D&D 5E Discussion

[Bara]

Alas, this is nothing to making the orcs and such less racist and turning your character choices bland. I wonder what will future sourcebooks and settings be about. Fighting DRUMPF! stand-ins?

I've been told the first Critical Role book published by Green Ronin has a stand in its setting. I really don't get how people are into the Critical Role setting you need to look no further than its creation myth to see how bland it is.

It's so bad it stuck with me and I forever regret borrowing the book to see just what that whole thing is about:

Spoiler

It's just nonsensical. Gods shape a planet and turns out that planet already had primordial on it which resisted that change. Gods are split between fighting for this creation and those viewing it flawed creation against the Eden they wanted to create and want to destroy it and start over elsewhere.

The good gods banish these "Betrayer" Gods and then go on to win fight against the Primordials though the world is no longer the garden they envisioned and their children now have to compete to justify why some times the good races fight against each other vs perfect harmony.

But wait that's not all the Betrayer gods get out of their banishment and see this world now fully in the domain of mortals and decide to instead dominate and rule the world vs destroying it for reasons. Except one of them cause hes just craaazzzyy instead of retaining any consistency.

They get banished again along with the good gods now having to leave the world to hold the gate between the divine realms and mortal world and keep the bad ones out.

Also Mercer is seriously telling me deities like Lolth & Tiamat were once good and aligned with the other gods? What?

Also I got to say the one episode I tried watching did not help my opinions at all. So many commercial brakes for the most inane of things one which still sticks from that one episode was "Critical Role Cologne" where they had wishpering voices repeat "How do you want to do this" over and over again like it was some how sexy.

I regret giving them a chance twice over.

 

[udm]

D&D doesn't know what to do with itself. "We have advantage, but we also still have all those shitty +X bonuses, we can't decide whether we want one or the other!"

I used to think Advantage/Disadvantage was a good thing, until I actually tried it out. It's waaay too swingy for my liking. It's probably to speed things up, I get it, but stacked bonuses reward certain elements of tactical play more (eg positioning combined with timing).

 

[Curratum]

D&D doesn't know what to do with itself. "We have advantage, but we also still have all those shitty +X bonuses, we can't decide whether we want one or the other!"

I used to think Advantage/Disadvantage was a good thing, until I actually tried it out. It's waaay too swingy for my liking. It's probably to speed things up, I get it, but stacked bonuses reward certain elements of tactical play more (eg positioning combined with timing).

I like swingy. The D&D clone I play uses adv/disadv and the base ability scores, but then again, I've cut out so many things, you probably wouldn't want to touch it with a 10-foot pole! :D

 

[Mortmal]

Alas, this is nothing to making the orcs and such less racist and turning your character choices bland. I wonder what will future sourcebooks and settings be about. Fighting DRUMPF! stand-ins?

I've been told the first Critical Role book published by Green Ronin has a stand in its setting. I really don't get how people are into the Critical Role setting you need to look no further than its creation myth to see how bland it is.

It's so bad it stuck with me and I forever regret borrowing the book to see just what that whole thing is about:

Spoiler

It's just nonsensical. Gods shape a planet and turns out that planet already had primordial on it which resisted that change. Gods are split between fighting for this creation and those viewing it flawed creation against the Eden they wanted to create and want to destroy it and start over elsewhere.

The good gods banish these "Betrayer" Gods and then go on to win fight against the Primordials though the world is no longer the garden they envisioned and their children now have to compete to justify why some times the good races fight against each other vs perfect harmony.

But wait that's not all the Betrayer gods get out of their banishment and see this world now fully in the domain of mortals and decide to instead dominate and rule the world vs destroying it for reasons. Except one of them cause hes just craaazzzyy instead of retaining any consistency.

They get banished again along with the good gods now having to leave the world to hold the gate between the divine realms and mortal world and keep the bad ones out.

Also Mercer is seriously telling me deities like Lolth & Tiamat were once good and aligned with the other gods? What?

Also I got to say the one episode I tried watching did not help my opinions at all. So many commercial brakes for the most inane of things one which still sticks from that one episode was "Critical Role Cologne" where they had wishpering voices repeat "How do you want to do this" over and over again like it was some how sexy.

I regret giving them a chance twice over.

Must be a generation thing, i dont understand why its so popular either, i dont understand why people watch other people playing either critical role or video games. 4 hours of talking ,mostly inane ,for one map encounter, would be bored even if playing with them.

 

[Curratum]

Alas, this is nothing to making the orcs and such less racist and turning your character choices bland. I wonder what will future sourcebooks and settings be about. Fighting DRUMPF! stand-ins?

I've been told the first Critical Role book published by Green Ronin has a stand in its setting. I really don't get how people are into the Critical Role setting you need to look no further than its creation myth to see how bland it is.

It's so bad it stuck with me and I forever regret borrowing the book to see just what that whole thing is about:

Spoiler

It's just nonsensical. Gods shape a planet and turns out that planet already had primordial on it which resisted that change. Gods are split between fighting for this creation and those viewing it flawed creation against the Eden they wanted to create and want to destroy it and start over elsewhere.

The good gods banish these "Betrayer" Gods and then go on to win fight against the Primordials though the world is no longer the garden they envisioned and their children now have to compete to justify why some times the good races fight against each other vs perfect harmony.

But wait that's not all the Betrayer gods get out of their banishment and see this world now fully in the domain of mortals and decide to instead dominate and rule the world vs destroying it for reasons. Except one of them cause hes just craaazzzyy instead of retaining any consistency.

They get banished again along with the good gods now having to leave the world to hold the gate between the divine realms and mortal world and keep the bad ones out.

Also Mercer is seriously telling me deities like Lolth & Tiamat were once good and aligned with the other gods? What?

Also I got to say the one episode I tried watching did not help my opinions at all. So many commercial brakes for the most inane of things one which still sticks from that one episode was "Critical Role Cologne" where they had wishpering voices repeat "How do you want to do this" over and over again like it was some how sexy.

I regret giving them a chance twice over.

Must be a generation thing, i dont understand why its so popular either, i dont understand why people watch other people playing either critical role or video games. 4 hours of talking ,mostly inane ,for one map encounter, would be bored even if playing with them.

I guess it's for the people who don't actually have a real interest in the game and don't play, so they get to experience is in a way.

I have a colleague at work who never played tabletop and has no interest in playing but has watched dozens of hours of critical role.

 

[lightbane]

-Saves progression makes no sense. A fighter or barbarian has about the same chance to resist a Hold Person at level 1 and 20 because he isn't proficient. Even if you are proficient, that just means a +6, so most spells land. to balance this they made spells less deadly which ends up making the whole thing feel bland.

I noticed it as well, but I wasn't sure how much of a big deal it was until you pointed this out.
Also, the system also encourages focusing in your class for your 20 levels, but there are prestige classes as well for some reason.
Is the thief class finally fun at least, or it is still a trap-disabling monkey and little else?

-Damn HP. They should have done some kind of "bounding" at this point with the HP bloat, like they did with the Accuracy or even with the stats, now capped even for dragons. The system feels much less lethal now: less attacks per round, less damage, but the same HP. If we add to this the fact that you now don't die as easily when all HP are lost, players are much less worried about survival, which is a terrible thing.

So that was not me when I noticed even wizards had a lot of HP now.

ve been told the first Critical Role book published by Green Ronin has a stand in its setting.

But of course they would. :sigh: It's sad when sheeple become so predictable. Had retards spent more energy on doing something productive rather than demonizing that guy, we wouldn't have had the hysteriavirus panic in the first place.

I really don't get how people are into the Critical Role setting you need to look no further than its creation myth to see how bland it is.

Only read about it a little. I assumed it was kinda like a Youtuber thing for DnD designed for normies and casuals, and it seems to be so. At least it doesn't have an Elminister character running around, right?

 

[DavidBVal]

Is the thief class finally fun at least, or it is still a trap-disabling monkey and little else?

You mean Rogue, or you've finally given up and gone back to AD&D

With rogue types it usually comes down to the adventure being played and the DM style. If there's stuff for you to do as a rogue or not, if the DM allows you to ambush creatively or not etc.

Taken abstractly, rogues are pretty strong. Easy to go all DEX without worrying much about anything else, since in 5e they have decided not to bother players with multi-attribute dependance at all (which I believe is a mistake). Finesse now also applies DEX to damage, not just attack roll like in 5e.

Sneak attack is doubled on criticals, unlike in 3e.

As Early as level 3, the Assassin Archetype gains advantage when attacking enemies that haven't entered combat yet; attacking with advantage means you apply your Sneak Attack.

So you see, one attribute (DEX) gives you initiative, attack, damage, and since you won initiative you roll for attack with Advantage making the hit almost sure, and add insane extra damage. In case the enemy survives? the same attribute gives you AC. Poor design if you ask me, but millenial kids wanna feel good, what do we old men know.

 

[Darkwind]

Must be a generation thing, i dont understand why its so popular either, i dont understand why people watch other people playing either critical role or video games. 4 hours of talking ,mostly inane ,for one map encounter, would be bored even if playing with them.

100% generational. This entire generation are passive and meek observers IRL and not 'doers' so of course that translates into their media consumption too. Lazy listless low IQ retard consoomers who would rather watch other people play, achieve, whatever. Pro sports had some of this too but it was at least justifiable because not everyone can play in the NFL or Euro League but these people can't even be arsed to do couch potato shit like vidya or tabletop RPGs, much less energy required to drool & observe.

 

[lightbane]

So, Rogues went into the other direction and are potentially too strong now. Figures.

Must be a generation thing, i dont understand why its so popular either, i dont understand why people watch other people playing either critical role or video games. 4 hours of talking ,mostly inane ,for one map encounter, would be bored even if playing with them.

100% generational. This entire generation are passive and meek observers IRL and not 'doers' so of course that translates into their media consumption too. Lazy listless low IQ retard consoomers who would rather watch other people play, achieve, whatever. Pro sports had some of this too but it was at least justifiable because not everyone can play in the NFL or Euro League but these people can't even be arsed to do couch potato shit like vidya or tabletop RPGs, much less energy required to drool & observe.

I blame that Big Bang Theory show for making a very sanitized depiction of nerds trendy (although legit nerds are still panned of course), which eventually resulted in stuff like that.

 

[Morblot]

Those things are not a big deal, once you DM a bit more you'll learn these are the problems...

That's a very good message and I agree completely with your assessment of the flaws of 5e. In fact the only thing I disagree with is the part where you say it's a good edition

Anyway, just wanted to say that I think maybe there's another way of solving the skill proficiency problem: do away with the skills entirely. I haven't tried it with 5e, of course, but I imagine it would bring the game closer to its roots instead of it being just rote d20 rolling against whatever arbitrary DCs. Of course this may present some problems with how the Rogue's role is seen and also with how to run any premade adventures, etc., but still, something to consider.

edit: I also meant to complain about how little monster hit dice affect anything except their HP in 5e. It's just a number that doesn't really seem to have any meaning and WotC might've as well got rid of it entirely.

This entire generation are passive and meek observers IRL and not 'doers'

Luckily I know for a fact that this isn't so. There are still doers in among zoomers. Maybe there are less than in previous generations, I don't know, but they do still exist.

 

[Mortmal]

Those things are not a big deal, once you DM a bit more you'll learn these are the problems...

That's a very good message and I agree completely with your assessment of the flaws of 5e. In fact the only thing I disagree with is the part where you say it's a good edition

Anyway, just wanted to say that I think maybe there's another way of solving the skill proficiency problem: do away with the skills entirely. I haven't tried it with 5e, of course, but I imagine it would bring the game closer to its roots instead of it being just rote d20 rolling against whatever arbitrary DCs. Of course this may present some problems with how the Rogue's role is seen and also with how to run any premade adventures, etc., but still, something to consider.

edit: I also meant to complain about how little monster hit dice affect anything except their HP in 5e. It's just a number that doesn't really seem to have any meaning and WotC might've as well got rid of it entirely.

This entire generation are passive and meek observers IRL and not 'doers'

Luckily I know for a fact that this isn't so. There are still doers in among zoomers. Maybe there are less than in previous generations, I don't know, but they do still exist.

Well its good for pen and paper sessions, its fluid and fast . For a crpg pathfinder or 3.5 would be better since the computer handle the bloat for you and you can have fun min maxing builds. Of course there's other options like shadow of the demon lord, its even faster to play, no such thing as skill proficiency , you get professions instead you were a boat captain, you succeed at sailing, no roll needed for exemple. It kinda make more sense . They also handle the advantage system in a different way, (boon and curses) you roll many dices you keep the highest.

 

[Morblot]

Well its good for pen and paper sessions, its fluid and fast .

I must disagree. I've played over two dozen sessions of it and I really did try to like it but I find it too kludgy to be played "fast and loose" and also too shallow to tickle the autism bone the way 3.X and PF1e do.

But I'm happy now with my OSR games and I still have my 3.X/PF1e books ready for when I feel like crunching some numbers so whatever.

 

[Mortmal]

Well its good for pen and paper sessions, its fluid and fast .

I must disagree. I've played over two dozen sessions of it and I really did try to like it but I find it too kludgy to be played "fast and loose" and also too shallow to tickle the autism bone the way 3.X and PF1e do.

But I'm happy now with my OSR games and I still have my 3.X/PF1e books ready for when I feel like crunching some numbers so whatever.

What do you especially dislike in that edition ?

 

[Morblot]

What do you especially dislike in that edition ?

IT SUX!

I mean, I already answered in the posts you quoted. If those reasons aren't good enough for you then too bad.

 

[Gyor]

We present orcs and drow in a new light in two of our most recent books, Eberron: Rising from the Last War and Explorer's Guide to Wildemount. In those books, orcs and drow are just as morally and culturally complex as other peoples. We will continue that approach in future books, portraying all the peoples of D&D in relatable ways and making it clear that they are as free as humans to decide who they are and what they do.

That's just garbage.

Isn't the whole point of Drizzt's backstory that in Drow society you are not free, cause you either bow to tradition and take your place within one of the rivaling houses or you are basically an outlaw?

That's literally the reason why Drizzt had to leave - cause he wouldn't accept his position.

Also it irks me how they insinuate that such societies aren't complex. Cause practically speaking, societies with deeply traditional systems of rule must also have a long history of optimizing their rules of conduct. Otherwise they wouldn't come up with those traditions in the first place.

And Menzoberranzan is essentially a caste society, embedded into a system of noble houses with a clerical matriarchy at the top.
Jesus Christ, how much more complexity do you need?
Yes they are assholse and no they are not relatable to humans. And you know why? Cause they aren't culturally related to surface dwellers in the slightest. That's literally their whole shtick, with very few exceptions - and even those still have the mentality, they are just not applying it so harshly (like Viconia in BG2, who is an outlaw in drow society and basically looks for allies on the surface, but she is still an asshole from a "good" human character's perspective).

So instead of watering it down and making drows just a "bit" evil but basically cool and everything, why not explore them? Why not explore the reasons why such a society can form at all? Isn't that way more interesting than just having another variety of humans?
R. A. Salvatore explored their society in "Homeland" - why not build on that? I'm sure there is a shitton of other material out there too.

Or is it maybe, that exploring authoritarian tendencies within fantasy societies is just uncomfortable to limp wristed white liberals (which seem to be WotC's primary target audience these days), because they feel threatened by the thought of maybe understanding where a zealot or an isolationist or a nationalist or a traditionalist is coming from?
It seems to me, they do not understand that you can reckognize someones points and still fiercly disagree with them. Recognition is already a thought crime.

With an attitude like that all creativity in writing dies, cause you will never be able to explore themes outside of your own moral framework.

Edit:
That death of creativity in writing is by the way also extremely apparent in current science fiction. For comparison, in Star Trek TNG lots of stories were basically like "here's a society or character that completely goes against everything you believe in, but they have a good reason for it - you got your idealized moral codes, so how do you deal with that?" - and the exploration of that was basically the episode. And many, many times the result was just "alright, we just can't deal with it", which is where the prime directive then came in, basically ordering the crew to fuck off. And even that system was flawed and Star Trek TNG's writers fully acknowledged it, by having situations where the protagonists are pushed to such moral limits that they have to break their own moral code. But that was extremely rare (9 occassions in 178 episodes).

So maybe WotC should swallow that pill before they throw their writer's at an established piece of lore. Making drows more relatable does not make them more interesting for stories. It makes them less interesting, because conflict is the heart of drama. And if there ain't no drama, who gives a shit about your story?

I don't think they are changing basic Drow societies in FR and Greyhawk, it's more new potential settings, or even refreshed old setting. Perhaps FR will get some more outsider Drow cities and organizations, I addition to traditional Lolthian Drow societies. It already has some linked to other deities of the Drow pantheon.

 

[Gyor]

Alas, this is nothing to making the orcs and such less racist and turning your character choices bland. I wonder what will future sourcebooks and settings be about. Fighting DRUMPF! stand-ins?

I've been told the first Critical Role book published by Green Ronin has a stand in its setting. I really don't get how people are into the Critical Role setting you need to look no further than its creation myth to see how bland it is.

It's so bad it stuck with me and I forever regret borrowing the book to see just what that whole thing is about:

Spoiler

It's just nonsensical. Gods shape a planet and turns out that planet already had primordial on it which resisted that change. Gods are split between fighting for this creation and those viewing it flawed creation against the Eden they wanted to create and want to destroy it and start over elsewhere.

The good gods banish these "Betrayer" Gods and then go on to win fight against the Primordials though the world is no longer the garden they envisioned and their children now have to compete to justify why some times the good races fight against each other vs perfect harmony.

But wait that's not all the Betrayer gods get out of their banishment and see this world now fully in the domain of mortals and decide to instead dominate and rule the world vs destroying it for reasons. Except one of them cause hes just craaazzzyy instead of retaining any consistency.

They get banished again along with the good gods now having to leave the world to hold the gate between the divine realms and mortal world and keep the bad ones out.

Also Mercer is seriously telling me deities like Lolth & Tiamat were once good and aligned with the other gods? What?

Also I got to say the one episode I tried watching did not help my opinions at all. So many commercial brakes for the most inane of things one which still sticks from that one episode was "Critical Role Cologne" where they had wishpering voices repeat "How do you want to do this" over and over again like it was some how sexy.

I regret giving them a chance twice over.

That Lolth was once good and the spouse of Corellon Larethon before going radical feminist and becoming evil has been her lore for a long time, in FR canon, read the novel Evermeet.

 

[ekrolo2]

However, there are many flaws such as unclear rules for crafting magical gear which required another book to do so, races that still are collection of bonuses with no drawbacks lest snowflakes are offended and blatantly nerfed/lame magic

Those things are not a big deal, once you DM a bit more you'll learn these are the problems:

-Bounded accuracy is great, D&D needed that, but they went too far. From a +2 to a +6 through 20 levels means progression is too slow; waiting 4 levels until you gain a miser +1 bonus to anything in your character sheet. Should have been up to +8 or +10 probably.
-Proficiency for skills is boring. Who wants to be "proficient", people wants to be great at stuff, at least to some stuff their characters specialize at. So your level 12 ranger with 14 WIS has a whooping +6 to Survival checks! that gives a magnificent 55% chance to succeed at a medium check (DC 15). Even worse, since we're rolling a D20 here, luck becomes the biggest factor; chances are someone else in the party with a +1 or a +2 WIS will roll higher than the poor ranger. The solution would probably be having 4 Skill Training levels instead of two: Untrained, Proficient, Expert and Master.
-Saves progression makes no sense. A fighter or barbarian has about the same chance to resist a Hold Person at level 1 and 20 because he isn't proficient. Even if you are proficient, that just means a +6, so most spells land. to balance this they made spells less deadly which ends up making the whole thing feel bland.
-Healing. Everybody pretty much can heal to full hp daily by having short rests and long rests. At least this one is easier to houserule out.
-Damn HP. They should have done some kind of "bounding" at this point with the HP bloat, like they did with the Accuracy or even with the stats, now capped even for dragons. The system feels much less lethal now: less attacks per round, less damage, but the same HP. If we add to this the fact that you now don't die as easily when all HP are lost, players are much less worried about survival, which is a terrible thing.

However, I still believe 5e is a good edition. If only they evolved it a little, it could become the best edition ever easily. As it stands now 3e is still better for cRPGs (more fun progression, spells with more punch) and AD&D/2e with all the outdated mechanics is still the one with the "WOW!" factor.

How would you go about having players increase from proficient to say expert then master? Make it them feats too? Give players the option of increasing them during level up? I'm just curious as I'm thinking about revising this aspect of 5e for my own campaign.

 

[Lhynn]

There are already feats that allow you double proficiency.

 

[DavidBVal]

There are already feats that allow you double proficiency.

True but too patchy to actually be considered part of the skill progression system. It doesn't allow you to build any character concept as a 5e character efficiently. Let's say a newbie player comes to you without D&D knowledge but a concept like "I want to play The Beastmaster" or "I want to be the best tracker ever".

Let's consider your rules advice as the DM. So, for either, Ranger or Barb with the appropiate proficiency sounds good. But the sad truth is they will be just as good at those skills as anyone else that picks the same class, or that has a background with the proficiency. And unless they gimp themselves combat-wise with a super-high WIS, the party cleric will be better than them, even if he's an urbanite. And leveling up won't make it any better. There's no feat to gain double-proficiency for those skills (nor for most skills), but even houseruling it feels unsavory, asking the player to further handicap himself for another +2... in five seasons maybe a +3. Feats are already crowded as the only way to get decent at saving throws or even out your abilities, it shouldn't also become the place where you learn your skills!

So my answer would be "Give up on that. This is not the right game to become a skilled specialist, skills are pretty much a consequence of your class, and everyone is about the same once they get the proficiency". Which is very sad for a game with hundreds of pages on rules, devised as a universal system to be played on multiple settings, etc. It's just not good enough.

How would you go about having players increase from proficient to say expert then master? Make it them feats too? Give players the option of increasing them during level up? I'm just curious as I'm thinking about revising this aspect of 5e for my own campaign.

I decided to let it as it is, mainly because on paper it sounded OK, and because I didn't want to burden myself with more houseruling. I DMed in Dark Sun and had to take care of tons of stuff: psionics, races, classes, almost everything was adjusted.

If I had to start over... I guess something like this would work (but please bear in mind, I haven't fully analyzed it, it's a rough idea):

-Remove some starting proficiencies, make the players choose, and in backgrounds especially, backgrounds just add options to choose from. The idea is that they will gain them later on, so probably starting with 1-2 proficiencies less than usual should do the trick. You'd need to go through classes to decide how many starting proficiencies they get, related to how many available proficiencies they have.
-Allow them to focus on one skill and spend multiple proficiencies to go Expert or Master right from char creation, if that makes them happy. Or, you may allow it at char creation only if they get multiple options to gain the proficiency (can come from race, class or background)
-Don't use Proficiency Bonus for this. Proficient = +4. Expert = +7. Master = +10.
-On each class, you need to decide how many levels it takes to get a new proficiency. Casters may never get one. I haven't done a detailed analysis but for classes which are supossed to be skilley this could be one every 3-4 levels. Depends also on your choice on how many starting proficiencies they got.

An example on this to play a "Beastmaster" concept. Ranger level 1 with 14 WIS (high, but not a handicap for other abilities). Starts out as Expert at Animal Handling, probably giving up most other proficiencies. That's a +9. Against a Medium difficulty(DC 15) it's a 75% chance. Eventually becomes Master, that'd give him a 90% success against medium DC.

 

[Thac0]

True but too patchy to actually be considered part of the skill progression system. It doesn't allow you to build any character concept as a 5e character efficiently. Let's say a newbie player comes to you without D&D knowledge but a concept like "I want to play The Beastmaster" or "I want to be the best tracker ever".

Let's consider your rules advice as the DM. So, for either, Ranger or Barb with the appropiate proficiency sounds good. But the sad truth is they will be just as good at those skills as anyone else that picks the same class, or that has a background with the proficiency. And unless they gimp themselves combat-wise with a super-high WIS, the party cleric will be better than them, even if he's an urbanite. And leveling up won't make it any better. There's no feat to gain double-proficiency for those skills (nor for most skills), but even houseruling it feels unsavory, asking the player to further handicap himself for another +2... in five seasons maybe a +3. Feats are already crowded as the only way to get decent at saving throws or even out your abilities, it shouldn't also become the place where you learn your skills!

So my answer would be "Give up on that. This is not the right game to become a skilled specialist, skills are pretty much a consequence of your class, and everyone is about the same once they get the proficiency". Which is very sad for a game with hundreds of pages on rules, devised as a universal system to be played on multiple settings, etc. It's just not good enough.

Its still possible when you either become a variant human that gets the respective feat for free or you multiclass in bard or rogue (which is a good multiclass in general for a lot of classes that dont have anything good going on with their bonus action) for expertise.

But skill proficiencies in general is something I hope they heavily rework for 6E. A lot of skills are double or useless.

 

[Moonrise]

I was resistant to 5e for a long time, but it's so quick and dirty, I think I like it better than 3e. They didn't even bother simplifying some of the old rules, they just got rid of them. Which is fine. Less to argue about. I've been running Saltmarsh with a New England bent. So the players have to make a fear check when encountering monstrosities, and a sanity check with aberrations. Some posters are saying the game is tuned too easy, but it's really not hard to make it deadly. Sea monsters on one side. Dwarves digging too deep on the other. Hell, my players nearly TPKed on the first module, which I deliberately ran stock. Sanbalet can demolish level 1 characters. Actually, they would've died, but we're a player short, so I gave them a sprite NPC to smooth things out, and a lucky sleep arrow saved the day. I'm glad it worked out like that, because they naively turned him in to the authorities. Now we've got a recurring villain with connections to the Scarlet Brotherhood. He's so fun to play too. I love haughty wizards.

 

[Lhynn]

Ok, lets back up a little because you have a bit of a mess in your understanding of rules and narrativ.

True but too patchy to actually be considered part of the skill progression system. It doesn't allow you to build any character concept as a 5e character efficiently. Let's say a newbie player comes to you without D&D knowledge but a concept like "I want to play The Beastmaster" or "I want to be the best tracker ever".

This isnt true, you can just take a different path.

Let's consider your rules advice as the DM. So, for either, Ranger or Barb with the appropiate proficiency sounds good. But the sad truth is they will be just as good at those skills as anyone else that picks the same class, or that has a background with the proficiency.

Yes, because they are just as trained.

And unless they gimp themselves combat-wise with a super-high WIS, the party cleric will be better than them, even if he's an urbanite.

If the party cleric picks the skill he should be as good or better than the ranger. Because he both picked up the skill needed and is more talented at it. And picking up wis instead of str isnt exactly gimping yourself, you can always go with a wis based character, you could pick up the shilleglagh, or you could pick a level in rogue to gain expertise. Besides, rangers already get double proficiency on their own terrain, so they are effectively very hard to beat by other class there, especially at higher levels when the characters arent fresh out of character creation.

And leveling up won't make it any better. There's no feat to gain double-proficiency for those skills (nor for most skills), but even houseruling it feels unsavory, asking the player to further handicap himself for another +2... in five seasons maybe a +3.

They already get double proficiency out of the box.

Feats are already crowded as the only way to get decent at saving throws or even out your abilities, it shouldn't also become the place where you learn your skills!

This is a good thing.

So my answer would be "Give up on that. This is not the right game to become a skilled specialist, skills are pretty much a consequence of your class, and everyone is about the same once they get the proficiency". Which is very sad for a game with hundreds of pages on rules, devised as a universal system to be played on multiple settings, etc. It's just not good enough.

If you have proficiency it means you are one of the best, and the very best can still beat someone that is merely good at it by a wide margin.


I know you come from 3rd edition, the edition where characters play themselves, auto succeeding at whatever they are good at while failing at everything else. But luck is interesting, and even the best can and will make mistakes, learning to roll with the punches is part of the fun of 5th edition, which is why it isnt as punishing when you do, because you are expected to, repeatedly.

 

[Mortmal]

I was resistant to 5e for a long time, but it's so quick and dirty, I think I like it better than 3e. They didn't even bother simplifying some of the old rules, they just got rid of them. Which is fine. Less to argue about. I've been running Saltmarsh with a New England bent. So the players have to make a fear check when encountering monstrosities, and a sanity check with aberrations. Some posters are saying the game is tuned too easy, but it's really not hard to make it deadly. Sea monsters on one side. Dwarves digging too deep on the other. Hell, my players nearly TPKed on the first module, which I deliberately ran stock. Sanbalet can demolish level 1 characters. Actually, they would've died, but we're a player short, so I gave them a sprite NPC to smooth things out, and a lucky sleep arrow saved the day. I'm glad it worked out like that, because they naively turned him in to the authorities. Now we've got a recurring villain with connections to the Scarlet Brotherhood. He's so fun to play too. I love haughty wizards.

First modules are character grinders at level 1 from curse of stradh to tomb of annihilation, the low level characters can be destroyed by a critical,by traps, by pretty much anything and stay dead . The difficulty of official modules is absurd . Later they become invincible able to handle 3X deadly encounters the CR rating is very misleading Its hard to balance encounters and not go from really deadly to TPK . They need to lose ton of hp even downed or fail rolls to be really killed. One is dead ? whatever , you have revivify spell reincarnate, resurrect...Its my biggest complain, low levels are far too deadly if you play fair by the book, then later characters are invincible.

 

[Generic-Giant-Spider]

Hahaha

Hey LOSERS, just decided to stop by on my motorcycle here from my high testosterone 3.5 club to see how you NERDS were doing playing your little adorable 5E game. Hahaha, having FUN? Hahaha, everybody feel like a winner?! HAHAHA. Well, gotta go pick up my hot date. Yeah, she cosplays as an elf at cons. Heh, have fun watching Critical Role or whatever it is you GEEKS do. Hahahaha.

Alexa, play Ride the Lightning full blast.

 

[Lhynn]

Hahaha

Hey LOSERS, just decided to stop by on my motorcycle here from my high testosterone 3.5 club to see how you NERDS were doing playing your little adorable 5E game. Hahaha, having FUN? Hahaha, everybody feel like a winner?! HAHAHA. Well, gotta go pick up my hot date. Yeah, she cosplays as an elf at cons. Heh, have fun watching Critical Role or whatever it is you GEEKS do. Hahahaha.

Alexa, play Ride the Lightning full blast.

You are a very gay spider.