One option would be to just run the combats as normal but instead of using the recommended HP for the monsters, give them all maximum - EG, if a monster has 60 (8D8 + 20) HP, then instead give them the full 84hp, as if you rolled 8 8's for them. This could be a lot quicker than trying to rebalance the encounters!
I would lean towards boosting the encounters and away from nerfing the PCs. Max monster HP is a great idea. I would also consider boosting the number of "minions" in an encounter (e.g instead of six guards, make it eight or nine) because I find this to be an easy way to adjust encounter difficulty up or down without reworking the whole thing.
More PCs means more time in combat, especially if you add more monsters to compensate. So I would also consider ways of streamlining combat like the side initiative rule in the DMG.
I would consider upping monster damage (say, don't roll damage, just always do max) rather than hit points. A fight with 8 PCs is already going to take a long time to resolve, and boosting hit points makes it take even longer.
When I run into this sort of problem, I tend to add more monsters to the encounters instead of increasing the numbers of the existing monsters. It just seems to run smoother for me. Alternately, replace some of the monsters with more challenging monsters that also make sense in the context.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Maximum Damage and Health. If you add more monsters then it’s gonna make the map really cramped, so I think making them tougher would be quicker-more efficient.
I'm running Candlekeep Mysteries with a group of 6 characters, but I slowed down advancement so that they're 1 level behind the suggested levels in the book. In The Price of Beauty they took the one option that's mentioned in the module as "If they do this they'll fight every opponent at the same time" and they won the fight. It was a tough fight for them and I used every single special ability that the monsters had.
One thing that made it more interesting was the monsters got to the PC's in waves based on where they were when the fight started. It was a pain in the neck for me, but I kept track of their movement every round as they converged on the PC's from different directions and at different times.
If they would have fought the monsters in small groups they would have walked through the module without breaking a sweat. So you definitely need to be prepared to buff up the monsters on the fly if they fight them in small groups instead of all at once.
One option would be to just run the combats as normal but instead of using the recommended HP for the monsters, give them all maximum - EG, if a monster has 60 (8D8 + 20) HP, then instead give them the full 84hp, as if you rolled 8 8's for them. This could be a lot quicker than trying to rebalance the encounters!
Good luck!
Make your Artificer work with any other class with 174 Multiclassing Feats for your Artificer Multiclass Character!
DM's Guild Releases on This Thread Or check them all out on DMs Guild!
DrivethruRPG Releases on This Thread - latest release: My Character is a Werewolf: balanced rules for Lycanthropy!
I have started discussing/reviewing 3rd party D&D content on Substack - stay tuned for semi-regular posts!
I would lean towards boosting the encounters and away from nerfing the PCs. Max monster HP is a great idea. I would also consider boosting the number of "minions" in an encounter (e.g instead of six guards, make it eight or nine) because I find this to be an easy way to adjust encounter difficulty up or down without reworking the whole thing.
More PCs means more time in combat, especially if you add more monsters to compensate. So I would also consider ways of streamlining combat like the side initiative rule in the DMG.
I would consider upping monster damage (say, don't roll damage, just always do max) rather than hit points. A fight with 8 PCs is already going to take a long time to resolve, and boosting hit points makes it take even longer.
When I run into this sort of problem, I tend to add more monsters to the encounters instead of increasing the numbers of the existing monsters. It just seems to run smoother for me. Alternately, replace some of the monsters with more challenging monsters that also make sense in the context.
Panda-wat (I hate my username) is somehow convinced that he is objectively right about everything D&D related even though he obviously is not. Considering that, he'd probably make a great D&D youtuber.
"If I die, I can live with that." ~Luke Hart, the DM lair
Maximum Damage and Health. If you add more monsters then it’s gonna make the map really cramped, so I think making them tougher would be quicker-more efficient.
I'm running Candlekeep Mysteries with a group of 6 characters, but I slowed down advancement so that they're 1 level behind the suggested levels in the book. In The Price of Beauty they took the one option that's mentioned in the module as "If they do this they'll fight every opponent at the same time" and they won the fight. It was a tough fight for them and I used every single special ability that the monsters had.
One thing that made it more interesting was the monsters got to the PC's in waves based on where they were when the fight started. It was a pain in the neck for me, but I kept track of their movement every round as they converged on the PC's from different directions and at different times.
If they would have fought the monsters in small groups they would have walked through the module without breaking a sweat. So you definitely need to be prepared to buff up the monsters on the fly if they fight them in small groups instead of all at once.
Professional computer geek