That's great and all, but you know that even if you walk around for 3-4 hours and only have 2 encounters that a Wizard can blow all their high level spells on that's still the "15 minute adventuring day". Right?And how many encounters are there in those timed events before you get a rest? (Answer: less then 150 rounds worth.)
There's a lot more to "adventuring" than what happens in the combat rounds, you know.
We usually have about 3-4 hours of adventuring before a rest.
That may be, but not how we measure it, and in any case, we like to run 4-6 encounters.
Never did the 1-2 encounter thing, unless an encounter was MASSIVE.
If you measure it in purely rounds of, then every roleplaying game has a super short adventuring day. No one I know defines it that way.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm not. What you are suggesting is mathematically impossible. There literally are not numbers that support it.
Then we played thru the entirety of RotRL being "mathematically impossible". And since our DM was a CPA and CFO and I am a retired Treasury Agent, I think we just might have gotten that "math" thing down.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
Dont get me wrong, it may be the way you play, and as long as you're having fun, that's great.
2 round encounters, 7 round encounters- neither one is 'wrong". Whichever suits your players and DMing style.
I prefer longer, myself. But whatever you prefer.
I'd think positioning and when you consider the "start" and "end" points of an encounter could throw this off, if you start with only a portion of the enemy visible, or end only after your foe has already escaped(or fully bled out/negative con)... it would drastically affect your timeline compared to starting them at 30ft with all the targets visible.I don't think you can tell another DM how long his encounters last Anzyr. If they last that long they last that long.
Party balance, encounter balance, terrain, surprise, lethality, enemy attacking in waves etc will all change how long enemies or PCs stand on their feet.
I would expect most sessions to have a range of Long and short combats. If every encounter goes 9 rounds it's gonna get boring. If they all only last 2 it's equally frustrating.
Yeah, from what I've heard a lot of longer encounters involve stuff like the big bad sending in a wave of minions before jumping in himself, surprise reinforcements halfway through the battle, or just putting a lot of enemies on the field.
I ran a poll a few years ago, and here were the numbers:"OK for the Pathfinder Devs the number of rounds range seems to be 3-10, average 6, mean is 5.
For number of encounters it’s around 6
Per session it’s around 4.
For posters;
# of rounds average is 5 (about the same as the devs)
# of encounter per game day= 4 (lower than devs)
# of encounters per session= 3.5 (about the same)
The big variance is number of rounds. Runs from 2-10 average"
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qcgs?How-many-rounds-encounters#1
So, the Paizo devs themselves run around 6 rounds for a encounter.
One of our DMs makes really interesting 'transforming' boss encounters - very final fantasy - in that defeating a boss leads to another encounter sometimes the souped up bad guy and sometimes a linked enemy. So you kill the wizard and then the hourglass he was carrying shatters to the ground and the efreet is released etc etc.
You never know what you're going to get and there is at best one round between fights then the boss-Neo is up in your face. He's really good at running them.
In addition many many Pathfinder encounters if played intelligently by a DM would involve several 'rooms' creatures combining in quick succession because of the sound of battle. That leads to waves of foes that can't be taken out with one area effect spell. Also rooms tend to be a lot smaller preventing area spells unless you can hedge out the party.
One of th biggest discrepancies for me is between DMs that start the encounter with you in the room and those that let the encounter start with you outside the room. The first makes for much tougher and longer encounters while the second gives casters a big advantage.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I ran a poll a few years ago, and here were the numbers:"OK for the Pathfinder Devs the number of rounds range seems to be 3-10, average 6, mean is 5.
For number of encounters it’s around 6
Per session it’s around 4.
For posters;
# of rounds average is 5 (about the same as the devs)
# of encounter per game day= 4 (lower than devs)
# of encounters per session= 3.5 (about the same)The big variance is number of rounds. Runs from 2-10 average"
http://paizo.com/threads/rzs2qcgs?How-many-rounds-encounters#1
So, the Paizo devs themselves run around 6 rounds for a encounter.
Very interesting. 5-7 is probably an optimal range for an average encounter for me. It give characters that want to buff or debuff, sing etc chance to do so and then wade in. It also give chance for melees and rogues to get in positions and use their abilities.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
No, I'm not. What you are suggesting is mathematically impossible. There literally are not numbers that support it.Then we played thru the entirety of RotRL being "mathematically impossible". And since our DM was a CPA and CFO and I am a retired Treasury Agent, I think we just might have gotten that "math" thing down.
“You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means”
Dont get me wrong, it may be the way you play, and as long as you're having fun, that's great.
2 round encounters, 7 round encounters- neither one is 'wrong". Whichever suits your players and DMing style.
I prefer longer, myself. But whatever you prefer.
Then you were either fudging, houseruling, had less than 4 people, or were playing characters that were less than even lightly optimized. You will note my declaration of impossibility came with several caveats. Said caveats are there exactly because I know what the word "impossible" means and have eliminated all scenarios via caveats that would produce a different mathematical result other than impossible.
I don't trust polls either. Lots of things throw those off. Bandwagoners being a big one. PFS with optimized players and module only players will throw it off.
I customize every encounter to fit the group.
This is something critical to keep in mind in this discussion- Walsh doesn't believe in Static Encounters that the group can have varied results against- he deliberately adjusts the encounters [including dice fudging if necessary] to achieve the level of difficulty he wants regardless how the players built their characters.
Every encounter is dynamic and fun.If you had the type of player who like that [it seems many likely exist, The Sword most likely included] then I'm sure they are tons of fun.
I'd feel impressed with myself for being able to know they were chea... fudging just by the length of their encounters if it was not the most obvious culprit of encounters lasting more than 3-4 rounds.
Having more than one encounter per day is weird.
There really just shouldn't be that many people to kill and defenses shouldn't be spaced out such that taking a structure is multiple separate encounters.
Having lots of random encounters is silly too. No one could use roads then and therefore, there are no kingdoms.
Gauntlets of murdersprees really shouldn't be a session regular thing. Those events should be hero defining and important.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Having more than one encounter per day is weird.
There really just shouldn't be that many people to kill and defenses shouldn't be spaced out such that taking a structure is multiple separate encounters.
Having lots of random encounters is silly too. No one could use roads then and therefore, there are no kingdoms.
Gauntlets of murdersprees really shouldn't be a session regular thing. Those events should be hero defining and important.
What!? Heresy! Murdersprees are the main source of income for adventures. You'll bankrupt us with that kind of talk.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Let's keep it civil. This thread has been pretty constructive even if it has veered off the original 'why does everyone kick off at the prospect of limiting casters' topic slightly.
Not everyone fudges dice as a matter of course and adventure path encounters are not the only way of playing pathfinder. At the same time length of service doesn't validate an opinion as fact - but it does support a personal opinion.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
I'm getting tired of your "impossible" claim. I've been doing this for longer than you've likely been alive. A well set up encounter hits 7 pretty easily.I'd feel impressed with myself for being able to know they were chea... fudging just by the length of their encounters if it was not the most obvious culprit of encounters lasting more than 3-4 rounds.I don't trust polls either. Lots of things throw those off. Bandwagoners being a big one. PFS with optimized players and module only players will throw it off.
I customize every encounter to fit the group.
This is something critical to keep in mind in this discussion- Walsh doesn't believe in Static Encounters that the group can have varied results against- he deliberately adjusts the encounters [including dice fudging if necessary] to achieve the level of difficulty he wants regardless how the players built their characters.
Every encounter is dynamic and fun.If you had the type of player who like that [it seems many likely exist, The Sword most likely included] then I'm sure they are tons of fun.
Not without Fudging or Houserules. Remember we're talking about the average number of rounds per encounter. Consistently having 7+ round encounters without less than 4 players, less than even light optimization, fudging or houserules (or more likely multiple of those) enough to give an average of 7+ rounds per encounter simply is mathematically impossible. Even with only very light optimization 3-4 successful attacks is sufficient to kill anything of equal or slightly higher CR in the game. With just light optimization (ie. THW + Power Attack + STR investment) should kill something of equal CR in 1.5-3 successful attacks. Even with just moderate optimization that should get down to 1-2 rounds. That's the math of the system, without changing it an average of 4 rounds is a virtual guarantee.
Had I the time/effort/motivation, I would create a list of challenges pulled from published Paizo adventures, roll randomly on the list to get 4 combat challenges, 2 "roleplay challenges" and 2 skill challenges. Then, I would have two players run different groups through the random challenges. One player would run a group of X Caster/Wizard/Cleric/Rogue or Fighter (contenders choice) and then other player would run a group of X Martial/Fighter/Rogue/ Wizard or Cleric (contenders choice). The Fighter/Rogue/Wizard/Cleric that are used would be the same for each player, with the only difference being the party make-up and the chosen caster or martial the player is running. I already know what the outcome will be of course, but I cannot think of a more fair way to demonstrate it plainly.All of this theory crafting isn't going to get us anywhere. It's always easy to claim your experience shows it works one way, while someone else is equally sure it goes the other way.
I'd like to see an experiment: Take one of the "casters are easy to compensate for" GMs and have them run a game with some of the "martials are fine" crowd running martials and some of the "casters are gods" players as casters.
Follow this along for a ways and it should give some insight into what GM methods compensate or whether those groups really just aren't exploiting the casters fully.
If we're going to run this experiment we should run it with two more GMs.
One who is impartial and runs the game as close to RAW as possible and one who feels casters are disadvantaged vs martials due to limited resources.
All gameplay to be well documented.
That may be fair, but it doesn't show how encounter design can handle the problem, which is a common claim of some who think the problem isn't a big deal.
Nor does it show how differences in character build affect it.
My approach actually stacks the odds - the casters rule group gets to bring their a-game...
I strongly *strongly* suspect their claims of "encounter design" are essentially fudging/houseruling/metagaming against the casters. If they would like to pick encounters from published Paizo material that suitably matched their encounter design aesthetic, then I would be happy to include them in the random list. However, if there are no published encounters that match their particular inclination, I think it would be fair to interpret that as my suspicions being correct. And if they intend to complain about the list being random and their chosen encounters not being selected, it would be fair to interpret that as them admitting they *need* to "design" encounters around casters, which is essentially an admission they are more powerful than other classes.
As much as I don't agree with Hwalsh, he have reiterated that he adapt his encounters for the group at hand, so to compare them against published encounter doesn't make much sense.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr, there are dozens of encounters in Paizo materials where several groups of encounters are in very close proximity - in shattered star for instance most rooms have at least one or two adjoining rooms with further enemies. It entirely plausible and intentional that these foes join fights after a few rounds of warning some even say they will do so without armour because they're in a bath house.
Adventure paths are well known for being aimed deliberately at very low optimisation levels to prevent any kind of bar to entry.
You're also ignoring flying creatures, DR, invisibility, etherealness, in game healing/buffs by enemies, battlefield control by enemies, dividing terrain and on and on and on. Saying encounters can't last more than 4 rounds is patently not true.
Repeating the same accusations about dice fudging isn't helpful.
*snip*You can't caveat and say, "They have to match Paizo official encounters to be valid."
Paizo official encounters are designed to be easier than standard. They are built for non-optimized groups. If the group optimizes the GM has to build encounters that take that into account.
Please reread. Matching Paizo published encounters is not a caveat. I believe you have confused my proposed test with my caveats for the impossibility of an average of 7+ rounds per encounter.
As much as I don't agree with Hwalsh, he have reiterated that he adapt his encounters for the group at hand, so to compare them against published encounter doesn't make much sense.
As you can see from the above, you can feel free to disagree with him again.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bit more "wrongbadfun" going than I like. Just because the math says something or because you play a certain way, that doesn't mean it is right or the only way. And what does any of it have to do with the resistance to limiting spellcasters?
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Furthermore, the question isn't whether an optimiser can design a character that can shut down an encounter in two rounds. It is whether the average game has on average a particular number of rounds of combat.
If the poll says the average is 6 then obviously some a playing higher than that (HWalsh) and some are lower (Anzyr). It's crazy to suggest either is doing it wrong when there almost certainly hundreds of Games falling all across that spectrum.
My preference is for longer combats for all the reasons I've mention - key of which is giving my character chance to act. But that is a personal preference.
[Edited a Freudian slip!]
As much as I don't agree with Hwalsh, he have reiterated that he adapt his encounters for the group at hand, so to compare them against published encounter doesn't make much sense.As you can see from the above, you can feel free to disagree with him again.
He says that he make encounters in such and such way that balance everything and make enncounter last for 7 rounds and your rebuttal is that if it's not like the way paizo use to design encounters is not valid, Which of course don't disprove that he is saying.
Anzyr, there are dozens of encounters in Paizo materials where several groups of encounters are in very close proximity - in shattered star for instance most rooms have at least one or two adjoining rooms with further enemies. It entirely plausible and intentional that these foes join fights after a few rounds of warning some even say they will do so without armour because they're in a bath house.
Adventure paths are well known for being aimed deliberately at very low optimisation levels to prevent any kind of bar to entry.
You're also ignoring flying creatures, DR, invisibility, etherealness, in game healing/buffs by enemies, battlefield control by enemies, dividing terrain and on and on and on. Saying encounters can't last more than 4 rounds is patently not true.
Repeating the same accusations about dice fudging isn't helpful.
Where to even start. Please read my posts more thoroughly so you do not incorrectly restate them.
First of all, my proposed test would draw from published adventures, not merely APs. Second of all, I am not ignoring flying creatures, DR, invisibility or any other game mechanic in my assertion that an average rounds per combat of 7+ is mathematically impossible. If the enemy has a mechanic that dramatically reduces the parties ability to combat it, the enemy should win in an average of 4 rounds. Third, the assertion is not that combat cannot go past 4 rounds. It absolutely can. It can even go to seven rounds. But the average rounds per encounter being 7+ is mathematically impossible without the caveats I indicated.
As much as I don't agree with Hwalsh, he have reiterated that he adapt his encounters for the group at hand, so to compare them against published encounter doesn't make much sense.As you can see from the above, you can feel free to disagree with him again.He says that he make encounters in such and such way that balance everything and make enncounter last for 7 rounds and your rebuttal is that if it's not like the way paizo use to design encounters is not valid, Which of course don't disprove that he is saying.
Please reread as that is not even remotely what I am saying. Nor have I at any point in this thread.
Bit more "wrongbadfun" going than I like. Just because the math says something or because you play a certain way, that doesn't mean it is right or the only way. And what does any of it have to do with the resistance to limiting spellcasters?
I haven't seen any "badwrongfun" in this thread at all. Perhaps you are misusing the term? If someone is fudging to make encounters last longer or to reduce casters effectiveness or houseruling they are essentially committing the Oberoni Fallacy ie. arguing it's not broken because you can fix it. This becomes an issue regarding a discussion of limiting spellcasters because their method almost certainly does not take into account the underlying math of the system.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Anzyr I have read your posts. You've just been given links to a poll where players and developers alike say the average is longer and you're saying they're wrong and you're right.
I have no interest in opinion masquerading as fact. Maybe in your theorycraft you can design characters that way. The reality is that it doesn't translate to the table - clearly. For some it does but not all the time. As clearly demonstrated by the poll.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Bit more "wrongbadfun" going than I like. Just because the math says something or because you play a certain way, that doesn't mean it is right or the only way. And what does any of it have to do with the resistance to limiting spellcasters?I haven't seen any "badwrongfun" in this thread at all. Perhaps you are misusing the term? If someone is fudging to make encounters last longer or to reduce casters effectiveness or houseruling they are essentially committing the Oberoni Fallacy ie. arguing it's not broken because you can fix it. This becomes an issue regarding a discussion of limiting spellcasters because their method almost certainly does not take into account the underlying math of the system.
I dunno, when you tell people what they are saying is impossible and/or that they MUST be fudging, it sounds like you are saying they are playing wrong. You don't agree with how long some people's encounters take. That is your take on it. Your experiences aren't everyone's.
I'm also not sure when published adventures became the ideal? I grew up on the principal that the ideal was a bespoke adventure written to challenge the individuals in that group - whatever their mix and optimisation.
I always believed published adventures were a nod to convenience and never (outside of PFS) to be taken as gospel. A convenience I have liberally taken advantage of but never been slavishly bound to.
I don't agree with everything HWalsh says but on this I think he is spot on. A good DM adapts the encounter to the party, whether they they are all wizards or all rogues.
Anzyr I have read your posts. You've just been given links to a poll where players and developers alike say the average is longer and you're saying they're wrong and you're right.
I have no interest in opinion masquerading as fact. Maybe in your theorycraft you can design characters that way. The reality is that it doesn't translate to the table - clearly. For some it does but not all the time. As clearly demonstrated by the poll.
Polls are not facts. If they were America would have a different president. Math however is factual. And the math of the game indicates that 3-4 successful attacks from even a lightly optimized character will kill a CR appropriate encounter or one slight over CR. If it takes your character more than 4 successful attacks to defeat an enemy, surely you agree that said character is below par yes?
I dunno, when you tell people what they are saying is impossible and/or that they MUST be fudging, it sounds like you are saying they are playing wrong. You don't agree with how long some people's encounters take. That is your take on it. Your experiences aren't everyone's.Bit more "wrongbadfun" going than I like. Just because the math says something or because you play a certain way, that doesn't mean it is right or the only way. And what does any of it have to do with the resistance to limiting spellcasters?I haven't seen any "badwrongfun" in this thread at all. Perhaps you are misusing the term? If someone is fudging to make encounters last longer or to reduce casters effectiveness or houseruling they are essentially committing the Oberoni Fallacy ie. arguing it's not broken because you can fix it. This becomes an issue regarding a discussion of limiting spellcasters because their method almost certainly does not take into account the underlying math of the system.
No, I'm saying that they are fudging (or one of the other caveats I mentioned). If they want to fudge that's fine, but I find it odd that Hwalsh has admitted to fudging elsewhere, but seems to take issue with that being my assessment of his 7+ average rounds per encounter. My disagreement with how long some people's encounters take has surprisingly little to with me or my experiences, aside from my ability to notice that the system's math does not agree with it.
While I have no problem with fudging providing a GM informs their players they do it (otherwise I view it extremely poorly), I do find the anecdotes of people who using fudging to balance their encounters to be less than helpful when discussing game balance.
Polls are not facts. If they were America would have a different president. Math however is factual. And the math of the game indicates that 3-4 successful attacks from even a lightly optimized character will kill a CR appropriate encounter or one slight over CR. If it takes your character more than 4 successful attacks to defeat an enemy, surely you agree that said character is below par yes?Anzyr I have read your posts. You've just been given links to a poll where players and developers alike say the average is longer and you're saying they're wrong and you're right.
I have no interest in opinion masquerading as fact. Maybe in your theorycraft you can design characters that way. The reality is that it doesn't translate to the table - clearly. For some it does but not all the time. As clearly demonstrated by the poll.
Eh, mathematics are not fact, your science is wrong. A mathematical assertions is as true as the premises it's build up. Mathematically sound theories are proven wrong every now and then.
If your math doesn't keep up with the observed facts, then your premises are wrong.
What observed facts? Anecdotes are not observed facts. Anecdotes and personal experience in general are inherently unreliable. If your observations do not match the math (assuming the math adds up), it is far more likely that the observer has made an error than the math being wrong. But hey... maybe that EM drive really will work.
| 5 people marked this as a favorite. |
THIS AM DIFFERENCE BETWEEN KNOWLEDGE (ENGINEERING) AND PROFESSION (ENGINEERING).
KNOWLEDGE GUY AM SAYING MATH SAY BARBARIAN AM NOT MATHEMATICALLY ABLE BEAT CASTY UNDER ANY CIRCUMSTANCE BECAUSE MATH AND NUMBERS AND VARIOUS THINGS AM SAYING CASTY AM ALWAYS WINNER ALWAYS, LOOK AT STUDY AM PUBLISHING LAST MONTH IN PEER REVIEWED JOURNAL, AM WELL RECEIVED, THEREFORE AM APPARENT AND IMMUTABLE LAW OF UNIVERSE OR SOMETHING.
PROFESSION GUY JUST CHARGE OUT OF MIDAIR AND SMASH CASTY, QED.
BARBARIAN ALWAYS RECOMMEND BEING PROFESSION GUY. PROFESSION AM ALWAYS WINNER, AM USING BETTER STAT FOR SKILL ANYWAYS. INT AM FOR SUCKERS.
FOR WHAT AM WORTH, BARBARIAN TABLES HAVE COMBAT THAT AM LASTING BETWEEN FOUR AND EIGHT TURNS, WITH STANDARD AP VERSUS WELL OPTOMITRIZED PARTY. OPTOMITRIZATION NOT HAVE MUCH TO DO WITH IT, BARBARIAN AM USING SUBTLE TACTICS FOR THROWING OFF ENEMY GROUPS INVOLVING USE OF SPELLS AND DEBUFF CAPABILITIES OF MONSTERS.
PCS AM ONLY ENDING EVERY COMBAT IN FOUR ROUNDS OR LESS, BARBARIAN AM GENERALLY PERCEPTIONING, IF GM AM THROWING WAVES OF CLUMPED ENEMIES IN MASS CHARGE AT FRONT LINES OR SOMETHING LIKE THEY AM ALL BARBARIANS OR SOMETHING.
SILLY GM. RECKLESS CHARGE TO ENEMY FACE AM ONLY WORKING IF BARBARIAN, BECAUSE BARBARIAN AM ALWAYS WINNER. THAT AM CORE OF BARRBARIAN/NOT BARBARIAN DESTRUCITY.
What observed facts? Anecdotes are not observed facts. Anecdotes and personal experience in general are inherently unreliable. If your observations do not match the math (assuming the math adds up), it is far more likely that the observer has made an error than the math being wrong. But hey... maybe that EM drive really will work.Polls are not facts. If they were America would have a different president. Math however is factual. And the math of the game indicates that 3-4 successful attacks from even a lightly optimized character will kill a CR appropriate encounter or one slight over CR. If it takes your character more than 4 successful attacks to defeat an enemy, surely you agree that said character is below par yes?Anzyr I have read your posts. You've just been given links to a poll where players and developers alike say the average is longer and you're saying they're wrong and you're right.
I have no interest in opinion masquerading as fact. Maybe in your theorycraft you can design characters that way. The reality is that it doesn't translate to the table - clearly. For some it does but not all the time. As clearly demonstrated by the poll.
Eh, mathematics are not fact, your science is wrong. A mathematical assertions is as true as the premises it's build up. Mathematically sound theories are proven wrong every now and then.
If your math doesn't keep up with the observed facts, then your premises are wrong.
yeah, like astronomers discarding the observed deviation of mercury's perihelion because it did not agree with two hundered years of mathematical calculations.
Anecdotes ARE the fact in this conversation since "How much does your encounter last?" is the question being answered.
I think you fundamentally are misunderstanding the value of anecdotes in an argument as a whole. If your argument relies on anecdotes even if or rather especially if, that anecdotes proves your point, your argument is inherently very weak.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You are quite right that polls aren't facts. The examples given by dozens of people where they say their encounters can last more than four rounds are facts however. The poll is only as good as the samples granted and I don't think it is proof that all pathfinder encounters last that long. I do think it is proof that those people's encounters do.
Your attempt to boil hundreds of variables into a formula is fundamental flawed and 'Impossible' is a fairly impractical word to throw around the forum. It is your use of the word impossible that removes credibility from your argument and turns what could be a sensible discussion into absolutes.
As Knight has said it smacks of bad wrong fun.
You also keep talking about fudging although dozens of ways encounters can be extended have been given to you. It is a rather odd discussion.
*************
Joe - one way of dealing with casters is to lengthen encounters
Bob - it is mathematically impossible to extend encounters past 4 rounds without cheating.
Joe - no you can I've done it, you just do X, Y, Z
Bob - no you must have been cheating
Joe - no honestly look at this thread where all these other people say their encounters can
last longer than 4 rounds
Vic - Yeah I've seen it too
Bob - no you're all wrong, they're all wrong my maths proves it.
Joe - ... ... ...
************
Joe - no you can I've done it, you just do X, Y, Z
************
Where is this. Because I don't see it anywhere. And I would love to crunch to the math on it because I am very confident in the outcome.
So let's rephrase what is really going on:
"My encounters last 7+ rounds."
"The math does not support that. One of several things must be going on."
"No, no they aren't. They just do last 7 rounds."
"The math disagrees with you outside one of the caveats."
"No it doesn't they just last 7+ rounds."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Math doesn't survive contact with the PCs.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
HWalsh dropped out of this conversation a while back. At the cost of repeating myself.
- encounters with multiple groups of enemies that arrive in waves such as responding to the sound of combat
- encounters with flying enemies or otherwise remote where ranged weapons are a secondary form of damage
- encounters where enemies have methods of replenishing/increasing numbers with either magic, or abilities
- encounters where the enemy can limit manouverability and prevent primary attacks getting through.
- encounters where the enemy has a defensive ability that needs to be overcome DR, invisibility, Ethereal etc
- encounters where a PC or two falls to magic or crits that reduces the ability of the party to deal damage
- encounters when the boss transforms from one state to another.
- encounters where there are multiple foes of multiple types that require very different solutions.
- encounters where X has to occur to enable success (open the door, wind the winch, fire the cannon etc etc)
All these can be used in one form or another to extend combats. I've grouped some areas together because there are so many options (like defensive abilities) that defy a quick list.
Playing monsters/npcs as bags of hit points will no doubt result in them dropping in two rounds.
To be clear, I'm not arguing that all encounters last 7+ Rounds. I'm saying they can do though of course there will be a mix of long, short and for me the average is about 6
It's not THE math, it's YOUR math. And even if you are doing all the math steps right that doesn't meant your math matches reality.
Joe - no you can I've done it, you just do X, Y, Z
************
Where is this. Because I don't see it anywhere. And I would love to crunch to the math on it because I am very confident in the outcome.
So let's rephrase what is really going on:
"My encounters last 7+ rounds."
"The math does not support that. One of several things must be going on."
"No, no they aren't. They just do last 7 rounds."
"The math disagrees with you outside one of the caveats."
"No it doesn't they just last 7+ rounds."
If the math is right and it does not match your reality, logically the most likely source of error is your observation of reality. Thus far, as HWalsh has admitted in other threads that he does fudge, my math seems to map quite well to reality.
Perhaps to your version of reality.
I thought I'd check and yes Hwalsh never claimed all encounters lasted 7+
Uh combats usually go 7-10 rounds each with how I structure them.
"Usually" denotes the existence of exceptions in this case.
| 4 people marked this as a favorite. |
All your math has proven from what I've seen is that a group of 4 optimized party members can kill things above their cr in 1-2 rounds of full attacks.
Which is a known fact, and why any GM who is good at running villains generally avoids having just one thing (necessitating spreading the damage) or has the one thing have measures to mitigate a lot of damage (a good d4+4 mirror images is a nice place to start, or blur, or charming/dominating the enemy.)
If math was all it took to win a war, we wouldn't actually need guns.