D&D 5E What rule(s) is 5e missing?

[overgeeked]

I find it strange that people think 5e is easy.

So you think 5E is hard...

Like, yeah, you win most encounters,

But also that 5E is easy...

but if you're going to face the fabled 6-8 per diem, you're supposed to.

And that 5E is designed to be easy.

Man, this is a roller coaster.

Now, can you punch above your weight class in 5e? Absolutely. This is the flipside of bounded accuracy that I never see discussed; yes, I can keep fighting goblins until Tier 3. I can also fight a CR 17 at level 10 and win.

So you can reasonably take on something that's supposed to be a challenge for characters almost double your level...yet you maintain that 5E is hard...while describing in detail just how easy it is.

It's the number and frequency of the difficult encounters, and the resources I'm forced to use that determine difficulty, if the encounters are fair.

I've found that the only way to challenge PCs in 5E is to throw double deadly fights at them at a minimum. Then stack several of those together, before they're able to rest. Short of that...nothing phases 5E PCs. They just walk all over everything and rest as frequently as the DM will let them. It's almost like they're allergic to risk and challenge.

I think other PCs kill PCs more than DMs do in 5E -- specifically by not interrupting the death save process. It isn't that hard to drop a PC to 0 but unless everyone is down or other PCs ignore the bleeding out party member, it is really hard to keep them down past 5th level.

Even at lower levels with players who know their roles it's hard to keep them down. Especially if you're using the game's default assumptions about CR and encounter design.

 

[James Gasik]

Like any edition of D&D, it's easy when it's hard and hard when it's easy. Wasn't that obvious?

 

[overgeeked]

Like any edition of D&D, it's easy when it's hard and hard when it's easy. Wasn't that obvious?

A few things are becoming obvious. Tschüss.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's really weird that the players who can literally do anything in the game so often have issues arbitrarily killing the ones who can't. Or that they want to so badly that it's a thing to complain about all the time.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I find it strange that people think 5e is easy. Like, yeah, you win most encounters, but if you're going to face the fabled 6-8 per diem, you're supposed to.

I find 5e harder than 4e, and I died more than once in 4e. Three times, I think. And each time, no resurrection was possible.

I've seen characters die in Adventurer's League twice now,

it depends on what you compare it to. I think 5e is less deadly and easier then 3e/3.5 and 2e and Basic... I think it is about on par with 4e to deadlyness.

I have never run or played in a game that DEATH seemed unable to be achived. I have never played in a game that failure didn't happen (not always death, but sometimes)

 

[Reynard]

I don't think the discussion about difficulty is really about the GM winning or even killing PCs arbitrarily. It's about wanting to produce a certain tone and mood that is associated with tension and the potential for the unexpected. Flattening the math to avoid swinginess and eliminating "save or die/suck" mechanics isn't an issue because us mean old GMs are mad we can't crush players hopes and dreams @Vaalingrade it is an issue because it makes certain kinds of play more difficult.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I disagree insofar as everything about that dragon was expected and matched expectations. It can still be awesome (in both the original and modern senses) but that isn't the same as invoking wonder.

I don't know that wonder requires surprise.

 

[doctorbadwolf]

I don't think the discussion about difficulty is really about the GM winning or even killing PCs arbitrarily. It's about wanting to produce a certain tone and mood that is associated with tension and the potential for the unexpected. Flattening the math to avoid swinginess and eliminating "save or die/suck" mechanics isn't an issue because us mean old GMs are mad we can't crush players hopes and dreams @Vaalingrade it is an issue because it makes certain kinds of play more difficult.

Doesn't it seem like challenging play should be more challenging to run, though?

What I mean is, flattening the math and all that makes it harder to run a player-challenging game, because the game math almost never starts the PCs off at a disadvantage, but I think that's a good thing. It means that challenging the players (whether in addtion to or instead of the characters) requires more DM input, and is also challenging for the DM. I can't see how that's anything but good.

 

[James Gasik]

I don't think the discussion about difficulty is really about the GM winning or even killing PCs arbitrarily. It's about wanting to produce a certain tone and mood that is associated with tension and the potential for the unexpected. Flattening the math to avoid swinginess and eliminating "save or die/suck" mechanics isn't an issue because us mean old GMs are mad we can't crush players hopes and dreams @Vaalingrade it is an issue because it makes certain kinds of play more difficult.

If your problem is "the way I and my group wants to play is hindered by the default difficulty" of 5e, I can accept that. Then you have to change things or sadly, even, find another game (or version of game) that more accurately models what you want.

And there's nothing wrong with wanting changes either, it's why we're here debating the topic. But since it is a debate, being told "D&D is easy mode for babies" by people who want a more difficult game might not be particularly helpful.

Bounded accuracy works both ways. It makes easy tasks harder than they need to be (setting a DC for a Tier 1 player above, say 15, IMO) and makes hard tasks easier than they should be (letting four level 10 characters beat up a Goristro Demon using only 25% of their resources).

So of course the people who say "the game should be harder" are going to clash with the people who think "actually, I've seen it be very difficult, thanks" because we have different standards. And no matter what the developer's intent, D&D 5e wasn't designed for everyone.

Often, the question I have is, who, exactly, is it designed for?

 

[Vaalingrade]

I don't think the discussion about difficulty is really about the GM winning or even killing PCs arbitrarily. It's about wanting to produce a certain tone and mood that is associated with tension and the potential for the unexpected. Flattening the math to avoid swinginess and eliminating "save or die/suck" mechanics isn't an issue because us mean old GMs are mad we can't crush players hopes and dreams @Vaalingrade it is an issue because it makes certain kinds of play more difficult.

All these complaints about not being able to keep PCs down, not being able to keep them dead, them getting back up after going down... well it all sounds like being upset about not being able to clench the win rather than challenge.

If they're going down, there's certainly challenge, and you can have challenge without people going down at all. The focus seems on making PCs dead and keeping them that way.