D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Eltab]

In 4e, the monsters got tougher faster than the PCs did as they leveled up. That may have helped inflame the optimization mindset.

In 5e, WotC is supposed to have fixed that problem. Hopefully the allergic reaction will fade down over time, too.

 

[Krachek]

Most people who do sub-optimal choice to fit their role play dont take time to post on this forum.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

I really don't find it hard to believe it's that tight. Look at the low starting HP totals in D&D, especially in BECMI, AD&D 2e, and in 3e (starting with max HPs at first level was a houserule, not the way the books told you to play) where the rules on dying were less generous than they are now. It's pretty easy to roll a one or two on your starting HPs, especially if you're not playing a fighter (but even a fighter has a 1 in 5 chance of getting rolling that one or two at first level). Imagine being the fighter in the group and only having four HPs (2 rolled + 2 from Con bonus).

Actually, as I've been looking through rules, the AD&D dying rules were more generous, surprisingly enough.

In AD&D, when you were reduced to 0 hp (although it allowed for you to go as low as -3 in unusual circumstances), you simply lost 1 hit point per (1 minute) round, and died at -10. So that was anywhere from 6 to 9 rounds. All that was needed to stop that was another character using a round to tend to you. No ability check, skills, or healer's kit needed.

What was more severe was recovery. You could do virtually nothing for a week if you were reduced to 0 hp and recovered, including magical healing less than a heal spell.

 

[MechaPilot]

Actually, as I've been looking through rules, the AD&D dying rules were more generous, surprisingly enough.

In AD&D, when you were reduced to 0 hp (although it allowed for you to go as low as -3 in unusual circumstances), you simply lost 1 hit point per (1 minute) round, and died at -10. So that was anywhere from 6 to 9 rounds. All that was needed to stop that was another character using a round to tend to you. No ability check, skills, or healer's kit needed.

More generous? Than what? 1e & BECMI, maybe (it's been so long since I've played BECMI I can't recall its dying rules). But certainly not more so than 4e or 5e.

What was more severe was recovery. You could do virtually nothing for a week if you were reduced to 0 hp and recovered, including magical healing less than a heal spell.

Well, probably even longer unless you wanted to end up right back in that same position.

 

[MechaPilot]

Most people who do sub-optimal choice to fit their role play dont take time to post on this forum.

Most people who roleplay probably don't post here. Which is not a slam against enworld.

 

[Warpiglet]

I am just thinking that the game does not require this razor sharp efficiency with "game" referring the rules as written.

The more I think about it, the more I realize games that require total optimization must be niche things. Otherwise, wouldn't the published adventures also follow suit? Wouldn't the encounter building rules, maligned as they are be geared toward this style if it was the intended level of difficulty?

Reading responses so far suggests to me that perhaps the culture is not exactly new but that there may be more of an emphasis on this style that has always existed.

It is hard for me to know for sure. As a kid we always tried to power up but that was just the natural inclination of us as kids. It never seemed "necessary" and even less so now.

I am not knocking it if people like it. Its not "inferior" or less worthy. I just know I would feel too constrained if I had to focus on maximum optimization just to survive and have some progression. I like a bit of variety. Having played so many years I need more and not fewer options for viability.

I am still scratching my head however. If the margins are that thin, you sure have a brilliant DM! The ability to make challenges with the degree of precision that a +1 means the difference between life and death is no small feat. It implies the wall between survival and TPK hinges on every single point of a bonus below which nearly certain death awaits!

I am thinking that +1 in isolation will save a character and a party rarely in a super high challenge environment. Here, instead of needing a 12 to hit and getting only an 11, the DM will often get a 13 and it probably will not matter a great deal in most situations.

Further, if the champion MUST be a half orc, what do we say to parties that do not have a champion at all?

Not trying to be jerky, but really having a hard time seeing this is anything but assumption in 99% of cases. How in the heck can a DM make that +1 be the lynch-pin of success vs. Death?

 

[Tony Vargas]

I have read with interest a recent threads about balance and race choices. During the discussion I began wondering if there has been some culture shift in the community that I have been ignoring.

Maybe not with the timing you think it had...

What I found in that thread was worry that characters would not be viable unless the race and the class fit an archetype. As an example, unless you take a halfling for a rogue thief, you are nuts! A half-orc wizard? Madness!

In the dark ages, we relished taking things that were off center. A particularly strong cleric? Cool. A half-orc paladin? Novel.

Maybe in the Dark Ages ('97-2014) of 'player entitlement,' but in the prior Golden Age before the Fall of the Gygaxian Empire, race all but dictated class for anyone but humans. Your Elf was not going to be a cleric, your half-elf very likely was, you dwarf was almost certainly going to be a fighter, your half-orc would only eschew Assassin if the DM wouldn't permit evil alignments, etc. Flat-out 'against type,' like a non-human Paladin or half-orc magic user just wasn't going to happen.

But in the discussion about the need to match half-orc with champion fighter, it seemed that many people were afraid their character would simply die young if they did not make the "best" choice.

1st level is a hurdle to clear, much like 1st-4th was back in the day ("don't bother naming your character until 5th level").

First, the variability in rolling for stats seems to suggest that there can be different levels of ability. Additionally, party size can vary. Lastly, there are feats in most games. As a result:

This does not seem to suggest that the game is perfectly balanced and that life hinges on perfect efficiency.

It certainly does not suggest balance, it does, therefor, suggest that you better get the best character you possibly can or you'll likely be overshadowed and possibly ganked early on (which, in the case of the random-rolled 'hopeless' character, can be a blessing).

Now, if everything were somewhat balanced, then the best possible 'optimal' character, and the somewhat-sub-optimal (but not intentionally gimped for the sake of proving you can build a hopeless character in any system) one, could both handle the same challenges, and the DM could fine-tune those challenges to avoid character deaths if he wanted to.

If it did

it = game is "perfectly" balanced. (yeah, right)

wouldn't certain class and race combinations be restricted?

No, they'd be 'balanced,' so any combinations would be viable.

Wouldn't party size be mandated?

No, the system would be able to handle large or small parties, and without a 'multiplier' when they were outnumbered.

Would stat rolling be allowed at all?

It certainly wouldn't.

In many cases, we are talking about 2 points in a stat difference for "optimal" pairings. How often is that going to be the difference between life and death over the course of a campaign?

About 1 time in 20 life-or-death d20 checks, I suppose.
But every '+1' has a strong psychological component under BA, as well, because the numbers are so small, +1 seems even more significant than it is.

 

[ccs]

Most people who do sub-optimal choice to fit their role play dont take time to post on this forum.

Those things I take that you'd call "sub-optimal" choices? They're the optimal choices for the characters I'm making. Each & every one is carefully considered and chosen. I'm optimizing just as much as you are. We're just optimizing for different things.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Not trying to be jerky, but really having a hard time seeing this is anything but assumption in 99% of cases. How in the heck can a DM make that +1 be the lynch-pin of success vs. Death?

I think that's part of your issue. You're looking at it as though the game is on the DM's part where he's trying to set up the very closest, most razor-thin chance of being the truest challenge-- without actually killing the players.

Wherein the truth I suspect is more along the line that the DM is going to throw challenges out there of all stripes... many of which could conceivably kill the players if they weren't careful or really efficient with their tactics... and it comes down to the players trying to MINIMIZE as many of the factors that could cause their death as possible.

Optimizing your PC is one of those ways to do it. If you can get your PC as optimized as possible, that's one less thing you have to worry about while running these encounters trying to win. At that point, the things you are concerned of are the tactics and group actions and strategy (all of which will kill you too if you aren't on your game.)

And you are right... this is not something 99% of the D&D gaming populace probably worries about or every really considers to be an issue. But so what? If it's a potential issue for them... then it's something they need to concern themselves with and work really hard to ameliorate. No different than the World of Warcraft Mythic raider that has to make multiple dungeon runs to gear up, learn stats, and practice. That's the game they are choosing to play because it interests them... and its not anything the rest of us will really understand. But that's okay.

 

[Warpiglet]

Maybe not with the timing you think it had...

Maybe in the Dark Ages ('97-2014) of 'player entitlement,' but in the prior Golden Age before the Fall of the Gygaxian Empire, race all but dictated class for anyone but humans. Your Elf was not going to be a cleric, your half-elf very likely was, you dwarf was almost certainly going to be a fighter, your half-orc would only eschew Assassin if the DM wouldn't permit evil alignments, etc. Flat-out 'against type,' like a non-human Paladin or half-orc magic user just wasn't going to happen.

1st level is a hurdle to clear, much like 1st-4th was back in the day ("don't bother naming your character until 5th level").

It certainly does not suggest balance, it does, therefor, suggest that you better get the best character you possibly can or you'll likely be overshadowed and possibly ganked early on (which, in the case of the random-rolled 'hopeless' character, can be a blessing).

Now, if everything were somewhat balanced, then the best possible 'optimal' character, and the somewhat-sub-optimal (but not intentionally gimped for the sake of proving you can build a hopeless character in any system) one, could both handle the same challenges, and the DM could fine-tune those challenges to avoid character deaths if he wanted to.

it = game is "perfectly" balanced. (yeah, right) No, they'd be 'balanced,' so any combinations would be viable. No, the system would be able to handle large or small parties, and without a 'multiplier' when they were outnumbered. It certainly wouldn't.

About 1 time in 20 life-or-death d20 checks, I suppose.
But every '+1' has a strong psychological component under BA, as well, because the numbers are so small, +1 seems even more significant than it is.

I mostly played 1e AD&D. Skipped 2e entirely. Dabbled with 3e and skipped 3.5. Two sessions of 4e...

We took characters with suboptimal stats at times.

Sometimes we took "odd" stat arrangements for fun. For example, I had a wood elf thief with an 18 (sans exceptional!) Str. We did take odd combinations including dwarven thieves. I did have a Half Orc Cleric, single classed.

The restriction sucked. Unearthed opened them up a bit. We did what we wanted. This included using broadsword or flails, and so on.

I knew few people that got much beyond name level and even if they did, they got a whopping 3 hit points a level if they were fighters!

Human wizards were another story.

So I hear you, but I still do not see total optimization as required at most tables or in most published works. If death awaits it is usually by overkill.

And back in the day, I took a half-orc fighter with the belief that 10th or 12th (whatever the single class cap was in UA of that edition) was OK. Really high levels as you may know were a total grind, hard to earn and not seen by all people.