D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[dave2008]

Not having death at 0 and cheap heals is the yoyo.

5e is easy mode because if a PC drops to 0, it's easy to heal and bring up the dying PC with all the classes with healing magic, healing feats, and healing items.

So after a while, a DM can get overconfident in the PCs and drop a stronger monster group. And the TPK happens because the stronger monsters drop multiple PCs and the living ones can't hold them off, revive the fallen, and remain alive themselves.

As I noted when someone else gave a similar response: that's seems entirely like a DM issue to me.

 

[pemerton]

And no one has ever designed a CR system that allows for enemies that exploit a specific party weakness or allows for players who exploit a specific strategy or monster weakness.

<snip>

The vast majority of D&D adventures considered "classic" were designed before the existence of a CR system, and very few after.

This may be true, but I don't think it speaks to my remarks about Tucker's Kobolds.

You have a monster that is intelligent enough to use traps and terrain to their advantage, which means that they will invariably be deadlier than a monster who just engages in a slugfest

Key aspects of Tucker's Kobolds involve exploiting the fact that some action resolution in classic D&D is level-dependent (eg fighting with swords, evading or resisting poison, avoiding some traps) but some is not (eg making one's way through mud and snow, avoiding some other traps, breaking out of nets, avoiding damage from flaming oil). The difference between what is level dependent and what's not isn't based on some deep game play principle. It's ad hoc.

From what I can tell (using a DMG on archive.org since I don't have one of my own, and it inconvienently doesn't have page 175), those numbers show the range of how many monsters of what types you might find, but not how many encounters per day you're "supposed" to have. And that's what I was talking about.

This is because Gygax's AD&D assumes that the players choose where they explore in the dungeon, and hence - within the parameters set by the GM's dungeon design plus wandering monster rolls - choose what encounters they have. This is set out in the advice to players in the PHB, under the heading Successful Adventures (it begins on p 107).

Modern approaches to D&D, which place the GM squarely in charge of framing encounters and determining when they occur, play very differently from what Gygax had in mind.

 

[pemerton]

As I noted when someone else gave a similar response: that's seems entirely like a DM issue to me.

Isn't it a result of a peculiar feature of the game rules?

Knocking PCs unconscious doesn't generate much tension in combat, because it's easy to bring them back (the so-called "yo-yo"). But the maths is such that when a bit more pressure is piled on to step up the tension, it's easy to TPK instead.

Suppose the maths, or some other rule, was changed which meant that a PC who goes down stays down, but is not at any greater risk of dying. That would increase the tension, without inviting the additional piling on of pressure that risks TPKing. Which to me shows that this is a system issue.

Of course there's a design reason for the yo-yo, namely, that it reduces the number of turns missed by players in combat. So the system issue may not be easy to fix while holding some of the key 5e parameters constant.

 

[Minigiant]

As I noted when someone else gave a similar response: that's seems entirely like a DM issue to me.

Half is and half isn't.

A lot of it is monster design in the MM for many monsters not following design guidelines and being designed

For example the MM humanoid mage has half the HP it should have at its CR but 150-300% the damage for its CR (for the first 7 rounds). Come of Cold ice storm ice storm ice storm fireball fireball fireball. Upcast any fireball if resistant to ice.

That is half the reason why they changed them. Spellcasters were ultimate glass cannons that a DM could easily burn through 1-3 encounters of resources.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

As I noted when someone else gave a similar response: that's seems entirely like a DM issue to me.

If it happens to a critical number of DMs is a sytem issue. At least it is a communication and guideline issue.

 

[dave2008]

If it happens to a critical number of DMs is a sytem issue. At least it is a communication and guideline issue.

I can agree with that last part and almost included it in my response. However, do we have any idea if a critical number of people are having TPKs because they ignore the encounter building guidelines because they decided to make encounters tougher? Is that really I problem that comes up a lot? Not from what I have heard, but I don't really know of any evidence one way or the other.

 

[dave2008]

That is a helpful explanation. Like I said somewhere in this thread, we play death at 0, so this isn't an issue for us. However, I will make one more comment...

Isn't it a result of a peculiar feature of the game rules?

Knocking PCs unconscious doesn't generate much tension in combat, because it's easy to bring them back (the so-called "yo-yo"). But the maths is such that when a bit more pressure is piled on to step up the tension, it's easy to TPK instead.

.,,this assumes your group has a method to bring someone back.

Suppose the maths, or some other rule, was changed which meant that a PC who goes down stays down, but is not at any greater risk of dying. That would increase the tension, without inviting the additional piling on of pressure that risks TPKing. Which to me shows that this is a system issue.

Of course there's a design reason for the yo-yo, namely, that it reduces the number of turns missed by players in combat. So the system issue may not be easy to fix while holding some of the key 5e parameters constant.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I can agree with that last part and almost included it in my response. However, do we have any idea if a critical number of people are having TPKs because they ignore the encounter building guidelines because they decided to make encounters tougher? Is that really I problem that comes up a lot? Not from what I have heard, but I don't really know of any evidence one way or the other.

I ignore them, and have never had any problems. I think designing a good encounter amounts to running it through in your head. No numerical system can substitute for that.

And remember, PCs should sometimes expect to find themselves overmatched and make a tactical withdrawal.

 

[dave2008]

I ignore them, and have never had any problems.

I do to, but that is not what I was talking about. I am talking about someone using the encounter guidelines, and decided they have to create more difficult challenges than recommended and that leads to a TPK. Is that really a concern?

 

[Paul Farquhar]

I do to, but that is not what I was talking about. I am talking about someone using the encounter guidelines, and decided they have to create more difficult challenges than recommended and that leads to a TPK. Is that really a concern?

TPKs are usually because the players are too dumb to run away.

So, no.