D&D 5E Differing opinions about 5e

[Ashkelon]

Feats, multi-classing and magic items are OPTIONAL. So if your game includes them then you need to compensate in the challenge department or things get much easier. So if you are using typical encounter guidelines and your campaign uses the optional features then then you are presenting a game with easier challenges.

The point is however that they still should have playtested such optional rules and made them more in line with the basic game. It is poor design work to make broken multi-class combos and feats simply because they are "optional" and some tables won't use them. Especially given that feats are some of the only means of character customization for non-spellcasting classes.

That also doesn't address the fact that many higher level spells are also game breakingly powerful. Spells are not optional.

 

[Argyle King]

Is it weird if I think the game is both too easy and too hard?

What I've noticed is that either the players completely crush the enemy or the enemy has some kind of special attack which crushes the players. There rarely seems to be combat that feels somewhere in between. Party composition appears to greatly influence how often one or the other happens.

For example, the temple fight in Curse of Strahd was pretty rough. The demon-whatever thing hiding in the statue had spells and abilities that could nearly one-shot most of the party. In contrast, the party stomped both the fallen paladin guy and Strahd into the ground.

 

[ExploderWizard]

The point is however that they still should have playtested such optional rules and made them more in line with the basic game. It is poor design work to make broken multi-class combos and feats simply because they are "optional" and some tables won't use them. Especially given that feats are some of the only means of character customization for non-spellcasting classes.

That also doesn't address the fact that many higher level spells are also game breakingly powerful. Spells are not optional.

I'm sure these things WERE play tested and found to expand the basic power curve overall. Thus, they are optional components that require the DM to account for. I don't what you think is "broken" but that word gets tossed around a lot and frankly I think it has become the battle cry of DMs who cannot think for themselves.

I suppose backgrounds, fighting styles, and subclasses don't count as customization right? One can accept the lie that feats are there merely for flavor but they are pretty much just a la carte power ups. As such, the base level of challenge in the campaign needs to be tweaked to account for those and multi-class combinations.

Another little secret is that the highest level spells have always been "game breakingly" powerful. That is simply the nature of magic at that level. The only other option is turning these spells into wishy-washy pathetic versions of themselves. The DM just needs to remember that by the time the PCs can command such magical effects that they may have to face them as well.

 

[Ratskinner]

I would add that monsters aren't the only aspect that can vary the difficulty a lot. Things like terrain or environmental hazards aren't really included in the CR system. If you encounter all your foes in empty rooms your life will be easier then the guy dodging lava bursts each round.

I actually like this aspect of 5e. I consider it a good thing that GMs have that kind of flexibilty. Part of making GM's job easier is figuring out which parts are "good" and "bad". This is a good part worth keeping.


Sent from my LG-TP450 using EN World mobile app

 

[Tony Vargas]

So which is it? The game is too easy, too hard or just right?

Yes.
It's too hard at 1st level and/or for completely new players, too easy at higher level and/or for powergamers, and just right if the DM makes it so.

right off the PHB you can create a party of characters that absolutely dominates published scenarios and any other adventure built according to the encounter guidelines. Without really trying hard - almost as if the design testers didn't properly combine the tools the PHB gives you.

Or, as if the designers realized they couldn't make the game simple enough in terms of complexity for new players, so they made it easy enough in terms of PC vs challenge guidelines that lack of system mastery wouldn't impeded enjoying the game much, at first.

(But, then there's the relatively lethality of 1st level poking a hole in that theory, too.)

So many DMs dont get this. 5E is an attrition and resource management game. As a DM you have to DM with this in mind.

If thats not your thing, then play a different game.

Hold up, 5e is meant to support /more/ playstyles than past editions, not fewer! You absolutely could have played at least some past versions of D&D with a focus on something other than attrition and should be able to with 5e, as well. You just have to adjust it some...

I agree 5E leaves that resource management in the hands of the DM, and doesnt enforce it on the game structure.

Which shows to go you that it's not meant to be play-attrition-style-or-play-something-else.

 

[S'mon]

Hold up, 5e is meant to support /more/ playstyles than past editions, not fewer! You absolutely could have played at least some past versions of D&D with a focus on something other than attrition and should be able to with 5e, as well. You just have to adjust it some...

Which shows to go you that it's not meant to be play-attrition-style-or-play-something-else.

Yeah, I agree strongly. 5e IME is a flexible game, and nothing like the "MUST HAVE 6-8 FIGHTS" thing the Attritionists keep pushing.

 

[Li Shenron]

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...).

If you follow the standard rules or guidelines for encounter building and XP advancement, then IMHO yes 5e is either too easy in challenges or too fast in leveling up.

 

[Hussar]

Yeah, I agree strongly. 5e IME is a flexible game, and nothing like the "MUST HAVE 6-8 FIGHTS" thing the Attritionists keep pushing.

To be fair, this gets pushed in response to the statement that 5e is too easy.

 

[CapnZapp]

They really didn't. I had access the the PHB alpha an it was largely unchanged compared to the final in print book. Things like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter were well know issues but no changes were made to reign them in. Feats were added to the game as an afterthought and as such their balance was barely considered for its affect on gameplay. High level spells also received almost no balance or testing which is how we ended up with things like banishment and forcecage. Most testing appeared to be done using featless games from levels 1-10.

Thank you

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[CapnZapp]

It's still true. And it tells you what the DM needs to do when playing with skilled players seeking greater difficulty.

A truism doesn't mean what you think it means.

I am not questioning it's veracity, I'm questioning it's utility.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app