D&D 5E It's Official! Most of my encounters are "Deadly" (now updated with info through the end of 2022!)

[el-remmen]

We need a context to evaluate this - can you group by between long rests? Deadly is assuming it's one of a series - if it's the only battle during a day it's far from that. Heck, even if it's just an early battle surrounded by easy ones. On the other hand, four deadly battles in a row is more meaningful.

Also, I do notice that the DMG calculations tends to put too much focus on multiple opponents, especially weak ones with a boss, that artificially shows harder than it is.

By looking back at session notes, I added some detail about rests.

For the first adventure: The party took a long rest after encounter 2 (right before going down to the dungeon level), encounter 4, and encounter 7 (though that last one was after the final battle and the 8 skels were a random encounter)

For the second one, they took a short rest between encounters 12 and 13 and a long rest after 13 (which is when they headed back to town)

Hope that helps.

 

[el-remmen]

If you want a laugh start testing how far you can keep pushing things & wait to see how many levels above the party that you need to take the deadly before they start really struggling.

Well, there is a lot more data to come and they did struggle some already.

 

[toucanbuzz]

Deadly is assuming it's one of a series - if it's the only battle during a day it's far from that....

At the end of our weekly game today, 4 of my PCs at 4th level, with full resources, took down a CR9 solo monster (I run a sandbox, so it's possible to stumble into monsters you're not ready for, that's a 5000xp budget creature). They did so even with their wizard, a primary source of damage, dying in the 2nd round without getting a spell off, and the entire party each taking 27 points of damage in the 1st round due to 4 failed saves.

It was mostly sheer luck as I don't pull punches (an extremely timely critical hit by a paladin), but possible. But, there's no way they pull this off if they'd had even one battle beforehand, and right now, one random encounter could kill them as they're running on fumes.

So yeah, I'm a believer the CR calculator for lethality assumes this is part of a full "day" of adventuring.

 

[Stalker0]

At the end of our weekly game today, 4 of my PCs at 4th level, with full resources, took down a CR9 solo monster (I run a sandbox, so it's possible to stumble into monsters you're not ready for, that's a 5000xp budget creature). They did so even with their wizard, a primary source of damage, dying in the 2nd round without getting a spell off, and the entire party each taking 27 points of damage in the 1st round due to 4 failed saves.

It was mostly sheer luck as I don't pull punches (an extremely timely critical hit by a paladin), but possible. But, there's no way they pull this off if they'd had even one battle beforehand, and right now, one random encounter could kill them as they're running on fumes.

So yeah, I'm a believer the CR calculator for lethality assumes this is part of a full "day" of adventuring.

I will also say that getting to the 5th level is a really big deal. Two attack martials, 3rd level spells for spellcasters.... and hitpoints tend to get to the point where its very rare for a monster to be able to one shot a player anymore (aka its all about death saves now).

5th level to me is where the deadliness of 5e tends to drop a lot, I feel like PCs get a major boost at that point that the equivalent CRed monsters don't scale for.

 

[Bayushi_seikuro]

We need a context to evaluate this - can you group by between long rests? Deadly is assuming it's one of a series - if it's the only battle during a day it's far from that. Heck, even if it's just an early battle surrounded by easy ones. On the other hand, four deadly battles in a row is more meaningful.

Also, I do notice that the DMG calculations tends to put too much focus on multiple opponents, especially weak ones with a boss, that artificially shows harder than it is.

I think it's really hard to grasp the effects that added monsters have on an encounter, at least for me and I assume some others. And also to factor in how late in the 'day' the party is hitting the encounter.

Against a BBEG solo, fresh off a rest, there is zero reason for the party to not put in the fifteen-minute-workday and alpha strike the crap out of him. The quality of their followers and how much they occupy a PC's time is another consideration - if a PC can just one shot the dragon's kobold minions, they really aren't much of a speed-bump, especially if you can flambe' 10 of them at a time with some guano and saltpeter. If you reskin the thing occupying a PC's time from being a monster they can one- or two- hit into something like, say, a glyph they have to interact with over multiple turns to bring the Boss' resistances down or keep them from their Main Attack, I think people would say those add-ons make a huge difference in consideration of the fight.

For the record, I'm talking about similar mechanics to the Magtheridon's Lair fight from WoW. A quick sum-up:

Manticron Cubes:

• When clicked by a player, a channeling effect starts. This deals 800 damage per tick (400 dps) to the player clicking it
• If all 5 cubes are active at the same time, Magtheridons Blast Nova is interrupted, and while the five cubes all stay active, he takes 300% damage
• When the channel breaks, the player receives the 30 sec Mind Exhaustion debuff

 

[el-remmen]

there is zero reason for the party to not put in the fifteen-minute-workday and alpha strike the crap out of him.

I think that really depends on the style of game.

 

[Flamestrike]

A Wizard's Fate (from Dungeon #37 [1992] - converted from 2E)

Encounter #	Monsters (#)	# of (N)PCs/Level	CRs	DIfficulty
1​	Skeletons (4)	3/1	1/4	Deadly
2​	Giant Centipedes (4)	4/1	1/4	Deadly
3​	Spiders (5)	4/1	0	Trivial
4​	Bugbear Skeleton (1)	4/1	2*	Deadly
5​	Guardian Knight (1), Guardian Warriors (2) - tapestry constructs	4/1	1 and 1/8	Deadly
6​	Iron Cobra (modified)	4/1	1	Medium
7​	Imp (1)	4/1	1	Medium*
8​	Skeletons (8)	4/1	1/4	Deadly

The party took a long rest after encounter 2, encounter 4, and encounter 7.

If the party took 3 long rests, they had 4 adventuring days worth of resources to deal with the above. That tells me the encounters were too deadly, or the PCs were novaing the encounters and falling back to rest.

The amount of Adventuring day XP for 4 x 1st level PCs is 1,200 per day.

Encounters 1 and 2 combined are only 400 xp (then the party Long rested) encounters 3 and 4 was only 450 xp combined (and then the party long rested), encounters 5, 6 and 7 were 650xp combined (and again they long rested) and encounter 8 was 400 xp combined.

This party long rested too much, which is why they were able to deal with those encounters easily. They should have been allowed only roughly 2 long rests (max) instead of 3.

The above party is long resting every 2 encounters or so, which is far FAR too often.

 

[Ruin Explorer]

I'm pretty sure that WotC changed the game from 3-4 encounters per day to 6-8 encounters per day by just halving the encounter XP budgets and leaving the daily budgets untouched. "Deadly" encounters are probably closer to medium-hard.

In the sense that they don't kill PCs? Sure, I'd agree. You have to be solidly into Deadly or have a worn-down party hitting a Deadly for it to live up to the name. However, having played a lot of D&D lately and having gone through and categorized the encounters we hit for my own interest (I have a spreadsheet somewhere) and to help the DM out with XP (that's the one game I'm in which uses it), I found the ones which were Deadly were very distinct from all the rest, like, you could tell when doing them that they were in a harder encounter category. One that hadn't felt that way was barely Deadly and we'd really lucked out on some rolls at the start of the encounter.

They should have been allowed only roughly 2 long rests (max) instead of 3.

Running older adventures means "allowed" isn't really how it works. You'd have to drastically re-work a lot of these to control pacing to that degree, and at that point you're often getting into pretty railroad-y territory, which is great for some groups, but really not for others. Whereas with your own adventures it's often possible to use clocks and so on to control pacing without it feeling like railroad stuff.

 

[Flamestrike]

Running older adventures means "allowed" isn't really how it works. You'd have to drastically re-work a lot of these to control pacing to that degree.

Thats completely untrue.

I literally ran Age of Worms all the way through, all the C series of AD&D modules, several Pathfinder modules all in one campaign over 3 years of real time and didn't have to drastically change anything.

The older adventure above. What's the hook? Why are the PCs there?

 

[Flamestrike]

The adventure above (A Wizards Fate) an old DnD adventure has literally this hook:

• Zotzpox (the Imp) is now waiting for agents from hell to come and pick up the treasure in the vault of the wizard's dungeon.
• Zotzpox has Erilyn in captivity and will hand her over to the devils as well, for purposes of corruption and evil-doing.
• A sage hires the heroes to obtain some of the treasure in that vault.

You can't see the OBVIOUS doom clock there?

The PCs are hired by the Sage to get the treasure/ rescue the NPC before the Imp hands it over to the other Devils (in 2 days time on the Winter solstice or whatever).

How is that altering the adventure?