Shorthand for managing large encounters

[JohnDoe]

15 zombies get hit with a fireball.

15 saving throws.
8d6 per target.
Up to 15 Saving throws for each zombie that is reduced to zero.

That's potentially 150 rolls for one turn.
Then the turns for the zombies...

Not going to happen.

_____________

Any shorthand advice?

Just use the average? Use one damage roll? Start randomly picking zombies off the board? Pool their stats into a single 'large' or huge creature?

What about the zombies turns?

I could crunch numbers and use some standard deviations to find an alternative method, but I'm not sure if that's practical for every scenario involving large numbers of rolls.

5e and 'hack n slash' don't seem to mix well, despite it being 'plausible' in the DMG. I know my players might think they'd enjoy that style, but I can see it the pace coming to a halt, and considering how I'm going to house rule larger encounters.

[MrStabby]

Roll once for damage.

Half it.

Apply the full amount to those that fail save. Apply half amount to those that pass.

[Mith]

Also, I'd you are running large numbers of enemies, there is the option to generate a list of d20 rolls to use instead of rolling.

[NNescio]

15 zombies get hit with a fireball.

15 saving throws.
8d6 per target.
Up to 15 Saving throws for each zombie that is reduced to zero.

That's potentially 150 rolls for one turn.
Then the turns for the zombies...

Not going to happen.

_____________

Any shorthand advice?

Just use the average? Use one damage roll? Start randomly picking zombies off the board? Pool their stats into a single 'large' or huge creature?

What about the zombies turns?

I could crunch numbers and use some standard deviations to find an alternative method, but I'm not sure if that's practical for every scenario involving large numbers of rolls.

5e and 'hack n slash' don't seem to mix well, despite it being 'plausible' in the DMG. I know my players might think they'd enjoy that style, but I can see it the pace coming to a halt, and considering how I'm going to house rule larger encounters.


At that point, you either pull out your smartphone and use an app (free ones are available aplenty on Google Play or the App Store) to generate pseudorandom or random numbers, or use a table of random numbers you pregenerated (and preprinted) before the game.

True, you're SoL if you're caught unprepared, but really, this is something you should do before the game if you expect to run a mob of creatures (as a DM or the summoner).

Otherwise, well, you either use the statistical expected value (like damage rolls), or rope your players int helping you roll and count the dice. Or well, if the zombies are not important and barely impose any threat anyway, just DM fiat them away.

In any case, for most sources of AoE damage, you (or the player) only roll the damage once and apply the same to all affected creatures, so really, that's only 31 potential rolls, not 150. if the Fireball deals enough damage to wipe them even if they save, that's only 16 rolls.

[PeteNutButter]

I thought it was the standard to roll once for damage on spells like fireball. Are others rolling separately per foe? Is that legit RAW? RAI? Seems like if nothing else it'd slow the game down.

Pretty sure my groups have been ruling once per fireball since 2e.

[gfishfunk]

Merge zombies into groups and perform four saves. Roll damage either as one roll, in those same four groups. Or apply the average damage from the spell.

Or, don't have this kind of numbers of enemies. Create a new creature that is a 10' X 15' horde of zombies that has a weakness to AoE damage or fire. Zombie Swarm.

[NNescio]

I thought it was the standard to roll once for damage on spells like fireball. Are others rolling separately per foe? Is that legit RAW? RAI? Seems like if nothing else it'd slow the game down.

Pretty sure my groups have been ruling once per fireball since 2e.

Rolling multiple times for AoE spells (unless the spell provides a specific exemption) is definitely against RAW in 5e. See PHB 196:


Damage Rolls
Each weapon, spell, and harmful monster ability...

... If a spell or other effect deals damage to more than one target at the same time, roll the damage once for all of them. For example, when a wizard casts fireball or a cleric casts flame strike, the spell’s damage is rolled once for all creatures caught in the blast.

Since two clear-cut examples are also given in the passage, the RAI definitely agrees with the RAW here. Plus, it is simply ludicrous that the RAI would be otherwise anyway (that the designers would actually think it would be a good idea to roll THAT many damage dice against multiple different creatures).

3.5e and 2e also have explicit rules (or implicit examples) in this regard, IIRC.

[Tanarii]

DMG pg 249-250 has rules for adjudicating how many creatures get hit by Area attacks, and mob attacks. Check them out.

For example, a fireball should hit about 4 creatures (20 ft radius / 5). If the zombies need a 13-15 to hit, they should get one hit for every three attackers.

[Malifice]

15 zombies get hit with a fireball.

15 saving throws.
8d6 per target.
Up to 15 Saving throws for each zombie that is reduced to zero.

That's potentially 150 rolls for one turn.
Then the turns for the zombies...

Not going to happen.

_____________

Any shorthand advice?

Step 1: Roll damage.
Step 2: Break zombies down into 3 groups of 5. Roll saves once per group.
Step 3: Apply damage.
Step 4: Any zombies killed now make unholy fortitude saves, also in groups of 5 (DC is the same).

Or (if the damage is high enough as it probably will be) just rule they're all dead and take them off the board.

[JohnDoe]

DMG pg 249-250 has rules for adjudicating how many creatures get hit by Area attacks, and mob attacks. Check them out.

For example, a fireball should hit about 4 creatures (20 ft radius / 5). If the zombies need a 13-15 to hit, they should get one hit for every three attackers.

Awesome, this is what I was looking for. Thanks so much.


Rolling multiple times for AoE spells (unless the spell provides a specific exemption) is definitely against RAW in 5e. See PHB 196:



Since two clear-cut examples are also given in the passage, the RAI definitely agrees with the RAW here. Plus, it is simply ludicrous that the RAI would be otherwise anyway (that the designers would actually think it would be a good idea to roll THAT many damage dice against multiple different creatures).

3.5e and 2e also have explicit rules (or implicit examples) in this regard, IIRC.

Thanks, I haven't had the opportunity to DM yet (in a month, I'm working on pacing) and our DM usually had us roll for each target in some circumstances and not others.

The encounters were smaller, and tended to have a chance of removing creatures entirely with a higher roll here or there.

EDIT:
Now that I think about it, he started with one roll, but our wizard had terrible luck (either always missing, or dealing very very little damage). He might have been allowing separate rolls for 3-4 creatures to bring the average up.

[Grod_The_Giant]

If you have a pile of d20s, it isn't that hard to roll all your saves at once. Just ask for the DC, subtract the bonus, and you'll know that any roll of, of, 13 or above is a success. (You can also wait and see if half damage is still enough to kill; it sometimes is)

[GoodbyeSoberDay]

For the next live game I run I've been mulling bringing out a screen and roll20 to adjudicate map and combat stuff for speed of play. The free version has macros that can easily model N saves at X bonus of DC Y with one click, as well as groups of similar attacks, pooled damage rolls, and other time-saving goodies. For the saves, the quickest way to adjudicate who made the save from the pool of successes is to assign each foe a number (a good thing to do anyway) and then roll randomly, but it also gives a roll order if you want to be more precise.

[NNescio]

DMG pg 249-250 has rules for adjudicating how many creatures get hit by Area attacks, and mob attacks. Check them out.

For example, a fireball should hit about 4 creatures (20 ft radius / 5). If the zombies need a 13-15 to hit, they should get one hit for every three attackers.

Awesome, this is what I was looking for. Thanks so much.

The "Adjudicating Areas of Effect" rule is intended for Theater of the Mind style combat (an option which I loathe to the utmost, since I tend to play squishies where tactical positioning and placement of AoE points of origin are critical) to adjudicate how many people get affected by the AoE, and not whether they make the save or not.


Many spells and other game features create areas of effect, such as the cone and the sphere. If you're not using miniatures or another visual aid, it can sometimes be difficult to determine who's in an area of effect and who isn't. The easiest way to address such uncertainty is to go with your gut and make a call.

If you would like more guidance, consider using the Targets in Areas of Effect table. To use the table, imagine which combatants are near one another, and let the table guide you in determining the number of
those combatants that are caught in an area of effect. Add or subtract targets based on how bunched up the potential targets are. Consider rolling 1d3 to determine the amount to add or subtract.

If you're using a battlemap, don't bother. You're just unfairly penalizing people who know how to place their characters and AoEs well.

The "Handling Mobs" rule, meanwhile, has some seriously crappy math due to gross rounding. Seriously, an 80% chance to hit is treated as 100%, while a 75% is treated as 50%. Seriously, what. This unfairly screws over low AC players while making high AC ones near untouchable (since you have to queue up to a high number of attacks before you even make a hit).

[JohnDoe]

The "Handling Mobs" rule, meanwhile, has some seriously crappy math due to gross rounding. Seriously, an 80% chance to hit is treated as 100%, while a 75% is treated as 50%. Seriously, what. This unfairly screws over low AC players while making high AC ones near untouchable (since you have to queue up to a high number of attacks before you even make a hit).

We use a map and die in place of miniatures
(keep them numbered with die faces)

I just checked the DMG, yeah, the numbers are off.

• A required roll of 1-5 gives 1 creature needed for 1 hit (75% = 100%)
• required rolls of 6-12 gives 2 needed for 1 hit. (30% - 60% = 50% )

[Tanarii]

We use a map and die in place of miniatures
(keep them numbered with die faces)Ah. Well in that case, lots of assumptions 5e math makes are probably going to be an issue for you. It's not really designed for 'precision' battle mat play, unlike 3e or (especially) 4e. (Edit: You *can* do it. The DMG even has rules for it. It's just not the default assumption.)

I highly recommend trying out the so-called 'Theatre of the Mind' style of play with 5e. After using battle-mats extensively in the last two editions, I find it to be a breath of fresh air. I've found it really cuts down on playing the combat rules as a tactical mini-game, disassociated from the in-game world (which is already enough of an issue with any D&D combat rules). Reducing the sudden switch-over to combat rules feeling like zooming in to battle ala X-com or Final Fantasy Tactics, helps a lot.

Of course, if you actually want to play 'X-Com the RPG' or 'Final Fantasy Tactics the RPG', focusing heavily on a precision tactical mini-game, then Theatre of the Mind might not be for you. (Edit 2: I loved doing exactly that in 3e and 4e. Because I was a huge fan of both those games. But after doing it for so long, I tried doing 5e the 5e way, and found I love it.)