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

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Tony Semana" data-source="post: 6362977" data-attributes="member: 6763088">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?</blockquote>

Verification