Building Encounter Tables for 4E

[Mustrum_Ridcully]

Of course, all of this has me missing encounter tables based on terrain and frequency. I wonder if approaching it from a different direction would be more worthwhile.

Perhaps the key for 4E would be to "level" an area or location and build an encounter chart around that, using 3d6 or 2d10 to get a bell curve where encounters at or close to the area's level would be more likely than those farther away from the area's level.

That would certainly be possible, too. I think the biggest disadvantage of the bell curve is that it's also more likely you get repeats - is that what you want? It might be better to use a d% and just create more entries for the preferred level range of the area.

If you're really going for sandbox style play, I would just throw out the idea of *having* to provide level-appropriate encounters. Stumbling around the wilderness was supposed to be dangerous in old-school D&D; there was always the chance you'd run up against something that was a lot stronger than you could handle. Of course, some areas would be more dangerous than others - maybe the starting area has level 1 through level 5 encounters, but the Mountain of Everlasting Doom has level 6 through level 14 encounters.

Well, one could use my approach to generate a table of encounters from level -1 to +33, and instead of using party level, use area level. You might create such a table for every "type" of terrain, and just decide: "This mountain is level 15, this is level 3." And if the 5th level PCs stumble into mountain area level 15, well, hope they know when to run.

 

[Badwe]

sorry for thread necromancy, but after Penny Arcade's Gabe posted about his 4e sandbox style adventure I've felt greater interest in the subject and wanted to weigh in. Hopefully reviving a thread is better than retreading what's already been noted.

Somebody else correctly guessed that multiples of a die will generate a larger percentage of numbers closer to the middle of the range than farther. If that middle number happens to be an encounter of the PC's level, there you have it.

Let's get concrete: assume an encounter of level 0 or a negative level is simply a level 1 encounter. We'll roll 2d4, which ranges between 2 and 8, most common value being 5. this means on a roll of 5, we should have an encounter of party level, let's call it N. it follows then that for a party of level N, roll 2d4-5+N, so 2d4-4, 2d4-3, 2d4-2, etc. Your table should look something like this:
Result -- EL lvl1 odds lvl2 odds
1 or less 1 11/16 7/16
2 1 3/16 4/16
3 1 2/16 3/16
4 1 1/16 2/16
5 1 0 1/16
6 2 0 0
7 3 etc. etc.
8 4
9 5
10 6
etc. etc.


you could also come up with a more elaborate and bell-ish curve by increasing the number of dice rolled, for example 3d4 has a 3/8 chance of producing either a 7 or an 8 (and 3/16 of any one).

So there you go, and obviously if you want to do specific things like create ELs by region rather than player level, just replace the player level with the region's level in your calculation.

There was also mention of wanting to be able to randomly select monsters and that being somewhat difficult to do because of the criteria of 4e. I would argue that it wasn't much easier in 3e and that 1d4 trolls or 2d12 kobolds was likely to be a bad deal regardless of who was involved, but that's neither here nor there. I'll need to get back to this with a second post, but I have something in mind, although again it's very mathy.

 

[howandwhy99]

I'll also chime in for something like the AD&D bell curve roll. Assign names to the categories for your -1 to +3 Encounter Level distribution. For example: Weak, Average, Above Average, Hard, Very Hard. Then find a bell curve roll that averages the encounters by PL. 2d8 works nicely. Here's the breakdown: PL-1 (2-4), PL+0 (5-7), PL+1 (8-10), PL+2 (11-13), PL+3 (14-16).

I see a problem however. With the distribution you are using the average encounter is at PL+1. I don't know if this is how 4E is supposed to be balanced, but it seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't PL+0 be the evenly balanced encounter and the sweet spot?

Using a linear assignment method isn't necessarily bad, but it does mean most encounters will be higher or lower than the sweet spot (PL +0) 4E may be balanced for. That's why I prefer a curvilinear relationship.

If you throw back in the PL-2 category, you are still uneven at PL+1/2. An adjusted curve might work, but then it's harder to find a system that fits. 2d8-3's average roll is the median for the PL+0 range, but it frontloads PL-1. An even range is simply easier to deal with, say PL-3 to PL+3 and then a fitting distribution like 3d8 with 21 outcomes.

 

[fba827]

I'll also chime in for something like the AD&D bell curve roll. Assign names to the categories for your -1 to +3 Encounter Level distribution. For example: Weak, Average, Above Average, Hard, Very Hard. Then find a bell curve roll that averages the encounters by PL. 2d8 works nicely. Here's the breakdown: PL-1 (2-4), PL+0 (5-7), PL+1 (8-10), PL+2 (11-13), PL+3 (14-16).

I see a problem however. With the distribution you are using the average encounter is at PL+1. I don't know if this is how 4E is supposed to be balanced, but it seems counter-intuitive. Wouldn't PL+0 be the evenly balanced encounter and the sweet spot?

Using a linear assignment method isn't necessarily bad, but it does mean most encounters will be higher or lower than the sweet spot (PL +0) 4E may be balanced for. That's why I prefer a curvilinear relationship.

If you throw back in the PL-2 category, you are still uneven at PL+1/2. An adjusted curve might work, but then it's harder to find a system that fits. 2d8-3's average roll is the median for the PL+0 range, but it frontloads PL-1. An even range is simply easier to deal with, say PL-3 to PL+3 and then a fitting distribution like 3d8 with 21 outcomes.

Well, how about something like: Roll 2d4 and refer to the table below ...

2 (6.25% likely) = Level +4 encounter
3 (12.50% likely) = Level -2 encounter
4 (18.75% likely) = Level -1 encounter
5 (25% likely) = Level encounter
6 (18.75% likely) = Level +1 encounter
7 (12.50% likely) = Level +2 encounter
8 (6.25% likely) = Level +3 encounter

The result of 2 is out of place with the pattern. But level +4 deserves to be on the table more than level -3 (heck, level -2 even gets a little 'one sided' and therefore uninteresting most times, whereas higher encounters are more interesting with new tactics like "flee" being considered).

Or you could make it 2d6 for the table and just stretch out the number of results that give "Level encounters" and then mirror off of that... I just picked 2d4 because d4 sees so little love.

 

[howandwhy99]

Well, how about something like: Roll 2d4 and refer to the table below ...

2 (6.25% likely) = Level +4 encounter
3 (12.50% likely) = Level -2 encounter
4 (18.75% likely) = Level -1 encounter
5 (25% likely) = Level encounter
6 (18.75% likely) = Level +1 encounter
7 (12.50% likely) = Level +2 encounter
8 (6.25% likely) = Level +3 encounter

The result of 2 is out of place with the pattern. But level +4 deserves to be on the table more than level -3 (heck, level -2 even gets a little 'one sided' and therefore uninteresting most times, whereas higher encounters are more interesting with new tactics like "flee" being considered).

Or you could make it 2d6 for the table and just stretch out the number of results that give "Level encounters" and then mirror off of that... I just picked 2d4 because d4 sees so little love.

It sounds like PL+1 is the median of the sweet spot for 4E, if I understand you correctly. Any system that fits the overall scheme is going to work. Larger and smaller polyhedrals and more or fewer dice in the pool will affect the distribution. This is not just the granularity and number of outcomes possible, but its' flatness or how it peaks. I don't know the statistical terminology, but something that peaks high is going to appear more discrete to the players.

Setting up the distributed pattern is important IMO as it will be noticed by the players given enough time and attention on their parts. This works to their advantage.

 

[S'mon]

I'm running a 4e 'sandbox' type game. IME the best approach is not a big random encounter table, but rather precraft just 3 encounters per locale, because the PCs aren't likely to have more than 3 fights in a session. Then when a random encounter occurs or you decide the PCs meet something, roll a d3 or choose one. Create a new encounter for next time. You can also do it with a d4 or the classic d6, but you don't really need 6 different encounters starting off.

You can set a base encounter level for an area, and have the wandering encounters be around that level, typically -1/0/+1, up to -2/+4 is probably ok. Setting EL by terrain not party level retains the status quo element; if the 1st level PCs enter the EL 8 area they will meet stuff too tough for them. Of course you can pick the lowest or highest level encounter to give a PC group a suitable challenge.

 

[S'mon]

It sounds like PL+1 is the median of the sweet spot for 4E, if I understand you correctly.

For wilderness ecounters, a typical PL+2 works well if it's likely to be the only fight of the day. If it's supposed to just be an incident on the way to the dungeon then EL+0-+1 is better.