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

Hemlock said:
Edit to add: for Beoric's sake, let me clarify that I'm primarily hating on the bad advice that my DM took. I think 4E had enough asymmetry built in that I would probably have drifted away anyway, but the house rule he created exacerbated the issue to the point where I didn't last four sessions.
Click to expand...
Fair enough, but I'm not sure what you mean by "asymmetry".

If you mean PCs and NPCs are built differently, that is true, they are. The reason is to both simplify NPC creation and speed of play in combat.

If you mean they are weaker than PCs, that is not necessarily true. An elite NPC is very close in power to a PC of the same level; that is, the odds of a party of 5 PCs defeating a party of 5 elite NPCs of the same level are about 50/50. However, most encounters in published adventures use standard NPCs, which are half as powerful as a PC or an elite NPC of the same level. So it isn't a game design issue so much as an encounter design issue.
 
Beoric said:
Fair enough, but I'm not sure what you mean by "asymmetry".

If you mean PCs and NPCs are built differently, that is true, they are. The reason is to both simplify NPC creation and speed of play in combat.

If you mean they are weaker than PCs, that is not necessarily true. An elite NPC is very close in power to a PC of the same level; that is, the odds of a party of 5 PCs defeating a party of 5 elite NPCs of the same level are about 50/50. However, most encounters in published adventures use standard NPCs, which are half as powerful as a PC or an elite NPC of the same level. So it isn't a game design issue so much as an encounter design issue.
Click to expand...

I don't mean "weaker." I mean when they play by different rules. If you can look at a story about a now-past game session and tell by what physically happens in the game world who's a PC and who's an NPC, that is a turnoff for me. In theory I can imagine a system where PCs are "built differently" than NPCs but it doesn't bother me because it doesn't affect gameplay--e.g. if NPCs must roll race and class randomly but PCs get to have the player choose. But if NPCs die when they hit zero HP and PCs do not, that for example turns me off.

You would know better than I would how much player/non-player asymmetry 4E actually has. My impression is that it has enough that I wouldn't have really gotten into it, but that is only an impression based on a few game sessions and what I've read on the Internet about it being suited for cinematic gameplay.
 
Last edited:
Hemlock said:
I don't mean "weaker." I mean when they play by different rules. If you can look at a story about a now-past game session and tell by what physically happens in the game world who's a PC and who's an NPC, that is a turnoff for me. In theory I can imagine a system where PCs are "built differently" than NPCs but it doesn't bother me because it doesn't affect gameplay--e.g. if NPCs must roll race and class randomly but PCs get to have the player choose. But if NPCs die when they hit zero HP and PCs do not, that for example turns me off.

You would know better than I would how much player/non-player asymmetry 4E actually has. My impression is that it has enough that I wouldn't have really gotten into it, but that is only an impression based on a few game sessions and what I've read on the Internet about it being suited for cinematic gameplay.
Click to expand...
Yeah, by RAW NPCs do die when they hit zero HP. This is expressly to avoid the squickiness of PCs finishing off NPCs or having to deal with prisoners; I expect it is also to simplify combat.

Considering the odds of survival if nobody is helping a PC after he drops to zero, it makes very little practical difference unless you have characters that have both the ability and the inclination to help them in the middle of combat; that is often not the case for team NPC. In those instances where it might make a difference, I usually ignore the rule and let them use the PC mechanic.

Mounted combat rules are also different by RAW; I have modified them in my campaign to make them the same.

My combat encounters tend more toward gritty than cinematic; it has more to do with how you narrate them than with the system itself.
 
Beoric said:
Yeah, by RAW NPCs do die when they hit zero HP. This is expressly to avoid the squickiness of PCs finishing off NPCs or having to deal with prisoners; I expect it is also to simplify combat.

Considering the odds of survival if nobody is helping a PC after he drops to zero, it makes very little practical difference unless you have characters that have both the ability and the inclination to help them in the middle of combat; that is often not the case for team NPC. In those instances where it might make a difference, I usually ignore the rule and let them use the PC mechanic.

Mounted combat rules are also different by RAW; I have modified them in my campaign to make them the same.

My combat encounters tend more toward gritty than cinematic; it has more to do with how you narrate them than with the system itself.
Click to expand...

Yeah, I took a similar approach towards 5E: modifying the rules to make them more realistic. Interesting that 4E's mounted combat rules are problematic, because 5E's are too--in 5E's case they are extremely overpowered, and also a bit ambiguous (especially once WotC employees started weighing in on Twitter to confuse the issue). 5E can be made realistic to a certain degree, but there are limits due to the gamist (game jargon-oriented) way the rules are written. (This thread came up today on another forum and is a good example of something I have to just shrug and live with.)

In any case, I don't pretend to know very much about 4E the system, as opposed to 4E the way I briefly experienced it under that DM. Glad you are able to make it work for you and yours.
 
Hemlock said:
Yeah, I took a similar approach towards 5E: modifying the rules to make them more realistic. Interesting that 4E's mounted combat rules are problematic, because 5E's are too--in 5E's case they are extremely overpowered, and also a bit ambiguous (especially once WotC employees started weighing in on Twitter to confuse the issue).

In any case, I don't pretend to know very much about 4E the system, as opposed to 4E the way I briefly experienced it under that DM. Glad you are able to make it work for you and yours.
Click to expand...
The major difference in mounted combat is that for team monster, the rider and mount both get to attack (and you get XPs when you kill them both), whereas for team PC, either the rider or the mount get to attack. That is, a PC's mount, while statistically a monster is treated as an item for these purposes. The reason for the rule is to prevent the PC from effectively doubling his attacks while getting full experience for the battle (i.e. not sharing the experience with the mount).

To balance this, I distinguish between a mount that is is dependent on the PC for direction, in which case they get one attack between them and the player does not have to share experience; the mount is effectively an item. Or a mount that can act independently, in which case both get to attack but the player must share the experience (and the mount can in some cases rise in level); here the mount is effectively a party member.

I do the same thing for team monster. For them, a dependent mount is essentially treasure that can be used as a dependent mount by the PCs if they capture it., and an independent mount is a monster that has to be dealt with like any other monster (and could theoretically become a PC party member if offered appropriate inducements).
 
Beoric said:
I look forward to the eventual 4e revival. I am sure you will all be on board.
Click to expand...

I would argue this has already started but is going on mainly over on RPG.net. All of the various "retroclone" projects of 4e have threads over there in the D&D forum.
 
Pseudoephedrine said:
I would argue this has already started but is going on mainly over on RPG.net. All of the various "retroclone" projects of 4e have threads over there in the D&D forum.
Click to expand...
Thanks for that, although the only one I saw with remotely current posts was Orcus. If you are aware of others that I missed please link them.

I may check out Orcus, though. I was following its development at GITP and was skeptical, but it may have some traction at rpg.net.
 
There is a 4th Edition Discord which is quite lively. The mood there is one of a revival. No-one seems to be sharing adventures, though, so that may limit it.

4e was discontinued...what? Nine years ago? Longer ago than that if you're a partisan who doesn't count D&D Essentials. That's long enough to start thinking about a revival.
 
Now I've played some 5e, the DM is good, the adventure is supposedly one of the better ones, I think the game sucks.
 
Hemlock said:
I'd like to hear more specifics.
Click to expand...
I have a hard time putting my finger on it, but it feels like it is without weight. Replenishing resources is trivial, traversal is de-emphasized (and many characters have access to teleportation and similar abilities from level 1), equipment is a matter of optimization to the character's skillset rather than a tradeoff between weight and utility. Combat is at least at low levels as dangerous as any OSR game blow for blow but getting back up if knocked out is also trivial. The abundance and general weakness of spells (many are just missile attacks for mages) makes magic seem more like pyrotechnics than deadly sorcery.
 
Personally, on reading through the 5e SRD at DP's request, it came across as toothless --- hard choices were avoided. The game was not intended to challenge or frustrate. DP summed it up with "What's wrong with just having fun?".

I tuned out.
 
Two orcs said:
I have a hard time putting my finger on it, but it feels like it is without weight. Replenishing resources is trivial, traversal is de-emphasized (and many characters have access to teleportation and similar abilities from level 1), equipment is a matter of optimization to the character's skillset rather than a tradeoff between weight and utility. Combat is at least at low levels as dangerous as any OSR game blow for blow but getting back up if knocked out is also trivial. The abundance and general weakness of spells (many are just missile attacks for mages) makes magic seem more like pyrotechnics than deadly sorcery.
Click to expand...

Having played a lot of 5E, I would say that your impression and squeen's impression that 5E play is inconsequential (in the sense that it avoids having serious consequences) is spot-on. It's not that a DM *can't* present players with something like a machine that, if you place two limbs in its two holes, permanently switches them; and if you place only one limb in it, severs it. You can do that--but it feels un-idiomatic for 5E, because generally in 5E everything resets with a good night's sleep. (There are exceptions but they are haphazard.)

It can be *modified* to challenge or frustrate--imagine someone running a 5E variant where scaling a 30' wall takes climbing hooks, special shoes, and 10 minutes, instead of 6 seconds and a d20 roll. But why reinvent the wheel instead of playing a game with challenge and frustration built in?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top