Quote from: SHARK;1114493Greetings!

Yeah, I carefully noted how the two Bandits in melee, kind of worked in synergy with their three comrades providing archery fire.

This is in part because of the death saves system. As long as you're not being targetted after being down and then are healed your generally indestructible. If they attack you while you're down your generally not.
And depending on how each GM determines what makes sense for them your gonna get either easy TPKs or nearly impossible ones.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114496This is in part because of the death saves system. As long as you're not being targetted after being down and then are healed your generally indestructible. If they attack you while you're down your generally not.
And depending on how each GM determines what makes sense for them your gonna get either easy TPKs or nearly impossible ones.

It also matters if the GM remembers that your downed ass is still in the AoE of the boom-booms targeting the rest of the party! Splash damage against the downed is ugly stuff.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114496This is in part because of the death saves system. As long as you're not being targetted after being down and then are healed your generally indestructible. If they attack you while you're down your generally not.
And depending on how each GM determines what makes sense for them your gonna get either easy TPKs or nearly impossible ones.

Greetings!

Indeed, just like how the Player characters are ruthless, and make sure their enemies are dead, their enemies likewise make sure to cut a downed foe's throat, or stick them in the heart with a savage dagger thrust, to ensure their enemies are finished off entirely. On occasion, a Player will balk at such, but history reminds us that even in actual historical battles and raids, bandits, marauders, and soldiers alike often were ruthless in such policies as well, making sure to finish off enemies that may otherwise just be wounded. So, such a ruthless attitude is more or less common amongst warriors and peoples accustomed to violence.

Within 5E, you are right, my friend. I generally prefer a violent, unforgiving world, as such seems more realistic and authentic to me. However, while i am not given to too much leniency towards Player Characters from such, some of the game mechancs actually encourage me design-wise to kind of hold up a bit. After all, no one wants to endlessly make up batches of level one characters, merely because the characters are weak, and the world is a brutal place. I occasionally provide the Players with a little bit of slack, providing they are not stupid. After all, though my players would no doubt insist that I am a ruthless bastard DM, I do cheer for them, and want them to succeed and make progress with their characters. Ruthless Bastardism must be spiced with a bit of mercy!:D

Indeed, at higher levels, as the Player characters become stronger, and gain even more resources and sponge-like power, it is also necessary for a good DM to ratchet up the pressure, and not be afraid to be ruthless and harsh, otherwise the game can become too easy, and such challenges would then be phony, and ultimately unsatisfying. I like knowing that whatever the level of the Player Characters, they live in a harsh and brutal world, where death and defeat is at their elbow, waiting. They must fight and struggle to become great heroes!

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK;1114507Greetings!

Indeed, just like how the Player characters are ruthless, and make sure their enemies are dead, their enemies likewise make sure to cut a downed foe's throat, or stick them in the heart with a savage dagger thrust, to ensure their enemies are finished off entirely.

Which is completely subjective. It so speaks to how D&Ds death system is so gamey it feels artificial. This isn't a realistic choice. It's a GM choice.
Mauraders and such made sure to double-tap downed enemies....Did they do it while they still had enemies around? Much less so....Did they stab the same downed guy 3 times because 3 is the magic number to kill downed people no matter how much pressure you put to bear? Id wager no.



As for player death....Its a question I super struggle with. Because I feel like a Player dying is more a punishment for me than for them. It just encourages players to not really get invested in their characters, or the world and just become just builds to kill stuff with. And I guess that's not something I'm interested in.

I try to punish them with longstanding story and character penalties, but its still kinda a wash. How do others handle this sort of thing?

I handle it by lowering the stakes. Further you can do this by lateral shift of the threat, such as delays, unknowns, or increased exposure.

A quick example: Had an PC ROFLstomp a trio of kobolds by surprising them and charging. One was killed outright, the other knocked out, the third fled. PC thought they had a new prisoner pet and tied it up, carrying it around. After carrying the kobold around for a day, and much hostile pigin conversation, clicking noises, and strange knocking on trees the tied-up kobold is propped against, PC beds for the night.

PC wakes in pitch darkness to what sounds like the prisoner kobold speaking right next to its ear. Fumbles in the dark, realizes PC's weapon is not at their bedside, gets a torch going, notices the prisoner kobold is free, there is more than one kobold tracks, and that the PC's waterskins are emptied out -- punctured. Rations are either missing or scattered. Pursuit is suicidal in the dark, alone, with kobolds in unknown allied numbers, and low supplies. No need to kill.

Lowered stakes, delayed threat, unknowns, & increased exposure. To the pain, GMs, to the pain.

Quote from: Razor 007;1114456I've watched 5E games posted to YouTube, wherein the players succeed at least 90% of the time.

I don't have a problem with a 90% success rate in itself. An outstanding old-school style player will achieve the same success rate by making excellent choices. I think success on the dice depends more on which die rolls your character chooses to make -- and in which circumstances, and with which situational advantages -- than upon anything else.

Isn't the goal of the game to increase your character's success rate on the dice? If not, then what is the point of player choice?

Now it may be that the games you were watching displayed no such thing, and everything was utterly random and still wound up being 90% in the characters' favor. But if the rules are "imbalanced" like that, what happens when the PCs fight a bunch of classed and leveled NPCs? The point being that if the players are making no meaningful choices, and the game is still set up to favor one side or another in a battle, how is that the rules of the game create that favorable side? Because it seems to me that the chosen encounters in that case are the meaningful aspect.

Quote from: Razor 007;1114466No, I was complaining about the almost guaranteed success at everything the players try to do.  They might as well just tell their story, and omit the dice rolls.....

I missed that the first time through.  

When you make an attack roll and you hit, that's success by one measure, but you might not drop the opponent.  Even a 90% success rate means a lot of 'failures'.  If those failures have consequences then omitting the roll doesn't make sense.

If you imagine that most combats take 3 rounds and each round you get one chance to take an action.  In this case there is a high probability, out of every 8 fights there is one where you will miss every single time; in one you will hit every time.  I don't know how many fights you're likely to see in a campaign, but I think having a better than even chance feels more satisfying - especially if the rounds take a long time.

Quote from: deadDMwalking;1114575I missed that the first time through.  

When you make an attack roll and you hit, that's success by one measure, but you might not drop the opponent.  Even a 90% success rate means a lot of 'failures'.  If those failures have consequences then omitting the roll doesn't make sense.

If you imagine that most combats take 3 rounds and each round you get one chance to take an action.  In this case there is a high probability, out of every 8 fights there is one where you will miss every single time; in one you will hit every time.  I don't know how many fights you're likely to see in a campaign, but I think having a better than even chance feels more satisfying - especially if the rounds take a long time.

I've been thinking how to put this. Thank you.

I've had fights where I miss two or three times in a row. Honestly, I start checking out, playing games on my tablet or stacking my dice. D&D especially is not very well configured to have player input affect combat dice rolls.
Attack score +1d20 versus target's AC. Roll dice, hit or miss. Maybe get a +2 for flanking.
"Best" is when nearly everyone misses, and I start wondering about how we spent a whole turn spinning our wheels. Wake me up when the fight's over, man.

Quote from: Shrieking Banshee;1114437Characters don't feel distinct from one another. The nature of the underlining resolution mechanic is that characters vary rarely differ in their success rates. But its also easy to succeed on most things without investment. While it means you rarely feel excluded, you also rarely feel exceptional.

That feeling of a sort of 'sameness' I get too. But for me it stems from the fact that at this point every class has either a spellcaster path for non-casters, or a melee path for casters. Moreso if you factor in the UA playtests. Though so far a couple have not yet seen print far as I know.

It does add more options though and some of the new paths fit really. Others feel like they could have been better off in a different class.

As for monsters. If you only look at the stag block then all the way back to OD&D monsters will look a bit same-ish. Its the background info and whatever tactics and skills they have that really set each apart. 5e insted pads out the data section a bit too much in many areas and to me spends more words saying less than pre-3e did.

The interesting thing is that 5e makes you miss MORE attacks in higher levels, when compared to old-school editions.

In 5e, you often need a number of around 8+ on the d20 to hit. In AD&D, for example, your "to-hit" chance raises a lot faster, while monster AC remais similar, making you hit a lot more often (there are even rules in OSRIC for that cases when you'd ALWAYS hit, which is rare in 5e).

Quote from: Eric Diaz;1114822The interesting thing is that 5e makes you miss MORE attacks in higher levels, when compared to old-school editions.

This is somewhat true, but running high level 5e I still see a lot of "hit on a 2". The Barbarian in my E20 game attacks at +19 (+6 prof +10 STR +3 sword). Most monster ACs are in the AC 18-20 range, with a 'very high' AC being 24-25. Ancient red dragon AC 24, Tarrasque AC 25.  I cap roll bonus at +20 and target numbers at 30 but this rarely comes up in practice, basically only with PC/NPC spell stacking.

Quote from: S'mon;1114868The Barbarian in my E20 game attacks at +19 (+6 prof +10 STR +3 sword).

Where'd the barbarian get a 30 strength from? Storm giant strength is only 29 and +9.

Quote from: rawma;1114877Where'd the barbarian get a 30 strength from? Storm giant strength is only 29 and +9.

DMG Epic Boons.

Quote from: S'mon;1114886DMG Epic Boons.

They're past 20th level and you feel it's worth commenting that the character can hit lots of monsters, but not all, with a 2? :rolleyes:

Quote from: rawma;1114889They're past 20th level and you feel it's worth commenting that the character can hit lots of monsters, but not all, with a 2? :rolleyes:

Yes.