Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7209605" data-attributes="member: 71699">Modifying CR feels like a good solution from various angles. I like that it's experienced by players only by the results (no mechanics visible to them change) and I hold out hope that it makes better use of the MM than if I have to buff every creature individually.The level of lethality I'm aiming for is to see PC death at about 1/100 in easy-hard encounters, and 1/10 in deadly encounters. Without revivals fewer than 1 in 20 characters make level 20. With revivals (1/5 for tier 1 scaling to 4/5 in tier 4) about 1 in 5 characters could make level 20. About 1 in 2 tier 1 PCs should see tier 2, and about 1 in 2 of those PCs should see tier 3. That works for my world, where I assume 1/100 NPCs are tier 1 equivalent, and 1/10 fewer per tier upward. My narrative is that about 6/10 retire and 3/10 die: leaving PCs over-represented in the remainder which is fine by me. (PCs obviously not retiring, but doing better at surviving than the 1 in 4 background rate.) That all tallies pretty well with a principle that NPCs use MM-like stat-blocks with part but not all of the power that PCs have.In my thread asking about revival rates, I see that for most DMs very few to no characters die, and very few are revived. Obviously people should run their campaigns as they wish, but I believe the game mechanics - Spare the Dying, Gentle Repose, Raise Dead, Reincarnation, Resurrection and True Resurrection - are very suggestive of a world in which revival is more frequent. Certainly it seems to be a theme of the coming adventure that quite a few high-tier NPCs have experienced revival. Note also that I'm using a Gritty Realism because (among other benefits) I believe that sustains about the right amount of casts of such spells.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7209605, member: 71699"] Modifying CR feels like a good solution from various angles. I like that it's experienced by players only by the results (no mechanics visible to them change) and I hold out hope that it makes better use of the MM than if I have to buff every creature individually. The level of lethality I'm aiming for is to see PC death at about 1/100 in easy-hard encounters, and 1/10 in deadly encounters. Without revivals fewer than 1 in 20 characters make level 20. With revivals (1/5 for tier 1 scaling to 4/5 in tier 4) about 1 in 5 characters could make level 20. About 1 in 2 tier 1 PCs should see tier 2, and about 1 in 2 of those PCs should see tier 3. That works for my world, where I assume 1/100 NPCs are tier 1 equivalent, and 1/10 fewer per tier upward. My narrative is that about 6/10 retire and 3/10 die: leaving PCs over-represented in the remainder which is fine by me. (PCs obviously not retiring, but doing better at surviving than the 1 in 4 background rate.) That all tallies pretty well with a principle that NPCs use MM-like stat-blocks with part but not all of the power that PCs have. In my thread asking about revival rates, I see that for most DMs very few to no characters die, and very few are revived. Obviously people should run their campaigns as they wish, but I believe the game mechanics - Spare the Dying, Gentle Repose, Raise Dead, Reincarnation, Resurrection and True Resurrection - are very suggestive of a world in which revival is more frequent. Certainly it seems to be a theme of the coming adventure that quite a few high-tier NPCs have experienced revival. Note also that I'm using a Gritty Realism because (among other benefits) I believe that sustains about the right amount of casts of such spells. [/QUOTE]

Verification