D&D 5e: Players Rule (or: Players' Rules), Part 2

In my last post, I started by articulating my thoughts on experience gain and leveling up. Before I continue the discussion on how the rules affect players, I thought I'd formally address something that came up in the discussion about my post in the comments:


The dual leveling systems in 5e (loosely called "experience gain" and "milestone") work in tandem. Below are my thoughts on this from the comments:

"The experience points tell players how significant their characters' encounter was or how epic their solution was. It also allows players (particularly at higher levels) to feel like they're 'getting somewhere' and to have a gauge as to how soon they'll get to use that fancy new ability they get when their character levels up!

That's why I like the current edition's focus on both styles: it's good for the players. If they just fight a whole bunch of random monsters because they're exploring, they may level before they ordinarily would based on the campaign/story being told. If they think of clever, interesting ways to circumvent some of the [expected/story] encounters and get to the next part of the story, they're rewarded with a level rather than punished by being required to grind."

Combat:

In 3e, combat was an arithmetical nightmare. The DMG advised DMs to make use of a simple rule: if a condition is advantageous, grant a +2 bonus. If a condition is disadvantageous, grant a -2 penalty. Bard songs, cleric spells, armor bonuses, feat bonuses, ability bonuses, and conditional modifiers all played a role in what the end modifier would be. Most of these modifiers changed on a round-to-round basis. Worst of all, these bonuses sometimes mattered an awful lot (when an encounter was perfectly matched) and sometimes mattered not at all (ever see a band of mid-level adventurers tearing through a bunch of low-level monsters?). I loved 3e and 3.5e, don't get me wrong, but that list of stats was obnoxious to keep track of--both for players and Dungeon Masters.

In 4e, combat became a video game with hot-keys. Most of the stats were static, and the ones that were dynamic were usually linked to a named condition--something that could be flagged or indicated in a visual way (presumably to help players remember that the lich was flying, the zombies were slowed, and their Paladin was blessed).  The modifiers were less omnipresent, but the combat itself as a bit more flat (for a different reason). When every player essentially "cast a spell" every turn, and most of those "spells" or abilities were just stand-ins for what used to be called a "basic attack," it slowed combat down. In retrospect, I think I know why: no matter how often we played, when presented with a bunch of similar options, players were constantly trying to decide which option would be best among the similar choices. The only place I see this come up in 5e is with wizards and cantrips. (Do I cast ray of frost or fire bolt?)

In 5e, combat most closely resembles 3e. It no longer feels like players and monsters are hitting their hot-keys. It also doesn't feel like I need a white-board for each player tracking constantly shifting modifiers. Where once the DM was asked to consider +2 or -2 (which, let's be honest, quickly became a moot modifier because of "unbounded accuracy"), now players can seek out conditions that negate disadvantage or which grant advantage. We have returned to an era of "basic attacks," but the mechanics are much more forgiving on non-spellcasting classes as far as giving them options in combat.

I'd like to start by considering the spellcasters (Clerics and Wizards) and move to the more martial classes. Unfortunately, since my party has a Paladin instead of a Fighter, I can't necessarily say how "the big four" have changed, though you can certainly extrapolate.

Wizards function almost identically to their 3e counterparts with a couple of very interesting "borrows" from 4e:

1. Cantrips: being able to cast basic--but useful and scaling--spells at-will is a wonderful boost to all spellcasters being magical all the time (not just while they have spell slots available).
2. Short Rest Restoration: Arcane Recovery is a fascinating way to counter the "whelp, Wizard's out of spells, time to camp for the night" issue. This criticism is a common--and accurate--issue with the way D&D has worked in the past. 4e made everyone a spellcaster (in a sense) to overcome the problem. I think I like this solution somewhat better; Wizards get fewer spell slots than their 3e counterparts, but can get some of them back.
3. Concentration: In 3e (and to a certain extent in 4e), concentration was a reactionary effect that came into play when players took damage or when they were trying to "cast defensively." By removing the defensive casting mechanic, and only allowing Wizards (or any caster) to maintain concentration on one spell at a time, it not only limited some of the spellcasting abuses (I'm looking at you party-buff mules), but it also eliminated a step from Wizards casting spells in combat, streamlining every round of combat.

Clerics similarly have a high correlation to their 3e counterparts:

1. Not all Clerics get heavy armor.
2.  Domains matter for gameplay styling right from the get go. 
3.  Removing the "minor" or "swift" actions, Clerics having spells that can only be cast as a reaction changes how/when they heal.
4. The concentration rules (see above) affect Cleric spellcasting too.

Rogues have the biggest change from prior editions in my opinion:

1. Removing the rules for "flanking" has ironically made it 10x easier for Rogues to activate their Sneak Attack ability. Basically, if the party tank is in combat, the Rogue can drop whoever the tank is fighting--even at a distance.
2. Bonus Actions have added a whole new lair of dastardly to Rogues. By letting rogues (essentially) move, Sneak Attack, and ignore opportunity attacks while remain out of range of the majority of bad guys, Rogues can maintain a very high damage output while staying safe in combat.
3. What makes the above two so wicked is that characters can now move, act, and then finish their movement--something that was not available before.

Paladins, like Clerics, have a lot of overlap with their 3e counterparts:

1.  Heavy armor, shields, and spells, and Lay on Hands make Paladins just as durable as they used to be.
2. Opening up Divine Sense (formerly Detect Evil) and Divine Smite (formerly Smite Evil) makes Paladins a little bit less of a one-trick pony. Fighting beasts in the forest instead of a cadre of demons? No problem! 
3. Fighting Style lets Paladins (like Fighters) specialize a bit into a particular role. In our campaign, the Paladin is a tank who wants to deal damage, but knows he has to take it before he can dish it out; he took the flat +1 bonus to AC (and rightfully so, I think).

 Some other general notes:

1. Hit points have been more boosted at the low end (d6 for Wizards!) making everyone a tiny bit less fragile by default.
2. Monsters--even at low levels--have surprisingly high numbers of hit points. There are no more "minions" as there were in 4e. If you're fighting a horde, be prepared to slog through it; a fireball won't insta-kill them all anymore (though a sufficiently powerful one might).
3. Ignoring the "diagonal movement on a grid is different" reality (as was done in 4e) remains in 5e. 95% of the time, it doesn't matter that much. The 5% of the times it does matter, it usually benefits the players, so I'm okay with it.
4. So far, advantage works. It works really well. (So does disadvantage.)
5. Bounded accuracy is already showing up in combat at low levels--for the better. The Paladin (used to being the only one in previous editions that could hit monsters routinely) is becoming frustrated that he isn't auto-hitting. The Rogue is dishing out damage on fleshy/robust but unarmored enemies. The Wizard can land ray of frost without worrying about a saving throw from the enemy. The Cleric knows exactly how much that buff spell is going to be worth because he can look at one set of numbers (remember, all those ugly modifiers from 3e are gone). Every monster is a potential threat, but tactics still help defeat monsters more quickly and more safely.

Finally, and perhaps no less importantly, monsters themselves seem to have the right mix of familiarity and wonder for the players. For example, zombies act as zombies should; they're slow to act, low in armor class, and dumb as rocks. But, they also have tons of hit points and a devious special ability that can make them very difficult to kill if you're not paying attention. Players who have seen zombies in other games/editions know roughly what to do to these zombies--but they're caught just enough by surprise by the one special ability that keeps them alive through the occasional lethal damage.

Next time, I'll look at non-combat options.