D&D 5E Is 5e "Easy Mode?"

[Sadras]

No 5E is not easy mode. What 5E is about is having PCs be larger than life action style heroes and as both a DM and player I think this is fine and keeps in like with many classic larger than life Sword & sorcery heroes of old like Conan who may or may not be born to a lower social class but whose innate abilities are clearly beyond the normal human to mythic in nature. As an player who started many editions ago. I think this change is and play style is good.

I fail to see how the larger than life claim makes 5e not easy mode.
Do note whether the change or play style is good or not is not being debated here.

 

[Minigiant]

I fail to see how the larger than life claim makes 5e not easy mode.
Do note whether the change or play style is good or not is not being debated here.

Because what is considered success changes.

When victory is life,failure is death.
When victory is larger than life, failure is life.

Kid watching a fighter and his party fight the local gangsters

in AD&D: "Sir Joseph died. What a loser. Lord Dio rules."
in 4E: "Sir Joseph dying. What a loser. Lord Dio rules."
in 5e: "Sir Joseph is still unconsious. What a loser. Lord Dio rules"

 

[Essafah]

I fail to see how the larger than life claim makes 5e not easy mode.
Do note whether the change or play style is good or not is not being debated here.

1. It is not easy mode because of the points @Minigiant laid out in his response. It is also not easy mode because yes while the game is cinematic and larger than life there still exist a chance for characters to die or be knocked out and not achieve their objective (rescuing a kidnapped Noble, etc) if they make poor choices or have an ungodly string of bad luck. This just does not exist to the degree it did in 1E which was a charnal house for PCs

2. Yeah whether the style of play is good or is being debated because by using the term "easy mode" the OSR folks are tacitly hinting that the style of play is substandard or not real "real D&D". Kind of like if a chef said "Micowaving is not cooking" the context of what is being said has an insult in it de facto I am just openly defying that BS logic and saying the change in play style is good.

 

[Garthanos]

Because what is considered success changes.

When victory is life,failure is death.
When victory is larger than life, failure is life.

Kid watching a fighter and his party fight the local gangsters

in AD&D: "Sir Joseph died. What a loser. Lord Dio rules."
in 4E: "Sir Joseph dying. What a loser. Lord Dio rules."
in 5e: "Sir Joseph is still unconsious. What a loser. Lord Dio rules"

or damn the village was destroyed they took so long to stop him they lost

2. Yeah whether the style of play is good or is being debated because by using the term "easy mode" the OSR folks are tacitly hinting that the style of play is substandard or not real "real D&D". Kind of like if a chef said "Micowaving is not cooking" the context of what is being said has an insult in it de facto I am just openly defying that BS logic and saying the change in play style is good.

Yup oooh your dice fell well and you went left instead of right you win... how skill full

 

[GameOgre]

5E is very easy and takes a lot of breaking rules or house rules to fix. The balance between pc's and monsters is VERY out of whack. Compared to many of the older editions. Basically the farther back you go the harder the game gets.

 

[Essafah]

5E is very easy and takes a lot of breaking rules or house rules to fix. The balance between pc's and monsters is VERY out of whack. Compared to many of the older editions. Basically the farther back you go the harder the game gets.

The older editions were the problem specifically 1st edition. Even as someone who started in older editions I would not tolerate the random F ery that existed in those editions. For example, if our party of PCs encountered a room full of cockatrices at level 1 that wiped out the party. We would soon have someone else in the room DMing and rightly so. Much of the stuff was not fun back then. We just didn't know any better and 1E D&D which I still respect as the progenitor in all honesty had very little competition. If that is your style of gaming there are several games available that replicate OSR style play. I and most players I know (and I have to sadly admit I am no longer a spring chicken) would not play in those games. They were great then......but I like where the game is now more.

 

[Sadras]

Because what is considered success changes.

1. It is not easy mode because of the points @Minigiant laid out in his response. It is also not easy mode because yes while the game is cinematic and larger than life there still exist a chance for characters to die or be knocked out and not achieve their objective (rescuing a kidnapped Noble, etc) if they make poor choices or have an ungodly string of bad luck. This just does not exist to the degree it did in 1E which was a charnal house for PCs.

That is making an awfully large assumption about games during 1e and 2e and certainly one which I do not agree with.

BECIMI - The Grand Duchy of Karameikos (page 62)

The Sins of the Valdo Tisza
Everyone wants a certain document which the PCs stumble upon - the ministers to cover up a security leak, Tisza to protect his name, Torenescu to increase his power...etc
The adventure actually states "They can do whatever they want with it, this is a morality test as well as an adventure."

Poisoners in the Night
Investigate/discover Aleksander Torenescu is ill (nigh-undetectable poison). Failure would obviously lead to the young heir's death. It is not so much about your survival as it is about racing against time to save the heir.

2e - Ravenloft Darklords (page 68-73)

The Phantom Lover
The entire advenure is fashioned on the party saving a victim from the Phantom Lover - a success very different to just survival of the PCs.
The final paragraph state - "...the Phantom lover can never truly be destroyed. As long as there are sorrows and grief of immensve proportion, he will return to the realm of the innocent, seeking out a new victim."

I can find you a plethora more....I think your basic assumptions are wrong about earlier editions. Sure there were adventures where survival was the only goal but you two are using those to paint entire editions as merely a survivor series.

2. Yeah whether the style of play is good or is being debated because by using the term "easy mode" the OSR folks are tacitly hinting that the style of play is substandard or not real "real D&D". Kind of like if a chef said "Micowaving is not cooking" the context of what is being said has an insult in it de facto I am just openly defying that BS logic and saying the change in play style is good.

I'm not here on behalf of any OSR folk and you responded to my post. In terms of achieving success it is easy mode when compared to some older editions: The +'s are there (ability modifiers easier to obtain and higher), along with a bounded accuracy system, advantage, and a lot more accessability to innate magic.

5e has other benefits which earlier editions do not. This is not a contest about editions.
And just because I consider raw 5e 'easy mode' does not mean one cannot ramp up the difficulty as one can easily decrease the difficulty in earlier editions - which many of us did.

 

[Sadras]

@Ilbranteloth, just letting you know, since you quoted lowkey13 earlier - he sadly has removed himself from these boards. His account is now reflecting as guest.

 

[fearsomepirate]

That's more a philosophy of adventure design than rule set, though.

I run primarily BECMI and AD&D adventures that convert on the fly to 5e (I have a cheat sheet to do it; DM me if you want it), and player characters die quite often. I don't care at all for the "adventure path" style.

 

[Minigiant]

I can find you a plethora more....I think your basic assumptions are wrong about earlier editions. Sure there were adventures where survival was the only goal but you two are using those to paint entire editions as merely a survivor series.

You aremissing my point on base assumptions.
You can play the game any way you like. But the base game has a different assumption of what you are. Therefore the DM might have to change rules and run different to play different from the base assumption.

In 4th edition, the base assumption is a 1st level PC is a fully trained veteran.
In 5th edition, 1st level is mostly trained apprentice.
In 3rd edition, 1st level PC is a half trained ameteur.
In OSR, 1st level is a barely trained newbie.

When you only have 1 or 2 spells or fail most skill checks and die for 1 cut, you can run Big Dang Heroes but you won't be playing like them.

If'n you can't survive an explosion, you can't play John McClane no matter what the quest says.