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

[Rhenny]

But you do agree the encounter could have easily swung the other way?

As long as the players realize that they were very lucky then I think it's OK? If they felt like it was a cakewalk then that would be different. Sometimes luck is on your side.

That's how I see it. When I play, I seem to always feel as if something bad can happen at any time, so even when my PC doesn't take damage, or takes only a little, I still feel the fear of possible bad turn of fate.

On the other hand, when I DM, I always feel as if I'm not really challenging the players unless one or more go down.

I think there is a inherent disconnect between seeing the game session as a player and seeing it as a DM. Often, DMs don't even know that players are still challenged even when things go well for them. The key is understanding that the mood of the game and the things the players don't know will always build tension if the DM uses mood and fear of the unknown to build the tension.

That's one of the things I like best about Dragon breath recharge. When a dragon breathes, the PCs are basically left with a lot of uncertainty. Often, if the breath recharges, many of the PCs will be much more threatened if not killed. If the breath doesn't recharge, they have a much easier time. It is the fear that the breath will recharge that keeps the tension level high, and quite frankly makes many players more joyous when they defeat a dragon.

I love your report CapnZapp. I guess it also really shows how important it is (especially at higher levels) to have solid initiative scores!!! If the baddies got the jump on a few of the PCs (the monk for example), those fireballs would have really started the encounter off with a bang.

 

[transtemporal]

Any time the PCs can get to their enemies, they'll do pretty well. I just ran a similar death knight encounter for my 5-man 10th level party (battlemaster fighter, dual handcrossbow ranger, 2x wizards, devotion pally). Large open area with a death knight on the ground and two red wizards (mages) circling on wyverns (out of range of the ranger's BS dual-handcrossbows). The party was pretty outgunned but also at full power. Unfortunately, they bunched up to take advantage of the paladins aura which prevented the two melee guys from being banished in the first round (good) but also made them excellent targets for fireballs from the mages (bad). They also had a lot of bad luck with saving throws - the two mages went down on the second round and the fighter went down in the third.

The interesting thing is, they knew they were in trouble early on so they dumped their biggest attacks and spells, which showed that even at 10th level, PCs can output a shedload of damage in a very short time. Sharpshooter and Pally Smite in particular took the death knight down. And once the death knight was down, the red wizards departed with haste. So it was all over in round 5, with the ranger still on his feet (barely) and the fighter dead and most of the party on possible-failed death save 3.

Thats the closest we've come to a TPK. With a little more luck and some better tactics, they probably would've had a more comfortable win.

 

[robus]

*) But never estimate the heroes.

After all, the monk voluntarily stayed within a Blade Barrier once since he felt that was a safer(!) place than outside of it (where the monsters and elite drow could get to him)

Epic moment #37: "thanks, but I'll rather stay here among the whirling razor blades where it's nice and calm"

(After all, if he failed his Dex save he would only take half damage, and he didn't fail his Dex save... so the priestess' badass spell turned out to become a Sanctuary for her enemy monk...)

Definitely, I'm sure that monk is feeling pretty pleased with himself

 

[Quartz]

Did you use the Diviner's ability to swap out die rolls? Perhaps causing the monk to lose initiative. And how was the archer managing to keep track of things? How did he know when the stun was in effect from such a great distance?

 

[cmad1977]

One encounter day. PCs used up a bunch of recourses. Players think they kinda pulled one out of their butts. Sounds like everything went as intended.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[dave2008]

I guess this is the reason why I want monsters to be built well to, so I don't have to play them "well" unless I want to.

This is such a hard problem though. I want tougher monsters, because that is what I like aesthetically. However, if monsters were built "well" by your standards they would be completely unusable for my PCs. My group doesn't cast buff spells, or take advantage of cover (its "not heroic to hide"), and rarely seeks out advantage. Your encounter would be a TPK before my group would think to retreat. Somehow the game has to accommodate both styles.

Personally I would rather see the players nerfed than the monsters beefed up as it would make my job as a DM easier. But I realize a lot people like to have options and system mastery and such, so I don't expect that to change. However, tougher monsters would only create more problems for my group.

Yet, I still spend most of my D&D time budget on making tougher monsters

 

[transtemporal]

Personally I would rather see the players nerfed than the monsters beefed up as it would make my job as a DM easier. But I realize a lot people like to have options and system mastery and such, so I don't expect that to change. However, tougher monsters would only create more problems for my group.

Yet, I still spend most of my D&D time budget on making tougher monsters

So you don't want tougher monsters, but you spend most of your time making tougher monsters? I don't get it.

Unless you've got a thematic thing going on where you have to modify say, hobgoblins, in order to keep them relevant?

 

[Ancalagon]

Is there any reason why the bad guys, who have a *freaking diviner* with them, couldn't ambush the heroes instead of having a face off?

 

[Sword of Spirit]

If your players are down for it, it might be cool to have a dream sequence where you rerun that battle. It's be interesting to see how the outcome went with different rolls and decisions...

 

[dave2008]

So you don't want tougher monsters, but you spend most of your time making tougher monsters? I don't get it.

Unless you've got a thematic thing going on where you have to modify say, hobgoblins, in order to keep them relevant?

I spend most of my time making tougher monsters because that is what I like to do - I don't often get the chance to use them (I typically make CR 20+ monsters and my PCs are lvl 10, and they wouldn't be able to handle them regardless). I do it for fun, not for my campaign.

I was just pointing out that I sympathize with the desire for tougher monsters, but I also realize that I can't actually use them with my group.