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

[NotActuallyTim]

I didn't say it was optimal to run away. I said it was optimal, in the context of the adventure goals, to resolve the encounter without expending resources to fight the giants. Exercise for the reader: how can the PCs achieve this optimal play?

Ride in there on a Tarrasque and make an Intimidation check?

 

[BoldItalic]

I won't requote all of [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION]'s last two posts (but only because of length). I'll answer them simply:

Optimized for brutality isn't the same as optimized for achieving story goals.

Your characters are optimized for brutality and that suits your style of play. No doubt your own adventures are chosen/designed to challenge your characters with equally brutal monsters. No problem. The guidelines aren't meant for you. We don't need a fifty-page thread to establish that.

What we have established is that PCs optimized for brutality, played by an aggressive player (and, yes, you are aggressive) don't work well with PCs optimized differently and with at least one player (i.e. me) who doesn't share your desire for indiscriminate slaughter. Again, no surprise there.

You and I have different reasons for playing D&D. I don't have a problem with that. Shall we leave it there?

 

[BoldItalic]

Ride in there on a Tarrasque and make an Intimidation check?

* keeps straight face * I don't think a tarrasque would fit through the door.

But develop the idea of making an intimidation check. Assuming that the player can present a plausible (or at least cool) intimidation scenario, how would you as a DM rule the check? Would you use the giant's Wis score as a DC, or set a DC by hunch? Under what situations would you apply advantage or disadvantage? One of the PCs is +8 on intimidation. Would that be enough?

 

[Greg Benage]

I didn't say it was optimal to run away. I said it was optimal, in the context of the adventure goals, to resolve the encounter without expending resources to fight the giants.

Not to pile on, but that's not what you did. You used a lot of resources, but ineffectively. You used 40% of your paladin's LoH, one of your wizard's portents to protect the paladin from an unnecessary AoO, and a 4th-level slot for...magic missile. And I guess that was just the first round of this Medium encounter. Having expending all these resources, how much closer was your party to resolving the encounter due to the actions you took? The big giant can just walk up to either you or the paladin (or anyone else he wants) and smack you. You walked off and left the cleric engaged with the other giant. If you do get to the collapsed area, now you have difficult terrain and the giants don't.

Exercise for the reader: how can the PCs achieve this optimal play?

1. Kill the monsters quickly by expending as few resources as possible.
2. Battlefield control and mobility buffs for the party to enable escape.

You didn't pursue either strategy. You expended significant resources on actions that didn't bring you closer to resolving the encounter. I guess you were roleplaying, which is cool, but it's probably not the right approach (IMHO) in an experiment such as this.

What could you have done, given (1) and (2)? Well, the paladin and the wizard are coordinating. I would have had the paladin cast shield of faith and attack the giant (i.e. "tanking"). The last thing you want to do is give the giant a free attack! Your wizard can cast a spell to buff the paladin (thereby helping him tank) or debuff/control the giant(s). Given that the big giant is in melee with you and could attack you instead of the paladin, maybe you don't want to buff the paladin (i.e. turn him into a giant ape) because the giant might attack you instead (probably he attacks the giant ape and not the puny human, but maybe not). So you opt for control. The frost giant's saves are Wis +3 and Cha +4, so worst case scenario, a control spell is automatic with your portent die (which you used anyway, on an unnecessary AoO). Chances are, you wouldn't even have to use it. How about banishment? For that 4th-level slot you used for magic missile, you could automatically send the big giant to a harmless demiplane for 10 rounds. For a 5th-level slot, you can probably send both giants there, but that probably isn't even necessary.

So then, at the end of your turn, your paladin has buffed his AC and maybe done a little damage. The big giant with magic axe is out of the fight. You haven't used any LoH, you've still used a 4th-level slot, and you probably haven't had to use a portent die. Is that better or worse than what you did?

 

[NotActuallyTim]

* keeps straight face * I don't think a tarrasque would fit through the door.

Thanks to Siege Monster, a tarrasque fits through every door.

But develop the idea of making an intimidation check. Assuming that the player can present a plausible (or at least cool) intimidation scenario, how would you as a DM rule the check? Would you use the giant's Wis score as a DC, or set a DC by hunch? Under what situations would you apply advantage or disadvantage? One of the PCs is +8 on intimidation. Would that be enough?

Given that the intent of the encounter is to use player resources and the players would be presumed to be combat lovers, I'd probably give some temporary combat condition, such Frightened or Surprised, to one or more of the combatants, but have the others attack. When the condition wore off, I'd have the remaining monsters join in. This might alter a battle, but ultimately wouldn't prevent it.

 

[Azurewraith]

* keeps straight face * I don't think a tarrasque would fit through the door.

But develop the idea of making an intimidation check. Assuming that the player can present a plausible (or at least cool) intimidation scenario, how would you as a DM rule the check? Would you use the giant's Wis score as a DC, or set a DC by hunch? Under what situations would you apply advantage or disadvantage? One of the PCs is +8 on intimidation. Would that be enough?

I would let it roll against a high DC maybe with dis advantage depending on the scenaro. They are desperate but even desperate people can use reason

 

[BoldItalic]

Not to pile on, but that's not what you did.

The Paladin did not expend any resources fighting. He did not attack. He intended to avoid combat entirely if at all possible. He did expend resources to heal damage that occurred before his first turn and over which he had no control. That damage represented a fixed resource loss (effectively imposed by DM fiat) regardless of tactics adopted. It's not part of the equation. Given that the damage had occurred, it was going to need healing sooner or later and there is really no benefit to postponing the inevitable.

As for the wizard, yes, he did expend resources - he attacked a wolf with a 4th-level slot (He couldn't use a 5th because he had to reserve them for another use). With the wisdom of hindsight, I don't think he should have done that. He should have left the Bard to her fate. Flaw: Edward believes that people who can't take care of themselves get what they deserve. But in the interests of party cohesion, I wanted to get the bard out of the situation where she had knowingly moved in the wrong direction and got nailed to the wall. He debated using a cantrip but decided that, if he was going to do it, a cantrip wouldn't be effective enough.

 

[Greg Benage]

The Paladin did not expend any resources fighting. He did not attack. He intended to avoid combat entirely if at all possible. He did expend resources to heal damage that occurred before his first turn and over which he had no control. That damage represented a fixed resource loss (effectively imposed by DM fiat) regardless of tactics adopted. It's not part of the equation. Given that the damage had occurred, it was going to need healing sooner or later and there is really no benefit to postponing the inevitable.

You're correct, obviously, that he didn't fight. He expended resources without fighting. He used his action and 40% of his LoH to heal some damage, when he could have used the action (and a bonus action) more effectively and left the healing to the cleric, the bard, or a short rest. He also expended 1/2 of portent dice by unnecessarily and to no advantage provoking an AoO from the big giant.

As for the wizard, yes, he did expend resources - he attacked a wolf with a 4th-level slot (He couldn't use a 5th because he had to reserve them for another use). With the wisdom of hindsight, I don't think he should have done that.

It shouldn't have required hindsight. Whether you want to "leave the bard to her fate" (LOL) or not, you could have used the same 4th-level slot in a way that helped the party resolve the encounter. Instead you cast magic missile.

Again, I don't want to pile on, and your roleplaying seems great. But, IMHO, it's extremely clear that you created non-optimized characters and used non-optimal (baffling, really, to me) tactics in an experiment that was supposed to test the capabilities of optimized characters using optimal tactics. You can defend this as "I wanted to roleplay the encounters," but I don't think your actions were defensible on tactical grounds. Given your stated goals, the actions your characters took did not advance the party toward those goals.

 

[BoldItalic]

You're correct, obviously, that he didn't fight. He expended resources without fighting. He used his action and 40% of his LoH to heal some damage, when he could have used the action (and a bonus action) more effectively and left the healing to the cleric, the bard, or a short rest.

Given the attitude of the person playing the bard and the cleric, it seemed unlikely that they would offer him any healing. But that's metagaming (though not he usual kind).

He also expended 1/2 of portent dice by unnecessarily and to no advantage provoking an AoO from the big giant.

Ah, you missed the subtlety. He wanted the giant to waste his reaction so that Edward would have a clear path to move. So he laid himself open to the AoO, whilst knowing that Edward had divined that the attack would fail. It seemed like a foolish thing to do but it wasn't. Edward understood. They are buddies. They work together.

It shouldn't have required hindsight. Whether you want to "leave the bard to her fate" (LOL) or not, you could have used the same 4th-level slot in a way that helped the party resolve the encounter. Instead you cast magic missile.

Edward has the following spells of 4th level or lower prepared: Disguise Self, Earth Tremor, False Life, Ice Knife, Magic Missile, Unseen Servant, Detect Thoughts, Enlarge/Reduce, Mirror Image, Nystul's Magic Aura, Clairvoyance. I reviewed all those and couldn't see how to help the bard with anything other than a MM, but I'm open to cool uses of any of the other spells.

Again, I don't want to pile on, and your roleplaying seems great.

Thanks!

But, IMHO, it's extremely clear that you created non-optimized characters and used non-optimal (baffling, really, to me) tactics in an experiment that was supposed to test the capabilities of optimized characters using optimal tactics. You can defend this as "I wanted to roleplay the encounters," but I don't think your actions were defensible on tactical grounds. Given your stated goals, the actions your characters took did not advance the party toward those goals.

Optimized for what? Mindless slaughter? Yeah, I don't optimize for that. I optimize for maximum fun.

 

[Greg Benage]

Given the attitude of the person playing the bard and the cleric, it seemed unlikely that they would offer him any healing. But that's metagaming (though not he usual kind).

Without commenting on personalities either way, I think it's safe to assume he took the experiment seriously and would have done whatever he thought most optimal, including healing the tank.

Ah, you missed the subtlety. He wanted the giant to waste his reaction so that Edward would have a clear path to move. So he laid himself open to the AoO, whilst knowing that Edward had divined that the attack would fail. It seemed like a foolish thing to do but it wasn't. Edward understood. They are buddies. They work together.

Yeah, no, I didn't miss anything. Edward shouldn't have needed "a clear path to move." If Edward were built properly for the experiment, Edward could have "foreseen" that he could automatically make the big bad giant go away anytime he felt like it.

Edward has the following spells of 4th level or lower prepared: Disguise Self, Earth Tremor, False Life, Ice Knife, Magic Missile, Unseen Servant, Detect Thoughts, Enlarge/Reduce, Mirror Image, Nystul's Magic Aura, Clairvoyance. I reviewed all those and couldn't see how to help the bard with anything other than a MM, but I'm open to cool uses of any of the other spells.

Yes, I did note that your characters were not optimized. That is not a good selection of spells for a diviner. I mean, damn...

Thanks!

You're welcome!

Optimized for what? Mindless slaughter? Yeah, I don't optimize for that. I optimize for maximum fun.

C'mon, man! Optimized for successfully resolving 6-8 medium to hard encounters in an adventuring day. And not mindlessly: good tactics were also important to the experiment. Did you disclose from the get-go that you wouldn't be optimizing or using sound tactics, but rather just trying to maximize your own fun? Because ordinarily that's a great approach to the game (the best approach, IMO), but it was a terrible approach to this experiment.