D&D (2024) New DMG Encounter Building Math vs 2014

[Micah Sweet]

I think you're largely right about WotC's priorities, and maybe reading too much into the DMG text.

In any case: I don't think D&D is going to give you what you want.

I don't disagree.

 

[tomedunn]

Hi Mike, thanks for responding!

I am looking forward to your full analysis on this. My gut feeling is that it is generally going to be an improvement over 2014 but I'm worried about the new math undervaluing large groups of low CR monsters. While The Multiplier certainly was overkill, I am worried removing it entirely is going to make certain encounters look far easier than they will be in reality.

There are bound to be inaccuracies built into the system because it lacks an XP multiplier, but where those inaccuracies are depends on where they centered the math. If they centered it around one monster per PC, like they did in XGtE, then the biggest inaccuracies will come from single monster encounters and possible those with 10+ monsters, depending on how strong a group's AoE capabilities are relative to the monsters' hit points.

On the other hand, if the math continues to be centered around one monster per PC then the inaccuracy will increase with the number of monsters. How big it gets, again, will depend on how strong the group's AoE capabilities are.

I have a post that goes through the math behind the XP multiplier for anyone interested who can tolerate a decent amount of math. The way the XP multiplier scales in the 2014 DMG requires only a relatively moderate level of AoE capability for a group. If a "typical" DnD group has stronger AoE capabilities than what the 2014 DMG assumed then the XP multiplier should scale slower, and could even plateau or decrease close to one for encounters with large numbers of monsters.

 

[dave2008]

No doubt, but I can't see that passage as anything but a blatant attack on simulationist play.

See, I see it as empowering simulationist play, just not simulationist mechanics. To me, they are saying:

1. Rules mechanics can't simulate reality completely.
2. If the DM wants to simulate reality, don't be burdened by the rules and do what you (the DM) feels is appropriate to simulate the reality you want

 

[dave2008]

That was not what I was arguing, but the number DMs target when they build an encounter.

That was what I was talking about too.

These forums are also not really a good representative of the average DM.

I know, but that is all I can really go on (that and the groups I play with). I was really saying there is no way of know what % believe on way or the other. I stand by that.

 

[Micah Sweet]

See, I see it as empowering simulationist play, just not simulationist mechanics. To me, they are saying:

1. Rules mechanics can't simulate reality completely.
2. If the DM wants to simulate reality, don't be burdened by the rules and do what you (the DM) feels is appropriate to simulate the reality you want

Fair enough. I personally feel that rules mechanics can simulate reality a heck of a lot better than 5.5, and have numerous (even 5e, but lots for other D&D-style systems as well) examples backing me up. I don't feel they made these decisions to enable sim, but rather because they wanted to make it clear they had no intention of including any more sim mechanics than are absolutely necessary as a practical side effect of play.

 

[dave2008]

Fair enough. I personally feel that rules mechanics can simulate reality a heck of a lot better than 5.5, and have numerous (even 5e, but lots for other D&D-style systems as well) examples backing me up.

Sure, and I think 5e and 5e24 do so too. It just depends on what degree of simulation someone wants.

However, my point was that that section is about empowering DMs to make the game theirs and fill in the gaps where mechanics fall apart - and they always will. No TTRPG can completely and faithfully simulate reality 100% with simple rules mechanics.

 

[Mistwell]

No doubt, but I can't see that passage as anything but a blatant attack on simulationist play. Not that WotC 5e supported such very well earlier, but as I've said they've become quite outspoken about it in 5.5. IMO Reducing the importance of setting and worldbuilding (which I feel these "rules" accomplish) leaves the game's purpose to be facilitating the PCs crazy adventures and showing off their cool powers, especially when you figure in the multiple warnings in the encounter building section against making things too dangerous for the players, and the general increase in said powers player-side in the PH.

That's my conclusion as to WotC's design goals. I don't expect a lot of folks to agree, and I'm sure it will make a lot of money for WotC. It reads to me as more player-centric than it has ever been, but that appears to be what people want.

I am going to ask one last time and then let it go. Point me to anything in that passage, which is the entire passage in context, which says or implies what you claimed it said or implied. "Don't abuse the rules, and here are ways to decrease rules abuse in your game" is not a way of implying PCs are superpowered and the DM must support their superpowers. It is, at best, neutral on that topic and I think a fair reading says the opposite of what you claimed. What about that passage is even player-centric?

 

[tetrasodium]

Sure, and I think 5e and 5e24 do so too. It just depends on what degree of simulation someone wants.

However, my point was that that section is about empowering DMs to make the game theirs and fill in the gaps where mechanics fall apart - and they always will. No TTRPG can completely and faithfully simulate reality 100% with simple rules mechanics.

Is toon town really the best choice of simulation target for broad appeal though? Surely there's some hypothetical middle ground between who framed roger rabbit & gurps sailing.

 

[Mistwell]

I don't have the book. Read the relevant passage here. The parts about how the rules aren't physics, do not represent an economy, and were only for PCs as far as combat was concerned are what I'm think of here.

This part? "Don’t let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn’t define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round"

And this part? "players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules."

These are things which you think empowers players to be superheroes? Clauses which explicitly say the DM should not let players abuse the rules to absurd lengths because of some technicality in the rules which, by necessity, cannot cover every potential situation and exploitation people can imagine?

 

[Mannahnin]

This part? "Don’t let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn’t define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round"

And this part? "players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules."

These are things which you think empowers players to be superheroes? Clauses which explicitly say the DM should not let players abuse the rules to absurd lengths because of some technicality in the rules which, by necessity, cannot cover every potential situation and exploitation people can imagine?

Yes, these passages are very clearly in line with 1E sensibilities, to my mind. "Don't let barracks-room lawyers pull shenanigans", as Gary would say. "The rules are for exciting fantasy play, not for simulationism, use common sense", as he also said (paraphrasing) in the original DMG.

It's literally the exact opposite of what Micah claimed it was.