Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="ProgBard" data-source="post: 7017155" data-attributes="member: 6803722">Most welcome! To be clear, I tinker with stablocks all the time, either because I want a new monster and it's easier to modify an existing one than start from scratch (my penanggalan is essentially a nasty, souped-up vampire spawn) or because I want a specific sort of variant - one which may end up with higher AC and HP as part of its concept, but not exactly as ends in themselves. So for e.g., I wouldn't normally think along the lines of "I'd like ogres here, but they'll be double-HD ogres with shields," but I might decide I want to use an Ogre Champion or an Ogre Boss that is, among other things, a bit tougher on a couple of axes. That may seem like a distinction without a difference, but, well, the distinction matters to me.I would say that I've been pleased with the results of using encounter design as a challenge factor more than direct monster redesign. I'm still learning (and with the party rising in level, it's a moving target!), but I'm not getting the sense that anyone is feeling either bored or overwhelmed, so it's all to the good so far. The best thing I've learned so far is that I haven't pushed them to breaking yet, so I can still be a little tougher on them than I think I can, which is useful to know.Two other things bear mentioning:1. I'm not terribly dligent about the math of encounter design, so all of this is me working in a kind of test-and-see mode. I'm also not really that interested in the math of "balanced" encounters, because really what I want is for the party to be running into thematically-appropriate foes. If I had early levels to do over again, I'd lean on this idea more and be less afraid to throw truly nasty foes at them in service of the idea that the wolrd is not calibrated for your level; some threats you're going to have to learn to run away from. I think, if anything, that would've made the higher levels, where they're crushing their foes beneath their armored heels, more satisfying.2. We use a battle mat (gridless) and minis, and there's something to be said for the psychological effect of seeing thirty enemy pawns laid out, even if the result is going to be the PCs mowing a lot of them down like paper. For one, just the shear "Dear gods, what did we get ourselves into?" of that right before the initiative rolls is going to carry the frisson of challenge all on its own; for another, as long as the players don't know exactly what everything on the board can do, they're going to be dealing with that uncertainty as they go into the fight. (It helps that I don't think any of my gang are read-the-MM types, but even if they were, my aforementioned tinkering would likely keep everyone off-balance in their expectations, knowing that there's no guarantee that, say, all these cultists are the same.) My point being, I think challenge in this context is a headology thing as much as it's a math thing. The thing they take away from the session is not, "Oh, that fight was too easy," it's, "You shoulda seen all the bad guys we had to kill."</blockquote>

Verification