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

[MerricB]

Clay Golems have, I think, always had that ability. It's nasty, and that 5e has kept it is IMO a good thing.

So if the party gets into a fight with a Clay Golem and some characters take damage, maybe they'll just have to live with a lower h.p. max from here on. While they'll logically want to get it fixed, nothing anywhere says they MUST be able to, or be able to easily.

The oldest form of clay golem (The Strategic Review Vol 1. No 4.) had nothing special about its damage. When it was presented in the AD&D Monster Manual, its damage required healing from a 17th level or higher caster! (Not a restoration spell, just healing).

I recently revisited it in 5E terms: Dungeons & Dragons Lore: Old-School Golems - Merric's Musings

It's the resistances that make old golems a massive challenge. (I'm not a fan of how 3E added lots of ways to get around their resistances).

Cheers!

 

[MerricB]

For me, the biggest change from early editions (1E, 2E) to more recent editions (3E, 4E, 5E) is how the latter believe that bringing you down to 0 hit points in any challenging combat is a good idea, while the more limited healing of 1E & 2E means that taking a single sword blow is something that is significant.

Cheers!

 

[Umbran]

In relation to placing any negative game impact on the GM instead of the player's actions, yes, it's the generation.

Mentioning how you haven't actually done any proper survey work to correlate age with playstyle probably will not disabuse you of that notion, but the fact that there's only anecdotal evidence to support that still stands.

 

[Curmudjinn]

There's a point where "faster combat" becomes adam west batman fights, needing to squeeze 6-8 of them in becomes problematic to many settings & just as slapsticky as that was though.

Don't get me wrong, the idea behind simplifying & streamlining things was sound but they did it to everything & went too far in too many cases as new & different problems piled up. Take the dials on dmg267... sure they might touch on one small part of a problem, but they all either create larger problems or are made irrelevant because of other changes between editions


The lethality & risk when down so much that the challenge is too easily treated as just theater.
As to millenials being responsible for anything in the 5e ruleset... I could be wrong, but I'm pretty sure Crawford Mearls & so on are not millenials. Blaming millenials is like blaming them for growing up for how their boomer/xenniel/genx parents chose to raise them.

I'm not sure why you and Umbra want to use the term millennials, when I have not. Please don't assume and put words in my mouth and then passive/aggressively talk down to me using those words. That's rather rude.

The generation of players. Which isn't a stereotypical age group, but a theme across many gaming hobbies, including sports and leisure. I teach D&D. I have for many years. I also teach multiple youth sports. It is a prevalent ideological theme among players and parents alike, in my experience over multiple decades. This only pertains to the specific point I referenced, of GMs being blamed for any negativity in a game, be it planned or due to unlucky rolls or bad choices. It also links with the Mercer effect(and something we call the Steph Curry effect), of many believing things have to be done a certain way, forsaking certain skills and responsibilities.

Regardless, it's getting off topic so I'll leave it at that.

 

[Curmudjinn]

For me, the biggest change from early editions (1E, 2E) to more recent editions (3E, 4E, 5E) is how the latter believe that bringing you down to 0 hit points in any challenging combat is a good idea, while the more limited healing of 1E & 2E means that taking a single sword blow is something that is significant.

Cheers!

This is a harsh reminder of years ago playing AD&D1e.
I remember anytime our frontline PCs took sizable damage, the game quickly turned to conversation of hasty tactical retreat.

 

[JeffB]

In 1e you did half, I think, with melee weapons. Missiles varied.

I don't think it's BS at all - I don't mind that while the greatwsord Fighter does better most (as in, nearly all) of the time, there's occasionally going to be situations where she's shown up by a normally-lesser combatant.

And it gives the normally-lesser combatant a chance to shine in melee now and then.

Never mind that while a Fighter might specialize with greatsword, surely if she's got two shreds of wisdom to rub together she's going to have other weapons on board for times when a greatsword makes no sense e.g. tight quarters (dagger), ranged combat (some sort of bow or sling), or opponents against whom swords are of limited use (mace or hammer).

IMO, No other class should outshine the Fighter at his own game. Classes are for niche protection. Otherwise lets play RQ.

Also from a realistic/verisimiltude standpoint I believe as a melee combatant I would rather have 5 feet of blade in front of me chopping that thing in half easily rather than 2-3 feet of shaft with an iron head which would make me more vulnerable to thing's attacks.

 

[Arilyn]

In 1e you did half, I think, with melee weapons. Missiles varied.

I don't think it's BS at all - I don't mind that while the greatwsord Fighter does better most (as in, nearly all) of the time, there's occasionally going to be situations where she's shown up by a normally-lesser combatant.

And it gives the normally-lesser combatant a chance to shine in melee now and then.

Never mind that while a Fighter might specialize with greatsword, surely if she's got two shreds of wisdom to rub together she's going to have other weapons on board for times when a greatsword makes no sense e.g. tight quarters (dagger), ranged combat (some sort of bow or sling), or opponents against whom swords are of limited use (mace or hammer).

Yes, I agree. And a wise fighter in a world full of weird monsters and undead is going to carry a few different types of weapons in order to get the job done. Obviously, not a golf bag full, but a slashing, a bludgeoning, a missile and a dagger seems reasonable. The secondary weapons don't need to be awesome. In 3e, my fighter had a small hammer for skeletons. Just a d6 weapon but still better than my regular slashing weapon when we ran into skeletons. I felt prepared. It felt realistic, and we always kept at least one silver weapon, just in case.

 

[tetrasodium]

IMO, No other class should outshine the Fighter at his own game. Classes are for niche protection. Otherwise lets play RQ.

Also from a realistic/verisimiltude standpoint I believe as a melee combatant I would rather have 5 feet of blade in front of me chopping that thing in half easily rather than 2-3 feet of shaft with an iron head which would make me more vulnerable to thing's attacks.

a skeleton with dr5/bludgeoning is not the "niche" of a greatsword fighter who for some reason is unable to use a different weapon. In 5e you don't even have the 3.5 type weapon focus/specialization that would be linked to greatsword specifically. You know there are two handed bludgeoning weapons right? Is there some reason that a fighter can not use a some bludgeoning weapon against a skeleton instead in one of those situations like skeletons or a greatsword rather than maul for zombies?




The whole point of dr/bludgeoning, dr/slash, or dr/pierce on certain monstersis to put them a halfstep outside a niche by forcing someone to use asubstandard backup instead of a non bludgeoning or nonslash weapon. If I'm not mistaken, you couldn't backstab(?) undead either. It also meant that a +1 light mace/light hammer or whatever was still considered a nice find even if everyone's main weapon was "better"

 

[Chaosmancer]

a skeleton with dr5/bludgeoning is not the "niche" of a greatsword fighter who for some reason is unable to use a different weapon. In 5e you don't even have the 3.5 type weapon focus/specialization that would be linked to greatsword specifically. You know there are two handed bludgeoning weapons right? Is there some reason that a fighter can not use a some bludgeoning weapon against a skeleton instead in one of those situations like skeletons or a greatsword rather than maul for zombies?




The whole point of dr/bludgeoning, dr/slash, or dr/pierce on certain monstersis to put them a halfstep outside a niche by forcing someone to use asubstandard backup instead of a non bludgeoning or nonslash weapon. If I'm not mistaken, you couldn't backstab(?) undead either. It also meant that a +1 light mace/light hammer or whatever was still considered a nice find even if everyone's main weapon was "better"

I'll say it again, 5e has something similiar, just in reverse.

First, there is no more dr/5 or anything fiddly like that. There is resistance, vulnerability and immunity. Because that is easier to remember.

Vulnerability Bludgeoning = Resistance to all damage that is not Bludgeoning and 1/2ing hp.

Mathematically, it works out to be the same.

Vampires aren't vulnerable to radiant damage, but their regeneration of 20 hp a round turns off if you hit them with radiant. That serves the same purpose.

Black Puddings are 100% immune to all slashing damage, no matter if it is magical or not.

These things exist in the game, they provide optimal strategies to killing the creature. Sure, you don't need radiant damage to kill zombies, but since radiant bypasses their undead fortitude, it certainly makes the fight much eaiser.

 

[Arilyn]

I'll say it again, 5e has something similiar, just in reverse.

First, there is no more dr/5 or anything fiddly like that. There is resistance, vulnerability and immunity. Because that is easier to remember.

Vulnerability Bludgeoning = Resistance to all damage that is not Bludgeoning and 1/2ing hp.

Mathematically, it works out to be the same.

Vampires aren't vulnerable to radiant damage, but their regeneration of 20 hp a round turns off if you hit them with radiant. That serves the same purpose.

Black Puddings are 100% immune to all slashing damage, no matter if it is magical or not.

These things exist in the game, they provide optimal strategies to killing the creature. Sure, you don't need radiant damage to kill zombies, but since radiant bypasses their undead fortitude, it certainly makes the fight much eaiser.

I understand perfectly what you are saying, and I'm not vehemently opposed to your position. I just feel that having the bard be pretty much useless fighting a skeleton with a rapier, while the cleric bashes happily away with his mace feels more satisfying than the bard doing her usual rapier damage, while the cleric does more. One time, while GMing a 3e game the players ran into skeletons. The only one with a bashing weapon was the wizard. She wisely tossed her staff to the fighter. It was a bit of a tough fight, and after it was over, the wizard took back her staff, looked the fighter in the eye, and suggested he invest in a Warhammer. I just liked that scene. I like that sometimes the characters have a hard struggle because they are lacking the right weapon or cold iron, or whatever. And the cries of, "Is it silver we need to fight demons, or cold iron?"

Needing radiant damage or silver or a bludgeoning weapon puts the pressure on in a nice horror story kind of way. I miss that in it is not as prevalent in 5e.