D&D 5E Guidelines for fewer/tougher encounters?

[derickmoore25]

The goblin wizard in a forest is insane fireball turning 20ft of forest into a hazard the bonus action hide and players should have a -2 or -4 for smoke and fire on perception checks to find it

 

[Tanarii]

Or, to put it another way, I'm not looking to make attrition workable. I'm looking for a way to make fights dangerous and fun without the use of attrition.

You want to play a game balanced on attrition, but without the attrition? You're going to have to rewrite the classes and spells from the ground up IMO.

Or just accept that you can throw massively over-difficulty encounters at the party, and accept a serious risk for TPKs. If that's "dangerous and fun" for you and your players, go for it.

Just take in to account, if there's even as low as a 5% chance of a TPK per battle, even if you stick to only 4 encounters per level, they're unlikely to get to 5th level before getting wiped out. Personally, I *like* that kind of danger for my characters, but many players don't like rerolling chars that frequently.

 

[derickmoore25]

You want to play a game balanced on attrition, but without the attrition? You're going to have to rewrite the classes and spells from the ground up IMO.

Or just accept that you can throw massively over-difficulty encounters at the party, and accept a serious risk for TPKs. If that's "dangerous and fun" for you and your players, go for it.

Just take in to account, if there's even a 5% chance of a TPK per battle, even if you stick to say 4 encounters per level, they're unlikely to get much past 5th level before getting wiped out. Personally, I *like* that kind of danger for my characters, but many players don't like rerolling chars frequently.

I don't have that issue 3 of my 5 players have some kind of targeted healing. I'd say one person goes down for a round or two in 1/3 of my encounters. I am nice though and don't attack downed players.

 

[Tanarii]

I don't have that issue 3 of my 5 players have some kind of targeted healing. I'd say one person goes down for a round or two in 1/3 of my encounters. I am nice though and don't attack downed players.

What difficulty (ie adjusted XP) are you throwing at them, what level and how many are they, and how many encounters per day?

If you're throwing less than 3 encounters, they should be at least Deadly X1.5 for two, and Deadly x3 for just one. Personally I don't think a prepared group in CaW play will have as much as a 5% TPK chance against Deadly x3. But the unprepared, with CaS style play expectations, might.

Edit: also IMO the force multiplier adjustment for more than deadly breaks down pretty fast. In other words, massively over-party-level CR solo creatures can still suck against PC nova-strikes.

 

[derickmoore25]

What difficulty (ie adjusted XP) are you throwing at them, what level and how many are they, and how many encounters per day?

If you're throwing less than 3 encounters, they should be at least Deadly X1.5 for two, and Deadly x3 for just one. Personally I don't think a prepared group in CaW play will have as much as a 5% TPK chance against Deadly x3. But the unprepared, with CaS style play expectations, might.

Generally 2 and I balance them around 1.5. Usually I put them super low on resources or out.

 

[Tanarii]

Generally 2 and I balance them around 1.5. Usually I put them super low on resources or out.

Sounds like a good recommended solution to me then.

 

[Leugren]

Be aware that reducing the adventuring day to one or two tough encounters on average will have a pretty dramatic effect on balance across the different classes. Warlocks, for instance, will be pretty severely nerfed relative to sorcerers and wizards of similar level. A 1-level dip into the Barbarian class, on the other hand, will net you Reckless attack and the ability to rage all day every day with damage resistance in every encounter. These are just a few of the more blatant examples. If some level of cross-class parity is important to your players, make sure you set the proper expectations ahead of time.

 

[hawkeyefan]

[MENTION=1288]Mouseferatu[/MENTION] I don't adhere to any prescribed set of guidelines when it comes to encounters. I generally trust my judgement when it comes to encounter building. So far, I've been mostly successful. I use a variety of encounters and creatures and terrain and combinations of each, which I think is important. Beyond that, the best advice I can give is:

- ignore all of the encounter building guidelines and XP budgets and all of that in favor of finding your own style. Use the Challenge rating of a monster as only the barest of indications of a creature's power level. Don't be afraid to use lower challenge monsters against the party, especially in large groups supported by a few tougher elite types. But also don't be afraid to throw very high challenge monsters at the PCs from time to time.
- Watch your party. See what they are doing that makes them so potent. You've said they're not power gamer type of players, so they must be pretty tactful. So watch what works for them and then do a couple of things; first take it away from them. Design an encounter that removes their strength. Second, use their effective tactics against them. If they excel at range attacks and that allows them to keep enemies at bay, then have their foes be similarly ranged-focused.
- I think you said that your players are not veteran players, but if they are, or if they are very knowledgable, then mess with their expectations. I have a player with an encyclopic level of knowledge of monsters and their abilities and so forth. So when his character meets monster x, as a player he already knows everything about it. So I vary the monsters up a bit, by boosting stats at times or by decreasing at others. I describe the monsters instead of naming them, and then I throw in a random feature that makes him unsure if it's a hobgoblin or a bugbear or what. Take away te advantage of meta knowledge.
- Finally, I also use encounters that are both very easy, and also impossible. The very easy ones are there to remind them that they are in fact badass heroes. Couple of guards need to be taken out so that the PCs can hunker down in this tower? I let them take them out real easy....granting advantage for any decent idea, setting stealth DCs low, etc. but on the other end of the spectrum, I sometimes give them a situation where they simply cannot win. A lot of folks shy away from this and I think that's a bad thing. It only encourages players to always resort to fighting if they act with the knowledge that this is a game and therefore any encounter is designed to be fair. No...better to make them worry about fights, and the best way to do that is to put them against an obviously superior foe. Don't have these encounters be deadly at first...use them to remind the PCs that although they're badasses, there are other badasses out in the world. I had my party of level 5 characters run into a Marilith, who simply toyed with them when they attacked her. Then, when one of them scored a crit, she got enraged and the kid gloves were off. I think within two rounds, she had the whole party at death's door. Then I had something break up the confrontation, allowing the PCs to flee.

I think the best thing you can do is find your own way. I think that one of the strengths of 5E is that it's not as codified as the last couple of editions. Encounter design and all those rules are not as effective in this edition as a result, so you're better off ignoring them and going with your gut. Tweak things a bit, surprise your players, throw all manner of encounters and monsters at them, take away their strengths, play upon their weaknesses, keep tem on their toes. Do all that, and take note of what works and what doesn't, and then you won't have to worry about the number of encounters and how many creatures per encounter and all that. You'll find that you just know how many. And you'll still err from time to time, but it will be fewer and farther between.

 

[GMMichael]

I am nice though and don't attack downed players.

Sure you are. But are your monsters? Let's consider the lethality of overpowered encounters:

Animals: Run away at first injury, or when the Alpha bolts. Are happy to let PCs alone if PCs leave their lairs alone.
Undead: Will probably kill PCs. Who then get to rise as undead.
People: No one wants a murder charge, much less to even get in a real fight when BEING STABBED is a real possibility.
Dragons: a living PC is much more fun to toy with than a dead one.
Other monsters: again, a living PC is more fun than a dead one. Why kill a flesh-folk when you can make it your slave? Nevermind the fact that it will escape later and possibly kill you in the process...

So, maybe there's nothing wrong/undesirable about that last, almost-TPK encounter?

 

[Flamestrike]

Or, to put it another way, I'm not looking to make attrition workable. I'm looking for a way to make fights dangerous and fun without the use of attrition.

Youll have two main problems doing this.

1) It screws with class balance. Big time. Longer fights and shorter AD's favor long rest dependent classes (full casters, paladins and barbarians). They screw over short rest dependent classes (warlocks, fighters and monks).

Assume a warlock 9 and a wizard 9 are in the same party; one that features one 'big' deadly battle per AD. The 'lock gets 2 x 5th level slots to ration over that one battle (and there is a good chance the 'lock is gonna use one on Hex so his cantrips dont suck - he'll be needing them). The wizard meanwhile gets 1 x 5th level slot, 3 x 4ths, 3 x 3rds, 3 x 2nds and 4 x 1sts to nova with. Clear advantage to the Wizard.

Now assume a 2 short rest/ 6 encounter adventuring day.

The warlock now has 6 x 5th level spell slots as his AD resources, competing with the wizards available spell slots - yeah the wizard still gets more slots (15 compared to 6), but the 'locks spit out at 5th level, and he has his nifty pact features, and at will invocations and a better than average cantrip to fall back on. The wizard only gets the 2 slots (factoring in arcane recovery) of 5th level, 3 of 4th level, 3 of 3rd level (and some 1st and 2nd level spells, that are about on par with the 'locks invocations). 30 spell levels [plus invocations] for the 'lock to distribute among 6 encounters, vs 41 spell levels for the wizard. The classes balance out.

Now lets look at a champion fighter v a vengance paladin. They both get the same number of attacks. The champion has a better crit range of 19-20, the one action surge, the one second wind healing around 15 damage, and the one indomitable. The paladin has lay on hands (heal 45) channel divinity sacred oath option (advantage for 1 minute) + cha to all saves, auras, spell buffs, and can smite nova up to ten times dealing anywhere from +2d8-5d8 damage per attack. Clear advantage to the Paladin.

Again, now look at those classes over a longer (6 encounter/ 2 short rest) AD. The longer the AD the more the Champions 19-20 crit range comes into play more often - more attacks = more uses of the ablity. He now gets 3 action surges (each one allowing generally 2 attacks, probably dealing around 13 damage each - about on par with 2 x 3d8 damage smites). His second wind is now useable 3 times, adding up to 45 damage worth of healing - again on par with the Paladins lay on hands. He doesnt have the spell casting of the Paladin, but now the Paladin has to ration out those 10 spell slots over six encounters, and not just the one - while the Fighter can rely on the 'always on' nature of his bonus feat and remarkable athlete to more or less cancel that advantage out. The classes more or less balance at this point.

When you look at the math of the system, it tends to balance around a sixish encounter [each of less than 10 rounds]/ two short rest adventuring day. The classes all more or less balance at this assumption. Altering the structure of the AD affects this class balance. I know you dont want to alter the mechanics of the system (either by changing the rest mechanic, or by buffing many of the classes) but if you dont, this problem is unavoidable, and the classes will not balance, and many will rapidly begin to outshine others.

2) You are dramatically increasing the risk of a TPK. Youre encouraging the party to use nova tactics, and resort to the 5 minute AD. Like I said above, this drastically favors full casters, just like it did in 3.P. They'll nova like madmen on round 1 of your encounters, and to compensate youll have to dial up the difficulties even further by using higher CR enemies (many of whom have abilities with DCs or damage that could easily kill a PC with a single flubbed roll). Rocket tag ensues, and sadly as there are always more monsters (and no-one cares if they die0 increasing the lethality of your game, punishes the players.

I strongly suggest using the longer rest variant if you want to do this. It cuts down on nova strikes, and ameliorates many of the problems above. PCs wont be novaing long rest abilities (those long rest recharge ones are always the good ones) when they know they need a week to get them back. In return you only have to dial up your encounters half way (and not go full abyssal horde on the PCs), meaning your encounters wont grind, balanace will be maintained, and tactical choice (risk reward for hitting the long rest resource button) becomes much more of a meaningfull choice.

You lose nothing by using the longer rest variant, and its a win/ win.

If healing bothers you, healing potions are a thing. PCs dont have that much to spend GP on in 5E anyways. Make them accessable to the party.