melee attack and ogres are way taller than goblins, which means if ten ogres fight one hundred goblins, the ability to stand shoulder to shoulder with other ogres won't actually decrease the number of incoming goblin attacks at all. Those goblins not in melee will just shoot you with their short bows. Ogres, on the other hand, have exactly one javelin and while it hits hard enough to very likely kill a goblin and is as accurate as their club, its range is far worse, so if the goblins and ogres are engaging at visual range, goblins will get at least one round of free attacks while the ogres take run actions to get into melee.

A hundred goblins and ten ogres are both allegedly a BR +10 unit, perfectly evenly matched, but the former absolutely slaughters the latter in skirmish rules.

[Whipstitch]

Damn, I was hoping more novel failure.

[maglag]

Damn, I was hoping more novel failure.

There is, since the RNG is a single d20 and units cap at 400.

So 400 ogres have a BR of 400, while 10 units of 400 goblins have a BR of 40 each. The goblin units can't ever scratch the ogres since there's no natural 20s auto hit rule.

Even if you bring 40k goblins or 4 millions, the max-size stack of ogres always win without a scratch. That's all there is to it, just bring an unit with a BR 20+ better than your enemy's best unit and you can't lose.

[Username17]

I guess having a "mass combat" system that completely breaks down if anyone fields an army with more than twenty dudes in it is pretty novel in its failure.

-Username17