D&D 5E If the characters are super optimized should the monsters be boosted too?

[pming]

Hiya!

@transtemporal I can assure you that no infant was tossed out with the H2O. I (we, actually, all my players were in on the discussion) decided that they just didn't really add anything to our game other than more stuff to keep track of and more "mechanical fiddly bits and specifics". In general, we like a more fast-and-loose D&D game. That's not to say we don't like crunchier games (HARP, Rolemaster, and Powers & Perils come to mind as some of our faves... especially P&P), but it's that when it comes to "D&D" systems, we like a more fluid, "make it up as we go using the skeleton rules we have" type of gaming.

Anyway, looking at what 5e is at it's base, then looking at the optional rules such as Feats, Multiclassing, and a plethora of things in the DMG, I came to the conclusion that what I really enjoyed (heck, all of us) when we were giving 5e a go was how easy, fast-n'-loose, and generally "non-fiddly" it was. Adding in all the stuff we don't generally like/want just seems silly. Besides, I did make an educated guess about how I thought Feats would play out; I wasn't very far off. I've been at this whole RPG (and DM) thing for going on over three and a half decades now, so I'm pretty sure my experience writing rules, making adventures and running campaigns trumps pretty much everyone at WotC... I'll take my "guesses" over their "guesses" more times than not.

^_^

Paul L. Ming

 

[Celtavian]

I don't want to resurrect another debate on the particular feats, but suffice it to say that it's possible for players to self-police, as you rightly pointed out. They can take those feats and use them when it will be fun for everyone and refrain from using them when it won't be. It's another option to have on the character sheet to bring out in this situation or that, but not all of them - just like a lot of game options.

I would consider it poor role-playing if my player wasn't trying to build the most powerful character possible regardless of the fun of others. Even though the goal isn't to "win" the game for the players. It is definitely the goal of the character in the world to win the game with no quotations by defeating enemies and dominating in battle. One of the reasons I like D&D and fantasy in general is because it mirrors the ancient world. In the ancient world domination through force was the way of things. Thus fantasy characters should seek to become as powerful as possible so that they will not be defeated and dominated. I would not for example give a DM much slack as a player if I were following the rules he allows to become a dominant member of a group. I would in fact look to usurp the leadership position in the group and push the group to take over places we were able to take over.

That is why I as a DM ensure the parameters are monitored out of game because I expect players to make their characters in game as strong as possible for the sake of their own survival and success.

 

[iserith]

I would consider it poor role-playing if my player wasn't trying to build the most powerful character possible regardless of the fun of others. Even though the goal isn't to "win" the game for the players. It is definitely the goal of the character in the world to win the game with no quotations by defeating enemies and dominating in battle. One of the reasons I like D&D and fantasy in general is because it mirrors the ancient world. In the ancient world domination through force was the way of things. Thus fantasy characters should seek to become as powerful as possible so that they will not be defeated and dominated. I would not for example give a DM much slack as a player if I were following the rules he allows to become a dominant member of a group. I would in fact look to usurp the leadership position in the group and push the group to take over places we were able to take over.

That is why I as a DM ensure the parameters are monitored out of game because I expect players to make their characters in game as strong as possible for the sake of their own survival and success.

I would say pursuit of mechanical superiority to the point of the game becoming less fun for others at the table a behavior that is not in keeping with the goals of play. As well, it is definitely not the goal of every character to defeat all enemies by "dominating in battle." There are two other pillars of the game (Basic Rules, page 5). Engaging with these pillars can be a way for the character achieve their goals.

In any case, character and player goals are not the same. While a character's goal may indeed be to dominate all of his or her enemies through violence, the intended goal for players of D&D 5e is to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story. Quoting from the Basic Rules, page 2 (emphasis mine):

"There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

If one buy's into what the Basic Rules have to say about the goals of play (and I do, obviously), then it's simply not enough to create a mechanical monster of a character and always make optimal choices during play. Those choices must also lead everyone to have a good time and create a memorable story. In fact, there is a specific mechanic that can be used to reward sub-optimal choices that help achieve the goals of play - Inspiration. From the Basic Rules, page 35 (emphasis mine): "Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way."

If players are making choices "regardless of the fun of others" as you suggest, then the group risks failing to achieve their goals even if the characters succeed in theirs. The group's fun is everyone's responsibility at the table, in my view, not just the DM's. To that end, players are well-advised to consider whether their choices both in their build and what they do in play are both in keeping with their established characterization, are fun for everyone, and will help create an exciting, memorable story.

 

[Uchawi]

I will add that impacting the fun at the table is not the sole province of optimization, if you have players at the table that want to control the dialog, exclusively role-play, or do not try to use strategy, that can have an equal impact. As soon as you have players with conflicting play styles, then there must be some type of compromise; including the DM.

 

[iserith]

I will add that impacting the fun at the table is not the sole province of optimization, if you have players at the table that want to control the dialog, exclusively role-play, or do not try to use strategy, that can have an equal impact. As soon as you have players with conflicting play styles, then there must be some type of compromise; including the DM.

Yes, absolutely. Any choice the DM or player makes must take into account the fun of the table or else said player or DM risks causing the group to fail to achieve the goals of play. It's not enough to always make the most optimal choice. It's not enough to always fall back on "it's what my character would do." If neither of those things are fun for everyone and don't contribute to creating an exciting, memorable story, then they are both equally bad choices in my view.

 

[Celtavian]

I would say pursuit of mechanical superiority to the point of the game becoming less fun for others at the table a behavior that is not in keeping with the goals of play. As well, it is definitely not the goal of every character to defeat all enemies by "dominating in battle." There are two other pillars of the game (Basic Rules, page 5). Engaging with these pillars can be a way for the character achieve their goals.

In any case, character and player goals are not the same. While a character's goal may indeed be to dominate all of his or her enemies through violence, the intended goal for players of D&D 5e is to have a good time and create an exciting, memorable story. Quoting from the Basic Rules, page 2 (emphasis mine):

"There’s no winning and losing in the Dungeons & Dragons game—at least, not the way those terms are usually understood. Together, the DM and the players create an exciting story of bold adventurers who confront deadly perils. Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain. Even so, the other adventurers can search for powerful magic to revive their fallen comrade, or the player might choose to create a new character to carry on. The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

If one buy's into what the Basic Rules have to say about the goals of play (and I do, obviously), then it's simply not enough to create a mechanical monster of a character and always make optimal choices during play. Those choices must also lead everyone to have a good time and create a memorable story. In fact, there is a specific mechanic that can be used to reward sub-optimal choices that help achieve the goals of play - Inspiration. From the Basic Rules, page 35 (emphasis mine): "Typically, DMs award it when you play out your personality traits, give in to the drawbacks presented by a flaw or bond, and otherwise portray your character in a compelling way."

If players are making choices "regardless of the fun of others" as you suggest, then the group risks failing to achieve their goals even if the characters succeed in theirs. The group's fun is everyone's responsibility at the table, in my view, not just the DM's. To that end, players are well-advised to consider whether their choices both in their build and what they do in play are both in keeping with their established characterization, are fun for everyone, and will help create an exciting, memorable story.

I don't believe this at all. I doubt most players believe this. Fun is subjective. Balanced rules are not.

 

[Talmek]

Ok some background information:

6 PC's, all 10th level.

1 Battlemaster Fighter with Great Weapon Fighting and Sharp Shooter so good at both melee and ranged. Has a sword that was part of the module that is very overpowered giving +2d6 damage per attack.

1 Life Cleric.

1 Barbarian. Rage is ridiculously good giving resistance on all damage but psychic making the character very difficult to hurt.

1 Warlock.

1 Evoker Wizard.

1 Paladin.

They also have Protection from Poison items meaning a successful save results in one quarter damage from the dragon's breath weapons.

Average hit points for them all come in around 90 with the highest and lowest about 25 either side. The paladin, fighter, and cleric all have 20 AC.

Since the party has 1-2 "extra" players I would recommend bumping the CR by 1-3 levels, depending on your playstyle. If these are all experienced players (at that level I assume they have played their characters from level 1) then they have a solid grasp of tactics. Additionally, with the comments regarding how they have optimized their characters this gives you more reason to create more challenging encounters for them.

Finally, something I hear very little about when GMs provide advice is creating and using traps to the monsters advantage. Bring pit and spike traps into play to knock PCs out of play for a couple of rounds, use timers instead of re-rolls for monster special abilities (every other round gives the adult dragon in the OP another opportunity for breath attacks), and anything else you can think of to challenge the PCs. Your efforts around bumping the encounter difficulty doesn't have to focus solely upon the monsters themselves when you are in control of the entire environment as well

 

[Chocolategravy]

Contrary to what most people are saying, no, this isn't an optimization problem. 5E barely allows any customization of characters to begin with, and has nothing to do with picking feats that don't suck. This is purely due to the fact that you've reached higher level and are experiencing the fact that the game is very badly balanced.

It is a well understood and talked about problem that a lot of people would like to pretend their darling little game doesn't have. The encounter guidelines specify that you shouldn't be using monsters significantly over the PC's level and this is very true at low levels as even monsters at the PC's level can flat out kill a PC from full HP in a single hit. At higher level however, this no longer becomes the case as monster damage does not keep up with PC HP and by level 18 you need to have CR 24 monsters, 6 CRs over the party's level, in order to present even a small challenge.

As the survey a few months back showed, almost no games reach the level you've reached so almost no one is hitting this problem. Those that do, like you, are often frustrated by it and try to come up with solutions. Often it is to simply start again at low level.

 

[Prism]

Contrary to what most people are saying, no, this isn't an optimization problem. 5E barely allows any customization of characters to begin with, and has nothing to do with picking feats that don't suck. This is purely due to the fact that you've reached higher level and are experiencing the fact that the game is very badly balanced.

The encounter design guidelines being out at higher levels (party dependant) is hardly the same as the game being badly balanced. Do what nearly anyone in this thread has suggested and make the encounters harder by using difficult situations, tougher or more creatures and more complex out of combat problems before you even get to fight. One of our campaigns is playing at 20th level and we are having no problems with balance. We could do with a few more written up monsters at high CR to save some time but its no problem for the moment creating our own.

Ignore the guidelines by this point and judge encounters by your experience of the parties strength in combat

 

[jgsugden]

-5/+10 doesn't work well with a lot of magic items, or consistent advantage. If you stick to the guidelines, you can allow it. If you are an overly generous DM, it'll get bad quickly.

In games where the pcs are too strong for deadly encounters per the guidelines, the best thing a dm can do to fix things is remove magic items, bring attribute scores back to reasonable levels and reduce the amount of advantage given. In other words, don't try to balance the game by unbalancing the monsters... do it by balancing the pcs.

I've played in a few delves as one shot events, a decent number of which were for pc's at level 11 and above. We mimic what a party would have found over the appropriate number of levels and allow pc's to choose a n appropriate number of common and uncommon items to replicate the items a PC might have bought. With point buy pcs, limited advantage, and non-optimized items, the delves of one easy, one medium, two hard and two deadly encounters with one short rest are far from easy.