D&D 5E Combat Encounter Difficulty

[CapnZapp]

This quote:

Just those 4 critters alone should have wiped the floor with 8 x 5th level PC's - they should have been dropping like flies!

is to me emblematic of the whole issue. I can see why you say this - if you read the rules and the DMG encounter guidelines, it definitely reads as that should be the case.

I just haven't seen it in practical play.

I should add that: yes, you can play Evil DM from Hell, and yes, if you allow your monsters to play as effectively as PCs, you can definitely cause more PC deaths. If monsters ruthlessly focus fire, and keep firing at downed characters. If you use every trick in the book to capitalize on indirect and secondary effects of spells cast. If monsters don't just "offer combat" but attack during a fighting retreat.

Sure you can do all those things.

But is that fun? No.

And does the DMG assume them? Hell no.

Sure I could play each and every NPC as optimal as any given PC played by a good minmaxer. But I definitely don't think that's what the DMG has in mind.

Besides, I'd much rather let the PCs have their glory, and spend my brain capacity on directing the overall adventure. You might be capable of masterminding dozens of NPC actions without getting your brain cooked. If so, congrats on being able to make the DMG encounters as deadly as described.

For the rest of us, we take the simple way out: adding more foes of higher level!

regards,
Zapp


PS. There are five player characters, and they were level 5 at the time. The three "cohorts" are built using full PC rules (converted from NPC stats), but they
a) are played as NPCs, that is: there is not a "full player brain" behind their actions
b) they have weaker stats and weaker gear
c) they are a full level behind the heroes

In general, I suspect a) makes most of the difference. At this particular moment in time, however, c) probably had the most impact. The difference between 4th and 5th level is generally gargantuan.

 

[CapnZapp]

Oh, one more thing concerning the "CR 9 killing a PC per round". With the temporary hit points from Inspired Leader, and players actively trying to avoid low-AC builds, and the very generous not-killed-at-zero-hp mechanism, that simply isn't true.

Sure, there is a risk of downing a PC, but it's definitely not a given when PCs sport an AC in the 17-19 range.

And downing a PC is definitely not equal to killing him. I won't have regular foes focus their attacks on killing off downed heroes, not when there are actively dangerous foes still close by.

That doesn't mean downing can't become killing in the future. Any time soon one of the following can happen:

a) the downed PC does not have any allies close by. At this time, even a feeble monster can quickly kill off the strongest of PC. Moral lesson: never split the party.
b) they can meet especially evil-cruel foes, that rather kill PCs than win fights. For me, just being a drow or even a demon doesn't qualify. We're talking legendarily hate-worthy NPCs here.
c) they encounter foes with plentiful access to area spells. I expect this to become more common now that they are well clear of tier 1 play.

I should add I'm using a houserule that says negative hit points are tracked down to -10. This means that a downed ally can't be trivally upped again by a cheap Healing Word. I like this rule, it works well to soften the impact I'm otherwise talking about in this thread - it makes the PCs somewhat less superior to the listed opposition.

And sure enough, one of the two characters that went down had to stay down (until after-combat healing). (At least I think so, can't be absolutely sure). My players pour a potion of healing down their throats to ensure survival (stabilization) but that isn't guaranteed to bring them up to positive hits. This strategy might not be enough if there's a fireballer on the opposite side.

 

[Hussar]

Let's take a CR 9 fire giant - 2 +11 attacks/round at 28 damage each hit. So, I'm hitting 60%, and dropping any PC (5th level) with two hits. I've got an 18 AC and 162 HP. 5th level PC's have what, a +7, +8 attack bonus? They're down to hitting 50%. True, it's unlikely I'll flat out kill a PC, unless I crit, but, I'll be dropping one PC every round.

See, you bring up Healing Word. Fair enough. But, this is why you need those multiple encounters per day. 7 encounters per day means you should have about 35 rounds of combat. By the last third of the day, the cleric doesn't HAVE Healing Word because he's out of spells.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I should add I'm using a houserule that says negative hit points are tracked down to -10. This means that a downed ally can't be trivally upped again by a cheap Healing Word. I like this rule, it works well to soften the impact I'm otherwise talking about in this thread - it makes the PCs somewhat less superior to the listed opposition.

That's really elegant. I'm impressed.

 

[Celtavian]

Let's take a CR 9 fire giant - 2 +11 attacks/round at 28 damage each hit. So, I'm hitting 60%, and dropping any PC (5th level) with two hits. I've got an 18 AC and 162 HP. 5th level PC's have what, a +7, +8 attack bonus? They're down to hitting 50%. True, it's unlikely I'll flat out kill a PC, unless I crit, but, I'll be dropping one PC every round.

See, you bring up Healing Word. Fair enough. But, this is why you need those multiple encounters per day. 7 encounters per day means you should have about 35 rounds of combat. By the last third of the day, the cleric doesn't HAVE Healing Word because he's out of spells.

What WotC designed adventures have you ran that have this 7 combats a day worked into them? Dragon queen module? Nope. Princes of the Apocalypse? Optional, usually hope. Out of the Abyss? Nope. Smart PCs don't use resources on easy fights saving them for big fights. It would take an enormous amount of work for a DM to work in seven combats that deplete resources against a smart party. I'm definitely a notorious resource hoarder. I hate using resources because I'm paranoid about not having them when I really need them.

As far as a fire giant, sure, they could hammer someone. They can also get hammered down quickly. They are a pretty straightforward creature. The math doesn't really work if you calculate in that fashion. PC groups usually spread out or have special abilities allowing them to lower an NPCs to hit chance and increasing theirs rendering the giant at a huge disadvantage. And that's with giants being one of the harder hitting and more powerful creatures PCs can face that aren't legendary.

I recall having my PCs fight a Stone giant thinking it would be a really tough fight at 4th level. It turned out I was worried for nothing. The PCs unloaded on it killing it in a few rounds. Six PCs and one CR 1 NPC did 126 damage in two rounds. Unfortunately they were drow and were able to use their sight advantage underground to render the giant nearly blind. PCs always seem to have some kind of exploitable advantage against enemy monsters that really messes them up. Their resources are more versatile than 99% of monsters.

 

[Hussar]

I have no idea how WotC designs its modules, haven't bought any. I do know how WotC presents adventure design in the DMG, and, if you're letting your players constantly dictate pacing, and basically short rest after every encounter, or, only have one or two big encounters per adventuring day, then, yuppers, the CR/EL system in 5e isn't going to help you very much.

See, for me, the interesting encounter in [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s example would be the one after the one with the drow priestess and the yochlol. To me, that's where you get your deadly encounters.

 

[Celtavian]

I have no idea how WotC designs its modules, haven't bought any. I do know how WotC presents adventure design in the DMG, and, if you're letting your players constantly dictate pacing, and basically short rest after every encounter, or, only have one or two big encounters per adventuring day, then, yuppers, the CR/EL system in 5e isn't going to help you very much.

See, for me, the interesting encounter in [MENTION=12731]CapnZapp[/MENTION]'s example would be the one after the one with the drow priestess and the yochlol. To me, that's where you get your deadly encounters.

I get my deadly encounters by creating enemies I know will give the PCs a deadly encounter. I like big set piece battles like you see in movies or books. The idea of six to eight encounters for the sake of balance is just bad design for a game made to emulate fantasy heroics. When you have a particular encounter number required to truly challenge PCs, you find DMs forcing encounters on PCs that are unnecessary to the flow of the adventure or wasting time on easy random encounters that deplete next to no resources.

Encounter design should always be based on power on power dynamics. How hard can the monster hit versus how hard can the PCs hit. Every other factor should be left to the DM to figure out as far as pacing and number of encounters per day. Monsters should be designed with the idea that a full resource party will be squaring off against them.

 

[Flamestrike]

Smart PCs don't use resources on easy fights saving them for big fights. It would take an enormous amount of work for a DM to work in seven combats that deplete resources against a smart party.

If youre not policing the adventuring day and forcing 6-8 encounters and giving 2 short rests per adventuring day for at least 50 percent of your adventuring days, you are messing with encounter difficulty, and class balance and encouraging nova tactics.

Im sorry mate, but thats how it is. Read the DMG for how to do it. Timed adventures are a good place to start.

Think of every action movie or novel ever. The hero is always working to a time limit. Use them, but dont over use them.

The classes and encounters are balanced at the 6-8 and 2 short rest mark. You dont have to stick to this religiously; only around 50 percent of the time.

Do it, and you wont look back. Seriously, give it a go.

 

[Celtavian]

If youre not policing the adventuring day and forcing 6-8 encounters and giving 2 short rests per adventuring day for at least 50 percent of your adventuring days, you are messing with encounter difficulty, and class balance and encouraging nova tactics.

Im sorry mate, but thats how it is. Read the DMG for how to do it. Timed adventures are a good place to start.

Think of every action movie or novel ever. The hero is always working to a time limit. Use them, but dont over use them.

The classes and encounters are balanced at the 6-8 and 2 short rest mark. You dont have to stick to this religiously; only around 50 percent of the time.

Do it, and you wont look back. Seriously, give it a go.

No. I don't find it interesting. I don't need it. I design encounters that provide a deadly encounter difficulty. Six to eight encounters a day is bunk and should have never been the standard.

When I want to press the players for time, I create an encounter that is non-stop. It will be far above deadly.

I don't know about your PCs, but my PCs don't use resources unless the encounter requires it. Most encounters don't require it, thus they still have plenty of resources to nova. This is even more the case at higher level when they have a larger amount of resources.

 

[FrogReaver]

No. I don't find it interesting. I don't need it. I design encounters that provide a deadly encounter difficulty. Six to eight encounters a day is bunk and should have never been the standard.

When I want to press the players for time, I create an encounter that is non-stop. It will be far above deadly.

I don't know about your PCs, but my PCs don't use resources unless the encounter requires it. Most encounters don't require it, thus they still have plenty of resources to nova. This is even more the case at higher level when they have a larger amount of resources.

And you are the one saying that what counts as a deadly fight doesn't feel deadly enough all the while saying I refuse to use the DMG guidelines that those guidelines were based on?