Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Lyxen" data-source="post: 8621397" data-attributes="member: 7032025">If I may, it's not what I was saying. I was not speaking about the difficulty of the challenge.&nbsp; I was speaking about using creatures (and traps) at the player level. Every module does that. Look at every module from H1 to E3, every single encounter, the monster level is within 1 level of the level of the adventurers, 2 for exceptional cases. I don't call that &quot;loosely&quot;, I call that &quot;strongly centered&quot;, to the point that every single monster has to be adapted to the character level.After that, if you take oine minion or 3 solo, the difficulty varies, obviously.The above has been acknowledged in every post on that other thread, and if you look at [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s description, level 28 PC implies level 28 minions and elite. It's not even within one or two levels.And NO, this is certainly not what I've been doing for ANY edition. First, in AD&amp;D and BECMI, there was no such concept as monster level, and these were (as 5e now is) way more resilient about monsters staying relevant. Then came 3e, but 3e (as 5e is) is not based around monster levels, it's based around CR and combining CR into an EL. It does say not to go overboard with differences between average party level and the CR used, but that's it.4e is the only edition where monster level is a thing, and the &quot;show, don't tell&quot; is clear: in all modules, the almost equality is used (within one level, even for level 27 adventures), and is recognised by most of the DMs. So I think that yes, it can be said.Now, it's a GOOD thing if you are looking for balance and challenge, because it makes your encounter calculation precise (especially when coupled with calibrated PCs). But first it's a lot of work if you are running a sandbox game, and it's also very artificial if you're thinking more &quot;sandbox&quot; and open world than &quot;series of calibrated encounters&quot;.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="Lyxen, post: 8621397, member: 7032025"] If I may, it's not what I was saying. I was not speaking about the difficulty of the challenge. I was speaking about using creatures (and traps) at the player level. Every module does that. Look at every module from H1 to E3, every single encounter, the monster level is within 1 level of the level of the adventurers, 2 for exceptional cases. I don't call that "loosely", I call that "strongly centered", to the point that every single monster has to be adapted to the character level. After that, if you take oine minion or 3 solo, the difficulty varies, obviously. The above has been acknowledged in every post on that other thread, and if you look at [USER=42582]@pemerton[/USER]'s description, level 28 PC implies level 28 minions and elite. It's not even within one or two levels. And NO, this is certainly not what I've been doing for ANY edition. First, in AD&D and BECMI, there was no such concept as monster level, and these were (as 5e now is) way more resilient about monsters staying relevant. Then came 3e, but 3e (as 5e is) is not based around monster levels, it's based around CR and combining CR into an EL. It does say not to go overboard with differences between average party level and the CR used, but that's it. 4e is the only edition where monster level is a thing, and the "show, don't tell" is clear: in all modules, the almost equality is used (within one level, even for level 27 adventures), and is recognised by most of the DMs. So I think that yes, it can be said. Now, it's a GOOD thing if you are looking for balance and challenge, because it makes your encounter calculation precise (especially when coupled with calibrated PCs). But first it's a lot of work if you are running a sandbox game, and it's also very artificial if you're thinking more "sandbox" and open world than "series of calibrated encounters". [/QUOTE]

Verification