Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="I'm A Banana" data-source="post: 7701439" data-attributes="member: 2067">So, commentary on the new stuff:<ul>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Numbers and Challenge Ratings: A weak element is that they don't tend to define what &quot;deadly&quot; or &quot;appropriate&quot; means - appropriate after 5-7 other encounters have sapped party resources? Appropriate for the only encounter in the day? Deadly in that it is probably going to kill a PC? Deadly in that it might kill a PC? Deadly in that it might be a TPK? So much of encounter design is making sure your rules give DMs something similar to what they expect will happen, but &quot;deadly&quot; might mean very different things to different DMs in different contexts.</li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Solo Monsters: I'm glad that they're explicit that you should use a Legendary creature to challenge an entire party, if it's being fought alone. It's also interesting that they're recommending going above-CR, which is counter in some ways to the DMG advice. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Multiple Monsters: super dang useful. This is like the meat of this article. This brings me back to 4e's easy peasy &quot;1 monster = 1 PC&quot; rules, with more granularity and a broader level range. You can see 5e's preference for MORE MONSTERS pretty clearly here. Yes, go ahead and throw CR 1/8 creatures at a level 10 party. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Monster Selection / Party Assessment: man, this is a lot of legwork. I get that there's no efficient way to lock down party performance to a number, so this step is always at least a little necessary, but I guess this is where I diverge from the intended audience of the information: I'm totally comfortable not doing this work and letting the dice fall where they may, one-hit-kills and all. Someone more concerned about combat balance might not like that, and so telling them explicitly, &quot;hey, if you want to get granular about this, don't let the CR calcs do all the work for you, get in the weeds and DO this&quot; is probably useful. </li>
<li data-xf-list-type="ul"> Complications This section is gold, and I'm using it tonight. I love the advice to &quot;consider white might happen in an encounter area if the characters were to never enter it.&quot; </li>
</ul></blockquote>

[QUOTE="I'm A Banana, post: 7701439, member: 2067"] So, commentary on the new stuff: [LIST] [*] [B]Numbers and Challenge Ratings[/B]: A weak element is that they don't tend to define what "deadly" or "appropriate" means - appropriate after 5-7 other encounters have sapped party resources? Appropriate for the only encounter in the day? Deadly in that it is probably going to kill a PC? Deadly in that it might kill a PC? Deadly in that it might be a TPK? So much of encounter design is making sure your rules give DMs something similar to what they [B]expect[/B] will happen, but "deadly" might mean very different things to different DMs in different contexts. [*] [B]Solo Monsters[/B]: I'm glad that they're explicit that you should use a Legendary creature to challenge an entire party, if it's being fought alone. It's also interesting that they're recommending going above-CR, which is counter in some ways to the DMG advice. [*] [B]Multiple Monsters[/B]: super dang useful. This is like the meat of this article. This brings me back to 4e's easy peasy "1 monster = 1 PC" rules, with more granularity and a broader level range. You can see 5e's preference for MORE MONSTERS pretty clearly here. Yes, go ahead and throw CR 1/8 creatures at a level 10 party. [*] [B]Monster Selection / Party Assessment[/B]: man, this is a lot of legwork. I get that there's no efficient way to lock down party performance to a number, so this step is always at least a little necessary, but I guess this is where I diverge from the intended audience of the information: I'm totally comfortable not doing this work and letting the dice fall where they may, one-hit-kills and all. Someone more concerned about combat balance might not like that, and so telling them explicitly, "hey, if you want to get granular about this, [B]don't let the CR calcs do all the work for you, get in the weeds and DO this[/B]" is probably useful. [*] [B]Complications[/B] This section is gold, and I'm using it tonight. I love the advice to "consider white might happen in an encounter area if the characters were to never enter it." [/LIST] [/QUOTE]

Verification