|
The way to calculate xp for monsters, and the related way of building encounters, has changed across the editions. I want to set the methods out for comparison in case there is some "better" way of doing it for Pathfinder.
Original-BECMI-1st-2nd
Strong Points
All of these used the same basic method. Monsters had a set xp value, they were grouped in levels according to a range of xp values, and the DM was expected to modify the xp awarded per monster based on the relative level of the monster to the PCs.
Some parts of this were modified through these systems. Monster Level was not originally well defined, and xp went from a base number plus a bonus for each hit point to a static number.
Flaws:
There was no standard for determining how to modify xp by party level.
There was no standard for how many monsters to use in an encounter.
Monster levels did not equal the number of character levels, making it difficult to adjust for higher level parties.
3E-3.5
Strong Points
This edition tried to answer the two flaws of the previous system. It had a table for xp cross-referenced by monster level and player level, it had a table for creating encounters based on monster level, and it had monsters of all levels (CR) equal to PC levels and beyond.
Unfortunately it created its own problems.
Flaws:
No differentiation in monsters of a particular level/CR.
Solo fights as the standard encounter.
A severe disconnect between characters as NPCs or PCs in power level.
4E
Strong Points
Although somewhat theoretical still, the essentials of this have appeared in previews and been picked up from random comments.
Again, the focus is on fixing the flaws of the previous system. Encounters now assume group fights, NPCs are radically different from PCs in how they interact as monsters, and four "types" of monster within each level have been created to establish some difference between them, and it removed the somewhat difficult to use xp table.
Again though, as it fixed problems it created new ones.
Flaws:
In eliminating the xp table, it establishes that monsters are worth the same xp no matter what level party fights them.
From that, by keeping xp so close, it establishes that monsters of different levels may well be worth the same xp. The most extreme example of this would be in a Level 5 encounter where a 1st level standard monster is worth 100 xp just like a 9th level minion. Because of the rules for minions, those two are significantly different threats simple because a 1st level standard monster will not take one hit to kill.
It remains to be seen how the NPC rules differ. From the previews so far it looks like they will be losing a lot of their flavor by being reduced in power to "monster" level.
Pathfinder
Strong Points
So far the Beta has a system to address solo fights and NPC/PC power disparity. That leaves figuring out a way to address differences in monster power within a CR.
More critically, it means finding a way to avoid introducing any flaws into the system the way each previous iteration has managed to in its attempt to fix the obvious flaws.
Is there anything I missed?
In my opinion, the Pathfinder table gives too much experience for large numbers of weak enemies. E.g. for a level 9 party, an encounter with 16 grimlocks should not be worth the same amount of experience as an encounter with a vrock or a frost giant.
The AD&D method at least had some weasel words about not giving XP for an unchallenging encounter, but Pathfinder merely lists an XP amount for APL-8 encounters.
|
|
In my opinion, the Pathfinder table gives too much experience for large numbers of weak enemies. E.g. for a level 9 party, an encounter with 16 grimlocks should not be worth the same amount of experience as an encounter with a vrock or a frost giant.
That's because the 3E forgot some rules. 16 grimlocks get to use a lot of tactics a frost giant can't.. like 4 monsters getting flanking on 1 PC.
The DM could also have the enough grimlocks attack 1 PC so they get that gang up or horde or whatever that bonus is (called) when it's many vs 1.
That's because the 3E forgot some rules. 16 grimlocks get to use a lot of tactics a frost giant can't.. like 4 monsters getting flanking on 1 PC.The DM could also have the enough grimlocks attack 1 PC so they get that gang up or horde or whatever that bonus is (called) when it's many vs 1.
Why don't you try running some playtests of 16 grimlocks vs. 4-5 level 9 PCs and let us know the results? My experience is that the grimlocks will have no chance, even if they use tactics like grappling, disarming, flanking, etc.
|
|
I don't need to, last summer I played in a horde adventure. PCs trapped in a frontier outpost against something like 800 orcs. The majority of the orcs were default orcs and if they didn't die on the first swing, they died on the second. The point is, they can still present a challenge if the DM makes a clever encounter.
I don't need to, last summer I played in a horde adventure. PCs trapped in a frontier outpost against something like 800 orcs. The majority of the orcs were default orcs and if they didn't die on the first swing, they died on the second. The point is, they can still present a challenge if the DM makes a clever encounter.
If you read through the comments on the "Age of Worms" adventure path, "Encounter at Blackwall Keep" was generally found to be very easy. The hordes of lizardfolk that you're supposed to fight just don't pose much of a challenge because:
- They have poor attack bonuses.
- Even if they manage to hit, they do poor damage.
- They have poor saves.
- They can't do much against flying enemies.
- They can't do much against invisible enemies.
- Their low hit points make them easy pickings for area effect attacks.
Now I know you can make low level enemies more dangerous by setting traps, using unusual terrain features, etc. but in a straight-up fight a gang of creatures with challenge ratings 8 levels below the party's APL is just outmatched. I'd be interested in seeing evidence to the contrary, though.