Oh, well there it is. The Godwin of the new age - "Millennials killed D&D."
D&D 5E Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?
- Thread starter Retreater
- Start date
Oh, well there it is. The Godwin of the new age - "Millennials killed D&D."
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Fair enough if you used standard array that way, but since the game actually has a standard array... shrug And if a lot of people use far more "beneficial"--shall we say?--systems for ability score generation, that plays even more to my closing statement below.
Anyway, so how many people play without those things?
None, IME, and very few remove all three from what I have read about others' tables. From the polls we've had here, I think nearly 85-90% play with feats (even if they restrict certain ones), and over half have common or occasional MCing. I've never, in my entire lifetime of playing D&D, heard of a game with no magic items, but it wouldn't surprise me if a table tried it for the challenge/fun of it. Low-magic, certainly, "no-magic", never. Even if I played with a standard array, no feats, and no magic-items, they game is still more survivable most of the time than earlier editions (certainly 1E and 2E).
Design the game for the way most people play, not require them to play a hacked-down version in order to make it a challenge. (Now, again, we are talking about the way it was designed... of course the DM can make any game "harder...")
Don Durito
Hero
Perhaps WotC felt that by making feats and multi-classing optional and designing the game without requiring them, they could reset the baseline of the game somewhat and that most people wouldn't use the options. If so they have clearly failed.
Going back to points I made earlier. The difficulty is not so much whether you can challenge the party when you really need to - of course you can - add in more monsters -, it's that there's little chance for an average encounter to go bad. This kind of makes them feel pointless. They drain resources but there's so little genuine risk. This in turn means the party can be pretty confident and complacent in their decisions about spending resources.
Of course there's lots of gming tricks you can do to address this - there always is - you can have it so if the goblins aren't all wiped in two rounds, a huge load of reinforcements will arrive and flood the action economy, or that an alarm is sounded, but the system brings little to the table here.
And the options we have been given, such as for example the brutal criticals in the DMG, which would make pedestrian battles something to worry about are bad poor ones that are badly thought out and don't show any evidence of having been through any cycles of playtesting and tweaking.
Another house rules I've seen mentioned, is levels of Exhaustion for being reduced to 0 hit points (or failing deathsaves). I haven't seen this one in play, but I doubt it would really achieve the desired effect. (But exhaustion is one of the few things you can throw at the pcs that is hard to remove and can stick for longer than a single long rest.)
Going back to points I made earlier. The difficulty is not so much whether you can challenge the party when you really need to - of course you can - add in more monsters -, it's that there's little chance for an average encounter to go bad. This kind of makes them feel pointless. They drain resources but there's so little genuine risk. This in turn means the party can be pretty confident and complacent in their decisions about spending resources.
Of course there's lots of gming tricks you can do to address this - there always is - you can have it so if the goblins aren't all wiped in two rounds, a huge load of reinforcements will arrive and flood the action economy, or that an alarm is sounded, but the system brings little to the table here.
And the options we have been given, such as for example the brutal criticals in the DMG, which would make pedestrian battles something to worry about are bad poor ones that are badly thought out and don't show any evidence of having been through any cycles of playtesting and tweaking.
Another house rules I've seen mentioned, is levels of Exhaustion for being reduced to 0 hit points (or failing deathsaves). I haven't seen this one in play, but I doubt it would really achieve the desired effect. (But exhaustion is one of the few things you can throw at the pcs that is hard to remove and can stick for longer than a single long rest.)
Helldritch
Hero
Again the DM is the source of the difficulty of the game. I use the standard array, feats, MCing and my games are far from easy. My only gripe I have with the edition is the fast overnight healing (and the combination of concentration and save every round). I just allow players to use HD. Otherwise it is fine.
Helldritch
Hero
D&D has always been a game of attrition. Attrition is the way to make not so hard fights matters. If you use too much power on an easy fight; you will lack these resources on a hard fight and it could potentially bring you to the point where a hard fight becomes a deadly fight because you lack the resources to get through it. It was like this in OD&D, 1ed, 2ed, 3.xed and 4ed. It is still the case today.
Unfortunately, the 3.xed edition introduced the 5MWD and the game still suffers from that awful syndrome. So far, I have helped over a dozen young DM in correcting the 5MWD syndrome and their games have improved a lot.
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
Yeah, I know, I said the DM is the source-- but the point of the thread was about the challenge given the game as designed. In which case, I continue to stand firm--5E is the least challenging IME.
(For the final time, and nothing at all against you @Helldritch, you just happen to be answered in the post, this thread is entirely about opinion and experience, I am done with it because every player's view will differ and the endless cycle of debate is an utter waste of my time.)
Helldritch
Hero
I'm sorry if you felt that I was kinda of nitpicking on you. It's just that I don't modify the game at all (or at least nothing exceptional, only enemies's equipment and spell choice, and not always). I use the simple guidelines given in the DMG and it works out. Again I am sorry if you felt like I was nitpicking on you. It's just that you express the opposite side in a really good fashion.Yeah, I know, I said the DM is the source-- but the point of the thread was about the challenge given the game as designed. In which case, I continue to stand firm--5E is the least challenging IME.
(For the final time, and nothing at all against you @Helldritch, you just happen to be answered in the post, this thread is entirely about opinion and experience, I am done with it because every player's view will differ and the endless cycle of debate is an utter waste of my time.)
DND_Reborn
The High Aldwin
No worries. No offense taken and I am glad you found my view engaging. See ya in another thread.
Whereas I think it makes more sense to aim at the bottom for CR calculation so that newbie DMs get a feel for encounter design.
That and from my personal experience running multiple groups, some groups can handle significantly more than others. Don't underestimate the difference teamwork and even one tactician on the team can make.
There is no way one calculation could ever encompass all groups and all options in a game as malleable as 5E.
Don Durito
Hero
Yes. Yes. All obvious. The point is it used to to be more of a gamble how many resources a fight would cost you.
Similar Threads
