How much DPR is enough

[Mark Hoover 330]

So I'm running a homebrew campaign and one of the PCs is a half-orc barbarian 5. She's a DPR monster; she delivers an average of 23 HP damage/hit, with a +14 to hit while raging. Essentially any CR 2 or weaker foe I put on the battle map drops in 1 shot from this PC.

This seems... I don't know, excessive to me somehow.

Think about it from the GM's perspective: the average CR 5 fight runs about 1600 XP right? And the average group is assumed to be 4 PCs. By that logic each PC should be able to deal with 400 XP worth of monster. Also the average fight supposedly lasts 2 rounds so each PC in the APL 5 party with no or minimal resource output should be able to neutralize a CR 1 monster right?

This barbarian is one-shotting CR 2 monsters with the application of 1 round of Rage.

I'm probably just whining and chafing against an inevitable consequence of mid-to-high level play here. I'm just really becoming acutely aware of the discrepancy between DPR-focused martials and the average HP of monsters at this level. In particular, the avg CR 5 monster has 55 HP with this barbarian inflicting nearly HALF of that in a single hit.

How much is enough?

[GM Rednal]

In general, a party should be able to take down a same-CR foe in 1 round of attacks. This means it's good for characters to be able to deal 1/4 to 1/2 of a same-CR opponent's health each round. (For example, maybe you have a Barbarian and a Fighter who deal lots of damage, then a Cleric and a Wizard who don't do damage at all. Even if the two warrior types are dealing twice the "normal" 1/4 damage, it still averages out to the right amount for the party to be doing.)

A CR 2 monster has an average of 20 HP, going by the table. A Level 5 player doing damage should be dealing 13.75 to 27.5 damage per round, on average. It is reasonable for a level 5 Barbarian to one-shot a CR 2 foe. Their +14 to-hit is also on the high end, but not beyond what's reasonable. Also, y'know. Barbarian. Smashing stuff is their thing, so it's okay to let them do that. XD

For more perspective, I suggest reviewing this chart (green is good/ideal, blue is the max anyone should consider going rather than the goal to reach), as well as the blog post linked to at the top. That explains the reasoning behind the numbers in plenty of detail.

Ah, but the average fight isn't necessarily 2 rounds. 4 rounds is more reasonable. If you want to slow things down a bit, add more weak monsters for the players to take their time smashing. Even if the Barbarian one-shots them, killing 1 out of 10 foes is still only killing 1 out of 10 foes.

[ryric]

A martial who is truly focused on damage can often drop an equal CR foe with a single full attack. Your damage number seems about right for a high-Str martial raging and using Power Attack.

Wait one more level and watch her damage potential double when she gets 2 attacks, or even 3 if a caster drops a haste on her. Martial characters don't get as much narrative control as casters, but they do get to be blenders in combat. In my current Shattered Star campaign I'm running, a 12th level brawler just did almost 200 damage on a charge to the BBEG. That's fine. Players should get to use their cool stuff.

Also, if you consider this "broken" and a consequence of "mid to high level play," you might try giving actual high level play (level 15+) a try once. It's a completely different world. I find it a lot of fun (not everyone does), but your expectations from low level play don't really carry over well.

[Cuup]

Keep in mind that a CR 5 encounter for an APL 5 party should only consume about 1/4 of the party's resources, so the fact that a CR 2 monster is pennies to a 5th level Barbarian is not only understandable, it's expected.

I'm a fairly experienced GM. I'm not a numbers man - I don't have an algorithm for how much damage is acceptable when. 23 damage per hit DOES seem to be on par for a raging 5th-level Barbarian. My advice is to let her deal damage - it's about all she's able to do anyway. Don't try to beat her at her own game, or tell her she needs to make a new character. Instead, feel free to pepper in some flying enemies or ranged attackers, or incorporeal creatures, or a spell caster (A simple Fear spell can end a Barbarian for the combat) every so often to change things up. None of the above are going to be her comfort zone (unless she's a Superstition Barb, in which case, she'll eat spell casters alive), and will be a big challenge. Otherwise, feel free to throw in lots of weaker enemies - the Barb won't be able to hit them all at once, so the rest of the party will need to help (and optimistically appreciate the notion).

[necromental]

A single CR 5 creature should expend about 20% of resources from a 5th level party (hps, spells, rage rounds). So something that's CR 2 should definitely fall from a single hit from a main DPR character. Of course, damage does not scale as abruptly as hp with levels so when your characters are lvl 10, CR 7 creatures won't fall so easily to your barbarian (well unless she took beast totem :)

[Chess Pwn]

So a lv5 whose job it is to hit things hard is one shotting things that were supposed to maybe be a challenge 3 levels ago....
+14 to hit at lv5, that's +5 from bab, +1 magic weapon, +4 base str, +2 while raging, +1 from weapon focus, +1 str belt.

23 damage a hit is ~7 from greatsword, +10 from str, +1 magic weapon
I'm only getting about ~18 damage.

With power attack it goes to +12 for ~24 damage.

not an exact match, but you can see it was easy to get close to the numbers you listed without even really trying. And these number are pretty typical for a melee character.
fighter is bab 5 MW 1, 4str, 1str belt, 1 WF, 1 WT = +13 for 18 damage pre power attack which is just 1 less accuracy than the raging barb had for the same damage.

And you're lucky that it's only 1 swing, if they had natural claws and a bite then their DPR would be going much higher.

Their character is pretty average from the numbers you've listed.

[Volkard Abendroth]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

This barbarian is one-shotting CR 2 monsters with the application of 1 round of Rage.

Just wait until your CR15 dragon gets one-shot by a 12th level fighter or barbarian.

[PossibleCabbage]

I mean, as the GM you don't really have control over how people build their characters, so "how much DPR is appropriate" isn't really your concern. What you do have complete control over, however, is "what sorts of things there are to fight." So I would offer, if your hard-hitting martial hits so hard that things die instantly, you can include tougher things or enough things to fight that one-shotting them all at least takes a satisfying amount of time.

Remember, players are supposed to win these fights and different groups have different preference for how challenging it is. The question is "whether the big scary martial walloping creatures is fun for the players" not "how much wallop is too much wallop."

[Chess Pwn]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

the average CR 5 fight runs about 1600 XP right? And the average group is assumed to be 4 PCs. By that logic each PC should be able to deal with 400 XP worth of monster. Also the average fight supposedly lasts 2 rounds so each PC in the APL 5 party with no or minimal resource output should be able to neutralize a CR 1 monster right?

I'm probably just whining and chafing against an inevitable consequence of mid-to-high level play here. I'm just really becoming acutely aware of the discrepancy between DPR-focused martials and the average HP of monsters at this level. In particular, the avg CR 5 monster has 55 HP with this barbarian inflicting nearly HALF of that in a single hit.

lv5 is still usually considered low levels.

realize that the barb has actually gotten worse at her job as she's gone. At level 1 and 2 she should have been easily one shotting things "if she hits" they just don't have HP at low levels and her hits hurt (2d6+12 with power attack). Now at lv5 it's taking her two hits to kill a level appropriate enemy, she's half as effective as she used to be.

Also your logic about parties is off, in the typical four man party the healer and the wizard usually aren't expected to be killing anything. Most of the "best" wizards do 0 actual damage themselves. So that's why damage people are good at killing things, they are "compensating" for a member that doesn't do damage. So assuming you have a somewhat balanced party not everyone is doing damage to kill things every round so it still takes time to kill things.

[Kitty Catoblepas]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Also your logic about parties is off, in the typical four man party the healer and the wizard usually aren't expected to be killing anything. Most of the "best" wizards do 0 actual damage themselves. So that's why damage people are good at killing things, they are "compensating" for a member that doesn't do damage. So assuming you have a somewhat balanced party not everyone is doing damage to kill things every round so it still takes time to kill things.

This is a very good point by Chess Pwn.

Also, remember to take into account the level-to-CR conversion. If the party is fighting a CR 5 monster, it should be equal to a level 6 character. That means that it should be doing damage per round equal to 1/4-to-1/2 of the hitpoints of a character two levels higher than the party. That is to say, those "best" wizards and clerics are also slowing the monster from mowing down the damage-dealers (and presumably using about 1/4 of their resources doing so if you have any faith in the CR system).

[wraithstrike]

A level 5 barbarian, even if he is less optomized should be able to mud stomp a CR 2 monster. Even two-rounding a CR 4 monster is not really surprising if he is built to do damage, which most barbarians are.

[Lady-J]

there is never enough dpr for a martial, your barbarian is fine(probably could have eeked out a bit more to hit and damage with a bit more optimizations) but seems average, the only casters that will be doing any damage in a round are blasters and they are deemed the weakest kind of casters(even tho they are my favorite kind) let your barb have their fun they should get to enjoy shinning at low levels especially since casters will start to over take them in effectiveness in a few levels and will totally eclipse them after level 11

[Pink Dragon]

Different strokes for different folks. If you find it excessive in your homebrew campaign, draw the player aside and ask her to reduce the combat effectiveness of her character and build up some of the non-combat aspect. Everyone, including the GM needs to enjoy the game. If the player refuses, then you have a genuine incompatibility in play styles, which is usually only addressed by the player leaving the game.

[Chess Pwn]

Pink Dragon wrote:

Different strokes for different folks. If you find it excessive in your homebrew campaign, draw the player aside and ask her to reduce the combat effectiveness of her character and build up some of the non-combat aspect. Everyone, including the GM needs to enjoy the game. If the player refuses, then you have a genuine incompatibility in play styles, which is usually only addressed by the player leaving the game.

but like I showed, this is only basic optimization. Pt buy a 16 and racial +2 into it. pick barb class and combat feats of weapon focus and power attack and upgrade your gear like you're expected to. Like you're saying to ask the player to intentionally be bad, like why not say they need to be a halfling warrior with no feats, that will lower his combat aspect. Like sure, if he refuses it shows that they like having effective characters that fulfill their basic role.

like barb, 16+2/14/14/12/12/7 you'll have 5 skills, survival, perception, and then whatever else you want skill wise. Like that's plenty of ways to contribute out of combat.

edited to fix from lady-j's comment

[Lady-J]

Chess Pwn wrote:

Pink Dragon wrote:

Different strokes for different folks. If you find it excessive in your homebrew campaign, draw the player aside and ask her to reduce the combat effectiveness of her character and build up some of the non-combat aspect. Everyone, including the GM needs to enjoy the game. If the player refuses, then you have a genuine incompatibility in play styles, which is usually only addressed by the player leaving the game.

but like I showed, this is only basic optimization. Pt buy a 16 and racial +2 into it. pick barb class and combat feats of weapon focus and power attack and upgrade your gear like you're expected to. Like you're saying to ask the player to intentionally be bad, like why not say they need to be a halfling warrior with no feats, that will lower his combat aspect. Like sure, if he refuses it shows that they like having effective characters that fulfill their basic role.

like barb, 16+2/14/14/12/12/8 you'll have 5 skills, survival, perception, and then whatever else you want skill wise. Like that's plenty of ways to contribute out of combat.

the 8 needs to be a 7 or one of the 12s needs to be a 10 if your looking for 20 point buy your at 22 points

[Nodrog]

Honestly never paid attention to the average damage any of my players do, or the monsters do for that matter. Because I kind of figure I'll miss judge the fight balance one way or another and that is fine.

Is it bad if the fighter or barb kick the ever loving stuffing out of a few guys? Not really, because I might throw something a bit harder than I expected at them and its a multi round slug fest.

If you want to challenge the barb, throw something up at her that has a little better armor and more hit points. Take some CR 2 mook and give him or her a little better armor, bump their bab up 1 or 2, give them a better weapon.

Balancing fights so they are fun and challenging is a bit challenging some times...

I threw 5 CR 6 bandits at my group of 6 players who are level 4 and it was a bit on the long side because 3 players just rolled poorly. There was three or four rounds where the fighter and the paladin where the only ones hitting the bandits, who only had an AC of 17... They did have 70 hit points though.

[Lady-J]

Nodrog wrote:

Honestly never paid attention to the average damage any of my players do, or the monsters do for that matter. Because I kind of figure I'll miss judge the fight balance one way or another and that is fine.

Is it bad if the fighter or barb kick the ever loving stuffing out of a few guys? Not really, because I might throw something a bit harder than I expected at them and its a multi round slug fest.

If you want to challenge the barb, throw something up at her that has a little better armor and more hit points. Take some CR 2 mook and give him or her a little better armor, bump their bab up 1 or 2, give them a better weapon.

Balancing fights so they are fun and challenging is a bit challenging some times...

I threw 5 CR 6 bandits at my group of 6 players who are level 4 and it was a bit on the long side because 3 players just rolled poorly. There was three or four rounds where the fighter and the paladin where the only ones hitting the bandits, who only had an AC of 17... They did have 70 hit points though.

just be careful tho cuz some people find the most fun in just walking over large numbers of mooks and killing them with ease making the mooks harder to kill can ruin that fun for them so its always best to talk to the player and find out if what you want to do would actually make it more fun for them or not

[Vidmaster7]

Hmm I don't know. AMBARBARIAN How much DPR is enough?

[BretI]

To add to what others have said, a Barbarian generally wins fights by making sure they do so much damage that they kill the opponent before the opponent can do much to them. They generally have a lower AC than other front line characters and enough hit points to survive getting hit hard.

I have seen this taken to extremes, where a Barbarian has a single digit AC while raging and power attacking.

Large numbers of NPCs tend to be able to whittle away at a Barbarian much more than other front line classes. The Barbarian kills one or two on contact, the other six get to hit them.

[Chess Pwn]

BretI wrote:

To add to what others have said, a Barbarian generally wins fights by making sure they do so much damage that they kill the opponent before the opponent can do much to them. They generally have a lower AC than other front line characters and enough hit points to survive getting hit hard.

I have seen this taken to extremes, where a Barbarian has a single digit AC while raging and power attacking.

Large numbers of NPCs tend to be able to whittle away at a Barbarian much more than other front line classes. The Barbarian kills one or two on contact, the other six get to hit them.

While this is true that MANY people play barbs like this, barbs don't have to be, they can have one of the best AC's if you want on top of all the goodness that they normally have. Beast totem with no reckless abandon, and now you can go higher with the Ubarb and defensive stance. These make your AC a lot better than people give credit, combo in the armored hulk for full plate and it goes up even more.

Then if you REALLY want to go crazy with this and are okay sacrificing a little DPR then you go with a shield and two hand it.

[Pink Dragon]

Chess Pwn wrote:

but like I showed, this is only basic optimization. Pt buy a 16 and racial +2 into it. pick barb class and combat feats of weapon focus and power attack and upgrade your gear like you're expected to. Like you're saying to ask the player to intentionally be bad, like why not say they need to be a halfling warrior with no feats, that will lower his combat aspect. Like sure, if he refuses it shows that they like having effective characters that fulfill their basic role.

like barb, 16+2/14/14/12/12/7 you'll have 5 skills, survival, perception, and then whatever else you want skill wise. Like that's plenty of ways to contribute out of combat.

edited to fix from lady-j's comment

Different games have different expectations. If basic optimization is overpowered for the way the GM want to run the game, then don't do it.

[Lady-J]

Pink Dragon wrote:

Chess Pwn wrote:

but like I showed, this is only basic optimization. Pt buy a 16 and racial +2 into it. pick barb class and combat feats of weapon focus and power attack and upgrade your gear like you're expected to. Like you're saying to ask the player to intentionally be bad, like why not say they need to be a halfling warrior with no feats, that will lower his combat aspect. Like sure, if he refuses it shows that they like having effective characters that fulfill their basic role.

like barb, 16+2/14/14/12/12/7 you'll have 5 skills, survival, perception, and then whatever else you want skill wise. Like that's plenty of ways to contribute out of combat.

edited to fix from lady-j's comment

Different games have different expectations. If basic optimization is overpowered for the way the GM want to run the game, then don't do it.

if the most basics of putting a functional character together is deemed to op for a gm maybe they shouldn't be gming it would be like saying your wizard has to have 14 in str minimum and cant have more then 12 int, or that martials aren't allowed to take power attack or weapon focus which is just silly

[GM Rednal]

Different groups have different ways of enjoying the game, and I'm not about to say that their idea of fun is wrong.

...

I do, however, recommend that groups ensure they're all on the same page and have basically the same expectations for the game. If they can't quite agree on a 'level' of optimization to use, it might be better to consider playing another game instead.

[graystone]

Pink Dragon wrote:

Different games have different expectations. If basic optimization is overpowered for the way the GM want to run the game, then don't do it.

SO the plan is to pick options that make no sense or you're playing it wrong? What you're asking is that players ACTIVELY play against type because the most basic/logical things exceeds expectations. We aren't even talking 'optimization' but picking basic things. If the DM's plans can't take a basic character type with common sense picks, I think it's more that the DM may have to rethink his plans. That or restrict the party to NPC classes or something: we're not even talking about stepping out of core and it's outside the GM's plan.

[Pink Dragon]

The GM wants to run a game. The players are either on board with the way the GM wants to run or not. If the player is not, then the player shouldn't play in the GM's game. If the GM can't find enough players on board with the GM's conception, then that is the GM's problem.

What is so hard to understand about people having different thoughts about the game?

[graystone]

Pink Dragon wrote:

The GM wants to run a game. The players are either on board with the way the GM wants to run or not.

As I said, we aren't talking about even a base line core game here. The GM would have to come out and let people know he wants NPC level characters before the game, not after seeing the barbarian's damage afterwards...

Pink Dragon wrote:

If the player is not, then the player shouldn't play in the GM's game. If the GM can't find enough players on board with the GM's conception, then that is the GM's problem.

It's a 2 way street. A Dm doesn't play to an empty table. Expectations run both ways and the players expectations don't seem unreasonable here...

Pink Dragon wrote:

What is so hard to understand about people having different thoughts about the game?

The DM let in a barbarian. Barbarians job is to deal damage. I don't think the PLAYER is the one with an incorrect understanding.

[ryric]

As a point of comparison, the NPC 5th level barbarian from the NPC Codex averages 31.5 damage on a charge. Only 10.5 on a normal hit, but they are built as a mounted character.

The iconic barbarian, Amiri, looks to average about 25 damage per hit at 5th level. (Str22, +1 weapon, so 2d8+9 str +1 weapon +6 PA) Heck, when using Power Attack, she averages 18 damage at level 1. (I extrapolated 7th level Amiri backwards by removing her +2 Str belt and backing her weapon down to +1)

I've never seen anybody suggest that the iconics or NPC Codex entries are particularly optimized.

[ccs]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

How much is enough?

As a player I've always found that to be the intersection where the stats/stat increases/feats/GP I'm investing doesn't interfere with anything else I want my character to do.

As the DM? I don't care how much DPR a player invests in. I might think it's a waste of resources/options after a point, but I'm not the one playing the character....

[Volkard Abendroth]

ccs wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

How much is enough?

As a player I've always found that to be the intersection where the stats/stat increases/feats/GP I'm investing doesn't interfere with anything else I want my character to do.

As the DM? I don't care how much DPR a player invests in. I might think it's a waste of resources/options after a point, but I'm not the one playing the character....

I have a barbarian, monk/paladin and fighter in the game I run that are trying to one-up each other in damage.

Pretty sure the monk/paladin is winning, not that anything lasts long enough for all three of them to hit it, unless I make severe adjustments to the encounter. (This is where the GM gets to have fun: building things that make the players sweat.)

[Balkoth]

Lady-J wrote:

if the most basics of putting a functional character together is deemed to op for a gm maybe they shouldn't be gming it would be like saying your wizard has to have 14 in str minimum and cant have more then 12 int, or that martials aren't allowed to take power attack or weapon focus which is just silly

I never thought I'd be agreeing with Lady-J or liking a post of hers but life moves in mysterious ways I guess...

Kitty Catoblepas wrote:

If the party is fighting a CR 5 monster, it should be equal to a level 6 character.

That isn't quite correct. A PC with normal WBL for a PC has CR equal to its level. So if you took a party of four level 5 Barbarians and had them fight another level 5 Barbarian (and all had the same gear/build), that's a CR 5 encounter for an APL 5 party. Alterive, the enemy could be a level 6 Barbarian with NPC wealth and that would also be a CR 5 encounter.

Which is why CR = APL encounters are so easy...it's effectively 4 on 1 odds. Or the same as fighting 4 enemies that are 4 levels lower each (so 4 level 1 Barbarians also equate to a CR 5 encounter...they're going to get stomped by 4 level 5s).

[Taja the Barbarian]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

So I'm running a homebrew campaign and one of the PCs is a half-orc barbarian 5. She's a DPR monster; she delivers an average of 23 HP damage/hit, with a +14 to hit while raging. Essentially any CR 2 or weaker foe I put on the battle map drops in 1 shot from this PC.

This seems... I don't know, excessive to me somehow.

Think about it from the GM's perspective: the average CR 5 fight runs about 1600 XP right? And the average group is assumed to be 4 PCs. By that logic each PC should be able to deal with 400 XP worth of monster. Also the average fight supposedly lasts 2 rounds so each PC in the APL 5 party with no or minimal resource output should be able to neutralize a CR 1 monster right?

This barbarian is one-shotting CR 2 monsters with the application of 1 round of Rage.

I'm probably just whining and chafing against an inevitable consequence of mid-to-high level play here. I'm just really becoming acutely aware of the discrepancy between DPR-focused martials and the average HP of monsters at this level. In particular, the avg CR 5 monster has 55 HP with this barbarian inflicting nearly HALF of that in a single hit.

How much is enough?

As has already been noted, this damage is about what you should expect at this level from a competent damage-dealing build: It's only a slight improvement on the average 19 damage per hit at levels 1 through 3, and in relative terms, it's actually a decrease (your average opponent at level 5 should have a lot more HP than your average opponent at level 1).

Remember, for 5th level PCs, the (rough) guidelines are:

• CR 2 Opponents are little more than cannon fodder,
• CR 5 Opponents are fairly easy to deal with,
• CR 7 Opponents are tough,
• CR 8 Opponents are 'Boss' tough, and
• CR 9 Opponents should probably kill them more often than not

For Example, a Marsh Giant would be an appropriate CR 8 'serious challenge' for a level 5 party (enough HP to last a while, enough damage output to actually hurt the party)

[Balkoth]

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Remember, for 5th level PCs, the (rough) guidelines are:

• CR 9 Opponents should probably kill them more often than not

A CR9 encounter is like facing their clones. Four level 5 PCs vs four level 5 PCs is a CR9 encounter for both. So when you think CR+4, think "as powerful as the group combined, roughly even chance for either side to win."

[AM BARBARIAN]

THIS MUCH.

[Daw]

Balkoth wrote:

Taja the Barbarian wrote:

Remember, for 5th level PCs, the (rough) guidelines are:

• CR 9 Opponents should probably kill them more often than not

A CR9 encounter is like facing their clones. Four level 5 PCs vs four level 5 PCs is a CR9 encounter for both. So when you think CR+4, think "as powerful as the group combined, roughly even chance for either side to win."

Roughly even chance for each side to win, but also roughly no chance for the winner to come up out unscathed. There will almost certainly be deaths among the winners.

[Mark Hoover 330]

So... I should just chill then?

No, I know you're all correct. I think I was just freaking out b/c while I don't run my games "Me vs Them" and I'm not gunning for the PCs, I put a certain amount of thought and planning into my fights. Its frustrating when not just one of those scenes but an entire 3 hour game session evaporates into a blood-mist with just average rolls.

I have to adjust, have to get better at using ALL of the rules and not forgetting any. One thing I think will help is using 3d terrain on the battle mat. I think I also need to bring combat notes for each fight with me, remind me what the monsters can do to use cover, flanking and so on.

One thing though that did occur to me through this: when the first Bestiary was released, the game was only the CRB right? So the avg monster/CR chart was based around heroes coming out of that core material right?

Do we know, were the challenge ratings and margins for victory based around a 15 pt buy or a 20? I can see a 15 pt buy party with WBL and using only core feats having an "average" fight with a CR 5 foe and using 1/5 their resources or whatever.

[ryric]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Do we know, were the challenge ratings and margins for victory based around a 15 pt buy or a 20? I can see a 15 pt buy party with WBL and using only core feats having an "average" fight with a CR 5 foe and using 1/5 their resources or whatever.

15 point buy, 4 PCs, average WBL is the standard by which the CR system was first created. For Pathfinder at least. CR originally came with 3.0 D&D, which had a different PB scale and possibly different WBL expectations (I don't recall that detail).

Like anything, you get better at GMing with experience. The important thing is for you and your players to have fun.

[GM Rednal]

The average monster stats by CR chart is from Bestiary 1, yes - it's one of the first things in the monster creation rules. That said, the CRB is intended to be a benchmark of sorts, showcasing the highs and lows that stuff really ought to go.

For more help, try reading the GM's guide to creating challenging encounters. ^^

[Balkoth]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Its frustrating when not just one of those scenes but an entire 3 hour game session evaporates into a blood-mist with just average rolls.

Clarify? I assume you mean "it dies too fast" rather than "it dies" because the PCs ARE supposed to win with average rolls. Add more monsters, add the advanced template, use tougher encounters, etc.

And as others said, the rules assumed 15 point buy, standard WBL, 4 person party.

[Tacticslion]

Balkoth wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Its frustrating when not just one of those scenes but an entire 3 hour game session evaporates into a blood-mist with just average rolls.

Clarify? I assume you mean "it dies too fast" rather than "it dies" because the PCs ARE supposed to win with average rolls. Add more monsters, add the advanced template, use tougher encounters, etc.

And as others said, the rules assumed 15 point buy, standard WBL, 4 person party.

Yeah. Mark has generally shown to be remarkably solid as a GM in his posts - he's pro-players winning, he just wants it to be fun along the way, and has displayed a lot of thought in his previous builds.

I have no doubt he's just running into the "steamroll" frustration, when he was hoping for, "This should make an interesting (but surmountable) challenge."

[Chess Pwn]

Players will ruin all your important encounters.
And by virtue of having a martial character in the party making things a blood mist is kinda his entire job, and he'll be quite good at it with little effort. Like a cr2 vs lv5 will be dead and basically done nothing regardless of what you try to do with them.

[Mark Hoover 330]

Tacticslion wrote:

Balkoth wrote:

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

Its frustrating when not just one of those scenes but an entire 3 hour game session evaporates into a blood-mist with just average rolls.

Clarify? I assume you mean "it dies too fast" rather than "it dies" because the PCs ARE supposed to win with average rolls. Add more monsters, add the advanced template, use tougher encounters, etc.

And as others said, the rules assumed 15 point buy, standard WBL, 4 person party.

Yeah. Mark has generally shown to be remarkably solid as a GM in his posts - he's pro-players winning, he just wants it to be fun along the way, and has displayed a lot of thought in his previous builds.

I have no doubt he's just running into the "steamroll" frustration, when he was hoping for, "This should make an interesting (but surmountable) challenge."

First off, thanks for the vote of confidence TL! I consider myself a decent narrator but as a mechanics tinkerer I lack confidence. I create a lot in a vacuum - no other GMs in the group that aren't also playing in my game so no one to bounce stuff off of except here on these boards.

Secondly... yes, yes; a thousand times yes! I think to myself "hey, this'll be cool!" I plan out some fun dialogue for my villains to taunt the players with, I add flavor when pairing monsters like a Sanguine Ooze Swarm inside a skeleton or something... and then WHAM! A few minutes after initiative the players are like "ok, that happened in one round. Any treasure?" and all I did was blink.

Thanks Lion of Tactics for so perfectly articulating it!

[Tacticslion]

Yeah, the "steamroll" effect is what many people run into as a matter of course. It's pretty much the only thing martials can do*, and so many would rather let that be true than effectively "nerfing" them (compared to the unlimited non-damage power of casters).

It's a "thing" around here.

That said, you may wish to switch to the slow XP track. That could give you the relative challenges you're looking for while also allowing you to build more interesting/demanding challenges across the board.

* This is not, strictly speaking, true; however, mechanically,
there is comaratively little for a predominantly martial class to contribute other than RAW(R) DAMAGE~!

[Rerednaw]

Alternatively don't award xp. At all.

Have PCs level up after reaching benchmarks or key points in your story. Take a look at an adventure path and it will say:
"PCs start at W level"
"When the PCs attack the lair of the boogun, they should be Level X"
"By the time the PC's reach the BBEG they should be level Y"
"After defeating the BBEG, the PCs will be level Z"

Many folks enjoy the 'cha-ching effect' of rolling xp maths, some find it a distraction from the story.

"Hey let's investigate this cryptic clue!"
"No we need to find some trash mobs so I can level up first."

This gets away from that. Again YMMV.

As far as I am concerned...how much DPR is enough? It's never enough. That said I do follow core assumptions in most of my games. If the party comes in way optimized...I explain they will steamroller through. I may add a few more waves, adjust some tactics, but usually I pretty much run as written. I do NOT plan for every player contingency. There's no way you can keep up and quite frankly when I used to attempt that, it was a bit stressful and i found it personally unfun, so I stopped and just focused on moving the story along.

Now if the players want a blood mist bowl...then I'll whip one up...but I finds that most folks tend to stop that after awhile.

[Soulgear]

Pretty sure my GM hated my rage prophet/oracle of battle from our just recently completed Rise of the Runelords campaign.

Dude was sick!

DPR unbuffed and unraged was ~200.

Storm giants? 1 round drop
Rune giants? 2 round drop

It literally didn't matter...I think I made him kill too well...

[Deighton Thrane]

Soulgear wrote:

Pretty sure my GM hated my rage prophet/oracle of battle from our just recently completed Rise of the Runelords campaign.

Dude was sick!

DPR unbuffed and unraged was ~200.

Storm giants? 1 round drop
Rune giants? 2 round drop

It literally didn't matter...I think I made him kill too well...

I wouldn't call taking 2 rounds to drop a Rune Giant sick damage. Most well built martials should be able to do it in one round by the end of Rise of the Runelords. I've seen over 700 damage in a round at that level, with a couple crits. That would be enough to drop 2 rune giants and severely injure a storm giant. That is probably too much DPR.

[Soulgear]

I wouldn't call taking 2 rounds to drop a Rune Giant sick damage. Most well built martials should be able to do it in one round by the end of Rise of the Runelords. I've seen over 700 damage in a round at that level, with a couple crits. That would be enough to drop 2 rune giants and severely injure a storm giant. That is probably too much DPR.

Wow! We only ever got to level 16, but over 700? Dang. Most I ever got was 279.

We also use a house rules crit table that adds tons of flavor, making them spectator events, it doesn't follow the x2, x3, etc format.

Gotta be honest though...700? That's hard to wrap my head around.

[ryric]

I wouldn't say 700 damage per rounds is representative of even high level play - I've only seen that in Wrath of the Righteous. With Mythic it's possible to get above 1000 DPR.

250-300 is fairly normal for the high teens.

[RegUS PatOff]

Second the notion of referencing GMs Guide to Challenging Encounters. It gives a good explanation of what you should expect for different CR encounters with some very practical tips.

You might also consider E6 or E8 if you are concerned about power creep with level increase. Just a thought.

[Anguish]

Mark Hoover 330 wrote:

"hey, this'll be cool!" I plan out some fun dialogue for my villains to taunt the players with, I add flavor when pairing monsters like a Sanguine Ooze Swarm inside a skeleton or something... and then WHAM! A few minutes after initiative the players are like "ok, that happened in one round. Any treasure?" and all I did was blink.

Few thoughts for you...

1} It's a great thing that you care enough to even ask the question, and a greater thing that you're open to the answer(s). So kudos.

2} In general, I agree with what others have said about the math. CR equal to average party level (APL) is meant to be nothing more than a speed-bump encounter. Unfortunately, that makes encounter-design hard. If you diversify an encounter by having a "strong" main bad guy and a few mooks, those mooks will get vaporized by pretty much anything thrown at them be it a barbarian or a fireball. It is what it is, but it gets better. In a few more levels, bad guys - even mooks - can start having some defenses, magic or otherwise, that can help their survivability. Sure, the PCs get more potent too, but you'll have more room to play feat-wise and treasure-wise and buff-wise to pad the encounter.

3} Specifically responding to your text above... you know... it happens to all of us. Quick real-life story. I'm playing a Mummy's Mask campaign right now, with an inquisitor/witch hybrid class. I love the character, but so much of what we encounter is undead or mindless or both, and virtually all of what she can do, they're immune to. So I've... compensated. I've diversified where I could, but she'll never be a damage-dealer. She's a mind-screwer, but I've found as many ways to give her edges in that niche as I could. Well, last session, we had an encounter the GM was totally geeked about. He expected a bloodbath (like so many of the undead/construct combats are). Well... the bad guy wasn't immune to me. So... "can I have a Will save", I asked. Bad guy failed the save, and from there it was just a formality as we pounded the bad guy into oblivion without it fighting back. Why? Because normally my character sucks, but when she doesn't, I've made DAMNED sure that she kicks butt.

Where I'm going with this is... the harder things get, the harder players work to even the odds again. If bad guys start making their saves more than 50% of the time, you KNOW I'm going to stop buying magic items that are cool and am going to start buying stat boosters to increase my DCs. 50% being a random number.

Overall, I'd say you've got room to increase the CR of your encounters on average by 1 or 2. Quick trick: give everything the Advanced template on the fly. It's easy math and if it's too hard for the PCs, stop doing it. Ideally I think everyone wants to win all the time, to win comfortably most of the time, to win easily some of the time, and to win barely just frequently enough to know that failure COULD happen.

Good luck.