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

[Eric V]

I hope you're wrong Helldritch, because it's disingenuous to sell us a game that goes to level 20 with the designers knowing it only really works from 1-15, isn't it?

At least give a warning or something...but the game definitely implies that it works from levels 1-20. After that, they have guidelines or ideas, but don't promise anything.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But that's the point - that's not what's happened with 5E.

5E is significantly easier than any edition I've come across to break. 5E looks and feels significantly easier than either d20 or 4E.

So this is not the whole truth.

I am fully prepared to tweak encounters to match the performance of my players.

What I do not accept is when the encounters are essentially useless as written, as if meant for a party five or even ten levels lower, and in need to be completely rewritten from scratch.

And just as a reminder, now we're definitely not talking about the Death Knight encounter. Now we're talking about the level of challenge offered by the latter half of Out of the Abyss, to pick an immediate example. This was what made @Celtavian quit 5E after all.

But it's not confined to one adventure module. One inexperienced or naive module more or less is nothing. We can all live with that. What is so worrying is the entire Monster Manual, and how it appears to be written by staff with no real experience of high level hero capabilities. The way ranged fire is made "cool" with little thought on how this impacts the overall game and indeed the fundamental assumptions of the entire genre. How Greatweapon Master interacts with commonplace class features of the PHB. Indeed even the utterly basic things: the atrocious index, and the completely inept way spells are categorized.

5E is great, no dooubt about it.

But that's just it. Precisely because it is so well designed in general does the flaws and niggles stand out, especially since they're so worryingly indicative of not having learnt by past mistakes.

I do think that is what happened with 5E. The game is made for beginner to intermediate players and DMs. There are not a ton of complex areas as-is. That doesn't mean that there can't be. The system was designed with customizability in mind. So the first step in attempt to address ANY game issue is to see if you can modify the game mechanics to get what you want.

I havent played Out of the Abyss, so I can't really comment on that. And my familiarity with Celtavian amounts to a thread where he did not seem the most reasonable of folks, so I cannot take his view as anything meaningful. I do own the book and I have read through a good portion of it, and I don't really recall being that concerned about what i saw. However, reading the adventure is a poor replacement for actually playing it, so I certainly could be wrong.

I don't think that your points are without merit. There are criticisms of 5E that I think are valid to one degree or another. I agree with you that I'd like more variety in monster abilities and capabilities. It'd also be nice to have some more high level monsters. However, these are problems that I can address myself, and through no great effort. It's pretty simple, honestly. My high level campaign is running just fine, and that campaign does seem to be more in line with how you play (big threats, fewer total encounters per day, etc).

I honestly think that you are overlooking player proficiency and how big of an impact that has on the game. It's really not "easy to break" the game without some level of mastery. Take players who are familiar with past editions, or even just with RPGs in general, and you will find them more capable of testing the game's limits.

However, depending on the group, proficient players may recognize such "flaws" in design as exploitable ways to ensure victory, and other players may see them as boring ways to try and always "win". Player mindset is a big factor here.

The game does seem to slant things toward ranged combat, to some extent. I agree with you on that. However, the idea that it's "cool" is one I'm not so sure about. My players don't all specialize in ranged attacks precisely because they tend to think of melee combat as the cool area of the game. My players are proficient enough to see feat combos that are highly potent, and class synergies and so on. But they aren't compelled to use them. They don't generally multi-class unless they have a really strong story related reason to do so. They aren't building their characters solely to win combats.

I don't know what it is exactly about your game that makes such a big deal out of what are minor concerns in mine. However, my guess would have to be your players' level of skill and their play style. My suggestion would not be to add options, but to remove them. The fact that almost all of them are multi-classed speaks volumes...especially when you refer to them most often by one class (i.e. "the monk" rather than "the monk-fighter").

Maybe removing feats and multi-classing from the game for a while would help things. Maybe your player should would then think more tactically and come up with ideas for how to resolve situations rather than simply viewing character building as being "tactical".

 

[Blue]

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.

I think this is where the disconnect between the two sides is coming from. It is the only general solution within the existing resource management balance of 5e.

It's really that big. Not realizing it is that big is the problem. Let me repeat that, since any reply needs to address this: The game designers have made a game that makes mechanical assumptions about how many encounters a set of resources is spread over. The game is not designed to handle 6+ encounters worth of resources to be spent on only a single encounter and provide the same experience.

Sure, it's possible to create encounters harder and not "multiple encounters under another guise" like phased bosses or waves of reinforcements. But since the optimization and party synergy levels vary so much there is no way to do that from a designer viewpoint, that's all on the DM.

It's perfectly valid to want an RPG that does that. Personally, the large number of encounters per day is by far the biggest problem I have with 5e. And 5e has some flexibility where it bends before it breaks - for instance you can repeatably run 4 hard-to-deadly encounters in a day with a short rest between them and have it work out. But to work outside the default bounds requires more DM work, which circles back to the issue of dropping foes into an encounter and running.

So to reference what [MENTION=15700]Sacrosanct[/MENTION] said - wanting D&D 5e to be able to drop in one encounter per day and have it "just work" is far enough outside their intentional design choices that it's unlikely that will happen, especially reliably and repeatably. That's not a design fail, it's using the wrong tool for the job. Taking the designers to task for making a hex wrench when you wanted a phillips head screwdriver isn't their fault. You might just be able to make the hex wrench do what you need, but it'll be a lot more work.

 

[Rhenny]

I'll throw in a few more of my own observations/ideas from DMing and playing 5e over the past 2+ years - neither for nor against any other perspectives offered by many of the interesting posts in this thread.

What I find most enjoyable about 5e (and perhaps this was an intentional design feature from reading over what Mearls, Thompson, Crawford, Perkins have said over the years) is that to me it seems like the one edition that makes it easiest to balance all three pillars (combat, exploration and interaction) of the game during any given session. I happen to like hitting that balance. I think 5e works well for balanced DMs and players alike.

On the other hand, it tends to break down (to lesser or greater degrees) for DMs or players who want to focus on any one of the three pillars more than equally. Players/groups that love spending all of their time in combat, playing uber tactical, looking for the epic combat encounters that push them to their limits, probably won't get as much of the Wow that 5e offers to those that like the balance. The same goes for groups that favor exploration or interaction, shying away from combat (although those types of players are usually less concerned with rules and more concerned with story telling so that kind of overbalance isn't as incongruous with 5e).

I think this is one reason why groups that accept the 4-8 encounter per day model will get the most bang for their buck when playing 5e. Furthermore, to take advantage of what 5e has to offer, DMs/groups should also think about how encounters do not need to be specifically combat related, but rather they should be thought of as larger or smaller problems that a party needs to solve using resources as best they can to achieve a desirable outcome. Adventures need to be designed by establishing goals that are not related to defeating monsters as an end in itself, but as only one means to an end.

From my own experience, and from reading about other people's gaming experiences with 5e, and from watching the live stream games run by Chris Perkins and other WotC staff members as well as Matt Mercer's Critical Role, the wow factor for most of these games is from a focus on character development, story telling (developing an interesting narrative) and giving players the chance to explore all aspects of the roleplaying experience, not focusing on combat alone. It works well for those that want the balance of roleplaying and mechanical crunch, foregrounding roleplaying and "rulings" rather than rules.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

...compensating for pitfalls in the game or monster design.

This is likely the root of any misunderstanding of your points that has been had. You are labeling a situation as a "pitfall", which implies that it could have been avoided entirely, while others are seeing that if the thing you are calling a "pitfall" were changed by the designers (rather than by you) it would become a "pitfall" according to someone else - and that someone likely having less capability to "compensate", because tailoring a game to the desires of the highly-experienced system-mastery-engaging players and DMs inherently makes the game less friendly to the inexperienced and those that don't want to have to engage in system mastery.

This is especially the case when the situation is one like described in the OP: the group uses optional rules that increase the potency of player characters, engage in system mastery, choose actions with synergy, and spend resources rapidly because they assume they have no reason to reserve them for later - all of which are choices made by the people playing, not a forced or inherent state caused by the design of the game - and the DM neither wants to let these choices mean the game is just easier for the players, nor do anything to prevent that from being the case. That's not a "pitfall of game or monster design", it's someone making choices and not wanting to accept the consequences of those choices.

Like choosing to spend money on groceries, rather than take-out meals, but not wanting to cook, so you don't eat very well - and then getting online to complain that the grocery store didn't do enough to help you cook a meal, even though most grocers (at least in my area) offer not only products with recipes on/in them, but also pre-prepped ingredients like already-diced onion or minced garlic in a jar (which I think nicely equates to how 5th edition is full of optional rules variations, and has some adventures to buy if you want the extra help)

 

[Eric V]

You are labeling a situation as a "pitfall", which implies that it could have been avoided entirely, while others are seeing that if the thing you are calling a "pitfall" were changed by the designers (rather than by you) it would become a "pitfall" according to someone else - and that someone likely having less capability to "compensate", because tailoring a game to the desires of the highly-experienced system-mastery-engaging players and DMs inherently makes the game less friendly to the inexperienced and those that don't want to have to engage in system mastery.

​

The game's not designed to handle players who engage in system mastery and who choose synergistic actions?

Huh.

I still wish they had done a better job with monster format and CR, but ok, fine. I didn't peg 5e for that kind of game, but maybe it is. Certainly changes things.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The game's not designed to handle players who engage in system mastery and who choose synergistic actions?

Huh.

That is a serious misunderstanding of what I said. Allow me to clarify it by slightly rephrasing:

The game's not designed to handle players who engage in system mastery and who choose synergistic actions without the DM also engaging in system mastery and choosing synergistic actions.

The game handles things just fine if the players and DM are on the same page. Where it "breaks" is when the group gives all kinds of optional goodies to the PCs and the DM sticks to standard-rules-only for monster, and expects a result other than the PCs laying waste to the opposition.

 

[Eric V]

That is a serious misunderstanding of what I said. Allow me to clarify it by slightly rephrasing:

The game's not designed to handle players who engage in system mastery and who choose synergistic actions without the DM also engaging in system mastery and choosing synergistic actions.

The game handles things just fine if the players and DM are on the same page. Where it "breaks" is when the group gives all kinds of optional goodies to the PCs and the DM sticks to standard-rules-only for monster, and expects a result other than the PCs laying waste to the opposition.

I'm not sure that [MENTION=65151]knasser[/MENTION] nor [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] "gave all kinds of optional goodies to the PCs" and themselves ran the monsters by rules-only.

I won't speak for them, but reading their contributions above, it certainly doesn't seem that way.

Is the game designed to handle system mastery and synergistic actions on the part of the players? By "design" here, I mean the CR system and the overall efficiency of the monsters presented as is in the MM (and Volo's Guide, I suppose); what the designers can contribute.

Looking at what the designers have contributed in those forms, it does not seem to be designed that way.

And that's fine. It's jsut not that kind of game, I suppose. I personally find it weird that the designers didn't forsee players being interested enough to master the system (especially with the prevalence since 3e on optimization, in builds, spells, etc.) or engage in synergistic actions as a team, but maybe they didn't. Maybe it's meant to be a much more casual game.

Interesting.

 

[hawkeyefan]

I'm not sure that @knasser nor @CapnZapp "gave all kinds of optional goodies to the PCs" and themselves ran the monsters by rules-only.

I won't speak for them, but reading their contributions above, it certainly doesn't seem that way.

Is the game designed to handle system mastery and synergistic actions on the part of the players? By "design" here, I mean the CR system and the overall efficiency of the monsters presented as is in the MM (and Volo's Guide, I suppose); what the designers can contribute.

Looking at what the designers have contributed in those forms, it does not seem to be designed that way.

And that's fine. It's jsut not that kind of game, I suppose. I personally find it weird that the designers didn't forsee players being interested enough to master the system (especially with the prevalence since 3e on optimization, in builds, spells, etc.) or engage in synergistic actions as a team, but maybe they didn't. Maybe it's meant to be a much more casual game.

Interesting.

The default assumption is that it is a casual game, yes. It needs to be accessible for new players or returning players.

That does not, however, require only a casual level of engagement with the game. As players improve and begin to learn how to maximize their choices and their tactics, the DM should take that into consideration.

So a DM running a game for a bunch of 10 year olds playing for the first time is going to do things differently than he would when running a game for a bunch of 40 year old long time players.

I think it pretty much boils down to that. And I don't think anyone would ever expect the DM to run both of those games the same.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

I'm not sure that @knasser nor @CapnZapp "gave all kinds of optional goodies to the PCs" and themselves ran the monsters by rules-only.

I won't speak for them, but reading their contributions above, it certainly doesn't seem that way.

Is the game designed to handle system mastery and synergistic actions on the part of the players? By "design" here, I mean the CR system and the overall efficiency of the monsters presented as is in the MM (and Volo's Guide, I suppose); what the designers can contribute.

Looking at what the designers have contributed in those forms, it does not seem to be designed that way.

And that's fine. It's jsut not that kind of game, I suppose. I personally find it weird that the designers didn't forsee players being interested enough to master the system (especially with the prevalence since 3e on optimization, in builds, spells, etc.) or engage in synergistic actions as a team, but maybe they didn't. Maybe it's meant to be a much more casual game.

Interesting.

Two things to address briefly:

1) I am only expressing what I have gathered by the statements made on these forums - and I haven't specifically attributed them to knasser.

2) You are misunderstanding again. It isn't that "the designers didn't foresee players being interested enough to master the system or engage in synergistic actions as a team" - it's that they foresaw players having a DM with comparable interest in those things, and thus capability of using the game materials as presented to satisfy the desires of their group.

Because, again, the only time there is ever any problem is when the two sides of the game are not being matched, and the people playing expect them to match - such as giving all possible potency boosts to PCs, and then expecting the encounter guidelines and monsters straight from the book to present something other than an easier-than-normal result.