5e doesn't suck... but it doesn't really stack up well against 3.X

[Nicol Bolas]

Because they're not "Ameteur threats". They're a very real threat. And, they have treasure.

But why?

Why are they a threat?

How many goblins would it take to challenge a well-established civilization? Why are these goblins gathered together in such an unseemly horde? Why are the heroes required to fight them with no further assistance?

Every scenario leads this to making zero sense.

[Sartharina]

When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

So, in half an edition of the game, and in what's largely considered an excommunicated edition of the game, you have this power scale. It's not a universal one, and a LOT of players balk at the bonkers escalation.

Now, compare that to AD&D 2e, AD&D 1e, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, and White Box D&D editions. In 5e, you still gain the capacity to deal with ever-mounting threats, but the ones before aren't invalidated, and the ones above are best handled by mobilizing the allies you've made before to help.

[Nicol Bolas]

So, in half an edition of the game, and in what's largely considered an excommunicated edition of the game, you have this power scale. It's not a universal one, and a LOT of players balk at the bonkers escalation.

Now, compare that to AD&D 2e, AD&D 1e, BECMI, Rules Cyclopedia, and White Box D&D editions. In 5e, you still gain the capacity to deal with ever-mounting threats, but the ones before aren't invalidated, and the ones above are best handled by mobilizing the allies you've made before to help.

Nobody worth listening to excommunicated 4e.

Power rises exponentially, both in real-life and in fantasy. 100 math students are not going to be as good at math as 1 person with a PhD. 100 six-year olds will not beat a martial arts master in a fight.

Progression is not linear. Not in real life. I don't know why so many of you cling to the notion that it should be in fantasy.

[Knaight]

When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

This is the primary point of contention. I'd much rather not have that cycle, and 5e removing it and extending 20 levels over the part I care about is a feature in my eyes. By level 20 the characters are generally pretty impressive at what they do (sans skills, which I'd consider poorly implemented). The spells are impressive by normal standards, as shown above a fighter can potentially win in a fight against dozens of foes, so on and so forth. It never gets to routine saving of countries, but that's really not a problem as far as I'm concerned.

Power rises exponentially, both in real-life and in fantasy. 100 math students are not going to be as good at math as 1 person with a PhD. 100 six-year olds will not beat a martial arts master in a fight.

The math case is completely deceptive, as it outright ignores a lot of what makes combat a special case - plus, when it comes to things like getting through a large quantity of easy math the 100 students could easily be better, as they can divide up the task. As for the six year olds, the case made was with adults, who are armed. 100 armed adults will likely beat an armed martial arts master just fine.

[Sartharina]

But why?

Why are they a threat?

How many goblins would it take to challenge a well-established civilization? Why are these goblins gathered together in such an unseemly horde? Why are the heroes required to fight them with no further assistance?

Every scenario leads this to making zero sense.

It only takes a handful of unchecked goblins to wreak incredible mayhem. And if they come in large numbers (Such as by being indigenous or invasive to the area), they can threaten small, weaker towns in borderlands.

They're a threat because they exist and they have stuff our heroes need to take. They're gathered together in such an unseemly horde because that's where they live in their cities of wickedness beyond civilization The heroes recieve no assistance because the towns would rather tend to their own business than face the overwhelming Goblin Threat just over the next hill. Anyone from that town calling our heroes genocidal maniacs are just worthless ingrates unable to appreciate the service provided by the heroes.

100 six-year olds will not beat a martial arts master in a fight.

100 six-year-olds can't, but 100 sufficiently-motivated nerds with no combat training whatsoever can.

[Nicol Bolas]

This is the primary point of contention. I'd much rather not have that cycle, and 5e removing it and extending 20 levels over the part I care about is a feature in my eyes. By level 20 the characters are generally pretty impressive at what they do (sans skills, which I'd consider poorly implemented). The spells are impressive by normal standards, as shown above a fighter can potentially win in a fight against dozens of foes, so on and so forth. It never gets to routine saving of countries, but that's really not a problem as far as I'm concerned.


The math case is completely deceptive, as it outright ignores a lot of what makes combat a special case - plus, when it comes to things like getting through a large quantity of easy math the 100 students could easily be better, as they can divide up the task. As for the six year olds, the case made was with adults, who are armed. 100 armed adults will likely beat an armed martial arts master just fine.

A level 20 fighter is much more than a "martial arts master," just as a level 20 wizard is much more brilliant than a mathematician with a PhD.

What makes combat so special? At level 20 you get magical equipment. You're durable enough to survive a fall from hundreds of feat in the air. Fireballs do not instantly vaporize you.

Why can 100 goblins all of a sudden almost murder you when only about ten of them can even realistically attack you at a time?

D&D has a problematic history of underestimating what actual people are capable of physically, probably because demographically, the people that design and play it have no concept of physical aptitude.

People climb greased poles on a regular basis. People can break iron chains with their biceps merely by flexing. The strongest man in the world would have needed to have a str of 28 in D&D terms.

Keep under-estimating the limits of physical fitness all you want, but 100 unarmed nerds won't even tire out a master martial artist. No matter how motivated they are.

And this?

They're a threat because they exist and they have stuff our heroes need to take. They're gathered together in such an unseemly horde because that's where they live in their cities of wickedness beyond civilization The heroes recieve no assistance because the towns would rather tend to their own business than face the overwhelming Goblin Threat just over the next hill. Anyone from that town calling our heroes genocidal maniacs are just worthless ingrates unable to appreciate the service provided by the heroes.

This is ad-hoc, development-less storytelling with no insight into how a fictional-world needs to operate to make sense. If that's the best you can do to make goblins seem worthwhile at level 20 from a storytelling perspective then there is no point to them.

[Knaight]

Keep under-estimating the limits of physical fitness all you want, but 100 unarmed nerds won't even tire out a master martial artist. No matter how motivated they are.

Keep underestimating tools and numbers all you want. Weapons are assumed here, and the thing about weapons is that it tends not to take any particularly exceptional strength to seriously injure someone with one. If a ten year old hits you with an ax with anything more than the most glancing of blows, odds are good that it will do some real damage. If there are a hundred of them all trying to kill you, odds are pretty good at least one will get through regardless of how good you are. Armor mitigates this pretty well, but 100 against 1 is completely and utterly ridiculous odds once weapons are involved.

Plus, I note that your example explicitly involved choosing a group that is disproportionately composed of people who are relatively physically weak. Somehow, I think 100 untrained, unarmed. manual laborers could threaten a martial artist just fine.

A level 20 fighter is much more than a "martial arts master," just as a level 20 wizard is much more brilliant than a mathematician with a PhD.

What makes combat so special? At level 20 you get magical equipment. You're durable enough to survive a fall from hundreds of feat in the air. Fireballs do not instantly vaporize you.

A level 20 fighter pretty much has to be more than most modern martial arts masters, just because they've been in lots of actual combat to the death. There's no particular reason they have to be all that much better than historical figures who were extremely capable combatants who did get in fights to the death. Said historical figures generally didn't win fights with dozens of enemies and no allies.

[jaydubs]

Plus, I note that your example explicitly involved choosing a group that is disproportionately composed of people who are relatively physically weak. Somehow, I think 100 untrained, unarmed. manual laborers could threaten a martial artist just fine.

While I generally agree that 100 untrained adults will beat 1 trained adult, the reference to nerds was from:

100 six-year-olds can't, but 100 sufficiently-motivated nerds with no combat training whatsoever can.

[Nicol Bolas]

Keep underestimating tools and numbers all you want. Weapons are assumed here, and the thing about weapons is that it tends not to take any particularly exceptional strength to seriously injure someone with one. If a ten year old hits you with an ax with anything more than the most glancing of blows, odds are good that it will do some real damage. If there are a hundred of them all trying to kill you, odds are pretty good at least one will get through regardless of how good you are. Armor mitigates this pretty well, but 100 against 1 is completely and utterly ridiculous odds once weapons are involved.

If you can land a serious blow, sure. That's what the critical hit is meant to indicate. It's an attack that most-assuredly hits, rather than being a glancing blow or an avoidance altogether.

You keep bringing up real-world examples like that's supposed to be peak D&D. Do you play D&D to feel like the best you could expect from a regular human being? Seriously? That's the limits of how powerful you want to feel? 5e is definitely the weakest end-game of any edition of D&D yet. Level 20 5e D&D heroes are strictly worse than the best real people in the world at just about everything. You just don't have the option to play a high-powered game, and that's a long-term weakness. If you want to play low-powered in any other D&D edition, you do. You play levels 1-5 and cut exp by whatever ratio you desire to stretch the game out, and the game does not suffer. But if you want to play a plane-jumping hero capable of battling the gods themselves? The game is simply not for you.

The game that tried to be the MOST INCLUSIVE edition of D&D ever cannot properly replicate an entire tier of play. How is that not a glaring weakness in the system? 3.5 can do high or low power, admittedly it doesn't handle high-power well beyond level 23 or 24. Same with 4e, it begins to break down at the last five levels unless you homebrew all your creatures. But with 5e you don't even have a system capable of illustrating those characters.

Plus, I note that your example explicitly involved choosing a group that is disproportionately composed of people who are relatively physically weak. Somehow, I think 100 untrained, unarmed. manual laborers could threaten a martial artist just fine.

Not my example, chief.

A level 20 fighter pretty much has to be more than most modern martial arts masters, just because they've been in lots of actual combat to the death. There's no particular reason they have to be all that much better than historical figures who were extremely capable combatants who did get in fights to the death. Said historical figures generally didn't win fights with dozens of enemies and no allies.

Who the hell cares what historical figures can and cannot do? This is a fantasy table RPG not a historical simulation. I'd like my heroes to AT LEAST be able to pull off mythological levels of strength, not top-out at "strictly worse than Aragorn."

[Knaight]

[QUOTE=Nicol Bolas;18383824You keep bringing up real-world examples like that's supposed to be peak D&D. Do you play D&D to feel like the best you could expect from a regular human being? Seriously? That's the limits of how powerful you want to feel? 5e is definitely the weakest end-game of any edition of D&D yet. Level 20 5e D&D heroes are strictly worse than the best real people in the world at just about everything. You just don't have the option to play a high-powered game, and that's a long-term weakness. If you want to play low-powered in any other D&D edition, you do. You play levels 1-5 and cut exp by whatever ratio you desire to stretch the game out, and the game does not suffer. But if you want to play a plane-jumping hero capable of battling the gods themselves? The game is simply not for you.[/QUOTE]

I generally avoid D&D, and stick to games where the best in the setting are the best that can be expected from a regular human being, and the player characters are a few cuts below that. There are exceptions here (e.g. magic in a fantasy game, technology beyond modernity in futuristic games, etc). There are still some issues with 5e - skills are the big one here, and flat doubling proficiency is something I'm pretty much on board with.

As for levels 1-5, the issue there is that it creates a situation where there are a whopping 5 discrete mechanical character points. Sure, the area is covered, but not particularly well - the game does suffer. Expanding it to 20 levels drastically improves that particular set of the game. It's specialization, but I'd argue it's entirely warranted.

Who the hell cares what historical figures can and cannot do? This is a fantasy table RPG not a historical simulation. I'd like my heroes to AT LEAST be able to pull off mythological levels of strength, not top-out at "strictly worse than Aragorn."

It's a fantasy game based on a genre that pulls strongly from particular historical periods. That makes the history relevant.

[ProphetSword]

You keep bringing up real-world examples like that's supposed to be peak D&D. Do you play D&D to feel like the best you could expect from a regular human being? Seriously? That's the limits of how powerful you want to feel?

What I find interesting here is that in the olden days of yore (OD&D, 1st Edition AD&D, etc), that's exactly what people wanted. D&D evolved from war games, where realistic accuracy was important. I suppose times have changed now, with kids growing up watching anime and seeing larger than life heroes on the movie screen, but gritty realism in a fantastical world is what D&D started out as. So, I think you should accept that what you want isn't necessarily what everyone wants...but certainly, there are others who do.

I have no issues with someone who wants to play a larger-than-life style of D&D that involves jumping planes and fighting gods. It's not for me, though. And, you seem to have a hard time understanding that there are people who don't desire that kind of thing in their games at all.

The game that tried to be the MOST INCLUSIVE edition of D&D ever cannot properly replicate an entire tier of play. How is that not a glaring weakness in the system? 3.5 can do high or low power, admittedly it doesn't handle high-power well beyond level 23 or 24. Same with 4e, it begins to break down at the last five levels unless you homebrew all your creatures. But with 5e you don't even have a system capable of illustrating those characters.

For one thing, there have only been two books released. We have no idea if there will be epic level play beyond level 20 at this point.

Also, who says it can't replicate that style of play just because lower level creatures can still be dangerous in large numbers? Why are you equating "low level creatures are still a threat in large numbers" with "high level characters cannot deal with high level threats?" That isn't true at all.

Who the hell cares what historical figures can and cannot do? This is a fantasy table RPG not a historical simulation. I'd like my heroes to AT LEAST be able to pull off mythological levels of strength, not top-out at "strictly worse than Aragorn."

As pointed out, D&D started from war games, and some people like to keep their games bounded to some realistic reality. As a friend of mine recently said when a party wizard attempted to do something really ridiculous with his powers: "As cool as that sounds, you still can't break the laws of physics that way." Something to think about.

[Gnomes2169]

To say nothing of the threat they pose to innocent catfolk everywhere

Truly, the greatest threat humanity has ever faced.

But why?

Why are they a threat?

How many goblins would it take to challenge a well-established civilization? Why are these goblins gathered together in such an unseemly horde? Why are the heroes required to fight them with no further assistance?

Every scenario leads this to making zero sense.

... So we're ignoring all written fantasy ever (outside of particular manga) where a massive army is still a threat, even if the PC's are a high level? I suppose we're going to ignore Azure City entirely then, even though we are on the OotS boards, and skip immediately to something completely contradictory to your point with the power level you seem to desire...

In the Wheel of Time series, the army of casters that is capable of crushing any army of 10-100,000 soldiers is still able to be overwhelmed and wiped out by all of the "mook" Trollocks due to the later's sheer numbers. Swordsmen were remarkable if they could kill more than 6 trollocks before succumbing to their wounds, and even warders or other mythically empowered soldiers only seemed capable of killing a little more than a few dozen. Hell, the only thing that wasn't threatened by a big enough army in the series was Padan Fain (who was basically an eldritch horror at that point), and he was killed by one of the lowest level PC (Mathrim had no special powers beyond his godlike luck and average looks. He still killed Fain because he was immune to the monster's death aura). One of the major themes of the series is that despite the raw power of many individuals, and complaints that the main party is still completely overpowered, no one is able to solo an entire army, no matter how powerful they are. Sure, a few hundred mooks are easily in the capabilities of a few channelers, and certain skilled and mystically powered swordsmen are capable of taking out dozens of trollocks without being slain, but no one can take on hundreds of thousands of enemies alone and expect to live. This is a staple in almost all literature I can think of, broken only by the Belgariad, where the party starts out with a few demi-gods and then goes around roflstomping armies of millions and their god with a god-killing artifact in the main character's hands.

No one praises the Belgariad on its realism, and it's probably the closest thing to what you are looking for outside of 3.5 as far as power scaling goes. That 5e cannot model the Belgariad is not an actual weakness of the system, just like 3.5 being unable to model Wheel of Time is not a weakness of the system. If anything, it's a weakness of 3.5 that armiesjust aren't a threat at higher levels, as that removes an entire genre of encounters/ plot lines from the DM's table.

While I generally agree that 100 untrained adults will beat 1 trained adult, the reference to nerds was from:

The quote in question was not talking about nerds, but rather the quote from Nicol Bolas that said that 100 unarmed children would not do any real harm to a solitary martial arts expert.

It was then brought up that goblins wouldn't be as helpless as children, and would be closer to nerds instead. And I'm going a bit farther, since most goblins will be armed instead of unarmed. So it's 100 nerds armed with chairs, sling shots (that have very sharp rocks) and D&D books, vs 1 martial arts expert. If all 100 are pushing forward/ charging at the same time, despite only being able to attack the one guy 10 at a time at most, they will still beat him down and kick him for a while after only a few seconds. Simply overwelming the martial arts dude with beatings and bodies will be too much for the man's fisticuffs, regardless of the dude's training.

[MonkeySage]

Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

[Sidmen]

Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

It's almost as if the stated goal of bringing casters into balance with mundanes was successful! Oh the humanity! How will the spellcasters ever cope with the shame of not being completely overpowered anymore?

[McBars]

Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

What kind of wizard are you playing? I have a level 15 diviner right now and he is just dominant. So much fun, especially with the way casting works in fifth edition.

[MonkeySage]

They didn't balance them out, they went a step farther. What kind of conjuror only knows one conjuration, and its not even a summon monster?
I went into this wanting to play a conjuration focused character, I've always been a sucker for teleports and monster summoning, that's what made that particular school fun for me. I didn't care if the class is less powerful, I care that they've lost what made them good in the first place.

[ProphetSword]

It was then brought up that goblins wouldn't be as helpless as children, and would be closer to nerds instead. And I'm going a bit farther, since most goblins will be armed instead of unarmed. So it's 100 nerds armed with chairs, sling shots (that have very sharp rocks) and D&D books, vs 1 martial arts expert. If all 100 are pushing forward/ charging at the same time, despite only being able to attack the one guy 10 at a time at most, they will still beat him down and kick him for a while after only a few seconds. Simply overwelming the martial arts dude with beatings and bodies will be too much for the man's fisticuffs, regardless of the dude's training.

To switch up genres a bit for comparison, why is it no one seems to have an issue with the idea that a single man, regardless of his training in fighting and weaponry, will certainly face death if he is surrounded by hundreds of slow-moving, flesh-eating zombies in a post-apocalyptic setting...

...but it is somehow ridiculous that a man who is a master with a sword could possibly be taken out by fast-moving, stealth-using goblins with sharp weapons?

[Nicol Bolas]

What I find interesting here is that in the olden days of yore (OD&D, 1st Edition AD&D, etc), that's exactly what people wanted. D&D evolved from war games, where realistic accuracy was important. I suppose times have changed now, with kids growing up watching anime and seeing larger than life heroes on the movie screen, but gritty realism in a fantastical world is what D&D started out as. So, I think you should accept that what you want isn't necessarily what everyone wants...but certainly, there are others who do.

I have no issues with someone who wants to play a larger-than-life style of D&D that involves jumping planes and fighting gods. It's not for me, though. And, you seem to have a hard time understanding that there are people who don't desire that kind of thing in their games at all.

The key word there I would highlight is "D&D evolved from.." which is sort of the last time that happened. 5e is a regression if anything, in a lot of ways. It does some things new, but for the most part it tosses aside 20 years of game development to carry favor with an exceptionally vocal group of people. My point is the other editions can already model what you want, along with what I want. This edition can only model what you want. Do you see why that's a problem? A deadening of focus which serves to deaden the attachment for people like me?

For one thing, there have only been two books released. We have no idea if there will be epic level play beyond level 20 at this point.

Also, who says it can't replicate that style of play just because lower level creatures can still be dangerous in large numbers? Why are you equating "low level creatures are still a threat in large numbers" with "high level characters cannot deal with high level threats?" That isn't true at all.

I'm not exceptionally thrilled about how well 5e will handle epic tier. Characters already struggle to break iron manacles at level 20 now. There's no way they'll make up that kind of lost distance in 10 levels of play. Anyway, the point is even high-level monsters are bland and lifeless. They just aren't scary. The heroes aren't given abilities that would let them deal with something that is scary. And even if you gave them the abilities, the core aspects of the game that are useful at immersing one in play (how skills interact with the game world) are so stunted that it's unbelievable. My hero can kill Asmodeus but can't break iron manacles? That Asmodeus can't break either? Some god. Where's the fulfillment?

... So we're ignoring all written fantasy ever (outside of particular manga) where a massive army is still a threat, even if the PC's are a high level? I suppose we're going to ignore Azure City entirely then, even though we are on the OotS boards, and skip immediately to something completely contradictory to your point with the power level you seem to desire...

Not at all. They're just not level 20 heroes. Nobody in LotR is much higher than 5. The order topped out at what? 14? And each of them could still handle hundreds of goblins over the course of the battle without risking serious death. It wasn't until other, even higher-level forces got involved that anybody died. Would they have died if they stayed? Sure. But if you throw 10,000 goblins at anybody and don't give them an option to retreat, even 3.5 wizards will eventually run out of spells and have to escape.

What I'm saying is just straight slugging-it-out is not an approach heroes are going to take with an army. They are going to use other means to defeat it. And those means should work once a sufficient power level is reached.

n the Wheel of Time series, the army of casters that is capable of crushing any army of 10-100,000 soldiers is still able to be overwhelmed and wiped out by all of the "mook" Trollocks due to the later's sheer numbers.

That is considerably higher than 100. I don't see your point. You seem to think I'm advocating that level 20 heroes can take on an infinite amount of goblins. I'm not. I'm saying that by the time you reach a point where the PCs cannot realistically handle the number of goblins that it would require, your DM should have already been kicked out of your gaming session for trying to put you in that scenario in a straight-up fight. Armies should be dealt with through subtlety and battlefield tactics, not a fist-fight.

I would argue 3.5 and 4e actually model Wheel of Time exceptionally well for what it's worth.

It was then brought up that goblins wouldn't be as helpless as children, and would be closer to nerds instead. And I'm going a bit farther, since most goblins will be armed instead of unarmed. So it's 100 nerds armed with chairs, sling shots (that have very sharp rocks) and D&D books, vs 1 martial arts expert. If all 100 are pushing forward/ charging at the same time, despite only being able to attack the one guy 10 at a time at most, they will still beat him down and kick him for a while after only a few seconds. Simply overwelming the martial arts dude with beatings and bodies will be too much for the man's fisticuffs, regardless of the dude's training.

Goblins should be less than adults since goblins are, as far as I know, usually physically inferior than grown men in most ways. If you really want to continue this pointless example that 100 nerds could beat a martial artist, go for it. But plenty of martial artists have taken on armed gangs, both in fiction and in history, and come out on top. Ip Man ring a bell? Great movie, see it if you haven't.

A mob cannot coordinate effectively enough to be a threat to a trained warrior unless they somehow surround him on all sides and throw themselves at him with utter disregard for their own well being. And that will never happen. Nobody wants to be the first guy to die.

[Gnomes2169]

Seems to me that wizards and other spellcasters have been neutered and spayed in 5e. Some spells are completely gone, my conjuror has exactly 1 conjuration spell.... he has no summon monster because that spell no longer exists. it's one thing to make them a little less powerful, but wizards suck now.
I can't even play lander anymore: he was a neutral evil, necromancy focused cleric, who aspired to lichdom. and in both 3.5 and pathfinder, his goal was realistic.

Um... There are a good handful of summoning spells (conjure woodland beings, conjure animals, conjure minor elementals, conjure elemental, conjure fey, conjure celestial, planar ally, unseen servant, phantom steed, find steed, find familiar, drawmiji's instant summons, mordenkainen's faithful hound and, before I forget about it, GATE). Wizards get a good chunk of these to use as they need, and the fact that other classes might be more specialized for summoning (Druid or Cleric) does not mean that their summoning capabilities are completely negligible.

You want to get a few undead? Animate Dead and Create Undead are both there for you, and they cover pretty much everything you could want.

You want to be a lich? Talk to your DM, if they have the Monster Manual, they can decide if they want to let you be one, and what the ritual entails... just like in 3.5.

So, where is the problem again?

[Sidmen]

They didn't balance them out, they went a step farther. What kind of conjuror only knows one conjuration, and its not even a summon monster?
I went into this wanting to play a conjuration focused character, I've always been a sucker for teleports and monster summoning, that's what made that particular school fun for me. I didn't care if the class is less powerful, I care that they've lost what made them good in the first place.

One would suspect that the indicated conjurer didn't look through the conjuration spells in 5th edition and chose his profession poorly. Summoning was pushed back to spell levels 3 and 4, for quite obvious reasons (not sure why Conjure Animal isn't a wizard spell...). In the meantime, misty step (a 2nd level spell) is a short ranged teleportation spell that sees a LOT of use in my games.

[Knaight]

The key word there I would highlight is "D&D evolved from.." which is sort of the last time that happened. 5e is a regression if anything, in a lot of ways. It does some things new, but for the most part it tosses aside 20 years of game development to carry favor with an exceptionally vocal group of people. My point is the other editions can already model what you want, along with what I want. This edition can only model what you want. Do you see why that's a problem? A deadening of focus which serves to deaden the attachment for people like me?

If there were a whopping one game to choose from, I might be sympathetic to this argument. As is, there are a ton of RPGs, a lot of which are specialized. Early editions of D&D are not the last time low powered settings happened, the bulk of non-D&D RPGs do exactly that. If anything, 3e-4e were the throwbacks in that way. As for tossing aside 20 years of game development, that's a D&D tradition. Outside of D&D, class and level systems are pretty much seen as antiquated design, invoked only to deliberately create a retro aesthetic. Outside of D&D, maintaining 3 core books needed to play is considered completely ridiculous, and 2 is pushing it.

5e is not a regression in this regard. It's a progression towards the state of the rest of the industry, where D&D has lagged behind. It can be welcomed into modern design (or mid-1990's design, given that it still clings to a lot of the retro aesthetic). 20 years of game development might still be being tossed out, but I'd argue that 3e was tossing the last 30, and in this particular respect 4e was as well.

Moreover, specialization is really not a problem at this point. There are tens of thousands of RPGs, and at least hundreds with somewhat wide visibility. While your tastes do contradict the bulk of them, there are still plenty that cater to them. There's Exalted, Mythender, several generic systems that handle high powered settings well (HERO, Fudge with the right tweaks, Fate with some tweaking). There's D&D 3 and 4.

[Nicol Bolas]

If there were a whopping one game to choose from, I might be sympathetic to this argument. As is, there are a ton of RPGs, a lot of which are specialized. Early editions of D&D are not the last time low powered settings happened, the bulk of non-D&D RPGs do exactly that. If anything, 3e-4e were the throwbacks in that way. As for tossing aside 20 years of game development, that's a D&D tradition. Outside of D&D, class and level systems are pretty much seen as antiquated design, invoked only to deliberately create a retro aesthetic. Outside of D&D, maintaining 3 core books needed to play is considered completely ridiculous, and 2 is pushing it.

5e is not a regression in this regard. It's a progression towards the state of the rest of the industry, where D&D has lagged behind. It can be welcomed into modern design (or mid-1990's design, given that it still clings to a lot of the retro aesthetic). 20 years of game development might still be being tossed out, but I'd argue that 3e was tossing the last 30, and in this particular respect 4e was as well.

Moreover, specialization is really not a problem at this point. There are tens of thousands of RPGs, and at least hundreds with somewhat wide visibility. While your tastes do contradict the bulk of them, there are still plenty that cater to them. There's Exalted, Mythender, several generic systems that handle high powered settings well (HERO, Fudge with the right tweaks, Fate with some tweaking). There's D&D 3 and 4.

I unfortunately agree with everything you're saying. But as an aspiring game designer, I guess it kills me inside. I wish D&D could progress. I wish the people that enjoyed D&D would let it progress.

[ProphetSword]

The key word there I would highlight is "D&D evolved from.." which is sort of the last time that happened. 5e is a regression if anything, in a lot of ways. It does some things new, but for the most part it tosses aside 20 years of game development to carry favor with an exceptionally vocal group of people. My point is the other editions can already model what you want, along with what I want. This edition can only model what you want. Do you see why that's a problem? A deadening of focus which serves to deaden the attachment for people like me?

I see why it's a problem for you. That does not mean it's a problem for everyone else in the world, though.

I already stated in my response that there's nothing wrong with wanting to play the way that you play and have heroes as powerful as you want them. It's just as valid as playing in a gritty, difficult world where death lurks around every corner, which is how I like it. There's room in the world for both play styles.

If 5e is not giving you the kind of game that you want, it is totally valid to find one that will. Personally, I think 5e can give you what you want. PCs do become far more powerful than the numbers suggest, even if they can't beat an army of 200 orcs single-handedly anymore.

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah but...why?

Why are stronger heroes wasting their time cleaning up amateur threats?

When I play 3.5 and 4e, you deal with mundane things till level 5. At that point you're basically the Gandalfs and Hercules...es? of your world. Once you hit 6 you should be facing threats to cities, then regions, then countries, then worlds, then the universe, basically every 5 levels you should graduate in terms of epicness.

D&D shouldn't be modeled like a group versus an army. If you're ever fighting more than 20 of something at a time your DM has picked the wrong system to use.

Facing a horde of monsters is a classic story. It doesn't even have to be monsters. Invading army, civil war, even a defending good army are all possible to use now. And in the majority of fiction I've read, a massive army is still a threat to pretty much anybody who isn't a god. The only examples I can think where it's otherwise is DBZ-style Manga and books by Ed Greenwood.

And you can still beat armies. You just can't waltz in there and ignore them. You have to use actual clever tactics to break them into manageable chunks. And if you don't want to fight armies, well good news; there are lots of high level monsters that you can fight instead like dragons, liches, and krakens.

Basically this allows us to tell more stories that weren't really possible, or easy to do, with 3.5e. But you can still tell most of the stories you could in 3.5e (except for Epic stuff because the level currently stops at 20).

[Knaight]

I unfortunately agree with everything you're saying. But as an aspiring game designer, I guess it kills me inside. I wish D&D could progress. I wish the people that enjoyed D&D would let it progress.

I'd argue that it is progressing. Sure, it's a slow process - the game I play most (Fudge) was released in 1995, and it still feels more modern than 5e does, which says something about the rate of advancement in D&D. Still, 5e is something that I don't mind playing, though there are some substantial tweaks. That's predicated on specifically wanting a throwback, but even as a throwback it feels more modern than other editions.

As for your LotR example earlier - in the books, the entire fellowship is threatened by 13 orcs in Moria. They're hardly cutting them down by the hundreds, and are much more consistent with highly skilled individuals than superhumans, which generally holds throughout. When it comes to combat and magic, 5e manages highly skilled fairly well. The rest of the skill system warrants tweaking.

[Nicol Bolas]

I'd argue that it is progressing. Sure, it's a slow process - the game I play most (Fudge) was released in 1995, and it still feels more modern than 5e does, which says something about the rate of advancement in D&D. Still, 5e is something that I don't mind playing, though there are some substantial tweaks. That's predicated on specifically wanting a throwback, but even as a throwback it feels more modern than other editions.

As for your LotR example earlier - in the books, the entire fellowship is threatened by 13 orcs in Moria. They're hardly cutting them down by the hundreds, and are much more consistent with highly skilled individuals than superhumans, which generally holds throughout. When it comes to combat and magic, 5e manages highly skilled fairly well. The rest of the skill system warrants tweaking.

My point is the LotR world is not a world where 20th level characters exist. Nobody tops out past 5th level there. It's decidedly low-power. They're highly-skilled regular people.

Now, in 5e, highly-skilled regular people is now that peak. And that idea...just is not intriguing to me at all.

Like, as an example, M&M 3e is a game that can handle regular highly-skilled people AND cosmic level deities, all on the same scale, without trouble. Why can't D&D 5e handle that same spread, with the same level of competency? They've had how many years and how much talent to get to this point? I personally can't understand how Mike Mearls keeps getting work.

[Sartharina]

Keep under-estimating the limits of physical fitness all you want, but 100 unarmed nerds won't even tire out a master martial artist. No matter how motivated they are.

And 100 goblins can't really tire a level 20 fighter if they attack one-on-one. But the 100 nerds WILL take out the martial artist if they engage en-mass. Especially if they have weapons, or start picking up their fallen to bludgeon the martial artist with (Even if it takes four of them to lift and swing one of them)

This is ad-hoc, development-less storytelling with no insight into how a fictional-world needs to operate to make sense. If that's the best you can do to make goblins seem worthwhile at level 20 from a storytelling perspective then there is no point to them.

Actually, exploring a new world and setting the foundations of expanding a civilization are a worthy level 20 goal. At this level, you're Duke Nuke'm trying to raid the Alien homeworld to get back all the kidnapped women (Where most of the aliens will be level 1 soldiers or nobodies that you have to chew through), or Hernando Cortez expanding the Spanish Empire into what was Latin American territories. Or you're John Wane defending a border settlement from the natives.

Like, as an example, M&M 3e is a game that can handle regular highly-skilled people AND cosmic level deities, all on the same scale, without trouble. Why can't D&D 5e handle that same spread, with the same level of competency? They've had how many years and how much talent to get to this point? I personally can't understand how Mike Mearls keeps getting work.

M&M 3e is a point-buy system with power caps and infinite scaleability, and horizontal progression within a power level. D&D is a level-based system with constant, fluid progression from one level to the next, with linear power increases. You can run a five-year-long campaign in M&M 3e and never move past low power level. You can't do that in D&D - if you try, you either have to have the party stop gaining levels (And stop progressing), or find your players ending up in high-power play anyway. D&D is built around a single tier of power, and that tier is "Conan in Middle Earth"

[ComaVision]

Firstly, let me admit that my understanding of 5e is limited to having read the basic rules once.

Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

[Sartharina]

Now, if a group of goblins can remain a threat to high level characters in 5e, does that mean that a group of armed common folk could eliminate huge threats on their own? Can a city of reasonable size take out a Ancient Red Dragon in an angry mob?

If they all get magic items, yes. Otherwise they can't hurt it. Technically. However... who the **** is going to throw their life away like that?

I'll concede it's my preferred play style but it seems odd to me that adventures would exist in a setting where they are not needed.

Adventurers are needed, because they can do the work of (2-40) men, and nobody else will step up to what amounts to Certain Doom. Yes, you can throw 200 commoners at a dragon - but doing so throws away thousands of man-hours of work. Yes, the king can send his army to take down a dragon - but then he doesn't have an army because the dragon destroys most of it. Or, the army finds its target elusive, and it gets picked and torn apart because it can't coordinate against a single skilled, powerful opponent.

One man doing the work of forty is always impressive.

[ComaVision]

If they all get magic items, yes. Otherwise they can't hurt it. Technically. However... who the **** is going to throw their life away like that?

You could say that about any army ever though. I think armies realise that most of them will die but it sure beats being at the mercy of the dragon (or other deadly force) constantly.

Why would they need magic items? I found the stat block for the dragon and don't see DR (is DR a thing in 5e?). Is a nat 20 not a guaranteed hit in 5e? If the entire mob would need magic items then that cost would be prohibitive enough to prevent a mob defending the city.