How to F$%& CR: A Practical Example of Encounter Building the Angry Way

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

January 31, 2020

How to F$%& CR: A Practical Example of Encounter Building the Angry Way

This space semi-intentionally left blank.

The Story So Far

All right, so it’s been a little more than two weeks. Things got away from me. See this little update for more details. But I’m back baby. And not with a bunch of psychobabble bulls$&% that’s of use to no one but me and basically amounts to a whining Livejournal post about how hard things are. Nope. This here’s the real deal. We’re going to use my awesome monster and encounter building system to actually populate a hypothetical dungeon. Because, apparently, I can’t explain encounter building clearly enough.

Okay, so in the previous post in this spin-off series, I explained how to use my awesome monster building table to make some monsters more quickly and more easily than the DMG would ever let you do it. And more wobblier too.

But this system ain’t just about a new way to make monsters, it’s also about a new way to quickly slap together encounters that are more dynamic than the ones the DMG tells you to build because they are predicated on the idea that the best encounters have more than one monster in them. And also this system is also predicated on the idea that a bunch of math and ghost XP is not the best way to make encounters.

Today, we’re going to use some Angry-Built Monsters to come up with a bunch of encounters so I can show you how the math of my system actually works. AND DOESN’T WORK.

There’s Goblins in That Cave

So, let’s pretend we’ve adopted Angry’s system for building monsters and encounters. And we’ve got a game session coming up and we want to make our own homebrew dungeon adventure. Nothing fancy. Just a simple dungeon filled with a bunch of combat encounters. And puzzles and traps and treasures and s$&% too, of course. Sure. We have to have that stuff. Variety in gameplay is important. But the big thing is just that we want to fill it with a bunch of fights.

Before we start designing an adventure, we need a goal and a motivation. So, we think really hard. And the best we can come up with is: “there’s goblins in that cave and they probably have neat stuff; go kill them.” But that’s a crappy plot. We’re better than that. Besides, our hypothetical party consists of a bunch of third and fourth level PCs. So goblin stomping for fun and profit is a little beneath them. We go back to the drawing board and come up with a much better plot.

There’s HOBgoblins in that cave and they probably have neat stuff; go kill them.

Now THAT is a worthy D&D adventure for any party of established player characters with a few levels under their belts.

Of course, every adventure needs a backstory. And the backstory of this adventure is that a bunch of hobgoblins – under the command of some kind of leader hobgoblin – has taken up residence in that cave. And they’ve been ambushing travelers and traders on the nearby trade route, killing the people and taking the stuff. They’re probably amassing the supplies for something. Because they’re hobgoblins. They don’t live by raiding. They live by conquest.

Having come up with an excellent goal and a motivation and a backstory, the next step is to sit down with your colored pencils and draw a nice map of the cave complex the hobgoblins have been living in. Sure, it’d be better if the hobgoblins had taken over some ruined fortification or keep or something, but caves are easier to draw. Just a bunch of squiggly lines. Not that it matters because we both know you’re just going to jump onto Pinterest and look for a nice map to steal. Drawing is hard.

So, with a nice map, the next thing you do is fill in the non-combat encounters. Puzzles, obstacles, traps, tricks, hazards, and maybe even an interaction with an NPC prisoner or hobgoblin traitor or something. But it’s also really hard to come with s$&% like that. It’s really open-ended compared to just designing combats. So, you settle on one pit trap somewhere and you slap the hobgoblin racial traits on one of the NPCs stat blocks in the Monster Manual, give him a name, and figure you’ll wing it from there.

And now… NOW… it’s time to design some combats.

Dear GMs: Calm the F&$% Down

Actually, it’s not time to design some combats. Because you have me have to talk first. We have a problem. Or rather, YOU have a problem. And the problem is that you are a f$&%ing control freak.

Look: I have a comment section, I have an e-mail address, and I have a very active Discord community for my Patreon supporters. So, I get a lot of feedback about this s$&%. And I also see a lot of discussion about it that isn’t feedback. And a lot of discussion about adventure and encounter building in general.

There’s been a lot of discussion about precise encounter building and how many creatures exactly to throw at a party of this many or that many PCs and how to stop PCs from resting and how many encounters go in a day. It’s like you people don’t read. Didn’t I tell you when I started this whole thing that the precision you THINK you can get out of D&D’s design tools is a myth? And didn’t I tell you my system was designed to take away the illusion of precision so that you didn’t need to give yourself an ulcer about something that isn’t as important as you think it is?

Let me tell you a couple of things about D&D. First of all, the designers are ON RECORD as saying they pretty much assumed that every fight would start with the party at full health and mostly full resources because they couldn’t think of a better way to handle things. Well, that second part was me editorializing. But that’s it. Encounters are “balanced” around the idea of a completely healthy party and if the party is less than healthy? Well, they’ll figure it out. Or die trying. I mean, it’s hard to die anyway.

On top of that, they have STRONGLY IMPLIED that everything that is a limited resource, and everything related to a magic item is gravy that sits on top of the balance system. So, encounters are balanced on the assumption of using basic attacks and unlimited resources and cantrips and s$&%. And all the rest of the stuff – expending charges from magic items, having magic items, casting spells using spell slots, going into a barbarian rage, smiting – all that other stuff just adds to the party’s baseline capabilities. As long as the party goes into a combat with roughly full health and the combat is “of the party’s level,” they should be able to survive.

Now, I’m not saying that that’s good design. But it is approachable design. It takes a lot of pressure off of adventure designers and homebrewer GMs. They really don’t have to sweat pacing and difficulty curves. They can just throw a bunch of of-level encounters in front of the PCs and the PCs can keep plowing through them. Until they run out of hit dice and healing resources and can’t go into the next encounter at close-to-full health.

And that is why I won’t also say its lazy design. I think it was a conscious choice because the designers know something else. They know that there’s a very broad range of “fun” between “overpoweringly frustrating” and “boring cakewalk.” That is, most players will walk out of a fight they absolutely trounced after taking minimal damage laughing and high-fiving and feeling just fine. And most characters have deep pockets when it comes to resources and they can decimate even a very powerful encounter in a couple of rounds by blowing through a lot of gravy resources.

In fact, I’m going to let you in on a secret. Open up any of the modules WotC has published. Run the numbers on the encounter. Is it balanced? Hell, is there any guarantee the party will even be at the proper level for it if it were? No. No, it is not. And that’s not because the designers at WotC – or whatever third-party they forced to write the adventure you’re looking at – it’s not because the designers are stupid. It’s because they know that precision doesn’t matter.

On top of that, let’s also remember that part of the basic f$&%ing premise of a role-playing game is that the GM presents the players with the challenges and the players decide how to handle things. So, when I see a question like “how do I stop or discourage my players from retreating from the dungeon to rest,” it drives me f$&%ing crazy. You don’t. You don’t stop them from resting. Let them rest whenever they want to rest. Sure, you can have consequences for resting. My dungeons are usually active enough that – as complications – sometimes things move into cleared rooms and sometimes the dungeon changes or new hazards appear if the party leaves and comes back. But that isn’t meant to discourage resting. Or prevent resting. It’s meant to make resting an interesting choice. Something the players discuss. “Should we rest? Can we risk it? Should we push on?” Choices are interesting. The idea behind a cost or punishment is that you’re deciding that one choice is wrong and if they take it, they’ll be sorry.

Note that resting has no bearing on the encounters because every encounter already assumes a fresh party and remains silent on the topic of how much gravy the party is bringing. If the party needs to rest because they can’t heal up, you trying to stop it basically you just pushing the party to get themselves f$&%ing killed. Why would you do that?

But what about pacing? What about challenge curve? What about making sure every session has a climax and every adventure has a big climax?

Well, what about it?

Look, I talk a lot about that s$&%. I talk a lot about wobbling pacing curves and the importance of climaxes. And I do plan my adventures around that s$%&. I really do. It’s good stuff. When it works. But it doesn’t always work. And there’s nothing you can do about that that doesn’t also break the player’s agency. And the player’s agency trumps the narrative pacing. Why? Because people play an RPG for freedom FIRST and a good story SECOND. You know how I know? Because if story trumps agency for you, you watch a f$&%ing movie or you read a f$&%ing book. People play an RPG because THEY want to be the one making the choices. And if that f$&%s with the narrative a little bit, it’s worth the price of admission.

Let me tell you what happened at MY last game session. I had planned a series of encounters as part of the adventure I can’t talk too much about because my players are still in the middle of trying not to get killed by it. There were what I estimated to be a good number of minor and major encounters in a guardhouse that would give the players access to a big dungeon complex. And after they cleared the guardhouse and got introduced to the dungeon’s major thematic elements, they’d emerge in the bailey of the complex and they’d encounter a really cool climatic encounter that was like “okay, the real Dark Souls starts here, b$&%es.” Cool, right?

Well, the start of the session got delayed slightly and the party dawdled. So, it took them a little longer than expected to clear the guardhouse. No worries though. I pushed hard. We ran a little late. I really wanted to hit that climax. And then, right as they found the door into the inner grounds, they were like “well, let’s go outside and take a nap; we done good enough for today.”

And that was a totally out-of-game decision. They mostly decided to nap – whatever they claim – because it was getting to the end of the session, everyone was tired, and it was a good way to break the session.

The next session started with them having some minor encounters in the guardhouse as they passed back through because the dungeon respawned. That was fun. They blundered into a trap that split the party a bit rather unexpectedly and made a minor encounter much harder than it should have been. And then they emerged on the grounds and the big climactic encounter happened. Except…

The party had all of their gravy resources because they’d rested and the trip back through the guardhouse had been easy enough that they didn’t expend too much. And the setup for the encounter was so awesome that it scared the motherloving s$&% out of the party. So, they went full-on supernova on the climatic monster encounter and utterly blew it apart in a round-and-a-half. It got one okay hit that did paltry damage due to a s$&%y roll and then it was blown apart all over the courtyard. F$&%ing climax indeed.

And they had a great time. And it didn’t feel easy. Or hard. It was just f$&%ing fun. All of my pacing was totally f$&%ing ruined. My great moment to end the session came buried partway through the next session and it became a comic overreaction that resulted in monster guts splattered in a hundred-foot radius around the courtyard.

If you can’t handle that s$&% happening and laugh your a$& off when it does, you can’t run games. And you definitely can’t write them. Sorry.

So, if you have a question like “how many encounters should I put between rests” and “what if my party has an extra member” or “what if I want to give the solo monster a buddy” or “how do I make sure the party gets through the right number of encounters,” remember that the answer is “it really doesn’t matter because it ain’t going to happen the way you plan anyway.” S$&% like that doesn’t matter. And when it comes to balance things – things like how to account for one extra PC or one fewer PC or throwing some extra monsters into the mix or using a monster at the wrong tier – there’s no answer. Sorry. Once you break the parameters of the game, you’re on your own. That isn’t saying you can’t do it, it’s just that it’s untrod ground and you can’t expect an answer that will work. And no one else’s answer is to be trusted because the results will be very unpredictable and vary greatly from table to table. So, if you have two PCs or you have six PCs, you’re playing outside the design parameters of the game. You’re going to need to make your best guesses and see how it works.

Now, if we can agree to that s$&%, we can continue. Otherwise, you should probably just close this window. Because you’re just going to have a lot of questions that I’m not going to answer for you.

The Dungeon Roster

When I start populating a dungeon, the first thing I do is to come up with a roster of monsters that will populate that dungeon. Basically, it’s just a shortlist of monsters that I’ll use to make encounters. Because the best adventures are the ones that reuse most of the monsters a couple of times to give the PCs a chance to learn about the monsters and come up with clever strategies and because the best encounters involve groups of several different foes that can work together, I like to have a roster that consists of about half to a third as many monsters as I plan to have encounters. So, if my dungeon is going to have six combat encounters – about one to two sessions of play and about one adventuring day worth of exploration – I like to have a roster of two or three monsters to mix and match into encounters. If my dungeon is going to be two to three sessions, cover two adventuring days, and have about twelve encounters, I use about four to six monsters.

And that’s how big the pretend map I stole from Instagram is. It’s about eighteen to twenty rooms. I’m going to fill about two-thirds of them with stuff. So, twelve encounters. So, four to six monsters.

Now, I open my handy Angry Bestiary to the index where there is a very convenient list of monsters divided up by tier. The list is really nice because, in addition to listing all of the monsters in each tier, it also lists each monster’s organizational size, type and tags, and the environment the monster is generally found in. It’s a really well-designed bestiary because I know that people use the bestiary to build their own adventures and they need to quickly find monsters of the appropriate level and then will use secondary considerations like type and terrain to pick specifics of the right level. And it’s right in the same book as the monsters themselves. Because why would you ever look for the index for one book in another, completely different book?

So, I look through my bestiary. I find the journeyman tier monsters – because my party is in the journeyman tier (3rd to 5th level) – and then quickly scan down the names. I’m looking for monsters that fit the hobgoblin lair theme with a variety of organizational sizes so I can vary up the size of the encounters. And right off the bat, I find these three:

  • Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  • Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  • Hobgoblin Sergeant (Journeyman Tier, Group)

Well, that’s just perfect. It’s almost like those monsters were specifically designed for this example of adventure and encounter building.

But notice that, first, the only thing I’ve got on the list are hobgoblins. Second, the only things I’ve got are group monsters. That doesn’t provide much variety. So, I start looking for some other monsters. I notice that goblin skirmishers come in gangs but, sadly, they are only apprentice tier monsters. That’s no problem, though. I just restat them for the journeyman tier by changing the numbers. So, the hobgoblins have some enslaved goblin minions they use as light infantry and cannon fodder.

I also see that, at journeyman tier, there are giant rats. They come in mobs. I have always liked the idea of goblins keeping trained giant rats as pets. So, I add them to my roster. But then I need a big bruiser type. Oh. Look at that journeyman tier ogre berserker. It’s just a big dumb bruiser, but I love the idea that it will wreck its own allies if they stand too close. That makes a really nice juxtaposition to the orderly formations of hobgoblins. They’ve got this enslaved ogre that they unleash, but it’ll decimate their ranks so they have to stand back and let it go.

So, that’s a great list of… what? You don’t have a copy of the Angry Bestiary? You can’t see these fun little variations on basic D&D monsters recreated for the angry system and with a lot more flair? Oh, that’s too bad. Because it’s a great resource. You should definitely by a copy. Except that it also doesn’t exist. But, just to help you out, I’ve copied the stats from the nonexistent bestiary into a two-page PDF so you can see them if you want. You don’t need the stats for this article. You just need the roster list. I’m just showing you how to build encounters. But I’m feeling generous today. So free monster stats.

  • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
  • Goblin Skirmisher (Modified) (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
  • Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  • Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  • Hobgoblin Sergeant (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  • Ogre Berserker (Journeyman Tier, Pair)

Download the Hobgoblin Lair Monster Stats as a PDF

Side Note: The Formation Keyword

Formation is a concept I invented specifically to abbreviate the hobgoblin stat blocks and then realized it actually could be a very useful, powerful, and versatile game concept. Basically, a formation is just a group of allied creatures who are not unconscious or disabled and who are all adjacent to at least one other ally. In short, it’s just a term for a contiguous group of allies on the battlefield. When two or more creatures are standing so that each one is adjacent to at least one other – be it in a row or a mass or whatever – they are a formation.

Formations don’t mean anything by themselves. There’s no special rules for formations. It’s basically just a way of referring to several allied creatures who all happen to be standing in a contiguous group on the battlefield. If three monsters are standing in a way that they can hold hands and form a chain, they are a formation. But other rules can refer to a formation. You can have an effect that applies to all of the members of a formation or that treats the formation as a single thing. You could even have special monster traits that require them to stay in formation because they are all connected. Like treating an ooze as several creatures that move as a single mass but can change its shape.

Anyway, feel free to use that too. Man, this article is chock full of bonus content today.

How Many Positions on a Team?

Click the Goblin’s Jar to Leave a Tip

With my roster in hand, I can start building some encounters. And actually building the encounters is pretty easy. As long as you calm the f$&% down. Like, seriously, the actual thing this article is meant to do is the shortest, simplest part of the article.

The whole Angry’s Awesome Encounter Building thing is predicated on the idea that monsters tend to come in teams. I call them forces. Actually, I use the word Force as a generic term for the different sides in a battle. It’d be especially useful if I were writing my own RPG and had a unique way of handling initiative and wanted to allow for more than two sides in a fight. The PCs are a Force, the monsters are a Force, the innocent NPCs trying to escape are a Force, and the demon that gets summoned and that the monsters can’t control is also a Force all its own. But I digress.

Anyway, a Force of monsters has a certain number of open positions that can be filled with monsters. The actual number of positions varies. For a normal encounter, there can be three or four or five positions. Those are what I call minor and major encounters in my Amazing Adventure Templates. For bigger encounters – the things I call climactic encounters – there are usually four, five, or even six positions. And for little things – the things I call complications and that come up as a result of Tension pool rolls or the dungeon repopulating – there’s two or three positions.

Notice that the number of positions has absolutely nothing to do with how many PCs there are at the table. Because you don’t design encounters for specific parties. Especially if you’re designing adventures for publication. You design encounters for a specific tier of play to serve as a challenge for three to five PCs.

Also notice that there’s a lot of overlap and wiggle between the different types of encounters. The difference between a Minor and a Major encounter isn’t always about the number of foes or other aspects of the encounter math. Minor encounters are encounters that are simple enough to run without a grid. They have all the same type of monster or, at most, one odd monster out in the group. The terrain is less complicated. And so on. Climactic encounters don’t have to be bigger or more powerful than Major encounters by the math; they just have to feel unique and special. They come with moments of story progression, at turning points, or as the encounter that finally resolves the adventure. So, before you ask about all that s$&%, remember to just calm down and stop seeing everything as precise numbers. Just eyeball it.

So, a Force – what you might want to just call an encounter – has a certain number of positions to fill.

  • Complication/Restock: 2 to 3 Positions
  • Minor/Major Encounter: 3 to 5 Positions
  • Climactic Encounter: 4 to 6 Positions

Building an encounter is simply about deciding how many positions there are in the encounter you’re building and then filling the positions. Why should it be more complicated than that?

Make Room for Me

Now, all monsters are not created equally. Some monsters tend to come in small groups, some tend to come in larger gangs, some tend to come in big mobs, some tend to show up in pairs, and some tend to show up alone. And while that fact alone allows you to quickly throw together an encounter that consists of just one type of monster, mixing and matching monsters requires you to understand just how many positions a monster can fill.

The most basic type of monster is the monster that shows up in groups. They tend to show up in the same numbers as parties of heroes do. So, group monsters fill one position each. That’s why they come in groups of three to five.

Monsters that come in pairs are more powerful. They take up more space in the Force. Paired monsters fill two positions each.

On the other hand, monsters that come in gangs are weaker. They take up less space in the Force. You can put two gang monsters in each position because they usually outnumber the heroes by a factor of two-to-one.

Mob monsters are even weaker. And simpler. Mob monsters – the ones I design anyway – tend to have very few, if any, special traits and attacks. And I don’t even give them dice codes for damage. And they also never force saving throws. That’s because they come in large numbers. Generally, you can cram three or four mob monsters in each position.

Solo monsters are meant to be encountered alone. That’s not just because of their numbers, it’s also because of their design. They don’t have any abilities that synergize with other monsters and they have powers and abilities that allow them to remain dynamic and active throughout the fight. At least, that’s how I design them. That said, solo monsters can have friends if you want to make a fight particularly big and complicated. So, my rule of thumb is that solo monsters fill four positions.

And that’s it. That’s the rules of Angry’s Encounter Building Math.

  • Group Monster: Fills 1 Position
  • Gang Monster: Two Fill 1 Position
  • Mob Monster: Three or Four Fill 1 Position
  • Pair Monster: Fills 2 Position
  • Solo Monster: Fills All or 4 Positions

Allow Me to Introduce Your Monster for the Evening

Now, this is a little side note about adventure building philosophy. As a general rule, I like to take the Mega Man approach of introducing threats to the players so they can get to know what they are fighting and then adding more threats gradually into the mix. For example, when the party first entered that dungeon complex whose pacing they screwed up, they first encountered plain ole zombies and plain ole shades. Weak little undead corpses and spirits that would become mainstays in the dungeon. Filler monsters. Monsters that would pop up as complications and restocks. Monsters that would become mixed in with other foes.

As they made their way through the guardhouse and were about to leave, they encountered their first revenant. A swordsman who, in life, was an officer or elite soldier and who fought alongside the soldiers who had become standard zombies. The swordsman was in the midst of a mass of zombies.

Eventually, the party entered another building in the complex. They fought more revenant swordsmen and more zombies. And then, as they were mopping up a weak zombie encounter, suddenly, a new foe appeared. A revenant monk ambushed them. And they had to figure out what his deal was. And now, I have shades, zombies, revenant swordsmen, and revenant monks to mix together.

I can’t talk about future monsters because the players haven’t gotten that far yet. But I hope you see the point.

At the same time, every monster doesn’t have to be introduced and mixed and matched. First, some monsters are simple and obvious enough that the players don’t need an introduction. They can just start showing up in encounters without any problem. Second, some monsters are unique and part of the challenge is that the players have to figure them out while they are fighting them. Or die trying. The players won’t encounter them more than once. Third, there’s a trick I like to use where the players have actually been trained to fight an otherwise unique monster because it does similar things to monsters they’ve already been fighting. For example, I ran this adventure where the party was exploring an ancient shrine that was guarded by suits of animated, divine armor. The shrine had been overrun by fungus and there were all sorts of fungal monsters too. In one side passage, the party encountered a totally unique armor that had been corrupted and animated by fungus. But the armor actually had abilities that mixed and matched the armor and fungal abilities they’d already gotten used to.

It’s kind of like in Hollow Knight how the False Knight boss uses attacks that are similar to the Husk Guards but also jumps around in the same way as the Leaping Husks, both of whom you encounter at least once before you can find the False Knight.

By the way, that’s why many of my monsters have recurring racial traits – which I have started explicitly labeling in my design – and why monster-specific attacks and traits tend to run along certain themes for certain monsters. Like how all the hobgoblins interact with hobgoblin formations in some way.

Consider that digression more bonus content. But I mention it because it drives my logic for encounter design.

The Easiest Encounters

So, let’s start with the easiest encounters to build. Obviously, we want to lead with the hobgoblin infantrymen because they are pretty much going to be standard monsters for the whole adventure. The party will encounter basic hobgoblin soldiers over and over.

So, we’ll start simple: a four-position force right at the gates. Four positions, one hobgoblin in each position. Done.

  1. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  2. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  3. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  4. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)

We could do a five- and six-position force the same way if we want more basic encounters like that. And that’s probably a minor encounter unless we’re doing some funky terrain at the gate. Now, eventually, we’ll want to mix in some archers so the party can get used to them. We could do an all archer encounter, but that wouldn’t be very fun unless we did a complicated terrain challenge where the party needed to overcome obstacles to close with the archers. So, let’s assume that, at some point, the PCs run into their first hobgoblin troupe with some archer backup.

Now, the archers fill one position each, just like the infantrymen. So, we can simply swap out infantrymen for archers easily enough. But, because you need to field three infantrymen for them to get the benefit of the shield wall and we want to show how the archers interact with it, we want to make sure we’ve got three infantrymen. We could do a simple four-position encounter with one archer or we could a five-position encounter like so:

  1. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  2. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  3. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  4. Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  5. Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)

Next, let’s introduce the goblins in that warren over there. The goblins are gang monsters. Two of them fill one position. Since this is the introductory encounter with the goblins, let’s make it a simple, three-position force. A minor encounter. And it’d look like this:

    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)

See how that works? There’s three positions and we cram two goblins into each. There’s six total goblins in that fight.

Mixing and Matching

Now that the players have met our goblins, let’s assume they are going to run into some hobgoblin patrols that have some goblins mixed in. Let’s make a simple, four-position encounter with some infantrymen and some goblins. How does that work? Well, we have four positions. We’ll put three hobgoblins into three of the positions and then cram two goblins into the fourth position.

  1. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  2. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  3. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)

Easy as that. And speaking of that, what about our rats? What about when the PCs find the rat kennels. There’s a few goblins in there tending the rats. The goblins open the cages and then jump into the fray. What would a mixed, four-position encounter of goblins and rats look like? Well, we could so something like this:

    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)

And what about once the PCs raise the alarm and a bunch of hobgoblins drag the ogre into the fight. How can we manage that? Let’s make it a five-position encounter. The ogre takes up two positions, remember.

  1. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  2. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  3. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  4. Ogre Berserker (Journeyman Tier, Group)

We just have to leave that last spot blank because the ogre takes up two spots.

See? This is really easy.

Getting Really Crazy

Let’s look back at the fight in the rat kennel. Do there really need to be two goblins? I know I said it takes two goblins to fill a position, but do you always have to have two goblins together? The answer is no. Of course, you don’t. Why would there be more than one caretaker for the rats? There wouldn’t.

Now, you could just leave the encounter with a half position empty like this:

    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)

Or you could recognize that if four rats fill a position, then two rats fill a half position. And then your encounter would look like this:

    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)

Of course, no human being would write it out like that. They’d say:

  • 1 Goblin Skirmisher
  • 14 Giant Rats

Better make sure it’s a big room.

Now, of course, if this were me – and yes, I realize it is – I might consider making a special, custom goblin ratmaster with some ability that synergizes with rats instead of using the generic, custom monsters out of the non-existent book I specifically invented for these examples. But this is an example of why you might suddenly decide to stat up a special monster. And then you could have goblin ratmasters show up with two little furry friends in various encounters. For example, a very, six-position patrol could look like this:

  1. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  2. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  3. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  4. Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)
    • Goblin Ratmaster (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Goblin Ratmaster (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)

Or even like this:

  1. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  2. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  3. Hobgoblin Infantryman (Journeyman Tier, Group)
  4. Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)
    • Goblin Ratmaster (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)

And what if one enterprising hobgoblin archer decided to send the ogre into battle while the party was fighting a bunch of goblins and rats. And that he was happy to fire at the ogre to drive it into a range even if it mowed down some goblins and rats. THAT would be a fun encounter. Probably climactic too. So let’s call it the halfway point of the adventure and give it six positions.

  1. Hobgoblin Archer (Journeyman Tier, Group)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
    • Goblin Skirmisher (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
    • Goblin Ratmaster (Journeyman Tier, Gang)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
      • Giant Rat (Journeyman Tier, Mob)
  2. Ogre Berserker (Journeyman Tier, Group)

The Power is YOURS!

And that’s it. Hopefully, that makes it nice and clear how easy it is to build encounters with Angry’s Awesome Encounter and Monster Building System or whatever the hell I chose to call it. And hopefully, all of my digressions and diatribes have convinced you to chill out a bit, fiddle a bit, and just have fun with it. Fiddle with the number of positions, leave parts of a position open to vary the number of monsters, see how your seven-player party handles two solos. Just f$&%ing experiment with it. That’s what I did! Try s$&% out and see how it sticks. Or stinks. Whatever.

Now go. Make some encounters and… what? Did I forget to design a climactic final encounter with the Hobgoblin Sergeant? Well, look, why don’t you design that one to see if you really get the system or not. I mean that one should be pretty easy. Go make that one. Then make more.


Subscribe to Blog via Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

40 thoughts on “How to F$%& CR: A Practical Example of Encounter Building the Angry Way

  1. I really like the monsters/stats you designed, especially the Ogre’s Berserker reaction. Would you want other people to help create the Angry Bestiary by stating monsters based on the original excel table?

  2. That is fantastic, looks like I got the main idea right.

    Do you prepare a list of complication/restock forces or do you just make them up as you need them? Seems easy enough with this system.

    I gave dice codes for mob monsters habitually and although it doesn’t slow down the game too much if you roll attack and damage dice in one go, there’s probably no need at that level.

    The formation stuff is great, it’s intuitive enough not to need painstaking definition of positions etc. I’ve been toying with a similar idea, a bit like the “Parry” ability for monsters but with a shield and on a neighbour.

    I struggled with the wording trying to leave the possibility for a flanking maneuver, i.e. by attacking the line from the side the formation loses effectiveness. Came up with the description below as a reaction ability, which by the way has not been play tested. I’m not quite happy with the distance bit, as it only works the way I want if you don’t measure the distances too precisely.

    “The hobgoblin shield bearer adds +2 to an ally’s AC against one attack that would hit it. To do so, the attacker must not be further from the hobgoblin shield bearer than from its target.”

    • I would also like to add that all of this is very clearly explained, here as well as in previous articles. I enjoy building monsters and encounters with them and this removes tedious clutter from the process. Thanks!

    • Take a look at the wording for the Protection fighting style on pg 72 of the PHB for an idea on how to word your parry ability, maybe? You could even replace Disadvantage with an AC bonus if you wanted to!

      I assume that this Parry is meant to only apply once per hobgob per turn, so you could tie it to a Reaction; that way it doesn’t feel like some kind of aura.

      • Thanks, it’s very similar indeed. Making it a reaction was the idea, it gives players the option of ganging up on an individual to break up the line because the reaction is spent after the first. The protection fighting style allows you to “reach around” with your shield and that’s a bit much for my tastes.

  3. Skipped to the comments to say thank you for the free monster stats! Your encounter building system has been very helpful to me as a relatively inexperienced GM!

  4. It’s a very compelling system if you want to homebrew everything, and I can see how it helps a certain kind of encounter building. But there are some *huge* drawbacks concealed behind these two sentences:

    “I notice that goblin skirmishers come in gangs but, sadly, they are only apprentice tier monsters. That’s no problem, though. I just restat them for the journeyman tier by changing the numbers.”

    This means either that there’s either your bestiary contains goblin stats for each tier (or range of tiers) creating a corresponding bloat of level-specific monster stats for the GM to track, or the GM has to do a lot of legwork anytime they want to pull something from one tier into another (more than some arcane CR calculations, I think). Either way, this also comes at the expense of verisimilitude; if each monster’s stats level up in lockstep, you get the Oblivion effect of treading water no matter how your character advances. This seems unfortunate; it’s satisfying to barely defeat a single minotaur at level 1, then take them one-on-one at level 5, then wade through hordes of them at level 10.

    Have you given thought to ways you might adjust your table so that group size controls how monsters play at different levels (with the same underlying stats)? Or does that simply devolve back into another variant of CR?

    • I noticed the same thing, and went back to the chart to look at some numbers. I found that if you go up a Tier and down a Group Size, the numbers are pretty similar, with the health slightly higher and the damage slightly lower. Since I’m using them more to soak up hits while level-appropriate monsters deal the real damage, I find it fine to use Tier-Up/GroupSize-Down as a rule of thumb.

      It also works backwards, since I’d want higher tier monsters to be more intimidating in how much damage they deal, while having a few less hitpoints to worry your players with, more of a preview for how tough they’ll be when they’re fighting them on the regular.

      If I were designing all these monsters myself (which I am because WotC wasn’t thoughtful enough to include Angry’s CR system as an alternative rule), I’d want goblins to be Apprentice Tier Group monsters, about as strong as a player of that tier, and twice as strong as a commoner. Then, when bringing them up to Journeyman tier so they could play with hobgoblins, I’d want them to be considerably weaker, no longer threats but really just cannon fodder. I think it all works out.

      I wouldn’t shift more than one tier using this though, as the numbers get more and more distorted each time you change. Besides, players don’t want to be fighting goblins more than their first few levels anyway.

    • Bumping a monster’s tier literally takes seconds, you just keep the same chart positions (+1, -2, etc.) for the entries, but you use the numbers from a higher tier instead.

      • That’s only part of his point.

        If you really want to keep the same goblin stats you could shift them from gang to mob, for example, when using them at a higher tier. You can then choose to use more or fewer of them based on how the numbers compare. Maybe give your players a warm up encounter and see how they fare.

        This is obviously a workaround to what you describe but it’ll do well enough I suspect. Angry does mention the numbers aren’t that exact anyway.

        • I think if he feels like he needs to say the numbers aren’t exact for too much longer, he’s going to publish a book on the subject just so he can smack us with it. Something tells me he’s all about “poetic justice”-style education >_>

    • He also has several past articles on the table he references earlier in this article, its creation, and the exact other issues you raise. bloat, what you called the oblivion effect, I’m not going to go find links, but I’m sure if you jump back into previous articles on this category/project you will find them.

    • Given what I recall of Angry’s math, I think the answer there might be that verisimilitude in the sense of stats remaining the same isn’t as crucial as functionality and feel.

      So for the Minotaurs, you might make an apprentice tier solo Minotaur, a journeyman-tier group one, and an expert-tier (or whatever the name of the level 10 tier is) gang Minotaur.

        • There are two distinct scenarios.

          1: A GM thinks goblins are appropriate to their adventure but the tier is too low. They’ve not used goblins before so they just restat them for whatever is now appropriate. Take the plusses and minusses that make them ‘goblinny’, take the abilities that define their organization and you’re pretty much done, just like Angry described.

          2: A GM has been using goblins in the apprentice tier, but now the players have levelled up to journeyman, and the gm still wants to use them. Now you could also restat them, but it is also a lot of fun to be able to wade through a gang of enemies that previously would’ve been a challenge as a party.

          The advantage of the second scenario, is that the GM has grown accustomed to using the enemies at their current complexity, so just going up one level of organization is compensated by experience.

          Going from a solo to a pair, a pair to a party, all those steps are manageable when you know these monsters inside out. And heck, you might reverse trend and put in a monster of a higher level that normally appears in a party against players at lower level as a solo monster, and then later surprise the players as this creature truly bares its fangs when it gets to deploy pack tactics.

          That is the true value of having this kind of table. It is not a thing to strictly adhere to, but a baseline that helps you orient yourself in an otherwise really complex creation space.

      • Like Norvis said, as long as they feel like goblins it should be fine.

        For verisimilitude, you just need to have a reason for the stat differences. In this example, these are hobgoblin led goblins which in itself provides more than enough reason for these goblins to be stronger than average.

  5. Of the many, many great articles you’ve posted, this series along with the Adventure Templates rank among the very best. Extremely useful!

    Thanks, Angry!

  6. Pingback: Time is A-Ticking | Dungeon Master Daily

  7. This is all great advice! My biggest takeaway is this: the Force is strong with these hobgoblins.

    I’ll see myself out 😛

  8. I like how you had the monsters’ known languages actually make sense, where everyone except the Sergeant just speaks their own language and doesn’t just know common for some reason.

  9. This is awesome.
    I think it would be handy both for RPG encounter building and wargame army composition (which usually is also much more complicated than it should be).

    The nice way to extend this system would be to add second type of slot – the modifier slot (I’ll call it a “Highlight”).
    A Highlight can be spent to upgrade a particular monster or position with something that makes it stand out, but doesn’t quite bump its tier or organization type. Most encounters would use 0 or 1 Highlights, some might need 2.

    Examples of stars:
    – War banner (humanoid) – this character boosts morale of nearby allies
    – Horn (humanoid) – this character can call reinforcements
    – Drunk (humanoid) – this character isn’t as effective in combat as its allies, but acts much more brave
    – Poisonous (beast) – this rare breed of monsters has poisonous attacks
    – Territorial (beast) – this beast has its cubs nearby. It won’t pursue or advance from its position, but it also won’t run or retreat.

    The same highlight can be applied on top of various monsters of appropriate type, which makes them into a quite reusable “secon layer” that can be mixed and matched with actual monster types. So you could teach your players how to deal with golbin banner carriers, and then confront with dwarven banner carrier, for example.

    This would potentially allow you to quickly add variety into an encounter consisting of 8 identical gang-type monsters that would feel quite bland otherwise.

    • I’d say on reading this that your guess is likely correct.

      What are the defining characteristics of a Paragon Monster? In essence, it has multiple pools of hitpoints and multiple pools of actions which are slowly cut down. A paragon monster is basically two (or three, or more) monsters in one, so therefore it takes up two (or three or more) positions depending on how many the base monster would take up. And if you have a paragon monster that has different abilities depending on how many pools it’s been cut down to, you calculate positions and numbers the same way as if the different stages were different monsters.

      • Based on some recent experiences with trying to combine these two concepts, I’d say you can also just take a Solo (or Pair, whatever slot size you’re looking to fill) and then take it’s total HP and split it evenly amongst the pools. I can’t say which method is “better,” though; I’m still testing and refining.

        • My instinct is that treating it as separate monsters better accounts for the fact that different monsters have different action budgets, and a paragon monster explicitly gets multiple creatures’ actions in one round. It’ll be interesting to see how your experimentation works out!

        • Definitely intrigued by this, because Angry’s rules here definitely work for Pairs and below, but because of Action economy, I wonder how solos fare if we go back to the fact that one monster has only one turn per combat.

          I guess we also have to bear in mind, though, that Paragon monsters aren’t meant to be an every day occurence, they’re meant to be boss fights. Climactic encounters.

          So I’d imagine that taking a Solo monster’s stats and splitting them down the middle to create a paragon monster with 2 HP pools gives you, effectively a Solo+ monster, maybe the equivalent of a Solo and a Pair together? And perhaps that’s right for the final boss encounter of an adventure?

  10. I wouldn’t even restat the Goblins to be honest. Why not have one or two encounters where the PCs just mow down an army of Goblins? You’d have to emphasize the Hobgoblin and Rat encounters a bit more to make sure that the PCs get a bit of a challenge, but I do like the idea of having lower tier monsters in your later adventures.
    It just shows the PCs how much they have progressed, from back in the day where 4 Goblins were a challenge, and now they can take on 20 of the little fuckers without even breaking a sweat.
    Had something similar happen to my party just two sessions ago. On level 1 they fought against Yetis (I work with tiered areas, they ran into the harder part of the Level 1 and 2 area right off the boat) and could only take on one at the time, having a hard time at that. Now they’re Level 7 and can take on 3 or 4 Yetis at once, and even steamrolled an Abominable Yeti.

  11. Quick suggestion – you may want to title this and the previous article in the series with a number or something as when I was scanning over I thought it was the same article as the previous one. Might help your readers not miss it!

  12. This is fantastic. Thanks a lot. A lot of this was stuff I recognized in video games but couldn’t really form into words, so I think I’ve got a ton of good resources for making encounters interesting in the future. Well done!

  13. So anyway, being a lazy Roman Emperor, I was trying to lazily come up with a similar-ish table for fudging custom monsters under D&D 3.5, Angry’s table being built for 5e. I actually tried using this thing more or less unmodified on a low-level encounter and whilst it worked because I was specifically designing for a weak encounter (and therefore nothing went crazily wrong) I’m wondering whether there’s any quick and easy way to convert the table to 3.5 use.

    As far as my thinking had gone was to replace Proficiency Bonus with a range of BAB, run AC from 10 to 31 in each of the Poor/Average/Good qualities. Hitpoints is where I’m starting to go wrong, though, since 60 hitpoints on a solo monster for a level 1 party just strikes me as way too strong. (And that reminded me of some random internet comment I heard that in 5e as opposed to 3e, the ACs had been dropped significantly so PCs could hit more often and get that buzz of success a bit more often, but everyone’s hitpoint totals had been drastically increased so monsters lasted longer. Is there any truth to that?)

    Under “Offensive”, I’d been thinking to have Attack as the creature’s best melee or ranged attack, Save DC operates as it is, and DPR would have to be calculated on a look at (say for level 1s) a bog-standard CR 1 creature and roughly what damage they do. Am I on the right track, and does anyone have any shortcuts?

  14. So I may be a little late to the party with responding to this, but I came across this and I must say, this whole concept of encounter and monster design is fantastic. Simple, balanced and sensible, so kudos on that.

    My question is whether there’s any particular ‘rules’ (I use quotes because as we all know none of this is an exact science) that you use when designing new abilities for monsters – things like the Shieldwall Formation for your Hobgoblin Infantry, or if you wanted to make that Goblin Ratmaster, their rat-focused synergy ability.

    If there’s an article about that already I’d welcome a link to it, or if not, is it likely to be an article you may look at writing at a later date?

  15. I have one math related question I’ve been having and was hoping someone had an answer for. How do you calculate HP when resistances and vulnerabilities come into play? Half the suggested HP seems too little but full hp seems to much. Is 3/4 in the Goldilocks range of just right?

    • An easy answer is that you raise the quality of your monster by 1 for a resistance, 2 for an immunity. Conversely you lower quality by 2 for each vulnerability. That generally gets you pretty close to your goldilock range if you compensate with the quality change with HP buffs/nerfs.

      There are some issues with this calculation however. If you add a very simple vulnerability (say slashing damage) then most PCs will be able to switch to this damage type and you’ll effectively nearly halve the HP of the monster.
      On the other hand, if you put a vulnerability or resistance on stuff your party never uses, they simply won’t notice and it will make for a relatively stronger or weaker monster. Of course, if you reuse monsters between sessions, that gives players an opportunity to discover weaknesses either in or out of combat, and hence grow more capable of beating them.

      Resistances are generally easy to balance because the PCs have lots of ways of avoiding particular damage types, and worst comes to worst they can brute force it. Vulnerabilities are more tricky because if you compensate HP too much you’ve just changed Vulnerability into Resistant to everything but X. I think they work best if you just accept that monsters with a vulnerability are indeed relatively easy to kill if you know how, and that parties that plan for that are just good at their jobs.

      • Okay that all sounds good. Thank you. The only question left is how would you treat the most common resistance: resistant to bludgeoning, slashing, and piercing damage from non-magical sources. Its the sort of thing that can be really strong at lower levels but completely ignorable once the muggles get their magic weapons. Doing my best to eyeball it i would guess its a +2 at apprentice tier, a +1 at journeymen tier, and inconsequential/fluff at anything above that. Does that sound about right enough?

        • That is fair, yes. I consider ‘resistance to nonmagical weapons’ more of a barrier explaining why people hire adventurers to deal with monsters. It is a real shame that the whole design space of immunity/resistance to regular weapons is so completely squashed by the most banal +1 weapon.

          That is why I homebrew super quality forging to be a separate category from overcoming immunity. A weapon that can cut a ghost is really cool, but it might not even have an edge in the physical world. I keep weapons that combine these two properties for higher tiers of play.

          You can also just go completely wild with vulnerabilities and resistance to create a very different experience. Zeebashew has a video on using them to create more Witcher like monster battles.

Leave a F$&%ing Comment (Limit: 2,500 Characters)

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.