I currently am part of three gaming groups. We are all playing 3.5, I'm a player in two and GMing one. One of the groups I'm a player in has six PC's while the other is currently hosting five PC's. The one I'm the GM for is three and sometimes just two strong. The common theme among these games is that none have the magic number"four" PC's. In fact I've rarely been in a party with four characters and I've been playing since 80.The DM guide just glosses over increasing EL of an encounter or cutting it down some and just doesn't seem to be enough examples of how a GM can make adjustments due to party size. You'd think by now we'd be able to accuratly challange PC's but that is not the case. Either the encounter is too easy (in particular when your dealing with one creature with the correct CL) or we nearly get crushed and GM looks frustrated by the encounter. When I've been GMing I have found myself having to change the encounter as we are playing to either save the characters or make things a little more challanging. Its not the players fault and I don't have the time to run six mock battles just to see how it goes.
I was wondering if any of you could give me and my friends advice on scaling the encounters due to party size. Or maybe Dungeon could run an artical with some examples and different solutions any writers or GMs have come up with. I'm not looking for hard numbers just advice on what works for you.
I remember making adventures in the old days (2nd edition)and I don't recall these inconsistancies in the balancing of the game. I love the 3.5 rules and know its a better system especialy if you have five players (one GM and four players), but this is rarly the case in our campaigns. Well any help or advice would be appreciated, and I'm sure some space in Dungeon for this topic would be welcome.
Thanks Tom
Well for the most part scaling encounters (EL) for larger or smaller parties is easy. For every 2 PC's above or below 4 you add or subtract 1 from the EL.
6PC's @ 2nd level will have an equal challenge with an EL 3.
With 5 PC's you can go with whichever seems best for you. It isn't an exact science. What you need to keep in mind is you need creatures that'll challenge ALL of your PC's without just demolishing a single PC.
-I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!
well, since EL (Encounter Level) is not your Party Level, I would be extremely hesitant about using the above method.
Since EL is based on a number of encounters in a given time frame as opposed to a Party Level number that is not, trying to compare the two based on encounters gets into spotty math.
How I do it is basically how the book says, except instead of the average of the party, you divide the total party level by 4.
Example, your party consists of one level 9, three level 10's and two level 11's
You would add up all the levels and divide by 4 since 4 is what your basic average Party Level is. (9+(3*10)+(2*11))/4
you get 15.25 Party Level which means they should be able to deal with 3-4 EL 15 encounters before they need a rest.
It works for me.
I hate to say it, Zaebos, but that kind of math can get a lot of characters killed. Two CR 13 monsters (Glabrezu, let's say) against a group of 6 10th to 11th leve characters is a really nasty challenge, especially as their ACs and Save DCs are callibrated for level 13 characters.
Now, if your party is very well equipped and has high stats and hp, they may well be able to take on such an encounter. But 4 of them in a row, without rest? I'm skeptical.
I think a *much* more accurate (and less lethal) system is to treat the effective party level the same way you'd treat a CR. If the baseline party is 4 characters of the same level, a party of 6 has a +1 EPL, while a party of 8 has a +2 EPL. This means to challenge Zaebos's example party, I would throw four EL 11 encounters at them, not four EL 15 ones.
Basically what I said...
I've been running large party campaigns (7-10 PC's) for the better part of 10 years. The thing I've learned is that the CR/EL guidlines are only close to what you need. The DM still shoudl run an Acid test using his PC's abilities. Can the Fighter hit Monster X's AC on all of his attacks or just his first? Can the Wizard get through Monster Y's SR 50% of the time (a Challenging encounter!). Are the Monster's Special Attack DC's too high for the party to make (look at the poor Save characters first). Can all but the strongest escape the grapple (like Evards Black Tentacles)???
All these factors could lead to TPK's if you're not careful.
-I am a Vrock, I'm a Tanar'ri!
thanks for the info guys, also got some good input from the EN boards. I'll have my DMs check out your post and appreciate your input.
Alec Austin wrote: I hate to say it, Zaebos, but that kind of math can get a lot of characters killed. Two CR 13 monsters (Glabrezu, let's say) against a group of 6 10th to 11th leve characters is a really nasty challenge, especially as their ACs and Save DCs are callibrated for level 13 characters.
Now, if your party is very well equipped and has high stats and hp, they may well be able to take on such an encounter. But 4 of them in a row, without rest? I'm skeptical.
I think a *much* more accurate (and less lethal) system is to treat the effective party level the same way you'd treat a CR. If the baseline party is 4 characters of the same level, a party of 6 has a +1 EPL, while a party of 8 has a +2 EPL. This means to challenge Zaebos's example party, I would throw four EL 11 encounters at them, not four EL 15 ones.
I can't say that your system is more accurate, however, it is less lethal.
Your system is exactly like how you figure out Encounter Level. A party is not an encounter since they both measure different things.
Encounter Level should expend 20% of the party's resources.
So why would you calculate your party's level the same way?
Recent threads in General Discussion
|
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 4, RPG Superstar 2011 Top 16
