Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="discosoc" data-source="post: 7100213" data-attributes="member: 6801554">It doesn't really work, in my experience.  Not with 5e, anyway.  CR balancing isn't actually that hard with it (assuming all sides hate each other equally, you can safely just double the total number of opponents).  The problem is that you're adding a bunch of potential complexity to the encounter that the players really can't interact with.  They just sit back and wait for you to resolve things.What I've found works best for 3+ groups fighting (together or independently) is to simply narrate as much as possible as background noise.  Here's a few examples:1.  The group is traveling with an old ranger guide and encounters an orc warband.  Now many GM's would treat this as a two-sided encounter (and it could be run that way), but I'd opt to simply narrate that the ranger breaks off to fight a few of the orcs while the remaining charge the group.  When combat is finished, it's assumed the ranger did just as well as the players.2.  The group is traveling alone and encounters a standoff between two small bandit groups arguing over an overturned cart.  As they arrive, the group hears the bandit leaders "agree to a truce until they deal with the intruders" but it's clear the two bands are going to be just as focused on each other as they are on the adventurers.  The fight breaks out and the GM narrates the inter-bandit attacks, but otherwise states that the group is simply facing off against the remaining bandits not looking to backstab their competitors.Basically, that method of 'narrative over mechanics' works really well for handling multi-sided battles without impacting the actual gameplay at all.  Anything more detailed (resolving via dice rolls) simply bogs the encounter down with no real benefit to the players.</blockquote>

Verification