Is D&D 5th Edition shit?

[Mortmal]

If Infinitron wants to keep moving topics from the BG3 thread every two weeks in a desperate attempt to stop it from reaching a thousand pages before even the Early Access begins, he might aswell put this in the Gazebo.

No , it's so bad it doesnt deserves the gazebo, leave it hidden to people who really play those pen and paper games . The janitor just pushed some shit in general rpg discussion gutter, thread found its rightful place.

 

[Zed Duke of Banville]

Fighters only having basic attack was a mistake anyways. They could have researched some historical European martial arts for inspiration, along with adding called shots.

Just having "attack" is like if casters only had the ability to "cast spell" without specifying what type of spell or the intricacies of spellcasting altogether. Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition initiated its optional "The Complete Handbook" series with PHBR1 The Complete Fighter's Handbook, which introduced new combat rules covering called shots, disarming, grabbing, holding, parrying, pinning, tripping, shield punching/rushing, and more, amounting to 37 pages of new material. This was published before the end of 1989, the year 2nd edition appeared. In 1994, TSR followed this with Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, which covered similar topics more extensively.

Even earlier, BECMI Dungeons & Dragons introduced a few simple combat options for fighters that had reached name level (smashing, parrying, disarming).

 

[Lacrymas]

Fighters not having any options other than fighting is a corruption from video games.

 

[ERYFKRAD]

options other than fighting

All the rest are superfluous anyway.

 

[DavidBVal]

5e is a PNP game designed with narrative playstile in mind. Whenever the WoTC guys were devising mechanics, one of their main questions was "does this get in the way of RPing? does this slow down gameplay or makes the game harder to play? Is this fun for the players?"

5e assumes there is always a DM to clarify things and make sense of rules' shortcomings. It's good for what it is, it's disappointing for everything else, just like every other system. I myself have DMed 5e and loved some things, hated others.

In addition, the game is relatively new and unpolished. There's no epic rules, and there has been like 5% of the rules supplements released for 2e or 3e.

As it stands in the 5e PHB it is not the ideal system for cRPGs. It needs to be adapted, and obviously it will. Even if adapted, it'll probably never be as suitable for cRPGs as 3.5e was, because character development is far simpler and the power scale is smaller.

Those who are worried about gods being vulnerable to normal weapons,

Spoiler

better not read the New Testament

 

[ERYFKRAD]

the power scale is smaller.

Doesn't necessarily seem to be an issue.

 

[DavidBVal]

the power scale is smaller.

Doesn't necessarily seem to be an issue.

Well... when you sit down 4h to play an RPG, if your party hasn't become somewhat more powerful by the time you get up you're gonna feel disappointed. And you'll need that to happen dozens of times until you've completed the game.

3e offers plenty of small power increments through a much longer progression than 5e does, moving on a 1-20 bonus scale rather than a 2-6. It also offers lots of magical item bonuses so the gains can come from itemization. It does not have bounded accuracy, which can end up in inflated aberration, but can also make an adventure like MotB possible. Multiclassing is far more interesting in 3e. Damnit, even in AD&D, dual classing choices could make each playthrough quite unique. Progression in 5e is slow and kind of bland once you reach mid levels.

 

[Lacrymas]

3.5E had the worst implementation of multi-classing tbh. It's not bad, it's just worse than both AD&D and 5E. Endless classes with endless myopic bonuses that were only interesting to accountants.

 

[deuxhero]

In addition, the game is relatively new and unpolished. There's no epic rules, and there has been like 5% of the rules supplements released for 2e or 3e.

First playtest was 2012, and the first paid release was in 2014. Its been out longer than 3.5 was out before the launch of 4E (it will be another 2 years before the length of the full 3E to 4E transition), and has already been out for as long as 4E was before the Next playtests. By this point in 3E's lifespan, WotC was already publicly testing stuff for 4E (most of which wound up better than actual 4E), by backporting mechanics with books like Tome of Battle and previewing Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition, and releasing material that compensates for their terrible balance in the early days (Releasing feats like Battle Blessing, which completely breaks the action economy and is only not broken because it only works for the terrible Paladin class, or Swift Hunter, which combines the meh Ranger and Scout to a single awesome class without their flaws).

5E is in no way "new".

 

[DavidBVal]

In addition, the game is relatively new and unpolished. There's no epic rules, and there has been like 5% of the rules supplements released for 2e or 3e.

First playtest was 2012, and the first paid release was in 2014. Its been out longer than 3.5 was out before the launch of 4E (it will be another 2 years before the length of the full 3E to 4E transition), and has already been out for as long as 4E was before the Next playtests. By this point in 3E's lifespan, WotC was already publicly testing stuff for 4E (most of which wound up better than actual 4E), by backporting mechanics with books like Tome of Battle and previewing Star Wars: The Roleplaying Game: Saga Edition, and releasing material that compensates for their terrible balance in the early days (Releasing feats like Battle Blessing, which completely breaks the action economy and is only not broken because it only works for the terrible Paladin class, or Swift Hunter, which combines the meh Ranger and Scout to a single awesome class without their flaws).

5E is in no way "new".

I said relatively new, and I said unpolished.

2e had 12 years of intense development and rules publication up to the point where BG was released. And many of the most relevant novelties of 2e (like thac0) had already been introduced in previous AD&D supplements, so it can be argued it was even older. Infinity Engine games used a mature and consolidated rulesystem.

It's true that with 3.5e there was less time, but here is where my "relatively" comes into play. By the time NWN2 was released, third edition was eight years old and those years had been hyperactive, with one major revision, tons of supplements from third parties and even a full spin-off game (pathfinder). The release of fourth edition did not make third edition go away.

5e may be six years old, but in those six years very little has happened. No crpgs for one thing, except the failed SCL. I have hopes WotC will make a "5.5" revision at some point, addressing the most serious issues without resetting the franchise once more.

 

[Harthwain]

Well... when you sit down 4h to play an RPG, if your party hasn't become somewhat more powerful by the time you get up you're gonna feel disappointed. And you'll need that to happen dozens of times until you've completed the game.

I disagree with that. To me it's less about becoming powerful and more about providing that the difficulty level remains challenging to the party throughout the adventure. With that in mind you don't really need huge power spikes.

 

[Cryomancer]

with one major revision, tons of supplements from third parties and even a full spin-off game (pathfinder). The release of fourth edition did not make third edition go away.

5e may be six years old, but in those six years very little has happened. No crpgs for one thing, except the failed SCL. I have hopes WotC will make a "5.5" revision at some point, addressing the most serious issues without resetting the franchise once more.

SCL is a complete BASTARIZATION of 5e.

If you wanna see the decline of RPG's, the D&D adaptations are a good way to see it.

• 2e = Pool of Radiance, Neverwinter AOL mmo from 1991, Dark Sun : Shattered Lands, Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession(...) and the Infinity Engine on late 90s. DOZENS of games in dozens of different settings. From Icewind dale, to dark sun, ravenloft and even spelljammer.
• 3e/3,5e = Some masterpieces, like Temple of elemental evil and some decent games who require modding to offer a more P&P like experience. NWN2 for eg, needs warlock reworked and spell fixes to be played as a arcane caster.
• 4e = Only a AWFUL mmo which is a disrrespect to nwn1/2 and 1991 neverwinter. WoW magic system and complete BS.
• 5e = Awful adaptations like Sword Coast Legends which uses wow magic system even after everyone hated it on 4e.And maybe bg3 will not suck.

If you look into D&D adaptations, is clear that 2e > 3e > 5e > 4e and IDK about 1e.

Anyway, why people get so hyped by when 5e launches new content? Like UA. So many people love UA content

 

[DavidBVal]

with one major revision, tons of supplements from third parties and even a full spin-off game (pathfinder). The release of fourth edition did not make third edition go away.

5e may be six years old, but in those six years very little has happened. No crpgs for one thing, except the failed SCL. I have hopes WotC will make a "5.5" revision at some point, addressing the most serious issues without resetting the franchise once more.

SCL is a complete BASTARIZATION of 5e.

If you wanna see the decline of RPG's, the D&D adaptations are a good way to see it.

• 2e = Pool of Radiance, Neverwinter AOL mmo from 1991, Dark Sun : Shattered Lands, Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession(...) and the Infinity Engine on late 90s. DOZENS of games in dozens of different settings. From Icewind dale, to dark sun, ravenloft and even spelljammer.
• 3e/3,5e = Some masterpieces, like Temple of elemental evil and some decent games who require modding to offer a more P&P like experience. NWN2 for eg, needs warlock reworked and spell fixes to be played as a arcane caster.
• 4e = Only a AWFUL mmo which is a disrrespect to nwn1/2 and 1991 neverwinter. WoW magic system and complete BS.
• 5e = Awful adaptations like Sword Coast Legends which uses wow magic system even after everyone hated it on 4e.And maybe bg3 will not suck.

If you look into D&D adaptations, is clear that 2e > 3e > 5e > 4e and IDK about 1e.

Anyway, why people get so hyped by when 5e launches new content? Like UA. So many people love UA content

Gold Box games were 1e (although they include many unofficial improvements like thac0 that would make their way into 2e)

 

[Cryomancer]

with one major revision, tons of supplements from third parties and even a full spin-off game (pathfinder). The release of fourth edition did not make third edition go away.

5e may be six years old, but in those six years very little has happened. No crpgs for one thing, except the failed SCL. I have hopes WotC will make a "5.5" revision at some point, addressing the most serious issues without resetting the franchise once more.

SCL is a complete BASTARIZATION of 5e.

If you wanna see the decline of RPG's, the D&D adaptations are a good way to see it.

• 2e = Pool of Radiance, Neverwinter AOL mmo from 1991, Dark Sun : Shattered Lands, Ravenloft: Strahd's Possession(...) and the Infinity Engine on late 90s. DOZENS of games in dozens of different settings. From Icewind dale, to dark sun, ravenloft and even spelljammer.
• 3e/3,5e = Some masterpieces, like Temple of elemental evil and some decent games who require modding to offer a more P&P like experience. NWN2 for eg, needs warlock reworked and spell fixes to be played as a arcane caster.
• 4e = Only a AWFUL mmo which is a disrrespect to nwn1/2 and 1991 neverwinter. WoW magic system and complete BS.
• 5e = Awful adaptations like Sword Coast Legends which uses wow magic system even after everyone hated it on 4e.And maybe bg3 will not suck.

If you look into D&D adaptations, is clear that 2e > 3e > 5e > 4e and IDK about 1e.

Anyway, why people get so hyped by when 5e launches new content? Like UA. So many people love UA content

Gold Box games were 1e (although they include many unofficial improvements like thac0 that would make their way into 2e)

Thanks a lot. Anyway, I really wish that SSI games got a remake to a modern engine like CryEngine maintaining the old ruleset.

Just imagine playing Ravenloft: Strahd’s Possession with modern graphics...

 

[Elex]

SCL like the neverwinter MMO don’t claim to be based on a particular ruleset only to be a D&D license.

Like the upcoming dark alliance(and the older ones), is not based on 5e ruleset.

the same for all the mobile games none use the d&d ruleset of any edition.

Some game are adaptations: like BG 1-2, icewind dale etc..

very few games are transposition of ruleset that try to be close as possible: toee bg3, solasta.

 

[Cryomancer]

very few games are transposition of ruleset that try to be close as possible: toee bg3, solasta.

Correction. "Very few MODERN games are ..."

Look to late 80s and earlier 90s. Even the mmos are faithful to the source material. AOL Neverwinter and AT&T Dark Sunn online are two examples. Dark Sun Online: Crimson Sands was EXACTLY like Dark Sun : Shattered Lands and Dark Sun: Wake of the Ravager, was a TURN BASED mmorpg. With all 2e rules. Including THAC0, spell slots, rolling for attributes on character creation. THAC0 alone in modern days would melt the brain of game journalists reviewing the game

 

[Saerain]

Only thing I find shit about 5E is some of the supplements... and all of the halfling art. Like they took Pathfinder halflings and turned them up to 11 exclusively to make me, personally, hate this hobby.

 

[Lacrymas]

Yeah, the art is generally terrible.

 

[Cryomancer]

Cambion art on 2e

Cambion art on 5e

source https://forgottenrealms.fandom.com/wiki/Cambion

 

[Xamenos]

Talking about 5e, considering the controversy "orcs are a racist caricature", do you think that we could have a 5e Dark Sun? There are psionics on 5e?

It would be a pitiful, neutered thing, but it's certainly not impossible. There was 4e Dark Sun, after all. Psionics have been limited to UA so far, but I wouldn't be surprised if they combine Dark Sun Campaign Setting and Psionics Handbook into a single book.

 

[Cryomancer]

Talking about 5e, considering the controversy "orcs are a racist caricature", do you think that we could have a 5e Dark Sun? There are psionics on 5e?

It would be a pitiful, neutered thing, but it's certainly not impossible. There was 4e Dark Sun, after all. Psionics have been limited to UA so far, but I wouldn't be surprised if they combine Dark Sun Campaign Setting and Psionics Handbook into a single book.

The problem is not only the lack of psionics. Is that

• Dark Sun is a pretty harsh place to survive. Due the low lethality of 5e, the survival aspect becomes far less threatning
• If orcs are controversial in 2020, imagine all slavery and etc which happens in dark sun setting.
• Many creatures on Dark Sun are epic level to demigod in power level. Including the sorcerer king and some of his strongest servants.
• Modern games value much more balance than consistency, so expect wizard players complaining about the scroll prices(in a place where paper is extremely rare) and fighter complaining about the price of metal weaponry.

In other words, even if Dark Sun is released, it will be a "progressive" and "balanced" version of Dark Sun... Which would kill all atmosphere of the setting.

 

[Xamenos]

The problem is not only the lack of psionics. Is that

• Dark Sun is a pretty harsh place to survive. Due the low lethality of 5e, the survival aspect becomes far less threatning
• If orcs are controversial in 2020, imagine all slavery and etc which happens in dark sun setting.
• Many creatures on Dark Sun are epic level to demigod in power level. Including the sorcerer king.
• Modern games value much more balance than consistency, so expect wizard players complaining about the scroll prices(in a place where paper is extremely rare) and fighter complaining about the price of metal weaponry.

In other words, even if Dark Sun is released, it will be a "progressive" and "balanced" version of Dark Sun... Which would kill all atmosphere of the setting.

That is approximately what I meant by a "pitiful, neutered thing". I am a masochist at heart, and thus have read the 4e Dark Sun sourcebooks. I give it better than even odds we'll see it in 5e, and if that happens I have no doubt Wizards will file away everything that would make most of their current playerbase uncomfortable, be that the harshness or the "problematic" parts of the setting. It will be a hollow puppet wearing Dark Sun's skin, just like in 4e, but it might yet happen.

 

[Elex]

Only thing I find shit about 5E is some of the supplements... and all of the halfling art. Like they took Pathfinder halflings and turned them up to 11 exclusively to make me, personally, hate this hobby.

 

[Sweeper]

If Infinitron wants to keep moving topics from the BG3 thread every two weeks in a desperate attempt to stop it from reaching a thousand pages before even the Early Access begins, he might aswell put this in the Gazebo.

When you put it like that, Infinitron is kinda based.
Don't tell him I said that though.

3.5E had the worst implementation of multi-classing tbh. It's not bad, it's just worse than both AD&D and 5E. Endless classes with endless myopic bonuses that were only interesting to accountants autists.

And that's why 3.5E is peak D&D. Suck my dick RP virgins.

 

[Alex]

Fighters only having basic attack was a mistake anyways. They could have researched some historical European martial arts for inspiration, along with adding called shots.

Just having "attack" is like if casters only had the ability to "cast spell" without specifying what type of spell or the intricacies of spellcasting altogether. Sounds silly, doesn't it?

Advanced Dungeons & Dragons 2nd edition initiated its optional "The Complete Handbook" series with PHBR1 The Complete Fighter's Handbook, which introduced new combat rules covering called shots, disarming, grabbing, holding, parrying, pinning, tripping, shield punching/rushing, and more, amounting to 37 pages of new material. This was published before the end of 1989, the year 2nd edition appeared. In 1994, TSR followed this with Player's Option: Combat & Tactics, which covered similar topics more extensively.

Even earlier, BECMI Dungeons & Dragons introduced a few simple combat options for fighters that had reached name level (smashing, parrying, disarming).

Personally, I never liked those. The strength of D&D's combat system is exactly being abstract enough you don't need to worry about these things. The problem isn't that the system is too abstract, but that it can be hard to allow a less abstract action when the situation calls for it. Different monsters, different combat arenas, different weapons and even styles should, ideally, be the basis of what the PCs can use for their advantage. Having a simple combat system can allow the DM to do so in an adhoc manner without worrying about extensive rules covering everything. But if the rules give you little to work with, then it can be hard to adjudicate how effective the PC's (and NPC's, for that matter) actions are. If you waste your turn only blocking attacks, should this translate into +2 to AC? +4? Maybe you can make an attack to beat the enemy's attack? How hard it is to target the dragon's eye with an arrow, and if you hit, what kind of effect should it have?

I think DCC RPG tried to address this problem in a way that is more in line with the simplicity of the combat system; even there it still was a bit wishy washy. But I think it is an approach that makes more sense than trying to model all the details of combat into the system. I have nothing against this approach either, of course. In fact, GURPS is one of my favourite systems. But the approach it takes to combat (and many other things) is the opposite design philosophy of D&D.