Page 10 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910
Results 271 to 295 of 295
  1. - Top - End - #271
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    Minor correction. This is the feat situation specific to fighters and fighter feats. Regular feats came at 1st level and then every level evenly divisible by 3, which did not have to come from a specified list.



    There are ways. Skilled for skills, Resilient for saves (well, one save), feats for various weapons and armor proficiencies, an actual training system for languages and tool proficiency. All of it is possible, but it requires you to turn the feat option on (whether you want other feats in your game or not), and once every four levels makes it pretty hard to accomplish (especially since only one sub-race starts with a feat). Personally, I think they were a little bit between a rock and a hard place, given audience expectations, but really the having multiple different ways to accomplish the multiclassing concept and making feats optional (rather than just declaring that DMs should make a list of acceptable feats) caused no small part of these downstream consequences.
    huh wizard bonus feats & such are a bit different than I remember

  2. - Top - End - #272
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post

    Hm, that's the opposite of the usual complaint. Most people focus on how enemy DCs increase as you level, but (barring those saves you are proficient in), defender's saves really don't much. I would generalize the critique and say that in a fixed 5e, the save math should be reexamined, but hold off on a judgment on the numerically right solution.
    I am less actually proposing a fix and more being angry with my chars save DC's at the moment. DC 14 is just so piss, and I can't get much higher at level 6.

    A question for the floor, do players get enough skills? I mean perception is so valuable that it is hard to justify not taking on everyone and that gives most characters 3 skills with class and background, and it is somewhat difficult to get more, sacrificing ASI's/feats is really painful. does that feel like enough?
    Last edited by Witty Username; 2018-12-11 at 02:29 PM.
    My sig is something witty



    I am a:
    Spoiler
    Show
    I Am A: Lawful Good Human Wizard/Sorcerer (1st/1st Level)
    Ability Scores:
    Strength-11
    Dexterity-13
    Constitution-13
    Intelligence-14
    Wisdom-12
    Charisma-14

    what are you

  3. - Top - End - #273
    Barbarian in the Playground
     
    PirateGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2016
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    I am less actually proposing a fix and more being angry with my chars save DC's at the moment. DC 14 is just so piss, and I can't get much higher at level 6.

    A question for the floor, do players get enough skills? I mean perception is so valuable that it is hard to justify not taking on everyone and that gives most characters 3 skills with class and background, and it is somewhat difficult to get more, sacrificing ASI's/feats is really painful. does that feel like enough?
    I think perception is the most overrated thing in the entire game (and there is a lot of competition). In my experience, the greatest value it has comes from it being misused. When used properly, it comes up less. And while the biggest value many people see in it is avoiding surprise, in my experience, a single party member being good at it will notice enough things early to avoid most surprises for the entire party. In theory, surprise goes by the individual. In practice, I find that in open outdoor spaces, visual distance allows for a single individual to see and point out a threat before it is in combat range, while in a dungeon, corridors are tight enough that people in the back ranks will be safe from harm so long as the people in the front see a threat without being surprised.

    So, with that said, I think that players get plenty of skills, and it only feels restrictive if you unnecessarily place restrictions upon yourself.

  4. - Top - End - #274
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    I am less actually proposing a fix and more being angry with my chars save DC's at the moment. DC 14 is just so piss, and I can't get much higher at level 6.

    A question for the floor, do players get enough skills? I mean perception is so valuable that it is hard to justify not taking on everyone and that gives most characters 3 skills with class and background, and it is somewhat difficult to get more, sacrificing ASI's/feats is really painful. does that feel like enough?
    As a note, most creatures are not proficient in saving throws (any of them) until CR 10+. AC scales much quicker. That means that across the monster manual, the basic failure changes are stable if your main stat looks like:

    Level 1: +2
    Level 5: +2 or +3
    Level 11: +3 or +4
    Level 17: +4 or +5

    Thus, a DC 14 at level 6 (+3 stat) is totally on-par with expectations, similar in success to having a +6 attack modifier. Of course, if your DM is consistently throwing CR = APL + N deadly encounters you might not see this...but that's the DM's fault.

    The skills feel like enough for me. Perception proficiency isn't mandatory (and if you feel it is, be an elf).
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 533 MM and Volo's monsters

  5. - Top - End - #275
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    Note: You can pick up armor, weapons, skills, and tools from feats as well. You can also gain proficiency in them as quest rewards. Tools and languages you can gain by spending cash and downtime.

    I'm curious as to why this is such a big issue? Proficiency is not like it was--you can still use anything (except armor* and some tools) without penalty, you just don't get the bonus from it. There are no "trained only" checks*, so by default anyone can roll for anything. Some people are just better at those specific things than others--if you could easily gain all skills and saves without spending permanent character resources, it would be an optimization tax, a must-have.

    Instead, classes define archetypes for functional things (armor, weapons), while saves are distributed on a strong (DEX, CON, WIS)/weak (STR, INT, CHA) basis--each class gets one of each. Intentionally, no class gets two strong saves except through class features (cf monks at higher levels). If a one-level dip gave saves as well, that would be out of bounds from the design. No one is supposed to be unhittable/untouchable. You're supposed to fail saves--specialized saves about 20% of the time, proficient but secondary (or primary and non-proficient) saves about 50% of the time, and non-proficient/non-primary saves about 80% of the time. In return, the effect of the failed saves has been reduced substantially. There are very few SoD effects; most of those that exist take multiple failed saves to have their effect or are concentration or save-ends, meaning that the median effect of a failed save is damage, not death/incapacitation. The same goes for monsters. And for AC vs attack rolls. In part, this is because hitting is fun. Whiffing all your attacks makes things seem like a farce rather than an actual fight.

    For skills, if everyone could get all skills easily, rogues and bards would lose a lot of their draw (which is getting more skills and getting better ways to use skills). I know you don't like archetype-protection, but 5e is based strongly in that idea. Rogues/bards as skillmonkeys is ingrained in the DNA of the game. Although they're less skill-monkey-exclusive this edition, because anyone can pick up any skill or tool (using backgrounds).

    * lack of proficiency in armor prevents spell-casting. You still get the armor mod (just not shields).
    ** you can't use thieves tools without proficiency. Other than that...there really aren't any significant "proficient only" tasks.
    I guess it gets back to the tension between "what I want from a system" vs "how to avoid changes making it less D&D for those who like D&D".

    As you say, I'm not big on archetypes -- I'm looking to translate the character in my head into the mechanics of the game, not build up an optimized slot-filler from a menu of choices (background, race, class). It's the difference between looking at B/R/C as tools to build the character we want, or looking at them as a menu to make choices from that restrict what sorts of characters are even available in games run with this system?

    What I was looking for, that wasn't there... was something in the character resources to round out a character's Proficiencies beyond the B/R/C menu. The "checkbox" setup for all those things, rather than being able to invest either narrowly or broadly, might complicate an attempt to change that. That is, you can't put two Skill "ticks" in Herbalism and be extra-skilled with Herbalism... you either have the Skill, or you don't. So, the system isn't asking players to decide between focus or broadness in their Skills, they can't put two points into one Skill or one point each into two Skills.

    And while there are other ways to acquire Proficiencies in play, that doesn't provide any way for characters built with a few starting levels to have a few "out of menu" choices.




    This all really hit me when I started trying to stat up a character with 3 levels in Fighter (Def/Battlemaster) and 3 levels in Artificer (Alchemist), half elf, sage... because that was the best way to represent that particular character -- taking either one alone didn't really do the character justice, and taking them together left some holes in the character because of the paucity of options outside of the menu choices themselves.

    It's like trying to order a sandwich, and you get a bun choice, a meat choice, and a vegetable choice, but each bun choice comes with a condiment you can't change, each meat choice comes with a cheese you can't change, and each vegetable choice is a set of three that you can't change around.
    Last edited by Max_Killjoy; 2018-12-11 at 03:50 PM.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  6. - Top - End - #276
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Aug 2018
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    @Max Killjoy, I get that. 5e does have a strict script on how each class works, and how combining them works together.

    One thing that really helps, though, is working with your DM to shuffle around the primary stats a bit. Like allowing Warlocks to work off of Intelligence, or allow the Arcane Archer to work off of Wisdom.

    It does break some of the things (like multiclassing balance can be an issue), but it opens up a lot of doors.

    Homebrewery

    Prestige Options, using existing classes to open up more unique character builds.
    Improved Ability Checks, fixing unused skills by improving player agency.
    Improved Stealth, creating long-term stealth that supports melee combat.
    Improved Initiative, maintaining tension even after combat ends.
    Adrenaline Surge, fitting Short Rests into combat to fix bosses/Short Rest Classes.
    Pain, using Exhaustion to make tactical martial combatants.

  7. - Top - End - #277
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    I guess it gets back to the tension between "what I want from a system" vs "how to avoid changes making it less D&D for those who like D&D".

    As you say, I'm not big on archetypes -- I'm looking to translate the character in my head into the mechanics of the game, not build up an optimized slot-filler from a menu of choices (background, race, class). It's the difference between looking at B/R/C as tools to build the character we want, or looking at them as a menu to make choices from that restrict what sorts of characters are even available in games run with this system?

    What I was looking for, that wasn't there... was something in the character resources to round out a character's Proficiencies beyond the B/R/C menu. The "checkbox" setup for all those things, rather than being able to invest either narrowly or broadly, might complicate an attempt to change that. That is, you can't put two Skill "ticks" in Herbalism and be extra-skilled with Herbalism... you either have the Skill, or you don't. So, the system isn't asking players to decide between focus or broadness in their Skills, they can't put two points into one Skill or one point each into two Skills.

    And while there are other ways to acquire Proficiencies in play, that doesn't provide any way for characters built with a few starting levels to have a few "out of menu" choices.


    This all really hit me when I started trying to stat up a character with 3 levels in Fighter (Def/Battlemaster) and 3 levels in Artificer (Alchemist), half elf, sage... because that was the best way to represent that particular character -- taking either one alone didn't really do the character justice, and taking them together left some holes in the character because of the paucity of options outside of the menu choices themselves.

    It's like trying to order a sandwich, and you get a bun choice, a meat choice, and a vegetable choice, but each bun choice comes with a condiment you can't change, each meat choice comes with a cheese you can't change, and each vegetable choice is a set of three that you can't change around.
    IE you don't like archetypes. Which is fine. But that'll make 5e's central design choices seem off-kilter to you. Because 5e is all about archetypes. All the class/subclass pairings (as well as most of the feats, etc) are not designed around an a la carte, build-your-own-class mentality. They're designed to create playable versions of particular archetypes--the big angry person, frothing at the mouth as he smacks you with a giant axe. The nimble rogue who stabs from the shadows and can go through locked doors like butter. The bookish wizard. The character parts come from the player and from the background. The intent was that people would choose proficiencies that reflect their character's particular strong points and choose the class/subclass that best reflects the adventuring abilities the character brings to bear. Not treat the classes as a tasting menu. Remember, multiclassing is a variant feature. While they do check (in official materials) for odd interactions (specifically broken interactions), they don't build classes with multiclassing in mind.

    Another thing is the meaning of proficiencies. It's not necessarily training (although it can be). It's "I'm better at <X> than someone of equal generic talent". If you truly want expertise, you need class features. Specifically the expertise class feature of bards and rogues. That's part of their archetype--they're better at skills than other people. Especially rogues--they get reliable talent as well (lets them treat 1-9 as a 10 on proficient ability checks).

    Also, note that there are no skill checks. There are merely ability checks that might include proficiency from a skill or tool. And which is up to the DM, although they're explicitly instructed to let players suggest alternate proficiencies for the action and to allow anything that has a somewhat decent justification. Non-proficient doesn't mean incapable, it means "not my specialty."
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 533 MM and Volo's monsters

  8. - Top - End - #278
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post

    Another thing is the meaning of proficiencies. It's not necessarily training (although it can be). It's "I'm better at <X> than someone of equal generic talent". If you truly want expertise, you need class features. Specifically the expertise class feature of bards and rogues. That's part of their archetype--they're better at skills than other people. Especially rogues--they get reliable talent as well (lets them treat 1-9 as a 10 on proficient ability checks).

    Also, note that there are no skill checks. There are merely ability checks that might include proficiency from a skill or tool.
    I guess after 4 years, we keep reminding people how this works.

    You can try anything; some people have a better chance at success than others.
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Player agency doesn't mean they get to roll for everything. Agency means that they control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) or so I am told ... by 2D8HP

  9. - Top - End - #279
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    I guess after 4 years, we keep reminding people how this works.

    You can try anything; some people have a better chance at success than others.
    5e has been out that long.

    I'm just now learning it as part of a project I'm helping someone with.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  10. - Top - End - #280
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    BlueKnightGuy

    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    As a note, most creatures are not proficient in saving throws (any of them) until CR 10+. AC scales much quicker. That means that across the monster manual, the basic failure changes are stable if your main stat looks like:

    Level 1: +2
    Level 5: +2 or +3
    Level 11: +3 or +4
    Level 17: +4 or +5

    Thus, a DC 14 at level 6 (+3 stat) is totally on-par with expectations, similar in success to having a +6 attack modifier. Of course, if your DM is consistently throwing CR = APL + N deadly encounters you might not see this...but that's the DM's fault.

    The skills feel like enough for me. Perception proficiency isn't mandatory (and if you feel it is, be an elf).
    I am checking over the monster manual, AC raising quicker does seem to be a thing. but anything on a d20 has an average of 10.5, so a +6 atk will hit an AC of 16 about half the time. AC takes this into account with its base being 10, but with saves the base is 8. And this is not taking into account condition immunities , which many monsters have. But I will continue perusing, like I said this is more an emotional response than rational thought.

    fair enough on the skills, I was asking a question on that because I didn't have an answer.(I have been screwed over every time I don't have perception though)
    My sig is something witty



    I am a:
    Spoiler
    Show
    I Am A: Lawful Good Human Wizard/Sorcerer (1st/1st Level)
    Ability Scores:
    Strength-11
    Dexterity-13
    Constitution-13
    Intelligence-14
    Wisdom-12
    Charisma-14

    what are you

  11. - Top - End - #281
    Troll in the Playground
    Join Date
    Jun 2015

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    As a note, most creatures are not proficient in saving throws (any of them) until CR 10+. AC scales much quicker. That means that across the monster manual, the basic failure changes are stable if your main stat looks like:

    Level 1: +2
    Level 5: +2 or +3
    Level 11: +3 or +4
    Level 17: +4 or +5

    Thus, a DC 14 at level 6 (+3 stat) is totally on-par with expectations, similar in success to having a +6 attack modifier. Of course, if your DM is consistently throwing CR = APL + N deadly encounters you might not see this...but that's the DM's fault.

    The skills feel like enough for me. Perception proficiency isn't mandatory (and if you feel it is, be an elf).
    Or a sailor?

  12. - Top - End - #282
    Ogre in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Meridianville AL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by KorvinStarmast View Post
    I guess after 4 years, we keep reminding people how this works.

    You can try anything; some people have a better chance at success than others.
    Except that whenever someone complains that skills are too random, it seems like half the board comes back with the claim that they frequently don't allow you to even try without proficiency.

    The GM gets to decide if you can even roll for something, and at least on this board, a large number seem to use proficiency as part of that decision.

  13. - Top - End - #283
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Except that whenever someone complains that skills are too random, it seems like half the board comes back with the claim that they frequently don't allow you to even try without proficiency.

    The GM gets to decide if you can even roll for something, and at least on this board, a large number seem to use proficiency as part of that decision.
    It's not the game making proficiency a gate as a rule, but DMs use it as such I think because of the word. Not helping is proficiency is a gate for tool use such as Herbalism to make healing potions. The DM has to make up his own rules, so even when the rules don't say proficiency is a gate they make it one because it feels right to them. Not all DMs, but you can't change the minds of those who do. Then there are the DMs who insist on calling it by the proper name of ability checks and players need to beg to use proficiency but the DM is reluctant even when the rules say proficiency should apply. Then there are DMs who don't use proficiency as a gate and let players use proficiency if asked when told to make an ability check. Then there are DMs who . . . I sense a theme. It's as if my ability to do stuff depends on who is DM that day and not my choices in the character I create. I can hear the screaming of others I dared mention that again.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  14. - Top - End - #284
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    It's as if my ability to do stuff depends on who is DM that day and not my choices in the character I create. I can hear the screaming of others I dared mention that again.
    I, for one, play with different DMs every session and don't communicate with them about their playstyles before diving in. I mean, who has consistent DMs in their games? Maybe the 1% can afford that.

  15. - Top - End - #285
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    ClericGirl

    Join Date
    May 2015
    Location
    Texas
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Except that whenever someone complains that skills are too random, it seems like half the board comes back with the claim that they frequently don't allow you to even try without proficiency.

    The GM gets to decide if you can even roll for something, and at least on this board, a large number seem to use proficiency as part of that decision.
    People who fail to read the rules and try to understand them, but rather try to overlay a 3.5e anal retentive mind set ... why should I worry about them? I don't play with people like that if 5e. Why would I?
    Quote Originally Posted by Malifice View Post
    (paraphrased) Rulings are not 'House Rules.' Rulings are a DM doing what DMs are supposed to do.
    Quote Originally Posted by greenstone View Post
    Player agency doesn't mean they get to roll for everything. Agency means that they control their character's actions; you control the world's reactions to the character's actions.
    Gosh, 2D8HP, you are so very correct (and also quite handsome) or so I am told ... by 2D8HP

  16. - Top - End - #286
    Dwarf in the Playground
     
    Marywn's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2018
    Location
    Mount. Everest
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Just delete your PHB. Your PHB is gone, but atleast you can't complai-wait, nevermind.
    Quote Originally Posted by Nifft View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Marywn View Post
    TIME FOR THESAURUS.COM!
    Consummate
    For a sufficiently sexy Fey patron, that might be the best word yet.
    Quote Originally Posted by Man_Over_Game View Post
    Have Barbarian Bear Totem Centaur, who's being ridden by a Cavalier Centaur, who's being ridden by a Life Cleric Centaur, who's being ridden by a Goliath Monk, who's being ridden by a Gnomish Warlock.

    HI-HO SILVER, AWAYYYYYYY~!

  17. - Top - End - #287
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    WolfInSheepsClothing

    Join Date
    Aug 2010

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doug Lampert View Post
    Except that whenever someone complains that skills are too random, it seems like half the board comes back with the claim that they frequently don't allow you to even try without proficiency.

    The GM gets to decide if you can even roll for something, and at least on this board, a large number seem to use proficiency as part of that decision.
    It's not always a matter of "if you don't have X trained, you can't try". Sometimes not having it trained will raise the dc or change the result. I don't know anything about particle physics but I'm pretty sure a quark falls into that realm. maybe I rolled well & think with pretty good certainty that there are up/down/top/botttom quarks, but knowing all of that doesn't help me know how to analyze the output from a supercollider.

  18. - Top - End - #288
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Witty Username View Post
    I am checking over the monster manual, AC raising quicker does seem to be a thing. but anything on a d20 has an average of 10.5, so a +6 atk will hit an AC of 16 about half the time. AC takes this into account with its base being 10, but with saves the base is 8. And this is not taking into account condition immunities , which many monsters have. But I will continue perusing, like I said this is more an emotional response than rational thought.
    Drawing such a simple comparison seems unlikely-to-be-useful to me. Saves is 8+prof+good stat vs 10.5+ a stat (probably a weak one, since the caster will choose spells based on opponents) + high likelihood of no proficiency. To-hit is 10.5+probably good stat (if you are an attack-based character) + very likely proficiency vs... well AC determination just isn't as formulaic. Especially not for monsters but also for people. Base 2-handed weapon fighter starts at ~16 (chainmail), but could be 19 if sword and board and defensive fighting. Shield giving +5 (compared to most low-level save boosts giving +1-4). Later on a paladin in the party throwing save #s into chaos. I'm not saying you're wrong about save numbers being off, just that looking at the 10.5 of to-hit and the 8 of saves is very apples to oranges (or maybe apples to perfectly-round-cows).

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    It's not the game making proficiency a gate as a rule, but DMs use it as such I think because of the word. Not helping is proficiency is a gate for tool use such as Herbalism to make healing potions. The DM has to make up his own rules, so even when the rules don't say proficiency is a gate they make it one because it feels right to them. Not all DMs, but you can't change the minds of those who do. Then there are the DMs who insist on calling it by the proper name of ability checks and players need to beg to use proficiency but the DM is reluctant even when the rules say proficiency should apply. Then there are DMs who don't use proficiency as a gate and let players use proficiency if asked when told to make an ability check. Then there are DMs who . . . I sense a theme. It's as if my ability to do stuff depends on who is DM that day and not my choices in the character I create. I can hear the screaming of others I dared mention that again.
    I'm sure someone will scream (or maybe just go 'here we go again...'), but mostly I think people will just look and think, 'okay, nothing has changed, certainly not the argument.' Most everyone else here just doesn't find the existence of inter-DM variability the abysmal horror that you apparently find it. That seems to be a singular position based on your own personal experience/age and year you started gaming/other factors that we don't share. So sure we can go through this one more time if you like, but you certainly haven't brought anything new to your side of the equation, so I don't think the outcome will be different.

  19. - Top - End - #289
    Ettin in the Playground
     
    Pex's Avatar

    Join Date
    Nov 2013

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post

    I'm sure someone will scream (or maybe just go 'here we go again...'), but mostly I think people will just look and think, 'okay, nothing has changed, certainly not the argument.' Most everyone else here just doesn't find the existence of inter-DM variability the abysmal horror that you apparently find it. That seems to be a singular position based on your own personal experience/age and year you started gaming/other factors that we don't share. So sure we can go through this one more time if you like, but you certainly haven't brought anything new to your side of the equation, so I don't think the outcome will be different.
    I'm not the only one having an issue about it, just the most vocal.
    Quote Originally Posted by OgresAreCute View Post
    "Welcome to Dungeons and Dragons fifth edition, where the DCs are made up and the rules don't matter."

  20. - Top - End - #290
    Firbolg in the Playground
    Join Date
    Oct 2014

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Willie the Duck View Post
    I'm sure someone will scream (or maybe just go 'here we go again...'), but mostly I think people will just look and think, 'okay, nothing has changed, certainly not the argument.' Most everyone else here just doesn't find the existence of inter-DM variability the abysmal horror that you apparently find it. That seems to be a singular position based on your own personal experience/age and year you started gaming/other factors that we don't share. So sure we can go through this one more time if you like, but you certainly haven't brought anything new to your side of the equation, so I don't think the outcome will be different.
    It's not the inter-DM variability per se that's the problem; that's just a symptom of a rules gap.

    Are rules gaps a problem per se? Not necessarily. But after you hit enough rules gaps, and patch them yourself, you start to wonder if you're actually using the right system for the kind of game you're trying to play.
    I like the way AD&D PCs are grounded in mythic fantasy archetypes. 5E has too much HP inflation and too few consequences... In AD&D 2nd edition, a high-level fighter can potentially fall from orbit and survive the 20d6 HP of damage (plus saving throw vs. death) that entails, and be perfectly healthy again only a few weeks later; in 5E, a 6th level wizard can fall from orbit and not only survive but be perfectly healthy again only a few hours later. I feel the AD&D way leads to better adventures.

  21. - Top - End - #291
    Troll in the Playground
     
    Daemon

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    Tampa, FL
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    It's not the inter-DM variability per se that's the problem; that's just a symptom of a rules gap.

    Are rules gaps a problem per se? Not necessarily. But after you hit enough rules gaps, and patch them yourself, you start to wonder if you're actually using the right system for the kind of game you're trying to play.
    That assumes that there's a problem involved in the first place. For me, that "rules gap" is a feature, not a bug. I WANT different tables to come to different conclusions about a lot of things. I want the same table to come to different conclusions for different circumstances. There is no single "correct" answer. The beauty of the "inter-DM variability" issue is that it allows different things to be different without having to modify the system itself. Contra Pex, we're not "relearning the game", because the game explicitly allows certain things to vary. So variance is the game--thinking that it's fixed is using it wrong.
    Dream of Hope: a 5e setting. http://www.admiralbenbo.org
    PhoenixPhyre's Extended Homebrew Signature
    5e Monster Data Sheet--vital statistics for all 533 MM and Volo's monsters

  22. - Top - End - #292
    Ogre in the Playground
     
    Chimera

    Join Date
    Dec 2015

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Pex View Post
    I'm not the only one having an issue about it, just the most vocal.
    I know, and I'm not personally in any way upset by this issues' presence in this thread. It fits perfectly with the OP subject matter. It is what you would like to see fixed in 5e.

    Quote Originally Posted by MaxWilson View Post
    It's not the inter-DM variability per se that's the problem; that's just a symptom of a rules gap.

    Are rules gaps a problem per se? Not necessarily. But after you hit enough rules gaps, and patch them yourself, you start to wonder if you're actually using the right system for the kind of game you're trying to play.
    And I think 5e has many features which are a poor fit for Pex's preferences. Perhaps it is the other features of it that keep him here, or else just that there are more people to play it with than the other systems. As you've stated before, the current D&D is often a gateway to other systems which more finely match ones preferences. I simply don't see the back-and-forth that Pex's "I can hear the screaming of others I dared mention that again" implies going any different this time around.

  23. - Top - End - #293
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by PhoenixPhyre View Post
    That assumes that there's a problem involved in the first place. For me, that "rules gap" is a feature, not a bug. I WANT different tables to come to different conclusions about a lot of things. I want the same table to come to different conclusions for different circumstances. There is no single "correct" answer. The beauty of the "inter-DM variability" issue is that it allows different things to be different without having to modify the system itself. Contra Pex, we're not "relearning the game", because the game explicitly allows certain things to vary. So variance is the game--thinking that it's fixed is using it wrong.
    I sit on this side of the aisle as well for this issue. I enjoy that I can run my 5e games differently from how my friend runs his. I like playing in his games to see what he comes up with. I may disagree but I would never think he's doing it "wrong." If he does something I didn't think of, I can learn from it. If he's struggling with something, maybe I can help. The game feels ours. Much better to me than us both just feeling bound by the rules.

    So I see that as 5e being very 5e, rather than being not-5e.

  24. - Top - End - #294
    Firbolg in the Playground
     
    Max_Killjoy's Avatar

    Join Date
    May 2016
    Location
    The Lakes

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by ChrisBasken View Post
    I sit on this side of the aisle as well for this issue. I enjoy that I can run my 5e games differently from how my friend runs his. I like playing in his games to see what he comes up with. I may disagree but I would never think he's doing it "wrong." If he does something I didn't think of, I can learn from it. If he's struggling with something, maybe I can help. The game feels ours. Much better to me than us both just feeling bound by the rules.

    So I see that as 5e being very 5e, rather than being not-5e.
    I do think though that players and groups should be cognizant of when and where they're doing this, and not just assume that their interpretation or "lean" is the sole objectively correct reading of the rules.
    It is one thing to suspend your disbelief. It is another thing entirely to hang it by the neck until dead.

    Verisimilitude -- n, the appearance or semblance of truth, likelihood, or probability.

    The concern is not realism in speculative fiction, but rather the sense that a setting or story could be real, fostered by internal consistency and coherence.

    The Worldbuilding Forum -- where realities are born.

  25. - Top - End - #295
    Bugbear in the Playground
     
    BarbarianGuy

    Join Date
    Mar 2015
    Gender
    Male

    Default Re: What things would you like to see fixed in 5e?

    Quote Originally Posted by Max_Killjoy View Post
    I do think though that players and groups should be cognizant of when and where they're doing this, and not just assume that their interpretation or "lean" is the sole objectively correct reading of the rules.
    Yes, of course, but that's part of the responsibility of knowing what 5e actually is and how it presents itself, and not trying to fit it into the framework of another game (including most prominently but not limited to 3.x).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •