D&D 5E Game Theory. CR and 5E Encounter System.

This thread is about the 5E systems CR and expected 6-8 encounters per day.

On the various 5E forums people seem to be mentioning about how weak 5E monsters are. I think this is mostly due to experiences of 3E and 4E combined with rules such as feats being used. Even without feats being used I think the rules a re a bit on the easy side. This is good for new players might nit be great for experienced players and power gamers. Several feats I think also break the game the worst offenders are.

Great Weapon Master
Sharpshooter
Healer
Warcaster
Resilient (constitution).

Combined with variant human as well.

These feats make the game very easy IMHO. For example healer feat level 1 compare that to the amount of healing a life cleric can do and the life cleric is one of the best healers in the game especially when multiclassed. The new healing spirit spell also buffed Druidic healing up a lot and made the Land Druid/Life cleric MC even more stupid. The other feats the -5/+10 are to good relative to the other damage dealing feats and combine with multiple attacks and buffs a bit to well while warcaster and resilient con makes concentration saves a bit to easy to make especially when combined or something like a Sorcerer takes warcaster.

Other people mention on the forums level 18 casters are going down to mid level parties. Note the level 18 NPCs are only CR 12 which means you might be coming across them RAW around level 6 or 7. In HotDQ you can come across a CR 13 Dragon or Vampire at level 7 which is just slightly over a deadly encounter RAW. Our groups record for a deadly encounter IIRC was X5 over the deadly limit. I think some people are still in the 3E/4E mode of CR +/- 4 levels, well CR means something different in 5E. In AD&D adventures you could come across level 18+ casters at level 8-10 and I have seen one take a dive at level 5. NPC spellcasters then and now often do not have optimised spell lists, ACs or proficiency in con saves in 5E.

As to the 6-8 encounters thing the RAW guidelines for the encounters default to really easy for most encounters that are not cherry picked by the DM using some of the more interesting critters or critters that uses saves over attacks. The CR 2-3 spellcasters in PotA and things like flameskulls and hell hounds hurt a lot more than things like Knights and Veterans. Due to 5E abundance of hit points once you get past the early levels the CR system/encounter guidelines more or less break down IMHO although this might be due to things like feats and/or rolled ability scores.

We roll our ability scores because its fun and we like playing non obvious combos. Other groups seem to pull the reroll until you get what you want thing (barbarians with 20 strength and 19 con level 1 is excessive even in our groups). If I roll well for example I am more likely to play a Dwarf Sorcerer with 16 charisma level 1 I am already ahead of the curve I do not need to marry up a 20 strength level 1 barbarian to GWM. The more things you pile onto the game (rolled high stats, feats, multiclassing, variant humans etc) the more the CR system breaks down IMHO. If you like those things that is fine just be aware of the consequences and those rules are optional for a reason.

Customising magic items to the players is also asking for trouble and magic great weapons, polearms, bows and hand crossbows are the main offenders. PCs looking to use these should probably look at the magic weapon spell and things like the warlock pact weapon ability. This is why we have gone back to the AD&D play with what you find system, it keeps the min/maxing in check. Catering to power gamers via the magic weapons they want that pick those feats just compounds the problem. This was one of th 1st things we figured out back in 2014. Minmaxing the party or group dynamics is better than a munchkin. I know a few people here probably think I am one of the worst min/maxers on the board but a lot of that is actually theory crafting or based on what a couple of my players get up to and a lot of the combos were spotted back in 2014 anyway in the 1st 2-3 months after the PHB came out. Realistically I get to play the cleric or other healer more often than not.

This is also why I like some of the clones and AD&D and B/X. I find it easy to find a tempo that works as 5E can be a hot mess in regards to things like daily healing due to short rest abilities and the class mixtures+ healer feat. Clones and older D&D are usually along the lines of 1-3 hp/day plus whatever spells the cleric has and anything above that (potions, staff of healing etc) is a bonus or for use in emergencies. Some of those games are a hot mess mechanically (1E looking at you) but they have some good adventures and are easier to get the pacing right than 5E despite any other flaws they have (and they have a few).

TLDR version. Optional rules and excessive powergaming break 5E and the encounter rules are aimed at speed of play and the lower powered game.

There's 4 things certain:

Life, Death, Taxes and Zardanaar's 5e gripes

It’s important to understand that the 5e design differentiates between a 24 hour day and an “adventuring day.”

While the default testing rules encourage them to align fairly closely, I think one of the reasons the PHB didn’t tie a long rest to sleep was because of this separation between the two.

The game is designed around the idea that failure is not fun. Thus, you should succeed more often than fail. This makes it feel considerably easier than, say, AD&D. I’m not sure it’s really all that much easier that 3e or 4e, but it is much less complicated and I think that contributes to that feel.

But it’s also relatively easy to find a balance that works for your table. And it’s very easy to tweak to make it play similar to AD&D with streamlined rules. Our game has a very AD&D feel because that’s basically what I like running. But I also like the simpler rule structure, and we’ve tweaked it further to better fit our style. I highly recommend the approach - make the game work for you and your setting/campaign.

I'll note that if you are having a hard time with the 6-8 encounters/day rhythm (I know I do), the game can be made more challenging by two easy changes:

1: Long rest restores half your HD but *not* your HP. Want to gain health from a good night's sleep? Spend those HD then. This is still far more generous than the old natural healing rules incidentally

2: Dropping to zero and then being brought back up has to have a consequence. Someone suggested a level of exhaustion from the shock of near death, which I think is suitable. No more "whack-a-mole" PCs

Lastly, I would also recommend not allowing feats (or a subset of feats) or multi-classing.

Tada!

I play with feats in a by the book (published) campaign. I play with newish players who do not optimize and we are not pushed to a set amount of encounters per long rest. But I can t help feel that there may be an issue within the encounter within these parameters. The thing I think makes 5e appear easy at times is the underlying maths - I am struck at the difference between the number of times we hit (and how much damage we do) compared with the monsters/enemies. Coupled with the amount of healing in the party at its disposal, it is not an even contest without ramping the numbers of enemies up beyond what the adevnturehas stated.

TLDR version. Optional rules and excessive powergaming break 5E and the encounter rules are aimed at speed of play and the lower powered game.

Click to expand...

I agree with this conclusion. The 5e system is clearly designed for accessibility, not to stand up to determined powergaming.

This is ideal for my groups. We are much more interested in roleplaying and storytelling than tactical miniatures battlegaming. Sure, we whack the odd monster, but the game doesn't hang on how challenging the fighting is.

And, I suspect, our group is fairly typical, and it is made up of the type of people who are responsible for the resurgent popularity of the game. Hardcore powergamers are a very small minority who are over-represented on internet forums because of self-selection.

If I was more interested in tactical miniatures battlegaming, I wouldn't use 5e.


The point about magical weapons is very valid. They are not interchangeable by type, magic swords should be much much more common than magical halberds. In the 1st edition DMG there was a table for determining the type of magical weapon - it made 70% of them longswords. This has it's basis in the literally inspirations for D&D: From Beowulf's Hrunting to Anakin Skywalker's Lightsabre, swords have always been the most common magic weapon. This has it's roots in the iron age, when only great chieftains would own iron swords, and it would have had a phallic significance.

As a DM, if I have a group that includes a strong character and a weak character, the weak character will probably find a powerful magic item that they can use, whilst the strong character will likely walk away with nothing but a share in the gold.

Raith5 said:

I play with feats in a by the book (published) campaign. I play with newish players who do not optimize and we are not pushed to a set amount of encounters per long rest. But I can t help feel that there may be an issue within the encounter within these parameters. The thing I think makes 5e appear easy at times is the underlying maths - I am struck at the difference between the number of times we hit (and how much damage we do) compared with the monsters/enemies. Coupled with the amount of healing in the party at its disposal, it is not an even contest without ramping the numbers of enemies up beyond what the adevnturehas stated.

Click to expand...

Or you could just alter the existing monsters stats/equipment. And give them something other than average HP.

100% agree with Zardnaar. 5e is far too easy and survivable. Partly because of the broken feats nominated, but also because of the 3 death saves regime, combo'd with hilariously convenient ranged, bonus action healing word for the whack-a-mole effect. Significant houseruling is required to make 5e dangerous/fun from a game (as opposed to story) perspective.

I prefer older, deadlier editions, for this reason, too. Plus their faster combat allows for more "story" time and improv.

Psikerlord# said:

100% agree with Zardnaar. 5e is far too easy and survivable. Partly because of the broken feats nominated, but also because of the 3 death saves regime, combo'd with hilariously convenient ranged, bonus action healing word for the whack-a-mole effect. Significant houseruling is required to make 5e dangerous/fun from a game (as opposed to story) perspective.

I prefer older, deadlier editions, for this reason, too. Plus their faster combat allows for more "story" time and improv.

Click to expand...

While I agree that the CR system from 5e needs some love for people who don’t want 6 encounters a day, I will say that our 5e group just finished the ultimate final battle from Princes of the Apocalypse at 12th level, involving one of the “Princes” and a ton of minions (a very difficult encounter) in just over an hour! Compared to 3rd Edition or Pathfinder, in my experience, that would have been impossible.

Henry said:

While I agree that the CR system from 5e needs some love for people who don’t want 6 encounters a day, I will say that our 5e group just finished the ultimate final battle from Princes of the Apocalypse at 12th level, involving one of the “Princes” and a ton of minions (a very difficult encounter) in just over an hour! Compared to 3rd Edition or Pathfinder, in my experience, that would have been impossible.

Click to expand...

Fair call 5e is faster than 4e and probably 3e (it's been so long, I cant rem now how long 3e combat took)