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

[wizard71]

@Arilyn made a post in another thread and 1 thing jumped out.

5. Surprised party just gets disadvantage on initiative now, meaning the surprised party could still go first.

Of course this was also referenced, but I had heard of this one:

4. Potions can be drunk with bonus action. So in middle of fight, a character can smack the monster, grab potion, uncork it and drink it all on their turn

Also a myriad of other changes to various classes to give them an easier time. Like Clerics healing 2D8 base now. And Fey Warlocks teleporting around and being invisibile etc

Keeping in mind all the stuff 5E already does like multiple saves to avoid a bad thing. Resting to fix all your ills. etc etc etc all the stuff we already know about.

I recently watched a Sly Flourish video where he brings some of this up but also quotes from WotC about how all these cool new and upgraded powers will makes things harder on DMs. His biggest question being "Why make things harder for DMs when they spend the most $$$ and have to keep the game running smooth?"

And yes I know the DM can simply change things and add more monsters yes I know but rules as written that most players coming to game will expect.

And yes I know the books arent out yet but the info they have released and the quotes about DMing is actually kind of concerning. This mid edition (or whatever you want to call it) is supposed to clean things up and improve things which I'm sure it does in some areas but giving the players even more Super Powers (which yeah who doesnt like feeling powerful) but at the expense of the DM and keeping the game running smooth and at a decent pace?


Anyways. 5th ed already has already been called "Easy mode". Yes, I know some disagree, I'm just saying it's been called that despite what one thinks. And now it would seem WotC has embraced that to give us "Even Easier Mode"? Baby mode? Lil' Timmy's first RPG? I'm just kidding. Sort of.

By the by, such massive PC abilities would you still want to play a 2014 version? I guess it would depend on the class/subclass?

If we use DOOM skill levels would it be:

Nightmare: AD&D 1E
Ultra-Violence: AD&D 2E
Hurt Me Plenty: 3E 3.5E
Hey, Not To Rough: 5E
I'm Too Young To Die: 5.5E

Where's 4E? It's the Doom Eternal of Dooms. (half love it, half don't)

Yeah so, is 5.5 looking to be "even easier" (increased strength and survivability) for Players and even more frustration for DMs? Can we have that discussion considering the info and previews released despite the actual books not being out yet?

Edit: clarification on increased DM difficulty. Such as more for the DM to keep track of stuff like more status effects and new one every round Etc. 5.5 seems to increase the DMs load due to an increase in player power(s). Which WotC seems aware of and gleeful about.

I don’t know if 5.5 will be easy mode. A lot of the rules PC’s can use also can be applied to most monsters. Simply give an ogre or a fire giant a great sword and even DM misses do strength damage. Orcs could use healing potions as bonus actions too and most monsters will have spell like abilities to weaken counterspell. Yeah the PC’s will be more powerful but the Monster Manual will indicate if it’s easy mode or not

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Let me ask you this: like @EzekielRaiden , you clearly have had bad experiences with DMs that have informed you; my sympathies for that. What's your solution? Are you in favor of stricter rules for DMs in D&D?

Actually, I've only had one moderately bad experience with a DM. I just have extremely strong convictions on this front.

My favored solution is threefold.

1. Better game design, which almost always means "more testing," but it also means better data collection, actually doing statistical analysis, and having actually well-made surveys, all things that WotC could easily do, but chooses not to. Obviously, this one isn't in my hands personally, but it's part of all the best solutions to these problems.
2. Preparation, as noted above. For my own games, I don't really want random, irrevocable, permanent deaths. I've built in a few mechanisms in advance that would give me an explanation for how someone could be revived or the like, e.g. powerful allies, rituals, spirit effects, etc. It would be very easy to spin up something in the event I need it.
3. Being diegetic. Even if all else fails, even if in the moment you have no idea why the Mob Boss Orc hulks out and stays alive when the players got three lucky crits, or the PC somehow stayed alive when they got hit by three unlucky crits...you can turn "aw crap this isn't going the way I wanted" into "excellent story hook" purely through making a mystery of it. Come up with something later, between sessions. Just by having the characters know THAT the Mob Boss Orc (or the PC!) hulked out and stayed alive when they SHOULD have died, they'll almost surely want to know why, even if only to find out how to use that power themselves. No invested player would let such a strange mystery pass them by--and the adventure that results will be far more entertaining as a result. If these issues are as rare as people say, you should need to do this so infrequently it won't require that much improvisation.

Better game design, better preparation, and following Bob Ross' policy of turning mistakes/bad results into happy accidents. That's how you address these issues, from the DM side.

From the player side, you work to be cooperative and respectful, but not a meek doormat, nor a mere sounding board.

 

[Scott Christian]

I don’t think difficult to kill PCs is a general GM frustration. I think it’s an old school frustration.

I think the framing of kill here is incorrect. I am around a lot of new DMs, and their frustration comes from not being able to challenge the PCs without the threat of having a TPK. If framed that way, then these new class powers will indeed frustrate some DMs, even experienced ones.

The old rule of - wait and see - should be our go to here. As we really haven't seen the MM yet. But, for pure speculation's sake, the new class abilities might frustrate DMs.

On a separate, yet similar topic, the new classes definitely seem like they will slow combat a lot.

 

[Belen]

The main thing that Sly Flourish might have a true gripe about is that weapon mastery will allow for more of "4e tactics" and players pushing and dragging foes into Zones and "emanations" and off cliffs and ledges.

Edit: fixed voice to text

This.

WM may be a main factor in my not adopting 5.5. If it forces grid and battle map, then that is a flat no for me.

 

[Oofta]

Obviously a preference/taste thing.

For you random rolled stats are so seriously bad, you refuse to play that way.

For me, rolled stats are more fun because of the randomness. When I DM, it’s 4d6 drop lowest, place in any order. And you can reroll if any stat is 6 or lower - you failed the draft physical, but can play those stats anyhow if you want.

But I’ll play stat buy.

Why is randomization a deal breaker for you?

Off the top of my head? In no particular order

• While life is unfair, I see no reason a game should be.
• I don't want a one time roll of the dice to dictate who my character is. I envision who my character is before a single ability score or class is chosen, the rules are there to allow me to play the character I want.
• I don't want either extreme of an overly buff PC that is statistically better at everything.
• I don't want to play the guy who hides in the back because their scores are s**t, even if they live longer because they're hiding in the back.
• I want balance between the starting point for all the characters in the group.
• If my character has poor scores they would have just stayed on the farm.
• I've seen the DM allow a reroll for "poor" scores if they like the player.
• I've just never, and I mean never, going back to 1E days seen the point. We used various methods to ensure we had decent scores back in the day. I started using a variation of point buy system back in 2E based on the rules used for Living City.
• I don't want to.

 

[AnotherGuy]

What I find interesting is that WotC usually comes up with more options for players, while DMs and the DMsGuild produce more rules and product respectively to reign in that power.

I suppose WotC do not want to tap into any of that action.

 

[tetrasodium]

I don’t know if 5.5 will be easy mode. A lot of the rules PC’s can use also can be applied to most monsters. Simply give an ogre or a fire giant a great sword and even DM misses do strength damage. Orcs could use healing potions as bonus actions too and most monsters will have spell like abilities to weaken counterspell. Yeah the PC’s will be more powerful but the Monster Manual will indicate if it’s easy mode or not

That's really only a theoretical hypothetical solution. The GM always had the ability to design encounters that totally shut down & frustrate players with helpless PCs getting spanked like toddlers☆ being spanked by an angry gym teacher turned school principal round after round. The trouble is in the fact that combats like that are no fun for anyone & create a negative feedback loop.

☆gotta keep up the earlier analogy

 

[UngeheuerLich]

This.

WM may be a main factor in my not adopting 5.5. If it forces grid and battle map, then that is a flat no for me.

Yeah. But there is no ability that a 2014 warlock with eldritch blast or other casters with cantrips could not do anyway.

Slow? Check
Push? Check
Disadvantage? Check
Advantage on next attack? Check
Minor area damage? Check

So no, I don't buy that reasoning.
It seems more like axe to grind instead of analyzing.

 

[Remathilis]

Let me ask you this: like @EzekielRaiden , you clearly have had bad experiences with DMs that have informed you; my sympathies for that. What's your solution? Are you in favor of stricter rules for DMs in D&D?

This is an interesting question and one I'd like to give some thought to before answering. I'll get back to you on this.

 

[Belen]

Yeah. But there is no ability that a 2014 warlock with eldritch blast or other casters with cantrips could not do anyway.

Slow? Check
Push? Check
Disadvantage? Check
Advantage on next attack? Check
Minor area damage? Check

So no, I don't buy that reasoning.
It seems more like axe to grind instead of analyzing.

Battle maps and grid combat burned me out so badly that I did not run games for years.

If WM adds a ton of tactical mess that slows the game and increases my burden, then that is a no.

As a DM, I already have to know and track a ton of stuff and half the time remind players of their own stuff.

A player is not going to track bleed damage for instance. If WM adds a ton of effects etc, then it can die in a fire. They players will not track their own stuff. It will be on me or 2 rounds later there will be a “oh yeah, this should have happened.”

I do not want to play a tactical grid, minis game.