The short answer is EL 3 seems about right. Read on to learn why.
CR/EL is tricky because the charts and tables on the matter are incomplete, and, quite frankly, the whole system is subjective. That said, it's an important and valuable tool.
First, the wealth of the NPCs to be fought. Table 4-23 on page 127 of the DMG says that, because the NPCs are 1st level, they get 900gp worth of equipment. There are now three ways to handle this.
1. Fully equip them. Find as close as you can to 900gp worth of masterwork swords and armor, alchemical goods, potions, etc., to give to each of these guys. Discard spare cash, which should be minimal.
2. Partially equip them- give them items that make sense for who they are and what they're doing, and whatever amount of that recommended 900gp doesn't go into their gear, have as gold or platinum coins in a belt pouch or something. The party may then wonder what in the world they were doing with it.
3. Disregard the chart. It is just a recommendation, afterall. I've decided to do this. If I make a goblin cave and the "standard" goblin in it is actually a 3rd level rogue, rather than a goblin pulled right from the MM, I'm not going to give every one of them a +1 doo-hicky just because the rules say to. Where in the world did all those magical doo-hickies come from? (As an aside, I will then take the "spare" gold that the mooks should have had and use it to buy the BBEG's equipment >:) )
As for the EL: Each 1st level NPC (provided they are PC class levels and not NPC class levels; I'll assume the former) is CR 1. Table 3-1 on DMG pg.49 says that 3 CR 1 foes can be anywhere from EL 2 to 4. This is because not all CR 1s are created equal. You can have "low CR" and "high CR" within the same rating (i.e., dragons tend to be more powerful for their CR compared to other creatures, despite actually having the same rating).
Now, the fact of the matter is that, over most levels, NPCs are weak for their CR. The logic is that an NPC with a PC class level is equal to 1/4 of the presumed "standard party" used for CR calculations. When an encounter's CR (if a single enemy) or EL (if multiple enemies) equals the party's level, the PCs should burn about 20% of their resources in the fight. That's the definition of "challenging" for CR purposes. Note that, due to this, you can actually pit your party against challenges a few CRs higher than they are with relative safety, they just won't be able to handle as many fights in a day. CR = party level +2 tends to be about the safe cap (over that and you're looking at a potential death or two, maybe even a TPK with bad luck).
However, PCs tend to have better base stats than NPCs. Also, examining the NPC wealth by level guidelines on DMG pg. 127 and comparing them to PC wealth by level guidelines on DMG pg.135 will reveal that PCs have vastly larger amounts of gold and items than NPCs. The discrepency grows when you account for the fact that there are usually 4 PCs, so whatever discrepency exists between a single PC and NPC is actually inflated (depending on the numbers and levels of NPC relative to the party).
ALL THIS, is just to say that NPCs are typically on the weak side of their CR by a good bit. However, at 1st and 2nd level, that isn't exactly the case. A level 1 NPC with a PC class tends to be pretty soundly in the CR 1 range (with some debate if the NPC happens to be a wizard or the like, which are weaker at low levels).
Additionally, numbers have an bigger effect on EL than higher CRs. Two CR 4s are listed as EL 6, but in truth are probably slightly tougher since the party has to split attentions and resources, as opposed to focusing them on one big bad guy.
So, NPCs tend to be weak for their CR, which would drag the EL down to 2, but that's not exactly the case at this level, so it stays at 3. Numbers play a big role in determining EL, so if you make well-built, well-equiped NPCs and play them smart, they could go up to EL 4. If you play them more middle-of-the-road, they should probably stay EL 3.
Additionally, CR 3 falls within the safe zone of encounters with an EL greater than the party level, even at 1st level. So, provided this is about the only fight they have in a day, they should come out all right.
As an aside, I just ran a fight last night with the following NPCs/monsters: 2 tiefling rogues (lvl 2), one human rogue (lvl 2), four summoned small fiendish monstrous spiders, a summoned human zombie and wolf zombie, a human adept (lvl 2), and a human necromancer wizard (lvl 5, had time to buff). By the book, that's somewhere around EL 5-7. The party was 2nd level and had already fought in 3 other big combats that day. They were virtually out of healing and magic, and had already taken moderate damage.
They pulled it off. It took forever and was hard as hell, but they won. By the rules, they should have stood no chance. Just goes to show how subjective and circumstantial and even dead wrong the CR/EL system can be from time to time. Really, it's just a bunch of vague guidelines, but it's still useful.
I'm a new DM to the current rule set. I've always adopted a first/second edition mindset to the CR, EL and treasure value rules up until now but I want to try and get my head around them as written.
I am trying to craft the first combat encounter for my players. Four PCs all are level 1. I want to pit them against three NPCs, all level 1.
What is the encounter level? Is it 3?
Table 3-1 on p49 of the DMG is confusing me. It seems to be telling me that I should only put one or two Level 1 NPC's against my players to construct a challenging encounter. Is that correct?
That table is a pain in the butt. I think they made it on a napkin at their local pub after work over shots of Tequela.
Anyway your right. Start with number of creatures along the top row. This equals 3. Find out what each creatures CR is (an NPC with a PC class has a CR of 1 per level). The CR is 1 so you go down the table until you find the spot in it that is for 3 CR 1 creatures. Then you follow along the row until you get to the left side where your in the column labeled Encounter Level. You'll see that it says 3.
OK now that you know how to use the table might I suggest that you never use that table again. Instead go here and use this handy Encounter Calculator that will tell you the EL of any encounter no matter how complex.
Also, as per Table 3-3, if the EL is 3 does that mean I should give the NPCs no more than 900gp worth of stuff between them? Page 127 says that they should have 900gp each...
They get 900 gp each.
A biggie to remember is that while they may be getting into an EL 3 encounter, they get 3 x CR 1 experience. This doesn't have any appreciable effect mechanically until later level, when a gaggle of CR 4's could be a EL 12 (16 of them, to be exact), but the PCs do not get 1 CR 12, they get 16 CR 4s. If they are above level 12, they might not even get XP for it. This is an example of how the EL, CR, and XP/level system start to break down.
It could also be construed as an abstract version of the 2nd edition mechanics. In the end, the PCs get about the same XP, as long as they fight a variety of critters of various CRs. Some give none, some give extra.
This hits a sore spot of mine (not to threadjack). I dislike the mentality that adventures need to be against 4 creatures a day at a CR rating equal to the party's level. Under this fun formula, with breaks on the weekends, the PCs can hit 20th level in just under 4 months of in-game time.
I say bull, but there is such a heavy precedent set for this by modules and older Dungeon magazines. It really wasn't until the newer issues that we started seeing encounters that had to be dealt with that were wildly below the PC level. Course, the APs have to follow a strict level "timeline" so that makes it harder.
I just feel in a vibrant "semi-realistic" world, monsters aren't going to be lining themselves up by CR for PCs to kill. PCs fight goblins at low level, and unless they turn down the pleading commoner's request for aid, they fight goblins at high level. Maybe some of the goblins have class levels, and are challenging. Maybe not. PCs aren't video game characters only concerned with doing things that get them XP. (I admit, a few character archetypes can be similar to that, but rarely ever JUST that.)
Rant done, back to your normally scheduled thread.
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
A biggie to remember is that while they may be getting into an EL 3 encounter, they get 3 x CR 1 experience. This doesn't have any appreciable effect mechanically until later level, when a gaggle of CR 4's could be a EL 12 (16 of them, to be exact), but the PCs do not get 1 CR 12, they get 16 CR 4s. If they are above level 12, they might not even get XP for it. This is an example of how the EL, CR, and XP/level system start to break down.
Well, you are warned in the books to not do encounters of more than 12 critters. That's because that's the point at which the normal XP rules fall apart. At most levels, the XP you get for a creature of CR X is the same as you get for two creatures of CR (X-2), the encounters being of the same EL. If you stay within the range of CR >= EL - 7 and whatever the upper equivalent of that is, you get 50% more XP for bumping the CR of all foes by 1 or their numbers by 50%, and 100% more XP for bumping the CR by two or doubling the numbers. It's a useful rule of thumb to know.
I agree with the Black Bard. Be careful not to run into what I call the "Oblivion Problem," after the game Oblivion. Almost all the encounters, random or scripted, scale precisely to your level. This raises two issues: 1. Where in the world did these enemies come from all of a sudden? 2. Why bother leveling? It's not as bad in D&D, but in Oblivion, there can be times when you would rather not level because all it means is tougher monsters with no real increase in player power.
The world will feel much more internally consistent if you continue to use goblins and bugbears and such long into the mid-levels of the party; just up their numbers. Plus, the party will feel really bad-ass after taking on 25 hobgoblins in a day and winning, but by sheer numbers and attrition, you will still be providing a challenge. Additionally, you can craft more "heroic" adventures faster: if monsters always scale to party level, they're rarely going to be able to handle more than 6 a day. However, if the NPCs stay low level, then the party can take on a whole goblin fortress at 6th or 7th level, which will feel really cool to them.
My biggest complaint about the APs is both the strict heirarchy of EL appropriate challenges they stick to (or rather, EL >= party level, with the ">" being emphasized), and the speed at which they move. The party goes from Joe Schmoe Nobody to "ZOMG we can kill gods and save the world!" in about 2 years or less (more STAP due to that long sea voyage, but the problem remains). Unfortunately, in the AoW at least (haven't been keeping up as religiously with STAP and have never read SCAP), building in some down time to let the characters age just a bit isn't easy to do.
But I highly digress.
Thanks for all of the timely and detailed responses. So far your help has been valid one and all, and I think I know where I am going. Although I haven't DM-ed third edition so much, I have DM-ed for 20 odd years and I have to admit that this formulaic approach to EP and adventure design is quite a turn off for me.
I agree with the posters that have said that the world should have a greater level of believability and my players will recieve plot hooks and rumours of adventures that are clearly beyond their grasp from the earliest levels - they just need to learn not to explore them until they can deal.
But I did decide to give it a shot and see if I could write an adventure according to the rules, as opposed to how it seems most of us older gamers like to play.
I am not opposed to the rules, I see their logic and worth, but there is no denying that they are cumbersome.
Cheers
Ian
In terms of the believability. As an old school DM myself I agree with other posters who say that the formula should not always be adhered to. That said I have found that following it more often then not is usually a pretty good idea. Massive armies of low level enemies is a cool change of pace. Just don't overdue it as these encounters eat up game time like nobodies business and they grow stale very quickly. Harder encounters are not as bad because they are at least as exciting - but your players might well end up dead and then complain. The bottom line is to make sure that encounters that are too hard come with clues regarding that and ones that are too easy get tossed in only as change of pace. Most encounters should adhere pretty close to the formula as it provides the most exciting gaming and at the end of the day thats what everyone really wants - exciting gaming.