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

[Sacrosanct]

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

I just wanted to call you out specifically for reading what I wrote, understanding it, and coming up with suggestions 5e could to to bridge the gap I was referencing. So thank you for that.

 

[5ekyu]

But you are also ignoring the opinion that 5E can be just as deadly as any other version of the game if you want. It's easier to play on "Daddy don't hurt me" mode, but you can crank it up to "Bring 'em on" if you want.

It's just kind of condescending to imply that only old school grognards know what "real" danger is or "truly difficult" encounters. I have a lot of different goals and threats in my campaign, just because they aren't don't die, be turned to stone, turned to a pile of ash, lose levels or so on doesn't mean they are any less challenging or that there's a one size fits all approach to every combat.

Yeah, I still never get the equating if "risk" and death (or long term character maiming of some way.) I find games a lot more interesting weith some great toleplaying when the disks are more than "did I survive the fight?"

 

[Sacrosanct]

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).

I get what you’re saying, but this comes too close to the “If you only k ew what you’re missing!” Fallacy for me. Kinda like those evangelists who keep telling me if only I’d let Jesus save my soul, I’d be much happier!

people know what they like, and what they want. I will never argue someone’s preference is wrong, or the style they enjoy is badwrong. If someone prefers AD&D, or 3e, or 4e, or how 5e designed the game, more power to them. It’s all legit.

my chief reason for creating this thread was to identify something I’ve noticed. That being, in 5e’s lower core risk of encounters compared to AD&D, people aren’t giving much thought the unique risks and approach encounters much more similar than they would for the same encounter inAD&D. I.e, you approach an encounter that can do something really bad to you very quickly differently than you do with an encounter where you have extra chances. And even if you fail, the outcome isn’t nearly as bad. It’s that diversity that I find I’m missing.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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.

I think part of it is not so much level of danger or difficulty in the statistical sense, but in the opacity and the suddenness of the risk.

The kind of cranking up you're talking about may result in players deciding to avoid an encounter because it's too tough, resignedly fight to the death in spite of it if there's a reason to, or bring their A-game and pull out a win in spite of the challenge. It's not likely to result in pervasive paranoia, backstabbing cynicism, or throwing rotten fruit at the DM.

 

[Oofta]

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.

I hated level drain. Failing a save and dying was a horrible mechanism. Failing a save and immediately being turned to stone sucked. Losing that item that I risked everything to get because it failed a save after I got hit by a spell was lousy. I could go on.

As a DM back in the day I never used monsters that did things like that because I hated the repercussions to the game and the permanent impact that had on players that did nothing wrong but happened to roll poorly on a saving throw.

As far as 5E only being HP you're ignoring all the conditions that can be inflicted from blinded to unconscious. Do we get multiple saves for some conditions? Yes. I think that builds tension. It also means that DMs like me, will actually monsters that have special damage types when I didn't in the past.

So what am I missing? The rules changed because the majority of people, like me, didn't like them.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

No permanent debilitating effects (like level drain or the ghost's aging)

Permanent ghost aging is actually one of the rare exceptions that did make it in. If you fail your save by 5 or more, it's 10-40 years of aging, and you need a greater restoration within 24 hours to fix it. On a CR 4 creature.

 

[Tony Vargas]

you're ignoring all the conditions that can be inflicted from blinded to unconscious. Do we get multiple saves for some conditions? Yes. I think that builds tension. It also means that DMs like me, will actually monsters that have special damage types when I didn't in the past.
So what am I missing? The rules changed because the majority of people, like me, didn't like them.

Well, you're missing some irony.

That and the whole presuming to speak for the majority thing.

But, as much as I rankle at how you said it, I can't disagree with what you had to say. 5e does get some things right for playability that the classic game had issues with, and when we feel ourselves missing some of those issues, I think it might be helpful to consider about how completely-new players might react to them. (And, no, not in the sense of our rose-colored recollections of how we reacted to them.)

That is, conditions and multiple saves and specials that interact to create engaging challenges rather than sudden/arbitrary/random character death (most of the time), aren't just fun in their own right, they're also making the game more broadly accessible, less frustrating, so less niche and elitist.

(and, yeah, "less niche and elitist" is just a nice way to spin "easier" - but, it's also not wrong)

 

[cbwjm]

The CR 4 banshee still has her wail. Fail the save and you're reduced to 0 hit points. That could make for a rather interesting encounter where the low/non-proficient PCs are taken out of the fight. It's only once per day so you don't have to worry about a second hit (and I don't think I'd run multiple banshees in a fight), so I can imagine the tough fighters, barbarians, and sorcerers (with their good constitution saves) running around trying to finish the banshee off while also trying to stabilise their allies who failed to save. Hopefully they don't also fail their wisdom saving throws against the frightening effect.

 

[Krachek]

in DnD its the pc who face the monster.
he may be fearless, cautious, naive, or whatever you want.
of course if you play on and on the same character style who have its check list for every situation, you will find the game a bit boring and less challenging.

 

[Oofta]

Well, you're missing some irony.

That and the whole presuming to speak for the majority thing.

There were several articles talking about the feedback from playtests and things learned from previous editions when they were designing 5E. The results were clear: people don't like save or die.

For the rest, well tone doesn't always convey well..