D&D 5E What Single Thing Would You Eliminate

[tetrasodium]

ROFLMAO!

4e's solution was ELEGANT, key every single heal to HS. Then they let up a bit on that later on, which could get problematic, but it never got completely crazy except for a couple edge case party builds (and Vampires are pretty wonky, but it kinda depends on the details of the party and combats).

So, my answer was, have a lot of non-combat SC-type stuff that sucked up resources and could produce drama in multiple ways. Then you could still have some basic fights, mainly just to provide the right atmosphere and suck up a few more resources. These would usually have some goals besides 'kill everything' to enhance interest, but in terms of fighting/damage its fine if the PCs just 'get up again', since they're unlikely to really be fighting to the death. Finally you get the really dramatic super action-packed fights where everything is a roller-coaster and I can insert some sort of 'special rules' (IE powers or terrain, whatever) to create the "and he goes down" sort of drama (falls are a cheap way to get this BTW). This is where nasty save ends effects can play a part, if used sparingly (and its best if there is a costly 'cure' available, way to create some tension). Heck, you can even throw in a '5 minutes' duration if you do that right, or even a permanent one.

Anyway, forcing the game to rely on hit points as THE way of doing this gets old fast, and every edition of D&D since thmake mid 90's has had a way around it.

5e doesn't do that either & it's a nontrivial change to make retroactive as wotc themselves show in the dmg. Linking the attrition to healing surges instead of hitpoints just shifts the focus of where the attrition is. 5e by comparison has a variant rule for healing urges that only works as anything but a huge power bump if applied to "parties that have no or few characters with healing magic", No mention on how to finish the variant rule so it works with parties with bard druid cleric some sorlocks etc because it's an extremely nontrivial thing to retroactively bolt onto 5e

 

[House_Of_Dexter]

My apologies for being flip. I interpreted you answer as you not wanting to engage with the idea.

To explain: I think when how XP is rewarded is systematized and transparent, the players can engage with that system in a way they choose. If they know that greater risks lead to greater rewards, they can make informed decisions about how deep to delve. And informed decision making -- aka agency -- is perhaps the mot important part of playing RPGs. This assumes a few things, including that the players do in fact have a lot of choices in what they get to do, and those choices are varied in degrees of risk and reward, and the players have some mechanism to figure out which choices align with which risk and reward levels. It is most appropriate for mega-dungeon exploration and sandbox gaming, less so for "adventure paths" and "theme park" style adventuring.

When we talk about risk and reward. XP rewards in 5E D&D don't take in to account whether the party has recently taken a short or long rest. In our current system the encounters is equal whether the party is carrying damage into the fight, or is down spells. So to maximize power by the team they are always better off coming in to an encounter at full strength and that is definitely at lesser risk. So if we where going to give experience based off of risk we should award bonus experience dependent on the last time you took a short or long rest and whether you are carrying damage.

 

[CleverNickName]

I don't see how 'popping back up' makes things anti-climatic.

Or how dropping people so often that they have to pop back up enough that it's annoying the DM is never questioned as part of this perceived problem.

It's a matter of preference, I guess. My preference is to make healing harder, and combat more dangerous.

Let's say we're watching an action movie, and the hero Brett Strongjaw gets shot. He falls down in slow motion, the sound of his fading heartbeat slows as the screen fades to black, we wonder if this is the end for our hero. But no! The lights come back up after a few seconds, the action resumes, Brett gets up and returns fire! But look out, he gets shot again! He falls down in slow motion, the sound of his fading heartbeat slows as the screen fades to black...

...and so on. After the first time, this device loses its impact. And after about the third or fourth time, it starts to get boring. Then annoying.

It's a terrible plot device. And it's not made better (or more exciting, or even more interesting) by making the bad guys stop shooting at the hero.

 

[fearsomepirate]

Hmmm...I wonder if instead of imposing a level of exhaustion, I made pop-up healing consume a hit die...

 

[Vaalingrade]

...and so on. After the first time, this device loses its impact. And after about the third or fourth time, it starts to get boring. Then annoying.

It's a terrible plot device. And it's not made better (or more exciting, or even more interesting) by making the bad guys stop shooting at the hero.

Except the plot device in question is the hero 'dying' all the time in the first place.

If writers weren't so hopelessly addicted to just the one kind of stakes, the hero wouldn't keep getting shot and the writers wouldn't have to undo it all the time.

Which is why I asked the question in the first place: why is the solution to a problem caused by PCs dropping too often being to kill them harder and more frustratingly?

 

[House_Of_Dexter]

and back on topic...

I would remove getting spells back from a long rest. Some other system would have to be implemented to recover spells.

 

[CleverNickName]

Except the plot device in question is the hero 'dying' all the time in the first place.

If writers weren't so hopelessly addicted to just the one kind of stakes, the hero wouldn't keep getting shot and the writers wouldn't have to undo it all the time.

Which is why I asked the question in the first place: why is the solution to a problem caused by PCs dropping too often being to kill them harder and more frustratingly?

I can't speak for anyone else, but for me? Usually, it's an attempt to get the player to try a different tactic--any at all--other than "keep fighting until I drop." Remember it's not always the DM who is "so hopelessly addicted to just one kind of stakes."

I'm curious, though. What other kinds of stakes would you have the DM provide, that would prevent the issue of PCs dropping too often?

 

[Xetheral]

Hmmm...I wonder if instead of imposing a level of exhaustion, I made pop-up healing consume a hit die...

So, when you hit zero you curse, put a hit die in the swear jar pop-up healing jar, and get back up?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'm curious, though. What other kinds of stakes would you have the DM provide, that would prevent the issue of PCs dropping too often?

Following a writing process?

Let's just start with the core question: why is this fight happening?

- Is someone (the enemy or the PCs) trying to buy time for something

Then advance the clock as the fight goes on. Maybe it's worth it to the PCs to try and break off the fight, or they have to keep the enemy from breaking off.

- Is one party trying to get something from the other?

Have them get it and try to scarper. Or have the players realize what the baddies are trying to take. Maybe it's worth giving it up to stop the fight or negotiate.

- is one party protecting something?

Go for the protectee. Maybe getting them out of harm's way is easier than finishing the fight lethally.

- is an animal hungry to trying to feed young?

Maybe easier prey could stop the fight, or the enemy is actually trying to get at the party's gear for their rations.

- Is there a personal/political/intellectual reason for the attack?

Maybe talking can solve it and maybe it doesn't have to the the players' preview to initiate that.

Most conflicts are not purely about one party wanting the other to not live anymore and exploring the actual reason and direction of that conflict can help find the real stakes.

Unfortunately, the 'adventuring day' and 'XP for killing monsters' trains DMs to just throw monsters at the party for a fight and the only stakes being whether the PCs die pointlessly or not.

 

[S'mon]

Most fights IMC happen for a good reason. Currently we have a mini Siege of Helm's Deep going, where the 9 PCs aid a band of 23 dwarves to defend their home against 64 orcs (& a barlgura). What happens to fallen PCs is certainly an issue, though the primary stakes are whether the PC side can inflict crippling losses on the orcs before the orcs overrun the hold.