Factors Affecting CR and EL

[Quasqueton]

A big problem I'm seeing with judging an encounter's challenge is the sheer foolishness of Players. (I'd use a term stronger than foolishness for some situations I've seen.) Foolishness before a battle and foolishness during a battle.

PCs go into a major battle with no info on the BBEG, all because they didn't think to question (or take) captives before heading into the BBEG's lair. A party can increase its own CR/EL by one or more with proper preparations.

PCs repeat proven mistakes many times, like hitting a fireproof monster with fire spells, over and over. When the mage is doing nothing effective the entire fight, it's like not having a mage at all.

PCs run through a mass of enemies and get killed by AoOs, for no reason I could see or they could state. Willingly allowing the enemy free attacks on you is like giving them extra rounds in the fight.

PCs get bunched up and take repeated AoE blasts over and over, in the same fight. This makes the enemy spell casters much more effective than their levels would calculate.

PCs don't plan before a battle or support each other during a battle. This dumbs down the PCs' effective level.

In all my years of DMing, I've seen some immensely stupid decisions in battles.

In my last game session of D&D, the party was in three battles. The first was against a green dragon. The party knew it was a green dragon---their employer told them; to kill the dragon was their main goal. Did they buff and protect themselves before the battle? No. They started the buffing and protection once initiative was rolled the the battled started. Fortunately, no one was killed in this fight. But it was also 2 CR under their level.

The third battle had a PC take actions that were directly hurting (hp damage) another PC, repeatedly (like 10 times). And then the mage rolled four 1s in a row for his caster level check to over come the monster's SR (he only needed to roll a 4+). One of the PCs died in this battle. Some big foolishness combined with severe bad luck made an equal-level CR deadly.

I like CR and EL. I'm glad the game designers created this measuring stick. I understand how it works, and how it can be "knocked out of whack" by certain circumstances. I have enough experience with the game to know how to allow for most circumstances that I create when setting up an encounter. What I can never seem to "calculate" for is the foolishness of Players.

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

I like CR and EL. I'm glad the game designers created this measuring stick. I understand how it works, and how it can be "knocked out of whack" by certain circumstances. I have enough experience with the game to know how to allow for most circumstances that I create when setting up an encounter. What I can never seem to "calculate" for is the foolishness of Players.

That cuts both ways, since it's also impossible, I think, for a DM to "calculate" for the ingenuity of the players and all the things they might pull off. As the good general Moltke would have said if he was a DM, no plan survives contact with the PCs. That's why I much prefer to focus on the situation and leave how they'll deal with it to my players/PCs. While I may have a couple of broad ideas for things they might do based on my knowledge of the PCs and the players' usual approach, I try never to have any expectations that they'll do something specific. So far, over the last 5+ years of non-stop DMing, it's worked out very well.

 

[Quasqueton]

That's why I much prefer to focus on the situation and leave how they'll deal with it to my players/PCs. While I may have a couple of broad ideas for things they might do based on my knowledge of the PCs and the players' usual approach, I try never to have any expectations that they'll do something specific. So far, over the last 5+ years of non-stop DMing, it's worked out very well.

You seem to be saying this as a counter to what I said. But I've not said I do anything like what you are talking against. What in my post gives you the impression that I "have any expectations that they'll do something specific." Or that I focus on "how they'll deal with it"?

I don't usually set up encounters where the PCs have to do anything specific (other than defeat the monster).

Quasqueton

 

[shilsen]

You seem to be saying this as a counter to what I said. But I've not said I do anything like what you are talking against. What in my post gives you the impression that I "have any expectations that they'll do something specific." Or that I focus on "how they'll deal with it"?

I don't usually set up encounters where the PCs have to do anything specific (other than defeat the monster).

Quasqueton

You're reading things into my post. I was agreeing with what you said about the foolishness of players and adding something to it. That's all.

Good rule of thumb for reading stuff on ENWorld - Don't assume someone's arguing with you unless it's completely clear that they are. Human communication is difficult enough when one assumes while talking face to face, so doing so about what written words on a messageboard mean is a bad idea.

 

[Quasqueton]

You're reading things into my post. I was agreeing with what you said about the foolishness of players and adding something to it. That's all.

Okay.

Don't assume someone's arguing with you unless it's completely clear

In defense of my interpretation, you quoted my post and then said nothing to the effect of agreement. In fact, you said, "That's why I much prefer . . . ." That seemed pretty clear to me. <shrug>

But anyway, okay, we're in agreement. Cool.

Quasqueton

 

[Hussar]

Heh, just had an encounter with a Shambling mound with our 3rd level party.

Shambler=CR 6
Party of 6 3rd level PC's. Roughly APL=5.
Above average stats and Action Points in effect. Roughly APL 6.

Should have been a fairly even fight. Unfortunately the shambler got surprise on us and dropped a PC in the surprise round. It managed to get a hold of the Artificer in the first round and outright killed the PC. What surprised me however, was, after one PC managed to slow it down using a tanglefoot bag, the party tank continued to charge the shambler in melee reach instead of standing back and firing away with ranged attacks.

Thus, we have Quasqueton's "sheer foolishness" of players. The shambler was down to a movement of 20 for the next 7 rounds due to the tanglefoot bag. With 4 remaining PC's, it would be a simple matter to move and fire and stay out of its reach and kill it with little or not threat to us.

There's just no saving some PC's.

But, one thing this does show is that even though the party may seem a bit higher due to numbers and things like Action Points, individually, they are still very fragile. It would be a much better challenge to use a pair of CR 4 creatures instead of one CR 6. Damage and To-Hit probabilities simply go up so quickly when you jump CR's. The death of one PC and the instant dropping of a second seems to bear this out.

 

[the Jester]

Heh, just had an encounter with a Shambling mound with our 3rd level party.

Shambler=CR 6
Party of 6 3rd level PC's. Roughly APL=5.
Above average stats and Action Points in effect. Roughly APL 6.

Sort of... you could prolly treat the party as APL 6 for purposes of gauging EL when using multiple monsters. I wouldn't throw a higher number of pcs of a lower level against a single monster of that EL as a matter of course, however; that single monster prolly has several attacks that can drop a pc of your level in one round (as in your case), and it may have defenses that they can't really breach.

I've been running huge (up to about 16 pc) groups since the advent of 3e (and before, really) and have learned this from painful experience.

 

[KrazyHades]

The PCs in my group always try to get as much intel on the enemy before entering combat, so they can prepare particular spells, scrolls, magical weapons, etc...

On top of that, they also plan out very advanced tactics. Because of this, they are often able to deal with problems far above their CR, especially against unintelligent creatures.

They are going to get a surprise in the next adventure, though, because all of my guys have set up ambushes, alarms, and pre-set tactics to deal with invaders...bwahahahaha

 

[Doug McCrae]

I've noticed with a single high CR monster that the 25% of resources are liable to all come from one PC's hit points, increasing the likelihood of death. Multiple foes make it easier to spread out the damage.

 

[Hussar]

Very true Doug. I think it is a bit of a mistake when designing adventures to rely on single monsters. Plus, single monsters tend to be a more boring fight. Either the party gets the drop on it and obliterate it, or it gets the drop on the PC's and one PC dies.

Much more fun, and tactically interesting, to have small numbers of smaller critters. By and large, two creatures means twice the fun?