SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[Mortaneus]

Re: Up the ante...

The thing that really ruined the ELH for me was DR. There are only like 15 creatures with damage reduction that you can bypass with a non-epic weapon out of more than 60 monsters. Considering that a simple +6 weapon is worth half of the total wealth of a 22nd level character (per the table), it is safe to assume that this commodity is fairly rare until 30th level; and well beyond the resources of NPCs under 35th-40th level, per their table. Epic items, especially weapons, have been reduced to a 'must have' commodity, just as +4 and +5 weapons are simple commodities in non-epic high level play. How disappointing. The Penetrate Damage Reduction feat mitigates this, but is reduced to a 'must have' feat for anybody that ever considers using a weapon - so much for lots of feat choices.

IMC, the PC's have one option available to them that makes defeating an epic creature possible. I changed the Sure Strike enhancement from making the weapon an auto +5 for penetrating DR, to increasing the weapon's enhancement bonus by +2 for the purposes of penetrating DR. That means a +5 (effective +7 for DR) weapon would cost 72kgp. Well within the reach of a high, but not epic, level character.



I think one of the central problems to the CR/EL system is that it doesn't account for the fact that, while a monster's CR accounts for having only one of them, the party usually consists of multiple combatants.

The effective encounter level system doesn't work very well for accounting for this, either. Consider, 12+ Adult Red dragons should consume 1/4 of a 20th level party's resources? I think not.

Multiple combatants on a side has a HUGE impact on it's effectiveness. The average per/round damage output of a mid-to-high level party is so high that it can usually wipe out even a great wyrm in a couple of rounds of combat.

I think a better way of balancing the scales is to work on a tally system. Each combatant adds a certain number to the value of their side. The totals are added up, and compared, to see if it's an even fight, or if one side has an advantage over another.

Off the top of my head, let's try this one. PT (power tally) for a combatant equals (HD or Lvl)^2. When figuring level, add together classes and HD that stack for effectiveness (for example, the troll w/ fighter levels). The others are calculated as a seperate tally and added to the total for that combatant. Example:

Human Fighter 14 = 196
Tarrasque (HD 48) = 2,304
Troll Fighter 3/Druid 2 = (6+3)^2 + 2^2 = 81 + 4 = 85

This means that a party of four 20th level characters (not weakened by multiclassing into non-additive classes), has four characters with PT 400 (20^2), for a total PT of 1600. Still quite a bit less than the Tarrasque's 2304, meaning this is going probably be one heck of a nasty fight.

This also gives you a decent figure of what multiclassing costs you.

Monk 10 = 100 PT
Druid 5/Ranger 5 = 25+25 = 50 PT

Of course, this still requires some eyeballing. For instance,

Rogue 3/Wizard 5/Arcane Trickster 2 = (3+2)^2 + (5+2)^2 = 25+49 = 74

Since the arcane trickster levels help both classes, I added it to both to determine the effective level of each.


This is just an idea off the top of my head. I'm sure it breaks if you poke it too hard, but it might be a good start.


edit: Another idea. Since the base classes (ignoring quite a few discussions here) are relatively balanced, maybe you can figure CR from them. Consider, since an encounter of a CR should use up 1/4 the resources of a party of 4, shouldn't it use up 100% of the resources of a single one of the party's characters, if encountered singly?

Then, I think, a good judge of CR for a monster is to compare it to whatever class best matches it's capabilities, and figure out what level in power it would have compared to an average PC of that level. For instance, fighting a troll is like fighting a barbarian (the closest class to it's capabilities) of lvl 5, making it CR 5.

The tarrasque, being neigh indistructable, I would match with a monk (generally invulnerable against everything) of 25th level, giving you a better idea of it's CR.

 

[mearls]

Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain

This touches on a problem I have with RPG design in general.

Back when I programmed computers for a living, there would be times when I would use code I found in a book or off the Internet. For instance, if I had to build a script that would check email addresses to make sure they were properly formatted, I might refer to a sample given in a book I owned like The Perl Cookbook.

Never, ever, would I have ever used a chunk of code that didn't include an explanation as to why it worked the way the designer claimed it would. That's just common sense. If my code didn't work, I'd lose my job. I couldn't just slap other people's code into my work and hope it worked fine. If the code was buggy or I had to make future modifications to it, I needed to understand what was going on throughout the process.

Now, apply that logic to an RPG.

I find a CR 7 monster I want to use in my campaign. Fine, but what makes that creature CR 7? What made the designer look over its stats and say "OK, this is a CR 7 critter." There's an implicit trust relationship there that the designer had very good reasons for making that creature CR 7, reasons so good that he doesn't need to let me know about them.

He's a professional after all. I can trust him, right?

What I'd like to see is more openness in designs. If I see a new monster, I'd love to see a short paragraph explaining why it's CR 7. I'd like to see more talk about how I'm supposed to use that monster in my game, not more information about its mating habits.

By applying a few basic metrics to a creature, like "How can a wizard, cleric, fighter, or rogue handle this monster?" I think a lot of these problems clear themselves up. Instead of being handed an edict from up on high, the designer opens a dialogue with the DM. The more data a DM has, the more likely he is to hit upon a combination in his own designs that works for him.

There seems to be this implicit assumption in RPG writing that it's bad to ever slip into pure game mechanics, mathematics, or design talk. A monster description that goes something like "The astral strider's spells and melee ability make it effective against a wide range of parties and at both close quarters and long range. With its dimension door ability, it can pick its enemies in battle. Use it to allow the strider to escape from the party's fighter types and target wizards and rogues. Its vulnerability to fire is a key weakness that balances the creature. Give it spells or items that mask that weakness only against parties at least 2 levels above its CR."

Since DMs are game designers with a smaller audience, I think it makes far more sense for articles and game material aimed at them to treat them as fellow designers who need to be given sound reasons and advice on using a monster. There needs to be an increased focus on addressing the DM in terms of his role in the game, as scenario designer and rules arbiter. Pull back the magic curtain and show him the guts behind a system, or the design decisions, or whatever thinking yielded a process.

It isn't enough to show a DM how to do something. We need to show him WHY he should do it (or use it).

I think something like that would help clear up a lot of the trepidation and dissatisfaction that high level play can cause.

 

[Blacksad]

It would be interesting to break down CR in the same way that AC is broken down... AC 19 (-1 size, +2 Dex, +3 natural, +5 chainmail). Of course it isn't that simple, since CR is a multi-variant thing, but taking an example that gets mentioned a lot:

Remorhaz. CR 7 (base 6*, +1 damage, +1 ambush, -1 no ranged).

This would allow to make easy on the fly EL adjustement.

It is great!

I think that if you come with such a break down for the monster in the SRD, you could try to sell it to a publisher, I'm thinking of the one who produced "GM Mastery: NPC essential" This would be really helpful advice!

 

[buzzard]

Re: Up the ante...

The thing that really ruined the ELH for me was DR. There are only like 15 creatures with damage reduction that you can bypass with a non-epic weapon out of more than 60 monsters. Considering that a simple +6 weapon is worth half of the total wealth of a 22nd level character (per the table), it is safe to assume that this commodity is fairly rare until 30th level; and well beyond the resources of NPCs under 35th-40th level, per their table. Epic items, especially weapons, have been reduced to a 'must have' commodity, just as +4 and +5 weapons are simple commodities in non-epic high level play. How disappointing. The Penetrate Damage Reduction feat mitigates this, but is reduced to a 'must have' feat for anybody that ever considers using a weapon - so much for lots of feat choices.

I do agree on the DR. What I found particularly annoying though is there is no way around it. I carefully went through all the spell seeds, and there is none which will allow for creation of an epic magic weapon spell. That is what is really called for here after all. The fighter doesn't need to be toting around a +10 hackmaster all the time, he just needs to be able to have it when chopping away at the mithril golem. I found the lack of this possibility a glaring oversight.

Buzzard

 

[Rhianni]

Lot of good points being made and I would like to add in my 2 coppers worth...

The CR system is IMO designed for standard stock players on what is predicted characters will be at a certain level.
At low levels it is easy to balance out. All the players can do is fire off a few magic missiles, swing a non magic sword etc.
At higher levels this becomes a problem. With each level new choices are made to the players that skew the CR system.

Someone posted that any wizard should take spell penetration and other feats to beat SR. Well if you are wanting to go that route then you can but that is coming from one direction of the game. I have a wizard in my campaign that has NO offensive spells. He wants to be a total utility wizard. That obviously will skew the CR setting as it takes into account wziards having fireballs, lightning bolts etc.

Things like that though happen all the time. I have found that the CR system is a good GUIDE but cannot be used hard and fast and I doubt any GM sees it as an absolute. I have had CR monsters 5 steps above that have gotten wiped out in 3 rounds to a group of characters. There have also been times when 3/4ths of the party has been killed by a single creature of 3 CR levels less then the party.
The best thing to do is look at the monster and see its special abilities and think how the PCs will react and overcome it. There really isnt a way to take a number system from 1-20 and match a good fight to the party.

 

[The Serge]

But DR in 3ed is far more effective than a flat enhancement requirement because there's always the chance, howerver, slim, that the protected creature will take damage.

In the past, if a character didn't carry a weapon with the appropriate enhancement, the weapon would never, ever do any damage.

The current option offers a better change, sometimes, slightly, sometimes signficant, that the entity will be harmed.

 

[eris404]

Plane Sailing wrote: "I agree. While adding fighter-type levels to creatures makes them tougher in an easy to understand way, bolstering their strengths, spell casting levels are only tangentially effective. The NightHag/16th Sorcerer was probably LESS effective than a Nighthag fighting alongside a 16th Sorcerer! Half the output, half the number of targets, no support... As someone else has mentioned, one bad init roll and a single monster that has everyone gunning for it tends not to last long!"

I agree, too. This was something I learned the hard way, especially when I have 8 players in my group. Assigning them challenges based on a CR that's meant for 4 characters was the first problem and giving them only 1 creatures of the "appropriate" challenge level was even worse. I will never have the party enounter only a single creature/character again, unless the encounter is meant to be easy.

 

[Kieran]

Another option is to ignore the XP part of Challenge Ratings. Star Wars, for example, doesn't even use CRs. Instead, it asks the DM to eyeball the length of an adventure and hand out a total of 1000-4000 XP multiplied by the average party level (and divided by the number of party members), leading to pretty much the same "1 level per 4 sessions" that D&D's "13.33 encounters per level" does. As a side effect, this discourages the hack-and-slash mentality often seen in D&D - I know there are guidelines in the DMG for giving out non-combat XP, but it doesn't exactly encourage it.

I wouldn't abandon CR entirely, because it's still a useful tool for estimating the difficulty of an encounter. I would just disconnect it from XP.

As a player, I would have a serious problem if I got as much XP for killing the Tarrasque as I did for mowing down goblins in the last session. An extreme comparison to be sure, but one that illustrates my point. Rewards should be commensurate with challenges.

 

[The Serge]

I agree, too. This was something I learned the hard way, especially when I have 8 players in my group. Assigning them challenges based on a CR that's meant for 4 characters was the first problem and giving them only 1 creatures of the "appropriate" challenge level was even worse. I will never have the party enounter only a single creature/character again, unless the encounter is meant to be easy.

I think for parties with more than four PCs, you're supposed to add two to the PC group level per PC... assuming that they're all the same level.

Thus, if you have eight 10th level characters, they are to be treated as an 18th level party.

 

[Word]

I agree with Mearls, that every DM sooner or later takes on the tasks of a gamer designer anyway. As characters rise in level, they diversify and become more and more personalized. Likewise, they drift further away from the statistical "norm." A DM will always be called on to make some judgement calls in their campaign, at the design level as well as the play level.

What the CR system does well is act as a set of training wheels. It's reliable early on, and implies certain design concepts which a DM can keep in mind when designing higher-level encounters. These high-level encounters will almost always need to be more closely tailored to an individual party than low-level ones. So DMs will be deviating from a rigid system at high levels regardless of the system's quality, I think.

The problem I see is one of DM education, which stems from quantifying current CRs. Or rather, not quantifying CRs. Ryan's "CR Factors" are not a bad idea, but any system which suggests a technological solution would be ideal is already too complicated for our purposes, in my opinion. Besides, the flags are already in place for factors such as undead and SR, clearly spelled out in the stat block. Yes, DMs will have to reference that sort of information well in advance of gameplay in order to check a monster against their party. That's the nature of adventure design.

Many gamers are (actively or passively) under the impression that there is some in-house secret at WotC for determining CRs correctly. If there is, it might be time to share it with us. If not (more likely?), how about getting Monte, SKR and others to write a batch of short essays for Dragon magazine explaining the impact they think the existing game elements have on CR. If this means creating CR Factors as a shorthand, that's fine, isn't it?

A rigid system will have to be carefully expanded to stay rigid. A system of thought, an understanding of the purpose and method of Challenge Ratings, will be much more flexible and practically self-maintaining. The design judgements of DMs are integral to the game, but they could be made more reliable and better-informed. Thus, more compatible.

Methinks.

word,
Will Hindmarch
will@atlas-games.com