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

[FormerlyHemlock]

A lot of this is preordained by knowing the encounter first up though.

I have noticed a lot of tactics specifically designed to defeat encounter X, which assumes a lot of knowledge about the encounter that the PCs would not have in game.

It's not clear what "lot of this" you're talking about though. None of the stuff I've named is based on knowledge about the encounter; the only piece of player knowledge I've even mentioned is DM knowledge, not encounter knowledge. "Does my DM believe in traps as well as monsters?" I've talked a lot about 5E as a game, and the behaviors the game rewards. I've occasionally shown how those SOPs would play out when matched up against the encounters you designed (generally resulting in curbstomps by the PCs of the opposition), and also mentioned very briefly how you'd go about redesigning the encounters so that SOP wouldn't be quite so helpful (e.g. use traps that cut off mobility).

Concrete example: the SOP I gave for sending through wolves is actually suboptimal against the Death Slaads. If you knew it was just a couple of Death Slaads on the other side, you wouldn't wait four rounds to send in the entire party. You'd probably send through four wolves (to trip the Death Slaads into attacking, wherever they are hidden) and a Shadow Monk on round one; then the rest of the party and twelve wolves on round two. Round one the Death Slaads get to inflict some minor damage on disposable minions and a monk with Evasion, round two the party blows them away. The 4/8/4/party sequence exists specifically because you don't know what's on the other side. If it's a shadow dragon or a conclave of vampires or something quadruple-Deadly, you want to avoid the monk having to face them all alone. The only elements who'd have to face the hypothetical shadow dragon alone are just some disposable summons.

Because I'm deliberately doing something which would be suboptimal against the Death Slaads, you can know with confidence that I'm not metagaming based on OOC knowledge.

I think you're seeing metagaming where none exists. It's really just superior tactical doctrine.

 

[Celtavian]

The Dragon also has 60' blindsense, so he will see the bat as soon as it sees him. On the other hand, he can use his Detect (Legendary Action, once per turn..which he is actively doing..so passive Perception of 22 is also implied), in dim light giving him disadvantage (weird for a shadow dragon in shadow, but thems the rules) his WIS (perception) check is at is +12, with darkvision of 120' and the bats movement of 30', he will have 2 rounds to see the bat before it sees him and act accordingly...


EDIT: 2 rounds not 3 before the bat detects the dragon

But we're not concerned with it seeing the bat. We're only concerned with detecting enemies. If it dies, then we know an enemy is present and can react accordingly.

 

[Celtavian]

Pass without trace grants its benefit due to (per the spell) 'shadows and magical silence'. I wouldnt let it work with a creature with Blindisight that wasnt relying on sight or hearing to percieve something (say with blindsight - with weirdly in 5E also covers other senses like smell and sonar - or tremorsense).

By the rules if the PCs have sufficient cover, Stealth works against blindsight.

In my mind I had the dragon coiled up behind the pyramid in the shadows, peering into the room. The pyramid is in back half of chamber.

So it is a large pyramid. That's why my group likes things drawn out, so they understand the terrain which can sometimes be different in the DMs and players minds and affect play in a manner that leads to unhappiness and feelings of cheating by the DM. And yes, I've had to deal with this one as well, even though it was just a miscommunication.

Im not going to get into this with you, but 'Stealth' and 'Hiding' are intentionally DM dependent in 5E. That we can agree on at least I hope. I rule that you cannot 'hide' when under direct observation (as per the 5E Errata). If a creature is looking down a coriddor, you can not use stealth to approach it (well... you can, but it sees you automatically). If it's looking the other way, its fair game.

In this case the dragon relies on its blindisight (magical dragon radar and sense of smell) to scan the area 60' in front of it. It also has dsrkvision out to 120' (so can see this far) and can (obviously) hear much further.

Whether Stealth works against Blindsight is not up to the DM in a game between players and a DM that have agreed to follow the rules. Stealth works against Blindsight per Jeremy Crawford who defines the rules for D&D.

Now the part I will allow is what constitutes sufficient cover in a neutral game like this. That would be up to the DM as long as he was making reasonable decisions.

In a situation like this we're not sitting around your table where your word is law. This would be the equivalent of playing in an organized play scenario where the rules were agreed upon prior to play and must for the most part be officially sanctioned and followed.

In this scenario I will give you the benefit of the doubt that a shadow dragon can hide effectively in this area. You were kind enough to give the bard a gem of seeing and she has Devilsight. This is one of those situations where it would see ample use and hopefully be very helpful spotting said dragon.

Again; the dragon is already looking and listening. No-one in the party has a visual range of above 120' (the same as the dragons) and they lose the benefit of pass without trace (and can no longer hide anyway) once they reach 60' thanks to blindsight removing anything they can hide 'in'. You cant hide in dhadows when the creature sees through the shadows just fine, and being quiet doesnt help you one iota against scent and when the creature is looking right at you.

In my particular group the bard has the same visual range as the dragon and access to a gem of seeing and a really high stealth herself. I think is +10 without pass without trace. Then again my group doesn't have pass without trace, so no worries. But a +20 stealth check for the bard with the gem of seeing and devilsight gives her a good chance to see creatures hidden in really dark places. I'd hope you would consider that in your rulings.

If it fails to detect a single PC, then only one PC has to crack the dragons stealth score result with a perception check of their own at this point (around 26 with advantage and expertise in stealth) and warn the others - so its possible in this instance they might detect the dragon at 120' and it not notice them in return.

It would be extremely difficult. I'm not going to lie. That dragon might get a vicious surprise round.

 

[Flamestrike]

But we're not concerned with it seeing the bat. We're only concerned with detecting enemies. If it dies, then we know an enemy is present and can react accordingly.

What kind of monsters sends a pet on a suicide mission incidentally?

Reckon I might play the familiar up as a cute and adorable little thing. And have it interpret commands 'creatively'.

Anyways, Its entirely possible to send it forth on a suicide run. It gets toasted and we drop out of initiative and the PC looking though its eyes sees nothing but blackness and senses its fear.

Players move.

 

[Celtavian]

Those tactics change now that they know the encounter naturally.

My tactics change when I'm not teleported into a bad situation surrounded by bad guys or have to walk through a portal with unknown enemies on the other side. Once we're in an area where we can move around, then we start staggered scouting like most groups I imagine. We use a point man and heavy use of familiar scout to try to get advance warning of enemies so we can ambush them or at least draw them into favorable situations.

The bard was built as the forward scout with assist from the EK using dual familiars. It's a scouting chain. Both bats having 60 foot blindsight while the EK and bard trail stealthily within darkvision range of the bats. It's like a D&D fantasy radar system.

 

[Celtavian]

What kind of monsters sends a pet on a suicide mission incidentally?

Reckon I might play the familiar up as a cute and adorable little thing. And have it interpret commands 'creatively'.

Anyways, Its entirely possible to send it forth on a suicide run. It gets toasted and we drop out of initiative and the PC looking though its eyes sees nothing but blackness and senses its fear.

Players move.

Hahahaha. That was a good one. A master of magic that understands the familiar isn't killed. One that knows it is a spirit summoned at his beck and call for his survival. He can summon little cute bat back soon enough.

This isn't 3E where familiars have some survivability and you want to keep them around. This is 5E where familiars are very disposable being so cheap and easy to summon. In 3E I would not be so free with my familiar because there was penalty and long-term investment in a familiar. In 5E it is obvious the creature is meant to disposable and of relatively low use in actual adventures. Just another 5E difference players must adapt to.

 

[Flamestrike]

By the rules if the PCs have sufficient cover, Stealth works against blindsight.

They dont have cover. The dragon is peeking over the top of it. Like a rogue peeking through a gap in some bushes, or over a low wall. And even if they did, blindsight trumps it. Blingsight isnt (necessarily) sight (read the ability), so blocking LOS doesnt affect it.

So it is a large pyramid. That's why my group likes things drawn out, so they understand the terrain which can sometimes be different in the DMs and players minds and affect play in a manner that leads to unhappiness and feelings of cheating by the DM. And yes, I've had to deal with this one as well, even though it was just a miscommunication.

And when they get close enough to see it, I'll happily draw it out for them.

Whether Stealth works against Blindsight is not up to the DM in a game between players and a DM that have agreed to follow the rules. Stealth works against Blindsight per Jeremy Crawford who defines the rules for D&D.

Stealth doesnt work when youre being looked at as per the errata. Blindsihgt cancels all darkness (it doesnt exist). Youre (relative to the creature with blindsight) standing out in the open.

Maybe in your games, PCs can stealth across an open field with a creature looking straight at them. Good on you. But for the purposes of this encounter, they cant.

In a situation like this we're not sitting around your table where your word is law.

Youre certainly not. Youre way too argumentative and rules lawyery and intentionally obstructionist for my table.

However the adventure was designed to be run by me as DM. As discussed above, I have enough leeway here by RAW to decide when combatants can see each other. I alone determine where the dragon is looking, and when stealth checks can be attempted. Mearls has been crystal clear on this - Hiding effectively boils down to 'ask your DM'.

Feel free to be more lenient in your own games. I suggest not being so lenient if youre having a hard time with players stealth steamrolling your encounters (which you are). By the way, its your own lenient interpretation that leads to these tactics being 'optimal and used all the time'.

In my particular group the bard has the same visual range as the dragon and access to a gem of seeing and a really high stealth herself. I think is +10 without pass without trace. Then again my group doesn't have pass without trace, so no worries. But a +20 stealth check for the bard with the gem of seeing and devilsight gives her a good chance to see creatures hidden in really dark places. I'd hope you would consider that in your rulings.

If you dont have pass without trace you dont have it. Also, does it not use concetration? How come youre suddenly not buffing the party with bless etc, walking forward on your own (and outside the paladin aura you always stay in) and using a gem of seeing.

Its almost as if youve adopted your tactics to the encounter, without knowing about the encounter.

It would be extremely difficult. I'm not going to lie. That dragon might get a vicious surprise round.

Bear in mind, youve just fought an archmage capable of casting 9th level spells with a shield golem buddy, a Githzeri war party with access to lighting bolt and wall of force, a bunch of souped up shadow demons, 2 death slaadi, and the giants and wolves. Resources are very low by this point.

A flubbed perception check by the party and a surprise round could follow. If the dragon rolls well on initiative, and follows that up with a 5 or a 6 on its breath weapon recharge, you could be hit with 2 x 16d6 necrotic (DC 19 possibly at disadvantage) for half plus a 4d8 thorn wall legendary action before acting. Buff spells down, party seriously wounded and needing to heal, and facing one very angry critter with over 400 hit points (barring being hit with radiant, force or psychic) legendary resistances and 80' flight which is capable of an additional 40' via legendary actions (while possibly being trapped in the room).

Depending on resource expenditure by the party to date, and how dire it was looking, I might be lenient with the Atropal, and waste a turn monologing a bit (taking the dodge action while I do so) and mocking the PCs.

He's a nihlist with a deep booming monotone voice.

Might also grant the PCs a perception check (DC 10) to notice the greatsword suddenly sparkle on top of the pyramid. If one goes to grab it, Black razor might meet him for a one on one fight on the pyramid (using lair actions to wall off or entangle tje other PCs - lone PC vs Atropal. Hopefully a PC rolls a nat 20 and cuts his head off trapping him. Would be epic.

 

[Flamestrike]

Hahahaha. That was a good one. A master of magic that understands the familiar isn't killed. One that knows it is a spirit summoned at his beck and call for his survival.

Sorry, was I not being clear? You know the bat is dead. The blackness and fear was me narrating it.

He can summon little cute bat back soon enough.

If he has an hour to spare. Which in this adventure, he doesnt.

Time limit remember. Forces you to consider resource expenditure. Which the bat, kind of 'is'.

If youve been sending the familiar on scouting expeditions in this dungeon, its likely been killed at least once already. Maybe more.

This isn't 3E where familiars have some survivability and you want to keep them around. This is 5E where familiars are very disposable being so cheap and easy to summon.

Im sure your familiar is none too happy to hear this. It feels pain you know. I would definately have the spirits get word of this unfeeling caster who tosses familiars to their deaths like an emotionless monster.

You might find yourself with some uppity familiars (which I would roleplay as NPCs bound to follow your orders 'creatively' of course).

In 3E I would not be so free with my familiar because there was penalty and long-term investment in a familiar. In 5E it is obvious the creature is meant to disposable and of relatively low use in actual adventures. Just another 5E difference players must adapt to.

A gamist reason for treating ones summoned pet like a disposable piece of crap. Nice.

Again, Id make your familiars quite obstinate or annoying until you treated them a bit nicer. Expect a lot of DM backchat (as your familiar of course). Maybe some crying too. Pathetic sobbing. Maybe one might insult you a bit. Another might be quite stubborn.

See also: The githzeri's familliar (its a coward and avoids battle, and seeks to corrupt its master). Id roleplay it accordingly, with it 'interpreting' orders in the most cowardly possible manner.

I know this is probably alien to how you play, but I like three dimensional games and to encourage players to treat NPCs and cohorts/ companions/ familliars as more than just expenable gamist force multipliers with zero personality like you do.

YMMV of course.

That said, I already have a hook for your character. The spirit king is sick to death of you summoning his minions and treating them like disposable crap. Theyve been complaining about you for some time now. Accordingly, he's planned some... revenge for you... (cue the next adventure).

 

[Celtavian]

I can't speculate on the resources. They would be depleted by at least half I would think depending on how many encounters ended in fights. I might actually run this at some point with my actual group just to see how things go. I can't do it with the current group because their magic items and the player rules are quite insane and would seriously skew the results. Our next campaign will be no feats or multiclassing. That would definitely be an interesting campaign to run this scenario against once they reach 13th level or so. That would be D&D by the base rules against the 6 to 8 encounter day. I think I'll go back and grab all the encounters. Then run it with the new group down the line. I'll be able to report the results against a near bog standard game, which would be more interesting to see.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Youre certainly not. Youre way too argumentative and rules lawyery and intentionally obstructionist for my table.

However the adventure was designed to be run by me as DM. As discussed above, I have enough leeway here by RAW to decide when combatants can see each other. I alone determine where the dragon is looking, and when stealth checks can be attempted. Mearls has been crystal clear on this - Hiding effectively boils down to 'ask your DM'.

That approach doesn't scale. Good thing WotC doesn't write their adventures to be run by Chris Perkins, or there'd only be one group who could play Curse of Strahd at a time.

There's really no point in writing up detailed encounters and posting them on the Internet unless you also invest the effort in making them accessible to other DMs. I think you tried to do this, but a recurring theme of this thread is all these unwritten assumptions and house rules which makes these encounters not actually work except at your own table. Maybe the thread title should be changed to "Design Debate: Flamestrike's PCs against 6-8 encounters run by Flamestrike"?