Our First 3.5 game session -- First Blush

[sithramir]

I run a group with 7-9 9th level players. Usually 7 though. I usually throw them a CR 13 monster. Or a premade 13th level character. If I add equpiment to him I usually make hime 12th level and maybe throw in a few orc cohorts.

I'd suggest toying with things like that. If you are using good tactics then i'd lower it another CR for monsters but keep the exp one cr higher.

11th level good tactics encounter
12th level lot of equip monster(s) maybe with minor cohorts
13th level BBEG from MM

Note I always throw a few little things or something into the battles to make it a round or more added on without making it harder. I don't like having some fiendish ogres die without actions. Have the PC's melee guys have to swat through the meat shield orcs that follow those ogres or something would be a good way to make the encounter more worthwhile. Anything where the monster doesn't get 2-3 rounds of actions I usualyl cut xp big because they didn't use enough resources if the just lightning bolted them or one melee guy got a few good swipes.

 

[mmu1]

Ugh... They're making the silly "1 square / 2 squares for diagonal movement" rule official? I've never used it, and it makes not one bit of difference, as long as everyone moves at 5'/square.

The only time I could think of it being an issue is getting caught in a spell with a circular AOE (like Web or Entangle) and having one way out be marginally shorter - but there are so many other things influencing where people will move in a situation like this (cover, position of allies, position of enemies, doorways, traps. etc.), that I've never seen it be a problem either...

The one time I played in a game where the DM used it, it proved to be a pointless waste of time, with people trying to figure out an optimal way of only using 1 diagonal per move so it only cost them 5', and people getting into situations where they'd actually end up losing a part of their movement, because they could only move in ways that "cost" 10 feet but they only had 5' left.

 

[Southern Oracle]

If you total up the levels of the characters in your party and then divide by 4 (the number of recommended characters for an encounter), that should give you a more accurate party level.

10 + 7 + 10 + 9 + 10 + 8 + 8 = 62 / 4 = 15.5 round down to 15th-level party

I agree you should raise encounters to this level by increasing the number of combatants instead of using a single creature with this CR...it gives the cohorts a better chance at survival.

 

[scadgrad]

As Ankh-Morpork Guard pointed out, ratcheting up EL is dicey because typically the danger of a TPK increases.

All solid advice & I certainly do appreciate it. I'll keep trying to find out what works for this group. I've 'til next Saturday so I'll certainly have to ramp up the remaining module.

One note on advancing the critters. I wanted to maintain the monsters in S2 w/out too much rework. My approach was an 1E Invis Stalker becomes a 3.5 Invis Stalker, just pump it enough to make it a challenge worthy of the PCs. Certainly not the best solution, but perhaps if I make the EL +4 or +5 avg party level, it might be more challenging. Definitely more BGs equal a more challenging encounter. That's always been the case.

Thanks again for the input though.

MMU1,

Yep, it's in the PHB core rules now so adapt or houserule. Your call on it, but I don't think it'll prove to difficult in the long run.

 

[James McMurray]

If you have players wasting time trying to find the optimal path then the DM should be reminding them that their characters do not have tape measures on their feet and the dungeon floors are not actually covered in grids. They should pick a path based on straight-linedness and avoiding threat ranges. If that fails, tell them to pick a destination and then try you'll get them as close as you can.

If even that fails, enforce the "pick a goal square" method, and then roll a die to determine whether squares are worth 4', 5', or 6' each for that particular round. That should break them of the habit of trying to pick the most optimal path.

 

[mmu1]

If you have players wasting time trying to find the optimal path then the DM should be reminding them that their characters do not have tape measures on their feet and the dungeon floors are not actually covered in grids. They should pick a path based on straight-linedness and avoiding threat ranges. If that fails, tell them to pick a destination and then try you'll get them as close as you can.

If even that fails, enforce the "pick a goal square" method, and then roll a die to determine whether squares are worth 4', 5', or 6' each for that particular round. That should break them of the habit of trying to pick the most optimal path.

The point is that actually enforcing diagonals being alternately 5' and 10' adds nothing to the game and represents the same kind of pointless obsession with minutia as players trying to calculate how many diagonals to use.

I think it's a lot simpler to say "all squares are 5 feet" then worry about ways of making sure some of the more technically minded players don't spend too much time counting distances.

 

[the Jester]

The point is that actually enforcing diagonals being alternately 5' and 10' adds nothing to the game and represents the same kind of pointless obsession with minutia as players trying to calculate how many diagonals to use.

I think it's a lot simpler to say "all squares are 5 feet" then worry about ways of making sure some of the more technically minded players don't spend too much time counting distances.

I've actually found the 5'/10' rule for diagonals to be useful and helpful the whole time we've played 3.0. It's pretty hard to make a given path any shorter than another if they're equally direct- it's just not worth the effort.

 

[(Psi)SeveredHead]

Scadgrad

9 Ghasts w/ Turn Res 1,000,000,000,000,000

CR 3, 9 of them yield a EL 9 encounter NOT. Ghasts didn't get an action after the surprise round.

Well, no wonder. Using lots of weak creatures rarely threaten an adventuring party. Even if the EL guidelines said they would.

As Ankh-Morpork Guard pointed out, ratcheting up EL is dicey because typically the danger of a TPK increases.

I disagree. I think the EL should match the equivalent party level. I do find using a single high CR monster increase the change of a TPK. I believe you have been using weaker encounters than are necessary.

Southern Oracle

10 + 7 + 10 + 9 + 10 + 8 + 8 = 62 / 4 = 15.5 round down to 15th-level party

Scadgrad, I think six CR 10-11 creatures (especially of different types and combat styles) should be able to challenge the party. Each creature, near CR 10, is unlikely to kill a party member on it's own, assuming it doesn't get the jump on the party. Multiple opponents will also help you deal with so many actions being directed against the party each round. Such an encounter should take away 20% of the party's resources, give or take.

 

[Grishnak]

I've never DM'd a 3.0e or 3.5e game as of yet so this might be totally nerfed by all DM's out there.
When I DM'd in AD&D I started the group at 10th level and finished the campaign at around 15-17th level. Now I used just a horde of crawling claws while the party slept in an inn, this was an almost deadly encounter with 1 character with over 100 hp's almost succoming to the attacks. Now this wasn't a hard creature (1hp per hand) and there were only about 50-60 of them between 3 characters. It's not about hw hard a creature is, it's how you use them in my opinion. Placing a cr 5 troll infront of the group who is prepared may well be taken out in a few rounds but place that troll under that rope and wood bridge, as the group are crossing the troll cuts the rope now that takes a possibly harder group unawares and could possibly cause a good deal of trouble.
Anyway briefly looked at my 3.5PH and like what I see so far except some of the spells like heal, mass heal, disintergrate. I'm very much old school in my thinking there as it's going too much towards computer game simplicity.

 

[James McMurray]

The point is that actually enforcing diagonals being alternately 5' and 10' adds nothing to the game and represents the same kind of pointless obsession with minutia as players trying to calculate how many diagonals to use.

I think it's a lot simpler to say "all squares are 5 feet" then worry about ways of making sure some of the more technically minded players don't spend too much time counting distances.

I guess I just don't understand what's so hard about it. Its just as easy for me to count squares as 1, 2, 3-4, 5, 6 as it is 1,2,3,4,5,6 and you end up with more realistic results.

It is such a minor thing though, that if its hard for your group to do, there's no harm in ignoring it.