D&D 5E Challenge, Optimization and Optional Rules

[Dualazi]

I wondered about player choices and game difficulty. If we take single classed characters with point buy and no feats, is the game still seen as too easy? If we play vanilla, we have only two saves in which we are proficient and in most cases will have a very hard time with concentration checks.

Short answer: potentially. While there are certainly some options that are probably too powerful and well known at this point, party synergy is what really ‘breaks’ the game and still will in the absence of those things. Even without GWM, a greatsword fighter with bless and consistent advantage is still going to wreck a lot of monsters, and a team utilizing their basic class features in optimized fashion will still punch way above their (assumed) weight class.

Is the CR system predicated on this approach?

One of my more annoying soapboxes, I know, but CR is pretty much a joke either way. Almost all posters here, old or new, seem to agree that you just have to learn the system and eyeball encounters when designing them. It’s used as a benchmark for discussion because it makes it easier to converse about, but the real question is how often are players surpassing the GM’s expectations.

I wondered if others thought the game would be too easy with:

1. Multiclassing alone

2. Feats alone

3. Rolled stats alone

4. A combination of any two of these

Not…really. Multiclassing can be abused, but can also be a major detriment. It’s probably better to simply have a gentlemen’s agreement about questionable level dipping for goodies than banning outright.

Feats are a similar can of worms, yeah, there are OP feats, but removing them entirely cuts out a lot of good options, both RP and mechanically. The only way to create a pseudo-4E fighter, for example, is with the Sentinel feat, and I’ve only seen it called OP on niche builds built to exploit it, and rarely at that.

Rolled stats can go in either direction, assuming it’s actually enforced and not just an excuse to be above the curve. Players that roll below that will certainly not be adding to the imbalance problem.

The prevailing theme with the listed options is that they can be a factor, but are not always such. If the DM notices that his players are using all of these to their fullest extent, then yeah, he/she should increase the difficulty. Stripping them away outright hurts the optimized and non-optimized alike though, and the powergamers will still be better than average.

Thanks for your thoughts! I do not see the point of incredible optimization if it is going to lead to boring other than as a design mini game which I know can be fun.

I think I can safely say the majority of optimizers don’t intend to make the game more boring with their decisions. If I’m designing a character I want to be a master archer, why wouldn’t I take the sharpshooter feat? Am I supposed to avoid a thematically appropriate choice just because it’s a good one? Likewise, some teams enjoy finding successful strategies and coordinating themselves, which likewise shouldn’t be discouraged because the MM can’t keep up.

What I am looking for is perhaps a bit more struggle. So far I have had fun but and looking ahead to both designing and playing in campaigns which get the heart rate up a bit. Not insta death but real challenge. Would reducing options help? Or is the answer always that the DM should make things harder on their end?

Reducing options in one way, but probably the worse of the two. It feels punitive to players, like you’re punished for doing well, and leads to less build diversity. The problems go deeper than that, as I said earlier, as a properly coordinated team is still going to rip through at-level challenges with ease. Ultimately the DM is going to have up the ante with monster synergy or simple numeric increases if they want a challenge, particularly at high levels.

 

[clearstream]

Hello fellow D&D fans!

There has been a steady trickle of threads related to the game being "too easy." I have not played 5e to high levels yet. This has not necessarily been my experience in lower levels.

Additionally, I have seen a few threads including a current one about making the game more challenging.

I wondered about player choices and game difficulty. If we take single classed characters with point buy and no feats, is the game still seen as too easy? If we play vanilla, we have only two saves in which we are proficient and in most cases will have a very hard time with concentration checks.

Is the CR system predicated on this approach?

I wondered if others thought the game would be too easy with:

1. Multiclassing alone

2. Feats alone

3. Rolled stats alone

4. A combination of any two of these

Thanks for your thoughts! I do not see the point of incredible optimization if it is going to lead to boring other than as a design mini game which I know can be fun.

What I am looking for is perhaps a bit more struggle. So far I have had fun but and looking ahead to both designing and playing in campaigns which get the heart rate up a bit. Not insta death but real challenge. Would reducing options help? Or is the answer always that the DM should make things harder on their end?

Multiclassing doesn't impact this. All of my current PCs are powerful single class characters.
Feats make a difference, especially standouts like Polearm Master, Shield Master and Mobile. For me however, feats are fun. They let players tweak the direction they take their character. Feat balance is poor - some clearly overshadow others.
Rolled stats don't impact this. My current PCs are split between rolled and custom with little difference between them.

I find core low-mid tier 5e characters far more powerful relative to creatures than core low-mid tier 3e characters, with a ton more options. That said, I generally like the design of 5e and find the class choices overall fun. Hence... looking to add challenge to encounters.