D&D (2024) Do players really want balance?

[Micah Sweet]

My only points are that A) what's deadly for one group is only moderately dangerous for another group and B) it's always going to be up to the DM what difficulty a group can handle.

There is no one size fits all and the encounter rules in the 2014 DMG are aimed at the low end. For some groups I never throw anything other than hard fights and we generally have 4-6 fights between long rests (occasionally more, occasionally less). Other groups? I'd be worried about a TPK by the second fight.

Seems like just about everything in D&D 5e is aimed at the lower end.

 

[Oofta]

Seems like just about everything in D&D 5e is aimed at the lower end.

The default assumptions when it comes to encounter design, it makes sense to aim at the low end.

If you're saying it about the entire ruleset? I can't view that as anything but insulting to everyone that enjoys the game as written.

 

[Micah Sweet]

The default assumptions when it comes to encounter design, it makes sense to aim at the low end.

If you're saying it about the entire ruleset? I can't view that as anything but insulting to everyone that enjoys the game as written.

I am talking about the mechanics, which in D&D 5e means I'm mostly talking about the combat mechanics, so yeah, encounter design is a big part of it. And I don't recall this degree of newbie focus throughout the entire history of the game. 5e has been around more than long enough for WotC to expand their focus, so going back to basics isn't appealing to me.

As I've said, from my perspective WotC's interest in balance mostly focuses on the most profitable proportional weights of simplicity and power fantasy, both with players in mind. Many people like what they offer though, and explaining how I think of it isn't intended as an insult to them.

 

[ezo]

I don't play 5e as an attrition game, at all, so I have design the encounters that do happen very much with balance in mind, taking into account that the party will likely be starting with almost full resources. Encounter design has a massive impact on balance, and when I screw it up, I really screw it up!

Sure, that will certainly happen if the PCs rest enough that they approach most encounters at full strength (or close to it)!

But that that point, like the other poster's examples, just plan on every encounter being at a minimum Hard, and often Deadly or worse.

For myself, I've found my players nearly have heart attacks when the encounters are deadly (as an attrition game!). Their resources get depleted, but there is still more to do. Can they rest? Do they dare leave and try to come back? Who knows what else will be waiting then!? Can they handle the "next room" or not?

In our game Friday, my DM PC died. The party was four 6th-level characters (Rogue, Fighter, Paladin, Sorcerer/Cleric) against two sea hags and four sahuagins. The adjusted XP total makes this a Hard encounter, which it was, and dumb luck (failed a save by 1) droppe my PC to 0 hit and in the clutches of a sea hag. A failed death save followed by a critical hit on a downed PC for a double-tap ened his adventuring career.

The next encounter was now 3 against 6 (sahuagin coral smashers). This was now (with one less PC) a "beyond" Deadly encounter. It nearly resulted in a TPK at that point. The party was decimated in the end and fortunate that it was the final combat of the adventure.

All in all, I have found the attrition method works well if your game can play that way. Otherwise, yes, you certainly will have to ramp up the difficulty to a minimum of Hard IMO.

My only points are that A) what's deadly for one group is only moderately dangerous for another group and B) it's always going to be up to the DM what difficulty a group can handle.

Fine, I wished you had expressed that a bit more clearly. However, in my experience I have found A) is not often true in an attrition-run game (things tend to even out) and B) a lot of DMs misjudge what a group could handle.

There is no one size fits all and the encounter rules in the 2014 DMG are aimed at the low end. For some groups I never throw anything other than hard fights and we generally have 4-6 fights between long rests (occasionally more, occasionally less). Other groups? I'd be worried about a TPK by the second fight.

I think they are aimed at the attrition end, not a "low end".

However, I know since I do encounters based on the story and not a game-enforced design that often hard encounters won't be hard, but after sufficient attrition a medium encounter might become deadly or even a TPK. I've had times when I had well over a dozen encounters between long rests, and many more times when I had only one. For me, the story drives that, and I don't expect by any stretch of my imagination that most encounters will be (or should be at a certain point!) challenging to the PCs. It is the series of encounters over time which results in the real tension rising!

 

[DEFCON 1]

I am talking about the mechanics, which in D&D 5e means I'm mostly talking about the combat mechanics, so yeah, encounter design is a big part of it. And I don't recall this degree of newbie focus throughout the entire history of the game. 5e has been around more than long enough for WotC to expand their focus, so going back to basics isn't appealing to me.

You may not like it, but I can't tell you how many times over the last decade I have heard people complaining about the game being "too complex" and we have to "think of the newbs!!!" when it came to the rule. Heck... people have been ranting about how "hard it is" to find rules in the DMG for the entire lifetime of 5E14 and how the glossaries and indexes sucked. So now with 5E24 the team has decided to clean things up as best they can to make it easier for these poor newbs that players have been demanding help for these past 10 years, resulting indeed in a new degree of newbie focus for the game.

If you personally don't like it... that's fine. WotC's happy to let you wander over to Level Up. Go have fun. But if helping new players has been such a bugboo for so many people this entire time... deciding to actually journey in that direction means they're actually listening.

 

[Zardnaar]

Sure, no one wants to play a weak class and feel useless. Why is that controversial?

If someone picks a D tier option we tell them or as DM I'll buff it.

 

[Zardnaar]

I play with my wife and my long-term friend (as I've said before my best friend passed away years ago, and he shared my favored style when neither of the above do). I also play with new people whom my wife recruits (she's much more social than I am). I compromise on what I want out of play all the time, and compensate as best I can when I can, because I have no choice.

In short, social dynamics keep me from playing the game I really want, so I do the best I can.

Similar here except I'm the recruiter.

For my perfect game I just need an experienced DM who can run 3.75 or 4E levels of complexity and 4 other people who have played for 10-20 years. You also all get along and have Similar tastes in beer. Or an OSR DM

Simple huh.

 

[Zardnaar]

You may not like it, but I can't tell you how many times over the last decade I have heard people complaining about the game being "too complex" and we have to "think of the newbs!!!" when it came to the rule. Heck... people have been ranting about how "hard it is" to find rules in the DMG for the entire lifetime of 5E14 and how the glossaries and indexes sucked. So now with 5E24 the team has decided to clean things up as best they can to make it easier for these poor newbs that players have been demanding help for these past 10 years, resulting indeed in a new degree of newbie focus for the game.

If you personally don't like it... that's fine. WotC's happy to let you wander over to Level Up. Go have fun. But if helping new players has been such a bugboo for so many people this entire time... deciding to actually journey in that direction means they're actually listening.

2024 seems aimed at experienced player imho. It's laid out better.

Only 1/10 is super keen so far. She's the most experienced player/powergamer.

 

[FrogReaver]

They’re not fun. That’s kinda the point. Should death be fun? But if we attack a downed character, then we’re specifically going out of our way to be a jerk and will get flak for it. Maybe the fix is that “downed” characters aren’t actually on the floor, but still standing and fighting but making death saves. Then being hit during their last moments would explain how they’re being finished off.

We’ve been doing this for some time. Dropping to 0 applies a stackable -1 penalty to everything the pc does, checks, saves and spell dcs. At 0 each hit causes another penalty. You die when you reach -10 but can act normally in the meantime. Penalties only go away 1 level per long rest.

Works well. Makes PCs not want to drop to 0. Allows dm to keep attacking them without players feeling defenseless. They can dodge, disengage etc. Or act normally if they want. Much harder to kill PCs, but tends to increase time they want to rest so easier to come up with reasonable campaign consequences.

 

[Zardnaar]

If a PC obtains resistance to cold damage and all my frost giants are now fire giants, I’m sure challenging them, but that’s just a jerk move, lol.

Up to a point. If DM was planning on using them before or not.

Recent campaign had fire and frost giants a lot.