|
Excellent guide.
Another thing worth mentioning is integrating non-combat objectives into combat encounters. By adding a non-combat objective such as sabotaging a mechanism, deciphering an inscription, stealing an object, or disrupting a ritual, you can manipulate the Action Economy to favour the monsters over the PCs. This is something that should be done sparingly, but incorporating a non-combat task into a climactic battle can turn a normal boss fight into something truly memorable.
There are two tricks to using this technique. Firstly, you need to give the PCs a compelling reason to deal with the non-combat problem in the middle of the battle or they will simply ignore it until they have mopped up the last of their opponents. The simplest way to do this is to place a time limit on resolving the non-combat problem, but there are more subtle approaches - for example, perhaps if if the non-combat task is not successfully completed the nature of the battlefield may be altered or new terrain hazards.
The second trick is designing the non-combat task in such a way that it can't be resolved by a single skill roll. Ideally, the objective can only be achieved by the expenditure of multiple standard actions involving rolls against different skills or abilities. Remember that the skill rolls involved are only incidental - the real goal here is to force one or more members of the party to burn up valuable actions.
|
Yes, if you are building scenarios for random parties, something almost none of us will ever or should ever do (most of us will be designing for our home games, and should be tweaking even prepublished paths to challenge the specific party), you cannot assume the party will have a specific tactic. But almost all parties will have a mix of close range and short range, AoE and targeted. Many will have battle field control (smoke, grease, etc.) especially at moderate high levels.
*gasp* *choke* I rather hope not everyone customizes their encounters to suit their party. Don't your players find that unfair and disingenuous? Maybe not. But I know many groups would. If I had to take a wild guess, I'd say it's a pretty even split between GMs that like to set up encounters specifically to challenge their PCs, and those that like to design them without the PCs specific abilities in mind (I can't remember the name of the two styles - is it free-form and post-hoc?)
Actually, I'd err more on the side of GMs leaving them as-is, because I expect a lot of them use published adventures, and a lot of THOSE would leave them untouched.
I know I personally much prefer this style, because it rewards (or punishes) players for clever tactics and preparedness. Didn't bring a way to see invisibility? Oh, too bad. Wait? You did. Oops, guess you kill him easily then.
As to the boggarts and dragon scenario... my party would probably have a few AoEs up their sleeve for such a scenario, but clearly the dragon is the bigger threat. As is, no-doubt, the idea here, they'd have to make a judgement call at the time as to whether they should thin the Boggarts out, and try and focus-fire the dragon. They would definitely go for the dragon, but not at the complete exclusion of the boggarts... it all depends on positioning and initiative, among other things.
I said customize them to challenge the party. Not to kill them.
If one of the party chose a weakness in order to get a strength, then sometimes that weakness should show up and bite them in the ass. Conversely, if someone took a specific strength, such as a favored enemy, that favored enemy should show up from time to time so that they can shine. If I know that someone is going to have a power that will render the entire encounter pointless, I change it.
For example, the above posted ambush with archers. If one of the players is playing a druid who has wind wall, rendering them completely non threatening, I'd probably replace them with half the number of +1 level musketeers, or maybe the same number of +1 level slingers. The wind wall still provides some protection, but not so much that the archers might as well not even be there.
My objection to the boggarts isn't that you shouldn't have minions, it is that these minions are so ineffectual that it doesn't provoke the judgement call you are looking for. I just don't find that the truism that you can double the number and add +2 to the CR holds true beyond about 4 levels to either side of the party level. Beyond that the exponential nature of the system kicks in, and more weak enemies don't make game any more challenging, they just make it take longer. For example, the 20 lvl 1 archers above, are approximately the same CR as a 9th level archer. As said earlier, they do on average 1d6 hp, and have 10+Con HP a piece (for about 200+Con * 20 HP) The equivalent level archer would deal vastly more damage per turn, and while he would only have ~54+Con *9 HP, his damage would not go down as his HP decreased.
|
|
*gasp* *choke* I rather hope not everyone customizes their encounters to suit their party. Don't your players find that unfair and disingenuous? Maybe not.
Actually, I want to respond to this part in particular.
I think it comes down to the social contract. In PFS, where the explicit social contract is that every table plays the scenario the same way every time, yeah, you would be lynched. And rightly so.
In a home game, where it is the GM's job to make sure every player has the chance to shine, and every player gets challenged, then heck yeah I mod the adventure.
In a Adversarial game (I don't enjoy these, but other people do) where it is the GM's job to shaft the players, and it is the players job to outwit the GM while he does it, yes, the GM is expected to cheat, but only within proscribed (and probably unwritten) rules.
Thus I can get away with swapping out a monster for another monster with a higher CR but a vulnerability to fire because I know the flame mage has been just burning to set *something* on fire for 3 games straight and we have been wandering through an adventure path where everything is immune to fire, and no one will complain as long as I have a good reason for it to be there. An adversarial GM who did that could be accused of trying to make the adventure too deadly and tying to cheat to kill them off.
I believe the encounter ended up being a CR+3 or +4, but due to bad tactical decisions, they barely survived.For me this is what it comes down to. mdt, in that example, your 20 archers were doing on average a total of ~1d6 a round? Against what level? At level 8 (the same 7 level difference we were talking about before) if they concentrate all their fire on the wizard, it will take 8 rounds to knock him unconscious. Big arch? oh good, I move to one end, now all to others have to fire through each other to hit me.
Sorry, I'm just not seeing this as being effective. (Well except on a bad night, like the night where one of the players decided to make a wand of wonder her only weapon for the night.)
I'm not quite sure how you manage to move to some where where they all have to fire through each other.
000000000000
000x00x00x00
0x0000000000
010000000000
0B0000000Y00
020000000000
0x0000000000
000x00x00x00
000000000000
You are Y. x's are archers, 1 and 2 are cohorts, and B is Big Bad. Wherever you move, the archers have to, at most, move and fire to get a clear line of sight. Oh, and they all have precise shot as their first level feat, so melee is no biggie. And the big bad and his cohorts are actively using 5ft steps to both flank.
And, even if you did manage to get them to have to shoot through soft cover, it is pointless as they all only hit on a 20 anyway, so all you have done is make it 0% harder.
Yes, they are only doing 1d6 on average. But there are also two guys doing significantly more, and another one guy who's the big bad who's smashing everything in sight.
FLite, do you tell your PCs the levels of the NPCs they are fighting?
The only person that actually knows how effective the enemies are is the GM. The players just know that they are a bunch of enemies swarming in.
The archers are the same way. The PCs are only likely to know what level they are if you tell them.
They won't find out until well into the battle how effective the actual enemies are. Usually this is after they have already had to make the choice of which to deal with.
Apparently he does, since he's stated low level archers should be ignored by the party. Perhaps he puts up little numbers on the mini's? Like in a video game, to show their levels?
On a side note, I do like changing it up. In a later scenario, I did the same thing, but had 2-3 of the 20 mooks actually be decent archers (actual class levels, etc). So 2 of the 20 could hit reliably every round, and the other 18 usually got in one hit per round. Then it became a tactical choice, do I stop and watch the archers and try to figure out which one is hitting every round, or do I attack them, or do I attack the big bad?
|
|
mdt, you seem to have a reading comprehension problem. Look up above.
Also, didn't you say there were 20 archers? unless you had them magically surround the PCs, how did they get into an arc that completely surrounds them without any of the PCs tripping over a blind. For that matter, unless they somehow had control of where the PCs were walking in an open field, they can only realistically cover about 120 degrees of arc.
That means that there is about a 6 degree difference between each archer. At some point this starts to approximate a straight line, and at some point you have to look at the minis and say "yeah, technically these three guys here can shoot you, but they are shooting through 5 other guys to get to you, you effectively have concealment for an additional 20% miss chance."
I guess you could treat it like a video game and ignore the realistic effect of shooting past 5 of your own guys as if it were one guy.
My reading comprehension is fine. Your's appears to be somewhat less so. Of course, you're basically falling back on the 'I can't argue rules, I'll pound the desk' logic. That's fine, but if we're going to house rule things, I can out house rule you all day long, given I'm the GM in the case under question. :)
As to how they got set up, the PCs had made this trip back and forth 3 other times, and they went in straight lines all three times to follow the road with the wagon they were using. The wheat fields on each side of the road were pretty monotonous. When you have a bunch of people on a straight road, with 3.5 feet of wheat on either side, it's pretty easy to get into position a few hours ahead of time, take your time with your blinds, and make sure you're all positioned out for the ambush. Then you just have to get your big bads in position to block the road while the archers shoot. And it's not that hard to fit 10 archers into an arch on each side of the road. Set one next to the big bads. Go 25 feet north, set another, go 25 ft ne set another, go 25 ft n set another, go 25 ft ne set another, go 25 ft n set another, go 25 ft ne set another, go 25 ft east set another, go 25 ft east set another, 25 ft east, 25 ft east. They set it off early, so they were half-way between the two outermost archers when they set off the trap, so most archers were firing at them with nothing between them and the PCs at all.
|
|
That wasn't the encounter you described before. You said it happened "on a field" with the archers "on an arch"
This is an ambush on the road, with the archers rising fields from either side.
And when crash asked how the PC's knew what level the enemy was, I said I give people perception checks.
You then came back and said "Oh, he just puts numbers over their head like a video game." Which I found frankly insulting and contemptuous.
On further review, it would probably be better to use either Knowledge (Local) or Profession (Soldier) Either one would give you one piece of knowledge on a DC 10+CR as a Free Action + 1 piece of info for each +5. Perception would be a move action.
Anyway. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. In my experience, NPCs 4 or more CR under the party don't threaten the party. You seem to believe they distract the party and force them to waste actions. My experience is that they don't do anything but make combat longer and die from incidental free attacks. My experience seems to be based on the fact that the people I game with use battlefield control to deal with situations like that. Yours seems to be based on the fact that your players split up and run for the nearest enemy.
That wasn't the encounter you described before. You said it happened "on a field" with the archers "on an arch"
This is an ambush on the road, with the archers rising fields from either side.
It is exactly the encounter I described. Your mental image of the description didn't match mine, but that just means I didn't give enough details the first time. Doesn't mean I made up stuff.
To me, an old road running through a giant field of wheat that's a few miles wide (wild wheat, not farmed wheat) is just that, a fight in the middle of a big field. The fact a road or track runs through it is irrelevant.
They were on an arch, not an arch like over doorway, but on an arch that spread out from the ambush point. Two-Dimensional arch is still an arch.
However, I do see how it could be misunderstood. So no harm no foul. At least now I understand what you were talking about with arcs of fire. :)
And when crash asked how the PC's knew what level the enemy was, I said I give people perception checks.You then came back and said "Oh, he just puts numbers over their head like a video game." Which I found frankly insulting and contemptuous.
Insulting is up to you. It was contemptuous, because I find it too metagamey. You can tell people are underequipped compared to you (bad leathers, no back packs, etc), but you can't tell the difference between a 30 year vetran with bad equipment and a 3 month tyro with bad equipment. Not until they start shooting and even then it takes a few rounds to figure out 'hey that guy over there is good!'.
On further review, it would probably be better to use either Knowledge (Local) or Profession (Soldier) Either one would give you one piece of knowledge on a DC 10+CR as a Free Action + 1 piece of info for each +5. Perception would be a move action.
The problem I have with this is, what are they seeing on that first round, before anyone has done anything, that tells them mook A is a 5th level guy, and mook B, C, and D are 2nd level guys? There's nothing different between them except perhaps quality of equipment. But even then, that is not going to be easily noticed from 50 or 60 feet away (look at hollywood movie sets, cardboard that looks real from 25 ft away). Magical equipment? Requires detect magic and 3 rounds. Or arcane sight. Mook A has shiny new equipment? How does that differentiate between a vetran who just got new equipment and a new recruit with new equipment?
Anyway. I think we have a fundamental disagreement here. In my experience, NPCs 4 or more CR under the party don't threaten the party. You seem to believe they distract the party and force them to waste actions. My experience is that they don't do anything but make combat longer and die from incidental free attacks. My experience seems to be based on the fact that the people I game with use battlefield control to deal with situations like that. Yours seems to be based on the fact that your players split up and run for the nearest enemy.
My experience is based on running games for over 25 years. Yours is based on? And I said earlier to mix and match this with putting in good guys with the mooks, so now they don't know which archers (or pikemen or whatever) are the good ones and which ones are the mooks until a round or two occurs, meaning they have to spread around attacks or just suck up the damage for the 2-3 turns it takes to ID the threats. Hmmm, isn't that what we're talking about? How to draw the fight out 2-3 extra rounds?
My experience is based on running games for over 25 years. Yours is based on? And I said earlier to mix and match this with putting in good guys with the mooks, so now they don't know which archers (or pikemen or whatever) are the good ones and which ones are the mooks until a round or two occurs, meaning they have to spread around attacks or just suck up the damage for the 2-3 turns it takes to ID the threats. Hmmm, isn't that what we're talking about? How to draw the fight out 2-3 extra rounds?
I recently did this. I had several high ranking Drow clerics and rogues disguised as Orcs (hats of disguise), traveling with their Orc slaves. The party ran in expecting to simply kill the stupid Orcs. Next thing they knew 3 of them were deaf and another was back stabbed for 36 damage.
Then it became a guessing game as to which creature you want to attack, what resources you want to attack with, and which creature you want to ignore. In the end the party lost 2 heroes.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I think my problem, FLite, is that you came in here with a gripe over the guide about how it doesn't work, when, in fact, it does work. I just doesn't work with you house rule that you use for determining an opponents skill level, but I don't see that in the rules anywhere.
Actually, it's not a house rule, it's just a rule in the book no one bother's with. (I do acknowledge I have been using the wrong skill and will change that.)
Knowledge(X) can be used to ask questions about an opponent as a free action. For local humanoids, the skill is Knowledge (Local). If you beat their CR you remember a useful piece of information. Personally, If I were the player I would ask if I remembered seeing them drilling and if they were any good.
Profession(X) can be used the same way to "Answer questions about their profession."
The problem I have with this is, what are they seeing on that first round, before anyone has done anything, that tells them mook A is a 5th level guy, and mook B, C, and D are 2nd level guys? There's nothing different between them except perhaps quality of equipment.
How they hold their weapon, their stance, their attitude, are they nervous? Their muscle development for that matter.
Seriously, you have run game for 25 years. (ironically, almost exactly the same time I have) Can you honestly tell me you can't sit down at a strange table, and tell almost immediately who has played for years and who is there for the first time? I can walk into a rock climbing gym, and without even watching them climb I can tell you who is a serious climber and who is a hobbyist and who is just there to humor their friends with about 80% accuracy and I'm only a recreational climber. I can watch the people around me, and I can tell if someone is army/marine within moments, (navy and airforce are harder to spot) I can tell certain types of martial artists by the way they walk and stand without even seeing them throw a punch.
Try it yourself. Pick a hobby or a career you know well. Walk into a strange shop / dojo / whatever. Try to figure out the approximate skill level of the people there and then watch to see if you are right.
So in short:
The rules allow it "You can answer questions about your profession" "My profession is soldier, do these guys look like they are good fighters?"
Common Sense allows it.
Therefore you can do it.
As Crash_00 deflated the army question, I'll only address the gamer question.
Can I sit down at a table and figure out who's experienced and who isn't? Sure.
Can I do that in the first 6 seconds, by sight, when I walk through the door? Hell no. Neither can you.
I can tell after looking over their characters, I can tell after talking to them for 10 or 15 minutes, I can tell after watching them play for 10 or 15 minutes.
I can't tell, even with 25 years experience GM'ing by looking at them walking in the door and sit down. That's how much time the PCs have in combat to figure out which enemy has what level.
Also, your 'I am using the rules' doesn't really work, as they would need to take a standard action per npc to decide, not make one blanket roll for everyone on the field. Again, as pointed out, your houserules do not an invalidation of the methods make.
It would take psychic powers to be able to pick out a good/experienced gamer from a newbie on them walking through the door, which is what you are espousing. And you're espousing that it's doable when 10 or 20 walk through the door at the same time. Basically you espouse being able to tell what systems the players have played (class), how many years they've been playing (level), and who's better than others at certain types of RP activities (feats). All at first sight, for each player, as them and 10 to 20 of their peers walk into the room at the same time.
yeah, your examples really really really are my best argument against your stance.
|
|
Let me ask you the question in reverse.
When someone makes a knowledge dungeoneering roll, asking about an ooze for example. Do you roll the die in secret?
If not, the number of questions each character can ask is telling them the CR of the monster to within 5 each time they make their knowledge check.
When the PC's ask if a monster has DR, do you give them the same answer whether the monster has DR 1/magic or DR 20/-? Personally, I would say "Non magic Weapons seem to be slightly less effective against it" versus "Only the strongest weapons and hardest blows have a chance of penetrating its shell."
Likewise with hit dice for monsters;
"you know that a few good hits will take down a goblin."
"you know that it would take a strong fighter several good blows to finish off an ant lion."
Likewise with fighters
"You know they are good enough that they can probably easily beat you one on one (~+6 CR"
"You know they are better than you." (~+2 CR)
"you know that they are about as good as you" (~-2 - +2 CR)
"you know that they are not as good as you" (~-2 CR - -6 CR)
"you know that they are about where you were when you started out." (~-6 CR)
With rock climbers, I can't tell the exact number of years, but I can usually tell at what level they are climbing, recreational, intermediate, or expert, and I can tell whether they have been climbing longer than me. Given four possible climbs of different difficulties, I can usually tell which one they will do.
With a marine, I am effectively making the check untrained (I've never been in the military) so I technically cannot get a result above 10 (if you want to translate into real world.) In practice, I can sometimes tell enlisted from officer, and I can sometimes tell if someone has been more than 4 years, but not much.
Yes, this means that PCs have a pretty good idea of level of monsters, which is a game abstraction. But we regularly give PC's information they could never know, or could never know in detail in the terms of game abstractions. For example, do you tell the players how many hit points of damage an attack does? because really a person would not know the exact amount of damage that a hit did, and how many more they can take. If you want to follow that path, you should just tell the PCs "He got a solid hit, it hurts a lot." Or "It's just a grazing blow, you barely feel it" and then record all damage in secret. You should also be rolling all dice for their actions and the NPCs and not telling them the number just describing the results, but most of us don't do that.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
They don't know what circumstance modifiers went into the knowledge checks (common vs rare monster). A common CR 5 monster it's easier to know what they are and about them than a rare CR 20 monster. Rarity is variant by game world.
Your argument seems to be changing. Previously, it was they know a mook is a mook is a mook. Now you're saying they only get 'that guy seems more dangerous than the other guy'. However, I still don't see anything in the rules about identifying classes and levels in them, even roughly, by using Knowledge (Local). Humanoids are that by the way. Even if you had native outsiders (knowledge planes), that would give information about the aasimar or tiefling, as in, spell like abilities, darkvision, and a really good roll would differentiate a devil-spawn tiefling from a demon-spawn tiefling for example. But identifying level on sight is not in those lists.
Now, watching them use class abilities (IE: not on sight as you propose) would likely give them a chance to know something. Knowledge (Arcane) to identify a sorcerer/witch/wizard/bard/magus after they started casting spells and using abilities would be perfectly reasonable. Knowledge (Religion) to identify a cleric/druid/ranger/inquisitor/oracle would again be perfectly reasonable after they've used some powers. Spend the standard action to study and consider and make the roll. Knowledge (Local) or Profession (Soldier) to identify a fighter/monk/rogue/cavalier would, again, be perfectly reasonable after they've had a round or two of them using abilities. But on first sight, no. And that's the rub your stance isn't addressing. You want to give this info out immediately, and on all people on the field. It would require a skill check, and standard action, per combatant. And they'd need info to work on, which requires a couple of rounds. So yeah, again, they have no way on round 1 and 2 to know who to concentrate on, which means the mooks are doing their job of slowing the PCs down. Plus they're taking up standard actions on skill checks.
|
|
I didn't say I gave them exact levels, look at my example for the sort of level info I give. I don't say "this guy is Level 1, that guy is level three." (That was your assertion, that I hang numbers over their heads like a video game.) I do say "this guy seems far less skilled than you, that guy seems to be at your skill level." Most players I have ever played with, given the situation you described, will use tactics to either deal with the low levels first, if they can create a bottle neck that forces the high levels, or will deal with the high levels first, and then go after the low levels. And while low level hordes within 4 CR of the party can make this a very difficult fight, plinking away at the party while the party deals with the high level "boss" or forcing the party to waste actions while the "boss" gets to use his full actions against the party, in my experience, in practice, both as a player and as a GM, a well played tactical party simply has no difficulty dealing with hordes of opponents well below their CR, all the horde does is add an extra half hour to the fight, and bore everyone out of their mind.
I acknowledge that your experience seems to be different than mine, but I think that comes down more to your players not making effective use of tactics. (For the record, my wife reminds me that while our players (as a group) regularly survive these kinds of encounters quite easily, there are certain specific individual players, who usually have to be dragged off the battle field afterwards, because they *don't* play tactically. They are also the same players who are convinced they have come up with a clever plan / build that makes them immortal, and it is pretty much the same player every single time. The rest of us go into each battle convinced we are going to die, and usually take relatively little damage, because we play accordingly.)
|
|
Nope, I run the NPC's tactically as well. (at least I run them with tactics appropriate to their type and intelligence. Skeletons and zombies basically are tacticless unless commanded, wolves will try to surround and then wait for the opponent to attack, while readying to dodge, and then whichever ones aren't attacked will attack, drunks in a crowded bar brawl will pretty much hit the first thing that comes to hand, soldiers will create bottlenecks, isolate enemies, and try to concentrate fire on the most dangerous threat, non soldiers will most comonly concentrate fire on the threat that menaces them personally the most.)
If there monsters have Dr 1, DR 5, and DR 10, do you describe them all to your players as having "some DR"? Actually, your example is a perfect example of the descriptions I gave above.
Likewise with fighters
"You know they are good enough that they can probably easily beat you one on one (~+6 CR"
"You know they are better than you." (~+2 CR)
"you know that they are about as good as you" (~-2 - +2 CR)
"you know that they are not as good as you" (~-2 CR - -6 CR)
"you know that they are about where you were when you started out." (~-6 CR)
If you are level 9, the level 4 guy, the level 6 guy, and the level 8 guy are all "less skilled than you." So, how far lower is "far less"?
You are level 9
The level 8 guy is "about as good as you"The level 6 guy is "not as good as you"
The level 4 guy is "not as good as you"
The level 2 guy is "about where you were when you started out."
By level 9, most players I have played with have more means of getting people out of their way, or getting past people in their way than the level 2 has to get in their way. And if the terrain favors the level 2 getting in their way, the PC's either can pull back to a defensible position, or create one, so that if the low levels are in the way of the PC's attacking the BB, they are also in the way of the BB attacking the PCs.
|
|
They don't know what circumstance modifiers went into the knowledge checks (common vs rare monster). A common CR 5 monster it's easier to know what they are and about them than a rare CR 20 monster. Rarity is variant by game world.
yes, but the PC's who make their knowledge check, if they can identify the creature in character should know something about the rarity of the creature. Or when they make the check is all you give them the name of the critter?
Spend the standard action to study and consider and make the roll.
That is actually a house rule, knowledge rolls are immediate or free actions, depending on how you read the rule unless you are untrained.
Re: Metagaming, above. Lets talk about metagaming. In the lay out you devised, you had 20 archers, with the party smack dab between them. All 20 fired, roughly 19 of them missed. That means that roughly 19 of them just saw their own arrows fly right past the party and almost hit their friends on the other side. 19 also just got hit by their own friendly fire. Yet all twenty fired again the next round because in pathfinder, there is no friendly fire. Isn't that metagaming? Shouldn't you have had half of them start moving to get out of the way so that their friends could get a better shot without hitting them?
They don't know what circumstance modifiers went into the knowledge checks (common vs rare monster). A common CR 5 monster it's easier to know what they are and about them than a rare CR 20 monster. Rarity is variant by game world.yes, but the PC's who make their knowledge check, if they can identify the creature in character should know something about the rarity of the creature. Or when they make the check is all you give them the name of the critter?
They know about the critter, but they don't know of any circumstance bonus's or penalties to the roll, so any attempt to gain CR is, by default, metagaming.
Spend the standard action to study and consider and make the roll.That is actually a house rule, knowledge rolls are immediate or free actions, depending on how you read the rule unless you are untrained.
Hmm, ok, I'll give you the knowledge is free. Thought it was a standard. Usually doesn't come up because people usually make their Kn checks in my game before combat. Anyway, that still assumes the skill can, on first sight, identify class without anything other than what the guy looks like, or their skill level without observing them for a few rounds. Again, the knowledge skill says nothing about identifying class levels. It only talks about creature abilities, not class abilities. You would have the skill check somehow impart that one of the 5 treants walking toward you also has 5 levels of monk, with no use of special monk abilities? That's frankly absurd.
Re: Metagaming, above.
Do your players have to make will checks to keep shooting into melee because 'they are afraid of hitting their allies' when they have the Precise Shot feet? If no, then your argument is a straw man. Plus as pointed out above, lanes of fire can be coordinated, and blinds can grant cover. Finally, unlike a rifle (which you seem to be assuming a bow is), bows fire arcs, which means you can fire your arrow to hit target A and ground itself N feet beyond A if you miss. Or aim high and arc over an ally N feet away.
Hello everyone!
Just wanted to chime in midst the firefighting and announce that I have a new section up that talks a bit about how, exactly, you can break down a Mythic campaign.
It is all highly speculative and I note several times that the numbers are from either Word of God sources or pulled simply as a reference point. The Math is only there to help visualize how one can apply the notes in Mythic Adventures to a campaign. I plan on updating that section of the Guide when I actually get more experience in running a Mythic game, because right now I haven't even awakened my player's ascensions yet. 0_0
Also, shout-out to FLite and mdt. I appreciate all of the free bumps you've given my guide, but your conversation stopped being constructive days ago. Its mostly devolved into the two of you shouting at one another. For the sake of keeping this thread as a source of interesting discussion like it was, please take a deep breath and just drop your arguments with one another.
@FLite: I'm sorry that my guide didn't mesh up with your philosophies of designing campaigns. 30 years is certainly a long time to have been running games and I respect that. But as you've clearly noted in your conversations with mdt, your specific needs and House Rules don't always match up to the Core Rulebook. That's 100% okay, and I don't have a problem if you don't agree with all of my advice, but given your experience you need to accept that you are not this guide's intended audience. This guide was designed with novice GMs in mind.
@mdt: I appreciate you sticking up for my Mathematics, but it wasn't necessary. From the first post he made, it was clear that FLite came looking for a fight and your comments did nothing but fan the flames. Your best bet would have been to simply say, "I don't agree with you, but that's cool," and moved the discussion onward.
Because of both of your actions, there is literally no one discussing anything of note in this thread anymore, so please, calm down and stop nitpicking at each other's GMing.
|
|
Meh. I wasn't looking to pick a fight. I was looking to discuss encounter design philosophy. When I did so I was addressed contemptuously. But that is not your fault, and since this is your thread for your product, much of which did have useful information, I'll let you get on with it. I do apologize for derailing your thread.
I would draw the distinction that it is not so much house rules, in that it is not changing the rules in the core book, so much as different interpretation of how much information different skills give, which falls more into table variation, and different interpretation of character tactics. (I feel it is metagaming for NPCs to fire into a cross fire or charge blindly at the characters because they know that no matter how good the characters are, they can always hit on a 20, and they can't hit their friends, and besides if they do 3 hit points that means someone else might get to kill the PC. mdt thinks it is metagaming for the PCs to say "Hey, I got a lot of information on these guys, on a pretty lousy roll, they must be pretty common and weak." ) But yes, you are right, it is pretty clear that our experiences are vastly different.
Thank you I wanted to complain about the same thing
Now back on topic
So I'm Dming The Dragons Demand and I have a question for the last battle ill spoiler it for anyone who doesn't want to see it. Its not a huge secret
In the final encounter the players will be either 6th or 7th level and the dragon they fight is a CR 11. Which by the math (of the guide) is either a standard combat or a little challenging. If they make 7th level making them each worth 3200 exp and we have 5 players that would be 16000 Exp for an encounter. So the CR 11 monster takes 12800 Exp away from the total exp so I still have 3200 exp to spend which would be about 2 CR 5s, 3 CR 4 or 4 CR 3s is that correct? Is that the proper math? For an epic difficult skin of their teeth encounter for 7th level characters for your guide would be what total CR worth of EXP?
I don't have Dragon's Demand, so you'll have to bear with me on this.
Dragons are one of those monster types that get really challenging as their Hit Dice go up just because they have SO many defenses. Natural Armor, Spell Resistance, awesome abilities, it all scales with their Hit Dice. As a result, you need to be careful when you're beefing up a Draconic Encounter.
If you are assuming your players will be 7th Level and going up against a CR 11 encounter, then yes. Each player is expected to contribute 3,200 XP to the encounter, for a normal total of 12,800 for a CR 11 encounter. Since you have five players, you will have an additional 3,200 XP to play with in order to make the encounter balanced for your party. I would recommend the two CR 5s for your your choice because they're only two CR below the party's APL. They'll be plenty worth a fight on their own. Pick something that makes sense for a dragon to have around. :)
I don't have Dragon's Demand, so you'll have to bear with me on this.
Pick something that makes sense for a dragon to have around. :)
I'd suggest a couple of Kobold's with class levels. A turtle armored cleric (healer) and a beefy turtle armored fighter type (to throw them for a loop, they won't expect a fighter type).
By then the party has killed a fair number of Kobolds
By then the party has killed a fair number of Kobolds
Maybe so, but these are not your average kobolds. Which actually works in the kobolds favor. These are the personal servants of the dragon, and highly trained (outfit them with equipment from the dragon's horde, it'll buff them heavily). So in addition to their own NPC wealth, give them a nice equipment bump from the dragon's horde (not affecting expected wealth that way).
One of the nice things about dragons is they have 3x treasure, so, you can use that to beef up their flunkies.
By then the party has killed a fair number of KoboldsMaybe so, but these are not your average kobolds. Which actually works in the kobolds favor. These are the personal servants of the dragon, and highly trained (outfit them with equipment from the dragon's horde, it'll buff them heavily). So in addition to their own NPC wealth, give them a nice equipment bump from the dragon's horde (not affecting expected wealth that way).
One of the nice things about dragons is they have 3x treasure, so, you can use that to beef up their flunkies.
Joey If you are in a pinch for time you can get NPCs from d20pfsrd.com (just type in Npcs in the search function) or you can grab some from the combat manager app.
Personally I love the Combat manager app for encounter creation because it gives you the CR and Exp of each encounter. It also allows you to add templates to the creatures if you wanted to make it more or less challenging.
So let me make sure I understand this...
Using your lovely CR/XP chart, I can calculate how much XP worth of opponents/challenges I should add to an encounter depending on the number of PCs present, and how challenging I want it to be?
This a breakthrough for me.
So if I have 3 5th level PCs, they should be getting 400xp each from an average encounter, so an average encounter would be against a 1200xp worth of opponents. Likewise, a challenging 1v1 type encounter would be against opponents worth 3600xp.
A party of 6 5th level PCs would effectively have to kill twice as much xp worth of opponents for approximately the same challenge.
This idea of calculating xp worth of monsters makes so much more sense, and is so much easier, than trying to calculate a CR from a variety of monsters, for a party of more or less than 4 PCs.
I'd like to add my appreciation for this guide and I hope Paizo takes note as it's a subject that definitely deserves a hardcover.
Bits I'd like to see added to your excellent guide are:
* Sequential encounters - having enounters that build on each other in the lead up to the BBEG. Your comment in the Harrowstone example about the low level PC's likely to have used most of their AoE effects is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Advice on how to use lead up encounters to boost the major encounter.
* Creature selection - combo's (tips on opponent/monster team ups), ability/powers for terrains, matching up vs PC composition (eg: caster heavy part, melee heavy party, etc), templating and opponent roles for greater challenges.
* Managing spellcasters for the higher levels - quick & easy tactics/guide for casters to run that are still challenging
* Monster tactics - playing the different intelligent scores of monsters.
* Encounter management - Aerial encounters, moving terrain, natural hazards, making the most of abilities, etc
Some editing bits I picked up on in the Practice What We Preach — Haunting of Harrowstone section:
in #2 — Reduce the Splatter Man’s CR
Regardless, the Splatter Man’s CR is now CR 5, meaning he is worth 1,600 XP. This means you freed up 800 XP to worth with, just like in the first example.
** Wording: I assume that it should be work with instead of worth with
in the Grusome entry part
The moment your blood touches the air, it quivers. The Splatter
Man grins as your red ichor enters his area of influence and your blood animals into hundreds of small, amorphous blobs that swarm the room, attempting to siphon even more of your blood
from your withering veins.
** Wording: I assume that it should be animates instead of animals
A little further on in the How Many section
I wouldn’t recommend this. While you’ll get an impressive four to five swarms don’t so, having that many ooze swarms is bound to agitate and frustate your players.
** Spelling: Frustate - should be frustrate
** Wording needs improvement. Perhaps: "I wouldn't recommend this as although you'll have an impressive four to five swarms, you're likely to agitate and frustrate your players."
I have only just started on the Terrain section and will post up any other bits I catch if you like.
Can you move the charts around so they only take up one page so they are easy to print out
Thanks
Can you move the charts around so they only take up one page so they are easy to print out
Thanks
Here is a challenging encounter I designed with the advice of this guide.
Second the idea of having the chart on 1 page.
Done! Enjoy the wonderfulness of a printer-friendly chart!
* Sequential encounters - having enounters that build on each other in the lead up to the BBEG. Your comment in the Harrowstone example about the low level PC's likely to have used most of their AoE effects is the sort of thing I'm thinking about. Advice on how to use lead up encounters to boost the major encounter.
This is sort of a tricky thing to comment about, in part because I will run the risk of convincing people to run encounters not because they make sense for the adventure, but in order to make the encounters to come more challenging. I will certainly think on it, as sequencing is certainly an effective way by which you can make an encounter more difficult.
* Creature selection - combo's (tips on opponent/monster team ups), ability/powers for terrains, matching up vs PC composition (eg: caster heavy part, melee heavy party, etc), templating and opponent roles for greater challenges.
This is another one I will have to think on, because I typically design my encounters to be challenging but flavorful. "Min-maxing" monsters is another great way to increase the difficulty of an encounter, but it will often lead to situations where you have combinations of creatures that don't make sense.
* Managing spellcasters for the higher levels - quick & easy tactics/guide for casters to run that are still challenging
As soon as I figure out how to quickly and easily manage spellcasters, I'll let you know. :-P Spellcasters are always going to require some intense management for a GM, and preparation is really the only effective way to reduce that.
* Monster tactics - playing the different intelligent scores of monsters.
A tactics section in general might be useful, I agree.
* Encounter management - Aerial encounters, moving terrain, natural hazards, making the most of abilities, etc
I've been working on this, abet slowly because this topic is a fair bit of work to pull off correctly.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the top of the chart is on a different page then the chart
Great statement
Class Levels: Multiclassing NPC classes and PC classes is messy CR-wise; avoid it if possible.
To Bad Paizo loves to do this in the APs
I hate to be the bearer of bad news but the top of the chart is on a different page then the chart
Hrm, does it look any better now? I pushed the table down a few lines to see if it would look any better.
Great statement
Class Levels: Multiclassing NPC classes and PC classes is messy CR-wise; avoid it if possible.To Bad Paizo loves to do this in the APs
To be fair, Paizo freelances out most of their APs, so this is as much of a community problem as it is an in-house problem. I see many designers focus on the wonderful fluff that is, "City guard who became an adventurer/hero," and make the character a Warrior 1 / Fighter 1 to justify it. The problem is that from a realistic standpoint, it is far more likely that the character would have retrained into a Fighter instead of remained a 1st level Warrior, and this is before we get into any messy details like CR!
Great guide keep it up! its making it very easy for me to jot down encounters for my group!
Keep on giving me ideas on what to do (like so many others have done before) and I'll keep giving out advice!
I think that apl +4 isn't quite the 50% tpk that some make it out to be. Remember that a party can be and often will be optimized, coming in with intelligence on the scenario, and usually should work well together.
This is going by the mathematics in the rulebooks. All a CR +4 encounter represents is an encounter where you and your opponents are truly matched gun for gun. Often these encounters will expend 100% of your party's resources. You are right, though, that this does not happen 100% of the time. There are many factors, like skill of the party, composition of the party, and much more. However, those "25% of your resources" statistics are guidelines as much as anything else in the Core Rulebook. That's not a god-like equation handed down from on high by the mighty Prophet Bulhman, after all. This is expectations and statistical averages. You're expecting a statistical outcome of the reduction of 100% of the party's resources, just like statistically you're expecting a result of a 5.5 when you roll 1d10.
While an enemy party of course could have teamwork and intelligence as well, typically the party wont have to fight groups that are optimized to kill them and also have good teamwork and intel, as that detracts flavor (why is there an archer paladin with the bad guys, guys?)from the encounter.
The entire concept of the Linear Guild assumes that both sides are evenly matched. "Optimized to kill the PCs" is certainly not evenly matched, and would probably boost the CR by +1 for being in the enemy's favor.
Even the Linear Guild is like this. Even though they are the antithesis of the order of the stick, they bicker and in-fight more because they are evil.
Actually, they seldom loose because of bickering and group infighting. The Linear Guild, especially the trio of Thog, Nale, and Sabine arguably get along better than the Order of the Stick does. I actually think that Order of the Stick plays this straight, as I personally see a trend where Evil parties work together better than Good parties because when everyone is Evil, there's sort of a begrudging respect and the acknowledgement that your party members WILL backstab you if it suits them. In contrast, "being Good" is very much a point of view and people LOVE to enforce this on each other. In short, Evil parties often bicker less because its much easier to agree on what it means to be Evil.
*This advice is only relavant with a group that knows what they are doing and works well together. I've TPKed parties with easier encounters because they were being stupid.*
"The Players" don't factor much into this guide aside from the section that gives advice on how to counter specific, powerful builds. Even if I could somehow know the in-depth style, composition, and intelligence level of every party belonging to the several thousand people who have read my guide, I still don't think I would make it that in-depth. Sorry!
I went out with a friend for a midnight game release, so here's the rest of my reply now that I'm back!
Next: I like this development in making challenging boss fights because it could bring back a new renaissance of the blaster. If all the bosses are single cr +4 tanks (as it seems to often be in published materials), then casters have no incentive to blast and instead put their resources into buffing and controlling where they don't have to challenge the boss's incredible defenses and waste spells. Now if the boss is somewhat dangerous and surrounded by a lot of mooks more regularly, having a blaster spend resources to nuke the mooks out of the fight becomes a rewarding use of spell slots. You're still expending resources so the encounter is still doing its job, but it becomes much more exciting with magical volleys of doom. Anyway, good job and I hope some paizo adventure writers read the guide and try it out. (because I just love a well placed fireball.)
You are absolutely correct. Making challenging encounters with many opponents fundamentally changes how the wizard needs to plan out his days. He can't focus entirely on massive save-or-die spells that pick a single target, nor can he rely solely on buff-type spells because martial characters are (mostly) slower at killing a mob than a Wizard.
Finally, Monster preparedness and tactics don't have much place to fit neatly in the CR calculation. I think it is important to have all monsters act in a way that is reasonable to their intelligence, and while that adds realism, it mucks up CRs. I'll run ogres to be dumb and offensive, while kolbolds are clever and cowardly Consequently my party is much more leery of a den of kolbolds than a CR equivalent den of ogres. I don't know what kind of rule that would bring in. Maybe if you decide that the encounter is going to be straight forward, its CR-1, and CR +1 if you know that you can be especially devious with your critters.
A LOT of things can't calculate well into CR. Preparation, tactics, player skill, and GM skill to name a few. Many GMs often have problems challenging their players when their players have a higher level of system mastery than they do. That can be one of the most frustrating things in the world for a GM, and such GMs will understandably cry "broken!" before attempting to understand why a PC's build is as effective as it is. That's why I'm slowly trying to work on a "tips for countering popular powerhouses" section of the guide. So far Gunslingers and Magi are done, and the Zen Archer Monk is next. If people have other suggestions for things they want to see, leave it here and I'll get to it. Eventually.
Spend all encounter XP on level 1 Sorcerers at 200 XP each. Each should have four 1st level spells, all of them cast magic missile each round. Have all of them shoot at the same target (who doesn't have the Shield buff).
So a CR 8 encounter would have 4800 XP to spend, and you could get 24 first level sorcerers. They would do 24 * (1d4+1) = 84 average damage a round with no saving throw, 110 foot range, and an automatic hit. That should easily kill one 6th level character each round.