D&D 5E Encounter Balance holds back 5E

[DarkCrisis]

And as we all know, collaborative storytelling games both don't exist and are also bad and wrong.

I was talking about D&D specifically.

Your table, your rules. I just don't get wanting to know the outcome of a game before I play it. That evil lich is a lot less scary when I know I'm guaranteed to beat him.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I was talking about D&D specifically.

Your table, your rules. I just don't get wanting to know the outcome of a game before I play it. That evil lich is a lot less scary when I know I'm guaranteed to beat him.

Actually having a challenge be fair and not an instant end to the story if th eplayers fail to read the DM's intent is not the same as not knowing the outcome.

Edit: AND there is a difference between 'you can always win' vs you will always win'. The only thing I'm avoiding is encounters that teach players not to engage in the primary draw of the game or else they have to waste time generating a new character.

 

[MerricB]

Even worse than that: There is the Disengage action that can avoid the AoO. However, even if the enemy doesn't chase, when the party disengages individually, each on their initiative count, the enemy will tend to focus on whoever hasn't disengaged yet - so those with slower initiatives will be ganged up on.

Honestly, if you want to support this, inserting a whole party "Break and Run" action or an "Align Initiatives" action wouldn't be a bad idea. It would break from the usual tactical game design, but it might be worth doing so.

Yep. At this stage, when the party decides "we want to flee", I allow it. It breaks the initiative cycle immediately and we move into a different resolution mechanic. (Chases, though my own system).

It's not actually an "action", because those are PC-based, but rather an agreement that we're changing the mode of play. Keeping in initiative order is a massive mistake for pursuit rules. I believe you really want simultaneous movement at that stage - possibly Party Move, Monster Move, Party Action, Monster Action, repeat.

Cheers,
Merric

 

[Stormonu]

Gygax was pretty fond of pontificating on how if you changed any of his rules you weren't playing "real" D&D.

And then turning around and playing his own way. That “pontification” in D&D products really was just marketing attempts to sell more D&D.

 

[Shardstone]

Actually having a challenge be fair and not an instant end to the story if th eplayers fail to read the DM's intent is not the same as not knowing the outcome.

Edit: AND there is a difference between 'you can always win' vs you will always win'. The only thing I'm avoiding is encounters that teach players not to engage in the primary draw of the game or else they have to waste time generating a new character.

It's a little facetious to talk about nuance when you turn my perspective into "let's just make the game unfair and unfun"

 

[Shardstone]

Yep. At this stage, when the party decides "we want to flee", I allow it. It breaks the initiative cycle immediately and we move into a different resolution mechanic. (Chases, though my own system).

It's not actually an "action", because those are PC-based, but rather an agreement that we're changing the mode of play. Keeping in initiative order is a massive mistake for pursuit rules. I believe you really want simultaneous movement at that stage - possibly Party Move, Monster Move, Party Action, Monster Action, repeat.

Cheers,
Merric

I do party initiative for pursuits, and have it so two creatures go on each side, but the same creatures can't go two turns in a row (unless they're the only options available). Works like a charm!

 

[Maxperson]

To be fair, the CC thing was pretty clearly done under duress at the time. They would never have done that if public opinion hadn't swung so hard against them.

They were supposed to try and release the older editions into CC by the end of last year, which wouldn't have been difficult for them to do. Not only did they not do it, but here we are pretty much at May of the following year and not a peep about it from them that I've heard about.

 

[Maxperson]

Also, are we really considering 5e CR to be encounter balance? There's more accuracy in an appraisal of a princess cut diamond as done by a 5 year old.

Well she is a little princess.

 

[Vaalingrade]

It's a little facetious to talk about nuance when you turn my perspective into "let's just make the game unfair and unfun"

I've been around long enough to see all of the 'Tyranny of Balance' arguments. 'Tyranny of Fun' and Tyranny of Cool' too.

 

[overgeeked]

And then turning around and playing his own way. That “pontification” in D&D products really was just marketing attempts to sell more D&D.

Every once in awhile I run into people who still push that mindset. All official, all RAW, not a house rule in sight or it’s not “real” D&D. When Gary did it, it was clearly a marketing ploy, as you say. But when random players do it, it’s laughable nonsense.