D&D General Why Unbalanced Combat Encounters Can Enhance Your Dungeons & Dragons Experience

[EzekielRaiden]

1. The "system" for determining difficulty of a challenge is close enough in my view for the average party with average players. It's not perfect, sure, but nothing will be because

It doesn't need to be perfect, but it can be much, much better. Not being able to reach perfection is not an excuse for not trying harder.

2. The level of difficulty of an encounter can change the moment the players start making decisions that impact it, and no system can account for all of those variables. So

You don't need to account for all of them. Just enough of them. Throwing up your hands and saying "well, we can't do infinite things, so there's no point in even trying to do any things" is clearly not the right answer.

3. Have a plan for what to do if PCs die (e.g. backup characters) and a system in place for resolving the PCs' retreat (e.g. chase rules from the DMG).

Understand and do these things and play on.

Or, as an alternative: have those things and a reasonably-comprehensive (but self-aware of its limits) system.

The fact that you might wander off the map is not a good reason to abandon cartography.

 

[iserith]

Another way to think about it is that "story" is a byproduct. We play adventurers boldly confronting deadly perils in worlds of swords and sorcery, and whatever happens while doing that is "the story." A character dying along the way is just part of that "story." As it says in the PHB:

"Sometimes an adventurer might come to a grisly end, torn apart by ferocious monsters or done in by a nefarious villain... The group might fail to complete an adventure successfully, but if everyone had a good time and created a memorable story, they all win."

If the DM sets up the game in such a way that The Point is to experience a given plot with the same characters that began the campaign, then it's best to just take death off the table in my view. Otherwise, death is just another turn in the emergent story.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Part of me thinks there should be a Analysis skill/action to gauge the level of enemies.

Would give Investigation an actual purpose, independent of Perception.

 

[iserith]

It doesn't need to be perfect, but it can be much, much better. Not being able to reach perfection is not an excuse for not trying harder.

It's good enough in my view. No need to let the perfect be the enemy of the good here.

You don't need to account for all of them. Just enough of them. Throwing up your hands and saying "well, we can't do infinite things, so there's no point in even trying to do any things" is clearly not the right answer.

Except they did do some things and it's in the monster and encounter design and CR system which, again, is good enough.

Or, as an alternative: have those things and a reasonably-comprehensive (but self-aware of its limits) system.

The fact that you might wander off the map is not a good reason to abandon cartography.

In my opinion, we have that already.

 

[MNblockhead]

Part of me thinks there should be a Analysis skill/action to gauge the level of enemies.

Insight check?

 

[iserith]

Insight check?

That or Intelligence (Investigation) or any of the skills like Arcana, History, Nature, or Religion might be used to resolve a task to determine the level of threat a monster or NPC possesses. Like anything else, just tell the DM what you want to do (e.g. "determine whether this guy can kick our butts easily") and how you do it (e.g. "make deductions based on clues like his armor, weapons, local reputation or how he carries himself"), and they'll decide if you succeed, fail, or whether an ability check is called for. No need for additional rules here - it's already baked in.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

In my opinion, we have that already.

This does not square well with the fact that the most common advice I have seen regarding encounter design CR is "just eyeball it, you'll probably do better anyway," and the fact that actual WotC CRs rarely line up properly. The whole system is completely ad-hoc, barely held together and definitely not consistent. We should expect better.

And, again, it doesn't need to be PERFECT in order to get BETTER. It would be really quite nice if you'd stop putting the word perfect in my mouth when I have explicitly and repeatedly rejected the need or even search for perfection.

 

[iserith]

This does not square well with the fact that the most common advice I have seen regarding encounter design CR is "just eyeball it, you'll probably do better anyway," and the fact that actual WotC CRs rarely line up properly. The whole system is completely ad-hoc, barely held together and definitely not consistent. We should expect better.

And, again, it doesn't need to be PERFECT in order to get BETTER. It would be really quite nice if you'd stop putting the word perfect in my mouth when I have explicitly and repeatedly rejected the need or even search for perfection.

I still think it's good enough, and the fact that it can be eyeballed is a point in its favor, not a criticism in my view.

 

[BookTenTiger]

This does not square well with the fact that the most common advice I have seen regarding encounter design CR is "just eyeball it, you'll probably do better anyway," and the fact that actual WotC CRs rarely line up properly. The whole system is completely ad-hoc, barely held together and definitely not consistent. We should expect better.

And, again, it doesn't need to be PERFECT in order to get BETTER. It would be really quite nice if you'd stop putting the word perfect in my mouth when I have explicitly and repeatedly rejected the need or even search for perfection.

I feel like this thread is about what DM's can do in their individual games, rather than trying to change the game system. I notice a lot of your posts are about the system, while others are posting about what individuals can do.

 

[Minigiant]

Would give Investigation an actual purpose, independent of Perception.

Insight check?

Good idea if D&D decides to give each skill an applicable combat based action.