Players have better initiative on average thanks to the listed player benefits vs the CR average dex abilites of creatures. If you want to homebrew every creature to have a high initiative to battle the players feel free but its not the norm by any means. That also promotes "rocket tag" in my opinion and is bad for the flow of the game overall.
1. Outnumber enemies generally if using CR appropriate creatures
2. Creatures on average have less actions per round thanks to a low amount of economy use (They do not use BA/Reactions as much as players)
So in most encounters players already have the advantage with economy unless you are constantly adding mobs to battles or homebrewing your own creatures that utilize BA/Reactions more.
Again this just how the game is....using the provided materials you will experience this. Not every DM is willing to completely homebrew every monster in an encounter to nullify this intrinsic advantage.
Overall you are talking about a lot more work for the DM to adjust everything to fit the mold vs. playing the game with the intended balance and letting things play out.
Its fine to run things this way....but be honest about the amount of work it requires to ensure you are not de-balancing the game.
You can disagree if you want but the fact is that the game was designed with players having the economy advantage.
I disagree. The number of enemies in an encounter is the one overwhelming factor in terms of action economy. Can you prove that the game was designed so that there are fewer adversaries than players ? I see nothing of the sort in how encounters are built.
The fact you do exactly what he suggested in the article means you are already adjusting things to accommodate this...so that's good.
Me adjusting this actually has little to do with action economy, it's more about balancing encounters for the fact that there is certainly not that many fights anyway, and when there are, there are usually 1-2 during a day and very rarely more than 3, the difficulty needs to be adjusted. But it's simply so easy to add other monsters of the same kind.
With time and practice it comes easier so hang in there.
You must be joking, right ? How long have you been DMing, my friend ? How many games have you run, how many campaigns, how many players in your career ? :p
4-5 5e campaigns
I do not have experience with older editions but I consider that a bonus as they tend to make DMs revert to old habits that don't work in 5e
That is uh... incredibly condescending. I'll make my leave.
Honestly, if that is your take on it, why write to me such sentences as "With time and practice it comes easier so hang in there" ? Honestly, speaking of condescension...
It seemed you were newer to this edition since you were unfamiliar with the design aspects.
You can disagree if you want but the fact is that the game was designed with players having the economy advantage.
It's just how it is.... That's pretty clear.
I disagree. I see many published adventures and monsters where players don't have the advantage. It is very common for parties to face greater numbers of enemies and/or tasks/hazards in a given combat encounter and many "bosses", as it were, hold legendary and lair actions specifically to ensure they get an advantage, especially since having minions is also common. This is even more exemplified given multiattack options, auto-grapples, and more. I see no evidence of your argument in sourcebooks, or the plethora of AL sessions and streamed sessions I've seen (including by the designers themselves). There will be some encounters where players do get this advantage, but it is certainly not the majority as your argument suggests. Action economy is factored into the CR for encounter building so it is, by design, up to the DM to decide who gets the advantage by deciding on the monsters and encounter difficulty.
The fact you do exactly what he suggested in the article means you are already adjusting things to accommodate this...so that's good.
That's a bit of an assumption there. The suggestion isn't some new thing the author made-up. It's taken from the DMG in the section on building encounters, just rephrased it so people who didn't quite understand it on their read of the DMG now might do so. It's something many DMs have been doing for all encounters, literally for every D&D edition. It's a basic principle in encounter building. Just some people don't read the DMG properly or don't understand the way its written, so the advice is aimed for those people.
With time and practice it comes easier so hang in there.
I hope you're trying to sound positive and helpful but have to say this comes across as a bit condescending. It implies Lyxen is new and needs to practice more. This can be considered insulting since it seems your implication is founded entirely on the fact they disagree with your opinion on the action economy. Which, if that is truly why you're saying that, is rather immature. I'm assuming this wasn't your intention, as you often seem quite respectable in the majority of posts I see from you, so wanted to just highlight this.
Overall it's clear what RAW says and I believe that is what OP was asking so I think we can consider this answered.
It can't be that clear to you given how you're arguing against Lyxen's use of the ready action which is perfectly within the RAW.
But yes, the OPs question has been thoroughly answered by this point, I do agree on that.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond. Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ thisFAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
Action economy is factored into the CR for encounter building so it is, by design, up to the DM to decide who gets the advantage by deciding on the monsters and encounter difficulty.
I agree with the whole post, just wanted to stress this, because that is another significant change from 5e that was not present before, and something that people who migrate to 5e do not necessarily appreciate.
This was not the case in previous editions, because even if you multiplied lower CRs monsters, they were far less efficient with their actions, so the fact that they did a lot of them did not really challenge the higher level PCs (and minions were counted specifically, but again not really in terms of action economy because they were so fragile, therefore the balance of AE was easier to reach).
But the heavy focus on AE in 5e comes directly from the bounded accuracy. Because now higher level PCs are no longer almost immune to the sting of lower level CR. True, they are a bit less efficient, but not almost inefficient.
This is why the very simple scaling of 3E which basically increased the ECL by multiplying the CR by the number of monsters has been replaced by a completely different table in the DMG:
Number of Monsters
Multiplier
1
× 1
2
× 1.5
3–6
× 2
7–10
× 2.5
11–14
× 3
15 or more
× 4
Note that with this, men you double the number of monsters, the difficulty is multiplied by 3 (2x monsters, x1.5 multiplier), not simply by 2.
This above is the corrective table that takes into account AE, mostly because of bounded accuracy.
The CR calculator in the DMG is not very accurate and also the published modules do not follow it....
So overall it's less than helpful unfortunately as it under values number of creatures
6 goblins but not all at once in one combat.....so thats a bit misleading as its not one combat.
Reading over the adventure they are broken up into groups of 2-3. The blind there are 2 and in the next area 3 wolves, then a single goblin on the bridge. So they are expected to encounter these areas separately. In which case the PCs overcome the action economy fairly easily for a group of 4. Goblins are a good use though as they always have a BA to use.
So again it is in the players favor.
And yes BBEG battles should definitely NOT suffer from this issue as they load those down with minions....but the players at that point can overcome the AE extremely easily with summons/conjures of their own. Its definitely easy to overcome.
Also from what I am seeing it too is broken up into individual areas with smaller numbers of creatures....again not one big fight with a lot of baddies but several smaller fights in a row.
Most of what I am reading is traps/puzzles with little to no enemies....which is one way to widdle resources mentioned in the article I shared.
Overall still no evidence here of the players actions being out numbered considering at this point they have a reason to use all three actions every turn (Action/BA/Reaction)
6 goblins but not all at once in one combat.....so thats a bit misleading as its not one combat.
WARNING ! Short spoilers for LMoP:
Six goblins inhabit this den, and one of them is a leader with 12 hit points. The five ordinary goblins tend the cooking fire in the lower (northern) part of the cave near the entrance passage, while the leader rests in the upper (southern) part of the cave.... If the characters refuse to parley, Yeemik shoves Sildar over the edge and continues with the fight.
This is one combat.
Later on, again for 4 adventurers: Klarg the bugbear shares this cave with his mangy pet wolf, Ripper, and two goblins.
So equality, and the bugbear is clearly the boss of the caves, with minions
Overall still no evidence here of the players actions being out numbered considering at this point they have a reason to use all three actions every turn (Action/BA/Reaction)
Once more, reactions are mostly the same for PCs and NPCs/Monsters, where combat is considered, And reaction spells again depend mostly on the opposition and whether you add the right spellcasters with the right spells, but a lot of mage adversaries have counterspell prepared for example. As for bonus actions, although it favours the PCs, honestly, they are rarely considered in the action economy, as it's not like they really were separate actions in most cases, just an add-on to increase the damage done. The only exceptions are things like quicken spell, but that one is basically again a damage increase as the only other thing that you can do is cast a cantrip.
BA are certainly NOT ignored here. Even if you side with the goblins on that. Overall players will have much more common use of BA in majority of encounters but in this case the goblins actually have the ADV. It's actually a really good example of action economy as your players will likely lose this fight.... And it's absolutely intended to be that way.
There is a very very clear non-combat option you are ignoring..... And they are encouraging the players to take it or face very poor odds.
I do find it kind of ironic you pick the one instance where its clear that they players ARE overwhelmed....and that is the whole point of the room. Its designed to be a exceedingly hard fight because they being heavily encouraged to parley.
COMPLETE SIDE NOTE-...this whole encounter is poorly written as there is no good option for the players here. They either fight the goblins in a battle they are likely to be heavily injured in and the captive dies or they go along with the parley and have to fight the goblins after the fact anyway if they can't pay the ransom. Its encouraging them to NOT fight but punishing them when they don't which is ???. Early books for 5e are notoriously bad and this is a good example of why.
The next fight is 4 creatures so that is neutral with the party or even in the party's favor as the wolf and bugbear do not have BA. So that's another example of neutral or in the party's favor.
How about giving the Assassin Rogue a bonus to his Initiative for the first round, if he is the one to initiate the combat from stealth?
that way, he would most likely be acting first on the first round, then his initiative order could change after that, depending on what he rolled and his normal bonuses.
You are reading it wrong my friend....its obviously intended with the idea that you will at least hear the goblin out. They give you a ton of information that if you were simply suppose to ambush them why bother with this level of detail? You wouldn't....and its obviously intended that you are suppose to have to think about the fight here. It is 6 goblins vs. 4 first level players....this is a deadly encounter by the XP calculator. The next fight is a deadly encounter as well per the calculator.
Overall you are seriously saying that the players are suppose to have 2 deadly fights back to back at level 1 with no consideration that they should parley? I do not think so.
Also I find it funny that you are talking AGAINST the BA of the goblin as that actively makes the AE in the favor of the players then....as 4 players are likely to have at least 8 actions among them and these 6 goblins would have 6 then...funny.
You pull the single worst example from the adventure then get upset when it doesnt work out as you intended?
I do not know what to tell you....its just how the game is. I have run several of the books now and done Adventure League DMing....the official modules/adventures are designed to have AE in the favor of the players. Its just how it is. Just reading them should show you this.
You won't because I will prove to you once again that the AE is almost always in the favor of the players (as it is here).
You do not have an example yet that shows that. In fact you only proved more that the nature of the encounter favors the players ("Its a cake walk!"....despite the XP calculator saying this is a "Deadly" encounter.....VERY telling huh?)
Overall you have failed to prove your point at all so you can feel free to avoid it if you want. It does not change the reality that AE is almost always in the players favor.
Well, so far, I have proven that you did not read that encounter properly, and I have also given to you examples that counter your theory including in recent publications. Seeing that there is nothing in the rules that even remotely supports your theory, I would say that it looks very dead to me.
Especially since the articles that you are pointing are actually dealing with something completely different, namely the fact that it's the nature of the game to have bosses, and when you have bosses, the AE plays against them naturally.
It's completely the opposite from saying that "the game has been designed so that the AE advantage rests on the players", it's saying, there are many types of encounters, in general the AE works well, but it causes a problem when it's overwhelmingly in favour of the players such as with bosses.
So, yes, the community agrees that the way AE works in bosses encounter is not great and proposes solutions, but it certainly does not say "and anyway AE is almost always in favour of the players anyway", because it's not the case.
I read it properly so you can drop that idea completely....its obviously intended that at some point the fight is stopped you don't have to engage with all 6 enemies until they are dead also one of the enemies is actively NOT engaging the players in combat in at least one round as they will be interacting with the prisoner.
Even that being said you yourself said that the BA of the goblins is mostly wasted in this scenario so they would AT BEST have 6 actions.
The players by vurture of literally everything they have will have the access to at least 1 action but much more likely 2 actions (either a BA or reaction on top of their action) making the AE in the players favor.
So this example is completely in the players favor and you agree even "It will be a cakewalk" .....so you agree that the players should face a DEADLY encounter as assessed by the XP calculator that the system GIVES you to gauge...and its extremely easy to defeat? I do not know how you could have better proven my point.
The players have SUCH an advantage that a Deadly encounter is of trivial consequence to them! You yourself said it. That shows just how much it is stacked in the players favor the majority of the time. Again YOU said this.....
SO going back to the first part of this: Giving players an extra advantage ON TOP of the already inlaid advantages is terrible for balance.
If you want to make it easy for your players by all means do it. That is a fair way to play if you want to let players steamroll encounters left and right. Heroic fantasy like that is a completely valid playstyle. Maybe you want to challenge your players outside of combat instead.
That is completely valid....but understand they have the advantage already...by a large margin. Just be aware of what you are doing by giving them another large advantage.
You make a lot of assumptions about people and it shows. You literally have no idea how anyone else plays but make giant leaps in what I must be doing.
You literally said a DEADLY encounter would be easy for them...thats on you not me. I think its an actual deadly challenge to the players myself but you also seem to think that your experience makes you better than everyone else and always correct so I cannot argue as you literally are incapable of seeing it from anyother way.
You also literally said to give the player the advantage of attacking before combat starts...which is an advantage that is NOT RAW.
So you not only suggest something that is outside of RAW but is absolutely an advantage (a huge one) to players to allow them to do it. So YOU.....YOU are the one saying they need the advantage. I am not sure why when you think they can handle Deadly encounters so easily you do not even think that MAYBE the encounter was designed to be tough so that they want to parley?
You have shown NO evidence that AE is NOT in favor of the players. All your examples I have thoroughly disproven or you yourself have handwaved with no evidence. I have at least tried to show numbers in good faith and articles discussing the matter in a overarching way.
You have done none of that and instead want to rely on your supposed superiority when it comes to the game with no evidence whatsoever.
Again simply stating the number of enemies is literally why you are not paying attention....
These goblins have 6 actions....you said that their BA is negated in this encounter so I am holding you to that.
The players have a much higher likely hood of having at least 2 actions maybe even 3.
This means that 4 players have 8 actions....the goblins have 6. The players have the Action Economy advantage.
You keep stating the CR rules for multiples which is true....but then you discredit the system immediately saying that 6 goblins which by your factors should be a Deadly encounter is a "cakewalk" for the party.
Also yeah if there are 15 enemies of course they have the ******* action economy advantage. How many written modules have the players fighting 15 enemies?
Your DMG example means nothing then...as it just proves my point that you would need to have about 4x as many enemies as players to equal out the AE advantage of the players.
You actually are proving my point which is hilarious.
OK, at this stage, this has gone on for long enough, and it's not even the subject of the thread.
You assumption that "Players always have the AE advantage" is proven nowhere in the rules, and is clearly disproven RAW in the DMG and by examples in many modules. The fact that you are clinging to just one of the many examples that I have provided and twisting either the wording of the encounters or the stats of the monsters just shows to everyone that you know this as well. I have nothing to add, other readers will judge for themselves. Have a good evening.
But its not and you have proven nothing to counter it and I have provided ample proof.
OK, at this stage, this has gone on for long enough, and it's not even the subject of the thread.
You assumption that "Players always have the AE advantage" is proven nowhere in the rules, and is clearly disproven RAW in the DMG and by examples in many modules. The fact that you are clinging to just one of the many examples that I have provided and twisting either the wording of the encounters or the stats of the monsters just shows to everyone that you know this as well. I have nothing to add, other readers will judge for themselves. Have a good evening.
But its not and you have proven nothing to counter it and I have provided ample proof.
RAW, just read the DMG:
7–10
× 2.5
11–14
× 3
15 or more
× 4
End of discussion.
This proves it lol...due to bounded accuracy hit points and damage scale well into the later levels. AE gains are exponential so if you have 2x the number of creatures compared to the number of players even a low CR enemy will become deadly.
You are proving my point....AE is extremely powerful and should be treated as such. This is a great example of why adding any form of AE to the game is very much screwing with the balance.
Your ready actions will VASTLY improve the odds of whoever gets them by giving out free actions on the first round of combat....your number prove that. You are basically doubling the number of creatures the other side will face if you give them the ready actions.
The major issue with your suggestion is you are making a global change that has huge implications for AE to fix an issue with a subclass.
You are literally doubling the actions of the Readied creatures with this which your own charts suggest will make combat 2.5x more difficult.
This is not a small change. This will make things swing wildly one way or another
I get it goes both ways.... But that's only making things worse. It makes encounters you calculate much more difficult or easy depending on who readies what.
It's just going outside the balance they created as it was not intended by RAW.
It is 100% a free action btw... There is no denying that.
Even if you are "just" trading a reaction for a full action that is a full on improvement. Also if they are surprised and lose the first action anyway so you have cost the creatures who readied the actions literally nothing...its a free action.
Overall the question has been answered: its not RAW.
Overall your opinion and my opinion have been shared and its obvious we will not agree.
Its just how the game is designed....
Players have better initiative on average thanks to the listed player benefits vs the CR average dex abilites of creatures. If you want to homebrew every creature to have a high initiative to battle the players feel free but its not the norm by any means. That also promotes "rocket tag" in my opinion and is bad for the flow of the game overall.
As for action economy I suggest you read this as it outlines it well: https://www.dungeonsolvers.com/2018/06/01/understanding-the-action-economy-in-dd-5e/
Basically players:
1. Outnumber enemies generally if using CR appropriate creatures
2. Creatures on average have less actions per round thanks to a low amount of economy use (They do not use BA/Reactions as much as players)
So in most encounters players already have the advantage with economy unless you are constantly adding mobs to battles or homebrewing your own creatures that utilize BA/Reactions more.
Again this just how the game is....using the provided materials you will experience this. Not every DM is willing to completely homebrew every monster in an encounter to nullify this intrinsic advantage.
Overall you are talking about a lot more work for the DM to adjust everything to fit the mold vs. playing the game with the intended balance and letting things play out.
Its fine to run things this way....but be honest about the amount of work it requires to ensure you are not de-balancing the game.
You can disagree if you want but the fact is that the game was designed with players having the economy advantage.
It's just how it is.... That's pretty clear.
The fact you do exactly what he suggested in the article means you are already adjusting things to accommodate this...so that's good.
With time and practice it comes easier so hang in there.
Overall it's clear what RAW says and I believe that is what OP was asking so I think we can consider this answered.
4-5 5e campaigns
I do not have experience with older editions but I consider that a bonus as they tend to make DMs revert to old habits that don't work in 5e
That is uh... incredibly condescending. I'll make my leave.
It seemed you were newer to this edition since you were unfamiliar with the design aspects.
It was positive at least....
I disagree. I see many published adventures and monsters where players don't have the advantage. It is very common for parties to face greater numbers of enemies and/or tasks/hazards in a given combat encounter and many "bosses", as it were, hold legendary and lair actions specifically to ensure they get an advantage, especially since having minions is also common. This is even more exemplified given multiattack options, auto-grapples, and more. I see no evidence of your argument in sourcebooks, or the plethora of AL sessions and streamed sessions I've seen (including by the designers themselves). There will be some encounters where players do get this advantage, but it is certainly not the majority as your argument suggests. Action economy is factored into the CR for encounter building so it is, by design, up to the DM to decide who gets the advantage by deciding on the monsters and encounter difficulty.
That's a bit of an assumption there. The suggestion isn't some new thing the author made-up. It's taken from the DMG in the section on building encounters, just rephrased it so people who didn't quite understand it on their read of the DMG now might do so. It's something many DMs have been doing for all encounters, literally for every D&D edition. It's a basic principle in encounter building. Just some people don't read the DMG properly or don't understand the way its written, so the advice is aimed for those people.
I hope you're trying to sound positive and helpful but have to say this comes across as a bit condescending. It implies Lyxen is new and needs to practice more. This can be considered insulting since it seems your implication is founded entirely on the fact they disagree with your opinion on the action economy. Which, if that is truly why you're saying that, is rather immature. I'm assuming this wasn't your intention, as you often seem quite respectable in the majority of posts I see from you, so wanted to just highlight this.
It can't be that clear to you given how you're arguing against Lyxen's use of the ready action which is perfectly within the RAW.
But yes, the OPs question has been thoroughly answered by this point, I do agree on that.
Click ✨ HERE ✨ For My Youtube Videos featuring Guides, Tips & Tricks for using D&D Beyond.
Need help with Homebrew? Check out ✨ this FAQ/Guide thread ✨ by IamSposta.
The CR calculator in the DMG is not very accurate and also the published modules do not follow it....
So overall it's less than helpful unfortunately as it under values number of creatures
The issues you state do exist in this edition as certain synergy is absolutely devistating.
Shadows are low CR but the STR drain is a death spiral if you have a few of them.
Intellect Devourer are extremely deadly at CR 2
Banshee can TPK very quickly.
TBH they should have more effects that are dangerous like this but they are the exceptions.
I would challenge anyone to look at published materials and find a fight where 4 players:
1. Do not have initiative advantage
2. Creature actions outweigh PC actions.
If you roll with a smaller group the issue is less apparent but still somewhat noticable.
Even creatures with legendary actions will generally be less actions than players or about even.... At that is the exact intent of the feature.
6 goblins but not all at once in one combat.....so thats a bit misleading as its not one combat.
Reading over the adventure they are broken up into groups of 2-3. The blind there are 2 and in the next area 3 wolves, then a single goblin on the bridge. So they are expected to encounter these areas separately. In which case the PCs overcome the action economy fairly easily for a group of 4. Goblins are a good use though as they always have a BA to use.
So again it is in the players favor.
And yes BBEG battles should definitely NOT suffer from this issue as they load those down with minions....but the players at that point can overcome the AE extremely easily with summons/conjures of their own. Its definitely easy to overcome.
Also from what I am seeing it too is broken up into individual areas with smaller numbers of creatures....again not one big fight with a lot of baddies but several smaller fights in a row.
Most of what I am reading is traps/puzzles with little to no enemies....which is one way to widdle resources mentioned in the article I shared.
Overall still no evidence here of the players actions being out numbered considering at this point they have a reason to use all three actions every turn (Action/BA/Reaction)
BA are certainly NOT ignored here. Even if you side with the goblins on that. Overall players will have much more common use of BA in majority of encounters but in this case the goblins actually have the ADV. It's actually a really good example of action economy as your players will likely lose this fight.... And it's absolutely intended to be that way.
There is a very very clear non-combat option you are ignoring..... And they are encouraging the players to take it or face very poor odds.
I do find it kind of ironic you pick the one instance where its clear that they players ARE overwhelmed....and that is the whole point of the room. Its designed to be a exceedingly hard fight because they being heavily encouraged to parley.
COMPLETE SIDE NOTE-...this whole encounter is poorly written as there is no good option for the players here. They either fight the goblins in a battle they are likely to be heavily injured in and the captive dies or they go along with the parley and have to fight the goblins after the fact anyway if they can't pay the ransom. Its encouraging them to NOT fight but punishing them when they don't which is ???. Early books for 5e are notoriously bad and this is a good example of why.
The next fight is 4 creatures so that is neutral with the party or even in the party's favor as the wolf and bugbear do not have BA. So that's another example of neutral or in the party's favor.
How about giving the Assassin Rogue a bonus to his Initiative for the first round, if he is the one to initiate the combat from stealth?
that way, he would most likely be acting first on the first round, then his initiative order could change after that, depending on what he rolled and his normal bonuses.
You are reading it wrong my friend....its obviously intended with the idea that you will at least hear the goblin out. They give you a ton of information that if you were simply suppose to ambush them why bother with this level of detail? You wouldn't....and its obviously intended that you are suppose to have to think about the fight here. It is 6 goblins vs. 4 first level players....this is a deadly encounter by the XP calculator. The next fight is a deadly encounter as well per the calculator.
Overall you are seriously saying that the players are suppose to have 2 deadly fights back to back at level 1 with no consideration that they should parley? I do not think so.
Also I find it funny that you are talking AGAINST the BA of the goblin as that actively makes the AE in the favor of the players then....as 4 players are likely to have at least 8 actions among them and these 6 goblins would have 6 then...funny.
You pull the single worst example from the adventure then get upset when it doesnt work out as you intended?
I do not know what to tell you....its just how the game is. I have run several of the books now and done Adventure League DMing....the official modules/adventures are designed to have AE in the favor of the players. Its just how it is. Just reading them should show you this.
You won't because I will prove to you once again that the AE is almost always in the favor of the players (as it is here).
You do not have an example yet that shows that. In fact you only proved more that the nature of the encounter favors the players ("Its a cake walk!"....despite the XP calculator saying this is a "Deadly" encounter.....VERY telling huh?)
Overall you have failed to prove your point at all so you can feel free to avoid it if you want. It does not change the reality that AE is almost always in the players favor.
https://www.reddit.com/r/DnDBehindTheScreen/comments/7d97i5/dd_5e_action_economy_solutions/
https://www.dungeonsolvers.com/2018/06/01/understanding-the-action-economy-in-dd-5e/
I don't have to convince you as its very apparent in the community this is the case....
I read it properly so you can drop that idea completely....its obviously intended that at some point the fight is stopped you don't have to engage with all 6 enemies until they are dead also one of the enemies is actively NOT engaging the players in combat in at least one round as they will be interacting with the prisoner.
Even that being said you yourself said that the BA of the goblins is mostly wasted in this scenario so they would AT BEST have 6 actions.
The players by vurture of literally everything they have will have the access to at least 1 action but much more likely 2 actions (either a BA or reaction on top of their action) making the AE in the players favor.
So this example is completely in the players favor and you agree even "It will be a cakewalk" .....so you agree that the players should face a DEADLY encounter as assessed by the XP calculator that the system GIVES you to gauge...and its extremely easy to defeat? I do not know how you could have better proven my point.
The players have SUCH an advantage that a Deadly encounter is of trivial consequence to them! You yourself said it. That shows just how much it is stacked in the players favor the majority of the time. Again YOU said this.....
SO going back to the first part of this: Giving players an extra advantage ON TOP of the already inlaid advantages is terrible for balance.
If you want to make it easy for your players by all means do it. That is a fair way to play if you want to let players steamroll encounters left and right. Heroic fantasy like that is a completely valid playstyle. Maybe you want to challenge your players outside of combat instead.
That is completely valid....but understand they have the advantage already...by a large margin. Just be aware of what you are doing by giving them another large advantage.
You make a lot of assumptions about people and it shows. You literally have no idea how anyone else plays but make giant leaps in what I must be doing.
You literally said a DEADLY encounter would be easy for them...thats on you not me. I think its an actual deadly challenge to the players myself but you also seem to think that your experience makes you better than everyone else and always correct so I cannot argue as you literally are incapable of seeing it from anyother way.
You also literally said to give the player the advantage of attacking before combat starts...which is an advantage that is NOT RAW.
Ready Actions do not exist outside of combat: https://www.sageadvice.eu/2016/10/06/can-players-use-the-ready-action-before-initiative-is-rolled/
So you not only suggest something that is outside of RAW but is absolutely an advantage (a huge one) to players to allow them to do it. So YOU.....YOU are the one saying they need the advantage. I am not sure why when you think they can handle Deadly encounters so easily you do not even think that MAYBE the encounter was designed to be tough so that they want to parley?
You have shown NO evidence that AE is NOT in favor of the players. All your examples I have thoroughly disproven or you yourself have handwaved with no evidence. I have at least tried to show numbers in good faith and articles discussing the matter in a overarching way.
You have done none of that and instead want to rely on your supposed superiority when it comes to the game with no evidence whatsoever.
Again simply stating the number of enemies is literally why you are not paying attention....
These goblins have 6 actions....you said that their BA is negated in this encounter so I am holding you to that.
The players have a much higher likely hood of having at least 2 actions maybe even 3.
This means that 4 players have 8 actions....the goblins have 6. The players have the Action Economy advantage.
You keep stating the CR rules for multiples which is true....but then you discredit the system immediately saying that 6 goblins which by your factors should be a Deadly encounter is a "cakewalk" for the party.
Also yeah if there are 15 enemies of course they have the ******* action economy advantage. How many written modules have the players fighting 15 enemies?
Your DMG example means nothing then...as it just proves my point that you would need to have about 4x as many enemies as players to equal out the AE advantage of the players.
You actually are proving my point which is hilarious.
But its not and you have proven nothing to counter it and I have provided ample proof.
This proves it lol...due to bounded accuracy hit points and damage scale well into the later levels. AE gains are exponential so if you have 2x the number of creatures compared to the number of players even a low CR enemy will become deadly.
You are proving my point....AE is extremely powerful and should be treated as such. This is a great example of why adding any form of AE to the game is very much screwing with the balance.
Your ready actions will VASTLY improve the odds of whoever gets them by giving out free actions on the first round of combat....your number prove that. You are basically doubling the number of creatures the other side will face if you give them the ready actions.
The major issue with your suggestion is you are making a global change that has huge implications for AE to fix an issue with a subclass.
You are literally doubling the actions of the Readied creatures with this which your own charts suggest will make combat 2.5x more difficult.
This is not a small change. This will make things swing wildly one way or another
I get it goes both ways.... But that's only making things worse. It makes encounters you calculate much more difficult or easy depending on who readies what.
It's just going outside the balance they created as it was not intended by RAW.
It is 100% a free action btw... There is no denying that.
Even if you are "just" trading a reaction for a full action that is a full on improvement. Also if they are surprised and lose the first action anyway so you have cost the creatures who readied the actions literally nothing...its a free action.
Overall the question has been answered: its not RAW.
Overall your opinion and my opinion have been shared and its obvious we will not agree.
This is once again completely condescending and absolutely not needed in any way.