D&D 5E If the characters are super optimized should the monsters be boosted too?

I would add things in a consistent manner. All my monsters usually have:

- 2 saves minimum, usually determined by monster type or highest stats
- AC bonus equal to half its proficiency bonus. This could go up to +3, just like magical item bonuses
- One feat, or a custom ability about as powerful as a feat, to counteract player feats and keep MM readers on their toes

Also, for flavor in my homebrew I give critters these immunities and resistances:
Aberrations
Condition Immunity frightened
Damage Immunity psychic

Dragons
Condition Immunity frightened, stunned

Fey
Condition Immunity charmed

Undead
Condition Immunity charmed, exhaustion, frightened, paralyzed, poisoned
Damage Immunity necrotic, poisoned, psychic

No TPK yet, but also the players have not become unstoppable killing machines, even in a 13th level evil PC game.

I reallly like these options. They add additional challenge while making sense. And it certainly won't OP the monsters. As a DM, it can be quite difficult running a game against min/maxers. You just won't change people's playstyle so the solution will always have to be on the other side of the GM screen.

For example: our group is wrapping up a 4e adventure that took us from level 1 to level 12. Most of the players are min/maxing so the DM has had to challenge us the whole way through. We just got to the final boss of the adventure and it was supposed to be insanely difficult but our group handled it fairly well. The DM had to add poison auras to the enemies henchmen, a magical dais that held a crystal that was attuned to the lich's life and gave the enemy damage reduction, increased defenses, additional HP, and the ability to teleport at will. (Not trying to start a new debate about 4e mechanics or base encounter difficulties here)

Seems OP, right? Not in an 6 square radius room. Not when the wizard casts mass resistance. Not when the players are all starting with a +17 or higher hit roll. As players, you're forced to pull out the big guns. Good players know when not to. They will have been waiting for this situation to present itself. It's the DM's job make the players get creative. That's the inspiration of a challenging encounter. The DM can feel the rewards of the players enjoying themselves and giving great feedback. Hopefully everyone walks away from the gaming table with a memorable tale to tell for years later. (I have a fantastic memory of my halfling rogue having to jump down into a 60 foot pit to escape the unerring blades of two orcs. I knew the cleric had fallen down there and I literally shouted, "Catch me! Heal me!" as I lept! Saved my bacon it did! I held my move action until he could ready his heal spell for my inevitable collision with him. We still laugh about it 5 years later.)

Great solutions DB777. Falls right in line with my thoughts on DMing.
 

log in or register to remove this ad

I reallly like these options. They add additional challenge while making sense. And it certainly won't OP the monsters. As a DM, it can be quite difficult running a game against min/maxers. You just won't change people's playstyle so the solution will always have to be on the other side of the GM screen.
Thing is, if the players understand you end up having to add more monsters because of optimising, they soon realise optimising too much becomes a vicious circle/self defeating ... and they DO change their playing style. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they will optimise differently - up to the point that the DM doesnt feel like he has to add more monsters to keep things challenging. In either case, you get a better game once players understand they cant really "win" an arms race against the monsters... the DM is flexible, unlike a computer game.
 

I agree with the above. Just clarifying +100% means hit points while +50% means numbers, yes? (That is, only add hit points to "elites" and "solos". For regular foes, it's more fun to add numbers. I think this is what C is saying; just making sure)

Yep.

What I wouldn't do all that often is bunch encounters together. Not that I disagree with the notion isolated monsters are trivially easy to take down, but that it's hard as is it to maintain some semblance of the ideal adventuring day.

By this I mean our groups find challenging fights fun but trivial fights boring. This tends to limit encounters to way below the "stipulated" 6-8 a day.

In this context, I'm just wary of generally advising V to bunch together encounters. Keeping monsters apart through stealth and cunning should remain an attainable award.

You should always play the creatures appropriately. If it doesn't make sense for them to come together, I wouldn't do it.
 

Thing is, if the players understand you end up having to add more monsters because of optimising, they soon realise optimising too much becomes a vicious circle/self defeating ... and they DO change their playing style. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they will optimise differently - up to the point that the DM doesnt feel like he has to add more monsters to keep things challenging. In either case, you get a better game once players understand they cant really "win" an arms race against the monsters... the DM is flexible, unlike a computer game.

It sounds like you're saying that players are capable of self-policing their level of optimization with an eye toward making the game fun for everyone. Like taking particular feats and not using them to steal the spotlight all the time or to trivialize challenges to the point of making them unexciting and forgettable. This is a novel concept - tell me more!
 


It sounds like you're saying that players are capable of self-policing their level of optimization with an eye toward making the game fun for everyone. Like taking particular feats and not using them to steal the spotlight all the time or to trivialize challenges to the point of making them unexciting and forgettable. This is a novel concept - tell me more!

I really like what you're saying here. The trick is in the mentality of your player. I have a player in my group that will ALWAYS min/max no matter what you do...and then complain that a) it's not challenging enough, or b) I'm nerfing him to make the challenge too difficult.

The changes I made in DMing a specific group of players (I have two) where one always min/maxes while the others tend to play what they want because it's just plain fun is this: I have encounters that are tough and some that are very easy. For instance, the real world is full of things that are easy and challenging. And so goes the world of D&D. A 15th level group finds a raiding kobold group on the edge of town that's pestering farmers. The group goes out, handily wins the day with everyone contributing, but no EXP is earned. The story is advanced and a certain amount of noteriety is earned, however. I haven't had to force anyone to change their playstyle, everyone had fun mopping up the kobolds (sad really, poor things), and it sends the message that I will put you into ANY encounter...ANY (you best be running away from stuff that's too big to tackle!). I rarely see this in games but I think it's a great way to balance the game. The OP player walks away feeling OP and the other feel that they're not left hiding behind an OP shield through an encounter.
 

It sounds like you're saying that players are capable of self-policing their level of optimization with an eye toward making the game fun for everyone. Like taking particular feats and not using them to steal the spotlight all the time or to trivialize challenges to the point of making them unexciting and forgettable. This is a novel concept - tell me more!
True to a degree. But why take the feat at all, if you know it's OP, just dont take it in the first place (or better yet, as DM, you foresee this issue and simply remove the temptation and nip it in the bud - imo).
 

I really like what you're saying here. The trick is in the mentality of your player. I have a player in my group that will ALWAYS min/max no matter what you do...and then complain that a) it's not challenging enough, or b) I'm nerfing him to make the challenge too difficult.

The changes I made in DMing a specific group of players (I have two) where one always min/maxes while the others tend to play what they want because it's just plain fun is this: I have encounters that are tough and some that are very easy. For instance, the real world is full of things that are easy and challenging. And so goes the world of D&D. A 15th level group finds a raiding kobold group on the edge of town that's pestering farmers. The group goes out, handily wins the day with everyone contributing, but no EXP is earned. The story is advanced and a certain amount of noteriety is earned, however. I haven't had to force anyone to change their playstyle, everyone had fun mopping up the kobolds (sad really, poor things), and it sends the message that I will put you into ANY encounter...ANY (you best be running away from stuff that's too big to tackle!). I rarely see this in games but I think it's a great way to balance the game. The OP player walks away feeling OP and the other feel that they're not left hiding behind an OP shield through an encounter.

I agree a variety of difficulties are a good thing to have in a campaign.

True to a degree. But why take the feat at all, if you know it's OP, just dont take it in the first place (or better yet, as DM, you foresee this issue and simply remove the temptation and nip it in the bud - imo).

I don't want to resurrect another debate on the particular feats, but suffice it to say that it's possible for players to self-police, as you rightly pointed out. They can take those feats and use them when it will be fun for everyone and refrain from using them when it won't be. It's another option to have on the character sheet to bring out in this situation or that, but not all of them - just like a lot of game options.
 

Thing is, if the players understand you end up having to add more monsters because of optimising, they soon realise optimising too much becomes a vicious circle/self defeating ... and they DO change their playing style. Or perhaps it is more accurate to say that they will optimise differently - up to the point that the DM doesnt feel like he has to add more monsters to keep things challenging. In either case, you get a better game once players understand they cant really "win" an arms race against the monsters... the DM is flexible, unlike a computer game.

I don't think most people are this smart or this cunning. Many players take the best options they can find. It's human nature. People are competitive. Not every player is that way, but many are. A DM gets a tough encounter wiped out by the PCs in short order. It happens. The DM then starts thinking that the PCs are too OP and then starts upping his encounters.

The issue, IMO, isn't merely that the PCs are too optimized. Part of the issue is the synergy and experience. Players play the same PCs for months, sometimes years. They have, through experience, discovered what works best and what does not work well. They have learned the ins and outs of the other PCs, so they know how to set up advantageous situations.

DMs, on the other hand, often have new encounters fresh out of the box. By the time that the DM learns that having the Orcs move to the outer edge of the front rank so that the NPC spell casters can cast a cone spell, the encounter is already over. Unlike the players whose PCs might be literally more than a hundred fights each, the DMs NPCs and monster combos tend to be in one fight each. Sure, the DM learns certain strategies, but the DM needs to literally learn and eventually know several dozen different strategies for different monster combos whereas the PCs only need to learn maybe 6 or 8 each.

Yeah, playing a PC spellcaster ups the number of tactics that one or more players has to learn, but it is often the case of players who play spellcasters that they are really into their PC. They want a lot of options and thrive on a lot of options, so learning more tactics is fun for them. I have seen this in my game. Once in a while, a player comes to the start of a session and when an encounter starts, s/he suggests that some other PC do something to set up a new spell idea. If it works well, then it starts getting used more often. If it is only ok, it may or may not be used again.

As an example, the player of the Bard was dying to cast Silence. When the chance finally occurred and she found out that the enemy Cleric could just walk out of the area, she was very disappointed. However, she has since cast Silence several times, but very few times in combat. She has discovered that Silence is only situationally useful in combat. A DM running a monster for the first time is often like this player. He discovers that the cool idea that he had for monster synergy just doesn't work as well as he thought it would. He discovers this the hard way, during his first use of that monster in an encounter. Granted, he now knows and he can use the same type of monster again in the future, but that may or may not be applicable to his campaign.

Bottom line, I think that players learn how to work better as a team faster and more effectively than the DM learns, and this is one reason why they start wading through encounters like a hot knife through butter.


I have players at my table that are so competitive that if I throw more monsters at them, they do not learn to dial the minmaxing into a different direction like you suggest, instead they say "Ha! More XP for us.". I just threw an "ambushing assassination squad" at the PC as they were traveling down a road that came within a hair of two PC deaths and my expectation is that the first thing they will probably do when we play tomorrow is change how they spread out and their marching order when traveling down a road from now on (a player has already Emailed the group asking what can be done). Throwing a deadly encounter at them doesn't get them changing the direction of their optimizing so that it is less obvious, it changes their tactics.
 

Now it's not just dragons but this is especially relevant as dragons are supposed to be the big uber bad guys in the game however they're not. Dragons are now skirmishers having to cut and run at every opportunity. If the dragon stays at range it gets blitzed by range attacks (Sharp Shooter is just mad) and ranged spells. If it engages in a melee fight it lasts 2-3 rounds before dying (Great Weapon Master is equally mad).

Am I missing something or should I be adjusting monsters to fit the optimized characters?

Sounds like these players are ready to face the next level of the dungeon. If they want to stay on "easy mode" and keep fighting DMG-balanced encounters, that's fine--but my experience is that players love it when you tell them that they just beat something that would have been a Deadly fight for 20th level characters according to the DMG. So hopefully you've got some high-level threats ready (demon invasion, beholder civil war, illithid colonization attempt, undead plague, etc.) for them to engage with, if they feel ready.

I would buff dragons' stats though. What I've done is give every dragon in my campaign that isn't a Wyrmling levels in Dragon Sorcerer, from level 9-12 for a 200-year-old Adult up to 19 for an Ancient Wyrm. Those sorcerer levels make a big difference in how awesome dragons are. If there are any other underwhelming monsters I would buff them for the same reason: not because your players are doing well, but because underwhelming monsters aren't living up to their reputation.
 

Remove ads

Top