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

[Li Shenron]

Scoffs.... tried to read the whole thread and still not sure what exactly does it mean "challenging". Most people seem to mean it simply as "how likely you are going to die", while a good minority also points to "how difficult to shrug off lingering effects" (level drain, ability damage).

What about instead "how much the game forces you to come up with a novelty idea to proceed"? Now that's my favourite definition of challenge i.e. the more you play the harder you have to think, because your previous tactic doesn't work.

So to evaluate how challenging a system is, I especilly need to see what happens at higher levels. If the system gives the PC enough "buttons" to quickly win a scenario, then it's not challenging. In most systems those buttons are spells.

Unfortunately I haven't really played 5e at high level yet, but at least I expect that between less prepared spells, less slots and the concentration rule, it should be more challenging than 3e.

I get the argument. You can make 5E dangerous by throwing more monsters, increasing attrition, having more than the recommended encounter etc - but that's largely the only dial you have.

When "challenging" simply means lethal, it's the only dial you need.

It's a threefold dial anyway: more encounters, more monsters per encounter, more powerful monsters. You don't need house rules to change lethality.

:mostly rhetorical: What's the point of combat if it's not deadly? Why bother with encounters that are there just for XP boosters or to fit the "minimum # of encounters per day". It's fine in OD&D where you can roll through 6 -8 encounters in an hour of play in your 70s style dungeon of 100 rooms. It's a poor fit for any modern versions of the game.​

The adventuring day is a better gauge than a single encounter, so I'd rather talk about a deadly adventuring day. The short rest mechanics complicate things more however, especially if the PC can have healing ability recharged on a short rest.

But I understand that in many situations the DM allows the PC to call the adventuring day over when they want, and have a long rest, which essentially allows the players to dial lethality by themselves.

I generally prefer not to have all encounter deadly instead. In fact, I am totally ok even with encounters that are visibly pushovers, because I want to see if the PC decide to blow some resources to stay safe or to go cheap and risk accruing some damage before the real combat ahead.

I don't see anything wrong in wanting all encounters deadly anyway. It only has to be kept in mind that you can't have both (a) deadly encounters and (b) lots of them in a single day (c) with limited resources. A lot of gamers in fact would like (a) to the point of ending most combats on the brink of death (but without dying) but then complain they cannot have (b) such as finishing a whole dungeon in a single raid, and that's because the game is and has always been in all editions based on (c). If you want (a) and also (b) you have to give up (c) for example shortening long rests into short rest, or at least granting the party a huge supply of healing potions and charged items. Hint: thanks to their constant recharging mechanics, most videogames like WoW or D3 can afford (a) and (b) because they give up (c).

 

[Chaosmancer]

You still aren't getting it.

The 6-8 encounter (1) combined with the (2) (3) (4) and (5) encourages (6) (7) puts up a (8) around the playstyles not squarely in the playstyles wotc wanted to "encourage" like was done elsewhere with (9)

(1) adam west baman style
(2) ease of recovery
(3) lack of danger
(4) lack of attrition
(5) how fewer encounters
(6) mythic powerscale level
(7)nova usage
(8) badWrongFun fence
(9) deliberately imbalanced mechanics.

I had to break that run-on sentence all to pieces to make sense of it.

So, the problem is "adam west baman style"? By which I assume you mean campy music, bright colors and BAM WHIZ sound effects?

Probably not, you probably mean a lack of threat from enemies correct?

Well, let me just take a look here. On a basic level, we have the "storm trooper effect" right? Lots of faceless goons fire at the hero, and they all miss. In 3.5 I just opened the page of a MM and found a CR 12 creature that had a +15 to hit. A quick googling shows a discussion around the average AC of a level 10 character being 30 to 35. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but no one seems to be calling this out as completely unreasonable. So, 30 AC, +15 to hit, means that the creature hits about half the time.

In 5e, 30 AC requires an immense amount of effort to achieve. The highest I could see is +3 Full Plate +3 Shield and two items of protection giving an additional +2. That is four magic items, one is Legendary and another is Very Rare. And the 3.5 discussion mentions that level 20 characters should have an AC of about 50.

So, in 3.5 when you are level 10 to 15 with that 30 AC, how likely is it for a Goblin to hit you? Looks like they get... a +1 to hit. So, it is actually impossible (unless crits always succeed) for a 3.5 Goblin to hit a Level 10 character. Even if we drop our AC calculation down to 22, 8 points lower than the low-end indicated, a goblin will still always miss.

In 5e? A Goblin has a +4 to hit. Since your average character at level 10 might have an AC between 18 and 21... goblins still hit between 30% and 20% of the time.

So, we have moved from "impossible to hit" to "possible to hit" So, in fact, I would argue all enemies are still a threat. You need incredible amounts of effort put into AC to have even the weakest monsters have no chance of hitting you.

I'll give you ease of recovery, baseline 5e does have easy recovery, but lack of attrition and lack of danger? Maybe if you mean over the course of a month, but over the course of a single day I have worn parties out with minimal effort and put them in extreme danger. A single casting of fireball can take a significant chunk of hp (10%) out of even higher level parties. That is a single attack, let alone a single fight.

Now, again, I will grant there are few ways to harm PCs for longer than a day or two. But, that does not mean you can't put them in danger or wear away at their resources.

In terms of the number of encounters, I think 5e actually assumes the highest number of encounters across the editions. At least, meaningful encounters.


And, honestly, I'm not really sure you can call designing the game with a set balance point as putting a "BadWrongFun Fence" around the other styles of play. And, you can point to Fireball as "deliberately unbalanced" all you like, it is just a few points of damage higher than it should be. It is barely significant in the grand scheme of the game. After all, 9 of the 13 classes don't even get access to it, and since the typical group seems to be between 4 and 6 people, that means you have a decent chance of never seeing a fireball cast during any given game of DnD.

So, I can say I don't get it. Sure, monster effects are weaker. You can no longer die or have your character maimed into a useless state within a few bad rolls. But, there is still danger, there is still attrition, and while the game is balanced around a certain assumption, it is not has gonzo as you seem to think it is.

 

[tetrasodium]

I had to break that run-on sentence all to pieces to make sense of it.

So, the problem is "adam west baman style"? By which I assume you mean campy music, bright colors and BAM WHIZ sound effects?

Probably not, you probably mean a lack of threat from enemies correct?

Well, let me just take a look here. On a basic level, we have the "storm trooper effect" right? Lots of faceless goons fire at the hero, and they all miss. In 3.5 I just opened the page of a MM and found a CR 12 creature that had a +15 to hit. A quick googling shows a discussion around the average AC of a level 10 character being 30 to 35. Now, I don't know how accurate this is, but no one seems to be calling this out as completely unreasonable. So, 30 AC, +15 to hit, means that the creature hits about half the time.

In 5e, 30 AC requires an immense amount of effort to achieve. The highest I could see is +3 Full Plate +3 Shield and two items of protection giving an additional +2. That is four magic items, one is Legendary and another is Very Rare. And the 3.5 discussion mentions that level 20 characters should have an AC of about 50.

So, in 3.5 when you are level 10 to 15 with that 30 AC, how likely is it for a Goblin to hit you? Looks like they get... a +1 to hit. So, it is actually impossible (unless crits always succeed) for a 3.5 Goblin to hit a Level 10 character. Even if we drop our AC calculation down to 22, 8 points lower than the low-end indicated, a goblin will still always miss.

In 5e? A Goblin has a +4 to hit. Since your average character at level 10 might have an AC between 18 and 21... goblins still hit between 30% and 20% of the time.

So, we have moved from "impossible to hit" to "possible to hit" So, in fact, I would argue all enemies are still a threat. You need incredible amounts of effort put into AC to have even the weakest monsters have no chance of hitting you.

I'll give you ease of recovery, baseline 5e does have easy recovery, but lack of attrition and lack of danger? Maybe if you mean over the course of a month, but over the course of a single day I have worn parties out with minimal effort and put them in extreme danger. A single casting of fireball can take a significant chunk of hp (10%) out of even higher level parties. That is a single attack, let alone a single fight.

Now, again, I will grant there are few ways to harm PCs for longer than a day or two. But, that does not mean you can't put them in danger or wear away at their resources.

In terms of the number of encounters, I think 5e actually assumes the highest number of encounters across the editions. At least, meaningful encounters.


And, honestly, I'm not really sure you can call designing the game with a set balance point as putting a "BadWrongFun Fence" around the other styles of play. And, you can point to Fireball as "deliberately unbalanced" all you like, it is just a few points of damage higher than it should be. It is barely significant in the grand scheme of the game. After all, 9 of the 13 classes don't even get access to it, and since the typical group seems to be between 4 and 6 people, that means you have a decent chance of never seeing a fireball cast during any given game of DnD.

So, I can say I don't get it. Sure, monster effects are weaker. You can no longer die or have your character maimed into a useless state within a few bad rolls. But, there is still danger, there is still attrition, and while the game is balanced around a certain assumption, it is not has gonzo as you seem to think it is.

You are really backtracking instead of making new points on old discussion points you were involved in & it's kind of obnoxious considering you've been involved in this thread for quite some time, for example you quoting my post here talking about a lot of those mechanical changes towards the tail end of that part of the discussion about how incorporeal traits & many other things changed from 3.5 to 5e. As to your example. of 30+ ac.. I go into detail the changes with how incorporeal creatures & the wraith con damage changes from 3.5 to 5e way back here on yet another page you were involved in & suggest you educate yourself on that since your making a 3.5 example without understanding the mechanics without understanding how in 3.5 having 3+ac did not mean you had 30+ touch ac. Granted in 5e having
30+ ac pretty much does mean you are unhittable outside a 20 because incorporeal creatures like a wraith need a 14 or better just to hit off the rack plate+shield.

The fireball thing was discussed earlier too, I'm concerned about the memory problems you are displaying.

 

[Chaosmancer]

You are really backtracking instead of making new points on old discussion points you were involved in & it's kind of obnoxious considering you've been involved in this thread for quite some time, for example you quoting my post here talking about a lot of those mechanical changes towards the tail end of that part of the discussion about how incorporeal traits & many other things changed from 3.5 to 5e.

As to your example. of 30+ ac.. I go into detail the changes with how incorporeal creatures & the wraith con damage changes from 3.5 to 5e way back here on yet another page you were involved in & suggest you educate yourself on that since your making a 3.5 example without understanding the mechanics without understanding how in 3.5 having 3+ac did not mean you had 30+ touch ac.

Granted in 5e having 30+ ac pretty much does mean you are unhittable outside a 20 because incorporeal creatures like a wraith need a 14 or better just to hit off the rack plate+shield.

The fireball thing was discussed earlier too, I'm concerned about the memory problems you are displaying.

I'm still not impressed with your run-on sentences. Seriously, that first paragraph is a single sentence. It makes it incredibly hard to read and understand you.

I don't care about ethereal creatures. Goblins aren't ethereal creatures. Never have been in any edition of the game.

Neither are most demons, devils, golems, dragons, in fact most creatures in the game are not ethereal. So, yes, a 30 AC does not mean you have a 30 touch AC unless you have special abilities that mean you do. But that has nothing to do with the point I was making.

In older editions, 3.5 in particular, a goblin and other low CR creatures stopped being threats. They could not even hit a party that was following along the average curve. It was a waste of time to even put them on the battlefield, no matter how many there were.

In 5e, a goblin or other low CR creature is still a threat. They can still hit you, they can still deal damage to you, and if you put enough of them on the field, they can most likely take out even high level characters. In fact, it doesn't even take that many of them and, I would argue for Goblins in particular, they are more dangerous in 5e than they have been in any edition before this.

So, if weak monsters are more threatening than ever, especially to high level parties, than is that not evidence that there is something off with saying that the monsters are universally less threatening than they used to be? Is not the fact that there is a discussion of "Peasants with Bows" taking out dragons being a problem in this edition a good sign that not everything is gonzo mythic action time?


And, I don't have memory problems. You keep bringing up the same points over and over again, so I will have to address them over and over again. If you don't want to bring up points already discussed, stop bringing them back up. You've thrown the "fireball was designed to be unbalanced" factoid out so many times I knew that was what you were posting a link to before I even bothered to hover over it and check.

Yes, long term mutilating effects are less present in 5e than they were in 3.5. We've discussed them. I'm glad about it.

You think it is impossible to threaten PCs with dangerous fights without using large numbers of monsters. Myself and other posters have shown that isn't true either.

You think it is impossible to have enough enemies to threaten the PCs without breaking the reality of the gameworld with the sheer number of bodies necessary. I've discussed why that isn't true repeatedly and you just declare that I prove your point and move on.

Yet, you keep bringing up all of these points and declaring yourself completely right and that it all proves 5e is the least challenging edition ever designed.

 

[Lanefan]

In older editions, 3.5 in particular, a goblin and other low CR creatures stopped being threats. They could not even hit a party that was following along the average curve. It was a waste of time to even put them on the battlefield, no matter how many there were.

This was particularly true in 3.x.

In 0-1-2e the power curve was much flatter - more like 5e - and minor monsters remained viable foes for a much greater span of PC levels than in 3.x. Flip side - which I really like - is that in 0-1-2-5e a party of low-level PCs at least have a chance to take out something well above their pay grade.

More later, got a game to run....

 

[Man in the Funny Hat]

Details of this or that scenario that went one way or another aren't important. What is important is that on repeated occasions in multiple campaigns both DM and players were expecting challenge according to what the game rules would have us expect, but in practical play we all found surprising ease and survivability in situations we were led to believe would NOT be easy and survivable. Doesn't mean we don't have fun, but in my experience it sure fits the bill for, "Is 5E the least challenging edition?"

 

[Chaosmancer]

Details of this or that scenario that went one way or another aren't important. What is important is that on repeated occasions in multiple campaigns both DM and players were expecting challenge according to what the game rules would have us expect, but in practical play we all found surprising ease and survivability in situations we were led to believe would NOT be easy and survivable. Doesn't mean we don't have fun, but in my experience it sure fits the bill for, "Is 5E the least challenging edition?"

They may not be terribly important.

But they may explain why I have experienced quite a few scenarios in multiple campaigns where we weren't expecting a challenge, but nearly got turned into mulch by the enemies.

If we have diverging experiences, there must be a reason for it.

 

[Lanefan]

Game over, so now for part 2...

In 5e, a goblin or other low CR creature is still a threat. They can still hit you, they can still deal damage to you, and if you put enough of them on the field, they can most likely take out even high level characters. In fact, it doesn't even take that many of them and, I would argue for Goblins in particular, they are more dangerous in 5e than they have been in any edition before this.

So, if weak monsters are more threatening than ever, especially to high level parties,

I'm not sure they're more threatening than ever, just more than they were in 3e and, to a lesser extent, 4e.

than is that not evidence that there is something off with saying that the monsters are universally less threatening than they used to be? Is not the fact that there is a discussion of "Peasants with Bows" taking out dragons being a problem in this edition a good sign that not everything is gonzo mythic action time?

Were the only threat ever posed by lowish-level monsters or characters across all editions merely a reduction in the amount of hit points one currently has, you'd be on to something.

But there's more to it than that, and you hit it...

Yes, long term mutilating effects are less present in 5e than they were in 3.5. We've discussed them. I'm glad about it.

...right here.

The loss of those long-term mutilating effects (level loss, item loss, limb loss, etc.) along with significant nerfing of short-term bad effects (e.g. ghoul touch, charm, etc.) makes 5e monsters on average considerably less of a threat than in any prior edition; and also tends to make players/PCs more willing to fight them rather than look for another option.

That 5e monsters on average have more hit points than their 0-1-2e counterparts isn't nearly enough to cancel this out.

 

[Zardnaar]

Game over, so now for part 2...

I'm not sure they're more threatening than ever, just more than they were in 3e and, to a lesser extent, 4e.

Were the only threat ever posed by lowish-level monsters or characters across all editions merely a reduction in the amount of hit points one currently has, you'd be on to something.

But there's more to it than that, and you hit it...

...right here.

The loss of those long-term mutilating effects (level loss, item loss, limb loss, etc.) along with significant nerfing of short-term bad effects (e.g. ghoul touch, charm, etc.) makes 5e monsters on average considerably less of a threat than in any prior edition; and also tends to make players/PCs more willing to fight them rather than look for another option.

That 5e monsters on average have more hit points than their 0-1-2e counterparts isn't nearly enough to cancel this out.

5E PCs tend to deal more damage than 1E and 2E equivalents.

 

[Chaosmancer]

Game over, so now for part 2...

I'm not sure they're more threatening than ever, just more than they were in 3e and, to a lesser extent, 4e.

My argument for Goblins being the most threatening in 5e is because of their special ability. The ability to Hide or Disengage as a bonus action. It is surprisingly powerful with their +6 to stealth. Fight a squad of goblins in a warehouse or a forest, and the majority of them will be attacking with advantage, because they are hidden from the PCs, then attack, then hide again. The PCs can ready actions to hit them, but lose out on Extra attacks, many useful abilities, and are likely standing in the open waiting for most of their turns. Charge and get next to a pile of goblins? They can all stab you and then disengage and scatter, meaning the heavy who charged is only going to be able to chase down a few of them while the rest circle and begin hiding and shooting again.

Alter their classic characterization to match that of their folktale origins, don't play them as stupid, sniveling cowards and instead as sneaky hunters of the shadows, and you can bring terror to a group of players.

But there's more to it than that, and you hit it...

...right here.

The loss of those long-term mutilating effects (level loss, item loss, limb loss, etc.) along with significant nerfing of short-term bad effects (e.g. ghoul touch, charm, etc.) makes 5e monsters on average considerably less of a threat than in any prior edition; and also tends to make players/PCs more willing to fight them rather than look for another option.

That 5e monsters on average have more hit points than their 0-1-2e counterparts isn't nearly enough to cancel this out.

Sure, but as we've discussed there is a lot more going on here in the design philosophy.

For example, if you are playing a fighter, and you get strength drained until you can't wear your armor and wield your sword, and the party can't afford to pay a cleric the exorbitant fees needed to cast a 7th level spell to restore you, what do you do?

Surprisingly, a new fighter with very similar abilities rolls into town looking for a group to join.

Not all the time, but it happened for sure. And I think there were players and DMs who got frustrated with that set-up. The monsters wouldn't kill a character, they'd just get them to the point where they wished their character was dead instead. Which, for a lot of groups, I imagine was just not fun.


And, as we have also discussed, there isn't exactly a lot of "challenge" in dealing with permanent, debilitating effects. You say Ghoul touch is weakened, but I'd argue it really isn't. Looking at 3.5 Ghoul touch was a save vs paralysis that lasted for 2-5 rounds. In 5e, it is a save vs paralysis that lasts between 1 and 10 rounds. The bigger difference is that in 3.5, if you were paralyzed... that was it. Go grab pizza or something, you are unable to do anything for X rounds, we know exactly how long it will be. Any decisions are rendered moot. Unless someone heals you with magic of course. In 5e, every round you roll to break the effect. And, if you are a person who built to be good at Con Saves, that decision pays off, you will break out sooner. While someone who built differently might not. And sure, it is a low save, so you will likely pass, but the uncertainty actually adds more complex thinking. Since you don't know how long the effect will last, do you risk letting them break out on their own, or heal them. You can give them bonuses they can use on the save, so maybe the Cleric blesses the paralyzed individual, making it more likely they break free. In 3.5 buffing someone who will be paralyzed for 4 rounds would be a complete waste of time. They'd never get a chance to use the buff, so why waste it?


And, I think this ends up being a point glossed over by people when they look at all of these "save at end of turn" effects. Yes, it makes it more likely to end early, but it also makes it uncertain. And uncertainty makes it harder to plan tactics.

Let's look at Dominate Person. I'm not fully versed in 3.5, but here is how it reads from the SRD to me. A 5th level wizard casts the spell. If they succeed the target is dominated for 5 days. The target gets a new save if they are given an order "against their nature" or if the wizard does not concentrate on it for six seconds a day.

So, if you are adventuring and this is cast on a party member, forcing them to fight against the party, they get 2 saves. One to establish, and one to resist the order. Once they fail they will attempt to kill the party for the next 5 days. At minimum, it could be as long as 20 days. You can either heal the effect, or drop the party member and tie them up for the next few weeks.

In 5e, the spell only lasts a minute at base, and takes a much higher level wizard to cast it. If they cast at even higher levels they could max out at 8 hours. So yes, it is far shorter, but that combined with concentration and the save every time they are damaged gives choices. Do we fight our companion and hope we can snap them out of it? Do we focus on the wizard and try and break the spell? And once the fight is over, they don't have to have a party member tied up and murderous for days.

I don't know if giving players more tactical options, more routes to success or failure, really makes it "less challenging". It keeps them more engaged, lets them be more clever, and encourages more thinking beyond "this one roll decides if I'm playing tonight or not".