D&D 5E A benchmark for Encounter Deadliness

[NotAYakk]

I agree that the actual value for your example should be ~1.5 instead of 2. My take, however, is that Shea's rule 2. is doing its job if it successfully predicts that an encounter will be deadly (given we are also complying with his rule 1). So if we put a demi-lich against four 9th level PCs because we think it makes sense in our campaign, his rule 2. successfully predicts that the encounter will be deadly.

problem is it fails to state a lot of deadly encounters are deadly.

The problem is that XP percents and CR percents are not the same. Deadly is 2x medium in XP, but it is more like x1.5 in CR.

I made the same error many times, and I think Mike has as well.

A more likely encounter - also deadly - would be three or four CR 6 creatures. Which is also about right for XP award, although both the single and the multiple monster encounters will fall within the XP/day expectation.

See, 2 CR 7s are already deadly, but his system only triggers at 3 of them. 2 CR 6s are close to deadly, but in his system they are miles away.

His rule ignores the encounter multipliers table and I think points out a kind of flaw with it. It should have made 1x the value at 3-6 monsters - the standard encounter - and offset from there. I think the values it uses are somehow connected with the inherently "easy" setting of 5e.

No, adding CR type balancing doesn't need the encounter size multiplier.

The encounter size multiplier is needed because XP isn't linear in CR, but closer to quadratic. Challenge is pretty close to linear in CR, and adding CR is a really easy way to get within a step or two of the real challenge.

This isn't the exact math, but imagine XP = CR^2 * 100.

Take two monsters CR 5. They are worth 2500 XP each, and add up to 5000 XP. We then encounter size multiplier of x2 for 10,000 XP.

If we naively add up CR we get 10. The XP of a CR 10 monster is 10,000. We didn't need thr encounter size multiplier.

Now the CR <-> XP relation isn't XP=CR^2 * 100, but more like CR^1.5 * 200 or something (I have it calculated somewhere, but am on my phone - 1.3? 1.5? 1.7? I forgot). And CR isn't quite linear -- CR 1 to CR 5 is about 4x power, not 5x, and CR 1/8 to CR 1 is 6x not 8x -- but it is close.

 

[GMMichael]

But I can't see how be able to quickly determine if a battle could be deadly if the dice fall randomly is a bad thing or why you feel the need to rail against.

Also, some DMs have fun by not knowing everything a head of time. Otherwise, why should the DM roll dice at all. Just declare hits and damage and success based on a fun story?

I wasn't railing; I was providing another tool, and a simpler one, in the spirit of the thread.

I fully support DMs using dice to add (self) surprise to the game. I do the same thing. Although it can slow things down when both sides of the DM screen are using dice.

My question, then: how is a benchmark going to tell you if an encounter could be deadly, when both PCs and DM are bound by the chaos (randomness) of the dice? I think the randomness creates three general categories of encounter: way too easy, possibly deadly, and definitely deadly. But you don't need a rule for these. You can probably just eyeball them, especially with 30+ years of experience.

Really, I think Mike Shea's rule could be reduced to just one part as well: choose monsters that make sense in the story and situation. See my next "point" . . .

It's a nice method, and can be simplified further. One might observe that only two kinds of encounter really matter in 5e: attritional (hard or easier) and lethal (deadly+). . .

Therefore Shea's guideline can be simplified to ignore the tier 1 adjustment. Simply CL/CR = ≤2 = potentially deadly.

What does that formula say about Ned Stark's odds here?

The "monsters" here made sense for the story and situation, but the planning behind it wasn't: "is Ned Stark's party going to die if they fight three times as many Lannister soldiers, and Jaime?" It was (in all likelihood): "what are the motivations of the parties involved, and what would make for a good story?"

 

[NotAYakk]

Is a pack of werewolves (a) scary for a peasant, (b) something a small town would fear, (c) a problem a city guard could not handle, or (d) a force that could destroy a kingdom?

The CR guidelines and encounter building say how tough a given encounter is, and how tough an encounter is has world-building implications. The word "werewolf" doesn't tell you that. That they are CR 3 tells you something. How groups of CR 3 creatures scale tells you how dangerous packs are.

It also helps to know how common and dangerous "hero" mortals are in this world, like PCs. Are CR 2 Veterans - the rough equivalent of a level 5 PC -- a dime a dozen? How about CR 9 - the rough equivalent of a level 15 PC? Are the PCs known to be such forces? What would the enemy send to deal with an elite swordsman?

You may have a model to understand how the D&D game works, but that model can be "I use my guts" or it can be mathematically informed. Both work. Turning your nose up at the other kind of understanding is impolite.

To me, it is really rare that the power scale of a particular being or force isn't part of my understanding of how it fits in the world. A world where Orcs where CR 5 creatures would have different things going on it it than one where they are CR 1/2, or one where they are CR 1/8. The fact that common Orcs soldiers are CR 1/2 while human guardsmen are CR 1/8 informs my world building (each Orc is worth 3-4 human soldiers in a battle), and if it doesn't fit the world I'm trying to model I should change it. OTOH, each Orc isn't worth a two score human soldiers (CR 5ish). Meanwhile, Ogres are worth about 20 common soldiers, which gives you an idea of the scale of power of them in D&D fiction.

 

[clearstream]

What does that formula say about Ned Stark's odds here?

Depends on what one decides Ned's level is, and the city guards' levels are.

 

[NotAYakk]

Depends on what one decides Ned's level is, and the city guards' levels are.

Fiction wise, Jamie is a "Champion" (CR 9) - among the best fighters in the world. That is roughly a level 15 fighter. Ned possibly was near that, but is getting old.

Those aren't city guard -- -- but Lanistar Lions. I'd probably put them between Guards and Veterans in quality (so CR 1/4 to 1).

 

[clearstream]

Fiction wise, Jamie is a "Champion" (CR 9) - among the best fighters in the world. That is roughly a level 15 fighter. Ned possibly was near that, but is getting old.

Those aren't city guard -- -- but Lanistar Lions. I'd probably put them between Guards and Veterans in quality (so CR 1/4 to 1).

Oh right, they're Lannister troops. At a glance I thought they were the treacherous city guard.

Anyway, say about 20 CR 1/2 troops + 1 CR 15 = 25... it's safe to say Ned was likely to die if the encounter ran to its conclusion...

 

[dave2008]

I wasn't railing; I was providing another tool, and a simpler one, in the spirit of the thread.

I fully support DMs using dice to add (self) surprise to the game. I do the same thing. Although it can slow things down when both sides of the DM screen are using dice.

My question, then: how is a benchmark going to tell you if an encounter could be deadly, when both PCs and DM are bound by the chaos (randomness) of the dice? I think the randomness creates three general categories of encounter: way too easy, possibly deadly, and definitely deadly. But you don't need a rule for these. You can probably just eyeball them, especially with 30+ years of experience.

Really, I think Mike Shea's rule could be reduced to just one part as well: choose monsters that make sense in the story and situation. See my next "point" . . .


What does that formula say about Ned Stark's odds here?

The "monsters" here made sense for the story and situation, but the planning behind it wasn't: "is Ned Stark's party going to die if they fight three times as many Lannister soldiers, and Jaime?" It was (in all likelihood): "what are the motivations of the parties involved, and what would make for a good story?"

You seem to have missed the point of the article. It is really three steps:

1. The point create encounters that make sense for the story.
2. Check to see if they are deadly
3. Adjust as needed.

That is basically what your saying, except Mike's idea includes a check so you can have additional info before hand and don't have to improv everything on the fly.

Also, the article wasn't made for me, or probably you. It is for those who do have a problem with making encounters. I don't and it doesn't sound like you do either. But I can see the value of this approach for many.

Regarding Ned vs. Jamie: Mike's system would say it is a deadly encounter, which it was. So you agree the tool is useful?

 

[NotAYakk]

Oh right, they're Lannister troops. At a glance I thought they were the treacherous city guard.

Anyway, say about 20 CR 1/2 troops + 1 CR 15 = 25... it's safe to say Ned was likely to die if the encounter ran to its conclusion...

No, Champion is a stripped down L15 fighter, but is CR 9. So 19.

Ned is probably an ex-L10+ fighter himself (but weakened by age). Maybe higher; you can see how Jaime was really enjoying himself (arguing this was the best fight he had fought in a long time).

 

[FrozenNorth]

Well those are two separate, if related issues. The problem with single foes is that there effectiveness is even more dependent on party size, synergy, skill, and optimization.

Quoted for truth, especially since party competence can vary from battle to battle.

I play with my three children. The youngest, if he is engaged, will drop a Flaming Sphere and augment that with Eldritch Blast to up the party’s DPS.
Of course, on the next encounter he can also spend every turn trying to Stealth and failing miserably. That variance of competence is not unknown in my adult group as well.

 

[GMMichael]

You seem to have missed the point of the article. It is really three steps:

1. The point create encounters that make sense for the story.
2. Check to see if they are deadly
3. Adjust as needed.

That is basically what your saying, except Mike's idea includes a check so you can have additional info before hand and don't have to improv everything on the fly. . .

Regarding Ned vs. Jamie: Mike's system would say it is a deadly encounter, which it was. So you agree the tool is useful?

Three steps!? Sorry, I don't have time for that many.

I have a couple more concerns, here:

• What happens when word gets out that the DM is calculating how deadly his encounters are, and then putting kid gloves on them?
• What's wrong with deadly encounters? Whose expectation is it that the PCs should be able to slaughter everything they meet?

Mike's (the other one) system might say that Ned and co. were in a world of pain. Had GRR Martin been using that system, we might not have been lucky enough to witness it, in favor of a smaller number of Lannister men, all of whom, including Jaime, would be slaughtered, and great XP awards would promptly go around.