Scaling Encounters

[cmanos]

OK so if I want to scale a published adventure for 6 players, how would I go about it? Yes I could keep it as it is, but most of the encounters would be below the party EL. Well...technically the party EL is the average party level but there is quite a bit of difference between 4 L2 PC's and 6L2 PC's.

What I have figured out is if the average party level is actually (sum of character's levels)/4, then a party of 6 L2 characters would have an average party level of 3. So a "challenging' encounter would be one of EL equal to their average level of 3.

So say I wanted to scale a EL 4 encounter for 6 players. My first assumption would be this would go to EL6, but that looks like it would be bordering on overpowering. Is there an actual method for scaling method for parties over 4 in number or is it just "Whatever you think is good"?

 

[BiggusGeekus]

Is there an actual method for scaling method for parties over 4 in number or is it just "Whatever you think is good"?

Yeah, if memory serves it involves a log function to get the exact mathmatical EL.

No, I'm not kidding.

A detailed explaination can be found on a download here: http://www.andargor.com/ Look for the section called: "D&D 3.5 - Mixed-CR EL/XP Calculator"

 

[shilsen]

You're correct in estimating that six lvl 2 PCs would be equivalent to four lvl 3 PCs. One way to scale encounters for parties of more (or less) than 4 PCs is to work out the EL of the PC group and then minus 4.

A better method, I've found, and one which works well for working out how tough an encounter is for any given group of PCs, is using the Chi/Ro method from Grim Tales. I've only read about it on these boards and am going off memory, so I could be off, but here's how it works:

Chi (effectiveness of enemies) = Sum of the squares of the CRs of the enemies.

Ro (effectiveness of PCs) = Sum of the squares of the CRs of the PCs.

PCs' chance of winning the fight = 1 - (Chi / 2xRo).

 

[Denaes]

Wow thats complicated... and totally not needed unless you're an unexperienced GM.

The overall point is that players are challenged enough to burn through 20% of their resources (I find far less by the book CRs... closer to 10% with sometimes a crit making it 30-80%... averages I guess) and that players go up every 4 levels.

So I suppose you can just look at the CRs for creatures and figure out what will make things a bit tougher... normally adding in a few extra creatures or throwing a template on a creature "The Dire Weasel is now an Enraged Dire Weasel..."

Or you can spend your time with a scientific calculator and still not quite get things right. I'd honestly just go with tailoring things to the party rather than the CL of the party.

 

[cmanos]

OK I DL'd the calculator yesterday at home but the Chi and Rho functions were broken (probably my spreadsheet software. I didn't know what x and p were so I couldn't fix them.

Thanks for the explanation. Will have to see about working it out.

Templates: Well considering I don't have a heck of a lot of sourcebooks that have templates in them, slapping a template on something isn't always an option. You can only encounter so many fiendish and celestial creatures.

I don't think it has anything to do with being an inexperienced DM...I'mve been playing and DMing for 25 years...I'm just not totally familiar with the 3.5 rules which makes me kind of ware of throwing in a couple extra fiendish half-dragon bugbears.

 

[BiggusGeekus]

OK I DL'd the calculator yesterday at home but the Chi and Rho functions were broken (probably my spreadsheet software. I didn't know what x and p were so I couldn't fix them.

The spread sheet is unintiutive. You have to select the critters way down at the bottom, though at the top of the pull down menu at the bottom there are entries for "CR2" and the like. Also, the guy who wrote the spreadsheet saved it apparently in the middle of building an encounter for his eight member 23rd level party. Yikes!

I don't think it has anything to do with being an inexperienced DM...I'mve been playing and DMing for 25 years...I'm just not totally familiar with the 3.5 rules which makes me kind of ware of throwing in a couple extra fiendish half-dragon bugbears.

Agreed.

Actually it's more of a case that in 3e we just care more about balance. I love B2: Keep on the Borderlands, but a 1st level party can get wiped out in the first encounter if they venture south and bump into the Mad Hermit. For better or worse, that's not something that's done often in 3e.

But I think we'll both agree that Denaes has a point. A group of four clerics is very different from a fighter, mage, cleric, & thief. EL is more art than science.

 

[Denaes]

I don't think it has anything to do with being an inexperienced DM...I'mve been playing and DMing for 25 years...I'm just not totally familiar with the 3.5 rules which makes me kind of ware of throwing in a couple extra fiendish half-dragon bugbears.

Sorry, I meant experienced with the system you're running (3.5 in this case). I didn't mean to come off like a condiscending jerk.

I'm not terribly experienced with 3.5 or 3.0 in specific and whenever I follow their recipe for treasure & experience things go horribly awry... either players get slaughtered or they just smash the encounter without breaking a sweat.

I'm experienced with d20 in general and I can craft encounters to challenge a party I'm familiar with (like the one I'm running), so that is my preferred method. I use CR to help guestimate how powerful a creature is at a glance.

If the CR forumla is so wonky with a group I'm playing with, I'm not in a hurry to use an altered more complicated version for having extra players.

 

[Denaes]

Actually it's more of a case that in 3e we just care more about balance. I love B2: Keep on the Borderlands, but a 1st level party can get wiped out in the first encounter if they venture south and bump into the Mad Hermit. For better or worse, that's not something that's done often in 3e.

What, it took 3.x writing that they care about balance for GMs to run that way? I can't compare the balance in adventures as D&D only has a handful of 3.x adventures and I own none. The 3rd party d20 adventures arn't terribly better/worse than 2e

3.x isn't any more balanced than any other game I've run and I've run games like palladium/Rifts which the classes arn't balanced at all. I mean, 3.x does make an effort to make D&D as balanced without GM work. But many GMs I know have been running balanced games on their own with older and newer systems.

But I think we'll both agree that Denaes has a point. A group of four clerics is very different from a fighter, mage, cleric, & thief. EL is more art than science.

Undead without a cleric is worse than with, having no fighter classes past level 3 really makes a difference, a creative Rogue or two, a sorcerer who uses their brain rather than their Evocation Reflex...

If the rules are working with your party, then go with it.

If not, just remember the two primary key points:

1. An encounter should work the party only about 20% on average.
2. Characters should level every 4 sessions on average.