Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is coming! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Encounter Building: Revised XP Threshold by Character Level Table
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="CapnZapp" data-source="post: 6989607" data-attributes="member: 12731"><p>Well... my point is that easy, medium and hard all come across as "easy", but with varying levels of resource expenditure.</p><p></p><p>Which is why I would prefer not using those labels. </p><p></p><p>Instead of "hard" (say), perhaps it should be called "taxing", since it isn't really percieved to be hard. It just so happens that after the fight, the players realize they've used up some resources.</p><p></p><p>As for difficulty there is only "non-challenging" (I like "trivial" myself) and "challenging" (and perhaps "deadly" if that is reserved for something much more deadly than 10% risk of single player death*)</p><p></p><p>Labelling resource expenditure is really what it is about, and there I'm arguing we should use more appropriate labels. Not easy and hard, but low and high (resource expenditure). Or "taxing" as I suggested earlier. Or whatever that can't be confused for a label on difficulty.</p><p></p><p>A rough example:</p><p></p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Instead of "easy" we could... well, actually I want us to drop this completely trivial and uninteresting category. This isn't even an encounter, it's a speed-bump. (meaning it might still be an explore or social encounter, just not a combat encounter)</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Instead of "medium" let's use "non-challenging with low to no resource expenditure".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Instead of "hard" let's use "non-challenging with medium resource expenditure".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Instead of "deadly" let's use "non-challenging with high to nova resource expenditure; challenging with low to medium resource expenditure".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Instead of "double deadly" let's use "challenging with medium to high resource expenditure".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Instead of "triple deadly or more" let's use "ensured challenging at any level of resource expenditure".</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul"></li> </ul><p>This assumes the following:</p><p>a. parties generally decide themselves when and where to regain resources. That is, being prevented from resting is the exception to the rule. Meaning it's perfectly alright to prevent rests, only that the table doesn't assume it. DMs retricting rests need to take this into account rather than the other way around (that DMs not adding story based time restraints having to adapt the table's guidelines).</p><p>b. it assumes half as many encounters as the 6-8 "norm", partly because of a. HOWEVER, it also assumes </p><p>c. encounters will generally be challenging except when there is a reason to include a non-challenging encounter (for storybased reasons, for world verisimiltude reasons or other). That is, merely including a string of non-challenging encounters for no other reason than to see if they can leech of some resources is NOT the norm, and DMs including them will have to adapt (rather than the other way round). </p><p></p><p>Zapp</p><p></p><p></p><p>*) which could be the basis of a rant all by itself. Since D&D does retain a certain modicum of swinginess, I would ask "what fight does not retain a small risk of one character dying??". A fight that doesn't include even the smallest risk of actual character death (at levels where raise dead is available) must be a complete pushover.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="CapnZapp, post: 6989607, member: 12731"] Well... my point is that easy, medium and hard all come across as "easy", but with varying levels of resource expenditure. Which is why I would prefer not using those labels. Instead of "hard" (say), perhaps it should be called "taxing", since it isn't really percieved to be hard. It just so happens that after the fight, the players realize they've used up some resources. As for difficulty there is only "non-challenging" (I like "trivial" myself) and "challenging" (and perhaps "deadly" if that is reserved for something much more deadly than 10% risk of single player death*) Labelling resource expenditure is really what it is about, and there I'm arguing we should use more appropriate labels. Not easy and hard, but low and high (resource expenditure). Or "taxing" as I suggested earlier. Or whatever that can't be confused for a label on difficulty. A rough example: [LIST] [*]Instead of "easy" we could... well, actually I want us to drop this completely trivial and uninteresting category. This isn't even an encounter, it's a speed-bump. (meaning it might still be an explore or social encounter, just not a combat encounter) [*]Instead of "medium" let's use "non-challenging with low to no resource expenditure". [*]Instead of "hard" let's use "non-challenging with medium resource expenditure". [*]Instead of "deadly" let's use "non-challenging with high to nova resource expenditure; challenging with low to medium resource expenditure". [*]Instead of "double deadly" let's use "challenging with medium to high resource expenditure". [*]Instead of "triple deadly or more" let's use "ensured challenging at any level of resource expenditure". [*] [/LIST] This assumes the following: a. parties generally decide themselves when and where to regain resources. That is, being prevented from resting is the exception to the rule. Meaning it's perfectly alright to prevent rests, only that the table doesn't assume it. DMs retricting rests need to take this into account rather than the other way around (that DMs not adding story based time restraints having to adapt the table's guidelines). b. it assumes half as many encounters as the 6-8 "norm", partly because of a. HOWEVER, it also assumes c. encounters will generally be challenging except when there is a reason to include a non-challenging encounter (for storybased reasons, for world verisimiltude reasons or other). That is, merely including a string of non-challenging encounters for no other reason than to see if they can leech of some resources is NOT the norm, and DMs including them will have to adapt (rather than the other way round). Zapp *) which could be the basis of a rant all by itself. Since D&D does retain a certain modicum of swinginess, I would ask "what fight does not retain a small risk of one character dying??". A fight that doesn't include even the smallest risk of actual character death (at levels where raise dead is available) must be a complete pushover. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Encounter Building: Revised XP Threshold by Character Level Table
Top