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

[Lord Twig]

I agree with all of that

We have a party with some characters optimized mechanically and some optimized non-mechanically, each to their creator's satisfaction. Then we put them together, each played in their own way by their advocates, and see what happens.

What happens is that, not only do the characters not co-operate well when the chips are down, but the players don't either. Without necessarily meaning to, we've tested the meta-game to destruction.

We've demonstrated the importance of choosing players to play with who think on similar lines to you. We knew that anyway, but here we have a case study of things going wrong if you don't.

So we have achieved something.

Well I agree with this 100%. The players definitely need to be on the same page or there is just chaos. A good DM can make that work, but for this test it defeats the purpose.

 

[ThirdWizard]

I thought they tried to prove the opposite, that optimized characters blow through medium-hard encounters without an effort. Does not look like that though and it needs good cooperation and smart use of resources to even live more than a few rounds.

I would actually say it's the opposite is true. A non-optimized group that uses superior tactics will out-perform an optimized group that uses sub-par tactics in my experience. I don't think it was ever the intention to say that character optimization was the only important thing.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Optimized usually means specialized for hypothetical scenarios than never come up if you play smart. A single pass without trace is often worth more than any damage an optimized character brings to the table. It does not hurt however to have aomeone that deals damage when you really need that.

 

[BoldItalic]

Well I agree with this 100%. The players definitely need to be on the same page or there is just chaos. A good DM can make that work, but for this test it defeats the purpose.

It's not so much that it defeats the object of the test, it's that it brings into question the validity of the test.

The DM Guidelines are presumably written for a normal game where there are a number of players plus a DM, who are all on more-or-less the same wavelength and co-operating reasonably but perhaps not perfectly (because real people don't co-operate perfectly, even when they try). This test was unrealistic, in the sense that (as originally devised) there was only a single player so there was going to be an artificially high degree of co-operation between characters - possibly sufficient to invalidate the guidelines. So even if the characters succeeding in overwhelming the monsters, we still wouldn't know if that was because of the way they were optimized, or because of the unnatural way they super-co-operated.

As it turned out, that didn't go forward anyway, but instead we got into the opposite situation where the players were barely co-operating at all. Unfortunately, we don't know how even the first encounter would have finished, and maybe now we'll never know.

But if we continued and it turned out that poorly-cooperating players with only partly-optimized characters could steamroller the guidelines anyway, that would definitely have told us something about the guidelines.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

 

[Radaceus]

It's not so much that it defeats the object of the test, it's that it brings into question the validity of the test.

The DM Guidelines are presumably written for a normal game where there are a number of players plus a DM, who are all on more-or-less the same wavelength and co-operating reasonably but perhaps not perfectly (because real people don't co-operate perfectly, even when they try). This test was unrealistic, in the sense that (as originally devised) there was only a single player so there was going to be an artificially high degree of co-operation between characters - possibly sufficient to invalidate the guidelines. So even if the characters succeeding in overwhelming the monsters, we still wouldn't know if that was because of the way they were optimized, or because of the unnatural way they super-co-operated.

As it turned out, that didn't go forward anyway, but instead we got into the opposite situation where the players were barely co-operating at all. Unfortunately, we don't know how even the first encounter would have finished, and maybe now we'll never know.

But if we continued and it turned out that poorly-cooperating players with only partly-optimized characters could steamroller the guidelines anyway, that would definitely have told us something about the guidelines.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing.

this is what I touched on before, about a core sample, and in that line, the litmus test would be better evaluated by having different types of players playing optimized characters.

It would be better triled by more than one player posting what they would do on a characters action, and then comparing results.

One can point at the problems and errors all day long, but with out comparative examples that finger-pointing lacks oomph.

Play the encounter out, and then analyze and chime in what someone else would have done on their actions.

------------------------------
by the by, poor sportsmanship in demanding others play as you do Celtavian. Why are the ones who do play as you deem appropriate not grouped and testing this?

 

[Celtavian]

I thought they tried to prove the opposite, that optimized characters blow through medium-hard encounters without an effort. Does not look like that though and it needs good cooperation and smart use of resources to even live more than a few rounds.

I should have spelled it out more clearly. There are an apparent minority that plays the game a certain way with groups that optimize and coordinate tactics. Myself, CapnZapp, and Zard play in groups that play this way to varying degrees.

As far as the definition of optimization, it may vary for various groups. For our group it is taking options on a character that allow them to excel in a particular focus that makes the group stronger. This includes individual and group optimization. For example, if one of our players makes a ranger archer, they will make the character capable of executing high probability strategies that work in a as many situations as possible. The base will be a Sharpshooter Archer with Archery style. From there they may choose spells like spike growth for terrain control of land-locked creatures and pass without trace for group stealth. He may take a few levels of fighter to gain action surge to truly unleash a torrent of arrows. Then the usual hunter's mark to boost damage. You have a very simple strategy for an optimized character that brings a lot of damage and some group utility. Then he executes his role in a coordinated fashion within the group structure. A lot of these optimization strategies are math and experience based. You learn which strategies work and don't work a high probability of the time during play. After a short time with a new game system, you have players with optimized characters operating in a coordinated fashion making life hard on the DM.

 

[hawkeyefan]

This thread has been pretty fascinating, even if not at all times in the way intended. I hope it resumes.

 

[meshon]

I should have spelled it out more clearly. There are an apparent minority that plays the game a certain way with groups that optimize and coordinate tactics. Myself, CapnZapp, and Zard play in groups that play this way to varying degrees.

I think this is a very good point, and consensus was probably unattainable from the beginning, simply because of widely varying play styles.

I did enjoy looking over your characters to see what was going on there, and what choices you'd made. Did you ever post a wizard spell list? It would be pretty cool to puzzle over the spell choices you've made.

 

[Lord Twig]

Every time I look at elven chain in this game, I sigh. 15 AC at level 13. I'm not used to it coming from 3rd edition. They really screwed over heavy armor users as far as AC goes. That's why I build for hit points, since it is the only real defense in 5E. Elven chain is at least better than studded leather, though it's basically like being unarmored against 13th level enemies.

I haven't had a gem of seeing in the group yet. I'll have to look that one up. Oh, very nice item. She does like that.

Just happened to notice this. Elven chain is a +1 chain shirt, so with her Dex her AC should be 16.

 

[Azurewraith]

I really should stop sleeping bad things happen. I can see [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]s issues about the test going down the pooper. This party and set of tactics has not fit the bill but oh well. Im sure he's going to run through it solo as am I, for science ofc.

I do admitt though our back ranks are open and does not look good. Being dropped into a ring of wolves didnt do us any favours.