Quote from: Basic Player RulesAbility checks, attack rolls, and saving throws are the three main kinds of d20 rolls, forming the core of the rules of the game. All three follow these simple steps.

1. Roll the die and add a modifier. Roll a d20 and add the relevant modifier. This is typically the modifier derived from one of the six ability scores, and it sometimes includes a proficiency bonus to reflect a character's particular skill. (See chapter 1 for details on each ability and how to determine an ability's modifier.)

Copied from a 2015 version, but I seriously doubt this has changed. Save bonuses in stat blocks are listed only where they differ from the ability score bonus (i.e., where a proficiency bonus is included).

One should note that the bad effect of missing a saving throw is much reduced from earlier editions. "Save or be briefly inconvenienced" is not as pithy as "save or die" but more accurate for most saves.

5e is probably the most boring, shallow, and poorly-written game that I've ever read or played; it's even worse than 4e. I have to assume that it was written by a retarded chimpanzee.

Problems:

(1.) The writing for 5e is boring, and the rules are vague.

(2.) The index is terrible. I'll look for x, and then it will say, "see y", and then sometimes y will say, "see z". It's the most frustrating index I've ever used. I hate it. Just once, I'd like to look something up in the index, and have it say.....see page 55. That almost never happens. :mad:

(3.) The page numbers are faint, and difficult to read.

(4.) The system for crafting magic items is objectively stupid. Seeing people feebly trying to defend the concept of anyone spending 55 fucking years to craft a weak magic item.....boggles my fucking mind. After running a cost/benefit ratio analysis of the magic items in the DMG, I came to the conclusion that roughly 75% of the magic items in the book would never be crafted....and that's not including the sentient items or artifacts in the DMG.

(5.) It's almost impossible to sell a magic item you crafted for profit. The system used on page 130 of the DMG implies that a potential customer actually knows how much it cost you to craft an item, but will deliberately low-ball you in the most insulting way possible.....and in most cases, will only offer you between 10% to 50% of what it cost for you to craft it. You have a very small chance of selling a "common" or "uncommon" magic item for a profit. It is impossible to sell a "rare" or "very rare" magic item for a profit, and you cannot sell a "legendary" magic item at all.....even though "legendary" magic items are pathetically weak, and have a very limited effect on their environment.

(6.) The CR system is useless, and doesn't tell a DM how strong a monster is. I don't know what to do with it. It would have to be completely rewritten.

(7.) There are no useful rules for naval combat or siege warfare. At this point, I see it as a glaring oversight.

(8.) Primary casters are still objectively better than non-primary casters in 5e, by a huge margin. Even if the high-level Magic-User/Wizard was significantly more powerful than the Fighter in earlier editions of D&D, my 10th-level Dwarven Fighter (either AD&D or 3e) could still feel like a champion.....by throttling the 30 goblins that attack him in the woods. In 5e, it's a horrible idea for even a high-level Fighter to attack 30 goblins by himself. In a sense, high-level characters don't even exist in 5e....but that's a separate discussion.

(9.) Monsters are largely boring and interchangeable sacks of hit points. BORING.

(10.) Gold is (mostly) useless. In other editions, there was an INCENTIVE to acquire gold when you adventured. In 1e, acquiring gp during an adventure could bring you experience points. In 3e, acquiring gp could enable you to buy or craft magic items. What does gold buy you in 5e? Mostly nothing. You can buy some crappy non-magical gear with it, or buy a manor house that you rarely use. You could rent hirelings, but that creates a new problem. Because of bounded accuracy, having 80 NPC guards do something for you is cheaper and more efficient than having four 10th-level characters do something for you.....which entirely defeats the purpose and concept of having high-level characters (at all).

(11.) "Bounded accuracy" is a festering pile of dog shit, or at least 5e's particular implementation of it. Bounded accuracy would have made so much more sense in a game that uses a bell curve, but is pure stupidity for a game that uses a d20. Bounded accuracy creates a weird situation where you're never really very good at anything. In previous editions, I would be confident that my 12th-level Paladin would win a knight's tournament, unless some high-level black knight marches in. In 5e, bounded accuracy creates weird situations where my high-level Paladin isn't very proficient at archery and isn't appreciably better at fighting with breakable lances than NPC gimps. It's pure idiocy.

(12.) 5e ties with 4e as being the least modular game I've ever played. If you don't like bounded accuracy, guess what? You're fucked. There is no 5e without bounded accuracy. If you try to remove bounded accuracy, then it affects:

* armor class for monsters
* armor class for non-magical armor
* the magic item crafting system
* the skill system
* saving throws
* physical attacks

AD&D was modular enough that you could change a couple game mechanics, without the system falling apart. You want ascending armor class? Fine. You want to convert initiative to a d10? Fine. You want to add new spells that enable you to craft magic weapons and magic armor, without risking losing a point of Constitution? Fine. Such modularity simply does not exist in 5e.

(13.) 5e is a game of padded sumo. It's impossible for a character to have a lasting injury. You lie down for 8 hours, and you get all your hit points back.....without using magic. I sense that the reason for this is that the authors wanted people to be less reliant upon clerics. But this is just so weird, that it mentally takes me out of the game.....and makes me focus on the game mechanics instead. In other editions, you needed bed rest and time to get your hit points back, and it could take many days to recover (if you didn't have magic). Not any more.

(14.) Advantage/disadvantage sucks. This system is binary. You either have (dis)advantage or you don't. Once your opponents fire arrows at you from [a.] multiple directions, [b.] from higher ground, and [c.] from behind cover.....there's virtually nothing you can do to negate that, because even if you hide behind a log (for cover).....you are only negating one form of advantage, therefore, your opponents will still have advantage. Would it have killed WoTC to create some sensible LAYERS to the advantage/disadvantage mechanic? This is annoying, stupid, and lazy game writing. And I'm tired of non-luck-based characters constantly engaging in rerolls. To Hell with that.

(15.) Character concepts in 5e are limited. There are far fewer legitimate character concepts in 5e than virtually any other iteration of D&D. In 3e, I could create a luck-based character with the Luck Domain and various luck feats. In 5e, everyone has advantage/disadvantage and uses bounded accuracy, which DILUTES the concept of luck. I can't give large luck-based numeric bonuses to a d20 for 5e (because bounded accuracy prevents this), and the concept of advantage/disadvantage rerolls dilutes the very concept of luck-based reroll game mechanics...since everyone in 5e engages in d20 rerolls anyway (due to the advantage/disadvantage game mechanic). Because of the failures of the magic item crafting system in 5e, the concept of an Artificer is meaningfully gone. And forget becoming an incredibly skilled archer in 5e, because your accuracy is garbage. Meanwhile, if I wanted to create the concept of a truly amazing archer in AD&D (for example), I could do it. I could have a 17th-level Fighter or Ranger with weapon specialization with the bow, who would unambiguously be drastically more accurate and efficient with a bow than your typical zero-level gimp. He'd be Hawkeye; he'd be Green Arrow; he'd be awesome. But in 5e, you're not big in the pants any more, especially if you're not a spellcaster. No matter your level in 5e, you're very likely to lose an archery contest. :rolleyes:

(16.) For 5e spellcasters, resource management is mostly gone. My Sorcerer or Wizard never runs out of magic.....because cantrips can be used "at-will". This means that your Wizard can attack with Fire Bolt every single round of every single day. You never run out of "juice". This issue might simply be a matter of personal taste, but I hate it......because there are no alternatives. If we're being honest, this is just another version of the D&D 3.5 Warlock class using an Eldritch Blast (but renamed as a "cantrip"). The funny thing is that I don't even have an issue with "at-will" magic existing, but my objection is that this is not how either a Magic-User or Wizard is supposed to be played. In 3e, I could use "fire and forget", or I could use "at-will magic". I previously had a choice, but now that choice is gone.

(17.) In 5e, you simply cannot affect your environment in a meaningful way. In AD&D, my Magic-User could illuminate a city with Continual Light spells. He could have a retinue of charmed servants. He could cast Enlarge or Reduce on the front door to a castle. The high-level Fighter could have a castle and a small army of loyal soldiers, which could attack the Cleric's temple and cult of fanatical followers. Meanwhile, the Cleric's undead servitors have been sitting in a cave for the past 10 years, waiting silently to be used......as a secret weapon.....with no re-enchantment necessary. Does anything in 5e sound that interesting? Hell, no.

(18.) Most characters in 5e have magic abilities. Granted, these magic abilities are largely boring and barely affect their environment in a meaningful way....but character magic is common and formulaic. Every character class in the Player's Hand book either has automatic access to spells, or potential access to spells. Every single one. Yes, even the Barbarian. Seeing this surprised me, and I find it to be a disappointing change.

(19.) The so-called "skill system" in 5e is awful, boring, and vague. There's not much in the way of meaningful guidelines for using these "skills". I know that people complained about the 3e skill system, but at least you had a mostly solid idea of what you were capable of. Mostly. I don't have that certainty in 5e. And frankly, even Thief skills and non-weapon proficiencies from AD&D were far more interesting than the 5e skill system. And because of "bounded accuracy", most characters will fail most skill tests....unless they are "Very Easy" (DC 5) or "Easy" (DC 10). Your Fighter will practically never be able to perform any skill test that is "Very Hard" (DC 25), no matter his level. Just forget it. You suck at anything not involving "swording" people to death, and you're really not great at that either......because bounded accuracy creates scenarios where your 10th-level Fighter gets pimp-slapped by moderately-sized groups of bow-wielding goblins.

(20.) 5e culture blows. This is weird, but I noticed that white masculine men were largely (although not completely) absent from the artwork. This is important, because artwork sets a tone. I'm expecting that when 6e comes out, every character will become a black pansexual female of color. Not to mention, nobody seems to be willing to critique this system in a meaningful way. I've never seen anything like this before. Every other edition of D&D receives real constructive criticism, but any real critical examination of 5e seems largely absent from the Internet. Maybe Google is hiding it, since the people who control Google probably also control Hasbro. But in any case, the lack of unflattering critique and in-depth examination of 5e is actually creepy. Nobody seems to openly delve into the system, and tear it to pieces......in order to understand how things actually work. :cool:

So there's my top 20 list, of why 5e sucks.

this is amazing

OK after being amused by the sheer OUTRAGE in the post, I have to say after actually reading it that you're right about a good deal of it. However, stuff like Bounded Accuracy is intentional and the things you don't like are just the direction they deliberately went. It's supposed to be lower powered with everyone still having a fighting chance, with the levels not being as hugely different.

I don't think it's worth being that strident about it though, there's plenty of worse systems and it's good at what it does. Based on this I feel like you'd like Pathfinder 2 (for lack of BA and increased complexity). Although your dislike for magic makes me think maybe something older because PF2 has magic everywhere.

Though on a closer reading, you are wrong about a few things. Resource management is still very much present, it's just up to the DM to make sure they have enough encounters. Cantrips don't really cut it in combat against level appropriate foes if you aren't like level 2.

Also, re: advantage/disadvantage, I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean, but they don't stack. So if there's 3 sources of advantage and 1 of disadvantage, they all cancel out to a normal roll.

Man, someone really needs to switch to decaf. I could go over some of this, but...damn.

Bottom line, it's not enough to say "it sucks," you're supposed to follow up with solutions.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;1110918Lots of stuff

Sir, EVERY Game Designer who wants to make a better product needs someone like you to review their work with such zeal and lack of mercy (ideally BEFORE it is published).

Quote from: S'mon;1110900Pretty sure that is the RAW.

In the PHB it says yes. But in the MM it says monsters only get bonuses to saves if listed. But. That might mean they only get the prof bonus if listed. So I am going to assume that is how they meant. Which means one of the designers has, or will claim no the do not get any bonuses unless listed. :mad:

Quote from: Omega;1110928In the PHB it says yes. But in the MM it says monsters only get bonuses to saves if listed. But. That might mean they only get the prof bonus if listed. So I am going to assume that is how they meant. Which means one of the designers has, or will claim no the do not get any bonuses unless listed. :mad:

You might be talking about this section:

QuoteMost creatures don't have special saving throw bonuses, in which case this section is absent.

But note that it says, SPECIAL saving throw bonuses. That means proficiency. Saving throws in general add the ability bonus though. That is not considered a "special" bonus.

You were misreading it.

Quote from: Chris24601;1110927Sir, EVERY Game Designer who wants to make a better product needs someone like you to review their work with such zeal and lack of mercy (ideally BEFORE it is published).

Only if they want to make their game worse. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Omega;1110928In the PHB it says yes. But in the MM it says monsters only get bonuses to saves if listed. But. That might mean they only get the prof bonus if listed. So I am going to assume that is how they meant. Which means one of the designers has, or will claim no the do not get any bonuses unless listed. :mad:

It says in the MM that they have ability scores and the corresponding modifiers, and refers to the PHB for their effect...

Edit: Sorry, mAcular Chaotic already covered this while I was writing and then abandoning a long response to Sacrificial Lamb.

Quote from: Sacrificial Lamb;11109185e is probably the most boring, shallow, and poorly-written game that I've ever read or played; it's even worse than 4e. I have to assume that it was written by a retarded chimpanzee.

(1.) The writing for 5e is boring, and the rules are vague.

(2.) The index is terrible.

(3.) The page numbers are faint, and difficult to read.

(4.) The system for crafting magic items is objectively stupid.

(5.) It's almost impossible to sell a magic item you crafted for profit.

(6.) The CR system is useless, and doesn't tell a DM how strong a monster is. I don't know what to do with it. It would have to be completely rewritten.

(7.) There are no useful rules for naval combat or siege warfare. At this point, I see it as a glaring oversight.

(8.) Primary casters are still objectively better than non-primary casters in 5e, by a huge margin. Even if the high-level Magic-User/Wizard was significantly more powerful than the Fighter in earlier editions of D&D, my 10th-level Dwarven Fighter (either AD&D or 3e) could still feel like a champion.....by throttling the 30 goblins that attack him in the woods. In 5e, it's a horrible idea for even a high-level Fighter to attack 30 goblins by himself. In a sense, high-level characters don't even exist in 5e....but that's a separate discussion.

(9.) Monsters are largely boring and interchangeable sacks of hit points. BORING.

(10.) Gold is (mostly) useless.

(12.) 5e ties with 4e as being the least modular game I've ever played.

(13.) 5e is a game of padded sumo. It's impossible for a character to have a lasting injury. You lie down for 8 hours, and you get all your hit points back.....without using magic.

(14.) Advantage/disadvantage sucks.

(15.) Character concepts in 5e are limited. There are far fewer legitimate character concepts in 5e than virtually any other iteration of D&D.

(16.) For 5e spellcasters, resource management is mostly gone.

(17.) In 5e, you simply cannot affect your environment in a meaningful way.

(18.) Most characters in 5e have magic abilities. Granted, these magic abilities are largely boring and barely affect their environment in a meaningful way....but character magic is common and formulaic. Every character class in the Player's Hand book either has automatic access to spells, or potential access to spells. Every single one. Yes, even the Barbarian. Seeing this surprised me, and I find it to be a disappointing change.

(19.) The so-called "skill system" in 5e is awful, boring, and vague.

(20.) 5e culture blows. This is weird, but I noticed that white masculine men were largely (although not completely) absent from the artwork.

Village idiot application #739 received. sigh...

X: Hey now. Dont be so mean to Mearls and co. Being Woke AND Trendy is hard to juggle you know. (Jesus Christ someone please muzzle Mearls and especially some of the other staff before they dig themselves and the game any deeper!)

1: Older editions were sometimes even more vague. But the real problem is that they tossed in alot of oddball stuff that would have been better suited in an expansion book and the space freed up for other things. That said I can see what they were trying to do. Which is present tools for the new DM and DMs in need of a quick, or springboard, idea with a few rolls.

2: The index is written in freaking microfiche. I have to use a damn magnifying glass to read it. They did correct this in the DMG at least. And you are not the only one to jab WOTC for the oddball index that indexes the index. It feels like half the index refferrences itself.  

3: I can read them with my damaged eyes? Yes they are faint as that sepia tone blends in with the parchment background. Least it is not the utter HELL if trying to read the d20m Gamma World books where every third chapter the background was... dark grey speckles and slpotches.

4: You truly are obsessed.

5: um, No. Its fairly easy to sell magic items. Its just not easy getting the sale price you want. Supply and demand is a bitch.

6: Um the CR system is fairly well explained? Its just not very good at doing what it was created to do. It works best as a really loose guideline. Much like in older editions a monsters HD was a really loose guideline. We've been over the CR systems flaws in a couple of threads now.

7: No core edition has had extensive naval combat rules. AD&D was the closest and even that was still fairly basic. That is something best left to an expansion book. Which apparently naval combat got in the Saltmarsh module. But have not had a chance to check. The UA article on naval combat has been out a year or more though.

8: Here we go again. Actually in most editions of D&D fighters have equaled or more often potentially outperformed wizards. This carries over to 5e. Though not as big a gap as was prior. The fighter can still hold their own. But every class is getting overwhelmed now by what were prior nuisance monsters. This seems intentional from comments from the designers. Some like it that way. Others rather dont. It is harder to be awesome when at level 20 a bunch of lowly bullywogs ganged up and killed you.

9: um... that could be said of every edition if you dont actually read the background material. In older editions it was often intermingled a bit. Which actually made it harder to sort out the mechanics from the background in some cases.

10: You are mostly useless. But we dont hold that against you. Much. :rolleyes:
We've dissected your screeds on this before. And you are still wrong. Get over it. You have been given examples of gold in use. Try them instead of fabricating reasons to be fake outraged.

12: Pundit disagrees to some degree. But we all seem to have very different ideas of what modular is.

13: That is because 5e's HP are more like fatigue points and are easier to recover from. There are ample threads dissecting the problem and solutions. Even the DMG offers some variants.

14: Ad/Disad is a weird one. 5e seems really obsessed with the idea that gamers hate math. But this is a mindset being extolled in board game design too that ref tables and addition and subtraction are "too complex" for modern gamers. I guess reading will be too complex for modern gamers next and 6e will be the D&D See Spot Run edition. Advantage/disad works. To a point. Its neat and simple. But its too simple and does not scale well at all. Theres an older thread where someone dissected the net effect of it in percentile.

15: You can still do concepts in 5e. You just have to work within the system to get similar results. And some just are not really viable in 5e without some tweaking. And some concepts were more or less impossible in older editions. Some editions moreso than others. But one of D&Ds strengths is that if you cant do it via normal avenues with a class. You can probably pull it off with magic items or custom ones. That was easier in older editions.

16: Spell focuses. Remove those and things change somewhat. Yes, 5e is really lenient on the component requirements. But players have been bitching about having to deal with spell components since nearly day one of OD&D. And bitching about tracking food and water and other resources. But really. Eliminate spell focus and it changes things quite a bit potentially. Eliminate or alter some "resource tracking elimination" spells like goodberry and this changes things as well.

17: Actually yes they can. Just usually not on the potentially grand scales of 3e. A fighter can own a castle and amass an army, The cleric's raised army, not so easy via spell. But nothing is stopping the cleric from researching and finding or creating a spell or item that can raise more or not require upkeep. Its obvious why the limits are there. But there are potential workarounds. The rest depends on what the players go out into the world to do. They can impact the land however they may. Just not the same or as extensive out the gate as prior.  And its rather funny after the complaining that mages are too powerful then to complain they arent powerful enough. :rolleyes:

18: No. Every class has a magic, or magic-like path. That is not the same. And these magic using alternate paths are no different from the myriad legion of variant classes that have been created over the decades and seen print in some expansion book or more often Dragon. They are there because players wanted them. Or created them.

19: Actually the skill system works just fine. Its weird. But it works once you understand tool proficiencies. Its very open ended. But guess what? So were the equivalents in pre-3e editions.

20: WOTC is getting gradually infested with SJWs with agendas. And/or listening to SJWs with agendas. Mearls and at least one other WOTC staffer have made that painfully clear.
But so far at least its not eating too badly into the actual D&D community. Instead they cluster together at infested forums they have practically co-opted and now control. Who knows where all this will lead. Probably some big blow up. One can hope.

x2: and this is my top 20 minus 1 of why you may not suck. Village idiot application rejected! We have too many as is. And I obviously agree with some points. Sometimes meaner than you.

Quote from: rawma;1110954It says in the MM that they have ability scores and the corresponding modifiers, and refers to the PHB for their effect...

Edit: Sorry, mAcular Chaotic already covered this while I was writing and then abandoning a long response to Sacrificial Lamb.

Come on, show us the goods.

Quote from: Omega;11109612: The index is written in freaking microfiche. I have to use a damn magnifying glass to read it. They did correct this in the DMG at least. And you are not the only one to jab WOTC for the oddball index that indexes the index. It feels like half the index refferrences itself.  

I've had to use my phone's camera to zoom in on the index more than once. Old eyes and all...

Yeah, that index is a hate crime, and I hate the faint ink for the page numbers...wth, it's quite the combo of uselessness. You finally get the page number, and the page numbers are unreadable. Wthx2.

I'm still trying to figure out how a high level fighter will "almost never" make a DC 25 skill check in Athletics. If he has strength of 20, a +4 proficiency bonus, and is trained in Athletics (all quite achievable well before level 20), he'll make that roll on a 16+, a solid 25% chance--higher than "almost never." If he happens to be on the a path that gives advantage to Athletics rolls, we're nearly in the coin toss range.

Quote from: mAcular Chaotic;1110921Also, re: advantage/disadvantage, I'm not sure if you mean what I think you mean, but they don't stack. So if there's 3 sources of advantage and 1 of disadvantage, they all cancel out to a normal roll.

Yes, one source of Disadvantage cancels ALL sources of Advantage, resulting in a single roll.

5e is just a game that runs much better than it reads. And there is actually a lot of clever design work in there that deals with many of the apparent issues. Concentration for instance stops casters dominating; as does spell recovery being on the same schedule as hit point recovery. Rogue Expertise & Reliable Talent overcomes Bounded Accuracy, as does stuff like the Barbarian always getting at least his STR score on STR checks - this is a big deal when you're running Epic-20 with STR 30 Barbarians.

In practice I find that high level non-casters can indeed demolish large numbers of weak foes; at the top end a 340 hp Barbarian Raging for half damage can go through hundreds of orcs; a Champion with Fast Healing on & base 3-4 attacks/round can do similar, especially with Feats like Heavy Armour Master. The system is balanced though around 6-8 fights per long rest, not 15 minute adventuring day.

Another thing it takes a while to grok about 5e is that they did compress the power level; 1-20 in 5e is more like 1-10 in AD&D (or 3e, leaving aside issues with monster statting esp in 3.5 where Balors are CR 20). You only start to be 'high level' 11+ and even then are much more grounded than 1e Name Level PCs, never mind 3e/PF level 11+ demigods. It gives a playable heroic-fantasy experience 1-20 (well, arguably 3-20 or 5-20); you only start to feel Epic at 17+, and the high level game works great with a more grounded tone than in 3e or 4e, though it can also accommodate more wahoo play.