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

[overgeeked]

Actually, it is the reverse. It was to prevent zounds of short and long rests and to prevent the 5mwd as a bonus effect.

No matter how long a character rests, they cannot recover until they have enough fights. There’s no in-world logic to that. It’s pure game mechanics.

 

[overgeeked]

Compared to what? Basic? Maybe. Compared to AD&D 1e, not a chance.

Yes, when compared to AD&D, 5E is more complicated. AD&D has: no subraces, no subclasses, no feats, no skills except thief, no bonus actions, no concentration, etc. Both have multiclassing, but the AD&D version is simpler. Death and dying is simpler in AD&D. Spells are simpler in AD&D. Resting is simpler in AD&D. The perceived complexity of AD&D is mostly due to optional rules almost no one used like weapon speed and weapon vs armor charts. The only things 5E does that are simpler than AD&D is AC and dis/advantage.

 

[Helldritch]

No matter how long a character rests, they cannot recover until they have enough fights. There’s no in-world logic to that. It’s pure game mechanics.

And the alternative, short rests = a day and long rests = a week does not hold scrutiny either.

The mechanic itself is easy. As long as you try to rest outside the "normal" I will throw random encounters at you. This means that you will eventually have enough encounters to successfully rest.

But, random encounters do not count toward the number of enemies in an adventure/lair. They do not give treasure and do not give experience. So random encounters are not something my players want to have.

 

[overgeeked]

And the alternative, short rests = a day and long rests = a week does not hold scrutiny either.

The mechanic itself is easy. As long as you try to rest outside the "normal" I will throw random encounters at you. This means that you will eventually have enough encounters to successfully rest.

But, random encounters do not count toward the number of enemies in an adventure/lair. They do not give treasure and do not give experience. So random encounters are not something my players want to have.

I’m not saying it’s complicated or bad, only that it’s pure game mechanics and divorced from any in-world logic. If it works for you, awesome. I prefer the fiction to be at least somewhat logical and the mechanics to reflect that. Setting long rests at a week and short rests at 8 hours is more “fictionally logical” than the DM simply throwing fights at you until you hit an arbitrary benchmark, and only then allows you to recover. I get that it works for you and I get why it works. It’s just not something I’d want to use.

 

[billd91]

Yes, when compared to AD&D, 5E is more complicated. AD&D has: no subraces, no subclasses, no feats, no skills except thief, no bonus actions, no concentration, etc. Both have multiclassing, but the AD&D version is simpler. Death and dying is simpler in AD&D. Spells are simpler in AD&D. Resting is simpler in AD&D. The perceived complexity of AD&D is mostly due to optional rules almost no one used like weapon speed and weapon vs armor charts. The only things 5E does that are simpler than AD&D is AC and dis/advantage.

You have a very weird view of complexity if you think most of those are less complex in AD&D than in 5e.
Races - AD&D very much does have sub races, several of which top out at different max levels in the same class and many of which have oddball abilities that need to be calculated or are highly contextual and integrate weirdly with the surprise rules
Skills - yeah, the core doesn't, but NWP appeared later in 1e and added quite a bit of additional complexity
Concentration - it's different, but it sure was there in the way that it could be disrupted when spells were being cast which had a very complex interaction with initiative
Multiclassing - in 5e, it's a bit weird, but 1e's was very complex too. How many hit points do you get? How does each class ability interact with the abilities of other classes - many of which weren't well spelled out
Death and Dying/Resting - 1e's dying was weird, if taken below 0 but up to -3, you're dying (very specific window, that), anything lower you're apparently just dead - so sometimes you get to -10, sometimes not. Then you've got recovery after a coma, and a week of light activity. Meanwhile, characters who didn't get that low recover different rates depending on how many days (and their Con mod) they're resting. That's SO much less complex than regaining all your hit points/half your hit dice overnight.
And then comes combat, which is considerably more complex in AD&D even without the bonus action - weird rates of attack, arcane rules about closing and missile exchange, oddball surprise rules, combat matrices that all vary between class groupings, lots of AC variation depending on attack route, shields, and helmets.

5e is SO much easier to teach players than 1e ever was.

 

[overgeeked]

You have a very weird view of complexity if you think most of those are less complex in AD&D than in 5e.

No, just the standard definition of complexity.

Races - AD&D very much does have sub races, several of which top out at different max levels in the same class and many of which have oddball abilities that need to be calculated or are highly contextual and integrate weirdly with the surprise rules.

Really? I don't see any subraces in the PHB. You don't need to teach someone race-based level limits to play the game. You start at 1st level. Unless the rules apply at the beginning, there's no use teaching them at the beginning. Besides, removing level limits was one of the most common house rules.

Skills - yeah, the core doesn't, but NWP appeared later in 1e and added quite a bit of additional complexity.

Right. So optional supplements presented optional NWP rules...nine years into the life of the edition. Not a very compelling argument.

Concentration - it's different, but it sure was there in the way that it could be disrupted when spells were being cast which had a very complex interaction with initiative.

Right. If you get hit while casting, your spell is lost. So complicated.

Multiclassing - in 5e, it's a bit weird, but 1e's was very complex too. How many hit points do you get? How does each class ability interact with the abilities of other classes - many of which weren't well spelled out.

Sure, it's weird. It's what people call hybrid now. Take all the abilities of both classes. Roll all the hit dice, divide the sum by 2. Add CON mod if you get to. Divide your earned XP evenly between your classes. If you level in one class before the other, gain its abilities and roll your hit dice, divide by 2...add CON if you get to. Again, not complicated.

Death and Dying/Resting - 1e's dying was weird, if taken below 0 but up to -3, you're dying (very specific window, that), anything lower you're apparently just dead - so sometimes you get to -10, sometimes not. Then you've got recovery after a coma, and a week of light activity. Meanwhile, characters who didn't get that low recover different rates depending on how many days (and their Con mod) they're resting. That's SO much less complex than regaining all your hit points/half your hit dice overnight.

That's an optional rule in the DMG. The PHB rules are simple. At zero hp, you die. Resting is easier, too. You get 1 hp per day of rest. After 30 days of rest, it becomes 5 hp per day. That's wildly simpler than short rests, long rests, so many HD per long rest recovered...how many minutes of fighting interrupts a long rest in 5E again?

And then comes combat, which is considerably more complex in AD&D even without the bonus action - weird rates of attack, arcane rules about closing and missile exchange, oddball surprise rules, combat matrices that all vary between class groupings, lots of AC variation depending on attack route, shields, and helmets.

I know fractions are hard, but 3/2 isn't "weird". Many of those are optional rules. Most of the rest were some of the most common things dumped in house rules. Shrug. But yeah, the combat matrix is a wild one. Props to WotC for going with ascending AC. But yeah, 5E combat is still more complicated.

5e is SO much easier to teach players than 1e ever was.

Mostly from ubiquity and willingness to learn. If someone's interested and willing, it doesn't matter how complex. If someone's uninterested and unwilling, it doesn't matter how simple.

 

[clearstream]

I’m not talking rules or mechanics. I mean in terms of theme, tone, and aesthetic.

I share your feeling that there has been change, and yet it's surprisingly difficult (for me) to pin down the change concretely.

I would say that 5e as it is most played sits between low and high fantasy, but nearer the latter, where Basic D&D was nearer the former. In 5e a wide-range of characters can create a magical light at will. In Basic, they carried torches (or had them carried for them). Some have said super-heroes, but I think this isn't quite right. Today's games are less heroic, in a classic sense. More a contemporary view of being a greatly empowered person.

I feel like there is a large change in the imagined cultures and attitudes. Tonally contemporary, broad, diversified compared with the swords and sorcery medieval of earlier editions.

Use of technology has thematically shifted from portraying a medieval mindset's view of magic and monsters, to portraying how a contemporary mindset might view and use those things. So we're less often adopting the mind of a medieval person in a mythic-medieval world, but of a contemporary person in an alternate world.

The aesthetic? Perhaps largely driven by increasing availability of and funding for skilled artists, the aesthetic is less crudely impressionist, more realistically realised. But inheriting tone from videogames - volumetric lighting, lense flares, particles - at far higher resolutions.

 

[DarkCrisis]

No, just the standard definition of complexity.

Really? I don't see any subraces in the PHB. You don't need to teach someone race-based level limits to play the game. You start at 1st level. Unless the rules apply at the beginning, there's no use teaching them at the beginning. Besides, removing level limits was one of the most common house rules.

Right. So optional supplements presented optional NWP rules...nine years into the life of the edition. Not a very compelling argument.

Right. If you get hit while casting, your spell is lost. So complicated.

Sure, it's weird. It's what people call hybrid now. Take all the abilities of both classes. Roll all the hit dice, divide the sum by 2. Add CON mod if you get to. Divide your earned XP evenly between your classes. If you level in one class before the other, gain its abilities and roll your hit dice, divide by 2...add CON if you get to. Again, not complicated.

That's an optional rule in the DMG. The PHB rules are simple. At zero hp, you die. Resting is easier, too. You get 1 hp per day of rest. After 30 days of rest, it becomes 5 hp per day. That's wildly simpler than short rests, long rests, so many HD per long rest recovered...how many minutes of fighting interrupts a long rest in 5E again?

I know fractions are hard, but 3/2 isn't "weird". Many of those are optional rules. Most of the rest were some of the most common things dumped in house rules. Shrug. But yeah, the combat matrix is a wild one. Props to WotC for going with ascending AC. But yeah, 5E combat is still more complicated.

Mostly from ubiquity and willingness to learn. If someone's interested and willing, it doesn't matter how complex. If someone's uninterested and unwilling, it doesn't matter how simple.

Testify! I currently play (and run) both 2 and 5E and man 2E is so much less to keep track of.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Yes, when compared to AD&D, 5E is more complicated. AD&D has: no subraces, no subclasses, no feats, no skills except thief, no bonus actions, no concentration, etc. Both have multiclassing, but the AD&D version is simpler. Death and dying is simpler in AD&D. Spells are simpler in AD&D. Resting is simpler in AD&D. The perceived complexity of AD&D is mostly due to optional rules almost no one used like weapon speed and weapon vs armor charts. The only things 5E does that are simpler than AD&D is AC and dis/advantage.

Everyone who says 1e is less complex than 5e invariably means 1e (but ignoring a bunch of non optional rules nobody ever used but that are written in the book) is less complex than 5e.

Did you know that a spellcaster being attacked while casting a spell can't add their DEX bonus to AC or they will automatically lose the spell (DMG 65)? Of course not because nobody has probably ever used that rule.

The only reason I know about is is I have the full 20 page document of how to run an ADnD combat with every small rules exception noted in it saved on my phone to reference and bring up every time so eone says 1e was less complex than 5e.

Search for the DnD document called ADDICT if you want to see for yourself.

Bonus question: How do you adjudicate surprise when a party with a ranger encounters a band of duregar? It's in ADDICT. Hint: it requires converting fractions to percentiles.

 

[overgeeked]

Everyone who says 1e is less complex than 5e invariably means 1e (but ignoring a bunch of non optional rules nobody ever used but that are written in the book) is less complex than 5e.

Did you know that a spellcaster being attacked while casting a spell can't add their DEX bonus to AC or they will automatically lose the spell (DMG 65)? Of course not because nobody has probably ever used that rule.

The only reason I know about is is I have the full 20 page document of how to run an ADnD combat with every small rules exception noted in it saved on my phone to reference and bring up every time so eone says 1e was less complex than 5e.

Search for the DnD document called ADDICT if you want to see for yourself.

Bonus question: How do you adjudicate surprise when a party with a ranger encounters a band of duregar? It's in ADDICT. Hint: it requires converting fractions to percentiles.

Oh, no! Not maths! Evil terrible maths!

Yeah, I've seen that ridiculous thing. It's more than a bit disingenuous to claim that's the baseline rules when the document itself cites its sources as things like Dragon articles, modules, supplements, and unrelated 3rd party magazines.