What should one dislike about DnD5e mechanics?

[mean_liar]

I don't think Kaelik is being generous enough - some degree of GM adjudication is a reasonable backstop to rules implementation - but just look at the rules procedure you outlined: it's spread across three chapters and requires you to infer some stuff and discard some other stuff, all of which is based on your experience of what an RPG should be. I believe your mechanical synopsis is correct, but Frank's summation is apt: (paraphrasing) "the hiding rules are written in natural language in such a way as to describe what the mechanics should be telling you but nowhere does it actually tell you".

This also goes to something I think Lago pointed out, about how there's more and more fluff exposition. Explaining things is good, but the best way to do that with technical things is with an example, not with prose.

This isn't good game design, especially for what's a key part of the game's play. I wouldn't say that the Hiding rules are missing, or broken, but I would say that they are HIDDEN. Teehee.

...

I still think that the combat mechanics is where this game fails to be DnD. Hiring a bunch of NPC militamen to accompany you on your adventures is Chainmail, not (modern) DnD, but with bounded accuracy that's a viable strategy, and it shouldn't be.

I mean, that was a thing you did at low levels in some early versions of (O/A)DnD, but but to make it a viable combat tactic through the endgame is really off-putting.

The silver lining is that now bards have a purpose in that they seem to be the go-to people in solo play since they can boost the shit out of their horde of militiamen and win combats.

[nikita]

As a separate issue, rules are empowering even if Mister Cavern isn't a dick. If the rules say I can do something then I can. If they say I can't I can't. If they don't address the issue then it depends on whether Mister Cavern thinks it is a reasonable thing for me to do. This means that my character's ability to accomplish the task isn't really under my control any more.

Could you elaborate this point further?

[Windjammer]

Things don't go up to 11. They don't even go up to 5. Everything is stuck on the low end of the dial, to the point that it is solvable problem as to how many npc archers you need to shoot down the tarrasque, and it is a pretty small number. Like dozens of dudes, not thousands. The ultimate badass level 30 monster in the game will get crushed on the field of battle by the sling wielding militia of a mid-size halfling city.

It's telling when, asked what point there is to playing Next rather than d20 under the E6 mode (in endless heroic tier), the only response you get from fans is that "but but on E6 feats are still mandatory!". Maybe that's the answer the OP was seeking. What sells this edition is not what's in there, but what isn't. Imagine it's 2008 and fans who've barely had time to inspect the system tell you 4e is great because it killed Vancian magic and the Great Wheel. That the new magic system and cosmology are a poor substitute hasn't hit them yet, and will only dawn on them after months of cognitive dissonance.

So far, we have not heard of any stories where people play 5th edition at campaign length. It's simply too early to tell. Arguably, it's obvious upon inspection that the core books, even with the two expensive adventure hardcovers, cannot sustain a campaign level experience. But it may take quite a while for that penny to drop. Right now, people are too excited to be able to make PCs without feats. It's apparently so liberating.

[Dogbert]

The most annoying demographics are always the most vocal regardless of whether they're the majority or not. The next year will tell us if 5E can actually thrive on neckbeards alone or not.

[Krusk]

if you knock over a vase. But... what determines whether you knock over a vase or not? There are no fucking rules for that. It's just, if the DM decides that you knock over a vase and give your position away, that's tough shit.

If you have a DM who acts like this, he's a bad DM, and the players won't have fun, and the group won't stay together past three sessions.

Fuck you. This arguement is shit and its not 2001 so we should not be explaining why to you.

Rules relying on how well you suck the dms dick are bad. The rule should be good and have clear examples and explanations. Then when your dm is an asshole you can point him to the rule and tell him to stop being an asshole.

---
Paranoia with a bad dm terrible. In my experience they dont get the joke about rgs, and think the only joke is the tone of the setting.

[Kaelik]

I don't think Kaelik is being generous enough - some degree of GM adjudication is a reasonable backstop to rules implementation

GM adjudication is reasonable in some circumstances. But even if, hypothetically, I were to accept that "when you can attempt to hide" was one of those (I do not, in all non-hypothetical situations) 5e does not in fact allow any adjudication.

To be in any way useful adjudication requires first of all some fucking beginning guidepoint and framework within which to make your decision, and secondly requires some amount by which your decisions create precedent on which to base future decisions.

5e provides absolutely neither of those. 5e provides literally completely fucking nothing in any form or structure, and then it makes you make that decision completely new all over again literally every time it comes up.

5e is the game rules equivalent of telling judges "make the decision that is fair" without absolutely no other laws. That is not adjudication, it is fucking make believe.

[Username17]

If rolling badly on a stealth check caused the DM to extemporize that you had knocked over a vase or something to explain why everyone saw you, that would be OK. Some people don't like cause and effect to work that way, but it certainly isn't a wrong way to play RPGs and interpret die rolls. But that is very explicitly not what the book says.

Knocking over a vase is spoken in the same breath as and linguistically equivalent to shouting a warning. It is presented as an action that causes your stealthiness to fail, regardless of rolls. Well, it causes you to acquire the completely undefined condition "position given away," with no indication whatsoever as to whether or how that's different from being a non-hiding character on the battle mat.

But in any case, it's very much not "you rolled badly and failed stealth, so I guess you knocked over a vase," it's "you knocked over a vase, therefore your stealth fails regardless of what you rolled." It's totally fucked.

And then to add to the shit sandwich, there are:

• People you can see.
• People whose presence you have detected signs of.
• People whose position is given away.

There is no indication as to whether or how those conditions are different or similar, nor even solid indication as to what order they are supposed to come in if they are not the same.

And that's all topped off with the real cherry on this shit sunday, which is that if you want to sneak by someone they "usually" see you automatically, but "under certain circumstances" the DM might allow you to roll. Holy. Fucking. Shit.

-Username17

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Our rules for stealth, which may sound like a funny example. But having worked on 3rd and 4th edition, creating a set of rules for hiding from other people and monsters that run without a DM, is crazy. You always end up with a situation where you’re standing right in front of the monster but he can’t see you, because there’s a loophole in the rules.

Seems like Mike has passed the blame for his convoluted rules on to you filthy munchkins who would rather play a gish that can turn invisible, than a russian roulette cocksucker rogue.

[Drolyt]

As a separate issue, rules are empowering even if Mister Cavern isn't a dick. If the rules say I can do something then I can. If they say I can't I can't. If they don't address the issue then it depends on whether Mister Cavern thinks it is a reasonable thing for me to do. This means that my character's ability to accomplish the task isn't really under my control any more.

Could you elaborate this point further?

I could try. Suppose you want to play a character that is really good at tracking (maybe something like a D&D ranger). If there are no solid rules for how tracking works in the game you are playing, such as what you roll, what the DCs are, or what character resources you spend (eg feats, skills, character points, etc.) then there is actually no way to do this. You just have to hope Mister Cavern lets you track effectively. Even if the game has an ability "can track well" if there are no or shoddy rules then you are still playing "mother may I?".

Now suppose you play a 5th level Ranger from Dungeons and Dragons v3.5. You could, for example, have 8 ranks in survival, at least 5 ranks in search (for a +2 bonus), a 14 wisdom (for another +2), and at least 5 ranks knowledge (nature) (circumstantial +2), for a total bonus of +12 (+14 in aboveground natural areas). Given this you know exactly what you are capable of. Can you track an orc through the woods on a moonless night? Yes, so long as you move half speed. Can you track a gnome through a blizzard, given that the gnome would have left tracks in the snow but those have been covered by fresh snow? Yes, and you can move at full speed. Can you track an ogre over the plains after it has been raining for 24 hours? No, not even if you roll a 20.

See how clear rules allow you to make the character you want and how you can never do that without clear rules? That was my point.

[infected slut princess]

Sakuya Izayoi, I love you so much.

[nikita]

I could try. Suppose you want to play a character that is really good at tracking (maybe something like a D&D ranger). If there are no solid rules for how tracking works in the game you are playing, such as what you roll, what the DCs are, or what character resources you spend (eg feats, skills, character points, etc.) then there is actually no way to do this. You just have to hope Mister Cavern lets you track effectively. Even if the game has an ability "can track well" if there are no or shoddy rules then you are still playing "mother may I?".

Now suppose you play a 5th level Ranger from Dungeons and Dragons v3.5. You could, for example, have 8 ranks in survival, at least 5 ranks in search (for a +2 bonus), a 14 wisdom (for another +2), and at least 5 ranks knowledge (nature) (circumstantial +2), for a total bonus of +12 (+14 in aboveground natural areas). Given this you know exactly what you are capable of. Can you track an orc through the woods on a moonless night? Yes, so long as you move half speed. Can you track a gnome through a blizzard, given that the gnome would have left tracks in the snow but those have been covered by fresh snow? Yes, and you can move at full speed. Can you track an ogre over the plains after it has been raining for 24 hours? No, not even if you roll a 20.

See how clear rules allow you to make the character you want and how you can never do that without clear rules? That was my point.

I am quite unfamiliar with term "mother may I". Could you elaborate what it means?

I do not see why detailed tracking rules would be critical in players selection of certain character types (unless focus of game is the tracking) because I do not see why lack of such rules would forbade or prevent player to choose such skills or backgrounds to her character. Am I right assuming you think that players would be deterred from acting on skills that are not not covered by rules? If so, why?

[Emerald]

I do not see why detailed tracking rules would be critical in players selection of certain character types (unless focus of game is the tracking) because I do not see why lack of such rules would forbade or prevent player to choose such skills or backgrounds to her character. Am I right assuming you think that players would be deterred from acting on skills that are not not covered by rules? If so, why?

Let's say you want to make a Captain America-like character who's very athletic, inspiring, and tactically-adept. Your Captain expy has skill modifiers of +10 Athletics, +4 Presence, and +7 Warfare. What do they mean?

In a vacuum, +10 Athletics could be amazing (if the highest DC you expect to face is in the 10-15 range), absolutely pathetic (if the lowest DC you expect to face is in the 25-30 range), or most likely somewhere in the middle, but without knowledge of those DCs you can't make that judgment.

Sure, you can just say "Well, Cap should just take lots of feats and other stuff related to Athletics, Presence, and Warfare so it fits his character," but (A) if having all those numbers doesn't make you good at those things because you need a +15 to be able to reliable jump 2 feet, inspire one person, or identify basic tactical maneuvers and you can't get more than a +12 to any of those, then you're not going to feel like Cap even if you focus on those areas and will be disappointed in play, and (B) if average DCs for what you want to do are in the low teens for Athletics, low 20s for Presence, and low 30s for Warfare but skill-boosting feats gives the same bonus for all skills, you need to know that you should put more resources towards Warfare and less towards Athletics to be able to do everything you want to do.

Also, if skills are vague ("Warfare lets you identify 'stuff' about enemies' fighting styles, subject to DM discretion") while other parts of the system are concrete ("Casting the know opponent spell tells the bard his opponent's current total attack bonus, current total AC, weapon proficiencies, favorite fighting style, and mother's maiden name"), then it's impossible judge when it's better to have skills vs. the spells, which can influence your entire character build and can't be changed in play after seeing how the DM rules on your skills; this came up a lot in 3e with Hide vs. invisibility, Open Lock vs. knock, and so forth, but in 3e you know exactly when the skills are worse, better, or even with the spells (and what you can do to boost your skills to surpass the spells) and can decide from there whether to be a rogue, a wizard, an arcane trickster, etc.


Imagine for a second that there are no set ACs. Monsters don't have set ACs in their stat blocks, the full plate description just says it's "very protective" without giving any numbers, the PC AC formula is "10 + Dex bonus + whatever number your DM decides works for your character," and so forth. If you want to make a tank-y character who's very hard to hit, how do you do that? You could pick up full plate and a tower shield, but if there are no rules for ACs the DM might rule that enemies with morningstars can hit you easily because they can crush your armor, where taking hide armor wouldn't be thus vulnerable; or he might rule that piercing weapons and grapples ignore your armor because they can find the gaps and you wouldn't have expected that because there's no concept of "touch AC" under this system.

Or maybe you want to be a Legolas-type sniper who is uncannily accurate with a bow. When facing the local Smaug impersonator, without defined ACs against your bow attacks your DM might rule that "Of course you can't hit him, he's motherfucking Smaug!" or might rule that "Of course you can hit him, you're motherfucking Legolas!" or might rule that this dragon has an AC of 35 because it's Very Hard to penetrate his scales...unless you specifically describe how you're trying to hit his wings in which case it's an AC of 15 because it's Moderately Hard to hurt the soft fleshy wing surfaces.


In short, the best way to ensure that players can build the character they want to play is to give them the benchmarks they need to make fully-informed decisions during character creation and advancement.

[erik]

if there are no or shoddy rules then you are still playing "mother may I?"

I am quite unfamiliar with term "mother may I". Could you elaborate what it means?

Here ya go.

[Hiram McDaniels]

Seriously, that's the whole thing. Your position is given away if you knock over a vase. If and when that happens is 100% DM fiat because there are no rules for accidentally knocking over vases.

-Username17

Out of curiosity, what are the rules for knocking over vases in 3E?

[Kaelik]

Seriously, that's the whole thing. Your position is given away if you knock over a vase. If and when that happens is 100% DM fiat because there are no rules for accidentally knocking over vases.

-Username17

Out of curiosity, what are the rules for knocking over vases in 3E?

Are you capable of reading?

I wonder, because if you were capable of reading, you would be able to tell that the reason we are talking about vases is because 4e defines knocking over vases as the thing in the rules that causes you to fail at stealth.

So if you were being honest, you would say, "Out of curiosity, what are the rules for rolling a check result less than the oppositions spot or listen check in 3E?" Since that is what 3e uses as a rules for failing stealth.

[Lokathor]

Seriously, that's the whole thing. Your position is given away if you knock over a vase. If and when that happens is 100% DM fiat because there are no rules for accidentally knocking over vases.

-Username17

Out of curiosity, what are the rules for knocking over vases in 3E?

Move Silently (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
Check
Your Move Silently check is opposed by the Listen check of anyone who might hear you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your full speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to move silently while running or charging.

Noisy surfaces, such as bogs or undergrowth, are tough to move silently across. When you try to sneak across such a surface, you take a penalty on your Move Silently check as indicated below.

Surface Check Modifier
Noisy (scree, shallow or deep bog, undergrowth, dense rubble) -2
Very noisy (dense undergrowth, deep snow) -5

Action
None. A Move Silently check is included in your movement or other activity, so it is part of another action.

also

Hide (Dex; Armor Check Penalty)
Check
Your Hide check is opposed by the Spot check of anyone who might see you. You can move up to one-half your normal speed and hide at no penalty. When moving at a speed greater than one-half but less than your normal speed, you take a -5 penalty. It’s practically impossible (-20 penalty) to hide while attacking, running or charging.

A creature larger or smaller than Medium takes a size bonus or penalty on Hide checks depending on its size category: Fine +16, Diminutive +12, Tiny +8, Small +4, Large -4, Huge -8, Gargantuan -12, Colossal -16.

You need cover or concealment in order to attempt a Hide check. Total cover or total concealment usually (but not always; see Special, below) obviates the need for a Hide check, since nothing can see you anyway.

If people are observing you, even casually, you can’t hide. You can run around a corner or behind cover so that you’re out of sight and then hide, but the others then know at least where you went.

If your observers are momentarily distracted (such as by a Bluff check; see below), though, you can attempt to hide. While the others turn their attention from you, you can attempt a Hide check if you can get to a hiding place of some kind. (As a general guideline, the hiding place has to be within 1 foot per rank you have in Hide.) This check, however, is made at a -10 penalty because you have to move fast.

Sniping
If you’ve already successfully hidden at least 10 feet from your target, you can make one ranged attack, then immediately hide again. You take a -20 penalty on your Hide check to conceal yourself after the shot.

Creating a Diversion to Hide
You can use Bluff to help you hide. A successful Bluff check can give you the momentary diversion you need to attempt a Hide check while people are aware of you.

See also: epic usages of Hide.

Action
Usually none. Normally, you make a Hide check as part of movement, so it doesn’t take a separate action. However, hiding immediately after a ranged attack (see Sniping, above) is a move action.

Special
If you are invisible, you gain a +40 bonus on Hide checks if you are immobile, or a +20 bonus on Hide checks if you’re moving.

[infected slut princess]

The Hide rules in 3E are fucking terrible.

[Kaelik]

The Hide rules in 3E are fucking terrible.

The hide rules in 3e are not very good. I would go so far as to call them bad. But since they are actual rules, they are still miles better than 5e.

[Dean]

This may be off topic now but I think the most onerous thing about 5E's mechanics is the intentional action clog. If you spend a couple hours building characters in 5E you will see how intentionally they made your abilities clog up one another. You will have half a dozen virtually identical attacks competing for your standard action, a dozen effects competing for your bonus action, a dozen effects competing for your concentration spot. It's a really aggressive kind of boring to write down 20 abilities for a character knowing all but 3 of them will never be used.

[Lago PARANOIA]

People dumping all of their character resources into passive and off-action abilities is legitimately a problem, but 5E D&D attempted to tackle that issue in the worst way possible. The root cause of 5E D&D's stupidity is sharply tiering the effects while still giving you access to the full list, but it still managed to add its own stupidness with concentration and off-action crap. It combines the worst parts of the resource management systems of 3E D&D (option paralysis and list recall) with 4E D&D's (slot-whoring and 5MoD). It's not the worst resource management system I've seen in a TTRPG, but it's pretty close.

[hogarth]

The Hide rules in 3E are fucking terrible.

Stealth rules are terrible in every tabletop RPG I know.

[fearsomepirate]

I do not see why detailed tracking rules would be critical in players selection of certain character types (unless focus of game is the tracking) because I do not see why lack of such rules would forbade or prevent player to choose such skills or backgrounds to her character. Am I right assuming you think that players would be deterred from acting on skills that are not not covered by rules? If so, why?

Let's say you want to make a Captain America-like character who's very athletic, inspiring, and tactically-adept. Your Captain expy has skill modifiers of +10 Athletics, +4 Presence, and +7 Warfare. What do they mean?

In a vacuum, +10 Athletics could be amazing (if the highest DC you expect to face is in the 10-15 range), absolutely pathetic (if the lowest DC you expect to face is in the 25-30 range), or most likely somewhere in the middle, but without knowledge of those DCs you can't make that judgment.

Well, you should be able to reasonably assume that the DM has some sort of guide on setting DCs, and that these DCs are reasonably calibrated so that if I have high underlying abilities and a boost to that score, the task should be pretty easy for me. Whether these rules take the form of very specific calculations for very specific situations, or if there's just a general-use table of DCs the DM is supposed to use, that should be true. And IMO, the player really shouldn't have to know how exactly it works under the hood to be able to make that decision.

If there's no such guide, or the guide itself has broken numbers, you've got a bad game system on your hand. You're either playing mother-may-I, or not able to jump over a ditch with a roll below 17, or able to scale glass skyscrapers by rolling 2's.

[erik]

pirate, you were so close. You were basically restating what Emerald and Drolyt correctly said up until here:

the player really shouldn't have to know how exactly it works under the hood to be able to make that decision.

You might not have to know exactly how it works, but you need to be able to know enough to make approximations. If I make a super strong and athletic character I should be able to expect that they can make a running jump across a 15' (4.6m) gap without exceptional risk (an average highschool boy can expect to make that jump). Even if the MC has well written instructions Captain America may be rudely surprised to discover that despite his +5 strength modifier he only has a 50% chance to make the DC 15 of a 15' long jump since his Athletics skill doesn't apply to Jump checks. He may be even more dismayed to learn that he has only a 25% chance of landing on his feet at the end of that jump.

We're talking hypothetical rule sets- just demonstrating that not only does the MC need instructions, but players *DO* need to be in the loop more than just a little bit on how the difficulties are set.

[Hiram McDaniels]

rules...

Okay. I was wondering if there was some sort of special rules construct specifically for randomly toppling or tripping over background clutter.

I agree with Frank Trollman's earlier post: knocking over a vase as a consequence of a failed roll is fine, which is how I assumed it worked in 5E. But if the GM can just arbitrarily decide that stuff happens and you just fail without a roll because they cancelled Firefly before it's time is complete and utter bullshit.

[DSMatticus]

help help the tags

oh god the tags