General RPG DiscussionDiscussion of all RPGs and non-system-specific topics. DM/GM/player issues, settings, etc. Rules discussion belongs in one the forums below.
I thought 3e was pretty explicit about their assumption of a 4 person base party. CR is built around that assumption.
More than four sounds right for my memory of most earlier edition module suggested party number ranges. Usually something like for 5-7 characters of levels 5-7.
Modules in older editions usually did make suggestions on party size & level, but if you look over- I walked over to my shelf and did a random grab of 1Ed/2Ed modules: 4-6, 5-7, 6-8, and no suggestion as to party size (just level).
But if you're homebrewing, there isn't anything as structured as the CR system built into the game that tells you how to tailor adventures. Its mostly feel.
However, while the CR system does assume "four fresh characters (full hit points, full spells, and equipment appropriate to their levels) (MM, p7)" it does not tell you the class breakdown of those four PCs.
Quote:
DMG p48
A monster's Challenge Rating (CR) tells you the level of the party for which that monster is a good challenge. A monster of CR5 is an appropriate challenge for a group of four 5th level characters. If the characters are of higher level than the monster, they get fewer XP because the monster should be easier to defeat. Likewise, if the characters are of lower level than a monster's Challenge Rating, the PCs get a greater award.
Parties with five or more members can often take on monsters with higher CRs, and parties of three or fewer are challenged by monsters with lower CRs. The game rules account for these facts by dividing the XP earned by the number of characters in the party.
IOW, while DMG's text on CR assumes 4 PCs- and the MM assumes that they may have spells (though linguistically, it may just be using that as a general stand-in for all non-gear resources of a normal party that level- spells, powers, special abilities)- it doesn't tell us the party is made up of a Warrior, Rogue, Divine Caster and Arcanist. We just assume that this is the case.
Very few wizards of low or even mid-level can muster a credible spell of each saving throw, one damage dealing conjuration, and a credible spell of each energy type, and have slots let over to even double most of those areas. Hence, if you have one Fort spell, you get one shot... in which case a monster who can make that save 75% of the time is still a credible threat. Certainly, I've never felt the need to make main villains nigh-invulnerable, save in situatins where the PCs had the opportunity to plan in advance, such as the assault on the CR 25 dragon.
2) As for the assumption of party structure, I agree that every edition has suggested/recommended that a typical party cover the 4 roles: Warrior, Rogue, Divine Caster, Arcane Caster.
However, I have never seen anywhere that the game's designers assumed that typical party size was 6 in earlier editions and 4 in the post-3Ed regime.
3) As for the actual size of our group, that was just our big group. Our other groups- really, satellite subgroups of the main one- typically had 3-6 gamers (including the DM) and the same playstyle. No difference.
I believe if you look inside those modules, you'll usually find a line that says something to the effect of "Recommended for 6-8 characters levels X to Y" Particularly in 1e modules.
For example, and I just checked, in page 3 of my Isle of Dread module, you find the following line:
Quote:
The party of adventurers This module is designed for a party of 6-10 characters. Each character should be between the 3rd and 6th level of experience when the adventure begins.
I'll have to dig out my 3e DMG, but, I'm pretty sure the line is there somewhere that the assumption is 4 PC's, 1 fighter, cleric, wizard and rogue (or variations thereof).
Something I would point out here too. You're saying that you regularly had 6 encounters per day. The standard assumption is 4. That's not exactly breaking limits here. If you had 13 encounters per day, that might be different, but, you're only having 2 extra encounters per day and there could be a great many reasons for that.
__________________ Currently running: Sufficiently Advanced over Maptool. Soon to change. If you'd like to join in a short 3-8 session campaign for various systems, drop by our forums.
I double-dog-dare you to make your game sound super cool without comparing it to other editions. - paraphrased from Umbran.
Very few wizards of low or even mid-level can muster a credible spell of each saving throw, one damage dealing conjuration, and a credible spell of each energy type, and have slots let over to even double most of those areas. Hence, if you have one Fort spell, you get one shot... in which case a monster who can make that save 75% of the time is still a credible threat. Certainly, I've never felt the need to make main villains nigh-invulnerable, save in situatins where the PCs had the opportunity to plan in advance, such as the assault on the CR 25 dragon.
True. But 1E, 2E and 3E were all extremely vulnerable to a house rule that skipped memorization. While I know it is not fair to compare game baalnce in the prescence of house rules, in 4 major groups on both coasts and the mid-west over 20 years I encountered this house ruling and it really improved the power curve of wizards.
To be fair, I've run the game and played he game with memorized spells and it's possible but I see why it was annoying.
4E basically incoporates this highly popular house rule in as a balanced option with a shorter list of known spells plus a few rituals. Kind of the logical extension of the sorcerer.
True. But 1E, 2E and 3E were all extremely vulnerable to a house rule that skipped memorization. While I know it is not fair to compare game baalnce in the prescence of house rules, in 4 major groups on both coasts and the mid-west over 20 years I encountered this house ruling and it really improved the power curve of wizards.
Anything is extremely vulnerable to a houserule. What you are talking about is insane. I played in such a 2e game and it was insane, and I never played in another such game before or since. You might as well complain fighters are overpowered because they are easily houseruled to d20s for hit dice and all good saves.
Anything is extremely vulnerable to a houserule. What you are talking about is insane. I played in such a 2e game and it was insane, and I never played in another such game before or since. You might as well complain fighters are overpowered because they are easily houseruled to d20s for hit dice and all good saves.
It wasn't the ease of the house rule (anything can be house ruled) but rather the ubiquity. If I had not seen it in truly independent pools of players 1000's of miles apart then I wouldn't have commented.
But I wonder how much of the perceived loss of wizard power comes from this type of baseline?
I agree that a 15th level wizard, in all 3 editions, was extremely scary. But the power shift didn't seem to begin to happen until after 12 level if you adhered to memorization.
It wasn't the ease of the house rule (anything can be house ruled) but rather the ubiquity.
Ubiquity means present everywhere. It was not a ubiquitous house rule, just an obvious one, like "maximum hit points" or "any race can multiclass and there are no level limits" or "barbarians can use greatswords in one hand because they are so strong and mighty."
While I can't speak for anyone else, I was comparing the 3e wizard, as written, to wizards of other editions, because I have never seen a 3e wizard in play that was allowed to cast all wizard spells, or even all the spells in his book freely. It's also worth noting that prior to 3e, there was no sorcerer, so this version of "spontaneous casting" might have served some people's purposes. But seriously, such a house rule has nothing to do with this discussion.
Very few wizards of low or even mid-level can muster a credible spell of each saving throw, one damage dealing conjuration, and a credible spell of each energy type, and have slots let over to even double most of those areas. Hence, if you have one Fort spell, you get one shot... in which case a monster who can make that save 75% of the time is still a credible threat. Certainly, I've never felt the need to make main villains nigh-invulnerable, save in situatins where the PCs had the opportunity to plan in advance, such as the assault on the CR 25 dragon.
Sure, the worst-case scenario may never happen. But the simple fact is that a 3e wizard has a larger toolbox of spells available to them which target various saving throws than magic-users did in 1e/2e; a creature's saves are far more variable between "good" and "bad"; and higher-level 3e casters have an advantage over their 1e/2e counterparts in that the difficulty for higher-level foes to save versus their spells is vastly higher.
Also, I'm not really talking about low-level wizards here - though they, too, were boosted a bit in 3e, it's not as dramatic. It's mostly mid- to high-level wizardry in question here.
In high level games, many opponents have enough HD that all their saves are boosted above the wizard's spell DCs. In both AD&D and 3e, many high level combats devolve to where only a 1 fails a save, or maybe 1 to 5 in some cases. It's very rare for a monster or NPC to have a completely soft save except through a combination of bad luck and poor planning.
In high level games, many opponents have enough HD that all their saves are boosted above the wizard's spell DCs. In both AD&D and 3e, many high level combats devolve to where only a 1 fails a save, or maybe 1 to 5 in some cases. It's very rare for a monster or NPC to have a completely soft save except through a combination of bad luck and poor planning.
I'm not so sure about this. I'm running the Age of Worms where the PCs are all 16th level or above. I don't see the problem so much as the PCs affecting the bad guys, but more the bad guys affecting the PCs. The PCs will usually have a bad save that can be easily targeted, and some creatures have DCs so high that even a specialist saver will have trouble. This is where I see the disparity more so than the other way around with the PCs affecting the bad guys.
And in some ways, I don't think this is a bad thing. Some monsters are huge, or just incredibly dangerous and the DCs they enforce on the PCs are dire. Softening creatures up just so they are a "fair" combat challenge is not an ethos of play I like. A dragon's a dragon - and should be dangerous (to the point of if you don't want to die, don't go after the Dragon's hoard through force; use cunning instead if you dare). The idea that every creature should be able to be defeated through physical combat alone lessens the game for me.
Best Regards
Herremann the Wise
__________________ Want to see through my crystal ball and what's in store for 5E? Take a glance at my Dreams of 5th Edition
He who is certain he knows the ending of things when he is only beginning them is either extremely wise or extremely foolish; no matter which is true, he is certainly an unhappy man, for he has put a knife in the heart of wonder. Tad Williams
In high level games, many opponents have enough HD that all their saves are boosted above the wizard's spell DCs. In both AD&D and 3e, many high level combats devolve to where only a 1 fails a save, or maybe 1 to 5 in some cases. It's very rare for a monster or NPC to have a completely soft save except through a combination of bad luck and poor planning.
I'm not sure "rare" is exactly correct depending on what we mean by "completely soft". [I'm quite open to being corrected on this point]
Imagine an elite array wizard (Int 15) at level 16 with a +2 from a tome and a +6 from a stat adder (much as I despite them). It's reasonable that her Int will be: 15 + 4 (level) + 2 (tome) + 6 (headband of intellect) for a 27 INT.
That gives her a +8 add to spells so her 6th level spells have a DC 24 to save (that being 2 levels below peak, let's not assume the perfect spell is available at 8th but rather that something useful is in the top 3 spell levels).
From the SRD;
1) Titan (CR 21) Saves: Fort +26, Ref +13, Will +21
Needs a 2+ to save Fort, an 11+ to save reflex and a 3+ to save will (and is 5 levels above the wizard (ut is a good example if we shifted to a level 20 wizard)
2) Nightcrawler (CR 18) Saves: Fort +12, Ref +10, Will +23
Might as well not bother with a will save based spell but that distintegrate needs the beastie to roll a 12+ to save and it's even worse with a delayed blast fireball.
3) Marlith (CR 17) Saves: Fort +19, Ref +14, Will +14
Fort saves against a 6th level spell on a 5+, requires a 10+ to save versus a 6th level spell if it targets will or reflex.
These are all critters in the same range as a high level wizard. Even dragons tend to lag in reflex saves. These weak saves aren't completely soft but the 13 point save gaps in the Nightcrawler or Titan are not unimportant.
The Marilith is more balanced but save targeting can shift a "save or bad thing happens" from 20% chance (disintegrate) to 45% chance (Repulsion to keep those swords away). Some creatures are very balanced (Balor) and I see that as a major advantage for these monsters.
I also did not add spell focus and greater spell focus (the key spell might not be in the correct school) but these can also make the weak save of the Titan (for example) really show up (as in it has little hope of saving). A DC 28 level 8 spell in a school with focus and a reflex save is saved on a 15+ for the Titan and 18+ for the Nightcrawler. And a pearl of power (core item) can handle that agonizing 19 for the first save roll should it happen . . .
Sometimes these things are subtle but I have a long experience with players just opening up with the (frequently prepared as it is often useful) disintegrate spell when undead appear after level 14 or so . . .
I agree, ahead of time, that this maybe different in fully supplemented and homebrewed 3.5E where the DM is adapting the creatures to the (far tougher) late 3.5 character builds.
In high level games, many opponents have enough HD that all their saves are boosted above the wizard's spell DCs. In both AD&D and 3e, many high level combats devolve to where only a 1 fails a save, or maybe 1 to 5 in some cases. It's very rare for a monster or NPC to have a completely soft save except through a combination of bad luck and poor planning.
See, there, your experience is different from mine.
3e got rid of 2e's save system and cut it down to only three saves. That's cool. But 3e also got rid of 2e's "Everyone progresses in all saves, just some a bit faster then others." Instead, you have fighters, who essentially fail everything but fortitude saves, and wizards, who do the same but for will saves.
3e was much more friendly towards save-or-dies.
The other thing 3e did was jack up the health of just about everything, which only put more emphasis on save or dies.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
Imagine an elite array wizard (Int 15) at level 16 with a +2 from a tome and a +6 from a stat adder (much as I despite them). It's reasonable that her Int will be: 15 + 4 (level) + 2 (tome) + 6 (headband of intellect) for a 27 INT.
That gives her a +8 add to spells so her 6th level spells have a DC 24 to save (that being 2 levels below peak, let's not assume the perfect spell is available at 8th but rather that something useful is in the top 3 spell levels).
Yep, and IME, few campaigns just used the elite array as-is. Most Wizards started with a 16+ - and higher if you go outside the PHB. Just looking at one common non-PHB book, Sun Elves from the 3e FR setting have INT bonuses and no EL. (Heck, if you're running FR, you might as well throw the utterly insane Spellcasting Prodigy feat in there, too.)
So we're looking at IME a minimum DC 25 against level 6 spells, and at least a 27 for level 8 spells. And probably a point or two higher. Like I said upthread, it's rock-paper-scissors; just pick the right defense against most creatures.
Even without auto-success, like on a monster with three high saves, a 33%-50% chance of defeating the boss outright is more powerful than anything else anyone can do.
If it takes 2-3 tries, thats what it takes. Often it won't take that long.
I agree, ahead of time, that this maybe different in fully supplemented and homebrewed 3.5E where the DM is adapting the creatures to the (far tougher) late 3.5 character builds.
A couple techniques that have worked since 3.0.
Advance an undead 4 HD to go up 1 CR. Each weak save goes up at least +1. Advance say a Mohrg up to CR 16 and see how he does.
Use an undead template, perhaps a fighter vampire, and the disintegrate does not do so well against a strong fort save. True they are now weak on will saves but they are still immune to mind affecting spells.
For High CR monsters don't forget the outsider SR in addition to all good saves.
Advance an undead 4 HD to go up 1 CR. Each weak save goes up at least +1. Advance say a Mohrg up to CR 16 and see how he does.
Use an undead template, perhaps a fighter vampire, and the disintegrate does not do so well against a strong fort save. True they are now weak on will saves but they are still immune to mind affecting spells.
For High CR monsters don't forget the outsider SR in addition to all good saves.
Except that undeads have 0 con. They have terrible fort saves and are disintegrate bait.
Last edited by nightwyrm; 30th October 2009 at 03:18 AM..
Advance an undead 4 HD to go up 1 CR. Each weak save goes up at least +1. Advance say a Mohrg up to CR 16 and see how he does.
Use an undead template, perhaps a fighter vampire, and the disintegrate does not do so well against a strong fort save. True they are now weak on will saves but they are still immune to mind affecting spells.
For High CR monsters don't forget the outsider SR in addition to all good saves.
It is true that you can do a lot to customize monsters to avoid some of these issues. But I was curious how the basic SRD creatures did and it is amazing how poorly they do.
If we go beyond the PHB, there is a 4th level spell that is a swift action that gives +10 to penetrate spell resistance: Assay Spell Resistance (Sor/Wiz 4). It lasts one round/level so you cast it once and your target is reduced in defenses for the rest of the combat.
Our Marilith has a spell resistance of 25; after Assay Spell Resistance it is 15 and a 16th level caster will pierce it on a 2+. Even the mighty Balor, at SR 28, needs only a 2+ from a 16th level caster using this spell.
Even within the PHB, the wizard goes through on a 9+, less if she invested in spell penetration, greater spell penetration and a robe of the archmagi.
The best a Mohrg can do is 28 HD by the SRD, with a weak Fort Save that is
a +9 (no con bonus) and he needs a mircale to save. If we did allow a 44 HD Mohrg (as CR 16 monster) it'd have a +15 Fort Save (needs an 11+ to save) and 286 hit points. Save or die still looks awful tempting . . .
One of the issues with SoD's is that, while they're a problem in the Core game, once you leave Core, it just gets worst. Look at the aforementioned Assay Spell Resistance.
The issue with casters is that almost every single book increased their power. Druids were especially bad about this, because their power increased with both every new spell AND every new monster. And while spellcasters got new ways of lowering enemy resistance and new spells to destroy them, the fundamental issue of saves was never addressed. It's a gap that just got wider.
__________________ Psionics are too sci-fi, not like the traditional method of spell casting that has existed only in D&D, involves research, laboratory work, and formulas, and was cribbed directly from a series of science fiction novels. I mean, come on, calling forth the power to alter the world from your own center of will? That's not magical in the slightest! Not at all like my wizard's spell "Telepathy!"
It is certainly doable. I think they could be the gateway to more non-combat magic, and they are available to all classes - with a little buy in - wizards obviously have a leg up on everyone else.
I would love a series of articles on DDI expanding the role of rituals in a campaign and not just giving more rituals. One of the wizard epic destinies allows free use of rituals; more of that please.
Even so, wizards don't have a monopoly on ritual magic. So this helps little if at all.
Linear Mode
And yet another word from our sponsors
