D&D 5E Is 5E Special

[payn]

I don't think I am explaining myself well.

All I mean is that one party composition -- let's say, melee heavy with one support caster -- versus another composition-- let's say muti caster blastiness-- are going to experience different difficulty levels from the same encounter -- let's say a bunch of shadows -- based on those compositions, and as such, the GM should keep an eye on it. The adventure designer can't know what your party composition is and so designs using some arbitrary metric with the assumption that the GM will make adjustments as necessary.

I am not sure which part of the above is controversial.

Thats a tall order. PF2 is leaps and bounds more balanced and still runs into a party composition issue. That's just price of admission for a game that offers classes that have different abilities and a myriad of monsters with different abilities themselves.

 

[Reynard]

Thats a tall order. PF2 is leaps and bounds more balanced and still runs into a party composition issue. That's just price of admission for a game that offers classes that have different abilities and a myriad of monsters with different abilities themselves.

Right, so I don't understand why some folks are calling foul on that and saying 5E is perfectly balanced no matter the monsters or party composition.

 

[payn]

Right, so I don't understand why some folks are calling foul on that and saying 5E is perfectly balanced no matter the monsters or party composition.

Maybe, they are sensitive to a knock they feel isn't fair? Also, many written adventures have been trashed because they dont account for party comps and player strategy/tactics. So, its a universal correction that is so common folks just assume its not a deal even when people say it is. Might be a good thread topic as a universal TTRPG issue and not specific to 5E?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Maybe, they are sensitive to a knock they feel isn't fair? Also, many written adventures have been trashed because they dont account for party comps and player strategy/tactics. So, its a universal correction that is so common folks just assume its not a deal even when people say it is. Might be a good thread topic as a universal TTRPG issue and not specific to 5E?

No. Probably it is the expectation of how much balance is needed and desired.

 

[Agametorememberbooks]

I think the system is easy for people to learn and enjoy, and I don’t see how Stranger Things hurts interest in the game. However, I think that the draw to dnd has more to do with the human need to connect and socialize. I also think that people are growing tired of passively consuming content online or on TV.

Playing dnd makes you part of the story, all while connecting with friends.

 

[Oofta]

If you want perfect balance in a game, play checkers. Expecting perfect balance given the nature of D&D isn't possible. You can come close, 4E probably came closest, but even then the abilities of the players, PC builds and the nature of the encounters could change things pretty dramatically.

In 5E, some classes are more effective at different aspects of the game at different levels, for different encounters, in different player's hands. Give two groups the exact same pregens and one group will likely be more effective than another. I don't think it's a problem, nor is it anything that needs to be "solved". I accept that if our party is being attacked by a horde of zombies approaching in a cluster that the wizard's fireball or the cleric's turn undead will be more effective than my melee fighter's warhammer. On the other hand, when my fighter can hold off that horde at a choke point while bashing in heads simultaneously giving everyone else a chance to clear out the ones in the back or when the casters are down to cantrips the balance shifts.

It's not perfect because perfection doesn't exist. But that fighter feels different from that wizard while still reasonably contributing on a regular basis. If I'm tired of one role or style I can switch to another with my next PC. The heck with perfect balance, I'd rather have flexibility.

 

[Reynard]

If you want perfect balance in a game, play checkers. Expecting perfect balance given the nature of D&D isn't possible. You can come close, 4E probably came closest, but even then the abilities of the players, PC builds and the nature of the encounters could change things pretty dramatically.

In 5E, some classes are more effective at different aspects of the game at different levels, for different encounters, in different player's hands. Give two groups the exact same pregens and one group will likely be more effective than another. I don't think it's a problem, nor is it anything that needs to be "solved". I accept that if our party is being attacked by a horde of zombies approaching in a cluster that the wizard's fireball or the cleric's turn undead will be more effective than my melee fighter's warhammer. On the other hand, when my fighter can hold off that horde at a choke point while bashing in heads simultaneously giving everyone else a chance to clear out the ones in the back or when the casters are down to cantrips the balance shifts.

It's not perfect because perfection doesn't exist. But that fighter feels different from that wizard while still reasonably contributing on a regular basis. If I'm tired of one role or style I can switch to another with my next PC. The heck with perfect balance, I'd rather have flexibility.

Who wants perfect balance? The start of this sub-conversation was that the GM is supposed to adjust encounters in published scenarios to better fit the campaign, the table, and the PCs. That's the way the game is designed.

 

[Minigiant]

I don't think essentials would have been more successful than 5e, because even with essentials, there was too much game jargon embedded in the rules. Especially movement rules were clunky in hindsight.

I think if 4e essentials had come out instead of 4e vanilla, we might have never seen 5e, because it was a lot closer to classic dnd and especially for martial characters, a lot less "gamey" (in lack of a better word).

My premise was a 4e Essentials as a separate edition. So it would not be tied directly to 4e's premises, books, and mechanics and have some reflection on its flaws.


5e is similar to Essentials except it "made the mistake" of using 3's model to level design and spread out class features to counter 3e style multiclassing. This is why some class fantasies don't hit and one thing that kept 5e from being "almost near perfect."

 

[UngeheuerLich]

My premise was a 4e Essentials as a separate edition. So it would not be tied directly to 4e's premises, books, and mechanics and have some reflection on its flaws.


5e is similar to Essentials except it "made the mistake" of using 3's model to level design and spread out class features to counter 3e style multiclassing. This is why some class fantasies don't hit and one thing that kept 5e from being "almost near perfect."

Someone's mistake is the other one's feature.

 

[Parmandur]

This is a question about the popularity of D&D right now, more than being a question about any specific element of 5E.

It boils down to this: if it wasn't 5E (pick a different edition, it doesn't matter) but all the other circumstances were the same -- a new edition in 2014, references in the media, Critical Role and streaming in general, etc... -- would D&D still be having a major pop-cultural moment?

In other words: is there something special about 5E that created this moment, or does it "just happen to be" that 5E is the current edition?

Yes, 5E sort of stumbled on to the ideal design for streaming at the right time. Their goal was to lean hard into what made TTRPGS different from video games, which turned out to work great on the air.

For proof, I would direct anyone to watch Critical Role's Pathfinder special from 2016 or so. It was painful how much the rules, which Mercer had 15 years of experience DMing, got in the way compared to their 5E game.