What should one dislike about DnD5e mechanics?

[souran]

After reading both the 3E rules again and the 5E rules they both leave a lot to be desired. Note that other than not giving a crapton of modifiers for various conditions the basic rules described are almost identical. The hiding person makes a check, the looking person makes a counter check. You can't hide if people are looking at you. After that they each throw in the garbage part of the system. For 3E its a bunch of modifiers that are supposed to make some things hard and other impossible but really exist as little more than "you must be this tall to use this skill effectively" signs. 5E adds in a "your DM can screw you over because he is the dm" clause that you would expect from a game that is trying so hard to recapture playing 2E with your best friend's asshole brother in his basement in the 7th grade.

The biggest issue with 5E is that everything is guesswork and gut feelings. It has some good ideas that will probably end up in better games. However, for a game with 2 years of development there is just not a real fucking thing in the books that couldn't be described as "I don't know, just wing it and make sure everybody is having fun."

[Insomniac]

Stealth rules are terrible in every tabletop RPG I know.

But at least they make good faith efforts to have them. The Basic Rules and Player's Handbook don't tell you how to set DCs.

Like, an example they give is people want to climb a cliff, a fairly common thing in a Dungeons and Dragons game. The DM tells you to roll a Strength check and if you have Athletics, you add your proficiency bonus. But it doesn't explicitly give advice on how to set the DC for that Climb check.

3.5 was quite particular with Climb scenarios. Armor check penalties, suggested DCs for surfaces, told you how to get higher checks (equipment bonuses from things like Climbing kits, synergy bonuses, racial modifiers) and so on. It explained right there how climbing modified combat, how fast you could climb, etc. The Climb skill ALONE had more than 1000 words devoted to it.

Whereas 5E is just, "Eh, whatever, fuck it."

And it is galling without DCs to be expected, you don't know how proficient you are. Is +14 to Athletics sufficient to make you able to scale Mount Himalaya in full plate? Or would that make your character a bumbling fool who could barely walk up a decent sized hill? Dungeons and Dragons Next: WHO KNOWS!?!

[Prak]

I much prefer "Eh, fuck it" as 5e's epithet.

D&D NEXT: EH, FUCK IT EDITION.

[Previn]

Stealth rules are terrible in every tabletop RPG I know.

But at least they make good faith efforts to have them. The Basic Rules and Player's Handbook don't tell you how to set DCs.

Like, an example they give is people want to climb a cliff, a fairly common thing in a Dungeons and Dragons game. The DM tells you to roll a Strength check and if you have Athletics, you add your proficiency bonus. But it doesn't explicitly give advice on how to set the DC for that Climb check.

3.5 was quite particular with Climb scenarios. Armor check penalties, suggested DCs for surfaces, told you how to get higher checks (equipment bonuses from things like Climbing kits, synergy bonuses, racial modifiers) and so on. It explained right there how climbing modified combat, how fast you could climb, etc. The Climb skill ALONE had more than 1000 words devoted to it.

Whereas 5E is just, "Eh, whatever, fuck it."

And it is galling without DCs to be expected, you don't know how proficient you are. Is +14 to Athletics sufficient to make you able to scale Mount Himalaya in full plate? Or would that make your character a bumbling fool who could barely walk up a decent sized hill? Dungeons and Dragons Next: WHO KNOWS!?!

Keep in mind that in one of the playtests, there was text actually telling you that it was fine for the player to make a roll, and for the DM to then decide if it passed or failed after they rolled without ever setting a DC.

[Insomniac]

Keep in mind that in one of the playtests, there was text actually telling you that it was fine for the player to make a roll, and for the DM to then decide if it passed or failed after they rolled without ever setting a DC.

The refusal to have things like Skill DCs, magical crafting rules and stuff like that just makes me think that FrankTrollman was right when he pigeonholed this stuff as ill-conceived "vaporware."

[ACOS]

Keep in mind that in one of the playtests, there was text actually telling you that it was fine for the player to make a roll, and for the DM to then decide if it passed or failed after they rolled without ever setting a DC.

[infected slut princess]

The hide rules in 3e are not very good. I would go so far as to call them bad. But since they are actual rules, they are still miles better than 5e.

5e's non-rules are pathetic. But 3e's rules are incoherent and I don't really think anyone can sit down to play a game and know how they work in advance. So that makes them almost useless. Is this better than 5e? Amazingly, I think it is. And that makes 5e stealth a huge fucking joke. And I'm not laughing because I don't enjoy sick humor. Mearls should be publicly shamed and ostracized from the industry.

Stealth rules are terrible in every tabletop RPG I know.

Why is stealth so hard. It's not like we're talking about a system of rules for SOCIAL INTERACTIONS.

[PhoneLobster]

It's not like we're talking about a system of rules for SOCIAL INTERACTIONS.

You called?

Why is stealth so hard.

Oddly parts of the reasons why stealth is hard overlap with the reasons social mechanics are hard. But, in generally are always lesser more readily solvable (and inexplicably less controversial) versions of the same things.

Possibly to the point that someone looking at trying to write a good set of social mechanics wouldn't be far wrong to first try and write a comprehensive set of stealth mechanics and use parts of those solutions as a common underlying frame work to modify and expand on when they get to their social mechanics.

In the most reductive terms "I hide to bypass/backstab this encounter" and "I act friendly to bypass/backstab this encounter" are pretty similar issues your system should try and account for on some level.

[Krusk]

It has some good ideas that will probably end up in better games.

However, for a game with 2 years of development there is just not a real fucking thing in the books that couldn't be described as "I don't know, just wing it and make sure everybody is having fun."

Those statements seem mutually exclusive.

Can you list some of the good ideas that should be stolen for better games? I saw none.

[Night Goat]

5e's Backgrounds are a good way to help players determine their character's backstory and personality, and divorce skills from class so that no one is forced to play a Rogue anymore.

[Dogbert]

Indeed, backgrounds are a must-cannibalize, they help a great deal in removing the one-dimensional nature of class-based systems.

3E would be so much better if someone adapted them to the skills system.

[mean_liar]

Eh. I always felt the Profession skill was a pretty good kludge in 3e.

Backgrounds are indeed a great feature of 5e.

[tussock]

So I had to go back and read the backgrounds again. I'm struggling to see what people like about them.

OK, you can take two skills outside your skill list, handy if the designers pack the ones you want together. They spend some of your money for you on stuff that may or may not suit your character. You get a very long list of RP hooks for mechanical bonuses you're not allowed to take because you took a different background (it's a mechanical bonus, can you really just ignore that?).

So, is the rule that people like where you get two skills of your choice as class skills? That's a popular feat in 3e, seems right. The free advantage check for … well, let's face it, my trait is my dedication to winning, my ideal is to be better than everything, my bond is to never give up under trying circumstances, and my flaw is I'm overly persistent. Inspired all out the wazoo, isn't it, pretty much every time something doesn't work and there's just no limits on it.

[fectin]

Ahem:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=33298#33298

[OgreBattle]

Indeed, backgrounds are a must-cannibalize, they help a great deal in removing the one-dimensional nature of class-based systems.

3E would be so much better if someone adapted them to the skills system.

What would Backgrounds provide that skills don't? Sounds like pre-packaging skills if anything.

There was an old FrankTrollman idea of making every class have a separate fighty and downtime component. I think the 'noncombat class elements' were...

-Diviner
-Stealth
-Healing
-Diplomacy
-Macguyvering

So every class picked one of those things to be good at.

[Username17]

Ahem:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=33298#33298

Pretty much. K and I wrote up those rules for Backgrounds, and called them "Backgrounds" over eight years ago. You can't steal the Backgrounds from 5e, because you'd have to steal them from me and K first. Like 5e pretty obviously already did.

-Username17

[ishy]

Instead of using background to select some class skills, why not just make all skills class skills. And use backgrounds purely for the role-playing fluff?

- Edit: with perhaps some automatic skills. Like say wizards automatically get skill ranks in knowledge arcana or something.

[Username17]

Instead of using background to select some class skills, why not just make all skills class skills. And use backgrounds purely for the role-playing fluff?

- Edit: with perhaps some automatic skills. Like say wizards automatically get skill ranks in knowledge arcana or something.

You want to give people a concrete advantage for selecting a background because it makes their character more interesting to have one. Without the incentive, people will often just not do it, and that makes things boring. You do not want the advantages for selecting backgrounds to be large or irreplaceable because then there will be a "right choice" for background and then all the min/maxxers will take it and we're back to people not really having character-specific backgrounds again. But we also don't want the different backgrounds to give bonuses that are completely identical (such as a pure XP reward for selecting one), because then people will select one at random and then we're back to players not really having backgrounds again.

A couple of bonus pre-selected skills is pretty much ideal, a conclusion which K and I reached when we ran through all this logic back in 2005. And then we published our findings and our logic back before 4th edition D&D was even a thing. Really, if the only good idea people can find in 5e is the Backgrounds, all K and I can say is "You're welcome."

-Username17

[ishy]

But if you give any bonus whatsoever there is a right one (or just a few) for your character and not necessarily the background that you'd actually want to play. Especially if you want to try to play something non-standard.

If people don't care enough about backgrounds to select one if they don't give a bonus, is it really going to make the game more interesting if you force them to pick one?

[Koumei]

Well, look at these as a vague idea:
*You were kidnapped by bandits but became one of them: you gain skill training in Use Rope and Survival
*You were supposed to be king, but then the fire nation attacked: you gain skill training in Swim and Knowledge (Nobby Roy)
*You were raised by dickwolves: you gain skill training in Knowledge (Nature) and Listen
*You got very sick, and nearly died, but a mad doctor saved your life then shouted at you about lying and started taking pills. Your time in bed was spent reading: you gain skill training in Decipher Script and Knowledge (The Planes).

(Where maybe Skill Training is "This becomes a Class Skill" and maybe it's like a +2 Bonus on the skill checks.)

If you're a wizard, what are you automatically going to choose? How about if you're a warrior? Or a rogue? As long as you don't stick someone with two skills that are basically the same skill, or that are shit like Use Magic Device, nothing will really stand out for all cases, so it can come down to being for a specific character where you wouldn't mind that small bonus in identifying giant frogs or finding caves that aren't full of cave bears.

[Whipstitch]

If people don't care enough about backgrounds to select one if they don't give a bonus, is it really going to make the game more interesting if you force them to pick one?

In my experience, yes, it can really help. It's hardly fool proof since there's really no helping people who genuinely don't want to be there, but tacking on a couple identifiable characteristics and the barest outline of a past can help mitigate the degree to which inexperienced or unimaginative players shit on the group's collective role playing experience. After all, it can be hard to even know how to address characters if they're complete ciphers, which makes it hard to even attempt to include them. I'm biased since I've gamed with so many theater nerds in my life, but oftentimes getting people started in rpgs is no different than getting them started in improv: throw them a few softballs, laugh at their jokes whether they're good or not and away you go.

[erik]

I have two problems with the background feature as described.
1. I simply hate the idea of skills being restricted to classes and as such frown upon anything that acknowledges that order.
2. Backgrounds don't actually give you any expertise that just give you the option to gain it, which is a little too granular for me. If I'm bothering to write the background it's because I've already made use of it.

My answer. Have backgrounds give actual skill ranks (4 apiece for the two skills) in addition to making it to class skill. This way it's not like you were superior to someone else who has that as the class skill and it is not become mandatory to pick certain bgs, but is still a nice little bump.

[fectin]

Ahem:
http://www.tgdmb.com/viewtopic.php?p=33298#33298

Pretty much. K and I wrote up those rules for Backgrounds, and called them "Backgrounds" over eight years ago. You can't steal the Backgrounds from 5e, because you'd have to steal them from me and K first. Like 5e pretty obviously already did.

-Username17

I'm not certain that you and K are the spring for this particular well, but it is incredibly weird to me that that might be a selling point for 5E around here.

(Other examples include UA's traits, FantasyCrafts two different flavors of character backgrounds, all of Traveler chargen, SPECIAL's traits, Pathfinder's traits, just offhand.)

[hogarth]

Why is stealth so hard.

Because "I'm completely undetectable" and "I can convince anyone to do anything" are honest-to-god superpowers in a way that "I never fail at riding a horse" isn't.

[Insomniac]

Shouldn't Advantage/Disadvantage apply a flat modifier? I understand they want it to be more potent than +2/-2, so just make it +3/-3.

The example of the "Being shot at while on a bridge with a flash flood occurring with heavy wind in your face and its midnight but oh wait, you've got the high ground so you're just rolling 1 d20" seems strange to me.

Shouldn't that be -3 (Distraction) -3 (Shaky Ground) -3 (Hampering weather) -3 (Impaired Vision) +3 (High Ground) for -9 to the shot? Like, if there was something that was disadvantageous to your character in 3.5 but a guy was aiding you and setting up a flank, you'd be-2 +2 +2 for +2 overall to the roll.

Why multiple d20 rolls all the time? The game isn't 2d20, right? So why heavily push a mechanic that necessitates multiple dice rolls? You can't have people rolling 3 or 4 times and taking the worst, that'd be stupid, but rolling twice and taking the best or worst isn't all that better. It just seems like an obnoxious gimmick to keep you from asking why you aren't playing 3.5 or Pathfinder with house rules.