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

[GMforPowergamers]

5e doesn't seem to have those kind of experiences built into the game. It's assumed your party is going to win every fight without retreating. It's unnecessary to study a monster before facing it to develop tactics or to acquire special weapons or scrolls to win.

5e seems to me to be harder to TPK by mistake, but not harder to down or kill a PC. as a 2e 3e and 4e DM I never found my party to NEED to run but I also found many times that I could by mistake over do it.

 

[Thomas Shey]

Depends on why you're unhappy. Maybe the game system is making you not have fun.

Yes, but if its making them happy, what makes you think if you switch to one that suits you better, it won't suit them worse and simply reverse the problem? There's some reason its making you unhappy and not them, after all.

 

[Garthanos]

I agree completely, the fact that wotc made BA a design goal doesn't change the fact that it only works at lower levels & the cons quickly outweigh the pros as levels advance. BA is right there woven into the root cause for way too many of 5e's issues.

The cons include some things that really annoy me - what examples are you reacting to?

 

[Garthanos]

Honestly, retreating is a problem with a lot of games, because they don't really address ways to successfully do it, and the basic movement/combat mechanics don't really engage with it. Its why when people ask "Why don't people try to retreat more often", while there are multiple reasons that can apply, the easiest is "Because they think they'll fail, and a failed retreat is worse than just trying to fight to the bitter end."

I found skill challenges a wonderful way to enable chases (its even one of the more interesting type of SC)

 

[dave2008]

There's also the fact that people are saying CR sixteen monsters are good for a level six party. That makes for big problems when the party is eight twelve or thirteen with dramatically more HP dramatically better capabilities & almost certainly at least some better gear that all compounds together.

The real point is monsters whose XP = a CR 16 monster. It doesn't have to be one monster.

And for solo monster fights it actually works well with the system as we have monsters going up to CR 30. If you check out How to Create Epic Encounters by DMDave, a CR 30 monster is a challenge for a lvl 20 party of 4 PCS. It seems to work as intended.

 

[Lanefan]

Simple answer. They split the party and kick in both doors at the same time triggering what were supposed to be two separate encounters. Then Bob, the guy that triggered the second encounter, turns invisible and runs away leaving my PC as the sole front line fighter but I can't complain because we're just here to have fun, right? I mean Bob is allowed to have fun even if it means my PC gets the *** beaten out of them yet again. Because "it's what his character would do".

Sounds about like SOP around here...

 

[dave2008]

Are there set rules for pursuit and retreat? I've seen lots of house-rules and custom work-arounds, but I don't remember seeing them in the rules.

There are chase rules in the DMG which I assume would take into effect if a mosnter/NPC chooses to follow retreating PCs.

 

[dave2008]

I agree completely, the fact that wotc made BA a design goal doesn't change the fact that it only works at lower levels & the cons quickly outweigh the pros as levels advance. BA is right there woven into the root cause for way too many of 5e's issues.

I like BA conceptually and it works for our group, but I think it could be improved. What do you see as the flaws/cons that need to be addressed?

My personal thought is that the implementation / execution needs to be improved, but the concept is fine.

 

[Azzy]

What if your players are having fun, but you're not?

Find a different group because the group you're in isn't the right fit for you? When the rest of the group is having fun and you're not, imposing your sense of fun at the expense of the rest of the group is petty. Better just to find a different group.

 

[James Gasik]

Uh yeah... if you treat monsters with the same modicum of reality and sense that players treat their PCs.

If you are a orc band that got attacked by these interlopers and they then ran off after you defended yourself... you don't need to go chasing after them. You let them run off, and then you pack up your gear and head off for safer pastures. Why continue a fight that you don't need to get into?

The problem you bring up... to me is based upon a "gaming" mentality that many people have of not treating the monsters as actual thinking beings, but rather just mechanical doo-dads that act in accordance to the "game rules" and the "encounter". Our thinking of this being a "game" tells us that these monsters will keep attacking PCs until PCs are dead or they are... that they will continue following us like Jason Vorhees until we or they are dead, and that they will remain here in this spot even after the PCs have retreated in order to be "cleaned up" after the party rests and returns. The monsters aren't real... they are just gaming roadblocks the party has to get past.

If a DM wishes to run their game that way... that's cool, more power to them... but that's not a written part of the rules. Monsters do not have to chase you. And more often than not, probably shouldn't.

Often, I see DM's claim that monsters should always target downed PC's because they know that they can easily be healed and brought back into the fight (despite the fact that, if you think about it, most NPC's don't have access to magical healing, mind). Now, extending this line of logic, allowing a weak or weakened group of foes to simply retreat means that you'll probably face them again, and they'll be stronger when you do. Better to deal with the threat sooner than later, right?