Quote from: Aglondir;1107455Last time I played 5E there were a dozen PER checks of that nature. It seems like it started in 5E, and is now creeping into other games. For the love of Gygax folks, just elminate the pointless PER checks and tell the damn story!

Unfortunately, this isn't unique to 5E.  I've been watching groups use various perception checks just like you describe since I stared RQ back in about 1980.  I hate it.  I've always defaulted to describing what they see and only using perception checks for things the character won't naturally see in from the player description.  I do like how 5E has the passive perception, so the GM can roll it secretly when necessary.

In fact, I dislike a lot of how skill checks are done in RPGs, but I don't see 5E as being particularly at fault here.

Quote from: S'mon;1107858I like how 5e gives you your equipment as part of chargen; makes character creation much faster. I like to minimise the decision points for charbuilding, I find roll in order and replace 1 stat with a 15 works really well at the table. Choose race & class doesn't take long.

I agree.  One of the good things 5E has done is sped character creation back up substantially over the last couple of versions of D&D.  It may well be as fast as AD&D was, though not up there with OD&D.

Quote from: Omega;1107907One thing I am still not exactly keen on is the Challenge Rating system and how it works, or in some cases, does not work.

I don't use it.  I've found that 5E is so easy and straightforward to design for that I can just build setting pieces like I did in old school D&D.  That's probably the best thing about 5E.  It returns to a game that I can use and run just like I ran D&D in 1980 and it works pretty close - with just a couple of tweaks.  Yet, the character building and customization appeals to the players, and the lack of random deaths appeals to them too.

It's actual problems in play are pretty minor, really.  It lacks many of the tools for old school play, but I already know those and just incorporate them:  morale, reactions, etc.  (They're half-assed in it, but not really up to snuff.)  It irons out a lot of issues those games, but primarily feels like what most people were trying to do with AD&D:  not what the rules stated, but how people were trying to use it.

I don't really like the bounded accuracy as the game feels relatively mundane compared to the massive power level of early D&D.  However, it works fine.  This is just personal preference.

Quote from: Bren;1107925That character creation and advancement feels like putting together a deck for playing MtG.

That was 3e.

If you disable multiclassing and feats then it doesn't seem like it should be that much work to make a character. You'll have the most trouble with spellcasters, but picking a ton of spells is an issue in every edition isn't it?

Quote from: Omega;1107978That was 3e.

Never played 3E. I'm 4 sessions into playing D&D 5E. That's what it feels like to me so far.

I think D & D 5E is a very cool game.  I'd rather there be a slightly more simple jump start, to get straight to the action more quickly; without mandatory system mastery for the DM, prior to session 1.

I really like the NPC Codex for Pathfinder.  It details examples of characters in all the core classes, at every character level.  It would be super cool if D & D 5E had such a book.

If I suddenly need complete stats for a 5th level Wizard, 7th level Rogue, 3rd level Ranger, or 11th level Cleric; I can flip straight to them in the Pathfinder NPC Codex.  But no such book exists for D & D 5E, that I know of.

Aside from the skill system as mentioned (although it's not as much of a problem once you realise that 5E doesn't really have as much a skill system as it does a 'proficiency getting system'), the biggest problem I've seen discussed is the failure of saving throws to scale at high levels.

I can't swear to it myself.  I understand the maths argument but I've not played at high enough level to see if player abilities mitigate this issue as others have claimed.

Yeah, the CR system only "works" if you take it as a raw guideline to get you started, and then mostly ignore it from then on.  Never mind "balance" in the mechanics--variation in player abilities is enough to completely torpedo a much more resilient CR system, of which the 5E one is not.  

I see it as with any system, the GM will eventually need to come to terms with the relative abilities of various foes--if only to put things into the world that makes sense and can be learned in play.  (Even the rawest of GM, for example, needs to know that a powerful dragon hanging out 2 miles from a major town is probably not a stable situation.)  All the CR system does is allow a new 5E GM to get in the ballpark of where they want to be with little experience.  After that, it's back to learning from experience the old fashioned way.  Unfortunately, the CR thing can get in the way of that later learning, if one takes it for more than it is.

Right. It is good for a general idea. But it fails miserably at being an accurate gauge of challenge. And is needlessly complex. As is the monster modding section which rolls into calculatings its CR. Which is a mess.

Quote from: TJS;1107999the biggest problem I've seen discussed is the failure of saving throws to scale at high levels.

I can't swear to it myself.  I understand the maths argument but I've not played at high enough level to see if player abilities mitigate this issue as others have claimed.

It sure feels like they do not scale. But I am fairly sure they do scale. Its just not as much as in prior editions possibly.

A quick test.

A 5th level Druid with say 16 WIS tossing a spell that needs say a CON save to resist. The save is 8+3+3=14. Someone without a wisdom proficiency save bonus is is just the base stat bonus added onto the roll. Say that is a +3 as well. Someone with a WIS save proficiency adds that in too. So if the target were a level 5 character then that is another +3 for a total of +6. Monsters though without any save bonuses use just their base stat bonus. A Hill Giant has a -1 on its save so is going to fail WIS saves a-lot as it has no spell save proficiency. Those with a save prof scale the same as a PC it seems.

So overall it seems to balance out and scale.

Quote from: Omega;1108017It sure feels like they do not scale. But I am fairly sure they do scale. Its just not as much as in prior editions possibly.

A quick test.

A 5th level Druid with say 16 WIS tossing a spell that needs say a CON save to resist. The save is 8+3+3=14. Someone without a wisdom proficiency save bonus is is just the base stat bonus added onto the roll. Say that is a +3 as well. Someone with a WIS save proficiency adds that in too. So if the target were a level 5 character then that is another +3 for a total of +6. Monsters though without any save bonuses use just their base stat bonus. A Hill Giant has a -1 on its save so is going to fail WIS saves a-lot as it has no spell save proficiency. Those with a save prof scale the same as a PC it seems.

So overall it seems to balance out and scale.

The thing is that the non-proficient saves are also usually a class' unimportant stats, so the odds are you're more likely to see a +1 at best, -1 (or even less if you're rolling) at worst. And it doesn't increase.

Even ability score increases don't measurably help... each one can net you a grant total of +1 to one save. You get four and need two of them just to cap your class' key ability score (This is actually an unstated reason why so many fighters build for Dexterity in 5e instead of Strength... they can use Dex for melee and ranged attacks, for their AC and to boost their non-proficient Dex save... or they can boost STR which has a handful of saves and lets them use weapons that might do 1 extra damage per attack vs. a dex-based weapon). If feats are the in the game, forget about it, you'll get literally 6 times the benefit from a single feat (giving you proficiency in another save, but still leaving you with one common save that's hosed).

In the upper tiers several monsters have saves with DCs of 22+ and the rules say a nat 20 on a save doesn't automatically succeed the way an attack does. Thus, it's just a matter of "who does the DM want to dick over with impossible saves in this encounter?" (exaggerating for emphasis... few DMs are deliberately setting out to do this, but 5e is sloppy enough it can happen by accident). And even if its only in the DC 18+ range... if your save is -1 you're looking at a 10% success rate.

The main math problem is that save DCs are almost always based off the best ability score a PC or critter has and are always proficient (if they weren't they wouldn't be casting spells at all) so it keeps getting harder and harder to resist while only one common and one rare save ever improves for the PCs.

Honestly, if I didn't know they were doing their own thing, I'd swear WotC had the guys who wrote the Arcanis RPG doing their math (I think I've mentioned them before; they're the ones who thought 2d10 would produce the same results as 1d20 while keeping their DCs based on a linear distribution. 5e succeeds in SPITE of its math, not because of it.

I'm waiting to see if the saves are still a problem when we hit higher levels.  If they are, I'm tempted to simply grant (proficiency -2) to all non-proficient saves.  Doesn't change anything until 5th level, but means that every non-proficient save goes up by 1 to 4 over the course of the remaining levels.  Probably still leaves the math a little off, but might get it close enough to live with for a casual campaign.  Plus, I can always toss in a few magic items to help.

It's a terribly clunky house rule to express, but easy enough in practice with my crowd to implement.  Hey, your proficiency went up.  Bump all your saves by 1.

That's basically reverse engineering the way defence scales in 4e (and in 13th Age for that matter).

It's actually possible to simplify 5E's maths greatly.  If instead of adding ability mods = 1/2 Abilitly Score - 10 round down you just make them = ability score -10.  Then you just get rid of proficiencies altogether.  When PCs would normally get a proficiency bonus they just get +1 to all stats.  (The beginning +2 is directly factored into the fact that scores are worth more).

You wouldn't need passive anything (or skills) - in the case of opposed rolls you would just roll against the flat ability score.

Not worth the trouble to do in 5e (you'd have to rewrite all the races for one) - but if I was going to make a simple OSR style hack of 4E that is definitely what I would do.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell;1108083I'm waiting to see if the saves are still a problem when we hit higher levels.  If they are, I'm tempted to simply grant (proficiency -2) to all non-proficient saves. .

FWIW I do pretty much the same thing. Everyone adds their proficiency to all saves (and again to favored saves), and I move all save DCs up by 2. It's not a strong drift, but at least the higher level character will have an easier time saving against things than the lower level characters. You still have the "half-orc has almost never saves against charm" spells issue, but that may be more of a feature than a bug.

Quote from: blackiyto;1108093I've bene playing 5E off and on for a few years, mostly in one shot games or short campaigns, and never past 3rd level.

Did you mean to quote my post? (post #1, even with the typo)

Quote from: tenbones;1107232So... since you went back to 3.5, based on your response I have to ask - did you consider trying Fantasy Craft?

I've been looking at FC for some time now, since I like VP/WP and the FC classes rock. As soon as I can snag a good copy on Ebay.