Is it Just me or is 5e Swingy?

[Scowling Dragon]

Guy not experienced with 5e reporting after a bunch of games at level 4.

It seems like you can get hit really easily, and damage racks up very quickly, and knocks out very quickly as well.

[Occasional Sage]

The 5e system in general is very swingy due to the constraints of bounded accuracy and the size of the numeric bonuses given in the game.

In terms of combat swinging from one side winning to the other... yeah, early levels can be like that if encounters are Hard or the DM is very tactical with enemies. That should smooth with another level or two.

ETA: Character class matters a lot in combat swings, also. What's the party made up of?

[Arkhios]

It's intentional. It's great way to make even the weak monsters appear threatening at higher levels (as compared to previous editions where after some point you enter into god-mode and can walk like Sauron alone against thousands of enemies, simply sending your enemies flying from a casual swing.)

[Jerrykhor]

I like it. Combat feels dangerous when enemy attacks are brutal and potentially life threatening. If your class is not a 'front-liner', its common to go down in 2-3 hits, and that can happen in 1 turn depending on bonus actions, reactions and whatnot.

If the PC has massive pools of hp and the damage of enemies is too low, combat would feel like a pillow fight, and will also take too long.

[SillyPopeNachos]

It's certainly not just you, 5th has combats with advantage changing sides every 1-3 rounds. CR is actually far more meaningless than in any other edition, primarily when things like Kobolds and Rats have Pack Tactics (free advantage for not fighting solo? holy crap), and Wraiths being able to create a CR 1 Spectre when something dies, plus its pretty respectable HP/damage resistances and immunities. Having experienced the game from both sides of the DM screen, what mitigates this risk the most is magic items.

[Willie the Duck]

It seems like you can get hit really easily, and damage racks up very quickly, and knocks out very quickly as well.

There are plenty of things in play. Most notably AC. You are never (rarely) at a point where the low-level monsters can't hit you (and not just on a natural 20). If you are up against (say) 2x as many orcs as party members, they are going to be doing some serious attrition while you whittle them down. If you are up against rats or kobolds (who always seem to have advantage on attack) or hobgoblins (which seem to do a lot of damage), you are going to have to manage those hp quite a bit.

OTOH, you have a lot more abilities at your disposal than the average monsters. Make sure you use them. Your wizard has the sleep spell, it's good again in this edition, use it. Nearly everyone has either a ranged cantrip or should be good with a ranged weapon (at levels 1-4, javelins are just fine for the Str-based frontliners), if your hp are low, fall back and use them. Your paladin should be familiar with bless. Your ranger with Hunter's Mark. These are as close to auto-hits as the game has now. Wizards should know shield, it is a "oh no you don't" when you are hit (look at when you get to decide if you use it) that keeps going until their next initiative. If you have a battle master, choose wisely on your maneuvers. Reposte is a great way to get extra attacks.

In the end, don't be afraid to run away. Don't be afraid to negotiate. Monsters have this attrition problem as well. Even if they prevail against you, it will leave them weakened against whatever they run into next. Don't be afraid to point that out and try to bargain. And of course, don't be afraid to go down. Your party has 3-6 rounds to save you (if you need saving at all), and healing kits are cheap.

And yes, you will lose characters. That sucks, but not as bad as 3e or 4e, where you could have spent half a night rolling one up.

[LordVonDerp]

It's certainly not just you, 5th has combats with advantage changing sides every 1-3 rounds.
Well, more than 3 rounds for a combat is a lot in 5e



CR is actually far more meaningless than in any other edition, primarily when things like Kobolds and Rats have Pack Tactics (free advantage for not fighting solo? holy crap),


Yeah, but that's why there are CR modifiers for having multiple enemies.
Also the kobolds only do around 4 damage, are really easy to kill, and have to be in melee to get that bonus, so it's not a big deal.



and Wraiths being able to create a CR 1 Spectre when something dies, plus its pretty respectable HP/damage resistances and immunities.
A wraith is a CR 5 creature.



Having experienced the game from both sides of the DM screen, what mitigates this risk the most is magic items.
Or don't start at level 1, which is good advice for any edition.

[SillyPopeNachos]

Well, more than 3 rounds for a combat is a lot in 5e
Relative to groups and campaigns, but not all. This is a blanket assumption.





Yeah, but that's why there are CR modifiers for having multiple enemies.
Also the kobolds only do around 4 damage, are really easy to kill, and have to be in melee to get that bonus, so it's not a big deal.
It is in confined spaces like tunnels, etc when ranged or spells aren't such a solid option, like the underdark or caves, where they're likely to be.



A wraith is a CR 5 creature.
yeah, one that can ramp up the challenge pretty quickly. this statement is completely trite.



Or don't start at level 1, which is good advice for any edition.
And another blanket assumption with no backing or solid evidence. Most modules start at level 1, and for what purpose is it good advice? This is also completely non-sequitor, as no one said anything about starting at level 1, you brought it up.

[SillyPopeNachos]

I know what the PC I'm going to play is, wheras in 1e it was random.

It seems DMs loved method 1 rolling in 1st, although the options to roll and assign stats in various orders are even in the 1st DMG. As for the editions thing, 2nd seemed like 1.5, 3rd is 2nd, 4th is 3rd, pathfinder is 2.5, and 5th is 2.75.

[Dalebert]

It feels like tactics and strategy matter more now. If the entire party plays sloppy as if their class abilities should just work automatically to win and your DM doesn't adjust the difficulty accordingly, you could be in for a rude awakening. I see new players making bad decisions all the time and I have to decide whether it's best to bite my tongue and if so, how hard. There's an art to deciding when advice will be appreciated and when you're crossing over the line of just letting people play their characters how they want. Often, I can find a friendly and tactful way to make suggestions that don't basically amount to "You idiot! Why are you casting Cure Wounds on the tank after one hit when he's fine! Kill the bad guys. 5e isn't built around the notion of dedicated healers. Just prepare Healing Word and use it when someone drops to zero!"

:smallbiggrin:

[Tanarii]

5e seems a lot less "swingy" than the '70's rules D&D I was used to.Yeah, 5e is less swingy and less lethal than oD&D or 1e. Even when you intentionally ramp up the lethality & emphasize Combat-as-War.


1st level PC's start with Max hit points, and usually don't roll when they "level up", most starting equipment is usually based on background and class, not how many starting GP you roll, stats are usually standard array or point buy not rolled. I know what the PC I'm going to play is, wheras in 1e it was random.1e wasn't random unless you imported the oD&D rules for rolling 3d6 in order, or your DM went with one of the weirder methods like Method III or Method IV.
Method I was 4d6d1, arrange per player choice. ie exactly the same as 5e.
Method II was 3d6 x12, keep best 6, arrange per player choice.

[Zorku]

Going down in three hits seems like plenty to me, if that's from like a large single creature fight. What are you doing where you need to eat more hits than that?

[Willie the Duck]

As far as I can tell most playgrounders compare 5e to the legends of D&D from the Dark Ages, rather than Classical era Dungeons & Dragons.

Stop that.

Other WotC so called "editions" of D&D are myths from Dark Times, and with proper re-education you will understand that.

Whatchu talkin' about, Willis?

[Scowling Dragon]

I wasn't commenting on if this was good or not. I just was curious if this was playing like supposed to.

Personally I don't like it. Feels like it just removes more playstyles from before then adding them. And makes being a spellcaster even better then before as well (Which just counteracts the nerfing they recieves).

[LordVonDerp]

Relative to groups and campaigns, but not all. This is a blanket assumption.

A well substantiated blanket assumption, 2-4 rounds is the sweet spot for encounter design, it's long enough to feel important without being tedious (or being a boss fight)




It is in confined spaces like tunnels, etc when ranged or spells aren't such a solid option, like the underdark or caves, where they're likely to be.
That might actually make it worse for the kobolds, since enclose spaces would make it harder for multiple kobolds to get into melee with a single PC making it harder for any of them to get the bonus.



yeah, one that can ramp up the challenge pretty quickly. this statement is completely trite.
It needs the bodies of recently (and violently) dead humanoids to spawn spectres, so it's generally not going to be able spawn many, if any, and neither it nor the spectres are very good at actually hurting things. I don't know whether or not its rating assumes the PCs are equipped to handle it, though.




And another blanket assumption with no backing or solid evidence. Most modules start at level 1, and for what purpose is it good advice? This is also completely non-sequitor, as no one said anything about starting at level 1, you brought it up.

The first and second posts both mentioned people dying too easily at low levels, which is a traditional problem of low level DnD in every edition (except maybe 4th, but that swung in the opposite direction). So no, I didn't bring it up, it was already out there.

[Tanarii]

A well substantiated blanket assumption, 2-4 rounds is the sweet spot for encounter design, it's long enough to feel important without being tedious (or being a boss fight)Wow. Do you run all Easy encounters? Or all small(ish) empty rooms encounters?

[sithlordnergal]

A well substantiated blanket assumption, 2-4 rounds is the sweet spot for encounter design, it's long enough to feel important without being tedious (or being a boss fight)

Geh, I don't know what your DM is doing, but the battles my DM runs tend to go 6-7 rounds at a minimum. Even a group of Orcs lasted a little over 7 rounds since they used ambush tactics in the woods at night, blinded the wizard, and harassed us from hiding. Sure, the orcs in question were some special blessed orcs, but still. They were the most aggravating enemies we've face so far.

[Willie the Duck]

[No need to actually include spoiler, since this was 2 posts ago]



DOOMED! DOOMED! I tell you!


Okay. That's one take. I wouldn't categorize playgrounders as unknowledgeable of the older and basic editions, but see no real reason to dive down that bunny trail.

[LordVonDerp]

Wow. Do you run all Easy encounters? Or all small(ish) empty rooms encounters?
No, I just know enough about design to run tedious encounters. If an encounter goes on for more than 4 rounds and no one has routed, surrendered, or been incapacitated, than something has gone wrong
-The more rounds you have in a fight, the less important each one is, and thus the less meaningful the players' choices are. You don't want to make the players' choices less meaningful.

[LordVonDerp]

Geh, I don't know what your DM is doing, but the battles my DM runs tend to go 6-7 rounds at a minimum. Even a group of Orcs lasted a little over 7 rounds since they used ambush tactics in the woods at night, blinded the wizard, and harassed us from hiding. Sure, the orcs in question were some special blessed orcs, but still. They were the most aggravating enemies we've face so far.

How many orcs surrendered? How many ran away?

Other than that all I can say is that Orcs have weird breakpoints in 5e

[Grod_The_Giant]

5e is very swingy. I think combat is where it's least obvious, because you're making so many rolls to accomplish the thing that probability evens out, but... for most of the game, your numerical bonuses are significantly overwhelmed by the size of the die you're rolling. You can try using 2d10 instead.

I've also noticed your point about hit points; because they're the main point of scaling in combat, monster damage increases pretty quickly-- there does seem to be a bit of rocket tag at low levels, and I don't know if it really gets better.


As far as I can tell most playgrounders compare 5e to the legends of D&D from the Dark Ages, rather than Classical era Dungeons & Dragons.

Stop that.

Other WotC so called "editions" of D&D are myths from Dark Times, and with proper re-education you will understand that.
K dude, I don't think you're trying to sound mean or start edition wars, but I've noticed that a lot of your posts lately have been sounding more and more hostile-grognard-y-- critical of newer editions, insinuations that the original assumptions are the only/proper way to play, stuff like that.

[Zorku]

Geh, I don't know what your DM is doing, but the battles my DM runs tend to go 6-7 rounds at a minimum. Even a group of Orcs lasted a little over 7 rounds since they used ambush tactics in the woods at night, blinded the wizard, and harassed us from hiding. Sure, the orcs in question were some special blessed orcs, but still. They were the most aggravating enemies we've face so far.

I'm just gonna recount the last fight of a LMoP adventure league thing I sat in on the other day.

Party is about as split as possible because... adventure league. 5 player party, 2 of them start an encounter with the boss of the place and his ogre bodyguard. Round 1: The more fragile player spends a turn darting back to scream for the rest of us to get over there. The fighter can't get out of the room, but manages to poke the ogre. The ogre hits his despite disadvantage. Round 2: The other three people start running back to the central location to figure out what's happened. With the runner's movement they're able to meet the closest person. The fighter does his best to stay alive, and the ogre misses. Round 3: Most of the party is getting close now, so they can shoot down the hallway (I wouldn't have given them line of sight but it was a weird dumb situation and the DM probably didn't want to kill everyone.) The fighter eats another hit, and the runner casts sleep down the hallway... because he doesn't usually play casters. Much of the party is asleep now. The boss has used a secret passage and casts magic missile on the wizard, dropping them. Round 4: The cleric picks up the wizard, and they didn't get a good look at what happened, so they rush forward, and the wizard isn't going to go go explore what knocked them out alone, so they rush forward and drop the ogre. I might have forgotten a round that was just more running in there somewhere, but it would mostly be a repeat of round 2 if I did. Had anybody else expressed interest in stopping the caster instead of just charging his hired muscle, this could have lasted a few more rounds.

So 4 rounds to kill a thing that had an ok chance of killing the fighter, despite several very cringey decisions that made things drag on much longer than intended. Paradoxically, the presumed 'perfect' outcome probably also takes about 4 rounds.

In this particular case I liked the design of the dungeon, and like the non-combat encounters, but where this is the kind of combat encounter that WotC put in the earliest available adventure material (except that one ice themed thing that was cross platform...) there are probably a lot of DMs out there formulating their homebrew campaigns to play exactly like this.

For contrast, the first combat I ever ran in 5e took about 10 rounds to stab everything to death, with the help of a fair number of NPCs, and the primary targets actually beating themselves up at the same time, and it went on for way too long. It was out of a nice one shot I found called Mind Blast. The first combat where I went too far was from another one shot I found during the same internet dive for material, and if was put together with monsters that matched a theme, but before the MM came out, so I threw a 3x deadly encounter at a level 2 group, thanks to bad preparation on my part. 2 rounds for wave 1, 1 round of pursuit, then about 4 rounds of wave 2 before the dice landed on something other than continuing into a TPK.

I like to think that I have a better idea of what I'm doing now, but the first people that are going to teach you how a combat encounter is supposed to go aren't really teaching you how to do something good for 10 rounds, and I had to read a ton of blog articles before I could start to put together encounters that are anything like that. I would bet that a background in tactical minis games goes a long way there, but I don't have that background, and I don't know that I could say the primary audience has that background either.

[MrStabby]

The problem with poorly designed long encounters isn't their length - it is their lack of progression.

Boring is what happens when things don't change. Fighting your way through a dungeon section with a single rolling encounter, with chases, changes in terrain, skill checks on the move, enemies using new tactics as circumstances change and so on can be fun - even if it is 10 or more rounds.

Likewise it depends on the party. If you are at a table with a "Best character is biggest damage character" mentality then fights will be more swingy and will be shorter. If you have more characters that go sword and board over great weapons or have casters who like to cast wall spells or other battlefield control then it will obviously take longer.

Even having said all this I think most encounters tend towards about 3 rounds - and going up slightly with level. To change this you really need to work out how you are going to extend encounters.

Personally I think about 5 rounds is good. Fewer than 5 rounds and the most important roll you make is initiative, something that generally doesn't represent either a character choice or a tactical choice. Longer than that requires a lot more work to keep things fresh.

[Willie the Duck]

K dude, I don't think you're trying to sound mean or start edition wars, but I've noticed that a lot of your posts lately have been sounding more and more hostile-grognard-y-- critical of newer editions, insinuations that the original assumptions are the only/proper way to play, stuff like that.


Trying? Trying?!!!
Dagnabbit, I thought I was succeeding!


:sigh:

(I must now muse on my faliure)

:redface:
Ouch! Ouch! Ouch! The pain!

So, yes Grod, 2D8 has been rolling snake eyes on his humor rolls and left us scratching our heads. Best just to assume he's not actively trying to be malevolent.

[Coffee_Dragon]

Anyone who expects all deadpan humour to be served up in blue text can survive being thrown for the occasional loop, is my green opinion.

[Zorku]

The problem with poorly designed long encounters isn't their length - it is their lack of progression.

Boring is what happens when things don't change. Fighting your way through a dungeon section with a single rolling encounter, with chases, changes in terrain, skill checks on the move, enemies using new tactics as circumstances change and so on can be fun - even if it is 10 or more rounds.

Likewise it depends on the party. If you are at a table with a "Best character is biggest damage character" mentality then fights will be more swingy and will be shorter. If you have more characters that go sword and board over great weapons or have casters who like to cast wall spells or other battlefield control then it will obviously take longer.

Even having said all this I think most encounters tend towards about 3 rounds - and going up slightly with level. To change this you really need to work out how you are going to extend encounters.

Personally I think about 5 rounds is good. Fewer than 5 rounds and the most important roll you make is initiative, something that generally doesn't represent either a character choice or a tactical choice. Longer than that requires a lot more work to keep things fresh.

Got any particular methods you use to dial combat in to about 5 rounds? I've seen a lot of encounters that hit that beat just from being in a wide open space that requires closing in on ranged attackers, not nearly as many that manage to pull that off using difficult terrain and structures, and almost too few to count that do so via creature tactics.

[MrStabby]

Got any particular methods you use to dial combat in to about 5 rounds? I've seen a lot of encounters that hit that beat just from being in a wide open space that requires closing in on ranged attackers, not nearly as many that manage to pull that off using difficult terrain and structures, and almost too few to count that do so via creature tactics.

Traps and tripwires, cover, reinforcements triggered by an alarm shouting (or emerging as part of an ambush), illusions.

Difficult terrain can help, as can enemies using spells to limit movement: walls, ensnaring strike, entangle. If the PCs are assaulting goblins on top of a ridge and scrambling up a scree slope it can take time, or force them to engage from a less ideal range.

Reequip enemies with shields where you want to slow combat a little.

Put combat underwater or where people can be dragged in - resistance to fire damage and disadvantage on many attacks slows combat a lot.

Hit and run tactics - difficult as you need the right terrain for them to work whilst not being overpowered.

More diverse enemies are often a little slower to kill. Different enemies acting at different ranges makes it that bit harder for all to be caught in one area of effect spell, for all of them to be weak to the same save and so on. Ensuring that one spell won't deplete half the HP of an encounter is kind of important. Spacing enemies out also means that mobility is important and PCs have to move between kills. Each dash action is an attack action not made.


Possibly the most important tip is to balance your adventuring day. If the PCs are not stretched to conserve resources in any way they can blow more on them on fewer encounters which will speed things up a lot. The threat of bigger challenges round the corner means that not every fight can be initiated by a fireball from the highest available spell slot.

[Socratov]

Mwahahaha!

Ha!

:sigh:

Trying (and usually failing) at mostly four things:

1) Induce laughter.
2) Encourage folks to love 5e pretty much as it is, and enjoy that it's not 3.x
3) Get to play the game without my having to submit long "back-stories.
4) Learn some stuff.

snip
But, some of us actually liked 3.5 for different reasons then they like 5e for. The fact that 3.5 has been one of the most successful editions out there (and even had a fanbase dedicated enough to make a part of them forgo an entire edition) indicates that it has been somewhat good at what it was supposed to do.

As for attempts at humour, jokes are funny because of the timing, not because of how many times you have repeated it. There is a reason memes only last a couple of days in any specific form (or months as a series of memes): repetition is rarely funny. Having said that, you are hardly the first grognard to show up here (I'd say that in my humble opinion that Person_Man deserves that title). while at first it was funny to read the "Look at me being an old man finally getting into a new edition" as attempts at deadpan humour, but having repeating it time after time, and it might be perceived as an act of honesty. In such a case the "you are doing it wrong!!" is no longer cute and funny, but tiresome and antagonising.

Not that I'd like to be rude, but I thought you might appreciate the honesty and friendly pointers.

Anyone who expects all deadpan humour to be served up in blue text can survive being thrown for the occasional loop, is my green opinion.
I'd like to retort with a reference to the bandwidth of information carried in different formats of communication, be they written, spoken or interpreted.

[Willie the Duck]

Mwahahaha!

Ha!

:sigh:

Trying (and usually failing) at mostly four things:

1) Induce laughter.
2) Encourage folks to love 5e pretty much as it is, and enjoy that it's not 3.x
3) Get to play the game without my having to submit long "back-stories.
4) Learn some stuff.

:frown:

I'm learning that I need to blue text and unspoiler everything.

Oh well, here's stuff I found funny:
[snipped for space]



I'm just going to point out that there's very little there that's a joke. It's mostly just random... I don't know, stuff?



while at first it was funny to read the "Look at me being an old man finally getting into a new edition" as attempts at deadpan humour, but having repeating it time after time, and it might be perceived as an act of honesty. In such a case the "you are doing it wrong!!" is no longer cute and funny, but tiresome and antagonising.

Meh. I'm not antagonized. It's just a failure of being funny. It's weird, random out of place stuff clogging up the thread for no reason.

[Scowling Dragon]

Alright then...Since it is supposed to be that swingy....Any strategies except "have a Healer" for dealing with encounters?

Most of the party has some Ranged way of dealing fine damage, just how to prevent the enemies that do 1HKO from getting near us?

Frontline Fighters are as a result pretty much useless because they will be knocked out in one round.

Just wait until we get spells of holding?

[pwykersotz]

Alright then...Since it is supposed to be that swingy....Any strategies except "have a Healer" for dealing with encounters?

Most of the party has some Ranged way of dealing fine damage, just how to prevent the enemies that do 1HKO from getting near us?

Frontline Fighters are as a result pretty much useless because they will be knocked out in one round.

Just wait until we get spells of holding?

You've seen front-line combatants like Fighters, Barbarians, and Paladins killed in one hit? That's weird. 5e is swingy, but not THAT swingy. Are you talking about level 1? Because level 1 and maybe level 2 are the only truly dangerous levels. At level 4 I'm curious what monster is one-shotting these guys.

[mgshamster]

Alright then...Since it is supposed to be that swingy....Any strategies except "have a Healer" for dealing with encounters?

Most of the party has some Ranged way of dealing fine damage, just how to prevent the enemies that do 1HKO from getting near us?

Frontline Fighters are as a result pretty much useless because they will be knocked out in one round.

Just wait until we get spells of holding?

Start thinking in terms of Combat as War instead of Combat as Sport. Find ways to avoid encounters altogether, or when you have to go into an encounter ensure the odds are stacked heavily in your favor through in-game actions and roleplay. Don't sweat the mechanics too much and enjoy the game from the perspective of the character.

Also, your conclusion of front line fighters is hugely inaccurate; swingy-ness doesn't diminish melee combatants at all; it has a much greater effect on out-of-combat situations. Of course, those situations should only have rolls when the results are interesting or the outcome inconclusive.

As it says on 171 of the PHB, "The DM calls for an ability check when a character or
monster attempts an action (other than an attack) that has a chance of failure. When the outcome is uncertain, the dice determine the results."

You shouldn't be making a roll for every out-of-combat interaction you come across. Only when the outcome is uncertain (i.e. not an auto success or an auto fail) or when there's a chance of failure. If you're not doing this, then you're going to experience the swingy-ness much more significantly.

In combat, there are so many rolls that it balances out over time and you tend not to notice it.

I also noticed that you said you've only played levels 1-4 so far. Maybe that's the problem, as levels 1 and 2 are supposed to be very quick (no more than 1-2 session each), and most of the published campaigns start at level 3-5. Maybe you should be starting at level 3 and going from there. Or even level 5. You'll notice the survivability of the characters much more at those levels, and notice the swingy-ness less.

It is swingy, but that doesn't diminish from the game or reduce the effectiveness of any of the classes. Plus, the monsters are under the same effect.

[MrStabby]

Yeah, low levels are a bit swingy. Sometimes not making it swingy can make it too easy (it is easy if enemies don't focus down on a character to try and take them out of the action or whatever)

Having both PCs and enemies with defensive abilities can help - especially abilities that keep their enemies out of combat. Consider giving ensnaring strike or entangle to some enemies to keep certain party members from contributing to damage for a turn or so. Use cover, it can slow damage a little and put more emphasis on positioning.

As more abilities come online there are more responses to changing circumstances and more courses of action open than just dealing damage. Also, the consequences of being swingy are less - a party is clearly losing a fight they were expected to win due to some poor dice rolls: misty step, bonus action dash, sanctuary, fly, invisibility... If things do go south the party can usually have a chance to escape more routine fights at higher levels.

[Scowling Dragon]

I should have said "In one turn" not "In one hit."

Also I have just FLAT been playing at level 4, and just got to level 5 now.

[Socratov]

Well, at lvl 1 the druid gets entangle (which is nice), and the wizard/sorc/bard get Tasha's Hideous Laughter.

Those spells can be instrumental in making sure you get the advantage in a battle. Other great options are grappeling and so on.

As for frontline defence, a lvl 1 with 18 AC is easily achieved and makes for a great wall between the squishies and the enemies.

Finally, ask your DM wether he runs encounters with varying difficulties (as in, not only deadly encounters) and wether he runs combat as sport (each encounter is beatable as if were a sporting match) or combat as war (you should pick the battles you can win and if you pick wrong you die).

[MaxWilson]

Alright then...Since it is supposed to be that swingy....Any strategies except "have a Healer" for dealing with encounters?

Most of the party has some Ranged way of dealing fine damage, just how to prevent the enemies that do 1HKO from getting near us?

Frontline Fighters are as a result pretty much useless because they will be knocked out in one round.

Just wait until we get spells of holding?

Since you've got a ranged-heavy party (good configuration BTW), here's my advice:

(1) If you can fire at the enemy and then move back behind cover or just move 30' away from it to eke out the time until the enemy hits your front lines, do so.

(2) In close terrain, find chokepoints and put the frontline fighters in it. Frontline fighters should Dodge when outnumbered to eke out their HP, while everybody pours missile fire onto the enemy to kill it.

(3) Prepare fallback positions with partial cover (using cantrips like Mold Earth, or just with shovels) and clear lines of sight and retreat to those positions when pressed.

(4) Use caltrops and ball bearings (http://5esrd.com/equipment/adventuring-gear/) to slow down enemies and buy more time to pour missile fire onto them. Goes well with prepared positions.

(5) Keep a good separation between party members so that if e.g. a Wraith surprises one PC at close range, you don't all have to panic at being within melee range of it. Instead, the ones closest to it can Dodge or Disengage/retreat while others keep their cool and pour missile fire onto it. It's much better to have one guy retreating and three guys shooting than to have four guys retreating.

(6) Hope your DM isn't a jerk who likes to make lots of enemies suddenly appear out of hidden compartments in the walls and cut PCs off from each other with clanging wall traps just because PCs are 100' away from each other, whereas if you were 20' away from each other no such hidden wall traps would exist. Some DMs feel that it is their duty to punish players for violating stereotypes ("don't split the party") even when those stereotypes don't make sense in the 5E ruleset. Those DMs are bad DMs and should be re-educated or not played with.

(7) If you can, make good use of the Mounted Combat rules. For a small-sized PC like a halfling or a goblin, even a Mastiff is an amazing mount, since it basically doubles your movement (your mount can Dash or Disengage on your turn without burning your own action).

(8) Maybe this goes without saying, but pay attention to your distance. If you can help it, you never want to end your turn within (Dash + reach) distance of any enemy. If there's a bad guy with 30' move and 5' reach, if you end every turn at least 70' away from him, you're safe.

[Tanarii]

(6) Hope your DM isn't a jerk who likes to make lots of enemies suddenly appear out of hidden compartments in the walls and cut PCs off from each other with clanging wall traps just because PCs are 100' away from each other, whereas if you were 20' away from each other no such hidden wall traps would exist. Some DMs feel that it is their duty to punish players for violating stereotypes ("don't split the party") even when those stereotypes don't make sense in the 5E ruleset. Those DMs are bad DMs and should be re-educated or not played with.
I like to be a good DM, and have intelligent prepared enemies use such tactics to counter dumb players that use them unthinkingly without being prepared for countermeasures against them. Because intelligent prepared enemies should be prepared for a variety of common plans executed by adventurers, even more so when they've scouted out / encountered the players, and are aware of their common tactics.

Provided they are intelligent and prepared enemies, of course.

Edit: IMX it's far more common for "split the party" to get the party in trouble because *they* do something dumb that gets one part of the party into hot water.

Edit2: Generally speaking, I complete agree with the players having a scout out front from the noisy clanky party with the expectation that I won't repeatedly hose the scout *too* often. But if an enemy knows the party likes to put tanks out front and squishies waaaaaaay back with no rear guard, said squishies are likely to get a shock. Or if they're invading a dungeon / adventuring site, since 'flank the invaders' is a pretty common defensive tactic in that case.

[mgshamster]

Edit: IMX it's far more common for "split the party" to get the party in trouble because *they* do something dumb that gets one part of her party into hot water.

In a magical mega dungeon I'm playing in, my fellow party members keep splitting themselves off by exploring rooms and getting trapped. For example, while two party members were trapped in a room to the left, the rest of us were caught in a fight. When the fight ended, a different party member decided to go to the room to the right, and a second followed to rescue him, which got them both trapped. And another decided to move to the room to the left to try and help the two trapped there.

Meanwhile, I'm yelling at every to stop splitting off.

I'm surprised none of them have been killed yet.