D&D 5E L&L for 7/7

[TerraDave]

4E doesn't use an unqualified XP budget as such. Instead, it rates monsters as Solo, Elite, Normal or Minion, as well as giving them a level.

It's quite accurate for gauging the difficulty of a challenge. Each normal monster will fight one PC; an elite is 2 PCs, a Solo is 5 PCs, and 4-6 minions make up 1 PC. Level indicates the relative difficulty. By the XP budget, it might be fine to put a level 20 normal monster against a 7th level party, but because of the level disparity, it isn't fair.

I think the intention of 5E is that the XP budget replaces the Solo/Elite/Standard/Minion descriptors, while CR replaces the level of a monster. We'll see how it works in practice when we see more of the monsters!

Cheers!

MerricB basically has it, but to reiterate at its core 4E is really simple: a standard encounter is a group of monsters the same level and number as the party. 4 level 5 PCs, 4 level 5 monsters. You can add levels to make things harder, and 4E characters are tough, so you can add three or four if you really want to. Elites, Solos, and minions work as Merric noted.

Once you get the hang of it, it is really easy. But it is most easy when opponents are the same or a few levels higher then the PC. What 5E is trying to do is say "the ogre is always a challenge" wether a possible TPK to level 1, or killing a PC at 2 or 3, or a threat as part of a bigger group at higher levels. 4E doesn't do that well. Ogres can be a challenge, but they probably require some adaptation as the party levels, you can't just use the standard one out of the book over a wide range of levels due to 4E quite steep math.

 

[SkidAce]

No, but it is pretty insulting to generalize by making inaccurate claims about what groups of other people think, and to diminish them by claiming that the issue they're concerned about is mere "semantics". I hope this thread (which contains many non-4E fans explaining how it is not "semantics") clears this issue up for you.

People could just be mistaken instead of considering them insulting.*



---

*This post contains no inclinations on accuracy or level of insulting towards any specific individuals. Should you experience high level of wrongness or impolite behavior lasting more than 4 hours, please call your moderator immediately.

 

[Dausuul]

Well, here's Houserule [deletion] #1 for me. Pullin' this CR/encounter building business right out.

The challenge guidelines are tools for estimating the difficulty of an encounter; they are not binding constraints on the DM. Choosing not to use those tools isn't a house rule, any more than not using giants in your campaign is a house rule. Mearls is quite explicit about this in the "Winging It" section.

Myself, I do intend to use the challenge guidelines, since I like to have an idea what's going to happen if the PCs fight a given group of monsters. But that doesn't mean I will feel obligated to restrict myself to "level-appropriate" encounters. When a 1st-level party walks into the lair of an ancient red dragon, they are likely to run into an ancient red dragon somewhere along the way. To deal with it, I would recommend starting with stealth, resorting to diplomacy if stealth fails*, and begging for their lives as a final fallback. But if they insist on picking a fight, I can do that too. One instant TPK, comin' right up.

[size=-2]*Pro tip: When attempting to sweet-talk an ancient red dragon, addressing it as "Chiefest and Greatest of Calamities" gets you automatic advantage on your Persuasion check.[/size]

 

[Ruin Explorer]

People could just be mistaken instead of considering them insulting.*

Definitely, but when you write a post saying "Those people - who I am not one of -think this dumb thing!", you pretty much always need to think "What the hell am I writing?", because there is a 90%+ chance it's insulting nonsense.

 

[DM Howard]

I really liked this article, but I felt my eyes glazing over here:

The Monstrous Horde: Sometimes outnumbering the characters gives monsters a big tactical advantage. If you're creating an encounter with monsters that have a relatively low XP value compared to the XP budget for the party's level, you might end up with twice as many monsters as characters. However, if you looked at our preview of the hobgoblin, you'll have seen that even lower-CR monsters can become more dangerous when they fight as a group. As such, large numbers of monsters can skew the balance of an encounter.
To account for this, multiply the XP value of an encounter by 1.5 if the monsters outnumber the adventurers by two-to-one. If the monsters outnumber the characters by three-to-one, multiply the XP total by 2. For a four-to-one advantage, multiply the XP total by 2.5, and so on.

It's not that its over complicated, in fact much less so than several other games, but it seems jarring compared to the rest of what I read in terms of the level of complexity involved. Just my observation.

 

[SkidAce]

Definitely, but when you write a post saying "Those people - who I am not one of -think this dumb thing!", you pretty much always need to think "What the hell am I writing?", because there is a 90%+ chance it's insulting nonsense.

Fair enough...

 

[Blackbrrd]

Well, here's Houserule [deletion] #1 for me. Pullin' this CR/encounter building business right out.

Encounters are...well, encountered because they have a place (however periphery) in the adventure/story. There is a reason a creature/group of creatures are in a particular place when the party finds them at a particular time.

That may be something that can be talked out of, snuck around, [most often] fought through, or possibly intimidated, lied to, overpowered/over run, wheel n' deal, bribe outright, or possibly (if the dice gods are good to you) eeked out by the edge of your blade. They can be easy, simple, difficult, surprising, challenging, and, yeah, deadly. Depends on the nature of the encounter...its reason for being [why the encounter is there at all] not some cooked up "CR". Its reason for being is not because the pc level is X, so the encounters "should be, to be 'balanced'" no more than Z monsters.

Nuh no.

It's a preference thing, I know. It's a playstyle thing. I know. It's not a "right/wrong" thing [unless some rules lawyers wanna get into a RAW brawl...which they are welcome to do amongst themselves. I won't be responding to any such.]. The "guidelines/rules/rulings/whatever" are good for the folks that want/use that sorta thing. I know.

I simply won't be having it. If your 1st level party makes a wrong turn and runs into a beholder...figure it out. If you're a party of 10th level characters and the only way to get the information you need is to find and deal with a cowardly goblin merchant that any one of you could step on and kill...then that's what needs doin'...figure it out [and try not to kill your source of information]. 5th level PCs vs. a family of red dragons? 5th level party vs. 5 kobolds setting a trap for the adventurers their scouts told them were coming? 20th level PCs against an entire army of demonically infused hobgoblins or a 3rd level party against a water elemental hydra? Figure it out. It's all fair game. It's D&D. Open season on fun. Fight 'em. Talk to' em. Try to sneak by 'em...Meet an encounter, figure it out...that's the ADVENTURE!

Where's the adventure in:
DM: "You see a group of 5 goblins and an ogre."
PL1: "Cool! That's exactly appropriate for what we need to be 'challenged.'"
DM: "A moment later, second ogre is comes around the corner, having heard the jeering and warning cries of the goblins when you knocked the door in. He won't be in melee range until next round, though. Roll initiative."
PL2: "Wait, there's TWO ogres? And goblins! Are you MAD?!?!"
PL3: "That's not the rules!"
PL1: "But we're only 1st level. You're a 'killer DM'!"
PL3: "Big jerkface."
PL2: "The CR should only be X. Yur not doin' it right!"
DM: *facepalm*

Now, I am partially agreeing with you. My best encounters are the ones that aren't balanced. I ran a home-made prequel to Reavers of Harkenworld and none of the encounters I used was "appropriate" for a level 1 party with 4 players. They resorted to brute force, stealth, trickery, intimidation and diplomacy to get through them alive.

I have run the first part of Reavers of Harkenworld as well, with it's balanced encounters. It gave a totally different play style. Basically, the players just used the powers on their character sheet. Why bother negotiating when you can just brute force your way through?

I think that using a wide variety of encounters, from easy to deadly, is important. To know what's easy and what's deadly, you either need some guidelines, or a lot of experience (so you can just wing it).

I do alternate between my own stuff (not balanced) and premade (usually balanced) without any reaction from my players. I don't think there are very few that would, if any.

As a DM I do think it's my job to help out the players in case they have no idea how hard an encounter is going to be. I mostly rationalize it by presenting it as information their characters would know. I find it likely that a level 5 fight has been in enough fights to recognize another deadly fighter (if they aren't trying to hide it).

 

[Savage Wombat]

I was thinking about doing it this way:

According to the system, it looks like 30 kobolds would be the equivalent of two hard encounters for your party. So there are 30 kobolds in this wing of the dungeon. It's up to you PCs to figure out how to avoid encountering all of them at once.

 

[Blackbrrd]

I was thinking about doing it this way:

According to the system, it looks like 30 kobolds would be the equivalent of two hard encounters for your party. So there are 30 kobolds in this wing of the dungeon. It's up to you PCs to figure out how to avoid encountering all of them at once.

I think that's the way to approach "encounter building". It takes relatively little effort from the DM and can create some super interesting situations as the PC's come up with absurd plans and the DM-kobolds react. It creates a totally different dynamic than the set-piece 4e encounters found in just about all the premade adventures.

 

[Truename]

Encounters are...well, encountered because they have a place (however periphery) in the adventure/story. There is a reason a creature/group of creatures are in a particular place when the party finds them at a particular time.

...much ranting omitted...

Well, obviously, if you're running a sandbox campaign, you can choose to ignore these guidelines. You can also use them in reverse: "okay, if the PCs go HERE and encounter THIS goblin village before disrupting THAT ogre alliance, they're going to be..." scribble scribble scribble... "really creative, really diplomatic, or rolling up new characters. Yep, that's for sure. Heh heh heh."

4e's tight encounter building guidelines were one of my favorite things about it. With bounded accuracy and (finally!) modifiers for size of encounter, this looks even better. I like it.