Unearthed Arcana Unearthed Arcana Presents Alternative Encounter Building Guidelines

WotC's Mike Mearls has posted the latest Unearthed Arcana, presenting an alternate set of encounter-building guidelines for D&D. "Though this approach uses the same basic math underlying the encounter system presented in the Dungeon Master’s Guide, it makes a few adjustments to how it presents that math to produce a more flexible system. These guidelines will be of interest to DMs who want to emphasize combat in their games, who want to ensure that a foe isn’t too deadly for a specific group of characters, and who want to understand the relationship between a character’s level and a monster’s challenge rating."

It's four pages, and includes various tables divided into a series of five steps - Assess the Characters, Encounter Size, Determine Numbers and Challenge Ratings, Select Monsters, and Add Complications. The latter step includes d8 monster personalities, d6 monster relationships, terrain, traps, and random events. Find it here.

At the D&D website:

 

[CapnZapp]

It is genuinely impossible for the tables and numbers to successfully apply to every party makeup and set of individual capabilities - that's why these tables and numbers are accompanied by an explanation of how to use them successfully, which includes this under Step1: Assess the Characters:

"But though character level is important, you should also take note of each characters' hit point maximum and saving throw modifiers, as well as how much damage the strongest combatants or spellcasters can inflict with a single attack. Even though character level and challenge rating are useful tools for defining the difficulty of an encounter, they don't tell the whole story, and you'll make use of these additional character statistics when you select monsters for an encounter in step 4."

(emphasis mine)

And step 4 tells you, to paraphrase, to make sure the damage to hit point ratios aren't obviously not what you are looking for.

The problem is that the guidelines obsess over perhaps 20% of the whole picture.

The bit about CR and monster numbers is made out to be almost the whole story (albeit with one or two useless disclaimers thrown in there) when in reality DMs would be much better served with that relatively minor part chucked out.

The focus is actively misleading. It makes DMs think setting up encounters is easier and more deterministic that it really is. It turns away your eye from what is really important.

Everything you say is true Aaron. I just don't give WotC a pass for covering it in in footnotes.

 

[ccs]

...
why would new players be using playtest material from the website, let alone even finding the Unearthed Arcana articles?

Because they're armed with internet access??
It's not that complex a recipe..... New player, on-line search for D&D, finds WoTC site, finds the UA articles there..... Puts what they find in to use.

 

[MonkeyWrench]

At this point I'd rather they stop trying to write a guide for building encounters. All these tables and charts gives the appearance of a system, when in fact there is nothing remotely like a system in place. Just be honest - CR is an occasionally useful guideline for determining the relative power level of a monster, but there is no formula or method for building the perfect encounter for any given party. The DM needs to know the capabilities of their players and the abilities of the classes in play (like many have said), and must have the freedom to experiment from there to see what works for the group.

I wonder if part of the problem is the idea of "building" an encounter in the first place? The idea carries connotations of D&D encounters (in almost all cases combat encounters) being a carefully curated experience designed to strike the perfect balance for the players - not too hard, not to easy, but just right. That's a lot of pressure to put on DMs, even veteran ones. Better to throw out the idea altogether.

 

[Jester David]

There's always the risk of this stuff getting out of playtest, and into a published book *shrug*

What's your point here?
They shouldn't release playtest material because it *might* end up in a book in a couple years?
They shouldn't release untested material because it *might* end up in a book in a couple years?
They shouldn't try to fix things people are complaining about because it *might* end up in a book in a couple years?

I think a much better start would be to ask questions about the party.

Oh wait, that's exactly what every encounter building guideline refuse to do, thereby dooming itself into worthlessness.

Just considering classes and not races and subclasses. There are 12 in the PHB assuming there are no doubles, in an "average" four-person party that would be 11,880 possible combinations. (12*11*10*9).

How would you propose WotC address almost 12k possible arrangements of classes?

 

[AaronOfBarbaria]

The problem is that the guidelines obsess over perhaps 20% of the whole picture.

That's your reading, and it differs from mine.

...one or two useless disclaimers thrown in there...

The focus is actively misleading.

...covering it in in footnotes.

I don't think any of those are accurate assessments of information provided in the instructions for use.

It turns away your eye from what is really important.

Assuming a table can be used independent of the instructions that accompany - and in this case even come before said table with a clear label (it says "Step 1") - is on the reader, not the author. So that your eye sees "Step 1" and your mind says "Footnote." is on you, not WotC.

Also, you do realize that you are literally asking to be given what is already provided, right? You want guidelines that tell you to start with what your party is actually capable of, not some number on a chart, and this document says:

"Step 1: Asess the Characters
To build an encounter using this system, first take stock of the player characters."

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think a much better start would be to ask questions about the party.

Oh wait, that's exactly what every encounter building guideline refuse to do, thereby dooming itself into worthlessness.

It's what they tell you to do in the first step.

So...problem solved?

 

[Jester David]

Because they're armed with internet access??
It's not that complex a recipe..... New player, on-line search for D&D, finds WoTC site, finds the UA articles there..... Puts what they find in to use.

Maybe. The majority of players are just going to play with friends, and not bother to google the game and check out the official website.
I can't think of the last time I visited a video game's website.

But those that do, they might check out the site once when curious about the game. But with limited content there's no reason to keep coming back.
That's assuming they bother to go to the official site, and not Reddit or Wikipedia.
It will be visible on the D&D site for maybe a week, at the very bottom of the page. So there's an incredibly small window for finding it.

The Unearthed Arcana stuff isn't *that* well known. We see it, but many really big D&D fans just have no idea it exists.

 

[Tony Vargas]

But then, how did everyone manage to play D&D back in 1980 (+/-)? There were no "encounter guidelines" back then...

The same way previous generations got to school - in the snow, uphill, both ways. ;P A lot of people have tried D&D over the decades and simply not liked it. Anything that might help a new group have a better experience could be a good thing.

My point is that anyone who can't figure out, learn, or otherwise "get it" (DM'ing) to write fun, exciting, and challenging adventures without the aid of mathematical formulas or a computer...er...well, maybe DM'ing isn't for them.

DMing classic or OSR or 5e D&D or PF may not be for them. But though that's the gateway to the hobby (really, 5e, alone prettymuch is), it's not the whole hobby, nor even the only way to play 5e. Being open to more, newer, and casual players - who might benefit from decent guidelines - could also have been a plus for 5e, and at least they're still trying. It's not phone-it-in DMing like 'equal number of same-level standard monsters' in 4e, but it could be a useful tool (or starting point) for that DM who hasn't reached that combination of talent, experience, and walk-up-hill-both-ways-in-the-snow determination to become a great DM, yet.

Writing "balanced encounters" isn't about numbers, CR's and DPR...it's about experience and knowing your players.

It's not one or the other. In 5e (even with guidelines) as in classic D&D (before there were guidelines), though, it's a lot more about the latter, I'll grant you.

(sorry for the "smugness" of this, but it's hard to not come off that way when talking from experience)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Heh. Totally understandable.

 

[Dualazi]

Hiya.



But then, how did everyone manage to play D&D back in 1980 (+/-)? There were no "encounter guidelines" back then. I was 10 then, and started DM'ing at the end of that year. We would trade off DM'ing every module or two (initially, for the first two years or so; then it was either me or one other guy). Back in those days, you either "had the DM'ing skill, or you didn't". I did, as well as another friend named Chris. It wasn't until late 80's that I found another friend who could also DM. Since those days I've played with many folk. Out of nigh-on-40 years of this RPG'ing stuff, I think the number of DM's I've come across is...let me count...6.

What's my point? My point is that anyone who can't figure out, learn, or otherwise "get it" (DM'ing) to write fun, exciting, and challenging adventures without the aid of mathematical formulas or a computer...er...well, maybe DM'ing isn't for them. Writing "balanced encounters" isn't about numbers, CR's and DPR...it's about experience and knowing your players. Charts, tables and mathematical formula are not going to cut it. Well done charts, tables and math can be used as tools to help a DM, but really "knowing" if something is going to be easy, average, tough, or deadly is something that, IMHO, just needs to be learned over time.

(sorry for the "smugness" of this, but it's hard to not come off that way when talking from experience)

^_^

Paul L. Ming

Yeah, I don't mean to come off as rude, but needlessly making being a DM a more taxing task in no way helps the hobby. I enjoy DMing, but as many others on the internet or game stores have bemoaned, I rarely get to play a character because no one else in my group wants to take on the increased workload and prep-time of being a DM. Likewise, no one wants to have to spend a year or more throwing mis-calibrated encounters at their party because wizards couldn't be arsed to give them some pointers. We need more DMs, not less, and having unhelpful resources does nothing to assist in this, and it's a little weird to see a company that has done better about this in the past fumble it again.

Secondly, yeah, DPR, CR, and numbers are exactly what determine a balanced encounter, at leas in a working system. Note that I'm not always claiming it'll be a fun encounter, but fun is much harder to quantify and exists (or can exist) whether or not the encounter itself is a balanced one. One of the prime reasons I buy things like a DM's guide is ideally to help with the actual math of the system, to help build a challenge with a desired degree of risk. I'm sure you or I or any number of other regulars on these boards can tell an interesting story with just about any system, but when I look to the system as to whether or not I'm gonna TPK everyone I have a bit higher standards.

Basically, in the ending statement of you post you say "Well done charts, tables and math can be used as tools to help a DM" but our complaint is exactly that; the tools are still not great. It won't be the end of the system, but it's disheartening.

 

[Tony Vargas]

yeah, DPR, CR, and numbers are exactly what determine a balanced encounter, at leas in a working system. Note that I'm not always claiming it'll be a fun encounter, but fun is much harder to quantify and exists (or can exist) whether or not the encounter itself is a balanced one.

But a balanced encounter is likely to be reasonably fun, while an imbalanced one might be awesome or terrible. Thing is, you can use a workable system to advisedly create an imbalanced combat to spice things up, while with a less functional system, it just happens...

I enjoy DMing, but as many others on the internet or game stores have bemoaned, I rarely get to play a character because no one else in my group wants to take on the increased workload and prep-time of being a DM. Likewise, no one wants to have to spend a year or more throwing mis-calibrated encounters at their party because wizards couldn't be arsed to give them some pointers. We need more DMs, not less, and having unhelpful resources does nothing to assist in this, and it's a little weird to see a company that has done better about this in the past fumble it again.

The resources aren't un-helpful, DMing is just challenging again.

I don't mean to come off as rude, but needlessly making being a DM a more taxing task in no way helps the hobby.

It's not needless. Making DMing harder has arguably saved D&D, and thus the hobby, from self-destruction.

No, I'm actually sorta a little bit serious. 4e had useable encounter guidelines, running it was easy, I saw more new players stick with the game and become DMs (and transition to DMing faster and with greater success) then ever before while I was participating in the Encounters program. It was remarkable what a little simplification and systemization can do. But that didn't help D&D take off like 5e has, because it disrespected the games history by trying to be better, nor did it appeal to the fans deeply rooted in that history. And, as great as it might be to have a game that's easier for newbies, it's even better to have an experienced, /positive/, motivated group of existing players to introduce new ones and experienced DMs to mentor new ones. Enough of the fan base didn't just abandon D&D but turned against it, that no amount of being less unappealing to new players was going to make up the loss.

5e has healed that rift and AL attracts plenty of long-time and returning fans to be there to share their enthusiasm for the game with new players, rather than actively maligning it. It's created a continuity between the fad years and the present - and the decades in-between - so that the D&D that may be played going forward is still recognizably the D&D that was back then.