SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[TiQuinn]

Re: Fun, Fun!

Just some quick comments on my methods of gaming in relation to this topic:

I don't need a system for everything. I think I read Clark Peterson somewhere saying that that was a problem with 3E, or something he liked better about 2E. I'm not necessarily in that boat, because I'm generally impressed with the amount and quality of work that obviously went into 3E. What is strange to me is how abstract some things can be (like attacks of opportunity or lack of facing in combat – that is, you have to have an ally on the opposite side threatening an opponent to get a flanking bonus), while other things are much more concrete (grappling or trip attacks).

I use CRs as guides, and they work mostly. Then again, I've seen a 10th-level character at ful hit points go down in one blow from a lone CR 12 creature.

My opinion of high-level play is mixed. I like epic scale, but it's darned hard to keep everything balanced and under control, especially with so many options available.

A major factor in my mind is keeping the players challenged without making it the same old stuff. What I mean is, if characters constantly face challenges that are only suited to their levels, it gets boring really quickly. "We're 25th-level and no matter what we face, it still takes us five rounds to kill it." This is bad. Powerful PCs should be given the chance to feel utterly legendary, not consistently face monsters that should have taken over the world long ago given their power levels and despite the Mordenkainens of the universe.

I just created an adventure for 10th-level heroes that uses 2nd-level opponents as the majority of the challenges. The PCs can't use some of their more devastating attacks (fireball) due to space restrictions and close combat. The mobs of 2nd-level guys were easy to defeat, but slowly pecked away at the PC's resources. Still, the players had a blast mopping up the floor with these villains and feeling like real champs. Of course, the villainous leaders weren't so easy. It's good and fun design if every encounter isn't tough, but challenges the heroes in differing ways and makes them feel as powerful as they are sometimes.

As an aside, referring to Mr. Dancey's comments earlier, I fudge results behind the screen at various times during the game both for and against the PCs, but only if it makes the game more dramatic and more fun. I think if one asked around, one would find that most "good" DMs do this, crafting a scenario that their players enjoy more because there's thought behind everything on the part of the adjudicator.

This game is about fun. That’s the most important thing. Are you having fun?

I agree, Khur. While I appreciate and understand Sean, Monte and Ryan's various points of view, they're game designers/business people who are interested in seeing a cohesive system for 3rd edition. As a player, I'm perfectly willing to take a system that works awesome 80% (or more) and work around the remaining 20%....as long as the game is entertaining, neither myself or my players have a problem with it. The others are approaching this from a more functional point of view.

 

[radferth]

I would agree the rules do break down a bit at high levels, but this is delayed much longer in 3rd ed than in earlier editions. I would offer the following 2 bits of advice:

I'm sure the 3rd ed xp system works as well or better than earlier systems, but I would agree with some earlier posters that a free form system is the best. I tried using the 2nd ed xp system for 2 sessions back in the late 80's, and then went freeform and never looked back. None of the players complained, and I had much less bookkeeping. I highly recomend this just for the decrease in paperwork, and you get more control of the exact rate of advancement to boot.

Having trouble with the PC fights with your boss baddies going to quick? Try out some underlings. Unless a creature is a melee combat machine, like a troll, it won't last long with all the party members wailing on it in melee unless it is way more powerful than them. If the androsphinx won't lost long against your group, give him some lion or gryphon servants (with fiated roar immunity) to keep the pcs off of him while he complets his special attacks.

 

[seankreynolds]

Maybe I misread Sean's article, but I didn't think he was complaining that the monster was too tough. I think he was complaining that it took away all the PC's cool abilities. Basically, that it wasn't a very fun monster to have in your game.

Yes, that is my point.

 

[Pielorinho]

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

 

[TiQuinn]

Sean -

I think this depends on how the creature is going to be used in an adventure. If I'm presenting this creature at the climax of an adventure, ya know what....I don't want the cleric to turn him. As for the rogues, their sneak attacks don't work on any undead. The magic resistance is tough...but I see this as just meaning the characters need to come up with an alternate method of defeating the monster. However, it does depend on how you use the creature. Having a module filled with monsters like this would be a problem...but as a one shot encounter I don't see it being that big an issue.

 

[Umbran]

Can you build a system that would do it better than the DMGs CRs? Possibly. Probably. That begs the question - Should you do so?

There's an old maxim in the writing biz - for every equation, you lose half your audience. While not strictly true, it is demonstrative - the more complicated the system, the less people will want to use it. For each user, you reach a point where the added accuracy isn't worth the trouble.

When you note that there seem to be a significant number of people who feel the current CR/XP system is already too complex, then this becomes even more of an issue. You don't gain anything by giving more accurare CRs if you lose the DMs who might use it.

Then, there's simple gaming philosophy to consider - should XP awards ever be more than a guideline? In a roll-playing game, then perhaps yes, it could be doen by formulae. If the only consideration is the tactics and mechanics of combat, then fully mechanized and accurate XP awards might make sense.

However, D&D is billed as a role-playing game. I'm not yet convinced that a system that forces the DM to think is at all inappropriate, given the number of subjective factors involved.

Imagine, for example, the effect of having a certain personality type in a party - a paladin who refuses to use stealth. How much harder does that make your encounter? Can you put a number on it?

We're talking, effectively, about measuring the relative power of a creature to the party. The science of measurement is pretty clear on one thing - there comes a point where increasing the precision of your ruler ceases to be helpful, as other sources of error prevent accurate use of said ruler.

 

[takyris]

Frankly, if you want your incredibly powerful people to be threatened by an army of straight-from-the-book kobolds, play GURPS. Past a certain point, 1000 kobolds in a featureless field are toast. No contest.

This isn't that big a deal for me as a player or as a DM. I can always roleplay it.

This is the tough part of high-level play. Convincing your players to be scared when faced with ten guardsmen with crossbows trained on them.

As for high-level stuff, my players have brought it up, too. Too many save or die things, too many powerful monsters dead in one round, after killing two people. It seems like less offense and more defense is the answer for monsters, but the only way to have defense is to take away what the players can do -- SR, DR, energy resistance, uncrittability.

Or can you think of other powers a creature could have that would make it stay standing longer, but that don't directly nerf player power? I mean, the basic idea of defense is nerfing offense. AC versus BAB, right there...

At work, can't type any longer, boss coming (sigh)...

-Tacky

 

[Plane Sailing]

Re: Ignore the Man Behind the Curtain

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."

I just wanted to bring this up again, in case anyone missed it in the middle of a large chunk of writing.

I think mearls makes an excellent point here. The Monster Manual would have been immeasurably enhanced by providing basic tactical information for each critter, and notes about its vulnerabilities and the impact of masking them.

In fact I think a supplement which gave this treatment to all the OGL monsters would probably make an excellent netbook (or even product). Any takers?

Cheers

 

[seankreynolds]

So.....the CR's correspond to these 4 characters, who do not multiclass. So we should compare our party makeup to these guys to see what sort of chance we have?

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.

 

[Monte At Home]

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.

So then, as long as all CRs are based on those same iconics, you'll get a consistent baseline. If your group has optimized characters with all the feats from the splatbooks, the CR to party level won't be 1 = 1, but it will be consistent. 1 = 1.5 or whatever. That's the whole point of the system.

Since the iconics stats are publicly available, there's no reason why every publisher can't adhere to this baseline if they want to (obviously, it's their choice).