D&D 5E Is 5e "Easy Mode?"

[Krachek]

5ed have been designed with a more simple approach to combat.
There were enough strategic game on the market, and for DnD they choose to bet on a more social and roleplay experience.
It seem they bet right. We just have to look at the sales and the overall popularity of 5ed.
Sorry for those who want a sharper tactical game, 5ed can be improve in that way, but there is limits, unless you rewrite the entire game.

They clearly tells it in the preface, « playing DnD is an exercice in collaborative creation ».
They present DnD an a creation game, not a tactical game.
Tactical and challenge have been put aside. Don’t wonder why you find that 5ed lack of sharpness in that.

 

[Mistwell]

I have disagreed with majorities since I was age 5 and I will continue to do so without abatement I am sure.

Every new edition of D&D gets a bit of initial burst isn't that the excuse for why the terrible horrible nasty COMPLETELY NOT 4e did so well at first?

I named a half dozen indicators. You responded to one and are now acting like responding to one makes all the others meaingless.

When all the indicators you have read X, it's a fair bet it's X. Or at least, it's a fair bet you're going to need some evidence beyond instinct to try and prove it's Y instead.

Then the biggest right time element to kick the ball rolling faster was economic turn around in the US... Subsequently followed perfectly I think with the snowballing cultural elements you are mentioning

Other competitors didn't see the same uptick at the same time and in fact their main competition saw a total dive in that very year. If your theory were correct, that is unlikely to have happened.

AND humans are extremely tribal

Except you. That couldn't possibly be an explanation for why you are reaching for so many straws here and ignoring anything which you didn't have an easy answer for to fit your theory, right?

Betamax was outsold by a superior competitor was it advertising I think they managed to pick the perfect price point. But it demonstrates the popular thing isn't the best.

VHS was 1) cheaper than betamax and 2) recorded for 120 minutes and then 240 minutes while betamax recorded for only 60 minutes initially. Now both of these factors changed later, but that is what lost Betamax that war. It was NOT superior for those factors. Tech heads thought quality of recording was what made "better" but the reality of price and utility was far more important in to consumers.

The popular thing was the best in your example, for the most number of people. But, some people still liked the crunchy rules...I meant the recording quality...of the Betamax and to this day insist it was better.

I feel like 4e fans got kicked out of the tribe more often than not.

I liked 4e. But I appreciate you admitting you are coming at this from a tribal perspective.

 

[Garthanos]

So, flanking in this edition makes it easier to hit an enemy. If you want more, look to the other parts of the rule set.

Sure I want flanking to have a price its like here is a strategic game component like spells without a spell slot limit see that's perfect right?

 

[Oofta]

Well many did indeed say impossible to deliver on the modular design idea but I do not think that is true. But you have to approach the initial design as complex then surgically and structurally - deintegrate the design so that pieces can be reintegrated together seamlessly later. You sort of are then building the simple core with the complex already figured out.

I disagree. They would have had to develop and playtest multiple versions of the game at the same time. In addition, @Mistwell gave you quotes on what they meant by modular. It doesn't matter if you wanted something else.

Not practical and a huge risk with little to gain.

As far as why 4E tanked I seriously doubt economic downturn had anything to do with it's failure. It followed the same pattern as 3.x ... early adopters bought a lot but it didn't grow the hobby sustainably. Maybe you didn't see the flaws of 4E but most of the people I played with did.

 

[Garthanos]

I liked 4e. But I appreciate you admitting you are coming at this from a tribal perspective.

Yeah right feeling kicked out is so so me coming at it from a tribal perspective.

And not a bunch of tribesman deciding the game is perfect and not liking somebody wanting more... and resenting it to the point of big shut up comments.

 

[Garthanos]

It followed the same pattern as 3.x ...

economic pattern... yes -> And PF was a bloody clone with a base of people who didnt want change

So we are expecting a PF2 to do well from a base who do not want change?

 

[dave2008]

Sure I want flanking to have a price its like here is a strategic game component like spells without a spell slot limit see that's perfect right?

Not sure why that quote appears to be from me, but I didn't say that. So if you want the person who said that respond, you will need to go back and find the quote. Just thought I should let you know.

 

[Garthanos]

I disagree. They would have had to develop and playtest multiple versions of the game at the same time.

different combinations of modules tested indeed makes it more complex and harder if the structure is good should be after a point predictable results.

 

[dave2008]

If memory serves, it was a bit more than just someone uttering a marketing phrase.

Modularity was, at the outset, repeatedly stated as a key feature of 5e design, where different elements could be added or dropped or tweaked with a minimum of knock-on effects. The reasoning given was that this modularity would allow them to design modules that would allow a DM to in effect emulate any prior edition.

And up went my little ears, 'cause this was exactly what I wanted to see.

I took them at their word; and had they delivered on said word I'd highly likely be running 5e now with all the 1e elements turned on and all the others turned off.

But once I saw the final product I realized that while they'd made a pretty decent system, far better than any previous WotC attempt, they hadn't come anywhere close to delivering on the promised modularity; and to make 5e into a game I'd want to run would be far more effort than simply working with what I already have.

And since 5e's release there's been ample time to put out modular add-ons for each prior edition, as in "Rules and elements to make 5e play like the 4e you love" or "1e Rules for Your 5e Game"; where the designers would add and remove modular elements so as to allow 5e to more closely emulate a prior edition.

These wouldn't necessarily have to be deep systemic changes, though they could be. For example, they could add in many of the combat tactics - sliding, shifting, conditions, grid-based, etc. - to make 5e feel much more like 4e while still keeping 5e's resting rules instead of AEDU, or if they wanted to risk a systemic change they could put AEDU back in. For 0-1-2e they could go to a flat + or - model instead of advantage-disadvantage, and a slower level advance rate; while a systemic change required would be how multiclassing works. For 3e it'd be fairly simple to add in magic item pricing and creation, but I'm not sure how they could systemically change the by-level power curve from 5e's relatively flat to the steepness of 3e.

Yes, they could still do that, but really I wish a 3PP would do it. The difficult thing is decided what is essential to 1e, or 3e, or 4e that you make the modules for.

 

[Garthanos]

If memory serves, it was a bit more than just someone uttering a marketing phrase.

Modularity was, at the outset, repeatedly stated as a key feature of 5e design, where different elements could be added or dropped or tweaked with a minimum of knock-on effects. The reasoning given was that this modularity would allow them to design modules that would allow a DM to in effect emulate any prior edition.

And up went my little ears, 'cause this was exactly what I wanted to see.

I took them at their word; and had they delivered on said word I'd highly likely be running 5e now with all the 1e elements turned on and all the others turned off.

We apparently listened to the wrong words... and got disappointed.