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

[bryce0lynch]

I mostly agree with DP that it isn't 5E (The System), it's the adventures. The system itself is skub, basically inert until someone does something with it. Compared to 3.5 and 4th Edition, it's incredibly lightweight. I still prefer my own hacky system(s) for a hundred myriad reasons, but no individual issue with the 5E system is a deal breaker.

Yeah, I generally agree also.

I bolded the last part. Nothing in 5e is a deal breaker if you want to play a lightweight story-based game. In fact, it's probably the best system for that. And that's what most people want out of their games. It's D&D the way most people have played D&D over time. You can do anything in any system, but some are more suited, and tuned, than others for certain genres.


Hey, let's do D&D genres!

Story-based fucking around and having fun:
5e
The way most people played earlier editions

I jerk off to rules mastery and tactical minis
3e/3.5e/4e/Pathfinder
Chainmail
The Internet forums

PlayerVsWorld with DM as judge and a more "winning" vibe
"Real" old D&D

 

[squeen]

As I continue to try and learn about 5e, I stumbled onto this post which has a nice 2e vs 5e summary of differences.

Here's an excerpt:

What's the Evolutionary path of 5E?

5E draws many concepts from 3.X and some from 4.X, but also goes back to Original D&D and AD&D for others. As with 3.X and 4.X, it's a redesign from first principles. It is really, the direct child of 3.X and AD&D 1e

• It keeps 3.X/4.X ascending AC.
• It keeps the fighter being the only one to have lots of attacks of AD&D, but strips most of these from the Barbarian, Paladin and Ranger.
• The list of classes is essentially the "greatest hits" of AD&D through 3.5.
• The races are subdivided into the subraces mentioned in AD&D 1E's Unearthed Arcana.
• It keeps the 3.X and 4.X roll high on 1d20.
• It adds an entirely new roll modifications mechanic (Advantage/Disadvantage) which replaces most of the modifier lists. (Now, modifiers are generally ±2 or ±5, in the few cases they are used at all...).
• Spellcasters gain competence comparable to 4th ed ones - 1st level casters are still glass cannons, but no longer 1 shot artillery. Cantrips being At Will is taken directly from 4th ed, and likewise, cantrips growing at the breakpoints where fighters gain additional attacks.
• Multiclassing is taken largely from the 3E model, but only Proficiency Bonus grows with character level. Spell slots grow with "Caster Level" (which can be from multiple classes)
• Spell Casting and Memorization have changed. The default now works like the 3E sorcerer.
• General Presumption of broad competence - everybody can try most things. They may not succeed, but they can try, and good attributes are highly useful in that regard.
• Array Build - while it appeared in 3.E, it's really taken from 4.0. It's also optional, except for organized play, but the balancing assumes it.
• Higher Hit Die types - Taken from 4E.
• Flat Points Per HD - Taken from a variety of sources (including non-D&D games)... and it is generally better than standard HD rolls, but not by much.
• A climbing proficiency bonus originates in Star Wars Saga Edition... and from there, coopted into 4E and again, but reduced in scale, in 5E.
• The 4E healing surges chand name, but still exist.

So, What's Like AD&D 2E?
Realistically, not that much. Plenty, tho.

• Most rolls are made on 1d20.
• Most classes have access to non-combat skills as well as Magic or combat.
• All the 2E core classes exist, except basic wizard: Fighter, Ranger, Paladin, Cleric, Druid, Specialist Wizard, Rogue, Monk. All wizards now make a transition to specialist (arcane tradition) at 2nd level.
• Support for both gridded and Theater of the Mind play
• Plenty of suggestions for character hooks.
• Emphasis on skill driven play. While skills are technically optional, they're part of the default mode of play, just like AD&D 2E Non-Weapon Proficiencies. (Note: unlike AD&D, there's no unskilled penalty, only a bonus for being skilled.)
• Most of your favorite magic items from AD&D 2E will have made the leap.
• Explicit permission for the DM to tinker.

Now, note that AD&D 2E in the wild had a few common options in use in most groups:

• 4d6 keep best 3 for attributes (Variant I in 1e, Variant V in 2e) - it's back as the default in 5e.
• Options for non-magical healers - it's back, and open to everyone - but it eats a feat.

 

[squeen]

Now let's compare those changes to what DP said he liked about 5e over in another thread

As for 5e - I personally dig the way they assign proficiencies through character Backgrounds. I dig the d20 system - I think it's the most straightforward way of resolving action outcomes, and 5e did a good job of cutting down modifier bloat for the d20 system. I dig the races, even the optional ones like lizardfolk and aasimar. I dig the fact that Wizards released the SRD for it so that writers can make content and expand the game beyond official publications. I dig the Roll20 support. I dig the move to update old adventures for 5e (Tales From The Yawning Portal, Dungeon of the Mad Mage [Undermountain], Ghosts of Saltmarsh and the like). I dig the simplified Weakness/Resistance mechanics, lair/region effects, and ability recharges for monsters (they're done in a way that's not video-gamey, I swear!). I dig the Advantage/Disadvantage system. I dig the fact that they knee-capped powergamers and min/maxers using proper balance. I dig the Attunement mechanics for magic items to make player choices about what to keep and what to nix more meaningful, instead of having characters decked head-to-toe in everything magic. I dig the way they re-worked wands and magic items with charges. I dig the way they balanced armor and the bounded accuracy system for better verisimilitude. I dig the easy-to-remember Grapple rules.

I know I sound like I'm up on 5e's nuts right now, but honestly it's a great system once you get to knowing it (I also dig the way it's super easy for newbies to learn). It has it's problems, sure - Classes have more abilities than grognards are comfortable with (though nowhere near as pervasive as 3 or 4e), wildshape and summoning spells can be daunting to keep track of, and the mounted combat system is almost non-existent. On the plus side, Advantage/Disadvantage generally fills the gaps when a DM needs to make an ad-hoc ruling ("Leaping from a chandelier into the attack? I don't know what specific rule that'd fall under, so I guess just roll with Advantage")

As a numbered list:

1. proficiencies through character Backgrounds
2. the d20 system
3. cutting down modifier bloat for the d20 system
4. races, even the optional ones like lizardfolk and aasimar
5. the SRD for it so that writers can make content and expand the game beyond official publications
6. the Roll20 support
7. move to update old adventures for 5e
8. the simplified Weakness/Resistance mechanics
9. lair/region effects
10. ability recharges for monsters
11. the fact that they knee-capped powergamers and min/maxers using proper balance
12. the Attunement mechanics for magic items to make player choices about what to keep and what to nix more meaningful
13. re-worked wands and magic items with charges
14. balanced armor and the bounded accuracy system for better verisimilitude
15. easy-to-remember Grapple rules

I've bolded the ones I need to research.

 

[EOTB]

Hey, let's do D&D genres!

Story-based fucking around and having fun:
5e
The way most people played earlier editions

I jerk off to rules mastery and tactical minis
3e/3.5e/4e/Pathfinder
Chainmail
The Internet forums

PlayerVsWorld with DM as judge and a more "winning" vibe
"Real" old D&D

This is another reason RPGers gripe at each other continually. Half the internet arguments I get into is because someone starts off a "1E AD&D sux!" rant, when almost always they're a "story-based fucking around" person for whom 1E will kinda suck for them. It's just they don't conceive that it wasn't written to be a round peg for their round hole; it's a square peg.

 

[squeen]

OK. Here' another related tidbit from ancient cyberspace. On Matt Finch's blog post on the demise of Necromancer Games, he wrote

The reason I'm pretty sure this will be of interest to the comeback gamers is that almost by definition we were having problems with the way 3e was presented/played, etc, caused by the feeling that something was missing - what brought us back to the original rules in the first place. During the era of 3e, anyone who felt like the new style was missing something came together under the aegis of Necromancer Games.

Necromancer's motto was "Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel," and although many of us have (again, by definition) decided that one might as well go with first edition rules as well, the Necromancer Games products offered a true alternative to the standard 3e approach if you were still playing 3e. Game balance was downplayed in Necro products, themes were often darker, and the "world" seen in the modules was far quirkier and less standardized - more swords & sorcery - than the world seen through the lens of the WotC modules. As such, Necromancer Games probably started several of us on the pathway back to the older rules themselves, and it definitely stood as a beacon (or perhaps a dark monolith) pointing the way somewhere else.

The salient points (to me) are this:

• Necromancer Game's motto "Third Edition Rules, First Edition Feel" speaks exact to what DP claims is at fault with 5e published material---except it's the polar opposite: "First Edition(ish) rules, Third Edition Feel".
• Finch and others were dissatisfied with 3e---enough so they "resurrected" 1e (OSRIC), 0e (Swords & Wizard) and B/W (Labyrinth Lord).

I think it is a mistake to dismiss why this happened. The amount of effort to recreate the foundations of the hobby was much greater then than it is now---after the heavy lifting is done and one can just "choose an edition". Two WoTC editions later, I think it is very much a viable question: "Are the 5th edition rules 'good enough' to recapture the essence of 1st edition play?"

 

[DangerousPuhson]

"Are the 5th edition rules 'good enough' to recapture the essence of 1st edition play?"

You can gauge the efficacy of this by looking at conversions. A prime example I just pored through is Finch's The Spire of Iron and Crystal, originally for S&W but also converted to 5e (in some collection book like Quests of Legend II or whatever, I forget what it's called). I personally feel that it still keeps a lot of the charm and atmosphere of the original, which I consider "the essence" of the adventure. If you agree, then I think you have your answer that while it may not be the universal standard, it's certainly a possibility.

 

[squeen]

That is by far one of his most popular written adventures, so it's a good candidate. The problem is, I don't think I could tell by just reading it (and don't want to buy it again!). I'd have to play it (5e) and see what evolves.

 

[squeen]

I jerk off to rules mastery and tactical minis
3e/3.5e/4e/Pathfinder
Chainmail
The Internet forums

Hey! Wait a sec!
Is Byrce telling me to get a life?

 

[Ice]

I DM'd 5e for about 4 years before I got tired of it. It's a great system. It shits all over 3e and (heresy alert) AD&D 2e. I eventually got tired of it for a few reasons though.

Before I tell you those, here are my three favorite things about it:

Everything is unified and simplified. It's way streamlined compared to pretty much any other edition.

Advantage/Disadvantage is a wonderful mechanic that you, dear reader, should steal for your own 'old-school' game. It makes just the right amount of player-DM negotiations/lobbying happen, gets rid of a lot of troublesome ambiguity, and saves a lot of thinking about how many bonuses a player should get for trying some clever action. This was probably the best addition to the system.

Rogues/thieves are actually fun to play. In old-school games, thieves are unbelievably boring and needlessly complex. Their skill trees make no goddamn sense. Lamentations of the Flame Princess has an interesting solution for this, but none of the other systems do. Even in my personal favorite system, DCC, thieves are stupid as fuck. When I DM DCC, I allow my players to take a 'rogue' class that is basically a 5e rogue hacked into DCC. 5e does this right straight out of the box.

I eventually left 5e behind so that I could use the many modules reviewed on this website with no fuss. With more experience DMing different systems, here are the problems I think 5e has:

Combat takes fucking forever. Holy shit it is slow. When I started DMing DCC and 1e I couldn't believe how fast the combat went. What would take an hour in 5e takes 20 minutes in any B/X knock-off.

The rest/healing system is really hard to work around if you are trying to incorporate resource management into your game. It's one of the least modular parts of the game, and it's hard to just shave off. I tried using several variations of the rules but none of them felt satisfactory.

Everybody has fucking dark vision arrrrg I want darkness to be scary not comfortable.

Characters are way too resilient. As you level up, it becomes basically impossible to die.

Those are the biggest problems with the system, which all and all, isn't very many problems.

I agree with DP that a big problem is the material being released for it, but I think the biggest problem is actually not that.

It's what everyone has kind of been hinting at. The problem is player/DM culture. People have super weird expectations about their characters and how the game should be run. It's almost expected that you show up with an 8 page backstory and a progression for your character from level 1-20. Your character is supposed to last you for years, and if they die, it should be an epic story moment. All of the 5e games I have played in are like playing a video game on easy-mode. The dungeons are designed to be cleared out in one run. There is very little jeopardy and the DMs are expected to go out of their way to soften punches. They roll behind screens for everything and make the monsters do weird unreasonable things to stop characters from dying/stop the story from being derailed.

This isn't 5e's fault so much. Maybe it is Wizards fault, but I think it is more just the zeitgeist. If you take people out of their 5e/3e expectations, and run an alternative system, you can run much more interesting/challenging/deadly games with no push back because nobody can show up with their stupid 8 page back-story.

 

[Slick]

It's what everyone has kind of been hinting at. The problem is player/DM culture. People have super weird expectations about their characters and how the game should be run.
...
This isn't 5e's fault so much. Maybe it is Wizards fault, but I think it is more just the zeitgeist.

Here's where I'll get all postmodern and say that the rules don't exist in a vacuum, and that the play expectations held by the official published material and player culture are part of the game and you have to consider those when evaluating 5E as a whole.

Being serious though, I agree with your pros/cons. 5E is a good game to help 3E/Pathfinder players dip their toes into old-school sensibilities without pushing them in head-first, but it doesn't go far enough for my purposes without doing more tinkering than is worth it. Even if I bothered with all that, I can't strip out the zeitgeist so there's an extra hurdle when it comes to finding players or having conversations about the game. If I say I'm running an OSR game 90% of people will give me a weird stare and continue looking for where the D&D™ is happening, and those that stick around are presumably already on the same page regarding player death, encumbrance, etc. (I guess my first paragraph was less of a joke than I thought)

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Here's where I'll get all postmodern and say that the rules don't exist in a vacuum, and that the play expectations held by the official published material and player culture are part of the game and you have to consider those when evaluating 5E as a whole.

It's a fair statement and rings true. I can see why some people would be put off 5e because of it. But then, all systems have a stigma: niche for the sake of niche, mechanics that are too crunchy, amateur materials scene, exists solely because some guy wanted his name on his own system, etc.

HOWEVER

These are all subjective interpretations. Even Ice's "bad parts" list is wildly different than my own experiences with the system (my players know how to expedite combat, you can dance with resource management by providing other things to manage, you can introduce natural things like mists/fog that hampers darkvision if there are parts you want to conceal, and I've personally killed off many a 5e character over the years - these were easy adaptations for me, so I consider them non-issues).

When you start considering the optics on the game to determine if it's good or not, you're no longer looking at the game objectively, but rather through a skewed lens of peer review and preconceived notions, instead of hands-on play and adaptation to your group's specific needs. For instance, Ice mentions resource management simplification and the commonality of darkvision as being a detrimental part of the system, whereas for my group who finds tracking torches tedious, it works great! The parts that don't work for us I can change easily enough, so Ice's problems with the system aren't going to be the same as any of my problems with the system.

It goes both ways too though; I admit I have a warped perspective of OSR systems because of the optics surrounding them and their advocates. This is subjective assessment on my part, and I'll readily admit that I don't give many other systems a chance because of pre-conceived notions about what I'd expect while using them.

 

[Ice]

It goes both ways too though; I admit I have a warped perspective of OSR systems because of the optics surrounding them and their advocates. This is subjective assessment on my part, and I'll readily admit that I don't give many other systems a chance because of pre-conceived notions about what I'd expect while using them.

I couldn't see what I didn't like about 5e until I had tried something else, and I still think 5e is a fine system (especially when you compare it to 3e or Pathfinder or Shadowrun).

You should try running a system like LotFP, DCC, Knave or this for a few sessions. Switching systems does take some getting use to, but I personally really enjoy trying new systems. You can learn a lot about DMing and how to make the game flow better just from trying a system with which you aren't 100% comfortable. Maybe one day I will even try running Dungeon World. After reading that 'State of the OSR' thread, it would be a comical heresy run Red Profit Rising in Dungeon World, but I digress.

For all of you 5e skeptics, you should get over the 'NEW THING BAD' instinct and try running it. You might be surprised too, it's got some great elements.

 

[EOTB]

I know that a lot of RPGers want to try them all, but If I join a jeep club, it's because I have a jeep I want that takes me to all those places out in the wild to enjoy the wild. It isn't to test drive every jeep model that comes up year-upon-year, or talk about how to get max horsepower out of the engine in a garage full of gearheads. So long as it gives me the experience I want, I'm not really looking to invest again because the 2020 has bluetooth and a cup warmer.

I know every inch of the one I've driven for decades, every vibration, and other feedback loops most don't even notice; and it never fails in getting me to that wild outdoors that's the real driver for my participation in the hobby.

 

[Malrex]

I'm in the same boat with EOTB. I tried...bought 3rd edition, even stealing some components of it...and started to read 5e. I could feel the magic again...even with the new races...then I got up to cleric and really started to scratch my head and I put the book down. I didn't even open the other 2 books.
I'm the same way with music. I would listen to one CD for about 4-5 years, then pick up a new one. Now I got Spotify and I can listen too 6 bands that I like the most.

I would play 5e, if my regular group wanted to do it, but I don't think its going to happen. We are all still satisfied for the most part.

 

[Nate]

Hello everyone, been lurking for a long time but haven't posted. Figured I'd wade into the streams here.
I play in a weekly 5e game and generally have a lot of fun. I think the core of the system is very good but there are too many character choices for me. When I stopped trying to make choices and used a random character generator for my PCs I started having more fun.
The basic mechanic, roll 1d20, add modifiers, compare to target number, is really easy to grasp. It gets buried under a bunch of other bloat though.
The 5e adventures are not good. During Curse of Strahd, I thought I hated 5e. Then I read the module after we finished it and realized I just didn't like the adventure. I gave the DM a copy of Against The Cult of The Reptile God and we played through that next. It was a blast. Now we are playing in Greyhawk and it's really fun. I think I got my DM hooked on OSR stuff now.
I have run a session of Five Torches Deep, an OSR hack of 5e, and really like that. It uses the basic mechanics but takes away a lot of race and class options. It also makes it a bit deadlier. And works with old school monster stats without conversion.
So I think 5e is good if you strip it back some. I'm happy to play it but it's not my first choice if I'm running the game.

 

[squeen]

Five Torches Deep looks like a really nice concept. Thanks for the heads up Nate.

 

[Nate]

Another interesting 5e hack is Joel Priddy's recent 5e One Shot: https://abominablefancy.blogspot.com/2019/11/5e-one-shot-pared-down-play-for-getting.html?spref=tw

Here's a sample PC from it:

Rosamund the Clever
Herbalist +2
INT +4
CON +2
Wizard +2
AC 10
HP 8
Spell Save 14
Dagger +2
Ray of Frost +6
Spells: Silent Image, Grease, Sleep

 

[TerribleSorcery]

I suppose the incredulousness of what I experience here comes down to this: the game is what's at the table, not what's in the books. The DM decides how things are going to play out, hopefully in the way that best fits what his players want to include. When someone says 5e sucks because it has this or doesn't have that, I just have to say "then fucking change it!". But nobody seems to understand that. They see 5e and think "not OSR; enemy system". And that's just sad to me, because I have tons of fun with 5e (as do literally millions of people), yet the grognards are so dismissive/elitist about using some niche OSR system that they'll inherently write 5e off without even having tried it.

"But I shouldn't have to change the system!" you might say... to that, I again point to the literally hundreds of variant rule systems in the OSR. If you're going to bitch about changing the system, you'd better be playing whitebox OD&D, because everything after that has been a change to the system. No system is perfect. There's no excuse not to change the stuff about the game that you/your players don't like.

It's stuff like this, man. If you acted as though you believed this, we wouldn't be in yet another edition-war thread, now would we? In this case your rule 0 fallacy also comes with a gun pointed at everyone's head: 5E doesn't suck, if there's something you don't like just change it, but don't stick with your elitist 1st edition or OSR game, whatever you do.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

My original posit has gotten pinballed by differing views, and now no longer encompasses what was my initial message of "the 5e materials scene is trash - please don't condemn the whole edition because of it".

If the message is somehow disagreeable to you, feel free to weigh in. Otherwise, consider carefully the salience of my points, as they grow from the dialogue before them and are but pieces in a mosaic of bias, opinion, non-sequitur, and other waylaying tangents that continue to spawn as bastards from my original intent.

 

[Slick]

"But I shouldn't have to change the system!" you might say... to that, I again point to the literally hundreds of variant rule systems in the OSR. If you're going to bitch about changing the system, you'd better be playing whitebox OD&D, because everything after that has been a change to the system. No system is perfect. There's no excuse not to change the stuff about the game that you/your players don't like.

I think your assumption is wrong here. Very few people in the OSR could be quoted as saying "I shouldn't have to change the system", in fact tinkering with game mechanics is one of the scene/movement's cornerstones. The reason we stick with older rulesets is that most of us have found it to be true that the amount of work it takes to get that particular base ruleset (be it B/X, 0E, etc) hammered into the shape we want it is less effort than it would take to get 5E to support the playstyle we want it to. It's really not complicated.