This is for those of you who do use random encounters, but sometimes don't wish to bother with them or simply don't have the time and want to get on with the plot.
I'm considering extending the idea to my players of the ability to 'skip ahead' past encounters that have no particular plot relevance. They would automatically succeed, gaining a quick package of appropriate loot/experience, but also taking a hit to their resources. This idea is still formulating, so I'm looking for ways to do this more efficiently.
Here's how it would work: First, I compare the APL to the CR. Skips would only apply if the CR is equal to the APL +2 or less. Then, I dole out a percentage of damage to all PCs based on CR: 5% for APL -1, +5% for each CR over that. This damage would also have a minimum threshold equal to the APL. Casters would also lose one or more spells depending on the difficulty (I'm thinking something like the second highest spell level they can cast, minimum 1st). Experience would be awarded as normal (awarding less experience would obviate the point of skipping the encounter), and gold can be awarded based on the table in the Gamemastering section of the Core Rulebook. If an appropriate piece of loot comes to mind when I'm doling this out I might reduce the gold and add in the item.
If they choose a 'skip,' I give a condensed version of the fight ("Along the trail, you were ambushed by a band of fierce but ultimately inept goblins. You put most of them to the sword, save for one the sorcerer finished off with a magic missile."), explain their losses ("5% hit point loss (2 damage since the party is all level 2), the spell slot for the magic missile, and a 1st level spell slot the cleric used to cure a nasty hit taken at the beginning of the fight"), and hand out the rewards ("100 experience and 65 gold to each of you"). Then, we get on with the story and what the heroes found at the end of the trail.
Thoughts?
Well hey, if your players like it, then awesome. I find combat tedious and boring, but extra book-keeping on my part seems less than ideal.
Wouldn't it, as is, be worse for casters if they always lose a spell or two? Especially, like in that 2nd level example? Or when not mentioning other resources like bardic performance, rage, or etc? I've been playing a low-level wizard myself recently, and find myself generally not using spells every other encounter, save acid splash.
I like the idea of the system, here are some ideas for changes...
For hp, instead of doing %, why not make the amount lost equal to their HD at APL -1. A 1st level party would all lose 1 hp, a 2nd level party would all lose 2, 3rd 3, etc. For each incremental increase to APL, they take further damage equal to another 1/2 the previous hp requirement.
For example, an 8th level party who skips...
APL -1: 8 hp
APL 0: 12 hp
APL +1: 18 hp
APL +2: 27 hp
If a player chooses to expend something with either a charge of an item, a single use item, a spell slot, or an ability with a limited number of uses per day (smite, stunning fist, challenge, charmed life, etc...) they reduce the hp damage they take by 1/2.
What if for the spell(s) lost, you started it at a single 1st level spell slot at APL -1, and increasing that by 1 for each increment as APL increases to +2. The spell slots expended can be any level so long as they cover the minimum number required (overlap is allowed if they have run out of lower level spells, so a 5th level spell would cover any category, for example)
Something like...
APL -1: 1st level slot (one 1st)
APL 0: 2nd level slot (two 1st/ one 2nd)
APL +1: 3rd level slot (three 1st/ one 1st, one 2nd/ one 3rd)
APL +2: 4th level slot (four 1st/ one 1st,one 3rd/ two 1st, one 2nd/ one 4th)
I like the idea of the system, here are some ideas for changes...
For hp, instead of doing %, why not make the amount lost equal to their HD at APL -1. A 1st level party would all lose 1 hp, a 2nd level party would all lose 2, 3rd 3, etc. For each incremental increase to APL, they take further damage equal to another 1/2 the previous hp requirement.
For example, an 8th level party who skips...
APL -1: 8 hp
APL 0: 12 hp
APL +1: 18 hp
APL +2: 27 hpIf a player chooses to expend something with either a charge of an item, a single use item, a spell slot, or an ability with a limited number of uses per day (smite, stunning fist, challenge, charmed life, etc...) they reduce the hp damage they take by 1/2.
What if for the spell(s) lost, you started it at a single 1st level spell slot at APL -1, and increasing that by 1 for each increment as APL increases to +2. The spell slots expended can be any level so long as they cover the minimum number required (overlap is allowed if they have run out of lower level spells, so a 5th level spell would cover any category, for example)
Something like...
APL -1: 1st level slot (one 1st)
APL 0: 2nd level slot (two 1st/ one 2nd)
APL +1: 3rd level slot (three 1st/ one 1st, one 2nd/ one 3rd)
APL +2: 4th level slot (four 1st/ one 1st,one 3rd/ two 1st, one 2nd/ one 4th)
Good stuff, though the spell expenditure seems off. Maybe just go with your idea about spending resources to reduce damage taken, and allow spells to apply to that as well.
I think the problem with allowing a caster to pick any spell to expend will always lead to only a single 1st level spell being spent. My math certainly isn't 100% and could even be reduced (say, only a 3rd level or less spell slot at APL +2), but casters with their abundance of resources should need to do more to get through the challenges with some sort of hit to their endurance.
Something also worth keeping in mind is the rule of thumb that each APL +0 encounter should tax 20% of the party's resources, meaning a typical party can take on 5 APL +0 encounters before really feeling exhausted. Whether this is heeded to in actual published Adventure Paths or not I'm not entirely certain but it's always been a solid rule I like to abide by.
Something else of note is that APL +4 equals out to a tough, pitched battle that should leave the party with about a 50% chance of success or failure (depending on the number of creatures in the encounter, this may vary).
Suggestion: instead of skipping a random encounter outright, how about instead you skip it but on the next actual encounter you add another minion.
APL: -1 add 1 minion
APL: +0 add 1 minion
APL: +1 add 1 advanced minion
APL: +2 add 1 advanced minion
APL: +3 add 2 advanced minions
This has the advantage that players don't need to do any extra bookkeeping.
I must say I'm tickled by the irony that after all the effort the publishers have gone to in an attempt to refit a 'theatre of the mind' game (2e) back into a wargame (very crunchy combat simulator) that what's being considered here is how to skip past the combat.
|
I think it will be very hard to come up with the right formula for resource depletion. But I do encourage you to continue your efforts.
I want to point out this stops the casters from blowing their load too early and either trying to convince the.team to camp/go back to town, or going forward when they are useless and fail to carry their wright. I hated several casters for insisting on blowing their load every first two fights cause they were convinced they were going to get a night's rest before any more encounters. I and the other melee would tell them after a few rounds of the first two fights when it became s downhill fight with only 1 or 2 enemies left, we got the rest of this, conserve your spells. They insisted they blow their load and when we wanted help in the 3rd fight, they had no offense, not even scrolls(they had scribe scroll for free as wizards, if you want to constantly shoot your load, you should make at least 1 or 2 offensive spells to fall back on). When we NEEDED help in the forth fight, they had nothing left but scrolls of fly and invisibility to protect themselves while we died, unable to get away. We did not.force continuing on, the GM required us to because of the hostile territory we were in.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Just skip the encounters. No resource sink no reward. Then the next is gonna hurt a bit more. Skip using Xp andlevel them up when you feel like it.
That is my suggestion.
Having given it some more thought and number crunching overnight, I've come up with this:
CR ...... damage taken
APL-1 ... APL
APL+0 ... APL*2
APL+1 ... APL*3
APL+2 ... APL*4
Spending an appropriate resource reduces damage based on APL.
APL ... damage reduced
1-4 ... 4+APL
5-9 ... 9+APL
10-14 . 13+APL
15-20 . 18+APL
Appropriate resources are also based on APL.
APL ... Spell level/daily usage of a class ability
1-4 ... 1
5-9 ... 2
10-14 . 3
15-20 . 4
PCs may elect to spend more resources to reduce damage further.
Obviously some class abilities would not be appropriate, so GM discretion should apply.
Still seems more complicated and unnecessary than anything I would want to use.
I use random encounters, but I don't take that to mean random combat.
Most of my random encounters are glancing at best -- sometimes the players just find evidence of the creature in the area or spot if from afar and can choose to engage or not.
Other times the creature steals their food or treasure and gets on its merry way.
Sometimes it's a troll, or owlbear, or undead of some kind that's actually ferocious and bloodthirsty. Even just avoiding such a creature at low level can make for an exciting (but brief) setpiece.
If find that these alternative encounter types make the game a lot more interesting and varied, and I would use even level-inappropriate encounters in this manner.
This also leaves me free to control the duration of encounters as dictated by the needs of the story. The players get to decide what's important enough to follow up on.
Honestly it comes down to motivation. Only a very small fraction of encounters should ever result in a fight to the death. Most living creatures will do just about anything to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation.
Just skip the encounters. No resource sink no reward. Then the next is gonna hurt a bit more. Skip using Xp andlevel them up when you feel like it.
That is my suggestion.
This is a fine method. I don't think anyone ought to feel obligated to use random encounters just to keep pace with advancement.
Random encounters can add a lot to a campaign, and there are plenty of great reasons for an experienced GM to add them... but running encounters just to close an XP gap is lame.
Still seems more complicated and unnecessary than anything I would want to use.
This coming from the guy who (unless I am mistaken) came up with the Strain and Injury rules? I'm surprised.
I use random encounters, but I don't take that to mean random combat.
Admittedly this system only covers situations where the PCs are likely to take damage, but that is and should be a type of encounter that can occur. My point isn't too only have combat encounters, but to allow the game to summarize combat encounters so we can focus on the description of it.
I find that these alternative encounter types make the game a lot more interesting and varied, and I would use even level-inappropriate encounters in this manner.
This also leaves me free to control the duration of encounters as dictated by the needs of the story. The players get to decide what's important enough to follow up on.
Honestly it comes down to motivation. Only a very small fraction of encounters should ever result in a fight to the death. Most living creatures will do just about anything to avoid a potentially lethal confrontation.
Well, adventurers aren't most people, and often seek out confrontation. And then there are fiends, bandits, injured animals or ones near their lairs, brash young creatures looking to prove themselves, and overconfident ones (especially those with regeneration) who think they've got nothing to lose. Not to mention hostile aberrations plants, oozes, undead, and constructs.
Random encounters can add a lot to a campaign, and there are plenty of great reasons for an experienced GM to add them... but running encounters just to close an XP gap is lame.
I know it's not your intent, but this sounds like a badwrongfun argument. Some people are in it for the XP, and it's not lame if they want to have fun, too.
I use random encounters as a pacing tool, which is largely what I think they're supposed to be. They don't necessarily need to be fights to the death. I had one random encounter where a pair of giant eagles simply perched on the party's boat for the night. Another where they found an abandoned ship at sea. Another where they found the corpse of a whale that was being eaten by local wildlife. It's good to break up an adventure with a few non-relevant encounters. It makes the world feel more alive and mysterious while also giving the players a break from the plot.
I've thought about a similar system but mostly for flavor. For example, in higher level games, 9-11, when the poor schmucks aren't teleporting everywhere, quickly simulating APL-3 monster encounters (the players are too awesome to bother roleplaying every detail).
There aren't CR 8-13 beasties everywhere so they would still be encountering goblins and ogres and the like occasionally. But the danger is so low as to not roll initiative.
For APL-2 or lower, I would have damage equal 1/2 APL. Against APL-2, PCs could spend resources as if they had APL-5. So an 11th level barbarian could use 2 rage rounds to take no damage from a CR 9 encounter, or simply take the 5 damage it would deal. Against APL-3 to APL-9, PCs could spend resources as if they had APL-10.
If you wanted to run an entirely diceless game, you could use this system for APL+3 and higher, but I would recommend drastically increasing the damage multiplier past that point. Something like x8 for APL+3 encounters, and x12 for APL+4 encounters. But I haven't run those numbers as thoroughly as the already posted ones.
If a spellcaster has a charm spell, and one of the "monsters" has a very low chance of saving, give the caster that creature for the day. They will only tell the charmer what they know of troop movements and environmental changes, but your charmed goblin will distract the big bad's human shield. When the charm wears off, a lone goblin will panic and run off.
|
I base the number of "random" encounters by how well they roll skill checks in transit. Higher rolls are like a fast forward button.
once I have drawn up my stats, for "minions", "advanced minions", and "bosses" - however you cut these up - for the most part I add or subtract the number of minions based on party resource status (HP, spells, per-days, etc) - for example from 3d6 goblin rogues to just 2d6 if i feel they are slightly outmatched. that way I don't have to suddenly generate new stats, just plop down fewer chess pieces (pawns, horses, rooks, etc)
If your players like it, then I would say go ahead.
However, I personally don't think it's a good idea due to the attitude towards traps.
Many players feel that traps that hurt them based solely on one perception check are a "hit point tax" for the hallway or treasure chest. The way I overcome this, is to always find a way to allow the party to work past a trap so it feels like an actual encounter instead.
What you're suggesting is kind of sending things in the opposite direction and may make players feel cheated or "taxed".
I totally get trying to come up with a system for this, but just take it a step further and if you want to skip the encounters, then skip them altogether and enrich the encounters you do play out.
Not sure if this has anything to do with it, but making the perils of overland travel consistent is very difficult and usually not worth it. There are going to be times when going through the forest is a whole level, and there will be times when going back through that same forest will be 2 uneventful days of in-game time and 5 minutes at the table.
It's important to state that this would be an option for the PCs, not a requirement or a tax.
If they feel like they can pass an encounter without using resources or taking harm, or if they simply want to play it out round by round, that's fine. This is just for those times where, say, there's a guard detail in front of the big bad's chambers, and there's only an hour left to game, and everyone is really excited for the big fight. Then, I'd offer this as a time saver.
I kind of feel like my use of the word 'random' in the title has brought up negative connotations of droll hack and slash games where roleplay is de-emphasised. If anything, it's the opposite.
This is for use, at the option of the players, for any combat encounter that feels right to happen (such as the aforementioned guard detail in an enemy stronghold) but is mechanically a speed bump in the PCs' progress. The fight still can and absolutely should happen; rather than spending a half hour setting up and playing out the near inevitable conclusion of the PCs' victory, you can describe it in a couple of minutes (with only a fraction of that time spent on meta components like experience and hit points).
This coming from the guy who (unless I am mistaken) came up with the Strain and Injury rules? I'm surprised.
Quite a bit of the discussion around that idea was about keeping it as simple as possible. Indeed, it is much simpler than any other wound tracking system to my knowledge.
But, that's not really at issue here. What I mean to say is that the systems presented in this thread don't really save you much effort when compared with more basic measures, like throwing out randoms altogether or just switching to a different table.
Admittedly this system only covers situations where the PCs are likely to take damag...
Well, adventurers aren't most people, and often seek out confrontation...
No argument there. I'm just saying it is possible to use the lower and higher CR encounters as flavor without dragging the game down. It's what I do, and that partly obviates the need for augmenting the roll like you're doing here.
I know it's not your intent, but this sounds like a badwrongfun argument. Some people are in it for the XP, and it's not lame if they want to have fun, too.
There's definitely nothing wrong with augmenting the roll like you're doing, it's just a matter of added complexity. Please do not let me stifle that discussion, I am just adding my own experience to the commentary.
Please continue.
...the systems presented in this thread don't really save you much effort when compared with more basic measures, like throwing out randoms altogether or just switching to a different table.
Tossing aside that this is not really about random encounters, but simplified combat resolution regardless of the nature of the encounter... without simply handwaving or eliminating a minor fight, how else might I go about this kind of time saving measure?
There's definitely nothing wrong with augmenting the roll like you're doing...
This makes me think you might not be understanding what I'm trying to get across. I am not augmenting rolls, I am eliminating them.
Skips would only apply if the CR is equal to the APL +2 or less
This statement from your first post made me think you were rolling up the encounter, then deciding based on the APL whether or not the players could choose to skip it?
My comments on complexity were mainly in response to the subsequent ideas about resource expenditure.
It's cool, I'm not against any of this. I'll be keeping an eye on it in fact.
This is for those of you who do use random encounters, but sometimes don't wish to bother with them or simply don't have the time and want to get on with the plot.This jumped out at me.
And I do apologize for that. While thinking about random encounters was certainly the impetus for this, ultimately it was a distracting choice of words. My third post is the system in complete. It can be used at the players' option if they wish to save time and fast forward past a combat situation.
One thing I have realized in discussion with a friend is that, in order for the players to make an informed choice when skipping, they would need to be told the CR of the encounter. This may be a little immersion breaking, but I don't see it as that bad.
Going over the system, the first and most glaring problem I see is "what is an appropriate resource?". It's easy for some classes, not so easy for others. The five that jumped out immediately: Gunslinger, Swashbuckler, Kineticist, Magus, Fighter.
These are nearly the same classes I had been considering. For most of them (including the rogue as well, and the monk), I'll need to add in another type of resource - the consumable (alchemical, magical, or special material). This one is a bit trickier, and I'm not set on anything. My initial thought is a minimum gp value for consumables, as follows:
APL ... Consumable Minimum Value
1-4 ... 10 gp
5-9 ... 150 gp
10-14 . 375 gp
15-20 . 700 gp
Set mostly to scroll costs, though only 10 gp at first since a flask of acid will generally do you well enough. As GM, I would ask the PC to clarify in what manner he was using the consumable; if very appropriate, I may bump the effectiveness up a category (for instance, using alchemist's fire in a fight against a troll, or using a 2cp bag of flour in a fight against an invisible stalker).
The Gunslinger: assuming he's willing to eat the HP damage, he just doesn't spend bullets? I guess that fits decently if he has a secondary melee weapon he's fond of, but it comes off as odd. Also see Swashbuckler below.
The gunslinger is problematic in this system like all artillery-based characters, but even more so due to the cost of bullets. Not too sure how I would approach that part; as far as 'resource bullets' go, I'd say they would have to be special in some way; special materials or alchemical packets would do the trick.
The Swashbuckler: Has a regenerating resource pool, in exchange for it being much smaller than most other classes' pools. How do you determine how much regenerates from a fight? Or do we just gloss over that? The former is more work, the latter unduly punishes the Swash, who will virtually never have enough panache to 'give' to skip an encounter.
Grit and panache are definitely strange beasts in Pathfinder. I'll look more closely at them and get back to you on that, since I've never played either.
I do note that swashbucklers have another daily resource - charmed life, which would be an excellent, if limited, fit.
The Kineticist: Technically, they have a daily resource, Burn. Realistically-- assuming they don't change massively from the playtest-- the smart Kineticist only expends Burn in the beginning of the day or for absolutely crucial fights. How do you resolve this?
Another hard call - probably a more difficult one than the gunslinger.
The Magus: Has two separate resource pools: arcane pool points and spells. "Daily usage of a class ability" at first level can mean a single Arcane Pool Point when a Magus may start with five, or a first-level spell when the same Magus would have two. That's a pretty significant difference, and is really a microcosm of my immediate issue with the whole of things: not all daily resources are valued the same.
This I have no problem with. The magus simply spends whichever one is more convenient to him.
There's also the fact that the spell level scaling affects different classes differently. A Magus eating a 3rd level spell at level 10 is a big deal. They just got their first 4th level spells; 3rds are still their main resource for real combat. But the Wizard at the same level has fifth level spells already (and got them last level even), and is about to get his 6th level spells. It's even more of a gap at higher levels: at level 15, a Wizard could devote all of his 4th-level spell slots to skipping encounters and not feel the loss; he's casting 8th-level nukes right now. But the 15th level Magus still only has 5th level spells; the 4th level ones are still kind of a big deal to him.
I would hope that the arcane pool would help make up for this, though of course wizards do have their own daily abilities as well from their schools. The bigger worry are sorcerers and oracles, who have a truly mighty pool of spells to draw from.
The Fighter: Has no resources save HP. Is he forced to take damage?
Definitely this has been on my mind today. I would certainly allow an ally to spend their own resources to reduce the damage the fighter takes, but that just shifts the burden. The consumables I mentioned above would help, but characters who have resource pools don't need to worry about any of that.
I do wish the fighter had some sort of pool to use; it wouldn't make sense to give him one just for 'daily skips' like some sort of handout for the poor. Ultimately this is the largest hurdle, I think.
Random Encounter don't have to feel like random encounter and don't have to be combat encounter at all.
I did this during my Kingmaker Campaign (and planning to do it again):
1. roll random encounter before the actual game session, put then into a nice sheet sortet by day/terrain
2. create a small story around the random encounters, especially in sandbox games, these random encounters can create complete new story-arcs. These stories don't have to be combat oriented and also think of the terrain, it alters the CR massively if it favors the "bad guys".
3. During session track the days the group spent in a terrain, if they spent enough days to reach a encounter on your list, put it into the game.
The good thing for this is, the players don't know if this is a major plot part or only "something on the road" and so their reaction is more intressting.
Example:
You roll a random encounter for the 2. Day the players are in woods, 1d6 Bandits (APL -4). So no real oppponent.
Story: The bandits stopped a carriage. The players here the scream of a young lady (from which the bandits took her golden amulet).
When they charge to the scene they see one bandit pulling out the lady holding a knife to her throat and demand the clearly more powerfull heroes move away.
This create a nice scenery for some diplomacy, trickery (maybe the rogue sneak around etc.
After it the player rescued a young noble lady - maybe a new NPC/Questhook? Or maybe the bandits are simple farmers, who only steal because the landlord took all their food? Or the bandits were hired by a evil coven because the amulet is a mighty artifact? or maybe they aren't bandits at all, but inquisitors who try to get hold to an cursed amulet which inhabits the spirit of an evil witch.
A simple random encounter become intressting right now and maybe lead to a side quest or change the main quest. ;)
Of course this needs a little more preperation, but as you determinate the random encounter not by the day of travel but by the number of days the players are in a specific terrain, your relatively flexible. (and if they level up before it, just add +1 to all bandit rolls^^)
Also this approach reduce the "one-encounter-per-day" feeling, as the encoutner has some backstory and don't only exist to have an encounter at all.