Curmudjinn
Explorer
That's not the game. That's the current generation of players.
D&D 5E Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
Helldritch
Hero
Again I have to agree with those who say that lethality is in the hands of the DM. 5ed makes healing a bit trivial when you can rest. But the fights are no less dangerous. I have seen more TPK in this game than in 3.xed. The easy healing overnight can get some player really cocky in their play styles. But once they get with a DM worth its salt, it changes a lot.
Again, if you want your games to be challenging then you have to do the followings.
* 4-6 encounters per day. Enforce this bazooka style. Avoid the 5MWD at all costs. I personnaly allow only two short rests per day with only one long rest at night. If the long rest is disturbed for more than a minute, it starts over again. If the players are trying to rest (even on a short rest) I roll if there is a random encounter (once per hour) until the 4-6 encounters per day is met.
* Avoid the whack a mole play. If a character falls and the enemy is intelligent and see the character getting back up because of a small heal, then smash that player and if he falls, then FINISH HIM! The players are doing it, so should you. Don't over do it tough, animals and dumb monsters are... well dumb and rarely use tactics beside hitting the current threat. Use your logic.
* Never allow the players to leave and adventure site like a base/temple/fortress where the enemies are organized without having Seek & Destroy party going out to search for the PC. And do not have these S&D parties do not count towards the total enemies in the base/temple/fortress. In addition, they should be hard to deadly encounters. Have them have dispel magic (in cases where the players use Tiny Hut like spells.)
* Never put a BBEG alone after the players have gone away to rest. Either have the BBEG gone or make him get reinforcement.
* Have more that one type of enemy in encounters. Mono type enemy encounters are a great way to facilitate players' life. It is also, IMHO, a lazy way to DM. Why sent 6 orogs at your party when you can send them 5 with one shaman/cleric? A bless spell on the orogs makes them much stronger.
*Change the equipment on certain monsters. Some monsters were strangely designed, with suboptimal equipment. A veteran should have a shield or give him a great sword instead of a long sword. It is as if the creator had weapon specialization in mind then decided against that but forgot to review the equipment. Why would a Hobgoblin captain be less armored than his troops? Give him a better armor and a shield and that hobgoblin becomes much more dangerous.
*Change the spell list of some monsters. Again the logic of the equipment change apply here. The different shaman/priest do not have sacred flame. This is a flaw where I automatically give them my own equivalent Unholy Flame (fire/necrotic damage instead of holy). Putting bless on this list is a no brainer.
* Players develop a reputation. Yep the higher they rise in level, the more they are known. Especially if they are venturing in a small area. Intelligent monsters will know of them and some will spy on them to learn their tactics and habit. They like to boost themselves before a combat or they boost one character? Then the main villains will know and will act accordingly.
I have seen a lot of gaming groups over the years. Be it OD&D, 1ed, 2ed, 3.xed, 4ed or 5ed some were saying the game was too easy, others too hard. It is almost an art to achieve balance between too easy and too hard.
Again, if you want your games to be challenging then you have to do the followings.
* 4-6 encounters per day. Enforce this bazooka style. Avoid the 5MWD at all costs. I personnaly allow only two short rests per day with only one long rest at night. If the long rest is disturbed for more than a minute, it starts over again. If the players are trying to rest (even on a short rest) I roll if there is a random encounter (once per hour) until the 4-6 encounters per day is met.
* Avoid the whack a mole play. If a character falls and the enemy is intelligent and see the character getting back up because of a small heal, then smash that player and if he falls, then FINISH HIM! The players are doing it, so should you. Don't over do it tough, animals and dumb monsters are... well dumb and rarely use tactics beside hitting the current threat. Use your logic.
* Never allow the players to leave and adventure site like a base/temple/fortress where the enemies are organized without having Seek & Destroy party going out to search for the PC. And do not have these S&D parties do not count towards the total enemies in the base/temple/fortress. In addition, they should be hard to deadly encounters. Have them have dispel magic (in cases where the players use Tiny Hut like spells.)
* Never put a BBEG alone after the players have gone away to rest. Either have the BBEG gone or make him get reinforcement.
* Have more that one type of enemy in encounters. Mono type enemy encounters are a great way to facilitate players' life. It is also, IMHO, a lazy way to DM. Why sent 6 orogs at your party when you can send them 5 with one shaman/cleric? A bless spell on the orogs makes them much stronger.
*Change the equipment on certain monsters. Some monsters were strangely designed, with suboptimal equipment. A veteran should have a shield or give him a great sword instead of a long sword. It is as if the creator had weapon specialization in mind then decided against that but forgot to review the equipment. Why would a Hobgoblin captain be less armored than his troops? Give him a better armor and a shield and that hobgoblin becomes much more dangerous.
*Change the spell list of some monsters. Again the logic of the equipment change apply here. The different shaman/priest do not have sacred flame. This is a flaw where I automatically give them my own equivalent Unholy Flame (fire/necrotic damage instead of holy). Putting bless on this list is a no brainer.
* Players develop a reputation. Yep the higher they rise in level, the more they are known. Especially if they are venturing in a small area. Intelligent monsters will know of them and some will spy on them to learn their tactics and habit. They like to boost themselves before a combat or they boost one character? Then the main villains will know and will act accordingly.
I have seen a lot of gaming groups over the years. Be it OD&D, 1ed, 2ed, 3.xed, 4ed or 5ed some were saying the game was too easy, others too hard. It is almost an art to achieve balance between too easy and too hard.
@Curmudjinn no that is the rules of 5e itself the system was designed to work as I described
As to the 5e clay golem, it does say "or other magic"... almost like the person who wrote that assumed that the folks working on spells & other monsters wouldn't be streamlining it so much?
Also compare the effect between both versions, the 3.5 one was much more interesting
5e.
3.5
It's almost like there was more thought towards being interesting given to the 3.5 version because things like that were more common & expected to be nontrivial with that one being especially so. If caster level checks were not removed with SR in 5e, perhaps the 5e version would have enough design space remaining to be equally interesting?
This particular case is an example of how the oversimplification of so much in 5e is bad on an almost purely objective level when so many of the others allow more subjective weighting of pros & cons
excuse me? I want the clay golem thing you describe? I pointed at 3.5 wraiths, wights, oozes, trogs, some poisons, rust monsters, & so on along with the defanging of things like that in 5e. greater restoration being a 7th level spell in 3.5 is absolutely germane in that context. Have you not been paying attention?
As to the 5e clay golem, it does say "or other magic"... almost like the person who wrote that assumed that the folks working on spells & other monsters wouldn't be streamlining it so much?
Also compare the effect between both versions, the 3.5 one was much more interesting
5e.
3.5
It's almost like there was more thought towards being interesting given to the 3.5 version because things like that were more common & expected to be nontrivial with that one being especially so. If caster level checks were not removed with SR in 5e, perhaps the 5e version would have enough design space remaining to be equally interesting?
This particular case is an example of how the oversimplification of so much in 5e is bad on an almost purely objective level when so many of the others allow more subjective weighting of pros & cons
Attachments
Chaosmancer
Legend
"Or Other Magic" refers to things such as Heal, Wish, a class ability that says "spend X resource and the character is restored in a manner similiar to greater restoration" or a Philosopher's Stone from the Transmutation wizard, which I think can do that.
It certain doesn't mean "any" magic will work, Greater Restoration and similiar.
And, I'm not sure how you see that as less thought out that the 3.5 version. Which, to my mind, seems like such a tedious process.
To exemplify what I mean.
In 5e:
Cleric "I cast cure wounds, gain 10 hp"
Fighter "My max is still 50, so I'm only getting 5 of those"
Cleric "Okay, tomorrow I'll get a Greater Restoration and heal that, keep me informed where the limit is"
The party continues adventuring, the fighter is healed many times, keeping the hp limit at 50 for their max.
in 3.5 (Note, I'm not looking up exact values here, nor confirming Greater Restorations type)
Cleric "I cast cure wounds, gain back 25 hp"
Fighter "Maybe, this says you need to succeed a caster check to heal me"
Cleric "Right, roll, 23."
Fighter "Too low, I don't get any healing. I really need the hp though"
Cleric "I have some more slots, I'll try again, how do we get rid of this"
Fighter "Greater Restoration should work, if you can make the caster check for it to stick"
Cleric "I'm too low level for that, we'll have to get to town and see if someone can do that for us, 27 on this one, gain back 22 hp"
The party heads to town, getting in fights, every healing spell the cleric casts adds a second roll to overcome the curse. This adds dozens of rolls to the game and wastes quite a few of the clerics spell slots. They then learn that the local church can't heal the wound and they must travel to the city, adding more fights, more rolls, and more healing. The Fighter avoids combat as much as he can, since every hit means multiple spells to try and keep him alive.
3.5 doesn't seem better thought out to me. It seems more tedious.
Helldritch
Hero
I don't think one or the other is better. Each edition had its strength and weaknesses. The bloating numbers in 3.xed became apparent around level 9 but most campaigns (even then) were stopping around level 15 so it was not that of an hassle either. 3.xed had strong points going for it. 5ed is a trimmed downed edition with a lot less complexity and number crunching/keeping. This allow for a faster play and faster combats. Some combats in 3.xed could go on for 20+ rounds where a long combat in 5ed rarely goes beyond round 8 (there are exceptions of course).
The 5ed edition might be too trimmed down for some. But it is also an elegant edition. Maybe a 5.5ed is about to come out?
The 5ed edition might be too trimmed down for some. But it is also an elegant edition. Maybe a 5.5ed is about to come out?
JeffB
Legend
I'm the kind of guy who like to do mono-type run of PokémonI don't go looking for a Pokémon of the optimal type to face a challenge, I pull through with what I have and usually use neutral moves if I don't have super effectives one and make do.
So the golf-bag philosophy just doesn't interest me much. I'd rather see solutions being brought forth through combination of multiple character's abilities or at least have multiple paths to it.
IMO- a magic item/certain type of weapon should always give you something extra- They shouldn't be mandatory to make you un-suck.
E.g. Bludgeon rule vs. skeletons over the editions- Previous editions if you don't have a bludgeoning weapon you suck or are pretty useless- maybe don't even do any damage on a successful hit.
in 5E at least, the Bludgeon makes you more formidable without penalizing characters who may have a "signature weapons" that is not a hammer/mace. D&D Fighters with greatswords automatically do worse against skeletons with their chosen weapon than the Cleric? BS.
Last edited:
I think some of this comes back to "what is challenging". In my experience, after a certain level if you allow raise dead, death becomes a speed bump. On the other hand the 300 GP in diamonds for the components can be an obstacle for revivify in some campaigns.
I'd rather challenge my players in a variety of ways and not have to worry about accidentally killing off a PC that has done everything right. For example I think it's more of a challenge to slowly be turned to stone from a medusa than a single roll. Tactics and counters can come into play more than just random luck.
IMHO, having to haul around a dozen different weapons for whatever you might face was just annoying book-keeping and one I ignored in my home campaign in 3.5. Having to have a special McGuffin to take out the bad guy is fine every once in a while.
Also, @dnd4vr, I was just using "standard array" as a shorthand. If people truly do 4d6 drop lowest, it averages out to about the same (it's actually 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 according to this analysis). Of course you don't have that 9.86% chance of getting an 18, then again you don't have the chance of really poor rolls. A lot of people use far more permissive systems or put a floor on min rolls along with mins on primary ability scores. In addition the base assumption is no feats, multi-classing or magic items.
I'd rather challenge my players in a variety of ways and not have to worry about accidentally killing off a PC that has done everything right. For example I think it's more of a challenge to slowly be turned to stone from a medusa than a single roll. Tactics and counters can come into play more than just random luck.
IMHO, having to haul around a dozen different weapons for whatever you might face was just annoying book-keeping and one I ignored in my home campaign in 3.5. Having to have a special McGuffin to take out the bad guy is fine every once in a while.
Also, @dnd4vr, I was just using "standard array" as a shorthand. If people truly do 4d6 drop lowest, it averages out to about the same (it's actually 16, 14, 13, 12, 10, 9 according to this analysis). Of course you don't have that 9.86% chance of getting an 18, then again you don't have the chance of really poor rolls. A lot of people use far more permissive systems or put a floor on min rolls along with mins on primary ability scores. In addition the base assumption is no feats, multi-classing or magic items.
Especially because it's quite nasty for a CR 3 monster. Can't regain HP by any means or HP loss from any source, max HP reduces 10/HP day. Hope you have a 5th level cleric handy for that remove curse*!Earlier in a post I was lamenting the loss of mummy rot. I stand corrected, as its still a mummy feature. Really surprised I didn't get taken to task over this.
I may or may not have thrown a bunch of those at a party once, it was the inability to regain HP that nearly ended up dusting a couple of PCs once the cleric dropped.
*EDIT: it's remove curse, not remove disease.
CleverNickName
Limit Break Dancing (He/They)
I think Red Steel was from the "Savage Coast" campaign setting. It was made from depleted cinnabryl, I think?
EDIT: Yep. Here's a link to a wiki.
Similar Threads
