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

[matskralc]

This got me thinking. If people really want to have 1 encounter days, they should make sure all the foes have some kind of nova power so they can match pcs for at least 3 rounds. That's why spellcasting monsters usually out perform their CR level.

One thing I like to do is to give elite monsters second wind and action surge or other nova type powers that pcs often have. The spellcasters with counterspell are also a good defense for monster foes.

It's even simpler. If people really want to have 1 encounter days, they just need the PCs to believe that they're getting 6-8 encounter days. I very rarely run adventuring days with 6-8 encounters in them. But I do it often enough, and remind the PCs that I will often enough, that they usually play accordingly.

The easiest way to challenge the party is to keep them uncertain of what's next.

 

[Hussar]

Thanks both. I will try out these suggestions.

For context, I'm participating in two threads on this forum right now where the sort of issues I'm seeing are being discussed - this one and the one on ranged combat - that is encounters that take place outside of the 40' room (and cosmetic equivalents). Both are getting buried in people arguing that the solution is to play within the confines of D&D's design assumptions. It's honestly discouraging me a lot from moving forward with 5e. I'm currently looking around for a different fantasy rule system that I can swap in and still keep the same setting I've developed and my players can keep their backgrounds the same. If I'm going to do something radical like that, I should do it as early in the campaign as possible.

I'll try some mock-combats with some leveled up versions of the PCs and see how it goes using your suggestions. Really appreciate your posts.

K.

To be fair, it is the simplest solution. Don't fight the system is probably always good advice in the long run. I know that every game I've ever run, in any system, works a heck of a lot better when I'm not trying to pound it into a shape it's really not.

I've not read the ranged combat thread, but, again, it probably comes down to not fighting the system being the simplest solution.

So, yes, you can try to rejigger the game to fit your style, or, choose another system that does fit your style, or adapt your style to the system. It all comes down to how married you are to a specific system. 5e is modeled after earlier edition D&D where you were expected to engage in many encounters between rests. It was 3e that was a bit of an outlier here with the idea of much shorter adventuring days.

But, at the end of the day, you can't really have a system that does both well. You can't both have encounters that are dangerous enough to significantly deplete party resources while at the same time being easy enough that they don't significantly deplete party resources. And, since D&D is so heavily focused on combat, the resource management mini-game is a major part of the game. The other games you mentioned, Vampire, CoC, that sort of thing, aren't really interested in resource management. They simply aren't. So, it's not really an issue.

IMO, if you're truly wedded to the idea of one encounter per day, you're probably best off with Pathfinder or 3.5. And, since 99% of those rules are online and free, you can play with a minimal investment. A PHB and the online SRD's and you're pretty much good to go. But, for that specific pacing, I do think that either 3.5 or Pathfinder is the best fit.

 

[cmad1977]

I wonder if people are too focused on
'Encounter=combat'



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Hussar]

I wonder if people are too focused on
'Encounter=combat'



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Well, in non-combat encounters, so few resources are ever used, that it's generally never an issue.

 

[Sadras]

@knasser as others have suggested 3.5E or Pathfinder 'might' be a better fit for the one encounter/day that you are looking for.
I don't know if others have mentioned it already, but just so you don't get bogged down with rules/options of those two systems, variations on them that do work well would be E6 or P6 (Pathfinder).

Google them to find out if it could be something you are interested in. I suppose you could try adapt the idea behind them to 5e as well, but I'm not sure how well that would work. Good luck!

 

[Tony Vargas]

@knasser as others have suggested 3.5E or Pathfinder 'might' be a better fit for the one encounter/day that you are looking for.

The problems he described have been turned down from 11 in 3.x/PF to only 8 or so in 5e. That's really the very last thing he should consider, after 'just run 5e and tweak it as you go' (which'd be pretty reasonable, considering he's already invested in it).

I don't know if others have mentioned it already, but just so you don't get bogged down with rules/options of those two systems, variations on them that do work well would be E6 or P6 (Pathfinder).

E6 would be a good way to go if he were already committed to 3.5, as it also turns down the 5MWD/caster-supermacy/LFQW/rocket-tab problems endemic to the game at that point down from 11. Maybe even down further than 5e managed.

...hm.... Do we have E5e rules yet?

 

[Sadras]

...hm.... Do we have E5e rules yet?

While I was answering I was thinking the same thing.
Our 4e game improved much when I just decided to cap the hit points at level 6 using size as the baseline as I too was not running enough combat encounters during day. Just limiting the hit points raises the danger as monster damage increases as they level.

Medium - 6HD
Large - 10HD
..etc

 

[Celtavian]

Same old 5E I see.

 

[CapnZapp]

To be fair, it is the simplest solution. Don't fight the system is probably always good advice in the long run. I know that every game I've ever run, in any system, works a heck of a lot better when I'm not trying to pound it into a shape it's really not.

I've not read the ranged combat thread, but, again, it probably comes down to not fighting the system being the simplest solution.

Although this makes D&D out to be a game that's somehow inherently unsuited to other adventure locales than 40x40 dungeon rooms, and that's balderdash of course.

What I'm saying is: look at 3rd edition!

It's completely legit D&D. There were archers! Yet, there were axe dwarfs too.

Reverting the incredibly generous gifts given to ranged combatants in 5E is too me a much simpler solution than "don't play D&D".

Especially since I suspect nobody at WotC thought this through. Individually, each and every change looks completely sensible as in "playing movie Legolas sounds fun, what's the harm in supporting this archetype..."

Well, we now know what the harm is. The 7th or so (!) fun change became the straw that broke the slow axe-wielding camel's back...

Noone's playing Gimli anymore.

And even that's not true - plenty of people play melee warriors and love it, so let me rephrase:

It's gotten way harder for Gimli to tie Legolas 50-50 in their Orc contest, if they use 5E rules compared to 3E.

To me all this "don't fight the system" malarkey is a bit balooney I mean, if switching away D&D works for you, fine. If resigning yourself to having monsters pop up right behind the heroes isn't a big deal, more power to you.

What *I* am fighting, however, is not D&D or the system - I'm just fighting the collective impact of all those changes made by well-meaning but not enough-far-looking 5E designers!

And to me that's both natural and easy and true to the spirit of D&D

 

[CapnZapp]

The problems he described have been turned down from 11 in 3.x/PF to only 8 or so in 5e. That's really the very last thing he should consider, after 'just run 5e and tweak it as you go' (which'd be pretty reasonable, considering he's already invested in it).

I second this.

I wouldn't recommend d20/PF to my worst enemy...

5E is much better BY FAR, even if you need to smooth a few rough edges out for the designers yourself