D&D 5E Historical Problems and 5E

[transtemporal]

Sacred flame to kill a kobold who does 1d4+3 damage, is better than spending a spell slot to heal for 1d4+3. Next time you see a girl about to be smashed, don't think "oh crap, I need to save my slots to heal", instead cast sanctuary, command (flee), or silence. You get more milage out of it.

Totally, the best defense is a good offense. Healing should be an emergency option when everything goes south.

Life cleric being an exception.

And even then, I still think its more efficient to attack even as a life cleric (unless you're roleplaying a pacifist or something).

 

[Hussar]

/snip

So F.A.T.A.L. is a good system because the DM can fix it, right? Or maybe there comes a point where fixing a system is such a tiring element of running it that it ceases to be worth it and people move on to systems that can be run without needing to rewrite half the material. "The DM can fix it" is in my experience mostly commonly used to deflect criticism without addressing any arguments because it can be blithely stated about any system ever printed. I think there was even a name given to that fallacy but I can't remember it offhand at the moment.

You're making a good point here, but, here is the other side of the issue. Some of the problems with an edition stem from a group's chosen way of playing. Take one of the common criticisms of 5e, that combat is too easy and the monsters aren't dangerous enough.

Fair enough. It's a valid criticism, if you insist on 1-3 encounters per day. The game flat out states that you're supposed to do 6-8 per day, but, we get DM's insisting that the game is borked because it doesn't support their 1-3 encounter per day pacing.

Now, is that a mechanical issue or a DMing one? Well, truth be told, it's both. It all depends on how you want to look at it. So, no, sometimes the DM really can fix it. Sometimes the DM can't.

In a system like 5e which relies on the DM so heavily to adjudicate the mechanics, you can't really absolve DM's from problems in the game.

 

[James Stoneking]

I didn't like the way 4e catered to the generation raised on video games. Anything other than combat was over-simplified, and party composition centered around roles (striker/tank/controller, etc)... woe be unto the party that didn't meet the "ideal" character mix. As a DM,it made encounter-creation very easy on me, but in my world not everything is solved at the point of a sword and 4e fell apart if you weren't rolling initiative. 5e has pretty much addressed those issues, I think.

 

[Dualazi]

You're making a good point here, but, here is the other side of the issue. Some of the problems with an edition stem from a group's chosen way of playing. Take one of the common criticisms of 5e, that combat is too easy and the monsters aren't dangerous enough.

Fair enough. It's a valid criticism, if you insist on 1-3 encounters per day. The game flat out states that you're supposed to do 6-8 per day, but, we get DM's insisting that the game is borked because it doesn't support their 1-3 encounter per day pacing.

Now, is that a mechanical issue or a DMing one? Well, truth be told, it's both. It all depends on how you want to look at it. So, no, sometimes the DM really can fix it. Sometimes the DM can't.

In a system like 5e which relies on the DM so heavily to adjudicate the mechanics, you can't really absolve DM's from problems in the game.

For sure, and I didn't mean to imply that a DM can't or shouldn't adjust the game to account for the group's playstyle and preferences, merely that the ability to do so doesn't erase existing imbalances or flaws. As I said in the quote you posted, it's about determining the threshold at which it becomes too burdensome to bring the game in line with your groups expectations, which is true going both backwards and forwards in editions.

As to the last sentence, I still somewhat disagree. As I said in my original response to CCS, I feel that casters have been curtailed thanks to lower spell slots and the implementation of concentration, neither of which rely on DM interpretation. That's the ideal goal I think, where the rules are good enough to not need massive overhauls but roomy enough for DMs to still control the experience as needed.

 

[FrogReaver]

I didn't like the way 4e catered to the generation raised on video games. Anything other than combat was over-simplified, and party composition centered around roles (striker/tank/controller, etc)... woe be unto the party that didn't meet the "ideal" character mix. As a DM,it made encounter-creation very easy on me, but in my world not everything is solved at the point of a sword and 4e fell apart if you weren't rolling initiative. 5e has pretty much addressed those issues, I think.

I thought we were done edition warring?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gadget]

AD&D pretty much had "Who's going to play the cleric?" issue. The difference between party with a Cleric and one without was very dramatic in terms of staying power alone. There was also the reliance on magic items for the mundane type classes. 3e tried to make up for this by giving the cleric more options and the ability to swap out healing spells for other types, and unknowingly created a monster, as a cleric that buffed herself to the nines could be a terror to behold.

I think 5e (4e as well, truth be told) has solved this by spreading out healing resources among several classes, short rest hit dice recovery, second wind and such, this is not longer the problem it once was. The 'Christmas Tree' or 'golf bag' magic item issues is much less than it was. I'm think opinions will vary on how much LFQW issue has been solved. I definitely feel the 'bloat' problem of the last couple of editions has been curtailed.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Gadget]

Disagree, slightly, as to the characterization of magic items in AD&D. It wasn't just for mundane characters. Instead, magic items were more akin to how we view class abilities now. There were numerous magic items, many "gated" by class, and your character was often defined by the magic items that they accumulated through their adventures; in other words, character creation was less of a design issue (what do I want this character to be at 10th level) and more of a hodgepodge of their experiences.

Fair enough. I can't really disagree with any of that. Who doesn't fondly remember their fighter with the Rod of Lordly Might and Cape of the Mountebank proudly? I think it was really in 3e that the 'Christmas Tree' and 'golf bag' syndrome reached its peak. I will add that AD&D did kind of suffer from the endless, "more pluses", arms race. What's that? another +1 weapon? Throw it back, we only keep ones that are at least +3! Having Magic Items be more of a story/treasure reward rather than the 'magic item shop' of later editions made it more tolerable IMHO. I'm kind of digging the fact that in 5e, you could actually limit the plus to 1 or zero and just add interesting effects to the weapons/armor to keep the 'arms race' in check.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Agreed that the Cleric was the primary source of healing, and as such, there was a nearly-universal role for the Cleric in parties.

The cleric was the primary source of healing, if you had one. You could also play the game without a cleric, in which case there was more emphasis placed on avoiding damage, and you needed a couple of weeks to heal up between fights. It wasn't the worst or most-disruptive thing in the world, if it was a three week trek between dungeons anyway.