D&D 5E Fixing Challenge Rating

[el-remmen]

By the way, just so people don’t have to look it up, the Lazy Encounter Benchmark is as follows:

An encounter may be deadly if the sum total of monster CRs is greater than one quarter the sum of total character levels, or half the sum of character levels if the characters are 5th level or above.

For powerful characters above 10th level, an encounter may be deadly if the sum of monster CRs is greater than three quarters of the sum of character levels, or equal to the sum of character levels if the characters are 17th level or above.

A single monster may prove too challenging if it’s CR is greater than the average character level or 1.5. x the average character level if the characters are 5th level or above.

I need to go back to my "It's Official! Most of my encounters are 'Deadly'" thread and apply this to see what it tells me about all the encounters I analyze there.

 

[SlyFlourish]

Based on the conversation in this thread, Scott, Teos, and I agreed to add the Lazy Encounter Benchmark chapter from Forge of Foes into the Creative Commons as well. You can find our full CC BY 4.0 Lazy GM's 5e Monster Builder Resource Document here:

The Lazy GM's 5e Monster Builder Resource Document

Lazy GM guidelines for building and running 5th edition compatible monsters.

slyflourish.com

 

[AbdulAlhazred]

This is a vastly underrated strength of 1970s D&D - the d6 standard was useful!

One of the appeals of 40k-style points is that we can also adjust specific values up or down over time, based on play experience. In 40k, the points are a constant work in progress. The metagame shifts as new stuff comes out. I like the dynamic it creates between players, DMs, and game devs.

Power becomes a dial rather than a switch that is set to right or wrong and requires new game design to adjust (rather than a re-costing).

I dunno man. I played that game, extensively, in the 1970s. Honestly, d6s for everything (I assume you mean damage) created more issues than it solved.

 

[Davinshe]

I've updated the system. Digging deeper into the math showed - as many predicted - that the nature of scaling in 5e made this approach a non-starter. Here's a second cut based on an analysis of the math from levels 1 to 20.

5e_point_encounters/challenge_points.md at main · mikemearls/5e_point_encounters

A system for balancing encounters in 5e using point values - mikemearls/5e_point_encounters

github.com

So we're going to ultimately have 20 encounter tables, one per level -- y'know, I gotta say I feel hopeful about this approach. Sure on a superficial level it's not going to feel as elegant as a single table that can handle all encounters at all levels -- it's a downright brute force solution to the problem. Yet, at least this seems to have the granularity to actually be usable, which is better than what we have now.

 

[mearls]

So we're going to ultimately have 20 encounter tables, one per level -- y'know, I gotta say I feel hopeful about this approach. Sure on a superficial level it's not going to feel as elegant as a single table that can handle all encounters at all levels -- it's a downright brute force solution to the problem. Yet, at least this seems to have the granularity to actually be usable, which is better than what we have now.

Thanks!

I had similar feelings, but as I thought about it the nature of encounter building changes a lot even by level. I think the advice and guidance that goes along with the raw numbers would need a level-by-level breakdown. That thinking is what made me feel comfortable with trying this approach.

 

[I'm A Banana]

I think the problem may be attempting to write an effective CR/encounter system. It's been 24 years no one's got it right yet.

It's so easy to vanish into the math here that it can easily miss the psychology.

Spoiler: ranty hot take

What are we quantifying with CR? The "threat level" of a given monster? But that's highly contextual, so are we suggesting that we imagine some perfect scenario for the monster that may never happen in play? Or are we somehow accounting for the context? Do we define threat as a % of resources spent (including hp)? Do we define "deadly" as 100% resources spent, or is 100% resources spent a "normal" encounter, because we don't roll initiative unless it's frickin' worth it? Do we account for player skill? Environment or battlefield concerns? What a monster "should" be ("there's no way a lich is CR 7, they're just too badass")? How do multiple monsters figure in? Or do we flatten context a la 4e so that the math works better and everyone's playing in the same room with the same guards on (a la "combat as game" rather than "combat as war")?

And then how do we use it? To build encounters in a vacuum? To build an "adventuring day" of several encounters? To construct a dungeon of combats? How do we weight monsters that might challenge you via conditions? Do traps factor in? Is this just a system for rewarding XP? If I have a difficult skill challenge that uses resources, should that get a CR?

CR cannot be all these things. Some are just contradictory! And any exclusion is just going to leave someone somewhere saying that CR is broken and doesn't work, because it doesn't work how they imagine CR should work. Even if we can rigorously define and mathematically perfect CR for a certain subset of these answers, it's not going to be used that way in practice by players who want it to be something totally different.

The most useful definition of CR to me as a dude who is more narrative focused is probably "Throw this at a party of this level and you probably won't get a TPK." Sort of like a "you must be this tall to ride" indicator. But even that misses what should be "boss-level" encounters that maybe should risk a TPK, just not like in Round 1, maybe more like Round 5, and more trap-like monsters that aren't really meant to be fought as much as just either dealt with successfully or not.

@mearls's system defines a Challenge Point as a % of resource loss for a single character, and I'm already kind of in the weeds, because that doesn't tell me what my players will be feeling when we fight the orcs. I want them to feel like the orc horde is an overwhelming force of nature that no army can stand against as it crashes against the small, weak walls of the outpost, that they can perhaps dispatch this pocket of orcs, but even thousands of trained soldiers could not end the threat. And maybe level informs the scale of the pocket they can take out, or the waves they can cut through, or the kinds of orcs you could fight (and I think 4e had the edge on this given that its math chassis could wear many skins).

That's maybe a tall order from 5e, but when I think about the "threat level" of orcs, that's what I think about. The threat level of an orc is "You never want to meet a lot of them on an open battlefield." The threat level of a kobold is "Don't go into their lair if you value your toes." The threat level of an ancient white dragon is "you cannot defeat the concept of an ever-winter with a sword or a fireball." The threat level of an illithid is "you're going to watch helplessly as it eats the brains of a party member or two and runs away" (or maybe "cosmic ancient evil that pops like a balloon."). In terms of resource loss for a single character, you're talking about maybe "10% times the number of orcs", "Toes are about 10%, but the more your pursue the worse it's gonna get," "infinity, but there's probably a mcguffin that turns it into 100% of your entire party of 3-7 PC's unless they use good strategies", and "100% for Lidda and Miallee, but only traumatic memories for Warduke and Rath."

The numbers today only tell me when I get to run that kind of story without killing my party and experiencing DM's Remorse instead of Fun Times. And, I guess on the other side, when I can't run that kind of story anymore without it being a cakewalk. Probably. Ish. Under certain circumstances. It's fuzzy.

IDK, maybe the idea that we run an orc in a vacuum where it can be quantified in Danger Numbers is an idea whose time has passed? I, for one, don't need more granular math. For 5e specifically, I could use some guidance on the numbers I need to use and how to use them. If I want my orcs to have that vibe, how do I use the orc stat block to achieve that? And what risks making it too easy or too hard? How do the mechanics make that feeling? And about what level should the PC's be? And how big should the pocket be vs. the orc horde itself? And what about the orc general, is that a solo or no, I guess it would be surrounded by troops, right? for the vibe? Or, even a good example of them (here's Orc Horde and Pie Keep!). But "Challenge 1/2" don't really give that to me.

 

[mearls]

It's so easy to vanish into the math here that it can easily miss the psychology.

I don't want to quote everything, but I think you are on to something that speaks to the core issues of CR.'

Encounter balance is a tool that says, "This is what should happen when X meets Y." Yet, that runs concept to the entire point of a good TTRPG. We play to find out. If the math tells us what will happen, what is the point of playing?

That's where the emotion comes into play, as you describe it. I don't think you can math your way to a resonate, exciting encounter or adventure. Matt Mercer is a great DM because of his acting chops and charisma, not because he is awesome at math. If anything, most successful streams seem to lean much more on the DM's presentation skills than any rule set.

But, most DMs aren't Matt Mercer. They can't get where they want purely on vibes. They need help to deliver an awesome game.

IMO, a good encounter building tool should work something like sheet music. It shows you the notes to play. Each piece has a different intended effect. It lets one musician create something, then pass it along to another. You can practice a piece and over time get better at it. You can feel yourself skill up, which can fuel your desire to play more, or take on more complex pieces.

I think one of the big challenges with TTRPGs is that we really don't have that feedback loop for DMs. Competitive games have an easy mechanism for that. Someone wins, someone loses. If you want to win, you can watch tutorials, learn how to build a better deck, learn some new strategies, and so on. If you win, you know your practice paid off. If you keep losing, you can keep adjusting your strategy.

We don't have any of that in TTRPGs. We have prominent streaming DMs as a model. A beginner can watch them to learn, but to me that's expecting someone to become a better cello player by listening to Yo Yo Ma. It might help some people, but most people are just going to... listen to Yo Yo Ma and remain at their current skill level. They won't learn anything. The gap between what they can do and what they're hearing is too wide, and they're not getting a road map to help them cross it.

If we manage to make better DMing tools, ones that helped DMs skill up, then I think we have a powerful tool to grow the TTRPG community. We could create a clear improvement loop for DMs, with milestones and techniques to practice and improve, with tangible feedback at the table. It's one factor among many, but if done right it could really help.

 

[John Lloyd1]

Since parties vary wildly in effectiveness, maybe we should have a way of including that in the process. Acknowledging the different tables will consistently get different results depending on how they utilise the mechanics and work together.

 

[mearls]

Since parties vary wildly in effectiveness, maybe we should have a way of including that in the process. Acknowledging the different tables will consistently get different results depending on how they utilise the mechanics and work together.

Yes! One thing I like about a points based approach is that it's much easier to dial difficulty up or down. For instance, theoretically you could have a different point budget per character based on their effectiveness. That would also help you identify which characters are more powerful in combat, and which ones excel at it.

Ideally, that would also give players the freedom to optimize or focus on non-combat abilities without making it harder on the DM.

 

[tomedunn]

Yes! One thing I like about a points based approach is that it's much easier to dial difficulty up or down. For instance, theoretically you could have a different point budget per character based on their effectiveness. That would also help you identify which characters are more powerful in combat, and which ones excel at it.

Ideally, that would also give players the freedom to optimize or focus on non-combat abilities without making it harder on the DM.

I do something similar to this within the existing 5e encounter building rules. If I have a strong or weak PC I'll multiply thier XP thresholds by a fixed percent and use that when determining the groups difficulty thresholds. It's worked really well for me, but it does need to be recalculated each level (I've automated this with the spreadsheet I use). Having it be a set scale that follows the PCs as they level would be useful though.

I think it's worth pointing out that while Pathfinder 2 suffers the same kind of monster scaling problem that 5e does at lower levels, they still use the same point system for all levels of play. It seems to work well for them. I seem to recall Jason Bulmahn saying they viewed the consiquences of that as a feature, since it meant the PCs could tackle opponents farther above their level as they leveled up, giving a stronger sense of growth, but I could be mistaken on that.