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

[Celtavian]

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

LMoP was the best module I've played they've produced. That was a good, fun, challenging module. It was low level. Our complaints aren't about low level. Low level is easy to challenge, always has been in any edition.

 

[happyhermit]

LMoP was the best module I've played they've produced. That was a good, fun, challenging module. It was low level. Our complaints aren't about low level. Low level is easy to challenge, always has been in any edition.

I have to agree it was probably the best, CoS and SKT have a lot going for them but I doubt I will ever see another adventure get as much play any time soon.

I was simply adding to the post that demonstrated that there have been adventures that followed the guideline from the beginning. Yes it followed the guideline as intended. It gives both the party and the GM some wiggle room (first encounter has an out) but sets up a situation where there are many encounters that need to get resolved one way or another and long-resting is not practical. It isn't about locking the PCs in a white room or putting them solely on the defensive, it is about situations and motivations that make for an interesting adventure. It also isn't about having every adventure like this, just establishing the possibility is largely enough.

I agree that high level play is more difficult for the GM to make challenging, but that's all most of us think it is "challenging". Sometimes these days I just don't want that challenge, especially magic items and "utility" spells (I hate divination type stuff) but when I do it isn't an issue. Some encounters will be cake-walks, by accident or design, but creating challenging combats is simply an issue of strategy and to a lessor degree tactics. The OP though, seems to not actually want the challenge of using reasonable strategy against even an optimised party, and wants to ignore the "guidelines" provided and yet somehow have an "appropriately" challenging encounter just happen. Well, it ain't gonna just happen, because if it did then those of us who wanted to play with some strategy would either mop the floor given the same pieces or (as in some other systems) not have the tools to play with reasonable strategy. The portion of GMs that really want to play high level but don't want to think about strategy/synergy/tactics is just too low compared to the impact it would have, IMHO.

 

[Flamestrike]

Yes. It has been ignored. Not a single module made it so you had to do 6-8 encounters a day. Not one. The only module that came close up to Out of the Abyss was the Princes of the Apocalypse module. Those encounters were built weak and did not require 6 to 8 encounters a day at all. You could do a couple at a time or more than six to eight. The encounters were so weak that my group ripped entire complexes apart doing far more than 6 to 8 a day. This was using the base rules without any additional magic beyond what was in the module for character building.

I agree they dont force the 6-8 on you in the AP's; they leave it up to the DM to police having regards to his own group.

Personally I would hate it if they did push 6-8 on you all the time. That would get stale fast. You want some days to only have the one encounter (deadly+) and some to feature more than 6-8 encounters. You want some days to feature more than 2-3 short rests, and some days to feature less.

For mine, its better that this decision is made by the DM, having regards to his players and the situation, rather than being artifically enforced and pushed on every group for every encounter.

I mean the adventures are all wide open sandboxes, with 'zoomed in' dungeon areas with a bunch of encounters all grouped together. You basically wander from one bunched up encounter area to another, possibly getting a random encounter every few days.

So no, the requirement as so many of you are pushing of six to eight encounters a day is not in any of the modules, not one.

Dude, the very first module (ToD) features the PCs stumbling into a siege, and having 6-8 encounters with enough time for 2 short rests. A bunch of kobolds, a guard drake, a dragon attack, a raid outside the walls, capturing a cultist, a burning building, and the fight with the half dragon.

OoTA features the PCs captured by Drow and escaping, with no time to long rest and being chased by the dark elves.

One of the few people I've seen design a 6-8 encounter scenario worth a damn was Flamestrike.

Thanks brother.

Its easy to do with a single quest/ adventure. If you're running an episodic campaign, with one adventure following another (with downtime in the middle) its easy to do.

With sandboxes it becomes a little more complex. Of course, if your sandbox is basically a hex map with a series of adventures that dont get triggered till the PCs enter the hex its easier (the clock starts ticking once they explore the hex and trigger the quest). Within that paradigm you can have other clocks ticking (the bandits at hex B5 relocate after X days, the Orcs at Hex C19 attack the town 3 hexes away on X, the necromancers army at Hex A4 grows by X undead per day) and so forth.

Its amazing how your game world comes alive when you apply these kinds of time constraints on your party. Adventures become thrilling races against the clock, and gain a whole new dimension.

I mean my biggest problem with the 5 minute AD isnt the nova strike balance issues with it; its just that an adventure where you're not racing against the clock, or there are no time constraints is totally boring and ruins my immersion.

In real life and in all fiction, the heroes dont have all the time in the world to do whatever they are doing. They gotta save the princess, kill the necromancer, recover/ destroy/ locate/ deliver the macguffin, defuse the bomb, blow up the Death Star, rescue their daughter, reach the castle, stop the ritual by time X or else bad thing Y happens.

Dont overuse time constraints, but use them. Your campaign will be enriched greatly if you do.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

There are two parts of the conversation, I think, so I'll try and separate them.

The 6-8 encounter point. It's a stated expectation of how the game is designed. I think it's a guideline. I personally rarely actually follow this guideline. I think my adventuring days tend to consist of 2-4 encounters, generally. I find other ways to challenge my group in addition to multiple encounters.

However, that doesn't mean that the published adventures don't have that in mind. Both LMoP and HotDQ are designed with multiple encounters a day. That's very clear...the books are written that way. And while I don't think the adventure specifically states "make sure you have 6-8 encounters in a day" it does things like place the PCs in a remote area with multiple enemy locations nearby for them to deal with, and the idea of a short rest is risky if not impossible, and a long rest is out of the question. The circumstances of the adventure enforce the multiple encounter day.

Again...it's a guideline. I don't think that it must be adhered to at all times. But you claimed that the designers don't follow their own guidelines, so I showed how they clearly have.

Now...the second part of the conversation is about how the guideline doesn't work for you and your group. That's understandable. As I said above, I don't often reach the full 6-8 encounter mark, but I do tend to have multiple encounters in a day. I stay in that habit so that even when there is only one combat, my players know that another is possible. Just that possibility is enough from keeping them from going full nova unless they've no option.

In addition to multiple encounters, I make use of the following techniques:
- I liberally use underling type monsters and a variety of monster types (ranged, casters, brutes, etc.)
- I pay attention to positioning and terrain (just basic terrain, not hazards like lava pits)
- I play the monsters and villains as if they are thinking creatures with goals that don't include being killed by the PCs
- I do my best to utilize the monsters and villains to their full effect
- I create possible encounters where the PCs simply will not win, so this way they have to learn to seek alternative solutions to fighting, and they're also less likely to view all encounters from the meta-standpoint of "the DM wouldn't give us an unwinnable encounter"
- I alter monsters to create boss type characters or greater threats- this usually consists of legendary actions and resistance and maybe some class abilities

There are other methods that I'm sure I am overlooking, but those are the big ones that I can think of. Now, I don't know if any of these things would work for you or not, and I'm sure that you've heard them all before, but my point is that I've made the game work for me...and of the things I listed above, 5 of the 6 have nothing to do with game mechanics.

You say things like "allow a couple of feats and the game breaks" but your descriptions are not that your PCs have a couple of feats; it's that your PCs each have multiple feats and many multi-class. You have to adjust for that. How you do so is up to you...I do the above, maybe something else will work for you....but you can't do nothing and then blame the game design.

 

[Flamestrike]

They have dropped the ball in high level design in every edition.

I agree high level games fall apart, but that's due to issues with DMing (it is harder to DM higher level parties though so its excusable).

It happens thus:

PCs reach level X and (with expanded abilities and more options) steamroll a DM adventure in a way he didnt expect (due to not seeing these abilities before). The DM grumbles the system is broken, and the campaign ends (meaning the DM has no experience DMing a high level party, thus meaning the next game also breaks at the same level). Rinse and repeat.

Things like 'scry and fry' are classic examples. We've all seen a DM on the back foot when confronted with a high level party doing things he didnt expect when writing the adventure (teleport to the top of the tower, disintegrate the base of it, flood the dungeon etc). Sudden unbreakable walls, or anti-magic areas, or immunities to PC abilities start getting tossed out. This is the point where most campaigns... end.

Low level parties are easier to counter, have less options, and are easier to get back on track.

DMing high level parties is different from low and mid level parties. And you're going to get caught out from time to time when the transition happens. Simple dungeon adventures arent plausable any more. PCs get missions that (if they fail) doom whole kingdoms, require travel to other planes of reality, fights against armies, riddles and audiences with Gods and so forth.

Its not that the system cant handle high level parties; its invariably that the DM cant handle them (due largely to inexperience). You need experience with high level parties to understand these issues, and if you're constantly scrapping your campaign just as the PCs make the transition to high levels, you're never gonna get there.

 

[Helldritch]

Flamestrike is right.

High level play is hard to master. To some DM, it will take years to master if ever.

But the more you get away from the basics, the more the games gets wonky at high level. It has been in any edition of D&D and in all games that I know of. But it can be overcome with the tools that Flamestrike mentionned earlier. Does it take more work from the DM's part? Yep. It does. But once you get it, it becomes less and less harduous and much more easier to accomplish.

 

[Sacrosanct]

It should also be noted that by the time players reach high level play, they will have experience playing the game. High level PCs are not something that is expected with brand new players. Therefore, if you're playing high levels and are assumed to have a greater familiarity with the rules than someone brand new to the game, you are expected to manage and prepare those encounters. By their vary nature, high level gaming is a lot more complex because it has a lot more options available. Expecting a game to provide high level play as simple as low level play is unrealistic. Video games are the same way. You don't start a game with all the bells and whistles, because that would be overwhelming to someone who just started playing it. New button combos, etc are all introduced at a point where by the time you get them, you have the basics down already. RPGs are no different.

The bottom line is this: If you want to play high level play as a DM but don't want to put in the time or effort to prepare and manage those encounters, then that's all on you. You are given way more tools to play with at high level, and if you don't want to use them but want everything spelled out for you, then you will be disappointed. Don't blame the game for that though, because it's the result of lazy DMing, not bad game design. Being a good and effective DM takes work, just like anything else you do in life.

 

[Tony Vargas]

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

It's not a requirement, it's just a guideline. If you want to challenge your party with the attrition model and incidentally sorta resource-balance the classes, you could try following the guideline. There's no requirement you do so. There's clearly no requirement module* designers do so, either.

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.

Prettymuch, yes. Resource-management and attrition have always been a thing. So has the 5MWD.






*

 

[Flamestrike]

Prettymuch, yes. Resource-management and attrition have always been a thing. So has the 5MWD.






*

Exactly this. D and D is, and always has been at its heart, a resource management game. Hit points, spell slots, potions, wands, scrolls, daileys, encounters, GP, XP etc.

The five-minute workday only exists because players cotton onto this. It's the DM's job to manage this.

No adventure I've ever played in expected the PCs to nuke one room, then fall back and sleep overnight, before nuking the next etc. Resting is best when there a tactical decision. Back in the day we would set up detailed watch rosters, maps of our campsite, and debate for some time whether we should risk pushing on or not, and the negative consequences of resting (The BBEG will get away or reinforce his monsters). Quite often we would push deeper into the dungeon, low on hit points and spells, in order to stop the bad guys getting away or to avoid some other negative consequence.

I mean if the five-minute workday and rocket tag in a static and unresponsive game world with no time constraints is a play style that you want, go for it, but it's not my cup of tea.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Exactly this. D and D is, and always has been at its heart, a resource management game. Hit points, spell slots, potions, wands, scrolls, daileys, encounters, GP, XP etc.

Resource management was always part of it, but it's not like it was a One-and-Only True Way, either.

D&D was also always, at its heart, a wargame. Or a treasure-hunting game. Or an RPG. Or a Satanist Plot.
Depending on who you talk to & when.

Because the elements of each were there (even the Satanist plot - there were, like, pentagrams and demon's names in the 1e DMG), it was just a matter of what they latched onto.

The five-minute workday only exists because players cotton onto this. It's the DM's job to manage this.

The 5MWD exists because the system rewards it. Players can try to take full advantage of it or exercise restraint for a variety of reasons, and DMs can try to block or compensate for it. If it were a wholly encounter-based system, for instance, there'd be no impetus towards the 5MWD (it could still happen, but it wouldn't make a difference).