SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[greymarch]

On the front page of this website is posted a link to an article Sean K Reynolds wrote about how certain high level encounters can be problematic for D&D. There might be problems with certain high level encounters, but the example Sean posted is not one of them. Here is why:

1. The Effigy only has an AC 20. That is very low for a CR 17 creature. A group of adventurers cannot critical hit it because it is undead, but they could certainly use power attack to do more damage, or combat expertise to avoid being hit by it.

2. The Effigy has 27 hit die, but it doesnt get constitution added to each hit die (since it is undead) so its hit points are fairly low for a CR 17.

3. Any spellcaster worth his wait will take spell penetration and greater spell penetration. A 16th level spellcaster with those 2 feats needs only to roll an 8 or higher, and his spell will work on the Effigy.

A rogue cannot sneak attack it, and a fighter cannot critical hit it, but thats not because of its high level, its because its undead. It seems that Sean's real problem, unbeknownst to him, is with undead, and not certain high level encounters.

Should a cleric have the potential to turn every undead he encounters? Should there be certain undead that have a high enough hit die to avoid turning? Most clerics have wonderful buff spells they can use during a combat, instead of healing or turning. There are many ways for a cleric to stay busy during a combat, and I am not just referring to healing.

 

[Ristamar]

I read the 'rant', and he did overestimate the creature, IMO. The piece seemed to be a bit of a knee-jerk reaction which is a shame because I enjoyed most of his other D&D related rants. It's hard to make a solid case against high level play by isolating a single creature.

On the other hand, his points in the final paragraph were far more interesting and far more worthy of a rant (save for the jab at the creature's name, which I don't think is a big deal). Someone should forward that passage to the Monster Manual II designers.

 

[Darkness]

Here's a link to Sean's article, BTW.

 

[Squire James]

I think Sean underestimates the abilities of most parties of 17th level. First of all, Wizards and Clerics would have 9th level spells, which is a major break-point in caster power. Fighters can dish out 90-100 points of damage per round. Rogues are almost useless because the target's undead, true. Maybe Sean was playtesting with a group of 4 rogues?

In my campaign, the Wizard would likely try something like Quickened Haste, Disintegrate, and if that didn't work move up to it and try an Imprisonment. This tactic would succeed in disintegrating or imprisoning the Effigy (or just about ANYTHING with SR 28, for that matter!) 75% of the time, and those 3 spells are hardly 25% of the party's daily expendable resources. There's still that Cleric who can try to Heal it most of the way to destruction!

 

[Darkness]

...

A rogue cannot sneak attack it, and a fighter cannot critical hit it, but thats not because of its high level, its because its undead. It seems that Sean's real problem, unbeknownst to him, is with undead, and not certain high level encounters.

...

Hmm... There aren't any (epic?) feats yet that allow one's Sneak Attacks to affect undead, eh?

 

[d20Dwarf]

Ristamar,

I think you boys missed the point of his rant. The specific things he pointed out were places where the creature far outstripped the capabilities of characters at the level of the creature. I think that high-level D&D breaks down in far more ways than he said, even, so I'm sympathetic to his arguments.

 

[Synicism]

I don't know about this. I read SKR's article and I have to agree that he makes a valid point if you pare the rant down to its core.

It's hard to design high level encounters. The one that immediately springs to my mind was the experience I had playing through "The Bastion of Broken Souls," the WotC 18th level published adventure.

Generally speaking, most of the encounters were more or less on par. The fiend summoning, scrying kyton/marilith crossbreed was pretty damn scary, and the big monster at the end of the session was cool.

It's sad that the two unique villains in the module were probably the easiest encounters in the game.

The most irritating things were the "special" denizens of the bastion. Nothing needs to be incorporeal, have a 30something AC, a high attack bonus (and make touch attacks), SR, and dish out like 2d6 con damage with every shot.

Were the monsters effective? Sure thing.

Were they well designed? No, I don't think so. I don't believe that the design philosophy behind a monster should be "let's give it everything it needs to completely ignore all the benefits PC's get from being high level."

 

[Ristamar]

Ristamar,

I think you boys missed the point of his rant. The specific things he pointed out were places where the creature far outstripped the capabilities of characters at the level of the creature. I think that high-level D&D breaks down in far more ways than he said, even, so I'm sympathetic to his arguments.

I think he makes some good points, but I still find it lacking.

I won't argue that the potential for 'breakdown' at high level play is far greater than at low levels. However, pointing out one (arguably) poorly designed monster isn't a very good basis for the argument considering the intimidating number of contingencies and variables the DM must consider during high level play.

I also don't think this creature vastly outstrips character abilities of equal level. Granted, it won't be easily defeated using the usual tactics, but that's part of the fun of high level play, isn't it? Now if every high level creature the DM threw at the players was as wonky as the Effigy, I'd agree that there is a problem. But isolating a single encounter as a crux in a rant against high level play is silly, IMO.

Of course, if the whole point was to say, 'Use monsters/encounters that utterly neutralize character abilities sparingly, at best,' then I wholeheartedly agree with him. Still, that advice is in the DMG, and applies to all levels of play, not just the high levels. Maybe that's why the rant threw me off a bit.... or maybe I didn't get enough sleep last night. *shrug*

BTW, Wil, sorry I missed you guys at GenCon this year. I was talking with Lem a few days ago, discussing the possibility of hooking up at Winter Fantasy in Indiana. Any chance you might be there?

 

[Uller]

I agree with what Synicism and others are saying...he's not ranting against high-level play, just pointing out one of its foibles.

I'm running Lord of the Iron Fortress and so many of the creatures have SR and cold, fire and electricity resistance and immunity (and even sonic and acid resistance and immunity) and some outright spell immunity, the party wizard is having a hard time of it when trying to use offensive spells. This is partially a result of the fact that no one in my group has ever played in a high level game, but it also appears to simply be a general problem.

So...what SKR is saying is that DMs and designers need to think about their encounters and realize what types of characters they are castrating with each. You don't want to run an adventure where a particular character's favorite abilities never get to be used (at least not very often).

 

[RyanD]

The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system

Fundamentally, the problem with higher level D&D play is that the one-size-fits-all CR system doesn't work.

Example: A 20th level Commonor, a 20th level Wizard and the Terrasque are all the same CR. Which would you rather fight?

My suggestion: The CR system needs to be reworked from the ground up to provide "CR Factors". A "CR Factor" might be something like "Undead +2CR". Each monster would list all the "CR Factors" that apply to it. Common CR Factors might include a function based on hit dice, Flying, Incorporeality, various levels of spellcasting power, extraordinary equipment, etc.

Then the DM would use those CR factors to determine which were relevant to his or her gaming group. The Undead CR Factor is a much bigger deal if the party doesn't have any Clerics, for example. Using CR Factors, the DM can calculate the correct CR for an individual Party.

Something similar to this was tried by TSR in 2nd Edition near the end of the development cycle. By then, the factors used to calculate a monster's XP award consisted of several hundred discrete options - so many that it became virtually impossible to figure out a correct XP award without computerized assistance. The problem with the old 2E XP system of course was that the XP awards didn't change vs. character (or party) level.

The beauty of "CR Factors" is that while you could have a pretty long list of defined Factors, designers would just check them off when listing the CR Factors for any given opponent. The process could be reduced to a simple web form or excel spreadsheet macro.

Of course, the problem with this system is that it makes creating one-size-fits-all dungeon encounters for printed modules very difficult(*). Since no two parties will likely face any given encounter at the same CR, a designer would need to include explicit instructions for scaling the CR of each monster up or down as necessary to hit the target EL. (Or the EL target could be abandoned, and the DM could recalculate the "true" EL based on the "true" CRs of the opponents faced - allowing the EL/XP system to flex the reward up or down as the challenge level goes up or down).

Ryan

(*) Actually, it reveals something that DMs with higher level PCs already know - D&D's stock XP award system breaks down and stops being useful at about 10th level, and from that point onward requires constant hand-adjustment by the DM to keep the game running smoothly.