D&D 5E Challenging High-Level 5e Characters

[Quartz]

I take your point. What's not fun for the players is grindy combats that take a full session (or longer) to resolve. What is fun is a dynamic combat with a sense of genuine peril. At higher level, a character who is dropped to zero hit points is usually back on their feet by the time their turn comes around. Only now they're mad!

If you have your canonical four player party and your monster is dropping two of them every turn then they're not going to get very far. And dropping three is TPK territory. Now, if you had a six or eight player party then that's another matter.

 

[Quickleaf]

If they're spending a lot of time deliberating, then that's at least one of your bottlenecks. Either reduce the time they deliberate, or accept that your combats will run long.

A simple, straight-forward approach would be to simply talk to your players. Something like, "Hey guys, the combats are running a little long for my taste. Do you think we cut down on the strategizing a bit?"

I appreciate the sentiment, and love it when players can adapt in this sort of self-reflective way.

In my own experience, this mostly hasn’t worked at the tables I’ve run higher levels for (9th-13th. It’s good if you catch it early on, but once habits are formed and the players are dialed in a certain approach to play (which may have been fine or at least far less disruptive at lower levels)… Through no fault of their own, changing that habit can be really REALLY hard.

What I’ve personally found more effective is deliberately inviting focused moments of deliberation & adjusting initiative away from the strict individualized initiative that 5e defaults to. For example at the start of combat, I’ll say “Ok, do me a favor and take one minute to discuss your plan of attack while I get set up?”

I miiiight repeat that later in the combat if something dramatically changes, but that laser focus moment at the beginning - at least IME - has had contributed to less overall deliberation time better than anything else I’ve tried.

 

[Distracted DM]

What I’ve personally found more effective is deliberately inviting focused moments of deliberation & adjusting initiative away from the strict individualized initiative that 5e defaults to. For example at the start of combat, I’ll say “Ok, do me a favor and take one minute to discuss your plan of attack while I get set up?”

I miiiight repeat that later in the combat if something dramatically changes, but that laser focus moment at the beginning - at least IME - has had contributed to less overall deliberation time better than anything else I’ve tried.

This is a great idea. Probably one of the most valuable things I've seen in this thread, possibly the easiest to implement.

 

[Quickleaf]

This is a great idea. Probably one of the most valuable things I've seen in this thread, possibly the easiest to implement.

Yeah I’ve tried a lot to speed up 5e fights, and I’ve failed a lot.

It’s actually a two-part approach, and they’re connected.

1st is changing the initiative to either side initiative or - what I use - clustered initiative where players without monsters between them can go in any order they like (indeed I let them mix their turns together for move, fireball, move kinda tactics). This is important because it makes the sort of strategizing during the “one minute huddle” possible - otherwise the randomness & rigidity of individualized initiative can easily wreck the party’s ability to meaningfully plan.

So it’s 1st clarify initiative (ideally not the default 5e approach), then give them a minute to plan with that info in mind.

 

[Distracted DM]

Yeah I’ve tried a lot to speed up 5e fights, and I’ve failed a lot.

It’s actually a two-part approach, and they’re connected.

1st is changing the initiative to either side initiative or - what I use - clustered initiative where players without monsters between them can go in any order they like (indeed I let them mix their turns together for move, fireball, move kinda tactics). This is important because it makes the sort of strategizing during the “one minute huddle” possible - otherwise the randomness & rigidity of individualized initiative can easily wreck the party’s ability to meaningfully plan.

So it’s 1st clarify initiative (ideally not the default 5e approach), then give them a minute to plan with that info in mind.

Anytime I've tried tinkering with initiative I had (relatively mild) riots from the players
I even thought "OK everyone wants their initiative bonus to matter, so we can take an average of their bonuses and that'll be their sides' initiative bonus." But no, everyone wants to roll their own initiative.

 

[Quickleaf]

Anytime I've tried tinkering with initiative I had (relatively mild) riots from the players
I even thought "OK everyone wants their initiative bonus to matter, so we can take an average of their bonuses and that'll be their sides' initiative bonus." But no, everyone wants to roll their own initiative.

Hah, yep I know that story. Thats how I landed on the clustered initiative idea. Everyone gets to roll their own. But ALSO there’s flexibility built in to allow switching it up. Even if they rarely use it, that’s the sort of thing that subtly encourages teamwork.

All too often I see individualized initiative work against the narrative or what a player wants to attempt. For skillful/mindful players Ready can sometimes work, but I don’t think that’s a default thought process.

 

[Distracted DM]

Hah, yep I know that story. Thats how I landed on the clustered initiative idea. Everyone gets to roll their own. But ALSO there’s flexibility built in to allow switching it up. Even if they rarely use it, that’s the sort of thing that subtly encourages teamwork.

All too often I see individualized initiative work against the narrative or what a player wants to attempt. For skillful/mindful players Ready can sometimes work, but I don’t think that’s a default thought process.

Can you outline the clustered initiative thing for me? Or restate it in a different way than earlier :'D

 

[Fanaelialae]

I appreciate the sentiment, and love it when players can adapt in this sort of self-reflective way.

In my own experience, this mostly hasn’t worked at the tables I’ve run higher levels for (9th-13th. It’s good if you catch it early on, but once habits are formed and the players are dialed in a certain approach to play (which may have been fine or at least far less disruptive at lower levels)… Through no fault of their own, changing that habit can be really REALLY hard.

What I’ve personally found more effective is deliberately inviting focused moments of deliberation & adjusting initiative away from the strict individualized initiative that 5e defaults to. For example at the start of combat, I’ll say “Ok, do me a favor and take one minute to discuss your plan of attack while I get set up?”

I miiiight repeat that later in the combat if something dramatically changes, but that laser focus moment at the beginning - at least IME - has had contributed to less overall deliberation time better than anything else I’ve tried.

It's a good idea, but if their deliberations are adding an extra hour (give or take) to encounters, then asking them to complete it while you set up is... ambitious. IME, the best option is to have a conversation with them like they're adults (this is assuming they're adults; I really haven't had much experience running for kids, apart from when I was still a kid). That way the group can discuss it and come to a consensus about how to handle the issue.

I've had DMs try to impose arbitrary limits on planning (you have X amount of time to decide what you do) and unless the group has bought in, it tends to go over like a lead balloon. The thing those DMs didn't do was actually discuss it with their group.

I agree that an initiative system that is reasonably predictable and consistent helps with this. The default 5e system makes turn order too random and unpredictable to easily plan around. Which can be fun in a way that demands adaptation, but for groups that spend a lot of time discussing tactics it just means another round of discussion as soon as their plan goes off the rails.

 

[Distracted DM]

It's a good idea, but if their deliberations are adding an extra hour (give or take) to encounters, then asking them to complete it while you set up is... ambitious. IME, the best option is to have a conversation with them like they're adults (this is assuming they're adults; I really haven't had much experience running for kids, apart from when I was still a kid). That way the group can discuss it and come to a consensus about how to handle the issue.

I've had DMs try to impose arbitrary limits on planning (you have X amount of time to decide what you do) and unless the group has bought in, it tends to go over like a lead balloon. The thing those DMs didn't do was actually discuss it with their group.

I agree that an initiative system that is reasonably predictable and consistent helps with this. The default 5e system makes turn order too random and unpredictable to easily plan around. Which can be fun in a way that demands adaptation, but for groups that spend a lot of time discussing tactics it just means another round of discussion as soon as their plan goes off the rails.

I think that a lot of tables just don't coordinate or discuss overall tactics for an encounter- so telling them to discuss it can help a lot.
They might talk turn-to-turn tactics, say "get out of there because I want to fireball/slow/etc," but not say "OK we should tie up the tanks, separate them from the strikers and controllers, then the rogue and the monk can go kick their asses."

 

[tetrasodium]

I think that a lot of tables just don't coordinate or discuss overall tactics for an encounter- so telling them to discuss it can help a lot.
They might talk turn-to-turn tactics, say "get out of there because I want to fireball/slow/etc," but not say "OK we should tie up the tanks, separate them from the strikers and controllers, then the rogue and the monk can go kick their asses."

I can't speak for 4e, but in past editions players quickly learned to aim for some minimum coordination simply because of risk and resource attrition. Those two elements have been dialed down to such an extreme in 2014's 5e that I regularly see players refuse to engage or even make minimal efforts at collaboration when a support build PC's player is trying to coordinate with the group.

The most stunning breaking point I've witnessed was an artillerist artificer serving at the healer (and technically the tank with thp to spare) against a maralinth where the player literally could not get the party's fighters/barbarians to wait for or make an effort to stay in pulse range of healing turrets. I couldn't really blame the player when the predictable results were .met with "no instead of bringing him up with heal I cast (forgotten AOE spell, maybe fireball), we can always reincarnate you or something later"

I rarely find that players who started with 5e will collaborate on a plan much beyond"I'm going to cast [buff] on you, go crazy" and "I'm down '>as a bonus action I casthealing word on Bob" no matter who suggests they do so. Instead we sit through deliberation and planning between each attack I'm a PC's attack chain