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

[DEFCON 1]

That’s a weird stance to take. The referee is only human. They don’t gain superhuman willpower simply because they’re refereeing a game. They’re just as subject to peer pressure and manipulation as every other human.

It is a stance I believe. The DM runs the game and more often that not the players will follow the DMs lead. If you or anyone else believe otherwise, you are free to do so. But I feel no need to justify my stance.

 

[Hussar]

I don't understand. Did you not want what you plainly asked for?

Yup, you don't understand.

I want actual HARD numbers. Not just theorycrafted mathing. Actually RUN the scenarios. What actually happens in your game. Not what you think might happen. Theorycrafting is not proof. It's simply a good way of identifying potential problems, but, it is not actually proof of anything.

I asked for proof. You've done half the work - now do the rest.

Let me ask you this. If what you are saying is true. That the game is anemic and it's built right into the system, why isn't everyone having this problem? Yes, I do see that some people have this issue. Even in this simple poll, 40% of people are not having the issue that you are having. Why not? What are they doing that you aren't? What are you doing that they aren't?

After all, when we look at actual real examples, like @DarkCrisis above, we see that sometimes the issue comes from the DM's side and not the system. Ruling that the Gloomstalker is invisible and invisible=undetectable is a big deal. Not using the built in Faerie Fire that both drow have would also be a huge issue - given that this would grant Advantage to all attackers, meaning that our "need a 15 or better " to hit cleric gets a whole lot easier to hit and the Gloomstalker is now hanging in the wind.

And, if two PC's went down (I did read that right? Or am I misremembering?), how is this not a difficult encounter? Isn't that difficult by definition? What result do we need to achieve before an encounter is considered "difficult"?

 

[tetrasodium]

It is a stance I believe. The DM runs the game and more often that not the players will follow the DMs lead. If you or anyone else believe otherwise, you are free to do so. But I feel no need to justify my stance.

Although the scenario that started this tangent was the peer pressure and adversarial collision resulting from those less often disagreement when players strongly hold an incorrect belief that the phb itself has wrongly led them to believe with certainty.

Yup, you don't understand.

I want actual HARD numbers. Not just theorycrafted mathing. Actually RUN the scenarios. What actually happens in your game. Not what you think might happen. Theorycrafting is not proof. It's simply a good way of identifying potential problems, but, it is not actually proof of anything.

I asked for proof.

I still don't understand. . Are you lacking knowledge of PC capabilities and experience running actual published monsters with actual published encounter guidelines for actual PCs? Do you need a left handed smoke shifter too?

Why would you need the superfluous level of detail contained in a 20-30 round live play blow by blow analysis when anyone with experience could grasp it well enough to ask reasonably pointed & relevant questions instead of this snipe hunt?

 

[Micah Sweet]

They target new and casual PCs.

The ones who spend the least money, and have the least understanding of their work? Interesting...

 

[ezo]

The ones who spend the least money, and have the least understanding of their work? Interesting...

Well, "spend the least money" is arguable, to say the least. I haven't spent a dime on WotC products in two years or more, but every new player buys new books, not to mention dice, minis, etc.

Least understanding? Sure.

But you are forgetting: most excited (new hobby) and most curious (what options are there in all those books!?).

 

[Hussar]

I still don't understand. . Are you lacking knowledge of PC capabilities and experience running actual published monsters with actual published encounter guidelines for actual PCs? Do you need a left handed smoke shifter too?

Why would you need the superfluous level of detail contained in a 20-30 round live play blow by blow analysis when anyone with experience could grasp it well enough to ask reasonably pointed & relevant questions instead of this snipe hunt?

Not sure why you think your continued ignorance is funny, but, okay.

You call it a "superfluous" level of detail to determine why people are getting the results they are getting? Fair enough I suppose. You feel that simply doing the math is all the proof you need. I do not. The math identifies potential problems, but, does not actually show that these are the actual problems. Whenever these threads start up, and they've been going on for years now, heck they were going on in 3e when everyone complained that 3e was too easy LOL.

Yet, as soon as we start delving down into actual play examples, time after time, it's revealed that the encounter was "easy" because the DM made mistakes, or the dice were running hot (or cold depending) in that particular encounter. It's so much confirmation bias. People think that a given encounter was too easy, therefore all encounters are too easy.

That's what actually tracking the math does. It removes the confirmation bias that permeates these discussions.

 

[Oofta]

The ones who spend the least money, and have the least understanding of their work? Interesting...

Once you've gotten experience as a DM you should be able to adjust difficulty yourself. Those new and inexperienced players are called "new customers". People you don't want getting frustrated by killing off PCs left and right? The ones that actually buy tons of books because they're new to the game? Yep, those new people are the targets.

 

[tetrasodium]

Well, "spend the least money" is arguable, to say the least. I haven't spent a dime on WotC products in two years or more, but every new player buys new books, not to mention dice, minis, etc.

"DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases"

Least understanding? Sure.

But you are forgetting: most excited (new hobby) and most curious (what options are there in all those books!?).

How could I forget all of the newbies I help get started while running regular AL games at a nearby flgs? Id say that close to or (probably) more than half have purchased zero books before they spend a few sessions at my table with my more experienced regular players learning enough to no longer be a newbie. Ime they would be/are§ generally better served by being given a pregen.



§some "seasons" of AL have pregen characters that come with the season stuff that can be chosen or handed out & newbies generally don't know enough to answer much deeper than "character creation can be a lot of fun building your PC once you learn a bit more, but I have some pregens thst might be a better start for you.. this guy is a fighter with a big two handed sword.. this one is yada yada .. that one is yada yada so on &so forth do any of these strike your interest?"

 

[tetrasodium]

Not sure why you think your continued ignorance is funny, but, okay.

You call it a "superfluous" level of detail to determine why people are getting the results they are getting? Fair enough I suppose. You feel that simply doing the math is all the proof you need. I do not. The math identifies potential problems, but, does not actually show that these are the actual problems. Whenever these threads start up, and they've been going on for years now, heck they were going on in 3e when everyone complained that 3e was too easy LOL.

Yet, as soon as we start delving down into actual play examples, time after time, it's revealed that the encounter was "easy" because the DM made mistakes, or the dice were running hot (or cold depending) in that particular encounter. It's so much confirmation bias. People think that a given encounter was too easy, therefore all encounters are too easy.

That's what actually tracking the math does. It removes the confirmation bias that permeates these discussions.

The problem with this is that you are literally asking for a nonspecific mountain of math and rejecting it.

 

[ezo]

"DMs are 20% of the audience but lions share of purchases"

Well, your experience simply differs than mine then. In the five years since I've been playing, I've introduced only 25-30 new players and less than a handful of experienced (prior editions) players to 5E. I would estimate 90% of them bought PHBs, about 60% Xanathars, and maybe 30% bought additional books, some a couple, some nearly everything published!

Of course, I already had dice, and so did hte experienced players, but all the new ones purchased an average of 2-3 sets each. Some just a single set, some went crazy and bought 6 or more!

More experienced players (from prior editions) are likely to be more selective than newbies, IME as well.

How could I forget all of the newbies I help get started while running regular AL games at a nearby flgs? Id say that close to or (probably) more than half have purchased zero books before they spend a few sessions at my table with my more experienced regular players learning enough to no longer be a newbie. Ime they would be/are§ generally better served by being given a pregen.

For my part, I would never consider a player with a few sessions no longer a newbie. It would take many more than that, probably 10 or so IME before someone shows enough proficiency to no longer be a newbie.