I tried the 4 player standard, what a mess...

[I'm A Banana]

I've been guilty of the exact same thinking about the CR/EL system. However, I am forced to agree with KM on this. The universe doesn't always issue challenges that just happen to be exactly the level that the PCs are.....It issues half the challenges at the PC's EL, 10% at lower EL, 20% that are easy if handled right and hard otherwise, 15% at 1-4 ELs higher, and 5% at 5+ over the party's EL.

So, you can see that the universe delivers challenges formulaically based off the party's level, but not actually always at the party's level.

Surely that "video game" feel dissipates when you consider this difference?

Writing an adventure with strong motivation is really a matter of knowing what style of game you and your players prefer...A status quo motivation isn't really a motivation in the strict sense of the word. It's the fact that (for instance) adventure awaits in the Lost Valley for anyone who dares brave the wyvern-haunted cliffs that surround the place. The PC's can go there or not, depending upon how they feel...

This is further discussed in Site Based and Event Based adventures. And then...

Just as with motivations, encounters can be tailored specifically to the PC's or not...In a tailored encounter, you design things to fit the PC's and the players...A status quo encounter forces the PCs to adapt to the encounter, rather than the other way around. Bugbears live on Clover Hill, and if the PC's go there, they encounter bugbears, whether bugbears are an appropriate encounter for them or not. This kind of encounter gives the world a certain verisimilitude...You could decide where the dragon's lair is long before the characters are experienced enough to survive a fight against a dragon.

So later, when speaking about how many encounters of what rank of challenge an adventure can have, it can be reasonably assumed the DMG is addressing the needs of those who tailor specifically to the PC's, rather than those who establish a status quo (who already have the CR's of their adventure based on their previous establishing details).

Challenges are based off of a party's level exactly as often as you want them to be as a DM, according to the DMG. And even when they are based off a party's level, there should be a fair share of encounters that the PC's cannot win. So even if you are tailoring your adventures to the PC's, the DMG tells you specifically to overwhelm them on occasion.

So the CR system doesn't suffer from the problems Mistwell has with it, nor does it even base encounters, necessarily, off of PC level, if you don't want it to.

It does rather reliably give you a baseline of difficulty, though.

 

[Raven Crowking]

KM, Status Quo is the way to go, IMHO. However, Status Quo is not the default for the CR system.

Moreover, some might say that this line

It does rather reliably give you a baseline of difficulty, though.

is only true depending upon how you define "rather reliably" and "baseline".

It gives you a place to start, but if I was running tailored encounters, I'd be a lot more leery of relying on CR than I am running Status Quo (where it is the players' job, not mine, to decide what they can handle).

 

[Blue]

One point people are making with the "1st level characters are wimps" is that any encounter balancing system needs to be careful at low level - a bit of variation swings it greatly, and die rolls are nothing but variation.

I'm sure an iconic four 7th level characters vs. an CR 8 encounter would have a different balance - tough but winnable using resources.

An ogre - which as everyone mentions is mis-labelled in terms of CR - also hits hard enough that most 1st level character go down in 1-2 hits. Throw in a critical and it's all over.

I applaud that you tried it several times to get a feel with different tactics, rolls, and ultimately characters, but to get a more complete feel for the CR system, also try at different points during it.

(BTW, I'm not being a "EL apologist". I find it a useful tool to get a rough idea that I then need to balance to the party. There are a lot of things it (rightly) doesn't try to take into consideration, but the DM needs to - if the environment favors one side, previous encounters that day, level of equipment (high magic vs. low wealth), specific strengths or weaknesses (like low level flyers vs. ranged-poor PCs). I find it a reasonable start point.

Good luck,
=Blue

 

[I'm A Banana]

However, Status Quo is not the default for the CR system.

That statement is kind of nonsensical. The CR system is largely independent of how you design challenges as a DM. It doesn't assume you're using Tailored encounters or Status Quo encounters, and both kinds of encounters use the CR system to tell you what level these things are generally appropriate challenges and what awards a party who overcomes them should get. There is no "default" encounter style for the CR system, or for the game.

is only true depending upon how you define "rather reliably" and "baseline".

The assumptions of the CR system are expressly stated, as is the fact that it is not a mechanical computation, but a rough approximation. Any game with as many options for party make up, monster abilities, and character options as D&D 3e has cannot have a reliable absolute number system for determining challenge. CR tells you at a glace if most PC parties are likely to endure a combat with a given beast. That's about as good as it does. That's about as good as *any* system can do.

It gives you a place to start, but if I was running tailored encounters, I'd be a lot more leery of relying on CR than I am running Status Quo (where it is the players' job, not mine, to decide what they can handle).

In Tailored encounters, you specifically cater to a PC's abilities -- high HP foes for high-damage characters, heavy-hitting foes for high HP characters, foes with DR to cater to the spellcasters, foes with SR to cater to the physical fighters, etc. If you know your party doesn't have much HP (less than an "average party" might,) you avoid heavy-hitting characters.

Not every monster of a given CR is going to be an exactly equal challenge to all types of parties.

All the CR system wants to do is give you a place to start -- four pillars, specifically. Which is a more easily understood place to start than any D&D has had before.

 

[wakedown]

About 6 months ago, we had a similar encounter. I actually remember it somewhat well.

The dwarf fighter ran up and taunted the ogre. I remember he had 16HP (10+3Con+3Toughness). I'm thinking his AC was 10+4+2+1+4 (21) for the fight, plus he fought defensively taking it up to 23. The ogre charged giving it a +10 to hit, even still only a ~43% chance to land that 1st big blow.

The druid's wolf ran in to flank the ogre (now AC14). The druid moved in behind the dwarf with her longspear and hit (avg dmg would have been 5 pts).

We had a scout instead of a rogue who was moving around and firing off the 1d8+1d6+1 damage arrows (arrow+skirmish+point blank) and I believe hit the AC14 with a 50/50 chance with +4 to hit. Damage was 7-8 pts a hit.

The wizard I recall using a ray of enfeeblement, easily hitting the touch AC6, bringing the ogres to hit next round down to +6 and only ~25% chance to hit the dwarf. I think a magic missile followed up next for a couple pts.

The ogre got 1 hit in over 3 rounds, for about 13-14 pts which was the big scare, before dying.

As a DM, after getting the "big scare", I would probably have had him turn his attention on the "annoying trip-attempting wolf" before going after a softer party member.

Its tough at 1st level, there's very little margin for error. Its what makes 1st level a fun level in our group, since your survival rate is low, it adds prestige to become 2nd. For a fair CR system judgement, it'd be the hardest level to gauge. Try 8 goblins or kobolds as your next test...

 

[Raven Crowking]

That statement is kind of nonsensical. The CR system is largely independent of how you design challenges as a DM. It doesn't assume you're using Tailored encounters or Status Quo encounters

Really?

So the DMG expressly warns you that you should notify your players if you are using Tailored encounters? Feel like quoting that text? Tailored encounters are described as an optional or alternate system? Feel like quoting that text?

The CR system isn't as bad as I once thought it was, but it still isn't as useful as some folks would like to believe it to be. Moreover, it is clear in the DMG that the default is Tailored encounters. Any claim made about the system that doesn't recognize that is.....well, spurious at best.


RC

 

[smetzger]

1. As others have pointed out the Ogre is really CR3.
2. CR should not be used to measure how relatively 'tough' an encounter is. Thats what EL is for. CR is used to determine XP.
3. As the adventure called for not being able to avoid the Ogre this effectivly raised the challenge.

In conclusion...
If you want a full proof system to estimate relative toughness, you will not find one. I have found The EL system is a good GUIDELINE. But there are times when it will break down.

I am not really sure what your complaint is because you say you don't have any problems eyeballing encounters. As for NEWBs, they will most likely be playing published adventures, so they shouldn't have too much of a problem.

 

[Hussar]

Really?

So the DMG expressly warns you that you should notify your players if you are using Tailored encounters? Feel like quoting that text? Tailored encounters are described as an optional or alternate system? Feel like quoting that text?

The CR system isn't as bad as I once thought it was, but it still isn't as useful as some folks would like to believe it to be. Moreover, it is clear in the DMG that the default is Tailored encounters. Any claim made about the system that doesn't recognize that is.....well, spurious at best.


RC

What difference would it make if encounters were tailored or not? CR doesn't care. CR doesn't care what level the PC's are. It's a measure of how difficult a given creature is in combat. A CR 5 creature is still a CR 5 creature no matter what level the PC's are. If you are tailoring encounters, then the EL's will change, but, the challenge ratings of given challenges don't.

 

[pawsplay]

I ran them in the Dungeon Classics Module #2 The Lost Vault of Tzathzar Rho. The first encounter in that module, which is specifically written for 1st level characters, is with an Orgre... CR 2 creature. According to the DMG 3.0 this is supposed to be a scaled encounter that 4 1st level players will have a hard time with, but can overcome. The party consisted of a Thief, a Ranger, a Diviner, and a Druid. They were annihilated. We ran the same encounter 3 times and they varied thier tactics but the end result was always the same, the gory death of the entire party and a modestly wounded Ogre.

I then suggested that since I run a roleplay heavy game, and that is what the players came prepared for, I would allow them to restructure the characters and toughen them up... surely that is the problem we were facing, underpowered PCs. So we ran it one last time with a Thief, Evoker, Cleric, and a buffed up dual weapon weilding combat Ranger. They did do a little more damage but in the end thier broken lifeless bodies littererd the same battleground.

Any observations?

Yes. Ogres are dangerous to 1st level characters, but the party should have been able to do it. I've put a 1st level party up against an ogre before.

There's no fighter or barbarian in the party, so going toe to toe with it should not even be in the playbook. If the party thought switching to an evoker would help, they misunderstand spellcasting tactics; damage is a specialized realm of spellcasting.

Round 1: Don't be within charging distance of the ogre. The mage casts sleep. Either the ogre (Will +1) fails the save, or you pepper it with ranged attacks.

Round 2: From behind cover, you pepper it with some more ranged attacks. Anyone who finds themselves near or next to an ogre uses the withdraw action. The mage casts sleep again... at this point, there is less than a 1 in 4 chance the ogre is still fighting.

Round 3: The mage gets frustrated and casts grease on the ogre, who does not have balance. The rogue throws a knife at him and finishes off the flat-footed ogre.

 

[Raven Crowking]

3. As the adventure called for not being able to avoid the Ogre this effectivly raised the challenge.

I'm not sure about this at all. The adventure design said where the ogre was and what the ogre would do. It didn't say "No matter what the PCs do, they can't lure the ogre out of the cave."

I am not really sure what your complaint is because you say you don't have any problems eyeballing encounters. As for NEWBs, they will most likely be playing published adventures, so they shouldn't have too much of a problem.

If this is addressed to me, I was responding to

In traditional D&D, some times you got in over your head, and sometimes things were really easy. The CR system makes it feel more like a "video game" to me.

So the CR system doesn't suffer from the problems Mistwell has with it, nor does it even base encounters, necessarily, off of PC level, if you don't want it to.

and

The CR system is largely independent of how you design challenges as a DM. It doesn't assume you're using Tailored encounters or Status Quo encounters

Mistwell is correct in thinking that the CR/EL System is designed with the stated intent that Tailored Encounters are the norm, and that this is a "video-gamey" approach. KM is correct when he says you don't have to use that approach (I do not myself) but not when he claims that this isn't the norm for the game, or that, as a result of having other options, one cannot (or should not) express a lack of contentment with that norm.

I run a much lower magic and lower wealth game that the book suggests, too, but that doesn't mean that the book doesn't take a certain amount of ready magic and wealth-by-level as its norm.

I honestly don't think that CR is an improvement over ML (at least, not as I used it; I didn't divide XP by APL, and this allowed the desired rate of progression without generally giving XP for treasure, though I did give story awards). ML allowed a greater variance in reward (XP determined by creature, as opposed to XP by ML), and it was a system whereby you knew exactly how the numbers were determined. You also knew, therefore, how changes in your setting would affect those numbers.

The only thing that would make a ML-type system difficult to use in 3.X is the lack of an exponential XP chart. This isn't a good tradeoff, IMHO, although it seems to be popular with some.

Static XP values for monsters allow the DM to note the XP of creatures and encounters in their adventures, making calculating XP simple at the end of a game. If you are a DM who runs several groups in the same campaign setting, you cannot necessarily precalcuate based upon the APL, as several groups of differing APLs might be active in the same area.

As I said earlier, previous encounter systems have not suggested that the creatures PCs encounter be tailored to their level, but rather to the area they explore. Moreover, previous encounter systems (or at least before 2e) included the idea that areas might be designed (through chutes, or gently sloping floors, for example) to channel PCs into tougher encounter areas with or without their knowledge. This was part of "fair play" and taking steps to prevent/minimize the effects of it on the players' part was part of "good play".

The idea that the players have some responsibility to learn about the area they are in (through divination spells, gathering information, etc.), and then make appropriate choices, is crucial to a fun game IMHO. But then, I am a sandbox player/DM all the way. As a player, I don't want the DM to force me to follow an Adventure Path, nor do I want him to hold my hand or pull his punches. If I want someone to tell me a story, I'll read a book.

As a DM, I refuse to take responsibility for the PCs getting in over their heads. If a group of 1st level PCs think its a good idea to sneak into an ancient red dragon's lair, that's their own look out. If they never bother to ask questions, likewise. OTOH, clever (or even lucky) play can reward characters far beyond the 3.X "Character Wealth By Level" guidelines.

I still run games that way, BTW.....but it is no longer the standard way to run games. Even official modules that arguably follow the EL guidelines (Forge of Fury, for example), might suggest that you remove the overwhelming encounters if you think the players will attack them (this is the advice given in FoF for the roper).

RC