I just find it ridiculous that it's the same penalty when regardless of whether I'm wearing armor I'm not proficient with, or I'm blind and have one of my hands tied behind one back and a broken leg. I'll be the first to admit that 3rd ed tended to be too rules heavy sometimes, with to many tables to consult and so on (it's why I never wanted to DM it), but there is some middle ground, and it's not hard to find. Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay for example is wonderfully easy for the DM to apply on the fly any modifier +10, +25,-15, or whatever else common sense dictates for the situation (the roll is always a d100 percentage check against the characters skill number). It's fast, but it also accounts for what is actually happening and doesn't screw anyone over. I'd go foam-in-the-mouth crazy if I had to go from that to the advantage system.

Hmmm. I think at that point it's on the DM to impose other changes on the role. In the case above, I'm assuming you're sneaking, something like a CON check to see if your broken leg holds up would work. I'll agree that the Warhammer example you gave gives a more accurate result, but I also think it puts more weight on the DM's skill. If they aren't very good at estimating or making quick decisions it would slow/break the game. With advantage/disadvantage it's easier and quicker to determine if it applies.

Why not? The concept of leveling and the issue of whether the system scales sensibly into high levels applies equally in both cases.

(Also, why have my other posts in this topic been "low rated"?)

two completely different beasts. It's like trying to compare pizza and a piece of paper.

Oh, I agree- it's very fast, and very easy. I just think it's too easy, it simplifies things too much. It's definately not something that would hold up for a group like mine, people with considerable RPG experience. It might be a good idea for total newcomers (I don't mean that in any insulting way).

Just to make things clear- I don't begrudge anyone their fun, and tabletop RPGs are all about having fun. Whichever system fits your playstyle and your group, and whatever house-rules you apply to it is the "right" system, and you can have a great game with even the most bare-bones system imaginable. It's just that for me 5e feels wrong, with stuff like advantage or the extremely simplified skills. Of course a good DM with a good campaing would probably make it work anyway, but I prefer to keep to D&D 3.5 and Warhammer FRP 2ed.

No mana based would be dumb for D&D.

Why? Mana based is a clever thing. Makes it easier for players and game masters to handle spells.

Too video game-y, I'd play tunnels and trolls for that if I wanted a mana based system.

Well, not videogam-y, just european. We have Das Schwarze Auge (literally "The Black Eye") which is known as "The Dark Eye" in the USA. With this game I learned how handy a mana points system is. I was shocked how complicated magic is handled when I played my first D&D (computer-) games.

I've heard of the black eye ( I think it's called the dark eye here.), but only played video game versions. Though I'm on the other side of the fence, I think D&D magic is much easier for me than anything else would be in practice.

The 5th Edition definitely simplifies things when compared to 3.5, but I find the simplifications help keep things fun and quick, and avoid the need to run an obscure table or find a buried rule for every unconventional situation your characters run into. Because of this, it's also easier to learn for someone new to D&D.

Hm, I`m curious if it is possible in this ecition to backstab someone with a ballista?

Been watching the gamers have we? :P

Darth Vader speaking like Yoda? Hm, something went completely wrong here!!!