D&D 5E Assumptions about character creation

[jmartkdr2]

Any D&D edition with 'encounter building' rules must necessarily have some concept of how powerful PCs are. The 5e encounter design metrics seems to assume standard array or point buy, so that characters begin with a +3* (or occasionally +2) in their primary attribute, with very minimal magic items (but able to harm the rare creatures hit only by magic weapons), no multiclassing & no feats.

Since most games have a fair number of magic items, feats, and often multiclassing, the Challenge ratings & encounter building systems tend to be fairly accurate at low level, but create very weak challenges at high level.

*By either standard array or PB, a PC can start with a 15 (+2) in primary attribute, which can very often be increased to a 16 or 17 by racial bonus.

I'd build on this by saying: those are the assumed midpoints of character power - they did try to design a game that worked over a fairly large range, to include multiple playstyles. So while it's true the game is balanced around a +3 ability mod (and few but not zero magic items) to start, it's balanced for a range of +1 to +5 (and zero to piles of magic items).

How well they achieved 'it works over the whole range' is something reasonable people can disagree on, and partially hinges on whether you think adjusting your encounter building to the party you have is 'hard' or just 'part of being a dm.' (Not to mention how well you think this is presented in the books.)

 

[Oofta]

When it comes to encounter guidelines, nothing will ever be perfect. I DMed two groups at the same time at one point and had to adjust for each group. Same number of PCs, same level, both used point buy similar magical items and even similar (but different) encounters. One group was simply more effective than the other.

There's no way you could write rules to account for all of that, especially when you throw in different group sizes, magic, on and on. I just did a base calculation and then added or subtracted monsters to taste.

 

[Lanefan]

Any D&D edition with 'encounter building' rules must necessarily have some concept of how powerful PCs are.

Hot take: encounter-building rules are for the birds.

The DMG needs to have some very rough guidelines and a few tips and pointers, to be sure, but putting actual rules and numbers to it makes far too many assumptions about how people play. Sure, WotC's market research might give some averages, but there's far too much table-to-table variance to make those averages be of much use.

In reality, one table might have 3 players each running a single character and another table going old-school might have 5 players each running two PCs with a couple of henches and adventuring NPCs along as well. And even if one assumes a typical party size of 4 or 5 PCs the DM still has to account for party composition, degree of optimization, optional rules in use (or not), and - as the campaign goes on - amount of accumulated magic and treasure.

Rather than presenting a catch-all formula that might - particularly for new DMs - give a false sense of reliability, what the 'rules' (as guidelines!) need to do is to leave it up to the DM to gauge her table and the party she's running, adjust accordingly, and not be afraid of some 'oops' moments and trial-and-error during that process.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I expect 14 to 16 in a main stat. That is easily achievable, no matter how you get your stats.
I must say, that in the beginning of dndnext we had a group, where everyone put a low score in their main attribute and wondered why they didn't achieve what they wanted.

 

[Charlaquin]

Hot take: encounter-building rules are for the birds.

I think they’re useful, as long as you don’t treat them as immutable rules. They’re guidelines, which can be used to give you a decent sense of how difficult an encounter might be. Even if your party differs wildly from the assumptions that went into these guidelines, with experience you can learn to get a sense of how much stronger or weaker you need to make your encounters to match your own party’s capabilities.

 

[Maxperson]

I expect 14 to 16 in a main stat. That is easily achievable, no matter how you get your stats.
I must say, that in the beginning of dndnext we had a group, where everyone put a low score in their main attribute and wondered why they didn't achieve what they wanted.

I'm curious what the reasoning was for that group. Did they want high stats elsewhere and plan on growing their prime stat with ASIs?

 

[Don Durito]

I never felt the lack of encounter building guidelines before they existed. I do tend to use Kobold Fight club, because it's a quick and easy method of knowing how much xp PCs will face.

If that didn't exist I don't think I would worry about them.

 

[Krachek]

I think they assume that there will be various play style, and those play style will manage ability score creation differently.

 

[S'mon]

Hot take: encounter-building rules are for the birds.

I never use them myself, I don't find them useful. I tend to prefer a more status-quo-world feel, so IMCs PCs need to be ready to run away if the enemy are too powerful.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I'm curious what the reasoning was for that group. Did they want high stats elsewhere and plan on growing their prime stat with ASIs?

rolled stats and misjudgement because of inexperience with a brand new system and a new DM who does not go easy on the characters.