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

[AntiStateQuixote]

I'm interested in participating in this experiment if it can be done synchronously (over Gmail hangouts maybe?) so there's not so much lag and slowness of communication. I would be willing to make and run a four- or five-man 13th level party that I'd stand behind, and I'm curious to see why you think you can guarantee a TPK before encounter 8. I mean, I could guarantee a TPK too, but it would require some fairly cheap DM-side exploits, so I'm curious to see what method you use to "guarantee" TPK.

You can even roll my stats for me.

Let's do this thing.

No need for me to roll stats. Make the characters using standard point buy.

I will endeavor not to use "cheap DM-side exploits" but I can't be sure you and I'll agree on what that means. I will run the monsters using the most optimal anti-murderhobo tactics that I can come up with. I am a card-carrying member of the Rat Bastard DMs Club (TM).

Are you going to use multiclassing and feats? If yes, then I would suggest I have the DM-side option of tweaking monsters as per DMG guidelines (alternate spells for spellcasters, for example). Will your PCs have magic items? If yes, then some of the monsters will have some minor magic items and non-standard equipment.

Five level-13 PCs:
Medium encounter ~11,000 xp
Hard encounter ~17,000 xp
Total budget will be about 120,000 xp which exceeds the daily xp allotment but is in the range of 4 medium and 4 hard encounters.

I can have something ready to go next weekend. My regular D&D group plays on Saturday nights. Let's do this next Saturday or Sunday during the day? Google Hangout or Skype works for me. I'm expecting this will take a couple or three sessions of 3 - 5 hours each.

One Standard Adventure Day
Or TPK By the Book
Optimus Minimus Maximus, the supreme patron of murderhobos throughout the multiverse, has summoned the finest crafted and exquisitely tweaked adventurers in the Forgotten Realms (or other high fantasy world of your choice). He lays before these intrepid mercenaries a mighty challenge:

"If you can survive running the gauntlet of my finely crafted and well-balanced dungeon of level-appropriate encounters in a single day whilst resting for meals and recovery only twice then I will give to you [insert names of five rare magic items of interest to the PCs]."

The gauntlet consists of several interconnected locations in and around a volcano known to be inhabited by a red dragon and his kobold minions. The red dragon is rumored to serve a powerful spellcaster who has all manner of fiends, undead and other creatures at her disposal. She is a servant of Optimus Minimus Maximus with orders to destroy any would-be Murderhobos Supreme that make their way to her domain.

Successfully liberating the five magic items and destroying the guardians will win you the title of Minimus Maxiumus Hobo Murderous.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Let's do this thing.

No need for me to roll stats. Make the characters using standard point buy.

I will endeavor not to use "cheap DM-side exploits" but I can't be sure you and I'll agree on what that means. I will run the monsters using the most optimal anti-murderhobo tactics that I can come up with. I am a card-carrying member of the Rat Bastard DMs Club (TM).

Are you going to use multiclassing and feats? If yes, then I would suggest I have the DM-side option of tweaking monsters as per DMG guidelines (alternate spells for spellcasters, for example). Will your PCs have magic items? If yes, then some of the monsters will have some minor magic items and non-standard equipment.

Yes to multiclassing and feats. No thanks to optional point buy variant. I'd rather stick to PHB rolled stats. Please roll stats for me in your capacity as DM, or if you'd rather not I will do it myself, but it's better if you do. You can use http://www.brockjones.com/dieroller/dice.htm if you want something that is easy to copy/paste.

Edit: It will be better and simpler if my PCs have no magic items. That's my preferred style anyway.

I will endeavor not to use "cheap DM-side exploits" but I can't be sure you and I'll agree on what that means. I will run the monsters using the most optimal anti-murderhobo tactics that I can come up with.

I think it will be obvious if you use exploits as cheap as the ones I have in mind, e.g. CR 1/4 monsters that can kill entire 10th level parties by exploiting the DMG's monster-construction rules*. As long as you stick to stuff that you would actually consider using in a real adventure we should be fine. If you do something silly like give all the monsters truesight and letting them ignore PC stealth and just pop out of the hidden rooms exactly when the PCs happen to be passing--i.e. if the monsters feel contrived and not "real"--I'll be mildly annoyed, but I'll roll with it.

Cheap tactics can include things like using huge numbers of low-CR drow warriors to abuse the difficulty-construction rules, using large numbers of gimmicky monsters, etc. I'm telling you right now that if you throw me a Hard encounter in which 14 Intellect Devourers suddenly teleport on top of my party, I will undoubtedly lose. If you're thinking about something like this, tell me now and let's just save time by acknowledging that yes, you can indeed TPK the party long before encounter #8.

BTW, can I get a ruling in advance on how you run heavy obscurement? PHB rules make it unidirectional (can see out of a Fog Cloud or Darkness sphere but not in). I can roll with either interpretation but I would like to know in advance which you use.

Contact info: I'm wilson.max@gmail.com

* Uber-cheap trick that just occurred to me: for low-CR creatures, Legendary Resistance is free per DMG guidelines. Pair a huge number of Legendary Resists with Undead Fortitude and Trollish Regeneration and you have a nigh-unkillable monster which dies only to crits and radiant damage, and even then only if you blocked its regeneration. Naturally a true munchkin DM would want to still stack with with other cheap tricks like Nimble Escape and high mobility + incorporeal movement, etc. I would never do this in real life to my players but that's the kind of thing I was referring to.

 

[Celtavian]

I'd be interested to see...

The encounter is way above Deadly according to the list. I fail to see why a way above deadly encounter with demons in a neutral environment should not be a sufficient challenge for the PCs. The entire reason I'm running one or two encounters per day is because the module I'm using is designed that way. The WotC designed module Out of the Abyss is designed where the majority of encounters are one shots or a couple of encounters a day. So what counts as "out of the box"? Are WotC released modules "out of the box"?

I see zero addressing of funny little obvious math problems like the balor with the 14 Passive Perception trying to spot characters with Stealth scores that are often +8 or +12 or more by the time they square off with them. Or pure melee monsters fighting PCs with mobility advantages that do not in anyway have to stay in the room with the monster.

And why do you need a complex environment for a way above deadly demon encounter to be challenging even if it is only one encounter that day? It's far in excess of deadly. Why should a far in excess deadly encounter not be a challenge for feat using, magic item having PCs? This is the idea I don't get. Why are monsters so tactically limited that they require such a complex environment? Why did they remove so much spell ability from demons and dragons knowing a PC party will have access to a vast array of spells that will be almost impossible for a melee monster to overcome?

If I were running a base deadly or hard encounter against the PCs and complaining, then sure, tell me I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about. When I'm running even a single encounter that exceeds the deadly threshold by two or three times the xp margin and the characters are defeating that with fair ease, I don't care if they're in an advantageous environment with feats and magic items, that seems very wrong. How much of an effect do magic items, feats, and multiclassing have? So much of an increase in power that two or three times deadly isn't enough to challenge them? Apparently so.

Basically, I'm being told that two or three time deadly encounters in a neutral environment against PCs using feats, magic items, and multiclassing where they can nova is just not enough to challenge them. I don't agree with that. Why can't monsters that add up to a two or three time deadly encounter in a neutral environment provide a challenge? If they can't, then why is WotC designing so many modules with these one or two encounter day scenarios with single powerful monsters? Why are the people that make the game not designing their modules more like Flamestrike or the others saying single x2 or x3 deadly encounters in neutral environments are not enough to challenge PCs with feats, multclassing, and magic items?

Sure, you could cherry pick some encounters and TPK the party. Who cares about one time? Could you do it every time using all different types of monsters and scenarios over and over again. I doubt it. You have to cherry pick particularly dangerous creatures of which there are a few, otherwise the PCs will steamroll your encounter. They will do this more often than you TPK them because not all monster options, even with equal CR, are the same. Pretty far from the same in terms of a dangerous challenge.

And if all this I see posted on here about 6 to 8 encounter days, dangerous environments, and the like not practiced by WotC module designers? Pathfinder module designers use these principles in their module design. WotC doesn't? Why? Why are their modules such garbage compared to Pathfinder who does believe in resource depletion, strange environments, and other such tactics to make the game interesting and challenging.

 

[Celtavian]

I'd be interested to see the character sheets of this level 10 party that's wiping the floor with a horde of demons.

They're on my campaign thread in my signature.

Going off memory here (I'm sure I'm wrong): there's a drow ranger/fighter with 20 DEX, sharpshooter and crossbow expert feats, and a +2 bow with multiple concentration spells cast on him. Yeah, that character is a bad ass. But he's also using two optional rules (multiclassing and feats), probably has an extra ASI or two or rolled ability scores, using Unearthed Arcana ranger rules and has a perfectly matched magical weapon for range optimization (also not assumed in the core rules).

Not a crossbow expert. He's using some Unearthed Arcana material.

Complaining that characters made using all the options (plus some house rules plus perfect magic) are overpowering vanilla monsters in their one fight of the day is not the same argument as "the base game out-of-the-box doesn't support 6 - 8 medium to hard encounters per day."

My experience with the 6 to 8 encounter day is they destroy medium to hard encounters with such ease that they don't use up many resources. They often look at me with that "Is that it?" look. If you will notice in Flamestrike's encounters, his environment was more challenging than the monsters. The environment is not 5E out of the box.

I would love to see this thread start again with the original experiment: five characters, level 13, made by the PHB rules as written go against 6 - 8 encounters of monsters straight out of the MM using the combat rules from PHB and adventure/encounter guidelines from the DMG.

That's not the experiment. It's against min-max characters, which require the use of feats, magic items, and multiclassing. Are you saying those three options so enhance the PCs that way above deadly encounters become trivial for them? Is that what you're telling me?

I'm positive that I could DM a group of optimizers running those characters against medium/hard encounters in a dungeon setting and have a TPK before encounter 8. That's not the game I prefer to run, but if that's what you think is needed to make D&D fun, it can absolutely be done.

I'm sure you could out of the box with no magic items, feats, or multiclassing, especially no magic items since damage resistance would actually work. I could do this too. Players wouldn't enjoy the game very much without optional class options, but it would make the game work. But that's not the experiment.

First, the campaign I used for an example would not be a good guideline. They have magic items of a level seen in very few campaigns.

That being said the game math issues I'm discussing have occurred in all of our campaigns. They have nothing to do with the DM and everything to do with the game math which allows players to have a heavy advantage over their enemies. It's min-max gaming focused on advantageous mathematical choices that put the DM behind the eight ball. It doesn't mean the DM can't occasionally make something challenge. So this whole, "Let's have a one off where I am a bastard DM" proves absolutely nothing. Unless you have min-max gamers in your group constantly pushing the limits of the game math, you're really not going to get what some of us are talking about. Flamestrike designed one set of encounters he hoped would stop the min-max group I was running. I deal with PCs more min-maxed than what I made on a weekly basis. Please don't confuse this with me "thinking my players are awesome." All it proves about my players is they are very good at choosing mathematically advantageous options after reading message boards and rule books looking for them. In my book, that doesn't necessarily make you a great player, but it does make it hard on the DM week after week.

 

[matskralc]

I see zero addressing of funny little obvious math problems like the balor with the 14 Passive Perception trying to spot characters with Stealth scores that are often +8 or +12 or more by the time they square off with them.

Why are you using their passive Perceptions? What are all 15 demons doing that they're too busy to be making Perception rolls to notice something? Wasn't there a demon scouting party? Shouldn't the demons be aware that there are adventurers looking for them? Why aren't the demons actively looking for the adventurers?

Or pure melee monsters fighting PCs with mobility advantages that do not in anyway have to stay in the room with the monster.

You had 15 demons, many of whom could fly. Why didn't they flank the PCs or cut off their retreat? Why didn't they surround the PCs? Why didn't they grapple them?

And why do you need a complex environment for a way above deadly demon encounter to be challenging even if it is only one encounter that day? It's far in excess of deadly. Why should a far in excess deadly encounter not be a challenge for feat using, magic item having PCs? This is the idea I don't get.

Because those are optional rules not contemplated by the base encounter guidelines. And neither is your allowance of Unearthed Arcana rules or house rules like an extra concentration slot for buff spells. Your lack of appreciation for the extra power that you are allowing your PCs to have is telling. Also not contemplated: monster tactics that aren't just suboptimal, but are nearly suicidal.

If I were running a base deadly or hard encounter against the PCs and complaining, then sure, tell me I'm an idiot and don't know what I'm talking about.

That would be rude.

Basically, I'm being told that two or three time deadly encounters in a neutral environment against PCs using feats, magic items, and multiclassing where they can nova is just not enough to challenge them. I don't agree with that.

No, you're telling us it's not enough to challenge them. We're taking your word for that and trying to try to tell you why that might be the case.

Why can't monsters that add up to a two or three time deadly encounter in a neutral environment provide a challenge?

Because you're allowing your PCs extra power that isn't contemplated by the encounter guidelines and then running your monsters with poor tactics.

If they can't, then why is WotC designing so many modules with these one or two encounter day scenarios with single powerful monsters?

Because some people enjoy those.

Why are the people that make the game not designing their modules more like Flamestrike or the others saying single x2 or x3 deadly encounters in neutral environments are not enough to challenge PCs with feats, multclassing, and magic items?

You're telling us it's not enough to challenge them. We're taking your word for that and trying to try to tell you why that might be the case.

Sure, you could cherry pick some encounters and TPK the party. Who cares about one time? Could you do it every time using all different types of monsters and scenarios over and over again. I doubt it. You have to cherry pick particularly dangerous creatures of which there are a few, otherwise the PCs will steamroll your encounter.

No, you don't. Just don't run your monsters like they all have death wishes and don't hand out house rules that allow PCs to overpower themselves.

They will do this more often than you TPK them because not all monster options, even with equal CR, are the same. Pretty far from the same in terms of a dangerous challenge.

Well of course the PCs will win more often. The object of the game (at least for the people that I play with) isn't for one side, the PCs or the DM, to win. I haven't failed if I don't TPK my party. I've failed if I or my party is bored because the party is steamrolling everything. Fortunately, this is not a problem that I have.

And if all this I see posted on here about 6 to 8 encounter days, dangerous environments, and the like not practiced by WotC module designers? Pathfinder module designers use these principles in their module design. WotC doesn't? Why? Why are their modules such garbage compared to Pathfinder who does believe in resource depletion, strange environments, and other such tactics to make the game interesting and challenging.

I don't know. WotC module designers aren't the same people as the game designers. WotC module designers are the gateway through which most people will play their first games. WotC's incentive is for people to feel like they win and do cool stuff so that they come back and hand WotC more money. That's why LMoP is such a treasure fest, for example. If those games work for people, that's great. And if those games work for people, WotC will keep putting them out there.

Don't act like every WotC module is like that, though. Even Expeditions modules I've run enough of to know that's not the case. I cut encounters out of those not to make the adventuring day easier but because the store isn't going to stay open all night for us.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

Yes to multiclassing and feats. No thanks to optional point buy variant. I'd rather stick to PHB rolled stats. Please roll stats for me in your capacity as DM, or if you'd rather not I will do it myself, but it's better if you do. You can use http://www.brockjones.com/dieroller/dice.htm if you want something that is easy to copy/paste.

Edit: It will be better and simpler if my PCs have no magic items. That's my preferred style anyway.

I think it will be obvious if you use exploits as cheap as the ones I have in mind, e.g. CR 1/4 monsters that can kill entire 10th level parties by exploiting the DMG's monster-construction rules*. As long as you stick to stuff that you would actually consider using in a real adventure we should be fine. If you do something silly like give all the monsters truesight and letting them ignore PC stealth and just pop out of the hidden rooms exactly when the PCs happen to be passing--i.e. if the monsters feel contrived and not "real"--I'll be mildly annoyed, but I'll roll with it.

Cheap tactics can include things like using huge numbers of low-CR drow warriors to abuse the difficulty-construction rules, using large numbers of gimmicky monsters, etc. I'm telling you right now that if you throw me a Hard encounter in which 14 Intellect Devourers suddenly teleport on top of my party, I will undoubtedly lose. If you're thinking about something like this, tell me now and let's just save time by acknowledging that yes, you can indeed TPK the party long before encounter #8.

BTW, can I get a ruling in advance on how you run heavy obscurement? PHB rules make it unidirectional (can see out of a Fog Cloud or Darkness sphere but not in). I can roll with either interpretation but I would like to know in advance which you use.

Contact info: I'm wilson.max@gmail.com

* Uber-cheap trick that just occurred to me: for low-CR creatures, Legendary Resistance is free per DMG guidelines. Pair a huge number of Legendary Resists with Undead Fortitude and Trollish Regeneration and you have a nigh-unkillable monster which dies only to crits and radiant damage, and even then only if you blocked its regeneration. Naturally a true munchkin DM would want to still stack with with other cheap tricks like Nimble Escape and high mobility + incorporeal movement, etc. I would never do this in real life to my players but that's the kind of thing I was referring to.

Well, that was quick. I absolutely had in mind a couple of encounters with a large number of low CR creatures (kobolds, mephits, shadows). Those would have been straight out of the MM with no modification.

I also had a Young Red Shadow Dragon, Beholder, Archmage, Death Knight and other interesting bits in mind. Those would have likely had some changes to spells, but otherwise straight out of the MM.

Rolling stats is a likely way to get a leg up on the base assumption of the game (point buy or standard array). You probably end up with an effectively free feat at the minor cost of having one or more low tertiary stats. The "race to 20" is often faster with rolled stats so you get your first feat at 8th level instead of 12th.

Interestingly, I just used the die roller you linked to and got the following on the first pass: 14, 13, 11, 16, 16, 15. That score set is WAY better than standard array or point buy and will have a significant impact on that character's play a the table.

Second set came up: 11, 7, 13, 11, 13, 13. That character would not be fun played along side the monster from the previous set.

So, to make sure I understand: the players should exploit every loophole and option available (from the PHB plus splat books and potentially other content like UA), but the DM should throw single high CR or small bands of medium CR creatures at them with little change from the MM. The monsters should behave in predictable ways ensuring that the PCs can focus fire and otherwise use the hivemind of several optimized murderhobo characters to slaughter the dumb bastards as they casually walk into the buzzsaw.

Yeah, we definitely play a different flavor of D&D.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

My experience with the 6 to 8 encounter day is they destroy medium to hard encounters with such ease that they don't use up many resources. They often look at me with that "Is that it?" look. If you will notice in Flamestrike's encounters, his environment was more challenging than the monsters. The environment is not 5E out of the box.

I disagree. Setting up "the dungeon" is absolutely a necessary part of making D&D interesting and the environment should play a part. Flamestrike went further than I typically go, but I absolutely use the environment. PC adventurers invading a kobold lair (for example) will have to deal with the fact that kobolds have maze-like warrens of small tunnels filled with traps as part of their defenses.

That's not the experiment. It's against min-max characters, which require the use of feats, magic items, and multiclassing. Are you saying those three options so enhance the PCs that way above deadly encounters become trivial for them? Is that what you're telling me?

Not quite. Every option you add to the PC toolbox increases their power. Those options are not additive; they compound. If they're not countered by similar tweaks for the monsters, then yes, fights will become much, much easier.

With regard to the 2x and 3x deadly encounters: I don't see how it's possible. If I recall you had several monsters with save-or-suck abilities. Did every PC really make every single save against the hezrou stench (within 10'; DC 14 CON save or poisoned), chasme drone (within 30'; DC 12 CON save or fall unconscious), and vrock screech (within 20'; DC 14 CON save or stunned)? Failing any one of those several saves takes the PC out for at least a round (well, poisoned doesn't take him out, but does suck for him). The demon horde should have chewed them up. If the DM didn't use those abilities then s/he didn't get much punch out of what those monsters bring to the table.

The concentration house rule is a huge factor for the PCs, and it's yet another of the bits that is multiplicative, not additive, to the PCs' power. The misplay of banish also had a big impact if it took 4 monsters out of the fight with a total of 4 actions and no concentration.

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

I was interested to see the character sheets.

They're on my campaign thread in my signature.

Wow. Dude, you REALLY don't see what you're doing here? I didn't get past the first character's magic items. The character has five permanent magic items including what can only be described as an artifact+++ type item (the whip) which has the combined powers (in ONE magic item) of:

• +3 weapons (very rare)
• dancing (very rare - requires attunement)
• defender (legendary requires attunement) Do you let this character get the +3 weapon bonus to AC when he casts a spell? If yes, go read Defender weapon again.
• ring of spell turning (legendary - requires attunement)
• ring of protection (rare - requires attunment) (double the protection bonus when blade singing)
• wand of warmage +3 (very rare - requires attunement) (ignores half cover with spell attacks)
• (extends spell ranges by five feet including touch spells)
• (absorbs 5 extra hp when using song of defense)

Seriously? You don't see that this amount of magic is going to monstrously increase this character's power? At a minimum the character is +3 to hit and damage on every attack roll it makes above the default expectation. +3 is a freaking TON! The character also has +1 (most of the time +2) to all of his defenses. Again, that's freaking HUGE.

Reminder: a PC can only be attuned to 3 items. You've given this character FIVE attuned items (and some extra gravy) in ONE item. C'mon, man!

 

[matskralc]

I was interested to see the character sheets.


Wow. Dude, you REALLY don't see what you're doing here? I didn't get past the first character's magic items.

Well, then you missed the character with an intelligent +3 Oathbow that also has an 11th level Light cleric living inside that gets its own turn in initiative and full spellcasting abilities. Oh, and the Oathbow also gets the extra concentration slot for buff spells, and its concentration on any spell can only be broken by destroying the bow (which can only be done by a "god level being".

EDIT: I almost missed this part! "We generated stats using 4d6 drop the lowest rolling seven times arranged as you wish. We allow maximum hit points the first three levels."

And I'm supposed to believe that the Monster Manual makes it impossible to challenge mid-level PCs?????

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Well, that was quick. I absolutely had in mind a couple of encounters with a large number of low CR creatures (kobolds, mephits, shadows). Those would have been straight out of the MM with no modification.

I also had a Young Red Shadow Dragon, Beholder, Archmage, Death Knight and other interesting bits in mind. Those would have likely had some changes to spells, but otherwise straight out of the MM.

Rolling stats is a likely way to get a leg up on the base assumption of the game (point buy or standard array). You probably end up with an effectively free feat at the minor cost of having one or more low tertiary stats. The "race to 20" is often faster with rolled stats so you get your first feat at 8th level instead of 12th.

Interestingly, I just used the die roller you linked to and got the following on the first pass: 14, 13, 11, 16, 16, 15. That score set is WAY better than standard array or point buy and will have a significant impact on that character's play a the table.

Second set came up: 11, 7, 13, 11, 13, 13. That character would not be fun played along side the monster from the previous set.

So, to make sure I understand: the players should exploit every loophole and option available (from the PHB plus splat books and potentially other content like UA), but the DM should throw single high CR or small bands of medium CR creatures at them with little change from the MM. The monsters should behave in predictable ways ensuring that the PCs can focus fire and otherwise use the hivemind of several optimized murderhobo characters to slaughter the dumb bastards as they casually walk into the buzzsaw.

Yeah, we definitely play a different flavor of D&D.

I have no problem with large numbers of low-CR creatures. In fact, my playstyle is optimized to handle such creatures. I'm just telling you that Intellect Devourers are an outlier, especially if they teleport on top of the party with no warning as some DMs are wont to do, and if that's what you're planning to do for every encounter I'll just concede defeat now. I will not concede defeat if the enemies are kobolds or shadows.

If I wanted to DM-optimize a challenge like this I'd use a ton of low-CR stuff like drow with sleep poison, intellect devourers, banshees, and young white dragons. Oh, and goblins are very cost-effective too, especially if you give them nets and stuff. Oh yeah, and mephits are great too.

So, do we even need to do this or are you just going to declare victory?

Edit: or should we declare total war on each other and I'll fully optimize the PCs in response to your DM-side exploitation of encounter construction rules? The DM can always eventually win a conflict like that because he can customize monsters, but there are definitely player-side things I could do to at least win against huge numbers of Intellect Devourers. I wasn't planning on using them because they're pretty CAW-ey and I think this is supposed to be a CAS challenge, but if you think it would be fun I'm willing to still do it. It won't look much like a regular session though, between the illusions and the armies of intellect devourers and the hardpoints backed by Leomund's Tiny Huts and whole corridors filled with caltrops and customized demons who teleport with their bonus action and the spellcasting shadow dragons. It may look more like Old Man Henderson fighting Hastur.

If you were a real killer DM you'd be able to kill off my optimized party with a single not-even-Easy encounter and MM-only monsters.