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

[fearsomepirate]

Today I learned that chess is a game for stupid people.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

If by that you mean that the game is easy to understand, simple for new people to get into, that you don't have to be a complete gamer geek to be effective than I agree. It's why it's so popular.

If you're just going out of your way to insult people that like the game ... well I'm not going to finish that. But if you're not stupid I'm sure you can fill in the blank.

Im not saying only stupid people play 5e.

Im saying that the design teem implied (rather ungracefully) that they were attempting to lower the bar to system mastery.

Big difference in the nuances there i think.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Get mad at jeremy crawford if you want to. Don't shoot the messenger.

 

[Oofta]

Im not saying only stupid people play 5e.

Im saying that the design teem implied (rather ungracefully) that they were attempting to lower the bar to system mastery.

Big difference in the nuances there i think.

Then it seems they were quite successful at their goal. Last time I checked, the designer's job was not to make you feel special because you could master a game in ways others could not but to actually make a game that is fun, popular and sells plenty of product. Since this is the most popular version ever I think they did a good job.

I like the inclusivity and it doesn't hurt me one bit that I can no longer build a PC that is by far more effective than other people's PCs.

 

[fearsomepirate]

I think everyone in this thread has agreed that it was much harder to make a Fighter that wasn't worthless by 9th level in 3.5, or to remember which book contained the Non-Proficiency Penalty For Boat Use table in AD&D.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Then it seems they were quite successful at their goal. Last time I checked, the designer's job was not to make you feel special because you could master a game in ways others could not but to actually make a game that is fun, popular and sells plenty of product. Since this is the most popular version ever I think they did a good job.

I like the inclusivity and it doesn't hurt me one bit that I can no longer build a PC that is by far more effective than other people's PCs.

1. Its totally ok for me to criticize any edition i feel like. Nothing is off limits.

2. Ive done that to 5e plenty.

3. Ive done it to every edition ive played plenty.

4. If you were paying attention you might have noticed that i didnt declare any of what i said in the posts you are quoting to be a "bad thing". Which quote says anything akin to "and thats why 5e is bad"?

5. Also im right. 5e is easy mode. And im pretty sure you just agreed with me. So i guess at least there is that.

6. The literal topic of the thread is "Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?". My answer happens to be "yes, and why". My answer does not have to be nor am i obligated to make it be "no". And my reasons dont have to be likeable. Especially when they are not inherently insulting and they arent unless you consider stupidity inherently a bad thing. I dont.

also my answer deals with the topic of the thread. I dont feel obligated to then list off some things i like about the edition just because what i say sounds like me "not liking the edition". Sheesh.

 

[Helldritch]

I think everyone in this thread has agreed that it was much harder to make a Fighter that wasn't worthless by 9th level in 3.5, or to remember which book contained the Non-Proficiency Penalty For Boat Use table in AD&D.

Not really. You could be guided as a new player in 3.5ed to do an OK fighter. And by 14th level, any fighter or martial character is there only to support the CODZILLA or the Wizard...

The goal of 5ed was not to make it accessible to dumb people or to lower the intellectual bar required to play. It was to eleminate, streamline and refine the rules. It was to get rid of all that was cluttering the older editions to make it faster in execution. In that, in the play test, we did a lot of work. We gave a lot of feedback, and it was heard, and it was acted upon. Was it always good? Definitely not. But it was the best that could be achieved with the compromise required to make 5ed a good game. And a good game it is. Not perfect, but way better in terms of balance and ease of play (meaning you don't have to have an excel spreadsheet to keep your bonuses as some people did).

 

[Son of the Serpent]

Not really. You could be guided as a new player in 3.5ed to do an OK fighter. And by 14th level, any fighter or martial character is there only to support the CODZILLA or the Wizard...

The goal of 5ed was not to make it accessible to dumb people or to lower the intellectual bar required to play. It was to eleminate, streamline and refine the rules. It was to get rid of all that was cluttering the older editions to make it faster in execution. In that, in the play test, we did a lot of work. We gave a lot of feedback, and it was heard, and it was acted upon. Was it always good? Definitely not. But it was the best that could be achieved with the compromise required to make 5ed a good game. And a good game it is. Not perfect, but way better in terms of balance and ease of play (meaning you don't have to have an excel spreadsheet to keep your bonuses as some people did).

there are multiple goals any design teem has for any edition.

It was one of the goals though.

What you are eluding to WAS ALSO a goal.

 

[Oofta]

1. Its totally ok for me to criticize any edition i feel like. Nothing is off limits.

2. Ive done that to 5e plenty.

3. Ive done it to every edition ive played plenty.

4. If you were paying attention you might have noticed that i didnt declare any of what i said in the posts you are quoting to be a "bad thing". Which quote says anything akin to "and thats why 5e is bad"?

5. Also im right. 5e is easy mode. And im pretty sure you just agreed with me. So i guess at least there is that.

6. The literal topic of the thread is "Is 5e the Least-Challenging Edition of D&D?". My answer happens to be "yes, and why". My answer does not have to be nor am i obligated to make it be "no". And my reasons dont have to be likeable. Especially when they are not inherently insulting and they arent unless you consider stupidity inherently a bad thing. I dont.

I was replying to your tone. Which I am also allowed to do.

You could have said exactly the same thing using less insulting terms.

 

[Son of the Serpent]

I was replying to your tone. Which I am also allowed to do.

You could have said exactly the same thing using less insulting terms.

Then you misinterpreted the tone.

And i made no insults. Well. Except perhaps for eluding to jeremy being an oaf.

Its my honest opinion. I dont think he will care that i call him as such.

If he does care, i dont care though. Why should i?