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

[Undrave]

Speaking about challenges in general... isn't it odd how in RPG it's traditionally the first level that's the hardest? Like, you have very few HP so one good hit can knock you out and you have very little ressources...

Feels like the kind of enemies you face should be way easier as you get eased into the game...

 

[slobster]

Speaking about challenges in general... isn't it odd how in RPG it's traditionally the first level that's the hardest? Like, you have very few HP so one good hit can knock you out and you have very little ressources...

Feels like the kind of enemies you face should be way easier as you get eased into the game...

I've always thought of it in terms of the "heroe's journey" trope, as played out through mechanical progression. At early levels, you are vulnerable and weak because that sort of echoes the feel of the fantasy heroes of old, where you start out from your farmhouse or moisture farm or whatever and really have no idea what's going on or the kinds of threats you'll be going up against.

Then you level up once or twice, and you start getting tough enough to actually go toe-to-toe with threats, gaining new powers or tactical options which also make you more capable and increase your options in a given confrontation. So, you've responded to the call and have now begun moving towards your goal consciously.

By the mid-levels, you become an unstoppable powerhouse compared to most people you've ever met, but the opposition is correspondingly powerful and eventually mythic in scope, mirroring the highest pitch of heroic adventures where you are blowing up the Death Star, Fighting whole trucks of Nazis, and defending Helm's Deep and having a blast doing it.

So I find the mechanical pacing to be one of the really charming things about D&D style TTRPGs!

 

[Undrave]

I've always thought of it in terms of the "heroe's journey" trope, as played out through mechanical progression. At early levels, you are vulnerable and weak because that sort of echoes the feel of the fantasy heroes of old, where you start out from your farmhouse or moisture farm or whatever and really have no idea what's going on or the kinds of threats you'll be going up against.

Then you level up once or twice, and you start getting tough enough to actually go toe-to-toe with threats, gaining new powers or tactical options which also make you more capable and increase your options in a given confrontation. So, you've responded to the call and have now begun moving towards your goal consciously.

By the mid-levels, you become an unstoppable powerhouse compared to most people you've ever met, but the opposition is correspondingly powerful and eventually mythic in scope, mirroring the highest pitch of heroic adventures where you are blowing up the Death Star, Fighting whole trucks of Nazis, and defending Helm's Deep and having a blast doing it.

So I find the mechanical pacing to be one of the really charming things about D&D style TTRPGs!

Not saying it's a bad thing, it's just an idiosyncrasy of the style that we all just take for granted and don't seem to talk about much.

 

[Ratskinner]

I you make it sound like I'm the only one who did.. "luckily" for those who did 5e decided that such gameplay is a badWrongFun type of gameplay eh?

erm...whatnow? I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.

My own experiences with the older editions have varied quite a bit as I moved from group to group, and I've heard even wilder ones from other old-timers. The type of play you describe may have been common in that era, but it was not at all locked in by the rules or a requisite of the game.

I don't think 5e does anything to prevent that type of play at all. My last game ended in a TPK at about 8th level.

I'm not saying anything is BadWrongFun. Only that I think the Difficulty is both DM-dependent, rather than edition dependent, and that Deadliness is not the same as Difficulty.

 

[tetrasodium]

erm...whatnow? I think you're reading too much into what I'm saying.

My own experiences with the older editions have varied quite a bit as I moved from group to group, and I've heard even wilder ones from other old-timers. The type of play you describe may have been common in that era, but it was not at all locked in by the rules or a requisite of the game.

I don't think 5e does anything to prevent that type of play at all. My last game ended in a TPK at about 8th level.

I'm not saying anything is BadWrongFun. Only that I think the Difficulty is both DM-dependent, rather than edition dependent, and that Deadliness is not the same as Difficulty.

various parts of 5e are designed to "encourage" the types of play that wotc wanted to encourage, playstyles that fall outside those are discouraged & problematic. The removal of nearly all save or suck/save or lose creatures & effects while severely watering down the impact of those that remain removes the need to treat them as something deserving much more than yet another combat to nova through.

 

[Oofta]

various parts of 5e are designed to "encourage" the types of play that wotc wanted to encourage, playstyles that fall outside those are discouraged & problematic. The removal of nearly all save or suck/save or lose creatures & effects while severely watering down the impact of those that remain removes the need to treat them as something deserving much more than yet another combat to nova through.

They removed save or suck because surveys and playtests told them that most people did not enjoy them. Like them? Not that hard to put back in.

Any game has to have some base assumptions and guidelines, no game can work 100% of the time for 100% of potential players.

 

[slobster]

They removed save or suck because surveys and playtests told them that most people did not enjoy them. Like them? Not that hard to put back in.

Any game has to have some base assumptions and guidelines, no game can work 100% of the time for 100% of potential players.

Yeah, and this applies equally well to a lot of the things people miss from old editions' versions of monsters. Amp up the ghoul paralysis, add back in negative levels, let poisons to Str or Con damage, make aboleths immune to damage from non byeshk weapons, make golems immune to magic...

I've done a few of those and other similar monster tweaks in my own games. I think 5E turned the dial a bit (a lot) too far in the "simplistic" direction for monster design, but fortunately that has been incredibly easy for me to turn back the other direction by just reincorporating ideas from other editions and other games to make enemies a bit deadlier and more unique feeling.

YMMV as always.

 

[Oofta]

Yeah, and this applies equally well to a lot of the things people miss from old editions' versions of monsters. Amp up the ghoul paralysis, add back in negative levels, let poisons to Str or Con damage, make aboleths immune to damage from non byeshk weapons, make golems immune to magic...

I've done a few of those and other similar monster tweaks in my own games. I think 5E turned the dial a bit (a lot) too far in the "simplistic" direction for monster design, but fortunately that has been incredibly easy for me to turn back the other direction by just reincorporating ideas from other editions and other games to make enemies a bit deadlier and more unique feeling.

YMMV as always.

Yeah, I've been debating making a Void Golem for my next game that absorbs magic and then uses it to power it's own special attacks.

I think it's easier to start with simplistic and add back in complexity to taste than the other way around which is one of their design goals.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

Well, see, that's my point.

I'm not complaining about such players or GMs. I'm just saying they exist, and hence the GM whimsy.

The only difference is whose "whimsy": the GM's or the game designer's. I'll take the GM's over someone I don't know.

 

[tetrasodium]

They removed save or suck because surveys and playtests told them that most people did not enjoy them. Like them? Not that hard to put back in.

Any game has to have some base assumptions and guidelines, no game can work 100% of the time for 100% of potential players.

You just added weight to my claim that 5e is built saying that certain playstyles are badwrongfun. Adding to that is the fact that players tend to outnumber gm's by a significant degree with most tables having around 4-6 players (give or take) per 1 gm. any survey is going to be largely people who mostly or only play and as a result will not consider things from a gm's perspective of why a wraith or something should blast through 30+ ac like wet tissue paper instead of harmlessly bouncing off like every other melee ranged & spell attack.

Simply saying add them back in ignores the fact that we aren't having this discussion because there was a second or variant version of things like the wraith, ghast/ghoul, trog, rustmonster, various scary oozes, etc that lose their scary bits or have their scary bit nullified if they are up against someone with a magic weapon/armor. We are having this discussion because not only were they replaced with defanged declawed versions but even dmg 280/281 also completely omits those kinds of scary effects. simply putting them back in fights against too many changes in the system & you quickly run into a snowballing slippery slope where you have so many house rules upon house rules that you are playing a different game.