D&D 5E DNDNext Commentary on Arstechnica

[Obryn]

I'm not saying he was a doofus - I'm saying that throwing any enemy at a party where 4/5 or 5/6 or 6/7 of all attacks are at -5 with no good way to counter it is a bad idea. (Especially if the fight is non-threatening enough you weren't under any pressure to retreat. )

MM1 monsters in particular - because of bad math and because of just plain bad design - can do stuff like this. It's a lesson the designers learned (too late) and it's a lesson groups learn. It's the sort of thing you learn with experience. Like "Don't use MM1 Sword Wraiths because they are among the worst-designed monsters in the game."

What sort of monster was it? Or was it homebrew? I'm curious because I want to make sure I never use them.

-O

 

[billd91]

*Edit: I'm sorry, this was meant to be humorous. Always have to remember humor doesn't translate well on the internet. The intent was not to imply that anyone was engaging in illegal activity, simply to offer a humorous exaggeration of what might be involved in an 8 minute combat turn.*

Hmmm... something meant to be humorous didn't get interpreted that way. It got interpreted as insulting. There's an epiphany buried in here somewhere.

 

[Patryn of Elvenshae]

Hmmm... something meant to be humorous didn't get interpreted that way. It got interpreted as insulting. There's an epiphany buried in here somewhere.

... that we need to hold a completely unreasonable grudge against [MENTION=6684526]GreyICE[/MENTION] for the next 5+ years, and bring up the comment he made every time he posts?

 

[Hussar]

To be fair, there are a number of monsters in 4e that can get the grind on in a hurry. Anything incorporeal can be a right PITA, for example. That invisible, TELEPORTING, elite (or possibly solo) was another good example.

Something that 4e really needs is to take a very hard look at any ability that reduces damage. Considering how many HP most 4e critters already have, bumping on something like invisibility at will as a minor action, is going to make a fight take AGES.

I think we were on what, round 14 by the end of that fight? So, 5 players, 1 DM, 3 hours (180 min/6/14=) 2 minutes per turn. Not a bad average at all. Certainly a heck of a lot better than 8 to 10 minutes per turn.

But, I think the point is also well made - fights in 4e don't typically take several hours to resolve. If they are for your group (and that's the generic you - no one in specific) then it might be time to take a look at encounter design. Where is the massive time sink. It's not about saying that a good DM fixes everything, but, when possible issues can be pretty glaringly obvious, either try not to use those things, or change them.

I mean, if the invisible critter could only go invisible as a move action, then it would not have been a problem. If insubstantial instead just granted a bunch of HP, it would be a lot better. Particularly when insubstantial gets paired with creatures that cause weakness - quadrupling a critter's HP is not a good thing.

While I think that there are issues here, I'm not sure they are terribly insurmountable ones.

 

[GreyICE]

I wouldn't go as far as insulting Kamikaze Midget's DM, chances are that was an experimental encounter. But it does sound like a complete train wreck. Another in the 4E forums (see: Encounter power recharge thread) featured an encounter lead by an EL+3 Elite... Solider (same -5 to hit as invisibility, really, plus bonus HP and pain).

There's definitely misdesigned encounters. And I've had epic encounters run to the 3+ Hour mark (featuring multiple waves, one featured a short rest as a 'breather' inbetween huge waves of attacks). But those are memorable, epic, truly amazing encounters. They're capstones to entire plotlines.

The word "regularly" was indeed meant as such. If you're regularly hitting combats like that than either your DM favors the "one epic battle" approach, which isn't wrong - and probably means you're playing in a group that enjoys truly epic slugfests where using every daily, encounter, and item power available to you is common - or you're doing something terrible.

And yes, the invisible teleporting monster was a great example of bad battle design. As a recharge power on a solo, that could have been a truly epic fight (invisible, teleport, setup some huge attack, etc.) but as a power on an elite it's just silly.

Hmmm... a solo who teleports and goes invisible. And minion spawners. Hmmm. I could be setting my players up for something truly terrible here.

 

[D'karr]

But, I think the point is also well made - fights in 4e don't typically take several hours to resolve. If they are for your group (and that's the generic you - no one in specific) then it might be time to take a look at encounter design. Where is the massive time sink. It's not about saying that a good DM fixes everything, but, when possible issues can be pretty glaringly obvious, either try not to use those things, or change them.

The times that I have seen combats go very long with my group it's usually because we're spending too much time bulls#ing around the table. There might be side conversations, comments, "stupid quotes", and all kinds of silliness going around. That tends to make things go a whole lot longer.

When I start moving the game by pushing initiative fast, it tends to go away. I have, at times, skipped someone on the initiative because they were not paying attention when their initiative came around, and they had to "delay". After doing that one or two times the behavior seems to stop. I don't do that often, unless we are on a tight schedule.

I also don't take a long time to take turns as a DM. My creatures are NOT "tactical geniuses". They are not constantly looking for flanks. They will move, provoking all kinds of OA's, and violate marks, opening up options for the defenders. This keeps others involved during my turn, and also cuts out some of the grind as the creatures go down faster when they are attacked more often.

 

[Obryn]

To be fair, there are a number of monsters in 4e that can get the grind on in a hurry.

Yep. And I'll just come out and say it - the 4e MM1 is basically playtest-quality. With art and some fluff (mostly in the Monster Knowledge section).

I'll go back to my (least) favorite monsters - sword wraiths. I mostly know about them because WotC used them in two adventures. These annoying undead... (1) Are insubstantial, so they take half damage; (2) Weaken enemies with a basic attack, which means damage is effectively quartered; and (3) Regenerate 10 every round - which can be equivalent to as much as 40 HP. What's more, they're "phasing" so once they hit Bloodied they retreat through a wall and get back to full. It sounds neat. Maybe. But it's really just a slog and a grind.

The problem is that the original designers were such math-heads that they thought "monster who does low damage every round but takes longer to kill" and "monster who does high damage but is quickly killed" were equivalent in play. Same with "high damage, but inaccurate" and "low damage, but accurate". Mathematically, sure - each theoretically deals out similar damage. But in play? Not really equivalent at all. Hence, grind.

-O

 

[I'm A Banana]

I'm not saying he was a doofus - I'm saying that throwing any enemy at a party where 4/5 or 5/6 or 6/7 of all attacks are at -5 with no good way to counter it is a bad idea. (Especially if the fight is non-threatening enough you weren't under any pressure to retreat. )

I don't think it was a bad idea to throw an invisible angel of doom at the party.

I think it was a failure in the rule system to support that awesome idea in a way that was a lot of fun. In this instance, the interaction of 4e allowing you to hyper-specialize (few area attacks) plus the 4e invisibility mechanic (-5 to hit), plus the 4e crowd control mechanisms (marking and teleporting and the like to avoid spreading around damage means some characters were full while others were near death), plus the robustness of 4e characters, plus the action economy, topped with a light dusting of 4e Stealth insanity (the distinction between "invisible" and "hidden" is remarkably counter-intuitive), made for fight that took longer than it probably should've.

I mean, D&D is a complex game, and there's always going to be unforeseen interactions in the rules, and this was certainly one of them. I'm not particularly trying to single out 4e has The One Edition With All The Problems or anything. I'm just saying that the system does bear responsibility for this. It legit happened, it's a legit problem, and even if some groups have completely avoided the problem, it doesn't mean that I have a uniquely accident-prone DM or anything. Because D&D is complex, different groups can have different experiences with the same system, since no group exists in isolation. Some continents will evolve kangaroos, and other continents will not. Doesn't mean that kangaroos are imaginary (and it also doesn't mean kangaroos are ubiquitous). And while the Hypothetical Good DM might not've fallen prey to this particular pitfall, the Hypotehtical Good DM is not much of a defense of the system. I can't really accept it for folks defending 3e spellcasters as fine, and I can't really accept it for folks defending 4e grindfests as fine, either. Neither of these things are fine, even if you or I have never personally encountered one or the other. And they are both system problems, not just DM problems. Your DM plays favorites, that's a DM problem. Your DM fails to see the subtle interactions of a -5 penalty to attack rolls due to nigh-constant total concealment, that's...I mean, the system at LEAST has the problem that it's demanding DMs know its subtle interactions to an encyclopedic degree.

What sort of monster was it? Or was it homebrew? I'm curious because I want to make sure I never use them

I honestly don't know (ahh, re-skinning). But I don't think every party would have the same problems with that monster that we did. A -5 penalty to hit on melee and ranged attacks doesn't necessarily need to lead to a 3-hour-plus fight. That's part of the subtlety that makes stuff like this hard to predict, and why I can't easily accept "Your DM Dun Messed Up!" as an explanation.

ghts in 4e don't typically take several hours to resolve. If they are for your group (and that's the generic you - no one in specific) then it might be time to take a look at encounter design

I don't know what we're paying the professional designers for if a DM can't take an invisible monster or a monster that drains strength (or both!) and throw it at the party without taking a community college course on D&D-specific vagaries of encounter design. That's too high of an entry barrier.

If you're regularly hitting combats like that than either your DM favors the "one epic battle" approach ...<snip>... or you're doing something terrible.

OR, certain complex system interactions occasionally produce an unforeseen consequence of extended time spend on some battles.

I mean, personally, I'm of the school of thought that thinks that even when 4e combats "go right," they last too frickin' long, but it's not just a simple issue of mistaken DMing that creates 4e grind. It's something systemic. Not universal or constant, not perhaps avoidable with an attentive DM, but something that happens and unexpectedly spikes the encounter time. It isn't mythical, it isn't impossible, it isn't a fault, it's the game not doing what it should be doing.

And yes, the invisible teleporting monster was a great example of bad battle design. As a recharge power on a solo, that could have been a truly epic fight (invisible, teleport, setup some huge attack, etc.) but as a power on an elite it's just silly.

I'd say it's a deeper problem with system design which enables a potentially cool battle with a big invisible teleporting monstrosity to be about 6-9 turns too long.

Just like I'd say its a system design problem that turns a potentially cool trio of spells into The Win Button for some encounters in some groups.

I'm not trying to say "4e combats are always big grinds that are boring to everyone except idiots."

I AM trying to say "The 4e grind phenomenon does exist, and it's not just a result of simple incompetence."

You don't need to claim that the author is being dishonest or unreliable here. They're being honest and reliable. That happens. Even to decent players and decent DMs. If 5e can avoid that (and it looks like it can!), it'll be an improvement, at least in this respect.

 

[Obryn]

I honestly don't know (ahh, re-skinning). But I don't think every party would have the same problems with that monster that we did. A -5 penalty to hit on melee and ranged attacks doesn't necessarily need to lead to a 3-hour-plus fight. That's part of the subtlety that makes stuff like this hard to predict, and why I can't easily accept "Your DM Dun Messed Up!" as an explanation.

In this case, I really, really think most parties would have had this much trouble. I'd go so far as to say "almost all".

This encounter is cool. And it can work, but not without a little effort. Some quick back-of-the-envelope ideas to make it work...

(1) Provide environmental effects which can make the monster at least partly visible - heavy smoke is an easy one, as are (if this were an angel) holy "candles" or pillars of some sort which reveal invisible creatures that are too close to them. This keeps the cool idea while adding some interesting tactics and strategy.

(2) Make sure ahead of time that the PCs have a chance to find a scroll or something of that nature which can reveal invisible creatures. This was a pretty common trick in 1e adventures. (Even the Tomb of Horrors seeds a cheap magic ring when you need to sacrifice one in the adventure.)

(3) Incorporate the Full Concealment bonuses into its basic stats, at least partly. This is the strategy used in some newer Lurkers in MV and the like. So... Its base defenses are at -3 compared to a normal creature of this level, but this results in a +2 against enemies who are unprepared to face invisible enemies.

I don't know what we're paying the professional designers for if a DM can't take an invisible monster or a monster that drains strength (or both!) and throw it at the party without taking a community college course on D&D-specific vagaries of encounter design. That's too high of an entry barrier.

I disagree that this, in particular, is a high entry barrier that requires mythically perfect DMing skills. I think it's a mistake, and an understandable one. (Like I said, the MM1 is full of mistakes - the incorporeal/weakness/regeneration synergy of sword wraiths is huge.)

But, with that said, I don't think it's particularly hard to predict (once you get some basic system familiarity) that a fight where every PC is at -5 to-hit against a creature with a lot of HPs is going to either be long and grindy or else deadly to the PCs. I'm sorry - I understand your exasperation, but to me that's not an unforseeable consequence. That's not a "mythical good DM," IMO. It's a very badly-designed monster - especially if it had Soldier defenses.

-O

 

[I'm A Banana]

In this case, I really, really think most parties would have had this much trouble. I'd go so far as to say "almost all".

I don't see why a few additional area powers, some better lockdown (such as a Slow effect) and maybe a leader who handed out more attack bonuses/attack rolls, or at least one character who jacked Wisdom and could point it out when it tried to hide wouldn't have solved this problem. It was bloodied by the time it fled, the only problem was not being able to hit it very easily. I'd imagine we'd have a similar problem with a swarm (since swarms reduce melee and ranged damage). If I was playing my Githyanki Pyromancer (what with his preponderance of area attacks), the dude would've been just another fight. But I was playnig my thri-kreen ranger (what with her preponderance of melee and ranged attacks), and so it was tougher. We could've been more cautious with our placement and our initiative timing (it did become briefly visible whenever it wailed on us -- readied actions fix that!). It's even possible that we got several of the rules wrong in the process (Aaah, 4e Stealth).

I mean, if "you need to roll a 16 or better to hit its low defense!" was this incredibly game-breaking, and needed all this rigamarole to compensate for it,I don't know why they even allowed invisibility to have that "-5 to certain attack rolls" effect in the first place. Why include an option with such a tremendous distortion effect on the game?

I'm sorry - I understand your exasperation, but to me that's not an unforseeable consequence. That's not a "mythical good DM," IMO. It's a very badly-designed monster - especially if it had Soldier defenses.

Personally, I think any system that requires such deep system mastery and encyclopedic knowledge to play "right" that a group that's been doing it weekly since about 2009 (~450 hours, give or take) is still at significant risk of messing it up is WORSE than a system that simply didn't forsee each interaction of all its hundreds of moving parts and occasionally fails to produce an expedient combat result.

And either way, you've got a problem with the system. With the usual caveats of not everyone, not always, and maybe not you personally. But WotC, probably.