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

[CapnZapp]

Yes, I think the basic idea is sound. Which is one reason I so badly want good tools. Ideally, you'd be able to post a challenge scenario somewhere (a number of pre-set scenarios, which people tackle either linearly or in some more complex flow), and people would play through the encounters (with actions/HP/etc. being tracked through the scenario, and little animations to show what happens in what order). Then they hit the Save button and it goes out to the cloud somewhere, and the scenario designer marks it as accepted or not accepted based on whether it conforms to the rules and expectations he had, and if it's accepted it goes on some kind of a leaderboard/database of encounter logs.

I think it would really be quite valuable to see how dozens or hundreds of DMs and players approach the same scenario, to get statistics like average number of HP expended, spells cast, risk of death, etc. That would help you see whether or not "Hard" and "Deadly" encounters are really as hard as they claim to be, and to analyze patterns in what makes them hard or not.

But the tools are not there yet to do this effectively.

The sad truth is that games like WoW has made us get used to truly well-tuned combat encounters.

The tool you envision would truly allow the devs to sift through hundreds of thousands of iterations of how a particular fight goes, and thus measure a truly objective "CR" of a particular monster.

But what for?

If most players using the tool are "soft" gamers not into charop, the CRs will be higher than what other, hardened, players would like.

Heck, if most DMs were doing their best to use the monsters at their disposal to fight back against the heroes, it would lead to the same thing.

(Not coincidentally one reason I haven't participated in this thread)

Basically, D&D relies on a human DM to smooth over CR wonkiness. This can on occasion catch an inexperienced or even an experienced DM with his pants down.

That is all.

Myself, I'd much rather WotC worked on a Monster Manual 2, to pad out the selection of higher-CR foes.

Then I can use these prepackaged high challenge foes while Flamestrike continues to challenge his players with the relatively meh MM1 foes.

Since I'm not using XP or CR guidelines, at least I don't have to worry about xp inflation.

 

[Manbearcat]

The sad truth is that games like WoW has made us get used to truly well-tuned combat encounters.

The tool you envision would truly allow the devs to sift through hundreds of thousands of iterations of how a particular fight goes, and thus measure a truly objective "CR" of a particular monster.

But what for?

If most players using the tool are "soft" gamers not into charop, the CRs will be higher than what other, hardened, players would like.

Heck, if most DMs were doing their best to use the monsters at their disposal to fight back against the heroes, it would lead to the same thing.

Not exactly true. With precise encounter budgeting inputs that spit out predictable (GM-side) outputs, all you have to do is establish a baseline:

If "soft" gamers (as you've put it) need an average encounter = to their level and need a BBEG encounter = to their level + 2, charop gamers may need level +2 and level +4 respectively.

The primary issues that 5e suffers from in balancing this out (which were design decisions) is (a) asymmetric resource suites/scheduling (coupled with the Short Rest/Long Rest pacing pressures that come with that), (b) top-down balance paradigm (adventuring day) versus bottom up (encounter), and (c) NPC build architecture (specifically how spellcasting interfaces with that).

So basically, when those design decisions were made, they eschewed tight balance for extra GM overhead and latitude.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The sad truth is that games like WoW has made us get used to truly well-tuned combat encounters.

The tool you envision would truly allow the devs to sift through hundreds of thousands of iterations of how a particular fight goes, and thus measure a truly objective "CR" of a particular monster.

But what for?

If most players using the tool are "soft" gamers not into charop, the CRs will be higher than what other, hardened, players would like.

Heck, if most DMs were doing their best to use the monsters at their disposal to fight back against the heroes, it would lead to the same thing.

(Not coincidentally one reason I haven't participated in this thread)

Basically, D&D relies on a human DM to smooth over CR wonkiness. This can on occasion catch an inexperienced or even an experienced DM with his pants down.

That is all.

Myself, I'd much rather WotC worked on a Monster Manual 2, to pad out the selection of higher-CR foes.

Then I can use these prepackaged high challenge foes while Flamestrike continues to challenge his players with the relatively meh MM1 foes.

Since I'm not using XP or CR guidelines, at least I don't have to worry about xp inflation.

"What For?" Because knowledge is good, and I like understanding things. If I didn't I wouldn't be on these forums at all. Some people are in it for the social factor and the reputation points, but for me, knowledge and insight are the currency I get paid in--which is why I am swift to Ignore idiots, and why I appreciate people who correct me when I'm wrong.

I agree with you that I don't want WotC working on such a tool. It's not their bag. But I do want such a tool to exist enough to invest effort in it. Then when someone makes a statement like "you need high-CR foes to challenge players" we'll both be able to know to what extent it is true. Right now all I can do is say, "I don't think that's true. You can challenge (most) players today with low-CR monsters more easily than high-CR monsters because the metagame favors offense-heavy burst capabilities, which means they are ill-suited to fights where the low-CR monsters outnumber them. 18,000 XP worth of Death Knight is easier for most parties than 18,000 worth of drow + shadows (18 drow, 18 Shadows, 1 drow elite warrior)." But it's cumbersome to back that claim up with analysis.

 

[CapnZapp]

Not exactly true. With precise encounter budgeting inputs that spit out predictable (GM-side) outputs, all you have to do is establish a baseline:

If "soft" gamers (as you've put it) need an average encounter = to their level and need a BBEG encounter = to their level + 2, charop gamers may need level +2 and level +4 respectively.

The primary issues that 5e suffers from in balancing this out (which were design decisions) is (a) asymmetric resource suites/scheduling (coupled with the Short Rest/Long Rest pacing pressures that come with that), (b) top-down balance paradigm (adventuring day) versus bottom up (encounter), and (c) NPC build architecture (specifically how spellcasting interfaces with that).

So basically, when those design decisions were made, they eschewed tight balance for extra GM overhead and latitude.

I'm having trouble spotting where you actually disagree. What did I say that is "not exactly true"? Your conclusion sounds confusingly identical to mine.

The problem that's behind this entire thread (and others) is:

Solution: "just stick to the 6-8 encounter guidelines and there will be goodness/balance/challenge/whatevs"

Problems:

1) "Sticking with" this guideline isn't supported by the rules. Like, at all. Rest is completely unregulated (beyond "not more than once a day"). The DM is completely on his own in somehow making the PCs stick it out and not rest.
2) Most of the 8 encounters must by definition be weaksauce (or the party would have died/retreated/rested a long time ago). And the "we will win this in just a few rounds, only question is: do I have to drink this Potion of Healing" level of challenge is incredibly wet blanket.
3) if you actually bother to use the XP awards, you'll either diddle around with appropriate xp awards for weaksauce fights; or you throw exciting monsters at the PCs but see them level up at an alarming rate. Or, to give Flame the benefit of the doubt, if you spend lots of creative energy on making your own encounters, you can convert hours of DM prep into something useful.
Me, I'd rather simply use more dangerous foes and not spend all that prep time. Since I don't use xp, this particular problem evaporates.

Compare this with another game:
* The guidelines assume perhaps 3 significant fights per day, which means the gamers who run just 2 isn't too far off, while the ones that run 8 is still not too far off. I'm assuming there are next to no gamers running 10, 12 or even more encounters per day - so why optimize for such an extreme balancing point. And don't come and say "but I like softening up the heroes by a few groups of goblins first" - YOU CAN STILL DO THAT, but the game doesn't need to take it into account, the game shouldn't waste time on trivialities.
* Each published adventure is tasked with presenting an "assumed number of rests". That is, each adventure states upfront "this adventure is balanced for a three day run" etc. There doesn't need to be an absolute prohibition on "extra rests". It would be nice if the adventure detailed consequences for being late: "Saturday midnight, the princess gets eaten". But the crucial point is to tell the DM the authors have thought about it. "try to have the party reach the Altar of Death by the fourth day" is excellent. To continue by "We can't be arsed to give you any suggestions on how to justify that, though" would perhaps be a bummer, but it would at least be upfront and honest. Then, all of this is open to change by the DM, but there is a default. This would be HUGE in empowering DMs to judge scenarios and their party's progress.
* This would also force adventure authors to THINK ABOUT rests, and not just conveniently ignore the issue altogether. This would foster a culture where if a writer has to think about challenges and resting, he might say "know what? This adventure doesn't work for the a rest-a-day scheme, so for my adventure we'll say outright "you can only rest in the designated oases, port-of-calls, or hell nodes or whatevers". Or he might say "in this dungeon of death, the walls are infused with technobabble, so each long rest takes only one hour, and each short rest takes only five minutes".
* The entire guff about xp and cr... drop the pretense! It is not exact. It is not scientific. It is not paramount. It is not easy. There is no shortcut to knowing your party's strengths and weaknesses. XP is a charade, since in the end, you don't level because of some objective reasons: you'll simply level at roughly the rate that suits the group and the campaign!

This latter game is my kind of D&D game

 

[Manbearcat]

I'm having trouble spotting where you actually disagree. What did I say that is "not exactly true"? Your conclusion sounds confusingly identical to mine.

That is because my time investment on these boards has been minimized so I find myself speed-reading posts (such as yours), sometimes distorting what they're saying or conflating them with something immediately preceding.

Basically, I suck. My bad!

 

[CapnZapp]

But I do want such a tool to exist enough to invest effort in it.

I'm not actually opposed to the tool.

Cheers

PS. No worries, Manbearcat

 

[Celtavian]

I'm only on page 13, but...

Iserith offers reasons why it might be worth it for them to hang out in the cloud kill. But on top of that: Per DMG rules it wouldn't adjust the Slaadi CR in the slightest to give them poison immunity. It's all there in black and white, one of the most rudimentary changes one can make to a monster.

Or do you consider that to be an example of excessively redesigning the monsters, and thus not allowed in this thought experiment?

Not allowed for this experiment. In general, we're assuming things out of the Monster Manual. The focus is on 5E out of the box. I modify encounters to suit the capabilities of my players. I've been DMing long enough to know that modification is required. The criticisms of 5E aren't concerned with what we as DMs can modify, they are concerned with the base design of the game which some are claiming works out of the box. The lack of poison resistance for Death Slaad is one of the design problems in 5E. Just like the lack of spellcasting for a Balor or Marilith.

I recently had my party fight a marilith out of MM. They destroyed her. She had one round of attacks. She missed a bunch and was dead. Why? Ranged attacking PCs. Before she could close the distance, she was dead. They didn't give her spellcasting or any means to defend herself from ranged attacks. They gave her a teleport I think that works as an action taking up all her actions in a round teleporting. It's this kind of base 5E design that makes the game hard to make challenging out of the box.

I plan to add spellcasting to most major demons after this experience. A pure brute creature is too easy to beat when used against a party.

Some DMs handle this by modifying the environment. But I feel a marility or balor in a neutral environment should still be a substantial challenge. I do not like the idea that such a powerful demon is a speed bump to a coordinated 5E party. These monsters are supposed to be powerful, frightening entities, not higher level orcs. I've been working on boosting these creatures to a status appropriate for their legend even in a neutral environment.

And again I note the miscommunication going on in this thread. I did not sign off on DMs heavily modifying encounters. I went with the environment just to continue on. I have had plenty of success challenging characters when I modify encounters. 5E D&D out of the box doesn't work very well. The creatures in 5E are much weaker than other editions with far fewer means to overcome the varied resources of a party. The disadvantage of simplicity I imagine. You really need monsters to be able to do more on their own if you want them to challenge a coordinated, optimized party.

 

[hawkeyefan]

Not allowed for this experiment. In general, we're assuming things out of the Monster Manual. The focus is on 5E out of the box. I modify encounters to suit the capabilities of my players. I've been DMing long enough to know that modification is required. The criticisms of 5E aren't concerned with what we as DMs can modify, they are concerned with the base design of the game which some are claiming works out of the box. The lack of poison resistance for Death Slaad is one of the design problems in 5E. Just like the lack of spellcasting for a Balor or Marilith.

I recently had my party fight a marilith out of MM. They destroyed her. She had one round of attacks. She missed a bunch and was dead. Why? Ranged attacking PCs. Before she could close the distance, she was dead. They didn't give her spellcasting or any means to defend herself from ranged attacks. They gave her a teleport I think that works as an action taking up all her actions in a round teleporting. It's this kind of base 5E design that makes the game hard to make challenging out of the box.

I plan to add spellcasting to most major demons after this experience. A pure brute creature is too easy to beat when used against a party.

Some DMs handle this by modifying the environment. But I feel a marility or balor in a neutral environment should still be a substantial challenge. I do not like the idea that such a powerful demon is a speed bump to a coordinated 5E party. These monsters are supposed to be powerful, frightening entities, not higher level orcs. I've been working on boosting these creatures to a status appropriate for their legend even in a neutral environment.

And again I note the miscommunication going on in this thread. I did not sign off on DMs heavily modifying encounters. I went with the environment just to continue on. I have had plenty of success challenging characters when I modify encounters. 5E D&D out of the box doesn't work very well. The creatures in 5E are much weaker than other editions with far fewer means to overcome the varied resources of a party. The disadvantage of simplicity I imagine. You really need monsters to be able to do more on their own if you want them to challenge a coordinated, optimized party.

Putting aside the experiment for just a moment...doesn't 5E out of the box assume DM empowerment allowing them to adjust encounters for their group's play style? Wouldn't we all think that the game was designed with a degree of flexibility precisely to address issues like that?

Isn't your view about the Marilith and your considering modification to make her a challenge exactly what the game calls for?

 

[Celtavian]

Putting aside the experiment for just a moment...doesn't 5E out of the box assume DM empowerment allowing them to adjust encounters for their group's play style? Wouldn't we all think that the game was designed with a degree of flexibility precisely to address issues like that?

Isn't your view about the Marilith and your considering modification to make her a challenge exactly what the game calls for?

Modification is not unique to 5E. As Flamestrike stated, DM modification has been a part of the game since 1E. DM Empowerment has been a part of every edition.

But 5E is fairly new. Some of us were running the game as is until we got a feel for it. When we ran the game out of the box, we started to see all these problems that make the game "too easy" in our opinion. So we explained from the viewpoint of an optimizer both as a DM and player the problems. We were met with "The 6 to 8 encounter day fixes this" per the premiss of this thread and "I'm not having that problem at my table" or "Fix it this way" and other such defenses of the 5E system. None of those defenses helped because they don't fix some of the underlying problems in the base design of the game that are causing 5E to be "too easy." Even the term "too easy" is relative to the individual making the statement. For myself I mean it lacks the deadliness of past editions. This appears to be by design. I don't care for it as a DM, so I've been increasing the deadliness by analyzing some of the base design choices I think make the game far "too easy" or a monster "too weak."

If you want to make appropriate changes, it is necessary to understand the mechanical issues that are making the game "too easy." When we bring these up on the forum, we often get told we're wrong. We know that isn't the case. So the test was created to show that optimized players using the base customization in the PHB (feats and multiclassing) can basically trash 5E challenges out of the box. Certain options are vastly superior to other options creating an imbalance of both offense and defense that forces people into a narrow spectrum of choices for effectiveness and makes player versus environment challenges trivial unless deadly far beyond the norm.

For example, if Flamestrike didn't create very specific environmental conditions that were more dangerous than the monsters themselves, the party would be steamrolling the majority of these encounters even with a medium and hard designation. The environmental factors are more dangerous than the monsters themselves and Flamestrike had to make that part up because the base monsters in the Monster Manual[/b] are too weak to challenge an optimized party without a great deal of assistance from the environment. Some DMs like myself don't care for that. I feel monsters like giants should be quite dangerous even without heavy environmental advantages. But they aren't. Players have too much in their arsenal to be challenged by even powerful creatures. It kind of sucks as a DM and lover of Fantasy. One big giant or big dragon in a fantasy story is usually enough to challenge the mightiest heroes of the land. Yet in D&D, the premier fantasy game, one big giant or dragon is just an oversized orc with some extra powers to a D&D PC party. I'm working to change that in the worlds I run without having to heavily modify the environment.

 

[CapnZapp]

A Marilith can definitely be a challenge for a party.

Just be sure to run her at many many levels lower than her CR, if you don't "solo her up" or give her brute bodyguards.