NOW LIVE! Today's the day you meet your new best friend. You don’t have to leave Wolfy behind... In 'Pets & Sidekicks' your companions level up with you!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Flamestrike" data-source="post: 6858223" data-attributes="member: 6788736">The thing is 'redesigning monsters' isnt outside of the thought experiment. Changing monsters has been a staple of the game since 1E (which encouraged you as DM to throw intresting things at the party like skeletons who fired their fingers off as magic missiles etc). In 3E it was codified with templates, class levels and such.For 5E, both the MM and the DMG give fairly extensive encouragement and guidelines on how to do it. Where I changed a monster, those changes were minor (swapping out spells known, bumping HP or a stat) and were reflected in increased CR's.No-one has yet to challenge the CR's of any of the monsters that I altered, so my gut's telling me that the CR's were about right. There was some argument on whether to multiply the overall encounter difficulty due to the presence of multiple CR3 monsters vs a 13th level party, but thats at least been dispelled due to the fact that parties have been getting though those encounters expending around 10-15 percent resources (which is the expectation for a medium-hard encounter) so the experiment wasnt a total waste.From a metagame perspectve the experiment also showed what happens when there is a breakdown in trust (or in this case, there never was any trust) between a player and DM. But thats been done to death, and I really dont want to go over it again.I find it very unlikely that any party is going to finish the 7 encounters not largely drained of resources. Which is kind of the whole point of the experiment.</blockquote>

Verification