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

[Tony Vargas]

That first critical sneak attack wrecked encounters, to the point where I remember once or twice putting a big massive enemy into the fight, simply to absorb that initial attack. Solo enemies never worked.

One of the regular DMs I played 3.5 with used that strategy. Nothing wrong with dusting it off.

But could it have been more fun and lived up to what they (and I) perceived was a life-threatening encounter? Definitely, yes.
I really want to know what metric I can use to predict and deliver challenges of a certain difficulty to my group going forward. So far my experience with the DMG metric is that it produces less challenging fights than advertised, though I'm not sure yet how much less difficult.

I don't know what's unreasonable or hard to grasp about that.

Nothing unreasonable, or confusing, no. But, 5e's emphasis on fast combats and mechanically differentiated PC classes just reduces the value of such metrics, is all. Whoever populated those guideline tables just didn't have as good an idea what a PC party might be capable of. When you try to use them, there's always going to be some 'error' in the form of 'player skill,' synergy, dice-luck, and so forth, and it could be very large. If a combat goes many rounds, some of that, particularly the dice, might 'average out.' But if you're playing a game tuned for fast combat, that's less likely to be something you can depend on.

JMHO, but the way to handle it in 5e is to just pull in the monsters you want, only hesitating for crazy CR and numeric mis-matches (400 orcs may not be quite the thing it was in 1e). Keep in mind you shouldn't outnumber the party by much, and that you can go pretty high in CR. If you want deadly, make the encounter deadly on the face of it (before the multiplier).

But don't expect it to be deadly when you run it, /make/ it deadly. Especially the first round. Fudge die rolls, mentally add damage, whatever it takes, but make the first round overwhelming. Then dial it down as needed to get the resolution you're aiming for (or that seems like it might be best as the scenario develops - maybe it should turn into a flight or capture scenario, for instance).

That's it. That's all I got. It's working for me, for now (at Encounters, fwiw), YMMV.

 

[Quickleaf]

But don't expect it to be deadly when you run it, /make/ it deadly. Especially the first round. Fudge die rolls, mentally add damage, whatever it takes, but make the first round overwhelming. Then dial it down as needed to get the resolution you're aiming for (or that seems like it might be best as the scenario develops - maybe it should turn into a flight or capture scenario, for instance).

I very much believe in "play the dice where they lie" and I never fudge die rolls. So clearly we have different GM styles. Though I respect the general sentiment you're coming from about making the first round deadly.

I guess my point is that it's becoming clear to me that the people who designed the encounter difficulty guidelines for the DMG may have been operating on a set of playtest rules (or maybe insufficient or skewed data) that makes everything swing easier.

And because of that, combined with me still getting a feel for 5e, and the rapid level advancement at low-levels creating a "moving target", I could really use some better guidelines. It's not going to be a perfect mousetrap, I know. Just a better one.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Okay. I have some data I can enter, if you'll give me permissions.

I might suggest an "effective level" column or something similar, where DMs can account for special circumstances such as high-rolled stats, magic item usage (especially consumables), henchmen, poison, and other things not included in the base DMG formulas. That will let you avoid conflating genuine issues with CR/difficulty (monsters are easier than the DMG claims they are) and spurious issues ("I gave out too much loot").

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] I changed the access setting to "Public on the web - Anyone on the Internet can find and view", which I thought would give everyone access to edit. But perhaps Google Docs requires email added privileges (which seems backward to me).

This link should go to an editable version (provided you're logged into GoogleDocs): https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1AAIBDemfxoX8DTxAg2q7AzkZVZxwwONvhsxQ2eHTxXY/edit?usp=sharing

Okay, it let me click on a "Request Edit Permissions" link. Waiting for approval now.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

JMHO, but the way to handle it in 5e is to just pull in the monsters you want, only hesitating for crazy CR and numeric mis-matches (400 orcs may not be quite the thing it was in 1e). Keep in mind you shouldn't outnumber the party by much, and that you can go pretty high in CR. If you want deadly, make the encounter deadly on the face of it (before the multiplier).

I disagree about "you shouldn't outnumber the party by too much." It all depends on the feel you're going for. Gold Box-style games are still winnable in 5E, and 400 orcs could be a lot of fun as a player (e.g. party of 4 11th level PCs vs. 400 orcs); as a DM it could be a nightmare unless you have techniques and tools for managing large amounts of information, especially position information, line-of-sight, and orc movement throughout the combat.

Frankly I would love to play that scenario as a player. It hits my "abnegation fun" button square on the nose, although not so much the "challenge fun" button because orcs are so simple.

I keep wanting to play a Dungeons of Silmar-style 5E game.

 

[Tony Vargas]

I very much believe in "play the dice where they lie" and I never fudge die rolls. So clearly we have different GM styles. Though I respect the general sentiment you're coming from about making the first round deadly.

It's a tool DM's have always had, but you're not obliged to use it, and I don't mean to imply that 5e demands that you do. It's just that it works really well, for me.

On the flip side, letting the dice roll where they may, and rolling them in the open can create a greater sense of jeopardy for you players, in itself, as you probably will get the odd character death now and then, just from pure randomness.

I guess my point is that it's becoming clear to me that the people who designed the encounter difficulty guidelines for the DMG may have been operating on a set of playtest rules (or maybe insufficient or skewed data) that makes everything swing easier.

The finished rules aren't that different than in the later days of the playtest. Some things just don't lend themselves to a systematic approach, and, I suppose ironically, the 5e system is one of them.

Another alternative: consider going 'status quo' in design. Let the players feel out for themselves what they feel they can take on.

 

[Quickleaf]

Okay. I have some data I can enter, if you'll give me permissions.

Done.

I didn't think GoogleDocs would require me to give permissions on a case-by-case basis. But there you go.

I might suggest an "effective level" column or something similar, where DMs can account for special circumstances such as high-rolled stats, magic item usage (especially consumables), henchmen, poison, and other things not included in the base DMG formulas. That will let you avoid conflating genuine issues with CR/difficulty (monsters are easier than the DMG claims they are) and spurious issues ("I gave out too much loot").

That could work, sure. I guess. How would "effective level" be determined though? Are there guidelines for that somewhere?

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I guess my point is that it's becoming clear to me that the people who designed the encounter difficulty guidelines for the DMG may have been operating on a set of playtest rules (or maybe insufficient or skewed data) that makes everything swing easier.

In spite of my belief that the DMG guidelines are quite easy, I think the designers got it spot on anyway. It's more fun to know that you beat a 20th level encounter at 3rd level ("I must be awesome!") than to know that you lost to a 9th level encounter at 14th level ("I must stink"). Ergo, it makes sense for the 5E designers to simply err on the easy side, especially when you're going for the casual gamer market as 5E designers like Mearls have said. (Casual = many demands on your time, not much time to think about 5E tactics/strategy when not at the table.)

Furthermore, human psychology plays into it too. I hypothesize if you ask players to evaluate subjective risk, they'll focus in on the wrong things and overestimate the deadliness of a given combat--if you fight a bulette at 4th level and that bulette crits someone for 58 points of damage in one bite, from 40 HP into death save territory, I bet you that the average player will feel as if that was a deadly combat even if they kill the bulette that round, even though the PC actually wasn't in any signficant danger of death at all by the DMG "Deadly" description since the bulette gets only one attack per round and has trouble finishing off a downed PC who is being healed via Healing Word. The player might tell you that it was a Deadly fight but if you look at it analytically it is actually only Hard at best, even if that worst-case outcome occurred.

In short, feedback on these and other forums persuades me that the DMG tables are oriented in a position of maximum fun for most players. Take a look at these poll results for example:

http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?464707-(Poll)-Combat-Difficulty

You could rebuild the DMG tables so that the Medium fights which people are enjoying today are labelled as "Trivial" and the Hard fights are labelled as "Easy" and the Deadly fights are labelled as "Medium", but that could damage people's fun without actually changing the mechanics of the game in any positive way.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Done.

I didn't think GoogleDocs would require me to give permissions on a case-by-case basis. But there you go.

That could work, sure. I guess. How would "effective level" be determined though? Are there guidelines for that somewhere?

Okay, I've entered a few combats that stand out in my memory. Let me know if I'm doing it right (especially Party Condition, I'm not sure what that means) and I can enter more.

There are no guidelines for "effective level." It's going to be a guesstimate by the DM anyway, since all kinds of things can factor into it from equipment to henchmen. Just ask yourself, "compared to the default, no-magic party of four completely RAW rolled-stats PCs, what equivalent threat level do my PCs pose to the monsters compared to that baseline?" For example, I might guesstimate that my 11th level party is approximately as capable as a typical 15th level party due to smart build synergies; if I send them up against a threat calibrated for 15th level and they destroy it utterly, everything over that calibrated level can be fairly attributed to either a fault in the encounter guidelines or to brilliant play by the PCs, but they can't take credit for the 11th-to-15th gap because that all happened at chargen time or from their magic items.

To give you a concrete example, I played with a 5E DM who started everybody off at 8th level and, over the course of several sessions, gave everybody +5 weapons loosely based on Saberhagen's Swords of Power, each with unique powers like Str 29 or virtual magic immunity. I'd probably call that a +5 level adjustment and record those combats as 13th level.

 

[Henry]

So you're saying 400% of the DMG Deadly threshold is ACTUALLY DEADLY?

This contrasts noticeably with [MENTION=158]Henry[/MENTION]'s suggestion of 120% of the Deadly threshold is DEADLY.

I wonder why such a large discrepancy.

There's another possibility -- I was high on cold medication.

Seriously, when I looked back at my actual notes of previous fights, rather than what I remember, I realized I wasn't counting those multiples for large groups -- The most recent intentionally deadly fight I threw at my PCs was when they were 3rd level, and I threw 10 bandits at them (in waves, not at once) and a CR2 Bandit Captain (subcommander) and a CR3 Knight (the Leader). It was 4200 xp, vs. the 2000 of "Deadly" for the group. so, a bit over 300%. The battle ended with one of the five PCs standing, and the other four dying or stablized on the ground. It could have been a total wipe within two or three dice rolls.

Recently, at level 4 they faced an orc chief (CR4) and 4 orcs (CR1/2), and came out with three hurt but standing, and two unconscious. So, right about that 50/50 mark you mentioned. In this battle, attacks and damage actually came out about average, only one stand out roll (17 damage from the Orc Chief on one PC). They were still rather scared of losing that fight, even though it wasn't likely.

I am actually coming to think WotC might be overvaluing the action economy of the monsters by just a bit. Maybe only give it the 1.5 once you hit more monsters than = party count, and x2 when you hit more than x3? something like that?

Also note very few of my monsters to date have been spellcasters -- when they start facing more spellcasters to supplement, this might change.