D&D 5E (2014) Test of High Level 5E: Design 4 or 5 lvl 13 PCs for 6 to 8 encounter adventuring day

[Libramarian]

Everything after the ablity scores is all the same text for all 5 PCs?

That cracked me up. I thought for a second you were all playing lithe yet voluptuous blondes on purpose.

 

[Celtavian]

That cracked me up. I thought for a second you were all playing lithe yet voluptuous blondes on purpose.

Someone would watch that film or anime.

 

[Celtavian]

Hmm... Not sure what I can bring to the table, since having the 6-8 encounter adventuring day is the greatest obstacle in the first place.

My stance is that since you can seldom force so many encounters on the party against their will, the encounter guidelines become such weaksauce. Flamestrike did recently agree with me one solution is to change the resting rules to wrest away control from the players, but that solution (which is a true solution) seems to be incredibly unpopular otherwise.

Regarding party composition, how about two sharpshooter/crossbow expert fighters (that function equally well at 0 feet as 120 feet) and two warlocks for starters?

Minimize long rest dependency and increase chance for several "mini novas" during one and the same day. A single warlock is horribly constrained; two can share the load. Its not like 5E needs specialized wizards like past editions anyway.

Then I guess the Paladin is too good to pass up, so he takes fifth spot.

All builds obviously get Perception and try to not suck at Stealth.

I want to have a somewhat realistic party. I ran nearly this exact party composition. In fact, I run nearly this exact party composition in nearly very game I run. Sometimes the eldritch knight is a ranger. The paladin multiclasses some fighter. The wizard is switched with a druid or sorcerer. The cleric is sometimes a healing focused bard or druid. We have one party that doesn't have a bard.

 

[BoldItalic]

It would be just as undesirable to have criminal records to my group as to be considered obviously good and heroic. They key here is control. They create characters that tend towards neutrality and self-interest that don't align good or evil. They are pure mercenaries beholden only to themselves. They like to stay off the radar.
...
So let's start this the way my players would, "My character isn't a criminal. I don't like the fact you're insinuating we're criminals." Just a taste of some of what I deal with sometimes.

Suppose you make that your characters' initial response to the wizard's offer? The wizard could reasonably apologise and retract the implication, leaving you in a better bargaining position to ask a little more. Maybe you ask for three times instead of double and get advantage on a persuade roll.

Rather than adapting the adventure-as-written to the specific character party, a little IC jostling right at the beginning can smooth over the bumps and then you're away.

 

[CapnZapp]

I realize you've already done the work, so all my posts can be summarized as: good luck!

 

[iserith]

Hmm... Not sure what I can bring to the table, since having the 6-8 encounter adventuring day is the greatest obstacle in the first place.

My stance is that since you can seldom force so many encounters on the party against their will, the encounter guidelines become such weaksauce. Flamestrike did recently agree with me one solution is to change the resting rules to wrest away control from the players, but that solution (which is a true solution) seems to be incredibly unpopular otherwise.

Regarding party composition, how about two sharpshooter/crossbow expert fighters (that function equally well at 0 feet as 120 feet) and two warlocks for starters?

Minimize long rest dependency and increase chance for several "mini novas" during one and the same day. A single warlock is horribly constrained; two can share the load. Its not like 5E needs specialized wizards like past editions anyway.

Then I guess the Paladin is too good to pass up, so he takes fifth spot.

All builds obviously get Perception and try to not suck at Stealth.

I tend do things in adventures that make time matter. Doom occurs at a set time. Things get harder the longer you take. Opportunities for wealth or advantage dry up. Wandering monster checks at regular intervals. Rival adventuring parties pursuing the game goal. Sometimes more than one time pressure in one adventure. If the PCs can afford to lollygag, then yeah, cramming 6 to 8 adventuring days into one session might seem odd. But that comes down to how the DM presents the game. I love time as a resource and I find my players do too.

 

[Celtavian]

I tend do things in adventures that make time matter. Doom occurs at a set time. Things get harder the longer you take. Opportunities for wealth or advantage dry up. Wandering monster checks at regular intervals. Rival adventuring parties pursuing the game goal. Sometimes more than one time pressure in one adventure. If the PCs can afford to lollygag, then yeah, cramming 6 to 8 adventuring days into one session might seem odd. But that comes down to how the DM presents the game. I love time as a resource and I find my players do too.

What do you do if the party decides to go kill the rival adventuring groups? Or if they directly tell you they seek out easier targets? Do you allow that level of player agency? I know I've discussed player agency on this board quite often. People often assume I'm a railroad DM because I like story. In reality, I'm not much of a railroader. I make encounters and I incorporate a story, but I give the players a great deal of latitude in how they go about defeating it even to the point of saying, "This isn't fun. My character wouldn't risk it. I'm leaving." We've had a lot of characters run away. In fact, we have one guy who has a wizard character that has run away survived so often that he reached extremely high level and is known by some as a coward and others as a survivor. How do you deal with players that like risk control?

 

[iserith]

What do you do if the party decides to go kill the rival adventuring groups?

That's cool.

Or if they directly tell you they seek out easier targets?

Anything left undone tends to have bad consequences for the world or for the PCs.

Do you allow that level of player agency? I know I've discussed player agency on this board quite often. People often assume I'm a railroad DM because I like story. In reality, I'm not much of a railroader. I make encounters and I incorporate a story, but I give the players a great deal of latitude in how they go about defeating it even to the point of saying, "This isn't fun. My character wouldn't risk it. I'm leaving." We've had a lot of characters run away. In fact, we have one guy who has a wizard character that has run away survived so often that he reached extremely high level and is known by some as a coward and others as a survivor. How do you deal with players that like risk control?

I expect them to mitigate risk as best they can while making it fun for everyone and helping to create an exciting, memorable story. But everything's a trade-off. If you don't stop Lord Badguy's plans, then something bad happens that makes life harder. If you let a rival adventuring group stop Lord Badguy, then they get his gear and are more powerful - they may strike first to eliminate their competition. If the players think they can live with the consequence (which they sometimes decide they can or even think it'd be more interesting), then the trade-off is worth it. Sometimes because time is running short, they have to make the hard choice. Making time an important resource makes for a more exciting game in my view and generally means the guidelines as written work better. (They still aren't perfect, but that's okay.)

In the last adventure I wrote, the villain, Dick Barrage, had particular devious things happen at two particular times. The PCs basically had 36 hours to figure out who the villain was, what his exact plans were, where to find him, and do this while the city (Sharn) was in the throes of a huge celebration that made getting around more time-consuming. So one of the cool trade-offs in this game was how much money they were willing to spend to hire NPC guides or sky coaches (think flying cabs) so that getting from Point A to Point B in the city took less time.

 

[Celtavian]

Ok. I have the party dynamic set up. Backgrounds are chosen. First in character response up. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow to do some more work. Off to work.

 

[Flamestrike]

Ok. I have the party dynamic set up. Backgrounds are chosen. First in character response up. I'll be back later tonight or tomorrow to do some more work. Off to work.

Cool mate - I'll post some answers to your questions above in a few hours.