D&D 5E Challenge, Optimization and Optional Rules

[ccs]

Want a more challenging game?

Dont give/allow any items that give a bonus to AC.
Remove SS and GWM.
Give a linear progression to agonizing blast.

Or you could:
*Play your monsters smarter.
*Take into account the actual characters & their abilities/resources when you write an adventure.
*Just add more HP to your monsters. You don't HAVE to use the listed average #s. The stat blocks list the total # of HD for a reason.

On removing SS/GWM. Sure, you could do that. Or you could present situations that might entice a player to take some other feat. Some feat that might be more useful to the story than just hitting/shooting things harder.

 

[ccs]

Fake News.

I think you've mistaken this for some other forum.

 

[ccs]

Eldritch blast + agonizing blast is an all stars dip. Just add a tax to make it less gold.
Ex: Add charisma modifier to Eldritch blast damage, but this bonus cannot exceed your warlock level.

What if I start as a Warlock & MC to something else?

But hey, if you don't want people MC to Warlocks, or taking certain cantrips/spells/invocations there's a simple way to prevent it in story.
You're the DM. By default you're playing the patron, or the would be patron. And it's the patron who hands out the power that the warlock uses....
Sure, the PC wants to make a deal. And they have the stats. And they want certain spells/abilities. But the being they're seeking out? What if they said "No Thanks."? Or just didn't answer? Or simply refused to grant certain cantrips/spells/invocations. Or will only grant them later, after their new Warlock has done xyz for them?

Yes magic item that give bonus to AC or help AC. Cloak of displacement.
AC too high makes low CR monster useless. If you want to challenge PC they got to take some damage.

Play smarter. Roll more. Roll high (there's a 5% chance you crit every single time you roll the d20! )
You'll dish out the damage.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Sacrosanct]

On removing SS/GWM. Sure, you could do that. Or you could present situations that might entice a player to take some other feat. Some feat that might be more useful to the story than just hitting/shooting things harder.

It is amazing to see someone complain GWM is too OP, and then in another discussion complain how the PC is weak because they were in ranged combat and couldn't use GWM, and how the game should make them stronger at ranged combat too. We just had a thread last week or so on that in fact Sort of a "cake and eat it too" moment to me.

 

[Ilbranteloth]

Hello fellow D&D fans!

There has been a steady trickle of threads related to the game being "too easy." I have not played 5e to high levels yet. This has not necessarily been my experience in lower levels.

Additionally, I have seen a few threads including a current one about making the game more challenging.

I wondered about player choices and game difficulty. If we take single classed characters with point buy and no feats, is the game still seen as too easy? If we play vanilla, we have only two saves in which we are proficient and in most cases will have a very hard time with concentration checks.

Is the CR system predicated on this approach?

I wondered if others thought the game would be too easy with:

1. Multiclassing alone

2. Feats alone

3. Rolled stats alone

4. A combination of any two of these

Thanks for your thoughts! I do not see the point of incredible optimization if it is going to lead to boring other than as a design mini game which I know can be fun.

What I am looking for is perhaps a bit more struggle. So far I have had fun but and looking ahead to both designing and playing in campaigns which get the heart rate up a bit. Not insta death but real challenge. Would reducing options help? Or is the answer always that the DM should make things harder on their end?

As written, it's easier. As we implement it, not any different.

I've got a lot of tweaks to our rules to make the game more challenging. I believe I recall something that mentioned the design concept that "missing isn't fun" and that all other things equal, the PCs have a 60% chance of success.

An example is the death save system, without assistance you have about a 60% chance to survive. Bump the required roll up to 13, though, and now there's about an 80% chance that you won't survive without assistance.

I bump pretty much any skill DC up by 5 points.

I've never paid attention to the CR or XP-build system of 5e. But I do play monsters intelligently, and my groups of monsters tend to be larger - not quite as large as AD&D was, but a lot more than what you typically see in 5e. It's relatively easy for a TPK of even 5th level characters against a group of 10 orcs that ambush with ranged weapons from behind cover.

In terms of multiclassing, feats, rolled stats, etc? They are really irrelevant to me.

Rules changes in our game are either to address in-world issues with the way the rules are written, or because we want to set a different baseline in the math. Otherwise it's more of an adjustment of the difficulty of the encounter using numbers, tactics, environment, or other circumstantial things that set the level of challenge.

I should also point out that I don't typically tailor the challenge to the PCs themselves. Either ability score or special abilities. The encounters are based on the in-world circumstances. Which means they could be very easy (from a combat perspective, although these rarely result in combat), or very difficult, even to impossible (pretty much guaranteed TPK if they choose to engage). The relative level of the threat, however, is usually well telegraphed, either in the encounter itself (or leading up to it), or by prior experience.

The bottom line is, whether you adjust any rules or not, it's really up to you as the DM to find what actually challenges your PCs and find the appropriate level based on that.

 

[Tony Vargas]

There has been a steady trickle of threads related to the game being "too easy." I have not played 5e to high levels yet. This has not necessarily been my experience in lower levels.

5e set out to capture the feel of the classic game, and it succeeded. Part of that classic feel is that very low levels can be brutal, and high levels, especially if you get some nice magic items, well, really not brutal at all.

I wondered about player choices and game difficulty. If we take single classed characters with point buy and no feats, is the game still seen as too easy?

Possibly. It still depends on character 'builds' and party composition and, of course, pacing...

Is the CR system predicated on this approach?

Taken at face value, yes, CR is calibrated for a party using the PH only, with no explicitly-optional options opted into - and no magic items - facing 6-8 encounter days.

What I am looking for is perhaps a bit more struggle. So far I have had fun but and looking ahead to both designing and playing in campaigns which get the heart rate up a bit. Not insta death but real challenge. Would reducing options help? Or is the answer always that the DM should make things harder on their end?

Yes, reducing options might help. Go with the basic-pdf class options, for instance, and revert the Cleric & Wizard to traditional Vancian - prepping directly into slots instead of prepping to a list but casting spontaneously (eliminating cantrips would also be an option). The reduced flexibilty would make the game more challenging, and give more openings for the fighter & rogue to step in and do something with feats of STR, skills, or improvisation, assuming the DM is open to ruling favorably on such things.

 

[Warpiglet]

What if I start as a Warlock & MC to something else?

But hey, if you don't want people MC to Warlocks, or taking certain cantrips/spells/invocations there's a simple way to prevent it in story.
You're the DM. By default you're playing the patron, or the would be patron. And it's the patron who hands out the power that the warlock uses....
Sure, the PC wants to make a deal. And they have the stats. And they want certain spells/abilities. But the being they're seeking out? What if they said "No Thanks."? Or just didn't answer? Or simply refused to grant certain cantrips/spells/invocations. Or will only grant them later, after their new Warlock has done xyz for them?




Play smarter. Roll more. Roll high (there's a 5% chance you crit every single time you roll the d20! )
You'll dish out the damage.

Its sort of funny. I have a resistance to Agonizing Blast and avoid it. I am not better than others, I am just tired of that particular tactic.

As a side note, I like the idea of multiclassing warlock with sorcerer to make and Elirc-like sword and sorcery themed sword and spell slinger. Agonizing blast is at the bottom of my list! Which is why I shy away from stopping multiclassing and feats. I think they CAN help build characters.

But at the bottom you are right. The DM has control. I just wondered if there is a short hand to make the balancing act easier. So far few think that is direction. Most sounds like DM skill and customization required. Sort of like the old days, I guess.

 

[snickersnax]

I'm in the nerf the PC's camp rather boost the monsters.

IMO PCs have too many hit points and do too much damage even without feats and multiclassing. Stop the cold war and de-escalate before its too late!

 

[hawkeyefan]

Is the CR system predicated on this approach?

The CR system was apparently designed with no feats, no multiclassing, and standard array for PCs. I think that the CR system is at best a very rough guide, and has already been mentioned, most helpful to newer DMs and players. I think that once the DM is comfortable and is familiar with his players and their characters, the best thing to do is jettison the CR system entirely and to start designing encounters based on judgment.

I wondered if others thought the game would be too easy with:

1. Multiclassing alone

I don't think that multi-classing alone would make too great a difference. You may get a player who dips into a class for a level or two to gain some key abilities, but I don't think there are too many such combos that woudl be so overpowering. I honestly think multi-classing is generally not all that effective, especially given how sub-classes and backgrounds can really help achieve very similar effects.

2. Feats alone

Alone, I don't think that feats are that overpowered. Yes, each one is potentially potent. Most are pretty robust in what they provide. The combat oriented feats certainly seem to be the popular choices. Feats tend to narrow a character's area of specialty so that they excel in one area with perhaps a small sacrifice in versatility. However, when balanced against an Ability Score Increase, which is a smaller boost that is applied more broadly, I don't think feats are as bad as many claim.

3. Rolled stats alone

I think this is one of the areas where people will see huge swings in power. It's amazing that when people roll stats, they never seem to roll poorly. When we used to roll stats in the earlier editions, we were all very soft on each other and would allow plenty of rerolls and so on.

The only way that I see this working is if the DM sits and watches the rolls, and does not allow any changes. So if the player rolls 3 crappy scores, too bad. The problem then is when the other player rolls 4 strong stats and 2 medium ones.....then you have one player whose character will be very strong, and another who may be very weak.

So far, of all the options, I think this one has the most potential for messing up the game balance.

4. A combination of any two of these

Combining any of them with the Rolled Stats is going to be a big deal.

Other than that, though, the other combos won't be as severe. More so than the individual options alone....but there are combos of multi-classing and feats that have a synergistic effect. Not so much for me to restrict feats or multi-classing in any way in my game.

I think one of the big things I've seen in online discussions that can really skew balance is if your entire group of players has a powergame mindset, and how closely they all work together to build their party. I've seen examples where every single player choice for their character was made with the party's performance in mind. So all races were chosen based on having darkvision, and so on. I don't mind my players making sure that all the essential "roles" are covered, but once they're all choosing feats and races and spells and class options in unison, I think things have gotten out of hand.

Others would say I'm crazy, but I think that's the thing to look out for. When every decision is made with combat application in mind, all done with the expectation of being part of a party.

What I am looking for is perhaps a bit more struggle. So far I have had fun but and looking ahead to both designing and playing in campaigns which get the heart rate up a bit. Not insta death but real challenge. Would reducing options help? Or is the answer always that the DM should make things harder on their end?

I don't think you have to reduce options, other than having either point buy stats or standard array. Feats and multi-classing are fine, but just keep an eye out for abuse. Most of the time you'll likely be okay. I will say that as a DM, you can and should increase the difficulty of your monsters from time to time, by adding feats or abilities or increasing damage or whatever you feel is appropriate.

The worst thing a DM can do is to see an issue of some sort...the party is walking through all encounters....and not do anything about it. The DM does have to put in effort, and should expect to do so a bit more if his players are having to easy or too hard of a time.