I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits. The rules aren't broken. The game (and statistics) don't allow for large numbers of attackers due to the action economy.
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits. The rules aren't broken. The game (and statistics) don't allow for large numbers of attackers due to the action economy.
The book declaring it broken doesn't mean that it's not broken. In with Pantagruel on this one - it would be good if they produced a system that lets you account for group sizes.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits.
I just used 80 because extremes make the point more easily than smaller numbers. Just using 10x pirate is still 110 combined dpr and 330 combined hp, and I would hope 10 monsters isn't considered excessive...
Note that it isn't that hard to get the equivalent of 2014 group size scaling without the group size rule -- you just need to change both the xp values and the xp budgets. For example (not carried through to higher level)
CR 0 xp value is now 25. CR 1/8 is now 50. CR 1/4 is now 80. CR 1/2 is now 125. CR 1 remains 200. Some sample encounters at about 200:
CR 0 x8 (200). In 2014 that was 80 base, 200 adjusted.
CR 1/8 x4 (200). In 2014 that was 100 base, 200 adjusted.
CR 1/4 + CR 1/8 x2 + CR 0 (205). In 2014 that was 110 base, 220 adjusted.
CR 1/2 + CR 1/4 (205). In 2014 that was 150 base, 225 adjusted.
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits. The rules aren't broken. The game (and statistics) don't allow for large numbers of attackers due to the action economy.
The book declaring it broken doesn't mean that it's not broken. In with Pantagruel on this one - it would be good if they produced a system that lets you account for group sizes.
Here is the thing. You can have a CR 0 goblin with 1 hp and does 1 damage and if you put a party of 5 level 20 PCs against 30,000 of those goblins, its still a TPK and would be "broken". The point is that regardless of what you do, large numbers of enemies will always be broken because of statistics and the action economy and if you don't want that you need a completely different game.
Also important to remember lower level creatures should have a lot harder time hitting a higher level party. But enough of them together is still going to tpk the party. That is just how it works and there isn't any encounter building guidelines that are going to get you around that. Just be smart with the number of monsters that you are using against the party.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits.
I just used 80 because extremes make the point more easily than smaller numbers. Just using 10x pirate is still 110 combined dpr and 330 combined hp, and I would hope 10 monsters isn't considered excessive...
Note that it isn't that hard to get the equivalent of 2014 group size scaling without the group size rule -- you just need to change both the xp values and the xp budgets. For example (not carried through to higher level)
CR 0 xp value is now 25. CR 1/8 is now 50. CR 1/4 is now 80. CR 1/2 is now 125. CR 1 remains 200. Some sample encounters at about 200:
CR 0 x8 (200). In 2014 that was 80 base, 200 adjusted.
CR 1/8 x4 (200). In 2014 that was 100 base, 200 adjusted.
CR 1/4 + CR 1/8 x2 + CR 0 (205). In 2014 that was 110 base, 220 adjusted.
CR 1/2 + CR 1/4 (205). In 2014 that was 150 base, 225 adjusted.
CR 1
From my experience unless you are throwing 8 encounters per day at the party, the encounter building guidelines are perfectly fine and are too weak if you stay at 1-3 encounters. I threw two Hard encounters at my 7th level party and they could have handled at least two more (with another short rest or two). The rules aren't broken, you just can't use large numbers of enemies. 10 enemies is too many if you have 2 players and not enough if you have 8 players. Its impossible to give guidance on how many enemies is too many because its directly related to the number of players you have. 8 players can handle a much higher magnitude of monsters that 5 players. (Fireball can even change those numbers, I had like 30 kobolds + 5 actual combatants which was enough to tpk the party of 4, but I knew the warlock had fireball and would easily kill 3/4 of those goblins if he used both his spells as fireballs)
Here is the thing. You can have a CR 0 goblin with 1 hp and does 1 damage and if you put a party of 5 level 20 PCs against 30,000 of those goblins, its still a TPK and would be "broken".
Here's the thing: a TPK isn't broken. The problem isn't that 80 bandits can kill a 5th level party; they'd have done that in 2014 too. The problem is that 80 bandits are considered a Low difficulty encounter (in 2014, it's 8,000 adjusted xp, and given that the Deadly threshold starts at 4,400, no-one is going to be surprised if it turns out to be a TPK).
The whole point of an encounter building system is that you can use it to gauge the difficulty of an encounter. It's always going to be flawed, there's too many other factors in how an encounter plays out to think a hard and fast simple point rule will give a reliable answer, but it should at least work for ordinary situations, and the 2024 version doesn't.
They should've at least put in a sideblock that basically says 'Do the math', meaning multiply the damage output of a creature by the longevity of the total creatures, then the next one's by all but the original's longevity, etc. (this would have to be repeated to find upper and lower boundaries for threat level)
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
They should've at least put in a sideblock that basically says 'Do the math', meaning multiply the damage output of a creature by the longevity of the total creatures, then the next one's by all but the original's longevity, etc. (this would have to be repeated to find upper and lower boundaries for threat level)
Here's the thing: xp value for a single creature in 5e is roughly (damage output) * (total hit points). Given the 'adventuring day' concept in 2014, this makes sense -- a monster with 2x the damage output per round and 2x the hit points presumably lives for twice as many rounds, and thus does 4x as much damage to the party, and if all you're interested in is resource depletion, that works.
If you apply that logic to groups of monsters, well, a group of 2 monsters has 2x the damage output and also 2x the hit points of a single monster, and thus should be worth 4x as much as a single monster. Except for three factors
Multi-monster damage output drops as it takes damage.
Multiple monsters are particularly susceptible to area attacks.
Multiple monsters may not all be able to engage the PCs at the same time, particularly for melee creatures, particularly if they are large.
This means the effects of multiple monsters is more than linear, but less than quadratic. To a large degree RPG combat obeys Lanchester's Laws, but at somewhere between the linear law and the square law. 2014 basically used an exponent of 1.5 (a fairly common approximation), though not a perfect match due to rounding.
If you're willing to get rid of the daily budget (which 2024 has done), it is possible to achieve the same results without the group size modifier, it just requires better math skills than the 5e D&D team has ever demonstrated.
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits. The rules aren't broken. The game (and statistics) don't allow for large numbers of attackers due to the action economy.
The book declaring it broken doesn't mean that it's not broken. In with Pantagruel on this one - it would be good if they produced a system that lets you account for group sizes.
Here is the thing. You can have a CR 0 goblin with 1 hp and does 1 damage and if you put a party of 5 level 20 PCs against 30,000 of those goblins, its still a TPK and would be "broken". The point is that regardless of what you do, large numbers of enemies will always be broken because of statistics and the action economy and if you don't want that you need a completely different game.
Also important to remember lower level creatures should have a lot harder time hitting a higher level party. But enough of them together is still going to tpk the party. That is just how it works and there isn't any encounter building guidelines that are going to get you around that. Just be smart with the number of monsters that you are using against the party.
All I conclude from you talking about dice is that you don't understand the point being made.
The CR system claims to provide a guide to allow you to understand how difficult an encounter is likely to be. That the dice deities can interfere with that is beside the point - that problem is baked into the caveats of the concept. The point is that the new system cannot handle or even help you to handle how increased numbers affect the encounter.
Do you know what did at least try to help you account for numbers? The old CR system. None of it was perfect (not least because it operated on premises that not even WotC adhered to), but the underlying ideas were fine and helpful. It provided enough structure for you to get on your feet, get a feel for what you could do and how to adjust things, and let new DMs do things. By removing the mechanics for adjusting for numbers, they're making it harder for new DMs to get in the game. I imagine I'll be sharing the mechanics from the '14DMG so new DMs at least have something.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
They should've at least put in a sideblock that basically says 'Do the math', meaning multiply the damage output of a creature by the longevity of the total creatures, then the next one's by all but the original's longevity, etc. (this would have to be repeated to find upper and lower boundaries for threat level)
Here's the thing: xp value for a single creature in 5e is roughly (damage output) * (total hit points). Given the 'adventuring day' concept in 2014, this makes sense -- a monster with 2x the damage output per round and 2x the hit points presumably lives for twice as many rounds, and thus does 4x as much damage to the party, and if all you're interested in is resource depletion, that works.
If you apply that logic to groups of monsters, well, a group of 2 monsters has 2x the damage output and also 2x the hit points of a single monster, and thus should be worth 4x as much as a single monster. Except for three factors
Multi-monster damage output drops as it takes damage.
Multiple monsters are particularly susceptible to area attacks.
Multiple monsters may not all be able to engage the PCs at the same time, particularly for melee creatures, particularly if they are large.
This means the effects of multiple monsters is more than linear, but less than quadratic. To a large degree RPG combat obeys Lanchester's Laws, but at somewhere between the linear law and the square law. 2014 basically used an exponent of 1.5 (a fairly common approximation), though not a perfect match due to rounding.
If you're willing to get rid of the daily budget (which 2024 has done), it is possible to achieve the same results without the group size modifier, it just requires better math skills than the 5e D&D team has ever demonstrated.
A better function is using a logarithmic scaling, such that when the ratio of combatants is at least 3:1 the challenge rate is multiplied by half the offset of odds. Factoring in multi-target AoE ‘s and effects like pact tactics also swing the rate scale in favor of the combatants that have the greater use of those strategies.
That’s why when the party outnumbers the enemy the combats are easier, depending on the initial threat, and when the enemy outnumbers the party the combats get more difficult and at a certain threshold, party TPK becomes a reality.
2014 compensated for this by using an odds multiplier, and factoring in multi-target effects and single target mobbing. 2024 tries to cut the extra math out, but it still presents the problem of building an encounter that might be heavily off-balanced by means of sheer numbers against.
Ether way you try to slice it, the gauge of how difficult an encounter can be is just too dynamic for a single function of party of X number of PC’s vs Z number of opponents equaling Y level of challenge.
They should've at least put in a sideblock that basically says 'Do the math', meaning multiply the damage output of a creature by the longevity of the total creatures, then the next one's by all but the original's longevity, etc. (this would have to be repeated to find upper and lower boundaries for threat level)
Here's the thing: xp value for a single creature in 5e is roughly (damage output) * (total hit points). Given the 'adventuring day' concept in 2014, this makes sense -- a monster with 2x the damage output per round and 2x the hit points presumably lives for twice as many rounds, and thus does 4x as much damage to the party, and if all you're interested in is resource depletion, that works.
If you apply that logic to groups of monsters, well, a group of 2 monsters has 2x the damage output and also 2x the hit points of a single monster, and thus should be worth 4x as much as a single monster. Except for three factors
Multi-monster damage output drops as it takes damage.
Multiple monsters are particularly susceptible to area attacks.
Multiple monsters may not all be able to engage the PCs at the same time, particularly for melee creatures, particularly if they are large.
This means the effects of multiple monsters is more than linear, but less than quadratic. To a large degree RPG combat obeys Lanchester's Laws, but at somewhere between the linear law and the square law. 2014 basically used an exponent of 1.5 (a fairly common approximation), though not a perfect match due to rounding.
If you're willing to get rid of the daily budget (which 2024 has done), it is possible to achieve the same results without the group size modifier, it just requires better math skills than the 5e D&D team has ever demonstrated.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. For one thing, I recognize that hit points do not directly correlate with longevity, which is why I wrote longevity and not hit points (longevity being number of rounds a monster lasts). Additionally, I did not include the original monster's longevity in the calculation for the second's total damage, accounting for the decrease in dpr as monsters die.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"Nothing goes over my head. My reflexes are to fast: I would catch it."
"I cannot comment on an ongoing investigation."
"Well of course I know that. What else is there? A kitten?"
"You'd like to think that, Wouldn't you?"
"A duck."
"What do you mean? An African or European swallow?"
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
I can use that budget on a Fire Elemental, backed up with, say, a Imp. Combined damage output is around 45 base, against ACs probably in the 16-20 range depending on build for expected damage 23-30 , combined hp is 114.
I can also us that budget on 80xbandit. Combined damage output is 360 base, against AC 16-20 that's expected damage 72-144, combined HP is 880.
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits. The rules aren't broken. The game (and statistics) don't allow for large numbers of attackers due to the action economy.
The book declaring it broken doesn't mean that it's not broken. In with Pantagruel on this one - it would be good if they produced a system that lets you account for group sizes.
Doesn’t it, though? The book says, don’t do this, it won’t work. Then someone does it only to find, indeed, it doesn’t work. Seems like at that point the problem is the person doing it.
They designed a system, then they explain the limits of that system. It not their fault if you use it differently from its design intent.
As far as mob rules, it says use mobs of 5-8, and don’t have more mobs than there are characters. So with 4 PCs, that gives us 4 groups of (maximum) 8 bandits, so 32. Less than half of the 80 in the example.
Doesn’t it, though? The book says, don’t do this, it won’t work. Then someone does it only to find, indeed, it doesn’t work. Seems like at that point the problem is the person doing it.
The problem is not limited to edge cases, it's just more obvious -- it doesn't work even with normal encounter sizes. You don't generally wind up with "Nominally easy fight turns into a TPK" for smaller numbers, but 4x goblin warrior (combined 22 dpr, 32 with advantage, combined hp 40) is a far more dangerous fight for level 1 PCs than 1x goblin boss (11 dpr, 16 with advantages, 21 hp), despite them both being 200 xp.
Also, well, "I want the PCs to beat up a large number of chaff" is a reasonable encounter design; if the rules don't know how to handle it, that's a problem with the rules.
Doesn’t it, though? The book says, don’t do this, it won’t work. Then someone does it only to find, indeed, it doesn’t work. Seems like at that point the problem is the person doing it.
The problem is not limited to edge cases, it's just more obvious -- it doesn't work even with normal encounter sizes. You don't generally wind up with "Nominally easy fight turns into a TPK" for smaller numbers, but 4x goblin warrior (combined 22 dpr, 32 with advantage, combined hp 40) is a far more dangerous fight for level 1 PCs than 1x goblin boss (11 dpr, 16 with advantages, 21 hp), despite them both being 200 xp.
Also, well, "I want the PCs to beat up a large number of chaff" is a reasonable encounter design; if the rules don't know how to handle it, that's a problem with the rules.
There isn't an issue. The 4x goblins die just as fast as the goblin boss. If anything the goblin boss should be less than 200 XP. Most goblins with 10 HP are probably dying quickly. The issue isn't the number of goblins but the number of players.
I'm going to be somewhat with Pantagruel666 on this.
The single missing factor is number of opponents versus size of the party, although that's only necessary if you are balancing on the basis of a single encounter.
I strongly dislike that concept. The rules give you a budget based on the size of the party, and very pointedly have an underlying 1:1 ratio for this.It is very obviously an effort to destroy the concept of the adventuring day, but imo they left some key concepts out.
Combat Ratio (left out likely for the individual DM to determine based on size and optimization of party)
Budget Usage (imo, an oversight from the rules)
My default Combat Ratio, for years now, has been 1.5. It is a sweet spot for me, but there have been times that I have increased the ratio, and obviously times when I decrease it. Including it would solve some of the issues, but it is wholly and entirely possible that given the Troubleshooting note regarding number of creatures that they do intend it to not go over 2:1.
They do note the budget is meant to operate on a per encounter basis, and that the multiplier is strictly the number of PCs present in that combat. The same link also notes that if one PC is out, the DM has to shift the number of creatures by removing 1. So the basis is an implied 1:1 in several places, but only casually explicit. The notion of doing 80 creatures is something explicitly outside the existing guidelines, but there's no specific spot where they say it can't be done -- instead, they say that the DM has to add or subtract Baddies during combat. That is, from a strategic perspective, use waves.
JC does a LOT of talking about the use of Strategies and Tactics in the marketing material. Over and over and over again. Even examples of it. Fairly easy to tell that in the approach here, there are no Stand-Up Fights. The Dragon does not stand around, the goblins do not mass in a small square, the Centaurs do not do a straight on cavalry charge. I don't think enough people understand that although D&D is not a wargame, it is a game that features combat, and if you have combat, it is not a movie where the good guys are surronded and take the bad guys out one by one.
In shrt, they are decimating the entire concept of the Adventuring Day -- the use of a set or suggested number of combats between long rest periods -- and there was some commentary on that in one of the marketing videos where it is explicitly that was something they wanted to do. "people don't use it" is the take away, but there was more to it than that: DMs are supposed to do so on the fly, as they move, and based on the ability of their PCs to take it.
That's the new standard: the DM knows the PCs, and is supposed to adapt and adjust all encounters to enable them to have fun and show off -- but making it difficult by controlling terran and circumstance, and using tactical and strategic planning. Which is not a skill set they have ever encouraged before in 5e -- and sorry, but even the books folks promote don't really do that. Even the art doesn't do that.
So, in killing the Adventuring Day, they failed to provide any other possible suggestion to make up for that gap -- to a population of players who are used to having been told that they need to do it this way.
being a weirdo, I'm somewhat immune -- I budget by Adventure and the level I want PCs to reach at the end of it, and so I hoard my XP budgets to have fewer, harder, more memorable encounters of the combat kind, but that's not a playstyle that others always enjoy; some folks want that two combats a session type thing, and they want those combats to be short and hard.
the way they designed the current set up, the whole idea is the DM decides when they want those combats to happen (planning and designing adventures), and how hard they want them to be -- not a case of having X number in a given time frame.
Since D&D at its core is a resource usage game where most players ignore a lot of the resources to be used, this may make some folks question why the main resources mechanic (the Long Rest system) is untouched -- and the reason is that the balance of encounters is whatever you need it to be to suck those resources out, based on the DM knowing the players and their characters.
That is, no more white rooms, because white rooms don't work.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities .-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-. An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more. Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
I can understand why they did away with the group size modifiers in 2024, as they were notably difficult to use, but simply removing them with no other changes... doesn't work.
Let's look at a Low difficulty encounter for 4 level 5 PCs. My budget is 2,000 xp
The first encounter is legit low difficulty. The second encounter is well into TPK territory and will definitely involve considerable resource usage.
If you’re willing to run a combat with 80 combatants your players deserve to die…possibly of boredom waiting for their turn 😂
I ran an Air Elemental and 7 imps here, you are right easy win:
https://dndbattle.com/battle/27116700
I ran 24 bandits three times (three waves)
So 72 bandits and this is the battle of the 3rd wave. They still won, with one downed character
https://dndbattle.com/battle/27116703
Handy tool, full blown, advanced, D&D 5e combat simulator: https://dndbattle.com
Mob rules exist.
Waves are significantly easier (you aren't dealing with 324 dpr, you're dealing with 108 dpr) though less vulnerable to AoEs.
I believe the encounter building rules specifically mention that you have to be cautious with large numbers of attackers. The guidelines specifically assume you will not be using 80 bandits. The rules aren't broken. The game (and statistics) don't allow for large numbers of attackers due to the action economy.
I hacked the html to make it run 80 bandits, you are right the monsters killed them off in 6 rounds.
Handy tool, full blown, advanced, D&D 5e combat simulator: https://dndbattle.com
The book declaring it broken doesn't mean that it's not broken. In with Pantagruel on this one - it would be good if they produced a system that lets you account for group sizes.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
I just used 80 because extremes make the point more easily than smaller numbers. Just using 10x pirate is still 110 combined dpr and 330 combined hp, and I would hope 10 monsters isn't considered excessive...
Note that it isn't that hard to get the equivalent of 2014 group size scaling without the group size rule -- you just need to change both the xp values and the xp budgets. For example (not carried through to higher level)
Here is the thing. You can have a CR 0 goblin with 1 hp and does 1 damage and if you put a party of 5 level 20 PCs against 30,000 of those goblins, its still a TPK and would be "broken". The point is that regardless of what you do, large numbers of enemies will always be broken because of statistics and the action economy and if you don't want that you need a completely different game.
Also important to remember lower level creatures should have a lot harder time hitting a higher level party. But enough of them together is still going to tpk the party. That is just how it works and there isn't any encounter building guidelines that are going to get you around that. Just be smart with the number of monsters that you are using against the party.
From my experience unless you are throwing 8 encounters per day at the party, the encounter building guidelines are perfectly fine and are too weak if you stay at 1-3 encounters. I threw two Hard encounters at my 7th level party and they could have handled at least two more (with another short rest or two). The rules aren't broken, you just can't use large numbers of enemies. 10 enemies is too many if you have 2 players and not enough if you have 8 players. Its impossible to give guidance on how many enemies is too many because its directly related to the number of players you have. 8 players can handle a much higher magnitude of monsters that 5 players. (Fireball can even change those numbers, I had like 30 kobolds + 5 actual combatants which was enough to tpk the party of 4, but I knew the warlock had fireball and would easily kill 3/4 of those goblins if he used both his spells as fireballs)
Here's the thing: a TPK isn't broken. The problem isn't that 80 bandits can kill a 5th level party; they'd have done that in 2014 too. The problem is that 80 bandits are considered a Low difficulty encounter (in 2014, it's 8,000 adjusted xp, and given that the Deadly threshold starts at 4,400, no-one is going to be surprised if it turns out to be a TPK).
The whole point of an encounter building system is that you can use it to gauge the difficulty of an encounter. It's always going to be flawed, there's too many other factors in how an encounter plays out to think a hard and fast simple point rule will give a reliable answer, but it should at least work for ordinary situations, and the 2024 version doesn't.
They should've at least put in a sideblock that basically says 'Do the math', meaning multiply the damage output of a creature by the longevity of the total creatures, then the next one's by all but the original's longevity, etc. (this would have to be repeated to find upper and lower boundaries for threat level)
Extended signature
Here's the thing: xp value for a single creature in 5e is roughly (damage output) * (total hit points). Given the 'adventuring day' concept in 2014, this makes sense -- a monster with 2x the damage output per round and 2x the hit points presumably lives for twice as many rounds, and thus does 4x as much damage to the party, and if all you're interested in is resource depletion, that works.
If you apply that logic to groups of monsters, well, a group of 2 monsters has 2x the damage output and also 2x the hit points of a single monster, and thus should be worth 4x as much as a single monster. Except for three factors
This means the effects of multiple monsters is more than linear, but less than quadratic. To a large degree RPG combat obeys Lanchester's Laws, but at somewhere between the linear law and the square law. 2014 basically used an exponent of 1.5 (a fairly common approximation), though not a perfect match due to rounding.
If you're willing to get rid of the daily budget (which 2024 has done), it is possible to achieve the same results without the group size modifier, it just requires better math skills than the 5e D&D team has ever demonstrated.
All I conclude from you talking about dice is that you don't understand the point being made.
The CR system claims to provide a guide to allow you to understand how difficult an encounter is likely to be. That the dice deities can interfere with that is beside the point - that problem is baked into the caveats of the concept. The point is that the new system cannot handle or even help you to handle how increased numbers affect the encounter.
Do you know what did at least try to help you account for numbers? The old CR system. None of it was perfect (not least because it operated on premises that not even WotC adhered to), but the underlying ideas were fine and helpful. It provided enough structure for you to get on your feet, get a feel for what you could do and how to adjust things, and let new DMs do things. By removing the mechanics for adjusting for numbers, they're making it harder for new DMs to get in the game. I imagine I'll be sharing the mechanics from the '14DMG so new DMs at least have something.
If you're not willing or able to to discuss in good faith, then don't be surprised if I don't respond, there are better things in life for me to do than humour you. This signature is that response.
A better function is using a logarithmic scaling, such that when the ratio of combatants is at least 3:1 the challenge rate is multiplied by half the offset of odds.
Factoring in multi-target AoE ‘s and effects like pact tactics also swing the rate scale in favor of the combatants that have the greater use of those strategies.
That’s why when the party outnumbers the enemy the combats are easier, depending on the initial threat, and when the enemy outnumbers the party the combats get more difficult and at a certain threshold, party TPK becomes a reality.
2014 compensated for this by using an odds multiplier, and factoring in multi-target effects and single target mobbing.
2024 tries to cut the extra math out, but it still presents the problem of building an encounter that might be heavily off-balanced by means of sheer numbers against.
Ether way you try to slice it, the gauge of how difficult an encounter can be is just too dynamic for a single function of party of X number of PC’s vs Z number of opponents equaling Y level of challenge.
You appear to have misread what I wrote. For one thing, I recognize that hit points do not directly correlate with longevity, which is why I wrote longevity and not hit points (longevity being number of rounds a monster lasts). Additionally, I did not include the original monster's longevity in the calculation for the second's total damage, accounting for the decrease in dpr as monsters die.
Extended signature
Doesn’t it, though? The book says, don’t do this, it won’t work. Then someone does it only to find, indeed, it doesn’t work. Seems like at that point the problem is the person doing it.
They designed a system, then they explain the limits of that system. It not their fault if you use it differently from its design intent.
As far as mob rules, it says use mobs of 5-8, and don’t have more mobs than there are characters. So with 4 PCs, that gives us 4 groups of (maximum) 8 bandits, so 32. Less than half of the 80 in the example.
The problem is not limited to edge cases, it's just more obvious -- it doesn't work even with normal encounter sizes. You don't generally wind up with "Nominally easy fight turns into a TPK" for smaller numbers, but 4x goblin warrior (combined 22 dpr, 32 with advantage, combined hp 40) is a far more dangerous fight for level 1 PCs than 1x goblin boss (11 dpr, 16 with advantages, 21 hp), despite them both being 200 xp.
Also, well, "I want the PCs to beat up a large number of chaff" is a reasonable encounter design; if the rules don't know how to handle it, that's a problem with the rules.
There isn't an issue. The 4x goblins die just as fast as the goblin boss. If anything the goblin boss should be less than 200 XP. Most goblins with 10 HP are probably dying quickly. The issue isn't the number of goblins but the number of players.
I'm going to be somewhat with Pantagruel666 on this.
The single missing factor is number of opponents versus size of the party, although that's only necessary if you are balancing on the basis of a single encounter.
I strongly dislike that concept. The rules give you a budget based on the size of the party, and very pointedly have an underlying 1:1 ratio for this.It is very obviously an effort to destroy the concept of the adventuring day, but imo they left some key concepts out.
My default Combat Ratio, for years now, has been 1.5. It is a sweet spot for me, but there have been times that I have increased the ratio, and obviously times when I decrease it. Including it would solve some of the issues, but it is wholly and entirely possible that given the Troubleshooting note regarding number of creatures that they do intend it to not go over 2:1.
They do note the budget is meant to operate on a per encounter basis, and that the multiplier is strictly the number of PCs present in that combat. The same link also notes that if one PC is out, the DM has to shift the number of creatures by removing 1. So the basis is an implied 1:1 in several places, but only casually explicit. The notion of doing 80 creatures is something explicitly outside the existing guidelines, but there's no specific spot where they say it can't be done -- instead, they say that the DM has to add or subtract Baddies during combat. That is, from a strategic perspective, use waves.
JC does a LOT of talking about the use of Strategies and Tactics in the marketing material. Over and over and over again. Even examples of it. Fairly easy to tell that in the approach here, there are no Stand-Up Fights. The Dragon does not stand around, the goblins do not mass in a small square, the Centaurs do not do a straight on cavalry charge. I don't think enough people understand that although D&D is not a wargame, it is a game that features combat, and if you have combat, it is not a movie where the good guys are surronded and take the bad guys out one by one.
In shrt, they are decimating the entire concept of the Adventuring Day -- the use of a set or suggested number of combats between long rest periods -- and there was some commentary on that in one of the marketing videos where it is explicitly that was something they wanted to do. "people don't use it" is the take away, but there was more to it than that: DMs are supposed to do so on the fly, as they move, and based on the ability of their PCs to take it.
That's the new standard: the DM knows the PCs, and is supposed to adapt and adjust all encounters to enable them to have fun and show off -- but making it difficult by controlling terran and circumstance, and using tactical and strategic planning. Which is not a skill set they have ever encouraged before in 5e -- and sorry, but even the books folks promote don't really do that. Even the art doesn't do that.
So, in killing the Adventuring Day, they failed to provide any other possible suggestion to make up for that gap -- to a population of players who are used to having been told that they need to do it this way.
being a weirdo, I'm somewhat immune -- I budget by Adventure and the level I want PCs to reach at the end of it, and so I hoard my XP budgets to have fewer, harder, more memorable encounters of the combat kind, but that's not a playstyle that others always enjoy; some folks want that two combats a session type thing, and they want those combats to be short and hard.
the way they designed the current set up, the whole idea is the DM decides when they want those combats to happen (planning and designing adventures), and how hard they want them to be -- not a case of having X number in a given time frame.
Since D&D at its core is a resource usage game where most players ignore a lot of the resources to be used, this may make some folks question why the main resources mechanic (the Long Rest system) is untouched -- and the reason is that the balance of encounters is whatever you need it to be to suck those resources out, based on the DM knowing the players and their characters.
That is, no more white rooms, because white rooms don't work.
Only a DM since 1980 (3000+ Sessions) / PhD, MS, MA / Mixed, Bi, Trans, Woman / No longer welcome in the US, apparently
Wyrlde: Adventures in the Seven Cities
.-=] Lore Book | Patreon | Wyrlde YT [=-.
An original Setting for 5e, a whole solar system of adventure. Ongoing updates, exclusies, more.
Not Talking About It / Dubbed The Oracle in the Cult of Mythology Nerds