I really prefer inspiration being at the DM's discretion rather than an automatic mechanic. And I prefer it for being for the "softer," less easy to quantify aspects of the game (i.e., role playing).
I really prefer inspiration being at the DM's discretion rather than an automatic mechanic. And I prefer it for being for the "softer," less easy to quantify aspects of the game (i.e., role playing).
I get it. I'm just a systems kind of guy... I like hard-fast rules for everything -- cause and effect. Maybe I'm just a bad DM, but I do not like being responsible for "judging" others' roleplaying or great ideas or lack thereof.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
TBH: another reason I'm against awarding inspiration on a nat 20 is the game is already heavily weighted towards character success. De-coupling ASIs from race and making background builds much more customizable I get and have no problem with. I do have problems with changes that continue to sand down the edges of danger for PCs, and seem designed to make D&D a much less peril-filled game. Getting inspiration (which means getting rolling advantage) potentially more often than if awarded by DM discretion just feels like one more move to decrease the danger in the game.
I'm sure some of that is the old school gamer in me (I grew up playing 1E, where it was more common than not for characters who started at level 1 to die before advancing very far).
1. Removing monster crits is not reasonable and weakens monsters too much. Using the "recharge" feature to balance it is ridiculously game breaking and will lead to power-creep with new monsters suddenly making old ones a trivial challenge (breaking old game monsters and source material...). I agree. I hate monsters and spells not having crits. This takes excitement away from the game and disincentivizes spells with to hits. The issue of instant death (which is rare in my long experience) can be addressed with a look at the death mechanic.
2. Inspiration on a 20 is silly. Come on... do you need a cookie every time you roll a 20? I don't mind inspiration but in my opinion, it is suitable to be an optional rule.
3. "Nat 20 means instant success" is game-breaking and stupid. You shouldn't have a 5% chance of doing the impossible. You want to go to percentile dice and have a 1% or even a 0.1% chance... okay. But a 5% chance of pulling off even the most ridiculously hard thing... stupid. Nat 20 only means a success if you're rolling at the behest of the DM. I tell my players that Nat 20 does not trump the impossible. Likewise, a nat one does not cause a 'critical fumble' unless the situation calls for there to be a specific hazard. I call these out in my game. I don't see anything in the playtest that makes a Nat 20 trump the impossible.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think? That's why I still want monsters to crit. I would suggest (as a test) If damage reduces the target to 0hp. start making death saves. If excess damage to minus 10 or more happens, you die at the end of your next turn unless something prevents it. Only attacks that specifically include it can cause instant death.
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists. The new lists neatly fix the problem of why doesn't my class get spell X. I can foresee abuse happening. Perhaps each class could have a list and all spells could have the Arcane, Primal or Divine Tag.
On the class spell list thing I thought the video said that not all arcane casters would have access to all arcane spells but that each class would have access to spells with certain tags
The spell list will likely be the topic of another UA, but the concerns about the Arcane, Divine, and Primal tags can likely be addressed by making spells better balanced in game value to each other. Particularly, the worst spells in the game are unusable and I've not seen any player actually take them. Make Find Traps actually find the traps. Make True Strike not be empirically worse than just attacking two turns. I could go on but we all could. No one is going to take True strike when Greenflame Blade exists.
I do see some problems though with the test itself. Feats and likely spells being re-written need new names to preserve backward compatibility. Alert in the playtest is useful but also very different from the original. Do I still get to keep the original? Do I pick? Stonecunning it different and useful, can I still be a dwarf that has the original ability? If not, it's not backward compatible.
On the crit thing, what if a monster takes control of a PC. The PC can crit. but if only the weapon dice are doubled and not smite or sneak attack, those classes get a big nerf. I can only hope that the wording in the final product allows those to work. Otherwise, play will be even slower than it now is on a tough fight. If this is implemented, I foresee a lot of tables just house ruling that crits go as they did before. My two cents.
I assume the older content will be labeled legacy. So the database will have the new Alertness feat and a legacy one. Maybe the CB will allow you to turn on and off legacy content.
5. Removing class-based spells is broken for two reasons: A) It disincentives the attraction of certain classes while simultaneously reducing their effectiveness and power balance, and, B) will lead to custom power-builds that look exactly the same - min/maxing the exact same spell lists. The new lists neatly fix the problem of why doesn't my class get spell X. I can foresee abuse happening. Perhaps each class could have a list and all spells could have the Arcane, Primal or Divine Tag.
They almost certainly aren't removing class spell lists. They're actually increasing diversity.
Why do I say that? Because we already have two master spell lists, Arcane and Divine. Bards, Sorcerors, Warlocks, and Wizards all take Arcane spells. Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers take Divine spells. Each class has its own spell list that is a subset taken from their master list. The only difference will be that there will be a third master spell list, Primal, and Druids Rangers will take Primal spells rather than Divine spells. There is no reason to believe that everyone will have access to the full master list.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Alright, I've watched the video and wasn't to thrilled about the changes. I've been playing D&D since 81 and have enjoyed every edition, except 4e, and this is yet another edition. This means you will have to buy yet another set of books if you want to continue playing. Or you could just say the hell with it and continue using the 5e core books ( printed ) and continue on. I doubt that DnD Beyond will continue supporting the 5e content or give subscribers the options to use the current edition material.
Inspiration for every Nat 20? Why? This past gaming session everybody was rolling 20's...it was unreal! Our DM was "play testing" this option and he said he wasn't using it our next game. Took the challenge out of everything pretty much. We had a player with a pile of inspiration tokens and they were being used like he was eating MnM's. The attitude was "No worries I've got six left!". It just took a lot of the "danger" out of most of the really challenging encounters.
Nat 20 for critical successes and failures. I'd continue using for combat but not skill checks. Every DM I've ever played with has done the same. So I don't think the proposed change for this will carry over to the folks I game with. There are some things that the character will not be able to do and they just need to accept that.
I really don't like the fact that they took away racial stat ability bonuses and put them into the backgrounds. I didn't use the options in Tasha's, and I wouldn't use them in this upcoming edition. Races should have advantages and disadvantages in game play...that's the challenge! You want to play a certain class but it might not be ideal for a specific race you want to play...well suck it up and deal with it. Backgrounds should have some influence on your Skills and possibly Tool kits.
So there's no more half-orc or half-elf character races...it's all about custom linages? You can be a half ogre and half gnome for a linage? Or goblin & elf? I guess the choices are limitless? Something I wouldn't be using in any of my campaigns.
Why are they messing with the class based spells?
I just keep telling myself "Self, you have the books, you have crap loads of books. All of the 3.5e, 90% of Pathfinder 1e, and the 5e. You do you Boo.". I've spent thousands of dollars on D&D and I think that its about time for me to step back and take a deep breath. I am getting to that age where I just have to shake my head and admit when enough is enough. I am wondering if the digital books I purchased will still be accessible through the DDBeyond app I have? Will I still be able to access them offline if they've been downloaded to my devices when they finally change over to the new edition?
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frank 😜
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
Inspiration for every Nat 20? Why? This past gaming session everybody was rolling 20's...it was unreal! Our DM was "play testing" this option and he said he wasn't using it our next game. Took the challenge out of everything pretty much. We had a player with a pile of inspiration tokens and they were being used like he was eating MnM's. The attitude was "No worries I've got six left!". It just took a lot of the "danger" out of most of the really challenging encounters.
You're still only supposed to have 1 inspiration at a time, so they shouldn't 'have six left.'
That’s on our DM, but still getting an inspiration for a 20 is just to much. Awarding inspiration based on player participation is the better way to go. It encourages folks to role play and get into what’s happening at the table.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Frank 😜
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It is by the Beans of Java that thoughts acquire speed, the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning. It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
4. Is it just me or does if feel like they're trying to remove ANY chance for a player to get killed... if there's no risk of the character dying, why roll anything at all? Why have combat rules? Why have stat blocks? Everything just succeeds and you win ever battle... That would get pretty boring in a hurry, don't you think? That's why I still want monsters to crit. I would suggest (as a test) If damage reduces the target to 0hp. start making death saves. If excess damage to minus 10 or more happens, you die at the end of your next turn unless something prevents it. Only attacks that specifically include it can cause instant death.
It's not just you.
However.
My own very non-scientific survey/look at who's playing and how they define "fun" - well, it just seems like a character actually dying (and either staying dead or there needing to be a substantial amount of in-game "work" to bring them back) is on the bottom of their list of how D&D can be fun. But therein lies the rub: unless you're going to have game that's ENTIRELY RP, with no combat, removing the danger of dying removes tension, thrills, and excitement to any encounter you have. The DM essentially just becomes an XP provider, putting monsters in the way that are defeated within 1-3 rounds of combat and minimal danger to the PCs.
I don't advocate a return to the days of 1E, when new PCs were more likely to die than not at lower levels. But the continued sanding down of real danger to PCs is disheartening.
I wouldn't really describe 50 odd sessions (I'm assuming bi-weekly means once every two weeks, English is funny like that) with only one PC death as being specifically designed to kill the party being followed through without mercy or compassion. I mean, I nerfed an enemy Druid in a published campaign and accidentally nearly TPK'd. I was holding back quite a bit. If the DM is trying to kill the party, even without being ridiculous like sending a Tarrasque after them at L1, they easily can and will. I think what you mean is that you run a tough game that the players have to be skilled at to beat - and since they are skilled, they survive.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Lego Syndrome is basically what happens when you have all the legos, rather than a specific lego box. If you buy say a Tie-Fighter lego set with instructions, in building that Tie-Fighter you experience the full excitement of the lego building experience. You will look forward to buying your next lego box and doing your next project. What happens however if you have all legos and no instructions, where you are told "you can build anything you want". It sounds like you have been free'd of the burden of instructions and having to follow the rules and instead can build anything your heart desires! The result however in practice is that it becomes instantly boring. You run out of ideas quite quickly and you inevitably, despite having all the legos in the world, stop building legos. That is lego syndrome.
With deconstructions of backgrounds, races, and classes, eventually, the game will no longer have any limitations on choices, its damn near that already. The result will be that people get bored of it.
It seems that your experience with both legos and D&D has been quite different than mine. Recalling my childhood and observing my son and my nieces and nephews play with legos, the sets were built by the instructions once at first and maybe again once or twice, but were then scavenged and combined to make unique, creative objects far more often. Constraints are important in games and play, but I think many people like me crave more freedom, whether it is D&D or legos and this enhances our experience.
I am certainly not saying you are wrong in how you enjoy the game, but I feel you are mistaken that the 'lego syndrome' is universally true and will cause a decline in popularity in D&D due to a slight loosening of the restraints.
BigLizard may not necessarily play or 5e but especially based off how Beyond and DnD is going to be done in the future, he has much as a right to be here as anyone else.
While I can't say I agree with everything he posts, which also since a lot of things posted comes down to opinions sometimes it is just simply a difference of taste, he is one of the posters that I can see what he writes and than use to reflect upon different things that he has said, even if I don't come to the same conclusion as him.
That being said to stay on topic, I do think part of the problem with the playtest rules is that it's now "enforcing rules" on the DM before that were just suggestions... and I'm curious if this was done in part due to one of 5e's biggest "slams" (which was that it didn't have enough set in stone rules for a DM)... even if it was the basis for some of these changes I don't like them regardless but it does leave me curious if that was part of the reason why.
My own very non-scientific survey/look at who's playing and how they define "fun" - well, it just seems like a character actually dying (and either staying dead or there needing to be a substantial amount of in-game "work" to bring them back) is on the bottom of their list of how D&D can be fun. But therein lies the rub: unless you're going to have game that's ENTIRELY RP, with no combat, removing the danger of dying removes tension, thrills, and excitement to any encounter you have. The DM essentially just becomes an XP provider, putting monsters in the way that are defeated within 1-3 rounds of combat and minimal danger to the PCs.
I don't advocate a return to the days of 1E, when new PCs were more likely to die than not at lower levels. But the continued sanding down of real danger to PCs is disheartening.
This is an old wives tale. PC's dying more often in the 1e days was not the result of the mechanics, but DM philosophy of the time and how DM's ran the game. Mathematically and mechanically you are in most cases more likely to die in 5e than you are to die in 1e if you are adhering strictly to mechanics.
I'm no mathematician (and I'd be interested, genuinely, in seeing this argument presented in accessible terms re: the math) but it very much is a result of mechanics.
1E characters, playing RAW, die when they hit 0 hit points. Period. Sure, a lot of us (including me) allowed for the "-10 is REAL death" option, but that's not how the game is presented. You reach 0 hit points, you're gone. What's more, characters generally had fewer hit points at lower levels (not dramatically fewer, but still) and thus were in more danger of more quickly reaching 0. Magic-users and thieves were especially vulnerable, given their lack of armor, shields, and having the worst HP average. (M-Us had a d4 for hit points!) Positive modifiers for ability scores were harder to come by (for instance: for Strength, you have to have at least a 16 STR for just +1 adjustment to damage). Thus not only were most 1st/low level characters squishier, they generally had less help in terms of ability score modifiers. (Similarly, you had to have at least 15 in CON or DEX for any kind of helpful modifier.) Finally, spellcasters - at least magic-users and illusionists - had one paltry spell per day at 1st level, RAW, and until 1985 or 86, no cantrips. (And this doesn't even take into account the very slow healing for 1E rules [1 hit point per day of rest]!)
Fighters and fighter subclasses toughened up fairly quickly, but I can assure you that character deaths at levels 1-5 were more frequent in 1E than in 5E, purely as a result of the differences in the rules.
How were the monsters built in comparison to 5e though? To use a very crudely out together illustration, players may have had only say half the damage output, but if the typical enemy only had a quarter of the HP, then the players were relatively stronger overall.
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's not been answered and is an important factor. What really matters is the relative strength of players to opponents in encounters in general. While I appreciate that that is a hard thing to account for in a game like D&D, it's the most vital part of the discussion and is somewhat missing.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The monsters were weaker compared to 5E monsters (1E orcs are nothing compared to 5E orcs) but that's just a reflection of how the power of PCs scaled up. But in context, the monsters were plenty tough. By way of illustration:
One of the biggest lessons I had to learn (or unlearn) coming straight from 1E to 5E is that generally, in 5E, a party of 4-6 PCs will always defeat a single monster. (This assumes the monster isn't one that's WILDLY above the suggested CR range, even for a deadly encounter. Obviously, a single adult dragon is going to decimate a party of 6 2nd level characters.) 5E seems to be built more towards encounters with multiple creatures, rather than the expectation that one is going to have a very real chance of killing one or more PCs in a fight.
1E official adventures certainly had their share of planned encounters with multiple foes of varying difficulty. But it also lent itself much better to 1 monster vs the party kind of fights, with the monster having a very real chance of winning (whether that means TPK or disabling enough of them to get away and fight another day).
I took a group of PCs through Against the Giants; the entire party was around 8th or 9th level when they started (four PCs). In the beginning, they ended up taking on a fire giant alone. The fire giant outright killed out party member (I believe it was the party tank!) and the rest were very hard pressed to survive the encounter.
I am very confident that my current group (all 8th level in 5E) could take on a 5E fire giant and no one would die. (Someone might reach 0 hit points, if they were extraordinarily unlucky. But I don't seem them dying.)
One other big rule change that certainly affected PC longevity: the dreaded save or die. 1E had a good amount of magic items and spells that were save or die, periodt. The cursed item cloak of poionousness didn't even allow for a saving throw; put it on, and the PC is dead. No save, no recourse. Dead.
The monsters were weaker compared to 5E monsters (1E orcs are nothing compared to 5E orcs) but that's just a reflection of how the power of PCs scaled up. But in context, the monsters were plenty tough. By way of illustration:
One of the biggest lessons I had to learn (or unlearn) coming straight from 1E to 5E is that generally, in 5E, a party of 4-6 PCs will always defeat a single monster. (This assumes the monster isn't one that's WILDLY above the suggested CR range, even for a deadly encounter. Obviously, a single adult dragon is going to decimate a party of 6 2nd level characters.) 5E seems to be built more towards encounters with multiple creatures, rather than the expectation that one is going to have a very real chance of killing one or more PCs in a fight.
1E official adventures certainly had their share of planned encounters with multiple foes of varying difficulty. But it also lent itself much better to 1 monster vs the party kind of fights, with the monster having a very real chance of winning (whether that means TPK or disabling enough of them to get away and fight another day).
I took a group of PCs through Against the Giants; the entire party was around 8th or 9th level when they started (four PCs). In the beginning, they ended up taking on a fire giant alone. The fire giant outright killed out party member (I believe it was the party tank!) and the rest were very hard pressed to survive the encounter.
I am very confident that my current group (all 8th level in 5E) could take on a 5E fire giant and no one would die. (Someone might reach 0 hit points, if they were extraordinarily unlucky. But I don't seem them dying.)
One other big rule change that certainly affected PC longevity: the dreaded save or die. 1E had a good amount of magic items and spells that were save or die, periodt. The cursed item cloak of poionousness didn't even allow for a saving throw; put it on, and the PC is dead. No save, no recourse. Dead.
1E was much deadlier than 5E for PCs.
I also essentially jumped from 1e to 5e (due to a break in playing of about 30 years) and would agree with this. I have yet to have played too much 5e, but it seems that individual character deaths are very rare, because just about anyone else in the party has a chance to revive a downed compatriot in some way. However, with how the advantages for numbers work out and how difficult it is to retreat with opportunity attacks, etc., a few downed party members seems like it can quite easily lead to everyone going down. Thus, at least my impression is that TPKs might be slightly more common in 5e, because for a fight to be genuinely challenging and dangerous to a party, it has to skirt a fine line between everybody surviving or nobody surviving, with not much in between.
Yeah, in my experience by the time you realize 'oh crap this is harder than we expected' in 5E running often isn't feasible unless the DM drops combat and does a skill challenge type chase sequence or something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I really prefer inspiration being at the DM's discretion rather than an automatic mechanic. And I prefer it for being for the "softer," less easy to quantify aspects of the game (i.e., role playing).
I get it. I'm just a systems kind of guy... I like hard-fast rules for everything -- cause and effect. Maybe I'm just a bad DM, but I do not like being responsible for "judging" others' roleplaying or great ideas or lack thereof.
C. Foster Payne
"If you get to thinkin' you're a person of some influence, try orderin' somebody else's dog around."
TBH: another reason I'm against awarding inspiration on a nat 20 is the game is already heavily weighted towards character success. De-coupling ASIs from race and making background builds much more customizable I get and have no problem with. I do have problems with changes that continue to sand down the edges of danger for PCs, and seem designed to make D&D a much less peril-filled game. Getting inspiration (which means getting rolling advantage) potentially more often than if awarded by DM discretion just feels like one more move to decrease the danger in the game.
I'm sure some of that is the old school gamer in me (I grew up playing 1E, where it was more common than not for characters who started at level 1 to die before advancing very far).
On the class spell list thing I thought the video said that not all arcane casters would have access to all arcane spells but that each class would have access to spells with certain tags
The spell list will likely be the topic of another UA, but the concerns about the Arcane, Divine, and Primal tags can likely be addressed by making spells better balanced in game value to each other. Particularly, the worst spells in the game are unusable and I've not seen any player actually take them. Make Find Traps actually find the traps. Make True Strike not be empirically worse than just attacking two turns. I could go on but we all could. No one is going to take True strike when Greenflame Blade exists.
I do see some problems though with the test itself. Feats and likely spells being re-written need new names to preserve backward compatibility. Alert in the playtest is useful but also very different from the original. Do I still get to keep the original? Do I pick? Stonecunning it different and useful, can I still be a dwarf that has the original ability? If not, it's not backward compatible.
On the crit thing, what if a monster takes control of a PC. The PC can crit. but if only the weapon dice are doubled and not smite or sneak attack, those classes get a big nerf. I can only hope that the wording in the final product allows those to work. Otherwise, play will be even slower than it now is on a tough fight. If this is implemented, I foresee a lot of tables just house ruling that crits go as they did before. My two cents.
I assume the older content will be labeled legacy. So the database will have the new Alertness feat and a legacy one. Maybe the CB will allow you to turn on and off legacy content.
They almost certainly aren't removing class spell lists. They're actually increasing diversity.
Why do I say that? Because we already have two master spell lists, Arcane and Divine. Bards, Sorcerors, Warlocks, and Wizards all take Arcane spells. Clerics, Druids, Paladins and Rangers take Divine spells. Each class has its own spell list that is a subset taken from their master list. The only difference will be that there will be a third master spell list, Primal, and Druids Rangers will take Primal spells rather than Divine spells. There is no reason to believe that everyone will have access to the full master list.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
Alright, I've watched the video and wasn't to thrilled about the changes. I've been playing D&D since 81 and have enjoyed every edition, except 4e, and this is yet another edition. This means you will have to buy yet another set of books if you want to continue playing. Or you could just say the hell with it and continue using the 5e core books ( printed ) and continue on. I doubt that DnD Beyond will continue supporting the 5e content or give subscribers the options to use the current edition material.
Inspiration for every Nat 20? Why? This past gaming session everybody was rolling 20's...it was unreal! Our DM was "play testing" this option and he said he wasn't using it our next game. Took the challenge out of everything pretty much. We had a player with a pile of inspiration tokens and they were being used like he was eating MnM's. The attitude was "No worries I've got six left!". It just took a lot of the "danger" out of most of the really challenging encounters.
Nat 20 for critical successes and failures. I'd continue using for combat but not skill checks. Every DM I've ever played with has done the same. So I don't think the proposed change for this will carry over to the folks I game with. There are some things that the character will not be able to do and they just need to accept that.
I really don't like the fact that they took away racial stat ability bonuses and put them into the backgrounds. I didn't use the options in Tasha's, and I wouldn't use them in this upcoming edition. Races should have advantages and disadvantages in game play...that's the challenge! You want to play a certain class but it might not be ideal for a specific race you want to play...well suck it up and deal with it. Backgrounds should have some influence on your Skills and possibly Tool kits.
So there's no more half-orc or half-elf character races...it's all about custom linages? You can be a half ogre and half gnome for a linage? Or goblin & elf? I guess the choices are limitless? Something I wouldn't be using in any of my campaigns.
Why are they messing with the class based spells?
I just keep telling myself "Self, you have the books, you have crap loads of books. All of the 3.5e, 90% of Pathfinder 1e, and the 5e. You do you Boo.". I've spent thousands of dollars on D&D and I think that its about time for me to step back and take a deep breath. I am getting to that age where I just have to shake my head and admit when enough is enough. I am wondering if the digital books I purchased will still be accessible through the DDBeyond app I have? Will I still be able to access them offline if they've been downloaded to my devices when they finally change over to the new edition?
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
You're still only supposed to have 1 inspiration at a time, so they shouldn't 'have six left.'
Birgit | Shifter | Sorcerer | Dragonlords
Shayone | Hobgoblin | Sorcerer | Netherdeep
That’s on our DM, but still getting an inspiration for a 20 is just to much. Awarding inspiration based on player participation is the better way to go. It encourages folks to role play and get into what’s happening at the table.
the hands acquire shaking, the shaking becomes a warning.
It is by caffeine alone I set my mind in motion.
It's not just you.
However.
My own very non-scientific survey/look at who's playing and how they define "fun" - well, it just seems like a character actually dying (and either staying dead or there needing to be a substantial amount of in-game "work" to bring them back) is on the bottom of their list of how D&D can be fun. But therein lies the rub: unless you're going to have game that's ENTIRELY RP, with no combat, removing the danger of dying removes tension, thrills, and excitement to any encounter you have. The DM essentially just becomes an XP provider, putting monsters in the way that are defeated within 1-3 rounds of combat and minimal danger to the PCs.
I don't advocate a return to the days of 1E, when new PCs were more likely to die than not at lower levels. But the continued sanding down of real danger to PCs is disheartening.
I wouldn't really describe 50 odd sessions (I'm assuming bi-weekly means once every two weeks, English is funny like that) with only one PC death as being specifically designed to kill the party being followed through without mercy or compassion. I mean, I nerfed an enemy Druid in a published campaign and accidentally nearly TPK'd. I was holding back quite a bit. If the DM is trying to kill the party, even without being ridiculous like sending a Tarrasque after them at L1, they easily can and will. I think what you mean is that you run a tough game that the players have to be skilled at to beat - and since they are skilled, they survive.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
It seems that your experience with both legos and D&D has been quite different than mine. Recalling my childhood and observing my son and my nieces and nephews play with legos, the sets were built by the instructions once at first and maybe again once or twice, but were then scavenged and combined to make unique, creative objects far more often. Constraints are important in games and play, but I think many people like me crave more freedom, whether it is D&D or legos and this enhances our experience.
I am certainly not saying you are wrong in how you enjoy the game, but I feel you are mistaken that the 'lego syndrome' is universally true and will cause a decline in popularity in D&D due to a slight loosening of the restraints.
BigLizard may not necessarily play or 5e but especially based off how Beyond and DnD is going to be done in the future, he has much as a right to be here as anyone else.
While I can't say I agree with everything he posts, which also since a lot of things posted comes down to opinions sometimes it is just simply a difference of taste, he is one of the posters that I can see what he writes and than use to reflect upon different things that he has said, even if I don't come to the same conclusion as him.
That being said to stay on topic, I do think part of the problem with the playtest rules is that it's now "enforcing rules" on the DM before that were just suggestions... and I'm curious if this was done in part due to one of 5e's biggest "slams" (which was that it didn't have enough set in stone rules for a DM)... even if it was the basis for some of these changes I don't like them regardless but it does leave me curious if that was part of the reason why.
I'm no mathematician (and I'd be interested, genuinely, in seeing this argument presented in accessible terms re: the math) but it very much is a result of mechanics.
1E characters, playing RAW, die when they hit 0 hit points. Period. Sure, a lot of us (including me) allowed for the "-10 is REAL death" option, but that's not how the game is presented. You reach 0 hit points, you're gone. What's more, characters generally had fewer hit points at lower levels (not dramatically fewer, but still) and thus were in more danger of more quickly reaching 0. Magic-users and thieves were especially vulnerable, given their lack of armor, shields, and having the worst HP average. (M-Us had a d4 for hit points!) Positive modifiers for ability scores were harder to come by (for instance: for Strength, you have to have at least a 16 STR for just +1 adjustment to damage). Thus not only were most 1st/low level characters squishier, they generally had less help in terms of ability score modifiers. (Similarly, you had to have at least 15 in CON or DEX for any kind of helpful modifier.) Finally, spellcasters - at least magic-users and illusionists - had one paltry spell per day at 1st level, RAW, and until 1985 or 86, no cantrips. (And this doesn't even take into account the very slow healing for 1E rules [1 hit point per day of rest]!)
Fighters and fighter subclasses toughened up fairly quickly, but I can assure you that character deaths at levels 1-5 were more frequent in 1E than in 5E, purely as a result of the differences in the rules.
How were the monsters built in comparison to 5e though? To use a very crudely out together illustration, players may have had only say half the damage output, but if the typical enemy only had a quarter of the HP, then the players were relatively stronger overall.
I don't know the answer to that question, but it's not been answered and is an important factor. What really matters is the relative strength of players to opponents in encounters in general. While I appreciate that that is a hard thing to account for in a game like D&D, it's the most vital part of the discussion and is somewhat missing.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
The monsters were weaker compared to 5E monsters (1E orcs are nothing compared to 5E orcs) but that's just a reflection of how the power of PCs scaled up. But in context, the monsters were plenty tough. By way of illustration:
One of the biggest lessons I had to learn (or unlearn) coming straight from 1E to 5E is that generally, in 5E, a party of 4-6 PCs will always defeat a single monster. (This assumes the monster isn't one that's WILDLY above the suggested CR range, even for a deadly encounter. Obviously, a single adult dragon is going to decimate a party of 6 2nd level characters.) 5E seems to be built more towards encounters with multiple creatures, rather than the expectation that one is going to have a very real chance of killing one or more PCs in a fight.
1E official adventures certainly had their share of planned encounters with multiple foes of varying difficulty. But it also lent itself much better to 1 monster vs the party kind of fights, with the monster having a very real chance of winning (whether that means TPK or disabling enough of them to get away and fight another day).
I took a group of PCs through Against the Giants; the entire party was around 8th or 9th level when they started (four PCs). In the beginning, they ended up taking on a fire giant alone. The fire giant outright killed out party member (I believe it was the party tank!) and the rest were very hard pressed to survive the encounter.
I am very confident that my current group (all 8th level in 5E) could take on a 5E fire giant and no one would die. (Someone might reach 0 hit points, if they were extraordinarily unlucky. But I don't seem them dying.)
One other big rule change that certainly affected PC longevity: the dreaded save or die. 1E had a good amount of magic items and spells that were save or die, periodt. The cursed item cloak of poionousness didn't even allow for a saving throw; put it on, and the PC is dead. No save, no recourse. Dead.
1E was much deadlier than 5E for PCs.
I also essentially jumped from 1e to 5e (due to a break in playing of about 30 years) and would agree with this. I have yet to have played too much 5e, but it seems that individual character deaths are very rare, because just about anyone else in the party has a chance to revive a downed compatriot in some way. However, with how the advantages for numbers work out and how difficult it is to retreat with opportunity attacks, etc., a few downed party members seems like it can quite easily lead to everyone going down. Thus, at least my impression is that TPKs might be slightly more common in 5e, because for a fight to be genuinely challenging and dangerous to a party, it has to skirt a fine line between everybody surviving or nobody surviving, with not much in between.
Yeah, in my experience by the time you realize 'oh crap this is harder than we expected' in 5E running often isn't feasible unless the DM drops combat and does a skill challenge type chase sequence or something.