log in or register to remove this ad

 

5E Is 5e "Easy Mode?"

Flamestrike

Adventurer
We simply go from one session to the next without a long rest.
So many people conflate 'adventuring day' with 'long rest'. I understand why (it's easier to do it that way) but that's what character sheets are for.

At the start and end of every session, I ask the players for what resources they have left (hit points, hit dice, spell slots, and other finite resources like Ki, SP, sup die and the like).

I also pretend to write it down. ;)

Keeps them honest.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Mepher

Explorer
I'm out of this whole encounter/rest conversation. You guys are putting words in my mouth or making assumptions. I don't end my sessions with a long rest and I have no problems balancing out my encounters. This all started because I didn't LIKE the way encounter design and action economy works in 5E. None of this conversation is constructive, just a bunch of people trying to explain the rules as written. I don't like them as written so this is the wrong place and the wrong people to discuss it with I guess.

Character abilities are no different in 5E than light cantrips, healing spells, and leveling up....it's all designed to take perceived "hardships" from the game. The reason why these threads come up all the time is because there is a large group of people that enjoy much of 5E but are unhappy with the way many difficulties are taken away from the game. Natural darkness is no longer much of an issue, food/water issues are easy to overcome, healing is thrown around willy nilly, terrifying level draining undead are only minor temporary annoyances now, poisons only inconvenience you now, etc. Many people love the changes and many of us hate them. There is no possibility for rational discussion about it though because everyone wants to use RAW as their argument against those that don't like RAW.

If I don't like how a rule works, reading me the rule again isn't going to change my mind.
 

Flamestrike

Adventurer
I'm out of this whole encounter/rest conversation. You guys are putting words in my mouth or making assumptions. I don't end my sessions with a long rest and I have no problems balancing out my encounters. This all started because I didn't LIKE the way encounter design and action economy works in 5E. None of this conversation is constructive, just a bunch of people trying to explain the rules as written. I don't like them as written so this is the wrong place and the wrong people to discuss it with I guess.
I like them in that they give you a lot of levers to pull on to mix up class balance. Adding more short rests (and more encounters) favours Fighters, Monks and Warlocks. Subtracting encounters (and increasing difficulty) favours Paladins and full Casters. You can move the spotlight around the group, and play with class balance easy, and stop things feeling too samey.

I dislike them because I have to constantly come up with Doom clocks and other contrivances as invisibly as I can to stop nova strikes and to maintain 5E's class balance. That can get tiring and it requires you to frame your adventures (and adventuring days) appropriately.

I'd really like encounters to be balanced more around the individual encounter. Removing as many daily resources as possible, and having spells, combat manoeuvres etc all function like Tome of Battle in 3.5, or force powers in SWSE; per encounter abilities.

That's just me though probably.

Character abilities are no different in 5E than light cantrips, healing spells, and leveling up....it's all designed to take perceived "hardships" from the game. The reason why these threads come up all the time is because there is a large group of people that enjoy much of 5E but are unhappy with the way many difficulties are taken away from the game. Natural darkness is no longer much of an issue, food/water issues are easy to overcome, healing is thrown around willy nilly, terrifying level draining undead are only minor temporary annoyances now, poisons only inconvenience you now, etc. Many people love the changes and many of us hate them. There is no possibility for rational discussion about it though because everyone wants to use RAW as their argument against those that don't like RAW.
Wait till those DMs deal with 20th level+ PCs. Those guys most closely resemble the Avengers. Everyone can fly (or teleport), shoot lighting from their fingertips, fall from the moon and survive, mentally communicate with each other, breath water, call down meteors, or take down a T-rex with nothing more than a butter knife.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I'm out of this whole encounter/rest conversation. You guys are putting words in my mouth or making assumptions. I don't end my sessions with a long rest and I have no problems balancing out my encounters. This all started because I didn't LIKE the way encounter design and action economy works in 5E. None of this conversation is constructive, just a bunch of people trying to explain the rules as written. I don't like them as written so this is the wrong place and the wrong people to discuss it with I guess.

Character abilities are no different in 5E than light cantrips, healing spells, and leveling up....it's all designed to take perceived "hardships" from the game. The reason why these threads come up all the time is because there is a large group of people that enjoy much of 5E but are unhappy with the way many difficulties are taken away from the game. Natural darkness is no longer much of an issue, food/water issues are easy to overcome, healing is thrown around willy nilly, terrifying level draining undead are only minor temporary annoyances now, poisons only inconvenience you now, etc. Many people love the changes and many of us hate them. There is no possibility for rational discussion about it though because everyone wants to use RAW as their argument against those that don't like RAW.

If I don't like how a rule works, reading me the rule again isn't going to change my mind.
Which is all well and good. I personally like how 5E works because I don't want to be bothered with tracking miscellaneous things like food and save or suck ... well that sucks.

But at the same time I don't think it's hard to put much of that stuff back in. Don't like revivify or goodberry*? Ban them. Try out some of the optional rules in the DMG, they've worked well for me.

I view the rules as a starting point that I tweak to fit the game I want to play. I don't need to do very much, but the system is wide open to modification.

*Do people really have that many druids in their party?
 

By RAW yes unless you use the optional rule of a week or homebrew.
Also what kind of DM requires exterminating every vermin in the forest before taking a nap.
Remember you need 1 hour of fighting to interrupt your Long Rest.
Let me say that again - 1 HOUR

EDIT: So if you are NOT playing this, then you are not going by RAW, and you should not be arguing on the side of 5e is not easy mode. The great thing about 5e though is that it is easy mode with user friendly dials.
Fighting and resetting the campsite should take an hour.
 

Mepher

Explorer
Wait till those DMs deal with 20th level+ PCs. Those guys most closely resemble the Avengers. Everyone can fly (or teleport), shoot lighting from their fingertips, fall from the moon and survive, mentally communicate with each other, breath water, call down meteors, or take down a T-rex with nothing more than a butter knife.
I am not looking forward to that. I am truly torn these days about D&D. I should probably stop trying to make 5E more like AD&D and instead just make AD&D more like 5E by adding the parts I DO like. Your description of the level 20 game doesn't sound fun to me.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I like them in that they give you a lot of levers to pull on to mix up class balance. Adding more short rests (and more encounters) favours Fighters, Monks and Warlocks. Subtracting encounters (and increasing difficulty) favours Paladins and full Casters. You can move the spotlight around the group, and play with class balance easy, and stop things feeling too samey.

I dislike them because I have to constantly come up with Doom clocks and other contrivances as invisibly as I can to stop nova strikes and to maintain 5E's class balance. That can get tiring and it requires you to frame your adventures (and adventuring days) appropriately.

I'd really like encounters to be balanced more around the individual encounter. Removing as many daily resources as possible, and having spells, combat manoeuvres etc all function like Tome of Battle in 3.5, or force powers in SWSE; per encounter abilities.

That's just me though probably.



Wait till those DMs deal with 20th level+ PCs. Those guys most closely resemble the Avengers. Everyone can fly (or teleport), shoot lighting from their fingertips, fall from the moon and survive, mentally communicate with each other, breath water, call down meteors, or take down a T-rex with nothing more than a butter knife.
At least we don't have to deal with 30th level and PCs that are effectively demi-gods.

But yeah, high level play can be a bit gonzo. Of course, that's half the fun. After all someone has to take on Godzilla. ;)
 

Lem23

Explorer
Remember you need 1 hour of fighting to interrupt your Long Rest.
Let me say that again - 1 HOUR

EDIT: So if you are NOT playing this, then you are not going by RAW, and you should not be arguing on the side of 5e is not easy mode. The great thing about 5e though is that it is easy mode with user friendly dials.
Are there still people claiming that to be true? There was a long-running thread about this very thing here and only a couple of people still tried to claim that this was the case despite all the evidence to show it was wrong. Any combat interrupts your long rest, not a 600 round combat. That would be ludicrous.
 

Mepher

Explorer
At least we don't have to deal with 30th level and PCs that are effectively demi-gods.

But yeah, high level play can be a bit gonzo. Of course, that's half the fun. After all someone has to take on Godzilla. ;)
See I am sure this is a turnoff to most people here but our AD&D campaigns used to last 3-4 years. Group size was 7-8 players and after a year of playing every Sunday the group would be pushing level 6 or so. I think the highest any character ever made it was level 14...and that was rare. You really have to be in the mindset though where its all about the game and the story, not what your next abilities will be, how you are going to spend your asi/feats, and how you are going to "build" your character. They are completely different styles of play.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
I am not looking forward to that. I am truly torn these days about D&D. I should probably stop trying to make 5E more like AD&D and instead just make AD&D more like 5E by adding the parts I DO like. Your description of the level 20 game doesn't sound fun to me.
I rarely got to high level play in AD&D but when I did I didn't see much difference. The quadratic fighter exponential wizard is a little better balanced out. I don't think I ever got above 15th level because casters had an insane amount of power.

But high level play has always assumed fighting world-shattering enemies.
 


Mepher

Explorer
I rarely got to high level play in AD&D but when I did I didn't see much difference. The quadratic fighter exponential wizard is a little better balanced out. I don't think I ever got above 15th level because casters had an insane amount of power.

But high level play has always assumed fighting world-shattering enemies.
Like I said, I never saw a player make it above 14. High level play is deadly even with all the power that comes. The difference is that our current edition is designed to let the players go gonzo and get away with it. In AD&D you were fighting just as hard, if not harder, at level 14 as you did at level 4. Death was always a real possibility.

I know the discussion will turn to DMs not challenging their players enough if it isn't dangerous but just look at the published material, 5E isn't really intended to challenge. It's meant to play out the latest blockbuster movie where the hero always wins. That ok, just not how I prefer to play.
 

Sadras

Hero
Are there still people claiming that to be true? There was a long-running thread about this very thing here and only a couple of people still tried to claim that this was the case despite all the evidence to show it was wrong. Any combat interrupts your long rest, not a 600 round combat. That would be ludicrous.
Is there an erata on this or are we going on what should be the case?
I do remember seeing this thread here.
 

Flamestrike

Adventurer
I am not looking forward to that. I am truly torn these days about D&D. I should probably stop trying to make 5E more like AD&D and instead just make AD&D more like 5E by adding the parts I DO like. Your description of the level 20 game doesn't sound fun to me.
AD&D was the same at 20th level.

Have you DM'd AD&D to high levels before? Or BECMI, where you literally progress through the Immortal set as literal Demi-Gods?
 

Sadras

Hero
That has to be one of the dumbest rules in the book by far. I challenge you to run 1 hour of combat. It just doesn't happen and no party would have enough abilities to withstand an hour of combat unless they seriously overpowered it and didn't have to use any of their limited abilities. Your 5 round combat took 30 seconds.

Lets look at it realistically though. You make camp, you fall asleep. 2 hours into your sleep a group of Orcs start surrounding your camp. The watch sees them and calls the alarm. You jump out of your sleep, adrenaline pumping and you grab your sword to prepare for battle. That 30-40 second battle concludes. It's not as if your immediately asleep. You just killed those orcs. At this point you probably want to get the corpses out of the middle of the camp, you want to scout around the area and make sure there are no more enemies, might need to heal people, fix the camp, etc.

By the time you get back down to rest I would say at LEAST and hour has gone by. I don't take that rule literally, it just doesn't make sense. If you get interrupted during your long rest with combat, an hour or more is gone before everything is resolved imo.
The debate is not set up for you to challenge me on how to run my rests.
The debate is 5e as written is easy mode along with all its so-called dumb rules.
 

Lem23

Explorer
Is there an erata on this or are we going on what should be the case?
I do remember seeing this thread here.
If you want to insist on that in your game, then go ahead (and I'm sure your players will be glad of it). If you're looking to try to argue the ludicrous case for it or persuade anyone, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Sorry.
 

Flamestrike

Adventurer
Like I said, I never saw a player make it above 14. High level play is deadly even with all the power that comes. The difference is that our current edition is designed to let the players go gonzo and get away with it. In AD&D you were fighting just as hard, if not harder, at level 14 as you did at level 4. Death was always a real possibility.

I know the discussion will turn to DMs not challenging their players enough if it isn't dangerous but just look at the published material, 5E isn't really intended to challenge. It's meant to play out the latest blockbuster movie where the hero always wins. That ok, just not how I prefer to play.
 

Sadras

Hero
If you want to insist on that in your game, then go ahead (and I'm sure your players will be glad of it). If you're looking to try to argue the ludicrous case for it or persuade anyone, then you're barking up the wrong tree. Sorry.
You too are shifting goal posts. Minigiant said that one cannot rest in the forest until ALL are killed within. That is very much a houserule. 5e Raw is very much easy mode. I do not have to run rests any which way - all I have to prove is that it is easy mode. It is for those that wish to challenge that statement to prove otherwise.
 

Oofta

Title? I don't need no stinkin' title.
Like I said, I never saw a player make it above 14. High level play is deadly even with all the power that comes. The difference is that our current edition is designed to let the players go gonzo and get away with it. In AD&D you were fighting just as hard, if not harder, at level 14 as you did at level 4. Death was always a real possibility.

I know the discussion will turn to DMs not challenging their players enough if it isn't dangerous but just look at the published material, 5E isn't really intended to challenge. It's meant to play out the latest blockbuster movie where the hero always wins. That ok, just not how I prefer to play.
Maybe I just played with different people/expectations. Basically most combats went something like: "Oh **** we're all going to die". Then the caster would go and leave a big giant smoking crater somehow.

But I totally get that different people want different things. No game could ever work for everyone.
 

Lem23

Explorer
You too are shifting goal posts. Minigiant said that one cannot rest in the forest until ALL are killed within. That is very much a houserule. 5e Raw is very much easy mode. I do not have to run rests any which way - all I have to prove is that it is easy mode. It is for those that wish to challenge that statement to prove otherwise.
I refer you to my previous answer.
 

Most Liked Threads

Advertisement2

Advertisement4

Top