Another exhausting, hour-long combat in a system of hit point bloat

>another exhausting, hour-long combat in a system of hit point bloat

Playing D&D is killing me on D&D. And this was in 5e, not 3e or 4e.

>d20 is showing an 8
This bothers me so much more than anything else about this thread.

(me)
Oh, fuck you OP. It's even upside down.

(you)

What happened today, troll?

Remembered you had no friends, so you felt the urge to shitpost again?

Seriously, why? Why do you keep posting this thread?

Equally importantly, why do you keep playing a game you supposedly hate? I won't buy "because my friends play it" because I doubt someone like you has friends.

Just finished DMing a 5e game, and boy it was...okay. But the combat takes too long, and the monsters aren't dangerous enough.

Fuck off, you dumb troll.

If they are not dangerous enough, throw more or stronger monsters at your players. Also, combat has always taken forever in d&d unless you've done it 50+ times.

>replying to a troll

Don't be retarded.

Probably that faggot that whines about ETBA shit trying to false flag. Sage, report, hide. That's all it deserves.

tell us more, OP. we need to know if you're a baiting faggot or if you got a point.

Second verse, same as the first.

>Sage, report, hide. That's all it deserves.
does that accomplish anything?

For me it was the first time I played a different system.

You keep posting the thread this might end up being another D&D general where people talk about D&D due to OP reverse psychology rule. Praise something on OP, thread is just a shitflinging fest, flame something on the OP, somehow for some cosmic reason it ends up being a general discussion.

Like what the fuck. I still don't get it to this day.

Fa/tg/uys are contrary.

Y'know you could always try AD&D. Character construction can be done in like ten minutes, and the mechanics are pretty simple once you learn to ignore all the optional tables and stupid shit.

Consider this: in AD&D, ogres have like 19 hp. In 3rd ed that goes up to 29. What's it at in 5th ed? 50ish? And 5th ed was a step back from the hp bloat of 4th ed. Meanwhile, longsword damage has stayed static. AD&D combat is fast and lethal, for both monsters and PCs. Might hold your attention better.

I'm not saying it doesn't have problems, I mean it was already antiquated in style when it came out, but you might give it a try to see what you like about it and what you don't.

Well Savage Worlds, Dungeon World and a lot of OSR are hella fast

That's entirely because retarded OPs incite much more response than well thought out OPs, and those responses will always be degrading of the OP and draw the discussion in the opposite direction.

An OP that actually makes a valid point, however, is more likely to get only a handful of responses from people who agree and then die.

I complained about exactly this on release and all I got was "WOW YOU CAN'T JUDGE 5E BY OLD EDITION STANDARDS" or "HURR NO MONSTERS DON'T HAVE TOO MUCH HP YOU JUST WANT NON-THREATENING COMBAT" despite it negatively impacting my experience with the game massively.

I feel you OP. Ran 5e for a year when it came out, in the end it was a chore. I don't mind long-ass fights in games where things keep moving, but in 5e players have like 2 decent options (unless they are casters, then they have 5) and monsters are boring sacks of meat that bring nothing to the table. 5e was a step backwards in all the areas it shouldn't have.

Long and boring combat quickly stopped being a thing once I realized I can just add modifiers and play with enemy hp.
>swinging on the chandelier? That's an advantage. Maybe even 1d4 bonus damage
>you sayin you cut his tendons? Aight, that a disadvantege for him, but only this time. The wound is actually pretty shallow
>that Orc chief rampages so hard, the wine from the barrels is now everywhere. He's also obviously drunk. His hits are now much stronger
>what? That means he's now easier to hit. Okay, advantage to you

Fight dynamics can change drastically If you learn to manage those kinds. With It, you can dynamically control the fight difficulty no matter the CR.
Well, obviously there are limits but still

(you)

this

>And 5th ed was a step back from the hp bloat of 4th ed

speed of combat and having many options are opposed to each other to a degree. what are your experiences, user?

so basically 80% of combat is a GM asspull?

>so basically 80% of combat is a GM asspull?

Not him, but I'm okay with this.

As long as there's a legitimate risk of failure for the party, I really don't give a shit about much else, because combat mechanics in rpgs have always been a secondary reason for me to play them.

...

>Y'know you could always try AD&D.
AD&D is fucking awful, take your nostalgia goggles off.

I don't know what you're implying. Level 19 solo in 4e = 664 HP going by the MM3 on a business card. The 5e Balor has less than half that

4E damage at level 27 is also much, much higher than 5E damage at level 19. A Ranger going nova can punch through 624 HP in a couple rounds without too much trouble if they have Leader support, and even if they decide not to go nova they can do about 200 damage a round with Twin Strike abuse.

The 5e Balor, by 4e standards is not a Solo. At best it's an Elite. Dragons are closer to solos, since they have Lair actions and shit to act off-turn.

>Combat
>Lasting longer than 20 minutes, tops
>5e
I don't believe you.

Still has 332 health as an elite, still higher than 262

PC damage output in 4e is higher than in 5e, but if your point is "they didn't fix HP bloat" it sort of weakens your argument

They are still in the same ballpark, while party damage in 5e is way lower.

If anything, it got worse.

I rate it an 8.8.

Since you apparently weren't taught that whole 'reading comprehension' thing in grade school, I feel that I should point out that I did write that AD&D has problems and was already somewhat antiquated when it hit the shelves. That said, every D&D version has strengths and weaknesses, and AD&D's strengths may well line up with what OP wants, whereas its weaknesses may not matter much to him.

You gotta do right by you man. Most people can't into analysis of game systems, and they're incredibly inclined to give something new the benefit of the doubt and therefore fail to consider objectively. I myself didn't even realize just how badly blaster casters had fallen off with 3rd edition for years.

>I myself didn't even realize just how badly blaster casters had fallen off with 3rd edition for years.
what did he mean by this?

>I did write that AD&D has problems and was already somewhat antiquated when it hit the shelves.
It aged like milk. It's fucking terrible, why would you recommend it to someone?

Spells that dealt damage were generally poor choices in 3rd edition (and derivative editions thereof) because why deal damage and potentially remove an enemy from a fight when you could cast a save-or-die or save-or-suck-it spell and DEFINITELY remove that enemy from combat.

They also just didn't deal that much damage, without heavy optimization. It's a waste of a slot.

Well... area of effect?

Area of effect debuffs were still stronger.

Why cast burning hands when you can colorspray?

...

There are a few things working against them there:

A) Enemies at low HP are just as dangerous as enemies at high HP, and as a result high single target damage that removes an enemy from a fight or debuffs that effectively do that are far superior to mediocre AoE,
B) Barring extreme circumstances like Tucker's Kobold-esque mooks or some really, really hardcore blaster optimization, dangerous enemies are not even going to be taken to half health by a Fireball, let alone killed by it. The CR system and HP scaling faster than blaster damage made sure of that.

Good image.

I was about to say that "everything but the Bonds example is wrong" but then goes on about how bonds don't give XP, when that's literally their only function aside from Aid.

play gurps
the combat is way more lethal
the PCs always must feel fear or they will die.

Just so that it's said.
There's a shadow under the die. That shows where the bottom is and therefore, the top also.
The top has a 20 on it. This geometric shape called a d20 is being photographed at an angle. Because of it's shape, the 8 is centered in the photo, but is not centered on the top of the die. While there is no background for you to gain perspective.. there is a shadow. You are some sort of blind monkey, or you have some sort of brain condition if you couldn't perceive that.
Thank you for your time.

I had fun with it up until 5 years ago (moved to a new state, old group didn't want to do online). What's so bad about AD&D?

>two "let's bitch about what's popular" threads up

What is wrong with you.
Stop feeding these trolls.

Then why do I need to buy $150 in books instead of playing a cheaper system?

When I realized OSR games are the exact same game, but better. Also when I was running 3 PF campaigns and desperately tried to kitbash in mechanics from other systems to make it remotely interesting.

When I saw Armor Class
When everything could be defined as a Fighter

>when my daddy said he didn't love me, and now all I do is shitpost because I'm so sexually frustrated

>Defending DnD this furiously

So how much of your allowance did you spend on DnD splatbooks, user?

If you use the CR system, or monsters straight from the book, your players will never have a challenge. This has been true since 3.0 at least.

Do you work for either WotC or Paizo? Damn dude, you have passion for DnD and seem to take it as a personal attack when someone doesn't like it.

I still love D&D as a genre and will play any edition. As a GM I run hmebrewed 4e. Have been playing 15 years btw

>my daddy don't love me wah

Cool circlejerk thread you've got here. Is that the only way you can get an erection anymore?

Even as a fan I want to hear what people say in this thread, because I know that a lot of people don't really like the kind of game that D&D is on any level, but they play it for years because they love roleplaying and haven't learned about anything else, it's a real problem.

It's not a real problem, because there's nothing inherently wrong with playing the system, and it's no secret that there's plenty of games out there. And, exaggerating about how bad a game is isn't going to convince people that play it to try something else.

There's really no justification for these threads. It's literally just shitheads bitching about what's popular because they are angry and frustrated about it being popular.

It's not even that popular anymore. There's at most one 3.PF thread up (except these troll threads), even that thread is mostly about how to creatively NOT use 3.PF material, prospective new players always ask about 5e instead, etc.

...

That's like saying your turkey will never get up to temp if you use a meat thermometer. What you said makes no sense. You can choose to throw easy monsters at the party, you can choose to throw hard monsters at them, the CR system is just a system of measurement.

The CR system doesn't account for the specific chemistry of your party and their abilities, some monsters are easier or harder depending on what abilities you have, and the DMG explains this very well. Also the specific situation can be a bigger factor than the monsters you use, terrain and non-standard objectives can greatly affect the difficulty, and the DMG explains this very well too. Finally there are some monsters whose CR doesn't tell you enough (ex ogres are only CR3 but are extremely lethal to level 1 players), or who are simply mislabeled (every dragon is way fucking harder than its CR indicates, dragons cheat you on XP because they are dicks) and this is the part that the system doesn't warn yu about.

It kind of IS a secret that there are other systems. Not as much as it was 10 years ago, but yea, I still know lots of people who play D&D and don't know there's anything else until I tell them.

People don't like what you like. Deal with it. Stop shitposting in threads that don't interest you.

In PF they added the monster role tables specifically to assist with the chemisty of the party makeup as part of the CR issue.

But that would require reading and using their brains, which most people don't bother with nowadays.

>putting the burden on the players instead of on the people designing the fucking game
No, fuck off. If I'm the DM, every moment I spend fixing 3.5 to not be full retard by homebrewing content is a moment not spent on campaign prep.

>People don't like what you like. Deal with it.

What if I said-

>People like what you don't like. Deal with it.

Shitposting isn't dealing with it. It's just be frustrated and performing the magical thinking of pretending that shitposting has an effect on the game's popularity other than giving it even more exposure.

>It's not even that popular anymore.

It's comfortably the 2nd most popular game, and will remain that way for several years at least, regardless of how furiously people shitpost about it on this tiny image board.

>There's at most one 3.PF thread up

There's always the general, which is one of the fastest and most populous general on this board, and there tends to also be a few off shoots as well with people asking random questions and not realizing that Veeky Forums currently has a troll infestation that get triggered by the idea that people are having fun with a system they don't like.

>that thread is mostly about how to creatively NOT use 3.PF material,

That's an exaggeration.

>prospective new players always ask about 5e instead

And that's good. Still, doesn't excuse the trolls who feel compelled to shitpost about how much they hate D&D.

>some monsters are easier or harder depending on what abilities you have

Which roughly translates to either unending butt rape (martials) or slight road bump (mages).

>terrain and non-standard objectives can greatly affect the difficulty, and the DMG explains this very well too.

The only time that the terrain matters is when it's difficult terrain and trying to do extracurricular shit like toppling over a stone pillar or causing an avalanche usually requires the GM to look up rules that will probably never be referenced again due to how situational there are.

And throwing non-standard objectives requires the GM to put more thought into his actions beyond "make dungeon->kill shit->earn reward" which is just added work that most players are going to forget once the session is over.

>Finally there are some monsters whose CR doesn't tell you enough

Which is why it's shitty and doesn't work as intended.

>requires the GM to put more thought into his actions beyond "make dungeon->kill shit->earn reward" which is just added work that most players are going to forget once the session is over

I dunno, it's a default assumption in our games. Otherwise why not just play vidya where this formula shines?

Because D&D is the ur-example of dungeon crawling tabletop RPGs.

There's a reason why you got EXP for treasure accrued rather than monsters defeated in some of the older editions of D&D.

Older editions are another thing entirely since trying to kill shit without thinking is bad for you. Precisely because XP for treasure is huge and XP for monsters defeated is miniscule. It's a game of careful exploration, resource management and players' (rather than characters') wits.

I'm specifically referring to the formula

>"make dungeon->kill shit->earn reward"

And both single player CRPGs and MMOs can support simply killing shit better than TTRPG in any way, agree?

Save us, based Zweihander.

I'm excited about Zweihander but it's a Warhammer retroclone. Not to mention other games that do grim and gritty fantasy pretty well.

D&D was always a game where you and a party of your friends went into a dungeon to either kill shit or earn treasure.

Older games focused on the treasure collection aspect while newer games focused on killing shit, but at the end of the day, the formula of "make dungeon->kill shit->earn reward" was still a viable formula that most GM's will fall back on, especially when you consider that most GM's aren't creative, have no appreciation for backstory, and generally only treat monsters as meat that the players carve up until they fall over and they earn some EXP for it.

Video games are okay but most dungeon crawls don't give you the option of exploring a dungeon with your friends, so tabletop wins out because of that aspect.

well, area of effect spells of both Wizard and Cleric, followed by charging elementals and martial PCs is a way to make mincemeat of a lot of enemies.

>everybody who disagrees with me is shitposting
ok

Try playing past 1st level, casualboi

>people who have an irresistible urge to constantly complain about popular games are shitposters

Yes.

>most GM's aren't creative, have no appreciation for backstory, and generally only treat monsters as meat that the players carve up until they fall over and they earn some EXP for it.

That's why vidya to me is preferrable if you're going that route. There's not much of an exploration in the scenario you describe, so might as well go for an MMO raid.

>irresistible
>constantly
fantasize much?

>but it's a Warhammer Fantasy clone
Yes, and?

>speed of combat and having many options are opposed to each other to a degree. what are your experiences, user?

In the party I had a berserker barbarian, a rogue, a ranger, a warlock and a sorcerer. Even giving them some margin because half of the party was inexperienced, none of the characters had more than two or three things they could choose to do in combat, except for the sorcerer. Around level 5, monsters start to get hefty amounts of hit points, but they too don't generally have a ton options. So combat IME was mostly "move and attack" for 45 minutes-an hour until we couldn't take it any more. As much as 4e gets hated on here, at lest there was something happening each round.

He says comparing the MM3 math that cut HP in half in 4e...

And it's not going to save anything except maybe bringing established fanbase of a gutted WFRPG together once again.

The shadow was added in later you blind person.

Not half. Compare the Balrog posted later (which is MM1) to the formula up there.

What it did was lower Elite/Solo defenses so players don't miss so much against them.

Plus it's not like 5e is getting an MM3-type re-haul any time soon...

In fact, I remember a tweet that was "5e finally left the idea of encounters having to be balanced and winnable behind!", and I can't help but read it as a positive spin on "we are too lazy to balance shit, deal with it".

personally I am at a loss myself at how to balance speed and combat options.

what would you consider a saving grace instead then?

What were you fighting that 5 5th level PCs couldn't bring down in a few rounds?

It's already in the DMG under the custom monsters section.

(me)
Actually the DMG guidelines just have lower AC and higher damage - and higher DCs to saving throws.

I've not run into HP bloat issues yet, but it may happen as we get over level 10.

Convince me to switch from 3.5 to 5e, please.

Just play GURPS instead OP
Combat is lethal and the combat from the Characters book is simple and sweet

When I noticed nobody could remember their character's name, including myself

pro: less stuff to keep track of
con: more uniformity

make your own choice

Ok.
How's the saves system? It's one for each stat instead of the three, right? Does it work well?

>another exhausting, hour-long combat in a system of hit point bloat

Only ONE HOUR long? Son that's pretty damn short for D&D.