Whereas for others of us, one of the main criticisms of 5e is that it’s impossible to ever get to superhuman levels. Like, if you somehow get and read five Tomes of Strength, and get that class feature that doubles how much you can lift, you get to almost as strong as a typical real-world gorilla.
5e is poor at modeling a lot of things, indeed. Anyway, I’m not committed to “5e is a superhero game” as an argument, I’m just saying that it’s not some weird line that one Youtuber came up with to drive clicks.
Really? Games Workshops not only does that but sues Fan artists.
The Pinkerton detective wasnt armed. And that story is almost entire false and one sided. Some guy talked someone at a FLGS into selling him Magic cards in advance. Now that was in violation of their contract with WotC. Not happy with just playing with his ill gotten gains the guy then monetized them by a Youtube or so. WotC sent letters and emails- he never responded. They then sent a PI, who politely asked for the cards back, and they were handed over. I do not know what happened to the shop.
Well, same could be said for any D&D. But not all classes get magical powers, and the powers themselves are not much different than 3.5 or Pathfinder. But true, a lot of people do not enjoy high level play- even with OD&D- we mostly retired characters about level 9.
Yep. The fighter gets a brief moment when he can recover a few hit points. And later they get to reroll ONE saving throw,. Big Fucking Deal.
True. I mean in AD&D a fighter not only had the “conan roil” for 18/00 strength, but belts etc could boost the str up to literally godlike levels. In fact one of my AD&D character became a demi-god.
He started it, and he was committed to saying 5e PCs were superheroes at level one. He even compared a 5e fighter with 20 str with a AD&D PC with 18 str. Mind you, if you follow the PHB, the highest stat you should have is 17 before 4th level- and more or less only one of them. And a 1st level AD&D fighter with a lucky 18 could roll on the “conan” table- which gave huge bonuses at the top end. Oddly there were a LOT of 00.
Mind you, it is true it is kinda hard to kill a 5e PC.
I should have been more explicit what I didn’t like about his video. I don’t remember now what it was I didn’t like. I know that he contradicted himself in praising something about the new DCC game but then criticized something else for a similar, if not same, mechanic. I commented on it but never got a response.
I do think that he and several other YouTubers have commented that if they make their living on YouTube, but he does not, that part of it is marketing and doing things that will get clicks. I suppose an argument could be made that if you don’t, and still do things to get clicks, that seems to be a disconnect.
With regards to this, someone did make and share a PDF of the new PH from screen grabs, if this wasn’t already mentioned. I don’t know how good it looked but it was done. From that standpoint, WotC has to respond or they lose the ability to protect their IP as I understand it but IANAL.
I’m curious about this. What are you comparing this to? 3E? PF1/2?
I think that many say it’s a strength of 5E that it doesn’t allow PCs to get that powerful. I suppose it’s what makes it easy for new people to DM?
ftr, I do prefer PF1 and how powerful heroes get at higher levels.
I also think that DND2014 stopped at level 10 - 12 in terms of testing. Data I have seen says that most games end by level 12, if they even get that far, and it shows in high level play, which I have done, monsters, and more. It’s also why BG3 stopped at level 12.
I really want to know what it is like to be in ProfDM games. Imo, back in 1E/2E/Basic, not having character skills is what created the DM v player attitude, which I don’t like. I want to tell a collaborative story, no be at odds with my players. IIRC, several rule books said to challenge the player, not the character. Is that what ProfDM does? Or does he have skills such that a player can get hints based on what his character knows? That’s what I do. I will present the riddle or some challenge to the players but if they want hints, clarity, or to know what their character knows, I allow it so that the players don’t get frustrated.
I have gamed under DMs who present something and then ask what we do and sit back until we say something. No hints, no rolls, it’s up to the players to figure out exactly what the DM wants. It’s not fun. I also want to know if that is what OSR does because obviously that’s not what I want. If it’s a modern look with a simple game system, I get that but some complexity isn’t a bad thing.
Yes, there were a lot of 00s back in the day! 
I generally agree with the sentiment that 5E RAW, using a CR encounter equal to the party level, it will be tough to kill a 5e PC, or group of 5E PCs.
Thanks for the discussion!!
That was certainly Gygax’s recommended approach to DMing. He instructed DMs to only grudgingly share information with the players, to continually challenge the players, and to be sparing with magic items, and anything that would make the characters more powerful. It was generally understood (if not explicitly stated) that the DM should have a a certain level of an adversarial role with the players, and should feel no qualms about knocking off player characters.
(Heck, in 1E AD&D, things like the to-hit and saving throw tables weren’t even in the PHB; such information was held to be solely something that the DM should have access to.)
Which makes perfect sense for what was conceived as a wargame at a personal scale! Personally, I wouldn’t play any tabletop RPG with that vibe; that’s what actual wargames are for.
Absolutely. I still sometimes run into OG D&D players who still enjoy (and insist on) that vibe, too. They feel that the DM shouldn’t give an inch, and that any encounter that does not feature a real chance of character death isn’t interesting.
Of course, that never worked, since hobby stores didn’t require you to produce a Dungeon Master’s license to sell you a DM Guide. And in the gaming groups of my youth, DM was a rotating responsibility.
There was always going to be meta knowlege.
Like Chainmail, the tabletop miniatures wargame D&D grew alongside of. There was a reason that D&D had that vibe in the earliest days. But like the pirate code, that stuff was more like a guideline to the player community.
Maybe not a living, but a nice side hustle.
Yep.
In 3e with unlimited magic items and dipping into prestige classes, you could indeed get a super. in 5e note that you are only allowed THREE attuned magic items.
We did play PF1, and I have no issues with that game, except as you say- it gets really powerful in the higher levels. Why on earth they went to PF2 I have no idea, except for a money grab.
I liked 2e Skills and Powers , but many Dms did not, for the reasons you stated.
He wants games to be REALLY deadly, such that at least one PC bites the dust every session, and a TpK is not that rare. I hate that. I did have to put up with it in OD&D and AD&D for 1st level PCs- you just didnt bother with a big back story until you leveled up, but heck, that was only for a level or two.
Yep!
Same here, I like a well written and argued post.
Not entirely, If you read some Gygax modules, they are packed with magic items, and the characters in his games got Epic.
Nobody that I play with uses that dumb limit (or any limit).
Great responses and discussion! Thanks!
I also don’t want to play at that kind of table. It’s why I think a session zero to discuss these expectations is a good thing. As usual, if someone enjoys that, great! I’m saying it’s not for me and I would want to know ahead of time how the GM is going to approach those situations.
One of the things I have to do is remind myself this isn’t scripted and it’s not a movie. I love shows that have the good and bad guy sit down in some neutral place and have a discussion, to see if they can come to terms. I have had to learn the hard way that’s not going to work in DND/PF1 without setting those expectations ahead of time. Maybe if we are playing the Marvel RPG, I could spring that on the players, but most of the time, if players see a bad guy in an RPG, they aren’t going to talk! That’s probably how it should be.
I don’t like the first part. I will admit to being torn on the second part. One of the things I like about PF is the contrast that can happen at later levels. It slightly happens in 5E but less so. At first level, having more goblins than party members makes it a tough fight. I once had a group of five PCs fight nine goblins. They were scared but a good use of Sleep made that one sided. Then, to contrast that, when they reached fourth level, I had eleven goblins show up. The players treated it seriously but also knew that unless the dice were against them, they were going to win.
Well said! I can only say that as a kid back then, it took me while to figure out using them as guidelines. It’s nice to be able to teach DMs that now to make it easier on them.
Being in the middle of a PF2 game, I’m feeling the need to defend them a bit.
First, the PF1 “engine” was ten years old at that point and most things need updating. I would have preferred more fine tuning of PF1 but they went another direction.
Second, PF2 is a much better version of PF1 IF you like tactical battles amidst your role playing, which I and my players do. PF2 has rules to use shields to block damage and let the shield take the hit. They have weapon abilities. Not every monster has AoOs which also adds to it. Action economy and what to do with also makes it tactical.
Third, multi classing is much better in PF2.
Having said those things, there are things I don’t prefer about PF2 but that’s going to be the same for me with any system. I keep telling others that having more rules is better than fewer, IMO, because it’s generally easier to remove rules and have the system work than try and add them. I don’t like items having levels because I do give more than I should and higher level, than I should, usually because it’s fun. I think having four conditions on being viewed is strange but it does work. PF2 might go too far, for me, in some things but I think in doing so, it helps new DMs. It gives them terms and ways to think about situations.
As someone who recently ran a Level Up (advanced 5e) game to high levels, I can say that rule is one of the few that makes sense, even if it’s more gamist in nature. A role playing reason is easy to come up with. I don’t like how they achieve their bounded accuracy but breaking it made creating encounters more difficult. It create the 3E/PF situation where something that challenges the martial characters, could be too tough for casters, in terms of AC, hit points, and CON/DEX saves. Something that challenges casters, again in WIS/INT saves, might be too tough for martial characters.
I also think this is one of the few places where it makes the players think about which items they will need for a situation and change appropriately. It allowed me, as the DM, to give out “too much magic” and then watch the players decide what was most important to them and not be “overpowered” due to having too much. I thought it worked but YMMV.
Thanks again for the discussion!
This is the root of it, and coming up with roleplaying excuses for it is just post-hoc justification. But we’re all dramatists round these parts.
I’m not, by the way, saying I throw magic items at my players. I don’t. And I wouldn’t hesitate to nerf one or even just have it stop functioning because magic is not technology, and magic is capricious. But that’s me, as a DM, deciding, not some rule.
I like the attunement rules, but I almost never use stock magic items. Attunement on something boring but useful, like a ring of protection, makes sense from a “gamist” perspective. My attunement items are probably more powerful on average than the stuff in the book, and then I give out lots of weird edge-case stuff that doesn’t require it.
As both a player and a GM I’d rather attunement be the sort of thing where a character has four “build-defining” options and has to decide which three they’re going to use for an upcoming encounter. That creates interesting choices for the player and gives the GM more latitude to hand out powerful items.
I never really thought of the combat/save tables being in the DMG as any sign of “hostility” between the DM and players but rather it reflected the idea that the DM would be handling the game mechanics for sake of verisimilitude. The players describe actions and roll dice and the DM tells them what happens as a result. I know some DMs insisted on rolling all the dice as well but the example play in the 1e DMG (with the infamous gnome-eating ghouls) clearly has the players rolling their own attack dice. To be clear: there was definitely a more adversarial relationship between DM and player back then versus today’s “collaborative storytelling” games but I don’t think those charts in the DMG are a strong example of that.
I’ve never played at a 5e table that didn’t use attunement rules.
I’m in a PF1e Kingmaker campaign and a PF2e Age of Ashes campaign and, although there’s things I like more about 1e, I overall prefer 2e. Our (virtual) table feels pretty much the same, enough that I think the guy running Kingmaker is gonna convert it to 2e. That does conflict with my one major 2e issue: In 1e, I’m playing a Crowd Control/Debuff wizard and those spells were hit hard by the 2e nerf bat. I can “get it” since I’ve trivialized many an encounter but I also don’t want to play a neutered wizard so already left the door open to a class change if I wind up not feelin’ the wizard class post-revision.
Session 0 is a good idea except remember
is usually isnt a full session.
It was not. That is the fake history Gygax spread that D&D came from Chainmail.
I got a deal on PF2 PHB, much to my suprise, as high as the retail price is, and as thick as the book is, it only has about half the classes in it.
Well, back in AD&D and 3.5 days, when we got a little higher, so many of use had some many powerful magic items, we lost track. Now sure, I have said LotR is not really a low magic world- many of the 9 have one or even three powerful magic items. But few/none are loaded down like that.
But I don’t consider it gamist. It puts the spotlight on the character, not what he/she is lugging around.
Yeah, pretty solid rule, IMHO.
Your posts are an endless fount of disinformation, deflection, and invective.
Stranger
I was just writing that I have no intention of facilitating another round of “DrDeth’s secret history of d&d.” I suggest everyone else do the same.
Blackmoor began as a development of David Wesely’s “Braunstein” games following Duane Jenkins’ Brownstone (Old West) variant and Arneson’s own wargaming sessions, into which he had begun to introduce fantasy elements.[[1]]
(Blackmoor (campaign setting) - Wikipedia) Initially inspired by Conan novels and gothic horror, Arneson expanded the setting around the eponymous town, castle, and multi-level dungeon using ideas borrowed from The Lord of the Rings and Dark Shadows and made use of the Fantasy Supplement rules from the Chainmail game.[2] Blackmoor was a campaign centered on individual player characters capable of continuing progressions, which encouraged cooperative play to succeed.[2] D. H. Boggs suggested a possible influence of the film The Black Room , as inspiration for Blackmoor as it was aired twice before the first game,[3] and it was mentioned by Dave Arneson as a film he was possibly watching while reading Conan.[4]… In the summer of 1972, Arneson famously wrote an article detailing “Facts about Black Moor” for Domesday Book #13, which brought his innovations to the attention of the rest of the Castle & Crusade Society. That fall, Arneson demonstrated the game for Gygax, and work on Dungeons & Dragons commenced.
As you can see- Dave Arneson invented D&D separate from Chainmail or Gygax- he didnt even show D&D to Gygax until the game had been going for a bit.
Now true, without Gygax, it never would have been a published game, so Gygax is also the father. But D&D did not have it’s roots in Chainmail.
Agreed, but in the vein of actually RPG history I’ve been reading John Peterson’s The Elusive Shift, and while it is a bit dry in an academic way, it is really quite illustrative of how some of the modern ideas in roleplaying are actually drawn from or similar to many early concepts, but because Dungeons & Dragons (and in particular AD&D) became the dominant system (in the United States, at least) it codified a lot of ideas about how a roleplaying system should work and what motivations, rewards, and advancements for players should look like and largely driven how fantasy (and many other genre) RPGs work. I’ve always wondered why D&D and Runequest, which evolved as contemporaries and used some of the same abstractions such as hit points, deviated so radically in how they are played, even setting aside the deep mythology of Greg Stafford’s Glorantha as the intrinsic RQ setting and the inherent fragility of even highly experienced characters in that system versus high level D&D characters.
Stranger