In the CR rules, the game assumes combat only lasts 3 rounds (Edit: technically, it just says to use the average damage across the first three rounds to determine the offensive challenge rating), which is a fair assumption. But it assumes that a monster with a Recharge of, say, 5-6 will be used on round 1 and not recharge until round 4, and the CR of the game's monsters is set with that in mind. This doesn't take into account the chance of recovering the move on an earlier round, which can result in such monsters doing more damage than intended.
For example, a monster does 90 damage with its breath weapon and 37 damage with its Multiattack. It's average damage over the first 3 rounds (assuming everything hits) is expected by the monster's CR to be (90+37+37) / 3, but it would be more accurate to say that its average damage would be (90 + ((90+37+37) / 3) + ((90+37+37) / 3)) / 3.
Since every monster in the game uses this assumption, it would be tedious to second guess every monster with a recharge ability when making encounters. I prefer to house rule the actual rule to fit the assumption by having the monster recharge after a set number of turns. Recharge 4-6 -> takes 2 turns to recover Recharge 5-6 -> takes 3 turns to recover Recharge 6 -> takes 6 turns to recover
I'm not finding any stated assumptions that "combat only lasts 3 rounds". I find the guidance to use the sum damage output for the creature's *first* three rounds of combat. The inference here might be that the ability would recharge by the 4th round, and the DM might recycle the attack sequence. Another possibility might be that the ability recharge on the second round and the encounter possibly became much more deadly.
The more specific the equation becomes, the more specific the data put into it also must be. If we make our creatures and encounters less probability based, and more definitionally based, the outcome also becomes known before the attempt. At which point, we are not discovering what happens, we are directing it. The system is currently designed to allow for encounters to conclude without any foreknowledge by any person. The DM could have a good idea of how their players might react to the challenge presented, but the DM cannot be 100% certain of any outcome, unless that outcome is forced. The quest for the most accurate encounter balance ever is more about controlling outcomes than running a fun game.
I have customised monsters to have a "recharge on condition", or mythic trait that allows for this as well. I do agree with, and have used the "recharge at the beginning of turn: X", as this allows for a reasonable damage/ability cycle to allow the players to feel challenged.
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
I'm not finding any stated assumptions that "combat only lasts 3 rounds".
It's in DMG chapter 9, when discussing damage output that varies by round.
You mean:
Overall Damage Output. To determine a monster’s overall damage output, take the average damage it deals with each of its attacks in a round and add them together. If a monster has different attack options, use the monster’s most effective attacks to determine its damage output. For example, a fire giant can make two greatsword attacks or one rock attack in a round. The greatsword attacks deal more damage, so that attack routine determines the fire giant’s damage output.
If a monster’s damage output varies from round to round, calculate its damage output each round for the first three rounds of combat, and take the average. For example, a young white dragon has a multiattack routine (one bite attack and two claw attacks) that deals an average of 37 damage each round, as well as a breath weapon that deals 45 damage, or 90 if it hits two targets (and it probably will). In the first three rounds of combat, the dragon will probably get to use its breath weapon once and its multiattack routine twice, so its average damage output for the first three rounds would be (90 + 37 + 37) ÷ 3, or 54 damage (rounded down).
Actually says nothing about an assumption that combat stops at round three, or how long combat "should" last. Only that we use the *first* three rounds to determine damage output.
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
I'm not finding any stated assumptions that "combat only lasts 3 rounds".
It's in DMG chapter 9, when discussing damage output that varies by round.
You mean:
Overall Damage Output. To determine a monster’s overall damage output, take the average damage it deals with each of its attacks in a round and add them together. If a monster has different attack options, use the monster’s most effective attacks to determine its damage output. For example, a fire giant can make two greatsword attacks or one rock attack in a round. The greatsword attacks deal more damage, so that attack routine determines the fire giant’s damage output.
If a monster’s damage output varies from round to round, calculate its damage output each round for the first three rounds of combat, and take the average. For example, a young white dragon has a multiattack routine (one bite attack and two claw attacks) that deals an average of 37 damage each round, as well as a breath weapon that deals 45 damage, or 90 if it hits two targets (and it probably will). In the first three rounds of combat, the dragon will probably get to use its breath weapon once and its multiattack routine twice, so its average damage output for the first three rounds would be (90 + 37 + 37) ÷ 3, or 54 damage (rounded down).
Actually says nothing about an assumption that combat stops at round three, or how long combat "should" last. Only that we use the *first* three rounds to determine damage output.
Even so, the method presented is still an inaccurate way to portray the monster's average damage across those first three rounds. On any turn after its first, there is a 1 in 3 chance that the dragon will use its breath weapon, and that should be taken into account. The actual average damage of this dragon (ignoring hit/save chance and omitting the bite's cold damage since the DMG forgot) is (90 + ((90 + 37 + 37) / 3) + ((90 + 37 + 37) / 3)) / 3 = 66.4444444. Having the dragon recover after a set number of turns instead of rolling keeps the damage output at 54 as intended, but at the cost of the randomness of the recharge ability.
I'd be more okay with keeping the recharge abilities as random as they are if the threat that they posed was accurately determined for the game's monsters, but I feel that it was not.
4e sometimes had things that triggered when a creature was bloodied (at half their max HP). I often recharge based on that, or if the fight feels too easy, it might go ahead and just use the ability as a Reaction. I like the idea that it's on the ropes but it's still got some fight left.
In a more general sense, I like having more control and accountability to my monsters. So I'm not going to recharge my breath three times in a row, TPK the party, and then shrug like it wasn't my fault. I'm not really a huge fan of leaving that kind of stuff up to the dice. There's already enough randomness from all the other combat rolls.
Even so, the method presented is still an inaccurate way to portray the monster's average damage across those first three rounds. On any turn after its first, there is a 1 in 3 chance that the dragon will use its breath weapon, and that should be taken into account. The actual average damage of this dragon (ignoring hit/save chance and omitting the bite's cold damage since the DMG forgot) is (90 + ((90 + 37 + 37) / 3) + ((90 + 37 + 37) / 3)) / 3 = 66.4444444. Having the dragon recover after a set number of turns instead of rolling keeps the damage output at 54 as intended, but at the cost of the randomness of the recharge ability.
I'd be more okay with keeping the recharge abilities as random as they are if the threat that they posed was accurately determined for the game's monsters, but I feel that it was not.
I agree with you, in that the equation isn't absolute. It's vague, and allows for random outcomes that are frequently unaccounted for. I can see how some people might consider that a flaw. I'm also with you that if you change a creature's CR that you're not gonna wreck all of D&D and that you should feel welcome to change what you will to make things more fun for your players.
What you present does nothing to account for the probability of a recharge, an alternate length of combat (longer or shorter), or whether a PC flubs a save and eats a steaming pile of breath weapon. It also does nothing to account for the creatures intent, goals or mannerisms. If a dragon finds itself on the upper hand of a fight, with the ability to gain a new thrall, they may well take the opportunity to force an "alliance". Just because the ability recharges doesn't require it's use. Just the threat of it's repeated use can instill fear and apprehension. This is valuable. Making it go off like an alarm that chimes the hour removes that hesitance to act. It allows for the MMO Boss to be timed and its attack sequence exploited.
If I kill off a PC, or party, I'm not happy about it. Nor am I intentionally cotton-balling encounters so as to protect the fragile party from a TPK. Some monsters are supposed to be dangerous deadly and unpredictable. The party won't receive 100% accurate data until they are in a direct interface with that creatures output. Meaning: when that first breath weapon goes off and you tell them how much damage they take, and they ask you what half would be, then you inform them that, that number was indeed *half* of the output. Somebody's gonna do some math and probability equations of their own. Everyone has choices to make, I work very hard not to make choices for my players. I don't see more fun in knowing with absolute certainty that the party will achieve victory precisely on the 5th turn of the 3rd round of combat. I see more fun in being hopeful that they survive, and surprised and relieved when they do.
If your process makes games more fun for you and yours, then please enjoy!
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.
In the CR rules, the game assumes combat only lasts 3 rounds (Edit: technically, it just says to use the average damage across the first three rounds to determine the offensive challenge rating), which is a fair assumption. But it assumes that a monster with a Recharge of, say, 5-6 will be used on round 1 and not recharge until round 4, and the CR of the game's monsters is set with that in mind. This doesn't take into account the chance of recovering the move on an earlier round, which can result in such monsters doing more damage than intended.
For example, a monster does 90 damage with its breath weapon and 37 damage with its Multiattack. It's average damage over the first 3 rounds (assuming everything hits) is expected by the monster's CR to be (90+37+37) / 3, but it would be more accurate to say that its average damage would be (90 + ((90+37+37) / 3) + ((90+37+37) / 3)) / 3.
Since every monster in the game uses this assumption, it would be tedious to second guess every monster with a recharge ability when making encounters. I prefer to house rule the actual rule to fit the assumption by having the monster recharge after a set number of turns.
Recharge 4-6 -> takes 2 turns to recover
Recharge 5-6 -> takes 3 turns to recover
Recharge 6 -> takes 6 turns to recover
I'm not finding any stated assumptions that "combat only lasts 3 rounds". I find the guidance to use the sum damage output for the creature's *first* three rounds of combat. The inference here might be that the ability would recharge by the 4th round, and the DM might recycle the attack sequence. Another possibility might be that the ability recharge on the second round and the encounter possibly became much more deadly.
The more specific the equation becomes, the more specific the data put into it also must be. If we make our creatures and encounters less probability based, and more definitionally based, the outcome also becomes known before the attempt. At which point, we are not discovering what happens, we are directing it. The system is currently designed to allow for encounters to conclude without any foreknowledge by any person. The DM could have a good idea of how their players might react to the challenge presented, but the DM cannot be 100% certain of any outcome, unless that outcome is forced. The quest for the most accurate encounter balance ever is more about controlling outcomes than running a fun game.
I have customised monsters to have a "recharge on condition", or mythic trait that allows for this as well. I do agree with, and have used the "recharge at the beginning of turn: X", as this allows for a reasonable damage/ability cycle to allow the players to feel challenged.
“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
Definitely at the end of their turn. Gives characters a chance to react and is cinematic
It's in DMG chapter 9, when discussing damage output that varies by round.
You mean:
Overall Damage Output. To determine a monster’s overall damage output, take the average damage it deals with each of its attacks in a round and add them together. If a monster has different attack options, use the monster’s most effective attacks to determine its damage output. For example, a fire giant can make two greatsword attacks or one rock attack in a round. The greatsword attacks deal more damage, so that attack routine determines the fire giant’s damage output.
If a monster’s damage output varies from round to round, calculate its damage output each round for the first three rounds of combat, and take the average. For example, a young white dragon has a multiattack routine (one bite attack and two claw attacks) that deals an average of 37 damage each round, as well as a breath weapon that deals 45 damage, or 90 if it hits two targets (and it probably will). In the first three rounds of combat, the dragon will probably get to use its breath weapon once and its multiattack routine twice, so its average damage output for the first three rounds would be (90 + 37 + 37) ÷ 3, or 54 damage (rounded down).
Actually says nothing about an assumption that combat stops at round three, or how long combat "should" last. Only that we use the *first* three rounds to determine damage output.
“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
Even so, the method presented is still an inaccurate way to portray the monster's average damage across those first three rounds. On any turn after its first, there is a 1 in 3 chance that the dragon will use its breath weapon, and that should be taken into account. The actual average damage of this dragon (ignoring hit/save chance and omitting the bite's cold damage since the DMG forgot) is (90 + ((90 + 37 + 37) / 3) + ((90 + 37 + 37) / 3)) / 3 = 66.4444444. Having the dragon recover after a set number of turns instead of rolling keeps the damage output at 54 as intended, but at the cost of the randomness of the recharge ability.
I'd be more okay with keeping the recharge abilities as random as they are if the threat that they posed was accurately determined for the game's monsters, but I feel that it was not.
4e sometimes had things that triggered when a creature was bloodied (at half their max HP). I often recharge based on that, or if the fight feels too easy, it might go ahead and just use the ability as a Reaction. I like the idea that it's on the ropes but it's still got some fight left.
In a more general sense, I like having more control and accountability to my monsters. So I'm not going to recharge my breath three times in a row, TPK the party, and then shrug like it wasn't my fault. I'm not really a huge fan of leaving that kind of stuff up to the dice. There's already enough randomness from all the other combat rolls.
My homebrew subclasses (full list here)
(Artificer) Swordmage | Glasswright | (Barbarian) Path of the Savage Embrace
(Bard) College of Dance | (Fighter) Warlord | Cannoneer
(Monk) Way of the Elements | (Ranger) Blade Dancer
(Rogue) DaggerMaster | Inquisitor | (Sorcerer) Riftwalker | Spellfist
(Warlock) The Swarm
I agree with you, in that the equation isn't absolute. It's vague, and allows for random outcomes that are frequently unaccounted for. I can see how some people might consider that a flaw. I'm also with you that if you change a creature's CR that you're not gonna wreck all of D&D and that you should feel welcome to change what you will to make things more fun for your players.
What you present does nothing to account for the probability of a recharge, an alternate length of combat (longer or shorter), or whether a PC flubs a save and eats a steaming pile of breath weapon. It also does nothing to account for the creatures intent, goals or mannerisms. If a dragon finds itself on the upper hand of a fight, with the ability to gain a new thrall, they may well take the opportunity to force an "alliance". Just because the ability recharges doesn't require it's use. Just the threat of it's repeated use can instill fear and apprehension. This is valuable. Making it go off like an alarm that chimes the hour removes that hesitance to act. It allows for the MMO Boss to be timed and its attack sequence exploited.
If I kill off a PC, or party, I'm not happy about it. Nor am I intentionally cotton-balling encounters so as to protect the fragile party from a TPK. Some monsters are supposed to be
dangerousdeadly and unpredictable. The party won't receive 100% accurate data until they are in a direct interface with that creatures output. Meaning: when that first breath weapon goes off and you tell them how much damage they take, and they ask you what half would be, then you inform them that, that number was indeed *half* of the output. Somebody's gonna do some math and probability equations of their own. Everyone has choices to make, I work very hard not to make choices for my players. I don't see more fun in knowing with absolute certainty that the party will achieve victory precisely on the 5th turn of the 3rd round of combat. I see more fun in being hopeful that they survive, and surprised and relieved when they do.If your process makes games more fun for you and yours, then please enjoy!
“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