Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Arrowhawk" data-source="post: 5649329" data-attributes="member: 6679551">I have confused the issue by talking about the logistics nightmare for the DM. But when I said DM, I meant for the game itself. Sek says he's been DMing for what 10 years? So the concern isn't on his side, but on the players. The players are the ones who are can potentially become confused and bored if the combat involves too many pieces. Look, it's a lot easer for new players to pay attention to the one Ogre versus 15 kobolds. Figuring out who goes where and who does what can take a long time for new players...especially if they don't read the rule books and aren't familiar with all the combat options. How many of Sek's playeres are going to know the difference between Full Round Actions, Standard Actions, Move Actions, and which ones allow for 5-foot steps and whether the 5-foot step invokes an AoO? I would ease the players into to the complexities of large scale combat rather than bombard them with it. As they become more proficient with the rules, they'll make quicker decisions.    That's debatable. There are plenty of large scale monsters that don't have great AC's. In addition, one large target provides a nearly guaranteed flanking bonus for everyone. Not true with separate targets. Also, the DM can always make the larger targets weaker and award less XP. Again, the point is to simplify the combat when you have lots of PC's who are new to the game. The DM has the complete discretion in modifying the monster so as not to overpower the part. But making it one target instead of six, I think you're doing the players a favor.   At 1st level, there isn't going to be a lot of wasted damage. What I have found is that PA and Cleave result in one or two guys doing most of the killing with weak individual targets. I mean the ratio is like 5 to 1...with the 1 going to the entire rest of the party. I had a party with a Fighter, Rogue, Ranger, Monk, and Cleric...and the Fighter had PA and Cleave and easily killed 80% of the monsters. It wasn't a problem for the group, but I'm just pointing out my experience with weak/soft targets in large group combat.  By that logic, six players against one or two targets provide an even bigger advantange in terms of "action economy"    I tihnk you misconstrued my point. I'm not talking about whether people want to fight, I'm talking about how involved various people get in deciding the tactical maneuvers in combat. Everybody wants to roll the d20 and then roll damage. Not everyone wants to figure out who goes where, whether they fight Defensively or take a 5-foot stop to block so and so.    Yes. But the question is to what extent and as I've said...players, particularly the women in our group, get bored while long discussions ensue about the specifics of the tactics...just like people get bored when there is a social scene and they aren't involved in the IC discussion.  Well, that certainly explains a lot. In your situation, I can totally see why you would throw lots of targets at them. This gives them an IC way to compare killing and effectiviness where a single large target would undermine such a comparison. There is no doubt, the classes being played and the people who are playing them will undoubtedly determine what type of encounters the group will find most enjoyable. One of our females is a Bard with an 8 Str. She frequently complains that the battles take too long...the other is the Fighter with PA and Cleave who just wants to roll damage and has no problem letting someone else tell where to go and what to do.</blockquote>

Verification