IMO too much as being made here of not following RAW. The real problem is multiple TPKs in a few sessions. TPKs are not fun. Player death should be a possibility, or there is no challenge and no tension, but TPKs should be a rarity.
If you got TPKed because you asked for brutal difficulty in session 0, that would be fine. If you got TPKed because of really unlucky dice rolls that would be fine. But it does sound like you got TPKed because the DM ruled outside RAW heavily in favor of the monsters. Ruling outside RAW in favor of the monsters is fine, IMO, when you are doing it to make a more balanced combat. For example, maybe your party has come up with a combo that exploits a loophole to be able to deal damage without the monsters having any hope of dealing damage in return. RAW says it will work, but it would make no sense in real life. Then as the DM I'd house rule some way the monsters are able to respond to that. But if you are already getting clobbered, why make the monsters more powerful?
I can't imagine being paid to be a DM. No one could afford what I'd have to charge. It is so much work. Of course, I run homebrew. Maybe if I was running a module, I could do it. But I imagine there is quite a range of quality of paid DMs out there. I'd like to say if I was your DM and you talked to me about your issues, I would adjust my style to your liking. But if I was running several different groups, I'm not sure I'd be able to adapt to several different styles of play. The right answer here might be for you to look for a different paid DM who matches your group's style more.
IMO too much as being made here of not following RAW. The real problem is multiple TPKs in a few sessions. TPKs are not fun. Player death should be a possibility, or there is no challenge and no tension, but they should be a rarity.
If you got TPKed because you asked for brutal difficulty in session 0, that would be fine. If you got TPKed because of really unlucky dice rolls that would be fine. But it does sound like you got TPKed because the DM ruled outside RAW heavily in favor of the monsters. Ruling outside RAW in favor of the monsters is fine, IMO, when you are doing it to make a more balanced combat. For example, maybe your party has come up with a combo that exploits a loophole to be able to deal damage without the monsters having any hope of dealing damage in return. RAW says it will work, but it would make no sense in real life. Then as the DM I'd house rule some way the monsters are able to respond to that. But if you are already getting clobbered, why make the monsters more powerful?
I can't imagine being paid to be a DM. No one could afford what I'd have to charge. It is so much work. Of course, I run homebrew. Maybe if I was running a module, I could do it. But I imagine there is quite a range of quality of paid DMs out there. I'd like to say if I was your DM and you talked to me about your issues, I would adjust my style to your liking. But if I was running several different groups, I'm not sure I'd be able to adapt to several different styles of play. The right answer here might be for you to look for a different paid DM who matches your group's style more.
Agreed. If the party is getting TPK'd simply because that's the DM's MO then yes, I'd start looking for a DM too.
You bring up a good point by talking about the difference between DMing a homebrew and a module. Modules by definition are pre-defined and require less prep work per session than homebrews -- to the point that most people, even inexperienced DMs can run them with a level of success.
The prep work involved in running a successful homebrewed campaign, however, is immense. Running multiple homebrews (as I imagine most paid DMs do) would eat up the better part of a week just in prep work. In that case it makes sense for players to be a little more understanding of potential friction points since they're more likely not the only customers and the DM simply won't have the time to make every little minute adjustment.
>>Kind of curious as to why you would do that instead of just adding a couple more or going with a more powerful monster in the first place? Using balance tools like kobold fight club would be hard to use if the normal stat block wouldn't be honored.
Have you ever run a combat encounter with more than 8 monsters? I find that 6-8 mobs is about the max any encounter can actually handle. Unless the DM introduces a homebrewed mechanic that makes large scale combat more fast paced and interesting anything larger than 8 monsters tends to be tedious and boring.
In that case it makes sense for the DM to "tune-up" monsters to make the fight more challenging and interesting than to simply introduce more -- especially if it fits thematically (i.e. stronger "elite" goblins towards the end of a goblin warren).
>>Kind of curious as to why you would do that instead of just adding a couple more or going with a more powerful monster in the first place? Using balance tools like kobold fight club would be hard to use if the normal stat block wouldn't be honored.
Have you ever run a combat encounter with more than 8 monsters? I find that 6-8 mobs is about the max any encounter can actually handle. Unless the DM introduces a homebrewed mechanic that makes large scale combat more fast paced and interesting anything larger than 8 monsters tends to be tedious and boring.
In that case it makes sense for the DM to "tune-up" monsters to make the fight more challenging and interesting than to simply introduce more -- especially if it fits thematically (i.e. stronger "elite" goblins towards the end of a goblin warren).
We actually had a HUGE battle with undead a few weeks ago on the Wednesday game I DM. The party decided to go directly into a town that was full of undead, not very stealthily either. I had the fighting over 50 skeletons which was pretty easy actually. The party was level 13 so basically one hit from any of them would destroy a skeleton so tracking it was simple. Used all one initiative count and rolled at least 4 skeletons attacks at once to get through it pretty quickly. They seemed to like it, made them feel epic and allowed me to drain a couple spell slots from them for some AOE and a little healing as you'll have a few attacks make it through with that many skeletons. Their initial reaction was they were going to die as they had never been attacked by so many things at once, pretty fun session.
My very first combat as a DM, I ran 11 monsters against 5 PCs and 4 NPCs. It was...frazzling, to say the least.
That said...I can see where the OP is coming from. If the expectation at the table is to use the strictest interpretation of rules and stat blocks exactly as they are written without alteration, then that's their prerogative. Personally, I would probably not fit well at that table, but at that point the onus would be on me to bow out and acknowledge that I am not a good fit for that table.
We actually had a HUGE battle with undead a few weeks ago on the Wednesday game I DM. The party decided to go directly into a town that was full of undead, not very stealthily either. I had the fighting over 50 skeletons which was pretty easy actually. The party was level 13 so basically one hit from any of them would destroy a skeleton so tracking it was simple. Used all one initiative count and rolled at least 4 skeletons attacks at once to get through it pretty quickly. They seemed to like it, made them feel epic and allowed me to drain a couple spell slots from them for some AOE and a little healing as you'll have a few attacks make it through with that many skeletons. Their initial reaction was they were going to die as they had never been attacked by so many things at once, pretty fun session.
I think this emphasises the points that have been made already about different people liking different things about D&D, wanting to get different things out of it, and that's why it's important for the DM and players to be on the same page about what sort of game it is before you start (or to bring it back to the original topic, before money changes hands).
I suspect that we would not enjoy being in each others games, as I can scarcely imagine a worse thing than having to slog through 50 monsters in a single combat - especially if they are all sharing the same initiative and you risk the skeletons getting top initiative and a TPK happening without your players taking a single action. For me, if I wanted to do combat on that scale I'd just play Warhammer instead - but clearly you and your players enjoyed it, so more power to you.
We actually had a HUGE battle with undead a few weeks ago on the Wednesday game I DM. The party decided to go directly into a town that was full of undead, not very stealthily either. I had the fighting over 50 skeletons which was pretty easy actually. The party was level 13 so basically one hit from any of them would destroy a skeleton so tracking it was simple. Used all one initiative count and rolled at least 4 skeletons attacks at once to get through it pretty quickly. They seemed to like it, made them feel epic and allowed me to drain a couple spell slots from them for some AOE and a little healing as you'll have a few attacks make it through with that many skeletons. Their initial reaction was they were going to die as they had never been attacked by so many things at once, pretty fun session.
I think this emphasises the points that have been made already about different people liking different things about D&D, wanting to get different things out of it, and that's why it's important for the DM and players to be on the same page about what sort of game it is before you start (or to bring it back to the original topic, before money changes hands).
I suspect that we would not enjoy being in each others games, as I can scarcely imagine a worse thing than having to slog through 50 monsters in a single combat - especially if they are all sharing the same initiative and you risk the skeletons getting top initiative and a TPK happening without your players taking a single action. For me, if I wanted to do combat on that scale I'd just play Warhammer instead - but clearly you and your players enjoyed it, so more power to you.
50 skeletons against a level 13 party? Odds of anyone dying, let alone a TPK are pretty small even if the PCs are completely unoptimized. However, all the PCs see are 50 skeletons rising up and massing for an attack - some with short swords and some with short bows. Keep in mind that if the skeletons swarm the characters then the characters are likely to have partial cover against the ranged attacks as well.
I can see that being a fun encounter since the threat FEELS very high even if it isn't really that hard. On kobold fight club, 50 skeletons works out as a medium encounter for 4 level 13 characters.
"Two Duergar see you and coordinate their attacks so they get advantage at 150 feet with Javelins." That's not how advantage works and outside 30 feet is disadvantage and a max range of 120, so no on all levels.
Agreed. Totally wonky. Clearly a DM who doesn't understand the rules on advantage or range for weapon attacks. They are trying for drama at the expense of the rules while you all agreed in session 0 that the rules are important.
A wall with arrow slits that is 5 feet thick so the mobs are 10 feet away. Ran past that arrow slit and get opportunity attacked when they do not have reach weapons. Same monsters run around to the other side and past an ally by an arrow slit that is not on a 5 foot thick wall and he is not allowed an opportunity attack. wtf
Agreed. This is again a DM trying for drama at the expense of the rules. Folks like this try for excitement without necessarily imposing continuity.
In worlds I play in or run, I like the characters, NPCs and monsters to generally follow the same rules sometimes modified for situations - so generally I follow RAW.
That said, however, there have been rare times when I I didn't follow RAW for dramatic effect. For example, in one game I allowed a dog to move across an invisible hostile creatures space. RAW, both creatures occupy 5' squares and you can't cross a hostile space. In this case, the dog jumped off a shield held by one of the guards, leaping over the invisible creature and landing behind them and allowing the dog to attack a creature on the other side of the invisible creature. Dogs are very agile and quick - so it seemed like an interesting move. I could have also decided to give the invisible creature an opportunity attack or reaction to block the dog. All sorts of options - but it wasn't RAW. The fight at that point was mostly a foregone conclusion and the unexpected move just made it slightly more interesting to finish off. However, it was a one off situation and if one of the characters had a trained guard dog I'd consider them being trained for some interesting tricks as a possibility.
Flying 20 feet in the air a monster with no jump stats is able to jump straight up in the air 20 feet to attack from flat ground underneath. Completely negate the benefit of flight
This depends on the creature. Every creature can jump and if a creature is strong enough or has something they can jump off or a special ability then this might be achievable. However, absent all these, the DM should just let the flying character have their fun and be sure to include either ranged, jumping or flying opponents as appropriate in future encounters. However, given your previous examples this would appear to be the DM trying to achieve drama and tension by changing the rules to favor the monsters or to fit the current situation. It is not a playstyle I personally like and wouldn't enjoy but some folks (especially those new to the game) don't see an issue and just enjoy the narrative.
Duergar Mind Master ability to cause a character to make an attack or move as a reaction on a failed INT save is extended to 5 rounds of combat, no other saves, and complete loss of control of their character (actions, reactions, movement, targeting of fellow party members).
Monster stat blocks are easily within the purview of a DM to change. If they want to give a creature a special ability then that is something a DM can do. That said, this is again an example of drama over fun. These types of abilities have a save every turn to give the player a chance to take over playing their character soon. Their friends can attack the caster to force concentration saves, someone can cast dispel magic, and the character has a save at the end of every round. 5e is designed to have a lot more temporary effects, save or suck effects are pretty rare in 5e compared to previous editions. Extending an effect like this to 5 rounds, no saves, is pretty much the entire length of a normal combat so it is a bit unbalanced and forces the party to attack the caster in other ways to break the effect.
Additional health added to monsters as well as ignoring movement ranges and number of attacks.
These are all possible for a DM to do. Monster stat blocks just list average health - if they roll it, it could be higher or lower with some being easier targets and some harder. I do this occasionally just to mix things up for fun since the players should not count on monster X requiring 30 hit points of damage to kill. D&D isn't a science and a DM taking actions and modifying creatures to reduce metagaming is just par for the course.
The same can go for movement or number of attacks, especially for elite versions of monsters or NPCs. However, personally, I don't modify base versions of creatures with different capabilities. Usually, creatures with additional abilities will have some visible characteristics that indicate that they might be different from the run of the mill. Nicer armor, better weapons, slightly bigger build, look more alert ... all sorts of little things might indicate a modified creature.
These are non-interpretive rules, complete disregard for absolute RAW. Just to shed light on just a small portion of the issues we had. I understand the gray areas, but stat blocks and ranges are not one of them haha.
I agree with you about the rules applied in the first part - they aren't RAW - it is probably just an incompatible DMing style where the DM likes to create dramatic moments without regard to the rules (often because they don't actually know the rules that well - they break them all the time because they are aiming for rule of "cool" all the time without understanding that an underlying logical consistency to the world they play in is actually more cool than just having whatever they want to happen occur. Anyway, that is just a DM style that is incompatible with your group but may work well with newer players who are equally unfamiliar with the rules since they have no idea what it is supposed to be they just go along with what the DM says.
However, I disagree on the monster stat blocks - those aren't RAW - a DM needs the ability to create whatever monsters they like in their world. HOWEVER, those monsters should be consistent with each other. If the first duergar you meet seems to have around 30 hit points with certain abilities then an identical one you meet later is unlikely to have 200 hit points, 4 attacks and extra spell casting abilities (unless the creature is using disguise self to make them LOOK like a duergar :) ... however, that is a one off special NPC type situation and would become obvious to the players as the encounter progresses). Running a logical and consistent game world is a skill that not all DMs possess.
Anyway, it terms of finding a DM to pay to run your games, I can only suggest reading their information, asking some questions, maybe come up with a couple of scenarios and ask how they would run such a hypothetical situation and see how it goes from there.
We actually had a HUGE battle with undead a few weeks ago on the Wednesday game I DM. The party decided to go directly into a town that was full of undead, not very stealthily either. I had the fighting over 50 skeletons which was pretty easy actually. The party was level 13 so basically one hit from any of them would destroy a skeleton so tracking it was simple. Used all one initiative count and rolled at least 4 skeletons attacks at once to get through it pretty quickly. They seemed to like it, made them feel epic and allowed me to drain a couple spell slots from them for some AOE and a little healing as you'll have a few attacks make it through with that many skeletons. Their initial reaction was they were going to die as they had never been attacked by so many things at once, pretty fun session.
I think this emphasises the points that have been made already about different people liking different things about D&D, wanting to get different things out of it, and that's why it's important for the DM and players to be on the same page about what sort of game it is before you start (or to bring it back to the original topic, before money changes hands).
I suspect that we would not enjoy being in each others games, as I can scarcely imagine a worse thing than having to slog through 50 monsters in a single combat - especially if they are all sharing the same initiative and you risk the skeletons getting top initiative and a TPK happening without your players taking a single action. For me, if I wanted to do combat on that scale I'd just play Warhammer instead - but clearly you and your players enjoyed it, so more power to you.
Yea, if you were playing multiple small encounters that added up to 50 skeletons in a "escape the town" scenario I could see where that would be fun. But if you're simply fighting 50 creatures (regardless of type) that act with some semblance of intelligence it becomes a battle of initiative more than anything else. Does the wizard get off that big fireball? Or do the player(s) get swarmed by an unending tide of mobs?
50 skeletons against a level 13 party? Odds of anyone dying, let alone a TPK are pretty small even if the PCs are completely unoptimized. However, all the PCs see are 50 skeletons rising up and massing for an attack - some with short swords and some with short bows. Keep in mind that if the skeletons swarm the characters then the characters are likely to have partial cover against the ranged attacks as well.
I can see that being a fun encounter since the threat FEELS very high even if it isn't really that hard. On kobold fight club, 50 skeletons works out as a medium encounter for 4 level 13 characters.
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw. I think it depends on exactly what the skeletons are doing. As quite a lot of people have said in this thread already, you can't necessarily trust "balancing" tools like kobold fight club because there are a lot of external factors that influence combat, chief among them the massive force multiplier that is the action economy. I agree it's unlikely that a TPK will happen, I'm just saying that if it did happen, the DM might as well have declared "rocks fall, everyone dies" because there isn't much the players could do about it.
Anyway, the real point I was trying to make is that I can think of much more fun ways to spend 2 hours than running a combat with 50 CR 1/4 creatures against a party of level 13s. If you enjoy that sort of encounter, go nuts - it just isn't for me.
Actually, RAW, a dog might be able to run past an opponent.
"In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you."
So if it's a tiny chihuahua, or the opponent is large or larger, it should automatically be allowed, RAW.
For fun, I would often allow it as a house rule for only one size difference, maybe with a contested acrobatics check. This sort of rule adds to the fun of being a halfling, when you can slide between your enemy's legs.
Actually, RAW, a dog might be able to run past an opponent.
"In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you."
So if it's a tiny chihuahua, or the opponent is large or larger, it should automatically be allowed, RAW.
For fun, I would often allow it as a house rule for only one size difference, maybe with a contested acrobatics check. This sort of rule adds to the fun of being a halfling, when you can slide between your enemy's legs.
I sort of like your ruling, granting Halfling nimbleness to other small creatures. However, you're then giving the handling racial trait to Gnomes and Kobolds, Goblins, etc. a bunch of small humanoids. I'd probably leave it to Halflings for humanoids, however might allow some small quadrupeds a similar ability on a case by case. Maybe allow "small nimbleness" as a feat for those small humanoids practiced in artfully dodging, so to speak.
50 skeletons against a level 13 party? Odds of anyone dying, let alone a TPK are pretty small even if the PCs are completely unoptimized. However, all the PCs see are 50 skeletons rising up and massing for an attack - some with short swords and some with short bows. Keep in mind that if the skeletons swarm the characters then the characters are likely to have partial cover against the ranged attacks as well.
I can see that being a fun encounter since the threat FEELS very high even if it isn't really that hard. On kobold fight club, 50 skeletons works out as a medium encounter for 4 level 13 characters.
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw. I think it depends on exactly what the skeletons are doing. As quite a lot of people have said in this thread already, you can't necessarily trust "balancing" tools like kobold fight club because there are a lot of external factors that influence combat, chief among them the massive force multiplier that is the action economy. I agree it's unlikely that a TPK will happen, I'm just saying that if it did happen, the DM might as well have declared "rocks fall, everyone dies" because there isn't much the players could do about it.
Anyway, the real point I was trying to make is that I can think of much more fun ways to spend 2 hours than running a combat with 50 CR 1/4 creatures against a party of level 13s. If you enjoy that sort of encounter, go nuts - it just isn't for me.
Not sure who said it took 2 hours to go through those many, but it sure wasn't that long for us. It's not a normal thing having that many monsters in an encounter either, that was the largest grouping I have used and it ended up being fun. I had to have some kind of blowback for just trudging directly into the town teeming with undead with really crap stealth rolls. The same initiative count for like creatures is an RAW thing as well, speeds things up from my experience. I wouldn't want to have battles like that very often, but that one in and of itself was pretty damn fun, moved very quickly, and although wasn't a super high difficulty for them it did give an "OH SHIT!" factor when they all came running in and surrounding them. They also had a couple close calls before that where they barely made it out so this gave them a chance to feel heroic and powerful.
Not sure who said it took 2 hours to go through those many, but it sure wasn't that long for us. It's not a normal thing having that many monsters in an encounter either, that was the largest grouping I have used and it ended up being fun. I had to have some kind of blowback for just trudging directly into the town teeming with undead with really crap stealth rolls. The same initiative count for like creatures is an RAW thing as well, speeds things up from my experience. I wouldn't want to have battles like that very often, but that one in and of itself was pretty damn fun, moved very quickly, and although wasn't a super high difficulty for them it did give an "OH SHIT!" factor when they all came running in and surrounding them. They also had a couple close calls before that where they barely made it out so this gave them a chance to feel heroic and powerful.
Did you use the DMG's mob attack rules? I've yet to use them, but I can see my characters coming across an adversary teeming (teaming?) environment and I think I like the mob attack option from an administrative view point, I'm just not sure how the players will take them taking statistically automatic hits.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No, I rolled each attack for each skeleton. I did move them first to swarm the party then rolled multiple skeleton attacks at once. I was worried it would bog things down but it went very quickly.
My understanding of the swarm rules is that on top of speeding up combat it also adds some danger to the situation as well. Mobs that were statistically unlikely to hit (cr1/4 skeletons versus lvl 15 adventurers) now have guaranteed damage and can likely overwhelmed the party if not dealt with accordingly.
This seems to me like the players and the DM were not compatible. This is okay. Find another DM.
As a DM, I would have walked away from any group that griefed me on modifying monsters (really, yo, DMG273-283 is full of written rules about this). As a player, I would likely not have stayed in a game where basic action rules were different for PCs and NPCs.
But there are plenty of players and DMs.
Running a campaign is like catering an event that only happens a few times in most people's lives. You would not cater your wedding from a place where you never had dinner, even your third wedding. And even then, your aunt will tell you how much better she would have been. Do a few one-shots, shop around. Find a good fit for you.
As a DM, I would have walked away from any group that griefed me on modifying monsters (really, yo, DMG273-283 is full of written rules about this). As a player, I would likely not have stayed in a game where basic action rules were different for PCs and NPCs.
Altering a stat block to make a unique monster or variation is one thing, changing a monster mid fight and making up abilities is something completely different. "Um, the Quaggoth didn't have reach the first 5 rounds of combat, but now he does and twice the health and can just 20 feet up to hit a flying character when they couldn't before." That's a bunch of crap and if I did that in any game I DM I would expect to be called out by players.
Update on the group though, our new DM is great and we are having a great time. Woot!!
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
IMO too much as being made here of not following RAW. The real problem is multiple TPKs in a few sessions. TPKs are not fun. Player death should be a possibility, or there is no challenge and no tension, but TPKs should be a rarity.
If you got TPKed because you asked for brutal difficulty in session 0, that would be fine. If you got TPKed because of really unlucky dice rolls that would be fine. But it does sound like you got TPKed because the DM ruled outside RAW heavily in favor of the monsters. Ruling outside RAW in favor of the monsters is fine, IMO, when you are doing it to make a more balanced combat. For example, maybe your party has come up with a combo that exploits a loophole to be able to deal damage without the monsters having any hope of dealing damage in return. RAW says it will work, but it would make no sense in real life. Then as the DM I'd house rule some way the monsters are able to respond to that. But if you are already getting clobbered, why make the monsters more powerful?
I can't imagine being paid to be a DM. No one could afford what I'd have to charge. It is so much work. Of course, I run homebrew. Maybe if I was running a module, I could do it. But I imagine there is quite a range of quality of paid DMs out there. I'd like to say if I was your DM and you talked to me about your issues, I would adjust my style to your liking. But if I was running several different groups, I'm not sure I'd be able to adapt to several different styles of play. The right answer here might be for you to look for a different paid DM who matches your group's style more.
Agreed. If the party is getting TPK'd simply because that's the DM's MO then yes, I'd start looking for a DM too.
You bring up a good point by talking about the difference between DMing a homebrew and a module. Modules by definition are pre-defined and require less prep work per session than homebrews -- to the point that most people, even inexperienced DMs can run them with a level of success.
The prep work involved in running a successful homebrewed campaign, however, is immense. Running multiple homebrews (as I imagine most paid DMs do) would eat up the better part of a week just in prep work. In that case it makes sense for players to be a little more understanding of potential friction points since they're more likely not the only customers and the DM simply won't have the time to make every little minute adjustment.
Have you ever run a combat encounter with more than 8 monsters? I find that 6-8 mobs is about the max any encounter can actually handle. Unless the DM introduces a homebrewed mechanic that makes large scale combat more fast paced and interesting anything larger than 8 monsters tends to be tedious and boring.
In that case it makes sense for the DM to "tune-up" monsters to make the fight more challenging and interesting than to simply introduce more -- especially if it fits thematically (i.e. stronger "elite" goblins towards the end of a goblin warren).
We actually had a HUGE battle with undead a few weeks ago on the Wednesday game I DM. The party decided to go directly into a town that was full of undead, not very stealthily either. I had the fighting over 50 skeletons which was pretty easy actually. The party was level 13 so basically one hit from any of them would destroy a skeleton so tracking it was simple. Used all one initiative count and rolled at least 4 skeletons attacks at once to get through it pretty quickly. They seemed to like it, made them feel epic and allowed me to drain a couple spell slots from them for some AOE and a little healing as you'll have a few attacks make it through with that many skeletons. Their initial reaction was they were going to die as they had never been attacked by so many things at once, pretty fun session.
My very first combat as a DM, I ran 11 monsters against 5 PCs and 4 NPCs. It was...frazzling, to say the least.
That said...I can see where the OP is coming from. If the expectation at the table is to use the strictest interpretation of rules and stat blocks exactly as they are written without alteration, then that's their prerogative. Personally, I would probably not fit well at that table, but at that point the onus would be on me to bow out and acknowledge that I am not a good fit for that table.
I think this emphasises the points that have been made already about different people liking different things about D&D, wanting to get different things out of it, and that's why it's important for the DM and players to be on the same page about what sort of game it is before you start (or to bring it back to the original topic, before money changes hands).
I suspect that we would not enjoy being in each others games, as I can scarcely imagine a worse thing than having to slog through 50 monsters in a single combat - especially if they are all sharing the same initiative and you risk the skeletons getting top initiative and a TPK happening without your players taking a single action. For me, if I wanted to do combat on that scale I'd just play Warhammer instead - but clearly you and your players enjoyed it, so more power to you.
50 skeletons against a level 13 party? Odds of anyone dying, let alone a TPK are pretty small even if the PCs are completely unoptimized. However, all the PCs see are 50 skeletons rising up and massing for an attack - some with short swords and some with short bows. Keep in mind that if the skeletons swarm the characters then the characters are likely to have partial cover against the ranged attacks as well.
I can see that being a fun encounter since the threat FEELS very high even if it isn't really that hard. On kobold fight club, 50 skeletons works out as a medium encounter for 4 level 13 characters.
------
Agreed. Totally wonky. Clearly a DM who doesn't understand the rules on advantage or range for weapon attacks. They are trying for drama at the expense of the rules while you all agreed in session 0 that the rules are important.
Agreed. This is again a DM trying for drama at the expense of the rules. Folks like this try for excitement without necessarily imposing continuity.
In worlds I play in or run, I like the characters, NPCs and monsters to generally follow the same rules sometimes modified for situations - so generally I follow RAW.
That said, however, there have been rare times when I I didn't follow RAW for dramatic effect. For example, in one game I allowed a dog to move across an invisible hostile creatures space. RAW, both creatures occupy 5' squares and you can't cross a hostile space. In this case, the dog jumped off a shield held by one of the guards, leaping over the invisible creature and landing behind them and allowing the dog to attack a creature on the other side of the invisible creature. Dogs are very agile and quick - so it seemed like an interesting move. I could have also decided to give the invisible creature an opportunity attack or reaction to block the dog. All sorts of options - but it wasn't RAW. The fight at that point was mostly a foregone conclusion and the unexpected move just made it slightly more interesting to finish off. However, it was a one off situation and if one of the characters had a trained guard dog I'd consider them being trained for some interesting tricks as a possibility.
This depends on the creature. Every creature can jump and if a creature is strong enough or has something they can jump off or a special ability then this might be achievable. However, absent all these, the DM should just let the flying character have their fun and be sure to include either ranged, jumping or flying opponents as appropriate in future encounters. However, given your previous examples this would appear to be the DM trying to achieve drama and tension by changing the rules to favor the monsters or to fit the current situation. It is not a playstyle I personally like and wouldn't enjoy but some folks (especially those new to the game) don't see an issue and just enjoy the narrative.
Monster stat blocks are easily within the purview of a DM to change. If they want to give a creature a special ability then that is something a DM can do. That said, this is again an example of drama over fun. These types of abilities have a save every turn to give the player a chance to take over playing their character soon. Their friends can attack the caster to force concentration saves, someone can cast dispel magic, and the character has a save at the end of every round. 5e is designed to have a lot more temporary effects, save or suck effects are pretty rare in 5e compared to previous editions. Extending an effect like this to 5 rounds, no saves, is pretty much the entire length of a normal combat so it is a bit unbalanced and forces the party to attack the caster in other ways to break the effect.
These are all possible for a DM to do. Monster stat blocks just list average health - if they roll it, it could be higher or lower with some being easier targets and some harder. I do this occasionally just to mix things up for fun since the players should not count on monster X requiring 30 hit points of damage to kill. D&D isn't a science and a DM taking actions and modifying creatures to reduce metagaming is just par for the course.
The same can go for movement or number of attacks, especially for elite versions of monsters or NPCs. However, personally, I don't modify base versions of creatures with different capabilities. Usually, creatures with additional abilities will have some visible characteristics that indicate that they might be different from the run of the mill. Nicer armor, better weapons, slightly bigger build, look more alert ... all sorts of little things might indicate a modified creature.
I agree with you about the rules applied in the first part - they aren't RAW - it is probably just an incompatible DMing style where the DM likes to create dramatic moments without regard to the rules (often because they don't actually know the rules that well - they break them all the time because they are aiming for rule of "cool" all the time without understanding that an underlying logical consistency to the world they play in is actually more cool than just having whatever they want to happen occur. Anyway, that is just a DM style that is incompatible with your group but may work well with newer players who are equally unfamiliar with the rules since they have no idea what it is supposed to be they just go along with what the DM says.
However, I disagree on the monster stat blocks - those aren't RAW - a DM needs the ability to create whatever monsters they like in their world. HOWEVER, those monsters should be consistent with each other. If the first duergar you meet seems to have around 30 hit points with certain abilities then an identical one you meet later is unlikely to have 200 hit points, 4 attacks and extra spell casting abilities (unless the creature is using disguise self to make them LOOK like a duergar :) ... however, that is a one off special NPC type situation and would become obvious to the players as the encounter progresses). Running a logical and consistent game world is a skill that not all DMs possess.
Anyway, it terms of finding a DM to pay to run your games, I can only suggest reading their information, asking some questions, maybe come up with a couple of scenarios and ask how they would run such a hypothetical situation and see how it goes from there.
Yea, if you were playing multiple small encounters that added up to 50 skeletons in a "escape the town" scenario I could see where that would be fun. But if you're simply fighting 50 creatures (regardless of type) that act with some semblance of intelligence it becomes a battle of initiative more than anything else. Does the wizard get off that big fireball? Or do the player(s) get swarmed by an unending tide of mobs?
Mibbes aye, mibbes naw. I think it depends on exactly what the skeletons are doing. As quite a lot of people have said in this thread already, you can't necessarily trust "balancing" tools like kobold fight club because there are a lot of external factors that influence combat, chief among them the massive force multiplier that is the action economy. I agree it's unlikely that a TPK will happen, I'm just saying that if it did happen, the DM might as well have declared "rocks fall, everyone dies" because there isn't much the players could do about it.
Anyway, the real point I was trying to make is that I can think of much more fun ways to spend 2 hours than running a combat with 50 CR 1/4 creatures against a party of level 13s. If you enjoy that sort of encounter, go nuts - it just isn't for me.
Actually, RAW, a dog might be able to run past an opponent.
"In contrast, you can move through a hostile creature's space only if the creature is at least two sizes larger or smaller than you."
So if it's a tiny chihuahua, or the opponent is large or larger, it should automatically be allowed, RAW.
For fun, I would often allow it as a house rule for only one size difference, maybe with a contested acrobatics check. This sort of rule adds to the fun of being a halfling, when you can slide between your enemy's legs.
I sort of like your ruling, granting Halfling nimbleness to other small creatures. However, you're then giving the handling racial trait to Gnomes and Kobolds, Goblins, etc. a bunch of small humanoids. I'd probably leave it to Halflings for humanoids, however might allow some small quadrupeds a similar ability on a case by case. Maybe allow "small nimbleness" as a feat for those small humanoids practiced in artfully dodging, so to speak.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
Not sure who said it took 2 hours to go through those many, but it sure wasn't that long for us. It's not a normal thing having that many monsters in an encounter either, that was the largest grouping I have used and it ended up being fun. I had to have some kind of blowback for just trudging directly into the town teeming with undead with really crap stealth rolls. The same initiative count for like creatures is an RAW thing as well, speeds things up from my experience. I wouldn't want to have battles like that very often, but that one in and of itself was pretty damn fun, moved very quickly, and although wasn't a super high difficulty for them it did give an "OH SHIT!" factor when they all came running in and surrounding them. They also had a couple close calls before that where they barely made it out so this gave them a chance to feel heroic and powerful.
Did you use the DMG's mob attack rules? I've yet to use them, but I can see my characters coming across an adversary teeming (teaming?) environment and I think I like the mob attack option from an administrative view point, I'm just not sure how the players will take them taking statistically automatic hits.
Jander Sunstar is the thinking person's Drizzt, fight me.
No, I rolled each attack for each skeleton. I did move them first to swarm the party then rolled multiple skeleton attacks at once. I was worried it would bog things down but it went very quickly.
My understanding of the swarm rules is that on top of speeding up combat it also adds some danger to the situation as well. Mobs that were statistically unlikely to hit (cr1/4 skeletons versus lvl 15 adventurers) now have guaranteed damage and can likely overwhelmed the party if not dealt with accordingly.
This seems to me like the players and the DM were not compatible. This is okay. Find another DM.
As a DM, I would have walked away from any group that griefed me on modifying monsters (really, yo, DMG273-283 is full of written rules about this). As a player, I would likely not have stayed in a game where basic action rules were different for PCs and NPCs.
But there are plenty of players and DMs.
Running a campaign is like catering an event that only happens a few times in most people's lives. You would not cater your wedding from a place where you never had dinner, even your third wedding. And even then, your aunt will tell you how much better she would have been. Do a few one-shots, shop around. Find a good fit for you.
Altering a stat block to make a unique monster or variation is one thing, changing a monster mid fight and making up abilities is something completely different. "Um, the Quaggoth didn't have reach the first 5 rounds of combat, but now he does and twice the health and can just 20 feet up to hit a flying character when they couldn't before." That's a bunch of crap and if I did that in any game I DM I would expect to be called out by players.
Update on the group though, our new DM is great and we are having a great time. Woot!!