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

[jayoungr]

What we're saying is that because the risk was so much higher, you planned things more. Got more creative.

I want to preface this by saying that I believe in multiple playstyles, and if your table is having fun, then you're doing it right.

But, having said that ...

In my experience and with the players I know, high risk and planning lead to the opposite of thrill and creativity. They lead to players having a set of safety checks that they repeat endlessly before touching anything, entering a room, or approaching an unknown creature. To me, that is mind-numbingly boring and repetitive.

(In other words, basically what @Sabathius42 said above.)

I've also used the Expanded Monster Manual and Tome of Beasts, and those monsters are way tougher than the default MM.

By "Expanded Monster Manual," do you mean Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, or is this a third-party book?

 

[doctorbadwolf]

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

Well, it seems like maybe the point of the thread has nothing to do with what the majority wants, isn’t trying to change 5e at the official level, and is just identifying a point of dissatisfaction OP (and others) has with the system and then address it for their table(s).

So...why does it matter what the majority likes or wants?

 

[Weiley31]

I want to preface this by saying that I believe in multiple playstyles, and if your table is having fun, then you're doing it right.

But, having said that ...

In my experience and with the players I know, high risk and planning lead to the opposite of thrill and creativity. They lead to players having a set of safety checks that they repeat endlessly before touching anything, entering a room, or approaching an unknown creature. To me, that is mind-numbingly boring and repetitive.

(In other words, basically what Sabathius42 said above.)


By "Expanded Monster Manual," do you mean Mordenkainen's Tome of Foes, or is this a third-party book?

Both Tome and Expanded are third party IIRC.

 

[Tony Vargas]

So...why does it matter what the majority likes or wants?

Safety in numbers?

 

[jayoungr]

Both Tome and Expanded are third party IIRC.

I couldn't find anything under the title Expanded Monster Manual. Is it the Monster Manual Expanded, by any chance?

Monster Manual Expanded (5E) - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Monster Manual Expanded (5E) - Getting the PDF? Save up to $19 if you grab the series bundle instead: Grab the Roll20 version here. “A fantasti

www.dmsguild.com

 

[Sacrosanct]

Well, it seems like maybe the point of the thread has nothing to do with what the majority wants, isn’t trying to change 5e at the official level, and is just identifying a point of dissatisfaction OP (and others) has with the system and then address it for their table(s).

So...why does it matter what the majority likes or wants?

pretty much. I’ve already conceded that most people probably don’t like that style. Just like I commented in my very first post how DMs can change whatever they want. But those aren’t the point, so I’m not sure why they keep getting brought up. I mean, is anyone actually arguing they aren’t true?

5e made monster and trap dangers much less than their 1e versions. And 5e pretty much eliminated or made very easy to avoid/recover long term non-hp conditions as risks. I am not saying that was a bad thing or against what people want. I hope we can avoid further commentary to that effect. But what ive noticed, and it seems others have as well, is that doing so is a detriment to a style we prefer, where PCs do face higher risks, and also risk long term conditions other than HP loss, and by reducing risk and danger, it

a) makes encounters feel more similar because players approach encounters much differently if the risks are more varied, so if you eliminate or reduce that diversity of high risk scenarios, you have less diverse approaches. That’s basic human nature. You don’t spend time thinking of ways to mitigate risk on things that you aren’t worried about happening.

b) for us, makes the success less heroic, because the greater the risk, the greater the heroism. See my example above. Many of us don’t feel a battle for the showers is nearly as heroic as a battle where there is significant loss if you lose.

 

[Weiley31]

I couldn't find anything under the title Expanded Monster Manual. Is it the Monster Manual Expanded, by any chance?

Monster Manual Expanded (5E) - Dungeon Masters Guild | Dungeon Masters Guild

Monster Manual Expanded (5E) - Getting the PDF? Save up to $19 if you grab the series bundle instead: Grab the Roll20 version here. “A fantasti

www.dmsguild.com

Ya that. Close enough.

 

[Maxperson]

I've never felt "heroic" for not dying because of a bad roll.

Sure, but if this is what you think we are saying, you are completely misunderstanding heroism.

 

[Maxperson]

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.

And it was 3e I found to be least lethal.......until 5e anyway.

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.

I faced them all. In 1e and 2e, level draining undead were to be feared. In 3e they were a joke.

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

And as I said to Oofta, if that's what you think we are saying, you clearly don't understand heroism.

 

[Hussar]

/snip

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.

Meh, if your 10th level MU had 25 HP, then you were doing something wrong. By that time, you'd found multiple wishes, probably a magic pool or two, and likely something else that granted immunities and whatnot. I mean, a simple Protection from Fire spell (or is that the 2e version, it's been a while) protected you from like 80 points of fire damage. Never minding that gaining magic items that gave immunities wasn't all that rare. Oh, and nice cherry pick of choosing the one dragon that could do that kind of damage. Let's ignore things like 5th level parties killing ancient huge black dragons (DL 1 - ends with an ancient huge black dragon).

But, again, nice cherry pick. Let's pick the character with the LEAST hp to show how dangerous the game was. That 10th level fighter probably ran somewhere towards a 100 HP (he'd have at least a 16 Con by that time and probably a 19 or a 20 given the PLETHORA of magic items). I'd point out that actually, there's zero difference in HP between an AD&D 9th level fighter and a 5e one.

OTOH, the monsters dealt about 1/4 of the damage going from AD&D to 5e. Maybe 1/2. See, you keep saying it's not about the save or die effects, but, ignore the fact that 1e monsters were puny compared to their 5e counterparts. Less HP, less damage, hit less often, etc. Compared to their 3e counterparts, AD&D monsters were a bad joke.

The only reason the odds were tougher is because the game was designed to bypass the combat system in order to make creatures threatening.

Tell you what, run a spectre against a 7th level AD&D party, but, take away it's level drain. It's not scary. So, the only thing scary about it was the fact that the designers had to basically create entire subsystems to bypass character power in order to be an actual threat.

Every year we see this same tired old tripe pedaled out again and again. Things were so much harder back in the day. We had to walk uphill in the snow both ways just to reach the stick that we'd beat ourselves over the head with. It wasn't true then and it certainly isn't true now.