D&D 5E Reducing Power Gaming

[Nebulous]

My solution is to slow down leveling to what I want based on story beats and not go past 8th. My players get very invested in the story and not necessarily the perks of leveling up, so when it happens they're pleased, but not jonesing for the next power up. I agree, you get too powerful too fast in D&D, and by 10th you're a demi-god. I still hand out magic items, but in my experience, unless the numbers are baked into their sheet/item, they tend to forget about magic stuff in lieu of their class abilities.

 

[Nebulous]

Thank you, everyone. I have done a few of these things in the past--slow level progression, gritty realism, etc. Part of the issue is that I play on Roll20, so other systems are much less well supported. I appreciate all these suggestions! I really do like 5e as a system, but it plays a bit too superhero for my tastes as a DM. My players like it, for the most part, but I'm fortunate in the fact that my group wants everyone to be having fun, not just the PCs.

We have played the Free League Middle Earth game and liked it. We've played DCC which we all like. Dragonbane, too. Castles&Crusades is on the docket, but it's really clunky on Roll20.

DCC just came out officially on Roll20, so I want to try that for a while when my current 5e campaign is done.

 

[Jahydin]

Does switching to PF 2 really fix anything?

If you're not happy with how powerful PCs are, absolutely! Mastery of the rules and party coordination are a must just to squeak by multiple combats.

After years of running 5E, I can't tell you how happy I was to finally see a party scrambling around trying to take down a monster that was immune to magical attacks until you cracked open his armor, then it flips to being immune to physical. The amount of back and forth to figure it out, the coordination of half the party giving up actions to "Aid" the other half to hit better, and the feeling of accomplishment when it was over was exactly what I was looking for in TTRPGs.

That said, it really is up to the GM how difficult he wants to make things. They can give suggestions during combat, hint at weaknesses, had out useful items perfect for upcoming situations, etc. Much easier to balance this way then the opposite way in D&D where you need to nerf things left and right. One lets you be the good guy, the other the bad guy after all.

 

[Jahydin]

As someone not a fan of Pathfinder 2e, there is no assurance that switching to PF 2e will be greeted favorably. It might, but it might not.

Well of course, but I think it's a pretty safe place to start, especially considering the rules are free.

 

[Oofta]

If you're not happy with how powerful PCs are, absolutely! Mastery of the rules and party coordination are a must just to squeak by multiple combats.

After years of running 5E, I can't tell you how happy I was to finally see a party scrambling around trying to take down a monster that was immune to magical attacks until you cracked open his armor, then it flips to being immune to physical. The amount of back and forth to figure it out, the coordination of half the party giving up actions to "Aid" the other half to hit better, and the feeling of accomplishment when it was over was exactly what I was looking for in TTRPGs.

That said, it really is up to the GM how difficult he wants to make things. They can give suggestions during combat, hint at weaknesses, had out useful items perfect for upcoming situations, etc. Much easier to balance this way then the opposite way in D&D where you need to nerf things left and right. One lets you be the good guy, the other the bad guy after all.

But if you want custom monster abilities (and we don't know what the new MM is going to do), those are easy enough to add in. That's on the opponent side of the equation and there's a lot of things that can be done there.

The issue seems to be on the things that players can do just aren't a good fit for the OP. If PF 2 doesn't change the basic assumptions, it doesn't fix anything.

Noting of course that no game is for everyone including any edition of D&D, I'm not saying PF 2 or any other system is bad, yada, yada, yada.

 

[FitzTheRuke]

Well of course, but I think it's a pretty safe place to start, especially considering the rules are free.

I honestly think that it would be a waste of time in the context of this discussion. It seems to me that your enjoyment of PF2 (which I appreciate) is making you less than objective about what it offers.

If the conversation was JUST about being challenged by challenging encounters, then I'd give it to you - PF2 can be challenging, and can encourage teamwork on the part of the characters. However, it's extremely mechanically fiddly, which is GREAT for some people, but doesn't seem likely to be a good fit here. I'll let the OP speak for themself, of course, but I'm not sure that your advice is taking their issues entirely into account.

Don't get me wrong - I'd recommend PF2 for anyone who I think would actually like PF2! It's very good at what it does. But I'm not sure that I remotely agree that it solves much of the trouble presented in the OP.

 

[SteveC]

Don't get me wrong - I'd recommend PF2 for anyone who I think would actually like PF2! It's very good at what it does. But I'm not sure that I remotely agree that it solves much of the trouble presented in the OP.

I have to agree here. I love me some PF2. I'm running it and I would really like to play it more but it doesn't seem to deal with the OP issues. I'd really suggest they look at Shadowdark for a 5E chassis on a much lighter and lower powered game.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

But if you want custom monster abilities (and we don't know what the new MM is going to do), those are easy enough to add in. That's on the opponent side of the equation and there's a lot of things that can be done there.

The issue seems to be on the things that players can do just aren't a good fit for the OP. If PF 2 doesn't change the basic assumptions, it doesn't fix anything.

Noting of course that no game is for everyone including any edition of D&D, I'm not saying PF 2 or any other system is bad, yada, yada, yada.

Was thinking same thing.

Port that monster over…

 

[Jahydin]

If the conversation was JUST about being challenged by challenging encounters, then I'd give it to you - PF2 can be challenging, and can encourage teamwork on the part of the characters. However, it's extremely mechanically fiddly, which is GREAT for some people, but doesn't seem likely to be a good fit here. I'll let the OP speak for themself, of course, but I'm not sure that your advice is taking their issues entirely into account.

I don't see any mention of complexity being an issue... but you're absolutely right if that's the case. That said, the latest redesign does a pretty good job at making this game even more accessible...

Also, not a VTT person myself, but would probably want to switch to Foundry, so that might be an issue as well. Actual play to give an idea of look and play if helpful.

 

[Oofta]

Was thinking same thing.

Port that monster over…

There's a few tweaks and adjustments I do to monsters, some as simple as double checking the build of monsters, especially from the MM, against the monster CR on a card from the blog of holding. In other cases I'll add to their attack bonus and/or damage or just throw in something else interesting. Stuff I've done in most editions of D&D. It would be interesting to see ideas from other systems as well.

But that's another thread.