| 2 people marked this as FAQ candidate. Staff response: no reply required. |
Howdy,
My group has been doing a series of one-shots to try out classes that we haven't played before, such as those in the APG, at different levels and in different situations. What I'm finding, as the DM, is that the group often blows through 'average', 'challenging' and 'hard' encounters according to the rules laid out in the Core Rulebook, pages 397-398.
One of the things I've noticed is that when the group has no animal companions, cohorts, eidolons or other such allies, the encounters seem to be right in line with what I'd consider 'average', 'challenging' or 'hard'.
As such, many players in my group feel that animal companions, eidolons, cohorts etc. should be considered when determining the APL of an encounter. They point to the 'Adding NPC's' section on page 398 as proof that this is the case. In turn they argue that when I was planning for the encounters last sessions that while the APL was 8 when including just the player characters, the party really had a APL of 11 due to their animal companions and eidolons.
I disagree with their assessment. First, there is the sentence in 'Step 1' on page 397 that states you determine APL "average level of your PLAYER characters". Secondly, I've always worked under the assumption that concept of 'Character Level' includes all the resources they have access to whether its a class feature, such as an animal companion or eidolon, or wealth, such as magic items and mundane equipment. It seems like the system is broken if, for instance, a ranger who has an animal companion is considered more powerful, according to APL calculation, than one who chooses to buff his party members.
Which of us is correct? Do you simply take the average level of your player characters when determining APL or do you take the average level of your player characters AND also add that of any animal companions, cohorts, eidolons etc, when determining it?
Thanks,
like_a_god
I've always played that any class feature is included in your level when calculating APL. It is important to note that it also works that way when calculating CR. The PCs don't get any extra XP for the that enemy druid's animal companion either.
I couldn't find anything spelling this out in the core rules however.
Technically the eidilions and animal companions are class features. They're as much a part of being a druid, ranger, or summoner as wizard spells are of being a wizard. They are not separate character entities to be used to penalize the party for selecting a class that comes with them. If parties are stronger with them then without them, parties are also stronger with casters over melee, optimized min maxers than role players.
|
Your players assessent is wrong. The animal companions etc. are class features and considered in the APL of the group already.
The problem your likely having is action economy. The druid can cast or hit in the same round that his pet bear is mauling your encounters.
I'd suggest trying to avoid the standard 1 or 2 big beefy monsters in an encounter, or supplement them with smaller threats. Use better tactics, have the bad guys use terrain to their advantages. You can step up your game in many ways without increasing CR in all likeliness.
No, the companions/cohorts/etc are class features and do not factor into the APL.
HOWEVER, I understand where your players' logic is going with this topic, and what it boils down to is action economy. If you have a druid and a summoner and two other classes (God help you if you have a third character with a "pet")... you have 6 or more sets of actions on the PCs side of the board. This isn't game breaking, because the classes are balanced that way, but it does help a lot, especially at lower levels when a CR 1 encounter is 3 goblins. Three goblins vs a druid + wolf, summoner + eidolon, rogue, and fighter... they don't stand a chance.
The difference is less noticeable later on, and even at 1st level it isn't an overwhelming change, but I can understand why your players might think the way they do.
Just up the number of enemies to deal with the additions of "pets" and such. Depending on how your players' stats look and the number of companions in the party, you might even double the number of hobgoblins or whatever they're fighting.
My group has a single druid (bear shaman) with a small bear. Between her and the paladin, everything is a cake walk. If I do something that can hurt either of the two, then both of the rogues they have get face-rolled. [shrug] It's a delicate balance. Best of luck.
Animal Companions, Eidolons, and Familiars are parts of the Classes that get them.
If your PCs have the Leadership Feat to get Cohorts, THAT can EASILY be overpowering.
Leadership isn`t really a Feat that`s balanced like other Feats,
which is why any min-maxer would always take it if available.
If you want to allow it, I think taking Cohorts and Followers into account for APL would be a good approach (NOT Class-linked Animal Companions, etc). PCs without Leadership would be fighting enemies above their normal CR range, but if the Cohorts are being used effectively, and the party acts cohesively with good group tactics, they should get by fine... And they also get to keep their full share of treasure while those with Leadership will probably spend some to outfit their Cohorts to be more effective.
Probably the simplest approach is to not allow Leadership. Many groups don`t, and it sounds like your players may well be receptive to not using it if it`s as disruptive as it sounds.
Honestly, I`m slightly disappointed that Paizo kept Leadership in essentially the same form as in 3.5. If you want to house-rule some changes, you might consider taking XP which normally would go to the PC with Leadership, to use for advancing their Cohorts/Followers (I would just subtract from the PC the XP needed when their followers advance in level). If you let the Cohorts and Followers contribute to APL, the PCs will be fighting tougher threats with more XP so diverting some of this to their followers isn`t as big of a deal... Though it may mean PCs without Leadership end up a level ahead (given escalating XP requirements). That seems like a reasonable outcome to me.
...The other side of the coin is making sure the opposition is as effective as possible. This means being able to play the same action economy game as the PCs, meaning multiple enemies. And if the PCs have Leadership, the enemy should have it as well, and use it to the hilt. Of course, this means more work for the GM, which is why removing Leadership from everybody is often the easiest solution.
Challenging encounters should aim to have a mix of melee/ranged/casting/special abilities, i.e. like the PCs themselves, and be designed to work effectively together. There`s no reason why the enemy can`t also have (and use effectively) Companions and Familiars, though that implies a shift towards Class Based NPCs rather than just Bestiary monsters (though extra-planar monsters can often summon their own relatives... and can do this before battle begins if they are initiating combat)
Large numbers of enemies makes Readied Actions much more viable, if there is enough forces for most to act normally but some to Ready you can get alot of synergy - Readied attacks are really the #1 best way to counter spellcasting. APG has a Feat allowing Readied Partial Charges (which per RAW doesn`t even need a Feat to accomplish on the Surprise Round). Positioning is crucial for melee combat, and even spell casting... So have the Enemy mess the the PC`s positioning, first using terrain to their advantage, but also using options like Maneuvers and Spells to re-position the PCs and their allies.
I think it`s also reasonable to start making individual enemies tougher, e.g. giving them all (or most of them) Elite Array and giving Bosses the same point buy as the PCs themselves (and PC wealth).
Gearing out enemies better would normally mean more looted treasure for the PCs, but you really just need to find new ways of destroying treasure, or making treasure un-usable/sellable (evil alignment, too exotic for PCs/normal NPCs to use), in order to keep the PCs within Wealth By Level. If the group can agree to get away from the ´loot everything´ mentality, and just trust that you will find ways to get gear or gold into their hands as appropriate for their level and challenges they face, every piece of enemy gear no longer becomes a `deposit` into their WBL bank account.
All HDs of creatures need to be taken into account when determining the CR....
...This ended up bringing up another big question: How would a city siege work if the CR doesn't take into account the other allies in the city?...
Just to clarify, do you mean APL instead of CR?
Also, thanks for taking the time to respond and flesh in more of the argument on your side.
like_a_god
I am one of like_a_god's players. First some extra info on the one-shot where this topic came up, the characters(lvl 8) were:
Cavalier w/ mount
Ranger w/ light horse companion
2 Summoners w/ eidolonsThe players’ big argument: All HDs of creatures need to be taken into account when determining the CR. Our group ended up having 56HD instead of 32HD. By the RAW this doesn't matter, but in practice this makes a big difference. If all characters took full round attacks, we had 15 attacks, and if you include the animal companion HP into the character’s HP we had an average of 110+ hp per character. Just to compare, a lvl 8 barbarian, rolling all 12’s for its HD and having a 20 con, would have 136 HP.
This ended up bringing up another big question: How would a city siege work if the CR doesn't take into account the other allies in the city?
Thanks in advance.
You are incorrect sir. Class features do not count as party members. If you fought a caster specialized in summoning and summoned a lot of monsters, which we know would make the fight harder you don't get any extra XP. If he planar binds, or gates in a monster you get no extra XP because the spell is every much a part of the caster as fireball is. The DM can probably take the same CR, and use different monsters to make things harder.
You guys being level 8:
Tough Fight=CR 10
Chapter boss=CR 11
BBEG=CR12=Diviner Wizard 11(CR10)(to possibly win init.) He will also cast freedom of movement on his tanks so they are not entangled by the black tentacles spell. He will also be focused on summoning. Main goal to lock the summoners down.
Two Morghs to paralyze the summoners. Until paralyzation is complete pound the summoners focusing both monsters on that one caster. If the Eidolons do a lot of damage due to many attacks* then I noticed that each attack is not that strong so replace the Morgh with something that has DR.
*I have not really read up on the updated summoner. I am still skimming around the book.
CR 10 caster+2 CR 8's=CR 12
By the rules, and the way most DM's run the game there is no reason to change the rules.
I don't think the issue is the way the system sets difficulty for encounters. Thevproblem is the system isntbdesignedvwith optimization in mind.
Newer players or non optimized characters likely would have been challenged by the encounters
In our group we had an older player new to the modern version of thebgame ladtbnightbwe helpedbhim re design his character justly changing his spell selection and he easily doubled in power.
Butbthe system for setting encounters I think tris to account for poorvchoices
I am one of like_a_god's players. First some extra info on the one-shot where this topic came up, the characters(lvl 8) were:
Cavalier w/ mount
Ranger w/ light horse companion
2 Summoners w/ eidolonsThe players’ big argument: All HDs of creatures need to be taken into account when determining the CR. Our group ended up having 56HD instead of 32HD. By the RAW this doesn't matter, but in practice this makes a big difference. If all characters took full round attacks, we had 15 attacks, and if you include the animal companion HP into the character’s HP we had an average of 110+ hp per character. Just to compare, a lvl 8 barbarian, rolling all 12’s for its HD and having a 20 con, would have 136 HP.
This ended up bringing up another big question: How would a city siege work if the CR doesn't take into account the other allies in the city?
Thanks in advance.
Classes are more then their HD/hitpoints. For instance, a wizard has far less hit points then a fighter, would you say the fighter is more powerful then the wizard? I think that is fairly unlikely.
Those extra hd are accounted for as classfeatures (and thus advantages they have). Other classes dont provide as much hp, but they instead provide ways to shorten fights, recover hp etc. The wizard doesnt have the eidolons HP, but he does have that awesome spell that will greatly hinder the opponent from getting that full attack (if not stop it entirely). The cleric doesnt have a cavalier's mount, but he does have the ability to recover vast amounts of hit points.
The only real issue here, like others said is action economy. Dont let the pcs, animal companions and their cohorts outnumber their opponents and you should still have challenging fights with the normal CR.
The exception is Leadership, which like others say is definately a corner case (it offers alot for relatively little investment). I would suggest accounting the cohort of a character with leadership in CR or just not allowing it if there is this kind of concern.
As for sieges, thats a whole other set of rules. The core rules dont work for large scale battles. There is a whole 3.5 book on the subject (Heroes of battle) and even that isn't perfect.
Everyone,
Thanks for the replies and advice. I believe my original question has been answered. Simply put, all character resources, including familiars, eidolons etc. are included in 'character level' and, therefore, only player characters are used to determine APL.
Still, I find that I am a little dissatisfied by the fact that 'hit economy' has little mention in the rules for creating an encounter and I'll have to make sure to keep that in mind moving forward.
like_a_god
APL vs. CR is just a guideline. There are no hard fast rules to stick to. Knowing the party, and knowing the monsters, is the main job of a GM. RPG's got along for many many years before there were APL's and CR's thrown into tables.
Another thing to consider. There should be situations that the players encounter that the proper course of action is to run away. RPG's aren't Diablo. It's not like the world is split up into 1st level areas, where only goblins are bad, and the tougher monsters move to somewhere else. If your players have never even considered running away from an encounter, you're missing a key part of a role playing game.