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

[CapnZapp]

I'm also in line with you regarding monster design. I don't want to have to think too much about encounter tactics of monsters, so a well built monster makes my life much easier.

Thank you

Also thanks for calculating how much xp this encounter was worth. I don't use cr's and el's and xp's, but it's good to know. After the fight, the warlock player instinctively said "this gotta mean we level up"

 

[robus]

I'm also in line with you regarding monster design. I don't want to have to think too much about encounter tactics of monsters, so a well built monster makes my life much easier.

Can you elaborate on how this works for you? Are you just looking for tanks that deal a lot of damage then? Because anything more nuanced than that (a monster that hits and runs for example) is going to need attention.

Basically what does "well built" mean and can you point to any "well built" monsters in the MM?

 

[cooperjer]

Can you elaborate on how this works for you? Are you just looking for tanks that deal a lot of damage then? Because anything more nuanced than that (a monster that hits and runs for example) is going to need attention.

Basically what does "well built" mean and can you point to any "well built" monsters in the MM?

I'm not sure I want to go into detail on this thread. I would suggest starting a new thread. With that said, a one sentence description of a well built monster follows. A well built monster gives an obvious role of that creature with obvious synergies between attacks/features listed in the monster stat block, while listing a CR value that is in line with its expected contribution to the encounter.

 

[Helldritch]

Evil is sometimes making stupid mistakes. I see nothing wrong the way the combat actualy went. But the evil ones surely did not follow the standard rules of survival for evil 101.

The arrival of such a powerful party should've rang an alarm bell in the minds of the evil group. It didn't. The diviner should've used some divinations on them. They should've set up an ambush and the combat would've been quite different. I wouldn't have changed the spell allotment of the casters (unless given time by the players) but I would've used them very differently. I would've fireballed the inn in which the PC's were. The save would've been at disadvantage as the players had no way to know what was coming to them. I would've been the ambusher...

But with the setting you provided. You ran the combat as you had to. The evil ones made a bad mistake and the players were in for an easy victory against a bunch of over confident evil people.

Next part. The High Priest of Myrkul that was on vacation comes back, restores the evil group to life and the death knigth is restored through the divine intervention of Myrkul (a favor the High Priest asked for). They are all quite pi**ed off and want their revenge. Heroes, beware!

 

[Rhenny]

I think we have to face the fact that it is much harder to run higher level adventure/encounters than lower level ones. I can sympathize with someone who wants it to be easier to pull monsters off the shelf and run them without having to be overly tactical. That's actually why I enjoy running campaigns/games that take place level 10 and lower.

My standard way to make encounters more difficult isn't to over complicate and buff up or optimize the monsters/npcs, but to send in a second wave or third wave. One of the best tactics for 5e is to have a 2nd force of foes attack PCs from a different direction (from behind if possible) when they are engaged with the initial group. Basically, with 5e, like others have said, numbers matter. More foes = more difficulty, especially if the PCs are not expecting an attack from another direction or if they have already used some of there biggest spells/resources.

Another bonus to using waves is that it also accounts for over swinginess. (I know I'll catch some flack for this, but here goes) --- If the party has a really unlucky experience with the first wave, and things look bad, I can always hold the 2nd wave back or telegraph its arrival so that the party decides to run!! I like this kind of control to offset the possibility of good or bad luck in any encounter.

I say all this, not to criticize CapnZapp, but to build on what he has presented.

 

[Helldritch]

I say all this, not to criticize CapnZapp, but to build on what he has presented.

That is a refreshing statement. So many are ready to throw stones...

Your idea of waves after waves is what I am doing. Either by reinforcement or simply by making some random encounters (I write a few of these for each adventures) in case the players try the 5mwd. I love nothing more than when players trip the alarm bell; be it litteraly or figuratively.

 

[BookBarbarian]

Sounds like a Fun encounter! I wonder what the Death Knight will do upon returning to life... er... undeath.

 

[dave2008]

I'm also in line with you regarding monster design. I don't want to have to think too much about encounter tactics of monsters, so a well built monster makes my life much easier.

I like a "well built monster" also, but what does that mean? I would bet that a "well built monster" is is slightly different for all groups. I think the base assumption of an easier monster, despite the fact I don't personally like it, is the best way to go to allow the most flexibility for said monster. I personally find easier to increase the threat than decrease it.

 

[mpwylie]

I want the game to present stat blocks that offer a challenge right out of the box.

A few thoughts:
1. The game is not built for your specific party, it is built at a base level. So if you have a group that is tactically savy and/or play optimized characters to eek out every last bit of power, well then you will have to adjust from the baseline. I have one group that would, as you have it set up, have ROLFSTOMPED that encounter. I play in another group that would have more than likely TPK'd to it. WOTC can't build the game to fit every situation, that is why there is a DM. If you don't want to spend the time to tweak your game, I would find a new group of newbs to DM for, things will likely work out better for you.

2. The game is built and balanced on a bunch of assumptions. First and foremost, encounters per day. But also Magic item availability, ability stats, and a player experience level. Any of these things being off can and will have dramatic effects. I don't know your groups stats, they sound fairly versed in character building and at least moderately tactical. But the big thing is, 1 encounter. If you try to run single encounters where the players can blow their load every time, the monsters will always be pathetically weak. You likely don't want to force the baseline number of encounters the game is built on, and that is fine, I don't either. But if you are not going to follow the encounters per day, then you will need to spend the time tweaking, customizing, and up-scaling the encounters you do have. You can't have it both ways. Either you follow the guidelines and play the game as intended, or you don't and spent time tweaking things to account for it. Complaining about weak monsters when you aren't running the game correctly is a bit silly. It would be like buying a car that is supposed to get 20 mpg then adding a supercharger and complaining that they lied cause you are only getting 15. Run that same fight again as the last encounter of a 6+ encounter day when your PCs are low on resources and then come back and tell us how it goes.

3. Flamestrike had some valid points, not about the OAs, but in general. If you have a group that is tactically savvy and optimized and you go into it throwing crappy damage spells and cantrips at them in the first round instead of battlefield control spells and tossing out the big stuff, they are gonna wipe the floor with your encounters every time.

Now with all that said, I have a group this is a Barbarian, shadow monk, wizard and a tag along pally ran by the barbarian player. All optimized, with a decent amount of magic items, and VERY tactically savvy. I actually threw a very similar encounter at them at nearly the exact same level. Difference being I customized all the bad guys hand picking their spells. I chose the bad guy's special abilities with my group in mind. I started out of the box concentrating on battlefield control and nullifying as many of them as I could, and I started them with their buffs up. My players won, as I knew they would, but they blew most of their resources, the pally went down at one point, and there was still a few touch and go moments. The big thing is, I am not DM'ing for a baseline group or using the base encounter guideline, so I know I have to put some time in when designing my encounters because of it and I do exactly that. And I understand that the encounter difficulty scale doesn't apply for my game. My players always win, which is what I want, but most of the time it's tough and close and they really have to use their heads.

 

[Eric V]

I'm not sure I want to go into detail on this thread. I would suggest starting a new thread. With that said, a one sentence description of a well built monster follows. A well built monster gives an obvious role of that creature with obvious synergies between attacks/features listed in the monster stat block, while listing a CR value that is in line with its expected contribution to the encounter.

Like anything from the later 4e Monster tomes. Literally everything you needed to run the monster was there. I was saddened to see 5e went back to a clumsier model. Eh, them's the breaks.