D&D 5E CRs and what is going on?

[FormerlyHemlock]

Seriously. Go out in your local woods and see how often you find yourself scanning stuff a mile (1.6kms) or more away. Maybe at a lookout point or something.

I assure you you'll spend 95 percent of your time casually scanning out to around 100m or maximum visual range (whichever is shorter), and examining things in detail within about 25m or so.

Even on a laser straight freeway, a car a mile away is tiny.

I'm telling you from personal experience mate, beginning engagements at a mile (1600m) is very unlikely to happen.

All troops are 'stealthy' when patrolling. That's what the camouflage, face paint, hand signals etc is for you know!

I'm more referring to a small patrol or small fire team of insurgents, both sides patrolling through standard scrub/ bush/ woods. Standard engagement and contact distances are well within 100m, with around 30m being the norm.

Okay, there may not be as much difference between our positions as it seemed at first.

1.) Yes, camouflage/etc. is designed for stealth, and soldiers in real life deliberately try not to give away their positions. This includes use of terrain, which is presumably one reason why you go out in the bush to do your exercises instead of doing them on the freeways.

In 5E I would model this with multiple Stealth checks after the encounter starts, starting at maximum visual range for the terrain type, which could be anywhere from 30' to 1200' feet (dense forest vs. light forest on a hill, especially through the eyes of a flying familiar like an owl). Smaller groups will have a better chance of not failing the Stealth checks, and the groups' alertness will have an impact on whether or not they make active Perception rolls. Once someone fails a stealth check, they become aware of the enemy. If no one ever fails a Stealth check, the two groups might never realize anyone was there.

2.) A statement like "most of my encounters start at a range of 1 mile or more" is a a pretty clear indication that my players don't roam around in the bush very much, as well as the fact that I may be using the phrase "start... encounter" differently than someone who thinks it means "roll initiative and start making attack rolls". My players are often on roads or plains, and the enemies are frequently large bodies of mounted hobgoblin troops (akin to Mongols) moving along roads in civilized territory (which they are invading) or enormous flying rocs with wingspans of 200' or flying ships or dragons. They're not camouflage-clad soldiers creeping stealthily through the brush. That doesn't mean that you couldn't have a campaign where you do creep around in the bush, but if you're puzzled as to why 100' is not my norm, terrain and enemy size/disposition have an awful lot to do with it.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think you're reading that document wrong.

Saying '50 percent of engagements happened at ranges over 300m' is not the same as saying 'the average range of engagements was 300m'

Yeah, 300m is the median. The arithmetic mean ("average") will be somewhat higher than the median of course (450m?), but median is more interesting from a D&D perspective.

I can assure you from experience that isn't the case.

Its usually either in your face (0-30m), or you're shooting at people you cant see (800m-1km).

For an example of an engagement (and a great shot) with a 7.62mm MG at 800m:

[video=youtube;D2vsmdtPonc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D2vsmdtPonc[/video]

Note that that human sized target (that you cant see) is 800m away. At a mile we're talking 1600m away (double that distance).

Youtube videos aren't really representative of actual human visual acuity, because of computer screen size issues and video encoding issues--what is easy to see in person will not be easy to see on Youtube.

I'd prefer to compare it to an eye chart, which everyone is or should be familiar with. The top line on an eye chart (biggest E) has a ratio of 68.75 : 1 for distance : height. The letters on the 20/20 line are 1/10 that size, with a ratio of 687.5 to 1. In short, at 800 meters, someone who is merely 1.16 meters tall is as tall as the 20/20 line on the eye chart (not even the lowest line). A human figure will be almost as large as the 20/40 line of letters, and your eye has more than enough visual acuity to resolve it as a human figure if atmospheric effects don't get in the way and if the figure it clearly outlined against a background, instead of attempting to hide. A larger visual target, e.g. a dozen orcs mounted on Large size wargs, would be correspondingly more visible if they weren't trying to hide, just as a car is visible at great distances. In short, visual acuity is not a significant limiting factor on encounter distance in D&D, or shouldn't be if the DM knows anything at all about vision. Stealth and terrain will be the limiting factors.

 

[Flamestrike]

In 5E I would model this with multiple Stealth checks after the encounter starts, starting at maximum visual range for the terrain type

I use a group stealth check v monster passive perception scores and vice versa (success gets a surprise round) and pluck a distance for the encounter to begin that seems reasonable. Usually not more than 100m or so, and often much shorter in range.

2.) A statement like "most of my encounters start at a range of 1 mile or more" is a a pretty clear indication that my players don't roam around in the bush very much, as well as the fact that I may be using the phrase "start... encounter" differently than someone who thinks it means "roll initiative and start making attack rolls". My players are often on roads or plains, and the enemies are frequently large bodies of mounted hobgoblin troops (akin to Mongols) moving along roads in civilized territory (which they are invading) or enormous flying rocs with wingspans of 200' or flying ships or dragons. They're not camouflage-clad soldiers creeping stealthily through the brush. That doesn't mean that you couldn't have a campaign where you do creep around in the bush, but if you're puzzled as to why 100' is not my norm, terrain and enemy size/disposition have an awful lot to do with it.

Yeah fair enough mate. I wasn't trying to be a tool. Just letting you know from a practical position, that engagement distances of 1 mile (1,600m) are extreme, barring corner cases. In any sort of rural terrain, due to natural terrain features (hills, dead ground, rises etc) and scrub, buildings, bushes, trees etc youre rarely able to see that far (and human beings are rarely looking out that far when they can anyway).

Your 'personal' sphere of perception around yourself - where you spend 99 percent of your time scanning - is generally very short range (out to 100m or so). You focus on things much closer than that (the car as you walk past it, the next tree you approach etc).

Soldiers actually train in 'perception'. We learn to look for '5S and 1M' (irregular shape, shadow, silhouette, spacing, surface, and movement) and to look through cover (bushes, shadows etc) instead of at them, and the principle of scanning 'near, middle, far'. Your forward scout is looking at the ground directly in front of him (mines, ambush), while relying on the 'number 2' scout to look out at long and middle distances.

Notwithstanding this, I've been in hundreds of contacts and engagements (both exercise and the real thing) and most of them happen at distances well within 100m.

This is 'standard' Aussie scrub:



Afghanistan:



Vietnam:

Yeah, 300m is the median. The arithmetic mean ("average") will be somewhat higher than the median of course (450m?), but median is more interesting from a D&D perspective.

The median might be more interesting, but it's not accurate!

Youtube videos aren't really representative of actual human visual acuity, because of computer screen size issues and video encoding issues--what is easy to see in person will not be easy to see on Youtube.

Agree mate, but go wandering on your friends local farm. In between creek lines, hedgerows, bushes, hills, and man made terrain, you wont be able to spot a human sized target at 1600m barring them being on the leading edge of a slope, and even then you're far more likely to miss them then spot them. You probably wont notice anyone until you bump into them at distances of less than 100m (when they enter your primary sensory zone).

And PC's are looking intently. But so are soldiers on patrol. You spend a lot of time patrolling inside your own head (and navigating, communicating, planning, thinking etc).

 

[Hussar]

Funny thing about "realism". The encounter that sparked this discussion was a giant, some orogs and dire wolves.

How realistic is having a group of nocturnal creatures wandering around in broad daylight with no cover?

And, if the party does engage at 600 feet, why don't the baddies simply retreat to half a mile and shadow the party until nightfall? How realistic is it that the baddies run straight at the party while getting filled with arrows?

 

[aramis erak]

Funny thing about "realism". The encounter that sparked this discussion was a giant, some orogs and dire wolves.

How realistic is having a group of nocturnal creatures wandering around in broad daylight with no cover?

And, if the party does engage at 600 feet, why don't the baddies simply retreat to half a mile and shadow the party until nightfall? How realistic is it that the baddies run straight at the party while getting filled with arrows?

A pack of trained wardogs given the same stats as wolves, their fellow species members? Not an issue, mate.

As for nocturnal creatures during the day? No different than humans travelling by night. For predators, not that big an issue. If the hunting was poor last night, and they're hungry, they're likely to keep hunting.

After all, I've seen lynx hunting by day, bears hunting at night (and catching a rabbit - that was a sight - fortunately seen from a quarter mile, by the light of the midnight sun), and bears fishing around the clock in the summer and fall.

 

[aramis erak]

Again, how? How do you have a 3e fight that lasts for 5-10 rounds? In 5-10 rounds, if the fight lasts that long, the baddies should be killing multiple PC's. And how are your groups doing so little damage per round?

Look, a given encounter in 3e is generally speaking, about 15 HP/EL. That's a rule of thumb, but, it's fairly close. An EL 10 encounter will have about 150 HP, give or take. Whether that's a single CR 10 critter or 2 CR 8's, or whatever. It's fairly close. For a fight to last 10 rounds means your party would have to only do 15 points of damage per round. How can you do so little damage.

OTOH, an encounter's max damage is about 10 points/EL/round. Now, that is max damage, fair enough. But, even if we say the baddies are only doing 25% of max, for an EL 10 encounter, that's still 25 points of damage/round, or 250 points of damage total. That's enough damage to kill about 3 10th level 3e PC's. More than enough to kill one.

So, how do your fights last so long?

I don't play with munchkin optimisers, my players tend to make use of cover (so get hit less), and I seldom gave out magic items. Many encounters started at range with missile weapons, which, due to cover, were missing a lot.

More simply put: My players don't go for "in your face melee".

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

And, if the party does engage at 600 feet, why don't the baddies simply retreat to half a mile and shadow the party until nightfall? How realistic is it that the baddies run straight at the party while getting filled with arrows?

Why do you assume they don't? I'm pretty sure I mentioned exactly this strategy (withdraw until nightfall) in this exact thread as a possible countermeasure from the orcs. If not, it was another thread.

I'm getting really tired of your straw men, Hussar. Don't be surprised if you don't hear from me again.

Hemlock: If A, then orcs cannot do B effectively because C will happen. I suppose they could do D, but that has its own implications, and players can exploit the inability to do B via E. It's much better to be capable of B, which requires F.

Hussar (aggressively and repeatedly): Why don't the orcs just do D?

Hemlock: (baffled silence)

 

[S'mon]

I generally use 4d6x10' for encounter distance, which works well and seems pretty realistic. In 4e I generally use "far edge of the battlemap", which is at most 30x5=150' of space, occasionally I put two 24x30 maps together and have encounters start up to 24x2x5=240' apart.

 

[Zalabim]

Not to re-rail this discussion on encounter distance, but I just wanted to answer the idea that a Balor being beaten by 6 level 7's is a failing in CR math. According to the encounter chart, the 22000 XP Balor that's a Medium encounter for a party of 4 level 19 PCs is a Deadly encounter for 6 level 7 PCs. Level 7 is the highest level where it's still in the Deadly category for a party of 6 as a solo encounter. The high level party does treat them as speedbumps, since they're expected to handle 5.5 similar encounters before calling it a day, while the larger level 7 party is still only supposed to manage about 2.75 of these. The High CR just means it can easily KO a lower leveled character, while the high encounter challenge (and deadly encounters get much higher than 1833 per PC vs 1700 deadly threshold) is only supposed to account for how much of the party's resources the encounter can be expected to take, and the chance for a PC to actually die to poor luck.

 

[Celtavian]

Funny thing about "realism". The encounter that sparked this discussion was a giant, some orogs and dire wolves.

How realistic is having a group of nocturnal creatures wandering around in broad daylight with no cover?

And, if the party does engage at 600 feet, why don't the baddies simply retreat to half a mile and shadow the party until nightfall? How realistic is it that the baddies run straight at the party while getting filled with arrows?

Giants are not nocturnal. In 5E, orcs and orogs aren't nocturnal either being equally effective at all times of the day. The giants use the dire wolves as trained war dogs. They fight when the giants fight. Why do you think giants are nocturnal?

The original encounter that started this discussion was the balor being killed by a level 7 party.