Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Undrave" data-source="post: 7940655" data-attributes="member: 7015698">To be fair, nobody follows the ACTUAL Darkvision rules that impose disadvantage on perception checks and give you -5 on passive perceptions. I agree in principle, but the truth is that tracking where light shines or not is actually really difficult. Especially if you use (AUGH!) "Theatre of the Mind" (I swear I can only read those words in a snooty accent). And since not every campaign happens in dark dungeons, the game can't devote TOO many rules to it. It's a tough balancing act.Again: there's no standard campaign length so it's difficult to design. And don't kid yourself, previous edition did have Unit of Challenges (i.e. which we'll define as a period time between two instances where you are at Full Ressources), they just different from one character to the next and one mechanic to the next. The idea of a unit of challenge is made clear because 5e streamlines it all. In previous edition the recovery of spell slots was the rhythm setter and the real thing that determined what length the unit of challenge would be. Looking back at previous editions where HP recovered at 1 per day, it would mean that if the Wizard (with 10 HP) and the Fighter (with 30 HP) were both at 1 HP, it would take the guy with more health and physical strength LONGER to recover his full HP than the weakling, and the only way to speed it up? Magic. What's the Cleric's initiative though? Would someone have a chance to attack before the cleric acted? And even if you're not longer unconscious, you're still prone (AKA attacks have advantage), presumably within striking range of the guy who brought you to 0 in the first place with a pitiful amount of HP. You're not out of the fire. What about the non-damage cantrips? Prestidigitation, Thaumaturgy, Druidcraft, Minor Illusion, Dancing Light, Mage Hands, Mold Earth, Shape Water, Control Flame, Gust, Mending, etc?Personally I think you're just too used to Vancian casting, that's why rarity of magic feels important to you. See, you think of this is a player character design problem, I see it as a MONSTER design problem. If magic is no longer rare, then why the heck are we still building monsters like it's rare?! Why are monsters built using outdated concepts from previous edition instead of adapting the monsters to the design philosophy of character design in 5e? It's why I oppose the idea of just 'reintroduce stuff from old editions' instead of trying to find new ways to challenge players that work with the current PC design. In that respect I think 4e was way better at adapting monster design to the idiosyncrasies of its own design style.Again: people who play roleplaying game don'T like to think of their roleplaying game as a GAME. But it is and there's a balance to be had between game concept and simulation of a world AND the simulation of a narrative storyline. But recovery in other editions was just as arbitrary, they just had a stretched out length of time and you just liked it better. Plus spells could drastically reduce the recovery time of OTHER ressources so as long as you could reduce your spells the recovery time of the other resources didn't actually matter. The biggest difference is, again, that 5e streamlined all the recovery to the same time period. If they had went with 'long rest equal a week' as standard (recalculating everything in the process, mind you) you'd probably complain about spells not recovering fast enough <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f61b.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":p" title="Stick out tongue    :p"  data-smilie="7"data-shortname=":p" /> and that being arbitrary. I still don't think recovery time has anything to do with challenge level. Just the type of challenge. Circling back to Pokémon... when you do online battles you can't use items, your Pokémon are fully healed automatically AND everybody's Pokémon is set to the same level. Yet they can still be incredibly challenging if your opponent knows what he's doing, even if there is no lingering consequences. Because the game is dialled for that unit of challenge of 'one combat'. So I believe DnD could be challenging even if a short rest recovered every ressources you have, it'd just be a question of turning the right dials. But it would certainly be a very different kind of game. So in short: 5e is not the kind of challenge you want and that's fine, but I don't think it's because it's the LEAST challenging edition, even if it can be pretty easy (ease of approach). If anything, once you 'solve' for the perfect build (i.e. work away from the table) I think 3.X is the least challenging edition, even with save or suck, save or die and all the ability drain you can shake a stick at. The CharOp puzzle minigame can obviate the actual game at the table in a way you can't quite do it in 5e. I also think the reason it feels easy is that the monsters aren't properly tuned in to the new PC design philosophy. </blockquote>

Verification