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

[Micah Sweet]

You know what I really miss? Full immunity for monsters from damage if you didn't have a magic weapon. Half damage is still a lot of damage.

Had some great fights back in the day where the front line would keep a monster at bay while the magic users would attack it because it could only be hurt by magic. Add in a magic dagger tossed to the fighter to add a bit more damage. Some real fun clench moments. Plus it was real teamwork.

Me too. I also miss Damage Reduction and Magic Resistance. Dangerous, and felt more true to the narrative those monsters are based on.

 

[Oofta]

One Drow was a beefy named guy but one Heat Metal spell later and he was handicapped. Plus again the Gloomstalker just cant be seen in the dark so yeah

Heat metal is one of those spells I just nerf. It doesn't work on armor because armor is not composed of a single piece of metal. If everybody is relying on darkvision (only way the gloom stalker is invisible) then everyone is at disadvantage on perception checks. Of course invisible doesn't mean they can't be detected, especially if they're attacking it just means others have disadvantage to hit. But without a stealth check, enemies likely know where they are.

 

[SteveC]

I think a good example of the "combat ease" issue I have was last session.

From reading this, it sounds like a fun combat. It had a character KOed and another paralyzed. A few die rolls either way and that could have been very different. It sounds like you are looking for "combat as war," and D&D is very much focused as "combat as sport." It does sound like you'll need to do something different to generate what you're looking for, but ... if your players are having fun, do you want to change that?

 

[DarkCrisis]

Not knowing the full scenario, I'm not sure what advice to offer. It sounds like it ran about how it should.

By my calculations, that was a "moderate" encounter. Something meant to use up some resources (like Turn Undead and heat metal, etc.) but otherwise no real danger to the PCs. The fact that the wizard dropped as well was pretty much the goal. Did the gargoyle double-tap the wizard to finish them off? Or the gargolye could have threated to kill the wizard unless the PCs surrendered? Or the gargoyle could have grabbed the unconscious wizard and flown away with them.

Unlucky rolls by the PCs and luck on the foes side might result in more of challenge, but probably not notably so.

Some points, however, in case these were things you might have overlooked? (to be clear, I'm not saying you did, only you might have)

• Drow faerie fire would make the Gloomstalker visible.
• Being invisible is not the same thing as being hidden.
• You (generally) cannot take the Hide action if you are directly observed.
• Although the Cleric is tanking, unless it is a bottleneck, creatures can choose to attack whoever. The drow could have shot whoever.
• The gargoyle (with flying speed) should engage the ranged targets.
• When creatures can't "hit" a PC, grappling them is usually a better option. Then take the PC to the ground so others have advantage to hit in most cases.

This was per the adventure, the gargoyle being an optional opponent to throw in (did they defeat the gargoyle int he forest? If not, it appears here).

By the time it mattered to change targets the Rogue was already paralyzed and the Wiz was down. The Cleric could just tank and the Gloomstalker could just flat out not be seen. He was smart to move away from any and all monsters and use his bow.

So the Cleric just absorbed hits with his AC and ability to heal (and better Con saves didnt hurt) while the Gloom just pelted with arrow and kept moving.

To the Clerics credit, he's a veteran player and knows how to kick ass. I was actually pretty proud of him and his tactics. I like the use of Heat Metal (though it seems a tad unfair) bu tI really don't like modern Turn Undead.

 

[Micah Sweet]

From reading this, it sounds like a fun combat. It had a character KOed and another paralyzed. A few die rolls either way and that could have been very different. It sounds like you are looking for "combat as war," and D&D is very much focused as "combat as sport." It does sound like you'll need to do something different to generate what you're looking for, but ... if your players are having fun, do you want to change that?

I can see wanting to change it if the GM isn't having fun. Or are you saying the player's fun is more important?

 

[DarkCrisis]

From reading this, it sounds like a fun combat. It had a character KOed and another paralyzed. A few die rolls either way and that could have been very different. It sounds like you are looking for "combat as war," and D&D is very much focused as "combat as sport." It does sound like you'll need to do something different to generate what you're looking for, but ... if your players are having fun, do you want to change that?

On one hand yes. The 2 most likely PCs to get messed up got messed up. The 2 near invulnerable PCs made out with barely a scratch.

So yeah, I guess?

 

[TwoSix]

I can see wanting to change it if the GM isn't having fun. Or are you saying the player's fun is more important?

This is my read of the situation.

The players seemed, according to the description, to be having fun.

The DM seemed to want the fight to be more challenging. By more challenging, I mean have a greater chance of using up resources, causing permanent damage to the PCs, and/or possibly threaten character death. Because the fight wasn't overly challenging, the DM had less fun.

It seems to me the simplest way to have the DM have more fun is simply to increase the potency of the challenges.

There seems to be an undercurrent of expectation that running the core rules in a standard adventure should provide a baseline higher challenge than the rules currently provide. I feel that expectation is controversial, but whether or not that expectation exists, the die is already cast in terms of what the rules actually provide.

As a solution, the DM could simply change their expectations about challenge level, and enjoy giving the players the challenge they seem to prefer. Or, they could change 5e to be more challenging. This can be done by changing player-facing rules, or by creating encounters that are significantly more deadly than the "standard" or pre-published adventures. Or, they could play another game where the default difficulty level is closer to the DM's expectations.

 

[pawsplay]

I've seen a PC death in two different playthroughs of Phandelver. So if your standard is, does the game regularly kill characters during the introductory adventure?, then the answer is no, D&D is not easy.
A lot of DMs keep saying, "Well, this was supposed to be a level-appropriate encounter, why wasn't it hard?" Level-appropriate encounters, by definition, are not hard. If you want actual threat of death, you need to throw in a Challenging or Deadly encounter every now and then.
At higher levels, the PCs can pull off some impressive tricks, so you should be ready to be a little dirty at that level, too. Sometimes there is a "tank" PC up front, but why wouldn't a powerful monster just take the opportunity attack, and go right past them to eat the wizard? Concentrate attacks. Threaten PCs who might get revived. Shove, grab, and disarm. Break concentration. Thwart barbarians from continuing rage.

 

[SteveC]

I can see wanting to change it if the GM isn't having fun. Or are you saying the player's fun is more important?

That's a very good question. As someone who GMs a lot, I'm here to have fun too. But, if the kind of game I want to run isn't what my players are looking for, I likely won't have a fun game or any game at all.

When I ran Curse of Strahd, I only 'killed' one character, and they made a pact with Dark Powers to come back. The game was incredibly challenging and dark, though, and I had a blast running it. That was because my group was okay with all the horrible things that were going to happen to them and the NPCs in the game.

If I want to run a "combat as war" campaign, I don't think I'm going to use D&D 5 for it. There are a ton of better games (such as the ones in the OSR sphere) that will give me what I want. Trying to be clear then: yes, the GMs fun is important, but if the players don't buy-in on that, no one is going to have fun.

 

[ezo]

This was per the adventure, the gargoyle being an optional opponent to throw in (did they defeat the gargoyle int he forest? If not, it appears here).

Gotcha. Then it was designed to be an easy encounter (moderate with the gargoyle).

By the time it mattered to change targets the Rogue was already paralyzed and the Wiz was down. The Cleric could just tank and the Gloomstalker could just flat out not be seen. He was smart to move away from any and all monsters and use his bow.

Paralyzed and downed PCs are great targets if you want combat to be more threatening.

As I mentioned before, tanks are best grappled if you know you can't hit them. While they might still be hard to grapple, odds are it is easier than hitting them. The ranger might not be seen, but that doesn't mean he is "hidden", so attacks have disadvantage, but are still possible.

So the Cleric just absorbed hits with his AC and ability to heal (and better Con saves didnt hurt) while the Gloom just pelted with arrow and kept moving.

Disarm the cleric's spellcasting focus. Grapple the cleric. Have the gargoyle face the ranger since the flight speed will keep him close.

To the Clerics credit, he's a veteran player and knows how to kick ass. I was actually pretty proud of him and his tactics. I like the use of Heat Metal (though it seems a tad unfair) bu tI really don't like modern Turn Undead.

At that level, the cleric used both 2nd level spell slots (heat metal and spiritual weapon) and his only use of channel divinity to turn undead, as well as at least a 1st level slot for healing the wizard. That is a lot of resource expenditure! So, good tactics but expensive.