What are things D&D 5e definitely gets right or does right?

Wat, I'm trying to convince some friends to play 5e.

3.5 is what is wrong with Mearls.

It's not peoplen who are afraid of 5e,mit's people who don't want 5e to end up like 4e, which is the direction it is headed very, very quickly.

Right down to the "UA adds good stuff and is distinctly better than Core" nonsense.

More elaboration please.

How's that?
Pretty sure they're just eliciting opinions on the mechanics in the UAs, once we see them in print they probably won't be nearly as broken.

What Wizards should be doing is releasing more material, be it CS, more modules, another PHB, more sourcebooks etc.

So what is the game is supposed to just never have mechanical expansion then? Plus of course some stuff is stronger Core 5e is so anally balance you can not do anything even remotely fun because 5e requires character that cant actually excel instead they must be mediocre.

Fighters are not allowed to be useful, good, ort interesting outside of hittign things. Wizardfs muust always be the most powerful characters ever. Everything good must have goodness for wizards as well, even if it is a splatbook dedicated to fighters.

This is how Mearls thinks.

>this meme
Battlemaster and EK are fine. Your fault for deciding to go "Male Human Fighter: The Archetype" instead

>What are things D&D 5e definitely gets right or does right?
Heroic Fantasy stuff in general, really. It's a pretty simple system as far as fantasy systems go, and for what it's designed to do it does the job pretty well.

>In what areas does the system fail at or could be better designed in?
Simply put, it fails at nonmagical heroes. Unless your character picks up some magical abilities, you're going to fall behind. While that makes internal sense and can be argued to be part of the point of the setting (sort of like playing a modern military themed game but not using guns), it doesn't overtly sell itself as such and includes options that ultimately lag behind because of their lack of magical options, both in and out of combat. It helps to keep people thinking about that "you wouldn't expect a character with no guns to succeed in a modern army game" mindset when it comes to magic here: If the game sold itself as such that wouldn't be a big deal.

One thing it could do better is trimming the Mearls out of magic. That said, getting off Jack Vance's dick for five minutes, not having such a huge or powerful list of spells to use (stopping time, resurrecting the dead, being able to destroy entire economies via a few creation spells, making a portal to God's front porch, etc), and having magic come in more forms than spellcasting or "counts as spellcasting". Some magic should just not have the same rules and rigid restrictions that spells have, and some types of magic should have more interesting and flavorful ways of being implemented than "become X level, learn Y spell, cast". This can, thankfully, be houseruled with little difficulty. But that doesn't excuse the game.

>What's your verdict of the system?
Playable but flawed and in dire need of revision. It needs to find its identity and stick to it. It needs to kill Sacred Cows of D&D that it doesn't need to keep around, invent some new ideas, and break its own mold.

>And would you recommend it?
Kinda?

Simple isn't always a good thing. And 5e proves that.

The best thing 5e could revamp to, would be D&D 6.0, back to the basics, and return to 1st or 2nd edition.

Racial level limits, class restrictions enforced, and THAC0.

Wizards should also issue an apology for 4th and 5th.
They should pretend that 3.5 and 3, never happened and deny all knowledge of them.

5e gets literally NOTHING correct.

EVERYTHING is wrong.

There's no fix for 5e or 4e or 3.5.

>Go back to THAC0

Yeah no thanks

That attitude is reminiscent of the PF devs, but how bad is it in actual play?

So, is it actually good or just bland?

Nah, going back to 2e and THAC0 would be a step back.

Wat.

2nd edition is best edition.

Thac0 was fine. Racial level limits were great. 99% of the "issues" people have with 3.5, don't exist in 2nd. ALL of the issues with 4th and 5th, don't exist in 2nd edition.

New editions should make the game better, not add tons of issues and problems. 2nd edition is for ttrpgers, 4th and 5th are for WOW playing fur fags.

>He doesn't own a d100
>What a poorfag

OP, my advice is to go read a few of the many comparative reviews some googling would turn up, instead of trying to suss out consensus from Veeky Forums. Especially when half the posts read like they were generated via Markov chains.

You're the reason why rpgs are mired in shit and never progress.

Metals literally came up with the idea for ToB in 3.5, and was one of the guys behind 4e. The idea that Mearls somehow ruined D&D because he was the lead developer at the end of 4e is the worst revisionist history there is.

The only WotC staffer that seems determined to make non-magic users worse is Crawford, and Veeky Forums gets hard at his rules lawyering.

oh, they've "Progressed"..right into the realm of paper video games.

They're mired in shit, because they went from a working fun system, to a system mired in shit.

There's your fucking progress m8.

What RPGs besides D&D have become paper video games?

>thinking 2e was a fun, working system when it was needlessly obtuse and comprised of bullshit rules that made no sense
>2e was also the reason for why D&D was dropping in popularity and dropping in player numbers
Its campaign settings were great though.

Is English your second language?

The settings were great. I don't remember if Ravenloft was 1 or 2?
I had no issues with the rules. And found the specific weapon restrictions to be great. Also, I'm a huge fan of racial level limits.

Good
>Simple monster gen.
>Premade adventures.
>Less trap options.
>Not focused on hoarding stat boosting gear

Bad
>too swingy (proficiency is about +10 too small across the board) (but need to then add +10 to AC). Will have to test and math.
>Did/adv was a mistake. ~+3.25 Max 20 before modifiers is not enough granularity.
>Chargen not flexible enough.
>Not nearly enough published character options.
>Some classes still have very little versatility.
>Combat maneuvers, poisons, and disease mechanics are lacking.
>Combat mechanics are bland "I smack them in the hp" affairs.
>Needs more bestiaries.

Neutral
>The game overall is at a lower power level.

TL;DR:
>Better to run for GM.
>Easier for scrubs.
>Less fun for experienced players.

Conclusion
>I'd rather run it than run PF.
>I'd rather play PF than play 5e.
>I'd suggest it to newbies over PF.
>I'll likely make a few major sweeping changes to the core mechanics to fix major deficiencies, and add a few hundred pages worth of homebrew, and then use it instead of PF whenever I run D&D.

Mearls fixed a mechanical deficiency of martials by decreasing 3es verisimilitude even further(the least fun part of 3e, and ruined 4e by designing it without any verisimilitude from the start and just building "chainmail as a boardgame: take 2".

2es mechanics were clunky inconsistent junk. 3e got other things wrong, but unifying the mechanics wasn't one of them.

Mechanics as in combat? Wut?

One thing that irked me was the removal of weapon profs. A guy trained in long swords isn't going to be as efficient with a short sword or a rapier. Adding weapon 'groups' was a mistake and took flavor from the game.

Why would anyone unironically play PF?

If you can't admit 2e's mechanics were sometimes shit, there's no convincing you otherwise.

Gimme a for instance then.
I never had an issue with them desu.

Because while it has a steep learning curve for character building, if your group knows what they're doing and builds to a small tier range, it's a fun high powered fantasy RPG with tactical combat, in play.
Character building is obnoxiously tedious in pf because of the steep optimization curve though.

>Gimme a for instance then
Wat.

If you want rewarding, tactically deep combat play 4e. PF is a shitshow.

>What are things D&D 5e definitely gets right or does right?
It is a great introduction to tabletop for people who must get into the hobby via mainstream games.
>In what areas does the system fail at or could be better designed in?
Once you dig deep into the game, there isn't really anything there to keep you entertained. Also, combat is fairly barebones, with the same problems as 3.PF being present (in an albeit lesser extent) where martials don't have much utility outside of combat while mages have spells that can easily end an encounter in an instant.
>What's your verdict of the system?
It's really bland, like it doesn't do anything wrong but it's mostly because it doesn't really do anything to pull strong feelings one way or another.
>And would you recommend it?
Only if a) you're introducing people to the hobby and b) you're planning on introducing them to other tabletop games once they get their feet wet.

>Not owning the golfball
>Being too dumb to keep track of two dice
>Plays d20
Man, I thought the "D&D causes brain damage" thing was a meme.

I do want tactical combat. However, I also want some verisimilitude with the world, much shorter fights than 4e offers, and more out of combat options than 4e offers. 4e is a super gamey skirmish wargame with levels tacked on. I'd much rather play PF (warts and all) than 4e.

But as a GM I hate running PF unless I'm running a premade adventure, primarily because of how much of a pain it is to make enemies in PF.

For sword and sorcery, my current go to is d20 Conan. D20 legend has shit mechanics on the DM side. FantasyCraft is also shitty on the DM, and is inadequate for magic on the player side. 4e is fftactics esque without being close enough that I'd actually want to use it for an fftactics campaign, and is too much lengthy skirmish combat boardgame focused for my tastes with regard to d&d and Conan. I've played and hated and discarded Savage worlds and m&m due to mechanical gripes that could not be easily houseruled away. I'm not a huge fan of d100 characters and magic rules, but the setting books are excellent. Unisystem is okay but not flexible enough when making my own world that diverges from their published worlds (and I take issue with the poorly thought out pricing of character options), my feelings on WOD are that it's like Unisystem, but my gripes with it are magnified, because everything is locked into obnoxious splats and tech trees and gamelines. I'm waiting for my hardcopy of modiphius Conan to arrive so I can try it. I'm awaiting r. Talsorian Witcher rpg's release, and also just picked up GURPS to give it a try next - probably for a fantasy campaign. I like how flexible it is for campaign building. Well see how I feel about it's gameplay when I see it in action.

Which is to say, I've played lots of games, most don't deliver what I'm looking for enough to fill my non Shadowrun non Conan non d&d niches, nor serve as adequate an replacement I would choose over Conan or Pathfinder, but Im still trying new games, so who knows what I'll find.

>That attitude is reminiscent of the PF devs, but how bad is it in actual play?
In actual play, martials will bitch anytime the mage does anything useful and the mages don't give a fuck because they're playing an actually fun class and not holding themselves back for the sake of "roleplay."

>verisimilitude
Anyone who unironically uses this word has no business playing PF, especially after they started adding in everything but the kitchen sink, while releasing a world map which confirms that everything within the game happened within the same plane.

>Pathfinder = Golarion.
I might steal elements from Golarion, or grab one or two countries from it and run them in a vacuum. I would not run a game in it as a "complete/consistent" setting.

>Verisimilitude in world-class is the same as verisimilitude in setting design.
It's really not. And yes, PF has mechanical things that break verisimilitude. That's why I would like to find a replacement I don't hate. 4e is just *even worse* in this regard.

A heavily houseruled 5e may end up being my Pathfinder replacement.

For sword and sorcery/conan, if I like GURPS, it has a Conan supplement. We shall see.

And for other genres:

>Urban fantasy
Unisystem - cherrypicking mechanics from Buffy/angel/ghosts of Albion/witchcraft/allfleshmustbeeaten.
Despite my gripes with it it's the best one I've played for the genre. I like it much better than wod. - though stuff for mortals in WOD is easy to convert to Unisystem. The number scales for most stats are basically the same (except HP), and the nwod larp dice mechanic (which is a streamlined version of the tabletop core mechanic) is basically lifted directly from Unisystem.

If I find I like GURPS though I may end up using monster hunters instead of this.

>Scifi/science fantasy
Currently using FFG star wars. Reverse engineered the races and careers, and it's not too difficult to Homebrew new ones based on them. Ran a scifi mashup Stargate type campaign with it. It went okay. I still have gripes with it and would like to replace it as well.

>Historical campaigns.
Currently Runequest/d100/brp.
It works okay but I don't like the supernatural rules in the system. If I were to want to add supernatural elements d100 would go out the door.

If I like GURPS gameplay, it may also be replaced.

>World-class*
World-physics* fucking autocorrect

GMs running PF better be running PoW in their games.
And needing rules to simulate verisimilitude for every little thing is more of a sign of autism.

>I do want tactical combat. However, I also want some verisimilitude with the world, much shorter fights than 4e offers, and more out of combat options than 4e offers.

Every single fucking time someone says this he actually means "there's not a spell that lets me solve every problem in 6 seconds or less".

>3.5 is what is wrong with Mearls.
>Fighters are not allowed to be useful, good, ort interesting outside of hittign things. Wizardfs muust always be the most powerful characters ever. Everything good must have goodness for wizards as well, even if it is a splatbook dedicated to fighters.
>This is how Mearls thinks.

That's Monte Cook you fucking idiot Mearls was the 4e designer you god damn fucking prick were you not here for the actual edition wars between 3.5 and 4e are just parroting a loosely remembered broken telephone version of what transpired because if you are

Mearls made Essentials where all the martials sucked, and there was 3 forms of new wizards, where the one that was half martial sucked ass and the rest were the best classes to come from essentials.

>It's about high powered encounter solving spells.
>Everything is about wanting 3.x powerlevel mages.
Shadowrun doesn't have 3.x powerlevel mages. Neither does Unisystem, or d20 Conan.

but ivory tower game design where players skilled enough to know that wizards are objectively better than fighters should be rewarded for their knowledge was entirely the fault of monte cook, the balance shitshow in 3.5 was entirely the fault of monte cook, and the autistic defense that "the dude who hits things shouldnt be as powerful as the reality render" is entirely the fault of monte cook

mearls actually took steps to get away from that

christ im actually getting like vietnam flashbacks about this

i didn't watch anonymous posters die face down in the fucking mud for this

>mearls actually took steps to get away from that

no, when mearls was on the 4e team he constantly bitched that the wizard had to be the most powerful because "that's just how D&D is you guys"

the rest of the design team had to tell him to shut the fuck up daily, then when wizards fired everyone else mearls got to make essentials and 5e and surprise surprise wizards are the fucking best and fighters are back to sucking shit

source: rob heinsoo

So what do they have that 4e doesn't?

(Although, SR shamans with their spirit summoning shit are almost as bullshit as 3.5 wizards)

Heinsoo got fired, no wonder he's salty.

Speaking of, how's 13th Age?

Yes, let's all stop discussing a tabletop game on a board specifically for the purpose of discussing tabletop and other "traditional games." Because according to user, discussion equals insecurity.

He has got to maintain his safe space somehow.

Not as good as FantasyCraft, 4e or 5e but better than PF.

Spirit shamans do break the action economy pretty hard. I'll give you that.

>What do they do that 4e doesn't.
The mechanics aren't all boardgamey, with arbitrary 1/encounter and 1/day powers. The AEDU structure is my biggest gripe with 4e, though nonscaling powers that you have to unlearn/replace as you level are also annoying.

It's the best D&D system ever created. It's simple, flowing and logical.

Fun.

In your opinion maybe.

Its also utterly intractable, easy to break if you try homebrewing anything at all, and it has the usual WotC "go this far and no farther" adventure cap.

4e just doesn't sugarcoat anything, it gives you the mechanics as is without lying to your face about it.

>The mechanics aren't all boardgamey, with arbitrary 1/encounter and 1/day powers. The AEDU structure is my biggest gripe with 4e, though nonscaling powers that you have to unlearn/replace as you level are also annoying.

All fine preferences to have, but don't really address
> more out of combat options than 4e offers.

If anyone finds 5e to be intractable, they are literal retards.

Homebrewing in 5e first needs an understanding of the mechanics and powerscaling behind the system first and foremost, which very few seem to have. They continue to homebrew in 5e with 4e, 3xe in mind. That's the homebrewers' fault moreso than the system's.
Trying to blame 5e for breaking when homebrewers are shit is disingenuous.

Lol yeah and thats why 5E has one of the most popular "homebrew" settings and rules attached to it as AiME

AiME?

>4es mechanics are spelled out plainly.
That's not my gripe. My gripe is what those mechanics are. I would have much preferred a unified stamina/mp mechanic, or something like shadowrun's strain system. Also, I'd prefer powers that actually scale automatically with your level, rather than a gimmick that forces you to relearn or replace them.

>Out of combat.
Oh. Gotcha.

Unisystem has rules for Mass combat and faction gameplay.

Shadowrun has rules for contacts and allies and haggling and (iirc) chase scenes.

Both have more better skill systems than 4e, and in both you can pick up new skills midgame.

You could Homebrew 5e to have a more 3.x or 4e style pretty easily, but you definitely need to balance it around 5es math.

>*More better
Was originally going 4o say more robust. Then went to change it to better. Apparently I suck at editing.

>inb4 Muh Psionics has mp.
Yeah, I know. I would prefer the entire game work more like that.

>Shadowrun has rules for contacts and allies and haggling and (iirc) chase scenes.

I'd have to check the dragon magazines for the rest, but "chase scenes" is one of the most often used example skill challenges.

>Both have more better skill systems than 4e, and in both you can pick up new skills midgame.

I mean, I just don't really see the point in having a dedicated skill for arranging flowers, I guess. Also, you can definitely pick up mroe skills in 4e (and rituals/martial practices) as you level, and unlike SR, it only costs a feat and not a truckload of XP before it becomes usable.

I've played but a handful of sessions but this + general research leaves me with

good:
>Simpler
More room for roleplaying. Also cuts powerbuilding/powergaming/theorycrafting/ruleslawyering scum from perpetuating their BS
>no prestige classes or multitude of superspecific additional base ones
Return to the "class as a rough archetype" philosophy is a right move
>Much better balance than 3.PF without getting boardgamey like 4E
Self-explanatory
>Lower power levels
One might argue this is very subjective, but nope, fuck you. Being the default fantasy RPG system comes with obligations, and those include emulating the actual genre well and not mixing it with capeshit into some artificial construct with no basis in "source material"
>less focus on gear
Heroes should be defined by their own merits not how much magical junk they carry
>art direction
It still isn't great, and there are single examples of fuckups (halflings) but overall it went several fucking miles in the right direction. Locking WAR to Shitfinder Containment Zone was the best thing to happen for fantasy art in a decade

bad:
>some simplifications
Mostly the simplification of the game is good but certain things were dumbed down too much
>limited chargen
I'm not saying about mechanical option. I'm talking about "how likely you are to come up with a fluff wise concept (within the genre expectations) and turn it into playabe, competent PC. But that was weak point of D&D since always, and while 5E only supports handful of choices like previous editions, in 5E those are at least roughly equal.
>Swingy
Modifiers are totally out of touch with dice distribution
>Corellon is a tranny
Seriously. I could pass the "you can play transsexual" without blinking. Times change, and that was just one little box. Put pandering to the stupid neckbeard stereotypes "LE ELVES ARE GAY PANSY TRANNIES LEL" is fucking retarded. I feel it doesn't do any good for the cause it is supposed to support that way, either.
>Scalies as core race

Not far enogh:
>HP is still bloated
>Odd attribute values are still worthless
>Several other detrimential holy cows remain

Overally
>It is a step forward?
Yes, a leap even, compared to previous editions
>Enough to make me go back to D&D
No. There are still games that do my kind of fantasy roleplaying much better.

Share some. I'm trying to move away from D&D family.

>It's also a pretty great system for introducing those new to tabletop in my opinion, as it has a good deal of structure and crunch

This is precisely why it's bad. It teaches a Mechanics First mentality and is why so much of the DnD playerbase are shit.

I hear good things about both GURPS Dungeon fantasy (which is getting a standalone RPG that won't require the GURPS Core books), and d6 fantasy (which is free).

From experience: Unisystem is pretty good for fantasy. Dungeons and zombies mixes pretty well with ghosts of Albion for an excellent cinematic fantasy RPG.

Mechanics are reality in tabletop. The mechanics are the physics of the game you're playing. If your expectations don't match the mechanics, you're out of touch with the reality of the game your playing.

I'm currently playing The One RIng but it's superspecific Tolkien game, so it isn't a good recommendation if it's not your thing. There are also other games tailored for specific pre-existing settings and they're often very good at what they do.

RuneQuest and other BRP derrived games do fantasy better than D&D if you ask me, but are bit too crunchy and still restrictive for my tastes. Still, if I were to run a fantasy game as a conventional (IE not-storygame) RPG, in a world that hasn't it's own purpose-tailored system, I'd probably pick RQ

HeroQuest (The RPG, not the boardgame) is FATE-like storygame except done way better than FATE

WFRP 2E has simple and solid, though not outstanding mechanics. Fun for gritty play. The setting is kind of retarded for any serious game though. But there is setting agnostic "spiritual sequel" incoming, called Zweihander

This is the shit mentality he was exactly talking about

Thanks for proving the point

You can mix that with stuff from Angel, Buffy, Armageddon, and witchcraft, if you're wanting additional mechanics, but Goa+d&z is the core I'd suggest if you want some elves and orcs.

Limited GURPS gameplay experience, but I've been reading a lot of it lately: GURPS fantasy also has some interesting prebuilt stuff, but if you're wanting more than dungeon fantasy my advice would be monster hunters + powers + low tech and then build any lenses you want for races/cultures/whatever for the players.

>The mechanics don't matter, it's all about the story!
>Build an "expert" knife thrower who is strength based, in a system where knife throwing is not strength based. Is an "expert" in backstory, but in actual gameplay he's an incompetent joke.
But you're right. It doesn't matter if you can't actually build your concept, or if you attempt to jump over large pits you "can totally jump over" and die because you have no idea how far you can actually jump and your expectations are way off.
>Those things can't possibly lead to a bad time!
Gimme a break.

Meant to respond to

Except all of those problems stem EXACTLY from mechanics first mentality.
If the game is inflexible and/or it's mechanics are out of touch with reality/"genre reality"/"cinematic reality" (pick your option depending on the story type) it is the fault of the game, not the player.

If it generates shitty situations they should be overruled by either one-time arbitrary GM fiat or houseruling, not embraced as the laws of the game.

Thanks for proving the point #2

So, if I don't bother to learn how the game works and it doesn't match my expectations, but does GMs expectations and the expectations of the rest of the party, that's the games fault?

Are you high?

I don't object to houserules, or using a game that fits what you want to play (the people who try to use Pathfinder for gritty low magic sword and sorcery campaigns are retarded), but if a player has unreasonable expectations because they can't be assed to learn the rules or game primer document the gm provided or whatever, that's entirely on the idiot in question with unreasonable expectations.

If "expert Marksman" in the game in question means you have a high dex and 5 ranks in archery, and you have a high str and no ranks in archery, I don't care what you claim to be, you're not an expert Marksman. Everyone is on the same page except you, because you expect everyone else to supercede the game system they've agreed to play, with freeform roleplay to match your own wants. You're a daft asshole for having such expectations.

I've run my own GURPS fantasy game taking place in tech level 4 (renaissance). I've participated in a GURPS dungeon fantasy game. I've also run a GURPS late TL5 game (cowboys and magic).

GURPS is a damn good system for tense fantasy combat. Getting hurt sucks pretty bad, so you don't want to get hurt at all. There's also also a lot of tactical considerations you need to do every turn (protip: that rule about not being able to defend against attacks to the back unless they are run-around-attacks are there for a reason. Keep it there even if it seems harsh at first glance).

The dungeon fantasy series gives you what you need basically. What's left is just bread and butter GM stuff that you need for every system (story structure, encounter design, etc).

The tricky part about GURPS is that there isn't that many ready-made monsters (Dungeon Fantasy has a few) and the books don't really tell you the thing every GURPS GM (who isn't busy trying to get burned out with the game) does: cheat on NPC generation. Simply put, you should not be building your NPC:s as players. You should keep the statblocks minimalist and only make a handful of predetermined statistics (2-3 numbers to roll against for all skill challenges, notes on weapons and special attacks, HP, maybe a line about behavioral pattern or other special weaknesses)

You might've had more of an argument with 4e and 3e.x, but 5e is more fluff/narratively focused.

Yeah, I've gathered that for GURPS you should be building your NPCs basically using the same technique as in cinematic Unisystem, wherein they have streamlined stats. For a D&D esque combat heavy GURPS experience, I may try using CER ratings from pyramid on my NPCs, as well as tracking the CER of the players.

As for enemies, you do seem to largely need to rely on web sources for 4e GURPS monsters.

3e GURPS had lots of them though, and my understanding is that other than lacking perception scores you should be able to just pick them up and use them as is, no?

It's way easier to refluff shit in 4e than in 5e at least.

Eh, we're not exactly talking about the same thing it seems.

Yes, you are supposed to have your character's fluff concept represented by stats. But game also should point out TAKE THIS IF YOU WANT TO BE AN X. Not force you to "build" and shit. "Rules Mastery" is worst cancer in RPGs
Other side of the coin that you shouldn't be banned from fluff-wise viable character concepts by the limitations of mechanics. Like >So, I wan't to roll a Lichtenauer-style longsword (actual longsword, not D&D misnomer) fencer. Dex based, light armored, wielding bastard sword in both hands
>But you can't, longsword is not a finessable weapon, and wielding it in both hands is sub-optimal in this system
WELL FUCK THE SYSTEM THEN

But this is more about situations than fucking builds.

>you have fallen from 100 m high cliff. You're dead
>But user, rulebook says it's just 30d6 dmg. with my HP I'll survive that for sure
No you fucking don't, people DIE of it even in action moves and genre fiction. You're dead, deal with it, stick your rulebook up your arse.

... or this thread.

Wat, how so?
It's a cinch to refluff in 5e or you haven't even bothered.

Your mistake was mistaking an rpg where you play as heroes with real life. Don't go full retard.

Which part of
>people DIE of it even in action moves and genre fiction
Did you not understand?

Besides the fact that it's just an example?
It doesn't mater if you're trying to portray actual reality, genre reality or cinematic reality, if system rules go against the grain of it, it is the system who is wrong and should be overruled or switched to something without such issues.

Go battlemaster, refluff a rapier as your longsword and duelist style as two handing it (but being capable of grappling because fecht).

For being so focused on bringing your character concept into play, you sure are shit at it.

Which part of where you play as heroes don't you understand? You're playing as heroes, not just people. Again, don't go full retard.

You do realize people survive falls in real life from massive heights because of terminal velocity don't you.