[a / b / c / d / e / f / g / gif / h / hr / k / m / o / p / r / s / t / u / v / vg / vm / vmg / vr / vrpg / vst / w / wg] [i / ic] [r9k / s4s / vip / qa] [cm / hm / lgbt / y] [3 / aco / adv / an / bant / biz / cgl / ck / co / diy / fa / fit / gd / hc / his / int / jp / lit / mlp / mu / n / news / out / po / pol / pw / qst / sci / soc / sp / tg / toy / trv / tv / vp / vt / wsg / wsr / x / xs] [Settings] [Search] [Mobile] [Home]
Board
Settings Mobile Home
/tg/ - Traditional Games

[Advertise on 4chan]


Thread archived.
You cannot reply anymore.


[Advertise on 4chan]


File: url(8).png (802 KB, 780x516)
802 KB
802 KB PNG
What are the problems with D&D 5E, what did other versions do better?
>>
>>81691281
in my estimation, 5e's biggest problem is that the rules are just complete enough that players and DMs sometimes assume you can't do something not already covered by them (called shots may be rarely used in 3.x/PF so they skipped them for 5e, but I'm trying to cut off a beholder's eyestalks here, or at least blind his center eye, and the DM telling me I can't just because he can't find a rule for it is frustrating)
also, passive perception is never used correctly; nowhere in the rules does it say that it does anything other than spot potential ambushes and hiding enemies. If you want to spot a trap, there's a one-off mention for it as an OPTIONAL rule in the DMG and the example given for the trigger was a tripwire in the open, so if you want to find a trap you damn well better be searching for one
>>
>>81691281
Advantage/Disadvantage is a garbage mechanic that streamlines the entire game down to a yes/no binary.
>>
>>81691281
I highly recommend you read up on the OSR movement, then read up on 2nd edition, and finally the 3rd edition of the game. They're all WILDLY different, yet they all have certain things that they do better than 5e.
>>
it's boring, wotc should have made a fun game
>>
>>81691281
It's not 4e so it's not for me.
>>
>>81691281
Combat is boring, character creation is garbage leading players to scour supplements for different races to play so they at least have mechanics to fool around with, skills not having sub-categories leads to players constantly stepping on each others toes,
>>
>>81691281
Most often the problem is that you're playing it with the wrong people.

>>81691388
>passive perception
Yeah, that really is poorly communicated. According to Crawford, passive perception is always on and you effectively can't roll lower than 10. This is never really stated in the rules.

>>81691409
What do you suggest as a better way to handle it, which doesn't involve tracking a dozen modifiers?
>>
I haven't played any other editions but god damn do pathfinder spells look more cool than 5e spells.
>>
PF2e doesn't have the problems mentioned here, try it out.
>>
>>81691831
Just have modifiers but not loads of them, plenty of other games do it. 3.5 had massive modifier bloat but the answer was not "Remove modifiers entirely lmao"
>>
>>81691831
tracking modifiers isn't a bad or particularely difficult thing. Excluding it from the discussion is artificially safeguarding yourself against perfectly workable solutions.
>>
>>81691409
>yes/no binary
It's advantage / no advantage / disadvantage, so ternary.
I think dis/advantage as a mechanic is fun because rolling two dice is mechanically more fun than adding a modifier post-roll. Also, what gives dis/advantage makes sense most of the time. That said, the way multiple dis/advantages work to either cancel each other out or make each other redundant is irritating.

>>81691831
There's no reason to add sources of dis/advantage. Just make it so a dis/advantages can outweigh the opposing side (2 adv >= 1 dis would result in advantage, but 3 adv >= 2 dis would not, for example), and also so that having an excessive amount of advantage-giving effects with no disadvantage-giving effects gives a third d20 because super advantage.
>doesn't involve tracking a dozen modifiers
Usually dis/advantage is granted by some effect you have to keep track of anyway.
>>
File: advantage.png (58 KB, 1060x379)
58 KB
58 KB PNG
>>81692101
>There's no reason to add sources of dis/advantage.
There still is a mechanical reason to do so. If one of the sources can go away (e.g. through saving throws or just moving to another field), the other still sticks.
>also so that having an excessive amount of advantage-giving effects with no disadvantage-giving effects gives a third d20 because super advantage.
Things that can give you an advantage should be so major (advantage is a +3.3 bonus on average) that you can't really stack three or more of them.
If you really want to add super-advantage to your game, nothing prevents you from houseruling it, outside of AL games. Though I don't even see a reason to roll if your target is blinded, prone and restrained.
>>
>>81691281
4e did better races, sorcerers, warlocks and gishes.
>>
Customization is stored in races rather than classes. This is a bad thing, doubly so now that the rules are being updated to essentially make all races potentially nearly identical without properly updating the classes.

You're given no real reason to not minmax given not minmaxing doesn't sufficiently increase the fun. Too many subclasses are trash without a compelling reason to pick them for mechanical enjoyment.

I ultimately prefer it to other editions but it needs work, and unfortunately the updates they're doing are focused on the wrong things.
>>
>>81692446
Also had Warlords, epic levels, and more!
>>
>>81691865
Don't worry it has enough of it's own problems to also be shit.
>>
>>81692446
>warlocks
4e warlocks were boring as fuck. They had like four things to do out of combat across 30 levels.
>>
>>81691281
I only played 3.5 before it but combat is so boring and takes ages to conclude. Coupled with HP bloat of enemies on higher levels makes it so dull. Its like I’m playing an analog mmorpg.
>>
File: 4e_Players_Handbook.jpg (241 KB, 400x550)
241 KB
241 KB JPG
Have you tried playing 4e?
>>
File: pathfinder-2e.jpg (190 KB, 983x1200)
190 KB
190 KB JPG
>>81692469

Have you tried playing Pathfinder 2e?
>>
>>81692462
compared to what? Spam Eldritch Blast? Kekw.

>>81691281
shit monster manual math, advantage/disadvantage, poorly handled supplements ( Leading to Charisma mutliclass memes), shallow while pretending not to be, cancerous culture/effect on younger DND players becomine streamslaves.
>>
>>81692477
bad game

>>81692469
decent game that soured over time, with a bad community

>> inevitable sotdl post
stop forcing this meme to sell splatbooks.
>>
>>81692479
Playing a fiend warlock in 5e and getting great mileage in and out of combat out of Mage Hand, Minor Illusion, Command, Find Familiar, Silent Image, Invisibility, Suggestion, Spider Climb, Summon Undead (TCoE) and Fireball. And yes, EB with Agonizing/Repelling Blast. That's after only 6 levels. The 4e PHB warlock can only really do two to three of those things, if you count Avernian Eruption as a substitute for Fireball.

>>81692487
> inevitable sotdl post
Was waiting for that post as well to say that boons are no better than advantage/disadvantage.
>>
>>81691281
releasing new books at a glacially slow pace
>>
>>81692459
>>81692487
Let's hear them then.
>>
>>81691281
the fact that the development team is so retarded that they don't do erratas and that all the bullshit RAW rulings that make no sense are RAI
>>
>>81691281
Too popular for /tg nogamers. Don't ask fo any alternative, every RPG is shit.
>>
>>81692617
>boons are no better than advantage/disadvantage.
How do you figure?
>>
>>81692771
For folks that while about lack of granularity with advantage, the effect of one boon/bane in SotDL is roughly the same (5e advantage is +3.3 on average, one boon is +3.5). Multiple boons have diminishing returns, on average two are just +4.5 and three are +5 (roughly the same as "super-advantage" in 5e, used in RAW only by the Lucky feat).
Boons/banes have pretty much the same effects on average as advantage/disadvantage, so they're no better as a mechanic. Whether boons/banes are worse depends on how much you care about bounded accuracy. If you don't, they are also no worse.
>>
I just want 4e (non-essentials) class and monster design back. If they can do it while keeping the numbers low, good.

>>81693011
They are already better because they cancel out on a 1:1 basis instead of a 1:as many as you fucking want basis. They are also better exactly because they modify what is possible, so help can actually make you succeed in things that usually wouldn't be possible (and vice versa), and they are still limited at +6 at the most, which still makes it pretty bounded.
>>
>>81691882
When considering modifiers as an alternative to advantage/disadvantage you also have to think about how that interacts with the stated Bounded Accuracy philosophy of the game. It might be as simple as "you only get one bonus, so figure out all that might apply and use the largest of them."
>>
>>81693011
Diminishing returns is the whole point though. More boons, past 3, aren't valuable because of the boost to to-hit but because they more effectively negate the effects of a bane. Although it should be noted that more boons do actually increase your odds, more advantage doesn't. Going from 1 boon to 1 bane is a massive swing, going from 4 boons to 2 boons is not nearly so bad. On top of that boons/banes also modify the range of values you can get, rather than just the odds of the values. So 1d20 + Xd6k1 + Y gives you a higher result than 2d20k1 + Y. They're also always impactful, it's totally possible for an Advantage roll to not actually give a different result than an unmodified roll, that's not possible with boons/banes. Its also a universal modifier for SotDL which means it's integrated into the system far more. Generally just all upsides IMO
>>
>>81692487
>stop forcing this meme to sell splatbooks.
That's the real meme, the whole point is so you have to spend as little money as possible.
>>
>>81693031
>They are already better because they cancel out on a 1:1 basis instead of a 1:as many as you fucking want basis.
So if your opponent is blinded, prone and restrained, but you are also blinded, you think you should only get a -0.5 to your roll compared to if you weren't blinded?
How often does having a disadvantage yourself and two or more sources of advantage even come up?

>They are also better exactly because they modify what is possible
So the GM has to adapt DCs accordingly for things that really shouldn't be possible.

>>81693234
>Generally just all upsides IMO
Zero-sum IMO. Both work okay, neither are great.

>>81693200
>you only get one bonus, so figure out all that might apply and use the largest of them.
That's what PF2 does for bonuses of the same type (of 5 types I think: ability, proficiency, circumstance, item and status).
>>
>>81693334
>Zero-sum IMO. Both work okay, neither are great.
You're really gonna have to do a better job of explaining why then.
>>
>>81693368
Not like any amount of explanation is going to change opinions on either side. I try to keep it objective, but in the end it comes down to how you think multiple things should factor into the results. And some people just prefer to use much more retarded resolution methods due to tradition and vague "feelings".
>>
>>81693334
>That's what PF2 does for bonuses of the same type (of 5 types I think: ability, proficiency, circumstance, item and status).
In practice this is largely what 5E does too: mostly you're only ever going to be applying one ability bonus and applying your proficiency modifier only once (there are a handful of exceptions to each) and in most situations where you're adding a bonus due to an item, you'll only have one item granting you a relevant bonus.
On the other hand 5E doesn't have anything directly equivalent to circumstance or status modifiers/bonuses (are statuses in PF2E similar conditions in PF1E/5E?) which is often where advantage and disadvantage are going to arise from. Cover could be argued to be a form of circumstance modifier but alters the target AC rather than the die roll. I don't know to what extent non-stacking circumstance or status modifiers are going to produce meaningfully different results to non-stacking advantage/disadvantage but I don't have personal experience of PF2E to draw on there.
>>
>>81691281
>>81691418
I think this anon's got it right, that the best comparison would be against a similar heroic fantasy game like 2E rather than anything older. Off the top of my head
>morale
>character creation is extremely quick
>lots of modularity
>a tacit explanation that the game cannot and does not cover every situation, and therefore the DM must adjudicate situations without explicit rules
>no skill lists (beyond thieves) promotes engaging with the world in a more immersive sense rather than fishing for skill check
>morale
>class/race stat requirements and race-class restrictions lessen the load of choices the player has to make, and promotes a feeling of rarity and excitement around rolling a Paladin or Ranger, etc
>morale
>combat is much smoother and takes a few minutes with even 10+ combatants (2E by default uses side initiative which really speeds things up)
>MORALE (seriously 5E players and DMs do not understand how dynamic and quick morale checks for monsters/enemies makes combat, and giving every single enemy a MORALE stat promotes not having shit fight to the death without cause)
>can run a wider variety of games between the old school dungeon crawl and new school heroic story shlock, whereas 5E's dungeon procedure and support is entirely nonexistent
>lots and lots of fucking addons and modules (seriously, even with 5E whoring itself out to every dumbfucks twitch game, they can't hold a candle to the metric fuckton of stuff 2E put out, the settings especially)
>Planescape
>Dark Sun
Case closed.
>>
>>81693405
Weird you think that discussions only use is to change minds, but you do you. No need to be an ass about it though.
>>
>>81693496
Can someone give an objective, non console war opinion on why someone would pick 1st edition D&D vs. AD&D/2nd ed vs. some other fantasy system entirely of your choosing? I hated 3.5 and hate 5 even more somehow.
>>
File: Hoard.jpg (454 KB, 1600x1120)
454 KB
454 KB JPG
>>81691281
I like the profiency system for skills, backgrounds are nice for people who struggle with character building though people need to know it's customizable
>>
4e is the best.
And by that I mean HackMaster. I don't know any other games that have you roll on a table during character creation to see how much your parents loved you.
>>
>>81693496
>>morale
DMG, pg. 273
>>character creation is extremely quick
Pick a race, pick a class, roll or array attributes, pick or roll a background, pick equipment from choices of two or three isn't slow either.
>>lots of modularity
Tons of optional and variant rules.
>>a tacit explanation that the game cannot and does not cover every situation
Said multiple times, e.g.
>The rules don't account for every possible situation that might arise during a typical D&D session. For example, a player might want his or her character to hurl a brazier full of hot coals into a monster's face. How you determine the outcome of this action is up to you.
2nd DMG page after the TOC.
>>no skill lists (beyond thieves) promotes engaging with the world in a more immersive sense rather than fishing for skill check
Fishing is not a skill in 5e.
>>morale
See above.
>>class/race stat requirements and race-class restrictions lessen the load of choices the player has to make, and promotes a feeling of rarity and excitement around rolling a Paladin or Ranger, etc
That's plain retarded and caters to special snowflakes.
>>morale
See above.
>>2E by default uses side initiative which really speeds things up
Side initiative is a variant rule, DMG pg. 270.
>>MORALE (seriously 5E players and DMs do not understand how dynamic and quick morale checks for monsters/enemies makes combat, and giving every single enemy a MORALE stat promotes not having shit fight to the death without cause)
See above.
>>can run a wider variety of games between the old school dungeon crawl and new school heroic story shlock, whereas 5E's dungeon procedure and support is entirely nonexistent
Lies, read the DMG.
>>lots and lots of fucking addons and modules (seriously, even with 5E whoring itself out to every dumbfucks twitch game, they can't hold a candle to the metric fuckton of stuff 2E put out, the settings especially)
Just run your own adventure, dumb fuck. 2e splats were shit.
>>Planescape
>>Dark Sun
Fair points.
>>
>>81692462
>laughs in curse of the dark dream abuse
4th combat, for all of the game's myriad flaws, was worlds better
>>
>>81692285
I think you misunderstood. I'm all for counting how many dis/advantageous effects there are. That's why I suggested mechanics based around counting the number of dis/advantages.
>Things that can give you an advantage should be so major [...] that you can't really stack three or more of them.
This is basically true for all except rolls to hit. In combat it's not uncommon at all to have two sources of advantage, and stacking on a third would be easy if it did anything. As this issue is mostly with martial damage output there are obvious ways around it like avoiding martials or making encounters about tactics more than dealing damage.
>>
I'm still not convinced that advantage is bad.
>>
>>81694014
>3d8 + Charisma modifier psychic damage, and you slide the target 3 squares.
Nice out-of-combat thing to do.
>>
>>81693334
>So if your opponent is blinded, prone and restrained, but you are also blinded, you think you should only get a -0.5 to your roll compared to if you weren't blinded?
Well Blinded is 3 banes on attacks, but Blinded, Prone, and Immobilised all grant 1 boon to attack the effected target. So whiles Blinded you'd have 0 boons/banes but if you weren't Blinded you'd swing to 3 boons. So its a pretty huge jump.

>How often does having a disadvantage yourself and two or more sources of advantage even come up?
In 5e, IDK, but in SotDL it's all the time. There are basically no flat mods in SotDL. Paths grants boons to the things they're good at, spells grants buffs, afflictions impose banes, creature traits impose banes, environmental effects are all banes. The whole system is boons/banes outside of stat mods.

>So the GM has to adapt DCs accordingly for things that really shouldn't be possible.
No, because DCs are 10, it's boons/banes that modify difficulty. But that's also not what was meant. Boons increase the totals you can rolls, advantage doesn't. But also why would a GM tell you to roll for something that isn't possible?
>>
>>81694229
>Well Blinded is 3 banes on attacks, but Blinded, Prone, and Immobilised all grant 1 boon to attack the effected target. So whiles Blinded you'd have 0 boons/banes but if you weren't Blinded you'd swing to 3 boons. So its a pretty huge jump
Okay, I was under the assumption that you'd only get single boons per effect. But let's say I'm blinded and they're only blinded and immobilised. I have 1 bane, or 37.5% to beat DC 10. If I make them prone and even things out, it raises to 55% (equivalent to +3.5). Get another boon, I beat the roll 72.5% of the time. These are huge swings, but they only really matter that much around a net of -1, 0 or +1. Personally, I don't like it.
>No, because DCs are 10
Right, I remembered that about SotDL after the post. But in that case, does it even matter that boons let you roll a 26? And does it mean you can't really make a roll where players have less than a 25-30% chance to succeed?
>But also why would a GM tell you to roll for something that isn't possible?
He shouldn't, but it's not uncommon for DMs to set a DC of 30 or so for things that are extremely unlikely if players really whine about wanting to seduce the dragon. And then everyone claps.
>>
>>81692462
Or you could just pick up rituals. Hell, there's a warlock feat that just let them steal any utility effect.

I will say that 4e really should have given everyone some cantrips, instead of just randomly assigning them to some classes.
>>
>>81691281
The obvious: WotC is unrepentantly sucking off casterfags while keeping martials stuffed hard, something addressed just fine in 4e and even the unreleased versions of 5e.
>>
>>81692617
>Playing a fiend warlock in 5e and getting great mileage in and out of combat out of being a shittier wizard
>>
The real question is what changes do you think they're going to make in the 50th anniversary edition?
>>
>>81693574
>1st edition D&D vs. AD&D/2nd ed
2e is like patch notes to 1e. A lot of the rules in 1e are vaguely worded, complicated, and sometimes outright contradictory. 2e streamlines the rules and makes them more readable and usable. However in the process, it drops a lot of the flavor from the DMG, and all the quirky, cool and useful tables.

> vs. some other fantasy system entirely of your choosing?
Depends on which system, but vs 3.5, AD&D (1&2) have no feats, less character customization, and lower power level for characters.
vs 5e they’re just better in every way and I cannot be less hyperbolic about it.
>>
>>81693496
>no skill lists (beyond thieves)
Thieves Skills lists seem a bit weird to me, as someone who's seen them in a few OSR-y systems - in general, I get that having a big Skill list, for all characters, can be cumbersome and annoying, but why do these get a pass/used?

Do they imply that ONLY a thief can do these things (or do them with any chance of success) ? - there's shit like Climb, Move Silently - useful for a thief, but fairly normal.

If only the thief can do this then fair enough, they're useful, but everyone else is dumb and the verisimilitude is weak.
If not, then why does the thief have them when a GM will allow anyone to attempt such things?
(also can lead to rolled-stat non-thieves having a better chance of doing something than a supposed expert at doing those things, because Stats > Skills, and most of these games LOVE their rolled stats)
>>
Have y'all fellas heard of GURPS?
>>
>>81695005
That's already a feat tax of 2 to be a shittier wizard when I can be a shittier wizard in 5e out of the gate.
>Hell, there's a warlock feat that just let them steal any utility effect.
Which feat are you even talking about? Don't see anything like that in the PHB.

>>81695027
It's fun since I'm not an optimizationfag. I also have a better familiar, a better damage cantrip and get more high-level spells per day until level 11. Can't complain.
>>
>>81695290
Have you actually played it?
>>
>>81695255
It's a matter of thieves doing them FAR better than everyone else. For picking locks, it's that they do it faster, quieter, and more precisely (and can pick advanced locks that others could never pick). For finding and disarming (or for that matter, setting) traps, I treat it as a saving throw % while exploring to spot a trap trigger before others do. As for disarming and setting, they are just much better about it - anyone could figure means of bypassing a trap, certainly, but a thief can set it to be disabled for x-time period, or change the sensitivity of a pressure plate to only spring for people heavier than the party, or things like that. Move Silently is better than normal stealth - if they fail that they don't turn into a tornado of pots and pans, they just use normal surprise rules, while hide in shadows literally turns them invisible vs. even infravision/darkvision/tremorsense! Climbing is their most 'normal' skill and even at that they are significantly better than others and can become better than spiders, able to scale slippery ice walls canted at 45 degrees upside down with their bare hands.
Even Read Languages is an odd one, because it lets them get the gist of things from broad exposure rather than the exact wording (unless they are very skilled at it), but could even (it doesn't seem to imply otherwise) comprehend runes or magical text. They do, after all, gain the ability to use wands, scrolls, staves, and so on at level 10!

Thieves get quite a bit of value from their skills. It's all they have, really, since they are atrocious at anything else. Worst saves, worst combat ability (even below a wizard, realistically speaking, unless the wizard packs no combat spells whatsoever), next to worst HD... so you best not treat those skills as just mundane, or the thief is less than useless.
>>
>>81695394
I have actually, it's very fun game and im currently building a Girls Und Panzer game in it using the WW2 Vehicules book. It's gonna be hella cool when it actually gets underway.
>>
>>81695345
>That's already a feat tax of 2

You get a feat every 2 levels in 4e, and you . Spending 1-2 on utility is perfectly fine. Besides, I thought you are
>not an optimizationfag

>to be a shittier wizard

But you are not a shittier wizard. Unlike in 5e, the 4e warlock has its own unique power list. You are a warlock, which is different from, but also an equal of the wizard. And then you can also pick up rituals if you want.

Meanwhile, the 5e warlock has the entirely same spells, but learns less and has to stop after every fight and have like at least 4 fights a day to even compare. He does get a nice cantrip tho, that lets him pretend to be a fighter with a longbow. The familiar is also kinda nice. Too bad you get all that by the third of your 20 levels.

>core

Everything is core in 4e. Just boot up a CBLoader.
>>
>>81695557
>You get a feat every 2 levels in 4e as well as on lvl 1, and you have 30 levels instead of 20
>>
File: party.jpg (14 KB, 236x242)
14 KB
14 KB JPG
I've been playing and DMing 5e exclusively for like five years now and while it is good, I do have some problems with it

>>81691409
Advantage/disadvantage is definitely one of them and >>81691882 is absolutely right. The mechanic is an unnecessary simplification when the keyword bonus mechanic in 3e was objectively better. If they wanted to further monkey-proof it they could have started color coded them "hurdur, blue plusses don't stack with other blue plusses"

>>81693200
Bounded accuracy is a lazy design philosophy implemented from the beginning to allow hacks to create rules that are actually meaningless and are invariably already implemented elsewhere. It doomed 5e from the beginning to die in the end from boredom rather than from brokenness, which 4e also would have died from if it hadn't been actively killed because of its dismissal of legacy.

>>81693496
>>81693626
A lot of the OSR fans seem to think that everything outside combat was like improv theater. It wasn't. Skill checks (roll under your stat on a D20) have always been a thing with situational modifiers standing in for DC and when 2e introduced non-weapon proficiencies everybody loved the opportunity to further customize their characters by getting bonuses to certain specific tasks every time

>>81693744
2e splats are absolutely shit you are correct. It is sometimes argued that 2e is so broken it is more clear that it requires DM fiat but that's not any kind of a goal any future game development should have. What 2e splats more clearly show is the inherent contradiction between economic success and the spirit of D&D. Ultimately, any rule being included in a game should be at the DM's discretion but players are the ones who buy the most books.

>>81695101
The core 2e books do clarify 1e better and include the good additional material but then 2e's additional material commits all the sins they originally atoned for, mortally.
>>
>>81691281
Most d20 systems suck ass because they are obsessed with classes that do overly specific things. In order to make a fun game with lots of options with the way classes are done in 5th requires an insane amount of splat bloat to add classes/prestige/class options. 3.5 was garbage because there was no balance between the classes at all. 5th is a little better about this, but they haven't released as much shit for it yet.
>>
I like how 3.5fags always say that PF2e is a bad game but they never give authentic criticism, it's just "This is different than 3.5" all the fucking time
>>
Anyway one big problem with 5e is how easy healing is. Not only does it alter the tactical element of healing it changes the way time passes. Leveling up, training skills etc also used to take in-world time. Now adventurers entire careers happen in a matter of weeks without something like Adventurer's League "downtime days" mechanic.
>>
>>81697247
Why is that a problem?
>>
File: thinging.gif (375 KB, 480x480)
375 KB
375 KB GIF
>>81691281
Can we get this thread pinned so we can stop having these threads?
>>
File: 1603396429060.jpg (103 KB, 828x960)
103 KB
103 KB JPG
>>81691281
3.X is more in depth mechanically, 4e is a simplified version of both. 5e is in the middle.
>Or if you prefer 3.X is more mechanically complex, 4e is a streamlined version of both. 5e is in the middle.

Pathfinder is 3.x with rules clarified, or reworked better, and different PC options.
>Or if you prefer Pathfinder is 3.x with all the fun stuff nerfed to hell, for the trade off of rule baby's can understand.

2e is more load bearing on the DM to make up statistic as you go along, and more restrictive on PC options.
>Or if you prefer 2e allows more creative freedom for the DM, and PC options are designed entirely around flavor.

PF2e I haven't played much of. People keep saying that it's similar to 4e, but it could not be the farthest thing from 4e as possible. Aside form that I haven't played much to have an opinion on it.
>>
>>81697535
When you hit 0 hp, you go down. No matter how many failed death saves you have, when you get up when someone hits you with a Healing Word, you erase them all.
But Cure Wounds or Healing word will almost always not heal more than what a single hit would do by an opponent. So healing someone while they were conscious, unless it's a group heal that hits everyone, is strictly worse than healing them while they are down. The downed person might lose their action based on initiative, but if you healed them and they went down anyway without any extra hits being used to do it, YOU are losing your action AND a spell slot.
And, if someone is down, they can take at least one hit and survive. So that's even more damage they are soaking that is not going to the rest of the party.
Healing in this game is fucked.
>>
>>81692101
The outcome is ternary, but the player decision is binary. It's just "Do I have advantage or not?" If you don't, get it, if you do, you can stop, because nothing else you do matters.

You have advantage because the enemy is on the ground. He's also on fire, blind, and crippled. But you're a mage with an axe so lmao roll normally.
>>
3E/4E/5E all suffer from the inclusion of "builds" which (in my eyes) have no place in tabletop pen and paper games and should stay solely in the realm of video games. Video role playing games benefit from having builds because computers cannot simulate environments with the same level of player agency that a human GM or DM can. The scope is much narrower, with prewritten, preplanned rails so roleplaying is defined almost entirely by your build (numerical representation of what your character is good at- the stats, skills, and points define if he is a charming, swash buckling smooth talker or dumb and dirty barbarian who let's his fists negotiate). They allow video game players to roleplay different kinds of characters at certain filters in the game that let some builds pass and others not without needing to have another human player there to simulate a real, interactive world.
At the tabletop, however, your character is defined by their actions, because you're actually roleplaying, so there's no need for builds. Too many modern tabletop players fall into the video game trap of autistically planning out their build 20 levels in advance, before the campaign even starts, and then they get tunnel vision seeing their character only within the defines of this build because that's what they're used to in their computer games. Hell, you see so many of them even straight up ignore the rest of the world because they're there just to play their build and live out their power fantasy.
Furthermore, builds just complicate things for the DM, forcing them to become a walking encyclopedia who has to memorize how each and every person's hyper specific build combos interact with each other instead of focusing on creating a believable, immersive setting for his players. It's a cancer that needs to be purged from tabletop design
I could say more but you get the point. Class archetypes with fixed progression are good enough, everything else should be defined by how a player acts
>>
File: FYOV6URJ8F5QD0Q.png (51 KB, 636x862)
51 KB
51 KB PNG
>>81697632
>>81691281
Does best:

oD&D: It's rough, brutal and feels like a prototype. I grew up with this, but I do not recommend it. If you like getting punched in the face brutally, like a dark souls player with no retry. This is your game.

2e: Handling story elements. Just the structure of the system is easier for this. DM empowerment. Has the most DM material/Monsters out of all editions.

3.x: Player empowerment with class options and features. DM side has specifically defined rules for EVERYTHING. Damn near everything. Only has the 2nd most DM material/Monsters, but is much easier to reference.

Pathfinder: It's 3.x, they are ALMOST interchangeable, except PF tend to run slightly higher statistically. Cuts down on player options in favor of easier rules. Honestly it's a good change, there is no reason to use 3.x except begging your DM for that one PrC.

4e: Tactical combat. Holy shit if you have a group that loves to do the combat side of things more, just play 4e. Don't even think of the other versions. Also it's really the only edition that handwaves away alignment, so if you want that. It's there.
>Introduced Dragonborn. Hot take, but I love them.

Pathfinder 2e: It's strength really is in it's Action system, by far and away. I really want to some how implement it into the other editions, but that would require quite the rework of abilities and spells. A shame the rest of the system is rather meh.

5e: In my experience this excellences with story back and forth between the DM and players thanks to it's Inspiration and 4-Trait systems (Pic)... except I don't see many people using this at all. So it really makes me wonder why THEY are playing 5e when they aren't using it's strength. The currently most clearly defined spells and rules.
>>
>>81693334
>How often does having a disadvantage yourself and two or more sources of advantage even come up?
Retarded question because 5E disincentivizes this from happening. It happened all the fucking time in 3E and 4E, so there's your answer.
>>
>passive skills
Reminder that 50% of the time, you'll have better luck doing something if you're not trying to do it
>>
>>81697882
Cont.

>Whatever the current edition is.
Whatever the current edition is will also have the ability to be easier for new or older players to reference and look up material and rules themselves without handholding. This is a benefit, do not let anyone tell you other wise. Currently this is 5e.

>Lore
2e and 3e booster the most and generally most referenced lore, dungeons, and story bits.
While any later editions do add new things, and lets be honest: Sometimes really neat things! However 4 & 5 constantly reiterating what was said before in 2 & 3.
>>
File: 1631446102579.jpg (146 KB, 1024x1048)
146 KB
146 KB JPG
>>81691281
I honestly have no issues with 5e. It's not my favorite TTRPG (WEG D6 is mine) and I don't like WotC and their political bullshit, but I can at least seperate that aspect and play 5e with my group how we want to play.

I do agree that there rules that have maybe one example and aren't explained further, but that's for the DM to make a call on. For instance, passive perception I do mainly for obvious things someone would see (like a person standing out in an area that isn't very crowded where a Perception check just seems unneeded because the DC would be a 5 anyway. I almost feel like passive perception doesn't even need to exist, because I'll people say "I rolled this on my Perception, can I just take my passive?" And if it's for something very obvious that only an actual blind person would miss, I wouldn't even have had them roll perception to begin with.

I have no issue with advantage/disadvantage, but it does make things redundant like having double advantage or double disadvantage don't do anything. I get why they moved away from the small +N bonuses, but I wish that still existed alongside a more refined adv/dis system.

Inspiration also just needs to go. Since 5e came out I don't think I've played in a single game where this is used. It's a very weak reward system that seems slapdashed together and not well thought-out. Though, this is WotC we are talking about here.

Most of the hate I see here for 5e is just /pol/tards who don't even play and obvious bait threads. 5e is fine, thought I don't like the current online culture around it.
>>
>>81697247
>>81697638
I agree, and it would be extremely easy to fix. Just don't give PCs all their HP back on a long rest and limit how many hit dice they can heal on a short rest. Some "gritty rules" on GM Binder additionally suggested giving players a level of exhaustion on dropping to 0 HP. I guess that could work too.
>>
>>81691409
It streamlines the game in a wonderful way that is fun and engaging at the table.
>>
>>81692101
>I think dis/advantage as a mechanic is fun because rolling two dice is mechanically more fun than adding a modifier post-roll.
That's not why they did it though. They did it because they thought players were too stupid to add up +2 +3 and -4. Either they're wrong, which makes them idiots pandering to the lowest common denominator, or they're right and the hobby is doomed. Probably a little of both.
>>
>>81692469
Yes. It has less variety by 5e by far because everyone is a wizard.
>>
>>81698361
t. enjoys roleplaying but not games.
>>
>>81693031
>I just want 4e (non-essentials) class and monster design back. If they can do it while keeping the numbers low, good.
Fuck no. Lock that away and never show it to the light of day again. 4e had an aborrant design from beginning to end. There was nothing remotely engaging or exciting about it if you weren't a theorycrafting autist.
>>
>>81691281
Most of its problems are that it's D&D. In terms of *being* D&D I think 5e is in a very good place; it's simple enough that it's not a vertical wall to master the system like 3e or 4e while still feeling like the sort of heroic fantasy it pioneered in the first place.

The trouble is the same as all editions of D&D - it simulates heroic fantasy, and it doesn't do other genres well. It simulates combat-focused and dungeon delving and doesn't have robust roleplaying tools, since it, at best, has simple yes/no skill checks for social situations. Essentially, it leans too heavily on the DM for social situations, information gathering, and roleplaying, which others do better. D&D simply isn't a system for those things.
>>
Making potions has been made stupidly complicated
>>
>>81692462
DnD is a combat focused dungeon crawler. Out of combat shit doesn’t matter
>>
>>81692469
4e is literally the only reason why Pathfinder still exists, it was that bad
>>
>>81691281
>What are the problems with D&D 5E, what did other versions do better?
Skill system. Even 3.5 did it better and it was fucked up.
>>
>>81694610
I'll be honest man, it feels like you've got basically no knowledge of SotDL's mechanics and are basing your critique off of second-hand knowledge. You've been wrong about stupidly fundament parts of the game. You didn't know a source could grant more than one boon/bane, didn't know challenge rolls were TN 10, you now think all rolls are TN 10. It's bizarre, why spend so much time talking about a game you don't know about why being so confident that it's implementation of a modifier isn't any better?

>I have 1 bane, or 37.5% to beat DC 10
Very few things have 10 Defence. It's closer to 16 on average for the sorts of things that could be blinding you reliably.

>These are huge swings, but they only really matter that much around a net of -1, 0 or +1.
I'm failing to see how. Going from 1 boon to 2 banes is huge, going from 2 banes to 1 boon is huge, going from 3 to 0 is also huge. Going from 5 to 6 barely makes a difference. It's all relative to the starting point, which differs in any given situation.

>But in that case, does it even matter that boons let you roll a 26?
Sure, challenge roll DCs (because challenge rolls are the ability/skill check equivalent) might be 10 but attack rolls are vs a target. Defence caps at 25, attributes at 20, and crit-like effects are on 20+ and 5 over the target. It also just change basic system math.

>And does it mean you can't really make a roll where players have less than a 25-30% chance to succeed?
There isn't any point for rolling for trivial stuff, and SotDL's skill system isn't based around everyone being able to attempt all actions. Or everything having close odds at the same actions. Auto-successes are also a thing. Again, also pretty basic stuff. I feel like you've basically just discredited every point you've raised due to total lack of familiarity on what you're critiquing.
>>
>>81699334
No shit, I was talking about a single mechanic in SotDL and mainly from a stochastic standpoint. At no point did I claim to have a thorough understanding of the system as a whole. I guess I went out on a limb with the reconciliatory statement that it works okay within SotDL, since I never played it nor met anyone outside of /tg/ who did. That doesn't change the veracity of my statements about the distribution functions being very similar between 5e advantage/disadvantage and SotDL boons/banes.

Thanks for your clarifications. Maybe at some point I'll take more time to look into SotDL. If I find enough other players who care about learning yet another system.
>>
>>81698637
But 3e/5e don't even do combat / dungeon delving well. The combat is a slow paced slog with too many options and too much bloat that bogs the game down to a crawl every time you get into it. It's not at all unheard of for players to have entire 6 hour sessions dedicated to one single combat because a player wanted to get into a tangle with a handful of mooks. And it's not even engaging combat, it's everyone else twiddling their thumbs for 5 hours and actually taking fairly inconsequential actions the other hour when their go comes up. Compare that with O/1e/2e/basic where you can have combat with a full party of 4-6 players, 8-12 henchmen, and 30 enemies resolved within half an hour TOPS because of how fluid the translation between hits and literal hit die (not HP!) is even if you're using 6/10 second rounds. The wargaming roots mean early D&D was written in a way where the transition between a bar room brawl, dungeon skirmish, and mass combat is nigh imperceptible. The quick, scalable combat in early editions (backed up by a the morale system) means fights are exciting, fast, lethal, and don't take up the entirety of the night. You can crawl a dungeon (with real dungeon delving procedures codified in the book, something sorely missing in 3e/5e) and get into multiple combats if you want over a single session and none of it feels sluggish.
The only thing 3e/5e are actually good at (and even this is debatable) is being high heroic fantasy "town roleplay" games
>>
>>81701368
I mean, you shouldn't start conversations off with stuff like "X is no better than Y" when you don't know how Y works. Mechanics shouldn't ever be examined divorced from their system, because the system provide the context for the mechanic. In this case the mechanic is a major part of the system and without the context the mechanic alone is sort of pointless to look at.
>>
>>81694610
>>81699334
>>But in that case, does it even matter that boons let you roll a 26?
It usually doesn't matter outside of a handful of 20+ and 5 over effects, which is something that really could've been expanded on. I personally have such high rolls from players in challenge rolls as critical successes in out of combat scenarios.
>>
>>81701429
It does matter, because its not just about rolling 26. It's about rolling +/-6 instead of just 1-20.
>>
>>81701411
The takeaway message was supposed to be that boons/banes are no better (and probably no worse) than the way 5e does it, because the maths end up being very similar (except that SotDL has a wider range of possible results). The resolution method shares many of the traits that are sometimes leveled as complaints against 5e and D&D in general. That's half the reason I brought it up, because it useful for comparison to advantage/disadvantage.
>>
>>81693574
AD&D1 has better cover art. They're pretty compatible though so pick up whatever rules you can find used and buy some modules for either first or second and you're good to go
>>
>>81701834
Which is a statement you can't accurately claim without the context, because it's just a single mechanic in isolation but the mechanic in practice and the system that supports it.
>>
>>81693334
>Zero-sum IMO
You are fucking retarded. SotDL's boons/banes are significantly different from dis/advatage. Take an introductory statistics course.
>IMO
Math doesn't give a fuck about your O
>>
>>81696014
>Most d20 systems suck ass because they are obsessed with classes that do overly specific things.
Hit the nail on the head.
>>
>>81693744
>DMG, pg. 273
Using DMG options for hp and morale is fucking shit. The system is not build for it.
I play both 5e and OSR a lot, you obviously only play the former. They are very different and hacking 5e to become old school is fucking futile.
>>
>>81698361
t.Room temp IQ
>>
>>81697638
Yeah that's a cute way to cheese through the first 3 levels or so but I lost two teammates to the "just wait until you're at 0 I got you" meme because multiattacking exists and monsters aren't THAT stupid, unless your healer's turn after is completely uncontested that is a terrible way to play.

As well, I played a Cleric/Sorcerer multiclass through CoS and it really isn't that hard to keep people around middling HP with the occasional upcasted Cure Wounds, then letting them top off with any kind of resting.
>>
>>81693496
Side initiative is dog shit and i stopped using this trash a long time ago in ky 2e games
And 2e has skills you fucking trog there is even like 200 of em from fucking cheesemaking to zero gravity fighting
>>
>>81691281
I actually like 5e and think it's way more enjoyable than 3.5 or 4e. The problem to me is it's just outdone by other systems. After getting into other games like d100 with skills, 5e feels incredibly restrictive by comparison and every character feels the same. This has been a problem since 3.5 so it's nothing new, but I still just don't enjoy it as much as other systems I've gotten into, that and I prefer low-power fantasy that 5e doesn't do well beyond low levels. It'll very quickly get to a point where an army of twenty guards will get smoked by your one PC, which again is nothing new but still what turns me off.

The only things I think 3.5e did better were more skills and more customization. Granted 9/10 feats were garbage and almost never taken but still, I wish there was a bigger variety of customization available in 5e.
>>
>>81703184
>multiattacking exists and monsters aren't THAT stupid, unless your healer's turn after is completely uncontested that is a terrible way to play.
Players get spoiled by DM's who refuse to let them die.
>>
>>81692487
>>81692617
>sotdl
I'd like it more if its dev wasn't an SJW dickhead with a scat fetish. Then again WotC are SJW dickheads with weird fetishes of their own so you're screwed both ways.
>>
>>81695101
>lower power level for character
Utterly wrong 2e is more like glass canons. Sure your character is frail and made of wet tissue but you have access to degen shit too like Hold Person or Entangle being literal Save or Die spells
>>
- Saving Throws
- Monk / Ranger Revamp
- Feat Revamp
- Invocation Revamp
- Old Subclass (Frenzy Barbarian, Great Old One Warlock) ectect. Revamps.
>>
>>81693744
>pg. 273
>"I dunno, make a DC 10 Wisdom check lol"
>kobold and ogre (WIS 7) have the exact same chance of failing their morale check
Oh boy, an optional rule to roll a Wisdom check that literally none of the monster's Wisdom scores have been designed in mind with. Does 5E make you retarded, or are retards just drawn to it like flies and shit?
>fishing is not a skill in 5E
Nevermind, it obviously makes you a legit fucking retard.
>>81695769
>muh OSR improv theater
Don't put words in my mouth, you fucking LARPing zoomer faggot. No one said no checks of any kind existed. But there is a vast, vast difference between having 6 optional Attribute checks to make if you want a quick way to adjudicate success, and a character sheet that's 90% skills whose checks constitute most of your game time.
Eat actual shit.
>>
>>81703457
>he completely forgets NWPs
>>
File: EWV-so-X0AIwNWa.jpg (572 KB, 1536x2048)
572 KB
572 KB JPG
>>81703706
>he completely forgets NWPs were optional
>he completely forgets that, even using the optional system, you only got 3-4 of them to start
>he completely forgets, you only got one extra every few levels after
>he completely forgets they were so hyperspecific and restrictive that their use would be completely incomparable to the broad and numerous skill set in 5E
Ask me how I know you've never played 2E, faggot.
>>
>>81703959
I literally play 2e u just cant cope
>optional rule
Not an argument when 90% if the rules were optional, and thats a thing that made 2e really fun. You have a lot of modularity with it you can be be very bare bone and closer to a B/X or 1e meme or make the game very deep depending in how many optional rules/splatbook you used

Also
>3 or 4
Except you get extra from int and even at like 8 or 9 you get 1 or 2 extra
Never mind Wizards or Players who puts their pts into it, they can easily start with 8 or 9 and thats without Kits that often grants a couple extras on top. Its really not that hard to go to 10+ or so if you wanna be a skill monkey

Also i never said anything about 5e you are literally being a schizo. But if you really wanna open that door, sure they were more specific than 5e's but there were also a LOT more letting players do cool stuff like making their own armor and equipment, greatly accelerate natural healing, providing ore food and rations, etc. And with so many if them players rarely step on each other's toes
Also lets classes like fighters and thieves provide lots of great utility out of combat/dungeon crawl
>>
>>81692479
>>
>>81704216
>optional doesn't matter
It fundamentally foes when you're comparing 5E that has mandatory skills with 2E that has optional NWPs (that don't function anything like 5E's skills), dumbfuck.
>you can get as many as 8
Haha, yeah, I'm sure those'll hold up when being literate in your own language requires its own point, knowledge is divided into a dozen separate sub-proficiencies, and almost all NWPs require more than one point to be effective (and many require at least 2 to get proficiency in period).
>I play 2e
You clearly don't, because you've constantly demonstrated you don't understand the mechanics you're trying to compare to 5E
>I never said anything about 5E
Right, you were just insinuating that NWPs were just like some other mechanic from some yet unnamed system that is completely unrelated to the thread topic. Haha, sure shithead. I see the backpedaling is just spinning up.
>>
>>81698033
5e has had a cult culture created around it and the resulting layers of shit have piled up on top of it. I mis grognards, bastards that don't give a shit whether you say nigga at a table with friends and don't have to pay heed or mind if you're not bothering anyone. It's like sitting at a park in public, everyone wants you t obe socially mindful when you're playing chess but expect you to always keep your cool like you've got a gun to your back if you don't. I hate it. It shouldn't be this way.
>>
>>81691281
The classes get weird super powers that other classes can't use. So basically every class is a separate addendum to the rules. I can see why a fighter might not be able to use magic if it's an inmate thing but if it's just books why can't they are least try? And why can't a wizard try to action surge? Dumb.
>>
>>81704350
I wasnt comparing to 5e at first and when i later did i did so in order to demonstrate how better it was than 5e.
>they dont function like 5e skills
They basically and no having to roll under your Ability Score instead of a set DC is not a meaningful mechanical difference

And no NWPs being optional vs 5e skills not being optional doesnt change much when your system (2e) is built around being filled with optional rules you can mix and match. The system was intended for you to grab as many of them as you want and its not like other games where optional rules are bare bone and basically a meme, in 2e they are all very in depth and made to add something specific in a campaign.

Literacy only costs 1 NWP and even then ill often grant it for free to my Players depending on their backstory. Sure barbarians and dirt peasants dont get it for free but i offer it for the higher class, wizards and such.

Who cares about knowledge being sub divided into a lot of sub categories? It was like that in 3.PF and even to a lesser extent 5e. Players were never knowledgeable in everything they always had to specialize or invest a lot to know these things.

Some NWPs cost 2 but they are usually stronger. Never stopped my players to grab them or to limit their skills that much. And usually players grab NWPs that align with their stats so its pretty rare to see rare to see a player invest an extra pts into it unless failing said NWP is a big setback which usually it isnt. And like i said, you get a shit ton of them its been pretty rare that my players had difficulties filling all their basis and when that happened they would usually just try to find ajs hire someone who can help them filling their gaps.

Also i played more 2e than 5e you just cant cope with someone disagreeing with you
>>
File: 1633971458383.png (394 KB, 802x722)
394 KB
394 KB PNG
>>81704350
Cont.
NWPs are a 2e mechanic that you seemed to have clearly forgot about or didnt use and because you didnt use it you assumed no one did. Nothing to do with 5e really. Also 90% of a 5e sheet is skills? C'mon 5e is a brain dead game thats mostly roleplay meme and boring ass combat, the skill system is utterly lacking and under developed. 2e's NWPs are a lot more important and used outside combat

And in the end both are still
Roll d20 based on X ability Score+ DM modifiers based on the condition or task
You just replace the PB of 5e with extra investment in the NWP amd the NWP modifiers
>>
>>81704514
Bruh that was always a thing in dnd
Wtf are u on about
>>
>>81691281
The only good things I can think are: 1- the concentration mechanic and generally better (but still very far from ideal) caster vs martial balance and 2- the idea of bounded accuracy was terribly implemented but it was a very good idea nevertheless to set explicit limits to what ordinary humans can accomplish.

Overall, 5e is a terrible game mainly because it accepted too many compromises to make a "streamlined" game for retards.
>>
>>81704730
>my mandatory Survival skill cam be usef to forage for food, to hunt and track animals, to identify animals, to track humanoids, to predict the weather, to avoid natural hazards
>==
>my singular optional animal tracking skill allows me to track animals in this specific circumstance, with these parameters, and this built in penalty to my check
You're an actual retard.
>optional doesn't matter
We went through this, fucking retard. Mandatory means a lot, which is why the entirety of 5E is designed with skill use in mind, and 2E isn't designed with the assumption that you'll be using NWPs. Optional means optional.
>well i houserule literacy for free
Cool, that means dick when we're talking about the rules as written and what they imply, fucking smoothbrain. No wonder its a NWP surplus when you're going completely off book.
>who cares about knowledge being 12 skills instead of 3
Because when NWPs are a commodity and not a free universal bonus, having what are otherwise 1 skill in 5E split up into many different NWP with specific applications means you have to spread your limited NWP even farther to be able to do those same things. How the fuck can't you get this through your head?
>cope
Is this shorthand for not having a rebuttal or being a retard or both?
>zoomer penguin meme
Jesus, fuck, off yourself.
>you forgot about NWPs
What's to forget? They're irrelevant to a discussion the 5E skill system because NWPs both function nothing like 5E skills and are also much more restrictive/limited for the average PC as written.
>but its a d20 roll too!!!!1
No, shit, you fucking mongoloid. So is a 2E random encounter. Does that make the mechanics, implications, purpose, or outcome of a random counter the same as NWP check? No, because they have completely different applications.
Same goes for 5E Skills. Just pointing to Survival alone eviscerates your entire meandering point.
>>
>>81697792
This is one of the dumbest fucking takes I've seen in a long time. Builds exist because your chosen character options explicitly define how your character can actually interact with the world. Learn to build characters that fit your concepts instead of expecting the dm to make it work via fiat you lazy fucking troon.
>>
File: Kurb.jpg (23 KB, 680x680)
23 KB
23 KB JPG
>>81704399
My group is like that. 20+ years and we don't have a filter in case we hurt someones feelings. Doesn't matter what game we are playing. We've had people join and fit in just fine with our group for those reasons; we have to split into two groups now for games otherwise we'd have one DM and 17 players.
>>
>>81698361
>t. actually plays games but still posts here for some reason
>>
>>81705006
2e Survival Nwps was very generalist sure its not as much as 5e and i in fact never said so but you prob took the worst skills to make your point
Also plenty pointless since i already said that 2e Nwp were a lot more specific, lets be real at this point you are just arguing with a strawman in your own head

Sorry but 2e was made with being modular in mind. No matter how hard you cry about it the game was made with the intent of the DM picking as many optional rules as he wanted and the optional rules werent something tacked on but actually in depth rules that always added a lot

>NWP surplus
Mfw 1 extra NWP for certain specific situation is a surplus. You are clearly being disingenuous most retards still gets around 6 with no investment which is enough to grab around 4 or 5 NWP usually and you can easily double that number on a wizard or other high int characters. Some characters sometimes having 1 extra for Literacy is basically meaningless

>bro your NWP are spread a lot thinner in 2e
Ok and? Again as above, when did say it wasnt? I simply said that knowledge in 5e wasn't 1 simply skill also in 2e, while you do get less NWPs and they are more valuable, is that once you learn a NWP, you are pretty good at it, like easily 70 to 75% success rate and with extra investment you can go pretty high

NWP function like 5e Skills and is very relevant, the only real difference is that they are more narrow in what they can do

But its the same fucking thing in a different coat

>i want to find water DM
5e: Roll d20+Wis Mod+PB vs DC random ass number+ DM specific mod
2e: Roll d20+Nwp Investment vs Wis Score+Nwp mod+DM specific mod

Tho 2e requires you to have survival in a specific Biome and you cant do as much as you can with the 5e Survival
But its still pretty fucking similar even if 5e simplified and "streamlined" everything to death
>>
>>81705057
100% this. "I want to play fucking dumbass Wizard Charades and Calvinball" is not an argument against DnD.
>>
>>81698361
It was less fun and engaging than adding modifiers was.
>>
>>81705057
Cope harder. I run a multiyear game of OD&D and play in another 1E game. And I played both 3E and 5E for years when they came out before returning to the earlier editions.
You ever notice how builds in games weren't around from the start and didn't really become mainstream until well after video games were a common place hobby and tabletops went mainstream? Builds the way they exist in 3e/5e are literally based on video game design concepts. Not to mention that 3e was also literally designed around having certain skills/options be useless traps to encourage "system mastery". They don't belong in tabletop roleplay, anything past the base well defined and structured rules is just pointless shit that bogs everything down
>>
>>81691388
I've always used it as the DC for most monsters to sneak past with them rolling only when actively looking with the passive being the lowest they can roll.
>>
>>81691831
>What do you suggest as a better way to handle it, which doesn't involve tracking a dozen modifiers?
Use the SotDL/Lancer boon/bane system. Each modifier gives a d6, positives cancel out negatives and vice versa. The left over pool is rolled and the highest die either adds for positives or subtracts for negatives from the d20 roll. Makes it less swingy.
>>
>>81692659
Plays like an MMO even more than 4e does with its specific optimal skill/ability rotations.
>>
>>81693234
Also you didn't mention that in later levels you're using your copious amount of boons to buy special maneuvers since they generate banes.
>>
>>81703457
>Oh boy, an optional rule to roll a Wisdom check that literally none of the monster's Wisdom scores have been designed in mind with.
A Wisdom saving throw to be precise, which is the same throw used to avoid every other fear-like effect. Morale didn't do anything different from that in AD&D 2e or Basic D&D (Rules Cyclopedia lists is as an optional rule); monsters would try to escape or surrender if they failed the check. It's functionally the same, you just roll a d20 instead of 2d10 or 2d6 and lose the big-ass table from AD&D.
To say that literally none of the monsters are designed with it in mind is a bold claim that you provide no backup for, instead going straight to insults.
>and a character sheet that's 90% skills whose checks constitute most of your game time.
Hate to break it to you, but skill checks are called ability checks in 5e and the list of skills provided on your standard sheet is literally only a suggestion. All that skills do is determine whether you can add your proficiency bonus to an ability check. You can use any other way to determine whether PB applies to a check. The DMG suggests ability check proficiencies, background proficiencies and character trait proficiencies as other options, see pg. 263f.
>>
>>81706821
I see you haven't actually played it but get your opinions on it from ecelebs like Taking20
>>
>>81704514
That exists its called multiclassing or playing an Eldritch Knight if your a fighter.
>>
>>81693744
>Fishing is not a skill in 5e
Stopped reading here.
Imagine showing you have no reading comprehension so easily.
>>
>>81691409
I've been doing better of two / worse of two for literal decades before 5e came out, and I like it as a mechanic, but I think 5e's issue is that's *all* there is. Adding just a little stratification can really help, even if it's just: +1, better of two rolls, and best of three. That gives you three different levels of having some kind of advantage rather than just one. So I don't think it's a garbage mechanic; it's just executed too simplistically.
>>
>>81706979
You do know people can come to the same conclusions from the same data set, right?
>>
>>81707086
not when the data set has been shown to be flawed numerous times

That moron optimized his characters "Rotation" for damage when going full damage is not the optimal way to play a character. Martials have options now outside of just hitting shit.
>>
File: fishing.png (91 KB, 320x160)
91 KB
91 KB PNG
>>81707014
Nah, I just couldn't come up with a better rebuttal to that point, that lack of a game mechanic for fishing automatically promotes more immersion. Especially since 2e has this.

If anon had been talking about original/basic D&D, I might have even given him that point.
>>
>>81691281
5th is perfect
>>
>>81691388
Targeting weak spots is an assumed part of normal combat mechanics. When you get over the AC it's when you finally hit the eye, rather than the thick hide.
>>
>>81706821
That's absolute bull. The third action is almost always flexible. Are you simulating the exact same encounter every time? Characters need to move. Some creatures have excellent saves vs.1 certain things so of course you're not going to keep defaulting to them. Other resources are limited. Creatures become immune to your skills. Resistances, weaknesses and other immunities are common etc. etc. So yes, you either don't play, or your DM is doing something very wrong.

It's 5e and 3.pf that punish you for not using the multiple attack ability every turn.
>>
>>81698916
4e could have been the best RPG known by man and Paizo would have still made PF because they couldn1t profit off of the OGL anymore without it.
>>
>>81707145
would be a very welcome addition, gotta agree
>>
>>81698916
>It was that bad
No. Paizo had made their bread and butter churning out bad 3.5 homebrew. When WoTC no longer needed them to do that, they had to find a new way to keep that machine going. So you got 3.5 with some janky and not good house rules added.
>>
>>81691281
3.5 was better
>>
>>81709781
No. No it is not. By that logic every time you hit you should be blinding your opponent but you don't. It's just damage and zero status effects.
>>
>>81691388
Called shots is a terrible gameplay mechanic because in the long run it massively hurts the players.
If only the players can make a called shot to the eyes or the head, while the enemies can't, it breaks the suspension of disbelief because all enemies are gimped. If the enemies can make such called shots, just surround the players with 15 kobolds/zombies/orcs (whatever's appropriate for character level) and constantly attack at the eyes/head/legs/whatever has the most negative penalty.
>>
>>81713169
If the DM wants to fuck over the player he has infinite ways of doing so. Surrounding them with 15 orcs aiming for their eyes is just one of them.
>>
>>81713169
It's a decent mechanic when done properly. It works perfectly fine in GURPS. Because the system not only gives you ways to make called shots better and incentives to use them but also ways to defend against them. Hell it even suggests using nictitating membranes for big monsters because it's a natural evolutionary path that some animals take to protect the eyes.
>>
>>81691281
>d20 system should be replaced with a 2d6 system. Having a normal distribution for skill checks is far less swingy, and more realistic.
>vancian magic is terrible. An MP (mana/magic point) system is far superior. This allows for MP cost reduction mechanics. e.g. using a wizards staff, or proficiency with certain schools of magic could reduce MP spellcasting costs.
>wotc's pandering to vocal sjw minorities. e.g. "orcs are racisit" so lets scrap race based ability scores. Who cares if that means that a gnome barbarian can be as effective as an orc barbarian.
>fanservice. I don't want spelljammer or dragonlance reboots. It would be far better if wotc released more fresh, new, original settings. Curse of strahd, tomb of annihilation, ghosts of saltmarsh, yawning portal, etc are all rehashed settings that lack creativity.
>scrap imperial units and replace with metric units. I know that d&d is originally created by amerifags, but it isn't difficult to convert units to metric for international markets.
>>
>>81691409
adv/dis is actually one of 5e's strength's. Having pages of rules for every possible scenario just bogs down the rules, and detracts from the game. No one wants to stop the game because they need to look up a specific rule.
>>
>>81691755
How would you make it more fun? I'm sure you could do so much better than wotc. Go on, I'm all ears.
>>
>>81692454
can't agree more about the "all races should be equal" bs. A goliath should totally get a bonus to strength. It's not racist. If wotc wants to avoid being labelled racist, they should just relabel "races" as "species".
>>
>>81703265
For my games, if another player throws themselves into harm's way to garner those gathered around his downed allies' attention, I'll let him be the subject of their ire, but if they just sit there and gape he's going to get curb-stomped no question
>>
>>81691281
>dual wielding is terrible. how am i supposed to reenact my favourite kirito scenes? starburst weeeebb!!!
>there is too much emphasis on dex and wis saves. the other saving throws are useless.
>dex based fighters are op.
>polearm master and sentinel feat shenanigans are just disgusting.
>coffeelock is bullshit.
>>
>>81716599
>Any granularity of mechanics at all means pages and pages of autistic rules!
Fascinating. I'm filing this one under "Doesn't actually like games with mechanics."
>>
File: 1611072962166.png (182 KB, 402x477)
182 KB
182 KB PNG
>>81716613
>wotc spies finally reach the point where they are looking to 4chan for ideas
Is this the nadir?
>>
>>81716613
more feats
>>
>>81691281
They don't know how to write rules. So many feats and abilities are absolutely gimped because they don't work how you assume they would work logically. Look at mage slayer. The reaction attack comes AFTER the spell, which already ruins most of it's utility. Only concentration spells force a save, so it doesn't stop the caster from hitting you with that finger of death he's casting. It's a feat that's supposed to punish casters that try to cast while engaged with the player, but it does nothing of the sort RAW.
>>
>>81691281
Other versions are much better at gatekeeping.
>>
>>81716558
I agree with all those points but how about keeping d20 for attacks? Because it abstracts a lot of things: dodging, parrying, blocking, glancing blows, armor, accuracy etc. I feel like it should be very swingy. For skills, they definitely need normal distribution.
>>
>>81691845
Pathfinder (1st ed) is amazing for tinkering,
decent for play, and very work intensive to DM, esp when your using npc's with player classes.
>>
>>81698033
>Most of the hate I see here for 5e is just /pol/tards who don't even play and obvious bait threads
please lurk more and familiarize your self with the board culture before posting on /tg/.
>>
File: 1541262001142.jpg (205 KB, 800x1132)
205 KB
205 KB JPG
>>81691281
grips about 5th ed
-> finding rules or tables.
a fucking RULES ENCYCLOPEDIA would be great for 5th ed.... and i mean i want that fucker full of tables and in alphabetical order.
--> casters STILL get everything, like ffs, remove goodberry, fuck sprite summoning, move fly to 5th level and make schools actually mean something.
--> martials need more love.
--> armor ... like why bother.
--> dex doing damage fucks it all (fuck you here is my quickling archer, suck ma dick)
>>
>>81691281
dungeons and dragons 5th edition is nearly (NEARLY) the perfect version of... itself. In this way its strengths are also many of its weaknesses. Chiefly, it's a pretty simple and easily understood/played edition, but likewise it's also a system that is fairly lacking in options.
>>
>>81706821
>plays like an MMO
this was a retarded as fuck 'criticism' even when people were whinging about 4th edition a decade ago and that hasn't changed
>>
>>81716599
Nevermind that that's a retarded false dichotomy, I would absolutely rather stop the game to look at a cheat sheet than use adv/dis and deal with its inability to handle basic fucking shit.
>>
>>81716599
>>81719343
Those charts aren't set in stone. Their entire purpose is to give a DM rough idea so that they can generate those bonuses or penalties logically on the fly themselves, not to have those sitting there and thumbing over them.
Hell, a DM gain get away with a -4 to 4 scale applied sensibly just fine.
>>
>What are the problems with D&D 5E, what did other versions do better?
It's Bob the fighter's turn. Bob the fighter rolls to attack, and then rolls to attack again. Bob the fighter's turn is now over.

on Billy the Wizard's turn, he casts a spell that influences the entire battlefield, uses a subclass feature as a reaction to force an enemy to fail their saving throw, and then once his turn is over he commands the summoned creature he's concentrating on to move, attack twice (dealing more damage than Bob the Fighter with both of its attacks), and then use its bonus action to do something else that hurts enemies.
>>
>>81719445
sounds like bobs a dipshit that doesnt understand the mechanics of combat
>>
>>81719374
Fuck off nigger
Its not fucking hard to find out what can give something a bonus or a negative depending on the situation and they could've easily just made that
But no, for the 2IQ 5e normie cuck players they made a dog shit simplifications system and removed all fucking modifiers from the game
Fuck off its dog shit made to appeal to the lowest common denominator
>>
>>81707086
Imagine unironically watching retarded D&D Ben Shapiro
>>
>>81720890
Can you stop having an autistic fit long enough to realize you're saying exactly the same thing I just did?
>>
>>81691409
I liked advantage at first because it's simpler than modifiers.
I don't like it much anymore, because it's really heavy handed and discourages tactical play. You can't stack it, so you just go for the easiest advantage in any situation. It sucks.
>>
>>81718630
Actual combat is not swingy. It looks like it from the side for retards who don't know what the fuck is going on. For people who actually know what they are doing it's much closer to chess with unequal pieces on both sides of the board done at ultra high speed. There are of course some random chances because executing every move to perfection is very hard but it goes down with the skill of participants going up.
>>
>>81691831
>What do you suggest as a better way to handle it, which doesn't involve tracking a dozen modifiers?
Having no modifiers means a drow in bright light is as unlikely to hit as a human that's blinded, frightened, poisoned, prone, and being spit on by Tiamat. And the human can get rid of all that by literally having someone flak the target, apparently, or any of the other myriad of ways to get single advantage. It's too oversimplified.
>>
>>81713169
This makes me think that called shots might work better as a mechanic if you can only do it against a larger creature. So a human can try to sharp-shoot the eye of a dragon or a beholder, but not an Orc, and an Orc or Dragon can't try to aim for a certain limb.

That would give small characters an interesting edge that might offset their lack of heavy weaponry, though it would also make stuff like kobolds and goblins a lot more brutal and dangerous.
>>
>>81721466
Okay, what should be the modifiers for this totally not made-up situation that totally happens all the time in other editions or systems?
And flanking isn't a core rule in 5e.
>>
>>81721756
>not made-up situation that totally happens all the time
The point is that, by the rules, those two situations are the same. Moreover, you'd have to be a grade A nimrod not to realize that with the amount of ways to get advantage or disadvantage in the game, getting multiples is not that uncommon and they all resolve in the same way, sometimes stupidly so because of the huge disparity between them.
>And flanking isn't a core rule in 5e
So what, the point is that a single source of (dis)advantage completely nullifies the opposite no matter how much they stack. Pic related.
>>
>>81721622
>tfw castrated by a Kobold's called shot
>>
>>81705057
Anybody who talks about a character "build" is booted from my table.
>>
>>81721844
So, how would you handle the situation you described, and does the extra precision of your method offset slowing the game down?
>So what
No, if you bring in optional rules, we're not far away from house rules and table rulings. A sensible DM would just rule that the blinded, frightened, poisoned, prone and spit-on human can't make that attack.
>Pic related.
Why don't you just stay there?
>>
>>81721756
Nigger faggot
Dis/Advantage happens all the fucking time and its a dog shit mechanic especially since its basically the only way to increase your chance to do shit with a few exceptions that lets you had d4 or d6 to your roll
Not to mention that with bounded accuracy (Another dog shit mechanic) it makes the dis/advantage very powerful a lot more than it is in other editions

Not to mention that its braindead garbage for babies who cant basic math and makes the game uber simplistic since it just turns into a game of finding the easiest way to apply dis/advantage and spam that shit

Also
>flanking is not core
Giga nigger who the fuck care, its not a fucking niche optional rule, its used almost everywhere its like saying that having broken feats is fine because they are also not core but its a giga cope because they are also used at every fucking table
>>
>>81721756
Glitterdust or Color Spray into the martial tripping the blinded enemy happened all the time in 3E.
>>
>>81722135
>how do you handle the situation?
Modifiers thats how
>muh slow the games down
Stfu you retarded sack of shit, Adnd had modifiers and it was infinitely faster than the slog that is 5e and if you cant do quick math that basically only involves simple addition and subtraction in less than 30 second you are a troglodyte with room temp IQ but then again you are a 5e cuck defending advantage so i guess you are likely to be one
>bro optional rule is basically the same as houserule homebrew shit
No it is not you disingenuous nigger especially when its something you see all the fucking time instead of an obscure optional rule that no one fucking uses
>>
>>81722184
>how to not be taken seriously and make it obvious you are trying too hard because you are a "lel look mom I'm posting on le 4chans XD nigger nigger faggot nigger" retard
>>
convince me i should play d&d instead of 13th age
>>
>>81721288
Lol. Comparing combat in dnd to chess. Even with a grid, tactics and strategy only play a small part due to dice rolls.
>>
>>81722184
i ban feats, flanking, multiclassing, homebrew, phb+1 rule, terrain, grids, mini's, niggers, faggots, and math at my gaming table. deal with it.
>>
>>81721288
Your awul pseud take is not needed. Realism has no place here anyway when the fighting isn't even fucking happening in real time.
>>
>>81721756
Being prone gives you a -2 circumstance penalty to attacks. Frightened gives at least -1 status penalty, depending on the value the effect has. When you're blinded, your enemy is Hidden to you and you have to pass an unmodified (flat) DC 11 check before hitting. Poison and Tiamat spit are vague.
So it's at least -3 depending on the debuffs, plus the flat check. The enemy has -2 to AC if it's flanked.
>>
My biggest problem is making a character concept comes together way too late, it makes the early game awkward as fuck and same-y, and the growing pains to get there last longer than the time you get to enjoy finally playing around with your idea, even if you build for 7th level or so.

Unless you go with the handful of meta builds that allow ultra-specialization early on that they then didn't make an equivalent for with other weapons/races.
>>
>>81722265
Oh, a sensible example for once.
Glitterdust no longer exists as a spell in 5e and Color Spray changed a lot between editions. Now it only blinds targets and can't make them stunned or unconscious. It was also shortened to a single-round duration in exchange for not allowing a save. So we're talking about very different effects between editions.
In 5e, it still makes some sense to trip (i.e. make prone) a target of Color Spray, to make one source of disadvantage stick after Color Spray expires. None of the conditions make the target easier to trip in 3.x or 5e (when using the Shove action). The Battle Master's Trip Attack maneuver gets advantage against a blinded target though, since it works off an attack roll.
After the spellcaster and martial have acted, the rest of the party indeed doesn't profit from having two sources of advantage for half a round.

>>81723628
Kudos if you remembered it all from the top of your head. Now imagine how much time the average normie DM would take to look all these modifiers up, vs. saying you have disadvantage.
>>
>>81723794
Those are all very common conditions in PF2 and an average DM would know them. There aren't too many effects, and it's easy to know what does and doesn't stack.
What's more, all of that info is freely available on a single page of the official system reference documents website.
>>
>>81691281
No playable Gnolls.
>>
>>81713169
The way I do it is that armour has resistances or dam reduction, but whilst standard attacks target the torso, you might want to aim an arrow somewhere the guy doesnt have armour.
Called shots are made with disadvantage so now we see true strike actually being used to do things like nail a guy through the eye slot of his helm.
>>
>>81723794
>None of the conditions make the target easier to trip in 3.x
They do in Pathfinder because penalties to AC and being flat-footed both impact your CMD.
>>
>>81724259
Congratulations, you've made a system where there's no reason not to make a called shot if you already have disadvantage.
>>
>>81723794
>How many enemies are going to survive a round while granting advantage to attacks? Tripping them without spending resources is a fucking retarded idea the vast majority of the time because you're slowing down taking them out of the fight for no gain.
>>
>>81724259
Mathematically speaking
You should still attack twice
5e cucks are retarded and cant do math thats why they need the dis/advantage meme, their smooth brain cant even understand basic math
>>
>>81713169
>15 zombies that only go for the eyes
That actually sounds interesting from a conceptual standpoint
>>
Going woke and in 4th they ruined Faerun. The later overflows into 5th with the Spellplague and such.
>>
>>81713169
Oh yeah. Cause its not like the enemies already fo fucked up shit in 5E that we can only dream of doing as they hit us 3 times in one turn or auto success on saves cause they are siting in their fuckin hut in a swamp.
>>
>>81691281
biggest problem is all the blue or pink haired faggots with pretend genders or trannie mental cases who have infiltrated the game and ruined it from the inside now Hasbro wants to be seen to cater to that market of sexual degenerates
>>
>>81724657
Chainmail bikinis and hot Elves/Erinyes/So on is illegal but pink haired trannies having orgies in the mage tower is all good and dandy. Makes sense right?
>>
>>81723794
If you cant remember basic status effects you shouldn't be a DM you are simply too retarded and should stick player barbarian
>>
>>81696495
It's almost like having your overriding design goal being backwards compatibility in order to sucker a legion of people deep in the sunk cost fallacy sn't conducive to creating a new game.
>>
>>81724657
fuck off
>>
>>81724778
Are you pink haired? Afraid that people will think Orcs are black people? Drow to sexy?
>>
>>81703275
>I'd like the game if I hadn't concocted made up reasons to not like the game!
>>
>>81704399
You're mad that aren't "allowed" to be an autistic, nigger spouting shitlord in public?

You sound like you have issues, bud.
>>
>>81724866
Read again, He said around a table. But hey, the people who think Orcs are "nignogs" are the true racists.
>>
>>81691281
Its an ok system that dose what it intends to alright. Its biggest issue is that its new and not the thing they played as a kid. grogs of all forms can't forgive a sin so egregious.
>>
>>81695543
>It's gonna be hella cool when it actually gets underway.

The eternal cry of the GURPS GM.
>>
>>81706736
>You ever notice how builds in games weren't around from the start and didn't really become mainstream until WoD was released and the internet allowed people to communicate freely
Fixed that for you, dummy.
>>
File: Kare.png (404 KB, 500x500)
404 KB
404 KB PNG
>>81695394
nta; but It's been the best fantasy experience I've had with an RPG yet. It does more modern genres pretty okay too. Magic systems aren't great though.
>>
>>81697882
I've mastered 5e for years before dropping it like an ugly baby and I have to tell you, those 4 squares are horrible. I've had players who used them as bibles they would never deviate from just as much as players who completely ignored them.
I guess my biggest problem with that is that WotC is trying to "force" the role playing into the role playing game as an over-correction from 4e which was a "roll-playing" game according to certain grognards.
>"Oh god, people are saying D&D is about dice and not characters! Quick, make 8% of the character sheet about your character's PERSONALITY" which is shit that doesn't need to BE there. Let the players RP as they please and don't waste precious paper with such mundane garbage.
Those little squares should be filled out by DMs on premade characters they give out to complete and absolute noobs with zero RPing experience, and god knows I've had dozens of those who insisted on spending 45 minutes to an hour being handheld through making their first ever character from scratch because "they heard from a friend they can be a demon who punches people and turns into shadows".
>>
>>81691281
Over simplifying things being both its biggest pro and con.

Gutting all customization for simplification is great for getting the average retard to play the game, but anyone with an IQ above room temperature is gonna feel really restricted unless you're playing a caster, and even some casters feel super monobuildy.



Delete Post: [File Only] Style:
[Disable Mobile View / Use Desktop Site]

[Enable Mobile View / Use Mobile Site]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.