D&D General 5.5 and making the game easier for players and harder for DMs

[payn]

If there is one thing i hate as a DM it's feeling like the PCs are frail and will crumple like paper if I try to challenge them, so I generally don't mind these changes.

Yeap, when I hear potions are easier to drink and some other power ups it just signals to me the GM to step on the gas.

 

[Chaltab]

Honestly the thing about weapon masteries is... I'm not sure my players would even use them. My game has an open hand monk who never even uses the unarmed attack riders.

 

[James Gasik]

If there’s no challenge, no risk of failure, then there’s no point in playing. All you’re left with is what I said above. “Tell me how awesome you are as you win” is the only rule you need.

1- that's your opinion. There are games that people do enjoy where challenge is minimal and there are other rewards for play.

2- in any game where dice are rolled and things are left up to chance, there's always a risk of failure. The question is how much risk is correct for your game? What should the chances of success be, when failure usually equals "make a new character and start over"? Unlike a difficult video game, D&D doesn't have "save points". You don't get to keep trying the same encounter over and over until you get it right. You generally have one chance at bat, and often must bring your A game to every challenge you face.

3- if 5e games don't offer enough challenge to players, so what? They'll drift to another game. Or ask their DM to turn up the difficulty. If the base game isn't difficult enough for some people, that's a problem for WotC, not anyone else. If 5e isn't to your liking, then you can change it or play another game that is to your liking. It's not 5e's fault if it's not the game for you- nobody is twisting anyone's arm forcing them to play it.

What I often see in discussions like this are comments like "players don't want to give up power" and "I play 5e not because I want to, but because it's what players want to play". Consider this: if the players are happy playing 5e, having WotC suddenly making the game more challenging and harder to play might make them not want to play it at all! Regardless of how much money DM's spend, you can't have a game without players. If there's a mismatch between what players are happy with and what DM's are happy with, that is the problem, not the game.

Calls asking for WotC to "support DM's" by changing the game to suit their playstyle carries with it the risk of making a game that people might not want to play anymore.

Now I'm trying to be as accommodating as I can be here- I'm not saying I want a game where everyone makes it to the finish line and no one is ever challenged- as a DM, I like being tough but fair, so I give my players more advantages than the game gives them by default, to justify tougher adventures and challenges. If I wanted the game to be harder or easier, it's not really hard to do.

And I'm not saying that other types of playing D&D are wrong or bad- I've been playing long enough to have experienced every era of the game, from brutal "you turned left instead of right? your character is dead, make a new one" Rogue-like adventures to political campaigns where combat is a rare occurrence, to campaigns where the DM just wants to show off their cool fantasy world- if there's a spectrum of "D&D", I've probably seen it. There's fun to be had any way you play, but the DM and the players have to be on the same page.

If they're not, the game and it's rules aren't going to magically make everyone happy, nor is it reasonable to expect them to do so.

 

[Arilyn]

I'm not looking for a game with more dead characters. GMs can easily make more dead characters. My point was that all these little changes have been eroding away the hard or dramatic choices that I enjoy in a rpg. I call it "consequence free D&D" because the game cushions players from bad decisions or bad luck.

In the middle of a fight, if a player suddenly remembers they have a fire resistance potion that'd be really handy right now, they can just use a bonus action to down it. I'd be better if they have to skip it or spend an action drinking it. If a character sends their familiar or animal companion into danger, and it dies, they can just resummon it. I'd be better story if the character has to deal with the grief or guilt.

If a group plans an ambush and make their rolls, they should get a big benefit. If they are surprised it should be scary. I like the idea of a player struggling to get to a dying companion, rather than relying on healing from a distance.

To put this into perspective, I have run and played "no death" games that focus on other consequences. I think players should freely customize their characters' backgrounds. I don't feel wizard utility spells are "I win" buttons, and yet I'm feeling D&D is erasing away all the little struggles and frustrations that help make victories a little sweeter.

 

[James Gasik]

I started using bonus action potions as a house rule awhile ago. Something I've noticed is that players are still loathe to use potions, because the bonus action has been so overused by the designers that it's critically important to some characters. And if anything, this is worse in the 2024 books, where giving up a bonus action to heal can be woefully inefficient for some characters.

I have a two-weapon Fighter in my current game who can rarely be bothered to Second Wind, because he has to give up an attack to do so!

 

[billd91]

I'm not sure which surprise rule I prefer, 5e or 5.5. The bonus action potion rule has been a staple houserule for a lot of tables for a while now and I feel like healing has needed a boost since 5e first came out.

Healing in need of a boost has been part of D&D since 1e.

 

[mamba]

I don’t see how PCs being more powerful and more survivable makes the DMs job harder. The DM’s job isn’t to kill the PCs.

do you think that part of the DM’s job is to challenge them to the point that death is not completely impossible?

 

[mamba]

If there is one thing i hate as a DM it's feeling like the PCs are frail and will crumple like paper

that is not a feeling the 2014 version gave me (past say level 3)

 

[mamba]

Regardless of how much money DM's spend, you can't have a game without players.

that goes both ways

Calls asking for WotC to "support DM's" by changing the game to suit their playstyle carries with it the risk of making a game that people might not want to play anymore.

and so does WotC not listening to such calls

 

[Chaltab]

and so does WotC not listening to such calls

Speaking as a forever DM of my main group, I don't get the sense they're not. Many of the changes make the game more playable for the DM too. And we haven't seen any of the DMG or MM yet aside from art.