D&D 5E High level and trivial encounters

5ekyu

Hero
Point is, the module offers none of these things. You just meet a dozen goblin in the jungle, and lose half an hour's worth of playing time.
The module usht running the game, the GM is. The module foesnt know who the PCs are, the GM foes. The module doesnt know what the players at that table enjoy, the GM does. Heck, the module rarely runs the NPCs, the GM does.

So, if all the GM does is "lose a half hour" that's his choice, not the modules.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Oofta

Legend
Or, you could just skip the encounter and have to do none of those things...?

It's not as if you're about to run out of content while exploring Chult...

Which is why I sometimes just narrate the trivial encounters. If I've described the area the PCs are travelling in as goblin infested, I'll narrate some minor skirmishes with goblins for example. "The goblins attack a few times, seeming to test how strong you are. You repel their attacks easily and they seem to give up."

I don't really ever use random encounters during the game. If I want some "filler" or "tone" encounters I may roll for random encounters ahead of time but then think about whether it adds anything to the story.

So yes, sometimes I'll just skip them other times I'll spend a minute or so on narration. Depends on the group, the story arc and tone of the campaign.
 

5ekyu

Hero
Funny that. I consider it good DMing to *avoid* resource drains and time sinks... When there's zero challenge, there's no fun. When there's no fun, what's the point in even playing?
Oddly, I consider it good GMing, well really moderately competent GMing, to make encounters and events entertaining or interesting enough to be "worth the time" and engaging and fun, even if not technically "challenging" in any combat sense. Even a low challenge encounter csn be very important and fun, if desired.
 

Doug McCrae

Legend
For some reason I've never enjoyed the strategic resource management aspect of D&D though I've enjoyed it in D&D-like videogames such as Slay the Spire, Darkest Dungeon, and Troika Games' Temple of Elemental Evil. Possibly because the computer's doing the counting and possibly because so much of D&D is already sitting around waiting for another player's turn to finish. We're better off emphasising what rpgs do well - character interaction.
 

A skilled DM should keep a list of the sort of things in the edition that are level invariant. For example, in many editions a splash weapons like burning oil bypass armor to a large extent so a low level creature with a vial of flaming oil can still drain resources.
It's not usually too hard for a low-level creature to inflict some damage on a high-level PC. The big problem is that PCs regenerate so quickly that mere HP damage isn't actually a drain on resources.

If you take a little incidental damage along the course of the day, then you can spend some Hit Dice to heal that during your next short rest, which you were going to take anyway in order for the warlock to get their spells back. If you make it to the end of the day without going through half of your Hit Dice, then congrats, that "level invariant" damage was meaningless (aside from increased bookkeeping). Or even if you don't take a short rest, if you make it to the end of the day without dying, then all of that damage is wiped away as though it never happened.

As to the OP, I think it would work better to scale damage rather than the attack bonus. Six goblins that each hit for 10 rather than 5 are going to be scarier than six goblins with +5 to hit.
 

Fenris-77

Small God of the Dozens
Supporter
Funny that. I consider it good DMing to *avoid* resource drains and time sinks... When there's zero challenge, there's no fun. When there's no fun, what's the point in even playing?
What's even better is to avoid parties taking an immense amount of time to search every 10 foot section of room and corridor for secret doors and traps, or the host of other things that bog down a streamlined narrative when there are no consequences for wasting time. The whole point is that the party knows how the mechanic works and they actively try to avoid random encounters. It works well. Building pressure and tension using passing time is mostly a very effective tool in a DMs toolbox, although exactly how that tool gets used varies from DM to DM.
 

Celebrim

Legend
If you take a little incidental damage along the course of the day, then you can spend some Hit Dice to heal that during your next short rest, which you were going to take anyway in order for the warlock to get their spells back. If you make it to the end of the day without going through half of your Hit Dice, then congrats, that "level invariant" damage was meaningless (aside from increased bookkeeping). Or even if you don't take a short rest, if you make it to the end of the day without dying, then all of that damage is wiped away as though it never happened.

This is a problem that goes well beyond the scope of challenging 9th level parties with goblins.

You are describing one of a half-dozen reasons I feel no compulsion to try to port the game I'm very happy with from my 3.0e based house rules to 5e despite the admiration I have for certain aspects of its design and the tight coupling I'm seeing between what the goals of the design team were and what they achieved.

But, I do question the value of even doing a wilderness crawl in a system that bakes into it so many assumptions about the intensity and purpose of the adventuring day, because the same general complaint could be made against anything of lower CR than the party, and not just goblins, or indeed against any encounter not of greatly higher level than the party when that encounter is the only encounter expected in the day. Then again, I thought that ToA had established some special rules for the purpose of actually making attrition something that could happen.
 


Oofta

Legend
This is a problem that goes well beyond the scope of challenging 9th level parties with goblins.

You are describing one of a half-dozen reasons I feel no compulsion to try to port the game I'm very happy with from my 3.0e based house rules to 5e despite the admiration I have for certain aspects of its design and the tight coupling I'm seeing between what the goals of the design team were and what they achieved.

But, I do question the value of even doing a wilderness crawl in a system that bakes into it so many assumptions about the intensity and purpose of the adventuring day, because the same general complaint could be made against anything of lower CR than the party, and not just goblins, or indeed against any encounter not of greatly higher level than the party when that encounter is the only encounter expected in the day. Then again, I thought that ToA had established some special rules for the purpose of actually making attrition something that could happen.

The long rest issue is easily resolved by any number of ways. There is no safe spot in the wilderness, so you can get a short rest but not a long. Use the alternate rule where a short rest is overnight and a long rest is a week and (again) must be someplace relatively safe. Have the party stumble across something dangerous they weren't expecting. Limit long rests by DM fiat and player agreement; use a system where you have to have n number of encounters before you can benefit from a long rest. I'm sure others have come up with other reasons.

Personally I just use the alternate rule and limit safe havens while having some kind of time pressure.

Which is not to say you should switch, I don't care if you and your group don't. Just that there are a lot of solutions to the perceived problem.

[EDIT] Or of course, just don't do wilderness travel random encounters after a certain point. It doesn't have to be an integral part of the game.
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top