|
Here are a few thoughts to kick off the discussion.
- Encounter Building: Are the new rules for building encounters clear and simple to use? Do they create balanced and entertaining encounters? Do the treasure tables and experience point tables work well with the encounter building guidelines.
I have been using these for about 6 levels of a limited conversion (skills and these rules only) campaign, from levels 8-14.
So far, they have worked incredibly well, even when I push them with APL +3 and +4 encounters, and even with the extreme power-limiting restrictions of feat choice and build I placed on the PCs.
The only problem I routinely have is remembering to multiply xp needed per level to advance by 4 to account for four PCs.
- Creating NPCs - Are these rules simple and easy to use? Are there any parts that could be more clear or user friendly?
Again, these have worked particularly well, especially the general breakdown guidelines for NPC gear by type.
The biggest issue I think is the separation of the guidelines in the book. As a result, I routinely use the chapter pdfs so I can "hold open" two pages at once, or I do a full layout of the encounters by EL and the CRs I want in them first, then design my NPCs as a second stage.
The only thing I am not sure about for both are how easy they are to understand. I am too experienced with the systems at this point to notice most quirks, so I would advise trying to get less experienced people to comment on them.
I am too experienced with the systems at this point to notice most quirks, so I would advise trying to get less experienced people to comment on them.
This is a huge concern of mine. I feel I have a blind-spot and so do many other veteran players. Flipping back and forth between the SRD, the 3.5 MM, and the Beta has not helped to emphasize the changes in the systems.
The only way we're going to get a solid handle on these chapters is to find new GMs who have never played to read these chapters. This might be the single hardest part of the playtest for that reason.
|
|
The only way we're going to get a solid handle on these chapters is to find new GMs who have never played to read these chapters. This might be the single hardest part of the playtest for that reason.
Heh.
Would you believe . . .
I suggested that very concept, of finding total newbies to review text comprehensibility, way back when to the DGP guys when they were doing a convention presentation just before the release of MegaTraveller?
And yet I still see no sign of it being adopted as a standard for playtesting in the industry.
|
"NPC Categories" should also include one more category, because, frankly, 'Heroic' stats are still subpar for major NPCs. 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).
|
|
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:
I think somewhere you are approaching the design from the wrong direction.
For myself, I have been using the following procedure:
Step 1: Calculate how much xp is needed to advance a PC one level. Multiply that by the number of Pcs. That is the amount of XP my current adventure needs to have, from whatever source.
Step 2: Select a default CR based on the party level (average is irrelevant to me as all the PCs are the same level). Generally I will add one to their level for 6 PCs and 2 for 8 PCs.
Step 3: Assign two encounters xp at this level to goals.
Step 4: Select the general CRs of the remaining encounters based on total xp needed and number of challenges of a particular difficulty desired. (Typically 3 APL +0, 3 APL +1, 3 APL +2, 1 APL +3, but it may vary considerably.)
Step 5: Assign these encounters to general types: Wandering Monster, Trap, Plot, End Boss, Role-Playing.
Step 6: Select specific elements for each encounter using the party level without modifier as the limit for upper monster level rather than the modified party level from additional PCs.
So for your example, with 9 4th level PCs, my standard CR will be 6 even though my default level to determine maximum creature CR will remain at 4. If I use gargoyles, the standard encounter will be two of them. I might also prefer to use more CR 7 encounters because of the group size, and will have something in addition to the gargoyles, or advance one gargoyle to CR 5.
Here are a few thoughts to kick off the discussion.
- Encounter Building: Are the new rules for building encounters clear and simple to use? Do they create balanced and entertaining encounters? Do the treasure tables and experience point tables work well with the encounter building guidelines.
I have been using these for about 6 levels of a limited conversion (skills and these rules only) campaign, from levels 8-14.
So far, they have worked incredibly well, even when I push them with APL +3 and +4 encounters, and even with the extreme power-limiting restrictions of feat choice and build I placed on the PCs.
The only problem I routinely have is remembering to multiply xp needed per level to advance by 4 to account for four PCs.
I've been running a conversion game for levels 3-5 and I've found the encounter levels to be a little misguided, as you suggest. I think it would be a great help if there were a few more pointers about how to scale encounters. I'm not suggesting more "rules" just advice.
For example, my players tend to be stat heavy (40+ point buy), but with limited access to magical weapons and exotic equipment. I recognize this isn't the "standard" model for a party, but it's how we like to game. Thus, its a little challenging to think of encounters. A CR3 Incorporal undead could destroy them, but a CR8 beast might not (they are APL5).
Perhaps a table or creature type recommendations for types of character might be useful. Then agian, perhaps I'm just fishing for advice to help me with the learning curve of making a good encounter.
|
The only way we're going to get a solid handle on these chapters is to find new GMs who have never played to read these chapters. This might be the single hardest part of the playtest for that reason.
Yo! I hadn't played for something like 7+ years, because the math in the system was broken, and it irritated me.
A friend showed me the beta, and started running a RotRL campaign. And then b$@#$ed and whined enough that he didn't get to play, to get me to run a game. 3.P's options for HP, and simplified skills make the math work from level 1+, to as far as I've run, but it would seem to scale through at least level 12.
The only way we're going to get a solid handle on these chapters is to find new GMs who have never played to read these chapters. This might be the single hardest part of the playtest for that reason.Yo! I hadn't played for something like 7+ years, because the math in the system was broken, and it irritated me.
A friend showed me the beta, and started running a RotRL campaign. And then b#*!!ed and whined enough that he didn't get to play, to get me to run a game. 3.P's options for HP, and simplified skills make the math work from level 1+, to as far as I've run, but it would seem to scale through at least level 12.
Nice! Thanks for reporting back, that helps with some of my concerns, but I can't beat this nagging feeling. Oh well.
|
|
Last week I actually TPKed 3 level 3 characters with 4 Gnolls, and 2 Hyenas. all CR 1. The Gnolls attacked from ambush with bows, retreated into cover, and regularly shot the enlarged person, while the Hyenas emerged from the rear and harried the closest character, the enlarged person. While one of the Party's Arcane Casters tried to close with the Gnolls to get off a burning hands, and separated from the rest of the party, was hacked to pieces.
I had totally not expected it.
They had already destroyed an encounter with 2 Ettercaps (CR3), Two Medium Monsterous Spiders (CR1), and Two Spider Swarms (CR1), with no serious difficulties.
I would like to suggest that TACTICS, ya know, the things listed in the COMBAT section of a monster or encounter, have their own CRs based on how universally effective they would be.
Then EL be determined with the higher of TACTICS, OPPONENT #, and CR. With the Greater one being divided by two, and the others being devided by 4 and added together.
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.
I think you missed the line that says: "If your group contains six or more players, add one to their average level." So the APL of a group of 9 4th level PCs is actually 5. So that would be 1.5 gargoyles versus 9 PCs.
But as Samuel noted, the "total amount of XP" method is more accurate.
|
|
I had totally not expected it.
They had already destroyed an encounter with 2 Ettercaps (CR3), Two Medium Monsterous Spiders (CR1), and Two Spider Swarms (CR1), with no serious difficulties.
This is a prime example of what I meant in the other thread about how some critters have disproportionate effects for their CR depending on their use/tactics and party composition.
In this case, the combination of bows, cover, and blockers, provided the massive synergy effects that made the combination so lethal.While a dedicated section of encounter design for the effects of tactics and terrain on EL would be very useful, in the long run this will come down to long term experience with the rules ("system mastery").
Last week I actually TPKed 3 level 3 characters with 4 Gnolls, and 2 Hyenas. all CR 1. The Gnolls attacked from ambush with bows, retreated into cover, and regularly shot the enlarged person, while the Hyenas emerged from the rear and harried the closest character, the enlarged person. While one of the Party's Arcane Casters tried to close with the Gnolls to get off a burning hands, and separated from the rest of the party, was hacked to pieces.
...
My experience as a DM and player showed me many times that an encounter which seems to be very easy judging by the numbers can be very though if you design the circumstances in favor of the monsters, and an encounter that looks really challenging can be trivial if you design the circumstances in favor of the PCs.
It doesn't matter whether an encounter was explicitly designed to favor one side, or whether the DM overlooked something when designing it.I think there should be a section warning about such circumstances, just to name a few:
- flying opponents when the party is unable to fly
- hard to reach opponents with ranged attacks
- many opponents with special immunities/vulnerabilities are much easier to overcome if they don't appear as a 'surprise', i.e. the DM has dropped hints what the party will be facing
- ...
flying opponents when the party is unable to fly
This is one aspect that I noticed gets overlooked in CR design. At low level, flight has a huge effect on CR, but that effect drops of by mid to high level (when access to flight or good long ranged attacks are available).
flying opponents when the party is unable to flyThis is one aspect that I noticed gets overlooked in CR design. At low level, flight has a huge effect on CR, but that effect drops of by mid to high level (when access to flight or good long ranged attacks are available).
You can abstract it slightly though.
Ranged combat characters have less of a problem with flying opponents, as do highly mobile characters who might have other means of reaching the enemy. A "mobile" keyword might help there... this is the kind of thing which should be keyworded, because it really does contribute greatly to CR before a certain level, but then becomes nearly irrelevant. Burrowing and swimming types, too, I suppose.