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

[Baron Opal II]

Hang on though.

The cleric cast a spell - ability inherent to the character class. The wizard casts a spell - an ability inherent to the character class. The fighter gives up a magic sword - the only thing in this story that isn't inherent to the class. Fighter goes full defense (takes the Dodge action) - straight up rules from the character sheet and nothing particularly creative here.

How is this not looking at character sheet as a set of keys? Because the players looked at each other's character sheets and came up with a plan together? It's creative, sure, but, it's still 100% looking at character sheets to solve the problem. It's not like they did anything that required anything other than direct spell descriptions.

IOW, this example could have been done in any edition and uses nothing but the mechanics of that edition. That's generally not what people mean when they say that the players are being creative. Now, to me, I love it and I would absolutely reward the group for doing this. It's a fantastic solution to a problem and I love it when players actually work together to solve something. It's why I adored the Warlord class which rewards this sort of play directly all the time. But, this isn't really what is generally meant when people talk about how this or that edition forces creativity.

Because they are using their abilities together, thinking outside the box! The fighter will get killed just fighting it, regardless how much he is healed by the cleric. The demon is partially immune to the magic of the wizard. There was cleverness and inventiveness in surmounting the problem. Just attacking it, lightning bolt-ing it, whatever isn't enough. It wasn't a thief picking a lock or a cleric turning undead. The party had to either:

1- Run Faster
2- Kill It In One Shot

And they were able to do the latter.

And, yes, I should hope you would be able to do this in any edition. I'm not saying otherwise. I was giving an "A Game" example.

(FWIW, this was done in AD&D back in the day. I don't see why it couldn't happen in any other edition.)

 

[Baron Opal II]

The basic numerical items have never been particularly interesting. Its hard to see how they could be.

+5 Sword - it can cut anything.

Anything.

 

[Hussar]

Because they are using their abilities together, thinking outside the box! The fighter will get killed just fighting it, regardless how much he is healed by the cleric. The demon is partially immune to the magic of the wizard. There was cleverness and inventiveness in surmounting the problem. Just attacking it, lightning bolt-ing it, whatever isn't enough. It wasn't a thief picking a lock or a cleric turning undead. The party had to either:

1- Run Faster
2- Kill It In One Shot

And they were able to do the latter.

And, yes, I should hope you would be able to do this in any edition. I'm not saying otherwise. I was giving an "A Game" example.

(FWIW, this was done in AD&D back in the day. I don't see why it couldn't happen in any other edition.)

Ahh. Sorry misunderstood. I thought you were pointing to a change in the game. My bad.

 

[Thomas Shey]

+5 Sword - it can cut anything.

Anything.

But throughout most of the history of the game, that described a +3 sword, too. Its still not sexy.

 

[billd91]

But throughout most of the history of the game, that described a +3 sword, too. Its still not sexy.

It’s OK for things to not be sexy. Sometimes better but subtle is just fine. It’s when that dominates that it ends up sucking like in the Big Six days of 3e.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Yeah, I booted +X everything from the game.

If it doesn't do anything interesting, it's not magic.

Nothing has ever disappointed me more than getting a +Numbers item when I could have gotten one that does anything at all in-universe.

 

[Thomas Shey]

It’s OK for things to not be sexy. Sometimes better but subtle is just fine. It’s when that dominates that it ends up sucking like in the Big Six days of 3e.

But as the poster below this indicates, for many people its not so fine; its boring. Its just numbers.

 

[Cadence]

But as the poster below this indicates, for many people its not so fine; its boring. Its just numbers.

The third or fourth Frost Brand or Flame Tongue would be boring too, wouldn't it? I don't think I've ever had had a party that wasn't excited (or at least happy) about their first +1 item. The second ones for each character are another story. Same for first big-plus item.

 

[Remathilis]

One thing I'm surprised no one else mentioned is that in old editions of D&D, all you really needed to play was a pencil, some paper, and dice. Now in modern editions you need a pencil, some paper, dice, and the Wizardsoft[emoji769] RPGWow Imaginationchip[emoji2398] installed beneath your left temporal lobe so that you can access the incredible library of Wizardsoft[emoji769] RPGWow Streamdice[emoji2398], MetaMiniatures[emoji2398], and ARAdventures[emoji2398].

I miss the old days!

My group still uses pen and paper at table. Some use their phones to track HP or look up rules, but that is a convenience. While I won't disagree stools make life easier, 5e has made running without a character generator completely doable.

 

[tetrasodium]

The third or fourth Frost Brand or Flame Tongue would be boring too, wouldn't it? I don't think I've ever had had a party that wasn't excited (or at least happy) about their first +1 item. The second ones for each character are another story. Same for first big-plus item.

In a lot of ways adding dice like tg +2d6 flame tongue is a bigger problem than a flat plus tohit/damage. Modern d&d has math that assumes most attacks will hit so there is no more "do I want to hit reliably or hit hard" tradeoff like in the past & it just becomes "do I want to hit hard or hit harder"

edit: Plus they are very much one & done unless you start getting silly with more & more dice