Why Balancing Encounters in D&D Sucks...

Check out INTO THE AM and get a 10% discount site-wide: www.intotheam....
And don't forget their T-shirt bundles!
Balancing encounters is hard, but its not your fault! Find out why in today's video!
To enjoy more of our content and to look through our growing library of episodes please check out the Misfit Adventurers podcast on Spotify! open.spotify.c...
To find out more information about our group and our campaigns, check out our website misfitadventur...

[@misfitadventurers]

Don't miss these awesome shirts: www.intotheam.com/MISFIT

[@trollsmyth]

Coming from older versions of D&D, where the system was even loosier and goosier, I long ago embraced the idea that it's not the DM's job to balance encounters, but the players' job to unbalance encounters in their favor. This is a very different style of game that favors scouting, investigating, and planning over "getting things done." Players will move more slowly through adventures because they're less likely to just dive in with the expectation that they will win. For 5e games, it makes Intelligence skills like Nature and Arcana more important than they might otherwise be. I also use a system for morale (basically a Wisdom save in most cases), where the monsters might flee if they perceive that the fight is going against them. I'm also more open than most to allowing the PCs and the monsters to negotiate and cut deals. I've also completely divorced acquiring Experience Points from "defeating" monsters, so the players don't feel they need to go out of their way to create conflict with everyone they meet. It's not for everyone, but it's served me well for decades through multiple editions of D&D.

[@crimfan]

Monsters fleeing is very important. Most predators are likely to bug out if they get beat up or nab some prey, for example, while what’s so horrible about mindless undead is that they just never stop. This really helps differentiate encounters.

[@Mr.RobotHead]

I completely agree with this. I think a big issue is the gradual change from an encounter having a loose definition that encompasses many different things, to strictly being a fight that the PCs _should_ win. Later versions really miss out on using encounter distance, initial demeanor of whom-/whatever they encounter, and morale checks if there _is_ a fight.

[@crimfan]

@@Mr.RobotHead "I think a big issue is the gradual change from an encounter having a loose definition that encompasses many different things, to strictly being a fight that the PCs should win. Later versions really miss out on using encounter distance, initial demeanor of whom-/whatever they encounter, and morale checks if there is a fight." I totally agree with that, though I will say back in the day lots of DMs treated every encounter as a hostile one, too. They'd often implicitly do it by counting XP for kills and thus if a monster escaped, no XP for you!

[@Mr.RobotHead]

@@crimfan Yeah, that was another issue. In the Olden Days, PCs got most of their XP from finding treasure (and they didn't _have to_ kill whatever was guarding it), but the game (and some DMs especially) started offering _more_ XP for killing monsters than for getting loot. That shifted overall play away from _exploration_ to _murder-hoboing_.

[@fredericleclerc9037]

100% agree. Premade Balance is a video game approach.

[@davidgratton8869]

I build encounters in DnD Beyond’s tool. I use it to add bad guys to encounters, track their HP in a fight, and click attack and damage rolls. I only indicate the number and level of party members, and I do not use their initiative functions. When trying to balance an encounter, I always add bad guys until the difficulty bar is at least one or two mobs past deadly. That usually makes for a balanced combat. If my bad guys are a bit too tough, I may have one or two try to run away to get help, or retreat to attack at a more opportune time. The things I look at include the number of attacks per side per round, any special abilities that alter strategies, and the relative intelligence of the bad guys. For example, a stirge is very weak with 2 HP, but if two or three of them manage to hit a player and stay attached to them, the damage adds up and players act very differently. A handful of quicklings who can swoop in, make three dagger attacks, and swoop out with very little risk from opportunity attacks completely change a battle. And, of course, the shadow you mention can Dorian someone’s strength to where they can’t carry their gear, or die outright with no death saving throws. If I’m following a published module, I start with the monsters as provided, but almost ALWAYS add some others for spice and strategy. And, when I can, I throw in a mob or two that specific players are particularly well suited to fight so each person gets a chance to shine when possible. Lastly, my unofficial goal as I design encounters is to reduce at least 1 PC to zero HP as often as possible.

[@christinabradley5079]

I’m currently DM-ing my first campaign and this is the hardest thing for me. I have 5 level 3 players and they went up against a zombie beholder that I home brewed a little to make it more difficult and 5 skeletons. Dnd beyond said is was deadly. My party had zero issues and no one even went down. Quite frustrating cause I want to make encounters continuously challenging and fun. Still have a lot to learn! Love your vids!

[@pairot01]

How is DnD beyond supposed to know about your homebrewed monster? Have you read the beholder variant stat blocks? I think you were comparing it to a Death Tyrant, which is CR 14.

[@davidjanoskovacs5440]

Happy birthday! :) I love to sleep in, ooh yessss. Usually we get together with friends and play board games or go hiking.

[@Hellyardsown]

I usually have backup contingencies to sway the balance every 3-5 rounds.

[@RIVERSRPGChannel]

It has a lot to do with the DM being able to know their party and change things on the fly

[@terryc1538]

Multiclassing has a major effect on how powerful a character is. Is been years since I've played in a game where the majority of characters aren't multiclassing. In some games there are no singles class PCs. All are more powerful than single class PCs generally. Even some good Encounter tools, which do take class into account don't take multiclassing into account.

[@egilbugge6797]

My players used Bag of Beans at level 4 and got the pyramid. They chose to attack the Mummy Lord who is CR 15 and immune to non-magical attacks. My players did not have any magical weapons and the wizard-player wasn't playing that night. They killed the Mummy Lord through some really creative play. Don't worry about balancing. It's not "failing as a DM" if you get a bit meta and tell your players what dangers they are actually facing. As long as the dangers are telegraphed and your players are invested in the potential risks you're doing fine!

[@Jeromy1986]

And now for my last spam comment: I've not tried any other games firsthand, but I am an avid armchair hobbyist who collects the materials and watches a ton of KZbin commentary. That being said, I think 5e is meant to be a softer heroic game of character development. With that in mind, you want to make survivable encounters. Other games are meant to be meatgrinders and offer much simpler character creation to balance out the fact that your PCs are probably going to die. I think games like ShadowDark and 5 Torches Deep are sort of like this.

[@andrewlustfield6079]

Second comment because I finally got the the questions at the end of the video--I've played a lot of different D&D systems over the years. Balancing encounters has a lot to do with figuring out averages--what is the chance my monsters will hit? What kind of average damage will each hit do? And then, what kind of damage can my encounter monsters sustain, and how am I spreading that out? That's first--then there is the question--at what point will my monsters break morale and run? For instance, in your example of the shadows vs a 17th level party, the fighter will have an armor class of 25 or better, which means the shadows need 20s just to hit. And there are only so many places to attack from--8 by my count--3 in front, 3 in back, and one on either side. How many shadows will a 17th level fighter be able to take out in 1 round? So start with how much damage the party can dish out in a single round. Then figure out how much they can sustain? That's where you find your balanced encounter. Hit points and spells used are all a part of the resource management the party has to do, so don't worry about that part--it's not your job. These are all important factors when balancing encounters. And the difficulty is hampered by an overly encumbered initiative system. You have actions, bonus actions, spells and reaction spells--all of which is taking place in a 6 second time span. Count one-one thousand, and 1/6 of your time to act is gone. First off, on it's face that's just bonkers. If you watch some HEMA sparring (historic European martial arts) and you can tell me where the bonus actions happen, I'll pay you ten dollars. All I see are thrusts, cuts, parries, reposts and footwork. Secondly, it strikes me as mechanical conceits that are made for video games where a computer is handling all the math. We aren't computers. The more you simplify initiative the easier it will be to balance encounters. I've been using a no-initiative, based on weapon reach that as been the best system I've ever used or seen. It's amazingly fast. It's perfectly clear for the players--everyone knows when their character goes. And still simulates the confusion and lethality of combat for the characters. If you're interested, I'll happily post the combat order I use.

[@StephenBayne]

I've always been of the mind that GMs take the discretion to adjust the combat experience on the fly - it's all about creating a fun and challenging experience! I've made creatures stronger, replaced with more diverse enemies or have had more join the fight mid battle, if an encounter seems jokingly easy for them. Nobody wants a 2 round boss fight!

[@timothyhanson731]

13th Age has a relatively good encounter balancing system. It is also a slightly less open game, so there is a lot less in what the party can do. Unrelated I don't think 54 shadows would be any challenge for an actual level 17 party. I think a level 17 Cleric could probably solo that.

[@cadenceclearwater4340]

Your 50s is even weirder 😅 Sleeping in is heaven 😴

[@misfitadventurers]

The joys of aging 😂

[@Jeromy1986]

I assume anyone by this point is probably using the updated info from Xanathar's Guide To Everything, but I've not read it myself. So, I don't know if those charts and guidance are of any use in sussing out the designers' intent with CR.

[@WilliamRoop-xt6rp]

Personally, I think that the CHALLENGE rating should be calculated against 1 character, not the party... Having math that basically tells either how MANY of these are a challenge to 1 character or how many rounds it's expected to need to defeat it/them. 1/4 would mean either 4 kobolds or 1 high HP monster that would take 4 rounds to defeat. This could be used to calculate an ENCOUNTER rating. Math based on AC, resistance, hit points, AOE or multi attack, etc. This would make it easier to calculate the TEAM power vs ER.

[@natewright1197]

I've personally never had issues with balancing encounters using the CR system other than my party walking all over a few encounters. When things aren't going well for them, I'll dial it back, and when things are going too well, I'll increase the tension. CR is a guideline that helps build the encounter. It's up to the DM to flesh it out by either meticulously planning ahead of time, or winging it in the moment to make the battle more fun. My players do not know that I do this. Does this make me a bad DM? Maybe. Is everyone having fun? It certainly appears that way. And since they are, I don't really care if it makes me a bad DM. We're all just here to play a game and have a good time anyway.

[@misfitadventurers]

I don't think that make you a bad DM. Being able to make changes on the fly is a crucial part of running the game

[@MikChaos]

Yeah the CR system currently isnt great and definitely falls apart at higher levels or with larger groups (one of my groups is currently 7 players). I tend to use Sly Flourishes method for checking balance.

[@andrewlustfield6079]

I think encouraging beginners to worry about CRs and the fabled balanced encounter is a mistake. First off, if a party can focus fire on one creature, your monster will be hosed in 1-2 rounds. So more than one monster is a given. Secondly, I think the goal is misplaced. The job of the DM is to make interesting encounters. If your encounters are all balanced, things aren’t nearly as interesting as they would be with more encounter variety. Third-the dice. The dice have their own part of the story to tell, and I have seen times where all the players hit a cold streak. It’s rare, but it can happen. Forth, give the party a line of retreat for at minimum three rounds. Running away is always a valid option. In worst case scenarios the party will only lose one character when the DM does this, as long as the players make good choices. When it comes to balancing classes-it can’t really be done because the classes are meant to do different things and all have areas where they shine. In my experience, the best you can do is balance likes vs likes. Spell casters for instance-it’s possible to balance spell casters against one another. But a fighter or bard or priest have nothing against spells like time stop. I’ve seen 7th level thieves get turned into a blood smear by a 3rd level fighter. And that’s not wrong, if the fighter can corner the thief-thieves don’t shine in nose-to-nose fighting. That’s where fighters are in their element. But when it comes to surviving a trap maze, that’s where the thief shines.

[@danielmonteiro2900]

I think the the whole CR system is the problem. It looks too subjective. Maybe if the CR's were more reasonable, the math the GMC offers would make it justice. For example, the Rakchasa shouldn't be CR11!!!! 14 maybe?

[@corymorse4271]

The CR calculator is awful in its complexity and there shouldn't be a baseline for AC as it varies at every level of play. I would prefer a calculation that values HP times AC hit chance against the PCs and maybe gives a multiplier for winning initiative similar to what a critical hit can do to damage output.

[@I..cast..fireball]

Or you could play Pathfinder 2e which actually functions properly.

[@michaelmullenfiddler]

Don't balance encounters. Instead, give the player characters a window into their chances of winning--or losing--any particular combat. If you want, you can make it a roll, perhaps a save. If a PC makes the requisite roll, they get a strong feeling that they are overmatched. Perhaps certain character classes, more martial sorts, would get pluses to this roll. If they are obviously going up against a foe that will smack them silly, then they need to be able to extricate themselves from the fight, or perhaps never get in the fight to begin with. Next, stop balancing combat: is it a sport, or a war? In the real world, of someone waves a gun around in the room you are in, that's a mortal threat, to be taken seriously. On the other hand, the level of threat when playing baseball is... not that. In a ttrpg, if the PLAYERS have to take seriously the threat in the game, because it threatens their character, maybe the will respond differently. If they know that the goal is a balanced encounter, then why worry. Run screaming from balanced encounters: all the real thrill goes out of the game when it's a sport. If I'm fighting a dragon, that should be war

[@RickDevil12]

Every class should have the same level of power. The problem is that DnD is highly unbalanced in every aspect. Class and subclass options should be options of gameplay, not options of power. - Monsters follow their monster creations guidelines for level 1 to 5, then they forget about it and made high level monsters to be awfully weak and lame.

[@Drudenfusz]

I prefer horror games, thus monsters have not to be balanced, if the characters decide to fight them they are very likely to die. But if I have to point at one D&D derivate that worked in regard, then I would pick D&D 4th edition. Since the monsters all had basically had an XP budged that dependent on how difficult I want to make the encounter. Sure, one could say that is not that different from the challenge rating, but it worked really well, and was also really easy to adjust to any group size of players. That the monsters had roles and thus also allowed for dynamic compositions is then just the cherry on top. I really don't understand why 5e made that step back to the horrible challenge rating system that was already in 3e just garbage.

[@SuperHellfist]

i don't

[@TroyKnoell]

I've heard that PF2 assumes the party will be at full resources when going into an encounter so it's easier to balance them. As I understand it, it's easier to get back to full resources in that game. I, also, play the BECMI version of D&D. I've learned that in those versions that encounters aren't necessarily going to be balanced. It's one of the challenges for the players to assess the danger and decide to fight or run. If they're going to fight, what will they do to try to gain an advantage.

[@chstanyon]

The PF2e system does give a more predictable feeling about a fight - it isn't perfect, as tactics and party composition do still play a role (as well as luck with the dice) but it feels a lot less error prone and is easier to pick up and understand. I've ran both systems for a few years, and balancing encounters in 5e is still something that I don't really know how to do.

[@kryptonianguest1903]

It helps a lot that 99% of PF2's monsters are actually as powerful as their level says they are. And most of the 1% that aren't, are monsters that were created for a published adventure. So if you're making your own encounters using the bestiaries, you'll almost certainly be fine.

[@kwagmeijer26]

There are a LOT of things that go into making the PF2E encounter system more balanced. A. the scaling to-hit, AC, saves, etc. means each action means more for higher level creatures, making disparity in action economy less impactful. B. This is furthered by the 4 degrees of success. A higher level enemy is not just more likely to hit, but more likely to crit. A crit is basically 2 hits, meaning you get two actions worth of value for 1 action, so the higher but fewer enemies have a higher chance of getting a "2 for 1 deal" out of their action. C. Multiple Attack Penalty means often times, whenever you take an action away, it will be that creature's least valuable action. D. the "incapacitation" trait helps balance sudden win type effects sort of automatically. higher level enemies are less effected by them, which allows them to exist without breaking the game. Removing 1 of 4 creatures for a turn or two is considerably less impactful than removing the boss for a turn, and this helps deal with that. E. specific to the shadow example, rather than ability drain, pf2e has specific statuses that just reduce the numbers for the related actions/defenses. This helps in a couple ways: First, it scales with level somewhat, in that your minimum value goes up by at least one each level. Second, statuses of the same type don't stack, so two shadows can "enfeeble 2" you each (reduce strength based actions and DCs by 2), but you still only reduce strength based abilities and DCs by 2, not 4.

[@HarmonicClockwork]

In Fantasy AGE they have 'threat level', which is a bunch of broad categories (Minor, Moderate, Major, etc). Each threat level is considered appropriate for about 4 character levels, but they don't pretend like they've perfectly balanced all their monsters to parties of specific levels. Personally, I like this approach way more than CR tables & multiplication.

[@Jeromy1986]

I love to stand behind logic and roleplay and recommend Keith Amman's books (and blog, The Monsters Know What They're Doing). This introduces a non-numerical version of morale essentially. Some creatures aren't even going to attempt to attack the party with less than 3 of them per party member. And only insane or zealous creatures will likely fight to the death. Also another x factor to consider with the CR calculation (as well as how useful or useless the original ranger was) is in how well your party could actually just escape a fight entirely.

[@misfitadventurers]

I love The Monsters Know What They're Doing. It's a very useful resource. I've not checked out his blog though. I'll be sure to look at it!

[@Jeromy1986]

Oh! It's just a briefer version of the books. 😁

[@danielmartinontiverosvizca7325]

making encounters is more an art than a science

[@misfitadventurers]

I agree!

[@gustaafargoan]

Exactly. You always start the encounter and it evolves as needed to make it something epic. I usually run 3 battles per session and all are something to be remembered.

[@saskcurt]

I now use Forge of Foes as the starting point for encounter building. It has maybe the best encounter building guidelines for 5e.

[@crimfan]

Yup.

[@lachrymalquietus]

Agreed. Love this book.

[@dantherpghero2885]

They introduced CR back in third edition and I ignored it even back then. Personally I have always considered 2 things borrowed from video games. Damage output and hit points, for both sides. Even when I started as a GM back in 2nd ed. I used the recommended numbers from random encounter tables or stole encounters from modules. Unfortunately building good, fair encounters takes experience. Err on the side of keeping the PCs alive. That first 'softball' encounter that nearly kills several players will scare you. It should. learn from it and keep working to be a better GM.

[@IcarusGames]

The big reason people struggle to balance 5e encounters is they are doing is (sort of) wrong, and starting by looking at monster CR, instead of using the XP tables and actually doing it as the book tells them to. This is all kobold fight club, DDB, or things like the MCDM encounter builder are really doing, they are doing the math of those XP table for you. Since I started running 5e again (currently level 8) I've been exclusively building encounters to the exact letter of the rules and every one of them has been "balanced" in the way I expected. Medium encounters have been a moderate drain on resources, deadly encounters have brought 1 or more characters down and made the PCs expend the majority of the resources etc. As for action economy, the encounter building rules do have the multipliers that apply if you use too few or too many monsters to account for the disparity in action economy, that's why they are there. The 53 shadows example is funny, but I don't think it's a fair or reasonable representation of how people are actually building encounters. I would hate to be at a table where the GM pulled out 50+ enemies - combat can already take too long with a reasonable number of combatants. My general rule of thumb is to not add more than double the number of PCs unless I'm using minions ala 4e, just for the sake of keeping things moving at a reasonable pace. All that said though, I really hope when they redo the DMG they do make it clearer because you are absolutely right - it's not the most intuitive system, and it's for sure not the easiest system for a new DM to understand and get to grips with. My first 5e campaign I didn't use the XP tables properly (because we were levelling based on milestone so I thought I could just ignore it) and it made way more headaches for myself than I needed. If they tighten up the CR system so those outlier monsters are representative of their CR, and make the encounter building rules a bit easier to understand, I think a lot of people will have a much easier time building encounters.

[@Nemnar7]

Don't forget about magic. The party of 4 against 6 thugs seems like it could be deadly. But, if there is a wizard in the party, they throw out web, and half the thugs fail the saving throw. It's now 3 on 4, as the party can wear them down.

[@MasticinaAkicta]

Oh yes the Random Effect. Sure the wizard might FAIL... then the fight goes on longer. But if the players get good rolls and their spells go off, oh boy. It is going to be a lot shorter. So you have to balance it with a "some spells/attacks fail, others succeed" and, HELLO RNG!

[@Genx.WRKG68]

Another great video. I've been playing for years and recently started DMing a true campaign. Honestly, I don't think there is a way to balance encounters. Lets take a human ranger who take the sharp-shooter feat at level 1 and the archery fighting style at 2nd level. This combination can often kill most things at this level. So, you can add more baddies, but then your wizard is so weak at level 2 that the increased numbers means the mage is going to be "challenged". I'm in another campaign and the DM gives out so much magic items; hard for me to even remember what I have. He mentioned he has the hardest time to balance the encounters as well. I actually prefer less magical items, but that is a different story. I will also way that player experience is another factor. A couple of players are good at using their action economy, where some of my newer players are still learning the concept that a creature with 1 HP can still kill you. They seem to like to distribute damage at times. Too many factors.

[@FlintFireforge]

Great vid. In my experience, I use 2 CR levels above the characters, for an encounter, modifying HP and abilities to suit the party. This keeps the characters honest and prevents too quick a kill by the players making the encounter challenging but not impossible.

[@justinacosta6212]

What is also frustrating is that 4e's encounter builder was balanced, but that was thrown out with them ruining monsters, class balance, short rests, and the expected number of encounters in an adventuring day.

[@Jeromy1986]

I love your little chibi graphics on the grid.

[@misfitadventurers]

I used the free tokens from 2-Minute Tabletop!

[@MisanthropicPrime]

I “solve” this by not playing D&D.

[@Malkuth-Gaming]

As a player who has fought 24 undead underwater in a party of 4. Action economy is crucial. (Yes it was a slog and after 2.5 hours we had killed half of them). Also my own technique when it comes to Encounter Balance is to just wing it and hope for the best :P

[@cadenceclearwater4340]

That's my current method 😊

[@pairot01]

It's very disheartening for a new DM to seek advice and the most popular response is "we don't know, just fuck around and find out"

[@cadenceclearwater4340]

@pairot01 In the long run it's a very effective method, you learn by doing. However, action economy is the boss. Comparing number of attacks and average damage output does very well. Also, if your encounter is underpowered, have a second wave in reserve, the slower bigger monster plus friends. If it's overpowered, the party can run away, or the monster's enemy can turn up. Creating a deadly dynamic that could bend to the party's benefit, if they play their cards right. If I've been presumptuous, I apologise.

[@Malkuth-Gaming]

@@pairot01 The main issue is that WotC has released some subclasses that are punching way over their weight. Effectivly throwing the game balance out the window. The CR system is good for new DMs to get an idea of what the monster is capable of. But you will also learn quickly that you can very often go way above it.

[@kxs22]

Got hit with a group of little stabbers, like 12 of them they all had multi attack. We were a group of support pc's. I went down, the players waited 4 hours for me to wake up and Irina was abducted in that time. Thanks, strahd campaign effed

[@Tysto]

I started playing in 1980. We had no concept of encounter balance. If you encountered something that could kick your ass, you ran away or tried to negotiate. These are fundamental aspects of play the game has lost, & it's responsible for creating murder hoboes who kill everything they meet.

[@Husky_Passion]

encounters is not only about fighting. If you are overwelmed, don't fight but retreat; try a different approach (traps, reinforcments, etc). there is also a part where you can think and be creative, contrary to baldur's gate

[@Brando2Shoes]

Nothing worse than an anticlimactic fight scene…

[@misfitadventurers]

Right? I remember one time I had this eldritch horror encounter prepared. I was super excited about it, but it ended up getting downed before it landed a single hit lol

[@chstanyon]

@@misfitadventurers The monsters don't have to die at 0 hit points - the numbers given in the manual are only averages! If the party are losing, the monster could die at 50hp - or if it was too easy for the story you want to tell, it can die at -100hp. (This doesn't work as well on a VTT where players can see health bars...)

[@lluewhyn]

First thought at this issue is that Encounter balancing is somewhat backwards when it comes to numbers of enemies (one of the parts of Action Economy). PCs get MORE XP from fighting a single higher CR creature than a bunch of smaller ones. But the latter kind of fight is more challenging AND more interesting. The DMG even recognizes it as more challenging when it comes to XP for Encounter creation, making it more likely to be called under a "Deadly" encounter, but this doesn't translate into actual XP rewards. And in fact, going by the CR table for treasure, less monetary rewards as well. Obviously, I'm just talking about "as written" because the DM can do whatever they want, and I will sometimes double the XP of monsters if their number made the fights more challenging. Classic example would be a level 2 group fighting a single CR 2 Ogre Zombie, or fighting 9 regular zombies. They both award 450 XP, but the first one is going to be way more of a cakewalk with the PCs able to lock it down and pile on the damage, vs. every PC getting about 2 opponents attacking them each.

[@ChristopherRoss.]

So, encounter balancing is tricky, because there are so many factors to account for. Everything from terrain, to player strategy acumen, to the dice play a significant role in whether the fight is pushover or TPK. The "adventuring day" of 6-8 encounters isn't taken into consideration when balancing fights according to the rules. Its just a measure of how long a party's resources will last. Getting more into the weeds, there is things like effective reduction in enemy power by way of focus fire or through AOE. If you ever want to go deep into the math of this sort of thing, I direct you to the EN World forums. As far as CR is concerned, it does take into account many things that you wouldn't think it would. It all breaks down into effective damage per round and effective HP. Experience is actually a measure of this: plug the numbers from the DMG for calculating CR into this formula, and you'll see that the result more or less corresponds to the amount of experience of the relative CR of the numbers: exp = (DPR*HP*(1+.1*(ATK+AC-13)))/5) Things like conditions, immunities, etc, all break down into adding damage or adding HP. The designers tend to equivocate conditions with spell levels, and looking at the DMG, each spell level equals out to about 9 damage. So, if for example an attack caused the poisoned condition, that is roughly equivalent to a 1st lvl spell, so add 9 damage to the damage per round part of the equation. There is a paper in the works by someone called Dragnacarta, who is breaking down the fundamental math of encounter building in the game, and it literally all breaks down into damage and HP. Those are the atomic unit of D&D. He's put out a new CR system, perhaps you might find some better luck with that. The multipliers for the numbers of monsters in the DMG takes into account action economy as well as AOE and focus fire. Its a simplification of the math, so it can be a bit janky at high or low numbers of enemies. Generally, taking the exp to the (2/3) power is how this is done, compared to the "exp budget" numbers of the PCs taken to the (2/9) power. Don't ask me to explain the math, because its beyond my grasp; all I can say is that its correct. Now with all that said, I don't think any of this matters. Balance is an illusion. It can be a measuring stick to see if a fight is likely to cream your party, or just mildly annoy them, but beyond that there is no perfectly balanced encounter. I highly recommend a video by Deficient Master called "Balance is Boring". He breaks down why trying to balance your encounters perfectly is a goose egg. Instead, just build encounters that make sense in the world and situation in which they are set. Make sure that your players know that things aren't tailored to their ability. Then let them figure out how to creatively tackle the encounter, and let them do it. As Deficient puts it: think about encounters as war, not as a sport.

[@SamuelDancingGallew]

You are correct that calculating CR is difficult. In fact, coming up with a system in the first place is INSANE to do. Trust me, I've tried and failed. The real problem is that if you want to have access unique characters for your Party, and interesting monsters for them to fight (and not just punching bags that sometimes hit back), you can't have a consistent CR system, because of how much arbitration it requires. The only way to get a truly accurate CR system is to make the system so simple, that it becomes boring or pointless. So with a system I've been working on... I've just decided that GM experience and instinct is best here. Sure, I recommend using Hit Dice as a starting point, but also recommend paying attention to what your Players can and can't handle. As for experience (which I think is the real reason for CR), I base it off of questions such as the following at the end of combat: Are you at half health or less? Are you at a quarter of your health or less? How many Spell Slots did you burn? Have you used all your Class Resources, or at least a significant portion of them (for D&D you can think of this as like... Rage or Second Wind)? Did you do something cool? And with 10 XP per level, I find it still hits that sweet spot of keeping the Players hooked, but not allowing them to get too strong too fast.

[@FrostSpike]

A long, long time ago (about 1977/78), Don Turnbull published a system called MonsterMark in GW White Dwarf. That essentially scored a creature based on how long a 1st Level fighter, armed with a sword and wearing plate and shield, would take to kill it. The MM was the damage you might expect it to do to that fighter in that time. There were a number of rather vague bonuses it got for spellcasting and special abilities. You could work out the MM for the party and balance that against the MM for a group of creatures - well, kind of... it certainly wasn't perfect. That sort of thing is significantly more difficult to do for 5e as there are so many feats and special abilities in play.

[@CitanulsPumpkin]

In practice, balance is a myth in D&D. What's more important is figuring out how hard your players can hit in a single round and then giving each encounter a win/lose condition other than "kill 'em all!" Here's a few things I try to do. 1. Initiative: I use an Initiative System I saw in a video on the channel Taking 20. The players roll their initiative as usual, and the DM rolls once. The DM's roll is just to see if the boss or leader goes before the first PC or after the first PC. From that point, alternate PC>enemy>PC>enemy>PC> etc... This alternating initiative prevents one side from going in a clump and dog piling one or more opponents. It also mostly ensures that your boss will get their turn and get to do their one cool trick. Which brings us to... 2. Use enemies that have a super move or a special attack that does something cool. Don't just put a sack of 500 HP in front of the party and tell them to whittle it down. 3. You can and probably should give extra HP to weaker enemies you're using as bosses. Many DMs have found the official published monster stat blocks are all a little on the weak side. This weakness is made worse by nova strike builds like gloomstalker paladin multiclasess that figure out how to burn all their resources to go first and deal ten times as much damage as any published monster has HP. Simply doubling monster HP feels boring. I like to instead take a page from the mythic monsters from Mythic Odysseys of Theros. I give the important monsters extra health bars equal to their base HP, but I tie those health bars to their legendary resistances. Another weak point in 5e monster design. When a player casts a save or lose spell, or a save or die spell, or they do some creative skill check that uses the environment or set dressing to deal a serious blow the monster burns one of their legendary resistances and loses one of their bonus health bars. "No, that power word kill didn't kill the dragon, but based on the death glare they're giving you and the fact that a third of the glowing runes covering their layer just went dark, you dealt a serious blow." If the fighter or barbarian do an engineering check and an athletics check to destroy pillars and drop a roof on the enemy, that has the same impact as one of the casters burning their top level spell slot to cast a fight ending spell. The boss either goes down, or they lose one or possibly two of their hp bars, health shields, magic barriers, etc... 4. Don't be afraid to homebrew some special attacks the monsters might have. Especially if that move summons minions or copies a subclass the players have access to. I like to make eldritch abomination fights by taking one low CR animal stat block, like a bear or something, and giving it a bonus action that summons 1d4 fathomless warlock tentacles per player. The tentacles do exactly what they do for the fathomless warlock, but they dissolve if they take one attack roll from a PC. The eldritch bear can do this every round. Fighting a goblin gang leader? Let his summon 2d4 goblins as a lair action. Need minions for that fight with a solitary dragon? Have it started the fight with a breath weapon attack, and then have the attack leave pools of their breath element scattered around the battlefield. Those pools can either stay for a few rounds and create area denial or fire elementals altered to match the element of the dragon's breath rise from each pool and fight for the dragon.

[@davidjennings2179]

The player is often the biggest factor for me. A player/group that thinks about placement, leveraging action economy and working as a team is much much harder to fight against than groups where everyone just runs in with their hardest hit. Over all though, I'll tweak monsters as I go along if i think its simply too powerful or too weak. I like to make dynamic environments too, so the players and enemies can use that to their advantage. Makes it much harder to take a flat CR score. Also, in terms of what you're doing right to get subscribers and have them invested in you - I think the post video chats are a big factor there. Feels like getting to know you as a person a little more. On that note - making things is what relaxes me. Felting, wood work, drawing, baking, making/painting minis - i like the change of pace it brings my brain.

[@The-Blind-Bard]

I remember the first game I ever ran. My players were level one wizard and paladin. And I had 12 orcs walk into a bar. During that same campaign, my werewolf killed the wizard, which I didn’t mean to do. And since it was only two people playing, it was hard for me to wrap my head around the CR rating versus number of people. Does it ever get easier?

[@ericksemones9681]

I personally like Sly Flourish's Deadly Encounter Benchmark approach. That said, I recently got into Fabula Ultima and I think that it's encounter design instructions are easy and flexible.

[@FrostSpike]

Rule of Thumb: If the sum of the opponent CRs is greater than half the sum of the levels of the characters then it's going to be a challenging encounter for them, especially if they're coming to it with some resources depleted. Personally, I don't worry too much about balancing encounters - I just let the party encounter what makes sense in the story. If the opposition is significantly dangerous I'll telegraph it and the party can decide to avoid the encounter (if they can) or run away (if they must).

[@gustaafargoan]

All of my encounters are what I want them to be. I don't have to balance them. All I need to decide is if I want the PC's to live or die. All I need to do is adjust the current monsters hit points, or add or subtract from the field, monsters can show up. I won't have someone come up and save the party, that is BS. The encounters always turn out the way I want them to, even though I let the dice decide. Edit: I should have said that I started in 1979. I know challenge rating means nothing. I can change a battle on the fly and make it what it needs to be.

[@hemmelgarndesigns]

Most games I have played in handled encounter design very well. There was one notable mishap that I know disheartened the dm. Our 4 person level 9 party was facing off against a hydra from Theros known as polukranos. It's CR was way above what we should be able to handle, however we took it out way too easily. Our dm did not factor in that its head regeneration ability only triggered if people did more than 40 damage in one turn. We were rolling bad on damage and never did that much damage in one turn so it could never regenerate and became a much easier encounter. In hindsight our dm said he would have either lowered that number, upped the HP, or gave it the mythic trait from the Theros book. Since then his encounters have been ruthless though lol, so he is not repeating that mistake lol

[@kaneyoung7439]

I actually think 5e is a terrible game but the CR system is fine, just have to still do your job as a GM and adjust to your party/game. The thing is that GMing is an artform, there's no cheat code or guide to get really good really fast it just takes practice. Most of the games i run don't even have anything like CR at all, but the more systems you play and the better you know the rules the easier it is to eyeball encounters. It's why doing things like having reinforcements available to beef up an encounter so you can slide the difficulty scale during combat is a good way to learn.

[@mycatistypingthis5450]

CR is a random number, the encounter calculator does not work, player character power varies wildly and save and suck abilities make combats very swingy. It is so much easier in PF2 (I am not going back). D&d also is a resource management game, so days with a low amount of combatsdo not work in the math, and days with many combats are a narrative ball and chain.

[@ekurisona663]

what about removing combat altogether? roll for positive and negative consequences, effects, items gained/lost - why? bc many people dont fight to find out if theyre going to survive (they expect to win) - they fight to gain xp and loot, so skip to the xp and loot lol - focus on exploration, story, and interacting with the world

[@MarkLewis...]

Want sucky balanced combat? No problem... just go play that inferior version called PathFinder! Go ahead PFers... cry your tears into my reply cup.

[@crimfan]

My feel for encounters is pretty good from years of practice. That said, I use Kobold Plus to work out encounters more as a reality check and to suggest monsters. I aim for Deadly but use that more as a daily encounter budget and may break up a Deadly into a few chunks that are smaller. The 5E rest mechanics make this way worse because is how spiky some PC abilities are.

[@frankieadriang]

Balancing encounters is crazy hard! Thank you for the video and clear information of the system. I try and let my players know that I will make a lot of changes on the fly as long as they mostly make sense. I do the best I can to try and tell a story with the encounters and will modify the monster such as adding multi attacks or recharge of once per day, or even adding character levels or abilities to monsters. It helps keep things fresh and allows them to be more imaginative.

[@carloscostacox]

Geezus, what do you have against bards? What bards have you been playing with? Bards are amazing, a party full of bards would steamroll any mixed party.

[@victorthurse6027]

I always plan at least one encounter that is designed to be just barely survivable at around the same time in the campaign that opportunities become apparent to make money without fighting monsters. Invent a spell, craft an item or smuggle an illicit good.

[@petersmythe6462]

My recommendation is don't balance encounters. Make them more dynamic instead of requiring every encounter to either be a massacre or a TPK.

[@quinnlawless6263]

Good advice. I absolutely disregard CR, but this is after having been a DM for almost 10 years

[@jakethiringer1698]

Not to mention that CR assumes that the party has 0 magic items…

[@gianlucagatto6074]

because 5e is broken and sucks. and in less of 20 minutes

[@Fenixtremo]

Short about the video: last 2 words in the title

[@MomentsOfGrace-89]

The way you factor in the multiple encounters in a day is detailed in the "building encounters on a budget " section, basically your party will have an exp budget which is the amount of encounters in terms of exp you can expect them to reasonably handle

[@danrimo826]

Lol. You forgot to write "well, actually..." my dude

[@MomentsOfGrace-89]

@@danrimo826 wasn’t trying to be cleaver or anything , just seemed like information which would be genuinely helpful to people unsure about this

[@MyrddintheBard]

I take the approach of Drago. "If he dies, he dies." Random Encounter table decides the party of level 1 knaves will be fighting a troll thats the problem of the players. And they usually survive the harder encounters. When I try to make a "fair" fight they get overconfident and die.