• 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

I'm going to try to put this discussion back on the track it started on by restating the OPs original thread discussion topic. (as I understand it from the OPs original post).

Restated: The lack of danger from 5e monsters towards the players (with emphasis on the lack of one-save long-term effects) hampers the design. A side effect of this is that the game seems too focused on HD and HP effects to the exclusion of other, long term, maladies that can affect the player characters.

When discussing this one position, I do agree with you OP. In my opinion I would rate the lethality from highest to lowest as follows.

3e: X3 and X4 crits landed by low level enemies can easily take down a character above their CR in one swing. Once you started to gain some levels and equipment you could more easily mitigate these one-big-hit but low levels were always one orc crit away from instant death. Resurrection was fairly easy, but a slight ding on the wallet.

1e: Lower HP for the PCs and an optional (I believe) deaths door to -10 rule meant low level characters were always in danger from an errant swing, although the lack of X3 and x4 damage is why I rank this lower. As in 3e, once the players started ramping up in loot and spells they were fairly safe mitigating danger. Resurrection was fairly easy and didn't require expensive components.

2e: Pretty much similar to 1e, however the addition of all the kits and the now standard (I believe) deaths door rule gave you a little space to get saved by the cleric and made it a bit less lethal.

5e: It's difficult to take down a PC. Crits drop to only x2. The monsters in the Monster Manual seem to lack enough damage on their basic attacks although the special attacks seems appropriately dangerous. HD keep you adventuring longer in the day but can't keep you up during a battle. Healing items WAY less common than in 1-3e to make up the difference. Almost every PC can go from comatose to 100% in two long rests making "road encounters" a waste of time.

4e: The edition I can't think of one character having been killed in. Even playing stupidly and getting yourself knocked out in combat on purpose and left to bleed out you still weren't very likely to die (unless the GM targeted your KOed character to kill them).
 

log in or register to remove this ad


Access within the party, maybe, but you can (in theory) always pay a high-level NPC to cast it on you next time you're in town. :)
This sort of thing was hand-waved in the earlier editions, but in at least some 5e settings, actually locating and then travelling to an NPC capable of casting it could take weeks.

Probably not very dangerous weeks, and then the party gets to travel back and continue with whatever they were doing, but still a major break in the in-character action.

As shown in much of this discussion, different design and character aesthetics have driven the mechanics of different editions. - Such as 5e characters being more self-sufficient rather than the "Go back to town" option in the early editions.
 

Heck my wizard made many saves or die in 5E with full hp. If he would have failed his save versus dragon breath in some of these published adventures he would have died. Almost dies passing them.
 

Messing about with rest frequency isn't my favourite answer here. It affects some classes far more than others. Whether you want to read that as an indictment of short rest class design is a to each his own kind if decision

My primary tool for bumping challenge is intelligent encounter design. Multiple monsters with complimentary skills and actual tactical acumen from those monsters goes a long way to upping the difficulty level. AngryGMs example of well run hobgoblins is the best example I can think of. That's not to imply that some people aren't intelligent, I just couldn't think of a better descriptor.
 

I'm going to try to put this discussion back on the track it started on by restating the OPs original thread discussion topic. (as I understand it from the OPs original post).

Good luck with that!

Restated: The lack of danger from 5e monsters towards the players (with emphasis on the lack of one-save long-term effects) hampers the design. A side effect of this is that the game seems too focused on HD and HP effects to the exclusion of other, long term, maladies that can affect the player characters.

When discussing this one position, I do agree with you OP. In my opinion I would rate the lethality from highest to lowest as follows.

3e: X3 and X4 crits landed by low level enemies can easily take down a character above their CR in one swing. Once you started to gain some levels and equipment you could more easily mitigate these one-big-hit but low levels were always one orc crit away from instant death. Resurrection was fairly easy, but a slight ding on the wallet.

1e: Lower HP for the PCs and an optional (I believe) deaths door to -10 rule meant low level characters were always in danger from an errant swing, although the lack of X3 and x4 damage is why I rank this lower. As in 3e, once the players started ramping up in loot and spells they were fairly safe mitigating danger. Resurrection was fairly easy and didn't require expensive components.

2e: Pretty much similar to 1e, however the addition of all the kits and the now standard (I believe) deaths door rule gave you a little space to get saved by the cleric and made it a bit less lethal.

5e: It's difficult to take down a PC. Crits drop to only x2. The monsters in the Monster Manual seem to lack enough damage on their basic attacks although the special attacks seems appropriately dangerous. HD keep you adventuring longer in the day but can't keep you up during a battle. Healing items WAY less common than in 1-3e to make up the difference. Almost every PC can go from comatose to 100% in two long rests making "road encounters" a waste of time.

4e: The edition I can't think of one character having been killed in. Even playing stupidly and getting yourself knocked out in combat on purpose and left to bleed out you still weren't very likely to die (unless the GM targeted your KOed character to kill them).

Well you can add my PC to the list of characters that died in 4E when I rolled natural 1s on 2 death saves in a row. It was an elf though and every elf I play is cursed to die so maybe that doesn't count.

I will agree that it's easier to avoid killing PCs in 5E than every edition (other than 4). That's a feature, not a flaw.
 

Well you can add my PC to the list of characters that died in 4E when I rolled natural 1s on 2 death saves in a row. It was an elf though and every elf I play is cursed to die so maybe that doesn't count.
Heh, I have one of those. Dwarf Barbarian, Herrak Shield-biter, reprised in each edition since 3.0, killed in each of them, generally at 1st level.
In 4e, he was killed by rocks. Not rocks falling, just being pushed over some jagged rocks while down & dying, he was 4 hp from negative-Bloodied, the hazard did d4...
 

Heh, I have one of those. Dwarf Barbarian, Herrak Shield-biter, reprised in each edition since 3.0, killed in each of them, generally at 1st level.
In 4e, he was killed by rocks. Not rocks falling, just being pushed over some jagged rocks while down & dying, he was 4 hp from negative-Bloodied, the hazard did d4...
Good to know I'm not the only one! I did have one elf get to 2nd level, but he was a half elf, so that may explain it. ;)
 


It has been my experience that the 5e monsters are balanced against a party of 4 characters. It's when you have 5-7 players at the table that running an encounter as written becomes trivial. It is therefore incumbent upon the DM to raise the challenge of the encounter to match his players.

I also feel that the environment is another "challenge " that isn't utilized as much as it should be to make a battle interesting.

Also, certain combinations of monsters can elevate the difficulty and raise the threatening tone to the players. For example a froghemoth can be very scary to a party of 4 players as more than likely at least one player will be quickly swallowed, reducing their effectiveness by 1/4 in combat. Combined with say a ghast that had been in the froghemoths stomach prior to the party arriving and suddenly the person in the stomach realizes they could get paralyzed while in the froghemoths stomach causing them and the other players to panic.

Combine all that with the pond of the froghemoth being obscure (casters can't see it to target it, fireball would be resisted due to water) and difficult terrain (lake weed overgrowth) and you turned a straight up beatdown encounter into something much scarier.
 

Into the Woods

Remove ads

Top