Hiya!
We've been playing 5E for a year now and one thing I'm starting to notice is the characters as they reach mid upper levels are starting to blast through monsters like a hot knife through butter.
To give a bit of background the characters are fairly optimized but only in so far as taking the feats available to them, having pretty good stats, and well above average hit points.
Has anyone else noticed that the monsters in the Monster Manual seem a little underpowered?
-in regards to the
boldface- *DING DING DING!* We have a winner!
Y'See... Feats are
OPTIONAL in the 5e rules. They are NOT considered with regards to ANYTHING in the game, because, well, they are
assumed to NOT be used. If you are using them, it is up to you to adjust what needs adjusting. In general, this means more work for the DM, more time spend by the DM writing stuff out, more time and effort spent trying to remember what character can do what, and, IMHO, more of a headache than letting players moan and whine for a session about not being able to use Feats. Feats are like crack to players... once they start, they will only want more and more, eventually trying to "sneak stuff by" other players and DM's via unusual rules interpretations and eventually getting to the outright point of just cheating/omission (e.g,
"What? I only get to choose one feat at level 8? I thought it was a Feat in place of a +1 to a stat, and you get +2 stat bonuses. Sorry...but, well, my character is already established, can I just knock down my Charisma by 2 points to balance it out?" ).
Lord Vangarel said:
As an example last night the characters were due to fight an adult Green dragon, and given previous recent experience I decided to boost it by giving it two young dragons as a boost. Anyway the end result was that the party blitzed all three and an npc spellcaster and the only character really in any danger during the encounter was the party wizard due to lower AC and hit points.
Now it's not just dragons but this is especially relevant as dragons are supposed to be the big uber bad guys in the game however they're not. Dragons are now skirmishers having to cut and run at every opportunity. If the dragon stays at range it gets blitzed by range attacks (Sharp Shooter is just mad) and ranged spells. If it engages in a melee fight it lasts 2-3 rounds before dying (Great Weapon Master is equally mad).
Am I missing something or should I be adjusting monsters to fit the optimized characters?
I suppose you kinda have to, don't you? However, in the end, you're players will likely hate you for it (or otherwise feel you "suck at DM'ing"). In their crack-addled...er... "Feat-addled" brains, the core reason for carefully choosing Feats, weapons, classes and spells is to easily overcome bad guys. They're thinking "I do 10 damage, and it takes me 3 rounds to kill Monster Type A...If I take this Feat, that class ability, and the wizard casts Spell Y on me, I can do 33 damage and kill it in one round! Yeah...I'll do that!". The very
moment you try and balance it out by, say, adding two more of the monsters, so they are back to square one (re: it still takes them 3 rounds to 'win'), they will start taking notice. The more powerful they get, the more balance you have to introduce, the more pissed off they will get at the "uselessness of taking Feats".
IMHO, you should adjust play style so that the BBEG doesn't simply involve "fighting more BBEG's". That is, set up the story so that they
can choose to just lay waste to the dragons, but if they choose to parley with them they get a LOT more benefit. In stead of putting in more monsters or monsters with more HP's, put things in place that require the PLAYERS to think and make decisions based on more than just what their characters can do. Start introducing NPC's, locations, animals, or whatever, that the PLAYERS actually become emotionally attached to (or at least invested in). Of course, you are likely to end up in almost the same situation... with the players being annoyed and throwing up their hands, claiming
"Whats the point of taking Feats if they aren't going to really matter?". But at least this way they may care less and less about taking them, but care more and more about everything else that a full-bodied D&D campaign (re: the exploration, the NPC's, and all the other verisimilitude of choice available in an RPG).
Bottom Line: Just don't use feats.
Me? I told my players:
Go ahead and choose Feats if you want... but I will deliberately, purposefully, and with great joy, pleasure and satisfaction, balance out *your characters* foes against you; so if you get +10 to damage, I'll just give them +10 hp times a number of rounds they would have likely lasted against you without that +10 -- so if it would have taken you 3 rounds to kill it normally, it will have +30 hp against *your PC*. In short... think of Feats as a zero-sum game. You will NEVER be "more powerful"...your feats will be primarily for flavour and role-playing; mechanics will be far, FAR down on the list of bonuses, in the end." At first my players were like "What?!? That's stupid! Whats the point?!?. Now, however, only some have feats and those feats "fit the character". They get the Sharpshooter to shoot a message-arrow through a small broken pane of glass in the bandit-lords hideout because they see it as "A cool thing you'd see in a movie or read in a story"... but they don't assume the Sharpshooter is going to lay waste to said bandit lord with a bajillion killer arrow shots in two rounds when they meet him. Because, well, they know I'm going to 'fix it' so that that doesn't happen. They know it will be fair, and they know to try and use the feats for "flavour and story purposes first, being more powerful a distant second". Next campaign, however, no Feats as a base.
PS: Sorry if I re-iterated something others have said; didn't have time to read all the pages as I have to head out to the in-laws to try and fix a tail light on my van.
^_^
Paul L. Ming
