D&D 5E New Spellcasting Blocks for Monsters --- Why?!

[Paul Farquhar]

I have never had a TPK in 5e, but have come close twice. The first was because of gratuitous player stupidity, or possibly deliberate sabotage, aggroing every enemy in the building. The second was an easy encounter according to CR, but managed to AoE stun the entire party.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

I can agree with that last part and almost included it in my response. However, do we have any idea if a critical number of people are having TPKs because they ignore the encounter building guidelines because they decided to make encounters tougher? Is that really I problem that comes up a lot? Not from what I have heard, but I don't really know of any evidence one way or the other.

Never said that it is. But if we see it regularily, something in the system does not works as intended.

 

[Reynard]

There was encounter design from the beginning.

The 1e DMG has a bunch of random encounter tables for lots of terrains, a system of categorizing monsters by monster level to factor into placement in dungeon levels, and suggested random encounter tables for various dungeon levels.

Check out for example page 174

DUNGEON RANDOM MONSTER LEVEL DETERMINATION MATRIX (d20)
Equivalent Level Of The Dungeon
Monster Level Table Which Must Be Consulted
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X
1st 1-16 17-19 20 — — — — — — —
2nd-3rd 1-12 13-16 17-18 19 20 — — — — —
4th 1-5 6-10 11-16 17-18 19 20 — — — —
5th 1-3 4-6 7-12 13-16 17-18 19 20 — — —
6th 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-12 13-16 17-18 19 20 — —
7th 1 2-3 4-5 6-10 11-14 15-16 17-18 19 20 —
8th 1 2 3-4 5-7 8-10 11-14 15-16 17-18 19 20
9th 1 2 3 4-5 6-8 9-12 13-15 16-17 18-19 20
10th-11th 1 2 3 4 5-6 7-9 10-12 13-16 17-19 20
12th-13th 1 2 3 4 5 6-7 8-9 10-12 13-18 19-20
14th-15th 1 2 3 4 5 6 7-8 9-11 12-17 18-20
16th & down 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8-10 11-16 17-20

This gives a range of monster difficulties in an encounter to be expected that adjusts to the level of the dungeon. It gives a huge range of hitting anything from kobolds to spellcasting vampires at the deepest levels.

CR in 3e, monster level in 4e, and CR in 5e were tighter and used more directly and in smaller bands for suggested encounter parameters than in 1e monster levels, but AD&D had the concept as part of its rules.

What's super interesting about this is that the "challenge by level" element of 1E a) only applied to the dungeon since outdoor random encounter charts were based solely on terrain, and b) was based on (vertical) geography aka dungeon level NOT character level. There was no chart that gave probabilities based on Average Party Level. If the 1st level PCs found a chute down to level 8, woe to they who decided to take it. Similarly, the 10th level party could slum around the restocked second level just to flex their muscles if they wanted, and accept the diminished rewards for doing so.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

Never said that it is. But if we see it regularily, something in the system does not works as intended.

But is there anything to suggest we are seeing it regularly? Or even at all?

It seems to be much more commonly reported problem that players kept to CR and encounters were too easy.

If any change is needed, it would be to clarify in the rules that CR is just a rough guideline.

 

[Voadam]

As this is a conversion from an older module I am curious about the encounter specifics, if you feel like providing them. I had the original adventure, but never ran it, so I am not familiar with encounter. Could you answer a few questions? If so:

1. Was the vampire the only threat in the encounter? (if other monsters or traps what were they)
2. Was the vampire the one from the MM? If not, was the CR the same?
3. What was the level of your 4 person party?

I'm just curious if the person converting the module made adjustments for 5e encounters or not.

1) The Vampire was the only threat in the encounter.

2) The Vampire was the one from the MM straight.

3) 4 8th level PCs. The module says it is designed for 8th level PCs.

CR 13 vampire from the MM is 10,000 xp.

DMG deadly xp budget for four 8th level PCs is 8,400, so well into deadly territory. 10,500 xp is deadly for five 8th level PCs. 9,600 xp is deadly for four 9th level PCs and hard for four 11th level PCs. 10,00 xp would be in the hard range for four 10th level PCs.

Round 1 the vampire charmed the barbarian and the specific charm has this line "The charmed target regards the vampire as a trusted friend to be heeded and protected."

Three PCs attacking the CR 13 vampire and one protecting him is a bad start. A CR 13 monster on its own is considered a deadly encounter for three 11th level PCs.

 

[Vaalingrade]

Isn't it a result of a peculiar feature of the game rules?

The game rules are cleverly written to put all the blame and work at the feet of the DM.

If anything doesn't work, the DM is told to fix it, so anytime the rules don't work, it's clearly the DM's fault. That's how they can have really dumb features like an 8 encounter work day and escape blame. Listening to them is the DM's mistake, not the designers'.

 

[Minigiant]

What's super interesting about this is that the "challenge by level" element of 1E a) only applied to the dungeon since outdoor random encounter charts were based solely on terrain, and b) was based on (vertical) geography aka dungeon level NOT character level. There was no chart that gave probabilities based on Average Party Level. If the 1st level PCs found a chute down to level 8, woe to they who decided to take it. Similarly, the 10th level party could slum around the restocked second level just to flex their muscles if they wanted, and accept the diminished rewards for doing so.

Back in high school, a friend and I invented a forum game where dungeon floors down and castle floors up inferred a monster or NPC level. Back game 2, Dungeon Floor 2 &3 where grind-town and Floor 10 is where you got ganked.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

But is there anything to suggest we are seeing it regularly? Or even at all?

It seems to be much more commonly reported problem that players kept to CR and encounters were too easy.

If any change is needed, it would be to clarify in the rules that CR is just a rough guideline.

That is nit totally right. If you really stick to the guidelines and actually have 6 to 8 encounters with 2 short rests, the game does not feel easy at all.
We achieved this by using (and mixing + adapting) rest options of the DMG to at least have the uncertanity of 6 to 8 encounters happening between long rests.
Other people react by just increasing difficulty per encounter and have TPKs.

So the assumption of 6 to 8 encounters between long rests need to be adjusted and race/class design adjusted as well as encounter guidelines. This will fix "too easy" as well as "too many TPK's" which in my opinion are a symptom of not useful guidelines and DMs not responding correctly, because there is no help at all how to adjust correctly in the DMG.

My first post reacted to dave2008 telling 2 different people that it is a DM problem, not a system problem and I disagree.

 

[Bill Zebub]

Again, it's a tool. It's a predictive tool. So, with any predictive model, you have to make assumptions. So, you can't assume that you have a group of several casters that can largely endlessly spam Hypnotic Pattern. That's the DM's job. You're expecting CR to do everything, and it just doesn't. And it never has.

Very much this. CR works fine for the use it was intended.

 

[Paul Farquhar]

We achieved this by using (and mixing + adapting) rest options of the DMG to at least have the uncertanity of 6 to 8 encounters happening between long rests.

So, the only way you made one "rule" work is to change another?

So, it's not a rule then, is it?

Other people react by just increasing difficulty per encounter and have TPKs.

Do you actually have any evidence that TPKs are a problem? And are never a problem when people religiously apply CR "rules"?

there is no help at all how to adjust correctly in the DMG

Probably because the DMG doesn't know what spells your party has prepared, what the tactical situation is, your players' skill and a million other factors that affect the outcome but can't possibly be included in CR calculations.