D&D 5E Differing opinions about 5e

[Blue]

They don't understand that encounter difficulty (hard, medium, deadly etc) in 5E is predicated on the expectation that players have to deal with around 6-8 of them (defeating each one) before recovering long rest resources (hit points, hit die, spell slots, arcana, rages, sorcery points).

Bad DMs allow the 5 minute adventuring day either through ignorance or laziness. This throws encounter balance totally out of kilter as the players are able to nova (dumping all long rest resources) the single encounter, trivializing it. In response to players Nova-ing an encounter, the bad DM then proceeds to ramp up encounter difficulty to Deadly+... thus forcing the players to optimize and employ nova tactics, or else die.

I totally agree with your point that 5e absolutely relies on attrition vs. recovery mechanic and if you ignore that the game balance will be off, leading to too-easy encounters.

Even "deadly+" encounters can become easy when it's your only fight for the day.

However, I disagree strongly that it's a "bad DM" who allows it. It's a near-fatal flaw in design (and I love 5e, I'm not picking on it) the does not allow the DM to match the resource recovery to the narrative needs instead of skewing the encounter frequency to a forced stop to meet mechanical needs. A DM should be able to throw one encounter and have it work if that's what the narrative demands.

I hear advice like "put in a time limit" so PCs can't rest, but I hear that as "every single adventure, every single day with any encounters, there must be pressure supplied for 6-8 encounters". And that's not a reasonable stance. Sometimes, sure. Every single day that there are any encounters over the PC's entire lifespan? Pshaw.

Of course, this also goes back to surviving == winning, so you need attrition to potentially kill PCs. Adventures and encounters with other win conditions - stop the ritual, save the commoners that are being eaten by ghouls, protect the king - these aren't reliant on PCs being worn down for them to lose. But again, that should be "when the DM wants/when the story dictates, not as a workaround for straightjacketed encounter balance because of resource management.

 

[Blue]

The game has also given us the dial for converting short rest abilities to long rest abilities. All you do is multiply the number of uses by 3 and you have a daily ability. The only thing to determine is how to allow characters to use healing.

Um, not really. That's a lot more powerful even if it works out to be the same maximum number of times per day.

Primarily because of separation of use. Thrice per day could end up being used to nova in the same combat, which once per short rest never could. This is a really big deal.

It also takes away a pacing tool from the DM where they don't want a break between certain events so no short rest.

And again, if a DM (or PCs) varies off the expected encounters and has (for instance) one encounter total for a day, you're getting a lot more uses that day.

 

[ad_hoc]

I hear advice like "put in a time limit" so PCs can't rest, but I hear that as "every single adventure, every single day with any encounters, there must be pressure supplied for 6-8 encounters". And that's not a reasonable stance. Sometimes, sure. Every single day that there are any encounters over the PC's entire lifespan? Pshaw.

I don't hear that. I sometimes see the term 'average'. I don't think I've ever seen anyone say it needs to be 6-8 every day. Not even the published adventures do that.

I wouldn't even say it needs to be the average. The important part is that the players don't know. They don't know that it is their only encounter for the adventuring day. There needs to be tension in each encounter.

There are many pacing models for a story/adventure and a DM can mix and match as appropriate to the story/adventure.

Here are two:

The Pit: encounters start off easy but suddenly spike with a deadly encounter. This could be an ambush or maybe the PCs thought they were travelling somewhere safe but were horribly mistaken.

The Vise: PCs face many easy-medium encounters. This is the classic zombie survival scenario. They just keep coming. If the PCs don't do something they will eventually be defeated.

Both of these don't follow the 6-8 encounter paradigm. The former might only be 2-4 encounters while the latter might be 12 or more. They both work.

 

[CapnZapp]

The game is as easy or as hard as the challenges the DM presents modified by the skill of the players trying to tackle them.

This is a truism that says nothing.

I find 5e probably the easiest edition in terms of PC power vs the world.

I know of punpun and AD&D kits and so on, but I what I mean is, right off the PHB you can create a party of characters that absolutely dominates published scenarios and any other adventure built according to the encounter guidelines. Without really trying hard - almost as if the design testers didn't properly combine the tools the PHB gives you.

 

[Ashkelon]

This is a truism that says nothing.

I find 5e probably the easiest edition in terms of PC power vs the world.

I know of punpun and AD&D kits and so on, but I what I mean is, right off the PHB you can create a party of characters that absolutely dominates published scenarios and any other adventure built according to the encounter guidelines. Without really trying hard - almost as if the design testers didn't properly combine the tools the PHB gives you.

They really didn't. I had access the the PHB alpha an it was largely unchanged compared to the final in print book. Things like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter were well know issues but no changes were made to reign them in. Feats were added to the game as an afterthought and as such their balance was barely considered for its affect on gameplay. High level spells also received almost no balance or testing which is how we ended up with things like banishment and forcecage. Most testing appeared to be done using featless games from levels 1-10.

 

[iserith]

This is a truism that says nothing.

It's still true. And it tells you what the DM needs to do when playing with skilled players seeking greater difficulty.

 

[ExploderWizard]

They really didn't. I had access the the PHB alpha an it was largely unchanged compared to the final in print book. Things like Great Weapon Master and Sharpshooter were well know issues but no changes were made to reign them in. Feats were added to the game as an afterthought and as such their balance was barely considered for its affect on gameplay. High level spells also received almost no balance or testing which is how we ended up with things like banishment and forcecage. Most testing appeared to be done using featless games from levels 1-10.

Feats, multi-classing and magic items are OPTIONAL. So if your game includes them then you need to compensate in the challenge department or things get much easier. So if you are using typical encounter guidelines and your campaign uses the optional features then then you are presenting a game with easier challenges.

 

[Imaro]

Nevermind mistake on my part...

 

[Flamestrike]

I totally agree with your point that 5e absolutely relies on attrition vs. recovery mechanic and if you ignore that the game balance will be off, leading to too-easy encounters.

So many DMs dont get this. 5E is an attrition and resource management game. As a DM you have to DM with this in mind.

If thats not your thing, then play a different game.

Even "deadly+" encounters can become easy when it's your only fight for the day.

They become rocket tag. Its OK to have the occasional Deadly+ single encounter day of course. But they can go south with some bad luck from the party fast.

However, I disagree strongly that it's a "bad DM" who allows it. It's a near-fatal flaw in design (and I love 5e, I'm not picking on it) the does not allow the DM to match the resource recovery to the narrative needs instead of skewing the encounter frequency to a forced stop to meet mechanical needs. A DM should be able to throw one encounter and have it work if that's what the narrative demands.

I agree 5E leaves that resource management in the hands of the DM, and doesnt enforce it on the game structure.

If it did enforce it though, you would be forced in your narrative structure to abide by it. By giving you options (gritty realism etc) they allow individual DMs to mess about with it to taste.

I hear advice like "put in a time limit" so PCs can't rest, but I hear that as "every single adventure, every single day with any encounters, there must be pressure supplied for 6-8 encounters". And that's not a reasonable stance. Sometimes, sure. Every single day that there are any encounters over the PC's entire lifespan? Pshaw.

Hang on mate. No one says 'you must run 6-8 encounters each long rest every time'. That would be boring and predictable. No-one advocates for this.

All a DM needs to do for around 50 percent of the time is use the 6ish encounter 'adventuring day' (adventuring day meaning 'time between long rests and not necessarily a game day'). The other 'days' will me a mix of single encounter days. 2 encounter days, and more than 6 encounters days. Some will allow for 2 short rests; some none. Some will allow for 3 or more short rests. Rare days will feature 12 or more encounters (real meat grinders, with no chance to long rest and the PCs are on the clock).

Remember, the devs intentionally made some classes shine on shorter adventuring days (paladins, casters, barbarians) and some shine on longer adventuring days with lots of short rests (warlocks, monks, fighters, especially champions). By introducing shorter 'days' you allow the former to shine. By pushing longer days on the party, the latter shine (particularly if you give the PCs ample time to short rest).

Basically the DM has his hand on the 'class balance' dial. If your barbarians/ paladins are outshining your fighters, or your Wizards and outshining your Warlocks, try reducing short rests to 5 minutes, or using the gritty realism (long rest = 1 week) options. Put your PCs on the clock for their next quest, where they have to deal with 10 encounters before the time limit expires, but have several hours to allow for multiple short rests.

Example quest:

PCs wake up (after long rest) and a haggard figure staggers into the camp, badly wounded and collapses. The PCs heal her, and she tells them she was captured by [BBEG + monsters] who are using a nearby [ruin] a few hours ride away to [perform a ritual] that will be completed [at midnight]. They are sacrificing [innocents and someone dear to the PCs] and if the ritual is successful [something really bad happens].

The PCs must now ride to [the ruin] and slay the monsters [10 x combat encounters and 2 x traps] but they have 14 hours to do it in (enough time for a short rest after each encounter if they want.

As an option B, have the haggard figure stagger in the PCs camp as they settle down for the night (once they are already depleted of resources that day from dealing with an encounter or two).

After your PCs have gottten a quest like this they will naturally conserve resources all the time, and will hold back from nova options even on the slower single encounter adventuring days. Just make sure you throw the occasional really long adventuring day at them (every second level or so, or every other month), so they hold back, they self regulate for you.

 

[Imaro]

Um, not really. That's a lot more powerful even if it works out to be the same maximum number of times per day.

It should be, it's now a daily power...

Primarily because of separation of use. Thrice per day could end up being used to nova in the same combat, which once per short rest never could. This is a really big deal.

Just like spells or any other daily power really... right?

It also takes away a pacing tool from the DM where they don't want a break between certain events so no short rest.

I would assume if you are choosing to use this you want the powers to all be balanced around daily usage. that said short rests can still control self healing so there can still be a cost and benefit to short rests even with all powers being dailies.

And again, if a DM (or PCs) varies off the expected encounters and has (for instance) one encounter total for a day, you're getting a lot more uses that day.

Yes and if a wizard casts all his (highest level??) spells with abandon in one encounter he too is nova'ing... I'm failing to see the difference. The point is that if there is one encounter and it is based around daily powers... well you should use the total XP budget for the adventuring day not the XP budget for one encounter. You should also probably give the PC's a way to expend self-healing during said encounter. Perhaps waves or make it cost an action within the combat.

You seem to be voicing "issues" that arise from daily powers but that's the point... you've made short rest abilities into dailies... but that in and of itself doesn't solve any problems with pacing around daily abilities.