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

[matskralc]

I know I can do it without this 6-8 encounter day so many are touting as the holy grail of encounter creation. I don't want any limits on encounter design. I should be able to make any encounter be it one a day or many a day interesting and challenging regardless of the resource level of my players. I will find a way to manage this in 5E.

And that's a fine way to play tabletop RPGs. It's just that you're working against this particular game's core assumptions. D&D 5e is a very complicated resource management game. I totally understand people who don't want to play a very complicated resource management game yet are attracted to other aspects of the game. It just seems a little weird to expect significant official support for gameplay styles that are the opposite of how the game expects you to play it.

 

[Celtavian]

And that's a fine way to play tabletop RPGs. It's just that you're working against this particular game's core assumptions. D&D 5e is a very complicated resource management game. I totally understand people who don't want to play a very complicated resource management game yet are attracted to other aspects of the game. It just seems a little weird to expect significant official support for gameplay styles that are the opposite of how the game expects you to play it.

I don't expect complicated support. 5E isn't a complicated game. I did expect the game to play better at higher level. Monsters are weak. It's only a debate to a handful of people that think it's ok that they require "intelligent" play and highly beneficial environments to make them challenging. And they are weak regardless of resource management. If you can't see the weakness of creatures like Balors and Mariliths, I don't know what to tell you. It seems strange that there are players out there that can't easily exploit the weaknesses of two creatures with no ranged attacking capability or ranged defensive capability. The same with dragons. If people can't admit these creatures as they are written in the book are weak, then it's difficult to take the argument any farther. It never seems wrong to these folks debating me that they have to create a very dangerous environment or play the monsters "intelligently" to challenge such PCs. The fact that these monsters require a specialized environment or "intelligent" play proves my point that they are weak as written. No one is saying players need to play intelligently to beat these monsters in a neutral environment using the monsters straight up, which is how it should be. I've not read many books where the villain needed a special environment or "intelligent" play to defeat the protagonist. Usually it's the protagonist that needs some very special help to get the job done.

5E is not a complicated resource management game. No edition of D&D has ever been complicated. As far as the math goes, 5E's math is much easier than 3E's math. I managed 3E/Pathfinder's math for years.

There this strange idea amongst some D&D players that 5E is somehow different from past editions because the game designers spelled out this idea of three pillars and multiple encounters per day to reduce resources. This is not new, not at all. It has been this way since the early days of D&D. You had a limited amount of spellcasting power or uses per day for many significant class abilities. You have that in this edition. But for some reason because they spelled it out, I hear all this gobbly-gook about encounters per day and three pillars. As a long time D&D player, I can't help but think, "Gee, they had to spell that out for you for you to know it. Unbelievable." All of these elements have been aspects of the game since the early days including resource management. And none of it has ever been complicated.

This is the easiest version of D&D since the basic days. The fact...and I do mean provable fact...is the monsters are extremely limited and thus weak in 5E. Some folks like Flamestrike and some others in this thread prefer to make the environment tough to help their monsters, while I prefer to rebuild the monsters to make them tougher. Not sure why one method is considered better than the other. The only reason I can think of is the folks that like sprucing up the environment seem to think that makes the monsters just fine because they don't consider making a tough environment the same as rebuilding an entire monster into something stronger. I say both accomplish the same task of making a weak monster more challenging. I don't see the difference. Not sure why you and others do.

 

[pemerton]

And that gives more than a few credits to your skills.

<snip>

From the looks of it, you used AD&D characters in a Basic module in which you focused on the keep instead of the caves. That was already a step ahead of the norm. we all used B, X, and CM adventures with AD&D but not necessarily this way. Again, kudo on that.

Thanks.

And yes, AD&D characters. A duergar F/TH and svirfneblin Ill/Th. They went Acrobat at 6th level so they could jump from roof to roof.

 

[happyhermit]

Some folks like Flamestrike and some others in this thread prefer to make the environment tough to help their monsters, while I prefer to rebuild the monsters to make them tougher. Not sure why one method is considered better than the other. The only reason I can think of is the folks that like sprucing up the environment seem to think that makes the monsters just fine because they don't consider making a tough environment the same as rebuilding an entire monster into something stronger. I say both accomplish the same task of making a weak monster more challenging. I don't see the difference. Not sure why you and others do.

While much of the talk is about "sprucing up" or making the environment tougher for the players, for me it is about appropriate and suitable environment and tactics. I don't think many people would argue that a killer whale should be as effective and opponent in a white room as in the ocean and yet a few seem to want to argue that any slightly less obvious factors need to be ignored. I don't want default higher level opponents that can be played counter to their abilities and be just as effective, and I don't think that is good for the game. But in the end, if they had gone that way I would just adjust things accordingly and be done with it or play monsters off a scripted statblock.

 

[matskralc]

I don't expect complicated support. 5E isn't a complicated game. I did expect the game to play better at higher level. Monsters are weak. It's only a debate to a handful of people that think it's ok that they require "intelligent" play and highly beneficial environments to make them challenging. And they are weak regardless of resource management. If you can't see the weakness of creatures like Balors and Mariliths, I don't know what to tell you. It seems strange that there are players out there that can't easily exploit the weaknesses of two creatures with no ranged attacking capability or ranged defensive capability. The same with dragons. If people can't admit these creatures as they are written in the book are weak, then it's difficult to take the argument any farther. It never seems wrong to these folks debating me that they have to create a very dangerous environment or play the monsters "intelligently" to challenge such PCs. The fact that these monsters require a specialized environment or "intelligent" play proves my point that they are weak as written. No one is saying players need to play intelligently to beat these monsters in a neutral environment using the monsters straight up, which is how it should be. I've not read many books where the villain needed a special environment or "intelligent" play to defeat the protagonist. Usually it's the protagonist that needs some very special help to get the job done.

5E is not a complicated resource management game. No edition of D&D has ever been complicated. As far as the math goes, 5E's math is much easier than 3E's math. I managed 3E/Pathfinder's math for years.

There this strange idea amongst some D&D players that 5E is somehow different from past editions because the game designers spelled out this idea of three pillars and multiple encounters per day to reduce resources. This is not new, not at all. It has been this way since the early days of D&D. You had a limited amount of spellcasting power or uses per day for many significant class abilities. You have that in this edition. But for some reason because they spelled it out, I hear all this gobbly-gook about encounters per day and three pillars. As a long time D&D player, I can't help but think, "Gee, they had to spell that out for you for you to know it. Unbelievable." All of these elements have been aspects of the game since the early days including resource management. And none of it has ever been complicated.

This is the easiest version of D&D since the basic days. The fact...and I do mean provable fact...is the monsters are extremely limited and thus weak in 5E. Some folks like Flamestrike and some others in this thread prefer to make the environment tough to help their monsters, while I prefer to rebuild the monsters to make them tougher. Not sure why one method is considered better than the other. The only reason I can think of is the folks that like sprucing up the environment seem to think that makes the monsters just fine because they don't consider making a tough environment the same as rebuilding an entire monster into something stronger. I say both accomplish the same task of making a weak monster more challenging. I don't see the difference. Not sure why you and others do.

I meant "complicated" as compared to other resource management games, not other editions of D&D or even other RPGs.

However, D&D, no matter the edition, is not an easy game. Many of us forget this because we've been playing this game for years or even decades and it's become second nature to us. We all know plenty of people who think a 16-page booklet makes a board game complicated. D&D blows that out of the water. Don't act like D&D isn't a complicated game when I can't get some people to play it because the 300+ page player's handbook is too much for them to bother trying to learn. And that has nothing on what a DM has to try and learn in order to run the game.

I know you despise being reminded of this, but you keep addressing high-level play in a vacuum that is separate from your playing style. You are the one allowing players to concentrate on extra spells and carry around extra high-level PCs in their pockets while utilizing subpar tactics with your monsters. I rarely, if ever, have to alter the environment or buff up monsters or spring things on the players in order to challenge high-level PCs because I run my monsters with an ounce of tactical sense and I don't load the game up with pro-PC house rules and magic items.

Neither of us is having the "correct" kind of fun; such an idea is nonsensical. But, one of us is working within the parameters of the game's design and is not frustrated. The other is working outside of the game's core assumptions, and is becoming frustrated. The fact that this game functions as expected for some and not so much for others is not exactly a strong argument in favor of "something is broken with the game's design".

You're basically sitting down to play blackjack in which the players get to play two hands each and ignore the first hit that puts them over 21 while you, the dealer, stand on anything above a 12. Of course you're going to have trouble challenging the players. You've turned the game's expectation on its head.

I mean, you condescend to say thinks like "gee, they had to spell that out for you to know it. Unbelievable." as it regards things like the adventuring day, yet you complain that the designers don't spell out enough stuff in a monster's stat block or an encounter design chapter for you that the rest of us don't seem to have trouble understanding despite having far less experience at this than you do.

I don't want you to play a game in any particular way for its own sake. I don't care about which method is "better" or not. I just see a guy who wants to play this game and finds it to be frustrating. I want that guy to not be frustrated. I want you to have fun playing this game. But you insist on playing the game in a way that the game doesn't expect to be played and no matter how many times somebody "spells that out for you for you to know it", you insist that the real problem is that creature stat blocks aren't long and complicated enough or something.

It just seems weird to complain that the game doesn't really support a play style that it just about explicitly rejects.

 

[Tony Vargas]

And that's a fine way to play tabletop RPGs. It's just that you're working against this particular game's core assumptions. D&D 5e is a very complicated resource management game.

True. Not as obvious as it may sound to you, though, since a lot of us have had decades to get used to that complexity (which is, in 5e, much as it was back in the day). FREX:

5E is not a complicated resource management game. No edition of D&D has ever been complicated.

However, D&D, no matter the edition, is not an easy game. Many of us forget this because we've been playing this game for years or even decades and it's become second nature to us.

Yeah, OK, so you knew that. :|

I totally understand people who don't want to play a very complicated resource management game yet are attracted to other aspects of the game. It just seems a little weird to expect significant official support for gameplay styles that are the opposite of how the game expects you to play it.

It's not that weird, since 5e set out to support more than just the one style. Ironically, it takes a little work, on the part of the DM, to pull free of the traditional resource-management challenge, and reduce the complexity of 5e as experienced by the players.

I don't expect complicated support. 5E isn't a complicated game.

Of course it is, it's a version of D&D. RPGs are complicated by their nature, and, D&D, as the first RPG, was often unnecessarily so (and 5e calls back some of that).

I did expect the game to play better at higher level.

It rarely has before.

Monsters are weak. ... And they are weak regardless of resource management.

There this strange idea amongst some D&D players that 5E is somehow different from past editions because the game designers spelled out this idea of three pillars and multiple encounters per day to reduce resources. This is not new, not at all. It has been this way since the early days of D&D.

It was a complex resource-management game with relatively 'weak' monsters that depended on that long-game of managing spells & hps & items to challenge the players - and, conversely, depended on 'smart play' to get players through challenges that would otherwise be too much for them.

This is the easiest version of D&D since the basic days. The fact...and I do mean provable fact...is the monsters are extremely limited and thus weak in 5E.

Probably more so than in any edition since 1e, yes. Part of getting back to the classic game, also entirely in line with making combat faster.

It just seems weird to complain that the game doesn't really support a play style that it just about explicitly rejects.

It's not that weird: 5e is in part a response to complaints that D&D had 'abandoned' this or that playstyle.