D&D 5E 5th ed D&D general impressions from a new player and DM.

[Oofta]

The single sentence of text is a single sentence of text. The system’s math supports my claim. But, of course, nobody wants to crunch the numbers to confirm for themselves, least of all people who don’t like the guideline. It is true that math is built on those assumptions, whether you believe me or not. Again though, those assumptions don’t need to be adhered to for the game to work.

Personally I usually have 5-10 encounters between long rests*, a couple other people in my game also DM and they've mentioned how much it changes the feel of the game (for the better) and that they now use it in their own game.

I find it works better to balance the different classes out, throw in a short rest or two and classes with short rest options also have a chance to shine.

*The 6-8 is medium-to-hard encounters.

 

[Charlaquin]

Personally I usually have 5-10 encounters between long rests*, a couple other people in my game also DM and they've mentioned how much it changes the feel of the game (for the better) and that they now use it in their own game.

I find it works better to balance the different classes out, throw in a short rest or two and classes with short rest options also have a chance to shine.

*The 6-8 is medium-to-hard encounters.

Yeah, I do agree that it changes the feel of the game for the better!

 

[BookTenTiger]

You're blackmailing the characters, or the players?

The players of course! It takes a little more work on my part, hiring private investigators, going through their social media, calling up relatives and ex's, but man it's worth it for those moments when the hit points start to get close to 0!

 

[dave2008]

(Emphasis mine)

True, that is a very valid point. But, my issue was even with 6-8 encounters, and a balance of encounters, death is not an issue IME.

Yes, Revivify is the greatest offender. Even when a PC manages to fail enough death saves (less than 40%), isn't stabilized, etc. Revivify can save them. I know, I know 300 gp... blah blah blah... So unless your DM fiat restricts access to a material component, PCs should pretty much never stay dead.

Anyway, back to the thread.

Well, if your group doesn't have anyone who can cast revivify (like mine) then no material component restriction is needed!

 

[dave2008]

Certainly a lot of people who don’t like the 6-8 encounter adventuring day guideline seem to think that those who do are “treating it as holy writ.” The truth, however, if you look closely at the game’s math, is that the 6-8 encounter adventuring day is simply an underlying assumption the designers used to balance the math. Just like starting with a 16 in your primary ability and increasing to 18 and 20 at levels 4 and 8, just like getting +1, +2, and +3 weapons at levels 5, 11, and 17. None of these things are requirements. The game runs fine even if you don’t follow any of these guidelines. They’re just the assumptions the system math is built around.

Does the math include +1 to +3 weapons? Serious question. I think the game plays better without magic item bonuses, so I would be surprised if they are assumed by the math. I could be completely wrong, I'm honestly asking.

 

[dave2008]

Preface:

THE BAD:

Advantage. The rules and conditions for this are scattered throughout the books. I didn't even notice it- until I drew up a Rogue, and went to use his Sneak Attack. There's essentually no guidance included on how the Rogue can GET the advantage needed to use it. (without spells and stuff)

I can't say this will be the case for you, but more people on these forums tend to complain that it is to easy to get advantage. Specifically regarding the rogue (my favorite characters), you don't need advantage to use Sneak Attack:

"You don't need advantage on the Attack roll if another enemy of the target is within 5 feet of it, that enemy isn't Incapacitated, and you don't have disadvantage on the Attack roll."

From my experience, that situation happens a lot.

THE UGLY

OUCH. Some monsters are surprisingly tough in play. For no apparent reason. My party was VERY nearly TPK'd by a pair of giant spiders! At the end of that encounter, the mage was unconscious, paralyzed, and at death's door. The cleric and fighter were on low single digit hp. It took us 2 tries to get through the Kobold lair- the first time, a party of 4 3rd level characters nearly got their butts whupped by Kobolds with slings and Daggers (and +4 attack bonuses, +2 to damage), and 6 giant rats. And had to retreat with everyone wounded- and Bob on ONE hit point. (they couldn't hit the AC 10 mage to save their lives- even before I remembered to cast mage armor- but the AC 19 fighter? No problem!!) Attempt #2 went better, but was still pretty costly. We DID curbstomp the chieftain in one round with a Guiding Bolt/ Chromatic Orb combo though, so there is that, lol. I'm now worried about taking on the Orcs, next.

Again, I can't say this will be the case for you, but more people on these forums complain that monsters are to easy.

Personally, I think a lot of higher level monsters are weak for my tastes as DM; however, they work really well for my group which is not very tactically inclined nor into optimizing.

 

[Nebulous]

The players of course! It takes a little more work on my part, hiring private investigators, going through their social media, calling up relatives and ex's, but man it's worth it for those moments when the hit points start to get close to 0!

That is SO hardcore That should even be a Legendary move for certain baddies! The DM's hand moves to the stack of sealed letters. Players eyes widen in horror....

 

[Charlaquin]

Does the math include +1 to +3 weapons? Serious question. I think the game plays better without magic item bonuses, so I would be surprised if they are assumed by the math. I could be completely wrong, I'm honestly asking.

Yeah, if you start with 16 in your primary score, increase to 18 and 20 at levels 4 and 8, and get +1, +2, and +3 weapons at levels 5, 11, and 16, you maintain 65% accuracy against opponents with average AC for CR equal to your level. Of course, you can do just fine with less than 65% accuracy, and if you tend to face groups of lower CR opponents more often than single enemies of CR equal to your level, you’ll likely have even more than 65% accuracy most of the time. That’s why I say benchmarks like this are assumptions the math is built around, rather than requirements. I just wish the game was more transparent about these assumptions so DMs could make better-informed decisions about when and how to break from them.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah, if you start with 16 in your primary score, increase to 18 and 20 at levels 4 and 8, and get +1, +2, and +3 weapons at levels 5, 11, and 16, you maintain 65% accuracy against opponents with average AC for CR equal to your level. Of course, you can do just fine with less than 65% accuracy, and if you tend to face groups of lower CR opponents more often than single enemies of CR equal to your level, you’ll likely have even more than 65% accuracy most of the time. That’s why I say benchmarks like this are assumptions the math is built around, rather than requirements. I just wish the game was more transparent about these assumptions so DMs could make better-informed decisions about when and how to break from them.

Thanks! Ya, I think at higher levels the game works better if your not hitting at 65%.

I also agree that the DMG really should discuss this type of thing. It would help people to make simple adjustments to the game to dial up and down the difficulty (and how to do that should also be in the DMG). It seems so obvious to provide advice on how to play the game if your not playing in lock-step with the assumptions, yet they don't. They don't even admit there is an assumption really.

 

[Charlaquin]

Thanks! Ya, I think at higher levels the game works better if your not hitting at 65%.

I also agree that the DMG really should discuss this type of thing. It would help people to make simple adjustments to the game to dial up and down the difficulty (and how to do that should also be in the DMG). It seems so obvious to provide advice on how to play the game if your not playing in lock-step with the assumptions, yet they don't. They don't even admit there is an assumption really.

I chalk it up to 4e backlash. 4e was very transparent with its underlying systems and how the math behind them worked and why. And a lot of folks didn’t like that. So with 5e, they went the other way.