D&D 5E Boy, that escalated quickly...

[TarionzCousin]

It probably doesn't help that they've also shown a tendency to split the party a bit during the initial foray into the dungeon....and the meat of the party is definitely melee-focused.

Do your players not have access to the internet?

[video=youtube;waa2ucfgVgQ]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=waa2ucfgVgQ[/video]

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I've done this pretty much since I started DMing Basic back in '80. If the rooms in a location are occupied by monsters that are allied in some fashion of course they're going to reinforce each other. I find this makes the game a lot more fun. Stealth and tactics become more important.

The key to avoid this scenario becoming stale is to change things up - there are many situations where reinforcements aren't going to happen. I've had dungeons made of caverns (encounter areas) separated from each other by several miles of empty tunnels. No reinforcements there. Wilderness adventures with widely separated encounters are similar. And in some places the neighbors are hostile or of animal intelligence. No reinforcements there either.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=2067]I'm A Banana[/MENTION]

I have noticed that getting swarmed by enemies happens a lot in my games. Then again, it always has, so I don't know how much is 5th edition and how much is me

Though I can mention a couple things I do to keep it from getting stale...

Obvious Chokepoints / Seal-offs: Basically, I telegraph when reinforcements are on their way, and usually I'm transparent about which direction they're coming from (except when I'm not!). Then I provide a map/scene where there are clear chokepoints or portcullises to close off or crumbling stone walls that a force spell might topple over, etc.

New Monsters, Different Motives: Just because reinforcements have arrived, doesn't mean they're playing by the same league rules as the monsters calling for help. They may have completely different motivations, such as downing one PC and dragging them off to be eaten, or even betraying their former monster comrades.

Parlay: Sentient monsters might send an agent to attempt a parlay with the PCs. Whether or not the offer is genuine, or a chance to trap the PCs / buy more time to flank them depends on the nature of the monsters in question.

I did this to great effect with a kobold messenger of a clan who the PCs were tearing thru. He offered a treasure sack to the paladin as restitution. It was a bag of devouring. Yes, the paladin reached inside. ​

Scenarios Where Killing Monsters is a Waste of Time/Resources: I try mixing up my scenarios so the party's main goal is not to kill all the monsters, but to accomplish an objective that actually makes killing all the monsters somewhat undesirable. Time limits can work, but those also tend to encourage dungeon blitzes. Having the monster numbers be (effectively) unlimited is a great method, if you can foreshadow it well. Implementing monsters or a hazardous environment that take a toll on the PCs the longer they're exposed (e.g. disease, ability drain, fatigue) are a brutal but effective method.

 

[Herobizkit]

Parlay: Sentient monsters might send an agent to attempt a parlay with the PCs. Whether or not the offer is genuine, or a chance to trap the PCs / buy more time to flank them depends on the nature of the monsters in question.

I did this to great effect with a kobold messenger of a clan who the PCs were tearing thru. He offered a treasure sack to the paladin as restitution. It was a bag of devouring. Yes, the paladin reached inside. ​

Scenarios Where Killing Monsters is a Waste of Time/Resources: I try mixing up my scenarios so the party's main goal is not to kill all the monsters, but to accomplish an objective that actually makes killing all the monsters somewhat undesirable. Time limits can work, but those also tend to encourage dungeon blitzes. Having the monster numbers be (effectively) unlimited is a great method, if you can foreshadow it well. Implementing monsters or a hazardous environment that take a toll on the PCs the longer they're exposed (e.g. disease, ability drain, fatigue) are a brutal but effective method.

All my personal opinion, of course...

With regards to the kobold 'gotcha' moment - wouldn't this be a deterrent to said players for trying diplomacy at all? As a DM, it's hilarious, but as a player, it reeks of "might as well have killed them all and been done with it."

With regards to 'waste of time' monsters - if your players are primarily arse-kickers, killing monsters is never a waste of time; it's where their kind of fun happens to be.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Unfortunately, I don't really have enough experience with 5e to make any real recommendations on that front. Part of the problem is simply 5e's great emphasis on combat mobility; it's very hard for anyone without spells to 'lock down' an enemy, and because OAs eat your Reaction, it's not possible for anyone to (non-magically) lock down more than a single target at a time--and even that may or may not happen either.

You need more experience with 5E. The assertion in bold is false. The most common way of locking down an enemy that I've seen in 5E is a Str-based character with Athletics proficiency and Extra Attack, grabbing an enemy with one hand and hanging on. If you have a spare attack left over you also slam them prone. It's cheap (therefore ubiquitous) and it's effective at pretty much taking them out of the combat.

It has limitations (doesn't work on Huge creatures) but so does everything.

 

[Vicaring]

It probably doesn't help that they've also shown a tendency to split the party a bit during the initial foray into the dungeon....and the meat of the party is definitely melee-focused.

This is pretty much exactly what I've been experiencing in my recent runs as DM. Not long ago, my party decided to split the party. That resulted in a TPK (We were running the Hoard of the Dragon Queen, and they were killed by the kobolds in that cave part of the module. So much for that campaign).

Then, they act decidedly against character. In my current campaign, a little while ago they find a Necromatic Book of Pure Evil. One of my players is a Witch Hunter. Another is a Rogue. The Rogue decides to steal the book while nobody's looking. The Witch Hunter catches him doing it. So what's the Witch Hunter do? Nothing.

Just wait, it gets better.

They lose the Book of Pure Evil, and begin the quest to find and destroy it. So last week they finally find it. It's locked in a room in a temple. On the door are warding sigils. They enter the room, and find it's a repository FULL of pure evil artifacts. So the conversation went like this:

Rogue: What's in the room?
DM: A whole lot. Idols. Phylacteries. Books (including the book you're looking for). Paintings. More idols. Pretty much everything.
Rogue: Weapons?
DM: Yes. There is even, prominently displayed, a very black and very evil-looking Sword of Pure Evil.
Rogue: Huh. And it's just sitting there?
DM: Yes.
Rogue: Prominently displayed?
DM: Yes.

Then the party gets ambushed, and there's a fight. After the fight, the conversation continues.

Witch Hunter: I think you should take the sword.
Rogue: I was thinking about it.
Witch Hunter: I know you were. You should take it.
Rogue: It might be trapped. It's prominently displayed.
DM: It's evil.
Witch Hunter: You're a Rogue. Check for traps.
Rogue: Good idea. I check for traps.
DM: It's pure evil. It isn't trapped. It is the trap.
Rogue: So not trapped. Excellent.
Witch Hunter: Take it. Just to see what happens. You know. Because.
Rogue: Good idea. I take the Pure Black Sword of Pure Evil.
DM: I am not allowing you to take any further levels in the Witch Hunter class. Not until you learn how to hunt witches.
Witch Hunter: Such bull****.
DM: Being a Witch Hunter implies that you not only hunt the Witches themselves, but also their artifacts. Seriously. Think about it.
Rogue: I have an Evil Black Sword of Vile Nasty. What good things happen to me??
DM: I give up. We'll meet again next week.

Combine all of this with the fact that the party never, EVER, runs from a fight, even if it's obvious that they're going to lose, and I, as the DM, get to figure out whether or not I want to TPK the party for being retarded. Again.

Mind, these players have been playing this game for going on 20 years. It's not like it's new to them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Combine all of this with the fact that the party never, EVER, runs from a fight, even if it's obvious that they're going to lose, and I, as the DM, get to figure out whether or not I want to TPK the party for being retarded. Again.

Mind, these players have been playing this game for going on 20 years. It's not like it's new to them.

Curiosity is a powerful force. Give them what they want: a gruesome death with hundreds of dice of damage and a rift in reality which destroys a large chunk of real estate and leads to global disaster. Then start a new campaign in the same world, only this time the new campaign is zombielicious.

 

[S'mon]

I do it even in 4e - only problem is that the fights take forever. I did it in Pathfinder too; my PF group were pretty powergamey so usually no problem handling it. I certainly would never consider not doing it in 5e, I did it last session running (spoiler) Shards of Sin (/spoiler)- when the derroes were attacked one dashed off and summoned his pet flesh golem to join the fray, combining two encounters into one big fight.

 

[Imaculata]

Nah, my DMs have always done this sort of thing. We'd spend two hours planning the perfect attack on the Wizards tower and, oops, nevermind, he scryed out what we were up to ages ago and our diversion only served to divide our forces. It's a given that a retreating foe means more trouble down the line.

My 3.5 group has recently been running into the problem of wizardy opponents using scrying to preempt their attacks. They are not used to it. Scrying is something a lot of DM's simply gloss over, because it is too much of a hassle. But all of a sudden they have to take precautions to prevents being scried on, or they risk having even their most well laid out plans being undone by a clever wizard. Suddenly there are reinforcements, traps, and arcane marks waiting for them. So knowing this, they now take more precautions to keep their plans a secret. If they sense someone scrying on them, they cast anti-scrying spells, give false information, or they change their plan. They also take into account that their enemies may attempt to call reinforcements, so they place their characters in strategic positions to intercept guards and such.

As a DM, I often make sure that there are clear ways to anticipate and prevent an enemy calling for reinforcements. Sometimes its even as blatantly obvious as a giant gong or alarm bell being drawn on the battle map. That way the players know that as soon as they see someone running for the alarm, they have to stop him before he gets there. I also give the opponents guard dogs, who can sniff out invisible players, and track their scent. It makes for some interesting stealth game play, especially when they are outnumbered.

Then, they act decidedly against character. In my current campaign, a little while ago they find a Necromatic Book of Pure Evil. One of my players is a Witch Hunter. Another is a Rogue. The Rogue decides to steal the book while nobody's looking. The Witch Hunter catches him doing it. So what's the Witch Hunter do? Nothing.

Just wait, it gets better.

They lose the Book of Pure Evil, and begin the quest to find and destroy it. So last week they finally find it. It's locked in a room in a temple. On the door are warding sigils. They enter the room, and find it's a repository FULL of pure evil artifacts.

Are you sure you are giving them enough information as a DM? It could be that your player just does not understand his class, or does not understand how he is expected to respond... and regardless, it is not your job as a DM to decide for them how to play their character.

See, when I would describe such a room of evil artifacts, I would make it perfectly clear to the Witch Hunter that these are the sorts of objects that many generations of Witch Hunters have sought to destroy. Especially if I notice that my description is not getting the sort of reaction I wanted from my players. I adjust my description to make it more clear just how wrong these objects feel to them. Maybe I tell them that they hear the artifacts whisper vile thoughts into their mind. And even then, it is entirely up to them what action to take.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

You need more experience with 5E. The assertion in bold is false. The most common way of locking down an enemy that I've seen in 5E is a Str-based character with Athletics proficiency and Extra Attack, grabbing an enemy with one hand and hanging on. If you have a spare attack left over you also slam them prone. It's cheap (therefore ubiquitous) and it's effective at pretty much taking them out of the combat.

It has limitations (doesn't work on Huge creatures) but so does everything.

How do you "slam them prone" without some significant investment? Knocking people prone isn't something you can do without a feat, a special effect (e.g. wild shape), or a spell, as far as I was aware. Even with that taken care of, both of those things are contested vs. the target's choice of Dex(Acro) or Str(Athl)--unless every character is proficient with Athletics and pumping Str, they're not going to be able to keep up with monster stats (since most monsters have a good score in *at least* one of those once you get to mid/high level).