D&D General Is WotC's 5E D&D easy? Trust me this isn't what you think... maybe

[Crimson Longinus]

Not even remotely.

I'd see that as a positive.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I'd see that as a positive.

Sure. No one takes that stuff seriously.

 

[Scott Christian]

Do published the adventures usually have any sort of narrative structures that limit how often the PCs can rest? Because with normal rests stopping to have a long rest is very easy in most situations, so if the PCs rest often and don't face those six to eight pushover encounters between rests like suggested, it will be even easier.

I'm with @Shardstone on this, it really is up to the DM. That said, as a player I have come across a few sessions where the book used the DMG advice and did not allow a rest. Either someone or some place was in danger, we were in danger of never being able to return through the portal, or the big-bad was going to escape if we didn't push on.

 

[DEFCON 1]

I've found that the best way to solve the issue of whether or not D&D combat is "too easy" is to not make the point of the game be about D&D combat. Make the narrative and what the characters want as people to be the thing the game and the players care about... and use combat merely as one of the dozens of different ways to flavor the story. That way the game's not about "challenging the players by putting their characters at risk of dying"... but about the wants, needs, and aims of the characters in the world and their attempts at getting them and having an impact on it. (Genral) you do that... the story of any of the combats that arise is no longer about "PCs trying to avoid dying"... but instead is about whatever it is the enemies are there to do and accomplish that the characters want to stop. And if that enemy threat can be postponed or ended quickly with what turns out to be an "easy" combat... so much the better for them! Characters should want to be able to solve their problems in the story as easily and as quickly as possible... so when it happens it's not a thing to be sad about. Then later on, if the story takes the party to a showdown with an enemy of massive power... there's zero need to worry about "balance" or "challenge ratings" or "designing an appropriate encounter" or the like, and you just put the all applicable enemies for the situation in the location and let the chips fall where they may.

I know this is not how a lot of the people out here wish to play their D&D... but it's certainly an easier way to do it when (general) you make the choice to use a D&D adventure path book. (General) you want to force your players to risk life and limb? Using these books WotC publishes ain't the best way to go about it-- especially if (general) you don't want to be bothered with making sure the combats listed all work the way you want them to.

 

[overgeeked]

I've found that the best way to solve the issue of whether or not D&D combat is "too easy" is to not make the point of the game be about D&D combat. Make the narrative and what the characters want as people to be the thing the game and the players care about... and use combat merely as one of the dozens of different ways to flavor the story. That way the game's not about "challenging the players by putting their characters at risk of dying"... but about the wants, needs, and aims of the characters in the world and their attempts at getting them and having an impact on it. (Genral) you do that... the story of any of the combats that arise is no longer about "PCs trying to avoid dying"... but instead is about whatever it is the enemies are there to do and accomplish that the characters want to stop. And if that enemy threat can be postponed or ended quickly with what turns out to be an "easy" combat... so much the better for them! Characters should want to be able to solve their problems in the story as easily and as quickly as possible... so when it happens it's not a thing to be sad about. Then later on, if the story takes the party to a showdown with an enemy of massive power... there's zero need to worry about "balance" or "challenge ratings" or "designing an appropriate encounter" or the like, and you just put the all applicable enemies for the situation in the location and let the chips fall where they may.

I know this is not how a lot of the people out here wish to play their D&D... but it's certainly an easier way to do it when (general) you make the choice to use a D&D adventure path book. (General) you want to force your players to risk life and limb? Using these books WotC publishes ain't the best way to go about it-- especially if (general) you don't want to be bothered with making sure the combats listed all work the way you want them to.

Trouble is that easily overcome obstacles and challenges make for boring stories. You don’t have to threaten life and limb for the story to be interesting, but the PCs do have to face difficult challenges, they have to struggle, and sometimes lose, for the story to be interesting.

 

[tetrasodium]

I've found that the best way to solve the issue of whether or not D&D combat is "too easy" is to not make the point of the game be about D&D combat. Make the narrative and what the characters want as people to be the thing the game and the players care about... and use combat merely as one of the dozens of different ways to flavor the story. That way the game's not about "challenging the players by putting their characters at risk of dying"... but about the wants, needs, and aims of the characters in the world and their attempts at getting them and having an impact on it. (Genral) you do that... the story of any of the combats that arise is no longer about "PCs trying to avoid dying"... but instead is about whatever it is the enemies are there to do and accomplish that the characters want to stop. And if that enemy threat can be postponed or ended quickly with what turns out to be an "easy" combat... so much the better for them! Characters should want to be able to solve their problems in the story as easily and as quickly as possible... so when it happens it's not a thing to be sad about. Then later on, if the story takes the party to a showdown with an enemy of massive power... there's zero need to worry about "balance" or "challenge ratings" or "designing an appropriate encounter" or the like, and you just put the all applicable enemies for the situation in the location and let the chips fall where they may.

I know this is not how a lot of the people out here wish to play their D&D... but it's certainly an easier way to do it when (general) you make the choice to use a D&D adventure path book. (General) you want to force your players to risk life and limb? Using these books WotC publishes ain't the best way to go about it-- especially if (general) you don't want to be bothered with making sure the combats listed all work the way you want them to.

On top of what @overgeeked said in 105 is the impact of background features. If the gm throws out noncombat problems that one or more background features can trivialize commonly enough, you can bet your dice that it won't take long before players start making sure that someone is reliably choosing those backgrounds

 

[ezo]

you can bet your dice that it won't take long before players start making sure that someone is reliably choosing those backgrounds

Oh yeah, but you don't even have to choose those backgrounds. Since backgrounds are 100% customizable, you can create any background and choose any background feature.

IME the one that trivialize problems are:

• Criminal Contact (Criminal)
• Rustic Hospitality (Folk Hero)
• Position of Privilege (Noble)
• Ship's Passage (Sailor)
• City Streets (Urchin)

and the worst... Wanderer (Outlander)

Many of these can make certain social and exploration challenges non-issues.

 

[el-remmen]

 

[DEFCON 1]

On top of what @overgeeked said in 105 is the impact of background features. If the gm throws out noncombat problems that one or more background features can trivialize commonly enough, you can bet your dice that it won't take long before players start making sure that someone is reliably choosing those backgrounds

I suppose that will come down to the types of players one has. In my particular case, players want to engage with the stories that the campaign presents and not just "get past them" without incident. The narratives are why we play. So if our party needs to find a place to stay for the night, sure, one of the players might indicate their Background allows them to get free room and board, but we're still going to roleplay the approach to the building, the negotiation with the owners, perhaps get food and drink in the tavern and any events /rumors that might come out of that, going for the rest, perhaps be woken up in the middle of the night for some event, and then get up the next morning. Because any one of those points might call for checks for various reasons (not the "get room and board" part that comes with the Background feature but all other things) and who knows what other choices / decisions the players will make as the evening progresses. So why anyone would want to just skip all that potential story by saying "Okay, your feature says you get room and board, so you leave the road, find an inn, go to sleep, wake up, and are back here next morning" all the time is beyond me. An occasional fast-forward? Sure. Of course. No big deal. But skipping it all the time just because someone has a Background feature? Seems a waste of potential roleplay and story opportunity to me and I don't know why anyone would do that if they didn't want to. But (general) your mileage may vary.

 

[tetrasodium]

I suppose that will come down to the types of players one has. In my particular case, players want to engage with the stories that the campaign presents and not just "get past them" without incident. The narratives are why we play. So if our party needs to find a place to stay for the night, sure, one of the players might indicate their Background allows them to get free room and board, but we're still going to roleplay the approach to the building, the negotiation with the owners, perhaps get food and drink in the tavern and any events /rumors that might come out of that, going for the rest, perhaps be woken up in the middle of the night for some event, and then get up the next morning. Because any one of those points might call for checks for various reasons (not the "get room and board" part that comes with the Background feature but all other things) and who knows what other choices / decisions the players will make as the evening progresses. So why anyone would want to just skip all that potential story by saying "Okay, your feature says you get room and board, so you leave the road, find an inn, go to sleep, wake up, and are back here next morning" all the time is beyond me. An occasional fast-forward? Sure. Of course. No big deal. But skipping it all the time just because someone has a Background feature? Seems a waste of potential roleplay and story opportunity to me and I don't know why anyone would do that if they didn't want to. But (general) your mileage may vary.

This is an irrational premise that combined with the post I quoted earlier blames players &GM's for design that fails in all areas∆ as previously noted in the thread by myself and others. I'd reject it on its face, but seeing as you do not seem to have provided any support for the design creating the foundation of this blame shifting or failure it seems to have collapsed right out the gate and is in dire need of your support. None of what you described players doing is something 5e changed over past editions, 5e simply turned it into an explicit ability that strong arms the GM into allowing the trivialization to succeed as a foregone conclusion because the player has been provided what is presented as a solution in search of a problem.

∆ combat social and exploration.