Well, you were responding to knasser, so...it seemed that way.
Can you be specific about what you mean by the bolded? What are you referring to?
D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided
- Thread starter CapnZapp
- Start date
Well, you were responding to knasser, so...it seemed that way.
Can you be specific about what you mean by the bolded? What are you referring to?
I wasn't talking about the DM side of things. Yes, DMs have to adjust, I know.
I am talking about the "design" side of things. Are you suggesting that the monsters in the MM, as presented, and the CR system as presented, no longer work when players maximize their choices (from the options in the official books) and start to synergize their tactics?
I'm going to make a general reply rather than a quoteaplex. Not because I haven't read everybody's responses with interest, but just because there are too many responses and references to what I wrote to constructively reference each one. Plus there are a couple of prevalent themes in them which makes a general response possible (Thank Tiamat! 
)
One thing people keep addressing to me is Sacrosanct's essential point of "what you like isn't what everybody likes". They put it in far less adversarial terms (which I appreciate) but essentially a lot of people are taking that ball and running with it. Which is a little frustrating to me because I explicitly discussed this even before Sacrosanct chose to disregard what I wrote in favour of their own take on it. The part I feel covers this is that I very clearly and more than once said that I believed these issues could be addressed without negative consequences elsewhere. And I think CapnZapp is saying the same in many places. Two examples that I have picked up in this thread are high level monster design and swinginess of high-level powers.
The Jubilex example seemed a good one. CapnZapp took a high CR monster and showed how it did not really allow for the capabilities of high level PCs. He then made some changes that didn't increase its threat overall, but did remove critical weaknesses that would make it a push-over for a party of the level it could supposedly challenge. Similarly synergies and irresistible abilities (as in a monster has no resistance to them, not in that the monster finds your abilities smexy) seem to break the idea of a true solo monster once you pass beyond around level ten to twelve is what I'm gathering.
What would seem to be good design would be where a more powerful foe or foes used up more resources of the party and a less powerful foe used up fewer, but both were viable. And if a DM wants six encounters per day, they give apportion out the challenge by six. Or maybe four regular and one double for the finalé. And possibly that is the intention.
But what is being described to me is a design where you need to have around the six encounters and if you attempt to concentrate some of that encounter juice into a single more powerful espresso shot it doesn't work well because PCs can Nova or doubled-up foes roflstomp the party. Or perhaps more accurately what I'm hearing is the design allows for the PCs to auto-win one encounter per day and the six encounters are there to make the PCs be careful because they have a finite number of auto-wins.
Where I'm coming from is that this mode of play / style of story does not excite me. And I think the same goes for my players. It seems not so much a case of six encounters per day being how much resource the PCs have to handle, as it is six encounters today is about right that they feel they have to ration their auto-win. For very story-based or strategic games, you tend towards a low number of encounters per day. And equally, if you pad it out with other encounters, they tend to feel not very meaningful because the players both know they could win if they chose and because it feels like padding. It works great for dungeon crawls, not so much for other stories. I think the weaknesses that CapnZapp (and myself as someone taking his word for it) are concerned about are this "pick which encounter you want to win" approach. And the suggestion, to bring this full circle to the start where I said I think it's not a case of my preferences eclipsing other people's preferences, is that both monsters and abilities could have been done differently to reduce both swinginess and "choose to win" tendencies. Now I don't know enough on the abilities side about how that could be mitigated but it does seem from what has been written here that there hasn't been paid enough attention to avoid devastating synergies (which sound fairly easy to find and do). But on the monster side it seems unlikely to me that you can't produce monsters that are better able to solo-challenge high-level parties. Specifically, that is to avoid sudden tipping points. I.e. as you progress up the CR chart for any given party level it should not go:
-> Easy Win If Go Nova
-> Easy Win If Go Nova
-> Easy Win If Go Nova
-> Could Go Wildly Either Way.
-> Could Go Wildly Either Way.
-> Could Go Wildly Either Way.
-> Foe(s) roflstomp the party.
It should rather go:
-> Very low risk of losing PC, use little resource.
-> Low risk of losing PC, use some resource.
-> Risk of losing PC, use resource.
-> Risk of losing PC(s), use all resource.
-> Probable lose PC(s), use all resource.
The difference is that the latter is a smoother gradiant and a DM could run six of the second one or two of the second one and one of the third one and the same PC party should be okay with either of those permutations. But I think we have the former and a GM essentially ends up with a binary choice: low grade encounters or dangerous unpredictability.
Now, I'm going to stop here. As I said, I do NOT have a lot of experience with 5e. I'm still learning it. A lot of what I write above is based on what I'm reading and inferring and also on comments above (from both critics and defenders, I might add). I could be wrong. Maybe I have been led astray. So I'm not going to argue vociferously in defence of the above is people tell me I've got it wrong. But that is where I'm coming from and I wanted to clear that up (again). I'm not arguing that the game should suit "my preferences" at the expense of other people's. I'm saying that I think there are design weaknesses that could be addressed that would make it better for everybody. Now if, as the spectacularly well-named Sacrosanct seems to believe, that 5e is perfect, then of course ANY change is a negative that shifts the game away from that and tips it into their "D&D isn't for you" territory. But I think most people here who like 5e as is, don't hold that it's impossible to make changes that are a general improvement for multiple different playstyles.
Okay. I'm out of HD. I need a long rest before plunging back into this melee. That's where I'm coming from anyway. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I'm NOT arguing on the basis that my preferences are better than someone else's preferences. I'm arguing that if you can remove a constraint without introducing another constraint elsewhere, then that's a good thing. So lets focus on whether that's possible or not rather than whether or not someone is affected by a given constraint.
Peace and coolness.
)One thing people keep addressing to me is Sacrosanct's essential point of "what you like isn't what everybody likes". They put it in far less adversarial terms (which I appreciate) but essentially a lot of people are taking that ball and running with it. Which is a little frustrating to me because I explicitly discussed this even before Sacrosanct chose to disregard what I wrote in favour of their own take on it. The part I feel covers this is that I very clearly and more than once said that I believed these issues could be addressed without negative consequences elsewhere. And I think CapnZapp is saying the same in many places. Two examples that I have picked up in this thread are high level monster design and swinginess of high-level powers.
The Jubilex example seemed a good one. CapnZapp took a high CR monster and showed how it did not really allow for the capabilities of high level PCs. He then made some changes that didn't increase its threat overall, but did remove critical weaknesses that would make it a push-over for a party of the level it could supposedly challenge. Similarly synergies and irresistible abilities (as in a monster has no resistance to them, not in that the monster finds your abilities smexy) seem to break the idea of a true solo monster once you pass beyond around level ten to twelve is what I'm gathering.
What would seem to be good design would be where a more powerful foe or foes used up more resources of the party and a less powerful foe used up fewer, but both were viable. And if a DM wants six encounters per day, they give apportion out the challenge by six. Or maybe four regular and one double for the finalé. And possibly that is the intention.
But what is being described to me is a design where you need to have around the six encounters and if you attempt to concentrate some of that encounter juice into a single more powerful espresso shot it doesn't work well because PCs can Nova or doubled-up foes roflstomp the party. Or perhaps more accurately what I'm hearing is the design allows for the PCs to auto-win one encounter per day and the six encounters are there to make the PCs be careful because they have a finite number of auto-wins.
Where I'm coming from is that this mode of play / style of story does not excite me. And I think the same goes for my players. It seems not so much a case of six encounters per day being how much resource the PCs have to handle, as it is six encounters today is about right that they feel they have to ration their auto-win. For very story-based or strategic games, you tend towards a low number of encounters per day. And equally, if you pad it out with other encounters, they tend to feel not very meaningful because the players both know they could win if they chose and because it feels like padding. It works great for dungeon crawls, not so much for other stories. I think the weaknesses that CapnZapp (and myself as someone taking his word for it) are concerned about are this "pick which encounter you want to win" approach. And the suggestion, to bring this full circle to the start where I said I think it's not a case of my preferences eclipsing other people's preferences, is that both monsters and abilities could have been done differently to reduce both swinginess and "choose to win" tendencies. Now I don't know enough on the abilities side about how that could be mitigated but it does seem from what has been written here that there hasn't been paid enough attention to avoid devastating synergies (which sound fairly easy to find and do). But on the monster side it seems unlikely to me that you can't produce monsters that are better able to solo-challenge high-level parties. Specifically, that is to avoid sudden tipping points. I.e. as you progress up the CR chart for any given party level it should not go:
-> Easy Win If Go Nova
-> Easy Win If Go Nova
-> Easy Win If Go Nova
-> Could Go Wildly Either Way.
-> Could Go Wildly Either Way.
-> Could Go Wildly Either Way.
-> Foe(s) roflstomp the party.
It should rather go:
-> Very low risk of losing PC, use little resource.
-> Low risk of losing PC, use some resource.
-> Risk of losing PC, use resource.
-> Risk of losing PC(s), use all resource.
-> Probable lose PC(s), use all resource.
The difference is that the latter is a smoother gradiant and a DM could run six of the second one or two of the second one and one of the third one and the same PC party should be okay with either of those permutations. But I think we have the former and a GM essentially ends up with a binary choice: low grade encounters or dangerous unpredictability.
Now, I'm going to stop here. As I said, I do NOT have a lot of experience with 5e. I'm still learning it. A lot of what I write above is based on what I'm reading and inferring and also on comments above (from both critics and defenders, I might add). I could be wrong. Maybe I have been led astray. So I'm not going to argue vociferously in defence of the above is people tell me I've got it wrong. But that is where I'm coming from and I wanted to clear that up (again). I'm not arguing that the game should suit "my preferences" at the expense of other people's. I'm saying that I think there are design weaknesses that could be addressed that would make it better for everybody. Now if, as the spectacularly well-named Sacrosanct seems to believe, that 5e is perfect, then of course ANY change is a negative that shifts the game away from that and tips it into their "D&D isn't for you" territory. But I think most people here who like 5e as is, don't hold that it's impossible to make changes that are a general improvement for multiple different playstyles.
Okay. I'm out of HD. I need a long rest before plunging back into this melee.
That's where I'm coming from anyway. I could be right, I could be wrong. But I'm NOT arguing on the basis that my preferences are better than someone else's preferences. I'm arguing that if you can remove a constraint without introducing another constraint elsewhere, then that's a good thing. So lets focus on whether that's possible or not rather than whether or not someone is affected by a given constraint.Peace and coolness.
Helldritch
Hero
I wish I were wrong too. I really do.
But so far, you can't take a solo monster out of the box and play it as is against a group of 6 level 15 with feats and multiclassing without tweaking the beast/monster. It simply won't do. That was the same thing in all editions and in most games. The closer you get to the end game level or power level, the more work the DM will have to make things work out as intented. A slight miscalculation can really end up in either a TPK or a trivial encounter that should have been something to remember.
On the other hand, I do not think that it is a bad thing either. It forces DM to surpass themselves and to adjust the game to their players. RPG are not videogames where everything is set. The sheer number of possibilities that RPGs have over video games is simply astronomical and it should stay that way. 4ed tried the video game approach and failed. 5ed went back to the basics and it works out great but with a slight blind spot.
AaronofBarbaria said
"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." (I don't know how to quote multiple posters...)
And Aaron is perfectly right on that. More over, the game simply can't handle 6 players with perfect accuracy. The calculations get weird result even in simulations (I make a simulation of most fight I send to players to check and most of the time it fails miserably without me doing some adjustements.) And the higher the level, the wider the gap between calculation and reality. The gap get is even wider when you do not take feats and multi classing into account.
Just to the right of the "Reply With Quote" at the foot of someone's post, there's a little quote icon with an addition symbol (or should be). You click on each post you would like to reply to as you go (I tend to click it as I read through catching up) and then when you hit the generic Reply button at the foot of the page, it will include quote blocks from all the people you've selected. It works across page groupings as well.
Ok. In your example above, there are 3 variables thrown in that are different from the Basic Rules: Feats, Multiclassing, and having a group of 6. I don't think a Solo monster designed for a group of 4 should be able to handle a group of 6. The designers did include rules in the encounter building section about how to compensate for that...and it's still way off. To me, that's a design flaw.
Feats and multiclassing are rules found in the PHB. Feats are made to be equivalent to ASIs; that at least implies that a game including both feats and ASIs is not different power-wise from a game that includes only ASIs; it seems that is not the case. Either the design team was unaware of this, making it a design flaw, or they were and it was just kind of weird to not include a warning to the DM and players that PCs will be more powerful to the point that things need to be adjusted on the other side of the screen.
The same would be said of multiclassing. If these official options make it so that the DM can't use the monsters from the MM as "plug and play," there should be a note saying so, no?
Same thing for high level play. If it's really true that high-level D&D play doesn't work according to the rules of the game, why is it being sold as though it does? That doesn't seem right to me.
I'm not sure how 4e failed in that approach, tbh. Encounter building was the easiest it has ever been. The post-Monstrous Manual math was tight. Not perfect (In practice, at paragon tier, high end encounters were level+5, not +4, and at epic tier they were +6), but certainly better than now. It's one of the odd step backwards 5e made.
None of this negates the necessity for the DM to cater the game to the PCs in front of him, obviously. I just wish the tools provided were more up to the task.
I'd settle for somewhat accurate. Again, it's just weird to me that the design team included system-breaking stuff in the PHB with no note as to how it would be system-breaking.
Thanks for the input though. I confess, I hadn't originally seen 5e as being that fragile in this regard, but it looks like I need to give more credit to the people who have been calling for no optional rules in the first place; they had a better argument than I originally thought. :/
Flamestrike
Legend
If I can summarize Capns position:
'I dont police the adventuring day and routinely let my savvy players nova strike and dump every resource they have on a single encounter, in a game designed around them having to ration them out over 6-8 encounters.
The encounters are getting steamrolled.
Accordingly... the CR system is borked.'
ITS NOT THE CR SYTEM THAT IS BORKED.
The mechanical problem (if any) is that the game assumes a longer adventuring day as the default, and bases the rest of its mechanics around this assumption (class and encounter balance). Without using a variant (gritty realism) it doesn't support games that default to single encounter adventuring days.
Critiquing this design decision is a fair criticism. There are reasons for its existence, but there are also arguments that the devs could have found a better workaround.
The actual problem at Capns table is (as DM) he either willfully ignores this game assumption (despite it being pointed out to him dozens of times) or chooses not to enforce it. He cant exactly claim ignorance of it.
There is no problem with the CR system. The mechanical 'problem' [if any - many see it as a feature or are neutral about it] is with the adventuring day requiring a series of encounters (between long rests) to make sense.
Can we not all agree on this point at least?
'I dont police the adventuring day and routinely let my savvy players nova strike and dump every resource they have on a single encounter, in a game designed around them having to ration them out over 6-8 encounters.
The encounters are getting steamrolled.
Accordingly... the CR system is borked.'
ITS NOT THE CR SYTEM THAT IS BORKED.
The mechanical problem (if any) is that the game assumes a longer adventuring day as the default, and bases the rest of its mechanics around this assumption (class and encounter balance). Without using a variant (gritty realism) it doesn't support games that default to single encounter adventuring days.
Critiquing this design decision is a fair criticism. There are reasons for its existence, but there are also arguments that the devs could have found a better workaround.
The actual problem at Capns table is (as DM) he either willfully ignores this game assumption (despite it being pointed out to him dozens of times) or chooses not to enforce it. He cant exactly claim ignorance of it.
There is no problem with the CR system. The mechanical 'problem' [if any - many see it as a feature or are neutral about it] is with the adventuring day requiring a series of encounters (between long rests) to make sense.
Can we not all agree on this point at least?
Seems true...but I would honestly say that if the CR system is so rigid and can't handle deviation...that's a problem.
You mention that Zapp "chooses not to enforce it." How does a DM "enforce" this structure when players decide when they go on or not? Only so many adventures can have a time-limit feature, right? 4e tried to motivate with the concept of milestones, but even that didn't work often enough.
It's happened to me more than once: 5-6 encounters of relatively easy challenge, then the players decide to call it a day before the big 7th one. Sigh.
You mention that Zapp "chooses not to enforce it." How does a DM "enforce" this structure when players decide when they go on or not? Only so many adventures can have a time-limit feature, right? 4e tried to motivate with the concept of milestones, but even that didn't work often enough.
It's happened to me more than once: 5-6 encounters of relatively easy challenge, then the players decide to call it a day before the big 7th one. Sigh.
Sacrosanct
Legend
Not willing to put in the DM prep time to know what your NPCs/monsters can do both in and out of combat is not exactly what I'd call "high standards".
Stop with this implication that people are "letting WotC get away" with anything. I'm not sure why this is such a hard concept for you to get since several people have all said the same thing over and over. Your problems are not universal. People aren't letting WotC get away with anything (but nice dig at fellow posters' integrity there) because they don't have these problems you have. Again, any issues you have are not necessarily issues with the game itself, but with how you play the game.
Stop. Seriously. This is several times now where you imply that anyone who disagrees with you isn't reasonable or rational.
Is 4e and D20 the only editions you've played? I say this, because there are a whole lot of players out there who feel 3e is way easier to break than 5e will ever be, with CODzillas, pew pew, angel summoner vs BMX bike, etc.
If you think 5e is so easy to break, then how about playing the NPCs up to their abilities next time, which the OP clearly did not?
jasper
Rotten DM
Ok.
Hence forth you is CapnSueZapp. Sue it is written. Sue it is.
Similar Threads
