D&D 5E Encounter lethality

[Blue]

Say we have 12 different values for c - 0.1, 0.1, 0.025, 0.05, 0.01, 0.003, etc - modelling your differing rates. The question is whether that mathematically differs from using an average of those rates? In some instances it is obvious that it does not, e.g. the sum of 1 then 2 then 3, each times 97, is the same as 2 then 2 then 2, each times 97. The estimate is based on using (1-c)^f to get a survival chance over f encounters. Perhaps you're saying that there will exist a mathematical difference between using that simple formula with a constant for c, versus using a summation. Is that right?

No. What I am saying is that the chance will fluctuate dramatically based on the number and distribution of short and long rests within f.

Perhaps you are instead or also saying that our second DM always uses fewer rests per encounter, so all their encounters are more lethal, and that is your main concern? That amounts to saying second DM is using a higher value for c, and does not challenge the argument. It only says pick a larger value for c, for that DM.

A single DM can easily vary the number of encounters per day based on storytelling (and other) needs - this need not be a per DM variation.

[EDIT: Intuitively, a summation shouldn't differ from exponentiation using the average. In the end, they're both a series of multiplications. But I was thinking of creating a Monte Carlo sim for it, and generating an array of c's can tie into that.)

You are using the wrong numbers because you are ignoring a factor in them, so that it doesn't matter if summation nor exponentiation is correct. Picture instead that lethality is a complex number c+bi, with one factor as the inherent deadliness of the encounter (size, terrain/hazard adjustments, etc.) and the other is resources available/spent - the context. If you treat these as simple numbers you are neglecting the bi part so your results will be wrong.

 

[clearstream]

Picture instead that lethality is a complex number c+bi, with one factor as the inherent deadliness of the encounter (size, terrain/hazard adjustments, etc.) and the other is resources available/spent - the context. If you treat these as simple numbers you are neglecting the bi part so your results will be wrong.

So the hypothesis needed is something like, earlier encounters will - through resources - affect the chance of death in later. Possibly modelled as the complex numbers c+ri. Right? That might reveal how choices DMs make about encounters per day impacts on lethality. An argument against such effort could be something like, resources don't matter anyway because most campaigns use one-encounter-adventuring days, or at least few-enough-encounters that resource depletion is rarely a factor (in lethality). I know I've worked to make resources a factor in my campaign, and I cannot hand on heart say a character has ever died because of it. The bigger factor has always been the CR of the foes, and whether the chosen foes possess abilities capable of countering what characters bring to the field.

Anyway, I hope I see what you mean now and I'd like to think more about it. Perhaps trial some ways to model using complex numbers. What you say should be true, but might not reflect what many DMs are doing.

 

[Blue]

An argument against such effort could be something like, resources don't matter anyway because most campaigns use one-encounter-adventuring days, or at least few-enough-encounters that resource depletion is rarely a factor (in lethality).

Since that varies greatly from the 6-8 encounters per day that the DMG recommends, and that we have penty of empirical evidence that ti breaks down the balance between the at-will, short-rest, and long-rest resource classes, we should NOT assume this to be true on a regular basis. First, it's outside the rule recommendations, and second, it breaks inter-class balance.

I know I've worked to make resources a factor in my campaign, and I cannot hand on heart say a character has ever died because of it.

Then you are a minority of one if attrition has never been a factor in character deaths. Seriously, put up a poll.

Or compare the combat prowess of a high level caster, and the same high level caster without any slots. Sure, they still have good cantrips, good ability scores and feats, good HPs and some saves. But they are not nearly as able to contribute in encounters. This is common sense.

 

[clearstream]

Or compare the combat prowess of a high level caster, and the same high level caster without any slots. Sure, they still have good cantrips, good ability scores and feats, good HPs and some saves. But they are not nearly as able to contribute in encounters. This is common sense.

The point is rather that they don't end up in combat without slots. I know well the design intent, but question if it is borne out? It's a great question to look more into: I'll create a poll tomorrow.

 

[Blue]

The point is rather that they don't end up in combat without slots. I know well the design intent, but question if it is borne out? It's a great question to look more into: I'll create a poll tomorrow.

I put one up: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...sources-affect-a-battle&p=7525533#post7525533

 

[clearstream]

I put one up: http://www.enworld.org/forum/showth...sources-affect-a-battle&p=7525533#post7525533

They who control the agenda, etc... that one does not ask what we want to know. Does lack of resources correlate with character death?

Players will respond to questions like those you posted (and have responded in past discussions) showing awareness of resource constraints. I allege that those constraints turn out to be merely experiential: they don't translate into deaths.

I will wait a period to avoid poll fatigue, then post up a poll asking more targeted questions.