Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Encounter Design Simplified

[Wulf Ratbane]

Ah, it all becomes clear now. I hadn't realized that the major difference was that Craig's version took the full value of a feat over a 20-level spread, whereas yours was listing the base value of the feat regarding a single level. That makes things much clearer, thanks!

If you still think there's a difference between what Craig did and what I did, I wasn't very clear. There's no difference. Craig values class abilities/feats at .01 per HD; I value class abilities/feats at .01 per HD.

That leads me to another question though; how much do these values change when class levels hit epic levels?

If you're playing Epic levels, you don't really need rules anymore. Even if I were interested in Epic play-- which I am not-- I think it lends itself far more to a narrative system, not something as structured as d20. Try Everway or Amber.

 

[Alzrius]

If you still think there's a difference between what Craig did and what I did, I wasn't very clear. There's no difference. Craig values class abilities/feats at .01 per HD; I value class abilities/feats at .01 per HD.

No, I understand that you're using the same numerical values. I just didn't realize that because it seems like they're presented slightly differently, is all.

If you're playing Epic levels, you don't really need rules anymore. Even if I were interested in Epic play-- which I am not-- I think it lends itself far more to a narrative system, not something as structured as d20. Try Everway or Amber.

I can understand where you're coming from there, but that seems to dismiss everyone who is interested in epic-level d20 gaming.

EDIT: That said, it seems fairly simple to deconstruct epic-level class advancement manually, since BAB and saves are standardized while skills and Hit Dice remain the same, and most class features sharply drop off - all that needs to be done is calculate the numerical worth of those class features that are gained, which seems easy enough.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I can understand where you're coming from there, but that seems to dismiss everyone who is interested in epic-level d20 gaming.

Admittedly so. You're asking me to look at a niche (epic players) of a niche (3.0 players) of a niche (D&D players). Sorry-- you're very dismissible! All dozen of you!

Heck, you could get together with the Gnome fans and the Psionics fans and fill an Applebee's. Have a few beers and curse my name.

But seriously... I'm certainly not publishing RPGs for profit, so it's pretty much required that I actually be interested in what I am writing.

EDIT: That said, it seems fairly simple to deconstruct epic-level class advancement manually, since BAB and saves are standardized while skills and Hit Dice remain the same, and most class features sharply drop off - all that needs to be done is calculate the numerical worth of those class features that are gained, which seems easy enough.

Hmmm... Yes indeed. I haven't looked at epic in a while, but if the "spine" stops scaling (or even scales at its own rate), you should still be able to scale the class features, and/or spin off what you need from what's provided.

Again, although the numbers may be different than Craig's, I hope what I am able to do (at least) is reveal a bit of design philosophy you can carry forward on your own.

If you know me at all from Grim Tales, you know that empowering GMs to make their own design changes is a big part of my design philosophy-- I am certainly very interested in providing that kind of guidance.


EDIT: Hmmm... "The Epic-Level Gnome Psionicist's Handbook."

 

[Upper_Krust]

Hey Wulf!

Been a while, hope you have been keeping well?

<snip>

Easy answer.

The value of a feat is the same in both systems: +0.2 CR.

Well, almost, I revised it to +0.167. Of course that added an extra layer of math to the final tally, so its not as fast as it could be.

Because he wants to approximate the value of each class level, Craig averages the value of that feat across 20 levels-- ergo, +0.01.

I follow his lead here exactly.

So:

If you want to add 10 feats to a pit fiend, straight up, sure: you could just add +2.0 CR.

Using the Trailblazer method, if you added twenty class levels of fighter to a pit fiend, which includes 11 feats as class features, you'd add (20)*(.11) = +2.2 CR.

You can see from this that if you add an odd number of fighter class levels to a creature, using the 0.01 value that is averaged across 20 levels, you'll shortchange your monster a little bit.

Craig's method provides you with a bit of short-hand by averaging the value of every class feature into 1 HD, but if you are more comfortable adding up the discreet CR value of every single ability you add, brute force, you can do that.

That is far too noodley for most GMs to deal with however, with greatly diminishing returns in terms of "accuracy."

Agreed. It is a very pernickity process at the best of times.

I should point out that there were three notable flaws in my original version.

1. The aforementioned measure of a single feat (which, for brevity you could possibly ignore, however, to do so means you'll be balancing games

2. CR/EL relativity. This is the big mistake I made with versions 1-5. The flaw was in forgetting the diminishing returns of a group of weaker opponents versus a tougher opponent.

ie. When the 4 PCs face a bunch of 20 Orcs as the orcs get whittled down their combat effectiveness will be reduced.

This wasn't factored into the initial CR x2 = EL +4 equation. So the revised equation is CR x1.5 = EL +4.

3. Theres a problem in how I determined iterative attacks. Off the top of my head I can't recollect exactly what the problem is but I remember revising it about 18 months ago, when I was still into 3E.

Trailblazer prioritizes speed in prep-time and a "close enough" philosophy.

I'd say thats the best way, unless you are a masochist.

EDIT: To answer your larger question, the primary deviations between my numbers and Craig's are as follows:

1) Remove the value of skill points in monster HD. (Monsters shouldn't pay CR for something that has no combat value.)

2) Remove the value of class vs. cross-class skills entirely.

3) Remove the value of weapon and armor proficiencies entirely.

4) Complete revaluation of spellcasting ability. Craig's version included the number of spells on each class spell list in the CR value-- which is patently silly, since everytime a new sourcebook of spells was released, it would require you to revalue the cleric, druid, wizard, and any other class that has easy access to "all spells."

Couple 2, 3, and 4 together and you can somewhat summarize my changes as, "Diversity of combat options does not equal greater CR."

I assume "best case" for both PCs and monsters-- they'll use the best of whatever is available.

Some good ideas, I'll take them onboard.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

Hey Wulf!

Been a while, hope you have been keeping well?

I have been-- you too I hope.

Well, almost, I revised it to +0.167. Of course that added an extra layer of math to the final tally, so its not as fast as it could be.

5 Feats per +1 CR, 6 Feats per +1 CR-- if your players can tell the difference, I'll eat my hat!

I should point out that there were three notable flaws in my original version.

1. The aforementioned measure of a single feat (which, for brevity you could possibly ignore, however, to do so means you'll be balancing games

2. CR/EL relativity. This is the big mistake I made with versions 1-5. The flaw was in forgetting the diminishing returns of a group of weaker opponents versus a tougher opponent.

My safe rule of thumb is no more than 8-10 of any one kind of creature. If you need more than 10 to make a "challenge," odds are it won't be.

There's a problem in how I determined iterative attacks. Off the top of my head I can't recollect exactly what the problem is but I remember revising it about 18 months ago, when I was still into 3E.

I dropped this from my numbers, added it back in, dropped it, added it back. It won't make much difference either way. In the end I left it in primarily in deference to your incredibly masochistic work.

 

[Theocrat]

Hi all -
In my group, I'm the one with 5 college degrees. However, none of them include higher math. Communications, Rhetoric, Public Relations, Marketing & Arts. So I am hoping that you will make this much simpler for a non-math inclined person. So far I like what I'm reading - the front page seems easy enough, but the several pages later - with adding or not of magic items to the overall CR/EL - while it seems interesting and certainly an aspect to the game that might not already be introduced or configured - will it make my head hurt?
I'm looking forward to Pathfinder. From what things you have in Trailblazer and these disccusions, I think I'll like Trailblazer. But will my players? Will I as a player?

Be Well. Be Well Blazed.
Theocrat Issak

 

[meomwt]

Hi Wulf,

Have been putting together Encounters based on your Budget system. Seems like a good system. Test-ran my first two encounters (both CR2 for a CR1 party) which should run one after another and the results were pleasing. No TPK (darnit) but all Healing spells used and two of the party below 0hp.

Based on this result, it looks like Trailblazer would be good for me to use full-time

Thanks for the preview. I'm looking forward to the complete product.

 

[Scott DeWar]

to Wulfratbane:

Ok. It has been a while since i poked my head in here and I wanted to say that the gm's day trail blazer pdf is great! The first page art work is awsome. The second page to the very end is full of great information. The ten minute "workday" idea is worth looking at at the very least, implamenting preferable.

The only 'bookkeeping' involved is done by the player as to what group do the spells fall into (Rote, Restricted or Ritual) and we use the "player makes all of the rolls method. defense rolls in stead of the gm rolling for the monsters attack.(it is in one of the source books somewhere...Uneared arcana maybe?) I have already tried the encounter design charts and foud them to be 'crisp and clean!' and now to the treasure bundles:

The last pages have those charts with the spaces to give 'encounter designators' for the party advancement. that is about the best thing since sliced bread. Record keeping just got simple!

My ony gripe is that my old eyes, compounded by a cateract in my left eye, makes the font size a little on the difficult to read side, so with a little copy and paste to a word document i was able to re size the font and now i can read it without eyestrain. Problem solved.

and now for a few questions:
1) is the mention of reserve points mentioned in the gm 's day teaser pdf? I could not find that , but found it here in this thread

2)I saw in the thread here that action points or reserve points being used. which do you prefer? I am getting ready to read up on action point today.

3)wandering moster encounter charts were mentioned but elaborated upon. might I suggest the wandering monster charts from the dmg of the 2nd ed game system? if that is not accessable, i might be able to fnd an electronic copy somewhere to copy and paste.

and now for the big final two part question:

4) is there a final document with even more information anwhen is it going to be out?

thanks in advance for your response

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

to Wulfratbane:

Ok. It has been a while since i poked my head in here and I wanted to say that the gm's day trail blazer pdf is great!

You're a hell of an evangelist.

The first page art work is awsome.

Scott Purdy. Great artist, great friend. He's gone on to doing stuff for bigger and better publishers since he and I first worked together on Grim Tales, but he's still willing to bring his rates down to my budget for the occasional piece.

The only 'bookkeeping' involved is done by the player as to what group do the spells fall into (Rote, Restricted or Ritual)

This is easier than you think with the guidelines provided. If the spell lasts a long time, or affects lots of targets, it's probably Restricted. You will be (pleasantly) amazed at the effect that this has on spellcasters and spell selection.

My ony gripe is that my old eyes, compounded by a cateract in my left eye, makes the font size a little on the difficult to read side, so with a little copy and paste to a word document i was able to re size the font and now i can read it without eyestrain. Problem solved.

Oh, you again.

As you mention it, I decided this past week to put Trailblazer PDF out in two font formats-- one "distressed" (which looks like old-style printing) and one crisp digital version. That's easy enough to do with font substitutions.

But there's not much I can do about font size without a whole lot of layout work. The body text is 8pt type and the tables (many of them) are in 6 pt type-- which is really tiny, I know.

(And funny, because all of my playtest printouts I print 2-up, two pages to the sheet, which means when I do my work it's half size from what you're looking at!)

I don't think I have a solution for you in print but all I can recommend is to view it in Adobe Acrobat and scale the view to what works for you.

For worksheets like the treasure parcels I can certainly make a large print size.

I just can't use a bigger font through the whole work because that will require a whole extra set of layout-- entire pages would shift from page to page, around artwork, etc.

I am sensitive to your plight, grognard, and certainly open to suggestions.

1) is the mention of reserve points mentioned in the gm 's day teaser pdf? I could not find that , but found it here in this thread

2)I saw in the thread here that action points or reserve points being used. which do you prefer? I am getting ready to read up on action point today.

I very strongly recommend action points and will probably remove some of the pick-and-choose customization of Trailblazer. I know that folks appreciated the pick-and-choose nature of Grim Tales back in the day, and had hoped to hew close to that design goal, but there are a lot of moving parts in 3e that need fixing. Action Points are the foundation of MANY solutions.

3)wandering moster encounter charts were mentioned but not elaborated upon.

You can use whatever you like for wandering monsters. The point is this:

If you start using the 10-minute rest mechanic, I recommend using wandering monsters, and simply tying the check to that same 10 minute period. In other words, the PCs should know that they can try for a 10 minute rest, but there is a chance that their rest will be interrupted. This is a simple and "fair" method of keeping a bit of pressure on the PCs so that they don't get too comfortable assuming that the 10 minute rest is a given.

Of course this is for situations where there isn't some other good, scripted method of pressure in place. For example, if the PCs are attacking a dungeon lair of goblins, once the alarm is raised, you can just have goblin patrols keep moving through their lair, searching for the PCs. In this case, the PCs will be hard pressed to steal 10 minutes of safety to rest.

I had another encounter in a pocket dimension that was subject to lightning storms and earthquakes. The message to the PCs: You can't rest here. Watch your resources.

Make sense?

4) is there a final document with even more information and when is it going to be out?

thanks in advance for your response

Yes sir, of course. The full product is TRAILBLAZER and it will be out around GenCon.

(There will also undoubtedly be more previews for free download.)

 

[Scott DeWar]

first, thank you for the quick response.

Second, don't go to too much trouble with the font size thing as i have solved my own problem by the solution mentioned above. I have recently proven to myself that i am not totally computer inept, just mostly.

the whole document makes sense and fixes many things that 3.5 has as broken. Pathfinder also fixes alot of 3.5 breaks as sell. On the table top game i play, the dm and i have a collaberative campagn and we are going to merge trailblazer and pathfinder with a new game we are about to start. I just need to find the ol' 2.o encounter tables and then read up on actionpoints and we should be close to starting!

Once again I wish to say good job to both you and Jason Bulman!!!