D&D (2024) 4e design in 5.5e ?

[UngeheuerLich]

You're, of course, free to ignore the pacing mechanisms in the game, but that doesn't mean they don't exist. What you do at your table is entirely up to you, but that's the choice you're making. You can't then back your choice up into the system and complain that it doesn't work how you do it because you're doing it differently. I mean, don't get me wrong, I'm not at all telling you that how you're playing is in any way wrong -- if you're having fun it's right for you.

I did not complain.
I just stopped playing 4e, because I did not like it anymore.
I am hapoy with 5e, because I use the DM option of a slightly longer long rest and now I am happy as I can be...

Edit: I just spoke up, because I don't want the 50th aniversary edition go back to a pacing as it was in 4e, and I want the different rest options right there in the PHB, to chose which one fits your game best.

Edit2:
So if you like encounter based resetting: long rest is 1 hour.
If you like daily reset: long rest is a night's sleep.
If you like even slower reset: you need a safe haven to rest, or something between a day and a week.

 

[overgeeked]

Ok... then you misunderstood me...
that was what I was thinking of you, because you speak about a "too easy game"...
so please explain to me, what do you mean with "too easy" if you don't talk about fighting monsters?

The listed DCs are too low for the easy access players get to skills and expertise. Resting is more like superhero regeneration, where practically everything is perfect after an 8 hour rest. The exploration pillar is basically non-existent, and what is there is laughably easy to skip with cantrips, class features, background features, etc.

The common refrain is "just make it harder" or "infinite dragons"...yeah, duh. The problem isn't whether DMs can make it harder, the problem is that the default easy mode that is 5E engenders a mindset in the players where they expect the game to be easy mode, so when they encounter DMs who want the game to be harder...not even hard, but even slightly harder than the default...the players freak out. Players swap characters to access the easy mode of things the DM wanted to be challenging or rage quit because the game isn't a cake walk. The default of the game should be in the middle somewhere, challenging but neither easy mode or hardcore mode. So that DMs can adjust easier without backlash from players. The baseline shouldn't be at LOL faceroll I win.

 

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Healing Surges were not just about the "daily pacing". There was a second, important part of it, which was related to ehaling surges and healing triggers and was about creating tension during a combat.

Someone pointed out that the effective hit points characters had during the day was not just the pure hit points, but the hit points +plus all the healing surges they had. During an individual encounter, the character's effective hitpoints where his hitpoints, plus all the healing surges he could potentially utilize during an encounter. And that was limited. WIthout any Leader or healing powers in the party, everyone just had Second Wind. WIth a Leader, you had at least two extra uses in the party.

The dynamic this creates is that you can get lowered to 0 hit pints and are close to dying, potentially in real trouble. If the leader or anyone else with a healing power can't make it in time, you're losing an action and get a step closer to death. Once the leader intervenes, you're back in the fight, though. During this time you're out (or even just close to out), there is rising tension followed by relief during combat even way before everyone is really out of hit points. "Will the next attack drop me to 0?" Will the healer get to me in time?" "Will I make this death saving throw?"
I think that was a pretty clever design, and I certainly prefer it over save or die spells which accomplished something similar in other editions of D&D (particularly D&D 3rd Edition). You're not just at the mercy of your dice, the party can do something about it, and it doesn't require special monsters and NPCs to be part of the game.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

The listed DCs are too low for the easy access players get to skills and expertise. Resting is more like superhero regeneration, where practically everything is perfect after an 8 hour rest. The exploration pillar is basically non-existent, and what is there is laughably easy to skip with cantrips, class features, background features, etc.

The common refrain is "just make it harder" or "infinite dragons"...yeah, duh. The problem isn't whether DMs can make it harder, the problem is that the default easy mode that is 5E engenders a mindset in the players where they expect the game to be easy mode, so when they encounter DMs who want the game to be harder...not even hard, but even slightly harder than the default...the players freak out. Players swap characters to access the easy mode of things the DM wanted to be challenging or rage quit because the game isn't a cake walk. The default of the game should be in the middle somewhere, challenging but neither easy mode or hardcore mode. So that DMs can adjust easier without backlash from players. The baseline shouldn't be at LOL faceroll I win.

I feel sorry for you, that you had such experiences.
Our games work well* and we did not experience anything you described here. But maybe our expectations are just different.
At least now I know, why you took my comment the wrong way.

Edit: *we switched to a one day long rest after noticing, that the default pacing did not work for us. But changing the times for long rests is right there in the DMG as an option. So we use one that is appropriate for our game.

 

[overgeeked]

Edit: I suspect the issue is more that players want contradictory things. They want to be challenged, but they also want to be free of restrictions and limitations. When you put these things together, and you don't really playtest, but you offer lots of surveys that aren't necessarily based on actual play (and given timeframes often couldn't possibly be to any great extent) then you get issues. I think it's related to what computer game designers mean when they talk about gamers optimising the fun out of games. (But note the loss of fun - it's not about players vs DMs, it's about players vs themselves; they make things less fun for themselves.).

That's fantastic. Thanks for sharing those links.

 

[Lanefan]

LOL

Again, very much not my experience. 1e and especially 2e, were the easiest editions in the game. Good grief, after about 4th or 5th level, the PC's could mop the floor with pretty much anything in the game. The only dangerous elements were save or die. Combat certainly wasn't.

The legions of mid-to-high level characters killed by combat in our games raise their now-skeletal hands to disagree.

Remember how a 1st level party could take on about 20 kobolds at the same time and win 9 out of 10 times? THAT'S what D&D used to be.

In your experience, maybe. Round here, if those PCs didn't have Sleep they'd be hosed*.

* - in fact I ran just this early this past summer: 1st-level party decided to take on a small village of about 20 Kobolds. Result: three characters dead and the other three fleeing for their lives, able to get away only because of their longer legs (a.k.a. higher move speed in game terms). I can't say this would turn out the same way every time, but the party's odds of winning were hella worse than 90%!

Sorry, but we are not going to agree on this. I found 1e and particularly 2e to be incredibly generous and easy mode games.

Generous in terms of treasure and item acquisition, yes. Also, however, much harder on said treasure and items when it came to keeping it in one piece; very much more an easy come easy go system than 3e-4e-5e are.

Easy mode? You must have had (or been) a softie DM.

3e? 3e was very lethal. That got dialed back in 4e but, 5e? I have zero problems whacking PC's in 5e. I'm actually a little shocked how easy it is.

We found 3e to be at roughly the same level of lethality as 1e, the way we played.

 

[Lanefan]

Let's agree with your opening point and say, sure, people are going to play the game however they want. It's when they do this and then blame the game for their poor experiences that's the issue. This isn't a 4e thing for me -- I've been making this same point about 5e. If you deviate from the way the game is designed, and tells you it's designed, and play it some other way, then this is on you, not the game. Yet, it's often attributed and complained about as the game's problem, to the point that there's a sub-thread here that games should be designed for everyone to play however they want when that's just not even close to feasible.

In other words, it's like blaming Monopoly because it's rules sucked when you tried to play it like Risk. I mean, that's clearly exaggeration, but it's the same point.

Thing is, unlike Monopoly, players and (particularly) DMs expect D&D to be robust enough in its design to handle some deviation from said design and remain playable.

The designers of Monopoly don't have to take kitbashers and homebrewers into account as, with a very few exceptions, those things aren't really prevalent in that game. But the designers of D&D have to respect and account for the kitbash tradition that's existed in D&D since day 1, and design with that firmly in mind.

This IMO is where both 3e and 4e failed (and maybe 5e also?); they tried to hard-code too much detail into the system, rather than simply designing a framework and stopping there, and failed to leave enough flexibility for kitbashers. Result: changing those systems to suit your table and have it still work well isn't easy at all; yet in the tradition of D&D it's something that should be.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Thing is, unlike Monopoly, players and (particularly) DMs expect D&D to be robust enough in its design to handle some deviation from said design and remain playable.

Yes, this is unwarranted and a problem. You've hit the nail on the head.

The designers of Monopoly don't have to take kitbashers and homebrewers into account as, with a very few exceptions, those things aren't really prevalent in that game. But the designers of D&D have to respect and account for the kitbash tradition that's existed in D&D since day 1, and design with that firmly in mind.

This IMO is where both 3e and 4e failed (and maybe 5e also?); they tried to hard-code too much detail into the system, rather than simply designing a framework and stopping there, and failed to leave enough flexibility for kitbashers. Result: changing those systems to suit your table and have it still work well isn't easy at all; yet in the tradition of D&D it's something that should be.

Or, you expected something that the systems weren't offering, and instead of figuring it's you, you're blaming the system for not anticipating what you wanted. Start from the point that you don't own D&D, just what you do at your table. That way, a given edition isn't something that fails because it doesn't anticipate you, it just doesn't align with what you want at your table and you shouldn't be a customer.

ETA: to make it clear this isn't a personal dig, I would absolutely not be a customer for an edition of D&D that goes back to 2 or 3e. I wasn't a customer for Pathfinder for this reason.

 

[Jaeger]

The common refrain is "just make it harder" or "infinite dragons"...yeah, duh. The problem isn't whether DMs can make it harder, the problem is that the default easy mode that is 5E engenders a mindset in the players where they expect the game to be easy mode, so when they encounter DMs who want the game to be harder...not even hard, but even slightly harder than the default...the players freak out. Players swap characters to access the easy mode of things the DM wanted to be challenging or rage quit because the game isn't a cake walk. The default of the game should be in the middle somewhere, challenging but neither easy mode or hardcore mode. So that DMs can adjust easier without backlash from players. The baseline shouldn't be at LOL faceroll I win.

The easiest way to solve this is to remove the skip buttons from the game.

The problem current 5e GMs have is that most of the skip buttons are in the core rules set!

And as they are core, most players expect them to be there when they are told that they are playing in a new 5e campaign.

In quite a few ways 5e designers have actually greatly restricted GM campaign styles by handing the players: "I skip that." apps of various kinds in almost every character class.

Thing is, unlike Monopoly, players and (particularly) DMs expect D&D to be robust enough in its design to handle some deviation from said design and remain playable.

I'm not so sure a lot of players are as high on 'deviation' as GMs are.

Unlike a board game, where you are limited to what the rules allow, a Tabletop RPG allows for user interpretation and changes. The Tabletop RPG is built on this capacity, which means that the Game Master's skill at running the game ,and the body of knowledge available to inform his rulings, has the consequence of significant variability of experience from table to table.

For some players that variability really bothers them, and they get very frustrated...

Which is why we see a lot of "what is RAW" talk on D&D forums.

 

[Henadic Theologian]

I think coming right off of the relative failure/rejection that 4e received from many D&D fans at the time (we can go back and forth to no end or purpose about the why or how much of it), the designers were really restarined in how much of 4e they put in 5e (at least obviously). I think now that the vitriol has died down quite a bit, it would be a good time to mine the thing for more of the good things it did.

For me, the biggest thing might be to build up the ritual spell mechanic, allowing the party fighter to (with some feats) be the party ressurector or planar-travel guide, or the like. Others might have other favorite 4e things to favor.

I'll add that some of the loudest anti 4e voices early in 5e's development have since moved on to the OSR while a ton of folks who have no opinion of 4e either way have come in and the folks who were big fans of 4e largely stayed in 5e. For the rest time gives perspective once emotions die down.