I prefer BBEG + Bodyguards + Mooks for most mid-bosses and end-bosses. That being said it's really unclear when minions quit being actually relevant to an encounter and when they just become speedbumps. The CR chart really doesn't handle big groups of minions particularly well especially when the minions are really hitting very often.
I think the key is determining how often you expect the mooks to hit and their average DPR vs the defensive PCs as well as their average HPs and whether they can be taken out in one shot.
If the meatshields are in large enough numbers, they can often prevent the martial characters from really interacting with the BBEG before the artillery units solve the encounter. This can be frustrating because the martial characters are always doing clean-up while the casters/archers are doing the critical damage to the BBEG.
On the other hand, solo monsters simply don't work in D&D. There are too many ways of negating the monster's primary defenses and the action economy just doesn't work right if the PCs grossly outnumber the monster. Either the monster has to be right on the edge of incapacitating PCs every round (which can lead to TPKs) or they simply get beat down too fast.
|
Not all GM's play their bad guys "optimally" (in fact, I'd posit that MOST of them do not). Not all GM's are super-PC-killing robots. As such, there is room in the game for unoptimized characters/parties/non-casters. Everyone can still have fun. Which is sort of the stated purpose of a "game".
Which shouldn't have to be pointed out to anyone, yet here we are. Again.
Not all GM's play their bad guys "optimally" (in fact, I'd posit that MOST of them do not). Not all GM's are super-PC-killing robots. As such, there is room in the game for unoptimized characters/parties/non-casters. Everyone can still have fun. Which is sort of the stated purpose of a "game".
Which shouldn't have to be pointed out to anyone, yet here we are. Again.
The ruleset should be robust enough that it can handle both optimized parties and non-optimized parties.
The problem largely arises when you have a mixed party with some heavy optimizers and some casual players. This can result in a situation where the casual players become cheerleaders for the the heavy hitters.
That being said I think the game does much better if you step back from the optimized party as I don't think the game play at the bleeding edge of Char Op is particularly fun.
There really isn't any morale rules that got carried over from 2e you know. While many GMs might have monsters withdraw from situations where they are unlikely to triumph many GMs pretty much have the monsters fight to the death.
Sometimes a mod or AP will specify morale conditions for an enemy to surrender or flee; if I'm running one I'll follow those.
Equally if I have a monster that can realistically escape alive because it has some kind of exceptional transportation or concealment power it might try to save its life that way.
But realistically? Most monsters in most combats cannot escape the PCs. Trying to run for it only insures they get shot in the back instead of going down fighting.
There really isn't any morale rules that got carried over from 2e you know. While many GMs might have monsters withdraw from situations where they are unlikely to triumph many GMs pretty much have the monsters fight to the death.
Sometimes a mod or AP will specify morale conditions for an enemy to surrender or flee; if I'm running one I'll follow those.
Equally if I have a monster that can realistically escape alive because it has some kind of exceptional transportation or concealment power it might try to save its life that way.
But realistically? Most monsters in most combats cannot escape the PCs. Trying to run for it only insures they get shot in the back instead of going down fighting.
That's one of the weird things with the modules sometimes. Usually the conditions aren't very realistic. In Age of Worms, there are several times when it says something along the lines of "when this opponent reaches 20 hit point he tries to flee or leave the combat" but any single party member is capable of dealing 30+ damage in a single round. I have had to make adjustments to account for that.
or no escape route viable, etc.
The problem I run into, though, is that "no escape route viable" tends to be the default setting of most encounters.
Not all, certainly. Maybe not more than let's say 70%. But it's pretty common that you can't reasonably get far enough away from a group of PCs before you're dead.
|
|
The ruleset should be robust enough that it can handle both optimized parties and non-optimized parties.
Right - and it is...or are you saying it's not?
The problem largely arises when you have a mixed party with some heavy optimizers and some casual players. This can result in a situation where the casual players become cheerleaders for the the heavy hitters.
I'm not sure I see the problem with this. They're casual players. That means they don't want to be superstars. These are likely the same players who shine elsewhere in the game, with RP (most notably). If they don't have fun at that particular table, they won't be back next week, they'll find another table where the gameplay more closely suits their desires.
Of course, I guess I see what you mean after all, since...
That's one of the weird things with the modules sometimes. Usually the conditions aren't very realistic. In Age of Worms, there are several times when it says something along the lines of "when this opponent reaches 20 hit point he tries to flee or leave the combat" but any single party member is capable of dealing 30+ damage in a single round. I have had to make adjustments to account for that.
Good point, Bob. I do the same thing myself. I just take what the AP says as a general guideline that the NPC will retreat whenever he feels his life is in danger, and play it by feel. In some cases, it might be apparent almost immediately that the fight cannot be won, while in others it might be hanging more in the balance, meaning they might risk staying longer then they otherwise would have.
I also can't really agree with the assertion DM made above regarding most monsters not being able to escape. Many, many monsters have superior movement to the party, or at least to most members of it, and can break combat virtually at will. Many of them can flee in a single round beyond the range of most spells and into the area where ranged weapons have significant minuses. Possibly the monk or an animal companion or a wildshaped druid or someone hasted could run them down, but doing so solo is risky. (That said, these kind of chases can be lots of fun). This is even more true of night encounters or any encounters which do not occur on featureless plains. Try and maintain line of sight on anything more than 50 feet away in a forest.
or no escape route viable, etc.
The problem I run into, though, is that "no escape route viable" tends to be the default setting of most encounters.
Not all, certainly. Maybe not more than let's say 70%. But it's pretty common that you can't reasonably get far enough away from a group of PCs before you're dead.
Depends a lot on where and when the combat is taking place. I certainly have my share of encounters in which the bad guys miscalculate and break off late and are cut down or shot down or spelled down brutally from behind, but I have bad guys escaping pretty frequently, too. Of course, I'm also running Kingmker now and most of the random encounters have been nighttime encounters. Many of them also involve natural predators, which definitely are not going to fight to the death unless they are starving. They are just looking for a quick snack and if the resistance is too great, they are out of there.
Stuff about all fights being just one or two rounds and most of them being to the death.
Only true in specific types of campaigns, and with specific DMing styles that allow it to happen that way. The DM has an infinite number of tools to use to make encounters both longer-lasting and more interesting. The fact that you don't see it that way says more about your point of reference than it does about the game in general.
To get back to the OP's original point, he has some excellent analysis.
My only point would be: why choose between quantity and quality?
Of course I run for a group of seven players, four of whom have been playing for years together and have an excellent grasp of both real world and group tactics. I frequently find that I need to ratchet up difficulty a lot to keep them challenged. And a party of that size is really difficult for a single BBEG to challenge at all, so I have to add minions, and sometimes they have significant capabilities of their own that have to be dealt with.
And when I'm really in an evil GM mood (or when they are cruising too easily through an adventure) I hit them with a party of evil adventurers of roughly the same level and capabilities as their own. I try to create one character designed to counter each of the PCs. Very time intensive to create, particularly at the mid-levels and above, and complicated to run, given the myriad of options available to all participants, but worth the effort when a group really needs a challenge.
I prefer BBEG + Bodyguards + Mooks for most mid-bosses and end-bosses.For what it's worth, I don't use the BBEG formula, but when there is a big fight in my games, it's often vs an opposing group of near equals. Perhaps a pair, or a trio, or an entire party, varying each time of course.
The problem I have with mirror matches is that they tend to generate too much party wealth.
Or do you mean 4+ monsters with abilities and DPR equivalent to the PCs?
In the latter case I agree with that sort of design to a degree. 4 CR -1 Outsiders can make for a very challenging encounter especially if the outsiders are full casting equivalents.
Nope, your HP are still gone in two rounds, so the enemy must be taken out faster than that or people start dropping.
...
Otherwise, combats are still short. You still can't run, barring teleportation and neither can they. At high levels, even teleportation isn't guaranteed to get you to safety. No amount of handwaving will change that that is how it is.
How silly. Most fights in my current campaign average 5-7 rounds. Bad guys frequently retreat. The PCs retreat as well, although less often. No one teleports anywhere, nor is that likely to happen any time soon. These things happen regularly without any handwaving at all, and I'm certain my experiences aren't all that unusual.
Everything you've just described results from playstyle, not the game system per se.
Stuff about all fights being just one or two rounds and most of them being to the death.Only true in specific types of campaigns, and with specific DMing styles that allow it to happen that way. The DM has an infinite number of tools to use to make encounters both longer-lasting and more interesting. The fact that you don't see it that way says more about your point of reference than it does about the game in general.Nope, your HP are still gone in two rounds, so the enemy must be taken out faster than that or people start dropping.
So what do you do? Pull a "this is a video game" style move and start doubling or tripling enemy HP? It's now more likely PCs die. Martial characters are nerfed. Casters become comparatively better.
Otherwise, combats are still short. You still can't run, barring teleportation and neither can they. At high levels, even teleportation isn't guaranteed to get you to safety. No amount of handwaving will change that that is how it is.
Ah, someday I'll have to run a game for you, CoDzilla, and we can see which of our theories survive the day. All I can say for now is that it hasn't worked that way at my table. Your experience is obviously different. Out of my group of seven, three of them are decent optimizers, but choose not to run the type of characters you would probably view as optimized because they have come, after 30+ years of gaming, to view that path as a relatively boring dead end. Instead, they play characters that are mechanically sound, but not overpowering, and enjoy the challenges the game offers to those characters.
Some additional highlights of my table, which may account for our differing viewpoints:
1) We roll for stats, using a pretty generous mechanic that generally produces characters equivalent to a 25-30 point buy (with occasional outliers), but does not allow for much min-maxing of stats. This tends to help MAD characters more than SAD. It is also tremendously frustrating for extreme optimizers, as they lose some of their control over character design.
2) We use the Paizo Critical Hit and Critical Miss decks. In addition to just being plain fun, the addition of effects beyond hit point loss to criticals definitely makes martial classes more fun to play.
3) We use terrain, weather and lighting extensively. Very few fights are going to occur on a flat, well-lit, featureless plain. Many are going to start up close and personal. Some are going to start as ambushes. Tactics are at a premium, and optimal spells/tactics will vary according to the environment.
The problem I have with mirror matches is that they tend to generate too much party wealth.
That's a fair point, and something to consider in the design. On the one hand, if they win the fight fair and square, they are entitled to the loot. On the other hand, if it will unbalance the game, you can make more of the loot expendables like potions, scrolls, wands with few charges, etc., that are used up in the fight. Alternatively, you can make it weapons they aren't specialized or proficient in or items that are alignment specific. Sure they can sell it (or not, if their own alignment dictates they destroy evil items), but not for full price.
Also, when these fights do occur, they have rarely resulted in a TPK for either side in my games. Usually they are a fast, furious battle resulting in a quick withdrawal by whichever side thinks it is losing, cutting down on loot drops somewhat.
Could you explain those 'tools' of which you speak Brian? I can think of a lot of legitimate tools that aren't purely custom that slow combat down for the meelee guys and screw them more, but I'm not seeing much for casters, who are generally the real fight enders, with non-casters doing cleanup.Stuff about all fights being just one or two rounds and most of them being to the death.Only true in specific types of campaigns, and with specific DMing styles that allow it to happen that way. The DM has an infinite number of tools to use to make encounters both longer-lasting and more interesting. The fact that you don't see it that way says more about your point of reference than it does about the game in general.
Sure. Just to list the first few that pop into my mind:
1) Attacks from ambush
2) Attacks from all sides
3) Magic-resistant (or immune) critters
4) Critters with high movement rates
5) Inventive use of terrain, weather and lighting
6) Opposing forces with capabilities similar to the party's
7) Encounters in specially prepared lairs (sanctum sanctorum)
8) Critters that are sneaky in some way
9) Reinforcements arriving in waves or steady streams
10) Encounters in different environments (underwater, airborne, etc.)
I could think of more pretty easily. Now, you may think some or all of these wouldn't be challenging or produce a longer fight for your group or for some optimized group you could imagine, and you're certainly entitled to your opinion. You may even be right in some or all of the above cases.
What I can tell you is that in my experience, any DM worth his salt will always, due to his complete ability to manipulate virtually everything in a campaign, be able to find ways to produce challenging and long-lasting fights.
But, hey, some people must like playing rocket tag, and more power to them if they do. It's not for me and mine, and I (and my fellow GMs in our group) have the tools and the experience to make sure our game doesn't devolve into that.
I will add to that list:
11) Encounters spilling over into subsequent encounters after round 1.
12) Encounters in advance of an anticipated fight for which the casters are saving resources.
I tend to see fights with those kind of factors far more often than fights without them.
I removed a post, and a rather large number of descending replies.
Respect is key when trying to have a reasoned debate.
The whole Fighters suck/Caster Edition thing? It comes about because martial characters are the only ones that lack rockets in 3.x, without optimizing and PF takes it a step further by removing the possibility you can optimize enough to keep up.
Why spend hours every day arguing with people you don't know about a game you don't like?
I'll take "Missing the point" for 800, Alex.
|
On the other hand, solo monsters simply don't work in D&D. There are too many ways of negating the monster's primary defenses and the action economy just doesn't work right if the PCs grossly outnumber the monster. Either the monster has to be right on the edge of incapacitating PCs every round (which can lead to TPKs) or they simply get beat down too fast.
Solo Monster Template (experimental)
Gains: Toughness Feat (if already has Toughness add extra +1 to natural AC)
+2 Natural AC
+4 on Con (or Cha if undead)
+2 on one save
Optional: Standard rebuild – 1/4th of natural armor bonus is converted to a deflection bonus. Base armor values remain the same, reduce natural armor bonus by new deflection bonus value.
Bonus DR: Gains DR 1/- for every two CR max 5/- (round down)
Single Boss Monster Template(experimental)
(+1 CR)
Max HP
Gains: Toughness Feat (if already has Toughness add extra +2 to natural AC)
+2 Natural AC
+6 on Con (or Cha if undead)
+4 on Dex
+4 on Wis
+2 on all saves
Optional: Standard rebuild – 1/4th of natural armor bonus is converted to a deflection bonus. Base armor values remain the same, reduced natural armor bonus by new deflection value.
Bonus DR: Gains DR 1/- for every two CR max 5/- (round down)
Gains SR 10+ new CR,
Gains resistance to one type of energy, CR 1-4: 5 points, CR 5-10: 10 points on two different energy types
With both templates to-hits and damage for the monster remain the same. In effect you have a longer and tougher fight.
DR, higher saves and SR all help mitigate action economy.
And no, it's not too much.
Stuff.I was going to respond to this, but then I saw that you used fumble rules. As such, anything and everything you say is automatically invalid, on the grounds that such rules only serve to screw PCs, particularly those actually swinging weapons around. Guess which ones those are? Guess which classes are not punished just for playing (rolling)? Exactly.
Not to mention that any fight that is not taking place on a flat, featureless plain, with enemies already in melee range favors those classes that can adapt and screws those who cannot. Guess which belong to which category? Exactly. In any case, the game remains Rocket Tag regardless of whether the PCs have any rockets or not. Just that if they don't, they get blown away. And all the things described, even if they did work do not change the fact the enemies still have rockets.
The whole Fighters suck/Caster Edition thing? It comes about because martial characters are the only ones that lack rockets in 3.x, without optimizing and PF takes it a step further by removing the possibility you can optimize enough to keep up.
I've had this discussion with others before, and I recommend trying it before you judge. In practice actually fumbles occur far more to enemy mooks than PCs, because PCs are less likely to "confirm" crit misses. They introduce an element of comic relief that is a lot of fun, even on the rare occasions when a PC does confirm a fumble. Similarly, the PCs are more likely than the mooks to confirm crit hits, so benefit more from it, and some of the effects are really show stoppers, giving the martial characters the possibility of neutralizing things well before they can exceed its HP in damage. Of course, when the BBEG gets a crit with effects the recipient is in deep doo-doo.
One other thing, the negative effects of fumbles generally are not as dire as the positive effects of critical hits. They certainly aren't near as dire as the old Dragon magazine critical hit and fumble tables from 1st edition. Not as many weapon breaks and hit friends, etc. I find they introduce more fun and unopredictability into the games, and give the martials the chance to shine more. I'd be interested to hear if others using them have had the same experience.
Not to be rude, but if you reject something like this without even having tried it, you have little basis to criticize it. Not that that ever stopped anyone on the Internet.
|
Nope, your HP are still gone in two rounds, so the enemy must be taken out faster than that or people start dropping.
Lies, fallacies and big bags of badwrongfun. This very weekend our group participated in a 14-round combat with more than a dozen opposing critters. You clearly do not play the same game as most people on these boards, so please stop espousing your opinions as gospel.
This very weekend our group participated in a 14-round combat with more than a dozen opposing critters.
DMed this last Saturday. PCs were a druid and his tiger animal companion, a ranger, and an inquisitor, all 3rd-level. Session ended with the PCs fighting 10 2nd-level warriors, starting with four of them and then, two rounds into the fight, the other six arriving on scene.
IIRC, the fight lasted about six rounds. One enemy warrior surrendered (only to be later eaten by the tiger). Two enemy warriors attempted to flee, but didn't know the druid was waiting around the corner. Otherwise, they'd likely have gotten away.
A few years ago, I DMed a long-running 3.5 campaign that went from 1st through about 15th level. It became a running gag that at least one enemy would escape those PCs during just about every game session. I distinctly remember the half-fiendish vampiric intellect devourer the party unwittingly unleashed on the world.
Good times.
Also not all fun is directly related to winning the battle. I had fun trying to cut the rope connected to a grappeling hook my party was trying to board a pirate ship with and the bad guy fumbled. dropping his sword over the railing and having it land in the rowboat. I did not win the battle and the PCs took a while after not being able to climb abord. An all caster party might have had some trouble climbing up the rope. This was in a level before teleporting onto the ship was an option. Heck my brother who is playing the entire small party enjoyed that I tried to cut the rope it just made sense and was fun. The mooks made the encounter more interesting because they were firing arrows down on the PCs while this enocunter was happening so mooks do matter. Heck the mooks did more damage than the BBEG did.
I removed a post. Flag it and move on.
|
|
Since we are discussing level 5 the most relevant spells are Stinking Cloud, Slow, Glitterdust, and Web. Color Spray got you here, but it's not really that useful anymore.
If the base of mooks example is meant for higher level parties, you need to specify a level.
And what martial class has those feats? They're completely worthless outside of that Eigen Plot scenario. And in any case if they can't one round them all they die to focus fire. Which, they can't kill them all.
And casting defensively is still quite easy. Assuming the caster is even on the ground. Which, if the level is much higher than 5 he's not.
Now that I am home.
1. Stinking Cloud gives total concealment to anything inside of it. If they fail the save they are nauseous for 1d4+1 round after they leave the cloud, and functionally invisible while in it. Assuming they go out the side away from you, there is not much anyone can do about it since they are totally concealed (including 20 feet up and spreading). And you aren't sending anyone in after them, obviously, so...
I guess you could use an area effect damage spell, but you said those are pointless. And of course, spell economy.
2. Slow is close range, and you can do a half movement charge while slowed.
3. Glitterdust gets a save every round, and you can still act while blind. Also 10 ft radius spread isn't huge.
4. Web gives cover to anyone in the web, so ranged attacks aren't so great. You aren't moving into the web to hit them, and CMB vs Caster level is fairly easy.
Pathfinder cleave is actually quite useful if you like hitting adjacent foes with your full base attack bonus.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/cleave-combat
And great cleave is almost as good as whirlwind attack without the pre-requisites if you have a high BAB.
http://www.d20pfsrd.com/feats/combat-feats/great-cleave-combat---final
I think Ross deleted your other post I was going to comment on, as I don't see it anymore. Feel free to repost it.
And this is all on top of the fact that your preferred low AC build puts you at serious risk from even 1st level archers in any volume.
The problem with PF cleave, is they didn't quite take the improvement far enough. It should be any target's within reach, rather than just adjacent ones.
Well, that and the power attack pre-req now works against cleave instead of with it. But so it is...
The problem with PF cleave, is they didn't quite take the improvement far enough. It should be any target's within reach, rather than just adjacent ones.Well, that and the power attack pre-req now works against cleave instead of with it. But so it is...
How so? (honest curiosity to understand what you mean)