D&D 5E Design Debate: 13th-level PCs vs. 6- to 8-Encounter Adventuring Day

[Flamestrike]

Encounter 3:

Encounter conditions: Same as the rest of the demi-plane.

Encounter environment: The PCs enter a 40'x40' room,with exits to the north, east, west and south. They enter via the southern entrance. The exits to the east and west are twisting corridors that lead to 40'x40' rooms of their own. The northern passage leads further into the dungeon.

Creatures: Patrolling between the three rooms is an Iron Golem, its elemental spirit corrupted by the Elder Elemental Eye after it was sucked into the demiplane from Keraptis lair. Reduce its hit points by 50 (to 160) to acount for damage sustained in the transition to the demi-plane, but due to its rage, the Golem can dash or make an additional slam attack as a bonus action on its turn. Its CR remains unaltered.

As soon as a a PC enters this room, check their passive perception. Those with a passive perception of 15 or higher notices a clanking sound coming from the eastern exit. Give the party 12 seconds to decide upon a course of action, and a further few seconds to narrate it to you before the Golem emerges. Decrease the DC to hear the incoming Golem to 10 the following round, but reduce any time to plan or react to 6 seconds.

The round after, the golem bursts into the room and attacks in a berzerk rage.

It patrols between the three rooms, appearing in this room every minute or so. Once it notices the PC's it attacks as noted above. It cannot be reasoned with, pursues the party throughout the dungeon, and fights to the death.

DMs notes. Its anticipated that most parties will have 1-2 rounds advance warning to either set up an ambush for the Golem or to avoid it entirely (assuming they head down the northern corridor and not the western one in order to avoid the Golem - a party that heads west will instead be cornered in the dead end). A party who obtains surprise on the golem should be able to finish it off inside of a single round or two at worst. This encounter rewards stealthy PCs who focus on scouting and swift planning and decisive action.

If the party take too long deciding how to best deal with the Golem, they face a stand up fight with the creature.

Encounter difficulty: 15,000 XP - 'medium'

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

But youre missing something - I did add the Wolves XP values to the encounter difficulty. They added 2,800 XP to the overall difficulty of the encounter (which is a substantial amount).

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but:

I didn't miss it. I saw that you did that, and I'm calling it out as wrong. It doesn't make you a bad person, but it's still wrong. You're violating DMG guidelines by misunderstanding when and why to throw away the multiplier. For reasons unfathomable to me, you and iserith seem to think that 300 HP of Winter Wolves inflicting 44 points of damage per round at +6 (with advantage and knockdown) are negligible compared to 138 HP worth of Frost Giant inflicting 50 HP per round at +9--so negligible that you're leaving them out of the difficulty multiplier.

The DMG guidelines are not that great in the first place, but if you're going to use them, you should probably actually use them.

I did not multiply the total encounter XP to account for six creatures (the sum of the monsters XP values x 2), I only multiplied to account for 2 monsters i.e. the giants (the sum of the monsters XP values x 1.5). The difference amounts to the difference between a medium (16,100 XP) and a hard (23,400 xp) encounter.

From an XP budget standpoint that's the difference between blowing 23% and 34% of your five-PC XP budget on this encounter. That's pretty significant.

Subsequent posts have given me the impression that you're not intending to abide by the adventuring-day budget, preferring a "6-8 Medium/Hard encounters" adventuring day instead. In that case, hey, my mistake. I thought you were evaluating DMG guidelines but you're actually just doing your own thing.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Yeah, and then the text refers to awarded XP. It's as clear as mud.

It's unambiguous that you should use adjusted XP. Both the table headings and the text are explicit about this. If you want to claim that it's ambiguous whether you should award adjusted XP instead of raw XP, fine--maybe you could read the DMG as telling you to award 5600 XP instead of 2800 XP for killing four Winter Wolves. But there is no ambiguity around how much of your adventuring day budget that encounter consumes: it consumes the adjusted XP, just like the table and the paragraph above it state.

(Additionally: in the limiting case where all of your encounters are with solo creatures, the raw XP and the adjusted XP are both equal to the awarded XP. If you want more XP, without higher risk, fight solos. Divide and conquer.)

 

[Flamestrike]

It's unambiguous that you should use adjusted XP. Both the table headings and the text are explicit about this.

No it isnt, and no they dont.

Page 84, under the heading 'The Adventuring day'. third paragraph, first line:

"For each character in the party use the advanturing day XP table to estimate how much XP that character is expected to EARN in a day (emphasis mine)"

Then the table goes on to list 'adjusted' XP in its header.

All I claimed was it is ambiguous. Which it clearly is. See here for a reddit on the topic to prove others are as confused as I am:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2moara/xp_per_adventuring_day/

Have a look at what the chart says about a party of 5 x 1st level PCs earn in a single day - 300 each or enough to advance a level. Same deal with going from 2nd to 3rd - enough XP to advance from 2nd to 3rd in a single day (600 each). Considering this has been stated to be the intent (1 to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd level in a single AD) (and most 6-8 medium-hard encounter AD's come out closer to 'earnt' XP and not 'adjusted' XP unless you only ever use solo monsters, then there is a strong argument that it means earnt (like the text claims) and not adjusted (like the chart claims).

It is (at the very least) ambiguous.

At the very least you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty here mate. It says what I said it says, and it is (at the least) ambiguous. Go read the section.

Please don't take this as a personal attack, but:

I didn't miss it. I saw that you did that, and I'm calling it out as wrong.

Cool. Seeing as it's a question of your opinion vs my opinion of if the Wolves present a 'significant' challenge, we can never know for sure.

You're violating DMG guidelines by misunderstanding when and why to throw away the multiplier. For reasons unfathomable to me, you and iserith seem to think that 300 HP of Winter Wolves inflicting 44 points of damage per round at +6 (with advantage and knockdown) are negligible compared to 138 HP worth of Frost Giant inflicting 50 HP per round at +9--so negligible that you're leaving them out of the difficulty multiplier.

Again: DMG Page 82 under step 4 of designing encounters (Headed - Modify total XP for multiple monsters):

When making this calculation, dont count any mosnters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.

The wolves are significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the encounter. This is something that stands on the numbers (CR 9 and 8 vs CR 3).

The DMG tells me to only factor them into the multiplication calculations if I am of the view that they 'significantly' contribute to the difficulty of the encouter. 4 x CR 3 wolves do not significantly contribute to this encounters difficulty (featuring 5 x 13th level and fully rested PCs tooled up with magic items). They contribute for sure. No argument. They contribute 2,800 XP to the total in my view.

And again, even if you continue to disagree with me, it's a moot point. Even if your opinion is to be preferred over my opinion it doesnt matter in the context of this challenge. It pushes the encounter from 'medium' into 'hard' difficulty and thus still within the parameters of the test.

The challenge parameters were to design a single Adventuring day featuring 6-8 [medium to hard] encounters for a 13th level party, and to see if they could be challenged.

Subsequent posts have given me the impression that you're not intending to abide by the adventuring-day budget, preferring a "6-8 Medium/Hard encounters" adventuring day instead.

Now you get it. I'm not budgeting an AD per the guidelines on page 84 (although earnt XP per PC will come out to around this value, probably a touch more). I am putting 6-8 medium-hard encounters before a party of 5 x 13th level optimised PCs, with access to magic items, feats and MCing optional rules and all legal splat to see if 6-8 medium-hard encounters can challenge them.

A solid argument could be made that the addition of magic items to the PCs is worth at least a +1 to each PCs effective level when assessing encounter diffiuculty. The Paladin has a Magic shield of spell resistance, +1 sword, and a few potions of healing. He's also read a Manual of bodily health +2. That's probably normally worth a level in my books. It comes down to DM judgement. In this example. Its certainly something for a DM to take into account when designing encounters.

For the record the adjusted/ earnt XP for the entire adventure per PC is:

1 16,150/ 11,700
2 17,700/ 11,800
3 15,000/ 15,000
4 21,400/ 11,700
5 18,400/ 9,200
6 19,350/ 12,900
7 20,000/ 20,000

The encounters tend toward the 'hard' side of 'medium-hard'. I make no apology for this.

Incidentally, this is about 18,000 XP (earnt) each (or around what a 15th level party would earn in a single day if the table on page 84 is meant to be 'earnt' XP), and about 27,000 XP each adjusted difficulty (or around what a 17th level party would earn in a day if the table on page 84 is meant to be 'adjusted' XP).

Bearing in mind some of those encounters can be avoided without combat (we've had three encounters already - one encounter could be resolved via diplomacy instead of combat, and another can be simply walked past or anhilated in a surprise round).

I did say at the start of the whole process that 'This is going to be a tough adventure, and a TPK is quite likely' so there is also that.

A lot of what we are discussing is DMs call. I'm the DM, and I made the call. You may have made different calls (that's your perogative). But I am sticking to the guidelines as I see them.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

No it isnt, and no they dont.

Page 84, under the heading 'The Adventuring day'. third paragraph, first line:

"For each character in the party use the advanturing day XP table to estimate how much XP that character is expected to EARN in a day (emphasis mine)"

Then the table goes on to list 'adjusted' XP in its header.

All I claimed was it is ambiguous. Which it clearly is. See here for a reddit on the topic to prove others are as confused as I am:

https://www.reddit.com/r/DnD/comments/2moara/xp_per_adventuring_day/

Have a look at what the chart says about a party of 5 x 1st level PCs earn in a single day - 300 each or enough to advance a level. Same deal with going from 2nd to 3rd - enough XP to advance from 2nd to 3rd in a single day (600 each). Considering this has been stated to be the intent (1 to 2nd and 2nd to 3rd level in a single AD) (and most 6-8 medium-hard encounter AD's come out closer to 'earnt' XP and not 'adjusted' XP unless you only ever use solo monsters, then there is a strong argument that it means earnt (like the text claims) and not adjusted (like the chart claims).

It is (at the very least) ambiguous.

At the very least you're accusing me of intellectual dishonesty here mate.

Well yes, at this point yes I am. When you quote the DMG in an attempt to prove ambiguity, and you snip the quote right before the part that explicitly removes the ambiguity (text reference to adjusted XP, in addition to the table heading reference to adjusted XP), and you further ignore the fact that the ambiguity vel none is over the size of the XP award to the players and not how to compute the adventuring day AND you ignore the math behind the guidelines, which makes it obvious why using adjusted XP is the only sane option the writers could have intended...

Either you're being willfully intellectually dishonest, or I'm wildly overestimating your reading comprehension and math skills. Could be either I suppose, if Dunning-Kruger is a thing in real life. Would you take it as a compliment then if I called you willfully intellectually dishonest on this subject? I think if you had time to cool off you might re-read the guidelines, admit that you're violating them, and claim that your way is better. (Maybe it is. I have no opinion.) Right now you're willfully distorting them in order to avoid that. My opinion on that is that it's unambiguously wrong.

I'll bow out of this thread now. No point in beating a dead horse. Please continue your homebrewing exercise.

 

[Flamestrike]

Well yes, at this point yes I am. When you quote the DMG in an attempt to prove ambiguity, and you snip the quote right before the part that explicitly removes the ambiguity (text reference to adjusted XP, in addition to the table heading reference to adjusted XP), and you further ignore the fact that the ambiguity vel none is over the size of the XP award to the players and not how to compute the adventuring day AND you ignore the math behind the guidelines, which makes it obvious why using adjusted XP is the only sane option the writers could have intended...

Either you're being willfully intellectually dishonest, or I'm wildly overestimating your reading comprehension and math skills. Could be either I suppose, if Dunning-Kruger is a thing in real life. Would you take it as a compliment then if I called you willfully intellectually dishonest?

I'll bow out of this thread now. No point in beating a dead horse. Please continue your homebrewing exercise.

Dont let the door hit you on the way out.

 

[Lord Twig]

Well yes, at this point yes I am. When you quote the DMG in an attempt to prove ambiguity, and you snip the quote right before the part that explicitly removes the ambiguity (text reference to adjusted XP, in addition to the table heading reference to adjusted XP), and you further ignore the fact that the ambiguity vel none is over the size of the XP award to the players and not how to compute the adventuring day AND you ignore the math behind the guidelines, which makes it obvious why using adjusted XP is the only sane option the writers could have intended...

Either you're being willfully intellectually dishonest, or I'm wildly overestimating your reading comprehension and math skills. Could be either I suppose, if Dunning-Kruger is a thing in real life. Would you take it as a compliment then if I called you willfully intellectually dishonest on this subject? I think if you had time to cool off you might re-read the guidelines, admit that you're violating them, and claim that your way is better. (Maybe it is. I have no opinion.) Right now you're willfully distorting them in order to avoid that. My opinion on that is that it's unambiguously wrong.

I'll bow out of this thread now. No point in beating a dead horse. Please continue your homebrewing exercise.

Option 3: You are wildly overestimating your own reading comprehension and math skills.

Now, I'm not saying you are wrong, but you should at least keep in mind the possibility that you are. I don't have my DMG in front of me right now, so I am not going to make a judgement either way. I will just add that usually the text trumps charts, so the chart can be ignored if it conflicts with the text.

And either way I think the test is still valid. If an optimized party can get through enough encounters to equal or exceed the daily allotment, even if they don't get all the way through, that tells us something.

 

[OB1]

Would like to throw my 2cp in on this debate, as I've found this tread to be an invaluable discussion on one of the most important concepts in 5e. As to the adventuring day, I believe there is an important consideration here. The daily adjusted xp guidlines are there to advise the DM on what an average party should be able to handle in a given day. However, this is not meant to limit the DM to only create encounters that total to this budget in a single day.

I believe that the 6-8 medium to hard guideline is meant to be the cap, but that the DM should understand that if an average party uses combat to face each of these challenges, they may not be able to complete the day. This should encourage both players to look for ways to avoid or minimize risk of combat encounters when possible and DMs to create those possibilities in their design, so that the party only actually faces the adjusted XP total for the day, and therefore has a chance to complete the primary objective of the adventuring day.

Now, a highly optimized party with synergetic magical weapons may be able to face all 6-8 encounters head on, rather than need to look for ways around. On the other hand, a couple of lucky rolls against that same party early in the day may still force them to look to at ways to get around encounters later in the day. That's what I'm fascinated to see about this experiment. I have no doubt that a highly optimized party could blow through the adjusted daily xp total, since it is meant for an average party without magic items, but how they do when you crank up the encounters to the maximum allowable level for 6 to 8 encounters is what I thought this experiment was meant to determine.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

Option 3: You are wildly overestimating your own reading comprehension and math skills.

Now, I'm not saying you are wrong, but you should at least keep in mind the possibility that you are. I don't have my DMG in front of me right now, so I am not going to make a judgement either way. I will just add that usually the text trumps charts, so the chart can be ignored if it conflicts with the text.

And either way I think the test is still valid. If an optimized party can get through enough encounters to equal or exceed the daily allotment, even if they don't get all the way through, that tells us something.

Granted, #3 is always a possibility on any subject. In this case, the chart, the text, the precedent from encounter design, and the design logic are all in agreement though. If I were a Twitterer this would be the perfect time to consult with the devs on RAI.

 

[Lord Twig]

Continuing with my groups 1st encounter. We are on round 3. Here's how the combatants end the round:

Fighter has sword and shield in hands.
Rogue has her rapier and dagger of venom in hands.
Cleric has shield ready on left arm. Spiritual Weapon for 8 rnds.
Wizard has staff in right hand. Mage Armor 8 hours. Hypnotic Pattern 8 rnds.
Ranger has bow in left hand and rapier in right hand.

Round 3

The fighter attacks the last wolf for a crit, a hit and a miss (natural 1) doing 40 damage.

The giant moves back from the ranger, provoking an OA (which missed) and shakes his leader awake.

The wizard casts Chill Touch at the wolf for 12 damage and the rogue throws her dagger of venom at it for 33, finishing it off.

The cleric has her spiritual weapon pound on the injured giant and hits him with Sacred Flame for a total of 26 damage.

Finally the ranger pulls back some, sheaths her rapier and takes a couple shots with her bow (on of which crits) doing another 25 points of damage. As a bonus action she has her wolf move to her side and take the dodge action.

End the round with the following status:

Initiative / hit points:
Fighter 24 / 121 -49
Giant #1 17 / 138
Giant #2 17 / 138 -60
Wizard 15 / 93 +28
Rogue 14 / 94 -13
NW Wolf 10 / 75 -84, dead
NE Wolf 10 / 75 -75, dead
SW Wolf 10 / 75 -82, dead
SE Wolf 10 / 75 -76, dead
Cleric 8 / 94 -10
Ranger 6 / 108 -5
Wolf 6 / 52 -20

So pretty much a free round for the characters here, but now they have two active giants. Once again the animal companion shows the problem of how fragile it is. With only 32 hit points left it can be taken out in one or two hits from the giants. So the ranger had to give up some DPS to protect it.

Edit: The hit points and conditions are how they end the round.
Edit2: Reformatted to (hopefully) make it clearer.