D&D General Design issues with 5e

[WitchyD]

Negative levels were fussy to deal with, unfun for players, and messes with keeping players at the same level in an era where many tables have moved to 'milestone' leveling instead of strictly tracking experience, as 3e expected (but some tables didn't).

All that means I, as a DM, don't feel like wights would be worth the trouble to use at my table.

4e's wights removed a healing surge from PCs on top of the (reduced) damage they dealt. I like this approach.

 

[tetrasodium]

Negative levels were fussy to deal with, unfun for players, and messes with keeping players at the same level in an era where many tables have moved to 'milestone' leveling instead of strictly tracking experience, as 3e expected (but some tables didn't).

All that means I, as a DM, don't feel like wights would be worth the trouble to use at my table.

4e's wights removed a healing surge from PCs on top of the (reduced) damage they dealt. I like this approach.

Hardly. I used the wrong url for the negative level link and fixed (it was linking to the wight instead of negative level writeup),but you are thinking about old-school negative levels that actually removed levels. 3.5 negative levels resulted in:
A creature takes the following penalties for each negative level it has gained:

-1 on all skill checks and ability checks.
-1 on attack rolls and saving throws.
-5 hit points.
-1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level).
If the victim casts spells, she loses access to one spell as if she had cast her highest-level, currently available spell. (If she has more than one spell at her highest level, she chooses which she loses.) In addition, when she next prepares spells or regains spell slots, she gets one less spell slot at her highest spell level

 

[WitchyD]

[…] but you are thinking about old-school negative levels that actually removed levels.

Please don't assume things I'm saying. I was indeed thinking of 3e's negative level mechanic and had checked that same SRD page before replying. Everything I said about negative levels applies.

 

[Sulicius]

I did but wanted to give you a fair chance but since you like images

Spoiler: here ;)

View attachment 431511
Not going to look for a gif version

It's hard to find a better example than ghouls for of a monster going from interesting with a somewhat unique & terrifying role that doesn't depend on being a cthulu in power armor analog or having a Terex scale load of Hit Points.

The 3.5 wight had 26hp & a terrifying negative level granting ability that generally consumed a 4th level restoration spell to clear unless the victim just ate it & continued adventuring in an edition were resting for 24hrs could easilyresult in a death spiral from minor interruptions.

That level drain was such a threat that a wight simply existing in a combat changed how urgent killing the other monsters was even when the PCs were well above and could expect to trivially smash ithe wight

The 5e wight has either 2014 version: 45hp & an almost meaningless max hp reduction -OR- the 2024 version has 82hp & what is still a not particularly scary maxhp reduction ability both in an edition where resting 24hrs is trivial.
45 is greater than 26 & 82 is very much greater than 26.

Dude, 3.5 is a different game. Everything about the game was different. Why should we compare them? Can you give me meaningful context on how strong PCs were, their to hit chance, damage and the like?

But let’s finish whatever this drag-out argument that won’t change our minds will get to.

3.5 was the best monster design, clearly. I a a foolish youngster who shouldn’t have bought 5e or 5.5e.

 

[tetrasodium]

Please don't assume things I'm saying. I was indeed thinking of 3e's negative level mechanic and had checked that same SRD page before replying. Everything I said about negative levels applies.

No assumption needed.youwrote something that only really applies to pre-3.5 negative levels. This right here:

, and messes with keeping players at the same level in an era where many tables have moved to 'milestone' leveling instead of strictly tracking experience, as 3e expected (but some tables didn't).

.

There are probably other examples but the "-1 effective level (whenever the creature’s level is used in a die roll or calculation, reduce it by one for each negative level)" is going to knock things like spells that have a danag range duration or area determined by caster level rather than whatever you were thinking it did

 

[MoonSong]

I don't really care about older editions, since they just had different math.

Is "HP Bloat" an actual problem? PCs deal more and more damage, does the HP outscale their output? And is it really more fun if PCs have their abilities and attacks fail more, instead of the monsters weathering more damage?

It has killed the dedicated healer as a viable playable archetype.

 

[billd91]

It has killed the dedicated healer as a viable playable archetype.

Disagree. The clerics in the game I'm running are definitely thriving. The 5.5 rules DID double the healing dice, though, so it's not like healers haven't gotten some of the honey.

I'd argue that dedicated healer, as an archetype, has always had serious problems - significantly because it tends to be an archetype foisted on players by the amount of damage PCs took. And in AD&D days, even up through 3e, healing never really kept up very well - though at least 3e offered an alternative by making healing so easy with spontaneous casting and freeing up resources for a cleric to at least try to do something different from being stuck just healing.

 

[billd91]

I don't really care about older editions, since they just had different math.

Is "HP Bloat" an actual problem? PCs deal more and more damage, does the HP outscale their output? And is it really more fun if PCs have their abilities and attacks fail more, instead of the monsters weathering more damage?

In my experience, hit point bloat isn't really a problem - PCs grind through monster hit points much faster than you'd expect. In fact, hit points probably haven't been bloated enough for some monster CRs and PC levels.

And no, it is NOT more fun if attacks fail more. That's far more frustrating than something being hit and being able to take substantial damage because, in the latter case, you still feel a sense of progress.

 

[WitchyD]

No assumption needed.youwrote something that only really applies to pre-3.5 negative levels. This right here:

From the same SRD page we both referenced, here's the paragraph immediately after the bit you quoted:

Negative levels remain until 24 hours have passed or until they are removed with a spell, such as restoration. If a negative level is not removed before 24 hours have passed, the affected creature must attempt a Fortitude save (DC 10 + ½ draining creature’s racial HD + draining creature’s Cha modifier; the exact DC is given in the creature’s descriptive text). On a success, the negative level goes away with no harm to the creature. On a failure, the negative level goes away, but the creature’s level is also reduced by one. A separate saving throw is required for each negative level.

As a bonus, here's a bit from Restoration:

A character who has a level restored by restoration has exactly the minimum number of experience points necessary to restore him or her to his or her previous level.

Everything I said about 3e's negative level mechanics still applies.

 

[CreamCloud0]

i think most of these have already been mentioned but

-the skill system is too barebones, what you're able to accomplish with them is never properly established.
-there needed to be slightly more nuance to advantage/disadvantage and situational modifiers.
-bounded accuracy is bounded too low, it makes things way too swingy when the d20 is the majority of your check.
-basic combat (weapons, armour, the combat actions available to everyone) is too barebones.
-too many things that don't need to be are spells, and spellcasting boons just stack upon each other.
-species have become a superficial aesthetic skin on your character.
-alot of things that should be basic or more widely available actions are exclusive to a single/few classes in order to establish their 'identity'
-recovery of character abilities ought to be better regulated in relation to the adventuring day.
-the social and especially the exploration pillar are barebones.