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.
The game isn't going to be able to help you with numbers. Two spell casters with fireball means you can use way more monsters than you could with no spell casters. Having the multipliers makes it harder because they are unreliable. The number of players and the number of AOE attacks directly impact the number of monsters you can send at the party.
For example 80 bandits seems outrageous, but it's less outrageous if you have 8 players and three of them shooting fireballs into those 80 bandits.
There isn't an issue. The 4x goblins die just as fast as the goblin boss.
Um... have you actually played low level D&D? Most damage is single target or very small AoE, and since the spellcasters only have two spells each, they might not want to even use them on a Low difficulty encounter, so most likely the 4x goblins live longer. And even if they die just as fast... they do more damage per round, so they're straight up more dangerous.
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.
That was never the assumption. If it was, the numbers modifier in 2014 would have been different. A more sophisticated discussion would cover things like fighting in chokes (Lanchester exponent very close to 1) vs fighting against ranged opponents in wide open terrain (Lanchester exponent very close to 2), but the 1.5 factor in 2014 is a reasonable average for situations where not a lot is known about the terrain, disposition of forces, and so on.
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.
The problem isn't that they don't provide guidelines (AD&D basically didn't provide any guidelines), the problem is that they provide bad guidelines. They would be better off not giving encounter budgets at all (instead, just discussing what makes an encounter easy or hard) than what they currently provide.
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.
That was never the assumption. If it was, the numbers modifier in 2014 would have been different. A more sophisticated discussion would cover things like fighting in chokes (Lanchester exponent very close to 1) vs fighting against ranged opponents in wide open terrain (Lanchester exponent very close to 2), but the 1.5 factor in 2014 is a reasonable average for situations where not a lot is known about the terrain, disposition of forces, and so on.
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.
The problem isn't that they don't provide guidelines (AD&D basically didn't provide any guidelines), the problem is that they provide bad guidelines. They would be better off not giving encounter budgets at all (instead, just discussing what makes an encounter easy or hard) than what they currently provide.
While I can't say if it was that way in 2014 or not, I can say that it is that way in 2024, which is what I was referencing -- and, specifically, the marketing material for the MM 2024. hence the "JC talks about..."
As to the guidelines, "bad" is an opinion, and I wasn't commenting on anyone's opinion. AD&D didn't provide many guidelines -- it simply showed us how to do it in the modules and through the random encounter tables (which many of us glommed onto as the "way to do things" -- but it did provide some.
They don't actually provide guidelines in the 2024 DMG, though, on the number of creatures per encounter -- it is something that is only sussed out in the sections I highlighted. Specifically, this:
Troubleshooting
When creating and running combat encounters, keep the following in mind.
Many Creatures. The more creatures in an encounter, the higher the risk that a lucky streak on their part could deal more damage to the characters than you expect. If your encounter includes more than two creatures per character, include fragile creatures that can be defeated quickly. This guideline is especially important for characters of level 1 or 2.
Adjustments. A player’s absence might warrant removing creatures from an encounter to keep it at the intended difficulty. Also, die rolls and other factors can result in an encounter being easier or harder than intended. You can adjust an encounter on the fly, such as by having creatures flee (making the encounter easier) or adding reinforcements (making the encounter harder).
CR 0 Creatures. Creatures that have a CR of 0, particularly ones that are worth 0 XP, should be used sparingly. If you want to include many CR 0 critters in an encounter, use swarms from the Monster Manual instead.
Powerful Creatures. If your combat encounter includes a creature whose CR is higher than the party’s level, be aware that such a creature might deal enough damage with a single action to take out one or more characters. For example, an Ogre (CR 2) can kill a level 1 Wizard with a single blow.
I linked to that in the previous (though I didn't use the tool tip thingy), but that's the sum total of the "guidance" they give, which really isn't any kind of guidance at all -- AD&D had more of it in the DMG than that. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's a matter of personal opinion, and I won't gainsay you on that, but I won't acknowledge it as a factual statement or agree.
The sections I highlighted, though, ate the only ones I have found that speak to the question about number of creatures. So, based on that (and the one in blue in particular) you should have a ratio of between 1:1 and 2:1 -- and you should be very careful if they are level one or level two.
So, for me, my already in use 1.5:1 ration really works out well -- even at lower levels. It creates enough of a challenge in a stand up fight, but it also allows me to adjsut an encounter on the fly (and notify the leader of the bad guys) or to present a more powerful foe for them without really going overboard.
Which is still guidance, and guidance I don't have a problem with since I was already doing that.
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
Resurrecting this thread a bit... how it could have been fixed
The adjusted xp for a group of N identical monsters in 2014 was roughly (xp for one monster)*N^(3/2). This can be rewritten as ((xp for one monster)^2/3 * N)^(3/2). However, since all 2024 cares about is the encounter budget (daily budgets are gone), if X^(3/2) < Y, X < Y^(2/3), so we can just use the 2/3 power of xp values (call this 'encounter value' or something). This gives us
encounter value for one CR 1/8: 25^2/3 or 8.55, which we'll round to 9
encounter budget for one PC: 500^2/3 or 63 (thus, we can have 7 bandits per PC, or 28 vs a level 5 party with a budget of 252)
encounter value for one CR 2 (which, in 2024, is considered appropriate at one monster per PC): 59. We can fit one per PC.
encounter value for one CR 5: 1800^2/3 or 148. Well under the budget.
encounter value for one CR 8: 3900^2/3 or 248. Within the budget for a party of 4.
If you're not using xp values you can also just use smaller numbers -- e.g. (xp/10)^(2/3), which means we get 1 point for CR 0, 2 for CR 1/8, 3 for 1/4, 5 for 1/8, and (depending how you round) either 7 or 8 for CR 1, while the PC budgets at level 1 are 3 per PC at low, 4 per PC at moderate, and 5 per PC at high.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The game isn't going to be able to help you with numbers. Two spell casters with fireball means you can use way more monsters than you could with no spell casters. Having the multipliers makes it harder because they are unreliable. The number of players and the number of AOE attacks directly impact the number of monsters you can send at the party.
For example 80 bandits seems outrageous, but it's less outrageous if you have 8 players and three of them shooting fireballs into those 80 bandits.
Um... have you actually played low level D&D? Most damage is single target or very small AoE, and since the spellcasters only have two spells each, they might not want to even use them on a Low difficulty encounter, so most likely the 4x goblins live longer. And even if they die just as fast... they do more damage per round, so they're straight up more dangerous.
That was never the assumption. If it was, the numbers modifier in 2014 would have been different. A more sophisticated discussion would cover things like fighting in chokes (Lanchester exponent very close to 1) vs fighting against ranged opponents in wide open terrain (Lanchester exponent very close to 2), but the 1.5 factor in 2014 is a reasonable average for situations where not a lot is known about the terrain, disposition of forces, and so on.
The problem isn't that they don't provide guidelines (AD&D basically didn't provide any guidelines), the problem is that they provide bad guidelines. They would be better off not giving encounter budgets at all (instead, just discussing what makes an encounter easy or hard) than what they currently provide.
Incidentally, by 2014 standards, a Low difficulty encounter is generally (at least, at lower levels)
A Moderate difficulty encounter is
A High difficulty encounter is
While I can't say if it was that way in 2014 or not, I can say that it is that way in 2024, which is what I was referencing -- and, specifically, the marketing material for the MM 2024. hence the "JC talks about..."
As to the guidelines, "bad" is an opinion, and I wasn't commenting on anyone's opinion. AD&D didn't provide many guidelines -- it simply showed us how to do it in the modules and through the random encounter tables (which many of us glommed onto as the "way to do things" -- but it did provide some.
They don't actually provide guidelines in the 2024 DMG, though, on the number of creatures per encounter -- it is something that is only sussed out in the sections I highlighted. Specifically, this:
I linked to that in the previous (though I didn't use the tool tip thingy), but that's the sum total of the "guidance" they give, which really isn't any kind of guidance at all -- AD&D had more of it in the DMG than that. Good, bad, or indifferent, that's a matter of personal opinion, and I won't gainsay you on that, but I won't acknowledge it as a factual statement or agree.
The sections I highlighted, though, ate the only ones I have found that speak to the question about number of creatures. So, based on that (and the one in blue in particular) you should have a ratio of between 1:1 and 2:1 -- and you should be very careful if they are level one or level two.
So, for me, my already in use 1.5:1 ration really works out well -- even at lower levels. It creates enough of a challenge in a stand up fight, but it also allows me to adjsut an encounter on the fly (and notify the leader of the bad guys) or to present a more powerful foe for them without really going overboard.
Which is still guidance, and guidance I don't have a problem with since I was already doing that.
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
Resurrecting this thread a bit... how it could have been fixed
The adjusted xp for a group of N identical monsters in 2014 was roughly (xp for one monster)*N^(3/2). This can be rewritten as ((xp for one monster)^2/3 * N)^(3/2). However, since all 2024 cares about is the encounter budget (daily budgets are gone), if X^(3/2) < Y, X < Y^(2/3), so we can just use the 2/3 power of xp values (call this 'encounter value' or something). This gives us
If you're not using xp values you can also just use smaller numbers -- e.g. (xp/10)^(2/3), which means we get 1 point for CR 0, 2 for CR 1/8, 3 for 1/4, 5 for 1/8, and (depending how you round) either 7 or 8 for CR 1, while the PC budgets at level 1 are 3 per PC at low, 4 per PC at moderate, and 5 per PC at high.