D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

You create rarer but harder encounters, and add environmental and/or strategic elements at the same time. It takes more DM planning and there is more chance of getting it wrong, in my experience. But I do it because I don't enjoy attrition-style play; I think combat is generally the least interesting part of D&D, and I'm not interested in having more of it just to burn off resources before the fight that actually means something in terms of story beats.
Rarer but harxer encounters is still attrition. You just have one loooong fight instead of several smaller ones.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

No argument there!
I heavily favor wizards on the rare chances I get to play. But, should I have the opportunity to play 5e (of whatever stripe) I have a powerful urge to play a premiere archer based on the fighter class. Not a ranger, not multiclassing, just pure fighter who is an archer / skirmisher. A bit of a test as well as indulging my contrariness.

Because, by the gods, a ranger should be defined by more than being an archer main.
I don't see that as being contrary. Straight fighter archers have been effective in many editions of D&D. 4e was probably the biggest exception where fighters were designed to be specifically strength based melee tanks.
 

The imaginary world of my Torchbearer play is logically consistent. You can read the actual play reports yourself and observe that this is so: Torchbearer 2e - actual play of this AWESOME system! (+)
Sorry, no. Since the premise baked into a “+” thread is “no dissenting sentiment is permitted” it is not a trustworthy source for showing something is logically consistent - anyone pointing out problems/inconsistencies has been preemptively banned from the thread so OF COURSE it looks logically consistent.

That said, the idea of “resource expenditure to prevent death” in lieu of “random roll” is an interesting one, though I would argue that BOTH already exist in 5e. You prevent death via resource expenditure of heal spells/items, you just have to do it before hitting 0 hp. And you prevent death via random roll before death saves, we just call it “missing an attack roll” or “failing a save.” This just positions the roll or expenditure at a different point in the journey towards death.
 


Whatever people call dungeons nowadays are nothing like the original concept.
Mine is? 🤷‍♂️

Monsters? Check!
Traps? Check!
Mazes? Check!
Puzzles? Check!
Treasure? Check!
Time pressure? Check!
Resource management? Check!
Lethal? Check!

Yep. It is. :)

Others... maybe not.
 
Last edited:



I don't see that as being contrary. Straight fighter archers have been effective in many editions of D&D. 4e was probably the biggest exception where fighters were designed to be specifically strength based melee tanks.

Archer fighters have been fairly effective in every edition as well. By fighter standards anyway.
 

I was actually wondering this too, because I don't recall any variant rules that talk about altering the death cycle.

It's not clear if you are talking about the 2024dmg specifically or more broadly. Either way, 2e dmg pg104 had such a rule
Hovering on Death’s Door
(Optional Rule)
You might find that your campaign has become particu-
larly deadly. Too many player characters are dying. If this
happens, you may want to allow characters to survive for
short periods of time even after their hit points reach or
drop below 0.
When this rule is in use, a character can remain alive
until his hit points reach –10. However, as soon as the
character reaches 0 hit points, he falls to the ground
unconscious.
Thereafter, he automatically loses one hit point each
round. His survival from this point on depends on the quick
thinking of his companions. If they reach the character
before his hit points reach –10 and spend at least one
round tending to his wounds—stanching the flow of blood,
etc., the character does not die immediately.
If the only action is to bind his wounds, the injured char-
acter no longer loses one hit point each round, but neither
does he gain any. He remains unconscious and vulnerable
to damage from further attacks.
If a cure spell of some type is cast upon him, the charac-
ter is immediately restored to 1 hit point—no more. Further
cures do the character no good until he has had at least one
day of rest. Until such time, he is weak and feeble, unable
to fight and barely able to move. He must stop and rest
often, can’t cast spells (the shock of near death has wiped
them from his mind), and is generally confused and fever-
ish. He is able to move and can hold somewhat disjointed
conversations, but that’s it.
If a heal spell is cast on the character, his hit points are
restored as per the spell, and he has full vitality and wits.
Any spells he may have known are still wiped from his
memory. (Even this powerful spell does not negate the
shock of the experience.)
I'm still waiting to see if wotc put any variant rules in the 2024dmg though
 

Mine is? 🤷‍♂️

Monsters? Check!
Traps? Check!
Mazes? Check!
Puzzles? Check!
Treasure? Check!
Lethal? Check!

Yep. It is. :)

Others... maybe not.
I was mostly talking about published modules and the general understanding of what consists a dungeon.

For the record, I have read pretty much every WoTC 5e adventure and ran many of those. Even Dungeon of the Mad Mage lacks the resource management and sense of exploration from earlier editions dungeons.

The modern dungeon is a series of five cool stages for the party to fight in sequence with some plot point at the end.
 

Remove ads

Top