How does 5e hold up to modern day RPG standards? Is it simply "okay", or is it really as bad as everyone says...

How does 5e hold up to modern day RPG standards? Is it simply "okay", or is it really as bad as everyone says? Does simplicity really only cause boredom?

Tell any good or bad experiences with 5e, because like it or not it's going to stick around for a while, far longer than 4e.

Other urls found in this thread:

thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

For what it is, 5e is fine.

Personally I find it boring as sin, as a game it has no new ideas or real design goal beyond 'Be D&D', but that's what a large chunk of the market wanted, and they're being well serviced by it.

But for a lot of groups, simple rules without much focus on mechanical rigor is exactly what they wanted, even if I wish they'd kept some of the cool ideas going in the playtest.

Something else to keep in mind is that the shoestring budget they're on is extending the life of the line, intentionally so. 5e exists to occupy the D&D brand while Hasbro makes actual money on board games, computer games and other tie ins. One of the many things that fucked over 4e was Hasbro setting the impossible goal of getting D&D to the same level of value as MtG, as a brand, which was doomed to fail from the start. Now, they just feed enough money into it to keep a product on the shelves to qualify for maintaining the various trademarks and copyrights, and the minimal money the RPG market actually makes is just a pleasant side note.

All the problems I've had with it have had to do with it being bad at running things other than DnD. In a time when there's mountains of good games out there, it would really be in everyone's best interest to know a few systems that fit the premises of the games they run. Instead I see a bunch of retards trying and failing to hack away at a fantasy game to make it something it isn't.

Good:
Introduced Backgrounds to give a third dimension to character creation
Streamlined skills and skill check bonuses
Reduced the crazy bonuses to a reasonable level

The meh:
Maintained vancian class features, spell slots, resource grind
Monster Manual is boring and samey
It's still fundamentally just a really shitty board game with optional talking

It's very good by modern RPG standards.

The curse of the OGL. They pushed so hard to convince people d20 was a good basis for a generic system people started to believe it.

Worse still, they try to adapt D&D rather than using the actually good generic successor to the d20 system, Mutants and Masterminds.

Its okay but games like Hillfolk exist now, so I don't see much of a point in playing it aside from the massive playerbase holy shit

Massive playerbase, far outstripping any other game by orders of magnitude is actually a pretty big benefit.

It's insanely easy to find groups, find content, find tools, etc. for the game. The threads are active, the forums are popular, there's discords around it, you can find randoms or convince friends to play easily.

Even doing that for something like Star Wars EotE which has Star Wars tag can be tough. Similarly, even for popular other TTRPGs like Shadowrun, Pathfinder (essentially D&D anyway), and GURPS their playerbase is relatively minuscule.

>like it or not it's going to stick around for a while, far longer than 4e

Is there any evidence of this? One of my main reasons against 5E was that I invested in 4E only to have it be taken away after a few years. Im not making that mistake again.

They started developing 4e soon after shipping 3e, and started on 5e soon after shipping 4e. But things may have changed, and especially since they are still making variant rules and all of that, and there's unlikely to be a big shift in WotC staff like after 4e, 5e is probably going to last longer. It also has a philosophy of PHB+1, i.e. any campaign should be set up to only need the player's handbook +1 other book. Some class options are reprinted as a result, and there are in general very few books.

Depending on what you liked about 4e, you may not be missing much though. Caster supremacy is back and most classes have a distinct lack of options, both in and out of combat.

I don't really like it as the only D&D I like is osr shit, but it's not absolutely horrible to play

Hillfolk is a narrative story telling game.

D&D is a traditional RPG.

They're completely different genres of games and therefore it's pointless comparing them really.

thealexandrian.net/wordpress/6517/roleplaying-games/roleplaying-games-vs-storytelling-games

They're both RPGs, the distinction is pointless and arbitrary and The Alexandrian is a fucking hack.

5e is great as long as you accept that spellcasting is a tool pretty much every adventurer will wind up wanting to gain access to and don't try and turn it into a setting that it isn't intended to be.

It's okay. It feels like a step back in consciousness of design after 4e, but overall, it's still okay.

5e has Inspiration as a meta-mechanic, I guess it's a storygame now.

>Introduced Backgrounds to give a third dimension to character creation

Was in both 3e and 4e. And Pathfinder.

>Streamlined skills and skill check bonuses
4e also did that.

>Reduced the crazy bonuses to a reasonable level

It went overboard, but this is the only think where I feel like the game unambigously improved.

I never played 4th

Well, now you know.

The 5e product line is so sparse that “investing in 5e” is like 200 bucks, maybe more like 80 if you’re only a player. Unless you’re poor, there’s basically no risk due to the minuscule investment

Things I like about 5e:
>Common ground. Its popularity and learning curve are enough to make pick-up games and one-shots easy-ish.
>Adaptability. Like it or not, the rules as they stand are pretty flexible in terms of adding/removing things, and it functions okay as a homebrew vehicle.

Things I don't like about 5e:
>Blandness. It's almost too neutral of a system. It almost feels like it was designed to appease everyone by appeasing no one.
>I'm sick of playing 5e, and 5e only. I was a Next playtester.
>"muh build, muh build, muh build!" Can a guy just sit back and play a damn elf fighter without having to be a full-blown autist about it?
>"______'s Guide to _______". This is just a personal preference; these books rub me the wrong way. I can't really explain it.

As an optional meta-mechanic.


FTFY

That’s not even close to being true.

What about it is inaccurate?

What are you calling a modern RPG? My favorite RPG comes from 2012, and there may be 1 ROG since then that I consider truly innovative on the top of my mind.

Traits are not backgrounds, not even close to the level of detail or the direct flavor for the character.

4e barely streamlined anything, and the skill system was complicated enough to always be misunderstood.

How many rulesets do you know of that are particularly hard to homebrew?

Not that guy: what are traits?
And isn't the 5e system extremely similar to the 4e one, except 5e made the numbers not scale absurdly? It's still d20 + attribute mod + "Training" (which is a sliding 'Proficiency' number in 5e now) to beat a DC.

>isn't the 5e system extremely similar to the 4e one

Not particularly, though they're not a million miles apart. 5e is basically streamlined 3.5

What differentiates them?

>Traits are not backgrounds, not even close to the level of detail or the direct flavor for the character.

Good thing the point was mostly about 4e. Which had themes and backgrounds that are actually way more impactful than the 5e ones.

>4e barely streamlined anything, and the skill system was complicated enough to always be misunderstood.

It's basically the same as 5e. It's very fucking hard to misunderstand.

They have almost the exact same skills, as well as proficiencies/training from race and class, a scaling factor with +level/2 or scaling prof bonus. The only difference I can think of is how in 5e being trained/proficient doesn't impact it much until later while in 4e training starts strong with +5 (and +2 racials) but gets overshadowed by the +level/2 over time.

>modern day RPG standards
This is largely a marketing term, you realize this? It gets used by game companies to fast-talk neckbeards into believing that their game is "the wave of the future".

5e hasn't innovated anything. It DID propagate the idea of replacing modifiers with rerolls though, which will vanish sooner or later because each new edition needs a new gimmick and sell it as the "wave of the future".
My reading it's an okay design, tried-and-true, a bit bland and a bit too simplicistic for my personal tastes. That's all. Certainly not a bad game, certainly not a great game.

>Streamlined skills
>good
Are you retarded?

t. has-bro

So story-telling are merely narrativist RPGs? Got it.

Streamlined skills are the best. I much prefer a game to figure out what it cares about and focus its skills on that rather than providing a bloated, arbitrarily long list of bullshit which only serves to make characters seem incompetent. A smaller list of definitive, interesting and broadly applicable skills is infinitely better.

For some reason idiots try to insist that they're entirely different things, rather than just variations on the same central theme.

>as bad as everyone says

A bunch of Veeky Forums naysayers are not "everyone". 5e is fine as a flexible and light-to-moderate complexity system and it feels very DnD. It's also less easy to break the game with absurd builds, and very unlikely to do so accidentally (few trap options, and those that exist have less impact/opportunity costs than trap options in previous editions).

It lacks the personality of 3.X as well as the mechanical greatness of GURPS.

I have literally no reason to play it.

>replacing modifiers with rerolls
I truly hope your prediction doesn't pan out, next to advantage/disadvantage this is by far my favorite feature and I think the most accessible for an absolute newcomer to ttrpg. Also if you get creative with the scenarios that grant advantage/impose disadvantage, I think your players can get more creative

>as bad as everyone says?
I have yet to see a valid complaint about 5e in threads like this. What I have seen are as follows.
>I hate bounded accuracy because I want big numbers
>The rules are boring
>They didn't take any risks I could complain about
>I haven't read the rules or played the game, but it's an unbalanced mess
>WIZURDS
>It's D&D
>There isn't Pathfinder levels of rulesbloat
>I don't like it
>IF YOU DO THIS EXPLICIT BUILD AND IGNORE A RULE, THE WHOLE GAME FALLS APART
>RAW doesn't say that you suffer any penalty from never sleeping! It also doesn't say you can't walk through walls or shit gold!
>the art is ugly

5e isn't perfect, but people don't even try to make valid criticisms, instead favoring system war bullshit because it's cool to hate on D&D on Veeky Forums.

Here’s a valid criticism.

It isn’t gurps.

I'd take that as a point in its favour.

Nah gurps is the only rules heavy system worth learning.

Strongly disagree.

I don't think it's terrible, but I just hate generic systems. They do nothing for me. I know they can be functional in emulating other genres but I will always prefer a specific system if one is available.

Except that 5e isn't really rules heavy, certainly not to the point of gurps, 3.5/PF, Riddle of Steel, or even Exalted. It's on the light side of rules-medium.

Gurps is as good as or better than specific systems simply because of the effort SJG has put into setting/addon books.

The fact that I can extremely easily build systems for my setting into it make it the best thing ever

Maybe for you. Generic core design is just so unendingly boring for me I will never play it if there are any other reasonable options available.

Again, not saying GURPS is bad. Just saying that blanket statements like 'The only rules heavy system worth learning' are dumb.

Let me guess: they're involved in the marketing of "story-telling games"?

>they didn't take any risks I could complain about
this is the best criticism of 5e complaints I've seen, gj user

>the art
I can agree with this complaint though, I don't like different styles throughout the same book and some of the art is really quite bad

Honestly it seems to be the opposite, people who hate narrativist design trying to argue why they aren't 'real' RPG's.

True, but gurps still kicks the trash outta most of the system, and with some effort could replace the entire system.

For example, GURPS combat is like the best thing ever.

>For example, GURPS combat is like the best thing ever.
How's that?

He's incapable of understanding there are people with different preferences to him, so he assumes his favourite combat system is universally the best.

Do you much prefer having gamey systems as opposed to a simulated world that loops together?

I mean, whatever floats your boat.

Thing is, if I just wanted bland-ass oatmeal, I'd play GURPS, because then I could play bland-ass oatmeal with all kinds of shit, rather than just bland-ass fantasy oatmeal.

Or, to put it simply: Not taking risks means 5e does nothing that a hundred other offerings don't also do, and usually in a very similar manner that's a mixed bag of marginally better and marginally worse.

Or narrative support for a specific genre. I'll take G or N over S any day.

>is it really as bad as everyone says?

Only a few opinionated grognards say that. 5e is a massively popular game, you can find the books and players at any lgs.

Fundamentally it's D&D, so if you don't like D&D you won't like 5e. It's also less crunch-focused than pf or 3.5, and it's not a balanced game like 4e. So if you want mid/light-crunch d&d, don't care too much about balance, and don't want to play some obscure osr-clone, then 5e is your game. I personally think that they should have removed all leftovers of vancian magic, removed stats as separate numbers from the modifier, and included one more level of skill training (un-trained, trained, specialized for example), but it's the d&d-like game that I have the fewest objections against.

>How does 5e hold up to modern day RPG standards?
It doesn't. It might be good by 2001's standards, though.

>active defenses
>bluff attacks and telegraphed attacks
>movement and positioning being very important
>HP bloat is very hard to reach (everything is potentially reachable in gurps)
>magic psionics guns and swords are all very different and distinct, but work together properally
>can jump out of combat
>rules for running into people
>mounted combat
>space combat
>mass combat
>pages of weapon autism that is optional
>same for magic and psionics.

>my complaint is that there's nothing to complain about

I think you just proved his point

What rulebooks do I need for this, in particular the first 2 points?

">can jump out of combat"
but can you climb a 3 foot high fence out of combat?

You say that but I have yet to see any mechanical difference between a system made for a specific setting and a generic one.

And I say this as a veteran.

If you would kindly direct me to this “narrative support” I would love to see it.

The young ones need storytelling games because they can't deal with being told they can't do something. Like the rules lawyers of days gone bye. That's why he sees Hillfolk as making D&D obsolete.

Reading comprehension.

5e is bland. It's successfully, effectively bland, but it's still bland. It's a game for people who don't play many other RPG's, because if you do you've already seem pretty much everything it has to offer.

Don't get me wrong, I don't think it's a bad game, and it's extraordinarily successful in its niche. But it's fundamentally lacking in any real innovation or identity that would set it apart beyond it being, well, another D&D. I'd honestly have expected more for the grandfather of the entire industry, but as was said earlier, you can't say it didn't work perfectly for them. It might be that kind of game was exactly what their core audience wanted, one as inoffensive as possible.

Basic set does basically all that.

Mass combat, space ships and the tech books are awesome for the rest.

It’s all the same system, just different uses.

For example a normal guy can fight a formation or a spaceship.

>can you climb a fence?
Yep just a movement action and a skill roll.

Then I'll offer a single example. Legends of the Wulin lets you create multiple numerically distinct results for different actions on a single roll of its core dice pool. This lends to the feeling of the game, your characters almost always doing more than one thing at once, and it's elegant since it only takes a single dice roll. That is a mechanic, with systemic, thematic and tangible consequences that could never be replicated in GURPS.

As for narrative support, look at FATE or anything PbtA. GURPS is a simulation engine, and for some people that's boring. They'd much prefer rules crafted around an understanding of storytelling, of narrative conceits and genre cliches that are given real mechanical importance in the system, reinforcing the tones, theme and feel of a genre rather than paying any attention to the granular details of the world.

>WIZURDS
Caster supremacy is a thing, what am I supposed to say other than that? I like the system but it has far too few options in chargen to make my character separate from other characters of the same class (feats are virtually unseen until level 10+ outside of fighters, variant humans and GWM/SS etc. because they're OP; archetypes don't generally change that much). Far too few options out of combat with only the skill system and spells. Far too few options in combat to make it interesting and not repetitive (fighter, barbarian and ranger suffer most from this). If there's one combat a day or something it's a lot better with a lot more abilities thrown around but with 6-8 you will run out of those and need to rely on base options. This lack of meaningful options and decisions, as well as little customization, are why I find it boring.

On higher levels spells become a joke (you don't need an explicit build, just get e.g. Wish, Simalcrum OR Clone, good luck to martials trying to keep up with that), and combat in general just doesn't work well with hp bloat and the way monsters are designed vs. how PCs work, especially level 17+ is decided mostly by who wins initiative.

There's also still so much cross-referencing that makes both GMing and playing tedious, spells, feats, archetypes, weapons and armor, skills, beasts, then for GM there's rules all over the place and especially spellcasting monsters are a nightmare. Thankfully they mostly did away with templates but I want to be able to make a character by reading the race and class I'm using, and to use a monster with just its statblock. Some cross-referencing is fine but plenty of games including the previous edition improved this a lot so there's no excuse for this much.

I played it for 3 years with one long campaign and oneshots, some as GM. It's not bad, it streamlines a lot of stuff, advantage is great and the level of balance would have been impressive if 4e didn't exist. Not great either though.

>It doesn't suck my dick and do my taxes
>this makes it bland
Once again, someone complains about not having anything to complain about.

I can do multiple things in one turn with different results with one ability, altered time rate.

There is also a way for you to use a cliche as a skill with wildcard skills (For example, Doctor! or Spy!).

Are you just really bad at understanding?

Point to one new idea in 5e. One new mechanic or clever concept or distinctive thing that sets it apart from other RPG's.

There really isn't any. Possibly because of how ubiquitous D&D is, but that's a real factor given how much it shaped the industry. D&D is the foundation of everything so everything in D&D is, in general, known and understood and, to a degree, expected.

And that's what 5e provides. Exactly what you would expect from D&D. And that's why it has no appeal to me and the people in communities I share, because we've already played a lot of D&D, and we're no longer impressed by the core formula. I won't say no to a game of D&D, but I'd prefer to go for a system which had some other element to it, something new to add, a distinctly different way of doing things. And 5e just doesn't. It's a perfect distillation of the idea of D&D, drawing elements from all the other editions in a way that I'm sure is easy and simple and very palatable to hardcore D&D fans and new players alike... But if you're not in love with the idea of D&D in the first place, or impressed by the novelty due to a lack of larger experience, there's not really anything to it.

And again, I don't hate 5e. If a GM I trusted wanted to run it, I'd probably play it and probably enjoy it. But that doesn't change its tendency as an RPG system to just be kinda dull.

Can you do it on a single dice roll? If not, then it's not comparable.

Haha no and this is coming from a fan of GURPS. This is like handing a person a C compiler and telling them to program Diablo.

If it serves the same purpose narratively there is no meaningful difference if it happens in one dice roll or not.

Plus, it could do that as well with wildcard skills.

"Not having anything to complain about" isn't enough to get me to play the game, though, in the same way "not having anything to complain about" isn't enough to get me to eat oatmeal with absolutely nothing in it. I have other options, and even if I complain about parts of those options, overall they're better.

It's in the Basic Set

There is absolutely a meaningful difference. Legends of the Wulin's system creates randomized action economy, with the dicepool not only determining the value of your actions but how many actions you can take. And that it happens on one roll makes it elegant, easy to understand and easy to resolve.

GURPS cannot replicate this. As you said yourself, it would have to involve multiple rolls to adhere to the mechanics of the game, meaning it takes more time, flows less well and is overall less elegant, changing the experience and function of the game. GURPS cannot replicate it.

Well, it is a form of dark souls combat in that it takes some getting used to. However I could pull out my basic set and make an AK-47 (or just use the assault rifle stats) no problem.

>gurps can’t do this
Altered Time Rate
based on a single roll -40%
random (dice code) -40%

Wow

>caster supremacy
this criticism has never really sat well with me as the most reality bending spells come with heavy time or consequence taxes, also I think they are only really viable if the caster has the resources of an entire party at their disposal, e.g. all the offensive, defensive, and utility options that come with the other classes working synergistically

that being said, I agree the cross referencing is pretty terrible and takes away from the experience at the table. it should have been done more in the style of the 4e PHB, especially monster casters

And that would let you generate the values for an entire turn of actions with a single picking up and rolling of the dice?

Otherwise, no, GURPS can't do it.

What do you mean by that?

From what you said
>single roll
Ok got that, I roll my dice 1 time then compare it to my skills
>actions random
I roll a dice then get my actions
>multiple different actions
I’ll just give an example.

I roll my dice and get 3 actions. For this turn I pick to 1) stab a guy, 2) climb a rope, and 3) hack a door.

I then roll an 11. I have a sword skill of 12 so I stab the guy. I have a rope climbing skill of 9 so I fail the climb, and cannot jack because I’m not near the console.

One roll, different results, random number of actions.

But in Legends of the Wulin, your different actions can be made on different base values, and choosing which values to assign to which actions is a vital part of the system. GURPS cannot replicate it.

What's the consensus on 4e instead?

Yea it can modular abilities.
This turn I have a 12 in sword, 9 in climb, and 11 in hacking.

*dice roll*

tf? each core book is $50 where I live. Thats $150 for the bare minimum.

>cannot jack because I'm not near the console
dude, you too huh?

>what is Amazon
>what is new and used from
>what are presales

Did you seriously enjoy having to put points into Swim?
Did you love how 'realistic' it was to seperate "spot" and "listen", or "hide" and "move silently"?
Did you put points into ride, or forgery, or use rope? Or escape artist?

Nope. I'm not talking about your skill values, I'm talking about the numbers on the dice.

Legends of the Wulin can, in a single dice roll, give you a randomised number of actions and a randomised value for each of those actions, which is then applied to your static skills or stats to give you a result.

GURPS cannot do this. Heck, even your half-baked homebrew still isn't saying GURPS can, it's saying you can attempt to bodge it into it, but in doing so you're proving my point. GURPS can't retain what the specific system has, as any way of emulating it either loses certain factors or is just inherently slower and clunkier.

Which is why there will always be value in generic systems. Because they can do things that GURPS cannot do, or things that GURPS cannot elegantly emulate.

>"muh build, muh build, muh build!" Can a guy just sit back and play a damn elf fighter without having to be a full-blown autist about it?
'Least it ain't pathfinder or 3.5. Got legions of sweaty nerds perfecting their half-waterorc/half-moon-gnome/half-dragonwolf artificer/bloodrager/thingomancer build.

The crux of caster supremacy is the fact that casters can end encounters and stuff with a single spell, and even if they can't they can at least do /something/ mechanically out of combat. Wish is a 9th level spell that makes you able to cast /any/ spell of 8th level or lower in a single action at no cost other than that spell slot IIRC. You suddenly need to reincarnate? Or a sunray because a vampire lord showed up? It is the god of versatility. At the risk of losing it forever, you can also move mountains, alter reality and, well, almost anything. The fighter, meanwhile, gets another attack which increases their damage by 33%. The barbarian gets 40 more hp, +2 AC and +2 to attack and damage rolls.

At level 9 you get polymorph, which if the enemy fails the save they are effectively out of the fight until you lose concentration. You can leave them there, and an hour later they turn back and go on with their life. If there's more than one monster or if you're afraid it won't work, don't worry - you can always use the "backup" option and turn your least powerful party member, like a fighter that used action surge and stuff and is at 10 hp, into a T-Rex. The resource management is the only way to punish casters, but even with the excessive encounters per rest in RAW (6-8 per day, very few campaigns follow this IME) they are still very strong and versatile.

Invisibility, fog cloud, misty step, rope trick, fly, dispel magic, comprehend languages, and a lot of other spells are just so high utility and contribute to the casters having way more impact out of combat, without being gimped in combat. They aren't horribly OP in regards to pure combat except for niche situations and combos, until higher levels, but they are not worse by martials either. Ask almost anyone, and they will tell you bard, wizard, cleric, druid are some of, if not the decidedly, best classes in the game.

Legends of the Wulin can, in a single dice roll, give you a randomised number of actions and a randomised value for each of those actions, which is then applied to your static skills or stats to give you a result.

How does one roll give 3+ truly random results?

>you can also move mountains, alter reality and, well, almost anything.
Ideally, barbarians should be able to move mountains with pure inner strength.

Because, as I mentioned earlier, it's a dice pool system.

A base pool in Legends of the Wulin is 7 d10s. For example we might roll, 0, 8, 5, 3, 0, 6, 3.

Dice in Legends of the Wulin are read as sets, with the value being the number of dice in the set plus the number on the die. The single 5, 6 and 8 would be read as 15, 16 and 18 respectively.

The pairs of 0's and 3's instead become 20 and 23. On each roll, you get one base action, but can take bonus actions with any set of two or more dice. So, in addition to a single dice major action using our highest single, the 18, we could also take the 20 and the 23 and use them for other actions, depending on the context.

It's a central part of the system, with a lot of techniques and rules being built around the idea of swiftly resolving multiple simultaneous actions and extra sets being useful. The unique traits of this core mechanic fundamentally change the experience and function of the game in a way that GURPS is incapable of satisfactorily emulating.

Pathfinder has the absolute worst background rules. The fluff is fair enough but the trait system they use is garbage.

It's a wonderful game as long as you don't try to do something with it that it's not made for. I.e. high power fantasy superheroes with a focus on combat, all about pulpy action in the pursuit of a BBEG. It values narrative over simulation which is important to understand so you don't take the powers in a literal sense (i.e. "why can't I swing my sword in this specific way more than once per day").

Out of combat is weak like in any edition of D&D, though rituals and the later introduced martial practices covers it quite well with a few potential tweaks.

That's 4e, not 5e. Maybe with the capstone, but 5e never says anything about epic feats and leaves all the high power stuff to spellcasters. It's far removed from 4e with its epic destinies.

Really good at tactical combat with pulp influences in tone. Bad at literally everything else. It can be pretty deadly, actually; expect less Tolkien and more Howard.

>Out of combat is weak like in any edition of D&D
Personally I've found that you don't really need all that many rules for the out-of-combat stuff, just a good GM.
You always need mechanics for combat, but just roleplaying can work mostly intuitively.

I've had some very non-combat oriented pathfinder (basically dnd) games that've been great.

Oddly enough, 4e has better long-term damage rules than basically any other D&D edition with it's Injury rules. I wouldn't ever say it can do 'Realistic' but you can do gritty if you want in the sense of say Lone Wolf, where long term injuries can actually slow you down over your adventure and disease could easily cost you your life if you don't get treatment.

It's not a problem to not have out of combat options, being restricted to only your imaginations and what your character can physically do is cool. But some characters functioning that way, while others get (eventually really powerful) spells to do all kinds of neat shit, it doesn't really work.