Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions, OSR, & D&D Variants
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fiddling around with Fifth Ed
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Jester David" data-source="post: 7450054" data-attributes="member: 37579"><p>No edition has really supported this, because its seldom played. There's a reason the number of encounters between levels drops suddenly after level 10: so people will actually have a chance to play at that level. </p><p>Even with storyline adventures, going to 20 is tricky. And not just because of the page count making it harder to hit 20th level. Groups are going to break apart, parties with TPK, the next adventure will be released and people will want to switch, etc. And all those will prevent a group from hitting 20. </p><p>It's always going to be a much smaller, niche market. </p><p></p><p></p><p>It works better than the encounter creation math in almost every other game in the market (i.e. the games without one). Encounter creation is typically left to the GM to just figure out. Because, often, that's the best way. </p><p>The encounter building rules are in the DMG for two reasons: </p><p>1) Because they're expected. </p><p>2) For a standardized method for designing encounters for published adventures. </p><p></p><p>You're not really expected to use them. Because there's too many unwritten variables. </p><p>Imagine I say "Design an encounter for my party. They're 3 level 8 PCs, one level 7, and one level 8. Go!" What do you do? What's an appropriate challenge. You <em>cannot</em> say because it depends on how many encounters they will have before or after. What classes the PCs are. What builds the PCs are. How optimised for combat the party is. </p><p>Having an undead heavy encounter won't hinder a party with a higher level cleric and a paladin. A party with a ranger, warlock, and halfling sniper rogue might rip apart most fights that rely on melee. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This is on the DM. </p><p>5e, like 3e, really relies on the DM to make encounters tactical and dynamic through the creation and use of terrain, lighting, environment effects, and monsters using their natural abilities effectively. Plus, because low level monsters like orcs or goblins might transition from being 1-on-1 threats to fighting PCs in groups of 3 or 6 or 10 having those monsters have a three or four tactical choices would be overwhelming. They're designed for speed. </p><p></p><p>4e was better for tactical play out of the box. But the trade-out was far more complicated monsters and much slower play. When the game is designed for interesting and tactical combat encounters, it's instantly harder for short mook fights and incidental encounters. The small scene where a failed attempt at sneaking results in a quick brawl or the sudden bandit ambush on the road takes up an hour rather than a quick 15 minute speedbump. </p><p></p><p></p><p>This is also on the DM. </p><p>You have to hit PCs when they're down. Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, so it's not much of a problem to spend one of their four attacks pounding a fallen PC. Two failed death saves right there. Remembering to include downed PCs in AoEs can also help, as can ongoing environmental damage. </p><p>Hindering line of sight can also be problematic. Ranged healing spells require you to target the PC and anything that obscures vision greatly hinders healing. </p><p></p><p>Smart, high level opponents will know that PCs aren't going to stay down and letting them remain alive hurts them in the long run. Putting the fallen PC in the fireball's radius makes sense.</p><p></p><p></p><p>This is mostly perception. </p><p>Because spellcasters were so powerful in past editions, people still expect that in this edition, especially when they can nova. The players see what they expect to see. The remember the time the wizard broke an encounter and not the time the rogue critted and devastated the boss.</p><p>Short adventuring days of 2-3 encounters with a short rest can really help the martial characters. Barbarians and rogues can be amazing regardless of the number of encounters, and being able to rage in every fight helps barbs. And fighters can pack a lot of damage into a couple short encounters where they can nova action surge and superiority dice without having to pace those out. </p><p>In general, the number of rounds in an encounter is a higher balancing factor. The wizard can only get so many spells out each round.</p><p></p><p>Very often the power difference between martials and spellcasters in 5e comes down to player skill. Optimizers are drawn to the many choices of spellcasters while players who want a simple character might go fighter or rogue. Which creates a self fulfilling prophecy of the strongest character, with the player not using the class to its full potential.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Jester David, post: 7450054, member: 37579"] No edition has really supported this, because its seldom played. There's a reason the number of encounters between levels drops suddenly after level 10: so people will actually have a chance to play at that level. Even with storyline adventures, going to 20 is tricky. And not just because of the page count making it harder to hit 20th level. Groups are going to break apart, parties with TPK, the next adventure will be released and people will want to switch, etc. And all those will prevent a group from hitting 20. It's always going to be a much smaller, niche market. It works better than the encounter creation math in almost every other game in the market (i.e. the games without one). Encounter creation is typically left to the GM to just figure out. Because, often, that's the best way. The encounter building rules are in the DMG for two reasons: 1) Because they're expected. 2) For a standardized method for designing encounters for published adventures. You're not really expected to use them. Because there's too many unwritten variables. Imagine I say "Design an encounter for my party. They're 3 level 8 PCs, one level 7, and one level 8. Go!" What do you do? What's an appropriate challenge. You [I]cannot[/I] say because it depends on how many encounters they will have before or after. What classes the PCs are. What builds the PCs are. How optimised for combat the party is. Having an undead heavy encounter won't hinder a party with a higher level cleric and a paladin. A party with a ranger, warlock, and halfling sniper rogue might rip apart most fights that rely on melee. This is on the DM. 5e, like 3e, really relies on the DM to make encounters tactical and dynamic through the creation and use of terrain, lighting, environment effects, and monsters using their natural abilities effectively. Plus, because low level monsters like orcs or goblins might transition from being 1-on-1 threats to fighting PCs in groups of 3 or 6 or 10 having those monsters have a three or four tactical choices would be overwhelming. They're designed for speed. 4e was better for tactical play out of the box. But the trade-out was far more complicated monsters and much slower play. When the game is designed for interesting and tactical combat encounters, it's instantly harder for short mook fights and incidental encounters. The small scene where a failed attempt at sneaking results in a quick brawl or the sudden bandit ambush on the road takes up an hour rather than a quick 15 minute speedbump. This is also on the DM. You have to hit PCs when they're down. Most monsters have multiple melee attacks, so it's not much of a problem to spend one of their four attacks pounding a fallen PC. Two failed death saves right there. Remembering to include downed PCs in AoEs can also help, as can ongoing environmental damage. Hindering line of sight can also be problematic. Ranged healing spells require you to target the PC and anything that obscures vision greatly hinders healing. Smart, high level opponents will know that PCs aren't going to stay down and letting them remain alive hurts them in the long run. Putting the fallen PC in the fireball's radius makes sense. This is mostly perception. Because spellcasters were so powerful in past editions, people still expect that in this edition, especially when they can nova. The players see what they expect to see. The remember the time the wizard broke an encounter and not the time the rogue critted and devastated the boss. Short adventuring days of 2-3 encounters with a short rest can really help the martial characters. Barbarians and rogues can be amazing regardless of the number of encounters, and being able to rage in every fight helps barbs. And fighters can pack a lot of damage into a couple short encounters where they can nova action surge and superiority dice without having to pace those out. In general, the number of rounds in an encounter is a higher balancing factor. The wizard can only get so many spells out each round. Very often the power difference between martials and spellcasters in 5e comes down to player skill. Optimizers are drawn to the many choices of spellcasters while players who want a simple character might go fighter or rogue. Which creates a self fulfilling prophecy of the strongest character, with the player not using the class to its full potential. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Fiddling around with Fifth Ed
Top