D&D 5E Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day

[Celtavian]

The to and fro is because Flamestrike is setting up a "no long rests and probably only a few short ones", while Celtavian is quite understandably wary of such a trap.

My suggestion: ask the Wizard WHY the world ends in a mere five hours?

How come he knows this? What would happen if our party weren't around?

Myself, I'm sure it's possible to use the design guidelines to create a satisfactory 6-8 adventure day.

My problem is that the game provides very few tools to the DM to actually make this happening.

Perhaps a question for another thread, but what sequences are there in official published scenarios that are likely to make 6-8 encounters when the party doesn't feel like playing along?

My own suspicion is: very very few. Like, perhaps once out of ten or twenty adventuring days.

But free free to respond elsewhere.

For this thread, I really suggest you Celtavian volunteer the wizard's traplike conditions, or we'll never get started. [emoji55]

Capn,

If this is a test of 5E, it's 5E as written. Which is what I run. That means the rules in the PHB with the agreed upon optional rules. No changes to long or short rests.

If Flamestrike starts using the tools we DMs can only rarely use like antimagic, I'll probably end the campaign right there. For continuous high level play, you can't take away the players' toys and expect that to be an example of what a DM can do over and over again. You'd be lucky to use antimagic of some kind of 5% or less of encounters. To prove the premise that 5E encounter building works as designed, the characters have to be fairly standard and the encounters have to be fairly standard.

Otherwise it comes down to a super min-maxed group (which I avoided) versus a DM creating a one shot series of encounters that is extremely uncommon. That doesn't prove anything to DMs like you, me, and Zard that run high level campaigns where we must design continuous encounters for high level characters that make reasonable sense within the context of the world. I don't design one shots and the like. If I were basing my assumptions on one shots or short, high level campaigns, maybe I'd say, "High level combat is ok." My assumptions are based on long-term campaigning where I'll be designing dozens of high level encounters for the same characters. A one shot of an extreme nature using antimagic and the like doesn't test 5E high level encounter design and combat. It just shows one far outlier that any of us can create.

 

[FrogReaver]

So this went from being about whether 6-8 encounters per day was good advice in the DMG to being about whether the player trying to avoid the hard adventure in anyway possible is the bigger jerk than the dm who expects the player to play in the adventure he just spent hours creating.

Basically what it boils down to is some players refuse to run their character through certain scenarios and so to even have a game the DM must never give the players an adventure where they cannot simply retreat to the saftey of town or leave as soon as the going gets tough and just find another adventure. The players would accuse the DM of all kinds of bad things if he forced them into such an adventure but really it's those kinds of player's who are railroading the DM... IMO.

 

[iserith]

When the DM presents me with a hook, I figure out a reason why my character would be interested in it. One would think that would be doubly important in an experiment such as this one. While I don't hold players to this standard when I DM, as a player, I definitely roll my eyes at what I consider "defective adventurers," that is, those players who come up with reasons not to participate rather than come up with reasons to engage.

Let's continue the experiment with [MENTION=6777052]BoldItalic[/MENTION] at the helm so that the collective efforts are not wasted. It was a rocky start, but difficult terrain only slows us down - it can't stop determined adventurers.

 

[Celtavian]

The fact that you also consider a time limit placed on an adventure (and one suggested by the DMG no less) as a 'trap' says a lot.

I would counter with the fact that you consider a time limit standard high level play for long-term high level campaigns says a lot as well. You can't use time limits very often in high level continuous campaigns. Between the levels of say 10 and 20, you will design dozens of encounters to get the players there. Multiple this time the number of campaigns and you have hundreds of encounters you design for high level play. How many will have time limits? What percentage?

That's why designing a one shot with a time limit just to prove you can occasionally challenge high level characters is a worthless test. If that is what you're doing, then you're not helping me.

I run long-term campaigns. I don't run one shots. I have to design tons of high level encounters over the course of a campaign. I'll be able to use extreme terrain or time limits on a very small percentage of those encounters without the trope becoming stale to my players. Same as antimagic or the like would become extremely stale.

Is this is a test of pretty middle of the road high level D&D? Or is your encounter an extreme outlier for high level play I could rarely use? I was looking for a pretty standard set of six to eight encounters that would be something you could use for most of the time a player would be 13th level.

 

[FrogReaver]

Capn,

If this is a test of 5E, it's 5E as written. Which is what I run. That means the rules in the PHB with the agreed upon optional rules. No changes to long or short rests.

If Flamestrike starts using the tools we DMs can only rarely use like antimagic, I'll probably end the campaign right there. For continuous high level play, you can't take away the players' toys and expect that to be an example of what a DM can do over and over again. You'd be lucky to use antimagic of some kind of 5% or less of encounters. To prove the premise that 5E encounter building works as designed, the characters have to be fairly standard and the encounters have to be fairly standard.

Otherwise it comes down to a super min-maxed group (which I avoided) versus a DM creating a one shot series of encounters that is extremely uncommon. That doesn't prove anything to DMs like you, me, and Zard that run high level campaigns where we must design continuous encounters for high level characters that make reasonable sense within the context of the world. I don't design one shots and the like. If I were basing my assumptions on one shots or short, high level campaigns, maybe I'd say, "High level combat is ok." My assumptions are based on long-term campaigning where I'll be designing dozens of high level encounters for the same characters. A one shot of an extreme nature using antimagic and the like doesn't test 5E high level encounter design and combat. It just shows one far outlier that any of us can create.

As I expected last night, we would soon have cries that this experiment doesn't prove anything. Amazing the kind of foresight one would need for such a thing.

 

[BoldItalic]

Myrkyn turns towards you and briefly glances skywards, a blessing to the Gods barely audible under his breath.

The Bedrock Trelawney? Famed dragon slayer and adventurer of renoun? I shall have to hang one of my spies in the morrow - they clearly are not doing their jobs if I was unaware you and your brave party of heroes were in town!

Firstly, the job is clearly yours. Glad to have you and your men on board good sir. I just need a quick second to tie up a loose end...

(He clicks his fingers and rocks fall, crushing to death a foppishly dressed bard with a scowl on his face, a pipe smoking gnome, a silver haired elf and two other equally disintrested patrons of the bar)

Now where were we again? Ahh thats right. The end of the Multiverse in 4 hours and 55 minutes.

What do you know of the sword Blackrazor?

Bedrock looks thoughtful for a moment. "One hears bard's tales, of course, but they cannot always be believed. Some say it was lost in The Calamity of Flind, some say it was carried off to the abyss by demons after the battle of Estor. But my friend Edward the Diviner is the one to ask."

Bedrock blinks twice. He has received a Sending. "Indeed, Edward is on his way here, e'en now."

A portly wizard enters, through the wall. He has an absent-minded air and the front of his robes is gravy-stained but his eyes look around keenly. It is somehow clear that his mind is as keen as mustard. "What-ho, Bedrock! Why is your cloak all wet? You didn't walk here in the rain, did you?"

Edward bows to Myrkyn and makes a little hand gesture of greeting, as one wizard to another. But there is a subtlety to it that signals a multitude of arcane information. They have an understanding. "Don't happen to know where I can get hold of a Reverse Gravity scroll, do you, old chap? I've always fancied learning that and having a play with the forces and whatnot. Oh, Blackrazor. Yes, nasty bit of work. I gather it's surfaced again? Well, we'd better do something about that toot sweet, hadn't we?"

---

OOC: Give me an hour or two to work up a couple of character sheets for Bedrock and Edward.

If anyone else fancies joining in, I'd be grateful. I'm not sure I can play five 13th levels on my own and do justice to this experiment. Two heads are better than one, and so on. Any volunteers?

 

[Celtavian]

A stranger enters the inn unexpectedly, shaking the rain from his travelling cloak. "My word!" he remarks casually, "That's quite a storm, isn't it?" He orders a mug of the finest ale and sits down at a table nearby. The only obvious signs that he is anything out of the ordinary are a confident air, a scar across his forehead and the adamantine greaves incised with gold filigree that become visible under his cloak when he puts his feet up on a stool and relaxes comfortably.

After a few minutes casually eavesdropping on your conversation, he rises, gives a graceful salute and addresses the important-looking gnome. He has a slight Cornish accent. "Your pardon, good sir, but mayhap I can be of service? I am Bedrock Trelawney, cousin of the Earl of Penwith. A position at the court of your most noble king would certainly be of interest, and a fortune in gold would not go amiss. I can call on the services of a number of friends, if that is appropriate. Can we come to some arrangement, perhaps?"

The gnome has not spoken. Nor is he important looking.

Only the female bard.

 

[Celtavian]

Firstly no-one is saying 'Set time limits all the time for every adventuring day, ever'. No-one. Having every single AD comprising of 6-8 medium to hard enounters all the damn time would be boring and repetitive. Thats just the baseline that we work around and the point at which the game works. Not just on a macro level either. If thats your rough baseline, then shorter days work better and longer days are more of a surprise.

Again I work off a 50 percent ratio (roughly). The other 50 percent of my ADs are generally shorter or not time limited, or very rarely longer.

On topic with the thread, read the title. The whole damn point was to test a 6-8 encounter AD for a bit of fun.

I'm getting the feeling that I wasted several hours designing a fun and challenging adventure, and statting up encounters if all this thread 'is' turns out to be an exersize in how to fustrate the DMs efforts to create a fun and exciting adventure by using metagame 'we're all murder hobos and dont care if the world ends, and there isnt a hook in the world that will make me accept a quest SO THERE!' type of argument.

Its Dungeons and Dragons. The party (whom I have yet to see by the way other than a description of them being amoral mercenaries) have been approached by a NPC in a tavern to raid a dungeon, and slay a dragon. The King himself has promised a boatload of GP and titles if they pull it off. There are a series of obstacles that need to be overcome before the dragon encounter. There are magic items to be found along the way, and more treasure to come.

I mean come on. Does this really need to be discussed? What more would you as a DM do here?

This is absurd. This thread is nearly ruined for me, and it promised so much.

Im tempted just to post the damn encounters for review so it wasnt a total waste of my time and forget it ever happened.

I wasn't interested in a bit of fun. Creating five lvl 13 PCs is tedious work. This was more an empirical test. I wanted to see what your experience was with a fairly standard 5E D&D 6-8 encounter day against a high level party. I didn't want some extreme outlier one shot. I wanted a very standard adventuring day. That is what I deal with running long-term campaigns. Time limits, antimagic, and extreme terrain are only something I can use rarely, probably less than one or two out of ten encounters. I will run high level for a long, long time in each campaign.

Post the encounters. I'd rather just look at them than waste my time designing five 13th level PCs for an extreme outlier that I can rarely use in my long-term campaigning.

 

[Flamestrike]

When the DM presents me with a hook, I figure out a reason why my character would be interested in it.

No mate, you didnt. You did the exact opposite and instead posted a swathe of metagame arguments that had nothing to do with in character reasons (or whatever in character reasons you provided were little more than metagame justifications themselves).

Heck, I even had the NPC offer you to pick a reward. Riches, fame, saving the world and people you love, titles, and the favor of the King himself were not enough.

All five characters in your party had (apparently) zero reason to want to be wealthy, save the world from destruction, aquire land and titles, stick it up that other band of adventurers, or be owed a debt by the king of the realm.

They had no reason to enter a dungeon, slay a dragon, and become wealthy (spoiler alert, but thats the mission by the way). If thats how you roll then fine, but it not how things work in my games. No offence, but were just not suited to play together.

Let's continue the experiment with @BoldItalic at the helm so that the collective efforts are not wasted. It was a rocky start, but difficult terrain only slows us down - it can't stop determined adventurers.

Agree. No hard feelings.

 

[iserith]

No mate, you didnt. You did the exact opposite and instead posted a swathe of metagame arguments that had nothing to do with in character reasons (or whatever in character reasons you provided were little more than metagame justifications themselves).

Heck, I even had the NPC offer you to pick a reward. Riches, fame, saving the world and people you love, titles, and the favor of the King himself were not enough.

All five characters in your party had (apparently) zero reason to want to be wealthy, save the world from destruction, aquire land and titles, stick it up that other band of adventurers, or be owed a debt by the king of the realm.

They had no reason to enter a dungeon, slay a dragon, and become wealthy (spoiler alert, but thats the mission by the way). If thats how you roll then fine, but it not how things work in my games. No offence, but were just not suited to play together.

Agree. No hard feelings.

I think you're confusing me with someone else.