D&D 5E Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[Celtavian]

My guess is not that I don't apply "biological principles," but rather how you handle ability checks in your game. It sounds like you run them more like D&D 3e and 4e where players have an expectation of making checks upon request and passive checks are "always on." That's not how I do things in D&D 5e. I don't think it's a fit, given the rules and paradigm. We can discontinue this line of discussion though as it is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand. Good chat.

You don't apply biological principles. No need to place it in parentheses. You simply don't do it. I do. Survival of the fittest and natural selection are two principles I use in game design. Just as the fiction informs you, I ask myself "Would this creature survive the way it is constructed? Can it accomplish what it is supposed to be able to accomplish per its description and purpose in an encounter?"

5E is very clear that the use of Passive skills are encouraged and hand-waving rolling is also encouraged. I don't see how you can consider your way of adjudicating as appropriate for 5E as it encourages additional unnecessary rolling. Explain to me why you think 5E goes into such depth explaining Passive Checks and hand-waving rolling if they intended you to make players ask for Insight and other such skills if you can use a Passive Score? I would like to hear this explanation. My reading of 5E with the in-depth explanation of passive skills and the general hand-waving of rolling for skills on the whole all in an effort to reduce rolling is somehow better served by not using passive scores when able. Now you're asserting that your method is somehow more in line with how the game is meant to be run. I certainly do not see that in the text at all.

 

[Celtavian]

So you keep saying, yet in the same breath you make the claim above to be able to defeat this encounter using only 3 spell slots - 1 each of 4th, 3rd and 1st level (a trivial drain on resources for a party of 5 x 13th level PCs). A position that I strongly refute by the way - in my view you would be required to use at least double that amount of resources once hit point loss alone is accounted for (plus a few more on smites and assorted shield spells etc). Which is about the right amount of resources for a medium-hard encounter for mine.

Like I state above, its a judgement call. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, this encounter fits within the 'medium-hard' parameters of the test. The players hit this encounter fully rested, and knowing that they are teleporting into a potentially dangerous area (opening the possibility of pre-buffs). The encounter can also be avoided with minimal resource expenditure by a smart party who favors diplomacy over combat.

Its a DM judgement call as to where it sits between [medium] and [hard] spectrum, but it is still a fair encounter given the parameters of the challenge.

Prebuffing in 5E is an enormous mistake given the short duration of spells and ease of dispelling. I thought this would be obvious. We tried prebuffing during early runs in the game, the DM countered this by having the creature not engage until visible magic disappeared. Dragons flew off. Monsters that detected casting stayed away for about ten minutes. Casters opened up by stripping spells off automatically. You spent these resources prebuffing only to have them eliminated quickly. So it was better to cast during combat to ensure you didn't waste resources once you determined if an opponent caster was present stripping spells or the monsters could just avoid you for a while. It was an early lesson learned that the prebuffing common in 3E wasn't going to work in 5E and was a way to cause serious resource depletion without merit. Pick your spots for buffing and only do so if you have to.

Is defeating the above encounter with three spell slots that surprising? I would have used a first level slot had we stealthed on the location. The giants wouldn't even have closed the distance and we would have danced behind cover before being engaged hammering them with ranged very quickly. Your slaad encounter is the one that will be a drain.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

When it comes to the total XP per AD amounts, I read this to mean 'awarded XP per day' and not 'adjusted for difficulty' XP per day.

The actual section of the DMG on XP per adventuring day is muddled here. It mentions both.

Funny, because the table heading actually says explicitly that it is adjusted XP.

 

[iserith]

You don't apply biological principles. No need to place it in parentheses. You simply don't do it. I do. Survival of the fittest and natural selection are two principles I use in game design. Just as the fiction informs you, I ask myself "Would this creature survive the way it is constructed? Can it accomplish what it is supposed to be able to accomplish per its description and purpose in an encounter?"

I assume if it's in the Monster Manual, it's all good. I don't see how your concerns add anything in particular. That's not meant as a slight. It just seems extraneous.

5E is very clear that the use of Passive skills are encouraged and hand-waving rolling is also encouraged. I don't see how you can consider your way of adjudicating as appropriate for 5E as it encourages additional unnecessary rolling. Explain to me why you think 5E goes into such depth explaining Passive Checks and hand-waving rolling if they intended you to make players ask for Insight and other such skills if you can use a Passive Score? I would like to hear this explanation. My reading of 5E with the in-depth explanation of passive skills and the general hand-waving of rolling for skills on the whole all in an effort to reduce rolling is somehow better served by not using passive scores when able. Now you're asserting that your method is somehow more in line with how the game is meant to be run. I certainly do not see that in the text at all.

I've probably engaged in this discussion in 20 different threads. It comes up that much. I'm actually somewhat known for this topic. I invite you to Google up those discussions to see how I handle passive checks and why, based on the rules as I understand them.

 

[iserith]

Funny, because the table heading actually says explicitly that it is adjusted XP.

If the encounters are, in fact, 6 to 8 encounters of medium to hard difficulty and sufficiently drain party resources, but don't conform to that chart, will you claim this experiment and the guidelines are a failure?

Or would you charitably say that (if it is shown to be sufficiently draining) the phrase is right but the chart may be off?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If the encounters are, in fact, 6 to 8 encounters of medium to hard difficulty and sufficiently drain party resources, but don't conform to that chart, will you claim this experiment and the guidelines are a failure?

Or would you charitably say that (if it is shown to be sufficiently draining) the phrase is right but the chart may be off?

Charity has no place in analysis. So far I've seen you guys making two major mistakes in the way you calculate relative to the guidelines: you calculate difficulty incorrectly, and you misunderstand daily XP budgets. 5E encounter math isn't complicated but you're not using it anyway.

If your experiment works I'll take it as an anecdote demonstrating the claim occasionally made (by me asking others) that 5E PCs can handle a lot more than DMG guidelines imply they can. But that still only establishes a floor, not a ceiling. I bet you can push it even higher. My experience says so, anyway.

 

[iserith]

Charity has no place in analysis. So far I've seen you guys making two major mistakes in the way you calculate relative to the guidelines: you calculate difficulty incorrectly, and you misunderstand daily XP budgets. 5E encounter math isn't complicated but you're not using it anyway.

That answers the questions as to whether I should continue reading your posts at least. Thanks.

 

[Sunseeker]

Covered this same thing later in the post. I do the same thing.

So, the end result is still Passive Intimidation, it's just not written down at your sheets that way. Sure everyone's entitled to things their own way, but it sounds to me like you actually are using Passive Intimidation, but splitting hairs over the fact that you don't actually call it that.

All Passive Perception was invented for is so that players don't have to roll for the obvious (and won't obnoxiously do so), and DMs aren't complete bagwads about searching. So, if passive perception was invented to basically "resolve the obvious as efficiently as possible" then it sounds like you're already running Passive Everything. So to me, you were doing it, but not calling it that, and arguing that you weren't doing it because you weren't calling it that seemed internally inconsistent.

 

[Celtavian]

So, the end result is still Passive Intimidation, it's just not written down at your sheets that way. Sure everyone's entitled to things their own way, but it sounds to me like you actually are using Passive Intimidation, but splitting hairs over the fact that you don't actually call it that.

All Passive Perception was invented for is so that players don't have to roll for the obvious (and won't obnoxiously do so), and DMs aren't complete bagwads about searching. So, if passive perception was invented to basically "resolve the obvious as efficiently as possible" then it sounds like you're already running Passive Everything. So to me, you were doing it, but not calling it that, and arguing that you weren't doing it because you weren't calling it that seemed internally inconsistent.

You are correct, sir. That's how I play. I like to reduce rolling. 5E encourages it. I assume a Passive skill for many things or the hand-waving (which as you say is the same as passive) in situations where success isn't much in question.

 

[Flamestrike]

Funny, because the table heading actually says explicitly that it is adjusted XP.

Yeah, and then the text refers to awarded XP. It's as clear as mud.