### Monsters and Hazards

Starfinder Superscriber

I really like that XP are correlated directly to player level--that is a very cool feature that makes a ton of sense to me. However, I am having a little trouble with some of the math as I plan to run a group with more than (4) adventurers.

For example, I'm looking at the ROOM OF RUINED REPOSE on Page 13. It is rated as "Severe," meaning the budget for the room is [120 XP] for an assumed party of (4). The room in question contains (6) Skeleton Guards, which are 0-Level. Assuming a party of 1st-level characters, each Skeleton Guard is worth [30 XP]--they are Party's Level -1. But [30 XP] times (6) Skeleton Guards is a total of [180 XP].

I understand that the encounters won't match the XP budget exactly. However, [180 XP] is actually higher than the "Extreme" budget. So, is the room mislabeled or am I just understanding this incorrectly? Understanding this math and the related tables will help me adjust the encounter appropriately. Please feel free to point out the error of my ways. :)

Thanks so much!

Starfinder Superscriber

Bueller? Bueller?... :)

 1 person marked this as a favorite.

Looks like you ran into a special case.

Playtest Bestiary page 21, Choosing Creatures wrote:
A creature costs some of the XP from your XP budget for the encounter, based on its level compared to the level of the party (see Table 4). For instance, if the party is 5th level, a 2nd-level creature is a “party level – 3” creature. Level 0 creatures are weaker than normal, counting as a “party level – 2” creature for a 1st-level party, a “party level – 3” creature for a 2nd-level party, and a “party level – 4” creature for a 3rd-level party.

So the skeletons are only 20 XP each and the math checks out.

EDIT: That information really should be a footnote to the table, not buried in the text.

Starfinder Superscriber

You’re my hero, Fuzzy-Wuzzy! Thank you so much. I completely missed that! I think a footnote makes a lot of sense.

 Designer

Yep, looks like Fuzzy-Wuzzy for the win!

Mark Seifter wrote:
Yep, looks like Fuzzy-Wuzzy for the win!

Yay! Does that mean you'll put in the footnote?

 Designer

Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yep, looks like Fuzzy-Wuzzy for the win!
Yay! Does that mean you'll put in the footnote?

It is certainly worth taking into consideration!

Starfinder Superscriber
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yep, looks like Fuzzy-Wuzzy for the win!
Yay! Does that mean you'll put in the footnote?
It is certainly worth taking into consideration!

Mark, just a meta side note to express how much I like what you guys have done here. The consistency/standardization along with the streamlining/flow (all while maintaining crunchiness) makes me feel as though this 2.0 design was made with my brain in mind. At a high level, this structure just makes sense to me. You guys rock.

 Designer

 1 person marked this as a favorite.
John Heinlein wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Fuzzy-Wuzzy wrote:
Mark Seifter wrote:
Yep, looks like Fuzzy-Wuzzy for the win!
Yay! Does that mean you'll put in the footnote?
It is certainly worth taking into consideration!
Mark, just a meta side note to express how much I like what you guys have done here. The consistency/standardization along with the streamlining/flow (all while maintaining crunchiness) makes me feel as though this 2.0 design was made with my brain in mind. At a high level, this structure just makes sense to me. You guys rock.

Thanks! That's what we're hoping for. We want it to be as easy and intuitive to use as possible while providing powerful tools to make it easier to adjust to your group.