D&D 5E Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?

[Lanefan]

First I wrote the forumla wrong (bracket in wrong place), it is (CON mod + STR mod) x SIZE. Medium is 1 (L = 2, H = 3, G = 4). So for most humanoids it is simply CON mod + STR mod

Is there a minimum value, or does someone who starts with Str 8 and Con 10 end up with -1 BP?

Also, this must give Giants etc. a massive h.p. boost.

Death at 0, no death saves. But you could add them if you want.

We don't other than the standard, you can say they are unconscious rather than dead at 0.

OK.

On the surface, and numerically, your system ends up hewing pretty close to what we've done in 1e forever: body points (BP).

They're rolled on a small die, with your Con score setting a floor value, such that most adventurers have somewhere between 2 and 5; barring something truly exceptional this is locked in for life once rolled. Death is at -10. On top of these you get your Fatigue Points (FP) which are the hit points you'd normally get by class and level. BP + FP = HP.

BP are harder to cure than FP. If you go to or below 0 you roll a consciousness check, it needs to be lower (on a d20) than your Con score modified only by your current h.p. total. Someone with Con 13 who's at -2 needs to roll 11 or less to stay upright. (there's various other rules around curing after going below 0)

2) You take damage to HP first. When that is gone, you take damage to BHP.

Same here, except in some very uncommon situations.

3)Any hit to your BHP, the damage is first reduced by your armors DR (AC-10). Since your BHP are so few it makes heavy armor more valuable.

Not the same here, and while it makes heavy armour more valuable I'd also be concerned it makes squshies just that much squishier.

 

[tetrasodium]

First I wrote the forumla wrong (bracket in wrong place), it is (CON mod + STR mod) x SIZE. Medium is 1 (L = 2, H = 3, G = 4). So for most humanoids it is simply CON mod + STR mod

Death at 0, no death saves. But you could add them if you want.

We don't other than the standard, you can say they are unconscious rather than dead at 0.



That makes some sense. I think there are lots of ways to add more grit & "realism" to our base system, but my group wasn't interested in going that next level.

Possibly, right now the only thing we do is that any extra healing after healing BHP is lost. You have to cast another spell of spend HD to heal up your HP.

I guess I should explain a little how it works.
1) AC works normally.
2) You take damage to HP first. When that is gone, you take damage to BHP.
2a) We had a rule that crit take damage from both (which makes sense to me), but it was too deadly for my group. I have thought about bringing back, confirmation roles for crits to see if that helps.
3)Any hit to your BHP, the damage is first reduced by your armors DR (AC-10). Since your BHP are so few it makes heavy armor more valuable.

"First I wrote the forumla wrong (bracket in wrong place), it is (CON mod + STR mod) x SIZE. Medium is 1 (L = 2, H = 3, G = 4). So for most humanoids it is simply CON mod + STR mod "
do you have small creatures (hanfling/goblin/kobold/etc) 0 1 or something else? Given how there's basically no longer any benefits to size small but the old negatives remain I'm thinking same as medium is probably in line... but do you use or something else for small sized PC's?

Also any learning experiences with this in play?

 

[Zardnaar]

Big problem is once PCs get magic weapons or buy one for 50gp everything in the MM turns into sack of hit points with low AC.

And a few classes get magic damage built in.

Anything with special abilities tends to have high CR.

 

[Helldritch]

I would tend to agree with Zardnaar on the fact that resistance to non magic weapon is kinda of Meh!!!!!
It is so easily bypassed that it is almost a joke to low level characters. At higher level, IT is a joke. Resistance to non magical weapons should have been immunities and resistance to one type of damage. Take the Gargoyle, it should be immune to non magical weapons and resistant to piercing and slashing weapon. Magical blunt weapons would be quite effective. The same could be applied to some elements, for example our gargoyle could be immune/resistant to poison and fire. This would force casters to use some cantrips other than the firebolt we all see.

The problem with this is that it would require a full rewrite of the MM and casters would need a wee bit more cantrips to give them a fighting chance/usefulness. This should be better kept in a new edition or 5.5?

 

[fearsomepirate]

I agree secretly infecting a player with a deadly egg that they have no reason to suspect is bad form...Having an assassin kill them out of the blue for no reason? Bad form.

Random events with no purpose, premonition, logic, or reason are bad form regardless of whether or not they kill anybody. People will get bored and frustrated either way. Has nothing to do with rule set.

"You are walking down a hall. Whoops, you just triggered a trip wire. Okay, roll a save. Oh, you failed? DEAD."

That's naughty word. I never do that. That's what some people in this thread think a "challenge" is. IMO, that is me deciding that you should suddenly have a 35% chance of being done with your character.

If I have an instant death trap, it's a Disintegrate Glyph of Warding on an iron sarcophagus...in front of an altar to Iuz...submerged in a bath of blood...which is magically boiling...which can only be deconsecrated by getting the amulet off the powerful golem guarding it.

If you didn't cast Detect Magic on the thing and went home in an ashtray, that's on you.

The Roc would logical grab people, fly up, and throw them to their deaths. But, doing it specifically because you know the party can't defend against that tactic is... skeevy.

Well, there are only two choices, aren't there? When the 14th-level module calls for rocs to attack the party, either I'm going to have them pick up their prey and dash them on the rocks, or I'm not going to. What I know about their character sheets will have absolutely zero effect on that decision...since it's logical for them to do that, they're going to. That's the point. I've heard people go as far as to say you shouldn't use flying enemies against all-melee party. My attitude is, flying enemies are out there, so don't be an all-melee party.

But if the party charges an orc band across a rope bridge, and the orcs just want to kill the party? Yeah, they are cutting that bridge. Might take an extra turn instead of doing it all at once, but they aren't going to let the players across to fight them fair and square, they are going to act intelligently to win.

That is exactly what happened. I gave him two saving throws, too. One to grab onto the bridge, and another to grab onto a rock. Oh well!

 

[Jaeger]

I've always thought of it in terms of the "heroe's journey" trope, as played out through mechanical progression. At early levels, you are vulnerable and weak because that sort of echoes the feel of the fantasy heroes of old, where you start out from your farmhouse or moisture farm or whatever and really have no idea what's going on or the kinds of threats you'll be going up against.

Then you level up once or twice, and you start getting tough enough to actually go toe-to-toe with threats, gaining new powers or tactical options which also make you more capable and increase your options in a given confrontation. So, you've responded to the call and have now begun moving towards your goal consciously.

By the mid-levels, you become an unstoppable powerhouse compared to most people you've ever met, but the opposition is correspondingly powerful and eventually mythic in scope, mirroring the highest pitch of heroic adventures where you are blowing up the Death Star, Fighting whole trucks of Nazis, and defending Helm's Deep and having a blast doing it.

So I find the mechanical pacing to be one of the really charming things about D&D style TTRPGs!

The "mechanical pacing" due to inflating hit points like D&D has, and the "hero's journey" are two very different things.

A "hero's journey" is what happens during the campaign. Most any game system can do it. You can easily run a "star wars story" with a system that does not have inflating hitpoints.

D&D style "mechanical pacing" is part of the D&D genre. Zero to Midieval Superhero play style that has become the norm when D&D went to 20 levels of advancement for everyone in 3e.

Isn't a major principle of 5E DM empowerment? That the DM should feel free to adjust the game to their liking? Is this not emphasized enough?

Most players expect their D&D game to be RAW.

And it would be easier to "adjust the game to their liking" if it was not already mechanically geared to a very specific playstyle.

So I would advise those who find themselves fighting the 5e system - to find a different system.

Long time ago, the role of the DM was to beat down the players.
Gotcha was a style of DMing.

??? I don't know where you played - but that's not my experience or those in my gaming circle at all.


.

 

[slobster]

The "mechanical pacing" due to inflating hit points like D&D has, and the "hero's journey" are two very different things.

A "hero's journey" is what happens during the campaign. Any game system can have one. One can easily do the star wars story with a system that does not have inflating hitpoints.

D&D style "mechanical pacing" is part of the D&D genre. Zero to Midieval Superhero play style that has become the norm when D&D went to 20 levels of advancement for everyone in 3e.

Well yes, I know. I never said that they were indivisible, or that D&D's systems are necessary for the hero's journey. That should be pretty self-evident, because the hero's journey is a literary trope that precedes D&D rules by several millenia.

I just said that one of the things that I like about D&D's mechanical pace of advancement is that it mirrors, and fosters, the traditional pacing of a lot of classic fantasy literature. Which I believe it does.

 

[Jaeger]

...You don't have to agree with all my suggestions, I wouldn't expect you or anyone else to do so. But I don't think it's constructive to continuously criticize the structure of a game that is incredibly popular and works for most people.

WTF?

What else is the internet for?

...I just said that one of the things that I like about D&D's mechanical pace of advancement is that it mirrors, and fosters, the traditional pacing of a lot of classic fantasy literature. Which I believe it does.

We obviously have big differences in opinion when it comes to fantasy literature. Because I do not see D&D's hit-point inflation mirroring anything but the D&D genre.


.

 

[slobster]

We obviously have big differences in opinion when it comes to fantasy literature. Because I do not see D&D's hit-point inflation mirroring anything but the D&D genre.

Okay. I mean that's fine, I don't have a problem with people who disagree.

But for me, the hit point inflation thing (and that wasn't the only thing I was referring to when I talk about pace of mechanical advancement, gaining new abilities and increasing skills and scope of methods to deal with a given situation are all important as well) is a mechanical parallel for how, in lots of classic fantasy fiction, characters start out with very humble origins and are flummoxed by small-scale foes, only for them to be legendary badasses by the end of a book/movie/series taking on foes of epic power and leaving a mark on the world far beyond what most mortals ever achieve.

It's that sort of trajectory that I think that D&D character advancement does a good job at echoing in mechanical terms, as well as fostering in terms of player feel and engagement.

Again, totally fine with YMMV.

 

[NiClerigo]

I’d like to chime in -above all, asking for advice. I have only DM’ed in 2e and 5e, and the lethality difference is conspicuous. I unintentionally killed 2e PCs often, whereas only one 5e PC has died in my games -others have not in spite of poor tactics. A problem of mine is that my games are quite heavy in terms of social interaction and intrigue, and so combat only takes place once during in-game time -if at all. Thus, the resources-based system is against PCs feeling threatened. I would not like to come up with exaggerated threats, so I’m at a loss. Once PCs feel invincible, the game is not as exciting. A cool thing is that my players are awesome and great roleplayers, so they don’t act like murder hobbos. Tips? Advice?