Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fixing Challenge Rating
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="NotAYakk" data-source="post: 9283212" data-attributes="member: 72555"><p>Sure, but make the look-up table <em>simple</em>.</p><p></p><p>Don't make it a 3 dimensional lookup based on monster CR, number of PCs and PC level to produce a difficulty.</p><p></p><p>My point is that you can get really close to the precision of that <strong>by doing the work on the design side</strong>. 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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!</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>4e had both the "lookup PC XP capacity, monster XP values, compare the totals" <strong>and</strong> "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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>I'm very disappointed in 5e, because a bit more math work would have given them an <em>even better</em> 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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p>If we work out what a "deadly" encounter would look like:</p><p></p><p>CR 23: L20 Solo (1xCR20 is deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)</p><p>CR 16: L20 Elite (2xCR16 is near deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)</p><p>CR 10: L20 Normal (4xCR10 is near deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)</p><p>CR 3: L20 Minion (24xCR3 is deadly encounter budget for 4 PCs)</p><p></p><p>CR 21: L16 Solo (deadly)</p><p>CR 13: L16 Elite (2x is deadly)</p><p>CR 8: L16 Normal (4x is deadly)</p><p>CR 2: L16 Minion (23x is deadly)</p><p></p><p>CR 15: L10 Solo</p><p>CR 8: L10 Elite</p><p>CR 5: L10 Normal (3.5x)</p><p>CR 1: L10 Minion (20x)</p><p></p><p>CR 8: L5 Solo</p><p>CR 4: L5 Elite</p><p>CR 2: L5 Normal (4x)</p><p>CR 1/4: L5 Minion (24x)</p><p></p><p>CR 6: L3 Solo (deadly)</p><p>CR 2: L3 Elite (2x deadly)</p><p>CR 1: L1 Normal (3.5x)</p><p>CR 1/8: L1 minion (19x deadly)</p><p></p><p>(this is using DMG encounter building rules).</p><p></p><p>So you could imagine a table mapping (CR -> SoloLevel, EliteLevel, NormalLevel and MinionLevel).</p><p></p><p>5 minions match 1 PC.</p><p>1 normal matches 1 PC.</p><p>1 elites matches 2 PCs.</p><p>1 solo matches 4 PCs.</p><p></p><p>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?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="NotAYakk, post: 9283212, member: 72555"] Sure, but make the look-up table [I]simple[/I]. 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 [b]by doing the work on the design side[/b]. 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" [B]and[/B] "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 [I]even better[/I] 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? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fixing Challenge Rating
Top