Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="dave2008" data-source="post: 6989616" data-attributes="member: 83242">Would one table with advice on modifying it suffice or do your really think there needs to be multiple tables for multiple assumptions?I agree with the assumption of 3-4 encounters, but I haven't decided if I want to take that base assumption or provide advice about revising encounters when that is what you do.&nbsp; I agree that it is a better, more flexible, and more easily tune-able starting point, I just haven't decided how far I want to stray from the conceits of the game.Well my table already assumes an XP budget almost 2x the DMG by the time you get to 10th level (and increasing from there).&nbsp; I think it is good baseline to start with and then provide guidance to adjust the XP budget based on party composition, resource allocation, tactics, and expected number of encounters per day.That is pretty much it, maybe with the hope someone will find it useful.No, I am definitely not targeting veteran DMs, though I hope they might find it useful.&nbsp; I guess I assume veteran DMs are like me and don't use encounter building guidelines.&nbsp; I didn't have them for the 1st 20 yrs of being a DM and when they popped up in 4e (I didn't play 3e) I just ignored them and pretty much DM'ed like I always had.The hope is that it would be useful for anyone who needs help building an encounter.It will be interesting to see whether or not they nerf some of these for sure.&nbsp; However I personally don't care that much about what WotC publishes, at least adventure wise.&nbsp; I bought HoDQ, RoT, ToEE, OotA, &amp; SKT for the setting info, encounter locations, and the monsters - not the adventures themselves and whether or not they are deadly.&nbsp; If I buy Yawning Portal it would be the same reason.&nbsp; That being said, i rarely use dungeons, so I might pass on this one.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="dave2008, post: 6989616, member: 83242"] Would one table with advice on modifying it suffice or do your really think there needs to be multiple tables for multiple assumptions? I agree with the assumption of 3-4 encounters, but I haven't decided if I want to take that base assumption or provide advice about revising encounters when that is what you do. I agree that it is a better, more flexible, and more easily tune-able starting point, I just haven't decided how far I want to stray from the conceits of the game. Well my table already assumes an XP budget almost 2x the DMG by the time you get to 10th level (and increasing from there). I [I][U]think[/U][/I] it is good baseline to start with and then provide guidance to adjust the XP budget based on party composition, resource allocation, tactics, and expected number of encounters per day. That is pretty much it, maybe with the hope someone will find it useful. No, I am definitely not targeting veteran DMs, though I hope they might find it useful. I guess I assume veteran DMs are like me and don't use encounter building guidelines. I didn't have them for the 1st 20 yrs of being a DM and when they popped up in 4e (I didn't play 3e) I just ignored them and pretty much DM'ed like I always had. The hope is that it would be useful for anyone who needs help building an encounter. It will be interesting to see whether or not they nerf some of these for sure. However I personally don't care that much about what WotC publishes, at least adventure wise. I bought HoDQ, RoT, ToEE, OotA, & SKT for the setting info, encounter locations, and the monsters - not the adventures themselves and whether or not they are deadly. If I buy Yawning Portal it would be the same reason. That being said, i rarely use dungeons, so I might pass on this one. [/QUOTE]

Verification