D&D 5E Let's make PCs more powerful

[Immoralkickass]

Let me put this differently. I don't think more monsters or more hit points is the answer. Player options to deal with monsters have grown exponentially, but I'm not sure that the monsters have evolved in as compelling of a way. Compound that with 3-6 players each having these expanded options, and it becomes a pretty stark battle of creativity. Does that make sense? The game has disproportionately improved PC's without giving similar thought to monsters.

Also, while I agree that limiting stuff as you suggest works, there are just gobs of options in 5e. At some point, doesn't it make sense to just go back to an older edition?

Player options? I ban them. Creativity? I say no to all of them. You want hard game? You got it. You're welcomed to fight my monsters in your birthday suit.

You are right about the first part, that more monsters or more hp is not really the answer. The DM can also implement other variant rules, like gritty realism rules, slow natural healing rules, dismemberment and lingering injury rules, you name it, you got it.

My point is, be careful what you wish for, and don't be a pretentious BAMF about it. Just because your DM is new, doesn't mean the game is easy. 5e can be as hard or easy as you want it to be, or what the DM wants it to be.

 

[CatholicFan]

So... you never create an NPC using the same character rules and send it against the group? That is within the game rules and opens up all the options they use against monsters to use against players. Sure you have stats for dire wolf but it could be an Evil rangers animal companion you don't always a have to use pre-generated creatures they are simple design for quick reference "on the fly" encounters not a lack of evolution. If they made them as complicated as player character it would make it hard on the GM to know them all. I just saying there is nothing the players can do that can't be given by a GM to NPC creatures (including NPC monsters) to make fights more challenging or interest.

I have not run a 5e game, only played in it. I run 0e as a referee because of my experiences with 5e as a player. I don't want to start an edition war (honestly), I'm just saying that while I could certainly do as you suggest and create intricate NPC's using player options in a 5e campaign, that sounds like a lot of work to do over and over again, week in and week out. I'd rather start with a system that is simpler and open-ended, but ultimately more challenging, than start with a rather complex system and adapt every situation to make them harder. I hope that makes sense the way I put that.

 

[CatholicFan]

Player options? I ban them. Creativity? I say no to all of them. You want hard game? You got it. You're welcomed to fight my monsters in your birthday suit.

You are right about the first part, that more monsters or more hp is not really the answer. The DM can also implement other variant rules, like gritty realism rules, no healing from long rest rules, dismemberment and lasting injury rules, you name it, you got it.

My point is, be careful what you wish for, and don't be a pretentious BAMF about it. Just because your DM is new, doesn't mean the game is easy. 5e can be as hard or easy as you want it to be, or what the DM wants it to be.

I'm not sure we're actually arguing against each other. I never said easy mode was bad, just that I didn't like it. That's my opinion, not me making an objective ruling about 5e.

You're saying strip out what you don't like in 5e to make it harder, I'm saying pick a harder system to start with to make it harder. It sounds like we both prefer to run challenging games. Cool, I'd probably enjoy playing at your table more than my current one, but that's not an option for me. The reason I mentioned my DM being new is that I was attempting (badly?) to acknowledge that there could be more challenge than what I was experiencing, but that the DM probably wasn't utilizing either the rules to their fullest to present those challenges or doesn't yet know how to effectively manage combat tactics to increase the challenges to those that try to do more than just swing and hit.

 

[ccs]

I have not run a 5e game, only played in it. I run 0e as a referee because of my experiences with 5e as a player. I don't want to start an edition war (honestly), I'm just saying that while I could certainly do as you suggest and create intricate NPC's using player options in a 5e campaign, that sounds like a lot of work to do over and over again, week in and week out. I'd rather start with a system that is simpler and open-ended, but ultimately more challenging, than start with a rather complex system and adapt every situation to make them harder. I hope that makes sense the way I put that.

I've always found that the true challenge in 0E is just reading the damned thing....

 

[CatholicFan]

I've always found that the true challenge in 0E is just reading the damned thing....

That's why I play a retroclone

 

[Hussar]

Not really running into the "5e on easy mode" yet. It's been three years. I wonder when I'll finally get a chance to play that game.

The game is as easy as the DM makes it. The notion of adding some character levels to your baddies will certainly go a long way to solve it. Stop letting your players buy whatever they want out the DMG would probably help. Actually dog pile PC's instead of spreading attacks. CdG downed PC's.

There are just so many ways to torture and kill PC's. So much fun.

 

[ccs]

That's why I play a retroclone

So you criticize 5e as being on easy mode while dodging the true challenge of 0e....

 

[ClaytonCross]

I have not run a 5e game, only played in it. I run 0e as a referee because of my experiences with 5e as a player. I don't want to start an edition war (honestly), I'm just saying that while I could certainly do as you suggest and create intricate NPC's using player options in a 5e campaign, that sounds like a lot of work to do over and over again, week in and week out. I'd rather start with a system that is simpler and open-ended, but ultimately more challenging, than start with a rather complex system and adapt every situation to make them harder. I hope that makes sense the way I put that.

It is true about the work but generally I find the more work the GM puts in the more fun D&D becomes. As I said the reason for the premade creatures is to reduce work and speed up play so you would be correct to say that is going to add a lot more work for the GM. Alternatively, NPC tactics?

Duergar can turn invisible for hit and run attacks

Drow are ranged and can all but one attack then cast darkness so the players are blind and can not return fire.

A slight change like giving the thug NPC from the monster manual Pikes instead of maces (or any NPC with reach). Make triangle around characters 5ft(or one square back), that way when the player moves to attack one of them 2 of the thugs get opportunity attacks with there Pack tatics ability they have advantage on the attacks as the player moves out of threat range and into 5ft of an ally. Then after the player attacks re-center the squad and attack 3 times. Meaning that the low level NPCs get 5 attacks per round with advantage to the player's 2 attacks without advantage (one for the opportunity attack when re-centering).

Use creatures that apply poison condition to players to give all there attacks disadvantage.

Combine any or all of the above.

This is just an example. Creative GM NPC tactics can make a huge impact on difficulty without adding health or damage.

 

[CatholicFan]

Creative GM NPC tactics can make a huge impact on difficulty without adding health or damage.

Agreed. Moreover, though, everyone (myself included) seems to agree that the game's difficulty in 5e lies primarily with the GM. So rather than saying 5e is Dungeons & Dragons on "easy mode", I would put forth that 5e Dungeons and Dragons provides an "easy mode" baked into the rulesets. You can up the difficulty without much effort from the sounds of it, and therefore tailor it to your own tastes and that of your players.

To further clarify my point comparing it to 0e, and the differences inherent in the systems: I believe that a group of PC's fighting a monster in 0e are in inherently more danger than that same group fighting that same monster in 5e. There are so many factors to it, but it's mainly how 5e mitigates the risks to PC's through all the player options, coupled with some baked in things like negative hit points, three strikes to die, advantage/disadvantage, the crossover of various skills/magics between classes. In some ways, it fosters more creative options for players to tackle various challenges by increasing the tools at their disposal. That can be cool. At the same time, I believe that if you don't end up with a GM who's willing to spend that extra time to take those things into account when planning out their adventures, that's where the "easy mode" might be coming into play without it being necessarily a conscious choice.

Let me stress, I'm not saying 5e is easy. I'm saying 5e makes it easy for inexperienced or lazy GM's to make the game boring, if a challenging game is what you're looking to play.

 

[Raith5]

I play 5e in a campaign that is run by the book by a kind DM with WOTC modules/adventure paths. And yes, I think it is somewhat easy. However, my group's capacity to do sub optimal things means that a TPK is always a just a cascading series of bad decisions away.

By biggest issue with 5e is not actually making PC more powerful, or making the game tougher but just making things more unpredictable, by adding a few more decisions and wrinkles to combat. I do think the 5e I have experienced is a touch too predictable. Aside from dialing up the threats, if I were every to DM I think I would like to tweak a few things because I do like more tactical depth than what I have seen in vanilla 5e. Most importantly I would like to see more in combat options for the martial classes but this would need to be balanced by giving the monsters a few more toys and surprises.