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

[squeen]

Anyways, those rules you stated above sound kinda cool to me. While fighters can attempt to use terrain to their advantage or working in duo's (shieldman and a spearman in back, or dwarf/halfling in front, bowman in back, etc.) the mage could have their own strategic battle with spells....But again with D&D, you have to memorize your spells first, so you don't really have an idea of what kind of counterspell battle you could get in too...

When I mentioned this to my players, I thought they would like it---a new (free-ish) action a Magic-user can take, and one that is generally more effective against higher-level (long casting time) spells. (The little twist that I liked is that small chance that it might cost you a memorized spell.)

But no. They feared that other magic-users would now be defusing their spells.

Oh course, when seen through that lens...I liked it even more.

 

[squeen]

3rd edition had distinct counterspelling rules - you'd use an Arcana check to identify the spell, then essentially "burn" one of your prepared spells at the same level to negate the enemy's spell... though my players always had a habit of forgetting that it was an option at their disposal.

Also some spells were direct counters to other spells and could be cast to negate them (Light spell counteracts darkness spell, harm spell counteracts heal spell, slow counteracts haste, and so on).

Live and learn! Thanks DP.

 

[Malrex]

3rd edition had distinct counterspelling rules - you'd use an Arcana check to identify the spell, then essentially "burn" one of your prepared spells at the same level to negate the enemy's spell... though my players always had a habit of forgetting that it was an option at their disposal.

Also some spells were direct counters to other spells and could be cast to negate them (Light spell counteracts darkness spell, harm spell counteracts heal spell, slow counteracts haste, and so on).

I don't think I made it that far in reading 3rd edition....but I think that's a cool feature. Except, I don't think it would be too exciting for the player as 'nothing happens' because they cancel each other out. Instead of things cancelling out, I think it would be better to see the magic missiles going off and the other wizard hurriedly getting a shield spell off to counter it....darkness would sprout up, and light would counter it creating weird shadows and effects within the room as the two opposite spells combat each other in their own way. So the spells essenitally cancel each other out, but the spell's effects are still apparent...

I know some spells are direct counters...but usually you have to wait to see the effect, then cast a spell...wasn't really instant--at least that's how we played it.

Anyways, didn't mean to get off track on the 5e discussion.

 

[EOTB]

EOTB reminds me that "all is well"---just let the cleric be a cleric.

...or to put it another way...

"You fool! Do not attempt any of your ham-fisted tinkering on such a complex mechanism!"

(sigh) Guess I'm a mean DM at heart.

More in line with encouraging people to just play vs endless tinkering for what seems the perfect process document in their mind's eye.

IME quite a lot of the digital ink that's spread on the internet about "improvements" doesn't reflect what happens in actual play. I can see how people get there by reading the text apart from playing it through, but the conclusion doesn't match up with what I've experienced using the text in conjunction with all the dynamics the other rules provide in play.

Perfect the enemy of the very good, and all that. It's much easier to dial in something that's in-use, because instead of "when I read this, I think..." it's a conversation about "so here's what happened, which seems to flow from applying 'X' - does this happen to everyone when applying 'X', or am I missing something else?"

 

[Slick]

I don't think I made it that far in reading 3rd edition....but I think that's a cool feature. Except, I don't think it would be too exciting for the player as 'nothing happens' because they cancel each other out. Instead of things cancelling out, I think it would be better to see the magic missiles going off and the other wizard hurriedly getting a shield spell off to counter it....darkness would sprout up, and light would counter it creating weird shadows and effects within the room as the two opposite spells combat each other in their own way. So the spells essenitally cancel each other out, but the spell's effects are still apparent...

What about if countering an enemy spell causes it to misfire, prompting a roll on a chaos effect table like in DCC. Maybe only on a particularly successful counterspell roll?

 

[Malrex]

What about if countering an enemy spell causes it to misfire, prompting a roll on a chaos effect table like in DCC. Maybe only on a particularly successful counterspell roll?

I like that idea....we use chaos tables in our homebrew for spells getting disrupted. I'm not familiar with DCC ruling though. The only problem with some of the 'endless tinkering' like EOTB said above...is that it can have some cool effects and whatnot during play, but it can also slow down play or have some other negative effect. But I'm definitely a fan of weird, random, crazy stuff happening during combat...Wand of Wonder is my favorite magic item afterall!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

The Wild Magic Surge Table is a thing in 5e... just sayin'.

 

[squeen]

Perfect the enemy of the very good, and all that. It's much easier to dial in something that's in-use, because instead of "when I read this, I think..." it's a conversation about "so here's what happened, which seems to flow from applying 'X' - does this happen to everyone when applying 'X', or am I missing something else?"

It took me a day to fully parse this paragraph, but that's exactly what I'm hoping for when I put questions out there. Replys based on real play experience---especially from DMs with a ("tough love") mentality similar to my own.

I always look forward to your replies, because I get a pretty strong sense that's where you are coming from. (Even when you allude to the notion that I should quit jabbering and just play.)

Thanks.

 

[squeen]

The Wild Magic Surge Table is a thing in 5e... just sayin'.

Come on DP! This thread is not just about 5e!

...oh, wait...it is.

 

[gandalf_scion]

There's really no need for tables covering additional, unforeseen consequence of spells. Saving throws, variable damage dice, and variable spell effects (see color spray, prismatic spray, monster summoning, among others) provide ample variability already.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

There's really no need for tables covering additional, unforeseen consequence of spells. Saving throws, variable damage dice, and variable spell effects (see color spray, prismatic spray, monster summoning, among others) provide ample variability already.

The table has a use and has users, so therefore the need for the table still exists. It is literally a collection of things you've just listed, which is handy for DMs/players who:
A) aren't so good with the whole improvisation thing,
B) want a quick reference and resolution option,
C) would like the results to be randomized for fairness reasons, and
D) want effects which have been tailored specifically to the existing game balance.

 

[Malrex]

There's really no need for tables covering additional, unforeseen consequence of spells. Saving throws, variable damage dice, and variable spell effects (see color spray, prismatic spray, monster summoning, among others) provide ample variability already.

That's true, to a sense, for one style of game play or if the DM is great at improvisation. More tables, more tweaking, more tinkering...I've found it leads to slower game play. Sometimes ridiculously slow. My group's battles are legendary in the slow department.

But I would also argue that some of the tinkering and tweaking makes the game more fun--at least for me. After 3 decades of playing...rolling a 1d8 for damage with a longsword---yes, I get it!! I can see the number of monsters, I know the strength of the party...I can figure out pretty quickly if we have a good chance of succeeding or not. Random encounters become boring and seen as a hurdle rather than something fun to battle.

Throw in something a little extra when you roll a 20? cool! That might be a game changer. Our fighter went down because of a critical damage from a 20 or something? oh snap...bad luck..now what? Throw in some random chaos effects with magic gone wrong--awesome! That sort of stuff 'forces' me to keep on my toes.

It's like what EOTB said with turning--how it gets rid of the trash. I'm assuming 'trash mobs' are boring to fight? Yep...they are....that's why I like the random chances of something weird happening because it makes some of the boring fights a little more interesting. My 2 cents.

Also, what DP said. The tables can be tools. I remember a long time ago when DMing in my teens, I improvised something, which led me to having to improvise something else...and again....and it sorta took me down a hole and gave me some panic..lol..as I was trying to think up something new...

 

[Slick]

There's really no need for tables covering additional, unforeseen consequence of spells. Saving throws, variable damage dice, and variable spell effects (see color spray, prismatic spray, monster summoning, among others) provide ample variability already.

Criticising the obsession with random tables?! FOE GYG!!!

 

[DangerousPuhson]

Criticising the obsession with random tables?! FOE GYG!!!

This forum is all over the goddamned place...

 

[The1True]

This forum is all over the goddamned place...

This got even more brutally hijacked than Yora's 'Wilderness Adventures' thread...

 

[squeen]

This got even more brutally hijacked than Yora's 'Wilderness Adventures' thread...

You say that...but the discussion had totally stopped and the thread was stone cold dead.
Where's the harm in a tangent if it gets folks talking?

 

[The1True]

You say that...but the discussion had totally stopped and the thread was stone cold dead.
Where's the harm in a tangent if it gets folks talking?

Sorry, should've added a . As you could see in the aforementioned Wilderness thread, I'm all for tangents

 

[TerribleSorcery]

I will say this for 5th edition: it kicks the fuck out of Pathfinder, and that's okay with me.

 

[squeen]

I am going to start a new tread soon on the 1e DMG. It's an odd document to be sure. However, I think this little passage from the pg.38 in the section about time is particularly relevant to the "Old School" vs. "New School" (a.k.a. "D&D for Everyone") debate. It got me thinking yet again on how the world has changed (a by-product of my age).


Look at what Gygax is saying here. There is an acknowledgement that not everyone will be equally good at D&D---there will be some that are "superior". Note there is no mention of what's "fun". There is implication that some of the games appeal is that it is challenging---explicitly: "choices and consequences" and "more true-to-life quality to the game".

This is maybe a small piece of an over-harped-upon generational difference (and I have to be careful here not to massively offend---there is no superiority implied here, just acknowledgement of a different zeitgeist) about how focus has shifted so that everyone needs to succeed at some level and have fun, v.s. a clear set of "winners" and "losers". No player left behind. It's not enough in modern culture that everyone gets to "pursue happiness"---now everyone has the right to "be happy" to some degree (quoting 2018 Grinch movie). Maybe this is what Bryce means when he says OD&D has more of a "winning" vibe. (Which has always puzzled me.)

Fifth edition is clearly seeking (and has won) itself a larger audience by making tweaks to the system so that it appeals to all players (serious and casual)---recognizing that the hobby was too small a niche and needed to expand its appeal if it was going to grow market share and survive.

This expansionist (egalitarian?) mentality filters in to a number of aspects of the new game design:

1. More exotic PC choices (as mentioned in another thread---catering to common player's desire to build a "special snowflake" from the get-go)
2. Faster level progression
3. Simplified dice-mechanics (== less taxing mental math and memorization)
4. removal of routine player effort that might slow down play (i.e. resource management)
5. Less PC death (i.e. no one has to fully lose)

DP talks about this as a necessary evolution of the game. While the success of 5th edition makes the case for its necessity (from the view-point of profitability), I think evolution is too biased a claim. The game has changed course. It is more accessible---demands less of the players, and as a result had made itself more of a passive form of entertainment. A "casual good time" for Friday nights.

There is absolute nothing wrong with that. If you are having a hard time attracting players---this helps. BUT it is a different focus that goes beyond this thread's original thesis of "5th edition's differences are only in the execution---a product of poorly executed published adventures." I will argue (again) that the difference is in the tone---as published---it is less demanding of players. For me personally, it bends over a little too far trying to make sure everyone has fun and "wins" to some degree. It's a Kinder, Gentler, D&D. (Simpler too.)

DP is right that a DM can buck this internal bias at his or her table. Maybe it's even easy to do. But the bias is there in the system design nonetheless. I am certain of that. (Incidentally, I am equally certain the tone-change didn't start with 5th Edition.)

I know many folks are tired of this line of discussion. Sorry. It's interesting to me (sans vitriol). Old men and scholars sometimes enjoy looking back and documenting how the world has changed. Sometimes we also (excessively) bemoan what was "lost"---which can be tiresome, but maybe that helps society course correct and preserve collective knowledge.

Or maybe its just me procrastinating on a Saturday afternoon.

Who knows.

 

[DangerousPuhson]

This expansionist (egalitarian?) mentality filters in to a number of aspects of the new game design:

1. More exotic PC choices (as mentioned in another thread---catering to common player's desire to build a "special snowflake")
2. Faster level progression
3. Simplified dice-mechanics (== less taxing mental math and memorization)
4. removal of routine player effort that might slow down play (i.e. resource management)
5. Less PC death (i.e. no one has to fully lose)

DP talks about this as a necessary evolution of the game. While the success of 5th edition makes the case for its necessity (from the view-point of profitability), I think evolution is too biased a claim. The game has changed course.

I take exception to your line of reason, because your premise jumps between too many subjective points to get to a shakier conclusion. For instance, of those 5 items you've outlined as characteristic of "new game design", I really only see one of them (#3) as being objectively factual. To refute the specifics of the others:

1. "Special snowflake" is a pejorative. Players just want a character to feel like something special, instead of using old-school design mentality that low-level characters are all just "Steve the Swordsman". So WotC added a few new races and classes to the game. They didn't do it because players 5e were all thin-skinned losers who get butthurt if their character can't fly at level 2, but rather because a game that takes place in a wondrous, magical land with thousands of different sentient species - a game which prides its self on the idea that "you can do anything in D&D" - feels that the folk who want to dabble in those things should be able to have the mechanics to use them. I'd argue this counts as "evolution"; taking the game to the next stage in its goal of "do anything you can imagine".

2. Level progression goes as fast as the DM dictates. There's nothing stopping an OSR GM from dropping 50,000gp in loot on a bunch of 1st level characters in a gold=XP game, just as there's nothing stopping a 5e DM from running zero combat encounters in a session. Even a novice DM can advance the players at any pace they choose. The only mechanic that states otherwise - CR-rationing encounters in a day to balance the Rest mechanics - is just a soft guideline about designing your own encounters, not a fundamental axiom of the game.

3. I agree, but again, I believe it to be indicative that the game has been evolving. Simplification of crunch is always the next step in evolution - if it weren't, we'd all be using DOS and you'd be reading this on Usenet.

4. Resource management is subjective to the table. Party composition dictates the magical tools and survivalist skills at their disposal. Darkvision kinda sucks more than people give it credit for - you see everything faintly in grey-scale at a close range... not ideal compared to torches and lanterns. Light can only be used by someone who can cast it, which I'd argue that their not needing torches is a fair trade-off for using up a Cantrip spell slot. Hardass DMs can enforce whatever encumbrance, eating/drinking, armor donning/doffing, sleeping, ammunition, light, etc. rules they want - there's nothing inherent to 5e that you can't find in other editions which automatically minimizes player resource management. You could say there are many options to minimize the logistics that many 5e players don't enjoy, but again, that's just the game advancing to a design state where it can be used by people who don't want to track that stuff. It can all be included or excluded just as easily as any other version; the DM just needs to have an ounce of competency.

5. Less PC death? Maybe, but that's a far cry from no PC death, or PC invincibility. Any 5e DM will tell you that player death is still very common. Why is turnover so much fun to you people anyway? Do you guys actually enjoy taking a half hour to fill a character sheet only to tear it up ten minutes later? That seems like the opposite of fun, and it sounds like Wizards agreed, so they gave a few last-ditch chances for PCs to survive a battle if they can (via the addition of Death Saves, which as a tangential argument I'd say are the most intense, fun die rolls a player gets to make). It was an adaptive (read "evolution") move by Wizards to "patch" the heavy-handed, often totally unfair, character death issues in earlier editions.

I can see the crux of your argument pretty clearly: old school is about challenging the players, and new school is about appeasing the most players. But I believe you are wrong when you say that the evolution of the game serves only to increase the players base and thus profits. Evolution in the game is made to correct imbalances, add new opportunity, and streamline the clunky bits... polishing up the game. That's most of what 5e is: polished D&D, made so by evolution throughout its iterations, discarding the weaknesses and adding new features that are required (you know, like how life evolves).

The game hasn't changed course: you can do all the exact same things with your character in 5e as you can in any OSR system... you just use an expanded yet more streamlined set of rules to resolve the outcomes. That's the difference.