D&D 5E A New Culture?

[Ilbranteloth]

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

It's also more difficult to quantify. You can describe your cool adventures and stuff, but good role-playing is one of the things where you really kind of have to be there to appreciate. You don't really get to talk about the role-playing - instead you're getting the narrative. That's not to say it can't be done, it's just not as easy when you're dealing with numbers and math.

Optimizing is very quantifiable. "Hey, I just noticed that a furfflemaker with a left-handed persmiddle can get a third swizzle if they also take the milliputting and quantumizing feats."

Woah! That's way OP. You should never be able to get a third swizzle.

 

[Shasarak]

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.

I think you are right, Warpiglet. This does seem to be a new phenomenon.

 

[Greg Benage]

Just the fact that in AD&D, you would have 6-9 rounds before you'd actually die. And all anybody had to do was just "tend" to you, no skills, no healer's kits, etc.

Well, you didn't stop at zero and start to bleed out. You could go to -10, dead, in one hit. In 5e, it'd be like a monster hitting you so hard you lose your hit points and auto-fail three death saves.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Well, you didn't stop at zero and start to bleed out. You could go to -10, dead, in one hit. In 5e, it'd be like a monster hitting you so hard you lose your hit points and auto-fail three death saves.

Nope. That's what people think. DMG pg 82: "When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0)."

So you did stop at zero unless you wanted to use an optional rule that could put you at -3.

There were certainly save or die moments, but damage from combat wasn't one of them. You had (as written) at least 6 rounds before you died.

 

[Greg Benage]

Nope. That's what people think. DMG pg 82: "When any creature is brought to 0 hit points (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0)."

So you did stop at zero unless you wanted to use an optional rule that could put you at -3.

There were certainly save or die moments, but damage from combat wasn't one of them. You had (as written) at least 6 rounds before you died.

I know some people interpret it that way (maybe it's even the "correct" interpretation), but I never knew anyone who played it that way. Here's the passage:

"When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."

Our interpretation: If you're brought to exactly 0 hit points (optionally -3, commonly house ruled -Con bonus), unlike OD&D (and Basic), you're unconscious and bleeding instead of dead. If an attack knocked you below 0 (or -3, or negative Con bonus, or negative 10), you're dead. In later years, I imagined this was a riff on Gary's house rule for OD&D: "PCs are unconscious at 0 hp. They can go as low as level +1 before death. (e.g. a 4th level fighter can be brought as low as -5 hp and just be unconscious.)"

Did anyone else play by the "drop to 0 and start bleeding regardless of how much damage you took" interpretation?

ETA: And yeah, PHB 34: "Each character has a varying number of hit points, just as monsters do. These hit points represent how much damage (actual or potential) the character can withstand before being killed." And PHB 105: "Damage is meted out in hit points. If any creature reaches 0 or negative hit points, it is dead." So then the DMG adds the unconsciousness rule at zero hit points (or up to -3). Still dead if lower. Pretty sure we had it right...

 

[MechaPilot]

Just the fact that in AD&D, you would have 6-9 rounds before you'd actually die. And all anybody had to do was just "tend" to you, no skills, no healer's kits, etc.

Yes, in 5e RAW, there's about a 60% chance that you'll survive on your own, so that is more generous. But AD&D wasn't as deadly as people seem to think in that regard. And in 5e, for a character to help you, it requires an ability check or a healer's kit. So that's different.

Doesn't having 6-9 rounds before you die depend on you being reduced to exactly zero HPs and not taking any further damage?

 

[Xeviat]

I definitely prefer the best of both worlds in the way I tweak the system and attempt to find balance. For instance, in the OP's first post, they say they may choose a short sword over a rapier for the aesthetics. That's fine. That's cool even. So, as a DM, I may seek to reward the choice so it's not weaker than the others. Maybe light weapons get +1 to hit, as they're easier to control. Maybe martial weapon proficiency gives you a bonus with simple weapons, so they aren't just inferior weapons you never touch? If the choices in the game are more numerous and more meaningful, then "off-type" characters get rewarded.

There's also a bad side to the "I do what I want" crowd. I've played with a few players who would go out of their way to make ineffective characters. It was fun to them, to the detriment of other's play.

It's really about finding a way to play that works for the whole table. Some groups really like to build characters and roleplay them in depth, where the DM crafts everything around their characters so weak choices aren't penalized. Some groups like to push the system hard, make the most optimal characters they can, and play with a DM who puts them through the ringer. As long as everyone is playing for the same reason, or close to the same reason, then everyone has fun.

 

[Ancalagon]

There's also a bad side to the "I do what I want" crowd. I've played with a few players who would go out of their way to make ineffective characters. It was fun to them, to the detriment of other's play.

I think it depends on degrees here. "Suboptimal" is not a binary state. If someone wants to make a rock gnome battlemaster, I say let them. But for some people that would be an intolerable amount of "below optimal"-ness. They would see it as trolling.

On the other hand, you can have someone build, say, a bard with no con bonus, no defensive magical item, no defensive spell, ok-ish dex and almost no armor (this was in 3e) and you have an *extremely* vulnerable party member that has to be protected at almost all times. Most people would find that quite annoying... but still not everyone! Some people would say "why not!".

(it wasn't done on purpose btw, that player had very poor system mastery, and that's bad in 3e...).

I do like in 5e that it's easy to make a decent character with limited system mastery - all you need is a dm steering you away from a few bad options and voila.

Anyway - character creation should not be a mini-game IMO, it's bad for the game as a whole.

 

[Lanefan]

Just the fact that in AD&D, you would have 6-9 rounds before you'd actually die. And all anybody had to do was just "tend" to you, no skills, no healer's kits, etc.

Yes, in 5e RAW, there's about a 60% chance that you'll survive on your own, so that is more generous. But AD&D wasn't as deadly as people seem to think in that regard. And in 5e, for a character to help you, it requires an ability check or a healer's kit. So that's different.

Or somebody to pop you up with a healing word...

 

[Lanefan]

I know some people interpret it that way (maybe it's even the "correct" interpretation), but I never knew anyone who played it that way. Here's the passage:

"When any creature is brought to 0 hit poinis (optionally as low as -3 hit points if from the same blow which brought the total to 0), it is unconscious. In each of the next succeeding rounds 1 additional (negative) point will be lost until -10 is reached and the creature dies."

Our interpretation: If you're brought to exactly 0 hit points (optionally -3, commonly house ruled -Con bonus), unlike OD&D (and Basic), you're unconscious and bleeding instead of dead. If an attack knocked you below 0 (or -3, or negative Con bonus, or negative 10), you're dead. In later years, I imagined this was a riff on Gary's house rule for OD&D: "PCs are unconscious at 0 hp. They can go as low as level +1 before death. (e.g. a 4th level fighter can be brought as low as -5 hp and just be unconscious.)"

Did anyone else play by the "drop to 0 and start bleeding regardless of how much damage you took" interpretation?

Not here. First time I ever saw anything like that was 5e.

We play 1e, and we've always had death at -10; if damage taken puts you anywhere between 0 and -9 inclusive you need to succeed on rolling under your Con score modified by your current h.p. in order to remain conscious*. Unconscious characters bleed out at a faster rate than conscious characters. At -10 you die, unless someone quickly hits you with "Death's Door" and you succeed on a dice roll that within a round or two becomes nearly impossible; and then it does become impossible. If the original damage puts you straight to -13 or worse, "Death's Door" doesn't have a chance even if applied immediately.

* - so, if your Con is 14 and you've gone down to -5 you need to roll 9 or less to stay conscious. Conscious characters below 0 are at big minuses to do almost anything, and risk passing out on doing anything strenuous or on attempting a spell.

Lan-"while simple in concept, in practice 'Death's Door' is one of the most mechanically complicated spells we have"-efan