I'd like to see spellcasting or spell-like abilities something monsters can do in addition to physical attacks or special abilities. Far too many high CR monsters are hampered when they take only one action if they want to cast a spell.
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that they talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
The same PC will be able to fight both 'new' and 'old' monsters without rules adjustments. Just like old monsters will be able to fight 'new' PCs the same way. The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
But yeah. Action resolution and the skeleton of 5e will be fine. it's just getting a badly, possibly even desperately, needed tune-up.
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
Every little bit helps, but the CR system's failings aren't exactly high on my list of DMG improvements. 4E arguably got that closest to right out of all WotC's attempts, and that mostly because of system design decisions many players loathed. Being a good DM doesn't require being able to create a theoretically balanced encounter, it requires being able to run a balanced one in practice without disregarding anything that might make it interesting. On my more cynical days I might say CR is a red herring and does as much harm as it does good.
'k, mini-rant over.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
on the Xanathar's and Tasha's book I believe its just an update which is my hope, I just wonder when we can buy the Monster book as a single book not as a part of the 3 book group.
One of the few things that definitely was said during the announcements (which was more "here's a curtain behind which are things we will reveal ... in time") was that Mordenkainian (sp.) Monsters of the Multiverse will be available as an individual volume sometime _after_ the box set comes out in January. My guess would be March or April to milk that boxed or I guess technically slipcase set for all it's worth. On an aesthetic level, I'm fine with that as I'm not a fan of the art of the "regular" edition or the weird "white book" design of the retailer incentive alt cover (kinda hoping that was placeholder art) and am hoping when it comes for individual release it'll have a better retailer incentive cover. Unless there are substantial changes to Tasha's and Xanathar's, I think it's kinda crappy to push consumers to buy a $170(?) collected work, 2/3 of which may be redundant to a lot of players collections, just to have a first look at the new monster presentation format. But I'm also hoping we get a "free upgrade/alignment" here at DDB as they did with WBtWL.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that they talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
The only CR system I have ever seen function with minimal issues is the commonly used "homebrew" one from the pre-3e days of --- 2x the party's total HD. And 3e & ups HP inflation broke that one.
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
Every little bit helps, but the CR system's failings aren't exactly high on my list of DMG improvements. 4E arguably got that closest to right out of all WotC's attempts, and that mostly because of system design decisions many players loathed. Being a good DM doesn't require being able to create a theoretically balanced encounter, it requires being able to run a balanced one in practice without disregarding anything that might make it interesting. On my more cynical days I might say CR is a red herring and does as much harm as it does good.
'k, mini-rant over.
Maybe, but CR should be a reliable scale to know the relative power of a creature. Right now it isn't.
Totally thinking out loud as far as the "new setting formats." Going back to some of my prior comments, (Hi, BigLizard). I could see settings being offered in various formats. Planescape could come out as an adventure anthology that gives a table a sense of how that setting operates and then license to homebrew up how they want cosmology to work together, a stand alone setting book, and a for the whales boxed set of Beedle and Grimm quality maps and trinkets and the like. I could see a setting like Greyhawk getting just the prestige formatted box alone marketed for the OGs for nostalgia. I could also see WotC muscling in or buying outright Beedle and Grimm because those prestige formats could work well with the quasi-kickstarter engine Hasbro has in house with Transformers. And speaking of muscling in or buying outright, to Yureil's point I think, I could also see a setting experimenting with that buy a physical product and get access to an their own in-house digital support for said product. All those musings are speculative and not evaluative (as far as "what should" happen, just what could based on what's been said at this and this time last year's Celebration). Lots of things could happen, but the one thing I really lean in on was Ray Wyninger(sp?) talking about product diversity and products in a format they haven't done before ... because he's said that two years in a row.
As far as the edition debate, anyone in the paranoid camp notice Ray W was wearing an "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" t-shirt? Looked pretty new. If Nerd Immersion didn't already jump on that, I want credit when he spools up his YouTube camera.
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that they talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
The only CR system I have ever seen function with minimal issues is the commonly used "homebrew" one from the pre-3e days of --- 2x the party's total HD. And 3e & ups HP inflation broke that one.
2e just used static XP values and then 3rd came around they made a sliding XP value based on party level and CR. They have basically gone back to the static XP value, but the disparity between the power levels between creatures within the same CR group makes it a completely useless tool to judge the capabilities of a creature. To be clear 2e wasn't better, but it didn't pretend to be group creatures into difficulty ranges either.
Feels mostly like they're wanting to tighten it up by educating DMs on how to maximize their monsters, and making it harder for DMs to underplay their critters. Which, frankly, feels like a good way to do it. People here are often the exception to the rules; forum wonks are by their nature more prone to doing the legwork and research and being better at the game than The Average User who just gets a book and runs a module for their buddies. Making it easier to see how the critter is supposed to fight and what makes it dangerous is a better move than rejiggering CR formulas, methinks.
Monsters are just mostly bags of HP and multi-attack for far too many of them.
I want more interesting powers.
Owl-bears getting a screech that deafens players.
Zombies that explode and give out diseases/curses.
Something interesting other than "I try to hit you until 0 hp then you healing word back up"
Yes.
Half the monsters in 5e have 1-2 types of attacks that are "I hit you with my beak/claw/tail/sword." For many of those with two attacks, the only difference is a slightly altered damage roll and coverage of 2 of the 3 piercing/slashing/bludgeoning types (all of which are mechanically interchangeable 99.9% of the time).
I get the return to simplicity, and many flagship monsters at least have some key trait or something that you can highlight once an encounter. But the design leans really heavily on the DM to narrate the creature's flavor with no mechanics to back it up, and with things like grapple and shove and the like being actual mechanics, there's only so much narrative license available for your descriptions. I have gotten to the point that I homebrew the majority of my monsters, but lately I've been using some of those from newer publications like Theros and Van Richten's. I think I'd get a lot of utility out of a book that applies some of those newer design principles to "reboot" many of the classics.
Best part? When you just need a simple mook to swing a club, you still have the old stuff to reference. My main concern is how DDB is going to handle differentiating from Owlbear(old and busted) and Owlbear(new hotness).
Zombies that explode and give out diseases/curses.
Zombies have the "not quite dead yet" feature, which makes them horrifically frightening to low level parties. Just saying.
I get the return to simplicity, and many flagship monsters at least have some key trait or something that you can highlight once an encounter. But the design leans really heavily on the DM to narrate the creature's flavor with no mechanics to back it up, and with things like grapple and shove and the like being actual mechanics, there's only so much narrative license available for your descriptions. I have gotten to the point that I homebrew the majority of my monsters, but lately I've been using some of those from newer publications like Theros and Van Richten's. I think I'd get a lot of utility out of a book that applies some of those newer design principles to "reboot" many of the classics.
Best part? When you just need a simple mook to swing a club, you still have the old stuff to reference. My main concern is how DDB is going to handle differentiating from Owlbear(old and busted) and Owlbear(new hotness).
Wild Beyond the Witchlight may indicate precedence/new policy. There were things with new stat blocks that differed from their appearance in prior editions. I think following Wizards lead that the "new" version is basically errata, all DDB materials with the old stat blocks were brought in line with the new version. I'm curious how that's going to play when a whole book of prior published monsters are produced in a new format in January.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I feel like the roleplaying devotees of D and D have not only seized control of the game I love so much, but they have also grabbed control of the narrative of its history and warped it to support their emphasis on roleplaying and eschewing of combat focus - posts like "well, D and D IS a roleplaying game after all" and "maybe you should play a dungeon crawl board game instead." For many of us that grew up along with D and D, that is just NOT paying homage to the traditions of D and D.
And I get the appeal of low complexity to some gamers (it does broaden the potential fan base), but why not have a basic game for them and advanced game for the rest of us? Of course none of that will improve the game as long as the designers continue to operate under the fashionable but irrational belief that balance is in the eye of the beholder and thus need not be pursued.
I'm also a very old school gamer - I don't go back quite as far as you do, but nearly. And I respectfully disagree with your characterizations.
Crawford, I think, said D&D is a living game: it changes, evolves, shifts focus. There is no single version of D&D, there is no "best" version: there are just versions. Now, of course, as players and DMs, some of those versions are going to resonate more. But the shifting emphasis into role-playing isn't something to bemoan or categorize as "abandoning" roots. It's just where the game is going. Myself, after almost 40 years of gaming (not continuous but still), I'm really loving the very new emphasis on role-playing, because it brings something new and different to the game. I still love combat, and as a player and DM, love epic fights and close calls and chances to use features and tactics. What I don't love is all of that devoid of good context and devoid of the ability to explore the character I've created.
One of the wonderful things about 5E is that it's incredibly flexible, and I think anyone who really wants to add complexity would be able to do so relatively easily. (In fact, the folks over at enworld have done precisely that - they're putting out what amounts to an advanced version of 5E for folks who really love the crunchy bits.) But the low complexity of the core game is what's enabled it to become so popular and so easily picked up, unlike previous versions.
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that they talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
The only CR system I have ever seen function with minimal issues is the commonly used "homebrew" one from the pre-3e days of --- 2x the party's total HD. And 3e & ups HP inflation broke that one.
2e just used static XP values and then 3rd came around they made a sliding XP value based on party level and CR. They have basically gone back to the static XP value, but the disparity between the power levels between creatures within the same CR group makes it a completely useless tool to judge the capabilities of a creature. To be clear 2e wasn't better, but it didn't pretend to be group creatures into difficulty ranges either.
XP value has always been poor metric for determining "threat levels" of an encounter. Tuckers Kobolds and Murphy's Orc Trap have proven that time and again. (I still have players that refuse to enter suspected Kobold lairs without at least 2hrs real time prep and an army of hirelings).
A better metric than the current overly complicated (in a can't do the math in our head/on the fly way) is needed... But I'm stumped as to even know where to begin. And the system in place for calculating the CR of a homebrewed critter? Has anyone tried to use it as written? I do better just eyeballing it for a brand new creation. But I still can't seem to dial a modified existing creature to even come close to target CR. (Which I find embarrassing as an experienced DM of nearly 40 years).
The precise balance point will be different, but news flash: that's the case at every table period anyways.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
The way that talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
Every little bit helps, but the CR system's failings aren't exactly high on my list of DMG improvements. 4E arguably got that closest to right out of all WotC's attempts, and that mostly because of system design decisions many players loathed. Being a good DM doesn't require being able to create a theoretically balanced encounter, it requires being able to run a balanced one in practice without disregarding anything that might make it interesting. On my more cynical days I might say CR is a red herring and does as much harm as it does good.
'k, mini-rant over.
Maybe, but CR should be a reliable scale to know the relative power of a creature. Right now it isn't.
It certainly isn't, but I also don't know if it could be. It starts with the question "relative to what", segues into "relative to X in what way" and ends up at "and what, if anything, is the DM supposed to keep in mind/do/use/avoid in order for that way to a) be pertinent and b) the only way that's pertinent". Look at the infamous Intellect Devourer. What are we comparing its qualities to, how are we comparing them and should there be any restrictions on that comparison for the whole thing to be reliable?
I'm not going to derail the thread any further about this, though I'll be happy to discuss this further in a separate topic, I'm just saying - it isn't reliable, I don't really know how it could be made reliable, and by dint of not being reliable it suggests to DMs who use it that they're doing things wrong (which they possibly are, but probably not in the way they think and thinking that gets in the way of correcting what they're possibly doing wrong).
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I see a lot of people talking about monsters being limited with attacks and being nothing more then a bag of HP. I also see some talk about the CR system. Monsters are what you make of them and it seems that far to many play them to the text as they are written. Personally I have never played a monster to the text written, and have always made changes to make the game more interesting. Ill leave the details out here, but I have been doing this since AD&D days. Now the issue I see with CR is that it works fine for an average group. Lets be honest. Who has a group of average players? Thats a rare thing. Players can break the balance of the game in so many different ways. And yes, so can the DM. There are other ways of going about building an encounter. Every edition had this issue and this will never be... not an issue. This will be the case with the rules in general especially when you have power gamers that look for the loopholes in the wording of the rules as written. Much of this can be corrected with a bit of homebrew. A new rule system or update will correct some issues, yet in return cause issues in other areas. Its pretty much a for sure thing. Do we really need another edition? No. DO we need an update? Not really. With that said I am looking forward to what is to come, but only because its backwards compatible. I think a complete rules change would be far more damaging then anything. No doubt there would be a similar backlash like we had with 4e. I think that a big part of that backlash was due to the fact that so many were so deeply invested in 3/3.5. Lets face it. A good amount of us spend a fair amount of money on books. This would include 3rd party content which in my opinion there is nothing that Wizards can hold a candle to. Now if they were going to do a total overhaul there would be a big push to make it appear to be the best system through social media.
In older versions of the game - especially 2E, 1E, and earlier - it was assumed that 1) adventuring was not just perilous but usually deadly and 2) the game was designed to make survival difficult, if not unlikely. And the players of the time not only liked but embraced this, especially since for the most part characters were viewed as pawns, not fleshed out personas.
Thus things like the "save or die" mechanic was known and not just accepted by gamers but embraced. Character death was a common event, or common enough. The mechanics of the game were essentially weighted against success. For example: there was simply no way even a high level party would be expect to survive against the most terrible of foes (ancient huge red dragon, arch-devils, liches) without a generous supply of magic items.
But audience/participant expectations have changed. Younger, newer players raised on video games or, at the very least, not raised on older editions of the game, didn't view character death as fun or enjoyable. They liked building out character histories and personality. Interaction and role-playing became as fun and desirable as combat prowess.
I don't think it's even that they don't care about things like balance: I don't think a lot of newer players even know or understand about the concept. They care about the experience being FUN, and for them, FUN means plentiful character options, not running out of things to do, and class abilities that make death a remote danger as well as a game system that's mathematically weighted towards success.
And I'll say again: 5E is incredibly flexible. I think with minimal effort, it would be very, very easy to run a game on the 5E engine and still have it feel like old school gaming in terms mortality, odds stacked against the characters, and making monsters truly fearsome foes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I'd like to see spellcasting or spell-like abilities something monsters can do in addition to physical attacks or special abilities. Far too many high CR monsters are hampered when they take only one action if they want to cast a spell.
Exactly. All the more reason to work on the tools made available to DMs too, but I'm not holding my breath.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
The way that they talked about it made it seem like they are trying tighten up the CR system a bit. That would be nice, but I don't know how they are going to do that.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
This is what I am hoping for as well.
Every little bit helps, but the CR system's failings aren't exactly high on my list of DMG improvements. 4E arguably got that closest to right out of all WotC's attempts, and that mostly because of system design decisions many players loathed. Being a good DM doesn't require being able to create a theoretically balanced encounter, it requires being able to run a balanced one in practice without disregarding anything that might make it interesting. On my more cynical days I might say CR is a red herring and does as much harm as it does good.
'k, mini-rant over.
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
One of the few things that definitely was said during the announcements (which was more "here's a curtain behind which are things we will reveal ... in time") was that Mordenkainian (sp.) Monsters of the Multiverse will be available as an individual volume sometime _after_ the box set comes out in January. My guess would be March or April to milk that boxed or I guess technically slipcase set for all it's worth. On an aesthetic level, I'm fine with that as I'm not a fan of the art of the "regular" edition or the weird "white book" design of the retailer incentive alt cover (kinda hoping that was placeholder art) and am hoping when it comes for individual release it'll have a better retailer incentive cover. Unless there are substantial changes to Tasha's and Xanathar's, I think it's kinda crappy to push consumers to buy a $170(?) collected work, 2/3 of which may be redundant to a lot of players collections, just to have a first look at the new monster presentation format. But I'm also hoping we get a "free upgrade/alignment" here at DDB as they did with WBtWL.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
The only CR system I have ever seen function with minimal issues is the commonly used "homebrew" one from the pre-3e days of --- 2x the party's total HD. And 3e & ups HP inflation broke that one.
Maybe, but CR should be a reliable scale to know the relative power of a creature. Right now it isn't.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
PF2E has a much tighter system but the math is also very tight including calculations for magic weapons.
5e avoided all that for the sake of simplicity but payed for it in balance issues.
DMs can outright break the game with an item fairly easily.
Totally thinking out loud as far as the "new setting formats." Going back to some of my prior comments, (Hi, BigLizard). I could see settings being offered in various formats. Planescape could come out as an adventure anthology that gives a table a sense of how that setting operates and then license to homebrew up how they want cosmology to work together, a stand alone setting book, and a for the whales boxed set of Beedle and Grimm quality maps and trinkets and the like. I could see a setting like Greyhawk getting just the prestige formatted box alone marketed for the OGs for nostalgia. I could also see WotC muscling in or buying outright Beedle and Grimm because those prestige formats could work well with the quasi-kickstarter engine Hasbro has in house with Transformers. And speaking of muscling in or buying outright, to Yureil's point I think, I could also see a setting experimenting with that buy a physical product and get access to an their own in-house digital support for said product. All those musings are speculative and not evaluative (as far as "what should" happen, just what could based on what's been said at this and this time last year's Celebration). Lots of things could happen, but the one thing I really lean in on was Ray Wyninger(sp?) talking about product diversity and products in a format they haven't done before ... because he's said that two years in a row.
As far as the edition debate, anyone in the paranoid camp notice Ray W was wearing an "Advanced Dungeons and Dragons" t-shirt? Looked pretty new. If Nerd Immersion didn't already jump on that, I want credit when he spools up his YouTube camera.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
2e just used static XP values and then 3rd came around they made a sliding XP value based on party level and CR. They have basically gone back to the static XP value, but the disparity between the power levels between creatures within the same CR group makes it a completely useless tool to judge the capabilities of a creature. To be clear 2e wasn't better, but it didn't pretend to be group creatures into difficulty ranges either.
She/Her Player and Dungeon Master
Feels mostly like they're wanting to tighten it up by educating DMs on how to maximize their monsters, and making it harder for DMs to underplay their critters. Which, frankly, feels like a good way to do it. People here are often the exception to the rules; forum wonks are by their nature more prone to doing the legwork and research and being better at the game than The Average User who just gets a book and runs a module for their buddies. Making it easier to see how the critter is supposed to fight and what makes it dangerous is a better move than rejiggering CR formulas, methinks.
Please do not contact or message me.
Yes.
Half the monsters in 5e have 1-2 types of attacks that are "I hit you with my beak/claw/tail/sword." For many of those with two attacks, the only difference is a slightly altered damage roll and coverage of 2 of the 3 piercing/slashing/bludgeoning types (all of which are mechanically interchangeable 99.9% of the time).
I get the return to simplicity, and many flagship monsters at least have some key trait or something that you can highlight once an encounter. But the design leans really heavily on the DM to narrate the creature's flavor with no mechanics to back it up, and with things like grapple and shove and the like being actual mechanics, there's only so much narrative license available for your descriptions. I have gotten to the point that I homebrew the majority of my monsters, but lately I've been using some of those from newer publications like Theros and Van Richten's. I think I'd get a lot of utility out of a book that applies some of those newer design principles to "reboot" many of the classics.
Best part? When you just need a simple mook to swing a club, you still have the old stuff to reference. My main concern is how DDB is going to handle differentiating from Owlbear(old and busted) and Owlbear(new hotness).
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
Man. Now I super want DDB to legit call them things like Owlbear (Old and Busted)...
Please do not contact or message me.
Zombies have the "not quite dead yet" feature, which makes them horrifically frightening to low level parties. Just saying.
Wild Beyond the Witchlight may indicate precedence/new policy. There were things with new stat blocks that differed from their appearance in prior editions. I think following Wizards lead that the "new" version is basically errata, all DDB materials with the old stat blocks were brought in line with the new version. I'm curious how that's going to play when a whole book of prior published monsters are produced in a new format in January.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
I'm also a very old school gamer - I don't go back quite as far as you do, but nearly. And I respectfully disagree with your characterizations.
Crawford, I think, said D&D is a living game: it changes, evolves, shifts focus. There is no single version of D&D, there is no "best" version: there are just versions. Now, of course, as players and DMs, some of those versions are going to resonate more. But the shifting emphasis into role-playing isn't something to bemoan or categorize as "abandoning" roots. It's just where the game is going. Myself, after almost 40 years of gaming (not continuous but still), I'm really loving the very new emphasis on role-playing, because it brings something new and different to the game. I still love combat, and as a player and DM, love epic fights and close calls and chances to use features and tactics. What I don't love is all of that devoid of good context and devoid of the ability to explore the character I've created.
One of the wonderful things about 5E is that it's incredibly flexible, and I think anyone who really wants to add complexity would be able to do so relatively easily. (In fact, the folks over at enworld have done precisely that - they're putting out what amounts to an advanced version of 5E for folks who really love the crunchy bits.) But the low complexity of the core game is what's enabled it to become so popular and so easily picked up, unlike previous versions.
XP value has always been poor metric for determining "threat levels" of an encounter. Tuckers Kobolds and Murphy's Orc Trap have proven that time and again. (I still have players that refuse to enter suspected Kobold lairs without at least 2hrs real time prep and an army of hirelings).
A better metric than the current overly complicated (in a can't do the math in our head/on the fly way) is needed... But I'm stumped as to even know where to begin. And the system in place for calculating the CR of a homebrewed critter? Has anyone tried to use it as written? I do better just eyeballing it for a brand new creation. But I still can't seem to dial a modified existing creature to even come close to target CR. (Which I find embarrassing as an experienced DM of nearly 40 years).
It certainly isn't, but I also don't know if it could be. It starts with the question "relative to what", segues into "relative to X in what way" and ends up at "and what, if anything, is the DM supposed to keep in mind/do/use/avoid in order for that way to a) be pertinent and b) the only way that's pertinent". Look at the infamous Intellect Devourer. What are we comparing its qualities to, how are we comparing them and should there be any restrictions on that comparison for the whole thing to be reliable?
I'm not going to derail the thread any further about this, though I'll be happy to discuss this further in a separate topic, I'm just saying - it isn't reliable, I don't really know how it could be made reliable, and by dint of not being reliable it suggests to DMs who use it that they're doing things wrong (which they possibly are, but probably not in the way they think and thinking that gets in the way of correcting what they're possibly doing wrong).
Want to start playing but don't have anyone to play with? You can try these options: [link].
I see a lot of people talking about monsters being limited with attacks and being nothing more then a bag of HP. I also see some talk about the CR system. Monsters are what you make of them and it seems that far to many play them to the text as they are written. Personally I have never played a monster to the text written, and have always made changes to make the game more interesting. Ill leave the details out here, but I have been doing this since AD&D days. Now the issue I see with CR is that it works fine for an average group. Lets be honest. Who has a group of average players? Thats a rare thing. Players can break the balance of the game in so many different ways. And yes, so can the DM. There are other ways of going about building an encounter. Every edition had this issue and this will never be... not an issue. This will be the case with the rules in general especially when you have power gamers that look for the loopholes in the wording of the rules as written. Much of this can be corrected with a bit of homebrew. A new rule system or update will correct some issues, yet in return cause issues in other areas. Its pretty much a for sure thing. Do we really need another edition? No. DO we need an update? Not really. With that said I am looking forward to what is to come, but only because its backwards compatible. I think a complete rules change would be far more damaging then anything. No doubt there would be a similar backlash like we had with 4e. I think that a big part of that backlash was due to the fact that so many were so deeply invested in 3/3.5. Lets face it. A good amount of us spend a fair amount of money on books. This would include 3rd party content which in my opinion there is nothing that Wizards can hold a candle to. Now if they were going to do a total overhaul there would be a big push to make it appear to be the best system through social media.
I'll put this in different terms:
In older versions of the game - especially 2E, 1E, and earlier - it was assumed that 1) adventuring was not just perilous but usually deadly and 2) the game was designed to make survival difficult, if not unlikely. And the players of the time not only liked but embraced this, especially since for the most part characters were viewed as pawns, not fleshed out personas.
Thus things like the "save or die" mechanic was known and not just accepted by gamers but embraced. Character death was a common event, or common enough. The mechanics of the game were essentially weighted against success. For example: there was simply no way even a high level party would be expect to survive against the most terrible of foes (ancient huge red dragon, arch-devils, liches) without a generous supply of magic items.
But audience/participant expectations have changed. Younger, newer players raised on video games or, at the very least, not raised on older editions of the game, didn't view character death as fun or enjoyable. They liked building out character histories and personality. Interaction and role-playing became as fun and desirable as combat prowess.
I don't think it's even that they don't care about things like balance: I don't think a lot of newer players even know or understand about the concept. They care about the experience being FUN, and for them, FUN means plentiful character options, not running out of things to do, and class abilities that make death a remote danger as well as a game system that's mathematically weighted towards success.
And I'll say again: 5E is incredibly flexible. I think with minimal effort, it would be very, very easy to run a game on the 5E engine and still have it feel like old school gaming in terms mortality, odds stacked against the characters, and making monsters truly fearsome foes.