D&D 5e has failed

[Lago PARANOIA]

Are there any game effects in the PHB or promotional material that lets you use more than one bonus action in a round?

[OgreBattle]

What's the verdict on weapon styles, is it like AD&D where you dual wield everything or is it like 3e where greatweapons are where it's at or is it like 4e where every class has abilities to use a handful of specific weapons?

[silva]

This thread is funny. First it opens with "D&D 5 has failed", and then it ends with "how da fuck do D&D 5 work ?".

xD

[Sakuya Izayoi]

This thread is funny. First it opens with "D&D 5 has failed", and then it ends with "how da fuck do D&D 5 work ?".

xD

That's because the core mechanic of 5e (roll a d20+X against Paranoia-esque fudged DCs) is easily compared to 3e (roll a d20+X vs DC benchmarks that are clearly delineated).

What is not known to all is the combinations you can create by having an intimate knowledge of indivdual class mechanics and how they interact with feats and the action economy. This is moreso hindered by the fact that 5e inherits 4e's anti-SRD policy, which prevents you from easily referencing core materials while discussing chargen.

So, it's easy to come to a conclusion that you don't like the base game. Asking about builds that can do interesting things in spite of the base mechanics is not the sort of bad faith you're implying, but rather, giving the game the fairest shake possible.

[Mistborn]

Can we stop encouraging the smarmgargler by treating it like a real person. silva is another shadzar just with even worse taste in games, it can't be educated and talking to it only means it spews more stupidity.

As for Lago, you're going to have to find the answers to that on your own (you did buy the books right?). Just like with 4e as far as I can tell none of us care enough about 5e to theorycraft it. Given that this a Mike Mearls project there are probably builds on file that can crush the mightiest high level opposition on file long before you're ever expected to face them. The thing is no one cares because the mightiest opposition on file can be cleaned up by the town militia and if the Intellect Devourer is any indication you're always going to live in fear of bullshit low level stuff.

[Sakuya Izayoi]

Can we stop encouraging the smarmgargler by treating it like a real person. silva is another shadzar just with even worse taste in games, it can't be educated and talking to it only means it spews more stupidity.

Alright, I was hoping talking to him honestly might either result in him being honest back, or slipping up and preaching the Word of Bear, but as I've been asked not to engage by multiple people multiple times, I will stop. Apologies.

[TiaC]

I appreciate that he has an avatar now, it makes it much easier to identify the stupid.

[silva]

That's because the core mechanic of 5e (roll a d20+X against Paranoia-esque fudged DCs) is easily compared to 3e (roll a d20+X vs DC benchmarks that are clearly delineated).

What is not known to all is the combinations you can create by having an intimate knowledge of indivdual class mechanics and how they interact with feats and the action economy. This is moreso hindered by the fact that 5e inherits 4e's anti-SRD policy, which prevents you from easily referencing core materials while discussing chargen.

So, it's easy to come to a conclusion that you don't like the base game. Asking about builds that can do interesting things in spite of the base mechanics is not the sort of bad faith you're implying, but rather, giving the game the fairest shake possible.

I would agree with this argument if the game in question was Marvel Heroic Roleplaying or another one where all you have is this central mechanic thats used for everything. But D&D was always a heavily exception-based system no matter the edition so yeah, the commentary sounds too precipitated and in bad-faith. But really, having D&D 3e cheerleaders booing a new edition is only expected.

I appreciate that he has an avatar now, it makes it much easier to identify the stupid.

Not that I have something against you (honestly, I dont remember when I offended or done something for you to ellicit this kind of reaction - I suspect having contrary opinions around here is enough these days ) but luckly for you there is a working ignore button on this forum.

[Mistborn]

Not that I have something against you (honestly, I dont remember when I offended or done something for you to ellicit this kind of reaction - I suspect having contrary opinions around here is enough these days ) but luckly for you there is a working ignore button on this forum.

You've offended everyone with a brain when you were continually starting bear world threads, many of which were copypasta from other trolling attempts. You get treated with contempt because you haven't even figured out why your contributions aren't valued after a year and a half of posting.

[angelfromanotherpin]

More because he continually pretends not to have figured out why his contributions aren't valued. I'm pretty sure he remembers his epic outing as a dishonest ass-clown.

[silva]

Not that I have something against you (honestly, I dont remember when I offended or done something for you to ellicit this kind of reaction - I suspect having contrary opinions around here is enough these days ) but luckly for you there is a working ignore button on this forum.

You've offended everyone with a brain when you were continually starting bear world threads, many of which were copypasta from other trolling attempts. You get treated with contempt because you haven't even figured out why your contributions aren't valued after a year and a half of posting.

Since when opening threads about games you play is offensive ? By this logic, a lot of people around here is being offensive too.

But whatever. I'll keep posting when and where I find appropriate. If you or anyone else judge it as trolling (just because its an opinion contrary to yours) the ignore button is right over there.

[Dean]

Fuck you you copypastaing, shit shilling exposed troll. Stop feigning more ignorance than you already have.

[silva]

Love you too, Dean.

[Mistborn]

Since when opening threads about games you play is offensive ? By this logic, a lot of people around here is being offensive too.

You know what you did smarmgargler.

[silva]

Yup. Just related an experience again.

Your point is ?

[Hiram McDaniels]

You're certainly within your rights to hate anything you want with as much passion or cold disdain as you can muster, and 3rd edition D&D has a lot of things about it that even the most flavoraid drinking fan will admit are problems, the fact is that 3e 'just works' in a way that few other games do. Take that recent whining by SKR about how D&D characters are unrealistically strong because of bench press records - he's fucking wrong. Not because it's a damn game and if you want to be playing a character played by Dwayne Johnson instead of Mads Mikkelson you should be allowed to do that, but because bench presses are an arbitrary demonstration of arm strength and real people can lift considerably more than that when they are allowed to use their legs. In short: someone put a lot of fucking effort into even trivial parts of the game like lifting tables and they already produce emergently realistic results to a degree that has not been matched before or since.

Further, the rules of reach, threatened squares, flanking, and attacks of opportunity create a tactical mini game where position matters and tactical advantage is apparent and emergent from the rules without particularly being dumb. The development of firing lines and choke points all comes naturally out of the rules, and you can easily show an ongoing battle to someone unfamiliar with the game and explain in non-game terms why everyone is where they are on the map and it will make sense to them. It's a stunning achievement.

That being said, we can certainly talk about some genuine problems:

• Wizards >> Fighters. Some people describe this as wizards being too strong and some people describe this as fighters being too weak. Probably both are true. It's not super apparent at low level when a longsword is an adequate expression of your hatred of goblins and many problems can be solved with thumbs and ropes, but the first time the adventure takes place in an environment literally inaccessible without magic, the disparity is undeniable.

• High end numbers get wonky. The higher level you get, the more places the numbers fall apart, mostly with skills and saves. Multi class save bonuses get terrible pretty fast, and of course a high level skill bonus item gives a bonus that is half again larger than the entire RNG.

• Multi class rules don't really work that well. At very low levels, it works OK, but multi-casters fall behind rapidly because being behind a static number of caster levels is a bigger penalty the farther up the power curve you go. And the aforementioned multi class saves problem, and the general useless nature of high level non-caster abilities all converge to make it fall apart around level 7.

• Monster character rules don't work at all. Basically they plug right into the multi class rules and monsters don't even have classes to set their abilities in the first place. You have the 3e version where monster PCs suck, and the Pathfinder version where monster PCs are way too strong and it all has to go to the drawing board.

• Wealth by level breaks down at mid level. The wealth rules in 3e are frankly amazing. The tables fit together in an interlocking fashion where someone math hammered out logs and quadratic progressions and the numbers all work out. You actually can derive objective statements of whether the DM is being stingy or generous and the tables do produce the results they say they do. But... the numbers just objectively aren't big enough and the rewards for getting large numbers of tiny items are large enough to support a 'Christmas tree' that most people subjectively don't like. Characters can't afford +3 gear when they are high enough level to need it, and most people think the thing of swapping out magical amulets, boots, and belts after every fight is 'kind of dumb.'

These are big problems, and it would take a new edition to tackle them. I'd also like to see a decent kingdom management minigame in the core rules. But just throwing up your hands and saying 'I'm gonna go design magical tea party instead' isn't a reasonable answer. And that's why that answer has not been well received by the public.

-Username17

Oh yeah...I'll be the first to admit that 3E is a well designed game in many places. By any reasonable metric that you can quantify, it's objectively better than 2E or RC/BECMI. That said, for some reason I have more actual fun when I play 2E or BECMI (probably for reasons having little to do with the rules themselves). Whenever I sit down to run a D&D3/PF game, I take one look at the monster stats and I'm like: "Fuuuuuck this", and just run FATE or Dragon Age instead.

I agree with your assessments of 3E's strengths and flaws. These are definitely things that need to be worked on, if you set about improving the game based on 3E's default assumptions (transparency between PC's and Monsters/NPC's; relatively high degree of granularity; modularity, et al).

In addition, I would like to see number inflation toned down. Not necessarily to the degree that 5E does, but I would like it to be small enough that you would no longer need to reconcile typed bonuses (competence, enhancement, deflection, etc.).

[MGuy]

Since when opening threads about games you play is offensive ? By this logic, a lot of people around here is being offensive too.

You know what you did smarmgargler.

AHA you fool! You activated his trap card!

[Hiram McDaniels]

What would constitute an "improvement" to 3.x?

In addition to what FrankTrollman said, here are some other areas of improvement.

A good default campaign setting: I've said it before and I'll keep saying it. The biggest thing that will determine whether D&D or any TTRPG for that matter will be a success is if the default campaign setting that comes with the game is good. 3E D&D mostly outsourced its campaign setting work and the result was... mediocre. I think that D&D is the only non-supers game that got away with this, but if you want to recapture the glory days of D&D you need to have one. I don't particularly care if D&D wants to have a living and integrated campaign setting that tweaks (but not subverts) most of the tropes like A:TLA or FFX, a deconstruction like Earthdawn, a grimdark deconstruction like WHFB or Dark Sun (that might be going too far for most groups, though), a lightheated reconstruction like Skies of Arcadia, or whatever. But it needs to be there.

I think that D&D has become so self-referential, that it's myriad associated tropes sort of form their own default setting. There might not be specific geographical locations or named NPC's with published stats, or detailed organizations, but every gamer knows that vancian magic, the Blood War, and chromatic vs. metallic dragons are D&D things. Hell, most people might not know where the Great Wheel cosmology comes from, but they went into apoplectic fits when 4E changed it.

Different resource management schemes: 3E D&D had a pretty stunning achievement for TTRPGs; it made people care about classes that came at the end of the edition more than classes that came at the start or middle. And I fully think that this is because classes like the truenamer and warblade and warlock played differently from the basic classes. A remake of 3E D&D should studiously avoid to try having basic classes that weren't just some combination of spell slots, BAB, and feats.

How do you envision this working with 3E's ala' carte multi-classing paradigm?

Also related but 3E D&D really should have had classes that strove to be more thematically different from each other. The ranger and the druid as-is should not exist in the same game; neither should the cleric and paladin. Or, most obviously, the wizard and the sorcerer. 3E D&D should have the psion, the warlock, and the artificer in the game as basic classes.

Agreed. I can see the Cleric class having paths for Paladins, Prophets, and Inquisitors, for example.

Making the vision of higher-level D&D clearer: 4E and 5E D&D have a clear, if stupid vision of higher levels -- the game mostly plays the same as before but with different numbers and fluff elements. 3E D&D's is more mixed. Even if you tell the mundanes to eat shit and die, there's still the problem that high-level abilities are all over the place. Shit like fabricate and plane shift and teleport completely upend the basic assumptions of the game but D&D also has weirdness like curiously small-range and small-impact blasting spells existing side-by-side.

If the developers really aren't up to the task of making high-level D&D satisfying and/or balanced, well, honestly, I'd want them to try anyway even if the result ends up shit. Fantasy games that top out at Conan the Barbarian or Spider-Man level are literally the easiest kind of action games to design. Even easier than modern games, who have to worry about guns and cell phones and shit. There are a shitton of them already. 3E D&D is different because it at least tries to simulate a high-powered campaign setting and I'd rather them fuck it up Epic Level Handbook style than them not put it in the game at all.

I would be interested in seeing a fantasy game that does Justice League level shit right, without obliterating genre conventions entirely.

There needs to be more shit to do at low levels: The vast majority of games start at level 1. And this is where the game is at its most boring. There's some genuine excitement to be had like a lucky orc critical completely swinging the tide of combat or the fighter being the only one able to make an outside chance knowledge roll, but by your 30th game you've already seen it all and it makes the low levels feel more like a punishment and a slog than the start to a great adventure. At this point, I don't even play in 3E D&D games that start below 5th level. That's a total dealbreaker to me.

Yes. But is this more of a player culture thing? Many DM's are inclined to begin games at level 1 instead of 5 because:

A) It's the number one. Because that's how you count. from one on up. Personally, I prefer low to mid-level games, so I like to start at 3-5 and wind things down by 15 or so.

B) They think that you have to bow and scrape for the privilege of not shitting their breeches when faced with a Kobold wielding a sharpened stick. These DM's believe that fun needs to be earned through adversity, no matter how arbitrary. Nevermind that players have probably been through dozens of level 1 PC massacres by that point, and have worked real world jobs for the money that they've bought their game books with.

Prestige classes: great idea, bad implementation: 3E D&D Prestige Classes were the money shot of the edition, but they had three major problems. The first was that a lot of them took too long to get into for ideas like 'dagger master' or 'dwarven defenders'. The second is that they exacerbated the LW/QW problem by having some prestige classes be archmages and others be dervishes. The third problem is that the prereqs required players to pretty much plan their entire character progression around them.

A 3E D&D remake should frankly use a modified version of 4E D&D's implementation. That is, you tell the Pathfinder archetypes and 3E altered class abilities to go fuck themselves and choose from a pallet of class neutral kits/themes to staple on top of your character at first level. None of this bullshit about trading out your domains or favored enemy bonuses for extra feats. When you get to a certain level, you pick from a long list of prestige classes/paragon paths. They have no prerequisites other than ensuring that people will be able to actually use the class features within. Prestige classing is also mandatory for every class. The prestige classes also aren't segregated by origin to avoid the whole 15th level gladiator bullshit.

I agree with this. Love the idea of 4E paragon paths and epic destinies, though I think they need to be thematic and class agnostic, and they need to confer abilities that are appropriate for their tier of play.

[Seerow]

A) It's the number one. Because that's how you count. from one on up

Real nerds start counting from 0, not 1.

[Lago PARANOIA]

There might not be specific geographical locations or named NPC's with published stats, or detailed organizations, but every gamer knows that vancian magic, the Blood War, and chromatic vs. metallic dragons are D&D things.

But that's just disconnected flotsam. Famous D&D tropes like the Blood War and Sigil and the Terrasque and paladins riding dragon mounts are not only not even relevant for most campaigns but they're not even possible to implement. Every DM not running a canned campaign setting is forced to just mix and match shit -- unless they want to bore players with a laundry list of setting details PCs are required to read games have the frequent problem of people introducing setting dissonant details. Just last week at a Pathfinder game I played the inquisitor and ranger had an IC discussion about harpies while we were setting up camp. One of them had the cute monstergirl harpy in mind and the other had the Greek mythology one in mind. But the DM was using the Pathfinder one; the one which was a horrifying mix of the two. And no one knew they were on the same page until the moment of truth and they both had to retcon.

That kind of thing is awful for storytelling. But it happens all of the time when you play D&D because there is no default campaign setting. No one gets confused in Shadowrun when you talk about immortal elves or trolls or even yeti. Everyone in Exalted is on the same page when you talk about the Games of Divinity. Hell, even when you play a fanficced Superhero campaign people are by and large on the same page when you talk about any superhero other than Wolverine. D&D is the major exception of course and that's because there are too many tropes in the game but no consistent framework to put them in.

And that's the other problem with D&D not having a default campaign setting; there aren't really any characters to breathe life into the setting unless they're OCs, public domain characters, or from the default deity pantheon. But the characters are one of the most important parts of a story, especially once you advance beyond Batman-tier. Settings like Game of Thrones and Marvel/DC entirely coasts on the strength of their characters. Hell, when people bring up Forgotten Realms they're ALWAYS going to talk about the famous NPCs in the setting like Szass Tam and Lord Nasher and Drizz't and Aribeth and Elminster and etc. long before they talk about the geography or history or economics.

Yes. But is this more of a player culture thing?

Even if it is, low levels should be interesting to play in of themselves. Gotham is fleshed out and interesting in a way that Metropolis is not because Batman has a closer-to-the-ground view than Superman. Batman is intimately familiar with the free clinics and festival workers and police department and afterschool programs in a way Superman can't be, even if Superman ironically is the type to care more about these things. By the same token, when people a priori skip the low levels by viewing them as boring tutorials you miss out on setting details.

[Kaelik]

Since when opening threads about games you play is offensive ? By this logic, a lot of people around here is being offensive too.

You know what you did smarmgargler.

For those who don't feel like clicking on the link. Here is a short timeline:

January 2012: Silva posts on RPGsite that he just read AssWorld for the first time and it was the greatest thing he has ever seen, and starts shilling it.

March 2013: Silva posts on TGD about how great Ass World is and how much fun he has had in his many experiences playing it, and begins the epic shilling that will never end.

Jun 26 2013: Silva posts on RPG codex about how he just played Ass World for the first time, and loves it so much and starts shilling.

So not only does Silva shill for Ass World everywhere he goes, he for some reason feels super self conscious about just admitting that he has showed up to a forum to shill for Ass World, a game he loves and has shilled for for years, so when he shows up at a new forum he lies and says he just discovered this game like two days ago and just went to the first forum he could think of to talk about how great it is.

[OgreBattle]

Would preferred class then be determined by your species--flavor? Secondly, would not taking one give you the human default, 'no preferred class?'

Preferred classes are something that D&D doesn't need. It can be mentioned in the description of societies and monster entries that the green gorilla humanoids have many berserkers and the tree dwelling pointy eared humanoids are ruled by wizards and that's good.

For things like "CON +1" that's something the attribute allotment process should already be covering. If you want an 18 CON then you put your attribute points into getting 18 CON, picking a feat outside of that to push it to 19 is not needed. I see a playable character with a class, feats, and all that as exceptional though, so a human barbarian with STR 18 can be as strong or stronger than a gorilla even though that's way outside of what a human is normally capable of.

[silva]

@Kaelik: yup, and now I will begin shilling for Marvel Heroic Roleplaying, my new best game ever of the week. In fact, I'm just opening lots of threads on different forums to relate my super positive experience and talk about it. By the way, have you seen its concept of milestones ? Or its initiative system ? It's nothing short of revolutionary!

[Mistborn]

Damn, silva is still here. Well I guess I'll just have to make sure every thread he starts suffers a grizzly fate.

[nockermensch]

Damn, silva is still here. Well I guess I'll just have to make sure every thread he starts suffers a grizzly fate.

Be sure to check the file I sent you via PM then.