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

[Jaelommiss]

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?

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?

I'm going to challenge your statement regarding a neutral environment. From the scenario you explained, the environment was anything but neutral. Featureless, perhaps, but not neutral. It was HEAVILY biased towards the PCs.

I'm having trouble finding the post where you outlined the battle, but going from memory you gave the party a significant terrain advantage: they were able to make a full rounds worth of attacks in total safety before the enemies were able to move into a position to counterattack. The fact that terrain (yes, 120 feet of empty space is terrain) prevented one side from effectively acting for a whole round was a HUGE advantage to the party.

Consider how your party would do against a group of spell-sniper warlock/sorcerers using Distant Spell to Eldritch Blast them from 720 feet on a featureless plain. The party is only 120 feet from their effective range, but the time it takes to get there grants a clear advantage to the other side.

Consider how they would do if they were ambushed at night (because magic made their guard sleep) and required to spend their first round getting up before attacking.

Consider how they would do if they were magically incapacitated (no save) for a round while the enemies got a free round to attack them however they would like.

The latter two cases are mechanically identical (one round wasted before acting offensively), yet grant one side a clear advantage. Costing one side a round to cross empty terrain is no less biased.

If I had to guess, I would assume your stated aversion to creating complex terrain leads you to believe that empty terrain is inherently unbiased. This could not be further from the truth. Terrain is just one more factor of combat that must be considered. In your given situation you accidentally gave a massive terrain bonus to one side, and it made the fight incredibly one sided.

 

[Flamestrike]

Flamestrike designed one set of encounters he hoped would stop the min-max group I was running.

Ill stop you right there. I designed the encounters to challenge them not to stop them; have them manage resources throughout an adventuring day. Each encounter should have drained around 10-15 percent of those long rest resources.

Your group was supposed to win. Like they are with every adventure I design. Be challenged, but win.

Its too late for those PCs to put the absolute brakes on what they've done - theyve literally built those characters to conform to your own campaigns rest, encounter design and placement and your own DM style meta.

If I took over DMing your group, there would be a brief moment of system shock for them as a group, but theyd adjust pretty quickly. Heck, after a session or two I'd allow them to rebuild their characters from the ground up to compensate. The UA stuff and house ruled concentration mechanic would be removed, and those insane magic items would be taken away and/or nerfed so it's only fair.

In fact, I'd do it before we started. Id make rebuilds using core only WoTC stuff, nix magic items down to no more than 2 rare items (plus expendables) per PC, no UA, point buy stats, dump the concentration mechanic, HP by the book, and would explain the new rest and encounter meta to them in depth (expect sixish encounters and 2 short rests per standard adventuring day - often less, occasionally more) so they could re-stat those characters up accordingly.

And with all those multiple artifact level magic items, doubling down on concentration buffs, giving high stats away like candy, and monsters that attack on featureless plains at range, no more than once a day on average allowing nova strikes, is it any surprise your players are bored?

You're monty hauling, and failing to challenge your players. You're just dialing up the difficulty of the encounters. Its not some inherent flaw in the system, its arguably even lazy DMing (or DMing with an innocent ignorance of several meta aspects of the game, or an intentional dseire to instill your own meta via your own choice on your players and game at best).

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

If I had to guess, I would assume your stated aversion to creating complex terrain leads you to believe that empty terrain is inherently unbiased. This could not be further from the truth. Terrain is just one more factor of combat that must be considered. In your given situation you accidentally gave a massive terrain bonus to one side, and it made the fight incredibly one sided.

And that, dear friends, is why opposable thumbs rule the world. By Jaelommiss's standards, most terrain in the world is heavily-biased towards longbow users. Not that I disagree, mind you. It is biased in favor of longbow users. "Never bring a knife to a gunfight" is a thing.

This is one of the more pleasing things about 5E design actually because it explains why, in this horribly deadly world filled with dragons and bulettes and mind flayers, humans still exist. The answer: opposable thumbs. It makes sense for humans and demihumans to pretty much rule the open terrain, but close terrain and especially underground "dungeons" are chock-full of monsters. And because other humans can't go there, that's also where all the unclaimed treasure is, ergo adventurers need to leave the friendly, open terrain inhabited by humans and enter the mind flayer dungeons.

It all hangs together reasonably nicely if you can just work out why the underground monsters have treasure in the first place.

 

[MostlyDm]

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.

You're massively misrepresenting Hemlock here. He is talking about weird edge case monsters, not just masses of low CR monsters in general. And in a different thread (the one about stats) he's arguing in favor of using really terrible stat sets alongside really good ones, and saying that's no big deal... So he isn't going to object to using the worse set you rolled.

He made lemonade from a character with something like 14, 12, and then four stats of total garbage. I bet he'd have fun with the chump set.

His style is admittedly a little odd to many of us, but he's arguing in good faith and he's not advocating any of the unreasonable standards you are assuming here.

 

[Ancalagon]

A level 20 warrior should be *thrilled* to have a +1 shield, +2 plate and a vorpal sword. Yet I see one with this at level 11?

... is this from the module???!?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah--I'm getting all these stat threads mixed up now, but that 11,7,13,11,13,13 array actually looks better than the ones I'd posted on another thread. It's actually kind of middling-good by my standards, i.e. it doesn't have to become a Moon Druid. Depending on what the other PCs are in the party I'd imagine that could become a Swashbuckler/Warlock or a Sorlock.

So yes, I would have fun with the chump set. I'd even have fun with a party full of "3d6 in order" characters, and I bet they could still beat (vanilla) DMG-balanced adventuring days, though not a deliberately killer jerk DM. But you don't have to play with a killer jerk DM, and I don't run a killer jerk DM's game. I just try to make my players think I'm a killer jerk DM whom they somehow manage to "beat" anyway. But inside secretly I'm applauding them.

 

[Radaceus]

I cant help but feel trolled after looking over those character sheets...

 

[Flamestrike]

A level 20 warrior should be *thrilled* to have a +1 shield, +2 plate and a vorpal sword. Yet I see one with this at level 11?

... is this from the module???!?

Its not 'just' a +3 vorpal sword. Its also a ring of spell storing that can cast (and concentrate on) any spells cast by others ('or by the champion within it').

Thats nothing though - the Warlock is packing a +3 longsword that deals 2d6 fire damage that ignores resistance to fire. It also grants +3 to spell attack rolls and DCs and negates the penalty for half cover from spell attacks.

It (also) maintains concentrate on one domination or charm spell leaving the wielder’s concentration free and spells
cast using the blade as an arcane focus ignore the fire resistance of the target.

Did I mention the wielder is immortal while attuned and does not age? Oh - it also increases Charisma by 2 to a maximum of 24 and grants proficiency/ expertise in Deception and Persuasion.

Thats pretty much par for the course for this party. They're all tooled up with +3 'beyond artifact' level magic items that all cast/ store spells and can concentrate on those spells (meaning in addition to the PCs being able to concentrate on two spells each, their gear can concentrate on a third for them).

I mean check out this bow:

+3 Oathbow inhabited by the spirt of a Sword Dancer of Eilistraee named Sassindra (11th level Sword Dancer of Eilstraee with the Light Domain)

Sentience: Int: 12 (+1) Wis: 18 (+4) Cha: 18 (+4)

Communication: The item can speak and read Elvish, Common, Undercommon, Abyssal, and Sylvan. It can communicate telepathically with anyone that carries or wields it.

Senses: Hearing and Darkvision out to a range of 120 feet. Her Perception (Wis) is +8 and her Passive Perception is 18.

Sassindra: Sassindra grants the full spellcasting ability of an 11th level cleric with light domain spells and an 18 Wisdom. The wielder can choose the spell list. Sassindra generally does not take any evil spells that deal with raising the dead. She casts spells on her initiative which is rolled with a +1 modifier (uses her Intelligence modifier). Any spells she cast use her concentration slots which includes the 5th level ability to concentrate on a second spell per our usual house rules including limitations. The only way to break her concentration is to destroy the bow which can be done by another god level being.

Sassindra also has all the abilities of the Light Domain up to 11th level. She can use them as needed per the normal limitations. Cantrips: Light, Sacred Flame, Resistance, Guidance, Spare the Dying, Mending.

Skills: Sassindra has Knowledge (Religion) +5, Perception (Wisdom) +8, Perform (Cha) +8, Medicine (Wisdom) +8, Survival (Wisdom) +8, and Insight (Wisdom) +8.

So basically the party are armed with +3 intelligent items that cast and maintain 1-2 concentration spells on thier own (in addition to the two concentration spells at once per PC houserule).

DM then complains that 'encounters are not difficult enough' and blames the rule set.

​

 

[Flamestrike]

I mean dat bow is an invisible, indestructable 11th level Cleric that can concentrate on two spells at once (and cant have that concentration broken) that also functions as a +3 weapon that is also an Oathbow.

Its better than having an extra PC in the party before you factor in the fact its both a +3 weapon AND and Oathbow all in one.

I mean yeah, obviously the DM runs a 'super high magic' game where PCs pack custom made artifacts (each) by 11th level, and can concentrate on multiple spells at once by 5th level. He also (admittedly) relies on nova strike single encounter AD's (which the party regularly hit with multiple buffs running).

If youre gonna step so far into houserules and handing out custom artifacts like confetti, and deviate drastically from the encounter recommendations and guidelines, you cant complain that its the system thats broken.

Im not suprised that the players dont feel challenged, and that the DM is complaining about encounter difficulties being off.

 

[pemerton]

Encounters don't occur unless the DM decides they do.

In a fairly traditional dungeon crawl, where the GM has already written up the dungeon notes and is obliged to stick to them (so as not to invalidate the players' scouting, scrying, planning, etc), this isn't true, is it? The players plan their assaults, and whether or not they enter a particular room or not. And the GM doesn't get to decide to add wandering monsters - these are rolled for.