SKR's problem with certain high level encounters
- Thread starter greymarch
- Start date
Bauglir
First Post
I agree too. Generally speaking each class in the game has strengths and weaknesses.
For example (to state the obvious
)the fighter's masses of hitpoints, good fortitude, good AC, and good damage dealing ability is offset by a lack of mobility and a weakness to will saves.
At the lower levels, monsters seem to follow this philosophy too (ogres for example following much the same pattern as fighters)
This is good, as the party can learn about their opponents (be they monsters, or perhaps an evil party) and develop strategies that take advantage of their own strengths vs any weak points in the enemies.
At higher levels however this is typically not the case. Monsters are designed strong in every area, then typically given spell resistance into the bargain (I dislike SR personally) so strategy tends to go out the window (what kind of strategy can you employ against an enemy that is strong in every way?)
Take the epic level handbook for an example. While not every monster in there has SR, the vast majority do. On top of this their HD, being well in excess of their CR, often combined with very high stats lead to extremely high saving throws.
Very roughly speaking:
Typically, SR is calibrated so that about half the spells thrown at it fail.
TYPICAL saves mean that the spellcaster's highest spells will be saved against around half the time.
With HD beyond CR, the enhanced saves will give say a 3/4 likelihood of saving. (I don't have the ELH on hand so this is something of a guesstimate)
Now, a PC spellcaster casting a spell on this (hypothetical) monster has a 1/8 chance of their spell actually affecting it. Given that the spell may be an instant-win effect this may seem like a way to get combat to last beyond the first round. The problem is that spellcasters (especially wizards) can't really afford to waste their high level spells bouncing them off such effective defences, so most likely they will buff up the fighters and send them in, then sit back and watch.
Not much fun for any involved doing that again and again and again.
Note: The figures used here are only approximations, attempting to illustrate the point, they're probably a little (or even more than a little) off, but the end effect is something I've felt when playing in high level games..
For example (to state the obvious
)the fighter's masses of hitpoints, good fortitude, good AC, and good damage dealing ability is offset by a lack of mobility and a weakness to will saves.At the lower levels, monsters seem to follow this philosophy too (ogres for example following much the same pattern as fighters)
This is good, as the party can learn about their opponents (be they monsters, or perhaps an evil party) and develop strategies that take advantage of their own strengths vs any weak points in the enemies.
At higher levels however this is typically not the case. Monsters are designed strong in every area, then typically given spell resistance into the bargain (I dislike SR personally) so strategy tends to go out the window (what kind of strategy can you employ against an enemy that is strong in every way?)
Take the epic level handbook for an example. While not every monster in there has SR, the vast majority do. On top of this their HD, being well in excess of their CR, often combined with very high stats lead to extremely high saving throws.
Very roughly speaking:
Typically, SR is calibrated so that about half the spells thrown at it fail.
TYPICAL saves mean that the spellcaster's highest spells will be saved against around half the time.
With HD beyond CR, the enhanced saves will give say a 3/4 likelihood of saving. (I don't have the ELH on hand so this is something of a guesstimate)
Now, a PC spellcaster casting a spell on this (hypothetical) monster has a 1/8 chance of their spell actually affecting it. Given that the spell may be an instant-win effect this may seem like a way to get combat to last beyond the first round. The problem is that spellcasters (especially wizards) can't really afford to waste their high level spells bouncing them off such effective defences, so most likely they will buff up the fighters and send them in, then sit back and watch.
Not much fun for any involved doing that again and again and again.
Note: The figures used here are only approximations, attempting to illustrate the point, they're probably a little (or even more than a little
) off, but the end effect is something I've felt when playing in high level games..
The_Gneech
Explorer
Monte At Home said:
Hey, Monte! Why didn't you plug your own essay on this topic? It's definitely worth adding to the discussion.
-The Gneech
RyanD
Adventurer
Re: Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system
I don't accept that as a suitable response.
There's a technology out there waiting to be developed that will help DMs select challenges for their parties which are fun, require strategy and tactics, and reward the party for overcoming the challenge in an appropriately scaled way.
The current CR/EL/XP system in 3E isn't it. That doesn't mean that such a system shouldn't be worked on - it just means that the system in the existing 3E rules stops being "a system" at about 10th level and instead becomes "a guideline". Guidelines are fine, but one of the overall design objectives for 3E was, where possible, to provide a standardized system (a "tool" if you will) so that the game's consistency across multiple scenarios and even multiple DMs would be enhanced.
The EL/XP system in 3E is good. It creates a sliding system for calculating the reward that takes into account both the quality of the party as well as the quality of the challenges. (Although I believe another "system" (as opposed to a guideline) is required to correctly calculate the true "Party Level" to make the EL/XP system work as designed, and to cope with situations where the party consists of PCs of highly variable level.) The problem is that the input to the EL calculations (the CRs of the monsters, and the tables that generate EL values for mutliple opponents) just doesn't work above a certain level of complexity. It's also a problem that CR values, in general, aren't derived from a system - they're derived from estimations and guesses - and the higher level the challenge (monster) is, it becomes increasingly less likely that those estimations and guesses will apply across a diverse universe of parties (in other words, the system becomes less valuable over time).
It's an interesting design problem, and it would be a worthwhile effort to find long term, scalable solutions.
Ridley's Cohort said:
I don't accept that as a suitable response.
There's a technology out there waiting to be developed that will help DMs select challenges for their parties which are fun, require strategy and tactics, and reward the party for overcoming the challenge in an appropriately scaled way.
The current CR/EL/XP system in 3E isn't it. That doesn't mean that such a system shouldn't be worked on - it just means that the system in the existing 3E rules stops being "a system" at about 10th level and instead becomes "a guideline". Guidelines are fine, but one of the overall design objectives for 3E was, where possible, to provide a standardized system (a "tool" if you will) so that the game's consistency across multiple scenarios and even multiple DMs would be enhanced.
The EL/XP system in 3E is good. It creates a sliding system for calculating the reward that takes into account both the quality of the party as well as the quality of the challenges. (Although I believe another "system" (as opposed to a guideline) is required to correctly calculate the true "Party Level" to make the EL/XP system work as designed, and to cope with situations where the party consists of PCs of highly variable level.) The problem is that the input to the EL calculations (the CRs of the monsters, and the tables that generate EL values for mutliple opponents) just doesn't work above a certain level of complexity. It's also a problem that CR values, in general, aren't derived from a system - they're derived from estimations and guesses - and the higher level the challenge (monster) is, it becomes increasingly less likely that those estimations and guesses will apply across a diverse universe of parties (in other words, the system becomes less valuable over time).
It's an interesting design problem, and it would be a worthwhile effort to find long term, scalable solutions.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Re: Re: Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system
I think the first step will be to rate the party competence on multiple axes. Off the cuff, possible axes might be: Offense, Defense, Muscle, Magic, Healing, Adventuring skils, Social skills. The monsters would have a CR entry for each variable; a large discrepancy indicates a high risk combat, for either the monster or the PCs, and warns the DM to be careful.
The system will only be truly predictive if it has a variable that takes into account every qualitative aspect of the party, e.g. rogues vs. undead or oozes. It will only be practical if a DM can use it easily, e.g. if Bob brings a 5th level Ranger to a 6th level party of 4, how do all the factors change?
RyanD said:
I think the first step will be to rate the party competence on multiple axes. Off the cuff, possible axes might be: Offense, Defense, Muscle, Magic, Healing, Adventuring skils, Social skills. The monsters would have a CR entry for each variable; a large discrepancy indicates a high risk combat, for either the monster or the PCs, and warns the DM to be careful.
The system will only be truly predictive if it has a variable that takes into account every qualitative aspect of the party, e.g. rogues vs. undead or oozes. It will only be practical if a DM can use it easily, e.g. if Bob brings a 5th level Ranger to a 6th level party of 4, how do all the factors change?
Celebrim
Legend
This problem is not new to 3rd edition, and I think it a credit to 3rd edition that it only begins becoming serious only at 15th level (or so depending on how you min/max). These sort of problems could easily be talked about at 9th level in 1st edition. One of the reasons I initially moved away from AD&D is that D&D has always had the problem of combats being too short and too often won in the first round. Third edition hasn't fixed this problem, but it did control it (got rid of 20d6 fireballs, gave monsters con bonuses, etc.)
I personally don't think the problem is with the CR system. One of the biggest problems is that high level monsters don't have nearly enough h.p., but do often have way too powerful of attack forms (particularly of the save or essentially die variety). A given party typically has 2-4 times as many h.p. as a typical 'boss' monster that they face, and can do several times as much damage per round. The monster doesn't really have a chance without serious protections that negate thier abilities. However, because ther h.p. of the party is spread out amongst the whole party, a monster with attacks equivalent to its defences is going to kill party members quick if they don't kill it first. The situation is analogous to 1st edition poison. Probably your AC was high enough to protect you from most attacks, but if you got unlucky, probably you would die. I'd much prefer scaling back a monsters damage output a little (the way poison was scaled back generally) and scaling up its ability to survive attacks, such that, a combat tended to go multiple rounds and be memorable. Would this be hard on high level spell casters? Probably.
And my hats off to anyone that has gotten the PC's involved in a hotly contested tense 12 or 20 round fight (as opposed to just merely dice rolling to kill the next wave of goblins). From experience I know how much work that takes, and my frustration with how difficult it is to 'show a monster off' (especially one with a deep array of abilities) may lead to me becoming disgusted with D&D again.
I personally don't think the problem is with the CR system. One of the biggest problems is that high level monsters don't have nearly enough h.p., but do often have way too powerful of attack forms (particularly of the save or essentially die variety). A given party typically has 2-4 times as many h.p. as a typical 'boss' monster that they face, and can do several times as much damage per round. The monster doesn't really have a chance without serious protections that negate thier abilities. However, because ther h.p. of the party is spread out amongst the whole party, a monster with attacks equivalent to its defences is going to kill party members quick if they don't kill it first. The situation is analogous to 1st edition poison. Probably your AC was high enough to protect you from most attacks, but if you got unlucky, probably you would die. I'd much prefer scaling back a monsters damage output a little (the way poison was scaled back generally) and scaling up its ability to survive attacks, such that, a combat tended to go multiple rounds and be memorable. Would this be hard on high level spell casters? Probably.
And my hats off to anyone that has gotten the PC's involved in a hotly contested tense 12 or 20 round fight (as opposed to just merely dice rolling to kill the next wave of goblins). From experience I know how much work that takes, and my frustration with how difficult it is to 'show a monster off' (especially one with a deep array of abilities) may lead to me becoming disgusted with D&D again.
Monte At Home
Explorer
Re: Re: Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system
You stated this twice in your post, but you never state why.
It's a fallacy that systems are inherently better than design judgement. In fact, I think CRs (and, for what it's worth, magic item pricing) serve as proof that design judgement is often superior to systems.
It is a system, for example, which says that adding 3 levels of druid to a troll and adding 3 levels of fighter to a troll accomplish the same thing (which, I believe, is the biggest problem with the CR system). If we relied more on design judgement, we'd get better accuracy.
RyanD said:
You stated this twice in your post, but you never state why.
It's a fallacy that systems are inherently better than design judgement. In fact, I think CRs (and, for what it's worth, magic item pricing) serve as proof that design judgement is often superior to systems.
It is a system, for example, which says that adding 3 levels of druid to a troll and adding 3 levels of fighter to a troll accomplish the same thing (which, I believe, is the biggest problem with the CR system). If we relied more on design judgement, we'd get better accuracy.
Ridley's Cohort
First Post
Excellent points, Celebrim.
There is a generic issue with combat and spells. The save or die stuff is vastly more effective than 1e/2e because of the saving throw mechanics. (I've seen a number of 1e/2e character that make all their saves on a 3 or 4.)
That, plus the offensive tilt of monsters, makes combats faster and more unpredicatable at higher level. If any PC has a 50/50 chance of being knocked out of the combat on round 1 from a spell, then luck will always be a big factor.
With the boost in HPs of monsters, wearing them down with Fireballs isn't all that effective. Look at the 3e Hill Giant --102 HPs. Look at the 1e Hill Giant -- 41 HPs.
I am not sure what the point of all the grab bags of immunities. Maybe it is just me, but I find them more tiresome then interesting. Why are devils immune to electricity? Or resistant to so much else? The real question is how do these features make fighting devils more interesting? They already have SR for goodness sake.
There is a generic issue with combat and spells. The save or die stuff is vastly more effective than 1e/2e because of the saving throw mechanics. (I've seen a number of 1e/2e character that make all their saves on a 3 or 4.)
That, plus the offensive tilt of monsters, makes combats faster and more unpredicatable at higher level. If any PC has a 50/50 chance of being knocked out of the combat on round 1 from a spell, then luck will always be a big factor.
With the boost in HPs of monsters, wearing them down with Fireballs isn't all that effective. Look at the 3e Hill Giant --102 HPs. Look at the 1e Hill Giant -- 41 HPs.
I am not sure what the point of all the grab bags of immunities. Maybe it is just me, but I find them more tiresome then interesting. Why are devils immune to electricity? Or resistant to so much else? The real question is how do these features make fighting devils more interesting? They already have SR for goodness sake.
Thorin Stoutfoot
First Post
Re: Re: Re: Re: The problem isn't the monster, it's the CR system
The nice thing about paper and pencil RPGs is that you can depend on the judgement of the DM behind the screen to some extent (something you can't ever do with a computer), but as a game designer, you should strive to rely on his judgement as little as possible, since his judgement is better used towards other things (such as setting up adventures, drawing up a campaign, planning, role-playing NPCs, etc, etc).
So far, in a campaign with 9th level PCs, the CR system has been spot on. It would be nice if it didn't break at higher levels.
The problem is that some of us don't have as good a judgement as others. For instance, all prestige classes depend on design judgements. There are certainly a number of prestige classes in WoTC's "splatbooks" that demonstrate that the judgement of the author is flawed. Unfortunately, by the time you discover such a flaw, it might be too late to save your campaign (i.e., the prestige class has already been introduced).Monte At Home said:
The nice thing about paper and pencil RPGs is that you can depend on the judgement of the DM behind the screen to some extent (something you can't ever do with a computer), but as a game designer, you should strive to rely on his judgement as little as possible, since his judgement is better used towards other things (such as setting up adventures, drawing up a campaign, planning, role-playing NPCs, etc, etc).
So far, in a campaign with 9th level PCs, the CR system has been spot on. It would be nice if it didn't break at higher levels.
Similar Threads
