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

[Eric V]

I've done all I can to make that clear prior to this point in the thread, so more words spent on it are not likely to change whatever misunderstanding you are having.

So you can't. I have noticed this is your usual modus operandi; I will stop hoping for otherwise.

 

[CapnZapp]

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.

And I meant that making 5e work in a modern day setting is an example where you retool the entire game and its assumptions on everything from genre to character powers to what it means to be a hero.

While making 5e work for a 3rd edition adventure is not that. To me, the notion that 5e is as far removed from d20 in any capacity that is anywhere near comparable to how far removed it is from, what, Alternity or, perhaps, Shadowrun is an absurd one.

Cheers

 

[CapnZapp]

IMO, it became a bad thing when such information restricted the creativity of the DM instead of inspiring the DM. When the info listed in the stat block is assumed to be the only things the monster can do. When the role can't change depending on if you are fighting it at level 2 or level 12. When the rules make the game easier to run, but less fun to actually play, that's when it's a bad thing.

No monster manual can ever hope to provide all of the info needed for every possible party to encounter it. 5e doesn't try to provide all those answers for you, it tries to inspire the DM to provide their own answers in the way that is most fun for their group. It may be more work, but it is also more fun.

The problem here OB1 is that now you're arguing against a straw man.

Yes, it's easy and correct to argue "No monster manual can ever hope to provide all of the info needed for every possible party to encounter it."

But no, that is something nobody has asked for. I suggested a three round selection of Cast actions, not a complete reproduction of the PHB stats of the complete spell list.

Two questions for you:
1. Why doesn't each PHB spell indicate which classes get said spell?
Having something like "Clr 2, Drd 2" was quite the timesaver in 3e. Especially with how 5e does away with the easy classification of spells as either "arcane" or "divine" - you can no longer assume a spell is on a given class' spell list.
2. Why doesn't the MM easily indicate which spells of caster-enabled monsters require Concentration? Having this would be quite the boon for avoiding "cheats" where you accidentally have your monster cast a spell without that disrupting the concentration of a buff. (Do note how Volo does indicate which spells are of the NPC's school, since that triggers a listed ability)

 

[CapnZapp]

"5e breaks down after level 15." I think the system works reasonably well if you play it correctly and/or adjust things, but the inherent issue is, in a game where people can wish things, simulacrum, Polymorph, Teleport, and many many other things beyond 15^th level, no system can be perfect. The gameplay is just too open ended and unpredictable to create a 1 size fits all solution. That is why the game has a DM, that is why they gave us tools and optional rules. The best way to make a 1 size fits all solution is to do exactly what they did, put it in the hands of the DM.

I'm sorry but "no thing can be perfect" is actually false. Why: because it is the perfect example of a bad argument!

(As if we demand perfection, when we only want to hold the designers responsible for making easily avoidable flaws that in some cases are even taking steps backwards compared to before.)

But seriously, it really is nothing but a bad-faith argument. By the way - "that's why there is a DM" is also an old chestnut of equal caliber.

I'm pointing these things out, not to single you out mpwylie or argue against you, but to illustrate two perfect examples of arguments that doesn't explain the state of affairs, but excuse them.

 

[CapnZapp]

The thread has previously suggested that the mere label "optional rule" would tell people "all bets are off" about the game.

In contrast, I don't simply accept this idea that by labeling a rule as optional, they get away scot free of any balancing issues; by labeling a rule as optional, they don't have to take any responsibility. I think that is a complete fantasy - I would never insult them by believing they actually thought that, and my thoughts about us customers aren't so low I believe we would ever buy it.

In fact, I consider it absurdly apologetic and deeply offensive.

By that reasoning they could just as easily have changed that label into "not really a part of the game". Doing so would have exposed the huge scam. As if real players seriously would go "okay so it's part of the book, and it significantly contributes to the game's appeal and therefore sales, but I'm completely okay with slowly finding out that actually using the rule throws everything out of whack and the designers haven't cared one bit about how it impacts play".

No that line of argument is preposterous and has always been.

I call this line of reasoning offensive because it assumes we customers are gullible idiots. I call it apologetic because it contorts reality to heavily favor a worldview where the writers make no mistakes, where they are never wrong and where no unexpected niggles ever turn up.

 

[Helldritch]

I think that the balancing issue with were not forgotten but simply skipped. The more options you add to a game, the more unstable it becomes. I use a lot of options in the DMG and it hasn't stopped us from having quite a lot of fun with the game. I have, however, did a lot of changes to the monsters and Npc's stats. In that I had no choice since I have a few players that have already memorized the MM. With the few mods I do add to monsters, it keeps them on their toes.

I have over 35years of DM behind me. I can manage that much without trouble. But I have had to go over some younger DMs to show them how to not overdo it and to not to underdo it. Group and power management can be hard for young DMs. I do have to remind them that it is not them against the players, but it's all of them trying to tell a great story.

They do have a warning in the DM to try each mods and see if it works out for your games. The same applies to options in the PHB. The fact that it is just said in the DMG is a bit sad. More options, more work but so much more fun.

 

[OB1]

The problem here OB1 is that now you're arguing against a straw man.

Yes, it's easy and correct to argue "No monster manual can ever hope to provide all of the info needed for every possible party to encounter it."

But no, that is something nobody has asked for. I suggested a three round selection of Cast actions, not a complete reproduction of the PHB stats of the complete spell list.

Two questions for you:
1. Why doesn't each PHB spell indicate which classes get said spell?
Having something like "Clr 2, Drd 2" was quite the timesaver in 3e. Especially with how 5e does away with the easy classification of spells as either "arcane" or "divine" - you can no longer assume a spell is on a given class' spell list.
2. Why doesn't the MM easily indicate which spells of caster-enabled monsters require Concentration? Having this would be quite the boon for avoiding "cheats" where you accidentally have your monster cast a spell without that disrupting the concentration of a buff. (Do note how Volo does indicate which spells are of the NPC's school, since that triggers a listed ability)

But what if those Cast actions don't work for the makeup of your party? Or the level of the party? Or the tactics of the party? By suggesting a set of actions, it is assuming a certain type of party, so why waste the space on something that is only useful to a specific subset? That's what I was trying to get at with my "strawman" argument. That since the monster manual can't account for every type of party to face a monster, it is better off providing guidelines of capabilities and leaving the specific determination on how to use those abilities to the DM.

But I do agree there are plenty of things that could have been done better, and the two suggestions/questions you pose are good ideas. I would love to see both in a future PHB/MM reprint (along with the spell school listed next to the name in the spells by class/level lists, that's the one that really drives me crazy).

 

[Rhenny]

More observations...

Some of the discomfort that people experience with larger parties, overpowered PCs or optional rules, etc. comes from the Bounded Accuracy concept that WotC used to construct 5e. With 5e the number of combatants for or against makes a huge difference because it increases the action economy for or against. Single creature modifiers or additional hit points matter much less than gaining extra attacks or special attacks/abilities. I love the idea of Bounded Accuracy in concept, and I actually think it helps make combat more realistic by weighing the horde more dangerously than the solo monster. But, this is what I'm getting used to now.

I find that running even the pre-written adventures with more than 4 PCs much less challenging unless the DM plays the encounters optimally or adds abilities to existing foes or adds additional foes. When I create my own content, for some reason it seems that my natural inclinations to build encounters that seem logical for the story actually work best for 3 pcs mechanically. I'm learning my own tendencies so that I can adapt and improve.

The legendary template is a nice addition that helps, but still doesn't necessarily create super challenging solo monsters for groups of 5 or more. The idea behind the legendary template is to give the paragon of creatures more action economy and more powers. I think this basically admits that standard monsters are not intended to be very powerful solo threats, and DMs should add powers and attacks to selected foes to buff them if they want to make them more challenging or be sure to use their nukes when the foes sense even a small chance that they will be overrun, or plan for the more important foes to escape or call for reinforcements.

 

[mpwylie]

I'm not the person you quoted, but the reason I would find that hard to believe is true is because it is staggeringly restrictive and any design that depends on that to more than a very casual degree is flawed. Why flawed? Because it should be possible to design a game that functions just as well for a much wider range. No other role-playing game I have ever played is as restrictive as that and to my mind the purpose of a role-playing game is to tell stories. Monopoly - a game of chance and arbitrariness - is about the last thing that should be a point of comparison for a role-playing game. For a role-playing game to be so focused on progressing through a set amount of encounters per day rules out any sort of story where encounters follow naturally from events and decisions rather than from metagame reasons. That logic is almost by definition. I'll repeat it because it is a critical flaw in a role-playing game. If the game system pushes you towards a set number of encounters to work well, then encounters are not following from player decisions, from the flow of the plot or the story or drama. They're being set by meta reasons and the story, drama, player decisions are all being driven by rules reasons rather than in-game events. That is a flaw because it reduces versimilitude and constrains many types of stories and player decisions. Constraint without advantage is an objectively bad thing because some lose for the sake of nobody gaining. If making a game work for six encounters by necessity made it work poorly for any other number of encounters, that would be one thing. But it doesn't. No other role-playing game I have played is so limited.

I am not comparing the type of game. Yes D&D is a roleplaying game and Monopoly is not, but in the end they are both games based on a set of rules and assumptions. If you do not follow the rules or change the things the assumptions are based on, well then it's not gonna work whether its D&D, Monopoly, Shadowrun, or friggen chutes and ladders. You either play the game as intended or you do not, in which case you need to spend the time to tweak aspects of the game to fit with how you are playing it. Game type is irrelevant. Either play it as designed or spend the time to make it work for how you want to play it, they gave us all the tools to do it either way.

So there really is no 'correctly.'

A system doesn't need to be perfect to avoid falling apart. And, you can have things like Polymorph or Teleport without having problematic 3.0 Polymorph or scry/buff/teleport. Besides, still holding together up to 15th is arguably better than 3e or the classic game did.

There absolutely is a correct way to play it. Build your game with 6-8 encounters, use legendary creatures and Lair actions or at least play the creatures properly using the abilities they have in a strategic way. Had he done that the OP would have had a much better experience, but instead he decided to do none of that and then complain how the game is broken. The game is not perfect, but it's pretty dang good when you play it right. I personally would like more high level monsters and a few tweaks to high level to make it work better. I would prefer it built on less encounters a day but just because that is my preference, doesn’t mean the game is broken. But throwing a half arsed handful of creatures at a high level party then not using their abilities and playing them well will never work, no matter what system you use. Any edition or RPG you play will fall apart if you toss a bunch of high level creatures at the party and then not use their abilities, they have those abilities for a reason. That is my issue. You can call me an apologist all you want but in the end my games run just fine with the tools we were given whether it’s me using the rules to custom design things or just dropping things in. I just don’t see that anything is broken. It may not be optimal for how I want to run it but that doesn’t mean it’s broken.

I'm sorry but "no thing can be perfect" is actually false. Why: because it is the perfect example of a bad argument!

(As if we demand perfection, when we only want to hold the designers responsible for making easily avoidable flaws that in some cases are even taking steps backwards compared to before.)

But seriously, it really is nothing but a bad-faith argument. By the way - "that's why there is a DM" is also an old chestnut of equal caliber.

I'm pointing these things out, not to single you out mpwylie or argue against you, but to illustrate two perfect examples of arguments that doesn't explain the state of affairs, but excuse them.

This is a game that thousands of other people are playing. No system in the history of mankind has been or will ever be perfect for everyone. But fine, we can ignore that as an argument. The fact remains that this was a single encounter run in a system designed to be 6-8 encounters a day. These were creatures with spells and abilities that where not used optimally against a team of players that are playing optimally. That is not a broken system, that is a DM failure.

And the old chestnut of “that’s why there is a DM” is exactly correct. As a DM you should know the rules, know the abilities of the creatures in your encounter, and if you do not follow the system as designed, tweak the encounters to account for it. D&D is a base system for the masses and there is a DM to use the rules, options, and creatures to tailor the game for the group playing.

In the end all I am saying is that you can’t run the game in a way which it was not designed without putting in the hours to make it work. I am there with you, I generally do not run it the way they designed it, I do not like the assumptions that it was built on. But I know that it is my choice to not follow those design assumptions and because of it I must spend time and effort to make it work. This is specifically why I follow the design assumptions for my second group, cause I don’t have the time to commit to custom building things for 2 groups. And again, both of my groups run fine, one because I am spending the time to custom build stuff to not play it properly, and the second because I am following the design which demands almost none of my time past reading the spells and abilities of the monsters I use. If you want to hold the designers accountable, then you as a DM need to be accountable for correctly using the system they designed. If you run 6-8 encounters per adventuring day and play the creatures competently and they still cakewalk through it, THEN you can hold them responsible. Until then this entire argument is in bad faith.

 

[hawkeyefan]

The consequence of changing the number of lives given in a video game is intuitive and easy to grasp however. I have feats in my game because at character creation a player made their PC that way and I was a new GM. I don't know that six or seven levels from now their character is going to be overpowered when I start playing. I was adding up their stats, found it didn't make sense and they said "I thought we were using Variant Humans. Everybody normally uses Feats". I looked in the book, it had an exchange rate where a player would give up six attribute points for a feat and figured the game designers knew what they were doing and that was a fair exchange. Tagging it as "Optional" conveyed very little to me. Maybe it was optional because it added more complexity, maybe it was optional because people liked playing different ways or more depth to their characters. Who knows? All said, one can't condemn someone for using optional rules and liken it to changing the number of lives in a video game, when the consequences of the option is so very much more complex and hard to fathom. It's not as if the book says "this is optional because it makes PCs a lot more powerful". If it did that might be something. But a DM without tonnes of experience is going to assume that if something is in the core rule book it works. Reasonably so, imo.

I do think that they could have been a bit clearer for new DMs and players how much feats and multiclassing can change the power of a PC group. I would agree with that. My guess is that they figured whatever benefit gained would likely be offset by lack of experience or proficiency in another area, so that ultimately things balance out for new players.

However, this whole conversation began when talking about the specific anecdote of a long time DM and his seemingly highly proficient players.

What kind of surprises me about thia discussion is that no distinction is being made between these two ends of the spectrum. The issues originally pointed out in regard to the play experience cited in the OP are not likely to be the same issues new DMs and players would have. An experienced DM would likely have a better idea of how to address such play issues.

I say this as an experienced DM for a group of players that's been playing D&D for a long time. We have two groups of PCs in our campaign; one group is level 9, and the other group is level 16. Yes, the level 16 group is the more challenging of the two when it comes to creating challenging and engaging encounters. But I am managing pretty well. I don't seem to have the same issues come up very frenzy in play...at least not significantly.

The thing is that DMing takes practice. It takes time to get better at it. No matter how much advice or guidance the books can provide (and I'll admit that they could have provided more guidance for new DMs), it won't be enough. At the end of the day, you get better through experience.

Kind of fitting, that.