I took a look at the encounter building guidelines in Xanathars and I feel like I either don´t get this or that there is something wrong.
It is about determining numbers and challenge ratings. It seems to me, that a group of adventurers can take a solo monster with a much higher CR than with multiple monsters.
For example, a group of 4 level 15 Characters can deal, according to the table, with a single level 18 CR legendary monster, but in the multiple monster table they say that 6 level 15 characters are worth one monster of CR 15. This does not make any sense to me, or did I miss something?
The Multiple Monster tables assume that there are more than a single monster. In those tables, the ratio between the numbers of characters and the numbers of monsters is reported, and there is a scale factor in play.
Indeed, two CR 15 monsters (XP 13000 * 2) are more difficult than a single CR 18 monster (XP 20000).
It is also worth noting that the tables provided in Xanathar's guide are not pushing the limits of what the characters can deal with - they are just getting a ballpark of "this encounter should be good enough to have fun with".
Which is part of why there is a disparity between the legendary solo and the party:one monster CR/level ratios; what makes for a good (but not pushing the party's limits) fight against a legendary is different from what would make for a good non-legendary encounter with a single monster because there are different expectations of what purpose that encounter serves within the story of the campaign (i.e. the non-legendary encounter is set at a lower CR because it's not typically used in a "this one thing might mess you up good" role like legendary monsters are).
The Multiple Monster tables assume that there are more than a single monster. In those tables, the ratio between the numbers of characters and the numbers of monsters is reported, and there is a scale factor in play.
Indeed, two CR 15 monsters (XP 13000 * 2) are more difficult than a single CR 18 monster (XP 20000).
Yup, and the DMG rules would have you crunch a bunch of numbers and add scaling factors based on the party size and amount of monsters.
Thinking in terms of ratios is a lot more intuitive and streamlined than thinking in terms of XP budgets and difficulty multipliers, and looking over max HP and damage values is a quick but useful heuristic to see if combat's going to play out like you expect or go sideways really fast.
The issue remains that these numbers still don’t agree with each other. In the Solo Monster Challenge Rating table it says that four 3rd level players are equal to one CR 3 monster. But in the Multiple Monster Challenge Rating table it says that four 3rd level players are equal to one CR 2 monster.
The issue remains that these numbers still don’t agree with each other. In the Solo Monster Challenge Rating table it says that four 3rd level players are equal to one CR 3 monster. But in the Multiple Monster Challenge Rating table it says that four 3rd level players are equal to one CR 2 monster.
They're not supposed to agree with each other. Fighting a CR 2 creature alone isn't the same as fighting a CR 2 monster that has help from other monsters. You need higher CRs for a single monster to be just as dangerous as a group.
If you were using the DMG encounter building rules you'd multiply the XP value of all the monsters by at least x1.5 if there's 2 of them or x2 if there's 3-6 of them.
Yes, I think the point here is that the Multiple Monsters table can't be used to generate or assess a single monster encounter. If you have a party of 4 3rd level characters then the sorts of balanced multi-monster encounters could be: 2*CR1, 4*CR1/2, and so on. The table is saying that within a multi-monster melee, a 3rd level character is able to handle roughly one quarter of a CR2 monster. If you only have one CR2 monster in an encounter then you should immediately stop looking at this table and go back to the Solo monster table. The two tables together suggest that a group of 4 3rd level PCs will make short work of a CR2 monster on its own, but will certainly struggle if they face the same monster as part of a group of other creatures.
The solo monster challenge rating table also assumes the creature will have legendary actions, which makes up for some of the difference between that chart and the multiple monsters chart which assumed none of the creatures will have legendary actions.
I'd be surprised if their CR doesn't already account for their legendary actions.
It does, but that doesn't remove the difference in facing a legendary creature and a non-legendary creature of the same CR.
A creature that take some actions at the end of the PCs turns is a very different sort of challenge than one that only takes actions during its own turn.
Hi everybody,
I took a look at the encounter building guidelines in Xanathars and I feel like I either don´t get this or that there is something wrong.
It is about determining numbers and challenge ratings. It seems to me, that a group of adventurers can take a solo monster with a much higher CR than with multiple monsters.
For example, a group of 4 level 15 Characters can deal, according to the table, with a single level 18 CR legendary monster, but in the multiple monster table they say that 6 level 15 characters are worth one monster of CR 15. This does not make any sense to me, or did I miss something?
The Multiple Monster tables assume that there are more than a single monster. In those tables, the ratio between the numbers of characters and the numbers of monsters is reported, and there is a scale factor in play.
Indeed, two CR 15 monsters (XP 13000 * 2) are more difficult than a single CR 18 monster (XP 20000).
It is also worth noting that the tables provided in Xanathar's guide are not pushing the limits of what the characters can deal with - they are just getting a ballpark of "this encounter should be good enough to have fun with".
Which is part of why there is a disparity between the legendary solo and the party:one monster CR/level ratios; what makes for a good (but not pushing the party's limits) fight against a legendary is different from what would make for a good non-legendary encounter with a single monster because there are different expectations of what purpose that encounter serves within the story of the campaign (i.e. the non-legendary encounter is set at a lower CR because it's not typically used in a "this one thing might mess you up good" role like legendary monsters are).
Thank you for your answers.
I still think that this should have been described in another way, but I think I get it now.
<Resurrect Thread Spell>
The issue remains that these numbers still don’t agree with each other. In the Solo Monster Challenge Rating table it says that four 3rd level players are equal to one CR 3 monster. But in the Multiple Monster Challenge Rating table it says that four 3rd level players are equal to one CR 2 monster.
So...
Yes, I think the point here is that the Multiple Monsters table can't be used to generate or assess a single monster encounter. If you have a party of 4 3rd level characters then the sorts of balanced multi-monster encounters could be: 2*CR1, 4*CR1/2, and so on. The table is saying that within a multi-monster melee, a 3rd level character is able to handle roughly one quarter of a CR2 monster. If you only have one CR2 monster in an encounter then you should immediately stop looking at this table and go back to the Solo monster table. The two tables together suggest that a group of 4 3rd level PCs will make short work of a CR2 monster on its own, but will certainly struggle if they face the same monster as part of a group of other creatures.
The solo monster challenge rating table also assumes the creature will have legendary actions, which makes up for some of the difference between that chart and the multiple monsters chart which assumed none of the creatures will have legendary actions.
Ah. Yes. Of course. My thanks to you, good sirs.