D&D 5E Why Has D&D, and 5e in Particular, Gone Down the Road of Ubiquitous Magic?

[The Crimson Binome]

Games require progression, that may be vertical progression (levels and personal strength), horizontal progression (kingdoms and castles), or some combination of the two but they are intrinsically required to make a game function, because the alternative is you don't have a game, you have a photograph.

I personally quite enjoy the personal power progression, because I typically make "true" adventurers, people who want nothing more out of life than enjoyment, exploration and the constant danger of ever-larger threats! So yes, for some people power progression feedback is a big deal. I can certainly take it slow within reasonable degree but the knowledge that I will get to continue progressing as long as the game keeps going needs to be there or I'm not interested.

So you wouldn't want to play in something like a Cowboy Bebop or Samurai Champloo setup, where your skills are already amazing at the outset but never really improve, and your financial situation was constantly being strained with no sign of long-term gain? It's not enough to just change over time, but you have to be getting better in order to have fun in the long-term? If you go on an amazing adventure and possibly save the world, but end up no better off than you started, then that counts for nothing?

I guess this is a psychology question, but it's still somewhat related to the topic at hand. You speak not only for yourself, but also for everyone out there who thinks enough like you that you would reach the same conclusions for the same reasons.

 

[TwoSix]

So you wouldn't want to play in something like a Cowboy Bebop or Samurai Champloo setup, where your skills are already amazing at the outset but never really improve, and your financial situation was constantly being strained with no sign of long-term gain? It's not enough to just change over time, but you have to be getting better in order to have fun in the long-term? If you go on an amazing adventure and possibly save the world, but end up no better off than you started, then that counts for nothing?

I guess this is a psychology question, but it's still somewhat related to the topic at hand. You speak not only for yourself, but also for everyone out there who thinks enough like you that you would reach the same conclusions for the same reasons.

I would, but only for 4 or 5 sessions, max.

 

[Sunseeker]

So you wouldn't want to play in something like a Cowboy Bebop or Samurai Champloo setup, where your skills are already amazing at the outset but never really improve, and your financial situation was constantly being strained with no sign of long-term gain?

Yeah no not really. I already live in a world where I advance incredibly slowly and gain very little wealth over time. I don't want to spend my hobby time repeating the process, even if I can sprout one wing and summon Meteor in the process. But you're asking me what I like, and I'm certain some people might enjoy what you're suggesting, but that's not what I look for in D&D.

It's not enough to just change over time, but you have to be getting better in order to have fun in the long-term? If you go on an amazing adventure and possibly save the world, but end up no better off than you started, then that counts for nothing?

I think changing over time can be a form of progression. But it requires a different sort of buy-in than what D&D is selling, IMO.

I guess this is a psychology question, but it's still somewhat related to the topic at hand. You speak not only for yourself, but also for everyone out there who thinks enough like you that you would reach the same conclusions for the same reasons.

As a long-time MMO player, while yes, I can only speak for myself, I see that there are lots of people out there who expect games to progress. Few people are interested in a Raid group that doesn't get past the first boss. Few people are interested in running a dungeon where you die at the doorstep. And few people are interested in doing either if there aren't cool rewards that are A: valuable, B: unique, or C: better than what you already have. MMOs evolved from games like D&D, some obviously directly, some less so. But there are very, very few and they appeal to a very narrow niche of players, that have little room for progression. Even MOBAs, where, like your premise you start off really powerful and there is a shorter power curve, still offer rewards of A, B, and C.

There are many forms of progression, your premise to me sounds like "story progression", which given how people on at least these boards react to the concept of "railroading" requires a certain level of buy-in that is higher than what D&D starts off at.

I would, but only for 4 or 5 sessions, max.

Let me amend my post by agreeing with this. I would be okay for a sort of short, high-level, save the world, retire kind of game. I wouldn't want to play something like that over an extended duration (probably 2 months, tops, assuming weekly sessions).

 

[Shasarak]

That's not unusual, there were a lot of common grievances against 4e that were not based on the facts of the game, itself, but on, at best, faulty perceptions. 4e changed the way CON affected hps, which resulted in characters having more hps at 1st level, and gaining hps more slowly after that. A 3e character at higher levels could easily have double the hps of a 4e character, a 5e one could get pretty close to that, too.

**cough**healing surges**cough**

Yeah, double hit points.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

In the context of 4e, the game is not intended to support travelling back and forth between Hammerfast and Winterhaven dealing with encounters on the road.

This is clear from the descriptions of the tiers of play in the PHB and DMG; as well as in the flavour around paragon paths and epic destinies (eg a Knight Commander/Legendary Sovereign, or a Warpriest/Demigod, is not meant to be framed into random encounters on the road). And meeting kobolds on the road at heroic tier, and then titans in the Elemental Chaos as you try and reforge creation during epic tier, isn't really a problem, is it? (And at paragon tier, the PCs should be dispatching whole phalanxes of hobgoblins.)

This "story escalation" that is inherent to the 4e design may or may not be a good thing - some people want the game to stay prosaic, in a certain respect, even as the PCs gain levels - but I think it's a reasonably apparent thing.

indeed, that was a common misconcept of 4e. The world did not suddenly level up with you, but you go to places where you find those challenges.
But then there were checks that directly leveled with your own character level and not with your target's.
And then you had the half level bonus which on its own was not that bad, except the fact that it added to the wrong checks.
4e was close to being a good game but especially around the time when essentials hit the shelves. But then it was already doomed to fail because some misconcepts were not only used against 4e, but some were actually used in official adventures.

 

[MerricB]

**cough**healing surges**cough**

Yeah, double hit points.

Two things here:
* Hit points as an attritional model
* Hit points as how you survive individual encounters.

In AD&D, both matter. From 3E onwards, the attritional aspect of hit points is much reduced. Why? The availability of wands of cure light wounds. Healing surges and healing overnight exist precisely because of those wands.

Healing Surges = Wand of Cure Light Wounds in 3E.

Total hit points (for surviving individual encounters) matter more, but there's rarely a time from when people can afford to buy or craft wands of cure light wounds in 3E that people will ever be less than full hit points.

Spell (limited resource) attrition still matters; more in 5E and 3E than 4E.

It's very hard to overstate the effect of Con modifiers on hit points when compared to AD&D, especially in relation to monsters. A Fire Giant in AD&D 2E has 15d8+2 hit points - an average of about 70 hit points. A Fire Giant in 3E has 17d8+102 hit points... 178 hit points, or an increase of 108.

 

[Shasarak]

It's very hard to overstate the effect of Con modifiers on hit points when compared to AD&D, especially in relation to monsters. A Fire Giant in AD&D 2E has 15d8+2 hit points - an average of about 70 hit points. A Fire Giant in 3E has 17d8+102 hit points... 178 hit points, or an increase of 108.

And that same Fire Giant in 4e: 398 hit points, or an increase of 220.

 

[TheLoneRanger1979]

No, it is: you still get a feeling of advancement in 5e, it's just slower, less pronounced and mostly around damage/hps.<snip>

I think we actually had a communication breakdown here. I actually agree with this and i am in favor of the way 5E did things

 

[TwoSix]

Let me amend my post by agreeing with this. I would be okay for a sort of short, high-level, save the world, retire kind of game. I wouldn't want to play something like that over an extended duration (probably 2 months, tops, assuming weekly sessions).

I'm OK with doing short games in general, high-level or low-level, big stakes or a more intimate story. What I need is change. I'm not OK with playing pretty much the same character over many months into years, even in pursuit of a more developed storyline. While I don't want to play a game without a storyline, I'm also not playing FOR the storyline, if that makes sense. I'm playing to see my character concept do stuff, and I don't need 20-30 sessions to find the limits of that concept.

 

[Tony Vargas]

**cough**healing surges**cough**

The shift of healing resources from spells and magic items to characters was in no way 'hit point inflation.' Now, if you want to go into 'healing inflation' we can, again, look to 3e (and the WoCLW) for the high point of the trend, rather than 5e.

indeed, that was a common misconcept of 4e. The world did not suddenly level up with you, but you go to places where you find those challenges.

Not a subtle distinction, but somehow hard to miss.

But then there were checks that directly leveled with your own character level and not with your target's.
And then you had the half level bonus which on its own was not that bad, except the fact that it added to the wrong checks.

I am not familiar with the details of those misconceptions.

Two things here:
* Hit points as an attritional model
* Hit points as how you survive individual encounters.

They've always been primarily the second. The attrition model was mostly about the renewable resource of daily spells, augmented by consumables. Hit points came into it in that you needed spells to heal, so taking too much damage was a drain on spell resources. The exact dynamics varied with edition.

In AD&D, both matter. From 3E onwards, the attritional aspect of hit points is much reduced. Why? The availability of wands of cure light wounds. Healing surges and healing overnight exist precisely because of those wands.

Er.... OK. Not worth quibbling over.

Wand of Cure Light Wounds in 3E > = HD in 5e

Spell (limited resource) attrition still matters; more in 5E and 3E than 4E.

Which is why we're back to 'ubiquitous magic...' The game 'needs' 4 or 5 different classes with Cure Wounds &c on their lists.

**cough**healing surges**cough**

The shift of healing resources from spells and magic items to characters was in no way 'hit point inflation.' Now, if you want to go into 'healing inflation' we can, again, look to 3e (and the WoCLW) for the high point of the trend, rather than 5e.

indeed, that was a common misconcept of 4e. The world did not suddenly level up with you, but you go to places where you find those challenges.

Not a subtle distinction, but somehow hard to miss.

But then there were checks that directly leveled with your own character level and not with your target's.
And then you had the half level bonus which on its own was not that bad, except the fact that it added to the wrong checks.

I am not familiar with the details of those misconceptions.

Two things here:
* Hit points as an attritional model
* Hit points as how you survive individual encounters.

They've always been primarily the second. The attrition model was mostly about the renewable resource of daily spells, augmented by consumables. Hit points came into it in that you needed spells to heal, so taking too much damage was a drain on spell resources. The exact dynamics varied with edition.

In AD&D, both matter. From 3E onwards, the attritional aspect of hit points is much reduced. Why? The availability of wands of cure light wounds. Healing surges and healing overnight exist precisely because of those wands.

Er.... OK. Not worth quibbling over.

Multiple WoCLW/LV > Healing Surges > HD

Spell (limited resource) attrition still matters; more in 5E and 3E than 4E.

Which is why we're back to 'ubiquitous magic...' The game 'needs' 4 or 5 different classes with Cure Wounds &c on their lists.