D&D 5E (2024) Martials and Magic. Two Years of Testing.

[Zardnaar]

Obviously 5e. 3.x was pretty good at supporting the gm with monsters for higher level parties both stock and tenplated. It was 5e that went a different way

Ah MM yeah. Theres more in 5E outside the MM. Not close to 3E with 5MM and the fiend folio plus more.

 

[tetrasodium]

Ah MM yeah. Theres more in 5E outside the MM. Not close to 3E with 5MM and the fiend folio plus more.

I'm aware, but that doesn't fix the core problems with wrongly set design assumptions making a more & more significant impact as levels advance.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm aware, but that doesn't fix the core problems with wrongly set design assumptions making a more & more significant impact as levels advance.

Wsnt to clarify what thise assumptions are?

Big ones assined encounters in 5.0 and way saves worked imho.

All modern D&Ds guilty of assumed encounters (except 5.5) and CR screw ups.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Thats what data, youtubers, gsme designers are saying.

I suspect it was similar years ago ss well but not quite as extreme.

I have never seen this data, nor any YouTubers commenting on this. So...I'm sorry but I have apparently somehow completely missed this thing. Given you said "youtubers", could you point me to, say, two videos from different creators commenting on this? That should be a pretty low bar if this is so widespread.

It means most of the playerbase is casual. They pick game up play a few sessions stop. And restart with new characters..

Okay. Does that mean their needs need to be prioritized over everyone else's? I would argue that we have lots of good evidence from other sources--video games in particular--that indicate that foolish over-prioritization of casual play above all else is an extremely bad long-term choice, even if it may look super amazing in the short term.

Final Fantasy XIV and World of Warcraft, two of the biggest MMOs on the market right now, have specifically grappled with this problem. They went too far in the direction of casual players for certain aspects of play, and it flattened the game to the point that folks just left. It's important to remove unnecessary barriers to play, yes. That's a truism. But there are problems if you over-apply that lesson. Some barriers to play exist because it feels good to grow, and to have a clear, obvious signal of that growth. Some barriers exist because something that has no texture has nothing to grip onto you--you slide right in, and then slide right back out. Making the entry infinitely easy doesn't prevent those casual players from doing a casual thing two or three times and then just leaving. So you've earned a temporary bump from people who don't really care that much, while burning bridges with people that are SUPER invested and interested and often actively acting as ambassadors for your product to other potential buyers.

When you strip out EVERYTHING that requires people to learn to play, the game becomes so flat, nobody gets attached. That's a serious problem, and I'm about 95% certain that fear of exactly that thing is part of why 5.5e changed in some of the ways it did. Did you notice how they by and large didn't flatten things more? That they moved toward more bespoke class features, rather than turning everything into spells despite initially trying to? Etc., etc. It's not that simplicity is bad. It's that simplicity cannot become the only good worthy of pursuit.

The moment the game becomes "simplicity above all", it begins a slow decline. That does not mean we shouldn't simplify where complexity is unnecessary or harmful. It just means we cannot blanket destroy every complex structure solely because it's complex, and we can't approve every simple structure solely on the basis that it is simple.

.back in 3E days my mates were in the rpg university club. No one played like the internet assumed. Our group was the closest eg aware of things like wands of clw, stacking modifiers etc. They coukd get 60-80 people for their events.

Last time I played Pathfinder was 2014. That group didnt know about wands of CLW.

So, you played with groups who...didn't know the rules. Why should that affect a discussion about what the rules should actually say? If they don't know either way, then shouldn't we make the rules robust for the people who actually DO use them? It's not like the people who don't know them will have any idea which happened!

Like for real here Zardnaar. If they cannot be bothered to learn the rules, why should we write those rules for them?

So when I say forum users are out of touch thats what im meaning. My groups also in a very small minority. 4 DMs, 5 veterans, 2 former newbies (played for 2 years now). I've been playing with a lot of newbies since 2024 as well running starter events as there's not enough DMs.

And you apply this out-of-touch analysis to yourself as well, yes?

Because you're also a forum-user and a veteran. Two groups you're explicitly calling out as out-of-touch.

In Baldurs Gate online places they seem to rest a lot. Using their highest lvl spells and they will long rest espicially if theyre burning lvl 5 and 6 slots.

Meaning, we have direct, empirical evidence that the 5MWD is alive and well and FREQUENTLY used by the very players you're claiming we should pay attention to.

Haven't you told me a zillion times that the 5MWD is total "white room" theory? By your own logic, we're getting not just good data, but amazing data directly telling us that 5MWD is a serious problem!

My session 0 I cover how I run the game, social stuff (dont be a jerk, dont roleplay a perk, no pvp). Plus written players guide.

Sure. That doesn't seem relevant to the conversation. Why do you mention it?

Its mostly because they dont know, play differently or have no idea what to expect.

Okay. It seems, then, that the DMG and PHB should focus a hell of a lot more attention on successful Session 0 stuff. And a TON of other changes specifically geared toward making those first, say, ten sessions really really really good. Instead, the vast majority of the PHB is spent on rules that, per your own statements, players never read, GMs never use, and which have zero actual impact on the experience of play.

So...like...if I'm supposed to take your argument seriously here, isn't it just as destructive to your preferences as it is to mine? Possibly moreso?

 

[Zardnaar]

I dont claim

I have never seen this data, nor any YouTubers commenting on this. So...I'm sorry but I have apparently somehow completely missed this thing. Given you said "youtubers", could you point me to, say, two videos from different creators commenting on this? That should be a pretty low bar if this is so widespread.


Okay. Does that mean their needs need to be prioritized over everyone else's? I would argue that we have lots of good evidence from other sources--video games in particular--that indicate that foolish over-prioritization of casual play above all else is an extremely bad long-term choice, even if it may look super amazing in the short term.

Final Fantasy XIV and World of Warcraft, two of the biggest MMOs on the market right now, have specifically grappled with this problem. They went too far in the direction of casual players for certain aspects of play, and it flattened the game to the point that folks just left. It's important to remove unnecessary barriers to play, yes. That's a truism. But there are problems if you over-apply that lesson. Some barriers to play exist because it feels good to grow, and to have a clear, obvious signal of that growth. Some barriers exist because something that has no texture has nothing to grip onto you--you slide right in, and then slide right back out. Making the entry infinitely easy doesn't prevent those casual players from doing a casual thing two or three times and then just leaving. So you've earned a temporary bump from people who don't really care that much, while burning bridges with people that are SUPER invested and interested and often actively acting as ambassadors for your product to other potential buyers.

When you strip out EVERYTHING that requires people to learn to play, the game becomes so flat, nobody gets attached. That's a serious problem, and I'm about 95% certain that fear of exactly that thing is part of why 5.5e changed in some of the ways it did. Did you notice how they by and large didn't flatten things more? That they moved toward more bespoke class features, rather than turning everything into spells despite initially trying to? Etc., etc. It's not that simplicity is bad. It's that simplicity cannot become the only good worthy of


So, you played with groups who...didn't know the rules. Why should that affect a discussion about what the rules should actually say? If they don't know either way, then shouldn't we make the rules robust for the people who actually DO use them? It's not like the people who don't know them will have any idea which happened!

Like for real here Zardnaar. If they cannot be bothered to learn the rules, why should we write those rules for them?


And you apply this out-of-touch analysis to yourself as well, yes?

Because you're also a forum-user and a veteran. Two groups you're explicitly calling out as out-of-touch.


Meaning, we have direct, empirical evidence that the 5MWD is alive and well and FREQUENTLY used by the very players you're claiming we should pay attention to.

Haven't you told me a zillion times that the 5MWD is total "white room" theory? By your own logic, we're getting not just good data, but amazing data directly telling us that 5MWD is a serious problem!


Sure. That doesn't seem relevant to the conversation. Why do you mention it?


Okay. It seems, then, that the DMG and PHB should focus a hell of a lot more attention on successful Session 0 stuff. And a TON of other changes specifically geared toward making those first, say, ten sessions really really really good. Instead, the vast majority of the PHB is spent on rules that, per your own statements, players never read, GMs never use, and which have zero actual impact on the experience of play.

So...like...if I'm supposed to take your argument seriously here, isn't it just as destructive to your preferences as it is to mine? Possibly moreso?

I don't claim 5MWD is theorycrafting. Its a very common playstyle now. You've already won so its fairly pointless nitpicking about exact details. M groups dont 5MWD becaue consequences (basically living vs static world).

I can kill a party of epic spellcasters with a low encounter if I need to make a point about 5MWD.

Youtubers mentioning most games not going to high levels. Treantmonk, d4 , Dungeon Dudes, DSR have mentioned it. Not sure about Insight Check, D&D Shorts, Ginny D or Bob the World builder as theyre an occasional watch.

The data we have and Mearls have commented on that.

I'm not going to go dig through multiple videos for the last year. I can link it next time they mention it if you like.

Casuals vs hardcore sure can be a thing. By default we are hard fore mostly by posting here, played multiple editions and over age of 40 (maybe not you).

My groups not remotely representative. Im self aware of that. For example I run an unknown number of encounters. Choose your resource depletion carefully. Sometimes a 5MWD happens its not typical. Usually its organic.

Ive probably played more high level games here than most, own more high level adventures than most and reliably hit late tier 2/early 3 than most. Locally apparently Im the most organized and structured group and can rule up entire groups on a week or two notice.

Except ECMO3 he's a machine.

 

[Milli Rabbit]

I dont claim

I don't claim 5MWD is theorycrafting. Its a very common playstyle now. You've already won so its fairly pointless nitpicking about exact details. M groups dont 5MWD becaue consequences (basically living vs static world).

I can kill a party of epic spellcasters with a low encounter if I need to make a point about 5MWD.

Youtubers mentioning most games not going to high levels. Treantmonk, d4 , Dungeon Dudes, DSR have mentioned it. Not sure about Insight Check, D&D Shorts, Ginny D or Bob the World builder as theyre an occasional watch.

The data we have and Mearls have commented on that.

I'm not going to go dig through multiple videos for the last year. I can link it next time they mention it if you like.

Casuals vs hardcore sure can be a thing. By default we are hard fore mostly by posting here, played multiple editions and over age of 40 (maybe not you).

My groups not remotely representative. Im self aware of that. For example I run an unknown number of encounters. Choose your resource depletion carefully. Sometimes a 5MWD happens its not typical. Usually its organic.

Ive probably played more high level games here than most, own more high level adventures than most and reliably hit late tier 2/early 3 than most. Locally apparently Im the most organized and structured group and can rule up entire groups on a week or two notice.

Except ECMO3 he's a machine.

Does it work to tell your parties during session zero that the expectation is an adventure will run through an in-game day? At my table, we generally run 2-3 sessions of 4 hours between Long Rests. This is because the rules of 5.5e state you can't have another long rest for at least another 16 hours. We decided its kind of goofy for a party of adventurers to just chill and wait for 15 hours and 8 more for a Long Rest because they got bruised.

The way we balance this is the DM (usually me but also another player has his own campaign we alternate into when he finishes adventure prep) is expected to provide fair challenges and generally won't expect the players to run on fumes. We do frequent Short Rests and this buffs martials as well as Warlocks. Sometimes the casters burn their spells early and that sucks for them but its pretty rare.

 

[Johngernaut]

Does it work to tell your parties during session zero that the expectation is an adventure will run through an in-game day? At my table, we generally run 2-3 sessions of 4 hours between Long Rests. This is because the rules of 5.5e state you can't have another long rest for at least another 16 hours. We decided its kind of goofy for a party of adventurers to just chill and wait for 15 hours and 8 more for a Long Rest because they got bruised.

That's a good expectation for a dungeon unless it's a megadungeon. To add more credibility to the game it should have reasons behind it. The dungeon shouldn't go to sleep just because they do. One of the necessities of being a DM these days is adding in time pressure so the party can't just kill 15 hours every day with no detriment. In old school games, even just spending a few minutes meant monsters might walk into you.

 

[tetrasodium]

Wsnt to clarify what thise assumptions are?

Big ones assined encounters in 5.0 and way saves worked imho.

All modern D&Ds guilty of assumed encounters (except 5.5) and CR screw ups.

I gave them a nod in 390 and we've had that discussion before while you already look to be in the middle of rehashing parts of it from scratch with others already. The fact that some people treat those bad assumptions like some kind of inerrant pure good because it doesn't negatively impact their preferred play style doesn't remove their existence for those who are impacted or wotc's total refusal to provide alternatives in service of mitigating those assumptions for those who are negatively impacted.

Sure. Here you go... 5e assumes that an adventuring day will spam about 23 rounds of combat and that the PCs will thinly & mindlessly spread 2 short rests along with their long/short rest linked limited use resources fairly evenly across those those 23 rounds rather than behaving logically and not wasting them on encounters the that offer no particular risk in order to save them to trivialize an actual threat. Then it tops it off with bounded accuracy for monsters but not PCs and pegs the bounded monster math to a medium encounter that ensures many of those 23 rounds won't justify any resource expenditure from the unbounded PCs. Beyond all of that it gives a two track rest/ recovery subsystem that actively resists any influence from the gm who attempts to align actual play closer to expectation.

Those non-mm creatures you bring up evaporate under Nova just as well as the mm ones. The existence of 3pp Neutronium golems that could Nova down a party with impunity doesn't fix much, if anything the need to ring that bell before monsters pose a threat highlights it.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Does it work to tell your parties during session zero that the expectation is an adventure will run through an in-game day? At my table, we generally run 2-3 sessions of 4 hours between Long Rests. This is because the rules of 5.5e state you can't have another long rest for at least another 16 hours. We decided its kind of goofy for a party of adventurers to just chill and wait for 15 hours and 8 more for a Long Rest because they got bruised.

The way we balance this is the DM (usually me but also another player has his own campaign we alternate into when he finishes adventure prep) is expected to provide fair challenges and generally won't expect the players to run on fumes. We do frequent Short Rests and this buffs martials as well as Warlocks. Sometimes the casters burn their spells early and that sucks for them but its pretty rare.

For my part, no, it really doesn't work. My D&D groups have very intentionally avoided over-reliance on spellcasters because the GM requested it, as in we've had mostly Rogues, Rangers, Fighters, and Monks, with only one Warlock in one party and a Warlock and Sorcerer in our current party.

So like, the only reason we aren't exploiting this is because the GM kindly asked us to and we obliged. I consider it critically flawed game design when the core engine of the experience only works if the players willingly ignore the fundamental incentives of the system.

Playing in the way that creates the most fun should be playing effectively. Playing effectively should be quite fun for most people at the table. It is a serious flaw of game design to knowingly create a game where playing it intelligently means playing it in a more boring way.

 

[Johngernaut]

Sure. Here you go... 5e assumes that an adventuring day will spam about 23 rounds of combat and that the PCs will thinly & mindlessly spread 2 short rests along with their long/short rest linked limited use resources fairly evenly across those those 23 rounds rather than behaving logically and not wasting them on encounters the that offer no particular risk in order to save them to trivialize an actual threat.

That's a very white room analysis. Non-combat encounters exist and resources can be spent there too. 23 rounds sounds like the high end when level 20 PCs have 22 spell slots.

Yes it's true challenge rating was calibrated with a bad baseline (medium difficulty). The question is whether monsters can be redesigned to salvage 5E. I've seen Matt Colville and others design them with more abilities to balance the action economy more, like having bonus actions, reactions, bloodied triggers. Legendary actions are basically mandatory for solo monsters.

It feels cheesy to just pump saving throws and HP and tack on condition immunities etc. Changes are probably needed at fundamental levels so interactions feel more dynamic and fair. Most monsters don't have nearly as many resource types as a PC near their level, which makes no sense if it's supposed to be a threat to multiple PCs.