D&D 5E Differing opinions about 5e

[CapnZapp]

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.

This still does not excuse how you need not to merely tweak encounters. You need to wholesale replace them.

The high level game challenge has probably never been so weak, soft, untactical and uninspired.

Sure humanoid 3e NPCs were soft too, but now most if not all non-epic monsters are thoroughly outclassed by well-built characters in every area, sometimes even including said monster's strengths....

It's just bad that the game falls apart as soon as you apply feats, multiclassing and good character construction.

The "that's only optional" is a very poor excuse. After all, those subsystem are there because they're fun to use.

If us DMs would only need to tweak an encounter here, add a monster there, then all would be good.

But your comments (and similar ones of others) just tell me you haven't witnessed exactly how weak and soft the high level design really is.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[Hussar]

Or, y'know maybe, just maybe the problems you have at your table aren't as universal as you think.

Instead of assuming everyone else is wrong, perhaps a bit of self examination might not hurt.

Particularly in light of the examples you've put up showing a decided lack of tactical sense.

 

[CapnZapp]

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

If it did enforce it though, you would be forced in your narrative structure to abide by it. By giving you options (gritty realism etc) they allow individual DMs to mess about with it to taste.

Thank you for agreeing, Flamestrike.

However, you talk about enforcement as if that's something people demand, or as if that's the only alternative.

That is, of course, just a smokescreen to avoid having to answer the real question:

Why can't there be official but optional variant rules that provide mechanical solutions for those that don't want their stories to carry the burden of fixing the game balance?



Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

 

[S'mon]

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

Fair enough. The encounter building guidelines assume 6-8 fights. If you stick to the guidelines but have 1-3 fights then the fights will be much easier than the guidelines suggest.

For me it definitely works better not to use the guidelines and not to assume 6-8 fights. To the
extent I 'build' fights I think in roughly 4e terms of matching monsters to PCs. An equal number
of monsters of CR roughly 2/3 PC level gives a tough but survivable fight, roughly EL+3 to +4 in 4e
terms. Less will mean a progressively easier fight, per Sly Flourish, CR 1/3 Party Level gives a routine fight similar to what the official guidelines produce as a "Hard" fight. At CR = Party Level there is a 50% chance of a TPK, less with a tough solo PC (Barbarian, Bladesinger Wizard), but a typical 5 PC level 7 group will about
50% TPK vs 5 CR 7 stone giants (eg).

 

[S'mon]

Sure humanoid 3e NPCs were soft too, but now most if not all non-epic monsters are thoroughly outclassed by well-built characters in every area, sometimes even including said monster's strengths....

Unclassed if you stick to the encounter-building guidelines?

Because my experience is that with Bounded Accuracy, even a moderate sized group of monsters
can always challenge a group of high level PCs. I can challenge 5 level 12 PCs with 5 CR 8
monsters no problem; even with 3 CR 8 monsters if terrain favours them. I recently ran 3 CR 8 chain devils/kytons vs 5 PCs averaging 12th level in a room with chains hanging from ceiling (in
Paizo's adventure Seven Swords of Sin) and the party had a tough time, the Barbarian needed a quick Revivify afterwards.

Whereas in 3e/PF or 4e beyond a certain point no number of low-medium monsters can challenge
high level PCs. The same is true of 0e-2e to a slightly lesser extent. So 5e is by far the easiest system to challenge PCs with lower level monsters. Using higher level monsters work too, they can give rather
generous XP awards but I've not found that a significant problem.

 

[S'mon]

Why can't there be official but optional variant rules that provide mechanical solutions for those that don't want their stories to carry the burden of fixing the game balance?
[/URL]

Obviously there could be. They could say "Use 1 monster per PC of CR 2/3 level if you want a good tough fight".
When it comes to their published adventures, they could just fess up that these supposedly 1-15
adventures are really better balanced as 1-10 adventures and that WoTC doesn't actually publish high level adventures (converting Paizo PF stuff works fine, though).

 

[ExploderWizard]

But your comments (and similar ones of others) just tell me you haven't witnessed exactly how weak and soft the high level design really is.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

We are doing just fine and the long running campaign I am DMing has the PCs at 14th-15th level right now. I don't know if that qualifies as "high level" to you or not. Our last combat encounter was the party vs 8 hydras. It was a pretty good fight and we all had fun. Are we missing something?

 

[Caliban]

We are doing just fine and the long running campaign I am DMing has the PCs at 14th-15th level right now. I don't know if that qualifies as "high level" to you or not. Our last combat encounter was the party vs 8 hydras. It was a pretty good fight and we all had fun. Are we missing something?

Studies show that you are having at least 20% less fun than you should be. Can you live with that? Should you?

 

[iserith]

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

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

It's plenty useful. It tells you what you need to do as DM.

You just appear not to want to do that. You'd rather just endlessly complain, it seems, which accomplishes nothing.

 

[Oofta]

This still does not excuse how you need not to merely tweak encounters. You need to wholesale replace them.

The high level game challenge has probably never been so weak, soft, untactical and uninspired.

Sure humanoid 3e NPCs were soft too, but now most if not all non-epic monsters are thoroughly outclassed by well-built characters in every area, sometimes even including said monster's strengths....

It's just bad that the game falls apart as soon as you apply feats, multiclassing and good character construction.

The "that's only optional" is a very poor excuse. After all, those subsystem are there because they're fun to use.

If us DMs would only need to tweak an encounter here, add a monster there, then all would be good.

But your comments (and similar ones of others) just tell me you haven't witnessed exactly how weak and soft the high level design really is.

Sent from my C6603 using EN World mobile app

I'll have to ask my players sometime if 5E is "too easy". Considering that last game I had an encounter where the barbarian and fighter were both knocked unconscious at one time or other and the other characters were beaten bloodied and bruised. According to the XP calculator I use (it ignores numbers of opponents) it was supposed to be a high-medium encounter.

Some of it was just luck, my dice were hot and theirs were cold.

Or in the game I played in where we tend to only have a handful of fights between long rests and my cleric had to use revivify and mass heal or we were looking at running away or a TPK. As it was, it was still close. It was intended to be a tough boss fight against one of the last of our major foes so it was appropriate.

The published mods may be on the easy side, but there is a pretty vast difference between effectiveness of parties. If they were not on the easy side, many novice parties would be wiped out on a regular basis. I DM two different groups. Both are fun, but the challenges I throw at one group to challenge them would wipe out the second group and vice versa. Also remember that the guidelines are designed for a party of 4, a party of 5 or 6 can handle quite a bit more.

The fact that some DMs have to turn up the knob a little bit for your group is not surprising, I don't know how you could design a game where it wasn't the case.

Difficulty is set by the DM.