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

[TwoSix]

unless you mean character build, which, I guess has only Really been a major thing since 2e? Still, in game challenge is still exactly as much a part of the game in 5e as the DM decides to make it.

For someone who only consumes a diet of OD&D and 1e, even the concept of character build is vaguely offensive.

 

[Helldritch]

For someone who only consumes a diet of OD&D and 1e, even the concept of character build is vaguely offensive.

I can relate to that. For the moment, the amount of character path is okish but on the wee bit too much side... But the Artificer should be the last and new character paths are on the Unearthed Arcana. Too much spoils the broth. It was a problem in the 3.xed and 4ed. I hope the addional paths crazyness stops soon.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I can relate to that. For the moment, the amount of character path is okish but on the wee bit too much side... But the Artificer should be the last and new character paths are on the Unearthed Arcana. Too much spoils the broth. It was a problem in the 3.xed and 4ed. I hope the addional paths crazyness stops soon.

I genuinely have trouble grasping this POV, and I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but can you like...explain why?

I don’t understand the...mechanics, I guess, of how having more classes and subclasses could have a negative impact on how the fun the game is to play.

 

[TwoSix]

I genuinely have trouble grasping this POV, and I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but can you like...explain why?

I don’t understand the...mechanics, I guess, of how having more classes and subclasses could have a negative impact on how the fun the game is to play.

Not the poster you’re quoting, but I feel like it may be linked to similar concepts expressed in the “class not character” thread. If each class and subclass necessarily correlates to a distinct fictional element, then the fiction might start to feel overloaded.

 

[Lanefan]

I genuinely have trouble grasping this POV, and I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but can you like...explain why?

I don’t understand the...mechanics, I guess, of how having more classes and subclasses could have a negative impact on how the fun the game is to play.

Because the mechanics start to take over.

Char-gen not only becomes longer and more complex [bad], but the game to some extent becomes "won" or "lost" before the character even enters play [worse].

It also leads to a meta-mentality of planning out a character's 1-20 path and assuming or expecting (or worse, demanding!) it'll last that long in the fiction, rather than just playing for the moment and worrying about the future once the future arrives.

 

[Helldritch]

I genuinely have trouble grasping this POV, and I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but can you like...explain why?

I don’t understand the...mechanics, I guess, of how having more classes and subclasses could have a negative impact on how the fun the game is to play.

Here is my POV. The amount of classes and path should not become limitless. Too much choices only leads to confusion. Before the addition of the samurai, we already had two! One was a battlemaster the other was a conquest paladin (ronin style at that!). Both were credible and fun. Both were very different but they used the classes already in existence.

In 3.xed and 4th there was zounds of different classes and prestige classes and what not. This amount of different classes (especially prestige classes) led to a variety of unexpected builds and power gamers were able to do pretty amazing things with these. Since most class choices are made at low level we can see a rise in the multiple dips into the classes to get the most powerful abilities of various paths. Somewhere in the assassin thread we can have a multi dips character that can do an astounding amount of damage with a 3 or 4 classes picks. This is a threat to balance.

In addition, most of the new paths (save the artificer, a personal non favorite of mine but it's a class my players do want. Go figures....) are just cosmetic that could be adjusted with a little tweaking of the rules or a simple narrative of the character. (shadow dancer? A rogue with a dip in the monk class where you take the way of the shadow). The rules already allow us to do pretty much any concepts that we might want with multiclassing. Just adding more paths, traditions or whatever else is simply to sell books. The way they are doing the books right now, I'm not sure I want too much different paths to be added. These take places that lore, monsters, new rules, new whatever else that is not a path would take. We already have the means to do what we want. Gives us more new monsters/adventures/world to play with.

Edit: A few auto corrector mistakes...

 

[Helldritch]

Because the mechanics start to take over.

Char-gen not only becomes longer and more complex [bad], but the game to some extent becomes "won" or "lost" before the character even enters play [worse].

It also leads to a meta-mentality of planning out a character's 1-20 path and assuming or expecting (or worse, demanding!) it'll last that long in the fiction, rather than just playing for the moment and worrying about the future once the future arrives.

I should've read your post before posting my previous answer. You nailed it way better than me. Thank you good sir!

 

[JeffB]

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.

No assumed amount of encounters per day works/worked just fine in T/OSR versions of the game The DM learns how to tailor the game to his playstyle and group and it part of the DM's role. Conversely the WOTC versions seem to feel the need to tailor the DM and group to their playstyle.

 

[Arilyn]

I genuinely have trouble grasping this POV, and I hope this doesn’t derail the thread, but can you like...explain why?

I don’t understand the...mechanics, I guess, of how having more classes and subclasses could have a negative impact on how the fun the game is to play.

I love having lots of choice. D&D is a class based system, so we are letting the designers make a lot of choices for us, in what a fighter or bard should look like, for example. More variety means fewer characters looking the same mechanically.

I have played a lot of Pathfinder 1, which has a ton of choice. We play a pretty narrative game, and the wealth of classes, archetypes and feats did not turn us into meta gamers. Sometimes, we spent a lot of time creating characters, but that's cause we enjoy it. When we wanted to have quicker character creation, we'd just limit the books.

I'm finding the new sub classes in the UA articles get my creative juices flowing. I'm able to create characters I'm picturing more easily with the new options.

 

[Oofta]

No assumed amount of encounters per day works/worked just fine in T/OSR versions of the game The DM learns how to tailor the game to his playstyle and group and it part of the DM's role. Conversely the WOTC versions seem to feel the need to tailor the DM and group to their playstyle.

Since there were no guidelines and DMs just had to figure it out in previous editions that means they should be able to figure it out and do what makes sense in this edition as well.

Problem solved!