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

tetrasodium said:

I disagree. The set of tools in question that were removed were powerful & diverse. Simply declaring that the GM can rely on "GM says" to makeup for that belies the never ending application of "GM says" as if it were something that could be a one & done replacement.

Click to expand...

I keep hearing you say powerful and diverse, but I'm not seeing it. I'm just seeing different. The complaint was that the GM has less ability to control the game because they introduced bounded accuracy so that the GM can't give out + weapons to "balance" play. I pointed out that the GM has plenty of power to control the game -- magic items where +3 isn't a big deal doesn't mean that the GM has less authority or that players have more ability to control the game. That's silly. Trying to argue that this authority is Calvinball is also silly. There's a place between your "much less power" and "Calvinball" where 5e actually fits in without bad faith play and the GM has loads of authority and power in that place.

tetrasodium said:

advantasge/disadvantage is one tool not two & it replaced a far more versatile set of linked tools that were deleted. I'm surprised that you didn't mention attunement slots too since they deleted & replaced the far more powerful & versatile body slots with slot affinities. Between first & 5th edition there was 1e+UA, 2e 2e+player options, 3.0 3.5 3.5+UA, & theoretically something called 4e with the d&d name. Modern d&d has all of those to change from. Why does every comparison of modern d&d need to immediately jump to 1e?

Click to expand...

No, you've made a mistake of category. The +/-2 didn't allow the same thing that advantage/disadvantage does -- you could not get the same effect from +/- 2 as you can dis/advantage. Nor does dis/advantage do what +/-2 does. These are different things, both useful and powerful, and you can't claim dis/advantage is weaker because it's actually doing something completely different. Adding that tool is powerful, and never available before. It's not meant as a form/fit/function replacement of +/-2, but rather a complete replacement of capability.

As far as 1e, that was introduced by someone else. 3.x certainly didn't have GM control over magic items as you suggest as a balancing factor -- it was a requirement of the math. A GM that didn't provide sufficient magic items was doing it wrong by the expectations of the game. I fail to understand how that can be put forth as a GM balancing tool.

Micah Sweet said:

I'll begrudgingly accept that, but let me ask you this: why does the same "healing" spell, that recovers the same number of hit points, recover drastically different percentages of total hp based on how many hp the target has?

Click to expand...

Oh, that's a great question! Terrible design, really.

Yeah, I'll stick to my "not all Hit Points are equal" thing, I think. Feels easier to wrap my head around, somehow.

Micah Sweet said:

I'll begrudgingly accept that, but let me ask you this: why does the same "healing" spell, that recovers the same number of hit points, recover drastically different percentages of total hp based on how many hp the target has?

Click to expand...

Couldn't tell you, since I didn't design the game and it's very obviously just a game mechanic that isn't trying to mimic something in real life.

If I had to provide an in-world explanation, I'd say because it's a minor restorative spell (until it's cast with a higher level slot).

Haven't read through the 1000+ posts, but in comparing AD&D to 5E at least they flipped the script when it comes to magic and classes that can use it.

In 1E, you had the following classes:

Barbarian
Bard (after Fighter/Thief)
Cavalier
(Paladin)
Cleric
(Druid)
Fighter
(Ranger)
Magic-User
(Illusionist)
Monk
Thief
(Acrobat)
(Assassin)

Starting with spells were just Cleric, Druid, Magic-User, and Illusionist. Paladins and Rangers didn't get spells until 8th or 9th levels. Monks couldn't cast spells, but had many features which were magic-like. Bards get spells, but not until after completing a number of levels of fighter and thief first.

Depending on what level you played to, only the base casters would likely get spells, so just 4 classes of the 14.

By contrast, in 5E, you have the following classes:

Barbarian
Bard
Cleric
Druid
Fighter
Monk
Paladin
Ranger
Rogue
Sorcerer
Warlock
Wizard

Now, half the classes are casters (Bard, Cleric, Druid, Sorcerer, Warlock, Wizard), and Paladins and Rangers get spells at level 2 (after only 300 xp!). Monk abilities (especially with subclasses) are more magical than ever. Even Fighters and Rogues have casting subclasses!

Considering the magic-like features of even some subclasses, I think only Barbarian is fairly non-magical, with Fighter and Rogue close by. So, just 3 classes of the 14 DON'T have magic, spells, etc.

So, the script has flipped.

Now, I only played 3E briefly (about 15 years ago) and never played 4E, but I suspect the trend was there, culminating in what we have in 5E. Others can speak more accurately on those editions in this regard than I can.

Ovinomancer said:

I keep hearing you say powerful and diverse, but I'm not seeing it. I'm just seeing different. The complaint was that the GM has less ability to control the game because they introduced bounded accuracy so that the GM can't give out + weapons to "balance" play. I pointed out that the GM has plenty of power to control the game -- magic items where +3 isn't a big deal doesn't mean that the GM has less authority or that players have more ability to control the game. That's silly. Trying to argue that this authority is Calvinball is also silly. There's a place between your "much less power" and "Calvinball" where 5e actually fits in without bad faith play and the GM has loads of authority and power in that place.

Click to expand...

Several posts have described how it could be used and the symptoms of the loss. I don't need to repeat them if a complete dismissal of "I'm not seeing it" isthe extent of your quibble. A +3 weapon was always a huge thing, but so much existed between "magic weapon" & +3, that entire space has largely been taken from the GM's toolbox & grafted directly onto the PC's sheet itself. Sure you can still give out amazing named items & such, there's just no room in the system's math for them unless you keep endlessly tweaking monsters each time & adding extra dragons.

Ovinomancer said:

No, you've made a mistake of category. The +/-2 didn't allow the same thing that advantage/disadvantage does -- you could not get the same effect from +/- 2 as you can dis/advantage. Nor does dis/advantage do what +/-2 does. These are different things, both useful and powerful, and you can't claim dis/advantage is weaker because it's actually doing something completely different. Adding that tool is powerful, and never available before. It's not meant as a form/fit/function replacement of +/-2, but rather a complete replacement of capability.

Click to expand...

No, I have not. The three* have very similar functions that allow the gm to do things except one suffers from a severe case of maslow's hammer. gm:"Your going to have trouble doing that because of... it's an example... because it's rainy">Alice:"I have advantage from flanking/boots of elvenkind/my class ability/etc, advantage+disadvantage cancel out& getting advantage again doesn't help so I'm good" vrs... gm:"Your going to have trouble doing that because of the rain">Alice:"Wow yea, I have a tent, can I fashion that into a raincoat for a +2 circumstance?">gm:"sure">Bob:"If I fireball the wall will that dry the rock & give her an environment bonus?">gm:"sure". Powerful numerically & powerful narratively are different things.

Ovinomancer said:

As far as 1e, that was introduced by someone else. 3.x certainly didn't have GM control over magic items as you suggest as a balancing factor -- it was a requirement of the math. A GM that didn't provide sufficient magic items was doing it wrong by the expectations of the game. I fail to understand how that can be put forth as a GM balancing tool.

Click to expand...

It absolutely did grant the GM that 3.x had system math that assumed a certain "you must be this magically equipped by level X Y & Z" baked into the system's math. The GM could hand them out or not. The GM could limit gold & availability in magic item shops. The GM could even tell bob & his craft:whatever feat that he needs a specific component in order to craft the thing he wants to craft or that he can't find the version he needs for crafting that but he can find a version that will make a slightly different/significantly but more GM acceptable version of the thing he wants. 3.x was 2000/2003, that's certainly decades, perhaps your exclusion of it is part of why you are "not seeing it".

Modern d&d has "Magic items are optional" & some combination of things like "make custom monsters" "the GM has infinite dragons" & "fix it yourself", that's a significant shift over

*(dis)advantage +2/-2 with bonus types & "GM's best friend" linked earlier

Helldritch said:

Powerless? Nope. But the young or new DM has lot less leeway to do things as he wants. Players empowerment is very real and unless the DM is experienced or sought enough after, he better be ready to explain a lot if he restricts players' agencies.

Click to expand...

Been playing since the mid/late 80s. I do not feel that I have any less power as a DM now than I did at anytime in the past.

Eric V said:

One can have a wound of the spirit, I suppose.

Just pointing out that the game's official rules don't use the word 'healing' so there's no need for some weird crisis over "How is luck healed?" It's not that game. Never has been.

Click to expand...

Unless I'm missing something, it feels like luck is healed in 5e (along with physical and mental durability and the will to live).

PHB page 197




PHB page 198

tetrasodium said:

You don't need 10+ anymore, one or two will do it because they will never get churn out due to an assumed zero magic items.

Click to expand...

It was never about need though.

In earlier D&D, the DM had a very large amount of control over the party's power simply by controlling what magic items were found. Since magic items couldn't be bought (by the rules) nor manufactured to spec, it was very much in the hands of the DM. And, additionally, random treasure tables gave a LOT of magic items - granted a lot of it was single use like potions and scrolls - but still, by modern D&D standards, a freaking mountain of magic items. One only has to look at older modules to see just how many magic items were being given away.

It wasn't about need though. It was the expectation. And, because it was expected, it could be anticipated. The party is a bit anemic? Ok, drop in a couple of magic doodads and they can punch above their weight class for a while. Party a bit too powerful? Ok, we drop a couple of area effect damages and let failed saving throws take care of things. It was simply a means that was pretty much 100% in the DM's hands.

Now, because most of the PC's power level is hard wired into the class and almost entirely in the hands of the player, the DM no longer has that tool in his or her belt. At least, not to the degree that an AD&D DM had.

Oh gawds, can we PLEASE not have a HP=Meat wank? It's not going to go anywhere and it's such an utterly pointless discussion.