D&D 5e has failed

[Insomniac]

So with Numenera and the guy doing a kickstarter for a tabletop RPG while working for WOTC, Frank seems right. They are all trying to pull a Monte Cook, I guess. Dungeons and Dragons is firing people to a level where they farm out work to fired people, have no real release schedule and half the people on the payroll might be working on their own RPGs, so Dungeons and dragons is subsidizing direct competition.

I thought the edition would be a failure but I didn't know it was going to be a scam!

[Username17]

I thought the edition would be a failure but I didn't know it was going to be a scam!

I did.

I've been wrong before, I mean there was a period when I thought Pathfinder was going to do the whole True20 failure to catch on. But I'm pretty proud of having basically predicted the trajectory of 5e from development to launch to redaction to the constituent members of the design staff jumping ship for other projects back in January of 2012.

-Username17

[CapnTthePirateG]

Interesting thread on GitP 5e boards about the 5e skill system.

Apparently you as MC are supposed to set separate DCs for each character based on your personal evaluation of that character's capabilities.

I have no idea how this is expected to go over without hours of arguing over backstories or real-world capabilites.

[Username17]

Hey, this is exactly how we used to play "RPGs" when we were like 14 years old.

Roll a d20 for everything you want to do and check the follow table*:

1 : you fail hilariously bad
2 - 7 : you fail
8 - 14 : you and the DM argue if you should succeed or not
15 -19 : you succeed
20 : you succeed so good, people will talk about it afterwards.

* this table was never written down, but it's exactly how I remember everybody understanding it.

That is 5th edition D&D. Even the compressed numbers don't generate bonuses similar enough to do that, so 5th edition just dispenses with having DCs that are pre-determined or even consistent between two characters. If you have a +7, the DC is between 15 and 22. If you have a +15, the DC is between 23 and 30. If you have a +2, the DC is between 10 and 17. The entire existence of DCs is like quantum. They are whatever they need to be to make the physical die roll conform to the expectations of 14 year old boys.

Welcome to Nostalgia Edition. Where all the dumbass misconceptions that Mike Mearls and Greg Bilsland had when they were playing AD&D in junior high have been codified into the actual rules as best as they were able to figure out how to do that.

-Username17

[Previn]

Interesting thread on GitP 5e boards about the 5e skill system.

Apparently you as MC are supposed to set separate DCs for each character based on your personal evaluation of that character's capabilities.

I have no idea how this is expected to go over without hours of arguing over backstories or real-world capabilites.

What... that is... wha? Is that an official thing, or just some fan suggestion because that makes the entire point of having rules moot.

[MGuy]

Interesting thread on GitP 5e boards about the 5e skill system.

Apparently you as MC are supposed to set separate DCs for each character based on your personal evaluation of that character's capabilities.

I have no idea how this is expected to go over without hours of arguing over backstories or real-world capabilites.

What... that is... wha? Is that an official thing, or just some fan suggestion because that makes the entire point of having rules moot.

5E, as I understand it, has a bunch of skills that basically say: Player rolls dice, GM ass pulls numbers. Some people might argue about that but that's pretty much what the rules tells you.

[Previn]

Interesting thread on GitP 5e boards about the 5e skill system.

Apparently you as MC are supposed to set separate DCs for each character based on your personal evaluation of that character's capabilities.

I have no idea how this is expected to go over without hours of arguing over backstories or real-world capabilites.

What... that is... wha? Is that an official thing, or just some fan suggestion because that makes the entire point of having rules moot.

5E, as I understand it, has a bunch of skills that basically say: Player rolls dice, GM ass pulls numbers. Some people might argue about that but that's pretty much what the rules tells you.

That's roughly how most RPGs work, but going the extra step and pulling different numbers based on what each character's skill is for the same task is profoundly disappointing on many levels. I'm just curious if someone official has suggested/stated that.

[Grek]

The actual official suggestion is that you use this chart to decide the DC:
Very easy: DC 5
Easy: DC 10
Medium: DC 15
Hard: DC 20
Very hard: DC 25
Nearly impossible: DC 30

and makes no reference to adjusting based on level or proficiency. This is 100% a case of gitp attracting mouthbreathing idiots who shouldn't be allowed at the table.

[Username17]

The actual official suggestion is that you use this chart to decide the DC:
Very easy: DC 5
Easy: DC 10
Medium: DC 15
Hard: DC 20
Very hard: DC 25
Nearly impossible: DC 30

and makes no reference to adjusting based on level or proficiency. This is 100% a case of gitp attracting mouthbreathing idiots who shouldn't be allowed at the table.

Like most things that Grek attempts to portray 5th edition as less shitty than it is, he's not really right here. I mean, I'm not going to come out swinging that the mouthbreathing idiots on GitP aren't mouth breathing idiots, because they are. But their interpretation here is broadly correct. While Grek is correct that the difficulty class lists do range from "Very Easy" at 5 to "Nearly Impossible" at 30, those descriptions are completely meaningless and could just as easily refer to relative difficulty for a character's presumed ability level as they could refer to absolute difficulty in some objective fashion.

And not to put too fine a point on it, but that list of DC guidelines comes after this:

One approach is to use dice as rarely as possible. Some DMs use them only during combat, and determine success or failure as they like in other situations.
With this approach, the DM decides whether an action or a plan succeeds or fails based on how well the players make their case, how thorough or creative they are, or other factors. For example, the players might describe how they search for a secret door, detailing how they tap on a wall or twist a torch sconce to find its trigger. That could be enough to convince the DM that they find the secret door without having to make an ability check to do so.

The actual system is that the player makes their case about what they want to do, and then the DM determines if the action automatically succeeds, automatically fails, or requires a die roll. In short, we're playing Call of Cthulhu, where having a bigger skill bonus increases your chance of success on a die roll by a trivial amount, but increases the odds of your MC declaring your action automatically successful or giving you an easier test by some completely unknowable amount.

Remember, this game does not have objective difficulties for just about anything outside combat (and bizarrely, resisting the magical side effects of planar travel). There's just you arguing with your DM about whether the task you want to perform is "easy" or "hard" for you. That's the whole system.

-Username17

[Grek]

In actual play the system works out to "DC 15 normally, DC 10 if the DM wants you to succeed but is pretending this is difficult, DC 20 or 25 if the DM thinks your plan is stupid but doesn't want to veto it outright." This is not a very good system, but it's a far cry from literally telling the DM to look at your sheet, add 8 to your bonus for the check and declare that to be the DC. 5e's skill system is bad, but it's not that bad. Don't make shit up, Frank, really don't need to here. 5e's skill system can fail on its merits without your help.

[Orion]

There's just you arguing with your DM about whether the task you want to perform is "easy" or "hard" for you. That's the whole system.-Username17

Can you or the Capn pull me a quote on this? I've just re-read the basic rules and while Frank is correct that it doesn't explicitly forbid the MC from assigning different difficulties to different characters for the same task, i don't see anywhere any suggestion that you could or should do so.

[Username17]

There's just you arguing with your DM about whether the task you want to perform is "easy" or "hard" for you. That's the whole system.-Username17

Can you or the Capn pull me a quote on this? I've just re-read the basic rules and while Frank is correct that it doesn't explicitly forbid the MC from assigning different difficulties to different characters for the same task, i don't see anywhere any suggestion that you could or should do so.

Well, it's the entire system. Even the section which describes the "extreme" position of allowing players to roll the dice for every action (called "rolling with it") has this little gem:

Relying on dice also gives the players the sense that anything is possible. Sure, it might seem unlikely that the party's halfling can leap on the ogre's back, pull a sack over its head, and then dive to safety, but with a lucky enough roll it just might work.

Emphasis added. The example uses the presumed physical capabilities of the character based on their appearance enter into the presumed difficulty of the action. It would presumably seem less unlikely in that example for the party's tall character to jump up with the sack. Or something.

It's difficult to get yourself to believe that's what they mean because this book is written so half-assedly and with so little clarity - and because what they actually mean is so awe inspiringly terrible that basic charity makes you try to read it as saying almost anything else. But just like the hiding rules really do say that you are automatically detected whenever the DM fiats that you knock over a vase for the drama llama, the rules for basic action resolution really are that your bonus is basically fucking meaningless because if the DM thinks that a task is "very hard" for your character the DC is twenty points higher than if the DM thinks the task is very easy for your character.

Remember that dice don't run your game- you do. Dice are like rules. They're tools to help keep the action moving. At any time, you can decide that a player's action is automatically successful. You can also grant the player advantage on any ability check, reducing the chance of a bad die roll foiling the character's plans. By the same token, a bad plan or unfortunate circumstances can transform the easiest task into an impossibility, or at least impose disadvantage.

When a player wants to do something, it's often appropriate to let the attempt succeed without a roll or a reference to the character's ability scores. For example, a character doesn't normally need to make a Dexterity check to walk across an empty room or a Charisma check to order a mug of ale. Only call for a roll if there is a meaningful consequence for failure.
When deciding whether to use a roll, ask yourself two questions:
[*] Is a task so easy and so free of conflict and stress that there should be no chance of failure?
[*] Is a task so inappropriate or impossible- such as hitting the moon with an arrow-that it can't work?
If the answer to both of these questions is no, some kind of roll is appropriate.

People who actually like to talk about rules have a difficulty understanding how bad this really is. But it's seriously exactly the bullshit skill system we complained about in Call of Cthulhu. Just with even less examples.

-Username17

[Orion]

OK. I've only read the Basic Rules document, so that's probably the main disconnect. Also, if I encountered just the halfling sentence, I would have taken it as "color." That is, unnecessary detail included to liven up the example. I got into a row about the stealth rules on another site and I spent a long time thinking about the vase example. The whole thing is so vaguely written I don't know what to make of it. Because it's in the same sentence as "shouting a warning," the guy I was arguing with asserted that they're talking about voluntarily knocking over a vase, but I'm not so convinced, because who voluntarily knocks vases over? It is an objective flaw that they don't specify how it would be decided whether a vase is knocked down. Technically, it doesn't forbid the MC from declaring it by fiat.

I don't know. Basic fairness dictates that you don't get to make bad things happen to PCs by fiat in stealth any more than in other context. If they did their job right, then the section of skill checks or saving throws should be written in a way that makes clear the player gets a roll. I'm not going to check whether they did that right. They probably didn't. Anyway, I feel the most likely reading of the vase example is that it's meant as an example of a non-opposed stealth check. Instead of rolling to beat the perception of a guard, you're rolling a "hard" stealth check to walk quiet on leaves or an "easy" dex save to avoid tipping the vase. Obvious fiat DCs mean this is not far removed from fiat failure, but it' still an important distinction

[angelfromanotherpin]

Anyway, I feel the most likely reading of the vase example is that it's meant as an example of a non-opposed stealth check.

I feel that the most likely reading of the vase example is that it's a chunk of the design document that got published because Mearls can't handle a deadline. Someone said that the whole stealth section reads a lot more like a list of things to implement rather than actual things that were implemented, and I think that's probably right.

[Lurky Lurkpants]

On skills, I'm reminded of the defenses of 4e's Skill Challenges. On the third page of the Giantitp thread someone pointed out there were three versions of 5e skill checks being offered, none of them compatible but all of them blaming people not liking the system on not "getting it."

[Insomniac]

On skills, I'm reminded of the defenses of 4e's Skill Challenges. On the third page of the Giantitp thread someone pointed out there were three versions of 5e skill checks being offered, none of them compatible but all of them blaming people not liking the system on not "getting it."

That gets to the heart of the vaporware problem. rather than working on delivering one satisfying and robustly tested option, they can give you 3 and act like they did you a favor when having one good option is clearly superior to having three that are bad. It gets them off the hook from having to provide quality mechanics and allows them to call people ingrates when they dislike three options or something. There's just no pleasing some people (withcrummyrules), obviously the players are impossible to please.

[tussock]

The dev cycle on the skills is weird. It's clear from pre-playtest that they intended to cover the limited size of modifiers to your checks by some form of auto-success and auto-failure coded into the rules.

Monte came up with tiered skills, so your perception-4 auto-wins against stealth-3, rolls against stealth-4, and auto-loses against stealth-5. The small modifiers and conditional stuff is for judging equally-matched foes.

Then they floated high stats as the auto-success function, but it was terrible math that meant while a Str 25 Dragon could totally bust through everything DC 25 or less, they couldn't ever break DC 30 stuff without more bonuses from somewhere.

Then they tried dice pools, shared dice pools, ... something, and then they just gave up, stuck the attack mod on it, and left the old DCs that don't work any more. It's a system that clearly needs to only be rolled when things should be "close" because mechanically they always are. It needs some sort of function to produce results without rolling, and they obviously knew that but couldn't find something that let their forum trolls be happy about it.

So went with this whole touchy-feely, roll whenever you want, DC whatever you want.


Which is sort of like a game you'd want to pay $150 and read 1000 pages for, though I'm pretty sure a few free-form things do much better for free in 10 pages.

[Ferret]

I'm kind of thinking about going through each skill and setting DCs for each one, then publishing that list of DCs to my players. At least then we'll all be on the same page, and if I accidentally bullshit them they can keep me honest.

I mean, it's shitty that the developers didn't do this, but the skill list is short enough that I don't mind, and at least it'll make my table consistent. This will also let me set some ridiculous task DCs, like climbing beams of sunlight or stealthing SO HARD you turn invisible, etc.

[tussock]

@Ferret: You'll also have to define what happens when you succeed or fail with various skills, when you might want to roll them and how often, what modifiers apply, and when a/d comes into things. Stealth in particular is undefined in several places.

So, you'll want to write a whole skill system for the game, or use Pathfinder's (including the Unchaned rank stuff, only better). The basic problem you'll hit in 5e is bounded accuracy, some characters can get +17 at max level (most stuck around half that), and that is not off the RNG of Steve the crap-covered farmer. If you can be invisible reliably, so can Steve sometimes.

[Ferret]

...yeah. Ugh. Maybe Pathfinder 2 will be more supportable (lol)

[Dogbert]

...yeah. Ugh. Maybe Pathfinder 2 will be more supportable (lol)

d&d has been acting as Pathfinder's ugly, homely sister for five years already. As in, its only job has been making PF look good... just saying.

[MGuy]

...yeah. Ugh. Maybe Pathfinder 2 will be more supportable (lol)

After Unchained I heavily doubt that "if" PF2 is ever announced that it will even pretend to be anything innovative. At this point they are probably just going to milk what they have as long and s hard as they can.

[Insomniac]

After "Unchained" was more sedate than a nearly 15 year old supplement, Unearthed Arcana, and seeing their hybrid classes, PF2 will be somewhere between Dungeons and Dragons 3.76 and E6 I think. They really are in love with third casters and two thirds casters.

[Orion]

It would be amazing if Paizo hired the authors of Orcus and published that.

[souran]

As I said in the pathfinder threat, there is never going to be a Pathfinder 2nd edition.

They will publish rulebooks that are a de-facto second edition that get more and more divergent from the core rules. They will not, however, actually produce a Pathfinder 2nd edition.

There will be complete rewrites of classes, but theoretically any version of any class will still be allowed!

Meanwhile, I am actually more excited about the TOEE board game adding "campaign" rules to the D&D boardgame than I am about anything Wizards is publishing for D&D 5E.

I am normally an early adopter. Hoenstly, even with its flaws I would probably play 5E over pathfinder.... if there was actually anything there to play. I liked 4E more than 3E, and 3E more than 2E. I am NOT a hard person to sell RPG books to, and I don't own anything for 5E yet because I am not convinced that if I preordered soemthing from them that they would actually produce the final product.

There no expansion books, there are no setting books, and the "adventures paths" that they have are short, bad, and infrequent. There isn't even an attempt to sell a game here.