D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

[CapnZapp]

It's not broken as long as you follow the rules. Each time you multi-class, you need to meet minimum stat requirements. That puts a halt on a lot of those builds because people don't want to have to put a relatively high stat value in a stat that they won't use just to get the one level dip of the class the want.

Who said anything about breaking the rules. Stop implying anyone is breaking the rules. Stop implying someone is having issues with multiclassing because they're doing it wrong.

Also, and more importantly, multi-classing is optional. No rule that is optional is broken because you can always not play with it. Every multi-class needs to have DM approval. If you're the DM and think something is broken, you just don't allow it. Simple solution.

So... you agree it can be abused then?

You do not get to first accuse people of breaking the rules, and if not, then simply saying "don't use the rule then".

Not as a solution, you don't.

If you had suggested you could always turn off multiclassing because it can be broken and abused, that would be one thing. But don't pretend "turning it off" is a solution, as if that makes the rules alright!

 

[CapnZapp]

This reminds me of the old joke. Man goes to the doctor and says,"Doctor it hurts when I do this." And the doctor replies,"Don't do that."

Resolving CapnZapp's problem is simple. Add more encounters. No rewriting no changes to rules or stat blocks. Just add an encounter. Problem solved.

Why do we need mechanical changes when the solution is that simple?

Resolving CapnZapp's problem is simple. Add rules support that is optional. Not forcing dungeon master after dungeon master to fix what the rules should have provided options for. And not changing anything for the DM that's happy with things as they are. Problem solved.

Why do we need mechanical changes when the solution is that time-consuming, and when it puts the entire workload on DM after DM?

Because "just add an encounter" is a glib misleading piece of "advice". Adding encounters mess with many types of stories. It means a lot of work. It steals time during play. It makes for a lot of boring trash fights.

It sure is a solution. But it sure as hell shouldn't be the only solution. That makes for a less encompassing game and D&D would be poorer for it.

 

[CapnZapp]

I am not saying that your criticisms are totally unfounded...I get your point and I can even agree with some of the things you're saying. But this example as you have described it...I just don't see this as a result of the system nearly as much as it's a result of the way the encounter was set up and the way it was played.

I posted this battle as an example of how awesome things can be in D&D.

Since then the discussion has moved on.

 

[Helldritch]

I posted this battle as an example of how awesome things can be in D&D.

Since then the discussion has moved on.

And thank you for the share. Strange things do happen in this forum

 

[mpwylie]

Resolving CapnZapp's problem is simple. Add rules support that is optional. Not forcing dungeon master after dungeon master to fix what the rules should have provided options for. And not changing anything for the DM that's happy with things as they are. Problem solved.

Why do we need mechanical changes when the solution is that time-consuming, and when it puts the entire workload on DM after DM?

So, exactly what are these optional rules/changes you want that will fix your perceived issue? They gave us a game with instructions on how to play, then for those that don't want to play it that way, they gave us tools to alter how it's played. They gave us tools for creating our own custom monsters, they gave us mechanics for Legendary creatures, they gave us mechanics for Lair actions. All of this gives us a way to create monsters with increased action economy and special abilities to make challenging boss fights. Then they gave us optional rules for short/long rests to change them from 1/8 to 8/24 to slow down resource resetting by players so you can have more fights between rests without bogging down your game with "trash" encounters.

There are a lot of people playing this game and there will be a lot of different playstyles. They gave us a system, then the tools to alter the system for varied playstyles so they didn't have to waste time and create bloat. Yep, that means if you don't to follow the system as written you need to do some extra work. I for one am much happier to have a base system that I as the DM can use as a starting point to create and play how I want. And I think that was their whole point.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Who said anything about breaking the rules.

The part I quoted, when he said: "multiclassing is also broken..."

Seriously, do you even read posts before responding?

Stop implying anyone is breaking the rules. Stop implying someone is having issues with multiclassing because they're doing it wrong.

You keep saying "implying". I don't think that word means what you think it means.

So... you agree it can be abused then?

Saying multiclassing is optional and thus isn't required isn't the same thing as agreeing it can be abused. They are completely different things. For one, a person can simply not like an optional whatever to keep it out of their games. Abuse has nothing to with it.

You do not get to first accuse people of breaking the rules, and if not, then simply saying "don't use the rule then".

Not as a solution, you don't.

If you had suggested you could always turn off multiclassing because it can be broken and abused, that would be one thing. But don't pretend "turning it off" is a solution, as if that makes the rules alright!

If someone doesn't want an optional rule for whatever reason, then not using that rule is a solution. Also, like I said, just because you have an issue with a rule doesn't mean all or most others do. Therefore, it's not even a problem that needs a solution for many.

But you know what, after reading your responses in this thread? I am convinced your problems with the game are self inflicted, and rather than take any ownership whatsoever of the problems you're having, you're blaming the designers. To a comical effect no less, when you say things like you're an "overworked DM" shortly after saying you can't be bothered to spend time preparing as a DM. You must have a funny definition of "overworked". Your initial scenario was only a cakewalk because you completely neutered your bad guys because you couldn't be bothered to spend the time preparing them as a DM. So you blame the system as broken or the designers as being bad. People have given solutions, and rather than accept them, you then attack others as being apologists for WotC and irrational.

No dude. This is a problem because by your description, it's lazy DMing. That's not a designer problem. You want literally everything handed to you and done for you. And all you have been able to do when called out on it is personally attack other people either with ad hominems (calling them apologists or irrational) or with strawmen ("you're saying it can be abused").

 

[Flamestrike]

Who said anything about breaking the rules. Stop implying anyone is breaking the rules. Stop implying someone is having issues with multiclassing because they're doing it wrong!

You are having issues because youre doing it wrong.

In your post above you let the MC Fighter Ranger stack extra attack.

 

[CapnZapp]

Sacrosanct: you argue my needs should not be met, not even by optional variant rules. Yet, you consider not using a variant a solution for those people that need it. Be off with you.

Flamestrike: You don't know what you're talking about, so just stop it.

 

[Arial Black]

Flamestrike: You don't know what you're talking about, so just stop it.

Did you let the MC Fighter Ranger stack extra attack?

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sacrosanct: you argue my needs should not be met, not even by optional variant rules. Yet, you consider not using a variant a solution for those people that need it.

I suppose if me saying that you (or anyone) shouldn't expect to have all the work done for you as the DM counts as me advocating that your needs shouldn't be met, then that's technically true. The game gives you everything you need already (at least in the examples you've provided in this thread), but it's expected that the DM at least put in some effort in preparing. You just don't want to use them or put in even a minor level of effort while DMing. That's a you problem, not the designer problem. Stop blaming them. And stop attacking anyone who disagrees with you as an irrational WoTC apologist. Own up to your own choices. Additionally, it should be noted that no game will meet all of the needs of every single gamer. That's impossible. Demanding it be so it selfish, to be honest, especially when paired with insulting the designers for not doing the impossible. 5e doesn't meet all of my needs, but guess what? I'm the DM, which means I have the power do change/modify things at my table to get those needs met. It requires a time commitment and a bit of effort.

Be off with you.

You don't know how this whole public forum thing works, do you?