D&D 5E Why my friends hate talking to me about 5e.

[Cruentus]

Or… You know, just give a level of exhaustion at 0 hp. That sounds both much easier and much more enjoyable for everyone involved.

You'd think. But based on other threads, that exhaustion at 0 HP leads to the death spiral, to be avoided at all costs!

What @James Gasik is saying, I think, is that modding 5e to be "what I want/what my table wants" isn't often as easy as a couple of toggles. IME, those toggles either aren't well thought out, or they lead to these death spirals (apparently WOTC's designers never heard of that term, or they'd never had put exhaustion in the game ). I've tried to make 5e more "old school" according to my table's desires, and it wouldn't work without either 1) making 5e into an older edition, or 2) making it unrecognizeable. We realized that after a year and a half, and went back to an older edition. We're enjoying ourselves much more now, and we're happy to let others play 5e however they want.

Re: end states of combat. I would think combat, fighting something/anything, would be inherently dangerous. Ergo, there would be two basic states at the end: 1) players win or 2) monsters win (not counting one of the other side running, which has been established in other threads as to be impossible ), so we'll stick with 1 or2. But if player death isn't on the table every time they fight something, it defaults to 1 = players always win. Unless I'm missing something (and I don't count "players decide if they want to die, or players get captured (a lot), or other add-ons outside of the dice rolling and combat mechanics). Maybe I just don't see any other outcomes

 

[Charlaquin]

You'd think. But based on other threads, that exhaustion at 0 HP leads to the death spiral, to be avoided at all costs!

The thing is, the critiques I’ve seen of the exhaustion at 0 HP house rule have all been exactly the reasons one would want such a house rule. Yes, it makes falling to 0 very likely to result in the character dying. Yes, it basically forces the party to retreat to a safe location to rest, possibly for several days. Those are exactly the reasons people are proposing the house rule in the first place. Those are gameplay dynamics those people want in their games. It seems to me like it does exactly what the people who are considering it want it to do, without a lot of unwanted side-effects. That actually makes it a pretty great house rule… if you want that kind of gameplay. And not everyone does, and that’s fine. For those people, the default rules serve just fine.

What @James Gasik is saying, I think, is that modding 5e to be "what I want/what my table wants" isn't often as easy as a couple of toggles. IME, those toggles either aren't well thought out, or they lead to these death spirals (apparently WOTC's designers never heard of that term, or they'd never had put exhaustion in the game ).

Depends on what you and your table want. But, yes, house rules can and do have side-effects, and they’re worth taking into consideration.

I've tried to make 5e more "old school" according to my table's desires, and it wouldn't work without either 1) making 5e into an older edition, or 2) making it unrecognizeable. We realized that after a year and a half, and went back to an older edition. We're enjoying ourselves much more now, and we're happy to let others play 5e however they want.

For sure! That’s also a legitimate option, if the things you would want to change are that many and that significant.

 

[James Gasik]

Returning to the OP:

If your players want to try the house-rule in the video, here are some thoughts that would help go with it.


When we adopted a level of exhaustion a 0 hp, we adjusted lesser restoration, allowing it to remove a level of exhaustion but ONLY the first and second levels. You could upcast it to affect higher levels of exhaustion. For example, if a PC has 3 levels of exhaustion, lesser restoration cast with a 3rd-level slot would remove that one level.

Another house-rule is Endurance: you ignore the effects of exhaustion up to a level equal to your Constitution modifier.

For example, if you have CON 15, the first two levels of exhaustion to not affect you, however once you have a 3rd level of exhaustion, all the effects are there.


A general house-rule we use for upcasting is Maximal Upcasting: when you upcast a spell and gain additional dice, those dice are considered to be maximum and you do not roll them.

So, the cleric with Wisdom 18 upcasts cure wounds using a 3rd-level slot. Instead of 3d8+4 you would get 1d8+4+16 (the max of the additional 2d8s). This gives you an average of 24.5 instead of 17.5.

We do this for all spells, so it has other impact of course, but it is one of our "Golden House-Rules".


FWIW, I don't run my game with the 6-8 encounters adventuring day, but play with the adventures completely organic. Sometimes the PCs might have just 1 encounter (or none LOL) and other times they might have a dozen! It just depends on what they are doing...

Any way, with the house-rules we've used, the effects of the added levels of exhaustion are mitigated quite a bit, BUT THEY ARE STILL THERE, which does still increase the over all sense of danger.

Now, concerning the end states of combat. Myself and others have proposed different end states that are possible. I'm not sure exactly what you're looking for with that. However, if you want to continue discussing that aspect, please let me know.

Otherwise, as I began, if your players are interested in adopting the video's suggestion, it might help to consider the above house-rules we've been using for well over a year now (well... maximal upcasting might be a bit shy of a year...).

Cheers.

Thank you, but the fact of the matter is, I'm pretty sure they'd hate the exhaustion penalties if they were implemented. Changing lesser restoration to remove fatigue like it does in Pathfinder (and possibly 3.5 too, it's been awhile) would just force the Cleric to use more resources than they already do. Personally, I don't actually believe my players are happy with 5e, but they are stubbornly resistant to changing games at the moment. I'm trying to use minimal house rules as well, because I noticed a trend- in the past, I would have large lists of house rules, and all that happened was, the players always forgot them!

It was too much to learn the game and then relearn the game. It doesn't help that no two tables play the same way, and if they see a video on youtube or tiktok talking about the rules, they come back to me and say "this is supposed to be like this, why would you change it, that just confuses me!".

So I'm like, fine, you want to play by core, we'll play by core. Most of the adjustments I've done are behind the scenes stuff they don't see, like adjusting monsters or changing magic items- for example, I've all but done away with attunement.

They still only have 3 attunement slots, because that's what they are used to, but items only have attunements if attuning to the item unlocks an additional benefit. I got the idea from a cursed axe in the update to Hidden Shrine of Tamoachan- if you attune to it, it gives you 5 extra hit points.

I also have magician's guilds who can create more "generic" and all around useful magic items if commissioned to do so, to ensure that anyone can get magic weapons, armor, and stuff that I feel is needed, but not game breaking, especially utility items that normal wealthy people would want.

The cool stuff is saved for adventuring.

IMO, magic items are the best patch for many of the game's woes, if you don't want to extensively overhaul it's engine to the point it's unrecognizable to the average player. I've been playing for a long time, and I've long since weaned myself of any reason for D&D to abide by real world logic. You took massive damage and are fine the next day? That's why it's called fantasy, friends!

I mean, you don't read a story where Conan hangs out in an Inn for three weeks recuperating very often, do you? What, he was beat up, dragged out into a desert and left to die? Well then, he gets up, murders something with his bare hands for food, drinks it's blood for water, walks out of that desert, and murders the guys who beat him up in the first place, then takes their gold and uses it on ale and women! That's how Cimmerians recuperate!

If they want to describe their characters limping around after a massive battle, that's cool with me. But I don't need to penalize them more because a fight was rougher than anticipated. The extra resources they'll have to use seems punishment enough to me. If they want the game to be more hardcore, I can just use tougher encounters.

And I just got a message from one of my players who saw my post with the old school critical hit chart and wants to use it in the game. These guys... shakes my head

 

[James Gasik]

You'd think. But based on other threads, that exhaustion at 0 HP leads to the death spiral, to be avoided at all costs!

What @James Gasik is saying, I think, is that modding 5e to be "what I want/what my table wants" isn't often as easy as a couple of toggles. IME, those toggles either aren't well thought out, or they lead to these death spirals (apparently WOTC's designers never heard of that term, or they'd never had put exhaustion in the game ). I've tried to make 5e more "old school" according to my table's desires, and it wouldn't work without either 1) making 5e into an older edition, or 2) making it unrecognizeable. We realized that after a year and a half, and went back to an older edition. We're enjoying ourselves much more now, and we're happy to let others play 5e however they want.

Re: end states of combat. I would think combat, fighting something/anything, would be inherently dangerous. Ergo, there would be two basic states at the end: 1) players win or 2) monsters win (not counting one of the other side running, which has been established in other threads as to be impossible ), so we'll stick with 1 or2. But if player death isn't on the table every time they fight something, it defaults to 1 = players always win. Unless I'm missing something (and I don't count "players decide if they want to die, or players get captured (a lot), or other add-ons outside of the dice rolling and combat mechanics). Maybe I just don't see any other outcomes

I don't think running is impossible, but in practice, it turns out to be a lot harder than some people seem to claim it is. "Oh the fight was too tough? They should run then!". Usually, when I play, I'm the first person to realize "oh heck, this is a bit much" and I suggest running and usually get ignored. Then we win, with two guys bleeding out on the floor and they're like "ha, and you were worried". But even if the players do agree with me, we find getting out of combat with all hands on deck is very difficult.

There was one time we tried it in an AL game. Most of us got away, but the Fighter got cornered. So we had to go back and fight the enemies anyways to save him. So unless I have a spell slot with a fog cloud or something prepped, I no longer even suggest it.

 

[Charlaquin]

I've been playing for a long time, and I've long since weaned myself of any reason for D&D to abide by real world logic. You took massive damage and are fine the next day? That's why it's called fantasy, friends!

I mean, you don't read a story where Conan hangs out in an Inn for three weeks recuperating very often, do you? What, he was beat up, dragged out into a desert and left to die? Well then, he gets up, murders something with his bare hands for food, drinks it's blood for water, walks out of that desert, and murders the guys who beat him up in the first place, then takes their gold and uses it on ale and women! That's how Cimmerians recuperate!

The thing is, I don’t think realism is the primary reason most folks who want a rule like this, want it. It certainly isn’t why I would want it.

 

[Cruentus]

I don't think running is impossible, but in practice, it turns out to be a lot harder than some people seem to claim it is. "Oh the fight was too tough? They should run then!". Usually, when I play, I'm the first person to realize "oh heck, this is a bit much" and I suggest running and usually get ignored. Then we win, with two guys bleeding out on the floor and they're like "ha, and you were worried". But even if the players do agree with me, we find getting out of combat with all hands on deck is very difficult.

There was one time we tried it in an AL game. Most of us got away, but the Fighter got cornered. So we had to go back and fight the enemies anyways to save him. So unless I have a spell slot with a fog cloud or something prepped, I no longer even suggest it.

I guess that's going to be a table by table thing. In the 5e game I ran, two characters got trapped in a tower, while two others got trapped outside the gatehouse (couldn't get into the tower due to the enemies). The two below were getting overwhelmed, the two on the tower decided to jump in the moat and high tail it out. The two inside were captured, the two outside planned the rescue while the captured were interrogated by the orcs, did some RP with other captured residents, and the rescue was on!

Other times, we've sat around the table and said "maybe we should run", if we had general agreement, then the game moved out of combat mode into "strategic withdrawal" or "run pell mell" mode, and the DM decided if the monsters pursued or not depending on their agenda, how much damage we had done to them, etc. I've been in the "there is no way to get away from this" when we've been so outnumbered, but never been unable to run when the party is getting the worst end of it, and they don't want to go down swinging (i.e. they choose to stay till the bitter end - which sometimes results in victory, I have to say).

 

[DND_Reborn]

Thank you, but the fact of the matter is, I'm pretty sure they'd hate the exhaustion penalties if they were implemented. Changing lesser restoration to remove fatigue like it does in Pathfinder (and possibly 3.5 too, it's been awhile) would just force the Cleric to use more resources than they already do. Personally, I don't actually believe my players are happy with 5e, but they are stubbornly resistant to changing games at the moment. I'm trying to use minimal house rules as well, because I noticed a trend- in the past, I would have large lists of house rules, and all that happened was, the players always forgot them!

It was too much to learn the game and then relearn the game. It doesn't help that no two tables play the same way, and if they see a video on youtube or tiktok talking about the rules, they come back to me and say "this is supposed to be like this, why would you change it, that just confuses me!".

Yeah, I get it.

House-rules are great and all, but I play in two groups now myself: one is long-running and (sadly) fading away. We're down to just a few of us, and sometimes its just two of us. We've had tons of house-rules, ranging from over 100 pages to just 3.

The other group is just starting 5E. They have a guy who regularly DMs, but last night wasn't feeling up to it so I ran a new game for them. We are playing strictly RAW (or RAI anyway), without a single house-rule, because I want them to learn the base of the game first.

If they want the game to be more hardcore, I can just use tougher encounters.

And I just got a message from one of my players who saw my post with the old school critical hit chart and wants to use it in the game. These guys... shakes my head

I'm sure you've already talked to them about all this, but part of me thinks you might need to have the discussion again.

 

[James Gasik]

Yeah, I get it.

House-rules are great and all, but I play in two groups now myself: one is long-running and (sadly) fading away. We're down to just a few of us, and sometimes its just two of us. We've had tons of house-rules, ranging from over 100 pages to just 3.

The other group is just starting 5E. They have a guy who regularly DMs, but last night wasn't feeling up to it so I ran a new game for them. We are playing strictly RAW (or RAI anyway), without a single house-rule, because I want them to learn the base of the game first.


I'm sure you've already talked to them about all this, but part of me thinks you might need to have the discussion again.

I want to say players don't know what they want, but that sounds kind of smug and superior. I do think, however, that they should be careful of what they wish for...

 

[Charlaquin]

I want to say players don't know what they want, but that sounds kind of smug and superior. I do think, however, that they should be careful of what they wish for...

It sounds smug, but the truth is, most people don’t know what they want, other than “more of what I already know I like.” Our brains are very good at recognizing when we like or dislike something we’ve experienced, and very bad at predicting what we might like or dislike that we haven’t yet experienced, or determining why we like or dislike something.

 

[pemerton]

Re: end states of combat. I would think combat, fighting something/anything, would be inherently dangerous. Ergo, there would be two basic states at the end: 1) players win or 2) monsters win (not counting one of the other side running, which has been established in other threads as to be impossible ), so we'll stick with 1 or2. But if player death isn't on the table every time they fight something, it defaults to 1 = players always win. Unless I'm missing something (and I don't count "players decide if they want to die, or players get captured (a lot), or other add-ons outside of the dice rolling and combat mechanics). Maybe I just don't see any other outcomes

In the 5e game I ran, two characters got trapped in a tower, while two others got trapped outside the gatehouse (couldn't get into the tower due to the enemies). The two below were getting overwhelmed, the two on the tower decided to jump in the moat and high tail it out. The two inside were captured, the two outside planned the rescue while the captured were interrogated by the orcs, did some RP with other captured residents, and the rescue was on!

I have trouble reconciling these two posts!

 

[Cruentus]

I have trouble reconciling these two posts!

I was showing that, contrary to common wisdom, it is possible to flee from combats, as long as the game/DM/players accommodate that, and that combat isn't a "once in, its do or die."

But a lot of discussion about grittiness, deadliness of combat, healing, etc. here often talks about my first post - once you're in combat, you have to fight to the end. The end often being a foregone PC win because you can't kill em, and you can't keep em down (unless they agree) because those things would be unfun for the player.

 

[James Gasik]

Like I said, I'm loath to take death off the table entirely, but man, it really has been a drag every time it's occurred when I've run a game. Even if there is a handy NPC or a quick way to introduce a new character, I've found players want to keep playing that character.

Probably, the best solution would be to have a character pool, that players switch off playing (and that level up simultaneously), so as to lessen the impact of a character death. This gives them a character they know and can play, even as they seek a way to bring back the original (or not).

This still has the problem of getting them back in the action if the other character is nowhere nearby, however. For me, it's about the same level of obnoxious as a player who can't show up for a session, but obviously it's much more so for the player.

If I can figure out how to best troubleshoot that approach, I wouldn't need worry about death, and could even feel comfortable implementing whatever crazy rule my players want to make the game "feel more hardcore/realistic" (at least until they see the repercussions of said rule firsthand and decide maybe that wasn't a great idea, lol).

 

[CleverNickName]

I've scheduled the rolling party for our next campaign. (I call it a "rolling party," everyone on ENWorld seems to call it a "session zero." We're basically going to roll up new characters and introduce the new campaign setting.) This thread and others like it has given me much to discuss with my players...

From following this thread, I think one of the first things we should talk about is combat.

For my part: I don't want to play "Tabletop Skyrim," where every encounter is expected to be a battle, and every battle is expected to be balanced for the party. I need combat to be dangerous and unpredictable, or I will quickly lose interest.

Besides, I need to give them all a heads-up. I recently picked up a copy of The Monsters Know What They're Doing, and it's awesome. I want intelligent opponents to fight intelligently: I want them to coordinate, focus fire, double-tap, and flee/surrender. Fighting a group of bandits should feel very different from fighting a group of skeletons.

 

[Micah Sweet]

You'd think. But based on other threads, that exhaustion at 0 HP leads to the death spiral, to be avoided at all costs!

What @James Gasik is saying, I think, is that modding 5e to be "what I want/what my table wants" isn't often as easy as a couple of toggles. IME, those toggles either aren't well thought out, or they lead to these death spirals (apparently WOTC's designers never heard of that term, or they'd never had put exhaustion in the game ). I've tried to make 5e more "old school" according to my table's desires, and it wouldn't work without either 1) making 5e into an older edition, or 2) making it unrecognizeable. We realized that after a year and a half, and went back to an older edition. We're enjoying ourselves much more now, and we're happy to let others play 5e however they want.

Re: end states of combat. I would think combat, fighting something/anything, would be inherently dangerous. Ergo, there would be two basic states at the end: 1) players win or 2) monsters win (not counting one of the other side running, which has been established in other threads as to be impossible ), so we'll stick with 1 or2. But if player death isn't on the table every time they fight something, it defaults to 1 = players always win. Unless I'm missing something (and I don't count "players decide if they want to die, or players get captured (a lot), or other add-ons outside of the dice rolling and combat mechanics). Maybe I just don't see any other outcomes

I've been told recently that D&D combat without danger can be just as fun as playing poker without stakes, or doing the crossword. That second one at least can be fun if you're in the mood.

 

[James Gasik]

I've scheduled the rolling party for our next campaign. (I call it a "rolling party," everyone on ENWorld seems to call it a "session zero." We're basically going to roll up new characters and introduce the new campaign setting.) This thread and others like it has given me much to discuss with my players...

From following this thread, I think one of the first things we should talk about is combat.

For my part: I don't want to play "Tabletop Skyrim," where every encounter is expected to be a battle, and every battle is expected to be balanced for the party. I need combat to be dangerous and unpredictable, or I will quickly lose interest.

Besides, I need to give them all a heads-up. I recently picked up a copy of The Monsters Know What They're Doing, and it's awesome. I want intelligent opponents to fight intelligently: I want them to coordinate, focus fire, double-tap, and flee/surrender. Fighting a group of bandits should feel very different from fighting a group of skeletons.

I would strongly urge your players to have someone who is an excellent scout, so that they can suss out enemy strength from a distance. Also, it would behoove your players to all have strong ranged attacks, spellcasters to have "escape" spells like fog cloud, and more than one character who can be an emergency healer.

Advice I give my own group, but like Crom, they do not listen.

 

[James Gasik]

I've been told recently that D&D combat without danger can be just as fun as playing poker without stakes, or doing the crossword. That second one at least can be fun if you're in the mood.

Maybe so. Personally, I'm mostly ok with 5e's current level of danger, though I do wish healing was rebalanced so it felt more rewarding to be a healer, and you didn't have gobs of healing (if only you can find a place to hole up for an hour!) out of combat, but I'm really unwilling to mess with the rules to do that, unless my players campaign for it.

I really liked 4e's paradigm; you get 2+ Minor Action ranged heals per encounter, everyone can Second Wind as a Standard Action, and you can also heal after a 5 minute rest, all of which relied on your pool of Healing Surges, so you couldn't be super reckless.

The higher hit point pool of starting characters was nice to start out, so you can bloody the nose of a 1st level guy without having them go down in one hit to an Orc.

But that's a personal preference not shared by all.

 

[Electrik Wizard]

So I said "I had a whole spiel about this, but nobody wants to hear it, lol."

"He replies with, I think this is a really good idea, what's wrong with it?"

After laying down all these points, the response?

"James why do you have to ruin everything?"

You: "You don't want to hear my reply"
Them: "Tell me anyway!"
You: explains problems with idea in well thought out way
Them: "Why did you tell me the thing you warned me I wouldn't like but I insisted you tell me anyway??"

 

[Charlaquin]

Like I said, I'm loath to take death off the table entirely, but man, it really has been a drag every time it's occurred when I've run a game. Even if there is a handy NPC or a quick way to introduce a new character, I've found players want to keep playing that character.

Probably, the best solution would be to have a character pool, that players switch off playing (and that level up simultaneously), so as to lessen the impact of a character death. This gives them a character they know and can play, even as they seek a way to bring back the original (or not).

Yep, each player having a stable of characters is the way to go, in my opinion. I don’t think they necessarily need to level up with the other characters though. Having them level up separately encourages players to rotate through their stable, and/or to keep at least one character at each tier so they can decide who to bring each week based on what levels the other player’s’ characters are at.

This still has the problem of getting them back in the action if the other character is nowhere nearby, however. For me, it's about the same level of obnoxious as a player who can't show up for a session, but obviously it's much more so for the player.

Hirelings. If a PC dies, have the player take over a hireling for the rest of the session.

 

[Micah Sweet]

Yep, each player having a stable of characters is the way to go, in my opinion. I don’t think they necessarily need to level up with the other characters though. Having them level up separately encourages players to rotate through their stable, and/or to keep at least one character at each tier so they can decide who to bring each week based on what levels the other player’s’ characters are at.

Hirelings. If a PC dies, have the player take over a hireling for the rest of the session.

This emphasizes not putting too much of your attention and investment into a single character, which i really recommend. I know its not the current style, but I find the world feels more real to me if the entire universe doesn't revolve around the PCs.

 

[James Gasik]

You: "You don't want to hear my reply"
Them: "Tell me anyway!"
You: explains problems with idea in well thought out way
Them: "Why did you tell me the thing you warned me I wouldn't like but I insisted you tell me anyway??"

Yeah, this happens to me a lot.