D&D 5E (2014) Monster Manual and Players Hand Book Power Levels

[CapnZapp]

snip

Yeah, we all already know how forgiving you are, Jester. Nothing to see, move along.

 

[CapnZapp]

you need to consider ignoring the recommended encounter guidance to build a challenging encounter

Amen to that!

 

[Jester David]

First off you seem to assume I was talking about the entirity of 5th edition. I wasn't. What I find unacceptable is ending an official adventure module with such weak and fuzzy encounters as in OotA.

Then you seem to disallow anyone from critiquing the game unless they have stopped playing it. That's preposterous.

Then you seem to think that just because not ALL adventures are equally bad, that gives WotC a pass. As if we are only allowed to judge the company based on their best products?!

I happen to think WotC needs to be called out more publicly for their failings. I need not laud them for their triumps, Lord knows there are too many fanboys here already.

Out of the Abyss was written by Green Ronin and only published by WotC. While the overarching story was done in house, the actual adventure is credited to Steve Kenson and 6 of the 9 writers (Cam Banks, Walter Ciechanowski Alex Melchor, Chris Pramas, Robert J. Schwalb, and Ray Winninger) belonged to the the Green Ronin creative team.
(Which you know, since you call him out by name later on.)

Why the exclusive hate for WotC? Doesn't Green Ronin get any blame? They're the ones who did all the nitty gritty stuff of building encounters rather than just designing "whimsical" characters.

But more importantly, when you have a negative message, you don't want to be met by "but what about the good things?" Why? Because that dilutes the message.

I disagree. You need to post the good and the bad. And it's important to be balanced in posting, rather than only posting negative topics and complaining. There's too much negativity in the boards already.

If 5/6ths of the book is good, shouldn't at least 1/6th of the post also mention that?

Out of the Abyss has gotten rave reviews, but I state as no mere speculation the good grades are almost universally based on first impressions and "I've only read through half the book" (literally the first Amazon review starts with these words).

I suspect less than 5% of all the ratings are made by people that have actually run the latter half of the adventure. That doesn't mean their ratings are fraudulent or even useless. It does, however, mean you should not use them to argue people like how the module's end is constructed.

I suspect that's because reviews tend to be written without having played through the adventure. Because people want to post topical reviews for books recently released rather than after six months. And people want to read reviews right away.

Why haven't Steve Kenson, Lead Designer, even once been called to account for how the module ends? Why is there no discussion of possibly barring Mr Kenson from writing high-level encounters when he so clearly isn't up to the task? Or, at the very least, why haven't we heard from their PR dept apologizing for how some rushed schedule meant the team could not do their very best?

Why haven't we heard from the 21 playtesters, who obviously suck at the game and made weak characters. Aren't they just as much to blame?

Is it because I'm the outlier and everybody else loves the second half of the book? I don't think so.

I think it is because a vanishingly small slice of the customer base has realized its flaws, and how most people tend to favor posting about their positive experiences rather than their negative ones.

So... your argument is basically that people aren't complaining on the internet?


The thing is, there are two ways to respond to problems in a module like this: complain or hack.
Okay, you have a problem with a few of the encounters because they went poorly at your table. That sucks. Been there, done that.
My first reaction is still: how do your players feel? Are the complaints one sided? Do they feel awesome because they're kicking ass? If so, then ask yourself if making this harder and complaining this much is necessary. If they agree it was horribly anticlimactic and they felt bored, then maybe it is a big issue worthy of two dozens message board posts.

Regardless, you should ask what should you have done differently. Specifically, how should the encounter be improved. Instead of just complaining, post suggestions for how to improve the encounter for people who might still be running the adventure. Let people know exactly which adventures fall flat and need to be punched up. Suggest some terrain effects or additional monsters. How do we make the game better??

 

[S'mon]

Out of the Abyss has gotten rave reviews, but I state as no mere speculation the good grades are almost universally based on first impressions and "I've only read through half the book" (literally the first Amazon review starts with these words).

Would OoTA as written work better with a different level range - 1-10 or 1-8 rather than 1-15? Serious
question - I'm playing it currently and my GM could use good advice. I understand there isn't
really enough XP in the latter parts to get PCs to 15th anyway. She uses milestone progression, should the progression rate be slowed to 2/3 listed to keep balance in the later parts? So eg fighting Nalfeshneee at 8th not 12th?

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I am still really believeing that a well rested party should generally stomp through most encounters. You can't have a fast paced game and encounters so tactically rich that yyou need hours to finish...

That said, maybe the right approach is tagging some adventures as advanced and tactical and some as more casual.
That is actually how LARP is doing it around here. When you go to a battle con you expect different things than when you go to an adventure con.
Even board games have usually points on how much strategy luck and so on. Why not do something like that so noone buys the wrong adventure.
I have not played above level 8 so I can't comment how much the adventures fall apart but the last encounter was vlose enough to be significant and wrong tactics on my part/bad advice in the book made it easier than it should have been.

 

[Charles Rampant]

Would OoTA as written work better with a different level range - 1-10 or 1-8 rather than 1-15?

This is my core question after reading this thread. Would simply capping it earlier keep the challenge (and the threat of places like Menzoberranzan) alive? I'm contemplating keeping my CoS party at level 8 for the castle, rather than 10, for the same reason.

 

[Mistwell]

A few disappointingly bad arguments there, Mistwell.

Wasn't asking for your grade on my argumentation skills there Cap, but thanks for offering it unsolicited.

First off you seem to assume I was talking about the entirity of 5th edition. I wasn't. What I find unacceptable is ending an official adventure module with such weak and fuzzy encounters as in OotA.

No we're on the same page there, which is why I have always specified the published adventures and continue to ask about the most recent one. We've had four posts back and forth now, and in each of them I have mentioned the adventures. Nothing in what I have written says or implies that I think you're talking about the entirety of 5th edition.

Then you seem to disallow anyone from critiquing the game unless they have stopped playing it. That's preposterous.

No what's preposterous is that strawman you just constructed and knocked down. Not only do I welcome critiquing the game, but I do it a fair bit myself. All I have asked, repeatedly now, is whether or not you've found it to be a common complaint about the most recent two adventures. And repeatedly now you've dodged that question and distracted from it with ridiculous claims like the one you just made about me. If you think I am wrong in that - then show me where I have ever said or implied someone should not critique the game.

Then you seem to think that just because not ALL adventures are equally bad, that gives WotC a pass.

No I seem to think (because it's what I said) that it's acceptable to start out "OK" early on and get better over time to the point where the adventures are "good" which is what I am arguing. Particularly when dealing with a third party company like Green Ronin to begin with. I also seem to think it's a lot more productive to complain about what's coming out recently, from WOTC themselves, than it is to continue to dwell on what came out a year or more ago about Green Ronin's adventure. Getting progressively better over time is how most things in life go. If you disagree that's fine, but at least speak to my actual argument.

As if we are only allowed to judge the company based on their best products?!

No, as if we should judge the company based on the entirety of their products in the context of their progress over time, and the context of a third party company versus in-house adventures. Much like you and I are judged for things we do in life. We're generally worse when we first do something, and then get better as we gain experience and do them more. Which is why people tend to be judged more on what they've done recently, and directly. than what they did in the beginning, and for what they only supervised. And which is what's more helpful - to discuss what's current.

I happen to think WotC needs to be called out more publicly for their failings.

Why? They were called out plenty for the adventures you're harping on right now. I don't think it's helpful to continue to complain about stuff that isn't even vaguely recent anymore. It's not like they can retroactively change it, and they have improved since then which is the purpose of the complaining to begin with, right? Now if you were arguing they didn't get better you'd have a better point. It's why I keep focusing on the last two adventures.

I need not laud them for their triumps, Lord knows there are too many fanboys here already.

Recognizing success is not "fanboyism" any more than focusing on failure is trolling. Both are useful and when you dismiss one you make it easier to dismiss the other. If you want your complaints to be taken seriously, then don't be so dismissive of those who praise the good. Then again, if you want people to be dismissive of your complaints, then keep being dismissive of those who disagree.

But more importantly, when you have a negative message, you don't want to be met by "but what about the good things?" Why? Because that dilutes the message.

Tough. This is a public message board for fans of the game. It doesn't matter that you don't want people to disagree with your views. If you want to control responses, write a blog post rather than a message board post. By choosing the forum you chose, your message will get diluted by those who disagree with it.

Out of the Abyss has gotten rave reviews, but I state as no mere speculation the good grades are almost universally based on first impressions and "I've only read through half the book" (literally the first Amazon review starts with these words).

I suspect less than 5% of all the ratings are made by people that have actually run the latter half of the adventure. That doesn't mean their ratings are fraudulent or even useless. It does, however, mean you should not use them to argue people like how the module's end is constructed.

I've played through the adventure, and run part of it (we switched off DMing) and enjoyed it quite a bit. However, I did not rate it as far as I can recall. Nevertheless, the adventure came out over a year ago, by Green Ronin. What is the point of dwelling on it one way or the other? The only way to know if WOTC listened to criticism of their contractors work at the time is to examine the newer adventures and see if they improved. Which, again, brings me back to the point I am making which you keep avoiding.

Why haven't Steve Kenson, Lead Designer, even once been called to account for how the module ends?

There was a lot of discussion of it at the time. You're over a year late. Why do you keep acting like this is a recent topic which you have complete knowledge regarding?

Why is there no discussion of possibly barring Mr Kenson from writing high-level encounters when he so clearly isn't up to the task?

This is a ridiculous claim which I hope never comes back to be applied to you in life. You had a bad experience with one part of one adventure written by him, and you've decided he should be barred for life from ever writing high level encounters again? Come on, bring the hyperbole down a bit, would you?

Or, at the very least, why haven't we heard from their PR dept apologizing for how some rushed schedule meant the team could not do their very best?

Or how about, it's possible your opinion is not well shared, and even among those who think the adventure had some problems they don't see those problems to be as serious or intense or meaningful as you do?

Is it because I'm the outlier and everybody else loves the second half of the book? I don't think so.

Well you sure have not attempted to make your case by any objective means. What you guess is pretty irrelevant. You want people to take this claim seriously, then go find objective measures of what people think about the adventure that is more than your single subjective claim.

I think it is because a vanishingly small slice of the customer base has realized its flaws, and how most people tend to favor posting about their positive experiences rather than their negative ones.

Nope. Study after study shows that people choose to write publicly more about things that bother them than things they like. On that one I think you are wrong as a generalization.

So Mistwell, do me a favor and stop trying to whitewash this issue.

I'm not. I am disagreeing with you and you're reacting very poorly to dissent.

If you have run the module, and truly think you can defend it, feel very welcome. If you share my complaints, you would be even more warmly to share your experiences.

I mentioned the adventure above, but much more importantly I think you're wrong to be still complaining about an adventure over a year old from a contractor of WOTCs. It's October 2016. If WOTC has learned from mistakes made, the only way to determine that is to examine what they've done in the over-a-year since that adventure was written by their contractor. Why won't you do that?

Otherwise, I would like to ask you to stop posting statements like "Obviously, it's acceptable". You're putting words in my mouth.

OK fair enough, sorry for doing that.

Or worse, you try to speak for everyone. Either way, you come across as a WotC shill, mindlessly defending their every move.

I don't do that, it's a false accusation, I ask that you either support it or drop it. If you got that impression it's because you've read far too few of my posts, which is your own failing as you made the decision to make that judgement without putting in the effort to get the facts.

Furthermore, please stop relativizing the faults of the module.

Nope. Context is relevant. So is ethos. You don't get to dictate how people judge things and what people find relevant. Again, if you feel the need to control others on that level, make it a blog post instead of a post on a public forum inviting response.

Sorry but I need to call you out on pure BS like:

"to get better as they go, like pretty much every other game out there. Or product line. Or most things in life."

You do realize this means all criticism is meaningless, right, Mistwell?

No I don't because that's not what it means at all. If they had continued to do poorly over time without any improvement, you'd have a much better point than the one you have right now. Criticism of the Giants adventure or Strahd is a lot more meaningful because those are the more recent ones. If they still had the same flaws then the criticism has more meaning. Do you get that now? Have you looked at the reviews for them and seen if people are still running into the issues that you're highlighting? If not, why not?

 

[MonkeyWrench]

This is my core question after reading this thread. Would simply capping it earlier keep the challenge (and the threat of places like Menzoberranzan) alive? I'm contemplating keeping my CoS party at level 8 for the castle, rather than 10, for the same reason.

Just got finished running the adventure with significant modifications (both to account for PC capabilities and to fill in the gaps in the latter half), and to run it as-is, I wouldn't recommend going over level 8-10 depending on the party. The party will need to sneak into Menzo, make sketchy alliances, pit the demon lords against each other, etc. If you run it at 15th level or higher, the party can probably lead a direct assault on the city and force their way through.

 

[S'mon]

[MENTION=2525]Mistwell[/MENTION] I have to disagree with you on one thing - to me OoTA is still a 'recent-ish' adventure - mid-2015 wasn't it? A year or so old is hardly lost in the mists of time. I can kinda see this argument for the Tiamat adventures that came out along with the game, but Abyss was generally regarded as an improvement on those, and on Apocalypse as I recall.

 

[jasper]

For that EPIC feel OP just add a zero to everything. So instead of a +2 sword and AC 29 it's now a mega +20 sword and oh man AC 290.

EPIC!!!!!

tRD23 gets in 1. Almost any time you shift the numbers up if feels more epic! In 78 I could rollover a pinball game after going over 9,999 and get a free game. In 84, it would take 9,999,999 or higher for a free game. The layout could be the same but I got 100 to 10,000 pt from hitting a target in 84 where in 78 the points were way lower.