Advice: A less hectic workday for my D&D characters

Oofta said:

Probably off topic a bit, but the last time someone tried to do a tiny hut in enemy territory, the hobgoblins found them. Being the smart military types, the patrol called for reinforcements. When the reinforcements arrived, they proceeded to bury the hut with the people inside. The first rank blocked the view with over-sized shields while the back rank started throwing brush and dried wood onto the hut. The plan was to wait for the wood and brush to collapse in and then set the whole thing on fire. They also started setting up traps and ambushes around the perimeter. I may have been inspired by a previous discussion on this topic.

Anyway, my point is that the hut is useful, but reasonable tactics by the enemy make it just as much of a trap as a safe place.

Click to expand...

I was going to say something along the same lines.

Relying rope trick and tiny hut to rest whenever you want makes it fairly easy to get yourself into a deadly ambush. Maybe there was a goblin hiding nearby who sees you scamper up the rope and runs off to find his friends. Tiny hut is even more noticeable (although, since PCs can attack through it, I would just have the enemy hide nearby unless they can cast dispel magic or can burrow under it). It certainly won't (or at least shouldn't) happen every time. It is reasonably smart play, and that ought to be rewarded more often than not IMO. But it's also low hanging fruit as smart play goes, so there's nothing wrong with making it the bad choice from time to time. Ideally, you find a safe place to rest and then use these spells to hedge your bet.

Personally though, I like the idea of offering an incentive, such as additional XP, for pushing on. Want to play it safe, no problem. You'll simply level significantly more slowly than a party that takes risks. In this way, the party can opt into their own level of risk vs reward.

jasper said:

Check the wandering monster encounters. I think 16 or better on a d20. No more that 3 times a day.

Click to expand...

Don't insult me by insinuating I don't know the module.

I asked you where it says these rules result in a cake walk.

(And again, you won't find it, because every time the jungle is brought up, it's described as a challenge where adventurers risk disease, defeat and death.)

Fanaelialae said:

Maybe there was a goblin hiding nearby who sees you scamper up the rope and runs off to find his friends.

Click to expand...

No there really isn't.

The skill bonus balance is emphatically tilted in the heroes favor.

Monsters have abominable skill bonuses. Even supposedly stealthy enemies are trounced by player characters of Wisdom primary classes with Perception proficiency.

And what group of experienced players doesn't make sure to have one of those in the party?

I'd say a passive perception of DC 17 is, in practical play, the lowest a monster is up against. And before using a spell like that, don't you think the party will actively scout the perimeter?

Your suggestion is eminently reasonable in many systems, but 5E is not one of them.

CapnZapp said:

No there really isn't.

The skill bonus balance is emphatically tilted in the heroes favor.

Monsters have abominable skill bonuses. Even supposedly stealthy enemies are trounced by player characters of Wisdom primary classes with Perception proficiency.

And what group of experienced players doesn't make sure to have one of those in the party?

I'd say a passive perception of DC 17 is, in practical play, the lowest a monster is up against. And before using a spell like that, don't you think the party will actively scout the perimeter?

Your suggestion is eminently reasonable in many systems, but 5E is not one of them.

Click to expand...

I disagree. Even with high passives, monsters can still roll well. And if the monster hadn't rolled that well, they would have detected him during the encounter.

My players don't typically scout the perimeter before using rope trick. You just had a noisy encounter and want to rest. Do you:

A) scout the perimeter, ensuring that no one is watching but giving anything that heard the noise time to arrive or,
B) use rope trick immediately to vacate the premises.

My players pretty much always choose B.

As for tiny hut, you're going to be scouting for a long time if you want to potentially locate anything that might stumble across you in the next 8 hours.

Finally, not every monster in your game needs to be a clone taken from the MM. That goblin might gave Stealth expertise and have something like a cloak of elvenkind (probably not an actual elf cloak though, unless the goblin wears it as a trophy). His CR might be above that of a standard goblin (increasing his proficiency bonus). Lastly, situational bonuses can be applied. The DM could grant the goblin advantage (or the PCs disadvantage) if the goblin found an excellent hiding spot.

Heck, skill bonuses are a great way to differentiate different tribes. The Shadow Foot tribe is known for being exceptionally sneaky, while the Red Hands live on raised platforms connected by narrow Bridges and are unusually acrobatic. It doesn't change their CR.

Harzel said:

Except that there is no evidence to suggest that, for instance, a 1st level barbarian being able to rage in 1/4 to 1/3 of encounters is the intended or preferred balance point.

Click to expand...

I once took over a game from a very generous DM (generous in the sense that boons and magic items were given out freely). The whole group was overpowered but the Barbarian in particular seemed ridiculously strong. To the point where in a deadly encounter where the monster focused mainly on the Barbarian, he had barely a scratch. I spent many weeks on this problem and realized that the magic weapons / armor / etc.. wasn't the problem: it was the Barbarian's rage power that was so overpowered. He had Aspect of the Bear so he effectively had double HP (on a 12 hit die Barbarian this is a big deal). Temp HP on him is effectively double and healing on him is effectively double.

At this point in the game, because the characters were so over-powered, the monsters were also supercharged, and the groups was going through about 3-4 encounters per day and the Barbarian basically had endless rage. I made a counter-intuitive tweak that was quite effective: I made the monsters easier. Because the encounters where easier they had more of them, had to consider their powers more carefully, and the Barbarian became less powerful. I could feel the tension in the group diminish as they realized not every encounter was a fight to the death, and there was an increase in roleplaying as well (players didn't feel like they were "wasting" their action on a role-playing event rather than killing a monster).

Definitely be mindful of the Barbarian's Rage power if running a day with a small number of encounters in it.

UngeheuerLich said:

A good solution for reducing encounters is having 2 or 3 smaller encounters in short succession with bigger rests between them. So you have 6 to 8 encounters with 2 short rests.
That won't work all the time but it is a quite natural pacing as sound of battle attracts reenforcements and if you prevent too much sound, enemies might notice the absence of guards at least once in a while so a short rest will be disturbed. This is why having 1h short rests is better than 5 or 10 minute rests.

Click to expand...

A good example of this is in the Lost Mine of Phandelver which I have recently been DMing for a new group. It is fairly typical that sounds of combat in one room draw the attention of monsters in the next room over. There is a good enough pacing that maybe it only draws monsters 20% of the time (the rest of the time there isn't monsters in the next room or the walls are thick enough) and it gives quite a rush to the players that "the fight isn't over yet" and they try not to overextend themselves in any given combat. It's also a little more realistic that monsters might overhear combat in the next room. There's typically a delay of a 1-3 rounds of combat before the monsters join in turning it into a string of encounters rather than a massive brawl. Our group likes the feel of it. It also rewards scouting (e.g. the next room over is clear so let's have at them) and role-playing (e.g. I'll lure these monsters out and into the next room).

CapnZapp said:

Your suggestion is eminently reasonable in many systems, but 5E is not one of them.

Click to expand...

In what systems is it reasonable for a party to be clandestinely observed by a cunning, stealthy little monster, with a large force of powerful friends on tap, anxious to set up an 8hr long ambush on his say-so, any time the party rests after one or a few encounters, but never when they rest, tapped out, after a grueling 8-encounter work day?

Oh, and in which of those systems where it is reasonable, is it also necessary to maintain a semblance of class & encounter balance?

Tony Vargas said:

In what systems is it reasonable for a party to be clandestinely observed by a cunning, stealthy little monster, with a large force of powerful friends on tap, anxious to set up an 8hr long ambush on his say-so, any time the party rests after one or a few encounters, but never when they rest, tapped out, after a grueling 8-encounter work day?

Oh, and in which of those systems where it is reasonable, is it also necessary to maintain a semblance of class & encounter balance?

Click to expand...

I don't think it's a matter of punishment. It's something could realistically happen once in a while if you rely on this tactic constantly.

You don't need to hold back on a party that is tapped out. Odds are they will get the rest either way. It's simply that upon finishing the rest they'll be ambushed.

But if you rest after every encounter this way (as opposed to after clearing the dungeon for example) you're increasing the likelihood that this will happen. It's natural cause and effect IMO. If say, the campaign would have 30 long rests according to standard assumptions, but the players choose to make it 180 rests because they rest after every fight, the odds are increased, particularly because they probably have not secured the immediate area.

Jonathon Robinson said:

At this point in the game, because the characters were so over-powered, the monsters were also supercharged, and the groups was going through about 3-4 encounters per day and the Barbarian basically had endless rage. I made a counter-intuitive tweak that was quite effective: I made the monsters easier. Because the encounters where easier they had more of them, had to consider their powers more carefully, and the Barbarian became less powerful. I could feel the tension in the group diminish as they realized not every encounter was a fight to the death, and there was an increase in roleplaying as well (players didn't feel like they were "wasting" their action on a role-playing event rather than killing a monster).

Click to expand...

Making the encounters easier most of the time actually did the trick for me too. If PCs know they can go a bit without rests, they start doing it. IF every fight is to the death, PCs should burn everything they have in the most damaging way... but that is not the game how it is designed to be played usually. There is some kind of resource management: How can I win the fight without wasting resources. Actually, it is once again a preference for combat as war instead of combat as sport where 4e leaned towards the latter. The best fight in 5e is the one you don´t start. The only thing not fitting into the system is xp for monster kills. XP for goals as standard would have made the intention more clear.

UngeheuerLich said:

Making the encounters easier most of the time actually did the trick for me too. If PCs know they can go a bit without rests, they start doing it. IF every fight is to the death, PCs should burn everything they have in the most damaging way... but that is not the game how it is designed to be played usually. There is some kind of resource management: How can I win the fight without wasting resources. Actually, it is once again a preference for combat as war instead of combat as sport where 4e leaned towards the latter. The best fight in 5e is the one you don´t start. The only thing not fitting into the system is xp for monster kills. XP for goals as standard would have made the intention more clear.

Click to expand...

4E actually has a rule for XP for quests and also encouraged the DM to give full XP for the party overcoming the encounter in a non-combat way. I've carried this over to my 5E campaigns as well.

If you haven't played 4E, essentially, if the party completes a quest then award them XP total to a single encounter where CR equals the average party level. In 4E a "minor quest" would be the equivalent 1/5 the XP of an encounter. I've begun to use full CR XP for a heroic act for my players because I don't care if they get a level or two ahead of the campaign I'm running. It won't break the game and I can always bump the difficulty of the final boss so he feels more epic.

I often encourage the players as well by giving them their XP breakdown at the end of a session: "You get 200 XP for sneaking past the goblin guards, 200 XP for defeating the zombies, and 300 XP for safely rescuing the villagers for a total of 700 XP"

The Mines of Phandelver has some more examples of this kind of thing. I wish I ran my first group on it as it has given me many ideas.