Greenfield
Adventurer
"We hold these truths to be self evident; That all men are created equal..."
A noble phrase, written by someone who never played D&D.
The fact is that all characters are not created equal, nor do they develop equally, nor are the players all equal.
So, does anyone have a suggestion on how to estimate the effective level of a group of PCs?
For combat, one way is to look at their ACs and hit points, to determine how much damage you can throw at them, and at what attack bonus, then compare their average damage output against a given AC and Save bonus.
It's simple and direct, and often wrong. We have one player at my table who is wildly inventive, and likely to come up with the oddest tactics and maneuvers. They're legal (for the most part), but hard to predict, and can completely change the face of the battlefield. We have another who has been playing the game for years, yet still has to ask what she adds to her Initiative or attack roll, and never really plans her spells.
I expect every game has players like these, to one degree or another. What their character should be able to do, on paper, rarely reflects their actual impact on game play.
I've been tempted to add some monsters at the last minute, "calling in the reserves" if you will, when I see the creative madman get that crazy gleam in his eye, but changing the enemy mid-battle isn't exactly fair. (It's also less than effective, since buffing spells and effects are already up, and the party is likely on a roll.)
Besides, if I turn a campaign into an arms race, everybody loses. PC's get levels and loot faster as I escalate the challenges, which in turn escalates their ability to deal with challenges that should be at or above their CR.
I've also been tempted to make some of the monsters suddenly go brain-dead when someone demonstrates that they're really not on the ball in a given session. You know, bad guys start making mistakes, essentially dropping their CR to balance for cold dice or a lack of inspired play.
That way lay Monty's Halls of Doom, as the PCs again garner XP and loot for Special Olympics level challenges.
So how do you calculate party effectiveness? (And please don't suggest the CR system. We all know its failing all too well.)
A noble phrase, written by someone who never played D&D.
The fact is that all characters are not created equal, nor do they develop equally, nor are the players all equal.
So, does anyone have a suggestion on how to estimate the effective level of a group of PCs?
For combat, one way is to look at their ACs and hit points, to determine how much damage you can throw at them, and at what attack bonus, then compare their average damage output against a given AC and Save bonus.
It's simple and direct, and often wrong. We have one player at my table who is wildly inventive, and likely to come up with the oddest tactics and maneuvers. They're legal (for the most part), but hard to predict, and can completely change the face of the battlefield. We have another who has been playing the game for years, yet still has to ask what she adds to her Initiative or attack roll, and never really plans her spells.
I expect every game has players like these, to one degree or another. What their character should be able to do, on paper, rarely reflects their actual impact on game play.
I've been tempted to add some monsters at the last minute, "calling in the reserves" if you will, when I see the creative madman get that crazy gleam in his eye, but changing the enemy mid-battle isn't exactly fair. (It's also less than effective, since buffing spells and effects are already up, and the party is likely on a roll.)
Besides, if I turn a campaign into an arms race, everybody loses. PC's get levels and loot faster as I escalate the challenges, which in turn escalates their ability to deal with challenges that should be at or above their CR.
I've also been tempted to make some of the monsters suddenly go brain-dead when someone demonstrates that they're really not on the ball in a given session. You know, bad guys start making mistakes, essentially dropping their CR to balance for cold dice or a lack of inspired play.
That way lay Monty's Halls of Doom, as the PCs again garner XP and loot for Special Olympics level challenges.
So how do you calculate party effectiveness? (And please don't suggest the CR system. We all know its failing all too well.)
)
