Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="AbdulAlhazred" data-source="post: 5411328" data-attributes="member: 82106">[MENTION=59082]Mercurius[/MENTION] I don't disagree for the monster you picked, but it is probably JUST about the most extreme example. The old epic solo monsters really were pretty weaksauce. If you were to instead choose the other extreme, say a level 1 standard monster like say a kobold I think the difference is definitely there, but small enough that the players might not even notice unless they fare poorly for other reasons.Well, Mengu, I think personally my interpretation of the breakdown from DMG1 would be something like<ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">3 combat encounters, averaging at level to level + 1. So maybe a level-1, a level, and a level +1 or level +2.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1 Major or 2 minor skill challenges totaling complexity 5 of equal level. This can be varied a lot too, so it could be somewhat more or less. Failure in a challenge COULD lead to an additional combat encounter, or otherwise burn resources.</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">1 major or a couple minor quest awards.</li> </ul>Basically an adventuring day is half a level worth of encounter XP. One way to think about it actually is instead of buying several encounters instead buy 5 encounters worth of 'stuff' and arrange it in a fashion logical for the situation, keeping in mind that you don't want to pile on much more than 30% of the day's XP into one (hard) encounter.I'm using the new damage numbers. What I find is the encounters are more exciting and I do keep them a bit less difficult than before. Instead of tossing in some level+2 or 3 encounters I keep it pretty close to the original guidelines. Before level+0 was pretty much a worthless encounter. It just ate up time and MAYBE a few resources. Now it is a significant encounter.In fact the game I ran tonight has been interesting. The PCs only hit 11th level in this particular campaign recently. So I have now in a day put them through what was supposed to be a combat encounter but which they avoided with a skill challenge (level+0). Then they decided on breaking into a temple, which required another level + 0 SC to get in OK. At that point there were enough enemies inside to make about a level + 1 or almost level + 2 encounter. They should have created a good plan to get in and out. Sadly for them they were sloppy, didn't do any research on the place, didn't really figure out what the plan was once the rogue and warlock were inside, etc. The end result being they took out a few minions and a standard monster while sneaking around, but then boiled up a hornet's nest. Now they're in the process of getting their backsides handed to them by basically an equal level encounter. Archers on a wall with cover, some bad dice rolls, and lack of good coordination. With the OLD numbers they'd have just broken out some AP and a daily or two and fixed it. They've already ALL burned their AP, and it is still NOT fixed at all. Instead half the party is bloody and that's only after burning a bunch of surges. The monsters are still able to dish it out good. They've really only managed to kill off a couple standards and some minions.Now, this is kind of an example of the players being sloppy and not planning well and getting into trouble, but the thing is by the old numbers very few setups were REALLY dangerous even in that case. Now I have minions that are able to do noticeable damage, artillery that is downright lethal, a couple of brutes that can pound out great damage, and an elite that dishes it out pretty well too. I'm happy. The players are running scared but they'll still survive.If they had planned well though, they'd have definitely been able to get through 4-5 encounters in a day.</blockquote>

Verification