D&D 5E Fixing Challenge Rating

[Shardstone]

The thing about look-up tables is they are far more accessible to people without higher level maths skills. A lot of D&D players are also maths geeks and can easily handle complex equations, but in the real world look-up tables are used for all sorts of things, from the Highway Code to haulage businesses, for things with relatively straightforward formulae.

I dont think the avg dnd player is a math geek anymore

 

[Vaalingrade]

If you go by the current zeitgeist, the hate and fear it like a Marvel Mutant.

 

[Shardstone]

New Mearls post introducing the Odyssey Engine, the Knight Class, and backgrounds. Here are the cliff notes:

• Odyssey Engine is a 5E variant that stretches the math of levels 1-5 to levels 1-10, slowing down progression so lower level content can be used at higher levels and, in theory, speeding up leveling since EXP is readjusted. The idea is to have a game where 1 5E level = 2 Odyssey levels.
• Backgrounds replace skills. If you background applies, add Proficiency. If it kind of applies, add half-proficiency (this is my favorite twist on this common idea).
• Knight Class is essentially a Fighter-Warlord mixup. No subclasses, gets Heroic Flourishes it can use every turn, extra attack at 10th level, etc etc. It doesn't have hit die but after 1st level gets 4 HP per level. No skill but comes with two backgrounds, Courtier and Equestrian.

All in all, very interesting ideas. I asked him a lot of questions about the Odyssey Engine that I'll report back on later. He's designing it so you can still use old 5E materials with it, just keep in mind the scaling differences. Makes me wonder if things like 6th-9th level spells will be removed entirely or relegated to magical items, rituals, etc.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Why do people want keep using the boring monsters from low levels forever so much?

 

[Shardstone]

Why do people want keep using the boring monsters from low levels forever so much?

While I agree, I think this kind of design makes it more palatable to create more exciting low level monsters, while keeping higher CR enemies (15+) relatively high threat but capable of being taken on. If tools are designed to weaken enemies of CR 20+, it means that higher level characters in the Odyssey engine can deal with them too. Overall, I think this creates a better foundation to design a more exciting game.

 

[jayoungr]

Just dropping these links, as they seem relevant to the discussion and don't appear to have been mentioned yet:

Random D&D Tip – Inverting Challenge

Let’s talk about encounter balance.A common misconception is that the challenge rating system in D&D is meant to guarantee specific encounter outcomes: The CR = X, therefore the encounter

thealexandrian.net

Relevant quote from that article:

The function of the challenge rating system is to help the DM identify monsters and build encounters that are in the right ballpark. Our first hot take today is that the challenge rating system is actually pretty effective at doing that. And, furthermore, that’s all it needs to do and, arguably, all that it should do.

Despite this, DMs are constantly lured by the siren call of hyper-precision: If we could just account for every single variable, we could guarantee specific outcomes! We wouldn’t even need the players at all! Their choices wouldn’t matter!

(That, by the way, is why this is not actually a desirable goal, even if it was achievable.)

Revisiting Encounter Design

One of the first reviews I ever received for a book I had written was for the mini-adventure The Dragon's Wish, which was published by Fantasy Flight Games during the early D20 boom. The reviewer hate

thealexandrian.net

Random D&D Tip: Adjusting Encounters by Party Size

The encounter creation guidelines in the Dungeon Master’s Guide and Xanathar’s Guide to Everything are both based on the idea that you know how many PCs are in your group. Then you do a table lo

thealexandrian.net

 

[Shardstone]

Just dropping these links, as they seem relevant to the discussion and don't appear to have been mentioned yet:

Random D&D Tip – Inverting Challenge

Let’s talk about encounter balance.A common misconception is that the challenge rating system in D&D is meant to guarantee specific encounter outcomes: The CR = X, therefore the encounter

thealexandrian.net

Relevant quote from that article:

Revisiting Encounter Design

One of the first reviews I ever received for a book I had written was for the mini-adventure The Dragon's Wish, which was published by Fantasy Flight Games during the early D20 boom. The reviewer hate

thealexandrian.net

Random D&D Tip: Adjusting Encounters by Party Size

The encounter creation guidelines in the Dungeon Master’s Guide and Xanathar’s Guide to Everything are both based on the idea that you know how many PCs are in your group. Then you do a table lo

thealexandrian.net

I agree with your quote. I really don't understand the desire for really strong balance. I think the only thing 5E is missing that it needs for CR is reliable fleeing rules. In my upcoming book, I have fleeing rules that involve a group check. NO matter what, the fleeing side gets away; but, if they fail the check, they only buy 10 minutes of time. If they all succeed, they buy up to 24 hours of time. This makes it possible to do hit n run, do test engagements on stronger foes, and makes it so CR really only matters for a ball park. I much prefer this to any other method of calculating difficulty of a combat.

 

[Maxperson]

I think there's something to what Mike says, BUT here's the huge flaming gaping hole with it. There are a jillion other FRPGs out there, most of whom use pretty regular mechanics across different character classes. They certainly do things very similar to 4e in many cases, yet NOBODY COMPLAINS. These games are not constantly being dissed for being 'dissociated' or whatever nonsense.

THE BIGGEST FACTOR, by far with 4e was that it dared to do things differently and still call itself D&D, period! All the rest is post-hoc rationalization in a huge number of cases. I mean, people aren't lying when they say they don't like it, not at all. They're just disliking it FIRST, and then coming up with a reason. After that, yeah, maybe that reason starts to make sense to them and feel like the explanation in the first place. I mean, I even had some of these sensations myself when I first picked up the PHB and skimmed it. Then people said "hey, play it, don't jump to any conclusions."

There's a flaw there. All of those "jillion other FRPGs out there" most likely have far fewer people who play and like them than played and liked 4e. There's a good chance that many of those people who like those other FRPGs also liked 4e. Dismissing those who disliked 4e as not having reasons for it and having to come up with justifications for their dislike later on is pretty insulting.

 

[NotAYakk]

The thing about look-up tables is they are far more accessible to people without higher level maths skills. A lot of D&D players are also maths geeks and can easily handle complex equations, but in the real world look-up tables are used for all sorts of things, from the Highway Code to haulage businesses, for things with relatively straightforward formulae.

Sure, but make the look-up table simple.

Don't make it a 3 dimensional lookup based on monster CR, number of PCs and PC level to produce a difficulty.

My point is that you can get really close to the precision of that by doing the work on the design side. If you follow through the math above, you can convert 5e XP system with its confusing "encounter size multiplier" into one that doesn't need the multiplier just by picking a better curve for monster XP values.

The table remains - it is one-dimensional, just (CR -> Threat Volume). And on the PC side it is (PC level -> Threat Capacity). You add up both sides, and get 2 values you compare. How they compare tells you how threatening the fight is.

The lookup table I object to is one where you start with PC level, find a table for party size, then look up monster CR on a table to work out what the encounter threat it is. That is a 3 dimensional table!

Baseline 5e did "add up XP capacity of PCs. Add up XP values of monsters. Look up numbers of monsters, fudging based on how similar they are, and multiply XP of monsters. Compare" - which has 1 more table lookup than it should have (and one that honestly breaks down if you have non-uniform monsters". What more there was yet another table to rescale things based on the number of PCs! It is awful and horrible, to many tables, and the tables are too high in dimension.

4e had both the "lookup PC XP capacity, monster XP values, compare the totals" and "use monsters of relative level to PC group" as ways to judge fight difficulty, with the 2nd being possible to derive from the first. Both of these systems are miles better than 5e encounter building systems.

Even the Minion/Elite/Solo mechanism in 4e (which exists mainly to patch over math problems in 4e) was easy to think about; in heroic, 4 minions replaces 1 normal, 5 in paragon 6 in epic. 1 Elite replaces 2 normal, and 1 Solo replaces 4 normal creatures. Formulas, but really easy ones.

And 4e encounters can vary from 1/2 (for easy) to double (for really hard) the PC budget, both are easy numbers to calculate/remember. And monsters add up linearly - so double number of monsters is double budget.

I'm very disappointed in 5e, because a bit more math work would have given them an even better system for building encounters. With reducion in ATK/DEF scaling down to 0.5/level instead of 1.0/level, and the assumption that low level PCs have lower accuracy than higher level PCs aginst level-appropriate foes (inherited from OD&D), the range of plausible foes can reach far larger.

The +/-5 levels in 4e can extend easily to +/- 10 in 5e due to half ATK/DEF scaling; making low level creatures have higher ATK/DEF compared to similar PCs than higher level creatures (and lower HP/Damage) can boost that range even further to like +/-15.

Finally, embracing the Solo and Elite mechanics of 4e with a different name. We have this sort of in 5e - Legendary monsters are effectively "solos"; but they use the same CR as non-Legendaries.

But, due to the relatively flat threat volume per level of 5e compared to 4e, monsters CR 15 and up are really only usable as Solos; two CR 15 monsters passes the medium encounter budget for a party of level 20 PCs and quickly 2 breaks deadly.

I think that "wide" and "narrow" monsters is still a good plan; a monster that is fun to fight as a solo should often be designed differently than not, even for low level PCs.

If we work out what a "deadly" encounter would look like:

CR 23: L20 Solo (1xCR20 is deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)
CR 16: L20 Elite (2xCR16 is near deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)
CR 10: L20 Normal (4xCR10 is near deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)
CR 3: L20 Minion (24xCR3 is deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)

CR 21: L16 Solo (deadly)
CR 13: L16 Elite (2x is deadly)
CR 8: L16 Normal (4x is deadly)
CR 2: L16 Minion (23x is deadly)

CR 15: L10 Solo
CR 8: L10 Elite
CR 5: L10 Normal (3.5x)
CR 1: L10 Minion (20x)

CR 8: L5 Solo
CR 4: L5 Elite
CR 2: L5 Normal (4x)
CR 1/4: L5 Minion (24x)

CR 6: L3 Solo (deadly)
CR 2: L3 Elite (2x deadly)
CR 1: L1 Normal (3.5x)
CR 1/8: L1 minion (19x deadly)

(this is using DMG encounter building rules).

So you could imagine a table mapping (CR -> SoloLevel, EliteLevel, NormalLevel and MinionLevel).

5 minions match 1 PC.
1 normal matches 1 PC.
1 elites matches 2 PCs.
1 solo matches 4 PCs.

This lets you create an encounter by level and party size. It doesn't provide ways to calibrate for below deadly easily - ie, having half as many monsters at-level, vs having lower level monsters, how does that compare?

 

[Reynard]

, slowing down progression so lower level content can be used at higher levels and, in theory, speeding up leveling since EXP is readjusted.

Wat?