I generally like the new encounter guidelines, but I think that table 12-2 (CR Equivalencies for multiple creatures) should bottom out sooner than "16x creatures of CR N = 1 creature of CR N+8". I'd say anything below APL-6 is not really challenging (even in large numbers).
Director of Games
|
16 creatures is the extreme end of the scale, and generally speaking, they do not scale well. But, if it were 16 wolves in an encounter with a frost giant, that might be a bit more balanced, as the wolves serve to clog up the combat and consume resources while the giant bangs away at the PCs.
The point here is of course, that we need to add some advice to balance out these rules.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2008 Top 6
|
I generally like the new encounter guidelines, but I think that table 12-2 (CR Equivalencies for multiple creatures) should bottom out sooner than "16x creatures of CR N = 1 creature of CR N+8". I'd say anything below APL-6 is not really challenging (even in large numbers).
That's really more of an "it depends". 16 lantern archons (CR 2) are still a threat at level 9, and 16 bodaks (CR 8) are definitely rough at level 15. Generally, you need more than just melee abilities to be a threat at higher CR/level gaps.
16 creatures is the extreme end of the scale, and generally speaking, they do not scale well. But, if it were 16 wolves in an encounter with a frost giant, that might be a bit more balanced, as the wolves serve to clog up the combat and consume resources while the giant bangs away at the PCs.
The point here is of course, that we need to add some advice to balance out these rules.
Well, there is a piece of advice on this issue:
"Challenges that have a CR of 10 or less than the APL do not award any experience points."I'm just saying that APL-10 is setting the bar too low (IMO).
|
While 16 wolves are not the equal of a frost giant, the threat they pose can be worth the same xp.
I am seeing this regularly in my current campaign where the extra bodies have a very significant effect on the combat as a whole. Occupying space, providing flanks, or throwing out a mass of low save effects all contribute, even if the individual creatures do not equal a bigger creature.
More importantly, certain solo critters are simply not appropriate at certain levels. A frost giant would be dangerously overpowered at APL 6, while a large wolf pack would not be, and would serve a different purpose.
As for APL -10, I have been using APL -8 grunts for some time, and they have still been relevant.
While 16 wolves are not the equal of a frost giant, the threat they pose can be worth the same xp.
Not in my experience.
There was a thread on this website about the module "Encounter at Blackwall Keep" from the "Age of Worms" adventure path. Without getting into spoilers, it involved a bunch of low CR encounters and it seemed that the majority view was that a bunch of low CR encounters are generally too easy and too boring.
I am seeing this regularly in my current campaign where the extra bodies have a very significant effect on the combat as a whole. Occupying space, providing flanks, or throwing out a mass of low save effects all contribute, even if the individual creatures do not equal a bigger creature.
While some of those are non-trivial (e.g. flanking modifiers for the "real" enemy), that still doesn't mean that "16 peons = 1 boss" or "16 peons + 1 boss" = "2 bosses", which is the point I'm trying to get at.
More importantly, certain solo critters are simply not appropriate at certain levels. A frost giant would be dangerously overpowered at APL 6, while a large wolf pack would not be, and would serve a different purpose.
O.K., now I'm confused -- it looks like you're agreeing with me that a frost giant is "overpowered" compared to a large wolf pack!
As for APL -10, I have been using APL -8 grunts for some time, and they have still been relevant.
"Relevant" is not the same thing as "worth exactly the same XP as something much, much more powerful". A frost giant with a terrain advantage is more powerful than a frost giant with no terrain advantage, but that doesn't mean that the terrain is a CR 9 obstacle by itself...
I don't know.. you can run away from the Frost Giant...
In general, I'm not worried about the xp. The xp value for a CR 1 wolf becomes insignificant next to what you need to level. There will be examples of groups of creatures that simply aren't a threat to a party, and there will be examples of groups that are.
16 Wolves vs. 9th level party? Not much of a threat. 16 Wizard 2's vs. 9th level party? There's a threat.
- Majuba, who will have to run a "Giant vs. Wolves" combat tonight, just for the heck of it.
|
|
Not in my experience.
It has in mine.
There was a thread on this website about the module "Encounter at Blackwall Keep" from the "Age of Worms" adventure path. Without getting into spoilers, it involved a bunch of low CR encounters and it seemed that the majority view was that a bunch of low CR encounters are generally too easy and too boring.
The converse of course is encounters using creatures with high a CR that are too randomly lethal and too destructive to campaign and group stability. I have seen that done to death in Living Greyhawk adventures.
While some of those are non-trivial (e.g. flanking modifiers for the "real" enemy), that still doesn't mean that "16 peons = 1 boss" or "16 peons + 1 boss" = "2 bosses", which is the point I'm trying to get at.
Yes, I understand that.
And it depends.O.K., now I'm confused -- it looks like you're agreeing with me that a frost giant is "overpowered" compared to a large wolf pack!
At certain APLs.
Some critters are more dangerous as solo monsters.
Some critters are more dangerous as pack monsters.
Some critters are more dangerous as combo monsters.
Some solo critters are more dangerous at APL X.
Some pack critters are more dangerous at APL Y.
Some combo critters are more dangerous at APL Z.
As a specific case, for an APL 6 party if I want an APL +3 encounter, I will consider 16 wolves well before I will consider 1 frost giant. Conversely for an APL 9 party if I want an APL +0 encounter I will consider 1 frost giant before I consider 16 wolves. For an APL 8 or 9 party for an APL +1 or +2 encounter, either could be suitable.
Or, to get a better grasp on it, let us consider an APL +3 encounter for 1st level PCs. We can have:
3 gnolls
2 bugbears
1 ogre and 1 gnoll
1 minotaur
Those encounters are NOT all equal to a 1st level party.
Now consider them for a 2nd level party.
Then for a 3rd level party.
Finally for a 4th level party.
The relative challenge changes for each group each time solely dependent on the level of the party, and not on the base CR of the encounter.
Then bump the whole thing up to EL 5 and use a troll and watch the challenge change wildly based solely on party level.
"Relevant" is not the same thing as "worth exactly the same XP as something much, much more powerful". A frost giant with a terrain advantage is more powerful than a frost giant with no terrain advantage, but that doesn't mean that the terrain is a CR 9 obstacle by itself...
Given that terrain can and should modify the EL of an encounter all by itself, it means that it is in fact a CR 8 obstacle all by itself in that case. Again, I have seen the destructive effects of that in Living Greyhawk way too many times.
Some critters are more dangerous as solo monsters.
Some critters are more dangerous as pack monsters.
Some critters are more dangerous as combo monsters.
Some solo critters are more dangerous at APL X.
Some pack critters are more dangerous at APL Y.
Some combo critters are more dangerous at APL Z.
I think we're actually in agreement on the issue -- the challenge a certain encounter poses depends a lot on circumstances and a strict numerical formula like "16 x (N-8) = N" is misleading. I still think that saying that a group of 16 very weak opponents by themselves, all other things being equal are as challenging as one much stronger opponent is not true unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances.
|
|
I think we're actually in agreement on the issue -- the challenge a certain encounter poses depends a lot on circumstances and a strict numerical formula like "16 x (N-8) = N" is misleading. I still think that saying that a group of 16 very weak opponents by themselves, all other things being equal are as challenging as one much stronger opponent is not true unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances.
Err . . .
Yes, but?
The problem is, there is no way to really "fix" this other than be a series of extremely complex and thoroughly baffling tables and rules.
1st ed handwaved it with a general concept of modifying xp based on the level of the critter factored by the level of the PCs.
3E gave us that fun table with separate xp values per CR by level of party.
4E divided up the monsters by use-threat (minion-standard-elite-solo), but standardized xp values across all party levels as well as standardized xp advancement by monster level, and created even worse examples of the non-comparability of challenge across monster level that you are raising here.
PFRPG is, based on Jason's previous post, going with standard xp values across all levels, defaulting back to 1st ed and DM judgement for balance.
Simply, none of them work, and none of them will work, without "system mastery" on the part of the DM to balance the subjective effects by creature level, creature role, party level, and circumstances. The only way to do that reasonably would be some high function computer program to consider multiple factors, including specific party composition.
So yes, you are right about your complaint.
This remains one of the better kludges available, so I am satisfied with it. I am glad to see Jason is planning to address it in the text with additional advice.
(Edited to account for definitive statements of intent from Jason.)
I don't know that it doesn't always work, though. I had approximately appropriate effects by throwing a stack of 8 insectile kobolds of CR1 (tremorsense, climb speed, higher AC) against a party of 6 level 7 characters this weekend. If they were flatter monsters, and capable of less diverse tactics (they could use parts of the room, ceiling, walls, etc.) then they certainly wouldn't have been even an easy CR7 encounter for the party. But they burned a few rounds exactly the way I planned, and let the casters have fun with some spells. This would not have worked if the 6 person party was APL 9 or 10, and I increased the bodies "*appropriately". It may have worked if the APL of 9 or 10 was through having 8 or 10 players, though.
That is more a function of a wolf, or any CR1 critter, not scaling except in certain situations, where the 50ft of movement is relevant tactically, and flanking/aid anothers, leading into trips, are possible for the monsters, to turn that +3 to hit into something that can hit a APL9 or APL10 character. Otherwise, the only way that such a creature can be a problem for a level 9 or 10 character is by acting as a flanker/aid another bot.
Perhaps there should be a note on this, since it seems that, if I had a 4 person party, at 8th level, they would have likely been able to render the insectile kobolds into paste without losing the handful of hitpoints, crossbow bolts, and spell slots that they had to.
|
(Reposted from another thread)
Encounter Design works all right for "mixed" monsters and parties with "mixed" levels, but there's one major flaw in it (or maybe I've just mixed things up really badly):
If you create an APL+0 encounter with all PCs being the same level, the end result with your budget is... a *SINGLE* monster, *regardless* of the number of PCs.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Let's say that I have a group of five 4th level PCs, and I wish to pit them against gargoyles in an APL+0 encounter. That's 5*4 / 5 = 4. Looking up CR 4, I see that that I can use a *single* gargoyle against them. Um...
Alright, let's say that there are NINE 4th level PCs instead of five. That's 9 * 4 /9 = 4. Again, a *SINGLE* gargoyle against NINE PCs.
Apparently this only happens with APL+0 and only if the everyone is the same level and APL matches the CR of the monster you've intended to use (i.e. 4th level PCs against CR 4 gargoyles).
|
Director of Games
|
(Reposted from another thread)
Encounter Design works all right for "mixed" monsters and parties with "mixed" levels, but there's one major flaw in it (or maybe I've just mixed things up really badly):
If you create an APL+0 encounter with all PCs being the same level, the end result with your budget is... a *SINGLE* monster, *regardless* of the number of PCs.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Let's say that I have a group of five 4th level PCs, and I wish to pit them against gargoyles in an APL+0 encounter. That's 5*4 / 5 = 4. Looking up CR 4, I see that that I can use a *single* gargoyle against them. Um...
Alright, let's say that there are NINE 4th level PCs instead of five. That's 9 * 4 /9 = 4. Again, a *SINGLE* gargoyle against NINE PCs.
Apparently this only happens with APL+0 and only if the everyone is the same level and APL matches the CR of the monster you've intended to use (i.e. 4th level PCs against CR 4 gargoyles).
Remember that you add one to the APL if the group contains 6 or more players, meaning that you should actually be throwing 1,600 XP worth of monsters at them. It is not 2 gargoyles, but it does give you room for another CR 1 or 2 monster, roughly.
Although with 9 PCs, I would probably bump the group up 2 levels. As I have said many times, encounter design is part art and part science. We've got some science in the rules, but not enough art.. I think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
|
|
(Reposted from another thread)
Encounter Design works all right for "mixed" monsters and parties with "mixed" levels, but there's one major flaw in it (or maybe I've just mixed things up really badly):
If you create an APL+0 encounter with all PCs being the same level, the end result with your budget is... a *SINGLE* monster, *regardless* of the number of PCs.
FOR EXAMPLE:
Let's say that I have a group of five 4th level PCs, and I wish to pit them against gargoyles in an APL+0 encounter. That's 5*4 / 5 = 4. Looking up CR 4, I see that that I can use a *single* gargoyle against them. Um...
Alright, let's say that there are NINE 4th level PCs instead of five. That's 9 * 4 /9 = 4. Again, a *SINGLE* gargoyle against NINE PCs.
Apparently this only happens with APL+0 and only if the everyone is the same level and APL matches the CR of the monster you've intended to use (i.e. 4th level PCs against CR 4 gargoyles).
Remember that you add one to the APL if the group contains 6 or more players, meaning that you should actually be throwing 1,600 XP worth of monsters at them. It is not 2 gargoyles, but it does give you room for another CR 1 or 2 monster, roughly.
Although with 9 PCs, I would probably bump the group up 2 levels. As I have said many times, encounter design is part art and part science. We've got some science in the rules, but not enough art.. I think.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
It's a good start, though -- I like the "base system", and this was the only time I actually thought there was anything "odd" about it (those five PCs would probably absolutely murder a single gargoyle). And, you're correct -- I forgot to treat 6+ players as an APL+1 encounter (maybe it could be even more, i.e. 1-3 = APL, 4-5 = APL+1, 6-7 = APL+2, 8+=APL+3).
I think we're actually in agreement on the issue -- the challenge a certain encounter poses depends a lot on circumstances and a strict numerical formula like "16 x (N-8) = N" is misleading. I still think that saying that a group of 16 very weak opponents by themselves, all other things being equal are as challenging as one much stronger opponent is not true unless there are some serious extenuating circumstances.Err . . .
Yes, but?
The problem is, there is no way to really "fix" this other than be a series of extremely complex and thoroughly baffling tables and rules.
My proposal (off the top of my head):
"Usually creatures with a challenge rating of 7 or more levels below the average party level do not add to the overall challenge of an encounter, but when combined with other creatures in a mixed group they could increase the challenge rating by one or two levels at the GM's discretion."
Not complex or baffling at all. Really, all that it would take to make me happy would be to crib that famous line from the AD&D DMG (and I paraphrase): "An encounter that doesn't challenge the PCs is worth no experience points."
|
|
My proposal (off the top of my head):
"Usually creatures with a challenge rating of 7 or more levels below the average party level do not add to the overall challenge of an encounter, but when combined with other creatures in a mixed group they could increase the challenge rating by one or two levels at the GM's discretion."
The biggest problem with that is one of the most innocuous solo monsters in existence - the shocker lizard.
Not complex or baffling at all. Really, all that it would take to make me happy would be to crib that famous line from the AD&D DMG (and I paraphrase): "An encounter that doesn't challenge the PCs is worth no experience points."
That would be nice too.
And to make matters worse, the stat block itself may not even be what changes the encounter.
A large group of, say, Human Wizard1s may be nothing special.
Give those Human Wizards Dual Wand Wielder and wands of Enervation, though...
But that's another problem with CR entirely. It fails to account for variance in monster equipment, from the magical to the mundane.
-Matt
Give those Human Wizards Dual Wand Wielder and wands of Enervation, though...
But that's another problem with CR entirely. It fails to account for variance in monster equipment, from the magical to the mundane.
While this is a good point in general, a bunch of Wiz1's couldn't afford a single wand with a single charge, let alone two wands full of them. The CR for that treasure would be included in whomever provided it.
- Majuba, who will have to run a "Giant vs. Wolves" combat tonight, just for the heck of it.
Results of the Giant vs. Wolves:
Details:Scenario 1: - random meeting - distance 160'. Wolves win initiative and move in 100'. Giant throws but botches, drops to knees (house rule for fumbles where "drop weapon" makes no sense).
Wolves charge up - 5 get to attack, 3 hit, 1 Paizo trips the giant.
Giant stands, is hit heavily from AOOs. Botches *again*, but doesn't drop axe.
12 attacks, some hits, another Paizo trips the giant.
Giant stands, is hit from AOOs, kills one wolf. Down about 71 (of 133).
12 attacks, some hits, no trip.
Giant great cleaves through only 2 before botching.
12 attacks, some hits, no trip. Down about 97.
Giant great cleaves through all but 2. They hit, no trip, and he kills them.
End: 16 dead wolves, Giant down 105 hp of 133.
Scenario 2: Giant hunting wolves - 200' up a hill from wolf pack, throws rocks - kills two.
Wolves charge, 2-3 hits, no trip. Giant botches attack after 2 wolves.
12 attacks, some hits, no trip. Giant great cleaves all of them.
End: 16 dead wolves, Giant down 35 hp of 133.
Scenario 3: Wolves hunting giant - surprise round with 8 initial attacks.
4th wolf Paizo's and trips the giant, 4 charging, flanking wolves need only 10's to hit.
Giant stands, many hits from AOOs. Kills one wolf.
12 attacks, hits, Paizo trips the giant.
Giant stands, takes hits - down 105. Kills one wolf.
12 attacks, hits, no trip. Giant great cleaves and kills all 12.
2 wolves charge, misses. Giant kills.
End: 16 dead wolves, Giant down 123 hp of 133.
Summary: Wolves got fairly luck in first scenario, a little lucky in third. 16 Wolves =/= Frost Giant - but I wouldn't want to deal with them personally.
The biggest problem with that is one of the most innocuous solo monsters in existence - the shocker lizard.My proposal (off the top of my head):
"Usually creatures with a challenge rating of 7 or more levels below the average party level do not add to the overall challenge of an encounter, but when combined with other creatures in a mixed group they could increase the challenge rating by one or two levels at the GM's discretion."
I would've used the spider swarm as an example of a problem CR 1 monster. Swarms are my least favourite creatures of all time...
|
|
I would've used the spider swarm as an example of a problem CR 1 monster. Swarms are my least favourite creatures of all time...
Swarms are very prep-swingy.
A party with a few flasks of alchemist's fire each, or a burning hands spell or two, is set.Also, diminutive and fine swarms that are immune to all weapon damage are disproportionately lethal compared to tiny swarms.
The only good thing you can say about swams is that they are not mobs.
proposed keywords
I think the chess metaphor is stylish, but I think an even more robust keyword system might be called for. That said, I really, really like this idea.
proposed keywordsI think the chess metaphor is stylish, but I think an even more robust keyword system might be called for. That said, I really, really like this idea.
Unfortunately, it starts mirroring Brute, Skirmisher, Artillery, etc a bit too much to be comfortable.
Not saying it's a bad idea; I would just hope it doesn't end up mirroring 4E.
-Matt
proposed keywordsI think the chess metaphor is stylish, but I think an even more robust keyword system might be called for. That said, I really, really like this idea.Unfortunately, it starts mirroring Brute, Skirmisher, Artillery, etc a bit too much to be comfortable.
Not saying it's a bad idea; I would just hope it doesn't end up mirroring 4E.
-Matt
We end up walking that line again... do we avoid copying 4e to the point of discarding otherwise good rules? I don't see how CR can be fixed while keeping it a single number rating. Adding qualifiers of any verbose type could be compared to the 4e method, but then again it needn't be modeled after MMOs. And I'm pretty sure the players would veto it if it got too close to 4e...
But there is a reason we ended up with such titles in 4e. It is a great way to make a measure of challenge that is truly useful to the GM.
Once the giant was down why didn't half the wolves aid one to grapple it while the rest kept biting it to death? If you've ever seen wolves hunt (on TV or otherwise) you know they're more that capable of working together like this.
I do think it would be good to have some keywords in CR that inform where the creature's strengths lie.
I understand the Mr. Bulmahn wishes to keep it simple by offering more support on the "fuzzy logic" of encounter building. The Paizo staff (particularly Jame Jacobs and Jason Bulmahn) have revealed on the forum an intimate knowledge of the roles that different monsters and classes play, to the point of informally giving them names based on how they see the monster fitting into an encounter. The rulebook should share that knowledge and show us at a glance which roles (sometimes more than one) a monster excels at.
My proposal is, do both. Beef up the encounter building advice, but also give keywords for certain types of threats likely to change. Not like 4e, there should be plenty of keywords and they should be able to overlap — and they should be ultimately there to advise not GM-by-numbers.
The encounter building guidelines should be accompanied by the points earlier in this thread: some parties fair better against some kinds of threats. Other parties may be see certain types of threats rapidly diminish or increase based on their own abilities.
I think we need more Keywords than rumere is proposing (though I give him points for style). In fact, dispensing with the (awesome) titles and just including the info he uses for the above breakdown could be a start. So rather than a "rook" we could simply say: Strong Melee, weak ranged, weak magic. In plain english, this gives us some idea of the kind of party which will be challenged by this creature alone, and some notion of the kind of creature we should seek out to reinforce this one's natural talents.
And to make matters worse, the stat block itself may not even be what changes the encounter.
A large group of, say, Human Wizard1s may be nothing special.
Give those Human Wizards Dual Wand Wielder and wands of Enervation, though...
But that's another problem with CR entirely. It fails to account for variance in monster equipment, from the magical to the mundane.
-Matt
Tactics too. Hogarth mentioned Encounter at Blackwall Keep. The encounter in question was with lizardfolk. When I ran the adventure, I had the lizardfolk fight tactically. They would flank and use aid another actions. The PCs quickly realized these guys were well led and trained, which made them dangerous. They would fall back and regroup if injured and worked to seperate the PCs. As a result the fight was not a cake walk and the PCs had to make sure they did not get surrounded where they could be grappled and pinned (which they tried against one character).
A good use of tactics can make an encounter more challenging, even when facing low CR opponents.
I do think it would be good to have some keywords in CR that inform where the creature's strengths lie.
May I recommend:
- Characters
- Glass Jaws and Sucker Punchers, a.k.a. Suckers
- Puzzle Monsters
- Awesome Because It's Awesome, a.k.a. Player Killers
- WTF
:-)
I do think it would be good to have some keywords in CR that inform where the creature's strengths lie.
May I recommend:
- Characters
- Glass Jaws and Sucker Punchers, a.k.a. Suckers
- Puzzle Monsters
- Awesome Because It's Awesome, a.k.a. Player Killers
- WTF
:-)
:D
Results of the Giant vs. Wolves:Interesting. I like the use of Trip.
I run a lot of mixed-bag and mass-of-mooks encounters for my higher-level PCs and they always find them challenging. The key is the use of Aid Another, Readied Actions, Grapple and Trip and other Special Attacks and so forth. These are all things that low-level folks would do in a real fight, ganging up and working together to bring down a larger foe.
Let's not forget that wolves are pack hunters ...
Thanks Rez, though the trip is simply the auto-trip that wolves attempt when they bite. I might have gotten a bit more synergy with something along the lines of single wolves running in for trips (one dying per round to attack of opportunity), and the rest charging in only when he falls, take the AOOs when he gets up, then flee after his one attack if they all fail to drop him on the next round.
Aid another is nice, but actually they hit regularly on a 16 (Frost Giant AC isn't that high) while flanking, so it wasn't cost effective.
Wolves with Spring attack now... hmm.
Once the giant was down why didn't half the wolves aid one to grapple it while the rest kept biting it to death? If you've ever seen wolves hunt (on TV or otherwise) you know they're more that capable of working together like this.
Hmm, interesting idea. However, I think even if *every* wolf did aid another it would still fail over 50% for each grapple check (and aid another only works for one check) - the Frost Giant has a CMD of 36 (the wolves had to roll a 34 with their +2). 11 +2's (since only 12 can fit around) makes them need a 12.
Let's face it... the more distance there is between PCs abilities and monster abilities, the less sheer numbers can compensate. You rapidly get into the "must roll a 20 to hit" area, which coincides with "will always fail a save vs the PCs spells" area. One fireball, and the 16 wolves drop. So. Clumsy attempt at an idea. What if we did something like this for encounter rating...
For every three "steps" of difference between APL and the CR of an enemy in an encounter, the effective CR of that enemy is reduced by one "step".
To illustrate, imagine a typical party of four PCs at 10th level. Pit them against a single CR8, CR9, or CR10 challenge and that creature remains CR8, 9, or 10 respectively. Now throw in a CR7 support creature. Because that creature is three lower than APL, it is calculated, treated, and rewarded as if it were a CR6 creature. Even if you add a second CR7, you treat the encounter as if it were a CR10 and a pair of CR6s when handing out XP.
Go one step further. Add a pair of CR4 challenges to this same encounter. Technically you're putting a CR10, two CR7s and two CR4s on the battlemat. Instead, you treat the encounter as a CR10, two CR6s and a pair of CR2s.
Just an idea.
My thought is that any kind of key word system is bound to end up being very difficult to keep consistent.
My thought is a simple " + " or " - " symbol after the CR in cases where the the encounter would be especially difficult for lower level parties or especially easy for higher level parties.
I think a great example would be a creature like a tendriculos. A tendriculos is a CR 6 plant that uses ambush and improved grab/ swallow whole (with paralysis thrown in.) Against a 4th or 5th level party, the first person hit is almost guaranteed to die inside the plant before the rest of the group can take the thing down. At higher levels it is fine for its CR. I would consider it a "CR 6+" creature.
Disclaimer: I was the player of that 5th level character that got dissolved. It gave me Stockholm Syndrome about plants, the the replacement character had the plant domain as a result.
PS I think a 4th level party with a couple of grease spells and rays of enfeeblement could take down a Frost Giant without much chance of death.
|
RPG Superstar 2008 Top 32, 2011 Top 16
|
I think the CR system is fine, but the CRs need to be better. One way to do this would be going back to 2E, and using something similar to the XP calculator from that edition, which had lots of detailed tables, which included things like flying +1HD, energy drain +2HD, can do more than 50 hp in a round +1HD, etc. If you have guidelines like that (changing the HD to CR) then you might better quantify the CRs in the first place.
I'd prefer this over keywords.
Results of the Giant vs. Wolves:Interesting. I like the use of Trip.
I run a lot of mixed-bag and mass-of-mooks encounters for my higher-level PCs and they always find them challenging. The key is the use of Aid Another, Readied Actions, Grapple and Trip and other Special Attacks and so forth. These are all things that low-level folks would do in a real fight, ganging up and working together to bring down a larger foe.
Let's not forget that wolves are pack hunters ...
Thanks Rez, though the trip is simply the auto-trip that wolves attempt when they bite. I might have gotten a bit more synergy with something along the lines of single wolves running in for trips (one dying per round to attack of opportunity), and the rest charging in only when he falls, take the AOOs when he gets up, then flee after his one attack if they all fail to drop him on the next round.
Aid another is nice, but actually they hit regularly on a 16 (Frost Giant AC isn't that high) while flanking, so it wasn't cost effective.
Wolves with Spring attack now... hmm.
Once the giant was down why didn't half the wolves aid one to grapple it while the rest kept biting it to death? If you've ever seen wolves hunt (on TV or otherwise) you know they're more that capable of working together like this.Hmm, interesting idea. However, I think even if *every* wolf did aid another it would still fail over 50% for each grapple check (and aid another only works for one check) - the Frost Giant has a CMD of 36 (the wolves had to roll a 34 with their +2). 11 +2's (since only 12 can fit around) makes them need a 12.
However, while he's grappling he's denied his Dex bonus which is helpful to the attacking wolves. And he must waste a round with the grapple...which helps the attacking wolves.
Semantics, I know. But I just can't get the image out of my head.
I have always strongly believed that intelligent encounter design is a lot more than just looking at the numbers. That said, the numbers are there to work as a baseline. This is something I hope to make a bit more clear in the rules.
16 wolves vs 4 adventures.
4 wolves per adventurer.
wolves get 4 attacks hit +5 (3+2(flanking) that when hit get a free tri.
if one wolf trips they all get attacks of opportunity when you get up. which could cause another trip.
All the adventures are being attacked.one frost giant vs 4 adventures.
4 adventures per frost giant.
frost giant gets two hits at +18. no trip no attacks of opportunity.
one or two adventures are getting attacked the frost giant is getting hit by all four adventures.this is just a simple run down. A good gm can really play up a wolf pack if the wolves have a hard time hitting the start aiding each other giving one wolf a +2 per aid. Get one adventure down then attack of opportunity.
For every three "steps" of difference between APL and the CR of an enemy in an encounter, the effective CR of that enemy is reduced by one "step".
This is an interesting and reasonable idea, that hits just about the right level of adjustment needed. It results in a total of a 10% difference in the first case, and a 15% difference in the second case. I just don't think it's needed.
Stuff
I don't think this is needed either - we already have this information codified in the "Organization" entries of monsters, telling just how they are typically encountered.
I think the CR system is fine, but the CRs need to be better. One way to do this would be going back to 2E, and using something similar to the XP calculator from that edition, which had lots of detailed tables, which included things like flying +1HD, energy drain +2HD, can do more than 50 hp in a round +1HD, etc. If you have guidelines like that (changing the HD to CR) then you might better quantify the CRs in the first place.
I'd prefer this over keywords.
The problem with identifying specific abilities that grant bonuses is that they present different challenges at different levels (fly really hard at low level, much easier at high level). As for the rest - that's pretty well listed out in the chart that lists the different hp/attacks/damage/saves that typical and max/min of a CR should have.
However, while he's grappling he's denied his Dex bonus which is helpful to the attacking wolves. And he must waste a round with the grapple...which helps the attacking wolves.
Semantics, I know. But I just can't get the image out of my head.
I completely get the image :) However a frost giant's dex is 9.. being grappled *helps* its ac (not really, but you know...)
4 wolves per adventurer.
wolves get 4 attacks hit +5 (3+2(flanking) that when hit get a free tri.
if one wolf trips they all get attacks of opportunity when you get up. [/b]which could cause another trip.[/b]
All the adventures are being attacked.
Just to be sure - the wolves cannot trip as he's standing up. You cannot trip something that is already prone, and you are technically prone when you provoke the attacks of opportunity for standing up (which means +4 to hit of course...). Clarified in a Sage Advice sometime back. One of those non-loopholes in tripping.
Fun fun fun, Wolves and Giants oh my!
16 wolves vs 4 adventures.
4 wolves per adventurer.
wolves get 4 attacks hit +5 (3+2(flanking) that when hit get a free tri.
if one wolf trips they all get attacks of opportunity when you get up. which could cause another trip.
All the adventures are being attacked.
No offense, but a level 9 party who allowed themselves to get ambushed by a huge pack of wolves would be a bunch of chumps.
A level 9 rogue can easily sneak up on a wolf pack while scouting.
A level 9 wizard or cleric should be able to trivially bypass a wolf pack using a puny amount of magic.
A level 9 fighter should have an AC that's high enough that wolves can only hit on a natural 20 (flanking or no flanking). Likewise, tripping should only work on a natural 20.
Notwithstanding various contrived situations ("O.K., the party is asleep and the pack of wolves is teleported in by a high level mage..."), they're only good for a little nuisance value for an average level 9 party. Not that there's anything wrong with "nuisance value", per se, but that's not what makes up an Average encounter (IMO).
No offense, but a level 9 party who allowed themselves to get ambushed by a huge pack of wolves would be a bunch of chumps.
I agree.
Better, a level 9 party who could be defeated by a bunch of wolves are doing something wrong. Assuming resource-availability, the wizard/sorc could drop a 9d6 fireball on the party themselves and the total expenditure of resources for the encounter would be that spell, plus a few charges from a wand of cure light wounds. The wizard himself might be at risk, but assuming he's got a positive Con modifier, he's probably laughing too.
Or one casting of fly for each party member. And some arrows.
Or entangle.
Or the Power-Attacking, raging, Cleaving barbarian just takes them down two at a time. Three if you're willing to add a haste on top of the rage consumption.
My point is that I support the idea that a bunch of low-CR creatures (many of whom will need to roll a natural 20 to actually hit the PCs) added up to an EL equal to AP just won't consume 25% of the party's resources. A single CR equal to AP will get ganged up on, but it's going to maul someone. The dude who gets sucked in to Improved Grab or Swallow Whole, for instance. Or the one who fails his save versus its breath weapon.
I think someone should design an adventure that opens up with the party encountering a frost giant fighting sixteen wolves. With a full color Wayne Reynolds cover of the scene in question.
You could call it: "How Many Licks Does It Take?"
|
I have always strongly believed that intelligent encounter design is a lot more than just looking at the numbers. That said, the numbers are there to work as a baseline. This is something I hope to make a bit more clear in the rules.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo Publishing
And Hopefully a few CR tweaks in the Bestiary?
Notably things that have high HP and HUGE dmg being bumped up a little.
I have always strongly believed that intelligent encounter design is a lot more than just looking at the numbers. That said, the numbers are there to work as a baseline. This is something I hope to make a bit more clear in the rules.
Jason Bulmahn
Lead Designer
Paizo PublishingAnd Hopefully a few CR tweaks in the Bestiary?
Notably things that have high HP and HUGE dmg being bumped up a little.
Such as? Examples would be useful to understand what you mean.