D&D 5E Encounter Building math: or I killed 2 PCs last night.

[aramis erak]

Also, I don't know if they're done tweaking things yet, but at least for the fractional CR monsters it seems that adding CR isn't too terrible a way to gauge appropriateness.

For example, with Orcs (CR 1/2), tossing two at a first level party is tough but not crazy (hard for a party of four), three is getting dicey (deadly for just about any party of lvl 1 characters), and four is right out.

For Goblins (CR 1/4), four against a level lvl 1 party is hard for a party of five, and just barely deadly for a party of four, so they might survive. Six goblins is pushing into deadly territory again.

So it seems that for fractional CR, it's roughly a guide to the max number of those creatures that you can toss at a level one party and expect survivors.

working the DMBR 57 math on that...

4x CR 1/4 = 4x50 = 200 XP earned.
But it's 200 x2 (for 3 to 6 monsters) for figuring how balanced/tough the encounter is, or 400 XP. for 4x 1st levels, thats 100 XP each, a "deadly" encounter.
5 is 250 x 2 = 500 , then divided by 4 PC's, is 125 per PC... one step past deadly.

ANd at 6, it's a difficulty of 700, or 150 per PC... 2 steps beyond deadly for Level 1's. But merely hard for level 2's...
The math's a pain. But it holds up pretty well at level 1. Next week, I find out for Level 2...

 

[jodyjohnson]

As long as there are d20s and crits involved there will be a certain amount of imprecision in encounter guidelines. Not to mention player tactics and character/party building.

I think our preferred starting point is 3rd, but Organized Play don't leave that as an option. And Encounters forces players to wait over a month to get to 3rd.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

As long as there are d20s and crits involved there will be a certain amount of imprecision in encounter guidelines. Not to mention player tactics and character/party building.

Indeed. In fact, I believe deadly encounters guidelines are only there because they come with specific advice about throwing them at players as a form of challenging their "skills". The reality is that adding d20s to the equation makes most encounters potentially deadly.

 

[Sacrosanct]

If anything I think the multipliers for large encounters are a bit over-egged, but the guidelines are far from "a joke". You're always going to have to massage things to meet your players' expectations and abilities.

As well as DM abilities as well. I.e., a group of 4 goblins almost took out our entire party of 4 1st level PCs because they kept using their hide as a bonus action and then moving. We'd get shot with arrows from random places and it felt like a real ambush from a frustration context any way So a creative DM can make monsters a lot tougher than one who just throws them at you with no planning on their part.

There are just so many factors that you really can't put into a nice simple formula, so what they have is pretty darn good as a general guideline.

*edit* also, and this doesn't necessarily relate to the OP, but just because a PC dies, doesn't mean the encounter was not balanced. PC death should be a real risk to an adventurer, or why play out combat at all?

 

[rjfTrebor]

I had two characters die in the first session of HotDQ last night. Level 1 PCs are very easy to 'beat' in any non-cakewalk encounter.

my advice is to let them start at level 3, or use their con score for their starting hitpoints. four deathsaves would probably help a lot, too.

 

[wedgeski]

my advice is to let them start at level 3, or use their con score for their starting hitpoints. four deathsaves would probably help a lot, too.

Play your own way, of course, but it's my opinion as a player in two campaigns and the DM of another that the fragility of 1st level PC's is pitched about right. They have to be careful, they can't rush in without thinking, and they're vulnerable to a run of bad luck...but to me that evokes classic D&D in a way which is exactly appropriate.

 

[keterys]

But it's 200 x2 (for 3 to 6 monsters) for figuring how balanced/tough the encounter is, or 400 XP. for 4x 1st levels, thats 100 XP each, a "deadly" encounter.

That 3-6 x2 thing is pretty bunk, depending on the monster types involved. If we're talking hobgoblins or intellect devourers, for instance, it applies a heck of a lot more than it does for goblins.

I'd go so far as to say it applies SUPER extra multiply by x10 for intellect devourers

 

[Chocolategravy]

If anything I think the multipliers for large encounters are a bit over-egged, but the guidelines are far from "a joke". You're always going to have to massage things to meet your players' expectations and abilities.

The guidelines are a joke. Monsters of the same XP can be dramatically different threats. They've done a horrible job balancing how tough something is to it's XP and the XP is the only value being used for balance.

 

[Sacrosanct]

The guidelines are a joke. Monsters of the same XP can be dramatically different threats. They've done a horrible job balancing how tough something is to it's XP and the XP is the only value being used for balance.

What is your better solution to use as a guideline for creating encounters?

 

[Boarstorm]

What is your better solution to use as a guideline for creating encounters?

I'm not the person you're quoting (obviously), but I think we would have been better served by divorcing XP from CR. That would allow more granularity with encounter building while keeping CR as a general guideline of toughness.