D&D General 6-8 encounters (combat?)

[UngainlyTitan]

@tetrasodium I am not convinced that the long encounter day really matters. I think it would be lost at the table amid other factors like individual optimisation. I have argued my point already at length in this thread and I feel I said my piece.

I do think that 4e's healing surges was the best pacing mechanic the game ever had and it is a pity they walked away from it.

I have no more to add.

I for one, don't have the time to pack many encounters into a session. Nor do I think making my players wait months to gain any kind of meaningful benefit from their adventuring careers, or weeks to recover their abilities, is particularly worthwhile.

Agree, particularly with the bolded bit.

My groups gain a sense of satisfaction out of watching their characters improve and gain new abilities. That's not universal, but I can't be alone in this.

Since gaining a level might not even necessarily give you more than hit points and a ribbon ability, based on the precise level and class, and gold quickly becomes useless unless I step in and give it a good use, having an adventuring "day" take 2-3 sessions, when I'm lucky to get my group together twice a month, just doesn't work.

So when I prepare encounters, I make sure the individual encounter is something they can handle, and I let them rest when it's logical for them to be able to do so. Even though some profess this makes the game "easy mode", I have seen characters die in sessions I run, and I even have a TPK (sort of) under my belt (black dragon fight in Forge of Fury, at a certain point I told the survivors that if they wanted to flee, I'd allow it, and end the adventure, rather than watch them get destroyed. It took a few minutes, but they ultimately decided to take my deal).

Now I'm not saying I'm some kind of gifted DM when it comes to making encounters- I've made mistakes, and I wish the DMG and Monster Manuals were more help to me, but they haven't been.

I need a certain amount of enemies to make an encounter challenging. I need enemies who have at least a 25% chance to hit the PC's. The published monsters don't always measure up.

This means I'm often forced to use higher level enemies, which means that bounded accuracy doesn't seem to be working either- what good is it that I can use 8 Bugbears if none of them can even hit the Fighter or the Cleric?

So the way I see it, the guidelines are useless to me. I know I'm not alone in this opinion. Further, the monster design and challenge rating rules are also mostly useless to me, since two encounters with the same experience point budget can have wildly different results, and that's before I even add things like terrain or other factors which can alter the difficulty.

Not quite my experience, I have never trouble hitting the party and I expect this to vary a lot with table and campaign and party composition.

Further, it seems WotC knows that these guidelines aren't worth the ink they're printed on, since they don't use them themselves!

So if they have no trust in this sort of thing, how can anyone else?

True, the XP by level for encounter difficulty (page 82 DMG) consistently understates the difficulty of an encounter once it gets past level 4 or 5 and the deviation increases from there.

That said, I am not sure any such table would be of much use after level 14 or so. The party composition really starts to matter here. They really could use better guidelines. That said better monster design could also help. The bigger and more complex a stat block the bigger chance a DM has to screw it up come the fight.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Hyperbole.

Most encounters in 5e are generally over inside of 5 rounds. Seeing as my players are on the clock (they get roughly 6 seconds to declare actions when their turn comes up or they take the Dodge action and their turn ends), combats rarely take more than 20 minutes to resolve.

Single word dismissal.

I'm... not going to do that to my friends. There is no benefit that could come of it that would make it worth me doing that to my friends.

 

[Cadence]

At first I thought this was supposed to be a parody of some arguments made against those longing for more 2e and 3e in there 5.5. But then based on some of the responses I wasn't sure. So now I'm confused.

Yeah, to the point that every time someone complains they "break the game", I have to point out that not only are they part of the game, but they have been for a long time.

Goodberry,

Are complaints about goodberry (which is pretty much the same in terms of the spell text itself as in 2e or 3e) because 5e doesn't have the instant death of 2e, or the -1 to -9 dying range of 3e? And so the berries combined with how 5e does 0 hp and death saves allows for really easy wack-a-moling? (Maybe dashed with some abuse of the Disciple of Life Cleric to make it "cast healing potions"?)

Tiny Hut,

This is the one that makes me think it must have been trying to be a parody. Tiny Hut in 2e and 3e didn't stop weapons or most spells, provided protection against sub-hurricane weather problems, and ameliorated quite a bit of temperature issues. 5e brings us an impenetrable low level wall of force.

So this seems to obviously just an example of an incredible power update from 2e and 3e to 5e.

(Granted, it now seems to match the inspiration in the original Vance better, but if I am I remembering right that that was a magic item and not a spell used as an escape by every mage everywhere?).

Magnificient Mansion, Teleport, Fly- all these spells and more, are legacies.

These also seem odd choices to make the case about over-powered spells. Mansion seems the same as 2e and 3e. Fly seems about the same - except that it now requires concentration, and can be upcast to more targets. Teleport is two levels higher than 2e or 3e, but works on a group of people. I haven't heard tons of people complaining about those particular spells any more now than in the past. Now low-level racial abilities on the other hand...

But you know what edition got rid of them, for the most part?

And was derided for not "feeling like D&D"?

And so they were brought back for that very reason?

And this has me befuddled. Because both the lovers and haters of that edition would have huge lists of other changes as well that are probably more fundamental to gaming than losing pseudo-Vancian casting. (The ones that seemingly randomly pop up in threads about anything).

And 3rd edition was the one where I first saw the E6 rules come out (and the first one that had HP keep going up at the full rate to level 20 or whatnot) . And 2e didn't really need it because the HP didn't keep climbing, it didn't have the omnipresent wands, and the spell-casters were crunchy. And so this part has me thinking there might be a good dig in it at folks who think the "problem" just started with 5e and didn't go back to 3e.

Maybe some things stick out more now to some players because 5e is supposed to be more balanced with less trap choices and bounded accuracy?

In any case, I'm not sure what a veiled attempt at an edition war dig buys either "side".

 

[James Gasik]

At first I thought this was supposed to be a parody of some arguments made against those longing for more 2e and 3e in there 5.5. But then based on some of the responses I wasn't sure. So now I'm confused.


Are complaints about goodberry (which is pretty much the same in terms of the spell text itself as in 2e or 3e) because 5e doesn't have the instant death of 2e, or the -1 to -9 dying range of 3e? And so the berries combined with how 5e does 0 hp and death saves allows for really easy wack-a-moling? (Maybe dashed with some abuse of the Disciple of Life Cleric to make it "cast healing potions"?)



This is the one that makes me think it must have been trying to be a parody. Tiny Hut in 2e and 3e didn't stop weapons or most spells, provided protection against sub-hurricane weather problems, and ameliorated quite a bit of temperature issues. 5e brings us an impenetrable low level wall of force.

So this seems to obviously just an example of an incredible power update from 2e and 3e to 5e.

(Granted, it now seems to match the inspiration in the original Vance better, but if I am I remembering right that that was a magic item and not a spell used as an escape by every mage everywhere?).


These also seem odd choices to make the case about over-powered spells. Mansion seems the same as 2e and 3e. Fly seems about the same - except that it now requires concentration, and can be upcast to more targets. Teleport is two levels higher than 2e or 3e, but works on a group of people. I haven't heard tons of people complaining about those particular spells any more now than in the past. Now low-level racial abilities on the other hand...


And this has me befuddled. Because both the lovers and haters of that edition would have huge lists of other changes as well that are probably more fundamental to gaming than losing pseudo-Vancian casting. (The ones that seemingly randomly pop up in threads about anything).

And 3rd edition was the first one where I first saw the E6 rules come out (and the first one that had HP keep going up at the full rate to level 20 or whatnot) . And 2e didn't really need it because the HP didn't keep climbing, it didn't have the omnipresent wands, and the spell-casters were crunchy. And so this part has me thinking there might be a good dig in it at folks who think the "problem" just started with 5e and didn't go back to 3e.

Maybe some things stick out more now to some players because 5e is supposed to be more balanced with less trap choices and bounded accuracy?

In any case, I'm not sure what a veiled attempt at an edition war dig buys either "side".

I'm not edition warring, I'm just pointing out that these spells, which DM's often gripe about, and sometimes even ban them, because they supposedly "break the game", were once almost completely done away with.

And some people were upset about this, not liking their loss. During the D&D Next playtest, I filled out a survey that asked what spells people wanted back for 5e. I can only assume that other people who did wanted these spells back.

The spells on those list either trivialize things like rations, allow safe resting in unsafe areas, or trivialize travel times or exploration challenges.

Some DM's hate them. Others even make claims that they should not be in the game in the first place. And yet, not only do they exist, and have existed for a long time, they continue to exist because presumably a lot of people wanted them back!

So my hot take is, maybe we should accept the idea that such things are meant to exist, and are working as intended?

 

[Scott Christian]

What do I get if I provide a video showing it? Nothing. So, sorry, no upside for me doing that.

You get the satisfaction of teaching someone or a group that something can be done.

But I agree, I've never seen it in an actual play video either. What I do see a lot of at other tables and in actual play videos, however, are approaches and habits that make combats take longer than they need to. It all comes down to table management and player engagement. The better those two things are, the faster things move along. My group regularly hits 6 to 8 encounters per adventuring day, often in the same session. We just cover a lot more content per session than a lot of groups I've seen.

I completely agree with table management and player engagement. But, I have seen both of them on extremely high levels and combats still take a long time; long enough to dwindle away a four-hour session. Yet, no doubt you are correct, combat accelerates based on table management and player engagement (and imho how well a player knows their character).

 

[FrozenNorth]

If the DM plays enemies as intelligent and reactive, investigating at your own pace is almost always risky. (There are a few spells like Leomund's tiny hut that can make it safer... but leaning too hard on those spells carries its own dangers. If you count on the hut to keep you safe, and only discover at the last moment that the monsters have a caster with dispel magic, it's gonna get bad.)

Leomund’s Tiny Hut comes online at level 5. How many CR 5 (or less) monsters in the MM can cast dispel magic?

We can extend this further. Even at level 9, how many CR 9 (or less) monsters in the MM can cast dispel magic?

At a certain point, if every adventure has multiple monsters that can cast dispel magic (and always the same ones) just for the purpose of policing the casters, the adventure is going to feel pretty artificial.

 

[GMforPowergamers]

Are complaints about goodberry (which is pretty much the same in terms of the spell text itself as in 2e or 3e) because 5e doesn't have the instant death of 2e, or the -1 to -9 dying range of 3e? And so the berries combined with how 5e does 0 hp and death saves allows for really easy wack-a-moling? (Maybe dashed with some abuse of the Disciple of Life Cleric to make it "cast healing potions"?)

goodberry completely erases the need to carry or forage for food. and since the spell lasts 24hrs you can at the end of each day just use what every slots the druid has left for them, then rest have all your slots and a ton of berrys.

This is the one that makes me think it must have been trying to be a parody. Tiny Hut in 2e and 3e didn't stop weapons or most spells,

yeah the tiny battle bunker is weird and I hope fixed

(Granted, it now seems to match the inspiration in the original Vance better, but if I am I remembering right that that was a magic item and not a spell used as an escape by every mage everywhere?).

I thought that was more the fortress... but yeah

These also seem odd choices to make the case about over-powered spells. Mansion seems the same as 2e and 3e.

it was overpowered in those too... hence legacy.

Fly seems about the same - except that it now requires concentration, and can be upcast to more targets.

again, at 5th level it is too powerful. (3rd level of spell)

Teleport is two levels higher than 2e or 3e, but works on a group of people. I haven't heard tons of people complaining about those particular spells any more now than in the past. Now low-level racial abilities on the other hand...

again it just negates travel, and entire exploration set of events...

imagine Lord of the rings (or almost any fantasy story) with teleport.

And 3rd edition was the one where I first saw the E6 rules come out (and the first one that had HP keep going up at the full rate to level 20 or whatnot) . And 2e didn't really need it because the HP didn't keep climbing, it didn't have the omnipresent wands, and the spell-casters were crunchy. And so this part has me thinking there might be a good dig in it at folks who think the "problem" just started with 5e and didn't go back to 3e.

oh the problem was there in 2e (although diffrent and handled a bit better) then 3e and 3.5 blew it up to crazy levels and took the over powered spell caster to 11.
4e fixed it almost entirely...
5ereset it 1/2-3/4 of the way to 3e jumping right over 4e and 2e

In any case, I'm not sure what a veiled attempt at an edition war dig buys either "side".

it's an explanation

 

[Maxperson]

I'm not edition warring, I'm just pointing out that these spells, which DM's often gripe about, and sometimes even ban them, because they supposedly "break the game", were once almost completely done away with.

And some people were upset about this, not liking their loss. During the D&D Next playtest, I filled out a survey that asked what spells people wanted back for 5e. I can only assume that other people who did wanted these spells back.

The spells on those list either trivialize things like rations, allow safe resting in unsafe areas, or trivialize travel times or exploration challenges.

Some DM's hate them. Others even make claims that they should not be in the game in the first place. And yet, not only do they exist, and have existed for a long time, they continue to exist because presumably a lot of people wanted them back!

So my hot take is, maybe we should accept the idea that such things are meant to exist, and are working as intended?

My take on it is that like most things, it's a table decision. A lot of people wanted them gone and a lot of people wanted them included. It's much easier to take them out at a table level than it is to put them in yourself, so their inclusion was the right way to go.

 

[Micah Sweet]

My take on it is that like most things, it's a table decision. A lot of people wanted them gone and a lot of people wanted them included. It's much easier to take them out at a table level than it is to put them in yourself, so their inclusion was the right way to go.

Its worth noting that many of these spells are adjusted to more reasonable levels in Level Up.

 

[Cadence]

goodberry completely erases the need to carry or forage for food. and since the spell lasts 24hrs you can at the end of each day just use what every slots the druid has left for them, then rest have all your slots and a ton of berrys.

Is that an effect of the change from preparing specific spell slots (like the 3.5 druid) to preparing a set of spells for the day and then using them like the 3.5 sorcerer would?

it was overpowered in those too... hence legacy.

13th level caster using there one 7th level spell slot for it doesn't seem that awful for the mansion to me. But I can see why it would bother some.

imagine Lord of the rings (or almost any fantasy story) with teleport.

I wonder if whether on-demand teleporting is annoying or not to some of us (at any level, for one person or a group) is related to the inspirational literature one has. None of mine has it except for a couple that have things like teleportation circle where both ends need to have one - and it annoys me.