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

[Greg Benage]

I've never used the "encounter building" rules and didn't notice any game theory in the OP, but I think 5e's easy mode is all about death saves. I think it has nothing to do with feats, though I have complaints about some of them for other reasons.

The death save mechanic and subsequent whack-a-mole effect also scales with party size. You get a six character party and half of them have healing word (plus Healer, plus Lay on Hands, plus...), and there's really very little suspense even in super deadly battles. As long as you're not in TPK danger, you're not really in danger.

I tried the exhaustion levels as a cost of being knocked unconscious, but our experience was that it made the game less fun without actually increasing the sense of danger. I'll probably just chuck it all and go back to negative hit points and bleeding next campaign.

 

[Zardnaar]

I've never used the "encounter building" rules and didn't notice any game theory in the OP, but I think 5e's easy mode is all about death saves. I think it has nothing to do with feats, though I have complaints about some of them for other reasons.

The death save mechanic and subsequent whack-a-mole effect also scales with party size. You get a six character party and half of them have healing word (plus Healer, plus Lay on Hands, plus...), and there's really very little suspense even in super deadly battles. As long as you're not in TPK danger, you're not really in danger.

I tried the exhaustion levels as a cost of being knocked unconscious, but our experience was that it made the game less fun without actually increasing the sense of danger. I'll probably just chuck it all and go back to negative hit points and bleeding next campaign.

IN addition to being very efficent the 1 hp thing of the healer feat is funny for whack a mole. We discovered in late 2014 that feat+ level 3+ Thief bonus action healer feat is very whack a mole. I think tnats when we went X5 over the recommended level of a deadly encounter and still one. I was not the DM but he was getting frustrated.

The healer feat is actually better than ye olde wand of CLW and cheaper, downside is it costs you a feat. Its why I included it+ resilient con and warcaster. They lack the oomph of the -5/+10 feats but I think they create their own problems in different ways. In a featless game I think the Transmuter and Sorcerer look a lot better due to concentration.

 

[ccs]

Its not really a whine its just a thing. I want to play a featless game but players seem to have different expectations. And its easy enough to ignore the CR system.

I also don.t care because it kinfd of plays like AD&D in that regard where level 8 PCs can kill level 18 liches and Balors/Pitfiends so I do not have the expectation of +/- 4 CR others have from previous editions.

I dumped the 5E CR guidelines fairly early on once level 5 or so has been reached.

So if you don't care, why do you bring this stuff up over & over & over?

 

[Jester David]

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

...
To be utterly and brutally frank: well, duh.
Those two break every game. Pathfinder? Optional rules and/or powergaming break it. 4th Edition D&D. Also broken by house rules and some decent min-maxing. FFG's Star Wars? Same thing.

The baseline is not based around optimised play. It is deliberately and purposely based two steps below.

Because not everyone is an optimiser and basing the power level around powergamers makes the game unplayable for 90% of the audience. And because if you do base the math around optimizers, you're also denying those people the ability to be better than the norm, as the whole point of powergaming is being better.
Nobody wins with that route.

If you're incorporating optional content—which enables power gaming—the DM either needs to be comfortable with their party steamrolling over every challenge or needs to bend the rules and present harder challenges.
That's just a simple fact of gaming, be you playing 5e and allowing optional rules like feats, or playing Pathfinder and allowing optional content like splatbooks, or even playing Settlers of Catan and allowing optional expansions.


As for the expected 6-8 encounters per day...
That was just a number they pulled from their ass. Completely arbitrary. Because... any number used to balance that was going to be arbitrary. There is no baseline because every adventure and group and campaign is different. The number of encounters in a dungeon crawl is completely and totally different than an overland sandbox which is different from a political game in an urban environment.

But they had to pick some number and going high is easier, because it's always simpler to have fewer harder encounters then basing the game around 3-4 encounters and trying to make many easy encounters effective.

 

[Nevvur]

Can we stop with the "breaks the game" crap already? I've run games with and without powergaming madness, including the aforementioned feats, and none of my groups broke the game. It's hyperbolic nonsense that I really wish would go away.

 

[Oofta]

Its not really a whine its just a thing. I want to play a featless game but players seem to have different expectations. And its easy enough to ignore the CR system.

I also don.t care because it kinfd of plays like AD&D in that regard where level 8 PCs can kill level 18 liches and Balors/Pitfiends so I do not have the expectation of +/- 4 CR others have from previous editions.

I dumped the 5E CR guidelines fairly early on once level 5 or so has been reached.

I find the CR guidelines as a useful starting point, and you don't. But that's not the point. The point is that this is the same old same old you post every month or two. It just gets old.

 

[FrogReaver]

Can we stop with the "breaks the game" crap already? I've run games with and without powergaming madness, including the aforementioned feats, and none of my groups broke the game. It's hyperbolic nonsense that I really wish would go away.

Give people a bit of credit. Saying breaks the game means that the game recommendations for challenging a party are broken, not that a DM with infinite resources cannot ever something to challenge whatever party he desires.

Maybe you shouldn't take their hyperbolic nonsense so literally?

 

[FrogReaver]

I find the CR guidelines as a useful starting point, and you don't. But that's not the point. The point is that this is the same old same old you post every month or two. It just gets old.

I wonder if the game's challenge ratings were originally set to a level that wasn't easy mode for his highly optimized groups if he would be claiming they made the game to hard for new players?

Sometimes people complain just to complain

 

[Zardnaar]

So if you don't care, why do you bring this stuff up over & over & over?

Its more other people who mention it on other pots they claim the game doesn;t work but then they always seem to be using feats.

The encounter guidelines work OK for low levels and for newer players I suppose, theres nothing wrong with them as such. I don't expect them to work that well with feats, multiclassing and power gamers.

Its not a deal breaker or anything. Some people round here think 5E is perfect (hint its not) and some editions did certain things better either conceptually or mechanically even if those editions had lots of other problems. Lots of people do not seem to buy into the 6-8 encounter thing for example or the default 2 short rests assumption but its kind of what the designers were thinking about when they designed short rest rules which may or may not play nice with long rest classes.

I think assuming any amount of encounters is a bit silly/metagaming YMMV of course. What if the adventure/story calls for 1 big battle scene or 2-4 encounters. Sure you can kinda do it but it doesn't do it well. Some of the other editions are easier to pace because of that IMHO, what you prefer/like is entirely up to you.

 

[Mistwell]

So when does game theory come into this?