I don't play D&D but I'm intrigued by the mechanic.  Tell me if I have this right:

When you are at Disadvantage, you roll 2d20 and take the worst roll. Advantage is the opposite.

The system has done away with individual penalties and bonuses and just uses the above mechanic.  Right?

Is there a Double [Dis]Advantage?  For the purposes of argument, assume Disarming someone is done at Disadvantage.  Also assume that fighting in low-light conditions has you attacking at Disadvantage.  What happens if you try to Disarm someone under low-light conditions?  Is there a cumulative Disadvantage penalty?

Advantage and disadvantage are singular things.  If you have eight things causing disadvantage, it is only disadvantage.  If you have eight things giving advantage, it is only advantage.  Similarly, if you have both advantage and disadvantage, they cancel out - even if you have eight things causing disadvantage and only one causing advantage.

It... is a design choice.

And how does that play?  I'm intrigued because the idea of doing away with all kinds of fiddly circumstance bonuses/penalties sounds very good to me.

So let me get this straight. Sword fighting on ice, is the same amount of disadvantage as sword fighting on an icy slope during a hail storm with a nearly shattered sword and blood in your eyes.

@.@. I have never played %e, just read through the players handbook.

Yes.  I'm not a fan of 5e, and this is a good part of why.  As the GM, you don't have an in-system way to hand out small bonuses for things, and you don't have a way to impose large penalties to things.  Everything is either normal, advantage, or disadvantage.  There's no other grade to it, without house rules.

The entire skill system is something else I take issue with - it's overly dependent on the result of the die roll, meaning no one is ever really "good" or "bad" at something, unless you're one of the two classes that gets to cheat.

I wonder the logic behind it then. I know they keep trying to simplify dnd for new players but... really... That is way to simple. Next thing we know everything will be decided by coin flips.

Well, as someone who actually does play this system, and almost exclusively this system, this mechanic is wonderful. The idea of keeping track of every individual bonus or penalty in systems like 3.5 and Mathfinder became waaay too tedious and metagaming.

5e is all about ROLE playing, not ROLL playing. It's fairly obvious their focus shifted from trying to micromanage every aspect of the game, especially combat, to just playing and having fun. Yes, if you want to look at a situation that specifically, you're going to find fault. However, the whole point of Advantage/Disadvantage is either you are more or less likely to accomplish something. That's it. Statistically speaking, it essentially comes down to having a +/- 5 to the roll.

Granted, it's not for everyone. Then again, no system is. Just because 5e exists doesn't mean 3.5 or *shudders* 4e no longer exists. Those games are still out there, those games still have fans, and those games are still going to be ran.

I suppose you have a fair point, especially since I never got around to playing the system. I had to admit, it does sound nice. Maybe I recoild because I was raised on a more complicated system.

In reply to Merevel (msg # 8):

It's completely understandable. In fact, that was kinda my first reaction to 5e as well. As someone who was used to all the micromanaging rules and incessant need to find every little bonus and advantage from systems like 3.5 and Mathfinder, I couldn't understand the concept of such a simplistic system.

However, the more I learned it, I realized that the important thing was the game was no longer about ROLL playing. They removed all these rules that honestly were burdens. There was no need to have to cheese every little thing you could because suddenly, 16 AC is actually a viable AC now and not a death sentence. Gone is having to search for every possible bonus from feats and abilities because there is no BAB any more. Gone is having to figure out how to spread out your skill ranks because that's gone, too.

Honestly, IMO, they brought the fun back. The pure, unadulterated fun of sitting with your friends, going on adventures and chucking some dice.

Tempting. I might look to see if there is an online rule set for it.

www.5esrd.com

All the basic, free rules.

Good points GammaBear, and I agree with you that 5e has been very fun to play and DM! It's been especially fun for PbP, as many of those changes not only speed up the game at the table, but online as well. There's still room for a powerplayer to game the game, but there are careful considerations that must be made with regards to multiclassing, etc. because the tradeoffs are significant.

Bounded accuracy is so nice, keeps the math easier to handle, and again, speeds up the game.

As far as Skills go, the DM sets the DC, and can thus shape the scene to give the players an edge even while employing the Adv/DisAdv mechanic. Combat is much quicker as well, and the Adv/DisAdv mechanic encourages players to work together and use their imaginations more. It seems to me more imaginative than the tactical grid which is more like a board/video game to me.

Of course, the very first thing the 5e DMs Guide tells you is to make the game your own, and by making the game less, they've actually made it more... again.

There are many who like and play more detailed games. Heck, I cut my teeth on GURPS 2e years ago as a GM, but that came after I started gaming as a player in 0e D&D. I skipped over 2e/3e/4e, and just picked up playing Pathfinder a few years ago. Though I like the crunch, the learning curve is steep, and it just feels like more of a simulation game with so much to keep track of. It takes a long time to resolve in PbP, and compared to 5e... well, there's really no comparison in how much the latter speeds up a game here, especially in combat and character level-ups.

So it all comes down to taste, but the Adv/DisAdv mechanic is very nice once you get the hang of it. Players and DMs still have tons of tactical choices to make, but they are centered around how to gain Advantage, and are more narrative and organic from what I've experienced.

This statement keeps being said about 5e, but it's a very weird one.  The degree to which your group's game is going to be focused on roleplaying has very little to do with the game you're using and everything about the group you're playing with.  Hell, my group did more roleplaying with 4e than we do with 5e (mainly because 4e combat was a chore and we tried to avoid it at every turn).

In reply to swordchucks (msg # 13):

It's also a statement I have heard off and on, since I first discovered DnD in the early '90s. The most RPing, edition-wise, I've actually seen was in second edition, but I don't pretend that has anything to do with the edition, more with the group.

I think 5E is fine; but I don't think there's something inherent about it that mean people are more likely to RP.

I don't know. I found in my experience the crunchier the system the more people are likely to focus on the rolls instead of the character.

In reply to GammaBear (msg # 15):

It all depends on the group, and the atmosphere the GM allows. Btw, I bookmarked the 5e link.

I don't think crunch disallows roleplaying, UNLESS the crunch is too much for some players to handle and it takes all their focus. (Which can be ameliorated by someone else picking up the slack and helping them with the crunch.)

There's still a little you can do in 5E as a DM. For example, yes the book says one advantage/disadvantage cancels out infinite of the other kind, but you could rule that one only cancels out one. That's what we did and it's more fun and more strategic, without getting too crunchy like 3.5E.

The DMG does repeatedly say "hey, be cool man, just fudge the rolls or whatever, the rules are just, like, suggestions maaan" which is a little jarring from a company that's sold so many rules.

Skills also have "proficiency"...and double proficiency and half proficiency in some instances. Those are still static though, so very easy to keep track of. But the DMG offers SEVERAL variants on proficiency, which may fit certain groups better.

Other things the GM can do is allow automatic successes for low DCs (a variant in the DMG), award inspiration or hero points. You can also use plot points to make it more of a storytelling game. You have a couple variants on initiative to make combats more or less crunchy.

As a rule though, you don't have small bonuses like in 3.5...EXCEPT for magic items, which are a hornet's nest in 5E. For example, yes there are +2 magical arrows that give a +2 to your attack and damage. Such things exist. The problem is, magic items aren't like previous editions. They're supposed to be super rare, because PCs are powerful enough on their own without them. (Even Fighters.) The book strongly insists that you should not buy and sell them. But, it says, if you want to...then decide on a price based on the rarity. So a common magic item is worth between 50-100 gp. (Let's not ask how there can be a common magic item if they're all supposed to be super rare.) A "rare" magic item costs between 501 and 5000 gp. So basically the DM has to decide on everything himself. Our DM just said "screw this you can't buy and sell them, I'll just give you random drops now and then".

But, if you can somehow get specific magic items, yes those still give you numerical bonuses.

In reply to Flint_A (msg # 17):

I thought most rulebooks had sections explaining they are suggestions not set in stone. At least 3.0 did I think. Also, wait... you implied fighters are more then meat shields? Since when lol. What was the comment about 4e? Fighters linear, wizards are quadratic and Clerics are cubal, that may or may not be a word I forget, in power growth?

That's in pretty much every DMG or other system rulebook to one degree or another (Gygax is famously quoted on DM die rolling meaning nothing - which is something I personally disagree with).  I'm pretty sure the semi-original D&D rules (Purple box?  Not sure which one I read it from...) included statements to the same effect.

Once you get into the realm of house rules and GM fiat, pretty much any system can do anything, making it pointless to include for consideration.  If your system requires house rules to make it make sense, that isn't some bold "roleplay!" decision - that's just bad design.


That more applies to editions prior to 4e.  It was the worst in 2e, and 3.x had similar (though mostly toned down) issues.  4e "solved" the problem by making everyone a wizard, more or less, which became its own problem (namely, the wizard tended to be played by that one person that could memorize what dozens of spells did and pull them up on the fly - and now everyone had to do that).

Of course, 5e brought the problem back.  Arguably, it's worse in 5e because the class abilities are so thin that the only really major power gains come through spells.

---

Don't get me wrong, I've played a bunch of 5e.  It's an okay game.  It's not great, by any stretch, and the decisions of WotC regarding the way they're publishing this edition make me dislike it, generally.  However it's an okay game and you should definitely play it and form your own opinions.  Just... don't let it be the only game system you play.

In retrospect, 2E was the worst yeah, but it wasn't noticed as much I don't believe, because it was before, for the most part, everything being online, and making online communities realy took off. That, and differing XP costs.

There are very few games I won't play, if I get on with the other players. 4E DnD is the only one I have absolutely ruled out. From a GMing perspective, tabletopwise, as I don't have to spend hours I don't have prepping for a monthly game. But as a player, I prefer other systems.

In reply to Merevel (msg # 18):

Yes, every edition had that, but I feel like 5E is really stressing the GM fiat. It comes off as them not having confidence in their system.

And Fighters have been more than meat shields since 4E, obviously. They're also decent in 5E, but casters are still much better; because you have infinite scaling cantrips and short rests.

I don't think 5E is stressing the GM fiat any more than always. Third edition even stated it as 'rule 0', and as for first edition, or even second edition? Without a heavy dose of GM fiat in those editions the game didn't even make sense. What is considered 'giant-class'? How the heck do kobolds count as giants in regards to rangers bonuses for damage to giants? Can I move and attack?

And so on.