D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

[CapnZapp]

The thing is, if they change the system to handle optimizers as the base solution, it will no longer work right for the new players.

You say that as if 5th edition is the first edition to have had that problem.

5th Edition looks and plays much more carebearian than d20.

Somehow d20 found huge numbers of new players while still being capable of providing high-level groups with the tools they need.

Why are you and others so utterly committed to apologizing for WotC's basic and naive high-level design. It's the fifth iteration of the game, for Chris' sake! We can and should expect more.

The reality is that WotC has dropped the ball on high-level design, and that 5E needs an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

 

[Tony Vargas]

You say that as if 5th edition is the first edition to have had that problem.

There /may/ have been one edition that didn't. Maybe.

5th Edition looks and plays much more carebearian than d20. Somehow d20 found huge numbers of new players while still being capable of providing high-level groups with the tools they need.

3.x/PF fell apart at high level, unless you meant 'high level of system mastery' in which case it fell apart at low level, too. ;P And I'm not sure 'huge numbers of new players' is at all accurate. 3e didn't sell as well as 5e has, even if we accept that 5e's heavily selling to returning rather than genuinely 'new' players. Both targeted the long-time player, 3e with 'back to the dungeon,' 5e with 'classic feel.'

Why are you and others so utterly committed to apologizing for WotC's basic and naive high-level design. It's the fifth iteration of the game, for Chris' sake! We can and should expect more.

WotC tried offering a version of D&D that worked at high level. After the devastation of the edition war, it tried 5e.

The reality is that WotC has dropped the ball on high-level design, and that 5E needs an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

Ball? Or hot potato?

 

[Helldritch]

So I decided maybe we should actually look through and summarize the Adventure Books. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t have them all, but I do have 4 of them, so I’ll summarize those 4. Here is the first, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, which was also the first official adventure released for the 5E rules, other than the Lost Mines of Phandelver from the starter set, which [MENTION=6680839]Gau[/MENTION]chi already touched upon.

Here we go…
Hoard of the Dragon Queen
Episode 1- Greenest in Flames
8 Combat encounters are provided in detail, and 8 additional random encounters are mentioned as possible. Encounters include a variety of dangers and there is a loose time constraint at play. It is totally up to the DM how many of the encounters and which of them are used.

Episode 2- Raiders’ Camp
2 Combat encounters are provided in detail, the Camp location is described in detail and allows for the opportunity for several encounters: infiltration, exploration, possible combat, possible capture, how to escape

Episode 3- Dragon Hatchery
A site based dungeon crawl that consists of 10 to 12 possible combat encounters described in detail, 6 more wandering monster encounters are provided, and a couple of traps are included as well.

Episode 4- On the Road
A 40 day journey that is meant to serve mostly as social interaction, but there are also many encounters provided; 12 detailed encounters provided, and then an additional 4 connected events. The book suggests to pace these all as needed, and to supplement with random encounters as needed, but most days would certainly not meet the multiple encounter day expectation.
Episode 5- Construction Ahead
Travel north continues, and this chapter is meant to be narrated quickly. A list of random encounters is suggested if desired, but this is another chapter that is mostly social interaction and story development.

Episode 6- Castle Naerytar
2 day trip to the Castle, random encounter roll suggested every hour, 10 encounters described.
The Castle itself is a dynamic encounter location. There are several factions within the Castle, each with its own goals and desires, and relationships with other factions. There are several ways this can all go depending on how the PCs proceed. However, over 30 possible combats of varying difficulty exist within the Castle.

Episode 7- Hunting Lodge
A site based episode, over 10 different combat encounters are possible, but combat is not the only way to succeed here, although it is very likely. Time constraints for events in Episode 8 play a part in pacing this chapter.

Episode 8- Castle in the Clouds
Two sites in this chapter, the Village of Parnast and Skyreach Castle. Time constraints play a part here. The village consists of mostly investigative social interaction, but there are up to 3 possible encounters, mostly of minimal threat. Skyreach Castle is a dynamic location with several powerful enemies, and over 15 possible combat encounters provided, although some of these may be combined if the PCs trigger certain events.

So, of the 8 chapters in this adventure, 5 of them definitively allow for at least 6 to 8 encounters. 2 do not, but are not really intended to do that. And 1 is designed so that multiple encounters are possible, but it all depends highly on how the PCs behave. So, at the very least, we can eliminate the chatter that the designers don't follow their own guidelines at all. That's clearly false. To determine if they continue to follow these guidelines, we'll have to review the subsequent adventure books. I'll try and do similar summaries for the other ones that I own (Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, and Curse of Strahd).

Sorry for the wall of quote but that was simply great.
And you can do the same with all adventures.
I would even go so far as to say that if you do not use the mile stone and do not take care to add encounters, your players will not get the the assumed levels in some of the chapters. WoTC do apply its own rules. Yes there are some places where the guidelines are not fully followed, but that is the DM's job to make it work.

 

[Celtavian]

They have dropped the ball in high level design in every edition. It's disappointing that 5th is the same way. It's another edition of D&D that works great to level 7 to 9, then falls apart horribly making DMing hard. I don' t like the 7-9 level game over and over and over again. I like to play to high level and design cinematic encounters. It's very hard to do when people are advising you to play "strategic" which usually comes down to having the monster hide, adding extra minions, and other things that don't look very cool in a cinematic vision of what a dragon or demon fight should be like. It should be the players that that should be scared to show themselves to the dragon or demon, not the other way around. It feels so utterly wrong that a fearsome creature of legend like a dragon or a demon that rules hordes of demons in the Abyss has to play little "strategy" games against mortal PCs. They should be able to fly down and start a fight that requires every ounce of the PCs mettle to live. PCs should be frightened out of their minds when an ancient dragon shows regardless of level. It just isn't the case and hasn't been in the last three editions. I wish these designers would take more time to make high level play more viable.

 

[Celtavian]

So I decided maybe we should actually look through and summarize the Adventure Books. As I mentioned earlier, I don’t have them all, but I do have 4 of them, so I’ll summarize those 4. Here is the first, Hoard of the Dragon Queen, which was also the first official adventure released for the 5E rules, other than the Lost Mines of Phandelver from the starter set, which [MENTION=6680839]Gau[/MENTION]chi already touched upon.

Here we go…
Hoard of the Dragon Queen
Episode 1- Greenest in Flames
8 Combat encounters are provided in detail, and 8 additional random encounters are mentioned as possible. Encounters include a variety of dangers and there is a loose time constraint at play. It is totally up to the DM how many of the encounters and which of them are used.

Episode 2- Raiders’ Camp
2 Combat encounters are provided in detail, the Camp location is described in detail and allows for the opportunity for several encounters: infiltration, exploration, possible combat, possible capture, how to escape

Episode 3- Dragon Hatchery
A site based dungeon crawl that consists of 10 to 12 possible combat encounters described in detail, 6 more wandering monster encounters are provided, and a couple of traps are included as well.

Episode 4- On the Road
A 40 day journey that is meant to serve mostly as social interaction, but there are also many encounters provided; 12 detailed encounters provided, and then an additional 4 connected events. The book suggests to pace these all as needed, and to supplement with random encounters as needed, but most days would certainly not meet the multiple encounter day expectation.
Episode 5- Construction Ahead
Travel north continues, and this chapter is meant to be narrated quickly. A list of random encounters is suggested if desired, but this is another chapter that is mostly social interaction and story development.

Episode 6- Castle Naerytar
2 day trip to the Castle, random encounter roll suggested every hour, 10 encounters described.
The Castle itself is a dynamic encounter location. There are several factions within the Castle, each with its own goals and desires, and relationships with other factions. There are several ways this can all go depending on how the PCs proceed. However, over 30 possible combats of varying difficulty exist within the Castle.

Episode 7- Hunting Lodge
A site based episode, over 10 different combat encounters are possible, but combat is not the only way to succeed here, although it is very likely. Time constraints for events in Episode 8 play a part in pacing this chapter.

Episode 8- Castle in the Clouds
Two sites in this chapter, the Village of Parnast and Skyreach Castle. Time constraints play a part here. The village consists of mostly investigative social interaction, but there are up to 3 possible encounters, mostly of minimal threat. Skyreach Castle is a dynamic location with several powerful enemies, and over 15 possible combat encounters provided, although some of these may be combined if the PCs trigger certain events.

So, of the 8 chapters in this adventure, 5 of them definitively allow for at least 6 to 8 encounters. 2 do not, but are not really intended to do that. And 1 is designed so that multiple encounters are possible, but it all depends highly on how the PCs behave. So, at the very least, we can eliminate the chatter that the designers don't follow their own guidelines at all. That's clearly false. To determine if they continue to follow these guidelines, we'll have to review the subsequent adventure books. I'll try and do similar summaries for the other ones that I own (Princes of the Apocalypse, Out of the Abyss, and Curse of Strahd).

Once again, not a single one of those encounters requires 6 to 8 encounters. How do I as a DM force them to follow the paradigm? And you do not measure the quality of the challenge for each encounter? So how exactly are you claiming the game designers account for this by creating encounters that don't require six to eight encounters be completed and that are so weak as to not drain enough resources?

For example, one of the areas you mention above had a single wizard as an appropriate encounter. This wizard died in one round and he was one of leaders of the site.

I again reiterate that the designers do not follow the six to eight encounters per day as in it is not required and can rarely be enforced by the DM. Secondly, the challenge and quality of the encounters is not sufficient to challenge intelligent, tactical parties. The capabilities of the monsters is weak and lacks variety. So no, they do not follow what you claim they follow. The modules are not challenging. They do not require six to eight encounters per day. Prove that you have to do six to eight encounters per day and prove that the encounters are challenging for an appropriate level party even using the base rules.

 

[hawkeyefan]

You say that as if 5th edition is the first edition to have had that problem.

5th Edition looks and plays much more carebearian than d20.

Somehow d20 found huge numbers of new players while still being capable of providing high-level groups with the tools they need.

Why are you and others so utterly committed to apologizing for WotC's basic and naive high-level design. It's the fifth iteration of the game, for Chris' sake! We can and should expect more.

The reality is that WotC has dropped the ball on high-level design, and that 5E needs an Advanced Dungeons & Dragons.

I don't really see it as a case of apologizing for WotC anymore than your points are you apologizing for those munchkins you're playing with.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Once again, not a single one of those encounters requires 6 to 8 encounters. How do I as a DM force them to follow the paradigm? And you do not measure the quality of the challenge for each encounter? So how exactly are you claiming the game designers account for this by creating encounters that don't require six to eight encounters be completed and that are so weak as to not drain enough resources?

For example, one of the areas you mention above had a single wizard as an appropriate encounter. This wizard died in one round and he was one of leaders of the site.

I again reiterate that the designers do not follow the six to eight encounters per day as in it is not required and can rarely be enforced by the DM. Secondly, the challenge and quality of the encounters is not sufficient to challenge intelligent, tactical parties. The capabilities of the monsters is weak and lacks variety. So no, they do not follow what you claim they follow. The modules are not challenging. They do not require six to eight encounters per day. Prove that you have to do six to eight encounters per day and prove that the encounters are challenging for an appropriate level party even using the base rules.

I have shown you that there are multiple encounters included in the adventure that are expected to be completed in the same adventuring day. Yes, some of them are not meant to be an intense challenge. Some are quite easy, others are very difficult. It varies. Also, how the players approach the challenges can have a big impact on how things play out.

You claim that the adventure was a cake walk for your players. There will be no "proof" that I can provide to change your view on that. My players found a few parts of the module to be very dangerous. I suppose that means in your eyes that they aren't "as good" as your players. I would draw a very different conclusion....but again, it will fall on deaf ears.

So instead, I'm settling for the fact that in HotDQ, the adventure does indeed follow the multiple encounter day guideline that the game is designed around. You can wail about how the encounters aren't all challenging and how your players stomped their way through it all...but stop saying the adventures don't take the multiple encounter day into consideration.

 

[Celtavian]

This argument is endless. There are always people claiming, "If you play this certain way, everything will run ok." I know from my experience this is false. My group destroyed all the modules they put out, often fighting more than six to eight encounters per day adding in only feats and the magic in the module. If a game is too easy because you add in one or two feats and some very basic magic items, it's not a very challenging game. I've played every edition of D&D since the red basic set. I DM most often in my group which means I've been doing this a long, long time. There hasn't been an edition of D&D that ran very well out of the box for experienced players or at high level. High level players have too many options. 5E is no different.

5E has it's specific drawbacks, some similar to past editions and some unique to this edition. It's not a very challenging game and it lacks complex strategic options, especially for experienced players. I believe that is by design and my idea of a challenge and the general gamer's idea of a challenge differ greatly. Monsters are built with very lackluster options. The focus on 3 to 5 round combats makes them seem anticlimactic. I think this is very much a difference of perspective. I'm used to four hour long, sometimes multiple session final combats with enemies that last 15 to 20 rounds of in game combat before the battle is resolved with lots of back and forth with magic and healing and the entire group coming close to death. It feels like a climactic battle when we're done. It can be exhausting for the players and DM to match each other. There's a real feeling of accomplishment when the players finally win that I don't get in 5E.

I doubt we're ever going to agree on 5E. I know at this point if i can't find a way to make the game fit my vision of what a challenging combat looks like with a dragon or demon like a balor looks like, I doubt I'll continue playing. The vision in my mind is vitally important to my enjoyment of the game. For me that means dragons don't need no stinking tactics other than be a dragon to mess up parties and PCs should be running from balors and mariliths or at least fear to battle them regardless of the terrain or environment. The one thing I will give 5E is I can make this happen by rewriting the creatures in a fashion that allows them to accomplish my vision. And that's what I'll try to do at this point.

For those that want a heads up on some of the pitfalls of the game, I'll continue to offer my insight as to how to fix some of the problems and enhance monster challenges using methods other than the narrow 6 to 8 encounters a day, which should not be required to challenge a party.

 

[happyhermit]

LMoP - Cragmaw hideout -

1. Goblins outside hideout
2. Wolves
3. lone goblin on bridge
4. goblins on watch near dam
5. bugbear, goblins, wolf
6. goblin leader + other goblins

That's six.
...

I would also add that there is a significant trap inside the cave that can be used against the entire party. There are also two traps on the trail to get to the hideout. I have seen many parties fall for two of these, most get hit by one.

There is no safe place for a long rest near the hideout, obviously, and someone important to the party has just been kidnapped by goblins.

As you mentioned, the initial goblin ambush is very likely to lead directly to the hideout. A lot of players will be in a hurry to find the missing persons at this point and many of them attempt to do the whole thing before a long rest (which is brutally difficult).

So, yeah, the opening of the first adventure ever published for 5e follows the guideline perfectly

 

[Celtavian]

I have shown you that there are multiple encounters included in the adventure that are expected to be completed in the same adventuring day. Yes, some of them are not meant to be an intense challenge. Some are quite easy, others are very difficult. It varies. Also, how the players approach the challenges can have a big impact on how things play out.

You claim that the adventure was a cake walk for your players. There will be no "proof" that I can provide to change your view on that. My players found a few parts of the module to be very dangerous. I suppose that means in your eyes that they aren't "as good" as your players. I would draw a very different conclusion....but again, it will fall on deaf ears.

So instead, I'm settling for the fact that in HotDQ, the adventure does indeed follow the multiple encounter day guideline that the game is designed around. You can wail about how the encounters aren't all challenging and how your players stomped their way through it all...but stop saying the adventures don't take the multiple encounter day into consideration.

I'll keep on saying what I believe to be true. That the six to eight encounter day is not required and the modules aren't built with that requirement as you keep attempting to assert. Creating optional dungeons is not requiring the 6 to 8 encounter day you and others keep throwing out as some kind of holy grail fix to the game. It's a tired refrain that doesn't fix our issues with the game.

I don't care what your players do, I only care what mine do. I don't run your players. You don't run mine. As long as you're having fun, then you're doing it right. Right now, I'm not having fun. I'm finding ways to change that before I toss 5E aside like I did 4E.

I'll say it again. HotDQ did not follow the 6 to 8 encounter day scenario as in it was not required in the module. It was a standard module just as any module with a dungeon. If multiple encounters in a dungeon or outdoor setting is how you define the six to eight encounter day requirement, I guess they've been following that paradigm back to the very beginning of the game. But guess what, they didn't need to tell us and the game didn't come a cakewalk if we didn't run six to eight encounters a day. So why don't you quit trying to sell me on something that doesn't exist. Nowhere does it state in any of the modules that you have to run six to eight encounters and stop trying to make it seem like a dungeon is them making six to eight encounters required when you yourself are listing 10 plus encounters and way more than six to eight or way less with not a single area requiring we run exactly six to eight to make it challenging. Not a single one.

Why I don't pull out my Against the Giants Module, count all the encounters in the various dungeons, and then claim they were following the six to eight encounter paradigm...30 plus years ago.