Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Encounter Design Simplified

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
A curious question: would this point-buy/ set XP award system work as-is for vanilla 3.5 D&D? It might make life easier for a neophyte DM with whom I am working to develop her first set of adventures/ encounters.

If not, are there any tweaks I might need to make it work more easily?

BTW, thanks for the hard work in figuring things out!

Of course, it will work just fine. The theory behind the system is 100% 3e compatible.

I would advise using all the numbers listed here, though, rather than doing the math all over. That is, use the XP values by CR listed here; use the XP budget listed here; and use the XP advancement table listed here.

If you format it all nicely for your young DM padawan, it will all fit on one sheet of paper, and it will replace the XP table and the advancement charts in the DMG.

(That's something I might find time to do-- check back here.)
 

log in or register to remove this ad






Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Thanks for the sheet, Wulf!

After the Beta for PF is released, will we begin to see more TB? Or are you waiting on Paizo for the license?

I am not sure if it is this thread or another (I think another, "3PP Pathfinder") but Erik confirmed that the license won't be available until after the final Pathfinder is released.

Part of what I want to do is lay a little groundwork for thinking ahead of, and outside the framework of, Pathfinder. (Hence, "Trailblazer.") ;)

Tease! You're a damned tease Wulf. I think its time you started dropping more info Trailblazer.

I'll start dropping it primarily here.

Trailblazer is not as "Open" as Pathfinder in development, but folks around here should know how highly I value my ENworld peers, so there is certainly still room for commentary in its development.

Which is another way of saying, if you want teasers, tease it out of me.
 
Last edited:

Hi Wulf

I'd kind of put the idea of Pathfinder on hold until it could demonstrate some serious streamlining, but this is precisely the kind of innovation that I think will sell it. More!

Tangentally, I have a question wrt Chi/Rho and the quadratic CR/EL formulas that you've championed in the past; I don't want to derail the thread too far in that direction, but do you intend to use that system in Trailblazer? I've got mixed feelings about it, as I've used both the quadratic and standard/exponential methods for determining encounter strength, and each can yield reasonable results. For very large combats, it seems a quadratic system is often superior, as the standard method can seriously undervalue the economy of actions possessed by multiple opponents - assuming they're not 1HD orcs and the party has a blaster. But IME fluke rolls tend to throw out just about any system in pretty much every encounter.:erm:
 
Last edited:

meomwt

First Post
Having had time to sleep on it, I just have one question as to how the XP are divided post-encounter. This is especially important for mixed level parties.

For example, RBDM that I am, I have a group consisting of three L3 and two L1 characters. For an average encounter, this brings (3*120)+(2*60)=480XP worth of critters to the table. The party take these out with minimal losses on their part.

Does the 480XP get divided up evenly five ways (96XP each), or does it go pro-rata per the level of the characters (120XP to the L3's and 60XP to the L1's)?

Obviously, these totals are adjusted upwards (or downwards) depending on the challenge presented by the encounter.
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Tangentally, I have a question wrt Chi/Rho and the quadratic CR/EL formulas that you've championed in the past; I don't want to derail the thread too far in that direction, but do you intend to use that system in Trailblazer?

In short: No.

Cheiromancer (the ENworld poster) has been working with me a bit behind the scenes on Trailblazer.

I have come to the conclusion that the existing CR system is "reasonably predictive" as long as you keep the combats within the proper parameters. Yes, it breaks down more and more at high level, and with widely divergent combatants (you can pretty much tell when a conflict is going asymmetric-- no number of orcs is going to challenge a colossal red dragon, etc.).

Even with the Chi/Rho system that I championed, I think if you read the intent behind the work, it was more to handle mixed-CR and odd-sized groups anyway. The system presented here does that faster and better as far as I am concerned.

Again, with the caveat that CR is, for typical play, "good enough."

Rebuilding CR would be outside the scope of Trailblazer, and largely useless to boot. What's the sense in sticking with 3.5 at all if you have to recalculate your extensive 3.5 library?

For very large combats, it seems a quadratic system is often superior, as the standard method can seriously undervalue the economy of actions possessed by multiple opponents.

The economy of actions is ALL. It's fundamental.

It's why 4e Elite and Solo monsters have "interrupt" actions. If you adhere to Lanchester's Law, a Solo creature would have to be x16 or even x25 as powerful as a typical party, and that's just not workable. Give him extra actions instead.

Trailblazer has some thoughts in this regard.

Having had time to sleep on it, I just have one question as to how the XP are divided post-encounter. This is especially important for mixed level parties.

For example, RBDM that I am, I have a group consisting of three L3 and two L1 characters. Does the XP get divided up evenly five ways (96XP each), or does it go pro-rata per the level of the characters (120XP to the L3's and 60XP to the L1's)?

This concern is common, and has been addressed a few times, so it is very easy for me to STRONGLY recommend that you divide the XP up evenly "per capita" and not "pro rata."

This will enable the lower level characters to catch up.

As long as your players aren't abusing the rule to "power-level" low level characters alongside high level guys who are doing all the work, of course-- but you can implement your own controls on that without worrying about "system."
 

Remove ads

Top