Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
The
VOIDRUNNER'S CODEX
is LIVE! Explore new worlds, fight oppressive empires, fend off fearsome aliens, and wield deadly psionics with this comprehensive boxed set expansion for 5E and A5E!
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Mearls Presents A New XP System For 5E In August's Unearthed Arcana
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="clearstream" data-source="post: 7722687" data-attributes="member: 71699"><p>In my defense, I'm not high-balling or low-balling them. I'm using the book values exactly as I said I did. Our goal is only to understand the game difficulty. The table is a means to that ends. What you are suggesting sounds valid although we should admit that we don't know the empirical average and that could be higher or lower than the assumed average. A secondary problem is that as Deadly has nothing to average with, it isn't clear what values you use. A tertiary problem is that the greater our attempts to be precise, the shakier our reliance on magic ranges like 6-8 will start to look. Here is the table adjusted for your averaging principle -</p><p></p><p>Level Easy Medium Hard Deadly</p><p>1 8.1 4.8 3.4 2.8</p><p>2 8.1 4.8 3.4 2.8</p><p>3 10.7 6.4 3.8 3.3</p><p>4 9.1 5.4 3.9 3.2</p><p>5 9.3 5.6 3.8 3.1</p><p>6 8.9 5.3 3.5 2.9</p><p>7 9.1 5.4 3.6 3.1</p><p>8 8.9 5.2 3.4 2.9</p><p>9 9.1 5.6 3.8 3.1</p><p>10 10.0 5.8 3.8 3.3</p><p>11 8.8 5.3 3.5 2.9</p><p>12 7.7 4.6 3.1 2.6</p><p>13 8.2 4.8 3.2 2.7</p><p>14 8.0 4.8 3.2 2.6</p><p>15 8.6 5.1 3.4 2.8</p><p>16 8.3 5.0 3.3 2.8</p><p>17 8.5 5.1 3.4 2.8</p><p>18 8.6 5.1 3.4 2.8</p><p>19 8.2 4.9 3.3 2.8</p><p>20 9.4 5.6 3.8 3.2</p><p></p><p>I noticed Medium are about 2x Easy, and Hard are about 3x Easy, and Deadly are about 4x Easy, so I assumed a super-deadly of about 5x Easy. Sorry the layout makes it hard to read.</p><p></p><p>Level Easy Medium Hard Deadly</p><p>mean 8.8 5.2 3.5 2.9</p><p>median 8.7 5.2 3.4 2.9</p><p>min 7.7 4.6 3.1 2.6</p><p>max 10.7 6.4 3.9 3.3</p><p>correl 0.87471915 </p><p></p><p>So now we see call it 5.2 Medium and 3.5 Hard per "day". Medium is less well correlated to Hard because of the way we're shifting all the numbers. Pointing a finger at the arbitrary nature of our choices. It's still significantly correlated. If we like this table and have faith that an expected 6-8 medium-hard encounters represents good game balance, then we might say that about 50% more encounters per day are needed. We could factor this without accelerating levelling rates, by discounting our encounters about 30% e.g. 4 orcs are worth 140XP not 200, so we add 2 orcs to bring it roughly to where we want it.</p><p></p><p>Thus I believe I would suggest at this point that a good simple way to ramp game difficulty from <strong>Easy </strong>to <strong>Medium</strong> without accelerating levelling is to discount encounters either 20% or 30%, depending on whether you more often use values close to the book value, or above that. Does that seem right?</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="clearstream, post: 7722687, member: 71699"] In my defense, I'm not high-balling or low-balling them. I'm using the book values exactly as I said I did. Our goal is only to understand the game difficulty. The table is a means to that ends. What you are suggesting sounds valid although we should admit that we don't know the empirical average and that could be higher or lower than the assumed average. A secondary problem is that as Deadly has nothing to average with, it isn't clear what values you use. A tertiary problem is that the greater our attempts to be precise, the shakier our reliance on magic ranges like 6-8 will start to look. Here is the table adjusted for your averaging principle - Level Easy Medium Hard Deadly 1 8.1 4.8 3.4 2.8 2 8.1 4.8 3.4 2.8 3 10.7 6.4 3.8 3.3 4 9.1 5.4 3.9 3.2 5 9.3 5.6 3.8 3.1 6 8.9 5.3 3.5 2.9 7 9.1 5.4 3.6 3.1 8 8.9 5.2 3.4 2.9 9 9.1 5.6 3.8 3.1 10 10.0 5.8 3.8 3.3 11 8.8 5.3 3.5 2.9 12 7.7 4.6 3.1 2.6 13 8.2 4.8 3.2 2.7 14 8.0 4.8 3.2 2.6 15 8.6 5.1 3.4 2.8 16 8.3 5.0 3.3 2.8 17 8.5 5.1 3.4 2.8 18 8.6 5.1 3.4 2.8 19 8.2 4.9 3.3 2.8 20 9.4 5.6 3.8 3.2 I noticed Medium are about 2x Easy, and Hard are about 3x Easy, and Deadly are about 4x Easy, so I assumed a super-deadly of about 5x Easy. Sorry the layout makes it hard to read. Level Easy Medium Hard Deadly mean 8.8 5.2 3.5 2.9 median 8.7 5.2 3.4 2.9 min 7.7 4.6 3.1 2.6 max 10.7 6.4 3.9 3.3 correl 0.87471915 So now we see call it 5.2 Medium and 3.5 Hard per "day". Medium is less well correlated to Hard because of the way we're shifting all the numbers. Pointing a finger at the arbitrary nature of our choices. It's still significantly correlated. If we like this table and have faith that an expected 6-8 medium-hard encounters represents good game balance, then we might say that about 50% more encounters per day are needed. We could factor this without accelerating levelling rates, by discounting our encounters about 30% e.g. 4 orcs are worth 140XP not 200, so we add 2 orcs to bring it roughly to where we want it. Thus I believe I would suggest at this point that a good simple way to ramp game difficulty from [B]Easy [/B]to [B]Medium[/B] without accelerating levelling is to discount encounters either 20% or 30%, depending on whether you more often use values close to the book value, or above that. Does that seem right? [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
WotC's Mearls Presents A New XP System For 5E In August's Unearthed Arcana
Top