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

[CapnZapp]

IMO:

(1) the-5/+10 mechanic is broken, there's been lots of threads on this issue
(2) multiclassing is also broken if you allow 1 level dips

Not sure about the rest, but just these two aspects, if you eliminate them, may well fix your issues.

1) Tell that to the denialists!
2) our party has two singleclassed (Cleric and Warlock) and three multiclassed characters.

The "fighter" is actually an Eldritch Knight, so you could call that a multiclass of its own. Her only multiclass is quite recent, and is because for some reason the other PCs let her have all the ability score related magic items. She's originally a finesse dualwielder, but now, with Strength, Constitution, Dexterity and Intelligence all at +4 or more, her player dipped a level of Barbarian. Stylistically this allows the character to ditch any armor, but the real value is getting damage resistance twice a day. (Yes, even though rage precludes spellcasting)

The monk is a shadow monk with 4(?) levels of battlemaster fighter. A clear example of how WotC forgot their lesson: there are few to no high level martial abilities that come close to the utility and nova-enabling power of Action Surge. I predict most if not all fighters, rangers, barbarians, even paladins and bards will at one point realize two fighter levels give them far more than their next two levels of their main class. (That's not an actual complaint, since Action Surge is a wonderfully cool, elegant, simple yet powerful and enabling ability!)

The "ranger" is actually a fighter (battlemaster). The player wanted to play a Ranger, but decided the class just didn't deliver (with all the niggling clashes in action economy, Hunter's Mark and so on) so he asked to be called a Ranger but to really build a Fighter. After all, the Outdoors background really gives you all you need to at least pose as a ranger.

Then he has taken actual Ranger levels to his credit, but only after reaching level 6 of Fighter (to grab Sharpshooter and Crossbow Expert asap). I believe he's now Fighter 8/Ranger 6 (but don't quote me on that). After picking up that ranger ability to make an extra attack on the target's buddy (horde breaker?) he decided the Ranger class could no longer give anything useful enough*, and so he went back to Fighter.

The main minmaxing claim for this PC is getting four attacks earlier than a dualwielding Fighter would have. Now his regular three attacks isn't as special as it was back then, but still: making attacks at 120 ft range with +10 damage not including poison makes him the group's damage dealer. (We all know that feat is overpowered, but since the player now playing the fighter got to use GWM in the last campaign, we let him use SS in this one. That feat seriously needs to be errataed, though)

*) One factor in this is that we all know the campaign OotA is listed at ending at 15th level or so. Thus the Ranger level 11 ability would have been cool, but he didn't want to build towards an ability that would only see any use at the very end of the campaign. After all, I had my doubts I would be capable of stretching the campaign out as much as I have - I made no promises it wouldn't have ended at level 13 or 14.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The problem with your position is that you talk about a paradigm shift among DMs when nothing has changed.

No, the problem is that you made a claim based apparently on your personal experience and presenting it as if it disproves what I said, which it doesn't. Speaking of your experience, when exactly did you play D&D? I'm curious. And rather than actually address the factual evidence I provided (with how the rules were structured, what was contained in the official adventures, etc, that all support my claim), you can only reply with an an ad hominem? That's sort of telling.

There was a shift, one that we can clearly point to with out the books and adventures were designed. This is objective material we can actually point to. The culture of D&D, and how DMs played back in the 70s and 80s is much different then the culture of the game, and how DMs played since 2000. The rules themselves encourage this difference. This shouldn't even be up for debate without me having to show proof because it's so obvious.

Compared with a player base numbered in the millions, 100k is a small minority.

You do realize that there were 120,000 total AD&D DMG's printed*, right? So 100,000 Dragon magazines in one year is not a small minority. By your logic, I guess the DMG was only used by an extremely tiny fraction of D&D players then? Once again, the facts are against you here. Perhaps instead of continuing to make incorrect assumptions based on your personal preference, you actually support your claim with some actual evidence?


*https://www.acaeum.com/library/printrun.html

 

[Sacrosanct]

IMO:

(1) the-5/+10 mechanic is broken, there's been lots of threads on this issue

Only by powergamers or optimizers. For every person who has complained about it, there's at least one who says it's a non issue at their tables

(2) multiclassing is also broken if you allow 1 level dips
.

It's not broken as long as you follow the rules. Each time you multi-class, you need to meet minimum stat requirements. That puts a halt on a lot of those builds because people don't want to have to put a relatively high stat value in a stat that they won't use just to get the one level dip of the class the want. Also, and more importantly, multi-classing is optional. No rule that is optional is broken because you can always not play with it. Every multi-class needs to have DM approval. If you're the DM and think something is broken, you just don't allow it. Simple solution.

 

[delericho]

Edit: Never mind. Life's too short.

 

[Hussar]

And I'm not contesting that.

What I am curious about is: how come you and others are so accepting of this fact?

What you're saying is that 5E really only works well in the classic dungeon environment: places where you can easily explain how you encounter a new group of foes every ten minutes or every other hour.

What I want to know is why not more people realize and see this as something that has a considerable downside.

Not supporting few encounter per day adventures (which certainly include many many types of stories and adventures, including but not being limited to overland adventures and traveling) is too me a large step backwards in the evolution of D&D.

I've been playing D&D for decades, but seldom in actual honest-to-god dungeons. That playstyle and its baggage simply isn't as attractive to me.

I'm much more an Red Hand of Doom kind of DM than, say, I don't know, is Princes of the Apocalypse the most dungeoney of 5E modules? The freedom to do what you want and go where you want is considerably attractive to me. The outright abusive ease with which you can rest, coupled with the considerable balancing dependency on not resting, is not.

I would have thought the backlash be considerable.

Instead here at ENWorld I encounter vocal opposition, sometimes by outright WotC apologists, ready to defend their every decision in absurdum, or at the very least hugely accepting and supporting of the edition's shortcomings and deficiencies.

Why do you think that is?

Because we don't see it as a shortcoming?

I know that's a bit glib, but, at the end of the day, that's the reason. We don't WANT 15 MAD. We HATED three hour encounters (which is what your above encounter would have taken me to play out in 3e). We LOATHED high level D&D and needing to use spreadsheets to track everything. Now, I say "we" and by that I mean me.

I mean, good grief, it's not a secret that if you have one and only one encounter in a day, the PC's are going to punch WAY above their weight class. This isn't secret. It's very well known. So, if you use one and only one encounter in a day, it's going to get steamrolled. All you had to do to change that was add a second, perfectly reasonable and believable encounter. Poof, problem solved.

So, why don't we complain? Because we don't want single encounter days. And, if you get what you want - stronger creatures with shopping lists of abilities that can handle the action economy of a single encounter day - then we lose what makes the game good for us - faster combat resolution, simpler monsters, easier adjudication.

You can have one or the other, but you can't have both. If you want 3e style encounter days, YOU have to do the work. Stop trying to push your work onto us because the game doesn't really handle your playstyle. Sorry but, that's the long and the short of it. Why would I complain about a system that is fitting with exactly what I want? 3e style encounters don't do that. I don't want to go back to the whole 15 MAD thing that characterized 3e play.

 

[Hussar]

But why oh why don't you criticize Wotc for not putting something akin to your fixes into the edition??

I mean, you "explain" to me how the DMG is saying solo fights get one sided as if that's all there is to it.

Why stop there? Why not fix it instead?

Your post would have made sense if the problem was unfixable. But it isn't.

But, your fix means that I lose out. It fixes the problem that isn't MY problem. It fixes something that is a problem for YOU. And, in fixing that problem, it screws me over because now I have to wade through extended stat blocks, screw around with a sea of SLA's and other special abilities and now I have to track much more complicated monsters. No thanks. I don't want that. I LIKE simpler. I LIKE the fact that all I have to do to resolve the issue is toss another encounter in. Encounters are FUN. Grinding my way through a 3 hour boss fight is not fun for me. Watching play grind to a halt because someone cast Dispel Magic and now I have to rejigger the entire monster is about as much fun as a root canal.

IOW, the rules for creating monsters are RIGHT THERE in the DMG. If you want to run 3e style encounters, you get to do the legwork. I have zero interest in seeing you push your legwork onto me.

 

[hawkeyefan]

But why oh why don't you criticize Wotc for not putting something akin to your fixes into the edition??

I mean, you "explain" to me how the DMG is saying solo fights get one sided as if that's all there is to it.

Why stop there? Why not fix it instead?

Your post would have made sense if the problem was unfixable. But it isn't.

He mentioned Legendary Creatures in his post.

This thread is about me setting up an absurdly dangerous encounter, and then seeing the party absolutely crush it.

TL;DR: This encounter definitely did not need to be made more dangerous...

(Didn't somebody calculate the absolutely huge XP loadout, even for a level 14 party?)

I would not call this an absurdly dangerous encounter. I would call this an encounter with dangerous enemies. And then I would go one step further to say that the encounter skewed the fight heavily in favor of the PCs.

An encounter consists of more than the enemies. Environmental factors, presence of cover, range, line of sight, safety of non-combatants....there are all kinds of factors that go into encounter design. From your description of the action, it sounds to me like none of this really mattered. The bad guys walked into the PCs range, the PCs got initiative, and that was pretty much that.

I am not saying that your criticisms are totally unfounded...I get your point and I can even agree with some of the things you're saying. But this example as you have described it...I just don't see this as a result of the system nearly as much as it's a result of the way the encounter was set up and the way it was played.

 

[Hussar]

This reminds me of the old joke. Man goes to the doctor and says,"Doctor it hurts when I do this." And the doctor replies,"Don't do that."

Resolving CapnZapp's problem is simple. Add more encounters. No rewriting no changes to rules or stat blocks. Just add an encounter. Problem solved.

Why do we need mechanical changes when the solution is that simple?

 

[CapnZapp]

Only by powergamers or optimizers.

 

[CapnZapp]

For every person who has complained about it, there's at least one who says it's a non issue at their tables

This is such a hilariously ridiculous argument I don't know where to begin.


"This bridge is fine. Sure people in vehicles complain, but people with carts and on foot don't"