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

[Essafah]

You personally don't think that is fun.

Stop telling me that the games that I have fun playing aren't fun.

No need to be confrontational. Yes. I personally don't think the style of game you are playing is fun. The fact that modern D&D seems to be more popular than OSR style games would seem to indicate this is a general consensus but no one said you are not having fun in your game. I did not not tell you that you are not having fun playing in it or running that style of game. In fact, I said just the opposite. I specifically stated as long as you are having fun running an OSR game and you truly have buy-in from your players and they are having fun then that is the goal. It has been my experience that many OSR DMs however start running again and assume player buy-in and try to force an OSR style of play on a game and will tell other people their players are having fun when that is not the case. It seems like you are not in this category and if people talked to your players they are perfectly happy having their characters die at the drop of a hat and having the PCs being inconsequential since as you stated "as a DM you don't care what happens" then that works for your group and I am not begrudging that as again having fun is the goal and if that fits your groups ideal of fun more power to you.

Why is story important? Is playing D&D about telling a story or about having adventures? I don't want the outcome prewritten. It is hard to explain but as a DM I don't care what happens. I don't have a story to tell. I don't have any influence. I just present a world and adjudicate it fairly. I will do no less as a DM and I expect no less as a player.

Story is important because as a DM part of your job is being a storyteller. That is a foundational competency of DMing. I don't feel I should have to explain that but if you want you can pick up the DMG and read it; it mentions story throughout the book. As an example, "It is good to be the Dungeon Master! Not only do you tell fantastic stories about heroes, villains, monsters and magic, but you also get to create the world in which these stories live. (5E DMG pg. 4 Introduction). There are several other passages throughout the DMG that references the importance of story. It also mentions making sure your players actually enjoy the game. Again a reference to this foundational competency can be found on pg. 6 of the DMG.

I don't understand this criticism. What in the world are you talking about? What does Danny Devito have to do with anything? Explain your argument more clearly.

It seems not only is there a misunderstanding of foundational DM competencies but also of analogy. I used Danny Devito because that is what I picture when I think of say a 2E character whose average abilities scores (if using the default 3d6 keep in order rolled method) would be in the 9-12 range. I picture somebody with physicality of Danny Devito picking up a sword and saying I am going to fight. It is the furthest thing from heroic fantasy or sword & sorcery that I can think of BUT it is very Game of Thrones like so I guess I can see why you like it. To break it down as simple as possible not since 2E is it assumed that the PCs are just average folks (ability wise) who just decided for whatever reason to risk the adventuring life. Instead it is assumed that whatever their socio-economic/personal origins that the PCs are above the average mien (ability wise) and are marked by destiny to have an impact on their world. In short, it assumes the DM cares what happens.

Wrong.

If you look at old school games as an adult in the modern time, you see a different style of D&D. Maybe you don't understand it, but it is just as valid as any game you play now. Maybe the rules introduced in B/X are just fine and create a very interesting and intense gameplay. A style of gameplay that can't be achieved with modern D&D but a valid and engaging gameplay nonetheless.

Again, I never said that OSR game can't be intense or enjoyable (again provided the group has buy-in). I would not like that style of play nor do I think that style of play would be good for the modern game but I never said some people don't enjoy it. As far as the nostalgia part, yes I will stand by what I said on that part: many OSR people I have meet seem to look back on the game and not realize that they enjoyed those games to a large extent because of the house rules or rules being ignored.

As an example, one OSR style gamer I meet mentioned how much he loved his 2E game that they have been playing for a few years. Yes. He still plays 2E. He mentioned how fond he was of his elven swordsman (fighter) whose highest stat was 17 and how the character had survived to 18th level and hoped to make it to 20th. This all sounds good but then having DMed several campaigns in 2E I pointed out to him that by the rules he could not have an 18th level elven fighter or get to 20th because of the race and level limits rules of 2E. His fighter per 2E rules had to stop somewhere in the early teens (my 2E DMG is packed away and I am not digging it out for the exact level cap but it was near the early teens for elven fighters). Needless to say he could not progress to 20th level either. There are optional rules in the 2E DMG to allow demihumans (as they were called then) to exceed these limits provided they have an exceptionally high class prerequistie score but with a 17 Str the character should not be able to get to 18th level as an elven fighter in 2E, no where near it, but yes if you just ignore that rule I guess his OSR game is fine. Again, though if people enjoy playing these games and have group buy-in there is no problem.

D&D old school works fine for me, thank you. No need for me to go to other games. 5E is fun but it is not always the best option for certain campaigns. You use the tool that best fits your need. If you want high fantasy adventure, 5E is a good choice. If you want a more mortal centric low powered game OSR is the better choice.

I will agree with this statement and I am glad you and your players are having fun playing OSR. I like modern games and high adventure. We can agree to disagree. Luckily D&D is a big tent and is customizable from the baseline to fit the needs of differing groups as needed. Good gaming.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

OK, what were these tools you speak of? It is hard to discuss if we don't know what we are discussing / comparing too.

I started with D&D / AD&D back in the 80s and I personally find I have more tools available to me in 5e. I have no problem making my players rethink strategies. In fact, we play 5e pretty much like we did in D&D / 1e AD&D

Save or Die (or Save or Suck) could be one of those examples.

The "standard" approach is fight first, and attack to kill, because a dead thing can't fight you back. But in the past, if you were fighting a venomous snake, it was often better to try to avoid fighting it at all. Even at high levels, you would think twice about just running in to fight certain creatures like ghosts, wraiths, etc.

I get it, people didn't like when they tried and failed. One thing that I think got lost later on was that the better designed scenarios gave the impression that it was deadly, but the risk was actually very low.

For example, the pits in Tomb of Horrors.

The pits don't even list damage for falling. Only for falling on 1-3 spikes, with a save required for each or you die from poison. So yes, they are deadly, if you fall on a spike and fail your saving throw. It's also a multi-step process, which I think heightens the fear that I'm about to lose my 10th level fighter.

But when you figure out the math for the process described (assuming you're probing for pits), there's a roughly 10% chance you'll actually die. Yes, some did die. And some didn't like that.

But the fact that poison was save or die meant that the players would often change their strategy as soon as they knew they were dealing with poison.

 

[DND_Reborn]

I've thought about having creatures that deal poison damage have a rider of the poisoned condition for the turn as well, failing a DC equal to 8 + the poison damage done (unless a DC is already given).

 

[Minigiant]

Like I said before everyone has different ideas of what difficult is.

Some want numbers
Some want narratives
Some want psychology
Some want cheats

 

[Garthanos]

Like I said before everyone has different ideas of what difficult is.

Some want numbers
Some want narratives
Some want psychology
Some want cheats

Some want more difficult decisions more ways to trade risk for benefit (see narative class tactics)
Harder battlefield movement (more prevalent opportunity attacks and harder to achieve flanking and more mult-attacks to reduce the focus fire clumping... more disadvantages in middle fight to encourage spreading out the pain also to make the ubiquitous focus fire less the only tactic in D&D land) and so on and so forth..

More nuance in general - for instance teamwork in group actions (hey why should the whole team bother helping a skilled activity when one alone provides advantage)

 

[Oofta]

Lookie there. As predicted, 5E is hopelessly broken because it's not 3.5 [insert different versions for some].

Which is fine. Adjusting 5E to play more like older editions isn't all that hard. Use the guidelines from the DMG or add your own house rules. You would probably need less than a page. Make poison nastier. Level drain isn't recovered with a long rest. Phew. Difficult.

Then again, the older editions weren't written in disappearing ink. If you prefer old school, go old school.

 

[WayOfTheFourElements]

I'm not sure I would particularly enjoy a game where I've slogged all the way to 14th level, and I'm still basically the same old 1st level pleb worrying about encumbrance, hunger, light and warmth, and slowing winding my way through a dungeon holding a 10' pole.

Like - the dude in robes next to me can teleport, create magical light, summon demons, fly, alter reality, disintegrate things with a word, shift to different dimensions, and conjure firestorms with a click of his fingers.

Most DnD worlds are (and always been) filled to the brim with archmages, dragons, beholders, hundreds of sentient species, planar visitors, flying cities, elves, gods, undead monsters, demons, devils, angels, mind flayers from other worlds, and even space-faring visitors packing plasma guns (Blackmoor, Greyhawk, Mystara, Faerun). When you take a step back, they are gonzo in the extreme.

While at 1st level as a pleb, I might worry about mundane stuff, I have no issue with someone in such a world becoming just as gonzo with experience and loot, and flying, caring stuff in an extra dimensional space, eating food magically conjured out of the air, flinging energy from their hands or whatever.

I have a feeling some of the criticisms of the PCs becoming the Avengers at high level is misplaced. The context of DnD is just as gonzo as the Avengers.

I think that's the point. Some of us want to have the 1st level pleb experience before ascending to the ranks of Conan and Mazirian. But as of now, even a 1st-level fighter doesn't feel like much of a pleb, but a hero in the making. I feel destined for greatness. I feel a cut above. I don't want my guy to be born a hero or have his destiny written in the stars before his birth. I don't want his success to be expected. I want to see my guy fight tooth and nail to survive. Then, one day - maybe - he will finally earn and deserve his status as a hero.

 

[Oofta]

I think that's the point. Some of us want to have the 1st level pleb experience before ascending to the ranks of Conan and Mazirian. But as of now, even a 1st-level fighter doesn't feel like much of a pleb, but a hero in the making. I feel destined for greatness. I feel a cut above. I don't want my guy to be born a hero or have his destiny written in the stars before his birth. I don't want his success to be expected. I want to see my guy fight tooth and nail to survive. Then, one day - maybe - he will finally earn and deserve his status as a hero.

Which is why for some campaigns I start the PCs out as commoners, often as preteens growing up together when the biggest threat is Old Man Wilson's dog. But at least 5E is better at representing low levels better than 4E, or at least it feels like that to me.

 

[dave2008]

LOL, you snipped out the part of my post that agrees with your POV (for the most part). Did you read all of it? If you did I don't see how you can really "disagree".

I was just disagree with that part of the post, that is why it was snipped.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Back in 3.5 for example, if 5th level Alice decides to circumvent negotiations with a fireball at a frenemy, they can just interrupt the spell by throwing their wine glass at her because the dc was 10+damage+spell level while in 5e it's 10 or half the damage taken so that wineglass only needs dc10.

I have no idea where the conversation even is at this point, but I wanted to pull this bit out to mention.

I like the change made in 5e, why? Because Alice isn't used to wineglasses being thrown in her face while casting. She's used to being shot with arrows and stabbed with spears.

A wineglass should be easy for her to cast through.

For example, the pits in Tomb of Horrors.

The pits don't even list damage for falling. Only for falling on 1-3 spikes, with a save required for each or you die from poison. So yes, they are deadly, if you fall on a spike and fail your saving throw. It's also a multi-step process, which I think heightens the fear that I'm about to lose my 10th level fighter.

But when you figure out the math for the process described (assuming you're probing for pits), there's a roughly 10% chance you'll actually die. Yes, some did die. And some didn't like that.

But the fact that poison was save or die meant that the players would often change their strategy as soon as they knew they were dealing with poison.

See, I have a logical problem with your last statement. "But the fact that poison was save or die meant that the players would often change their strategy as soon as they knew they were dealing with poison."

See, if I'm running the world, and spider venom is potential instant death, then my goblins (who are sneaky and would prefer you dead rather than capable of fighting back) are going to gather up spider venom for their arrows. Then, they are going to shoot at you from an ambush.

So, when does the party know they are dealing with poison? After they are hit by an arrow, by which point, there is a good chance a PC just died. And how will they change their strategy? They were avoiding getting hit by the arrows before right? And there are problems with things like, hunkering behind cover, because readied actions makes that just as deadly for you.

Or, let's move on from archers with poison. I remember in a few video games encountering giant centipedes. Didn't know that centipedes were poisonous, so your players are walking through a dungeon, find a room filled with centipedes, if they don't know centipedes are poisonous, when do they know they are dealing with poison? Well, that would be after they are bit, at which point a PC might be dead.

But, let us move on from monsters. Traps are a fine tradition. You obviously look out for traps, but you don't always find them. A trap with a poison needle, or a poison gas, or a poison anything. When do you know when it is poison? When it is too late and a PC is likely dead.

But hey, sometimes you do get to see it ahead of time right? You mentioned snakes. Classic movie scene right, fall into a pit of snakes... you are dead. Because you just got potentially bit by dozens of snakes.


So, sure, sometimes you could see the threat coming, and do something about it, but many, many many times, the logic of the situation would mean that you actually didn't see it coming, until someone is already dead.