For a first level party, a Bugbear is 200 xp with 27 hp and 11 dpr, while 4xKobold is 20 hp and 18 dpr (and pack tactics). Those seem comparable difficulty, and are both an adjusted xp value of 200. Without the number of monsters multiplier, it takes 8xKobold with 40 hp and 36 dpr, and outside of somewhat specialized circumstances, that's a lot more dangerous than a single Bugbear.
The difficulty of a combat encounter varies more as much on the terms of the combat, more so when the party are dealing with mobs.
For example 4 level 5 players against 12 Drow Scouts (CR 1/2) is supposed to be a hard encounter, if the party sneak up on them while they are resting around a camp fire a single fireball will wipe them out, however if the drow sneak up on the party spread out in all directions and staying outside the parties darkvision range the party are going to have a veery hard time to to defeat them and a TPK would becertainly on the cards well into the deadly category.
Does it work the same at higher levels though? And whereas I can understand threat of multiple enemies, seems to me the danger ramps up too much.
For example:
Party: 3 x Level 8, 2 x Level 7.
The planned encounter is 1 Assassin and 3 Spies.
On it's own the Assassin is an easy encounter (3900 HP). The spies are 200 XP each for a total of 600 XP.
The multiplier (X2) increases the difficulty from an Easy encounter to a Hard encounter (9000 XP). Without multiplier it is a medium encounter (4500 XP).
The 3 spies are AC12 HP27 with a +4 melee multi attack and maximum total damage output of 28 HP if they hit twice, can sneak attack and roll 6s for damage.
The player characters average Armour Class 18s and average HP is 66 HP with two characters over 80. Each one dishes out enough damage per turn to kill at least 1 and possibly 2 spies.
So I don't understand how adding 3 weak and rather trivial monsters pushes something from Easy to Hard.
So I don't understand how adding 3 weak and rather trivial monsters pushes something from Easy to Hard.
That's a different problem: the Multiple Monsters rule doesn't work well with monsters of significantly varying CR. There are ways the Multiple Monsters rule could be gotten rid of, which would make encounter design a lot more straightforward, but you'd have change monster xp values and xp thresholds (or design an encounter building mechanism that isn't xp). The method in XGtE handles varying types better, though it has its own flaws.
My current issue that I'm facing as I put together an adventure is determining the best opponents for a large group of lower level characters. I'm throwing together medium-hard encounters for a party of level 2's. When I got to 7 players, I found a Shambling Mound gives a converted XP of 900, meaning it's the right range. However, a shambling mound can easily kill the PCs in one hit, which will make it somewhat difficult for them to deal with!
I take it with a pinch of salt - one of my encounters is 2 bugbears with a trained blood hawk. The blood hawk won't be doing a huge amount, and is there for some flavour. However, the difficulty jumps up because there's 3 enemies now, which is past a threshold for a modifier. So I'm treating it as the bugbears encounter + the blood hawk, because I don't think adding the bloodhawk really jumps it from medium to deadly.
It works pretty well for medium groups, but it's bad for big groups and groups of two monsters. For big groups, the table in Xanathar's is better, or you can use this: Encounter_Building.pdf. I'm pretty sure it's the same.
I'm not sure why this got necroed, but it's worth noting that the multiple monsters adjustment is gone in 2024. Which actually makes monster groups really terrifying, unless they conveniently don't have ranged attacks (at level 1, you can fit 2 bandits per PC at Low difficulty, 3 at Medium, and 4 at High).
I agree with you, it is a bad and extreme example, and one that I have unfortunately been a player during. I had this same conversation with my DM who was giving XP strictly by the book and monster CR. I used that example to show why doing this was a bad idea, and he is starting to move away from it https://routerlogin.uno/
To be honest, I've never found the encounter builder rules to be very useful. In my opinion (happy to be called out on this!), there's seems to be so many factors that affect it that I just can't use it reliably. Fighting in open ground vs in a forest where there's hidey spots, the composition of the player party, magic items they have, whether you strictly follow the adventuring day mechanic. Using the calculators is a great guide, but you need to know your players at the table and apply whatever adjustments you feel are necessary.
I prefer to build what I feel would work, then if i've overcooked it i'll remove something off the NPC sheet on the fly (whoops, too many minions and my spellcaster/mini boss has counterspell? Well lets remove that then, or only use it for a big spell like a one use thing).
I've been creating encounters as i've started to learn the player power and over time you learn how far you can push them if you want intensity. For newer DMs, I would recommend using existing encounter examples and adjust on the fly (bump monsters HP by 15% if necessary, or have one act stupid if you've slapped too many down).
This is coming from a party of players that certainly aren't optimised, but they steamroll through hard encounters according to the encounter building rules. My boss fights end up being 2 or 3 times the deadly rating to start challenging them. Maybe higher CR creatures (10+) aren't really balanced very well?
This is coming from a party of players that certainly aren't optimised, but they steamroll through hard encounters according to the encounter building rules. My boss fights end up being 2 or 3 times the deadly rating to start challenging them. Maybe higher CR creatures (10+) aren't really balanced very well?
It's more a problem with the 2014 budgets being too low, at least after tier 1, for the way people actually play the game. 2024 is decently challenging for multi-monster encounters, does a poor job with single-monster encounters.
On the original subject: the way fighting power scales with numbers has been studied for a long time, and typically uses some variant on Lanchester's laws. Within the context of RPGs, the square law applies in situations where every creature on each side is able to attack, and all attacks are single target. As neither of those is consistently true, a smaller exponent is generally appropriate; 1.5 is a reasonably common exponent that mostly matches what the 2014 rules do.
According to the encounter rules, multiple monsters modify difficulty via a modifier.
Does this modifier end up lowering the difficulty as it ramps up XP too much?
No, it really doesn't.
For a first level party, a Bugbear is 200 xp with 27 hp and 11 dpr, while 4xKobold is 20 hp and 18 dpr (and pack tactics). Those seem comparable difficulty, and are both an adjusted xp value of 200. Without the number of monsters multiplier, it takes 8xKobold with 40 hp and 36 dpr, and outside of somewhat specialized circumstances, that's a lot more dangerous than a single Bugbear.
The difficulty of a combat encounter varies more as much on the terms of the combat, more so when the party are dealing with mobs.
For example 4 level 5 players against 12 Drow Scouts (CR 1/2) is supposed to be a hard encounter, if the party sneak up on them while they are resting around a camp fire a single fireball will wipe them out, however if the drow sneak up on the party spread out in all directions and staying outside the parties darkvision range the party are going to have a veery hard time to to defeat them and a TPK would becertainly on the cards well into the deadly category.
Does it work the same at higher levels though? And whereas I can understand threat of multiple enemies, seems to me the danger ramps up too much.
For example:
Party: 3 x Level 8, 2 x Level 7.
The planned encounter is 1 Assassin and 3 Spies.
On it's own the Assassin is an easy encounter (3900 HP). The spies are 200 XP each for a total of 600 XP.
The multiplier (X2) increases the difficulty from an Easy encounter to a Hard encounter (9000 XP). Without multiplier it is a medium encounter (4500 XP).
The 3 spies are AC12 HP27 with a +4 melee multi attack and maximum total damage output of 28 HP if they hit twice, can sneak attack and roll 6s for damage.
The player characters average Armour Class 18s and average HP is 66 HP with two characters over 80. Each one dishes out enough damage per turn to kill at least 1 and possibly 2 spies.
So I don't understand how adding 3 weak and rather trivial monsters pushes something from Easy to Hard.
That's a different problem: the Multiple Monsters rule doesn't work well with monsters of significantly varying CR. There are ways the Multiple Monsters rule could be gotten rid of, which would make encounter design a lot more straightforward, but you'd have change monster xp values and xp thresholds (or design an encounter building mechanism that isn't xp). The method in XGtE handles varying types better, though it has its own flaws.
Thanks Pantagruell666 - I'll have a look at Xanathars
My current issue that I'm facing as I put together an adventure is determining the best opponents for a large group of lower level characters. I'm throwing together medium-hard encounters for a party of level 2's. When I got to 7 players, I found a Shambling Mound gives a converted XP of 900, meaning it's the right range. However, a shambling mound can easily kill the PCs in one hit, which will make it somewhat difficult for them to deal with!
I take it with a pinch of salt - one of my encounters is 2 bugbears with a trained blood hawk. The blood hawk won't be doing a huge amount, and is there for some flavour. However, the difficulty jumps up because there's 3 enemies now, which is past a threshold for a modifier. So I'm treating it as the bugbears encounter + the blood hawk, because I don't think adding the bloodhawk really jumps it from medium to deadly.
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!
Isn't there a rule stating that you ignore additional enemies that are 2 or 3 cr slots below the suggested cr for the party
It works pretty well for medium groups, but it's bad for big groups and groups of two monsters. For big groups, the table in Xanathar's is better, or you can use this: Encounter_Building.pdf. I'm pretty sure it's the same.
I'm not sure why this got necroed, but it's worth noting that the multiple monsters adjustment is gone in 2024. Which actually makes monster groups really terrifying, unless they conveniently don't have ranged attacks (at level 1, you can fit 2 bandits per PC at Low difficulty, 3 at Medium, and 4 at High).
I agree with you, it is a bad and extreme example, and one that I have unfortunately been a player during. I had this same conversation with my DM who was giving XP strictly by the book and monster CR. I used that example to show why doing this was a bad idea, and he is starting to move away from it https://routerlogin.uno/
To be honest, I've never found the encounter builder rules to be very useful. In my opinion (happy to be called out on this!), there's seems to be so many factors that affect it that I just can't use it reliably. Fighting in open ground vs in a forest where there's hidey spots, the composition of the player party, magic items they have, whether you strictly follow the adventuring day mechanic. Using the calculators is a great guide, but you need to know your players at the table and apply whatever adjustments you feel are necessary.
I prefer to build what I feel would work, then if i've overcooked it i'll remove something off the NPC sheet on the fly (whoops, too many minions and my spellcaster/mini boss has counterspell? Well lets remove that then, or only use it for a big spell like a one use thing).
I've been creating encounters as i've started to learn the player power and over time you learn how far you can push them if you want intensity. For newer DMs, I would recommend using existing encounter examples and adjust on the fly (bump monsters HP by 15% if necessary, or have one act stupid if you've slapped too many down).
This is coming from a party of players that certainly aren't optimised, but they steamroll through hard encounters according to the encounter building rules. My boss fights end up being 2 or 3 times the deadly rating to start challenging them. Maybe higher CR creatures (10+) aren't really balanced very well?
It's more a problem with the 2014 budgets being too low, at least after tier 1, for the way people actually play the game. 2024 is decently challenging for multi-monster encounters, does a poor job with single-monster encounters.
On the original subject: the way fighting power scales with numbers has been studied for a long time, and typically uses some variant on Lanchester's laws. Within the context of RPGs, the square law applies in situations where every creature on each side is able to attack, and all attacks are single target. As neither of those is consistently true, a smaller exponent is generally appropriate; 1.5 is a reasonably common exponent that mostly matches what the 2014 rules do.