Where does your experience diverge from conventional wisdom?

[dreast]

I took the temple of Amaunator from Baldur's Gate 2 (the one in the woods, not the one in the sewers) and converted it to 5e to give my players a fun level 6 experience in my Storm King's Thunder campaign. The conversion was a lot of fun, full of shadows, "shade wolves" (shadow mastiffs), shadow fiends (which 5e calls shadow demons), my own 5e conversion of the AD&D 2e skeleton warrior (turned out to be CR 4 with magic resistance and 3 attack multiattack with their greatsword) and a bone golem (CR 5) I found online (first stat block that comes up when you google "bone golem 5e"). I used the Unearthed Arcana encounter building tables to get the encounters right, and it will culminate next session with a fight with a young black shadow dragon (CR 11 with the conversion to legendary, but with some environmental help and, if it turns out still too tough, Harshnag, since it's about time for him anyway). However, something came up that I didn't expect... Strength scores turned out to matter a LOT.

The halfling with Str as their dump stat was terrified of the shadows, who could potentially kill him in two hits (which is especially important because he's a melee attacker), and the shadow mastiffs required strength saves to defend against their bite's trip effect. Given that those are the two most common monsters in the dungeon, the dex-monkeys (which were most of them) were sweating by the time they were halfway through. It seems to me that a shadow-themed dungeon like this one could really punish the optimizers who treat Strength as a sub-par ability score... and that wasn't even my intent!

Anyone have a similar experience with conventional wisdom being turned on its head in their games?

[Marcloure]

That kind of thing happens. And I'm not sure you should concern a lot about it. I mean, it's obvious a Strength draining Shadow is going to kill the rogue faster than the barbarian, but on the other way, the inverse happens with Dex. save spells.
Well, you could potentially try to diverse the dungeon and put some illusion spell casters and Dex. traps. But having a creature that lowers the target's Strength score, and other that has Str. save effects, is a great enemy party sinergy. And that is important to have, the foes must be as able to combo together as are the PCs.

In the end, having "this dungeon favors Dex., because is full of fire", and other like "this dungeon will drain down your Str., because is all shadows and hounds" is fine. But still, I suggest at least putting some traps and other little things that targets other scores and checks. It doesn't need to be anything too common or relevant, just so to not exhaust your table of so much "make a Strength save. Make a Strength save. Make a Strength check. Make a Strength save."

[solidork]

We've been playing with substantial character level differences in the party for around 6 months now and it hasn't really caused any problems. The core party that played through Princes of the Apocalypse (to level 11) split up at the end to go do different things, and we are playing though those arcs separately with different, lower level characters as a supporting cast.

Obviously getting docked levels as a 'punishment' for dying or re-rolling would suck, but it just didn't make any sense for my War Cleric to return to his nomadic tribe and for there to be anyone as powerful as he has become. That arc ended at level 13, and we were having problems really grasping the implications of the fact that he can cast Scrying three times a day every day unless otherwise pressed.

[KorvinStarmast]

The assertion that healing and dedicated healers aren't needed in 5e is utterly not what our groups have experienced. I am not sure who arrived at that CW but we have not found it to be the case.

[Potato_Priest]

Your rogues and dex characters may be more vulnerable to death from strength draining attacks, but they also don’t suffer a loss in their offensive power and speed in the same way that a str character in heavy armor would.

It’s a trade-off.

[dreast]

Your rogues and dex characters may be more vulnerable to death from strength draining attacks, but they also don’t suffer a loss in their offensive power and speed in the same way that a str character in heavy armor would.

It’s a trade-off.

Sort of, but it's only a short rest to clear it, and the difference between a possible death in two hits, and a possible death in five hits, is a pretty significant difference in the "team vs. horde of shadows" matchup.

[ImproperJustice]

We have found the Alchemist to be a useful and reliable 5th man character.

That Champions and Sorcerors work just fine.

That a party of all martials can do quite well at dungeon delving.

[Pex]

My games go against the conventional wisdom of the Forum. More so with regards to 3E/Pathfinder but in 5E as well.

Spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it's needed.

Monsters sometimes make their saving throw such that the most perfect spell fails, and the spellcaster does not Win The Combat.

Fighters make their Will saving throws. (3E/Pathfinder)

When a warrior is unable to use a feat in a particular combat the player does something else and not resent it. The warrior contributes meaningfully.

When a player's fire damage attack won't work because the monster is resistant or immune the player will simply do something else and not resent it. He can and will use his fire damage attack many times elsewhen.

In 5E, not every player takes the feats Lucky, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, and/or Great Weapon Master. It's not never but not always. When such feats are taken no other player or DM complain about its use.

[MxKit]

When a warrior is unable to use a feat in a particular combat the player does something else and not resent it. The warrior contributes meaningfully.

When a player's fire damage attack won't work because the monster is resistant or immune the player will simply do something else and not resent it. He can and will use his fire damage attack many times elsewhen.

In 5E, not every player takes the feats Lucky, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, and/or Great Weapon Master. It's not never but not always. When such feats are taken no other player or DM complain about its use.

Haha, this has been my experience as well. Also:

Multiclassing hasn't seemed necessary for most of the people I've played with, and most of the ones who have have done so for thematic rather than optimization purposes.

On the other hand, those who have multiclassed, even into suboptimal multiclasses or at suboptimal times, haven't gotten frustrated comparing their characters to non-multiclassed characters.

None of the classes, subclasses, or fighting styles seem to actually perform noticeably worse than one another at the table (noticeable here meaning that across various battles, none of them are really identifiable as being tons more effective, or a whole lot less effective), even if there are apparent significant differences when looked at in white room situations.

It's perfectly possible to run combat-light games in 5e, even if it takes a little finagling on the DM's part.

So long as the DM isn't trying to be The Main Character or trying to railroad the party, DMPCs aren't actually a big deal, and can actually be nice to have if everyone playing including the DM is part of a group of friends. (IE, if they can separate their role as the DM from their role as another PC fairly well, it can be nice to have everyone at the table being able to be part of the party.)

Getting stats to 20 really isn't a big deal, and not having any negative modifiers can be quite nice. The people I've played with who've prioritized not having anything lower than a 10 haven't seem dissatisfied with their choices compared to those who've prioritized getting their main stat to 20 ASAP, and certainly haven't performed worse. It seems to shake out about even. At this point I'm tempted to make a small guide on the different classes and what races best suit that sort of build, making sure the 8 from standard array gets the +2 racial bonus, just as an alternative.

[JBPuffin]

Spellcasters aren't the be-all end-all.

As much as I fuss about the full-casters with half-"BAB" (medium armor, some if not all martial weapons, d8 hit die, clearly melee-focused subclasses - bard, cleric, druid, looking at y'all), they're not innately better than any of the other classes.

Monks and PHB Rangers are perfectly functional.

One-third casters are the preferred breed of "half-caster"; very little warlock, paladin, or ranger.

Healing can be avoided, but only if one actually uses short rests. Fortifying a campsite for fifteen minutes to an hour is achievable and occasionally necessary, but having a healer extends the adventuring day substantially.

Combat is long enough to be engaging, short enough that multiple fights can be finished in a single day (if they're not all set piece encounters).

Initiative is less "gotta win the rocket tag" and more "dear God, let me do my thing already".

Readying actions is a useful mechanic.

Concentration is never an issue. (Seriously, I've seen maybe three called for and only one failed at)

[Vingelot]

Concentration is never an issue. (Seriously, I've seen maybe three called for and only one failed at)

I agree that maintaining concentration isn't an issue, but of course it "prevents" you from casting other spells. A difference in focus from conventional wisdom maybe?

[dreast]

Haha, this has been my experience as well. Also:

Multiclassing hasn't seemed necessary for most of the people I've played with, and most of the ones who have have done so for thematic rather than optimization purposes.


This surprised me at my table too. Around ten people (at two games) and only one multiclasser... a brand new player who probably would have done fine just going straight arcane trickster, but who picked up a few levels of sorcerer because she liked the flavor of it.

[Aaron Underhand]

This surprised me at my table too. Around ten people (at two games) and only one multiclasser... a brand new player who probably would have done fine just going straight arcane trickster, but who picked up a few levels of sorcerer because she liked the flavor of it.

current party just made 6th:

Bard5/Wiz1 (wiz taken at 2nd level)
Ranger5/Rogue1 (rogue taken at 6th)
Druid 5/Monk 1 (monk taken at 3rd)
Barb 5 / Fighter 1 (fighter taken at 6th)
Rogue 6 muttering about some Bard levels
Cleric 6

Not sure if that's conventional wisdom or not...

[MxKit]

Not sure if that's conventional wisdom or not...

Mostly I made mention of both "multiclassing hasn't really been done much, and definitely not for optimization reasons, at the tables I've been at" and "the people who have multiclassed haven't regretted their choice" because most of the advice I've seen has been extremely polarized one way or the other, while in actual practice it doesn't seem to matter near as much. I'm definitely not surprised there are tables out there with more multiclassing! I was just surprised that it didn't seem to be too big a deal at any of the tables I've been at.

[Arial Black]

Conventional wisdom: casters rule and martials drool!

My experience: over nearly 40 years playing every D&D edition since 1e, the warriors do just fine thanks!

I usually play warriors, usually multiclass, and never have I thought that my PC wasn't contributing enough. Usually I think my PC is much better than everyone else's and feel a bit sorry for them and try to help them make better characters both in fluff and crunch, although I am aware that there might be some unconscious bias working here.

If I wasn't there taking out loads of bad guys then the others would not be able to kill them anywhere near as quick, and use more resources and take more casualties as a result. Sure, without them my job would also be harder. This doesn't mean that they are better than me, it means that the team is working as it should.

I once had a player tell the new guy (who was playing the cleric) not to heal my PC on the grounds that I was just going for all the glory. What did he mean by that? Well, I always wanted to get up close and personal with the hardest enemy, feeding my ego.

No! I was going after the hardest enemy because that is my job! As the main melee guy, my job is to deal out damage and take more damage so the rest of you don't have to. If I chose to instead stay at the back then the hardest bad guys would engage our wizards etc. Are you feeling the glory now?

I'm relatively new to the internet in general and gaming forums in particular, so when I read that wizards just make fighters pointless it was news to me! Thirty-odd years of ruling the battlefields and now I find out that I was useless the whole time?

At low level the wizard (in 1e) was a walking single-use sleep spell and after it was cast then he just tagged along trying to stay out of trouble until he levelled up. This kept being true for several levels.

At high levels wizards get much better, but the melee guys never become useless. They remain the biggest source of damage-dealing, and while conditions and de-buffs and other stuff is all very effective, the bad guys still need killing. My sword never runs out of charges! And the wizards are still glad that I am taking all the nastiness that, if I weren't there, would fall on them and they are less able to withstand it. Right now I'm still playing a 3.5 campaign that started about 17 years ago. We are now around the 20th level mark. My warrior-type does around 100-150 damage every single round, and never runs out of charges. Meanwhile the casters don't do that much damage with their spells, and they soon run out of slots (we have huge combats).

Don't get me wrong; I've got nothing against casters at all. But when I first read that casters make martial pointless I was surprised and astonished.

'Conventional wisdom' indeed!

[tomato]

My experience as both DM and player: A DM that follows the encounter design rules/suggestions in the PHB will always result in absurdly, mind-numbingly easy encounters with very low risk. Players playing even remotely optimally will run roughshod over anything less than double the CR-value of a deadly encounter as per those rules. The only risk in the game at all is to first level, or maybe second level characters dying due to an unlucky critical hit. In my experience, TPKs do not happen in 5th edition outside of a DM specifically orchestrating one, and must do so by ignoring one of the following:


Described monster behavior in the MM/Volo's
Monster stats and values listed in the MM/Volo's
CR encounter budget as listed in the MM/Volo's

If they use the rules as designed, a group of normal, healthy adults playing their characters in the most mundane way possible ("I walk up and hit it with my greatsword", "I stay back and shoot it with my bow", "I cast magic missile at it.") will not be challenged even remotely.

The DM *must* break one of the above three rulesets to be able to challenge the party in 5th edition.

[2D8HP]

I prefer low-levels.

I like playing the Champion

Not having pages of DC's seems like a good idea to me.

What is meant by specific Alignments seems both clear and unimportant.

The Wish-Similcarum chain wouldn't even occur to me, and I don't much care about it.

All classes seem powerful at high levels not just casters.

The amount of content available for 5e seems fine.

[Scripten]

Quoting a few people who've had similar experiences to mine:


Multiclassing hasn't seemed necessary for most of the people I've played with, and most of the ones who have have done so for thematic rather than optimization purposes.

None of the classes, subclasses, or fighting styles seem to actually perform noticeably worse than one another at the table.

So long as the DM isn't trying to be The Main Character or trying to railroad the party, DMPCs aren't actually a big deal.

Monks and PHB Rangers are perfectly functional.

Combat is long enough to be engaging, short enough that multiple fights can be finished in a single day (if they're not all set piece encounters).

Readying actions is a useful mechanic.


I prefer low-levels.

Not having pages of DC's seems like a good idea to me.

What is meant by specific Alignments seems both clear and unimportant.

The Wish-Similcarum chain wouldn't even occur to me, and I don't much care about it.

All classes seem powerful at high levels not just casters.

The amount of content available for 5e seems fine.

I've also found the following to be the case at my tables:

Players really love fumbles, both for themselves and enemies. It usually ends up causing the players more trouble than their enemies.

Stable damage-dealing classes (Monk, Ranger, Rogue) are perceived as stronger, even though the casters shut down combat more.

The players are far more concerned with metagaming than I ever am.

[Theodoxus]

Mostly I made mention of both "multiclassing hasn't really been done much, and definitely not for optimization reasons, at the tables I've been at" and "the people who have multiclassed haven't regretted their choice" because most of the advice I've seen has been extremely polarized one way or the other, while in actual practice it doesn't seem to matter near as much. I'm definitely not surprised there are tables out there with more multiclassing! I was just surprised that it didn't seem to be too big a deal at any of the tables I've been at.

As long as you're going into a MC (especially as a full caster) knowing full well you're behind others at the table who aren't - it's fine. But every time I've MC'd (usually a cleric into something else, Bard or Warlock most often) I always get a twinge of sadness that I don't have access to Spirit Guardians - yet. Or, with warlock, that I have 2 Long Rest spells and 2 Short Rest spells, and if I just took the time to level cleric to 3, I'd triple the number of spells... but then I wouldn't have my 3rd or 5th level warlock slots until much later...

I mean, it's never enough where I've gnashed my teeth and wailed to the gods about how unfair it is - at least out loud :smallwink:

But I did adopt Zman's multi-classing feats for my games... it really alleviates the angst over multi-classing...

[Wryte]

So long as the DM isn't trying to be The Main Character or trying to railroad the party, DMPCs aren't actually a big deal, and can actually be nice to have if everyone playing including the DM is part of a group of friends. (IE, if they can separate their role as the DM from their role as another PC fairly well, it can be nice to have everyone at the table being able to be part of the party.)

I introduced a halfling rogue NPC early in my party's campaign, who ended up basically having to save them from their own ineptness and carry the team on her back in an early encounter they botched up. They still refer back to her as "that badass hobbit chick" and tried really hard to get her to join the party at the time. XD

[MxKit]

As long as you're going into a MC (especially as a full caster) knowing full well you're behind others at the table who aren't - it's fine. But every time I've MC'd (usually a cleric into something else, Bard or Warlock most often) I always get a twinge of sadness that I don't have access to Spirit Guardians - yet. Or, with warlock, that I have 2 Long Rest spells and 2 Short Rest spells, and if I just took the time to level cleric to 3, I'd triple the number of spells... but then I wouldn't have my 3rd or 5th level warlock slots until much later...

Yeah, I think I've just played with a lot of people who feel more like me about it! I go in knowing I'm going to be delaying certain things I'd like to get to, or even not getting certain other things I've decided I don't want as much as what my multiclass offers, so any regret is on about the same level to me as "because I'm playing a Goblin Warlock I'm not playing my Tabaxi Warlock idea I liked almost as much, aw" or "because I went with X subclass for its features I'm not getting some of the awesome features from Y subclass." I also end up feeling less behind others in the table when it comes to overall ability and more different—I might not have third level spell slots yet, or an extra attack, but I have something else that I really wanted and am happy to use, so it feels like it evens out. Personally speaking, of course, but that seems to be the attitude the people I've played with approach it with as well!

The feat thing does sounds awesome, though. :o Could I get a link to that?

[Arial Black]

Players really love fumbles, both for themselves and enemies.

In my experience players HATE, HATE, HATE fumbles with a burning...hatred! It's DMs who love them, because they think it's funny when a beloved PC's head falls off at an awkward moment!


It usually ends up causing the players more trouble than their enemies.

Testify!

[Vintrastorm]

I took the temple of Amaunator from Baldur's Gate 2 (the one in the woods, not the one in the sewers) and converted it to 5e

Actually, @dreast I'm more interested in this! Do you have any notes to share? How did you do with the maps? Use the ones from BG? Did you skip maps and just went to Theatre of the Mind and described it? How did the puzzles work? Did you just throw it in as a dungon or did you do the story from BG in advance? Also, did they meet Mazzy? ;)

[Ronnocius]

Quoting a few people who've had similar experiences to mine:





I've also found the following to be the case at my tables:

Players really love fumbles, both for themselves and enemies. It usually ends up causing the players more trouble than their enemies.

Stable damage-dealing classes (Monk, Ranger, Rogue) are perceived as stronger, even though the casters shut down combat more.

The players are far more concerned with metagaming than I ever am.

I especially agree with the fumbles and the metagaming. My players usually find it pretty funny when a fumble happens, but I usually keep it minor (drop your weapon on accident, damage ally for half damage, damage self for 1d4 damage, etc) The metagaming thing also seems to be more of a concern of the players rather than me.

[Honest Tiefling]

The backstory elements of 5e seem like they'd be great for some people...But my players are either 1) experienced roleplayers or 2) write in their spare time. I have just never tried to use the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Whatever bits of the books and it's worked out just fine.

[DarkKnightJin]

The backstory elements of 5e seem like they'd be great for some people...But my players are either 1) experienced roleplayers or 2) write in their spare time. I have just never tried to use the Bonds/Ideals/Flaws/Whatever bits of the books and it's worked out just fine.

My Dragonborn Death Cleric started out with some from the Soldier stuff, because that's how I thought he'd be.
Wound up scrapping like 3/4's of it and putting in what he'd actually turned out like: the team Dad.
Gentle giant, tries to help where he can, and offers prayers to his god for those for whom help came too late.

It helps that the god of death isn't evil, and more of a psychopomp that takes the souls of the deceased, cleanses them, and reintegrates them into the world as fresh. I kinda play him as a war priest, and it's working for me.

I guess my experience would be that.. Since my Cleric has a Str of 16 and a Wis of 13(rolled stats), I thought I'd be attacking physically for the most part. But the last battle we were in, I only had my Shield on hand, and did the rest with magic.
Even managed to get both killing blows, somehow..

[Darth Ultron]

My games go against the conventional wisdom of the Forum.

Yup, mine too.

[Mortis_Elrod]

Lets see...

Hex isn't anything noticeable

spellcasters aren't more important than anyone else, sometimes less

social abilties matter more than combat abilties

multiclassing isn't nearly as common or powerful as single classed characters in most situations.

soul knife is fun as is even at low levels. performs just as well as any other martial.

mystic isn't broken (maybe not conventional but at least contested)

flying at level 1 doesn't do much.

RAW doesn't matter, what matters is keeping things reasonable for the story.

twf is fine if viewed as a back up or opening when combined with throwing weapons (aka handaxes are great)

just PHB is both fun and enough.

[dreast]

Actually, @dreast I'm more interested in this! Do you have any notes to share?

I have my notes for the adventure written up in a .doc, but I'm not sure the best way to share them in a forum like this (any suggestions?). Honestly, once you do the monster conversions, it's fairly straightforward.

a) Ideally, the shadow dragon would be a full adult shadow dragon (I used black as the base) and wouldn't be attacked when the players found it (thanks to the wardstone), but be something to return to at 12th level or so (I have him guarding a Plot Item in my game, one of the ancient Nether scrolls that will be used to revive Amaunator, the war between his church and Lythander's being the driving plot of the campaign). This leaves the Shadow Lord as a good legendary encounter, since he can easily be a simple high-Netherese shadow-based legendary mage-type monster with a Lair effect that lets him drain a few max hp (that being the modern equivalent to level draining) every round on a failed save, and designing interesting legendary encounters like this is a ton of fun.

But I chickened out. Hard. (Actually, I could still do this, since they don't fight the dragon until today, but read ahead.) I'm absolutely convinced that at least one of the players is gonna yell "charge" as soon as they see the sleeping dragon, and a full adult would wipe them. So I skipped the shadow lord and just went ahead and nerfed the dragon to make him the end boss of the dungeon. (Every instinct I have is telling me to go back to the BG2 format as being the better design, but BG2 had save games and D&D notably doesn't, so "optional bosses" will only make sense if you can expect the players to be experienced enough to know when they're outmatched.) Although... I could have him retreat to the Shadowfell with the scroll and make them chase him there once they're decently leveled enough, and go ahead and design the shadow lord... hmmm...

b) The shadow jailer became the shadow-ghoul Torgo (a basic ghoul with necrotic resistance because why not, even though none of my players deal necrotic damage). I made him a direct tribute to the infamous Torgo of Manos: Hands of Fate. He spawned two shadows (from the west and south hallways) every round, and was designed to be a very easy and flavorful encounter. (And yes, He TaLkeD LIkE tHiS.) The players had fun.

c) I did an Unearthed-Arcana style conversion of Skeleton Warriors from the AD&D 2e stat block (why are they wearing their circlets in the art if they disintegrate as soon as they touch them?) and nabbed someone else's home-brew Bone Golem from here. (https://www.dandwiki.com/wiki/Bone_Golem_(5e_Creature)) Note that the Hideous Laughter ability doesn't have an immunity clause, but it is a recharge ability. (That fight was FUN.) The Bone Golem pretended to be a pile of bones next to the Amuana's coffin (I made "Amuana" a title of a Amaunatorian prophetess), and the ghosts moaned and pointed at the coffin and wailed "The bones! Please!" a lot. The party had not, of course, thought to bring the child's bones with them from the first room, so it wasn't until they inspected the bier after the battle that they realized the coffin was child-sized. Surprise!

d) Since the temple was bleeding into the Shadowfell (along with the entire forest area), I ruled that no light source short of a 3rd level slot (i.e., daylight) or higher could produce bright light in the environs, except of course for those left behind by the temple's original Netherese creators. Still infused with the glimmer of the dead god's power, and all that. ("Because I said so.") This did mean that the shadow monsters all got the full use of their abilities, which made them a bit more fitting for a 6th level party, although it technically didn't change their CR... just made things a bit more challenging for the party.


How did you do with the maps? Use the ones from BG? Did you skip maps and just went to Theatre of the Mind and described it?

The game happens to be a Tabletop Simulator game (usable-but-janky fog-of-war but great everything else for D&D). I created the map on Dungeon Painter Studio, although I think straight GIMP has the same functionality for free; I just like using DPS's scaled back design and export functionality for this (I tend to use both programs a lot on my resources anyway). I'm a firm believer in using maps in D&D play; it grew out of a wargame, after all, and the combat mechanics deserve a chance to shine as intended (especially in this edition, where you can have more than one fight a session!). The temple has a simple design, so I just redrew it in top-down instead of isometric perspective using characters' circles as a 5-foot radius guess.


How did the puzzles work?

The spell-the-name-on-the-tiles puzzle is lifted verbatim from the game (complete with devastating flame strike on mistake). They figured it out, although the paladin always had trouble spelling his god's name, which gave some humor when he reached the third "a". The statue asked "supplicants" three questions about each of the three rites. I gave them the full morning rite in the shadow jailer's room (I gave him a desk), which gave them a greater healing potion as a reward. Then they got the evening ritual in the obelisk room (next to the lava room) and the noon ritual in the room before the tile puzzle. The rituals were fragmented (from heat damage and shade wolf saliva, respectively), and unlabeled, so they had to figure out that the evening ritual wasn't the next one in the sequence from the clues in what was being done. The statue was also picky about phrasing; he always asked "what shall you do" so the answers had to be "I shall...", even though the scrolls were written as orders ("You shall..."). ("That is not my role!" BLAM!) The evening ritual scroll read more like a rant from a doomsday tract. It was fun, with a 3d8 sacred flame on a failed Dex save as a reprimand. Their rewards were a fragment of the symbol of Amaunator and a sun gem (which when used on the BG-undownable wall would reveal a crushed skeleton with a glowing, Amaunator-symboled ring of necrotic resistance on his outstretched hand).

Incidentally, I gave them a +1 sling (with "Arla" stitched onto it) and a full-on pearly white ioun stone from the fiery urns (a legendary (?!?!) magic item! Yay?). Even with massive paring down, that's still a ton of loot for this edition (and the shadow dragon will give them scales to get shadow armor forged, but only once they get Gauntlgrym their primordial back...) Oh, also goggles of night in the dragon hoard, and the Symbol of Amaunator (requires attunement) lets daylight be cast with a use of Channel Divinity from an attuned cleric or paladin. But that one barely counts, because it's so niche. Other than that, XP and gold!


Did you just throw it in as a dungon or did you do the story from BG in advance?

While I have dreams of converting the entire BG epic saga into 5e, my campaign ("The Sun Gods' War") is themed around a conflict between the almost-gone-but-slowly-returning church of Amaunator in the Sword Coast and the Cormyrian church of Lathander, who oppose Amaunator on religious ("The Two Suns Heresy") and political ("low Netherese = traitorous servants of High Netherese, our mortal enemies") grounds. I'm also running Storm King's Thunder at the same time (there's a lot of gaps in SKT that I can do whatever with). It was about time to find a crucial piece of the puzzle, so they got plot-hooked into clearing the dungeon before the slowly fading ring of light at the entrance retracted enough that the waiting wolves and shadows would devour the paladin's hometown townsfolk alive (and then them).


Also, did they meet Mazzy? ;)

Actually, the party was in dire need of a healer, so I gave them an innocent Cormyrian Lathandrian priestess (who still believes that Lythander and Amaunator are the same god, which used to be the "One Sun heresy", got turned into "4E Orthodoxy", and is now referred to by me as the "4E Heresy") to join the party in that spot (I let my players run more than one character as a psuedo-"follower" system when I think the party needs it). She has since gotten possessed by the ghost of the Amuana. She is now the new Amuana! The voice of the DM... er, Amaunator!

Seriously, of 4E's many crimes, the absolute destruction of the fun and intricate system of Faerunian deities may be the worst. I'm so glad Eilistraee is back! Even if I can never spell her name!

[Citan]

Hi all!

We have found the Alchemist to be a useful and reliable 5th man character.

That Champions and Sorcerors work just fine.

That a party of all martials can do quite well at dungeon delving.
Hey ;) I'm kinda interested by that last line, because I had the preconception that an all-martial party would hit walls at some points unless at least one of them had rituals.
Would you mind detailing a bit that experience? :)


My games go against the conventional wisdom of the Forum. More so with regards to 3E/Pathfinder but in 5E as well.

Spellcasters do not always have the most perfect spell needed at the moment it's needed.

Monsters sometimes make their saving throw such that the most perfect spell fails, and the spellcaster does not Win The Combat.

Fighters make their Will saving throws. (3E/Pathfinder)

When a warrior is unable to use a feat in a particular combat the player does something else and not resent it. The warrior contributes meaningfully.

When a player's fire damage attack won't work because the monster is resistant or immune the player will simply do something else and not resent it. He can and will use his fire damage attack many times elsewhen.

In 5E, not every player takes the feats Lucky, Polearm Master, Sharpshooter, and/or Great Weapon Master. It's not never but not always. When such feats are taken no other player or DM complain about its use.
Thanks for this very refreshing feedback. So many people here always talk about spells as if obviously you had the right one prepared and obviously the enemy would fail at the very least the first save... XD

To OP:
My two differences with the hive-mind feedback on campaign running is...
1. All stats are used more or less equally. But that is essentially because we play in a homebrew world and campaign, so I tend to always mix up ability checks and saves to keep things new, varied and entertaining. Still, you cannot avoid some predominance of STR/DEX checks (Shove/Grapple contests, restraining effects/traps), DEX saves (traps/AOE), CHA checks (social).

2. Encounters in my game last at the very least 4 rounds, quite usually around 8 to 10, a few times turning into a true attrition fight. Either because parties start fairly apart from each other, or because there are many environmental hazards making movement difficult, or because one or both sides try some cold war tactics, or because fights becomes so one-sided that it chances into a chase, etc...
Also simply because my players fudges many rolls, and (hopefully for them) I fudge even more. :smallbiggrin::smalltongue:

[Arial Black]

Although I've played D&D for nearly 40 years starting with AD&D 1e, I only got a computer a few years ago. I discovered the gaming forums, and some of their assumed 'Truths' surprised me greatly.

This 'DMPCs are horrendously bad 99% of the time' is one such thing. Sure, in my early days I saw a little of the 'bad DMPC' where the DMPC has abilities that far outclass the PCs, saves the day while complaining how useless the PCs are, hogs all the glory, only the DMPC's ideas are allowed to work, etc.

But the vast majority of my experience with them are that the DMPC is a party member made using the exact same rules as the other PCs! The DM is usually trying to round out the party when there aren't enough players, and as the players are rolling up their PCs the DM will make a PC that fills in the gaps. Said DMPC is not made to be the focus of the adventure, and usually plays a support-type role. The DMPC doesn't (usually) come up with the bright ideas (because then the DM would be essentially creating a puzzle then solving it himself while the players just spectate), but if the players are totally stuck then the DMPC can come up with an idea or two that can get them moving again.

When I was the only player for 2e's Dragon Mountain boxed set, I made three PCs and the DM made three DMPCs, and one of them was a guy we were escorting into Dragon Mountain to perform a ceremony.

Nearly all the campaigns my group has had (we started in the '90s with 2e and then we moved to 3e and 3.5e where we remained), the DM had a DMPC, created using exactly the same rules as the rest of the party. There are five of us, so a party of five with four PCs and one DMPC. Coming from 2e meant that we were used to the 'standard' size of the adventuring party being six, whereas now the ideal party size seems to be four.

This changed for our longest running campaign. We started at 4th level in 3e and switched PCs for that campaign at 9th level when we started using 3.5, because our old PCs didn't work with the new rules. In this campaign, instead of having a DMPC, the DM had the four players play two PCs each for an eight person party! It's a lot of work, but he does a lot of work! His reasoning is that your turns will come with the same frequency on average so the greater number doesn't mean a longer time between turns, it means that more bases are covered with class abilities, and if one of your PC's bites it or is incapacitated then you don't have to just twiddle your thumbs for the rest of the night.

It means we have huge fights. A lot of work. But good, challenging fun. He's happy to ignore CR guidelines in order to present us with an actual challenge.

So anyway, my experience of DMPCs has not been anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative as the forums seem to view as 'Truth'.

[Citan]

This 'DMPCs are horrendously bad 99% of the time' is one such thing. Sure, in my early days I saw a little of the 'bad DMPC' where the DMPC has abilities that far outclass the PCs, saves the day while complaining how useless the PCs are, hogs all the glory, only the DMPC's ideas are allowed to work, etc.

But the vast majority of my experience with them are that the DMPC is a party member made using the exact same rules as the other PCs! The DM is usually trying to round out the party when there aren't enough players, and as the players are rolling up their PCs the DM will make a PC that fills in the gaps. Said DMPC is not made to be the focus of the adventure, and usually plays a support-type role. The DMPC doesn't (usually) come up with the bright ideas (because then the DM would be essentially creating a puzzle then solving it himself while the players just spectate), but if the players are totally stuck then the DMPC can come up with an idea or two that can get them moving again.

So anyway, my experience of DMPCs has not been anywhere near as overwhelmingly negative as the forums seem to view as 'Truth'.
Seconding and thirding that, both as a player and as a DM. :)

[DarkKnightJin]

The DM in the homebrew campaign made some NPCs, with a Ranger becoming a sort of DMPC for the time being.
But they explicitly made that character less strong than our PCs are, so they wouldn't hog the spotlight.

Of course, the Wizard NPC that was fighting our last 'boss' managed to get a crit and hot Vulnerability for 56 damage in one round.
But, the DM 'justified' their move as being inspired by mine. Even if my Cleric whiffed their Guiding Bolt..

[Tanarii]

My personal experiences that appear to differ from the norm / conventional wisdom.

Players are quite happy to sign up for a no-feat & no-multiclassing game.

Players are quite happy playing a dungeon crawl (Tier 1) and wilderness crawl with adventure sites (Tier 2) game.

Players are okay with (but of course rarely happy about) with TPKs as long as they understand it's a result of their choices, and it's not necessarily the end of that campaign or even that character. For the latter, they know they potentially can recover the bodies with other characters or henchmen, if they can pull it off, and Raise Dead is available from NPCs if they can afford it.

New players 'get' the game a lot more slowly than an experienced player/DM with 30+ years of D&D experience would expect. With 5e's fast advancement, that can be an issue.

With a large group of PCs and Henchmen, in large or complicated battles, players really prefer some visual diagram or a battlemat so they know what's going on, as opposed to Theatre of the Mind. That's probably not really against conventional wisdom at all, but I was surprised when I queried a couple of groups of players about it and they said this. I thought they were doing fine with my descriptive only combat. Apparently it was too often confusing. :smallyuk: I've since changed from pure TotM, using it only simple & quick encounters like wandering monster attacks.motherwise I at least whiteboard something up, or sketch it out on the battle mat.