D&D 5E FeeFiFoFum *splat* goes the giants

[Lyxen]

So one issue with the difficulties area, is what happens with 2x, 3x, 4x type deadly.

These do not exist, and if you need them, you are using the system so much beyond the bounds of the standard system that it should really be up to you to decide how to deal with them. If you deform the system to your ends, you should be able to deform the Encounter system the same way.

Once more, it is supposed to be a simple streamlined system, and that is what made its success. And to stay that way, no system can try and cater for all the variations that people might introduce in it.

But you know what, why don't you try designing something of the kind and let us judge what you did and whether it suits us...

And yes that section can be useful but it doesn't even cover all standard options that are common for players to deal with.

It does not need to. The system is generic and simple enough, just apply the basic principle.

Magic Items of course are a big one, while they are "optional" you certainly see them a lot in the various modules....

No, you don't. Please show us where in the published modules there are a lot of magic items.

so at least some token lip service to them would be expected (aka players have +1 weapons and maybe armor, what does that do....a least the basics).

No, it does not. The game does not need +1 weapons or armor, and there are very few of them in the modules, actually.

Or feats, if I allow feats should I just automatically assume 1 difficulty drop, or is it a half one, or does it not change the difficulty?

And again, please design a simple system yourself where it takes into account the precise difference between Great Weapon Master and Linguist. Exhaustive, if you please, and with differences whether these are taken by a bard or paladin, and taking into account the differences of stats, of course, all the combinations of them.

I respect that a simple system based on CR is not going to be perfect, a simple model will high variance, and a rigorous one would create far more complexity than most are comfortable with. But I can also say having run games for a long time under 3.0,3.5,4e, and now 5e.... that 5e's encounter difficulty estimate is the "worst by far". When I ran deadly encounters in 3.5....my players were sweating. In 5e if I'm not at 2x/3x deadly, its barely a real encounter.

And honestly, I totally dropped it in 3e after a few levels because it was even more variable than 5e, especially between casual and built characters. And the same with the NPCs./Monsters.

4e is different because it is so much controlled, so yes, it was more accurate, but at the cost of openness.

As for 5e, it is incredibly open, and streamlined, but it has consequences. If you choose to use it, deal with it.

 

[Ancalagon]

I see a lot of arguments about how much resources were used, how "powered up" are the characters, etc etc etc.

Now, I can tell you almost exactly what those were (the sorcerer used 2 fireballs and 2 guiding bolts, for example). But I'm not really sure that would really help, the details are obscuring the bigger picture.

The DMG tells us that vs 3 PCs, 3 hill giants is a deadly encounter up to and including level 11. But for our party, at level 7, this was not a deadly encounter, more of a medium-hard one. Now, is our party stronger than a "vanilla" 3 member party? Yeah... but these are NOT optimized killer builds. The fighter is a shield and board type, which lowers your damage output (and psi warrior is a fun, good, but not "great" subclass). A sorcerer 5/rogue 2 is not a bad build, but it's not one with great synergy either, and this one didn't have the good control magic that would have turned this encounter into a cakewalk. A shadow monk is not the best combat monk subclass, and it's made worse by the player messing around with a whip instead of a "good" monk weapon. And he has 12 con and his stun save DC is 14. Now such a character could have helped us really screw over the hill giants, set up a great ambush, avoid them entirely but that didn't happen.

But again, these details are obscuring the main point - does anyone honestly think that 3 hill giants is a deadly encounter for 3 level 11 PCs?!?!

 

[Ancalagon]

Good to see you on here @Ancalagon!

erm... what? I've been here all along? Have you seen me somewhere else?

 

[abirdcall]

Whenever I see these threads we get so little information.

One time someone posted that the encounter building guidelines were off because their party of 1st level characters defeated the entire Drow enclave at the start of Out of the Abyss completely ruining the adventure.

What we found out later is that instead of the Priestess casting Insect Plague and wiping out the party she cast Levitate on herself. Then they shot her with a crossbow, she failed her concentration save and fell into the chasm (even though she would be floating above what she was standing on). Seeing their leader die the 10 or so Drow and 10 or so Quaggoths all fled.

Well there you go.

I'm not saying something so ludicrous happened here but the way the DM plays the monsters has the biggest effect on encounter building. Many DMs play all enemy creatures like zombies (at least according to what I've seen on forums).

Rolling for stats and magic items are going to skew that heavily too.

Like people have said a 'deadly' encounter is just a sign that reads: "warning danger ahead. Possible risk of TPK/character death." Run that fight 100 times and how many of them wipe the party out? At least a couple I figure.

 

[Quickleaf]

erm... what? I've been here all along? Have you seen me somewhere else?

Hah. No, I'm the one who hasn't been on here as much!

 

[Delazar]

Regarding the 6/8 encounters a day, there's one thing I never understood when someone brings that up. Of those encounters, one must be the FIRST, right? So, every first encounter ever at every DnD table needs to be a cake-walk? Because, you're at full power, and you could hypothetically unleash your full power on that encounter. How is the DMG supposed to give you guidelines on that?
How can the DMG possibly know how much of your resources you're going to spend on any given encounter? I mean, I understand ppl want to blame the game for TPK or whatever the opposite of a TPK is called, but this is just an impossible standard, methinks.

 

[Ovinomancer]

I see a lot of arguments about how much resources were used, how "powered up" are the characters, etc etc etc.

Now, I can tell you almost exactly what those were (the sorcerer used 2 fireballs and 2 guiding bolts, for example). But I'm not really sure that would really help, the details are obscuring the bigger picture.

The DMG tells us that vs 3 PCs, 3 hill giants is a deadly encounter up to and including level 11. But for our party, at level 7, this was not a deadly encounter, more of a medium-hard one. Now, is our party stronger than a "vanilla" 3 member party? Yeah... but these are NOT optimized killer builds. The fighter is a shield and board type, which lowers your damage output (and psi warrior is a fun, good, but not "great" subclass). A sorcerer 5/rogue 2 is not a bad build, but it's not one with great synergy either, and this one didn't have the good control magic that would have turned this encounter into a cakewalk. A shadow monk is not the best combat monk subclass, and it's made worse by the player messing around with a whip instead of a "good" monk weapon. And he has 12 con and his stun save DC is 14. Now such a character could have helped us really screw over the hill giants, set up a great ambush, avoid them entirely but that didn't happen.

But again, these details are obscuring the main point - does anyone honestly think that 3 hill giants is a deadly encounter for 3 level 11 PCs?!?!

I do. I've nearly TPK'd parties with similar encounters. Not your "on an empty road, at distance, with time to hit all three (or at least 2) with 2 fireballs as they close, and then probably some poor rolling for the giants," but in different situations, where the giants can bring their strengths to bear (pun intended).

The encounter guidelines do work, but if you insist on running monsters dumb with lots of advantages to the party, you'll find that your expectations are not met.

 

[abirdcall]

Regarding the 6/8 encounters a day, there's one thing I never understood when someone brings that up. Of those encounters, one must be the FIRST, right? So, every first encounter ever at every DnD table needs to be a cake-walk? Because, you're at full power, and you could hypothetically unleash your full power on that encounter. How is the DMG supposed to give you guidelines on that?
How can the DMG possibly know how much of your resources you're going to spend on any given encounter? I mean, I understand ppl want to blame the game for TPK or whatever the opposite of a TPK is called, but this is just an impossible standard, methinks.

That's why the descriptions of what those words mean in the DMG talk about what is possible.

If I remember correctly the easy/medium/hard descriptions are in reference to how many resources are expended. A Hard encounter is not 'easy' because there was no risk of character death or TPK. It was Hard because resources are expended to overcome it.

Deadly doesn't mean the encounter is likely to result in a TPK. It means it could.

The game completely breaks if the party long rests after every encounter (and there are no repercussions like failing the mission).

 

[Ancalagon]

I do. I've nearly TPK'd parties with similar encounters. Not your "on an empty road, at distance, with time to hit all three (or at least 2) with 2 fireballs as they close, and then probably some poor rolling for the giants," but in different situations, where the giants can bring their strengths to bear (pun intended).

The encounter guidelines do work, but if you insist on running monsters dumb with lots of advantages to the party, you'll find that your expectations are not met.

1: Hill giants are dumb.

2: The gm has a very "BOOM ENCOUNTER!" style, so the party had no chance to:
a: pre-buff
b: lay an ambush or use stealth
c: fire from afar
d: do some kind of terrain control (use magic, pick the location of our battle)
e: etc etc

This was very much a "clash of forces". There are a LOT of things that a party could have had done to win in a crushing fashion, but we did not have that chance.

3: this was technically an escort mission so we had to protect civilians as well.

4: Melee combat was reached in round 1, with both the monk and fighter moving in to screen the civilians and our mage

 

[Blue]

And how much resources did you spend ? Did you go nova on them ? At level 7, tossing "a couple of fireballs" should reasonably dent your budget for the day...

Have to agree with Lyxen here. If you don't have the resources (spell slots, etc) to do that say 3-5 more times during the day, then you nova'd harder they they needed and overcommitted other resources instead of spending HPs. This is attrition, and if you threw two fireballs from a fifth level caster then this battle was much heavier than just "medium" when you look at the resources consumed.

Any time you look at a single battle in isolation for the XP budget, you're doing it wrong. Any time the DM does very few encounters in the day, the encounter budget is not a tool calibrated to let him determine if this is a reasonable fight.