Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Presents Alternative Encounter Building Guidelines
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="pemerton" data-source="post: 7701628" data-attributes="member: 42582"><p>Can you tell me where this <strong>assumption</strong> is stated?</p><p></p><p>To put it another way: it is one thing to build a system so that it is able to perform within certain parameters. It is another to build it with the goal being to fit within, or be balanced solely within, those parameters.</p><p></p><p>For instance, here is a run-down of an "adventuring day" from my 4e game, when the PCs were mid-paragon:</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>It's not a coincidence that 4e is very forgiving/flexible vis-a-vis the length of the adventuring day: the amount of mechanical capacity a 4e PC can bring to bear in a given interval between short rests is only loosely related to the amount of mechanical capacity that PC can bring to bear in a given interval between extended rests. This is because most "oomph" comes from encounter powers (and other encounter-based resources, like action points); and the significant cap on hit point recovery tends to be the availability of healing powers rather than of healing surges.</p><p></p><p>This means that an encounter can be very challenging and dramatic even if it does not consume many "daily" resources (eg because the terrain, or the manoeuvrability of an opponent, or the fictional context of a skill challenge, made it difficult for the players, via their PCs, to bring their abilities to bear upon the situation).</p><p></p><p>The same phenomenon is also what makes mechanical balance relatively easy to measure and achieve: because no significant allowance needs to be made for the difference between nova-ing or not. (At least, not significant compared to AD&D, 3E or 5e.)</p><p></p><p>Which means that the encounter-building guidelines are just as useful in the context of the "adventuring day" that I just posted, or in the context of an adventuring day in which only a handful of encounters takes place. They don't need to rest on any assumption about 3 vs 5 vs (by my count of the above) 9 encounters at or around the PC's level between extended rests.</p><p></p><p>I can't comment on 3E, with which I have only limited experience.</p><p></p><p>As for 4e and "lateral thinking", you need to tell me what you mean by "lateral thinking": some people think that AD&D players using burning oil to do mass AoE damage (3d6 at 1st level) is lateral thinking; I think of it as standard operating procedure. I don't know whether you regard a 4e fighter leaping onto the back of a flying dragon so as to gain OAs when it moves and thereby knock it prone thus driving it to the ground (in the fiction, pinning a wing) as "lateral thinking" or not - but to me that is as "creative" or "lateral" as using oil or smoke or the other standard techniques for dealing with the Keep; or the flying thief on a rope to deal with the ToH.</p><p></p><p>You seem to have a much lower threshold for calling something "a rule" than I do.</p><p></p><p>Page 58 of the 4e DMG introduces those examples thus:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Here are templates you can fill in with monsters of your own choosing that combine different roles and levels into dynamic encounters. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The example encounters given in this section serve to illustrate the sorts of adversaries you can produce from the creatures in the <em>Monster Manual</em>.</p><p></p><p>To me that doesn't read like a rule. They're examples. There are other examples in the MM that don't fit any of these templates. (For example, the first suggested encounter in the 4e MM is on p 9. It suggests 1 aboleth slime mage (level 17 artillery), 2 aboleth lashers (level 17 brute) and 9 kuo-toa guards (level 16 minion). This does not fit any of the DMG templates.)</p><p></p><p>Pages 56 and 67 do not set out any "by-the-book" encounters either. They give advice on correlating encounter level to difficulty:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party’s level.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">A standard encounter is of the party’s level, or one level higher.</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party’s level.</p><p></p><p>There is no<strong> prescription </strong>as to what level encounters a GM should use. What I regard as the key advice is found on pp 56, 101 and 104:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">Building an encounter is a matter of choosing threats appropriate to the characters and combining them in interesting and challenging ways. . . . Encounter-building is a mixture of art and science as you combine these threats together. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Know the characters’ capabilities so you can build encounters that test those resources. . . . Know what the characters are capable of, and then design to reward the clever use of those powers. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">When you’re building an adventure, try to vary the encounters you include, including combat and noncombat challenges, easy and difficult encounters, a variety of settings and monsters, and situations that appeal to your players’ different personalities and motivations. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">An encounter with five different kinds of monsters is complex for the players and for you, so mix those up with wolf pack encounters (a group made up of a single</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">kind of monster; see page 59 in Chapter 4) as well as more straightforward encounter types. . . .</p><p></p><p>The specific <strong>advice</strong> on encounter difficulty is found on pp 56-7 and 104:</p><p></p><p style="margin-left: 20px">You can offer your players a greater challenge or an easier time by setting your encounter level two or three levels higher or one or two levels lower than the party’s level. It’s a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure, just as you vary other elements of encounters to keep things interesting . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">The majority of the encounters in an adventure should be moderate difficulty—challenging but not overwhelming, falling right about the party’s level or one higher. . . .</p> <p style="margin-left: 20px"></p> <p style="margin-left: 20px">Hard encounters are two to three levels above the party, and can include monsters that are five to seven levels above the characters. These encounters really test the characters’ resources, and might force them to take an extended rest at the end. They also bring a greater feeling of accomplishment, though, so make sure to include about one such encounter per character level.</p><p></p><p>My own experience is that, at tiers above Heroic, this advice is overly conservative; particularly at Epic tier. </p><p></p><p>There is no <em>rule</em> that caps encounters at 4 or fewer levels above the party's level. And I suspect that I'm not the only GM who has found that, at epic tier, level +6 to level +8 makes for a suitably climactic combat encounter.</p><p></p><p>That said, the context of an encounter can be very significant. As described <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358025-Session-Report-Against-the-(Frost)-Giants" target="_blank">here</a>, when I ran G2 in my 4e game a 27th level dragon encounter for 26th level PCs was more challenging than some higher-level encounters, because the aerial circumstances favoured the dragon over the PCs in their Thundercloud Tower.</p><p></p><p>To me, this reinforces my view that what makes encounters interesting and memorable is not the encounter level per se, but the fiction, which - at least in 4e, given the nature of PC building and action resolution in the system - will include the clever stratagems and surprises pulled out by the players (via their PCs) to try and get the better of the situation.</p><p></p><p>One encounter that I remember pretty well despite GMing it years ago involved <a href="http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?301282-Actual-play-examples-balance-between-fiction-and-mechanics/page5&p=5463008&viewfull=1#post5463008" target="_blank">5 level 10 PCs against a single cave bear</a>. I remember it because the players decided to have their PCs tame, rather than kill, the bear; and the player who initiated that approach said, at the end, "I feel good about not having killed that bear".</p><p></p><p>When I try to think of the last boring encounter that resulted from my use of the 4e encounter-building guidelines, I have a lot of trouble. Maybe a one-on-one arena battle between a PC and an ogre, around 4 years ago.</p><p></p><p>If those are your ideas of a "standard" encounter than no wonder they're not memorable! I haven't had that fight a dozen times. I've never run an encounter like that in 8 years of GMing 4e.</p><p></p><p>I've followed the key advice that I identified above (plus advice on terrain, stakes etc found in the two DMGs), and that has given me pretty good results.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="pemerton, post: 7701628, member: 42582"] Can you tell me where this [B]assumption[/B] is stated? To put it another way: it is one thing to build a system so that it is able to perform within certain parameters. It is another to build it with the goal being to fit within, or be balanced solely within, those parameters. For instance, here is a run-down of an "adventuring day" from my 4e game, when the PCs were mid-paragon: It's not a coincidence that 4e is very forgiving/flexible vis-a-vis the length of the adventuring day: the amount of mechanical capacity a 4e PC can bring to bear in a given interval between short rests is only loosely related to the amount of mechanical capacity that PC can bring to bear in a given interval between extended rests. This is because most "oomph" comes from encounter powers (and other encounter-based resources, like action points); and the significant cap on hit point recovery tends to be the availability of healing powers rather than of healing surges. This means that an encounter can be very challenging and dramatic even if it does not consume many "daily" resources (eg because the terrain, or the manoeuvrability of an opponent, or the fictional context of a skill challenge, made it difficult for the players, via their PCs, to bring their abilities to bear upon the situation). The same phenomenon is also what makes mechanical balance relatively easy to measure and achieve: because no significant allowance needs to be made for the difference between nova-ing or not. (At least, not significant compared to AD&D, 3E or 5e.) Which means that the encounter-building guidelines are just as useful in the context of the "adventuring day" that I just posted, or in the context of an adventuring day in which only a handful of encounters takes place. They don't need to rest on any assumption about 3 vs 5 vs (by my count of the above) 9 encounters at or around the PC's level between extended rests. I can't comment on 3E, with which I have only limited experience. As for 4e and "lateral thinking", you need to tell me what you mean by "lateral thinking": some people think that AD&D players using burning oil to do mass AoE damage (3d6 at 1st level) is lateral thinking; I think of it as standard operating procedure. I don't know whether you regard a 4e fighter leaping onto the back of a flying dragon so as to gain OAs when it moves and thereby knock it prone thus driving it to the ground (in the fiction, pinning a wing) as "lateral thinking" or not - but to me that is as "creative" or "lateral" as using oil or smoke or the other standard techniques for dealing with the Keep; or the flying thief on a rope to deal with the ToH. You seem to have a much lower threshold for calling something "a rule" than I do. Page 58 of the 4e DMG introduces those examples thus: [indent]Here are templates you can fill in with monsters of your own choosing that combine different roles and levels into dynamic encounters. . . . The example encounters given in this section serve to illustrate the sorts of adversaries you can produce from the creatures in the [I]Monster Manual[/I].[/indent] To me that doesn't read like a rule. They're examples. There are other examples in the MM that don't fit any of these templates. (For example, the first suggested encounter in the 4e MM is on p 9. It suggests 1 aboleth slime mage (level 17 artillery), 2 aboleth lashers (level 17 brute) and 9 kuo-toa guards (level 16 minion). This does not fit any of the DMG templates.) Pages 56 and 67 do not set out any "by-the-book" encounters either. They give advice on correlating encounter level to difficulty: [indent]An easy encounter is one or two levels lower than the party’s level. A standard encounter is of the party’s level, or one level higher. A hard encounter is two to four levels higher than the party’s level.[/indent] There is no[B] prescription [/B]as to what level encounters a GM should use. What I regard as the key advice is found on pp 56, 101 and 104: [indent]Building an encounter is a matter of choosing threats appropriate to the characters and combining them in interesting and challenging ways. . . . Encounter-building is a mixture of art and science as you combine these threats together. . . . Know the characters’ capabilities so you can build encounters that test those resources. . . . Know what the characters are capable of, and then design to reward the clever use of those powers. . . . When you’re building an adventure, try to vary the encounters you include, including combat and noncombat challenges, easy and difficult encounters, a variety of settings and monsters, and situations that appeal to your players’ different personalities and motivations. . . . An encounter with five different kinds of monsters is complex for the players and for you, so mix those up with wolf pack encounters (a group made up of a single kind of monster; see page 59 in Chapter 4) as well as more straightforward encounter types. . . .[/indent] The specific [B]advice[/B] on encounter difficulty is found on pp 56-7 and 104: [indent]You can offer your players a greater challenge or an easier time by setting your encounter level two or three levels higher or one or two levels lower than the party’s level. It’s a good idea to vary the difficulty of your encounters over the course of an adventure, just as you vary other elements of encounters to keep things interesting . . . The majority of the encounters in an adventure should be moderate difficulty—challenging but not overwhelming, falling right about the party’s level or one higher. . . . Hard encounters are two to three levels above the party, and can include monsters that are five to seven levels above the characters. These encounters really test the characters’ resources, and might force them to take an extended rest at the end. They also bring a greater feeling of accomplishment, though, so make sure to include about one such encounter per character level.[/indent] My own experience is that, at tiers above Heroic, this advice is overly conservative; particularly at Epic tier. There is no [I]rule[/I] that caps encounters at 4 or fewer levels above the party's level. And I suspect that I'm not the only GM who has found that, at epic tier, level +6 to level +8 makes for a suitably climactic combat encounter. That said, the context of an encounter can be very significant. As described [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?358025-Session-Report-Against-the-(Frost)-Giants]here[/url], when I ran G2 in my 4e game a 27th level dragon encounter for 26th level PCs was more challenging than some higher-level encounters, because the aerial circumstances favoured the dragon over the PCs in their Thundercloud Tower. To me, this reinforces my view that what makes encounters interesting and memorable is not the encounter level per se, but the fiction, which - at least in 4e, given the nature of PC building and action resolution in the system - will include the clever stratagems and surprises pulled out by the players (via their PCs) to try and get the better of the situation. One encounter that I remember pretty well despite GMing it years ago involved [url=http://www.enworld.org/forum/showthread.php?301282-Actual-play-examples-balance-between-fiction-and-mechanics/page5&p=5463008&viewfull=1#post5463008]5 level 10 PCs against a single cave bear[/url]. I remember it because the players decided to have their PCs tame, rather than kill, the bear; and the player who initiated that approach said, at the end, "I feel good about not having killed that bear". When I try to think of the last boring encounter that resulted from my use of the 4e encounter-building guidelines, I have a lot of trouble. Maybe a one-on-one arena battle between a PC and an ogre, around 4 years ago. If those are your ideas of a "standard" encounter than no wonder they're not memorable! I haven't had that fight a dozen times. I've never run an encounter like that in 8 years of GMing 4e. I've followed the key advice that I identified above (plus advice on terrain, stakes etc found in the two DMGs), and that has given me pretty good results. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Unearthed Arcana Presents Alternative Encounter Building Guidelines
Top