Pathfinder 1E Pathfinder: Encounter Design Simplified

Angellis_ater

First Post
ruemere said:
I stand corrected with regard to support for 3rd party monsters. I'm still not convinced that the system is simpler or more reliable than original CRs.

Regards,
Ruemere

I think you are misunderstanding here. This system does not try to be simpler for a "normative group" of 4 characters of the same level - but it DOES simplify everything beyond that norm. Whether there are 2 or 11 characters of between levels 1-20 in the same group. (Ok, that might be overdoing it, but still)
 

log in or register to remove this ad

Achan hiArusa

Explorer
Wulf Ratbane said:
Let me be up front about something first: The system replicates Jason's arcane and fuzzy multi-chart method. ;)

Only easier. I have my own doubts about the CR/EL system in general but have not touched on that at all.

To answer your question:

Two CR 10s = EL12
Four CR 10s = EL14

My method isn't doing anything you couldn't already do in your head with homogenous groups, it just lets you do it much easier with mixed groups, with non-standard party sizes (3, 5, 6, etc.) and with parties comprised of PCs of varying levels.

(In fact it's safe to say most folks could do a homogenous group for a typical 4-man party in their head much faster than they could do it with the Encounter Budget. You don't need this system for that.)

I will say that I will have to play around with it. I did an gross mathematical oversimplification (being a physicist it comes with the territory). I've been wanting to find something that's a bit more rigorous than the CR system and I've turned to BESM d20's Monstrous Manual and looked at the Creature Points method. I've also divided the points by 20 to find the approximate creature level which works for most things (other than the Pit Fiend which becomes a level 34 creature. Which is almost twice its HD which also makes its CR 62 by their method). I like it a bit, but I don't know if I want to do the leg work for the creatures not appearing in there.

I will sometime take your chart and interpolate for point values in BESM, sometime when I have the time...
 
Last edited:

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Achan hiArusa said:
I will say that I will have to play around with it. I did an gross mathematical oversimplification (being a physicist it comes with the territory).

You shouldn't need to do any kind of curve fitting with the chart I provided. There's nothing more complicated there than addition, and multiplying by 2.

Write out all the CRs from 1 to 25. (And the <CR1 ones, if you like.)

Start with the base CR at level 1. I like 240, PFRPG uses 400. Doesn't matter.

At CR3, the value is (2x CR1).

CR2 is the midpoint between those two values.

CR4 = (2x CR2).

Now just copy CR3 and CR4 and paste them all the way out.

And the "Budget per PC" is 1/4 of the value listed at each CR.

The system will return results that are as accurate (or inaccurate, ymmv :) ) as the CR/EL in the RAW, or PFRPG. It does not pretend to provide a re-assessment of CR, or EL, or anything like that. It assumes that Paizo is happy with CR, EL, and the basics of their encounter design, and simplifies the process of putting together encounters within the parameters they specified.

I do think they should change the base XP to 240, for reasons already mentioned. The basics provided clean the system up nicely, but switching the base XP to 240 is spit-and-polish.
 


Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Achan hiArusa said:
Are you including magic items in the calculation? Or do you just subtract the xp values of the magic items from the encounter budget?

I don't even understand the question, sorry. I think you're overthinking it.
 

Achan hiArusa

Explorer
Overthinking is my forte and profession :D . I was just wondering, one of the criticisms of 3.5e is the "Christmas Tree Effect" of magic items and I was wanted to know if you account for that. Can I do an encounter with this system in which the players have no magic items or is this system predicated on the CTE? And how would I compensate for lack of magic items?
 

Achan hiArusa said:
Overthinking is my forte and profession :D . I was just wondering, one of the criticisms of 3.5e is the "Christmas Tree Effect" of magic items and I was wanted to know if you account for that. Can I do an encounter with this system in which the players have no magic items or is this system predicated on the CTE? And how would I compensate for lack of magic items?
Oh, that sounds like the next step for Wulf, I don't think he's there yet. Question might be - is Wulf going there? ;)

Making Wealth by Level a further component of the CR/XP system would go beyond what we have so far.
 

Achan hiArusa

Explorer
Its one of those "things wrong with 3e that require a totally new game" that I would like to see addressed. Do we assume that every bit of the "average wealth of a character" is spent on magic items, divide that by 25, subtract that amount and then add in the total xps for actual magic items the characters have? I remember about 3 or 4 bullet points for 4e would have been fixed by working on the CR system instead of leaving it the broken mess it is now.
 

Achan hiArusa

Explorer
Sorry, Double Post.

Anyway, there is a problem, if I take the table from page 135 of the DMG and assume all the gold goes into magic items (which is not true but it seems everytime I've seen a group make high level characters that's what they do), subtract 1/25th that amount, then the low level table looks like this for the adventure budget:

1 = 96
2 = 114
3 = 92
4 = 84
5 = 40
6 = 80
7 = 40
8 = 120

Then it increases normally. So what's to be done?
 

Wulf Ratbane

Adventurer
Achan hiArusa said:
Overthinking is my forte and profession :D . I was just wondering, one of the criticisms of 3.5e is the "Christmas Tree Effect" of magic items and I was wanted to know if you account for that. Can I do an encounter with this system in which the players have no magic items or is this system predicated on the CTE? And how would I compensate for lack of magic items?

No, it's not intended to recalculate CRs, or the assumptions built into them, in any way.

Mustrum_Ridcully said:
Oh, that sounds like the next step for Wulf, I don't think he's there yet. Question might be - is Wulf going there? ;)

That does sound like the sort of thing I'd do, doesn't it.

IIRC, Mustrum, it was you and I that were recently discussing average player AC and average monster attack rolls, and average player attack rolls and average monster AC, in another thread.

Let's take a quick peek.

At any given level, a PC is going to have:
  • armor enhancement bonus
  • shield enhancement bonus
  • deflection bonus
  • natural armor bonus

Set aside for a moment that according to the wealth-by-level guidelines, you probably can't afford to keep all of those tip-top, but just assume that they all go up (at least through available spells like Magic Vestment, Shield of Faith, and Barksin) by +1 every 4 levels.

And there are 4 sources of AC there, so a PC is going to get a boost of +4 AC (in one lump sum) every 4 levels. It averages out to +1 AC per level, though in actual play it jumps in plateaus.

There are other factors involved (dodge feat, special class AC, tower shield, mithril armor, etc.) but basically a PC who makes a "reasonable" go at keeping his AC topped out is going to have an AC roughly equal to 17+Level.

Take out the magic items and it's basically going to sit at AC 17-20 for the whole career.

But as I pointed out before, once you pass the low levels (the lowest of which you certainly don't have +1 from every available source) then "not getting hit" really isn't the end-all of combat. At the mid-levels and climbing into the teens and top levels, you're pretty much expected to get whacked by the monster's primary attack regardless of your AC. Combat is a game of whittling off hit points, not avoiding attacks entirely.

You could reasonably compensate by (a) removing iterative attacks; (b) removing power attack from monsters (or just forgoing it in an eminently sportsmanlike fashion).

On the other side of the coin, player attacks vs. monster AC, there are basically two sources of magical player attack bonus:

  • weapon enhancement
  • attribute booster

Here again you can assume a +1 boost every 4 levels from Greater Magic Weapon (if not an actual magic weapon) and a much smaller incremental boost from consistent STR (or DEX) increases (every 4 levels). Even without stat boosting items, it's fair to assume you can scrounge up a bull's strength.

Here's what your attack rolls look like with no magic weapon enhancement (not even greater magic weapon):

Code:
STR	bull's str	BAB total	avg roll	avg AC
3	2		6		17		15
3	2		7		18		15
3	2		8		19		16
3	2		9		20		17
3	2		10		21		17
3	2		11		22		18
3	2		12		23		19
4	2		14		25		20
4	2		15		26		21
4	2		16		27		22
4	2		17		28		23
4	2		18		29		24
4	2		19		30		25
4	2		20		31		25
4	2		21		32		26
5	2		23		34		27
5	2		24		35		29
5	2		25		36		30
5	2		26		37		32
5	2		27		38		34

The fighters are still going to have no trouble hitting the monsters with their primary attack; but here again, damage is going to go down unless you do something with both power attack and iterative attacks.

Oddly enough, as a player, I was always more interested in having the party magic item crafter increase the base enhancement bonus on my weapon, and not adding things like elemental, alignment, and bane damage. But I am not sure in retrospect that was the way to go, or that it was typical of all players-- most players like the flashy effects. At any rate what I am getting at is that the (maximum) +5 to hit bonus you'll miss from your magic weapons isn't nearly as important (eventually) as missing out on +2d6 holy or +2d10 flaming burst or even vorpal enhancements. Hittin' the monster ain't no thing-- it's how hard you hit that counts.


Last but not least, you can always compensate for magical boosts to AC, attack rolls, and saving throws through Action Points.

But let's not threadjack with this line of discussion any further. I'll be happy to discuss it in another thread.
 

Remove ads

Top