D&D 5E How much magic do you have in your game?

[doctorbadwolf]

Off topic, of course, but the problem with bounded accuracy is you have HP bloat to make up for it.

You either have high ACs or high HP--it is a problem either way IMO.

The game I’m working on has neither*, you just get better at not flubbing rolls, and and you can choose to get tougher instead of gaining other traits as you level. Enemies only get tougher if they are specifically tough enemies.

*it’s all skills so you do get more accurate, but it’s all dice so there is a diminished return after 5 or 6 ranks, and you can always roll low. No static mods means no auto success.

 

[dave2008]

As part of following through with it, I could see racial bonuses (and penalties) becoming non-numerical effects. Similarly, I would like to see magic items redesigned to create more wondrous effects rather than more numeric bonuses.

That is basically my point. 5e allows you to do that now, even if WotC didn't follow through. It is completely possible to design wonderous magical items in a way that wasn't really possible before. I tend to make my own magic items and though I initially fell into the trap of making some + magic items, I've completely abandon that now.

 

[dave2008]

Off topic, of course, but the problem with bounded accuracy is you have HP bloat to make up for it.

You either have high ACs or high HP--it is a problem either way IMO.

But does 5e have HP bloat? Compared to 1e & 2e, mostly yes. Compared to 3e and 4e, mostly no. In fact compared to 4e it has hit point contraction. 5e monsters in general have fewer hit points than 4e monsters and 5e PCs do more damage than their 4e counterparts.

Now maybe you were just talking about PC bloat. In which case I believe 5e is still a contraction from 4e (with Healing surges), but in general a bloat. I wouldn't mind seeing PCs have a lot less HP at higher levels, but the monsters seem fine to me.

 

[dave2008]

Also yes Bounded accuracy is the reason that 5e has so many monsters that are just giant bags of hit points.

Perhaps you don't understand what is meant when people say a monster is just a "bag of hit points." That description has less to do with the number of hit points than it has to do with what the monster can do. Does the monster have interesting things to do, can it threaten the PCs, etc. 5e monsters do not have significantly more HP (and often less) than 3e or 4e, both of which did not have BA. However, what 5e monsters are accused of is not being able to threaten PCs (you hear a lot of complaints that their CR is wrong / they aren't tough enough for their CR) and that they simply have basic attacks. That is why some claim 5e monsters are "bag of hit points," and it has nothing to do with BA.

FYI, this was also a claim in 4e, which didn't have BA. The issue is monster design, not BA

EDIT: and if you want to see a bunch of 5e monsters that are not just a bag of hit points, you can go here: 5e Hardcore Monsters. A bunch of DMG compliant monsters by myself and others that do more.

 

[DND_Reborn]

But does 5e have HP bloat? Compared to 1e & 2e, mostly yes. Compared to 3e and 4e, mostly no. In fact compared to 4e it has hit point contraction. 5e monsters in general have fewer hit points than 4e monsters and 5e PCs do more damage than their 4e counterparts.

Now maybe you were just talking about PC bloat. In which case I believe 5e is still a contraction from 4e (with Healing surges), but in general a bloat. I wouldn't mind seeing PCs have a lot less HP at higher levels, but the monsters seem fine to me.

I only really played 1E and 2E before (and older versions), my experience with 3E was very limited and I never even looked at 4E.

So, I can only compare the bloat to the editions I know. In which case, 5E has severe bloat (e.g. an Ogre going from AC "15"/HP 19 to AC 11/ HP 59!).

 

[dave2008]

I only really played 1E and 2E before (and older versions), my experience with 3E was very limited and I never even looked at 4E.

So, I can only compare the bloat to the editions I know. In which case, 5E has severe bloat (e.g. an Ogre going from AC "15"/HP 19 to AC 11/ HP 59!).

But it is in line with 3/5 of the editions. Which makes it part of the majority

 

[DND_Reborn]

But it is in line with 3/5 of the editions. Which makes it part of the majority

Not when you include the older pre-1E editions-- it is the minority.

 

[dave2008]

Not when you include the older pre-1E editions-- it is the minority.

Ya, though I never played 3e, that is really a clear demarcation between early D&D and neo-D&D. You kinda have to look at HP, AC, saves etc. differently before and after 3e/WotC

 

[dave2008]

I only really played 1E and 2E before (and older versions), my experience with 3E was very limited and I never even looked at 4E.

PS you should have looked at 4e, it was what brought me back to D&D after not getting into 2e & 3e (I started with 1e and BECMI), It felt more like D&D to me than 2e or 3e. But everyone has different feelings of course.

 

[DND_Reborn]

Ya, though I never played 3e, that is really a clear demarcation between early D&D and neo-D&D. You kinda have to look at HP, AC, saves etc. differently before and after 3e/WotC

VERY TRUE!!!

Ok, so I guess it is time for a derail...

Think of this: If you hit 60-70% of the time, "success" is really felt more when someone manages to defend, because it is a rarer occurrence, and thus feels more special because it is less likely. Hitting more often also slows down the game more with the DM and players having to adjust HP over and over again. This is especially true for DMs when controlling 5 or more monsters/NPCs.

Now, if you adjust things the other direction, where you hit 35-45% or so, definitely less than 50/50, hitting becomes more exciting because it is rarer. Also, you can reduce HP for monster by half at the same time and the game plays pretty much the same when it comes to combat.

I'm sure you might recall my prior threads on the topic and the house-rules our online group used for months with such things in mind? It worked great! People were hitting enough to not get frustrated, combat was faster in terms of bookkeeping but number of rounds was about the same (slightly less), and when you got hit it was a more frightening experience--you were actually concerned more quickly about your rapidly depleting HP. Spells took on more oomph and the increased power made them feel more special as well.

PS you should have looked at 4e, it was what brought me back to D&D after not getting into 2e & 3e (I started with 1e and BECMI), It felt more like D&D to me than 2e or 3e. But everyone has different feelings of course.

I glanced at it once--it was much too "fiddly" for me. I prefer fewer options and more imagination, personally, but I am glad it got you back into the game.