D&D 5E Encounter Balance holds back 5E

[GMMichael]

Nah.

The DM can guess/eyeball, and the DM can use the CR system. . .

and the DM can make opponents run away. Make them subdue. Make them friends. Even adjust hit points as needed (why would opponents always be at max HP?). The DM always knows how much danger is involved, because the DM controls danger.

I disagree, having just skimmed through this whole chapter twice now for other posts in this thread. At least half of this chapter is not directly related to combat. Sure, Visibility Outdoors is needed for combat, but it's also needed for exploration and to preface a social encounter as well. Almost every other section (~25) falls into being needed for a non-combat pillar except for; Attack Rolls, Combat, Combining Game Effects, Improvising Damage, Adjudicating AoEs, Handling Mobs, Adj Reaction Timing, & Siege Equipment.

I think you're looking at a different chapter than I was.

 

[Umbran]

[of course, most of it is mush and/or things that we as Social Warriors would never publish.]

Mod Note:
So, you have failed to remember our inclusivity policy. Use of terms like "Social Warrior" to dismiss, disparage, or insult is not acceptable.

That's your one warning.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Nah.

The DM can guess/eyeball, and the DM can use the CR system

I can jump in here. “eyeballing” I guess describes how I create encounters, having learned on 1st edition. Usually, it works well, but just occasionally it goes wrong. For example, last session we came close to a TPK on what should have been a straightforward encounter when a CR2 Living Doll incapacitated 75% of the 8th level party on round 1 when they failed a simple DC 13 wisdom save.

Do I think this unpredictability is a problem? Hell no, it was the most fun fight we have had for a while!

 

[Quickleaf]

Some of the greatest fun my players have had is working around an "unbeatable" situation with clever strategies that create a total sea state change to what I'd anticipated the combat to look up.

In Mike Mearls' recent thread on rebalancing 5e's monster maths we had a laugh when we pointed out the tendency for players/designers to, just when they've dialed in the hit points, to then try every way possible to circumvent depleting hit points as the victory condition.

The whole idea that players consistently want "balanced combat" is a flawed premise.

I think a more accurate guideline is that players want to feel the GM is playing fair, they want to be challenged, and they want to have information in advance about prospective deadly* or especially unique/unfair scenarios (so they have some choice IF or HOW they engage), and for the GM never to be too precious about their monsters so that the players can utterly wreck them with clever thinking that elicits a "yes", "yes, but", or "yes, and" far more often than a "no."

I know there are exceptions to this in the player base, so I'm not saying it's 100% true at your table. Just my experience with a small swathe of players new and old (gamed with ~25 new folks in the past two years) is that that guideline generally holds across a pretty diverse set of players ages 11 to 40-something.

* using deadly in common parlance, not the 5e DMG's narrow definition

 

[Larnievc]

The second, greater point is that a focus on encounter balance hinders 5E's promise of uniting mechanics with the fictional world.

That's why I just eyeball it.

 

[Stormonu]

The green dragon and the banshee in Phandelver is a pretty good example of a combat that should be negotiated or flat out run from. When I introduced the game to my wife and kids I told them it was perfectly okay to retreat from combat (or if possible, completely avoid it). I'd say we play it in an old school fashion. They explored the early level of sunless citadel with a 10' pole and found a few traps this way (until the pole was destroyed). I rarely us encounter balance and usually build what I think is cool. Mostly we run published adventures and I feel these adventures offer a nice variety of encounters. Not sure how the majority may play with encounters, my experience is purely anecdotal.

I think this is a good point of something that should probably be brought up in a session 0 (and reiterated after a few sessions). The players and the DM need to iron out their expectations.

If there are going to be instances where situations are going to be over the player's heads, there needs to be some means of communicating this to the players before they're too far in over their heads to realize its happening. This might be a fine time to discuss what other options players can consider when facing an encounter and what consequences (such as, does the group lose out on XP or treasure if they talk their way out instead of fight - this can make some players reluctant to finding solutions other than violence).

There also needs to be expectations set on how the players can extricate themselves if things go poorly - can they safely surrender or bargain for ransom? Can they flee (hint: Opportunity attacks on fleeing opponents STRONGLY discourage this, even if the opponent would do only a small amount of damage)? Will they be chased if they do so? How will that be handled? This should also be where the DM considers doing the same for the enemy - if every monster ALWAYS attacks, ALWAYS stays and fights to the death it sends a message to the players that they're expected to do the same.

 

[Umbran]

Can they flee (hint: Opportunity attacks on fleeing opponents STRONGLY discourage this, even if the opponent would do only a small amount of damage)?

Even worse than that: There is the Disengage action that can avoid the AoO. However, even if the enemy doesn't chase, when the party disengages individually, each on their initiative count, the enemy will tend to focus on whoever hasn't disengaged yet - so those with slower initiatives will be ganged up on.

Honestly, if you want to support this, inserting a whole party "Break and Run" action or an "Align Initiatives" action wouldn't be a bad idea. It would break from the usual tactical game design, but it might be worth doing so.

 

[MarkB]

Looking at the random encounter by terrain tables in Xanathar's, they certainly cater to a wide range of potential threat levels. For grasslands, levels 1-5, you can get anything from a handful of hobgoblins up to a T-Rex.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I guess, to me predict means 65% or so accuracy. I think my local weather forecaster would be happy with 65% accuracy

I guess if 65% is the margin, sure, but I can eyeball a lot better than that!

I guess newer DMs probably so it serves some purpose at least.

I do think the failure to provide solid advice on accounting for:

1) Level of optimization.

2) Amount of magic items.

3) System balance issues (which would require WotC to admit these exist - something they seem very averse to outside of UA content). I feel like WotC is big enough and cool enough that they could be honest and say "Hey, maybe some class/subclasses don't perform as well as others, we haven't got a list, but if you notice that being issue, do this...".

Is kinda sad. I hope the new DMG has a bit more on that. I do believe the monster math and changing a lot of stuff like spells into abilities is likely to lead to more accurate monster CRs for the new MM, at least!

 

[Ruin Explorer]

Even worse than that: There is the Disengage action that can avoid the AoO. However, even if the enemy doesn't chase, when the party disengages individually, each on their initiative count, the enemy will tend to focus on whoever hasn't disengaged yet - so those with slower initiatives will be ganged up on.

Honestly, if you want to support this, inserting a whole party "Break and Run" action or an "Align Initiatives" action wouldn't be a bad idea. It would break from the usual tactical game design, but it might be worth doing so.

This is an interesting point because a number of videogame turn-based RPGs or tactical RPGs have had to bump into the same problem, and whilst I'm struggling to remember specific examples, I know at least a couple of them did the same thing, ending up with a group-based "flee combat"-type option.

But yes heartily support this idea if a D&D campaign is going to feature significant running away.