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

[hawkeyefan]

The thread has previously suggested that the mere label "optional rule" would tell people "all bets are off" about the game.

In contrast, I don't simply accept this idea that by labeling a rule as optional, they get away scot free of any balancing issues; by labeling a rule as optional, they don't have to take any responsibility. I think that is a complete fantasy - I would never insult them by believing they actually thought that, and my thoughts about us customers aren't so low I believe we would ever buy it.

In fact, I consider it absurdly apologetic and deeply offensive.

By that reasoning they could just as easily have changed that label into "not really a part of the game". Doing so would have exposed the huge scam. As if real players seriously would go "okay so it's part of the book, and it significantly contributes to the game's appeal and therefore sales, but I'm completely okay with slowly finding out that actually using the rule throws everything out of whack and the designers haven't cared one bit about how it impacts play".

No that line of argument is preposterous and has always been.

I call this line of reasoning offensive because it assumes we customers are gullible idiots. I call it apologetic because it contorts reality to heavily favor a worldview where the writers make no mistakes, where they are never wrong and where no unexpected niggles ever turn up.

Optional = all bets are off?

I don't think anyone's really gone to that extreme.

Optional = play is impacted. Yes, certainly.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the designers are without flaw. But neither are DMs. And in the situation you described, I find it hard to fault the designers for the way things went down. I think that you erred in how you handled the scenario. Now, that's not me saying that you couldn't have fixed it...the way you explain things it seems that you were okay with the way things turned out. But I don't think you should attribute the results to the system.

I said in a previous post that I don't really use the CR system. I think that most experienced DMs would be better off without it. You designed an encounter that according to that system (although I think some adjustments were in line that were not made) was incredibly deadly. But you knew it was not going to be that deadly. Maybe you thought it would be tougher than it turned out to be...but I won't for one second buy that you created an encounter that far beyond the guidelines without knowing that it wouldn't quite play out that way.

So since you know this already, why not just ditch the system? You've outgrown it, I think.

 

[Sacrosanct]

In contrast, I don't simply accept this idea that by labeling a rule as optional, they get away scot free of any balancing issues; by labeling a rule as optional, they don't have to take any responsibility. I think that is a complete fantasy - I would never insult them by believing they actually thought that, and my thoughts about us customers aren't so low I believe we would ever buy it.

In fact, I consider it absurdly apologetic and deeply offensive.

Bolded for emphasis, because this has been several times when you've said things like this. If one thing is abundantly clear by now, rather than take any ownership whatsoever for your own mistakes as a DM, you are going out of your way to advocate punishing the designers of the game. That's what terms like "getting away scot free", "defenders are apologists", etc infer. And to be honest, it's one of the most disturbing things I've read on these forums. This is a game we're talking about here, and because it doesn't fit your desires, you want to punish them for it, and you're literally offended by the rules. Your posts have been dripping with malice and contempt at anyone who hasn't agreed with you, calling everyone else irrational, unreasonable, or apologists. You're standing on the table and shouting, "Look how they offended me! They can't get away with this!" over the rules of a game.

It's a game. To me, your sort of statements show a very alarming and troubling emotional attachment. Over a game.

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

Optional = all bets are off?

I don't think anyone's really gone to that extreme.

Since I'm the one that brought up the idea [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION] is misrepresenting, I can confirm that I did not go to that extreme.

Optional = play is impacted. Yes, certainly.

This, I can confirm is precisely what I was getting at; that "the game" and "the game with some optional rules" and plainly and clearly different in some way.

I don't think that anyone is saying that the designers are without flaw.

That reality hasn't hindered accusations of "apologist" being thrown about in the past. Not even if one were to provide a list of specific things they find to be flaws to the accuser.

I know because I've been accused, done just that, and am still targeted by these accusations. Accusations, I might add, that even moderator actions have apparently proven incapable of stopping.

 

[Tony Vargas]

In contrast, I don't simply accept this idea that by labeling a rule as optional, they get away scot free of any balancing issues; by labeling a rule as optional, they don't have to take any responsibility.

Oh, they don't even have to label it as 'optional,' the "D&D" on the cover should be enough.

By that reasoning they could just as easily have changed that label into "not really a part of the game"

That's one way to spin 'optional.' It's not a part of the game, really, unless/until the DM decides to opt into it, and then it's only really part of his game, not "The Game."
Sure, that works.

Doing so would have exposed the huge scam. As if real players seriously would go "okay so it's part of the book, and it significantly contributes to the game's appeal and therefore sales, but I'm completely okay with slowly finding out that actually using the rule throws everything out of whack and the designers haven't cared one bit about how it impacts play".

Assuming it was ever in fine whack, even before adding or changing rules.

I call this line of reasoning offensive because it assumes we customers are gullible idiots.

There are riskier ways of making money than underestimating the intelligence of your customers...

...though, I suppose admitting that wouldn't be a great move when your customers are nerds.

I call it apologetic because it contorts reality to heavily favor a worldview where the writers make no mistakes, where they are never wrong and where no unexpected niggles ever turn up.

There's as many uncritical apologists justifying D&D's every flaw as there are habitual detractors leveling unwarranted criticism at it. OK, maybe more of the former, this time around - but, really, it's not that bad, overall, compared to the edition war...

 

[Hussar]

Winding this back around to the practical question of "can we have a group of creatures that is viable as the one and only encounter of the day, AND, still viable after a six encounter day?"

Honestly, no. No, it won't work. The game simply isn't balanced that way. There's no way a single encounter is going to eat up the same resources as 6 smaller encounters. For one, in a 1 encounter day style, Hit Dice are now pointless. Who cares how many Hit Dice you have when you regain all your HP after every encounter?

Never minding the huge number of knock on effects that a 1 encounter day style has on the game. Since you don't need hit dice, and having 1 HP is as good as 100, you only need something like Healing Word in the party to keep the party up and running for the whole encounter. Thus we get the "whack a mole" style combat. Additionally, this allows casters to unload all their biggest guns every encounter. Why not lead off with your biggest spells every time, it's not like you need anything in the tank afterward?

But, there's more. Take a barbarian. 1 encounter day means that the barbarian is always raged in every encounter. He's never going to run out. And if it's a Berserker barbarian, it can frenzy every encounter. Poof, I've just doubled (since every attack is going to be at advantage - why not? it's not like you need to save anything in the tank) the damage output of my barbarian.

Every encounter will see Bless spells - lasts for 10 rounds, so it's going to cover the encounter. Poof, I've just effectively granted advantage to every attack and saving throw in the party.

On and on and on.

If parties only have to worry about one encounter, they are going to punch WAY above their weight class. This isn't 3e where the adventuring day was based on 4 (and realistically 2 or 3) encounters per day, meaning those of us who didn't want 15 MAD were left out in the cold. I'm sorry [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION], but, someone had to win this time around and, well, this time it was me and not you. But there is no realistic way to have both.

 

[knasser]

Winding this back around to the practical question of "can we have a group of creatures that is viable as the one and only encounter of the day, AND, still viable after a six encounter day?"

Honestly, no. No, it won't work. The game simply isn't balanced that way. There's no way a single encounter is going to eat up the same resources as 6 smaller encounters. For one, in a 1 encounter day style, Hit Dice are now pointless. Who cares how many Hit Dice you have when you regain all your HP after every encounter?

Never minding the huge number of knock on effects that a 1 encounter day style has on the game. Since you don't need hit dice, and having 1 HP is as good as 100, you only need something like Healing Word in the party to keep the party up and running for the whole encounter. Thus we get the "whack a mole" style combat. Additionally, this allows casters to unload all their biggest guns every encounter. Why not lead off with your biggest spells every time, it's not like you need anything in the tank afterward?

But, there's more. Take a barbarian. 1 encounter day means that the barbarian is always raged in every encounter. He's never going to run out. And if it's a Berserker barbarian, it can frenzy every encounter. Poof, I've just doubled (since every attack is going to be at advantage - why not? it's not like you need to save anything in the tank) the damage output of my barbarian.

Every encounter will see Bless spells - lasts for 10 rounds, so it's going to cover the encounter. Poof, I've just effectively granted advantage to every attack and saving throw in the party.

On and on and on.

If parties only have to worry about one encounter, they are going to punch WAY above their weight class. This isn't 3e where the adventuring day was based on 4 (and realistically 2 or 3) encounters per day, meaning those of us who didn't want 15 MAD were left out in the cold. I'm sorry @CapnZapp, but, someone had to win this time around and, well, this time it was me and not you. But there is no realistic way to have both.

If this is genuinely the case, then my campaign is going to run into some serious problems. I lean heavily towards story, strategy (as in 'lets lure the evil baron to this meeting where we can ambush him rather than wade through his castle - why would we do that?') and role-playing. The combats are supposed to be dramatic moments and challenges, not tasks to get through. Is it really this problematic?

 

[Rhenny]

If this is genuinely the case, then my campaign is going to run into some serious problems. I lean heavily towards story, strategy (as in 'lets lure the evil baron to this meeting where we can ambush him rather than wade through his castle - why would we do that?') and role-playing. The combats are supposed to be dramatic moments and challenges, not tasks to get through. Is it really this problematic?

It doesn't have to be problematic.

Just try to use a little variety so that the players don't know which encounters are supposed to be the really big, tactical ones, and which ones are just ones that need to be avoided or finished quickly. The key to keeping the PCs from going nova, is to instill the possibility that what they are fighting now, may not be the worst thing they will face.

They should have to work to get into a position where they can challenge the evil baron, or the evil baron should have some plan up his sleeve to weaken the party before he actually fights them head on.

If the PCs ambush evil baron with his minions, give evil baron a way to escape or at least for him to call on aid from others.

Early in a campaign, make sure that the PCs get into a big fight that they think might be a really big one, and then after they expend some resources, hit them with another fight that is equal to what they just fought or worse.

Then in other sessions have them fight some minor battles, never knowing exactly when a big one will pop up.

If you do this, you can have some sessions that feature 2 encounters, some that feature 4, some that feature only 1. The rests will fall where they fall naturally, but it is the fear of the unknown next encounter that builds tension and keeps PCs from unloading all of the resources.

If you build an escape plan for the baron, or you give him a way to call upon allies when he most needs them so that he can escape while the party is busy with others, you'll be able to create a large set piece battle that is plenty tactical.

But, if the PCs do actually ambush the evil baron and all attack him by surprise, he'll be dead so don't let that happen unless you want the PCs to succeed because they took the necessary precautions and didn't botch anything up.

 

[Hussar]

If this is genuinely the case, then my campaign is going to run into some serious problems. I lean heavily towards story, strategy (as in 'lets lure the evil baron to this meeting where we can ambush him rather than wade through his castle - why would we do that?') and role-playing. The combats are supposed to be dramatic moments and challenges, not tasks to get through. Is it really this problematic?

Pretty much what Rhenny said. 5e isn't going to help you too much if you insist on one encounter days. It simply isn't. The game isn't designed that way. The monsters relative to the PC's aren't really strong enough to overcome the huge amount of resources the party can dump into a single encounter without becoming rocket tag where the monster is just so much more powerful than the individual PC's, that they can obliterate at least one PC every round.

So, yes, IMO, you are going to have issues if you insist on single encounter days. Look at it like this: If you have a 5 PC party, standard party, Ranger, fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, that group has 3 casters. In a single encounter day, the fighter ALWAYS action surges and blows through all his action dice (presuming he has them), the ranger is going to have Hunter's Mark on every single attack (giving him about 50% more damage), and the cleric and wizard are going to be blowing their highest level spells in the first two or three rounds. Presume a 7th level party:

Round 1 - Fighter Action Surges and blows all 4 superiority dice, rogue sneak attacks, ranger attacks twice with hunters mark and collosus slayer, Knowledge Domain cleric drops Confusion and the wizard drops a 4th level fireball. Mr. Nasty Bad Guy is having a very bad day.

Round 2 - Fighter attacks, Rogue attacks, Ranger attacks twice with hunters mark and collosus slayer and drops Hail of Thorns, just for fun, Knowledge Domain Cleric starts beating on the bad guy, and the wizard drops a 3rd level lightning bolt. Bad guy is dead.

Note, this is hardly an optimized group. No Great Weapon Fighting, nothing like that. It's simply that a party, when it doesn't have to hold back, punches so far above its weight class.

So, you basically have two choices. Either accept that combat in your 1 encounter/day campaign is going to be pretty easy or, adjust to the game and start adding in a few more encounters per day. AFAIC, that's your choices.

 

[Rhenny]

Pretty much what Rhenny said. 5e isn't going to help you too much if you insist on one encounter days. It simply isn't. The game isn't designed that way. The monsters relative to the PC's aren't really strong enough to overcome the huge amount of resources the party can dump into a single encounter without becoming rocket tag where the monster is just so much more powerful than the individual PC's, that they can obliterate at least one PC every round.

So, yes, IMO, you are going to have issues if you insist on single encounter days. Look at it like this: If you have a 5 PC party, standard party, Ranger, fighter, rogue, cleric, wizard, that group has 3 casters. In a single encounter day, the fighter ALWAYS action surges and blows through all his action dice (presuming he has them), the ranger is going to have Hunter's Mark on every single attack (giving him about 50% more damage), and the cleric and wizard are going to be blowing their highest level spells in the first two or three rounds. Presume a 7th level party:

Round 1 - Fighter Action Surges and blows all 4 superiority dice, rogue sneak attacks, ranger attacks twice with hunters mark and collosus slayer, Knowledge Domain cleric drops Confusion and the wizard drops a 4th level fireball. Mr. Nasty Bad Guy is having a very bad day.

Round 2 - Fighter attacks, Rogue attacks, Ranger attacks twice with hunters mark and collosus slayer and drops Hail of Thorns, just for fun, Knowledge Domain Cleric starts beating on the bad guy, and the wizard drops a 3rd level lightning bolt. Bad guy is dead.

Note, this is hardly an optimized group. No Great Weapon Fighting, nothing like that. It's simply that a party, when it doesn't have to hold back, punches so far above its weight class.OK
So, you basically have two choices. Either accept that combat in your 1 encounter/day campaign is going to be pretty easy or, adjust to the game and start adding in a few more encounters per day. AFAIC, that's your choices.

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.

 

[OB1]

Early in a campaign, make sure that the PCs get into a big fight that they think might be a really big one, and then after they expend some resources, hit them with another fight that is equal to what they just fought or worse.

This can make a huge difference in PCs going nova. My DM in one of the games I play in prefers single encounter days, and once we figured that out we started to nova. After wiping the floor with her encounters a couple of times, we did it again only to have big bad's 3 lieutenants barge in immediately after the first fight. Having already expended most of our top resources, we promptly ran away.

Now we nova only when/if we are having trouble with a fight to make sure we have resources left over after, always assuming that there may be one more fight after the current one.

With that said, I highly encourage you to try a session or two in the preferred 5e style. It may be different, but it can be highly enjoyable. I run my 5e homebrew campaign in two modes. Interludes and Missions.

In interludes, players decide on their next course of action, gather intelligence and occasionally run into a small skirmish fight that will be instructive to the types of forces they will face in their chosen mission. I don't worry about encounters per day during this period, and players generally get to have some fun whomping butt.

In missions, players have committed to a course of action, and I design 8-16 encounters that are between them and their goal. It is up to the players to manage their approach to the mission to come under the 6-8 encounters that they will be able to handle. Perhaps they cast invisibility to get past some guards, perhaps they charm them, perhaps they just try to talk their way past. If they are caught, a combat encounter is triggered. Create and execute a great plan, and perhaps they can risk a trip into the treasure vault to scoop up some loot before heading on to their primary objective.

If you've every played Metal Gear Solid V, you may recognize this structure, as I took it directly from that game, and it works beautifully with 5e.