D&D 5E (2014) Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[dave2008]

Not allowed for this experiment. In general, we're assuming things out of the Monster Manual You really need monsters to be able to do more on their own if you want them to challenge a coordinated, optimized party.

That is the issue. The monsters (and 5e in general) are not designed to challenge a coordinated and optimized party. I agree it shouldn't be designed for such groups, but I do wish they provided guidance for such groups. Simple notes in the DMG, like use max HP, double static damage, etc. would be very easy to implement while changing very little. the ranged attack issue is a little tougher.

 

[dave2008]

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.

To be fair, that wasn't really the case in earlier editions either. Dragons in particular have always been weak. GG himself laments about powergamers taking out gods back in the 70s.

That being said, I agree with you. What have you found to be the solution? I have primarily upped damage a lot and AC and attack bonuses little, but lately I have been thinking about increasing HP as well. Obviously for solo monsters you need a means to handle ranged attack/defense as well, but I was wondering if you have a couple generic modifications you have found to be successful.

 

[hawkeyefan]

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.

Well, aside from the experiment, I would always assume that environment would be a factor. I think that's always been the case, since 1E days. Obviously, the severity of the environmental factors can vary greatly, but they're always going to matter. I mean, any combat that is purely a case of the PCs versus the monsters with no environmental factors is going to be pretty skewed toward the PCs. But even something as simple as distance of combatants is an environmental factor. Obviously that's one of the most basic factors....far less extreme than something like lava or other environmental dangers.

So again, outside the confines of the experiment/discussion, I think that almost anyone would expect some degree of customization by the DM, whether it's more environmentally based as Flamestrike's was, or more about boosting the monsters so that they present more of a challenge, as you described.

So, now taking that idea of assumed customization and then bringing it over to the experiment, I think it's just a simple matter of differing expectations. One party assumes everything to be as written, the other assumes that some design and customization is not only possible, but is necessary and, in fact, expected.

So I can understand why this was doomed to fail from your perspective...it was because your expectations and Flamestrike's differed from the jump. There was not going to be any common ground because of that fundamentally different view. I don't think that either party is wrong for that...it is what it is, and people play how they want and expect what they expect. So I think that anyone who expects DM customization would view any questioning of that customization as not trusting the DM...and that's what happened here.

But I do think that Flamestrike's view became clear as soon as he began posting encounters. I wouldn't say that his environmental additions were more dangerous than the monsters themselves in most cases. I think they added a level of complexity to the encounters that made them a lot less straightforward, and more challenging. To me, I feel he can clearly challenge a party of optimized PCs. And that was my expectation based on my own personal experience of doing that in my own game. Now, I don't adhere to the encounter guidelines presented in the DMG in any way, so I was curious about that aspect of the experiment.

But ultimately, I think we all assume some level of DM customization, even you by your own admission. Since that's the case, why even try to gage things "straight out of the box"? There won't ever be some universal version of the game that has no variances from table to table. The DM is always going to influence things.

 

[iserith]

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.

I would submit that presenting an encounter includes the difficulty inherent in the environment, not just the monster. The guidelines for encounter building also talk about how to modify difficulty to account for this. In my view, a monster in a white room is an incomplete, boring challenge and probably even a step lower in difficulty than a monster found in an environment appropriate for its lore (even if it doesn't rise to the level of stepping up the difficulty).

I also don't remember any particular agreement about not modifying monsters according to these same guidelines. But it has been a long couple of threads.

I set up the debate format so that posters would say how they'd run it and how they'd expect players to play it in the manner it's being run. This would allow us to see if the poster is not being effective as DM ("You're going to easy on them here, tactically speaking...") or is overestimating the abilities of the players ("You're assuming they hit all the time or monsters are failing saves all the time...") or is generally just fudging things to get to the position they had before the experiment began. I would have preferred it to be followed, but it's too late for that, perhaps.

 

[MostlyDm]

That is the issue. The monsters (and 5e in general) are not designed to challenge a coordinated and optimized party. I agree it shouldn't be designed for such groups, but I do wish they provided guidance for such groups. Simple notes in the DMG, like use max HP, double static damage, etc. would be very easy to implement while changing very little. the ranged attack issue is a little tougher.

Given advanced tactics, you can dramatically change the challenge level without actually changing any CRs by the guidelines (e.g. Without changing damage/HP)

As I mentioned earlier, adding an immunity does not change the CR calculation. Nor does adding spells that do not deal more expected damage than their existing attacks (but could be especially effective when using AOE combined with immunity, as with the Slaad.)

Adding mobility also does not increase a monster's CR. For example: if you want to challenge a very ranged heavy party and you give your Marilith a bonus action long distance teleport, the CR is unchanged.

I'm honestly a little baffled that you consider this stuff outside the scope of the experiment. I thought the experiment was to craft a challenge without going over the XP limits into multiple times Deadly, using the standard rules.

Modifying monsters is absolutely part of the standard rules, though. It's right there in one of the three core books, in black and white. Or, black and gray and sepia, or whatever.

 

[dave2008]

I'm honestly a little baffled that you consider this stuff outside the scope of the experiment. I thought the experiment was to craft a challenge without going over the XP limits into multiple times Deadly, using the standard rules.

Modifying monsters is absolutely part of the standard rules, though. It's right there in one of the three core books, in black and white. Or, black and gray and sepia, or whatever.

To be clear you quoted me, but I didn't say anything about modifying monsters and this experiment, that was Celtavian. I believe he changed the goal post; as far as I can tell it was never stated that "our of the box" was required, just that it be encounters created by RAW.

Also. modifying monsters is in both the MM and DMG, so two our of three core books say "just do it."

 

[MostlyDm]

Yeah sorry, your post kicked off my thoughts but halfway through I ended up speaking directly to Celtavian. That was confusing.

Mainly quoted you because, while doubling damage/increasing HP are totally reasonable ways of increasing the challenge, you can actually also do so without modifying CR. Which, I think, would keep things more in the spirit of this challenge.

When I first saw that stuff like that does not increase CR it seemed counterintuitive. But it's not, really. The problem with sophisticated abilities is that 1) the DM needs to be tactical enough to use them well, and 2) the party needs to be tactical enough for those abilities to be worth bothering with.

You don't need a monster with a dozen different answers if the party only ever asks the one question.

So they keep core monster design simple, and focus CR on damage/health. That works for basic players.

Advanced players can add advanced tactical flexibility, without increasing CR, to generate the same challenge.

It's also worth recognizing: There are a plenty of monsters that already have special movement, immunities, etc that enable advanced tactics. Earlier in this thread someone described advanced tactics for Incorporeal creatures, for example.

If your party are hardcore optimizers and tacticians, you may wish to make sure all of the monsters you throw at them have similar flexibility.

The fact that not all monsters do? I don't really think it's a failing of the books.

 

[dave2008]

Yeah sorry, your post kicked off my thoughts but halfway through I ended up speaking directly to Celtavian. That was confusing.

Mainly quoted you because, while doubling damage/increasing HP are totally reasonable ways of increasing the challenge, you can actually also do so without modifying CR. Which, I think, would keep things more in the spirit of this challenge.

When I first saw that stuff like that does not increase CR it seemed counterintuitive. But it's not, really. The problem with sophisticated abilities is that 1) the DM needs to be tactical enough to use them well, and 2) the party needs to be tactical enough for those abilities to be worth bothering with.

You don't need a monster with a dozen different answers if the party only ever asks the one question.

So they keep core monster design simple, and focus CR on damage/health. That works for basic players.

Advanced players can add advanced tactical flexibility, without increasing CR, to generate the same challenge.

It's also worth recognizing: There are a plenty of monsters that already have special movement, immunities, etc that enable advanced tactics. Earlier in this thread someone described advanced tactics for Incorporeal creatures, for example.

If your party are hardcore optimizers and tacticians, you may wish to make sure all of the monsters you throw at them have similar flexibility.

The fact that not all monsters do? I don't really think it's a failing of the books.

Yes, I wasn't talking about the experiment, just generally ideas on monster design. I find that they don't hit hard enough at higher levels. Starting to worry there are other issues as well.

 

[Celtavian]

Well, aside from the experiment, I would always assume that environment would be a factor. I think that's always been the case, since 1E days. Obviously, the severity of the environmental factors can vary greatly, but they're always going to matter. I mean, any combat that is purely a case of the PCs versus the monsters with no environmental factors is going to be pretty skewed toward the PCs. But even something as simple as distance of combatants is an environmental factor. Obviously that's one of the most basic factors....far less extreme than something like lava or other environmental dangers.

So again, outside the confines of the experiment/discussion, I think that almost anyone would expect some degree of customization by the DM, whether it's more environmentally based as Flamestrike's was, or more about boosting the monsters so that they present more of a challenge, as you described.

So, now taking that idea of assumed customization and then bringing it over to the experiment, I think it's just a simple matter of differing expectations. One party assumes everything to be as written, the other assumes that some design and customization is not only possible, but is necessary and, in fact, expected.

So I can understand why this was doomed to fail from your perspective...it was because your expectations and Flamestrike's differed from the jump. There was not going to be any common ground because of that fundamentally different view. I don't think that either party is wrong for that...it is what it is, and people play how they want and expect what they expect. So I think that anyone who expects DM customization would view any questioning of that customization as not trusting the DM...and that's what happened here.

But I do think that Flamestrike's view became clear as soon as he began posting encounters. I wouldn't say that his environmental additions were more dangerous than the monsters themselves in most cases. I think they added a level of complexity to the encounters that made them a lot less straightforward, and more challenging. To me, I feel he can clearly challenge a party of optimized PCs. And that was my expectation based on my own personal experience of doing that in my own game. Now, I don't adhere to the encounter guidelines presented in the DMG in any way, so I was curious about that aspect of the experiment.

But ultimately, I think we all assume some level of DM customization, even you by your own admission. Since that's the case, why even try to gage things "straight out of the box"? There won't ever be some universal version of the game that has no variances from table to table. The DM is always going to influence things.

This is a really strange question. I will answer it, but I always assume this is obvious. Because RPGs are math-based. If you don't understand how the math works, then you will have a very hard time modifying in a useful fashion. You also have to let players figure out optimized tactics, so you know how to counter them. By playing out of the box and letting the players "break the game", you see what needs to be done to fix some of the problems. Optimizers show you how to get the highest AC, how to do the most damage, which spells are best the majority of the time, which classes combine to make the most powerful multiclass. They take the game and show you all the options that will cause you problems as a DM. Then you can start modifying to deal with these things. That's why you start out using the base game. Even a simple RPG like 5E requires a lot of play to see how all the parts work together.

I don't believe environment should be a factor. That's not to say you can't occasionally have an environmental factor, but it should have nothing to do with the challenge of the creature. Giants are not just found in heavily advantageous environments. Giants wander around like other creatures with zero environmental advantages. Dragons are supposed to be able to decimate lands outside of their lairs. Trolls are supposed to be able to control bridge crossing. Demons are supposed to be amongst the most fearsome creatures in existence. All of this should be true if you put them in a grass field by themselves. If you're engaging in design, you have to ask yourself: would this creature be dangerous in a grass field in a wide open place? Would Smaug be frightening in a place like that? Would the Balrog of Moria be frightening in a grass field? And so on and so on. If you as a DM are required to use extreme environmental advantages to make a creature of legend dangerous, then something is wrong with the base design of the creature. Adding the environmental factors on should make the whole situation even more frightening and challenging, but should not be the sole reason the creature is a challenge at all. That's the basis that informs my creature design choices. I want creatures like Balors and Dragons to be dangerous and challenging in a completely neutral environment. That is very, very important to me.

Suffice it to say if a creature of legend in a white room can't challenge a party, it's not strong enough for my tastes. A PC party should be afraid to enter a white room against a Balor, Marilith, or Dragon. Right now that isn't the case unless they are very low level. That is disappointing.

Given the way 5E is right now, most creatures should be fleeing from adventuring parties. Dragons should be hiding or just straight up running from PC parties. Balors should be teleporting away and flying as far off as they can. Monsters should be running like a scared rabbit or bird from PC parties given how little chance they have of defeating them. When you have a power gap where a creature like a Death Slaad should be dropping to his knees and begging for his life from the PC party, that's not very fun as a DM. If you were writing a comic right now, the frost giants in encounter 1 have the best chance of survival by running from the PCs or negotiating with them. By attacking the PCs, they pretty much sealed their doom. You have to wonder if the giants know this and would act accordingly. Giants would tell themselves, "Group of human adventurers. We better start begging for our lives or we're dead. Maybe if we give them our gold, they'll let us live." That would be the smart play by the majority of monsters in 5E right now.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

To be fair, that wasn't really the case in earlier editions either. Dragons in particular have always been weak. GG himself laments about powergamers taking out gods back in the 70s.

That being said, I agree with you. What have you found to be the solution? I have primarily upped damage a lot and AC and attack bonuses little, but lately I have been thinking about increasing HP as well. Obviously for solo monsters you need a means to handle ranged attack/defense as well, but I was wondering if you have a couple generic modifications you have found to be successful.

Adding spells is a fantastic (and very traditional) way to fix the issue. In 2nd edition, pretty much every kind of Baatezu or Tanar'ri above the rank of Lemure/Dretch was a spellcaster. IIRC mid-level demons had cool stuff like Animate Dead at-will, which means even a mid-level demon could be a real handful for a mid-level party if it found the right situation.

In 5E, giving a dragon even just the spells of a mid-level dragon sorcerer turns it into a terrifying threat. Consider just the impact of Darkness + Shield spell on a chassis that already has good AC, flight, and blindsight. Access to bonus-action spells like Quickened Hold Person III and Misty Step improves the action economy. Counterspell has a chance of nullifying the party's go-to favorite spells like Wall of Force.

The biggest "downside" to such modifications is that the DM has to run a creature now which is approximately as complex as a PC and requires about as much attention to play well, and which is likely to take more than eighteen seconds' of effort for the PCs to overcome. If that's exactly the experience you're looking for, it's not a downside at all.

One more comment: for another look at how much spellcasting enhances a monster, look at the Couatl in the MM. It's nominally CR 4 but because of all its spellcasting and special abilities it is actually much, much tougher than that.