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

[Olrox17]

Encounter based design can sure make things different. 4e isn't fully so.

Not fully, yeah. The Dm was still expected to run 4 encounters or so, to drain up some dailies and healing surges.

Still, I believe that some form of AEDU is the way to go for spellcasters if we are to avoid the 6-8 encounters paradigm. Again, the warlock is probably the best designed class in 5e (if we exclude broken multi-classing interactions).

 

[DEFCON 1]

I believe the base game and the rules suggested for encounter design (plus the WotC-produced adventure path books) are built around the idea of a 4-player game using the Basic Rules. Usually 1 strong, armored guy, 1 agile guy attacking from the shadows, 1 armored healer doing okay melee damage, and 1 spellcaster throwing the occasional area of effect spells. That's what they talk about at the beginnings of the books as the typical party, and that's how I think everything was written and balanced for.

If you play a game like that... the "default" Basic Rules game is probably pretty challenging.

Anything you add on top of that though is going to make things easier. Every additional PC ups the ease. Every non-Basic Rules class ups the ease. Every additional healer ups the ease. Every special feature, spell or item taken from non-Basic Rules sources up the ease. Every allowance for taking unhindered short and long rests up the ease.

Since I'm willing to bet that 99% of the tables out there are NOT running 4-PC Basic Rules games... all the games will seem easier if you try and run them "Rules As Written". Which means the one obvious thing... stop thinking that playing Rules As Written is anything worthwhile or something to inspire to!

Up the challenge! Add monsters to that adventure path you are running! Stop trying to create encounters using the encounter and CR rules! Throw crap at your players over and over and over again and let the chips fall where they may!

Now of course, most of the people who will react negatively to that will say things like "I can't restrict my player's choices because they see the entire PHB as valid and I'd be a jerk for doing so" or "I'm purposefully using an adventure path book so I wouldn't HAVE to do all the extra work to create or build up the challenges for my players" or "I have a living world and I'm not going to just ADD extra monsters who weren't there previously because that's cheating and my players would no longer respect me!" Which, hey... I get. I understand.

But if that's the case... then just accept the game is going to be easier for your players. You choose to go past the default game 5E is set up and relatively balanced around, so that's how it is. Your choice on how to handle it.

 

[Garthanos]

Not fully, yeah. The Dm was still expected to run 4 encounters or so, to drain up some dailies and healing surges.

Still, I believe that some form of AEDU is the way to go for spellcasters if we are to avoid the 6-8 encounters paradigm. Again, the warlock is probably the best designed class in 5e (if we exclude broken multi-classing interactions).

I am definitely a fan of the structure... but we can have climactics that arent exactly dailies too. For instance you can have recovey of dailies split in 2 at a miles stone then you have full encounter power. Also I was also postulating multi action actions to allow an atwill to get you an encounter and an encounter to get you a climactic.

 

[atanakar]

Which in practice according to all polls rarely anybody does...

Game designers assuming things which do not pan out with actual use has been a bane since 1e

If you try to play tennis on a badminton court the problem is YOU not the game.

 

[Ringtail]

I don't really think lethality = challenge. And I don't really approve of making it more likely to die to make the game "harder." (Personal preference really.)

I like to think of the tactical combat of D&D like a game of XCOM or Fire Emblem or Divinity Original Sin. (Any turn based game really.) How tough is it to win the fight? I like the idea of using good battlefield tactics and teamwork to win. How challenging a fight is ABSOLUTELY depends on how the DM sets up encounters, but it still feels really easy to accidentally have an encounter that was supposed to be hard but wasn't because you didn't do the numbers right.

As it is now I just throw very hard things at the party until the almost die (or do die) and I figure out that's the top end.

 

[jayoungr]

A better title for this thread would have been "Is 5E the Least Deadly Edition of D&D?"

And my answer to that would be "maybe." It would probably come down to 5E versus 4E, as I think 5E is a bit less deadly than 3.X.

Still, it's definitely still possible to have a TPK.

That's an unusual edge case situation more because the players are level 1. An ambush of level 1 players has a very high chance of tpk simply because most everyone will have a single digit HP value or maybe a couple points higher plus starting equipment.

Okay, but I also had a near-TPK when my players were level 17: one player down to 1 HP and everyone else making death saves. The enemies weren't all dead, either, just temporarily stunned. (Lesson: do not assume meteor swarm will kill a whole tower full of angels.)

 

[Undrave]

Not fully, yeah. The Dm was still expected to run 4 encounters or so, to drain up some dailies and healing surges.

Still, I believe that some form of AEDU is the way to go for spellcasters if we are to avoid the 6-8 encounters paradigm. Again, the warlock is probably the best designed class in 5e (if we exclude broken multi-classing interactions).

I think the Healing Surge mechanic was also a good track: It makes your full HP total a daily resource (through the surges) but you can't access all of it within a single encounter (your max HP). By tweaking the system a little you could have single encounters being more deadly, while not crippling you for the rest of the day and halting the pace of the game.

And for those who mentioned Second Wind... Second Wind was a full standard action in 4e, only the Dwarves had it as a minor action.

 

[Stoutstien]

I think the Healing Surge mechanic was also a good track: It makes your full HP total a daily resource (through the surges) but you can't access all of it within a single encounter (your max HP). By tweaking the system a little you could have single encounters being more deadly, while not crippling you for the rest of the day and halting the pace of the game.

And for those who mentioned Second Wind... Second Wind was a full standard action in 4e, only the Dwarves had it as a minor action.

I've always liked modeling short rest like healing surges. The ratio of time cost between short and long rest has always seemed off to me.

 

[jayoungr]

@pukunui , are you reading this thread? Tell 'em about how many PC deaths you've had in your campaigns.

 

[Olrox17]

I think the Healing Surge mechanic was also a good track: It makes your full HP total a daily resource (through the surges) but you can't access all of it within a single encounter (your max HP). By tweaking the system a little you could have single encounters being more deadly, while not crippling you for the rest of the day and halting the pace of the game.

And for those who mentioned Second Wind... Second Wind was a full standard action in 4e, only the Dwarves had it as a minor action.

Yeah. Hit Dice are the fifth edition version of healing surges, but they are much less relevant. What would have been called "surgeless healing" back in 4e is everywhere in fifth, and very potent to boot.