D&D 5E last encounter was totally one-sided

[Krachek]

Capps' point is that we could have a better stat block and everything you list. They are not mutually exclusive

Capp is an excellent watchman for the tactical aspect of the game. But obviously designers have other concerns and dispatch their time and skill on others aspect of the game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

Jubilex, a Diviner or an ArchDruid are not only a block of stats.

Not only, that, no, they're also a bit of fluff. That doesn't mean they're not also/still the stat block, though...

...until you change it.

They lived in a world, have minions, allies, goals, enemies.
Of course you can throw them in a combat just to test their stat block,
but it would be more fun to build a story and a setup around them.
It is the way that 5ed have taken.

Well, no, it's /a way/ that a DM may choose to take. 5e doesn't dictate DMing style, at least, we've heard a lot of talk to the contrary from the designers. Maybe there is a OneTrueWay, and you've identified it, and they're just in denial or applying marketing spin.

But, to be fair, even if one were running in the style you outline, they still might find the final battle with the big bad in question has issues if they stuck with the stat block presented. (Which, afterall, like all 5e rules, is just a starting point...)

 

[Krachek]

Not only, that, no, they're also a bit of fluff. That doesn't mean they're not also/still the stat block, though...

...until you change it.

Well, no, it's /a way/ that a DM may choose to take. 5e doesn't dictate DMing style, at least, we've heard a lot of talk to the contrary from the designers. Maybe there is a OneTrueWay, and you've identified it, and they're just in denial or applying marketing spin.

But, to be fair, even if one were running in the style you outline, they still might find the final battle with the big bad in question has issues if they stuck with the stat block presented. (Which, afterall, like all 5e rules, is just a starting point...)

I agree that DnD does not dictate a way of play. It propose a kind of middle line style of play.
So the more you put emphasis on a precise aspect of play, the more you have to patch up, because middle line rules don't cover your needs.

Capp propose good things about tactical combat and challenge. If you break down stat block in action, reaction, priority spell, you are not so far away from 4ed stat block. It was an easy shot.

 

[Blue]

Not sure how to respond.

This I meant to be a Boss fight at 100%. I amped up the opposition to match that (or at least, I thought I did No seriously, I know I did. They just happened to roll a critical success on their Encounter Check )

The idea to throw yet another such encounter at them is... I mean, I'm baffled.

But also seriously impressed. You are truly hardcore, Sir!

I'm a bit of a dichotomy - no one like to have their PC die but if there's no risk there's no reward. As a player I get bored with lots of easy/moderate battles (though an occasional easy one to show us how badarse we've gotten is all for the good).

As a DM I design unfair very hard fights at my players maybe half the time ... and then roll everything in the middle of the table and cheer the player's victories. I'm their cheerleader, I want them to succeed when we play -- I just don't put together combats like I do.

My current campaign is over 2 years old and I've never killed a character - but I've had some close to TPKs that the players KNOW they survived because they pulled it off, not because I went easy. Only time there might have been a gratuitous death was when a rogue failed several rolls doing risky acrobatics in combat on a dwarven zeppelin and would have fell to his death except another PC speared him with a harpoon from a ballista. (Ah, can you feel the love.)

But for all that, I often go for a greater number of slightly lower powered monsters so the PCs can have more weapons hit and spells work because missing isn't as much fun. I really am a cheerleader for my players at the table, it's just that they need it because they know not all encounters are fair.

 

[Blue]

I believe spellcasting monsters should have had their most common spells statted out as monster abilities. This would help us DMs immensely, instead of assuming we know every PHB spell by heart.

I am so with you. I liked in a previous monster book where the writeup would include a tactics section. Here's what it'll likely do first couple of rounds, here's how it will deal with a few particular challenges. (And here's what it would go in with already cast if it was expecting a fight, which IIRC the old book didn't have.)

Very helpful, especially when trying to run multiple different creatures with a selection of spells/powers.

 

[Blue]

'Paranoid'? Is that what everyone's saying about me now, that I'm 'paranoid'?

Well, that's what 'they' want me to think!

Anyone ever tell you you're paranoid?
No, not to my face. Why, have you heard something?

 

[Mishihari Lord]

I think some posters here are too anxious to throw rocks. Based on the OP, it looks like you guys had an awesome, if brief, combat. I bet it was fun. But there's not enough info here to tell if it's a "good" game or not. Are a lot of the encounters like this? A few? Was this unique? Are the players having fun? If this was a brief interlude in an otherwise challenging game, then it might be a campaign I'd want to be in. Otherwise, not so much. I do prefer to be challenged.

As to tactics, for verisimilitude, I prefer play each opponent appropriately to type. Smart NPCs will fight to the best of their ability and intelligence. Dumb ones will charge or follow their leaders. Beasts will follow their instincts. And so on. Smart NPCs consistently played dumb would make the game a lot less fun for me. And I've never felt that playing smart enemies as smart to be more work - actually it's harder for me to remember that dumb enemies will make suboptimal choices.

I don't feel a need for a tactical list. I can read the abilities and figure what I want to do just fine. What does help is the "ecology" type information in the old 1E MM books that gives additional insight into how the monster thinks and what their goals are. Being able to make enemies' decisions from motivations greater than just tactical optimality really breathes life into the game for me.

 

[Hussar]

Sure... but what if you have neither the time nor the interest for lots of trash encounters? What then Hussar...?

Why are you using "trash" encounters? Every encounter should have some meaning for the story. If your story is so basic that you can't connect three different scenes to it, then perhaps adding a touch more complexity might be an idea. And note, I DID say you don't have to do this all the time. Just once in a while to keep the players on the their toes.

I completely get that I could have reduced swinginess by throwing three or five forest monster encounters at them, and then having the bad guys of the final encounter be much more appropriate for the level (perhaps keep the Death Knight and his "court wizard" the warlock, but reduce everybody else to mook status).

But what this model fails to achieve is the sensation "we beat people that could wipe us in a heartbeat".

The problem with this sensation is that it's almost entirely false. Because, if those people really could wipe you in a heartbeat, they would have. Encounters can never be that difficult because you TPK too often.

I refuse to accept what you guys so readily accept, that this edition of D&D can only handle bad guys that are, by themselves weak and pathetic, and can only threaten heroes that overextend themselves.

In more blunt terms: the resource management game is vastly overrated. Sure it has its place, but the true source of excitement comes from the threat of losing here and now, not from the third next encounter because you used your spell now instead of keeping it.

The problem is, this is not actually true. If every encounter has a significant chance of losing, then you'd be wiping out your party after the third or fourth encounter. 5e has simply recognized what has always been true - the odds are heavily stacked in the PC's favor.

The other thing is, what you're outlining here is a very 3e approach to the game where you were only expected to have such a very short adventuring day - 4 encounters, and likely closer to one or two. Other editions don't work this way. Older edition monsters were even weaker relative to the PC's than 5e ones are. It wasn't unusual for even low level groups to go through eight or ten encounters in a single day. The monster attacks were so poor (an orc has a THAC0 of 19, and achieving an AC of 1 or 2 is easily doable for even a 1st level AD&D character) that they hit rarely, and even when they did, they didn't do much damage. It was quite common to go entire combats with the main fighters losing no HP's.

3e is the outlier here, where it tried to make every encounter this "dangerous" encounter. You really do have to adapt a different mindset when running 5e. 3e style encounter pacing just doesn't work.

Especially since 5E takes no step whatsoever towards making heroes actually press on to that fifth encounter.

Had the game actually enforced 5 encounters between long rests, say, you would have found me MUCH more understanding of your viewpoint.


Best regards,
Zapp

Only problem is, we saw what happened when WotC tried that. People lost their collective minds. So, it's not really a surprise that they are not going to go down that road again.

 

[hawkeyefan]

It sounds to me like everyone had fun, so that's the most important thing.

The encounter seems mostly to have been so one sided for a couple of reasons. First, everything seemed to work out for the PCs; every spell and stunning fist worked because saves were failed. The monsters barely got a chance to even really do much. But the dice are the dice and sometimes that's what happens. It could have just as easily worked the other way.

But beyond the dice, it does seem like some of the monster abilities were ignored or not utilized anywhere near to full effect. For instance, the diviner could have likely avoided the stun for himself or the Druid by swapping a die roll out. If the monk typically stuns foes round after round, allowing his flurry and the ranger's arrows to then rip targets to shreds, then letting that first stun effect happen when you have a way to avoid it seems a poor choice.

I mean, if you have a group of players who have their tactics down to such a science, then it would make sense to use the monsters in the same way. I mean, there's nothing wrong with an easy win against a tough foe now and again...but this example seems to be an outlier, and has at least as much to do with how it was run than in how the system functions.

For me, I'd throw such forces up against my high level group. And I expect they'd win....but they wouldn't get out unscathed, that's for sure. A battle doesn't need to be either a curb stomp by the PCs or a TPK. There are middle options. Personally, I wouldn't want such a group of enemies to be so soundly beaten. If the goal is to say "look what we managed to do against foes that are so powerful" I can kind of understand that....but doesn't such an achievement lose its meaning when the monsters aren't played to be the threats that they should be?

 

[Caliburn101]

I recently re-ran a stress-test scenario I GM'd during the D&D Next playtest.

The setup was like the siege in the 13th Warrior movie - around 50 peasants and the 11th level party against 300 Gnolls and their leader (originally a shadow demon possessed ogre magi), now a Flind and his Gnoll variant buddies, who carried an artefact with them that allowed the mass raising of up to 30 Witherlings 3/day.

The group were optimised for the fight - knowing they had to save the palisaded settlement and being sent by the local ruler because of their skill-set. A Paladin, Evoker Wizard, Battle Cleric, Hunter Ranger and an Assassin Rogue.

The moment that the players realise that an encounter won't be tidily managed by their PCs cool-stuff-resource pool they start thinking harder on how to maintain the scene to their advantage - using terrain, using mundane objects etc.

In my battle, the Ranger dropped bags of flour onto Gnolls attacking through a gate giving them disadvantage to do anything and ensuring as they came out of the cloud they were easy meat for the Paladin and Assassin - allowing the peasants they were covering the time to retreat to a redoubt.

The Assassin later rolled barrels of lamp oil (with the stops taken out) down an improvised ramp made of a horse trough and the Evoker lit them up with a wall of fire strategically placed for them to roll through.

The Cleric and paladin lead and exhorted the peasants to run through chokepoints ahead of the Gnolls to draw them into deadfalls dug the day before, and past rooftops where fishing nets were dropped on groups of them. A Wand of Web was given to the leader of the settlement to defend the second gate with a few of the hunters of the settlement there with a barrel of pre-prepped fire arrows to light it up periodically.

Not one character died thanks to intelligent use of stabilisation of downed PCs and ensuring the bodies were dragged back to fortified locations where they couldn't be eaten.

As resources were expended and especially the Evoker ran out of BOOM, the tension and drama went up and up. The game was fantastic fun, and a little judicious application of brave peasant action ensured the party had holes in their defences filled at critical moments in a way which didn't detract from their accomplishments in maintaining and eventually winning the 'unwinnable' fight.

4 hours and 26 minutes later, the three players who haven't fallen are back to back in the stockade dungeon protecting a single way in via a tunnel, and finally take the Flind down, breaking the scattered remnants of the Gnoll horde and seeing them flee for the hills.

Final score - Gnoll Horde 42 (with two near PC kills): Party 254...

There is no way that the CR rules would have allowed such a battle as written... but it worked very well.

Trust your own judgement and go for it. All this agonising over this minutiae or that doesn't often lead to a better game, just more GM stress in my opinion.