What do you hate about D&D 5e?

TLG d20, Necromancer Games and general. Discuss any game not covered in another forum.
User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

Honest question.. We're all likely big C&C fans here. What are some things you really hate (or just dislike) about D&D 5e? Seeking honest opinions, not trying to start a flame war.

Thanks!

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Go0gleplex »

Overly complicated. Too pricey and book format/divisions created with profit in mind rather than player benefits. Panders to lazy players rather than being a challenge of ANY sort. Those are the top three for me...though pretty much the entire way the game rules have degenerated into a quagmire of power-creep gratification disgusts me to no end. Then again, I've always had absolutely no tolerance for stupidity; ignorance and mistakes fine...stupidity...hard zero. So I may be a tad biased.
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

User avatar
DMSamuel
Red Cap
Posts: 391
Joined: Thu Jun 19, 2014 2:48 am
Location: Downstate NY
Contact:

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by DMSamuel »

paladinn wrote:
Tue Jun 14, 2022 5:55 pm
Honest question.. We're all likely big C&C fans here. What are some things you really hate (or just dislike) about D&D 5e? Seeking honest opinions, not trying to start a flame war.

Thanks!
For me I have three main gripes for 5e that make it a bit unpalatable for me, though I have played many many hours of it...

1) MAGIC-MAGIC-EVERWHERE: Every class has at least 1 subclass that allows spellcasting (and most classes have many more than 1 subclass that allows casting). It makes magic the go-to assumption in every character creation process and the first thought for resolving every challenge. I dislike the Magic-Magic-Everywhere theming of all classes (and races) in the game... it just doesn't fit my preference. It's not that I am against high magic, or powerful magic, but I am against the idea that EVERY PC EVER has access to super potent spells... it relegates the non-spellcasters to "What do you do that is special?" status.

2) TOO MANY PLAYABLE RACES: The absolute number of playable races is just over the top for me... it implies a game where every race is equal and therefore none of them strike me as special anymore. And even though they all have 1 thing that they can do that no others can do (tabaxi jump/run/claws, dragonborn has dragonbreath, kobold has grovel, cower, and beg, etc) they are all played just like a human - which is also a problem with dwarves and elves, yes, but with SO MANY animal or monster races that are playable, it feels a bit like "If I give everyone in class an A grade, what makes that A grade so special anymore?" And for me it makes me wonder what setting would have these people running around and no one would bat an eye? Like, that's fine is someone wants to have that setting, no problem here and I am not telling anyone what makes a 'real' setting or anything like that - but it just isn't my preference, so it turns me off of 5e. (and yes, I know I can put constraints on the choices my players make, but that wasn't the question, the question is what do *I* dislike about 5e)

3) RELIANCE ON BACKSTORIES/HEROES BEFORE LEVEL 1: And finally, the way the rules are written and the choices given during chargen imply a style of play that I am not as interested in. The RPG/D&D play culture has changed, mostly away from the things I prefer, for example:

BACKSTORY FIRST, PLAY SECOND: In 5e, you build a character complete with a backstory and all sorts of background skills/abilities/history along with ideals/bonds/flaws and while it doesn't take a huge amount of time for some people, others put lots of time into each character. And it is even more time intensive if there is a session 0 where everyone makes their characters together. By the time the PC enters the world, so to speak, they are a fully formed character that the player probably loves and has invested a lot of creative energy into. Therefore it is the expectation that the PC will survive for the long haul and the player will get to play out the rest of the PC's story. For that reason, deadly quests (at first level and beyond) get lots of pushback from 5e DMs and players.

In basic D&D and 1e D&D it took 5 min to roll up a PC start to finish, but it wasn't just the amount of time... no extensive backstory was conceived, and the players knew the PC might not live past the first encounter, so there was not much investment in the character. The PC started to form into a character with a backstory through play - the world learned about the exploits of the PCs if they lived past level 2 or 3, and by then they had lots of stories to tell - but those stories were the adventures the PC played through, not just a rolled background and ideal/bond/flaw. The expectations were different.

HERO FIRST, WITHOUT EARNING IT: In other words, the character emerged through play, not through chargen. And because of this, and the short chargen time, you could have a system where it is acceptable to have a high mortality rate at low levels. And it was satisfying when you did happen to get a PC to live past 3rd or 4th level, and they were truly more powerful than they were at the beginning, but still not superheroes. In early D&D you start out as a zero and if you live you may become a hero and if you live after that, you may become known in the kingdom or run a stronghold of your own. In 5e, the PCs start out as very capable characters who are already heroes and then they become superheroes and then they become so powerful they can save the region/continent/world in short order.

---
To be clear, I am not bashing 5e - the system is pretty solid and they have obviously written a game that is very popular and liked by many a new player (and many an old player, too). HOWEVER, I simply prefer the older, deadly, not-every-class-can-cast-spells game. I don't blame others for liking the game the way it is, wanting super competent PCs from the start, and loving magical spells and being able to cast them and swing a sword and pick a lock, etc. I am not accusing anyone of bad-wrong-fun... it simply all comes down to preference and I like a good high mortality, resource management game with a lot of strategic planning and possible death or running away. That is why I favor Castles & Crusades over 5e - it plays like 1e, but doesn't have all the clunky subsystems that 1e had.
~DMSamuel
---
Website: RPG Musings

JShan101
Mist Elf
Posts: 26
Joined: Sun Sep 08, 2019 1:18 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by JShan101 »

Definitely agree with Samuels note, "Hero first, without earning it." 5e is about creating 1st-level superheroes, basically. There's no real progression to power. Characters start off being able to do too much and just go up from there, which feels like it's there to appease the raised-on-consoles crew. Characters become nothing much more than the sum of their powers/abilities. Might just be my appreciation of the whole Joseph Campbell "hero's journey" motif, but I think there's a greater reward in earning your way up to being able to do cool stuff.

User avatar
maximus
Lore Drake
Posts: 1203
Joined: Tue Feb 17, 2015 12:23 am
Location: North Carolina

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by maximus »

1. The short rest/long rest mechanics. Just plain don't like them.
2. I don't like all the playable races. I like keeping it to the traditional basics.
3. Not a fan of all classes having access to spells. I like a bit of verisimilitude in my fantasy...
4. I don't like the advantage/disadvantage system.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

maximus wrote:
Wed Jun 15, 2022 8:46 pm
1. The short rest/long rest mechanics. Just plain don't like them.
2. I don't like all the playable races. I like keeping it to the traditional basics.
3. Not a fan of all classes having access to spells. I like a bit of verisimilitude in my fantasy...
4. I don't like the advantage/disadvantage system.
1. Agreed
2. Agreed mostly
3. Definitely agreed
4. I can see uses for it. Could speed-up gameplay, which is always a good thing.

I think the proficiency bonus mechanic in 5e seems derived, at least in concept, from the C&C idea of adding ones level. Honestly the C&C method seems a bit less contrived. But the rest of the Siege engine, while it isn't hard to comprehend, gives the impression of being "alien" to D&D. ACK and 13A and others have their own such "eccentricities." I don't care for the fact that in 5e, no one gets any better saving throws unless you're proficient. So with a non-proficient save, a 20th level character really saves no better than a 1st level character.

I wouldn't mind adapting the ASI concept to C&C, but I would limit it to a +1 to one stat and not +2 to a stat. Feats might be an option too, but no where near as many as in 3e, and definitely no trees and chains. Same with skills. I love the simplicity of C&C; but I can definitely understand where some would prefer a bit more customization and granularity (but again, nothing like 3e).

There should be a middle ground between 5e, 3e, C&C, and maybe OSR games. That's what I'm hoping to achieve in my hybrid game, Heroes & Horrors.

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Neuroschmancer »

First of all, I don't like the word hate. I would say where do I see room for improvement. I think Mike Mearls and the team did a great job with 5e based upon what they were trying to accomplish, and I think the RPG world is indebted to them for all the new players they have brought into the hobby. It's much easier for someone to take the step to C&C or OSR when they have been introduced to the game. It's like people who entered board games with Setters of Catan or Lord's of Waterdeep and now play board games with much more robust mechanics. It was the simple ingenuity of Catan and LoW that brought them into the hobby so that they could come to enjoy the more complicated games.

1. Skills shouldn't use a D20 but instead 2d6, 3d6, or some other similar distribution. Combat should still use a D20.
2. Advantage/Disadvantage will give you a varying effective bonus depending on the Target Number after all bonuses and minuses. The closer it is to 50% chance, the higher the bonus. So it could be very close to +5 or as low as +2. I would rather give DMs a sliding scale from +1 to +5 of to represent how much of an advantage/disadvantage the player has. Instead of having specific rules for exactly what these bonuses are as in 3e, you would have the DM make a judgement call like they do in 5e.
3. Skill tests are either an outright failure or an outright success. Instead, you should be able to partially succeed or partially fail. You should also be able to hedge against failure based upon how the action is performed. DnD needs to also incorporate Extended Tests as seen in systems like Shadowrun. Where you have a cumulative Target Number that requires multiple rolls to succeed at, rather than make 5 independent rolls, each one can cause complete failure of the combined action. Since statistical failure increases by multiplication, the DM is really screwing the player here. The more independent rolls the DM asks the player to make, the greater the chances the DM is going to make the player fail. When the player needs to succeed on all of these, you almost make it certain they will fail. Most DMs don't know or understand probability or the implications of the rolls they ask their players to make. So it has to be built into the system to be reasonable to the player.

Here is an example of an Extended Test: make 5 rolls using a D20 and add the number each time. After you are done rolling, all your rolls must add up to 50 or more to succeed on the Extended Test. For partial success, the TN was 15 but you rolled a 14, you succeed but there are consequences.
4. Stealth rolls are problematic because of #3. Either you cheese the mechanics by getting the highest additive bonus possible to always succeed, use invisibility, or some other trick. Otherwise you don't stealth because it is too hit or miss. To be fair, the OSR has this same problem but with thieves trying to backstab any enemy at lower levels. The ability is practically pointless at lower levels for OSR.

INSTEAD, failing a stealth roll causes suspicion but the player is not spotted, unless the failure was 5 or more below the TN.
5. 5e has little to no resource management and time keeping whatsoever. Yes it can be added with some optional rules, but it doesn't even come close to what C&C accomplishes. Without resource management and time keeping, the players will feel no sense of urgency and the decisions they make will matter far less and have far less an impact. When actions don't cost something, it becomes arbitrary to choose one action over the other.

I realize people hate accounting and inventory management, but it exists in the game for a reason. No one would play a board game with mechanics where any given action didn't actually gain you anything but was there purely for story or flavor purposes. Given how popular board games are that have rich action economies, I am fairly certain there is a way resource management and time keeping can be made fun in DnD.
6. Hit point bloat and the ridiculous disparity in DPR between classes. I don't think they mathematically modeled any of this. I don't think they even did bar room napkin math. They somehow managed to increase Hit Points beyond 3.5, which is quite impressive.
7. Multiclassing. I want archetypes and strong cohesion in a class' identity. Multi-classing dilutes the class and classes can do too many things that make their contributions the same as what any other class could do. Increase asymmetrical balance in class design. Even some of the base classes feel like multiclass versions of a class from previous editions. I think Prestige Classes were the right way to go here. I realize sub-classes are something like this, and they permit WOTC to restrict abilities to only one class, but in reality people just mutliclass anyway and get the equivalent of what would have been a Prestige Class. In reality, multiclassing with subclasses is more permissive than Prestige Classes were. Everything in 5e feels like a hybrid and mixture of a lot of different things.
8. Nova damage and Alpha strikes. They really need to consider what the core combat mechanics and gameplay needs to be and stick to that experience consistently from level 1-20. It's ok to have Nova damage and Alpha strike, but it should be one of many options, not the most optimal in every case. In Battletech, if you rely on Alpha Striking your opponent every time, you can't do so without being poorly defended and losing the long term battle. Nova damage and Alpha Striking should have a tradeoff like they do in Battletech. Part of this stems from problem #5 and resource management not mattering at all.

With all that being said, I play 5e currently and really enjoy it, and I encourage other people to play 5e as well if I think it will be the right kind of game for them. What I really don't understand is when an OSR game is played with a 5e approach. If that is the case, I would rather play 5e because I think 5e does a much better job at it and was built for that kind of experience.

User avatar
Go0gleplex
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 4051
Joined: Fri May 30, 2008 7:00 am
Location: Keizer, OR

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Go0gleplex »

I get the individual flavor per class required bit. I try very hard to keep any overlap in classes to a minimum and/or limited in scope so each brings something a little different to the party. It makes for some very interesting times...and not really in a bad way. :)
"Rolling dice and killing characters since September 1976."
"Author of Wardogs! and Contributor to Iron Stars and Starmada-Admiralty ed."
"Certified crazy since 2009."

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

I agree, Hate is too strong a word. To me, 5e feels like it is for the power gamer, for people who want to "win" at a numbers game. It is the result of WotC and the merging of MtG with roleplaying, after all, where one rule overrides another rule, overridden by another... who can find the best combination?
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:00 pm
2. Advantage/Disadvantage will give you a varying effective bonus depending on the Target Number after all bonuses and minuses. The closer it is to 50% chance, the higher the bonus. So it could be very close to +5 or as low as +2. I would rather give DMs a sliding scale from +1 to +5 of to represent how much of an advantage/disadvantage the player has. Instead of having specific rules for exactly what these bonuses are as in 3e, you would have the DM make a judgement call like they do in 5e.
Raw Bonus and Advantage have very different statistical effects, and both have their place. I don't think it's wise to just replace one with another.

With Advantage, you are still limited to a possible range of values of 1-20. No matter what, you can't roll higher than a 20. But what Advantage does is make it very unlikely that you'll roll a low number. With a normal d20, you've only a 1 in 20 chance of rolling a 1. But with Advantage, the odds of a 1 are 1 in 400. And it's a 75% chance that you'll roll an 11 or better.

Advantage changes the probability distrubution, but not the range of possible values. A Raw Bonus changes the possible values, but not the probability distribution.

So it depends on what you're modelling. Advantage, it seems to me, models cases where it's unlikely that you'll screw up. Your skill hasn't improved any, hence a max of 20, but the situation is such that it's difficult to make a mistake. Conversely, a Raw Bonus measures an actual improvement in your skill level.

Both mechanics have a place in my opinion. But i'd personally not want to replace Advantage with a sliding scale, because it would change the nature of the effect.


-Fizz

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Fizz wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:58 pm
Raw Bonus and Advantage have very different statistical effects, and both have their place. I don't think it's wise to just replace one with another.
The limit of the effect as the sample size approaches infinity is a very specific additive bonus that ranges from +2 and +5. This isn't fudging anything. It is a simple mathematical truth based in well established laws of statistics. While any given reroll can be greater or lesser than that limit, it is equivalent mechanically to that +2 and +5 bonus over many rolls.

In statistics, this mathematical concept is called the Expected Value of the dice roll.

https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ ... obability/

On the graph with Green, Blue, and Red, notice the distance between Blue line, which is the normal roll and the Red and Green lines. The distance between these lines is that +5 and +2 visually represented.

Advantage/Disadvantage gives the illusion of something other than it actually is. It feels like as a player you are getting another chance but in reality, the size of the effect is measurable and is equivalent to that bonus. The variability it creates in the rolls I don't think is an accurate abstraction of what an advantage or disadvantage is.

As for a straight bonus vs. Advantage making it more likely to succeed, a straight bonus is the same as stating your chances of success increase by 5% - 25%. While it is an abstraction of your character's skill, it is not only an abstraction of your characters skill because a bonus is the same as modifying the DC. We don't say that a lower DC is the same as your character being better at the skill.

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:00 pm
1. Skills shouldn't use a D20 but instead 2d6, 3d6, or some other similar distribution.
Why? I've heard this from others regarding skills or ability checks. What's wrong with using a D20?

Personally I'd rather just use one dice type as much as possible.

And point taken about the "hate" word. But there are some frequent post-ers on here who Do hate 5e, by their own admission.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 6:50 pm
The limit of the effect as the sample size approaches infinity is a very specific additive bonus that ranges from +2 and +5. This isn't fudging anything. It is a simple mathematical truth based in well established laws of statistics. While any given reroll can be greater or lesser than that limit, it is equivalent mechanically to that +2 and +5 bonus over many rolls.
How can it be equivalent when the available results are different? A +5 means you'll get a result between 6 and 25. Advantage means you'll get a result between 1 and 20. There is no getting around that.
In statistics, this mathematical concept is called the Expected Value of the dice roll.
OK, if you're talking Expected Value sure, i agree. But i'm specifically not talking about Expected Value. That is not the relevant factor here. Again: Advantage never gets you above 20, but a raw bonus can, and that is very relevant when talking about the relative benefits of various mechanics.
https://statmodeling.stat.columbia.edu/ ... obability/
On the graph with Green, Blue, and Red, notice the distance between Blue line, which is the normal roll and the Red and Green lines. The distance between these lines is that +5 and +2 visually represented.
Yes, it shows exactly what i said: Advantage changes the probability distribution. But the horizontal difference in the lines is not the relevant factor here. (But 'tis a cool plot.)
Advantage/Disadvantage gives the illusion of something other than it actually is. It feels like as a player you are getting another chance
You are getting another chance. And that's why the odds of every point of the red line are higher than every point of the blue.
but in reality, the size of the effect is measurable and is equivalent to that bonus.
Measurable, yes. Equivalent, no. Let me illustrate with some examples.

First, if you want to compare Advantage to a particular bonus, you need to take the lines from those plots and shift the blue line to the right by the bonus amount. Then you can compare odds of specific results. The odds of a 21 with Advantage are 0%, but >0% for a Raw bonus. This matters (see below).

Let's suppose you're fighting a monster with an AC of 23. If your only benefit is Advantage, you're never going to hit it. If you have a bonus of +5, then you've got a 15% chance of hitting it. So, under this circumstance, which would you rather have, a +5 bonus, or Advantage? Answer: +5 bonus.

Now let's suppose you're fighting a big monster that you need to kill immediately. You need a critical hit. With a standard roll, you've only got a 5% chance of a critical (regardless of bonus, since it must be a natural 20). But with Advantage, you now have a 9.75% chance of a critical; nearly double your previous chances. So in this scenario, would you rather have a +5 bonus, or Advantage? Answer: Advantage

So if one is preferable in some situations, and the other prefereable in others, they cannot be equivalent. In one case, the fighter might say "hand me that +5 sword". And in the other the fighter might say "i'm manuevering to attack from above".

Don't make the mistake that Expected Value is the only relevant metric. Possible ranges and probability distributions matter.
As for a straight bonus vs. Advantage making it more likely to succeed, a straight bonus is the same as stating your chances of success increase by 5% - 25%. While it is an abstraction of your character's skill, it is not only an abstraction of your characters skill because a bonus is the same as modifying the DC. We don't say that a lower DC is the same as your character being better at the skill.
You're saying that mathematically 20 + 5 = 25 is the same thing as 20 = 25 - 5. I don't see the relevance to Advantage here. If anything, it shows that Advantage would be preferable because it produces a non-linear response, making the arbitrariness of the raw bonus more obvious.

In summary, different mechanics are best for different things. I have no particular love for Advantage, but i can see how it is useful for modelling things differently from a raw bonus.

FYI, for more fun numerical modelling with dice of all sorts of combinations, check out www.anydice.com .


-Fizz

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:14 am
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:00 pm
1. Skills shouldn't use a D20 but instead 2d6, 3d6, or some other similar distribution.
Why? I've heard this from others regarding skills or ability checks. What's wrong with using a D20?
Personally I'd rather just use one dice type as much as possible.
The advantage of the distribution is that it better represents consistency. Most people perform tasks at a particular level of skill. They don't wildly fluctuate between completely screwing up (rolling a 1) and performing a masterpiece (rolling a 20). Such extreme events occur rarely, so these kind of distributions result in more consistent outputs, keeping those rare events being, well, rare. :) That's the appeal of it.

-Fizz

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Fizz wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 4:45 am
OK, if you're talking Expected Value sure, i agree. But i'm specifically not talking about Expected Value. That is not the relevant factor here. Again: Advantage never gets you above 20, but a raw bonus can, and that is very relevant when talking about the relative benefits of various mechanics.
Ok cool, it looks like I was misunderstanding what you were saying. For advantage, the critical role chance is increased, and for my suggested flat bonus, it does allow you to go beyond your skill + ability mod max, agreed. I see what you mean there now. However, I think being able to have more granularity and not have the variability of the Expected Value for the bonus that is dependent on the TN of the roll is well worth it. If you really want to keep increased crit chance and make them more likely, you could double the threat range of the crit when rolling an advantaged roll as a flat bonus. So instead of a 20, it would become a 19/20 and so on. If we were really worried about being able to reach DCs higher than what the skill + ability max would otherwise allow, it could be capped at 20 + that max bonus. However, I really don't think this is going to matter and depending on the advantage, it might actually make more sense to have that kind increase to the max DC achievable, so this would actually be a benefit to using the flat bonus.

I just really don't like that the Expected Value of the bonus is a +2 or approx as high as +5 depending on the TN. It just makes no sense. Any kind of advantage should help any given person equally on their roll, and it should NOT be less of an advantage or more of an advantage based upon the adjusted TN. The adjusted TN being the normalized TN based upon your skill. So a DC of 15 with a skill of +3 is an adjusted TN of 12 for the purposes of the math we have been discussing. I am well aware you already know this, but it helps to make things explicit for the purposes of discussion so that it is clear what I actually mean.

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Neuroschmancer »

paladinn wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 2:14 am
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Fri Jun 17, 2022 5:00 pm
1. Skills shouldn't use a D20 but instead 2d6, 3d6, or some other similar distribution.
Why? I've heard this from others regarding skills or ability checks. What's wrong with using a D20?

Personally I'd rather just use one dice type as much as possible.

And point taken about the "hate" word. But there are some frequent post-ers on here who Do hate 5e, by their own admission.
Yep what Fizz said. Skills are supposed to represent something the character has training in. There are just certain mistakes that someone trained in a skill no longer makes and the floor of failure raises to a point where it could actually exceed the best a beginner could do. The 3d6 distribution represents this very well. It also makes it so that someone who is inexperienced can't easily make a high roll and beat the expert. With 5e this problem is even worse because they use bounded accuracy, unlike 3e which would have skill bonuses get crazy high to meet crazy high skill DCs. Not saying 3e skills are preferable to 5e, just that 3e didn't have that particular problem as much due to it being broken in a different way.

3d6 makes most rolls hover around the 9-15 range. So DCs would have to be adjusted appropriately. Worlds Without Number and Fantasy Age already have good suggestions of what these DCs should be for various actions. The 2d6 DCs of Worlds Without Number can be easily adjusted for a 3d6 equivalent if you map probabilities over. I actually prefer 2d6+1d8 because it maps well to D20s 5% increments for bonuses but 3d6 less quirky.

As for adding more dice, I know what you mean but there are other systems like DCC that do crazier things, and yet other systems that having you incrementing the die type. So, going from 1d4 to 1d6 to 1d8 to 1d10 to 1d12. I actually think that games with that are terrible, because you are supposed to be getting better at the skill yet you can still just roll a 1 and fall flat on your face. At least with a D20 system you get a a bonus to the skill from having it trained.

Think about it this way. If Gygax and Arneson had always used 3d6 for skills and d20 from combat, no one would be thinking twice about it now. A lot of the everyday complexity of DnD we miss because we take it for granted and it seems so simple to us due to its familiarity.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Grandpa »

Neuroschmancer wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:36 am
Yep what Fizz said. Skills are supposed to represent something the character has training in. There are just certain mistakes that someone trained in a skill no longer makes and the floor of failure raises to a point where it could actually exceed the best a beginner could do.
Which is why this was written in the PHB for CKs: "It is important to note that only those activities which have
a significant chance of failure, as determined by the Castle Keeper, should be resolved by a dice roll. In most cases, narrative
development and not chance should guide the game."

User avatar
Tadhg
Cleric of Zagyg
Posts: 10878
Joined: Mon May 01, 2006 7:00 am
Location: Somewhere in Time

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Tadhg »

this thread should be moved to the "other games" forum
Lord Tadhg - Lejendary Keeper of Castle Ardmore

"Enjoy a 'world' where the fantastic is fact and magic really works!" ~ Gary Gygax

"By the pricking of my thumbs, Something wicked this way comes:" - Macbeth

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

Tadhg wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:22 am
this thread should be moved to the "other games" forum
I've just read posts from a number of C&C fans who hate (their word) 5e. I know 5e and C&C share a number of mechanics in common, or at least similarly, so I wondered why one would prefer C&C. I think it informs one's choice.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

Grandpa wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:09 am
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:36 am
Yep what Fizz said. Skills are supposed to represent something the character has training in. There are just certain mistakes that someone trained in a skill no longer makes and the floor of failure raises to a point where it could actually exceed the best a beginner could do.
Which is why this was written in the PHB for CKs: "It is important to note that only those activities which have
a significant chance of failure, as determined by the Castle Keeper, should be resolved by a dice roll. In most cases, narrative
development and not chance should guide the game."
That's always been an odd line for me, because what defines "significant"? A high level fighter has little chance of missing when he fights a horde of goblins, so should that be entirely narrative, or assume he just hits every time, and ignore the die rolls?

But regardless, i think that's a separate issue. The point of a distributed roll like 3d6 is for consistency; it's not related to whether the activity has a significant chance of failure or not. People tend to perform at a particular level of competence, and do not deviate from it significantly very often. With a d20, since all results are equally likely, one deviates often. But with 3d6, 68% of the time your result will be between 7.5 and 13.5.

I'm not passing judgement, just explaining the appeal of it, which i understand. Whether it belongs as part of core C&C is another matter. But it does make a good house rule.

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:47 am
Grandpa wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:09 am
Neuroschmancer wrote:
Sat Jun 18, 2022 6:36 am
Yep what Fizz said. Skills are supposed to represent something the character has training in. There are just certain mistakes that someone trained in a skill no longer makes and the floor of failure raises to a point where it could actually exceed the best a beginner could do.
Which is why this was written in the PHB for CKs: "It is important to note that only those activities which have
a significant chance of failure, as determined by the Castle Keeper, should be resolved by a dice roll. In most cases, narrative
development and not chance should guide the game."
That's always been an odd line for me, because what defines "significant"? A high level fighter has little chance of missing when he fights a horde of goblins, so should that be entirely narrative, or assume he just hits every time, and ignore the die rolls?

But regardless, i think that's a separate issue. The point of a distributed roll like 3d6 is for consistency; it's not related to whether the activity has a significant chance of failure or not. People tend to perform at a particular level of competence, and do not deviate from it significantly very often. With a d20, since all results are equally likely, one deviates often. But with 3d6, 68% of the time your result will be between 7.5 and 13.5.

I'm not passing judgement, just explaining the appeal of it, which i understand. Whether it belongs as part of core C&C is another matter. But it does make a good house rule.

-Fizz
So would you replace all d20 rolls with 3d6?

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:13 am
So would you replace all d20 rolls with 3d6?
Note i'm not necessarily endosing this for C&C. But i do understand the reasoning behind it.

Personally, I wouldn't replace all d20 rolls. I think combat with a d20 is still fine, because combat is inherently unpredictable, due to the fast past and many uncontrollable variables, most of which can't really be considered inside of a rpg.

But i have experimented with using 2d10 rather than 1d20, and i liked how that worked. It provides a touch more consistency, but wide rolls can still occur fairly regularly (just not as often as d20 of course).


-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

Fizz wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:57 am
paladinn wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:13 am
So would you replace all d20 rolls with 3d6?
Note i'm not necessarily endosing this for C&C. But i do understand the reasoning behind it.

Personally, I wouldn't replace all d20 rolls. I think combat with a d20 is still fine, because combat is inherently unpredictable, due to the fast past and many uncontrollable variables, most of which can't really be considered inside of a rpg.

But i have experimented with using 2d10 rather than 1d20, and i liked how that worked. It provides a touch more consistency, but wide rolls can still occur fairly regularly (just not as often as d20 of course).


-Fizz
Using your houserules, how/do you get a critical hit?

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

paladinn wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 3:27 am
Using your houserules, how/do you get a critical hit?
It depends on how common you want them to be. IF a critical hit is a natural 20, and IF you want to maintain the frequency (5%) of rolls, then one has to change the values that result in a critical hit. In the case of 2d10, a roll of 19 or 20 will occur 4% of the time, so that's close enough for me as the equivalent of a d20 natural 20. So that's how i'd do it for that simple case.

That said, i don't use just 20's for critical hits, but conditions that are class dependent, so it would require a more complicated conversion. It's all an experiment still.

Also of note, under a 2d10 system, the effect of primes is effectively +4 rather than +6. I justify this because the prime value of effective +6 is (i believe) because the standard deviation of a d20 is 6. But with 2d10, the standard deviation is 4.


-Fizz

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Grandpa »

Fizz wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:47 am

That's always been an odd line for me, because what defines "significant"?
The CK/GM/DM/Ref must do it based on the situation at hand. You are asking for a rule that cannot exist. D&D from the beginning has the Ref makes all those determinations. "D&D" can NEVER be run properly without good Ref judgment. "Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow." G.G.

User avatar
Captain_K
Greater Lore Drake
Posts: 2747
Joined: Sun Dec 29, 2013 10:37 pm
Location: North Coast

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Captain_K »

5e did swing the DnD world back to its origins a bit, so let's be thankful there.
Wow, Another Natural One! You guys are a sink hole for luck. Stay away from my dice.

User avatar
Grandpa
Ulthal
Posts: 636
Joined: Fri Aug 28, 2020 8:59 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Grandpa »

Captain_K wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:58 pm
5e did swing the DnD world back to its origins a bit, so let's be thankful there.
How so exactly?

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Neuroschmancer »

Grandpa wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:04 pm
Fizz wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:47 am

That's always been an odd line for me, because what defines "significant"?
The CK/GM/DM/Ref must do it based on the situation at hand. You are asking for a rule that cannot exist. D&D from the beginning has the Ref makes all those determinations. "D&D" can NEVER be run properly without good Ref judgment. "Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow." G.G.
I do think you bring up a really good point here, as well as your previous quote from the C&C CK book about when rolls should be made. How do we give the modern day DM who doesn't have the background knowledge, cultural influences, literary influences, and social background of Gygax and Arneson the ability to know things lke this and incorporate them? Where and how is the everyday DM supposed to pick up not just that but also the skillset that Gygax and Arneson assume and take for granted? There is no way you are going to come to the conclusion that the game you are playing isn't representative of Gygax and Arneson's table by reading any DnD editions' materials. I think that is one of the biggest problems of the OSR movement and the alleged attempt to return to "real" DnD.

The DMG and other books themselves and themselves alone, do not give the aspiring DM the tools they need to run the game that the writers themselves envision and enjoy. I have played with more than a few DMs who think the rules are what makes the game and I don't think the books have aided them to not think that way. Now, we can definitely blame 3e and Pathfinder for this for sure, but I don't think it began with them. The roots of this disconnect started back with 1e and the assumed taken for granted background and influences of the authors that was not obvious or explicit from reading the books.

Fizz
Lore Drake
Posts: 1442
Joined: Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:00 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Fizz »

Grandpa wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 12:04 pm
Fizz wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:47 am
That's always been an odd line for me, because what defines "significant"?
The CK/GM/DM/Ref must do it based on the situation at hand. You are asking for a rule that cannot exist. D&D from the beginning has the Ref makes all those determinations. "D&D" can NEVER be run properly without good Ref judgment. "Being a true DM requires cleverness and imagination which no set of rules books can bestow." G.G.
I am not asking for a rule at all. I am only pointing out that the statement is vague. Indeed it will vary by CK, because different CKs will define "significant" differently, In one game a CK will say no roll required, but the exact same difficulty might be ruled as requiring a roll by another CK. And related to Neuroschmancer's last point, how might a newbie CK with no reference points define it?

-Fizz

User avatar
paladinn
Ulthal
Posts: 511
Joined: Tue Feb 01, 2022 10:40 pm

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by paladinn »

Grandpa wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:05 pm
Captain_K wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:58 pm
5e did swing the DnD world back to its origins a bit, so let's be thankful there.
How so exactly?
Consider where D&D was after 3e. Pathfinder went down the feat rabbit hole; PF2 is far worse. 4e mutated into a video game for the table top. 5e Definitely is more "old school" than either of them, even if you don't care for it.

Neuroschmancer
Skobbit
Posts: 16
Joined: Sat May 21, 2022 2:30 am

Re: What do you hate about D&D 5e?

Post by Neuroschmancer »

paladinn wrote:
Mon Jun 20, 2022 12:06 am
Grandpa wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 2:05 pm
Captain_K wrote:
Sun Jun 19, 2022 1:58 pm
5e did swing the DnD world back to its origins a bit, so let's be thankful there.
How so exactly?
Consider where D&D was after 3e. Pathfinder went down the feat rabbit hole; PF2 is far worse. 4e mutated into a video game for the table top. 5e Definitely is more "old school" than either of them, even if you don't care for it.
Yes, that is definitely a part of it, but I am also talking about the kind of play that Pathfinder 1e and 2e encourages DMs to engage in. On a few occasions, I have played Pathfinder Society for 1e and 2e and my experiences with it were strikingly similar. I had never rolled so many skill checks in my life. There was a skill check for everything, and there was some feat that modified the skill check for what would just normally be handled by character interaction. Do you want to piece together what kind of deity the evil druid follows? Roll or you find out nothing. Nevermind that the druid would be performing various rituals, be adorned with various iconography, and be interacting with nature and magic in a manner unique to the devotion of that deity. No, we must not communicate information through narrative and interaction, make a skill check. Do you want to succeed in a conversation with an NPC to gather more information? You better make the relevant skill check instead of having a conversation. It doesn't matter what you said or how believable the result was based upon what you actually said, social dynamics don't matter, only what you rolled.

I also remember multiple times throughout the adventure there was some canned roll you had to do. So you would make some knowledge check, or some social check, or some other approved check the DM had on hand. Did you want to sneak into the captain's tent and search? Too bad, that isn't one of the options or skill checks covered in the adventure booklet. Think of any action you might want to do or conversation you might want to have and then put some skill check for which you probably don't have the right feat for anyway even if you do have the skill.

PF2 is really bad. Look through the various social feats and other utility feats you can take that in other systems your character can just do. You shouldn't need a feat to distract someone using a social skill, or to be able to more effectively coerce an NPC because a feat on your character sheet says you can coerce the NPC in some way that is somehow different than how the skill itself is supposed to allow you to coerce the NPC. PF2 is full of these crazy feats and rules like that. It's a minefield of all these things you would think your character can do if you have the relevant skill but can't actually do because there is some feat you had to take or some incredibly rigid way the mechanics are supposed to work. PF2 even has feats to use skills in place of other skills. So forget whether or not the skill is actually relevant , you have found a creative use of a skill, or want to use ingenuity in some way... too bad there was a feat you were supposed to have taken. PF2 wants to remind you have bleeding second that you are in fact playing a game with rigid rules and mechanics. You must never be allowed to use your imagination or ingenuity in any way. The only creativity permitted is in your character build and how you use its laborious mechanics.

I use PF2 as an example here because my experiences with Pathfinder Society and PF2 itself are obvious examples of how everything just goes off the rails and gameplay becomes dice mechanics entirely divorced from the emergent experience and character action. It became impossible to play PF2 without looking at my character sheet and having to also find the feats I DID NOT HAVE, in order to see what I could and could not do in the game. I have no idea what the PF2 creators wanted the role-playing experience to be. 3e kind of started this and then Pathfinder decided to require a skill and feat for everything, without realizing this actually hamstrings play. I'm surprised they didn't add a feat for breathing oxygen.

PF2 isn't the only game this happens in. There are actually people who play 5e like this as well, even though the system is less inclined towards it.

With that being said, I am not entirely against feats if they add novel abilities or allow some kind of sub-specialty the standard class doesn't currently cover.

Post Reply