The Secret to "Balanced" Combat Encounters in D&D 5e 

💥 The Secret Art of Game Mastery: www.kickstarter.com/projects/thedmlair/the-secret-art-of-game-mastery?ref=41lqa8 ✅ LIKE & SHARE: ru-vid.comvideos ✅ PATREON: www.patreon.com/bobworldbuilder

I've always felt that "RUN AWAY, RUN AWAY!" is a fine battle tactic.

I'd point to the Balrog encounter in the Lord of the Rings books and films by Jackson if someone says "you can't have super heroic fantasy where you run away from a fight "

Regarding not keeping track of hit points, I've used it, but see it more like a game of chess. Once the party has manvuveared a strategy the has shifted the fight to overwhelmingly in their favor I let the scene play out dramatically. Like if the have managed to sneak the barbarian past the evil necromancer and now has him pinned to the ground without his spell components. Instead of rolling the dice to see how many rounds of kicking him in the shins it takes to kill him, we end the battle cinematically. The bad guy is in checkmate. The exiciting part of the battle is running the startegy to get him there. Not rolling the dice for the same thing each round to whittle down the last few hp.

I think the more important aspect of balance is that between individual players, no one wants to just passively sit there while the others solve the problem

The only consideration I give to combat balance is "it's only deadly if they stay to fight it out". I never kill characters out of nowhere. It has to be due to their own machinations.

“Combat Resolution: Conquer, Withdraw, Surrender, or Die” is a section in Holmes Basic or AD&D (I can’t remember). The choices are clear, but Withdraw is a choice some players forget. I think the linear nature of a lot of video games conditions us to an ever-onward style of play.

I've never faced a problem with balance on the games I GM because I use a simple trick: "telegraph" the power of the monster the the players. Like a game desing approach, I set the expectations of the monster before any players chooses to face it. This way, the thrid option mentioned in the video (on 6:46) is more defined the players. First encounter with a new (and soon to be recorrent) monster have to be an easy one. If it is a new, powerful and single monster, I use NPC describing its power (in a misterious way), use de scenario (markings of previous encounter), books and notes, allow PC to make skill checks. I also hint the monster power in the description. The player chooses how to approch the encounter. I use it both ways too. I can create a mood of desperation in the player's heart, of their iminiant doom, but the monster is a fair fight. I have countless examples of they running away or developing plans too much elaborated for the fight ahead.

This gets to the heart of what I think is a fairly common issue: parallel play. When each player is playing their character independently, just waiting for their next turn. In a game where most players build their characters in a vacuum, and often don’t even communicate what abilities/spells they have at their disposal, there also tends to be very little chance that they strategize about whether to run or not.

I always make it clear from the start that my players will likely end up in fights they cant win as they are, and that retreat is a voable option, ive even rewarded players with inspiration for realizing they cant win and running

Your idea at the beginning is great! My players and I always forget that you can avoid or retreat from a fight.

I've been in plenty of encounters that were "too hard" so the party ended up fleeing. Never take a fight you can't win, and the tables I'm at generally have an understanding of when a fight is getting out of hand and we should be coming up with an escape plan.

Retreat and flight are perfectly legitimate options even when your DM hates you for it.

I understand the reasoning behind this statement, I really do, hell, on paper I even agree with it. But people often forget how hard it is to actually run away in D&D 5e (I have no clue if this applies to other editions as well.) 5e monsters tend to have the exact same, if not greater movement speed than most of the player races and therefore PCs. Opportunity attacks already restrict movement because disengaging is an action, making sprinting away impossible unless you're a rogue, but if you're one or two unlucky blows away from being downed, trying to run away might be more hazardous to your health than standing and fighting. Running in the middle of battle RAW, tends to be suicide anyway. Which is what leads to these, "*sigh* fine, might as well go down fighting *shrug*" moments. If we stick to this line of reasoning and deduce that running away is not truly an option, it becomes more about picking your fights and where possible, stacking the deck and metaphorically weighing the dice. And even that can be ruined by the dice falling where they may.

The old rules for NPC reactions and Monster Morale are the flip side of the old school style of balance. Most sentient being don't fight to the death unless cornered.

For me its all about the story. An encounter is only there because it makes narrative sense. So the party will wipe the floor with some enemies and they'll begin to flee when the tide turns (or before if word of the party has spread). Encounters are specifically that, not fights unless the players decided that its one. Saying that, everything the party can stumble into is ballpark beatable still, no one hit TPKs.

For this very purpose, I stated my campaign with a homebrew "retreat reaction" The only homebrew in the game D&D tends to kill those who don't retreat together So the reaction lets you move your speed to when an ally ends their turn farther from all enemies than they started The movement must also end farther from all enemies The movement still provokes opportunity attacks Of course as a reaction, it's max once per round A year in, its saved them a number of times, maintained tension and hasn't been abused for other purposes

Honestly this is something I've been trying to teach players. The current play space has taught folks that no matter what they encounter it is suitable for their level and they can win. And while I don't think you should have every combat be impossible, having some things be clearly above their ability so they learn when it's a good idea to flee makes for a more interesting and living world.

I started with 2e in 1995 and I always tried to balance my encounters! Everyone still had fun, but it was just a little predictable. Only after playing for maybe 8 years did we accidentally have a fight that was too hard. When the players went back super prepared to take out that same enemy they felt like Gods! I've only started "unbalancing" my encounters because of advice I found in the OSR community. It has made my games so much better. Thanks for sharing the good news, Bob!

I ran a session of "5e" for some folks who had never rolled a polyhedral before over the weekend and I didn't even attempt to balance the encounters. I was totally reliant on my knowledge of the system and comfort in winging it to see me through. I didn't track monster hit points, I instead made sure each of the PCs got a chance to shine and use some of the their cool abilities at least once, and I kept the boss alive long enough to hit a few PCs hard enough to make them sweat and feel the stakes of an epic boss battle and make their victory feel hard won. Everyone had a blast rolling dice and fighting monsters, and they all want to play again, which was my only goal! On the flipside, in my weekly PF2 game with my longterm group, I always start from a place of mechanical balance and adjust on the fly because they are much more experienced players playing a more long term game and I don't want to accidentally kill them by throwing a monster that's too tough at them because I didn't realise it.

A trick I like to pull for some boss battles is starting them like three rooms before. 1. 2gnolls shot and retreat through corridos just long enough yo force melee players to dash or atack. 2. Once the gnolls aré pusehd back to the entrance of the temple their reinforcements aré waiting at the door to abush the players. 3. Once the players aré about halfway through the ambush at the door, the draw the atención of the head cultist an a dark cleric. 4. Once the Minions are dead a Balruga Is summoned.

I think there's a lot of video gamey ideas of what balance looks like at the table; I put a death knight on the table for a group of players, and when it fireballed them and took no damage on a 19, I'll never forget one of my most tenured players saying "why would you put it on the table if we can't kill it." It later turned into one of the best RP sessions we ever had, but my player I think voiced the thoughts of a lot of players. I think playing different versions of DND and using different systems has kind of shaken up expectations with my players; not to dog on 5e, but it feels like it tends towards being kind towards the players and not killing them. Contrast this with B/X style games where one good hit from a monster will just kill you. I would suggest that playing different TTRPGs can help broaden not just the DMs appreciation for balance, but also the players.

I watched Jacob dming "Icewind Dale" one time get his entire party of players in trouble. At a certain point I saw him "pull in the horns" of his bad guy, but it was not really that subtle. I mean, his party didn't figure it out, and his bad guy had run out of misty steps, which was one of the main things that was chewing up his party, so it was totally within reason for the bad guy to start to loose ground. And, like I said, his players didn't seem to notice. I guess I take that back, he was subtle. He seems to be a very good dm. Good video thanks.

I remember an old movie that had James Caan and Louis Gossett Jr. in it as old special forces team members. In one scene this kid is trying to inspire the old team by saying that this team has never ran from a fight. Louis Gossett Jr.'s response was "What?! Kid we ran from a lot of fights. That's why we are still alive."

That’s crazy, I just searched this exact thing and you posted it like 5 minutes ago

Perfect video! This has been my biggest challenge is getting the psychology of the players understand the control they have

Love what you said about teaching your players that retreat is a valid option by having your intelligent monsters retreat when they start losing. Brilliant way to demonstrate behavior. My personal solution is to balance the encounters that I direct the group toward through story hooks because otherwise I feel that’s a violation of promise and payoff. However, random encounters in the wild or places they delve into without story goals will have vastly unbalanced encounters that may require them to flee. This makes the world feel alive and dangerous, but doesn’t make progress through the story impossible.

Great video! I just started DMing DCC for my 5e group and I can see they are not really used to running away from fights and are having fun with this thrill of actually risking their PC's lives with every fight! I will definitely use some of those tips for my next sessions, thanks a lot.

I've found that the most fun and balanced way to run combat is using many small encounters. Each battle is shorter, so it doesn't get boring. Initiative becomes more important. Hit dice are used and can run out. Players lose resources slower and more consistantly, so they can more accurately gauge whether it is worth it to press on or turn back. In the event that they don't turn back and someone dies, they can clearly see how their choices led up to this point.

There were two fights we abandoned. One against a green dragon, we had a plan. The fighter was kidnapped and we went to safe her. The warlock was invisibly scouting out the lair and wanted to come back to get me after checking the state of things. Then the warlock decided "since I am already here, I could untie the fighter" shit went down and I wasn't there to help because my character was waiting outside, not too close so that the dragon won't notice me. After a few rounds I was finally able to justify having heard that the plan went down the drain and joined in to help, but it was too late and the others were looking not so good. So we used an item to teleport away. Had to leave behind an npc that we originally wanted to safe. Second time, also a dragon. This time black. But we didn't know a dragon lived there, we were just exploring. In the end the warlock sacrificed himself so we could flee.

So I'm hearing I'm not an evil DM because I put 3 abishai before a 1st-level party. I agree! On a serious note, I always remind my players that running and talking (or parlaying, if you prefer) are fully viable options to fighting, and just like fighting, they aren't guaranteed to work. Finding out is the fun part.

I have to say, me and my co DM barely balance encounters anymore, not to say we don't tweak things on the fly or take into account our player's abilities, but we don't do painstaking labor to figure out how to make the most balanced possible monster. There's a level of trust in the players inherent to that. The most balancing I have to do is to make things more difficult for the players, not easier.

quick point about the XP to Lvl 3 thing about tracking HP; that was a thing in that specific sketch, in other videos Jacob has said that he's not overly fond about handwaving HP as his group likes optimising for damage, so taking away HP tracking invalidates their choices. Of course that's jus the approach that works best for his group, not saying it's either good or bad.

I’ve done all of those methods at different points and they can all be effective depending on the group.

Excellent stuff! One more suggestion: Have the players encounter a high level NPC _in the process of fleeing_ from a BBEG battle where it took heavy damage. The NPC should obviously be very powerful - using high level spells and super combat powers as they watch it flee - but the NPC should also very clearly entreat the players to GTFO, because right on its heels is something that frightens the hell out of a high level NPC, and would therefore easily kill the players if they stick around after the NPC warns them not to. The players _might_ still try to take on whatever the NPC is deathly afraid of, but they can't say that they weren't warned if they all get killed in short order by willingly getting in over their heads.

In my view, it's critically important to a campaign to confront your players with enemies beyond their ability to defeat, and then offer them one or several ways to escape or avoid the encounter. I agree with the whole approach you described. Let the players decide who is too tough to tackle.

A tried and true method, I ask to help balance, is to ask players, "How do you want to approach this encounter?" See what their end goal is in combat and try my best to see to those results (or failing to get those results). This allows for every player to to do something fun in combat and if things go haywire, say, "you don't need to fight to the death. Running away is an option."

I’m with Jacob on this one. Just have fights go for as long as they’re fun. Let the PCs do their cool stuff, then end it. This also allows you to avoid the situation where the boss with X hit points takes X+1 in the first round and everyone is ‘oh, that’s it?’ The trick is to not make it obvious, but players will wilfully avoid thinking about it if they are having fun.

Sometimes it is only after combat is engaged that the difficulty of the encounter becomes apparent. Attacks of opportunity can make retreat a difficult option if combat has been engaged and if the opponents have a similar or greater movement speed, at least for those engaged in melee. Ranged opponents have a better chance, although in the close confines of a dungeon, they may not be able stand so far off. Then you get occasions where the party is effectively locked into combat ('the hill giant causes a rockfall behind you, blocking off the passage by which you entered the cave' or 'you drop down from the high ledge into the dark cavern and then become aware of creatures around you).

"Monsters should attempt to run" is maybe the best advice I seem to never see. IMHO it takes incredible amounts of training and discipline to get soldiers to not flee a battle, why would some hungry monster just looking for a snack stick around when that snack becomes more trouble than it is worth? Even a defensive force trying to keep the players out of their home (the dungeon) would seek refuge and reinforcements instead of thinking they could 1v4 a party after watching their comrades fall. Thanks for sharing Bob.

balance between classes is important too. It's why I prefer D&D4 of all the D&D versions.

Our group mostly plays 1st Ed D&D, and yes, "run away" is one of our favorite tactics. ;-) I will admit, though, that it sometimes feels a little "fake" that we can always get away, even when it would make sense for the monsters to pursue us and keep fighting. I mean, if the bad guys are winning, why *wouldn't* they chase us and try to finish us off so we can't come back for another try later (which is totally what we're going to do). But at least it's less phony than the DM just arbitrarily deciding when the bad guy dies -- I find that completely ridiculous. At that point, why are you even rolling dice?

Your triangle of the Dice/DM/Player for balance is the same as my philosophy for Emergent Storytelling in RPGs. In many ways they align regardless, as you are suggesting that player agency be the driving factor in events, rather than forcing a specific outcome. It takes your games to a new level once you, as DM, can just sit back and let things unfold according to player choice and result of the dice... with you adjudicating only as needed.

Awesome video. I have to admit you shocked me here, happy shock. People forget that using Combat as Battle can produce really good stories. Combat as Sport can also work, but it does lend towards an attitude of "If the GM put this encounter here, we can fight and win." I continue to enjoy your exploration of "Old School" philosophy. Again, I'm not against "New School" at all, they both serve purposes, but sometimes going back can bring new and different fun to the table.

My only problem about the "cinematic endings" from not tracking hp is that it can make the players feel like the damage they deal doesn't matter.

A player once came to me and said that they wanted to play a new character. I convinced them to keep going for one more session because I had something in mind. My players never really run from monsters so I decided to send an extra strong one against them that killed that player that wanted to play a new character. The group found out that this was an extra tough enemy and the player that wanted to play a new character got to do that. His old character even got to have a super heroic sacrifice moment so that the rest of the party could run

Sly Flourish's idea of turning the dials to balance out combat on the fly I find is the best way to keep things interesting for the players

Ive been reading “The monsters know what they’re doing” by Keith Ammann and it really helps me think about encounters differently. Most creatures dont just throw themselves at death, and many wont even want to fight unless the odds are overwhelmingly in their favor, and it makes planning encounters and running encounter more fun and feel more grounded in the games world

This reminds me of Hankerin' Ferinale's adage that balance is a false god. Definitely some good points here!

Great video Bob. I try not to overthink balancing encounters too much. I have noticed that fleeing in 5th edition is a bit tricky because of opportunity attack rules. Usually by the time the group thinks of running, they are so low on HP that they are afraid to take those opportunity attacks. That might be a side effect of the heroic fantasy mindset they are in. These same players were way more cautious during our short Call of Cthulhu scenario.

You are absolutely right, true balance occurs in a work that is filled with risks, even death. The only way for the party to affect balance is to know when to avoid the fight. Too many players expect that their characters are the heroes and that they are never in mortal danger. This makes it impossible to run a balanced game because there is never a threat!

Love the ‘players balance the encounter’ idea….though I will bring up an instance that a newer DM threw a homebrew dragon at our level 3 party and I was instakilled in the first round of combat from its breath weapon 😂😂 if we’d gone after the dragon/into its lair I’d understand, but it showed up out of nowhere!

I appreciate that you emphasize different groups and different styles! Every group is kind of unique. I've personally been leaning more towards this style of balance, it makes prep a lot easier and usually encounters won't be wildly one sided if you are aiming for monsters that are roughly appropriate for their level.

This video really hits the nail on the head. The best secret to balancing is... Don't! Obviously, this doesn't mean throw 10 ancient red dragons at a level 3 party. But if for example you use the random encounters in Xanathar's, just roll with it - Don't change the encounter up. Or, if you do plan your encounters - Use what feels logical and gives a sense of verisimilitude. Would kobolds run at the party and make melee attacks in their cave lair, or would it be heavily trapped and utilize crawlspace that no other creatures can use? Letting your players balance the game is the best way to do it IMO. Getting them to think creatively and more importantly, *off their character sheet* makes for much better sessions than "I run up and attack" over and over.

The notion that combat is dangerous and you could actually die is at the heart of old-school RPG revival, and honestly makes games a LOT more fun as a player. You can still have epic moments, but things feel a lot more real.

My problem with running away in 5e is that it is hard to asses when a fight is out of hand. Someone going down and dying is hardly a rare occurence, happens almost every fight, as the most resource efficient heal is healing word when they start dying instead of healing when they healthy and up. Also there is no rules of running away, just the normal combat, so if the enemies just harder, but not because of the terrain, nothing stops them to just simply pursue you. I know calltrops can help, but if the terrain is too open it is not feasibly, and not a lot of way to stop pursuers on an open terrain.

I do not track the HP of bosses. The kill it, when they are out of spells, HP or new ideas. I do track HP of usual mobs. That way players can "meta-game" a little. They know that the goblin is easy to one-shot, but a usual orc will take a beating. For me D&D is about making your players - the heroes. And to be a "hero" you gotta earn it. "To get the treasures you need to kill the dragon". Treasures are worthless, if you didn't "deserve" them. And sometimes an epic death is also a part of a hero journey. So I might even plan a PC death in advance. But I do it really rarely, when the plot provides.

It feels so good when a first level party of two survives a few rounds against a Narzugon.

With regards to old-school D&D: when I was a kid in the late 80s / early 90s, my dad ran an adventure for me, my cousins, and my uncle. I think there were 5 PCs, all level 1. The first session, we went up against a small group of goblins. Three of us died. And that was the end of that game lol.

One thing I like to point out when talking about balance and old school D&D is the existence of the Reaction Table. In older editions, a Reaction Roll was used when the the attitude of the monsters in an encounter is not known. The Reaciton table is a 2d6 roll with varying results of attitudes from attack immediately to friendly/helpful. The "immediately attacks" result only occurs on a roll of a 2 on a 2d6. Which means every other result means they don't attack immediately.. Players can take some action to avoid an encounter if they wish (with varying degrees of ease). There is an added layer of possibilities involuved when that group of orcs in a random encounter end up with a friendly result. Why are they friendly? What do they do? What kinds of situations can arise if the party recipricates?

Bob's out here preaching the good word, again. But we're not retreating, no, let's call it retrograde progress!

The real problem with retreat in 5e is opportunity attacks and most everyone has ranged attacks.

7:04 another thing I like about having encounters even, is that the party is now also incentivized to try and sneak past the enemies instead of fighting every possible enemy head on. This creates a fun dynamic where players have to try and sneak past the guards of a dungeon to save their energy for the big bad or to recover, and gives a little more realism to the exploration, as combat takes a lower priority.

Escape is a vital mechanic for a group to understand. I DM'd two TPKS in AD&D back in the '90s. One was just a bad party-splitting decision, could've happened to anyone. It caused me to become determined that the next party wouldn't die in their first adventure, so there were 12 people in that party (five PCs and a bunch of allied NPCs), all sneaking up on the dungeon that was an evil cult's temple in a forest. Except, the cult had two trained wolves standing guard outside. My dice were average, but the players' dice were awful. Result: two wolves killed 11 people. Only the magic-user escaped -- having used his Magic Missile in the first round, he hid in the forest in hopes of sniping with a slingshot, but wound up escaping in the end by riding the dead druid's donkey out of there. A 12-member party defeated by two wolves. The dice were wild, yes, but the other issue was that the party bunched up, didn't separate archers from close-in fighters, and didn't run even when half of them were dead.

I love that last point. If the players encounter a pack of wolves or an owlbear or some other beastly creature that is just there to eat the adventurers, it makes perfect sense for them to run away. A pack of wolves would never fight to the death. Even in Breath of the Wild, if you encounter a pack of wolves and kill one of them, the others will all run away.

liked 1st room, there is a sleeping ancient dragon

I typically will have some “one hit” mobs and maybe a few “two hits” as well. For the more boss types, what I do is a line for small damage and a circle for big damage. I start by making a big plus sign then in the four quadrants I put in the X’s and O’s so technically that would equal 50 damage. Then I just kinda gauge how many of those would be appropriate for the monster from there. It’s kinda like how you write the score for dominos. Cuts down on exact math big time!

I still think the characters themselves should feel close to equally awesome each storyline and working with rewards and weaknesses is handy for that. I like the permission for unbalanced encounters as long as the party has the permission to announce an escape. Back when I was in larp there was a “fair escape” rule, where there was plot armor to get away if at least half the party was still up.

Idk man, just take 2 Spectators in a room, and let the players try to survive. Should be fun so long as they’re under lvl 6 lol

About 12-14 months ago I forfeit the idea of trying to “balance” encounters and simply setting the difficulty to whatever makes sense to the world. The players can choose to engage with the threat or not. Even in high-stakes dungeons/encounters, the players can balance the risk/reward of running away or coming back at a later date. Usually, the players “outsmart” me and either use a spell to a creative degree, or MY PUGILIST RIPPING A TREE FROM THE GROUND FOR A 3d6 BLUDGEONING WEAPON TO SMACK ENEMIES AROUND. I love this game

I try to have multiple paths for my encounters. I have my attempt at balancing it (which I get better at with practice). This is if everything goes as expected. I then consider what to do if the players are doing too well and if the enemies are doing too well. This could be due to poor planning in enemy creation or selection. This could be due to a player forgetting a spell or ability on the sheet that could have turned everything around. Or this could be due to dice rolls. The bottom line is I'm attempting to make it all fun. If the players are doing too well, I just let that go often enough. Unless it is a boss or something like that, there isn't a reason to take away the players feeling powerful. I just had this experience in the last session that I DM'd. One PC ran into the enemies before they were ready. I had this story moment built up, and through sheer PC shenanigans, they ended up taking on the enemies in a way not intended. Other options here could be a bigger, badder monster busts through the wall and starts attacking everyone. Maybe the towns guard shows up and arrests everyone for some reason or another. Or maybe there is some secondary objective that goes off, e.g. the flame following the trail of gun powder finally makes it to the barrel. The other is if the enemies are doing too well. This could be something simple like the players are taken prisoner. Examples from the previous paragraph can work here as well. I like this method, because it gives a large amount of wiggle room for balancing, and it also can allow the encounter to go different ways. Sometimes, I'll even like some of the alternate stuff well enough to make it into the original plan.

This was a very relevant video Bob! Thanks for sharing!

You nailed several ways I handle encounters in different games... in the same video. Neat. I use my own homebrew rules and only look at monster manuals for inspiration, so it can be very hit and miss sometimes with my group. >.

One of my most memorable combat encounters actually involved retreating almost right away. We weren't super high level, but one of the players decided (for reasons that I'll not get into) that they needed to fight a celestial. The rest of us, immediately seeing that it was a losing fight, headed for the hills. In short, the instigator got completely bodied and everyone else had fun dodging the celestial's cronies on the way out the door. I feel like one of the reasons it was fun is because it was NOT balanced, to the point that a character had to die. We got a taste of what its like when the enemies throw some real power around, and we were glad to get out with our hides. Other players will probably have a greater level of attachment to their character, but I think unless it alienates the player completely, losing a character isn't the end of the world.

I absolutely LOVE the idea of an encounter with bandits in which, after the first casualty, they freak out. "Dear gods! They just murdered Kenneth! For what, a few gold? Let's scram!"

That's kiiind of my approach, just not all the time. What I do is I run balanced encounters whenever that encounter is forced onto the player, which typically means about 20-40% of the time: one for each time I need to do some exposition to set up the plot of the arc, and then one for the boss fight at the end of the arc. Everything else, what's there is what is there - but by the time the players get to it, they have been given enough exposition to know what's there, make adequate preparations, and/or avoid the threat entirely. But it does mean that there *are* times when I want the encounter to be balanced, and while I'm okay with not tracking hit points (I call it "doing last minute balance"), if I have tools that can give me a good idea of how things are gonna go down, I'd rather use those.

My players just steamrolled an encounter that I had planned would be deadly. Now, mind you, it was the hardest fight they've been in, the barbarian dropped to half, but the party still fought through a small army of harpies, a pair of manticores and a harpy boss. The thing is, they first saw this encounter like 6 sessions ago, and went "oh shit" and spent several in game days solving problems for a faction to get reinforcements. The end result was they ran through the encounter and felt badass the entire time. On one hand, I was bummed the party didn't struggle as much. On the other hand, the barbarian wrestled two manticores at one point like a total BAMF. So they balanced the encounters, and they've been having a ton of fun. They've noped out of four or five encounters already, and tricked enemies into killing themselves one time even.

I remember early on in a homebrew campaign I've been running that I had a room with constructs so withdrawing was in fact an option. Most fights have been heavily skewed in the player's favor, but we are only about halfway through. To keep immersion while allowing retreat means giving monsters a reason to not pursue. Whether it is a time sensitive ritual or being physically confined to an area monsters should have their own plans on what to do with their time.

One issue with "abandoning the fight" in 5e is if *anyone* decides to take a few swings or the enemy manages to close the distance (as often happens, for a variety of reasons), Opportunity Attacks make combat *sticky*; people often can't get away if they disengage and move (because any enemy who hasn't taken an action can dash and catch up), but don't want to risk an opportunity attack. If you get rid of opportunity attacks (for both sides), you'll discover a decreased reluctance to run from a fight. Another thing -- maybe not what you're after if you like fighting stuff -- but something I learned from playing Hot Springs Island using (slightly modified) 5e: getting 0 XP for killing things totally changes the attitude to fighting. Negotiation and running become the main strategies. Took some getting used to but actually it was way more fun than I'd have expected

I've been doing this in my 3.5 game for 6 years now. I drove home at early level that there's big stuff happening in the world and they're either going to have to avoid some fights or be very clever about it. In their first year they took down a nest of mind flayers by calling in a favor from an order of paladins, and many times they talked their way out of things that would've been impossible to fight through. It's been easy to prep and it leads to more diverse gameplay

What I've learnt with 10 years of D&D 5e, is that combat balance works specially well if you stick to the daily XP Budget rules from the DMG/XGE. Throwing a big deadly encounter as the only encounter of a day doesn't work that well, as players will have plenty of resources. Put that same encounter after a bunch of easy and medium encounters, and spellcasters will be scrapping for spell slots and martials will be almost out of hp. The trick is making all encounters short enough so that it doesn't drag the whole game having over 3 encounters per session.

So i made an rng campaign that was based on this concept. Players know whats in the next room and can enter, rest, or leave the dungeon at any point. It has worked really well so far

All "Balance" is an illusion combat should be deadly, even in superheroic fantasy. The Avengers didn't beat Thanos without huge losses, for a cinematic example. That story would be so much less impactful if they just powered through and regrouped after the first battle with him...

The Monsters (may) Know What They're Doing, but the players need to too.

First encounter in my main campaign I had the PCs ambushed by bandits while traveling to Bruglum Village to meet the village head. They killed the bandit leader and another two in the first round so I rolled for morale and the bandits failed, except one of them. That one kept chasing one of the PCs around but the rest fled for their lives. Since then the PCs have fled the occasional encounter, and avoided others such as the flying black dragon that decided to chase them when they found their spelljammer in a vampire's castle and installed a helm they dredged up from the bottom of the ocean (but before they outfitted the ship with sails, rigging, weapons, furnishings, etc), though they often try to suck it up and prevail through encounters I put in to warn them off some route or another. So far it has worked pretty well for them.

If you have a DM like the one that first got me into Old School D&D, forget it. In his mind, the response to "talk or distract" was always, "what's your AC again?" And option 3 didn't exist. Over 40 years later, he still can't understand why his groups break up after a few sessions ...

Whether or not you call it "balance", this is exactly the right way to do things. In other words, encounters should not be "balanced" around which side will win in toe-to-toe combat. Balance means, if anything, simply that the players have a reasonable chance to survive while having fun and making progress toward goals that _they_ are interested in. This does mean (a) giving the players reasonable information on what they perceive as to the danger of a situation, (b) you don't construct scenarios where they are forced into encounters (no railroading!!!), (c) stealth, negotiation, retreat must be viable options both mechanically and in terms of the fictional reality. It is a good idea to keep in mind that monsters & NPCs also would like to survive and avoid serious injury or pain (a bee can't kill you, but you sure as hell don't want to get stung) I like framing this style of play as "player balanced" in the sense that it may appeal to those who are trapped inside the box of thinking everything needs to be "balanced".

As a GM, I completely agree. I don't want my players to believe they can go anywhere, pick a fight, and walk away completely successful. At the same time, I have found that my group fairs better than I normally think they might. This is due, obviously, to both the dice and the fact that I don't create encounters with the PC's abilities in mind. I want the encounters to be organic based on location and other situational elements. Recently, my PC's got swarmed by Flaming Fist guards in Balder's Gate. There was a moment where at least one of them was contemplating violently resisting, but then the group relented. They were taken to the Seatower prison where Glitterbeard could then make a deal with them to perform a (narratively important) task for him, that they were likely going to pass by. So, confronting them with a no-win scenario, allowed the story to get back on track. The idea of not tracking boss HP is interesting. I play in another group where I am pretty certain that's what our DM does. There have been many intense battles that seem to end abruptly when at least I wasn't expecting it. And nobody's complaining about it. 🤪

I agree fleeing is 100% the way to balance all encounters, however many RPGs lack a dedicated flee mechanic built into them, leading to tpk. For 5e I would recommend if at the start of initiative a party decides they want to flee, a chase skill challenge begins irrespective of the players positioning on the battlefield.

Amazing video!!! However, I am still leaning towards some number crunching... although the "not counting HP" actually made me think... In any case, GREAT GREAT video! Congrats!

Thanks, Bob. I love you.

I was running Dragon of Icespire Peak, and got berated by some of my players for not properly balancing a fight. There's an old ruined church that's been occupied by a gang of orcs, but because I had so many players, there were about 20 of them (book suggests 3 per PC, I had a party of 7 players and they had talked a party of 4 Wererats accompanying them to the shrine) - the idea being that this is an optional challenge that the party can choose to avoid and come back to later. I tried to explain as clearly as I could that this was an organised camp, and they should be careful (at their current level) about just walking in. So they start coming from a different side, start interacting with a single guard out in the open, but spend so long doing it (a full conversation, a charm spell, more open discussion about the rest of the plan) that I felt compelled to roll a Perception check for the other orcs nearby, because this one orc was clearly talking to someone and not reporting it, attacking, or continuing to patrol. So two more orcs walk over. At which point, our Thunder Cleric casts Shatter. Am I the asshole for having all of the other orcs in the 130ft square area react to "a sudden loud ringing noise, painfully intense" erupting from within a fortified base, in the middle of a sunny day, and at least turning to investigate, and then sounding the alarm? The party decided to try and fight (not very efficiently because they're almost all new players). I felt bad for my players. They took down maybe half of the orcs but they burned a lot of resources, and were quite battered. After their frontline paladin fell, I took him as a prisoner (I knew he'd be absent next session) and had the orcs fall back into the church - allowing the party to retreat, rest, and then fight the other half of the orcs as a rescue mission. Some of the party, after the session, accused me of being too harsh with the Shatter reaction, and for making it too challenging by having so many orcs fight them at once. I argued that they could have taken a stealthier approach and picked their way through the scattered patrols with less noise, and not in broad daylight, or come back later.

Great vid Bob! Love this advice

My players would never retreat. They won't also never try to find a non-combat solution to a problem solvable with combat...

I'm glad you said this. I believe encounter balancing is a waste of the DM's time.

I roll Savage Worlds. "How I balance encounter" is the "How I mine for fish" of our forums. (almost) All dice explode, so fights are REAL hard to predict. Totally dramatic!

A thing to bear in mind with 5th Edition D&D. Old-school D&D gave fighters one attack per round, and spellcasters got one spell per round with a limited supply of spells -- after that they were just very weak fighters until they slept. 5th Edition gives fighters extra options in combat, and spellcasters now have cantrips so they stay magical when they're out of spell slots. Frankly, these changes are more about how the game feels than how it plays. It's nice to have characters with options -- that's what magic items really were in classic D&D, they were the only way to add options to a character besides learning a new spell -- and 5th Edition characters have fun options. How many times, though, have you heard stories about a DM setting up a simple puzzle that one character's ability could easily solve, but that player didn't realize the ability on their character sheet applied to the situation? A puzzle could be solved with a simple spell, but the player forgot they had that spell. If only the paladin bothered to use Divine Sense in that evil temple. Perfect example: in Campaign 1 of Critical Role, a battle with two possessing ghosts could have been a near-TPK until the DM managed to get the guy playing a cleric to realize that he had Turn Undead available. Whether it's a Basic D&D party or a 15th level party in 5th Edition, whether a problem is solved depends on two things. One is the players knowing the options available to them on their character sheets. The other is players knowing the options available to them from the DM's descriptions of the game world. That's why so many D&D RU-vid videos about "how to build better dungeons/encounters/puzzles/combat" are really about how to communicate the environments, NPC attitudes, clues, and tactical options to the players.

Just feel the table out...how the rolls are going... Don't try to predict it all or prep it all, don't track HP of every monster (or in my case any), just monitor spell slots, player HP and action economy... Just watch your players, and see how the tension rises or falls with each roll. You do that, and all the balance you need will work out perfectly. I have been a DM for 24 years now, and it wasn't til about 10 years in that I learned that trick.

This is pretty great, and the MCDM Flee, Mortals! new method of CR balance is also pretty phenomenal!

TRUE! Just because there's 1 goblin in the hall, doesn't mean it's not a trap with a dozen goblins that can TPK if they roll well. A DM's adventure is not a video game, it is a person making shit up on the spot.