D&D 5E Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?

[doctorbadwolf]

I love having lots of choice. D&D is a class based system, so we are letting the designers make a lot of choices for us, in what a fighter or bard should look like, for example. More variety means fewer characters looking the same mechanically.

I have played a lot of Pathfinder 1, which has a ton of choice. We play a pretty narrative game, and the wealth of classes, archetypes and feats did not turn us into meta gamers. Sometimes, we spent a lot of time creating characters, but that's cause we enjoy it. When we wanted to have quicker character creation, we'd just limit the books.

I'm finding the new sub classes in the UA articles get my creative juices flowing. I'm able to create characters I'm picturing more easily with the new options.

That’s how I see it, too. Making characters isn’t meta gaming (and there is nothing wrong with meta gaming), anymore that thinking about where your character is from is meta gaming.

But I know a lot of people get stressed by a lot of choices. In 5e there is a really good optional rule to limit that, just using PHB+1, though.

 

[Arilyn]

That’s how I see it, too. Making characters isn’t meta gaming (and there is nothing wrong with meta gaming), anymore that thinking about where your character is from is meta gaming.

But I know a lot of people get stressed by a lot of choices. In 5e there is a really good optional rule to limit that, just using PHB+1, though.

Yes, too much hand wringing over meta gaming.

If a new player is overwhelmed, the GM can help by asking questions to help guide the choice. If you prefer the basic classes, stick with them. But if you want more variety, it's nice that lots of options exist.

 

[Wiseblood]

I love having lots of choice. D&D is a class based system, so we are letting the designers make a lot of choices for us, in what a fighter or bard should look like, for example. More variety means fewer characters looking the same mechanically.

Interesting, I find the opposite to be true. All too often the new classes do x,y or z just slightly differently than existing ones. In some cases they mechanically have the same outcome and impact. The ONLY difference is some meta-explanation like Power Source e.g Arcane, Primal, Divine, Martial and so on. This disturbs the force.

 

[Helldritch]

May be I should clarify a bit. Too much available choice means that some DM WILL restrain the choices. Be it because they don't have the book, or it does not fit in their campaign setting. Unfortunately, there will always be a player that will insist on creating such and such character that they saw in a book (either in official or unofficial products). This can lead to unwanted and unnecessary arguments with the player in question. I have seen young DM getting crushed by argumentative players for not allowing a ninja (or whatever else comes to your mind) in a campaign where it was clearly a medieval fantasy (and don't bring the: "Anything is possible, just add a story to justify its presence" argument...)

Young DM have problems in justifying their restriction and might not see the imbalance that some classes might bring. I'm old enough and pig headed enough to stand my ground but young DM might not be so. I have seen my fair share of destroyed campaigns where the player brought a prestige class from the internet (where the unbalancing factors where not evident) to be wary of the amount of choices. Back in the days, I am pretty sure that almost none of the prestige classes beyond those in the DM were fully play tested. A lot of these were either garbage or simply too powerful. And I do own every single official books in 5ed (save the Rick & Morty thing... too childish for me). I have no problems in adjudicating the game and saying no to someone. But you also have to think about the young DM out there.

As I said earlier, with all the possibilities we have right now, we can do about any concept we can think of with a character that multiclass into two classes only! What we need is for Wizard to concentrate on new options (as we saw in the UA earlier this year, it was not perfect but it is a work in progress...) and to revise some rules that are not necessary up front. Just looking at the Sage Advice shows us that a lot of rules need clarifications or better wording, some monsters need a bit more tweaking to be perfect, some guidelines needs to be added into the DMG and so on. Maybe a 5.5ed is in order. For the moment, we do not need more path or classes. We need consistency in the rules.

 

[Guest 6801328]

In a game where the challenge varies drastically according to the whims of the DM, how can this question possibly be answered?

 

[billd91]

In a game where the challenge varies drastically according to the whims of the DM, how can this question possibly be answered?

What? You’re not seeing the inter-generational scorn and “dumbed-down” subtext in the thread?

 

[Undrave]

Personally I'd make away with the entire antiquated Daily Vancian Spells concept.

Maybe use some sort of universal stamina system instead to model the idea of getting tired from too much effort in a day and that's it.

That way you don't have to worry about one class having issues with a certain number of fights while another doesn't.

But sacred cows be sacred cows Le shrug

 

[tetrasodium]

Personally I'd make away with the entire antiquated Daily Vancian Spells concept.

Maybe use some sort of universal stamina system instead to model the idea of getting tired from too much effort in a day and that's it.

That way you don't have to worry about one class having issues with a certain number of fights while another doesn't.

But sacred cows be sacred cows Le shrug

That sort of hp/resolve/stamina split worked well in starfinder, it's a shame that it would be such a headache to convert 5e to similar

 

[MichaelSomething]

If I wanted to carefully manage resources and get screwed over by RNG, I go play Darkest Dungeon

 

[ad_hoc]

I have found 5e to be plenty challenging and lethal. More of the adventures I've run have ended in a TPK than a victory.

There are some things that make the game easy:

1. The DM not using monsters to their potential. This is most often with movement. Monsters can move in 5e. If the DM only has the monster move to the PC with the highest AC then the fight will be much easier. Lots of other factors too including what actions they use, etc.

2. Party size. The game is designed well for 4 players. It can work with 3 or 5. 3 is quite difficult. 6+ is easy.

3. Rolling stats and giving out lots of magic items.


I've never found it hard to have an appropriate amount of encounters/long rest. Sometimes we only have 2-3 but because we have more on average players hold back their abilities so it works out to the same level of perceived challenge.

With the exception of overland travel segments, every (WotC D&D 5e) published adventure I have played has been designed around having many encounters/long rest.

If we're going to judge a game we should do so based on its rules. If you want to learn how to play a game within this paradigm there are many written adventures to choose from.