So I ended up in a debate with my players on a corner case ruling in my 4E game last session which turned into something of a debate on 4E versus 5E and what rules light meant. I was searching for an example of 5E being a rules light game and it was difficult - because I have not read 5E. I came up with rules for being swallowed whole and contended that this was likely an example of something that the rules would cover in 3.5 as well as 4E but was more likely to be something that the DM would adjudicate in 5E.
Of course that got me wondering if it was actually true - are there any rules for being swallowed whole in 5E?
The rules for it are in the stat blocks of the monsters who do it. The purple worm for example has the details for swallowing pc's under its bite attack.
The rules for it are in the stat blocks of the monsters who do it. The purple worm for example has the details for swallowing pc's under its bite attack.
Thanks - I do suspect that this type of situation will call for a fair amount of DM calls in terms of corner case situations - rules in a monsters stat block will be geared to covering the basics and would avoid having 4 paragraphs to cover all possible circumstances.
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 32, RPG Superstar 2012 Top 32
|
To speak to the general idea of 5E being "rules-light", I'd say that (compared to Pathfinder) it certainly is. For example, when you roll a d20 in Pathfinder, you might be adding your BAB, or your skill ranks, or 2+half level, or your CL, all depending on what type of roll it is. But in 5E, there's a central, unified mechanic: d20 + stat + proficiency bonus (with that proficiency bonus being a single static number no matter what you're doing with it). If you learn that one mechanic, you know how to make every d20 roll in the game.
As another example, in Pathfinder every skill has detailed listings of exactly what you can accomplish by spending a given action type and what the DC is to do so (i.e., for a ledge at least X inches wide but less than Y inches wide, you can use acrobatics to move Z distance with a move action at DC 15). In 5E, the rules for skills are just brief (like, a sentence or two) description giving you the general idea of what kinds of things the skill is used for. Actions, DCs, and so forth are left to the people in the game to determine on a case-by-case basis.
Yes. This is pretty much what I mean when I'm thinking of a game as Rules light versus Rules robust (and these days since I play 4E I'd call that maybe rules medium).
In 3.5 I simply got used to creating adventures that had circumstances and looking up what that meant. What where the DCs - chances are very good that there was a specific DC set for whatever I had in mind. If one fell into a swift flowing river - well there were specific rules for that. I actually recall an instance where there was going to a situation where my PCs where fighting on a ship and the ship was on fire and I was becoming very frustrated because I could not find the rules for fires on a ship...I actually went to the message board to ask for it and it turns out I just did not own the correct supplement book and I believe some helpful Paizoian filled me in on what the specific rules where for a fire on a ship.
4E and 5E moved away from this model - if there is a fire on a ship the DM decides what that means. Nonetheless compared to 5E I am getting the impression that 4E is still a pretty rules heavy game. My take was that 4E was trying to provide a rule for most things but do so as briefly and as simply as possible - it was still in a very real sense meant to be a system where the players knew what their characters could do - where their actions where clearly spelled out by the rules.
5E strikes me as a system where that is not really a goal - its more like older systems in this regard where what the PCs can do in anything but the most common and basic cases is essentially the preview of the DM who interprets the possibilities and the effects the PCs actions have on the world.
|
I think that the Adventure Paths from Paizo model the idea that you should make things up as you go, despite the fact that they then continue to add to a tighter vise of codified rules.
Many of the adventures give rough rules for how to manage such player actions as kingdom building or NPC relationships, but I don't think that they should be adhered to so strictly that it impedes play.
I believe that the most fun I've had is when our game master shapes an encounter around rules he adjudicated just for that encounter. No one is going to weep over the rules not having been pulled from AP 45 or a Player Companion that dealt with the matter of toad licking.
Make the rules work for you, do not work for the rules.
5th edition helps people realize this, I think, but Paizo has elements of this too, even if they dash it all with their continued and ceaseless codification.