log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Is 5e Heroic, or SUPER-heroic?

oriaxx77

Explorer
On your topic, the superhero question:

Are D&D characters powerful? Yep compared to e.g. DSA characters they are (most of the times).

Their magic capabilities are very high on higher XP levels.
Are they superheroes though? Well, let us see:

  • Fly at will, through outer space if needed? No, unless you are of a winged race, and then it is only maneuverability class B
  • X-ray vision or the like? Nope. You got some divination skills though for certain caster classes.
  • Being really inhumane strong, like able to lift and move a whole truck? No. They are far stronger than most world elite professional athlets, but they are not "Superman"
  • Invulnerable? No, though they can take in their package of hurt.

So they are above the things that normal IRL people could accomplish, and above many characters in other - more low magic, realistic and gritty - systems. But they are not "marvel-class" beings.

Are they heroes then? Hm, I would say that is dependent on their deeds also isn't it? If they are evil aligned and out for no good they could be villains as well , no?
My high level wizard kicked Spiderman’s ass. It is not Superman but still a superhero so I think it counts.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Coroc

Hero
My high level wizard kicked Spiderman’s ass. It is not Superman but still a superhero so I think it counts.
Yea there you see, it is all about definition. E.g. Batman uses only technology and his athletics, so in theory every ordinary being investing in sports and having access to his tech shenanigans could be like Batman. So I can conclude now every normal being can be a superhero, since D&D characters most often are extraordinary already, every D&D character could be a superhero too?
 

Session length has nothing to do with the adventuring day. Correct. Most groups choose to combine session length with the adventuring day.
1) Do you have any proof this is the case?
2) Even if this is the case, that's the fault of those groups. The rules are not: 'at the start of the session your PCs resources are all fully recharged.' If groups ARE choosing to refresh all abilities at the start of every session (as if a Long rest had occurred between sessions) that's the group not following the actual rules of the game.

That most groups do not have long adventuring days. They have one, two, sometimes three encounters and then they rest.
And if you're the DM of a Group that only has 1-3 encounters before resting 8 hours, you should be using the Gritty realism rest variant. That way your overnight rests are Short rests, and you need a full week back at base to Long rest.

At the end of the day Groups that are only getting 1-3 encounters between Long rests, are doing so by consent of the DM. If the DM is allowing the 5 minute adventuring day, and it's causing problems, then that's on the DM.

You are correct, in time sensitive dungeons or areas, those spells only provide a safe long rest, but it might also mean that the PC's don't "win." But, again, I would argue that time sensitivity is not the norm for a lot of groups. And that would push my original point - long adventuring days are rarer than short adventuring days.
So now we have a hypothetical group where:

1) The DM refuses to put the PCs on the clock
2) The DM allows 'free of charge' Long rest recharges at the start of every session, regardless of if the PCs actually rested or not
3) The DM refuses to apply any of the rest variants from the DMG
4) The DM ignores the 'adventuring day' XP guidelines from the DMG

That DM cant exactly complain when things go a little out of whack. The DM is ignoring the DMG guidelines, refusing to police the Adventuring day or resource replenishment (in a Resource management game), and is even making active decisions to allow free Long Rest's at the start of every session, despite that not being an actual rule of the game.

You keep saying this is the 'norm'. What evidence do you have to back this claim up?
 

In our games there isn't any correlation between adventuring days and sessions - typically I end a session on a cliff-hanger "roll for initiative".

But, just because of the sort of stuff we enjoy, our games are heavy on the exploration and social pillars, and there are often several in game days between combat encounters. As such, I usually balance combat encounters around deadly - I assume the party is fully rested. This clearly favours certain classes in combat over others, but, since combat isn't a huge part of the game, no one cares if character X is better than character Y in a fight.

But I wouldn't try to claim that our game is typical.
 

But, just because of the sort of stuff we enjoy, our games are heavy on the exploration and social pillars, and there are often several in game days between combat encounters. As such, I usually balance combat encounters around deadly - I assume the party is fully rested. This clearly favours certain classes in combat over others, but, since combat isn't a huge part of the game, no one cares if character X is better than character Y in a fight.

But I wouldn't try to claim that our game is typical.
Why dont you use the Gritty rest variant instead? You'd get the same effect without unbalancing classes?
 

Why dont you use the Gritty rest variant instead? You'd get the same effect without unbalancing classes?
A) Gritty doesn't make much difference if there are several days between fights,

B) Players don't care about balance because combat isn't the main focus of the game,

C) Gritty doesn't match the tone of our game.
 

pemerton

Legend
Do you have any proof this is the case?

<snip>

You keep saying this is the 'norm'. What evidence do you have to back this claim up?
I don't think anyone has done the sort of social/marketing research that would be needed to prove this point, except perhaps WotC. But I agree with @Scott Christian that it is a plausible conjecture. A lot of posts I read seem to make more sense taking this as a premise.

Even if this is the case, that's the fault of those groups.

<snip>

At the end of the day Groups that are only getting 1-3 encounters between Long rests, are doing so by consent of the DM. If the DM is allowing the 5 minute adventuring day, and it's causing problems, then that's on the DM.
Were the issues of "fault" and "problems" raised? But anyway, I can see how a group could (i) favour session = "adventuring day" (this was a convention in Moldvay Basic, for instance) and have short/long rest balance issues and prefer a different solution from the record-keeping one.

In a different context, and a different system, in the second of the two long (9-ish years) Rolemaster campaigns I ran, we adjusted a few aspects of the system which made a nova-ing spell user about as powerful as a dedicated warrior. This way we could keep the in-game time conventions around recovery, and maintain the in-game pace of events we wanted (which were not at all dungeon-esque), without casters overshadowing non-casters.

D&D doesn't have the same dial to twist as we did in RM, but my own experience does give me sympathy for the sort of group I described above.
 

A) Gritty doesn't make much difference if there are several days between fights,
Yes it does.

Seeing as you need an entire week of downtime and rest to gain a Long rest, it means you're much more likely going to get short rests before (and after) encounters than you are going to get long rests before (and after) encounters.
 




Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Why are you using a rule-set that is 99 percent about combat to play it?
Just because the majority of the written rules apply to combat, doesn't mean that the game revolves around combat for all games. Personally I do not want much more in the way of detailed rules on how to handle non-combat encounters. The fun of D&D is having the world react in a logical way to all of my actions or deciding how the world will react to my player's actions, in combat and out.

Throw in faction rules, honor systems, reputation points or any other rules construct and the non-combat part of play becomes more like a board game. I wouldn't want that. I understand what they tried to do with skill challenges in 4E but to me it was one of the weaknesses of the game where people would be "We have X successes and Y failures, we just need 1 more success to beat this." It made non-combat stuff (for some DMs/games) just a matter of rolling dice. Yuck.

Empowering the DM and the group to run games that works for them is a strength, not a weakness. Your games may be 99% combat, mine is probably around 30% or less. Many people play that way. There is no right or wrong to either style.
 




Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
You don't need rules for the combat situations either.

Nor do you need D&D.

Why do you play D&D when D&D isn't needed?
What rules do you think we need that we don't have? We have guidance in the DMG under role of the dice. We have skills and proficiencies. There are spells and rituals that don't really apply to combat that can make all of the difference outside of combat.

Combat has more rules because it has a level of complexity for implementation that's not required for out of combat most of the time.
 

chaochou

Adventurer
Combat has more rules because it has a level of complexity for implementation that's not required for out of combat most of the time.
This is just false. Combat has rules when people want to play a combat game. If they want to play a politics game, they have rules for politics. If they want to play a game of intrigue, they have intrigue rules. If they want to play a game about trading, they have trading rules.

People don't sit around and play Advanced Squad Leader and claim it covers elections, and building business empires and spying and then glibly state 'Ah we don't need rules for all that, because only combat is complicated."

Rules express preferences. Lack of rules also express preferences.
 

Fanaelialae

Legend
This is just false. Combat has rules when people want to play a combat game. If they want to play a politics game, they have rules for politics. If they want to play a game of intrigue, they have intrigue rules. If they want to play a game about trading, they have trading rules.

People don't sit around and play Advanced Squad Leader and claim it covers elections, and building business empires and spying and then glibly state 'Ah we don't need rules for all that, because only combat is complicated."

Rules express preferences. Lack of rules also express preferences.
But those preferences don't necessarily dictate table time. A group might prefer nuanced combat rules but more freeform non-combat rules, without a heavy focus on combat in their games. All it tells us is that they like crunchy rules for combat, but lightweight rules for non-combat.
 

Scott Christian

Adventurer
1) Do you have any proof this is the case?
2) Even if this is the case, that's the fault of those groups. The rules are not: 'at the start of the session your PCs resources are all fully recharged.' If groups ARE choosing to refresh all abilities at the start of every session (as if a Long rest had occurred between sessions) that's the group not following the actual rules of the game.
I do not. What I have (which I stated earlier) is a logical conclusion. I gave a list of the evidence that leans towards this. Not everything has clear and precise evidence. Sometimes, in fact most times, people need to draw conclusions. True non-biased evidence is rare. In fact it is rarer than the amount of groups that have long adventuring days. ;)
And again, I did not say anything about good or bad. There is no "fault." I made the case that more groups play short adventuring days. That was it. Then I clearly stated there is no right or wrong way. You seem to think it is wrong. I respect your opinion, but do not agree with it.

And if you're the DM of a Group that only has 1-3 encounters before resting 8 hours, you should be using the Gritty realism rest variant. That way your overnight rests are Short rests, and you need a full week back at base to Long rest.

At the end of the day Groups that are only getting 1-3 encounters between Long rests, are doing so by consent of the DM. If the DM is allowing the 5 minute adventuring day, and it's causing problems, then that's on the DM.
There is not a problem here. You want gritty, use it. You want short adventuring days, use it. I think we can agree there are hundreds of ways to DM and make it more difficult for the PC's. 99% of them do not include how you do rests. All I have to do is increase the DC of a monster they encounter. Add exhaustion due to clime. Add traps. Have magic that suppresses powers. Use resistance or magic resistance to the bad guys. etc. I mean, it's still pretty easy to get a TPK even when all PC's are at full strength. DM's don't need the gritty rule.
And again, there is no problem. I have never said there was a problem. I merely stated that my conclusion is shorter adventuring days are more common than long ones.

So now we have a hypothetical group where:

1) The DM refuses to put the PCs on the clock
2) The DM allows 'free of charge' Long rest recharges at the start of every session, regardless of if the PCs actually rested or not
3) The DM refuses to apply any of the rest variants from the DMG
4) The DM ignores the 'adventuring day' XP guidelines from the DMG

That DM cant exactly complain when things go a little out of whack. The DM is ignoring the DMG guidelines, refusing to police the Adventuring day or resource replenishment (in a Resource management game), and is even making active decisions to allow free Long Rest's at the start of every session, despite that not being an actual rule of the game.

You keep saying this is the 'norm'. What evidence do you have to back this claim up?
There is no rule of the game for rests, outside of what a short and long rest provide players. The others you refer to are called "guidelines." They are there to help a DM, and in my experience, usually a novice DM, guide them through an adventure. They are no more of a rule than the amount of magic items a DM should hand out. Some DM's hand out a lot, some little. Again, no right or wrong here.
 

chaochou

Adventurer
But those preferences don't necessarily dictate table time. A group might prefer nuanced combat rules but more freeform non-combat rules, without a heavy focus on combat in their games. All it tells us is that they like crunchy rules for combat, but lightweight rules for non-combat.
I didn't talk about table time. I rejected the idea that the presence or absence of rules could be discussed in terms of need.
 

COMING SOON: 5 Plug-In Settlements for your 5E Game

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top