Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 6842160" data-attributes="member: 6788736">But youre missing something - I did add the Wolves XP values to the encounter difficulty. They added 2,800 XP to the overall difficulty of the encounter (which is a substantial amount).I did not multiply the total encounter XP to account for six creatures (the sum of the monsters XP values x 2), I only multiplied to account for 2 monsters i.e. the giants (the sum of the monsters XP values x 1.5). The difference amounts to the difference between a medium (16,100 XP) and a hard (23,400 xp) encounter.The encounter sits between the hard end of medium and the medium side of hard. It's quite literally a 'medium-hard' encounter no matter which way you want to budget the encounter.So you keep saying, yet in the same breath you make the claim above to be able to defeat this encounter using only 3 spell slots - 1 each of 4th, 3rd and 1st level (a trivial drain on resources for a party of 5 x 13th level PCs). A position that I strongly refute by the way - in my view you would be required to use at least double that amount of resources once hit point loss alone is accounted for (plus a few more on smites and assorted shield spells etc). Which is about the right amount of resources for a medium-hard encounter for mine.Like I state above, its a judgement call. Regardless of which side of the fence you sit on, this encounter fits within the 'medium-hard' parameters of the test. The players hit this encounter fully rested, and knowing that they are teleporting into a potentially dangerous area (opening the possibility of pre-buffs). The encounter can also be avoided with minimal resource expenditure by a smart party who favors diplomacy over combat. Its a DM judgement call as to where it sits between [medium] and [hard] spectrum, but it is still a fair encounter given the parameters of the challenge.</blockquote>

Verification