Is there a mechanic for evaluating challenge levels against groups that deviate from the standard 4 PC model?
For example, my regular gaming group is actually pretty irregular and weeks can go by before we can get everyone together in one place. However, I have a couple players with more flexible schedules that would like to play more often and I was looking at running a second campaign just for these two. However, because the challenge ratings and encounter levels are written from the assumption of four players, I’m not sure how to recognize a challenge appropriate for a half-sized group.
Any thoughts?
I run a game for 2 players (and a separate game for 6). We use the Gestalt rules for the 2 PC group (those rules can be found in Unearthed Arcana, or in the SRD), which lets them cover all the bases a bit better. We also give a more rapid feat and skill point progression (which the gestalt rules, as written, don't do), because otherwise a gestalt character really falls behind in both his roles.
If you do something like this, with gestalt rules, you can consider 2 gestalt PCs to be about equivalent to 4 PCs of one lower level, give or take.
If you just use the regular rules, 2 PCs are about the same as a group of 2 levels lower, and sometimes they're worse off.
BUT, it really isn't quite that simple. Save-or-die effects (including things like Hold Person or Suggestion to make on PC sit out a fight) are much more dangerous when used against a 2-PC party. Every so often, one of the PCs is going to fail that save, and then it's very difficult for the lone remaining PC to win the fight that was intended to challenge 2 PCs. It can take some trial and error to figure out what really works, but in general, here are my recommendations for the DM of a 2-PC group:
- Use more damage-dealing effects and fewer save-or-die effects
- Provide lots of extra healing stuff (potions, wands) in treasure
- Consider allowing each PC to have a trained Animal Companion (and make sure everyone understands the animals are supposed to receive magical treasure to ensure their survival) - this expands the number of "actions" each player provides during a combat round, greatly diminishing the risk of TPKs from single bad rolls.
One thing to keep in mind is how CR works with more opponents. If you double the number of foes, the CR increases by 2.
Let's say you have a party of 4 9th level characters, an appropriate challenge might be:
1 CR 9 creature
2 CR 7 creatures
4 CR 5 creatures
8 CR 3 creatures
You could probably be ok with:
3 CR 6 creatures
6 CR 4 creatures
as well though it is less clear if it works that way.
Why do I mention this, well it is easier to scale for irregular sized groups using a choice for more foes than for less. Take the number of foes a party of 4 PCs would fight and multiple it by the scaling factor (true party level / 4).
So for a party of 2 9th level PCs, an appropriate challenge might be:
1 CR 7 creature (2 * 2/4 = 1)
1 or 2 CR 6 creatures (3 * 2/4 = 1.5)
2 CR 5 creatures (4 * 2/4 = 2)
3 CR 4 creatures (6 * 2/4 = 3)
4 CR 3 creatures (8 * 2/4 = 4)
It works the other way as well. A party of 6 9th level PCs would have appropriate encounters of:
1 or 2 CR 9 creatures
2 CR 8 creatures
3 CR 7 creatures
4 or 5 CR 6 creatures
6 CR 5 creatures
9 CR 4 creatures
12 CR 3 creatures
|
Planning for a larger or smaller group of players is a delicate balancing act. If you put the CR too low, players get bored. Too high and PC's all die and players get upset. Not a good place to be stuck.
For a group of 2 PC's, I'd either give them the opportunity to play 2 characters each or cut the CR's roughly in half. If you have experienced players, consider going 2/3 CR. The bonus is that you don't need to place as many creatures with a party of 2, so CR's can be built with just one or two monsters. BBEG's also don't have to worry about getting swarmed (that's my problem -I've got 5-6 players).
As the game progresses, watch the PC's progress closely. If they are breezing through encounters, then bump up the CR a little. If they're struggling with every battle (some fights should be tough, but not all), then reduce the challenge accordingly. Don't be afraid to add non combat encounters like puzzels and RP opportunities; these sort of things don't require numbers so much as smarts and player ability. Pretty soon, you'll have fine tuned your encounter building skills to a point that you and your players will be satisfied.
Hope my mad ramblings are of use. Good luck!
All I do is handle the way that the npc's in an encounter fight or react.
Some times the monsters fight smart and sometimes they fight stupid. For
a creature with low intelligence or poor resources and no motivation they would run when they took damage. You dont have to give xp if you dont think that the players handled the encounter well. I find this method useful because with the right prep work a group of goblins can become
dangerous.
Is there a mechanic for evaluating challenge levels against groups that deviate from the standard 4 PC model?
For example, my regular gaming group is actually pretty irregular and weeks can go by before we can get everyone together in one place. However, I have a couple players with more flexible schedules that would like to play more often and I was looking at running a second campaign just for these two. However, because the challenge ratings and encounter levels are written from the assumption of four players, I’m not sure how to recognize a challenge appropriate for a half-sized group.
Any thoughts?
You can derive some sense of how to arrange encounters from the Encounter Level table in the DMG. For example, when I run for a group larger than four, I consider the party EL to be higher than normal; a group of six level 4 PCs has an effective party level of 5, so I can arrange encounters accordingly.
For a smaller group, you could do something similar; two PCs could be considered 2 levels behind their actual level for determining encounters.
One thing I've found, though, is that the individual monster CR seems to be more important than encounter level, with some additional emphasis on the number of creatures the PCs are facing. At some point, your monster CR is too high for the party to even think of handling, no matter how big the group. And, cannon fodder will have to start relying on tactics (such as aid another actions, battlefield control, etc) to bring a significant level of threat to the affair beyond just making it take longer to wipe them out.
Basically, as long as you keep CR of their enemies within the normal range for a party of 4, and keep an eye on the quantity as well as the party's abilities, you should be fine (IE, don't throw monsters at them with wicked high AC, or that requires a spellcaster in the group to defeat it).
My group is currently sitting at me and 2 players, so what I do is buttress them with a DM-played character and provide more opportunities for them to get help from NPCs. I encourage them to hire help, take Leadership, get animal companions, or other actions that will cover the things they're missing; then I slightly boost the treasure output to make sure they're compensated. Also, I make sure they have more chances to retreat, resupply, and rest.
I've found that with those preparations, I can design and run encounters intended for four players without too much trouble. If anything, the challenge is greater for the players, and it gives them more of the spotlight (which they enjoy).
We are adding an additional two players in the next few weeks, so we'll be at full (recommended) strength. But having DM'd a group of 5-7 people until recently, the change to far fewer players was actually quite fun.
All good advice and thanks for the ideas. Xellan said something, though, that I wanted to clarify:
...a group of six level 4 PCs has an effective party level of 5, so I can arrange encounters accordingly.
For a smaller group, you could do something similar; two PCs could be considered 2 levels behind their actual level for determining encounters.
Is that a solid rule? I can pretty much say two level 3 characters can face the same challenge as four level 1 characters? Two level 6s would face the same challenges a four level 4s?
What about starting out? What CR is appropriate for two level 1s?
What about starting out? What CR is appropriate for two level 1s?
1 CR 1/2 creature (most humanoids, some animals or vermin)
2 CR 1/4 creatures (kobolds, some animals or vermin)
All good advice and thanks for the ideas. Xellan said something, though, that I wanted to clarify:
snip...
Is that a solid rule? I can pretty much say two level 3 characters can face the same challenge as four level 1 characters? Two level 6s would face the same challenges a four level 4s?
What about starting out? What CR is appropriate for two level 1s?
It's not so much a rule as an extrapolation of a rule. For example, in the Encounter Level rules in the DMG, it's said that for each doubling of the number of monsters, the Encounter Level raises by +2. For each increase of fifty percent, it's +1... So, if you have 1 CR 1 monster, the EL is 1. For two, it's about an EL of 3 (1 + 2 for a 'doubling). Add another two (doubling again to 4 CR 1 beings) and it becomes 5, or if you only add 1 (for a total of 3 CR 1s) you get an EL of 4.
I applied the same logic to the PCs. So if I have a standard party of 4, things are as they seem. For each doubling of their number (8, for example) it's +2 to the effective party level. For each increase of fifty percent, it's +1. So 4 L4 PCs would be a party level of 4. 6 would be party level 5, 8 would be PL 6, 12 would be 7, while (heaven forbid you have this many PCs) 16 PCs would be PL 8.
By the same token, each 'halving' of the party number /could/ be -2 to the effective party level. So 2 level 4 PCs would be a party level of 2.
In practice, I found this system to be somewhat constraining, but a good start when I was working with numbers outside the standard party roster. As I mentioned above, I found through trial and error that individual monster CR and the capabilities of the party were a much bigger factor in determining how challenging the encounter ended up being.
EDIT: As for starting out, I'd suggest again looking to their capabilities. Area effect spells, feats such as two weapon fighting and cleave, and what they're up against will make for a big impact on how they do.
As a general rule, I'd use no more than six creatures of CR 1/4 or 1/3, 4 of CR 1/2, two of CR 1, or 1 of CR 2+ on a starting party.
My formula is:
The average encounter level (EL) for a party of four characters should equal their average party level. For example, if you have a party of four 6th-level characters fighting one wyvern (CR 6), your EL is 6, which is on target with most encounters in most scenarios.
However, if you have less than--or more than--four characters, you should adjust accordingly:
If you reduce the number of characters in a party of four, add an equal number to the EL. Thus, a party of three 6th-level characters fighting one wyvern (CR 6) would be have an EL of 7. It should be mentioned that experience is calculated based on the Challenge Rating (CR) of the creature not it's EL. For parties of greater than four, subtract the appropriate number from the EL.
The formula is not absolutely perfect, but has been tested with groups of 3-6 players, and found to be relatively successful. I suspect it will work with two players--or even one--without much difficulty.
For gestalt groups, you should assume that a party of gestalt characters has one additional character for purposes of this formula. Thus, if three 6th-level gestalt characters were fighting the same wyvern (CR 6), the EL should only be considered 6, even though there are only three characters.
Thanks, fellas. That's just the groundwork I needed. Thanks for doing all that thinking for me.
If I'm understanding this right, I should be able to run these two characters through modules targetted at their APL-2, with good pointers on things to watch out for that break that assumption (save or die, fer instance).
I generally agree with the math posted on this thread but I think Cintra makes some strong points in regards to actual issues at the table. If you have six characters - even if they are a few levels back the danger of 1 effect crippling the entire party is reduced. Simply put there is significantly less probability of a few bad die rolls TPKing the entire party because its hard to catch the entire party with a single action. Even if you do lots of players are rolling saves and what not and more of them will probably make their rolls. The chances of 6 players all having saves come up in the 1-4 range is nearly infantismal while the chances of two players both rolling saves in the 1-4 range is just improbable. Eventually it will happen.
I'd suggest starting the characters out a little high in terms of level for the adventures at hand. The XP system will help to balance this out somewhat. But beyond that I would look to give them other advantages such as a high point buy, Gesault characters, Cohorts etc. Finally I'd do something to give them get out of jail free cards. Essentially something that can explain why it is they get to still be alive even though they both went down against that prismatic spray spell.
RPG Superstar 2013 Top 32
|
Is there a mechanic for evaluating challenge levels against groups that deviate from the standard 4 PC model?
This takes care of all the work for you.
Sorry I didn't see this thread sooner. :(