D&D 5E Low Level Wizards Really Do Suck in 5E

I'm not referring to a style that expects all encounters to be exactly the same. I'm referring to a style that expects the DM to build encounters according to the encounter budgets listed in the Basic Rules and the DMG.
Those are guidelines, yes, so you don't want to follow them as if they were hard-and-fast rules. Which is fine, since they're not...

E.g. rarely make Deadly encounters, follow the "adventuring day" XP budget guidelines, not use monsters with a higher CR than the player level.
No guideline has ever called for not using CR higher than the level of the PCs.

'Adventuring day' exp budgets are, oddly, mostly about class balance. The more classes diverge from resource parity, the more the 'day length' distorts class balance. So you get an average to aim for. Not hitting that average affects class balance (if the deviation is consistent enough, rendering some otherwise viable classes non-viable, for instance), and it changes 'encounter balance' (that is, how challenging the same encounter will be for the same party).

So following the guideline compensates for system failings in class and encounter balance - or, at least, avoids making them a lot worse. Part of CaW seems to be exploiting balance problems, and player-driven pacing is certainly one way of doing that, though, presumably, with the objective of distorting encounter balance in the players' favor (making encounters less challenging than 'designed'), and simply no concern over whether/how-much class balance is distorted (if one PC is obviated at the more advantageous pacing, he'd presumably be dropped for a more viable class, for instance, since that would maximize the party's effectiveness).

I think you could conceivably build tailored encounters with a CaW mindset, but I agree with you that CaW fans will hear about your hypothetical 90 HD dragon and think, "Hey, that sounds cool. Maybe I should do that." It was certainly my reaction. :)
Nod. So called 'Simulationists' would also probably like the idea of dragon-creation rules where you plug in 'size of jumbo jet' and get out 90 HD. The Tailored approach, OTOH, you punch in the HD and get the size. Not a huge difference as far as the system is concerned.
 
Last edited:

log in or register to remove this ad

That said, you're actually backing up the theory that offense trumps, still. The bless is probably more important than the cure, and the cure is only one of his many actions in a major battle. That could have likely been accomplished with a healing potion, and it's entirely possible for the DM to make the cleric having to get into touch range for that cure far more costly than the couple of points of difference (2 or 4 depending on the spell level).

You are exactly right. We consider keeping the bless up a better offensive option than using the cleric as a damage dealer. We also consider cure wounds a better option for the cleric to get a higher value damage dealer on his feet with a possibly higher level slot a way to sustain our offense. Clerics are weak damage dealers until they obtain spirit guardians, then they can stack a moderately effective damage dealing combination with spirit guardians, spiritual weapon, and their regular attacks, though it does take away from our group capability. It's hard to quantify the value of bless versus spirit guardians unless it is obvious the area won't affect enough targets to make it more valuable.

I'll say, against monsters that do real damage, like those hill giants on war mammoths, a good berry is just as effective as a cure wounds, and 10+ times as efficient.

No access to goodberry. Yes. Against higher damage targets, any spell that gives even one hit point is effective given the weeble-wobble effect in this game. Then again our DMs usually go for the kill when a player falls striking for an auto-crit and two missed death saves and then dead if they can hit again. Better not to fall against creatures with multiple attacks in our games.

This is absolutely true. Mind you, cure wounds falls behind to Prayer of Healing, since it sounds like your bigger concern is total healed per slot. Mass cure and heal are, indeed, very different beasts than cure wounds.

10 minute casting time on prayer of healing. I do keep it memorized. It is good bang for your buck when you need a heal between a short rest and immediate healing. Prayer of Healing is useless for combat healing.

Why does your cleric not have a spare spell known? Honestly, in the games I've run, having cure wounds over healing word would get someone killed more often than the hit point difference, because of the range. That's so critical.

I have bless, shield of faith, bane, cure wounds, aid, prayer of healing, and spiritual weapon. I could probably drop bane, since I haven't used it. I tend to use aid as my ranged AoE heal. It effectively does the same amount of healing word, heals a group, and adds hit points even when the group doesn't need a heal. Aid is one of the best bang for the buck AoE ranged low level heal spells and it has an alternate utility use as well. It definitely beats out healing word once you get 2nd level spells.

If you replaced your cleric with a sharpshooter and bought a few potions, you'd probably see pretty similar results. Especially at the number of enemies you're talking about, since keeping someone up when healed from down is tremendously difficult, and you're already worried about your casters being exposed to combat.

No. We would not. Bless is extremely powerful offensive and defensively. It is like a 7th or 8th level spell at 1st level. The cleric gets so many excellent spells as they rise in the level, the value of the sharpshooter's damage will fall compared to the cleric's utility. Clerics are far more useful at higher level than a combat-focused class will ever be, especially when facing creatures with special abilities that attack weak save and immediately remove the player from combat.

Either way, an invisible imp still does wonders for giving out a heal, and might be less danger for your cleric :)

The options the trickery cleric has are amazing. The trickery cleric is going to be vicious at higher level.

Makes sense. We had a similar problem, though found that just adding tons of enemies didn't really save things. The group that cared more started playing 13th Age more instead, and the other just toned itself down a little.

I figure each group finds the level of challenge and play-style they enjoy and makes it happen. At the end of the day, having fun with your buddies is the main goal.
 

The mammoths sounds fun. They'd also be relatively easy to kill for a mid-level group, while also providing enough XP (150K) to be worth the effort, probably boosting everyone a level. The reason they're easy to kill is that they're straightforward meat bags with low Int. Once you've proved you can kill five, you can kill fifty the same way--but the player still feels awesome for doing something big.

5E is a good edition for leveraging quantity. I'm currently trying to work out the economics for how much a company of 50 Onis from the Long Fangs would charge a hobgoblin nation to join in the war against the good guys, if the PCs start winning. In general I think high-level play should lean more on powerful organizations than lone powerful individual villains.

I agree. You could throw a dragon with an army of kobolds at a level 20 party, the kobolds would still be dangerous if you ignored them. I love that aspect of 5E.
 

At 3rd level? In a single encounter? From 23 foes? Where a single high damage critical could knock a low hit point PC unconscious?

Let me give you some more info. We give maximum hit points to 3rd level. That helps quite a bit. We feel it smooths the lower level transition from weak to strong.

Average 3rd level fighter/warlock with 16 con has 13+8+8=29 hit points. Same combo in our game has 13+11+11=35. Six more hit points.

Crits are not like 3E. They barely do more damage. They can do less damage than even a regular hit. It all depends on the roll and the damage die. You make crits sound like 3E crits where you're doing x2 or 3 everything. Str isn't doubled. Static bonus aren't doubled. Only damage dice. Gnolls don't get any boosted damage dice.

Check out a gnoll's to hit roll and damage. +3 or +4 to hit. 1d6+2 with spear or 1d8+1 with longbow. AC 15 with spear and shield. AC 13 with longbow. Imagine a warlock/fighter with an AC 18 and heavy armor mastery. Average melee gnoll does 1d6+2 or 5.5 damage, reduced by 3 for heavy armory mastery. Average gnoll hit against the Heavy Armor Mastery fighter is 2.5 damage. Even an arrow shot would be 5.5. You figure only a 35% chance to hit an AC of 18, 25% for archers in back rank with cover. It was pretty easy for him to stand tall and hammer at the choke point.

Now if this were 23 Hobgoblins or even kobolds, we might have been in more trouble. Hobgoblins hammer hard. We fought a eight or nine hobgoblins, they were far tougher than the gnolls because of Martial Advantage. That hurt bad.

Gnolls and goblins are fairly weak. Hobgoblins and bugbears are vicious. Kobolds can hit a lot with pack tactics. Orcs can be dangerous due to the greataxe damage dice. Beating a bunch of gnolls isn't as big a deal as you are making it out to be. Check out their statistics compared to Hobgoblins or Bugbears. They are not so dangerous.
 
Last edited:


I agree. You could throw a dragon with an army of kobolds at a level 20 party, the kobolds would still be dangerous if you ignored them. I love that aspect of 5E.
Heh. I once ran a climactic battle with a high-level party vs a Kraken and literal schools of suahagin, hundreds of 'em (and some 30 odd other monsters, including aboleth). The suahagin turned out to be scarier than the aboleths.

In AD&D, I'd've completely hand-waved 'em. "And there are a bunch of suahagin swimming around. I'm not going to worry about them, since they can't hit you even on a natural 20." Then there was Battlesystem...

Check out a gnoll's to hit roll and damage. +3 or +4 to hit. 1d6+2 with spear or 1d8+1 with longbow. AC 15 with spear and shield. AC 13 with longbow.

Now if this were 23 Hobgoblins or even kobolds, we might have been in more trouble. Hobgoblins hammer hard. Kobolds can hit a lot with pack tactics.
Gnolls are worth 4x the exp of Kobolds. Was that a mistake, do you think? Should pack tactics add more to CR?
 

5E does. There's even a little example in the Basic rules of how an ogre is too strong because it could one-hit-kill a wizard.
The whole idea - OK, a big part of the idea - of Bounded Accuracy was that you could use much higher CR monsters against the party, as well as masses of much-lower CR ones.

Challenge rating is only a guidepost that indicates at
what level that monster becomes an appropriate challenge.
When putting together an encounter or adventure, especially
at lower levels, exercise caution when using monsters whose
challenge rating is higher than the party’s level.
"Exercise Caution" is not a prohibition.
 
Last edited:

5E does. There's even a little example in the Basic rules of how an ogre is too strong because it could one-hit-kill a wizard.
Ironic then that 5e published adventures break that rule so frequently. Some examples: Phandelver pits the PCs against a dragon with DOUBLE their level in CR in Thundertree. HotDQ also has a dragon fight at about 5+ CR above APL. The PotA finale involves fighting off elemental creatures approximately 5+ above CR as well. Those are just the ones I can name off the top of my head. I'm sure there's plenty more examples.
 

The whole idea - OK, a big part of the idea - of Bounded Accuracy was that you could use much higher CR monsters against the party, as well as masses of much-lower CR ones.

"Exercise Caution" is not a prohibition.

...which is why it's a guideline and not a rule. In any case, that is the text I was referring to. Some people expect that guidance to be followed, as well the other encounter balancing guidelines. Such people should know that I don't do that.
 

...which is why it's a guideline and not a rule. In any case, that is the text I was referring to. Some people expect that guidance to be followed, as well the other encounter balancing guidelines. Such people should know that I don't do that.
Following that guidance would not result in never facing a higher-CR monster, though. Guidelines, tell you what the challenge is, not strictly whether you should use it. In status-quo, for instance, an encounter might follow the guidlines for level 15 - but, whoops, you walked into at level 5.

Like the hypothetical dragon-creation rules, they work in both directions. Decide that some monsters will be in a certain area, and you can use the guidelines to figure the kind of challenge they'd pose. Decide you want a certain challenge in a certain area, and you can design one with a group of monsters that match. They can be the same group of monsters.

Having guidelines in the game doesn't make it one or the other 'kind of game.'
 
Last edited:

Remove ads

Top