My DM insists on using max HP for monsters, and it's killed us several times.

[Kidd of Steel]

Does anyone else's DM/any DMs out there do this in their games. My DM is trying to make the players be more creative in there combat choices, but I keep dying when I do.:smallannoyed:

[Teaguethebean]

It sound like it's time to start power gaming the sh*t out of your characters to have a chance against maxed out monsters

[Theodoxus]

I do, but I also let the players have max hit points.

I got tired of players one shoting everything. I do fudge if the combat takes inordinately long though.

I don't kill my player's characters; now that they're in top tier 4, it's nearly impossible to do so. Knocking them below half is pretty difficult.

But even low level, you shouldn't actually be dying, unless you're specifically being murdering hobos with no regard for your own safety.

Was this a bit of facetious hyperbole?

[Derpaligtr]

Does anyone else's DM/any DMs out there do this in their games. My DM is trying to make the players be more creative in there combat choices, but I keep dying when I do.:smallannoyed:

Sounds like the DM isn't actually trying to make y'all more creative.

DMs need to challenge the characters, not the players.

I got a friend who plays a 8 Int character every time (in real life he's a PhD student) for the fun of it. The DM should not punish the character just because the DM knows the player is smarter.

Have a talk with your DM and tell them you aren't having fun by being punished in such a way.

Or... Well... Go into it knowing you're going to die and have some stupid fun. The armored strength based rogue is really hard to capture or kill. Depending on how you build it, you can give it moderately armored and MOBILE this way you can attack a creature and get a free disengage from it then DASH.

[DMThac0]

There's nothing wrong with doing this, I have used it on many occasions, and in most cases to great effect. The purpose behind it is where we have an issue, and it needs to be addressed properly.

My use of this is as a litmus test to see where my players are in terms of the expected challenge based on the party composition. 6 players skews numbers at times, so this is a great way for me to adjust difficulty without messing with core combat mechanics. Increasing a creatures HP to max will generally bump it to, or very close to, the next CR.

I feel that your DM's "be more creative or die" approach might be a bit off base. There are ways to challenge players without changing a monster's stats that can force them to approach combat differently. It may also be that there is a miscommunication somewhere and that all you'll need to do is discuss this with your party and DM.

Before it becomes "he'd a bad DM" thread I would also like to toss out an equally likely scenario: You may not understand your character completely. I've been playing a homebrew game for almost 2 years solid, my players are at level 6, and I have 2 players who still are learning that their characters can do things they've never thought of. I just got done explaining a tactic one of my players can use with their monk/lock that will make my life miserable as a DM. I'm constantly correcting one of the players because they keep forgetting their modifiers and bonuses, or what bonus actions are available to them.

This is a good time to sit down and talk to the whole table to see what may be going on and what can change to make your life less fragile during the game.

[Unoriginal]

Does anyone else's DM/any DMs out there do this in their games. My DM is trying to make the players be more creative in there combat choices, but I keep dying when I do.:smallannoyed:

What does your DM do for the monsters' damages?

[Kidd of Steel]

I do, but I also let the players have max hit points.

I got tired of players one shoting everything. I do fudge if the combat takes inordinately long though.

I don't kill my player's characters; now that they're in top tier 4, it's nearly impossible to do so. Knocking them below half is pretty difficult.

But even low level, you shouldn't actually be dying, unless you're specifically being murdering hobos with no regard for your own safety.

Was this a bit of facetious hyperbole?

I wish it was. At 6th level playing in Curse of Strahd, as a Paladin with a party of 4, I'd struggle not to go unconscious against the random encounters we'd find. I died at level 3, 4, 6, and my rerolled 6th level character. We don't get max HP, we roll or had the option of the fixed hp.

[Derpaligtr]

I wish it was. At 6th level playing in Curse of Strahd, as a Paladin with a party of 4, I'd struggle not to go unconscious against the random encounters we'd find. I died at level 3, 4, 6, and my rerolled 6th level character. We don't get max HP, we roll or had the option of the fixed hp.

Yeah, go strength based rogue and just run away from everything. Get the entire party in on this.

Monk/Rogue multiclass if you need to.

[Kidd of Steel]

What does your DM do for the monsters' damages?

Rolls damage.

[Burley]

When I DM 5e, I usually don't even really pay attention to HP. I write it down when the players deal it, sure. But, I found that my group, for some reason, loves when I imply that enemies have 1HP left. Whether the goblins go into a suicide rush, or the drow flee, the players love it.

It's a little disingenuous, sure. But, if I mentally assign a "monster" a number of [average damage hits they can take], it allows me use the Rule of Cool method in combat, and lets me end things when I notice my players getting tired or bored.

[Kidd of Steel]

There's nothing wrong with doing this, I have used it on many occasions, and in most cases to great effect. The purpose behind it is where we have an issue, and it needs to be addressed properly.

My use of this is as a litmus test to see where my players are in terms of the expected challenge based on the party composition. 6 players skews numbers at times, so this is a great way for me to adjust difficulty without messing with core combat mechanics. Increasing a creatures HP to max will generally bump it to, or very close to, the next CR.

I feel that your DM's "be more creative or die" approach might be a bit off base. There are ways to challenge players without changing a monster's stats that can force them to approach combat differently. It may also be that there is a miscommunication somewhere and that all you'll need to do is discuss this with your party and DM.

Before it becomes "he'd a bad DM" thread I would also like to toss out an equally likely scenario: You may not understand your character completely. I've been playing a homebrew game for almost 2 years solid, my players are at level 6, and I have 2 players who still are learning that their characters can do things they've never thought of. I just got done explaining a tactic one of my players can use with their monk/lock that will make my life miserable as a DM. I'm constantly correcting one of the players because they keep forgetting their modifiers and bonuses, or what bonus actions are available to them.

This is a good time to sit down and talk to the whole table to see what may be going on and what can change to make your life less fragile during the game.

Thanks for this, he's DMing another group of 5-8 players that is handling these encounters without dying. We're talking about trying a different adventure guide, but playing against a bunch of goblins that it's impossible to one shot is daunting.

[MaxWilson]

Does anyone else's DM/any DMs out there do this in their games. My DM is trying to make the players be more creative in there combat choices, but I keep dying when I do.:smallannoyed:

No, I don't do this. I think it skews the game in un-fun ways. When I want to use stronger monsters, I just use stronger monsters; I don't just double the durability of existing monsters while leaving their offense the same--that's weird. It bumps up monster CR by something like +2 to +4, except for very low-level monsters like goblins and orcs where it technically doesn't alter CR at all (despite making them much tougher).

From a player perspective it's pretty easy to deal with though. It's not that different from the DM choosing to use 50% more monsters. Just plan for more monsters being around longer. Use fewer novas, use more status conditions and at-will abilities (stunning, grappling/proning, hypnotizing, Mobile feat kiting, etc.).

Nova classes like Paladins will be worse in such a game (not that Divine Smite is all that great in the first place, despite its reputation) and consistent classes like Fighters and Rogues will be relatively better.

[Boci]

Before it becomes "he'd a bad DM" thread I would also like to toss out an equally likely scenario: You may not understand your character completely. I've been playing a homebrew game for almost 2 years solid, my players are at level 6, and I have 2 players who still are learning that their characters can do things they've never thought of. I just got done explaining a tactic one of my players can use with their monk/lock that will make my life miserable as a DM. I'm constantly correcting one of the players because they keep forgetting their modifiers and bonuses, or what bonus actions are available to them.

Whilst its good to keep an open mind, its also worth bearing in mind that the OP shouldn't need to understand there character completly to enjoy the game. The DM has introduced a houserule, as a result the OP keeps dying, which is hurting their enjoyment of the game, and the DM hasn't spoken to the OP about that.

Does that mean they're a bad DM? Ofcourse not. But it does imply they handled this situation....not in the best way.

[DMThac0]

Whilst its good to keep an open mind, its also worth bearing in mind that the OP shouldn't need to understand there character completly to enjoy the game. The DM has introduced a houserule, as a result the OP keeps dying, which is hurting their enjoyment of the game, and the DM hasn't spoken to the OP about that.

Does that mean they're a bad DM? Ofcourse not. But it does imply they handled this situation....not in the best way.

True enough, which is why I ended my post advocating a discussion about the current state of the game, and preferably making his character(s) less dead.

[Derpaligtr]

Whilst its good to keep an open mind, its also worth bearing in mind that the OP shouldn't need to understand there character completly to enjoy the game. The DM has introduced a houserule, as a result the OP keeps dying, which is hurting their enjoyment of the game, and the DM hasn't spoken to the OP about that.

Does that mean they're a bad DM? Ofcourse not. But it does imply they handled this situation....not in the best way.

If the DM doesn't change something, I would say that yes, they're a bad DM. From the original post, doesn't seem like this is the first death to come from this houserule.

Fixable, but signs of being bad.

[Boci]

If the DM doesn't change something, I would say that yes, they're a bad DM. From the original post, doesn't seem like this is the first death to come from this houserule.

Fixable, but signs of being bad.

We'd have to know what the others in the group thought of the houserule to know for sure. If the others players are enjoying it, its understandable why they didn't change something, but they still should have been aware that at least one player wasn't enjoying it.

[mAc Chaos]

Jeremy Crawford has said the max HP is a part of the valid dials the DM has at their disposal within legal play to tune difficulty. So there's nothing wrong with it. Maybe it's too much for your group to handle, but maybe you could adjust how you play to account for it.

[Kidd of Steel]

We'd have to know what the others in the group thought of the houserule to know for sure. If the others players are enjoying it, its understandable why they didn't change something, but they still should have been aware that at least one player wasn't enjoying it.

I'd never call him a bad DM. I just feel that some of the mechanics of previous editions that overcame max HP don't exist now (spells affecting HD amount of characters instead of HP, for example). I'm worried that I'll start complaining about it so much I hurt his feelings.

[CantigThimble]

Wanting to run a more difficult game does not make a DM bad, however it may indicate that his preferences for difficulty and his players' preferences for difficulty may be irreconcilably misaligned. Remember the DM is playing too and players don't have any right to demand that he DM in a way that isn't enjoyable for him. If that is the case, then you should come to a mutual agreement to change the structure of the group and have someone else DM. However, before doing that, you should see if there is middle ground you can both enjoy.

My tactic whenever I run into a problem is first to see how I can change to fix it before asking anyone else to do so, therefore I'd start with your tactics as a party:
-How often do you take advantage of things like chokepoints and positioning to focus attacks on the highest AC memebers of your party and minimize total damage taken?
-Do you utilize focus-fire to reduce incoming damage as quickly as possible?
-How good is party coordination? Do people often want to use abilities but realize that they can't because of things other party members did?
-Do you ever do things like luring enemies into ambushes where terrain favors you?

Besides those general things, after tough fights where you feel like things went badly try asking the DM what tactics he would suggest you use in situations like that. It could help you get an idea of what kind of things he's expecting or, if the fights really are overwhelming and there aren't clear ways you could have handled it better, it might help him realize that he's pushing the difficulty too far and needs to scale it back.

[Unoriginal]

If your DM is used to 8 PCs, it's not surprising he goes for max HPs.

What's your party composition?

[Kidd of Steel]

If your DM is used to 8 PCs, it's not surprising he goes for max HPs.

What's your party composition?

Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Druid.

[Willie the Duck]

he's DMing another group of 5-8 players that is handling these encounters without dying.

If that's where he is calibrating his game, that could be a problem. Adding additional party members gives a party staying power in a non-linear fashion.

Still, we cannot possibly know if he's being unreasonable, or the players aren't adapting to the situation without more information. Can you maybe give us a rundown of one of the combats where your party stumbled? Not the worst, which was likely a rout, but just one where you lost maybe one character and everyone got chewed up.

[Unoriginal]

Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Druid.

I have a guess: you frequently have more than 3 fights between short rests?

[MaxWilson]

I'd never call him a bad DM. I just feel that some of the mechanics of previous editions that overcame max HP don't exist now (spells affecting HD amount of characters instead of HP, for example). I'm worried that I'll start complaining about it so much I hurt his feelings.


Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Druid.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a way for you to improve your party's tactics such that you start winning instead of dying, against creatures that are currently killing you. Would you be interested to learning how?

In other words, your DM right now is demanding a lot of player skill. Do you want him to reduce the difficulty such that player skill is no longer required, or do you want to develop player skill? Is your DM even interested in DMing a game that requires less player skill? The answer to these questions will determine whether or not you and your DM will want to play together in the long term.

I guarantee you that it is possible for a Paladin, a Monk, a Rogue, and a Druid to beat the pants off of the monsters that are currently killing you, max HP or no max HP. There's a lot of potential strength available there.

[Unoriginal]

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there is a way for you to improve your party's tactics such that you start winning instead of dying, against creatures that are currently killing you. Would you be interested to learning how?

In other words, your DM right now is demanding a lot of player skill. Do you want him to reduce the difficulty such that player skill is no longer required, or do you want to develop player skill? Is your DM even interested in DMing a game that requires less player skill? The answer to these questions will determine whether or not you and your DM will want to play together in the long term.

I guarantee you that it is possible for a Paladin, a Monk, a Rogue, and a Druid to beat the pants off of the monsters that are currently killing you, max HP or no max HP. There's a lot of potential strength available there.

That is assuming the encounter isn't built for 5-8 PCs out of habit.

It's important to figure the right cause of the issue in cases like that.

In any case, OP, talk with your DM. It's really the best thing to do.

[Keravath]

Paladin, Monk, Rogue, Druid.

Moon druid right? If that is the case then you have a party that is four melee characters without any crowd control or healing support which is probably why encounters are difficult to deal with.

You also don't have that many more "strategic" options you can use since everyone mostly focuses on dealing with one target at a time.

At 6th level ... the paladin can bless, the monk can stun (they might want to run around trying to stun multiple opponents - the mobile feat is useful for this), the rogue needs to try to use hide or whatever they can come up with to get advantage on as many attacks as possible, the druid should probably try to conjure animals on the first round of the fight (bears can be good if the DM lets you choose) and shapechange into a cave bear or polar bear themselves (if they aren't a moon druid then the summons can still be good but they need to look for party support and crowd control spells that they can use ... it is essential in this case that the druid have healing word prepared).

Summoned creatures give the opponents more targets to attack that aren't players AND they give the player side more attacks that they can make.

---------

Finally, you mentioned that a group of 5-8 is being run through exactly the same encounters with the same monster hp as your group of 4. Honestly, that is ridiculous.

Every additional character can be a force multiplier. Throw in one level 6 bard with an hypnotic pattern and suddenly half the opponents can be standing twiddling their fingers .. or one level 6 wizard with a fireball .. even max hit point goblins will be little trouble while a melee group will struggle.

Even if the 5-8 group is all melee (which is unlikely) then they still could have twice the actions every round to take down opponents. It is NOT surprising that the larger group has no trouble while you struggle.

However, this is why the game is played with a DM instead of a computer with fixed rules. The DM should be dynamically adjusting the encounter as the players play it so that it is challenging but fun. Some encounters will be easier if the players roll well, some harder if they roll badly ... but if four players are struggling with encounter after encounter then the issue is mostly the encounters and not the players unless the players are really new and aren't using all of their character abilities.

[Laserlight]

I'd be surprised if cranking up the monster HP was actually what was killing your party's characters. It's more likely to be the party's using poor tactics.

Example: in last week's game, the party was fighting their way into the front door. One party member went around the building, looking for the back door. That could have been a valid approach, except that he could see that he was going into 3:1 odds by himself, and even if he'd gotten to the back door, what was he going to do about it with the rest of the party in front? He finally hid with 2HP remaining.

Example 2: the last game I ran, the fight spread across two rooms. Most of the party ended up in the north room, with one mini boss; the cleric wandered off to the southwest corner of the south room, facing the other min iboss and too far away from the rest of the party to get any help. First PC death I've had in quite a while.

Both of these were players with 2+ years of experience; they still made poor tactical decisions.

I'd been even more surprised if merely cranking up the HP caused the players to be more creative. For that, I'd put in more environmental hazards, more movement options (eg teleportals around the room), and/or goals other than "kill the monsters". But if all you're doing is "hit monster with stick", more HP might just mean "hit monster with stick a few more times."

[Demonslayer666]

Tell the DM that you aren't having fun because you are dying too often, and he needs to tone down the encounters.

[MaxWilson]

Moon druid right? If that is the case then you have a party that is four melee characters without any crowd control or healing support which is probably why encounters are difficult to deal with.

Depends on how the characters are played. Moon Druid can use lots of crowd control spells: Spike Growth, Moonbeam, Confusion, Thunderwave, Ice Storm, or Call Lightning for example. Because he's a Moon Druid he can even cast Spike Growth and then turn into a Giant Constrictor Snake (or whatever) on the same round.

[ATHATH]

Finally, you mentioned that a group of 5-8 is being run through exactly the same encounters with the same monster hp as your group of 4. Honestly, that is ridiculous.

Every additional character can be a force multiplier. Throw in one level 6 bard with an hypnotic pattern and suddenly half the opponents can be standing twiddling their fingers .. or one level 6 wizard with a fireball .. even max hit point goblins will be little trouble while a melee group will struggle.

Even if the 5-8 group is all melee (which is unlikely) then they still could have twice the actions every round to take down opponents. It is NOT surprising that the larger group has no trouble while you struggle.

However, this is why the game is played with a DM instead of a computer with fixed rules. The DM should be dynamically adjusting the encounter as the players play it so that it is challenging but fun. Some encounters will be easier if the players roll well, some harder if they roll badly ... but if four players are struggling with encounter after encounter then the issue is mostly the encounters and not the players unless the players are really new and aren't using all of their character abilities.
This, basically.

What are the subclasses that your party is using?

[Derpaligtr]

I'd be surprised if cranking up the monster HP was actually what was killing your party's characters. It's more likely to be the party's using poor tactics.

Example: in last week's game, the party was fighting their way into the front door. One party member went around the building, looking for the back door. That could have been a valid approach, except that he could see that he was going into 3:1 odds by himself, and even if he'd gotten to the back door, what was he going to do about it with the rest of the party in front? He finally hid with 2HP remaining.

Example 2: the last game I ran, the fight spread across two rooms. Most of the party ended up in the north room, with one mini boss; the cleric wandered off to the southwest corner of the south room, facing the other min iboss and too far away from the rest of the party to get any help. First PC death I've had in quite a while.

Both of these were players with 2+ years of experience; they still made poor tactical decisions.

I'd been even more surprised if merely cranking up the HP caused the players to be more creative. For that, I'd put in more environmental hazards, more movement options (eg teleportals around the room), and/or goals other than "kill the monsters". But if all you're doing is "hit monster with stick", more HP might just mean "hit monster with stick a few more times."

It very well can be.

If you would normally kill something in 3 rounds and be fine, killing it in 10 rounds means a lot more chances for that monster to crit you.

Some DMs forget that enemies are meant to be expendable while PCs are generated with the idea they will last a while.

[Trask]

I cant say I agree with your DM's methods entirely, but I do think there is something to be said for the desire to make combat more creative.

However that doesnt work if you are playing in a scene based game. If your DM puts encounters in front of you that you have to bypass, making them that tough does nothing except make the death rate higher and incentivize tactical combat.

If he really wants to incentivize creativity he creates a scene where you can approach the encounter from different angles. Lots of faction play, alternate routes of attack, hostages, environmental hazards, and magical 1 use items make things much more varied.

There isnt one quick fix, running a game where combat feels more like a puzzle to be solved or even entirely avoided/bypassed requires the entire structure of your adventure to be formed around that principle. Just upping the dice challenge wont change anything.

[NecessaryWeevil]

There isnt one quick fix, running a game where combat feels more like a puzzle to be solved or even entirely avoided/bypassed requires the entire structure of your adventure to be formed around that principle. Just upping the dice challenge wont change anything.

Unless the intended message of upping the challenge is, "be creative in finding a way to avoid or bypass combat." In which case of course the DM needs to be more clear about that.

[Pex]

If the DM doesn't change something, I would say that yes, they're a bad DM. From the original post, doesn't seem like this is the first death to come from this houserule.

Fixable, but signs of being bad.

This.

If the DM is unconcerned about PCs dying and think players are whining (my word, not OP's) when they complain about it, he doesn't belong in the DM chair.

This DM needs to change his ways. It's not "challenging" for the PCs to die all the time. If the DM refuses, get a new DM.

[mephnick]

If the DM is unconcerned about PCs dying and think players are whining (my word, not OP's) when they complain about it, he doesn't belong in the DM chair.

Or he belongs in the DM chair with a different group. I use max HP monsters because my very experienced players are way above the tactical power curve that 5e assumes. To be fair, I'm self aware enough that if I only wanted to play that kind of game I wouldn't run for OP's group.

This DM could run a very successful game for a different group.

[Derpaligtr]

Or he belongs in the DM chair with a different group. I use max HP monsters because my very experienced players are way above the tactical power curve that 5e assumes. To be fair, I'm self aware enough that if I only wanted to play that kind of game I wouldn't run for OP's group.

This DM could run a very successful game for a different group.

I think the point is that if players are complaining and the DM isn't listening, then that DM doesn't belong in the chair.

The problem isn't the max HP for enemy rules, the problem would be not listening to the players who have complaint.

[MaxWilson]

Or he belongs in the DM chair with a different group. I use max HP monsters because my very experienced players are way above the tactical power curve that 5e assumes. To be fair, I'm self aware enough that if I only wanted to play that kind of game I wouldn't run for OP's group.

This DM could run a very successful game for a different group.

This. I wouldn't use max HP, but I would use 40% more monsters, which accomplishes the same thing. (In fact I'd use way more than that, sometimes.)

But if you don't like that kind of game, and the DM doesn't want to run the other kind of game, then you don't belong at that DM's table.

[CantigThimble]

I think the point is that if players are complaining and the DM isn't listening, then that DM doesn't belong in the chair.

The problem isn't the max HP for enemy rules, the problem would be not listening to the players who have complaint.

If he's not listening to what they're saying at all, then sure, he's bad. If he's listening, but doesn't agree with the changes they want and he has his reasons then that's perfectly reasonable. The DM isn't customer service and the player isn't always right.

We're only getting one side of the story here.

[Derpaligtr]

If he's not listening to what they're saying at all, then sure, he's bad. If he's listening, but doesn't agree with the changes they want and he has his reasons then that's perfectly reasonable. The DM isn't customer service and the player isn't always right.

We're only getting one side of the story here.

No.

He the DM does nothing and continues to run a game counter to the fun of the player's wishes (a gane where they don't keep dying because of a house rule isn't much to ask for) then that DM is bad.

If it's one out of the group, help that one out a bit. But if the group isn't having fun, due to a house rule, the DM better work on fixing the problem or they're a bad DM.

Thr DM's main responsibility is the entertainment of the pkayers. If the players aren't entertained then there isn't any reason to keep playing.

[CantigThimble]

No.

He the DM does nothing and continues to run a game counter to the fun of the player's wishes (a gane where they don't keep dying because of a house rule isn't much to ask for) then that DM is bad.

If it's one out of the group, help that one out a bit. But if the group isn't having fun, due to a house rule, the DM better work on fixing the problem or they're a bad DM.

Thr DM's main responsibility is the entertainment of the pkayers. If the players aren't entertained then there isn't any reason to keep playing.

The DM owes NOTHING to the players. He is there to play a game for fun, same as them. If the DM doesn't enjoy running the game then he has no reason to continue DMing that game.

Hopefully, the DM and players can agree on something that is both fun for the DM to run and fun for the players to play, if they can't then that is no way more the DM's fault than the players. I don't think it's anyone's fault, it's just a difference of preference.

If one of my players begs and pleads for me to run 3.5 because it's his favorite edition ever then I can rightfully tell him to either get with the program or find a new DM because I don't want to run that mess. If someone wants me to run a complex political campaign with integrated character backstories then I can say no, you're a bunch of farmers fighting off eldritch cultists or I'm not running the game. If one of my players wants me to run something easier then I can tell him that it's my way or the highway because I am bored out of my mind running low-threat adventures and I refuse to do it anymore.

If you want to treat your DM like your personal entertainer then you had better be paying him.

[strangebloke]

Okay, what you need is some clarification on what the DM means by 'creative'.

Does he mean 'use better tactics' or does he mean 'describe actions that are not necessarily on your sheet?'

Because, if the former, we can help. Abuse the crap out of stealth mechanics. Use a familiar to scout. Use mage hand to work on traps. Run away and kite slow moving enemies if you can.

If the latter... Well, maybe we can help. Classic ploy is baiting tough enemies into an ambush, or breaking walls of a dungeon crawl, or prioritizing objectives like hostages. Maybe you're supposed to be able to talk yourselves out of combat? But ultimately, it's up to your DM, and that's the problem with 'creative' solutions. You're trying to guess what the magic words are that the DM wants you to say.

[Pex]

The DM owes NOTHING to the players. He is there to play a game for fun, same as them. If the DM doesn't enjoy running the game then he has no reason to continue DMing that game.

Hopefully, the DM and players can agree on something that is both fun for the DM to run and fun for the players to play, if they can't then that is no way more the DM's fault than the players. I don't think it's anyone's fault, it's just a difference of preference.

If one of my players begs and pleads for me to run 3.5 because it's his favorite edition ever then I can rightfully tell him to either get with the program or find a new DM because I don't want to run that mess. If someone wants me to run a complex political campaign with integrated character backstories then I can say no, you're a bunch of farmers fighting off eldritch cultists or I'm not running the game. If one of my players wants me to run something easier then I can tell him that it's my way or the highway because I am bored out of my mind running low-threat adventures and I refuse to do it anymore.

If you want to treat your DM like your personal entertainer then you had better be paying him.

The players owe the DM diddly squat as well. In fact, why bother playing at all since no one believes they owe anyone anything.

The DM and players are supposed to be having a good time with each other. The DM does not have to cater to every player whim, but neither is he to refuse every player request. When one player has an issue, work with him to fix it. If it can't be fixed then decide what to do from there. If it means they're incompatible so be it, but the DM is not morally superior in the scenario. If the players are complaining, then yes, the DM has to change his ways. If he can't or won't, then he steps away from the chair because he can't or won't run the game the players want. He's also not morally superior in this scenario either. The players aren't either.

I make my own judgment on the context of the scenario. In this case, the DM is killing off PCs left and right because of his choices as DM. If the DM dismisses players' concerns, then yes, I blame him. In a hypothetical case, a DM may want to run a heroic fantasy, but the players refuse to engage in any plot hooks and often spend lots of the game session time talking about the latest movie they saw and reminisce on related movies and tv shows of the past. There I would blame the players.

[Willie the Duck]

But if you don't like that kind of game, and the DM doesn't want to run the other kind of game, then you don't belong at that DM's table.


Thr DM's main responsibility is the entertainment of the pkayers. If the players aren't entertained then there isn't any reason to keep playing.


The players owe the DM diddly squat as well. In fact, why bother playing at all since no one believes they owe anyone anything.

At this point, I feel like we're doing a pre-emptive 'who broke up with who' argument for our friends the couple who (haven't) broken up. Who shouldn't be at whose table? Well, who owns the actual table? Point being, players and DMs who are not compatible or do not have compatible views on gaming (caveat: and cannot work together and find a compromise solution) should not game together. For the most part, most of us are out of middle/high school, have access to the internet, and are not stuck in the situation of only having one viable group to game with.

I'm not convinced we know if this is the case. CantigThimble is right, we only have one side of this story. We have no idea if 1) the DM is sicking unreasonable challenges at the party, rather than the DM is trying to get them to rise to a challenge, and they are complaining rather than adapting; and 2) whether the DM is truly not listening to the complaints, or if they simply haven't found a solution. The DM could be a jerk, the DM could be insufficiently competent (at DMing), the DM could be insufficiently competent (at communicating), or the OP could be mistaken about any part of the chain of events. I would at least like to hear the tale of one of these ill-fated combats, and find out if yes indeed the PCs are doing everything right and still getting hammered, or not, before I erect a pillory or start stuffing an effigy.



This. I wouldn't use max HP, but I would use 40% more monsters, which accomplishes the same thing. (In fact I'd use way more than that, sometimes.)

On this completely side note, my preferred method of making the game a little harder is simply to alter the recharge mechanics.

[Boci]

If one of my players wants me to run something easier then I can tell him that it's my way or the highway because I am bored out of my mind running low-threat adventures and I refuse to do it anymore.

True yes. But, if you do not sit down and talk to players about the higher threat level, when they are dying repeatedly and do not enjoy that, that then it becomes you badly handling the situation.

[MrStabby]

Any puzzle that you don't see the solution to can seem unfair.

Given the game mechanics it is also possible that there is bad luck involved as well as poor tactics or too difficult encounters.

A few things worth having on a checklist:

1) Did you think about not fighting? Talking your way through too tough an encounter or going round it?

2) Did you consider running away when it is too tough?

3) Are you making use of your resources as needed - i.e. are you having PCs die with potions undrunk, scrolls unused and spell slots still full? Are you actually remembering all your abilities?

4) Can you control your environment - at night, in fog, after rain or whatever to give an advantage?

5) Can you refine tactics to get extra power - monk stunning enemies then hitting them with dex saves, pilling onto the enemy prone on the ground, using wall of force to split encounters, using cover and difficult terrain...


If none of these can help then your DM is probably being a bit tough.

[Derpaligtr]

The players owe the DM diddly squat as well. In fact, why bother playing at all since no one believes they owe anyone anything.

The DM and players are supposed to be having a good time with each other. The DM does not have to cater to every player whim, but neither is he to refuse every player request. When one player has an issue, work with him to fix it. If it can't be fixed then decide what to do from there. If it means they're incompatible so be it, but the DM is not morally superior in the scenario. If the players are complaining, then yes, the DM has to change his ways. If he can't or won't, then he steps away from the chair because he can't or won't run the game the players want. He's also not morally superior in this scenario either. The players aren't either.

I make my own judgment on the context of the scenario. In this case, the DM is killing off PCs left and right because of his choices as DM. If the DM dismisses players' concerns, then yes, I blame him. In a hypothetical case, a DM may want to run a heroic fantasy, but the players refuse to engage in any plot hooks and often spend lots of the game session time talking about the latest movie they saw and reminisce on related movies and tv shows of the past. There I would blame the players.

I need the "hard to swallow pills meme" it this on the second panel.

[strangebloke]

Who cares about whose fault it is?

This player is asking how to make this work for him. If the issue is strategy, we can help with that. If the issue is that the DM is expecting people to find hidden solutions in and out of combat, that may or may not be solvable.

[NaughtyTiger]

I just feel that some of the mechanics of previous editions that overcame max HP don't exist now

The mechanics exist. and my party uses them against me quite well.

Great Weapon Master (3 attacks @ +10 damage each)
Sharpshooter (2 attacks @ +10 damage each)
Volley ((X attacks @ +10 damage each))
Smite (+3d8)
Warlock Smite (+5d8)
Sneak Attack (+3d6) (haste a rogue and readied action.... for sneak attack on reaction)
Wand of ... (lightning can be pumped to 14d6 for a one shot)

control spell (otto/command/hold/banish) + divination wizard.

higher the player to monster ratio the worse it gets (more chances for crit 4 players = ~8 attacks = 40% chance of a crit per round, 60% for 6 players)
i have to max the Big bads just to make it to round 3. (crit with smite @ 3rd level = 2d8 (weapon) + 8d8 (smite) = 10d8)


different tactics for small hordes, but at tier 2, goblins don't kill. +4@5 damage vs 17 AC @ 42HP. (you literally need to be hit 9 times to drop. they need to roll 13+ 9-times to drop you)
as opposed to you should have +6@9 vs 15AC @12HP. you need to roll 9+ twice... or 1 barbarian, or 1 sleep, or 1 fireball, ...

[CantigThimble]

The players owe the DM diddly squat as well. In fact, why bother playing at all since no one believes they owe anyone anything.

The DM and players are supposed to be having a good time with each other. The DM does not have to cater to every player whim, but neither is he to refuse every player request. When one player has an issue, work with him to fix it. If it can't be fixed then decide what to do from there. If it means they're incompatible so be it, but the DM is not morally superior in the scenario. If the players are complaining, then yes, the DM has to change his ways. If he can't or won't, then he steps away from the chair because he can't or won't run the game the players want. He's also not morally superior in this scenario either. The players aren't either.

I make my own judgment on the context of the scenario. In this case, the DM is killing off PCs left and right because of his choices as DM. If the DM dismisses players' concerns, then yes, I blame him. In a hypothetical case, a DM may want to run a heroic fantasy, but the players refuse to engage in any plot hooks and often spend lots of the game session time talking about the latest movie they saw and reminisce on related movies and tv shows of the past. There I would blame the players.

I think we're in agreement here.

The range of things I can enjoy running is reasonably wide, but it has it's hard edges. Requests that fall within that area will be accommodated without even thinking about it. Requests that fall outside of it will be rejected.

Players also need to be able to do the same for the DM. If he's asking them to step up tactically because running an easy game is no longer fun for him then they should be trying to accommodate him as best they can and seeing if they can still enjoy the game that way. It may eventually turn out that they can't find a compromise where they both have fun, but we're not there yet. In fact, we don't even know if any of the players has even tried talking to the DM about this directly, we're only getting a small part of the story.

If improving player tactics is an option I think it is probably the easiest solution that produces the best result.

[Digimike]

I DM and Play with a group most would consider min maxers, or power gamers. Often when I'm DM'ing, in order to make the encounters somewhat of a challenge, I have to max out the monsters or come up with some really nasty tactics with them.

I'd advise you to consider the following options.

Have excape plans ready. Caltrops, Illusions to hide behind, controller spells (suggestion is great at low level). Make sure you can fall back into cleared rooms and hallways.

Map out the area, find choke points that you can use to your advantage. Make the environment your ally. If there's a pit trap, shove a monster down. Is there an obviously trapped chest in the room, charm a bad guy to go open it.

Utilize scouts and set up ambushes. Familiars, Illusions, and speedy PCs are great ways to lure bad guys into traps of your own making.

Make sure your party composition is somewhat decent. Pick 1 or 2 things your character will do well and specialize in those. Are you a beefy warrior with loads of hp in plate? Use a shield, take heavy armor mastery, and sentinel.

Abuse the action economy as much as possible. Find ways to make sure you are always using bonus actions and get as many uses of reactions as possible.

Come prepared. Stuff like antitoxin, holy water, mirrors, silvered weapons, rope should be part of every adventurers inventory.

[MaxWilson]

Map out the area, find choke points that you can use to your advantage. Make the environment your ally. If there's a pit trap, shove a monster down. Is there an obviously trapped chest in the room, charm a bad guy to go open it.

This. With a monk, a paladin, a rogue, and a druid in the party, creating and exploiting chokepoints should be one of your go-to strategies. Note that this works best if you take Digimike's advice of having a good escape plan (which could be as simple as everybody reading up on the mounted combat rules and then buying a horse) so you are able to disengage from monsters and then re-engage at a chokepoint.

Imagine this scenario: you're 4th level. There are a bunch of monsters in the next room of the dungeon, a large 50' by 100' audience hall: 6 max HP Orcs (22 HP instead of 15) and 6 max HP Shadows (27 HP instead of the normal 16 HP). You know this because the rogue has scouted ahead and looked at them. Instead of all charging into the next room, getting surrounded, and getting cut to pieces and devoured by undead Shadows, you instead sneak up to the entrance, line up behind the paladin (and lay a bag of caltrops at the paladin's feet in case he needs to retreat), and then open the doors. Druid immediately casts Spike Growth (or you can pre-cast, or ready an action to cast it as soon as the doors open, if your DM allows it) and now everything around you is difficult terrain AND does damage to anyone who approaches you, and the only person they can readily attack is the Paladin in the chokepoint, who can Dodge if he wants to but probably won't bother. Meanwhile the Rogue is inflicting tons of Sneak Attack damage via shortbow on anything he can see over the paladin's shoulder (and advantage from Cunning Action: Hide will compensate for the partial cover AC bonus all the monsters get from having the paladin in the way), the druid is chucking flame from Produce Flame or shapechanging into a Giant Octopus to grab and restrain enemies over the paladin's shoulder (also despite the partial cover AC bonus from having the paladin in the way), and the monk is plinking away with arrows or maybe dealing with any "leakers" who sneak out the back door of the room to come at you from another direction.

It's officially a Deadly x2 fight even before you give the monsters max HP, and Shadows are unusually nasty for their CR, but you're still likely going to win. That would not be true if you just charged into the room and let the monsters surround you.

[CantigThimble]

This. With a monk, a paladin, a rogue, and a druid in the party, creating and exploiting chokepoints should be one of your go-to strategies. Note that this works best if you take Digimike's advice of having a good escape plan (which could be as simple as everybody reading up on the mounted combat rules and then buying a horse) so you are able to disengage from monsters and then re-engage at a chokepoint.

Imagine this scenario: you're 4th level. There are a bunch of monsters in the next room of the dungeon, a large 50' by 100' audience hall: 6 max HP Orcs (22 HP instead of 15) and 6 max HP Shadows (27 HP instead of the normal 16 HP). You know this because the rogue has scouted ahead and looked at them. Instead of all charging into the next room, getting surrounded, and getting cut to pieces and devoured by undead Shadows, you instead sneak up to the entrance, line up behind the paladin (and lay a bag of caltrops at the paladin's feet in case he needs to retreat), and then open the doors. Druid immediately casts Spike Growth (or you can pre-cast, or ready an action to cast it as soon as the doors open, if your DM allows it) and now everything around you is difficult terrain AND does damage to anyone who approaches you, and the only person they can readily attack is the Paladin in the chokepoint, who can Dodge if he wants to but probably won't bother. Meanwhile the Rogue is inflicting tons of Sneak Attack damage via shortbow on anything he can see over the paladin's shoulder (and advantage from Cunning Action: Hide will compensate for the partial cover AC bonus all the monsters get from having the paladin in the way), the druid is chucking flame from Produce Flame or shapechanging into a Giant Octopus to grab and restrain enemies over the paladin's shoulder (also despite the partial cover AC bonus from having the paladin in the way), and the monk is plinking away with arrows or maybe dealing with any "leakers" who sneak out the back door of the room to come at you from another direction.

It's officially a Deadly x2 fight even before you give the monsters max HP, and Shadows are unusually nasty for their CR, but you're still likely going to win. That would not be true if you just charged into the room and let the monsters surround you.

Well, if it was me DMing the shadows would slip around to flank the party using any cracks in the walls. (And gods help the players if the walls of their chokepoint have any 1 inch wide holes in them) But that's mostly because I'm pretty evil and love that ability of the shadows. One of my favorite intro adventures I've written involves a pair of shadows stalking players through the cramped bowels of a ship.

Regardless of that, this is good advice. Being effective in combat has a lot to do with positioning, and that basically comes down to finding ways you can reduce the enemy damage potential without reducing your own that much. Fighting the enemy in a chokepoint does reduce your party's offensive ability, but it reduces the enemy offense a lot more if they outnumber you.

[MaxWilson]

Well, if it was me DMing the shadows would slip around to flank the party using any cracks in the walls. (And gods help the players if the walls of their chokepoint have any 1 inch wide holes in them)

Good point--that's why having the ability to retreat is so important, because sometimes you overlook things while planning. :-)

They'd still take a ton of damage from Spike Growth though, and thus be easier to kill, because the party is sitting right in the middle of it, which makes the point that good planning is still valuable even when you overlook something.


But that's mostly because I'm pretty evil and love that ability of the shadows. One of my favorite intro adventures I've written involves a pair of shadows stalking players through the cramped bowels of a ship.

Yeah, shadows are evil and so are you. :-)


Regardless of that, this is good advice. Being effective in combat has a lot to do with positioning, and that basically comes down to finding ways you can reduce the enemy damage potential without reducing your own that much. Fighting the enemy in a chokepoint does reduce your party's offensive ability, but it reduces the enemy offense a lot more if they outnumber you.

When I tested this out against max HP shadows and orcs as described, I forgot to apply Spike Growth damage, so it took 12 rounds (!) to kill all of the shadows while the Paladin Dodged and maintained Shield of Faith. Paladin took 17 points of damage over that time period, so the PCs weren't in danger, but you have to get pretty good at managing table procedures or the combat will feel like a slog, probably taking at least half an hour of real time if you stick with standard PHB cyclic initiative. (Even if you use side initiative or something it will still probably take at least five minutes for all the dice rolling and arithmetic.)

[Haldir]

When I DM 5e, I usually don't even really pay attention to HP. I write it down when the players deal it, sure. But, I found that my group, for some reason, loves when I imply that enemies have 1HP left. Whether the goblins go into a suicide rush, or the drow flee, the players love it.

It's a little disingenuous, sure. But, if I mentally assign a "monster" a number of [average damage hits they can take], it allows me use the Rule of Cool method in combat, and lets me end things when I notice my players getting tired or bored.

I love that 5e lets you do more creative games that way. Last time I played with a pathfinder group they were arguing with me about whether my enemies were proficient with a hilt slam of their sword. :sigh:

[WereRabbitz]

Does anyone else's DM/any DMs out there do this in their games. My DM is trying to make the players be more creative in there combat choices, but I keep dying when I do.:smallannoyed:

Sounds like a lazy DM....

Too lazy to come up with something challenging so he/she just max hp's the monsters? If my group encounters 12 kobolds i have previously rolled for all of their HP, because nothing is dumber then having monsters all have the same hp.

[CantigThimble]

Sounds like a lazy DM....

Too lazy to come up with something challenging so he/she just max hp's the monsters? If my group encounters 12 kobolds i have previously rolled for all of their HP, because nothing is dumber then having monsters all have the same hp.

Eh, personally I think watching the DM shuffle through his notes and try to keep track of which random mook is which to see if they have 1 or 5 hp left is dumber but YMMV.

[MaxWilson]

Eh, personally I think watching the DM shuffle through his notes and try to keep track of which random mook is which to see if they have 1 or 5 hp left is dumber but YMMV.

Side note: without loss of generality or fairness, we might assume that the HP array rolled by the DM represent the monsters in the order they're damaged by the PCs.

I.e. the first time a given mook takes damage, you wouldn't have to look up which mook has which HP, you just mark the HP off the first mook in the list who isn't dead yet. So at any given moment you just need to keep track of HP for all the mooks who are damaged-but-not-dead, which is probably only one or two of them.

An alternate approach would be to roll mook HP only after they've taken damage, to see if they're already dead.

[strangebloke]

Eh, personally I think watching the DM shuffle through his notes and try to keep track of which random mook is which to see if they have 1 or 5 hp left is dumber but YMMV.

Especially since it's unlikely to come up. A dozen kobolds with unique HP still all die to fireball.

And at high levels, timing for HP matters less

[Kane0]

So, have you spoken to your DM about it?

That really is step 1. We can give you all sorts of advice but most could be completely off the mark without context.

[Derpaligtr]

Eh, personally I think watching the DM shuffle through his notes and try to keep track of which random mook is which to see if they have 1 or 5 hp left is dumber but YMMV.

4e brought about the "minion" and it has been one of the greatest official updates to D&D since forever.

You can also run minions under the "one hit + 1 HP rule" if you want a more durable minion.

[Boci]

4e brought about the "minion" and it has been one of the greatest official updates to D&D since forever.

And yet didn't make it into 5th edition because its was, well, kinda inorganic and videogamy. Minions never took half damage on a failed saver, usually a very powerful ability, and even at level one, it was a bit hard to fluff in universe why some goblins had 1 hp and some has 20. It only got worse at higher levels.

I'm not saying your wrong to like minions, but calling a really hit or miss mechanic that started and stopped in 4th ed "one of the greatest official updates to D&D since forever" seems like a bit a bit hyperbole. Especially when 4th ed had some ideas that actually carried over to 5th ed.

[MaxWilson]

4e brought about the "minion" and it has been one of the greatest official updates to D&D since forever.

If by "greatest" you mean "most hated, and subsequently dropped" then yes.

[Unoriginal]

Minions had their place in 4e because the system was designed with them in mind.

Minions have no place in 5e.

[DMThac0]

Minions had their place in 4e because the system was designed with them in mind.

Minions have no place in 5e.

There's actually a good use of minions in 5e, but it is definitely not a mechanic, it's solely a narrative tool. Trying to create a narrative impact about the overwhelming forces that a city has, toss a flood of minions...they may go down fast, but your players are going to hurt for it. You want to make the players feel like they're unstoppable weapons of mass destruction, toss them a wave of minions to one-shot, then give them a BBEG who takes them down to half HP in one blow...

Mechanically they're 1 hp 0xp fodder, in narrative they can be useful tools.

[Boci]

There's actually a good use of minions in 5e, but it is definitely not a mechanic, it's solely a narrative tool. Trying to create a narrative impact about the overwhelming forces that a city has, toss a flood of minions...they may go down fast, but your players are going to hurt for it. You want to make the players feel like they're unstoppable weapons of mass destruction, toss them a wave of minions to one-shot, then give them a BBEG who takes them down to half HP in one blow...

Mechanically they're 1 hp 0xp fodder, in narrative they can be useful tools.

Its not that there's not a good use for them, its that they don't fit the system. 4th had a practical, inorganic approach to HP, which minions fit into. 5th ed doesn't, so their inclusion will stand out more.

[Willie the Duck]

There's actually a good use of minions in 5e, but it is definitely not a mechanic, it's solely a narrative tool. Trying to create a narrative impact about the overwhelming forces that a city has, toss a flood of minions...they may go down fast, but your players are going to hurt for it. You want to make the players feel like they're unstoppable weapons of mass destruction, toss them a wave of minions to one-shot, then give them a BBEG who takes them down to half HP in one blow...

Mechanically they're 1 hp 0xp fodder, in narrative they can be useful tools.

Well, those are definitely minions, but they are not 'Minions' -- as in the 4e mechanic, where you have what is effectively a full monster (including full offensive output), just with 1 hp (but auto-dodges fireballs, etc.). The former, well of course relatively unimportant individual monsters are narratively useful. We just call them weak monsters. The mechanical 'Minion,' however, at least has a tenuous purpose in 5e, and doesn't react well with the rest of the system (as much as people have talked down the 'bag of hit points' monsters, they are there because they work within the system, where hp is again a primary pacing mechanism).

[MaxWilson]

(as much as people have talked down the 'bag of hit points' monsters, they are there because they work within the system, where hp is again a primary pacing mechanism).

Remark: the primary problem with "bag of HP" monsters has nothing to do with combat. It's all about the noncombat context. A monster with no goals and no context and no motivations beyond beating on the PCs until it dies is a boring bag of HP.

A game can still be fun even if it has the odd boring bag of HP in it, but a MM mostly full of boring bags of HP is a bad MM. The 5E MM is relatively bad, and DMs have to compensate. But that isn't a critique of the combat stats or anything to do with combat, including HP.

[Derpaligtr]

Minions had their place in 4e because the system was designed with them in mind.

Minions have no place in 5e.

Funny, I've seen them used plenty of times in 5e and they work fine.

I've started using them in 5e and they work wonders.

Sounds more like either you never seen them used in 5e, don't know how to get them to work in general, or you just don-t care to port that idea over.

[Boci]

Funny, I've seen them used plenty of times in 5e and they work fine.

I've started using them in 5e and they work wonders.

Sounds more like either you never seen them used in 5e, don't know how to get them to work in general, or you just don-t care to port that idea over.

Or maybe they don't fit the design philophosy of 5th ed, which is less willing to create inorganic HP situations for the purpose of simplicity. You can include minions in 5th ed, they won't break the game, but a fully functional monsters who dies from stepping on caltraps and who never takes half damage is going to stand out more in 5th ed than in 4th ed.

[DMThac0]

Or maybe they don't fit the design philophosy of 5th ed, which is less willing to create inorganic HP situations for the purpose of simplicity. You can include minions in 5th ed, they won't break the game, but a fully functional monsters who dies from stepping on caltraps and who never takes half damage is going to stand out more in 5th ed than in 4th ed.

Then you don't want a minion...you want a monster...you want minions because they die quickly and easily, not because you want to challenge your players.

[Boci]

Then you don't want a minion...you want a monster...you want minions because they die quickly and easily, not because you want to challenge your players.

Right, and I don't want a minion because....they don't fit with the 5th ed system. When I DMed 4th ed I used minions, because they made sense in the system. When I DM 5th ed, I don't because they don't fit too well with the system.

And where did you get challenge your players? I said they dodn't fit because they stand out, not because they didn't challenge.

[MaxWilson]

Then you don't want a minion...you want a monster...you want minions because they die quickly and easily, not because you want to challenge your players.

If you want something that dies quickly and easily, you use a weak monster, not a 4E-style minion.

100 hobgoblins are quite tough in melee, but if you manage to cast Circle of Death on them all at once, they all die, almost no questions asked. (You'd have to roll low on your damage in order for them to live even on a successful save.) That's a weak monster.

A 4E-style minion by contract would be weak in melee, but would often survive Circle of Death for inexplicable reasons--as if it had the same Avoidance feature as the demilich. And there's no reason for common hobgoblins to have Avoidance.


If the [creature] is subjected to an effect that allows it to make a saving throw to take only half damage, it instead takes no damage if it succeeds on the saving throw, and only half damage if it fails.

[Derpaligtr]

Or maybe they don't fit the design philophosy of 5th ed, which is less willing to create inorganic HP situations for the purpose of simplicity. You can include minions in 5th ed, they won't break the game, but a fully functional monsters who dies from stepping on caltraps and who never takes half damage is going to stand out more in 5th ed than in 4th ed.

Except it does.

Throw hordes of 5 HP cr 1 (or whatever) creatures at a level 10 party is no different than throwing minions at a party of any level.

[Boci]

Except it does.

Throw hordes of 5 HP cr 1 (or whatever) creatures at a level 10 party is no different than throwing minions at a party of any level.

It is different. The 5 hp minions auto die to fireball (okay, if you roll 8 ones they don't), but survive caltrop damage. 4th ed minions surivvie fireball if they pass their save, but die to caltrop damage.

[Willie the Duck]

Except it does.

Throw hordes of 5 HP cr 1 (or whatever) creatures at a level 10 party is no different than throwing minions at a party of any level.

If there was no difference, why would you be using the minions in the first place? There are multiple differences, with varying degrees of importance.

[Kadesh]

The DM owes NOTHING to the players. He is there to play a game for fun, same as them. If the DM doesn't enjoy running the game then he has no reason to continue DMing that game.
A bit like how players owe nothing to a DM, because the players are there to have fun as well as him. If the DM is enjoying stomping the players into the dirt (the players metaphorically, not just the characters), and is enjoying himself at the detriment of the players, he isn't likely to leave of his own volition, but the players should either upsticks altogether, or in other words, get rid of the DM.


Hopefully, the DM and players can agree on something that is both fun for the DM to run and fun for the players to play, if they can't then that is no way more the DM's fault than the players. I don't think it's anyone's fault, it's just a difference of preference.
If one persons fun ruons the majority of everyone elses involved, it quite clearly is someones fault.


If one of my players begs and pleads for me to run 3.5 because it's his favorite edition ever then I can rightfully tell him to either get with the program or find a new DM because I don't want to run that mess. If someone wants me to run a complex political campaign with integrated character backstories then I can say no, you're a bunch of farmers fighting off eldritch cultists or I'm not running the game. If one of my players wants me to run something easier then I can tell him that it's my way or the highway because I am bored out of my mind running low-threat adventures and I refuse to do it anymore.
Congratulations you have free will on how you spend time. Have a medal.


If you want to treat your DM like your personal entertainer then you had better be paying him.
Not one one has said that?

Lets be clear.

Games night is a group of people turning up to agree to play a game together. If I turn up with a PS4 and Diablo 3 for couch coop, and another with Battletech Mini's, one with 3.5E and one with 5E, and the last with a basketball we have to choose how we want to spend our time together.

We then agree to choose which one we want to play. If we all agree, good. If they don't all agree, then the ones who do not agree with the majority are free to leave.

If I want to play a 20th level game, but everyone else wants to play 7th level, i eithe get with the program or leave.

If a group of 4 players are not having fun because some utter root vegetable of a DM can't differentiate between 4 and 7 players and the effext that has on combat, then the players are well within their right to tell that humanoid tuber to do one, although there is then a proviso that they need to find someone willing to DM. If the DM wants to play with the group of players he will either adapt to the playstyle everyone else wants. Or leave/not get involved.

[CantigThimble]

If one persons fun ruons the majority of everyone elses involved, it quite clearly is someones fault.

You know what? In most games, I would agree with this. However, in most games the participants are equals. They all have to put in roughly the same amount of effort for the game to go forward. That isn't the case in D&D. In D&D the DM needs to put in about as much effort as the entire rest of the table for the game to happen. In addition, if one player doesn't show up then the game can go forward, somewhat diminished. If the DM doesn't show up then there is no game. The DM is half the gaming group, at least, and as such, him refusing to meet everyone else's specifications for his work is not at all the same as one person in a game of soccer running around with the ball in his hands.


Not one one has said that?

Yes they did.


Thr DM's main responsibility is the entertainment of the pkayers.

My point was that neither the DM nor the players are 'responsible' for keeping the other entertained and meeting their whims because there is no payment or obligation on either side. They can negotiate to see what each is willing to do that the other would be satisfied with until they arrive at something they both like, but if they can't come to an agreement that's not an offense by the DM against the players, its just an irreconcilable difference in preferences.

[Boci]

You know what? In most games, I would agree with this. However, in most games the participants are equals. They all have to put in roughly the same amount of effort for the game to go forward. That isn't the case in D&D. In D&D the DM needs to put in about as much effort as the entire rest of the table for the game to happen. In addition, if one player doesn't show up then the game can go forward, somewhat diminished. If the DM doesn't show up then there is no game. The DM is half the gaming group, at least, and as such, him refusing to meet everyone else's specifications for his work is not at all the same as one person in a game of soccer running around with the ball in his hands.

True, however:

"I can't have fun if my character keeps dying" as a player is reasonable.

"I can't have fun if I can't repeatedly kill the PCs" as a DM is less so.

So while a high threat game is reasonable, the DM needs to make sure the players are prepared for it. They can run it, but the responsibility is on them to make sure the players enjoy that and can handle it.

[CantigThimble]

True, however:

"I can't have fun if my character keeps dying" as a player is reasonable.

"I can't have fun if I can't repeatedly kill the PCs" as a DM is less so.

So while a high threat game is reasonable, the DM needs to make sure the players are prepared for it. They can run it, but the responsibility is on them to make sure the players enjoy that and can handle it.

Of course, and this is exactly the kind of information that we don't have about the OP. We only have one side of the story and we don't know what, if anything, the DM has been doing to try to make this work.

[Boci]

Of course, and this is exactly the kind of information that we don't have about the OP. We only have one side of the story and we don't know what, if anything, the DM has been doing to try to make this work.

Unless the OP is lying by omission, we kinda do. The DM has a houserule, its caused multiple character death, at least one character doesn't like it, and the DM made no effort to address this before or after (since the OP mentioned no such effort).

[CantigThimble]

Unless the OP is lying by omission, we kinda do. The DM has a houserule, its caused multiple character death, at least one character doesn't like it, and the DM made no effort to address this before or after (since the OP mentioned no such effort).

I'm going to be honest, in every story I ever see about someone in a gaming group complaining about a ruling or a player's behavior I assume that there is a lie by omission unless there is a great deal of detail given. The #1 reason people create threads like this is so that they can blow off steam by telling a biased story and getting a bunch of people to agree with them and affirm their resentment of the person they're complaining about. There are exceptions, but all too often I have seen the writers of threads like these reveal more information that made the complainee sound much more reasonable after they had had some time to cool off.

[Pelle]

The specifics of the house rule is not of importance in this case, using max hp. What is important here is that the DM prefer to play a game where the players are challenged, while this player prefer an easier game.

The DM could just as well use more monsters, increase the cr of them, etc. Instead, using max hp seems like a quite reasonable way to increase the challenge. You don't need to spend extra time on handling even more monsters, and you don't get more swingy combats by increasing the cr relative to party level.

Max HP is not an issue here, just the difference in playstyle preference.

[MrStabby]

The specifics of the house rule is not of importance in this case, using max hp. What is important here is that the DM prefer to play a game where the players are challenged, while this player prefer an easier game.

The DM could just as well use more monsters, increase the cr of them, etc. Instead, using max hp seems like a quite reasonable way to increase the challenge. You don't need to spend extra time on handling even more monsters, and you don't get more swingy combats by increasing the cr relative to party level.

Max HP is not an issue here, just the difference in playstyle preference.

It is also more appropriate if the DM has allowed other options that run in the players favour like feats and magic items.

[Kadesh]

Of course, and this is exactly the kind of information that we don't have about the OP. We only have one side of the story and we don't know what, if anything, the DM has been doing to try to make this work.

What kind of backwards thought process dp you have where you automatically assume everyone is lying? Man, get your dissociation checked out, that's gonna hurt you in the long run.

[Pex]

The specifics of the house rule is not of importance in this case, using max hp. What is important here is that the DM prefer to play a game where the players are challenged, while this player prefer an easier game.

The DM could just as well use more monsters, increase the cr of them, etc. Instead, using max hp seems like a quite reasonable way to increase the challenge. You don't need to spend extra time on handling even more monsters, and you don't get more swingy combats by increasing the cr relative to party level.

Max HP is not an issue here, just the difference in playstyle preference.

There is a difference between challenging and your PC dies every time all the time. A DM can challenge a 5th level party by having them fight a beholder. No talking to it, no running away, there will be a fight because the DM wants there to be a fight. The players aren't whining (my word) when they object.

[Pelle]

There is a difference between challenging and your PC dies every time all the time. A DM can challenge a 5th level party by having them fight a beholder. No talking to it, no running away, there will be a fight because the DM wants there to be a fight. The players aren't whining (my word) when they object.

Sure, I didn't say anything about objecting, what people do to handle difference in preferences is up to them. They could handle it poorly by whining and ignoring each other if they so choose.

My point was merely that the Max HP itself isn't the issue, difference in challenge level preference is. As you say, the DM could just as well have used a beholder. Address the preference issue here, not the house rule. If the DM agrees to drop the house rule, but starts using beholders instead to compensate, the player will still have his characters killed and remain unhappy.

[MrStabby]

What kind of backwards thought process dp you have where you automatically assume everyone is lying? Man, get your dissociation checked out, that's gonna hurt you in the long run.

Well with this type of thread you have to assume that a) there are a lot of people being somewhat dishonest, or b) that there are a lot of DMs out there who are deliberately trying to make their players have a bad time. Pick your poison.

In reality it isn't one or the other but a mix of both coupled with narrow perspectives.

I have had PCs make stupid mistakes and die in my games. These mistakes could be like not running away, could be tactical positioning or simply taking too many rests such that the bad guys advance their plan and are more powerful than they otherwise would be. If they die from making a mistake then it IS because the game is too hard for them. It doesn't mean that is wrong.

Players seem to be pretty accepting of character death if they can see their mistakes - if they don't even realise what they did wrong then it can be tough for them.

[Spore]

A few words on Curse of Strahd and 5. edition here.

0) The DM CAN craft any deadly scenario out of the given encounters in Curse of Strahd. For example he can kill you with a single vampire spawn at the entry level of 3 if your group splits up. If you decide to invade the werewolf woods without any preparations, or investigate the dragon's keep.

1) Curse of Strahd is a horror game, which emphasises the feeling of powerlessness. D&D is a standard d20 game which emphasises empowering moments and thriumph oder monsters. It is often hard to balance victories with a dangerous feeling the module is supposed to produce.

2) Did you already find any of the major magic items in the game? They bump your group's power tremendously. This is a pre-written module. You need to figure out a smart way through the lands. Of course you can storm Strahd's castle at 3rd level. But that is killing you. Of course you can do the encounter in Barovia town at 7th level. But they're going to be a cake walk. Ask your DM if a simple investigation/persuasion check can give you an idea which area is how dangerous. Becaue there aren't any signs with recommended levels ingame.

3) Max HP is about the worst ways to make an encounter difficult. Maybe your DM thinks combat is too easy which may well be the case since a group of playgrounders ran through Death House's encounters and traps like they weren't there. Ismark ‘the Lesser’ Kolyanavich is a burly NPC fighter to smooth out your early steps into the world. He gets from being merely a decent guy to a combat monster if you bump his HP by more than 40%. Same with the "big names" like vampires, werewolves or gargoyles. He could just add appropriate minions to the combat. The werewolf could be assisted by 3 dire wolves. The vampire commands a swarm of bats. The gargoyle has a gargoyle friend that is half-broken (half HP). You still have more HP to "defeat" but combat gets easier once you deplete their ranks. A max HP vampire fights as well with 1 HP as he does with full HP. (Plus most creatures heal supernaturally or have damage resistances making bonus HP more grueling).

[Willie the Duck]

Well with this type of thread you have to assume that a) there are a lot of people being somewhat dishonest, or b) that there are a lot of DMs out there who are deliberately trying to make their players have a bad time. Pick your poison.

In reality it isn't one or the other but a mix of both coupled with narrow perspectives.

I would offer an alternative framing. I think that, when a thread like this rears its ugly head, people tend to feel the need to 'pick a side' in the great continuous war between players and DMs (which doesn't actually exist). Not unlike watching Breakfast Club/Animal House/Caddyshack/some more modern kids/slobs-vs.-authority-figures/snobs movie makes one tend to fall into one camp or the other, when in the real world you recognize that it isn't one or the other (and that the two camps aren't really always fighting).

[MaxWilson]

I have had PCs make stupid mistakes and die in my games. These mistakes could be like not running away, could be tactical positioning or simply taking too many rests such that the bad guys advance their plan and are more powerful than they otherwise would be. If they die from making a mistake then it IS because the game is too hard for them. It doesn't mean that is wrong.

Players seem to be pretty accepting of character death if they can see their mistakes - if they don't even realise what they did wrong then it can be tough for them.

This part in bold is difficult. In order for the game to be fun, players need visibility into what's happening off-screen, but because of the nature of the game, they have limited visibility into stuff that happens offscreen unless the DM gives it to them via enemy dialogue, dropped messages, or warnings in dreams.

Letting players know the off-screen consequences of their actions is an ongoing design challenge for me and I'm always experimenting with new techiques.

[MrStabby]

This part in bold is difficult. In order for the game to be fun, players need visibility into what's happening off-screen, but because of the nature of the game, they have limited visibility into stuff that happens offscreen unless the DM gives it to them via enemy dialogue, dropped messages, or warnings in dreams.

Letting players know the off-screen consequences of their actions is an ongoing design challenge for me and I'm always experimenting with new techiques.

Oh I agree. I think this is best handled in a session 0 type set up "plot is advancing, whether or not you keep up. If you are too slow you will fail" type description.

The problem is that it is an unstable equilibrium - if you progress further each day you get more XP/milestones in a shorter time, you get more resources and need to stop less often... all that feedback makes it difficult to balance.

[CantigThimble]

I would offer an alternative framing. I think that, when a thread like this rears its ugly head, people tend to feel the need to 'pick a side' in the great continuous war between players and DMs (which doesn't actually exist). Not unlike watching Breakfast Club/Animal House/Caddyshack/some more modern kids/slobs-vs.-authority-figures/snobs movie makes one tend to fall into one camp or the other, when in the real world you recognize that it isn't one or the other (and that the two camps aren't really always fighting).

While I can understand why you might assume this, this isn't true for me. I take the side of whoever isn't in the conversation. While, in this case, that is the DM, I have done the same with players before.

[Willie the Duck]

While I can understand why you might assume this, this isn't true for me. I take the side of whoever isn't in the conversation. While, in this case, that is the DM, I have done the same with players before.

So, in other words, it is exactly true for you. You just stated that you are taking a side, which is exactly what I said (along with stating that the idea that there are sides, or that there is a war between players and DMs as fallacious). That you are willing to switch sides based upon the representation present for each side doesn't change the fact that you are willing to pick a side (and to accept/create the framework that there are sides, and a conflict).

[Kadesh]

While I can understand why you might assume this, this isn't true for me. I take the side of whoever isn't in the conversation. While, in this case, that is the DM, I have done the same with players before.

So less of a stick, and more of a tree stuck uo there, hey?

[MaxWilson]

So, in other words, it is exactly true for you. You just stated that you are taking a side, which is exactly what I said (along with stating that the idea that there are sides, or that there is a war between players and DMs as fallacious). That you are willing to switch sides based upon the representation present for each side doesn't change the fact that you are willing to pick a side (and to accept/create the framework that there are sides, and a conflict).

Assumes facts not in evidence. CantigThimble said he was taking the side of the person not present, and because that person is a DM you assumed CantigThimble was somehow advocating for all DMs qua DMs. But that isn't what he said he was doing.

In a player vs. player dispute, CantigThimble would be advocating for whichever player was not posting on GITP.

[CantigThimble]

So, in other words, it is exactly true for you. You just stated that you are taking a side, which is exactly what I said (along with stating that the idea that there are sides, or that there is a war between players and DMs as fallacious). That you are willing to switch sides based upon the representation present for each side doesn't change the fact that you are willing to pick a side (and to accept/create the framework that there are sides, and a conflict).

This is a thread about one person complaining about another person's behavior. That, in itself, is a conflict. Not a universal one between ALL of group A and ALL of group B, but between those two individuals there is a conflict and in every conflict there are sides.

I do this in real life too. When one of my friends complains about someone else I always poke and prod their story to see if it holds up or if they're exaggerating or not telling me something. If it holds up they've got my support 100% but I'm always skeptical at first.


So less of a stick, and more of a tree stuck uo there, hey?

The great redwood in my rectum has been well fertilized throughout its lifetime.

[Kadesh]

Wow, you sound like a hell of a guy.