D&D 5E It's so hard to die!

[MNblockhead]

Unless you're throwing a half dozen flame skulls at the party because after all flame skulls are only CR 4, right? Oh, and having them fly in from the darkness, casting fireball from far enough away that they're out of range of darkvision won't cause an issue will it? Not that I did it to my players in my first 5E campaign.

Heh.

Spoiler: Curse of Strahd spoiler

The flame skull encounter in the Amber Temple were one of the toughest, scariest battles in the adventure.

 

[MichaelSomething]

To be fair, it requires a very good DM to do it well when playing with experience, tactical players. I have to spend a lot of time to really think through the abilities and tactics for set-point encounters. My players have been playing for years/decades, are tactical, and know their characters' abilities and spells inside and out.

Sure, I control the world and know the area better than then and I have the element of surprise and knowing both their characters' abilities and the monsters. But I'll never know the NPCs/monsters as well as the players know their characters unless it is a reoccurring villain.

Players who understand the game and know how it works are less likely to die?? Who would have thought??

 

[Waller]

If you've a PC death wish, come play with me.

I don’t.

 

[Nefermandias]

People are acting like a 10th-level AD&D party was in constant danger of a TPK, and it just wasn't. You can easily put together encounters of a difficulty level that a 10th-level AD&D party should have no trouble doing 6-8 of them per day, biggest difference being they need an extra day or two to heal up.

I just finished Temple of Elemental Evil in 5e. Lots of characters died, because what made things harder in that era is there's often little to no attempt to "balance" anything, and going Leroy Jenkins through the adventure is supposed to be a terrible idea. In 5e adventure design, drawing your weapons and blindly charging forward into everything is typically assumed to be SOP.

If you use AD&D random encounter tables and design philosophy in your 5e games, guarantee you St Cuthbert's chapel is gonna have regular funeral services.

I have made the point that 5e is even more likely to have TPKs than AD&D. Individual PC death on the other hand, is a whole different story.

 

[Emerikol]

In a world where healing magic was common enough that most people would have at least heard about it if not witnessed it, I don't think you would have to be "really smart" to want to finish off a downed enemy.

I don't know of a implied setting where this is true. Are temple clerics healing people willy nilly in your world? I think 80% of the people in my world have never seen a healing happen. And are the bad guys living in caves in the wilderness more up to date than the citizens? I don't see the heavy rules knowledge players have about the game being common knowledge to a lot of bad guys. If it is high level enemy of great power then sure. Most people aren't that.

 

[Azuresun]

The expectation of 5e is that there are 6-8 encounters per day.

No it's not. That's given as the example in the DMG, and some players latched onto it and took it as a holy commandment from on high, then a lot of people who didn't read the DMG for themselves took the word of the first lot for it without checking.

 

[NotAYakk]

No it's not. That's given as the example in the DMG, and some players latched onto it and took it as a holy commandment from on high, then a lot of people who didn't read the DMG for themselves took the word of the first lot for it without checking.

Ok, the DMG suggests 6-8 encounters, recommends about 2 short rests per long rest, has a daily adventuring budget that lines up with 6-8 encounters, the short/long rest spell point math lines up with about 2 short rests per long rest, and a myriad of other supporting reasons exist to explain why 6-8 encounters per long rest with about 2 short rests leads to something closer to what 5e was balanced on than one huge fight then a long rest.

Is that better worded?

 

[Neonchameleon]

No it's not. That's given as the example in the DMG, and some players latched onto it and took it as a holy commandment from on high, then a lot of people who didn't read the DMG for themselves took the word of the first lot for it without checking.

It's given as the expectation of what the PCs can handle - and is so far as I can recall the only guidance given unless you're going deadly.

 

[Asisreo]

It's given as the expectation of what the PCs can handle - and is so far as I can recall the only guidance given unless you're going deadly.

There's an EXP adventuring day table on the same page which gives guidance on how many encounters you can expect from a numerical perspective.

Honestly, I find players rarely enjoy being this close to complete resource expenditure unless they've expected an intense adventure and accepts the challenge.

 

[Crimson Longinus]

There's an EXP adventuring day table on the same page which gives guidance on how many encounters you can expect from a numerical perspective.

Honestly, I find players rarely enjoy being this close to complete resource expenditure unless they've expected an intense adventure and accepts the challenge.

It’s just hilarious that people keep complaining that the game is not deadly enough whilst at the same time refusing to use the recommended amount of encounters. I understand that for more story driven pacing six to eight encounters per day will never work, but ‘gritty realism’ is for that.