Is a DM supposed to ensure level appropriate encounters, by the RAW?

[MonsterMash]

IME not a large percentage of people truly READ the rule books. They skim, then read enough to function, then read additional parts as they have questions that come up, but don't really read everything so as to be aware of rules that they may not use but probably should know anyway. Grappling might be an example. People know they can grapple but IME the first thing that happens when anyone wants to try it (which is always as a last resort) is the cry goes up, "What ARE the rules for grappling in 3E?"

D+1 - you are right about most people skimming the rule books as they are a pretty heavy read so I've certainly been in situations where someone has said 'I do x' - and this provokes an instant flurry of page turning to find the rules for x.

The DMG notes that there should be a spread of difficulty both below and above an "equal" fight. It's really only important that there IS a variety and that the DM is aware of the problems of making too many encounters too easy as well as making encounters too hard. The actual balance of it needs to be struck by the DM and the players he's running the game for - what kind of spread THEY want rather than RAW.

Experienced DM would be able to know this, but of course the rulebooks must be written so they can be used without guidance from experienced players or assuming that answers can be found from other sources incluing the net.

 

[beaver1024]

I think it's a good rule. After all the object of DnD is to have fun. One can't really have fun if the obstacles is too easy or too hard (read impossible) to overcome.

Most DM's don't have the time to properly assess challenges and many a times gives either too easy or too difficult challenges because the monsters "felt right" for the area. Whilst keeping encounters thematically consistent is important, what is also important is to maintain some sort of approriate challenge level for the parties so that the players can have fun. It's no fun to die all the time because the DM thought the haunted forrest should be invested with wraiths which the party of EL 5 regularly encountered. This occurred a lot with inexperienced or ill prepared DMs.

I remember many occurrances in 1e/2e where I overestimated the party's capabilities (due to weak humans in the party) and nearly TPKed them with encounters I thought were thematically sound for the area but were totally overmatched for the party. I also underestimated the party's capabilities (due to frustratingly overpowered demi-humans and their kits) and had the party yawned through supposedly difficult encounters ruining my fun.

What makes the rule that parties should encounter challenges appropriate to their level possible is the presence of racial and class balance. 1e/2e never had this so trying to present a uniform challenge system where one could even begin to guide DMs in constructing their encounters is ridiculous. Now EL more accurately represent the capabilities of the party. Base on this I can easily create encounters which are thematically sound as well as challenging to the party.

I mostly follow the party EL == encounter EL rule in most of my encounters. However random encounters I adjust downwards and BBEG encounters I adjust upwards. Mostly it works. Of course this doesn't account for player stupidity which may make encounters harder than their EL indicate.

 

[RFisher]

1. The DMG is really (in my stilted view) more advice to DMs than rules.

2. IDHTBIFOM, but isn't that part of the DMG talking about designing "dungeons" (in the larger use of the term). The encounters on a specific "level" of the "dungeon" shoud be guaged to the level of party it is expected to challenge. If the 1st level party finds a stairway down to the 9th level of the dungeon & is foolish enough to try to explore it, should the DM scale back the encounters to match the party level? If the party of 20th level PCs chooses to continue hanging out on the first level of the dungeon, should the DM scale the encounters up to match them? That's not the way I want to play.

3. In my experience, the CR/EL system is just as broken as the old HD+special abilities system. You can still have a TPK with a suppossedly easy encounter & a cake-walk with a suppossedly tough one. & such anomilies seem to happen just as frequently.

 

[D+1]

In my experience, the CR/EL system is just as broken as the old HD+special abilities system. You can still have a TPK with a suppossedly easy encounter & a cake-walk with a suppossedly tough one. & such anomilies seem to happen just as frequently.

Well that hasn't been my experience. While encounters do vary from their EL to how they actually play out (you're still dealing with random numbers and unpredicted strategy and tactics from players) they generally work out as they ought to. But even if they don't they are at least consistent in which way they break for/against the PC's. Mostly it's been because the PC's were over/under-powered with equipment.

The EL at least gives me something with hard numbers to shoot for - even if it is occasionally off. 2E and earlier was an absolute crapshoot. You could only base your creation of an encounter on guesswork derived from experience with a given set of PC's. Whether it's high or low, and even if it IS frequently off it still provides SOME kind of baseline to work with that other editions couldn't possibly hope to do. It's possible that the DMG section should have indicated more clearly that it wasn't an exact science - because it's not. Any two DMs and any two PC parties are still going to provide vastly different results in how an encounter plays out.

 

[FreeTheSlaves]

I find you can throw whatever the hell you want at a party as long as: [1] they have an opportunity to evaluate the encounter properly and [2] an opportunity to get away from it if they want. At the end of the day though, a party is only going to earn (event-based) XP from encounters that they can beat, which means that level progression demands a fair smattering of EL-appropriate encounters.

Agreed.

I'd only add that it is up to the party scout(s) to do the job properly, otherwise the party may be deprived of this ability to decide.

I do give hints to the player just in case they're having a slow day & likewise I tailor things somewhat if there is no effective scout.

I don't follow the DMG % but I do pay it lip service.

 

[Storyteller01]

Like to see someone attempt to enforce it...

Anywho, IMC, I have to tone down the encounters a bit. All the players, everyone of them, have a race or template that ups their ECL's. If I create encounters based solely on the party ECL, they all end up dead. They don't have the HP/BaB to keep up with a creature of the same level.

 

[AlecAustin]

In my experience, the CR/EL system is just as broken as the old HD+special abilities system. You can still have a TPK with a suppossedly easy encounter & a cake-walk with a suppossedly tough one. & such anomilies seem to happen just as frequently.

While the second sentence is true on its face, I think that it's important to consider several points when discussing whether the CR/EL system is "broken".

1) Not all monsters at a given CR are created equal. This is obvious to anyone with a moderate amount of experience using the core books. I mean, come on, the Mohrg is a CR 8 monster, but anyone who is more scared of a Mohrg than a Mind Flayer, Grey Render, or Ogre Mage has an atypical character build. This is inevitable due to the granularity of the system and the fact that different parties will find different monsters challenging.

2) The formulas used to create ELs produce approximate results. IMHO, two medium fire elementals aren't nearly as scary as a single large fire elemental, but they're the same EL. Once again, this is inevitable, as CR/ELs are a tool, and certainly not an infallible one.

3) Circumstances can radically alter how hard an encounter is. Either the PCs or the monsters may be stronger or weaker than usual due to high attributes, magic items and spells, the terrain, their allies, or recent events. Good or bad tactics on either side can completely transform a battle, as can party composition. If you don't take circumstances into account when assessing how difficult an encounter will be, you're shooting yourself in the foot.

4) Templates and class levels can produce radically different effects when applied to monsters of identical CR. A mind flayer sorcerer 3 and a half-fiend elder xorn are both CR 11, but the xorn can cast a 15d8 horrid wilting, as well as blasphemy and a zillon other high level spells, while the mind flayer can only cast magic missile. I used to think that this made the system "broken" too. (Now I just cackle with glee over the horrid templated monsters I can produce.)

Thing is, you're never going to be able to come up with a system that gives you a precise and infallible evaluation of how dangerous a given opponent is in a system as complicated as D&D. Not in a million years. Not only is there randomness in the system (attack & damage rolls, saving throws, etc.), but since you can't account for every possible contingency, you make the system as robust as you can in as many circumstances as possible. Once they average case is covered, you have to trust that people will be able to figure out the cases where the system produces skewed results for themselves.

I'm not going to claim that the CR system we have is perfect or can't be improved, but it's a lot more helpful than the CR = HD approximation from 2nd edition or looking at a monster's XP award to guess at an encounter's difficulty. It's a tool that was made for an average-strength party of 4 characters, equipped with appropriate equipment for their level. And as long as it's used for that purpose, it works pretty well.

Sadly, most games I'm aware of deviate from the "typical game" that the system was designed for in several ways. Since the only guidelines for accounting for larger or smaller PC groups, more or less equipment, and suchlike that I've seen are the ones I've cooked up on my own and a few notes and sidebars in adventures or campaign settings. Which means we don't get our hands held by WotC R&D, and have to use our own judgment now and then.

Personally, I don't think that's a great tragedy.*

*: Except for CR 3 monsters. What the heck is up with WotC's CR 3 monsters lately? Maybe I've just been reading the wrong stat blocks, but dear lord, the Gravehound and Karrnathi Skeleton are weak for their CR. Okay, rant over.

 

[Darkness]

A mind flayer sorcerer 3 and a half-fiend elder xorn are both CR 11

Sorcerer is a non-associated class for a mind flayer, so a mind flayer Sor3 is CR 9.

You're in good company, though. WotC messed up the CR of the sample 'flayer Sor9 in the MM as well.

 

[Psion]

The DM is supposed to make sure that the players have fun. The breakout in the DMG is a nice template to make sure the PCs have a nice spread of challenges, both those that push them to their limits and those that allow them to strut their stuff. But no one prepackage solution is going to be the one right way to ensure that play in enjoyable for all groups of players. You, as DM, should feel free to tailor encounters to group abilities as you feel appropriate, so long as you think the result will be enjoyable.

 

[Thorin Stoutfoot]

I actually think the CR rules for 3E are remarkable! Consider that I ran a campaign completely off published adventures, and none of the authors could have known how my characters were built, and what race/class build my PCs were, but nonetheless the adventures were mostly right on the mark for levels 1-15! After that it got a litte iffy and there were more than a few BBEG cakewalks, but I chalk it up to DM incompetence (i.e., insufficient familiarity with high level rules on my part) and players becoming better at their game.

I don't think anyone can build a similar system for any point-based system (like HERO or GURPS) that would allow an adventure author to accurately produce adventures suitable for play with a large variety of gaming groups. If you think about it, the whole system is a remarkable achievement. (And it is indeed a system, not a hodge podge of rules and estimates)