D&D General Is WotC's 5E D&D easy? Trust me this isn't what you think... maybe

[SteveC]

Funny, I would say that’s when it matters the most, because that’s when you have the least ability to access resurrection spells.

I said that because at very low levels it's easy to work up a new character and get them back into the game the same session. Not so much for higher levels.

 

[Charlaquin]

I said that because at very low levels it's easy to work up a new character and get them back into the game the same session. Not so much for higher levels.

Yeah, but at higher levels you don’t usually need to make a new character because you have access to resurrection spells. At lower levels a new character is easier to make, but you’re more likely to need to make one (both because characters are more fragile and because of lack of resurrection magic at low levels). Also, in my experience the significance of a character loss to a player is directly linked to their attachment to that character, and pretty disconnected from the time or energy making a new character takes.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I agree, 1st and 2nd level characters can and do die. After that they start to develop plot armour. Not because the characters are too powerful, but because the players become emotionally attached to them.

 

[Flexor the Mighty!]

Maybe the point of the game is not longer 'challenge' as you define it?

That is entirely true. Which is why I just lost interest in running or playing 5e. No right or wrong just personal preference.

 

[Stormonu]

Actually, IIRC both those examples are when the party is 1st level, maybe 2nd level? I think (but obviously haven't played ALL the WotC 5 adventures) your statement that their modules "will often throw PCs into situations that aren't easy to overcome" might be specific to the very lowest levels of play, and may not hold true at other levels.

Oh, those were just examples off the top of my head. I've had a TPK in Tales in White Plume Mountain in the encounter with Sir Bluto and gang (primarily due to the setup of that room) - which is for 8th level characters, and in Ghosts a character was slain and very nearly the rest of the party in a bodak encounter - a 5th level adventure.

Now, I can't say about anything over 10th level, cuz I simply don't play the higher levels because they've always been broken and I just don't like the "Avengers Assemble" sort of super-heroics at those levels.

 

[Quickleaf]

Oh, those were just examples off the top of my head. I've had a TPK in Tales in White Plume Mountain in the encounter with Sir Bluto and gang (primarily due to the setup of that room) - which is for 8th level characters, and in Ghosts a character was slain and very nearly the rest of the party in a bodak encounter - a 5th level adventure.

Now, I can't say about anything over 10th level, cuz I simply don't play the higher levels because they've always been broken and I just don't like the "Avengers Assemble" sort of super-heroics at those levels.

Oh, yeah, a bodak will do the trick every time.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Anyway rambling. I find the official adventures are meant to be conquered (and 5E and it's power fantasy complement this). Anyone else find this to be true most of the time?

The problem with (official) 5e's design is that it wants to serve not just two masters, but three.

First, it wants to serve the ultra-lethal, ultra-risky old school play, where a single mistake is deadly, combat is fast and scary, and the only real route to consistent success is to never actually "play by the rules"--a combat that happens at a time you weren't at least partially prepared for is already a loss, even if you manage to survive.

Second, it wants to serve something in the direction of 3e (and very, very, very limitedly 4e), where combat is an exciting challenge, a test of wills and acumen between foes, where mastery is rewarded with victory. Losing a combat is because you played badly, and you generally get the chance to retreat and fight another day.

Third, it wants to serve something in the direction of Dragonlance, where combat is a secondary concern to the personal, emotional, narrative journey of the characters involved, where you "lose a fight" only because you betrayed your ethos, and characters are given significant protection against unexpected death.

You might, possibly, be able to make the second and third compatible, since they can effectively act as non-overlapping magisteria, each one mostly staying in its "lane." #2 covers the processes and consequences within combat, #3 covers those outside it. Making #1 compatible with either of the other two is...well, I don't know if it's impossible, but it's gonna be really gorram hard, and 5e has settled on a compromise that often doesn't please the fans of any of these things--simply based on the recurrent complaints.

Folks who want #1 are annoyed at how barebones the survivability stuff is, and how quickly characters become not crazy-ultra-fragile. Folks who want #2 are annoyed at how every monster is a dull fat sack of HP with little value beyond how hard it can hit or whether it can use a SoD/SoS effect on the party. Folks who want #3 are annoyed at how swingy and lethal the system is, and to a lesser extent things like money having little to no value due to the designers' (initial) opposition to having any form of magic item purchases.

 

[Oofta]

And that’s one of the key problems with 5E encounter design. The assumption of four PCs vs one monster. Action economy wins fights. The monsters are almost always at a huge disadvantage. Except for some named NPCs, you get 1-3 attacks from a monster vs at least four from the PCs. Giving monsters the same action economy as the PCs would go a long way to make things more challenging.

Solos have never really worked in any edition. Things like legendary and lair actions can make it work once in a while, but that's the exception to the rule.

 

[payn]

Solos have never really worked in any edition. Things like legendary and lair actions can make it work once in a while, but that's the exception to the rule.

Not a D&D edition but PF2 makes solos work actually quite well.

 

[Scott Christian]

Have any of you played Candlekeep? The last few levels, 10th - 14th for us, have been absolutely brutal and deadly. And how many complaints have I heard about Horde, Rise, and the end of Rime being too difficult for a group the suggested level.

I will say this, I believe a lot of it comes to DM experience. I remember another thread in here that said it was almost impossible to challenge 12th, 15th, or 18th level characters. I agree, it is difficult. But there are a dozen creatures in the MM that can do so effectively, and the group winds up with a great battle that is a nail biter.

Just my two cents.