DMG Guide to Encounter Difficulties

[Delwugor]

This week I'll be DMing my first 5E game, the biggest concern is not having enough 5E experience to get challenging encounters without killing the PCs (well not right away :smallbiggrin:). So I turned to the DMG section on Combat Encounter Difficulty (pg 82), but this seems to suggest combat which I consider too easy.

The party will consist of a Paladin of Vengeance, Sorcerer and a Rogue all 1st level. So calculations from the table give:
Easy: 75
Medium: 150
Hard: 225
Deadly: 300

OK, good so far. Now I wanted this first simple scenario to consist of 2 combats; one with zombies and one with skeletons. But running the numbers for 3 skeletons (50 xp) 3x50*2=300xp which turns out to be considered Deadly.
Of course it's guidance and judgement based, but never would I consider 3 skeletons vs 3 PCs anything more than a Medium (heck maybe even easy). I see that the big jump from Medium to Deadly comes from the Multiple Monster Multiplier. But is it that big of a difference in 5E? I never noticed this playing at 1st level before.

Am I missing something here? Is the DMG too easy on encounters? What are other DM's experiences using these guidelines?

[stenver]

Deadly means that somebody might die, not that everybody dies. 3 skeletons vs 4 level 1 PCs might quite easily kill at least 1 PC. Focus fire with bows and then focus fire in melee and it's basically a dice roll on which side it goes.

If the skeletons act stupid and attack different targets every round, then it's a whole lot less deadly. Up to you how you like to control your creatures.

I usually have quite simple rule - stupid mobs usually attack nearest. Mobs with commander can already focus fire. Smart enemies know to focus fire and try to target the glass cannons first.

And then there are special mobs of course, like mobs which always try to attack the strongest to prove themselves(These usually are also less intelligent mobs, like honourable Barbarians)


Edit: Noticed that you wanted to do 3v3. In that case, even without focus fire, it can pretty easily swing either way depending on the dice.

[MrStabby]

So a few comments that may (or may not help)

1) An encounter, even a combat encounter needn't be a fight for life. It is about overcoming the situation expending the minimum amount of resources. Even an easy encounter might be a valid stumbling block if the party has to expend resources or can be induced to.

2) By the book encounters are boring. Use the guide to adjust the challenge levels - give some bonus or penalties from weather, terrain, circumstance, surprise etc.. This makes combats a bit different from each other and more memorable.

3) Encounters are usually a bit easier than rated in my experience. Solo monsters are not a challenge most of the time (too easy to incapacitate/control) and the difficulty rating scales pretty fast (faster than actual difficulty). Feel free to add some armour to the skeletons or a couple of +1 arrows or something small.

4) (For later) Treat the PCs having magic items as a benefit in a combat that warrants level adjustment. Even a +1 weapon is pretty powerful, being as it is equivalent to most of an extra level's benefits a lot of the time.

[Tanarii]

Am I missing something here? Is the DMG too easy on encounters? What are other DM's experiences using these guidelines?Yeah they're pretty easy. If you just run one encounter. It's the grind of encounters that matters. The DMG assumes players can handle about 3 Deadly to 12 Easy encounters before they'll need a long rest.

I find it's not the Deadly combat that kills the players, it's the Medium one on the second day, when they started the day with 1/2 HD available, and they're out of LR abilities, SR abilities, and low on HPs ... but they waiting too long to retreat, and ran into a wandering encounter on the way out.

[Gtdead]

The DMG guidelines are misleading.
Most caster/gish builds can take on Deadly++++++ encounters solo if they are willing to spend the resources. So really, it depends on a number of things, and XP limit is the least.
Number of encounters, types of encounters, terrain, rationing resources, short rests, prepared spells. All these matter way more.

Consider at lvl 1, an encounter against 100 cultists. At a choke point, with difficult terrain, they will probably lose to a well prepared party of 3, since they don't have any ranged attacks.
The party can torch the passage with oil, close off and fortify it's exit and have sorcerer cast create bonfires and burning hands.

Paladin can grab pam with a reach weapon, potentially killing 2 cultists per round or just spam dodge action, attaking only with reactions, rogue can pick off any enemy that ends his turn adjascent to the paladin and throw oils.
It's going to be a massacre.

[Saeviomage]

The encounter guidelines tend to massively overstate how hard a fight is. If you run 3 skeletons, chances are your party will be smart enough to retreat to somewhere that they only fight 1 or 2 at a time and will quickly twig to using bludgeoning weapons (if they don't just default to them straight away).

Now, that said a skeleton can potentially critically hit for 14 points of damage, which is enough to instantly kill a starting wizard, sorceror or warlock with a +1 constitution modifier.

In short: odds of anyone actually dying - pretty slim, but still possible.

[Malifice]

Three skeletons againt 4 1st level PC's is indeed quite deadly.

Assuming they roll high enough on initiative (and youll be rolling in a block) having three skeletons swarm a PC means that PC is quite likely to drop to 0 HP. At 1st level, your average PC has an AC of around 16 meaning the skeletons have a 40 percent chance to hit. 2/3 hits from a skeleton is enough to drop most 1st level PCs. One lucky hit (6 on a d6) would drop your average Wizard or Sorcerer.

With 13hp each, it takes 2 hits to drop a skeleton. With an AC of 13 (assuming an attack bonus of +5) the PCs have a 65 percent chance of landing a hit (meaning they should - if they focus fire on one skeleton - drop one in return).

Odds are in favor of the party, but it could end up in a TPK with some bad rolls (and some decent rolls by the skeletons). Nothithstanding this, its an encounter that is very likely to drain a significant portion of the parties resources for the adventuring day. A few 1st level slots, some hit points and HD.

Remember, the encounter difficulty guidelines are designed around a 6-8 encounter adventuring day. A standard dungeon where the party face off against 4-5 combat encounters, a trap or two and an environmental or social challenge or two.

You certainly wouldnt want to throw this encounter at a bunch of 1st level PCs who were wounded, or out of other resources (spells, hit dice, potions, rages, lay on hands, etc), and (going by the law of averages, attrition and resource depletion) around three such deadly encounters with 3 skeletons on this party would more likely that not wind up with a TPK.

[MaxWilson]

Of course it's guidance and judgement based, but never would I consider 3 skeletons vs 3 PCs anything more than a Medium (heck maybe even easy). I see that the big jump from Medium to Deadly comes from the Multiple Monster Multiplier. But is it that big of a difference in 5E? I never noticed this playing at 1st level before.

Am I missing something here? Is the DMG too easy on encounters? What are other DM's experiences using these guidelines?

Yes, the DMG is too easy on encounters. It's important to understand what the Multiple Monster Multiplier is for though, before you dismiss it. It exists because two monsters will do three times as much damage to the PCs as one monster (50% more than the two monsters by themselves) due to the second monster getting in "free hits" while you kill the first monster. Essentially, combat power (assuming single target attacks) squares approximately as the square of the number of units. In military theory this is sometimes known as Lanchester's Square Law or the artillery equation, and in D&D it is the reason for the multiplier.

The DMG guidelines are, crudely speaking, a measure of how many HP the PCs "ought" to lose during a combat. Naturally there are lots of ways for clever PCs to blow the guidelines out of the water, especially if they have a DM who encourages and rewards tactics more complex than "I hit it with my axe again."

[Renvir]

Yeah they're pretty easy. If you just run one encounter. It's the grind of encounters that matters. The DMG assumes players can handle about 3 Deadly to 12 Easy encounters before they'll need a long rest.

I find it's not the Deadly combat that kills the players, it's the Medium one on the second day, when they started the day with 1/2 HD available, and they're out of LR abilities, SR abilities, and low on HPs ... but they waiting too long to retreat, and ran into a wandering encounter on the way out.

This is where you make or break your players. It's not that a Deadly encounter will wipe everyone out, it's that a Deadly encounter will sap more of your resources faster than an Easy encounter. 5e is built around resource management of character abilities across adventuring days and isn't built specifically to gauge any one encounter very well since players may have all of their LR, SR, item, etc. abilities or none of them.

Since this is your first foray into 5e I suggest throwing encounters at them using the basic DMG guide to encounter difficulty and daily xp tables. Once you are more familiar you can start putting more of your own touch on things.

[DanyBallon]

The encounter guidelines tend to massively overstate how hard a fight is. If you run 3 skeletons, chances are your party will be smart enough to retreat to somewhere that they only fight 1 or 2 at a time and will quickly twig to using bludgeoning weapons (if they don't just default to them straight away).

Now, that said a skeleton can potentially critically hit for 14 points of damage, which is enough to instantly kill a starting wizard, sorceror or warlock with a +1 constitution modifier.

In short: odds of anyone actually dying - pretty slim, but still possible.

If the players are smart enough to retreat and face 1 or 2 skeleton at the time, it isn't a deadly encounter anymore. So it's expected that they breeze through it.

But honestly, 2 skeletons that may end up ganging on the Pally and a third one firing arrows from afar, can effectively be deadly, they get +4 to hit, and deals and average of 5 hp damage (could be worse if DM rolls and is lucky). The characters would probably not end up dead, but they'll end up spending more precious resources than if they could have face them separately.

[Malifice]

If the players are smart enough to retreat and face 1 or 2 skeleton at the time, it isn't a deadly encounter anymore. So it's expected that they breeze through it.

But honestly, 2 skeletons that may end up ganging on the Pally and a third one firing arrows from afar, can effectively be deadly, they get +4 to hit, and deals and average of 5 hp damage (could be worse if DM rolls and is lucky). The characters would probably not end up dead, but they'll end up spending more precious resources than if they could have face them separately.

Good tactics (or good spell selection, or the right feat) can make some encounters easier or harder. Your average party (assuming average rolls) should defeat 3 skeletons in a stand up fight with some significant resource drain, but it could (with a round of bad rolls by the party, and a round of good ones from the skeletons) go south pretty quickly.

I certainly dont assume optimal tactics by my players. Doing this simply encourages metagaming and dissuades the players from taking sub-optimal choices that are in character and add to the game. The 'scardey cat' wizard might spend a turn dodging because he's spooked by the skeletons (a sub optimal choice that is in line with his character). If I assumed 'optimal tactics' from my players (and designed my encounters appropriately) I take that option away from them.

Also, my players get 3 seconds (max) to declare actions or they take the dodge action and their turn ends. That cuts down on over optimisation or metagaming encounters a bit.

Im aware some tables play combat more like a game of chess though so YMMV and so may your preferences. Im just expressing mine.

[Gtdead]

Massed ranged characters tend to be volatile. But still there are ways around it. If everyone drops prone, ranged attackers get disadvantage for example. Then can crawl behind some cover, get extra ac + defensive advantage, and on their turn they can peek out, throw a cantrip or something, and then drop prone again.

To challenge seasoned players, these suggested encounters will be a threat only on extremely unlucky rolls.

[DanyBallon]

Good tactics (or good spell selection, or the right feat) can make some encounters easier or harder. Your average party (assuming average rolls) should defeat 3 skeletons in a stand up fight with some significant resource drain, but it could (with a round of bad rolls by the party, and a round of good ones from the skeletons) go south pretty quickly.

I certainly dont assume optimal tactics by my players. Doing this simply encourages metagaming and dissuades the players from taking sub-optimal choices that are in character and add to the game. The 'scardey cat' wizard might spend a turn dodging because he's spooked by the skeletons (a sub optimal choice that is in line with his character). If I assumed 'optimal tactics' from my players (and designed my encounters appropriately) I take that option away from them.

Also, my players get 3 seconds (max) to declare actions or they take the dodge action and their turn ends. That cuts down on over optimisation or metagaming encounters a bit.

Im aware some tables play combat more like a game of chess though so YMMV and so may your preferences. Im just expressing mine.

I think you may have read more than I wrote (or I'm just tired, and it's me reading more than you wrote :smallbiggrin:) but I was only saying that if characters use a good tactic, it's no longer considered a deadly encounter. Good for them, as instead of spending resources they would have on a deadly encounter, they spent less and can take more adventuring before resting.

[Tanarii]

Also, my players get 3 seconds (max) to declare actions or they take the dodge action and their turn ends. That cuts down on over optimisation or metagaming encounters a bit.

I've been very tempted to try reinstating a declare actions first, resolve actions second initiative system, a la BECMI or Ad&D 1e. I know MaxWilson runs something similar. But I'm worried it'll break the assumptions of 5e too much if done poorly.

As is, I find a lack of a battle mat and judicious use of some of Angry DM's techniques on how to run combat like a dolphin Here (http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/) usually do the trick.

[Malifice]

I've been very tempted to try reinstating a declare actions first, resolve actions second initiative system, a la BECMI or Ad&D 1e. I know MaxWilson runs something similar. But I'm worried it'll break the assumptions of 5e too much if done poorly.

As is, I find a lack of a battle mat and judicious use of some of Angry DM's techniques on how to run combat like a dolphin Here (http://theangrygm.com/manage-combat-like-a-dolphin/) usually do the trick.

Look at the player, ask him what he does, give him 2-3 seconds to answer, then if he says nothing, tell him he dodges, and move to the next player.

Keep this up throughout the whole combat. It'll be his turn again in under a minute if you do.

Award inspiration or advantage for players playing their characters or doing cool stuff without resorting to bland optimisation.

Its the carrot and the stick approach to fun encounters.

[Alerad]

Are your players experienced or not so much? For first level characters I'll recommend to start with CR1/8 mobs. For skeletons or zombies, give the player enough room to run away or use the terrain to their advantage. For my first party encounter I started with wolves (CR1/4) just to realize how strong they are vs 1st party characters. Zombies will be particularly hard since none of your players has radiant damage yet.

[NewDM]

So a few comments that may (or may not help)

1) An encounter, even a combat encounter needn't be a fight for life. It is about overcoming the situation expending the minimum amount of resources. Even an easy encounter might be a valid stumbling block if the party has to expend resources or can be induced to.

2) By the book encounters are boring. Use the guide to adjust the challenge levels - give some bonus or penalties from weather, terrain, circumstance, surprise etc.. This makes combats a bit different from each other and more memorable.

3) Encounters are usually a bit easier than rated in my experience. Solo monsters are not a challenge most of the time (too easy to incapacitate/control) and the difficulty rating scales pretty fast (faster than actual difficulty). Feel free to add some armour to the skeletons or a couple of +1 arrows or something small.

4) (For later) Treat the PCs having magic items as a benefit in a combat that warrants level adjustment. Even a +1 weapon is pretty powerful, being as it is equivalent to most of an extra level's benefits a lot of the time.

Due to the siwnyness of the dice and character bonuses not mattering as much as the dice roll, any encounter can turn deadly with bad rolls on the players side and good rolls on the DMs side. Its just more likely with a deadly encounter. They could breeze through it. They could TPK. Its all about the dice.

[Delwugor]

From some of the comments and what I'm seeing, it looks like the multipliers overestimate the gang up effect except when there are many combats that day, such as a dungeon crawl.

So for planning this small scenario I'm thinking:

4 room underground cellar, 2 passageways to use as bottlenecks, usual boxes/crates and so forth.

Room 1 - crates, barrels, so forth
Room 2 - a couple of rats
Room 3 - 2 Zombies humans
Room 4 - 2-4 Goblin Skeletons depending on how the party handles the Zombies.
Room 3 again - 3-5 rats, feasting on the Zombies - a little scene flavoring :smallwink:
Proprietor NPC ex-soldier Level 2

This gives the players some confidence building time with 5E since none of them have played it, and allow me to judge and adjust as the scenario progresses. I can adjust the number of Goblins, rats (or just leave out), remind of short rest and adjust the difficulty of the NPC. Anything else I can easily handle as on the fly adjustments.

I like the idea of Goblin Skeletons as that ties into the next scenario of Goblin fleeing undead Goblins which just started appearing in their old forest area.

[MrStabby]

In military theory this is sometimes known as Lanchester's Square Law or the artillery equation, and in D&D it is the reason for the multiplier.



Pretty sure an artillery equation would be enemies taking damage per unit time proportional to both your numbers and their numbers, whereas only other combat would have casualties/damage per unit time proportional to each others numbers?

[MaxWilson]

Pretty sure an artillery equation would be enemies taking damage per unit time proportional to both your numbers and their numbers, whereas only other combat would have casualties/damage per unit time proportional to each others numbers?

As I've heard the term used, it is applied to artillery duels and not to saturation bombing. (Other times it refers to equations for computing the actual flight trajectories of artillery projectiles.)

"Lanchester's Square Law" is the less ambiguous name.

[MrStabby]

As I've heard the term used, it is applied to artillery duels and not to saturation bombing. (Other times it refers to equations for computing the actual flight trajectories of artillery projectiles.)

"Lanchester's Square Law" is the less ambiguous name.

I believed he had formulated two versions, one for each situation?

[NewDM]

From some of the comments and what I'm seeing, it looks like the multipliers overestimate the gang up effect except when there are many combats that day, such as a dungeon crawl.

So for planning this small scenario I'm thinking:

4 room underground cellar, 2 passageways to use as bottlenecks, usual boxes/crates and so forth.

Room 1 - crates, barrels, so forth
Room 2 - a couple of rats
Room 3 - 2 Zombies humans
Room 4 - 2-4 Goblin Skeletons depending on how the party handles the Zombies.
Room 3 again - 3-5 rats, feasting on the Zombies - a little scene flavoring :smallwink:
Proprietor NPC ex-soldier Level 2

This gives the players some confidence building time with 5E since none of them have played it, and allow me to judge and adjust as the scenario progresses. I can adjust the number of Goblins, rats (or just leave out), remind of short rest and adjust the difficulty of the NPC. Anything else I can easily handle as on the fly adjustments.

I like the idea of Goblin Skeletons as that ties into the next scenario of Goblin fleeing undead Goblins which just started appearing in their old forest area.

It works like this:

If you have 7 enemies that get 1 attack per round each, the encounter with 4 characters can go like this:
1st round - 4 enemies die before attacking, 3 attacks, dropping one character.
2nd round - 3 enemies die before attacking.

or it can go like this:
1st round - 0 enemies die before attacking, 7 attacks, dropping 2 characters.
2nd round - 2 enemies die before attacking, 5 attack, dropping 1 character.
3rd round - 2 enemies die before attacking, 3 attack, dropping 1 character.

The multiplier is for when the party doesn't get initiative and the enemies are using the optimal strategies for their intelligence/wisdom scores.

[Tanarii]

From some of the comments and what I'm seeing, it looks like the multipliers overestimate the gang up effect except when there are many combats that day, such as a dungeon crawl.My experience is the opposite. The multipliers underestimate the difficulty.

For a party of 4, 1 CR 2 creature (450 adjusted XP) is less deadly than 4 CR 1/2 creatures (400 adjusted XP). That'd be a single Ankheg or Green / Black dragon wyrmling, vs 4 Apes or 4 Black Bears or 4 Hobgoblins. Especially the damn Hobgoblins!

Either way, in theory the party can handle three of those in a row, with a Short Rest between each one.

[MrStabby]

The trouble is that any extreme and you are dealing with a situation that can be "solved" by a simple effect.

One really powerful guy is one failed save away from being jam.

A horde of small beasties and fireball or a ranger volley or any area of effect spell and the encounter is pretty much over.

yes you can add other factors in - underwater to grant fire resistance, or some enemies being hidden but all in all for a given XP level a medium number of moderate enemies tends to be the hardest.