log in or register to remove this ad

 

D&D 5E Sane Magic Item Prices


log in or register to remove this ad

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
And I was using scouts the entire time. So, I'm not sure why you think I've "suddenly changed" from one to the other.
I didn't realize that you had altered the original premise as presented. The person who originated it didn't say scouts.
I've shown you can afford it, you just suddenly decided that the pricing wasn't good enough, based off nothing except that I should be "paying them more" even though I'm already paying triple the cost .
You haven't. Triple cost isn't enough for elite scouts, who aren't hired to fight in any case.
I don't play with experience, so I was never going to think of that angle, @S'mon brought up experience and I agreed with them. If you are playing with experience, that is a factor. But, I don't assume that. And you didn't either.
So first, I do and did assume experience. What I don't do is assume house rules, because those are irrelevant to a conversation about how the game functions. They only apply to your table. Your house rule not to use experience is not relevant to this discussion, other than to show why you had that oversight.
And, you have not shown them losing any money at all. So, not sure how I'm losing twice what their pay and take is.
I have. 6 gold a day is not enough for a 3rd level scout. They are an elite troop that you don't even hire to fight, so I'm not sure why you used them in the first place. They are intended to track to places, people and armies, and then others do the fighting. If any scouts wind up in combat, something has gone wrong for them.
Also, this was originally a response to your "effective but not cost effective" which seems is a position you are abandoning now, since, as I point out, that just is flatly false.
I'm not sure what you think I've abandoned. Mercenaries, at least the ones intended to actually fight, can in certain circumstances be effecting at taking out an enemy.
"In my opinion"
My opinion based on the facts, sure. Your opinion is based on flights of fancy where scouts hired to scout are suddenly warriors going to do battle.
Forgot to add that part. Since it is a fairly common fantasy trope to have the mercenary company that loves to fight.
I've never seen it in any fantasy books that I've read, and I've read a lot. Hell, even The Black Company doesn't like to fight. They avoid it whenever possible, even though they are really good at it.
I never tried to hide that I was using 100% accuracy. I fully and openly admit it. That math is easier than trying to make up an AC and then try and match it. And, when you gave me an AC, I calculated it for you, so I didn't even force you to do your own math.
You might as well use all critical hits doing max damage while you are at it. You'll do a lot more damage that way. If you're going to use ridiculous numbers, why stop halfway?
Also, a few scouts are bounty hunters, that just means a percentage of their population. I might not be hiring bounty hunters, I might be hiring former army scouts. We never clarified. Nice attempt to obscure the facts with pointless semantic arguments though.
Yes, can be hired to be bounty hunters, tracking your quarry for you so that you can capture him.
We hired them for a job, that job wasn't bounty hunting. I don't think it matters that the Bone Devil didn't break his parole. This is some really petty arguments.
I thought we were using ridiculous arguments, like 100% hit rates. Was I wrong?
Interesting how you completely ignore the rest of that paragraph. Maybe you missed it? I'll repost it,

So, hiring someone with weapon skills is 2 gp a day.

According to you, hiring actual mercenaries is "more expensive" so I jumped it to 6 gp per day.
This is a Strawman of my argument. I was talking about offices, which cost substantially more. Those officers up the overall cost to about 6gp per day, but most of the 30 will be men making the 2gp. Base average skilled mercs. The level 1 kind. Not an entire group of officer level elite scouts(level 3). That would be substantially more than 6gp a day.
Then according to you, for no reason except CR, you decided that Scouts must be even more expensive.
No reason except for actual reasons, which I put forth.
You won't say how much, so I asked if it should be 10 gp per day. That is the daily allowance of a minor lord. For a bounty hunter, must be an expensive bounty. I know there are some bounty hunters who can spend months tracking down a target, must be awesome to pay someone like that 300 gold a month (I averaged the number of days in the month to 30. If the month is shorter it will be less than 300, if the month is longer it will be more than 300. Also, we have been assuming a 7 day week, not all DnD worlds use a 7 day week, but I went with this assumption because it is easier and more familiar to people.)
At level 3, most PC parties I know would want about 250g each for a two week job, so about 18g a day.

A Gladiator is a position, they are CR 5, double the warrior and TEN TIMES more than the scout. So, do they get paid 45 gp per day? A week as a gladiator at those prices is 315 gp, that is a month of living like the lords and ladies of a realm.
Good gladiators were a costly investment and treated well.
So, frankly, I'm curious how much you think these people are worth, and how the various employers they are supposed to have can afford to pay them. I mean, 20 gp per day for every CR 2 warrior in Thay has to be metric tons of gold.
If you are hiring them independently, you pay more. Mercenaries were more expensive than army troops. You can see that in the real world as well. Our non-officer soldiers are paid really low wages, but bands of competent mercenaries make a boatload.
Well I wasn't going to argue every single possible permutation of every adventuring party combination with every single adventure hook and every single monster and every single grouping of monsters and every single terrain type and every single level of fog of war. I don't have that kind of time on my hands, despite how much I seem to be wasting on this.
Orrrrr, you can just make the general statement in one paragraph like I did, and get the point across. No need to take all that time.
Funny how I never claimed a wide open plain, you just assumed that. You make a lot of assumptions for someone who hates it when other people assume parts of your argument.
You assumed a space so wide open that all 30 archers would have multiple rounds of firing free and clear on the target. That's a huge open space...................that doesn't commonly happen with encounters.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
That was only in 3e I think. I don't think that's a listed rule in 5e.
Even in 3e that wasn't true. 3e CR was explicitly the rating of a creature to be a challenge for 4 PCs of that level. One PC cannot be a challenge for 4 PCs of the same level. At least not without giving things like artifacts and special abilities to up the CR.
 

Even in 3e that wasn't true. 3e CR was explicitly the rating of a creature to be a challenge for 4 PCs of that level. One PC cannot be a challenge for 4 PCs of the same level. At least not without giving things like artifacts and special abilities to up the CR.
Or cleric or druid levels.

Either way, CR is basically a cruel joke on newbies like 3.0 Toughness or d12's.
 


Even in 3e that wasn't true. 3e CR was explicitly the rating of a creature to be a challenge for 4 PCs of that level. One PC cannot be a challenge for 4 PCs of the same level. At least not without giving things like artifacts and special abilities to up the CR.
Nonetheless, that was the official rule in 3e, npcs being one CR lower because of less equipment and npcs with npc classes (Warrior, expert, adept) being one lower still. Look to any PF1 product if you don't believe me 😉
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Nonetheless, that was the official rule in 3e, npcs being one CR lower because of less equipment and npcs with npc classes (Warrior, expert, adept) being one lower still. Look to any PF1 product if you don't believe me 😉
Sure. I'm not denying that it was the rule. I'm just saying that it wasn't true. :p

I mean, a CR 8 creature is a challenge for 4 level 8 PCs, but apparently so is 1 level 8 PC? Even though a CR 8 creature will generally toast a level 8 PC. I ended up tossing CR very early in that edition and just examining creatures vs. what I knew of the party's strengths and weaknesses to see what would be too hard, too easy or be challenged.
 

tetrasodium

Legend
Supporter
That was only in 3e I think. I don't think that's a listed rule in 5e.
at least for the polymorph type spells they all have a line like "The new form can be any beast w hose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target’s (or the target’s level" so it's still reasonably true enough for the statement There might be other things with similar cr≤level
 

Hussar

Legend
.

BUT PLAYERS AREN'T DOING THIS. THEY FIND OTHER PEOPLE DOING THE FIGHTING AND HAVING CAKEWALK GUARANTEED VICTORIES BORING.

That's why I don't buy the argument that, "If you give players too much gold, they will hire a mercenary army to win all battles for you." If that was what players wanted to do, they would do it. But they don't, because they don't want to do that.

Actually, just to be “that guy” I have to say I’ve tried to do this with multiple dm’s and been shot down every time. It’s not that players won’t do this but at least in part that dms refuse to let the players get a cheap “advantage” that the players haven’t “earned”.

I do agree with your point though. I’ve also seen so much resistance to the idea from players as well. Despite it being a totally effective tactic, there are just so many roadblocks that it rarely happens.

It’s funny. Give the party a Druid and an artificer and they’re summoning help every chance they get. But hirelings? Not a chance.
 
Last edited:

billd91

Hobbit on Quest
It’s funny. Give the party a Druid and an artificer and they’re summoning help every chance they get. But hirelings? Not a chance.
To be fair, those are based on class abilities/spells and the player can usually manage them. Hirelings are something the DM should be administering and may be seen as more of a hassle.
 

SkidAce

Hero
Supporter
That was only in 3e I think. I don't think that's a listed rule in 5e.
I explored this, looking at NPC blocks, their CR is about 2/3rds what their spell casting level is.
There are exceptions, but holds close for the most part.

 


I didn't realize that you had altered the original premise as presented. The person who originated it didn't say scouts.

I specifically said scouts when I started listing the damage and the cost. You responded to the post, I assumed you read it.

You haven't. Triple cost isn't enough for elite scouts, who aren't hired to fight in any case.

Baseless claims with no evidence.

So first, I do and did assume experience. What I don't do is assume house rules, because those are irrelevant to a conversation about how the game functions. They only apply to your table. Your house rule not to use experience is not relevant to this discussion, other than to show why you had that oversight.

Variant rule, not houserule. It is in the DMG.

And, for having always assumed it, it is kind of amusing how you never mentioned it until S'mon did, and I agreed with them, and then you started mentioning XP in every post.

I have. 6 gold a day is not enough for a 3rd level scout. They are an elite troop that you don't even hire to fight, so I'm not sure why you used them in the first place. They are intended to track to places, people and armies, and then others do the fighting. If any scouts wind up in combat, something has gone wrong for them.

Same baseless claim with zero evidence, and just making assumptions all day long.

I'm not sure what you think I've abandoned. Mercenaries, at least the ones intended to actually fight, can in certain circumstances be effecting at taking out an enemy.

So... like I said. "Effective is Effective" it doesn't matter about being "Effective and Cost Effective to be effective". So your complaint that they aren't cost effective was pointless.

My opinion based on the facts, sure. Your opinion is based on flights of fancy where scouts hired to scout are suddenly warriors going to do battle.

I've never seen it in any fantasy books that I've read, and I've read a lot. Hell, even The Black Company doesn't like to fight. They avoid it whenever possible, even though they are really good at it.

Your opinion is based on your opinion. Your facts are no more solid than my own, unless you want to talk about the real world instead of a fantasy world.

Also, let's see:

Get Backers
Rurouni Kenshin
Inuyasha
Naruto
Akame Ga Kill
Looks like a few specific characters from Discworld by Terry Prachett
Same with Song of Ice and Fire, according to the list
Fairy Tale
One Piece has the Giants
The Slayers
The Record of the Lodoss War
The Slime Dungeon
The Tortall books from Tamora Pierce I think has one or two
Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash




oh, and if we expand to some sci-fi or "realistic fantasy" we get things like
Gundam
Black Lagoon
Got some from Star Wars in the expanded universe it seems
The Sentry by Robert Crais
Deadpool and a lot of his friends
Alita Battle Angel



Sure not all of these are exact, and this is just looking online, but there are entire tropes here. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean that it isn't a thing in other media. This is an entire thing. Oh, also! DnD Adventurers who get paid to go fight


You might as well use all critical hits doing max damage while you are at it. You'll do a lot more damage that way. If you're going to use ridiculous numbers, why stop halfway?

Pointless slippery slope and ad hominen (implied)

Yes, can be hired to be bounty hunters, tracking your quarry for you so that you can capture him.

I assume you have a rule that says you can't hire a former army scout to fight? Not just "their name is scout so they will never actually fight, because you name is your identity"

I thought we were using ridiculous arguments, like 100% hit rates. Was I wrong?

Yes, you are wrong, and being petty.

This is a Strawman of my argument. I was talking about offices, which cost substantially more. Those officers up the overall cost to about 6gp per day, but most of the 30 will be men making the 2gp. Base average skilled mercs. The level 1 kind. Not an entire group of officer level elite scouts(level 3). That would be substantially more than 6gp a day.

So, who is an officer? I don't see "Officer" in the NPC list in the book. I also don't see "Average skilled mercs" or even "mercenary" as an option. I mean, if scouts are going to be only scouts and nothing more than I can't hire bandits or guards, which are the only CR NPCs weaker than the scout.

So please, since your arguments are based in fact, where I can I find this "mercenary" statblock for the mercenaries that can be hired for 2 gp? Can you demonstrate that this isn't just you pulling out limitations out of thin air?

No reason except for actual reasons, which I put forth.

That they are too strong, even though they are one of the weakest NPCs in the books. Only stronger than Guards, Commoners, Bandits, Cultists, and Tribal Warriors. None of whom would make sense to hire as mercenaries, by your own logic.

And... that's about the limit of your argument. They are too powerful, therefore they should cost up to 5 times more than the standard rate.

At level 3, most PC parties I know would want about 250g each for a two week job, so about 18g a day.

Seriously?

Wow, talk about ignoring your own arguments. That ends up being 1,000 to 1,500 gold for the party for a single job, barring anything they find. And yet, I talked about finding a troll hoard at 5th level that would give the party 3,000 gold and you insisted that "hoards are hard to come buy"

Guess I just need to be hired for a month and then I can make 3,000 gold... huh. That's odd. Didn't this whole thing start with me talking about a 3rd to 5th level cleric making a little over a thousand gold working for a month? And how that was bad. At 3rd level just offering my services as a bodyguard at 18 gold per day nets 540 gp for a month. No need to do any of that other stuff.

Weird. It seems like I wasn't that far off after all.

Good gladiators were a costly investment and treated well.

Better than the Lord?

Because 315 gp a week is 16,380 gp per year to "treat" the gladiator. Again, that is 45 gold per day. While at 10 gp per day you can follow this lifestyle

Aristocratic. You live a life of plenty and comfort. You move in circles populated by the most powerful people in the community. You have excellent lodgings, perhaps a townhouse in the nicest part of town or rooms in the finest inn. You dine at the best restaurants, retain the most skilled and fashionable tailor, and have servants attending to your every need. You receive invitations to the social gatherings of the rich and powerful, and spend evenings in the company of politicians, guild leaders, high priests, and nobility. You must also contend with the highest levels of deceit and treachery. The wealthier you are, the greater the chance you will be drawn into political intrigue as a pawn or participant.

This is at 10 gp a day. The Gladiator is making 4 times this. They are political movers and shakers, equals to high priests, nobles, ad merchant princes.

Does that seem at all reasonable for a gladiator? A single gladiator, not a champion of the arena. Just a random Gladiator from the roster?



If you are hiring them independently, you pay more. Mercenaries were more expensive than army troops. You can see that in the real world as well. Our non-officer soldiers are paid really low wages, but bands of competent mercenaries make a boatload.

Oh, I see. If the players are hiring someone, the price increases, but if it is an organization hiring them, the price is decreased because they are suddenly worth less?

Funny, I don't see that sort of distinction listed in the book anywhere. Must be another one of those "totally real rules in the book that I'm not just making up, and if I am, it is because I use logic and you can't argue logic" type rules.

Orrrrr, you can just make the general statement in one paragraph like I did, and get the point across. No need to take all that time.

I did make a general statement. And then you decided that you must absolutely prove how trash my opinion was because I dared to make math easier and didn't account for monsters being smart, and of course the terrain, how could I not address terrain.

You assumed a space so wide open that all 30 archers would have multiple rounds of firing free and clear on the target. That's a huge open space...................that doesn't commonly happen with encounters.

Funny, I've played archers. Played them in dungeons. Walking past a door, shooting in, and continuing to move is something that I've done a lot.

Bet I can even find a room on a map that could allow them to break into smaller groups, and fire from multiple angles.

But, nope, you want to assume that must be talking about a flat open plain. Can't be a temple altar room big enough for people. Or second stories. Or windows. Utterly impossible that in a forest you could have multiple lines of sight.

Safest just to assume, that way you can make you accusations seem reasonable and my very basic, non-comprehensive quick show of just the damage numbers an utterly unreasonable series of assumptions that would never hold up in a real game.
 

Actually, just to be “that guy” I have to say I’ve tried to do this with multiple dm’s and been shot down every time. It’s not that players won’t do this but at least in part that dms refuse to let the players get a cheap “advantage” that the players haven’t “earned”.

I do agree with your point though. I’ve also seen so much resistance to the idea from players as well. Despite it being a totally effective tactic, there are just so many roadblocks that it rarely happens.

It’s funny. Give the party a Druid and an artificer and they’re summoning help every chance they get. But hirelings? Not a chance.

Like @billd91 said, class abilities are treated differently than spending money on real people.

And sure, obviously there is no universal standard and someone has tried it. But, towards my point I point to the bolded. Your fellow players also pushed back. So, again, it isn't just a "if you give players enough money, they will hire armies to win all their fights for them" because the majority of players don't want to do that.
 

Maxperson

Morkus from Orkus
Baseless claims with no evidence.
That's just flat out false. You may not agree with the evidence, but there is evidence.
And, for having always assumed it, it is kind of amusing how you never mentioned it until S'mon did, and I agreed with them, and then you started mentioning XP in every post.
He has me blocked. I can't see what he does or does not mention. It was coincidence.
Same baseless claim with zero evidence, and just making assumptions all day long.
Same response as above. There is evidence, even if you don't agree with it.
Your opinion is based on your opinion. Your facts are no more solid than my own, unless you want to talk about the real world instead of a fantasy world.
My opinion is based on game facts called rules.
Get Backers
Rurouni Kenshin
Inuyasha
Naruto
Akame Ga Kill
Looks like a few specific characters from Discworld by Terry Prachett
Same with Song of Ice and Fire, according to the list
Fairy Tale
One Piece has the Giants
The Slayers
The Record of the Lodoss War
The Slime Dungeon
The Tortall books from Tamora Pierce I think has one or two
Grimgar of Fantasy and Ash
You're conflating people who like to fight with simple mercenaries. And Discworld? Really? A humorist, albeit a brilliant one who is worth reading every book of his, is not a shining example. LOL
oh, and if we expand to some sci-fi or "realistic fantasy" we get things like
Gundam
Black Lagoon
Got some from Star Wars in the expanded universe it seems
The Sentry by Robert Crais
Deadpool and a lot of his friends
Alita Battle Angel
Again, lots of conflation going on. It's like claiming that Norse berserkers are an example of why mercenaries who just want to get paid and not risk their arses, love battle.
Sure not all of these are exact, and this is just looking online, but there are entire tropes here. Just because you haven't read them doesn't mean that it isn't a thing in other media. This is an entire thing. Oh, also! DnD Adventurers who get paid to go fight
Still not mercenaries.
Pointless slippery slope and ad hominen (implied)
Nope. There was no personal attack, nor any sort of slippery slope. Nothing I said implied things would get worse and worse if you did something.
I assume you have a rule that says you can't hire a former army scout to fight? Not just "their name is scout so they will never actually fight, because you name is your identity"
If you hire them as a scout, then they are going to scout. Good like trying to find 30 scouts who all want to stop scouting and get into a fight to the death for 6 gold a day.
So, who is an officer? I don't see "Officer" in the NPC list in the book. I also don't see "Average skilled mercs" or even "mercenary" as an option. I mean, if scouts are going to be only scouts and nothing more than I can't hire bandits or guards, which are the only CR NPCs weaker than the scout.
Are you honestly saying that all types of NPCs are listed in that very, very small list of NPC jobs?
So please, since your arguments are based in fact, where I can I find this "mercenary" statblock for the mercenaries that can be hired for 2 gp? Can you demonstrate that this isn't just you pulling out limitations out of thin air?
Have the DM make it. Oh. Nevermind. I found the mercenary stat block. It's ridiculously high, though, so I wouldn't use it as a DM and I wouldn't recommend you do it, either. The price would skyrocket from where I've been saying. It's in the MM under the listing veteran.

"Veterans are professional fighters that take up arms for pay or to protect something they believe in or value. Their ranks include soldiers retired from long service and warriors who never served anyone but themselves."

They are 9 hit dice and a full CR 3. That's going to be some serious spensive to hire 30 CR 3 dudes with 9 hit dice.
That they are too strong, even though they are one of the weakest NPCs in the books. Only stronger than Guards, Commoners, Bandits, Cultists, and Tribal Warriors. None of whom would make sense to hire as mercenaries, by your own logic.
Think about that for a moment. Stronger than guards, people paid to actually fight. As sell as bandits and tribal warriors. That's elite.
Seriously?

Wow, talk about ignoring your own arguments. That ends up being 1,000 to 1,500 gold for the party for a single job, barring anything they find. And yet, I talked about finding a troll hoard at 5th level that would give the party 3,000 gold and you insisted that "hoards are hard to come buy"

Guess I just need to be hired for a month and then I can make 3,000 gold... huh. That's odd. Didn't this whole thing start with me talking about a 3rd to 5th level cleric making a little over a thousand gold working for a month? And how that was bad. At 3rd level just offering my services as a bodyguard at 18 gold per day nets 540 gp for a month. No need to do any of that other stuff.
Yes, seriously. Adventurers are much better than common mercenaries or even scouts once they get a few levels under their belts.
Better than the Lord?

Because 315 gp a week is 16,380 gp per year to "treat" the gladiator. Again, that is 45 gold per day. While at 10 gp per day you can follow this lifestyle
Lords don't suffer numerous cuts and bone breaks like gladiators do. Massive medical costs and good treatment would combine to make gladiator upkeep for more expensive than some lord paying to have some good food and some entertainment.
Oh, I see. If the players are hiring someone, the price increases, but if it is an organization hiring them, the price is decreased because they are suddenly worth less?
Countries don't "hire" armies in the same manner as adventurers. You get drafted or you volunteer because you are poor as dirt and you suffer whatever they will pay, which is far less than you are worth.
Funny, I've played archers. Played them in dungeons. Walking past a door, shooting in, and continuing to move is something that I've done a lot.
Played 30 of them at a time did you? I mean, talk about a massive False Equivalence. One dude with a bow in a tight dungeon corridor is the same as 30 dudes with bows in a tight dungeon corridor!! Edit: Sorry, 34-36 dudes. I forgot the party there.

Further edit: If you want to continue this conversation, please PM me with your answer. We can finish there. :)
 
Last edited:

Stattick

Explorer
The genre tropes don't lend themselves to hireling combatants. Everything lends itself to the idea that PCs are special. The tropes say that the small team of highly skilled people can sneak in and do and what it would take hundreds of normal people to do.

Another part of it is that no one wants to deal with hirelings that are as complex as PCs. That would be a massive headache even trying to manage 5 NPCs like that, in addition to your normal PC, and it would slow the game to a complete crawl.

Now, hirelings and henchmen (that would be a good name for a retroclone) used to be a big deal in the early editions, but I never really saw it live even though I started when 2e was fresh, and played with guys that had started playing before there was an "Advanced" DnD. I think as the complexity grew in terms of PC proficiencies and such, people cut back on the stuff that made the PCs feel less special. But as I understand it, in the early days, a lot of the game was about bringing those NPCs into the field. But that was when DnD was still much closer to its war game roots, PCs could written up in 5 minutes, and you could condense a character sheet down to the size of a 3x5 inch index card with room to spare.

If we want to get back to having it be easy to bring NPC henchmen and hirelings back out into the field, it needs to be treated like a power or ability. Let's say you hire archers. We could say that for every 10 arches you bring onto the field, that they do 1 hp "flak damage" to all opponents per round in a combat. As the person controlling the arches, you could then have a number of special moves you could call for. Say, maybe prof mod times per day, you could call for "concentrated fire" against one particular opponent, and when you do so, they take damage equal to the total number of archers you brought (Dex save for half damage). Create mechanics for other NPC troop types: shield walls, spearmen/polearmsmen, cavalry, etc.
 

S'mon

Legend
And, for having always assumed it, it is kind of amusing how you never mentioned it until S'mon did, and I agreed with them, and then you started mentioning XP in every post.

I don't know who you are talking with, but they are on my IL so as far as I know they don't see my posts just as I don't see theirs.
 

S'mon

Legend
I explored this, looking at NPC blocks, their CR is about 2/3rds what their spell casting level is.
There are exceptions, but holds close for the most part.


Mage and Arch-Mage are 2/3. Clerical casters are lower; the NPC Warlocks in VGTM are MUCH MUCH lower, to the extent I recall using hordes of them as mooks in a Primeval Thule adventure.

I think most lone 5e PCs are inferior to most monsters of equivalent CR; Barbarians a notable exception.
BTW 3e claiming CR = Level or Level-1 was always borked - in 3e for a CR 10 monster to be a moderate challenge to 4 level 10 PCs, it had to attrite 20-25% of their resources on average. To do that it had to equal TWO* level 10 PCs, not one. So in practice a 3e PC with full WBL equalled a monster of CR = (Level-2). This was a pretty obvious emergent property of the maths.

*In order to do 25% damage you need 50% hp & 50% DPR (.5x.5=.25). A single PC has 25% hp and 25% DPR of a 4-PC party and will do .25x.25= 0.0625 (just over 6%) of party resources in damage before going down.
 

S'mon

Legend
5e expects a party to be able to get through "6 to 8 medium to hard" encounters before being resource depleted and needing to long rest. That implies that a 5e "CR 10" is weaker than a 3e "CR 10" - the 3e CR 10 was expected to deplete 1/5 to 1/4 of party resources, so a party could only get through 4 of them before needing to rest. If we say a party can get through 8 medium encounters in 5e as opposed to 4 encounters in 3e, it looks like 5e monsters are expected to be half as damaging. I'd say that does match my experience with 5e from about level 3 onwards; level 1 5e PCs are much weaker. No level 1 5e party is getting through 8 bugbears before needing a long rest!
 


An Advertisement

Advertisement4

Top