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

[dave2008]

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.

That's easy enough:

1. Just start with background and race, you have to earn level 1
2. Extend level 1 (double or tripple the xp required)
   1. Maybe spread class features throughout the level
3. Roll stats 3d6 and make do
4. Combination of 1-3

 

[DND_Reborn]

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

Gotcha. But, that is the baseline for the game as it is designed, so why would you disagree with even that part of it?

 

[DND_Reborn]

That's easy enough:

1. Just start with background and race, you have to earn level 1
2. Extend level 1 (double or tripple the xp required)
   1. Maybe spread class features throughout the level
3. Roll stats 3d6 and make do
4. Combination of 1-3

I remember one time I played an apprentice wizard and IIRC started at something like -2500 XP with a single cantrip per day! Boy, THAT was rough (but fun to play once--wouldn't want to make a habit of it).

 

[dave2008]

Gotcha. But, that is the baseline for the game as it is designed, so why would you disagree with even that part of it?

Because I think the encounter guide works when you use the baseline assumption (little to no magic items, no feats, no multiclassing, and new players -as i described in the post I linked). As i noted previously they work as intended for my group that fits the baseline group assumptions.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I'm not a fan of amatuer acting classes either.

I was referring to the power level of the characters in GoT vis a vis combat capability and physical capability, not anything to do about the politics of the books. Last time I checked, when Jon Snow had to fight the white walkers, he didn't sprout luminescent wings, fly into the air, and shoot fire beams out of his eyes.




This confirms my point relating to the fundamental differences in expectations I often have with 5E.

I don't want a play a D&D game where the default is to make the PCs the heroes via their abilities. That sounds like there is a expectation of the PCs should always win and never fail. It also seems to state an expectation where the character's abilities are what is important.

My character isn't a hero just because I created it. My character might become a hero if it does heroic acts in the face of adversity in challenging environment. My character might also die in a pit trap in the dark dungeon and be forgotten.

How well I play the game will determine which fate will come to pass.



PBR, really?!? I thought they all moved on to Carling Black Label.

The beer analogy is silly and your dig at nostalgia and that it is a hipster fad is also silly.





It's all about preference. You prefer heroic larger than life cinematic action. I don't.

I prefer a more realistic approach to the game. I don't want superheroes in D&D, I want mortal level characters. I want to have my success at the game be based more on the choices I make as a player as opposed to the powers my character has on the character sheet.

You call that survival horror and akin to playing Call of Cthuhlu, I call that playing D&D.

Lingering wounds, slow healing, ignore encounter building guidelines.

 

[dave2008]

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

...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.

I agree, that could be one. Simply make poison save or die if that is what you like. Just let the group know and its done!

 

[tetrasodium]

.

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)

The elephant in the room being ignored by a lot of people too is that few if any of those are mutually exclusive or nearly as conflucting as 5e's design goals seem to make them out to be.

 

[dave2008]

@dave2008 These are some examples, given my earlier examples of them in play and the sound of silence accompanying claims that such narrowly focused tools exist in 5e I think it's more than enough of a selection to start with.

OK, so you are claiming that monsters need more threaten abilities, is that it? And WotC hasn't provided the tools to make them more threaten? I've never liked save or die mechanics or their ilk (level drain, etc.), so I don't miss those. If that is something you do like, then yes WotC has not provided you with the tools to get there. However, neither did 1e, 2e, or 3e. Monster stat blocks are mini-rules modules in and of themselves. If you want monsters that do that, just give your 5e monsters those tools. If I want a monster from 1e in my 5e game. I just use the 1e stat block and adjust AC/HP/Damage based on the DMG tables and use the special abilities as is. There is nothing in 5e that makes this difficult. Heck, if you issues is just the monsters, that is a non-issue to me. That being said, I do realize that is not the case for others, apparently you are included in that group.

As to the rest of your post @dave2008 , I actually commented on most of that earlier.

AH, I remember that post. However, I asked you for an explanation of what you are looking for, not of what 5e provides that you don't think is up to snuff. For example, you didn't like the healer's kit dependency because it can be overcome by magic. How is that different in 1e/2e when healing was overcome with magic and particularly magic potions? As a 5e DM I feel can restrict access to healing magic as easily as I did in 1e. Where are you having problems?

 

[Garthanos]

The elephant in the room being ignored by a lot of people too is that few if any of those are mutually exclusive or nearly as conflicting as 5e's design goals seem to make them out to be.

Sure and I was also trying to point out perhaps that things removed are not trivial to put in... you know what happens when a fighter can do more opportunity attacks like one per turn? he can lock more enemies in place with a feat and now a fear spell can force enemies to continuously trigger those opportunity attacks... so you have to hunt for things like those and introduce subtle changes like if the enemy is hit while feared they get an extra saving throw or the like.

This is not just oh my put a new rule on it see how easy it is? Even simplified 5e has elements which propagate

 

[Cap'n Kobold]

3/3.5 is a version of d&d prior to 5e making it a prior edition. You don't mention which monsters, so lets compare some of the scariest ones of 3.5 with their 5e counterparts?

Which monsters would depend on what you were going to be using. If you use nastier monsters, like upping basic Hobgoblins to veterans, or goblins to bugbears, you will make encounters harder.

So yes... to which 5e monsters do you refer to?

Other than right at the top end of CR, most monsters in 5e have a nastier version of substitution that you can make.

I'm not sure of the point of comparison with 3.5 monsters that are now easier to deal with. If you're trying to create challenging encounters in 5e, then picking out monsters that have gotten easier to deal with seems counterproductive. If anything, you should be looking at monsters that got harder to deal with in 5e, like goblins, orcs, intellect devourers etc.