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

[Hussar]

Since we're talking about changes, I think that the death save thing is a bigger change than people realize. Not so much about the survivability, although that's part of it, but, the fact that now the DM more or less has to choose to kill your character. In the past, death was mostly a function of the dice. Drop to zero (or probably -10 at some tables) and you die. So, anything that did your current HP+10 was instant death. And that wasn't all that hard to do, especially in 3e where the monster damages were increased significantly. At higher level character at low HP went from alive to dead really, really quickly when you have things like Fire Giants Power Attacking for 30 or 40 points of damage per hit and multiple attacks per round.

4e and now 5e though, means that that shot that drops you below zero likely won't kill you. At least, not after third or fourth level. It's unlikely you're going to take your HP max in a single hit. Possible, but, unlikely. So, now you're down. The DM has to pretty much deliberately target you to kill your character. Granted, if he does, it's very, very likely you will die. Two hits and you're dead since every hit is an automatic critical and causes two death fails.

But, like a lot of things in 5e, it has to be a choice. The DM has to CHOOSE to do this. And, I think a lot of DM's aren't really comfortable with that. It's seen as kinda unsportsmanlike for the DM to turn to a player and just say, "Yup, I'mma killin' yer character now!!"

Which does roll back around to the idea that 5e is so hard to kill PC's. I think it's probably more accurate to say, it's hard to accidentally kill PC's. It's really, really easy to deliberately do it.

And, as I said, this is one of the bigger differences we see throughout the game. The whole deal around racial ASI's where race choice funneled players into specific archetypes has now morphed into the game giving you a much more open choice. You absolutely could play that elven fighter wizard in 5e that looks a lot like a 1e F/MU. Totally doable. But, again, it's a choice. You don't have to. You could play an elven Monk if you want to. Something that absolutely didn't exist in D&D until 3e rolled along.

Like I said, one of the biggest differences in later D&D is the fact that you, the player or the DM, now have a lot more responsibility and ability to choose. You want to be a killer 5e DM? No problem. Target softer PC's and hit them when they're down. Easy peasy. But, unlike earlier editions, you have to choose to do that. Which makes for some ... uncomfortable table discussions.

 

[Minigiant]

Since we're talking about changes, I think that the death save thing is a bigger change than people realize. Not so much about the survivability, although that's part of it, but, the fact that now the DM more or less has to choose to kill your character. In the past, death was mostly a function of the dice. Drop to zero (or probably -10 at some tables) and you die. So, anything that did your current HP+10 was instant death. And that wasn't all that hard to do, especially in 3e where the monster damages were increased significantly. At higher level character at low HP went from alive to dead really, really quickly when you have things like Fire Giants Power Attacking for 30 or 40 points of damage per hit and multiple attacks per round.

It's more that PCs only "die" in TPKs, Heroic Sacrifices, Player idiocy, or DM double taps in 4e and 5e.

Gone is "Whoops Tommy's dead. Sad, Onward" where the survivor either continues or runs for escape.

Especially in 5e. PCs don't "die" individually. They either all die or someone is left behind. No flukes. 90% of deaths are wipes, story moments, or stories of wipes.

 

[tetrasodium]

It's more that PCs only "die" in TPKs, Heroic Sacrifices, Player idiocy, or DM double taps in 4e and 5e.

Gone is "Whoops Tommy's dead. Sad, Onward" where the survivor either continues or runs for escape.

Especially in 5e. PCs don't "die" individually. They either all die or someone is left behind. No flukes. 90% of deaths are wipes, story moments, or stories of wipes.

That's all well and good to say but bringing someone back from the dead is easier than ever too. Even if a player dies from suicidal levels of gross stupidity the cost of bringing them back is trivial to the point that I've seen players work (hard) *to be killed wanting to bring in a new pc only to be brought back before they could explain it was desired

* it takes a concerted effort like a naked wizard main tank repeatedly rushing into the next fight before the bodies finish falling repeatedly before yoyo wackamole healing stops keeping up.

Sure a party can tok to a fireball by knowingly going caster hunting with single digit hp totals supported by spells like healing word but then they get all salty with the gm for opening with a fireball & repeating thatinstead of the caster picking their nose when someone casts healing word

 

[Hussar]

Again @tetrasodium, please stop trying to extrapolate from your own table. Because what you describe I’ve never seen or even heard of.

 

[tetrasodium]

Again @tetrasodium, please stop trying to extrapolate from your own table. Because what you describe I’ve never seen or even heard of.

Stick a couple healing word capable casters in a party and it's basically impossible for someone to die until they run out of slots or refuse to cast it. That's not an extrapolation. That's limited to what... Cleric Druid Bard that one warlock with healing breeze or whatever... Maybe some others like divine sorcerer?

Even double tap only works if the second attack comes before any of them can cast it so the chance of Bob being killed depends on initiative orde

Edit: and then there is revivify... None of that is table specific or even unusual

 

[beancounter]

I don't think its unrealistic or table specific to say that healing, stabilizing and revivifying are readily available in 5E.

Add to that death saves, and it's clear that ,relative to earlier editions, it's hard to permanently die in 5E.

 

[Older Beholder]

I think this move away from lethality is again an example of the game moving in the direction of how people like to play. It’s not so much that the game can‘t be as dangerous, players are just less interested in having to make a new character every session.

The focus over the years has become more about role play and story telling. Gone are the days of a DM killing the entire party because they were sick of the game or just wanted to play something else. (Thankfully)

That being said, in 5E…

I’ve seen groups without a healer.
I’ve seen the only cleric in the party not take healing spells
I‘ve seen the only character with healing get dropped to 0 hps first
etc,

the game can be as lethal is the group wants it to be, the main trend has been to give groups more of a choice in the matter.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Fair enough. And really there’s nothing to discuss at that point.

So what’s the goal of telling people repeatedly that you don’t like something that they do like?

The same goal you have when you tell people repeatedly how much you like something, I guess. Recognition and exposure.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think this move away from lethality is again an example of the game moving in the direction of how people like to play. It’s not so much that the game can‘t be as dangerous, players are just less interested in having to make a new character every session.

The focus over the years has become more about role play and story telling. Gone are the days of a DM killing the entire party because they were sick of the game or just wanted to play something else. (Thankfully)

That being said, in 5E…

I’ve seen groups without a healer.
I’ve seen the only cleric in the party not take healing spells
I‘ve seen the only character with healing get dropped to 0 hps first
etc,

the game can be as lethal is the group wants it to be, the main trend has been to give groups more of a choice in the matter.

It's all well and good that players want to play u that way, but you present a conflicting set of positions that only resolve themselves if you admit that the DM is not technically "playing" d&d.

Rules that granted ability for players to die by accident insulated the gm from blame for killing a pc that is no longer present with the modern bar of flat out deliberately choosing to execute a pc.

Saying that the game is "more about role play and story telling" sure sounds good & might even be one of the design goals that was aimed for at some point, but like the gm insulation above it requires a caviat & Mearls even mentioned it in the 5 generations of d&d recording someone posed earlier* where the compel against BIFTS didn't make it from testing into 5e . Story telling requires either shared narrative control or a story teller and the gm in modern d&d has been stripped of so many tools standard to past edition's like the influence that players needing magic items gave the gm at the table, no longer present purview over recovery, plausible encounter expectations, & actual chances of lethality players are now insulated from while failing to give the gm tools like compels & such commonly present in shared narrative ttrpgs. Sure it's "more about role play and story telling" but the GM's only role in that story is as life support or cruise ship staff. Unlike life support and underpaid cruise ship staff the gm is rarely paid more than maybe pizza or soda/beer & often expected to provide that pizza or soda/beer.

Splitting gm into a group separate & distinct from "players" solves those problems, but wotc keeps either omitting GM needs interests & feelings from polls or refusing to do that by limiting questions to playing d&d. It's understandable that wotc would be reluctant to shine a spotlight on that sort of split though since it raises the question of exactly what role the gm is expected to fill in that "story telling".... Is it Cruise ship guide & life support for wish fulfillment or participant?

*on my phone so not linking it all fancy in line but its a good listen. Mearls(?) talks about compelling a greedy rogue into doing something fate style & that rule not making it into 5e among other great discussions including nebulous undefinable gm blessed limitations of magic item crafting components & more.

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

I'd say that anyone who thinks Vance and Leiber are mundane low fantasy really hasn't read much of Vance (check out the Rhialto the Marvellous stories, for one) or Leiber. Man, if D&D actually used Vance's work instead of mutilating its carcass to make magic tedious...

www.enworld.org

 

[Ovinomancer]

Surprisingly, it’s harder to die in 5E than 4E.

Both editions have three failed death saves and you die. Straight d20 roll vs DC10.

In 5E death saves reset when you get up to 1 hp. And you can take two non-crit hits of up to (max hp -1) without dying outright.

In 4E, however, death saves don’t clear until you rest. And you keep on tracking and taking damage and die if you take 1/2 max hp after hitting zero.

So, while you’re down, you can take about four times as much damage without dying in 5E compared to 4E. And you have to rest to clear death saves.

Man. That’s wild.

This seems to totally ignore that any damage causes a failed death and a crit (automatic for an adjacent attack) causes 2. So a 5e character can, yes, take massive damage after being down (because hp are no longer tracked) but can also die from 3 points of damage.