D&D General Should D&D Be "Hard"

[Reynard]

Hardest to survive because the PCs are weakest/most fragile? Yes.
But those levels are also generally less complex, so not the hardest in that respect.

Just for clarity, I was not talking about complexity.

 

[Lanefan]

While I am generally in agreement with you, I think it is important to note that there are consequences for making these kinds of adjustments. For example, eliminating weapon vs armor type as a subsystem may streamline combat, but it nerfs the fighter a bit.

How so? I ask as I've never used weapon-vs-armour-type and thus have no idea of its affects in play.

Just like ignoring components might simplify record keeping, but buffs the magic user.

I handwave most components but anything with a cost has to be tracked (the 100+ g.p. Identify pearls are by far the most common example) and if you lose your components pouch then you're in a world o' trouble.

 

[Reynard]

How so? I ask as I've never used weapon-vs-armour-type and thus have no idea of its affects in play.

In AD&D one of the fighter's greatest assets was the ability to use any weapon. The combination of weapon versus armor type and the speed/reach chart made this impactful and made weapon choice more than just "what does the most damage." It is totally a PITA that slows down play, but it has the satisfying crunch for what is otherwise often discarded as a "simple" class.

I handwave most components but anything with a cost has to be tracked (the 100+ g.p. Identify pearls are by far the most common example) and if you lose your components pouch then you're in a world o' trouble.

Wizards are powerful even by 3rd level. if you let them get away with not worrying about components (among other inherent restrictions) they run roughshod. I love wizards being able to bend reality to their whim and obliterate small armies of enemies, just at a cost. Since magic in D&D is formulaic and rarely comes with negative consequences, limiting its use and forcing the mage to use their power strategically is the best option.

 

[Lanefan]

Okay. Maybe that means your players don't actually want to play the kind of game you are trying to run?

I legit do not get this response. If the players are complaining, maybe it is because you're doing something that doesn't fit the group!

Not at all. It's the players' job to try to make things easier for themselves, regardless of how easy (or not) they already are.

In almost any situation in life, a typical person is going to be glad if something gets easier than it was and annoyed if it gets harder. That's human nature.

If we were talking about subsystems, maybe. But even then, removing is often just as hard, you've just ignored the why of it.

Cut out short rests. Suddenly most of the game breaks. Cut out hit dice. Suddenly there's a third less healing. Cut out bonus actions. Etc., etc. Removing subsystems is quite risky, Jenga-style.

Cut out short rests and cut out a few classes that rely on them, the knock-on effects wouldn't be bad. A third less healing is still too much; two-thirds less would be more like it.

But yes, no argument from me that knock-on effects are something to watch out for.

But the actual thing that makes encounters difficult is monster design, not subsystems. Adding new features to monsters to make them hard is often a trivial task. Double their damage. Done! But taking brutally hard monsters and generating a set that are reasonable but NOT trivial? Extremy difficult.

If doubling their damage is all it takes to make them brutally difficult then halving their damage should be all it takes to make them trivially easy.

And before going further I should probably remind you that I don't much care about encounter balance in general - if they curb-stomp one set of pushover foes then next day get stomped by a bunch of badasses because they didn't run away, so be it.

IME, this is far from true. Because players want the challenge types present: combat (with both brute damage and more complex traps/magic/terrain to deal with), exploration (ditto, but also fatigue and resources), socialization, puzzles, moral/ethical quandaries, etc.

But they want these things in such a way that it is reasonably likely they will succeed if they (a) make smart decisions, (b) pay attention to their surroundings, and (c) exploit their resources (abilities, equipment, teamwork, environs) effectively. Every group I've played in has recognized that sometimes all of that just won't be enough, and beating a retreat is necessary, even in games people accuse of being too easy.

And I absolutely stand by the claim that getting that delicate bal—er, equilibrium JUST right is a very hard design problem.
You have to tweak and adjust and test, test, test until things work out just right so the challenge is true but not overwhelming, such that variance allows the real possibility of failure but in the long run a relatively low actual failure rate.

Adding stuff which breaks this delicate bal—equilibrium is easy. Building this delicate equilibrium yourself is stupidly hard. Believe me, I would know; I tried to do so with 3.5e. It was beyond me...and beyond every 3.5e/PF1e DM I ever played with.

This almost seems like you're saying players want the illusion of significant challenge rather than the reality of it, which is fine for exactly as long as it takes the players to see through the illusion. And IME players are pretty good at seeing through illusions.

And yet nearly all of the brutally hard monsters remain. All of the "welp, looks like that's a crit. Hope you don't instantly die" is still there. All the many, MANY save-or-die spells are still there. The ear seekers. Etc., etc.

By RAW 1e doesn't have crits. Other than that, the changes I suggested made it easier. Ear seekers (which I'm not sure I've ever DMed in my life) would go on the same pile as Rust Monsters. Save-or-die can be made save-or-sleep. Etc. What I'm saying is that these are trivially easy changes for a DM to make with few if any knock-on effects elsewhere in the rules.

That said, these aren't changes I'd want to make for my own game.

Oh, awesome, you found the inarguable objective definition of D&D that everyone should be beholden to! Can I see it? Where did you find it?

Seriously Lanefan, I respect you too much tk believe you meant this. You literally just said the One True Way of D&D is zero-to-hero. You definitely know better than that.

That's one One True Way I'm happy to defend.

A first level 5e character can (with the "right" choice of class) die outright in a single hit from a single low-level (IIRC CR1?) enemy. Even if they don't die outright, a single hit can bring even a Fighter to Dying, without being a crit. That, as far as I'm concerned, is being an incompetent rube at adventuring.

Going off to do something so unbelievably deadly when you literally don't even have the ability to survive two attacks, attacks that are quite likely to hit you, is eithet the height of stupidity, or reflects starting on something long before you have achieved even the most limited form of competence.

To me first-level characters are the rough equivalent of high school baseball players with some talent, and you then play them up through college ball, low-A, A, AA, AAA, and finally get to the majors (in 1e the majors would equate to name level). And not everyone is going to be fit to make that journey, there'll be losses along the way for a variety of reasons.

So yeah. I stand by that too. First-level 5e characters are incompetent rubes. Some folks want to play that. That's fine. That's what "zero" means to them, and more power to them.

I should not be shackled to that.

As DM you can start your game at whatever level you see fit. The book, however, assumes a start at 1st level (and IMO could fit another level in there between commoner and 1st) and so that's what most DMs are naturally going to do.

 

[Lanefan]

In AD&D one of the fighter's greatest assets was the ability to use any weapon.

To a point. Unlike 3e, where they really could pick up any nearby weapon and use it, in 1e they had to choose specific weapon proficiencies. A Fighter started with four and gained one more per three levels (so at 4th, 7th, etc.). So you could be proficient in longsword but if you wanted to use shortsword as well that'd take another prof. slot., and non-proficiency gave a to-hit penalty.

The combination of weapon versus armor type and the speed/reach chart made this impactful and made weapon choice more than just "what does the most damage."

Yes, it would add some layers to choosing proficiencies, no doubt there.

It is totally a PITA that slows down play, but it has the satisfying crunch for what is otherwise often discarded as a "simple" class.

Wizards are powerful even by 3rd level. if you let them get away with not worrying about components (among other inherent restrictions) they run roughshod. I love wizards being able to bend reality to their whim and obliterate small armies of enemies, just at a cost. Since magic in D&D is formulaic and rarely comes with negative consequences, limiting its use and forcing the mage to use their power strategically is the best option.

I've hampered wizards in other ways - they have to aim their AoE spells (and can fumble with them), they're easy to interrupt (as per RAW 1e), and interrupted spells can cause sometimes-very-dangerous wild surges. Wizard is the high-risk high-reward class.

 

[Reynard]

I've hampered wizards in other ways - they have to aim their AoE spells (and can fumble with them), they're easy to interrupt (as per RAW 1e), and interrupted spells can cause sometimes-very-dangerous wild surges. Wizard is the high-risk high-reward class.

As it should be. Over the years and editions, most of the downsides have been stripped away and people wonder why they are the "best" class.

 

[cbwjm]

I think it should be hard, but also easy with different toggles helping support either difficulty. Toggles do exist, make it harder with more difficult encounters and with encounters that expend resources without combat. Give monsters more tactical options and you'll be challenging your players in combat encounters.

Make it easier by having less noncombat encounters that expend resources,throw less powerful monsters at the players, maybe keep the tactical options, but the results are less damaging. Something I did in my thunder rift campaign to lower the threat of death was to double level 1 base hit points (eg, a wizard has 12+Con mod hit points, a fighter 20+Con mod).

Basically, so long as you're having fun, you've found the right difficulty, it's why I normally play video games on normal, but sometimes switch to story mode so that I can just play the game and experience the story without too much hassle.

 

[Li Shenron]

Nowadays, I would like the game to be challenging as in "hard to win quests, but easy to survive".

Sadly for me, almost every gaming group does either "easy to win and survive" or "easy to die (but actually still easy to win if you don't)".

 

[Li Shenron]

Ah and I forgot the most important thing... I wish the difficulty increased with level and not the opposite.

 

[Blue]

The age old question.

Do you balance for optimization, or do you balance for a complete casual lack of assumption.

How are these even options? You balance for the party your players are running.

"Hmm, I know my players have good synergy but are week at ranged and crowd control. Let me ignore all of that and balance toward some theoretical iconic party."