|
I think I've figured out one of the main differences between gaming groups viewing some builds as optimal.
Quantity of Enemies vs Quality of Enemies.
If you are fighting a single high level BBEG, than your single target SOS spell can seem absolutely game changing.
But if your DM throws a ton things at you, your single target spells are less helpful, and a waste of resources.
On the other hand, that large area effect spell can drop an entire wave before they can even get off an attack.
In the same vein, tons of lower level creatures throwing tons of attacks up make AC actually matter.
We had a group in the low to mid teens attack a fortification full of mostly low level mooks archers, with a few battle 6th level battle mages and a few medium level fighter types mixed in as the captain of the guards.
The arrows from the mooks would only hit most things on a 20, but some of the casters with lower AC got hit on 15 or above. When you start throwing a bunch of those up in the air, well...it was actually some damage for them.
The battle mages were basically fireball machines that were easily dropped. But it was a waste of a good single target spell and a round to go after just one. But if you didn't take them out, that 6d6 damage started to add up when there were a bunch of them, at least against those who don't have evasion.
These large scale battles can seem daunting to run, but with a dice roller it actually goes pretty quick.
I find in my games were will just as often be facing a swarm of below CR monsters as we do a single big baddie. And generally, big baddie has lower level henchmen that tend to eat up resources and harass the casters.
Maybe this is the missing link between the playstyle arguments where one group thinks its all SoS, evocation is a waste, and Martial Classes are left in the dust while the other side thinks casters are cool until they run out of spells or get dropped by a weak mook with a lucky shot or combat manuver.
Thoughts?
basic probability and game theory
Now you are getting somewhere!
It seems like a reasonable conclusion or even a decent theory for that matter. I myself have found it enjoyable to challenge my party with both types of encounters. Low-level thieves' guild members using poison and well-practiced teamwork... multiple waves of low-level enemies coming from different directions with little teamwork... lone bosses... mixed encounters with NPC soldiers helping out... there are so many great ways available to challenge a party that it seems a shame to stick to just one style of encounters.
IMO, a party that hopes to last long needs to be both versatile and adaptable. Not every encounter can be resolved by fighting, not every fight is best-won with a frontal assault. I'm rather doubtful that players who thought otherwise would find themselves at my table (virtual or otherwise) for very long before getting a reality check.
This is part of the reason I tend to scoff when I hear comments trashing certain classes simply because they aren't designed as front-line fighters or mobile artillery platforms. There's more to the game than just combat... or at least in my games there is.
|
|
It seems like a reasonable conclusion or even a decent theory for that matter. I myself have found it enjoyable to challenge my party with both types of encounters. Low-level thieves' guild members using poison and well-practiced teamwork... multiple waves of low-level enemies coming from different directions with little teamwork... lone bosses... mixed encounters with NPC soldiers helping out... there are so many great ways available to challenge a party that it seems a shame to stick to just one style of encounters.
IMO, a party that hopes to last long needs to be both versatile and adaptable. Not every encounter can be resolved by fighting, not every fight is best-won with a frontal assault. I'm rather doubtful that players who thought otherwise would find themselves at my table (virtual or otherwise) for very long before getting a reality check.
This is part of the reason I tend to scoff when I hear comments trashing certain classes simply because they aren't designed as front-line fighters or mobile artillery platforms. There's more to the game than just combat... or at least in my games there is.
It is all about having a wide variety of situations that can occur in a game.
If the same thing happens in every game, of course you can have a build to deal with that scenario. I just don't think most games are so homogeneous.
I think that is a big factor.
One thing I like to do sometimes is power single boss types down to give me room to add mooks in while keeping the overall combat at the same CR.
|
|
I think that is a big factor.
One thing I like to do sometimes is power single boss types down to give me room to add mooks in while keeping the overall combat at the same CR.
Absolutely. Particularly when you are dealing with classes like Bards and Rogues that are most effective when they are playing with others.
Ah, Ciretose - welcome to a greater step in enlightenment.
You've just discovered that whether a build is "optimized" depends entirely on the type of game played, the people playing in it, and - most importantly - the GM running the game.
The next step, of course, is to realize that "game balance" itself is a mythological illusion important only to the Game Designers in making their games appeal to the most number of people, and that it matters not a whit on a table by table basis.
But I'm not sure you're ready for that step yet... You are well on your way to being truly wise, however.
Am I the only one who feels like FAQing this?
No seriously, this is hugely important. I think you hit the nail on the head.
Am I the only one tempted to FAQ this?
Seriously, I think you have hit the nail on the head.
What is even funnier is: you know what type of classes are good at dealing with this type of encounter with lots of mid priority targets? Martial classes. In fact, their powers even make it fun!
It isn't that simple. Some folks are going to come in and talk about the high level caster's ability to bypass mass threats. That's fine. Sometimes that should be the solution. But in the context of a well run game, sometimes mass threats simply can't be bypassed.
This is how I've thought for a long time. I like paying attention to CharOp discussion do I don't get caught off-guard by certain encounter types, but the game is huge! One can't mistake a part of the game for the whole. This can definitely happen if your GM CharOps too, and gets stuck in a tut delivering a certain type of encounter that the players "learn".
The next step, of course, is to realize that "game balance" itself is a mythological illusion important only to the Game Designers in making their games appeal to the most number of people, and that it matters not a whit on a table by table basis.
These are wise words. This whole thread is enlightening.
Heck I designed a dungeon like with multiple encounters.
If you are playing in my game this will have spoilers.
I made a duergar dungeon where there is only one single target encounter. It is not just about figithng one monster.
Multiple bad guy encounter the first rounds take longer until more mooks fall.
|
|
Heck I designed a dungeon like with multiple encounters.
If you are playing in my game this will have spoilers.
** spoiler omitted **Multiple bad guy encounter the first rounds take longer until more mooks fall.
Single CR is ok, but it's also the Lazy GM's out move. You don't have do much if you only have to control one character, and you don't have to plan much if you just pull out a character from the Bestiary of the right CR level.
The reasons you stated are the reasons I've never commented on Martial vs. Spell Casting Classes. Every game I've played in for the last decade has been such that if you burned your resources, you died. The guy who drew the short straw was the wizard. It's nice to see I'm not alone. Now, say something and fix the psionics threads.
.
..
...
....
.....
NOOOOoooOoo...
ooOOOoooooooooooooooooooooooooooOOOoo...
::
Look here you, you!
I am a mighty.. person, with.. stuff.
When I rock into the joint, I demand equally awesome persons with... stuff.. to confront me.
We judge a mighty.. person, with.. stuff, by their enemy, no?
Besides, we are under no time constraints to storm the castle/rescue the royalty/save the day.
I shall retire to my sanctum of awesome with my fellow fantasy superhero buddies only to strike when the time is..
is...
...optimal!
..
Good day, person.
Quantity of Enemies vs Quality of Enemies.
I think there's some truth to what you say, but mostly it's in the "different builds look good for different kinds of encounters" part.
If a campaign features a mix of kinds of encounters, more adaptable characters shine. If a campaign fixates on one end vs. the other and you as the player guess wrong about what to plan for, again, the more adaptable kinds of characters tend to take it in the pants slightly less.
I'd dispute a bit that SoS looks like junk against lots of weaker enemies, incidentally -- it's just that really different SoS spells look good. Take Confusion for example -- against a single enemy it's almost useless, whereas if you can cast it on ten enemies and your party members are even somewhat paying attention you're often all but guaranteed to win the encounter right there.
(To elaborate: Confused enemies pick from one of a few random actions, unless someone's attacking them in which case they attack that person back. You throw Confusion out, some enemies fail saves and attack other enemies that failed save, in which case they'll attack each other until one of them is dead unless you get in the way. Meanwhile, the rest of the party focuses fire on anyone who made the save.)
I'd dispute a bit that SoS looks like junk against lots of weaker enemies, incidentally -- it's just that really different SoS spells look good. Take Confusion for example -- against a single enemy it's almost useless, whereas if you can cast it on ten enemies and your party members are even somewhat paying attention you're often all but guaranteed to win the encounter right there.
(To elaborate: Confused enemies pick from one of a few random actions, unless someone's attacking them in which case they attack that person back. You throw Confusion out, some enemies fail saves and attack other enemies that failed save, in which case they'll attack each other until one of them is dead unless you get in the way. Meanwhile, the rest of the party focuses fire on anyone who made the save.)
..or, you could use, dare i suggest it..
:D
Even if they're not all grouped evenly together - surely three or four fireballs, since we're making the assumption that they all fail their saving throws, would be more effective?
If you want to throw a single powerful enemy at the PCs, they're hurt more by the fact that the party gets 4-5 actions for every single action they take. Here's a house rule I came up with to deal with this problem. For +1 CR, a creature can be granted the ability to act twice in a given round, rolling twice for initiative and taking a full round action on each count. This should only be used against parties of 4-6 players, and only when the enemy is battling the party alone. They effectively become two creatures sharing a single pool of hit points. It's worked pretty well in my games thus far, and I always make sure to mention this rule to players before I use it. No on has had a problem with it to date.
*stuff*
..but but but...
Chicks dig FIREBALLS!
...and mindless undead mooks tend to occur more often than fire-immune ones!
You can argue otherwise but I will simply stick my toes in my ears and declare victory.
VICTORY ON TEH INTrAWEBZ!
::
Ow. I seem to be bleeding.
Even if they're not all grouped evenly together - surely three or four fireballs, since we're making the assumption that they all fail their saving throws, would be more effective?
Hmph! I even told you what to do with the ones who don't fail their saves!
*shakes fist*
Typically as you're using more enemies, their save bonuses relative to the DCs the PCs are throwing plummet pretty fast so assuming most will blow the save ends up being pretty fair. Granted, sometimes you're packing mind-affecting and you unexpectly end up fighting vermin. These things do happen.
Even if they're not all grouped evenly together - surely three or four fireballs, since we're making the assumption that they all fail their saving throws, would be more effective?
Hmph! I even told you what to do with the ones who don't fail their saves!
*shakes fist*
Typically as you're using more enemies, their save bonuses relative to the DCs the PCs are throwing plummet pretty fast so assuming most will blow the save ends up being pretty fair. Granted, sometimes you're packing mind-affecting and you unexpectly end up fighting vermin. These things do happen.
How dare you make a valid point while I am ninja-editing my post!1!!
Of course, you are right - Confusion would certainly kick all mighty booty for the reasons you have made clear.
I just wanna give a shout out to FIREBALL's awesome 'melting of gold, silver and bronze ..and the general destruction of certain objects - not to mention the joy of dealing with flaming flailing comrades and burning cover - on a failed save!
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Of course, everyone's gonna hate you when you have to cash in molten-lumps of what-used-to-be gold coins...
o_O :D
Even if they're not all grouped evenly together - surely three or four fireballs, since we're making the assumption that they all fail their saving throws, would be more effective?
Hmph! I even told you what to do with the ones who don't fail their saves!
*shakes fist*
Typically as you're using more enemies, their save bonuses relative to the DCs the PCs are throwing plummet pretty fast so assuming most will blow the save ends up being pretty fair. Granted, sometimes you're packing mind-affecting and you unexpectly end up fighting vermin. These things do happen.
How dare you make a valid point while I am ninja-editing my post!1!!
Of course, you are right - Confusion would certainly kick all mighty booty for the reasons you have made clear.
I just wanna give a shout out to FIREBALL's awesome 'melting of gold, silver and bronze ..and the general destruction of certain objects - not to mention the joy of dealing with flaming flailing comrades and burning cover - on a failed save!
The fireball sets fire to combustibles and damages objects in the area. It can melt metals with low melting points, such as lead, gold, copper, silver, and bronze. If the damage caused to an interposing barrier shatters or breaks through it, the fireball may continue beyond the barrier if the area permits; otherwise it stops at the barrier just as any other spell effect does.
Of course, everyone's gonna hate you when you have to cash in molten-lumps of what-used-to-be gold coins...
o_O :D
There is nothing like the joy of rolling a lot of dice.
.
..
...
....
.....
*truth!1!1*
...or, when your polite DM asks you what your character is doing this round, you fling hand fulls of dice at him/DM screen whilst jumping to your feet, kicking back your chair and shouting..
::
For added kicks, when he asks:
''Was that really necessary?''
..you simply reply:
''Fire..ball. Ok?''
*While nodding gravely...*
..and THEN, when he says:
''No, seriously?''
..you storm off shouting:
''YOU CANNOT HANDLE MY AWESOME ARCANE MIGHT!''
...to which he and the rest of the group reply:
''Where are you going?''
..so you finish with:
''MORE BEER! MORE BEER FOR ALL! ARCANE AWESOME! FIIIIIREEEBAAAAAAALL!!''
::
It keeps things zesty, at the very least!
Note: Some DM's are about 6'4'' and really work out.
SO BE PREPARED TO RUN QUICKLY AFTER THE CONFUSION HAS PASSED!
I see someone has been hitting the 'dew a wee bit hard.
.
..
...
....
.....
I see someone has been hitting the 'dew a wee bit hard.
Wait a minute!
Are you suggesting that my UBER BUILD OF UTTER DOOM *can't* at D&D?!?!
Do you mean to suggest that a decent DM that consistently offers up different and unusual encounters and challenges can set the stage for scrub PCs like rogues and monks to be successful?!?
You know, you keep up the crazy talk and the Men-in-white-coats are going to come and make you play Shutter Island!
In all seriousness, I think you make a vaild point. There is some effectiveness in AoE Damage, SoS, and in melee (both defense and offense). I would go on to say that no character is *best*
I would venture to say that as there are so many *ways* to build PCs and encounters, all things are useful. "There are no bad builds, but there are some gimps!"
Thank you for the food for thought! :D
GNOME
PS: F1r3b4lz d3s+r0ys my ph4+ |00+z!
|
Thinking one step further: Is this concept common practice?
Do all players appreciate that "blend" of roleplaying?
How many "fireball lovers" would complain that the game was bad - just because their spell caster didn't shine as much as they had hoped for?
Would they care for e.g. the rogue who got some more stage presence this one time?
The point is very valid but it might be hard to realize that kind of play with certain players...
Reactions in this thread show that PF supports a lot of different playing styles, and everyone favours a different one. ;)
Kr,
G.
|
|
Quantity of Enemies vs Quality of Enemies.
I think there's some truth to what you say, but mostly it's in the "different builds look good for different kinds of encounters" part.
If a campaign features a mix of kinds of encounters, more adaptable characters shine. If a campaign fixates on one end vs. the other and you as the player guess wrong about what to plan for, again, the more adaptable kinds of characters tend to take it in the pants slightly less.
I'd dispute a bit that SoS looks like junk against lots of weaker enemies, incidentally -- it's just that really different SoS spells look good. Take Confusion for example -- against a single enemy it's almost useless, whereas if you can cast it on ten enemies and your party members are even somewhat paying attention you're often all but guaranteed to win the encounter right there.
(To elaborate: Confused enemies pick from one of a few random actions, unless someone's attacking them in which case they attack that person back. You throw Confusion out, some enemies fail saves and attack other enemies that failed save, in which case they'll attack each other until one of them is dead unless you get in the way. Meanwhile, the rest of the party focuses fire on anyone who made the save.)
Looking at Fireball vs Confusion, you have medium vs long range and 15 ft radius vs a 20 ft radius. Also confusion is a higher level spell (3rd vs 4th)
I find in game Fireballs biggest advantage is it's range. I have a huge game table, so long range actually comes into play at times. Generally from enemy battle mages (such as in the scenario above)
I agree confusion may be the better choice at times, but it should be since it's a higher level spell.
Single CR is ok, but it's also the Lazy GM's out move. You don't have do much if you only have to control one character, and you don't have to plan much if you just pull out a character from the Bestiary of the right CR level.
Precisely. I don't remember the last time I ran a single creature other than a dragon, and those I make really, really rare, and they even usually hire guards and accomplices.
Hmm, I thought it was the Paizo way to save the comedic thread-jacks until the topic degenerates into a good old fashioned internet fight... We still have at least another 200 posts to go here guys. ;)
Hmm, I thought it was the Paizo way to save the comedic thread-jacks until the topic degenerates into a good old fashioned internet fight... We still have at least another 200 posts to go here guys. ;)
It's the XP for roleplay fights. Benign is close to leveling.
|
|
Hmm, I thought it was the Paizo way to save the comedic thread-jacks until the topic degenerates into a good old fashioned internet fight... We still have at least another 200 posts to go here guys. ;)
True, we haven't even begun the point counterpoint posts where half the thread is reposted in every response yet!
To me the iconic D&D encounter is the BBEG, a couple liutenants, and a small swarm of mooks. I think this represents story-wise a likely encounter with a vaillain as well as representing the aforementioned wide array of encounter types. You can go straight for the BBEG and suffer from ignoring the liutenants, you can have one person take on the mooks while the rest focus fire the real threat, aoe is useful but not auto win, as is single target sod.
|
To me the iconic D&D encounter is the BBEG, a couple liutenants, and a small swarm of mooks. I think this represents story-wise a likely encounter with a vaillain as well as representing the aforementioned wide array of encounter types. You can go straight for the BBEG and suffer from ignoring the liutenants, you can have one person take on the mooks while the rest focus fire the real threat, aoe is useful but not auto win, as is single target sod.
Ah yes, the magnificent seven, four mooks, two lieutenants and the BBEG. I forgot to switch it up sometimes, and my players caught wise. Their mistake was pointing it out to me>:)
While he is talking about 3.0 encounter design specifically, the Alexandrian still has it right when thinking about Pathfinder.
|
|
While he is talking about 3.0 encounter design specifically, the Alexandrian still has it right when thinking about Pathfinder.
Absolutely. An equal CR encounter isn't supposed to kill you, it's supposed to eat your resources. If you use two of your highest level spells to beat an equal CR creature, you are going to run out of useful spells before the end of an Adventuring day.
This is why single target spells are so powerful, it is a major resource expense to cast them when you consider you could be seeing a lot of encounters in a row, often coming in waves.
While he is talking about 3.0 encounter design specifically, the Alexandrian still has it right when thinking about Pathfinder.
I don't agree.
There comes a point where an encounter is so easy, all it will realistically burn is CLW wand charges and real-life time. Your better players won't be tricked into expending important resources on an EL-4 encounter. If that encounter advances the story or is interesting in some way, that's fine. Otherwise, you're cutting out finite game time that could be used for encounters that are actually interesting, roleplay, more story, cool puzzles, or just about anything else in favor of getting in more combat that the PCs have no chance of losing significant resources in, much less actually losing.
If it makes sense that the midlevel party is harried by EL-4 mobs of normal goblins on the way to their destination, as a GM I'd probably say "On your way you're attacked by several groups of goblins, which you easily kill but take some minor wounds in the process. Mark off 10 Cure Light Wound wand charges." and move on.
The problem with the Alexandrian is that he in whatever way hears complaints about things that fall apart or break down in the game at higher (skill) levels of play than his own games, and thinks he has the answers when really he doesn't even genuinely understand the problems in question. He's essentially the equivalent of a football fan who, after his team loses, tells his friends about all the things the team's coach should have done and how he could do a better job as coach.
We all know that guy. Mostly he's a friend or relative of ours and we cheerfully tolerate him. But nobody genuinely believes he knows how to coach a football team. We all understand that, really, the job of coaching is harder than it looks and there's many additional factors at play and information that even a superfan isn't privy to. It's not different here, for however eloquently he makes his case.
|
|
While he is talking about 3.0 encounter design specifically, the Alexandrian still has it right when thinking about Pathfinder.I don't agree.
There comes a point where an encounter is so easy, all it will realistically burn is CLW wand charges and real-life time. Your better players won't be tricked into expending important resources on an EL-4 encounter. If that encounter advances the story or is interesting in some way, that's fine. Otherwise, you're cutting out finite game time that could be used for encounters that are actually interesting, roleplay, more story, cool puzzles, or just about anything else in favor of getting in more combat that the PCs have no chance of losing significant resources in, much less actually losing.
If it makes sense that the midlevel party is harried by EL-4 mobs of normal goblins on the way to their destination, as a GM I'd probably say "On your way you're attacked by several groups of goblins, which you easily kill but take some minor wounds in the process. Mark off 10 Cure Light Wound wand charges." and move on.
I look at it this way. If you are above WBL, you aren't using a 15 point buy, and have more than 4 people, then the regular CR encounters are already way under your true EL.
And that seems to be what is happening in many of the games that are described. And I don't think there is anything wrong with that. That equal CR level encounter is really 1 or 2 CR below the actual party CR, and therefore a monster with a CR 1 or 2 above should be burning 1/4 of resources. Basically for that extra couple CR, you can add in the henchmen that will eat up your spells or crowd you while casting if not taken out.
I don't think most people play society style, but that is what the game is designed for. But when you play outside of the design, you have to adjust.
Either way, if you design a single target all or nothing caster, you're going to have to waste some of those spells in the "minor" encounters along the way.
Either way, if you design a single target all or nothing caster, you're going to have to waste some of those spells in the "minor" encounters along the way.
Well, no. If you're playing that kind of character you just don't cast spells in a minor encounter. You hold your action in case some real threat shows up, or you ready to counterspell just for kicks, or you melee with your 8 STR for comic effect.
Maybe what you're really saying is that if you built a whole party of all single-target SoS/SoD casters with no animal companions or similar class features you'd have to cast some of your good spells in a minor encounter. The first answer is to ask: why would you build that party? The second answer is: No, you still really wouldn't.
You might be able to gin up some particular EL-4 encounter that would waste spells, but mostly, no. I think if you picture a pretty reasonable even all-full-caster party of 4 and look at what's EL-4 on them at each level you'll start to appreciate why. It's different reasons in different cases. For example, if the level 7 party encounters the single EL-4 (3) dire wolf? Really, even a straw-man party of 4 8-STR sorcerers with longspears can melee that sucker down before it kills somebody. Making it something like 5 normal orcs instead doesn't help, either. Or 16 normal toads.
Add a few levels/CRs and then you're at a point where a caster-heavy party will probably be flying all day and you're looking at mostly melee monsters without ranged attacks.
Any party that has even one 3/4 base attack character meant to beat on things or an animal companion or eidolon or anything in that vein can probably let it solo an EL-4 encounter if they really wanted to.
Either way, if you design a single target all or nothing caster, you're going to have to waste some of those spells in the "minor" encounters along the way.
Well, no. If you're playing that kind of character you just don't cast spells in a minor encounter. You hold your action in case some real threat shows up, or you ready to counterspell just for kicks, or you melee with your 8 STR for comic effect.
Maybe what you're really saying is that if you built a whole party of all single-target SoS/SoD casters with no animal companions or similar class features you'd have to cast some of your good spells in a minor encounter. The first answer is to ask: why would you build that party? The second answer is: No, you still really wouldn't.
You might be able to gin up some particular EL-4 encounter that would waste spells, but mostly, no. I think if you picture a pretty reasonable even all-full-caster party of 4 and look at what's EL-4 on them at each level you'll start to appreciate why. It's different reasons in different cases. For example, if the level 7 party encounters the single EL-4 (3) dire wolf? Really, even a straw-man party of 4 8-STR sorcerers with longspears can melee that sucker down before it kills somebody. Making it something like 5 normal orcs instead doesn't help, either. Or 16 normal toads.
Add a few levels/CRs and then you're at a point where a caster-heavy party will probably be flying all day and you're looking at mostly melee monsters without ranged attacks.
Any party that has even one 3/4 base attack character meant to beat on things or an animal companion or eidolon or anything in that vein can probably let it solo an EL-4 encounter if they really wanted to.
I think you two are more in agreement than it appears. You are saying that you need more than just a few single target spells to survive an entire adventure. You need more options than just color spray or dominate monster or whatever. You are saying that you should consider having your powerful spells prepared but also be ready for other situations where those spells are not the best choice.
Ciretose is saying pretty much the same thing. I agree completely. One thing we often see from a select few is that there is only one way to play a caster and all other ways are just wrong. A small percentage of people are under the delusion that you should only prepare specific spells and that no other spells should be considered under any circumstances.
When I play a character I don't consider what is the most optimal version. I think of what is going to be the most fun and then work towards a level of optimization that will help him fill the role I want him in. I always give him a flaw or two because that's fun to me and I know how to deal with them. Sometimes I make a character that can fight single opponents with ease. Other times I make a character that can fight many smaller opponents. Sometimes I go for the character that can do both. It all depends. Sometimes it's fun to not be the most optimized character ever created.
I do have a problem with the title of this thread though. It's misleading. You can have quality and quantity in an encounter. The DM that just throws a dozen random CR4 creatures to create the EL he wants is not creating a quality encounter. Just because two CR3 opponents is an EL4 fight doesn't mean that I should take any two random CR3 creatures. There should be something interesting to bring them together. Every encounter, even random encounters, should be quality encounters. You shouldn't have crocodiles in salt flats just because they fit the CR.
|
|
First, in reference to Ciretose's last post... I was under the impression Pathfinder Society was 20 point buy?
You may be right, I don't play Society Games. I know from the Core that 15 is the "standard" point buy, so I'm assuming that is the baseline.
The point is, if you are going above that (and I know my group usually does since we prefer roll 4 and drop the lowest) you have to start off knowing you are more powerful than the game was designed and need to adjust encounters.
Mixing this with Dire's point (because I don't think we are that far off) an equal CR encounter with a group with higher than intended stats would actually be EL-1 or possibly even EL-2 depending on equipment.
So with that logic, you should have more encounters a day to challenge your party.
In another article he talks about the spike effect (we've always called it "Nova"ing) which comes into play with short adventuring days and is a problem in late game with people running away all the time.
Psionics are particularly difficult in this regard.
I will often bring encounters in waves so there is no real gap between several sub EL encounters. I also am a firm believer in "If you run away, your enemy is going to reinforce using their knowledge of your strategies and techniques, if not follow you."