In 5e, all adventuring parties are always this powerful, ready to dish out death on a mass scale against opponents of much higher level than they are. This is the norm, they don't even need +3 Flametongues to do that... they just are that.
Try putting a 5e adventuring party up against an equal number of equal CR monsters and see what happens. Sure, 4 PCs whomp an equal-CR monster, but 4 PCs in B/X or AD&D whomped a monster with HD equal to their level. Honestly, 5e PCs are less capable than 1e PCs of similar level, if you were to take a set of 5e PCs and send them into the Caves of Chaos, swapping the monsters 1:1 with their 5e counterparts, they'll get obliterated.
Im really surprised at you, I've always found you quite knowledgeable, honest and frank both about modern and old-school D&D. Are you really going to feint ignorance to win this silly discussion?
You know that what you just said there is objectively false.
For one, The Caves of Chaos are a total death trap for 1st level adventures. The survival rate of this dungeon among 1st level characters was extremely low, Gygax was a very cruel man. The only way to succeed in the Caves of Chaos was to negotiate with one of the factions and hire additional muscle and hope you can trick the factions to fight each other. It's mathematically impossible to survive in there if you are trying to fight your way through it even at 2nd or 3rd level its low odds, hell most groups would TPK on their way there.
5e characters would absolutely dominate in that place, you would have to raise the encounters for it to even be a challenge, which is actually exactly what Goodman Games did when they converted Keep on the Borderlands to 5e.
Come on now.. this is getting silly. We can disagree, but lets not BS each other.
Essentially yes that is what I'm saying. Despite years of abusing this community, the disaster that was 4e, countless fumbles that should have shaken this community into action like the OGL and many other kerfuffles, this community is unbothered.
Wizards lost a lot of customers with 4e. They got them back, with interest, when 5e came out. This tells us that, contrary to what you believe, people liked the changes.
And it's not like they didn't have a choice. It's entirely possible to find every prior edition of D&D, and it isn't even particularly expensive. If people are playing 5e rather than, say, OSR games, it's because they think 5e is better.
Yeah, I agree with that. 5e was a big improvement over 4e, but note that even with 4e they only lost 10% of the market share. I mean, 4e was pretty bad. It's kind of the point. Like, I think Wizards of the Coast could release pretty much anything, like don't even bother spell-checking it, slap it on recycled paper.. as long as it has a D&D logo, it will sell. It has nothing to do with what's between the pages, people will buy it. I honestly don't even know why they are bothering with this whole beta test, surveys and all that stuff, it doesn't make any difference what they release.
In what game are level 1 characters fighting ogres? An ogre has 59HP, about 6x your average level one character, and hits for an average of 14HP—enough to one shot ANY level 1 character aside from a well appointed barbarian. That is a death sentence for at least one character and has high potential for a TPK depending on the dice gods.
In what game is the difference between +5 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1) and +8 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1 plus your +3 Flametongue) incosnequential? In what game is the difference between 4-12 damage (str bonus + base longsword) and 11-25 damage (str bonus +3 Flametongue) inconsequential? If, somehow, the difference between these things are indeed inconsequential, does that not also make possessing the +3 Flametongue inconsequential??
With all due respect, have you ever actually played 5e?
In what game are level 1 characters fighting ogres? An ogre has 59HP, about 6x your average level one character, and hits for an average of 14HP—enough to one shot ANY level 1 character aside from a well appointed barbarian. That is a death sentence for at least one character and has high potential for a TPK depending on the dice gods.
In what game is the difference between +5 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1) and +8 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1 plus your +3 Flametongue) incosnequential? In what game is the difference between 4-12 damage (str bonus + base longsword) and 11-25 damage (str bonus +3 Flametongue) inconsequential? If, somehow, the difference between these things are indeed inconsequential, does that not also make possessing the +3 Flametongue inconsequential??
With all due respect, have you ever actually played 5e?
I'm not sure who or what specifically you are addressing, but we were not talking about 5e, we were talking about 1e B/X rules... and yes a +3 Flametongue in that circumstance, would be pretty inconsequential.
But you aren't That Guy because you are defending D&D from the degradations and poor design choices of the corporation that owns it. No, you became that when you attacked anyone who plays it or isn't actively calling Hasbro and their subsidiary the Evil Empire.
Enablers are often far worse than the offenders, so if calling the community on blind devotion to a company that is crapping in my and their cheerios ruffles a few feathers, so be it.
D&D has over half the market share. The global market size for Tabletop Role-Playing Games (TTRPG) was valued at USD 1539.52 Million in 2022, with a predicted doubling of that by 2028 that I seriously doubt since the estimate was based on numbers skewed by the pandemic. Ore like a 40% growth by then, I'd say. That's not just the games, mind you, That's all the stuff to support them (dice, battle map sheets, accessories, blah blah). That also doesn't segment by type of game, which really makes you realize the sheer scale of D&D when it has half the market share of ALL the millions of ttrpgs out there globally, and they still can't make DDB work in the metric system, lol.
I haven't responded to your stats of how many billions of dollars Hasbro and WotC makes because its not relevant to the discussion in any way shape or form. Your talking about how much money they're making, I say they're making it on crappy design. Hasbros ability to sell it, doesn't make it good, nor does the fact that people buy as we already established that the masses can and often are quite blind. Your point is taken, Hasbro makes lots of money, I get it, so does ****, it doesn't mean it's a good thing or proof of quality.
Yet according to you, WotC has failed in their stewardship of the game even as they have grown its reach and increased its uptake and even despite multiple major failings (4e, OGL, plenty of others) they have held onto that market share for close to 8 years -- after building it back up from around 40 at the time of 5e's release.
Essentially yes that is what I'm saying. Despite years of abusing this community, the disaster that was 4e, countless fumbles that should have shaken this community into action like the OGL and many other kerfuffles, this community is unbothered. Like I'm pretty sure WotC can get away with just about anything at this point and it wouldn't change their bottom line and you wonder why I challenge the communities sanity? At the end of the day, 5e isn't some wonderous design, its a mediocre game at best, I think even you recognize that else you wouldn't have spent 5 years altering it, I think most 5e players realize that its far from so good that we should just lay down and take it from WotC. Yet people do, they shell out ungodly amounts of money on outrageously atrocious content like SpellJammer and Dragonlance, so bad, the community should be filing civil lawsuits.
I know you think you're explaining it by showing sales figures, but I don't buy that this speaks to the quality of the product, its a very Americanized metric that has no impression on me at all. To me Forbidden Lands, that was a success, a small team designed a game that won RPG of the year and rightfully so. They produced something truly great and timeless something to be proud of. 5e.. meh.. its definitely better than 4e, but they have a long way to go before we can even call it "good".
Ok, so, you are using a basis of a subjective concept of "quality". Which cannot be measured. Nice position to be in because you can bounce the goal posts around where ever. Except...
You can't say they are doing a bad job of stewardship, because stewardship is not based on quality. You can't argue that the game is a failure ont he basis of quality because failure has a metric -- unless you are operating solely from opinion.
Sophistry, literally, when one argues using a metric that is subjective and make attacks based on non-subjective bases. There are folks having a fight about Monks and none of the have the same measurable metrics in hand and then get upset because they can't come to an agreement about how to approach improvements.
That makes the entirety of your argument hollow -- you say that how much money they make isn't germane while you say that stewardship is bad, that they are going to gouge people, and yet the basis of your arguments about all of it isn't grounded in the actual concerns there, it is about "quality".
Where in any of the marketing and other stuff for 5e has anyone claimed that 5e is a quality game?
Where has anyone here, in this thread, said that 5e is the bestest, most quality game they play?
Like I'm pretty sure WotC can get away with just about anything at this point and it wouldn't change their bottom line and you wonder why I challenge the communities sanity?
I have absolutely no wonder about why you question the community's sanity. Not even a little bit.
in no small part because since 2016, I have questioned most of the world's sanity. Well, really, much, much longer, but current stuff that is "political" around human rights is a major focus at this time.
You also err -- both 4e and the OGL did impact their bottom line. So they can't get away with anything -- but perhaps what you mean is a complete collapse, and that's pretty damned unrealistic and magical thinking on your part if so.
And none of it excuses calling everyone who likes 5e a shit eater. Even politely.
I have spent 5 years on it because it takes time to have a life, and not because there are flaws in the game. i did it because the world I built was so different from the default paradigms used in 5e that I have to do all this work -- and if I were to take hours, I would say about 1500 hours total, with around 400 of that on mechanics. The design goal was to make the rules fit the world, not the world fit the rules.
I don't think my stuff is "better" or "worse". It is simply different. Like the original OA was different from the 1e PHB. Along the way I yanked on some threads surrounding assorted "baked in social ills" and while I do think that is better, I recognize that anytime someone says "better, best, worse, worst, good, bad" they are speaking in terms of personal opinion, not fact.
Quality in TTRPGs is always a matter of opinion -- including that award you mention.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
9 HD Bulette in 1e could take on 4 9th level PCs and it would be a coin flip.
Really... not true. It's pretty strong for its hit dice (an ankylosaurus is the same hit dice with worse AC and a quarter the damage) but it's by no means a close fight. Let's put it up against 4 pregens from GDQ:
Bulette: AC -2, HP 41 (average), THAC0 12, #AT 3, damage 4d12, 3d6, 3d6 (47 dpr). AC can be reduced in several ways with unclear game mechanics.
Beek Gwenders of Croodle, CG, Half-elf Ranger 9. AC -3, HP 93, ranged #AT 1, THAC0 9/1d6+2, melee #AT 3/2, THAC0 10/1d12+4 (16 dpr)
Fonkin Hoddypeak, CG High Elf, Fighter/M.U 5/8. AC -4, HP 29.
Keak Breedbate, N Gnome Fighter/Thief 5/10. AC -1, HP 53. THAC0 14/1d8+3, or 4d8+3 with backstab.
Fnast Dringle, Wood Elf Fighter/Magic User 4/8. AC -2. HP 47.
The only character it has a decent chance of dropping in one attack sequence is Fonkin Hoddypeak, and with two magic missiles and a reasonably average set of rolls from the other two characters it dies in one round. Overall expected result is one wounded character and some resources spent.
9 HD Bulette in 1e could take on 4 9th level PCs and it would be a coin flip.
Really... not true. It's pretty strong for its hit dice (an ankylosaurus is the same hit dice with worse AC and a quarter the damage) but it's by no means a close fight. Let's put it up against 4 pregens from GDQ:
Bulette: AC -2, HP 41 (average), THAC0 12, #AT 3, damage 4d12, 3d6, 3d6 (47 dpr). AC can be reduced in several ways with unclear game mechanics.
Beek Gwenders of Croodle, CG, Half-elf Ranger 9. AC -3, HP 93, ranged #AT 1, THAC0 9/1d6+2, melee #AT 3/2, THAC0 10/1d12+4 (16 dpr)
Fonkin Hoddypeak, CG High Elf, Fighter/M.U 5/8. AC -4, HP 29.
Keak Breedbate, N Gnome Fighter/Thief 5/10. AC -1, HP 53. THAC0 14/1d8+3, or 4d8+3 with backstab.
Fnast Dringle, Wood Elf Fighter/Magic User 4/8. AC -2. HP 47.
The only character it has a decent chance of dropping in one attack sequence is Fonkin Hoddypeak, and with two magic missiles and a reasonably average set of rolls from the other two characters it dies in one round. Overall expected result is one wounded character and some resources spent.
Ah, busted: THAC0 was 2e. ;)
but your point is taken. I used the bulette because I have (nearly) wiped a party of four 9ths with one (cementing it as one of my fave monsters), but I also took advantage of the burrowing and surprise and delay tactics of a hunting beast.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Most of the complaints here about 5e don't make any sense at all, it's just a bunch of old-timers who prefer the old days (which is totally fine) bashing on the current system because they can.
Not enough challenge? Players level up too fast/too slow? Too many / not enough magic items? Players not scared of traps? Nothing can kill players? You are the DM, you LITERALLY control every single one of those things so if they are true then blame yourself don't blame the system.
Now if you're complaining that the pre-packaged modules that WotC sells nowadays are far too easy as written, then I'll totally agree with you there. But every single complaint I've read so far in this thread about the 5e system is 100% fixable by the DM just choosing to fix it if they want to
What you are missing, is we prefer 5e. We all repeat this over and over again. What is lacking is a since of challenge, and balanced reward for those challenges. Yes, i can bump up the stats and make it harder, but the reward limitations will never be equal to what I have to do to challenge them. The result is the players just don't bother with them. Do they really need another +1 sword? Is it worth fighting a Storm Giant the DM had to double the hit points and give extra attacks just to make it challenging? No. On the bright side, if the players get initiative, they can knock off at least 300 hitpoints in the first round with smites and sneak attacks. Of course, combat is a time waster, and no one really needs a +1 Sword.
The balance just isn't there. Ghost no longer age you, poison just gives disadvantage until a short rest, there is no deleveling attacks, curses last until the next long rest. Nothing will actually hurt the players for long. Why should a player worry about traps, or special attacks? This is why they added dungeon attacks and legendary actions to the monstrous manual, because even WOTC knows that the players have an unfair advantage against boss mobs, and so they had to add cheat attacks between rounds so the players don't kill them in the first round.
The best example of this is Tomb of Horror in the Yawning Portal book. Its a cake walk. My players barely tried to get around traps. In prior editions, that dungeon was a death trap. In 5e, its laughable. There is very little combat in the dungeon. It was designed to challenge the player's intelligence and problem solving skills. In 5e, the players can walk right through it, triggering all the traps and take a short rest to clear any negative effects. Not only that, traps were easily detected with a passive perception skill. Between 5 players, they never missed noticing a trap, or secret door. That's pretty demoralizing for a DM, that wants players to explore the dungeon they spent 15 hours crafting. To your point that the DM controls these things, that's the point of the thread if you'd read it. I am asking, how do my fellow DMs impose challenges and rewards with the limitations of the OSR to do those things.
Yes, I get it, people like to talk in funny voices with their half elf/goblin eldritch knight, while they flirt with the hobgoblin barmaid in the tavern about the modern plight of goblinoids in the Thay empire. This is fine if you enjoy that sort of thing, but there is so much more to the game. So much more potential. There is so much more you can do and just doing the one thing seems very undeserving of such a great game. DMs can do better, and players deserve better.
Too many modern players that have never played another edition or game look at 5e from two lenses, role-play, which is talking only, and combat which is rolling dice only and somehow think that one group prefers one over the other. I have never run my games from either perspective. My role-play drives narrative and has purpose and my combat is never just rolling dice. The golden rule is, "Role-play doesn't stop when combat begins." The best encounters are never ones that just roll dice. For instance, Dungeon crawls are super boring, unless there is substantial role-play involved. If you want to see a bunch of bored players, have one guy talking for an hour while the rest of the table builds dice towers. Want to see boring encounters, have everyone roll-dice on their turn, while the next player impatiently awaits their turn.
Nothing is more unsatisfactory as a DM than to watch players spend 3 hours talking and not advancing the quest you spent a week crafting. Nothing is more demoralizing than watching players win a combat with only the luck of the die. Both are pretty bad sessions. In one scenario, it's just glee club, and the other it's a board game. We don't need to be playing DnD to do either. Unfortunately, 5e leans heavily towards both extremes of play with very little middle ground.
So you say, us old schoolers don't get it. We get it, we aren't complaining about nostalgia and bashing 5e because DnD isn't what it used to be. We honestly like 5e. It's a better system than OSR, 1e, and 2e. While others may disagree, I super prefer it over 3e. So when we say the game is imbalanced, that comes from a lot of experience from forever DMs in every edition, and in a lot of other systems. What we want to see is less extreme, and more balance and that is the question being asked.
Its always more satisfying to watch my players face real obstacles with real consequences that will impact their characters in future sessions. Watching the players fear opening the next door because their constitution was reduced to 4 from a trap they failed to find, and they only have 10 hit points left, only to see their looks of joy as they find the secret panel to the treasure room is really something few DMs in 5e ever see. Want to see a bunch of grown adults high-five each other with big smiles on their face, like a bunch of pre-schoolers, you will rarely see this with the current system. As a DM of 30+ years, those are the best games and i really wish more people could experience that.
THAC0 wasn't on the sheets I was reading, I just didn't feel like posting the actual gibberish that's on an AD&D character sheet.
LOL
THe mechanics for AC variables depend on exposure and part of body attacked.
Also, something i just noticed, those aren't level 9 characters in three cases. In 1e mechanics, a characters level is the total of all their multi-class levels. So that's a 9, 13, 15, and 12th level set there.
And don't forget the jumping mechanic, that allows it to essentially do a "reach" attack *from under the ground* which makes attacks that pause for a turn become surprise attacks. This is a Landshark, baby. It doesn't try to deliver pizzas, though.
But I love the "gibberish" comment, lol.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
I was never confused or slowed down by the THAC0 system. In fact one bored night we even came up with a quicker more basic conversion for it but never kept using it.
Most of the complaints here about 5e don't make any sense at all, it's just a bunch of old-timers who prefer the old days (which is totally fine) bashing on the current system because they can.
Not enough challenge? Players level up too fast/too slow? Too many / not enough magic items? Players not scared of traps? Nothing can kill players? You are the DM, you LITERALLY control every single one of those things so if they are true then blame yourself don't blame the system.
Now if you're complaining that the pre-packaged modules that WotC sells nowadays are far too easy as written, then I'll totally agree with you there. But every single complaint I've read so far in this thread about the 5e system is 100% fixable by the DM just choosing to fix it if they want to
What you are missing, is we prefer 5e. We all repeat this over and over again. What is lacking is a since of challenge, and balanced reward for those challenges. Yes, i can bump up the stats and make it harder, but the reward limitations will never be equal to what I have to do to challenge them. The result is the players just don't bother with them. Do they really need another +1 sword? Is it worth fighting a Storm Giant the DM had to double the hit points and give extra attacks just to make it challenging? No. On the bright side, if the players get initiative, they can knock off at least 300 hitpoints in the first round with smites and sneak attacks. Of course, combat is a time waster, and no one really needs a +1 Sword.
The balance just isn't there. Ghost no longer age you, poison just gives disadvantage until a short rest, there is no deleveling attacks, curses last until the next long rest. Nothing will actually hurt the players for long. Why should a player worry about traps, or special attacks? This is why they added dungeon attacks and legendary actions to the monstrous manual, because even WOTC knows that the players have an unfair advantage against boss mobs, and so they had to add cheat attacks between rounds so the players don't kill them in the first round.
The best example of this is Tomb of Horror in the Yawning Portal book. Its a cake walk. My players barely tried to get around traps. In prior editions, that dungeon was a death trap. In 5e, its laughable. There is very little combat in the dungeon. It was designed to challenge the player's intelligence and problem solving skills. In 5e, the players can walk right through it, triggering all the traps and take a short rest to clear any negative effects. Not only that, traps were easily detected with a passive perception skill. Between 5 players, they never missed noticing a trap, or secret door. That's pretty demoralizing for a DM, that wants players to explore the dungeon they spent 15 hours crafting. To your point that the DM controls these things, that's the point of the thread if you'd read it. I am asking, how do my fellow DMs impose challenges and rewards with the limitations of the OSR to do those things.
Yes, I get it, people like to talk in funny voices with their half elf/goblin eldritch knight, while they flirt with the hobgoblin barmaid in the tavern about the modern plight of goblinoids in the Thay empire. This is fine if you enjoy that sort of thing, but there is so much more to the game. So much more potential. There is so much more you can do and just doing the one thing seems very undeserving of such a great game. DMs can do better, and players deserve better.
Too many modern players that have never played another edition or game look at 5e from two lenses, role-play, which is talking only, and combat which is rolling dice only and somehow think that one group prefers one over the other. I have never run my games from either perspective. My role-play drives narrative and has purpose and my combat is never just rolling dice. The golden rule is, "Role-play doesn't stop when combat begins." The best encounters are never ones that just roll dice. For instance, Dungeon crawls are super boring, unless there is substantial role-play involved. If you want to see a bunch of bored players, have one guy talking for an hour while the rest of the table builds dice towers. Want to see boring encounters, have everyone roll-dice on their turn, while the next player impatiently awaits their turn.
Nothing is more unsatisfactory as a DM than to watch players spend 3 hours talking and not advancing the quest you spent a week crafting. Nothing is more demoralizing than watching players win a combat with only the luck of the die. Both are pretty bad sessions. In one scenario, it's just glee club, and the other it's a board game. We don't need to be playing DnD to do either. Unfortunately, 5e leans heavily towards both extremes of play with very little middle ground.
So you say, us old schoolers don't get it. We get it, we aren't complaining about nostalgia and bashing 5e because DnD isn't what it used to be. We honestly like 5e. It's a better system than OSR, 1e, and 2e. While others may disagree, I super prefer it over 3e. So when we say the game is imbalanced, that comes from a lot of experience from forever DMs in every edition, and in a lot of other systems. What we want to see is less extreme, and more balance and that is the question being asked.
So look. I agree somewhat with the above. 5e has a lot of what I want. I want more role play actually in it and now that you mention it, yeah, I want a lot more noncombat tricks up my sleeve and damage that's NOT HP but just as deadly or severe (or permanent).
I don't want to be told what other games are out there. I don't care about "more role play and you don't even need dice" games.
Also, something i just noticed, those aren't level 9 characters in three cases. In 1e mechanics, a characters level is the total of all their multi-class levels.
No it isn't; that's only accurate for 3e and later. The most accurate comparison is total xp, but the character's level is their hit die total -- in fact, the assumption is that an NPC can be treated as a monster of equal hit dice.
In what game are level 1 characters fighting ogres? An ogre has 59HP, about 6x your average level one character, and hits for an average of 14HP—enough to one shot ANY level 1 character aside from a well appointed barbarian. That is a death sentence for at least one character and has high potential for a TPK depending on the dice gods.
In what game is the difference between +5 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1) and +8 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1 plus your +3 Flametongue) incosnequential? In what game is the difference between 4-12 damage (str bonus + base longsword) and 11-25 damage (str bonus +3 Flametongue) inconsequential? If, somehow, the difference between these things are indeed inconsequential, does that not also make possessing the +3 Flametongue inconsequential??
With all due respect, have you ever actually played 5e?
I'm not sure who or what specifically you are addressing, but we were not talking about 5e, we were talking about 1e B/X rules... and yes a +3 Flametongue in that circumstance, would be pretty inconsequential.
I’m addressing you but you’re kinda all over the place, making the already difficult quoting system even more complicated. Your overarching point appears to be that 5e is inferior to past editions. As an example, you’ve stated that the loot system is out of control in 5e compared to previous editions where it doesn’t matter whether a character has a +3 Flametongue at level 1. I do not understand this statement. How is 5e loot of control when it’s in other editions that a character can have a +3 Flametongue at level 1 without consequence?
A +3 Flametongue doesn’t even exist in 5e. If it did, it would likely be very rare if not legendary. It would certainly not be intended for level 1 characters and would tip the scales in their favour for quite some time. So what about this is out of control? Near as I can tell, for you, reasonable is when any character can get any loot at any level because it’s of no consequence anyway but out of control loot is when characters are very limited in what magic items they can have and how consequential they are to overall gameplay. If that is what you are saying, I will agree to disagree because that describes the precise opposite of what both reasonable and out of control mean to me, to the point where I question if we share the same language.
The balance just isn't there. Ghost no longer age you, poison just gives disadvantage until a short rest, there is no deleveling attacks, curses last until the next long rest. Nothing will actually hurt the players for long. Why should a player worry about traps, or special attacks? This is why they added dungeon attacks and legendary actions to the monstrous manual, because even WOTC knows that the players have an unfair advantage against boss mobs, and so they had to add cheat attacks between rounds so the players don't kill them in the first round
In the past couple months worth of sessions that I'm a player in, we've seen characters aged significantly (which doesn't really impact gameplay tbh), de-aged significantly (to the point that the character was useless and the player had to make a new one), multiple characters de-leveled in multiple different ways, permanent curses with no way to remove other than an RP quest, permanent reductions in max hp, permanent reductions in stats, many deaths that were revived but with increasing DC on each resurrection to the point that some do fail and new characters are made, etc. That's all homebrewed by the DM but it's easy to do if you want to. Nothing about 5e prevents any of this from occurring
The best example of this is Tomb of Horror in the Yawning Portal book. Its a cake walk. My players barely tried to get around traps. In prior editions, that dungeon was a death trap. In 5e, its laughable. There is very little combat in the dungeon. It was designed to challenge the player's intelligence and problem solving skills. In 5e, the players can walk right through it, triggering all the traps and take a short rest to clear any negative effects. Not only that, traps were easily detected with a passive perception skill. Between 5 players, they never missed noticing a trap, or secret door. That's pretty demoralizing for a DM, that wants players to explore the dungeon they spent 15 hours crafting. To your point that the DM controls these things, that's the point of the thread if you'd read it. I am asking, how do my fellow DMs impose challenges and rewards with the limitations of the OSR to do those things.
I do absolutely agree with you about the prepackaged adventures that WotC sells being almost universally ridiculously easy. WotC seems to balance things such that brand new players who don't know how to power game will be successful and not be turned away from spending $$, which of course means the adventures will be easily decimated by anyone even remotely familiar with optimizing their character. My favorite example there is a "Level 6" adventure in Radiant Citadel where the hardest fight is against CR2 sabre-toothed tigers, it was a really cool story but the adventure could've been rebranded as a Level 2 adventure and still not been challenging to experienced players. Unfortunately the only real solution there is to either not purchase the modules or to take them as frameworks that the DM needs to put a bunch of work into beefing up. For example when I run that Radiant Citadel adventure I keep the story basically intact as written but then add in a whole bunch more combat encounters, traps, puzzles, etc.
There are also definitely valid complaints about power creep from all these new books, and ridiculous burst damage trivializing boss encounters. That's fairly easy to solve as well though in 5e, just beef up HP, add waves of minions, add lair and legendary actions, add legendary resistances, etc. Just have to fight power creep with power creep on the other side
So you say, us old schoolers don't get it. We get it, we aren't complaining about nostalgia and bashing 5e because DnD isn't what it used to be. We honestly like 5e. It's a better system than OSR, 1e, and 2e. While others may disagree, I super prefer it over 3e. So when we say the game is imbalanced, that comes from a lot of experience from forever DMs in every edition, and in a lot of other systems. What we want to see is less extreme, and more balance and that is the question being asked.
Fully agree. My issues with WotC aside. There is an assumption that me bashing on 5e means that my thesis is that "old-school games are better" and that I hate all things 5e, in fact I think someone at some point actually straight up says it. This is not the case at all. I would much rather play a currently supported edition of D&D that everyone is playing and familiar with than trying to convince modern players that I can make a better game for them using an older edition or something from the OSR. The reality however is, that I can't and I know it can't be done. I have never seen anyone running 5e and producing a better experience than what is going on at my table and it's not for the lack of trying or looking for examples. All 5e games I have played in or run, washed out and were pretty shallow experiences compared to what I'm used to. 5th edition as is, I can't run a game that results in the same level of fidelity and quality I expect at my table and I have yet to see anyone else do it do it successfully in the way I can with something like Old School Essentials with added Advanced Fantasy Genre Rules.
5e has too many problems. This is not to say that old-school D&D doesn't, but modern retro-clones have addressed those issues of old-school editions of the game, so we don't have the same problems in these retro-clones that we had in the original versions of the game. There is no THAC0, descending armor classes, lack of clarity in rules, and weird unrelated sub-systems. Those are problems in the past that have been solved in modern variants of old-school games. I have Race and Class, I don't have race/class restrictions, I have Dragonborn and Tieflings... all the stuff that is assumed about old-school games by modern gamers are not part of modern-old-school games. They have all been solved without introducing all the problems of modern games. Which means that modern games have clear examples of how to do things correctly in the OSR and frankly with the initial design of 5e they were kind of on that track, but they completely derailed turning modern D&D into a power fantasy cluster of mechanical problems.
I’m addressing you but you’re kinda all over the place, making the already difficult quoting system even more complicated. Your overarching point appears to be that 5e is inferior to past editions. As an example, you’ve stated that the loot system is out of control in 5e compared to previous editions where it doesn’t matter whether a character has a +3 Flametongue at level 1. I do not understand this statement. How is 5e loot of control when it’s in other editions that a character can have a +3 Flametongue at level 1 without consequence?
A +3 Flametongue doesn’t even exist in 5e. If it did, it would likely be very rare if not legendary. It would certainly not be intended for level 1 characters and would tip the scales in their favour for quite some time. So what about this is out of control? Near as I can tell, for you, reasonable is when any character can get any loot at any level because it’s of no consequence anyway but out of control loot is when characters are very limited in what magic items they can have and how consequential they are to overall gameplay. If that is what you are saying, I will agree to disagree because that describes the precise opposite of what both reasonable and out of control mean to me, to the point where I question if we share the same language.
I think you have misunderstood the discussion and the point made in it.
To paraphrase.
In 5e having 1st level characters find a powerful magic item like a +3 Flametongue is a serious balance concern.
In 1e its not even a minor concern, it has virtually no impact. I explain how and why in the post, Im not going to re-hash it but at its core the reason is the architecture of the game, specifically combat. It really doesn't change anything in a significant way in how combat would resolve.
The balance just isn't there. Ghost no longer age you, poison just gives disadvantage until a short rest, there is no deleveling attacks, curses last until the next long rest. Nothing will actually hurt the players for long. Why should a player worry about traps, or special attacks? This is why they added dungeon attacks and legendary actions to the monstrous manual, because even WOTC knows that the players have an unfair advantage against boss mobs, and so they had to add cheat attacks between rounds so the players don't kill them in the first round
In the past couple months worth of sessions that I'm a player in, we've seen characters aged significantly (which doesn't really impact gameplay tbh), de-aged significantly (to the point that the character was useless and the player had to make a new one), multiple characters de-leveled in multiple different ways, permanent curses with no way to remove other than an RP quest, permanent reductions in max hp, permanent reductions in stats, many deaths that were revived but with increasing DC on each resurrection to the point that some do fail and new characters are made, etc. That's all homebrewed by the DM but it's easy to do if you want to. Nothing about 5e prevents any of this from occurring
The best example of this is Tomb of Horror in the Yawning Portal book. Its a cake walk. My players barely tried to get around traps. In prior editions, that dungeon was a death trap. In 5e, its laughable. There is very little combat in the dungeon. It was designed to challenge the player's intelligence and problem solving skills. In 5e, the players can walk right through it, triggering all the traps and take a short rest to clear any negative effects. Not only that, traps were easily detected with a passive perception skill. Between 5 players, they never missed noticing a trap, or secret door. That's pretty demoralizing for a DM, that wants players to explore the dungeon they spent 15 hours crafting. To your point that the DM controls these things, that's the point of the thread if you'd read it. I am asking, how do my fellow DMs impose challenges and rewards with the limitations of the OSR to do those things.
I do absolutely agree with you about the prepackaged adventures that WotC sells being almost universally ridiculously easy. WotC seems to balance things such that brand new players who don't know how to power game will be successful and not be turned away from spending $$, which of course means the adventures will be easily decimated by anyone even remotely familiar with optimizing their character. My favorite example there is a "Level 6" adventure in Radiant Citadel where the hardest fight is against CR2 sabre-toothed tigers, it was a really cool story but the adventure could've been rebranded as a Level 2 adventure and still not been challenging to experienced players. Unfortunately the only real solution there is to either not purchase the modules or to take them as frameworks that the DM needs to put a bunch of work into beefing up. For example when I run that Radiant Citadel adventure I keep the story basically intact as written but then add in a whole bunch more combat encounters, traps, puzzles, etc.
There are also definitely valid complaints about power creep from all these new books, and ridiculous burst damage trivializing boss encounters. That's fairly easy to solve as well though in 5e, just beef up HP, add waves of minions, add lair and legendary actions, add legendary resistances, etc. Just have to fight power creep with power creep on the other side
You missed what OSR's point is, which is that you shouldn't have to homebrew the shit out of everything.
I had forgotten the bit about ghosts aging you and part of that is simply because those mechanics aren't even mentioned. How would you ever expect a newcomer to consider it unless they were peppered throughout the monster manual. It's an error of omission because it isn't represented
Plus, to be honest, it solves the problem of monsters as HP bags tremendously.
9 HD Bulette in 1e could take on 4 9th level PCs and it would be a coin flip.
Really... not true. It's pretty strong for its hit dice (an ankylosaurus is the same hit dice with worse AC and a quarter the damage) but it's by no means a close fight. Let's put it up against 4 pregens from GDQ:
Bulette: AC -2, HP 41 (average), THAC0 12, #AT 3, damage 4d12, 3d6, 3d6 (47 dpr). AC can be reduced in several ways with unclear game mechanics.
Beek Gwenders of Croodle, CG, Half-elf Ranger 9. AC -3, HP 93, ranged #AT 1, THAC0 9/1d6+2, melee #AT 3/2, THAC0 10/1d12+4 (16 dpr)
Fonkin Hoddypeak, CG High Elf, Fighter/M.U 5/8. AC -4, HP 29.
Keak Breedbate, N Gnome Fighter/Thief 5/10. AC -1, HP 53. THAC0 14/1d8+3, or 4d8+3 with backstab.
Fnast Dringle, Wood Elf Fighter/Magic User 4/8. AC -2. HP 47.
The only character it has a decent chance of dropping in one attack sequence is Fonkin Hoddypeak, and with two magic missiles and a reasonably average set of rolls from the other two characters it dies in one round. Overall expected result is one wounded character and some resources spent.
These are exceptionally optimized and very luck player-characters. I mean, your running max hit points on all of them, i fact, the Ranger in particular would only be possible if you rolled 8's everytime you leveled and had a Con of 18 and their AC's are indictivie of some nice finds not to mention they are all the same level which in on itself is statistically very unlikely.
In short, such a party would not exist in 1e... ever. So using it as a basis for understanding balance and combat scenarios in 1e is pretty meaningless.
In reality a Bullette would tear up your average 9th level adventuring group.
If you feel your characters are breezing past encounters, you can just make those encounters more and more difficult until you get to a point where you're actually testing their capabilities. Magic item distribution is not mandatory, and you don't need to hand out magical stuff. I get that these items are cool, but you will always run the risk of making the characters more powerful - and having to make the encounters way more challenging - and that's why magic items are an area that mandates a ton of consideration and/or consultation of resources such as the one's in Xanathar's Guide.
From what I've heard, powergaming has been an issue for years and years and isn't something that suddenly popped into existence the second that fifth was released. Some people enjoy making Avenger-like/God-like characters that can a kill a Tarrasque at level 1. If you don't want to run a table with individuals like that, don't. Regardless, it's simply unfair to act like optimized builds are something that 5e is at fault for not completely eradicating.
Im really surprised at you, I've always found you quite knowledgeable, honest and frank both about modern and old-school D&D. Are you really going to feint ignorance to win this silly discussion?
You know that what you just said there is objectively false.
For one, The Caves of Chaos are a total death trap for 1st level adventures. The survival rate of this dungeon among 1st level characters was extremely low, Gygax was a very cruel man. The only way to succeed in the Caves of Chaos was to negotiate with one of the factions and hire additional muscle and hope you can trick the factions to fight each other. It's mathematically impossible to survive in there if you are trying to fight your way through it even at 2nd or 3rd level its low odds, hell most groups would TPK on their way there.
5e characters would absolutely dominate in that place, you would have to raise the encounters for it to even be a challenge, which is actually exactly what Goodman Games did when they converted Keep on the Borderlands to 5e.
Come on now.. this is getting silly. We can disagree, but lets not BS each other.
Yeah, I agree with that. 5e was a big improvement over 4e, but note that even with 4e they only lost 10% of the market share. I mean, 4e was pretty bad. It's kind of the point. Like, I think Wizards of the Coast could release pretty much anything, like don't even bother spell-checking it, slap it on recycled paper.. as long as it has a D&D logo, it will sell. It has nothing to do with what's between the pages, people will buy it. I honestly don't even know why they are bothering with this whole beta test, surveys and all that stuff, it doesn't make any difference what they release.
In what game are level 1 characters fighting ogres? An ogre has 59HP, about 6x your average level one character, and hits for an average of 14HP—enough to one shot ANY level 1 character aside from a well appointed barbarian. That is a death sentence for at least one character and has high potential for a TPK depending on the dice gods.
In what game is the difference between +5 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1) and +8 to hit (PB + str bonus at level 1 plus your +3 Flametongue) incosnequential? In what game is the difference between 4-12 damage (str bonus + base longsword) and 11-25 damage (str bonus +3 Flametongue) inconsequential? If, somehow, the difference between these things are indeed inconsequential, does that not also make possessing the +3 Flametongue inconsequential??
With all due respect, have you ever actually played 5e?
I'm not sure who or what specifically you are addressing, but we were not talking about 5e, we were talking about 1e B/X rules... and yes a +3 Flametongue in that circumstance, would be pretty inconsequential.
Ok, so, you are using a basis of a subjective concept of "quality". Which cannot be measured. Nice position to be in because you can bounce the goal posts around where ever. Except...
You can't say they are doing a bad job of stewardship, because stewardship is not based on quality. You can't argue that the game is a failure ont he basis of quality because failure has a metric -- unless you are operating solely from opinion.
Sophistry, literally, when one argues using a metric that is subjective and make attacks based on non-subjective bases. There are folks having a fight about Monks and none of the have the same measurable metrics in hand and then get upset because they can't come to an agreement about how to approach improvements.
That makes the entirety of your argument hollow -- you say that how much money they make isn't germane while you say that stewardship is bad, that they are going to gouge people, and yet the basis of your arguments about all of it isn't grounded in the actual concerns there, it is about "quality".
Where in any of the marketing and other stuff for 5e has anyone claimed that 5e is a quality game?
Where has anyone here, in this thread, said that 5e is the bestest, most quality game they play?
I have absolutely no wonder about why you question the community's sanity. Not even a little bit.
in no small part because since 2016, I have questioned most of the world's sanity. Well, really, much, much longer, but current stuff that is "political" around human rights is a major focus at this time.
You also err -- both 4e and the OGL did impact their bottom line. So they can't get away with anything -- but perhaps what you mean is a complete collapse, and that's pretty damned unrealistic and magical thinking on your part if so.
And none of it excuses calling everyone who likes 5e a shit eater. Even politely.
I have spent 5 years on it because it takes time to have a life, and not because there are flaws in the game. i did it because the world I built was so different from the default paradigms used in 5e that I have to do all this work -- and if I were to take hours, I would say about 1500 hours total, with around 400 of that on mechanics. The design goal was to make the rules fit the world, not the world fit the rules.
I don't think my stuff is "better" or "worse". It is simply different. Like the original OA was different from the 1e PHB. Along the way I yanked on some threads surrounding assorted "baked in social ills" and while I do think that is better, I recognize that anytime someone says "better, best, worse, worst, good, bad" they are speaking in terms of personal opinion, not fact.
Quality in TTRPGs is always a matter of opinion -- including that award you mention.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Really... not true. It's pretty strong for its hit dice (an ankylosaurus is the same hit dice with worse AC and a quarter the damage) but it's by no means a close fight. Let's put it up against 4 pregens from GDQ:
The only character it has a decent chance of dropping in one attack sequence is Fonkin Hoddypeak, and with two magic missiles and a reasonably average set of rolls from the other two characters it dies in one round. Overall expected result is one wounded character and some resources spent.
Ah, busted: THAC0 was 2e. ;)
but your point is taken. I used the bulette because I have (nearly) wiped a party of four 9ths with one (cementing it as one of my fave monsters), but I also took advantage of the burrowing and surprise and delay tactics of a hunting beast.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
THAC0 wasn't on the sheets I was reading, I just didn't feel like posting the actual gibberish that's on an AD&D character sheet.
What you are missing, is we prefer 5e. We all repeat this over and over again. What is lacking is a since of challenge, and balanced reward for those challenges. Yes, i can bump up the stats and make it harder, but the reward limitations will never be equal to what I have to do to challenge them. The result is the players just don't bother with them. Do they really need another +1 sword? Is it worth fighting a Storm Giant the DM had to double the hit points and give extra attacks just to make it challenging? No. On the bright side, if the players get initiative, they can knock off at least 300 hitpoints in the first round with smites and sneak attacks. Of course, combat is a time waster, and no one really needs a +1 Sword.
The balance just isn't there. Ghost no longer age you, poison just gives disadvantage until a short rest, there is no deleveling attacks, curses last until the next long rest. Nothing will actually hurt the players for long. Why should a player worry about traps, or special attacks? This is why they added dungeon attacks and legendary actions to the monstrous manual, because even WOTC knows that the players have an unfair advantage against boss mobs, and so they had to add cheat attacks between rounds so the players don't kill them in the first round.
The best example of this is Tomb of Horror in the Yawning Portal book. Its a cake walk. My players barely tried to get around traps. In prior editions, that dungeon was a death trap. In 5e, its laughable. There is very little combat in the dungeon. It was designed to challenge the player's intelligence and problem solving skills. In 5e, the players can walk right through it, triggering all the traps and take a short rest to clear any negative effects. Not only that, traps were easily detected with a passive perception skill. Between 5 players, they never missed noticing a trap, or secret door. That's pretty demoralizing for a DM, that wants players to explore the dungeon they spent 15 hours crafting. To your point that the DM controls these things, that's the point of the thread if you'd read it. I am asking, how do my fellow DMs impose challenges and rewards with the limitations of the OSR to do those things.
Yes, I get it, people like to talk in funny voices with their half elf/goblin eldritch knight, while they flirt with the hobgoblin barmaid in the tavern about the modern plight of goblinoids in the Thay empire. This is fine if you enjoy that sort of thing, but there is so much more to the game. So much more potential. There is so much more you can do and just doing the one thing seems very undeserving of such a great game. DMs can do better, and players deserve better.
Too many modern players that have never played another edition or game look at 5e from two lenses, role-play, which is talking only, and combat which is rolling dice only and somehow think that one group prefers one over the other. I have never run my games from either perspective. My role-play drives narrative and has purpose and my combat is never just rolling dice. The golden rule is, "Role-play doesn't stop when combat begins." The best encounters are never ones that just roll dice. For instance, Dungeon crawls are super boring, unless there is substantial role-play involved. If you want to see a bunch of bored players, have one guy talking for an hour while the rest of the table builds dice towers. Want to see boring encounters, have everyone roll-dice on their turn, while the next player impatiently awaits their turn.
Nothing is more unsatisfactory as a DM than to watch players spend 3 hours talking and not advancing the quest you spent a week crafting. Nothing is more demoralizing than watching players win a combat with only the luck of the die. Both are pretty bad sessions. In one scenario, it's just glee club, and the other it's a board game. We don't need to be playing DnD to do either. Unfortunately, 5e leans heavily towards both extremes of play with very little middle ground.
So you say, us old schoolers don't get it. We get it, we aren't complaining about nostalgia and bashing 5e because DnD isn't what it used to be. We honestly like 5e. It's a better system than OSR, 1e, and 2e. While others may disagree, I super prefer it over 3e. So when we say the game is imbalanced, that comes from a lot of experience from forever DMs in every edition, and in a lot of other systems. What we want to see is less extreme, and more balance and that is the question being asked.
Its always more satisfying to watch my players face real obstacles with real consequences that will impact their characters in future sessions. Watching the players fear opening the next door because their constitution was reduced to 4 from a trap they failed to find, and they only have 10 hit points left, only to see their looks of joy as they find the secret panel to the treasure room is really something few DMs in 5e ever see. Want to see a bunch of grown adults high-five each other with big smiles on their face, like a bunch of pre-schoolers, you will rarely see this with the current system. As a DM of 30+ years, those are the best games and i really wish more people could experience that.
LOL
THe mechanics for AC variables depend on exposure and part of body attacked.
Also, something i just noticed, those aren't level 9 characters in three cases. In 1e mechanics, a characters level is the total of all their multi-class levels. So that's a 9, 13, 15, and 12th level set there.
And don't forget the jumping mechanic, that allows it to essentially do a "reach" attack *from under the ground* which makes attacks that pause for a turn become surprise attacks. This is a Landshark, baby. It doesn't try to deliver pizzas, though.
But I love the "gibberish" comment, lol.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
Funny thing is.
I was never confused or slowed down by the THAC0 system. In fact one bored night we even came up with a quicker more basic conversion for it but never kept using it.
So look. I agree somewhat with the above. 5e has a lot of what I want. I want more role play actually in it and now that you mention it, yeah, I want a lot more noncombat tricks up my sleeve and damage that's NOT HP but just as deadly or severe (or permanent).
I don't want to be told what other games are out there. I don't care about "more role play and you don't even need dice" games.
No it isn't; that's only accurate for 3e and later. The most accurate comparison is total xp, but the character's level is their hit die total -- in fact, the assumption is that an NPC can be treated as a monster of equal hit dice.
I’m addressing you but you’re kinda all over the place, making the already difficult quoting system even more complicated. Your overarching point appears to be that 5e is inferior to past editions. As an example, you’ve stated that the loot system is out of control in 5e compared to previous editions where it doesn’t matter whether a character has a +3 Flametongue at level 1. I do not understand this statement. How is 5e loot of control when it’s in other editions that a character can have a +3 Flametongue at level 1 without consequence?
A +3 Flametongue doesn’t even exist in 5e. If it did, it would likely be very rare if not legendary. It would certainly not be intended for level 1 characters and would tip the scales in their favour for quite some time. So what about this is out of control? Near as I can tell, for you, reasonable is when any character can get any loot at any level because it’s of no consequence anyway but out of control loot is when characters are very limited in what magic items they can have and how consequential they are to overall gameplay. If that is what you are saying, I will agree to disagree because that describes the precise opposite of what both reasonable and out of control mean to me, to the point where I question if we share the same language.
In the past couple months worth of sessions that I'm a player in, we've seen characters aged significantly (which doesn't really impact gameplay tbh), de-aged significantly (to the point that the character was useless and the player had to make a new one), multiple characters de-leveled in multiple different ways, permanent curses with no way to remove other than an RP quest, permanent reductions in max hp, permanent reductions in stats, many deaths that were revived but with increasing DC on each resurrection to the point that some do fail and new characters are made, etc. That's all homebrewed by the DM but it's easy to do if you want to. Nothing about 5e prevents any of this from occurring
I do absolutely agree with you about the prepackaged adventures that WotC sells being almost universally ridiculously easy. WotC seems to balance things such that brand new players who don't know how to power game will be successful and not be turned away from spending $$, which of course means the adventures will be easily decimated by anyone even remotely familiar with optimizing their character. My favorite example there is a "Level 6" adventure in Radiant Citadel where the hardest fight is against CR2 sabre-toothed tigers, it was a really cool story but the adventure could've been rebranded as a Level 2 adventure and still not been challenging to experienced players. Unfortunately the only real solution there is to either not purchase the modules or to take them as frameworks that the DM needs to put a bunch of work into beefing up. For example when I run that Radiant Citadel adventure I keep the story basically intact as written but then add in a whole bunch more combat encounters, traps, puzzles, etc.
There are also definitely valid complaints about power creep from all these new books, and ridiculous burst damage trivializing boss encounters. That's fairly easy to solve as well though in 5e, just beef up HP, add waves of minions, add lair and legendary actions, add legendary resistances, etc. Just have to fight power creep with power creep on the other side
Fully agree. My issues with WotC aside. There is an assumption that me bashing on 5e means that my thesis is that "old-school games are better" and that I hate all things 5e, in fact I think someone at some point actually straight up says it. This is not the case at all. I would much rather play a currently supported edition of D&D that everyone is playing and familiar with than trying to convince modern players that I can make a better game for them using an older edition or something from the OSR. The reality however is, that I can't and I know it can't be done. I have never seen anyone running 5e and producing a better experience than what is going on at my table and it's not for the lack of trying or looking for examples. All 5e games I have played in or run, washed out and were pretty shallow experiences compared to what I'm used to. 5th edition as is, I can't run a game that results in the same level of fidelity and quality I expect at my table and I have yet to see anyone else do it do it successfully in the way I can with something like Old School Essentials with added Advanced Fantasy Genre Rules.
5e has too many problems. This is not to say that old-school D&D doesn't, but modern retro-clones have addressed those issues of old-school editions of the game, so we don't have the same problems in these retro-clones that we had in the original versions of the game. There is no THAC0, descending armor classes, lack of clarity in rules, and weird unrelated sub-systems. Those are problems in the past that have been solved in modern variants of old-school games. I have Race and Class, I don't have race/class restrictions, I have Dragonborn and Tieflings... all the stuff that is assumed about old-school games by modern gamers are not part of modern-old-school games. They have all been solved without introducing all the problems of modern games. Which means that modern games have clear examples of how to do things correctly in the OSR and frankly with the initial design of 5e they were kind of on that track, but they completely derailed turning modern D&D into a power fantasy cluster of mechanical problems.
I think you have misunderstood the discussion and the point made in it.
To paraphrase.
In 5e having 1st level characters find a powerful magic item like a +3 Flametongue is a serious balance concern.
In 1e its not even a minor concern, it has virtually no impact. I explain how and why in the post, Im not going to re-hash it but at its core the reason is the architecture of the game, specifically combat. It really doesn't change anything in a significant way in how combat would resolve.
You missed what OSR's point is, which is that you shouldn't have to homebrew the shit out of everything.
I had forgotten the bit about ghosts aging you and part of that is simply because those mechanics aren't even mentioned. How would you ever expect a newcomer to consider it unless they were peppered throughout the monster manual. It's an error of omission because it isn't represented
Plus, to be honest, it solves the problem of monsters as HP bags tremendously.
Has anyone replying to op actually played older editions or is 5e your only dnd experience?
These are exceptionally optimized and very luck player-characters. I mean, your running max hit points on all of them, i fact, the Ranger in particular would only be possible if you rolled 8's everytime you leveled and had a Con of 18 and their AC's are indictivie of some nice finds not to mention they are all the same level which in on itself is statistically very unlikely.
In short, such a party would not exist in 1e... ever. So using it as a basis for understanding balance and combat scenarios in 1e is pretty meaningless.
In reality a Bullette would tear up your average 9th level adventuring group.
If you feel your characters are breezing past encounters, you can just make those encounters more and more difficult until you get to a point where you're actually testing their capabilities. Magic item distribution is not mandatory, and you don't need to hand out magical stuff. I get that these items are cool, but you will always run the risk of making the characters more powerful - and having to make the encounters way more challenging - and that's why magic items are an area that mandates a ton of consideration and/or consultation of resources such as the one's in Xanathar's Guide.
From what I've heard, powergaming has been an issue for years and years and isn't something that suddenly popped into existence the second that fifth was released. Some people enjoy making Avenger-like/God-like characters that can a kill a Tarrasque at level 1. If you don't want to run a table with individuals like that, don't. Regardless, it's simply unfair to act like optimized builds are something that 5e is at fault for not completely eradicating.
BoringBard's long and tedious posts somehow manage to enrapture audiences. How? Because he used Charm Person, the #1 bard spell!
He/him pronouns. Call me Bard. PROUD NERD!
Ever wanted to talk about your parties' worst mistakes? Do so HERE. What's your favorite class, why? Share & explain
HERE.