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

[FrogReaver]

So when does game theory come into this?

lol not that game theory

 

[ccs]

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.

While true, that still doesn't explain why you start threads on it every 2 months or so.

 

[Ratskinner]

I feel more like 5e's encounter/CR guidelines are garbage, and that 5e has a real problem making a singular big monster work well. Legendary just doesn't do it. I've completely abandoned the encounter guidelines. 5 lower level monsters (or 10 really lower level monsters) are much tougher than a singular monster (at least for my party). Which really stinks for development of that climactic battle.

Personally, I think they dropped a little too much 4e from the monster side of things.

 

[Psikerlord#]

I generally consider this as "plot armour", and shows the action movie influence on 5e. Again, from a story telling perspective, it's better if key characters can't die from an unlucky spin of the dice.

Yes, such is the Problem with Story, as I like to call it (more specifically, the problem with pre-plotted story arcs, most prominent in 1-20 level adventure paths).

 

[Psikerlord#]

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.

You might find this of interest, some other options to make 5e more challenging: http://www.drivethrurpg.com/product/241570/5e-Hardmode

 

[Sadras]

I've completely abandoned the encounter guidelines.

I do not think the encounter guidelines are the issue as much as the actual monsters themselves.

 

[Rya.Reisender]

I kinda like the low difficulty, because what I do is I tell my players I'll not modify the difficulty from the official adventure path. Then I'll try my best to TPK them, but I still fail at it every time. My player of course notice that I'm not going easy on them at all and are always careful with what they do because of that.

Also when I give out the official XP noted on the monster blocks, even when giving full XP for fleeing monster and circumvented encounters, my party tends to be around a level below the suggested level for a region, so that makes it harder again. They seem to notice that too as they realized a region is too hard for them and are now doing something else to become stronger, heh.

 

[Li Shenron]

I haven't DMed the game long enough into high levels to be able to say much about the robustness of the CR/XP system.

However my feeling is that many of the complaints about it come from people who are either expecting too much of it, or not even using it appropriately but fudging it grossly. I know I fudge it, but at least I don't complain about the results :/

On the various 5E forums people seem to be mentioning about how weak 5E monsters are.

I think that many of those people play in games when one or more of the following are true:

- the DM is not playing the monsters as well as they should be played (the DM probably thinks "I am too good, if I play the monsters at my best, the PCs don't have a chance")

- the DM gives time for a short rest almost after every encounter

- the DM gives more magic items than the standard, which is near-zero

- the characters are created with generous rules on ability scores ("high-powered" campaigns were extremely common in 3e, I think some gaming groups still think it's needed)

The first one is actually the most important point. If the monsters are too weak, try to ask the DM to play them as well as she would play a PC, and see the difference.

I think some people are still in the 3E/4E mode of CR +/- 4 levels, well CR means something different in 5E.

Definitely. CR is said to be meant to be used as a threshold, as in "don't use a monster with CR higher than your PC party level". My guess is that a lot of DMs just think it's cool to use a monster of higher CR, but then proceed to play the monster poorly, and then blame the CR instead of themselves.

Customising magic items to the players is also asking for trouble and magic great weapons, polearms, bows and hand crossbows are the main offenders.

Even before customising, giving magic items in the first place makes the game easier. The rules were designed to work with zero magic items. The random treasure tables include magic items, but on average not that much.

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

Feats and multiclassing are either poor or strong choices, depending who you ask. In doubt, I'd say that a fair assessment of the CR/XP system should not include anything officially labelled as "optional".

I do not want to give a judgement of the CR/XP system because I know I am not using it... mainly I run my 5e games by converting old edition adventures on the fly, so the encounters come up with whatever difficulty results from the 5e monsters' own CR and XP after conversion, which of course is different from the original edition's version of the adventure. I do check the CR and adjust the situation in the PC's favor if the CR is too high (e.g. have them catch the monster asleep, surprised, already wounded...), and sometimes I increase/decrease the number of minions.

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).

What is "right pacing" exactly? The players are more responsible than the DM to set the pacing. If they are low on resources and afraid to continue, they stop, otherwise they continue the adventuring day. The DM is primarly responsible to keep them a bit on their toe to discourage the "5 minutes working day" effect, so that the resource management aspect of the game is still interesting, but there is hardly a "right pacing" to be set beforehand.

 

[Caliburn101]

The House-ruled gritty healing system I used for my last Greyhawk game.

Short Rests
- HP healing equal to character level (3 x day maximum)

Long Rests
- HP healing equal to rolled HD x Prof. Bonus (with 1 dice at 1st lvl.)
- HD returned equal to level

Instant Magical Healing (narratively this burns life Force to be effective)
- Each spell slot level of a healing spell applied uses up 1 HD from the target
- If the target has no HD left, the HD have to come from the caster
- For area or multi-target heals, the HD cost is shared equally between targets with any leftover HD paid for by the caster
- For non-spell healing like Paladin Lay on Hands, each full 5 HP uses up 1 HD
- Second Wind can only be used when the Fighter has taken damage, and gives temporary HP which last for 10 rounds

Death Saves
- Each failed death save means 1 level of Fatigue is applied once back up to positive HPs
- Each failed death save requires at least 1 level of spell slot of healing to heal (so someone with 2 failed saves will not respond to the healing of a 1st level spell slot)
- Revivify doesn't resurrect, it brings the target back on 1 HP without any Fatigue if cast before the third failed death save
- Spare the Dying suspends the need for further death saves for 1 minute but does not remove failed saves

 

[Henry]

The House-ruled gritty healing system I used for my last Greyhawk game.

THAT’LL make ‘em scream! Saving this for posterity, thanks!