I'm just not all that excited by 5e

[pelzak]

Yep. For a change i love it. Played all editions starting from 1st except of 4th and love this one. Not sure why but it just fits me.

Best regards,
Pelzak

[fearsomepirate]

Why would I ever put points into a Stat for the purpose if Skills before Lucky? Unless you want to use a skill often in a day, Lucky is equivalent to several levels of stat increases (which was my priblem)

Stats apply to multiple skills and saving throws. It's a trade-off, of course.

That won't always be possible without looking completely forced. There's no way that makes sense in game to limit let's say how many people you can ask about a subject or how many people can search through a room fir example.

I should have mentioned it's also basic DMing to not have PC parties of 20 people. Bogs the game down and makes it as fun as studying for an exam. In any case, when players find exploits to ruin a game, that's when the DM has to intervene. It's been that way in every edition of D&D since the very first rule set is published. In this case, "I go into town to hire 30 commoners to do it for me" is one that's pretty easy to stop dead in its tracks should any player think that's something he's going to do for every challenge.

And for that matter, 5e so far has had the fewest real, practical exploits that I've had to deal with (as in exploits players actually do rather than speculate about online). This isn't one of those---how many times do PCs actually have the chance to quickly run into town, set up a booth in the marketplace, and hire 20 people to do something when the skill check fails?

[LordBlades]

LordBlades, a DC20 check represents a task that is simply hard.  It is not unbelievable that if you have 45 people (what you need to have a similar chance of success on a dc20 check as a +17skill Hawkings) in a college setting that there is a 90% chance that one of them knows the answer.

Frankly this entire thread seems like you have a subjective issue with 5e which is fine.  I can see how certain decisions made in the writing process of 5ed could turn off certain players.  But you are trying to find an "objective" reason why its acceptable for you to not like it and really your going through a lot of contortions instead of admitting its a subjective dislike.

All like and diskile is subjective, is it not?  When have I claimed it was objective? I consider some design callsof 5e bad, and I said why. That doesn't mean everyone else isn't free to disagree.

Regarding the issue at hand, I dislike the skill system because it relies too much (IMO of course) on dice as opposed to a character's actual skill, which does not produce a result I find enjoyable (making me feel that my character is competent as opposed to lucky, and giving me a sense of progression). That's all there is to it.


Alsi, regarding the difficulty of gettung 20/50/100 NPCs on hand,it's a matter of playstyle. My group has always enjoyed embedfing themselves in the world, I can't think of a single game where we wouldn't have several dozen of henchmen (at least) on hand past mid levels.

[fearsomepirate]

So what kind of things have you encountered in your 5e campaign that were broken by having henchmen? Gathering information in town certainly isn't one. By level 10, you're a person of lordly caliber, so sending out the troops to find out things in the taverns and inns shouldn't be any more challenge than striking down a few kobolds.

[LordBlades]

So what kind of things have you encountered in your 5e campaign that were broken by having henchmen? Gathering information in town certainly isn't one. By level 10, you're a person of lordly caliber, so sending out the troops to find out things in the taverns and inns shouldn't be any more challenge than striking down a few kobolds.

Nothing was broken. It just bothered me/my group that the skill system was overwhelmingly reliant on dice result rather than actual character skill. It just ruins the mood when the 'expert' fails several times in a row and/or gets beaten by somebidy unskilled in the field due to luck.

It is easily fixable however if you don't like it (just use 3.5 akill system).

My group's dislike if 5e stems from other, much harder to fix but ultimately subjective reasons (the fact that NPCs use different mechanics than PCs) and the complete lack of rules in some fields).

[PlzBreakMyCampaign]

I've been thinking more about 5e lately, and didn't notice that I hadn't responded in 3 pages. Thanks for the others backing me up on the dead levels and skills system still not being where it needs to be. As much flak as 3e's skills get, they required surprisingly little adjusting when I fix all of 3e. For instance, whatever attribute is supposed to boost playing a modern/complex instrument should matter far, far less than a person's years of training with said instrument. 3e got this right, it just needed more of that rather than less (as 5e)

Uneven compared to what?

Any other class with a different progression.

Paladin casting in 3e was weak because their caster level and spell DC was low, and they were much worse than the fighter at fightery things. None of those are an issue anymore, so I don't know what your problem is.[/quote]Considering the fighter wasn't very good at fightery things, at the same level of optimization (dungeon crasher acf vs centaur paladin acf), 3e paladins are just as good in combat before the dead levels become overwhelming. But its the low level spells that make it get into a higher tier. The CL can be boosted in multiple ways and the DC is going to be just as high as a sorc per the same level spells. Paladins don't have DC penalties.

You are quite confused about comparing casting in 3e. Perhaps you should go through my caster class index thread to see how variable the rate of next level spells or as well as the variability in the highest level spells available.