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

[hawkeyefan]

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.

I'm not saying environment should always be a major factor. I think it is always a factor, but many times it can be minimal, other times it can be a huge factor. It varies. Unless it's a game of kick in the door dungeon crawl, I don't think any group of players would expect to come across monsters in a vacuum, just waiting to fight the PCs. I think environment.....where and under what conditions an encounter occurs....is a vital part of the encounter. I can't imagine looking at it any other way.

As for the benefits of optimizing as it establishes where the game needs to be improved, I won't disagree with that. I can understand what you're saying, and I think it is certainly true. I just think that there are other ways to go about things simply than seeing where the PCs excel or where there are weak spots for their foes, and then countering that. Usually, I find it better to let the PCs be good at what they're good at, or let them recognize a monster's weakness and then exploit it. Instead of trying to fix that, I find other ways to challenge them. I find their weak spots....or I add elements that make things harder for them. I think that this is such a default part of the DM's job, that I don't think most folks expected it to be removed from the challenge.

As for the impact on monsters and them seeming "weaker than they should" I would say that if your group always optimizes so much, and does so by second nature without even realizing they're doing it which is what I imagine from your descriptions, then you should certainly have the monsters optimized as well.

I think this is assumed in the rules as written. I think that the monsters and indeed the whole game are designed more on a style or genre rather than on the math. The math supports the fiction, in that sense. So if a DM finds that the math isn't supporting the fiction, then the math can and should be adjusted.

To look at it another way...your group's PCs spring into existence as if designed for battle. This is less often the case with fictional characters, which I think is the kind of default approach the game assumes. I say this based on the changes from the immediate prior editions, and the incorporation of traits and flaws and such, and rewarding those choices with inspiration, as well as on comments made by the designers and so on.

So if the game is designed with story first, and your PCs are designed with game first, yeah, you will likely notice an impact on the game. The closer those two aspects are to synching up, the better off things would be. You either have to build PCs more for story first, or adjust the monsters to be optimized, or meet somewhere in the middle.

And I imagine that this will seem like I am proving your point....that the game can't be run as intended without modifications made for optimized parties, and I would say that I disagree because I don't think it was ever intended to do that. I think any DM would take into consideration the capabilities of the party and then design encounters with that in mind, with the intent of challenging the players.

I think it's just a fundamentally different view....for me, running the game "out of the box" would in no way inhibit the DM from modifying things to present a challenge for his players the same way that it does not inhibit players from picking race, class, abilities, and spells with nothing but combat effectiveness in mind. I think both of those are ongoing processes that begin the moment play begins.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

Oh, well in that case... it's pretty straightforward to craft a CR 1 creature that is in actuality tougher than a CR 15 Purple Worm and will probably stomp any given 10th level party while remaining below the not-even-Easy standard of difficulty. Especially if, per iserith's suggestions, you are also customizing the environment.

Any DM who does that in practice is a jerk, but it is technically possible. So if you include monster customizations using DMG guidelines then yes, you can indeed challenge an optimized party using whatever encounter guidelines you want. You just won't be using any MM monsters to do it.

 

[MostlyDm]

Oh, well in that case... it's pretty straightforward to craft a CR 1 creature that is in actuality tougher than a CR 15 Purple Worm and will probably stomp any given 10th level party while remaining below the not-even-Easy standard of difficulty. Especially if, per iserith's suggestions, you are also customizing the environment.

Any DM who does that in practice is a jerk, but it is technically possible. So if you include monster customizations using DMG guidelines then yes, you can indeed challenge an optimized party using whatever encounter guidelines you want. You just won't be using any MM monsters to do it.

Hehehe, I believe it.

I'm assuming you're getting a lot cheesier than "add an immunity or some extra mobility" though, right?

I mean technically you can give a creature speed 1,000 ft since speed doesn't change CR. That's unreasonable, but at some thresholds even small speed increases can enable interesting hit and run tactics.

My point was just that if you (general you, or maybe Celtavian) think monsters are not sufficiently threatening without having some extra mobility/good ranged attacks/a particular immunity ... Those really are trivially easy to add to any MM creature, without officially changing CR.

Those things aren't needed to challenge all parties. They might be needed to challenge optimal parties. Only some MM creatures will fit the bill as-is. So if you want a wider base of monsters to choose from, add them as a standard tweak.

I'm not sure I'm really on the Flamestrike/Iserith side of this argument anyway... I'm just posting my random thoughts based on what we've discussed so far.

I don't really use the encounter guidelines, and I don't specifically try to challenge my parties at all. I just populate the world with stuff that makes sense to me and let the players interact with it. I change MM creature stats when setting up an area if I want their stats to be different than the stat block. (Actually if memory serves I think Iserith has said this is roughly what he does, too)

Sometimes that means a party of three 3rd level guys will stomp a lone carrion crawler. Other times, a ranged-focused, slightly worn down party of five with an average level of 2-3 will face a dozen ghouls in a series of confined dead-end caves. Or face an Aboleth and a bunch of Chuul.

Sh** happens. I don't really sweat it too much, crafting challenging scenarios tailored to the party was my SOP about 15 years ago, but it just doesn't feel "real" to me anymore.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm assuming you're getting a lot cheesier than "add an immunity or some extra mobility" though, right?

Yes, significantly cheesier than that. Nimble Escape is one factor. Free legendary resistances plus troll regeneration is another.

 

[CapnZapp]

Given the way 5E is right now, most creatures should be fleeing from adventuring parties.

You have a lot of compelling arguments, but here you take it too far.

The hard truth is that at its very core, D&D is still a game played for entertainment purposes.

Nobody wants it to mimic the way video game foes hurl themselves at the heroes blades and die by the hundreds...

...but at its core, that is still what the game is about.

I'm not saying I'm exactly okay with giants being snacks for low level adventurers and even big dragons being one-shotted by more experienced heroes.

But. At the very end the game can't and shouldn't simulate reality. Monsters and bad guys must and should underestimate the heroes over and over again.

If you critically examine each action taken by the enemy side, you would find that they are very suboptimal. In part because the DM has other things to do, but mainly because the overwhelming majority of foes should be played as straightforward thugs running at the immediate threat.

So don't do that. Don't worry about every decision by every monster.

The purpose of the monsters is to entertain the players. The purpose of the DM is to present a credible illusion that's not the case. [emoji6]

 

[Lord Twig]

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.

You do realized that the characters in D&D are supposed to win, right? The DM is not the opponent. They are a storyteller. The characters are the protagonists. The dragon/demon/giant underestimates the heroes because they have already slaughtered hundreds (if not thousands) of non-heroes.

In the adventure Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the adventure starts right out with a situation where the characters will get no long rest basically until they are level 2 (or even 3). Unless of course they decide to hide in the bushes all night, which is an option that is recognized in the book, but that doesn't sound very fun to me. But I guess that's what "optimized" characters would do?

I'll admit that there are definitely some optimized builds, but usually when I hear about an "optimized" group blowing through challenges, it is because the party is optimized towards the DM's play style. Essentially the DM has trouble with "optimized" characters because he has agreed with the players that the party's tactics "are the best" and then just always allows those tactics to work. The DM doesn't change things up, or introduce situations where those tactics don't work.

A good exercise is to use the same tactics against the party. The characters must make some enemies along the way, even if they don't know who those enemies are. Have the enemy send a strike force to take them out. You can even copy their characters, a Lord Bard, a Wizard to counter spell casters, a Ranged Sharpshooter, etc. The see what the party does. Then have your own NPCs do the same thing when the party goes back to their same old tactics.

But yeah, if you like white room, open field encounters, then don't use melee only monsters. What would an 18 Int Marilith be doing alone, out in the open, and only with melee weapons? That would be dumb, wouldn't it? I can guarantee that if my players saw that they would suspect a trap. And they would be right.

 

[Celtavian]

You do realized that the characters in D&D are supposed to win, right? The DM is not the opponent. They are a storyteller. The characters are the protagonists. The dragon/demon/giant underestimates the heroes because they have already slaughtered hundreds (if not thousands) of non-heroes.

In the adventure Hoard of the Dragon Queen, the adventure starts right out with a situation where the characters will get no long rest basically until they are level 2 (or even 3). Unless of course they decide to hide in the bushes all night, which is an option that is recognized in the book, but that doesn't sound very fun to me. But I guess that's what "optimized" characters would do?

I'll admit that there are definitely some optimized builds, but usually when I hear about an "optimized" group blowing through challenges, it is because the party is optimized towards the DM's play style. Essentially the DM has trouble with "optimized" characters because he has agreed with the players that the party's tactics "are the best" and then just always allows those tactics to work. The DM doesn't change things up, or introduce situations where those tactics don't work.

A good exercise is to use the same tactics against the party. The characters must make some enemies along the way, even if they don't know who those enemies are. Have the enemy send a strike force to take them out. You can even copy their characters, a Lord Bard, a Wizard to counter spell casters, a Ranged Sharpshooter, etc. The see what the party does. Then have your own NPCs do the same thing when the party goes back to their same old tactics.

But yeah, if you like white room, open field encounters, then don't use melee only monsters. What would an 18 Int Marilith be doing alone, out in the open, and only with melee weapons? That would be dumb, wouldn't it? I can guarantee that if my players saw that they would suspect a trap. And they would be right.

The players are supposed to be facing fearsome monsters. I will state it this way: a marilith that has survived for likely thousands of years fighting her way up the ranks of demonkind should not be a melee only monster. When the game designs monsters in such an inappropriate manner that they are trivial when they should not be, that is a HUGE problem in my opinion.

Yes. The players are supposed to win. But no, they are not supposed to win easily because the monster is badly designed and requires a more powerful environmental challenge to make them difficult because of it. A dangerous environment can be fun to design and implement, but it should never be the main reason a creature is challenging.

 

[Celtavian]

You have a lot of compelling arguments, but here you take it too far.

The hard truth is that at its very core, D&D is still a game played for entertainment purposes.

Nobody wants it to mimic the way video game foes hurl themselves at the heroes blades and die by the hundreds...

...but at its core, that is still what the game is about.

I'm not saying I'm exactly okay with giants being snacks for low level adventurers and even big dragons being one-shotted by more experienced heroes.

But. At the very end the game can't and shouldn't simulate reality. Monsters and bad guys must and should underestimate the heroes over and over again.

If you critically examine each action taken by the enemy side, you would find that they are very suboptimal. In part because the DM has other things to do, but mainly because the overwhelming majority of foes should be played as straightforward thugs running at the immediate threat.

So don't do that. Don't worry about every decision by every monster.

The purpose of the monsters is to entertain the players. The purpose of the DM is to present a credible illusion that's not the case. [emoji6]

Sorry, Capn. I don't want monsters that are so easily beaten they should be running from the PCs (unless they're designed to be that way like kobolds or goblins of course). I just don't. Right now, that is the case in my experience. When our group destroyed an adult green dragon in its lair supported by dragon cultists, I didn't feel challenged. I was very disappointed. I like a good challenge as a DM and a player. Too easy is boring.

 

[iserith]

What's stopping you from giving the marilith three longbows? Her Dexterity is better than her Strength.

 

[Flamestrike]

The players are supposed to be facing fearsome monsters. I will state it this way: a marilith that has survived for likely thousands of years fighting her way up the ranks of demonkind should not be a melee only monster. When the game designs monsters in such an inappropriate manner that they are trivial when they should not be, that is a HUGE problem in my opinion.

Yes. The players are supposed to win. But no, they are not supposed to win easily because the monster is badly designed and requires a more powerful environmental challenge to make them difficult because of it. A dangerous environment can be fun to design and implement, but it should never be the main reason a creature is challenging.

The monster isnt badly designed; its a melee monster. Some monsters are good at some things, and bad at others. Its more of a case of you (as DM) selecting a melee critter, and then placing it poorly (relative to your party) and then ran the enounter in such a way as to make the encounter trivial.

Its no different to placing a monster with no ranged attacks, out in the open, against a party of flying PCs. It's not bad monster design; its bad monster placement and encounter design by the DM.

Know your PCs. From there create your encounters to hit their weaknesses and occasionally allow them to demonstrate their strengths. There is nothing wrong with PCs steamrolling a nasty encounter once in a while using a certain set of tactics. But If you let them do it every encounter, youre not doing your job as DM.

For the Marilith (assuming you wanted it as a 'solo') it has more than a few problems (namely lack of legendary actions and legendary saves). If I was going to throw a 'solo' Marilith at a party, I'd give it 2 legendary resistance saves, and 2 legendary actions of (either: makes 1 longsword attack, or teleports 120'). I'd also then, specifically tailor the environment to make the encounter more challenging for the party (permanent invisible walls of force criss cross the room in a maze like pattern, with pits down dead ends - the Marilith can use its teleport action and legendary action to move around them at will, etc).

Encounter design doesnt stop at 'select one or more monsters and throw them at the PCs'. You design your encounters with the party in mind, designed to test and challenge them, take advantage of their weaknesses and ocasionally let them show of their strengths.