D&D General Should D&D Be "Hard"

[Remathilis]

That wasn't the question. The question is what should we call the category beyond "deadly"?

I vote "blood sausage".

The category above deadly is "non-encounter".

What's the encounter category of a brick wall? You either avoid it, circumvent it or leave. What is the encounter category of a blizzard? You either escape, avoid, or die. You're not beating either in combat. If the fight can't be won, it's not really a fight.

Unless you're just trying to murder all your PCs intentionally. If so, that category name can't be printed on EnWorld.

 

[Moonmover]

Sometimes I want it rough.

Sometimes I want it gentle.

It depends on my mood

What's the encounter category of a brick wall? You either avoid it, circumvent it or leave.

A brick wall has 5d10 hit points and an armor class of 17 [Dungeon Master's Guide, 5th Edition, p.246-247]

 

[Blue]

It's just my opinion. Others may disagree, and play differently.

You are entitled to your opinion, as am I.

Exactly. Which is why I called you out for using the term "always", which is not an opinion on how you like to play, but an opinion on how you think everyone should play.

 

[Reynard]

The category above deadly is "non-encounter".

What's the encounter category of a brick wall? You either avoid it, circumvent it or leave. What is the encounter category of a blizzard? You either escape, avoid, or die. You're not beating either in combat. If the fight can't be won, it's not really a fight.

Unless you're just trying to murder all your PCs intentionally. If so, that category name can't be printed on EnWorld.

I don't understand this perspective at all. If the players encounter it and it requires them to make choices about what to do (even if those are "circumvent, abandon,or die") then it is by definition an Encounter. You don't get to redefine the term to only include things for which players get to mash the "win" button.

Whether they are something you should put in your game is a different discussion.

 

[Vaalingrade]

I'd say interaction needs to play a part, which is the antithesis of the 'lol you can't deal with this' 'encounter'.

 

[Reynard]

I'd say interaction needs to play a part, which is the antithesis of the 'lol you can't deal with this' 'encounter'.

Sneaking around to avoid waking the hydra/giant/troll IS interacting with it.

 

[pointofyou]

The question - legitimately - then becomes "Should it?".

Should the DMG present a category of encounter that is specifically intended to be engaged with by means other than combat (which would kill the PCs dead), and present DM-side guidelines to how to run such?

I say it should.

There are some warnings about encounters with sufficiently high-CR critters being deadlier than the XP budget might indicate IIRC.

I agree that the boundaries of such encounters should be spelled out for DMs so they don't accidentally cross them. I'm deeply ambivalent on presenting any encounter where a specific approach the PCs might choose is doomed to failure but that's my preferences.

 

[cranberry]

Exactly. Which is why I called you out for using the term "always", which is not an opinion on how you like to play, but an opinion on how you think everyone should play.

Is qualifying language really needed?...

I thought it was pretty obvious that people are sharing their opinion, as I doubt anyone in this thread has any sway at WoTC.

And even if they did, it still wouldn't matter, as no one can force you to play their way.

 

[Remathilis]

Sneaking around to avoid waking the hydra/giant/troll IS interacting with it.

DM: You see a sleeping hydra.
PCs: ok. We turn around and leave.
DM: Great. You get 3900 XP for not waking the sleeping hydra.

 

[Reynard]

DM: You see a sleeping hydra.
PCs: ok. We turn around and leave.
DM: Great. You get 3900 XP for not waking the sleeping hydra.

That is reductive to the point of being snark.

So do you only consider it an encounter if a skill check is made or initiative is rolled?