D&D 5E Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[Radaceus]

Encounter 2

Player map Here, and DM version Here

Notes:

• Portal dimensions not given, I've went with 10' diameter, keeping in scope with passages
• @Flamestrike says PC's may enter one at a time, inferring that they may enter all at once? need clarification here
• I have the PCs arriving just inside the portal, which has area enough for 2, if more enter and these two have not moved see below.
• Use shove rules regarding PCs coming through the portal and have them pushed to an adjacent square if entry is occupied, I set the DC at 14.
• dependent on Flamestrike's ruling on the portal; If PCs can enter all at once (by say, simply touching the portal), then place them around the portal accordingly and ignore the shove rule

 

[Azurewraith]

I'm left wondering if anyone recalls the original test was based on the 6 to 8 encounter day versus an optimized group, not a standard play group. It has become less of a test and more of a chance for some people to play some D&D. Which is fine, but defeated the purpose of the test long ago. This is now just a bunch of disparate groups, not particularly optimized or played in an optimal manner, playing some encounters.

I've been reading the group tactics and outcomes, even unoptimized groups are running over quite a few of these encounters. Which is not surprising given how many advantages players have in 5E.

Never fear my chars are pretty optimized and my pcs are finally picking up the plan

On a side note no session thus week due to Easter.

 

[Radaceus]

Encounter 3

Here is Map for Encounter 3

 

[Radaceus]

Encounter 4

Encounter 4a with anomaly here
and without anomaly here
I dont believe you can shut down the anomaly for more than a moment, but the corridor map can double as a travel through the demi-plane between encounters map


Added Encounter 4b here

 

[Radaceus]

Encounter Black Razor's Lair

I'll update this post with Encounter 5& 6 maps later

Black Razor's Lair map here

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think this is a great exercise but... are we really at encounter 1 conclusion after 300 posts?! :O

The thesis of this thread has already been disproven: no, you can't really challenge PCs by sticking to RAW guidelines. It only took two or three pages of the thread to establish that, since the encounter designer (1) violated a number of guidelines, and (2) demanded direct control over how encounters were run as well as designed so he could inject his own house rules into the encounters, and began insulting those who presumed to "challenge" "his" rulings, despite that being a stated purpose of the thread in the OP. Anyone interested in actually analyzing the thesis has already lost interest at this point, and the kids who are still on this thread are just playing through some encounters.

FWIW, the most obvious takeaway from this thread is "better tools are needed for running encounters over the Internet. Forum posts won't cut it." The single biggest reason why I haven't bothered playing through these encounters, even for fun, is that it's too hard to communicate results to people who weren't there watching. Instead of slogging through that I'd rather work on my tools. Which is what I should be doing right now instead of browsing the forums.

 

[Radaceus]

The thesis of this thread has already been disproven: no, you can't really challenge PCs by sticking to RAW guidelines. It only took two or three pages of the thread to establish that, since the encounter designer (1) violated a number of guidelines, and (2) demanded direct control over how encounters were run as well as designed so he could inject his own house rules into the encounters, and began insulting those who presumed to "challenge" "his" rulings, despite that being a stated purpose of the thread in the OP. Anyone interested in actually analyzing the thesis has already lost interest at this point, and the kids who are still on this thread are just playing through some encounters.


FWIW, the most obvious takeaway from this thread is "better tools are needed for running encounters over the Internet. Forum posts won't cut it." The single biggest reason why I haven't bothered playing through these encounters, even for fun, is that it's too hard to communicate results to people who weren't there watching. Instead of slogging through that I'd rather work on my tools. Which is what I should be doing right now instead of browsing the forums.

I think you're just kicking a dead horse now, pretty sure that opinion has been regurgitated several times.


But yes, I unfortunately couldn't test this in the moment, I work a 50-60 hour week, and have some other gaming sessions scheduled (3 campaigns alternating every weekend...so we are fitting this in for our own interest maybe next week. And I feel compelled to share the maps

so...anyways, enjoy

----------------
I'll take the kid remark as a compliment, thanks!

 

[Ancalagon]

It's a shame that it didn't work out - it had potential

 

[Flamestrike]

The thesis of this thread has already been disproven: no, you can't really challenge PCs by sticking to RAW guidelines. It only took two or three pages of the thread to establish that, since the encounter designer (1) violated a number of guidelines, and (2) demanded direct control over how encounters were run as well as designed so he could inject his own house rules into the encounters, and began insulting those who presumed to "challenge" "his" rulings, despite that being a stated purpose of the thread in the OP. Anyone interested in actually analyzing the thesis has already lost interest at this point, and the kids who are still on this thread are just playing through some encounters.

FWIW, the most obvious takeaway from this thread is "better tools are needed for running encounters over the Internet. Forum posts won't cut it." The single biggest reason why I haven't bothered playing through these encounters, even for fun, is that it's too hard to communicate results to people who weren't there watching. Instead of slogging through that I'd rather work on my tools. Which is what I should be doing right now instead of browsing the forums.

You my friend are antagonistic and for no good reason.

Encounter 1 did none of those things. Or if it did, can you please explain how? The only person I 'insulted' was an another antagonistic player who would be turfed from any AL table he rocked up to (as I dare say would you be).

I applied the rules as written in the MM and the DMG. That you didnt like my rulings is a matter of opinion.

Judjing from your posts, Im more than happy we dont share the same opinion. It actually makes me much more confident that Im doing it right.

Out of curiosity, what part of encounter 1 wasnt 'by the rules'?

 

[CapnZapp]

Internet is an excellent place for having a debate where the intent is to reinforce rather than reevaluate your beliefs.