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

[BoldItalic]

Wait, so you're telling me the Marilith is just going to stand there while the Rogue or Mobile monk kills her to death over the course of several rounds? She's relying entirely on opportunity attacks, and they have the ability to utterly deny her any opportunity attacks.

No, that's not complicated tactically, that's a bad joke.

Edit: the second room doesn't make it any better. Maybe if it were a 10' wide passage that the Marilith could actually fight in, that would help, but as it is it changes nothing about the scenario.

The rogue doesn't get sneak attack, so it could take some time. Also, she can use her turn to ready an action to attack anyone who opens the door. So the rogue will take damage too.

Interesting point, I hadn't considered before: normally, if you ready an action you only have one reaction per round so once you've used it nothing more happens if the trigger conditions are met repeatedly. But supposing, like the Marilith, you have multiple reactions per round - one every turn. If the trigger conditions are met repeatedly on successive turns before your next turn, can you react to them every time with the same Ready? Ask your DM.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I keep wondering why the Marilith, which is supposed to lead a legion of demons, is fighting the party solo. Give her some troops to command and see how hard it becomes. Likewise the Balor is not a solo monster. That's like complaining that Napoleon is a wimp because you can take him out with a musket when he is alone and only has his ceremonial sword.

Generals command troops, give them some troops.

How about 2 Glabrezu, 2 Vrocks, 6 Quasits, and 24 Dretch (need fodder).

I blame the 5E encounter guideline system, which trains DMs to think in the wrong ways about high-level monsters. You're better off ignoring it and/or using the old AD&D "Rarity/# appearing" stats instead.

 

[MostlyDm]

I mostly like the idea of giving spells to demons and dragons and other big scary monsters. Plenty of such variants are discussed explicitly in the MM... such as the Mind Flayer Arcanist. Precedent doesn't seem to increase the CR much... Because CR is very clearly just a baseline descriptor of damage/HP/attacks/defenses. It isn't trying to take into consideration tactical flexibility.

I was getting at this earlier, though. They don't need to design every monster with a dozen answers when many parties only ask one question.

If a low optimization/tactics party charges a bog standard dragon head-on and is challenged... Great! Does the dragon need fifteen spells for the DM to keep track of in this scenario? Probably not.

If an optimized party or a party with advanced tactics faces a dragon that has fifteen spells and the flexibility to support advanced tactics... Awesome. They'll probably be challenged.

By having CR entirely dependent on damage/survivability they actually have largely divorced advanced tactics from CR.

Some monsters are already tactically interesting, some aren't. But it's trivially easy for low tactics DMs to avoid complex monsters. And it's trivially easy for high tactics DMs to add basic functions like...

1) give them a spell list of the appropriate level.
2) take all of the monsters melee attacks and give them *identical* ranged attacks at whatever range you like. Seriously. Yeah you can give the Marilith longbows, and if that's not good enough then she can make 7 attacks per round with those bows.
3) increase mobility via teleportation or even just the equivalent of cunning action.

Of these, only spells even have any *chance* of increasing CR, and only if the spell list can reliably increase damage, attack, or AC in a purely mathematical way, e.g. Shield of faith, or a spell that has skews higher on DPR than the normal attack pattern.

In black and white, CR isn't trying to account for much tactical flexibility. That's probably a good thing, because by definition doing so is basically impossible. 3e and 4e certainly never managed it, with 4e getting closest by dramatically flattening the field of available tactical options. (That's not meant as a slight.)

Not all monsters are equally interesting, tactically. I don't really understand why this means anything is broken.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

The rogue doesn't get sneak attack, so it could take some time. Also, she can use her turn to ready an action to attack anyone who opens the door. So the rogue will take damage too.

Interesting point, I hadn't considered before: normally, if you ready an action you only have one reaction per round so once you've used it nothing more happens if the trigger conditions are met repeatedly. But supposing, like the Marilith, you have multiple reactions per round - one every turn. If the trigger conditions are met repeatedly on successive turns before your next turn, can you react to them every time with the same Ready? Ask your DM.

Good point about ready--she should really Ready a grapple or an restraining attack with her tail. That still isn't enough to make it a tough encounter, but at least that de-trivializes the encounter. I take it back, it's not a bad joke.

It's not scary though either. It's just very old school, wherein the players need to figure out an appropriate gimmick to counter the puzzle represented by the monster, plus a scary moment the first time the Marilith grabs the shadow monk or rogue and she realizes, "I forgot that she could do this!" That instant of realization is what I enjoy most in D&D combats. It's like when you're being strafed by a Sharpshooter and you suddenly realize, "Sharpshooters ignore range penalties but not disadvantage from prone targets! Dropping prone is free! It imposes disadvantage on attacks but we're already at disadvantage because of long range! Everybody--duck!"

 

[hawkeyefan]

I blame the 5E encounter guideline system, which trains DMs to think in the wrong ways about high-level monsters. You're better off ignoring it and/or using the old AD&D "Rarity/# appearing" stats instead.

Well, the guidelines are just guidelines. I think folks on both sides of the discussion tend to treat them as if they are absolute, or that they should be expected to be absolute. I don't think that's the case....they're there as a tool that can be used to approximate challenges to aid in encounter design.

Personally, I don't even look at them at all anymore, and only glanced at them a bit earlier on in our 5E campaign. At this point, I feel like I have a strong enough feeling for what is needed to challenge my players.

For instance, I used a Marilith and I did modify her in a couple of minor ways. Teleport was a move action, and she could use her parry against ranged attacks as well as melee attacks, so she was able to use her reactive ability to counter ranged attacks as well.

I also gave her a couple of potions that she used prior to combat.

The fight went pretty well, all around. She did scare the PCs and impress upon them how capable she was, but at the same time, she probably wouldn't have lasted all too long if she simply stayed there and went toe to toe with the party.

I think the fact that my players haven't already memorized all the monsters in the MM also helps. When players know the monsters' capabilities ahead of time, it's that much harder to challenge them. I think in cases like that, you must modify the monsters. Every Marilith being exactly the same is no less ridiculous than every adventurer or every elf or every fighter being exactly the same.

People have mentioned how smart such creatures are, and yet none of them ever seem to flee, unless the ability to to so is baked into the stats. I doubt a genius tactician who's survived in the Abyss for centuries would just accept that a group of primes can slaughter her because she can't innately teleport without error as a bonus action. So if a Marilith finds herself in trouble....have her cut and run like she likely has done over her centuries of life. Then have her come back later at a time of her choosing, far more prepared to deal with the adventurers in question. Seems pretty simple and likely, actually.

As others have said, if she's a general type, why not have her with other foes to assist her? And if she's solo, why would she not be cautious? Certainly a tactical genius would realize how deadly a group of adventurers can be, and would plan accordingly. Have her prep and be ready for the trouble she's likely to face.

 

[matskralc]

Our complaint is that it seems nobody at WotC played the high-level game, like at all.

...

We who complain want all that built-in, right into her stat block.

If darkness is a solution - she should have that.
If fog is a good truesight combo - she should be able to generate that (perhaps as a lair action).
If she needs teleport - she should come prepackaged with one.

The CR reflects what you see on the MM page. Not what you see after hiring Flamestrike as a consultant.

And if building those things into her stat block makes her too challenging for other parties?

The players learn how to play the game better as they play. They learn what spells are useful when, which feats are traps, which builds can tackle particular challenges more efficiently, how they can attempt to manipulate the environment/NPCs/etc to their advantage, and how all of that knowledge (and more) interacts with the style of play that their DM presents. What is so ridiculous about thinking that, at the same time, their DM should be learning how to DM them better?

 

[matskralc]

Well, the guidelines are just guidelines. I think folks on both sides of the discussion tend to treat them as if they are absolute, or that they should be expected to be absolute. I don't think that's the case....they're there as a tool that can be used to approximate challenges to aid in encounter design.

Personally, I don't even look at them at all anymore, and only glanced at them a bit earlier on in our 5E campaign. At this point, I feel like I have a strong enough feeling for what is needed to challenge my players.

I agree with you that the guidelines are just guidelines. I don't want to put words in Hemlock's mouth, though, but to me the problem with the discussion on encounter design in the DMG is the lack of emphasis on the action economy. This is why solo bosses are (usually) a dumb idea. It's also why monsters for whom "solo boss" is meant to be a possibility have legendary actions and lair actions. When it's 4 actions and 4 bonus actions going up against 1 action, you're generally going to get a slaughter in favor of the PCs (unless you're doing something like throwing a marilith at a 6th-level party). The DMG could have done a better job of discussing this.

Looking at the marilith's stat block, it is beyond obvious to me that she's not really intended to be fought solo. If she was, she'd have legendary actions or her teleport would be a bonus action. So a marilith might pose something of a challenge to a party the first time they ever see one (and don't know its capabilities) or to a party that is new to high-level play or even to a party lacking a particular skill set. But to anybody with any experience at high-level, a solo marilith is basically a bag of XP sitting there waiting to be picked up. The action economy dictates this. But it's not so obvious from the DMG's "discussion" on encounter design. I can see how a DM who relies on that section to build their encounters would be disappointed at the inconsistent challenge that those encounters present to the party.

EDIT: The solution isn't "so every CR 16 should pose the same type of challenge all the time", though. It's "learn which CR 16s are challenges for the party you're DMing".

 

[hawkeyefan]

I agree with you that the guidelines are just guidelines. I don't want to put words in Hemlock's mouth, though, but to me the problem with the discussion on encounter design in the DMG is the lack of emphasis on the action economy. This is why solo bosses are (usually) a dumb idea. It's also why monsters for whom "solo boss" is meant to be a possibility have legendary actions and lair actions. When it's 4 actions and 4 bonus actions going up against 1 action, you're generally going to get a slaughter in favor of the PCs (unless you're doing something like throwing a marilith at a 6th-level party). The DMG could have done a better job of discussing this.

Looking at the marilith's stat block, it is beyond obvious to me that she's not really intended to be fought solo. If she was, she'd have legendary actions or her teleport would be a bonus action. So a marilith might pose something of a challenge to a party the first time they ever see one (and don't know its capabilities) or to a party that is new to high-level play or even to a party lacking a particular skill set. But to anybody with any experience at high-level, a solo marilith is basically a bag of XP sitting there waiting to be picked up. The action economy dictates this. But it's not so obvious from the DMG's "discussion" on encounter design. I can see how a DM who relies on that section to build their encounters would be disappointed at the inconsistent challenge that those encounters present to the party.

EDIT: The solution isn't "so every CR 16 should pose the same type of challenge all the time", though. It's "learn which CR 16s are challenges for the party you're DMing".

Yeah, I wasn't trying to disagree with Hemlock, it was just that his mention of the DMG Encounter Guidelines sparked my thought about the guidelines.

I do agree the guidelines are fairly basic. I've been playin for a while, so I don't even really feel like they're intended for me. I feel like they are more for newer DMs.

I suppose that's a big part of it...DM and player experience parity. Those guidelines would probably serve a new DM who is designing an encounter for new players. But if the new DM was designing encounters for experienced players, they'd likely destroy such encounters.

I would assume that players who are familiar with the game and are capable of optimizing their PCs and the DMs that run games for them would largely dispense with those guidelines. That's a total assumption on my part...I really didn't think many DMs who had been doing the job for a while would need or use the guidelines.

But I would also expect those that didn't dispense with them would still adjust things per their group's abilities. To me, that assumption is pretty much a given.

 

[Flamestrike]

I disagree. One encounter using up 100% of the party's resources is achieving the same result as 8 encounters using 100% of the party's resources. Nova doesn't matter if nova is required to survive. A nova only matters if it makes the encounter easy and there are no further encounters, so the party can then rest and repeat the next encounter.

I disagree for three reasons. The first is that using 100 percent of available resources in one encounter misses the fact that [short rest] and [long rest] resources are not equal. A 10th level Warlock in a 'one super deadly encounter adventuring day' expends two slots. His Wizard buddy expends dozens. The Fighter 10 gets the one action surge, heals 1d10+10, and has a handful of superiority dice to spend. His Paladin 10 friend next to him gets advantage on one target for a minute, heals 50, and gets a pool of around 20d8 in smite damage.

The second reason is that dialing up the difficulty of encounters encourages nova tactics by the party and thus moves the game further away from balance. Nova tactics favor some classes over others. If you let (or in this case force) the players to nova, then you hurt fighters, monks and warlocks (and rogues to an extent). Players wont want to play those classes (and those that do will probably regret doing so) becuase they cant do nova strikes like your long rest classes can.

The third reason is that super deadly encounters that force the PCs to burn 100 percent of resources just to survive can quite easily result in a TPK. If your group of players face even a 20 percent chance of a TPK each level then odds are they'll all be dead before they hit 5th.

I reject your notion that it's lazy DMing. It's simply a different playstyle for those who don't want to go through the ridiculous format of PCs getting into 6-8 encounters a day. That's an excessive number of encounters. Perhaps on some days the PCs will be in such an area that 6-8 encounters makes sense, but not on most days.

No-one is saying you have to ram 6-8 per day down your players throats all the time. I personally stick to a roughly 6 encounter/ 2 short rest mark for around 50 percent of the AD's I run for my group. The other 50 percent of the adventuring days are broken up with mainly shorter and the occasional longer AD's.

 

[Radaceus]

Encounter maps

All encounter maps found here

Both JPEG and PDN (Paint Dot net).
These are pretty hastily done, but I don't have the time or I would use Gimp.

Still hadn't the time to mock up Encounter 5 and 6. By the way, @Flamestrike you never gave dimensions for the rooms in Encounter 5 and 6. Before I just hazard a guess, did you have something in mind? I was going with 40x80(entrance east and west) for the shadow demons, and had not decided on Keraptis Lair, I imagine something like the 20' corridor tapering open to to 40' then opening up into his chamber proper, it being 100x100...

I am also tempted to drop Scrying and replace it with Animate Objects on his spell list which fits the theme better.
Likewise no Archmage worth their salt would have a lair not protected by Gaurds and Wards and Glyphs of Warding ( two of my my favorites is to cast Glyph at higher level, for Reverse Gravity, and Animate Objects).

oh lastly you mention a Golem:

'Accordingly his bathroom was one of the most magically guarded and warded places across the planes (including its own shield guardian as a permanent fixture). When the dimensional rift opened up and his lair was destroyed, his bathroom (and both Keraptis and the golem) was largely protected from the devastation'

'On the following round, he identifies anyone who looks like a wizard (assuming a rival) or, failing that, anyone with an impressive looking magic weapon (he is a collector after all) and hits them with a power word stun (ending the time stop, if it hasn’t ended already) directing his golem to attack'

are you referring to the Shield Guardian(construct), or is there also a golem in the room?