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

[Rhenny]

I'd love to see (and if I had time, I'd try to make it myself), a complete listing of all feats and powers with a rough guideline as to how adding one or more to a monster would change the CR estimate. The DMG kind of goes there with some of its charts, but nothing is integrated or easy to use. The monster statistics by challenge rating chart on p. 274 and the monster features tables on p. 280-281 are a start, but they do not integrate easily or make it easy to plug and play.

I always loved how in sci-fi games there were often rules that would help people modify or construct equipment or star ships, etc. I want to apply the same to "build-a-monster".

I think a whole bunch of the issues raised in this thread really just come down to not being able to estimate the true difficulty of the encounter. It would be awesome if a list of small tweaks and their possible impact on CR could be handy and easy to use.

But, to tell the truth, there are so many variables during a gaming session, I don't think any guideline or stat block guide would ever be able to narrow it down. 4e tried to lock it down, and did pretty well. It was much easier to judge the difficulty of encounters with 4e, but it led some to feel that the way monsters behaved and the outcome of many encounters was more pre-determined and less free to bust expectations. 5e certainly comes down on the more freedom side, which does present interesting challenges for DMs when players get more skilled and less casual.

I'd like to run a 5e campaign that uses 3d6 to generate initial abilities if I were going to try to challenge more experienced players. I bet that would shift the power curve a bit.

Overall, I do feel what CapNZapp is getting at. The game can be fun even when the encounter isn't as challenging. And sometimes a DM doesn't want to sweat it too much and play all the foes optimally. Personally, I hate playing chess because I get too wrapped up in planning ahead all of the moves and making calculated decisions. I don't want D&D to play that way. I want D&D to be able to play that way for those that like it, but also play more casually for those that don't. In my games, I often tell the players that in combat, there is a "fog of war" so sometimes foes will do strange things that don't seem optimal. They might run and take AOs. They may decide to attack a more armored foe who is closer rather than run to another who isn't as well armored. They may pick to use a spell based more on the foes personality than what is best for the situation. Basically, I'm telling them that I would rather make quicker decisions and keep the flow of the game moving at a faster pace than bog it down with too much tactical decision making. I also encourage players to play the same way. Speed and rule of cool is so much more important to me and my games than taking too much time to pick the "right" action.

 

[Sacrosanct]

Sacrosanct, there's a lot of rephrasing in your post which isn't a supportable reading of what I wrote. "do everything for you," "best possible result," "get past this sense of entitlement," "not put in any prep work". None of that is what I wrote.

Others have wrote and implied that, and you agreed. So when I said statements like that, I'm responding to that side of the argument as a whole, not just you specifically.

I have finite time to prep a game. I said I would rather devote that time to improving other things than compensating for pitfalls in the game or monster design. That's very different to not willing to put in any time at all which is how you keep casting me. I'm not setting impossible standards that something must be the best it could ever be, I do want things to work well out of the box without me requiring huge amounts of experience such as CapnZapp has to be able to spot buried traps in the rules. Sense of Entitlement? I'm not demanding I be given anything for free, I have spent a substantial amount of money on this product and the game designers are FAR better placed than myself to understand the implications and gotchas of any given design decision. Ergo, the onus is on them to do so. That's what I'm paying them for. Of course you can argue that our standards are too high and we should be happy with a lower level of quality if you wish, but at least say so rather than attack people for it with comments about getting past themselves or D&D isn't for you.




How is wanting the game to have better designed solo monsters making the game about me, rather than for the masses? Don't the things being suggested make the game better for "the masses", too? If a constraint can be removed without negative effects elsewhere - such as the Jubilex example earlier - how is that not a better thing all round? If solo monster staples of D&D (such as dragons) no longer work well, isn't that a negative for everyone? How do you interpret objections about these things as the voicer wanting to make everything about themselves?

All of this can be summarized in one response, one that I've said a couple times already. What is "better" for you or CaptZapp is not universally true. It's a fundamental flaw in your argument, this assumption that if you don't like a particular thing, then it must be a "pitfall" that the designers should have fixed in the first place. And it's not a pitfall, or something that is broken. It's something that in your opinion doesn't work how you want it to work. And when I say "entitled", it's for things like you saying "I paid money, it should be designed how my personal preferences are." Sorry, but that's not true. There is not a single RPG ever published (except my own obviously) that did everything I wanted. This is a known for everyone. Anyone who thinks that an RPG should be designed to do everything they want out of the box is someone I'd like to sell some oceanfront property in Arizona to because everyone has different tastes. I'll say it again: Something not working how you want it is not a pitfall or broken design; it's an opinion. Expecting to have an RPG do everything how you want is unrealistic, whether or not you paid for it. Presumably you knew something about 5e before buying it, and you made a decision whether or not you would buy it.

It's also universally true that in order to make the game work how you want, it requires DM prep. It requires you to know what the monsters can do before you play them. If that is too much work for you, then stick to the game that you enjoy the most. It's a decision we all make. It's also entitlement to think that the most recent version of a game should fit your own personal desires. None of us are entitled to that. When 3e and 4e came out, I didn't get all mad because I thought I deserved to have those versions cater to my playing style. No, I stuck playing the games I enjoyed playing. WoTC is business, and they design games based on a lot of factors. My personal opinion is not one of them, especially if its counter to their overall design philosophy.

You and CaptZapp keep making comments about how they are broken or need to be fixed, when it appears that the reason they seem broken is because you (general you) didn't play them up to their capabilities. Again, that's not a "pitfall that the designers should change". The failure point here is you. How are the designers supposed to fix you taking a genius NPC with a ton of spells at his disposal, and you playing him as just a bag of HP ignoring all the things that NPC can do both in combat and out of combat? They can't.

Additionally, something else I am noticing is the minimal differentiation between many of the monsters. Goblins, Hobgoblins, Orcs, Skeletons... They're all very minor variants on the same statistics. A great deal more variety of play could be introduced here, imo.

Then play them that way. You are the DM, you have complete control over how you play a monster. Goblins, hobgoblins, etc are all fairly intelligent creatures. There is nothing anywhere in the rules that says they can't use tactics, or the environment, or tools, or different weapons, or whatever. This is what I'm talking about when I say things like "want it done for you." and how "the designers doing the game like you want is detrimental to the masses." because the masses already know they can play all of those monsters differently. They don't need additional page content (which raises problems I mentioned earlier) filled with variants "this kobold uses snake baskets" and another page for "this kobold throws pots of acid/powder/oil" and another page for "this monster has these list of spells, now lets add another page describing what all of those spells do because expecting the DM to know what SHIELD does is too much to ask..." It's common sense, especially in something called a "role-playing" game, that how you run the monsters is up to you. That's what role-playing is.

 

[Sacrosanct]

I'd love to see (and if I had time, I'd try to make it myself), a complete listing of all feats and powers with a rough guideline as to how adding one or more to a monster would change the CR estimate. The DMG kind of goes there with some of its charts, but nothing is integrated or easy to use. The monster statistics by challenge rating chart on p. 274 and the monster features tables on p. 280-281 are a start, but they do not integrate easily or make it easy to plug and play..

Ask and ye shall receive.

http://www.dmsguild.com/product/189178/Monstrous-Leaders

 

[CapnZapp]

Of course you can argue that our standards are too high and we should be happy with a lower level of quality if you wish, but at least say so rather than attack people for it with comments about getting past themselves or D&D isn't for you.

This is exactly it.

Too many people (and by this I mean a number of ENWorld posters larger than zero) are far too accepting of the way WotC is getting away with giving us much less now than during 3rd edition.

One one hand, they've much improved the game engine. But on the other hand, they've inexplicably refused to learn from past mistakes, and they don't aspire nearly enough to build on the level of quality reached before to reach even greater heights now.

Just because I laud the former doesn't mean I need to excuse the latter.

 

[CapnZapp]

The game was designed with an emphasis on 4 players and the levels that are actualy played. This means 1 through 15. The closer you get to the top limit, the more the DM has to do some preperation time. It was true in 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 3.x, 4th and it is still true right now.

If you state that as a mere matter of fact, ideally with a critical tone "why can't they get better at this with each try/edition?" I'm all aboard.

(It's the people that say this as if it was some law of nature, we should never hope for more, we can't ask the designers to get better with each iteration etc... that raise my hackles.)

 

[CapnZapp]

I sort of agree with you re: your last point, but you may find it disappears after multiple encounters with the same opponent. Having one encounter with gnolls and another with orcs may not feel different, but multiple of each, and you'll definitely have players remembering (fondly?) that "orcs are the ones that rush us" and "gnolls get extra savage when they take us down!" and "Don't let hobgoblins double-team you!" It's true that 5e monsters sometimes suffer from "bag o' hp" syndrome, but sometimes the differences are there and just need to be teased out more.

Also a very nice post, and I'm especially soothed by not being the sole voice of reason around here.

Just one comment re:this last issue - this is why D&D needs higher-levelled variants of common humanoid foes. There just is a limit to what a 2 HD foe can do. With increased Hit Dice/Challenge Rating/level/whatever you can add more special abilities that can become more distinct.

While we're finally getting at least some of this in Volo's, the question remains: why didn't we get more of this already in the Monster Manual. I mean, the 4E MM was great in this particular regard, and the 5E MM felt like a significant step backwards.

 

[CapnZapp]

Now you are going to have to put a ton of work in as DM, in the same way that you would have to put a ton of work in to make the ruleset work as a SciFi setting or Modern setting.

Most of what you wrote was reasoned and I thank you for it.

But here I gotta complain. You can't seriously compare the entire d20 playing style with d20 Modern.

Not only is this absurd, but I know the design team would not agree.

 

[CapnZapp]

There are some flaws with the game. There are with any game. [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s example should be taken as one anecdote about possible concerns. His concerns seem to largely come from player proficiency. His players are clearly experienced players who know how to optimize game mechanics and character options in order to create ultra-potent player-characters. That's simply not the default assumption of the game design. Nor should it be...since more players are likely to play at a level closer to the middle when it comes to proficiency rather than to the expert level.

When players do indeed play at that level, adjustments need to be made. Or depending on the desired result, adjustments are more likely to be needed. Some folks may be perfectly happy to let things play out as they will.

But that's the point - that's not what's happened with 5E.

5E is significantly easier than any edition I've come across to break. 5E looks and feels significantly easier than either d20 or 4E.

So this is not the whole truth.

I am fully prepared to tweak encounters to match the performance of my players.

What I do not accept is when the encounters are essentially useless as written, as if meant for a party five or even ten levels lower, and in need to be completely rewritten from scratch.

And just as a reminder, now we're definitely not talking about the Death Knight encounter. Now we're talking about the level of challenge offered by the latter half of Out of the Abyss, to pick an immediate example. This was what made [MENTION=5834]Celtavian[/MENTION] quit 5E after all.

But it's not confined to one adventure module. One inexperienced or naive module more or less is nothing. We can all live with that. What is so worrying is the entire Monster Manual, and how it appears to be written by staff with no real experience of high level hero capabilities. The way ranged fire is made "cool" with little thought on how this impacts the overall game and indeed the fundamental assumptions of the entire genre. How Greatweapon Master interacts with commonplace class features of the PHB. Indeed even the utterly basic things: the atrocious index, and the completely inept way spells are categorized.

5E is great, no dooubt about it.

But that's just it. Precisely because it is so well designed in general does the flaws and niggles stand out, especially since they're so worryingly indicative of not having learnt by past mistakes.

 

[Eric V]

...or past successes, either.

Maybe that's on purpose? Maybe some of the things previous editions did well had to get thrown out with the bathwater in order to provide a certain "feel?"

 

[Helldritch]

If you state that as a mere matter of fact, ideally with a critical tone "why can't they get better at this with each try/edition?" I'm all aboard.

(It's the people that say this as if it was some law of nature, we should never hope for more, we can't ask the designers to get better with each iteration etc... that raise my hackles.)

It is a matter of fact. My experience showed me that. The only edition that could've was 4th and that was only by a small degree. And even then it was simply a trap.

Why can't they? Simple. Almost every play will occur within these levels.
1st edition was stuck at around 13. There was the dreaded 4 where players were between level 9 and 12. At these levels, the players were too weak for the big leagues but too strong for the small ones.

Second edition was more or less the same. It was not a deep reconstruction of the game itself but it had removed some of the unlogical and unwarranted super powers that some classes represented and gave elves, dwarves and other "good" races a class in which they could shine beside the rogue. The dreaded 4 were still there and stronger than ever.

Third edition did do much better. It could've worked out way better and the epic level handbook is a testament to that era. Unfortunately, the smooth level progression was somewhat marred by the fact that almost all campaing were never going over there. The experience required to get to up to these was really big (but not as much as in 1st or 2nd) and again monster design was mainly for the level 1-15. And how many hobgoblin ranger 10th - 15th can you really see in a campaign? At somepoint it was simply not logical. Yes we had epic monsters and yaddi yadda but in the end, most of the stuff used were below the 1-15 usability. (Boy did I like the Athropal...)

Fourth edition was almost perfect, too perfect dare I say. Again most campaigns were ending before the 15th level but now it was simply out of boredome. The game itself had stretched the levels up to 30 but in was really only 20 levels that were stretched to be 30. And guess what? The 1-15 limit was simply transformed into the 1 to 20 limit. Most 4ed campaings I saw or made aware of were ending about there. 4ed had its charms but the blandness of the classes was almost unbearable to many so a lot flocked to what was the best close to what had worked so far, Pathfinder a clone of 3.5ed. Don't get me wrong there. 4ed was good for some, bad for others. Classes were all more or less the same and gameplay suffered immensely. None of my players would want to go back to that edition whereas they would go back to 1st or 3.5 in a second. (well it would be a debate but one group had reverted to 1st and the other to 3.5 while we were not testing the various D&D Next modules).

5th edition did not do better. It is still stuck at around level 15 and for all the reasons previous editions had. It is building upon 1st edition. It is as simple as that. The higher the players will get, the more and more swingy the game will become and only experience will let a DM not fall in either the pit of way too easy or the dreaded falls of too hard to do so we immediately die and decay before anything can save us.

Whether you like it or not all systems that I am aware of have a falling point. White wolf Vampire the masquerade had its limit (never ever let a player have 6 dots in almost any abilities). Palladium is more or less stuck at 10th, Rolemaster was stuck at 20-30 depending on the GM. Starwars (d6) had its limit too. So did Shadow run. Of all RPGs Call of Cthuluh and Paranoia are strange examples. In Call of Cthuluh you are not expected to live beyond a few dozen sessions and in Paranoia you are not expected to succeed/live beyond one session...

All RPG must have a built in limit in which the DM will feel the urge to either build more, over prepare or simply end a campaign and start over. I had a campaign that lasted 3 years with long 6 to 8 hours sessions two times per week in the early '80s and in 84 we switched to advanced D&D. In 86, after a two years iatus from basic D&D we took back the players that were 36th and we played a bit of the immortal set That is where the basic campaing ended. 2 games in the immortal set were enough to tell us that a good story must have an end. I much prefer a good ending than to remember the death of a good group.