D&D 5E Idea to handle the "ghoul problem"
- Thread starter Stalker0
- Start date
Uller
Adventurer
I finally managed to listen to the actual game play that resulted in this discussion. A couple of things:
1) I don't think they were really in TPK range. At no time was the entire party paralyzed and even if they were, the ghouls seemed to be doing only a little damage at a time (it's not like the coup de grace of earlier editions where being paralyzed was nearly a death sentence). Clearly Mike M was taken aback a bit. His solution of having one of the two remaining ghouls try to carry away a paralyzed PC was a good one. If he had run the fight as originally written (8 ghouls and 2 ghasts) clearly it would have been a TPK the way the players' rolls were going. In fairness the party didn't play it all that well. Their only spell caster walked into the room first and they weren't using stealth at all. If the cleric had been 3rd, he'd not have been paralyzed and could have turned undead on his turn.
2) However, this is a pretty clear example of something I've been experiencing with my own game with a similar level party (4th). Fights with multiple lower level monsters are much tougher than expected. Two recent fights come to mind: 8 lizard men (2 with shield and greatclub and 2 with blowguns) and 2 crocodiles) and another with 6 giant spiders and one spell casting Aranea. Not a bad thing...just that what I would have expected to be a little tougher than an average fight (around 400xp each for four 4th level PCs) left the PCs with very few resources left after the fight - a lot fewer than I expected so I ended up changing things a bit to give the PCs a chance to have a long rest. So there probably needs to be an XP bonus associated with multiple monsters.
I'm not saying a fix isn't in order for ghouls. For a low level monster that usually appears in groups of 4 or more to be able to move and get three chances to paralyze every round is a bit much. But I don't think the fight was going to be a TPK...it shook the players and the DM up which is kinda what a small horde of ghouls should do to 5th level characters when they get the jump on them. I agree that some level bonus to saves (and DC) is in order...probably not half level but something like 1/3 or 1/4 level should do nicely. And no more than one save per series of ghoul attacks or allowing only claws to paralyze and bites can only be used against paralyzed foes or some such would be sufficient.
1) I don't think they were really in TPK range. At no time was the entire party paralyzed and even if they were, the ghouls seemed to be doing only a little damage at a time (it's not like the coup de grace of earlier editions where being paralyzed was nearly a death sentence). Clearly Mike M was taken aback a bit. His solution of having one of the two remaining ghouls try to carry away a paralyzed PC was a good one. If he had run the fight as originally written (8 ghouls and 2 ghasts) clearly it would have been a TPK the way the players' rolls were going. In fairness the party didn't play it all that well. Their only spell caster walked into the room first and they weren't using stealth at all. If the cleric had been 3rd, he'd not have been paralyzed and could have turned undead on his turn.
2) However, this is a pretty clear example of something I've been experiencing with my own game with a similar level party (4th). Fights with multiple lower level monsters are much tougher than expected. Two recent fights come to mind: 8 lizard men (2 with shield and greatclub and 2 with blowguns) and 2 crocodiles) and another with 6 giant spiders and one spell casting Aranea. Not a bad thing...just that what I would have expected to be a little tougher than an average fight (around 400xp each for four 4th level PCs) left the PCs with very few resources left after the fight - a lot fewer than I expected so I ended up changing things a bit to give the PCs a chance to have a long rest. So there probably needs to be an XP bonus associated with multiple monsters.
I'm not saying a fix isn't in order for ghouls. For a low level monster that usually appears in groups of 4 or more to be able to move and get three chances to paralyze every round is a bit much. But I don't think the fight was going to be a TPK...it shook the players and the DM up which is kinda what a small horde of ghouls should do to 5th level characters when they get the jump on them. I agree that some level bonus to saves (and DC) is in order...probably not half level but something like 1/3 or 1/4 level should do nicely. And no more than one save per series of ghoul attacks or allowing only claws to paralyze and bites can only be used against paralyzed foes or some such would be sufficient.
Klaus
First Post
Remember that if the monsters outnumber the PCs 2:1, the encounter difficulty is considered one higher, and if the monsters outnumber the PCs 3:1, the difficulty is two higher. So your 4 PCs vs. 8 lizardfolk and 2 crocs goes from Average to somewhere slightly above Hard, while the fight against 6 spiders and 1 aranea counts as a Hard fight.
keterys
First Post
The only Hard fight I've had in Next so far was when I threw a lich, 2 ettins, 2 cyclops, 2 flesh giants, 6 ogres, 8 orcs, 8 skeletons, and an orc chief against 4 9th level PCs.
PCs are crazy resilient, and monsters tend to be pretty easy. So I'd be okay seeing a little more monster toughness, accuracy, and damage output.
I'm okay with ghouls that don't paralyze on every attack, though.
PCs are crazy resilient, and monsters tend to be pretty easy. So I'd be okay seeing a little more monster toughness, accuracy, and damage output.
I'm okay with ghouls that don't paralyze on every attack, though.
Savage Wombat
Hero
Well, if D&D Next makes fighting groups that outnumber you more perilous, I consider that a serious plus. It has always been a bug of D&D that parties don't consider being outnumbered two or three to one any kind of problem.
keterys
First Post
Well, it's often easier to kill groups - tend to be much more vulnerable to spells, and if you have any kind of terrain control (ex: can fight at a chokepoint) it's may even be less dangerous.
It's not my experience that Next has made groups all that more dangerous. For example, my 4 guys slaughtered their way through scores of goblins and dozens of orcs in one combat without raising a sweat. Bounded accuracy does help make some things more relevant if they actually get to act. A little.
It's not my experience that Next has made groups all that more dangerous. For example, my 4 guys slaughtered their way through scores of goblins and dozens of orcs in one combat without raising a sweat. Bounded accuracy does help make some things more relevant if they actually get to act. A little.
JRRNeiklot
First Post
Nor should it be, but that's still a huge nerf from 1E when they were entitled that many attacks per segment of surprise. Ghouls are nasty. Working as intended.
...did I understand that correctly? Do you really consider yours the one and only legitimate playstyle?
JRRNeiklot
First Post
Not the only, but that playstyle - which was fine for 30 something years - has just as much right to be the default playstyle as yours. As an addon module, wimpy ghouls and any other padding of walls and dulling of blades is fine.
Warbringer
Explorer
At any level where saves don't scale
Similar Threads
