D&D 5E The problem with 5e

[Crimson Longinus]

I am fine with D&D being more like an action movie and less like real life, but the standard rest rules are still too much for my disbelief suspenders to handle. With the 'gritty realism' variant we are getting close to something that I might consider acceptable in context of cinematic action genre.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

What are they to you then?

They indicate whether or not you are effective in combat, but they do nothing to measure how effective you are. Someone at 42/50 is not any more effective than someone at 34/50, or someone at 42/100, or someone at 7/7. We know this to be true, because the rules tell us this.

What Hit Points do measure, explicitly, is when and how badly you are hit. Someone at 34/50 has been hit twice as many times, or twice as severely, as someone at 42/50. Again, we know this because the rules tell us this.

 

[Helldritch]

@Oofta you should stream your games. Every thread that has complaints about 5E you're telling people that if they just run the game different, their problems are fixed. If you streamed your games, I'm sure they'd be valuable learning materials!

Yeah, but then people would know how horrible I am at accents. I couldn't stand the shaming I'd get from people not from midwestern USA when they realize how horrible my cockney brogue is.

If you have a serious question and not just a personal attack (because that would be against forum rules), that's a different thread. I can only relate my personal experience that 5E is as deadly as I want it to be.

I am fine with D&D being more like an action movie and less like real life, but the standard rest rules are still too much for my disbelief suspenders to handle. With the 'gritty realism' variant we are getting close to something that I might consider acceptable in context of cinematic action genre.

In these three posts, we have the entire resumé of this entire thread.
Yes people and a lot of them complain that 5ed is not deadly enough. This prompted many different solutions from them. Some are more or less a simple patch, others makes the game quite deadly for no reasons (IMHO). Others, the majority, are stuck with their perception and stick to rules.

I must've helped about 30 to 40 DM in making their games harder without resorting to too much house rules. Each time I have seen a combination of factors.
1) Not respecting the 6-8 encounters per day. Because of many reasons but mainly story (go figure) and pacing (go figure).
To these, I often refer to the rule @Oofta uses (short rest a day, long rest a week). It clears their problem.

2) They make the availability of rest soooo easy. All PC do are Novas...
This is also known as the 5 min work day. Again, I refer to the 6-8 encounters per day. But I also tell them to only allow a maximum of two short rests per day and a maximum of 1 long rest per day. Once done, if the players are not interested in adventuring further because the last nova drained them too much. Send as much encounters it will take to bring them to the 6-8 encounters. Rests can be interupted. A Tiny Hut can be dispeled or its position tracked downed (with skill or magic). Do not be above to add a shaman or an NPC humanoid able to track or both. Nothing is more stressful than to see a few encounters worth of humanoids massing around the hut and seeing them with a post sign: "We knaw ya're in there. Our shamaaan may not be able to dissipitate but his magick told him tha ya were thare! Come out adventurees!" My players did learn their lesson the hard way...

Second syndrome related to rest too easy. Monsters are static and wait for the PCs...
Yep, a lot of inexperienced DM will allow forays into the Dungeon and the players are safe when they leave. Have the inhabitants make seek and destroy teams to find the PCs. Have the kobolds prepare for the next foray. And, if their ploy fails, have them simply leave the area with all their treasures. That is hurting the players more than losing their characters.

3) The whack a mole syndrome.
Again, too lenient DM allows this tactics without doing anything about it. But there are no negatives! I often hear. So what? Intellingent monsters will first put down the one that was just upped. Make enough attacks so that he dies for sure (as in the character is at zero, so let's hit him three times to get over with his case once and for all). Then, they will concentrate on the damn healer.
Even non intelligent can make the whack a mole a bad thing. A wyvern is a predator. The character falls? GOOD! A GOOD MEAL! And whooppsies... wyvern wins the next initiative gobbles the PC and flies away...

As @Crimson Longinus said, D&D is about action heroes. I firmly believe that (I know, I tried other grittier systems) and I like D&D to be this way. But at the same time, healing overnight is a wee bit to extreme in the action hero genre for my tastes. That is why I do not allow healing overnight. You have to use your HD. Just that was enough for me. Other use rest variant, other use gritty realism. To each his own. But there are solutions that are not as drastic as crit and lingering injuries tables. Again, to each his own. But D&D can be deadly if you play by the rules, make the monster vivid and play them at their intelligence level. The real question is not if D&D is deadly, it is how deadly do you want it to be?

PS: The second question should be: "Why did the authors did not tell about these optional rules in the PHB?The rest variants, the grittty realism, the necessity of 6-8 encounters and no healing on long rest are easy enough to find in the DMG and do not take that much space...

 

[DND_Reborn]

They indicate whether or not you are effective in combat, but they do nothing to measure how effective you are. Someone at 42/50 is not any more effective than someone at 34/50, or someone at 42/100, or someone at 7/7. We know this to be true, because the rules tell us this.

I disagree but if you consider them so, no wonder you have problems with hit points.

Someone who is 90/100 (and has 90 hit point left) is much more effective in a fight than a PC that is 9/10 because if both were hit for 12 damage, the first would still be very effective, as where the other would be unconscious and making death saves. So, is the measure of how much "combat effectiveness" higher in the first PC than the second? IMO, yes.

Perhaps it is just the terminology that is an issue?

What Hit Points do measure, explicitly, is when and how badly you are hit. Someone at 34/50 has been hit twice as many times, or twice as severely, as someone at 42/100. Again, we know this because the rules tell us this.

Are you "hit" though? It is more that the "attack against you was effective" and consequently your effectiveness will be reduced by the amount rolled. When your hp equals 0 you are no longer effective in the fight-- you are out.

I am really not getting this example: "Someone at 34/50 has been hit twice as many times, or twice as severely, as someone at 42/100."

The first has suffered only 16 points of damage, and is at 68% of their maximum, as where the latter has sustained 58 points of damage and is only at 42% of their maximum. So, how has the first "been hit twice as many times, or twice as severely"?

 

[Oofta]

@Helldritch, good summation. I will just add (and yes, I'm repeating my super-nit-picky comment) that it generally only takes 2 strikes when a PC is down to kill them not 3. If someone is unconscious, you get advantage to hit and it's an automatic crit. Critical hits make you lose 2 death saves.

Two other quick thoughts. Focusing fire can make a huge difference. Too often monsters spread out their damage which is not effective.

The other is to target the squishies. Have monsters come in from multiple directions or simply ignore that guy in full plate with a shield. Kill the wizard in the back first. I actually have to remember to attack the tanks in my party now and then so they can have their moment in the sun when I miss.

I'm sure there's more, maybe someday I'll write down thoughts coherently enough to start a separate thread.

 

[DND_Reborn]

First, nice post.

I must've helped about 30 to 40 DM in making their games harder without resorting to too much house rules. Each time I have seen a combination of factors.
1) Not respecting the 6-8 encounters per day. Because of many reasons but mainly story (go figure) and pacing (go figure).
To these, I often refer to the rule @Oofta uses (short rest a day, long rest a week). It clears their problem.

For me #1 is about the story. When PCs are traveling, for example, they will typically have 1 or 2 encounters at most until they rest, so they can "go big" with less worry. Now, I throw a wrench into their plans by turning a random encounter into the beginning of the next adventure so that they "go big" and realize after the fact, "crap, we won't get a chance to rest and shouldn't have done that."

After a few times doing that, players tend to be more conservative with their features/spells/etc. and hasn't been a big issue really.

2) They make the availability of rest soooo easy. All PC do are Novas...

Yeah, I've gotten to the point I don't typically allow a short rest during an adventure (like in the caves, or whatever) and a long rest is only available when the PCs are done or retreat to relative safety. Nerfing spells like Leomund's Hut helps a lot, too.

 

[Zsong]

it’s a long post. If TLDR, whatevs. If interested read on.

—————————————————

The problem with 5e….is me.

I played a little redbox as a kid with the older kids on the street and later my lifelong pal. And by Jr High, we started playing some AD&D.
In High School we were joined by a few other guys that we went to grade school with. It was game on! Lots and lots of AD&D 1e. We did not like 2e for various reasons and skipped it. Fast forward to grad school and when I was home on break we kept playing….all summer long. All-nighters. It was glorious. None of us had serious relationships at that time so it was possible.

3e hit while I was working on a doctorate. I was far from home but my mind was blown when I saw half-orc paladins. Fresh from 1e, this was a revelation. Skipped 3.5 and 4e and fell into a black hole with little D&D. Our kids, marriages etc. took precedence but being back home and my lifelong buddies is a blessing. Now grizzled family dudes, the call of 5e was strong…our lives permitted at least monthly play. A new fantastic era!

So where is the problem?

I have loved 5e. I think much of it is brilliant. Not in the sense that it has revolutionary mechanics or some trendy elegance but in that it is easier to DM (I refused to DM 3e) and because it has inspired so much character development. We did what we could in 1e, but I have found the choices in 5e (backgrounds and subclasses) has been a goldmine of inspiration. I don’t mean to say that they have it all covered, but with some of my own ideas, they have it all covered. I have developed some novel stories and personalities.

My problem comes in with occasional
dissatisfaction about the level of danger in the game. It seems like people are healed quickly and unless it’s a TPK, it’s not as dangerous and getting beat down lasts a round or two max.
I also have some nostalgia for the logistics of old….worrying about running out of things like torches and food. Some things just seem easier now.

But that is when reality hits me. When we were younger, the way we really got far was by DM fiat. Sure, you could get level drained and miss a death save but more broadly, the DM moderated some consequences so we could have a longer term meaningful story vs. a meatgrinder of anonymous jerks. In short, 5e has merely codified this fiat into the rules. It may not be that different, really.

In terms of moving forward I need to alter my expectations and be clear about what changes might give us a little more sense of danger. For one, it would not take much to make healing a little less automatic. Maybe long rests don’t take care of everything. Perhaps, long rests allow us to expend hit dice…or something. I have to think that through.

The other thing that can at times be frustrating is the power of missile weapons. We don’t tend to favor them as a group but I know the issue exists. In this context, we need to make sure we are not the problem. I think it makes sense to count arrows and make sure what is carried is reasonable and not just “OK” handwaving generous encumbrance rules.

Additionally, I think very careful application of cover rules need to be applied. Firing past a rank of friendlies actively fighting should lead to some penalty if the enemy is in their face. I would want to see partial cover etc. applied routinely here.

In a like vein, the ubiquity of dex builds, if they bother you, are mitigated by actually looking at encumbrance and ammunition accounting (IMHO, to an extent).

In short, for me to get the most enjoyment out of 5e I believe a little stricter approach to the rules that exist, the application of common sense (e.g. encumbrance) and so forth. But ultimately, I need to change my expectations.

I look back fondly at AD&D 1e since it seems to have been grittier and more dangerous. Maybe it was. But the truth is that we house ruled and DMed way into a game with consequences but only occasional death. We made some bad decisions and died more than a few times. Saving or trying to save a friend from tunnels full of ghouls is admirable but perhaps not always doable (found out the hard way). And playing with an evil party and experimenting with a deck of many things after the players (the real people!) have been drinking beers to early morning hours will do that as well!

Ultimately the problem with my enjoyment at times (not too frequent) I think is due to nostalgia and fairy tales I tell myself about older editions. Having said this “out loud” I am very ready to get back to playing with less negative self-talk to get in the way. Our characters are probably going to survive. And its OK.

I love the ad&d rules for firing into melee and even use them in 5E games. It so changes the way the game plays. Also throw in zero hp means death. Ah, the good times. It’s fun to experiment with 5E and a few older rules. But I hope you have a heck of a great time playing 1E. We still do.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Two other quick thoughts. Focusing fire can make a huge difference. Too often monsters spread out their damage which is not effective.

Yep, this is important, too. The PCs focus fire, and the monsters can, too.

 

[Zsong]

In these three posts, we have the entire resumé of this entire thread.
Yes people and a lot of them complain that 5ed is not deadly enough. This prompted many different solutions from them. Some are more or less a simple patch, others makes the game quite deadly for no reasons (IMHO). Others, the majority, are stuck with their perception and stick to rules.

I must've helped about 30 to 40 DM in making their games harder without resorting to too much house rules. Each time I have seen a combination of factors.
1) Not respecting the 6-8 encounters per day. Because of many reasons but mainly story (go figure) and pacing (go figure).
To these, I often refer to the rule @Oofta uses (short rest a day, long rest a week). It clears their problem.

2) They make the availability of rest soooo easy. All PC do are Novas...
This is also known as the 5 min work day. Again, I refer to the 6-8 encounters per day. But I also tell them to only allow a maximum of two short rests per day and a maximum of 1 long rest per day. Once done, if the players are not interested in adventuring further because the last nova drained them too much. Send as much encounters it will take to bring them to the 6-8 encounters. Rests can be interupted. A Tiny Hut can be dispeled or its position tracked downed (with skill or magic). Do not be above to add a shaman or an NPC humanoid able to track or both. Nothing is more stressful than to see a few encounters worth of humanoids massing around the hut and seeing them with a post sign: "We knaw ya're in there. Our shamaaan may not be able to dissipitate but his magick told him tha ya were thare! Come out adventurees!" My players did learn their lesson the hard way...

Second syndrome related to rest too easy. Monsters are static and wait for the PCs...
Yep, a lot of inexperienced DM will allow forays into the Dungeon and the players are safe when they leave. Have the inhabitants make seek and destroy teams to find the PCs. Have the kobolds prepare for the next foray. And, if their ploy fails, have them simply leave the area with all their treasures. That is hurting the players more than losing their characters.

3) The whack a mole syndrome.
Again, too lenient DM allows this tactics without doing anything about it. But there are no negatives! I often hear. So what? Intellingent monsters will first put down the one that was just upped. Make enough attacks so that he dies for sure (as in the character is at zero, so let's hit him three times to get over with his case once and for all). Then, they will concentrate on the damn healer.
Even non intelligent can make the whack a mole a bad thing. A wyvern is a predator. The character falls? GOOD! A GOOD MEAL! And whooppsies... wyvern wins the next initiative gobbles the PC and flies away...

As @Crimson Longinus said, D&D is about action heroes. I firmly believe that (I know, I tried other grittier systems) and I like D&D to be this way. But at the same time, healing overnight is a wee bit to extreme in the action hero genre for my tastes. That is why I do not allow healing overnight. You have to use your HD. Just that was enough for me. Other use rest variant, other use gritty realism. To each his own. But there are solutions that are not as drastic as crit and lingering injuries tables. Again, to each his own. But D&D can be deadly if you play by the rules, make the monster vivid and play them at their intelligence level. The real question is not if D&D is deadly, it is how deadly do you want it to be?

PS: The second question should be: "Why did the authors did not tell about these optional rules in the PHB?The rest variants, the grittty realism, the necessity of 6-8 encounters and no healing on long rest are easy enough to find in the DMG and do not take that much space...

Because... you... actually... do... the... reading.

 

[Inchoroi]

In terms of moving forward I need to alter my expectations and be clear about what changes might give us a little more sense of danger. For one, it would not take much to make healing a little less automatic. Maybe long rests don’t take care of everything. Perhaps, long rests allow us to expend hit dice…or something. I have to think that through.

Here's my houserules to make things a bit more...interesting.

• Use variant encumbrance in the PHB--including coins. Not everyone's cup of tea, I understand, but its fun for our group and might be for yours.
• Failed death saving throws do not reset until you take a long rest or until you actually die; successful death saving throws do. If you actually die and are brought back via magic such as revivify, your death saves, both failed and successful, reset to 0.
• Lingering Injuries (I use the ones in a DMsGuild product called Xanathar's Guide to Everything Else and modified to suit our games, but the ones in the DMG are fine).
• The following are my changes to resting (I include all of it for the sake of completeness).

Resting
Heroic though you might be, your character can’t spend every hour of the day in the thick of exploration and adventure. You need to rest, time to sleep and eat, tend to your wounds, refresh your minds and spirits for spellcasting, and bracing yourself for future adventure.

Adventurers, as well as other creatures, can take short rests in the midst of a day and a long rest to end it. Adventurers can also take a very short breather to steel themselves for further danger.

Breather
You can take a short 5-minute-long break, quickly tending to wounds, quaffing potions, or similar actions. This is usually done when time is of the essence, such as in the midst of a dangerous dungeon where taking a longer rest would be impossible or inadvisable.

When you take a breather, you gain a level of exhaustion, but gain the benefits of taking a short rest during your 5-minute-long breather.

Short Rest
A short rest is a period of downtime, at least 1 hour long, during which a character does nothing more strenuous than eating, drinking, reading, and tending to wounds. A character can spend one or more Hit Dice at the end of a short rest, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character’s level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, the player rolls the die and adds the character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total (minimum of 0). The player can decide to spend an additional Hit Die after each roll. A character regains some spent Hit Dice upon finishing a long rest, as explained below.

Long Rest
A long rest is a period of extended downtime, at least 8 hours long, during which a character sleeps for at least 6 hours and performs no more than 2 hours of light activity, such as reading, talking, eating, or standing watch. If the rest is interrupted by a period of strenuous activity-at least 1 hour of walking, fighting, casting spells, or similar adventuring activity-the characters must begin the rest again to gain any
benefit from it.

During a long rest, a character regains no hit points. You can spend one or more hit dice to regain hit points, up to the character’s maximum number of Hit Dice, which is equal to the character’s level. For each Hit Die spent in this way, you roll the die and add your character’s Constitution modifier to it. The character regains hit points equal to the total (minimum of 0). You can choose to spend additional Hit Die after each roll.

At the end of your long rest, your character regains spend Hit Dice, up to a number of dice equal to half of the character’s total number of them (minimum of one die). A character can’t benefit from more than one long rest in a 24-hour period, and a character must have at least 1 hit point at the start of the rest to gain its benefits.