Dungeons and Dragons Megathread

[Chloe Sullivan]

I prefer to play level 6-15, with the understanding that a big paradigm shift occurs around level 11. It requires players and DMs who communicate well, have relatively little drama, and have a clear idea of what they want out of the experience, but well... I have been in good groups before (and also bad ones).

I do not play RPGs to play a mook. Games that start at lower than level 3 in any d20 based system are terrible and should be shunned. Yes, i know that includes 90% of pathfinder. that's deliberate.

 

[Ursine]

do not play RPGs to play a mook. Games that start at lower than level 3 in any d20 based system are terrible and should be shunned. Yes, i know that includes 90% of pathfinder. that's deliberate.

Click to shrink...

I have made the argument to several different gaming groups that unless you are deliberately playing an apprentice/student campaign, with a valid reason for them to go adventuring, no competent teacher for any of the classes would let you go before level 5. Level 5 or level 6 is where the first big steps up in ability from average people were, Full BAB classes got a second attack, rogues could out damage a greatsword with sneak attack damage alone, wizards could cast the iconic fireballs, paladins and rogues got their spellcasting abilities. If you want to play heroically capable characters, level 5 was the place to start in my mind.

 

[tzar1990]

I have made the argument to several different gaming groups that unless you are deliberately playing an apprentice/student campaign, with a valid reason for them to go adventuring, no competent teacher for any of the classes would let you go before level 5. Level 5 or level 6 is where the first big steps up in ability from average people were, Full BAB classes got a second attack, rogues could out damage a greatsword with sneak attack damage alone, wizards could cast the iconic fireballs, paladins and rogues got their spellcasting abilities. If you want to play heroically capable characters, level 5 was the place to start in my mind.

Click to shrink...

One of the things I like about 5e is that it explicitly states this - the corebook outright divides the game into various tiers of play, and notes that levels 1 through 4 actually are, effectively, apprentice adventurers.

Also, looking through the game, all the classic "boss monsters" have some sort of abilities that make it necessary to send heroes, not armies, after them. The aboleth fouls all water within a mile of it, lives in underground caves and pools where you can't mass and focus fire on it, and can dominate your officers. The Beholder's lair is vertical, meaning folks who can't fly aren't gonna be able to get to it, and between its action and its legendary actions, it can spam 6 eyebeams per round against any group it fights. The Deathknight is a spellcaster with AoE spells, and cannot be truly destroyed unless it is redeemed - also, it's supposed to have its own army of undead with it. The Demilich, Balor and Pit Fiend are immune to normal weapons. And it keeps going.

Between that and the regional effects described for boss monsters, its easy to see both why the heroes are going after these things, and how to create an adventure around them.

 

[firefossil]

Bounded accuracy fundamentally means that 5e characters are denied even the illusion of growth that 4e gave you. You might need trained soldiers to beat murder Pit Fiends now, but they still go down to a a shockingly small number of low tier combatants.

Click to shrink...

And that is a good thing. I think Aura Twilight put it best, high level characters are supposed to be really competent heroes, not invulnerable demigods, or space magic marines wearing power magic armor. Heroic fantasy does not mean immunity to being sworded when you stand around derping rather than doing something about the guy attacking you.

 

[AuraTwilight]

5e doesn't really have rules, it has rules-flavored word salad. Once you leave the combat engine which is merely kind of lame, and ask 5e to do almost anything else it just gives up. In 3e there as a fairly large list of scenarios where you could just declare an action that then the rules would spit out a predefined set of outcomes. That almost never happens in 5e where the answer to almost every question is "ask your DM".

What little rules there are a so punishing you're better off having the GM handwave it. Starting PCs fail at easy tasks often and sometimes they even fail at easy tasks within their supposed specialty. Then you only gain 4-7 (or maybe 10 if you're really lucky) more pluses over your entire adventuring career, and that really sucks when the RNG is 20 numbers long.

Click to shrink...

...Okay yea, he didn't play 5E at all.

 

[RememberCalamari]

5e doesn't really have rules, it has rules-flavored word salad. Once you leave the combat engine which is merely kind of lame, and ask 5e to do almost anything else it just gives up.

Click to shrink...

Have you played 5e combat? It's pretty clutch and very, very deadly.

In 3e there as a fairly large list of scenarios where you could just declare an action that then the rules would spit out a predefined set of outcomes. That almost never happens in 5e where the answer to almost every question is "ask your DM".

Click to shrink...

Those skills are still things. They are covered by your proficiency and resolved via skill checks.
Whats that? Oh isn't that Exactly the same as in 3.5?

What little rules there are a so punishing you're better off having the GM handwave it.
Starting PCs fail at easy tasks often and sometimes they even fail at easy tasks within their supposed specialty.

Click to shrink...

Because at level one you are literally shit. You are basically a commoner with some extra gear and that's it.

Then you only gain 4-7 (or maybe 10 if you're really lucky) more pluses over your entire adventuring career, and that really sucks when the RNG is 20 numbers long.

Click to shrink...

By level 20 you should have between +7 to +10 in whatever your specialty is.
How is that not good enough?
That means you should still succeed a dc10 task on any roll down to less than 3. If you want to always succeed play a video game.
I think it is pretty reasonable to fail if you roll less than 3.

 

[Aaron Peori]

All of the various sub-systems that Mistborn is complaining about can be found expanded in the Dungeon Master's Guide anyway. Including (gasp) the ability to learn things outside of leveling.

 

[Cosar]

The fact that a D&D edition does not cover the full range of D&D should be a dealbreaker end of story.

Click to shrink...

If we're judging DnD Editions based on how well they simulate all previous editions, isn't 3rd a miserable failure? From my understanding it's really not good at simulating 2nd or older editions. Hell, was 2nd good at simulating previous editions? That would mean everything except the very first version of dnd was a failure.

 

[Ursine]

If we're judging DnD Editions based on how well they simulate all previous editions, isn't 3rd a miserable failure? From my understanding it's really not good at simulating 2nd or older editions. Hell, was 2nd good at simulating previous editions? That would mean everything except the very first version of dnd was a failure.

Click to shrink...

Except it was not a very good way to simulate Chainmail, so it would be a failure too.

 

[Mistborn]

...Okay yea, he didn't play 5E at all.

Click to shrink...

Whlep you have done the one thing in the entire world that I can not forgive, I'm sorry but I think it's best that I put you on ignore.

All of the various sub-systems that Mistborn is complaining about can be found expanded in the Dungeon Master's Guide anyway. Including (gasp) the ability to learn things outside of leveling.

Click to shrink...

I have no idea how being able to learn things outside of leveling is relevant to adventures failing at easy tasks. There is an auto succeed variant that you can use to makes things less stupid but they're still pretty stupid even then.

 

[Tempera]

Whlep you have done the one thing in the entire world that I can not forgive, I'm sorry but I think it's best that I put you on ignore.

Click to shrink...

It's your choice if you'd prefer to put someone on ignore, but if you're going to do that, keep it to yourself.

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

And that is a good thing. I think Aura Twilight put it best, high level characters are supposed to be really competent heroes, not invulnerable demigods, or space magic marines wearing power magic armor. Heroic fantasy does not mean immunity to being sworded when you stand around derping rather than doing something about the guy attacking you.

Click to shrink...

Correction: They aren't supposed to be that in 5e.

Fluffwise, high level adventurers *were* supposed to be insanely powerful godlings in AD&D 2 - 4e, at least in some of the source materiel - you get conflicting thematics. Ironically, despite having toned down power in mechanics, 4e had the best High Magic fluff. High level non-magic classes were badasses who stole themselves out of the afterlife - or just walked out, since no one dared bar their path.

A lot of fans ignore this fluff because they had expectations from their preferred fantasy series. Also some of the writers didn't get the memo either. Which resulted in Schizo settings and players and DMs rarely agreeing with eachother about either thematics or balance.

5e fixed this by finally just harmonizing all the fluff and mechanics together as strictly medium-magic heroic adventure.

This is a good thing for D&D as a franchise. It does kinda suck for people who really like HIGH magic fantasy, but we still have Exalted, and 3.5 games still happen.

 

[Havocfett]

but we still have Exalted, and 3.5 games still happen.

Click to shrink...

*Takes a glance at 3Es development cycle and leaked info*

Well, 3.5 games still happen anyways.

 

[Drachyench]

Fluffwise, high level adventurers *were* supposed to be insanely powerful godlings in AD&D 2

Click to shrink...

Only Wizards / Clerics, unless you're talking beyond the Level 20 point (and keep in mind that AD&D also capped most races to be far below Level 20 with levels). I mean Drizzt, far before 1000 Orcs, was a Level 16 Ranger. Even in that book he was no godling, but if you look at Drizzt back then he was far from some "insanely powerful godling". Al-Qadim reinforces this on Faerun, with there being a lot of Level 7-9+ NPCs who are literally nothing more than successful merchants with connections, and keep in mind that Level 7-9 is around the point you start attracting cults of personality / guilds.

Admittedly these both focused on Faerun, which is admittedly far lower in Fantasy (especially back in AD&D) than other settings like Eberron or Spelljammer.

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

*Takes a glance at 3Es development cycle and leaked info*

Well, 3.5 games still happen anyways.

Click to shrink...

I'm still playing Exalted 2.5.

Only Wizards / Clerics, unless you're talking beyond the Level 20 point (and keep in mind that AD&D also capped most races to be far below Level 20 with levels). I mean Drizzt, far before 1000 Orcs, was a Level 16 Ranger. Even in that book he was no godling, but if you look at Drizzt back then he was far from some "insanely powerful godling". Al-Qadim reinforces this on Faerun, with there being a lot of Level 7-9+ NPCs who are literally nothing more than successful merchants with connections, and keep in mind that Level 7-9 is around the point you start attracting cults of personality / guilds.

Admittedly these both focused on Faerun, which is admittedly far lower in Fantasy (especially back in AD&D) than other settings like Eberron or Spelljammer.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, well that was back in the AD&D days, when magic users were real characters and fighters were a punishment for not rolling high enough to play a real character.

Still, Bigby, Mordaiken, and that lot were the original adventurers, and they were very much in the High Magic thematic.

 

[Mistborn]

This is a good thing for D&D as a franchise. It does kinda suck for people who really like HIGH magic fantasy, but we still have Exalted, and 3.5 games still happen.

Click to shrink...

I have to disagree, insane scaling is the one unique thing the game ever had. D&D was the game where your character could start as a dirt farmer and progress all the way to demigodhood relatively smoothly. If you take that away what's differentiate D&D from the bajilion other fantasy heartbreakers? Like there's no reason 5e couldn't have just had an e6 style variant for the people who want to say in heroic tier forever.

 

[Drachyench]

Yeah, well that was back in the AD&D days, when magic users were real characters and fighters were a punishment for not rolling high enough to play a real character.

Click to shrink...

Depends on what you mean by "real" characters, especially since most Races had Fighter with one of their highest level caps and it tended to be the easiest to benefit from a Level Cap increase to (having only one Attribute requirement versus the multiple of a Druid, Specialist Wizard, or so-on). Furthermore, AD&D had a lot more freedom regarding applying thematics to your stats (which IMO could have a strong argument made for "real" characters versus "Every Adventurer is at least above-average Intelligence and any non-Wizard Caster is likely supernaturally charismatic, but will probably be played otherwise").

Either way, "High level characters = Godlings" definitely only applied to Casters. One can't even say Drizzt had crummy gear or below-average stats as his AD&D stats included a +3 and +5 set of weapons, +4 Armor, manual'd Dexterity for an Elf (20), only two stats below 15 and none below 13...

Super-human stuff from high-level fighters? Yeah, they'll shrug off Mental Domination from a bunch of Illithids then slice them in two with their arms that can bend prison bars. Super-human thieves who can meld into the smallest of shadows and climb sheer surfaces? Likewise. But they're by no mean "Godlings", and there's nothing wrong with this.

EDIT:

I have to disagree, insane scaling is the one unique thing the game ever had. D&D was the game where your character could start as a dirt farmer and progress all the way to demigodhood relatively smoothly. If you take that away what's differentiate D&D from the bajilion other fantasy heartbreakers? Like there's no reason 5e couldn't have just had an e6 style variant for the people who want to say in heroic tier forever.

Click to shrink...

So AD&D wasn't a proper Edition, then?

 

[Leila Hann]

I have to disagree, insane scaling is the one unique thing the game ever had. D&D was the game where your character could start as a dirt farmer and progress all the way to demigodhood relatively smoothly. If you take that away what's differentiate D&D from the bajilion other fantasy heartbreakers? Like there's no reason 5e couldn't have just had an e6 style variant for the people who want to say in heroic tier forever.

Click to shrink...

The next 4E game I run is going to be houseruled so that character level maxes at 15. Every monster in the game will have its power reduced accordingly. Great wyrm dragons are level 15. Gods and demon princes are level 16-20. Level 11+ is considered "epic."

That way there's the same smooth scaling you're talking about, but without the absurd worldbuilding issues that come with a larger level spread.

 

[Chloe Sullivan]

Super-human stuff from high-level fighters? Yeah, they'll shrug off Mental Domination from a bunch of Illithids then slice them in two with their arms that can bend prison bars. Super-human thieves who can meld into the smallest of shadows and climb sheer surfaces? Likewise. But they're by no mean "Godlings", and there's nothing wrong with this.

Click to shrink...

That was what i was talking about. Maybe just bad wording on my part.

The "real character" bit was from D&D's origins as a wargame (Chainmail) Wizards were the equivalent of special characters, while fighters were upgraded mooks. There seems to have been an intention that fighters were supposed to be in the same league as wizards of the same level XP, but between their origins and the constant "NAO, NO MAGIC" crap, fighters kept getting the short end of the stick.

 

[Ursine]

I have to disagree, insane scaling is the one unique thing the game ever had. D&D was the game where your character could start as a dirt farmer and progress all the way to demigodhood relatively smoothly. If you take that away what's differentiate D&D from the bajilion other fantasy heartbreakers? Like there's no reason 5e couldn't have just had an e6 style variant for the people who want to say in heroic tier forever.

Click to shrink...

The thing is, 5e is probably one of the most extensively playtested RPGs ever. They took a lot of input from the players, way more than most companies would. The majority of players seem to want what 5e gives us, especially since we already have the massively powered 3.5 edition. Since this seems to be what most of us want, why should the commonly prefered playstyle be a variant, just so your prefered playstyle can dominate?

 

[Drachyench]

That was what i was talking about. Maybe just bad wording on my part.

Click to shrink...

Yeah, sorry. Most of the time I see people refer to Demi-Gods at higher levels in AD&D I find they're thinking stuff like Baldur's Gate PCs, not "can do superhuman things". But the thing to keep in mind there is that those people are already godlings, to the point that a Level 13 Sarevok had a magical resistance on par with many of the eldest Wyrms and could shove hard enough that when he pushed people against wrought iron bars, the iron bars bent. The average AD&D (typically) doesn't have a deity's blood flowing in their veins.

fighters kept getting the short end of the stick.

Click to shrink...

True. Fighters can work in low-magic settings, or when you limit how fast a Wizard can access spells (ex: If all Wizards were limited in casting similar to a Sha'ir, a Fighter would be much closer at higher levels since they only have to compete with 2-4 spells during an encounter now instead of 2-4 spells possibly in a single round), but trying to pretend one can match a Wizard otherwise on the merits of their abilities is a fool's gesture until 4th Edition.

 

[Ursine]

True. Fighters can work in low-magic settings, or when you limit how fast a Wizard can access spells (ex: If all Wizards were limited in casting similar to a Sha'ir, a Fighter would be much closer at higher levels since they only have to compete with 2-4 spells during an encounter now instead of 2-4 spells possibly in a single round), but trying to pretend one can match a Wizard otherwise on the merits of their abilities is a fool's gesture until 4th Edition.

Click to shrink...

Of course, in 4ed, everyone was a reskinned wizard anyway.
5ed seems to be doing a decent job of making noncasters relevant all the way through.

 

[Aaron Peori]

If your definition of "godling" includes "superhuman feats" than a 20th level 5E fighter still qualifies, considering he is attacking something like four or five times as quickly and shrugging off more damage then it takes to level some castle walls.

The problem Mistborn has is that he is comparing a 5E fighter to a 3E Wizard, when he should be comparing a 5E Fighter to a 5E god. The latter comparison is going to come out much better in the fighters favor, especially once he starts hitting epic boons.

 

[dash931]

I have to disagree, insane scaling is the one unique thing the game ever had. D&D was the game where your character could start as a dirt farmer and progress all the way to demigodhood relatively smoothly. If you take that away what's differentiate D&D from the bajilion other fantasy heartbreakers? Like there's no reason 5e couldn't have just had an e6 style variant for the people who want to say in heroic tier forever.

Click to shrink...

Okay, I gotta ask: What the hell is a fantasy heartbreaker?

 

[Mistborn]

The thing is, 5e is probably one of the most extensively playtested RPGs ever. They took a lot of input from the players, way more than most companies would.

Click to shrink...

They didn't really take any input though, they just kind shuffled stuff around while Mearls wrote puff pieces.