Encounter Difficulty Guidelines - Downloaded from the Wizards Community, all coding removed by Solauren

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
#1 pauldanielj2 Dec 29, 2014 8:48:15	I wonder if anyone else is finding that the encounter difficulty guidelines per the DMG are not providing encounters of the right degree of difficulty. I've experienced this a few times, and it happened again yesterday. I'll use yesterday as an example. The party was exploring a dungeon and was making a lot of noise (smashing through walls, hammering open doors), so I decided they'd basically alerted the whole area and everything in ear shot was going to come out and attack them. The total encounter ended up being this: 1 bandit captain, CR2, 450 XP 2 guards, CR 1/8, 25 XP 12 cultists, CR 1/8, 25 XP Total encounter XP: 800 XP With 15 monsters, that encounter has a multiplier of x4, which means for encounter-building purposes, that was a 3,200 XP encounter. The party comprised 5 level 3 PCs, so that's a total XP threshold of 2,000 XP for a "deadly" encounter. In other words, that encounter was beyond deadly. But the party really didn't struggle with the encounter much. The wizard used web to stop the enemies from swarming over them, and the rest of the PCs were basically killing at least one cultist or guard per round. The fighter was down to his last few HP by the time the bandit captain went down, but that was it. No one was killed; no one went to 0 HP. They took a short rest afterward and were good to go. And I've found this a number of times. I had 3 level 8 PCs take on a vampire (party "deadly" threshold 6,300 XP compared to a CR 13 10,000 XP monster), and they were able to beat it after a tough fight - but again, no one died; the encounter just wasn't as "deadly" as you'd think a deadly encounter would be. I'm thinking the solution might be to tweak the encounter multiplier table. # monsters / current multiplier / proposed multiplier 1 / x1 / x0.5 2 / x1.5 / x1 3-6 / x2 / x1.5 7-10 / x2.5 / x1.5 11-14 / x3 / x2 15+ / x4 / x2.5
#2 JPS42 Dec 29, 2014 9:07:05	I think it really depends on player experience. I had my level three rogue die to a single skeleton. If the party isn't being too clever and instead is just running head-first into obstacles, then you can be sure that even easy encounters will present a significant challenge. I personally wouldn't change around the system; at least not for use applicable to all. This is because the actual difficulty of an encounter varies from party to party and the DMG guidelines are basically for the average, not-so-clever but not-so-terrible-either party. A lot of it comes down to luck as well.
#3 iserith Dec 29, 2014 9:09:04	With the new encounter building guidelines, it's back to more art than science. I imagine the guidelines in the book are for new DMs and new players with no particularly optimized characters or tactics. I only give them a passing glance before judging the difficulty on my own terms for a particular group of players. Your adjusted numbers might work, but DM judgment rules the day now rather than balanced monsters and XP budgets. Out with the old and in with the older!
#4 DM_HEEGZ Dec 29, 2014 9:21:26	The better my parties begin to tackle combats, the more I optimize enemy creatures. I use max HP, upgrade armor, add shields. You may also try using a higher CR creature or two, and fewer lower CR minions. Also, a mage using an area crowd control spell against the lowest level creatures is always going to simplify things. Smart play by your players leading to an easy encounter isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes they should encounter things much more intelligent and difficult than a group of bandits. I get what you are saying though. I've had encounters go very easily or very hard that I wasn't expecting. I like how the dice figure very prominently in 5ed. I also 100% agree that encounter design in 5ed is more art than science.
#5 OoftaMeg Dec 29, 2014 11:10:03	The threat of multiple opponents is very situational. For example, if the enemies bunch up for the wizard, the party is going to have a much easier time of it than if they were spread out. Another question is how many encounters do you have between short and long rests? I've noticed that if the party only has a couple of tough fights between rests they can really wipe out most encounters. This is really only a problem if your players never feel threatened, sometimes through appropriate use of spells and tactics, they should fair much better than expected. But yeah, I find that the multiplier doesn't work all that well especially if several of the opponents are a lower CR. I'm sure there's a better method for calculating threat level, but my general rule of thumb is to reduce the number of opponents by half if the creatures are less than half the party's level. What was really throwing off your calculation was the 12 cultists. On a similar note, solo creatures are not nearly as much a threat as you would think unless you really set up the environment in favor of the solo (traps, environmenttal effects, etc). Another way to deal with it is to just have reinforcements show up to help - perhaps tipped off by the sound of battle - so that you have waves of enemies not just a single, easily targeted mob.
#6 DaveDash Dec 29, 2014 13:02:32	Part of the problem is bounded accuracy as well. I've had a greater than deadly encounter turn into a cake walk due to the monsters rolling bad on a hold person spell, and the Paladin rolling a crit and one shotting a particular strong enemy. This kind of stuff didn't happen as much in earlier editions (3rd onwards) because landing spells/hits was much harder due to scaling saves/AC (using core books only), and dice rolls weren't as swingy. Some people like this, I'm not a fan. If I want a hard encounter, I want it to be predictably hard. In 5e you just never know how it's going to pan out due to bounded accuracy.
#7 iserith Dec 29, 2014 13:15:44	I prefer to set up situations where difficulty isn't determined by number and CR of monsters. Most players I know can already reliably beat that game without being challenged. So I challenge them in other ways.
#8 AaronOfBarbaria Dec 29, 2014 17:31:08	The encounter building guidelines cannot possibly match every situation and play style, so the developers chose to make some assumptions and aim at those. It apears the intent was to minimize the chances that someone folowing the guidelines would have encounters on their hands which prove too potent for their (probably inexperienced) players. Ramping up is, after all, easier than toning down.
#9 bonethug0108 Dec 29, 2014 20:59:15	One of the biggest weaknesses of the system is using the multiplier with huge numbers of low level monsters. This is especially true if they are under CR 1. In your particular scenario multiplying by two should have been sufficient in determining how tough the fight would be. Party composition also plays a big role. If you were all fighters it likely would have been deadly. One spell caster with an AE spell swings fights with a large number of low level monsters.
#10 Coredump00 Dec 29, 2014 22:44:52	People tend to overlook the last paragraph: When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.
#11 Zalbarthemad Dec 31, 2014 8:50:33	I've said it before and I'll say it again. The difficulty works fine as long as you use the bad guys abilities and a modicum of tactics. Goblins, contrary to every single campaign I've played in, do not just rush in blindly to take on the PC's mano-a-mano. Fire bow, disengage, hide... fire from cover, move away again. Hobgoblins will form ranks with the front line taking the dodge action, while flankers throw javelins. I'm not saying you need to do this for everthing, but you can make the encounter as difficult as you want based on how effective the PCs are.
#12 Noon Dec 31, 2014 15:58:46	I think you're missing the intent, OP. The ratings are for a 'I want to avoid deadly encounters' sort of intent. With such an intent a few false positives (it showing deadly when it isn't) is okay. If you WANT to make deadly fights, then false positives (showing deadly when it isn't) is of course going to seem a problem.

Post/Author/DateTime

Post

pauldanielj2

Dec 29, 2014 8:48:15

I wonder if anyone else is finding that the encounter difficulty guidelines per the DMG are not providing encounters of the right degree of difficulty. I've experienced this a few times, and it happened again yesterday. I'll use yesterday as an example.

The party was exploring a dungeon and was making a lot of noise (smashing through walls, hammering open doors), so I decided they'd basically alerted the whole area and everything in ear shot was going to come out and attack them. The total encounter ended up being this:

1 bandit captain, CR2, 450 XP

2 guards, CR 1/8, 25 XP

12 cultists, CR 1/8, 25 XP

Total encounter XP: 800 XP

With 15 monsters, that encounter has a multiplier of x4, which means for encounter-building purposes, that was a 3,200 XP encounter. The party comprised 5 level 3 PCs, so that's a total XP threshold of 2,000 XP for a "deadly" encounter. In other words, that encounter was beyond deadly.

But the party really didn't struggle with the encounter much. The wizard used web to stop the enemies from swarming over them, and the rest of the PCs were basically killing at least one cultist or guard per round. The fighter was down to his last few HP by the time the bandit captain went down, but that was it. No one was killed; no one went to 0 HP. They took a short rest afterward and were good to go.

And I've found this a number of times. I had 3 level 8 PCs take on a vampire (party "deadly" threshold 6,300 XP compared to a CR 13 10,000 XP monster), and they were able to beat it after a tough fight - but again, no one died; the encounter just wasn't as "deadly" as you'd think a deadly encounter would be.

I'm thinking the solution might be to tweak the encounter multiplier table.

# monsters / current multiplier / proposed multiplier

1 / x1 / x0.5

2 / x1.5 / x1

3-6 / x2 / x1.5

7-10 / x2.5 / x1.5

11-14 / x3 / x2

15+ / x4 / x2.5

JPS42

Dec 29, 2014 9:07:05

I think it really depends on player experience. I had my level three rogue die to a single skeleton. If the party isn't being too clever and instead is just running head-first into obstacles, then you can be sure that even easy encounters will present a significant challenge. I personally wouldn't change around the system; at least not for use applicable to all. This is because the actual difficulty of an encounter varies from party to party and the DMG guidelines are basically for the average, not-so-clever but not-so-terrible-either party. A lot of it comes down to luck as well.

iserith

Dec 29, 2014 9:09:04

With the new encounter building guidelines, it's back to more art than science. I imagine the guidelines in the book are for new DMs and new players with no particularly optimized characters or tactics. I only give them a passing glance before judging the difficulty on my own terms for a particular group of players. Your adjusted numbers might work, but DM judgment rules the day now rather than balanced monsters and XP budgets. Out with the old and in with the older!

DM_HEEGZ

Dec 29, 2014 9:21:26

The better my parties begin to tackle combats, the more I optimize enemy creatures. I use max HP, upgrade armor, add shields. You may also try using a higher CR creature or two, and fewer lower CR minions. Also, a mage using an area crowd control spell against the lowest level creatures is always going to simplify things. Smart play by your players leading to an easy encounter isn't always a bad thing. Sometimes they should encounter things much more intelligent and difficult than a group of bandits. I get what you are saying though. I've had encounters go very easily or very hard that I wasn't expecting. I like how the dice figure very prominently in 5ed. I also 100% agree that encounter design in 5ed is more art than science.

OoftaMeg

Dec 29, 2014 11:10:03

The threat of multiple opponents is very situational. For example, if the enemies bunch up for the wizard, the party is going to have a much easier time of it than if they were spread out.

Another question is how many encounters do you have between short and long rests? I've noticed that if the party only has a couple of tough fights between rests they can really wipe out most encounters.

This is really only a problem if your players never feel threatened, sometimes through appropriate use of spells and tactics, they should fair much better than expected.

But yeah, I find that the multiplier doesn't work all that well especially if several of the opponents are a lower CR. I'm sure there's a better method for calculating threat level, but my general rule of thumb is to reduce the number of opponents by half if the creatures are less than half the party's level. What was really throwing off your calculation was the 12 cultists.

On a similar note, solo creatures are not nearly as much a threat as you would think unless you really set up the environment in favor of the solo (traps, environmenttal effects, etc).

Another way to deal with it is to just have reinforcements show up to help - perhaps tipped off by the sound of battle - so that you have waves of enemies not just a single, easily targeted mob.

DaveDash

Dec 29, 2014 13:02:32

Part of the problem is bounded accuracy as well. I've had a greater than deadly encounter turn into a cake walk due to the monsters rolling bad on a hold person spell, and the Paladin rolling a crit and one shotting a particular strong enemy.
This kind of stuff didn't happen as much in earlier editions (3rd onwards) because landing spells/hits was much harder due to scaling saves/AC (using core books only), and dice rolls weren't as swingy.
Some people like this, I'm not a fan. If I want a hard encounter, I want it to be predictably hard. In 5e you just never know how it's going to pan out due to bounded accuracy.

iserith

Dec 29, 2014 13:15:44

I prefer to set up situations where difficulty isn't determined by number and CR of monsters. Most players I know can already reliably beat that game without being challenged. So I challenge them in other ways.

AaronOfBarbaria

Dec 29, 2014 17:31:08

The encounter building guidelines cannot possibly match every situation and play style, so the developers chose to make some assumptions and aim at those. It apears the intent was to minimize the chances that someone folowing the guidelines would have encounters on their hands which prove too potent for their (probably inexperienced) players. Ramping up is, after all, easier than toning down.

bonethug0108

Dec 29, 2014 20:59:15

One of the biggest weaknesses of the system is using the multiplier with huge numbers of low level monsters. This is especially true if they are under CR 1. In your particular scenario multiplying by two should have been sufficient in determining how tough the fight would be. Party composition also plays a big role. If you were all fighters it likely would have been deadly. One spell caster with an AE spell swings fights with a large number of low level monsters.

#10

Coredump00

Dec 29, 2014 22:44:52

People tend to overlook the last paragraph:

When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.

#11

Zalbarthemad

Dec 31, 2014 8:50:33

I've said it before and I'll say it again. The difficulty works fine as long as you use the bad guys abilities and a modicum of tactics.

Goblins, contrary to every single campaign I've played in, do not just rush in blindly to take on the PC's mano-a-mano. Fire bow, disengage, hide... fire from cover, move away again. Hobgoblins will form ranks with the front line taking the dodge action, while flankers throw javelins. I'm not saying you need to do this for everthing, but you can make the encounter as difficult as you want based on how effective the PCs are.

#12

Noon

Dec 31, 2014 15:58:46

I think you're missing the intent, OP.

The ratings are for a 'I want to avoid deadly encounters' sort of intent. With such an intent a few false positives (it showing deadly when it isn't) is okay.

If you WANT to make deadly fights, then false positives (showing deadly when it isn't) is of course going to seem a problem.