D&D 5E Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?

[Lanefan]

I've finally put the words to what bugs me about these so-called 'challenges' that are basically 'You need this spell to remove this condition' or 'you need a weapon made of X metal to hit this creature'... The problem is that it's basically the game dictating you how to solve a problem.

Got hit by an ability drain? Greater Restauration. Werewolf? Silver weapon.

I think it's a lot more interesting to overcome challenges with what you have rather than to always have the perfect solution the designer wanted you to have.

Which then means it's on the DM to ensure those solutions aren't easily (or at all) available at least the first time.

It almost comes back to the whole troll-vs-fire debate. After meeting a few werecreatures they'll eventually (maybe) realize that silver weapons are the answer, but until then they're just using whatever they've got and have to learn by trial and error.

As for Greater Restoration, a DM who doesn't want ability drain easily undone* can either ensure there's no NPCs available or willing to cast it, or can make it hella costly thus forcing a "do we really need this" decision.
That said, parties of high enough level to be casting GR in the field have, IMO, earned it.

* - such a DM might also be described as a hardass if ability drain is at all common in that game.

So anything that's basically a video game door with only ONE key irks me greatly.

Thing is, in a video game you're restricted by what the programming allows you to do. In a typical RPG there's more room for workarounds, leaving true "one-key doors" to show up only as occasional plot devices.

 

[Lanefan]

I use Greater Restoration (which is 5th level in 5e)

Thanks for providing another example of how 5e is less challenging...

In 1e it's 7th level, meaning you need a 16th+ level Cleric to throw it. In 3e it's also 7th but here the caster need only be (13th or 14th, can't remember).

because it's specifically the ONLY thing that can remove the max HP drain of the 5e Clay Golem. I think it's a dumb design, but it's the kind of thing you want more of in the game and I oppose the idea.

Clay Golems have, I think, always had that ability. It's nasty, and that 5e has kept it is IMO a good thing.

So if the party gets into a fight with a Clay Golem and some characters take damage, maybe they'll just have to live with a lower h.p. max from here on. While they'll logically want to get it fixed, nothing anywhere says they MUST be able to, or be able to easily.

 

[Helldritch]

Yes. Yes. All obvious. The point is it used to to be more of a gamble how many resources a fight would cost you.

Yep, but that gamble was easier in previous editions. Goblins were no threat for a 12th level group. I remember saying: "You see a group of 100 goblins, what do you do?"
Naturally the players would say: "We slay them all."
Me after a second: "Ok, they're all dead." Now you arrive at the giants' cave...
In the fifth edition, that same encounter would be deadly. Now we can see the Moria scene where the heroes will flee rather than fight.

A problem with the 5ed is that new DM are not directed enough on the importance of the number of encounters per day and the variation of mobs.

 

[Lanefan]

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 1e you did half, I think, with melee weapons. Missiles varied.

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.

I don't think it's BS at all - I don't mind that while the greatwsord Fighter does better most (as in, nearly all) of the time, there's occasionally going to be situations where she's shown up by a normally-lesser combatant.

And it gives the normally-lesser combatant a chance to shine in melee now and then.

Never mind that while a Fighter might specialize with greatsword, surely if she's got two shreds of wisdom to rub together she's going to have other weapons on board for times when a greatsword makes no sense e.g. tight quarters (dagger), ranged combat (some sort of bow or sling), or opponents against whom swords are of limited use (mace or hammer).

 

[Helldritch]

On damage immunity.
I do prefer the damage immunity of fifth edition over the previous one. No need to carry 3 to 5 different weapons.

On energy draining.
This one saddens me a bit. In general the save is a bit too low on the monsters. Although I will admit that having your HP max reduced for 24 hours is a pain in the a** and no fun at all. The new effect is elegant, but it is a wee bit too forgiving on the save.

 

[THEMNGMNT]

I'm satisfied with 5E's challenge level.

The characters in my main campaign are 12th level. Stats generated with standard point buy. Somewhat overleveled with magic items (I love me some cool magic items).

Thus far I've killed two characters (one came back, one did not) and can consistently have one or more characters making death saving throws in every adventure (but not every session).

Between the paladin's aura, the rogue's evasion, and the bard's counterspell...they are really hard to take down with spells. Direct physical damage seems to work best. So an archmage isn't much of a threat, but a giant is. I often max out enemy hit points so they stick around another round or two and have enough time to do their cool tricks.

Recently I've been borrowing powers from 4E monsters to give to their 5E versions...but I often forget to apply them once the dice start rolling. Additional powers also somewhat slow down combat, which is already a challenge with five players. I'll keep trying till I get it right.

Typically I run multiple Deadly+ encounters with enemies arriving in waves. I might only have 2 or 3 of these encounters per adventuring day, but the combined XP budget for all encounters is usually very close to the guidelines for total XP per adventuring day. So I think the published assumptions are valid and somewhat useful.

I often hear that 5E breaks down at higher levels but thus far I've not seen it.

 

[Helldritch]

All editions broke down at high level. High level in 5ed being around level 15. But it is not a fatal break down. It is just more work for the DM. A lot more work.

 

[Curmudjinn]

Oh, well there it is. The Godwin of the new age - "Millennials killed D&D."

In relation to placing any negative game impact on the GM instead of the player's actions, yes, it's the generation.

 

[Curmudjinn]

There's a difference between the challenge of each edition and the lethality of them.
I don't think the challenge has differed much from 3.5 to 5th, but the lethality has went down across 3.5/4/5 compared to older.

 

[tetrasodium]

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?

There's a point where "faster combat" becomes adam west batman fights, needing to squeeze 6-8 of them in becomes problematic to many settings & just as slapsticky as that was though.

Don't get me wrong, the idea behind simplifying & streamlining things was sound but they did it to everything & went too far in too many cases as new & different problems piled up. Take the dials on dmg267... sure they might touch on one small part of a problem, but they all either create larger problems or are made irrelevant because of other changes between editions

There's a difference between the challenge of each edition and the lethality of them.
I don't think the challenge has differed much from 3.5 to 5th, but the lethality has went down across 3.5/4/5 compared to older.

The lethality & risk when down so much that the challenge is too easily treated as just theater.
As to millenials being responsible for anything in the 5e ruleset... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Crawford Mearls & so on are not millenials. Blaming millenials is like blaming them for growing up for how their boomer/xenniel/genx parents chose to raise them.