D&D General Why Unbalanced Combat Encounters Can Enhance Your Dungeons & Dragons Experience

[EzekielRaiden]

Why are you speaking so defensively about 4e here? Have their been any explicit "digs" about the system in this thread?

It's not about defending 4e per se; it's about challenging this notion that "balance" is a dirty word. I use 4e as an example not to defend it, but because (as far as I can tell) everyone agrees that it was "balanced," whether you like or dislike that label. Hence, if people agree that it is "balanced," and yet it does the things being described in this thread as "unbalanced," that would clearly demonstrate that people are improperly using the terms.

If more people were familiar with 13th Age or Dungeon World, I would gladly use those, since those are also very well-balanced systems. But they aren't. 4e is the one everyone knows and everyone thinks is "balanced," whether they think that's a good thing or a bad thing.

 

[iserith]

It's not about defending 4e per se; it's about challenging this notion that "balance" is a dirty word. I use 4e as an example not to defend it, but because (as far as I can tell) everyone agrees that it was "balanced," whether you like or dislike that label. Hence, if people agree that it is "balanced," and yet it does the things being described in this thread as "unbalanced," that would clearly demonstrate that people are improperly using the terms.

If more people were familiar with 13th Age or Dungeon World, I would gladly use those, since those are also very well-balanced systems. But they aren't. 4e is the one everyone knows and everyone thinks is "balanced," whether they think that's a good thing or a bad thing.

And that encounter difficulty system in D&D 4e isn't all that great either. Which perhaps underscores how difficult it is to make a tool that is reliable in all cases, and why some DM adjustments will always be necessary. As with 5e, I always look at the budget to check myself because the tool is useful if not always reliable, and then make changes to fit my group.

I was playing in a D&D 4e game Sunday night and last night. Those encounters were appropriate for 1st- and 2nd-level characters. We stomped their guts out with just 4 PCs. Our group is tactically-minded with lots of RPG experience, so the DM is going to have to work on this. The encounter difficulty rules can't really account for our level of skill.

 

[Vaalingrade]

The CR system is bad because WOTC never follows their own guidelines.

There seems to be a disconnect behind the theory of CR where a monster of ~CRx is a challenge of y for parties of level x and the practice of monsters having capability z or restriction a aren't really CRx like the game claims.

 

[iserith]

Sure, but you were on the receiving end right? So who knows what might have been happening on the other side of the screen? Most of the discussion of 5e on this forum since I've been a member has been how hard it is to kill PCs. So I don't think your experience is the norm.

As well, what player decisions impacted difficulty? Did they set up in a bad tactical position? Were they not working well as a team? Were they ground down from previous encounters? Did people hold back on fire against trolls to avoid being seen as "metagaming?" And on and on. This is a problem with multiple variables, but some want to just point at CR/encounter building rules as the culprit, then suggest that a previous version of the game they may prefer doesn't have these exact same problems! Sorry, no.

 

[James Gasik]

Why are you speaking so defensively about 4e here? Have their been any explicit "digs" about the system in this thread?

You know us 4e fans, we're notoriously thin-skinned due to years of misinformation about the system. And how we were rewarded for our loyalty. We don't meant to start edition wars, but it's almost become a conditioned reflex to ROW ROW FIGHT THE POWER!

Therapy is expensive.

 

[Shardstone]

Because "unbalanced" should mean something. It should tell you something about the encounter. It shouldn't just be shorthand for "a hard fight" or "a fight that you can't brute force" or "a fight that actually requires cleverness." It should be a fight that is broken. Because that's what "unbalanced" means.

That's why people keep saying that you can make unbalanced fights in balanced systems, but you can't make balanced fights in unbalanced ones. You can't take assorted glass shards and just will them into being a tumbler. You can always break a tumbler if you have ones on hand.

Further, when people talk up "unbalanced" encounters, it is almost always at least in part to poo-poo "balanced" encounters. It is used very frequently to show how using "balanced" encounters is desperately dull, and tedious, and stuffy, and boring, and desperately dull, that there's this TOTALLY better way if you just destroy any notion of "balance."

But that's never what they mean, and it's incredibly frustrating. "Balance" has been twisted into this four-letter word, a boogeyman to flee from, the dreaded specter of awful boring games as opposed to the galmorous excitement of "unbalance." But that tells designers, "Do whatever-the-heck you want. It doesn't matter! The rules don't matter." And that gets us systems that are actually broken. Like, I dunno, the 5e CR system, which is often worse than just eyeballing answers! That gets us things where we don't actually have any idea what a "hard" encounter is or an "easy" encounter. It gets us systems where even a highly educated guess might as well be random for all the difference it makes. It gets us systems where DMs are given no tools, no advice, no structure, just "alright champ, have at it, you know best!"

No, that's what a broken fight means, not unbalanced.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

And that encounter difficulty system in D&D 4e isn't all that great either.

Seriously? It's extremely effective at almost every level of play. You get weird stuff if, for example, you de-level a monster from Epic tier to low Heroic or vice-versa, but even there the issues are relatively minor in most cases. The weird exceptions were rare and notable, nothing like "[not] all that great either." Coupled with the extremely useful stuff like "MM3 on a business card," 4e's XP Budget rules actually work extremely well to tell you how challenging an encounter should be. Really effective player strategy can of course let them punch a couple levels above their actual party level, but that's a perfectly appropriate result--and, as the books themselves note, it's perfectly appropriate to use monsters even eight levels above party level.

Which perhaps underscores how difficult it is to make a tool that is reliable in all cases, and why some DM adjustments will always be necessary.

No one is asking for something that is reliable in ALL cases, why do you keep saying this?

For goodness' sake, this is the third time I've had to reject this idea from you, just stated in slightly different words. "Perfect," "airtight," "reliable in all cases"--these are just synonyms, each time setting up the strawman of "your position is simply 100% unattainable, stop trying." I have never, ever, NOT ONCE, suggested that something that works with ZERO application of DM judgment is required. I have, repeatedly, said that the system we have is lacking. It relies extremely heavily on DM judgment calls, to the point that numerous people in multiple places have explicitly described CR as hardly even a suggestion, let alone an actually useful tool. It's not just my experience as a player, nor just the reports I hear from others. It's numerous sources from diverse places and firsthand player experience from multiple campaigns (three, to be precise, two of which had the noted TPKs.)

As with 5e, I always look at the budget to check myself because the tool is useful if not always reliable, and then make changes to fit my group.

And I'm saying it's not always useful, and in fact can be inaccurate or even outright misleading. The fact that WotC's own encounters frequently violate the tool's answers is damning enough. Further, I've been told by folks who I had good reason to believe were pre-release playtesters that basically all CRs in the game are almost totally ad-hoc; the tools that are supposed to tell you the CR of a custom creature are wildly inaccurate and the result requires significant

I was playing in a D&D 4e game Sunday night and last night. Those encounters were appropriate for 1st- and 2nd-level characters. We stomped their guts out with just 4 PCs. Our group is tactically-minded with lots of RPG experience, so the DM is going to have to work on this. The encounter difficulty rules can't really account for our level of skill.

Yes, they can. I even quoted them! The rules explicitly say that, for a typical party, "standard" encounters run from level-2(ish) to level+3(ish). Sounds like you could handle fights at the upper end of that range.

 

[iserith]

Seriously? It's extremely effective at almost every level of play.

No it's not. I still run and play D&D 4e. It's about as effective as D&D 5e's in my experience which is to say it's reliable most of the time, but not all the time. I don't know if it's rose-colored glasses or what, but a lot of D&D 4e folks just will not see the flaws in their preferred game.

No one is asking for something that is reliable in ALL cases, why do you keep saying this?

For goodness' sake, this is the third time I've had to reject this idea from you, just stated in slightly different words. "Perfect," "airtight," "reliable in all cases"--these are just synonyms, each time setting up the strawman of "your position is simply 100% unattainable, stop trying." I have never, ever, NOT ONCE, suggested that something that works with ZERO application of DM judgment is required. I have, repeatedly, said that the system we have is lacking. It relies extremely heavily on DM judgment calls, to the point that numerous people in multiple places have explicitly described CR as hardly even a suggestion, let alone an actually useful tool. It's not just my experience as a player, nor just the reports I hear from others. It's numerous sources from diverse places and firsthand player experience from multiple campaigns (three, to be precise, two of which had the noted TPKs.)

My experience is that it's as reliable as D&D 4e, which tells me this is about as good as it's likely ever going to get, given the complexity of the variables at play.

Also, I see no issue with TPKs in and of themselves, whether that be due to "unbalanced" encounters or any other situation that still allowed for players to make reasonably informed decisions. If you don't want death to occur, just remove it as a possibility. Then you don't have to worry about the CR/encounter difficulty system at all, at least in this regard.

And I'm saying it's not always useful, and in fact can be inaccurate or even outright misleading. The fact that WotC's own encounters frequently violate the tool's answers is damning enough. Further, I've been told by folks who I had good reason to believe were pre-release playtesters that basically all CRs in the game are almost totally ad-hoc; the tools that are supposed to tell you the CR of a custom creature are wildly inaccurate and the result requires significant

I think a lot of people were just traumatized by pixies. Which, again, my players stomp into bits every time they are encountered. Only so much you can do with 1 hit point.

Yes, they can. I even quoted them! The rules explicitly say that, for a typical party, "standard" encounters run from level-2(ish) to level+3(ish). Sounds like you could handle fights at the upper end of that range.

And then some. Which means it can't really account reliably for our level of skill. It's about as good as D&D 5e in that regard and will require adjustment by the DM.

I think if someone wants to take a shot at creating a more reliable system, they should give it a shot. But I'd be willing to bet it isn't much better than what we already have.

 

[Shardstone]

That post about giving factions a CR in the thousands and using that to diversify creatures was genius. What an amazingly interesting take on CR as a tool.

 

[Minigiant]

There seems to be a disconnect behind the theory of CR where a monster of ~CRx is a challenge of y for parties of level x and the practice of monsters having capability z or restriction a aren't really CRx like the game claims.

It's more of a clash of styles.

From what I've gleaned over interviews from the 5e seem to be in a sort of mixed generation. Like the marriage of OS Grognards and 3.X Simulationists.

They wanted to have guideline but think they and their friends are skilled enough to not follow any official guidelines. They wanted encounters to have a predictable measurement but wanted monsters to be unpredictable mold breakers. An organization where a monster built by feel and too powerful for the party could be dropped anywhere. And it isn't unexpected that the measurement system can't measure stuff that doesn't follow it.

That's why I keep saying that 5e was written for veteran D&D fans who grew up playing AD&D & 3.0. Such a combination would lean hard on the DM being a vet.