D&D 5E 5e, Heal Thyself! Is Healing Too Weak in D&D?

[Mannahnin]

Many Martial had 'close burst' powers and the Rogue (prob. Ranger too) even had 'close blast' powers, most of which would target 'All enemies in range' and not 'all creatures in range' the way a magical burst or blast would do. Heck, the Fighter could cleave at-will (hit a guy, inflict STR damage to another), and both Ranger and Fighter had Twin Strike style at-wills. So yeah, it wasn't that hard. And the Wizard had Scorching Burst, a burst 1 ranged At-Will, and Thunderwave was also At-Will.

To my recollection the only Martial at-will that gave multiple attacks was the Ranger's Twin Strike (though Cleave does allow damaging a second, adjacent, foe if you hit the first). Casters did get some burst and blast at-wills.

For fighty-types, blasts and bursts were generally Encounter or Daily powers, in part because the designers were trying to avoid them having to make multiple attack rolls every round.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Yeah. Just like Jose Aldo (up to that point possibly the greatest pound for pound MMA Fighter in history) can go down in 13 seconds...to a single punch...to Conor McGregor.

The variability of fighting is extremely high. You can be enormously dangerous (a world class fighter) and take one shot on the button and its lights out (as has happened 100s and 100s of times just in my 40 years of being involved with combat sports and watching combat sports).

I alwasy see HP as plot armor anyway... if you get hit by a giant's axe you die. If are at ground 0 of a bomb going off you are dead. if an arrow peirces almost anywhere on your chest you are dead (okay that one may take longer) the only reason ANY player or monster gets hit multi times is they are important to the plot.

Minions are a trope. They're dangerous creatures except the heroes are so much more dangerous and robust that when they deal with these_particular_ghouls, it reliably spits out Conor McGregor vs Jose Aldo fiction; a trope.

 

[hawkeyefan]

 

[Lyxen]

Yes. An aura. Which is a game term.

Which I can understand when it's an aura of fire, which, by the way, is present in 5e as well : "Fire Aura. At the start of each of the balor’s turns, each creature within 5 feet of it takes 10 (3d6) fire damage, and flammable objects in the aura that aren’t being worn or carried ignite. A creature that touches the balor or hits it with a melee attack while within 5 feet of it takes 10 (3d6) fire damage."

It's visual, understandable, not abused since this is really a boss type, and which you can protect against.

Now, personally, the notion of an aura of "hunger" on minions - and one that you cannot see, foresee, mitigate, etc. escapes me entirely.

And my problem is that it's the same with a huge majority of 4e game constructs. It's obvious, and has been noted by a number of people here, that these are purely gaming constructs. They are not there to make sense in the fiction. They are there because they make the game technically more complex, and the explanation (if any, usually there is none) is strapped on as an afterthought.

For the Balor, it's completely the other way around. It's on flame, cool, so that flame should be doing fire damage. Logical, the PCs can see it, and can do something about it.

For instance, in 5e, you have Cloud of Daggers.

Which is a spell, visible, explainable, etc. And one that you can protect against since it's slashing damage.

4e D&D combat is wildly different from Torchbearer Kill Conflicts or Dogs in the VIneyard "Escalate to Guns" Conflicts.

Yes, it is.

There are all kinds of ways to skin a TTRPG cat. But every_single_one of them relies upon obviously game constructs meant to facilitate play of a game.

And this is where philosophies diverge. the 4e constructs are meant to facilitate the technical play of the game. In most other TTRPGs, they are meant to facilitate the narration of the game.

And, back to minions, it's exactly that. There is no in universe logic to it, just a technical explanation that makes them easier to manage for the DM.

It becomes especially problematic when they forgive their favored systems of the same "indiscretions" that they hold other systems to account for.

It's not a question of "forgiveness". I agree, no system is totally exempt, but few systems are as full of it as 4e is. It's a question of degree.

 

[Lyxen]

I am discussing, specifically, minion fights in 4e vs minion fights in 5e. I don't need to be told that other kinds of fights in 5e are quicker (if less exciting); I have a lot of experience with both.

Good, then please tell me, what is the frequency of minion-only combat ? I don't think I ever did one. Minions are minions to someone. If there are only real minions, the heroes tear through them in a nice 2 sentences narrative that does not require combat.

Minion fights in 4e are quicker, period, because they involve less die-rolling. Any party had someone who could hand out bonuses to make success more than 50% of the time, and a hit = a kill. It's just faster.

Cool, it's faster, but because it does not happen (or so infrequently compared to other combats), what is the benefit exactly ?

More exciting too, since the minions were actually a threat, as opposed to dealing 1d8+2 hp of damage on a 15% chance of success to a character that had over 100 hp.

Whatever the edition, they are not really a threat in and of themselves, you know, mostly an annoyance and maybe, in the best cases, necessitating a tactical decision.

 

[Lyxen]

Never at that high level but I believe so? I've run an encounter that was nothing but a bunch of minions on different level of a structure. It makes for some badass moments.

So it was once over all the years of gaming ?

If nothing else that sounds pretty monotonous. After an encounter your PC will know what target number to hit and how much to fear the Orcs. It's like you're just fighting the same dude over and over again.

Nobody does that, usually the PCs find some way to tear through the horde, and that makes them feel good.

I assumed it was just stinky or some sort of soul draining aura of magic.

And that's the problem, it was just technical. If you try to instantiate it narratively, it's a failure every time as it ends up breaking suspension of disbelief.

They might be well trained, but they don't have the resolve to keep going. HP aren't meat after all.

Wrong. HPs are not ALL meat, but there is certainly a meat component to them, always.

When you go through their defence they realize, with dread, "I am completely outclassed and now I'm going to die."

And these more highly trained creatures with high defenses just give up that easily whereas much less trained creatures have way more training power ? And it's the same creature ? The more you try to explain it, the more bizarre it is.

5e makes it simple narratively, they are really the same creature. Simple, straightforward and with no drawback.

 

[Lyxen]

Yes, a lot of times, 4e skimped on the details of "how" a game element or power was doing the thing that it was doing.

And for me, that's the core of the problem. There are too many technical constructs which were built technically without any reasonable explanation. Not all of them, but many. Other editions, on the other hand, are built the other way around. Something LOOKS cool, and then the designer try to explain it in game terms. This leads to very different games.

And often, this created a disconnect.

Indeed. Note that I really enjoyed the cleanliness of 4e, the stability, the balance especially after the mess that 3e had become. But the more I played it, especially at high level, the more that disconnect ended up hitting me in the face.

Fountain of Flame creates an area of flames that harm all enemies who enter, but doesn't harm your allies? How? Why? I don't know, but it's sure darned useful.

It's useful technically, but damn hard to describe, so after a rather short while, you end up not caring and just playing the tactical game, which is very well done. It's just not what we were looking for at our tables, that's all.

 

[James Gasik]

I'm not sure exactly how an aura of hunger that does damage to adjacent enemies that doesn't specifically explain how it works is a horrible immersion breaking thing. I could think of a few explanations-

*The zombies are animated by a possessing spirit of hunger, akin to a wendigo, and spectral claws appear that rend anyone nearby, ignoring armor.

*or alternately, the spectral claws drain life force, akin to the negative energy attacks of old. 5e has enemies that can lower your maximum hit point totals, so this sort of thing is alive and well.

*just being near one of these creatures, rather than damage you, suppresses your life force, and it's literally the opposite of an effect that grants temporary hit points.

*the creatures are animated by a curse that causes life energy to seep out of those near them, and if you die, you will join their number.

I mean, zombies are animated by magic, and if I had a spell that said "enemies adjacent to me lose 5 hit points a turn" would anyone question it's existence?

 

[Voadam]

I mean, zombies are animated by magic, and if I had a spell that said "enemies adjacent to me lose 5 hit points a turn" would anyone question it's existence?

I might. Depending on the spell. There is a continuum of how difficult it is to come up with a narrative explanation and how much work you need to put in to do so.

Selective mechanics about damaging enemies only are a bit more on the less obvious end of the spectrum than a 1 hp high level minion for me.

 

[Lyxen]

I'm not sure exactly how an aura of hunger that does damage to adjacent enemies that doesn't specifically explain how it works is a horrible immersion breaking thing. I could think of a few explanations-

*The zombies are animated by a possessing spirit of hunger, akin to a wendigo, and spectral claws appear that rend anyone nearby, ignoring armor.

*or alternately, the spectral claws drain life force, akin to the negative energy attacks of old. 5e has enemies that can lower your maximum hit point totals, so this sort of thing is alive and well.

*just being near one of these creatures, rather than damage you, suppresses your life force, and it's literally the opposite of an effect that grants temporary hit points.

*the creatures are animated by a curse that causes life energy to seep out of those near them, and if you die, you will join their number.

And that types most of these effects as necrotic, which is not the case. I would not have any problem with a necrotic aura, something visible that the players can work with and around. Although, honestly, I would associate it to other creatures than Ghouls, wraiths, for example.

I mean, zombies are animated by magic, and if I had a spell that said "enemies adjacent to me lose 5 hit points a turn" would anyone question it's existence?

Well, Spirit Guardians does this in 5e, but it's correctly described. The description, the narrative comes first, then the effect which explains what the cool visual effect does. Here, as is often the case in 4e, it's technically interesting, but this is clearly what came first, and there was not even a strapped on narrative, just a name that does not make real sense.

And for minions, there is not even a narrative, they are just there technically so that the players can kill them quickly.