D&D 5E Encounter Building: Revised XP Threshold by Character Level Table

[Flamestrike]

When it comes to encounter designs I think we should look at the multiplyer for multiple monsters first.
as this seems to realy ramp up the adjusted XP.

if you have a Cr 20 dragon and add one cr 1/8 kobold the encounter does not become 1.5 times as hard.

The rules already say this. You dont multiply the XP for multiple weaker monsters.

Its left to the DM to determine when this kicks in.

 

[MostlyDm]

There's a third option, I think: #3 he may evaluate monsters against a new metric for monster deadliness (possibly one which takes monster tactics into account), possibly one invented by someone else, before inserting them into his adventure. I think this is distinct from both #1 (acute awareness of every detail) and #2 (complete indifference to outcomes).

Employing that metric may or may not be as simple as adding up a bunch of numbers and looking the result up in a table. It could a neural network, or a support vector machine, or some kind of deep learning algorithm, but at the end of the day what you're doing is taking a bunch of known inputs (monster stats and behaviors; the circumstances under which the encounter occurs) and partially-known inputs (player stats and behaviors; if you're writing a published adventure or if you have objections to too much anti-PC customization, the amount of information you have here could be very limited) and some unknowable stochastic inputs (die rolls) and trying to say something about the outputs (e.g. how likely the players are to TPK, or what fraction of total PC resources are likely to be expended).

You can tell I've been thinking a lot lately about how to apply machine learning to 5E, and what kinds of predictions might be useful to make.

I've considered the idea of rating encounters in terms of "Champions", as in "this is a Champion-4/15 adventure" meaning "four 15th level Champions played straightforwardly have a 50% chance of at least one of them surviving." Then you could also quantify things like, "If the party finds the Sunsword, Strahd drops from a Champion 3/10 threat to a 2/10 or 1/13," or "letting Strahd exploit Greater Invisibility, crazy Stealth, and his legendary actions increases his difficulty from Champion-2/10 to Champion 5/10." I'm not sure if that's the best form for guidance to take but it's something to consider. Input is welcome. Would that kind of language be useful?

It's a fascinating idea, as usual.

A few minor thoughts. Your current metric assumes as an outcome "50% of at least one survivor." If that's the outcome assumption you stick with, you should put that in huge bold letters. I suspect that this outcome is significantly more extreme, and assumes a much harder base game, than most people will be expecting. Remember, the supposed definition of DMG "Deadly" is that there's a chance of some player death. I'm not specifically complaining or anything, just observing that your play assumptions may diverge significantly from the people that want to use your tool.

Which kind of segues into my next comment. I think you'll need to very explicitly communicate exactly what assumptions your simulations make about party tactics. For example, you say "four 15th level Champions played straightforwardly" ... but what does that mean, exactly? Does it mean that they engage in a mix of melee and ranged and make regular attacks? Does it assume they grapple, shove, and gang-smash enemies? Do they use Dodge?

My first assumption for the word "straightforwardly" would be that they make nothing but regular attack rolls, but you often describe other tactical approaches with such an offhanded/casual tone that I sometimes wonder if you assume nearly every table is using similar tactics. So, again, something that probably needs to be more fully spelled out.

Just in case there's any confusion, none of this is meant as a slight. I have massive respect and admiration for you, and I think this is an awesome endeavor you are pursuing. I wish you nothing but success.

 

[dave2008]

XP Thresholds aren't for you.

They aren't for any of us, really. I'd hazard a guess that the majority of people who care about D&D and think about D&D in their spare time so much that they feel compelled to post about D&D on a web forum are categorically not the people the XP thresholds were designed for.

So of course they will seem woefully low to you. Because they're designed to assist casual/novice DMs who need help getting a quick-and-dirty handle on how difficult an encounter is going to be. They err on the side of too-easy... because casual/novice players are often orders of magnitude less effective than experienced players.
t.

Yes, I agree with your point. I personally never use encounter guidelines myself. However, the thing you got wrong was thinking I my intent was to design this for me or people like me. The intent is to make something better / more accurate for the new DM. To make this encounter guideline more accurately about DPR, HP, etc - with a discussion/guide on how party composition and tactics can change things.

So I agree I can't make something that will do exactly what I would need, or you would need, or Hemlock would need. It is simply to make something better than what is in the DMG. Heck, we have already had a UA on the subject as well.

 

[dave2008]

I've considered the idea of rating encounters in terms of "Champions", as in "this is a Champion-4/15 adventure" meaning "four 15th level Champions played straightforwardly have a 50% chance of at least one of them surviving." Then you could also quantify things like, "If the party finds the Sunsword, Strahd drops from a Champion 3/10 threat to a 2/10 or 1/13," or "letting Strahd exploit Greater Invisibility, crazy Stealth, and his legendary actions increases his difficulty from Champion-2/10 to Champion 5/10." I'm not sure if that's the best form for guidance to take but it's something to consider. Input is welcome. Would that kind of language be useful?

That level of detail would be great, but I think it would take more time than I've got to develop

Also, I think your better using 50% than 5/10 and you definitely don't want to jump from 2/10 to 1/13. If you want to use fractions - keep the denominator the same for all results.

 

[MostlyDm]

Yes, I agree with your point. I personally never use encounter guidelines myself. However, the thing you got wrong was thinking I my intent was to design this for me or people like me. The intent is to make something better / more accurate for the new DM. To make this encounter guideline more accurately about DPR, HP, etc - with a discussion/guide on how party composition and tactics can change things.

So I agree I can't make something that will do exactly what I would need, or you would need, or Hemlock would need. It is simply to make something better than what is in the DMG. Heck, we have already had a UA on the subject as well.

Fair enough! Perhaps I should have read your posts on the matter more closely.

So is the consensus that, for novice DMs running games for novice players, "Deadly" encounters are still woefully non-threatening and never/rarely result in character deaths?

On first blush I just find myself feeling skeptical. How is this data gathered, exactly? I imagine most self-reporting, polling, conventions etc. all have the same fundamental selection bias: Most people who are so interested in D&D that they follow this stuff are probably not the DMs the DMG should really be aimed at.

 

[dave2008]

Fair enough! Perhaps I should have read your posts on the matter more closely.

I don't think I ever said that before so no surprise you didn't pick that up!

So is the consensus that, for novice DMs running games for novice players, "Deadly" encounters are still woefully non-threatening and never/rarely result in character deaths?

On first blush I just find myself feeling skeptical. How is this data gathered, exactly? I imagine most self-reporting, polling, conventions etc. all have the same fundamental selection bias: Most people who are so interested in D&D that they follow this stuff are probably not the DMs the DMG should really be aimed at.

No consensus, just a gut feeling. That's how I roll ( or is it role?

However, it is not really about being a novice DM and players I don't think. It is more about play style, player skill, and party tactics I believe. There is a relationship to being new, but it is not simply that new players/DMs need more forgiving encounter guidelines. Heck I am sure there a new DMs that are lot more harsh or better tactically then me. Also, that is why the revised table adhere's more closely to the original from 1-8 or so and then ramps up more aggressively. By the time a group reaches level 10 your not novices anymore.

 

[FormerlyHemlock]

That level of detail would be great, but I think it would take more time than I've got to develop

Also, I think your better using 50% than 5/10 and you definitely don't want to jump from 2/10 to 1/13. If you want to use fractions - keep the denominator the same for all results.

Note to self: "don't use 5/10 as terminology for '5 10th level Champions' or people will think it's a fraction." Maybe call it Champion-5-10, or just abandon the metric entirely. When I said "Strahd drops from a Champion 3/10 threat to a 2/10 or 1/13," that was supposed to indicate that two 10th level Champions or one 13th level Champion might be able to survive against him with the Sunsword--and of course, both 2-10 and 1-13 might be true simultaneously, because you need to raise the level of a solo character to give him a shot at surviving.

I'm not suggesting that you adopt this metric BTW, Dave2008. I'm talking about it because I'm in the middle of thinking about it, myself. Specifically, trying to figure out whether you can and how you would help DMs predict the difficulty of adventures or encounters they create.

 

[MostlyDm]

I don't think I ever said that before so no surprise you didn't pick that up!






No consensus, just a gut feeling. That's how I roll ( or is it role?


However, it is not really about being a novice DM and players I don't think. It is more about play style, player skill, and party tactics I believe. There is a relationship to being new, but it is not simply that new players/DMs need more forgiving encounter guidelines. Heck I am sure there a new DMs that are lot more harsh or better tactically then me. Also, that is why the revised table adhere's more closely to the original from 1-8 or so and then ramps up more aggressively. By the time a group reaches level 10 your not novices anymore.

Good points!

I think I am using the wrong term when I say "novice" though. Perhaps better would be... casual? I'm thinking of my sister and her husband, who have actually been playing for 20+ years same as me. But they have three kids, and they play infrequently (more the last couple years, as their youngest got old enough that I can run full family games that exclude no one). My brother in law used to DM when I was a kid and they were the cool older folks.

But these days... they are just happy to play. They dive in, roleplay the heck out of their characters... and have zero time or inclination for system mastery. Even if they get to 10th level, I suspect they will still primarily treat the game as relaxed escapism. The epitome of the "beer and pretzels" sort of game, maybe?

When I run a game for them, I can generally keep things well balanced. But if my brother in law wanted to run a game for his three kids and his wife, he would need... straightforward guidelines that assumed a lack of system mastery. And the ability to run an exciting game with the illusion of tension, but that would be highly unlikely to TPK his kids.

Does that make sense? I think those groups are the people for whom a resource like this is most needed.

 

[dave2008]

Note to self: "don't use 5/10 as terminology for '5 10th level Champions' or people will think it's a fraction." Maybe call it Champion-5-10, or just abandon the metric entirely. When I said "Strahd drops from a Champion 3/10 threat to a 2/10 or 1/13," that was supposed to indicate that two 10th level Champions or one 13th level Champion might be able to survive against him with the Sunsword--and of course, both 2-10 and 1-13 might be true simultaneously, because you need to raise the level of a solo character to give him a shot at surviving.

Oops - I totally missed that. I read to quickly I guess!

I'm not suggesting that you adopt this metric BTW, Dave2008. I'm talking about it because I'm in the middle of thinking about it, myself. Specifically, trying to figure out whether you can and how you would help DMs predict the difficulty of adventures or encounters they create.

I know, i didn't think you were. And I think discussing it is a good idea, that is why I started this post. I've been doing to much thinking and not enough conversation!

 

[dave2008]

Good points!

I think I am using the wrong term when I say "novice" though. Perhaps better would be... casual? I'm thinking of my sister and her husband, who have actually been playing for 20+ years same as me. But they have three kids, and they play infrequently (more the last couple years, as their youngest got old enough that I can run full family games that exclude no one). My brother in law used to DM when I was a kid and they were the cool older folks.

But these days... they are just happy to play. They dive in, roleplay the heck out of their characters... and have zero time or inclination for system mastery. Even if they get to 10th level, I suspect they will still primarily treat the game as relaxed escapism. The epitome of the "beer and pretzels" sort of game, maybe?

When I run a game for them, I can generally keep things well balanced. But if my brother in law wanted to run a game for his three kids and his wife, he would need... straightforward guidelines that assumed a lack of system mastery. And the ability to run an exciting game with the illusion of tension, but that would be highly unlikely to TPK his kids.

Does that make sense? I think those groups are the people for whom a resource like this is most needed.

Yes, that makes sense - I find myself in a similar situation currently. That is what I mean by play style. From my perspective that is when discuss in the guidelines about using easy vs. medium vs. hard vs. deadly encounters. The casual gamers may want to stick to easy and medium, while the competitive gamers might use mostly hard and deadly encounters.