D&D 5E Sage Advice August 17th

[Charles Rampant]

I have found the encounter guidelines to be a bit timid for my tastes. Of course, having some fights that they blow through isn't a bad thing, just so long as there is an occasionally challenging one. The main thing that I've learned is that a single monster is very rarely - even if wildly high above the players in level - going to make for a really challenging encounter.

 

[AriochQ]

I have found the encounter guidelines to be a bit timid for my tastes. Of course, having some fights that they blow through isn't a bad thing, just so long as there is an occasionally challenging one. The main thing that I've learned is that a single monster is very rarely - even if wildly high above the players in level - going to make for a really challenging encounter.

I concur. Single monsters are quickly defeated, even when they have a CR much greater than recommended. Almost all of my encounters involve a boss with underlings of some sort whenever possible.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

I concur. Single monsters are quickly defeated, even when they have a CR much greater than recommended. Almost all of my encounters involve a boss with underlings of some sort whenever possible.

I had a 9th level party fight a modified marralith (I gave her 6 short swords so it did 2d6 damage instead of 2d8, and I took away her parry ability) so that would be a bit lower of the CR, and they beat her no problem... the next encounter (back to full it was days later) a small group of 2 CR 5 drow and 3 or 4 CR 1/2 drow almost TPKed the same party...

 

[Celtavian]

I have found the encounter guidelines to be a bit timid for my tastes. Of course, having some fights that they blow through isn't a bad thing, just so long as there is an occasionally challenging one. The main thing that I've learned is that a single monster is very rarely - even if wildly high above the players in level - going to make for a really challenging encounter.

I was hoping with Legendary Actions and Lair Actions solo monsters would be stronger. They aren't. A party with an average of two attacks and focused spell power can't be matched by a single creature even with Legendary and Lair actions.

 

[Tony Vargas]

This wasn't an issue in 3E/Pathfinder unless a guy built for AC. The paladin is not building for AC.

Just being a Paladin is building for AC.

Seriously, though, ACs in 3.x, IIRC, tended to be mostly pretty low, relative to the 1st iterative attack of a full-BAB PC or a same-level monster (and heavy armor AC irrelevant to touch attacks), instead serving to let you focus on stats other than DEX, and to avoid being hammered with multiple hits from full attacks.

5e is completely different, AC from heavy armor is not a poor second choice (though, really, with DEX such an uberstat it's still not exactly optimal). That harkens back to classic D&D, where being able to use better armor really was a meaningful advantage.

So far it has been the case with any heavy armor and shield user. Plate armor, shield, and defensive fighting style, all obtainable very early on, gives an AC of 21. Your average rogue with an 18 dex has an AC of 17. Your average caster with mage armor and a 15 or 16 Dex has an AC of 15 to 16.

That still sounds better than 1e, when a 1st level fighter might have an AC of 3 or 4, easily getting a 2 when he could afford plate-mail, before DEX bonus (which worked with any armor, and might give him 0 or even negative AC, the equivalent of 21 or better in 5e), vs at best 4 for a thief (18 DEX), and likely 10 for a magic-user (or up to 6 with DEX bonus). Actually, that really only sounds better for the wizard, now that I type it out. For the Fighter, Paladin or Cleric in heavy armor, or the Rogue in leather it's about the same.
Chalk up another classic-D&D-feel success for 5e!

Casting that one spell takes up 25% of his 1st level spell slots.

Compared to 100% of your 1st level slots in 1e.

These types of AC discrepancies weren't quite as large in 3E/Pathfinder largely due to easy access to disposable magic items allowing mage armor to be cast without expending a spell slot and shield lasting an entire combat.

Defenses in general were in a tighter range in 4e, too.

I find it surprising and problematic because it did not work the same way in previous editions of D&D.

5e harkens back more to classic D&D, in letting armor actually be a real advantage (it could have gone further, and let DEX add to AC across the board, perhaps with some sort of STR min required, instead of limiting it in medium & heavy armor) for the classes that get it automatically. Bounded accuracy means that a higher AC really is higher, rather than just being slightly ahead of the curve, and needing to be kept maxxed to maintain any advantage.

It's kind of a unique element of the idea behind Bounded Accuracy I'm running into as a DM. That's why I mentioned it. It didn't work this way in 3E/Pathfinder. I'm wondering if many other DMs have run into the situation.

In classic D&D, heavy-armor classes would start out pretty hard to hit, and, as their hps increased rapidly, become easier to hit. I haven't quite seen that in 5e. I haven't had anyone in plate yet, and have seen more impact, at first level, from variant humans with DR from the heavy-armor feat, than from high AC due to heavy armor. ACs seem to have mostly been in a tighter range than you've seen, with lighter-armor types consistently having good DEX, and heavier armor types consistently in chain. But, I have run very low level games (1st-4th), with very little treasure, either monetary or magical, and AC does seem to be very equipment-dependent.

Paladins are not invincible. My concerns with their power is the breadth of it. They can deal with a wide variety of situations no other martial can come close matching.

I don't know if I'll ever get used to the way you use 'martial.' Paladins are divine champions wielding overt magic direct from the gods. They may also use martial weapons & armor, but that's like calling a jet an automobile because it has wheels.

Last night I threw a hydra at a party of 6th level PCs. They destroyed it. I boosted its hit points 150%. It was very easy to kill the heads and apply fire damage to prevent it from regenerating. They also fought two treants with four animated trees. They beat that easily as well. Fire damage very easy to come by. Even with damage resistance, two treants couldn't dish enough damage to seriously threaten the PCs. Minimal resources expended to kill them. It's so easy to beat regeneration in 5E that it is a mostly useless ability.

I was hoping with Legendary Actions and Lair Actions solo monsters would be stronger. They aren't. A party with an average of two attacks and focused spell power can't be matched by a single creature even with Legendary and Lair actions.

I wonder if the intent was such an easy game. I'm going to have to figure out how to rectify that. I don't like a super easy game.

One aspect of 5e's 'fast combat' emphasis is to make combats tend towards being one-sided. If you're going to win, you're likely to win quickly, and the enemy to inflict minimal losses on you. If you're going to lose, you're likely to loose fast and completely - unless the DM starts soft-balling things (which, isn't ideal). If you've got some basic system mastery and tactical know-how going in your party, and you don't overwhelm them with numbers, it's likely they're going to win, and a lot of those wins will seem very easy.

So, yes, the intent was such an easy game. But, you can tune it as you like, either carefully with trial & error leading to re-built monsters and/or other sorts of detailed prep, or on the fly by feel & experience.

 

[Staffan]

Not in 5E. This wasn't an issue in 3E/Pathfinder unless a guy built for AC. The paladin is not building for AC. So far it has been the case with any heavy armor and shield user. Plate armor, shield, and defensive fighting style, all obtainable very early on, gives an AC of 21. Your average rogue with an 18 dex has an AC of 17. Your average caster with mage armor and a 15 or 16 Dex has an AC of 15 to 16. Casting that one spell takes up 25% of his 1st level spell slots. Use shield once, it takes up 50% of his 1st level spell slots. These types of AC discrepancies weren't quite as large in 3E/Pathfinder largely due to easy access to disposable magic items allowing mage armor to be cast without expending a spell slot and shield lasting an entire combat. You would often see low level wizards in battle with roughly equivalent AC with a shield spell and mage armor with Dex. Rogue-types usually wore a Chain shirt with high Dex. You're starting with an AC of 18 with the fighter with plate armor and shield having an AC of 21. A much tighter AC grouping than 5E. 3E/Pathfinder doesn't have Bounded Accuracy. So the AC ranges often stay relatively tight unless someone really focuses on AC due to magic item inflation.

It's kind of a unique element of the idea behind Bounded Accuracy I'm running into as a DM. That's why I mentioned it. It didn't work this way in 3E/Pathfinder. I'm wondering if many other DMs have run into the situation. I always like to hear from others as far as their experiences with a fairly wide AC variation in a game with tight ACs and attack roles.

Yes, this is different from 3e. 3e had a fairly tight band of "optimized" AC that increased by level (or rather by various magic bonuses which in turn increased with level), while 5e has a somewhat wider band of easily available ACs that doesn't increase as much with level.

Personally, I like this. It means that heavy armor is an actual advantage instead of the liability it often becomes in 3e (lower movement speed, armor check penalty, all for little increase in AC). The guy in heavy armor should be better protected than the guy in a dress. The band might be slightly too wide though, with AC 20 being easily achievable as a nearly starting character (splint, shield, defensive style), and by about 5th level you should probably be able to afford plate for AC 21. But if there is an error, it's by one or two points at the most, and I'm not convinced there is.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I wonder if the intent was such an easy game. I'm going to have to figure out how to rectify that. I don't like a super easy game.

Of course it was the intent. 5E is targeted at casual players, and by the encounter guidelines only the rare "Deadly" encounters should have even a chance of PC death or failure. 5E is designed around constant fighting, most of which consists of unfair fights tilted steeply towards PC victory.

For those of us who don't love combat for its own sake, that makes encounters rated lower than Deadly incredibly boring, at least from a tactical perspective. Well, I misspeak. Ignore the rating and look only at the fluff text for "Deadly." I've created encounters which are Medium or lower by the encounter guidelines, but are designed to have a real chance to TPKing the PCs due to circumstances and tactics, and those encounters are fun. You can create "Deadly" encounters by XP value which are also walkovers, and those aren't fun either. I like combats to be rare and significant, with a real chance of PC defeat, and I've found that doing so requires either implausibly smart tactics on the part of many monsters or else encounters rated at least as Deadly, and moderately smart tactics.

That doesn't mean that all of my combat encounters actually fit this template, but the ones that don't are encounters that I privately think of more as rewarding the PCs with XP for discovering a secret area with lots of monsters in it. Reward, not challenge. We have challenging, interesting (to me) combats maybe once every four sessions, and the rest of the game is mostly exploration.

 

[Mistwell]

If routinely eating your entire day's worth of calories in a single berry does not give you diabetes, then there's no reason to assume this. Or any other 'realistic' flow on from goodberry 'nutrition'

Anyway - my point of view is that the goodberry ruling means that one particular not-particularly-thematic combination of classes basically obliterates long term hit point issues for near zero cost, and at low levels does the same for mid term healing. So no. It doesn't work in my game. At all. The spell creates berries, and does not directly heal.

To be fair, a spell already right in the PHB heals more. Aura of Vitality, a 3rd level spell, cast by that same Life Cleric 1/Bard X or Life Cleric 1/Paladin X, heals 2d6+4/round for 10 rounds. That's 110 hit points on average. When you divide that by the spell points to account for it being 3rd level instead of 1st level, you find it's still more powerful than Goodberry cast by the Life Cleric under this ruling.

As for delay - I think allowing players to synergize abilities is a good thing. Having a fixed, unchangeable initiative and no mechanism to change initiative count that isn't heavily penalized generates peculiarities (namely that rolling a high initiative actually sucks unless you're a ranged attacker and it's the very beginning of combat), and the corner cases and complexities seem fairly trivial and simple to adjudicate.

So when you cast an effect that ends at the end of your next turn (there are a lot), and your caster always delays that next turn to the end of the round to get an extra round of effect out of it that was never intended by the spell design, you have no issue with that? No issue with the metagaming of initiative that way, in a manner that doesn't make any in-game sense (how could you delay a spell effect by going after everyone else goes in a 6 second period of time when everyone is fighting? Obviously the spell is supposed to have a timer on it, and you're altering the timer by the metagame mechanic of initiative order manipulation rather than in-game tactics).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I concur. Single monsters are quickly defeated, even when they have a CR much greater than recommended. Almost all of my encounters involve a boss with underlings of some sort whenever possible.

Other options include:

A solo with high mobility and good defense, like a dragon, who withdraws to a threatening distance when wounded instead of fighting to the death.
A solo in an area with environmental difficulties, like an Aboleth or a Cloud Giant on a mountaintop.

Environmental effects not only make combats more interesting, they also reward quirky character abilities like the monk's Slow Fall or the champion's increased jump distance or the rogue's Uncanny Dodge or the Water Breathing ritual, some of which might otherwise seem kind of like worthless fluff. Sometimes when I want to spice things up, I'll look through the PHB to find odd character abilities, and then design a situation where that ability would be helpful, regardless of whether or not anyone in the party actually has that ability.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

So when you cast an effect that ends at the end of your next turn (there are a lot), and your caster always delays that next turn to the end of the round to get an extra round of effect out of it that was never intended by the spell design, you have no issue with that? No issue with the metagaming of initiative that way, in a manner that doesn't make any in-game sense (how could you delay a spell effect by going after everyone else goes in a 6 second period of time when everyone is fighting? Obviously the spell is supposed to have a timer on it, and you're altering the timer by the metagame mechanic of initiative order manipulation rather than in-game tactics).

Personally, I would just end the spell at the usual time, even if the caster Delays. You're already house-ruling Delay, why not house rule it in a sensible way that doesn't mess with spell durations?