D&D 5E 11th Lvl Wizard and Cleric OK to Take On Two Banshees?

[FrogReaver]

That doesn't seem right. The party should still have reason to feel nervous of splitting up.

Why nervous? I’m pro trade offs in the general sense, but nervousness shouldn’t factor into it.

 

[MarkB]

Why nervous? I’m pro trade offs in the general sense, but nervousness shouldn’t factor into it.

Because splitting up is inherently risky, and should feel risky.

 

[FrogReaver]

Because splitting up is inherently risky,

I challenge this assertion. How is splitting up inherently more risky?

 

[Torquar]

They are both prepared casters. If they know what they are up against and can prepare accordingly they'll be fine.

 

[MarkB]

I challenge this assertion. How is splitting up inherently more risky?

It reduces the amount of resources you have available in any individual group to deal with whatever problems arise, while doubling your collective chances of running into issues.

If the party peer through a keyhole and see a high-level cleric and thirty gnolls in the next room, then having only half of them choose to enter that room and keep them busy while the other half head off to ransack the cleric's bedroom while he's away will make for a tougher fight - potentially two of them if the bedroom is guarded or trapped.

Sure, if you're going to have 2/3rds of those gnolls mysteriously decide to slope off for a tea break the moment the party chose to split up, it's not inherently more risky. But the risk should be calibrated to the party's collective capability, not to their decisions.

 

[FrogReaver]

It reduces the amount of resources you have available in any individual group to deal with whatever problems arise,

okay, but why is this more risky?

while doubling your collective chances of running into issues.

No. presumably you are exploring the same places whether split or not. You’ll run into those issues either way.

If the party peer through a keyhole and see a high-level cleric and thirty gnolls in the next room, then having only half of them choose to enter that room and keep them busy while the other half head off to ransack the cleric's bedroom while he's away will make for a tougher fight - potentially two of them if the bedroom is guarded or trapped.

No. I’d suggest that once the threat is telegraphed to the players that it remains. What I’m talking about is determining what the threat to be telegraphed to the players is.

Sure, if you're going to have 2/3rds of those gnolls mysteriously decide to slope off for a tea break the moment the party chose to split up, it's not inherently more risky. But the risk should be calibrated to the party's collective capability, not to their decisions.

So consider the players had already split up, got to the same door and looked through the same keyhole. There is no requirement you describe X gnolls there. You can describe whatever number you desire and it can even be dependent on if the party split up.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

On splitting up the party I’m of a different mind. DMs typically prepare encounters based on the full party all being present. Thus the reason the prepared encounters are of a particular strength is mere contrivance, or perhaps a better observation is that encounter strength is a gamist consideration.

I disagree in the strongest possible sense; on many levels. First off, encounter design and placement is NOT "mere contrivance", at least not in any game I run or create.

Encounters are designed to be:

• Evocative (of the theme and plot elements I'm trying to communicate to the players)
• Reasonable for the setting and presumptions of the game world
• Challenging and ultimately rewarding or "fun" for the PLAYERS (i.e. not necessarily their characters) to fight.

Gamist? Absolutely, but not ENTIRELY gamist. Also note that the lattermost isn't actually dependent on "encounter strength". I could easily create fights that the PCs will win 100% of the time without any casualties - but are interminably long. Alternately I could create reasonably but not overwhelmingly dangerous encounters that would be finished in far less time than it takes to set up combat placement and turn order in the first place.

Over the longer term, if there is no actual risk or perception of risk in encounters the entire combat experience devolves into a grind. Individual player choices cease to matter because the party will win regardless of what they do. That isn't entertaining for me or anyone else I know personally. For this reason, it is critical to at least occasionally include encounters that are potentially lethal.

As such, IMO, making a much to difficult encounter for half the party is the same as making a much too difficult encounter for the whole party. If you wouldn’t do it in the first instance then you shouldn’t do it in the other IMO

Except that it isn't. The PCs made the personal, tactical decision to split up. Changing the encounter midway through the session or adventure is one of the cardinal DM sins - circumventing the consequences of player choice.

 

[Shadowdweller00]

It reduces the amount of resources you have available in any individual group to deal with whatever problems arise, while doubling your collective chances of running into issues.

Not to mention being a key component of military strategic and tactical doctrine since time immemorial. C.f. "Divide and conquer"

 

[MarkB]

No. presumably you are exploring the same places whether split or not. You’ll run into those issues either way.

If you don't understand why going to twice as many places with half as many people is going to cause problems, I don't think there's any way to explain this to you.

 

[FrogReaver]

If you don't understand why going to twice as many places with half as many people is going to cause problems, I don't think there's any way to explain this to you.

Well to start with, you aren’t going to twice as many places.