Zero Buzz on 5E...Is It Dead Out The Gate?

[Deathfork]

Of course the question becomes will people figure this out?

Some won't ever. There seems to be a general consensus among big numbers of people who liked 3.5 and Pathfinder that 5th is really good or at least good enough to switch over.
Everything I'm seeing in the edition are my least favorite parts of 3rd and 4th sown together into an unholy abomination of dick limbs that people can't stop slobbering on.

4th was my favorite so far, having run two long running campaigns of it, but I look back and honestly assess what I was doing, I'm noticing a couple of things. The first game I ran was pretty much by the book. There were a couple of stumbling blocks, but the game made it to 19th level from 1st with a group of 5-8 players depending on who showed up. That was right after the game came out, and it looked like 4th was doing everything right that 3.5 was doing wrong for me.

Mainly easy encounter design. After running several games of 3.0 and 3.5 the high level encounter design was such a pain in the ass that I gave up somewhere around 12th to 16th level. A friend of mine ran us all the way from 1 to 21 in 3.0 and it was plainly obvious that his approach was "the book says this is fine, so here it is", and usually we would run roughshod over the encounter because there were 8 characters and he was using pretty much standard monsters of our CR. He did the same thing in another game and very rarely did we feel challenged, or even slowed down.

So 4th, initially, solved those problems for me by giving me a way to build encounter that kept the game challenging but beatable, and for that I loved it.
Until the cracks in the rest of it started to show. Skill challenges were the first thing that went. It became obvious that writing a skill challenge meant looking at the character sheets and figuring out something for each person to do with two of their skills to contribute.
Fights in paragon were taking way too long. People had too many abilities and powers to reasonably keep track of, PCs never took enough damage to be bloodied usually, and monsters were just huge sacks of hitpoints with occasionally one interesting thing they could do. Magic and wealth were...ugh.

In my second game of 4th, I cut out the skill system entirely and replaced that half of the character sheet with a custom FATE build. I cut out every level but 4th, 8th, 11th, 14th, 18th and 21st. I did away with wealth and magic items stuff entirely by making each PC the scion with of a noble house (with a vault of magic items that would be handed out when they proved worthy) with no need to buy and sell petty items. I handed out the math patch feats as bonus feats. Almost every system except character combat advancement and encounter building was cut out or changed.

It became pretty obvious that I wasn't playing 4th ed any more. And I wouldn't play it again now. But 5th looks like it hasn't solved any of that. And it looks like that before the core books have finished coming out. If my buddy who seems excited about it runs it, I'll play, because the game will probably be fun, but it will be so in spite of the rules not because of them.

[K]

5e seems to have skills kind of licked.

Everyone has all skills where you can always roll a check and get the appropriate stat mod to that check regardless of what character you use, but characters with proficiency get a +2 to +6 to that check. This means that the different between a fighter with a Cha of 14 and a proficient bard with a Cha of 16 is that the bard has a +3 to a +7 more than you on the check, so basically a surmountable difference on a d20 between an expert and a regular character.

[Morat]

5e seems to have skills kind of licked.

Everyone has all skills where you can always roll a check and get the appropriate stat mod to that check regardless of what character you use, but characters with proficiency get a +2 to +6 to that check. This means that the different between a fighter with a Cha of 14 and a proficient bard with a Cha of 16 is that the bard has a +3 to a +7 more than you on the check, so basically a surmountable difference on a d20 between an expert and a regular character.

So...the SW Saga Edition approach, except a bit more fiddly? Because that game's skill bonus was level/2 for untrained, level/2+5 for trained.

I don't remember SWSE being that great, but maybe that's because IMO a class and level system is a terrible, terrible fit for Star Wars.

[Username17]

5e seems to have skills kind of licked.

Everyone has all skills where you can always roll a check and get the appropriate stat mod to that check regardless of what character you use, but characters with proficiency get a +2 to +6 to that check. This means that the different between a fighter with a Cha of 14 and a proficient bard with a Cha of 16 is that the bard has a +3 to a +7 more than you on the check, so basically a surmountable difference on a d20 between an expert and a regular character.

That sounds like a total abnegation of skill system creation rather than a success. I mean, it's all well and good to crow about how "everyone can do everything," but really that means that your system can't handle anything an untrained dude off the street couldn't do. We're basically back at the point of SKR telling people that a 12th level Fighter can't do things he personally (that is, SKR himself out of game) has difficulty with as an untrained aging nerd. Only that's actually the rules.

That kind of shit is fine for first level play, if you want to have low level characters be basically random hobos and civilians with a couple small bonuses here and there. But if that's your final answer for characters who are supposed to fight house sized dragons, you're fucking up.

More broadly, the fixed skill difference thing was tried in 4e D&D and SAGA before it. And while those games provided considerably more difference between trained and untrained characters than 5e does, that is not what people fucking complained about. It is actually pretty insulting for a high level aging wizard to have a pretty comparable acrobatics roll to your nimble halfling thief just because the base level bonuses mostly wipe out the training bonuses. But I don't see how it's any less insulting to have random low level village elders have pretty comparable acrobatics bonuses to your nimble halfling thief because bonuses for having something be in your idiom simply aren't ever all that big in the first place.

Basically, they extended 2nd level for 20 levels and called that a game. But I don't think the higher level versions of 2nd level even work. So really it's just that they designed 1st and 2nd level and then called themselves done.

-Username17

[Blicero]

It is actually pretty insulting for a high level aging wizard to have a pretty comparable acrobatics roll to your nimble halfling thief just because the base level bonuses mostly wipe out the training bonuses.

Depending on your definition of "pretty insulting", this is probably unnecessary hyperbole.

[Deathfork]

5e seems to have skills kind of licked.

Everyone has all skills where you can always roll a check and get the appropriate stat mod to that check regardless of what character you use, but characters with proficiency get a +2 to +6 to that check. This means that the different between a fighter with a Cha of 14 and a proficient bard with a Cha of 16 is that the bard has a +3 to a +7 more than you on the check, so basically a surmountable difference on a d20 between an expert and a regular character.

The thing is, if you're able to convince your GM that you should get advantage on the roll, you're more or less making up the gap between skill and unskilled. I'm not sure if that's desirable or not, but it doesn't sit well with me.

[Username17]

It is actually pretty insulting for a high level aging wizard to have a pretty comparable acrobatics roll to your nimble halfling thief just because the base level bonuses mostly wipe out the training bonuses.

Depending on your definition of "pretty insulting", this is probably unnecessary hyperbole.

Um, no. It's not. If you make a character whose concept is that they are good at something, and you roll an average roll it is fucking insulting for a random hobo to beat them with a slightly above average roll. It's the game system actually shitting on your character concept and making fun of your tiny penis for daring to have a power fantasy. Basically, the game is setting you up to be Lago's Monk no matter what choices you make. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make your "kick ass" character concept not get routinely overshadowed by commoners.

And yes: that is insulting.

-Username17

[Blicero]

Um, no. It's not. If you make a character whose concept is that they are good at something, and you roll an average roll it is fucking insulting for a random hobo to beat them with a slightly above average roll. It's the game system actually shitting on your character concept and making fun of your tiny penis for daring to have a power fantasy. Basically, the game is setting you up to be Lago's Monk no matter what choices you make. There is absolutely nothing you can do to make your "kick ass" character concept not get routinely overshadowed by commoners.

And yes: that is insulting.

-Username17

So a high-level wizard counts as a "random hobo"?

[Username17]

So a high-level wizard counts as a "random hobo"?

We're talking about 4th edition, so yes. But if you insist on rationalizing that shit as minor magic or some crap that is obviously not what's going on, we can jolly well expand this to fucking minions if you want. Yeah, paragon level minions have the same skill bonuses as low level specialists. It's fucked.

But of course the reality is that people were genuinely and correctly insulted that high level characters whose concept was that they were weak and clumsy were still able to muster comparable bonuses on physical tasks to nominal specialists of lower level. Because that shit is fucking insulting.

And the 5e bullshit is worse.

-Username17

[Previn]

5e seems to have skills kind of licked.

Everyone has all skills where you can always roll a check and get the appropriate stat mod to that check regardless of what character you use, but characters with proficiency get a +2 to +6 to that check. This means that the different between a fighter with a Cha of 14 and a proficient bard with a Cha of 16 is that the bard has a +3 to a +7 more than you on the check, so basically a surmountable difference on a d20 between an expert and a regular character.

Why does that fighter have a Cha of 14? Because there are a lot better things he could be doing with it. On top of that, at 3rd level, the bard gets 2x their prof. bonus to 2 skills (and 2 more at 10th). So really, you're more likely looking at maybe a +2 for the fighter with charisma that's not a dump stat vs anything from around +5 at 1st to +17 at 17th level for the basic 'expert' Bard.

[Prak]

Maybe he fucking wanted to be pretty? Are you seriously saying people aren't allowed to have higher than average numbers in scores that aren't their key stats?

[erik]

Sadly D&D discourages that.

[Prak]

Oh, I know, but there are times when you'll have more good numbers than key stats to put them in, like if you roll well.

[Blicero]

We're talking about 4th edition, so yes. But if you insist on rationalizing that shit as minor magic or some crap that is obviously not what's going on, we can jolly well expand this to fucking minions if you want. Yeah, paragon level minions have the same skill bonuses as low level specialists. It's fucked.

But of course the reality is that people were genuinely and correctly insulted that high level characters whose concept was that they were weak and clumsy were still able to muster comparable bonuses on physical tasks to nominal specialists of lower level. Because that shit is fucking insulting.

And the 5e bullshit is worse.

-Username17

Oh sorry, I missed the fact that you were talking specifically about 4E. I agree that 4E's skill system is fucked in many ways. But that is old news. I don't know if I see anything inherently fucked with a skill system in which 10th level wizards are more acrobatic than 1st level rogues. It's a paradigm with different assumptions than what you want, but it's not a flawed paradigm in and of itself.

[Chamomile]

A high-level wizard being a better acrobat than a low-level thief doesn't strike me as a significantly worse problem than a high-level wizard being a better swordsman than a low-level fighter or able to take four times the punishment of a low-level barbarian, and thanks to scaling BAB and HP that ship has already sailed.

[Insomniac]

I understand that it sucks that a 14th level Wizard might innately sneak better than a 4th level Rogue, but the guy could play it off as centuries of being Invisible and flying.

[Deathfork]

5e seems to have skills kind of licked.

More broadly, the fixed skill difference thing was tried in 4e D&D and SAGA before it. And while those games provided considerably more difference between trained and untrained characters than 5e does, that is not what people fucking complained about. It is actually pretty insulting for a high level aging wizard to have a pretty comparable acrobatics roll to your nimble halfling thief just because the base level bonuses mostly wipe out the training bonuses. But I don't see how it's any less insulting to have random low level village elders have pretty comparable acrobatics bonuses to your nimble halfling thief because bonuses for having something be in your idiom simply aren't ever all that big in the first place.
-Username17

Do you mean a high level wizard versus a low level halfling thief?
Because if you're comparing characters of the same level, there's no way the wizard will be able to compete. At 14th level a halfling thief will have a Dex bonus +10, +5 for training and +7 for level bonus. Whereas the 14 level wizard will have Dex of maybe +2 and +7 from level. +9 vs +22 is not a trivial gap.
Even at first level, the halfling thief will have a +10 from Dex and training, so the village elders probably won't be able to touch him.

I'm not quite sure what your position is.
Are you arguing for everyone being on the RNG (which is what 4e/5e attempt to do) or is it preferable for a focused character to completely outclass an untrained character such that they aren't on the RNG anymore?
Or are you arguing that a focused character should outclass an unfocused character but still both be on the RNG?

[Aryxbez]

But of course the reality is that people were genuinely and correctly insulted that high level characters whose concept was that they were weak and clumsy were still able to muster comparable bonuses on physical tasks to nominal specialists of lower level.

So the point of being a specialist, is to have capability to what ye do at your level better than everyone else. Carving a niche/role, and possibly doing it at a bonus comparable to a character of X levels higher than you. So then, when there are foes that hit that X level having comparable bonuses to your lower level specialist, why is that insulting? Obviously a 4th level PC isn't as powerful or important to the game world vs. a 9th level, or whatever level example (other than to conceits of the story & campaign, as without PCs, campaign doesn't matter obviously.).

The idea of a "weak & clumsy" person overcoming such difficulties as time & experience goes on doesn't seem unreasonable. I figure it's the idea of heroes & other powerful folk simply "pick up" on various skills in their career over time. Like the Warrior guy who eventually knows some tricks of magic, & monsters associated with it, as he's been struck by it, saved against it, and even buttstabbed quite a gallon of those monsters most likely. Sure, some higher level minion might be able to do acrobatics better than you, but by virtue of its training, or monster-y ness, seems justifiable it has a higher bonus than something 5+levels lower than it.

Maybe I'm missing something here, but not so sure what's so insulting of heroes learning various trades & skills they pick up over their hardcore adventuring (similar goes for NPC's & their training & similar hardcore adventuring most possibly). If D&D is so heavy metal, shouldn't everyone else become metal with it?

[LeadPal]

But of course the reality is that people were genuinely and correctly insulted that high level characters whose concept was that they were weak and clumsy were still able to muster comparable bonuses on physical tasks to nominal specialists of lower level. Because that shit is fucking insulting.

If the rules are that higher-level characters are automatically better than lower-level characters at basically everything, you don't get to play a high-level character who is weak and clumsy. The concept is just not supported. High level characters are badasses who do backflips and calculus because that's what being high level means.

If there's a problem there, it's that D&D never defines what levels and XP are in-setting. Killing orcs makes your wizard more sprightly for the same reason that it lets him take more hits and cast more spells: it just does. A better game would give an actual reason.

[Lago PARANOIA]

A high-level wizard being a better acrobat than a low-level thief doesn't strike me as a significantly worse problem than a high-level wizard being a better swordsman than a low-level fighter or able to take four times the punishment of a low-level barbarian, and thanks to scaling BAB and HP that ship has already sailed.

First of all, your argument is lamesauce. 3E having a shit mechanic that few people drew a line in the sand over does not mean that it's okay for a successor to have the same shit mechanic.

Second of all, while this was a problem in 3E D&D, it was not nearly as bad as 4E D&D. Having a BAB difference of 5 or even 8 doesn't on its own make you a good fighter if we're talking about a level 5 fighter versus a level 15 wizard. Same for having 20-30 more hit points. The fighter could counter that they have martial weapon proficiency and a magic sword and the right allotment of feats and whatever -- though you'll note that people were complaining bitterly about CoDZilla and the Batman wizard near the end of that edition anyway.

If we're talking about 4E D&D skills, though, there's no room for a 'ah, but look at the gestalt' argument outside of some obscure expansion options. A 16th level wizard with +12 to +16 to untrained acrobatics is just flat-out better at tumbling than a 3rd level rogue with a mere +10.

If the rules are that higher-level characters are automatically better than lower-level characters at basically everything, you don't get to play a high-level character who is weak and clumsy. The concept is just not supported. High level characters are badasses who do backflips and calculus because that's what being high level means.

That's a stupid-ass argument and you should feel ashamed for forwarding it. Aside from the fact that 'weak and clumsy' is an equivocation, there are plenty of high-level characters in source material who are just going to suck at skills useful in an action-adventure context that a lot of heroes way below them in power level can do. Vegeta as-is is never going to roll a good Diplomacy check no matter how many levels he gains. Wonder Woman is not going to be able to use a computer to do more than look at lolcat gifs no matter how much stronger she gets. No one is going to get up in arms because the Invisible Woman accidentally stepped on a pressure plate even while paying attention to her surroundings.

[DSMatticus]

But of course the reality is that people were genuinely and correctly insulted that high level characters whose concept was that they were weak and clumsy were still able to muster comparable bonuses on physical tasks to nominal specialists of lower level. Because that shit is fucking insulting.

If the rules are that higher-level characters are automatically better than lower-level characters at basically everything, you don't get to play a high-level character who is weak and clumsy. The concept is just not supported. High level characters are badasses who do backflips and calculus because that's what being high level means.

If there's a problem there, it's that D&D never defines what levels and XP are in-setting. Killing orcs makes your wizard more sprightly for the same reason that it lets him take more hits and cast more spells: it just does. A better game would give an actual reason.

Being higher level means you go on higher level adventures and defeat higher level monsters. Full stop. End of story. That is all it means. Wizards don't solve problems by backflipping at them and if they do then your game is stupid and you should feel bad*. They solve problems with magic, and as long as they continue to unlock magic abilities that allow them to participate in new adventures and defeat new monsters fitting of their new level, then it does not matter what happens to their backflip skill.

Characters only need to improve at the things that they need to improve at in order to overcomes the things characters of their level are supposed to be able to overcome. And for wizards, backflipping is solidly not needed.

*Exceptions abound for "wizards" that are actually muscle wizards, ninja wizards, grapplemancers, or whatever the fuck. I'm not opposed to those things, they're just not what I'm talking about right now.

[Blicero]

Wonder Woman is not going to be able to use a computer to do more than look at lolcat gifs no matter how much stronger she gets. No one is going to get up in arms because the Invisible Woman accidentally stepped on a pressure plate even while paying attention to her surroundings.

Is that even the case? Sure, Wonder Woman is never going to hack as well as Batman or whoever the fuck the hacker characters are in DC. But if you take a random nonsuper schmo off the street and told me Wonder Woman had a better Computers skill than them, I wouldn't be "This is insulting." Same with Invisible Woman.

Wonder Woman is not going to be very good at solving level-appropriate hacking challenges, sure. But I'm willing to accept to accept a system where she easily solves a level 5 or whatever hacking challenge without many problems.

[Lago PARANOIA]

If Wonder Woman had been shown on-screen/panel as getting hacking lessons from a reputable trainer and attending community college, that's fine. No one is going to whine about Superman being able to design a slick website for his charity or put together an award-winning digital photo album, because he's a fucking journalist. Similarly, as a chemist and a forensic scientist no one is going to complain about The Flash whipping up a new polymer or clearing out the DNA testing backlog.

However, I do object to characters just being able to pull skills like that out of their ass for no other reason than it being a 'natural' extension of Wonder Woman flying and bench-pressing trucks. That's just boner-bitingly stupid.

[TiaC]

Wizards don't solve problems by backflipping at them and if they do then your game is stupid and you should feel bad.

It could be a cool mechanic to make high level spells have more intense somatic components. So casting Time Stop would involve backflips.

[Blicero]

If Wonder Woman had been shown on-screen/panel as getting hacking lessons from a reputable trainer and attending community college, that's fine. No one is going to whine about Superman being able to design a slick website for his charity or put together an award-winning digital photo album, because he's a fucking journalist. Similarly, as a chemist and a forensic scientist no one is going to complain about The Flash whipping up a new polymer or clearing out the DNA testing backlog.

However, I do object to characters just being able to pull skills like that out of their ass for no other reason than it being a 'natural' extension of Wonder Woman flying and bench-pressing trucks. That's just boner-bitingly stupid.

Why? All of your complaints basically boil down to "I don't like it so it's bad." Do you have actual reasons, or is it just a taste thing?