DarkCrisis
Reeks of Jedi
Aren’t those old updated adventures?
-
The VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
D&D General Is WotC's 5E D&D easy? Trust me this isn't what you think... maybe
- Thread starter DarkCrisis
- Start date
Aren’t those old updated adventures?
Clint_L
Hero
I'm confused. It's your poll. Add a middle ground.
Anyway, in my experience it depends on the players. Most published adventures are too easy for experienced players who know most of the tricks and how to optimize. They have to be, because they also have to work for casual players. Whereas published adventures are often over-tuned for beginners, IMO.
DarkCrisis
Reeks of Jedi
The “no” option works for anything not considered “easy”.
greymist
Lurker Extraordinaire
I’m voting a tentative no.
I’ve only DM’d LMOP and I TPK’d the group in the Cragmaw Cave (I had them taken hostage). I’ve played part of WDH, and I thought it was tough, as a mystery, as combat was secondary (which I liked).
As an old-school player/DM, I like combat to be dangerous, and I generally maximise hit points, and I never pull punches with the bad guys and that usually provides a satisfactory result.
I’ve only DM’d LMOP and I TPK’d the group in the Cragmaw Cave (I had them taken hostage). I’ve played part of WDH, and I thought it was tough, as a mystery, as combat was secondary (which I liked).
As an old-school player/DM, I like combat to be dangerous, and I generally maximise hit points, and I never pull punches with the bad guys and that usually provides a satisfactory result.
ezo
I cast invisibility
Yes, there certainly can be a middle ground, but probably not in the way you're thinking?
Like anything good, it is a balancing game. You certainly don't want every every battle a struggle to the bitter end, nor do you want every challenge to seem like a cakewalk.
Yes. All the time. As others have said, the published adventures are mostly designed for newer players and DMs, meant to offer a "fun adventure" more so than a "challenge" to more serious (?) or dedicated (?) or experienced (?) (pick your term or supply your own!) players.
In general, 5E rewards specialization with *near-*automatic success. In truth, it is far closer to 65% typically than 80%, but with even some minor boosts or advantage, 80% is very attainable!
So, what happens is, you have a "perception PC", with maybe alert feat, high WIS, proficiency or even double proficiency in perception. Someone with darkvision as well, probably. This is the PC that typically ruins most chances for surprise, hidden traps or secret doors, etc.
Then you have the "investigator PC", the character that--again through high ability score, proficiency (or expertise via a feature or feat), advantages, or whatever pretty much can overcome most locks, non-perception "detections".
You might have the "know-it-all PC", who's got all the best INT skills with high bonuses.
The "sneak PC" (often the perception PC) who can bypass any guards, etc.
The list goes on an on. PCs with high skill bonuses, advantage due to magic or elsewhere, make most ability DCs pointless.
Move on to the damage soakers, the always-win-initiatives, the high-damage dealers, and on and on. Add magic into the mix, disgustingly simple in 5E, and just compounds the situation to make it worse (or better, depending on what you want out of the game...).
I remember in my first 5E game, a player (part-time DM) had a PC who was the ultimate skill-monkey. Proficient in every skill and had "expertise" or double proficiency bonus in something like 10 or 11 of the 18 skills. Once she got Reliable Talent, forget any DC under 25, especially when should could give herself advantage on any check...
Obviously, with combat you can be just as dominant. Social challenges, explorations, are all fairly pointless if you rely on the die roll to make them challenging or dangerous. Such characters steamroll over published WotC adventures.
So, as you know, your options are to do the things you can do as DM. Beef up the encounters, make your own adventures, or house-rule the heck out of it to try (nearly always fruitlessly) to balance the numbers for rolling.
And while you do this, you look for that balance I spoke of in the beginning. Trying to have a blend of challenges, where the "key PC" isn't always the one who gets to make it easy. For example, you separate the PCs, so only one group has the "perception PC", maybe the other the "sneak PC", etc. then run the two groups independently for a session or two, until they (hopefully) finally make it back together.
DarkCrisis
Reeks of Jedi
one thing that stuck in my mind is that in AD&D you could have high AC but low HP. This was the balance. You DIDNT want to get hit.
5th ed, you get high AC and high HP.
Why even waste an action attacking the 20 AC fighter with 30 HP when your goblin with a +4 (need a 16 or better) to hit does a whole d6 which thanks to all of the available curing they easily shake off
5th ed, you get high AC and high HP.
Why even waste an action attacking the 20 AC fighter with 30 HP when your goblin with a +4 (need a 16 or better) to hit does a whole d6 which thanks to all of the available curing they easily shake off
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
Well, with a single Goblin you wouldn't. If you have dozens of Goblins however...
ezo
I cast invisibility
Well, you probably know that 5E, with bounded accuracy, shifted the issue.
In AD&D, things (in general) were harder to hit, but had less hit points, so even with lower damage, those hits mattered more.
In 5E, things are easy to hit, but have tons of hit points, so even with higher damage, the hits matter less (still important, obviously...).
The balance is still there, just shifted to hitting for little more often vs. hitting for more less often.
Frankly, I despise it. For me it make the game boring... hit hit hit, slowly chipping away, yawn. But the "common thinking" is players feel better being rewarded with success (65% baseline all the time for the most part), than with failure. Those people cite the widely used "whiff-fest" of AD&D, where you missed so much it was frustrating. Personally, I never felt that way, don't know anyone who does.
payn
He'll flip ya...Flip ya for real...
There is system design aspects and setting implications involved here, but you dont like what you dont like.Well, you probably know that 5E, with bounded accuracy, shifted the issue.
In AD&D, things (in general) were harder to hit, but had less hit points, so even with lower damage, those hits mattered more.
In 5E, things are easy to hit, but have tons of hit points, so even with higher damage, the hits matter less (still important, obviously...).
The balance is still there, just shifted to hitting for little more often vs. hitting for more less often.
Frankly, I despise it. For me it make the game boring... hit hit hit, slowly chipping away, yawn. But the "common thinking" is players feel better being rewarded with success (65% baseline all the time for the most part), than with failure. Those people cite the widely used "whiff-fest" of AD&D, where you missed so much it was frustrating. Personally, I never felt that way, don't know anyone who does.
Similar Threads
