So... is 5th better or worse than the '3's, or merely different...

[Kurald Galain]

Why is this an issue? The wizard is getting better at what he does, his spell DCs increase, meaning more potent magic, thus more reliable spell effects. I would think that what you want as a wizard is more reliability to represent that your spells are getting stronger. It "should" be harder for a 20th level fighter to shrug off the effects of a 20th level wizard.

The wizard at level 20 certainly isn't going to out-fight the fighter in a reverse scenario correct?

This is not about PVP, this is about everything else in the game that lets you make saving throws.

If your weakness is, say, dex and wis and int and cha saving throws (because lets face it, most of your saving throws are going to be weak) then you'll get progressively worse at them as you level up, compared to level-appropriate enemies.

(as compared to 3E, where you'd stay at the same rate and most of your saves were strong anyway, and 2E where you'd get progressively stronger at all of them).

Does it fit the genre of heroic fantasy to get progressively weaker at several things as you level up? I'd say no.

[Knaight]

Why is this an issue? The wizard is getting better at what he does, his spell DCs increase, meaning more potent magic, thus more reliable spell effects. I would think that what you want as a wizard is more reliability to represent that your spells are getting stronger. It "should" be harder for a 20th level fighter to shrug off the effects of a 20th level wizard.

The wizard at level 20 certainly isn't going to out-fight the fighter in a reverse scenario correct?

The metric being used here is not an increase in spell DC. It's an increase in the combined quantity of [Spell DC(level)-Save Bonus(level)] with an increase in level. All it takes to indicate the magician getting stronger is an increase in spell DC - and even without that, there's damage, there's sheer number of spells, and there's access to new spells. The increase in [Spell DC(level)-Save Bonus(level)] is indicative of the magic-martial gap growing.

It's not just casters either. As the levels go up, saves in general become harder to make. PC casters get the benefit here, all PCs get some degree of penalty because of monster stats, and PC martial characters just get screwed over. As for the reverse scenario, there's a good chance that the wizard's defenses will keep pace just fine. Monster defenses sure do.

[Fwiffo86]

I can see we have two very different expectations here. That's fine. I don't see an issue, and others do. No worries.

Baseline: Magic becomes more potent (whichever metric you think, I think all of them, even save throws are rolled into this) and thus harder to resist. Harder to resist magic equals greater challenge. Higher level characters by nature face greater challenges than the lower level ones. This I believe is how it is supposed to work. For me, the math does precisely what I want it to. Make it harder to save against more difficult opponents, not keep the same or get easier.

Others feel differently obviously. But no character should be infallible in every aspect. And I get the impression that this is what is desired. If that is not true, it is still the impression I am getting.

[ChubbyRain]

I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.

[silveralen]

The problem is that most of that doesn't really help.

If the base chance for a weak saving throw is 15%, then with an attribute increase that becomes 20%, or instead with advantage or a reroll that makes it 27%. That's still clearly not better than 3E's baseline of 40% for weak saves. And, to repeat, most 3E classes have two strong saves which straightforwardly end up around 80% (which also doesn't count feats, racial features, or spells yet).

Yes, pally and monk have good saves. Guess what? They also had that in earlier editions.

Sure it does.

Let's look at an example of a lvl 20 variant human fighter's saves vs a dc 19 attack. 8, 20, 14, 14, 14, 11 is the spread (dexterity fighter), this is accounting for a 8 16 14 14 12 10 start with prof taken in dexterity, wisdom, and cha (along with the +, an increase of +1 to int and +3 to dex, for five of the 8 possible attribute/feat choices (so plenty of room in this build for even feat intensive choices).

Against DC 19, that gives us 30%, 65%, 50%, 20%, 50%, 40%. Plus rerolls from your class ability. Not half bad, and if the 20% really bothers you, take one of the three reserve feats to get even more prof. If you went forest gnome over variant human, the extra stat point mean you can rearange things for another 5% somewhere with advantage on cha/wis/int saves versus spells. Which means 30%, 65%, 50%, 44%, 75%, 65% versus spells. Not at all bad.

A rogue can do something similar, same rough ranges in different areas, while monk and paladin are even better as you pointed out. Casters are generally okay as well, both not being as feat intensive as the combat classes and having spells to fall back on, and some like druids and abjuration mages are even more impressive.

Now, one of the odd things is how big a difference feats make in this regard. Considering one of the only reasons to boost a non main stat is saving throws, the inclusion of a feat to grant prof in saving throws is kinda a big deal and really changes how easy it is too boost them. If you are playing without feats, you will see fighters and to a lesser extent rogues struggle because extra ability/feat increases are built in. Its very odd, and a poor design call on those classes.

I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.

It'd be 3.5 except swap the non magic classes and the full casters on the tier list.

[obryn]

I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.

Thanks, but I have a feeling we would make very different kinds of games! (Also, I'm way too lazy to put in the work to create an RPG.)

As far as developing games go, I'm most interested to see how Strike! turns out.

It'd be 3.5 except swap the non magic classes and the full casters on the tier list.

...No. I would never, ever make a game similar to 3.5. (And if I did, I'd aim for having no tier list whatsoever. Which might look like reversing it if you're used to caster superiority. )

[Knaight]

I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.

Two things:
1) Mind if I sig this? Generally I'm not big on ego-sigs, but this particular one warrants an exception.
2) It would probably be a bit of a disaster. The three of us all have very different tastes, particularly Kurald Galain (Obryn and I both favor rules light systems, Kurald doesn't). On the other hand, if it were D&D like you do have a person who favors 3e, a person who favors 4e, and a person who favors 5e.

It'd be 3.5 except swap the non magic classes and the full casters on the tier list.

Unlikely. Between the three of us KG is the only one who even likes 3.5. The last game I made was a super rules light affair where characters had three quantitative stats, two qualitative descriptors, and that's about it. Granted, it was specifically built for a player who likes things extremely rules light, but still.

[Kurald Galain]

I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.

Thank you!

Well, you probably meant a tabletop RPG instead of a computer RPG, but I did work on this...

particularly Kurald Galain (Obryn and I both favor rules light systems, Kurald doesn't).

You'd be surprised

[Xetheral]

...with prof taken in dexterity, wisdom, and cha...

...Now, one of the odd things is how big a difference feats make in this regard. Considering one of the only reasons to boost a non main stat is saving throws, the inclusion of a feat to grant prof in saving throws is kinda a big deal and really changes how easy it is too boost them. If you are playing without feats, you will see fighters and to a lesser extent rogues struggle because extra ability/feat increases are built in. Its very odd, and a poor design call on those classes...

Don't forget that Resilient can only be taken once.

[Knaight]

You'd be surprised

I stand corrected then. I was under the impression that you really liked 3.5 and primarily played it, apparently I'm mistaken. I might be overestimating taste differences in general here.

[Forum Explorer]

A big difference is that failing a spell saving throw in 5e doesn't have nearly as bad of an effect on you then failing a saving throw in 3.5. Most spells that just 'end' an encounter are gone or dramatically reduced in power. Failing a save you just take full damage, or a penalty for a round or two. You then shrug and keep playing because it's hardly the end of the world.

Another thing you are neglecting to talk about is the uneven distribution of spells. Most spells that allow saves target either Dex or Con. Then the mind effecting spells are usually Wis/Cha. There are some that target Strength and Int, but those are much rarer.

[GWJ_DanyBoy]

Another thing you are neglecting to talk about is the uneven distribution of spells. Most spells that allow saves target either Dex or Con. Then the mind effecting spells are usually Wis/Cha. There are some that target Strength and Int, but those are much rarer.

I don't have a tally, but DEX, CON and WIS are the big three saves in my experience, with CHA, STR and INT being minor, INT ridiculously so. And each class gets one big save and one minor save, which leads me to believe it's intentional.

[Talakeal]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Against level-appropriate opponents:

• In 3E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and goes up so that at high level you'll only rarely fail them.
• In 3E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 40% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 35% and goes down so that at high level you'll almost always fail them.
• 2E doesn't have weak saving throws nor does it give casters the ability to target a particular saving throw.

So in 3E, your weak points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you actually become better at your strong points, whereas in 5E your strong points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you become much weaker at your weak points. And don't forget that most 3E classes have two strong saves out of three, whereas most 5E classes have two strong saves out of six.

While I agree with you in principle, 3E is a lot more complex than that. There are so many class abilities, feats, items, races, and buff spells that boost ability scores, saving throws, and DCs you can't really say much about the expected math of the system.

A character who is optimized will make a save. A character who is not optimized to make a save will fail saves against a caster who has optimized there DC.

There are just too many variables and individual choices.

Why is this an issue? The wizard is getting better at what he does, his spell DCs increase, meaning more potent magic, thus more reliable spell effects. I would think that what you want as a wizard is more reliability to represent that your spells are getting stronger. It "should" be harder for a 20th level fighter to shrug off the effects of a 20th level wizard.

The wizard at level 20 certainly isn't going to out-fight the fighter in a reverse scenario correct?

EDIT--

To use the skills debate as a reference, you want the skills to improve to superhuman levels represented, shouldn't the potentcy of magic weilded by a Magic class also likewise be increased?

This would work IF defensive spells didn't exist. As it is now a fighter will probably kill a caster very quickly if allowed to just beat on them.
On the other hand, if the fighter fails a save vs. the right spell the fight is over very quickly.
As levels go up the caster gets 1: Defensive spells. 2: Spells that are less likely to be saved against. 3: Spells that guarantee the fighter loses on a failed save rather than simply making it likely.
Thus not only is a high level caster more able to defeat a high level fighter, but the fighter is also no longer able to kill the mage quickly.

I would really like to see a game made by Obryn, Kurald Galain, and Knaight from these forums.

I'm not joking one bit. I would buy the hell out of that.

While all three a very smart and insightful guys, I can't imagine that game would be anything but a disjointed mess as each of them seems to be on a different point of the GNS triangle. Although who knows, if they could find some common ground in the middle they might be able to pull of the greatest game of all time.

[silveralen]

...No. I would never, ever make a game similar to 3.5. (And if I did, I'd aim for having no tier list whatsoever. Which might look like reversing it if you're used to caster superiority. )

Then apparently I'm tired and confused you with someone else. Or just thought you liked more of 3.5 than you do.

Oh, I'm just guessing it'd be reverse since people seem to want skill checks to do impossible things without fail, in other words what spells do, with no resource cost. Plus should be easily available for every class with no real investment, since apparently a single level dip in rogue is over the top. At that point, most utility spells are going to be 100% pointless, with only a couple exceptions at best. Then give the martial's other benefits and remove the few strengths of spells, like the ability to target multiple saves. Well not remove it, just make it pointless since regardless of save you will never succeed more than half the time no matter what you target, as his weakness isn't actually weak. At that point, spells are there to teleport and raise dead, and that's about it.

Don't forget that Resilient can only be taken once.

Huh, I actually forgot that bit. That does make things more difficult.

Well, rogue is in pretty decent position even with that (4/6). Sucks a bit for fighter though.

[Talakeal]

Oh, I'm just guessing it'd be reverse since people seem to want skill checks to do impossible things without fail, in other words what spells do, with no resource cost. Plus should be easily available for every class with no real investment, since apparently a single level dip in rogue is over the top. At that point, most utility spells are going to be 100% pointless, with only a couple exceptions at best. Then give the martial's other benefits and remove the few strengths of spells, like the ability to target multiple saves. Well not remove it, just make it pointless since regardless of save you will never succeed more than half the time no matter what you target, as his weakness isn't actually weak. At that point, spells are there to teleport and raise dead, and that's about it.

I don't think anyone wants impossible things without fail.

Heck, I would be fine with just being able to do "challenging" things 90-95% of the time, preferably by mid level. This doesn't seem out of place with what real world people can do, and hardly seems overpowering or unreasonable in a game of near super heroics like modern D&D.

Don't forget that Resilient can only be taken once.

Wow, really? There goes my character concept...

[obryn]

Then apparently I'm tired and confused you with someone else. Or just thought you liked more of 3.5 than you do.

No. I've been pretty vocal about how I think 3.5 (and Pathfinder) are terrible in nearly every aspect, would never run them, and certainly won't go out of my way to play them. 5e is a massive improvement over either.

Oh, I'm just guessing it'd be reverse since people seem to want skill checks to do impossible things without fail, in other words what spells do, with no resource cost. Plus should be easily available for every class with no real investment, since apparently a single level dip in rogue is over the top. At that point, most utility spells are going to be 100% pointless, with only a couple exceptions at best. Then give the martial's other benefits and remove the few strengths of spells, like the ability to target multiple saves. Well not remove it, just make it pointless since regardless of save you will never succeed more than half the time no matter what you target, as his weakness isn't actually weak. At that point, spells are there to teleport and raise dead, and that's about it.

Do you want to engage honestly about this, or is it just easier to set up strawmen and paper tigers?

Between this and the assertion that I'm a huge d20 fan, you might as well put me on ignore if that's where you think I'm going with any of this.

[calebrus]

I don't think anyone wants impossible things without fail.

Heck, I would be fine with just being able to do "challenging" things 90-95% of the time, preferably by mid level.

So what exactly do you mean by "challenging" in this case?
Do you mean "hard" or "very hard?"
If you mean very hard, then nearly impossible is only about 5 DC higher, which means "very hard" is exactly that, and you shouldn't be able to do it 90-95% of the time. That means you'd be doing the impossible 65-70% of the time.
See the problem?
If you meant "challenging" as merely hard, then sure, that's possible, but it requires expertise.

This is what I referring to earlier (pages and pages ago) when I said that "very difficult" and "nearly impossible" should never, under any circumstances, be auto-success. DC 20 "hard" or, as it should have been called in my opinion, "difficult" should be reliable for experts, but not auto-success.
If anyone, and I mean absolutely anyone, can become so good at it that they have zero chance of failure, then that must not be a particularly difficult thing to do. Very difficult means not guaranteed. Not by anyone. That should go without saying for Nearly Impossible, and even merely Difficult tasks should carry some measure of risk of failure for the vast majority of people, experts included.
If even a single person can be so good as to have zero possible chance of failure, then that task isn't particularly difficult.

[Battlebooze]

Actually, it's the exact opposite. Against level-appropriate opponents:

• In 3E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and goes up so that at high level you'll only rarely fail them.
• In 3E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 40% and stays that way throughout your career.
  
• In 5E, your chance to make a strong save starts around 50% and stays that way throughout your career.
• In 5E, your chance to make a weak save starts around 35% and goes down so that at high level you'll almost always fail them.
• 2E doesn't have weak saving throws nor does it give casters the ability to target a particular saving throw.

So in 3E, your weak points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you actually become better at your strong points, whereas in 5E your strong points stay at about 50/50 throughout your career and you become much weaker at your weak points. And don't forget that most 3E classes have two strong saves out of three, whereas most 5E classes have two strong saves out of six.

Fascinating. Yea, you've got the numbers right.

I think a minor tweak like "Non proficiency saves get half your proficiency bonus." would help a lot. You would still be at a strong disadvantage, but there would be some upward scaling.

[obryn]

So what exactly do you mean by "challenging" in this case?
Do you mean "hard" or "very hard?"
If you mean very hard, then nearly impossible is only about 5 DC higher, which means "very hard" is exactly that, and you shouldn't be able to do it 90-95% of the time. That means you'd be doing the impossible 65-70% of the time.
See the problem?
If you meant "challenging" as merely hard, then sure, that's possible, but it requires expertise.

This is what I referring to earlier (pages and pages ago) when I said that "very difficult" and "nearly impossible" should never, under any circumstances, be auto-success. DC 20 "hard" or, as it should have been called in my opinion, "difficult" should be reliable for experts, but not auto-success.
If anyone, and I mean absolutely anyone, can become so good at it that they have zero chance of failure, then that must not be a particularly difficult thing to do. Very difficult means not guaranteed. Not by anyone. That should go without saying for Nearly Impossible, and even merely Difficult tasks should carry some measure of risk of failure for the vast majority of people, experts included.
If even a single person can be so good as to have zero possible chance of failure, then that task isn't particularly difficult.

I think the major issue - as I mentioned before a few times - is the simple d20+mod vs DC = success/failure mechanic.

Go too far one way and you end up with 3.5's auto/impossible dichotomy. Go too far the other way and you end up with 5e's unreliable experts.

For anything better, you need to involve a curve of some sort, or else involve some other mechanics beyond binary pass/fail (much like combat has with HP/damage).

[Knaight]

So what exactly do you mean by "challenging" in this case?
Do you mean "hard" or "very hard?"
If you mean very hard, then nearly impossible is only about 5 DC higher, which means "very hard" is exactly that, and you shouldn't be able to do it 90-95% of the time. That means you'd be doing the impossible 65-70% of the time.
See the problem?

It's almost like there's a reason curved distributions are so incredibly common in the industry. These two are only linked because of the peculiarities of how the 5e skill system is put together in general, it's entirely possible to design a system which gives all characters the complete range of distributions, while making competent characters fail at simple things extremely rarely. I've already listed one example in the thread.

[hawklost]

I think the major issue - as I mentioned before a few times - is the simple d20+mod vs DC = success/failure mechanic.

Go too far one way and you end up with 3.5's auto/impossible dichotomy. Go too far the other way and you end up with 5e's unreliable experts.

For anything better, you need to involve a curve of some sort, or else involve some other mechanics beyond binary pass/fail (much like combat has with HP/damage).

I always prefered the varied failure rate.

Example Climb check:
DC 20 climb to go up half speed
Fail by 5 or less (15-19), character stays in same place, argue it as they couldn't get a good hand hold to move up in those seconds
Fail by 10 or less (10-14) character slips and gets an attempt to save from falling all the way down, still slides at least X feet down
Fail by more than 10, character tried to jump to a hand hold and completely missed, they fall all the way down

Example Persuasion check:
DC 20 convince the NPC to give you mostly what you want (depending on how outrageous it might be everything you want or very close)
Fail by 5 or less, NPC rejects PCs attempt but does not take it negatively (you said something wrong but not faux pas)
Fail by more than 5, NPC completely rejects PCs Persuasion due to major faux pas and has negative reaction.

[calebrus]

It's almost like there's a reason curved distributions are so incredibly common in the industry. These two are only linked because of the peculiarities of how the 5e skill system is put together in general, it's entirely possible to design a system which gives all characters the complete range of distributions, while making competent characters fail at simple things extremely rarely. I've already listed one example in the thread.

Yeah, I know. You're more than vocal about how every other system in existence is far superior to d20.
The problem is that this is indeed a d20 game, so your non-d20 suggestions are never truly helpful. Ever.

[obryn]

I always prefered the varied failure rate.

Example Climb check:
DC 20 climb to go up half speed
Fail by 5 or less (15-19), character stays in same place, argue it as they couldn't get a good hand hold to move up in those seconds
Fail by 10 or less (10-14) character slips and gets an attempt to save from falling all the way down, still slides at least X feet down
Fail by more than 10, character tried to jump to a hand hold and completely missed, they fall all the way down

Example Persuasion check:
DC 20 convince the NPC to give you mostly what you want (depending on how outrageous it might be everything you want or very close)
Fail by 5 or less, NPC rejects PCs attempt but does not take it negatively (you said something wrong but not faux pas)
Fail by more than 5, NPC completely rejects PCs Persuasion due to major faux pas and has negative reaction.

Those can help, but in practice a similar issue arises. You're essentially fiddling with the DCs, not the underlying flat probability distribution.

Still, it would certainly be a darn sight better than it is now. Partial Success (and/or Success with Cost and/or Success with a Twist, etc.) is a powerful tool that D&D hardly ever uses. Except, weirdly, in Climb checks.

Yeah, I know. You're more than vocal about how every other system in existence is far superior to d20.
The problem is that this is indeed a d20 game, so your non-d20 suggestions are never truly helpful. Ever.

That is pretty harsh.

There's plenty of ways to tweak the system without abandoning the basics of the d20 altogether. I posted like a half-dozen upthread somewhere.

[Icewraith]

I thought you could take Resilient once for an ability? Like, can't you take the ignore damage type resistance feat for spellcasters more than once, targeting a different element (fire, then cold etc) each time? Similarly, you can take Resilient: Dex and Resilient: Con?

Regarding 3.5 saves, remember that lower level spells also had lower save DCs. However, casters got a new spell level every two or so levels (unless you were a 3rd level sorcerer). A single classed character's base save rate on their good save will stay roughly competitive (+1 every 2 levels) with the highest level spell DC from a spellcaster advancing at the same rate. However, unless your good save was also based off your primary means of offense, you always fell behind compared to a spellcaster's saving throw because all their ability score increases from leveling and stat boosting items from WBL went to increasing their save-determining score first. Your other saving throws were always doomed to not keep pace with base saving throw DCs, since they advanced at +1 every three levels and started at zero instead of 2. Unless a poor saving throw was based off your primary offensive stat, you lost ground quite quickly.

The end result was that a single classed character had a +6 difference between their good and bad base saving throws at 20th level, with the difference between their bonus to roll and the spellcaster's base DC determined by each character's feats, ability scores, magic items, and which save the spellcaster was targeting. A 20th level spellcaster's base offense has increased by +8, your poor save has increased by +6. Their ability score increases have gone to their casting stat (+5) while in the worst case for a poor save, none of yours have. Before magic items and feats (and multiclassing, ugh) are considered, the spellcaster's best offense has increased by +7 compared to your poor saving throw (your worst defense is probably your touch AC, but...).


In 5e, the spellcaster has presumably increased their casting stat from ~16 to 20 (net +2), and their proficiency bonus has increased from +2 to +6 (net +4) over 20 levels. If you're not proficient in a save and you never increase that stat, your saving throw never increases. So in 5e, the spellcaster's offense has increased by +6 compared to your worst defense.

Obviously, fully investing in saving throw boosting items and feats changes the math considerably for the 3.5 character, but it's hard to peg what's a "reasonable" level of optimization for both sides. My feeling is that the effect of "reasonable" magic items and WBL on both sides will lower the spellcaster's DC advantage on a worst save to between +3 and +6, but not eliminate the gap.

So yes, if you don't optimize out of having a bad save in 3.5, you lose ground on bad saving throws just like a 5e character does. The two systems have built in almost identical numeric differences between low and high level.

[calebrus]

That is pretty harsh.

Certain posters here constantly (and I do mean constantly) tell us that things can work nthe way that they envision because it works in <insert TTRPG here> but those games always use completely different systems altogether.
The fact is that the entire game would have to be rewritten to incorporate the things suggested. So the fact that it can work on GameX has no bearing on a discussion abut a d20 D&D game.
Those things may work for other games, but they cannot work in this game, so there is no point in even bringing them up at all.

[silveralen]

Do you want to engage honestly about this, or is it just easier to set up strawmen and paper tigers?

That's legitimately what I understand to be the desire. Let me try to explain from my point of view point by point so we can identify the break away.

1. You dislike 5e's skill set up currently and think there are problems with skill being too unreliable.

2. Currently, a PC can succeed at easy tasks they are trained for with 100% success by the time they are in the mid levels, and while a character who is actually skill focused can succeed on medium-hard task with 100% success at the same level, eventually even very hard tasks, all this without any resource expenditure.

3. Given one and two, we should assume that PCs with nothing beyond a basic investment training should be coasting to 100% success on moderate challenges at least, hard challenges possibly by the final levels. Thus, failure is basically ignored for the majority of potential challenges.

4. We also must assume that no skill check can stop a trained skill monkey, given that they can outperform the minimal investment of the others by a reasonable amount.

5. If a skill focused character, one whose focus actually has a big impact in comparison to a non focused character, will be operating with such success, the need for utility abilities that consume resources is roughly zero percent when every problem can be overcome with 100% success rate on a skill.

6. Given that they can achieve any conceivable/possible challenge without rolling, even things that strain plausibility are hard to argue shouldn't at least be rolled for. Thus further eliminating the things which magic brings to the table.

So feel free to explain which part is not what you meant, I'm guessing 4 and disallowing anyone to actually focus on skills forcing everyone to operate at the exact same level more or less, but what I said is what I actually gathered your opinion to be examining the situation.

[Xetheral]

I thought you could take Resilient once for an ability? Like, can't you take the ignore damage type resistance feat for spellcasters more than once, targeting a different element (fire, then cold etc) each time? Similarly, you can take Resilient: Dex and Resilient: Con?

The introduction to the feats section explains that each feat can only be taken once unless it explicitly says otherwise in the feat's description.

Certain posters here constantly (and I do mean constantly) tell us that things can work nthe way that they envision because it works in <insert TTRPG here> but those games always use completely different systems altogether.
The fact is that the entire game would have to be rewritten to incorporate the things suggested. So the fact that it can work on GameX has no bearing on a discussion abut a d20 D&D game.
Those things may work for other games, but they cannot work in this game, so there is no point in even bringing them up at all.

I disagree. Other systems offer a useful point of comparison. It is particularly worth bringing up how a given design element is handled in other systems to refute claims that someone's opinion is invalid or unreasonable: if a published system handles a given design element a certain way that has certain strengths, then a preference for those strengths is presumably reasonable, since there is enough similar demand for those strengths to justify a commercial product.

Basically, other systems enter the conversation when one poster challenges the legitimacy of another's preferences (either directly or by dismissing criticism of 5e based on those preferences).

[Kurald Galain]

It'd be 3.5 except swap the non magic classes and the full casters on the tier list.

Not likely. If I/we were to create an RPG, it would be a new RPG and not an existing game with a bunch of houserules. There are already plenty of places where you can find 3.5-with-a-bunch-of-houserules.

Unlikely. Between the three of us KG is the only one who even likes 3.5. The last game I made was a super rules light affair where characters had three quantitative stats, two qualitative descriptors, and that's about it. Granted, it was specifically built for a player who likes things extremely rules light, but still.

One of my favorite games is Paranoia, which I run in extremely rules-light fashion (four stats, make up whatever two or three skills you think sound cool, plus one improvised mutant power). Plus, citizen, the rules are not available at your security clearance anyway. I've also played a lot of Whitewolf games, ran a homebrew system for about five years, was one of the early adopters of 4E (which we've also played for years) and currently mostly play COC and (indeed) 3.5. Also, briefly tried GURPS but didn't like it.

I should point out there are several other games that I'd like to play, only I can't get the players in my area to try anything other than the Big Famous Systems.

And then we have 5E, which has a lot of things going for it, including relative simplicity, the background rules, the improved class balance... and then I find it such a shame how WOTC dropped the ball on the math (or parts of the math). That was just unnecessary.

While all three a very smart and insightful guys, I can't imagine that game would be anything but a disjointed mess as each of them seems to be on a different point of the GNS triangle. Although who knows, if they could find some common ground in the middle they might be able to pull of the greatest game of all time.

I bet that all of us are at a different point in that triangle than you think we are

I don't think anyone wants impossible things without fail.

Heck, I would be fine with just being able to do "challenging" things 90-95% of the time, preferably by mid level. This doesn't seem out of place with what real world people can do, and hardly seems overpowering or unreasonable in a game of near super heroics like modern D&D.

I agree.

[Knaight]

The fact is that the entire game would have to be rewritten to incorporate the things suggested. So the fact that it can work on GameX has no bearing on a discussion abut a d20 D&D game.

All it takes to introduce a curve is multiple proficiency dice. You know, like the system actually had for a while. 1d20+nd6 is curved, and it only gets more curved as the number goes up. Advantage and disadvantage both introduce curves. You drastically overestimate the difficulty involved in implementing a subtly different game than what we have here.

[Kurald Galain]

2. Currently, a PC can succeed at easy tasks they are trained for with 100% success by the time they are in the mid levels, and while a character who is actually skill focused can succeed on medium-hard task with 100% success at the same level, eventually even very hard tasks, all this without any resource expenditure.

Silver, if you do the math on this you'll find that this just isn't the case.

A mid-level character has +4 proficiency bonus, +2 from his ability score, for a total of +6. An easy task is DC 10. So no, that is clearly not a 100% success rate. The other points in your list are also clearly exaggerated.

Now yes, I feel that mid-level characters should be able to routinely perform easy tasks that they are trained for, because people IRL can also routinely perform easy tasks that they are trained for (and at higher levels, routinely perform hard tasks they're trained for, because IRL experts can also do that). But by the 5E rules, they can't, and that is part of the problem.