D&D 5E FeeFiFoFum *splat* goes the giants

[BookTenTiger]

I think an interesting challenge in encounter design is that all the setup happens before the encounter.

As a teacher, if an activity isn't meeting the needs of my students, I adjust it on the fly.

But if I adjust an encounter half-way through a fight, as a DM I feel like I'm "cheating."

I wonder if there could be a systemic way to adjust encounters on the fly without feeling like I'm trying to beat the players? Or maybe sometimes encounters are just sometimes going to be too easy!

 

[Mort]

But again, these details are obscuring the main point - does anyone honestly think that 3 hill giants is a deadly encounter for 3 level 11 PCs?!?!

Generally no, but it depends on the DM and a bit A LOT on the situation.

IF the Hill Giants get surprise on the group, or even some of the group? They could drop a PC.

Hill giants go first and get melee attacks on the group, if they focus on the mage (squishy caster looking guy) successful attacks from two of them could easily drop the Wizard. That right there falls within the definition of deadly.

Now, generally, the hill giants against an 11th level group will be toast quickly. But if they get even a few hits in, that's not insignificant due resource attrition.

 

[Lyxen]

Esp. as in my game when 4 level 5 characters defeated 2 ancient white dragons.

The system is broken.

Yes, it's a real shame that my level 2 PCs slaughtered a herd of tarrasques, it should only have been hyper-deadly x99 for them, and still, it was over in one round. Shame on WotC, honestly ! What ? What if my PCs had their stats rolled on 2d100+100 ? What does this have to do with the result ? And no, they did not have magic items, because artifacts are not considered magical !

 

[Stalker0]

And once more, in addition to the designers' intent, the fact is that what you are looking for is impossible to do. If it was possible to do something of the kind, don't you think that someone would have very successfully marketed something in DM"s Guild for example ?

This statement right here is the crux of our disagreement, and so lets dig in.

What I am challenging is this very premise....that creating a simple and well working encounter design system for 5e is impossible. Because as we know thereout history, "all things are impossible....until proven otherwise".

Is it very hard....clearly. Could it be impossible....it could. But the point of the critique is to let the designers know "hey when you all are thinking about improvements to the game....when you are thinking about 5.5 and 6e.... you should pay some attention here because this is a weakness in your game that may be improved". And by gum is a designer has a eureka moment, and does figure out some cool way to get my cake and eat it too, then the game will be even better.

The death of design is "this design is perfect and can never be better". All of our modern miracles started with someone wondering "can we do better?". The 5.5e that is "even better than 5e" starts with an honest assessment of the weaknesses of 5e itself with an eye towards that question. That is the feedback I offer from my own table experiences, and I now pose that question to the designers, "can you do encounter designs better?"

 

[Mort]

This statement right here is the crux of our disagreement, and so lets dig in.

What I am challenging is this very premise....that creating a simple and well working encounter design system for 5e is impossible. Because as we know thereout history, "all things are impossible....until proven otherwise".

Is it very hard....clearly. Could it be impossible....it could. But the point of the critique is to let the designers know "hey when you all are thinking about improvements to the game....when you are thinking about 5.5 and 6e.... you should pay some attention here because this is a weakness in your game that may be improved". And by gum is a designer has a eureka moment, and does figure out some cool way to get my cake and eat it too, then the game will be even better.

There are imo two kinds of critiques: Critiques in the spirit of "I hate this and basically want my money back" and "this product is so good...but it could be better". Mine points towards the latter. Feedback is a critical component for designers to iterate and improve, and so this remains one of mine.

One big challenge: for CR to be more than a REALLY rough guideline, you'd have to figure out a way to incorporate context (of the encounter) into any calculation.

For ex. How and under what conditions the Hill Giants are encountered makes a HUGE difference.

 

[Lyxen]

What I am challenging is this very premise....that creating a simple and well working encounter design system for 5e is impossible. Because as we know thereout history, "all things are impossible....until proven otherwise".

Then prove otherwise. The fact is that, so far, there's not even a hint that it might be possible...

Is it very hard....clearly. Could it be impossible....it could. But the point of the critique is to let the designers know "hey when you all are thinking about improvements to the game....when you are thinking about 5.5 and 6e.... you should pay some attention here because this is a weakness in your game that may be improved". And by gum is a designer has a eureka moment, and does figure out some cool way to get my cake and eat it too, then the game will be even better.

And, once more, you are totally mistaken about the designers' intent. Even if they might make the game "better" according to some criteria, if the solution is complex, they will simply not work on it because they don't want to create a complex game full of rules and sub-rules. At some level, not only is it not worth it to please a small subset of their player base, but it would make the game much too complex overall and displease the much larger fanbase that they have gathered with 5e by making a game which is not designed only for the geeks.

As for me, I agree that it would not make the game better, and I would actually bet that whatever system would come out of it would still be criticised heavily. You know why ? Because, at the core of the system is the fact that the NPC/Monster creation system does not wield exact results especially at high level, because it's just impossible to predict whether an ability will prove overkill or be a complete dud depending on the situation and the characters facing it. So it would require a complete overhaul of the monster design system which would lead along only two possible roads, totally open but insufferable in complexity like 3e or totally controlled but totally closed as well like 4e. So another impossibility. And even that overhaul would fail if the abilities of the PCs did not suffer the same treatment.

In the end, it's just contrary to the entire design philosophy of 5e and it would be ridiculous to have a complex bubble just for this while the rest of the system stays simple and streamlined.

But once more, prove me wrong, I'll be waiting for something more than "impossible until proven otherwise", but I will bet you whatever you want that it's not even close to being in the radar of the designers.

There are imo two kinds of critiques: Critiques in the spirit of "I hate this and basically want my money back" and "this product is so good...but it could be better". Mine points towards the latter. Feedback is a critical component for designers to iterate and improve, and so this remains one of mine.

As long as it's constructive feedback, it's much better than your initial stance of "entitled to complain", but the problem is that I don't think that you understand yet how contrary to the game design (and therefore not only technically impossible, but also out of scope) your request is. I have done my best to explain, but honestly, there is not much more than I can do at this stage...

 

[Lyxen]

One big challenge: for CR to be more than a REALLY rough guideline, you'd have to figure out a way to incorporate context (of the encounter) into any calculation.

For ex. How and under what conditions the Hill Giants are encountered makes HUGE difference.

Exactly, and this with Hill Giant being very simple monsters with no special ability. And even then, whether they face melee or ranged characters and the situation will totally change the encounter. Now change this with the well-known problem of the Mummy Lord, and take into account fire vulnerability with a party that is built around fire and one which is not. It's just impossible to factor everything in for all cases.

Hence the only reasonable stance of the designers: "The direction we chose for the current edition was to lay a foundation of rules that a DM could build on, and we embraced the DM’s role as the bridge between the things the rules address and the things they don’t."

Assume your role as a DM.

 

[TheAlkaizer]

Esp. as in my game when 4 level 5 characters defeated 2 ancient white dragons.

The system is broken.

How is this even relevant to what anyone said? You're just throwing hyperboles.

What if my PCs had their stats rolled on 2d100+100 ?

Nobody mentioned anything of the sort here. I don't know why that's being brought up.

 

[abirdcall]

This statement right here is the crux of our disagreement, and so lets dig in.

What I am challenging is this very premise....that creating a simple and well working encounter design system for 5e is impossible. Because as we know thereout history, "all things are impossible....until proven otherwise".

Is it very hard....clearly. Could it be impossible....it could. But the point of the critique is to let the designers know "hey when you all are thinking about improvements to the game....when you are thinking about 5.5 and 6e.... you should pay some attention here because this is a weakness in your game that may be improved". And by gum is a designer has a eureka moment, and does figure out some cool way to get my cake and eat it too, then the game will be even better.

The death of design is "this design is perfect and can never be better". All of our modern miracles started with someone wondering "can we do better?". The 5.5e that is "even better than 5e" starts with an honest assessment of the weaknesses of 5e itself with an eye towards that question. That is the feedback I offer from my own table experiences, and I now pose that question to the designers, "can you do encounter designs better?"

It would require a 500 page manual to come close.

At the end of the day D&D is not a competitive game.

It is impossible to 'balance' it because every DM is going to approach the game differently.

The best they can do is make a system which works for most people most of the time. Which they have done.

 

[abirdcall]

How is this even relevant to what anyone said? You're just throwing hyperboles.

Nobody mentioned anything of the sort here. I don't know why that's being brought up.

How is a part defeating 2 hill giants relevant to anything?

Why can someone else talk about battles their tables have won but I can't?

It is all without value unless details are provided.