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

[Flamestrike]

Instead of beginning from square one, I'll simply say you're now ignoring all the evidence provided that a decent minmaxer need sacrifice little to no offense or defense to have mobility and range, while magic makes it trivial to stop monsters from costlessly closing to melee or indeed even to achieve the situation you describe in the first place.

Im not ignoring any evidence. Its the DM who places monsters. If he wants them leaping out from within 40' to attack the party more often than not, or for terrain and the environment to generally favor melee over ranged combat, then this is what happens.

And PCs can use magic to do all kinds of awesome stuff. Magic expends resources. Those resources are finite, and according to the DMG should run out after 6-8 medium-hard encounters.

But sooner or later even you will go "wait a minute, why am I creating a slow melee fighter?

Because in a game where the DM has maintained control over the encounter conditions, and ensured melee fighters have a place, then such a decision will be rewarded.

If (from 1st level) I (as DM) tended towards starting my encounters 200' away from the party in more open environments, and ony used 1-2 'deadly' encounters per AD, you would see an abundance of long rest classes (full casters, paladins, barbarians) a dearth of short rest classes (fighters, monks, warlocks) and an abundance of ranged builds.

If I often used tighter environments (dungeons, forests) and closer ranged engagements (30-60') and (for example) pushed 6-8 encounters and 2-3 short rests on my players, then you would see a balance of classes, and a predisposition for melee over ranged PCs.

Players will take the path of least resistance. If your games meta favors certain tactics, classes or builds over others, they'll catch on.

The rules assume I will, but they actually doesn't prevent me from creating a mobile ranged version that still does comparable damage without compromised defense"

Build a mobile ranged archer PC all you want. The game has more than enough flying, ranged or spellcasting beasties, and tight environment to counter such a ranged PC as a DM could ever need.

If ranged characters are dominating melee types, thats the DMs fault. He's not tailoring his encounters to the abilities of his PC's.

I like to think of the DM as the conductor of the orchestra, and the players as the musicians. If your brass section is droning out the string section, thats the conductors fault.

 

[dave2008]

The first thing is to establish that to gain range you need to sacrifice offense. To gain mobility you should have to sacrifice defense.

Assuming those as givens; the options that come to mind are (in no particular) order:
1) The highest AC should require heavy armor
- Heavy armor should not be easy to move quickly in. Not saying we must return to 3E speeds; but as a suggestion:
- lets start heavy armor at -10 ft Speed; if you're proficient and meet the Strength demands, his penalty is halved. Result: halfling plate 20 ft; dwarf and human plate 25 ft.
- "any increase to speed is halved in heavy armor". This needs to include high-level magicks! Meaning a magic item that adds +20 ft speed only adds +10 to the plate guy. A magic carpet that otherwise zips along at 90' can't move more than 60' if anyone is wearing heavy armor. Note not "if it carries more than N pounds" since a powergamer would immediately think of "gnomes in plate" if it did. Weight means nothing. AC means everything.
- In return; there should be a hefty AC advantage to heavy armor; let me suggest a minimum of 3 points of AC. If AC 20 is the baseline for heavy armor plus shield; the monks and thieves and barbarians should struggle to reach more than AC 17. Even in the charop threads. Giving easy access to the Shield spell to somebody with a base AC of more than 15 and more than a d6 hit die is probably not a good idea.

2) Restrict the -5/+10 mechanic to melee only. Make it expensive to counter the -5. The fact is: power attack is balanced if but only if you actually suffer the full -5. Say "you cannot enjoy advantage while power attacking full stop". Rephrase bless and similar cheap/low-level bonuses (basically anything that doesn't cost at least a level two spell slot or similar) to not work on power attacks. I don't have any immediate rules language, but I'm leaning towards making power attack a thing of its own - the default is that none of the bonuses that apply to attacks work on power attacks. That way, we can identify a couple of high-maintenance buffs and specifically say "works with power attack", secure in the knowledge we haven't forgotten about some pesky cheap boon somewhere.

4) Don't have Archery style give a massive +2 to hit bonus! Just don't. Whatever the reason was to give it out, rework that benefit into something else than an AC-trivializer and a power-attack-better-than-melee enabler! I can't think of anything right now, but I'm sure previous editions can offer plenty of ideas.

3) roll back at least one of the ranged friendly changes of 5th edition. Suggestions:
First off, scrap the Crossbow Expert feat entirely. Just delete it. Completely. You could re-enable two-weapon fighting for thrown (but not ammo-using) weapons, I guess.

Then, delete the Sharpshooter feat too. There is design space for a ranged-boosting feat, but let's start from scratch, since all three parts of the existing feat need to go. The power attack part should require manly melee. The ignore cover part is strange and doesn't add anything to the game (in fact, it subtracts from it). I guess the "no disad at range" party will seldom actually break anything, but it still feels intensely unrealistic.

Let's start with "you effectively double the range of any weapon you use" as a start. Now, you can use a hand crossbow at 60 feet effectively, but you still get disadvantage when shooting at longer distances. Maybe, just maybe we can add back the archer style benefit here... Hmm: what about "if you spend an action aiming, you gain +2 to your next single shot". Yes, that works for the "sharpshooter" theme without actually boosting DPR ; since it would only apply to the start of combats (and not-combats, such as apple-on-head contests)

This way we don't have to return to str-based ranged damage. I acknowledge how "dex-damage" enables a variety of char builds that otherwise would not appeal to the damage-conscious gamer.


Zapp


PS. I would love to continue on this topic, but perhaps not right here?

(The issue is the way ENWorld shunts off threads that consist of too much homebrew into forums nobody reads; so I'm reluctant to start a new thread that focuses on this very interesting issue)

We will have to find a better place then!

 

[AntiStateQuixote]

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

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).

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."

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.

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.

 

[matskralc]

I think many problems in the game do start with the DM. He or she controls 2/3 of the basic conversation of the game, plus all the prep. It's the first place I look when something goes awry in my game. Adjusting how he or she runs the game is also the easiest thing for the DM to fix in my view. So long as the DM doesn't want to crawl under the cozy, warm blanket of playstyle and hide there...

I would go so far as to argue that just about every problem in the game starts with the DM. The DM dictates everything that happens. Encounters don't occur unless the DM decides they do. NPCs don't exist unless the DM decides they do. The dungeon is laid out exactly the way the DM decides it is. Monsters use the exact tactics that the DM decides they use. PCs can't use optional rules like feats, multiclassing, Unearthed Arcana, or one-free-concentration-on-a-buff-spell unless the DM decides they can.

A good DM allows the PCs to think that they are the ones dictating the terms, knowing all along that absolutely nothing happens unless he decides it does. Every encounter/mission/quest/set piece that I've run as a DM that went too easy for the PCs went too easy because I screwed something up. I allowed the monster who knew the PCs were coming to still get trapped by them in its lair. I allowed the PCs to find a Weapon of Warning. I didn't give the rival mercenary company a spellcaster with counterspell. I was the one who picked up a tool and tried to use it without bothering to understand how it is used.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

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.

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 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.

 

[matskralc]

The first thing is to establish that to gain range you need to sacrifice offense. To gain mobility you should have to sacrifice defense.

Assuming those as givens; the options that come to mind are (in no particular) order:
1) The highest AC should require heavy armor
- Heavy armor should not be easy to move quickly in. Not saying we must return to 3E speeds; but as a suggestion:
- lets start heavy armor at -10 ft Speed; if you're proficient and meet the Strength demands, his penalty is halved. Result: halfling plate 20 ft; dwarf and human plate 25 ft.
- "any increase to speed is halved in heavy armor". This needs to include high-level magicks! Meaning a magic item that adds +20 ft speed only adds +10 to the plate guy. A magic carpet that otherwise zips along at 90' can't move more than 60' if anyone is wearing heavy armor. Note not "if it carries more than N pounds" since a powergamer would immediately think of "gnomes in plate" if it did. Weight means nothing. AC means everything.
- In return; there should be a hefty AC advantage to heavy armor; let me suggest a minimum of 3 points of AC. If AC 20 is the baseline for heavy armor plus shield; the monks and thieves and barbarians should struggle to reach more than AC 17. Even in the charop threads. Giving easy access to the Shield spell to somebody with a base AC of more than 15 and more than a d6 hit die is probably not a good idea.

Why are you rewriting the variant encumberance rules that are right there on PHB 176? A Str 20 fighter in plate mail can add only 35 lbs of equipment before his speed drops 10 feet. A shield and longsword are 9 lbs. A longbow and quiver full of arrows are 5 lbs. That doesn't leave much room for a backpack, rope, climbing gear, potions, waterskin, and all the other sorts of adventuring gear often required in the unpredictable situations that a DM might present a party with.

4) Don't have Archery style give a massive +2 to hit bonus! Just don't. Whatever the reason was to give it out, rework that benefit into something else than an AC-trivializer and a power-attack-better-than-melee enabler! I can't think of anything right now, but I'm sure previous editions can offer plenty of ideas.

The +2 bonus for Archery style is indeed madness, especially against high AC targets. And then you stack it with the ability to ignore AC bonuses to cover via the Sharpshooter feat...

When I first read the list of fighting styles, I was slightly confused about why Archery gives a +2 to attack rolls while Dueling only gives a +2 to damage rolls. If I were to house rule anything here, I'd change Archery to just match Dueling: a +2 to bonus to damage when using ranged weapons. That said, I obviously do not share your opinion that it is so easy for PCs to force every encounter into being a ranged encounter, so I don't feel any urgency here.

3) roll back at least one of the ranged friendly changes of 5th edition. Suggestions:
First off, scrap the Crossbow Expert feat entirely. Just delete it. Completely. You could re-enable two-weapon fighting for thrown (but not ammo-using) weapons, I guess.

Honestly, I don't see why Crossbow Expert shouldn't only apply to...crossbows. I mean, the flavor text of the feat outright states "Thanks to extensive practice with the crossbow"! But again, if somebody wants to shoot a bow in the middle of melee, I'm grappling her or shoving her, or disarming her and kicking her bow away and now she can punch me, I guess.

Then, delete the Sharpshooter feat too. There is design space for a ranged-boosting feat, but let's start from scratch, since all three parts of the existing feat need to go. The power attack part should require manly melee. The ignore cover part is strange and doesn't add anything to the game (in fact, it subtracts from it). I guess the "no disad at range" party will seldom actually break anything, but it still feels intensely unrealistic.

Or just split the feat. One feat for the power attack, one feat for ignoring cover and long range disadvantage. Although I see labeling it a "power attack" as slightly misleading. It's more like calling a head shot instead of the standard "aim for the biggest target: the torso". There certainly should be a way to model that.

Also, this is a game with magic dragons and crystal balls and elves and zombies and electrum pieces (well, I guess somebody out there is using them?). It doesn't strike me as terribly unrealistic that somebody could be really good at using a bow.

 

[meshon]

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.

Yes, I think the guidelines on Adjusted XP Per Day should be followed in this experiment. 8 Deadly encounters is not what the rules call for; the number of encounters has to be mitigated by the difficulty of encounters.

 

[iserith]

Yes, I think the guidelines on Adjusted XP Per Day should be followed in this experiment. 8 Deadly encounters is not what the rules call for; the number of encounters has to be mitigated by the difficulty of encounters.

I think there is something wrong with that chart. But the written guideline of 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day works fine.

 

[Azurewraith]

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..

I'm still running the experiment check back 20 or so pages... expect an update soon running a couple more encounters tomorrow night

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think there is something wrong with that chart. But the written guideline of 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day works fine.

I'd be fine participating in either a DMG-balanced adventuring day-by-adjusted XP experiment or a "8 almost-Deadly encounters" experiment, because I think they're both beatable, but obviously they're not even close to the same thing. The latter will probably contain around twice as many monsters as the former.