So I like to use the DnDBeyond encounters system, as I assume most of us do. For months, my players have been running over my monsters and I've just figured out why- I'm hoping the community has a fix for me.
SO I just figured out the CR encounter building system assumes my players use neither feats nor magic items. I guess I should have figured this out long ago but here we are. My players use both. I have previously bumped hip points on all my monsters to let them hang in the fight, but I'm still not sufficiently threatening them in combat.
SO I'm looking for a more comprehensive solution to make my encounters more threatening.
Charts, advice, or rules of thumb are appreciated.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-- BlackLiteMoon Roleplay --
"Beware of Rabbits, They Eat Carrots." -The Man In The Hat
The problem isn't the CR system's assumption about feats and magic items -- they play a role, but usually not that serious a role. The problem is that the CR system assumes 6-8 encounters per day, and pretty much no-one actually plays that way. I suggest using half the daily budget as a typical encounter difficulty target (which will be well over Deadly).
Honestly? I don't think there really is a way to rescue the encounter rating system. On the low levels, how the dice roll has a massive effect- I've seen super deadly encounters get breezed by the party because the dice favoured them. I've seen them get mangled by a relatively easy encounter because the dice were cruel. Whether an individual hit lands or not is crucial at low levels because your HP is so low. The system cannot account for that.
When the levels are higher, hlyour HP is higher so you can tank hits. Instead, how optimised the characters are matters a lot. My Wizard/Bard duo are breezing through things. My Druid/Paladin/Ranger trio are struggling, because they're not as optimised. That is really hard to account for.
Either way, the system will struggle. It also doesn't help that it doesn't account for player action economy. It does somewhat for monsters, but not players. It reckons that a party of 6 is three times as strong as a party of 2 - when that is even less true for players than monsters.
You could work a system that did it well, but not a pen and paper back-of-the-envelope system, it would have to be electronic.
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 haven’t used that particular number as a marker. But I can’t remember the last time I made an encounter that wasn’t deadly according to the builder. Once I’ve made my deadly encounter I generally raise everybody’s hit .20% just so they can hang with the PCs a little longer. The notion of half a daily budget used for this when at best I can generally get two encounters in a campaign day makes sense to me.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
-- BlackLiteMoon Roleplay --
"Beware of Rabbits, They Eat Carrots." -The Man In The Hat
I might suggest some expectation magangement in this situation.
CR is a system that hinges on probability. Even the descriptions of the encounter difficulties have probability statements built into them.
Medium. A medium encounter usually has one or two scary moments for the players, but the characters should emerge victorious with no casualties. One or more of them might need to use healing resources. (emphasis mine)
This system isn't intended to be a fine tuned, precise algorithim that delivers pinpoint acuracy. It can't do that because of the inclusion of dice, tactics, strategy and the as-yet-to-be-decided actions of your PCs. If our expectation is that it will deliver this result, we will be dissapointed every time. What it should do is get us close to the desired outcome, with enough wobble to make it unpredictable and allow for the story to be revealed during the game. Not predetermined during the DM's session prep. Understand that this is absolutely *not* a problem or a design flaw. It's an opportunity for the DM to be creative and allow for the discovery of a conclusion, not the planning of it.
As to your desire to make things more threatening, I might suggest these resources:
And the everpresent and often hated (at least at my table) - Tucker's Kobolds
Personally, Pantagruel probably most on-the-nose by using the daily adventuring budget or some metric based off of it. Encounter difficulty includes the number of short rests, number of party members, number of monsters and level of both in it's calculation. But again, the section of the DMG that guides us through the building and adjustment of encounter difficulty is solidly ensconced in probability of outcome not in a predetermined, known outcome.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Either way, the system will struggle. It also doesn't help that it doesn't account for player action economy. It does somewhat for monsters, but not players. It reckons that a party of 6 is three times as strong as a party of 2 - when that is even less true for players than monsters.
Party of 2 - 5th level PCs, Medium difficulty = 1000xp worth of single monster. Party size is <3, so we multiply monster xp by 1.5. To keep this as a medium encounter we would need a single CR 3 Creature. If we use a single CR 5 creature this runs into past the deadly end of encounter math. (Which I'm generally ok with. I find it easier to pull a punch than to put more into it once the encounter has started. See Also: Dials of Monster Difficulty)
Party of 6 - 5th level PCs, Medium difficulty = 3000xp worth of single monster. Party size is >5, so we multiply monster xp by 0.5. To keep this as a medium encounter we would need a single CR 10 Creature. If we use a single CR 5 creature this falls off the easy end of the scale into negligible.
It appears that the DMG rates our party of six PCs capable of taking on 6000xp worth of single monster vs our party of two being able to take on 667xp worth of a single monster. I'm not certain that the Monster CR is a linear scale of difficulty. I'm also not certain that the DMG is actually saying that a party of six is only three times stronger than a party of two.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It appears that the DMG rates our party of six PCs capable of taking on 6000xp worth of single monster vs our party of two being able to take on 667xp worth of a single monster. I'm not certain that the Monster CR is a linear scale of difficulty. I'm also not certain that the DMG is actually saying that a party of six is only three times stronger than a party of two.
It isn't -- there's an adjustment to the number of monsters multiplier based on party size. I'm not convinced by how it's implemented, the system in XGTE is both cleaner and easier to use, though it produces Medium encounters so you have to basically build two encounters and cram them together.
It appears that the DMG rates our party of six PCs capable of taking on 6000xp worth of single monster vs our party of two being able to take on 667xp worth of a single monster. I'm not certain that the Monster CR is a linear scale of difficulty. I'm also not certain that the DMG is actually saying that a party of six is only three times stronger than a party of two.
It isn't -- there's an adjustment to the number of monsters multiplier based on party size. I'm not convinced by how it's implemented, the system in XGTE is both cleaner and easier to use, though it produces Medium encounters so you have to basically build two encounters and cram them together.
It isn't which?
It isn't rateing a party of six capable of taking on up to 10x the xp worth of monsters than a party of two? Monster CR isn't a linear scale of difficulty? Or maybe it isn't saying that a party of six is only three time stronger than a party of two?
Seems like you glassed over some things in my response.
Not convinced that the DMG and XGtE are saying about the same thing? Pop up this table - Multiple Monsters 1st-5th Level - and peep the 5th level ratio for CR 3. (2 PCs / 1 CR 3 Monster) Then pop open the spoiler alert in the post that you quoted the portion of. Might be the same thing, or "close enough with a wobble". Two different methods to achieve the same result is not a quantifying reason to debunk either. They are different from each other, not incorrect or lacking.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It isn't rateing a party of six capable of taking on up to 10x the xp worth of monsters than a party of two? Monster CR isn't a linear scale of difficulty? Or maybe it isn't saying that a party of six is only three time stronger than a party of two?
Isn't saying party of six is 3x stronger than party of 2 (really, isn't saying xp budget for 6 is 3x xp budget for 2). My reasons for preferring XGTE are that it avoids artificial break points and handles mixed groups better.
It isn't rateing a party of six capable of taking on up to 10x the xp worth of monsters than a party of two? Monster CR isn't a linear scale of difficulty? Or maybe it isn't saying that a party of six is only three time stronger than a party of two?
Isn't saying party of six is 3x stronger than party of 2 (really, isn't saying xp budget for 6 is 3x xp budget for 2). My reasons for preferring XGTE are that it avoids artificial break points and handles mixed groups better.
Absolutely agree with you. And to clarify, I'm not against using XGtE's method either. It's effectively the same result wrapped in a different package and delivered in a different manner. My position in all of this is that the framing of Encounter Building as broken is objectively incorrect. There isn't a problem with the system, but how some expect it to perform. It provides a range of probability of outcome not the ability to see into the immediate future a la Foresight.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
So I like to use the DnDBeyond encounters system, as I assume most of us do. For months, my players have been running over my monsters and I've just figured out why- I'm hoping the community has a fix for me.
SO I just figured out the CR encounter building system assumes my players use neither feats nor magic items. I guess I should have figured this out long ago but here we are. My players use both. I have previously bumped hip points on all my monsters to let them hang in the fight, but I'm still not sufficiently threatening them in combat.
SO I'm looking for a more comprehensive solution to make my encounters more threatening.
Charts, advice, or rules of thumb are appreciated.
-- BlackLiteMoon Roleplay --
"Beware of Rabbits, They Eat Carrots."
-The Man In The Hat
The problem isn't the CR system's assumption about feats and magic items -- they play a role, but usually not that serious a role. The problem is that the CR system assumes 6-8 encounters per day, and pretty much no-one actually plays that way. I suggest using half the daily budget as a typical encounter difficulty target (which will be well over Deadly).
Honestly? I don't think there really is a way to rescue the encounter rating system. On the low levels, how the dice roll has a massive effect- I've seen super deadly encounters get breezed by the party because the dice favoured them. I've seen them get mangled by a relatively easy encounter because the dice were cruel. Whether an individual hit lands or not is crucial at low levels because your HP is so low. The system cannot account for that.
When the levels are higher, hlyour HP is higher so you can tank hits. Instead, how optimised the characters are matters a lot. My Wizard/Bard duo are breezing through things. My Druid/Paladin/Ranger trio are struggling, because they're not as optimised. That is really hard to account for.
Either way, the system will struggle. It also doesn't help that it doesn't account for player action economy. It does somewhat for monsters, but not players. It reckons that a party of 6 is three times as strong as a party of 2 - when that is even less true for players than monsters.
You could work a system that did it well, but not a pen and paper back-of-the-envelope system, it would have to be electronic.
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 haven’t used that particular number as a marker. But I can’t remember the last time I made an encounter that wasn’t deadly according to the builder. Once I’ve made my deadly encounter I generally raise everybody’s hit .20% just so they can hang with the PCs a little longer. The notion of half a daily budget used for this when at best I can generally get two encounters in a campaign day makes sense to me.
-- BlackLiteMoon Roleplay --
"Beware of Rabbits, They Eat Carrots."
-The Man In The Hat
I will say that using 100% of the daily budget for one encounter may be problematic, at least at lower levels.
I might suggest some expectation magangement in this situation.
CR is a system that hinges on probability. Even the descriptions of the encounter difficulties have probability statements built into them.
This system isn't intended to be a fine tuned, precise algorithim that delivers pinpoint acuracy. It can't do that because of the inclusion of dice, tactics, strategy and the as-yet-to-be-decided actions of your PCs. If our expectation is that it will deliver this result, we will be dissapointed every time. What it should do is get us close to the desired outcome, with enough wobble to make it unpredictable and allow for the story to be revealed during the game. Not predetermined during the DM's session prep. Understand that this is absolutely *not* a problem or a design flaw. It's an opportunity for the DM to be creative and allow for the discovery of a conclusion, not the planning of it.
As to your desire to make things more threatening, I might suggest these resources:
Personally, Pantagruel probably most on-the-nose by using the daily adventuring budget or some metric based off of it. Encounter difficulty includes the number of short rests, number of party members, number of monsters and level of both in it's calculation. But again, the section of the DMG that guides us through the building and adjustment of encounter difficulty is solidly ensconced in probability of outcome not in a predetermined, known outcome.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
I might suggest a quick check of Encounter Multipliers and Party Size portions of the DMG.
Party of 2 - 5th level PCs, Medium difficulty = 1000xp worth of single monster. Party size is <3, so we multiply monster xp by 1.5. To keep this as a medium encounter we would need a single CR 3 Creature. If we use a single CR 5 creature this runs into past the deadly end of encounter math. (Which I'm generally ok with. I find it easier to pull a punch than to put more into it once the encounter has started. See Also: Dials of Monster Difficulty)
Party of 6 - 5th level PCs, Medium difficulty = 3000xp worth of single monster. Party size is >5, so we multiply monster xp by 0.5. To keep this as a medium encounter we would need a single CR 10 Creature. If we use a single CR 5 creature this falls off the easy end of the scale into negligible.
It appears that the DMG rates our party of six PCs capable of taking on 6000xp worth of single monster vs our party of two being able to take on 667xp worth of a single monster. I'm not certain that the Monster CR is a linear scale of difficulty. I'm also not certain that the DMG is actually saying that a party of six is only three times stronger than a party of two.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
It isn't -- there's an adjustment to the number of monsters multiplier based on party size. I'm not convinced by how it's implemented, the system in XGTE is both cleaner and easier to use, though it produces Medium encounters so you have to basically build two encounters and cram them together.
It isn't which?
It isn't rateing a party of six capable of taking on up to 10x the xp worth of monsters than a party of two? Monster CR isn't a linear scale of difficulty? Or maybe it isn't saying that a party of six is only three time stronger than a party of two?
Seems like you glassed over some things in my response.
Not convinced that the DMG and XGtE are saying about the same thing? Pop up this table - Multiple Monsters 1st-5th Level - and peep the 5th level ratio for CR 3. (2 PCs / 1 CR 3 Monster) Then pop open the spoiler alert in the post that you quoted the portion of. Might be the same thing, or "close enough with a wobble". Two different methods to achieve the same result is not a quantifying reason to debunk either. They are different from each other, not incorrect or lacking.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad
Isn't saying party of six is 3x stronger than party of 2 (really, isn't saying xp budget for 6 is 3x xp budget for 2). My reasons for preferring XGTE are that it avoids artificial break points and handles mixed groups better.
Absolutely agree with you. And to clarify, I'm not against using XGtE's method either. It's effectively the same result wrapped in a different package and delivered in a different manner. My position in all of this is that the framing of Encounter Building as broken is objectively incorrect. There isn't a problem with the system, but how some expect it to perform. It provides a range of probability of outcome not the ability to see into the immediate future a la Foresight.
“Travel is fatal to prejudice, bigotry, and narrow-mindedness, and many of our people need it sorely on these accounts. Broad, wholesome, charitable views of men and things cannot be acquired by vegetating in one little corner of the earth all one's lifetime.” - Mark Twain - Innocents Abroad