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

[Celtavian]

Ahh! I don't know why I was thinking that instead of targeting a metal object you target the creature wearing or holding it. That obviously makes no sense, but I thought it, anyway. My only defense is that my PCs don't play bards or druids much and the only bard I've ever played only just reached 3rd level after our last session.

Heat metal won't stack on the same object? You may be right given the new stacking rules. I'll have to remember that to prevent absurdity. I think that would be the correct ruling given the current information.

 

[matskralc]

I think Celtavian has mentioned that it is kind of a messed-up, lopsided situation that he's not happy with. He's got a bunch of old gamers who sound like they're basically burned out. At this point they get together not so much for zany roleplay, but mostly for the combats. Didn't he mention earlier in this thread that he's considered switching to a non-d20 system to see if it will rejuvenate play? Give him the benefit of the doubt here and let's assume he knows what he's talking about: that the players like to do unto others without it being done unto them.

All I can really say about that situation is, "Wow, I'm really sorry. I hope you find a way."

It does suck some days. I'm not sure I'd keep playing if I didn't know all of them for twenty plus years and enjoy hanging out with them other than just playing D&D. We have had some absolutely insane arguments at the table over the years over game rules and such. Myself and one other guy usually get stuck DMing. I still remember in Pathfinder when the Come and Get Me rage power entered the game. It was way too powerful. All these people telling me it was fine, but it wasn't. Too many ways to build to exploit it and limit its disadvantages. I had just had to deal with it for a whole campaign because some game designer thought it was a reasonable power. It isn't for a power gamer. At least nothing in 5E is near as bad as Pathfinder/3E. That was some annoying power gamer material there.

It's rare that I get to just enjoy playing. I'm glad the other guy DMs on occasion. Even he is not loving it at times given the exploits and some of the game math. I'm going to need a break after this campaign. I think I bit off more than I can chew handing out the powerful magic items. I hope the demon lords can handle the pain. I made them much stronger than they are in the book, which is why I gave out such potent magic items. I'm not sure if the PCs will die or the demon lords go down too easy. We'll see how it goes. I hope I made them strong enough for an epic battle that isn't too lop-sided one way or the other. I want them to remember this fight.

These comments make me think that the OotA campaign isn't really an incredible outlier in terms of this group's style. It seems to me that the power level probably creeps up a little more with each campaign in an effort to maintain player interest and engagement. Celtavian had to give away so much in the OotA campaign that any hope of game balance has just been totally destroyed. He said himself that he wants it to be epic and memorable. For a group just starting out, the stock version of Out of the Abyss will be more than epic and memorable enough. Players doing this for 20+ years now have already slain demon lords. Multiple times, probably.

That's also why I think the game math is far down the list of the problems Celtavian is having with his group. It starts with the increased character building power, the character-buffing houserules, and the incredible magic items that have to be incredible in order for them to be even remotely memorable. When you've been playing for 20 years, your fifth Holy Avenger doesn't seem very special.

I don't think Celtavian needs Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford to think harder about the game math so much as his group needs a break from the D&D paradigm. If they can't think about how they play the game differently (no small task, to be sure), then it does seem that a different game might be most appropriate.

 

[matskralc]

Heat metal won't stack on the same object? You may be right given the new stacking rules. I'll have to remember that to prevent absurdity. I think that would be the correct ruling given the current information.

Yeah, PHB 205. Effects from the same spell cast multiple times on the same target don't combine or stack. So you can't have three blesses going on you at the same time. You only get one. So Hemlock is correct that a PC wearing metal armor and holding a metal-handled weapon can be targeted by heat metal twice, as long as one casting is on the armor and the other on the weapon. A second heat metal on the same suit of armor doesn't do anything extra. All it really does is ensure that if one caster loses concentration, the target is still under the effect of the other caster's casting.

 

[Celtavian]

These comments make me think that the OotA campaign isn't really an incredible outlier in terms of this group's style. It seems to me that the power level probably creeps up a little more with each campaign in an effort to maintain player interest and engagement. Celtavian had to give away so much in the OotA campaign that any hope of game balance has just been totally destroyed. He said himself that he wants it to be epic and memorable. For a group just starting out, the stock version of Out of the Abyss will be more than epic and memorable enough. Players doing this for 20+ years now have already slain demon lords. Multiple times, probably.

That's also why I think the game math is far down the list of the problems Celtavian is having with his group. It starts with the increased character building power, the character-buffing houserules, and the incredible magic items that have to be incredible in order for them to be even remotely memorable. When you've been playing for 20 years, your fifth Holy Avenger doesn't seem very special.

I don't think Celtavian needs Mike Mearls and Jeremy Crawford to think harder about the game math so much as his group needs a break from the D&D paradigm. If they can't think about how they play the game differently (no small task, to be sure), then it does seem that a different game might be most appropriate.

Here is my problem with the game math. Or why it frustrates me. It does have to do with my players as well as the rules. So it's a bit of both.

Here's the usual interaction:
1. New game comes out.

2. We buy books.

3. We play campaign out of the box to learn game.

4. We usually play with feats and multiclassing, so we allow it.

5. Players start reading forums and testing combinations.

Here is where the problem starts

6. They start using any game exploit/combination they can find to give them a huge advantage. They always exist in nearly every game system including 5E.

7. I note the problems with the game math. Sharpshooter plus bless plus magic item plus Bounded Accuracy equals recipe for easy killing of everything with limited DM ability to counter.

8.I want to tone it down.

9. Argument ensues.

10. I get pissed off at the game designers for allowing such a ridiculous combination to make it past them. It is so easy to see that -5/+10 damage, no penalty for range, and no penalty for cover all for one feat is way too powerful a combination. It's as obvious as the Great Wall of China if you were standing in front of it. Why make nearly every other feat reasonably balanced for game play, then insert a feat that causes such a ridiculous game issue? I never understand it.

11. Rinse and repeat for wall of force or bless or Aura of Protection.

Then I end up in all these arguments over game rules that should have been vetted beforehand. Aura of Protection should have scaled with level maxing out at about +4 or 5 at the very highest levels. Bless should have been a flat +1 with perhaps a boost for using a higher level slot. Wall of Force should have some kind of Dex save to evade getting encased. But nooooo. Game designers don't think so, so my players don't want to change it.

I could avoid a whole lot of this if the game designers would just pay more attention to problems and vet them prior to release. My players are generally "by the book" players. They let me put in some house rules to take care of problems, but we prefer not to have too many. I'm forced for the sake of continuity to follow the rules as written and interpreted by official sources. When those rules cause problems, I have to live with it or quit gaming. I don't like either option. The best option would be the game designers cleaning up the problem rules, so they don't cause a break down in the game math. I can't expect that either because they don't bother to test the game past level 7 or so the vast majority of the time.

So I end up in these debates over game rules I know cause problems, but only a handful of people that play the game the way my players do understand. It seems like a lot of DMs have players that don't mind them altering things if they are causing problems or don't bother to find every mathematical advantage possible instead focusing on story, role-play, and general fun. But I have power gamers that love to exploit the math. They always find the exploits, every game. Since I DM the most, I always get to deal with them. Boy, I wish there was a game that had vetted every exploit.

At least I told them next campaign I'm toning down Sharpshooter and they agreed to it. I think my fix should bring that feat in line with other similar feats.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] Just out of curiosity, how often do you guys play? It sounds like you guys go through campaigns very quickly.

 

[matskralc]

So I end up in these debates over game rules I know cause problems, but only a handful of people that play the game the way my players do understand. It seems like a lot of DMs have players that don't mind them altering things if they are causing problems or don't bother to find every mathematical advantage possible instead focusing on story, role-play, and general fun. But I have power gamers that love to exploit the math. They always find the exploits, every game. Since I DM the most, I always get to deal with them. Boy, I wish there was a game that had vetted every exploit.

At least I told them next campaign I'm toning down Sharpshooter and they agreed to it. I think my fix should bring that feat in line with other similar feats.

I think you're still minimizing the problems that your group's style is causing. The Sharpshooter feat isn't what is breaking your game. The increased ability scores are. The very powerful magic items are. The extra concentration slots are. The Unearthed Arcana materials are. Suboptimal monster tactics are.

I suspect that you would have a much, much easier time challenging your players if you truly did limit their character creation options to what the PHB and SCAG offer. No increased point buys, no free concentration slots, no untested races or classes. Don't give away powerful magic items at early levels. Run your monsters such that "kill the party" is typically their second goal, after "get out of here alive".

The Sharpshooter feat and other features are problems, sure. They're not very big ones in my games, though, or the games of many other people (some posting in this thread and some not). I'm not introducing scores of other problems by utilizing increased ability scores, early giveaways of powerful magic items, and special PC-enhancing house rules. I think just about everybody would have the problems that you are having if we ran our games the way that your group is running them. But plenty of us are running things almost entirely by the books and we aren't running into these problems.

I think it would behoove you to really examine the differences between your group and those of us who are not having these problems instead of trying to convince those of us who are not having issues that your issues are inseparable from the default game rules as opposed to the custom game rules that you are running.

 

[Celtavian]

[MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] Just out of curiosity, how often do you guys play? It sounds like you guys go through campaigns very quickly.

Once a week for roughly 4 or 5 hours with fair consistency. So roughly 52 sessions give or take a year. We can usually finish two 15 level campaigns in that time, especially with modules that use milestones. 5E is pretty quick leveling. When our campaigns peter out at lower level like Princes of the Apocalypse at level 9 or Giantslayer at level 7, we can do more. We've done four so far. One to lvl 15, one to 9, one to 7, and one to 11 with a few to 3 to 6 on the side here and there.

 

[Celtavian]

I think you're still minimizing the problems that your group's style is causing. The Sharpshooter feat isn't what is breaking your game. The increased ability scores are. The very powerful magic items are. The extra concentration slots are. The Unearthed Arcana materials are. Suboptimal monster tactics are.

I suspect that you would have a much, much easier time challenging your players if you truly did limit their character creation options to what the PHB and SCAG offer. No increased point buys, no free concentration slots, no untested races or classes. Don't give away powerful magic items at early levels. Run your monsters such that "kill the party" is typically their second goal, after "get out of here alive".

The Sharpshooter feat and other features are problems, sure. They're not very big ones in my games, though, or the games of many other people (some posting in this thread and some not). I'm not introducing scores of other problems by utilizing increased ability scores, early giveaways of powerful magic items, and special PC-enhancing house rules. I think just about everybody would have the problems that you are having if we ran our games the way that your group is running them. But plenty of us are running things almost entirely by the books and we aren't running into these problems.

I think it would behoove you to really examine the differences between your group and those of us who are not having these problems instead of trying to convince those of us who are not having issues that your issues are inseparable from the default game rules as opposed to the custom game rules that you are running.

If it were this one campaign, then I'd agree with you. But it's been every campaign. The same feats and abilities in every single one causing the problems. It doesn't change.

Expertise in Perception and Stealth
Sharpshooter feat with bless
wall of force
Aura of Protection

Every single game these come up. Those are not based on my group.

Forget about Out of the Abyss. It's not a good example of our standard play. I don't know why you aren't experiencing greater problems given how easy it is to obtain a 20 dex, the bless spell, and other advantageous circumstances to allow a Sharpshooter to tear your monsters up. The paladin Aura of Protection with an 18 to 20 charisma is also really easy to obtain. It trivializes saves. I have to ask. Have you had these in every one of your campaigns?

I can honestly say I have had a paladin aura of protection in every campaign. I have had Sharpshooter in 3 of 4 of our major campaigns. I have had bless in every single campaign. I have had a Lore bard in all four campaigns and thank goodness the Lore Bard left Out of the Abyss. I have had devilsight and darkness in two of four campaigns. Polymorph in all four campaigns.

It's not the stats. Stats are easy to counter. Statistics don't hurt the game much. Magic items do and that's why I don't usually hand them out like I did in Out of the Abyss. Usually a +1 or +2 sword or a cool magic wand for the entire campaign is sufficient. It's the same old feats, class abilities, spells, and such combined campaign after campaign that are causing the issues. The players of each class change, but the innate problems do not. It's just a different player doing the same thing that adds up to the same power problem.

I'm wondering how many people can honestly say they've had bless, sharpshooter, polymorph, aura of protection, and a lore bard in every single long-term campaign they've run.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah, PHB 205. Effects from the same spell cast multiple times on the same target don't combine or stack. So you can't have three blesses going on you at the same time. You only get one. So Hemlock is correct that a PC wearing metal armor and holding a metal-handled weapon can be targeted by heat metal twice, as long as one casting is on the armor and the other on the weapon. A second heat metal on the same suit of armor doesn't do anything extra. All it really does is ensure that if one caster loses concentration, the target is still under the effect of the other caster's casting.

Here's the text of Heat Metal:

Heat Metal
2nd-level transmutation
Casting Time: 1 action
Range: 60 feet
Components: V, S, M (a piece of iron and a flame)
Duration: Concentration, up to 1 minute
Choose a manufactured metal object, such as a metal
weapon or a suit of heavy or medium metal armor,
that you can see within range. You cause the object
to glow red-hot. Any creature in physical contact
with the object takes 2d8 fire damage when you cast
the spell. Until the spell ends, you can use a bonus
action on each of your subsequent turns to cause
this damage again.
If a creature is holding or wearing the object and
takes the damage from it, the creature must succeed
on a Constitution saving throw or drop the object if
it can. If it doesn’t drop the object, it has
disadvantage on attack rolls and ability checks until
the start of your next turn.
At Higher Levels. When you cast this spell using a
spell slot of 3rd level or higher, the damage
increases by 1d8 for each slot level above 2nd.

As a matter of strict game rules, it's not at all clear to me that two casters, both maintaining Heat Metal on the same target, cannot both use their bonus actions to inflict 2d8 damage on their turn on the creature holding/wearing the item. From an in-game perspective, it's not really clear what the bonus action is doing (pumping in a fresh burst of heat?) or why the red-hot metal doesn't damage the wearer if the caster doesn't spend his bonus action, which means it's not clear whether they should stack from an in-game perspective. Clearly the disadvantage from multiple Heat Metals does not stack, but does one of the casters get denied the chance to use his bonus action as matskralc is suggesting? It's not at all clear to me.

But at the table as DM I think I'd try to find a ruling that explains what the bonus action is doing ("you're refreshing the heat on the metal back up to red-hot") and use that to guide the ruling ("there's no point in two casters both reheating the same metal to red-hot--it's already hot").

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I'm wondering how many people can honestly say they've had bless, sharpshooter, polymorph, aura of protection, and a lore bard in every single long-term campaign they've run.

I see a lot of those, but not in every campaign I run.

Also, unlike you I don't think it's a problem. But that might very well be because my players are really good sports who don't exert social pressure on the DM when monsters do nasty things like TPK them. (Recall discussion on the aforementioned lich/Magma Mephit deal)

I do think it's a bit of a problem that so many MM monsters are such boring, unimpressive sacks of HP. And it's weird, because a lot of the intermediate demons like Glabrezu and Nycaloths are reasonably interesting; it's the high-end monsters like Balors, Pit Fiends, and Mariliths that are so awful. There's definitely room there for third party products.

The adventure modules don't really excite me either, but that might be my own fault for buying them and not spending enough time reading them. There might be hidden gems in there that I simply haven't discovered.