D&D 5E DMG's definition of "Deadly" is much less deadly than mine: Data Aggregation?

Gansk · Sep 22, 2015

Quickleaf said:
Sure, some groups want death as a consequence and other groups do not.

However, this shouldn't affect the difficulty of encounter design.

Instead, it should affect how the DM interprets failure in combat (or a failed "death" save). It could mean capture, it could mean the enemy accomplishes a horrible ritual, it could mean X, Y, and Z. "Death" is simply an agreed upon narrative consequence. A group can decide to remove or minimize that consequence. But that doesn't change the maths behind what is an Easy/Medium/Hard/Deadly difficulty encounter.

I don't quite understand why you are locked into the encounter math as the solution to your problem.

It seems to me that satisfaction for a deadly encounter boils down to the following:
Players - they were fearful that at least one of them could potentially die, but they escaped by being smart or lucky
DM - the encounter give the players enough of a scare to be worth the XP granted

You said that one player was KO'ed, but got back up and nobody was worried, so why not house rule so that they are worried?

If a PC drops to 0 hp, grant them a level of exhaustion and have them roll on a lingering wounds table - now the players are scared for at least one PC.

Aren't your three carrion crawlers deadly now?

Tony Vargas · Sep 22, 2015

Hemlock said:
That's not right. The game is calibrated around a certain XP budget, not a certain number of encounters.

True, it wasn't my intent to suggest 5-8 deadly encounters, though you could go that far to clear up any issues with things being 'too easy,' if you really wanted to. But the multiplier could make an encounter or two among the 6-8 medium-hard encounters deadly without upping the actual exp awarded. Even if you take a deadly out of the exp budget and reduce the other encounters, it's not going to play like one deadly vs a fresh party who figure they have a good chance of few or no other encounters that day.

Hey, there's another other obvious thing that maybe bears mentioning: maintaining uncertainty goes a little way towards keeping encounters feeling harder than if the players have a feel for the 'schedule' and figure they can be profligate with resources.

Gansk said:
I don't quite understand why you are locked into the encounter math as the solution to your problem.

I can't speak for Quickleaf, but I had, initially, a sense that the encounter guidelines 'weren't working,' and that it was somehow a serious problem. Thing is I'd just gotten used to them working. Once I got back into the habit of not relying on them, the 'problem' disappeared.

Strill · Sep 22, 2015

Prism said:
Here are some examples from my last game including the DMG difficulty calculation. Three PC's at 4th level - goliath barbarian, half elf cleric, tiefling wizard

1 grell (easy) - yeah this was pretty easy although if the barbarian had been paralyzed on the first round it might have been a bit harder since he is the damage dealer

5 shadows (medium) - shadows are sneaky and therefore only attacked when they had surprise. The barbarian was down to 2 Str by the second round of combat. Then the cleric turned 4 of them and the last one missed the barbarian before it was destroyed. Does this count as deadly? One dice roll from likely permanent death for a character. Had there been no cleric it would probably have been a TPK. Had the shadows hit the cleric in the surprise round it would have been a TPK as she only has low strength.

3 quaggoths (deadly) - the barbarian was in no difficulty but the wizard fell to a flank from one of the quaggoths. Still, a pretty easy fight even though the wizard fell and the cleric only had one spell left for the day.

The encounter guidance system was a bit all over the place here. A fight listed as deadly was easy. A fight listed as medium was deadly. Lots of factors effected the encounters. Number of creatures, ability to get at the wizard and cleric rather than barbarian, stealth and getting surprise, having turn undead as an ability, and obviously the dice rolls.

I use the DMG guidance very loosely as I know the party so I can use my experience to judge encounters. Publishers of modules don't have this luxury and I'm sure have quite a difficult time predicting the difficulty of fights. There are some interesting random encounter tables in Out of the Abyss which can vary the number of monsters encountered by 1d4 or 1d6 which massively changes the difficulty. When rolling these I might quickly plug the results into the Kobold Fight Club calculator to see what the difficulty is supposed to be to determine if I should try and give the monsters surprise or favourable terrain. Mainly though you have to know your party.

The only generally accurate encounter design system I have seen was for 4e but that came hand in hand with an undesirable predictability to the fights which we got a little bored of. I'm fairly happy with the unpredictability of this system when it comes to encounter design. However I do think that certain high level monsters have problems though and are too weak for their individual CR.

Giving one side surprise adjusts the difficulty by one step. Your encounter of 5 shadows was 1,000 xp, which is very nearly at "Hard" already. Bumping it up by one step puts it at the high end of "Difficult" and near "deadly". That sounds about right to me.

FormerlyHemlock · Sep 22, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
True, it wasn't my intent to suggest 5-8 deadly encounters, though you could go that far to clear up any issues with things being 'too easy,' if you really wanted to. But one deadly thrown in among 5 medium encounters is not going to play like one deadly vs a fresh party who figure they have a good chance of few or no other encounters that day. Hey, there's another other obvious thing that maybe bears mentioning: maintaining uncertainty goes a little way towards keeping encounters feeling harder than if the players have a feel for the 'schedule' and figure they can be profligate with resources.

I can't speak for Quickleaf, but I had, initially, a sense that the encounter guidelines 'weren't working,' and that it was somehow a serious problem. Thing is I'd just gotten used to them working. Once I got back into the habit of not relying on them, the 'problem' disappeared.

My experience is that medium encounters make absolutely zero difference. I mentioned once before on this thread how my players went up against 130% of the daily XP budget for their level in a single fight (20 zombies and 3 vampire spawns with extra Hobgoblin abilities like Martial Advantage and AC 16/18; although I left still counted them as CR 5 when computing difficulty afterwards and awarding XP) at the end of a relatively long day where they'd already depleted most of the theoretical XP budget in Hard/Medium(?) encounters with groups of 2, 1, and 3 vampire spawns respectively. They hadn't even taken a short rest, but it didn't noticeably impact their ability to deal with the Triple/Quadruple(?)-Deadly threat at the end of the day[1].

I expect that there are groups out there who can handle a Deadly encounter only when they are at maximum health/spells/rages/ki/Action Surges/etc. because they do it by going nova, but all the anecdotes I've related in this thread do not involve such tactics and do not suffer any such impairment.

[1] And the (N)PCs weren't even playing optimally! Three of the six friendlies present were NPCs (Sorcerer 2, Ranger 8, and Fighter 3) and the players told the Fighter 3 to stay back and guard the Sorcerer, so he was a nonfactor, and all she did was chuck cantrips. The Ranger had some impact sniping with his bow for half damage (because nonmagical) but if he'd laid down Spike Growth or Ensnaring Strike/Entangle, the PCs could have isolated and destroyed the individual vampires with even fewer losses to themselves. The Ranger did not do so, either because I just didn't think of it (I hate playing two sides of the same conflict, and I was probably focused mainly on the vampires' point of view) or because I don't like stealing the spotlight from the PCs and he was already doing lots of damage. But that is one of the reasons why I believe a full PC group can, without even being particularly optimal in their tactics, perform confidently and well against a double-Deadly encounter even at the end of a long day of Medium encounters.

Quickleaf · Sep 22, 2015

Gansk said:
I don't quite understand why you are locked into the encounter math as the solution to your problem.

It seems to me that satisfaction for a deadly encounter boils down to the following:
Players - they were fearful that at least one of them could potentially die, but they escaped by being smart or lucky
DM - the encounter give the players enough of a scare to be worth the XP granted

[MENTION=6787650]Hemlock[/MENTION] said it well. It's about getting that feel as a DM for what a group can handle. I certainly don't think math is the only part of that, but I do think even in 5e that it's a significant part.

I did some thinking about why, personally, I'm looking at the math as significant....

Part of me has a sense of "fair play" as a DM in that I won't exceed the deadly encounter guidelines unless I give my players foreshadowing or they clearly bring it on themselves (either thru a colossal Bad Idea or by deliberately seeking out a challenge they know is super-deadly). Maybe it's some kind of "gentleman's agreement"? Even back in AD&D I DMed that way. And back in AD&D there were even less encounter guidelines and I just developed a feel for what my small group of friends could handle when it came to combat. Of course, there were several "learning curve" disasters along the way as I figured out what was too easy and what was over-the-top too hard.

I'm re-experiencing that a bit with 5th edition. The ground, so to speak, feels shaky under my feet.

Obviously I've got many more years of experience to draw upon now, so my "learning curve" mistakes are probably not going to be disasters, but there's still very much a sense of "I don't know if this is going to challenge them the way I think it will!"

Maybe that's OK?

Maybe by the time we hit 5th level I'll have developed a good enough instinct for it that I won't even need to consult the DMG?

Maybe somewhere along the way I'll throw out my "gentlemen's agreement" and just throw whatever the hell suits the narrative and my own fiendish whim at them?

However, regardless, I think we can all agree that the ability for the DM to predict "this is a deadly fight" is useful to have in our toolboxes, right? For world-building purposes, at the very least.

You said that one player was KO'ed, but got back up and nobody was worried, so why not house rule so that they are worried?

If a PC drops to 0 hp, grant them a level of exhaustion and have them roll on a lingering wounds table - now the players are scared for at least one PC.

Aren't your three carrion crawlers deadly now?

Players are not in favor of that. We talked about house rules and such at the start of the game. Because we have a mix of veteran players from older editions and a few players brand new to D&D, and pretty much everyone is new to 5e, we decided to minimize house rules to ease everyone's learning curve.

The only house rule that everyone was excited about, oddly enough, is critical failures. They came up with a whole table of crit fails options, if you can believe, of their own prompting!

Quickleaf · Sep 22, 2015

Tony Vargas said:
I can't speak for Quickleaf, but I had, initially, a sense that the encounter guidelines 'weren't working,' and that it was somehow a serious problem. Thing is I'd just gotten used to them working. Once I got back into the habit of not relying on them, the 'problem' disappeared.

I talked with my players a bit more, and the two guys whose opinions I trust most both said it felt deadly to them. Not as deadly as it could have been if they weren't fresh, but still deadly. They used good tactics, were pretty lucky, and exhausted their resources. A few bad rolls, they said, and things could have gone differently.

My perception was, and still is, a bit different, though it's been tempered by hearing their side in more depth.

I think I had some expectations that 5e would be a bit more like AD&D, so I was surprised to learn that...

Carrion crawler's paralytic poison can be saved against every turn! Jack was paralyzed!....oh, no wait, he got better!

Healing starts from 0 HP, there are no negative HP! And spare the dying stops you from dying, period!

Those factors, combined with the ranged PCs being able to unload without any fear of reprisal, and the PCs being fresh, are what leant it (on the DM's side) a feel of a "hard but not deadly" fight.

Tony Vargas · Sep 22, 2015

Quickleaf said:
[MENTION=6787650] And back in AD&D there were even less encounter guidelines and I just developed a feel for what my small group of friends could handle when it came to combat. Of course, there were several "learning curve" disasters along the way as I figured out what was too easy and what was over-the-top too hard.

I'm re-experiencing that a bit with 5th edition.

In a way, we can count that as a success on 5e's part, since you are getting that classic-D&D feel out of it.

Hm... that sounded more sarcastic than I meant: There really is a different feel to campaign run by feel and familiarity vs one where you have dependable numeric guidelines to fall back on. The former isn't going to be 'paint by numbers,' the latter can feel that way. If that makes any sense.

Obviously I've got many more years of experience to draw upon now, so my "learning curve" mistakes are probably not going to be disasters, but there's still very much a sense of "I don't know if this is going to challenge them the way I think it will!"

Maybe that's OK?

Yes, I think it's perfectly OK.

However, regardless, I think we can all agree that the ability for the DM to predict "this is a deadly fight" is useful to have in our toolboxes, right? For world-building purposes, at the very least.

I don't know if it's worse it to try to 'fix' the existing one or re-derive a new one, it seems like getting a feel for your group would be quicker and easier than trying to create a mathematically precise system, that, by implication, would work for anyone. The former you know from experience you can do, the latter WotC apparently couldn't.

Gansk · Sep 22, 2015

Quickleaf said:
I talked with my players a bit more, and the two guys whose opinions I trust most both said it felt deadly to them. Not as deadly as it could have been if they weren't fresh, but still deadly. They used good tactics, were pretty lucky, and exhausted their resources. A few bad rolls, they said, and things could have gone differently.

My perception was, and still is, a bit different, though it's been tempered by hearing their side in more depth.

I think I had some expectations that 5e would be a bit more like AD&D, so I was surprised to learn that...

Carrion crawler's paralytic poison can be saved against every turn! Jack was paralyzed!....oh, no wait, he got better!

Healing starts from 0 HP, there are no negative HP! And spare the dying stops you from dying, period!

Those factors, combined with the ranged PCs being able to unload without any fear of reprisal, and the PCs being fresh, are what leant it (on the DM's side) a feel of a "hard but not deadly" fight.

Coming from an AD&D background myself, I can understand your feelings. It is important that the DM also get a sense of satisfaction by challenging the players - there is too much work involved if that feeling is not there. I think the standard rules are working against you here, forcing you into "encounter inflation" that may cause too much of a distraction compared to an AD&D campaign where you could describe a wight coming out of a graveyard and immediately induce a "Run!" response. Those moments are so much fun for a DM.

One important factor about encounters in the post-2e era is that there are so many monsters that are potentially unfamiliar to the players, they naturally assume that fighting them will not result in death unless one smacks them in the mouth. Then sometimes it feels unfair - there is a balancing act depending on how badly they are smacked, how fresh they were going into the fight, etc. That's why I feel it is important to introduce some kind of Insight mechanic which allows players to size up their opponents if they want before experiencing the smack down. Parties that are running out of resources can have more information that incentivizes them to run or parley instead of immediately fighting and hoping for the best.

If the players are inclined to swingy combats by allowing a critical failure chart, maybe you can propose a trade of that chart for a critical hit or lingering wound chart, which only takes effect if the resulting hp drops to 0. This would induce fear when the hp drops to single digits, instead of creating complications at more random moments when a 1 is rolled. Of course the chart can have positive results on a roll of 20 (back to 1 hp, no longer unconscious). Results of 17-19 can create a scar that the PC can brag about but has no mechanical effect.

Rhenny · Sep 23, 2015

Quickleaf said:
I talked with my players a bit more, and the two guys whose opinions I trust most both said it felt deadly to them. Not as deadly as it could have been if they weren't fresh, but still deadly. They used good tactics, were pretty lucky, and exhausted their resources. A few bad rolls, they said, and things could have gone differently.

My perception was, and still is, a bit different, though it's been tempered by hearing their side in more depth.

I think I had some expectations that 5e would be a bit more like AD&D, so I was surprised to learn that...

Carrion crawler's paralytic poison can be saved against every turn! Jack was paralyzed!....oh, no wait, he got better!

Healing starts from 0 HP, there are no negative HP! And spare the dying stops you from dying, period!

I've always found that when I DM, I always under estimate the fear that the players feel in encounters. For years I would struggle to make sure that every moment pushed the players to their limits (mostly the 4e years). Now, I realize that sometimes by describing the situation differently, or surprising the players with attackers or traps and attackers, by using terrain to the monsters advantage, or by having monsters do hit and run tactics, using spells and area of effect attacks in addition to ranged or melee attacks, can make even the medium encounters seem more difficult.

I still agree that it would be nice to have a math metric to judge what the encounter will be like, but I am definitely seeing how the variables make a difference, and many times when I think the PCs won more easily than I anticipated, they still say they were scared at moments.

Quickleaf · Sep 23, 2015

Gansk said:
Coming from an AD&D background myself, I can understand your feelings. It is important that the DM also get a sense of satisfaction by challenging the players - there is too much work involved if that feeling is not there. I think the standard rules are working against you here, forcing you into "encounter inflation" that may cause too much of a distraction compared to an AD&D campaign where you could describe a wight coming out of a graveyard and immediately induce a "Run!" response. Those moments are so much fun for a DM.

Yes, they are

One important factor about encounters in the post-2e era is that there are so many monsters that are potentially unfamiliar to the players, they naturally assume that fighting them will not result in death unless one smacks them in the mouth. Then sometimes it feels unfair - there is a balancing act depending on how badly they are smacked, how fresh they were going into the fight, etc. That's why I feel it is important to introduce some kind of Insight mechanic which allows players to size up their opponents if they want before experiencing the smack down. Parties that are running out of resources can have more information that incentivizes them to run or parley instead of immediately fighting and hoping for the best.

I'm pretty good about both of these points: preserving monster mystery & telegraphing very challenging monsters.

If the players are inclined to swingy combats by allowing a critical failure chart, maybe you can propose a trade of that chart for a critical hit or lingering wound chart, which only takes effect if the resulting hp drops to 0. This would induce fear when the hp drops to single digits, instead of creating complications at more random moments when a 1 is rolled. Of course the chart can have positive results on a roll of 20 (back to 1 hp, no longer unconscious). Results of 17-19 can create a scar that the PC can brag about but has no mechanical effect.

Yeah, they weren't too keen on lingering wounds/conditions. I think if I wanted to implement something they'd back me because we're friends and they trust me as DM, but it definitely wouldn't be their preference.

As an example, there was a "save the burning barn" scene which resulted in several PCs enduring exhaustion from smoke inhalation. The dwarf PCs got it really bad with 2 levels of exhaustion. Everyone was horrified at the lingering effect of exhaustion and how hard it was to remove. The idea of adventuring with a PC suffering disadvantage to all ability/skill checks (from 1 level exhaustion) was anathema to them. So you can imagine how the DMG's lingering wounds table (with severed limbs, gouged eyes, etc) went over!

I can always bring it up again.

D&D 5E DMG's definition of "Deadly" is much less deadly than mine: Data Aggregation?

Gansk

Explorer

Tony Vargas

Legend

Strill

First Post

FormerlyHemlock

Hero

Quickleaf

Legend

Quickleaf

Legend

Tony Vargas

Legend

Gansk

Explorer

Rhenny

Adventurer

Quickleaf

Legend

Similar Threads