Just wanted to get some fact-checking of some concepts I've been considering, going beyond the (pick your flavor of "You'll learn it with time").
This builds on the Tactics-based approach, emphasizing the DM's creativity and strategic use of monsters to create a challenging and enjoyable experience for players.
Adding: Numbers-based approach, focusing on statistics, PC party and monster composition, to create or fine-tuning balanced encounters.
It starts with:
0. Using CR as a starting point: Consider the CR of monsters as a general guideline for difficulty. Use your preferred encounter builder; DND Beyond Encounter Builder, Don Jon, etc
Consider Monster Abilities and Action Economy: Adjust difficulty based on these factors.
Be prepared to adjust on the fly: These are just estimations. The actual difficulty depends on how the encounter unfolds.
It's with a large grain of salt and acknowledging the adage that this will not be able to count for dice roll and shenanigans.
Gather player data:
Calculate Attack damage per round (DPR) and HP for each PC. (Credit to MakingLemonade, who I believe is the calculator author)
Calculate party's Total DPR: Calculate by adding DPR for each PC.
Determine monster damage: Calculate average player HP to dictates the number of attacks the monster can make and the desired encounter difficulty or survivability factor:
Formula:Monster Damage per Attack = Average Player HP / (Attacks per Round * Encounter Difficulty Modifier)
Encounter Difficulty Modifier: This is a value you choose, based on difficulty: Easy: 1.5Medium: 2Hard: 2.5 Deadly: 3
Combat Duration: This result represents the estimated number of rounds the encounter will last based on the party's total damage output and the total HP of all monsters.
Formula:Effective Rounds = Total Monster HP / Party Total DPR * (1 + Average Non-Damage Actions per Monster Round)
Total Monster HP Pool: The sum of the HP of all monsters in the encounter.
Party Total DPR: See #2
Compare this to your target rounds from #4; if it's close, the encounter is likely balanced. A higher number suggests a harder encounter, and a lower number suggests an easier one.
Multiple Monster HP Distribution or Proportionally Adjust HP: This method ensures all monsters contribute roughly equally to your intended difficulty.
Adjusted Monster HP per Monster = Original Monster HP from 0. CR Encounter Builder - (Target Monster HP from #4 - Total Monster Group HP) / Number of Monsters
For example, imagine you have a party with a total DPR of 40 and you want a medium encounter (difficulty modifier 1.25) that lasts 4 rounds. This would give you a monster HP pool of 200 (40 DPR * 4 rounds * 1.25 difficulty). If you have 3 monsters from your encounter builder, each with 100 HP originally, you would end up with:
Adjusted Monster HP per Monster = 100 HP - (200 target HP - 300 total HP) / 3 monsters = 83.3 (83/84) HP
This would make each monster slightly weaker, bringing the total monster HP down to 250, 249.9 rounded up (which is still more than the target HP of 200, but accounts for the fact that the party might not focus fire and could take down some monsters more quickly).
Focus on Diverse Roles: This method is more nuanced and allows you to tailor the encounter based on roles. Here, you would distribute the difference in HP strategically:
Boss Monster: Give the boss monster a larger share of the HP, making it a more significant threat and the focus of the combat.
Minions: Minion monsters can have lower HP, serving as fodder for the party to clear out while they focus on the boss.
Areas for improvement:
Oversimplification: This approach is trying to bottle something that doesn't exactly fit in a bottle. It's been really fun compiling it though.
Party Composition Dependency: This doesn't account exactly for party composition. Strong spellcasters could breeze through encounters designed for a melee-focused group.
This approach can create more interesting and dynamic encounters with more statistical support, by helping build understanding party and monster composition.
Wow. So much is wrong with this. The first major issue is step 1. I don't have any idea where MakingLemonade got the numbers from, but with any method I use to calculate the numbers, they come up significantly lower at mid-level. I suspect that he is assuming a character can take its most potent combination of actions each round, which is simply false.
Once you find or calculate numbers that have some level of accuracy, the next thing I notice is that your method explicitly states a 70% hit rate, but calculates damage as if the damage output were 100%.
The next obvious thing is when you calculate monster damage by dividing by 1.5 for easy, and 3 for deadly. This means that monsters in an easy encounter hit twice as hard as ones in a deadly encounter.
I haven't worked through it step by step, but there is a strong likelihood that other issues exist. DMs wishing to adjust encounters would be well advised to find a different method than this one.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Playing tabletop RPGs since 1978.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
Just wanted to get some fact-checking of some concepts I've been considering, going beyond the (pick your flavor of "You'll learn it with time").
This builds on the Tactics-based approach, emphasizing the DM's creativity and strategic use of monsters to create a challenging and enjoyable experience for players.
Adding: Numbers-based approach, focusing on statistics, PC party and monster composition, to create or fine-tuning balanced encounters.
It starts with:
It's with a large grain of salt and acknowledging the adage that this will not be able to count for dice roll and shenanigans.
Combat Duration: This result represents the estimated number of rounds the encounter will last based on the party's total damage output and the total HP of all monsters.
Compare this to your target rounds from #4; if it's close, the encounter is likely balanced. A higher number suggests a harder encounter, and a lower number suggests an easier one.
Multiple Monster HP Distribution or Proportionally Adjust HP: This method ensures all monsters contribute roughly equally to your intended difficulty.
For example, imagine you have a party with a total DPR of 40 and you want a medium encounter (difficulty modifier 1.25) that lasts 4 rounds. This would give you a monster HP pool of 200 (40 DPR * 4 rounds * 1.25 difficulty). If you have 3 monsters from your encounter builder, each with 100 HP originally, you would end up with:
This would make each monster slightly weaker, bringing the total monster HP down to 250, 249.9 rounded up (which is still more than the target HP of 200, but accounts for the fact that the party might not focus fire and could take down some monsters more quickly).
Focus on Diverse Roles: This method is more nuanced and allows you to tailor the encounter based on roles. Here, you would distribute the difference in HP strategically:Areas for improvement:
This approach can create more interesting and dynamic encounters with more statistical support, by helping build understanding party and monster composition.
Wow. So much is wrong with this. The first major issue is step 1. I don't have any idea where MakingLemonade got the numbers from, but with any method I use to calculate the numbers, they come up significantly lower at mid-level. I suspect that he is assuming a character can take its most potent combination of actions each round, which is simply false.
Once you find or calculate numbers that have some level of accuracy, the next thing I notice is that your method explicitly states a 70% hit rate, but calculates damage as if the damage output were 100%.
The next obvious thing is when you calculate monster damage by dividing by 1.5 for easy, and 3 for deadly. This means that monsters in an easy encounter hit twice as hard as ones in a deadly encounter.
I haven't worked through it step by step, but there is a strong likelihood that other issues exist. DMs wishing to adjust encounters would be well advised to find a different method than this one.
Playing tabletop RPGs since 1978.