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

[Mournblade94]

Right. So to recap, to kill a PC the monster (or group of monsters) has to: 1) eliminate all the PC's hit points; 2) work through 3 death saves despite any and all healing (any of which will reset the count to zero); 3) do all that without the PC's party healing them through the damage/death saves, and; 4) do all that despite being wildly undertuned compared to the PCs (as in lower AC, lower hp, lower damage, etc). Let's look at healing. Healing Word, Revivify, Cure Wounds, paladin's Lay on Hands, Aasimar healing, fighter second wind, Healer feat with a healer's kit, etc. Most or all of that is available at low levels. So, basically, everyone at the table has to agree that a given character's time has come before a PC can die.

Tactictly Death isnt always the desired result. if the PC is down they are no longer a threat. I don't like when DMs think that the monsters just want to kill (Unless the fluff warrants it)

I immediately shift the monsters to making sure the support is taken down once a damage dealer is down. That action to kill the Damage dealer outright can be much better used trying to curtail a support character from bringing the unconcious character up.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Right. So to recap, to kill a PC the monster (or group of monsters) has to: 1) eliminate all the PC's hit points; 2) work through 3 death saves despite any and all healing (any of which will reset the count to zero); 3) do all that without the PC's party healing them through the damage/death saves, and; 4) do all that despite being wildly undertuned compared to the PCs (as in lower AC, lower hp, lower damage, etc). Let's look at healing. Healing Word, Revivify, Cure Wounds, paladin's Lay on Hands, Aasimar healing, fighter second wind, Healer feat with a healer's kit, etc. Most or all of that is available at low levels. So, basically, everyone at the table has to agree that a given character's time has come before a PC can die.

I mean, maybe. My PC death rate didn't really change much. Still pretty heavy, 3-6 deaths a campaign (approx a year). It was lower in 3.x, went up in 4e, and stayed about the same in 5e. I use book CR calculations, usually pumping average party level by 1 for magic items. Works fine for me. Wonder what it is I do differently? I play with pretty decent optimizers -- no dud PCs.

 

[overgeeked]

Tactictly Death isnt always the desired result.

Of course.

if the PC is down they are no longer a threat.

Most monsters will think that...until the "no longer a threat" PC stands back up and starts hurting the monster. At which point, the monsters will start double tapping the PCs.

I don't like when DMs think that the monsters just want to kill (Unless the fluff warrants it).

Of course. It depends on the monster. Animals want food or to protect their young or territory, etc. Intelligent monsters have goals they're trying to achieve. Etc.

I immediately shift the monsters to making sure the support is taken down once a damage dealer is down. That action to kill the Damage dealer outright can be much better used trying to curtail a support character from bringing the unconcious character up.

How odd. That's only effective if the healer is within reach and the monster can prevent the healer from ever casting a heal on the downed character. Seems like incredibly bad tactics from an intelligent monster. The only way to make sure the PC doesn't get back up due to that healer is to kill one of them (the downed PC or the healer) or drain all the healer's resources. With how prevalent healing spells and abilities are in 5E, that's basically a TPK or go home.

 

[overgeeked]

Which all kind of leads to an interesting question. What playstyle is 5E designed for?

The early TSR versions and editions were all about the dungeoncrawl and wilderness exploration. XP for gold, not killing monsters. Low hit points. Combat was deadly. Death was laughably common. Resource management. So they pushed smart play, avoiding combat, interacting with the environment, etc.

2E shifted a bit to more story-focused play. The Player's Option series brought in builds and power gaming. Resource management was still a thing.

3E embraced builds and power gaming and system mastery. It ended up in rocket-tag land. Numbers went up and healing was easier. Resource management was still a thing, after a fashion.

4E was all about combat, almost to the complete exclusion of non-combat. Numbers went up and healing was easier. Resource management was practically gone as it only had two categories: encounter or daily. You got encounter resources back after a 5-minute rest and daily resources back after a 6-8 hour rest. And practically everything else was shoved into skill challenges. As much as I love skill challenges, they were not the panacea the designers thought they were.

5E is often described as a throw-back to 2E. Numbers went up (though a few went down) and healing is easier. Death is rare. Resource management is all-but gone as most resources are trivial to replenish.

So 5E isn't a dungeoncrawl game. It's not an overland travel game. It's not a resource management game. You only get XP for killing monsters per RAW. The game rewards killing monsters...but fights are trivially easy per RAW...unless the DM puts a heavy thumb on the scale...so it's not a combat game. It's smooth and easy to pick up and use, mostly. But it doesn't push a single playstyle...while actively discouraging or making certain playstyles impossible or pointless.

 

[billd91]

I didn't know. 1e had 0hp = dead and I remember an optional rule of 0 to -10. Maybe it worked for the latter.
Anyways it sounds workable for my table, I'm thinking of incorporating it.

The main point of comparison is that any character taken to 0 in 1e and then stabilized wasn't getting back up. They were in a coma for 10-60 minutes and then had to rest a week. That's probably a lot harsher than what you are suggesting, but it sure meant that whack-a-mole wasn't a thing in 1e. 2e also prevented whack-a-mole though the weakness wasn't quite as harsh (1 day of rest was required instead of a week).

 

[Vaalingrade]

4E was all about combat, almost to the complete exclusion of non-combat.

Um, 4e introduced skill challenges, utility powers and rituals.

Please do not propagate misinformation.

 

[overgeeked]

Um, 4e introduced skill challenges, utility powers and rituals.

Please do not propagate misinformation.

Try reading the full paragraph.

4E was all about combat, almost to the complete exclusion of non-combat. Numbers went up and healing was easier. Resource management was practically gone as it only had two categories: encounter or daily. You got encounter resources back after a 5-minute rest and daily resources back after a 6-8 hour rest. And practically everything else was shoved into skill challenges. As much as I love skill challenges, they were not the panacea the designers thought they were.

So, as you say, "Please do not propagate misinformation."

 

[Vaalingrade]

Try reading the full paragraph.

So, as you say, "Please do not propagate misinformation."

Don't see utility powers, rituals or all the other non-combat bits of 4e. Just complaints that the non-combat was 'shoved' into skill challenges. Which is still misinformation.

Disliking n edition is fine. I dislike 3e and 5e.

But what is the point of a decade long smear campaign? You won. 4e is dead and its legacy burned to cinders. We'll never have encounter-based design, player agency focused design, tactical combat, or anything else it brought to the table again.

Just stop doing donuts on the grave.

 

[Ovinomancer]

Try reading the full paragraph.

So, as you say, "Please do not propagate misinformation."

This is still wrong, though. Skill challenges were one tool, not the only one. The skill system was still more robust than 3e's. Rituals offered lots of non combat tools. Utility powers coupled with page 42 were hugely open tools for noncombat stuff. It wasn't all skill challenges. When it was skill challenges, they were a powerful brand new tool to do things not available prior.

 

[Mournblade94]

Don't see utility powers, rituals or all the other non-combat bits of 4e. Just complaints that the non-combat was 'shoved' into skill challenges. Which is still misinformation.

Disliking n edition is fine. I dislike 3e and 5e.

But what is the point of a decade long smear campaign? You won. 4e is dead and its legacy burned to cinders. We'll never have encounter-based design, player agency focused design, tactical combat, or anything else it brought to the table again.

Just stop doing donuts on the grave.

He literally went through every edition and touched on one or two points. Why would you require he is really clear that 4e isnt just a skirmish game?

He wasnt smearing 4e any more than he did any other edition.