D&D General How has D&D changed over the decades?

[Hussar]

While I really love Pratchett, I don't believe that his worldbuilding style is compatible with a rpg campaign setting.

Really? I've played in Pratchett settings. It's a blast. Granted, not with D&D, mind you, but, it's certainly a fun setting to play in. Good grief, considering that 99% of Discworld is pulled straight from bog standard fantasy tropes, I'm not sure that anyone who has played in a fantasy setting hasn't been at least dipping a toe into Discworld.

 

[Stefano Rinaldelli]

Really? I've played in Pratchett settings. It's a blast. Granted, not with D&D, mind you, but, it's certainly a fun setting to play in. Good grief, considering that 99% of Discworld is pulled straight from bog standard fantasy tropes, I'm not sure that anyone who has played in a fantasy setting hasn't been at least dipping a toe into Discworld.

My fault. I've written rpg but I had D&D campaign setting in mind. Don't exclude that with a different set of rules and rpg game philosophy it could work.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Well, yes and no. Since much of what would normally have come to a PC as a magic item is now built straight into the class, it's far more predictable but, also, it's now on the player side. It's not like you can tell that warlock character, "Oh, sorry, you don't get an invocation this level because I'm trying to rein in the power level of the party". The character turns Level X and gets Y power ups.

But, the point being, it's different. I'm not arguing more or less, but, it's undeniable that it has shifted. I could drop boots of flying (for example) in an AD&D game if I wanted characters to have easy access to flight. In 5e, there are classes that gain various movement types just for being that class.

Granted too, this really depended on the classes being played. Obviously a 6th level AD&D Druid could gain flight. Funnily enough, you need 8th level to do it in 5e. But, there are other ways as well - so many other classes gain spells that allow flight, as opposed to only Magic Users once upon a time. In AD&D, I could give a necklace of fireballs out and a cleric could drop fireball. Now, depending on which Domain I have, I might actually be able to CAST fireball.

So on and so forth. As a tool for shifting balance, granting magic items are somewhat less useful in 5e since so many of the classes gain access to spells/powers and many of them are not class specific in the way they were before. Where a Ring of Invisiblity or an Elven Cloak in AD&D could be a huge power up, it's a lot less in 5e because so many classes other than wizard can now straight up cast Invisibilty or Pass Without a Trace.

And that's not counting what you might get from Feats or Racial abilities too.

This is mostly arguing that the balance point has shifted from "what level are your casters" to "what level are your casters?" Yes, a lot of what magic item proliferation did in providing a broadening of capabilities for non-casters is lessened (magic items to casters were of much less impact) because a lot of that broadening has moved into the classes. For 4e, this is step back, but for prior editions it is a reduction in the GM's ability to broaden character capabilities. If this is the argument -- that the GM has less ability to give nice new toys to non-casting classes -- then sure, we can agree. I don't see this as less power for the GM over the game, though, as the expectation was that non-casting classes would get these bennies anyway and if a GM was withholding them, then that same GM has other methods to tamp down PCs in 5e. It's not that there's less power, just that it's exercise requires different approaches. It is, though, a different game, so this shouldn't be at all weird! I mean, look at how much magic items changes between 2e and 3e, or 3e and 4e! This isn't anything unique or strange to 5e! And 5e has MORE effective ability to control these things than 4e did, and, effectively, more than 3e did because 3e baselined the game on magic item expectations.

The really feels like "I don't have the dial I had on the linear fighters from 1e-2e, so 5e sucks" when 5e at least attempted to make the difference between the linear fighter and the quadratic wizards smoother so that you didn't need to dial up the non-casters as much through magic items (which, in my experience, the ones that did neat new things often went to the casters anyway).

 

[Ovinomancer]

The gm was not forbidden from making use of the GM's friend* & there were even examples in the dmg of it being used for penalties that make things more difficult based on the fiction of the gameplay described. Outside of specific abilities of characters & magic (items/spells) pretty much anything a player might want to do with it depended entirely on the GM deciding a bonus type and the GM deciding if that action would give anything at all, that's hardly "entirely player facing". It absolutely stacked if the bonus types were different, if you had two of the same bonus type & they were not circumstance bonuses they tended to not stack. That sort of simplification to empty the GM's toolbox of even optional tools in favor of PCs that just need their tour guide to provide life support for The Main Character is a symptom of the same shift thatthe GM not being able to make much use of magic items to affect balance & dangle (dis)incentives embodies.

"encounter math" through CRs has been a thing for a few editions with some of those editions still having room for substantial GM influence through magic items & gear, 5e may have tweaked it, but it's certainly not a new tool added to a GM's toolbox.

* edit: Yes it didn't exist prior to 3.x, but I never claimed otherwise

Again, I feel you've missed the point I was making. A -2 to a check in 3.x rarely made a difference past the low levels. If you were dealing with a focused skill, the -2 barely dents the success probability for checks. If it wasn't a focused skill, a +2 barely dents the likelihood of failure. The DC progression in 3.x was such that you either crushed or had no chance depending on if you were bringing a focused or non-focused skill to bear. With some skills, this delta appears ridiculously fast (anything with multiple synergies). Functionally, the 10% shift was rarely of major impact -- it was, most often, pointless or of very minor use.

As for bonus types, I'm not sure what you're on about -- GMs have very little say in bonus types because they were established clearly by the rules. GMs didn't decide bonus types very often at all. I don't recall a single moment of rather extensive 3.x play where the GM's decision on a bonus type even came up, much less was impactful! Which bonuses are you thinking of that the GM was deciding in 3.x?

 

[Helldritch]

Who said that 5ed sucked? Certainly not me. The DM's control over the game has steadily declined over the years culminating with 4ed (of which I was a fan, but it too had its problems).

5ed did attempted to give back a bit of power to the DM, but not to the extent that was promised in the playtests with Next. The tools we currently have will work for an experience DM, but not without a lot of work. Many foes have abysmal AC, which could help with monsters and making fights a bit more balanced. For example, why on earth does the veteran only have an AC 18? Using a Longsword two handed is suboptimal. Use it one hand and use a shield for God's sake!. Or give him a two handed weapon. And this is not the only case.

Without a lot of work on the monsters, it is hard for a young DM to adjust monsters on the fly. The risk is going overboard at some point. Yes, reskin monsters can work, but it is not as satisfying as the real thing.

Adv/dis is a bit too strong but at least it is easy to understand. But I wished it could have been variable. A basic +/- 3 to +/- 5 would have been great. But it might have slowed down play which can be already slow at times.

And I could go on and on. Thing is that many of the mitigating tools the DM had have shifted into players' hand as they are now built in into the classes. Where a BCEMI To 4ed DM could slow down progress with magic items from not giving to restricting access to build them, this control would now be irrelevant. Magic items are no longer needed.

Who really cares if monster "x" can suffer full damage from magic only? The character still do damage, albeit half, which is way better than zero. And since cantrips are unlimited magic, the monster is toast now. Before, magical sources of damage were very limited, using them was crucial. Now use cantrip and if push comes to shove, a good night sleep will restore every single HP and spell slots. As I said in an other thread, it could take 3 days to a 20th level wizard to recover spells slots (longer for a priest, as it had more). Managing ressources was crucial and a tool the DM had as interupting a rest was a real thing. Now, not even a combat will interrupt it. 5ed leans heavily on the players' side. It is not a bad thing per say, but it does make a DM's job a bit more difficult (and some might say quite a bit).

 

[Ovinomancer]

Who said that 5ed sucked? Certainly not me. The DM's control over the game has steadily declined over the years culminating with 4ed (of which I was a fan, but it too had its problems).

5ed did attempted to give back a bit of power to the DM, but not to the extent that was promised in the playtests with Next. The tools we currently have will work for an experience DM, but not without a lot of work. Many foes have abysmal AC, which could help with monsters and making fights a bit more balanced. For example, why on earth does the veteran only have an AC 18? Using a Longsword two handed is suboptimal. Use it one hand and use a shield for God's sake!. Or give him a two handed weapon. And this is not the only case.

Without a lot of work on the monsters, it is hard for a young DM to adjust monsters on the fly. The risk is going overboard at some point. Yes, reskin monsters can work, but it is not as satisfying as the real thing.

Adv/dis is a bit too strong but at least it is easy to understand. But I wished it could have been variable. A basic +/- 3 to +/- 5 would have been great. But it might have slowed down play which can be already slow at times.

And I could go on and on. Thing is that many of the mitigating tools the DM had have shifted into players' hand as they are now built in into the classes. Where a BCEMI To 4ed DM could slow down progress with magic items from not giving to restricting access to build them, this control would now be irrelevant. Magic items are no longer needed.

Who really cares if monster "x" can suffer full damage from magic only? The character still do damage, albeit half, which is way better than zero. And since cantrips are unlimited magic, the monster is toast now. Before, magical sources of damage were very limited, using them was crucial. Now use cantrip and if push comes to shine, a good night sleep will restore every single HP and spell slots. As I said in an other thread, it could take 3 days to a 20th level wizard to recover spells slots (longer for a priest, as it had more). Managing ressources was crucial and a tool the DM had as interupting a rest was a real thing. Now, not even a combat will interrupt it. 5ed leans heavily on the players' side. It is not a bad thing per say, but it does make a DM's job a bit more difficult (and some might say quite a bit).

I'm, again, someone who has a rep for bluntly critiquing 5e, but this complaint rings a bit hollow. It seems more a complaint that current edition isn't the same as old edition and could apply, in some form, to every single other edition shift prior to this one.

 

[Helldritch]

I'm, again, someone who has a rep for bluntly critiquing 5e, but this complaint rings a bit hollow. It seems more a complaint that current edition isn't the same as old edition and could apply, in some form, to every single other edition shift prior to this one.

And I have the same rep as you. My complain is not that 5ed is not the same as the previous one. It is that many DM's tools were removed and given on a silver plater to the players. And people wonder why 5ed is seen as a super hero game....

For someone that criticise 5ed, you seem to give a lot of leeway to 5ed when it comes to players' side of things...

Whether you like or not, 5ed removed a lot of the tools that a DM could use to slow down or accelerate a character's progress. In this regard, 5ed is way worst than 3ed. At least, 3ed had a system in which creating magical took both money and experience point to spare. By ensuring that players would end their adventure with barely enough exp to level or simply with not enough gold, the magic item creation could be controlled. 5ed only way is simply to not give any magic items. And even that us not enough as characters have way more built in features than previous editions (and even comparable games).

Bound Accuracy is the best idea of 5ed. It is also one of its worst. Basic monsters can now stay partially relevant at higher level, but higher level monsters are no longer that impressive...

 

[Lord Shark]

Yeah... no.

I'll take my fantasy worlds over the boring retreads of 20th century fantasy thanks. Give me China Mieville, Stephen Erikson or Glen Cook or Terry Pratchett. "Worlds that are just like really piss poor historical reenactments with a thin veneer of magic that don't make any sense" is not what I'm interested anymore.

I'd say that anyone who thinks Vance and Leiber are mundane low fantasy really hasn't read much of Vance (check out the Rhialto the Marvellous stories, for one) or Leiber.

 

[tetrasodium]

This is mostly arguing that the balance point has shifted from "what level are your casters" to "what level are your casters?" Yes, a lot of what magic item proliferation did in providing a broadening of capabilities for non-casters is lessened (magic items to casters were of much less impact) because a lot of that broadening has moved into the classes. For 4e, this is step back, but for prior editions it is a reduction in the GM's ability to broaden character capabilities. If this is the argument -- that the GM has less ability to give nice new toys to non-casting classes -- then sure, we can agree. I don't see this as less power for the GM over the game, though, as the expectation was that non-casting classes would get these bennies anyway and if a GM was withholding them, then that same GM has other methods to tamp down PCs in 5e. It's not that there's less power, just that it's exercise requires different approaches. It is, though, a different game, so this shouldn't be at all weird! I mean, look at how much magic items changes between 2e and 3e, or 3e and 4e! This isn't anything unique or strange to 5e! And 5e has MORE effective ability to control these things than 4e did, and, effectively, more than 3e did because 3e baselined the game on magic item expectations.

The really feels like "I don't have the dial I had on the linear fighters from 1e-2e, so 5e sucks" when 5e at least attempted to make the difference between the linear fighter and the quadratic wizards smoother so that you didn't need to dial up the non-casters as much through magic items (which, in my experience, the ones that did neat new things often went to the casters anyway).

Good we agree. Casting classes got magic items too. d&d is and has always been a game absolutely swimming in magic items, simply declaring them "optional" & failing to include an allowance in the math crunch (ie monster stats & such) does not eliminate the defacto mandate that they are expected to the point of being required or Wotc would have plenty of hardcover adventures that have zero yet the number of those is likely zero or quite close. If that is a bridge too far or not & where the sweet spot should have been is an entirely different topic from "this is a way it changed"

Again, I feel you've missed the point I was making. A -2 to a check in 3.x rarely made a difference past the low levels. If you were dealing with a focused skill, the -2 barely dents the success probability for checks. If it wasn't a focused skill, a +2 barely dents the likelihood of failure. The DC progression in 3.x was such that you either crushed or had no chance depending on if you were bringing a focused or non-focused skill to bear. With some skills, this delta appears ridiculously fast (anything with multiple synergies). Functionally, the 10% shift was rarely of major impact -- it was, most often, pointless or of very minor use.

It doesn't matter if a highly subjective statement like "[it] rarely made a difference past low levels" is accurate or not, what matters is that it changed from a structural framework that could be extended in both directions with multiple PCs & world based/NPC/plot factors contributing in aggregate towards the success or failure & difficulty of a given task to the modern one & done sledgehammer.

As for bonus types, I'm not sure what you're on about -- GMs have very little say in bonus types because they were established clearly by the rules. GMs didn't decide bonus types very often at all. I don't recall a single moment of rather extensive 3.x play where the GM's decision on a bonus type even came up, much less was impactful! Which bonuses are you thinking of that the GM was deciding in 3.x?

Spoiler: Modifying the roll or the DC

Circumstances can modify a character’s die roll, and they can modify the Difficulty Class needed to succeed.
• Circumstances that improve performance, such as having the perfect tools for the job, getting help from another character, and having unusually accurate information, provide a bonus on the die roll.
• Circumstances that hamper performance, such as being forced to use improvised tools or having misleading information, provide a penalty on the die roll.
• Circumstances that make the task easier, such as a friendly audience or helpful environmental conditions, decrease the DC.
• Circumstances that make the task harder, such as a hostile audience or doing work that must be flawless, increase the DC.

Thespecific example doesn't matter & that's just the one on dmg pg30. The GM could declare all of those are stacking circumstance bonuses or that some of them are nonstacking specific things. A GM might not have a say on if a magic item that gives a +2 alchemical arcane or whatever bonus, but they as GM certainly have a say when a player does something like "can I use skill/ability/doodad in this nonstandard way to help bob?" as they often did in my experience. The fact that we can play dueling anecdotes till the end of time if players did that often enough is unimportant to the simple fact of they could before and can not now.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Bound Accuracy is the best idea of 5ed. It is also one of its worst. Basic monsters can now stay partially relevant at higher level, but higher level monsters are no longer that impressive...

Half right!

It is just the worst. Chump monsters should be chumps instead of trying to punch above their weight. PCs should feel like they're progressing.