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

[tetrasodium]

I'll say it again, 5e has something similiar, just in reverse.

First, there is no more dr/5 or anything fiddly like that. There is resistance, vulnerability and immunity. Because that is easier to remember.

Vulnerability Bludgeoning = Resistance to all damage that is not Bludgeoning and 1/2ing hp.

Mathematically, it works out to be the same.

Vampires aren't vulnerable to radiant damage, but their regeneration of 20 hp a round turns off if you hit them with radiant. That serves the same purpose.

Black Puddings are 100% immune to all slashing damage, no matter if it is magical or not.

These things exist in the game, they provide optimal strategies to killing the creature. Sure, you don't need radiant damage to kill zombies, but since radiant bypasses their undead fortitude, it certainly makes the fight much eaiser.

the problem with resistance in 5e is that you can probably count on one hand all the creatures in the mm, volos, & mtof that are not "nonmagical b/p/s". If every magic weapon is enough to bypass nearly all resistance in the game & the resistance of virtually every creature any character is likely to ever encounter with it then there is no meaning to it.

Even things with a callout for silver like vampires & lycanthropes still dump that for a simple +1 weapon or even a +0 that happens to be "Magic". It's not like you need a +4=5 holy avenger to have a "magic" weapon, the nonmagic bps resistance is only relevant up till like 4-6ish when martial types are probably starting to come across their first magic weapon & casters never need to care about it since cantrips are not nonmagical b/p/s
.
Creatures with physical immunities like the one you list, look to be limited exclusively to oozes, & are only slightly more common than the one or two(less?) creatures that need more than a magic weapon. There's a huge gulf between "fiddly" and "almost entirely irrelevant waste of ink with no impact on the game."

The difference between dr & immunity is that one is subjective "do I want to use that lightweight spare instead of my $niceWeapon" while the other is objective "something is better than nothing" so leads to thoughtful choices and tradeoffs rather than "faceroll through like normal unless it's an ooze."

 

[Chaosmancer]

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I'm not vehemently opposed to your position. I just feel that having the bard be pretty much useless fighting a skeleton with a rapier, while the cleric bashes happily away with his mace feels more satisfying than the bard doing her usual rapier damage, while the cleric does more. One time, while GMing a 3e game the players ran into skeletons. The only one with a bashing weapon was the wizard. She wisely tossed her staff to the fighter. It was a bit of a tough fight, and after it was over, the wizard took back her staff, looked the fighter in the eye, and suggested he invest in a Warhammer. I just liked that scene. I like that sometimes the characters have a hard struggle because they are lacking the right weapon or cold iron, or whatever. And the cries of, "Is it silver we need to fight demons, or cold iron?"

Needing radiant damage or silver or a bludgeoning weapon puts the pressure on in a nice horror story kind of way. I miss that in it is not as prevalent in 5e.

I can see that, but I feel like there an important question for your first point.

More satisfying for who?

Some classes, like the fighter and the rogue, have been built for a single solution to combat problems. And, sure, the fighter can invest in warhammers, but there are no finesse bludgeoning weapons for the rogue to use.

So, is it satisfying for the player who becomes "pretty much useless"?

I remember we had a DM who sent a pack of werewolves after us at like, 4th level, and I mean after us. They ambushed us. We had a single magic weapon, and a single mage who could cantrip them. And I will admit, the fight was challenging and tactically insane. But, I also remember one of the players who didn't have the weapon or the anything like it. He just stood in the corner of the map and passed his turn, for the entire fight. And when we were like "hey dude, fighting for our lives here, help please?" his response was essentially "I can't do anything in this stupid fight, so I'm standing where I won't get hurt while you idiots die".

I fully admit, he wasn't a pleasant person to play with and he dropped soon after, but the point was... I couldn't fault him for getting frustrated. His character was completely useless in terms of actually killing them. The only thing most of our party tried was grappling them and pinning them so that the people who could damage the creatures could focus on a few at a time.

So, I can see why the designers made 5e with the balance towards "you do good, and you awesome" instead of "you suck and you do good" because players don't like feeling like they are worthless in their power fantasy game.

Still, nothing wrong with doing that once in a while. As an occasional fight, it can be bloody awesome to try and figure out how to deal with an enemy you are not equipped for. But as the norm? I don't think I would enjoy it.

the problem with resistance in 5e is that you can probably count on one hand all the creatures in the mm, volos, & mtof that are not "nonmagical b/p/s". If every magic weapon is enough to bypass nearly all resistance in the game & the resistance of virtually every creature any character is likely to ever encounter with it then there is no meaning to it.

Even things with a callout for silver like vampires & lycanthropes still dump that for a simple +1 weapon or even a +0 that happens to be "Magic". It's not like you need a +4=5 holy avenger to have a "magic" weapon, the nonmagic bps resistance is only relevant up till like 4-6ish when martial types are probably starting to come across their first magic weapon & casters never need to care about it since cantrips are not nonmagical b/p/s
.
Creatures with physical immunities like the one you list, look to be limited exclusively to oozes, & are only slightly more common than the one or two(less?) creatures that need more than a magic weapon. There's a huge gulf between "fiddly" and "almost entirely irrelevant waste of ink with no impact on the game."

The difference between dr & immunity is that one is subjective "do I want to use that lightweight spare instead of my $niceWeapon" while the other is objective "something is better than nothing" so leads to thoughtful choices and tradeoffs rather than "faceroll through like normal unless it's an ooze."

I will put this out there, and I think I know you will disagree, but the Monster Manual was not written with the assumption that the players will have magical weapons. Magical weapons are supposed to be somewhat rare and special, that's why the game specifically says you can't just buy them.

Which is why the game doesn't make a big distinction between how magical a weapon is. Because it is not assumed that the player will have a magical weapon when fighting the monster. This is also why the Blade Pact, Moon Druid, and Monk abilities are treated as big deals. Because in the design logic of the game, they are big deals. Because dealing magical damage is pretty rare for a melee type.

Now, if you play the game where by 5th level every character has at least one magical weapon, then yes, it will seem pointless. And I can agree with that, because I've seen it happen and I just tend to forget those monsters have resistance.

But, I have also played in games and fights where that is not the case, and where fighting a few devils when no one has magical weapons, is a terrifying prospect, because they take forever to actually drop.

It is in what the game was designed around, not how we actually play it, that the stuff in the books tends to make the most sense.

 

[Undrave]

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.

Well yeah, which is why I don't mind in video games but I mind in DnD.

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.

Well I think it's punishing the player for playing the way their class is written to play out.

Tank see enemies, goes to the front to protect the squishies and takes a hit (because in 5e you can't make your AC so high you can never get hit) but then gets one of his class feature, his high HP, basically taken away by a creature that, quite frankly, shouldn't even have that ability in the first place because it makes no sense. If it surprises you in any way, like an ambush or you just can' avoid it.

And then you need to trade in the right token for the priviledge of your character functioning as designed back. Same if you include the idea of needing a knowledge check to know NOT to get hit by the Clay Golem... You get punished fo failing one check and engaging the Clay Golem in melee...but even then how do you NOT get hit by it if you don't have room to run away, because this is 5e and enemies WILL hit you.

It's again a "You must be this magical for this" (As an aside, I played the Strahd season of AL and that whole thing was just one big "You must be this magical to play", it was NOT designed with consideration for the random assortment of characters you can end up with in AL at all!) as in, stay away and pepper it with spells or just make its ability trivial and meaningless with your spell. Gotta drain those spell slots.

And it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other monsters. If this kind of thing was more the norm I wouldn't consider the Clay Golem dumb. It would be more book keeping stuff in the game but at least you'd expect it.

I get the idea of punishing recklessness when attacking strange new monsters, but DnD just doesn't have a way to effectively telegraph how dangerous certain monsters are compared to others for this to properly work. If the Clay Golem power was some sort of corrosion effect you could at least showcase that when the creature shows up you know. How are characters or even players supposed to know that if the blob of mud hits them they get lowered max HP?!

Is 5e easy? Sure it can be. Does it matter to everybody? Probably not.

Could it offer more challenge? Yeah, why not? Should that challenge just be the same 'challenge' as in previous editions? I'm not convinced.

 

[Undrave]

I remember we had a DM who sent a pack of werewolves after us at like, 4th level, and I mean after us. They ambushed us. We had a single magic weapon, and a single mage who could cantrip them. And I will admit, the fight was challenging and tactically insane. But, I also remember one of the players who didn't have the weapon or the anything like it. He just stood in the corner of the map and passed his turn, for the entire fight. And when we were like "hey dude, fighting for our lives here, help please?" his response was essentially "I can't do anything in this stupid fight, so I'm standing where I won't get hurt while you idiots die".

I played Adenture League in the Strahd season and one time the only players who showed up were me (with my Fighter), a Ranger and a Rogue and we ended up in a fight with a lone werewolf with only a Silver Dagger between us. once the Rogue dropped, the Ranger player and I just passed the dagger like Bucky and Cap passing the shield in Civil War... except we were barely doing any damage at all and the werewolf had trouble dealing with my protection style anyway. After a while the DM just gave up and told us we ended up winning.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well yeah, which is why I don't mind in video games but I mind in DnD.



Well I think it's punishing the player for playing the way their class is written to play out.

Tank see enemies, goes to the front to protect the squishies and takes a hit (because in 5e you can't make your AC so high you can never get hit) but then gets one of his class feature, his high HP, basically taken away by a creature that, quite frankly, shouldn't even have that ability in the first place because it makes no sense. If it surprises you in any way, like an ambush or you just can' avoid it.

And then you need to trade in the right token for the priviledge of your character functioning as designed back. Same if you include the idea of needing a knowledge check to know NOT to get hit by the Clay Golem... You get punished fo failing one check and engaging the Clay Golem in melee...but even then how do you NOT get hit by it if you don't have room to run away, because this is 5e and enemies WILL hit you.

It's again a "You must be this magical for this" (As an aside, I played the Strahd season of AL and that whole thing was just one big "You must be this magical to play", it was NOT designed with consideration for the random assortment of characters you can end up with in AL at all!) as in, stay away and pepper it with spells or just make its ability trivial and meaningless with your spell. Gotta drain those spell slots.

And it sticks out like a sore thumb compared to other monsters. If this kind of thing was more the norm I wouldn't consider the Clay Golem dumb. It would be more book keeping stuff in the game but at least you'd expect it.

I get the idea of punishing recklessness when attacking strange new monsters, but DnD just doesn't have a way to effectively telegraph how dangerous certain monsters are compared to others for this to properly work. If the Clay Golem power was some sort of corrosion effect you could at least showcase that when the creature shows up you know. How are characters or even players supposed to know that if the blob of mud hits them they get lowered max HP?!

Is 5e easy? Sure it can be. Does it matter to everybody? Probably not.

Could it offer more challenge? Yeah, why not? Should that challenge just be the same 'challenge' as in previous editions? I'm not convinced.

CoS 20-22 are responsible for a lot of the "must be this magical" problem with 5e CoS. Yes gathering all the things you will need is a huge part of any ravenloft adventure, but the difference was that gathering so much of it was not something you really did much of while adventuring because they shifted so much of the entry level stuff to AL factions set in FR so you needed to wait till you could go from nonmagical P/P/S to +2 & +3 with special very awesome enchantments instead of doing interesting things with some of the groups trying to resist strahd in his domain.

as to ac so high you can't get hit...

5e highest possible AC

The Highest Possible AC is 70

• Permanent AC: 34.
• Combat AC: 40.
• One-attack AC with the same build: 59 (66 max)
• One-attack AC with specialized build: 62 (70 max)

-source

 

[billd91]

:mostly rhetorical: What's the point of combat if it's not deadly? Why bother with encounters that are there just for XP boosters or to fit the "minimum # of encounters per day". It's fine in OD&D where you can roll through 6 -8 encounters in an hour of play in your 70s style dungeon of 100 rooms. It's a poor fit for any modern versions of the game.​

​

​

​

Because not everyone believes all encounters need to be level appropriate? Some will be, sure. But if you want to present a world that feels realistic, you're going to encounter some things the party will outclass. Should those be hand-waved away?​

 

[billd91]

the problem with resistance in 5e is that you can probably count on one hand all the creatures in the mm, volos, & mtof that are not "nonmagical b/p/s". If every magic weapon is enough to bypass nearly all resistance in the game & the resistance of virtually every creature any character is likely to ever encounter with it then there is no meaning to it.

If magic weapons are pervasive for the PCs, then sure, the resistance to non-magical weapons may not be that meaningful... to your PCs, depending on the sort of campaign you're running. But not all campaigns run that way. Not all 5e campaigns will have many magic weapons. Some campaigns may make put more emphasis on the experience of NPCs around the PCs and whether or not they can stand up to these weirdly tough monsters themselves.

Just because something isn't particularly meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to another DM or group of players.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

True, but that kind of assumption is necessary when non-warlock spellcasting classes are designed to have a rather impressive arsenal of daily spell slots.

So you either have that assumption in place, or you have to design spellcasters differently. Like they did with the warlock. Or any 4e class, really.

You could probably reduce the number of spell slots overall, and get a tighter game where fullcasters feels about the same as they’re supposed to.

anyway, I think 5e is simply the second least accidentally lethal game, but least challenging? I’d give that to 3.5, personally. Much to easy to powergame a group into invulnerability, IME.

4e and 5e, for different reasons, you can always make a fair encounter that can kill the PCs or otherwise challenge them.

But 5e is not set to Hard by default. You have to turn the dial a bit. Give goblins archers and falconers, don’t expect a pack of wolves to be a real threat, give monsters better skills better stats and more to work with.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

If magic weapons are pervasive for the PCs, then sure, the resistance to non-magical weapons may not be that meaningful... to your PCs, depending on the sort of campaign you're running. But not all campaigns run that way. Not all 5e campaigns will have many magic weapons. Some campaigns may make put more emphasis on the experience of NPCs around the PCs and whether or not they can stand up to these weirdly tough monsters themselves.

Just because something isn't particularly meaningful to you doesn't mean it isn't meaningful to another DM or group of players.

Also, tbf, lamp oil on a sword does fire damage. There are ways other than magic to get around most resistances.

 

[Oofta]

Also, tbf, lamp oil on a sword does fire damage. There are ways other than magic to get around most resistances.

Maybe in your game it does, but that's definitely house rule territory. There's nothing wrong with that, but it's certainly not universal.