Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Hussar" data-source="post: 6813296" data-attributes="member: 22779">Just to sidebar a second out of the theoretical stuff (which is really interesting) but into the more stodgy practical.Something that the two step recovery model (short rest/long rest) in 5e does is create a very different dynamic between different classes.  And, it's very necessary, IMO, when designing adventures to keep that in mind.A criticism I see levelled at 5e frequently is that the CR system is borked and encounters are either too easy, or DM's have to go way above the level of the PC's to challenge them.  I think, and this is my entirely unscientific gut feeling, that what is going on is that DM's are designing scenarios without recognising the impact that the two step recovery system has.  A group that is completely fresh, can punch way, way above its weight class if the players don't think that they need to hold anything back for a subsequent encounter.  Think about it, if the players have that "one and only one" random encounter per day, then they can open up a huge can of whoopass in the opening rounds - the casters use their highest level spells, the fighter types action surge and spend all their superiority dice at once, the paladin smites for all he's worth.  The baddie gets turned into a big pile of goo unless the DM builds an encounter that is much higher level than regular.Now, try a different system of random encounters.  Let's call it random events.  Random events are built from 2-3 (or maybe 4) random encounters strung together.  You could separate them by rounds, minutes or maybe even an hour or two between one encounter and the other two, if you like.  The DM rolls his random encounters and then takes a few minutes to string them together in a coherent narrative.  For example, maybe the three encounters are:1.  Angry bear(s)2.  Orc raiding party3.  Troll (s)Now, maybe you roll randomly, or maybe you just decide the time spacing between them.  We'll set the time at just before nightfall - the bear wanders into the party's camp and hijinks ensue.  Maybe the party fights the bear, maybe they charm/bribe it, whatever.  Ten minutes after the bear though, the troll, who had been hunting the bear, attacks the party because he's hungry and the party just stole his lunch.  Attracted by the sounds of combat, some time later, minutes, perhaps tens of minutes, the orc raiding party assaults the group.  Or, alternatively, maybe the orcs show up fifteen minutes after the bear and the troll a couple of hours later, after a short rest, but, before a long one.  Sure, your short rest characters are back on point, but, your long rest characters aren't.  None of these encounters have to jack up the CR to be challenging.  By the time the orc party jumps in, the party should have spent quite a few resources, making the orc raiding party a much more interesting encounter than it would have been.  Perhaps by the time the orcs stumble in, it's full night, adding an additional layer of difficulty. Any of these encounters, taken in isolation, wouldn't be much more than a speed bump for an appropriate level party.  A single troll vs, say, a 5th or 6th level party?  Yeah, it's going down pretty quick.  But, that same encounter, (if we change up the order of encounters) after the wizard has blown through his fireball on the orcs becomes much more interesting.The thing is, again, IMO, when designing events for the group, try to keep them in groups of 2-4 before the party can short rest again.  You don't have to run them concurrently (that drastically ramps up difficulty) but, stringing them together in serial with only a few minutes or tens of minutes between them can lead to much more interesting play.</blockquote>

Verification