D&D 5E Differing opinions about 5e

I have seen complaints about 5e being too easy. I have also seen many threads about the need to optimize and many about the lack of a need to optimize (since the game is forgiving).

I have to say I am forming my own opinion about the matter but wondered if these differing opinions might be a function of optimizing via multiclassing, feats and so forth.

I have usually felt challenged early on with an occasional party member being knocked to 0. I have less experience with higher level play as our games fold and start anew. I hope to change that.

So which is it? The game is too easy, too hard or just right? And if it is too easy, is it a function of optimizing (which would be a voluntary thing...).

The game is as easy or as hard as the challenges the DM presents modified by the skill of the players trying to tackle them.

Those who think it too easy are likely veteran gamers who grok to the system quickly and can squeeze every ounce of power out of it. My brand newbie players certainly find it challenging!

Others love it because its flexibility allows more unique and rp centric builds without sacrificing too much functionality. You no longer have to worry about falling behind if you didn't eek out every last to hit or DC increase.

A lot of the complaints kight be up to the DM. Matt Mercer certainly doesn't find challenging his 17th level party too difficult.

I have heard that the encounter building guidelines are basically "easy mode", so take that for what it's worth.

Sent from my SM-G900P using EN World mobile app

*Deleted by user*

Like others said, it depends on the individual table and playstyles. The local metagame is a huge huge influence, and it shows. Hells. The mere frequency of short-rest to combat-specific encounters is a huge one. There's plenty of social and exploration/investigation encounters that dont' tax resources.

The presence of min-maxers at your table also has an effect. If you have a split group of casual and optimizers at one place, then a GM often tries to ratchet the encoutners up, which leaves the casual players behind. Even if its the GM. So, take that as you will.

My hope (so far not dashed) is that I can have a cool character to play that has a chance even if not optimized. So far, I have gotten by picking what gives the flavor I want with consideration for efficacy as well.

In the old days it seems like the DM merely picked what he thought would be a challenge and we went with it....sometimes with disastrous results! I recall several severe ass-beating by trolls back in 1e!

I am just thinking ahead. I plan to start DMing more and I am going to encourage the rule of cool since I think the game allows it. I just wanted some additional opinion and discussion related to it.

Hell, I was thinking about eventually getting mounted combatant for my warlock who whether tome or blade will be wielding a sword...

I simply like the image...

The follow up question would be whether optimizing makes it less challenging. For me, there needs to be some tension...

Warpiglet said:

The follow up question would be whether optimizing makes it less challenging. For me, there needs to be some tension...

Click to expand...

Again, depends on the DM and their style of DMing.

Some DMs create all the encounters beforehand and that's it-- that's the challenge and the party faces it. No fudging of rolls, no extra enemies showing up outside of the encounter or scheduled enemies not showing up, no changing of stats mid-combat depending on the flow of the fight. The numbers are the numbers and the challenge set up for the players is to combat them. In a game like this, optimization of your PC might be a good idea, or possibly even a determinant for survival.

Whereas other DMs offer up the "story" of a fight-- the kind of narrative for how an attack and defense is expected to go. In other words, a random encounter as the party marches towards the ruins is narratively set up by the DM as a sign-post for what's to come, not as a deadly encounter in of itself. And thus the DM might not be all that concerned with the numbers (not bothering to calculate out precisely just how many goblins are needed to get the baseline results expected.) Instead, the DM just throws out some enemies, the party fights them, and if things go way overboard in either direction without enhancing the story of the game, they have no issue having a few more goblins show up, or a few goblins run away.

In both cases... "optimizing" a PC will result in different things. In some campaigns it would be expected, and indeed the DM would set up the challenges with that type of power level in mind. In others, an optimized character for combat might find itself way overpowered for most fights, making them less fun to do (while at the same time being woefully incompetent in other parts of the game when skills come into play for example.) Thus, optimizing isn't inherently a good or bad thing... it just is more or less worthwhile depending on the style of DMing and type of campaign that DM is running, plus where they sit compared to the other PCs.

So see where you expect the fun-level to be in your game, and create characters appropriate for the game. And if what you want for a character does not produce that fun, that means either you need to adjust your PC, or you just aren't up for that DM's particular style and game. Which happens all the time, and it's up to you to decide whether to stick with it or not.

Again difficulty is in the eye of the beholder (sometimes literally :>). I see people complain about how easy it is to heal someone who's down and bring them back into the combat. Yet those same people will complain if the DM continues to attack their downed characters to, you know, kill them. I ran a series of mods recently at a con where I saw that the challenges as written were way too easy for the group playing them. So I changed it up to be more challenging. And guess what, the players had more fun.

Warmaster Horus said:

Again difficulty is in the eye of the beholder (sometimes literally :>). I see people complain about how easy it is to heal someone who's down and bring them back into the combat. Yet those same people will complain if the DM continues to attack their downed characters to, you know, kill them. I ran a series of mods recently at a con where I saw that the challenges as written were way too easy for the group playing them. So I changed it up to be more challenging. And guess what, the players had more fun.

Click to expand...

I don't want my characters to die all of the time, but I like the threat of death. I like making decisions (tactically and otherwise) that determine whether death is more or less likely.

I think you speak to something often overlooked: DMs pull punches. If someone was crawling away on a battlefield, there is a fair chance someone would stab them for good measure once downed. I like creatures to behave within the limits of the mental abilities as characters would.

If it is still and not moving, I probably move on. Obviously moving around might earn a finishing stroke...

Thinking about this question, I realize that I've virtually never played or DM'ed a dnd game where it was 'hard.' Like, the player had to be really clever and tactical to figure out how to survive and achieve their goals.

Not to say characters never die, sometimes you just do the wrong thing or get really unlucky. But I don't recall a time where I felt like it would have gone differently if the player had just been better at the game, somehow.

So I guess I just don't feel that fine tuning the balance of the game is important to my enjoyment of it. It seems that all the versions I've played (which is everything but 2e) fall into the category of 'balanced enough.'