D&D 5E Challenge with a good group

[Warpiglet]

Hello all,

Wanted a few opinions about challenging a group. About to take my first swipe at a new 5e campaign.

I play with a group of friends I have known for more than three decades. There is no cheating, no messing up other people's fun, no real naysaying...we left that behind in high school! So I have the ability to make a request that is not a rule.

I am reskinning some published stuff (e.g. yawning portal, etc.) to be placed in a campaign world I have worked on for some time. I do not want the very experienced group to blow through things. I also do not want to impinge on creativity and options too much. Which of the following would you recommend? Also what would you add to the list?

1. Discourage bless+ GWM and SS

2. Default array/point buy vs. rolling

3. No feats + multiclass

4. Certain multiclass combos discouraged

5. simply add CR to encounters

6. Limit the group to 4 PCs

7. some combination of the above or something you would like to suggest



Lastly, this is not an indictment of the system or any style of gaming, at all. I just want more chances for players to feel the heat and do tactical retreats/high five one another after successes.

I want success to be likely, failure to be very possible with the dial or likelihood being moved by choice, incredibly good and bad die rolling excepted.

The plan would be to tell people up front combat is a "war game" and to treat it as such. In wargames poor reconnaissance and overconfidence can lead to custer's last stand. Don't be that guy!

 

[iserith]

I recommend you don't choose your game options and restrictions based on some nebulous idea of where the difficulty for challenges will end up since you can control that on the DM's side of the screen by tweaking monsters, stakes, terrain, and adjusting XP per encounter.

Instead, I recommend choosing game options and restrictions that support the fictional theme and play experience you want to create at the table.

 

[Horwath]

No. 5

no matter how powerful PCs are, you control the world.

Just add more creatures and/or raise some CRs.

You make the game as difficult as you want it to be. And players will be happy as their characters have more toys to play.

More stuff you can do. better!

More creatures to slay? better!

it's a win-win!

 

[Tev]

Don't restrict player choices, just make the encounters harder and play your monsters tactically. Make sure it makes sense to have your monsters make good tactical decisions though. A group of Kobolds with no commander shouldn't be making field decisions worthy of Alexander the Great!

 

[OB1]

My solution to this (which is still constantly being tweaked and adjusted) is to split the game into Mission and Open phases.

In the Open Phase - Players interact with the world, decide on a goal, and work to understand how to accomplish that goal. They may follow a story hook I've provided or decide to go off and do their own thing. PCs may get a taste of the danger's they will face in Mission phase, but the combat challenges here are meant more as a fun diversion that can also serve to inform the players about the challenges they will soon face than an outright challenge in itself.

In the Mission Phase - Players attempt to accomplish the goal that they have decided on. As the DM, I place more obstacles to accomplishing this goal than they can overcome through combat alone. Perhaps there are 20 potential encounters in the evil vampire's castle guarding the way to the Vamp they wish to destroy. Smart play in the Open Phase is rewarded by making it easier to bypass some of those combat encounters in Mission Phase. In this way, players are rewarded for avoiding combat, and feel great when they get through a day with resources left. I also try to include side-quests in the Mission Phase that require a risk/reward decision from the players to try and accomplish at the expense of making the primary quest more difficult. Importantly, I provide ways for the PCs to back out of the Mission should they have a run of bad luck and realize they will not be able to complete their primary objective. Failure to reach the primary goal should always result in additional complications. They can't just try the same thing again.

Explore-->Decide-->Plan-->Execute-->Result--->Explore

Finally, keep in mind that due to the nature of the dice, some missions may be a cakewalk, while others may prove to be too difficult. That doesn't mean that anything is wrong with the system, and if it was something about your set up that lead to the cycle being too easy or hard, you can always adjust next cycle.

 

[Bacon Bits]

For your first campaign, I'd suggest using point buy/default array, no feats, and no multiclassing to get an idea of the baseline. Both feats and multiclassing are not as well vetted, so they can cause issues at some tables. Feats (SS, GWM, Polearm Master, Crossbow Expert, Lucky) moreso than multiclassing. I wouldn't limit race or class options unless it makes sense for your setting (i.e., no PC Dragonborn, Tieflings, or Drow in Greyhawk). The only PHB race I'd ever consider restricting for power level would be Variant Human.

The potential problem areas this leaves are:

1. Warlock high damage with the "per hit" wording of hex and Agonizing Blast in conjunction with multi-hit nature of eldritch blast. WotC ruled this works the way your players want.

2. Warlock warping encounters with darkness and Devil's Sight

3. Paladin smite nova. Note that Paladins choose whether or not to smite after they know if an attack hits.

4. Bear Totem Barbarian damage resistance being a little excessive.

5. Diviner and Abjurer abilities being a bit too powerful.

6. Life Cleric healing extremely deep.

7. Moon Druid starting out very strong at lower levels and ending up rather boring once the other PCs catch up. The polymorph/wild shape rules add a lot of durability that they really probably should not.

8. Elemental Monks and Beastmaster Rangers being pretty crap. Sorcerer spells known being super restricting.

9. A few spells (bless, simulacrum, hex, spirit guardians, tiny hut, polymorph, counterspell, shield, green flame blade, booming blade, revivify) causing issues at some tables.

That's just what I've seen more than one person have a problem with. I would not request your players avoid these out of the gate because most tables don't have any problems with most of the above. However, they're worth keeping an eye on because it's what other tables have had issue with.

The biggest overall problem we've had is getting the party to short rest to make Fighters, Warlocks, Monks and other short rest abilities feel like they're getting full value, and using fewer, harder encounters than the 6-8 they tell you (which turn out to be fairly easy and much too often) to keep combat as interesting as we like it to be. These two difficulties are inexorably linked, unfortunately.

Combat in 5e D&D is very fast. It's rare that combat last more than 5 rounds until you get to middle-high levels (~10) unless there's some environmental obstacle.

 

[Oofta]

I've considered banning GWM and SS myself, or at least modifying them. For certain people they seem like they are a feat tax - especially SS. The combination of no cover with -5/+10 for certain builds is tough to turn down. GWM at least has a cost of slightly lower AC.

However, I wouldn't worry too much about bless. It's nice but in practice I don't see it used a lot. A raging barbarian with wolf totem and GWM (or a buddy with GWM) getting advantage all the time is more of a pain in my experience.

As far as encounter difficulty, that's easy to adjust on the fly. Typically I just throw a few more monsters and try to use better tactics. Creatures defending their home turf especially should take advantage of terrain and environment unless their brainless zombies. I find that having a second wave come in from behind can be a good tactic now and then, as well as simply not attacking on an open field in fireball formation. Most creatures will not be suicidal and will instead run to get help and so on.

Throw in 6-8 encounters with 1-2 short rests between long rests and I've never had a problem challenging my group.

If it were me I'd let people know about my reservations (especially if you are considering changing/banning SS and GWM). Work with your group and don't get too concerned about "broken" builds. You're the god of your world and your supply of minions is infinite.

 

[aco175]

Ultimately, these are your friends that you known for decades and you should talk to them about the parts of the game others are having problems with and head it off up front. Like you are by coming here. I have DMed 4 campaigns for 5e so far and nobody has wanted to use feats, so they have not been a problem. I can see where others have had problems with it. One player I used to play with would want to use them and min/max to do 50 damage per swing and still have a 25 AC. My group I play with now is the same I played with for a long time and I would just talk to them about things that are too powerful or not good enough.

 

[Quickleaf]

Hello all,

Wanted a few opinions about challenging a group. About to take my first swipe at a new 5e campaign.

I play with a group of friends I have known for more than three decades. There is no cheating, no messing up other people's fun, no real naysaying...we left that behind in high school! So I have the ability to make a request that is not a rule.

I am reskinning some published stuff (e.g. yawning portal, etc.) to be placed in a campaign world I have worked on for some time. I do not want the very experienced group to blow through things. I also do not want to impinge on creativity and options too much. Which of the following would you recommend? Also what would you add to the list?

1. Discourage bless+ GWM and SS

2. Default array/point buy vs. rolling

3. No feats + multiclass

4. Certain multiclass combos discouraged

5. simply add CR to encounters

6. Limit the group to 4 PCs

7. some combination of the above or something you would like to suggest



Lastly, this is not an indictment of the system or any style of gaming, at all. I just want more chances for players to feel the heat and do tactical retreats/high five one another after successes.

I want success to be likely, failure to be very possible with the dial or likelihood being moved by choice, incredibly good and bad die rolling excepted.

The plan would be to tell people up front combat is a "war game" and to treat it as such. In wargames poor reconnaissance and overconfidence can lead to custer's last stand. Don't be that guy!

My experience (running for both experienced/highly tactical players, and more casual players) has been that decisions the DM makes behind the screen can far overshadow any advantages the PCs get from multiclass/feat combos, high ability scores, or even large party sizes. For example, you can have the same party, but if they're going into a fight resource-depleted, it will be a completely different experience.

This verges into the "art" of encounter design, however, moreso than any hard and fast numbers.

I think the best way to ensure a challenge is to (1) spend a bit of time brainstorming a combat encounter...pick one you anticipate running early on...then twist it 2-4 times with complications, extra challenges, unique tactics/gear/spells, or unexpected developments. Then (2) pay close attention to whether that fight runs as hard, harder, or easier than you expected. Inevitably, you're not going to hit the sweet spot for your group without a bit of experimentation – there are just too many variables – so plan on having a bit of an experimentation phase to learn what the PCs are capable of, devise strategies for intelligent monsters, etc.

EDIT: I'll also add that, given you have such an experienced/tactically-minded gaming group, you're very likely going to find 5e's combat encounter building guidelines to deliver weaker-than-expected fights. Treat the DMG guidelines as a starting point if you like, but be prepared to dramatically up the power level & numbers & tactics of their opposition once they're at 3rd level, and again every couple levels. Especially if you run a single combat or small number of combats in a day, use the Adventuring Day XP chart in the DMG as your benchmark instead of the encounter building guidelines. Of course, YMMV.

 

[Tormyr]

My suggestion is to allow everything in the PHB that fits in the campaign setting and have character creation be 27-point buy or standard array. Treat the encounters as being for 4 PCs. If you have more, add 25% more monsters / HP for each player (legendary monsters can swap a dose of extra 25% HP for an extra Legendary Resistance use). You will probably be able to adapt to any issues that show up at the table as the group organically adds class features and abilities over time. Otherwise ask for help when the issues come up. We will be here.