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

[Chaosmancer]

The gnomes of MIH would take issue with such a statement, Gangsta Gnome Clans* are so much better than the absurd mad steampunk tinkers who don't apply any of their tech to the world at large as found in places likr FR & Greyhawk.

*Factor in things like wide magic along with The Trust & it's easy to see how much closer to these than FR's that eberron's gnomes are

On a serious note, I really do like the fact that Eberron took an ability that is generally seen as next to worthless (talking to small animals) and logicked it out into a massive international spy cabal. The rats are always listening, and as long as you have cheese, they will spill secrets you might not have even known you had.

 

[tetrasodium]

On a serious note, I really do like the fact that Eberron took an ability that is generally seen as next to worthless (talking to small animals) and logicked it out into a massive international spy cabal. The rats are always listening, and as long as you have cheese, they will spill secrets you might not have even known you had.

The Trust is sooo much more. Keith talks about them a bit in one of the Manifest Zone episodes but I'm not sure which , Trust agents are empowered to act as investigator, judge, jury, and executioner. Not only are the rats listening but that greater nvisibility clad stranger knocking at the door could have a scorching ray readied when you open the door. It's a shame that you went on to scorching ray yourself 6 more times in the back of the head. I find that diving hard into MHI's gnomes gets the grognards & newbies alike grinning with glee whenever they interact with the two scary types n the world (Gangst gnomes & kobolds). Sure mobster halflings can be a scary problem, but they play by rules of society and are less likely to act like a PC than the other two when they have feathers ruffled

* jump to around 17:30.

 

[Don Durito]

Why would the players be pissed off by monsters, especially intelligent ones, going for the downed PC? My players expect nothing less from the monsters. We eliminated the whack a mole syndrome a few years ago when I made the enemies react to the whack a mole. Now the players are avoiding to fall at all cost by using tactics such as dodge, disengage and other shenanigans to which they have access (such as misty step). I usually allow one recovery before the enemies react with attacking the downed PC.

You do it for the same reason you roll for wandering monsters rather than arbtrarily declaring them.

 

[Oofta]

You do it for the same reason you roll for wandering monsters rather than arbtrarily declaring them.

Well, I don't remember the last time I rolled for random monsters (or maybe I do because it's random as to who's watch they show up on?).

Monsters in my campaign aren't random. They're there for a logical reason based on the story and what makes sense.

Just like monsters double tap, or drag the unconscious person off or ignore them.

 

[Don Durito]

Well, I don't remember the last time I rolled for random monsters (or maybe I do because it's random as to who's watch they show up on?).

Monsters in my campaign aren't random. They're there for a logical reason based on the story and what makes sense.

Just like monsters double tap, or drag the unconscious person off or ignore them.

So...? Are you bored and trying to provoke a pointless argument? Aren't there enough topics in this thread already? I don't care if you don't use wandering monsters. I myself don't use wandering monsters all that much

Wandering monsters are a clear solution to particular problem that arises in certain types of games. If you structure your game in a different way than you don't have the problem ergo you don't have need of the solution.

The point I was making was that the two solutions are analoguous. What I was proposing and rolling for wandering monsters are both ways of diffusing a potentially adversarial atmosphere.

 

[Oofta]

So...? Are you bored and trying to provoke a pointless argument? Aren't there enough topics in this thread already? I don't care if you don't use wandering monsters. I myself don't use wandering monsters all that much

Wandering monsters are a clear solution to particular problem that arises in certain types of games. If you structure your game in a different way than you don't have the problem ergo you don't have need of the solution.

The point I was making was that the two solutions are analoguous. What I was proposing and rolling for wandering monsters are both ways of diffusing a potentially adversarial atmosphere.

Whoa there buckaroo. Not trying to start an argument, just pointing out that people have different styles of DMing. I don't have an adversarial relationship with my players. On the other hand I don't hide behind dice. I discuss level of lethality with my players and try to read them and their reactions when we play. Then I DM accordingly. They know I will play the monsters the way I think they would act.

For the most part I don't rely on dice to decide what monsters do or do not do or what shows up when unless it's to resolve uncertainty like when the specter shows up. Wild animals don't fight to the death unless there are extenuating circumstances. Orcs aren't particularly bright but hobgoblins are a bit more intelligent and militaristic so are more likely to double tap. Higher level monsters are more likely to have previously encountered healing magic and are also more likely to make sure someone is going to stay down.

If a ghoul kills off Bob's character I'm not going to say "Sorry Bob, the dice made me do it." I'm going to own up to the fact that the ghoul ate Bob's PC's face because I decided it was ravenously hungry. On the other hand, it's just as likely that the ghoul will try to drag the unconscious PC off to be eaten because it tends to be more dramatic and gives fellow players more choices and options. Death is pretty rare in my campaigns because I've chosen to make it relatively rare and it's what my players enjoy.

 

[SeventhSon]

I would say that is intentionally set BY DEFAULT to be difficult to kill a player, because the game was designed to remove a lot of the elements that suck about general D&D: dying, level drains requiring you to rebuild the character, disparity in leveling XP, XP spending for magic item creation, etc.

That said, if you want to kill a character, it is easily done. Once dropped to 0, any attack or damage will force a death save failure. I’ve run Dungeons and Donations for several seasons and have had a plentiful kill count.

 

[tetrasodium]

I would say that is intentionally set BY DEFAULT to be difficult to kill a player, because the game was designed to remove a lot of the elements that suck about general D&D: dying, level drains requiring you to rebuild the character, disparity in leveling XP, XP spending for magic item creation, etc.

That said, if you want to kill a character, it is easily done. Once dropped to 0, any attack or damage will force a death save failure. I’ve run Dungeons and Donations for several seasons and have had a plentiful kill count.

The problem is that the dial is set wrong. Using video games as an example, OSR might be hard/nightmare & medium difficulty but 5e is unlimited lives and various other console codes in easy difficulty. Too many dials were adjusted with that goal you note & it results in the system binding a gm's hands by trivializing too many things. Sure it works great for a very specific type of game, but the system itself begins to fight the gm as soon as they start to edge even one toe outside the lines of that specific type of game

 

[Oofta]

The problem is that the dial is set wrong. Using video games as an example, OSR might be hard/nightmare & medium difficulty but 5e is unlimited lives and various other console codes in easy difficulty. Too many dials were adjusted with that goal you note & it results in the system binding a gm's hands by trivializing too many things. Sure it works great for a very specific type of game, but the system itself begins to fight the gm as soon as they start to edge even one toe outside the lines of that specific type of game

Yet other people have posted multiple times about how at least some of there games have extremely high [PC] body count.

I find 5E no more or less deadly than previous editions, I do find that I am less likely to get a TPK in 5E. I have come close a few times though, including my last session where I think I would have taken out the entire party had the monk not gotten lucky.

 

[SeventhSon]

I would disagree. To use your metaphor, it’s more like the video game trope of sheltering behind cover to heal up. If you let yourself get battered enough, you’ll definitely die.
I’d also argue it is easy to make things harder with a simple adjustment than it is to make things easier. Don’t like the death save rule? Don’t use it. Use -10 HP as a hard kill. Or kill em at 0 HP. Easily done.

A lot of people (including myself) glossed over all the optional rules in the DMG which covers higher lethality games, reincorporating speed factor, and all that good stuff. So it’s canonically there, unlike many other editions where it was simply a house rule.