D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

[Tony Vargas]

Okay, fair enough, I suppose. It seems like we pretty much agree, and it's just a matter of semantics.

I was worried I was getting a tad hair-splitty, there, yes.

I think that the 3E system does kind of come apart if you stop using the math...

Some math more than others. BAB, for instance, you probably have some leeway. Wealth/level, due to magic items, maybe not so much. Or maybe I'm off base, I didn't ever try to mess with 3e to that degree...

If you just do away with that design element then I feel like you're fundamentally changing the game, no?

Unless, like 5e, it's fundamentally meant to be changed, perhaps?

 

[Lord Twig]

5e set out to be the game for fans of D&D - regardless of style or past edition preferences (though, FWIW, WotCs research is supposed to have told them that edition-centric fans were very much in the minority) - as Celtavian (and, I think, most of us here) was clearly a fan of D&D before 5e was even being playtested, he's squarely in that target market. You may think you're defending 5e from criticism by suggesting the fault is with the fan and the game's just not 'for him,' but you are, in fact, making a much harsher criticism of the current edition in doing so: you're judging it a failure.

It is not possible to make a game for all fans of D&D. They tried their best to make a game that will appeal to D&D fans of all types, but some of those types are going to be mutually exclusive. That doesn't make the game a failure.

So, yes. It is possible, despite all efforts to the contrary, that this is not the D&D edition for you. Not saying that it isn't, but it is possible.

There are certainly groups that are still playing 3.5 or Pathfinder, and they don't want to change. For them 5e is not the game for them, they are happy with what they have. Likewise there are groups that loved 4th edition so much that they don't want it to change. That's not a problem. There is a ton of material for a 4th edition game out there. Heck, I played a game system that was out of print for over 10 years before moving to D&D 3.0 when it came out.

 

[Tony Vargas]

It is not possible to make a game for all fans of D&D.

Sure it is, if those fans are each willing to let the others have their fun without throwing a fit over it.

They tried their best to make a game that will appeal to D&D fans of all types, but some of those types are going to be mutually exclusive.

Mutually exclusive at the same table, perhaps - I don't doubt that level of intolerance exists, though it'd be nice if it didn't. But when the system is as opt-in optional and/or open to interpretation & modification as it is, anyone who was able to get what they wanted out of at least one past edition of D&D, should be able to get it out of 5e, too. That's not impossible. It's not equally easy on everyone (to put it mildly) and it's not necessarily there, yet...

That doesn't make the game a failure.

As long as it keeps trying, I'd say it hasn't failed. At least, not yet.

And, sure if it's just not the game for someone who never much cared for D&D, it hasn't failed.

But if you'd rather assert that the game "isn't for" some ardent fellow fan of D&D, than support making it for them (either through adapting what's there or advocating for what's needed - or at least, not trying to stand in the way & actively exclude them), then you're either claiming its failed in that regard - or hoping it will.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I was worried I was getting a tad hair-splitty, there, yes. Some math more than others. BAB, for instance, you probably have some leeway. Wealth/level, due to magic items, maybe not so much. Or maybe I'm off base, I didn't ever try to mess with 3e to that degree...

Unless, like 5e, it's fundamentally meant to be changed, perhaps?

Maybe that's a big part of it, yes. I think 5E bends over backwards to point out how you should be altering things to fit your game. Where as 3E did not really do that.

I had some players in the 3E-to-Pathfinder days that expected the game to be run out of the book(s) with little to no alteration. I think that was kind of the default assumption given how the game was designed, so I didn't even fault the players for that expectation.

My 5E players....all of whom were there in the 3E/Pathfinder days...are much more open to the idea of judgment calls on my part as the DM and to the idea of home brewing anything that we feel is missing from the game as is.

 

[Lord Twig]

Sure it, if those fans are each willing to let the others have their fun without throwing a fit over it.

Mutually exclusive at the same table, perhaps - I don't doubt that level of intolerance exists, though it'd be nice if it didn't. But when the system is as opt-in optional and/or open to interpretation & modification as it is, anyone who was able to get what they wanted out of at least one past edition of D&D, should be able to get it out of 5e, too. That's not impossible. It's not equally easy on everyone (to put it mildly) and it's not necessarily there, yet...

Nice. Accuse someone you disagree with of intolerance. Interesting strategy for trying to win an argument. What is that? Ad hominem?

No, it isn't intolerance. If someone insists on playing Buddy the Psychopathic Bard in my game it isn't intolerance that makes me want to not game with him. It is a difference in play styles.

Likewise if I don't like full non-magical healing after 8 hours, that is my preference. Or marking. Or minions with 1 hit points. Or melee damage on a miss. Or what if I do like all of those things and thinks the game sucks without them? Sure there are optional rules, but not everyone is going to agree on which rules to use.

At a more fundamental level, maybe I really liked the AEDU power structure and hate the pseudo Vancian magic that 5e uses? Is 5e a failure because it got rid of the 4th edition style powers?

As long as it keeps trying, I'd say it hasn't failed. At least, not yet.

And, sure if it's just not the game for someone who never much cared for D&D, it hasn't failed.

But if you'd rather assert that the game "isn't for" some ardent fellow fan of D&D, than support making it for them (either through adapting what's there or advocating for what's needed - or at least, not trying to stand in the way & actively exclude them), then you're either claiming its failed in that regard - or hoping it will.

There are indeed things that I don't want in my D&D game. At more specifically since AL is my only outlet for gaming right now I don't want it in there specifically. What other players do in game effects my character. Therefore it effects me. Saying that everyone else can do anything they want and that it won't effect the other players' fun is just not true.

#notmywarlord

 

[Helldritch]

Maybe that's a big part of it, yes. I think 5E bends over backwards to point out how you should be altering things to fit your game. Where as 3E did not really do that.

I had some players in the 3E-to-Pathfinder days that expected the game to be run out of the book(s) with little to no alteration. I think that was kind of the default assumption given how the game was designed, so I didn't even fault the players for that expectation.

My 5E players....all of whom were there in the 3E/Pathfinder days...are much more open to the idea of judgment calls on my part as the DM and to the idea of home brewing anything that we feel is missing from the game as is.

None of my players would want to go back to either 3.5, PF or 4ed. 5ed is doing much more for them than any previous they have seen. During the 4ed era, we got tired of the WoW style and went back to 1ed. They had a blast as 1ed is my style of play and has always been. Now 5ed points us what is standard play and gives us a few hints of what might be coming our way and some of us already know what we should do to modify it further to get the game WE want.

That game maybe different from table to table but the basics will still be there. I am 47 now, still playing and I hope it will be that way for a long time.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Nice. Accuse someone you disagree with of intolerance. Interesting strategy for trying to win an argument.

5e's goals include being more inclusive and 'healing the rift of the edition war.' So, yes, the language of that is going to mirror that used in more serious issues. 'Inclusion' and 'tolerance' and so forth. Very idealistic and kumbaya....

Likewise if I don't like full non-magical healing after 8 hours, that is my preference. Or marking. Or minions with 1 hit points. Or melee damage on a miss. Or what if I do like all of those things and thinks the game sucks without them? Sure there are optional rules, but not everyone is going to agree on which rules to use.

Everyone doesn't have to agree on every rule. The half-dozen or so folks sitting down to play have to agree enough to game together - and usually the DM will make a decision up front and players hopefully find DMs who run games they like.

At a more fundamental level, maybe I really liked the AEDU power structure and hate the pseudo Vancian magic that 5e uses? Is 5e a failure because it got rid of the 4th edition style powers?

Trying to keep it positive, I'll say that it hasn't succeeded, yet, not that it's failed.

For one thing, hasn't exactly gotten rid of them entirely. There are still dailies (as there have always been). There are short-rest recharge abilities (analogous to encounters). There are at-will cantrips (and weapons have always been at-will). There are still utility spells and rituals. It's not all neatly balanced and consistent like in 4e, but nothing in 5e is, balance is the DM's domain, consistency is at odds with the feel of the classic game.

Getting to the 4e style using 5e is not as easy as getting to a 2e style, but it's not impossible in theory, though there are still clearly things missing. That doesn't mean fans of 4e have been excluded, yet.

There are indeed things that I don't want in my D&D game.

And you needn't include them in your D&D game. As a DM, you can decline to opt-into them, or ban them if they're not explicitly optional. As a player, you can simply not avail yourself of them. That's the easy part.

If the game is missing something you really liked about a past edition, OTOH, that's a much more serious issue.

What other players do in game effects my character. Therefore it effects me. Saying that everyone else can do anything they want and that it won't effect the other players' fun is just not true.

Again, only so far as the people at the same table as you are concerned. And, really, its not that hard to tolerate some mechanic or character concept or play style you don't care for, even at the same table - as long as it's not outright disruptive.
Especially if your distaste is largely theoretical or philosophical.

At more specifically since AL is my only outlet for gaming right now I don't want it in there specifically.

AL is something of a special case in that it doesn't just use only the standard rules, but opts into some, like MCing & Feats, and not others.

If you don't want something in AL, the best place to address that concern would be the organization, itself. Less formally, there /is/ an AL board here on ENWorld. But, even if AL does exclude something you want excluded, that doesn't make 5e "not for" anyone who doesn't agree with you, it just makes AL 'not for' them...

...even then, IMX, AL isn't too hidebound, and it's not inconceivable a table, perhaps an unofficial free-play table, might have (or not have) what you want (can't tolerate).

 

[mpwylie]

Though I'm obviously in agreement about the nature of 5e - it's a starting point, you make it your own, &c - I have to quibble* with implying equivalency between new and returning players. Returning players, like long-time players, have definite expectations of D&D that 5e went out of it's way (more like back into it's old ways) to meet. New players don't have those expectations (if they have any at all) of D&D but may well have some based on their exposure to some slice of the fantasy genre in other media (like movies, books, and, of course, MMOs).

5e meets the expectations of long-time & returning players pretty well.

To be clear, when I say returning players I do not mean players of 3.5 or 4 that still play and know all the rules. To me those are more like transitioning players, transitioning from recent editions to 5e. When I say returning players I am more referring to the people that played 1e/2e 20 years ago and though they have played D&D, they don't remember the rules and their expectations are of playing the game the way they played it 20 years ago. There is a stark difference between that type of returning player and the player that is transitioning from other editions. Those type of returning players are much more like new players. Yes they have played D&D, they may even remember enough to have some base expectations but for all intents and purposes they are a new player. So the base game is built is such a way as to be easy accessible to those players. It's fairly simple and easy to jump into. A quick reading of the starter set will give them the assumptions and flow and they can toss together a campaign using the base game without studying the books like it's the SATs and run a fine game.

The transitioning player is generally more versed in the rules of recent editions and they study the rules for 5e, they optimize and play at a much higher level. If the game was built out of the box targeted at that type of player it would not be accessible to those new and returning players. So they made the base game how they did to pull those folks back in and at the same time they gave the transitioning players the tools to tweak and fiddle and mold the game to their playstyle. The entire argument at this point seems to be a vocal group that wants the game built for their play-style because they don't want to play the base game but they also don't want to roll their sleeves up and design their game for their playstyle. They want out of the box monsters that are much more powerful to challenge their table with little to no work on their part and that they can run horribly and still be effective and when it doesn't work, they want to say that it is a design failing. What I am saying is that it is not a design failure, it is a DM failure. There may be a few tweaks that could be made to sand off the rough edges but they designed a game that works very well for their target, certainly nothing I would call "broken". And on this solid base it is very mold-able to fit for everyone from new players to seasoned professionals, from people that concentrate on combat to those that concentrate on other facets. Examine your playstyle, figure out how your style changes the base assumptions, then make the necessary adjustments to account for it. Expecting the game to be written for an individual playstyle is unreasonable.

 

[Tony Vargas]

To be clear, when I say returning players I do not mean players of 3.5 or 4 that still play and know all the rules. To me those are more like transitioning players, transitioning from recent editions to 5e.

That's clear, yes. I'd consider a returning player anyone who's been away from the game for a number of years. If I had to take a guess at the mode-average/representative 'returning' player, I'd say returning to the hobby after having last played AD&D prior to 2000, if only because the fad years were in the 80s.

And, BTW, there are folks who have been playing 2e AD&D or earlier /all this time/, and are 'transitioning' from that to 5e.

When I say returning players I am more referring to the people that played 1e/2e 20 years ago

So prettymuch on the same page.

There is a stark difference between that type of returning player and the player that is transitioning from other editions.

They're less hung up on minor differences, for instance. But while it's a clear difference, I don't agree it's stark. Their general expectation of what D&D is will be similar.

Those type of returning players are much more like new players.

I can't agree. I've run games for both sorts in the past. Even if they don't remember a lot of the details of the rules from their time playing D&D, they remember the some of the classes, have expectations about what they're like, have already come to terms with D&Dims, not just mechanics, but conventions that stray far from the genre.

New players still have to go through that whole acclimatization process.

So the base game is built is such a way as to be easy accessible to those players. It's fairly simple and easy to jump into.

For returning players, sure, it can be. They're not puzzling over the very concept of roleplaying, they know what classes are (and to start with the fighter, 'cause it'll be simpler), they know that they'll be exploring dungeons, watching out for traps, fighting monsters, collecting treasure, etc...

That sounds obvious because it is once you've done it. Even 20 years later.

The transitioning player is generally more versed in the rules of recent editions and they study the rules for 5e, they optimize and play at a much higher level.

Well, maybe - not every long-time D&Der is an optimizer or considers 'skilled play' the object of the game. What they will tend to do is skim through and note how the new ed is different from the old. They look for the differences among the similarities. 5e works fine for that.

Returning players look for familiar things (that they do remember or that trigger memory) as a starting point, and fill in the blanks, they may or may not note which bits are new or different. 5e, with it's emphasis on classic feel, is just about ideal for them.

New players don't do either. They have to take in the whole thing. 5e's not so conducive to that. It's very complex and inconsistent, since it's had to retain enough similarity to multiple past editions to make returning and transitioning players comfortable.

So they made the base game how they did to pull those folks back in and at the same time they gave the transitioning players the tools to tweak and fiddle and mold the game to their playstyle.

The target audience for 5e is clearly existing and returning fans of the game, yes.

The entire argument at this point seems to be a vocal group that wants the game built for their play-style

The game is built to Empower the DM to impose the playstyle he wants. The whole sorta 'modular' (not the word I'd've used, but oh well) design approach, with many different optional pieces, supports that.

But, it's most practical to get to the desired style by opting into modules or banning things you don't care for. Modding is harder, but experienced DMs, even (especially!) returning ones, are probably accustomed to that. And, of course, it's up to the DM to do it.

They want out of the box monsters that are much more powerful to challenge their table with little to no work on their part and that they can run horribly and still be effective and when it doesn't work, they want to say that it is a design failing. What I am saying is that it is not a design failure

They're not great, but there are encounter guidelines, no matter how over the top a set of players might be, there's a setting on the dial that'll challenge them, it might be some ungodly multiple of 'hard,' but it's just a matter of choosing to present the challenge...

they designed a game that works very well for their target, certainly nothing I would call "broken".

If the expectation is a game that's clear/simple/consistent and just works out the box, it's "broken."
If the expectation is that the game will be D&D, it's fine, just season to taste.

 

[Celtavian]

Sorry but I am struggling to find other explanations. The OP posts up this post as his anecdotal proof that the game is broken, but in his example he admits it was a single encounter and not 1 of 6-8 a day. He acknowledges that his player's characters are built, outfitted, and played above the base assumptions. He picks some fairly powerful creatures then plays them horribly, he put no thought into using any type of tactics or designing his encounter with even simple terrain and strategy, and did no prep to know what his monsters could do, then whines about how the system is broken.

No. You have what you believe and are making arrogant, asinine assumptions about those that disagree with you.

The system is designed for the lowest common denominator. Inexperienced players, 6-8 encounters, low/no magic.

And yet the game designers don't design adventures with this in mind. So are your base assumptions true and the adventure designers wrong or vice versa? You know none of the modules I've played written by WotC follow your baseline. You know that, right? Y How many times does this have to be repeated before you admit that the game designers themselves are not following the baseline expectations you claim the game assumes? Yet if the module designers aren't following these base expectations, then why are you expecting DMs to do it? Can you explain this given your obviously much higher intelligence than the OP and others you claim aren't "very smart."

You're not struggling to find a reason. You're just not paying attention to the modules being produced by the company you claim follows a certain baseline.

I think this was a good choice because it targets new players and as a system is much easier to manipulate from that baseline upwards to accommodate various ranges of experience and play-styles than it is to start at a higher level and then have new players trying to tweak the system downward. So you have this system set at the base, then you give your players a bunch of magic, run 1-2 encounters an adventure day, and fail to design your encounters to ultilize terrain, startegy, and the creatures abilties effectively and then complain that the system is at fault. You complain that monsters like Marilith's and Balor's don't have enough abilities but they are lacking because of your game design and play of them.

I don't care what you think was a good choice. It isn't what WotC is following when they make their adventures. More to the point, it doesn't match their capabilities at higher level, provably so.

The monsters are lacking because they are lacking. It is not a debate, but a provable fact. A party of adventures designed using the baseline you claim the game follows (which it doesn't) have far more options to crush creatures than the creatures have to crush them. I could design a base party using the base rules and easily defeat a balor or marilith. They are very weak.

If your characters are walking into a fight with a single Marilith as there 1 to 2 encounters per day and are all decked out with Magic, then yes the Marilith is woefully outmatched. But let's think about it, Truesight (a strong ability), resistance to non-magic weapons (strong if your players don't all have magic weapons like the game is designed), 7 attacks per round, one of which is a tail attack that grapples the target which can be the first attack granting advantage for all the rest of the attacks that round (very strong ability), can Parry as a reaction to increase their AC to 23 for an attack and is reactionary so can do them once every single turn in a round, magic resistance, Teleport, and solid saves. I have used this monster in an encounter with a couple lesser henchmen and it was no cakewalk for my group. I adequately used it abilities, I designed the encounter in a way where I could the terrain and it's abilities optimally for best results.

How did the marilith take better advantage of terrain than your players? How did their teleport help them? It takes an action and eliminates their ability to attack. Did they seriously not scout ahead or use missile fire which utterly defeats a marilith? Did you realize their parry doesn't work against missile weapons? Did your players play dumb and wander up to melee it? Perhaps your players aren't good at tactics or building characters? Might that be a reason your players had a hard time? It could be. Whereas tactically intelligent players that build ranged monsters may just rip your encounters apart?

So maybe you can better explain exactly what the issue is cause I am just not seeing it. I guess I do see it, you want to play the game completely different than it is built and in that case, yes it is broken for YOU, but that's your fault not the system's. If you have a Ferrari and then try to use it as a dumptruck, don't go whining that Ferrari's are junk cause you can't haul dirt with it. Either play the game as it is designed or understand that you, as the DM, will have to tweak it for your style of play and you, as DM, will need to play your encounters to a level that is consistent with your players. And again, they have given you all the tools to do this, they just aren't doing it for you because they want the game accessible to new/returning inexperienced players.

I am a returning player. My entire group is comprised of returning players. None of us are happy with the game system and its lack of options and its weak monsters. So 5E not exactly doing the job for some of us returning players. Does that mean it's not working as intended? Only sales and longevity will determine that from a business perspective. Personally, if I can't make it work, I'll have to do something else.

Is that not what some of us are trying to do? Find a way to make it work for our play-style. I think that is the point of the discussion. To point out that 5E out of the box isn't well-designed for experienced, tactically oriented optimizers. It has weak points in monster and adventure design that make it too easy a game. We are pointing out the specific problems. What custom options are a problem, what spells, what class options, and the like.

I'm sorry if you can't see the problems with mariliths and balors. I've run them as well against optimized and normal (mean rules as intended) parties, both times it got smoked. My parties tend to control terrain. Only if I do something like Flamestrike did where I make the environment something they can't alter due to power levels outside their control can I change this. The first game we played we had some challenges. As soon as the group found out Smiting and Ranged attacks were number one for offense, every single party they make now is comprised of those types of characters with a bard and some kind of healer support. 5E monsters can't handle optimized parties any better than 3E. So heavy modification is required.

These threads tend to have a bunch of folks like you thinking we're saying, "5E so bad." While someone like you says, "5E is not bad. You're just dumb." When what's really being discussed is, "What are the optimization options in 5E. How do they affect the game. How do we get them under control. How do we design monsters and challenges for optimized parties because like 3E, 5E can't handle optimizers very well."

Regardless of what you think, folks like myself and CapnZapp are sharp folks. We play with the math until we get what we want. We've been playing these games for a long time. We've modified probably every edition we've played to suit what we want done. We'll find a way with 5E or move to a different game. D&D won't care one iota if we can't make their game work. They'll sell to those that enjoy it and accept the loss of customers. Just like they've always done.

One thing's for sure, I wish the module designers were using the vision you outlined for this game. It might actually make their modules challenging. You may be able to make claims about, "We're not doing it as intended. You're dumb" to back up your viewpoint, but it sure seems like BS when the modules designed and sold by the game company don't follow the game's vision at all. I do expect to have a challenging module if I pay money for it. If 6 to 8 encounters per day is how that is done, I sure wish the WotC module designers would follow the rules they expect us to follow for adventure design to make it challenging. As of right now, their adventures are not challenging. They rarely use the 6 to 8 encounters per day. In fact, I've experience of an overabundance of reliance on one or two encounters per day. Why? Because 6 to 8 encounters a day doesn't make for a very interesting story, especially if they try to shoehorn it into every single scenario. So may be relying on six to eight encounters a day doesn't a very smart design decision to begin with.