D&D General 5.5 and making the game easier for players and harder for DMs

[Oofta]

CR really is a guess based on an "average" party, but the game has been trying to pass it off as absolute law for at least a couple editions. If the DMG could do better about relaying that it's a ballpark value to start with I think it'd help a lot of tables and new DMs. Problem is, with this revision they seem to be doubling down on it being an absolute principle, which I think is a bad idea.

There's never going to be a perfect CR system, there can't be. Every group is different and the current CR guidelines aim towards the bottom of the barrel. I use a slightly different calculation for encounter building but when I do, while also double checking monster capabilities such as flying, my results are pretty accurate.

It's not like I'm doing anything magic or that I'm some genius level monster combat tactician, it's just finding the right balance for the group.

 

[Oofta]

What needs reevaluation is that party’s don’t get into 6 fights a day or whatever. It’s one or two and the party can unleash all their high powered stuff with a rest. Every fight has its super novas and the monsters need to step up. Especially singular biss fights.

When the party can go ham in round 1 needs to be taken into consideration

Battles shouldn’t be mostly pointless. Not after all the set up.

Which is why one of my recommendations is to use alternate rest rules. I typically have at least 4 fights per long rest, but even when I don't there are ways of handling it. Have monsters come in waves, use flanking or try to lead people into traps, take environmental factors into consideration.

But all of that is a whole other thread.

 

[Malmuria]

There's never going to be a perfect CR system, there can't be. Every group is different and the current CR guidelines aim towards the bottom of the barrel. I use a slightly different calculation for encounter building but when I do, while also double checking monster capabilities such as flying, my results are pretty accurate.

It's not like I'm doing anything magic or that I'm some genius level monster combat tactician, it's just finding the right balance for the group.

Pathfinder 2e seems to have figured out more precise encounter building. I think it's more that 5e's design wants to have it both ways, promising balanced encounters out of the box but in reality leaving it up to DMs to actually make the system work. FWIW, I think if the system is telling you you can have encounter balance, and you're paying $180 for it, it should work out of the box.

 

[Oofta]

Pathfinder 2e seems to have figured out more precise encounter building. I think it's more that 5e's design wants to have it both ways, promising balanced encounters out of the box but in reality leaving it up to DMs to actually make the system work. FWIW, I think if the system is telling you you can have encounter balance, and you're paying $180 for it, it should work out of the box.

I don't think it can ever be perfect, although of course there's always room for improvement.

I play with or DM 3 groups currently, all have different strengths. D&D is not a board game with limited options, if your wizard decides that it's funny to only ever cast Grease and has almost no offensive spells that aren't AOE they're not going to be as helpful in combat as an evoker. The former may have spells that help tremendously outside of combat, but in a fight they aren't contributing much.

Regardless, as I said above, I have no problem adjusting difficulty for groups I DM (although it can take a session or two) and nothing I'm doing is magic. It basically just comes down to throwing more or less monsters and what CR above or below their level they can handle, with occasional monster tweaks.

 

[KYRON45]

It sounds like a lot of people are playing a game they just don't like.

 

[payn]

Pathfinder 2e seems to have figured out more precise encounter building. I think it's more that 5e's design wants to have it both ways, promising balanced encounters out of the box but in reality leaving it up to DMs to actually make the system work. FWIW, I think if the system is telling you you can have encounter balance, and you're paying $180 for it, it should work out of the box.

5E is like 3E, in that CR is horseshoes and hand grenades. Some folks want watch time precision in their CR system.

 

[Vael]

4e was so clean. X PCs of Y level get medium encounter out of X monsters of Y level ...

 

[Umbran]

The only other thing I will add is that there are times when people seem really resistant to advice on how to make combats more difficult for reasons I don't understand.
...

Which set of adjustments work for you and your group will, of course vary.

Well, you just clarified why folks are resistant to advice.

When taking advice is not significantly easier than just doing it themselves, our advice isn't very helpful.

 

[dave2008]

4e was so clean. X PCs of Y level get medium encounter out of X monsters of Y level ...

It was clean conceptually, but it didn't work in practice IME. Particularly at higher levels. Has you increased level the monsters got relatively weaker compared to the PCs, but the encounter guidelines didn't accommodate this. So the encounter guidelines didn't really work for the full span of the game.

I have heard PF2 as a similar issue, but not as pronounced.

 

[dave2008]

Pathfinder 2e seems to have figured out more precise encounter building. I think it's more that 5e's design wants to have it both ways, promising balanced encounters out of the box but in reality leaving it up to DMs to actually make the system work. FWIW, I think if the system is telling you you can have encounter balance, and you're paying $180 for it, it should work out of the box.

PF2 is definitely better (though not perfect either); however, that has to do with the entire system math which is much tighter in PF2 than it is in 5e. It is less an issue of the encounter builder design than it is the design of the whole game.

4e had similar tight math, and a similar simple encounter builder, but 5e went a different direction.

Also, the 5e encounter builder actually works well, but only under a narrow set of circumstances. Where the DMG failed IMO, is not giving proper advice on how to adjust the guidelines when you are outside that narrow band. It is not hard to do, but some guidance would be appreciated.