D&D 5E Clay Golem HP Drain

[The Hitcher]

I'm going to try and simplify the replies into categories...

How about we just agree that we might have fairly different priorities for our games? I'm pretty pleased that most of 5E is aligning to mine, but I can imagine that I would be frustrated if I felt it wasn't supporting my playstyle (which is exactly how I felt about 4E).

One of the great things about 5E is its flexibility. It can't possibly please everyone, but it does make a noble effort to allow each DM to change things to suit their own game. Of course in order to do that, you do have to be prepared to read the rules and single out the things that don't work for you. And if THAT'S not acceptable to you, then there's going to be a problem.

 

[I'm A Banana]

Here KM, I'll save you a bit of trouble.

I just went through the Basic DM doc and the Hoard of the Dragon Queen Document searching for "Greater Restoration" to find all the monsters you can't use.

The bottom line is that if it doesn't work for the party in question, you can ignore those few words and your players likely won't even know the difference.

One of the great things about 5E is its flexibility. It can't possibly please everyone, but it does make a noble effort to allow each DM to change things to suit their own game. Of course in order to do that, you do have to be prepared to read the rules and single out the things that don't work for you. And if THAT'S not acceptable to you, then there's going to be a problem.

These are all minor variations on the "DM can fix anything!' point.

As I pointed out in my above responses: Why should I have to fix it at all to get it to run how it says it can be run? The game implies I can have a party of 3 fighters, and implies I can use the clay golem as a monster, but now those two parts that it says work fine don't work fine together, and that's somehow MY problem? No dice. They should either be telling me I shouldn't have a party of 3 fighters up front, or they should be letting that party of 3 fighters work when facing a clay golem, too.

I guess I just don't see why the book needs to explicitly tell you that "If situation X", then "In order for a better play experience for those particular PCs, your clay golems can be different."

If the game presumes PC roles, it should be explicit about that.

If it doesn't presume PC roles, it shouldn't have bottlenecks like this.

 

[SkidAce]

"You can either make the game do what you want it to, or you can have an experience you might not want to have" is not a choice I'm interested in making. I'll just go play a game (or do something else) that already gives me an experience I want to have without me having to force it, thanks. This thing is supposed to be fun, and naked manipulation is always not fun and massive unexpected PC casualties are also not fun.

I don't know...

Had several games since basic d&d similar to your example. All thieves, fighter and thief, (Fafrd and Gray Mouser) even a group of wizard apprentices (granted one multi-classed with cleric).

Of course the DM tailored the adventure, the word, etc. Ohh and the mercenary company that was all fighters and rangers.

IMO its not so much "forcing it" as it is adjusting to your players...which IME, was expected and always done.

 

[Remathilis]

This thread has gone down to semantic hair splitting and people talking at, not to, each other. I'm done. I only take comfort in the fact that 5e does what I want it to and that the problem is yours and yours alone.

 

[wedgeski]

Personally, I enjoy the odd gotcha, as both a player and DM. I have players that don't like *any* surprises at all, but over the years I have come to see it as their problem, not mine!

In fact it was one of the things I most *liked* about 4E: even the most random cannon fodder could have some tricksy little power that would throw you off your game and force you to re-evaluate your tactics. I'm frankly bemused by any claims that 5E, by including such exceptions, is somehow a return to something that 4E lost. @-|

Anyway, I approve.

 

[Boarstorm]

Why should I have to fix it at all to get it to run how it says it can be run?

You don't. Let them run around with lowered maximum Hit Points.

I agree with Remathilis here. We're all talking past each other. This is the Internet. We should all know by now that it's impossible to change people's minds.

I'm sorry you're dissatisfied with things as they are, KM.

 

[ExploderWizard]

These are all minor variations on the "DM can fix anything!' point.

As I pointed out in my above responses: Why should I have to fix it at all to get it to run how it says it can be run? The game implies I can have a party of 3 fighters, and implies I can use the clay golem as a monster, but now those two parts that it says work fine don't work fine together, and that's somehow MY problem? No dice. They should either be telling me I shouldn't have a party of 3 fighters up front, or they should be letting that party of 3 fighters work when facing a clay golem, too.



If the game presumes PC roles, it should be explicit about that.

If it doesn't presume PC roles, it shouldn't have bottlenecks like this.

What bottleneck? Let the three fighters handle challenges they way they want.

There is no version of the game that does what you are asking of it. Why have you playing D&D so long if it never ever met your standards?

 

[Thaumaturge]

Unless, of course, he's carrying a whole bag of cold iron, silver and adamantine weapons, preferably all magical.

A minor note: I've looked through the Monster Manual a number of times. I don't think cold iron weapons are needed for any of the monsters in it. I've looked specifically for cold iron, and I didn't see it ever.

So a silver and an adamantine weapon seems to be all a character needs. And one magical one will replace those.

Thaumaturge.

 

[I'm A Banana]

What bottleneck? Let the three fighters handle challenges they way they want.

The bottleneck is, "If you don't want a permenantly crippled character after a fight with a clay golem, you must have someone in the party who can cast greater restoration."

And part of the issue there is that if that's true, the game doesn't really tell you that explicitly, so you get surprised and blindsided because you didn't read the minds of the game designers.

There is no version of the game that does what you are asking of it. Why have you playing D&D so long if it never ever met your standards?

4e presumed roles and was explicit about it, which would be a fine option for 5e, too (that'd be my second option above). They tell you you shouldn't have three fighters up front. If you went into a fight without a leader in 4e, you knew beforehand what you were getting into, because the game is clear that the four roles 4e has together make for a balanced party. You could still do it, but you KNEW you would have certain consequences, before they became problems. You can go in with your eyes wide open.

If 5e has roles, it doesn't ever mention them as far as I can see. Which means that you don't know you're going to have problems before those problems come up unless you are an excellent prognosticator.

I'm sorry you're dissatisfied with things as they are, KM.

the problem is yours and yours alone.

I don't know that "My guess is that the assumed magic item rules will allow basically any party to access greater restoration" qualifies as having a problem or being dissatisfied. In fact, quite the opposite: it will do what no version of D&D has yet done and finally liberate people to play the classes they want to play rather than the classes that someone MUST play.

My main objection is that I keep getting told that this is fine as it is and that I should accept this even without that because the DM fixes everything and role-less games suck and it is impossible to telegraph roles and none of those things are true.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The bottleneck is, "If you don't want a permenantly crippled character after a fight with a clay golem, you must have someone in the party who can cast greater restoration."

And part of the issue there is that if that's true, the game doesn't really tell you that explicitly, so you get surprised and blindsided because you didn't read the minds of the game designers.

What you choose to see as blindsided and crippled others may see as an opportunity for adventure! So now you have the three amigos down on hp maximum and desperate for a way to get their mojo back. There is a legend about a magical fountain to found in the nearby mountains. They say that those worthy enough to reach the fountain may benefit much by drinking from it.

Take lemons- make lemonade.

4e presumed roles and was explicit about it, which would be a fine option for 5e, too (that'd be my second option above). They tell you you shouldn't have three fighters up front. If you went into a fight without a leader in 4e, you knew beforehand what you were getting into, because the game is clear that the four roles 4e has together make for a balanced party. You could still do it, but you KNEW you would have certain consequences, before they became problems. You can go in with your eyes wide open.

If 5e has roles, it doesn't ever mention them as far as I can see. Which means that you don't know you're going to have problems before those problems come up unless you are an excellent prognosticator.

All that was done was cosmetic name changing. Just replace whole groups of specific classes with a role and you have the same stuff. Rather than waste valuable pages basically telling you that different classes have (GASP!) different strengths & weaknesses, the 5E team chose not to assume that the average interested D&D'er had been lobotomized and that a read through of the classes would paint a decent picture of what each class was and wasn't capable of.