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

[overgeeked]

So, if this is always true, then why the argument that 5e combat is not lethal enough? I'm kinda confused.

In AD&D, all the DM has to do is have a combat for it to be a threat to be taken seriously as any fight can be deadly and will be a potentially long lasting drain on resources.

In 5E, the DM has to have…what 6-8 fights in a day to hit the designed balance sweet spot and even then the threat won’t be taken all that seriously until the last few fights and even then it will not matter at all after an 8 hour rest.

So a dramatic uptick in the work and time involved, and even then, the results aren’t comparable.

And, remember, the point of combat is not to kill PC's. It never was. Killing PC's is easy. Threatening PC's just enough to make the combat interesting without killing them is the trick.

But there is no threat to the PCs in 5E. That’s the problem. Either they die or they’re 100% okay after a nap. There’s no lingering issues. Nothing that effects them beyond possibly using a healing potion or scroll…which they can easily replace in the next town.

To me, this goes right back to the point I made earlier about choice and the differences between editions. In earlier editions, PC death was largely a matter of luck. The dice gods declare you dead and you die. In 5e, that's rarely true. It's not easy for the dice gods to kill a PC in 5e.

It’s not easy to kill a PC in 5E. You really have to go out of your way to make it happen.

But, it is easy for the DM.

In a “rocks fall, everyone dies” sense, yes.

That means that the DM, at the table, has to turn to the player and deliberately declare that the DM is trying to kill that PC. For years, we've been taught as DM's that that's a bad thing. You're never supposed to try and kill someone's character. If the character dies in the course of adventuring, well, that's fine and dandy. But we're DM's. We're supposed to be neutral (or at least not antagonistic). And it's really hard not to take it as antagonistic when the DM deliberately tries to whack your character.

It really is a major shift in how the game works. Moving from "the dice determine outcomes" to "the DM has to choose an outcome" is a big change.

Right. And that’s part of the problem. It should be up to the dice, not the DM. The DM cannot be both neutral and decide the outcome. Otherwise it’s inevitably adversarial. The DM should decide if an action is possible, the relevant DCs if a roll is required, or if it’s impossible…all based on the fiction of the world. But not the outcome, unless it’s a foregone conclusion or a logical consequence. I don’t view the DM as a storyteller. I view the DM as running the world the PCs interact with.

 

[Ovinomancer]

In AD&D, all the DM has to do is have a combat for it to be a threat to be taken seriously as any fight can be deadly and will be a potentially long lasting drain on resources.

Trivially untrue. A handle of goblins after 6th level is just not even a threat. There were pretty clear bands of threat based on PC level in AD&D.

In 5E, the DM has to have…what 6-8 fights in a day to hit the designed balance sweet spot and even then the threat won’t be taken all that seriously until the last few fights and even then it will not matter at all after an 8 hour rest.

Again, this is for medium encounters. The actual pacing mechanism is the XP for an adventurer day, and that is a recommended cap. No reason at all you can't toss 2-3 dadlies in and have a nice bit of pressure.

Let's be honest, in AD&D single fights were often cakewalk or major threats. The bands on which were which were narrower than in 5e because of how bounded accuracy changes the game maths to be broader. But it's a specious argument that every random encounter was a reasonable strain on PCs. They weren't, they were roulette to see if you got the pushover or the random dragon TPK.

So a dramatic uptick in the work and time involved, and even then, the results aren’t comparable.

I spend far less time on my 5e prep than I did in 2e and very much 3e. Less than in 4e, as well. I get the v system to works just fine. That's not a brag on me being awesome, because it wasn't the case when I started running 5e. It happened when I started running 5e for what it was and quit trying to make it be exactly like old edition.

But there is no threat to the PCs in 5E. That’s the problem. Either they die or they’re 100% okay after a nap. There’s no lingering issues. Nothing that effects them beyond possibly using a healing potion or scroll…which they can easily replace in the next town.

He'll, you really need to talk to my players then and convince them there's no threat. I haven't treated death as the only consequence for PCs to suffer in a long time. Really, that's a feature of a game that is creating murder hobos.

It’s not easy to kill a PC in 5E. You really have to go out of your way to make it happen.

Not particularly, but you do you. I mean, is the goal to kill PCs? That seems like the only reason to bemoan this, if it were true. Is there another reason you need to be able to easily kill PCs? What's the design goal ypu want?

In a “rocks fall, everyone dies” sense, yes.

Right. And that’s part of the problem. It should be up to the dice, not the DM. The DM cannot be both neutral and decide the outcome. Otherwise it’s inevitably adversarial. The DM should decide if an action is possible, the relevant DCs if a roll is required, or if it’s impossible…all based on the fiction of the world. But not the outcome, unless it’s a foregone conclusion or a logical consequence. I don’t view the DM as a storyteller. I view the DM as running the world the PCs interact with.

It's never not up to b the GM. The GM presents the that's. The GM directs the that's. The dice resolve uncertainty, but the undistinguished has to be deliberately created by the GM. Putting that on the dice is silly. Dice don't kill PCs, GM putting threats in front of PCs kills PCs.

 

[Hussar]

Again, not really my experience. When the troll attacks the wizard (prior to stoneskin) in 2e that's usually a done deal. In 3e, I always had a good idea of directing an attack was in the red zone. Here, in 5e, I'm not secretive about monster behavior. I overshare. So going down in front of ghouls is a known hazard. I've already disclaimed that decision making.

That's my point. You have made that decision. You have decided that going down in front of ghouls is a known hazard. Cool. Great. But, again, that's YOU making that decision. In earlier editions, any time you took 10 more damage than your current HP, you died, flat out. Which, particularly in 3e with it's critical hits and MASSIVELY upscaled monster damage from earlier editions, was actually pretty easy to do.

IOW, in 5e your 3rd level cleric isn't being one shotted by an orc with a greataxe. It just can't happen. But, it certainly can in 3e. There's far more random death in earlier editions. But, that brings me to the other side of things with @overgeeked:

In AD&D, all the DM has to do is have a combat for it to be a threat to be taken seriously as any fight can be deadly and will be a potentially long lasting drain on resources.

In 5E, the DM has to have…what 6-8 fights in a day to hit the designed balance sweet spot and even then the threat won’t be taken all that seriously until the last few fights and even then it will not matter at all after an 8 hour rest.

So a dramatic uptick in the work and time involved, and even then, the results aren’t comparable.

Not really. After about 3rd level, killing an AD&D PC with damage was nearly impossible. Not without using overwhelming baddies. Lethality was far more common with save or die effects. Most threats in AD&D were speedbumps. You could quite reasonably go through entire combats without losing any resources at all. Remember, we're talking the edition where your ogre has 19 HP, and does like 5 points of damage per round. A 3rd or 4th level party would giggle at a single ogre in AD&D. In 3e or 5e? That's actually a real threat.

Right. And that’s part of the problem. It should be up to the dice, not the DM. The DM cannot be both neutral and decide the outcome. Otherwise it’s inevitably adversarial. The DM should decide if an action is possible, the relevant DCs if a roll is required, or if it’s impossible…all based on the fiction of the world. But not the outcome, unless it’s a foregone conclusion or a logical consequence. I don’t view the DM as a storyteller. I view the DM as running the world the PCs interact with.

Ahh, well, now we're changing the conversation somewhat. I made absolutely no value judgement on the change. I'm just pointing out that it really is a change. The random "You took your current HP+10 damage" death has (mostly) been removed. If you want to whack a PC, you have to take responsibility for it. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to each table.

 

[tetrasodium]

In AD&D, all the DM has to do is have a combat for it to be a threat to be taken seriously as any fight can be deadly and will be a potentially long lasting drain on resources.

In 5E, the DM has to have…what 6-8 fights in a day to hit the designed balance sweet spot and even then the threat won’t be taken all that seriously until the last few fights and even then it will not matter at all after an 8 hour rest.

So a dramatic uptick in the work and time involved, and even then, the results aren’t comparable.

But there is no threat to the PCs in 5E. That’s the problem. Either they die or they’re 100% okay after a nap. There’s no lingering issues. Nothing that effects them beyond possibly using a healing potion or scroll…which they can easily replace in the next town.

It’s not easy to kill a PC in 5E. You really have to go out of your way to make it happen.

In a “rocks fall, everyone dies” sense, yes.

Right. And that’s part of the problem. It should be up to the dice, not the DM. The DM cannot be both neutral and decide the outcome. Otherwise it’s inevitably adversarial. The DM should decide if an action is possible, the relevant DCs if a roll is required, or if it’s impossible…all based on the fiction of the world. But not the outcome, unless it’s a foregone conclusion or a logical consequence. I don’t view the DM as a storyteller. I view the DM as running the world the PCs interact with.

That bold bit is an even bigger problem than it presents as. The work around/patch to dragging down that unreasonably high encounter expectation to something plausible is to use bigger badder monsters & more monsters for "deadly" encounters, but that cranks the hitrate & how hard those monsters hit giving an extra reason for the gm to appear as if they are being adversarial if bob is losing huge chunks of HP in deadly or beyond deadly encounters & those encounters double tap in combat to execute his PC like some adversarial killer gm. In reaction the players are going to do their best to rest even more often to dive fully into the 5minute workday where they nova their way through beyond deadly encounters in a cardboard world forcing even more "deadly" encounters.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That's my point. You have made that decision. You have decided that going down in front of ghouls is a known hazard. Cool. Great. But, again, that's YOU making that decision. In earlier editions, any time you took 10 more damage than your current HP, you died, flat out. Which, particularly in 3e with it's critical hits and MASSIVELY upscaled monster damage from earlier editions, was actually pretty easy to do.

IOW, in 5e your 3rd level cleric isn't being one shotted by an orc with a greataxe. It just can't happen. But, it certainly can in 3e. There's far more random death in earlier editions. But, that brings me to the other side of things with @overgeeked:

No, again this is special pleading. You are assigning the choice that the GM makes a decisive for one side but not the other, when it exists in both places. In 5e, the GM chooses to have a monster attack a PC and that results in death. In earlier editions, the GM chooses to have a monster attack a PC and that results in death. The only distinction you can pull her is that the GM in the layer needs the dice to fall out a certain way for this to happen after their decision. In the former, it's GM decides, dice day, GM decides again and special rule may render dice moot. Still, in both, the GM is equally deciding on what leads to PC death. The dice are not motivators here, they only resolve the action the GM decided. You can't have it one way for one and a different way for the other.

Not really. After about 3rd level, killing an AD&D PC with damage was nearly impossible. Not without using overwhelming baddies. Lethality was far more common with save or die effects. Most threats in AD&D were speedbumps. You could quite reasonably go through entire combats without losing any resources at all. Remember, we're talking the edition where your ogre has 19 HP, and does like 5 points of damage per round. A 3rd or 4th level party would giggle at a single ogre in AD&D. In 3e or 5e? That's actually a real threat.



Ahh, well, now we're changing the conversation somewhat. I made absolutely no value judgement on the change. I'm just pointing out that it really is a change. The random "You took your current HP+10 damage" death has (mostly) been removed. If you want to whack a PC, you have to take responsibility for it. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to each table.

 

[Ovinomancer]

That bold bit is an even bigger problem than it presents as. The work around/patch to dragging down that unreasonably high encounter expectation to something plausible is to use bigger badder monsters & more monsters for "deadly" encounters, but that cranks the hitrate & how hard those monsters hit giving an extra reason for the gm to appear as if they are being adversarial if bob is losing huge chunks of HP in deadly or beyond deadly encounters & those encounters double tap in combat to execute his PC like some adversarial killer gm. In reaction the players are going to do their best to rest even more often to dive fully into the 5minute workday where they nova their way through breyond deadly encounters in a cardboard world forcing even more "deadly" encounters.

Goodness. Please go look at Amy published random monster table for prior edition and there are pushover fights and deadly fights. Why are overcharged encounters okay on prior edition but a problem in current edition?

 

[Hussar]

It's never not up to b the GM. The GM presents the that's. The GM directs the that's. The dice resolve uncertainty, but the undistinguished has to be deliberately created by the GM. Putting that on the dice is silly. Dice don't kill PCs, GM putting threats in front of PCs kills PCs.

Yes and no. The game says that an orc shouldn't be a threat to a 3rd level 3e party. It should be an incredibly easy encounter. Barely a speedbump.

But one lucky crit and that orc just dumped 48 points of damage into a 3rd level character, killing him instantly.

In no other edition can you do that. If you have 20 hp in 5e, it is impossible for a creature that deals less than 20 HP on a hit to kill you outright. It MUST attack you again after you're down. Which is the DM deliberately doing this. It's not random. It's not the dice. It's the DM declaring that yup, your character has a pretty good chance of dying right now.

So, no, it's not the same thing at all.

 

[Hussar]

No, again this is special pleading. You are assigning the choice that the GM makes a decisive for one side but not the other, when it exists in both places. In 5e, the GM chooses to have a monster attack a PC and that results in death. In earlier editions, the GM chooses to have a monster attack a PC and that results in death. The only distinction you can pull her is that the GM in the layer needs the dice to fall out a certain way for this to happen after their decision. In the former, it's GM decides, dice day, GM decides again and special rule may render dice moot. Still, in both, the GM is equally deciding on what leads to PC death. The dice are not motivators here, they only resolve the action the GM decided. You can't have it one way for one and a different way for the other.

No. You're missing a part.

In 5e, you attack the PC. You down the PC. You then must attack the PC again in order to get the result of death.

In 3e, you attack the PC. You kill the PC flat out.

There is a significant step there. In 5e you have to consciously decide that at this point in the game, you, the DM are going to attempt to kill this PC.

In 3e, all you really decide is to attack the PC. That part is the same in all editions - monster attacks PC. In AD&D, likely that attack either missed or did trivial damage. In 3e, they massively increased monster damage to the point where it was entirely possible to either one shot or at least kill the PC with a full attack. In 5e, they increased the survivability on the player side. It's nearly impossible to kill a PC flat out - dealing the PC's current HP+Max HP in a single hit is nearly impossible. So, it goes to death saves. Again, you can then hurry that along and attack the downed character, but, like I said, that's a decision point for the DM.

 

[tetrasodium]

Goodness. Please go look at Amy published random monster table for prior edition and there are pushover fights and deadly fights. Why are overcharged encounters okay on prior edition but a problem in current edition?

"In 5E, the DM has to have…what 6-8 fights in a day to hit the designed balance sweet spot and even then the threat won’t be taken all that seriously until the last few fights and even then it will not matter at all after an 8 hour rest."
It used to be 4-6 in the past & that 4-6 expectation was a number that could both be reached and taxed to create tension against the resources players have within a session or two. 6-8 is such a high number that's no longer the case. Bringing that 6-8 down to a reasonable number immediately creates an escalating feedback loop of more & more seemingly inappropriate encounters blasted apart with 5mwd nova after. 5mwd nova. Deadly fights existing in the past when they were not required simply to compensate for impractical expectations does not change the problems that are created as a result of 5e having impractical expectations that require their use regularly

 

[overgeeked]

Not really. After about 3rd level, killing an AD&D PC with damage was nearly impossible. Not without using overwhelming baddies.

LOL. Uh...we must have had wildly different experiences playing AD&D, then.

Lethality was far more common with save or die effects.

Partially true.

Most threats in AD&D were speedbumps.

Sure, but those speedbumps added up over time. Remember, in AD&D you healed 1 hp per day. Unless the PCs are swimming in spell slots or magic items, they're not going to be gleefully charging into combat constantly.

You could quite reasonably go through entire combats without losing any resources at all.

Wow. Again, wildly different experiences, then. No resources? So zero spells cast. Zero hp lost. Zero consumables used? Not really, no. You certainly could avoid a combat by playing smart, but once the combat happened, "roll initiative" it was on.

Remember, we're talking the edition where your ogre has 19 HP, and does like 5 points of damage per round. A 3rd or 4th level party would giggle at a single ogre in AD&D.

But there's an interesting bit you left off. Number appearing. The assumption isn't that you'd face a single ogre. The no. appearing for ogres is 2d10. That's when they become a threat. Your party of 5-6 is now staring at a warband of ogres. Now they're a threat.

The MM1 ogre has 4d8+1 hit points...which averages 19 hp. Doesn't mean that's what they get. The ogre deals 1d10 damage or by weapon. So what do we learn about the monster from those stats? Facing off against one is a mild inconvenience for a 1st-level party of four. But fighting it could be anywhere from a cakewalk to a TPK depending on the dice. Facing off against the average or higher end of that 2-20? Yeah, run.

And remind me how quickly hp recovers in AD&D...1 hp per day of rest. So even one hit leaves a lasting impression. And how many hours of meditation, prayer, study does it take to recoup a used spell...from 15 min/level for magic-users to "a few hours" for clerics.

In 3e or 5e? That's actually a real threat.

LOL. Really? An ogre is a threat? To whom? People with sensitive noses?

AC11. HP 59. CR2. Greatclub +6 to-hit, 5ft reach, 2d8+4 damage, or; Javelin +6 to-hit, 30/120 ft range, 2d6+4 damage.

So a PC with +0 to-hit has a 50% chance to connect...and most 1st-level PCs are rocking +5-6 to-hit, so they have a 75-80% to-hit.

A 1st-level party of four can pump out 60 damage in what...a round...a round-and-a-half. Let's see fighter with +3 damage rolling 2d6 for that greatsword...averages 10 damage per hit. The rogue is rocking +3 damage and rolling 1d6 or 1d8...plus 1d6 with sneak attack...averages 10-11 damage per hit. The cleric is launching Sacred Flame or Toll the Dead...an infinite number of times...save DC13 vs DEX or WIS...of an ogre...so -1 or -2...so it's taking 1d8 or 1d12...averages about 5.5 per hit. Who's left? The wizard is rocking the same baseline +3 to main stat as everyone else...and launching a Fire Bolt for 1d10...averages 5.5 per hit. So assuming no crits...in one round that basic party puts out an average of 31 damage. So exactly two rounds. And all with 75-80% chance to hit. Let's say with some misses that's two-and-a-half rounds.

How much damage can the ogre put out in that time? Depends on initiative. It's not likely to go first, so it will get at least one attack off before it dies. Maybe two if it's lucky. Let's say two attacks. It lands smack in the middle of initiative. So first round, if it hits, does an average of 11 damage. Wow. That's so much. And on round two, if it hits, does an average of 11 damage. So 22 damage...then it dies. Now what effect does 22 damage, likely to two targets do? Knocks them to 0 hp and makes them roll death saves. There's a cleric in the party. Healing Word as a bonus action so not miss out on killing the ogre, or spare the dying if the ogre's already dead on round two, or someone with a healer's kit (plus or minus the Healer feat).

So what are the short term problems the PCs have to deal with? Down maybe a Hit Dice, one spell slot, and 1-2 healer's kit uses...at worst. And all that comes back tomorrow. Except the healer's kit uses...which cost 5gp for 10 uses. So nothing, basically. No consequences. No bad stuff. Certainly not anything that lasts. And unless the players are intentionally letting someone die, no one will die. Even if the DM targets one PC...the ogre gets two attacks before it dies. Unless the PC is incredibly unlucky, they live.

Ahh, well, now we're changing the conversation somewhat. I made absolutely no value judgement on the change. I'm just pointing out that it really is a change. The random "You took your current HP+10 damage" death has (mostly) been removed. If you want to whack a PC, you have to take responsibility for it. Whether that's a good or bad thing is up to each table.

You're missing my point. It's not about wanting to whack a PC. It's about playing a game that's not so wildly balanced in favor of the PCs. It's not interesting because everything is a foregone conclusion. There's no chance. No randomness. No luck. No skill. The PCs simply win, unless the DM becomes adversarial and stacks the deck against them. I think that's bad.