D&D 5E Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[Celtavian]

I disagree and it's the trade-off (time for a chance at discerning the truth) during the game that makes this a meaningful choice for the player. A player is free to roleplay his or her character as incredulous as he or she wants, but if he or she wants to have a chance to accurately confirm his or her suspicions, I'm going to demand time as a cost.

I think I'm detecting a trend here, too. It seems that time-as-a-resource is not a strong consideration in some campaigns given the pushback on time constraints and the like. Suggesting that certain tasks take time as well is getting similar pushback.

I don't believe an absent-minded character would survive combat for long save in funny stories. I don't run funny stories. Just not my cup of tea. As I stated and I'm quite sure of it, humans read verbal cues and detect information naturally in real life. To presume adventurers would have to tell you they are looking for danger is something I don't even consider. I always consider Deception an opposed role against Passive Insight.

No matter how you argue it, I know I am absolutely right about how it works in real life. People that aren't aware generally end up dead or in bad situations in real life, meaning they don't survive long. That is why the human animal has developed these instincts when in the wild because they are necessary for survival.

I think this is fundamental difference in how we view the game that has come up quite often in our discussions. I tend to apply real life biological ideas to my game world. I tend to think out what it takes to survive in such a world. I run it that philosophy in mind assuming adventurers are alpha humans as in the most capable of the humanoid breeds going against often the most capable of the monster breeds they fight.

Meaningful decisions in the context I am using it means making decisions during the game that impacts play. As I see it, you have to decide to keep alert for danger or do something else that may distract from that. You can't do both (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain). If you want to suss out a creature's true intentions, it's going to take you time to have a shot at success. Sometimes the situation makes that choice very dramatic.

Waiting for a player to say this every time is a ridiculous expectation. Adventurers, especially at high level, should be expected to be doing this. If there isn't a complex situation requiring very careful observation, they should detect it. A slaad with no Deception skill trying to pose as human little girl should not be hard to detect the problem given that creature would likely have very little experience doing so.

The only trade-off your ruling produces is how to build the character and in your game there is only one good choice - pump Perception and Insight. My ruling deals with both the way you build your character and the decisions you make during play.

You are correct. Just like any soldier or other combatant would pump them. Just like heroes and superheroes almost always have high insight and perception picking up on all types of things before common people. Insight and Perception are part of the job same as an accountant needing to know how to see problems with numbers or a scientist attempting to see problems in an experiment. No adventurer would make it to high level if he wasn't the sort always on the lookout for danger.

Once again, I'm applying the survival of the fittest biological principle. I don't expect my players to have to state they are on the lookout for danger. I expect them to be on the lookout when walking down street in their peaceful home village, at a party, at their dinner at home, in their bedroom. Adventurers wander into dark places to face off against the most heinous creatures in a fantasy world. It requires a certain level of paranoia to do this effectively for a long time and survive.

As far as meaningful decisions go, not sure why you think they wouldn't have to make one. When I decide to deceive them or ambush them, I use enemies that can do the job as in very high deception or perception requiring an active check. This strange assumption that the players don't have to make checks is odd. Easy stuff shouldn't fool them. Hard stuff should. Make it hard when you want them to make meaningful suggestions. Not softball checks like a slaad with no Deception skill trying to deceive them. There are also rules for Passive Perception reduction like fast travel or shadowy circumstances. Plenty of ways to make decisions meaningful without making players state obvious actions you as a DM should be assuming they take.

We can agree to disagree on this matter. You'll never change my mind and I'll never change yours. I absolutely believe that any adventurer capable of surviving to high level should always have passive detection skills active. I doubt in my campaigns any party that did not invest heavily in Insight, Investigation, and Perception would not survive long since I use ambushes quite a lot. My players always have a few high Perception and Insight skill characters in the group. Investigation not quite as much given it's one of those skills that is almost interchangeable with Perception.

Good discussion. I've known for a while you don't apply biological principles to your world and monster design like I do.

 

[Sunseeker]

No. Intimidation is nothing like Perception. Not even in the same ballpark.

Hmm, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be though. Lets say, you have to be proficient in a skill to have a "passive" version of it (but we don't add proficiency to passive stats). This is just you being naturally intimidating. I mean, a 6'4 fighter decked in weapons, black spiked armor and scars all over his face is naturally imposing. Like Passive Perception, it sets a clear bar, if someone wants to find him not intimidating, they have to make a check against he passive Intimidation. It is basically a way of seeing what checks a person does, or does not need to make when wanting to use a skill. If the opponent has a DC 12 to be intimidated, then someone with a +5 to their Intimidation before proficiency should always be able to break that DC. Even if they rolled that'd mean they only had a 20% chance of failure (by rolling a 1 through 4, as 5+7 would match and therefore win), which is you reverse the situation is only 5% different, not statistically significant in the slightest.

And frankly, I don't even bother to make my players roll if there's not at least a 50% chance of failure.

But in short, I don't think passive anything is unreasonable.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

My group took out the wolves in 3 rounds and they were able to attack twice. The breath weapons do an average 18 damage, half on a save. A couple characters managed to evade the damage entirely and all but the animal companion took half damage. The following round they did 25 damage (and only hit because of pack tactics) to one character and failed to trip him. Even if they did it would have been totally irrelevant, he would just stand backup. Most of the characters would have simply stood up before the giants were able to take advantage of the prone condition.

Honestly prone is a pretty hit or miss condition. If you can prone someone and have someone else attack before they get a turn you get advantage. If not they only lose half their movement.

For example, if the initiative is character 1, giants, character 2, wolves, character 3, then only character 2 will actually be prone for the giants to hit. Character 1 and 3 will simply stand up on their turn and the condition is essentially wasted.

So it took about 2 and a half rounds to take out the wolves and they spread around about 75 damage. So is that the same as having a third giant? I don't know, I think it could go either way.

So you wasted two and half rounds on the wolves. What did the giants manage to do during their free two and a half rounds?

That is why the XP multiplier exists in the first place: because Lanchester's Square Law gives the giants free attacks while PCs are dealing with the wolves. The XP multiplier is a crudely generalized version of Lanchester's Square Law.

Edit: BTW, standing up isn't "free" even if you beat the giants' initiative, in the sense that it still costs you half your movement, and movement is a precious resource in combat.

 

[iserith]

I don't believe an absent-minded character would survive combat for long save in funny stories. I don't run funny stories. Just not my cup of tea. As I stated and I'm quite sure of it, humans read verbal cues and detect information naturally in real life. To presume adventurers would have to tell you they are looking for danger is something I don't even consider. I always consider Deception an opposed role against Passive Insight.

I consider the fiction first. There's a little girl in the dungeon. She has some information to share, but she's scared of the croaking monster at the top of the slope. She cries and asks for help. What do you do? I'm not making a Deception check for a slaad yet. I'm just describing the environment (step 1 of the basic conversation of the game). At this point, it's on the players to tell me what they want to do (step 2). Once they tell me, I'm going to decide if what they want to do is successful, unsuccessful, or has an uncertain outcome. In the latter case, I'm going to ask for a roll. If a player says they examine her body language and mannerisms to determine her true intentions or nature, I'm going to ask, "Okay, that's going to take some time interacting with her and there's a monster in the room - do you want to spend that time?" If yes, I will resolve by advancing time as appropriate and having the player make a check against a DC set by the slaad's Charisma check result before narrating a result (step 3). If no, then the player can choose to do something else e.g. push her out of the portal as [MENTION=31754]Lord Twig[/MENTION] suggested.

No matter how you argue it, I know I am absolutely right about how it works in real life. People that aren't aware generally end up dead or in bad situations in real life, meaning they don't survive long. That is why the human animal has developed these instincts when in the wild because they are necessary for survival.

I think this is fundamental difference in how we view the game that has come up quite often in our discussions. I tend to apply real life biological ideas to my game world. I tend to think out what it takes to survive in such a world. I run it that philosophy in mind assuming adventurers are alpha humans as in the most capable of the humanoid breeds going against often the most capable of the monster breeds they fight.

I'm less concerned about how things work in real life and more concerned with the conversation of the game and adjudicating fairly. A passive check is for when a task is being performed repeatedly yet has an uncertain outcome. Passive Insight doesn't apply to this scene in my view. That's more for when someone is observing an interrogation from behind the two-way mirror or hanging back and people-watching at the masquerade ball. They spend time on it, more than is safely available in this scene.

Waiting for a player to say this every time is a ridiculous expectation. Adventurers, especially at high level, should be expected to be doing this. If there isn't a complex situation requiring very careful observation, they should detect it. A slaad with no Deception skill trying to pose as human little girl should not be hard to detect the problem given that creature would likely have very little experience doing so.

The DM describes the environment, then the players describe what they want to do. Your method strikes me as performing that role for the player because you're presuming character action. I endeavor to avoid this. I've already got control over two-thirds of the conversation of the game by design - I don't want to intrude upon the players' third, you know?

You are correct. Just like any soldier or other combatant would pump them. Just like heroes and superheroes almost always have high insight and perception picking up on all types of things before common people. Insight and Perception are part of the job same as an accountant needing to know how to see problems with numbers or a scientist attempting to see problems in an experiment. No adventurer would make it to high level if he wasn't the sort always on the lookout for danger.

Once again, I'm applying the survival of the fittest biological principle. I don't expect my players to have to state they are on the lookout for danger. I expect them to be on the lookout when walking down street in their peaceful home village, at a party, at their dinner at home, in their bedroom. Adventurers wander into dark places to face off against the most heinous creatures in a fantasy world. It requires a certain level of paranoia to do this effectively for a long time and survive.

In my game, you can be the guy or gal with the great bonus to Insight or Perception, but if you haven't put yourself in the fictional position to fall back on those bonuses to succeed, then they are no good. Thus, it's not enough to have the greatest Perception score. You also need to be constantly on alert at the expense of doing just about anything else. Want to track the slaad that ran away? Okay, but you're no longer keeping watch (unless you're a ranger in favored terrain). Someone else on your team is going to have to keep watch.

This also addresses the common complaints about passive Perception being too strong. Or the Observant feat being broken. If it's a trade-off, it brings Perception down to a level that is useful, but not many times more useful than other proficiencies.

As far as meaningful decisions go, not sure why you think they wouldn't have to make one. When I decide to deceive them or ambush them, I use enemies that can do the job as in very high deception or perception requiring an active check. This strange assumption that the players don't have to make checks is odd. Easy stuff shouldn't fool them. Hard stuff should. Make it hard when you want them to make meaningful suggestions. Not softball checks like a slaad with no Deception skill trying to deceive them. There are also rules for Passive Perception reduction like fast travel or shadowy circumstances. Plenty of ways to make decisions meaningful without making players state obvious actions you as a DM should be assuming they take.

The decision in your game happens largely, and perhaps in some cases solely, at character creation or advancement and naturally leads to pumping those skills. It's too powerful an option not to choose in your game. That's always the case in my experience with DMs who treat it as "always on" radar instead of the trade-off I believe it's meant to be.

We can agree to disagree on this matter. You'll never change my mind and I'll never change yours. I absolutely believe that any adventurer capable of surviving to high level should always have passive detection skills active. I doubt in my campaigns any party that did not invest heavily in Insight, Investigation, and Perception would not survive long since I use ambushes quite a lot. My players always have a few high Perception and Insight skill characters in the group. Investigation not quite as much given it's one of those skills that is almost interchangeable with Perception.

Good discussion. I've known for a while you don't apply biological principles to your world and monster design like I do.

My guess is not that I don't apply "biological principles," but rather how you handle ability checks in your game. It sounds like you run them more like D&D 3e and 4e where players have an expectation of making checks upon request and passive checks are "always on." That's not how I do things in D&D 5e. I don't think it's a fit, given the rules and paradigm. We can discontinue this line of discussion though as it is not particularly relevant to the topic at hand. Good chat.

 

[BoldItalic]

So, what's the conclusion about how much in the way of resources the first encounter would cost the party? And, given that, what will their position be at the end of the second encounter?

I think, before the third encounter is revealed, the resources available to the party at the start of it should be stated. Otherwise you can get any answer you like.

 

[Celtavian]

Hmm, I'm not sure why it shouldn't be though. Lets say, you have to be proficient in a skill to have a "passive" version of it (but we don't add proficiency to passive stats). This is just you being naturally intimidating. I mean, a 6'4 fighter decked in weapons, black spiked armor and scars all over his face is naturally imposing. Like Passive Perception, it sets a clear bar, if someone wants to find him not intimidating, they have to make a check against he passive Intimidation. It is basically a way of seeing what checks a person does, or does not need to make when wanting to use a skill. If the opponent has a DC 12 to be intimidated, then someone with a +5 to their Intimidation before proficiency should always be able to break that DC. Even if they rolled that'd mean they only had a 20% chance of failure (by rolling a 1 through 4, as 5+7 would match and therefore win), which is you reverse the situation is only 5% different, not statistically significant in the slightest.

And frankly, I don't even bother to make my players roll if there's not at least a 50% chance of failure.

But in short, I don't think passive anything is unreasonable.

Covered this same thing later in the post. I do the same thing.

 

[Celtavian]

So, what's the conclusion about how much in the way of resources the first encounter would cost the party? And, given that, what will their position be at the end of the second encounter?

I think, before the third encounter is revealed, the resources available to the party at the start of it should be stated. Otherwise you can get any answer you like.

I'm going to roll this out after I finish the characters. I was trying to theory-craft it all the way. I need to see all the characters stats and capabilities and roll it out.

 

[Flamestrike]

This is wrong, IMO. You're only supposed to discount monsters that do not add significantly to the challenge of the encounter, like two kobolds accompanying a red dragon. The Winter Wolves add a whole new threat dimension to this encounter. Not only do they add an AoE threat, but they also can knock PCs prone (granting advantage to the Frost Giants' attacks at close range) and they add another 300 HP that the PCs have to chew their way through to kill the giants.

This is a Deadly encounter. Which is fine, BTW--it makes the encounter hard enough to be worth playing--but if you're telling yourself that this encounter with two Frost Giants and four Winter Wolves is not about as hard as three Frost Giants just because the Winter Wolves are "low CR" you're deluding yourself. It's not at all the same difficulty as facing two Frost Giants by themselves.

But youre missing something - I did add the Wolves XP values to the encounter difficulty. They added 2,800 XP to the overall difficulty of the encounter (which is a substantial amount).

I did not multiply the total encounter XP to account for six creatures (the sum of the monsters XP values x 2), I only multiplied to account for 2 monsters i.e. the giants (the sum of the monsters XP values x 1.5). The difference amounts to the difference between a medium (16,100 XP) and a hard (23,400 xp) encounter.

The encounter sits between the hard end of medium and the medium side of hard. It's quite literally a 'medium-hard' encounter no matter which way you want to budget the encounter.

No one was more shocked than I that Iserith and Flamestrike consider Winter Wolves with pack tactics, an AoE attack, a trip attack, and 75 hit points not a powerful addition to this group. In 3E they would have been trivial. In 5E they are a major boost to nearly any encounter at nearly any level and should have been counted at least half for the creature multiple beyond the base xp added. Wolves in general have high value special abilities. Winter Wolves are particularly vicious. If you were to throw 10 or 12 winter wolves at a lvl 20 fighter in 5E, they might kill him. The only class that could survive fairly easily is one that could fly and AoE. Any class stuck on the ground that was in combat with the Winter Wolves would may die even at lvl 20.

So you keep saying, yet in the same breath you make the claim above to be able to defeat this encounter using only 3 spell slots - 1 each of 4th, 3rd and 1st level (a trivial drain on resources for a party of 5 x 13th level PCs). A position that I strongly refute by the way - in my view you would be required to use at least double that amount of resources once hit point loss alone is accounted for (plus a few more on smites and assorted shield spells etc). Which is about the right amount of resources for a medium-hard encounter for mine.

Like I state above, its a judgement call. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, this encounter fits within the 'medium-hard' parameters of the test. The players hit this encounter fully rested, and knowing that they are teleporting into a potentially dangerous area (opening the possibility of pre-buffs). The encounter can also be avoided with minimal resource expenditure by a smart party who favors diplomacy over combat.

Its a DM judgement call as to where it sits between [medium] and [hard] spectrum, but it is still a fair encounter given the parameters of the challenge.

 

[Flamestrike]

I'm not certain the adjusted XP budget chart squares with the statement of "6 to 8 medium to hard encounters per day." If we take the 67,500 XP and divide it by 8 encounters, we come up with 8437 XP which is somewhere between Easy and Medium on average. If you ignore the chart and just design according to the statement, then it works fine in my experience.

When it comes to the total XP per AD amounts, I read this to mean 'awarded XP per day' and not 'adjusted for difficulty' XP per day.

The actual section of the DMG on XP per adventuring day is muddled here. It mentions both.

 

[iserith]

So, what's the conclusion about how much in the way of resources the first encounter would cost the party? And, given that, what will their position be at the end of the second encounter?

I think, before the third encounter is revealed, the resources available to the party at the start of it should be stated. Otherwise you can get any answer you like.

For the purposes of the thread, the resources you start with in an encounter are what you ended with in the previous encounter. If you're saying how it's run and saying how you'd play it given how you run it, then everyone should be able to see when someone is fudging to reach a particular conclusion. We should expect no agreement from one post to another on resources expended as everyone will run and play it at least somewhat differently.