D&D 5E D&D 5e Post-Mortem

[Jaeger]

If people don't switch it's because the game works for them.

Yes, This is called: "Good Enough".

D&D has the largest network effect of players and GM's. It is by far the easiest RPG to find a game to play in, or to find players for.

People just want to game, and as long as the system is good enough that it does not actively hinder the path of least resistance; that's what they'll do.

Largest Network Effect + Good Enough = No can Defend.

 

[payn]

You've attributed my original comment to another user. Probably a copy paste mistake when writing your reply. Anyway.

I strongly disagree. Sure if a system is dysfunctional you can ignore the bad bits, but the fact that you can ignore them does not make a dysfunctional system actually good. Isn't there some kind of fallacy here; the fact that you can houserule a bad rule away does not make the bad rule good.

You're looking for Oberoni.

The problem is the monsters don't actually have anything interesting in them. They're just hit points. I admit I have yet to look at more recent monster designs, but comparing to PF2 is night and day. PF2 stat blocks are clearly superior. Even the most boring monsters have something that sets them apart from the others.

They can be well done, though. I think all the Paizo adventure paths I've played have been good. Abomination Vaults, Rise of the Rune Lords (PF1) and Curse of the Crimson Throne (PF1).

I think adventure material goes a long way. The monster itself being interesting is only one part of the equation. The battleground can make up for some bag 'o' hit point types.

 

[dave2008]

You've attributed my original comment to another user. Probably a copy paste mistake when writing your reply. Anyway.

Probably

I strongly disagree. Sure if a system is dysfunctional you can ignore the bad bits, but the fact that you can ignore them does not make a dysfunctional system actually good. Isn't there some kind of fallacy here; the fact that you can houserule a bad rule away does not make the bad rule good.

I don't find the system dysfunctional. It can work as intended just fine. However, because of bounded accuracy (system design) you can throw a whole range of monsters at PCs without worrying about a TPK. That, to me, is a feature.

If I want to make a 'hard' encounter by RAW I can do that without an issue. However, I don't have to (unlike PF2, ILME) to make a great encounter.

The problem is the monsters don't actually have anything interesting in them. They're just hit points.

Not true - that is FUD.

I admit I have yet to look at more recent monster designs, but comparing to PF2 is night and day. PF2 stat blocks are clearly superior.

I disagree (at least for the first PF2 bestiary). I did do a side by side comparison and IMO, PF2 was only slightly better generally and definitely lacked compared to 5e legendary monsters. However, it has been a long time since I did that review, so I can easily be wrong to some extent. And things have only gotten better with time. Look at the bestiary in Bigby's, almost every monster as something "interesting" to do an many, if not most, have multiple things to do.

They can be well done, though. I think all the Paizo adventure paths I've played have been good. Abomination Vaults, Rise of the Rune Lords (PF1) and Curse of the Crimson Throne (PF1).

I'm not talking about playing them, I'm talking about DMing. I can't stand Paizo adventures, nor WotC, nor TSR, Chaosium, nor any 3PP I've tried.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I think we sometimes have some misplaced nostalgia for 4e monsters. There are a lot of boring 4e monsters to go along with the grindy ones (solos). Solos to didn't really improve until MM3 (and the did other things to make them a little less varied). I think in general "elites" were the best designed. 5e "solos' in general are better than 4e solos IMO.

I'm sure you're right, but there was something much more dynamic about fighting (for example) an Ogre who could sweep a close burst or ground-pound and knock people down over... a bag of HP with a low AC and highish damage output.

Then again, there was also the worst encounter I have ever had the misfortune to play - A 4e fight against the Demilich Acererak in the 4e version of Tomb of Horrors. In which, the Demilich could stun most of the party... but only did something like 9 damage on average (to our ~100 HP). A full TWENTY-TWO ROUNDS of boring hell.

Of course, it was easy to fix. When I ran the same encounter for my own players, I had rebuilt the Demilich into an exciting spinning disco-ball of DEATH.

So... sometimes I think I remember my 4e Monster Mods over what 4e actually offered. Like how many of us 4e DMs knocked HP and/or defenses down, and increased monster DPR. The game was much better for it.

 

[dave2008]

I'm sure you're right, but there was something much more dynamic about fighting (for example) an Ogre who could sweep a close burst or ground-pound and knock people down over... a bag of HP with a low AC and highish damage output.

Then again, there was also the worst encounter I have ever had the misfortune to play - A 4e fight against the Demilich Acererak in the 4e version of Tomb of Horrors. In which, the Demilich could stun most of the party... but only did something like 9 damage on average (to our ~100 HP). A full TWENTY-TWO ROUNDS of boring hell.

Of course, it was easy to fix. When I ran the same encounter for my own players, I had rebuilt the Demilich into an exciting spinning disco-ball of DEATH.

So... sometimes I think I remember my 4e Monster Mods over what 4e actually offered. Like how many of us 4e DMs knocked HP and/or defenses down, and increased monster DPR. The game was much better for it.

Yep, I routinely increased damage, adjusted hit points, and added features to 4e monsters.

 

[Stalker0]

I think we sometimes have some misplaced nostalgia for 4e monsters. There are a lot of boring 4e monsters to go along with the grindy ones (solos). Solos didn't really improve until MM3 (and they did other things to make them a little less varied too, i,e, worse IMO). I think in general "elites" were the best designed. 5e "solos' in general are better than 4e solos IMO.

I am talking even regular monsters though.

Take the lowly kobold for example. You had the kobolds slingers that had several different projectiles, from reducing attacks, to lighting you on fire, or immobilizing you to the floor with glue.

Kobolds in 4e are crafty! 5e kobolds just pile up and attack targets.

Now goblins in 5e do get that shifty kind of action with disengage as a bonus action, which is similar to what 4e kobolds got at base. But again 4e goblins like the sniper could attack from hiding and stay hidden while missing, which made them extra stealthy and difficult to deal with. Or goblin warriors got extra damage when moving 20 feet, encouraging them to move around the battlefield and attack different targets, rather than just focusing on a single one.


The fact that you immediately go to the elites and solos is I think telling. In 5e terms, only the legendries really get any kind of interesting mechanics. In 4e, even the lowly monsters often got some cool unique tricks to play with.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, This is called: "Good Enough".

D&D has the largest network effect of players and GM's. It is by far the easiest RPG to find a game to play in, or to find players for.

People just want to game, and as long as the system is good enough that it does not actively hinder the path of least resistance; that's what they'll do.

The game works for me. No other game I've looked into comes all that close and even if I changed genres it wouldn't do much more than change the set dressing of the games I run. I don't think good enough is a bad thing, there is no such thing as perfect especially when you want to get 4-7 people with different perspectives and desires to play a game.

Largest Network Effect + Good Enough = No can Defend.

I have no idea what you're saying unless it's "D&D is popular so therefore I can dismiss the opinion of everyone who actually likes the game as just being sheeple."

 

[Oofta]

I'm sure you're right, but there was something much more dynamic about fighting (for example) an Ogre who could sweep a close burst or ground-pound and knock people down over... a bag of HP with a low AC and highish damage output.

Then again, there was also the worst encounter I have ever had the misfortune to play - A 4e fight against the Demilich Acererak in the 4e version of Tomb of Horrors. In which, the Demilich could stun most of the party... but only did something like 9 damage on average (to our ~100 HP). A full TWENTY-TWO ROUNDS of boring hell.

Of course, it was easy to fix. When I ran the same encounter for my own players, I had rebuilt the Demilich into an exciting spinning disco-ball of DEATH.

So... sometimes I think I remember my 4e Monster Mods over what 4e actually offered. Like how many of us 4e DMs knocked HP and/or defenses down, and increased monster DPR. The game was much better for it.

Some of the worst aspects of 4E, especially at epic levels, was to give the PCs all these cool toys and then make reasons the PCs couldn't use them. Denial of action is not engaging most of the time, it's just boring. A lot of monster abilities in 4E revolved around denial of action.

Still a bit of an issue in 5E, especially at higher levels when basically every humanoid monster is really just a lich with a label change. Easy to fix and I always swap out a few of the lich's spells, but just once in a while I'd like to have some official high level monsters that weren't the same lich stat block copy/pasted that were not huge or larger.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Some of the worst aspects of 4E, especially at epic levels, was to give the PCs all these cool toys and then make reasons the PCs couldn't use them. Denial of action is not engaging most of the time, it's just boring. A lot of monster abilities in 4E revolved around denial of action.

Still a bit of an issue in 5E, especially at higher levels when basically every humanoid monster is really just a lich with a label change. Easy to fix and I always swap out a few of the lich's spells, but just once in a while I'd like to have some official high level monsters that weren't the same lich stat block copy/pasted that were not huge or larger.

Yeah, one of the things that I remove from monsters right away is the ability to stun PCs. If you're gonna miss your turn in my games, it's because you've been knocked to 0HP, or because you choose to do nothing (though no one really does that).

 

[SteveC]

So the question I have for the OP (and others who feel the same way) is: what's next.

I am backing the Weird Wizard Kickstarter which I think will scratch the same sort of itch as far as adventures go. I am curious about Daggerheart too. I'm currently running PF2, but that game is also heading in a direction that doesn't interest me. All things considered, what do you think you'll want to do next?