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

[tetrasodium]

I can see how it reads like that might be an issue, but as I said before, having played with weapon masteries for dozens of sessions, I haven't seen it to be a problem in practice. The once or twice that I forgot to give the monster disadvantage on its following attack or tried to make it charge forward when it was down 10ft off its speed - the player who inflicted the condition reminded me, I nooded, and we moved forward.

I'm not arguing that it's ideal, but I would say that weapon masteries add more than they take away (in that they are more fun than they are cumbersome). And TRUST ME - I do NOT like cumbersome rules. IDK - maybe I'll see what you're talking about in time.

Have you considered that the reason that you aren't seeing any serious problems could be because your players are lower level/ just dipping their toes into them & not using all the masteries or classes like the fey warlock to its fullest?

You were the one who made the implied claim that the players should be responsible for tracking the myriad of rapid fire conditions. I've pointed out how completely unworkable that seems for anything I can identify as ttrpg play with a ttrpg designed with a division of roles between players & GM. Instead of saying ~"works for me why not wait & see" why not explain how a functional game looks like in play when players are tracking those things. Take 5 players, 3-4 able to apply one of 2 or more conditions on each of their multiple attacks while moving about the battlefield & chopping up their attack chains .

 

[overgeeked]

I mean, pick your poison on what the cause of the game being “too easy for the characters.” My actual point is, I agree with the sentiment that the books could do a better job at advising DMs on how to build and run high-lethality encounters. I disagree with the sentiment that the game being easier for the players makes it harder for the DM. It’s not a zero-sum game.

If one of the referee's goals is to challenge the PCs in any meaningful way, then yes, making things easier for the PCs (by giving them heaps of powers) makes it harder for the referee (to challenge the PCs). In that sense, it very much is a zero-sum game. If the referee doesn't care about challenge, then giving the PCs more and more power is irrelevant.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Have you considered that the reason that you aren't seeing any serious problems could be because your players are lower level/ just dipping their toes into them & not using all the masteries or classes like the fey warlock to its fullest?

Sure. I haven't seen a new fey warlock played yet, far or less played "to its fullest".

You were the one who made the implied claim that the players should be responsible for tracking the myriad of rapid fire conditions.

That's not what I said. I said that it's not only up to the DM to track. The players who delivered the condition can remember that they just did it. AFAIR these conditions we're talking about last "until the start/end of your/their next turn". Sure, they're at-will, so they might happen over and over, but individually, they don't need to be remembered for very long (and if they happen often enough, they'll be easier to remember, won't they?)

I've pointed out how completely unworkable that seems for anything I can identify as ttrpg play with a ttrpg designed with a division of roles between players & GM.

Yeah, but you seem to have a LOT more animosity between players and DMs than I do.

Instead of saying ~"works for me why not wait & see" why not explain how a functional game looks like in play when players are tracking those things. Take 5 players, 3-4 able to apply one of 2 or more conditions on each of their multiple attacks while moving about the battlefield & chopping up their attack chains .

I think I've been clear - I don't expect players to track them. I expect players to help track them. They only need to remind the DM when they forget. I think it's clear that you're expecting a level of perfection that I just don't worry about.

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure. I haven't seen a new fey warlock played yet, far or less played "to its fullest".


That's not what I said. I said that it's not only up to the DM to track. The players who delivered the condition can remember that they just did it. AFAIR these conditions we're talking about last "until the start/end of your/their next turn". Sure, they're at-will, so they might happen over and over, but individually, they don't need to be remembered for very long (and if they happen often enough, they'll be easier to remember, won't they?)


Yeah, but you seem to have a LOT more animosity between players and DMs than I do.


I think I've been clear - I don't expect players to track them. I expect players to help track them. They only need to remind the DM when they forget. I think it's clear that you're expecting a level of perfection that I just don't worry about.

I'm not seeing where you described how players tracking the conditions applied to monsters can work out withoput crashing into the problems described earlier. One or both of us is talking past the other. Your defense against concerns is premature in the extreme & seems to rely on the assumption of a solution that wotc has not even hinted ats somehow working out in a way that eliminates the problems

 

[Remathilis]

If one of the referee's goals is to challenge the PCs in any meaningful way, then yes, making things easier for the PCs (by giving them heaps of powers) makes it harder for the referee (to challenge the PCs). In that sense, it very much is a zero-sum game. If the referee doesn't care about challenge, then giving the PCs more and more power is irrelevant.

And yet the biggest complaints I heard about 5e is how yo-yo healing is (PC drops, gets healed, makes attack, drops, repeat) and how martials have vastly inferior abilities to control the battlefield compared to casters. Two months ago there was threads raging about martial PCs throwing mountains at epic level and now people are worried about pushing foes out knocking them prone? People wanted warlocks to do more than eldritch blast every round and now we're terrified that a warlock can cause taunts with a misty step.

Well, which is it? You want dynamic battles with lots of options and tactics or you want them spamming the I attack button and occasionally using a spell or other resource?

This isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at a community that can't decide what D&D is except that it's somehow not what the current rules are saying it is.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I'm not seeing where you described how players tracking the conditions applied to monsters can work out withoput crashing into the problems described earlier. One or both of us is talking past the other. Your defense against concerns is premature in the extreme & seems to rely on the assumption of a solution that wotc has not even hinted ats somehow working out in a way that eliminates the problems

Seems so. The only point I was ever trying to make is that while I understand the concerns, I don't think it will be all that bad in practice. There's a few more things to track, I think that's fair to say - but it's nowhere near as many things to track as 3.5 or 4e had (and that is a Good Thing!)

I would characterize myself as a DM who would be sensitive to (IE I would not like) a lot of things to track, or a lot of fiddly bits in my D&D, and I have not had that problem. I don't profess to mean that no one could ever have any problems, or that anyone who is concerned about it is wrong, but I would suggest that they try it before getting too worked up about it. Maybe they'll find that it's not that bad.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

And yet the biggest complaints I heard about 5e is how yo-yo healing is (PC drops, gets healed, makes attack, drops, repeat) and how martials have vastly inferior abilities to control the battlefield compared to casters. Two months ago there was threads raging about martial PCs throwing mountains at epic level and now people are worried about pushing foes out knocking them prone? People wanted warlocks to do more than eldritch blast every round and now we're terrified that a warlock can cause taunts with a misty step.

Well, which is it? You want dynamic battles with lots of options and tactics or you want them spamming the I attack button and occasionally using a spell or other resource?

This isn't aimed at you. It's aimed at a community that can't decide what D&D is except that it's somehow not what the current rules are saying it is.

Another thing to what you're saying - the needle has only moved slightly from where it was in 2014 5e. It's not like 2024 has changed anything drastic. It's a degree.

 

[Chaosmancer]

If one of the referee's goals is to challenge the PCs in any meaningful way, then yes, making things easier for the PCs (by giving them heaps of powers) makes it harder for the referee (to challenge the PCs). In that sense, it very much is a zero-sum game. If the referee doesn't care about challenge, then giving the PCs more and more power is irrelevant.

I mean... is it though? I still have infinite resources and infinite attacks. As a DM I'm doing fine.

But. let's look at this in a more narrow context. Let's look at traps/challenges/puzzles/ect. Statues that charm the PCs, poisonous clouds, locked doors, ect. Do I need to alter the DCs for any of this? No, I don't think I do. Sure, in a few places saves have gotten "easier", the Fighter's indomitable ability can essentially guarantee they will pass a save. But... I never assumed that whatever PC got hit with these DCs failed. I consider the scenario if they fail, and I consider it if they succeed. And if I was really excited about at least one of the party being hit with a curse from the statue... well, it isn't the fighter's indomitable that caused the low wisdom barbarian to roll a nat 18 and pass anyways. So, nothing at all in regards to obstacles, traps and challenges needs to be changed.

Skill checks? Well... more people being more likely to succeed is a good thing! I want my players to succeed on skill checks. Okay, sure, the barbarian can rage and use primal knowledge to roll stealth with advantage for 10 minutes and sneak around... but that isn't really any different than the rogue/trickery domain cleric with expertise doing the same dang thing. This isn't an instance of "players can succeed where they could never succeed before" but "more players can succeed where only a select few could before" which has me really flippin' excited as a DM. I don't think I can convey to you how excited I would be if a barbarian player looked at a situation and said "I am going to activate rage, and go hunting."

So we get down to... combat power. And is it harder for me as the DM to challenge my players? Eh, depends on what you mean by "harder". Do I need stronger monsters, potentially with some more interesting mobility abilities? Sure, might need some of those depending on the party structure. But having an Oni drink a potion of Haste as a bonus action isn't any "harder" for me to do than it is for me to design The Deep Father as a unique campaign villain. Or the insane mage Godendes. Needing to send more powerful monsters isn't harder for me. Actually, it is much harder to weaken monsters if I overestimated a party's strength. Because I can do anything. I can use the Angry GM's advice and build a monster that is secretly three monsters and have it take three different turns because it is off-kilter from reality and just keeps teleporting around the battlefield. And that isn't "hard" for me. I do that kind of stuff anyways, because "This is a giant" is inherently less interesting as a boss monster for me as the DM, than some giant I homebrewed.

And sure, sure, "well that's good for you but what about DMs who don't homebrew?" Well... if I'm not changing how I'm making encounters in response to the party having a few nifty new abilities, why should I assume you have to? Why should I assume that things are now "harder" for you when they are no harder now than they were before? Even if it is a "Zero-sum game" the DM is sitting with a ten thousand point lead, dropping to an 800 point lead isn't going to suddenly tip the scales in my opinion.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Are your players using Feats, Multi-classing or Magical Items? Because the adventure doesn't assume you have any of those.

If you are using those to increase player power... and your players want a harder game... then ask if they are willing to take those things out. IF they aren't, then you need to increase the power of the monsters. Even if it is as simple as just maxing their hp (remember, the hp listed is the average, you can use the max) and updating their equipment to be better.

Do you think those things are still going to be assumed optional in 5.5? If not, they need to seriously up their adventure game.

 

[Whizbang Dustyboots]

The focus has been primarily on the player side, but I'm assuming the revised books will see a general power boost on both sides of the DM screen. It's already been said that several monsters have been found to not match their CR. A rearranged DMG with cleaner encounter guidelines will make it easier to test a party.

I certainly hope someone at WotC has read The Monsters Know What They're Doing and used that knowledge in the MM update.