D&D 5E How are you all finding the encounter building rules working out at higher levels?

[FormerlyHemlock]

I think it was noticed in Gobelure's thread that his system seems to indicate that encounters are a bit easier than the official encounter guidelines. And certainly it's possible that the numbers need some tweaking. Since the definition of an Easy encounter isn't constant across levels in the official system, and there is rounding involved, it's won't mimic the official system precisely. But there's no reason in principle why system like Gobelure's, but with tweaked numbers, couldn't deliver results that are comparable to the official system for even-PL groups.

You can't just tweak the constants in the equation--you have to change the form of the equation. A linear equation like Gobelure's can never deliver correct results over a wide range of values when the underlying system is quadratic. All you can do is linearize it over a tight range.

Note to self: write up a quick web app for estimating the damage a party will take from a given bunch of monsters. The web app will not have the form of a linear equation.

 

[Elric]

You can't just tweak the constants in the equation--you have to change the form of the equation. A linear equation like Gobelure's can never deliver correct results over a wide range of values when the underlying system is quadratic. All you can do is linearize it over a tight range.

Note to self: write up a quick web app for estimating the damage a party will take from a given bunch of monsters. The web app will not have the form of a linear equation.

It's certainly true that a party will take more than twice as much damage on average from 2 monsters of CR X as one monster of CR X. But to replicate the official guidelines, you don't need an equation to estimate the damage a party will take from a group of N monsters of CR X.

You just need to replicate the official guideline result, which says the encounter would be (easy, medium, hard etc.), given the inevitable constraints of rounding. Adjusting the constants / cutoffs should work fine for that.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

It's certainly true that a party will take more than twice as much damage on average from 2 monsters of CR X as one monster of CR X. But to replicate the official guidelines, you don't need an equation to estimate the damage a party will take from a group of N monsters of CR X.

You just need to replicate the official guideline result, which says the encounter would be (easy, medium, hard etc.), given the inevitable constraints of rounding. Adjusting the constants / cutoffs should work fine for that.

This is a bit tongue-in-cheek but I'll say it anyway: if the only output you care about is the rating and not the number that goes with it, I'd just go with a very simple one:

"Does the fight seem nontrivial? If yes, it's Deadly. If no, skip over it."

The only encounters I've seen that were both interesting and non-Deadly were constructed specifically to game the system by being very difficult on a tight budget. In the usual case though any encounter that I actually care to run winds up at some large multiple of Deadly, so I care very much about the number since the label isn't meaningful.

 

[miniaturehoarder]

It's an Al-Qadim module, so parley is almost always an option. The original mod called for a floating undead head with the capacities of an 18th level spellcaster, so demilich (especially as described in the 5e MM) seemed to make more sense..

I'd recommend building an undead head based on the MM archmage / upgraded Flameskull. Demilich is meant to be a fight for higher end characters.