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

[Zardnaar]

Random events with no purpose, premonition, logic, or reason are bad form regardless of whether or not they kill anybody. People will get bored and frustrated either way. Has nothing to do with rule set.

"You are walking down a hall. Whoops, you just triggered a trip wire. Okay, roll a save. Oh, you failed? DEAD."

That's naughty word. I never do that. That's what some people in this thread think a "challenge" is. IMO, that is me deciding that you should suddenly have a 35% chance of being done with your character.

If I have an instant death trap, it's a Disintegrate Glyph of Warding on an iron sarcophagus...in front of an altar to Iuz...submerged in a bath of blood...which is magically boiling...which can only be deconsecrated by getting the amulet off the powerful golem guarding it.

If you didn't cast Detect Magic on the thing and went home in an ashtray, that's on you.



Well, there are only two choices, aren't there? When the 14th-level module calls for rocs to attack the party, either I'm going to have them pick up their prey and dash them on the rocks, or I'm not going to. What I know about their character sheets will have absolutely zero effect on that decision...since it's logical for them to do that, they're going to. That's the point. I've heard people go as far as to say you shouldn't use flying enemies against all-melee party. My attitude is, flying enemies are out there, so don't be an all-melee party.



That is exactly what happened. I gave him two saving throws, too. One to grab onto the bridge, and another to grab onto a rock. Oh well!

That's my attitude as well. Get a bow even if strength based.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

Data Point: Last night I had a 3 person 4th level party TPK in 5e. The 4th player was out this week and the party chose to go forward with the adventure without the extra character despite knowing it was dangerous. I tried to tweak down some things to give them a fighting chance (Lowering some damage rolls, giving them multiple rounds while everything charged at them from range, merging dead rat swarms when they got to single digits) but the tweaking wasn't tweaky enough.

The encounter was a sewer with the traditional 2 ledges and a channel of filth in the middle. The bad guys were 1 adult oblex and 8 rat swarms (divided into 2 "lines" of 4 swarms each running up the two side ledges towards the party. The oblex was in the filth channel also moving towards them under the water (I made it count as cover).

The rats/oblex started 200' away from the party and were visible due to light arrows being fired into the passageway. The rats charged up both sides and the oblex charged up the middle. Due to the speed difference the rats got to the PC's two turns before the oblex did.

The party prepared by oiling up the two ledges and setting it aflame while the sorcerer kept "walking" their moonbeam spell so that one of the two lines of rats had to all run through it each turn.

Eventually the oblex got close enough to cast Hold Person, and it was pretty much game over from that point. I downgraded it to 2nd level so it could only target one character per turn and it Held the ranger. The rats got around the flames and through the moonbeam gauntlet with half their number remaining. 1 on the fighter, 1 on the sorcerer, and 2 on the ranger.

Next turn the oblex cast Hold Person on the fighter (I allowed it to concentrate on 2 of these since it could have done so if I hadn't downgraded its caster level) and succeeded. The fighter would NEVER make his save for the rest of the battle. The sorcerer and fighter were getting eaten by swarms of rats, the ranger made his save at the end of his turn.

Next turn the oblex moved up and used Color Spray on the ranger/fighter which was a waste of a turn as it only blinded the already held fighter. The ranger lept across to save the fighter from being eaten alive by swarming rats by grabbing him and pulling him away from the oblex in the filth channel. The rats moved forward to add into the pile already eating the sorcerer and they continued to do damage to her. (I was rolling hot!).

The following round was the end of it. The oblex moved forward and KOed the ranger into the sewer filth. The Held fighter couldn't make his save and died drowning in sewer filth as the ranger dropped him when passing out. The sorcerer died to a rat swarm (I don't think I missed an attack roll with them the entire time to hit her).

***************************************
Why it was a TPK

1. In a previous battle the party had fought 3 gray oozes and was down some HP. I allowed the "missing" bard to pop in and cast a bunch of healing spells to help out but they started the battle all down a little bit.

2. When the oblex and rat swarms showed up they offered to let the fighter and sorcerer go if the ranger stayed behind and "joined them". Rather than agreeing and sacrificing their character OR agreeing but only to make a run for it the party decided to make a "last stand" in the sewer instead.

3. The biggest advantage the party had vs. the oblex was its slow speed. They didn't use their speed to gain distance on the oblex or keep pace with the rats, they just held the line as everything washed over them.

4. The fighter didn't get to do much if anything during the entire battle because he was waiting for the swarms to arrive and was held as soon as they showed up. He maybe got one attack the entire time and died with almost full HP. This was ultimately the primary reason for their demise.

5. It was, by calculator, a deadly encounter for a 4 person party as the monsters were written. It would have been super deadly for a 3 person party but with my tweaks and the free bard healing from earlier encounters I tried to bring it back down to doable deadly for 3. I didn't expect the fighter to be so vulnerable to the Hold Person (He needed to roll a 16+ to save) nor did I expect the rats to do more than get in the way of movement (they only have a +2 to Hit).

 

[Jaeger]

.
I think mixed in here is a very interesting question that should be asked:

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.

So you want a game that will support your personal preferences instead of the feedback they got from one of the most comprehensive play tests ever done for a TTRPG. Because you know better than the thousands of people that responded to their surveys....

... the fact that players tend to outnumber gm's by a significant degree ... 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 ...

In playtest surveys, did WOTC separate the replies of those who mostly GM from those who mostly play?

Or did WOTC just go by total results?

I think a very good argument can be made that they should have separated the GM's reply's from the players, and then given them equal weight.


.

 

[Oofta]

I’d like to chime in -above all, asking for advice. I have only DM’ed in 2e and 5e, and the lethality difference is conspicuous. I unintentionally killed 2e PCs often, whereas only one 5e PC has died in my games -others have not in spite of poor tactics. A problem of mine is that my games are quite heavy in terms of social interaction and intrigue, and so combat only takes place once during in-game time -if at all. Thus, the resources-based system is against PCs feeling threatened. I would not like to come up with exaggerated threats, so I’m at a loss. Once PCs feel invincible, the game is not as exciting. A cool thing is that my players are awesome and great roleplayers, so they don’t act like murder hobbos. Tips? Advice?

There's plenty of advice above. I would say that 2E may have had more random PC deaths, the number of PC deaths in my campaign is largely based on how lethal we want the game to be.

My general advice

• Ignore the number multiplier when it comes to calculating encounter difficulty. Heck, if I throw in monsters that have a CR of more than 4 below the PC's level I sometimes just throw in as many as I want and don't include them in the calculation.
• If the encounters aren't a threat, increase your XP budget.
• Take a look at how much people are resting, the game does generally work better with the 6-8 encounters between long rests.
  • I use the alternate rest rules (short rest overnight, long rest several days) because of story pacing. I also multiply spell durations by 5 if they last an hour or more.
  • If you do more of a dungeon crawl style of game, just make it clear that there are risks to resting in hostile areas. Don't let them just head back to town after a couple of encounters.
• Play monsters mean.
  • Hit PCs when they're down
  • Drag unconscious PCs off to be eaten
  • Target the guy in the back/flank
  • Send in waves. Avoid fireball formation
  • Have low-level monsters (the kind I don't count in the XP budget) tackle/knock prone PCs so the "big guys" have advantage.
  • Give monsters the home team advantage, set up terrain in their favor. For example in a recent game I had monsters that had blindsight and a climb speed so there was magical darkness and they were on the ceiling. Oh, and tunnels to drag people off into.
  • Many monsters can see further in the dark than PCs, the PCs will frequently have a light source. Use monsters such as drow that have ranged attack and ambush the party.
  • Have monsters coordinate attacks such as goblin spotters telling hill giants behind total cover where to target their throwing stones.
• If you're having trouble hitting, adjust your attack bonus. I will sometimes add +2 to +4 to the monster's hit chance, I find that works better than just upping their HP.
• Limit resources. Make magic items rare and hard to come by. The PCs in my group just hit 6th and I think everybody now has a single uncommon magic item. The melee types haven't gotten plate armor yet.
• Make challenges something other than just "kill everything".

I'm sure I could go on. But seriously, if the encounter guidelines aren't threatening your party, crank it up to 11. If that doesn't work, crank it up to 15.

 

[Oofta]

I think mixed in here is a very interesting question that should be asked:






In playtest surveys, did WOTC separate the replies of those who mostly GM from those who mostly play?

Or did WOTC just go by total results?

I think a very good argument can be made that they should have separated the GM's reply's from the players, and then given them equal weight.


.

I don't see why it matters. If a GM is doing something the players hate they aren't being a very good or responsive GM.

 

[tetrasodium]

I think mixed in here is a very interesting question that should be asked:






In playtest surveys, did WOTC separate the replies of those who mostly GM from those who mostly play?

Or did WOTC just go by total results?

I think a very good argument can be made that they should have separated the GM's reply's from the players, and then given them equal weight.


.

I don't recall the UA surveys they run now doing seem to do much of that. For most stuff it's just as a player except a couple times i remember them asking things like what setting you gm how often how many players at your table etc.

 

[Jaeger]

I don't see why it matters. ...

Allow me to enlighten then...

Tetrasodium has a good point here that shouldn't be dismissed, just because I think he would be better served with a different system. (the OSR is your friend dude...)

If 5e was moulded to the opinion surveys - who's opinion is more heavily weighted actually matters a lot in the overall game design.

Now separating the GM for player replys and giving them equal weight would be a zero guarantee that tetrasodium would like the system any better.

But the reason I think they should have been separated and given equal weight is quite simple: Without GM's no one can play!

5e would probably have been a bit different if GM's were given an equal voice to players in the survey.

And it would be to D&D's benefit when 6e rolls around to do so.

 

[Oofta]

Allow me to enlighten then...

Tetrasodium has a good point here that shouldn't be dismissed, just because I think he would be better served with a different system. (the OSR is your friend dude...)

If 5e was moulded to the opinion surveys - who's opinion is more heavily weighted actually matters a lot in the overall game design.

Now separating the GM for player replys and giving them equal weight would be a zero guarantee that tetrasodium would like the system any better.

But the reason I think they should have been separated and given equal weight is quite simple: Without GM's no one can play!

5e would probably have been a bit different if GM's were given an equal voice to players in the survey.

And it would be to D&D's benefit when 6e rolls around to do so.

I'm pretty sure GMs were not barred from responding to the surveys.

But I stand by my statement. I don't care if GMs wants "screw the PC" abilities for the monsters or not. If the players don't want it the GM shouldn't use it so the GM shouldn't get it. There's no reason to give the GM a tool no player wants them to ever use.

 

[slobster]

In the "GMs and players should have been given equal weight" thing, I'm also pretty sure they didn't just take the survey results, calculate opinions that were in the majority on each topic, and then spit out a system based on majority rules.

They took the feedback into account, tried to make the best game they could using that feedback to challenge some of their own assumptions or guide where improvements could be made, and ignored feedback in places where they thought they knew better than even a majority of respondents.

That's how game design works, really. You get feedback, but you view it as a signpost to which parts of your game might need work/rework. You don't treat it as a guide of exactly which changes you should make and where.

So the whole weighting discussion is sort of the old measure with a micrometer, cut with an axe argument. The surveys didn't need to "weight" GM feedback and player feedback separately, because it was never used in a way that weighting would really be necessary.

 

[Zardnaar]

I'm pretty sure GMs were not barred from responding to the surveys.

But I stand by my statement. I don't care if GMs wants "screw the PC" abilities for the monsters or not. If the players don't want it the GM shouldn't use it so the GM shouldn't get it. There's no reason to give the GM a tool no player wants them to ever use.

There's a GM shortage. 5E at higher levels doesn't really work that well.

The wheels start falling off as early as 5th.

I'm the only one running at 9th level at the gamestore.

The new DMs can't really figure it out and the wotc modules are tubed to be easy so they don't really learn.