Sacrosanct
Legend
I think it would model better (more fear inducing) if it was permanent until something like greater restoration was cast, rather than get it all back at the end of a long rest.
-
NOW LIVE! Into the Woods--new character species, eerie monsters, and haunting villains to populate the woodlands of your D&D games.
D&D 5E My biggest gripe with 5e design
- Thread starter Sacrosanct
- Start date
I think it would model better (more fear inducing) if it was permanent until something like greater restoration was cast, rather than get it all back at the end of a long rest.
I sometimes forget how much I limit long rests, they are not easy to come by in my campaign.
But in a campaign where people can pretty much rest when they feel it's necessary I agree.
Cap'n Kobold
Hero
There are a number of creatures that can reduce your max HP that a party is likely to encounter before they reach the level where they have access to Greater Restoration.
Do you limit HP recovery by long rest to restoring HD, which can then be rolled to recover HP instead? It seems to be a common variant for people who like less easy HP recovery and more focus on magical healing.
If you do use that variant, you could allow players who roll HD to either recover HP or to reduce the HP max reduction with each hit dice perhaps?
Nebulous
Legend
I think reducing hit points is scary but not so depressing as losing a whole level. I guess it is very situation dependent too. Did the party just rest before the fighter got knocked down to 10 hit points and can't heal? What if there's no where to rest and they're in the middle of a dungeon? I do like the idea of Greater Restoration needed to bring them back to full, but in many cases this would be financially or physically impossible, with no access to said magic. That might be best left for unique undead, or especially powerful bosses, not your run of the mill shadows.
This happened to a 6th level hero in my Tomb campaign:
Xenoseth the ranger and Ori the cleric enter first while the others wait outside. The first thing they notice are six iron keys situated on hooks around the perimeter of the room, not unlike the hundreds of similar keys they found outside in the stone shed. Xenoseth steps closer to a key, looking closely at the notched teeth, and fails to notice two spectral entities that suddenly emerge from the snail’s stone body! Ethereal hands reach out to grasp the elf cleric. Ori sees them coming and manages to avoid surprise, but she doesn’t avoid the nat 20. Chilling hands reach into her soul and inflict devastating damage with 49 points of necrotric death eating away her life force. She had an Aid spell active which gave her a small hit point boost, otherwise she would have been instantly slain. Her face goes ash grey, she fails the Con save and her hit points are locked at 5, although she rolls very high on a Religion check and identifies the undead as wraiths, and she knows she will die if she doesn’t get out of this room immediately. The attack from the second wraith almost touched her too, in which case she would have been equally dead.
Sacrosanct
Legend
So I did some comparisons. Earlier I said that AC values in 1e were overall higher than their counterparts in 5e, and Hussar laughed it off. So I pulled some of the most common monsters and sample size (did not cherry pick). Every time there is a blue highlight, that means the 1e monster has a higher AC than it's 5e counterpart (naturally converting the descending AC in 1e to ascending).
Also, I ran comparisons for the core classes re: hit points, bonuses to hit, and total available hit points in a 24 hour period (1 day). I've often heard the "well, but 5e increased monster damage a lot". Looking at the above, if you compare monster damage and to hit bonuses by monster hit dice (you can't really compare monster vs same monster name, because some monsters like orcs were bumped up. I.e., in 1e, an orc was a pretty close to a 1st level character, while in 5e, it's equivalent to a 2nd level character). So monster hit dice is a better comparison. When you compare by hit dice, there isn't any real difference in 5e monsters being able to have a higher to hit bonus. And damage is only slightly higher.
But higher damage doesn't equal more danger more lethality because 5e PCs have a LOT more hit points available to them in any given adventuring day (not just with higher hit dice, but with having hit dice to heal up every short rest, and getting all base hp back after a long rest).
Note: For simplicity, I did not count any ability bonuses to hit or for extra HP. If I did, 5e would have an additional benefit because you increase your core abilities in 5e and you do not in 1e, and every class can benefit from high CON when in 1e, non fighters were capped at a +2 bonus.
So what does that look like?
To hit bonuses: 5e PCs gain a better bonus to hit at lower levels (everyone starts with a +2 prof bonus, and 1e doesn't have this). At mid levels, the fighter begins to outpace the 5e bonus to hit counterpart. Clerics also being to outpace at mid to higher levels. Magic users are always way behind in their basic bonus to hit. High level fighters way outpace their 5e counterparts in core bonus to hit (doubling up even). When you add ability modifiers, this evens out considerably (as without magic items, most 1e fighters with a 16 STR will only have a +1 to hit with melee weapons, while a high level 5e fighter will have a 20 STR with a +5 bonus.
Hit points are significantly different. again, not counting ability modifiers (which make 5e version even better, not just for higher ability scores that can grow, but because you stopped getting CON bonus for HP after level 9 in 1e), the 5e fighter has about 20% more base hp than the 1e fighter. The 5e wizard has double the hit points of a 1e MU. For comparison, at 10th level:
1e fighter: 53. 5e fighter: 64
1e thief: 33, 5e thief: 53
1e MU: 24, 5e MU: 42
1e Cleric: 46, 5e cleric: 53
At 20th level, the 1e fighter will have 83 hp and the 5e version will have 124. The MU has 34 hp and the 5e one has 82.
But wait, there's more!
When you factor hit dice healing (1 HD per level), and gaining full hp after a long rest, while a 20th level fighter in 1e has 84 total hit points available in an adventuring day (83 plus the one for resting overnight), the 5e fighter has 348 total hit points available. Core 124, plus 20d10 hit dice, plus the core again that can get healed completely after a long rest (a heck of a lot more if you factor in CON bonuses)
So, even though 5e monsters can do a bit more damage per hit dice, the actual net affect is less because non-magical healing and total available hit point resources are so much higher. Eg. monster A in 1e might average 10 points of damage a round, and the 5e hit dice equivilante might do 15. That 10 points is more devastating to the 25 hp MU than 15 points is to the 42 hp MU.
Once again, I am not arguing that 1e is better in any way, shape or form. And I'm not arguing that a DM just can't boost 5e monsters. (I hope this means people will stop making those arguments) But it's clear that looking at how each edition was designed, even if you totally ignore save or die, or level drain, or long term conditions, and only look at the core damage, 1e is still significantly more lethal/dangerous to PCs. To argue otherwise just seems like a silly position. All of the evidence points otherwise.
Also, I ran comparisons for the core classes re: hit points, bonuses to hit, and total available hit points in a 24 hour period (1 day). I've often heard the "well, but 5e increased monster damage a lot". Looking at the above, if you compare monster damage and to hit bonuses by monster hit dice (you can't really compare monster vs same monster name, because some monsters like orcs were bumped up. I.e., in 1e, an orc was a pretty close to a 1st level character, while in 5e, it's equivalent to a 2nd level character). So monster hit dice is a better comparison. When you compare by hit dice, there isn't any real difference in 5e monsters being able to have a higher to hit bonus. And damage is only slightly higher.
But higher damage doesn't equal more danger more lethality because 5e PCs have a LOT more hit points available to them in any given adventuring day (not just with higher hit dice, but with having hit dice to heal up every short rest, and getting all base hp back after a long rest).
Note: For simplicity, I did not count any ability bonuses to hit or for extra HP. If I did, 5e would have an additional benefit because you increase your core abilities in 5e and you do not in 1e, and every class can benefit from high CON when in 1e, non fighters were capped at a +2 bonus.
So what does that look like?
To hit bonuses: 5e PCs gain a better bonus to hit at lower levels (everyone starts with a +2 prof bonus, and 1e doesn't have this). At mid levels, the fighter begins to outpace the 5e bonus to hit counterpart. Clerics also being to outpace at mid to higher levels. Magic users are always way behind in their basic bonus to hit. High level fighters way outpace their 5e counterparts in core bonus to hit (doubling up even). When you add ability modifiers, this evens out considerably (as without magic items, most 1e fighters with a 16 STR will only have a +1 to hit with melee weapons, while a high level 5e fighter will have a 20 STR with a +5 bonus.
Hit points are significantly different. again, not counting ability modifiers (which make 5e version even better, not just for higher ability scores that can grow, but because you stopped getting CON bonus for HP after level 9 in 1e), the 5e fighter has about 20% more base hp than the 1e fighter. The 5e wizard has double the hit points of a 1e MU. For comparison, at 10th level:
1e fighter: 53. 5e fighter: 64
1e thief: 33, 5e thief: 53
1e MU: 24, 5e MU: 42
1e Cleric: 46, 5e cleric: 53
At 20th level, the 1e fighter will have 83 hp and the 5e version will have 124. The MU has 34 hp and the 5e one has 82.
But wait, there's more!
When you factor hit dice healing (1 HD per level), and gaining full hp after a long rest, while a 20th level fighter in 1e has 84 total hit points available in an adventuring day (83 plus the one for resting overnight), the 5e fighter has 348 total hit points available. Core 124, plus 20d10 hit dice, plus the core again that can get healed completely after a long rest (a heck of a lot more if you factor in CON bonuses)
So, even though 5e monsters can do a bit more damage per hit dice, the actual net affect is less because non-magical healing and total available hit point resources are so much higher. Eg. monster A in 1e might average 10 points of damage a round, and the 5e hit dice equivilante might do 15. That 10 points is more devastating to the 25 hp MU than 15 points is to the 42 hp MU.
Once again, I am not arguing that 1e is better in any way, shape or form. And I'm not arguing that a DM just can't boost 5e monsters. (I hope this means people will stop making those arguments) But it's clear that looking at how each edition was designed, even if you totally ignore save or die, or level drain, or long term conditions, and only look at the core damage, 1e is still significantly more lethal/dangerous to PCs. To argue otherwise just seems like a silly position. All of the evidence points otherwise.
Last edited:
The two things that I see as thexequivaldnt is reducing max hp and blocking any Hesling for a time, even just around. The latter can come in 5e from something as lovely as a cantrip but also a variety of effects such as diseases, curses and mecrmantic effdftsblike you see at a variety of levels.
A sorcerer with quicken fireball and then a chill touch to tag someone left in dire straights can produce quite a "holy crap" moment.
Nebulous
Legend
I always forget about that secondary bonus from chill touch. I really need to utilize that more from the rank and file evil necromancers, it's scary. Not being able to heal at a crucial moment is great drama.
Oh, no, not at all.
In OD&D HD was CR. In 5e, CR is CR, HD is basically arbitrary and has no hook into the rest of the mechanics.
If you are making errors like that, that isn't a good sign.
A T-rex is a CR 8 monster. Its 13 HD is like the appendix of an intestine, vestigial from previous editions. They can (mechanically) be used to determine how well it heals if you leave it alone for an hour, but not much else.
A Red Dragon is a CR 17 monster with 19 HD.
Orcs are CR 1/2. A level 1 party should fight 2 of them, while a level 1 OD&D party should fight 1 1 HD orc generally. And yes, each of those Orcs are really nasty; that is part of why people say monsters in 5e are nasty.
Last edited:
People are entitled to their opinion. As much as I understand what you are trying to do, I don't see how it has much relevance.
Take orcs for example. Without going into detailed analysis ('cuz I don't care) the one time they were anything other than run-of-the-mill humanoid monsters that were not particularly a threat was when 3E came out. They could do scary amounts of damage with a crit, something they fixed with 3.5.
But other than that? Their role in the game hasn't really changed all that much, most monsters haven't. There are some exceptions. Dragons are scarier than I remember them in 1E.
But systems are so different that I don't see a lot of relevance. Even if there were, what does it matter? Let's say 1E orcs were twice the threat as they are in 5E. To give a similar threat in 5E I'll just throw 2 orcs. The DM still controls the threat level.
Sacrosanct
Legend
No, this isn't true. There was no CR until 3e. In 1e, HD was the mechanic you used. It determined a monster's attack bonus, and even on the very vague dungeon encounter rules in the DMG, was used to populate the tables of what typical monsters would be encounter for each dungeon level. As for 5e, as you can see, the hit dice of the monster is also correlated with the attack bonus and average damage of the monster (in general, the to hit bonuses and damage increase as the monster's HD increased). It's the best like vs like comparison we can make.
Similar Threads
