D&D 5E State of D&D

[Mistwell]

Well, perhaps it wasn't stated very well. In that case, I would agree, generally, with the objection that single monsters have a heck of a time against a party of adventurers. That isn't a problem with the variety of monsters, however. Instead, it is a rather banal observation about how 5e is working in practice, and I doubt that fluffing one CR12 monster is going to change that.

The Legendary rules do a good job of addressing this issue, but there is a serious lack of Legendary monsters and examples of different powers and lairs they can have when they are Legendary.

And my point was that you are inaptly citing examples. Things take time. BECMI did not come fully formed; instead, it took eight (8!) years.

WHEN every single edition of the game supported, for example, 12th level, it had decent support for 12th level challenges. It never took time to supply the challenge support for the levels that were supported in the game at that point.

We aren't even two years after the publication of the PHB, and we've seen the publication of a few complete campaign paths, and the complaint is that there are too [Edit - Few] monsters.

No, that's not what I am saying (you have not seen me say there are too few total monsters). I said there are too few challenges for mid and high level play. It's something different they did with this MM.

I mean, it's not like there's 40 years of history to mine.

There isn't, for this issue I am talking about. And again, you appear to not be addressing my point. You can't mine history for CR 12 monster stats - it doesn't flow directly like that. And you can convert, but you need a good basis to convert from - and with only 1-3 monsters of some CRs, that's a poor basis to convert from. I am not saying it's impossible, just that it's much more difficult, and doesn't tend to go as well.

I can understand that it would be desirable to have things (I wouldn't mind more monsters)

OK so even you agree with me on this - what are you arguing about then?

but given D&D's past, I will state again- better too little, filled in with some DIY, than crud that can't be taken back.

Sure. But at the point where campaigns are now routinely hitting the levels where they admit they intentionally didn't give many challenges for those levels because they wanted to see how the few examples they did provide went over, I think it's fair to argue, "OK, it's time now".

Holy cherrypicking Batman! Other than the fact that CRs are pretty useless (amazing fact of the day - it is possible to not even use them), you can actually go to CR 11 (Nine Monsters) or CR 13 (Nine Monsters).

I was giving an example, not saying my example represents all levels. I gave another example as well. These are gaps. They're real. There are 170 CR 0-1 challenges in the MM, and only ONE CR 18 challenge. I am not looking for parity there, but I am demonstrating there is a real gap. You need a sufficient array of different types of monsters at differing challenges to adequately convert things. There just isn't a sufficient number for mid and higher level play. And...again, they know this. I have no idea why you're arguing with me about this. Are you calling Mike Mearls a liar when HE says he knows there isn't enough at those levels?

But seriously- go back and look at the "old" classic adventurers for 8-12. Or 10-14. Somehow, we managed to abide.

There were plenty of challenges for those levels - they're increasingly difficult to convert to 5e because of a lack of a basis to compare them to. I know - it's what I've been doing. Do you think I am just joking when I say I am experiencing this issue?

There are "objectively" fewer challenges in 5e, because 5e doesn't want to kill players. 5e is an easy system. If you really want to kill players, there are always ways.

No that's BS. That issue has nothing at all to do with this issue. Higher level challenges, and challenges which can serve as solo monsters, is not related to rate of PC death.

 

[Mistwell]

Is it? By who's standard?

If you are specifically speaking to dragons, sure maybe. Okay. But then, in 5e I find dragons to be a decent challenge to a party of adventurers. So there's that.

The concept of the solo monster challenge (related to the Boss Fight concept) is a pretty well established concept for D&D. Are you really denying that's prima facia true? Because that kinda smacks as arguing for the sake of arguing (which I can appreciate, but I just want to know if that's where you are coming from).

 

[Mistwell]

Weekly (for the most part).


5e? Since the very first playtest packet.


Which campaign? And do the APs count? Those alone go to 15+ each.

Well APs "count" of course, but I was more asking how far you've gotten with a homebrew campaign that you have not run into this issue in the mid levels. This isn't intended as some "I am more experienced than you at D&D" sort of thing on my part. I am just trying to explain when we ran into this issue and see if you got to those points and didn't run into it, or if you did something I have not thought of to deal with the issue.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

The concept of the solo monster challenge (related to the Boss Fight concept) is a pretty well established concept for D&D. Are you really denying that's prima facia true? Because that kinda smacks as arguing for the sake of arguing (which I can appreciate, but I just want to know if that's where you are coming from).

Subtle. And yes, I am denying that it is prima facia true. Maybe to certain previous edition. And maybe to you and your particular playstyle? Perhaps. But to all of D&D and it's many and varied players across the numerous editions? Are you seriously trying to speak for the entire player base throughout D&D's history?

Also, I assume you can cite a myriad of examples to support your claim... What iconic "solo" encounters from previous editions of D&D are you seeing as not viable in 5e?

 

[ChrisCarlson]

Well APs "count" of course, but I was more asking how far you've gotten with a homebrew campaign that you have not run into this issue in the mid levels. This isn't intended as some "I am more experienced than you at D&D" sort of thing on my part. I am just trying to explain when we ran into this issue and see if you got to those points and didn't run into it, or if you did something I have not thought of to deal with the issue.

I've run multiple homebrew campaigns since 5e's inception. One went all the way from 1st to 14th level. Another to 12th. One is still young. I've also played in others.

To be blunt, I believe one of the reasons for my overwhelmingly successful enjoyment of this edition is that I've abandoned my previous-edition baggage and embraced 5e's wonderful bounded accuracy paradigm and rulings-not-rules philosophy.

Maybe a little more detail as to where you feel the game is faltering for you so we can help? Where is your campaign at and what do you feel is lacking, exactly?

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[Mistwell]

Subtle. And yes, I am denying that it is prima facia true. Maybe to certain previous edition. And maybe to you and your particular playstyle? Perhaps. But to all of D&D and it's many and varied players across the numerous editions? Are you seriously trying to speak for the entire player base throughout D&D's history?

No I am not speaking for anyone's playstyle, I am speaking for a rules design concept from prior editions. The concept of a boss fight or solo monster is a concept that's been consistently discussed by game designers of D&D since the beginning. You can find articles talking about it for every edition. It was a known concept for D&D, across all editions (and then taken by video game designers as well). Of course not everyone used it, but that's not the same as it being a well established concept for the game in general. I mean, not everyone used dragons (for instance) for D&D, but they are obviously a well established concept for D&D, right? That's my point.

Also, I assume you can cite a myriad of examples to support your claim... What iconic "solo" encounters from previous editions of D&D are you seeing as not viable in 5e?

I am not referring to iconic monsters really (5e has a lot of the iconic solos). I am referring to a wider array of solo monsters for the variety of levels. I mean sure, we get Orcus and Tiamat. I don't really mean Intellectual Property branding issues like those iconics, and I think 5e is doing that pretty well. I more mean I want ordinary solo-ready creatures.

Here is an example I am throwing together for purposes of this post: 12th level party is hired to take care of a monster plaguing a village on the Steppes. They enter a cavern and fight a Gargantuan Fiendish Monstrous Scorpion for instance (a 12 CR creature from 3e) that doesn't die in 1 round because it gets a quick pile-on. Sure, I can throw that together from a lower CR or higher CR bug-like creature in the book, slap some Legendary rules and lair on it, and work it that way. But it's more difficult than simply having a 12 CR bug already in the book, or an existing Legendary monster of any sort around that CR.

 

[lowkey13]

*Deleted by user*

 

[ChrisCarlson]

No I am not speaking for anyone's playstyle, I am speaking for a rules design concept from prior editions.

Maybe a certain recent edition... But no. Otherwise, I disagree.

The concept of a boss fight or solo monster is a concept that's been consistently discussed by game designers of D&D since the beginning. You can find articles talking about it for every edition.

Sounds like you're familiar enough to provide a link or two?

It was a known concept for D&D, across all editions (and then taken by video game designers as well). Of course not everyone used it, but that's not the same as it being a well established concept for the game in general. I mean, not everyone used dragons (for instance) for D&D, but they are obviously a well established concept for D&D, right? That's my point.

Well, I've been playing D&D with literally hundreds of different people across multiple decades using every edition of D&D since it's inception. This phenomenon, IMX, is not as integral or prevalent as your experience would seem to lead you to believe. Now what?

I am not referring to iconic monsters really (5e has a lot of the iconic solos). I am referring to a wider array of solo monsters for the variety of levels. I mean sure, we get Orcus and Tiamat. I don't really mean Intellectual Property branding issues like those iconics, and I think 5e is doing that pretty well. I more mean I want ordinary solo-ready creatures.

Hrmmm. Not sure what to tell you. Maybe this edition isn't for you. 5e wasn't designed around every encounter being a solo monster. Kinda the opposite actually. With BA, 5e is all about numbers. That's its core principle. That's why the solo-style monsters it does have get legendary and/or lair actions.

Here is an example I am throwing together for purposes of this post: 12th level party is hired to take care of a monster plaguing a village on the Steppes. They enter a cavern and fight a Gargantuan Fiendish Monstrous Scorpion for instance (a 12 CR creature from 3e) that doesn't die in 1 round because it gets a quick pile-on. Sure, I can throw that together from a lower CR or higher CR bug-like creature in the book, slap some Legendary rules and lair on it, and work it that way. But it's more difficult than simply having a 12 CR bug already in the book, or an existing Legendary monster of any sort around that CR.

And the next guy comes along to complain that his homebrew encounter won't work because there's no solo-mega-moth...

But to delve into your example, how scary is this single scorpion? I mean you seem to want it to be a challenge for a half-dozen 12th level PCs. That's a seriously scary dragon-eating scorpion right there! (Don't forget, CR had different connotations, definitions, and expectations between 3e and 5e. Just sayin'.)