I really want to like 5E. I really want to. I'd say I loved 4E, but that may bias some of you to my view points below, but oh well.
There are a number of things in 5E that jump out at me as just poor design choices, and I'm hoping you all can asuage my fears about the system.
1) Feet. Why would you use a system of measurement that can be broken down into singles, when you're only ever going to use them in sets of 5?
2) Saving Throws. Saving throws are good, but having to roll for them each time a new one is needed seems a little tedious. I much prefered the static stats generated in 4E.
3) Concentration. Similar to saving throws, I just don't see a need for it.
Are these things that I will be able to do away with, coming out in the DMG/PHB?
DMG should contain rules for swapping out Saving Throws for 4e style defences.
I doubt there will be a rule that explicitly states it, maybe grid combat, or it might have been in Basic, but just divide the number of feet by 5 and call them squares. There is no way they are going to put two measurements of every distance in there.
Concentration, I doubt they will have alternate rules for. If enough people complain, there may be one in the DMG, but really, modify it as you will. Have casters able to cast multiple concentration spells, but only have the last one to be cast broken on a failed check... Or do away with the concentration checks entirely. Or do away with concentration entirely - which may result in seriously powerful casters. Or do away with it entirely but have concentration spells work only 30 seconds (5 rounds), The sky is the limit. :D
EDIT: Honestly, if those are your biggest problems, you should be fine to play this edition.
Bohrdumb wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Mike Mearls said the Concentration rule is critical and cannot be removed without major effects on the entire system (I'm paraphrasing him). The entire spell system has been balanced based on the concentration mechanic. For example, all the buff spells have been made A LOT more powerful, especially in the context of bounded accuracy, but the tradeoff is that you can only have one of them active at a time, and there is a way to stop it by forcing the caster to lose concentration. The Bless spell, for example, now provides +1 to +4 bonus to attacks and saves, which is very impressive in a system where it is very hard to get a +1 to your attacks and saves. The balance is that you can't have the cleric cast bless and simultaneously cast a bunch other buffs on the party, which would break the system and make the party invulnerable to appropriate level monsters. If you remove the concentration mechanic, you need to rewrite all the concentration spells to reduce their power and duration, and provide other more effective ways for opponents to counter those buff spells, or you need to seriously increase the power of non-spell casters and monsters. Or you will have super-powerful casters, non-casters who feel weak and useless by comparison, and monsters and encounters that feel weak and boring.
zoroaster99 wrote:
spelley wrote:
"chance to break on a hit" is what gives Fighters more oomph in the game.
Sure that wizard may wield cosmic powers, but if my warrior can smack him in the face it will stop whatever shennanigans he is up to.
Serves as both a common fantasy/storytelling trope and a ballancing factor.
autolycus wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
I'm not saying it doesn't add a useful balance to things, I'm saying it's a mechanic that just requires more rolls. If there's one thing D&D doesn't need, it's more dice rolling.
The only genuine advances I've seen so far have been the RP stuff, everything else just feels rehashed, and that saddens me.
Bohrdumb wrote:
myrpg wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
The best answer for the first problem, in my opinion, would have been to use meters, or yards if they must be stubborn.
1 meter is 3.28 feet, which is a touch over a yard, so it's not a terrible substitute for a five foot square. If they had done that, then any time a player saw 10 meters, they could know it means 10 squares on a grid. DONE! With most of the world using metric system it isn't the worst idea out there.
Bohrdumb wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Feet, squares, yards, meters, etc are all in service to absolute positioning. Even if you're playing "in the mind," you are using an imaginary X,Y grid to do it. All absolute positioning is on a grid.
Moving off-grid would require relative positioning, like Wrecan's SARNFU, DW's ranges, or 13th Age's.
bawylie wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
bawylie wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
You are not accepting the rules as written when you view movement/range that way. In the example the goblin can move the 1 to 30 feet (1 to 5 squares, just so you understand) to make the attack on the PC. Also it is not fair of you to suggest all players everywhere only use 5' increments. Maybe in your experience that is the case, but not in mine.
As to your second point, saves or defenses equal one roll. I do not see how using either increase the number of rolls made.
I've removed content from this thread. Trolling/baiting is a violation of the Code of Conduct, as is edition warring.
You can review the Code of Conduct here: company.wizards.com/conduct
Please remember to keep your posts polite, on topic and refrain from personal attacks. You are free to disagree with one another as long as it is done in a respectful manner.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
And it would be best to use 2 meters.
What's really missing is tactical powers. Granted, we've only seen the "basic" classes, which are supposed to be simple, but there just isn't that many fun things to do in combat.
I've never been a fan of Theater of the Mind, I've seen too many times when the DM lost track of where everyone was and it was very jarring, like moving people to different buildings by accident by attacking them with thugs, even when they were still outside the fight.
In fact, in that same game(which wasn't D&D) I had to correct the GM. I'd lured off some goons, bad choice on my part since it turned out since my pre-genned character was weaker than I thought. During the struggle I attacked then retreated, the GM tried to have the goon attack me twice, and I pointed out he couldn't because I had moved away. He got upset and had the guy toss his knife, which critted... I really didn't do well for the rest of the game.
By the way, I understand this is anecdotal and really doesn't invalidate people who like TotM, I just prefer using a grid so no one loses track of where they are during a fight
Hurin88 wrote:
Some benefits of having players roll saving throws is that it keeps the victim (the PC) involved off turn, and it gives the player an active defense when attacked with spells or effects that call for saving throws.
When I started running 4e (which made spell attacks, poison attacks, etc.) my players (who were used to saves) felt violated. They hated when a creature's attack hit them and the condition was automatic.
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Chaosmancer wrote:
1eejit wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Rhenny wrote:
edwin_su wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Youngy wrote:
Strangely I find myself agreeing with Cyber-Dave on what he said in his prior post.
It's rational to say a game is not for you because it does not appeal to your tastes. It is also rational to feel slighted if a game has traditionally supported your tastes and now doesn't. I think someone from any D&D background could view 5e in that way. The game crosses the line somewhere for somebody in some way.
We each have to decide whether to accept things we don't like and try and modify them out or we play another game. Both are rational choices given the right set of circumstances. For me, my group will play whatever I put in front of them including even a game written by me. So when I look at 5e, I only consider it in that light. I can accept it or reject it but whatever I do it will be solely because of the game. I don't have other constraints influencing my decision.
In my own thinking, I do feel that 5e has made a genuine effort to appeal to other playstyles. At least many of them. Personally I think their 4e support in some areas was week but then perhaps that is more of a PHB thing so we will see. I also think that right out of the gate the devs decided the DS mechanic issue was not something they'd try to avoid. I mean they pretty much are batting almost a thousand on that count when fixing it would have been pretty easy. They also believe that the gamist concerns surrounding healing mandate a non-magical approach. That fits their concept of how the game is played. It doesn't fit my own concept though. A DS mechanic stands out like a toothache for me so I have to houserule it out if I'm going to use the rules. I also do not like martial healing. I am not necessarily a low healing guy especially at later levels but I prefer a magical explanation. I never imagine a 1 hit point guy as not being physical injured in some way. I'm not going to either. It would destroy the narrative and feel of my game. So that is another thing I'll have to houserule.
I can do all of that. I am a good houseruler. If though the DMG decides to totally ignore the playerbase asking for these things then I believe I'm done with wotc. I can houserule lots of games. Having D&D on the cover has in the past mattered a little to me but if they make two completely unusable set of rules in a row I might as well give up on the name.
Another option would be to start with the basic pdf and houserule it into a "old school" basic pdf. You can substitute whatever you want for "old school" as it pertains to my playstyle. I really don't need a lot beyond the pdf. Monsters of course but those are coming.
Rhenny wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
BadMike wrote:
myrpg wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Bohrdumb wrote:
Emerikol. wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
ChrisCarlson wrote:
So, I'm liking lots of bits of 5e, but I completely agree that it creates unneeded complexity. Saves and Defenses are not as interchangeable as you would think.
First off, 6 saves is definitely more complex than 3 defenses. If saving throws used the skill system or simply did not include proficiency bonuses, they would be more simple, but they don't. Having proficiency often means you 6 additional numbers to track when rolling. Add to this the fact that you get various spells, feats, and other features that modify your saving throws. Even worse, so do so with proficiency, others with a flat modifier, while others use advantage. There is no rhyme or reason to how saving throws are improved through various abilities. This makes tracking your 6 saves even harder. You also have to keep track of save DC and magic attack bonus separately! So instead of having 5 numbers to track (AC, Fort, Ref, Will, Attack) you have to keep track of 9 numbers (AC, Str Save, Con Save, Dex Save, Int Save, Wis Save, Cha Save, Attack, Save DC). That is almost twice as much to keep track of.
Next, you have the way saves interact with the games core rules. An archer standing right next to his target suffers disadvantage on his attack. A cleric using sacred flame however is not penalized at all. Now what if you are attacking an invisible foe? The fighter suffers disadvantage because he cannot see his target, but the cleric's spell is unhindered. Or what about the cleric who has 3 levels of exhaustion being completely unaffected when he casts his spells while the poor exhausted fighter has disadvantage to every roll he makes. Hell, even a restrained spellcaster can cast spells without penalty. Saving throw spells and attacks follow entirely different resolution systems. I have already seen this trip up both players and DMs who are new to 5e.
Lastly, you have issues with the way spells and attacks function with regards to other abilities. For example, a battlemaster fighter can grant a creature an attack. Because spells are not classified as attacks, he cannot allow the wizard to cast a cantrip, but he can allow the rogue to make a 10d6 damage sneak attack. You also have spells and other abilities requiring additional wording due to the difference between saves and defenses. The prayer spell gives +1 AC and to all saving throws, while it could have been a simple +1 to all defenses.
The difference between saves and defenses undoubtedly makes 5e more complex than it needs to be. You may be fine with the complexity that comes from differentiating saving throws and defenses, but you cannot make an argument that this difference has no effect on the games complexity.
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
I thought there was an overwhelmingly positive feedback about how simple and easy to use the 5e rules are during the playtest.
Seriously, there reallly is no limited to trolling and bad faith on the Internet. Saying you prefer more or less character options than in 5e are valid complaint. Saying that combat in 5e is too simple, lack tactical depth, and that utility magic is a bit too powerful are all valid complaints. But all of these are personal preferences. Prefering squares over feet and NADs over saving throws are also valid preferences. But that's all it is. Preference. Making up complexity issues over this is really poor form. You don't need to justify your preferences (and nobody has the right to challenge them).
Bohrdumb wrote:
Hurin88 wrote:
Note to Dave: I'm not saying 5e is more complex than 4e, I am merely pointing out that the action resolution mechanic of 5e could have been further simplified by using defenses an treating spells like attacks.
Carry on.
Edit: I also never said that rolling a save is more complex than rolling an attack. In terms of pure resolution, the mechanics are equally simple. The complexity comes in from interactions with other game elements such as advantage.
Hurin88 wrote:
Is this thread just another giant 4e vs. 5e thread?
Mephi1234 wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Mephi1234 wrote:
Gnarl wrote:
I leave for 2 days and the board turns into the Big Purple...
i like the 4E defenses system, as well, but I also like players tossing dice. So my fix will be monsters with defenses and PC's with saves. How's that for needlessly complex?:-)
Lawolf wrote:
Lawolf wrote:
Saw this on FB earlier and thought it was rather apropos to this thread:
Cyber-Dave wrote:
pukunui wrote:
Lawolf wrote: