5e - why you think it sucks, and why you're wrong

[squeen]

Holy crap! Slick's back too!

It's like a family reunion!


...good times...

 

[gandalf_scion]

Hey Gandalf! Guys! Look! Gandalf's back!

We're just fight again 'cause we got bored...Beoric poked the bear.

(touches nose, and yells "Not it!")

Indeed, much like my favorite halfling, I went "There and Back Again".

 

[EOTB]

@DangerousPuhson - you already responded to that post. Did you need a 2nd try because you just couldn't hit the ball the first time? This is like the advantage mechanic, isn't it. I can see why you like your favorite edition.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

@DangerousPuhson - you already responded to that post. Did you need a 2nd try because you just couldn't hit the ball the first time? This is like the advantage mechanic, isn't it. I can see why you like your favorite edition.

You're a funny old guy, EOTB.

See, here in the modern age we have this thing called "the internet" that has this thing called "forums" on it, where people can see an entire history of postings and choose which points to address (even *gasp* after the fact!), or perhaps even to revisit a point that was made earlier. This is a common move in online debates/arguments, usually among folks who like to point (or "quote", as we say in the online world) to what they're addressing so as to un-muddle the confusing walls of forum text.

One day you'll get the hang of it. Until then, I'm certain your charming Ad Hominem attacks on my personal character will never ever grow old, and will most certainly drill home whatever point it was you were trying to make.

 

[EOTB]

I know that 5E is the edition where the players dish it without taking it; but if you're going to start the dozens don't cry about it.

"ad hominem my character"

 

[Pseudoephedrine]

I'll admit as a personal preference, I don't mind complexity but prefer it to be loaded into parts of the game where agency is particularly high, and avoid it in sections of the game where it is, or at least is meant to be, low. My preference for initiative systems, as a system that constrains player-character agency via the imposition of a structured involuntary order to their actions, is generally for them to be simpler. If the game emphasised initiative as the key element of player agency in combat - striking first almost always mean winning, or at least gaining a decisive advantage in the fight - I'd be fine with a more complicated system.

 

[squeen]

Whoa! Even Pseudoephedrine (our friend with the name I cannot pronounce) is back!

I do miss his old avatar though...

Man. Touching this thread is like turning on the Bat-Signal!

If the game emphasized initiative as the key element of player agency in combat - striking first almost always mean winning, or at least gaining a decisive advantage in the fight - I'd be fine with a more complicated system.

1. This is can be true in OD&D/AD&D, but mostly at higher levels. The "segments" system for breaking down a round helps with spell-casting because they can be an A-bomb in an encounter...and managing "fast"/multiple attacks.
2. The AD&D initiative system plays very smooth and quick. I have no complaints.

• The back and forth that went on during last night's game between two fairly equally matched opponents (7th-level thief transformed by a quasi-cursed ring of swimming into a fish-man) and giant octopus:

Thief (who lost initiative by a point on the d6): I get to go first anyways because of my high dex!​

DM (me): That's only for missile weapons.​

Thief: I'm using the harpoon wrist-crossbows I found in the submerged parts of the Earth Temple.​

DM (me): Ok, you get a shot off before it can try to grab you...​

easy peasy lemon squeezy. The "hard part" is learning the system --- not using it. Again, probably not the system you want to start with, but if you want to spice up your cooking...it adds slight nuances, yet maintains over-all game-balance in an elegant and unencumbering way.

 

[gandalf_scion]

Here's another alternative initiative system...

Initiative with Agency

Initiative with Agency allows characters to chose between acting sooner or acting later with additional advantage. This simulates the “real world” trade-off between acting first or waiting so as to act with some foreknowledge of your opponent’s intentions.

Each participant in combat bids for initiative by selecting a “bid number” from one through six. Record the numbers in secret and then reveal at the same time. To simulate crisis communication under stress, the referee could allow players to discuss their intentions with each other under a six-second time limit on the entire bid number selection process. Participants act in ascending order of bid numbers, from low to high. Resolve ties with competing d6 rolls modified by dexterity AC adjustment; lower modified rolls go sooner. If tied bid numbers also have equal d6 results then those participants act simultaneously. Each participant also earns a “bid bonus” equal to one-half his/her bid number; round fractions down. A participant can employ their bid bonus as a positive die roll modifier to any one die roll they make that round.

The referee should select bid numbers for NPCs/monsters based on circumstances, but can use the following expedients: select the same bid number for a whole group; roll 1d6 to determine a bid number randomly; assume bid number 3 on odd rounds and bid number 4 on even rounds, or vice versa.

For example, imagine three player characters encounter a gaggle of four malcontents. The referee tells the players they have six seconds to jot down (or otherwise record) their respective bid numbers. He/she selects 3 for all the malcontents. Then all bid numbers are revealed.

Bidder/ Bid Number

PC 1/ 1
PC 2/ 3
PC 3/ 5
Malcontents/ 3

Therefore, PC 2 and the malcontents must resolve their tie with competing dice rolls. Assume PC 2 rolls 2 and the malcontents, as a group, roll 3.

Thus, the order of actions and bid bonuses shake out as follows.

Order of Action/ Bid Bonus

First, PC 1/ 0
Second, PC 2/ +1
Third, Malcontents/ +1
Last, PC 3/ +2

 

[DangerousPuhson]

My preference for initiative systems, as a system that constrains player-character agency via the imposition of a structured involuntary order to their actions, is generally for them to be simpler. If the game emphasised initiative as the key element of player agency in combat - striking first almost always mean winning, or at least gaining a decisive advantage in the fight - I'd be fine with a more complicated system.

This is about as close to my own philosophy about the game as I've seen on here, so thanks for chiming in.

I like to dig at retro-clone stuff because, in my view, it convolutes the game with "fly paper" rules - ones that slow the game down so the players can untangle a number system, usually at a point where going over the rules with a fine-toothed comb yields zero additional fun for the table. Initiative is a perfect example of that. In my mind, it's a very straightforward process: you roll a die and it tells you the order in which people take turns... we nailed that shit back in the days of Chutes & Ladders, we don't need to reinvent anything here. No player will tell you that the most fun part of an encounter is dealing with initiative order, so why prolong such a straightforward thing?

What I do in the case of a tie score in initiative: "Who's got the better DEX score? OK you go first." Tied DEX scores? Just roll a die and whoever gets higher wins. Three-second arbitration to a process so simple even a toddler can understand it.

Folk around here love to make mountains of molehills.

 

[Beoric]

Here's another alternative initiative system...

Initiative with Agency

Initiative with Agency allows characters to chose between acting sooner or acting later with additional advantage. This simulates the “real world” trade-off between acting first or waiting so as to act with some foreknowledge of your opponent’s intentions.

Each participant in combat bids for initiative by selecting a “bid number” from one through six. Record the numbers in secret and then reveal at the same time. To simulate crisis communication under stress, the referee could allow players to discuss their intentions with each other under a six-second time limit on the entire bid number selection process. Participants act in ascending order of bid numbers, from low to high. Resolve ties with competing d6 rolls modified by dexterity AC adjustment; lower modified rolls go sooner. If tied bid numbers also have equal d6 results then those participants act simultaneously. Each participant also earns a “bid bonus” equal to one-half his/her bid number; round fractions down. A participant can employ their bid bonus as a positive die roll modifier to any one die roll they make that round.

The referee should select bid numbers for NPCs/monsters based on circumstances, but can use the following expedients: select the same bid number for a whole group; roll 1d6 to determine a bid number randomly; assume bid number 3 on odd rounds and bid number 4 on even rounds, or vice versa.

For example, imagine three player characters encounter a gaggle of four malcontents. The referee tells the players they have six seconds to jot down (or otherwise record) their respective bid numbers. He/she selects 3 for all the malcontents. Then all bid numbers are revealed.

Bidder/ Bid Number

PC 1/ 1
PC 2/ 3
PC 3/ 5
Malcontents/ 3

Therefore, PC 2 and the malcontents must resolve their tie with competing dice rolls. Assume PC 2 rolls 2 and the malcontents, as a group, roll 3.

Thus, the order of actions and bid bonuses shake out as follows.

Order of Action/ Bid Bonus

First, PC 1/ 0
Second, PC 2/ +1
Third, Malcontents/ +1
Last, PC 3/ +2

But doesn't this only give you agency in the metagame? It is entirely dissociated from the activities that the characters are undertaking.

 

[squeen]

Roll d6. Lower number goes "first". That's it in D&D for the majority of situations. OD&D, B/W, S&W, etc. actaully completely stops there.

AD&D add segments which only get "worried" when more complicated actions (e.g. spells) are getting cast, and allows for a "quick shot" with missiles (or certain magic weapons) before the whacking-away-with-swords begins. Surprise can also give the "little guy" a break or let you plan some rudimentary tactics. Some folk find that those little unexpected twists fun too---AD&D is for them.

 

[squeen]

Folk around here love to make mountains of molehills.

Roll d6. Lower number goes "first". That's it in D&D for the majority of situations. OD&D, B/W, S&W, etc. actaully completely stops there. How is that complicated?

AD&D add segments which only get "worried about" when more complicated actions (e.g. spells) are getting cast, and allows for a "quick shot" with missiles (or certain magic weapons) before the whacking-away-with-swords begins. Surprise can also give the "little guy" a break or let you plan some rudimentary tactics. Some folk find that those little unexpected twists fun too---AD&D is for them.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

How is that complicated?

AD&D add segments which only get "worried about" when more complicated actions...

Answered your own question there, bud.

 

[squeen]

Answered your own question there, bud.

And yet, the in AD&D "complicated situations" run effortlessly and quickly with an experienced DM who understands the rules. There is no burden placed upon the players.

If you don't like those nuances (as a DM), just stick with Beginner's/OD&D. No hoo-hoo.

If your tastes run into other areas (superheroes, romantic story-games, gothic horror, etc.), play a different game. Also fine.

The take away point being only that AD&D works, runs fast, and maintains balance (and player interest) for extremely long-term games. It is neither "broken", nor antiquated.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

It is neither "broken", nor antiquated.

I've decided to put my money where my mouth is - I've dusted off the old AD&D PHB to pull some specific examples of the game being broken and/or antiquated. Let's start from the top!

Rolled mediocre attributes? Cool, half the classes can't be played by you now! No paladins, monks, rangers, assassins, illusionists, druids... half the game content locked behind a random dice roll!

Strength seems pretty straight forward as a concept, right? Nope! Heavy door? Open Door on X roll when Strength is Y . Oh, but it's a "gate" not a "door"? Better look at the "Lift Gates" percentage instead. Yeah, all those situation-specific skill caveats are never going to get annoying. Don't even get me started on Strength scores higher than 18 - that 18/XX shit is totally not vestigial and useless (/sarcasm).

Hey, gender-based stat restrictions - Female characters have a maximum Strength score! Yeah, sexism isn't an antiquated part of the game at all...

Thief skills. You know what's cool? Not having completely arbitrary percentages to do different thief actions. Why does a DEX 17 thief have a +10% chance to open locks but a +0% chance of locating/removing traps? Because of reasons!

Here's a fun little line tucked well away on page 10: "Change in intelligence: If Intelligence goes up or down for any reason and such change is relatively permanent, the magic-user must check again as explained above for know spells by level group". Better hope you remembered a throwaway line at character creation, otherwise you're cheating whenever your INT changes.

Races and classes don't mix! Dwarf magic user? Nope! Can't exist! The only monks are Human, because that makes sense... those deeply spiritual elves would never become monks! Halfling assassin? Nope, no tiny ninja hiding in a giant cake to jump out and murder the corrupted Duke at his 60th birthday party allowed! Halflings can be fighters, and halflings can be thieves, but a halfling thief that can also fight people? NEVER! Don't you just love arbitrary restriction in your free-form sandbox games? Nothing is more fun than hamstringing player options!

Even more caveats! There's a whole table of level limitations based on class and race. Did you know Elf fighters with less than 17 STR are limited to 5th level? Nothing like halting character progression dead because of a single low dice roll you made twenty sessions ago way back at the start of the game.

Here's a legit line from the PHB: "However this nature gives them a bonus with regard to their saving throws against attacks made by magic wands, staves, rods and spells. This bonus is +1 for every 3 1/2 points of Constitution ability"... yeah, that's way more straightforward than "Advantage on saves against magic". Also wands/staves/rods having its own category of saving throw is really dumb.

Shit I'm only on page 15 of the PHB... this is too much. I'd go on, but then I'd become like squeen and his infamous walls-of-text ("gaze not into the abyss", and so on). I think I've belabored my point enough, but I've got my trusty copy at hand if anyone wants more.

 

[squeen]

Don't stop now. Easier to rebut all at once.

 

[gandalf_scion]

But doesn't this only give you agency in the metagame? It is entirely dissociated from the activities that the characters are undertaking.

Fair point, but there is a link to character activity. Choice, more than chance, determines the order of actions per character priorities, whatever they might be, and there are consequences. If a PC believes he just must go first (for whatever reason), he bids 1 to get his wish while knowing that he will thereby incur the business end of someone else's bonus if used against him. Similarly, if a heavily armored warrior believes he can survive the enemy's first strike he might choose to bid 6 and thereby earn a +3 bonus for his upcoming damage roll against that enemy. To be sure, not a profound rule; but better than just dropping dice and following their instructions.

The real life analogy to the above would go something like this. At the moment of confrontation, do you immediately lunge at the enemy (to be first) or do you wait for him to take a swing and expose himself to your well aimed/timed counter blow? Under the bidding model, your decision has real consequences that affect outcomes.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Don't stop now. Easier to rebut all at once.

OK. More fodder to wade through.

Classes restricted to alignment. Rangers can only be good. Why? Because I guess it takes a strong moral compass to survive alone in the woods... you know, among all those moral animals. Henchmen for some classes have to be a specific alignment too. motive, story, party resources - that stuff is inconsequential. Extra manpower is needed to defeat this evil but Neutral Good isn't Lawful enough to come along.

Alignment languages. How...wha-..I can't wrap my head around what the hell Lawful Neutral is supposed to sound like ("If I don't survive, tell my wife 'hello'"? Something like that?). Just dumb... an archaic vestige of the days when alignment was important for no reason.

Finally found the Bard class - at the very back of the book, well away from the other classes. OK, maybe this is more of an indictment of Gary's technical writing skills and shitty book layout.

Oh boy, rules about how paladins can't own anything. That was fun, eh? Ah wait, there's a bunch of caveats too! They can own (but not exceed ownership of) 1 suit armor, 1 shield, 4 weapons, 4 other magic items. What happens if a paladin with 4 weapons picks up a club he finds on the ground? Well, Jesus compels him to drop it, obviously.

Hmm, rules for a paladin's "holy sword". Oh, it's just a bunch of pointlessly tacked-on abilities whenever a paladin has a sword designated as "holy" by whatever metric one measures such things. Circle of power 1" (sic - 1 inch?) in diameter, and can dispel magic. Maybe just make that shit part of the sword instead of a class bonus ability for the sake of simplicity? No? Ok... you're the expert after all Gary.

Chances to track as the Ranger - people complain 3e had too much math, then they employ systems that add +2% to chances of success. Ugh, these minutiae are endless and pointless.

Multiattacks at the mid-level are 3 attacks every 2 rounds. Extra layer of things to keep track of. As a DM, keeping my players adherent to this rule will be annoying as shit. "John, did you use two attacks or one attack two rounds ago?"; "I don't remember".

Multi-classing is for non-humans. Dual-classing is for only Humans. Why? Because reasons.

A table for Minimum Fees for Assassination. It's nice that something like setting your own contract prices and tense negotiation has been taken right off the table, otherwise we might be having fun playing an Assassin character. No Assassin could ever work for a discount, a favor, or any other reason - that sort of dynamic character-driven story doesn't belong in this game.

While we're looking at adding mechanics to replace roleplaying, let's also look at Loyalty Base stats on the Charisma table for NPC followers. Roleplaying NPC loyalty? Building bonds through shared experience and dialogue? Nah, friendship/respect/pay means nothing if you can't track loyalty with some hard, concrete, situation-independent number system.

Surprise in 5e: Perception Skill check to determine if surprised. Roll initiative. Surprised characters/creatures cannot act on the first round of combat.
Surprise in AD&D: Calculate Surprise Dice Difference to determine number of Lost Segments. Determine which of either party is surprised through contested 6-sided die roll using a baseline value of 2-in-6 and applying esoteric modifiers. Check DEX table for Reaction/Attacking adjustment bonus. Run through segments making partial actions, probably forgetting to apply the DEX bonuses that exist for this very specific situation. Then roll initiative.

Shields give you an armor bonus... up to a certain amount of attacks per round, which is annoying. Normal shields apply an AC bonus only twice per melee round, so if you've got a shield, you'd better remember that this rule exists and apply it's bonuses sequentially in combat, otherwise you're a cheater. There's nothing like nitpicking the use of a single AC point in a busy combat situation to really slow the pace!

Descending Armor Class. 'Nuff said.

Fire Rate and Armor Class Adjustments scores to track for ranged and thrown weapons. You know what's fun about having to refer to a book table every time you attack a different target or somebody moves around? Nothing, that's what.

Ugh, and I've barely left the character creation part of the book.

 

[Beoric]

The real life analogy to the above would go something like this. At the moment of confrontation, do you immediately lunge at the enemy (to be first) or do you wait for him to take a swing and expose himself to your well aimed/timed counter blow? Under the bidding model, your decision has real consequences that affect outcomes.

I see what you are going for there. In 4e this is resolved by the character who wants to wait by ... waiting. That is, a character can delay his action to see what is going to happen, and jump back into the initiative order when the time seems ripe.

He can also ready an action to be triggered by an expected action - for example, if he prepares to receive a charge. Mechanically, he uses the action on his turn to ready an action (let's go with receiving a charge, or more accurately hitting an opponent as soon as he comes into range), then when the condition is met (one of the enemies moves into range) he gets his swing before his opponent does (assuming the opponent does not have a markedly longer weapon, and stop his movement before getting in range).

Readying an action requires a commitment from the character; if the conditions of the trigger are never met, the character loses his action that turn. Whereas if he just delays his turn, he has the flexibility to react whenever he wishes and re-enter the initiative order at any point, but loses the ability to have his action interrupt the action of his opponent.

Note a character can delay his action at first, and then when he has assessed the situation he can jump back into the initiative order and ready an action to respond to perceived opposing tactics.

Your other option, of course, is to just take your action as soon as your turn comes up - which frankly is what most people do, as there are advantages to going first, and most people aren't that strategic in their thinking and don't have the discipline to delay their attack or risk taking damage while they wait for a deeper strategy to pay off.

The character therefore has a lot of choice about when he acts in a round, provided that he cannot act any earlier than his initial position in the initiative order - he is only so fast, or so prepared.

I mention this as an example of a situation where the mechanic the player uses and the choices the player makes are closely associated with the choices the character is making in-game.

 

[squeen]

@Beoric: All that you said applies to 1e too. (delayed initiative, charge, etc.)

If you ignore (for the moment, sorry) Gandalf's suggested bonuses (which look complicated at first blush), they player has advocacy in the he/she can trade the strategic advantage of striking first with the advantage of making a smarter move later. Perhaps that is enough. Rolling for initiative puts some randomness in the mix so the player can't ALWAYS get their way. Again, I don't think the AD&D system is broken here. If you really wanted to mix it up: use a houserule that allows fighters a "first strike" option at a disadvantage (-2?) once per engagement.