D&D 5E Is 5e Heroic, or SUPER-heroic?

[oriaxx77]

On your topic, the superhero question:

Are D&D characters powerful? Yep compared to e.g. DSA characters they are (most of the times).

Their magic capabilities are very high on higher XP levels.
Are they superheroes though? Well, let us see:

• Fly at will, through outer space if needed? No, unless you are of a winged race, and then it is only maneuverability class B
• X-ray vision or the like? Nope. You got some divination skills though for certain caster classes.
• Being really inhumane strong, like able to lift and move a whole truck? No. They are far stronger than most world elite professional athlets, but they are not "Superman"
• Invulnerable? No, though they can take in their package of hurt.

So they are above the things that normal IRL people could accomplish, and above many characters in other - more low magic, realistic and gritty - systems. But they are not "marvel-class" beings.

Are they heroes then? Hm, I would say that is dependent on their deeds also isn't it? If they are evil aligned and out for no good they could be villains as well , no?

My high level wizard kicked Spiderman’s ass. It is not Superman but still a superhero so I think it counts.

 

[Coroc]

My high level wizard kicked Spiderman’s ass. It is not Superman but still a superhero so I think it counts.

Yea there you see, it is all about definition. E.g. Batman uses only technology and his athletics, so in theory every ordinary being investing in sports and having access to his tech shenanigans could be like Batman. So I can conclude now every normal being can be a superhero, since D&D characters most often are extraordinary already, every D&D character could be a superhero too?

 

[Flamestrike]

Session length has nothing to do with the adventuring day. Correct. Most groups choose to combine session length with the adventuring day.

1) Do you have any proof this is the case?
2) Even if this is the case, that's the fault of those groups. The rules are not: 'at the start of the session your PCs resources are all fully recharged.' If groups ARE choosing to refresh all abilities at the start of every session (as if a Long rest had occurred between sessions) that's the group not following the actual rules of the game.

That most groups do not have long adventuring days. They have one, two, sometimes three encounters and then they rest.

And if you're the DM of a Group that only has 1-3 encounters before resting 8 hours, you should be using the Gritty realism rest variant. That way your overnight rests are Short rests, and you need a full week back at base to Long rest.

At the end of the day Groups that are only getting 1-3 encounters between Long rests, are doing so by consent of the DM. If the DM is allowing the 5 minute adventuring day, and it's causing problems, then that's on the DM.

You are correct, in time sensitive dungeons or areas, those spells only provide a safe long rest, but it might also mean that the PC's don't "win." But, again, I would argue that time sensitivity is not the norm for a lot of groups. And that would push my original point - long adventuring days are rarer than short adventuring days.

So now we have a hypothetical group where:

1) The DM refuses to put the PCs on the clock
2) The DM allows 'free of charge' Long rest recharges at the start of every session, regardless of if the PCs actually rested or not
3) The DM refuses to apply any of the rest variants from the DMG
4) The DM ignores the 'adventuring day' XP guidelines from the DMG

That DM cant exactly complain when things go a little out of whack. The DM is ignoring the DMG guidelines, refusing to police the Adventuring day or resource replenishment (in a Resource management game), and is even making active decisions to allow free Long Rest's at the start of every session, despite that not being an actual rule of the game.

You keep saying this is the 'norm'. What evidence do you have to back this claim up?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

In our games there isn't any correlation between adventuring days and sessions - typically I end a session on a cliff-hanger "roll for initiative".

But, just because of the sort of stuff we enjoy, our games are heavy on the exploration and social pillars, and there are often several in game days between combat encounters. As such, I usually balance combat encounters around deadly - I assume the party is fully rested. This clearly favours certain classes in combat over others, but, since combat isn't a huge part of the game, no one cares if character X is better than character Y in a fight.

But I wouldn't try to claim that our game is typical.

 

[Flamestrike]

But, just because of the sort of stuff we enjoy, our games are heavy on the exploration and social pillars, and there are often several in game days between combat encounters. As such, I usually balance combat encounters around deadly - I assume the party is fully rested. This clearly favours certain classes in combat over others, but, since combat isn't a huge part of the game, no one cares if character X is better than character Y in a fight.

But I wouldn't try to claim that our game is typical.

Why dont you use the Gritty rest variant instead? You'd get the same effect without unbalancing classes?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Why dont you use the Gritty rest variant instead? You'd get the same effect without unbalancing classes?

A) Gritty doesn't make much difference if there are several days between fights,

B) Players don't care about balance because combat isn't the main focus of the game,

C) Gritty doesn't match the tone of our game.

 

[pemerton]

Do you have any proof this is the case?

<snip>

You keep saying this is the 'norm'. What evidence do you have to back this claim up?

I don't think anyone has done the sort of social/marketing research that would be needed to prove this point, except perhaps WotC. But I agree with @Scott Christian that it is a plausible conjecture. A lot of posts I read seem to make more sense taking this as a premise.

Even if this is the case, that's the fault of those groups.

<snip>

At the end of the day Groups that are only getting 1-3 encounters between Long rests, are doing so by consent of the DM. If the DM is allowing the 5 minute adventuring day, and it's causing problems, then that's on the DM.

Were the issues of "fault" and "problems" raised? But anyway, I can see how a group could (i) favour session = "adventuring day" (this was a convention in Moldvay Basic, for instance) and have short/long rest balance issues and prefer a different solution from the record-keeping one.

In a different context, and a different system, in the second of the two long (9-ish years) Rolemaster campaigns I ran, we adjusted a few aspects of the system which made a nova-ing spell user about as powerful as a dedicated warrior. This way we could keep the in-game time conventions around recovery, and maintain the in-game pace of events we wanted (which were not at all dungeon-esque), without casters overshadowing non-casters.

D&D doesn't have the same dial to twist as we did in RM, but my own experience does give me sympathy for the sort of group I described above.

 

[Flamestrike]

A) Gritty doesn't make much difference if there are several days between fights,

Yes it does.

Seeing as you need an entire week of downtime and rest to gain a Long rest, it means you're much more likely going to get short rests before (and after) encounters than you are going to get long rests before (and after) encounters.

 

[Flamestrike]

D&D doesn't have the same dial to twist as we did in RM,

5E actually has a lot more dials to twist than RM.

You can alter class balance by altering (short/long) rest variance as well as by granting more (or fewer) rests.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Yes it does.

Seeing as you need an entire week of downtime and rest to gain a Long rest, it means you're much more likely going to get short rests before (and after) encounters than you are going to get long rests before (and after) encounters.

You miss the point. We don't have "down time" between fights. Between fights is when most of the game happens.