D&D 5E Do you feel 5e pressures you to build strong over fun?

[dropbear8mybaby]

That being said, I have also noticed that the games that I've run and played have almost always had far fewer encounters between every rest than the "average adventuring day" that the DMG suggests, and this seems very common

I've found it quite hard to create an organic situation where the party would have 6-8 encounters a day. In a dungeon with no exit and wandering monsters that might be possible, but short of railroading PC's into dungeons all the time, that's not really likely or even possible.

 

[pemerton]

it feels like there are people out there who believe they are required by 5e to build purely for maximum possible strength/power just to survive. The example given in the other thread: If you were a fighter 4, and your wizard friend started encouraging your interest in magic, would you take a level of wizard before getting that "precious" extra attack from fighter 5? That's the key issue here. Do you feel like you *need* that extra attack before you would consider broadening your horizons resulting from story development?

To me, the obvious underlying impetus seems to be one of make it through each adventuring day. This is where I think I have a certain small degree of disconnect with some people. 5e seems generally pretty forgiving of the minor power level discrepancies between characters (and, yes, in the grand scheme of things I think power level discrepancies between PCs aren't all that extreme). It can handle a non-optimized PC just fine, IMX. A character that isn't optimization-focused still generally manages to get through the adventuring day to enjoy the next. Is that not true? And isn't that the point? To win the day? I just see non-optimized PCs manage it all the time.

That isn't to say weak characters are immune from death. But neither are solidly built ones. I'm saying 5e's assumed power levels of play has a margin of probability, of either kind of PC dying, smaller than some might think.

In the other thread I touched on my rogue/monk/warlock. He didn't get Extra Attack from monk 5 until I think 7th level (might have been 8th, actually, but certainly no sooner than 7th). Our paladin got his second swing at 5th. Yet I never felt inadequate or incapable of keeping up throughout the adventuring day. Not at all. In fact, I brought invaluable abilities to the group. At least as much as the others. Stuff neither the paladin not sorcerer could ever dream of being able to do. So why should I feel like I left anything on the table? I eventually got another attack. But before that I got all kinds of other cool things I could do.

Optimisation (and strong, etc) seems to be being used to mean good at combat.

If your rogue/monk/warlock could do invaluable things that no one else in the group could do, then that doesn't sound like a weak character. Nor - just on the strength of this description - a particularly sub-optimal one. Just one that brings some non-combat (I assume) capabilities to the table, or perhaps some degree of combat specialisation (eg stunning).

So it seems a bit orthogonal to the main issue, which is something like "How steep is the gradient of the curve for a 5e PC that plots mechanical effectiveness against prospects of mechanical success". I guess I thought it was uncontroversial that the answer to that question is "Not very steep."

Whether that's a good or bad thing is a further question. It seems good for including players with varying levels of skill/experience/inclination at the same table, eg per [MENTION=56051]Raith5[/MENTION]'s post. But maybe it's less good for a player-driven game, if it makes player choices less significant to outcomes in play?

 

[happyhermit]

I've found it quite hard to create an organic situation where the party would have 6-8 encounters a day. In a dungeon with no exit and wandering monsters that might be possible, but short of railroading PC's into dungeons all the time, that's not really likely or even possible.

The starter set begins with a set of encounters around that number. It doesn't force the players into it but I have seen many groups attempt the whole thing in one day. Typically it is RP reasons that make them attempt it ie; Backgrounds tied to the story motivations, Personality traits, IBFs, etc.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

The starter set begins with a set of encounters around that number. It doesn't force the players into it but I have seen many groups attempt the whole thing in one day. Typically it is RP reasons that make them attempt it ie; Backgrounds tied to the story motivations, Personality traits, IBFs, etc.

I've never seen any group do more than the first ambush encounter and then either die at the third encounter at the caves (with the two guards usually either going down from the PC ambush or running to warn others), or go to town and do some investigation rather than combat. I've run LMoP about... seven times? I think. Thereabouts.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I've never seen any group do more than the first ambush encounter and then either die at the third encounter at the caves (with the two guards usually either going down from the PC ambush or running to warn others), or go to town and do some investigation rather than combat. I've run LMoP about... seven times? I think. Thereabouts.

The one time I ran it, the party took down the ambush, the trap, the guards outside the cave, the wolves, and then everything in the cave along the central passage or to the ride hand side as a single encounter, before they took a short rest. No characters died, and only one was even reduced to 0 hp. Then I'm pretty sure they had already earned enough XP to level up, finished up the cave, and took a long rest.

What 1st level characters can take on is heavily dependent upon player ability to mitigate bad luck, and how lucky they are with dice.

 

[dropbear8mybaby]

NVM.

 

[Mercule]

I've found it quite hard to create an organic situation where the party would have 6-8 encounters a day. In a dungeon with no exit and wandering monsters that might be possible, but short of railroading PC's into dungeons all the time, that's not really likely or even possible.

I'll agree with this. I've run all editions from BECMI through 5E (though the path through 4E was extremely short). I don't think I've ever seen the 6-8 pattern. I've always chalked it up to having groups with an aversion to Clerics, so they were heavier on guerrilla and turtle tactics.

 

[CydKnight]

No because quite frankly, if it wasn't fun I simply would not play. Any perceived pressures would be generated by my own mind. In other words I can either embrace the 5E rules and have fun with them either as written or with my own modifications with the alternative being work under "pressure" and something more akin to an obsessive compulsion to perfect something for reasons that make "fun" a secondary consideration at best.