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

[tetrasodium]

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.

I said that there were badly set design assumptions baked that the core rules were designed around and was asked to elaborate. It's not mere "white room analysis" when it's the literal truth and comes complete with a link to confirmation that it was the design expectation that didn't align at the reality of play, you should probably listen to the 20 minute podcast before continuing that line.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

I normally give a verbal run down.

Basically I describe spell slots like shotgun shells. Up to you how to use them but run a living world vs static.

Basically its consequences. If you alert somewhere by killing a few and walking away its on you.

Thise consequence range from attacks on camp, reinforcements, relocation of encounters, enemies fleeing, dungeon features rearranged, spells being changed, etc.

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.

They get s written player guide abd verbally here's what to expect, how. Covers campaign thene, basic things to expect, recommended races, origins, classes, and any housrules or optional rules in play.

 

[W'rkncacnter]

I said that there were badly set design assumptions baked that the core rules were designed around and asked to elaborate. It's not mere "white room analysis" when it's the literal truth and comes complete with a link to confirmation that it was the design expectation that didn't align at the reality of play, you should probably listen to the 20 minute podcast before continuing that line.

im gonna be so honest, i thought john was saying the design assumption itself was white room analysis and was criticizing that.

 

[Zardnaar]

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.

Something like that and overhauling saving throws are needed imho.

Certain. Abilities eg Rakshasa greater magic resistance could also be used.

Theres 5 abilities I've been using from various monsters more from 5.0 onwards.

 

[Johngernaut]

I said that there were badly set design assumptions baked that the core rules were designed around and asked to elaborate. It's not mere "white room analysis" when it's the literal truth and comes complete with a link to confirmation that it was the design expectation that didn't align at the reality of play, you should probably listen to the 20 minute podcast before continuing that line.

The podcast focused on the medium difficulty category and damage "units", I didn't hear anything about an exact number of rounds, it just seems silly to boil it down to a single number given all the variables. The more important question is how much we love the attritional model implied by this.

Something like that and overhauling saving throws are needed imho.

Certain. Abilities eg Rakshasa greater magic resistance could also be used.

Theres 5 abilities I've been using from various monsters more from 5.0 onwards.

I was just thinking about spell resistance or condition immunity based on size category. Why is it martials lose the ability to apply the grappled condition due to size category, but casters never get limited like this?

I can think of all kinds of abilities to give to monsters, but I don't like the feeling that I'm slapping band-aids on a fundamentally flawed vessel. These had better be some really good band-aids.

 

[Zardnaar]

The podcast focused on the medium difficulty category and damage "units", I didn't hear anything about an exact number of rounds, it just seems silly to boil it down to a single number given all the variables. The more important question is how much we love the attritional model implied by this.


I was just thinking about spell resistance or condition immunity based on size category. Why is it martials lose the ability to apply the grappled condition due to size category, but casters never get limited like this?

I can think of all kinds of abilities to give to monsters, but I don't like the feeling that I'm slapping band-aids on a fundamentally flawed vessel. These had better be some really good band-aids.

Have you read the rakshasa?

Greater Magic resistance. All saves vs spells are automatic, all spell attack rolls miss.

Spells essentially are half damage, Save or whatever just fail and you pretty much need to summon stuff.

 

[tetrasodium]

The podcast focused on the medium difficulty category and damage "units", I didn't hear anything about an exact number of rounds, it just seems silly to boil it down to a single number given all the variables. The more important question is how much we love the attritional model implied by this.

You aren't making a solid case for why we should go back to playing who's on first with the the 2014 doubting skeptic when around 7-9 minutes in it says this among a larger section about how the bad assumptions impact play & challenge "this kinda dovetails off that medium difficulty problem. The medium difficulty is now in a place where it's taking too much time. It's not actually delivering exciting gameplay. AND it's baked into this core math flaw of 5e & therefore 5.5 which is the adventuring day. The adventuring day is I believe 23 rounds and it assumes that you take 3 short rests over the course of those 23 rounds" immediately before going into what happens when the party has their short rest resources to burn on a challenging fight with an example with a second example where that 23 rounds of combat comes up a third time... but you don't like that source, here's a more recent example where that 23 round number again. That original podcast link even addresses your what if it's not 23 rounds concern along with howthe variables you are bringing up now factor in to create a lot of headaches for the GM.

Yes there are a lot of variables, yes those variables are too numerous to really backtrace the original assumption from crunching don the system with whiteroom analysis.

No, one of the designers involved in setting those design assumptions telling us what they are & ewhy they don't workas expected at the time in a detailed breakdown explaining the variables is not whiteroom analysis.

 

[Zardnaar]

You aren't making a solid case for why we should go back to playing who's on first with the the 2014 doubting skeptic when around 7-9 minutes in it says this among a larger section about how the bad assumptions impact play & challenge "this kinda dovetails off that medium difficulty problem. The medium difficulty is now in a place where it's taking too much time. It's not actually delivering exciting gameplay. AND it's baked into this core math flaw of 5e & therefore 5.5 which is the adventuring day. The adventuring day is I believe 23 rounds and it assumes that you take 3 short rests over the course of those 23 rounds" immediately before going into what happens when the party has their short rest resources to burn on a challenging fight with an example with a second example where that 23 rounds of combat comes up a third time... but you don't like that source, here's a more recent example where that 23 round number again. That original podcast link even addresses your what if it's not 23 rounds concern along with howthe variables you are bringing up now factor in to create a lot of headaches for the GM.

Yes there are a lot of variables, yes those variables are too numerous to really backtrace the original assumption from crunching don the system with whiteroom analysis.

No, one of the designers involved in setting those design assumptions telling us what they are & ewhy they don't workas expected at the time in a detailed breakdown explaining the variables is not whiteroom analysis.

Hes describing 5.0. In that video. 5.5 has ditched the 6-8 round expectation. They explicitly changed the encounter building and theres no expectation of 23 rounds.

Note 3E and 4E also had expected number of encounters. Its a silly concept.

From memory the 6-8 rounds came from a survey in the playtest.

 

[Tigris]

Hes describing 5.0. In that video. 5.5 has ditched the 6-8 round expectation. They explicitly changed the encounter building and theres no expectation of 23 rounds.

Of course 5.5 still has a certain expectations, they dont say it anymore as directly and made single encounters harder to not need as many encounters anymore, but for 5.5 to be somewhat balanced you still need 2 short rests and a certain number of encounters, else casters are just way way way ahead.

Note 3E and 4E also had expected number of encounters. Its a silly concept.

It is not a silly concept if you want to have attrition.
It is also one of the phew ways how to actually balance classes with different ressource structures like casters and non casters. The concept works really well in 13th age, its not the concept that is the problem, its the bad implementation in 5E.


Also 4E was (before essentials) not needing a certain number of encounters for ballance, because all classes have the same number of daily ressources. So 4E is the version of DND which works best with the 1 encounter day (while still allowing attrition if you want), because it does not cause a unbalance betweet casters and non casters.

 

[Zardnaar]

Of course 5.5 still has a certain expectations, they dont say it anymore as directly and made single encounters harder to not need as many encounters anymore, but for 5.5 to be somewhat balanced you still need 2 short rests and a certain number of encounters, else casters are just way way way ahead.



It is not a silly concept if you want to have attrition.
It is also one of the phew ways how to actually balance classes with different ressource structures like casters and non casters. The concept works really well in 13th age, its not the concept that is the problem, its the bad implementation in 5E.


Also 4E was (before essentials) not needing a certain number of encounters for ballance, because all classes have the same number of daily ressources. So 4E is the version of DND which works best with the 1 encounter day (while still allowing attrition if you want), because it does not cause a unbalance betweet casters and non casters.

1 encounter a day in 4E is pretty much auto win. Its just going to take an hour or two to get there. Ultimately pointless and boring you've already won and takes ages to get there.

Fundamental problem is the same. Nova abilities and hp vs damage.

Older D&D was technically attrition as well but its a lot easier to do and challenge PCs with.

Pre 3E it was really the only editions where 1 enconter a day could actually grind you down. Wasn't much of a grind either.

You only got 1-3 hp a day and didnt get all your spells back. We played C&C ancient Greek type game PCs got exhausted just with walking around in the wilderness and had to RTB hoping they didnt get a random encounters (I was getting them to roll publicly for them). One random encounters was some seagulls iirc.

Interesting way to build tension entirely lacking in 3E, 4E, 5E.

Deathtrap dungeons coukd easily kill you in 1 encounter. Wouldn't recommend for a campaign but interesting in one shots and tournaments.