D&D 5E Serious gamers and new CR formula

[redrick]

That's easy to say.

But the reality is that there is no system support for enforcing that recommendation.

Everytime I say this, people dismiss me by saying "make the story put a time pressure on the heroes", but having the princess get eaten in exactly 36 hours, go! gets old fast.

The reality is that most published adventures and lots of fantasy stories simply doesn't give a hoot about making sure the heroes face 6-8 encounters before they can rest.

Only in dungeon bashing do you even come close, and even then, it's mostly up to the players drive and curiosity.

The truly wearying part? As soon as you bring up true solutions, such as suggesting you simply can't benefit from a long rest until after, say, five encounters, people totally lose it, cry foul, and completely lose any coherent ability to discuss further...

We never get anywhere as long as some people keep saying "you didn't keep to the recommendations" without the slightest hint on how to actually do that!!

Personally, I'm totally averse to any sort of coded in encounters/rest rule. It feels like too much of an external game-ist pressure that has no in-game justification. But, if it's the easiest way to keep your game humming, I think it's fine. (I'm also not a fan of putting all adventures on some sort of ticking clock.)

To me, the number one mechanism for limiting rests is Wandering Monsters. And it doesn't have to be rolled on some random chart of wandering monsters if you don't want. Why don't the monsters that the PCs haven't encountered yet just come and find the PCs while they sleep? As long as your adventure location is populated with enough encounters, the adventurers will have to face those encounters somehow. Why are they the only ones who get to kick down doors and raise a ruckus?

Sometimes, adventurers are really going to want to rest, and they will go to great lengths to fortify an area in order to do so. If that's the case, I'd say they deserve it! Just so long as it's not something they can do after every combat.

 

[discosoc]

To me, the number one mechanism for limiting rests is Wandering Monsters. And it doesn't have to be rolled on some random chart of wandering monsters if you don't want. Why don't the monsters that the PCs haven't encountered yet just come and find the PCs while they sleep? As long as your adventure location is populated with enough encounters, the adventurers will have to face those encounters somehow. Why are they the only ones who get to kick down doors and raise a ruckus?

Most groups I've played with equate wandering monsters with XP ATM's. Unless you are literally willing to TPK with your wandering monsters, and your players know it, it's a fairly pointless mechanic. Now, it would be different if a wandering monster encounter resulted in no long rest for the day, but good luck selling that to the group. They'll just expect to finish the fight, go back to sleep and then maybe wake up 10 minutes later the next morning.

 

[Uller]

But that's not how it works. If your rest is interrupted you have to start over.

And in my games if a "wandering monster" finds a bunch of murder hobos sleeping in the broom closet they do what makes sense...if attacking makes sense that is what they do but monsters like to live too so as often as not they flee and alert others..good luck resting then..

 

[iserith]

Most groups I've played with equate wandering monsters with XP ATM's. Unless you are literally willing to TPK with your wandering monsters, and your players know it, it's a fairly pointless mechanic. Now, it would be different if a wandering monster encounter resulted in no long rest for the day, but good luck selling that to the group. They'll just expect to finish the fight, go back to sleep and then maybe wake up 10 minutes later the next morning.

Wandering monster checks at set intervals are a solid time pressure mechanic. They are great for location-based adventures. Event-based adventure benefit from countdowns and deadlines. In both cases, the players have to consider these trade-offs when making a decision to rest. That's a good thing in my view.

As far as the stakes go, I would say that many situations that involve combat have life-or-death stakes and a TPK is possible, even if that possibility is remote. Those don't have to be the stakes, of course, but in any case I don't see why wandering monster encounters should be any less risky than any other conflict. It depends solely on how the DM prepares the monster table.

But that's not how it works. If your rest is interrupted you have to start over.

That is true of short rests, but long rests aren't interrupted by anything less than an hour's worth of strenuous activity. See Basic Rules, page 67.

 

[discosoc]

As far as the stakes go, I would say that many situations that involve combat have life-or-death stakes and a TPK is possible, even if that possibility is remote. Those don't have to be the stakes, of course, but in any case I don't see why wandering monster encounters should be any less risky than any other conflict. It depends solely on how the DM prepares the monster table.

Random encounters are basically never (that I've seen or experienced) potential TPK. They are just XP padding, since they really don't do much to disrupt actual resting. So yeah it "depends soley on how the DM prepares the monster table" but how many are actually going to put actual threats on the table? You have a party of 4 level 2 characters going through a wilderness that probably has a few wyverns in the area, but something tells me he'll leave those off the list. And if he doesn't it's basically a TPK if a certain roll comes up.

They're good for groups and games where players really love combat and don't particularly care about the context. That's about it.

 

[iserith]

Random encounters are basically never (that I've seen or experienced) potential TPK. They are just XP padding, since they really don't do much to disrupt actual resting. So yeah it "depends soley on how the DM prepares the monster table" but how many are actually going to put actual threats on the table? You have a party of 4 level 2 characters going through a wilderness that probably has a few wyverns in the area, but something tells me he'll leave those off the list. And if he doesn't it's basically a TPK if a certain roll comes up.

They're good for groups and games where players really love combat and don't particularly care about the context. That's about it.

I think this is a pretty narrow view of wandering monsters. I most definitely put actual threats on the table. And they can disrupt a short rest, if not a long rest. If I have those wyverns come out at night and take one of your horses, are you going to feel safe sleeping in that particular box canyon or are you going to get up and move an hour in a safer direction (which will interrupt your long rest)?

They're good for groups and games who enjoy the time pressure and trade-offs that they bring. Since they don't always involve combat (the players have a say in how they overcome a challenge, right?), they're good for people who enjoy different pillars of the game.

 

[redrick]

Random encounters are basically never (that I've seen or experienced) potential TPK. They are just XP padding, since they really don't do much to disrupt actual resting. So yeah it "depends soley on how the DM prepares the monster table" but how many are actually going to put actual threats on the table? You have a party of 4 level 2 characters going through a wilderness that probably has a few wyverns in the area, but something tells me he'll leave those off the list. And if he doesn't it's basically a TPK if a certain roll comes up.

They're good for groups and games where players really love combat and don't particularly care about the context. That's about it.

To be clear, we are specifically talking about wandering encounters during a long rest in an area that players have not sufficiently cleared and secured. There are plenty of monsters still out there (3-4 more encounters worth, because your players are trying to shirk their duties on 6-8 encounters a day.)

Woe to the PC who decides to just long rest in the middle of one of my adventures without considering the consequences. I have absolutely thrown TPK threatening encounters at sleeping characters. And, remember, an encounter should be much harder for a group ambushed in their sleep, so what would be a normal encounter during the day becomes a much deadlier encounter at night.

Once characters get ambushed in their sleep a few times and narrowly escape, the players will stop resting every time their spells get low. And when they decide to take a rest, instead of turning to the DM and asking, "Can we long rest?" They'll look to each other and say, "Do you think it's safe to rest here?" That is music to my DMing ears!

It's a narrative, in-game way to enforce a daily encounter budget.

--EDITED TO ADD--

As I think I said up-thread, "Wandering" Encounters also don't have to be monsters rolled from a random table. They can be monsters from another area in your adventure. Especially if players have already fought a few encounters and potentially alerted others of their existence and general whereabouts. If the players are going to be passive, maybe let your monsters be active.

In my experience, Wandering Monsters support the exploration pillar more than detract from it, because they require the players to pay more attention to their environment and their actions outside of combat.

 

[Minigiant]

One question rarely asked is

Why aren't your PCs going 6-8 encounters?

If it is because you don't have enough encounters in the adventure.. Add more.

If it is because the PCs burned all their resources.. Punish them with more encounters and get them to spread out their resources better. Casters are designed to last 6-8 encounters. If they are running out at 4 and say its too easy... Give them more encounters.

If it because the situation doesn't make sense with so many fights.. Then there is no need for more.

 

[redrick]

One question rarely asked is

Why aren't your PCs going 6-8 encounters?

If it is because you don't have enough encounters in the adventure.. Add more.

If it is because the PCs burned all their resources.. Punish them with more encounters and get them to spread out their resources better. Casters are designed to last 6-8 encounters. If they are running out at 4 and say its too easy... Give them more encounters.

If it because the situation doesn't make sense with so many fights.. Then there is no need for more.

And I'll add:

If it is because your encounters are too difficult to survive more than a few in a row, decrease the difficulty of your encounters. (As long as you have enough of them, I believe the game gets harder when encounters get easier, because players are will take more risk and push their limits more.)

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

A kraken by itself simply isn't scary.

I strongly disagree. A kraken by itself is terrifying for any but the most high-level characters.

It's an anvil, and it needs a hammer.

I think it is more accurate to say that it is a collection of hammers, and it turns your favorite sea-faring vessel into the anvil.

The only thing stopping a first-level wizard from killing a kraken is the fact that the kraken breathes water and can therefore escape.

I find it difficult to take people's opinions of how 5th edition works seriously when they make statements like this one.

If the wizard caught the kraken two miles from the nearest body of water, you'd have a dead kraken.

Yes, if a PC fights a monster fully outside that monster's context in a scenario that bends every advantage to the PC's exclusive benefit... but saying "when you design an encounter so that the monster is set up to fail, the monster fails," is kind of obvious, I think.

(Method: human wizard with Spell Sniper. Casts Chill Touch on the kraken from 180' away. Kraken takes 2.03 damage per round while it flees at 40' per round. Wizard uses Longstrider to match its 40' movement, then the kraken takes twenty-six minutes to cover the two miles to the water body, taking fire the whole way. Wizard casts Chill Touch 263 times during that hour (because he loses one round to Longstrider), inflicting 532.58 damage over that period, which is comfortably more than the kraken's 472 HP.

This is theory-craft used inappropriately because it intentionally confirms a bias by using a scenario that really only comes up if the DM says "I want to use this monster, but I also want to completely hamstring it on purpose."

Any creature that can be defeated by a lone first-level wizard is obviously even weaker than the Tarrasque. ;-)

Also, a first-level Mobile fighter could do the job in half the time (520.73 damage in the first mile), although he would expend seven quivers of arrows in the process. But everyone knows that first-level fighters are stronger than first-level wizards so that's not surprising.

You roll up your choice of 1st level character, I'll set up a scenario in which a kraken actually makes sense as an encounter, and we'll see which one comes out the victor - or, we can cut to the chase and say "yeah, no, that's a ridiculous idea that wouldn't actually demonstrate anything useful."

White-room theory-craft has a place - this is not it.