D&D 5E My biggest gripe with 5e design

[Sword of Spirit]

I think you're missing the point I (and others) are making. You're getting caught up the death part, when what we're trying to say is that because of the risk of that, it changes how players approach encounters and gameplay. None of us are saying having PCs die is fun. What we're saying is that because the risk was so much higher, you planned things more. Got more creative. Treated encounters completely differently based on what you're facing. Whereas now, with a lot of things just coming down to HP with no real risk of major long term damage, it's all "Ok, roll for initiative. Let's do the same attack routine we do for all encounters..."

When when you've survived such an encounter through wits and extra planning, it felt more heroic because you survived a challenge greater than what you face in the 5e version of the same creatures/traps.

I think one thing that some people don't appreciate is that a certain amount of unfun in some parts of the game can actually increase the overall enjoyment of the experience. All fun all of the time can really only happen without a certain amount of struggle, sacrifice, and unpleasantness which can enhance the overall experience.

Granted, not everyone cares about that sort of experience. Some people are satisfied with what you and I might consider the lesser fun of a game without any unpleasantness. Others, regardless of what they might like, just can't psychologically handle very much unpleasantness in their game. I have some real struggles right now because the campaign I'm running for my group has that sort of thing (with that mummy rot situation being the most extreme example we've had), and one of my valued players really struggles with handling it.

But I think one thing that can be disappointing for those of us who do appreciate it is that some who have never experienced it (because it wasn't "in" when they got started) are so averse to the concept that they are never going to want to try something that they might actually enjoy (and might even like better than the "all fun, all the time" style).

 

[Hussar]

I think you're missing the point I (and others) are making. You're getting caught up the death part, when what we're trying to say is that because of the risk of that, it changes how players approach encounters and gameplay. None of us are saying having PCs die is fun. What we're saying is that because the risk was so much higher, you planned things more. Got more creative. Treated encounters completely differently based on what you're facing. Whereas now, with a lot of things just coming down to HP with no real risk of major long term damage, it's all "Ok, roll for initiative. Let's do the same attack routine we do for all encounters..."

When when you've survived such an encounter through wits and extra planning, it felt more heroic because you survived a challenge greater than what you face in the 5e version of the same creatures/traps.

And, yet, funnily enough, it was 3e I found to be most lethal. 1e and 2e? After you got about 4th or 5th level, you were virtual gods and nothing outside of save or die effects could actually kill you. It wasn't that the game was that much more dangerous, it's just that there were so many completely arbitrary things that could kill you - like poison.

So, we simply didn't use those monsters. End of problem. Medusa? Basilisk? Level draining undead? Might as well have not even existed in the games we played. We knew, even back then, that these were poorly designed creatures whose only "danger" lie in the luck of the die. There was no "planning" or "strategy" to these things. They were pure "gotcha" encounters that served virtually no purpose other than to drag the game down a swirling hate hole.

Maybe it's because I played a lot of modules back in the day. Because, guess what? Most of the modules don't feature level draining undead or gotcha save or die. They were there, from time to time, but, never the focus and usually fairly side bar sorts of things.

Sorry, I don't see any heroism in "Hey, I got lucky and made my saving throw today".

 

[Sacrosanct]

But you are also ignoring the opinion that 5E can be just as deadly as any other version of the game if you want.

No I haven't. I literally called it out in my OP. In italics. Why you keep ignoring what I wrote to keep repeating this like I know don't know it is beyond me. I have been very explicit, several times, that I'm talking about core design out of the box. Not needing the DM to tweek or change the rules of the game. Anyone, and everyone can do that for any game, so it's not relevant to the topic.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

I think you're missing the point I (and others) are making. You're getting caught up the death part, when what we're trying to say is that because of the risk of that, it changes how players approach encounters and gameplay. None of us are saying having PCs die is fun. What we're saying is that because the risk was so much higher, you planned things more. Got more creative. Treated encounters completely differently based on what you're facing. Whereas now, with a lot of things just coming down to HP with no real risk of major long term damage, it's all "Ok, roll for initiative. Let's do the same attack routine we do for all encounters..."

When when you've survived such an encounter through wits and extra planning, it felt more heroic because you survived a challenge greater than what you face in the 5e version of the same creatures/traps.

I see what you are saying but can't agree with your theory on how save-or-suck is a good thing.

This is how those "old school" scary encounters went at our table.

GM: You open to door to reveal a throne room with tapestries along each side of the wall, a raised dais, and an empty throne.
Player 1: I check out behind the tapestries on the left.
Player 2: I check out the tapestries on the right.
Player 3: I go search the throne for traps.
GM: Player 1, you pull back the tapestry to reveal a wet slimy wall when something drops on you. You notice your armor is starting to steam up. Your plate mail now is worth one less AC and will be destroyed in 4 more rounds.
GM: Player 2, you notice a strange inscription on the tapestry. Do you try to decipher it?
Player 2: Sure
GM: Make a save vs. Death Magic
Player 2: Dang! Failed.
GM: You character is teleported into the bleak landscape pictured on the tapestry.
GM: Player 3, as you are searching around the throne you hear a chuckle from behind you. rolls You have been struck on the back by something invisible. You take 14 points of damage AND you lose two levels.
GM: What do you guys want to do?

Which then turns into this weeks later at the table...

GM: You open to door to reveal a throne room with tapestries along each side of the wall, a raised dais, and an empty throne.
Players plan at the table for 45 real-time minutes
Player 1: I thrown a grappling hook into the room trying to snag the tapestries to pull them all down and drag them out. I am averting my gaze and NOT looking at any tapestry directly.
Player 2: I stand at the doorway constantly swinging my sword around so if something is invisible in there and it comes out in the hallway where we are I hit it.
Player 3: My guy is standing at the doorway of the previous room using the edge for cover and I have an arrow nocked and ready to fire down the hall in case something gets past the other two.
GM: sigh

 

[Sacrosanct]

And, yet, funnily enough, it was 3e I found to be most lethal. 1e and 2e? After you got about 4th or 5th level, you were virtual gods and nothing outside of save or die effects could actually kill you.

Then we played vastly different versions of the game, and I daresay your DM must have neutered the monsters in AD&D if that was your experience. The lethality wasn't just a bad saving throw. HP totals were much lower. Even making a saving throw, a 10th level figher was the only class that could survive a dragon's breath weapon. Every other class, even making a save, would die. A 10th level magic user only had an average of 25 hit points. Most monsters faced at that level could kill them easily in one round. And that's not even factoring in the other things like spell interruption, failure to learn spells, etc that also made it much harder in AD&D. 10th level is above 4th or 5th level I'll note. (and I won't even mention things like rot grubs, green slimes, and a multitude of other things that could take out high level PCs without just a single failed save).

I'm not just talking about how you played or how I played, but how the game is actually designed. Looking at basic math here, with opinions and variances of preferences disregarded. Typical HP levels. Attack odds. Saving throw odds, rules that hurt PCs (like interruption), etc.

Sorry, I don't see any heroism in "Hey, I got lucky and made my saving throw today".

Again, I"m not talking about just a saving throw. Did you not even read my OP? It's much more than that. It's knowing that a single breath weapon could take out your whole party, or that if the undead hits you, you lose levels, and then defeating those encounters because you did extra planning and got more creative other than just typical attack rolls. That's what makes it more heroic. Facing tougher odds and coming out on top, as opposed to facing mediocre odds and winning.

 

[Nebulous]

If you treat the CR system more like a fuzzy guide and trend high in the case of veteran players with feats in play, it's a little more caution inducing. The CR system used as-is without regard for feats and player skill makes for pretty tame combats in a lot of cases.

Yeah. I use feats, but I also give my monsters feats at the same rate as PCs get them. I've also used the Expanded Monster Manual and Tome of Beasts, and those monsters are way tougher than the default MM.

 

[Oofta]

No I haven't. I literally called it out in my OP. In italics. Why you keep ignoring what I wrote to keep repeating this like I know don't know it is beyond me. I have been very explicit, several times, that I'm talking about core design out of the box. Not needing the DM to tweek or change the rules of the game. Anyone, and everyone can do that for any game, so it's not relevant to the topic.

I've played every version of the game. I call BS on statements like the following.

...What we're saying is that because the risk was so much higher, you planned things more.
...Got more creative. Treated
--When when you've survived such an encounter through wits and extra planning, it felt more heroic because you survived a challenge greater than what you face in the 5e version of the same creatures/traps.

I mean I get it. You walked to school. Up hill. Both ways. In the snow.

Risk in 5E is easy to crank up to 11 without a single rule change. I get get tired of people saying otherwise. Increase the XP budget. Don't allow resting after every other encounter. Change the goal of play now and then. If every is a boring kill all enemies or die trying HP attrition, that's not an issue with the game.

 

[Nebulous]

Things I do beyond ''damage'' to challenge my friends characters:

• Damage that reduces the character max hp for X time.
• Effect that gives my players ''disadvantage'' on all healing roll for X time.
• Curses/diseases that block healing damage for a time.
• Poison that deals damage over time instead of of just another ''have disadvantage on X'' condition.
• Effect that amplify next attacks for X times (Ex: Burning Wounds: 3d6 fire damage on a hit. Everytime the target is hit for the next minute, it takes extra damage equal to half the damage of the initial roll). Stolen from Pillars of Eternity.
• Curses that makes the character unable to roll higher than its stat score for a specific ability.

etc

It is exactly stuff like this that I would love to see in a 5e official Unearthed Arcana toolbox.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I've played every version of the game. I call BS on statements like the following.



I mean I get it. You walked to school. Up hill. Both ways. In the snow.

Risk in 5E is easy to crank up to 11 without a single rule change. I get get tired of people saying otherwise. Increase the XP budget. Don't allow resting after every other encounter. Change the goal of play now and then. If every is a boring kill all enemies or die trying HP attrition, that's not an issue with the game.

Again, that doesn't address the issues in my OP. All you're essentially doing is modifying the HP math. More/tougher monsters = more damage. Less rests = less damage you can do to the monsters. etc. I'm talking about other ways unrelated to HP. And you cant do that without major revision in 5e's version of the same monsters.

Multiple save chances
Greater chance to save
temporary affects
easily restored conditions
easily ended conditions
No permanent debilitating effects (like level drain or the ghost's aging)
Equipment (even magical) quickly getting destroyed.

All are examples of what I'm talking about. Things removed or neutered in the 5e version. Things not relating to "just add more CR creatures". In 5e, the risk is almost always around hit points. That's it. In AD&D, there were risks from many sources, many not related to hp loss at all. And it's that diversity of risk that I find lacking, and what makes every encounter start to feel the same because the players approach it the same since the only real risk they have to worry about is losing HP.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

Disclosure: I really like 5e. When 3e came out, I mostly stuck with AD&D. When 4e came out, I didn't even want to touch it and stayed with AD&D. 5e? It brought me back. Overall, I think the design team deserves a ton of credit for designing a great game. I really want to stress how even though I have a gripe with it, doesn't mean I think it's trash or a bad game. I'm not "hating" on it.

But I think I can finally place my finger on what I like about it the least, rather than a general feeling. The saving throw thread helped clarify my thoughts a bit now that I've actually given more thought to it (I've always just tried to focus on the good parts rather than spend time thinking about what I didn't like. I mean, no game is perfect, right?)

My general feeling that I didn't like? The overall less-than-lethal changes made to monsters. That's a pretty well known gripe from folks. How in most cases, you get multiple save opportunities before something really bad happens, how green slimes are completely neutered, how poison is now just a little bit of damage and not a real threat like it was before, how there is no level drain, or instant petrification, rust monsters are neutered, etc. A green slime scared the hell out of you in AD&D. 5e? Meh.

Note: I am not saying save or die was a good thing, or it was better, or that anyone who hates save or die is a bad person who beats puppies.

Upon deeper thought: It wasn't save or die or really suck that I miss, but the secondary effect of it. I.e., players were extremely cautious and genuinely careful when going out on an adventure or discovering an enemy. You approached a gaze monster totally different than you did a rust monster, and approached the undead completely different from that, and same with a venomous creature or trap, etc. You got your supplies, did your research, prepped your spells, all for things to help mitigate poison, or disease, or extra weapons (because the slime or rust monster destroyed your old ones). Scrolls because one of your most sought after magic items.

After all this, how does this translate into my gripe for 5e? My biggest gripe isn't that they don't have save or die, but that the design seems to have placed all of its eggs into the HP basket. It all seems to be about HP mitigation and attrition, rather than trying to prevent individual effects (like disease, poison, petrification, paralyzation, item destruction, etc). And that seems to lead to players approaching battles with little variation tactics. Just try to inflict as much HP as damage as possible and don't worry about getting poisoned, petrified, etc. As long as you had HP left, you will never fail.

For example, an attack by a cockatrice in 5e gave you two saving throws at an easy DC, and if you failed both of those, you were only petrified for 24 hours. So you could afford to be much more aggressive and approach combat more traditionally. Your melee types weren't nearly as scared to engage in melee as they were in AD&D, where if you failed once, you were screwed forever. So in 1e, tactics were different.

Note 2: I"m not saying tactics aren't used in 5e, just that they aren't as much of a focus because the risk of failing a save is less.

Note 3: I also understand that DMs can always change things, but I'm talking about out of the box

Essentially, really bad lingering effects are much more rare in 5e than AD&D, and lack of lingering effects changes how people approach encounters. And to me, and in my experience, it makes the battles feel a bit too similar. I found myself missing the party planning phase, and the tactics phase. The importance of prepping spells other than combat spells. The importance of getting antidotes, and protection scrolls. The importance of realizing that many battle are best not fought at all, but avoided. With 5e, it seems like all you really have to worry about is managing HP. Even most bad conditions were ended after a round or two (since you get to keep rerolling new saves every round).

So how do I think this could be addressed in the 5e framework? I think 5e already has a mechanic that most players dread: exhaustion. I don't think bringing back level draining is the answer (most people loathe it). But I think there is room to diversify the hazards a PC can face long term other than HP loss (and even that is short term). Everything in 5e seems to reset on a long rest. Boo! lol. I think exhaustion should be utilized more often, and can be used to reflect things like disease, or the effects of potent poison, or even gaining a level of exhaustion if you've been raised/revivafied/healed from 0 hp. Change the life force draining ability of undead that brought the fear of God(s) into the PCs to inflict levels of exhaustion as a way to reflect the life draining aspect. Metagaming is always going to be part of the game (everyone knows to use fire against the troll), so bring back the fear of the undead. And slimes. And other monsters. Make trap disarming a suspenseful event again.

Anyway, those are my thoughts, and what I find is the weakest part of an otherwise great game. I am totally open to hear others' ideas of how to diversify dangers and hazards to PCs in 5e. Help get out of the "HP are everything" mindset.

I find exhaustion much too steep a progression for that purpose overall, but certainly for some effects it’s quite effective.

Also, change effects that give the same penalty as a level of exhaustion (ie, Disadvantage on ability Checks) to an actual level of Exhaustion. So, Poisoned gives 1 level of Exhaustion. Yes, it means you have to track that level separately if you are also exhausted from something else, and a poison effect says you’re poison for 1 hour or until you save or whatever, but it still makes those effects stack.

But things like basilisks and cockatrices could have a lingering effect where you move at half your speed if you fail the 1 of two saves, and petrified if you fail both, and are at half speed when the effect ends for 24 hours, even if it ends because of a spell or other magical restorative effect.