D&D 5E Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day

[Celtavian]

This is a discussion started in another thread discussing 5E at 11th level. A few of us want to see how a high level group (13th) will do using the 5E rules for encounter design including the 6 to 8 encounter day. Flamestrike and Iserith will do some encounter design as their assertion is 5E high level encounter design works if you design the encounters properly. I'll design the PCs, maybe CapnZapp and Zaardnaar can toss in some input because we believe high level optimized groups can in general steamroll the game if the DM doesn't modify the game outside the rules such as using way higher than Deadly xp calculations or designing monsters far in excess of the parameters in the DMG (this is more what I do).

Discussion occurring in this thread: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?479866-Design-Debate-13th-level-PCs-vs-6-to-8-Encounter-Adventuring-Day

Please feel free to join in the lively debate.

 

[iserith]

I'll take backseat to @Flamestrike since he or she had dibs.

Edit: Just to clarify, what is the goal here? In other words, how will anyone be convinced that the encounter design "works?"

 

[Celtavian]

I'll take backseat to @Flamestrike since he or she had dibs.

Edit: Just to clarify, what is the goal here? In other words, how will anyone be convinced that the encounter design "works?"

Hmm. Good thinking. We all seem to have different expectations from the game. I was thinking mostly sticking with the 5E rules and encounter building since the argument appears to be that 5E breaks down if you use the encounter design rules at high level. Flamestrike believes the encounter design rules are fine if you stick with the 6-8 encounters per day design principle with about two short rests to ensure classes like the warlock and fighter get the required bang for the buck from their short rest features.

I'm ok if every combat lasts about 3 or 4 rounds because that seems to be 5E as intended. The main thing is the players must feel a sense of possible death during the course of the adventuring day and must feel as though the events occur at a natural pace with the flow of the story.

 

[iserith]

Hmm. Good thinking. We all seem to have different expectations from the game. I was thinking mostly sticking with the 5E rules and encounter building since the argument appears to be that 5E breaks down if you use the encounter design rules. Flamestrike[/I] believes the encounter design rules are fine if you stick with the 6-8 encounters per day design principle with about two short rests to ensure classes like the warlock and fighter get the required bang for the buck from their short rest features.

Okay. What is the sign that the encounter building guidelines have worked though? Dead PCs? Resources drained to a certain amount?

 

[Celtavian]

Okay. What is the sign that the encounter building guidelines have worked though? Dead PCs? Resources drained to a certain amount?

For myself? That's an interesting question. I would say near dead PCs. For me the goal is to make the PCs feel as though they might die, but not actually kill them unless it's some end game scenario where a glorious death would fit. This is fantasy action, not Seven Samurai gritty, realistic heroism. I always consider my goal the "brink of death" for at least a few PCs in an adventuring day involving seriously heroic battles. I feel I've failed as a DM if I kill PCs in a meaningless manner unless unlucky dice rolls kill them (which we've likely all had happen). I'm very much a DM that wants my PCs to feel like heroes facing great challenges that they ultimately overcome.

What would too easy be? Steamrolling most of the encounters.

For this thought exercise, we need to stick mostly with Monster Manual monsters since it is those monsters we are complaining about as being too weak. An encounter with a designed monster using the DMG parameters would be ok, but 5 to 7 of the encounters must be Monster Manual monsters or very slight derivatives. When myself or the CapnZapp[/b] are talking, we're generally referring to encounters are written in modules or monsters pulled from the Monster Manual.

Maps must be clear, so players can take advantage of terrain. My PCs are very focused on ensuring those that should be out of danger are out of danger. Controlling the flow of enemies is job 1.

 

[iserith]

For myself? That's an interesting question. I would say near dead PCs. For me the goal is to make the PCs feel as though they might die, but not actually kill them unless it's some end game scenario where a glorious death would fit. This is fantasy action, not Seven Samurai gritty, realistic heroism. I always consider my goal the "brink of death" for at least a few PCs in an adventuring day involving seriously heroic battles. I feel I've failed as a DM if I kill PCs in a meaningless manner unless unlucky dice rolls kill them (which we've likely all had happen). I'm very much a DM that wants my PCs to feel like heroes facing great challenges that they ultimately overcome.

What would too easy be? Steamrolling most of the encounters.

For this thought exercise, we need to stick mostly with Monster Manual monsters since it is those monsters we are complaining about as being too weak. An encounter with a designed monster using the DMG parameters would be ok, but 5 to 7 of the encounters must be Monster Manual monsters or very slight derivatives. When myself or the CapnZapp[/b] are talking, we're generally referring to encounters are written in modules or monsters pulled from the Monster Manual.

Maps must be clear, so players can take advantage of terrain. My PCs are very focused on ensuring those that should be out of danger are out of danger. Controlling the flow of enemies is job 1.

Okay. I'm too busy (read: lazy) to make my own monsters anyway, so I use only Monster Manual offerings. We run things a little differently though - I got no issue offing PCs and have no feeling one way or another that an outcome must be a certain way except that it must be fun for everyone and an exciting, memorable story must be created during play. The party in last Saturday's game TPK'ed and we still had a blast.

Anyway, I'll wait for [MENTION=6788736]Flamestrike[/MENTION] before chiming in further.

 

[Ganymede81]

I think I'm looking at the following party:
1. Half-elf Lore Bard 10/Warlock Fiend Pact 3: A little offense and some great support. This may be the scout as well.

2. Half-elf Paladin (Oath of Vengeance): Every optimized party has to have a paladin. Protection Aura is the most powerful ability in the game.

3. Wood Elf or High Elf Fighter (Eldritch Knight or Ranger (Hunter) Archer: Some type of ranged assault class with Sharpshooter is necessary for any optimized group.

4. Hill Dwarf Cleric of Life: Let's go with a heavy duty healer.

5. Forest Gnome Wizard (Evoker): Not optimal, but sometimes you want to have some fun. I played this little guy up to 15th level. I get a chuckle out of a tiny gnome with a lot of power. Nothing is quite as a funny as a 3 foot tall seemingly ineffectual gnome that does scary powerful magic. The look on the faces of orcs and giants when the tiny one kills them amuses me.

Why are you muddying the calculations by adding more variables? Feats and multiclassing are optional rules that will make meaningful results more difficult to achieve.

 

[Flamestrike]

For myself? That's an interesting question. I would say near dead PCs. For me the goal is to make the PCs feel as though they might die, but not actually kill them unless it's some end game scenario where a glorious death would fit. This is fantasy action, not Seven Samurai gritty, realistic heroism. I always consider my goal the "brink of death" for at least a few PCs in an adventuring day involving seriously heroic battles. I feel I've failed as a DM if I kill PCs in a meaningless manner unless unlucky dice rolls kill them (which we've likely all had happen). I'm very much a DM that wants my PCs to feel like heroes facing great challenges that they ultimately overcome.

What would too easy be? Steamrolling most of the encounters.

For this thought exercise, we need to stick mostly with Monster Manual monsters since it is those monsters we are complaining about as being too weak. An encounter with a designed monster using the DMG parameters would be ok, but 5 to 7 of the encounters must be Monster Manual monsters or very slight derivatives. When myself or the CapnZapp[/b] are talking, we're generally referring to encounters are written in modules or monsters pulled from the Monster Manual.

Maps must be clear, so players can take advantage of terrain. My PCs are very focused on ensuring those that should be out of danger are out of danger. Controlling the flow of enemies is job 1.

A TPK should be possible as a very outside possibility. Generally, after 6-8 encounters/ 2 short rests, you should be pulling into your next long rest with all resources expended or nearly so.

If we can review the adventure post mortem in the event of a TPK or steamrolling that would be pretty cool too (to see what went wrong, and if it was maybe bad tactics or crappy luck).

For the record I have a rather intresting adventure idea. Its unconventional and just came to me in the shower.

When doing characters can I get a snippet of bonds, flaws, ideals and background so I can place an appropriate hook/s and work in stuff for the characters that is beyond raw combat?

 

[Celtavian]

Why are you muddying the calculations by adding more variables? Feats and multiclassing are optional rules that will make meaningful results more difficult to achieve.

Because Flamestrike indicated those options were allowed and my players use them. This exercise is not only to test the encounter building rules, but also indicate why some of us like Zard, CapnZapp, and myself have a very different game experience than some others. We have players that min-max and design around group power and not just individual play. We're not playing pick up games with new players every week. We're playing with highly experienced players that peruse the rules with the intent of creating powerful min-maxed character concepts aimed at combat domination. We're saying the game isn't designed for that and it takes a lot of extra work to make it work with parties of this kind. At least that is where I'm coming from in this discussion and why I end up learning about nearly every overpowered combination in the game.

 

[Flamestrike]

Why are you muddying the calculations by adding more variables? Feats and multiclassing are optional rules that will make meaningful results more difficult to achieve.

My campaign and adventure, my rules. Feats, splat books (no UA) and MCing is allowed, and each PC gets one very rare and one uncommon magic item.

I dare say most tables are using those options from the books.

Its a test of the upper limits of mid - high level play. I was sketchy on allowing one very rare magic item each. Seeing as the items can be cherry picked, I propose 1 rare item and 1 uncommon instead.