D&D (2024) New DMG Encounter Building Math vs 2014

[Micah Sweet]

Was it a video interview, or text in the DMG?

Text in the DMG. There was a picture.

 

[Mistwell]

Text in the DMG. There was a picture.

A lot of that sort of section of the DMG is available for free now. I just went through much of it and I don't see anything like what you're suggesting. Can you recognize the section in any of this?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/the-basics

 

[Micah Sweet]

A lot of that sort of section of the DMG is available for free now. I just went through much of it and I don't see anything like what you're suggesting. Can you recognize the section in any of this?

https://www.dndbeyond.com/sources/dnd/free-rules/the-basics

Ironically, its in the "players exploiting the rules" section.

 

[UngeheuerLich]

Optimizers don't hate area damage. Not sure where you're getting that.

Because whenever I see videos, all they are talking is single target damage or disables...

so...

 

[gban007]

Ironically, its in the "players exploiting the rules" section.

I think though there is a difference between saying the rules are there to make a game, and not accurate model physics/ economy, and saying that means the players are supposed to be uber powerful squashing everything along the way.

 

[Mistwell]

Ironically, its in the "players exploiting the rules" section.

Uh OK, here is what you claimed it said:

The 5.5 DMG in particular has made it quite clear that the purpose of D&D is crazy super-powered adventures where PCs show off their amazing powers to each other on the regular, feeling like badasses all the way. The rules are specifically designed (according to the book) to facilitate this and only this. I have to presume that's what the DM is for as well.

And here is what that section says:

Players Exploiting the Rules
Some players enjoy poring over the D&D rules and looking for optimal combinations. This kind of optimizing is part of the game (see “Know Your Players” in the Dungeon Master’s Guide), but it can cross a line into being exploitative, interfering with everyone else’s fun.

Setting clear expectations is essential when dealing with this kind of rules exploitation. Bear these principles in mind:

Rules Aren’t Physics. The rules of the game are meant to provide a fun game experience, not to describe the laws of physics in the worlds of D&D, let alone the real world. Don’t let players argue that a bucket brigade of ordinary people can accelerate a spear to light speed by all using the Ready action to pass the spear to the next person in line. The Ready action facilitates heroic action; it doesn’t define the physical limitations of what can happen in a 6-second combat round.

The Game Is Not an Economy. The rules of the game aren’t intended to model a realistic economy, and players who look for loopholes that let them generate infinite wealth using combinations of spells are exploiting the rules.

Combat Is for Enemies. Some rules apply only during combat or while a character is acting in Initiative order. Don’t let players attack each other or helpless creatures to activate those rules.

Rules Rely on Good-Faith Interpretation. The rules assume that everyone reading and interpreting the rules has the interests of the group’s fun at heart and is reading the rules in that light.

Outlining these principles can help hold players’ exploits at bay. If a player persistently tries to twist the rules of the game, have a conversation with that player outside the game and ask them to stop.

Point me to anything in there that even vaguely supports your claim?

 

[SlyFlourish]

Teos Abadia did a good breakdown of the math of the encounter building system in D&D 2024 versus D&D 2014:


I've also been digging into it, as have some fine members of the Sly Flourish Discord server.

I've mainly been comparing it to my own Lazy Encounter Benchmark. This should come as no surprise, but I still like my benchmark better. I am happy, however, to see that the two systems overlap a fair bit so its not like one is totally out of whack from the others.

However, in my look at the two systems and other shared observations, the D&D 2024 DMG encounter building rules

• allow for a larger number of low CR monsters (eight CR 1s versus four level 3 PCs)
• don't allow for a larger number of high CR monsters (you're basically facing a single monster at 150% of the characters' average level with no room for any support monsters).

Here's a table that shows how many monsters at what challenge rating you can find for a hard battle against a certain number of characters at a given level. This table is similar to the way the xanathars rules worked:

The system is far improved from the D&D 2014 one since you only have to match up the budget. There's no goofy multiplier that has this sort of hidden connection to your encounter math that you can never really calculate. Add a stirge and suddenly you go from normal to deadly.

You can see a preview of my analysis here:

2024 DMG Versus the Lazy Encounter Benchmark

This article compares the encounter building rules in the new D&D 2024 Dungeon Master's Guide (DMG) to the Lazy Encounter Benchmark – my tool for helping GMs quickly benchmark 5e encounters to determi...

slyflourish.com

 

[FitzTheRuke]

I can just as easily claim that you're seeing it the way you prefer.

Except that I don't actually have a preference when it comes to this particular subject.

 

[Selas]

Tomorrow there should be a WotC video coming out on Encounters & Maps. If anything, it should at least provide some insight behind their thought process for the new Encounter rules

 

[tomedunn]

This table is similar to the way the xanathars rules worked:

Based on the analysis I did last year of the XGtE encounter building rules, the 2024 encounter building rules are effectively the same as the XGtE rules for multiple monsters but with double the number of monsters per PC.

The XGtE encounter building rules for multiple monsters are based on the same math as the 2014 DMG rules. They don't appear to use an encounter XP multiplier, but what they really do is bake in a default XP multiplier of 2 into the calculation, i.e., the value you'd get for four monsters vs four PCs. This effectively re-centers the 2014 DMG math around one monster per PC and minimizes the relative error of not adjusting the XP multiplier to account for the number of PCs and monsters in the encounter.

Translating this into how the 2014 DMG encounter building rules work, assuming the XP multiplier is always 2 equivalent to cutting the PCs' XP thresholds in half and then not applying any sort of encounter multiplier. Since the 2024 DMG XP budgets are mostly the same as the 2014 XP thresholds, this means the number of monsters generated by the 2024 DMG rules will be roughly double those generated by the XGtE rules.