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

[Essafah]

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.



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.

Um no. Having played and still owning the books from those editions I am basing what I said off the actual rules of those editions and not the description of adventures. Descriptions of adventures have nothing to do with actual game mechanics. What I mean by rules mechanics of older editions are things like more limited resources: there were no short rests which lead to many one encounter work days. I am talking about undead rules like ghost where one touch aged you 1d10 years or more which quickly lead to death for PCs. Not too mention permanent level drains with no save. Healing spells took the entire action. There was no bonus action healing. So when the older editions DESCRIBED clerics wading into combat smiting their enemies and healing their friends that very rarely ever happened, because clerics had to either heal or do something else and more often than not due how the monsters were stated and monster abilities clerics would heal or possibly some other buff besides fighting. This was one reason for many years cleric was the least popular and last picked class and while as editions of D&D have progressed they have corrected the action economy of clerics and healing ala the bonus action healing word which allows a cleric to fight or do something else and heal (thank you 4E for that innovation!).

For every adventure and even in some descriptive adventures that was often some random and nonsensical encounter that was unexpected and beyond deadly. For many it was not fun back then but we didn't know any better and options were more limited then. So yes 5E is easier compared to those editions if that is what you want to here but 5E is not "EASY" there is still a sense of danger it is just the game allows heroes to be cinematic which is how a fantasy game that promotes action and adventure should be. You can ramp up the difficulty to suit your tastes and if your players are truly okay with that fine but many players did not and do not like OSR games.

 

[GameOgre]

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.

I still play them(though often as the OSR form of game) and I play 5E. Both are good games.

 

[Sadras]

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

Who are you speaking/replying to here?

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.

I also run BECMI adventures on the fly - currently running a mashup of Dark Night's Terror and 2e's Ebonbane.
Absolutely love the older modules and it is so easy to up the difficulty of 5e monsters as you play.

4 PCs went up against three 5e Carrion Crawlers.
(a) Each successful tentacle attack against a PC raised the poison save DC by 1.
(b) Tentacle attacks and Bite attacks do an additional 1d4 damage
(c) They have a +2 proficiency save on Constitution checks.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

We joke that the backup 5e game is easy mode D&D but we still have fun with it. Its a break I suppose from my save or die heavy Swords and Wizardry game set in Rappan Athuck. Which is like a double whammy of lethality. Last night as they were getting out of there to go back to camp and rest they ran into 6 wraiths that pulled levels off 4 PC, which now means a trek though the wild to a city up north that hopefully has a temple with a cleric that can cast the restoration spell. I'll throw some kind of side trek in there based off that.

If I ran 5e again I'd house rule the heck out of it but different game for different folks and all that. Play what fits what you want. I like to game like its 1976.

 

[Sadras]

For many it was not fun back then but we didn't know any better and options were more limited then. You can ramp up the difficulty to suit your tastes and if your players are truly okay with that fine but many players did not and do not like OSR games.

You keep using the word fun and like which is not the point of this conversation. I'm not here to discuss feelings or better or worse or more/least popular.

...snip)... I am basing what I said off the actual rules of those editions and not the description of adventures. Descriptions of adventures have nothing to do with actual game mechanics.

Okay this is a better argument. So the rules informed a survival mode style game. I agree with you on that.

So yes 5E is easier compared to those editions if that is what you want to here but 5E is not "EASY" there is still a sense of danger it is just the game allows heroes to be cinematic which is how a fantasy game that promotes action and adventure should be.

Let me ask you this.
1. What is easy mode for you?
2. When one asks is 5e easy mode are they asking it in isolation or in comparison to another edition?

 

[Sadras]

We joke that the backup 5e game is easy mode D&D but we still have fun with it.

People keep using the word fun and confuse the issue in this thread with others.
Raw 5e easy mode does not equal unfun. PLEASE, please can we remove the feeling bit of it all as people are getting wrong messages.

 

[DND_Reborn]

@Essafah :

Yeah, a lot of us still own our books from 40 years ago and grew up playing through the editions. They were harder. Characters died more easily and stayed dead.

Now, you have said many times you didn't like that style. That's fine. I'm glad the style of 5E fits more to your liking. There is a lot about it I love, myself.

But, if you play it as designed (a DM can always make it harder by house-ruling or beefing up encounters) once you reach tier 2 you are pretty safe. Only stupid choices or DM challenges pose any real problems. It is more super-hero like, and a lot of people like that, but the designers realize a lot of us also prefer more of the challenge "baked into" the system--which is why the grittier options were offered.

Certainly with spells like revivify, character death is rarer in 5E. Most tables IME the PCs waltz into conflict without much concern because they know things like revivify are available. If they fall, a quick healing spell and you get the "whack-a-mole" issue.

Again, if you like that sense in the game, that's great for you. But for many of us, it is not realistic enough (yeah, I know it is a "fantasy" game) to make it as much fun as it could be otherwise.

Anyway, all-in-all, if you look at how the game is designed and not just how people play it, it is "easy mode" (in the sense of character survivability) compared to the design of AD&D (for example). There is nothing wrong with that, it is a different D&D after all, but by design it is easier. That appeals to some players, and expands the popularity of the game genre overall, so those of us who want something else can easily house-rule it and everyone is happy.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

@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.

Thanks.

He had some good points and thoughts, and at least we can still see them. In the end, we're really just responding to the post, not the person, although I was hoping for clarification on his thoughts on Tharizdun. One of my favorites, although I haven't run it in 30 years or so. In fact, it might be one of the last published dungeons that actually interested me enough to run.

 

[Garthanos]

1. What is easy mode for you?

It is pejorative... for one and obviously so when applied to a game.

 

[Essafah]

It is pejorative... for one and obviously so when applied to a game.

Thank you. This is one thing that some people keep missing. In the context being discussed (a game) the term easy mode is and so essentially means not fun or not real D&D like in the old days.