D&D 5E Is the Default Playstyle of 5E "Monty Haul?"

[Gadget]

I think it has been established that 5e characters can easily punch well about their weight class, and that the CR system can be...somewhat inaccurate.

However, I'm not sure that counts as "Monty Haul" as I understand the term. It originates from AD&D & Gygax himself in describing games in which the DM is too free with treasure and--especially--magic items (which were a much bigger part of PC power back then). If your party is steamrolling opponents because you are tossing out copious and powerful magic items that are easily attainable, then you might have a Monty Haul game. But 5e was designed to de-emphasize magic items in over all character power, and a couple of plus 1s here are there are not a big deal by mid levels.

There could be plenty of other reasons your PCs are having it easy outside of Monty Haul style set-ups.

 

[payn]

Monty haul assumes that the golden shower is useful, powerful, and desirable from players. Seems that 5E was attempting to reign that in with BA and magic item restructure.

 

[DEFCON 1]

Monty Haul was also really only a thing during the era when you earned your Experience Points via the amount of GPs worth of treasure you found. So it wasn't just getting stuff that you didn't "earn"... it was the entire leveling experience put on a fast track. Monty Haul DMs gave out much more treasure than the monster entries listed in MM would have, in order for their PCs to level up at a much faster rate than they ordinarily should have.

You really can't have a Monty Haul campaign in the same way during 5E because treasure and magic items just do not produce the same effects that they did in AD&D and 2E. Money means little a lot of the time in 5E... and magic items are nice, but more often than not are just on par if not even less powerful than the class features PCs get from their standard class leveling. So giving out lots of treasure just doesn't mean a whole lot nowadays. It's a nice reward, but it's by no means the end all and be all of adventuring like it was in the 70s and 80s.

 

[Mort]

As others have said It's less Monty Haul (the overabundance of magic items and other loot made available to the party) and more that the CR system/encounter design doesn't take into account A LOT of factors.

For example a 5 person 6th level party made up of experienced players will absolutely destroy a Mummy Lord (CR 15 but renowned for being a weak 15).

That same party will likely have huge problems with (and might well lose a PC to) a well-coordinated group (coming through walls, not grouped well for turning etc.) of 6 or so shadows, which is, in theory, a trivial encounter for that level.

 

[NotAYakk]

I'm sure most of you are familiar with the expression of the "Monty Haul" style game.
(In case you're not, here's a link to an article: Monty Haul)

Specifically, looking at the 1990 "Campaign Sourcebook and Catacomb Guide" definition: "a 'giveaway' campaign in which the players receive treasure and experience disproportionate to the dangers they overcome."

Is there any "danger" inherent in 5E? In my two groups currently playing 5E, I have the following:

• A 3rd level party that functions around 7th level.
• A 7th level party that functions around 14th level.

Any time I give them XP or treasure, it doesn't feel "earned." More importantly, it doesn't feel "needed."

• Why worry about an extra +1 to hit when you already destroy anything the DM throws at you?
• An extra 6 HP when you don't even drop to half health in a routine combat?
• What incentive could there be for playing smart when every battle can be won with standard operating procedures? (It's not important to exploit a creature's weakness when you're going to be able to kill it with ease anyway.)

So, if your players are having 1 encounter/day, and your expectation is that fights are going to be close, a party of 6 level 3 characters can blow away CR 7 foes.

Try adding up the level/CR of both sides. The default assumptions is that you'll have like 7 encounters where the typical one is 1/4 of the party's total level. In addition, some encounters are 1/3 the party's total level, and some of them are 40%-50% of the party's total level. All in one day.

Adding strong magic items can easily make players 2-3 levels more powerful than their on-paper level, as can optimization.

PCs can even beat even fights -- where the CR is equal to the sum of PC levels.

 

[tetrasodium]

So, if your players are having 1 encounter/day, and your expectation is that fights are going to be close, a party of 6 level 3 characters can blow away CR 7 foes.

Try adding up the level/CR of both sides. The default assumptions is that you'll have like 7 encounters where the typical one is 1/4 of the party's total level. In addition, some encounters are 1/3 the party's total level, and some of them are 40%-50% of the party's total level. All in one day.

Adding strong magic items can easily make players 2-3 levels more powerful than their on-paper level, as can optimization.

PCs can even beat even fights -- where the CR is equal to the sum of PC levels.

That's not how people play because gameplay is limited by the constraints of how long those encounters take & how long a session lasts. Sure you can spread that out over multiple sessions but the rest mechanics are structured to be easy for players to force through no matter what the GM throws out shy of outright Fiat & the party is still able to trivially blaze through all of the prior filler encounters with ease up until the last fight or two. When the default assumptions fail to account for realities of things like table & session time in any way shy of throwing it to the GM to solve those default assumptions are a failure of design.

 

[NotAYakk]

That's not how people play because gameplay is limited by the constraints of how long those encounters take & how long a session lasts. Sure you can spread that out over multiple sessions but the rest mechanics are structured to be easy for players to force through no matter what the GM throws out shy of outright Fiat & the party is still able to trivially blaze through all of the prior filler encounters with ease up until the last fight or two. When the default assumptions fail to account for realities of things like table & session time in any way shy of throwing it to the GM to solve those default assumptions are a failure of design.

Sure, I'm just explaining the problem.

Either have your plots move at the speed of "the world is ending tomorrow/the invaders arrive tomorrow/etc, feel free to take a long rest but then the world ends" or use gritty rests and have plots move at the speed of "the world/etc ends in 10 days".

Or understand what it does to the game.

The game really was playtested for recovery after a lot of encounters. If you remove that, combat acts strange, and CR doesn't work as described at all.

 

[iserith]

My regular players are very experienced and they optimize (as individuals and usually as a team) and I'm still throwing them a beating regularly. There are character deaths every campaign. I'm probably somewhat stingy with magic items in certain games, but usually that is offset with gold and the ability to purchase what they want as a downtime activity or some such.

It's hard to say what you're doing that is different than me, but I suspect the encounter design has something to do with it or possibly time pressure.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Considering the primary purpose of the term Monty Haul has historically been 'playstyle I don't like'... yes, apparently.

 

[dave2008]

Is there any "danger" inherent in 5E?

Absolutely! The default encounter guidelines are set on the easy side, but you are given everything you need to ramp it up. Also, if you are giving out magic items you should up monsters too (wish the DMG made that more clear). More importantly...

In my two groups currently playing 5E, I have the following:

• A 3rd level party that functions around 7th level.
• A 7th level party that functions around 14th level.

...I suggest you look at 5e differently. Clearly the encounter guidelines are not meant for you and your group. Ignore them and just make fun encounters and don't worry about the "level" of the fight. That is what I do and it is not only more enjoyable for me to DM, it is more fun (and potentially dangerous) for the PCs.

Any time I give them XP or treasure, it doesn't feel "earned." More importantly, it doesn't feel "needed."

• Why worry about an extra +1 to hit when you already destroy anything the DM throws at you?

I don't really give out +items so if I do it feels like a big deal. It is also not uncommon for my group to face things they can't simply destroy. Fleeing and avoidance are fairly common tactics in my 5e game.

• An extra 6 HP when you don't even drop to half health in a routine combat?

Wow, I feel like I'm a killer DM and I don't try to take as much as half there HP in a routine fight, maybe 25% max. However, a challenging fight might take 75%+ of their HP

• What incentive could there be for playing smart when every battle can be won with standard operating procedures? (It's not important to exploit a creature's weakness when you're going to be able to kill it with ease anyway.)

That is not my experience. My players typically have to investigate and strategize to finish off a big foe. I mean there is a reason PCs go to lvl 20 and monsters go to CR 30.