D&D (2024) Wrapping up first 2-20 2024 campaign this week, some of my thoughts

[Hussar]

WotC is inarguably responsible for at least one, and again, 2024's selling point was "It is backwards compatible with adventures"... so they're kind of responsible for both.

Except that half the adventures being talked about here aren't written by WotC.

Look, if this is your experience with 5e, fair enough. If you blast through 1-20 level adventures in 20-25 sessions, leveling up every session, blasting through encounters in single rounds, okey doke. This is so far beyond my experience that I cannot even begin to think what it looks like. Is this how 5e looks to you?

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Except that half the adventures being talked about here aren't written by WotC.

Look, if this is your experience with 5e, fair enough. If you blast through 1-20 level adventures in 20-25 sessions, leveling up every session, blasting through encounters in single rounds, okey doke. This is so far beyond my experience that I cannot even begin to think what it looks like. Is this how 5e looks to you?

I've only played 2014, no-one I know wants to run 2024 so far (even though two DMs have it), so I can't speak to 2024.

Is this my experience of 5E more generally? Somewhat? It's not a perfect alignment, but some things do ring true. Like, the one-rounding, I've not really played/DM'd 5E above level 16 or so, but at that point, things are often getting increasingly "one-round-y", for sure. I've played campaigns where we basically got to buy more common magic items, which is why I have opinions on that - and it wasn't DPR that was easy to boost (that was very hard to), but survivability was easy to boost.

Except that half the adventures being talked about here aren't written by WotC.

Okay, that's a fair point to consider!

The questions then become firstly - "are they similar to WotC's ones design-wise", because a lot of 3PP ones are fundamentally very much compliant with 5E's design approach, and very easily could have been official adventures. And secondly, if they aren't, which direction is it in? Because if it's MCDM (and was it? I've already forgotten), that's actually way harder than WotC's adventures, design-wise. I'm not actually aware of any 3PPs who "soft pedal" things compared to WotC's official stuff. Are you? I'm aware of a number who intentionally went tougher, whether slightly or a great deal.

 

[Oofta]

They're 100% a problem with the system. Your argument doesn't remotely address that, in fact, it shows that they were a problem with the system, and just provides workarounds outside that system.

How much you have to do it is a big deal though, and how accurate CR etc. is, and how much you can get a "lock" on the PCs - like are they effectively say, 2 levels higher for the purposes of encounter design? D&D really wants us to use these tools and so on, and frankly all this "BAD DM LOLZ" talk means that easily 90-95% of D&D DMs (including a lot of people here, no doubt including some of the people saying it - not meaning you, to be clear) are absolutely "BAD DM LOLZ" material.


You seem to saying it would take longer solely because the monsters would run away and hide from the PCs though lol? I mean, sure you could drag out an encounter indefinitely by having monsters kite and run away a ton, but there are three issues there:

1) It's terrible RP and anti-immersive for a lot of monsters to behave that way (not all, Beholders would, they're jerks like that - but 4 Beholders is a very silly encounter without incredible justification, given they're solitary creatures which hate each other deeply).

If it takes 4 beholders to challenge a group, I'll throw 4 beholders. Why not? As long as I'm not constantly nerfing the group, it can be a fun challenge.

2) It's tedious and irritating, whether the PCs are doing it or the monsters. That doesn't mean never do it, but you can't make every fight "Catch that pigeon!" or World Chase Tag.

If the PCs are doing high enough damage that they the DM could add half a dozen extra monsters and they still get through the combat in, say, 3-4 rounds, how is that tedious?

3) Not all monsters even can fly or otherwise kite.

Not all monsters need to fly or otherwise kite, that doesn't mean they all show up with no protections in an otherwise empty 20x20 room. There's plenty of ways to make fun and enjoyable yet challenging environments.

If the PCs are doing a high enough DPR, stuff is going to get one-rounded. Rather sneering at and taking dumps on the DM in question, as you seem to be keen to do, perhaps we should ask about specific high-level encounters, and dig into it a bit more? I haven't played 2024 yet, but even in 2014, and even at like, level 13-14, I saw PCs who weren't even that well designed do burst damage of over 150 damage, which some monsters can survive, but if 2-3 PCs attack them and can all do that? Good luck!

There is a vast, vast difference in what a group can handle base on party makeup, their opponents, the items they have access to, how encounters are structured. A fighter is doing 200 points of damage in the first round? Sounds like the real BBEG needs some meat shields or some clever tactics like simulacrums or illusion spells. It also means the fighter can get to the primary target immediately every single time.

I have run multiple campaigns to level 20 now and I don't remember a single combat being over in a single round because I don't run easy combats and I just don't see the 2024 rules changing anything. If the group is more effective I'll adjust difficulty and tactics. So yes, it's a DM issue. In this case it's letting them load up with magic items so someone casting detect magic would likely be blinded by the bling and poor tactics.

 

[tetrasodium]

MCDM was mentioned way more often than expected. After doing a quick search for mcdm from the OP in this thread it seems that multiple posts go into how mcdm stuff was used pretty extensively and the OP itself has this to say "This is an MCDM adventure with a bunch of buffed monsters too, it would be worse using 5E or 2024 standard monsters".

What I find most notable about the last page or two of posts is that after a decade of catering to their blame the gm segment of the player base wotc still hasn't noticed that said segment is also the first to ignore their willingness to dismiss anything that could have shifted fault away from the gm in a rush to cite vague (very much known) unknowns that make it impossible to even suggest that the gm could have been sandbagged. It's been over a decade 5.24 failed so spectacularly at adjusting for that. Deliberate choice at wotc or a mandate from Hasbro seems like the root cause of the OP's observations.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Except that half the adventures being talked about here aren't written by WotC.

Look, if this is your experience with 5e, fair enough. If you blast through 1-20 level adventures in 20-25 sessions, leveling up every session, blasting through encounters in single rounds, okey doke. This is so far beyond my experience that I cannot even begin to think what it looks like. Is this how 5e looks to you?

My assumption is that the game mainly consists of highly optimized characters with players whi really know what they are doing (playing every week for 4 hours, in person?) focussing on combats.

And I assume a DM that does not realy know how to deal with it. Yes, high level combats can be volatile. Some spells are really game breaking in a bad way (and I am still annoyed how 5.24 did not fix them or made them even worse...)

Maybe it is time for that group to have a serious conversation about how to limit themselves to a power level that is fun.

Limiting rings to one per hand seems to make sense. Limiting createble items.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

If the PCs are doing high enough damage that they the DM could add half a dozen extra monsters and they still get through the combat in, say, 3-4 rounds, how is that tedious?

Oh I agree! That wasn't what was suggested though.

I have run multiple campaigns to level 20 now and I don't remember a single combat being over in a single round

I must say that, unless you're mostly running for three-player parties, I am skeptical that this is literally true. Because I've seen plenty of Hard encounters get one-rounded, from both sides of the table. You have to get into Extreme before you start literally never seeing one-round stuff with "normal" size parties (i.e. 4-5 PCs) in my experience (this is including adjustments for party size note, which don't actually account for the capabilities of PCs very well).

If it takes 4 beholders to challenge a group, I'll throw 4 beholders. Why not?

I mean, I don't run encounters I can justify RP-wise, and I think I'd have to work incredibly hard to RP-justify 4 Beholders. I'm not saying its impossible or something but I think a lot of DMs prefer to run stuff that feels natural to them, which can run into conflict with how wild PCs can get at higher levels.

 

[Oofta]

Yes, because focusing on a single throwaway example is productive?

Yup, if you're throwing single monsters at parties that are hyper focused on damage and over powered with magic items, sure, they're dropping the monsters that quickly.

But, the idea that the party is routinely ending EVERY SINGLE FIGHT in one or two rounds? And most of them in a single round? And you don't think that's just the tiniest bit unusual?

Lessee, we're talking 18th level PC's here. So, let's stick with 2014 rules, just for S&G's. 2 Ice Devils (CR 14) are a hard encounter. Note, by 2024 standards, this is a Low difficulty encounter. Right off the bat, since this is a 2014 adventure, we're seeing a big difference. But, let's carry on.

Note, I'm using stock 2014 ice devils here. Nothing fancy. And it happened to be a CR 14 creature I picked at random, and since you complained about using 3 beholders, is there a problem with a group of ice devils? No? Then lets move on.

Lessee, each has an AC of 18 and blindsight out to 60 feet as well as darkvision out to 120 feet. So, right off the bat, there's no way for the party to sneak up on them (virtually) and they absolutely should be attacking from outside the range of the PC's. Dropping walls of ice to divide up the party and break up sight lines. Sure, the party is taking half damage from the cold, but, I should be easily able to make this combat last 3-4 rounds without "kiting" or any shenanigans. Oh, and let's not forget that my Ice Devils can Gate, potentially. And, with 180 HP each, it's going to take 2 or 3 PC's ganging up on 1 to kill it in a single round.

And that's a pretty simple, stock monster in an easy encounter. Again, unless the encounters are all starting 20 feet away, in bright light, I'm baffled how you can think that it's typical that EVERY encounter lasts 1-2 rounds with most lasting only 1.

Finally, let's not forget, that I'm not only pointing at the very strange combat results. There's also the massively over powered magic item list, PLUS resting after each encounter, PLUS using 2014 encounter budgets. And, they are also getting this result from every single module? You think it's far more likely that the system, where no one else is getting these results, is the problem, but, it couldn't possibly be the DM?

I agree, but just a note. Surprise has been nerfed a bit in the 2024 rules, all it means now is that those creatures surprised have disadvantage on initiative. Again, I have never had a single fight that I can remember that only lasted one round at any level*. I'm not some tactical genius, I just don't have fights with solo monsters or at least not solo monsters that go toe-to-toe with the damage dealer.

*To clarify there have been a fight or two here and there were the goal wasn't to defeat the monsters but that had an alternative goal such as stopping a ritual. It can be fun for the group to figure out how to do it without actually fighting.

 

[Selas]

My assumption is that the game mainly consists of highly optimized characters with players whi really know what they are doing (playing every week for 4 hours, in person?) focussing on combats.

And I assume a DM that does not realy know how to deal with it. Yes, high level combats can be volatile. Some spells are really game breaking in a bad way (and I am still annoyed how 5.24 did not fix them or made them even worse...)

Maybe it is time for that group to have a serious conversation about how to limit themselves to a power level that is fun.

Limiting rings to one per hand seems to make sense. Limiting createble items.

After reading the entire thread, I have to agree with this. The fact that the similar results have happened in the OPs other campaigns with the same group and DM is telling that there's a problem and PCs are steamrolling the DM.

Also, the OP keeps bringing up MCDM monsters and how 2024 monsters wouldn't work, but the MM just came out. 2024 monsters are comparable to Forge of Foes according to Alphastream's math video, so I wonder if there's been a comparison for Flee Mortals now that the MM24 is out.

 

[Oofta]

Hey folks can we cool down a bit? ECM03 is sharing their experiences, which is a really nice thing to do. Yes they might play the game differently than you do. Take away from that what you will.

I already learned that I should not give players free reign to pick magic items, and I'll need to crank up the difficulty a lot more than expected. That's a good lesson to learn without having to make the mistakes myself!

The issue is not that people need to adjust to the new rules. The issue is the statements that the issues are solely caused by the system and cannot be resolved by the DM. The first few fights where the fights were too easy? That can happen, but when it does I would be adjusting the encounters. If I can't adjust encounters in a way that will be enjoyable for the group then it's an issue. That has never happened to me in any edition.

 

[Oofta]

My assumption is that the game mainly consists of highly optimized characters with players whi really know what they are doing (playing every week for 4 hours, in person?) focussing on combats.

And I assume a DM that does not realy know how to deal with it. Yes, high level combats can be volatile. Some spells are really game breaking in a bad way (and I am still annoyed how 5.24 did not fix them or made them even worse...)

Maybe it is time for that group to have a serious conversation about how to limit themselves to a power level that is fun.

Limiting rings to one per hand seems to make sense. Limiting createble items.

It's odd that there are lamentations about how broken the game is now with the new rules but somehow imposing limitations or adding in a few house rules seems to be out of the question. I see a lot of issues with the game as depicted, everything from uninteresting encounter environments to solo monsters(?), all enemies always appearing at once and so on. But the easiest one to fix is to limit magic items to something reasonable.