Reasonable Encounter against 100 enemies. Not possible?

[FANGO]

Speaking of screwy EL systems...

Anyone notice that in the EL tables, it is sometimes considered EASIER to fight a single mob of 10 than 10 "mobs" of one? In my experience, it is ALWAYS easier to fight one thing ten times than ten things one time, unless you have a whole lot of area of effect things on your side (which I would say are the exceptions rather than the rule).

For a mathematical example...

I first formulated this idea while playing warcraft...if you send one warrior against another warrior, then the warrior that wins will come out with barely any hit points left at all. However, if you send two warriors against one warrior, the group of two warriors will end up with one of them being at 100% hp, and the other at 50%. As you increse the one side more and more, you decrese the amount of damage they take: 1vs8 means that the 1 team will die, and the 8 team will end up with 1 of it's members at 7/8 HP. This doesn't work quite as well when you factor in area of effect spells, but it still seems obvious to me that fighting one guy at a time is much easier than fighting a bunch all at once, yet the EL system sometimes gives more exp for fighting several enemies in succession rather than in on big group.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

You have to use a LOT of judgement... for example...

100 Kobold Sorceror 1's

Even in waves of 20 they will ALL magic missile the same guy until killed... umm... that's 20d4+20 per round... or MORE if there are more.

Also 100 Goblins with Alchemist's Fire and Tanglefoot Bags is how difficult?

heh

This is where WoTC goes to the cop out, circumstance adjustment.

On a tangent, your comment reminded me of a thought I had before that a crossbow should be CR 1/2 minimum, regardless of who has it. So if a CR 1/6 kobold grabs a crossbow he jumps to CR 1/2.

 

[Uller]

This is where WoTC goes to the cop out, circumstance adjustment.

On a tangent, your comment reminded me of a thought I had before that a crossbow should be CR 1/2 minimum, regardless of who has it. So if a CR 1/6 kobold grabs a crossbow he jumps to CR 1/2.

Wow...such hostility toward the CR system...strange.

The CR system is certainly not the end all and be all of gauging challenges and awarding XP. But it is certainly a good starting point. Just like with any other part of the game, the DM needs to think about what he is doing and consider the abilities of his party, the knowledge of his players and the capabilities of the challenges he throws at them.

For instance, I think the CR system seriously breaks down for games where the PCs face one or fewer challenging encounters per chance to rest. A single encounter of the proper EL for a fully rested party is no challenge at all. Even one 2 levels above is often not that big a problem. So in this situation, I often cut XP by 1/2 or even 1/4. But I wouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water...for a typical "dungeon crawl" D&D game where the party is facing 3-5 challenging encounters before getting a chance to rest, the CR system typically works pretty well.

As for the topic at hand: 100 orc barbarians vs a 10th level party? Give them short swords and Grapple the.

Of course, the Wizard(and probably Rogue) will be invisible. But for the fighter, that 35 AC won't help against the grab attempts and even with a 25 strength he will eventually fail a grapple check and end up on the bottom of a pile of raging orcs. The cleric will likely suffer the same fate.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Wow...such hostility toward the CR system...strange.

Hostility? Isn't that slightly over-stating the case?

I am not at all hostile to the CR system, because the good news is, it is a completely disposable part of d20.

Do I really need to list example after example of totally screwed up WOTC published CRs?

Even Monte Cooke stated that he felt the CR system was the one part of 3E he really wished could have been improved on. (paraphrasing, I don't recall the exact quote or date)

 

[IceBear]

I dunno....

You sound pretty bitter and hostile to me.

I'm aware of the weaknesses of the system, but even so it works as a good starting part for me, but I've been DMing so long that I have a good feel for what monsters make a good challenge for my PCs.

IceBear

 

[Uller]

Hostility? Isn't that slightly over-stating the case?

I was being silly. If you don't like the CR system, don't use it. It fits my DMing style, but it doesn't fit everyone's(in fact, I'm going to suggest the DM of the game I play in to not use it because it doesn't work in his games)

Do I really need to list example after example of totally screwed up WOTC published CRs?

Nope. I'm well aware of the screwed up CRs...Like I said, the DM needs to think about what he is doing and I don't think there is any reasonable way to quantify the strength of a particalar monster vs every party in a single number. Just take undead for example: If you have no cleric(or Paladin), then they are much tougher. However, for most monsters, most of the time, it is a good starting point. 150xp for an orc? Sounds reasonable...but if the orc was sleeping with his back to you, then may 30 would be more appropriate. If he was standing on a cliff and somehow able to use a wand of lightning bolts(maybe he is a sorcerer?), then 500 might work best.

Even Monte Cooke stated that he felt the CR system was the one part of 3E he really wished could have been improved on. (paraphrasing, I don't recall the exact quote or date)

There are lots of parts of 3e he wished could have been improved(he even published an alternate ranger and now a bard and sorcerer). I'm guessing the designers had to make a conscious choice to keep things simple.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Sorry if I didn't catch the light-hearted nature of your post.

I agree with your comments in the last post.

 

[Axiomatic Unicorn]

Re: I dunno....

You sound pretty bitter and hostile to me.

I'm aware of the weaknesses of the system, but even so it works as a good starting part for me, but I've been DMing so long that I have a good feel for what monsters make a good challenge for my PCs.

IceBear

bitter and hostile???? Really?

What I feel is amused that a serious debate is going on regarding the fine details of a system that is only accurate to the nearest order of magnitude.

There are a lot of 20+ year DMs on this board (myself included). I think it is fair to say that the consensus is that using the CR system would not result in level advancement at the desired pace in the clear majority of cases.

I never said it wasn't a good starting point (at least the CR part). I did say the EL system breaks down when you sit down to play D&D. I will stand by that part.

But, in any case, the issue of this thread is not "the starting point", but how does the system (specifically ELs) hold up in the extreme.

 

[med stud]

The grapple tactic Uller is talking about is working great; I ran some fights between a 6th lvl party and 50 orcs, and when the orcs started to use grapple, they won most battles.

The beauty of this tactic is that the orcs are stronger then everyone except Tordek in the WoTC- party (which I used).

But when I did the tests, I applied 9 HP to an orc warrior; I always give monsters max HP on first HD, to make orcs something to be feared even by badgers.