Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="FormerlyHemlock" data-source="post: 6803197" data-attributes="member: 6787650">The key problem here is the Easy/Moderate/Hard/Deadly guidelines are such bad predictors as to be essentially useless. Tony is right that some people might find value in encounter guidelines; but the current guidelines are too simplistic to add value.I spent today working on my combat simulator web app for quickly running trial combats. It's barely even started, nowhere even close to done, but part of the motivation is to give DMs tools for really predicting the difficulty of an encounter. (E.g. &quot;when those displacer beasts randomly target PCs instead of charging for the closest target, your typical 7th level party will expand an average of 8 spell points and lose 44 HP if the displacer beasts surround them at the start of combat. Six of these combats in a row will bring the party close to zero resources; eight of them in a row will usually kill them&quot;.)</blockquote>

[QUOTE="FormerlyHemlock, post: 6803197, member: 6787650"] The key problem here is the Easy/Moderate/Hard/Deadly guidelines are such bad predictors as to be essentially useless. Tony is right that some people might find value in encounter guidelines; but the current guidelines are too simplistic to add value. I spent today working on my combat simulator web app for quickly running trial combats. It's barely even started, nowhere even close to done, but part of the motivation is to give DMs tools for really predicting the difficulty of an encounter. (E.g. "when those displacer beasts randomly target PCs instead of charging for the closest target, your typical 7th level party will expand an average of 8 spell points and lose 44 HP if the displacer beasts surround them at the start of combat. Six of these combats in a row will bring the party close to zero resources; eight of them in a row will usually kill them".) [/QUOTE]

Verification