D&D 5E Encounter Building: Multiplier or No Multiplier

Xeviat

Dungeon Mistress, she/her
Hi everyone. This thread is in relation to the "Unearthed Arcana: Encounter Building" article found https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/Encounter_Building.pdf

I know we've had a few threads on this. Others have pointed out that the UA guidelines don't seem to use the encounter difficulty multiplier for multiple opponents.

Who has built and run encounters with both the old and new models? I've only used the old model, and my encounters felt too easy for their adjusted XP value. Maybe that's because the group I'm running for currently has a Wizard and a Barbarian who handle multiple targets rather easily.

I fully understand the reason for the multiplier, but has actual play shown that it's not necessary?
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Hi everyone. This thread is in relation to the "Unearthed Arcana: Encounter Building" article found https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/Encounter_Building.pdf

I know we've had a few threads on this. Others have pointed out that the UA guidelines don't seem to use the encounter difficulty multiplier for multiple opponents.

Eh? Those people are wrong. IIRC the UA guidelines map to Hard encounters for a one-person party, which means they're using the same multipliers as the DMG method. That makes perfect sense of course--the multipliers represent Lanchester's Square Law. Two grizzly bears will inflict three times as much damage as a single grizzly before dying, not two; three grizzlies will inflict 1 + 2 + 3 = 6x as much damage as a single grizzly.
 

It's the piecemeal part I'm talking about. Where they list monster values as ratios of players of a given level.

By the book, 4 level 1s face 4 CR 1/8ths as a Medium encounter. The UA guidelines show it as 4 CR 1/4ths. Because the x2 multiplier isn't there for 4 monsters.

In fact, I just made a chart. Now, I could be wrong, but ...

[TABLE="width: 500"]
[TR]
[TD]Level[/TD]
[TD]DMG[/TD]
[TD]UA[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]1/8[/TD]
[TD]1/4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]1/4[/TD]
[TD]1/2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]1/2[/TD]
[TD]1/2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]1/2[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]1[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]8[/TD]
[TD]2[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]9[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]10[/TD]
[TD]3[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]11[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]12[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]13[/TD]
[TD]4[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]14[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]15[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]16[/TD]
[TD]5[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]17[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]18[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]8[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]19[/TD]
[TD]6[/TD]
[TD]9[/TD]
[/TR]
[TR]
[TD]20[/TD]
[TD]7[/TD]
[TD]10[/TD]
[/TR]
[/TABLE]

For the DMG method, I was choosing whatever CR would net a medium encounter for 4 PCs with 4 of them, whatever CR worked for between the listed Medium and Hard XP.

4 Monsters vs 4 PCs calls for a x2 encounter multiplier; so 1 monster vs 1 PC calls for a x2 encounter multiplier.
 
Last edited:

Hi everyone. This thread is in relation to the "Unearthed Arcana: Encounter Building" article found https://media.wizards.com/2016/dnd/downloads/Encounter_Building.pdf

I know we've had a few threads on this. Others have pointed out that the UA guidelines don't seem to use the encounter difficulty multiplier for multiple opponents.

Who has built and run encounters with both the old and new models? I've only used the old model, and my encounters felt too easy for their adjusted XP value. Maybe that's because the group I'm running for currently has a Wizard and a Barbarian who handle multiple targets rather easily.

I fully understand the reason for the multiplier, but has actual play shown that it's not necessary?

I think the UA guidelines have simply incorporated some portion of the "multiple monsters multiplier" into its tables. It won't be exactly the same, like you've noted, but it should be pretty close. It looks roughly similar to what [MENTION=6780929]Gobelure[/MENTION] did over here.

And there's a key part on the 3rd page:

The above guidelines are designed to create a fight that will challenge a party, but which is still winnable. If you want to create an encounter that will challenge characters with little threat of defeat, you can treat the party as if it had roughly two- thirds of its members.

They're essentially following Mike Shea's suggestion to go with the "Hard difficulty" encounter building guidelines as the default.

If you want a proper comparison of the UA guidelines with the DMG guidelines, you should treat the part as having 2/3 of its members. That should give you a Medium difficulty encounter (i.e. one with little threat of defeat).
 
Last edited:

For the DMG method, I was choosing whatever CR would net a medium encounter for 4 PCs with 4 of them, whatever CR worked for between the listed Medium and Hard XP.

Well there's your problem. If you're trying to see whether the UA encounter guidelines incorporate multipliers for increasing numbers of monsters, you have to, you know, examine increasing numbers of monsters. Don't fix it at 1 monster per PC. Checking lots of levels doesn't tell you anything.

Let's pick level 10 PCs arbitrarily (because I'm not going to analyze every single level just for an Internet post), and look at various numbers of monsters and what implied multiplier there is for each.

CR 1/8, 12 per PC, so 48 giant rats. Kobold.com says this is 4800 XP (right on the 4800 threshold for Medium). If anything, this is using too large a multiplier, because it's not a Hard fight.
CR 1/4, 12 per PC, so 48 goblins. Kobold.com says this is 9600 XP (over the 7600 Hard threshold but not up to the 11,200 Deadly threshold). This seems to be using approximately the same multiplier (x4) as the DMG.
CR 1/2, 10 per PC, so 40 orcs. Kobold.com says this is 16,000 XP (Deadly), so the multiplier here seems to be a bit low, maybe only x2. It's underestimating the orcs. (If it weren't using a multiplier at all it would be calling 40 orcs Easy, and it would be asking instead for 76 orcs to hit the Hard threshold. So it seems to be using a x2 multiplier to be satisfied with only 40 orcs.)
CR 1, 5 per PC, so 20 giant hyenas. Kobold.com says this is 16,000 XP (still Deadly), so again the multiplier is a bit low, around x2.
CR 2, 2 per PC, so 8 githzerai. Kobold.com says this is 9600 XP, Hard, so the implied multiplier is once again in line with the DMG (about x2).
CR 3, 1 per PC, so 4 githyanki. Kobold.com says this is 5600 XP, Medium, so the implied multiplier here is higher than the DMG, maybe x2.5?
CR 4, 1 per PC, so 4 chuuls. Kobold.com says this is 8800 XP, Hard, so the implied multiplier here is in line with the DMG.
CR 5, 1 per 2 PCs, so 2 drow elite warriors. Kobold.com says this is 5600 XP, Medium, so the implied multiplier is too high here, maybe x2. UA is overestimating the drow.
CR 6, 1 per 2 PCs, so 2 young white dragons. Kobold.com says this is 6900 XP, Medium, but that's pretty close to the 7600 Hard threshold so I'll give it a pass and say it's reasonably close to the DMG.
CR 7, 1 per 3 PCs, is not evenly divisible for a 4-PC party, but for a 3 PC party 1 Young Black Dragon would be 2900 XP (Easy, where Medium is 3600), so the multiplier is way too high here.
CR 8, 1 per 4 PCs, so 1 young green dragon. 3900 XP, Easy (short of the 4800 XP Medium threshold), so the implied multiplier is again too high.

I won't bother with CR 9 and 10 because the table says you need 5 and 6 PCs for that.

As you can see, the UA values for a four-person party are all over the place (they are clearly derived from the DMG tables using a party size of one, not four), but the theory that multipliers are not used at all is not born out by the data. If anything it is the small fights that the UA gets wrong.
 

Well there's your problem. If you're trying to see whether the UA encounter guidelines incorporate multipliers for increasing numbers of monsters, you have to, you know, examine increasing numbers of monsters. Don't fix it at 1 monster per PC. Checking lots of levels doesn't tell you anything.

Let's pick level 10 PCs arbitrarily (because I'm not going to analyze every single level just for an Internet post), and look at various numbers of monsters and what implied multiplier there is for each.

CR 1/8, 12 per PC, so 48 giant rats. Kobold.com says this is 4800 XP (right on the 4800 threshold for Medium). If anything, this is using too large a multiplier, because it's not a Hard fight.
CR 1/4, 12 per PC, so 48 goblins. Kobold.com says this is 9600 XP (over the 7600 Hard threshold but not up to the 11,200 Deadly threshold). This seems to be using approximately the same multiplier (x4) as the DMG.
CR 1/2, 10 per PC, so 40 orcs. Kobold.com says this is 16,000 XP (Deadly), so the multiplier here seems to be a bit low, maybe only x2. It's underestimating the orcs. (If it weren't using a multiplier at all it would be calling 40 orcs Easy, and it would be asking instead for 76 orcs to hit the Hard threshold. So it seems to be using a x2 multiplier to be satisfied with only 40 orcs.)
CR 1, 5 per PC, so 20 giant hyenas. Kobold.com says this is 16,000 XP (still Deadly), so again the multiplier is a bit low, around x2.
CR 2, 2 per PC, so 8 githzerai. Kobold.com says this is 9600 XP, Hard, so the implied multiplier is once again in line with the DMG (about x2).
CR 3, 1 per PC, so 4 githyanki. Kobold.com says this is 5600 XP, Medium, so the implied multiplier here is higher than the DMG, maybe x2.5?
CR 4, 1 per PC, so 4 chuuls. Kobold.com says this is 8800 XP, Hard, so the implied multiplier here is in line with the DMG.
CR 5, 1 per 2 PCs, so 2 drow elite warriors. Kobold.com says this is 5600 XP, Medium, so the implied multiplier is too high here, maybe x2. UA is overestimating the drow.
CR 6, 1 per 2 PCs, so 2 young white dragons. Kobold.com says this is 6900 XP, Medium, but that's pretty close to the 7600 Hard threshold so I'll give it a pass and say it's reasonably close to the DMG.
CR 7, 1 per 3 PCs, is not evenly divisible for a 4-PC party, but for a 3 PC party 1 Young Black Dragon would be 2900 XP (Easy, where Medium is 3600), so the multiplier is way too high here.
CR 8, 1 per 4 PCs, so 1 young green dragon. 3900 XP, Easy (short of the 4800 XP Medium threshold), so the implied multiplier is again too high.

I won't bother with CR 9 and 10 because the table says you need 5 and 6 PCs for that.

As you can see, the UA values for a four-person party are all over the place (they are clearly derived from the DMG tables using a party size of one, not four), but the theory that multipliers are not used at all is not born out by the data. If anything it is the small fights that the UA gets wrong.

Good analysis. It seems like the UA acknowledges that its maths undervalue small fights by virtue of using an entirely different table for solo monsters.

For example, while the maths of the multiple monsters table suggest a CR 8 young green dragon is an apropos challenge for four 10th-level PCs. The solo monsters table suggests a CR 10 monster being a suitable challenge instead.

uXVjG0m.png
 

Good analysis. It seems like the UA acknowledges that its maths undervalue small fights by virtue of using an entirely different table for solo monsters.

For example, while the maths of the multiple monsters table suggest a CR 8 young green dragon is an apropos challenge for four 10th-level PCs. The solo monsters table suggests a CR 10 monster being a suitable challenge instead.

Nitpick: that table indicates a CR 12 solo monster for them, not CR 10.
 

On page 82 of the DMG, in the 4. Modifying Total XP for Multiple Monsters, it mentions that only monsters that represent a challenge to the party get the multiplier. Everything else is just standard xp for the budget.
In an encounter with 10th level PCs vs 3 Stone Giants and 10 Flumphs, the Stone Giants would each be worth x2 their XP value and the Flumphs would be worth 1x their XP value for the encounter difficulty XP.
 

On page 82 of the DMG, in the 4. Modifying Total XP for Multiple Monsters, it mentions that only monsters that represent a challenge to the party get the multiplier. Everything else is just standard xp for the budget.

It's a rare situation where something does not add to the challenge. Usually it's because the DM only wants them there for color/flavor, e.g. an ancient red dragon with a dozen kobold slaves is not 3x as dangerous as a normal ancient red dragon, and the DM didn't add the kobolds for the challenge.

The DMG also doesn't say to separate them into groups and use a different multiplier for each group--it says not to use one at all. The Stone Giants and the Flumphs would all use the same x2 modifier from the Stone Giants, if you decided that the Flumphs don't add significantly to the challenge.

Basically, if you consider a monster to be tactically irrelevant, the DMG says not to count those monsters when computing the multiplier.

I'm not sure that I would discount the flumphs in this case. 3 Stone Giants and 10 Flumps is far more difficult than 3 Stone Giants on their own, especially if the Flumphs are active combatants. (It's because Stench Spray poisons you for a period of hours, with no re-save potential, giving disadvantage on all of your attack rolls and ability checks against the giants.)
 

The DMG also doesn't say to separate them into groups and use a different multiplier for each group--it says not to use one at all. The Stone Giants and the Flumphs would all use the same x2 modifier from the Stone Giants, if you decided that the Flumphs don't add significantly to the challenge.

The Flumphs are counted because of 3., the Stone Giants would fall in sections 3. and 4.
 

Remove ads

Top