Why the Hate On Melee Attacks, Why the Love for Ranged?

[FruitOfTheShroom]

I've noticed a general trend on the various forums I frequent for D&D discussion, particularly in threads regarding balance, optimization, and character building; That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite.

Disregarding specific builds, why is this a common theme? In my experience, it is VERY hard to get Advantage at Ranged. Being Hidden is the most common, but is very difficult to pull off (even with a stealth-lenient DM, like myself) since it requires a specific encounter, party make-up, and probably a Rogue dip. And Advantage is very important to utilize the -5/+10 feats, and to increase your hit chance considerably.

Meanwhile, melee is very easy to get advantage. Prone (Shield Master, Battle Master, Open Palm Monk, regular action) is a very common condition, and is very easy to "stick" on a lot of monsters. Other sources of advantage are Paladin Oath, Barbarian Wolf Totem, and Spells, to name a few common ones.

Other pros to melee are Reactions, specifically Polearm Master and Sentinel, both of which are very powerful. Crossbow Master is clearly very good in the Ranged camp, but it is replicated in melee pretty easily by Polearm Master's bonus action attack as well.

Maybe it is because every game I have played in or run has had a Shield Master/Battle Master and Great Weapon Fighter in the same party. Or maybe it's because my fellow players have never felt the need to "kite" an encounter (because seriously, who wants to play in a game where that is an effective strategy?).

Or am I missing something?

[MadBear]

From my experience, battle field control, terrain, and intelligent enemies make melee more difficult compared to a ranged character.

If someone drops a web spell, the melee character effectively loses their turn, while the ranged character can still keep attacking.

If the enemy is on top of a roof shooting down, the melee character has a lot harder time fighting the enemy.

If the enemy is a dragon and is just strafing the terrain, then the melee suffers from not getting close enough.

Once in the thick of it though, I find that melee is just as effective (if not more so), but it's the getting their that can be difficult.

[Kryx]

That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.
It is not for the most part. Polearm and GWM do more damage than it.

For things like Rogue Hand Crossbows are better than TWF due to the ability to sneak attack w/ hiding.
For other things like TWF it's just because TWF sucks.

As you say Prone is a huge boon for melee.

My math backs this up (See DPR of classes).

[FruitOfTheShroom]

From my experience, battle field control, terrain, and intelligent enemies make melee more difficult compared to a ranged character.

If someone drops a web spell, the melee character effectively loses their turn, while the ranged character can still keep attacking.

If the enemy is on top of a roof shooting down, the melee character has a lot harder time fighting the enemy.

If the enemy is a dragon and is just strafing the terrain, then the melee suffers from not getting close enough.

Once in the thick of it though, I find that melee is just as effective (if not more so), but it's the getting their that can be difficult.

The same can be said about ranged, as well. Using blocking terrain, cover, Ready action, and especially Wall of X Spells are all foils to Ranged.

Melee classes can also gain access to mobility enhancing effects. Misty Step is relatively "affordable" for a lot of melee focused characters (Paladins, Warlock, Eldritch Knight, Arcane Trickster, or a dip), and Athletics has been surprisingly easy to maximize to jump small distances. Sure, some grander terrain challenges might stump melee focused heroes, but that should be the exception until very high level.


Part of my problem might be using magic items, since frequently there is some sort of mobility enhancing item appearing in the mid levels (Wings of Flying being the most common, with being dropped in all 3 campaigns, one seeded and twice randomly).

EDIT

Also, my experiences might be a little too shallow, since they have all been heavy dungeon-delving campaigns, which means lots of encounters starting within 30 ft of at least one enemy, coupled with scout-focused characters being in 2 of them. Obviously sometimes distance was a feature of an encounter to make the Barbarians, Rogues, Monks, and ranged characters get some spotlight for their features.

[Finieous]

Meanwhile, melee is very easy to get advantage. Prone (Shield Master, Battle Master, Open Palm Monk, regular action) is a very common condition, and is very easy to "stick" on a lot of monsters. Other sources of advantage are Paladin Oath, Barbarian Wolf Totem, and Spells, to name a few common ones.

Other pros to melee are Reactions, specifically Polearm Master and Sentinel, both of which are very powerful. Crossbow Master is clearly very good in the Ranged camp, but it is replicated in melee pretty easily by Polearm Master's bonus action attack as well.


I think this is probably your answer. Most players probably just don't grasp the impact of advantage and reaction attacks. Therefore, since melee characters are more tactically challenging than ranged characters (outside of a white room), ranged seems clearly superior.

[MadBear]

well if you're group tends to give out magic items that negate the disadvantages of melee characters, then of course melee will always look better. Also, I wasn't saying that ranged didn't have it's disadvantages, but rather it's that in the typical encounter their less likely to be side lined compared to a melee.

Even in the case of Misty step, it'll only help so much. I remember in a recent campaign we were fighting a dragon who was hanging off a 60 ft ceiling using his breath weapon on us. The ranged characters reigned supreme in that battle. I found that as a paladin, using misty step grabbing a pillar and swing my one-handed sword made me not completely useless, but it cost me: bonus action, shield (needed free hand), and as soon as it was the dragons turn it moved away forcing me to waste another spell slot to move to it.

Even encounters with a moderate degree of difficult terrain can cause a melee character to take 1-2 extra turns to get into combat.

As it stands, melee does better damage once it does close the gap though. In fact, they deal a truck load of damage depending on what class you look at.

[FruitOfTheShroom]

I think this is probably your answer. Most players probably just don't grasp the impact of advantage and reaction attacks. Therefore, since melee characters are more tactically challenging than ranged characters (outside of a white room), ranged seems clearly superior.

Sometimes I wish basic Human was not hot garbage so I would see less of those feats. In the 20ish characters I've seen, exactly 0 of them were basic human, and more than half were Variant Human. As much as I love enabling character options, I would really like to run a campaign without Shield Master. (FWIW myself and the other DM rule Shield Master's activation as being enabled before resolving your attacks, since 5e seems to have a very loose definition of turn and action ordering. Ultimately, though, Shield Master's power is in enabling your heavy hitters, not enabling yourself anyway.)

[FruitOfTheShroom]

well if you're group tends to give out magic items that negate the disadvantages of melee characters, then of course melee will always look better. Also, I wasn't saying that ranged didn't have it's disadvantages, but rather it's that in the typical encounter their less likely to be side lined compared to a melee.

Even in the case of Misty step, it'll only help so much. I remember in a recent campaign we were fighting a dragon who was hanging off a 60 ft ceiling using his breath weapon on us. The ranged characters reigned supreme in that battle. I found that as a paladin, using misty step grabbing a pillar and swing my one-handed sword made me not completely useless, but it cost me: bonus action, shield (needed free hand), and as soon as it was the dragons turn it moved away forcing me to waste another spell slot to move to it.

Even encounters with a moderate degree of difficult terrain can cause a melee character to take 1-2 extra turns to get into combat.

As it stands, melee does better damage once it does close the gap though. In fact, they deal a truck load of damage depending on what class you look at.

The magical item thing I will admit as a concession, though every character got upgrades from it. Magic Items were always shared by who needs it the most, frequently meaning the melee bricks got mobility items, the casters got defensive items, and ranged characters got summoning or damage boosting items. It certainly changes the encounter paradigm dramatically.

Also, in a fight with a dragon or some other solo (or near solo) encounter, I would expect the norm to be at least one Lore Bard, Wizard, or Sorcerer with Fly on their spell list. Concentration is a hot commodity, but fully enabling another PC is equivalent to a 25% increase in overall resources for a fight, which is worth way more than most other spells, barring level 6+ spells.

I'm not trying to "one up" your argument, in case I come off this way. It's just I've had similar big (near) solo flying fights, and it was rare for one PC to be gimped for a serious portion of it. Maybe it's our GMing style. Both of us design our encounters to either challenge the classic Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Scout group instead of being metagamed against the actual party, or were designed to focus the spotlight on one particular character. Maybe it's our play group being pretty optimization savy, but even fights specifically designed to enable archers/warlocks/rogues still had the bricks contributing something meaningful. Engaging the other enemies since solo encounters are almost always a cake walk, providing buffs to the other characters via spells, Battle Master, and the Help Action, Healing, providing cover, using good RP to get a threat's attention, going after the McGuffin, becoming mobile via other PCs or consumables, the terrain changing due to clever high level spells, etc.

That being said, none of the archers or blasters ever felt overshadowed. They certainly contributed, mostly because threat selection is the kind of thing that gets the BBEG's attention and also rarely leaves one without something to do.

[MadBear]

The magical item thing I will admit as a concession, though every character got upgrades from it. Magic Items were always shared by who needs it the most, frequently meaning the melee bricks got mobility items, the casters got defensive items, and ranged characters got summoning or damage boosting items. It certainly changes the encounter paradigm dramatically.

Also, in a fight with a dragon or some other solo (or near solo) encounter, I would expect the norm to be at least one Lore Bard, Wizard, or Sorcerer with Fly on their spell list. Concentration is a hot commodity, but fully enabling another PC is equivalent to a 25% increase in overall resources for a fight, which is worth way more than most other spells, barring level 6+ spells.

I'm not trying to "one up" your argument, in case I come off this way. It's just I've had similar big (near) solo flying fights, and it was rare for one PC to be gimped for a serious portion of it. Maybe it's our GMing style. Both of us design our encounters to either challenge the classic Fighter/Cleric/Wizard/Scout group instead of being metagamed against the actual party, or were designed to focus the spotlight on one particular character. Maybe it's our play group being pretty optimization savy, but even fights specifically designed to enable archers/warlocks/rogues still had the bricks contributing something meaningful. Engaging the other enemies since solo encounters are almost always a cake walk, providing buffs to the other characters via spells, Battle Master, and the Help Action, Healing, providing cover, using good RP to get a threat's attention, going after the McGuffin, becoming mobile via other PCs or consumables, the terrain changing due to clever high level spells, etc.

That being said, none of the archers or blasters ever felt overshadowed. They certainly contributed, mostly because threat selection is the kind of thing that gets the BBEG's attention and also rarely leaves one without something to do.

No worries, I didn't think you were trying to "one up" me or anything.

In case I wasn't clear, I'm not saying that melee is worse then ranged or has obstacles that can't be overcome. Casting fly on a Great Weapon Barbarian is going to one of the best uses of the spell casters concentration I could think of if it allows the barbarian to get into the fight. I'll I was pointing out is that the fact that ranged characters often don't need this advantage, is a reason many (but not all) people tend to act as if ranged characters are better. Really, they just end up being easier to play.

[Citan]

I've noticed a general trend on the various forums I frequent for D&D discussion, particularly in threads regarding balance, optimization, and character building; That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite.

Or am I missing something?
Hi!

I'm a bit surprised by your feedback about general trend, because I clearly don't have the same. :) I would nearly say the opposite in fact if I wanted to tease you.

In all honesty, I didn't see any trend in one way or another. I just reviewed many many more melee-oriented builds than ranged builds, but that's also a bias because I was interested in martial characters at the time.

Also, considering how good melee attacks can get (Paladin smites, Barbarian features, Monk's stunning strikes, and I probably forgot many more) and the conditions to meet to make ranged attack strictly superior (no cover, large spaces, good visibility) I don't see how one could make a "general" comparison.
(And I say that as a ranged builds lover ;))

With that said, indeed, when you get (or you manage to create) favorable conditions, ranged builds are intrisically great, since you can hurt or kill enemies before they have a chance to come into their own attack range.
It really all depends on the settings.

[Sigreid]

Part of it is probably that with ranged attacks, and some preparation you can minimize your opponents ability to fight back. You can't always do that, of course, but a good portion of the time. It's very much that old line about bringing a knife to a gun fight. If the fight is beyond a certain range, it's better to have the gun. Inside that range, a knife in the right hands is the way to bet.

[Vogonjeltz]

I've noticed a general trend on the various forums I frequent for D&D discussion, particularly in threads regarding balance, optimization, and character building; That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite.

Disregarding specific builds, why is this a common theme? In my experience, it is VERY hard to get Advantage at Ranged. Being Hidden is the most common, but is very difficult to pull off (even with a stealth-lenient DM, like myself) since it requires a specific encounter, party make-up, and probably a Rogue dip. And Advantage is very important to utilize the -5/+10 feats, and to increase your hit chance considerably.

Meanwhile, melee is very easy to get advantage. Prone (Shield Master, Battle Master, Open Palm Monk, regular action) is a very common condition, and is very easy to "stick" on a lot of monsters. Other sources of advantage are Paladin Oath, Barbarian Wolf Totem, and Spells, to name a few common ones.

Other pros to melee are Reactions, specifically Polearm Master and Sentinel, both of which are very powerful. Crossbow Master is clearly very good in the Ranged camp, but it is replicated in melee pretty easily by Polearm Master's bonus action attack as well.

Maybe it is because every game I have played in or run has had a Shield Master/Battle Master and Great Weapon Fighter in the same party. Or maybe it's because my fellow players have never felt the need to "kite" an encounter (because seriously, who wants to play in a game where that is an effective strategy?).

Or am I missing something?

Well, from a strictly mechanical viewpoint, Ranged weaponry has the advantage in that it allows you to engage a target without necessarily being in danger yourself. Whereas melee Weaponry typically requires you to endanger yourself in order to endager the enemy.

Personally I think both tools have their uses, and I typically build my characters to have a good ranged option and a good melee option.

I'd say so long as there are attacks of different ranges and movement, kiting will always be a viable strategy. In the same vein, if you have abilities with cooldowns, it most benefits those with longer cooldowns to joust, only coming into contact when those cooldowns are up and practicing avoidance the rest of the time.


It is not for the most part. Polearm and GWM do more damage than it.

There is more to the question than simple damage per round, or damage per hit or the like. It's a question of scenario and tactics. Ranged combat is superior under the proviso that the user can kill the opponent receiving less damage than they would suffer if they engaged the opponent using a melee tactic.

In any case, I'd expect every combatant to employ a ranged attack of some kind unless they want to be kited to death.

[Longcat]

Melees have the best item support and the best DPR of all options. The tradeoff is that they need to get into melee range to actually use their melee options.

[SharkForce]

I've noticed a general trend on the various forums I frequent for D&D discussion, particularly in threads regarding balance, optimization, and character building; That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite.

Disregarding specific builds, why is this a common theme? In my experience, it is VERY hard to get Advantage at Ranged. Being Hidden is the most common, but is very difficult to pull off (even with a stealth-lenient DM, like myself) since it requires a specific encounter, party make-up, and probably a Rogue dip. And Advantage is very important to utilize the -5/+10 feats, and to increase your hit chance considerably.

Meanwhile, melee is very easy to get advantage. Prone (Shield Master, Battle Master, Open Palm Monk, regular action) is a very common condition, and is very easy to "stick" on a lot of monsters. Other sources of advantage are Paladin Oath, Barbarian Wolf Totem, and Spells, to name a few common ones.

Other pros to melee are Reactions, specifically Polearm Master and Sentinel, both of which are very powerful. Crossbow Master is clearly very good in the Ranged camp, but it is replicated in melee pretty easily by Polearm Master's bonus action attack as well.

Maybe it is because every game I have played in or run has had a Shield Master/Battle Master and Great Weapon Fighter in the same party. Or maybe it's because my fellow players have never felt the need to "kite" an encounter (because seriously, who wants to play in a game where that is an effective strategy?).

Or am I missing something?

- advantage is hard in some cases. but disadvantage is also uncommon once you have sharpshooter. meanwhile, archery combat style gives +2 to hit which is almost as good as cover advantage, and having to spend 3 turns getting to the enemy is a far more negative experience than not having advantage. meanwhile, advantage *can* still be gained; hidden is one way. a friendly wizard dropping a web spell is another. gaining the ability to see through darkness (usually from a 2 level warlock dip) can be yet another. likewise, disadvantage due to range (melee or long) is also negated with the right feat selections.

- reactions are not a factor when you're at range. your "reaction" advantage is that you get to shoot while the enemy spends turns closing the distance. getting a single reaction attack once every 2-3 turns does not compare favourably to getting 2-3 turns of full attacks while facing zero retaliation from melee threats. this won't happen all the time, but practically speaking neither will reactions come into play all the time.

- kiting is a thing. not every character can do it, but it isn't that hard to set up either. especially since the ranged combatant get to choose the ground the fight happens on.

- resources are available to reduce the disadvantages of melee, but the thing is, ranged takes care of those disadvantages without spending any resources at all.

once melee closes the distance? sure it's better. same thing in the real world, really... generally speaking, getting hit with an axe will do more damage than a bullet unless the bullet hits a vital location while the axe does not. but ranged is powerful in D&D for the same reasons it is powerful today; you can often still deal *enough* damage before an enemy closes without having to close that distance yourself.

melee has advantages, but there's a reason why no army in the past several centuries has been primarily focused on melee combat. once ranged combat reaches a sufficient level of competency, it becomes an incredibly bad idea to attempt melee against them unless you can generate an unfair advantage (of course, if you are in fact able to consistently generate said advantage, then by all means continue... a guy with a knife is considered to be a major threat to a guy with a pistol within about 20 feet in our world, so if you can get within a simple charge range, then yeah melee is going to be plenty good. it's just that ranged combat doesn't generally have to worry about that).

[Malifice]

I've noticed a general trend on the various forums I frequent for D&D discussion, particularly in threads regarding balance, optimization, and character building; That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite.

Disregarding specific builds, why is this a common theme? In my experience, it is VERY hard to get Advantage at Ranged. Being Hidden is the most common, but is very difficult to pull off (even with a stealth-lenient DM, like myself) since it requires a specific encounter, party make-up, and probably a Rogue dip. And Advantage is very important to utilize the -5/+10 feats, and to increase your hit chance considerably.

Meanwhile, melee is very easy to get advantage. Prone (Shield Master, Battle Master, Open Palm Monk, regular action) is a very common condition, and is very easy to "stick" on a lot of monsters. Other sources of advantage are Paladin Oath, Barbarian Wolf Totem, and Spells, to name a few common ones.

Other pros to melee are Reactions, specifically Polearm Master and Sentinel, both of which are very powerful. Crossbow Master is clearly very good in the Ranged camp, but it is replicated in melee pretty easily by Polearm Master's bonus action attack as well.

Maybe it is because every game I have played in or run has had a Shield Master/Battle Master and Great Weapon Fighter in the same party. Or maybe it's because my fellow players have never felt the need to "kite" an encounter (because seriously, who wants to play in a game where that is an effective strategy?).

Or am I missing something?

DM's rarely enforce cover. Its extremely easy to get (particularly when firing into melee).

But GWM is stictly better than sharpshooter (and the base damage of greatweapons is better than ranged weapons), and Paladins and Barbarians are strictly melee only. Rangers are great ranged, Rogues are OK, and Fighters go well with either.

[Shining Wrath]

It's easier to attack more than one target a turn with ranged, easier for a high dex low armor character to stay out of harm's way (and Dex > Str in 5e), and on outdoor encounters you can sometimes start lighting someone up 600' away while they have to take 10 turns to close with you.

[MaxWilson]

I've noticed a general trend on the various forums I frequent for D&D discussion, particularly in threads regarding balance, optimization, and character building; That ranged is a superior attack style than melee in 5e.

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite. *snip* Maybe it is because every game I have played in or run has had a Shield Master/Battle Master and Great Weapon Fighter in the same party. Or maybe it's because my fellow players have never felt the need to "kite" an encounter (because seriously, who wants to play in a game where that is an effective strategy?).

Or am I missing something?

I think that's your answer right there. 5E is designed to be easy, and if you stay within a certain difficulty range and style of combat, anything can work including melee.

Ranged combat is generally superior in that it preserves your tactical options better than melee does. Some of those tactical options are as good as Prone is at granting advantage on attacks, while others are just better defensively. Some examples:

* Enemy has an AoE attack (Fireball, Balrog death radius, Banshee wail, Dragon fear, etc.). Solution: disperse party formation while remaining within mutual support range. Pre-requisite for solution: party can support each other at distances over 30', ideally 150' or greater. Conclusion: ranged is better defensively in this situation.

* Party is facing a vastly superior but unintelligent enemy force, e.g. a horde of zombies. Solution: find a chokepoint, let one guy block the door and Dodge/make opportunity attacks while everybody else supports with attacks. Pre-requisite: party can support melee fighter without being in melee range themselves. Conclusion: reach weapons and ranged weapons are better offensively in this situation.

* Terrain features exist which could theoretically be exploited, such as partial or total cover or areas of concealment, darkness or dim light. Opportunity: remain within advantageous terrain to gain advantages such as advantages on attacks. Pre-requisite: be able to engage enemy effectively without leaving favorable terrain. Conclusion: ranged weapons are better offensively and defensively in this situation.

* And of course the obvious: if you're faster than the enemy, ranged combat lets you exploit that speed to win. You don't even have to kite if you don't want to; you could be a Hunter Ranger who casts Longstrider on himself before combat and then uses Escape the Horde as needed (no action cost) and Volley to murder scads and scads of enemy troops while only being attacked at disadvantage himself.

Melee is generally pretty straightforward and kind of fun to optimize: you smash the earth elemental to the ground with your shield, then grapple it with your free hand and commence beating it to a pulp. It makes you feel powerful and involved in a way that simply killing the enemy from favorable terrain does not--it makes you feel like you earned this victory because he is helpless against you even in a fair fight. That's why you hate kiting. Am I right? If that's the case, then you'll want to stick with melee precisely because it is worse, which makes it feel more fair. For those of us however who feel that when it comes to combat, "If you're not cheating, you're not trying hard enough," ranged combat in 5E blows melee out of the water.


It's easier to attack more than one target a turn with ranged, easier for a high dex low armor character to stay out of harm's way (and Dex > Str in 5e), and on outdoor encounters you can sometimes start lighting someone up 600' away while they have to take 10 turns to close with you.

20 turns actually, unless there is some reason why you can't move from your position.

(D&D players always seem to think 600', two hundred yards, is an extremely long distance for some reason. I blame grid maps. It's the width of a moderately large city block, or a rather large parking lot.)

[Shining Wrath]

... SNIP ...



20 turns actually, unless there is some reason why you can't move from your position.

(D&D players always seem to think 600', two hundred yards, is an extremely long distance for some reason. I blame grid maps. It's the width of a moderately large city block, or a rather large parking lot.)

Move 30', use Dash action for 30', 60' a round is what you cover when trying to close with an archer who is turning you into a feathered pincushion.

[KorvinStarmast]

Paladins and Barbarians are strictly melee only. Nope. A dex barbarian using totem other than bear can use ranged just fine, and can kite a lot of enemies. Same dex barbarian is a sword and rapier sort of mele fighter. (Too bad tulwar or scimitar isn't a 1d8 finesse weapon ... )

[Tanarii]

In any case, I'd expect every combatant to employ a ranged attack of some kind unless they want to be kited to death.while I agree that someone with no viable ranged options has a large flaw, this isn't even remotely true. Kiting depends on many factors. The ability to make your opponent come to you, or at least not retreat, is the largest one. Unlimited time. Knowing he terrain. Positions of cover against your opponents ranged attacks (such as they are).

PCs having that luxury will be campaign dependent of course, but in my experience the PCs are the ones forced to engage the monsters on the monsters terms, not vice versa. Ditto time. Retreating (or allowing them to retreat) gives the monsters a chance to gather reinforcements or set up traps. And taking too long increases the chance of combat being heard by other monsters nearby, or letting them set up a flank. (I'm using 'monster' here to mean enemy.)

So my experience is PCs are the ones in danger of being kited, usually to be drawn right in to a trap or flanked position. Especially since even ranged PCs can be kited effectively with properly prepared cover along the path of retreat.

[Malifice]

Nope. A dex barbarian using totem other than bear can use ranged just fine, and can kite a lot of enemies. Same dex barbarian is a sword and rapier sort of mele fighter. (Too bad tulwar or scimitar isn't a 1d8 finesse weapon ... )

And be utterly sub optimal. Why bother?

Rage damage doesn't apply to dex based attacks and rage drops unless you get injured or make a melee attack, reckless attack and brutal critical don't apply to ranged weapons, and most of the path features are melee orientated.

Barbarians are terrible at ranged attacks and only slightly better with dex based melee attacks.

Seeing as thrown weapons are pseudo melee weapons and rely off strength, you're far better off throwing stuff at the enemy, or better yet using a big heavy axe and great weapon master and getting in their face.

A dex based ranged barbarian is a mechanically poor choice.

[KorvinStarmast]

And be utterly sub optimal. Why bother?

Rage damage doesn't apply to dex based attacks and rage drops unless you get injured or make a melee attack, reckless attack and brutal critical don't apply to ranged weapons, and most of the path features are melee orientated.

Barbarians are terrible at ranged attacks and only slightly better with dex based melee attacks.

Seeing as thrown weapons are pseudo melee weapons and rely off strength, you're far better off throwing stuff at the enemy, or better yet using a big heavy axe and great weapon master and getting in their face.

A dex based ranged barbarian is a mechanically poor choice. There's a little more to this than just "it's a dex based barb." The min/max blinders need not be so easy to don. I'll add to this when I am back with books.

[SharkForce]

Move 30', use Dash action for 30', 60' a round is what you cover when trying to close with an archer who is turning you into a feathered pincushion.

except that the ranged character can also move 30' and use an attack action.

[eastmabl]

There's a little more to this than just "it's a dex based barb." The min/max blinders need not be so easy to don. I'll add to this when I am back with books.

This might help until you hit the books: http://community.wizards.com/forum/player-help/threads/4221676.

[Malifice]

There's a little more to this than just "it's a dex based barb." The min/max blinders need not be so easy to don. I'll add to this when I am back with books.

It might be conceptually cool, but mechanically it's awful. You have a class chassis that adds nothing to dex based ranged attacks, and only slightly more to dex based melee attacks. At 20th level even with a feat investment in sharpshooter and dex 20 it's popping 2 arrows a round for 1d8+15. It doesn't have access to archery fighting style. Even a 'lowly' ranger 20 is doing double that number of attacks with swift quiver, gaining an extra one via hunter (for 5), and has the archery fighting style and some ranged AOE effects.

If you want to go a dex based hunter or scout from a primitive barbarian tribe, play a ranger with a dip in rogue. Barbs are not built for dex based fighting, and they utterly suck at ranged.

Paladins are just as bad. They have nothing in the class that helps them with ranged attacks, and with heavy armor and slighly more MAD than your average fighter. I expect them to dump Dex to 8 more often than not (along with intelligence) to pump Str, Cha and Con.

[KorvinStarmast]

It might be conceptually cool, but mechanically it's awful. You have a class chassis that adds nothing to dex based ranged attacks, and only slightly more to dex based melee attacks. At 20th level even with a feat investment in sharpshooter and dex 20 it's popping 2 arrows a round for 1d8+15. It doesn't have access to archery fighting style. Even a 'lowly' ranger 20 is doing double that number of attacks with swift quiver, gaining an extra one via hunter (for 5), and has the archery fighting style and some ranged AOE effects.

If you want to go a dex based hunter or scout from a primitive barbarian tribe, play a ranger with a dip in rogue. Barbs are not built for dex based fighting, and they utterly suck at ranged.

Paladins are just as bad. They have nothing in the class that helps them with ranged attacks, and with heavy armor and slighly more MAD than your average fighter. I expect them to dump Dex to 8 more often than not (along with intelligence) to pump Str, Cha and Con.
This character isn't trying to solo the world, and DPR isn't the only criteria for building an effective character. So, as I said, when I am back with books I'll make sure I quote the features correctly. Until then, keep your min-max above all else attitude at your table.

[Kryx]

It's not about min-maxing. It's about a viable character.
You're essentially building a Wizard who doesn't cast any spells.

You'll still be there, but you'll be awful.

[Malifice]

This character isn't trying to solo the world, and DPR isn't the only criteria for building an effective character. So, as I said, when I am back with books I'll make sure I quote the features correctly. Until then, keep your min-max above all else attitude at your table.

What the heck are you on about man? Where did I say 'min max above all else'? Take a chill pill.

My point was that ranged barbarians (and Paladins) are mechanically crap and can't be viably made to be anything else. They suck at ranged.

That has nothing to do with me advocating 'min maxing above all else'.

[Coidzor]

I haven't seen much general discussion on this topic, but I do frequently see posts like "Melee classes need all the help they can get in 5e," and I can't help but feel confused since my play experience (30+ sessions as DM, 10 or so as a player) has been the exact opposite.

That's not love for ranged, that's ignoring ranged and comparing martials to casters while conflating martials with melee-types, at least in my experience.

That said, between Archery Fighting Style's +2 to hit and Sharpshooter's ability to ignore all but total cover means that ranged-focused characters have the best base ability to hit their enemies in the game.

Ignoring 3/4 cover and having Archery Fighting Style is an effective +7 to hit, ignoring 1/2 cover with Archery FS is an effective +4 to hit, and just having Archery Fighting Style negates the effects of 1/2 cover. It's unlikely for most melee types to run into 3/4 cover, but things like knocking over tables and the like can definitely bring 1/2 cover into play in the melee realm.

[SharkForce]

It might be conceptually cool, but mechanically it's awful. You have a class chassis that adds nothing to dex based ranged attacks, and only slightly more to dex based melee attacks. At 20th level even with a feat investment in sharpshooter and dex 20 it's popping 2 arrows a round for 1d8+15. It doesn't have access to archery fighting style. Even a 'lowly' ranger 20 is doing double that number of attacks with swift quiver, gaining an extra one via hunter (for 5), and has the archery fighting style and some ranged AOE effects.

If you want to go a dex based hunter or scout from a primitive barbarian tribe, play a ranger with a dip in rogue. Barbs are not built for dex based fighting, and they utterly suck at ranged.

Paladins are just as bad. They have nothing in the class that helps them with ranged attacks, and with heavy armor and slighly more MAD than your average fighter. I expect them to dump Dex to 8 more often than not (along with intelligence) to pump Str, Cha and Con.

indeed. make the ranger/rogue, and be angry a lot. you don't need barbarian written in the class part of your sheet to make a barbarian.

[Shining Wrath]

except that the ranged character can also move 30' and use an attack action.

If terrain permits - I assumed combat began when terrain allowed PC to view the enemy as PC approached, but if combat is initiated by enemy approaching a PC with a clear line of retreat, you are correct.

[Vogonjeltz]

while I agree that someone with no viable ranged options has a large flaw, this isn't even remotely true. Kiting depends on many factors. The ability to make your opponent come to you, or at least not retreat, is the largest one. Unlimited time. Knowing he terrain. Positions of cover against your opponents ranged attacks (such as they are).

PCs having that luxury will be campaign dependent of course, but in my experience the PCs are the ones forced to engage the monsters on the monsters terms, not vice versa. Ditto time. Retreating gives the monsters a chance to gather reinforcements or set up traps. And taking too long increases the chance of combat being heard by other monsters nearby, or letting them set up a flank. (I'm using 'monster' here to mean enemy.)

So my experience is PCs are the ones in danger of being kited, usually to be drawn right in to a trap or flanked position. Especially since even ranged PCs can be kited effectively with properly prepared cover along the path of retreat.

Sure it is assuming their relative speeds are the same (or close). Most characters have a movement speed of 30 feet, however, so it's extremely unlikely that the opponent can retreat once range has been attained. At that point the only option is using cover/concealment to get away. (And even half, 3/4, cover won't matter to the Sharpshooter).

Cover doesn't really matter though if you're not using it to close distance or escape. And escaping doesn't win the fight and closing distance isn't possible if the Ranged weapon user continues to displace to maintain the fighting gap (or is simply capable of killing the opponent before they can cover the intervening space).

Don't get me wrong, I recognize that Ranged weapons don't have the top damage dice values, but I also have a healthy respect for how much damage they can output before my character might even get a swing in.

As always, circumstances dictate what is best.

[Cakesnizzles]

None is better than the other.... it's the conditions of the fight that matters. Small Room? Melee. Big Dense Forest, if both are smart fighters, hard for ranged attacker and melee. If melee fighter is stuck down a canyon and ranged person has the cliff side, of course the ranged fighter wins. This is also D&D, where you are not only fighting people, you are fighting mother frigging monsters. Sure range fight that dragon without a melee tank and see how well that turns out for you. Team work > anything.

[Tanarii]

Sure it is assuming their relative speeds are the same (or close). Most characters have a movement speed of 30 feet, however, so it's extremely unlikely that the opponent can retreat once range has been attained. At that point the only option is using cover/concealment to get away. (And even half, 3/4, cover won't matter to the Sharpshooter).Wait, what? Any PCs that pursue retreating monsters in a dungeon at full speed are just asking to get ambushed. You're also assuming that: 1) PCs even know which way the enemy went in branching passageways; 2) monsters don't have traps designed to cover their retreat; 3) full cover is somehow hard to get; 4) They aren't drawing you into ambush situations.

It sounds to me like your PCs are mostly fighting in open(ish) outdoor terrain against enemies who aren't in their own territory, with no nearby support or plan of retreat. Edit: Meanwhile, I'm used to seeing enemies that work more like Tuckers Kobolds. Which I just read about in another thread. Loved it. Of course by the sounds of it they had plenty of Ranged Attack capability. Regardless, IMX Kiting is generally only something that can happen *to* PCs, not something they can do.

[Vogonjeltz]

Wait, what? Any PCs that pursue retreating monsters in a dungeon at full speed are just asking to get ambushed. You're also assuming that: 1) PCs even know which way the enemy went in branching passageways; 2) monsters don't have traps designed to cover their retreat; 3) full cover is somehow hard to get; 4) They aren't drawing you into ambush situations.

It sounds to me like your PCs are mostly fighting in open(ish) outdoor terrain against enemies who aren't in their own territory, with no nearby support or plan of retreat. Edit: Meanwhile, I'm used to seeing enemies that work more like Tuckers Kobolds. Which I just read about in another thread. Loved it. Of course by the sounds of it they had plenty of Ranged Attack capability. Regardless, IMX Kiting is generally only something that can happen *to* PCs, not something they can do.

Sometimes enemies get away, but usually they don't make it 2 rounds after trying to run.

[Tanarii]

Sometimes enemies get away, but usually they don't make it 2 rounds after trying to run.In that case your melee are ploughing through them too, and you probably need to fight some more difficult encounters. IMO two round encounters aren't the norm. Edit: Also, in that case I'm not sure why you're talking about Kiting your enemies. You're just destroying them, not luring them into a multi-round running battle.

[Cakesnizzles]

He prob means that when they run, all it takes is 2 rounds to hunt them down. Which is very reasonable.

[Tanarii]

Why is that reasonable? Any enemy that can't fight back effectively should have been running immediately until it can. If it gets killed in two rounds, it would have done it just standing there getting pounding on. That's what it boils down to. I still don't know why an enemy that can't fight back in the first place would chase the PCs. or stick around to fight. That's a death sentence.

Generally speaking the PCs need to take the fight to the enemy, and on their home ground, not vice versa. Any enemy that gets leaves its home ground to pursue the PCs when they can't catch them is just asking to die. As is one that can be killed within two rounds when attempting to retreat, or doesn't even have an avenue of retreat.

[Cakesnizzles]

If they are retreating, they are hurt and most comrades have died. Thus 2 rounds to chase and finish off is good enough.

[Tanarii]

Okay, but Mop-up isn't really a relevant defence of supposed Kiting capability. Although I'll grant that yes, when it comes to retreating foes ranged attacks may give you a round or two of extra attacks over a melee character. That is useful for mop-up, but not particularly for being reverse Kited into an ambush or traps by early retreaters. Nor is it a good counter to my point that Vogonjeltz seems to be used to open(ish) battlefields against foes that don't have an effective avenue of retreat or nearby support.

For example, it'd certainly be great to be able to ranged kite when a group of melee-only orcs ambush your PCs in camp outdoors, miles from the Orcs lair. But it's not going to help much when you are trying to invade an orc lair where they've had plenty of time to set up traps, know the caves like the back of their hand, and have allies in nearby chambers they can rally to overwhelm you.

[druid91]

Mostly because with bounded accuracy. Melee is going to get swamped. Sure they do more damage. But last campaign I played in the barbarian died in a single turn because he got surrounded and the enemies rolled well.

It became such a running theme of Melee players getting chewed up that I basically made "Filthy Cowardice and Long Range" My Wizards motto.

[Cakesnizzles]

Then you give the ambushers levels in fighter, with the shield fighting style (disadvantage when hitting someone next to them) mages that counter magic fight, and their own rangers. Then the PCs retreat!

[MaxWilson]

Sure it is assuming their relative speeds are the same (or close). Most characters have a movement speed of 30 feet, however, so it's extremely unlikely that the opponent can retreat once range has been attained. At that point the only option is using cover/concealment to get away. (And even half, 3/4, cover won't matter to the Sharpshooter).

Actually, Hiding works pretty well too.


Sure range fight that dragon without a melee tank and see how well that turns out for you. Team work > anything.

A fight with a dragon when you don't have a melee tank on your side works out identically to a fight with a dragon with a melee tank on your side, except at the end of the fight you have one less dead melee tank.

Flight + breath weapon = pwnage of melee warriors.


For example, it'd certainly be great to be able to ranged kite when a group of melee-only orcs ambush your PCs in camp outdoors, miles from the Orcs lair. But it's not going to help much when you are trying to invade an orc lair where they've had plenty of time to set up traps, know the caves like the back of their hand, and have allies in nearby chambers they can rally to overwhelm you.

Orcs are a bit of a special case because of their Aggressive trait, but if you're arguing that ranged weapons aren't useful when you're on the offense, I'm afraid I'm not buying the scenario you're painting. If the PCs dominate at ranged combat, the orcs cannot effectively sally, which means they cannot "rally to overwhelm you" and therefore cannot seize the initiative. They have no choice but to passively wait until the PCs attack them, which means among other things that the PCs can fall back on the five minute work day if they want: cast Invisibility on everybody, sneak around the caves until you see a juicy concentration of orcs, Volley or Fireball them to death, leave when you're getting low on spells/ammo. Normally the counter to this tactic would be for the orcs to mass up and sally forth and kill the PCs while they're sleeping, but that requires the orcs to leave their lair, and you've already conceded in your first sentence that your orcs will lose in that scenario.

That doesn't leave the orcs a lot of options. (Which BTW is why hobgoblins are better than orcs, because Martial Advantage + Longbows + good AC > Aggressive + 2 extra HP + javelins.)


If terrain permits - I assumed combat began when terrain allowed PC to view the enemy as PC approached, but if combat is initiated by enemy approaching a PC with a clear line of retreat, you are correct.

It could also be a case of the PC initiating combat at some point after he first views the enemy, either because the enemy is initially out of longbow range or because the PC maneuvers for favorable terrain (possibly from stealth) before initiating combat.

"I never find having too many advantages any particular burden." -Donar Vadderung

[djreynolds]

Why are you getting kited? That should only work on monsters. Come on, we're smarter than that. I'm just going to retreat or find cover.

Everybody should have an alternative in a fight. And though paladins are not the best with the bow, the have spells that enable them to close the distance, which in a certain light, is their ranged attack. Barbarians can rush in and are pretty fast and can take lot of arrows, so you better run.

But I'm glad ranger's kick butt with the bow, that's their job. Soften up the enemy and make that caster sorry for showing his face. And he should be shooting up the other archer as well.

[KorvinStarmast]

My point was that ranged barbarians (and Paladins) are mechanically crap and can't be viably made to be anything else. They suck at ranged. Ranged is only a part of the package.
The Dex Con barb is built for a team that includes a melee fighter, but can also help your ranged fighters and spell casters as well. Wolf/Wolf/Eagle are totem choices, though Wolf/Eagle/Eagle could also work. The first one gives advantage to your party members on attack. I'd recommend a Shield Master Feat as that also adds the chance to prone/shove someone, and shield is integral to the melee portion of the build. The longbow is the standard ranged weapon in scouting mode, the jave and shield the initial fit (throw before you close to melee range), the rapier shield when you mix it up.

The build I tossed together last night had a 12 Str, 15 (+1) in both con and dex for 16's. If this build runs across gauntlets of Ogre Power or a girdle of Giant Strength, something profoundly wonderful happens for weapons selection ... but that's a bonus, not where its main strength is.

The second eagle totem lets you fly/teleport 40 feet next to target x and your ranged attack compadres have advantage on their attack. You are hard to hit thanks to Shield Master and your natural armor class and shield.

Your initial attack before closing is designed to be ranged, be it bow or javelin or even thrown dagger. You can, due to your higher movement (40 at level 5 is the upgrade) fly to kite opponents, sometimes in three dimensions, using the bow.

The Rage only protects you from some discrete attacks in melee, but the dex bonus from shield master protects you from most spells that call for a dex save.

You take Athletics and Perception as proficiencies (and two from your background, so sub in survival or nature or one of those comes from another rbackground) and become a surprisingly able tank.

Most melee attacks are slash, pierce, bludgeon, so rage does what it's supposed to do. You dont' go pure range but range is a key part of your maneuver and fire and engage method.

Again, you don't build your character without considering how your team/party is put together. The "my player must be da bomb" line you took in response to me is part of the problem. The point in this ranged/dex/shield melee build is to be a key enabler to all of the rest of your party while also being hard to hit and a fast moving, kiting semitank.

[Finieous]

Ranged is only a part of the package.
The Dex Con barb is built for a team that includes a melee fighter, but can also help your ranged fighters and spell casters as well. Wolf/Wolf/Eagle are totem choices, though Wolf/Eagle/Eagle could also work. The first one gives advantage to your party members on attack. I'd recommend a Shield Master Feat as that also adds the chance to prone/shove someone, and shield is integral to the melee portion of the build. The longbow is the standard ranged weapon in scouting mode, the jave and shield the initial fit (throw before you close to melee range), the rapier shield when you mix it up.


A Strength-focused barbarian can also choose those totems and gain the same benefits. A Strength-focused barbarian can choose the Shield Master feat, and he'll be better at shoving with it. A Strength-focused barbarian can throw a javelin (better) and will do more melee damage when raging.



The point in this ranged/dex/shield melee build is to be a key enabler to all of the rest of your party while also being hard to hit and a fast moving, kiting semitank.

IMO it's just a barbarian with gimped melee ability (kind of like a wizard with gimped spellcasting) and at-best +1 AC (19 vs. 18 for the Strength barbarian who maintains stealth capability, even-up for the Strength barbarian in half-plate), assuming he doesn't just waste a lot of full actions donning and doffing his shield to make use of his ridiculous bow. He's worse at using his shield, he's not getting anything more out of his totem choices, and he's not moving or "kiting" any better than a Strength barbarian with the same totem choices and kit (assuming, for some reason, that a barbarian should want to "kite").

Sword-and-Board (or Axe and Board) barbarian? I like 'em a lot. Shield Master gives me a thematically appropriate source of advantage when I don't want to Reckless Attack and makes me even tankier. I'm never doing GWM/PM damage, but when I rage I'm knocking guys prone left and right and dishing out increased damage that scales with my level. I can sneak and scout and turn on the resistance when things go sideways. Focusing on Dex instead of Strength? It's one of those rare builds that is both mechanically and thematically gimped.

For the record, you seem pretty attached to the Dex barbarian idea and I think you should absolutely play what you want, if you care (you probably shouldn't). I just wish you'd stop trying to defend it on mechanical grounds. There really is no such defense.

[druid91]

Why are you getting kited? That should only work on monsters. Come on, we're smarter than that. I'm just going to retreat or find cover.

Everybody should have an alternative in a fight. And though paladins are not the best with the bow, the have spells that enable them to close the distance, which in a certain light, is their ranged attack. Barbarians can rush in and are pretty fast and can take lot of arrows, so you better run.

But I'm glad ranger's kick butt with the bow, that's their job. Soften up the enemy and make that caster sorry for showing his face. And he should be shooting up the other archer as well.

Let's look at a level 1 Barbarian against a mob of CR appropriate Opponents.

Level 1 Dwarf Barbarian with 15 HP and 15 AC Vs 4 PHB skeletons on an open field.

Scenario 1: Skeletons get the drop on him/her and open fire from 80ft away. With a +4 to hit, the skeletons need only roll an 11 or higher to deal 1d6+2 Piercing Damage. Then they scatter Moving in different directions while possibly taking a temporary disadvantage on their shots due to positioning. The BEST the Barbarian could do would be to take a dash action and move 60 feet towards them But even that would not close the gap in time for the skeletons next turn. Even with Resistance due to Rage. Which the skeletons could tease out of him by refusing to strike the barbarian the next round, ending the rage The barbarian is in trouble. With no means to effectively close the gap, they're doomed to be a pincushion. Worst case scenario, they're dead on the first turn.

Scenario 2: The reverse of the Above. The Barbarian closes into Melee range, and engages the skeletons. Possibly killing one. The other three then take the dash action to scatter in three different directions. Placing the Barbarian into the same trap as above. Sure the Barbarian get's a couple of kills. And could possibly attempt a bit of counter archery of his own, but it's still not a strong option compared to opening up with ranged combat.

[Hawkstar]

Why are you getting kited? That should only work on monsters. Come on, we're smarter than that. I'm just going to retreat or find cover.

Retreating is no escape from a kite: all you're doing is giving them more opportunities to shoot you. Cover works.... until they surround you.

[Coidzor]

Retreating is no escape from a kite: all you're doing is giving them more opportunities to shoot you. Cover works.... until they surround you.

And if cover doesn't draw them at least a little bit closer to make the distance issue less of an issue, you know the DM isn't going to be including you on their christmas card.

[Finieous]

Level 1 Dwarf Barbarian with 15 HP and 15 AC Vs 4 PHB skeletons on an open field.


How far out in front of the party is he? Has he been able to use his Survival skill to identify the threats ahead of time? Is there cover, or is the "open field" actually a "featureless plain" or "white room"? Why did he only spot the threats at a distance coincidentally matching the short range of their bows? Isn't it hard for the skeletons to hide on the Trackless Plain? Be that as it may, isn't this more an "ambush" than a "kiting" situation?

Pending the answers to these questions, my barbarian would kick up a cloud of dust (should be plenty of dirt on the Trackless Plain) to create some obscurement and Dash the opposite direction back toward the party, immediately getting to long range even without the obscurement. He'd make whatever animal call he'd prearranged to alert the party to the threat. If the skeletons pursue, my barbarian leads them into a counter-ambush. If they don't, he regroups with the party and they quickly discuss how to deal with the skeletons. Given that the terrain seems designed to defeat a stealthy approach (for everyone except the skeletons, apparently), if we lack magical resources we probably choose to simply skirt the threat entirely. Fortunately there is no terrain to cause more than a slight delay in our travels.

[Tanarii]

Normally the counter to this tactic would be for the orcs to mass up and sally forth and kill the PCs while they're sleeping, but that requires the orcs to leave their lair, and you've already conceded in your first sentence that your orcs will lose in that scenario.Why wouldn't they draw the PCs into a place where they can be attacked from all sides at once, with nowhere to run? Flank & surround is the tactic you use against a opponent that is strong with ranged attacks but weak in melee, when you are strong in melee. Especially in any underground / urban environment, and when you outnumber the opponent by a significant amount. And I just pulled "Orcs" out of my hat I wasn't thinking specifically of MM statted orcs, just referencing a intelligent(ish) opponent that generally has the numbers advantage over the PCs.



Kite tactics against opponents lacking ranged attacks certainly have their place. If you're up against a Big Bad Stupid Solo Monster, yeah you Kite the hell out of it. Or if you're in an open environment with plenty of room to move. Or if you can give them incentive to come to you and give up home field advantage. But in general Kiting is something that should only work on PCs, not on intelligent monsters.

On PCs retreating, they're the ones that are usually screwed. They don't usually have nearby support, traps, or home-field terrain knowledge they can take advantage of. If they have to retreat, they either need the advantage in ranged attacks (in which case they're good), they use an escape spell to bug out, or they die.

Ranged is great if you have to retreat a lot. It's good if the enemy has no good retreat options, or the enemy has to come to you and you have room to Kite. And it's terrible if you have to take the fight to the enemy.

[KorvinStarmast]

IMO it's just a barbarian with gimped melee ability And improved ranged attacks and the chance to max out AC, not to mention driving up the number of times due to dex bonuses on saves that dex save spell attacks do no damage.

[MaxWilson]

Why wouldn't they draw the PCs into a place where they can be attacked from all sides at once, with nowhere to run? Flank & surround is the tactic you use against a opponent that is strong with ranged attacks but weak in melee, when you are strong in melee. Especially in any underground / urban environment, and when you outnumber the opponent by a significant amount. And I just pulled "Orcs" out of my hat I wasn't thinking specifically of MM statted orcs, just referencing a intelligent(ish) opponent that generally has the numbers advantage over the PCs.

They could try it, but that's still surrendering the initiative to the PCs and it still results in dead orcs and victorious PCs. Orcs can't teleport and their Stealth is rubbish, especially compared to PCs' pumped perception, so where are you going to hide all these "orcs on all sides" to prevent the PCs from sussing them out in advance? Here's the scenario: PC Shadow Monk under Pass Without Trace (speed: 75' including Longstrider) comes ghosting in, supported by the Bardlock (speed: 40', with Expeditious Retreat in reserve). Their Stealths are +18 and +21 respectively, and their Perception scores are 18 and 19 respectively. Their mission is to perform a reconnaissance in force: stealthily disable (or kill, if necessary) any orc pickets and identify concentrations of hostile force for the full party to take out.

What possible setup do the orcs have that will allow them to set up an effective ambush "from all sides at once" without those PCs detecting and spoiling the ambush? Conjecture any environment you want within reason. (E.g. you can fill it with tripwires and mastiff hounds, but not intellect devourers or flaming lava and one-way doors.) Your goal is to ensure that the first and only engagement with the PCs is decisive in the orcs' favor. You have 100 orcish warriors to play with. Go.


Retreating is no escape from a kite: all you're doing is giving them more opportunities to shoot you. Cover works.... until they surround you.

Cover allows you to Hide, which lets you either close the distance, set an ambush, or escape, as you prefer.

Another tactic which has been used at my table against monsters that kite (hobgoblins on horses): play dead and wait for the hobgoblins to come loot the body. Then jump up and eat their face. It's not like they know you have 80 HP, after all. After you take two arrows and fall over, it's pretty reasonable for them to think they may have killed you. Maybe they will shoot you one more time just in case, but eventually they have to come loot the body.

[Vogonjeltz]

In that case your melee are ploughing through them too, and you probably need to fight some more difficult encounters. IMO two round encounters aren't the norm. Edit: Also, in that case I'm not sure why you're talking about Kiting your enemies. You're just destroying them, not luring them into a multi-round running battle.


He prob means that when they run, all it takes is 2 rounds to hunt them down. Which is very reasonable.

Yes, I mean when they eventually choose to flee, we typically are able to bring the 1-2 that are left down within 1-2 rounds. Sometimes some get away, but usually not because they were usually trying to engage in a melee and then lost.


Okay, but Mop-up isn't really a relevant defence of supposed Kiting capability. Although I'll grant that yes, when it comes to retreating foes ranged attacks may give you a round or two of extra attacks over a melee character. That is useful for mop-up, but not particularly for being reverse Kited into an ambush or traps by early retreaters. Nor is it a good counter to my point that Vogonjeltz seems to be used to open(ish) battlefields against foes that don't have an effective avenue of retreat or nearby support.

For example, it'd certainly be great to be able to ranged kite when a group of melee-only orcs ambush your PCs in camp outdoors, miles from the Orcs lair. But it's not going to help much when you are trying to invade an orc lair where they've had plenty of time to set up traps, know the caves like the back of their hand, and have allies in nearby chambers they can rally to overwhelm you.

I was responding to your statement on pursuit of monsters. Typically monsters don't run until they think they've lost. If the party has ranged superiority, they don't need to give some kind of hurried chase, they can casually follow and shoot.

I didn't actually respond to your theory on what kinds of fights I'm used to.


Actually, Hiding works pretty well too.

I know, that's why I mentioned it when I said "cover/concealment". Hiding is concealing yourself.

[MaxWilson]

I know, that's why I mentioned it when I said "cover/concealment". Hiding is concealing yourself.

Sorry, didn't realize you were using game terminology. I thought you were using military jargon, wherein "cover"=physical barrier between you and the enemy and "concealment"=enemy can't see you clearly. D&D hiding is of course one step beyond either of these and prevents the enemy from even knowing your location.

[druid91]

How far out in front of the party is he? Has he been able to use his Survival skill to identify the threats ahead of time? Is there cover, or is the "open field" actually a "featureless plain" or "white room"? Why did he only spot the threats at a distance coincidentally matching the short range of their bows? Isn't it hard for the skeletons to hide on the Trackless Plain? Be that as it may, isn't this more an "ambush" than a "kiting" situation?

Pending the answers to these questions, my barbarian would kick up a cloud of dust (should be plenty of dirt on the Trackless Plain) to create some obscurement and Dash the opposite direction back toward the party, immediately getting to long range even without the obscurement. He'd make whatever animal call he'd prearranged to alert the party to the threat. If the skeletons pursue, my barbarian leads them into a counter-ambush. If they don't, he regroups with the party and they quickly discuss how to deal with the skeletons. Given that the terrain seems designed to defeat a stealthy approach (for everyone except the skeletons, apparently), if we lack magical resources we probably choose to simply skirt the threat entirely. Fortunately there is no terrain to cause more than a slight delay in our travels.

There is no party. There is only the barbarian. If there was a party, the encounter would have to scale up, presenting each member with their own challenge. With the typical four man party that would lead to four skeletons per party member. Leading to 16 skeletons.

As for your starting questions. Because that was scenario 1. Worst case scenario. Scenario 2 they do better. But still ultimately end up a pincushion more likely than not.

All in all, this has lead me to question the wisdom of skeletons as a CR 1/4 monster. 4 skeletons to one level 1 PC is hardly fair.

[Tanarii]

What possible setup do the orcs have that will allow them to set up an effective ambush "from all sides at once" without those PCs detecting and spoiling the ambush? Conjecture any environment you want within reason. (E.g. you can fill it with tripwires and mastiff hounds, but not intellect devourers or flaming lava and one-way doors.) Your goal is to ensure that the first and only engagement with the PCs is decisive in the orcs' favor. You have 100 orcish warriors to play with. Go.Easy. Multiple passageways that allow the Orcs to loop around behind the PCs. Done.


I was responding to your statement on pursuit of monsters. Typically monsters don't run until they think they've lost. If the party has ranged superiority, they don't need to give some kind of hurried chase, they can casually follow and shoot.

I didn't actually respond to your theory on what kinds of fights I'm used to.Yep, gathered that. And it's a fair point.

[MaxWilson]

There is no party. There is only the barbarian. If there was a party, the encounter would have to scale up, presenting each member with their own challenge. With the typical four man party that would lead to four skeletons per party member. Leading to 16 skeletons.

As for your starting questions. Because that was scenario 1. Worst case scenario. Scenario 2 they do better. But still ultimately end up a pincushion more likely than not.

All in all, this has lead me to question the wisdom of skeletons as a CR 1/4 monster. 4 skeletons to one level 1 PC is hardly fair.

It's a quintuple-Deadly encounter: Deadly threshold for a level 1 PC is 100 difficulty (XP), and 4 skeletons is 500 difficulty (XP). So of course it's not a "fair" fight for the barbarian. It would be a super fun fight for a Sharpshooter fighter though. I've run fights at about that level of difficulty at level one for party meets and they are a blast, because they are so hard and therefore memorable. "Remember when we met? You saved me from the orcs who had kidnapped and tortured me, at the risk of your life. In fact you probably would have died if not for the fact that the orcs didn't think to gag me, so when the arrow punched through your throat I spoke a Word of Healing to save your life in turn, and then you finished off the last two orcs and freed me from my bonds."

Also, the difficulty of that scenario is not unique to skeletons. Goblins would probably be even harder for the barbarian to deal with in any area larger than a 30' x 30' featureless room. E.g. four goblins in a one-story, four-room house is a nightmare for the barbarian.

[MaxWilson]

Easy. Multiple passageways that allow the Orcs to loop around behind the PCs. Done.

Excellent--you invite defeat in detail while you wander around blindly looking for phantoms.

Your orcs wander aimlessly through the tunnels. Grunk says to Sgt. Toffer, "Why are we wandering through these tunnels?"

"We're patrolling for enemies. We're going to loop around and CRUSH THEM FROM BEHIND!"

"Cool. But we've been wandering these tunnels for six hours. When will the enemies show up and where will they be?"

Toffer looks embarrassed. "They're around here somewhere. Shut your mouth and patrol, soldier."

"Just askin', Sarge."

Ten minutes later, Toffer and his fifteen orcs are dead to a Fireball, and a fusillade of arrows shot from concealment. You are now down to 85/100 orcish warriors.

[Finieous]

There is no party. There is only the barbarian. If there was a party, the encounter would have to scale up, presenting each member with their own challenge. With the typical four man party that would lead to four skeletons per party member. Leading to 16 skeletons.


Um. Either you need to take another look at the encounter building guidelines, or I'm missing the point. What does an off-the-chart Deadly ambush for one PC have to do with "kiting"? The barbarian runs away. Maybe he makes it, maybe the ambush kills him. Either way, he'd have to be an idiot to stick around and get "kited."



It would be a super fun fight for a Sharpshooter fighter though.

Just curious, what would be super fun about it? Kiting can be fun in a video game because it requires some skill, particularly in PvP. In PvE it can be fun, at least for a while, because it still requires a modicum of skill and the programmed mobs are dumb enough to play along. Here, we've got a featureless plain and your speeds are equal. If you fire and move 30 feet, they move 30 feet and fire. If you Dash, they Dash. You've got a range advantage, but since the encounter begins at 80 feet, I'm not sure how that helps you. Even if you do somehow get and maintain a favorable range, how is moving your speed on a featureless plain and firing an arrow once a round fun? Or is it like a duel, where we agree to maintain the range and kind of dice off to see which side reduces the others' hit points first?

Probably sounds like I'm arguing with you ("Nuh-uh! Is not fun!"), but I don't mean it that way. Really just curious.

[MaxWilson]

]Just curious, what would be super fun about it? Kiting can be fun in a video game because it requires some skill, particularly in PvP. In PvE it can be fun, at least for a while, because it still requires a modicum of skill and the programmed mobs are dumb enough to play along. Here, we've got a featureless plain and your speeds are equal. If you fire and move 30 feet, they move 30 feet and fire. If you Dash, they Dash. You've got a range advantage, but since the encounter begins at 80 feet, I'm not sure how that helps you. Even if you do somehow get and maintain a favorable range, how is moving your speed on a featureless plain and firing an arrow once a round fun? Or is it like a duel, where we agree to maintain the range and kind of dice off to see which side reduces the others' hit points first?

Probably sounds like I'm arguing with you ("Nuh-uh! Is not fun!"), but I don't mean it that way. Really just curious.

I spoke loosely. I meant the scenario of "four skeletons vs. a Sharpshooter", not the exactly "four skeletons appear at 80'" scenario. When I've run scenarios like this, they don't take place on featureless plains (and frankly, if the skeletons are first sighted at 80' that sounds more like a clearing in the woods or a streambed than a featureless plain). What makes it fun is the combination of the fragility of first level characters, trying to find advantageous terrain (partial cover like an old wagon), playing with tactics like Hiding to open or close the distance, and of course the ever-present possibility of realizing that you made a horrible mistake last round and now have to pay for it.

Also, it helps that I use an initiative system akin to Speed Factor initiative, in order to maximize the chaos and minimize the predictability of combat. Cyclic initiative is boring.

[Malifice]

Ranged is only a part of the package.
The Dex Con barb is built for a team that includes a melee fighter, but can also help your ranged fighters and spell casters as well. Wolf/Wolf/Eagle are totem choices, though Wolf/Eagle/Eagle could also work. The first one gives advantage to your party members on attack. I'd recommend a Shield Master Feat as that also adds the chance to prone/shove someone, and shield is integral to the melee portion of the build. The longbow is the standard ranged weapon in scouting mode, the jave and shield the initial fit (throw before you close to melee range), the rapier shield when you mix it up.

Thats even more suboptimal mate.

He can just as easily go a Str based wolf barb, and be better at everything you say above, including retaining his rage bonus to damage, the athletics checks to knock a foe prone with shield master.

As a Wolf barbarian he has even more reason to close to melee and rage, as his totem power only works when he is adjacent to the enemy whiler raging, his rage only grants advtange to str checks and str based melee attacks, and reckless attack and brutal critical only works in melee.


The build I tossed together last night had a 12 Str, 15 (+1) in both con and dex for 16's. If this build runs across gauntlets of Ogre Power or a girdle of Giant Strength, something profoundly wonderful happens for weapons selection ... but that's a bonus, not where its main strength is.

Of course he becomes better; he starts using (a high) strength!

Of course you can play a Dex-barbarian, but it is woefully suboptimal. It might be flavorful and all, but it aint gonna mechanically shine, ever. Playing a ranged barbarian is just mechanically awful.

Paladins are not much better.

[Malifice]

Let's look at a level 1 Barbarian against a mob of CR appropriate Opponents.

Level 1 Dwarf Barbarian with 15 HP and 15 AC Vs 4 PHB skeletons on an open field.

Scenario 1: Skeletons get the drop on him/her and open fire from 80ft away. With a +4 to hit, the skeletons need only roll an 11 or higher to deal 1d6+2 Piercing Damage. Then they scatter Moving in different directions while possibly taking a temporary disadvantage on their shots due to positioning. The BEST the Barbarian could do would be to take a dash action and move 60 feet towards them But even that would not close the gap in time for the skeletons next turn. Even with Resistance due to Rage. Which the skeletons could tease out of him by refusing to strike the barbarian the next round, ending the rage The barbarian is in trouble. With no means to effectively close the gap, they're doomed to be a pincushion. Worst case scenario, they're dead on the first turn.

Scenario 2: The reverse of the Above. The Barbarian closes into Melee range, and engages the skeletons. Possibly killing one. The other three then take the dash action to scatter in three different directions. Placing the Barbarian into the same trap as above. Sure the Barbarian get's a couple of kills. And could possibly attempt a bit of counter archery of his own, but it's still not a strong option compared to opening up with ranged combat.

Four skeletons is not a CR approproate challenge for a 1st level character.

4 X CR 1/4 v a single 1st level PC is a 5 x deadly encounter [500 XP]. For a single 1st level PC, deadly starts at 100xp. Even 2 of them is a double deadly encounter at [200 XP] adjusted value.

[MaxWilson]

Four skeletons is not a CR approproate challenge for a 1st level character.

4 X CR 1/4 v a single 1st level PC is a 5 x deadly encounter [500 XP]. For a single 1st level PC, deadly starts at 100xp. Even 2 of them is a double deadly encounter at [200 XP] adjusted value.

But in a thread which is about melee vs. ranged, it is appropriate to note that the melee-centric barbarian gets smashed flat by the "level-inappropriate" encounter, while the crossbow/longbow fighter with either Mobile or Sharpshooter has a pretty good shot at winning it.

That's the difference in a nutshell. Melee only works if the DM carefully calibrates encounters to be "level-appropriate". Some people like those kinds of Combat As Sport games, others hate them.

[PoeticDwarf]

Ranged has with crossbow expert the best combination. You have way more damage than TWF and you can at +10 on damage but you don't always miss like the GW guy with less to hit and barely more damage.

[Malifice]

But in a thread which is about melee vs. ranged, it is appropriate to note that the melee-centric barbarian gets smashed flat by the "level-inappropriate" encounter, while the crossbow/longbow fighter with either Mobile or Sharpshooter has a pretty good shot at winning it.

That's the difference in a nutshell. Melee only works if the DM carefully calibrates encounters to be "level-appropriate". Some people like those kinds of Combat As Sport games, others hate them.

Dude, placing a melee focussed character at a massive disadvantage (the scenario had him surrounded at considerable range to his opponents, and without a missile weapon or cover) is no different to placing the skeletons behind cover themselves (which in turn places the ranged dude at a disadvantage).

If you're going to be fair about it, lets have the Skeletons hiding behind +5 cover or something.

[MaxWilson]

Dude, placing a melee focussed character at a massive disadvantage (the scenario had him surrounded at considerable range to his opponents, and without a missile weapon or cover) is no different to placing the skeletons behind cover themselves (which in turn places the ranged dude at a disadvantage).

If you're going to be fair about it, lets have the Skeletons hiding behind +5 cover or something.

You're aware that cover works against both ranged and melee attacks, right? Sure, go ahead and introduce terrain features which grant partial cover to certain areas of the battlefield. The ranged guy still performs better than the barbarian, either by simply ignoring the cover (Sharpshooter) or, more onerously if he's not a Sharpshooter, by appropriating cover of his own (possibly while prone) and then exploiting the disadvantage differential. Firing at +7 (Archery style, Dex 16) with disadvantage against AC 18 (skeletons with cover) with a sling (bludgeoning) for 1d4+3 points of damage (doubled because of bludgeoning vulnerability) means the fighter will do 2.76 DPR and takes about five sling bullets to kill each skeleton. Meanwhile the skeletons are firing at +4 and disadvantage against AC 21 (scale mail and cover) for 0.23 damage per round, each. He'll take about 11.44 points of damage total while killing the skeletons, so he'll be glad for Second Wind and he could die. (If he's a Sharpshooter he ends the combat in only eight rounds, taking 4.57 points of damage instead).

But the barbarian can't exploit cover because he has to charge, so unless he can manage to close under cover of Stealth that means he's stuck taking 10.60 damage every round he's out in the open, including rounds where he can't even make any attacks. Rage can eke that out a bit (if it lasts) but he's still unlikely to actually survive the combat, unless he can exploit Stealth to close unseen.

And that is why I'm not sad to see cantrips like Greenflame Blade in the game--melee really does need all the help it can get to stay relevant in 5E.

[Malifice]

You're aware that cover works against both ranged and melee attacks, right? Sure, go ahead and introduce terrain features which grant partial cover to certain areas of the battlefield.

OK. The Skeletons are 120' away at the cardinal points of the compass and behind Pavises (mobile wheeled tower shields with arrow slits) and armed with heavy crossbows. +5 cover. There is no other cover to speak of. The PC is standing on top of a 5' diameter column surrounded by a 40' wide and 250' deep pit lined with spikes.

Your move.

Im just saying if your going to create a scenario that places a melee focssed PC at a distinct tactical disadvantage, lets apply the same tactical disadvantage to the ranged guy.

[MaxWilson]

OK. The Skeletons are 120' away at the cardinal points of the compass and behind Pavises (mobile wheeled tower shields with arrow slits) and armed with heavy crossbows. +5 cover. There is no other cover to speak of. The PC is standing on top of a 5' diameter column surrounded by a 40' wide and 250' deep pit lined with spikes.

Your move.

Im just saying if your going to create a scenario that places a melee focssed PC at a distinct tactical disadvantage, lets apply the same tactical disadvantage to the ranged guy.

Short shrift because my battery is about to run out:

1.) Obviously, the barbarian would be dead already, so no contest there.
2.) The skeletons are at disadvantage due to range.
3.) The skeletons are in Sharpshooter range for a sling.

Unfortunately the fighter is likely to die, since he's taking 6.13 damage per round due to all the heavy crossbows, unless you let shields be used with slings in which case it's it's 3.73 and he might live. Essentially he has to hope to get lucky, win initiative, and kill at least one skeleton immediately before it can fire at him; then he has to rely on Second Wind to keep him alive.

But clearly it is better to have a 30-60% chance of living (Sharpshooter fighter) than a 0% chance of living (melee barbarian), so I don't really see what relevance your scenario has to the thread.

[Finieous]

But in a thread which is about melee vs. ranged, it is appropriate to note that the melee-centric barbarian gets smashed flat by the "level-inappropriate" encounter, while the crossbow/longbow fighter with either Mobile or Sharpshooter has a pretty good shot at winning it.

That's the difference in a nutshell. Melee only works if the DM carefully calibrates encounters to be "level-appropriate". Some people like those kinds of Combat As Sport games, others hate them.

That's not true. The barbarian only gets "smashed flat" if he sticks around on the featureless plain or dies in the first round of ambush (which the ranged character is equally capable of). If the "level-inappropriate scenario" is a forest clearing instead of a featureless plain, as you suggested, the barbarian is in his element against the skeletons. He can take cover. He can hide. When the skeletons split up, he can sneak around and pick them off one by one. He becomes Rambo or Arnie in Predator. Good times.

Melee is more tactically challenging than ranged, as I said way up thread. But it's absurd (sorry) to suggest that it "only works" in a Combat As Sport game. In return for that increased tactical challenge, melee earns more advantage from Advantage and more opportunity for Opportunity Attacks -- powerful features of the game design. Fair trade.

[MaxWilson]

That's not true. The barbarian only gets "smashed flat" if he sticks around on the featureless plain or dies in the first round of ambush (which the ranged character is equally capable of). If the "level-inappropriate scenario" is a forest clearing instead of a featureless plain, as you suggested, the barbarian is in his element against the skeletons. He can take cover. He can hide. When the skeletons split up, he can sneak around and pick them off one by one. He becomes Rambo or Arnie in Predator. Good times.

Sure. Stealth changes everything for melee dude. I've mentioned that before in multiple posts--don't jump on me just because I forgot to caveat that single paragraph that you happen to be quoting. Being Rambo or Arnie as Predator is lots of fun.

The ranged dude is probably better at Stealth than the melee dude (because high Dex), but in 5E, almost anyone can attempt it with a fair degree of success.


Melee is more tactically challenging than ranged, as I said way up thread. But it's absurd (sorry) to suggest that it "only works" in a Combat As Sport game. In return for that increased tactical challenge, melee earns more advantage from Advantage and more opportunity for Opportunity Attacks -- powerful features of the game design. Fair trade.

You know what I meant. Playing Predator or Spy Vs. Spy is very much a Combat As War thing. In that scenario, the exact tool you're using to inflict damage (melee vs. ranged vs. spell) is very nearly irrelevant. What really matters if whether you caught your enemy alone and off-guard.

I've definitely considered playing a melee character in a stealth-centric Predator-ish short campaign about special forces. But you and I both know that doing so is playing the game on "hard mode" deliberately.

[druid91]

Dude, placing a melee focussed character at a massive disadvantage (the scenario had him surrounded at considerable range to his opponents, and without a missile weapon or cover) is no different to placing the skeletons behind cover themselves (which in turn places the ranged dude at a disadvantage).

If you're going to be fair about it, lets have the Skeletons hiding behind +5 cover or something.

There were two scenarios. Both had the barbarian moving first. Both had the skeletons start off grouped together in four adjacent spaces. The first had the skeleton square 75-80 ft away. The second had them within melee range. Both ended with a decent chance of the barbarian dying within 1-3 turns.

Giving the barbarian a missile weapon would defeat the purpose of the thought assignment. Which was 'why is ranged better' And the answer is it can almost always be used regardless of position leaving you free to evade damage to your hearts content. While Melee does more damage but also opens you up to retaliation in return.

As far as opportunity attacks go. I have literally never seen them get used except AGAINST the PC's. If the enemies are next to a PC. Why do they need to move past? They have something to hit right there. And if they do need to get away for whatever reason they can disengage.

I really find it amusing how everyone focuses on the first scenario because it's unfair when it's meant to be unfair. When in the second scenario the Barbarian is in melee range, they STILL probably die.

Also CR 1 = Level 1. A CR 1 challenge is equal to a level 1 character. Erego a CR 1/4 challenge is = 1/4 of a level 1 character.

[SharkForce]

Also CR 1 = Level 1. A CR 1 challenge is equal to a level 1 character. Erego a CR 1/4 challenge is = 1/4 of a level 1 character.

that isn't how CR works in 5e. stop treating it like it's a different edition.

[KorvinStarmast]

Thats even more suboptimal mate.
I think you are missing the point. He's upping his party damage, not his own damage, and is harder to hit than your STR barb, and is resistant to the most common forms of melee damage. He also has far better ranged attacks than your str barb and gets off a ranged attack before closing to melee as a standard tactic. As a bonus, his dex saves make him less vulnerable to a lot of magic attacks be he raging or not. Choosing Shield Master makes that really pay off at later levels with that nice add to the dex bonus.

Remember, this isn't a solo combat, this is as part of a team.

Last time I checked, D&D was a team sport.

YMMV.

(sadly, Barb (intended to be female) will probably not see the light of day since I discovered that AL is not at all played in the city where I live. I had one night a week that I might have been able to take this character on the road and ... modest spousal support for a one night a week hobby night ... and AL ain't gonna happen).

[druid91]

that isn't how CR works in 5e. stop treating it like it's a different edition.

Seems to be working well so far for my players.

Though admittedly I haven't specifically looked up the CR rules since it seemed rather intuitive. Though If a CR 1 is meant to be stronger than a level 1. Why does true polymorph scale levels to CR?

[sophontteks]

Seems to be working well so far for my players.

Though admittedly I haven't specifically looked up the CR rules since it seemed rather intuitive. Though If a CR 1 is meant to be stronger than a level 1. Why does true polymorph scale levels to CR?

Its really not how it works.
a brown bear is cr 1, just as an example. The druid is often called OP from levels 2-4 just because it can turn into a brown bear. Simply put, a cr 1 creature is stronger then most characters are between levels 1-4.

"A monster's challenge rating tells you how great a
threat the monster is. An appropriately equipped and
well-rested party of four adventurers should be able to
defeat a monster that has a challenge rating equal to its
level without suffering any deaths. For example, a party
of four 3rd-level characters should find a monster with
a challenge rating of 3 to be a worthy challenge, but not
a deadly one."

So a brown bear, that a druid can turn into at level 2, is considered a fair fight against 4 level 1 players.

[Hawkstar]

Wait... are there people who make melee characters that DON'T have ranged weapons or spells? Or ranged characters that don't carry a rapier?

And while Ranged dominates the open field... more likely than not, you'll be fighting in much closer quarters (Though I'm glad 5e doesn't have the hate for ranges greater than 30' that 3e had).

[Malifice]

Also CR 1 = Level 1. A CR 1 challenge is equal to a level 1 character. Erego a CR 1/4 challenge is = 1/4 of a level 1 character.

Thats not how it works. Youve literally just invented that formula.

A CR1 challange is not equal to a 1st level character, and you dont just add up the CR's of your creatures to determine the overall challenge rating.

To create an encoutner you first need to find the XP value of your party A single 1st level PC has an XP threshold of 25 (easy) 50 (medium) 75 (hard) and 100 (deadly). Five such 1st level PC's have an XP threshold of 125 (easy) 250 (medium) 375 (hard) and 500 (deadly).

That number is your XP budget for building the encounter. Add in a bunch of monsters worth as much XP as the difficulty of the encounter you want to set (For a 'hard' encounter for this party, you would budget for between 375 and 500 XP).

For multiple monsters, you need to increase the XP value to account for the fact that there are more of them.

Those monsters should not include a monster with a CR more than 1 or 2 (at max) higher than the average party level. Generally the most powerful monster in the encounter should not have a CR that is higher than the average party level.

Example:

Skeletons are worth 50 XP each. Four of them = 200 XP. The DMG says to double this number to account for difficulty of the fact that there are 4 of them (400 XP). The Skeletons are all CR 1/4 so individually the monsters are not too powerful for the party to handle (the average party level is 1).

400 XP = just over a 'hard' encounter for 5 x 1st level PC's. The PC's should defeat them, expending a few resources during the battle, and there is a possibility (if things go south quickly, or with bad rolls) that one could die).

Once the party defeat them, they are awarded 200 XP.

Your average 1st level party is exepected to handle 6-8 encounters of medium-hard difficulty such as this encounter between long rests.

Example 2:

1 Ogre is worth 450 XP. The Ogre is CR 2 so we need to be a little careful throwing it against 1st level PCs as it has abilities (inthe Ogres case high melee damage) that could outclass a 1st level party pretty quickly). It is a 'hard' ecnounter for 5 x 1st level PC's (it sits between the 375 and 500 XP thresholds).

The PC's should defeat the Ogre, expending a few resources during the battle, but there is very real possibility that one could die.

When the party defeat it, they are awarded 450 XP.

[Malifice]

I think you are missing the point. He's upping his party damage, not his own damage, and is harder to hit than your STR barb, and is resistant to the most common forms of melee damage.

His upping of the party damage, and his resistance to damage in return have nothing to do with his Dex score.

And having a point or two better AC in return for crappy damage output and the inability to take advantage of your main class feature (rage) is not worth it.

Seriously; run it next to a Str barbarian with a greataxe (and the exact same totem powers). Let me know how you get on.


He also has far better ranged attacks than your str barb and gets off a ranged attack before closing to melee as a standard tactic.

Your Str barbarian hurls a javelin or throws an axe. Dude, Barbarians are rubbish at ranged combat, and can't be made viable around Dex. Their core class features are linked to Str based melee attacks.

Its kinda like kitting up a Rogue to use a greatsword. I mean, yeah you can do it. But (mechanically) why would you?

I respect your enthusiasim mate, and its an intresting concept, but it's mechanically just not valid.

[MaxWilson]

Seems to be working well so far for my players.

Though admittedly I haven't specifically looked up the CR rules since it seemed rather intuitive. Though If a CR 1 is meant to be stronger than a level 1. Why does true polymorph scale levels to CR?

In my experience, CR 1 and a level 1 character are roughly equal, in the sense that four CR 1s vs. four level 1 PCs leads to a tossup where either side could win depending on how play proceeds. (Thus, the Polymorph equivalence makes perfect sense to me. An 8th level fighter and a Tyrannosaurus are equally valuable in a fight; but the power of Polymorph is that once the T-Rex is used up you get the fighter back.) However, 5E is supposed to be both combat-heavy and survivable by design, so if the PCs have only a 50% chance of surviving each combat, the average campaign will last only two fights. Therefore the DMG guidelines try to ensure that the fights are hard enough to be interesting, but not so hard that the PCs might actually lose.

Four CR 1/4s against a single level 1 is right up in the territory where the PC is more likely than not to lose. (It's quintuple-Deadly.) I still think it would be a blast, especially since you haven't invested much in the PC yet anyway so it's the perfect time to risk him in a deadly fight that you'll remember for a long time.


Its really not how it works.
a brown bear is cr 1, just as an example. The druid is often called OP from levels 2-4 just because it can turn into a brown bear. Simply put, a cr 1 creature is stronger then most characters are between levels 1-4.

The Moon Druid is considered overpowered because he can fight to the death as a Brown Bear twice per short rest and still have all of his Druid spells and HP left over afterwards. He's kind of like three PCs in one, every short rest.

[Malifice]

In my experience, CR 1 and a level 1 character are roughly equal, in the sense that four CR 1s vs. four level 1 PCs leads to a tossup where either side could win depending on how play proceeds.

The balancing point is 2 x CR1 creatures is = to 4 x first level PC's

4 x CR1's vs 4 1st level PCs = TPK 95 percent of the time, not half the time. Four 1st level PC's have an encounter budget (for a deadly encounter) of 400 XP. 4 x CR1's is 1600 XP - 4 x deadly encounter.

A single CR 1 dire wolf has AC 14, 37 HP, 50' move, +5 to hit doing 2d6+3 damage (DC13 or be knocked prone).

Two of them against a party of 1st level PC's is a deadly encounter that would wipe them out 50/50. Four of them? No chance in hell that party survives.

[MaxWilson]

The balancing point is 2 x CR1 creatures is = to 4 x first level PC's

4 x CR1's vs 4 1st level PCs = TPK 95 percent of the time, not half the time. Four 1st level PC's have an encounter budget (for a deadly encounter) of 400 XP. 4 x CR1's is 1600 XP - 4 x deadly encounter.

A single CR 1 dire wolf has AC 14, 37 HP, 50' move, +5 to hit doing 2d6+3 damage (DC13 or be knocked prone).

Two of them against a party of 1st level PC's is a deadly encounter that would wipe them out 50/50. Four of them? No chance in ---- that party survives.

Brown Bear is CR 1. 34 HP, two attacks at +5 for total of 19 damage, 40' move, AC 11. Four Brown Bears vs. a PC party is a very plausible fight. Bears take a bunch of damage from Sharpshooters closing to melee range while the frontliner Dodges, and the bard awards inspiration and does Vicious Mockery while standing ready to Healing Word him if he drops.

Let's do a test combat. Since we're looking at general equivalence and not just first-level equivalence, I'll assume the first-level guys have good gear instead of crummy starting gear. (Maybe someone has a rich uncle.) I'll let the bears win initiative and assume that the no one has surprise (although bears have rubbish Stealth so this is slightly unfair to the party).

The party consists of a Heavy Armor Master/Defense fighter in plate armor and shield, a Sharpshooter fighter with Archery style, a Mobile druid, and an Inspiring Leader bard.

Round 1:
Bears emerge from their lair and Dash toward the party, ending 20' away from the point man (fighter #1) and 50' away from everyone else.
Fighter #1 throws a javelin (hits bear #1 for 8 damage) and retreats 30'.
Sharpshooter fighter hits bear #1 with crossbow bolt for 18 damage and retreats 30'.
Bard misses with his crossbow and retreats 30', and Inspires Sharpshooter with a d6.
Druid casts Faerie Fire (bears #3 and #4 fail their saves) and retreats 30'.

Round 2:
Three of the bears Dash toward the fighter 50' away from them. Fourth bear detours around to avoid an opportunity attack, gains 70' of ground, winds up only 10' from Sharpshooter/Bard/Druid.
Fighter #1 begins to Dodge like crazy.
Sharpshooter hits bear #3 for 21 points of damage, retreats 30'.
Bard draws his rapier and advances 10' toward bear #4, Inspires druid with a d6, and begins to Dodge.
Druid pulls out his own heavy crossbow and fires at wounded Bear #1. (Non-proficient, Dex 12 = only +1, but bear AC is only 11.) Hits for 9 points of damage, bringing the bear to 35 points of damage, which is just enough to kill it. Retreats 30'.

Round 3:
Bears #2 and #3 swipe at fighter #1 (+5 vs. AC 21 at disadvantage), but he's too nimble for them--they miss four times.
Bear #4 tries to take a chunk out of bard (+5 vs. AC 15 at disadvantage), but also misses.
Fighter #1 keeps dodging.
Sharpshooter shoots bear #4 right in the shoulder for 23 points of damage, retreats 30'.
Bard Dodges.
Druid fires at bear #4 with his crossbow, hits for 11 points of damage (hot dice today), killing it.

At this point, there are two dead or dying bears and two live bears, one of them wreathed in fey flames, none of whom have actually gotten a bite of the fighter yet. They probably break off the attack and retreat, and if they don't, they probably die. Let's pretend they're in a berserker fury and play it out.

Round 4:
Bears #2 and #3 swipe at fighter #1, but miss again. (Unsurprising, since each attack has only a 1/16 chance to hit.)
Fighter #1 keeps dodging.
Sharpshooter advances 30' and hits bear #3 for another 20 points of damage, total 41, killing it.
Bard Inspires fighter #1, drops his rapier, and fires his crossbow at the bear, missing.
Druid advances 10' and fires his crossbow at bear #2, 50' away from him. Crits for 13 points of damage.

Round 5:
Bear #2, in a berserk fury, abandons fighter #1 and instead charges Bard, who is (accidentally) in range! Fighter #1 hits his flank for 3 points of damage as he charges. Bear first claws bard for 4 points of damage, then bites for 9 points of damage. (Since Bard has 10 real HP + 4 temp HP from Inspired Leader, this is not quite enough to put him down and thus force the druid to Healing Word him.)
Fighter #1 charges bear from behind and hits for (d8+2) 10 points of damage.
Sharpshooter just barely misses bear (8+2=10), but wait! No he doesn't, because the Inspiration of the bard keeps him focused (somehow) for +6. He hits bear #2 for 16 points of damage, putting it at 42/34 damage, which means it's dead.

The PCs may have gotten a bit lucky here, but the bears had an advantageous start position and the PCs still didn't die, so it wasn't at all an impossible fight. Some CR 1s are harder than others, and maybe Pack Tactics and the higher AC on Dire Wolves or Giant Hyenas would have finished these guys off... or maybe it wouldn't have. I certainly don't buy that only two Dire Wolves have a 50/50 shot at wiping this party out though.


The balancing point is 2 x CR1 creatures is = to 4 x first level PC's

Nope. The PCs have much better than a 50/50 shot at winning any fight against only two CR 1s. Assuming they're played competently.

[djreynolds]

I always find combat interesting, tactic wise. Do you clean out the fodder first? Attack the wizard? Or Cleric? Or the archer? Hold the BBEG down? Or just go crazy?

My kid plays a ranger and at 5th level packs a punch with her bow. Archery style is that good.

But when trouble happens, that archer is too far away to help or be helped. That can be a problem or a solution, depending on if its your archer.

Archery is great. But archers are often alone or away from the main body. I find barbarians, and of course monks, can move with great speed when necessary when they dash and often corner archers who put their backs to the wall, a very common tactic used for defense, and now have them. Not to say a ranger can't hold his own in melee.

So I guess its in terms of the battlefield and the enemy, how well your archer performs? I find archers often have no use for bonus actions and this possible damage is lost.

[Malifice]

Brown Bear is CR 1. 34 HP, two attacks at +5 for total of 19 damage, 40' move, AC 11. Four Brown Bears vs. a PC party is a very plausible fight. Bears take a bunch of damage from Sharpshooters closing to melee range while the frontliner Dodges, and the bard awards inspiration and does Vicious Mockery while standing ready to Healing Word him if he drops.

Let's do a test combat.

Your test combat favors the party to a ridiculous degree. You even give them a whole round of attacks before the bears get close.

[JackPhoenix]

Also CR 1 = Level 1. A CR 1 challenge is equal to a level 1 character. Erego a CR 1/4 challenge is = 1/4 of a level 1 character.

CR 1 means it's an appropriate challenge for a group of 4 level 1 characters...it was that way since the 3e came up with CR in the first place. Thus, 1 level 1 character is roughly equivalent to a CR 1/4 creature.

Now, it doesn't always hold true (pixie is the most infamous example in 5e), but that's a problem with a specific creatures having asigned wrong CR (much more common in 3e, even without 3rd party sources), not with the system in general.

Polymorph and co are considered to be very powerful, in part because it allows you to turn into monsters of your character level, which are generaly stronger then any one character of the appropriate level.

[sophontteks]

The dm book was pretty clear on what cr represents. Some people here couldnt look this information up so i posted this section as a quote in order to quell misinformation. It would be very unfortunate if others read this forum and thought cr was equivilent to level.
Since the definition in the book is clear, there is no reason to continue debating it. Just say "thank you i didnt realize that cr wasnt equal to level." and move on.

[JackPhoenix]

You're saying
4 level 1 = 1 CR
and then
1 level 1 = 1 CR

That makes no sense.

Submitted the post with a typo before it was finished, edited it since.

[Kryx]

Submitted the post with a typo before it was finished, edited it since.
Deleted mine then. All good.

[KorvinStarmast]

I respect your enthusiasim mate, and its an intresting concept, but it's mechanically just not valid.Once again, we see the slavish minmax inherent in the system

[MaxWilson]

Your test combat favors the party to a ridiculous degree. You even give them a whole round of attacks before the bears get close.

Giving the bears initiative and letting them start only 100' away from the party on level terrain (or 50' upslope on difficult terrain) is "favoring the party to a ridiculous degree"? Aren't you the one who claimed that the fight should be a TPK 95% of the time? Do 95% of your combats involve teleporting bears who magically appear in the party's face instead of emerging from a cave or something AND win initiative? Are you claiming that starting the bears off in melee range and rolling initiative normally instead of giving it to the bears will turn that fight back into a 95% TPK?

(And you're wrong. I just rolled five rounds of full attacks against fighter #1 by all four the bears. They got one hit for 10 points of damaged, reduced to 7 for Heavy Armor Master. The extra rounds of attacks the bears get do not change it into a TPK.)

The fact that ranged attackers get to fire without closing to melee distance isn't "ridiculous favoritism", it's just the way ranged combat works. You've heard "never bring a knife to a gunfight", right? This is why. That is in fact what this thread is about.


Once again, we see the slavish minmax inherent in the system

Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

[Finieous]

I don't know, but I like how the sharpshooter never misses and the non-proficient druid dishes out 33 points of damage with his crossbow! The "heavy fighter" with the 14 Strength (including +1 Str from HAM!) must feel like a chump. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

I don't know, but I like how the sharpshooter never misses and the non-proficient druid dishes out 33 points of damage with his crossbow! The "heavy fighter" with the 14 Strength (including +1 Str from HAM!) must feel like a chump. :smallbiggrin:

Yeah, also notice that the druid keeps rolling max damage or near-max. Hot dice that day, although the druid had cold dice when he rolled for stats. In the general case I would expect the fight to be a little less one-sided, especially if the bears change their tactics (e.g. only one bear goes for fighter #1 while the rest bypass). Not that bears are supposed to be tactical masterminds, but it could happen accidentally once in a while.

The fact that the Dex 16 Sharpshooter was shooting with Advantage from Faerie Fire on several shots helped. Needing 9+ with advantage is an 84% expected success rate. On the other shots it's only a 60% expected success rate.

I think the option of using non-proficient weapons gets overlooked too often at low levels. Using a heavy crossbow at +1 for d10+1 against AC 11 bears is pretty compared compared to his other option, which is using a sling at +3 and disadvantage for d4+1.

Fighter #1 does not feel like a chump because he did exactly what he's supposed to do. He's a tank, not a damage-dealer. His plan for 2nd level is to multiclass into Wizard and commence the Necromancer track. E.g. Fighter 1/Necromancer 9 with Grim Harvest can turn on Vampiric Touch V and become very, very tanky while his skeleton archers slaughter the enemy from range.

[Finieous]

I think the option of using non-proficient weapons gets overlooked too often at low levels. Using a heavy crossbow at +1 for d10+1 against AC 11 bears is pretty compared compared to his other option, which is using a sling at +3 and disadvantage for d4+1.


Assuming he has Wis 16, it's about the same damage as produce flame. The cantrip is cheaper and you can use it to start your camp fire! Plus, if I'm DMing, beasts are making morale checks when someone starts throwing fire at them.

I don't think the fighter is really a "tank." He's just hard to hit. Again, when I'm DMing, bears #1, #3 and #4 are ignoring the dodging fighter and going after the druid and sharpshooter, who are actually hurting them. I don't think they need to be tactical geniuses -- they just need to act like grizzly bears. If they do, the fight is probably a wee bit more deadly.

The scenario certainly does highlight the limitations of the encounter building guidelines, though. They're situational enough that they probably aren't very useful at all for an experienced DM. I've never used them.

[Malifice]

Giving the bears initiative and letting them start only 100' away from the party on level terrain (or 50' upslope on difficult terrain) is "favoring the party to a ridiculous degree"? Aren't you the one who claimed that the fight should be a TPK 95% of the time? Do 95% of your combats involve teleporting bears who magically appear in the party's face instead of emerging from a cave or something AND win initiative? Are you claiming that starting the bears off in melee range and rolling initiative normally instead of giving it to the bears will turn that fight back into a 95% TPK?

(And you're wrong. I just rolled five rounds of full attacks against fighter #1 by all four the bears. They got one hit for 10 points of damaged, reduced to 7 for Heavy Armor Master. The extra rounds of attacks the bears get do not change it into a TPK.)

The fact that ranged attackers get to fire without closing to melee distance isn't "ridiculous favoritism", it's just the way ranged combat works. You've heard "never bring a knife to a gunfight", right? This is why. That is in fact what this thread is about.



Help! Help! I'm being repressed!

Let's go with the 'the party rounds a corner and sees 4 Bears 40' away'.

Let's assume 2 bears win initiative then the party, then the last 2.

The Bears are generating 8 attacks per round dealing around 10 damage on a hit each, and have 34 HP a pop. 8 chances for a crit (and 4d6+4 damage) every single round.

Vs 1st level PCs.

9/10 the party dies in that encounter.

I'm sure you can craft a scenario where the party kites them to death or sinilar but 4 CR1 mobsters v a level 1 party is a 4 x deadly encounter.

The party should be fighting 4 skeletons at CR 1/4 at 1st level not 4 CR1 monsters.

That's fantasy underground Vietnam level madness.

[broodax]

4 bears is a ridiculously tough challenge for 1st level characters, and I would TPK (or route - meaning they full retreat after losing 1-2 members) a party with them 95% of the time, but that's not even the most ridiculous outcome of ignoring the CR rules.

Have the party fight 4 spectres or 16 goblins or any number of things like that.

If you are running games like that and your party lasts more than a session something is wrong.

[Malifice]

4 bears is a ridiculously tough challenge for 1st level characters, and I would TPK (or route - meaning they full retreat after losing 1-2 members) a party with them 95% of the time, but that's not even the most ridiculous outcome of ignoring the CR rules.

Have the party fight 4 spectres or 16 goblins or any number of things like that.

If you are running games like that and your party lasts more than a session something is wrong.

DMs get a little spooked by party power levels and the challenge of 5e encounters throws them. They forget that the encounter builder expects the PCs to win, expending some resources (HP, spell slots, action surge etc) in the process. After 6-8 such encounters the party is supposed to long rest (be out of long rest resources like HD and spells).

If fights carried even a 10 percent chance of a PC death, then based off the number of encounters a party faces before even 5th level (around 60) then most parties would be TPKd well before hitting that mark. Only the most incredibly fortunate PC would survive to mid levels when raise dead starts to appear.

Throwing quintuple deadly encounters at them - even ones the party stands a 50/50 chance of death once per level before 5th level means you have a 97 percent chance of a TPK before they hit extra Attack/ 3rd level spells.

Don't upscale the difficulty of your encounters. Just throw more at them. 6-8 per long rest, separated by 2 short rests after every second encounter or so (allowing them the ability to spend HD, regain short rest powers like action surge, warlock spell slots, wild shape, second wind, superiority dice, bardic inspiration and Ki points) is the sweet spot to maintain both class balance and encounter difficulty.

[Finieous]

If fights carried even a 10 percent chance of a PC death, then based off the number of encounters a party faces before even 5th level (around 60) then most parties would be TPKd well before hitting that mark. Only the most incredibly fortunate PC would survive to mid levels when raise dead starts to appear.


Sounds like B/X! :smallbiggrin:

[UptownMotown]

See my post on this subject here: http://www.giantitp.com/forums/showthread.php?374666-Not-All-Who-Wander-are-Lost-A-Ranger-s-Guide/page3

This is exactly why ranged can be OP.

[Kryx]

Ranged is behind in damage compared to Melee Strength builds by a fair amount(~15-25%). There are other circumstances like likelihood of being able to hit targets, but by no means is Ranged OP according to the DPR numbers.

[UptownMotown]

Unless you consider the build I had, which turned the ranger into an assassin with a 120mm howitzer.

I used my Hunter for a long while and she had no equal outside of DM "Divine Intervention." Understand I started playing with DMs who had no less than a half-dozen caricatures on their shield, with each one representing a TPK. I since design all my characters for such ruthless gameplay but this build was perhaps my crowning achievement.

Race: Wood Elf

Strength: 12
Modified Dexterity: 19
Constitution: 14
Intelligence: 13
Modified Wisdom: 16
Charisma: 14

Background: Outlander

Class: Hunter 15/Assassin 5

Fighting Style: Archery

Feats:
-Alert
-Keen Mind
-Mobile
-Sharpshooter
-Skulker

Class Features:
-Horde Breaker
-Escape the Horde
-Hide In Plain Sight
-Volley
-Vanish
-Stand Against the Tide
-Expertise: Perception & Stealth
-Sneak Attack +3d6
-Cunning Action
-Assassinate
-Uncanny Dodge

It's worth noting the character had a +9 Initiative and a 45' movement speed. More on that later.

It took a little while to get up and running as effectively as I would like but once it hit mid- to late-game, it absolutely dominated. The only majorly important thing it needed was Lightning Arrow applied permanently on the longbow. Once that was accomplished, she was able to fire two lightning arrow-imbued volleys five feet apart resulting in a 30x35' AoE of indirect artillery. Provided she wasn't seen, they were also treated as assassinations. Each arrow was treated as an individual attack regarding damage and suffice to say it was enough to where I really didn't have to roll at all, even into the epic levels, and all the way out to 600'. Battle procedure consisted entirely of volley, move, volley, hide, repeat. Nothing survived. Keep in mind that because both Horde Breaker and Volley state "creature" instead of "enemy," if there is so much as an ant in that adjacent square, it will kick into effect for the second Volley. Anything less than full cover was ignored, and unless seen (unlikely), assassinations were almost guaranteed at any given time (where initiative and move speed really kick in if seen). Poisons and Arrows of Death were always plentiful.

AC was not as important because my passive stealth boost was 16 before modifiers from Hide In Plain Sight and abilities such as Skulker, Vanish, and the racial Mask of the Wild. In addition, you have Escape the Hord (disadvantage is disgusting), Stand Against The Tide (miss and hit your buddy), and Uncanny Dodge (even if you do hit me, only half damage).

Playing the rolls of recon, party guide, food supplier, sniper, and indirect artillery all simultaneously was about as overpowered as anything I've ever seen anywhere. For anyone trying to replicate this build, be warned that unless your DM is running a hardcore and/or epic level campaign, you will probably find yourself "smite by god" or severely nerfed because there really isn't a counter possible.

[Finieous]

The only majorly important thing it needed was Lightning Arrow applied permanently on the longbow.

:smallbiggrin:

"Once I came back from the Barrier Peaks with that plasma cannon, the build really came together!"

[UptownMotown]

:smallbiggrin:

"Once I came back from the Barrier Peaks with that plasma cannon, the build really came together!"

Best quote I've heard all morning.

Interestingly enough, hitting targets wasn't entirely necessary. Not to say I wouldn't take it, but I didn't have to actually hit the target. As long as arrows land in their squares, all unmodified damage was doubled provided the assassinations were successful and regardless of whether or not enemies were hit or hiding behind less than full cover. Now add in individual spells for each arrow separately and you have what essentially amounts to chain lighting.

And yes, even contact poisons and Arrows of Death dealt double.

No melee build I have ever seen has come remotely close to the damage output the ranger had and partly why I prefer 3.5 to 5E. 5E is too easily broken while creating equally powerful 3.5 builds are much more of a challenge.

[Malifice]

Best quote I've heard all morning.

Interestingly enough, hitting targets wasn't entirely necessary. Not to say I wouldn't take it, but I didn't have to actually hit the target. As long as arrows land in their squares, all unmodified damage was doubled provided the assassinations were successful and regardless of whether or not enemies were hit or hiding behind less than full cover. Now add in individual spells for each arrow separately and you have what essentially amounts to chain lighting.

And yes, even contact poisons and Arrows of Death dealt double.

No melee build I have ever seen has come remotely close to the damage output the ranger had and partly why I prefer 3.5 to 5E. 5E is too easily broken while creating equally powerful 3.5 builds are much more of a challenge.

You may have gotten a different result playing a legal charaxter without a custom Magic item and followed the rules.

Glad you had fun though.

[UptownMotown]

You may have gotten a different result playing a legal charaxter without a custom Magic item and followed the rules.

Glad you had fun though.

The difference between one magic volley and two isn't much beyond a smaller killzone. I felt the party-boosting support would more than make up for the slight decrease in damage potential. No "remember when...," "did you see...," lack of food, water, or direction, etc. Extremely self-sufficient and about as close to a real-life Ghost as I feel a DD character can get.


...playing a legal charaxter ...

Was there something not legal about the build?

[Vogonjeltz]

CR 1 means it's an appropriate challenge for a group of 4 level 1 characters...it was that way since the 3e came up with CR in the first place. Thus, 1 level 1 character is roughly equivalent to a CR 1/4 creature.

Now, it doesn't always hold true (pixie is the most infamous example in 5e), but that's a problem with a specific creatures having asigned wrong CR (much more common in 3e, even without 3rd party sources), not with the system in general.

Polymorph and co are considered to be very powerful, in part because it allows you to turn into monsters of your character level, which are generaly stronger then any one character of the appropriate level.

A single CR 1 is a deadly encounter for a single level 1 opponent. Actually, it's still deadly for a level 2 opponent, which is probably why the Moon Druid wild shape is powerful.

Pixies are overrated, they have 1 hit point and all their useful spells are mutually exclusive with each other, making them easy prey, which is probably why any 1 of them represents an Easy challenge for a single level 1 player.

[MaxWilson]

Let's go with the 'the party rounds a corner and sees 4 Bears 40' away'.

Let's assume 2 bears win initiative then the party, then the last 2.

The Bears are generating 8 attacks per round dealing around 10 damage on a hit each, and have 34 HP a pop. 8 chances for a crit (and 4d6+4 damage) every single round.

Vs 1st level PCs.

9/10 the party dies in that encounter.

Let's see how good your intuition actually is when I roll this out. Will the party die 9/10?

Attempt #1:
Round #1, bear hits fighter #1 before he starts to Dodge. Inflicts 12 - 3 = 9 points of damage, leaving him at 9 HP. (Thanks, Inspiring Leader!) Second Wind rolls 9 points of damage but can't restore temp HP, so he regains only 3 HP. The other two bears miss him. All four bears make their saves vs. Faerie Fire by the Druid; so the Bard tries to Faerie Fire too, and again they all save. Sharpshooter misses.
Round #2, all four bears miss fighter #1. This time, all four bears fail their save vs. Faerie Fire. Bard hits bear #1 with (nonproficient) crossbow for 9 points of damage. Sharpshooter hits bear #1 for 21 points of damage.
Round #3, all four bears miss again. Sharpshooter hits bear #2 for 15 points of damage. Druid misses bear #1. Bard hits bear #1 for 10 points of damage, killing it.
Round #4, all three bears miss. Sharpshooter crits bear #2 for 32 points of damage, killing it. Druid hits bear #3 for 4 points of damage, bard hits for 8.
Round #5, both bears miss. Sharpshooter hits bear #3 for 21 points of damage, leaving it at 1 HP. Druid crits it for 15 points of damage. Bard hits bear #4 for 9 points of damage.
Round #6, bear #4 misses. Sharpshooter hits bear #4 for 19 points of damage, leaving it at 6 HP. Druid crits it for 12 points of damage, killing it.

Is there even a point in running the other 10 fights? I can imagine that sometimes the party could lose, but clearly it's not going to happen 90% of the time, even in this your ideal scenario. Face it, four CR 1s vs. four well-equipped competent level 1 PCs is a fair fight, not a 95% TPK.

(Smart PCs avoid fair fights in the first place. Using Stealth, Longstrider and taunts to lure the bears into a turkey shoot involves fewer die rolls and is smarter, from the Combat As War perspective. But even in the Combat As Sport world, it's not a 95% TPK like you claim it is.)


A single CR 1 is a deadly encounter for a single level 1 opponent. Actually, it's still deadly for a level 2 opponent, which is probably why the Moon Druid wild shape is powerful.

Of course. A level 1 PC is also a deadly encounter for a single level 1 opponent, going off the description for "Deadly" and not the math. Obviously there's a significant chance of death (if it's a mortal combat) for at least one PC--it's a mirror image match after all, and somebody is going to die!

A level 1 PC is still a deadly encounter for a level 2 opponent. Maybe a 75% chance of victory for the level 2 guy, depending. Once you get up to level 4 or 5, the higher-level guy can still die, but it generally requires him to make a mistake or be disadvantaged somehow relative to the low-level guy, so call it Hard instead of Deadly.


Pixies are overrated, they have 1 hit point and all their useful spells are mutually exclusive with each other, making them easy prey, which is probably why any 1 of them represents an Easy challenge for a single level 1 player.

Eh? If I were a Pixie who wanted to murder a lone level one character for some reason (evil Pixie?), my best option is to attempt to Polymorph the PC into a pigeon. Maybe the pigeon will sit there stupefied for a second, but eventually he's going to try to fly off and get help. When he does, release the spell. Hello, 5d6 falling damage! Hello, dead PC! Hello, giggling Pixie!

You can't deny that this is exactly the kind of prank a pixie would find funny. The average PC has only slightly better than 50% odds of surviving the lone Pixie encounter. That is absolutely not Easy, according to the description of Easy, no matter what the encounter building math says. Pixies are underrated at CR 1/4.

[bid]

Was there something not legal about the build?
5 feats on a 15/5 wood elf.

The rest is epic cheese from the DM:
All stats in the 12-15 range, worth 35 points assuming Dex12.
That Dex19 magic item.
Lightning Arrow applied permanently on the longbow.

[MaxWilson]

5 feats on a 15/5 wood elf.

The rest is epic cheese from the DM:
All stats in the 12-15 range, worth 35 points assuming Dex12.
That Dex19 magic item.
Lightning Arrow applied permanently on the longbow.

Also the fact that you (UptownMotown) are apparently Volleying twice per round (illegal--each Volley takes an action) and applying Lightning Arrow to multiple weapon attacks instead of just the next attack (illegal--each Lightning Arrow takes a 3rd level slot and a bonus action) and apparently(?) applying Assassination crits to Lightning arrow splash damage (illegal--Lightning Arrow is save-based, not attack-based, so it cannot crit; whether the 4d8 base damage can crit is a DM call).

[sophontteks]

Try out 16 goblins vs a party of 4 level 1 characters. Remember that they can hide as a bonus action. The starter kit botched this, only setting up 4 goblins against a 4 player party. Which by the new definition of CR is an absolute cakewalk. (nevermind the party wipes people reported right at the start)

[MaxWilson]

Try out 16 goblins vs a party of 4 level 1 characters. Remember that they can hide as a bonus action. The starter kit botched this, only setting up 4 goblins against a 4 player party. Which by the new definition of CR is an absolute cakewalk. (nevermind the party wipes people reported right at the start)

Sure, sounds like fun. I predict a high (90%?) chance of TPK if the PCs play stupidly, falling to perhaps as low as 50% if the PCs play really well and the terrain is favorable. That is an Octuple-Deadly fight though (8x Deadly). I run fights like that sometimes but not often.

I predict that Heavy Armor Mastery, Stealth, Sharpshooter, partial cover, Healing Word, and Thunderwave will be key players in this battle.

[sophontteks]

Sure, sounds like fun. I predict a high (90%?) chance of TPK if the PCs play stupidly, falling to perhaps as low as 50% if the PCs play really well and the terrain is favorable. That is an Octuple-Deadly fight though (8x Deadly). I run fights like that sometimes but not often.

I predict that Heavy Armor Mastery, Stealth, Sharpshooter, partial cover, Healing Word, and Thunderwave will be key players in this battle.

I predict that they are dead, unless the DM plays stupidly.

[MaxWilson]

I predict that they are dead, unless the DM plays stupidly.

Great. We agree.

The more I think about it, the uglier this one gets for the PCs. Let's say the goblins are lying in wait on the slope of a mountain, in the snow, under white sheets. They can see travellers coming from maybe half a mile away. Their goal is to ambush caravans and demand "protection" money to let them pass. I foresee three basic outcomes:

1.) PCs are so stealthy that the goblins never see them nor vice versa. They get by without paying any money and never even realize the goblins are there.
2.) PCs detect at least one goblin without goblins detecting them.
3.) Goblins detect PCs without PCs detecting them.

Scenario #2 and #3 are likely to play out basically the same given the goblins' goals of demanding tribute: the PCs will either negotiate or start a fight, expecting a handful of goblins. What they will actually get is a whole pack of goblins, each firing from his little snow-wave (at advantage for being hidden) and Hiding again that turn (which might represent being so sneaky that the victim didn't get a good look at where the shot came from). Even if the PCs are in scenario #2 and managed to kill three or four goblins during their own surprise round, 12 incoming shots at advantage... probably indicates a dead PC or two. Each round.

The notional party who fought the bears loses three PCs in the first round (assuming they killed four goblins already), and the Heavy Armor Master lasts for two more rounds before he dies. 5E goblins are nasty compared to bears. (And yes, I know that it's officially a much harder encounter by XP budget as well.)

[Finieous]

Attempt #1:
Round #1, bear hits fighter #1 before he starts to Dodge. Inflicts 12 - 3 = 9 points of damage, leaving him at 9 HP. (Thanks, Inspiring Leader!) Second Wind rolls 9 points of damage but can't restore temp HP, so he regains only 3 HP. The other two bears miss him.


Why are all the bears attacking the fighter? They aren't pack hunters. Where is bear #4? Maybe he's got that sharpshooter halfway down his gullet already?



Round #2, all four bears miss fighter #1.


Of course they do. Why are all four bears attacking the fighter?



Round #3, all four bears miss again.


Of course they do. Why are all four bears attacking the fighter?



Round #4, all three bears miss.


Certainly. Why are they, uh, what was I saying?



Round #5, both bears miss.


Totally. If they're getting hungry yet, might they try a softer, juicier snack?



Round #6, bear #4 misses.


It goes without saying.



Is there even a point in running the other 10 fights?


Probably wasn't a point in "running" this one! :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Why are all the bears attacking the fighter? They aren't pack hunters. Where is bear #4? Maybe he's got that sharpshooter halfway down his gullet already?

Bear #4 was right there, one of the "other two bears" that missed the fighter.

All the bears are attacking the fighter because in the previous post I already did a detailed breakdown where some of the bears bypass the fighter, and frankly it was just quicker not to do that again. Besides, the other guy (the one who picked this scenario) wanted to start all the bears within range to make an immediate melee attack instead of losing a round Dashing, which requires them all to surround and attack the fighter given that he's the point man and the other PCs are 30' behind him. (Could easily be more than 30' depending on terrain.)


Of course they do. Why are all four bears attacking the fighter?

Realistically they should probably be running away. Frankly there's not much reason for four random bears to attack four armed humans in the first place, and after the bears take a couple of arrows they should retreat. As demonstrated previously, it doesn't make much difference if one of the bears decides to bypass. Even if two bears decide to bypass, it won't turn into a 90% chance of TPK, which is the very strong claim under discussion.

I covered all of this earlier in my more detailed post. You're responding to the third time I ran this scenario, apparently without having read the other two attempts, so no wonder if you think it's simplistic. Besides, bears are simplistic. Unlike, say, goblins.

[Malifice]

The difference between one magic volley and two isn't much beyond a smaller killzone. I felt the party-boosting support would more than make up for the slight decrease in damage potential. No "remember when...," "did you see...," lack of food, water, or direction, etc. Extremely self-sufficient and about as close to a real-life Ghost as I feel a DD character can get.



Was there something not legal about the build?

Your DM is letting you get the benefit of 2 spells/ special abilities per round for a start so you're off the bat twice as effective as the class is intended.

AFB but does volley and Lightning arrow even stack? Can you use them together? Can you volley twice a round while using Lightning arrow? I highly doubt it.

Also he seems to be letting you both assasinate and use sneak attack with a spell attack (and with volley so against multiple targets in a single round) which is illegal.

[Malifice]

Sure, sounds like fun. I predict a high (90%?) chance of TPK if the PCs play stupidly, falling to perhaps as low as 50% if the PCs play really well and the terrain is favorable. That is an Octuple-Deadly fight though (8x Deadly). I run fights like that sometimes but not often.

I predict that Heavy Armor Mastery, Stealth, Sharpshooter, partial cover, Healing Word, and Thunderwave will be key players in this battle.

You run octuple deadly fights against your party 'occasionally'? Good lord.

If they're having fun then go for it, but that's not my cup of tea. That's a 99 percent chance of a TPK happening once every level or two.

[Finieous]

Bear #4 was right there, one of the "other two bears" that missed the fighter.


Bear #1 hits the fighter, the "other two" bears miss him. That seems like three bears to me. Number Four needs to be eating somebody.



All the bears are attacking the fighter because in the previous post I already did a detailed breakdown where some of the bears bypass the fighter, and frankly it was just quicker not to do that again.


You had one bear bypass the fighter in the scenario that opened at 100 feet of open ground. The other one went after the dodging bard, as I recall, though I'm not going to bother to look. You're point below about the odd scenario of a combat encounter with four bears is well taken, but if you're going to bother with the scenario, fighter gets one bear and the other three go looking for meals of their own.



Besides, the other guy (the one who picked this scenario) wanted to start all the bears within range to make an immediate melee attack instead of losing a round Dashing, which requires them all to surround and attack the fighter given that he's the point man and the other PCs are 30' behind him. (Could easily be more than 30' depending on terrain.)


The "other" guy just said the encounter starts at 40 feet. He didn't dictate what the bear's behavior would be. But okay, you've got your heavy plate fighter scouting ahead in the woods, that's fine. So one bear stops to chew on him and the other three dash to the rest of the party.



I covered all of this earlier in my more detailed post. You're responding to the third time I ran this scenario, apparently without having read the other two attempts, so no wonder if you think it's simplistic.


Well, I don't think it's simplistic, I just think you're choreographing the fight to try to make a point, but since it's obvious that you're choreographing, your point really isn't landing.



Besides, bears are simplistic. Unlike, say, goblins.


Yes, if they decide to attack, they'll likely go after separate prey rather than stopping to let the dodging scout in heavy armor "tank" them. The other three bears are likely to get fed. Go ahead and "run" that. Round 1 is the same, except Bear #1 stays on the fighter and Bears #2-4 Dash to the party while the druid and bard are unsuccessfully casting faerie fire and the sharpshooter is missing. Round 2, go!

Anyway, fun as it is, choreographed fights aren't evidence of anything. You can look at the math and see this is probably a TPK. The bears have twice the attacks, do more damage, and have more hit points than the party. Is it a 90% TPK? If there's actually a fight, I'd say it's pretty close to 90% -- and just about 100% with that Round 1. In an actual game, it's probably a pretty easy fight to avoid.

Someone should set it up in Roll20 and play it out ten times. :smallbiggrin:

[MaxWilson]

Forgive me for responding to just your first point without having read your whole message--I'm short on time right now.


Bear #1 hits the fighter, the "other two" bears miss him. That seems like three bears to me. Number Four needs to be eating somebody.

No, read the scenario the other guy demanded. Bears #1 and #2 both attack before the fighter gets his turn. They get one hit between them (a claw hit IIRC). Then the fighter begins to Dodge, and bears #3 and #4 miss.

[Finieous]

Forgive me for responding to just your first point without having read your whole message--I'm short on time right now.


No worries. :) For the record, I diced it out (just the once) on Rolz.org from your Round 2 on.

Round 2:
- Heavy Fighter (I gave him Dueling and let him attack, no dodging his bear) hit for 11.
- Sharpshooter drops bow, draws rapier, hits for 9.
- Bear #1 misses Heavy Fighter twice
- Bear #2 crits druid for 14 (0 HP)
- Bard misses
- Bear #3 hits Sharpshooter for 9, misses with bite
- Bear #4 hits Bard with both attacks for 19 (0 HP)

Round 3:
- Heavy Fighter hits for 7
- Sharpshooter second winds for 5, hits for 11 (max damage!)
- Bear #1 hits Heavy Fighter for 11 (8)
- Bear #2 drags druid into the bushes (nom, nom)
- Bear #3 crits Sharpshooter for 9 and hits for 11 (0 HP)
- Bear #4 drags bard into the bushes (nom, nom)

Round 4:
- Heavy Fighter crits for 17 and drops bear!
- Bear #3 drags Sharpshooter into the bushes (nom, nom)

Round 5:
- If the Heavy Fighter runs, I'm willing to call this "not a TPK" :smallbiggrin:

You win the argument!

[MaxWilson]

No worries. :) For the record, I diced it out (just the once) on Rolz.org from your Round 2 on.

Round 2:
- Heavy Fighter (I gave him Dueling and let him attack, no dodging his bear) hit for 11.
- Sharpshooter drops bow, draws rapier, hits for 9.
- Bear #1 misses Heavy Fighter twice
- Bear #2 crits druid for 14 (0 HP)
- Bard misses
- Bear #3 hits Sharpshooter for 9, misses with bite
- Bear #4 hits Bard with both attacks for 19 (0 HP)

Round 3:
- Heavy Fighter hits for 7
- Sharpshooter second winds for 5, hits for 11 (max damage!)
- Bear #1 hits Heavy Fighter for 11 (8)
- Bear #2 drags druid into the bushes (nom, nom)
- Bear #3 crits Sharpshooter for 9 and hits for 11 (0 HP)
- Bear #4 drags bard into the bushes (nom, nom)

Round 4:
- Heavy Fighter crits for 17 and drops bear!
- Bear #3 drags Sharpshooter into the bushes (nom, nom)

Round 5:
- If the Heavy Fighter runs, I'm willing to call this "not a TPK" :smallbiggrin:

You win the argument!

Tactical critique:

Defense is better than Dueling in this scenario, and Defense is what the fighter has. Fighter #1 should Dodge and pursue bears #2-4 (screaming at the top of his lungs, and menacing with opportunity attacks) in order to draw them off his buddies. His goal is to attract lots of attention and aggression. Remember, these are bears, not tactical battlecomputers. If you threaten them they're going to either hit you back or run away, not prioritize softer targets.

You forgot to Inspire the Sharpshooter.

You forgot to have the Bard revive the druid on round #2 with Healing Word.

Bard and druid should have Dodged. Their main contribution is Healing Word, which doesn't conflict with Dodge. Their goal is to buy time, provide Inspiration, and act as a HP buffer for the Sharpshooter to kill the bears.

Your Sharpshooter was foolish to drop his bow. He'd be better off just sticking to his crossbow, especially given Inspiration's ability to compensate for precision sniping.

In a world where the DM is known to metagame combat instead of RP it, the Druid should Longstrider the Sharpshooter in advance before heading into the bear woods, which reduces the number of attacks against him each round by 50%. Then the party should maintain more separation than just 30' while travelling through the strangely-easy-to-traverse-but-hard-to-see-through woods.

So, we had trash rolls for the PCs, an unrealistic starting position, poor tactics by the PCs, un-bearlike behavior from the bears, and still not a TPK. I'll accept that "win" under those conditions, but I wouldn't want to play with those (imaginary) players unless they improved their game by quite a bit. If you can't trust your teammates to be a team, why bother with a party?

[Malifice]

Forgive me for responding to just your first point without having read your whole message--I'm short on time right now.



No, read the scenario the other guy demanded. Bears #1 and #2 both attack before the fighter gets his turn. They get one hit between them (a claw hit IIRC). Then the fighter begins to Dodge, and bears #3 and #4 miss.

If bears 1 and 2 hit with claws the fighter takes an average of 16 damage - even taking his HAM feat into account. He's on 0 and bleeding out.

Even getting hit with 2 bites is 11 damage with HAM also possibly dropping him.

The party only survive if fully rested, with an optimal encounter environment, some extremely good rolling and the Bears not only fighting stupidly but also rolling poorly.

Throwing an encounter like this at your party once is asking for a TPK barring some pretty incredible luck. And this is a 4 x deadly encounter. Throwing 8 x deadly encounters at the party (about 6 bears) 'occasionally' and it's an absolute miracle any of your parties last more than a few sessions.

[MaxWilson]

If bears 1 and 2 hit with claws the fighter takes an average of 16 damage - even taking his HAM feat into account. He's on 0 and bleeding out.

Your math is off. Average damage from two claw hits (d8+4) is 11, not 16, after HAM. Edit: whoops, my bad, I had bite and claw damage mixed up. Somehow I thought bites were stronger. You're almost right--two claw hits would put him down to 1 HP and in need of a Healing Word.

He's got Con 16, so 13 real HP plus 4 temp HP from the bard's Inspiring Leader. His AC is 21, so a claw has a 25% chance to hit if the bear beats his initiative, 6% after. He is on average very much not bleeding out on round 1.


The party only survive if fully rested, with an optimal encounter environment, some extremely good rolling and the Bears not only fighting stupidly but also rolling poorly.

You know what the smart thing for the Bears to do is? Don't attack the PCs at all. Eat a deer or something, not a human with sharp pointy things and missile weapons. Posture and threaten the PCs if you want, if they're in your territory, but immediately committing to mortal combat? That is stupid. Unfortunately, some DMs choose to run their monsters like mindless killing machines, and the 5E DMG encourages that approach. I don't think reaction rolls are even a thing any more in 5E, and the default assumption seems to be "if there's a monster present, it's actively trying to kill you." It's an unfortunate side effect of the attrition-based game balance model--but just because the DMG assumes it doesn't mean you have to play that way! In fact, I don't.


Throwing an encounter like this at your party once is asking for a TPK barring some pretty incredible luck. And this is a 4 x deadly encounter. Throwing 8 x deadly encounters at the party (about 6 bears) 'occasionally' and it's an absolute miracle any of your parties last more than a few sessions.

I don't throw encounters "like this" at my party because, as you can tell, I think Combat As Sport is stupid. My game is pretty combat-light but it's also a sandbox, so when the players choose to do something like board a neogi death spider with two dozen umber hulks on it (plus a neogi wizard and a bunch of regular neogis, and siege weaponry manned by slaves), that's what happens. The fact that the fight is 10x Deadly is not my problem as a DM--the players know what they're getting into.

I was still kind of surprised when they survived though. They didn't capture the ship but they did get 10,000 gold as bayad, halfway through, before resuming the battle.

[Malifice]

Your math is off. Average damage from two claw hits (d8+4) is 11, not 16, after HAM. (Edit: whoops, my bad, I had bite and claw damage mixed up. You're almost right--two claw hits would put him down to 1 HP and in need of a Healing Word.)

He's got Con 16, so 13 real HP plus 4 temp HP from the bard's Inspiring Leader. His AC is 21, so a claw has a 25% chance to hit if the bear beats his initiative, 6% after. He is on average very much not bleeding out on round 1.



You know what the smart thing for the Bears to do is? Don't attack the PCs at all. Eat a deer or something, not a human with sharp pointy things and missile weapons. Posture and threaten the PCs if you want, if they're in your territory, but immediately committing to mortal combat? That is stupid. Unfortunately, some DMs choose to run their monsters like mindless killing machines, and the 5E DMG encourages that approach. I don't think reaction rolls are even a thing any more in 5E, and the default assumption seems to be "if there's a monster present, it's actively trying to kill you." It's an unfortunate side effect of the attrition-based game balance model--but just because the DMG assumes it doesn't mean you have to play that way! In fact, I don't.



I don't throw encounters "like this" at my party because, as you can tell, I think Combat As Sport is stupid. My game is pretty combat-light but it's also a sandbox, so when the players choose to do something like board a neogi death spider with two dozen umber hulks on it (plus a neogi wizard and a bunch of regular neogis, and siege weaponry manned by slaves), that's what happens. The fact that the fight is 10x Deadly is not my problem as a DM--the players know what they're getting into.

I was still kind of surprised when they survived though. They didn't capture the ship but they did get 10,000 gold as bayad, halfway through, before resuming the battle.

How does a 1st level PC have an AC of 21?

Even assuming sword and board AND defense style, at best he's pumping out an AC of 19 (chain, shield and defense).

If he's a TWF, ranged or GWM fighter (and the last two are pretty DM common) he's got an AC of 16 or 17 at 1st level, maximum.

Meaning the bears hit with half their attacks on average. Even assuming just the 2 bears concentrate on him AND he has HAM feat AND he comes into the battle with full HP and rested, while 2 go for the other 3 PCs, he's almost certainly dead after a single round (one claw and one bite average damage less HAM) = 13.5 damage in a single round. He'll be extremely lucky to survive 2 rounds, even with Inspiring leader temp Hp and second wind.

In return he deals 1d8 plus 5 damage and they have 34 HP each.

Barring extreme corner cases and ridiculous luck, this encounter TPKs the party man.

I'm weirded out you're arguing orherwise.

[djreynolds]

Every character should have a melee option and ranged option, and misty step or dimension door or haste or flying or winged boots and dash are ranged options because it just moves you and your sword to the opponent.

But ranged attacks lacks a use for bonus action and possible reaction attacks and AoO, and it is here that potential damage per round is lost. But since they are not getting hit they are not making a negative to the group's hit point pool.

And even if the ranger is the team's howitzer, they have other jobs. One is the medic roll, providing healing because they should have access. Scouting or utility is one. And back up tank.

That said I like playing both and each has a job.

And I prefer a ranger 13/ fighter 4/ assassin 3. Alert is good and sharpshooter. Action surge will allow volley to be used twice in the surprise nova round. Just really need a 20 in dex and sharpshooter. If you can get 20, and sharpshooter and alert, then grab crossbow expert because your DM may allow it to affect all ranged attacks, such as bows and spells.

[Coidzor]

How does a 1st level PC have an AC of 21?

About the only way I can think of it is through absurdly good rolls and race selection leading to a Barbarian with a 20 and an 18 in Con and Dex that uses a shield. So rolling 2 18s, unless there's a race with a +2 Dex and +1 Con or vice versa that I've forgotten.

[Malifice]

About the only way I can think of it is through absurdly good rolls and race selection leading to a Barbarian with a 20 and an 18 in Con and Dex that uses a shield. So rolling 2 18s, unless there's a race with a +2 Dex and +1 Con or vice versa that I've forgotten.

In my experience 15-18 is the norm at 1st level. A Wizard blowing 2 (of his 3) slots for mage armor and shield can top 20 for a round. He's pretty much out of juice for the other 6 or so encounters that day however.

So many DMs get put off with parties steam rolling medium-hard encounters inside of 3 or 4 rounds, only getting hit a few times and casting a spell or two and maybe dropping a smite or action surge such that the DM ups the ante and throws a much harder encounter at the party to compensate. This just creates a game of rocket tag. In an encounter with a 50/50 chance of a TPK then it's a 50 percent chance of end of campaign and start again. Throw even one such encounter at the party every two levels and the party runs and 87 percent chance to not even make it to 6th.

Don't be disheartened if the party steamroll a medium to hard encounter inside of 4 rounds expending only 1/7 of thier respurces (HP, HD, spell slots etc). That's the system working. After 7 or so such fights they'll be low on HP, out of spells and special abilities and have no HD remaining, battered and bruised and be looking to long rest.

DND is a game of attrition and resource management as much as it is about tactical combat. Increasing the difficulty dramatically changes class balance and vastly increases the chance of a cycle of never ending TPKs and that is no fun for anyone. If there is even a 5 percent chance of a TPK in an encounter, then bearing in mind your average party needs something like 30 encounters to hit 5th level, the odds are they won't make it.

The party is supposed to win 6-8 medium to hard encounters reasonably comfortably (but with an element of danger) and then limp off somewhere to long rest (either back to town or camp out in the wilderness). There should be an ever present risk of danger, but it should never boil down to a game of rocket tag. If it does, then the PCs will always lose and your campaigns will always shudder to a disappointing early finish.

Encounters are there to delete party resources. Not have a good chance of killing them.

[djreynolds]

I agree with that totally. And while rolling uber stats is awesome, later on with the 20' stat ceiling the game will equal itself out and if you spoiled yourself early killing everything with ease at early levels, later on those tactics will no longer work at higher levels. You will no longer be casting invisibility on your mage and stealth-ing around because you will need that spell slot for mirror image and your ranger or rogue will have to do that "mundanely". Levitation is great but the rogue can climb for free and throw down a rope.

Archery is awesome, a ranger who rolled well and has 20 dex and sharpshooter at 5th level is a machine gun. But at higher levels that -5 can result plenty of misses as well, no hunter's mark or colossus slayer added this round. Fireballs are great but as you increase in power so does the enemy, who either resistant or immune to fire, has the evasion feature, or has gobs of hit points, and they will have magic armor and arms.

I find that the archer can better serve the party just chipping away at the enemy tank's hit points or even tanking with the tanks. And that wizard may be of better service to the party hasting the paladin and casting cantrips.

[MaxWilson]

How does a 1st level PC have an AC of 21?

Read the second paragraph of post #82 and do the math for Defense style.

[Malifice]

Read the second paragraph of post #82 and do the math for Defense style.

Your average first level character does not have full plate armor.

The crap costs 1500 gp. It doesn't show up in campaigns till around 4th level.

Why don't you arm them all with magic weapons or 1500gp worth of poison at 1st level to prove a point?

Mate. Your average 1st level four man party gets absolutely massacred by 4 x CR1 monsters barring an extreme amount of amazing luck or a rare corner case. The encounter builder and CR guidelines is clear on this and your highly contrived example does nothing to prove otherwise.

4 x CR 1/4 is an appropriate challenge. Not 4 x CR 1s.

If I threw 4 suits of animated armor, 4 dire wolves or 4 brown bears at 4 1st level PCs I would fully expect a TPK.

It's a ridiculous encounter with the maths firmly on the side of the monsters. Just three encounters of (4 x deadly XP) between 1st as 4th level and 99/100 parties don't survive till 5th level.

If your players love that kind of insurmountable odds and constantly getting massacred then more luck to you. If my DM threw something like that at me with any kind of regularity, I'd be very unlikely to want to return to his table.

[Finieous]

Tactical critique:

Defense is better than Dueling in this scenario, and Defense is what the fighter has.


I gave him a 16 Str, too. I disagree that Defense is better than Dueling in this situation, and strongly disagree that it will be a better choice in the long run. With chain and shield at 1st level, Defense reduces his expected damage from a bear by 4%; with Str 16 and longsword, Dueling increases his average damage dealt by 21%. A "tank" is more than just "hard as possible to hit." He also needs to be a threat. He can't spam taunts to maintain aggro like an MMO. Anyway, give him Defense instead of Dueling -- now he doesn't solo kill the bear. :(



Fighter #1 should Dodge and pursue bears #2-4 (screaming at the top of his lungs, and menacing with opportunity attacks) in order to draw them off his buddies.


Again, he doesn't have a taunt to spam. He doesn't get *an* opportunity attack (singular), because there's no reason for the other bears to move through his threatened area. "Screaming at the top of his lungs" might distract the bears as long as the other PCs don't actually try to hurt them.



His goal is to attract lots of attention and aggression. Remember, these are bears, not tactical battlecomputers. If you threaten them they're going to either hit you back or run away, not prioritize softer targets.


No, if you hurt the bears, they're going to attack you regardless of who is screaming. These are grizzly bears.



You forgot to Inspire the Sharpshooter.


That's cool -- the Sharpshooter never missed, anyway.



You forgot to have the Bard revive the druid on round #2 with Healing Word.


That's fair. I forgot the bard would still have a spell slot left.



Bard and druid should have Dodged. Their main contribution is Healing Word, which doesn't conflict with Dodge. Their goal is to buy time, provide Inspiration, and act as a HP buffer for the Sharpshooter to kill the bears.


Well, the bard is out of spell slots now, so if that's his main contribution he's tapped out. They can buy some time by dodging, but the sharpshooter in melee can't output enough damage to kill the bears before the bears kill the three PCs.



Your Sharpshooter was foolish to drop his bow. He'd be better off just sticking to his crossbow, especially given Inspiration's ability to compensate for precision sniping.


Yeah, doing the math, he's +0.7 DPR with bow. My bad. Doesn't change the outcome.



In a world where the DM is known to metagame combat instead of RP it


What's the metagaming, here? I agree the initial encounter is odd, but given that, the bears acted much more naturally in this scenario than in yours.



the Druid should Longstrider the Sharpshooter in advance before heading into the bear woods, which reduces the number of attacks against him each round by 50%. Then the party should maintain more separation than just 30' while travelling through the strangely-easy-to-traverse-but-hard-to-see-through woods.


Well, the Druid traveling through the woods should prepare animal friendship, but for some reason he didn't. I guess he was too busy cleaning his non-proficient crossbow. :smallbiggrin:



So, we had trash rolls for the PCs


The 1st level fighter soloed a brown bear! The sharpshooter never missed (after your choreographed Round 1)!



I'll accept that "win" under those conditions

Oh, good.

[MaxWilson]

Your average first level character does not have full plate armor.

The crap costs 1500 gp. It doesn't show up in campaigns till around 4th level.

Why don't you arm them all with magic weapons or 1500gp worth of poison at 1st level to prove a point?

Mate. Your average 1st level four man party gets absolutely massacred by 4 x CR1 monsters barring an extreme amount of amazing luck or a rare corner case. The encounter builder and CR guidelines is clear on this and your highly contrived example does nothing to prove otherwise.

4 x CR 1/4 is an appropriate challenge. Not 4 x CR 1s.

If I threw 4 suits of animated armor, 4 dire wolves or 4 brown bears at 4 1st level PCs I would fully expect a TPK.

It's a ridiculous encounter with the maths firmly on the side of the monsters. Just three encounters of (4 x deadly XP) between 1st as 4th level and 99/100 parties don't survive till 5th level.

If your players love that kind of insurmountable odds and constantly getting massacred then more luck to you. If my DM threw something like that at me with any kind of regularity, I'd be very unlikely to want to return to his table.

I already explained the logic of plate armor, as you know full well. We're talking about a CR=level equivalence here, not specifically about 1st level, so giving them poor equipment like the average 1st level characters would skew the results. If it makes you feel better you can assume Fighter #1 is a Noble, who absolutely could have an inherited suit of plate armor.

If you had a problem with the plate armor, why not say that forty posts ago instead of bringing it up now, at this late date, after you've already spent all this time nitpicking encounter distances and initiative?

Four suit sof Animated Armor might be a fun fight. Here's how you'd approach it: they're blind beyond 60', so your goal is to break contact and use ranged attacks, which will have advantage. (As a bonus: once you defeat them, the 1st level PCs now have four suits of plate armor, which will come in handy when they're fighting bears. :-P)

But look, none of this is surprising. We already know you're a Combat As Sport guy. You run a different, more episodic, more story-oriented game and expect your players to pretty much ignore terrain and tactics. You'd probably put all four suits of animated armor in a little 20' x 20' room and expect the all party to enter the room, at which point all the armor animates and each suit goes for a different PC. The fact that I'm over here pulling my hair out at the players' stupidity, like watching a horror movie, "Argh! Why are they doing it that way?!" doesn't mean you're not having a fun game. Play your magic elf game any way you want--just stop pretending like it's the only way to play. If your players wanted to win that fight in the 20' x 20' room they absolutely could, but it would be less fun for you to DM so I guess you don't play that game.

It would be interesting to see how you'd respond if they did use good tactics. I'm guessing you'd probably use DM fiat to nullify it, judging by how you keep changing the terms of engagement in this thread.

[MaxWilson]

Again, he doesn't have a taunt to spam. He doesn't get *an* opportunity attack (singular), because there's no reason for the other bears to move through his threatened area.

You misunderstand. They don't move "through his threatened area." He moves into range to threaten them on his turn. The fighter Dodges and moves towards bears #2-4. They started out 40' in front of him, and moved 80', and they're 10' "wide" and not moving directly through him, so he can move 30' and wind up within 5' of at least one of them, which is enough to threaten opportunity attacks.



"Screaming at the top of his lungs" might distract the bears as long as the other PCs don't actually try to hurt them.

So far the bard and the druid haven't done anything to hurt them, they just stood there mumbling. The Sharpshooter missed with an arrow, but that's no more threatening than a guy waving a sword in your face trying to stab you with it. (The fact that the "attack" action was not taken is irrelevant--threatening opportunity attacks means the fighter is in the process of actively but cautiously menacing the bear.) And of course screaming increases the perceived threat level. Here's somebody scaring off an attacking bear by screaming at it, without even using a sword. https://youtu.be/TtC14cpwwXg?t=21

Incidentally: http://www.wikihow.com/Escape-from-a-Bear treats it as a given that it's possible for an average person to detect a bear sometimes at 300' or more in its natural habitat. Much less four bears being detected by special forces (professional treasure-hunters). If the PCs start in a less contrived situation than "four bears suddenly already in your face" the bears are dead meat.


That's cool -- the Sharpshooter never missed, anyway.

But he might have if he'd been using his crossbow, like he should have been, and then Inspiration would have been relevant.


Well, the bard is out of spell slots now, so if that's his main contribution he's tapped out. They can buy some time by dodging, but the sharpshooter in melee can't output enough damage to kill the bears before the bears kill the three PCs.

Except the bears are being engaged by fighter #1, and the Sharpshooter is using his crossbow with Inspiration instead of his dinky rapier, so they're doing more damage and have more time in which to do it.


Yeah, doing the math, he's +0.7 DPR with bow. My bad. Doesn't change the outcome.

5.85 with rapier vs 6.16 with crossbow shooting regularly vs. 6.67 sniping at -5 and disadvantage, or approximately 13 when sniping with Inspiration. 16 if he exits melee first (eating an opportunity attack; depends on how the bear is acting).


What's the metagaming, here? I agree the initial encounter is odd, but given that, the bears acted much more naturally in this scenario than in yours.

Not if you know anything at all about bears.

The only reason I wouldn't let a first-level party fight four CR 1 bears is because there's no reason for four bears to simultaneously fight them, not because of game-balance reasons. But I would absolutely allow them to encounter four bears at once, say three males all trying to woo the same female, secure in the knowledge if they somehow start a fight and TPK themselves it will have been the PCs' own stupid fault rather than an unavoidable TPK.

[NNescio]

...Not if you know anything at all about bears.

Roll a Nature check:

DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves. Cave bears are ferocious predators that make their lairs deep underground and are accustomed to darkness live in caves. Dire bears are savage hunters that eat humanoids as readily as game animals. eat people.

DC 20: Bears typically maul prey with their claws or crush them to death to death with their thick, bestial arms. bite them.


Alternatively, roll Religion:

DC15: Bears do not attend any continuous services of worship. They are ready to kill at all hours of the week.

DC20: They mysteriously vanish every winter, perhaps to give reverence to their perverse fertility goddess while gorging on the souls of men lost to famine.

DC25: Bear society has no visibly ordained clerics.

DC35: ****, NEVERMIND, THEY HAVE THEM, RUN.

[Malifice]

I already explained the logic of plate armor, as you know full well. We're talking about a CR=level equivalence here, not specifically about 1st level, so giving them poor equipment like the average 1st level characters would skew the results. If it makes you feel better you can assume Fighter #1 is a Noble, who absolutely could have an inherited suit of plate armor.

If you had a problem with the plate armor, why not say that forty posts ago instead of bringing it up now, at this late date, after you've already spent all this time nitpicking encounter distances and initiative?

Four suit sof Animated Armor might be a fun fight. Here's how you'd approach it: they're blind beyond 60', so your goal is to break contact and use ranged attacks, which will have advantage. (As a bonus: once you defeat them, the 1st level PCs now have four suits of plate armor, which will come in handy when they're fighting bears. :-P)

But look, none of this is surprising. We already know you're a Combat As Sport guy. You run a different, more episodic, more story-oriented game and expect your players to pretty much ignore terrain and tactics. You'd probably put all four suits of animated armor in a little 20' x 20' room and expect the all party to enter the room, at which point all the armor animates and each suit goes for a different PC. The fact that I'm over here pulling my hair out at the players' stupidity, like watching a horror movie, "Argh! Why are they doing it that way?!" doesn't mean you're not having a fun game. Play your magic elf game any way you want--just stop pretending like it's the only way to play. If your players wanted to win that fight in the 20' x 20' room they absolutely could, but it would be less fun for you to DM so I guess you don't play that game.

It would be interesting to see how you'd respond if they did use good tactics. I'm guessing you'd probably use DM fiat to nullify it, judging by how you keep changing the terms of engagement in this thread.

My players use good tactics. I just don't throw ridiculous encounters at them. Mate - this isn't a diss at you but the encounter you posted above is ridiculous. 9/10 a 1st level party gets wiped out in that encounter. If it works for you then fine, but please don't try and pass it off as anything but.

I'm beyond even debating this with you. Good luck with your gaming.

[MaxWilson]

Roll a Nature check:

DC 15: Bears generally live in forests and caves. Cave bears are ferocious predators that make their lairs deep underground and are accustomed to darkness live in caves. Dire bears are savage hunters that eat humanoids as readily as game animals. eat people.

DC 20: Bears typically maul prey with their claws or crush them to death to death with their thick, bestial arms. bite them.




GITP doesn't have a Laugh button, but I want you to know that I did anyway.


My players use good tactics. I just don't throw ridiculous encounters at them. Mate - this isn't a diss at you but the encounter you posted above is ridiculous. 9/10 a 1st level party gets wiped out in that encounter. If it works for you then fine, but please don't try and pass it off as anything but.

I'm beyond even debating this with you. Good luck with your gaming.

Four Animated Armor suits in a 20' x 20' room is ridiculous? Naw. It's actually more plausible than the bears--it makes sense for Animated Armor to come in batches. They're probably arranged in some mock pose around an altar or a doorway... or actually, let's make it just around the bend in a corridor, in front of a door leading to a staircase up to a tower. That's quite plausible. The gleaming armor is set into 4' x 10' alcoves on either side of the 6' x 20' section of corridor. (Around the bend is another 6' x 50' section of corridor, with a door in the middle on the left leading back to the chapel.)

Players being players, odds are that they're not going to wait for the armor to animate and attack them. They will preemptively smash the suits to splinters unless I can describe them in a way which makes them seem more like treasure than like monsters or decorations. But not before they've laid some caltrops to give them a fallback option if the suits do come to life on them. After all, if it turns out not to be a monster, you can always pick the caltrops back up again.

That could lead to a PC death if the players roll poorly, but it's probably just a memorable fight leading to a rich treasure haul.

[bid]

I already explained the logic of plate armor, as you know full well. We're talking about a CR=level equivalence here, not specifically about 1st level, so giving them poor equipment like the average 1st level characters would skew the results. If it makes you feel better you can assume Fighter #1 is a Noble, who absolutely could have an inherited suit of plate armor.
You clearly don't understand how to debate. You don't stack the deck in your favor, that's just weak. You start with a below average setup, use below average luck and still crush the opposition to demonstrate how ridiculously powerful your point of view is. Your story does none of that and just demonstrate you don't want to lose.

If you don't want "poor equipement", use level 8 characters.

[sophontteks]

Yeah just throw the hypothetical out. Statistically the bear as vastly stronger then a player. The only reason your making scenarios in which players win is because they played better then you, the DM.

Turn the tables, have the players use the bears. Now that nearly impossible encounter is stupid easy.

There is no hypothetical scenario that is going to surmount those numbers. Even cheating, and yes it is cheating to give level 1 players gear they can't normally have access to. Don't you think this was accounted for when they determined CR?

Everyone knows that encounter in the starter pack. 4 goblins who are set up for an ambush have a high chance to TPK, we're not talking some 5% chance. Unless the DM is hamming it up big time, the ambush round alone has a high chance to kill 1-2 players before they can even move.

I'm sorry I was kind of rude, but I can't even tickle the notion that 4 level 1 players can survive against 16 goblins. Every round those goblins can hide for advantage as a bonus action. They have great stealth checks too, so most likely the party would die before they get a chance to move.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah just throw the hypothetical out. Statistically the bear as vastly stronger then a player. The only reason your making scenarios in which players win is because they played better then you, the DM.

In a roleplaying game, the objective is not to "play better than" the DM. It's to play better than the bears.

If you're playing bears with the utmost of your own personal skill, you are doing it wrong. That would be fine in chess, but it's wrong in an RPG.

If you think that giving the fighter regular starting gear (AC 19) will turn it into a 95% chance of TPK, as was originally asserted, you are welcome to try to prove it.

[Malifice]

In a roleplaying game, the objective is not to "play better than" the DM. It's to play better than the bears.

If you're playing bears with the utmost of your own personal skill, you are doing it wrong. That would be fine in chess, but it's wrong in an RPG.

If you think that giving the fighter regular starting gear (AC 19) will turn it into a 95% chance of TPK, as was originally asserted, you are welcome to try to prove it.

Let's do that, standard starting gear but fully rested and have one bear attack each PC. The Bears start at 30' and I'll give the PCs initiative.

D20 rolls are: 2, 14, 10, 18, 6, recurring. Average damage.

Once you've finished, we can repeat it, this time with the Bears having initiative.

[MaxWilson]

Let's do that, standard starting gear but fully rested and have one bear attack each PC. The Bears start at 30' and I'll give the PCs initiative.

D20 rolls are: 2, 14, 10, 18, 6, recurring. Average damage.

Once you've finished, we can repeat it, this time with the Bears having initiative.

Oh, that's easy then. Everybody else runs away (or dies, it doesn't matter) while fighter #1 destroys the bears with opportunity attacks. It is literally impossible for them to damage him with that series of repeating rolls, because the 14 and 18 aren't adjacent.

[Malifice]

Oh, that's easy then. Everybody else runs away (or dies, it doesn't matter) while fighter #1 destroys the bears with opportunity attacks. It is literally impossible for them to damage him with that series of repeating rolls, because the 14 and 18 aren't adjacent.

The Bears get two attacks a round so the fighter is in serious trouble. If the rest of the party run away the Bears catch them with a 40' move rate so they only buy a bit of time till the inevitable. The Bears just chase and catch up to the slowest PC, wind up adjacent to him and he's forced to either fight or die.

The Bears might also consider a bear hug to avoid their tasty dinner getting away. (Str check at +4 to grapple). As soon as one succeeds the others multi attack the tasty morsel captured (think sea gulls fighting over a snack).

The PCs don't win, they just die tired and alone. Maybe some escape.

Wanna try it with the Bears wining initiative? As a hint none of them live past round 3 even taking HAM, inspiring leader and second wind into account.

[MaxWilson]

The Bears get two attacks a round so the fighter is in serious trouble. If the rest of the party run away the Bears catch them with a 40' move rate so they only buy a bit of time till the inevitable. The Bears just chase and catch up to the slowest PC, wind up adjacent to him and he's forced to either fight or die.

Why did you even bother to post your series of repeating rolls if you're just going to ignore them? The bears can literally never hit the fighter. Missing twice a round is no better than missing once. (First round of attacks: (2,14) = miss, (10, 18) = miss. Repeat indefinitely.) In fact they cannot hurt the Sharpshooter either.

Meanwhile, if the woods are thick, the druid can also kite them to death indefinitely. He can dash 60' through difficult terrain because he's Mobile (stats are here: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?468546-Out-of-the-Abyss-post-your-parties!), while the bears can only travel 40'. So he can spend almost every other round shooting crossbow bolts at them or using Produce Flame; or he can Longstrider himself.

You're still stacking the deck in your favor by teleporting the bears to within 30' of each member of the party (I guess the bears are sneaking up in a coordinated attack?). For a more realistic scenario, why don't you place one bear in each 10' square of this map (http://www.heroicmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/waterfall_preview1.jpg). We'll say the map repeats infinitely on each edge. Squares with trees create light obscurement, heavy cover, and difficult terrain. Green grass is good terrain. Everything else is difficult terrain but no obscurement. Party will be approaching from the east. Once a party member is within 40' of a bear, it must make a Stealth check against the PCs' Perception to remain hidden; and vice-versa is also true, PCs must make a Stealth check against the bears' Perception. Your goal: create a scenario in which there is a 95% chance of TPK despite good play from the party. But for the sake of argument, you can run your bears any way you want during the actual encounter, with no regard for roleplaying considerations.

Place your bears.

[Malifice]

(First round of attacks: (2,14) = miss, (10, 18) = miss. Repeat indefinitely.) In fact they cannot hurt the Sharpshooter either.

You're forgetting that the Bears add +5 to Hit obviously.

So 2, 14 equals 7 (miss) and 19 (Hit) and 10, 18 = 15 (miss) and 23 (Hit).


You're still stacking the deck in your favor by teleporting the bears to within 30' of each member of the party (I guess the bears are sneaking up in a coordinated attack?). For a more realistic scenario, why don't you place one bear in each 10' square of this map (http://www.heroicmaps.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/08/waterfall_preview1.jpg). We'll say the map repeats infinitely on each edge. Squares with trees create light obscurement, heavy cover, and difficult terrain. Green grass is good terrain. Everything else is difficult terrain but no obscurement. Party will be approaching from the east. Once a party member is within 40' of a bear, it must make a Stealth check against the PCs' Perception to remain hidden; and vice-versa is also true, PCs must make a Stealth check against the bears' Perception. Your goal: create a scenario in which there is a 95% chance of TPK despite good play from the party. But for the sake of argument, you can run your bears any way you want during the actual encounter, with no regard for roleplaying considerations.

Place your bears.

Sigh. OK. I'll Ignore the fact the terrain favors medium sized creatures.

Place the bears in a line 50' in from the Eastern side of the map and 5' from the northern edge (so you have 4 bears in a row along the bridge, with none of the Bears in difficult terrain (applying the more than 50 percent rule, the difficult terrain must cover three or more squares of the creatures base to count as difficult terrain for that creature).

The bears have a passive perception of 18 (+3, and advantage due to Keen scent - and not visual based, so the party cant claim advantage due to visual obscurement) and 'passive' Stealth scores of 10 (although your party has disadvatange to their passive perception scores to see the bears due to the light obscurement between them and the bears from the foliage - so reduce the PC's passive perception by 5).

On average, your PC's will need passive perception scores of 15 to spot the bears (assuming the bears rolled a 10 on Stealth).

Based on the PC stats you provided before only the Druid (ironically) notices the Bears (Keen senses/ trained in Perception plus Wisdom of 16 = passive perception 15; and even then only just.

Your other three PC's will start the encounter surprised.

The Bears on the other hand smell the entire Party coming just fine (or at the very least they smell the sweaty Heavy armor wearing Fighter in Full Plate who likely dumped Dex and is at disadvantage to Stealth) with their passive perceptions of 18 its going to take some impressive rolling at disadvantage to beat it, so they are not surprised during round 1 of the combat.

Your PC's are in a line on the Eastern 5' edge of the map. Place them in any 4 squares on that edge within 40' of at least one Bear.

Then we can roll initiative.

I'll also be generous. We can assume that your Druid already has cast Longstrider within the past hour as well if you want. He's probably going to need it.

Your Fighter can also have his Full plate.

[MaxWilson]

You're forgetting that the Bears add +5 to Hit obviously.

So 2, 14 equals 7 (miss) and 19 (Hit) and 10, 18 = 15 (miss) and 23 (Hit).

You're not following what the rolls mean, so I'll break it down further.

Fighter #1 is dodging, so the bear has disadvantage. Disadvantage(2,14) = 2, and he needs a 14 or better to hit. So that's a miss. Disadvantage(10,18) = 10, and he needs a 14 or better to hit, so that's a miss. With that sequence of rolls, it is literally impossible for the bear to ever hit the fighter.

I'm not going to give the bears a Smell Perception roll unless the druid fails his DC 8 Survival check to know that stalking prey from downwind is idiotic. He's not going to fail that check, so Smell doesn't come into play in this encounter. The bears get advantage on Smell Perception, but that doesn't grant a check unless one already exists, sorry.


Your PC's are in a line on the Eastern 5' edge of the map. Place them in any 4 squares on that edge within 40' of at least one Bear.

The DM doesn't get to dictate PC formation. The players do that. The OpFor commander (usually the DM, but sometimes a player, and in this case it's you) gets to dictate the placement of the OpFor (bears), while the players get to dictate PC placement.

You seem to be a little bit confused about your bear placement, since you say you want the bears "50' from the Eastern side of the map" but you also want them right next to the bridge, which is 100' from the Eastern side of the map. From that position, the PCs will have a clear line of sight to the bears as the fighter is approaching through square (20 over, 8 down). According to the (2, 14, 10, 18, 6) recurrence, that bear rolled a 2 on his Stealth check, so the fighter sees him right off (there isn't even any light obscurement from that position, not that it would matter). When the fighter is there, the druid will be (20 over, 13 down), the bard will be (26 over, 8 down), and the Sharpshooter is on overwatch at (34 over, 8 down). That gives all the PCs plenty of room to maneuver without tripping over each others--which is a big part of the attraction of ranged weapons, per this thread. Ranged weapons allow you to remain within mutual support range even if you're somewhat spread out.

[sophontteks]

"I'm not going to give the bears a Smell Perception roll unless the druid fails his DC 8 Survival check to know that stalking prey from downwind is idiotic. He's not going to fail that check, so Smell doesn't come into play in this encounter. The bears get advantage on Smell Perception, but that doesn't grant a check unless one already exists, sorry."
who said the party was tracking these bears? This is a random encounter, bears get the roll.

[MaxWilson]

"I'm not going to give the bears a Smell Perception roll unless the druid fails his DC 8 Survival check to know that stalking prey from downwind is idiotic. He's not going to fail that check, so Smell doesn't come into play in this encounter. The bears get advantage on Smell Perception, but that doesn't grant a check unless one already exists, sorry."
who said the party was tracking these bears? This is a random encounter, bears get the roll.

The druid knows if he's moving downwind. That's obvious, and he can probably also see signs of bears in the area, especially since I know as DM that there is in fact an exceptionally high concentration of bears in this area right now. Call it a DC 12 passive Survival check.

I might consider rolling randomly on a d6 to see where the wind is coming from (1=north, 2=south, 3=east, 4=west, 5-6=none), which would let the bears detect the PCs by smell on a 4. But it's probably more trouble than it's worth compared to just saying, "It doesn't matter unless someone is actively using their smell." You'll thank me when the beastmaster ranger starts trying to claim that his wolf get advantage on all his Perception checks because of smell. He gets advantage only sometimes, when conditions are right for it.

And since I'm the DM here, you don't get to argue with me on this. Bears don't automatically get advantage on Perception rolls "because smell". DM Empowerment FTW.

[sophontteks]

The druid knows if he's moving downwind. That's obvious, and he can probably also see signs of bears in the area, especially since I know as DM that there is in fact an exceptionally high concentration of bears in this area right now. Call it a DC 12 passive Survival check.

I might consider rolling randomly on a d6 to see where the wind is coming from (1=north, 2=south, 3=east, 4=west, 5-6=none), which would let the bears detect the PCs by smell on a 4. But it's probably more trouble than it's worth compared to just saying, "It doesn't matter unless someone is actively using their smell." You'll thank me when the beastmaster ranger starts trying to claim that his wolf get advantage on all his Perception checks because of smell. He gets advantage only sometimes, when conditions are right for it.

And since I'm the DM here, you don't get to argue with me on this. Bears don't automatically get advantage on Perception rolls "because smell". DM Empowerment FTW.
before you ham this encounter up, check this out
http://sectionhiker.com/bears_sense_of_smell/
This is a second source just for confirmation.
http://www.nps.gov/yose/blogs/Bear-Series-Part-One-A-Bears-Sense-of-Smell.htm

"A bear’s sense of smell is 7 times better than a blood hound’s or 2,100 times better than a human."
"A bear’s sense of smell is so acute that they can detect animal carcases upwind and from a distance of 20 miles away. You should just assume that they can smell the food in your food bag too."

You can put that d6 away. Humans are lucky to see 20 feet away in heavy woods. That bear knows their location in measurements of miles. Its like you said. We aren't DMing we are roleplaying the animals, so, are we rolling smell or what? :smallbiggrin:

[bid]

You can put that d6 away. Humans are lucky to see 20 feet away in heavy woods. That bear knows their location in measurements of miles. Its like you said. We aren't DMing we are roleplaying the animals, so, are we rolling smell or what? :smallbiggrin:
If I was to use DM empowerment, I'd just say the point man stepped on the bears' lunch and they charge in to punish that food thief. Sure they won't get to the fighter on the first round, but they'll be close enough for next turn. Then I'd apply the good old rule of whatever runs away is worth pursuing.:smallbiggrin:

Or maybe the bears charge in from the side and end up 30' from the main group, that makes lots of sense too.

I'd give the druid a chance to make the group avoid the bears' lunch, but that does not need combat simulation to resolve.

[MaxWilson]

before you ham this encounter up, check this out
http://sectionhiker.com/bears_sense_of_smell/
This is a second source just for confirmation.
http://www.nps.gov/yose/blogs/Bear-Series-Part-One-A-Bears-Sense-of-Smell.htm

"A bear’s sense of smell is 7 times better than a blood hound’s or 2,100 times better than a human."
"A bear’s sense of smell is so acute that they can detect animal carcases upwind and from a distance of 20 miles away. You should just assume that they can smell the food in your food bag too."

You can put that d6 away. Humans are lucky to see 20 feet away in heavy woods. That bear knows their location in measurements of miles. Its like you said. We aren't DMing we are roleplaying the animals, so, are we rolling smell or what? :smallbiggrin:

That's interesting that they smell 7 times better than bloodhounds. I had no idea. If D&D bears are like terrestrial bears, they should have much, much better than just "advantage on Smell checks." It sounds like they should have something more akin to the Banshee's Life Sense ability: "automatically know the location of rotting carcasses within 5 miles, and detect food within 1 mile including food in adventurer's packs."

If we upgrade bears as you suggest, great, the bears are definitely not surprised. Doesn't have much bearing on the encounter because the plate mailed fighter wasn't going to surprise them anyway, but it's interesting and I learned something. At least this thread hasn't been a total waste. :-P

P.S. I guess that makes Moon Druids in Brown Bear form even more powerful than before, huh?

[sophontteks]

Dude, yeah, bears are freaking crazy. I couldn't believe it either.

[Malifice]

The druid knows if he's moving downwind. That's obvious, and he can probably also see signs of bears in the area, especially since I know as DM that there is in fact an exceptionally high concentration of bears in this area right now. Call it a DC 12 passive Survival check.

I might consider rolling randomly on a d6 to see where the wind is coming from (1=north, 2=south, 3=east, 4=west, 5-6=none), which would let the bears detect the PCs by smell on a 4. But it's probably more trouble than it's worth compared to just saying, "It doesn't matter unless someone is actively using their smell." You'll thank me when the beastmaster ranger starts trying to claim that his wolf get advantage on all his Perception checks because of smell. He gets advantage only sometimes, when conditions are right for it.

And since I'm the DM here, you don't get to argue with me on this. Bears don't automatically get advantage on Perception rolls "because smell". DM Empowerment FTW.

Nah mate, IM the DM. I'm running the Bears remember.

I've placed them in the dead centre of the map you provided in a line near the bridge 45' from the edge of the map.

I've been a generous DM. I've given full plate to the fighter AND you all have Temp HP from a recent motivational speech from the bard. Your druid has cast long strider within the past hour too. I've even let the players select the map.

The party is not stalking the Bears. You're on the way to some ruins and you've been following the river (youve got Intel that there is a bridge crossing up ahead).

It's a standard random encounter on a standard battle map at an appropriate encounter distance considering the terrain (heavy forest).

You already have spells pre cast and temp hit points and are over equipped.

Finally re the Bears all ganging up on the fighter; yet missing due to disadvantage, if needed bear 1 and bear 2 knock your fighter down (bear 1 uses the help action for bear 2s arhletics check to knock you prone. Bears 3 and 4 maul you once you're prone ensuring that even if you dodge every turn you get hit at lest twice per turn).

But we can get to that later.

Look - ill be super nice. The Bears dont get surprise because they're hungry and looking for fish and not being quiet. One blurts out a loud growl once the PCs are 40' away. The PCs aren't surprised.

Place your PC miniatures 40' away and within 45' of the Bears on the Eastern edge of the battle map. Bears are in the centre of the map. Neither group is surprised and both groups are aware of each other. You have your temp HP up and your spells precast (the dungeon you're headed to is only a few hundred metres over the Bridge to the north.

Once your minis are on the eastern side of the map, then we can roll initiative.

[MaxWilson]

Nah mate, IM the DM. I'm running the Bears remember.

You're the OpFor commander. I have players do that occasionally.

I'm the DM. We're trying to validate whether I can reasonably allow four CR 1 creatures to encounter my PCs. As usual, I use a platonic party for this balancing instead of my players' actual party--see Angry's DM's Guide to Combats Part 3 for a succinct explanation of why you'd want to do this. My contention is that that is a pretty balanced encounter, in the sense that if the players don't play smart the monsters are as likely as the PCs to be the victors. You've repeatedly asserted that I'm underestimating the difficulty and that it's a 95% chance of TPK. I'm showing you how I'd run it at my table to demonstrate why it's actually quite reasonable.

So no, I'm the DM, and this is how I'd run it. You get to play the bears but I set the rules.

[Malifice]

You're the OpFor commander. I have players do that occasionally.

I'm the DM. We're trying to validate whether I can reasonably allow four CR 1 creatures to encounter my PCs. As usual, I use a platonic party for this balancing instead of my players' actual party--see Angry's DM's Guide to Combats Part 3 for a succinct explanation of why you'd want to do this. My contention is that that is a pretty balanced encounter, in the sense that if the players don't play smart the monsters are as likely as the PCs to be the victors. You've repeatedly asserted that I'm underestimating the difficulty and that it's a 95% chance of TPK. I'm showing you how I'd run it at my table to demonstrate why it's actually quite reasonable.

So no, I'm the DM, and this is how I'd run it. You get to play the bears but I set the rules.

Mate, if your argument is that a pre buffed 1st level party kitted out above their party level and specifically designed to kill Bears, who are stalking 4 Bears upwind to an environment of their choosing to engage the Bears, has a 50/50 chance of avoiding a TPK - then I agree with you.

This doesn't help your argument you realise?

Why don't you just place the Bears at the bottom of a pit for the win?

My scenario uses a standard battle map, at a standard encounter distance for the terrain with no surprise (albeit against a pre-buffed party who are over equipped for their level and against some non stealthy Bears milling about in a group in the middle of the map).

If you need to create the most optimal environment and circumstances, use a pre buffed party taking advantage of surprise, and having pre knowledge of the encounter just to avoid or mitigate a TPK - then surely this is evidence that you're wrong?

[MaxWilson]

Mate, if your argument is that a pre buffed 1st level party kitted out above their party level and specifically designed to kill Bears

They're not. As you saw in the linked post, they're actually designed as an Out of the Abyss Underdark party. They happen to be good at killing bears, among other things, using SOP for ranged parties in wilderness terrain. They get a lot better at 2nd level of course.

[Malifice]

They're not. As you saw in the linked post, they're actually designed as an Out of the Abyss Underdark party. They happen to be good at killing bears, among other things.

And in your encounter they are pre buffed, at full strength, equipped above their level, intentionally heading upwind towards Bears (presumably stalking them), the Bears fight stupidly (swinging at a dodging fighter encased in armor and cowering under a shield and not just grabbing him and mauling him, or distracting him with the help action by growling at him or whatever) AND the party gets to set the terrain by choosing the battle mat it happens on?

And even with all those cards falling into place, depending on rolls (flubbed perception check and they stumble into a bear, one round of good rolls from the Bears and its game over) they have a good chance of multiple fatalities?

How is this not sinking in mate? If you throw encounters like this at PCs at the rate of even 1 per 2 levels of advancement it'll be a miracle if they survive till 6th level.

It's. 4 x deadly encounter. They could fluke it (or even reduce the chance of TPK to about 50/50 by relying on some pretty heavily contrived environmental factors, superior equipment, pre knowledge and preparation for the encounter or a combination of all three) and the notes on deadly encounters reflect that.

What if the players flubbed the perception check and stumbled on top of the Bears? What if they hit the Bears withoit temp HP up or wounded? What if the wind was headed in a different direction (or the PCs were?). What If the Bears roll well?

I'm not saying that deadly encounters with a chance of a TPK can't be fun or should be avoided all together. I am saying that they should be used incredibly sparingly - just the one 50/50 chance of a TPK over the course of a campaign means a 50/50 chance of rebooting the game. I'm also saying that the game is built to support 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day that provide a reasonable challenge to the party by draining about 15 percent of party resources per encounter but (barring extremely outside odds and shocking rolling by the party and a series of amazing rolls by the DM) have no real chance of killing the party.

If you make a point of throwing 'decent chance of a TPK' encounters at the party with any frequency, then im shocked they make it past 5th.

[MaxWilson]

And in your encounter they are pre buffed, at full strength, equipped above their level, intentionally heading upwind towards Bears (presumably stalking them), the Bears fight stupidly (swinging at a dodging fighter encased in armor and cowering under a shield and not just grabbing him and mauling him, or distracting him with the help action by growling at him or whatever) AND the party gets to set the terrain by choosing the battle mat it happens on?

1.) They're not prebuffed in the original scenario (except for Inspired Leader, because that's basically always on), although realistically the actual PCs probably would be, since Longstrider is a long-lasting spell that can reasonably be pre-buffed just like Inspiring Leader can. But I had them start from scratch in order to make it slightly harder. Surely you noticed that the Sharpshooter didn't even have Bardic Inspiration on round 1? If they were pre-buffed, the Sharpshooter would have had that Bardic Inspiration from the get-go, and so would the tank.

2.) Bears are pretty stupid compared to humans. I've mentioned several times that humanoids such as goblins or especially hobgoblins are played significantly smarter, and I gave an example of goblin tactics (mountain ambush) which would absolutely murder this party.

Feel free to have the bears "Help by growling" or whatever. It won't change the encounter into a 95% TPK. Grappling, not Helping, is your best play from a tactical perspective, though Bardic Inspiration helps a little. (Grappling the fighter and/or pushing him prone, and then dropping prone yourself between attacks, would be an effective, though amusingly un-bearlike, tactic. If I were trying to make your point for you that's the tactic I'd be using, though I doubt you can achieve 95% TPK with it.)

3.) Is there some other map you'd prefer? That was literally the first map I found when I Googled for "forest map D&D" or something similar. If I were trying to cherry pick maps I assure you that is not one I'd choose. I'd be more likely to choose a forest like the one near my home--less homogenous, and more of both dense areas and open woodlands. The map I picked is still pretty gamist instead of realistic.


I'm not saying that deadly encounters with a chance of a TPK can't be fun or should be avoided all together. I am saying that they should be used incredibly sparingly - just the one 50/50 chance of a TPK over the course of a campaign means a 50/50 chance of rebooting the game. I'm also saying that the game is built to support 6-8 medium to hard encounters per day that provide a reasonable challenge to the party by draining about 15 percent of party resources per encounter but (barring extremely outside odds and shocking rolling by the party and a series of amazing rolls by the DM) have no real chance of killing the party.

My game is pretty combat-light. Over the past year of play we've had maybe fifty or sixty fights (one or two per session, sometimes none), and perhaps six of those were between 4x and 10x deadly.

In at least two cases I've offered the players (and they've accepted) the chance to have a fight which is not only Deadly by the DMG rules, but the PCs also have to make all their rolls at disadvantage while the monsters make all their rolls at advantage. In return I handwave a number of other similar fights, on the grounds that we already played out the unluckiest fight, and the others were so much easier that we can skip them. E.g. they fought 5 Phase Spiders with advantage on everything, and disadvantage on everything for the PCs, and that battle counted for 45 other Phase Spiders over the course of a day or so. Sometimes I am amazed that we haven't had more deaths, but the players must be doing something right I guess because there have only been five or six over the past year, out of perhaps eighteen PCs in that time period. (Character trees.)

[Malifice]

1.) They're not prebuffed in the original scenario, although realistically the actual PCs probably would be, since Longstrider is a long-lasting spell that can reasonably be pre-buffed just like Inspiring Leader can. But I had them start from scratch in order to make it slightly harder. Surely you noticed that the Sharpshooter didn't even have Bardic Inspiration on round 1? If they were pre-buffed, the Sharpshooter would have had that Bardic Inspiration from the get-go, and so would the tank.

2.) Bears are pretty stupid compared to humans. I've mentioned several times that humanoids such as goblins or especially hobgoblins are played significantly smarter, and I gave an example of goblin tactics (mountain ambush) which would absolutely murder this party.

Feel free to have the bears "Help by growling" or whatever. It won't change the encounter into a 95% TPK. Grappling, not Helping, is your best play from a tactical perspective, though Bardic Inspiration helps a little. (Grappling the fighter and/or pushing him prone, and then dropping prone yourself between attacks, would be an effective, though amusingly un-bearlike, tactic. If I were trying to make your point for you that's the tactic I'd be using, though I doubt you can achieve 95% TPK with it.)

3.) Is there some other map you'd prefer? That was literally the first map I found when I Googled for "forest map D&D" or something similar. If I were trying to cherry pick maps I assure you that is not one I'd choose. I'd be more likely to choose a forest like the one near my home--less homogenous, and more of both dense areas and open woodlands. The map I picked is still pretty gamist instead of realistic.



My game is pretty combat-light. Over the past year of play we've had maybe fifty or sixty fights (one or two per session, sometimes none), and perhaps six of those were between 4x and 10x deadly.

In at least two cases I've offered the players (and they've accepted) the chance to have a fight which is not only Deadly by the DMG rules, but the PCs also have to make all their rolls at disadvantage while the monsters make all their rolls at advantage. In return I handwave a number of other similar fights, on the grounds that we already played out the unluckiest fight, and the others were so much easier that we can skip them. E.g. they fought 5 Phase Spiders with advantage on everything, and disadvantage on everything for the PCs, and that battle counted for 45 other Phase Spiders over the course of a day or so. Sometimes I am amazed that we haven't had more deaths, but the players must be doing something right I guess because there have only been five or six over the past year, out of perhaps eighteen PCs in that time period. (Character trees.)

18 characters minus 6 deaths leaves 12 players at a minimum. Does not compute. I assume there have been a few retirements also?

I'm not shocked you're running at a 33 percent fatality rate in your campaigns. That's insanely high.

My party are up to chapter 4 in Age of Worms, have also had 50-60 odd encounters and we've had the one fatality to date (and the PC was resurrected).

I'm ignoring your other points because you seem hell bent on ignoring mine and doing your best to create a highly contrived encounter scenario that heavily favours buffed and over equipped fully rested PCs to prove a point.

You're stacking the deck to prove your initial flawed assertion (4 x CR1s is a reasonable challenge for 4 x 1st level PCs). It's not a dance I want to have with you.

[MadBear]

If we want this encounter to be more fair, why not have it be with a 4 level 5 adventurer's fighting 4 CR 5 monsters? that way the full plate and feat's make sense. I mean when the level 1's have:

- multiple feats (meaning everyone's running human for the feats) it's an advantage for the party
- Plate at level 1 (the game isn't balanced around level 1 plate armor characters), it should have been standard starting gear (or close to it)
- HAM way better at early level's compared to late levels
- Inspire leader is also better at early levels compared to late levels

really this fight would play out better if we just used the starting gear (ala you're average lvl 1 party), or if we upped the level and CR.

Either way, I think Malifice has the right of it, and the PC's die horribly the vast majority of the time. (all the cherry picking that needs to take place for the PC's to win seems straight out of the DMG section that describes how to adjust the encounter difficulty if the PC have many advantages). If we stack the deck too far, we end up with silly results (a standard kobold beats a killer whale 100% of the time, if they're both fighting on dry land).

[MaxWilson]

If we want this encounter to be more fair, why not have it be with a 4 level 5 adventurer's fighting 4 CR 5 monsters? *snip*

Sure. The higher the level goes, the better the adventurers get at coping. How about an umber hulk, two fire elementals, and an elite drow? Or would it be better to keep it homogenous to cut down on the need for DM judgment calls and just do four gorgons?

My contention is that the dominant factor will be the sophistication of the tactics employed, so four earth elementals employing hit-and-run tactics will outperform four Red Slaads that just wade into melee despite them both having the same CR. On the player's side, the same equivalence applies--if the PCs just wade into melee and start rolling attacks every round, they'll be much weaker than PCs who do things like prone and grapple their enemies, stay dispersed against AoEs, and exploit ranged attacks.

I'll DM if you want to run the OpFor. Let me know what monsters you want to use. It's effectively a reverse D&D situation. You're playing four CR 5 monsters, and your goal is to demonstrate that four 5th level PCs are not a Deadly combat for you, but only Hard or Medium. I.e. once you choose your strategy, it has to work 95+% of the time to make the point. My contention is that you can find a strategy which works about 50% of the time but not 95%.

The PCs will have good gear but no poisons and no magic items.

[MadBear]

Sure. The higher the level goes, the better the adventurers get at coping. How about an umber hulk, two fire elementals, and an elite drow? Or would it be better to keep it homogenous to cut down on the need for DM judgment calls and just do four gorgons?

My contention is that the dominant factor will be the sophistication of the tactics employed, so four earth elementals employing hit-and-run tactics will outperform four Red Slaads that just wade into melee despite them both having the same CR. On the player's side, the same equivalence applies--if the PCs just wade into melee and start rolling attacks every round, they'll be much weaker than PCs who do things like prone and grapple their enemies, stay dispersed against AoEs, and exploit ranged attacks.

I'll DM if you want to run the OpFor. Let me know what monsters you want to use. It's effectively a reverse D&D situation. You're playing four CR 5 monsters, and your goal is to demonstrate that four 5th level PCs are not a Deadly combat for you, but only Hard or Medium. I.e. once you choose your strategy, it has to work 95+% of the time to make the point. My contention is that you can find a strategy which works about 50% of the time but not 95%.

The PCs will have good gear but no poisons and no magic items.

I'd be happy to listen if someone else wanted to run the simulation, but my time is to limited to commit to such an endeavor.

One thing I wanted to point out though. In order for this to work:

- The PC's shouldn't be geared towards "beating the threat" and should instead be generic adventurers.
- The Environment should not favor either side
- There shouldn't be any surprise rounds for either side.

The reasons for this are fairly straight forward. When designing an encounter, you can (and should) adjust the difficulty to account for the situation. As an example:

- A beached killer whale will never beat a ranged character as long as they stay 5ft away
- A bear trapped in a pit with the PC's over it

that is of course an extreme example, but the point is that inherent advantages in environment, Class choice, and Surprise are not representative of what you'd expect to accurately represent the encounter.

With that said, I'm happy read what you and someone else come up with and see how it works in practice.

[MaxWilson]

I'd be happy to listen if someone else wanted to run the simulation, but my time is to limited to commit to such an endeavor.

One thing I wanted to point out though. In order for this to work:

- The PC's shouldn't be geared towards "beating the threat" and should instead be generic adventurers.
- The Environment should not favor either side
- There shouldn't be any surprise rounds for either side.

The reasons for this are fairly straight forward. When designing an encounter, you can (and should) adjust the difficulty to account for the situation. As an example:

- A beached killer whale will never beat a ranged character as long as they stay 5ft away
- A bear trapped in a pit with the PC's over it

that is of course an extreme example, but the point is that inherent advantages in environment, Class choice, and Surprise are not representative of what you'd expect to accurately represent the encounter.

With that said, I'm happy read what you and someone else come up with and see how it works in practice.

I agree with point #1, and therefore suggest that the PCs will just be the generic "Underdark adventurers" who've been used throughout this thread. They were created for testing my Out of the Abyss campaign so they're certainly not optimized for fighting Gorgons or whatever CR 5 creatures the OpFor commander decides to use.

Points #2 and #3 seems like a violation of Combat As War principles, and unfairly disempowers PCs who are built for pre-combat utility (Assassins and Shadow Monks). A large part of the game consists of trying to ensure that combat takes place under advantageous circumstances, and one of the major strengths of PCs over monsters lies in their ability to control the terms of engagement with divination spells, scouts (familiars and shapeshifted druids), stealth, etc. For monsters who are capable of it (e.g. Goblins and Bugbears), it's one of their majors strengths as well. Every terrain is going to inherently favor some set of tactics and disfavor others, so trying to choose a terrain which "will not favor" someone or other just leads to infinite loops where you have to keep choosing new terrains as you see ways to exploit the new terrain. The game starts long before initiative is rolled for combat, so for a fair test you have to include the pre-combat stuff too, especially scouting and negotiation. (Yes, negotation. If you jump straight into attacking everything you meet in D&D you will have a short and unhappy life spent mostly in jail or the grave.)

So the fairest way to determine surprise is to have a Stealth vs. Perception score contest once the parties come into potential contact. (Standard sight range in 5E is 1-2 miles according to the DMG unless someone is trying to be stealthy or unless terrain prevents seeing. In poor conditions it will be 300' or even less, per DMG guidelines.) Anyone who notices a threat is not surprised, exactly per PHB guidelines. That's how you run a real game so it is how test combats should be run as well.

Perhaps a good way to cut the Gordian knot would be to require both the OpFor and the PC commanders take turns proposing terrain/map and allowing the other party to veto. If no agreement can be reached, no combat takes place--it's effectively an admission that neither party can win outside of its own favored terrain.

[MadBear]

I agree with point #1, and therefore suggest that the PCs will just be the generic "Underdark adventurers" who've been used throughout this thread. They were created for testing my Out of the Abyss campaign so they're certainly not optimized for fighting Gorgons or whatever CR 5 creatures the OpFor commander decides to use.

Points #2 and #3 seems like a violation of Combat As War principles, and unfairly disempowers PCs who are built for pre-combat utility (Assassins and Shadow Monks). A large part of the game consists of trying to ensure that combat takes place under advantageous circumstances, and one of the major strengths of PCs over monsters lies in their ability to control the terms of engagement with divination spells, scouts (familiars and shapeshifted druids), stealth, etc. For monsters who are capable of it (e.g. Goblins and Bugbears), it's one of their majors strengths as well. Every terrain is going to inherently favor some set of tactics and disfavor others, so trying to choose a terrain which "will not favor" someone or other just leads to infinite loops where you have to keep choosing new terrains as you see ways to exploit the new terrain. The game starts long before initiative is rolled for combat, so for a fair test you have to include the pre-combat stuff too, especially scouting and negotiation. (Yes, negotation. If you jump straight into attacking everything you meet in D&D you will have a short and unhappy life spent mostly in jail or the grave.)

So the fairest way to determine surprise is to have a Stealth vs. Perception score contest once the parties come into potential contact. (Standard sight range in 5E is 1-2 miles according to the DMG unless someone is trying to be stealthy or unless terrain prevents seeing. In poor conditions it will be 300' or even less, per DMG guidelines.) Anyone who notices a threat is not surprised, exactly per PHB guidelines. That's how you run a real game so it is how test combats should be run as well.

Perhaps a good way to cut the Gordian knot would be to require both the OpFor and the PC commanders take turns proposing terrain/map and allowing the other party to veto. If no agreement can be reached, no combat takes place--it's effectively an admission that neither party can win outside of its own favored terrain.

I see what you're saying but you're missing the point. Here's a quick statement straight from the Basic rules of the game:

An encounter can be made easier or harder based on
the choice of location and the situation.
Increase the difficulty of the encounter by one step
(from easy to medium, for example) if the characters
have a drawback that their enemies don’t. Reduce the
difficulty by one step if the characters have a benefit that
their enemies don’t. Any additional benefit or drawback
pushes the encounter one step in the appropriate
direction. If the characters have both a benefit and a
drawback, the two cancel each other out.
Situational drawbacks include the following:
• The whole party is surprised, and the enemy isn’t.
• The enemy has cover, and the party doesn’t.
• The characters are unable to see the enemy.
• The characters are taking damage every round from
some environmental effect or magical source, and the
enemy isn’t.
• The characters are hanging from a rope, in the midst
of scaling a sheer wall or cliff, stuck to the floor, or otherwise
in a situation that greatly hinders their mobility
or makes them sitting ducks.

What this is essentially saying is that the difficulty of an encounter changes depending on the situation. You seem to agree with me on this. The problem is, that we are trying to look at the encounter difficulty of a multiple amount of CR equivalent monsters vs the same number of PC's. If you change the difficulty of the encounter, you're missing the point being made in a fight between 4 CR 5 monsters vs 4 Lvl 5 PC's.

[MaxWilson]

I see what you're saying but you're missing the point. Here's a quick statement straight from the Basic rules of the game:

What this is essentially saying is that the difficulty of an encounter changes depending on the situation. You seem to agree with me on this. The problem is, that we are trying to look at the encounter difficulty of a multiple amount of CR equivalent monsters vs the same number of PC's. If you change the difficulty of the encounter, you're missing the point being made in a fight between 4 CR 5 monsters vs 4 Lvl 5 PC's.

I understand what you're saying. However, the whole point of the game is for the players to change the difficulty in their favor! Encounter guidelines are not the "system under test", so the fact that the guidelines will bump the difficulty up or down based on PC actions before combat is rather beside the point. Yes, technically, an encounter becomes more Easy if a Shadow Monk is along casting Pass Without Trace every hour, and it becomes more Deadly if one of the PCs is unconscious before the encounter starts and the cleric chooses not to heal him--but that isn't something the DM should account for at adventure design time. None of that matters though because we're not even using the encounter guidelines, we're just using an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level.

There are actual PC archetypes (Assassin, Shadow Monk) which specialize in stacking the deck in their favor before combat even starts. It would be wrong to deny them the benefit of their choices, because they're still going to pay the costs. If that means that the Shadow Monk doesn't contribute much during combat but does ensure that the party is rarely surprised, so encounters are less Deadly, that's a good thing!

In short, I run a Combat As War table (although I'm much more simulationist than gamist). Here's a good explanation of what that means: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?317715-Very-Long-Combat-as-Sport-vs-Combat-as-War-a-Key-Difference-in-D-amp-D-Play-Styles. See especially post #5 of that thread.


I'm not quite sure how to appeal to both sides in one game. Both are deeply gamist, but they don't agree on what the game is. For CAS, the game starts when you roll initiative. Each combat is self-contained, similar to a sports league. They get irritated if they have to bother with boring stuff like counting arrows. They get irritated if the Wizard scys the next enemy group and has the right spell prepared to end the combat in his first action.
For CAW, an entire module is a game. They get irritated if they don't get the chance to prepare fights. They hate if the resource management is handwaved. They consider it a good fight if they walk over the enemies in one big swoop.

-Max

================================================== ========================


18 characters minus 6 deaths leaves 12 players at a minimum. Does not compute. I assume there have been a few retirements also?

I'm not shocked you're running at a 33 percent fatality rate in your campaigns. That's insanely high.

No, character trees, as I stated in the post you quoted.

I think three or four of those deaths were the same player dying four weeks in a row. Each session his new first level PC would get enough experience to get up to 3rd level or so, but then he died before the session was over. (5th level PC eaten by four wolves one week while wandering solo; 1st level character got too close to a gelatinous cube during combat the next week and the other PCs weren't able to pull him out in time; I forgot how he died the third week; there may have been a fourth but I forget what; he missed the next session and by the week after that the other players had found a way to reconstruct the 5th level PC from scraps of flesh so he was alive again.)

The only retirement that has happened was one 6th level Ranger that got turned over to me to run as an NPC. He died at 8th level to a CR 2 Intellect Devourer.

The other two PC deaths that I can think of offhand were eventually reversed.


You're stacking the deck to prove your initial flawed assertion (4 x CR1s is a reasonable challenge for 4 x 1st level PCs). It's not a dance I want to have with you.

Straw man. At the risk of repeating myself: I said it was a fair fight in the sense that you can't really predict who's going to win. (And PCs should strive to avoid fair fights in that sense.) It's not a "reasonable challenge" in the gamist sense of "a fight that you should arrange for your PCs every session." I run a sandbox, so arranging "reasonable challenges" isn't something I'm even interested in doing. The world is what it is, and the players do what they choose within it.

[bid]

Straw man.
Matthew 7:5

A CR1 fight can be deadly to 4 level 20 characters if they are bound and gagged.

[MadBear]

I understand what you're saying. However, the whole point of the game is for the players to change the difficulty in their favor! Encounter guidelines are not the "system under test", so the fact that the guidelines will bump the difficulty up or down based on PC actions before combat is rather beside the point. Yes, technically, an encounter becomes more Easy if a Shadow Monk is along casting Pass Without Trace every hour, and it becomes more Deadly if one of the PCs is unconscious before the encounter starts and the cleric chooses not to heal him--but that isn't something the DM should account for at adventure design time. None of that matters though because we're not even using the encounter guidelines, we're just using an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level.


Ok, in that case, you are looking to measure something completely different from what we are talking about then. I agree (and suspect others do as well), that if you heavily stack the deck in your favor then an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level can be beaten by the PC's. But if that's the case you're arguing a point that no one is making. The whole point of the conversation is that an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level, will kill the PC's if they encounter each other in a fair fight. One where the PC's have a high bias in their favor changes the odds.

So tell you what, I've already granted that you're right, if we are talking about a fight in which one side stacks the odds. Would you agree that an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level, would beat the PC's close to 95% of the time if neither side had any significant advantage and neither was prepped specifically to fight the other? Beat can mean anything from killing the other side, to forcing them to retreat.

[MaxWilson]

Ok, in that case, you are looking to measure something completely different from what we are talking about then. I agree (and suspect others do as well), that if you heavily stack the deck in your favor then an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level can be beaten by the PC's. But if that's the case you're arguing a point that no one is making. The whole point of the conversation is that an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level, will kill the PC's if they encounter each other in a fair fight. One where the PC's have a high bias in their favor changes the odds.

It's really not my fault if you jump into a discussion on druid91's system and then decide that "we" are talking about the DMG encounter guidelines. This whole discussion began with druid91 postulating a fight between a 1st level PC and four CR 1/4 creatures. A whole bunch of people freaked out and said that would be awful--I said it sounded like fun. Then in post #80 I said this:


In my experience, CR 1 and a level 1 character are roughly equal, in the sense that four CR 1s vs. four level 1 PCs leads to a tossup where either side could win depending on how play proceeds. (Thus, the Polymorph equivalence makes perfect sense to me. An 8th level fighter and a Tyrannosaurus are equally valuable in a fight; but the power of Polymorph is that once the T-Rex is used up you get the fighter back.) However, 5E is supposed to be both combat-heavy and survivable by design, so if the PCs have only a 50% chance of surviving each combat, the average campaign will last only two fights. Therefore the DMG guidelines try to ensure that the fights are hard enough to be interesting, but not so hard that the PCs might actually lose.

Four CR 1/4s against a single level 1 is right up in the territory where the PC is more likely than not to lose. (It's quintuple-Deadly.) I still think it would be a blast, especially since you haven't invested much in the PC yet anyway so it's the perfect time to risk him in a deadly fight that you'll remember for a long time.

To respond to your question:


So tell you what, I've already granted that you're right, if we are talking about a fight in which one side stacks the odds. Would you agree that an equal number and CR of monsters to the PCs' number and level, would beat the PC's close to 95% of the time if neither side had any significant advantage and neither was prepped specifically to fight the other? Beat can mean anything from killing the other side, to forcing them to retreat.

No, I would not agree. You've tried to stack the odds in your favor by denying the PCs a fair fight, e.g. you want it to take place in terrain favorable to the monsters and disallow Stealth. If you do an actual fair fight where the PCs are just using SOPs for wilderness or dungeon exploring, smart players will win (sometimes, more than 5% of the time anyway) and idiot players will die (I've seen it many times) doing idiotic things like "I roll to-hit, again."

Also, your criteria is ambiguous. What smart players do when they encounter an unexpected obstacle is retreat, prepare, and return to crush the opposition. You've called that a "defeat" because it includes a retreat but it looks like "victory" to me.

To quote AngryDM, "a challenge is a situation whose outcome is uncertain and can be influenced by the skills, choices, and tactics of the players." You keep wanting to factor out half of the choices and tactics of the players and make in-combat choices the only ones which matter. Clearly we play very different games. You want something episodic and self-contained, and I'm not interested in that. The "encounter" starts a long time before initiative is rolled, and reconnaissance and stealth are big parts of that.

[Malifice]

It's really not my fault if you jump into a discussion on druid91's system and then decide that "we" are talking about the DMG encounter guidelines. This whole discussion began with druid91 postulating a fight between a 1st level PC and four CR 1/4 creatures. A whole bunch of people freaked out and said that would be awful--I said it sounded like fun. Then in post #80 I said this:



To respond to your question:



No, I would not agree. You've tried to stack the odds in your favor by denying the PCs a fair fight, e.g. you want it to take place in terrain favorable to the monsters and disallow Stealth. If you do an actual fair fight where the PCs are just using SOPs for wilderness or dungeon exploring, smart players will win (sometimes, more than 5% of the time anyway) and idiot players will die (I've seen it many times) doing idiotic things like "I roll to-hit, again."

Also, your criteria is ambiguous. What smart players do when they encounter an unexpected obstacle is retreat, prepare, and return to crush the opposition. You've called that a "defeat" because it includes a retreat but it looks like "victory" to me.

To quote AngryDM, "a challenge is a situation whose outcome is uncertain and can be influenced by the skills, choices, and tactics of the players." You keep wanting to factor out half of the choices and tactics of the players and make in-combat choices the only ones which matter. Clearly we play very different games. You want something episodic and self-contained, and I'm not interested in that. The "encounter" starts a long time before initiative is rolled, and reconnaissance and stealth are big parts of that.

You didn't answer the question.

[MadBear]

It's really not my fault if you jump into a discussion on druid91's system and then decide that "we" are talking about the DMG encounter guidelines. This whole discussion began with druid91 postulating a fight between a 1st level PC and four CR 1/4 creatures. A whole bunch of people freaked out and said that would be awful--I said it sounded like fun. Then in post #80 I said this:

1. Yes, I saw what you originally wrote.
2. You realize conversations move over time
3. The conversation point I was jumping in on was during your conversation with Malifice.




To respond to your question:



No, I would not agree. You've tried to stack the odds in your favor by denying the PCs a fair fight, e.g. you want it to take place in terrain favorable to the monsters and disallow Stealth. If you do an actual fair fight where the PCs are just using SOPs for wilderness or dungeon exploring, smart players will win (sometimes, more than 5% of the time anyway) and idiot players will die (I've seen it many times) doing idiotic things like "I roll to-hit, again."

Also, your criteria is ambiguous. What smart players do when they encounter an unexpected obstacle is retreat, prepare, and return to crush the opposition. You've called that a "defeat" because it includes a retreat but it looks like "victory" to me.

To quote AngryDM, "a challenge is a situation whose outcome is uncertain and can be influenced by the skills, choices, and tactics of the players." You keep wanting to factor out half of the choices and tactics of the players and make in-combat choices the only ones which matter. Clearly we play very different games. You want something episodic and self-contained, and I'm not interested in that. The "encounter" starts a long time before initiative is rolled, and reconnaissance and stealth are big parts of that.

0. I don't need the terrain to be favorable to the monster, just not unfavorable to it. (i.e. it can't be a shark on dry land vs PC's).

1. I didn't stack the odds at all. I'm simply saying for the sake of discussion that neither the PC's nor the Monster get to have the odds stacked in their favor when this takes place.

2. Let me try using an analogy. If I asked who'd win in a fight between, Mike Tyson vs a typical 8 year old kid, I'd say that almost 100% of the time Mike Tyson would win. You're essentially saying "no that isn't the case". The kid could bring a gun or knife and shoot/stab him, the kid could sneak up on him at night and slit his throat. The kid could go get 100 of his friends and overwhelm him. etc. etc.

All of that would be completely missing the point though. That obviously isn't what I mean when I say that.

To bring it back. Yes a hasty retreat, and a change of plans can turn an impossible fight, into a winnable fight. In other words, you're reducing the level of challenge at that point. In doing so I agree with you, that you can change an otherwise impossible fight into a winnable one, but that isn't the question I'm looking to answer, nor is it what we talking about.

3. The reason I included retreat was that it's an admission that you can't beat the enemy under the current circumstances. A retreat followed by a change of tactics, terrain, and other ways of stacking the odds will win you the day in the end, but it's no longer a comparison of equal # & level CR monsters vs PC's. It's a comparison of an equal # & level CR monsters vs PC's + stacked odds.

4. If all you're going to do is sit there saying "but if the PC's stack the odds, they'll win" then, I guess we're at an impasse, and nothing further can be said.

[MaxWilson]

Please provide a quotation or post number from me to show that "we" shifted to a discussion about encounter guidelines before you jumped in. I certainly never addressed that subject, and it should be reasonably clear that I don't see a lot of value in the Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly labels. (The DMG itself doesn't appear to see a lot of value in them actually, since it completely ignores encounter difficulty in constructing adventuring days--the only thing that matters is adjusted XP. Terrain/circumstances/etc. don't factor in at all.)

I'm fine with outlawing "shark on dry land" level of skew, and my proposal wherein either party gets to veto the proposed map would address that issue neatly with no subjective judgment calls involved.


3. The reason I included retreat was that it's an admission that you can't beat the enemy under the current circumstances. A retreat followed by a change of tactics, terrain, and other ways of stacking the odds will win you the day in the end, but it's no longer a comparison of equal # & level CR monsters vs PC's. It's a comparison of an equal # & level CR monsters vs PC's + stacked odds.

Building in a capability to execute a tactical retreat/regroup when surprised is fundamental to good tactics in a world with uncertainty. That is why spells like Dimension Door and Contingency exist. It's not an admission that you "can't beat the enemy", but if you think you have only a 50% or 60% chance of beating the enemy right now, but could have a 90% chance of beating them in sixty seconds or ten minutes, why wouldn't you retreat and regroup? Any PC who fails to do so is a pea-wit. If regrouping would take hours then you might have a point, for scenarios with time pressure.

It's a PC (and occasionally monster) capability. You apparently want to exclude certain PC (/monster) capabilities from scope to focus on the part you're interested in (everything after "roll initiative"), which is the least interesting part to me. We're at an impasse. Effectively we're not even playing the same game.

[Vogonjeltz]

Eh? If I were a Pixie who wanted to murder a lone level one character for some reason (evil Pixie?), my best option is to attempt to Polymorph the PC into a pigeon. Maybe the pigeon will sit there stupefied for a second, but eventually he's going to try to fly off and get help. When he does, release the spell. Hello, 5d6 falling damage! Hello, dead PC! Hello, giggling Pixie!

You can't deny that this is exactly the kind of prank a pixie would find funny. The average PC has only slightly better than 50% odds of surviving the lone Pixie encounter. That is absolutely not Easy, according to the description of Easy, no matter what the encounter building math says. Pixies are underrated at CR 1/4.

Why on earth would the character fly off? The entire scenario of a pixie being dangerous hinges on the character being terminally stupid. That's not a good assumption to start with.

[MadBear]

It's a PC (and occasionally monster) capability. You apparently want to exclude certain PC (/monster) capabilities from scope to focus on the part you're interested in (everything after "roll initiative"), which is the least interesting part to me. We're at an impasse. Effectively we're not even playing the same game.

1. I agree we're at an impasse
2. You're confusing a thought experiment with how I play the game at my table (hint: the way I play is very different from how I might analyze a situation in isolated terms).
3. If you stop and realize #2, maybe we can move forward in the discussion, but until then you've put up an impregnable barrier to further discussion on the topic.

[MaxWilson]

Tell you what, MadBear. Instead of continuing to discuss my game, how about we start fresh. Why don't you lay out a proposition of the form "In my experience, [certain monsters] will beat [certain PCs] [some fraction of the time] [under certain circumstances]."

That way at least you won't be attacking someone else's experience by trying to change it, you'll be defending your own, and you'll get to set the terms of debate. This being the Internet, someone will probably show up to discuss it with you. It might even be me.

P.S. I probably wouldn't do it by telling you that your experience is wrong, though. Knowing me, I'm more likely to say, "Hmmm. That's not my experience. Let's try to figure out how your game is different."

P.P.S. Oh, you're in Seattle? I'm in Issaquah. Potentially we could even observe each other's game sessions.

[MadBear]

Tell you what, MadBear. Instead of continuing to discuss my game, how about we start fresh. Why don't you lay out a proposition of the form "In my experience, [certain monsters] will beat [certain PCs] [some fraction of the time] [under certain circumstances]."

That way at least you won't be attacking someone else's experience by trying to change it, you'll be defending your own, and you'll get to set the terms of debate. This being the Internet, someone will probably show up to discuss it with you. It might even be me.

P.S. I probably wouldn't do it by telling you that your experience is wrong, though. Knowing me, I'm more likely to say, "Hmmm. That's not my experience. Let's try to figure out how your game is different."

P.P.S. Oh, you're in Seattle? I'm in Issaquah. Potentially we could even observe each other's game sessions.

One reason that I hate the internet for discussions is that is is easy for there to be a fundamental breakdown in communication between people. This is causing me to not see the points that you are trying to make (or at least, I'm guessing that I'm missing your point since your responses seem completely separate from what I'm saying), and you are definitely misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

[MaxWilson]

One reason that I hate the internet for discussions is that is is easy for there to be a fundamental breakdown in communication between people. This is causing me to not see the points that you are trying to make (or at least, I'm guessing that I'm missing your point since your responses seem completely separate from what I'm saying), and you are definitely misunderstanding the point I am trying to make.

Partly the fault of the forum software, which discards conversational context by default.

That's why it would be useful for you to phrase your proposition fresh, as its own idea instead of appended to some other conversation. E.g. "under white room conditions with no surprise at forty feet, PCs lose." Up until now I've been pushing back on your assumptions as invalid in context, but the way you'd get to determine the context, and could guarantee the validity of those assumptions.

I've said, "A given B." You've said, "No, because C given D." I've said, "B doesn't imply D, so C doesn't hold." You've said, "But we're talking about C." Impasse, but you're free to assert C in its own context and discuss the implications.

Till then we are at an impasse and I'm tired of this thread.

[sophontteks]

The last 2 pages are about nothing more then an argument about what CR means. MaxWilson assumed CR = level. He was wrong, but insists that its OK to throw encounters like this at players.

In a normal game, an even encounter for the party would be 4 cr 1/4 creatures against a party of level 1 players.
In MaxWilson's game, an even encounter for the party would be 4 cr 1 creatures against a party of level 1 players.

We've established that maxwilson's system would involve high casualty rate over time.
We've also established that the system requires some 'dumbing down' of the encounter by the DM.

The conversation continues to deviate, and there is no longer a point in the discussion. Likely because we have pretty firmly established that CR is not equal to level and that playing the game in this fashion requires the DM to fudge up some of the rolls, give players an environmental advantage, or give the creatures some form of disadvantage. Absent that the fatality rate, especially at lower levels tends be pretty high, or even completely suicidal (16 goblins all with a stealth bonus action sneak attacking a party of 4.)

At this point I think they just enjoy running these hypotheticals.

[bid]

That way at least you won't be attacking someone else's experience by trying to change it, you'll be defending your own, and you'll get to set the terms of debate.
As I remember, this degenerated as Vogonjeltz and Tanarii were discussing their experience on kiting. Their attacker got kited pretty far.:smallbiggrin: