D&D 5E Behind the design of 5th edition Dungeons and Dragons: Well my impression as least.

Sailor Moon · Dec 6, 2014

In various threads I have come across people who apparently have the wrong idea as to the designs philosophy behind 5th edition. Now if I am wrong and you have some information to share then please do. I participated in the playtest as well as the survey's. I read the articles and kept up with the comings and goings of the game.

Now it is my impression the game was not designed around mechanical teamwork and synergy as was 4th edition. I am under the impression that the classes were designed on an individual basis. There are no strikers, defenders, leaders, or controllers. There are classes that could fall into the category but their design was not specifically made for it. How much damage you do, or how much damage you do when compared to others is not something this edition was designed around. You choose a class in this edition because it's what you want to play, not because you need to fill specific roles to make the party complete. What I like about this edition is it doesn't matter if you have three people wanting to play rogues for example.

I've read comments about Mearls apparently not getting the math right because a certain isn't doing X amount of damage or it's damage is falling short of X class and I think that is false. Let me be the first to take a giant inhalation of breath and breathe it out with a sigh of relief and contentment. I like that my contribution isn't measured by how much damage I can do. I'm glad that my PC isn't automatically expected to be a hero with mechanics to push this agenda along. I believe this edition really allows a DM to run whatever kind of game he and his group wants to run whether it's being heroic, or a greedy scoundrel who just wants to loot stuff but could end up just another dead adventurer in a long lost dungeon somewhere.

Now if I am completely wrong then again, please share some information because I am all ears and ready to listen. I am just glad that we seem to be free of the constraints of previous editions.

Celtavian · Dec 6, 2014

The way the game plays should be your information. If you play the game and your contributions are weaker than other party members because defeating the BBEG is the goal of the quest, you are not contributing much at all. That is why damage balance is necessary. So you don't have to be concerned about your contribution because it is roughly equal.

Explain how your contribution isn't measured in damage? If you're doing very little damage to the dragon your party is fighting, how are you contributing to a victory? Spending your action providing advantage to the fighter so he can do good damage?

I don't know how much of 5E you've played, enemies hit hard in this game. The longer it takes you to beat them, the more taxing it is on the entire group. If you're doing suboptimal damage, you're slowing things down and making the game hard for your group.

I don't know what constraints you think are gone:

No healer. You're screwed unless your DM tones down the encounters substantially.

Can't deal much damage, get chewed up by the bad guys.

I don't see this lack of constraints you're talking about in the two campaigns I'm playing. I see certain classes outshining others making the game far easier on parties composed of those classes just like past editions. This edition certainly didn't get rid of power gaming. It hasn't taken my particularly group long to figure out the top combinations.

All 4th edition did was provide a name to roles that have existed in D&D since the beginning. Removing the name Striker, Leader, and such doesn't change how the classes are played or their roles in a group. Never even cared about those designations in 4E. It was defining the natural roles of the classes.

Mistwell · Dec 6, 2014

Celtavian said:
Explain how your contribution isn't measured in damage?

Because it's a role playing game?

Sacrosanct · Dec 6, 2014

Celtavian, I couldn't disagree with you more. Many groups have been able to do just fine without dedicated healers and without the DM needing to tone down anything. Also, maximizing damage is not the best option in every case as is often argued.

I'll try to put this as simple as I can, even though actual play is a lot more complex.

a) you deal 10 points a round and kill the opponent in 5 rounds, taking 25 points yourself

b) you deal 5 points per round, but prevent 3 points per round. It takes 10 rounds to kill the same opponent, but you only take a total of 20 points when it's over.

the ONLY way the "more damage is always better" argument works is if you reset all resources after every battle

trentonjoe · Dec 6, 2014

Celtavian said:
I don't see this lack of constraints you're talking about in the two campaigns I'm playing. I see certain classes outshining others making the game far easier on parties composed of those classes just like past editions. This edition certainly didn't get rid of power gaming. It hasn't taken my particularly group long to figure out the top combinations.

Are you talking about the -5/+10 feats? Because I play 5E like 5 times a month with three different groups and I don't see this great in balance you're referring to.

guachi · Dec 6, 2014

The -5/+10 feats are really good for some classes, mediocre for some classes, and outright bad for some classes. It's a great choice, for example, for a Fighter that has gobs of ASI to burn and lots of lower damage attacks, but bad for Rogue to take Sharpshooter as your sneak attack damage dwarfs the damage bonus from Sharpshooter.

I'm A Banana · Dec 6, 2014

Sailor Moon said:
In various threads I have come across people who apparently have the wrong idea as to the designs philosophy behind 5th edition.

I think not being in the room with the designers, we all have some wrong ideas about it. Ain't possible to read minds. If they're good at their jobs, then the game reflects their intent, but that's always up for debate.

Now it is my impression the game was not designed around mechanical teamwork and synergy as was 4th edition. I am under the impression that the classes were designed on an individual basis. There are no strikers, defenders, leaders, or controllers. There are classes that could fall into the category but their design was not specifically made for it. How much damage you do, or how much damage you do when compared to others is not something this edition was designed around. You choose a class in this edition because it's what you want to play, not because you need to fill specific roles to make the party complete. What I like about this edition is it doesn't matter if you have three people wanting to play rogues for example.

I'm comments about Mearls apparently not getting the math right because a certain isn't doing X amount of damage or it's damage is falling short of X class. Let me be the first to take a giant inhalation of breath and breathe it out with a sigh of relief and contentment. I like that my contribution isn't measured by how much damage I can do. I'm glad that my PC isn't automatically expected to be a hero with mechanics to push this agenda along. I believe this edition really allows a DM to run whatever kind of game he and his group wants to run whether it's being heroic, or a greedy scoundrel who just wants to loot stuff but could end up just another dead adventurer in a long lost dungeon somewhere.

I think you're conflating a few related, but separate things.

The 4e concept of a "role" is back in the background. It's true that 5e was not designed with explicit party roles for individual classes like 4e was. That said, there are still people who will play to a "role" (even if it's not official): there will be someone who wants to play the best healer in the party. And certain classes will be better suited for this role than others, while other classes will have other benefits for other roles. Roles were always sort of an unofficial thing in a lot of games, and the fact that 5e wasn't designed to play to those won't stop people from playing with them. It just means people who are looking to be the biggest damage dealer, for instance, will have to do some system mastery work first.

5e not having explicit roles is part of 5e being designed to minimize the need for any role. Healing potions and short rests keep people alive. Bounded accuracy keeps low AC's viable defenders. Everyone can get big-damage effects, and everyone has some potential for action denial. And the play is a broader assumed style. No one HAS TO be Role X, Y, or Z. But people still can be.

Not having explicit roles isn't to say that 5e doesn't pay attention to party synergy, either. Things like wizards granting advantage that rogues can exploit for sneak attack, for ex, shows that smart party composition is still rewarded.

In 4e, like in any e, what your character is "about" is basically up to you and your party. The existence of explicit roles didn't mean that X damage wasn't all your character was. Indeed, a lot of people found roles kind of liberating in that respect -- they could be whatever kind of cleric they wanted, and didn't "have to" focus on healing, and wouldn't be screwing over the party by not.

Part of the problem with roles is that they lead to a mechanical character definition. 5e pushed it back to the background because part of 5e's design philosophy is "story first," and since the roles aren't as vital to 5e's "three pillars" concept of party contribution, the role isn't as definitional as it was in 4e.

Rhenny · Dec 6, 2014

I agree that 5e allows players to play what they want to play more than to adopt a PC that plays a specific role. There are a lot of other game design choices that make 5e different too.

Bounded accuracy and monster design does a lot for the game.

1) A party can have a 3rd level PC in a group with 5th or 6th level PCs, and the 3rd level PC can still contribute.
2) A party can encounter a wider range of monsters. The hordes of lower level ones are dangerous if not taken out by AoE spells, and lower level PCs still have a chance to defeat higher level threats (parties have defeated solo monsters that are 7+ CR higher than the group).
3) Most encounters tend to run between 2-3 rounds when they are easy or medium level...even some harder ones. This speed of combat is by design as well and works because of Bounded Accuracy.
4) Bounded Accuracy makes it pretty easy to modify monsters by adding to them if the DM/group wants more dangerous foes.

I'm sure there are a lot more, but this is what I came up with off the top of my head (as a player and a DM during the playtest and now for 5e).

mips42 · Dec 6, 2014

Fair warning, opinions ahead:
IMHO, D&D and other RPG's, were never meant to be about how much damage you do or about how fast you can 'take down the BBEG'. Yes, they started out as wargames but, at least to me, a true RPG isn't about that. That is what they have BECOME about. If all I wanted was a game about about how much damage I do and taking down a big evil quickly, there are dozens of those that I'd play instead of D&D, pathfinder, OSRIC or your other RPG of choice.
RPG's, to me, have always been about the story you and your friends tell together. Is there combat involved? Sure, there is, but all players (and all characters) DO NOT have to contribute in the same way. Is your Wizard capable of bombing the area with a fireball and wiping out a dozen kobolds better than my thief? Sure. Is he as capable of finding and disabling the poisoned spike trap that would have killed us both? Probably not. And are either of them as capable of magical healing or turning those skeletons to dust with the power of Faith like a cleric? Not likely. Different contributions to the overall whole.
The idea that 'all classes must be equal' is idealistic, at best (if it were even possible). If you actually achieved TOTAL parity between all classes, there would not be a NEED for more than one class. After all, everyone's the equal, right?
Furthermore, IMHO, I would not WANT to play a game where my contribution to the game is EXACTLY the same as everyone else. I WANT to be able to do that thing that makes the other players go 'hey, that's COOL! My guy can't do THAT!'
In the end, though, it's about the game YOU want to play. If your brand of fun is all the classes to be equal in damage output and that's it, go for it. I'll be over here, having fun with all the classes being different, having groovy things only they can do and doing my best to tell fun stories with friends.

Be well, be kind and always be awesome.

AmerginLiath · Dec 7, 2014

It's also amazingly fun to play parts in combats that do no damage by themselves at all. I've been the 3.0 monk in a party of heavy armored knights whose main job was "setting the field" with my fast movement and evasion skills (knocking things over to block the enemies exit here, overturning a table to serve as cover for the mage there...) or the archivist/diviner who spent half the time making knowledge checks for bonuses and the other half teleporting allies around the field of battle. Best of all was the dwarven cleric/bard/war chanter who mastered the combination of classes & magic items that offered buffs that would spend each round casting off rolling buffs to his team – I was heartbroken when I finally had to draw my axe at level 14 to flank and make an Aid Another check when one of our fighters was out sick (I consoled myself with Aid Another being SORT OF like a buff...). Given how rarely the games that I'm in even do battle, and how my groups seem to prefer convincing the enemy to surrender via working out tactics & control versus actually having to do the messy work of killing, I don't see why DAMAGE is such a key metric. Give me a good skillmonkey any day of the week!