D&D 5e has failed
Moderator: Moderators
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5579
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
It's more of a hop than anything.
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pmNobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
I actually did run a ~year-long DnD 5e. It was only tolerable because of winging it while pissed - and just using 3.5 rules where they hadn't filled any in.
We found Stealth to be reasonably satisfying... .
Just in case I wasn't clear enough, fuck 5e. Don't go there. Lie if necessary. Run 3.5 instead, hide it inside the core books like it's a comic at the library. Or 3e. or add 'house rules' that consist of basically the 3.5 SRD. Or, hell, 4e. It's encounter guidelines are better (not good, but better than 5th), it's simpler, and it's exactly as MTP out of combat as 5e.
We found Stealth to be reasonably satisfying... .
Just in case I wasn't clear enough, fuck 5e. Don't go there. Lie if necessary. Run 3.5 instead, hide it inside the core books like it's a comic at the library. Or 3e. or add 'house rules' that consist of basically the 3.5 SRD. Or, hell, 4e. It's encounter guidelines are better (not good, but better than 5th), it's simpler, and it's exactly as MTP out of combat as 5e.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
-
- Knight-Baron
- Posts: 790
- Joined: Tue Jun 14, 2011 2:44 am
- Location: 3rd Avenue
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
The group I've been playing 5e with lately managed to introduce themselves to the game. They normally play card games, they were in the games shop, and they saw the starter set for 5e so they just got it on a whim and played a campaign and figured it out with using the online character maker and stuff without any guidance from anyone who'd ever played any previous RPG. I didn't join until they'd already played like 3 weekends of it.
That's pretty good when you think about it.
So, 5e is an okay introduction into the hobby, even if people should move on to better TTRPGs once they're down with the basics (funny shaped dice, adding +2, murder, etc)
That's pretty good when you think about it.
So, 5e is an okay introduction into the hobby, even if people should move on to better TTRPGs once they're down with the basics (funny shaped dice, adding +2, murder, etc)
Last edited by Lokathor on Sat Sep 09, 2017 3:00 am, edited 1 time in total.
as a fledgling DM i find DnD 5e's complete lack of rules amenable to a style of "i just make shit up". and the people I DM haven't chosen to just break the system by hiring a bunch of lil guys and/or becoming necromancers
the whole "caster supremacy" part of 3.5e kind of bums me out, 5e managed to mitigate it a bit by just flattening the curve down a shitload (i mean, even though casters are still the best). how do i get up to speed on the whole "advantages of 3.5e over 5e" and "homebrewing patches for 3.5e" thing?
the whole "caster supremacy" part of 3.5e kind of bums me out, 5e managed to mitigate it a bit by just flattening the curve down a shitload (i mean, even though casters are still the best). how do i get up to speed on the whole "advantages of 3.5e over 5e" and "homebrewing patches for 3.5e" thing?
There's a number of people that really don't like talking or even hearing about the game system being less than perfect. If it produces less than perfect results, but it might plausibly be because the group was playing it wrong, that's not so bad. But having it known that the system is definitely flawed ruins their gaming experience, I guess.
5E makes it easier to insist that any flaw comes from the GM and/or players, by making a lot of rules vague and repeating "The GM can rule anything in any way!" loudly and often. That's a selling point to some people.
You can see Paizo trying this too, with the whole "This isn't a change, it's just a clarification of how the rule should have always been interpreted" thing they do with errata. But having inherited the crunchy rules environment of 3E, they can only do that to a limited extent.
TBH though, while I think 4E is a better system than 5E, I would be more likely to play a 5E game if those were my only choices. If I'm not going to be happy with the system anyway, at least 5E is less work on my part, and it has a few spells with amusing usage potential, albeit with that "GM can shut you down at any time!" clause.
5E makes it easier to insist that any flaw comes from the GM and/or players, by making a lot of rules vague and repeating "The GM can rule anything in any way!" loudly and often. That's a selling point to some people.
You can see Paizo trying this too, with the whole "This isn't a change, it's just a clarification of how the rule should have always been interpreted" thing they do with errata. But having inherited the crunchy rules environment of 3E, they can only do that to a limited extent.
TBH though, while I think 4E is a better system than 5E, I would be more likely to play a 5E game if those were my only choices. If I'm not going to be happy with the system anyway, at least 5E is less work on my part, and it has a few spells with amusing usage potential, albeit with that "GM can shut you down at any time!" clause.
Last edited by Ice9 on Sun Sep 10, 2017 8:43 pm, edited 3 times in total.
5E's success only proves how far you can get by spending your development budget in payola instead of hiring an actual game designer.
The emperor is naked and everyone knows it, but Mearls' payola is somehow making everyone think the naked king looks like a naked Charlize Theron instead of a naked Mike Mearls.
The emperor is naked and everyone knows it, but Mearls' payola is somehow making everyone think the naked king looks like a naked Charlize Theron instead of a naked Mike Mearls.
Last edited by Dogbert on Mon Sep 11, 2017 3:37 am, edited 1 time in total.
okay yeah i get that dnd 5e suffers from "let's put the onus on the GM to mind caulk our thin system"
but is there a more detailed explanation somewhere? the thinness of dnd 5e means that i don't really have to learn that much to get a game going; 3.5e has a higher ceiling for sure but it seems like it also has a higher floor
but is there a more detailed explanation somewhere? the thinness of dnd 5e means that i don't really have to learn that much to get a game going; 3.5e has a higher ceiling for sure but it seems like it also has a higher floor
- OgreBattle
- King
- Posts: 6820
- Joined: Sat Sep 03, 2011 9:33 am
Cervantes wrote:okay yeah i get that dnd 5e suffers from "let's put the onus on the GM to mind caulk our thin system"
but is there a more detailed explanation somewhere? the thinness of dnd 5e means that i don't really have to learn that much to get a game going; 3.5e has a higher ceiling for sure but it seems like it also has a higher floor
That's just kind of it when you get down to it.
"Higher floor higher ceiling" is just kind of the trade off between rules light and rules heavy. Rules light systems are easier to learn, faster to run, and generally more flexible. Rules heavy feels more like an actual, you know, game. Rules light is basically there to provide some kind of framework to more or less free form RP in order to prevent "Well I pull out my infinity plus one sword and instakill all of you" in some fashion.
I feel like 5e wound up in "rules medium" where it's not quite crunchy enough to work without GM patchs, but not light enough to be a breezy easy to pick up system. In a true rules light game it doesn't really matter if the math is good or not so long as the math is there, but obviously DnD's mechanics were meant to be more engaging that this because initially the mechanics were the entire point.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
Heroquest. It actually is a barebones dungeon crawler that does what it's supposed to and is fun and easy to play.OgreBattle wrote:So between 4e or 5e, which one's bare bones mechanics would be a better launching point for a heartbreaker focused on dungeon crawling?
D&D has a lot of bloat. There's no reason to include that if it's not part of your end goal.
Last edited by RobbyPants on Mon Sep 11, 2017 2:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
And that's why Heroquest is so great!RobbyPants wrote:Heroquest. It actually is a barebones dungeon crawler that does what it's supposed to and is fun and easy to play.
- JonSetanta
- King
- Posts: 5579
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
- Location: interbutts
Awesome review, but I was already sold on the concept for the last 22 years!
The Adventurer's Almanac wrote: ↑Fri Oct 01, 2021 10:25 pmNobody gives a flying fuck about Tordek and Regdar.
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1060
- Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 3:51 pm
As someone who plays in a 5e game, it is not easy to blame the GM/players for the bad rules. "Expert" characters perform worse than untrained people with the worst possible stat like, 10 or 20% of the time. It's fucking stupid if my 19 Int wizard has to ask the goddamn fighter how a spell works. Knowing spells is literally my entire class and build. Christ. And fuck using social skills, they fail half the time even with the Sorcerer so I'm just going to charm everyone forever.Ice9 wrote:There's a number of people that really don't like talking or even hearing about the game system being less than perfect. If it produces less than perfect results, but it might plausibly be because the group was playing it wrong, that's not so bad. But having it known that the system is definitely flawed ruins their gaming experience, I guess.
5E makes it easier to insist that any flaw comes from the GM and/or players, by making a lot of rules vague and repeating "The GM can rule anything in any way!" loudly and often. That's a selling point to some people.
My main issue with the game is it makes everyone bumblefucks. We're a 5th level adventuring party that you could obviate with like, 10 random dudes armed with bows.
Last edited by Pseudo Stupidity on Tue Sep 12, 2017 2:06 am, edited 1 time in total.
sandmann wrote:Zak S wrote:I'm not a dick, I'm really nice.Zak S wrote:(...) once you have decided that you will spend any part of your life trolling on the internet, you forfeit all rights as a human.If you should get hit by a car--no-one should help you. If you vote on anything--your vote should be thrown away.
If you wanted to participate in a conversation, you've lost that right. You are a non-human now. You are over and cancelled. No concern of yours can ever matter to any member of the human race ever again.
You would think that, it does seem pretty obviously the fault of the rules there. But according to many 5E fans, the correct thing to do is that the high-skilled character shouldn't even have to roll most of the time, based on some metric that the GM pulls out of their ass creates with the power of "Rulings, not Rules". And since any good GM would obviously do that, any complaints about it are just "white-room theorycrafting".Pseudo Stupidity wrote:As someone who plays in a 5e game, it is not easy to blame the GM/players for the bad rules. "Expert" characters perform worse than untrained people with the worst possible stat like, 10 or 20% of the time. It's fucking stupid if my 19 Int wizard has to ask the goddamn fighter how a spell works. Knowing spells is literally my entire class and build. Christ. And fuck using social skills, they fail half the time even with the Sorcerer so I'm just going to charm everyone forever.
And if the problem happened in an actual game ... well, that's still just one data point, stop trying to theorycraft from it! And besides, it probably made perfect sense IC and you're just whining about it because you're a munchkin.
Last edited by Ice9 on Tue Sep 12, 2017 7:00 am, edited 5 times in total.
- RobbyPants
- King
- Posts: 5201
- Joined: Wed Aug 06, 2008 6:11 pm
How do these dickholes respond when you ask them why they paid money for a book full of rules when the "correct" action is to use rulings?Ice9 wrote:You would think that, it does seem pretty obviously the fault of the rules there. But according to many 5E fans, the correct thing to do is that the high-skilled character shouldn't even have to roll most of the time, based on some metric that the GM pulls out of their ass creates with the power of "Rulings, not Rules". And since any good GM would obviously do that, any complaints about it are just "white-room theorycrafting".
And if the problem happened in an actual game ... well, that's still just one data point, stop trying to theorycraft from it! And besides, it probably made perfect sense IC and you're just whining about it because you're a munchkin.
-
- Serious Badass
- Posts: 29894
- Joined: Fri Mar 07, 2008 7:54 pm
Caster supremacy in 3.5 means exactly the same thing it does in 5e. Players who have a suffiicient amount of system mastery can make spellcasters that make warriors feel small in the pants. Also too, the higher level monsters are well out of reach of all but the most finely tuned warrior builds to do shit about.Cervantes wrote: the whole "caster supremacy" part of 3.5e kind of bums me out, 5e managed to mitigate it a bit by just flattening the curve down a shitload (i mean, even though casters are still the best). how do i get up to speed on the whole "advantages of 3.5e over 5e" and "homebrewing patches for 3.5e" thing?
But in both systems if you just take a bunch of Wizard levels and learn Fireball and shit, you're not going to outshine a Fighter who selected useful feats.
-Username17
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am
Mind elaborating a bit on the warriors? I vaguely remember high level monsters being disappointingly boring sacks of shit that could be owned trivially by a necromancer or a diviner.FrankTrollman wrote: Caster supremacy in 3.5 means exactly the same thing it does in 5e. Players who have a suffiicient amount of system mastery can make spellcasters that make warriors feel small in the pants. Also too, the higher level monsters are well out of reach of all but the most finely tuned warrior builds to do shit about.
They say the rules are fine for the most part but "everyone's table is different" so any problems are clearly table specific and not indicative of a failure of the game as a whole.RobbyPants wrote:How do these dickholes respond when you ask them why they paid money for a book full of rules when the "correct" action is to use rulings?Ice9 wrote:You would think that, it does seem pretty obviously the fault of the rules there. But according to many 5E fans, the correct thing to do is that the high-skilled character shouldn't even have to roll most of the time, based on some metric that the GM pulls out of their ass creates with the power of "Rulings, not Rules". And since any good GM would obviously do that, any complaints about it are just "white-room theorycrafting".
And if the problem happened in an actual game ... well, that's still just one data point, stop trying to theorycraft from it! And besides, it probably made perfect sense IC and you're just whining about it because you're a munchkin.
- Sir Aubergine
- Apprentice
- Posts: 74
- Joined: Sun Oct 13, 2013 2:53 am
- Location: The corner of your eye.
"Don't melee it stupid," is alive and well. If you don't have very high AC or damage resistance (both is preferable), you will get cut down like a dog wading into melee with high level monsters. They are more accurate and hit harder than you do, and their attacks often get rider effects, while you get: A magic weapon and a magic shield!CapnTthePirateG wrote: Mind elaborating a bit on the warriors? I vaguely remember high level monsters being disappointingly boring sacks of shit that could be owned trivially by a necromancer or a diviner.
The Denner’s Oath
The Denner, The Denner’s reflection: [in unison] A Denner is unhelpful, unfriendly and unkind.
The Denner’s reflection: With ungracious thoughts...
The Denner: ...in an unhealthy mind.
The Denner’s reflection: A Denner is uncheerful, uncouth and unclean. Now say this together!
The Denner, The Denner’s reflection: I'm frightfully mean! My eyes are both shifty. My fingers are thrifty.
The Denner: My mouth does not smile.
The Denner’s reflection: Not half of an inch.
The Denner: I'm a Denner.
The Denner’s reflection: I... am a Denner.
The Denner: I'm a Denner!
The Denner’s reflection: That's my boy. Now go out and prove it!
The Denner’s reflection: With ungracious thoughts...
The Denner: ...in an unhealthy mind.
The Denner’s reflection: A Denner is uncheerful, uncouth and unclean. Now say this together!
The Denner, The Denner’s reflection: I'm frightfully mean! My eyes are both shifty. My fingers are thrifty.
The Denner: My mouth does not smile.
The Denner’s reflection: Not half of an inch.
The Denner: I'm a Denner.
The Denner’s reflection: I... am a Denner.
The Denner: I'm a Denner!
The Denner’s reflection: That's my boy. Now go out and prove it!
-
- Duke
- Posts: 1545
- Joined: Fri Jul 17, 2009 2:07 am