D&D 5E Encounter Balance holds back 5E

[bloodtide]

Given that WotC first released the OGL in 2000, and their more recent turn to CC, I think this claim is mostly malarkey.

I guess you missed it?

"Sure there is lots of D20 stuff out there. We here at WotC even have some D20 products we like! [of course, most of it is mush and/or things that we as Social Warriors would never publish.] So, play as much D20 as you want. BUT. When you want to play D&D. REAL D&D. You must come to us! Use only Our Rules! Buy Our Stuff! WotC is the Only D&D!

 

[J.Quondam]

To be fair, the CC thing was pretty clearly done under duress at the time. They would never have done that if public opinion hadn't swung so hard against them.

Sure. And arguably the inflexible 4e license suggests that, too. But irrespective of their motives, the nature of the game and community always forced them to backpedal on whatever clamping down they attempted.

 

[J.Quondam]

I guess you missed it?

"Sure there is lots of D20 stuff out there. We here at WotC even have some D20 products we like! [of course, most of it is mush and/or things that we as Social Warriors would never publish.] So, play as much D20 as you want. BUT. When you want to play D&D. REAL D&D. You must come to us! Use only Our Rules! Buy Our Stuff! WotC is the Only D&D!

Yeah, I must have missed that time they referred to themselves as "Social Warriors".

 

[DarkCrisis]

I always try to relate to my players "the encounter is what it is, you can always run."

Today's players aren't to keen on that idea and feel they can usually brute force any combat and 5E being 5E they are usually right.

 

[Warpiglet-7]

I find playing 5E like its an older school game has greatly improved the experience at my table too. Things feel a lot more exciting and magical, as well as dangerous and scary at times. I think 5E's secret strength is that if you completely ignore encounter balance, the game somehow runs even better than if you did.

I like 5e a lot and frankly the characters can handle A LOT. But…

It may be the organization or layout. I don’t know. Every time I look at the DMg or players I find a new tidbit I have missed. I find looking online is better even if the book is in my hand!

I do wish more old playstyle was encouraged…using the current rules!

When we have the most fun it’s when my pal throws crazy non CR balanced scenarios our way…

I am not sure why even a relative veteran of the game like me struggles to let go with 5e. Is it layout? Current messaging?

This thread has been a good reminder.

In any event, before my kids got their dice I was clear: this is not a video game. If you die, that could be “it” and you have to play smart!

My son’s wild goblin tests these theories when compulsively takes food and treasure (especially bread)

 

[Vaalingrade]

Because running feels bad and unheroic in this heroic fantasy game.

 

[Shardstone]

Because running feels bad and unheroic in this heroic fantasy game.

Depends on how you contextualize it. In my games, running is usually an option my players rely on when they want to set a trap to make the rest of the encounter easier, or an ambush, etc; they also use my Fleeing rules for hit and run tactics to gather information without having to commit to full combats.

We don't need to see things in such a narrow way. There are many rules that can be tuned to fit a heroic fantasy game.

 

[LordEntrails]

Just to cite where the rules actually talk about these other ways of running the game and that combat is not the only way to resolve encounters, here's a list of places this in the DMG this is talked about in a significant manner (there are many other single sentences etc to support this).

Note: this is not to debate the importance or relevance any one of these individual statements, but to show that there is a plethora of RAW details from WotC that contradict the premise that encounter balance is required and encounters default to a combat resolution. Also of importance, the rest of the DMG does not assume combat is the resolution mechanic.

DMG
Chapter 1;
Its Your World, 1st paragraph

Chapter 3:
Creating Adventures, 4th paragraph

Elements of a Great Adventure

Published Adventures

Adventure Structure - Ending (notice how it doesn't say this has to be resolved with combat?)

Creating Encounters - Character Objectives

Creating Encounters - Sample Objectives
1 of 7 suggestions leans towards a combat resolution.
Random Encounters

Chapter 5
Wilderness Survival
None of this is about combat
Urban Encounters
None of the 20 ideas lean towards combat
Chapter 8
Experience Points - Noncombat Challanges

 

[Krachek]

That's why there is so much advice by WotC and nearly every other experienced DM that you should not plan campaigns that way.

Thus if the DM is not expecting ressources, exact level or number of PC present at the gaming session, the actual CR xp budget system make the job by offering a vague expectation about the difficulty of an encounter.

If the DM want more precision it always step into DM fiat land:
Altering encounter just before it start, if not during it.
Restraining ressources of the PCs.
Add vulnerability to monster and give clues to players on how to use it, or simply say YES to silly idea from players when those are needed.

 

[Stormonu]

I do think it is a problem that stems from the introduction of combat balance as a focus in 3E.

Actually, that goes all the way back to at least AD&D - the "level" entry in monsters in the FF & MM2. Both 1E/2E and B/X had the unspoken idea that HD roughly equated to level (with B/X adding "*" to account for special abilities that made them more dangerous).

3E added tools that codified that into CR with the idea of helping gauge what would be appropriately taxing to PCs at a given level with the flawed assumption of a well-rounded party (fighter, rogue, wizard, cleric). Unfortunately, it got taken as gospel even as WotC constantly cast it aside to build encounters for their own adventures (see the Roper in Forge of Fury as an infamous example) and even lectured against using CR as a straight jacket for encounter building. Even the infamously balanced-hungry 4E had instances where the guidelines were put aside (the Irontooth encounter in Keep in the Shadowfell, for example). 5E continues that tradition of squarely using it as a guideline and occasionally building cinematic encounters that ignore the guidelines - only to get pushback from the community about it being "unfair" or "impossible" to beat*.

Conversely, it is somewhat interesting to look at 1E/2E random (wilderness) encounter tables and find creatures on there that wildly didn't care about the PCs level whatsoever. They did/do exist in 3E and 5E, but it appears that many DMs have been advised by the community NOT to use random tables such as these and to build "balanced" tailored encounters based on the guidelines in the DMG.

*Personally, I'm hoping that in the new Vecna adventure, they make the final confrontation with Vecna impossible to beat by fighting him directly. Because someone will find a way, or more likely players will be forced to put on their thinking caps and up an alternate solution to thwarting him.