Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Clerics of Life: Broken, Bad Design, or Working as Intended?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="DEFCON 1" data-source="post: 6497038" data-attributes="member: 7006"><p>I tried once or twice using the encounter building numbers and found them to not be all that great a predictor of combat ease. For my games there are just so many variables about who, when and where the fights occur (and the abilities the characters can bring to bear) that they served little to no positive use.</p><p></p><p>Instead, I just throw out interesting fights with a bunch of enemies on deck to be used. If they cut through the first group really easy... either I send in a second wave for them to fight, or another encounter might occur shortly thereafter (before a short rest can occur).</p><p></p><p>Granted... this is because I don't lay down a set number of proscripted enemies or fights beforehand, and instead the fights occur in whatever numbers seem dramatically appropriate or interesting. The "story" of the fights as they occur means more to me than the jigsaw puzzle of the "proper amount" of fights that occur. But I also know that is often an anathema to several other types of DMs... who set up their adventure sites as set pieces at certain levels and they let the chips fall as they may depending on when or where the party shows up. The encounters aren't changed to serve the party, the party deals with the location as it's designed.</p><p></p><p>This is illustrated beautifully by the hatred of many a DM of a second blue half-dragon showing up in Episode 3 of HotDQ should the first one be killed in Episode 1. I personally understand completely the point of why the writers put that in (they want another powerful enemy for the party to fight in the hatchery to make that dungeon dramatically interesting in of itself)... but I also understand why it also drives other DMs up a wall (where they consider one less enemy the party has to fight in the hatchery to be the "reward" for the success of killing the half-dragon in the end of Episode 1.) As I don't design my adventures and encounters in that style (and instead everything is more 4Eish where each encounter should be interesting and compelling in of itself, otherwise why bother doing it?)... every fight can and will be built on the fly for maximum enjoyment and thrill on the moment. So if another powerful warrior in the hatchery would make that fight more interesting (especially for the party's fighters to have a strong enemy to go against), then sure, I'll put one in. Maybe I wouldn't put in another blue half-dragon specifically... but the point of having another powerful warrior there is made and I'll go along with it.</p><p></p><p>Because my feeling is... if I build an encounter a certain way (like for instance via the encounter building guidelines) and the fight just ends up *sucking* for whatever reason... then there's no reason to stick with it. I'd rather have encounters that deviate from the guidelines but be awesome, than having a wonderfully mathematical layout of fights for the party to come upon but most of them being a waste of time and boring as heck. That's just the way I DM.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="DEFCON 1, post: 6497038, member: 7006"] I tried once or twice using the encounter building numbers and found them to not be all that great a predictor of combat ease. For my games there are just so many variables about who, when and where the fights occur (and the abilities the characters can bring to bear) that they served little to no positive use. Instead, I just throw out interesting fights with a bunch of enemies on deck to be used. If they cut through the first group really easy... either I send in a second wave for them to fight, or another encounter might occur shortly thereafter (before a short rest can occur). Granted... this is because I don't lay down a set number of proscripted enemies or fights beforehand, and instead the fights occur in whatever numbers seem dramatically appropriate or interesting. The "story" of the fights as they occur means more to me than the jigsaw puzzle of the "proper amount" of fights that occur. But I also know that is often an anathema to several other types of DMs... who set up their adventure sites as set pieces at certain levels and they let the chips fall as they may depending on when or where the party shows up. The encounters aren't changed to serve the party, the party deals with the location as it's designed. This is illustrated beautifully by the hatred of many a DM of a second blue half-dragon showing up in Episode 3 of HotDQ should the first one be killed in Episode 1. I personally understand completely the point of why the writers put that in (they want another powerful enemy for the party to fight in the hatchery to make that dungeon dramatically interesting in of itself)... but I also understand why it also drives other DMs up a wall (where they consider one less enemy the party has to fight in the hatchery to be the "reward" for the success of killing the half-dragon in the end of Episode 1.) As I don't design my adventures and encounters in that style (and instead everything is more 4Eish where each encounter should be interesting and compelling in of itself, otherwise why bother doing it?)... every fight can and will be built on the fly for maximum enjoyment and thrill on the moment. So if another powerful warrior in the hatchery would make that fight more interesting (especially for the party's fighters to have a strong enemy to go against), then sure, I'll put one in. Maybe I wouldn't put in another blue half-dragon specifically... but the point of having another powerful warrior there is made and I'll go along with it. Because my feeling is... if I build an encounter a certain way (like for instance via the encounter building guidelines) and the fight just ends up *sucking* for whatever reason... then there's no reason to stick with it. I'd rather have encounters that deviate from the guidelines but be awesome, than having a wonderfully mathematical layout of fights for the party to come upon but most of them being a waste of time and boring as heck. That's just the way I DM. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Clerics of Life: Broken, Bad Design, or Working as Intended?
Top