D&D 5E Please help out some new GM's with a few questions

Sword of Spirit · Jul 22, 2019

There are a couple more things to consider.

Don’t have a monster waste their action Helping another monster with the same stats attack, unless they are doing it to negate disadvantage in certain situations. Otherwise it is *always* better for them both to attack, because that is basically advantage where both rolls can do damage. You use Help on an attack where the helped ally’s attack has a much greater damage potential than your own. I’m not sure if anyone actually fails to understand that point, but since it does get suggested without explanation now and again, I think it’s worth clarifying.

Also, while it is true that wizards are balanced knowing just the spells they get from leveling, it is also true that they are balanced knowing every spell on the wizard list (you know, just like clerics and druids). Don’t ever feel like you need to limit the number of spells they learn. That’s a great way to annoy a player for absolutely no reason. As opposed to magic items which can easily throw off balance, learning more wizard spells is just a great way to delight your wizard player without breaking anything.

MarkB · Jul 22, 2019

For what it's worth, Xanathar's Guide to Everything has guidelines for how many magic items to hand out as treasure according to character level. It also has guidelines for setting semi-random prices for purchasing magic items, in the Downtime section.

Mistwell · Jul 22, 2019

One easy method of addressing the wealth problem and the wizard spellbook issue you raise is as follows:

Find a well regarded adventure which would take the PCs to the point their starting your adventure at level 6. So for example you might grab Dragon Heist, which I believe brings PCs from level 1 to 5.

Now make a chart of all the treasure which could be found in that adventure.

Now reduce that amount, in gold pieces and in items, by about 25%. This represents the stuff they would have not found/gained, and the stuff they would have spent/used.

Now give the remaining 75% of the treasure which could be found in that adventure to the PCs to split.

This treasure will almost certainly include one or more captured wizard spellbooks, and some wizard-apprporiate scrolls.

Dausuul · Jul 22, 2019

Aside from the two free spells per level, the main way for wizards to expand their spellbooks is to copy from the spellbooks of other wizards. Often this is a willing trade: You get one of my spells that you don't know, I get one of your spells that I don't know, we both come out ahead (aside from the scribing costs). In other cases, it's... not so willing: I kill you, take your spellbook, and copy it into my own.

ElterAgo · Jul 24, 2019

Again thanks folks for all your advice.

Related to the total wealth. I was not aware that 5thEd was intended to be balanced without any magic items. Good to know. Based upon the various examples and lists, I think we might be slightly over 'average' on magic items. But I think we are more than just a bit under 'average' for cash equivalent wealth. I'm kinda ok with that, but I will see what the group thinks.

I don't think I want the wizard to have full access to everything from a guild. But maybe in the cities where they are heroically famous, he could talk someone into teaching him spells for say half the suggested price of making a scroll. Plus the scribing cost. The city they are just leaving, they did everything in secret, so no one actually knows about them. Harder to find someone to teach you there. Make sense?

The 'surrounded opponent' rules question came about from 2 things.
First: Using a written adventure, there were a couple of supposedly scary instances where the PC's are getting over run with skeletons and/or zombies. But it ended up not being at all challenging. Even with 3 or 4 on 1 PC, they almost never scored a hit. The write-up implied that undead gangs would 'make them more cautious.' However, it actually did the opposite since they seemed completely invincible.
Second: Party was fighting a high AC opponent paladin or cleric (I wasn't the DM for that one in AL). Almost never scoring hits, and he was healing faster than they were doing damage. It seemed silly that there were 4 characters around it, 2 more slinging spells into the fray, and almost no hits. It wasn't suspenseful, just annoying. Though I admit, none of us thought of aiding. Not sure how that would have changed it.
I agree advantage seems too much. Might give them a +1 or +2 to hit if they have the opponent surrounded.

I like some of the suggestions for a creature. Phoenix seems like it might end up eventually wrecking the city. I like the sphinx. Though that seems like it might want to take over. Might go with a griffin though. Maybe magically altered to be more powerful/useful.

Much to think on.

Harzel · Jul 24, 2019

Certainly fun comes first, but I have a slightly different perspective.

Sword of Spirit said:
Also, while it is true that wizards are balanced knowing just the spells they get from leveling, it is also true that they are balanced knowing every spell on the wizard list (you know, just like clerics and druids).

That depends on how finely tuned your sense of balance is. Versatility is a significant asset; having spells that cover more situations is plainly more powerful than having fewer. And the wizard spell list is much more expansive than either the cleric list or the druid list.

Don’t ever feel like you need to limit the number of spells they learn.

When you say 'limit' here, I assume you are not talking about enforcing an actual, hard numerical limit as an additional rule, since that's not something that anyone has proposed in the thread (and something that I would not particularly favor). I'm assuming that you instead mean the provision of in-game obstacles that make it nontrivial for the wizard PC to acquire spells beyond those they get 'for free'.

That’s a great way to annoy a player

Since there is always a great diversity of attitudes, I won't claim that the following is always true, but I posit that most instances of such annoyance arise from unmet expectations, that is from the player expecting and anticipating that their wizard is supposed to have access to all or most of the spells in the spell list. I mean, I've never heard, for instance, of a wizard player who was 'annoyed' that their wizard did not get all the features from all the wizard subclasses instead of just one. The RAW expectations around how many spells a wizard will know are a lot more vague, of course, but clarification up front in the form of a narrowing of those expectations ought to avoid, I would think, most instances of the annoyance.

But that brings us to this part, which is probably the more important point.

for absolutely no reason.

No, there's actually a very good reason. Limiting (even if the limit is somewhat plastic) the number of spells that a wizard knows provides a constraint. Constraints force choices. Choices are what makes the game interesting. In fact, they're what make the game a game. No constraints, no game. Of course it is rare for any particular constraint to be strictly necessary (and limiting a wizard's known spells certainly isn't), but I think it is best to ask whether you have a really, really good reason when you are contemplating whittling one away.

As opposed to magic items which can easily throw off balance, learning more wizard spells is just a great way to delight your wizard player without breaking anything.

The PCs are supposed to struggle with and against the constraints of their world; that is their lot. A wizard character ought to (or at least might reasonably) do their utmost to gain as many spells as they can. However, I don't think it does the game or the players any favors to encourage the player to drag the character's problems into the meta and try to solve them by modding the game.

Harzel · Jul 24, 2019

ElterAgo said:
Again thanks folks for all your advice.

Related to the total wealth. I was not aware that 5thEd was intended to be balanced without any magic items. Good to know. Based upon the various examples and lists, I think we might be slightly over 'average' on magic items. But I think we are more than just a bit under 'average' for cash equivalent wealth. I'm kinda ok with that, but I will see what the group thinks.

I don't think I want the wizard to have full access to everything from a guild. But maybe in the cities where they are heroically famous, he could talk someone into teaching him spells for say half the suggested price of making a scroll. Plus the scribing cost. The city they are just leaving, they did everything in secret, so no one actually knows about them. Harder to find someone to teach you there. Make sense?

Sure. FWIW, my vision of arcane casters has always been that they are, generally, reticent to share their (presumably hard-won) arcane knowledge. So at least in my worlds, copying from another's spell book would require considerable persuasion or a very good relationship. Even the potential for an even trade might be viewed with a little skepticism because that entails letting someone else know which spells you know and which you don't.

The 'surrounded opponent' rules question came about from 2 things.
First: Using a written adventure, there were a couple of supposedly scary instances where the PC's are getting over run with skeletons and/or zombies. But it ended up not being at all challenging. Even with 3 or 4 on 1 PC, they almost never scored a hit. The write-up implied that undead gangs would 'make them more cautious.' However, it actually did the opposite since they seemed completely invincible.

Well, stock zombies are +3 to hit and so were voted Least Likely to Score a Hit by their fellow monsters. And when they do hit, an average damage of 4 doesn't hurt that much if you are 5th level. Skellies aren't much better at +4 to hit and 5 average damage, and are likely to be one-shotted by a level 5 PC. So, yeah, it would take a lot of them to be very scary. OTOH, they should be hitting, for instance, AC 16 at least 1/3 of the time. So a) what do you mean by "almost never" (does 1/3 count as almost never?) and b) what are the PCs' AC values?

Second: Party was fighting a high AC opponent paladin or cleric (I wasn't the DM for that one in AL). Almost never scoring hits, and he was healing faster than they were doing damage. It seemed silly that there were 4 characters around it, 2 more slinging spells into the fray, and almost no hits. It wasn't suspenseful, just annoying. Though I admit, none of us thought of aiding. Not sure how that would have changed it.
I agree advantage seems too much. Might give them a +1 or +2 to hit if they have the opponent surrounded.

At level 5, I would think the PCs would be at least +7 to hit, possibly +9 with a +1 weapon. As to the opponent, worst case I would think would be plate, shield, and maybe +2 magical enhancement of some kind, although that seems a bit extreme at this level. Anyway, say AC 22. At +7, you'd hit 30% of the time, at +8, 35% and at +9, 40%. IDK, is that almost never? Maybe someone should cast Bless.[/QUOTE]

Quartz · Jul 24, 2019

ElterAgo said:
Related to the total wealth. I was not aware that 5thEd was intended to be balanced without any magic items.

Just beware that there are critters that have Resistance or outright immunity to damage from non-magical weapons so you need to be extra-careful in using them when PCs don't have magic weapons

iserith · Jul 24, 2019

ElterAgo said:
Again thanks folks for all your advice.

Related to the total wealth. I was not aware that 5thEd was intended to be balanced without any magic items. Good to know. Based upon the various examples and lists, I think we might be slightly over 'average' on magic items. But I think we are more than just a bit under 'average' for cash equivalent wealth. I'm kinda ok with that, but I will see what the group thinks.

I think the only "balance" you really need concern yourself with is spotlight balance, that is, how much time each player has to engage in meaningful play. If everyone is contributing in a positive way more or less equally, then you're good. If wealth or magic items are for some reason impacting this, that's when it needs reviewing.

If you're concerned about "balance" in terms of the power level of the PCs against the challenges you're presenting, remember that you have infinite dragons. Thus, the DM has no real reason to be concerned about the power level of the PCs relative to the challenges since difficulty is mutable.

A lot of newer DMs struggle with this distinction and in my view waste a lot of time and effort worrying about it.

ElterAgo said:
The 'surrounded opponent' rules question came about from 2 things.
First: Using a written adventure, there were a couple of supposedly scary instances where the PC's are getting over run with skeletons and/or zombies. But it ended up not being at all challenging. Even with 3 or 4 on 1 PC, they almost never scored a hit. The write-up implied that undead gangs would 'make them more cautious.' However, it actually did the opposite since they seemed completely invincible.
Second: Party was fighting a high AC opponent paladin or cleric (I wasn't the DM for that one in AL). Almost never scoring hits, and he was healing faster than they were doing damage. It seemed silly that there were 4 characters around it, 2 more slinging spells into the fray, and almost no hits. It wasn't suspenseful, just annoying. Though I admit, none of us thought of aiding. Not sure how that would have changed it.
I agree advantage seems too much. Might give them a +1 or +2 to hit if they have the opponent surrounded.

Consider using the mob rules in the DMG (page 250). Also, as DM you are free to add a trait to any monsters you want that include something to the effect of getting advantage when they surround or otherwise overrun enemies. No need to change the rules across the board.

As for the high-AC opponent, it sounds like your party has not learned to grapple and knock prone yet.

ElterAgo · Jul 26, 2019

Harzel said:
...
Well, stock zombies are +3 to hit and so were voted Least Likely to Score a Hit by their fellow monsters. And when they do hit, an average damage of 4 doesn't hurt that much if you are 5th level. Skellies aren't much better at +4 to hit and 5 average damage, and are likely to be one-shotted by a level 5 PC. So, yeah, it would take a lot of them to be very scary. OTOH, they should be hitting, for instance, AC 16 at least 1/3 of the time. So a) what do you mean by "almost never" (does 1/3 count as almost never?) and b) what are the PCs' AC values?...

Trying to think back, I think the PC's were 4th level then. I don't know, maybe it was bad writing. But the module seemed to think that the mob of attackers would be a 'significant' threat to make the party more cautious.

Harzel said:
...
At level 5, I would think the PCs would be at least +7 to hit, possibly +9 with a +1 weapon. As to the opponent, worst case I would think would be plate, shield, and maybe +2 magical enhancement of some kind, although that seems a bit extreme at this level. Anyway, say AC 22. At +7, you'd hit 30% of the time, at +8, 35% and at +9, 40%. IDK, is that almost never? Maybe someone should cast Bless.

That wasn't this group. That was in AL play. They were only 3rd level and the opponent was in plate with a shield. Don't know if he also had a defensive spell up.