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

[billd91]

But if the party charges an orc band across a rope bridge, and the orcs just want to kill the party? Yeah, they are cutting that bridge. Might take an extra turn instead of doing it all at once, but they aren't going to let the players across to fight them fair and square, they are going to act intelligently to win.

You know, I would leave that one up to the circumstances. Orcs may feel that displays of personal prowess are more important than effectively blocking the party by cutting the bridge. That's the way I play them, anyway. Goblins, on the other hand, are notoriously impulsive vandals and would cut the bridge, even if it means trapping themselves if the bridge led to something of a cul de sac.

 

[Oofta]

You know, I would leave that one up to the circumstances. Orcs may feel that displays of personal prowess are more important than effectively blocking the party by cutting the bridge. That's the way I play them, anyway. Goblins, on the other hand, are notoriously impulsive vandals and would cut the bridge, even if it means trapping themselves if the bridge led to something of a cul de sac.

Which is fine - although some people would state that those goblins can never be a threat because they always show up in fireball formation.

To me, they should be sneaky SOBs who use illusions and tricks to use up resources while harassing a party. They know charging in like madmen will get them killed so they don't. That doesn't mean they can't be a threat to even higher level parties.

 

[Ashrym]

uhh....

Spoiler

View attachment 119158

Wotc may have toned down & omitted certain aspects of it to cram more FR/Waterdeep based AL faction type stuff into a non-FR adventure, but it's still there. Some of you are going on like honor & sanity are some new & off the wall oddball trope being added to d&d that it's never even come near.

That doesn't make sense. Pointing out that Ravenloft is a horror setting has nothing to do with using optional DM tools to make Eberron into a horror setting, and Ravenloft promotes gothic horror instead of the mad scientist (from the cyborg example) losing his sanity while upgrading (renegade mastermaker concept).

It doesn't matter that these are not new or off the wall. They demonstrate tools to adjust style, just like adjusting the healing rate makes a difference or using the injury table.

I'd like to chime in and say that both Healer and Inspiring Leader are feats I've taken in game with normal healing and rest rules, and both have been quite valuable.

They seem to go hand in hand with hit die healing given both feats promote short rests.

I agree secretly infecting a player with a deadly egg that they have no reason to suspect is bad form. Doing it in a way that they suspect something is wrong is perfectly fine.

You mean someone should take medicine proficiency to recognize the a party member is ill and might not realize it?

 

[Jaeger]

So the most popular version of D&D ever released is a failure because they didn't cater to your specific desires? Okelly dokelly.

Please point out to where I said 5e was a failure?

Please show the post where I said it didn't cater to my playstyle?

Maybe you should go back and read my posts to understand them better before you start making things up...

You point is quite valid, but it's trickier than just 'player' or 'GM' as many of us are both.

And I know that in many ways my own answers to various game-related questions would be (and are!) quite different were I to answer as a player vs answer as a GM.

True, most GM's I know also play. I would assume there are actually few pure GM only types out there.

Even then, the GM/Player cross over is much less than the amount of pure players.

And while the answers may be different (because as a player you have someone else as GM doing the heavy lifting.) I still think from a game design perspective that it would be good to give equal weight to the opinions of those who GM, from those who just play.

GM's are the main drivers of gameplay. They are the core audience that WOTC should really want to reach. not that the group of purely players should't be kept happy, but it is on GM shoulders that home games rise and fall. those are the ones you want to have a game that they can run more easily, and is fun for them to do so.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You mean someone should take medicine proficiency to recognize the a party member is ill and might not realize it?

Not really, I'd probably describe the player feeling a strange sensation along with the attack, like something pulsing deeper into the wound.

If the attack described doesn't raise a flag, I wouldn't shocked if the players never investigate, because they have no reason to. Though, them feeling sick or out of sorts is also a good sign for later on.

Please point out to where I said 5e was a failure?

Please show the post where I said it didn't cater to my playstyle?

Maybe you should go back and read my posts to understand them better before you start making things up...




True, most GM's I know also play. I would assume there are actually few pure GM only types out there.

Even then, the GM/Player cross over is much less than the amount of pure players.

And while the answers may be different (because as a player you have someone else as GM doing the heavy lifting.) I still think from a game design perspective that it would be good to give equal weight to the opinions of those who GM, from those who just play.

GM's are the main drivers of gameplay. They are the core audience that WOTC should really want to reach. not that the group of purely players should't be kept happy, but it is on GM shoulders that home games rise and fall. those are the ones you want to have a game that they can run more easily, and is fun for them to do so.

Again, there is no evidence they did not take GM's into account when going through the data. Just because we on the survey taking side didn't notice anything does not mean a professional company who is aware of these factors didn't account for them within the data.

Additionally, I'm not even fully convinced that it would be needed. The more I think on it, the more the rules for the players are most important. They determine how the game is interfaced with. Traps and how they work are based on player perception and saving throws. Monsters are based off of player combat. Even if the system was designed solely with input from players, I don't know if it would end up making a poor game for DMs, because the DM running is more concerned with what the players can do that they are building and running other sections of the game. If that was clear, I'm not sure I'm phrasing it quite right.

 

[Helldritch]

Unfortunately, making more monsters immune to magic weapons puts magic weapons back on the required list. And 5e moved away from that just as it moved away from having DR act as a complete block on characters who didn't have the right key to do damage to a monster and didn't do massive amounts of damage. And I'm convinced they made the right choice.

Well, not all monsters are required either. I perfectly know about the designs and goals of the 5ed. I, like many of us here, participated in the playtests. Here we're talking about challenge and what could've been done to enhance the lethality of this edition.

A mention like: "Monsters' immunities should become simple resistances if you do not use magic weapons in your campaign." This kind of mention or warning would have been ample enough and I think it had been pointed out in the playtest comments at some point. And do you know a lot of campaign that do not have any magic weapons at all? Or at the very least the spell magic weapon? Or simple cantrips?

What they did right is the higher "+" required weapons to hit a monster. The +2 (or higher) to hit a monster was not my cup of tea (even if I went alongside it in earlier editions). But Iron, Silver and Adamatine were quite ok in my book. A few elemental resistance here and there also promote cantrip variety. And resistance to a damage type would not be that unbalancing (barbarians have this power, so why shouldn't some monsters too?).

Don't get me wrong. I do consider 5ed to be the best compromise between 1ed and all the others. It is just that I would've like a wee bit more crunch on the monster part.

 

[Ashrym]

Not really, I'd probably describe the player feeling a strange sensation along with the attack, like something pulsing deeper into the wound.

If the attack described doesn't raise a flag, I wouldn't shocked if the players never investigate, because they have no reason to. Though, them feeling sick or out of sorts is also a good sign for later on.

It was my initial reaction to that scenario. Identifying symptoms before the character realizes there are symptoms is something within the medicine category. It would also be a method of safely removing the egg outside of magic.

Recalling lore about whatever might have inserted the egg or perception of the insertion would also be useful skills.

What I was implying was there are mechanics in place so that "secretly" is either a DM arbitrarily skipping the check (for plot and/or it's deemed impossible) or players might be ignoring options.

I would "secretly" insert an egg into a character but it would not be a death based on a random roll. Blue Slaadi are the example I would use. The eggs take 3 months to gestate. It's easy to cure in that amount of time with knowing the implant is there being the actual concern.

 

[tetrasodium]

Unfortunately, making more monsters immune to magic weapons puts magic weapons back on the required list. And 5e moved away from that just as it moved away from having DR act as a complete block on characters who didn't have the right key to do damage to a monster and didn't do massive amounts of damage. And I'm convinced they made the right choice.

No it does not, it just means they would have needed to give more thought to monster resistances & immunities than "is it magic?" & look outside faerun. There was plenty of discussion about things like how xombies used to have dr5/slash & skeletons dr5/bludgeon meaning you needed to deal 6 or more damage to do any damage if you were not using one of those damage types. There were also these in previous editions
They included silver...

cold iron from prior editions gets fey & some fiends

byeshk hits mostly aberrations

Flametouched iron is good aligned so most fiends, undead, etc including some of those fiends cold iron gets.

Lets be honest... if those creatures are in a nonmagic world with no materials or magic items capable of hurting them it's on the gm to create some solution for the problem unless that was intentional. There is nothing that prevents any of those materials being made with weapons that deal bludgeoning piercing or slashing so there is absolutely no excuse for the "bbbut magic is not supposed to be required even though almost nobody plays that way" silliness.

 

[Ashrym]

"bbbut magic is not supposed to be required even though almost nobody plays that way"

I play that way. You have statistics published somewhere to demonstrate almost nobody plays that way?

It's a basic premise that magic items are a bonus and not a requirement.

That's from XGtE. Current edition information is relevant. Past edition information not so much. 5e recommends not using those monsters if the party does not have the resources to deal with them or become more generous with magic items. There is no requirement to use any monster or provide magic.

"Have the right stuff" is not a method that creates challenge. It's just have vs have not where have removes a restriction instead of there having been created any additional challenge. Restrictions are not challenges.

DM's always have control over how challenging an encounter is. Step one is to understand the party and step two is to go beyond DMG guidelines and estimate what level of challenge any encounter the DM designs is going to be for the party. That's an art and not a formula.

I am going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that given 5e's current popularity and the game premise that magic is not required that a lot of people play without magic being required.

 

[tetrasodium]

I play that way. You have statistics published somewhere to demonstrate almost nobody plays that way?

It's a basic premise that magic items are a bonus and not a requirement.

View attachment 119246

That's from XGtE. Current edition information is relevant. Past edition information not so much. 5e recommends not using those monsters if the party does not have the resources to deal with them or become more generous with magic items. There is no requirement to use any monster or provide magic.

"Have the right stuff" is not a method that creates challenge. It's just have vs have not where have removes a restriction instead of there having been created any additional challenge. Restrictions are not challenges.

DM's always have control over how challenging an encounter is. Step one is to understand the party and step two is to go beyond DMG guidelines and estimate what level of challenge any encounter the DM designs is going to be for the party. That's an art and not a formula.

I am going to go out on a limb and hypothesize that given 5e's current popularity and the game premise that magic is not required that a lot of people play without magic being required.

No it's extremely relevant to point out that there are materials like silver that could have been included to bypass damage immune/resist to allow both campaign types to exist without needing to place the onus on the gm of building such a thing for wotc. They included silver as a half measure because they wanted to give nonmagic campaigns something special for certain monsters, but because they were too focused on faerun they forgot to include materials added by eberron & other settings in both the phb & more importantly the monsters in the monster manual (someone mentioned red steel & others earlier).

There is also the fact that it's not simply a matter of having the "right stuff" & it's disingenuous or just pure lack of experience speaking to keep saying it... given how many times this has been covered I'm wondering if it's a deliberate misrepresentation?

Take the

Spoiler: old cr5 large earth elmental vrs 5e cr5 earth elemental

. t was not immune to nonadamantine damage, it shaved off the first 5 points of anything that hit it meaning that you needed to have a heavy hitter like a charging/power attacking/etc raging barbarian/crit fisher/etc hit it hard or someone else like a build built for reliable average damage to get lucky with the damage rolls leaving those big number builds feeling valued in their choices by getting to show off abilities like leaping attack & such that often took some setup. A gm with lots of reliable low-medium damage number players & no big number ones should probably think twice about using such a creature & instead use creatures those reliable low to mid number damage players an handle more often. That's opposed to the 5e one where you have a 126 hp creature turning into a mindnumbing 252 hit point slog of just "I stay where I am & hit it again". Creatures that required a specific thing like holy silvered or whatever were treated similarly with those things making the monster a joke.

so clearly the most logical course of action was to remove any nuance & depth from resistances rather than including a blurb along the lines of a gm running a campaign world with no magic items or extraordinary materials may want to avoid using creatures with resistances & immunities to nonmagical damage or include some mundane way of damaging these creatures such as having weapons blessed by a religious figure or bathing them in a particularly pure stream if they are used." Also does your no magic campaign lack weapon choices that deal bludgeoning piercing or slashing damage that would prevent creatures from being undefeatable if they had resistances & immunities to those?