D&D 5E I now the DMG isn't out yet, but I'm gonna DM anyway. Thus far, I've noticed that...

[Afrodyte]

...it's a lot easier to adjust monsters and NPCs than I remember. Maybe I'm just more savvy these days, but I'm not as intimidated by CRs as I was in 3E/3.5E, and I like having more flexibility in tweaking monsters and NPCs than the impression I got from 4E.

If I want something specific or off the beaten path, I don't have to build anything from scratch. All I have to do is find a similar creature and switch a few things around. Like, duh, right? But in previous editions, I would've had a lot of trouble doing that. Maybe it's something about this edition making explicit the DM fiat parts, but I dunno. It just seems easier and less stressful, such that I can actually (gasp!) enjoy making stuff up. I've already given stats to a handful of NPCs and made notes about the kinds of monsters the PCs can encounter depending on where they go in my campaign.

I'm probably going to pick up the MM and DMG anyway because I'm a sucker for a complete set, but even now, I find that I'm really looking forward to DMing this game! Yay!

 

[Vicar In A Tutu]

I think much of this is due to the rules treating NPCs and monsters differently from PCs, in addition to the slightly more rules-light nature of 5E.

 

[Emirikol]

Seems about as easy as 0D&D/BD&D, back when I first started in 1981.

GMs seem to fall into 2 camps: --[I say GMs because I GM other games with the same issues as D&D]
* Those that like math-heavy, "perfectly balanced" encounters
* Those that wing the encounters to be whatever they want, using their previous experience and gut feeling about things


I don't believe in "perfectly balanced encounters." Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p.

[below gets into why we shouldn't tie x.p. to combats..and that gives you more flexibility in "encounters."]

In fact, I'm still preaching that D&D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&D - shackled by it's past. This fact is something that cripples future DMs, who fall into a rut of chains of bandit-ambushes and dungeon crawls because that's all they get to read in official adventures and official books. Murder mystery? The dungeon did it. Kidnapping? The dungeon did it. Two farmers not getting along with each other? The dungeon did it..oh, and throw in a bandit-goblin-ambush just to complete the cliche.

I understand that crafting a viable plot without attempting to copy D&D's past is more work, but it would help TRAIN us DMs to get out of our rut, and to craft encounters that aren't just toe to toe slugfests..over and over.

What I've learned from 5e is that they have moved away from the grid-combat. Great. Now throw us a bone with plots written in such mindset that it isn't based on grid combat.

D&D's crippling move, yet again this edition, is defining all "encounters" as Combats. Sure there's a trap sprinkled here in and there and some peasants who are so darned gossipy that they'll tell you any clue you really need to know, but it seems too plain that D&D is still just "combat encounters." DMs gotta' move away from that, imo, or you're back in 4e, attempting to emulate what computer games do bet

Where am I going with this? I think that EL/CR is a bad idea for crafting encounters. DMs SHOULD go with whatever feels right in terms of MONSTER. You want a tarrasque at 1st level? Sure, it doesn't make a good "encounter" in D&D's [culturally-authorative-limiting-mindset], but it is one hell of a plot driver. Something this obvious will make players say, "What do we do now?"---instead of the DM saying, "What do you do now?"


jh

 

[Syntallah]

Do we have any guidelines on altering creatures/NPCs yet? All I could find in the DM Basic was that swapping weapons & armor "could change" the CR of the monster. Adding magic items "could change" the CR, etc.

- What if I want to give a monster max hit points?

- What if I want to give a Bandit leader the Knight's Leadership ability?

- What if I want to increase the poison DC of a swarm of snakes?


How do any of these changes affect the base CR?

 

[Evenglare]

I don't actually know if they have hit die /HP in regards to calculating CR. At least I haven't found any way in the rules, the amount of HD doesn't seem to correspond to CR or level as far as I can see.

 

[mips42]

Seems about as easy as 0D&D/BD&D, back when I first started in 1981.

GMs seem to fall into 2 camps: --[I say GMs because I GM other games with the same issues as D&D]
* Those that like math-heavy, "perfectly balanced" encounters
* Those that wing the encounters to be whatever they want, using their previous experience and gut feeling about things


I don't believe in "perfectly balanced encounters." Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p.

[below gets into why we shouldn't tie x.p. to combats..and that gives you more flexibility in "encounters."]

In fact, I'm still preaching that D&D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&D - shackled by it's past. This fact is something that cripples future DMs, who fall into a rut of chains of bandit-ambushes and dungeon crawls because that's all they get to read in official adventures and official books. Murder mystery? The dungeon did it. Kidnapping? The dungeon did it. Two farmers not getting along with each other? The dungeon did it..oh, and throw in a bandit-goblin-ambush just to complete the cliche.

I understand that crafting a viable plot without attempting to copy D&D's past is more work, but it would help TRAIN us DMs to get out of our rut, and to craft encounters that aren't just toe to toe slugfests..over and over.

What I've learned from 5e is that they have moved away from the grid-combat. Great. Now throw us a bone with plots written in such mindset that it isn't based on grid combat.

D&D's crippling move, yet again this edition, is defining all "encounters" as Combats. Sure there's a trap sprinkled here in and there and some peasants who are so darned gossipy that they'll tell you any clue you really need to know, but it seems too plain that D&D is still just "combat encounters." DMs gotta' move away from that, imo, or you're back in 4e, attempting to emulate what computer games do bet

Where am I going with this? I think that EL/CR is a bad idea for crafting encounters. DMs SHOULD go with whatever feels right in terms of MONSTER. You want a tarrasque at 1st level? Sure, it doesn't make a good "encounter" in D&D's [culturally-authorative-limiting-mindset], but it is one hell of a plot driver. Something this obvious will make players say, "What do we do now?"---instead of the DM saying, "What do you do now?"
jh

I will disagree slightly.
While I agree this is a easy trap to fall into, this isn't, necessarily, the games' fault. As far as I know, there is nothing that says in RAW that you can't give 'plot xp' or 'story xp' or role-playing xp' you just need to give it appropriately. Just like all the other XP.
Also, if you want to revamp your XP system to work the way you want, there is nothing saying you can't do exactly that. Or give skill bonuses for (GASP!) using those skills or anything else you can think of.
I keep coming back to this one simple statement: The 'Rules' are a starting point, not the end point.

 

[Tony Semana]

I don't believe in "perfectly balanced encounters." Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p.

[below gets into why we shouldn't tie x.p. to combats..and that gives you more flexibility in "encounters."]

In fact, I'm still preaching that D&D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&D - shackled by it's past. This fact is something that cripples future DMs, who fall into a rut of chains of bandit-ambushes and dungeon crawls because that's all they get to read in official adventures and official books. Murder mystery? The dungeon did it. Kidnapping? The dungeon did it. Two farmers not getting along with each other? The dungeon did it..oh, and throw in a bandit-goblin-ambush just to complete the cliche.

I understand that crafting a viable plot without attempting to copy D&D's past is more work, but it would help TRAIN us DMs to get out of our rut, and to craft encounters that aren't just toe to toe slugfests..over and over.

What I've learned from 5e is that they have moved away from the grid-combat. Great. Now throw us a bone with plots written in such mindset that it isn't based on grid combat.

D&D's crippling move, yet again this edition, is defining all "encounters" as Combats. Sure there's a trap sprinkled here in and there and some peasants who are so darned gossipy that they'll tell you any clue you really need to know, but it seems too plain that D&D is still just "combat encounters." DMs gotta' move away from that, imo, or you're back in 4e, attempting to emulate what computer games do bet

Where am I going with this? I think that EL/CR is a bad idea for crafting encounters. DMs SHOULD go with whatever feels right in terms of MONSTER. You want a tarrasque at 1st level? Sure, it doesn't make a good "encounter" in D&D's [culturally-authorative-limiting-mindset], but it is one hell of a plot driver. Something this obvious will make players say, "What do we do now?"---instead of the DM saying, "What do you do now?"


jh

I am fine with crafting encounters using CR and Encounter XP. I don't subscribe to using the numbers as hard-fast scopes, but as tools to understand where each encounter lands in relation to a party's current combat strength. Does knowing that an encounter is too hard preclude me from including it? No. But it's useful for me to have that knowledge, and I'm happy to award that encounter's XP value to a party that can overcome it by other means.

While I agree with most of your sentiment, the big exception is your pronouncement that this edition continues to defined all encounters as Combats. The past few published adventures before 5E's proper release (GoDC, SotSC, DiT) have included plenty such situations where the PCs don't have to enter combat, or even can't solve the issue by combat because they would be slaughtered.

Post-5E release, the Starter Set specifically has sections walking GM's through encounters where the PCs should be given options and queues - while providing non-combat reactions from apparently hostile NPCs - that steer the situation away form combat. One of the first missions in HotDQ includes a situation where, if the PC's are paying attention, they would realize that they should specifically avoid combat.

The Starter Set as well as the HotDQ provide guidelines on providing XP based on milestones (by episodes for HotDQ) and not monsters killed. And even when you opt for using defeated foes as XP, HotDQ gives you guidelines on additional XP to grant for meeting non-combat objectives for each section.

So the question would be, how should they be doing it specifically if these measures aren't enough? What is your definition of not defining encounters as combat?

 

[KarinsDad]

I don't believe in "perfectly balanced encounters." Each encounter should serve a purpose and drive the storyline, not just be thrown into the game for crap for the PCs to kill, just cuz, just for x.p.

[below gets into why we shouldn't tie x.p. to combats..and that gives you more flexibility in "encounters."]

In fact, I'm still preaching that D&D made a serious mistake, AGAIN, in tying x.p. to killing stuff rather than tying it to game time and story/plot..but such is the nature of D&D - shackled by it's past. This fact is something that cripples future DMs, who fall into a rut of chains of bandit-ambushes and dungeon crawls because that's all they get to read in official adventures and official books. Murder mystery? The dungeon did it. Kidnapping? The dungeon did it. Two farmers not getting along with each other? The dungeon did it..oh, and throw in a bandit-goblin-ambush just to complete the cliche.

Two farmers not getting along sounds about as exciting as drinking sour milk.


Sorry, but I play D&D to kill stuff. Sure, there has to be a story around that, but unlike some people, I play to kill stuff. To come up with good tactics for my PC's abilities.

No doubt about it. I like D&D murder mysteries. As long as I get to kill stuff along the way.


I once started with a small group of players and the DM did not have a single fight in two gaming sessions. I never went back to that group. Even though he had an ok story going on, for me, it was the most boring two sessions I have ever played. OMG I was practically falling asleep and it just got worse the longer it went.

So, I prefer that D&D ties (most) XP to killing stuff. People who do not prefer that should be looking at game systems that do not (or houserule D&D).

In my current group, we have 8 hour sessions. I want that to be about 3 hours of roleplaying, a tad of exploring (which for the most part tends to be fairly boring as well, especially many 4E skill challenges that tend to be exercises in dice rolling just getting to the dungeon) and 5 hours of fights (which in 5E could easily be 8 or more fights plus time in between).


Getting back on the original topic, 5E does appear to be fairly simple to create monsters because many of the monsters are fairly simple, especially at low level. Give them an attack or two of appropriate to hit and damage, AC, hit dice and some stats, keep most of them in the 8 to 14 range, done. Maybe throw in a special ability for a higher level or special monster.

 

[rastus_burne]

Do we have any guidelines on altering creatures/NPCs yet? All I could find in the DM Basic was that swapping weapons & armor "could change" the CR of the monster. Adding magic items "could change" the CR, etc.

- What if I want to give a monster max hit points?

- What if I want to give a Bandit leader the Knight's Leadership ability?

- What if I want to increase the poison DC of a swarm of snakes?


How do any of these changes affect the base CR?

Compare CRs between other creatures. If you have the Starter Set, compare say, the Redbrand thugs, with a hobgoblin and goblin. What is the difference in CRs? Why? Does one have a particular power that bumps up its CR. Once you've generally answered those questions, roughly estimate what you think the CR should be. There's your CR. I'm sure WoTC will release a more thorough guide in the DMG but honestly, it's not hard to wing.

In the case of something like max hit points I don't think that should bump the CR much at all. Maybe a 1/4, 1/2 or a full point at most. Obviously a lot depends on the monster in question. One with more debilitating powers should probably have the CR raised slightly higher.

But like anything in D&D, it's up to the DM to arbitrate. Trust yourself

 

[GX.Sigma]

Where am I going with this? I think that EL/CR is a bad idea for crafting encounters. DMs SHOULD go with whatever feels right in terms of MONSTER. You want a tarrasque at 1st level? Sure, it doesn't make a good "encounter" in D&D's [culturally-authorative-limiting-mindset], but it is one hell of a plot driver. Something this obvious will make players say, "What do we do now?"---instead of the DM saying, "What do you do now?"


jh

The point of having an EL/CR system isn't to limit the DM's ability to make encounters--it's a way to judge difficulty of encounters. If you want a tarrasque at 1st level, that's fine, but the CR is there to give the DM a clue as to how it'll play out. Just an indicator of "can my players take this guy?"

Like, if I want to unleash the tarrasque on a 14th-level party and want it to be really scary, I should make sure the CR is ludicrously high relative to the player level. And if I look it up, and the CR is easy for the characters, then I notice that that's a problem.

Obviously, if the D&D books say you should only make encounters that are easy for your characters, then that's terrible DM advice.