How many of these encounters?

[Pinjata]

Ok. Level 7 players, 4 players. Any class.

Random encounters in a large room (100 x 100 ft with three entrances that are entry point for undead) (rolling 1d3)
1. 5x zombie, 5x skeleton, 2x mummy
2. 4x zombie, 4x skeleton, 3x mummy
3. 2x zombie, 2x skeleton, 4x mummy

How many of these should I throw at my players to seriously deplete their resources, but not kill them? Between the fights there are TWO 10 minute rest available (more 10 min for shorter buffs to disappear but players may of course do something to benefit them too during this time).

thanks

[Foxhound438]

just keep them coming until you feel they're sufficiently worn out. i'd throw in an initial 25-ish zombies to incentivise blowing their aoe early, giving no indication that there will be more where that came from. that'd be a good way to speed it up, at least.

[JoeJ]

If what you're trying to do is just wear the party down to a certain level, then it's best not to decide the number of encounters ahead of time. Evaluate the party after each fight, and decide on that basis whether or not to send in another group of monsters.

[RedMage125]

If there's a cleric in the party, those encounters might be far easier than you're planning on. I've had turn undead ruin many an encounter with undead, lol

[Tanarii]

Mummies are CR 3 (700xp). Zombies & Skeletons are CR 1/4 (50 Xp).

For calculating difficulty purposes, you should probably ignore the zombies and skeletons, as they are significantly below the challenge rating of the mummies, per the suggested DMG rules. (I'm referencing the DM Basic v0.3 version.)

So:
1. 700 * 2 * 1.5 = 2100 (easy encounter)
2. 700 * 3 * 2 = 4200 (medium encounter)
3. 700 * 4 * 2 = 5600 (hard encounter)

(Edit: if you want to adjust for the skeletons and zombies, I'd add 50 * number * 1 to the above values. That'll make the difficulty:
1. 2100 + 500 = 2600 (easy)
2. 4200 + 400 = 4600 (hard)
3. 5600 + 200 = 5800 (hard))

The party should be able to handle a combined total of 20,000 points of these encounters before they need a long rest, or about 4 of the encounter 2 & 3 combined. Possibly more since you're giving them a short rest after each one. You might want to consider giving them a short rest every other encounter instead.

Note: don't use the values above for awarded xp. They're for judging encounter difficulty only. Awarded xp should be 700 per mummy plus 50 per skeleton & zombie.

[MaxWilson]

For calculating difficulty purposes, you should probably ignore the zombies and skeletons, as they are significantly below the challenge rating of the mummies, per the suggested DMG rules. (I'm referencing the DM Basic v0.3 version.)

Do you really think the skeletons and zombies "don't contribute significantly to the difficulty of the encounter"? To me they appear to be the bulk of the threat. Mummies on their own are significantly less scary than mummies backed by half a dozen other undead.

You are only supposed to discount other monsters from the multiplier calculation when they don't contribute significantly to difficulty.


Ok. Level 7 players, 4 players. Any class.

Random encounters in a large room (100 x 100 ft with three entrances that are entry point for undead) (rolling 1d3)
1. 5x zombie, 5x skeleton, 2x mummy
2. 4x zombie, 4x skeleton, 3x mummy
3. 2x zombie, 2x skeleton, 4x mummy

How many of these should I throw at my players to seriously deplete their resources, but not kill them? Between the fights there are TWO 10 minute rest available (more 10 min for shorter buffs to disappear but players may of course do something to benefit them too during this time).

thanks

That really, really depends. Some parties can handle a practically-infinite number of these encounters; for example a Necromancer party with a Monk of Long Death for control will lose nothing but arrows from each of these encounters (especially if they sow caltrops during the ten-minute break), whereas a Paladin-smiting-oriented party will lose lots of resources on each. In the degenerate case, three wizards/warlocks each casting Leomund's Tiny Hut in one entrance can stand off the undead indefinitely with zero resource expenditure.

I think it's a mistake to aim for a specific outcome ("deplete their resources but not kill them"), at least if you're going to be disappointed when that outcome doesn't happen. It might be smarter to plan for a potential outcome ("could kill them if they manage their resources poorly and don't flee"). I'd imagine that three or four of these fights could potentially kill a poorly-optimized party if they manage resources poorly and have poor luck.

[Malifice]

Ok. Level 7 players, 4 players. Any class.

Easy: 1400 XP
Medium: 3000 XP
Hard: 4400 XP
Deadly: 6800 XP


1. 5x zombie, 5x skeleton, 2x mummy

Adjusted XP value: 7,600 [deadly]


2. 4x zombie, 4x skeleton, 3x mummy

Adjusted XP value: 7,500 [deadly]


3. 2x zombie, 2x skeleton, 4x mummy

Adjusted XP value: 7,500 [deadly]


How many of these should I throw at my players to seriously deplete their resources, but not kill them?

No more than one. Mummies inflict 5d6+ damage on a hit, have around 60 HP and can paralyze you just by looking at you. Four of them win initiative and gang up on a single PC, and its game over.

Although the encounters are mook heavy (one well placed fireball could wipe the floor with any one of those encounters).

[Tanarii]

Do you really think the skeletons and zombies "don't contribute significantly to the difficulty of the encounter"? To me they appear to be the bulk of the threat. Mummies on their own are significantly less scary than mummies backed by half a dozen other undead.

You are only supposed to discount other monsters from the multiplier calculation when they don't contribute significantly to difficulty.
Against level 7 PCs, and compared to a mummy? No, I don't think they contribute significantly. It takes 14 of them to equal one mummy in threat. 6-7 if you count a x2 for numbers modifier.

At most I'd count them as a separate encounter and add the two together for total difficulty. Multiplying the mummies xp based on the number of additional zombies & skeletons is definitely unwarranted.

That'd give you totals of:
1. 2100 + 1250 = 3350 (medium)
2. 4200 + 1000 = 5200 (hard)
3. 5600 + 400 = 6000 (hard)

[MaxWilson]

Against level 7 PCs, and compared to a mummy? No, I don't think they contribute significantly. It takes 14 of them to equal one mummy in threat. 6-7 if you count a x2 for numbers modifier.

How is that? 14 zombies have 308 HP (with 14 Undead Fortitudes, roughly equal to another 100 or so HP) and attack 14 times at +3 for 63 points of damage. A single mummy has 58 HP (with resistance to normal weapons) and attacks once at +5 for 20.5 damage, plus Dreadful Glare which can frighten or occasionally paralyze. Both are vulnerable to Fireball, for different reasons (large group effect for zombies, fire vulnerability for mummies). Both of them are soft-countered by caltrops, which reduce their speed to a pathetic 10'.

That looks like a multiplicative effect to me. 14 zombies are 3x tougher than the mummy; but the mummy's glare makes the zombies more effective. In the scenario with 5 skeletons, 5 zombies, and 2 mummies, the skeletons and zombies are providing at least 50% of the combat power, possibly more because the skeletons have a ranged attack and cannot be kited as easily as mummies. From the perspective of Lanchester's Square Law, they are multiplying the damage the enemy will do by a factor of 4. They absolutely do deserve to be counted. Scenarios like this are why XP multipliers for quantity exist!

[Malifice]

How is that? 14 zombies have 308 HP (with 14 Undead Fortitudes, roughly equal to another 100 or so HP) and attack 14 times at +3 for 63 points of damage. A single mummy has 58 HP (with resistance to normal weapons) and attacks once at +5 for 20.5 damage, plus Dreadful Glare which can frighten or occasionally paralyze. Both are vulnerable to Fireball, for different reasons (large group effect for zombies, fire vulnerability for mummies). Both of them are soft-countered by caltrops, which reduce their speed to a pathetic 10'.

Yeah; not sure how many DM's would rule caltrops slow down a zombie or a mummy. Pain isnt really a thing for either.

Agree with the rest tough.

[MaxWilson]

Yeah; not sure how many DM's would rule caltrops slow down a zombie or a mummy. Pain isnt really a thing for either.

Agree with the rest tough.

In 5E, by RAW, zombies are immune to poison, but that's all. They can be frightened, stunned, rendered unconscious, and even affected by Symbol of Pain. Unlike skeletons they aren't even immune to exhaustion. You can give them weapons and they'll know how to use them. These are not your father's mindless zombies.

Caltrops work on "any creature" without saying why; if a DM decides that it's purely a pain effect vs. damage to the feet, he could then rule that his zombies are immune to pain and therefore immune to caltrops, but it's not implied by the MM entry. I'd argue that if you're going to do that, instead of ad hoc'ing for zombies you might as well revisit the whole subject and say that caltrops are too effective in 5E relative to real life and should be reduced or removed from the game, or limited in effect to only work on cavalry, requiring more than a single action to emplace--but that's a different subject.

[Tanarii]

How is that?a skeleton or zombie is worth 50 xp. A mummy is worth 700. That's how. Even if you give a x2 modifier for numbers its still takes 7 of them to equal one mummy.

No way do 10 skeletons make 2 mummies two times harder (the multiplier for 12 creatures / multiplier for 2 creatures). That's like saying adding ten skeletons is the same as adding two mummies, which isn't even close to accurate.

For the second scenario, adding 8 skeletons to 3 mummies, it's like saying you should add 2-1/2 more mummies. Which is even more ludicrous.

This kind of combat is exactly what the "don't significantly contribute" language is there for. To prevent mooks from making the value of the tough monsters overweighted in the calculations. Adjusting the xp of something 14x the base xp of the mook is just silly.

If you don't want to leave them out, calculate them 2 two separate encounters and add them up.

[MaxWilson]

No way do 10 skeletons make 2 mummies two times harder (the multiplier for 12 creatures / multiplier for 2 creatures). That's like saying adding ten skeletons is the same as adding two mummies, which isn't even close to accurate.

Why not? Ten skeletons and two mummies look roughly equivalent as an addition to a two-mummy force.

Ten skeletons:
AC 13
HP 130
Vulnerability to bludgeoning
10 attacks at +4 for d6+2 damage will do 21 points per round to an AC 18 target, at 80' to 320' range

Two mummies:
AC 11
HP 116
Vulnerability to fire, resistant to normal weapons
2 attacks at +5 for 5d6+3 will do 18.15 points per round to an AC 18 target in melee, plus Dreadful Glare

Mummies are slightly more durable against non-magic slashing/piercing weapons*, significantly more durable vs. bludgeoning weapons, do less damage at a shorter range (so probably lose a couple of rounds of attacks in this 100' by 100' room), and have a Dreadful Glare. Looks like a relatively even trade, and the DMG equation agrees. Where does this "not even close to accurate" idea come from?

* I just rolled a mummy kill twice using 2d6+5 (resistant). Took ten hits to kill the first mummy, eleven to kill the second. Those same rolls would have killed 14 skeletons. So, slightly more durable but not dramatically so. Having the skeletons around would almost double the amount of time the mummies have to get in hits, even before you factor in how the skeletons' higher AC synergizes with Dreadful Glare.

Original damage rolls parenthesized
First mummy: 4(8),8(16),6(12),6(13),7(14),6(13),6(12),6(12),6(1 3),6(13)
Second mummy: 6(12),5(11),6(13),7(14),7(15),4(8),5(10),6(12),5(1 1),6(12),8(17)

[Malifice]

In 5E, by RAW, zombies are immune to poison, but that's all. They can be frightened, stunned, rendered unconscious, and even affected by Symbol of Pain. Unlike skeletons they aren't even immune to exhaustion. You can give them weapons and they'll know how to use them. These are not your father's mindless zombies.

Caltrops work on "any creature" without saying why; if a DM decides that it's purely a pain effect vs. damage to the feet, he could then rule that his zombies are immune to pain and therefore immune to caltrops, but it's not implied by the MM entry. I'd argue that if you're going to do that, instead of ad hoc'ing for zombies you might as well revisit the whole subject and say that caltrops are too effective in 5E relative to real life and should be reduced or removed from the game, or limited in effect to only work on cavalry, requiring more than a single action to emplace--but that's a different subject.

Common sense prevails mate. YMMV.

I wouldnt let them slow down an Iron golem either for what its worth.

[Tanarii]

Why not? Ten skeletons and two mummies look roughly equivalent as an addition to a two-mummy force.Because 12 skeletons are not a two mummy force, as well as 10 being a two mummy force, as well as 8 being a 2-1/2 mummy force. Mooks multiplying non-mooks xp distorts the additional threat created by adding more enemies.

[MaxWilson]

Because 12 skeletons are not a two mummy force, as well as 10 being a two mummy force, as well as 8 being a 2-1/2 mummy force. Mooks multiplying non-mooks xp distorts the additional threat created by adding more enemies.

Your argument appears circular. I keep asking why you think the skeletons don't increase the threat, and you just keep pointing back to the encounter difficulty calculations as a justification for leaving them out of your encounter difficulty calculations. I'm asking why you don't consider them to increase the actual, real threat in a real encounter. Spending two or three rounds hacking through skeletons while the mummies pound on you for free, or four rounds hacking through mummies while the skeletons shoot up your back line, is pretty synergistic for the mummies/skeletons. Therefore by DMG rules they both contribute to the multiplier--unless you can find some reason why the 10 skeletons are in fact not actually contributing significantly to the encounter difficulty. So, why not? Is it just because a cleric can blast them with Destroy Undead if they clump up? In that case, how about just not letting them clump up?

[Malifice]

Your argument appears circular. I keep asking why you think the skeletons don't increase the threat, and you just keep pointing back to the encounter difficulty calculations as a justification for leaving them out of your encounter difficulty calculations. I'm asking why you don't consider them to increase the actual, real threat in a real encounter.

The skeletons increase the threat earlier as they are easier to clean up with an AoE.

For a party thats out of fireballs (or similar), or doesnt have access to the spell, its a different story though.

[Tanarii]

Your argument appears circular. I keep asking why you think the skeletons don't increase the threat, and you just keep pointing back to the encounter difficulty calculations as a justification for leaving them out of your encounter difficulty calculations.Because that's what rates the encounters difficulty. And you can see the distortion in the formula if you let the mooks multiply the heavies xp value. As far as I'm concerned, it's a self-explanatory thing. The formula itself demonstrates why you shouldn't do it.


I'm asking why you don't consider them to increase the actual, real threat in a real encounter.That's a pointless question. I don't have access to the statistical table data needed to determine if the formula is accurate or not. You'll have to collect it yourself or talk to WotC if you want proof of that. I'm just working on the assuming their formula is based on some kind of data collection at some point, and is accurate.

[MaxWilson]

Because that's what rates the encounters difficulty. And you can see the distortion in the formula if you let the mooks multiply the heavies xp value. As far as I'm concerned, it's a self-explanatory thing. The formula itself demonstrates why you shouldn't do it.

That's a pointless question. I don't have access to the statistical table data needed to determine if the formula is accurate or not. You'll have to collect it yourself or talk to WotC if you want proof of that. I'm just working on the assuming their formula is based on some kind of data collection at some point, and is accurate.

But you're the one assuming their formula is inaccurate! The formula says that a couple of mummies (2100 XP, Easy) are not nearly as much of a threat as two mummies, five zombies, and five skeletons (5700 XP, Hard), and in this case I'd argue that the formula is exactly right! But you say it's obviously wrong, in a manner that is so self-explanatory that you won't even explain how it is wrong.

(That isn't to say that you couldn't curbstomp either group of monsters, but anyone who can curbstomp the bigger group will curbstomp the lone mummies even harder. The ten skeletons/zombies increase the threat profile of the monsters enormously. Just think about what happens if two of the zombies devote themselves to Helping the mummies attack while the other three act as meat shields and the skeletons shoot arrows at the wizards to break concentration.)

[coredump]

I agree with Tanarii

The skeletons/zombies do make the encounter more difficult, but not enough to warrant a multiplier for the mummies.

By level 7, those CR 1/4 creatures are not much more than an afterthought.

[Tanarii]

But you're the one assuming their formula is inaccurate!I'm not. I'm assuming you should do what it says to do: ignore the additional mooks.

[MaxWilson]

I agree with Tanarii

The skeletons/zombies do make the encounter more difficult, but not enough to warrant a multiplier for the mummies.

By level 7, those CR 1/4 creatures are not much more than an afterthought.

You may decide otherwise when the skeleton archers start breaking the spellcasters' concentration as the zombies Help the mummies land big attacks.

Even the mere presence of a ranged component (skeletons) prevents the PCs from trivializing the mummies with Ray of Frost and Repelling Eldritch Blast. That's not an "afterthought", that's combined-arms. Similarly, the zombies prevent the PCs from just pushing the mummies prone and grappling them there to kill them while they thrash around helplessly on the ground. Both those tactics can still work, but at least now you have to deal with the zombies and skeletons at the same time.

Since Tanari'i won't explain himself, maybe you can? Are you assuming that the PCs will kill them with AoE attacks like Flaming Sphere when they clump up? Why not just make the skeletons not clump up? Ranged attackers like skeletons have zero reason to clump up anyway.


I'm not. I'm assuming you should do what it says to do: ignore the additional mooks.

Sigh. It says no such thing. The requirement for threat evaluation is literally in the same sentence as the clause about disparate CRs.


When making this calculation, don’t count any monsters whose challenge rating is significantly below the average challenge rating of the other monsters in the group unless you think the weak monsters significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter.

The guideline says you have to evaluate the real threat (which you refuse to do without access to WotC's "statistical table data") in order to decide which monsters to count when computing the multiplier.

[Malifice]

I sit in the middle of the fence here.

I think they do contribute, but not as much as they are listed as via the multiplier.

I wouldnt rule them out, but I would eyeball the encounters down to 'hard' from deadly.

[MaxWilson]

I sit in the middle of the fence here.

I think they do contribute, but not as much as they are listed as via the multiplier.

I wouldnt rule them out, but I would eyeball the encounters down to 'hard' from deadly.

Eyeballing is a reasonable approach--but I'd still like to hear someone explain why. Is it that you think they're too fragile compared to mummies because of AoE concerns, or that they don't contribute enough offensively due to lack of Dreadful Glare, or something else? I know you touched on the AoE thing earlier, Malifice. Is that your only concern?

A 6th level party can kill essentially unlimited numbers of paired mummies at ten-minute intervals with near-zero resource expenditure. I don't think they can kill unlimited numbers of paired mummies with zombie and skeleton backup.

[Tanarii]

Since Tanari'i won't explain himself, maybe you can?

Sigh. It says no such thing. The requirement for threat evaluation is literally in the same sentence as the clause about disparate CRs.

The guideline says you have to evaluate the real threat (which you refuse to do without access to WotC's "statistical table data") in order to decide which monsters to count when computing the multiplier.youre making me want to tear my hair out in frustration. I've explained it several ways, and you're apparently instead focusing on some kind of 'table' threat only you can see in your mind's eye instead of just using the formula as it says to. A 50 Xp CR 1/4 creature doesn't significantly contribute to the encounter difficulty of a 700 xp CR 3 creature. This should be obvious by the difference of 50 being 1/14th of 700 to begin with. But it's demonstrably true by plugging the numbers into the formula, including multipliers, and observing the distortion of the output values, as you increase the number of mummies and decrease the number of mooks.

I added some possible ways to account for the mooks threat for people that would object to discounting them entirely like you're supposed to, but that's apparently not enough for you. Because you're insisting on comparing it to some ephermal threat judgement you're eyeballing.

[Tanarii]

Eyeballing is a reasonable approachthen why the hell are you arguing about the threat as determined by the formula? If you're eyeballing encounter threat, you have to make that based on the individual party, and you need to ask the OPs party composition. Not argue with me about the encounter difficulty and adventuring day determinations, which are completely irrelevant to your way of doing things.

[MaxWilson]

youre making me want to tear my hair out in frustration. I've explained it several ways, and you're apparently instead focusing on some kind of 'table' threat only you can see in your mind's eye instead of just using the formula as it says to. A 50 Xp CR 1/4 creature doesn't significantly contribute to the encounter difficulty of a 700 xp CR 3 creature. This should be obvious by the difference of 50 being 1/14th of 700 to begin with. But it's demonstrably true by plugging the numbers into the formula, including multipliers, and observing the distortion of the output values, as you increase the number of mummies and decrease the number of mooks.

I added some possible ways to account for the mooks threat for people that would object to discounting them entirely like you're supposed to, but that's apparently not enough for you. Because you're insisting on comparing it to some ephermal threat judgement you're eyeballing.

The frustration is unfortunately mutual. I've listed several concrete ways that the backup undead increase the threat potential of the mummies:

1.) They prevent trivializing soft- or hard-counters like kiting and grappling prone;
2.) They do damage competitive with the equivalent amount of mummies;
3.) They soak damage competitive with the equivalent amount of mummies;
4.) They boost action economy and Help grant the mummies advantage.

You call that an "ephemeral threat judgment" that "only can see", without ever addressing the concrete dimensions of the threat which I have already outlined, including just now, and I have no idea why. It's like you're not even reading my posts, and whenever I respond to your posts you just snip it and respond to the first sentence while ignoring the substance of my response to what you wrote. You don't even say that I'm misunderstanding you or where--you act as if I haven't even tried to engage with your arguments. It's extraordinarily frustrating.

Your argument seems to be that zombies and skeletons don't count because if they did, then the fight would be harder, and that's absurd because they don't grant a lot of XP individually. Right? But the DMG/Basic guidelines don't say to ignore monsters who don't grant a lot of XP, it says to ignore monsters that don't significantly contribute to difficulty, i.e. which don't make the fight harder. I'm still waiting to hear ways in which the fight [I]isn't harder when you quintuple the enemy's action economy.

Mind Flayers have a CR much greater than Intellect Devourers, but you'd have to be crazy to claim that 2 Mind Flayers are approximately the same difficulty as two Mind Flayers and three Intellect Devourers. Computing the difficulty separately and then summing them isn't a solution, either. They reinforce each other multiplicatively. I don't believe in building encounters from the DMG tables, but I do sometimes compute difficulty after the fact, and if you're going to compute it you might as well compute it honestly using the actual DMG method, which means you have to assess the actual contributions of the additional monsters to the fight. I've outlined why I think the zombies and skeletons contribute a lot to the fight. Why do you think they don't?

[Zalabim]

I think I'd rate down the encounter if only because it's against majority melee threats in a large, open space where they have access through only small entrances, rather than in a cramped catacomb surrounded by ?dead? bodies.

[MaxWilson]

I think I'd rate down the encounter if only because it's against majority melee threats in a large, open space where they have access through only small entrances, rather than in a cramped catacomb surrounded by ?dead? bodies.

As you know, that applies even moreso to mummies though than to a mixed group of mummies and skeletons. Four mummies in a large(ish) open space means you get at least two free rounds of ranged attacks while they are shambling towards you.

I'm not saying you didn't realize that--obviously you do.

[Zalabim]

Things do slip by me sometimes. My reflexes are not so good. But yes, especially an encounter with only mummies would rate as having a disadvantage in this arena. If it were in a graveyard (with enemies coming from mausoleums within the area, instead of outside the border), catacomb (where they rise from tombs that they open, or in already open burial chambers), or smaller area they'd be more dangerous. At the very least, splitting the groups between all three entrances helps them avoid some obvious pitfalls.

[MrStabby]

Other than building atmosphere and narrative the purpose of these encounters is to drain resources needed later. In this context I believe that difficulty is not related to risk of death, but a risk of death is subsequent encounters due to resource drain.

I see a big group that includes mummies, skeletons and zombies as not being too likely to kill a party that plays wisely but they may be able to deplete hit dice, use up spell slots or limited use items during these fights. Sure a fireball may do a nasty on them but that is a level 3 spell slot that can't be used later.

A big question might be around what follows the encounters. If it is more undead then any loss of channel divinity counts against difficulty. If not and the PCs can freely spend them here without consequences than the encounter is easier (less likely to cause them to use important resources - yes CD can be used for other purposes, but they are usually a little less spectacular).

I think in this context the skeletons and zombies can make a huge difference. The party will not be in any serious danger from any of these waves but the addition of more bodies means that some resources are needed to keep them away from the more vulnerable members of the party. Most common sources of radiant damage (useful for taking down zombies) are from consumption of some kind of resource.

Generally I think that teams of lower level creatures are under-appreciated. One zombie attacks you, as do two. With a third they may try and shove you over and get advantage on attacks. With a bigger guy like a mummy in the group they can help the mummy make its attacks, which can do more damage than they ever would themselves (in effect their impact on the encounter scales with the most damaging attack in the group). The weakness of low level creatures supporting tougher ones is vulnerability to area of effect spells. With archers distant and if different creatures approach from different sides you avoid some of these. Sure a spirit guardians spell will make the encounter very easy but at least archers can try and force concentration saves from a distance.

[Gwendol]

This isn't 3e where in some cases low level monsters weren't able to hit on anything but a critical threat once the PC's where of high enough level.

That said, the difficulty of the encounter in practice in this case will likely scale with the number of mummies, and not be significantly affected by the number of lesser undead. It's not like they don't contribute to the difficulty, but rather that as long as there are enough of them around, they still help the mummies do their thing.

This looks about right for calculating the difficulty:


(Edit: if you want to adjust for the skeletons and zombies, I'd add 50 * number * 1 to the above values. That'll make the difficulty:
1. 2100 + 500 = 2600 (easy)
2. 4200 + 400 = 4600 (hard)
3. 5600 + 200 = 5800 (hard))

[Shining Wrath]

If there's a cleric in the party, those encounters might be far easier than you're planning on. I've had turn undead ruin many an encounter with undead, lol

I expect that the cleric will be out of Channel Divinity as one of the first resources depleted.

[RedMage125]

I expect that the cleric will be out of Channel Divinity as one of the first resources depleted.

Channel Divinity is only one source of making those encounters easier. Clerics can also dish out at-will radiant damage, which makes those pesky zombies stay down.

[Pinjata]

Holy hell, what a debate. Much thanks to all. I can see that these encounters are not perfect, so I wonder what should I set up in order to create beefy-mooks-and-some-nasty-support encounters? I want to make things simple - I want for the large part of encounter setup to be I-have-some/lots-of-hp-and-I-hit-things (zombies and skeletons are perfect for this, only too low CR perhaps)along with something that has a nasty ability (mummy is perfect for this).

How should I reshape encounters for lvl 7 party?

[MaxWilson]

I think these encounters are fine as is. Destroying hordes of mook monsters is fun. Your cleric will feel fun and powerful when he blasts all the zombies, and then the fighters will feel good for cleaning up the mummies. Then the cleric will feel a bit anxious when he blasts the next group of zombies, because he's out of Channel Divinities at that point, and the fighters will defeat the next zombies without Action Surges (assuming that they're the nova types and not tactical types). After the third group (cleric spends Spirit Guardians) they'll be feeling super anxious and low on resources, and they'll want to retreat and regroup. (Unless they are smart about tactics and/or they built for this scenario, in which case they may still be at near-full resouces by the third group because they killed the monsters with at-will resources like arrows and cantrips and just restored any lost HP via Aura of Vitality or Goodberry. And if so, good for them! They'll have an easier time than other groups with whatever comes next.)

If you've arranged it somehow so that it takes them several of these groups of monsters for them to get through the room (e.g. takes two consecutive DC 20 lockpicking attempts to open the doors, and each attempt takes ten minutes), and so their window of opportunity doesn't allow them to retreat without failing in their objective (e.g. "if you come back tomorrow there will be hundreds of mummies here between you and the treasure"), they will have to choose between proceeding with depleted resources or retreating early. Be prepared for either. My players' PCs would probably retreat--they are pretty interested in staying alive. :)

[Shining Wrath]

Channel Divinity is only one source of making those encounters easier. Clerics can also dish out at-will radiant damage, which makes those pesky zombies stay down.

But zombies have excellent Dexterity and dodge Sacred Flame! ... sometimes. :smallsmile:

If you've got the cleric locked down spamming a medium-damage cantrip every round to avoid the Undead Fortitude feature, and the party needs to drop > 1 undead a round anyway to survive so the cleric can't Flame them all - it seems likely resources are going to be depleted. This is not supposed to be the ZOMG we're all going to die encounter, this is supposed to wear down the party a little bit. Clerics obviously have ways to make the Undead less dangerous, so you just have to throw a couple more at a party with one.

[Tanarii]

The frustration is unfortunately mutual.

You call that an "ephemeral threat judgment" that "only can see", without ever addressing the concrete dimensions of the threat which I have already outlined, including just now, and I have no idea why. It's like you're not even reading my posts, and whenever I respond to your posts you just snip it and respond to the first sentence while ignoring the substance of my response to what you wrote. You don't even say that I'm misunderstanding you or where--you act as if I haven't even tried to engage with your arguments. It's extraordinarily frustrating.
Yeah, I finally realized it's because we are effectively talking about two different things. I'm purely talking about how to use the system they've provided to assess the threat, which is independent of the particulars of the creatures involved, other than their CR/XP. It seems to me that you're talking about assessing the threat via comparison of actual individual mechanical capability of specific creatures, although I don't want to put works in your mouth. Regardless, not surprised we were getting frustrated.

The reason I snipped out other stuff is it seemed completely irrelevant to the thing I was looking at: abstract threat calculation via the formula, which theoretically depends on CR/XP alone.


Your argument seems to be that zombies and skeletons don't count because if they did, then the fight would be harder, and that's absurd because they don't grant a lot of XP individually. Right? But the DMG/Basic guidelines don't say to ignore monsters who don't grant a lot of XP, it says to ignore monsters that don't significantly contribute to difficulty, i.e. which don't make the fight harder. I'm still waiting to hear ways in which the fight [I]isn't harder when you quintuple the enemy's action economy.

Mind Flayers have a CR much greater than Intellect Devourers, but you'd have to be crazy to claim that 2 Mind Flayers are approximately the same difficulty as two Mind Flayers and three Intellect Devourers. Computing the difficulty separately and then summing them isn't a solution, either. They reinforce each other multiplicatively. I don't believe in building encounters from the DMG tables, but I do sometimes compute difficulty after the fact, and if you're going to compute it you might as well compute it honestly using the actual DMG method, which means you have to assess the actual contributions of the additional monsters to the fight. I've outlined why I think the zombies and skeletons contribute a lot to the fight. Why do you think they don't?
My argument is that the formula is there to determine threat based on CR/XP. And as such what is a significant threat vs an insignificant one is the relative CR/XP. Because you break the formula in an obvious way if you combine a high CR/XP creature with the multiplicative affect of numerous low CR/XP creatures. It specifically references using the CR as the determining factor for this. But in rereading that sentence, I admit that 'significantly contribute to the difficulty of the encounter' is fairly open to how you determine what constitutes significantly contributing. IMO a CR 1/2 50XP creature doesn't significantly contribute to the difficultly of an encounter featuring a CR 3 / 700 XP creature, but obviously you feel differently based on different criteria. Given the relative numbers, and more importantly having walked away from my frustration for a day, I can see where you are coming from.

I don't take this formulas difficulty as gospel by any means. When the encounter hits the table and is played out actual I'd expect difficulty to vary based on a variety of factors. I use the formula as a guideline only. I happen to think it's a worthwhile guideline, quick to use, flexible, and one that doesn't depend on estimates or theorycrafting. Plug in the numbers and you get an rough threat estimate. Although I get hung up in the number crunching sometimes, it's a very rough estimate at the end that matters.

[Tanarii]

Holy hell, what a debate. Much thanks to all. I can see that these encounters are not perfect, so I wonder what should I set up in order to create beefy-mooks-and-some-nasty-support encounters? I want to make things simple - I want for the large part of encounter setup to be I-have-some/lots-of-hp-and-I-hit-things (zombies and skeletons are perfect for this, only too low CR perhaps)along with something that has a nasty ability (mummy is perfect for this). Sorry to go all geeked out on your question. :)

I actually think your concept is fine. You'll probably have to eyeball if there's a Short Rest after every fight, or one after every other fight. This will be especially important if you have someone in the party that can Channel Divinity. Especially a Cleric, they can destroy CR 1/2 Undead after 5th level, twice per Short Rest after 6th. You could address that issue by mixing in some non-undead on some of the fight line-ups.

Regardless, in theory by the DMG calculations, a generic 7th level party should be able to handle between five and three total #2 and #3 encounters (depending on which way you calculate the formula) before needing a Long Rest.

[Malifice]

I think these encounters are fine as is. Destroying hordes of mook monsters is fun. Your cleric..

...loses initiative and gets rushed by two mummies, the first of whom hits and the second of whom crits for a toal 15d6 plus X damage, dropping him to zero on turn 1.

You gotta be careful man. Things can turn very quickly.