Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Blue" data-source="post: 6950848" data-attributes="member: 20564">Sounds like a curb stomp.&nbsp; And I completely agree about non-proficient saves causing a problem at high levels, compounding that Monk stun-lock is It sounds like your party synergies very well, especially SS/GWM with&nbsp; stunlock, plus using battlefield control to carve a combat into&nbsp; smaller pieces.&nbsp; This is cool, but not something every party does so I wouldn't expect foes to be balanced against high-functioning parties like this.&nbsp; I'd&nbsp; say it's above normal and you need to compensate, but considering the&nbsp; foes it sounds like you did compensate already and it still went off&nbsp; like this.&nbsp; Wow.I do have some questions about a couple of mitigating factors.1.&nbsp; How the heck did the &quot;ranger&quot; hit the targets?&nbsp; Hand Crossbow range is 30/120.&nbsp; So he'd have to get within 30' in order to have advantage, otherwise the disadvantage of long range would have negated it.2.&nbsp; If the druid came in shifted (since it would last for a large number&nbsp; of hours), it would have had a lot more HPs and would have likely had a&nbsp; higher CON for making those stun saves.&nbsp; That doesn't seem to be any&nbsp; more unusual then a arcane caster having mage armor up already at the&nbsp; start of combat.Also, you mentioned this was a single combat day.&nbsp; It sounds like the&nbsp; PCs used more then 1/6-1/8 of their daily resources in terms of spells&nbsp; and Ki points on it, so it's not that surprising that other resources (like HPs)&nbsp; weren't spent.&nbsp; This isn't criticizing how you're running, just commenting&nbsp; about how the balance points for long-rest resources are designed in&nbsp; 5e.&nbsp; If you threw this exact encounter at them twice more in the same&nbsp; day with a short rest between them how do you think it would have ended?&nbsp; Because that's what the system is designed around.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Blue, post: 6950848, member: 20564"] Sounds like a curb stomp. And I completely agree about non-proficient saves causing a problem at high levels, compounding that Monk stun-lock is It sounds like your party synergies very well, especially SS/GWM with stunlock, plus using battlefield control to carve a combat into smaller pieces. This is cool, but not something every party does so I wouldn't expect foes to be balanced against high-functioning parties like this. I'd say it's above normal and you need to compensate, but considering the foes it sounds like you did compensate already and it still went off like this. Wow. I do have some questions about a couple of mitigating factors. 1. How the heck did the "ranger" hit the targets? Hand Crossbow range is 30/120. So he'd have to get within 30' in order to have advantage, otherwise the disadvantage of long range would have negated it. 2. If the druid came in shifted (since it would last for a large number of hours), it would have had a lot more HPs and would have likely had a higher CON for making those stun saves. That doesn't seem to be any more unusual then a arcane caster having mage armor up already at the start of combat. Also, you mentioned this was a single combat day. It sounds like the PCs used more then 1/6-1/8 of their daily resources in terms of spells and Ki points on it, so it's not that surprising that other resources (like HPs) weren't spent. This isn't criticizing how you're running, just commenting about how the balance points for long-rest resources are designed in 5e. If you threw this exact encounter at them twice more in the same day with a short rest between them how do you think it would have ended? Because that's what the system is designed around. [/QUOTE]

Verification