D&D 5E DMG's definition of "Deadly" is much less deadly than mine: Data Aggregation?

[Quickleaf]

From what I've seen, the "XP Thresholds by Character Level" table is pretty well constructed from a mathematical standpoint. The problem arises because so many monsters in the MM were given CRs that are too high. If every monster truly was as tough as its CR says it is, then the XP Thresholds table would give more reliable results. But because so many monsters punch below their weight, the encounters wind up being too easy.

Thanks for the input, Steve!

Have you been modifying monsters in your games to make them more difficult?

If so, have you been doing this on a case-by-case basis? Or is there some overarching system or formula you've been applying?

 

[Steven Winter]

Have you been modifying monsters in your games to make them more difficult?

I prefer to use monsters straight from the books as much as possible, because it's easier that way and I'm lazy. I just recognize that what the MM calls CR 8 probably is closer to CR 7 or 6 in practice.

The easiest, one-stop solution would be to redesign the XP Thresholds table to take into account the fact that CRs are too low. I haven't taken a stab at this, but it would be a fun statistical problem to tackle. (I'm about to start writing a series of articles for KoboldPress.com on the statistical underpinnings of 5E monsters, and this could be an interesting place to wind up. Hmmm . . . ) A good starting point would be just increasing all the values on the table by 20%. I suspect that a better solution would accelerate from left to right across the table -- something like +20% in the Easy column, Medium +50%, Hard +80%, and Deadly +150%. But those are numbers I just pulled out of my ear, so no one should place any trust in them.

Steve

 

[Steven Winter]

But again, no amount of math is going to be a fix-all answer to this question. Here's an anecdote from a campaign we wrapped up a few months ago. A group of five 7th-level PCs stumbled into the lair of a CR 15 mummy lord and inadvertently set him loose. They were completely unprepared to face a creature twice their level, in its lair, with minions nearby. They tried to fight for one round, but by the second round, they were running for their lives. Everyone made it out alive, barely. They limped back to town, talked to some sages to learn everything they could about mummies, and found an ally (a necromancer they'd been fighting with but who turned out to have even more reason to hate the mummy lord than they had). The next session, fully prepared for what they had to face, they went back in and even though the mummy lord had also had time to prepare for their return, they utterly demolished him and his minions, in his own lair, despite the fact that it was a x4 or x5 deadly encounter (I never calculated it out, mainly because the mummy lord isn't nearly a CR 15 monster). Same characters, same monsters, same battlefield. The difference was that the PCs knew what was coming, they went in uber-prepped, and they took down a challenge way above their pay grade.

Steve

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Out of the Abyss has an interesting way of putting (mild) pressure on the party to minimize rests: after every long or short rest they need to make an additional navigation check (Survival) to avoid getting lost for 1d6 hours or more.

 

[Uller]

Today my group will be making their second foray into a dungeon. Four 8th level PCs with a daily adjusted xp budget of 24,000xp. Last time they managed to defeat about that amount of xp before having to retreat but that was without any short rests.

Here are the thresholds:
Easy: 1800
Medium: 3600
Hard: 5400
Very Hard: 8400 ("deadly" is not the right word)

Here is a list of the adjusted xp for all the encounters present should they remain static (which they won't. My dungeon denizens react):

1100 Trivial
1800 Easy
2000 Easy*
2500 Easy*
2700 Easy*
2700 Easy
3200 Easy
4200 Medium
5400 Medium
6150 Hard#
9375 Deadly*
10500 Deadly*
11400 Deadly!

*Necessary to achieve the party's goals
#unnecessary but achieves secondary goals
! Meant more of an RP encounter.

That's a total of 63K adjusted xp, 54K if you don't count the "RP" encounter. If they follow just the right path towards their goals and play cleverly it is 27K and if they pick up the bonus goal it's 33K. What is this good for? What does it tell me as a DM? When you start pushing over your XP budget is when life begins to feel challenging.

With a budget of 24K, it tells me that they should be able to achieve their goal with a single foray into the dungeon if they play their cards right and they can even pick up the bonus goal if they push it but things will start getting tough. It also tells me that the overall difficulty of the dungeon is such that they probably can't take down every encounter in one go.

That is what these tables are for. They are just to allow a DM to gauge the overall difficulty of what lies ahead.

Based on my xp with 5e so far, my group will likely tackle this adventure with relative ease but there is enough potential danger there that I have foreshadowed some of the dangers they will face. In the past when they have gone into similarly challenging dungeons they had the advantage of surprise. This time the inhabitants are prepared. So that will make life more difficult for them.

These tables are a tool for that sort of thing. Using them to gauge he difficulty of a single encounter or even a couple against a well rested party is like using a screwdriver to hammer nail.

If you are looking for a party smackdown against a well rested party your best bet is to use the daily adjusted xp budget as your guide to where the upper limit is. Somewhere between 2X deadly and the daily budget. Use one or two tough monsters and a handful of weaker ones. Have at least as many monsters as PCs or use the solo variant monster rules AngryDM came up with.

 

[Steven Winter]

I don't recall whether anyone pointed this out yet in the thread, but it's also important to remember how the DMG defines a deadly encounter. It doesn't mean "expect a TPK, or a near-TPK." It means one, possibly more, PCs are likely (not guaranteed) to die -- which in 5E, might only mean they fail one or two death saves before being stabilized. The heroes are still expected to win a basic, deadly encounter, they'll just pay a heavier-than-usual price for it.

Steve

 

[MerricB]

G'day, Steve!

Any thoughts on whether the DMG monster guidelines give monsters that are closer to CR?

I have a sneaking suspicion they might go far the other way, but it's hard to really judge them when you've got a group of six optimisers taking down your monsters!

One of the things I really miss from 4E is the Standard/Elite/Solo divisions of monsters. There's a distinct difference between designing a monster for a 5th level party that they'll be facing alone compared to one that appears as a horde...

Cheers!

 

[Uller]

Just as a follow up to my post above...

In tonight's session they fought through the following encounters...(four 8th level PCs, daily adjusted XP budget of 24K).

9375 Deadly - Fortified guard room at the front door. The Monk shadow stepped into the midst of the monsters and the wizard polymorphed her...I'M A M***** F****** T-REX!!!!

2000 Easy*
2500 Easy*
2700 Easy*
These three were follow up/reinforcements...channelled by Wall of Fire and Fireballed into dust...

6150 Hard - BBEG's lieutenant that could rebuild...so they decided to go kill him.

That's a total of 22,750 XP (adjusted), so very close to the daily budget. As that last encounter finished the BBEG and his guards showed up...there we ended for the night. The paladin is down to 30 hp (still has lay on hands which is good for 40), the monk only has 10 HP but she is currently T-rex with about 70 hp...the wizard has plenty of HP but almost out of spells and the warlock has plenty of HP and one spell (and a staff of defense).

Last encounter will be have an adjusted XP of 10500 which is Deadly

Last time the party fought the BBEG, they were well rested. They beat him handily and he fled. This time...it won't be easy. Hopefully no one goes down early...So it seems to me the guidelines are working fine if you use them for what they were intended.

 

[Quickleaf]

[MENTION=413]Uller[/MENTION] That's a great point about the guidelines being better suited to planning challenges faced over the course of an adventuring day, than of challenges faced in one encounter.

I think part of my difficulty was because the current groups I'm DMing haven't really had any dungeon-crawling yet, rather it's wilderness or town encounters where there isn't encounter after encounter after encounter (like a dungeon) & the players can choose when to rest.

That style of play seems at odds with the "Adventuring Day Encounter Budget."

 

[Quickleaf]

The easiest, one-stop solution would be to redesign the XP Thresholds table to take into account the fact that CRs are too low. I haven't taken a stab at this, but it would be a fun statistical problem to tackle. (I'm about to start writing a series of articles for KoboldPress.com on the statistical underpinnings of 5E monsters, and this could be an interesting place to wind up. Hmmm . . . ) A good starting point would be just increasing all the values on the table by 20%. I suspect that a better solution would accelerate from left to right across the table -- something like +20% in the Easy column, Medium +50%, Hard +80%, and Deadly +150%. But those are numbers I just pulled out of my ear, so no one should place any trust in them.

That seems like an elegant solution.

Look forward to your article series at KoboldPress.com

I don't recall whether anyone pointed this out yet in the thread, but it's also important to remember how the DMG defines a deadly encounter. It doesn't mean "expect a TPK, or a near-TPK." It means one, possibly more, PCs are likely (not guaranteed) to die -- which in 5E, might only mean they fail one or two death saves before being stabilized. The heroes are still expected to win a basic, deadly encounter, they'll just pay a heavier-than-usual price for it.

Yes, I noticed that too. I feel like the "hard" and "deadly" definitions in the DMG blur together somewhat. The only difference is whether it's possible or likely that a PC will die.