Challenging Challenge Ratings...again

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

U_K!
I actually have a couple of possibly tricky questions, most of them based on planning encounters.

In planning for an upcomming immortal's game ('Prolly will run about the time 4E kicks off) I have hit a couple of snags with creating encounters. I want to include more foes in combats, and have more dynamic combats in general. (I'm in sort of an encounter-rut as a GM) So I was wondering if there are some CR Ratios for mixed and group encounters that work out better then just eye-balling it. Perhaps some examples might explain better...

Note: I am not worried in the least about assigning appropriate XP; My concern is challenging the characters without obliterating them in surprise round. If they live, THEN I can worry about assigning XP.
I'm pretty sure theres no cut and dry answer to some of these, but I would be most appreciative of any advice I can get.

1. Say I want to have the all-important end boss with ~2-8 'mooks'. What CRarty Level ratios should I be aiming for? (I realize CRs are sometimes imperfect units of measure, but for the sake of argument lets pretend every monster/template/etc is 100% on the money all of the time) From what I can tell, a tough end-battle vs a single foe is ~+25%-+50% stronger in CR then the party's Level. (IE CR 120 for a level 80 group would be pushing it, CR 100 would be about a nasty but winnable fight) If I wanted mooks that are approximately tough enough to matter in the fight and to last more than 1 round without being the main threat, what should I be aiming for?
My Guess: Boss (CR=Party Levelx1.25) plus Mooks (CR=Party levelx[.50 - .75 depending on number]?)

2. Mixed/Group threats. In your Epic Encounter Levels article, you suggest adding a couple points to EL for groups of multiple foes of the same CR. (So 4 CR 80 monsters are EL ~84) What about a mixed group? Say, 2 CR 82 monsters and 2 CR 78 monsters? Should I rank them separately?
My Guess: Either average it, or average and weight towards the high end for safety.

3. (Related to 2) - In a mixed encounter about how much of an EL adjustment should there be if there are, say, two foes with radically different or even synergistic roles in combat.
Extreme Example of Synergistic Roles: Neutronium Golem and a Nexus Dragon. Both have powers that win any battle of attrition (Miss chances and Inter-dimensional on the dragon, time limit on the fight from the golem) as well as trump-card specialties (damage output from the golem; astro-crazy-breath from the dragon) and rock solid immunities. (can be overcome by with portfolios, but that is never guaranteed) In this example, there is no obvious tactic to win, or a foe to take out first; they both complement each other in such a way that the only answer is to have all the answers AND be more powerful than the two of them.
My Guess: I would rate each monster separately against their share of the party, and average the result. So, in my ludicrous example, vs a party of 4, I would rate the Golem vs 2 characters and the Dragon vs 2 characters, and average the EL.
Otherwise, I have no clue. I'd like to have more mixed encounters. (Fights with a group of generic [Unelementals/Mercury Golems/Grigori/Etc], even ones with varied class levels, seem sort of bland. Granted, I'll probably run out of logical combinations, but that's my probem. )

 

[S'mon]

Hiya Ltheb matey!

U_K!
I actually have a couple of possibly tricky questions, most of them based on planning encounters.

In planning for an upcomming immortal's game ('Prolly will run about the time 4E kicks off) I have hit a couple of snags with creating encounters. I want to include more foes in combats, and have more dynamic combats in general. (I'm in sort of an encounter-rut as a GM) So I was wondering if there are some CR Ratios for mixed and group encounters that work out better then just eye-balling it. Perhaps some examples might explain better...

Note: I am not worried in the least about assigning appropriate XP; My concern is challenging the characters without obliterating them in surprise round. If they live, THEN I can worry about assigning XP.
I'm pretty sure theres no cut and dry answer to some of these, but I would be most appreciative of any advice I can get.

Fire away and lets see if I can help.

1. Say I want to have the all-important end boss with ~2-8 'mooks'. What CRarty Level ratios should I be aiming for? (I realize CRs are sometimes imperfect units of measure, but for the sake of argument lets pretend every monster/template/etc is 100% on the money all of the time) From what I can tell, a tough end-battle vs a single foe is ~+25%-+50% stronger in CR then the party's Level. (IE CR 120 for a level 80 group would be pushing it, CR 100 would be about a nasty but winnable fight) If I wanted mooks that are approximately tough enough to matter in the fight and to last more than 1 round without being the main threat, what should I be aiming for?
My Guess: Boss (CR=Party Levelx1.25) plus Mooks (CR=Party levelx[.50 - .75 depending on number]?)

http://www.immortalshandbook.com/freestuff18.htm

Okay well ultimately this sort of thing will be almost impossible to balance without knowing how your PCs operate (min/maxing etc.). But I would say a minimum of

Mooks - In the Blue on that Table. Individual ECL between 60-79 (assuming 80th-level PCs)

8 Mooks then say ECL 60 each. 4 Mooks about ECL 70 each. 2 Mooks say ECL 80 each.

BBEG - In the orange on that Table. Basically you want the Boss CR the same as the PC ECL.

So CR 80 for the boss, give or take 10%.

2. Mixed/Group threats. In your Epic Encounter Levels article, you suggest adding a couple points to EL for groups of multiple foes of the same CR. (So 4 CR 80 monsters are EL ~84) What about a mixed group? Say, 2 CR 82 monsters and 2 CR 78 monsters? Should I rank them separately?
My Guess: Either average it, or average and weight towards the high end for safety.

That should be okay where the difference is only a minor percentage (10% or so).

3. (Related to 2) - In a mixed encounter about how much of an EL adjustment should there be if there are, say, two foes with radically different or even synergistic roles in combat.
Extreme Example of Synergistic Roles: Neutronium Golem and a Nexus Dragon. Both have powers that win any battle of attrition (Miss chances and Inter-dimensional on the dragon, time limit on the fight from the golem) as well as trump-card specialties (damage output from the golem; astro-crazy-breath from the dragon) and rock solid immunities. (can be overcome by with portfolios, but that is never guaranteed) In this example, there is no obvious tactic to win, or a foe to take out first; they both complement each other in such a way that the only answer is to have all the answers AND be more powerful than the two of them.
My Guess: I would rate each monster separately against their share of the party, and average the result. So, in my ludicrous example, vs a party of 4, I would rate the Golem vs 2 characters and the Dragon vs 2 characters, and average the EL.

Interesting idea, yes that should work fine.

Otherwise, I have no clue. I'd like to have more mixed encounters. (Fights with a group of generic [Unelementals/Mercury Golems/Grigori/Etc], even ones with varied class levels, seem sort of bland. Granted, I'll probably run out of logical combinations, but that's my probem. )

Agreed. I think multiple monster encounters are generally more interesting and satisfying. I definitely think 4E has a good idea giving monsters roles and power roles. Things like Elementals and Golems do not make satisfying solo opponents (but then 3E monsters in general are not really engineered like that).

I can see Golems as standard soldiers in 4E and elementals as standard brutes. Not always, but in most cases.

Apologies if I wasn't much help.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Thanks for the reply
For some reason I can't post my original reply. The post ends up being completely blank! I have no clue what causes it.

 

[S'mon]

Hiya Ltheb dude!

Thanks for the reply
For some reason I can't post my original reply. The post ends up being completely blank! I have no clue what causes it.

Thats weird - the same thing happened to me a few weeks ago. I don't know what caused it either.

 

[EarthSeraphEdna]

Thats weird - the same thing happened to me a few weeks ago. I don't know what caused it either.

When I "recovered" your lost post that time by quoting it directly, I noticed that the error was due to faulty quote tags.

 

[Ltheb Silverfrond]

Okay well ultimately this sort of thing will be almost impossible to balance without knowing how your PCs operate (min/maxing etc.).

True . To be honest, I'd say they min-max at a 7/10. (heck, I helped them make their characters, so I am partly to blame for this. ) However, I don't think there is anything their characters can do right now that is beyond what I am prepared to handle. I am just not sure of how they will advance...
About the most difficult thing to plan for in this group is that one of the PCs has Abrogate. I am not much of a fan of foes with 20+ relevant different options in combat, so planning for this is both a headache and quite interesting.
The other odd part about this game is the details about the sessions; We don't meet often (twice a month) but our sessions are 8 to 11 hours long. (Minus Pizza breaks/drink runs and the like) so I have to plan a lot of encounters for this game, and since they are likely to face 1-3 major combats in each of these sessions, I need to keep them semi unique.

But I would say a minimum of


Mooks - In the Blue on that Table. Individual ECL between 60-79 (assuming 80th-level PCs)

8 Mooks then say ECL 60 each. 4 Mooks about ECL 70 each. 2 Mooks say ECL 80 each.

BBEG - In the orange on that Table. Basically you want the Boss CR the same as the PC ECL.

So CR 80 for the boss, give or take 10%.

Thanks, I wasn't sure about this. (I haven't run an encounter like this recently; last couple like this were boss + Insignificant mooks)

That should be okay where the difference is only a minor percentage (10% or so).

I guessed as much.

Interesting idea, yes that should work fine.

Mixed encounters are probably the oddball because of the possible combinations. Even something as simple as Air Elementals Plus Earth Elementals skew fights due to non-standard tactics working. (Although I certainly cautioned all of my players to death about not makeing lopsided characters. They are well aware of things like Abrogate and powers that simply laugh at basic tactics)

Agreed. I think multiple monster encounters are generally more interesting and satisfying. I definitely think 4E has a good idea giving monsters roles and power roles. Things like Elementals and Golems do not make satisfying solo opponents (but then 3E monsters in general are not really engineered like that).

I can see Golems as standard soldiers in 4E and elementals as standard brutes. Not always, but in most cases.

Apologies if I wasn't much help.

T'was a great help. Sometimes I just need to check whether what I assume is right is even sane. Thanks!

Oh, and Adslahnit, thanks for that advice. (Extra quote tag at the beginning did it)

EDIT: Also, I'd just like to comment that the Cosmic Toughness power is like the greatest power ever. Slap it on any single monster and it suddenly becomes a relevent boss monster!

 

[Alzrius]

It's also worth noting that extremely long posts won't be accepted when you try to post them; though ironically it'll tell you that the post length is too short, and you need to lengthen it to at least three characters.

 

[Kerrick]

Okay, this stuff is simple, but relatively easy to complicate, but basically ECL is (approx.) 150% of Challenge Rating (in fact has been since v5).

...

So if you have 4 PCs of level 30, then they are almost certainly better than 4 Balors (ECL 30 each). The way round this is to divide the final ECL by 6 and multiply by 5 (5/6ths). Rather than apply the old Silver Rule (5/6ths below ECL 20 or -3 after ECL 20).

So let me see if I got this straight. You say ECL ~ CR x 1.5; okay, I get that part. Then you say to get a proper equivalence to PC levels, you take the ECL and multiply by 5/6 (BTW, your order of operations is off - you always multiply by the top first, THEN divide by the bottom). A CR 33 balor (your CR) would actually be CR 41, since you're multiplying by 1.5 and then again by 0.83 (which is effectively multiplying by 1.25). So a single balor (CR/EL 41) is a challenge for a L41 PC, correct?

 

[S'mon]

Hi Kerrick mate! (Krust here)

part of the problem is that you are using version 4 terminology - which I changed because it can become confusing.

Basically version 4 says CR is ECL.

So let me see if I got this straight. You say ECL ~ CR x 1.5; okay, I get that part. Then you say to get a proper equivalence to PC levels, you take the ECL and multiply by 5/6 (BTW, your order of operations is off - you always multiply by the top first, THEN divide by the bottom). A CR 33 balor (your CR) would actually be CR 41, since you're multiplying by 1.5 and then again by 0.83 (which is effectively multiplying by 1.25). So a single balor (CR/EL 41) is a challenge for a L41 PC, correct?

Wrong (but the problem is version 4 not you).

Okay, my CR/EL system determines ECL (not CR...forget what v4 says).

So the Balor is ECL 33 (before the Silver Rule).

Basically the 5/6ths rule is the amended Silver Rule in the document. Designed that way when I moved from a 5 feats = +1 ECL model to a 6 feats = +1 ECL model (I did this because after I worked out the character classes I found they were on average approx. 20% higher, or 1/6th)

Therefore the Balor is ECL 27.5 (rounded down to 27). So the Balor should be an equal fight for a single (non min/maxed) PC of 27th-level.

The Balor's CR would be 2/3rds its ECL, CR 18 in this case. Meaning that the Balor would be a tough encounter for a party of four 18th-level characters (again non-min/maxed).

Min/maxing (without finding some obviously broken rules loophole like the Hulking Hurler build) can give an approximate net benefit of between 10-30%.

 

[Kerrick]

part of the problem is that you are using version 4 terminology - which I changed because it can become confusing.

Basically version 4 says CR is ECL.

Ah, okay.

Therefore the Balor is ECL 27.5 (rounded down to 27). So the Balor should be an equal fight for a single (non min/maxed) PC of 27th-level.

ECL 41 was my mistake - I took CR 33 and multiplied by 1.25, instead of 20 x 1.25, which would've given me ECL 25 (which is still a bit off, but much closer).

Basically the 5/6ths rule is the amended Silver Rule in the document. Designed that way when I moved from a 5 feats = +1 ECL model to a 6 feats = +1 ECL model

Right. I think it says something to that effect; I know 5 / 6 = 0.83, so there was no real confusion there.

I'm following it now - figure the initial ECL (pre-Silver Rule), mutliply by 0.83, and that's the final ECL. Multiply the final ECL by 0.66 to find the CR/EL (or, if you want to cut out a step, just multiply the initial ECL by 0.54 to find the CR/EL). Thanks!