D&D 101: A lesson in fun

[Piratecat]

Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can it be that 3 Ogres are only twice as challenging to one character as one Ogre is to one character? Therein lies the flaw.

I gave you a pretty good reason why, and I'm a little surprised that you haven't addressed that post.

A moderator-y caution: Faerl', you're coming across as more hostile and aggressive than you need to be. Please ratchet down your tone. We're among friends here, and there's no need to be insulting or condescending.

 

[Faerl'Elghinn]

One Hill Giant is a Moderate Encounter.

Two Hill Giants is a Difficult Encounter.

Whether you believe it's linear, whether it is linear, doesn't matter, because the assessment isn't linear.

One is Moderate.

Two is Difficult.

Four is Very Difficult.

Your problem is that you feel that because the EL system applies "numbers" to relative difficulty, that you think there is an obvious (read: linear) numerical relationship between them.

You can call it EL+0. You can call it Moderate. You can call it "Code Green." You can call it whatever you want, but this encounter is worth x1 XP.

Now double the number of opponents. You can call it EL +2. You can call it Difficult. You can call it "Code Yellow." Doesn't matter whether this encounter is exactly "twice as difficult" or not, all that matters is that there are twice as many opponents, that the GM knows it is DIFFICULT, and it's worth twice as many XP.

Double the number again (x4 from the original). You're at EL+4. Very Difficult. Code Red. The GM knows this encounter will be Very Difficult, and it's worth 4x the XP.

Wulf

The point is that the EL decides whether or not an encounter is an acceptable challenge for a party of a given level. I would venture to say that an encounter of 4 Hill Giants by a 7th-level party would be next to impossible to win, much harder to win than an encounter of 4 Ogres by a 3rd-level party, and yet each encounter still falls in the same spot in relation to party power level on the chart. That's what doesn't make sense.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

The point is that the EL decides whether or not an encounter is an acceptable challenge for a party of a given level. I would venture to say that an encounter of 4 Hill Giants by a 7th-level party would be next to impossible to win, much harder to win than an encounter of 4 Ogres by a 3rd-level party, and yet each encounter still falls in the same spot in relation to party power level on the chart. That's what doesn't make sense.

Well, I suppose you could be smarter than the professional game designers at Wizards (with decades of design experience) and thousands of man-years of playtest.

The net is positively brimming with such folks.

You pose almost a moot point, as the DMG specifically warns against EL+4 encounters, and you'd probably have a TPK in either case. If the ogres leave the 3rd level party dead, I suppose the hill giants leave the 7th level party deader than dead.

So, yeah, good catch.

Wulf

 

[Thotas]

Sorry ... I left out an important detail. I wasn't talking about the EL thing at all. I was specificly addressing "How can it not be exactly twice as difficult to face twice as many monsters? The answer is that it is objectively twice as difficult to face two monsters as it is to face one. This can be demonstrated through the staggeringly complex equation 1+1=2. The math doesn't lie." ... and then you did actually ask someone to disprove your math. Your example of the 4 7th level characters vs. the two Hill Giants as opposed to one also makes use of the principles I'm talking about, if you double check it. I actually think the EL thing is just an issue of the experience point concept, which actually makes no sense anyway, but is such a central concept in the game mechanics I can't even begin to figure out what it would take to fix. So ignore it; characters improve, the how and why makes no sense, but they do. I also realized I need to cut you some slack on your math anyway; your version does accurately describe a specific tactical situation. Roman soldier, can't remember his name, holding a bridge. If you face them one at a time (and don't tire), you multiply the difficulty by the number of opponents. Using your Hill Giants, for example, if the party ambushes them at the cave mouth and they can only come out one at a time, it's equivalent to 1 giant with twice as many hit points, which is exactly twice as dangerous.

 

[Wulf Ratbane]

I gave you a pretty good reason why, and I'm a little surprised that you haven't addressed that post.

You also have to consider that CR isn't really applicable to a single character-- it's meant to represent a challenge against an average party with a mix of classes.

As Character Level increases, the options available to a balanced party increases exponentially-- Cleave, Power Attack, Sneak Attack, Turn Undead, and lots more Save-Or-Die spells in addition to Area of Effect...

Wulf

 

[Parlan]

And your argument is a misunderstanding of my argument. My argument is that the system used is not the correct one, regardless of whether or not it involves logarhithms. Your argument makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. How can it be that 3 Ogres are only twice as challenging to one character as one Ogre is to one character? Therein lies the flaw.

How can it be? This is D&D, it aint math class.

Level 4 Wizard vs a Level 5 one

According to mathematical computation, the latter is 25 percent more powerful than the former.

According to anyone who has ever played one, the Lvl 5 wizzy is probably twice as powerful. Why? Access to Fireball of course.

As a guideline for planning encounters, the consensus is that the EL system works pretty well when combined with some DM common-sense. Why do you need this to be proved mathematically?

 

[PugioilAudacio]

I think that the real meat of this post was not dealing with EL, but with DMing and the game itself. It's a shame to have it bogged down in mathematical details.

Faerl'Elghinn - Fine, so the sytem isn't %100 perfect. However, it works pretty well. If you want a better system, create one, don't challenge this one without having a better alternative. Just leave it at that and get back to the "real" post (unless I misunderstood your original post).

 

[Chupacabra]

Back to the posters original, original point: I think we can all agree that no matter what the math is, if DM's are either 1) sloppy or 2) perversely sadistic in creating encounters for their particular party, then the game can rapidly become no fun. And for me, as a player, this doesn't just mean avoiding TPK's, it also means avoiding strings of worthless no-challenge encounters.

Yes, CR / ECL and all that business assumes a balanced party, but that can be a pretty darn big assumption at times. Not every party will be composed of players of the same level of experience (I'm talking game experience of the actual players, not the level of the PCs they are playing). Also, not every party will be composed of Lidda, Milalee, Tordek and Jozan, in other words not every party will have the chapter-approved optimal mix of classes. If the DM is running a game for a group of 4 3rd level half-orc bard PCs, then thats the party he has to design his encounters for -- NOT the balanced group that some (not all, but some) of the math "behind the curtains" of the game assumes. A group of ghouls , for example, would tear this particular party up, much more so than their EL would normally suggest (that EL based on the assumption that these ghould would be facing an idealized, mytical balanced party where a cleric or some kind of divine caster is always present and always has a turn undead handy).

GM's who rigidly try to apply EL's / CR's in a cookie-cutter "by the book" fashion without considering the unique strengths and weaknesses of thier particular group of players are really jeopardizing the fun of the game.

 

[Piratecat]

Pugio, I think the argumentative approach predisposed people to challenge his EL claim. It's a shame; the roleplaying parts of the post are really fun.

Quick, someone save it!

 

[PugioilAudacio]

Back to the posters original, original point: I think we can all agree that no matter what the math is, if DM's are either 1) sloppy or 2) perversely sadistic in creating encounters for their particular party, then the game can rapidly become no fun. And for me, as a player, this doesn't just mean avoiding TPK's, it also means avoiding strings of worthless no-challenge encounters.

Yes, CR / ECL and all that business assumes a balanced party, but that can be a pretty darn big assumption at times. Not every party will be composed of players of the same level of experience (I'm talking game experience of the actual players, not the level of the PCs they are playing). Also, not every party will be composed of Lidda, Milalee, Tordek and Jozan, in other words not every party will have the chapter-approved optimal mix of classes. If the DM is running a game for a group of 4 3rd level half-orc bard PCs, then thats the party he has to design his encounters for -- NOT the balanced group that some (not all, but some) of the math "behind the curtains" of the game assumes. A group of ghouls , for example, would tear this particular party up, much more so than their EL would normally suggest (that EL based on the assumption that these ghould would be facing an idealized, mytical balanced party where a cleric or some kind of divine caster is always present and always has a turn undead handy).

GM's who rigidly try to apply EL's / CR's in a cookie-cutter "by the book" fashion without considering the unique strengths and weaknesses of thier particular group of players are really jeopardizing the fun of the game.

An excellent point. I think this is what Faerl'Elghinn is actually trying to get at. He had realized that the EL/CR system would not work in all cases and was trying to point that out. He was just a little to strong in his wording. But his point (and yours) is perfectly valid and warrants consideration (hint hint everybody).