SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[Arcane Runes Press]

Well, the D&D iconics are designed to be sub-optimal. In other words, they're not tweaked to maximize power, because we don't expect every PC to be perfectly built. For example, Nebin (the iconic illusionist) has Skill Focus (Concentration) instead of just Combat Casting (which he picks up later). So if we assume the average party isn't hyper-tweaked, CRs should work out fine. More optimized characters will have an easier time than the iconics.

Which I think is the way it should be.

Mostly.

I suspect that most groups are made up of "sub-optimal" characters, with players taking feats, spells, skills and items that are cool, rather than ultra-math-streamlined.

I think most do this for two reasons:

1) They are attracted to "neat" stuff.
2) They don't want to pore over and cross reference every single WotC supplement.

The problem for me is, as a player, DM and writer, that there's always that 1 guy who grabs up every bit of optimized power that he can. That guy can skew the whole balance of things.

Writing stuff to be "neat" means that a small, but very vocal group of people says that your stuff is "weak", or "useless", or whatever variation of sucks you want to insert here.

Writing stuff to be super-effective means that another group will cry "overpowered", or "broken", or whatever variation of munchkin you want to insert here.

Personally, I'd like to see 2 versions of the iconics. One, the standard, should be as they are now. The second set should be optimized to maximum power, so that DMs get an idea of the difference between the baseline level 10 character (for example) and an optimized level 10 character.


All that, of course, is sideline to the original issue.

I agree with Sean K.

I dislike the default insto-lethality of high level play and worse, I dislike the lengths DMs (and writers and players) must go to to defend against it.

I simply don't like the convoluted chains of defensive combos and jumbles of special defenses that the DM must plan for. The "power up suites" described in the Bastion of Broken Souls leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Want the party to fight a great dragon? Better make sure the dragon has a half dozen different defensive spells already cast, or he dies in one, maybe two rounds. Worse, said dragon is likely to either die without having done ANYTHING, or die after having killed 1/2 the party.

I really dislike seeing monsters that are written up to have every defense in the book, but I don't see another option in default D&D.

Extra HP doesn't cut it. If you have a cleric with Harm prepared, it doesn't matter if the beastie has 10,000 HP. So you have to give him SR. But an optimized mage with access to all the WotC books can blow through SR like a bullet through tissue paper, so you need spell immunities and elemental resistances. Well, then you have a fighter with a +4 keen sword, so you need etherealness, or crit immunity and high DR. Skimp on any of these things, and your cool monster dies before it uses any of its good powers.

Which leads to this: Monsters aren't expected to live long, so firebreath that does 4d6 every round isn't good enough. Instead, you need plasma/acid breath that does 10d6 with an extraordinarily high save DC. A weakness ray can't do 1d2 ability damage, it must do 2d6 or the characters won't even feel it 2 rounds after the fight is over.

In other words, its a vicious cycle of escalation.

Patrick Y.

 

[PeterDonis]

Personally, I'd like to see 2 versions of the iconics. One, the standard, should be as they are now. The second set should be optimized to maximum power, so that DMs get an idea of the difference between the baseline level 10 character (for example) and an optimized level 10 character.

I like this idea.

I dislike the default insto-lethality of high level play and worse, I dislike the lengths DMs (and writers and players) must go to to defend against it.

I simply don't like the convoluted chains of defensive combos and jumbles of special defenses that the DM must plan for. The "power up suites" described in the Bastion of Broken Souls leave a bad taste in my mouth.

Want the party to fight a great dragon? Better make sure the dragon has a half dozen different defensive spells already cast, or he dies in one, maybe two rounds. Worse, said dragon is likely to either die without having done ANYTHING, or die after having killed 1/2 the party.

<snip>

Patrick Y.

It seems to me that the problem isn't so much with high-level play as with overly combat-oriented play. After all, put yourself in the place of a high-level opponent such as a dragon (or, for that matter, in the place of a high-level character about to fight one). You want to survive, and you want to kill your opponent. Wouldn't you do exactly those things that are referred to above? I.e., buff yourself up with defenses against the other guy's likely attacks, and try to use attacks that will be as quickly lethal as possible? And if you know that your opponent is thinking this way, wouldn't you try to set up some kind of layered defense, a "convoluted chain" that the other guy must penetrate to hurt you, instead of being able to win with a single instant-kill attack? If you were really facing such a combat, all these things would be common sense, so it's only reasonable to expect them to be common sense to characters and monsters in the game.

The solution is to make success in the game less dependent on combat. There's lots of advice out there already on how to do this, so I won't belabor the point (which is certainly not a new one), but I think it's important to keep in mind to avoid having your campaign focused around the "arms race".

Peter Donis

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

In other words, its a vicious cycle of escalation.

The way out of the vicious cycle is to create monsters that are puzzles to solve rather than arbitrary collections of immunities to muscle through. Like the old Star Trek episode with the UV vulnerable pizza bats. Corny? Yup. Entertaining? Definitely.

I figured out a decade ago that the optimal way of dealing with weird & unknown creatures is to buff/protect/heal the fighters with the biggest plus swords and stand back. Bor-ring. 3e hasn't changed that one whit.

Take a look a the MM. If you listed out every entry for a resistance/immunity and listed out every entry for a vulnerability, I bet the first list will be more than 20 times as long as the second. And these aren't usally small "flavor adding" defenses like Electrical Resistance 5 , DR 5/+5 (slashing weapons) or +6 bonus to enchantment saves, but often outright immunities or big number resistances. The trend for high CR monsters seems to be to keep scooping these on.

The powerful arbitrary defenses should be toned down. Interesting vulnerabilities should be added in. SR should be scrapped altogether. Hit points boosted.

I think that would add to the fun. YMMV.

 

[greymarch]

I would prefer if the CR for creatures was determined by comparing them with characters who are severely tweaked out and min/maxxed. Lets be honest, a majority of people who play this game (including me) tweak their characters as much as they can. Using standard characters to create reasonable CRs just doesnt provide good experience point ratios for most high level roleplaying groups. Lets have CRs rated upon a group of 4 characters that are uber-tweaked using the rules from all the WOTC published material at the time.

 

[Mercule]

I just want to point out that any 20th-level party that has a hard time with several thousand kobolds:

1) hasn't ever heard of the spell Elemental Swarm; and
2) must look incredibly wussy, if several thousand kobolds are willing to attack them.

Daniel

I'd be willing to bet that a conversion of the 2E module "Dragon Mountain" would seriously inconvenience a 20th level party.

Then again, that module has several fiat rules like "divinations don't work here" and "no teleporting" that don't really have a reason other than just kneecaping the PCs, so that may not be a great example.

 

[conor]

I have always viewed the CR system as basically two parts.

The first part is a "system", that is the tables in the DMG that say that a CR "X" and a CR "Y" is an EL "Z", and that say that an EL "Z" defeated by 4 characters of ECL N is worth so many EXPs.

The second half is the "guidelines" in the PHB that a X th level Fighter, Cleric, Rogue, and Wizard make an EL X party, and the information in the MM that says that a particular monster has a particular CR.

So, to agree and disagree with Sean, the "system" is not flawed, unless you take the "guildlines" as absolutes. First off, I don't know about most of the games out there, but not a single D20 game I have been in or ran has had 4 players, they almost all have 6, some have 8. So right there you have to rethink EL interaction with the party. Plus, my current game is uniquly talented at killing undead (they are Vampire hunters after all). This means they could carve up the effigy without too much trouble, but a behoilder would eat them for breakfast.

To make a long story short, DMing is not just picking a random monster out of the MM that has a CR rating the same as your four member party. You start with a baseline estimate of what the party is worth, through a monster against them, fudge it based on how they play, then determine it's CR based on how the game went and how much you had to tweak it, then use the system to determine the EXP award.

What it all comes down to is that as a GM your job is to make sure that everyone has fun both in combat, and feel good afterwards based on the rewards they received. No published system could get this right automatically becuase that's what a GM is for.

 

[conor]

The role of combat in RPGs.

I wanted to post this as a seporate entry because it is on a different subject, but one that was raised on this thread.

As far as I can view it, there are three types of combat in RPGs, space filler (random encounters), storyline advancement (the hated enemy at the end of the dungeon), and the "you screwed up and went the wrong way".

The first type space filler, is usually on the whole an easier fight for the party, after all you are not trying to kill them, just either soften them up, or fluff them for the eventual storyline combat. The second, storyline advancement should be at eactly the parties level, or just barely above it. Maybe they have to get an item that is particuarly useful in that combat, or strategize a bit more, but basically it is a fair fight.

The third is what I want to talk about. There are many times that you want the party to NOT fight something, to not go down a certain road. I did not quote the text, but there have been several posts (including the opriginal by Sean) that talks about what happens when fighting a monster that has abilities that negate all the special abilities of the party. Whether it be how the effigy negates the iconic characters abilities, or how an epic monster has */+6 DR without the party having a +6 weapon.

The party realizing that they can't hurt the creature, and having the cleric blow through all the healing in the first few rounds, they have to do something that most parties don't think of, RETREAT. Some encounters were just not made to be beaten. This either fprces the party to go down a different path avoiding the menace, or they have to make a quest to find that item that can help them out, that +6 sword, or whatever. Thus they make the roadblock encounter the end of a storyline set of encounters.

Sometimes the side adventure for the party to get passed your roadblock can be more fun the originally planned encounter.

 

[barsoomcore]

Here's how I use the CR system:

First off, IMC, I assign CRs AFTER the fact. At the end of each session, I'll go through what happened and ask myself, "How tough was that?" I know from the DMG that a CR of equal level as the party ought to consume about one quarter of their resources, which makes for a pretty good way to judge things. If I can't decide, I'll flip through the Monster Manual and see how tough, say, a CR 6 is.

Of course, if the encounter or problem was a simple combat with a particular beastie then it's very straightforward -- just lift it out of the MM. If it's something more complicated, like "Get Marques to reveal who he's working for," then I have to get a little creative and lay out some numbers.

I total everything up and see how much XP that provides. It's almost always more or less than I'm 100% comfortable with so I toy with things about, or just say, "Heck with it," and pull a final value out of my Dungeon Master's Read End.

The players get as much XP as I decide they should have. I decide how much they should have by walking the line between what the rules say and what my campaign needs.

So all I need from the CR system is a reasonable baseline. I don't think it's remotely possible to get much accuracy out of this system, or to be able to take the creativity and personal thought out of it. Why would you want to? Guidelines, that's what we need. That's what we got. My campaign is showing no signs of decay due to power levels or unbalanced XP awards.

 

[takyris]

As someone noted in a different thread, you also have to differentiate between what advantages merit an effective CR change, and what advantages don't.

Examples:

Party was formed as a theme party, all fighters and rogues. They run into a bunch of shadows. This should affect CR -- those shadows are much nastier against a fighter and rogue group than against a bunch of clerics.

Party is normal, but the cleric and paladin used all their turn-times per day a few battles back. They run into a bunch of shadows. This should not affect CR, unless you as the DM planned it specifically as a "down to the end of their resources" fight -- a fight when the party is out of spells, smites, stunning fists, and so forth. The tough thing about those fights is that they aren't really any more tough -- the party is just so far down that the 20% of the resources that get taken might be the last 20% they had.

Party is normal, but cleric and paladin decide to hold back their turning attempts in case they need them later. Party is all but wiped out because of this. This does NOT affect CR. Environmental factors (ambushes, default party makeup, favorable environment for enemy) change the CR. Player choice does not. The players CHOSE to not use their turning powers. So they get normal xp only.

Party is normal, but the paladin blows his turn check, and the cleric gets hit by a pair of shadows in the first round of combat and, due to really good enemy rolls, is shadowized. The party barely survives, due mostly to really bad rolls. This does not affect the CR. Bad rolls do not mean more experience, any more than good rolls should get you less.

That all ought to be taken into account.

-Tacky

 

[Celebrim]

"If you have a cleric with Harm prepared, it doesn't matter if the beastie has 10,000 HP."

Yeah, assuming you are one of the three DM's in the country that haven't rule 0'd Harm as the most obviously broken spell in the game. I don't think I'd allow Harm as a 9th level spell, much less a 5th. The default solution arrived at independently by at least half the DM's in the country is to rule that harm gets a save, with the results of a successful save being a cause critical wounds that never leaves the foe with less than 4 h.p. The other 49% cap the damage in some fashion.

RC: I agree, but once you publish a puzzle monster - its no longer a puzzle.

Peter Donis said: "It seems to me that the problem isn't so much with high-level play as with overly combat-oriented play. After all, put yourself in the place of a high-level opponent such as a dragon (or, for that matter, in the place of a high-level character about to fight one). You want to survive, and you want to kill your opponent. Wouldn't you do exactly those things that are referred to above? I.e., buff yourself up with defenses against the other guy's likely attacks, and try to use attacks that will be as quickly lethal as possible? And if you know that your opponent is thinking this way, wouldn't you try to set up some kind of layered defense, a "convoluted chain" that the other guy must penetrate to hurt you, instead of being able to win with a single instant-kill attack? If you were really facing such a combat, all these things would be common sense, so it's only reasonable to expect them to be common sense to characters and monsters in the game."

I think you are dealing with a classic case of confusing cause and effect. It doesn't matter whether you run a story based game or a hack and slash game, the mechanics of high level combat remain the same. Either you kill or be killed. And that harsh standard forces everyone (whether the PC's or the DM) to always be ready for combat and when in doubt attack on sight. I have already written extensively about defusing the attack on sight attitude of the PC's, but at some point the system is going to force it on the PC's if you as a DM ever plan on having monsters that seriously challenge them at high level. As a PC waiting or holding your action is highly unattractive if the monsters first action could quite probably kill one or more members of the party. So the reason that everyone is buffing up isn't that the game is combat oriented, the game is combat oriented because everyone is so buff. Failure to be ready and willing for combat puts you out of the game if the other side was ready and willing for combat. How many DM's have been caught unprepared for NPC death because the NPC wasn't supposed to be attacked but died in the first round?

The solution isn't merely changing playing style, it is limiting the destructiveness of PC's and NPC's so that they have time to interact memorably violently or otherwise and feel that they can afford to give up the advantage of going first in order to see if some sort of non-violent interaction is possible.