SKR's problem with certain high level encounters

[evildmguy]

Not sure it is a baseline

Okay, I am in the group, with skr if I understand what he is saying, that says that CRs break down for high level groups. I agree with that.

Example:

I ran a one shot epic level group. I chose 37th level out of the blue as the level. The players wrote up their own characters.

Using 37th level as a baseline, I wrote up the encounters. I was surprised at what I found out.

1) Before I even got to running the adventure, I thought about using a Devistation Vermin. Question? How can a creature with a CR of 39 have a Fortitude save of 98? I have no idea how a 39th level group can have at least a +88 to have an *average* chance to succeed at this save. This might have been a typo, of course, of either CR or Save DC.

2) The "baseline" is VERY important. It is tough to ignore it. While I like RyanD's ideas, I don't know how he will do it. Case in point. All of my players took the cool special abilities of Epic weapons instead of having higher than a +5 enhancement bonus. An encounter with creatures that were rated as a CR of 25 with DR of 20/+6 nearly decimated the party! As I understand CR, anything that is 2 less should be a cakewalk for the group. This was 12 less and nearly destroyed the party! Again, this was from a play test session.

3) Even after all of this, combat still lasted LESS THAN 4 ROUNDS! Even against the most powerful creature with DR such that the PCs only did a little damage. It was through good uses of spells (attack and defensive) as well as tactics that they did this.

What I got out of the play test, and this thread, is that RyanD is probably on the right track. It might take more tough. For example, DR of 10/+1 might be +1 to CR but what about against the group that didn't have a magic weapon? What is it then?

In general, what I have gotten out of this is the following: DND is sometimes TOO specific. I have completely stopped an adventure because at some point the group had to go underwater, fly or travel to the planes and yet no one in the group was able to do it. I have always found that frustrating. Or worse, they can't breathe underwater so they have to stop what they are doing and either wait for a day to memorize different spells or go try and find potions or spells or whatever to let them do what they needed to do. There are work arounds but work arounds get old, imo. This is a limitation of the system, imo, because of how specific things are.

Just some thoughts and observations.

edg

 

[Zjelani]

Re: Not sure it is a baseline

What I got out of the play test, and this thread, is that RyanD is probably on the right track. It might take more tough. For example, DR of 10/+1 might be +1 to CR but what about against the group that didn't have a magic weapon? What is it then?

Well, I'm not sure of exact numbers, but I think this is exactly the point of the system Ryan is suggesting. The CR is broken out in to separate factors, one of which is the DR. If your party has a ton of magic weapons, then you remove the CR factor for that. If you only have a couple, then probably include it. If you have no magic weapons at all, then that CR factor is a big warning flag about whether you should use the encounter. It should make you think about whether or not the party has other means of taking it on.

I do this already, and I think many other DMs do as well, just by looking at the special abilities and qualities, as well as hit dice, AC, etc. However, having that translated into CR factors would save DMs a big step. At the very least a meta-game paragraph addressing the abilities and possible warning flags would be nice.

I'm now considering something like this for the Planescape products coming up (from the Official fan-site, Planewalker.com, plug plug). If Ryan shows his system before we start releasing stuff and it looks good, I'll probably try to use it there. If it isn't out yet, we might just cobble together some basics, or at least the meta-game paragraph.

 

[PeterDonis]

Ah, but that's a feature, not a bug.

You're not by any chance a software developer, are you?

The problem is less severe at low levels, because 1st level PCs have max hit points, and also because attack bonuses haven't outpaced AC. Typically an orc won't take down a 1st level fighter except on a successful crit (and then all bets are off).

Well, the standard MM orc does 1d12+3 normal damage with his greataxe, which gives a 50-50 chance of reducing a 1st-level fighter to 0 hp, taking him out of the combat. I agree that's not exactly the same as a finger of death, though.

At high levels, this is no longer the case. With multiple attacks, death spells, special attacks, etc combatants can often _reliably_ take down an enemy in one or two rounds.

But the enemy also has more defenses to raise against these attacks. For death spells, there's death ward; for multiple attacks, there's damage reduction; for special attacks, there's other stuff. I'm not arguing that combat doesn't get more complex or dangerous at high levels, just that it doesn't necessarily get shorter at high levels.

Peter Donis

 

[Ridley's Cohort]

But the enemy also has more defenses to raise against these attacks. For death spells, there's death ward; for multiple attacks, there's damage reduction; for special attacks, there's other stuff. I'm not arguing that combat doesn't get more complex or dangerous at high levels, just that it doesn't necessarily get shorter at high levels.

It seems that most people believe that combat does get shorter at higher levels. That's my experience, too. Anyone disagree?

Flip through the story hours. Look at Wicht's low level campaign, frex. A lot of those combats are lasting 4 or 5 or 6 rounds because people keep missing. Look at PirateCat's high level campaign. The life expectancy of a big monster is less than 1 1/2 rounds.

We do have to be a little careful in making these comparisons. With Haste, Mass Haste, Quickened spells, weird feats and abilities, a combat that last fewer rounds arguably has a similar amount of action to a more leisurely low level combat. OTOH, that may mean the guy who rolled a '1' on his initiative may be dead or be on the winning side while still flatfooted.

 

[LostSoul]

Probably because the designers wanted to keep the feature of previous editions that most damage doesn't change your ability to do things.

Which is why hit points exist. Yet, some creatures and effects do ability point damage. Why the inconsistancy?

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

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

Originally posted by njorgard
However, such a system would have to be changed every time a new ability, spell, or rule bending mechanic is introduced, therefore limiting the flexibility and expandability of the game. This is why the CR system abstraction is good enough for me.

As I understand it, the "Challenge Rating Factors" that Ryan Dancey is proposing could be abstracted as well; but the abstraction would be much more precise level than the current baseline Challenge Ratings, in addition to accounting for party abilities versus opponent abilities (which this system would also track).

Once a list of Challenge Rating modifiers is created for all the generic special abilities, spell power levels, and extraordinary items, creating a value for any *new* abilities, powers, or items that are introduced into the game would be relatively easy to approximate (basing them on the values created by the aforementioned list).

Originally posted by njorgard
As a party becomes more powerful and challenges progress in difficulty new factors such as special abilities, powerful spells, and magic items come into play. As the number of factors increases the formula to calculate the outcome of such encounters becomes more complex - exponentially.

Okay, let's not exaggerate for effect. Exponentially is overstating the matter. Challenge Rating Factors represent a new idea, so we have to wrap our minds around it, much like we did when 3rd edition first came out. So rather than reexamining this system on a conceptual level (something I'm exceedingly guilty of doing) let's look at a practical example.

As I see it (feel free to interject anytime Ryan) every monster would have a "base" Challenge Rating. Let's say that challenge rating is calculated as being ½ their Hit Dice or Level. A creature with 4 Hit Dice would therefore have a base Challenge Rating of 2 (for instance). Straightforward enough.

Now for every special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary item that a monster benefits from, their Challenge Rating would be adjusted upwards accordingly. To use Ryan's example, let's say we're dealing with "undead", or more specifically, a large skeleton.

A large skeleton, with 2 Hit Dice, would therefore have a base Challenge Rating of 1. Moreover, as I already stated, a large skeleton is obviously undead. As per Ryan's earlier supposition, let's say that equals a +2 Challenge Rating modifier. Skeletons also have an immunity package, making them invulnerable to cold attacks and resilient to piecing and slashing weapons. Fine... for the sake of argument let's say that adds another +1 to the final Challenge Rating of a large skeleton.

So what we have is an undead creature with a modified Challenge Rating of 4. I'm sure this seems kind of high at first, but let's see how the skeleton rates in a few moments.

Along comes a group of adventures. Lo and behold it turns out there's a cleric in the party! Right away the threat of undead has been diminished significantly with the presence of at least one character who can turn/destroy undead. This effectively nullifies the +2 Challenge rating modifier given to the skeleton for being undead. Secondly, it turns out that at least one-half the party carries a spare bludgeoning weapon with them, canceling out the skeleton immunity package.

Suddenly our scary Challenge Rating 4 large skeleton has been reduced to a Challenge Rating 1 annoyance. Simple.

I've taken a few paragraphs to explain myself, but only for the purpose of edification. Such a mental calculation could be resolved instantly. Basically, for almost every generic special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary item, there would be a counter-acting force that *cancels out* their Challenge Rating Factors (all dependant on whichever abilities and items the party currently possesses).

So here come the next big question...

Is a detailed system of Challenge Rating Factors better than making a good ole fashioned judgment call (modifying baseline Challenge Ratings on the fly)?

Well, assuming that a dungeon master is interested in being conscientious and "fair", then I believe that any system which helps them to achieve that goal is a good one. Moreover, once a system of Challenge Rating Factors is in place there are still plenty of judgment calls left for the dungeon master to make (believe you me). I would think that any system which alleviates some of the needless "end-of-game" calculations would be a welcome one.

 

[Victim]

That doesn't work so well.

Why doesn't having a cleric around take away any additional undead related difficulty? What if the cleric has a low CHA and doesn't turn well? What if, like the Effigy that started this thread, the undead has too many HD to turn? What if there's a rogue in the party - all of a sudden his combat ability drops dramtically. For example, in the high level game that I ran, both the rogue and ranger relied heavily on critical hits to do damage, and the fighter spellsword also had some crit effects too. Does having a cleric that can maybe turn the creature mean that the party is at an advantage, even though it's main damage dealing methods no longer work? I don't think so.

Also, so what if the party carries maces? People might have maces, but prefer not to use them. Maybe they have a different magic weapon or are focused in a sword. Just because they have maces doesn't mean that the skeleton's resistance to other weapons means nothing.

 

[PeterDonis]

It seems that most people believe that combat does get shorter at higher levels. That's my experience, too. Anyone disagree?

Besides me, I take it. Actually, it's not that I disagree, exactly, it's that it hasn't been my experience. I'll have to check out the story threads in question--what I'm wondering is if those who are getting killed off more quickly (whether characters or monsters) are really using all the defensive options available to them to prevent that.

Ultimately I think this is a campaign-specific issue. If you don't like the kind of combat tactics that come into play at high levels under the rules as written (e.g., having to remember to defend against death effects in *every* combat), then of course it's perfectly OK to modify the rules to make them more suitable. IMC we haven't seen the need to do that.

Peter Donis

 

[PeterDonis]

Which is why hit points exist. Yet, some creatures and effects do ability point damage. Why the inconsistancy?

As hong said recently, that's not a bug, it's a feature. Some kinds of damage impair your ability to fight back, and some don't.

Peter Donis

 

[Sonofapreacherman]

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

Why doesn't having a cleric around take away any additional undead related difficulty? What if the cleric has a low CHA and doesn't turn well?

That's irrelevant. The "potential" to counter-act a special ability, spell power level, or extraordinary ability is all that matters. Whether a character successfully counter-acts the ability in question is neither here nor there. If the opportunity to cancel out a certain ability simply *exists*, then any appropriate Challenge Rating Factor would be nullified. The rest is up to the individual character.

It's no different for monsters. For instance, a monster can be dispatched in 1 round of combat and never use anything close to their arsenal of special abilities. The fact that they didn't get a chance to stretch those additional muscles doesn't change their final Challenge Rating though. The potential "threat" of those myriad abilities is what made them dangerous in the first place.

Essentially what I am saying is that how-effectively-characters-use-their-abilities *does not* affect the interaction of counter-acting Challenge Rating Factors.