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

[Helldritch]

except they are actually still very much a threat. A player being knocked down isn't like being taken out in fate where the opponent can simply say something like "and you die so" or "and you've been taken captive by mooks for your fate to be revealed later" /7 such. With healing word allies don't even need to pause their cantrip attacks to bring that PC back up.

That kind of geek the mage/shoot the medic first runs into a few problems strategy runs into a few problems with coming off like an extreme killer GM & the followup one two of "you executed bob's PC and the monsters ignored everyone else they ran past to do it". d&d isn't a game where monsters are good at attacking while giving chase (in many cases not even capable of it) & if the healer runs you have turned the combat into little more than what they call kiting mobs in mmorpgs

Take this initiative order

• 18Alice (cleric)
• 17 monster1
• 15Bob(wackable mole with 1d4+1hp)
• 12monster2
• 10Cindy (bard cleric druid alchemist or that one warlock)

Even if the monsters gang up on bob it won't matter because Cindy can cast healing word between them, You could even add a third monster almost anywhere in the initiative & nothing changes if it doesn't have multiattack because one monster will drop bob, the next will cause two failed death saves leaving Alice or Cindy to healing word him & reset the 2 failed. If that third monster is just before bob it still only means that bob has a chance of failing a death save on his own before someone can cast healing word.

Very up to the point. In this scenario, the only goal of the DM will be to make Alice and Cindy use/waste resources to get the mole back up. And thus, my enforcing the 6-8 encounters per day. The use of side initiative and the slaying of recovering fallen foes. Players are truly aware of that and now they are fully into the "style" and it works out great. Both story wise and simulation wise.

 

[Fifth Element]

Most monsters will think that...until the "no longer a threat" PC stands back up and starts hurting the monster. At which point, the monsters will start double tapping the PCs.

Thereby eliminating something that might be a threat again, by ignoring all the other things that are currently threats. There's an opportunity cost there.

 

[Fifth Element]

He literally went through every edition and touched on one or two points. Why would you require he is really clear that 4e isnt just a skirmish game?

Because 4E is the edition that was described as being "all about" combat?

Because of the now decades-plus history of people claiming that 4E is only a skirmish game? Let's not pretend there's no context here.

 

[Fifth Element]

That's weird. 4E is one of my favorite editions of the game.

The fact that you enjoy a game does not mean that the description you give of it is accurate.

 

[Helldritch]

Thereby eliminating something that might be a threat again, by ignoring all the other things that are currently threats. There's an opportunity cost there.

Remove might and put will instead. If they are brought back, it means that they are vital to the fight. Intelligent monsters can assess that easily.

Because 4E is the edition that was described as being "all about" combat?

Because of the now decades-plus history of people claiming that 4E is only a skirmish game? Let's not pretend there's no context here.

It was, mostly. It was a very very tactical edition to say the least.

The fact that you enjoy a game does not mean that the description you give of it is accurate.

But it does make for a more objective criticism. Saying what a game was, in your point of view, and that you liked it does not make a comment about edition bashing. 4ed had more to offer than people gave it credit for. Unfortunately, it went a bit too far toward the MMORPG style for the likes of the intended audience. A shame that it was received so poorly as it really was better than this little approximation of what it was. But it was truly a good combat simulation.

 

[Mournblade94]

Because 4E is the edition that was described as being "all about" combat?

Because of the now decades-plus history of people claiming that 4E is only a skirmish game? Let's not pretend there's no context here.

It was a run down of the different editions that were also not entirely accurate. I think people are a bit sensitive 4e was so short lived. It doesnt matter anymore.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It was a run down of the different editions that were also not entirely accurate. I think people are a bit sensitive 4e was so short lived. It doesnt matter anymore.

If it doesn't matter, why is spreading the same lies over a decade later such a popular passtime?

 

[overgeeked]

5e is a modern ruleset trying to emulate the genre of D&D while being dressed up to appear to be a throwback to an earlier edition of D&D. This is why even though you are very technically correct that RAW XP is given out only for monsters, the game is actually better played with the "optional" rules on giving out XP for non-combat encounters and/or via milestone leveling. Those rules should be considered core for the kind of game they've built but are written as if they're optional for ... reasons.

Once you include those in the game it's pretty obvious what kind of game 5e is - it's a game that is designed to tell D&D-like stories. It's definitely not a resource management game, but it has the feel of a resource management game because D&D-like stories have resource management as a part of them. It's not a wilderness travel simulator but it has wilderness travel parts to it because wilderness travel are parts of D&D-like stories. Combat is a part of a D&D-like story so it has combat in it, but the combat game itself isn't the main focus of the game as it was in previous editions because the game is trying to capture all of what goes into a D&D-like story and that includes non-combat stuff that would be freestyled outside of the rules in an older edition but have more built-in support in the current edition. It's a modern game emulating the genre of D&D.

I get what you’re saying…and you’re not saying the following…but what keeps popping into my head is that 5E is a meta-level parody of D&D. It’s not D&D, it’s a D&D emulator. Which is weird.

ETA: To be clear, I’m not saying 5E isn’t D&D. But that description really seems to imply it’s a D&D emulator rather than D&D itself.

 

[Mournblade94]

If it doesn't matter, why is spreading the same lies over a decade later such a popular passtime?

The purpose was not to spread lies about 4e. And really at this point if someone thinks its a combat only game who cares? WOTC not going to resurrect it.

 

[Helldritch]

If it doesn't matter, why is spreading the same lies over a decade later such a popular passtime?

Which lie? That it was a darn good combat simulator? That it was leaning way too much on the MMORPG style? Or that it was way better than some people are giving it credit for? No lies were said in this thread about 4ed. It was a good edition, but it was poorly received. Had it gone out 2 years earlier at the peak of MMORPGs, it might have been THE EDITION! Unfortunately, the style it tried to emulate was on the decline with the RPG community (and gamers as well). A steep decline. During these years, WoW had lost about half of its audience, Guild wars was down the drain and KotOR was still ok, but the decline was about to come. In fact, 4ed, by trying to emulate a bit of the MMORPG genre dig its own grave as the backlash was very big. Both against the MMORPG and the style itself. A shame it was.