I tried once or twice using the encounter building numbers and found them to not be all that great a predictor of combat ease. For my games there are just so many variables about who, when and where the fights occur (and the abilities the characters can bring to bear) that they served little to no positive use.
Instead, I just throw out interesting fights with a bunch of enemies on deck to be used. If they cut through the first group really easy... either I send in a second wave for them to fight, or another encounter might occur shortly thereafter (before a short rest can occur).
Granted... this is because I don't lay down a set number of proscripted enemies or fights beforehand, and instead the fights occur in whatever numbers seem dramatically appropriate or interesting. The "story" of the fights as they occur means more to me than the jigsaw puzzle of the "proper amount" of fights that occur. But I also know that is often an anathema to several other types of DMs... who set up their adventure sites as set pieces at certain levels and they let the chips fall as they may depending on when or where the party shows up. The encounters aren't changed to serve the party, the party deals with the location as it's designed.
This is illustrated beautifully by the hatred of many a DM of a second blue half-dragon showing up in Episode 3 of HotDQ should the first one be killed in Episode 1. I personally understand completely the point of why the writers put that in (they want another powerful enemy for the party to fight in the hatchery to make that dungeon dramatically interesting in of itself)... but I also understand why it also drives other DMs up a wall (where they consider one less enemy the party has to fight in the hatchery to be the "reward" for the success of killing the half-dragon in the end of Episode 1.) As I don't design my adventures and encounters in that style (and instead everything is more 4Eish where each encounter should be interesting and compelling in of itself, otherwise why bother doing it?)... every fight can and will be built on the fly for maximum enjoyment and thrill on the moment. So if another powerful warrior in the hatchery would make that fight more interesting (especially for the party's fighters to have a strong enemy to go against), then sure, I'll put one in. Maybe I wouldn't put in another blue half-dragon specifically... but the point of having another powerful warrior there is made and I'll go along with it.
Because my feeling is... if I build an encounter a certain way (like for instance via the encounter building guidelines) and the fight just ends up *sucking* for whatever reason... then there's no reason to stick with it. I'd rather have encounters that deviate from the guidelines but be awesome, than having a wonderfully mathematical layout of fights for the party to come upon but most of them being a waste of time and boring as heck. That's just the way I DM.
Instead, I just throw out interesting fights with a bunch of enemies on deck to be used. If they cut through the first group really easy... either I send in a second wave for them to fight, or another encounter might occur shortly thereafter (before a short rest can occur).
Granted... this is because I don't lay down a set number of proscripted enemies or fights beforehand, and instead the fights occur in whatever numbers seem dramatically appropriate or interesting. The "story" of the fights as they occur means more to me than the jigsaw puzzle of the "proper amount" of fights that occur. But I also know that is often an anathema to several other types of DMs... who set up their adventure sites as set pieces at certain levels and they let the chips fall as they may depending on when or where the party shows up. The encounters aren't changed to serve the party, the party deals with the location as it's designed.
This is illustrated beautifully by the hatred of many a DM of a second blue half-dragon showing up in Episode 3 of HotDQ should the first one be killed in Episode 1. I personally understand completely the point of why the writers put that in (they want another powerful enemy for the party to fight in the hatchery to make that dungeon dramatically interesting in of itself)... but I also understand why it also drives other DMs up a wall (where they consider one less enemy the party has to fight in the hatchery to be the "reward" for the success of killing the half-dragon in the end of Episode 1.) As I don't design my adventures and encounters in that style (and instead everything is more 4Eish where each encounter should be interesting and compelling in of itself, otherwise why bother doing it?)... every fight can and will be built on the fly for maximum enjoyment and thrill on the moment. So if another powerful warrior in the hatchery would make that fight more interesting (especially for the party's fighters to have a strong enemy to go against), then sure, I'll put one in. Maybe I wouldn't put in another blue half-dragon specifically... but the point of having another powerful warrior there is made and I'll go along with it.
Because my feeling is... if I build an encounter a certain way (like for instance via the encounter building guidelines) and the fight just ends up *sucking* for whatever reason... then there's no reason to stick with it. I'd rather have encounters that deviate from the guidelines but be awesome, than having a wonderfully mathematical layout of fights for the party to come upon but most of them being a waste of time and boring as heck. That's just the way I DM.
Last edited:
