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

[CapnZapp]

That solution would have resulted in a completely different result in your OP.

You are simply battling windmills at this point, S. I am critiquing the system, yes, but I certainly did not use this thread's example for that.

 

[Sacrosanct]

This is classic Flamestrike. If you don't want to DM things his way, you're doing it wrong.

Oh, the irony....

You're way past the point of no return, but for anyone else still reading: I didn't.

LOL. Yeah, you've spent plenty of time just in this thread alone not only blaming the designers and WotC, but calling anyone who disagreed with you as an unreasonable apologist.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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 wouldn't go as far as to say they don't work. When using the options for feats and multi-classing...which are options...then the monsters and CR system may require some adjustment. The "burden" of such adjustments falls to the DM because each group will likely have different concerns or different means of addressing those concerns.

It's a bit of a trick question you are asking because of the "as presented" caveat. I don't think that all of the monsters hold up well against proficient players with CR appropriate characters using feats and multi-classing. However, I don't really see that as a problem because the game is absolutely meant to be customized as presented.

So if we're going to include feats and multi-classing in our default assumptions of the game, then we should also take into consideration all of the options presented to the DM as part of the default assumption.

Now...I say all of this but I do want to add that I personally do not use the CR system in any significant way. When coming up with an encounter, I may make a note of a given creature's CR as a general assessment of its threat level, and that's about it. The CR system is only a guideline. It's there to give you an idea of how to construct an encounter. Once you're comfortable doing so, the CR system ceases to be that useful or important. There is never going to be a formula for calculating CR and encounter dangers that works across the board. For lack of a better way to phrase it, encounter design is an art, not a science.

 

[Flamestrike]

You can't. Please stop summarizing my position in a way that allows you to conclude you were right all along.

Zapp, the only thing I'm right about is that you're not policing the 5 minute adventuring day (timing quests etc) and that the game goes out of kilter when you dont. This is by your own admission.

The example in your OP was a prime example of fully rested PCs novaing an encounter (that was also run poorly). It was a prime example of why you use longer adventuring days (lets see them smash that same encounter, six times in a row between long resting) and also a prime example of why games break apart at your groups level (most DMs cant properly transition into DMing high level campaigns and threats due to the PCs options for steamrolling encounters improving beyond the DMs experience and imagination to deal with).

Re that last point, I can play a 20th level Wizard suboptimally ('he just really likes melee!') against a bunch of 1st level fighters and lose. It proves nothing about the rules. Equally, I can also throw a bunch of 20th level PCs into a dungeon to recover a macguffin (just like they did at low levels) and have it all fall apart via the clerics divine intervention, PCs sending armies in to do it for them, using wish spells, dimensional travel and clairvoyance circumventing the whole dungeon or one of a million or more options available to high level PCs.

High level PCs require two things: unique threats and experienced DMs. Seeing as most campaigns end as high level abilities come into play more (and DMs rage-quit or players arent challenged anymore and the game falls apart) few DMs have the experience to run them.

As a side note I'm also right that you only created this thread to sook about your perceived issues with the game again as well. Not only havent you dispelled that hunch I had, you've done everything to support it.

 

[Sacrosanct]

. For lack of a better way to phrase it, encounter design is an art, not a science.

I would say it's more of a skill, but for the most part I agree. Like anything else, the more you do something and the more you become familiar with it, the easier and more intuitive it will be to make things work the smoothest.

There's a reason why D&D has a basic set. The game has a lot of rules, and the basic set is there to get new DMs and players familiar before overloading them with all the other stuff. It's there to get players a good feel for the game without forcing them to factor in all the other optional and/or more complex parts of the whole game. CRs are a good baseline, but since every table plays differently, it's critical for the DM to know his or her players and know enough about the rules to tweak the system to fit your needs.

Speaking of, by all accounts I've heard over the years, 4e was the version that required the least amount of tweaking and was the most balanced. I could be wrong, but that's my recollection. The problem with that is you end up with a narrowly focused game that only meshes with a smaller portion of gamers. If the other gamers can't tweak it to fit their needs, they go elsewhere. Which is what happened. It's better for the brand to have a broader appeal, even if that means DMs need to tweak more if their desires aren't met exactly. In fact, that's the beauty of D&D, IMO--being able to shape it to play how I want to play.

 

[Eric V]

I wouldn't go as far as to say they don't work. When using the options for feats and multi-classing...which are options...then the monsters and CR system may require some adjustment. The "burden" of such adjustments falls to the DM because each group will likely have different concerns or different means of addressing those concerns.

Ok, so if those official options are used, then it's less likely that the monsters or CR system can be used as is, without adjustment. Fair enough. I do wish, if the design team was aware of this, that they had made mention of it in the sections for those optional rules. :/

It's a bit of a trick question you are asking because of the "as presented" caveat. I don't think that all of the monsters hold up well against proficient players with CR appropriate characters using feats and multi-classing. However, I don't really see that as a problem because the game is absolutely meant to be customized as presented.

I swear I'm not trying to make a trick question, only get a degree of specificity. I agree that the game should be customized; I just always thought that was as regards preference issues as opposed to mechanical issues. But yeah, ok.

So if we're going to include feats and multi-classing in our default assumptions of the game, then we should also take into consideration all of the options presented to the DM as part of the default assumption.

Which presented options are you referring to here? I apologize, but it's not clear to me; I may be missing something.

Now...I say all of this but I do want to add that I personally do not use the CR system in any significant way. When coming up with an encounter, I may make a note of a given creature's CR as a general assessment of its threat level, and that's about it. The CR system is only a guideline. It's there to give you an idea of how to construct an encounter. Once you're comfortable doing so, the CR system ceases to be that useful or important. There is never going to be a formula for calculating CR and encounter dangers that works across the board. For lack of a better way to phrase it, encounter design is an art, not a science.

Ok, I appreciate your honesty about the CR system. Thanks!

 

[Eric V]

I hope you continue to play and love D&D, despite this.

You know what? It's a great game. It's probably my fav version to date: 4e ended up being just too cumbersome for us; 3e had the exaggerated gulf between casters and non-casters, 2e was a little too all over the place (freelance writers with little oversight played a huge part, I'm sure), 1e was...well, it had all the shortcomings of being one of the first RPGs.

It is by no means perfect. Because people learn from previous experiences, I expect each version to be better than the last. 5e improves upon a lot of things, for sure. In some areas, it seems to have inexplicably taken a step backwards, and I genuinely don't know why.

When did having all the info needed to run a monster in one place become a bad thing? When did having suggested encounter groups for said monster included in its write-up become a bad thing? When did giving it a role, for suggested combat purposes, become a bad thing? These aforementioned things only made the game easier (and therefore more fun) to run...why were they jettisoned?

In a lot of ways, the 4e MM sucked, especially the lack of lore for the monsters. New creatures were introduced with no narrative to them, making them more difficult to put in a story than necessary. But running them in the game? The 4e MM (and the tight math around encounter building) made running the game much easier.

So, I don't understand the step backwards. Of the things I listed above, none of them would make negative the experience of anyone playing 5e right now if they were included. It was a solid advance made in the evolution of the game, and then oddly disappeared.

That's what's frustrating about the 'apologists': People critique the game because they want a better game, and they feel 5e might be able to deliver. Otherwise, we're left with "5e delivers as long as you have 6-8 encounters per day, otherwise, all bets are off." I can't believe that's true. "5e breaks down after level 15." Why?! With decades of experience, no one can make those levels work? Really? It's impossible? I can't believe that either. And if it ends up being true (note, I don't think it needs be true), then it's not right that the designers present the game pretending that it works fine. :/

 

[OB1]

Most of what you wrote was reasoned and I thank you for it.

But here I gotta complain. You can't seriously compare the entire d20 playing style with d20 Modern.

Not only is this absurd, but I know the design team would not agree.

Hey Capn - I meant that making 5e work in a modern day setting or SciFi setting also would take a lot of work on the part of the DM. I was comparing that to reworking the game to allow for single encounter adventuring days. It can be done, but it goes against the core assumptions of the game and therefore takes some work.

 

[Helldritch]

You know what? It's a great game. It's probably my fav version to date: 4e ended up being just too cumbersome for us; 3e had the exaggerated gulf between casters and non-casters, 2e was a little too all over the place (freelance writers with little oversight played a huge part, I'm sure), 1e was...well, it had all the shortcomings of being one of the first RPGs.

It is by no means perfect. Because people learn from previous experiences, I expect each version to be better than the last. 5e improves upon a lot of things, for sure. In some areas, it seems to have inexplicably taken a step backwards, and I genuinely don't know why.

Yep, 5ed is a great game. Fully agree on that and yep it did take a step backward.

When did having all the info needed to run a monster in one place become a bad thing? When did having suggested encounter groups for said monster included in its write-up become a bad thing? When did giving it a role, for suggested combat purposes, become a bad thing? These aforementioned things only made the game easier (and therefore more fun) to run...why were they jettisoned?

In a lot of ways, the 4e MM sucked, especially the lack of lore for the monsters. New creatures were introduced with no narrative to them, making them more difficult to put in a story than necessary. But running them in the game? The 4e MM (and the tight math around encounter building) made running the game much easier.

That is exactly where 4ed failed. Too much detail not enough flavor. The videogame approach was not what people/rpgers wanted. The encounter system of 4ed had some of the failures of 5ed with big groups of 6. At least that is my experience. Maybe some other had en entire different experience than mine.

So, I don't understand the step backwards. Of the things I listed above, none of them would make negative the experience of anyone playing 5e right now if they were included. It was a solid advance made in the evolution of the game, and then oddly disappeared.

That's what's frustrating about the 'apologists': People critique the game because they want a better game, and they feel 5e might be able to deliver. Otherwise, we're left with "5e delivers as long as you have 6-8 encounters per day, otherwise, all bets are off." I can't believe that's true. "5e breaks down after level 15." Why?! With decades of experience, no one can make those levels work? Really? It's impossible? I can't believe that either. And if it ends up being true (note, I don't think it needs be true), then it's not right that the designers present the game pretending that it works fine. :/

Ok, time to go point by point...
1) The game by itself fails at level 15 because of the sheer numbers of possibilities that the players have in their hands. With all the divinations and transportation modes available you can no longuer build adventures as you used to do. The big baddy inside the tower near the top will be met first by such high level group. Either by flying or simple teleportation/plane hopping. The adventure pressure points are no longuer How to get there and Why did it happened? It is most likely that you, as a DM, will have to do the How to slow their progression, why would they go there and how will the main villain stop the players. You will have to apply time pressure very often to force players into acting without over planing with divinations and all the yaddi yadda that will come with divinations.

2) The game assumes 4 players. With four players in play, the game is much more stable. Unfortunately, it becomes swingy with 5 and 6 players.

3) The encounter build up does not (seem to) take feats and multiclassing into account. If you are using both, chances are that your job as DM is quite harder. The CR of the monsters will usualy be too low to give a real threath to players such as mine. Again the higher the level, the harder it gets.

4) If you do not enforce the 6-8 encounters per day, the players will simply go nova and do the 5mwd trick. Combat was too hard, we need to rest... I personaly use encounter tables to make sure that their sleep is disturbed until they get that amount. If they are in the vilain's compound/complex or whatever. I make sure that patrols are upgraded and they search for the group.

5) The game start to fail at 15 not only because of that but also because many DM lack the experience to handle such powerful groups. We did voice our concerns during Next play test in the surveys but it seems we were ignored. (but at least we were heard )

6) Monster's AC is relatively low in MM. If your players are using feats and multi-classing. I strongly recomand to add ASI and feats to monsters (1 ASI/feat for each 4 CR beyond the first four.) or change their equipement. That is more work for the DM but it also adds a bit of randomness that the players that have memorized MM won't be able to factor in and it will suprise them. By doing that, all monsters become much more on par with them.

7) The worst failure of 5ed is also its biggest advantage. Common wording can sometimes leads to heated discussions at the table (and in the forums) but in the end, 5ed relies entirely on the DM's call. As long as that call is consistent, you will have no problems.

I really enjoy 5ed. It has its shortcomings but overall it is the edition they made so far. And with a bit of work, it becomes easy to let your players rise to level 20.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Ok, so if those official options are used, then it's less likely that the monsters or CR system can be used as is, without adjustment. Fair enough. I do wish, if the design team was aware of this, that they had made mention of it in the sections for those optional rules. :/

I am not near my books, but I'm reasonably sure that this is mentioned in the books. I don't know if it's made abundantly clear or anything, but I think it's mentioned that the default assumptions don't include the use of feats and multi-classing.

Feats and multi-classing are optional rules, that is made clear. I think many long time players are so used to those options being baked right into the game that this is often overlooked. But those are the areas that most allow for "breaking" the system. I think the degree of effect this will have on the game will vary greatly depending on how the players view the game and their play style.

I swear I'm not trying to make a trick question, only get a degree of specificity. I agree that the game should be customized; I just always thought that was as regards preference issues as opposed to mechanical issues. But yeah, ok.

I wasn't implying that you were attempting to trick me, just that I found it a bit tricky to answer. I wasn't trying to dodge the question.

Mechanical issues will vary by group, so adjustments to correct them will also vary.

Which presented options are you referring to here? I apologize, but it's not clear to me; I may be missing something.

Again, I'm away from my books, but the later part of the DMG has a whole section on how to create new monsters, or how to modify existing monsters, or how to use full PC stats for NPCs. Things like that.

I have a group of villains in my campaign that I created using the PC creation rules. They're an important group and I wanted to make sure they were dangerous and capable. I think that's one route that folks who find PCs are overpowered can use...create a rival group of adventurers to serve as villains.

Ok, I appreciate your honesty about the CR system. Thanks!

Sure! I just wanted to disclose that as I have not once calculated my encounters using the system to get a rating of "Deadly" or "Easy" or what have you. I just feel comfortable enough with encounter design on my own to gauge things myself. I also think that because it's imperfect, it would be easy to get false expectations. Which is a big part of the issue with the scenario described in [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s OP. This was a supposedly 4x deadly encounter, I believe he said....yet it played out like an Easy encounter.

I dont think the CR system factors too strongly how an encounter is played. The guidelines mention shifting the ranking in one direction or another based on prevailing conditions ("shift encounter one step easier if conditions favor the PCs" and the like), but those are so subjective that they're hard to use as a baseline.