D&D 5E How to Break 5E

[pming]

Hiya!

Here's how that plays out in my game...

My group is in this camp as well. When my group of players starts looking for a way to take a short/long rest we play the justification game...

PCs: "Can we take a short/long rest right now? That last encounter had me use up X resources and I'm not sure we can get through another one..."

Me/DM: "Uh, why are you asking me? I'm just the DM. You're the players...you tell me if you want to rest for an hour or so".

PC's: "Hmmmm....er....we're down a bit, sure. We'll push one of the tables in front of the door and settle down for a bit".

Me/DM: "Right then... [rolls some dice]... Not 10 minutes into your rest you hear something trying to push the door open. When it's stopped by the table, you hear a couple of muffled 'voices' talking in a language none of you can make out."

PC's: "Dang it. Why do we try and rest in the same room of a fight we just finished? It almost never works! This is...our fault, yeah...*sigh*...Ok. Here's the plan...".

That's how it pretty much plays out in my game. I don't tell the players "if they can do something". I do tell them "No, you can't do that" or "Yes, you can do that" if it's appropriate (i.e., My fighter wants to try and cat that fire bolt spell the wizards been casting all day. he's heard the words and seen how...what's his chance? My answer, if I'm being generous..."No. You can't". My answer, if I'm not being generous..."Ok, you spend your action mumbling and flailing around...nothing happens other than you look funny doing it.")

But as far as "can we/I...", I usually tell them "You can try if you want", or "Why do you keep asking me if you can try something? Don't ask, tell me what you'r character wants to do". Then I give them the general odds, if the action is significant enough to possible warrant a "common sense kicks in at the last moment" thing (i.e, the player says he wants his 4hp-left, scale male armored, fully geared up fighter to jump into the raging rapids 80' below....'Whats my chance to avoid all the rocks?' kind of thing....then I'll tell him outright the chances {"Make a DC 27 Acrobatics check...if you really want to do that". Then I let him roll, then I tell him how much damage his character takes from the fall/jump into water 80' down... We usually start the "Death Saves" after that kind of thing... }. If the action isn't likely to be significant I usually just say "Roll..." and then ask if he made a DC ## whatever check.

Then again, I'm kind of a "killer DM" I guess; I don't hold back much at all. The tattered remains of dead character sheets coats my floor, decorates my walls, and my paper-mache skull-throne upon which I pass judgement is ever growing!



^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[KidSnide]

Wait, you can't do 6-8 encounters outside of a dungeon? I've never had a problem with this. And it never feels like a "quota". I throw encounters at the players as they play. Not all are combat encounters. Nothing like that.

I just never have time for 6-8 encounters in one day. I only get 2-3 hours to play, my players want more role-playing than combat, and the next session will involve a slightly different set of PCs (based on inconsistent player attendance). I'm much closer to one encounter every 6-8 days than 6-8 encounters per day. YMMV, but I've been playing 5e since part way through the playtest and my PCs haven't taken a short rest since we converted from 4e. Even when encounters do go back-to-back my PCs rarely feel like they have time to take one.

-KS

 

[I'm A Banana]

I do not agree with this assessment. It relies "on adequate" threat meaning something like will drain a few resources rather than "provide an exciting/entertaining encounter".

There's nothing about an encounter that drains a few resources that means it can't be exciting and entertaining. For instance, a group of bandits that are no major threat to the party, but that strike from both sides of the road and attempt and ambush and have pits that your horses fall into...yeah, the party's gonna mop 'em up, but it's still an interesting encounter (especially if the bandits realize they're in over their heads and offer to surrender!).

Similarly, there's nothing about an encounter that drains most of your resources that means it is automatically exciting and entertaining. See, for example, a lot of 4e's "grind."

On top of this 6-8 encounters in a day is a hell of a lot, not really plausible outside of a large dungeon and these do not figure greatly in the fictions I like to recreate.

It's entirely plausible outside of large dungeons. The thing is that some tables don't want much more than big boom encounters as 3e and 4e tailored us to pay attention to, and others are entirely content with more variation in their encounter styles.

Indeed, variation in the encounter styles makes it easier to create an act-based structure, if narrative's your fancy.

5e allows for both, and neither is more "correct" than any other.

 

[pming]

Hiya.

3 You are playing in the Adventurers' league.

Sure, but then I'd guess that doing just about everything listed would fall under the "disruptive" part of the guide...meaning the player is making a character that is, by design, made to be disruptive. So... "I'm sorry, play a new character or you will have to bow out of this adventure" would be perfectly legal (and expected) of the AL DM.

IMO your O is wrong. I believe they moved feats & MCing to optional as a sop to the 1e simplifiers but they are intended & designed to be used as evidenced by the fact they are not optional in AL play.

Actually, in the AL Players Guide PDF it says, under Character Advancement:

Customization Options. If your allowed rules for
character options includes the Player’s Handbook,
you [B][I][U]can[/U][/I][/B] use the options in chapter 6, including
multiclassing and feats.

Note the highlighted word? So, no, your assumption is incorrect. It does not assume you will use any of the sort. It does say they are legal...but, unlike "You can't roll for HP's", it doesn't say "You must choose a Feat".

I believe they moved Feats and MC'ing to Optional because it was the smart thing to do. This way, all the folks that DO want to use them, can... and all the folks who DON'T want to use them, don't have to without risking the ire of power-gamers who would point to the game and then say "You're not following the rules!". IMO, this is a win-win; all sides are satisfied with no 'side' being able to say the other side is 'deliberately changing the rules'.

AL DMs are given latitude to change the adventures but not explicitly to change the rules of the game.

Correct. But they are allowed to kick out a player who's being an a-hole. Someone making a character just to "break the game" would fall under that category and be justly removed from the AL event. Do the 'rules' trump the Code of Conduct? Personally, if I had to, I'd place the Code of Conduct above the "rules" part. I'd guess WotC would rather have a few upset disruptive power-gamers than a bunch of upset gamers who no longer wish to play in any AL event due to all the disruptive power-gamers all trying to one-up each other and 'break the rules'.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Pickles III]

Wait, you can't do 6-8 encounters outside of a dungeon? I've never had a problem with this. And it never feels like a "quota". I throw encounters at the players as they play. Not all are combat encounters. Nothing like that.

Throwing encounters at people rather then have them arise organically for either narrative or simulation reasons sounds like you are trying to hit a quota.

Non combat encounters don't count as they don't drain resources in the same way (& you can easily have lots of these I agree)

Kamikaze said it perfectly - it's a slow burn style of play. And sometimes, the party isn't threatened at all. That is, personally, fine by me.

I find it very dull as does the person I first agreed with who I can't check now.
Edit: CapNZapp (sp)

There's nothing about an encounter that drains a few resources that means it can't be exciting and entertaining. For instance, a group of bandits that are no major threat to the party, but that strike from both sides of the road and attempt and ambush and have pits that your horses fall into...yeah, the party's gonna mop 'em up, but it's still an interesting encounter (especially if the bandits realize they're in over their heads and offer to surrender!).

Similarly, there's nothing about an encounter that drains most of your resources that means it is automatically exciting and entertaining. See, for example, a lot of 4e's "grind."

While this is true if you are trying to design encounters to be exciting that will be your priority & likely to be the outcome. If your overriding principle is to have your 6-8 attriotional encounters then that's what you are likely to get, with excitement incidental.
Also there can be very rubbish "exciting" encounters. I remember fighting a lone wight (or some other drainy undead) in 3e days with who had the possibility of hitting & ruining someone's day but the fight was just standing round in a ring thumping him. So exciting if you like slot machine style gambling which I don't.

I like that there can be textured encounters - running fights with superior foes or ambushing a couple of scouts (something 4e was terrible at) but they need to be there for a reason not just so there can be 6-8.

It's entirely plausible outside of large dungeons. The thing is that some tables don't want much more than big boom encounters as 3e and 4e tailored us to pay attention to, and others are entirely content with more variation in their encounter styles.

Indeed, variation in the encounter styles makes it easier to create an act-based structure, if narrative's your fancy.

I don't really see the possibility of a lot of encounters in a typical investigation mission or anything really. I am probably blanking it as it is not something I want.

Perhaps you could give an example? & I do not mean by adding @wik 's random bandits etc

(& I mean large site based encounter of course not literal dungeon)

5e allows for both, and neither is more "correct" than any other.

Well I often get told that if I am not using 6-8 encounters the game is not properly balanced & I may be projecting my antipathy for that on to you Sorry!

 

[Pickles III]

Sure, but then I'd guess that doing just about everything listed would fall under the "disruptive" part of the guide...meaning the player is making a character that is, by design, made to be disruptive. So... "I'm sorry, play a new character or you will have to bow out of this adventure" would be perfectly legal (and expected) of the AL DM.

If their aim is to be disruptive maybe. If they just thought they had come up with a cool combo - or simply a feat they liked the look of not so much.
Otherwise where does it stop? Spells you don't like (conjuring is stupid) Races you don't think should be in the Realms? The metagame rules that cover the AL are not & should not be subject to DM interpretation

Actually, in the AL Players Guide PDF it says, under Character Advancement:

Customization Options. If your allowed rules for
character options includes the Player’s Handbook,
you [B][I][U]can[/U][/I][/B] use the options in chapter 6, including
multiclassing and feats.

Note the highlighted word? So, no, your assumption is incorrect. It does not assume you will use any of the sort. It does say they are legal...but, unlike "You can't roll for HP's", it doesn't say "You must choose a Feat".

?Feats are always an option even when they are allowed in the sense that you can choose to take one instead of an ASI or at level 1 if you are a variant human.

That wording just means the AL DMs cannot arbitrarily ban feats because eg "they did not have them back in my day when DMs really were gods" any more than they can ban monks or tieflings or (sadly) gnomes.

I believe they moved Feats and MC'ing to Optional because it was the smart thing to do. This way, all the folks that DO want to use them, can... and all the folks who DON'T want to use them, don't have to without risking the ire of power-gamers who would point to the game and then say "You're not following the rules!". IMO, this is a win-win; all sides are satisfied with no 'side' being able to say the other side is 'deliberately changing the rules'.

It was smart in that it pleases both sides like the feeble Level 1 characters that were demanded. Which is what you said

My point is that the game was designed to include them (IMO) & you would struggle to prove otherwise (though equally I would struggle to prove it we are just reinforcing our prejudices).

 

[Bacon Bits]

I'm confused. What does being an optional rule have to do with anything? Are we saying that rules are allowed to be broken as long as they're labelled "optional"? Rules are only broken if they affect every table? I mean, how is that different than the Oberoni fallacy? And if breaking 5e is as simple as "use MC rules" or "use feats," then those rules aren't exactly optional, are they?

Does that also mean we can't complain about the quality of material in the Sword Coast Adventurer's Guide because, as splat, it's optional by definition?

I'm just trying to understand why a rule explicitly being optional is relevant.

 

[Psikerlord#]

The following post is a general guide on how to break 5E at least in terms of combat. Note I make the following assumptions.
You have around 2 short rests per day (if you even need them my PC often take 1).
You have 6-8 encounters per day (in theory)

You have a variety of encounters. Assume 1/3^rd ranged, 1/3^rd melee and 1/3^rd a mixture. Sometime you will also be dealing with magical attacks. The ratios may vary a bit but in terms of DPR calculations in a real game you can’t count on a 10’10 room with a low AC opponent.

In general if I had a 4 person party I would build 2 melee PCs, 1 hybrid and 1 ranged PC. A 5 person group I would go with 2 melee, 1 hybrid and 2 ranged perhaps subbing in 1 more hybrid character depending on the build. By hybrid I mean something like a Rogue or tempest cleric that can go melee or ranged without a massive penalty.

Not I am mostly a permanent DM and most of the following tricks have been tried, the players however have not really stacked them all together to build an uber party. Note I do note advocate playing this way but if you like powerful PCs here you go. Or here are some things to avoid or say no to. Ok here are some of the abusable things to do in the game.

Negating Resource Depletion​

Negating resource attrition. 5E assumes a certain amount of resources used such as spells, hit points etc. You can get around this in several ways. One way would be to design a party around the short rest mechanic. For example a life cleric, lore bard, fighter and a fighter/baldelock would be one way of doing this. The other way is to get around the expectations of the game. This means using concentration spells and getting around the hit point attrition the game assumes. At a basic level the resilient (constitution), warcaster and healer feats enable this. I would also rate those feats as the best 3 feats in the game. For example instead of casting scorching ray (and odds are 1 ray will miss anyway) cast flaming sphere instead. Instead of casting guiding bolt cast bless. The healer feat at low levels also heals better than a dedicated life cleric and even in the mid levels is in effect an extra 4^th or 5^th level healing spell that recharges on short rests.

A more advanced way of doing this abusing the life clerics disciple of life ability to grant extra hit points with spells that heal or restore hit points. The Cleric1/land Druid XYZ or Life Cleric 1, Lore Bard6+ is the prime example of this where good berry heals 40 hit ponts vs 1d8+ wisdom modifier for a cure spell. The Rogue: Thief 3+with the healer kit is another way of doing this with bonus action healing and the ability to grant 1 hit point to anyone with 0 hit points only limited by the amount of healing kits available. The Inspiring Leader feat and other sources of temporary hit point stacking also enable this.
Uber Damage.

There are a few things in 5E that enable a lot of damage or DPS. I’m not really a massive fan of this as I think there are better things one can do in 5E but there you have it. The basic combo of this is the sharpshooter feat and the great weapon master feat. Both allow you to deal +10 damage per attack at a -5 penalty. You just need to find a way to offset that penalty. The archery combat style does this along with bless and getting advantage. The easiest way to get advantage is generally of spells such as Faerie Fire, Hold Person/Monster, Greater Invisibility and Foresight. Certain class features such as the Avenger Paladin can also get advantage.
A surprising source of advantage is the shield master feat. You can use this feat and an athletics check as a bonus action to attempt to knock people prone. It helps if you can get advantage or expertise on this roll. Level 7 Champion fighters get advantage along with the enhance ability strength spell while Bards and Rogues get expertise in a skill which should be athletics. The Enlarge spell also lets you make attempts to knock over huge beings. Once prone you get advantage to hit them. Hex can also be used as it grants disadvantage to an enemies strength or dexterity checks. If they are big and/or where heavy/medium armor pick strength if they are in light armor pick dexterity with your hex spell. Get advantage and disadvantage and you are looking at knocking giants prone somewhat reliably.

The other source of big damage in this game is exploiting the spell eldritch blast and the warlock class. A Warlock 2/Sorcerer XYZ is a great and basic build just remember to start as sorcerer to get proficiency in con saves and then you can do things like quicken eldritch blasts for cheap as it is a cantrip and you can use your sorcerer spell slots to cast more hexes. Agonizing blast+quicken= win and your warlock spell slots(read hex) refresh after a short rest as well and you can sacrifice your higherlevel spell slots to get more metamagic points to quicken more eldritch blasts. You deal more damage than a fighter than said fighter using action surge unless said fighter is getting an absurd amount of short rests per day.

Getting Around the Concentration Mechanic​

The designers of 5E apparently hate spell casters and nerfed them hard by putting concentration on spells such as dancing lights and dark vision. This was to presumably shut down spell combos. They also conveniently made NPCs very vulnerable to save or suck/die type spells with the exception of legendary creatures. The way to get around this is to put more primary spell caster in your group perhaps even 100% although you might want a single beatstick/tank type PC. Skillmonkies like the Rogue can be replaced with Bards and fighters can be replaced with bladelocks (fighter 1, bladelock XYZ). With 6-8 encounters per day each spell caster only needs to cast maybe 2 encounter defining spells per day and you can do this from level 1. An encounter defining spell might be something as simple as bless or faerie fire and works its way up to things like hypnotic pattern, fireball, twinned greater
invisibilities and more. This also spreads the workload around and as long as you have decent DPS as well there is no real downside.

The Fighter Splash Level.​

The fighter is a seriously front loaded class for a 1 level dip. And by dip I mean start as fighter and MC into what class you actually want. 1 level gives you.
Proficiency in con and strength saves which are the best 2 saves one can get out of the classes.
Proficiency in heavy armor.

A combat style.

Second wind (not worth that much fast but hey it’s a freebie).

The main things you are after is heavy armor proficiency and the con save proficiency. This is really good for gish PCs in light or medium armor and it also reduces multiple ability dependency (MAD). Under the default array you can really only have 3 good stats so strength, con and spellcasting stat matter and the fighter dip level fixes that. This turns the bladelock form a weak class to an outright better fighter as you get to use eldritch blasts which combined with the warcaster feat does some very good things for the bladelock. It also works well for death and war clerics, valor bards, etc. The fiend pact blade lock also gets to feed off temporary hit points and will end up with hex, charisma to melee damage and the ability to use eldritch blast at range so you more or less out damage the fighter, out tank the fighter, and don’t suck at range. You might even cast a fireball on occasion.
Negating Damage

Another way of braking the attrition based model 5E expects is to not take any damage in the 1^st place. At the most basic level this is using things like temporary hit points, a high AC and things like a Paladins aura ability granting a huge bonus to saving throws to negate or reduce unpleasant effects. The inspiring leader feat would be another source of temporary hit points.

Taking it to the next level though there are a few classes which have great synergy at interfering with the NPCs ability to inflict damage. This is class abilities such as the light clerics flare ability, a Bards inspiration dice or cutting words, the diviners portend ability and the Abjurers warding ability. A party consisting of a Lore Bard, Light Cleric, a Paladin (Oath of the Ancients) and whatever else will cover most of the major bases. A 5 person party could add a bladelock and abjurer wizard. Using the standard encounter guidelines it is unlikely the DM will be able to deal with this party

Classes To Break the Game With.
Multiclass Fighters (single level only)
Bards (lore and valor)
Clerics (life, light in particular)
Sorcerers (wildmnages not so much)
Wizards (transmuters, diviners, abjurers, necromancers if you want to spam undead)
Paladins (Avenger, Oath of the Ancients)
Multiclass Warlocks

Classes to avoid.
Barbarians (its just damage)
Most single classed fighters (shield bash champion if you have GWM types in the party)
Rangers (exception hunter archers)
Rogues (thief with healer feat an exception)
Monks (all of them)
Warlocks (single classed, treat as an archer though not a spellcaster and they’re OK)
Wizards (invokers it is just damage)

This is why we (i) use slow healing & injuries, (ii) dont allow MCing, and (iii) have changed the -5/+10 mechanic for those two problematic feats to +1 stat instead (along with deleting the bit in crossbow expert about negating disad shooting in melee, and Devils sight doesnt work in magical darkness). With these changes it is much more difficult to "break" 5e.

 

[Wik]

Throwing encounters at people rather then have them arise organically for either narrative or simulation reasons sounds like you are trying to hit a quota. [/quota]

Not really. I'm running older edition modules, that had a lot of encounters back to back. And that, really, is the way I prefer to play. I don't count encounters - I throw them at PCs until they short rest, long rest, or die trying. They usually get the chance to control the pace, but sometimes, they get stuck and can't find a place to rest.... which is where we're at now, actually.

The plus with 5th is that you can do this without the long drag that happened in 3e or 5e once PCs ran out of abilities.

I find it very dull as does the person I first agreed with who I can't check now.

I find it strains disbelief to have every encounter tailored to an arbitrary XP budget. As I've mentioned, we've had a lot of tough encounters that, by the rules, were WAY under budget. And a lot of the time, encounters that were under budget and were easily defeated added to everyone's sense of fun.

These smaller encounters let the rogue sneak up behind someone and slit a throat. Or lets the wizardly character try out a spell tactic she normally doesn't get to try. When the risks are smaller, players can try out new tactics. Plus, it adds a bit more believability than just always fighting "equal" encounters.

And many of these smaller encounters take approximately ten minutes in real time to resolve - totally worth it.

While this is true if you are trying to design encounters to be exciting that will be your priority & likely to be the outcome. If your overriding principle is to have your 6-8 attriotional encounters then that's what you are likely to get, with excitement incidental.

I'm sorry, but what? Why does one preclude the other?

"Exciting" does not necessarily mean "equal to the party's XP budget". It means "There's an element of risk or strategy involved". If the party knows that there's likely to be, say, 6 to 8 encounter between rests, it also means that when they ARE fighting at their weight class early on, they might not go nova, because who knows how many fights are coming? This attitude, of trying to preserve resources, can make a lot of encounters ultimately harder.

By the way, the most "exciting" encounters I've run in 5th so far have been on the smaller scale in terms of XP budget. A few examples:

1. 1st level party opening a chest and a poisonous snake struck. Due to bad luck, it nearly killed one character and seriously injured a second. Party had a blast here... for a 25 XP (or so) monster.

2. Animated Suit of Armour surprise attacks 2nd level party. Scary times, laughs had by all afterwards.

3. 4th level party fights a modified basilisk (well below XP budget). Due to the fear of a gaze attack, they were fighting blind, mostly. Everyone was on edge.

4. 7 cultists on a ledge. Party doesn't take a single point of damage. Budget wasn't even close to being hit. Party is still terrified of this encounter, though, because the cultists were trying to do something that they don't fully understand. Super creepy encounter for them.

The point here is, you don't need to hit the XP budget to have fun. Spacing out encounter difficulties is a lot more fun than having everything be tailor made for the party.

Also there can be very rubbish "exciting" encounters0.

Absolutely. And a reason why this happens is because the party tends to develop standard operating procedures. And in the tough fights, people default to that.

Varying encounter difficulties helps vary PC response to threats, and birth new tactics.

I like that there can be textured encounters - running fights with superior foes or ambushing a couple of scouts (something 4e was terrible at) but they need to be there for a reason not just so there can be 6-8.

Sure. Except, and here's my question - if you're designing an adventure, what's the difference between 6-8 and 3-4? There isn't one. If you design a module, you have to keep the number of encounters in mind. Designing the game around 6-8, in my mind, produces a more fun and varied climate than the old 3-4 method of 3e/4e, because in those cases, the encounters always felt the same.

5e is much more adaptable to different styles. You can do the "one big fight and then rest" style, and you can do the "whole bunch of encounters in a row" method as well. But I like that the default is based around 6-8 or so. It's good, and it really helps encourage ad hoc GMing.

 

[Sword of Spirit]

Kamikaze said it perfectly - it's a slow burn style of play. And sometimes, the party isn't threatened at all. That is, personally, fine by me.

After getting back into DMing in the last couple of years (and wow had I missed it!), and comparing it to my ongoing experience playing in other games, I've come to a realization.

At least with the people I play with, DMs seem to believe that players want/need high threat encounters to feel satisfied with their gaming experience--but players are much less interested in everyone being down to their last spell slots and hps as they are about doing something cool.

As a player, it kind of bugged me how the DM would err on the side of only a few fights, but they were likely to kill one or two of our characters, when I really just wanted to show off my wilder's new power by kicking monster butt. That generally ended up meaning that I didn't get to kick butt at all, because the encounter was so difficult that my new power was underwhelming.

I found myself doing the same thing before I realized it. In both situations, it has nothing to do with being a jerk as a DM. We were both attempting to give our players the most satisfying experience. The issue is just that DM assumptions about what players wanted was wrong.

Now, maybe my experience is non-typical, and perhaps a lot more players really do want every battle to be a serious death match.