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

[JeffB]

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?​

I'm not concerned with level appropriateness, I'm speaking about an arbitrary # of encounters per day as a rule-instead of telling DM's to run how much or little combat as appropriate/wanted that is story/fictionally appropriate for the game as run at the individual DM's tables.

Some will argue "they need to provide some guidance" And I would agree -guidance- for all types of game styles. Not design the system around an arbitrary # that totally whacks out the CR and XP/levelling system as presented if you differ from that norm (and IME- it's still not terribly good when adhered to closely).

So yes, I say handwave them away if the DM feels they are not important. When I am running games, I am not concerned about having a minimum # encounters just to appease the system mechanics.

 

[Oofta]

I'm not concerned with level appropriateness, I'm speaking about an arbitrary # of encounters per day as a rule-instead of telling DM's to run how much or little combat as appropriate/wanted that is story/fictionally appropriate for the game as run at the individual DM's tables.

Some will argue "they need to provide some guidance" And I would agree -guidance- for all types of game styles. Not design the system around an arbitrary # that totally whacks out the CR and XP/levelling system as presented if you differ from that norm (and IME- it's still not terribly good when adhered to closely).

So yes, I say handwave them away if the DM feels they are not important. When I am running games, I am not concerned about having a minimum # encounters just to appease the system mechanics.

So if I'm misunderstanding, I apologize. But it seems like you're complaining that because you don't follow the guidelines the system doesn't work very well for you.

The game designers have to make some assumptions somewhere when coming up with design and guidelines. No, they didn't design for a 5 minute work day, that was one of the bigger complaints about previous editions. So they designed around a longer work "day" and gave you alternate rest rules if you have issues getting enough encounters in between long rests.

What else could they possibly do? There's no way to design a system for everyone. I have issues with 5E, things I wish they would have done differently. But getting rid of assuming a 5-minute work day is not one.

 

[Undrave]

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.

You know, speaking of that first part...

Am I the only one who thinks that a SWORD doing less damage than a STAFF to a skeleton is really stupid? Like really dumb? The sword is still a giant hunk of metal! When it hits those bones its gonna break them just the same as a bludgeoning weapon! Plus, have you ever watched Forged in Fire? They test all sorts of blades on pig carcasses on that show and they more often than not manage to slice through the spine!

I can totally see how piercing weapon wouldn't work, since there's nothing to jab into, but slashing weapons? Nope. If in that scene the Fighter was using a rapier or a spear that would make sense but a sword or axe? Nah, the wizard should keep their stick and witty remark.

 

[JeffB]

So if I'm misunderstanding, I apologize. But it seems like you're complaining that because you don't follow the guidelines the system doesn't work very well for you.

Not exactly- I'm saying the game should not assume X amount of combat, and design the game and PC's abilities around X amount of combat- with very specific rules. In typical D&D where classes all have their own little set of internal rules to "refresh"- per short rest, per long rest. and there is the inherent caster vs non caster issue of Vancian casting-The DM now has to design the adventure around a game mechanic to "ensure balance" instead of what is appropriate for the adventure/story/fiction. Fiction should inform the rules, not Rules informing the fiction (IMO of course)

See the new article from JT and how they handled it in 13th Age- which eliminates this because thecaster classes are far more balanced and all classes work off the same general frameworks and uses a per 4 combat model. Doesn't matter if it's 4 combats in 3 days or 4 combats in 4 hours or how level appropriate they are/aren't.

 

[Oofta]

Not exactly- I'm saying the game should not assume X amount of combat, and design the game and PC's abilities around X amount of combat- with very specific rules. In typical D&D where classes all have their own little set of internal rules to "refresh"- per short rest, per long rest. and there is the inherent caster vs non caster issue of Vancian casting-The DM now has to design the adventure around a game mechanic to "ensure balance" instead of what is appropriate for the adventure/story/fiction. Fiction should inform the rules, not Rules informing the fiction (IMO of course)

See the new article from JT and how they handled it in 13th Age- which eliminates this because thecaster classes are far more balanced and all classes work off the same general frameworks and uses a per 4 combat model. Doesn't matter if it's 4 combats in 3 days or 4 combats in 4 hours or how level appropriate they are/aren't.

So in other words, you don't want any assumptions about how many encounters there should be. To me that's kind of like complaining that you took the race car piece in Monopoly and it doesn't go faster than the other pieces. The way spellcasters work being different than other classes is pretty fundamental to the concept of the game.

They tried balancing things out like you suggest in 4E and it was not well received. To many people (myself included) it did not "feel" like D&D. That's a whole separate topic though, and one I don't have desire to rehash.

But maybe D&D's structure just doesn't work for you, which is fine. No game is going to work for everyone.

 

[Helldritch]

If you don't use the guidelines or houserule with the guidelines in mind, you should not be surprised if the game is either on the too easy or too hard side of things. If you follow the guidelines in the DMG about encounters difficulties (or the UA ones that you can find in the XGtE) you should have a balanced game up to level 15 (then you'll have to work harder as a DM to balance things out but that is in about every editions).

Caster and Martial classes are not meant to work the same. As Oofta pointed out, they tried in 4ed and it was not well received. I would be on the side where true casters should have a bit more whoomph but I can easily work with the rules we have now.

Now D&D is a story telling game with a heavy leaning toward combat simulations. It is not a novel creation game. A game without any combat or where every combats are hard leads to a pretty much dull games. Easy and normal encounters are there to show the players that their characters are progressing. Otherwise, they will not feel like heroes but like punching bags. An easy win can and will be appreciated once in a while. If every encounters are hard, it can lead to the:"We're no good" syndrome. It is the same if everything is build around the 5MWD. Too easy and the "We're gods! (aka Monty haul game)" syndrome will kick in. Again, balance is in the hands of the DM. Be it for good or worst. The only thing is that the guidelines are not stressed enough in the DMG. There should've been a lot more about game balance and play.

 

[tetrasodium]

You know, speaking of that first part...

Am I the only one who thinks that a SWORD doing less damage than a STAFF to a skeleton is really stupid? Like really dumb? The sword is still a giant hunk of metal! When it hits those bones its gonna break them just the same as a bludgeoning weapon! Plus, have you ever watched Forged in Fire? They test all sorts of blades on pig carcasses on that show and they more often than not manage to slice through the spine!

I can totally see how piercing weapon wouldn't work, since there's nothing to jab into, but slashing weapons? Nope. If in that scene the Fighter was using a rapier or a spear that would make sense but a sword or axe? Nah, the wizard should keep it.

no... neither does history.

History of Blackthorn Walking Sticks

Blackthorn bush is found throughout Ireland and the British Isles. It has been prized for centuries as a material for premium Irish walking sticks or cane. The original Blackthorn sticks were two- to four-foot long Irish shillelaghs (the national weapon of rural Ireland). The shillelagh was so fearsome that the English outlawed it during the final occupation of Ireland. To get around the law, the Irish turned the shillelagh into a walking stick. The English did not want to appear unreasonable by outlawing walking sticks and canes, so the Irish kept their modified shillelaghs and the world gained a beautiful and functional walking stick known simply as the Blackthorn.
-source

I've also personally caused a compound fracture in a mugger with this model walking stick.

A rapier is a piercing weapon designed to puncture muscle & vital organs, a skeleton has none of those in a traditional sense but if you poke the bones or use it like a club it will still do some damage.

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.

That gets into another problem of 5e trying to balance around some mythical no feat no MC no magic item game while still presenting a huge chunk of the PHB & dmg around those things instead of extensive mundane equipment lists like you'd see in the old d20 modern/western/etc books like you see in starfinder(~8.5 pages of just the equipment tables for the equipment described in the remaining 50 or so pages in "chapter 7 equipment") you might have a point.. but those types of games are the extreme minority at best & the core 5e books do not have that sort of equipment selection needed to support games like that without resorting to magic items.
Here are just the ranged weapons from d20 modern past

Spoiler

That's just the ranged weapons (ie not melee weapons not armors) from one single d20 supplement. All of the modern books tended to have extensive equipment lists like that. So no, just because it might be meaningful to some hypothetical GM who might exist that wants to run a game with no everything while prominently baking all that no feats/no magic/no mc/etc stuff into the rules.

5e can't have mundane equipment like that because they got rid of all the fiddly bits that contribute to subjective choices between laterally equivalent gear.

 

[Undrave]

This isn't a direct response to anybody but let me just say: I don't really care much for 'appeal to tradition' as a design ethos. It's interesting to learn how the game used to be designed but I'm not interested in replicating it 1:1 in 5e just because it's 'how it used to be'.

If you don't use the guidelines or houserule with the guidelines in mind, you should not be surprised if the game is either on the too easy or too hard side of things. If you follow the guidelines in the DMG about encounters difficulties (or the UA ones that you can find in the XGtE) you should have a balanced game up to level 15 (then you'll have to work harder as a DM to balance things out but that is in about every editions).

Caster and Martial classes are not meant to work the same. As Oofta pointed out, they tried in 4ed and it was not well received. I would be on the side where true casters should have a bit more whoomph but I can easily work with the rules we have now.

Now D&D is a story telling game with a heavy leaning toward combat simulations. It is not a novel creation game. A game without any combat or where every combats are hard leads to a pretty much dull games. Easy and normal encounters are there to show the players that their characters are progressing. Otherwise, they will not feel like heroes but like punching bags. An easy win can and will be appreciated once in a while. If every encounters are hard, it can lead to the:"We're no good" syndrome. It is the same if everything is build around the 5MWD. Too easy and the "We're gods! (aka Monty haul game)" syndrome will kick in. Again, balance is in the hands of the DM. Be it for good or worst. The only thing is that the guidelines are not stressed enough in the DMG. There should've been a lot more about game balance and play.

I think the 6-8 encounter guidelines are a bit much. I feel like the game would be better served if it was balanced around 4-5 encounters per day instead.

 

[Undrave]

no... neither does history.
I've also personally caused a compound fracture in a mugger with this model walking stick.

A rapier is a piercing weapon designed to puncture muscle & vital organs, a skeleton has none of those in a traditional sense but if you poke the bones or use it like a club it will still do some damage.

The point isn't that the staff shouldn't be good against the skeleton, the point I was making is that there's no reason a sword should be losing effectiveness against a skeleton just because it's 'slashing damage'. The sword is still heavy and made of metal, so it should still have the heft and toughness to break bones the same way a stick of hard wood does. It shouldn't be, in this scenario, a situation so desperate as to require a switch of weapon.

I'm totally with you on the rapier.

Also, turning any weapon into an improvised club should be a basic part of the rules

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

I told him that among their six characters, four of them had access to magical healing (including Healing Spirits - which is like a 2nd level "maximize the party's HP" after every encounter). Monsters do a paltry amount of damage, death save failures don't carry over, healing is abundant, tactics aren't really essential, etc.

Which brings me to the topic of the thread: Is 5e the easiest edition of D&D? Are you less likely to lose a character?

I feel like in the editions I've played, it's easily the less threatening edition. 4e was pretty hard to die in, but it required some sharp tactical play. 5e, conversely, seems to be the very forgiving, training wheels edition. Especially after 3rd level.

This fits my experience with it. I started playing D&D when Holmes was new and after skipping 4E entirely and rather than running 5E myself I ran 1E and 3E games instead. But when I finally did get a chance to be a 5E player in two campaigns, I definitely was suspicious that something was... amiss. I thought at first maybe it was the DM's who were woefully underplaying the opposition, but aside from ONE incident where the party "wiped" because of a fluke where every PC failed saves versus charm, we were never REALLY up against it. We had a party take out an assault of WAVES of vampires and we all remained standing. Even the DM's were commenting that they was astonished at the damage accumulation we could sustain and the amount of destruction we could dish out. And we were NOT experienced/knowledgeable/dedicated powergamers. We were just normal D&D-playing blokes who were able to see where the envelope was easily bent.

Yeah, whether that was really the intent of the designers or not, it's my impression 5E is FAR FAR less truly challenging than at least 3E, 2E, 1E... I don't mind playing it, but I'll never run it as DM.