D&D 5E 5e on Hard difficulty

[dave2008]

The regular guidelines are probably fine. Changing both the monsters and the encounter rules adds two variables to the equation. Two points of failure. It's probably easier to just increase the potency of monsters to match the power increase of PCs optimised with feats.

My plan would be provide the encounter rules that would work with the monsters as they are. This would require adding more (possiblly a lot more) monsters to meet a "hardcore" threshold. Then provide "hardcore" monsters or versions of monsters that have a higher XP value and allow you to use fewer monsters to achieve the same results. I can't get that level of flexibility by doing one or the other, you need to do both.

5e already shows you can add abilities to monsters without technically increasing their challenge. So it's not even *really* bending the rules.

That really depends. A lot of abilities do indeed affect the CR - there is a whole section in the DMG about how various features affect a monster's CR.

Thinking on what I wrote earlier, alternate abilities - what 4e labelled Monster Themes - that grant reactions and bonus action abilities might work nicely. Few monsters use either because it's hard on DMs. Especially newer ones. But when facing a high level or experienced group, the DM likely has some skills.

More abilities that let monsters do feat style things, like block attacks on allies, take extra attacks, push PCs, and the like.

Those are all great. Just realize that most, if not all, of those abilities do indeed affect the CR in some way. Heck the Orcs "aggressive" trait which only allows it to move as a bonus action affects its CR per the DMG. That is why I think we need another set of "hardcore" monsters.

 

[dave2008]

That's 90,000 per PC! Each Pit Fiend is 25,000 so for a typical party (four PCs) that would be 14 Pit Fiends.

Sorry about that - I was reading (or lack thereof) to quickly. That seems more appropriate!

 

[Jester David]

That really depends. A lot of abilities do indeed affect the CR - there is a whole section in the DMG about how various features affect a monster's CR.

I was referring to things like the alternate actions for giants in Storm King's Thunder or the various monster customisation in most of the adventures and several sections in Volo's Guide to Monsters. Most of which don't affect CR.

 

[clearstream]

Mostly responding to the shock of the realization that the current RAW suggests 33 full adventuring days to go from level 1 to level 20. With 5-7 ASI from level 1 to 20.

I know what you mean! When you think about it, the basic terms of D&D - earn XP from defeating creatures and level up - mean that some number of encounters perforce yield enough XP to level from 1-20. Seeing as we have the design intent for XP per encounter, and for how many fit into each adventuring "day", it's trivial for us to derive the adventuring "days" on average to level from 1-20. Indeed, the fact that we can put an XP value on levelling - right up front in the PHB - and on creatures - in the MM - makes that calculation obvious. Of course, those aren't calendar days and we shouldn't assume all adventuring days follow the guidelines: they should vary widely... but even variance yields an average.

Where this is useful is in thinking about things like how common you want death and revival in your game. From a world point of view, I believe it sustains the notion of PCs being exceptional heroes. I also believe that a DM should keep that kind of number crunching behind the scenes. It can inform how we shape our game, but it shouldn't step out into our narrative.

 

[clearstream]

The regular guidelines are probably fine. Changing both the monsters and the encounter rules adds two variables to the equation. Two points of failure. It's probably easier to just increase the potency of monsters to match the power increase of PCs optimised with feats.

To an extent I use experimental design like this to understand a problem. I share your concern that changing multiple parts of the game is risky. OTOH changing every creature is also a lot of work. A cheap, quick solution I am drawn toward is simply halve the XP values for CR. So a Pit Fiend becomes worth 12,500. That's it. Do that and using the existing encounter guidelines, the game becomes harder. Unfortunately, it may then prove necessary to change the treasure tables.

 

[dave2008]

I was referring to things like the alternate actions for giants in Storm King's Thunder or the various monster customisation in most of the adventures and several sections in Volo's Guide to Monsters. Most of which don't affect CR.

Got it, that is not how a understood it when I read it originally. Thank you for the clarification. However, in most cases if you're just swapping similar abilities and features it will not change the CR, but it also will not necessarily change the challenge of the monster either. Maybe make it more interesting or tailor it to your specific needs or group (which could make it more challenging), but not generally more challenging.

 

[dave2008]

To an extent I use experimental design like this to understand a problem. I share your concern that changing multiple parts of the game is risky. OTOH changing every creature is also a lot of work. A cheap, quick solution I am drawn toward is simply halve the XP values for CR. So a Pit Fiend becomes worth 12,500. That's it. Do that and using the existing encounter guidelines, the game becomes harder. Unfortunately, it may then prove necessary to change the treasure tables.

It also leaves a serious lack of high value (high challenge) monsters!

 

[clearstream]

I all also leaves as serious lack of high value (high challenge) monsters!

That's true, and I agree that the monsters could be improved. I frequently find that the best challenges end up coming from a character-class-equiv NPC (perhaps supported by a few creatures from the MM). But maybe modifying the encounter XP retains value simply by showing where the bar should be? At present, following the guidelines, a DM is encouraged to set the bar pretty low. Too low for my group. And not by a small amount.

 

[clearstream]

Mostly responding to the shock of the realization that the current RAW suggests 33 full adventuring days to go from level 1 to level 20. With 5-7 ASI from level 1 to 20. I starting seeing advertisements for professional adventuring companies in my mind.

Actually, another thought. I believe it is helpful to see the adventuring "day" as not a calendar day and time on the front line being - in terms of duration at least - relatively brief. With considerable effort, skill, time and luck just to find your way there at all. And then many who see day 1 don't see day 2...

My working assumption is that of ten characters that reach tier 1, a few retire and all bar one of the rest die before reaching tier 2.

 

[dave2008]

But maybe modifying the encounter XP retains value simply by showing where the bar should be?

That is my thought exactly.

Now the question is if 45,000 XP / PC is a deadly/extremely challenging encounter? That is a roughly a pit fiend and two ice devils for each lvl 20 PC. I would think that is fairly lethal if it was a straight up melee fight, but against ranged PCs, maybe not. Would be great to get some play testers to evaluate this.