Post/Author/DateTime	Post
priest of blipdoolpoolp 08-01-04, 02:35 PM	Anyone feel the same, and if so, what steps do you take to remedy it. I seem to recall my first and second edition campaigns taking at least two or three games for a character to level up- now it seems they often average a level a game. Great for players, but this usually means I can't buy adventures before hand, ie. a 1-3 level adventure, followed by a 4-6, because they level up faster than the modules' challenges can keep up.
Centerpoint 08-01-04, 02:47 PM	It seems to be easier for characters to get out of control in 3ed. Why don't you try less treasure or only using core classes/races as PCs. What stat generation methods do you currently use?
MetalGemini 08-01-04, 02:56 PM	Don't take this the wrong way, but maybe you're just making it too overpowered. I've been DMing for about a year now in 3e and 3.5, but never had my party gain enough experience to gain a level in one session. Are you running really long sessions? Are you giving too much xp? too many magic items? What level are you playing at? Its easy to get from level 1 to 2 but should take considerably long to get from 13 to 14. I think the game itself has increased in power overall. The characters are bigger, but so are a lot of the monsters.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-01-04, 03:38 PM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp Anyone feel the same, and if so, what steps do you take to remedy it. Yes. I don't use any book published for D&D post 1983.
Edymnion 08-01-04, 04:15 PM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp Anyone feel the same, and if so, what steps do you take to remedy it. I seem to recall my first and second edition campaigns taking at least two or three games for a character to level up- now it seems they often average a level a game. Great for players, but this usually means I can't buy adventures before hand, ie. a 1-3 level adventure, followed by a 4-6, because they level up faster than the modules' challenges can keep up. Well, you see, to be blunt, this isn't the fault of 3e, its yours. If you were using the CR system correctly, it should take ~13 encounters to gain a level, regardless of what level that is. If your groups are gaining a level a session, then you are either throwing WAY too many encounters at them per session, or you are throwing things that are way too powerful at them and then dumbing the opponents down to make sure they survive. Does 3e make the characters more powerful than they were in 2e? Yes, but it also makes all of the monsters more powerful as well. Anything the players can do, so can the monsters, and that includes taking classes and PrC, feats, etc. But no, I find that they level at an appropriate rate, instead of the "gain a level every couple months" that 2e turned into at higher levels.
Seeker95 08-01-04, 06:09 PM	3e is not too powerful. You need a license to hunt, fish, drive a car and get married. But they let anybody with a DMG be a DM these days.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-01-04, 06:15 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion Well, you see, to be blunt, this isn't the fault of 3e, its yours. If you were using the CR system correctly, it should take ~13 encounters to gain a level, regardless of what level that is. If your groups are gaining a level a session, then you are either throwing WAY too many encounters at them per session, or you are throwing things that are way too powerful at them and then dumbing the opponents down to make sure they survive. To put it bluntly...hogwash. The CR system isn't perfect and the ~13 encounters to level guideline only applies to a very specific set of group and style parameters. Good players with good tactics can easily take on a handful creatures of CR equivalent to their level or a few creatures of up to two CR above their level (depending on the creatures and the party's ability to handle them) as a single encounter. To run a challenging game the DM for such a group ends up throwing encounters at them that result in significant XP gains for single encounters. Groups like this level FAST in 3e using the standard XP rules; IME every two to three sessions (no matter what level they are). The CR system works OK for average players who have created average characters vs. monsters run by an average DM. I'm sure it works for the majority of people who play the game. But telling someone that, because they fall outside the norm, they aren't using the game correctly is equivalent to telling someone whose shoes don't fit to grow their feet differently. The game is not perfect. The rules are not sacrosanct. The designers who wrote them are not infallible. If you need to modify the CR system, experience system or power-level of the game to get the type of advancement you want, go for it; and don't listen to the ruleslawyers or fanboys who tell you you're doing it wrong or breaking the game. The only thing that matters is creating a game that's fun for your group.
slwoyach 08-01-04, 06:22 PM	no group ive ever been in has needed 13 encounters to level. If it did i would love it. it usually seems to take about 4 or 5, and yes we are using the CR tables. we do give bonus experience, but that usually comes out to about 1/4 of what we get in combat.
Edymnion 08-01-04, 06:52 PM	If you are not putting them up against things above their CR, and you aren't giving out lots of extra xp on the side, it will take at least 13 encounters to level up. The way the CR vs Party Level table is set up, and how much xp it takes to gain a level for anyone in the party, this is a fact. You cannot give out only proper xp from proper encounters and get a level up in only 4-5 fights, it don't happen. I'm sorry, but I've been playing 3e since the day it came out (literally, the day the 3.0 PHB came out, I bought it, and we were trying it out that very night. No DMG or MM, just the PHB). And I have yet to see the 13 encounter senario fail unless the DM simply does not know how to give out xp, or is constantly throwing high CR monsters at the party, then pulling punches to make sure they don't die. Actually, one thing that you might be doing, which could screw up your lvling rate though. Remember, the xp listed on the table is for the PARTY. NOT the individual PCs. You divide the amount of xp on that table by the number of PCs in the encounter. If the list says the party gets 400 xp for an encounter, and there are 4 PCs, then they each get 100 xp, not the full 400.
Monteblanco 08-01-04, 09:20 PM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp Anyone feel the same, and if so, what steps do you take to remedy it. I seem to recall my first and second edition campaigns taking at least two or three games for a character to level up- now it seems they often average a level a game. Great for players, but this usually means I can't buy adventures before hand, ie. a 1-3 level adventure, followed by a 4-6, because they level up faster than the modules' challenges can keep up. So, your problem is not that the characters are too powerful but rather that they are leveling too fast. Well, I would suggest you to trash the experience system and try something else. Personally, I am not a fan of the official experience system, as it emphasise combat in detriment to roleplaying. A system I used more than once and worked well is to assign a interval of 10 points to change levels. Points were assigned at the end of each session as follows: 1 point for attendance (good in groups where players miss the game too often), 1-2 points for good tactical work in combat, and 1-3 points for good to exceptional roleplaying. Those are the kind of things I valorise in a game, a different DM may have different priorities. Another system would be to assign special tasks in the adventure which would trigger the leveling. You could say that defeating an adversary or at least spoiling his plans would be sufficient to gain a level and so on.
Seeker95 08-01-04, 11:24 PM	As an aside... I don't use experience points at all. When I am ready for the party to level up, I level them up. Sometimes I have two or three adventures prepared for a certain level, and sometimes only one.
priest of blipdoolpoolp 08-02-04, 01:56 AM	hhm... Thanx for the replies. I've been dming since 81', and players over the years have often said that they find me to be a balanced, objective dm, who doesn't pull punches, but allows characters an even field. The difficulty I get is when I dm bought modules, and do not change/add/modify them. I truly do believe that the level advancement in 3rd (and now 3.5) is a little fast (perhaps older players may feel the same- it being a comparison thing possibly)... So that being sayed, has anyone found the same, and how have you tweeked the whole CR experience system.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-02-04, 02:06 AM	Originally posted by Edymnion If you are not putting them up against things above their CR, and you aren't giving out lots of extra xp on the side, it will take at least 13 encounters to level up. The way the CR vs Party Level table is set up, and how much xp it takes to gain a level for anyone in the party, this is a fact. You cannot give out only proper xp from proper encounters and get a level up in only 4-5 fights, it don't happen. Example....A group of experienced players who create a good mix of combat oriented 1st level characters can easily take on and defeat 10 orcs if their tactics are sound. That's 10 CR1 "encounters" worth of experience right there in a single encounter. One more fight of even half that difficulty = 2nd level. A good DM can make the fight tough, a good DM can make the fight tough. A good DM running orcs who don't get surprised and get a little lucky can probably even win the fight (i.e. make the PCs run away). However, IME good players can regularly face odds like this and prevail, which means they level PDQ. It's both close-minded and rude to simply dismiss that as "pulling punches". I never pulled punches when I ran and poor players or players who didn't plan ahead often had a hard time. Good players OTOH had challenging fights, but usually prevailed. The by-the-book XP system rewarded them with extremely fast leveling. I'm sorry, but I've been playing 3e since the day it came out (literally, the day the 3.0 PHB came out, I bought it, and we were trying it out that very night. No DMG or MM, just the PHB). And I have yet to see the 13 encounter senario fail unless the DM simply does not know how to give out xp, or is constantly throwing high CR monsters at the party, then pulling punches to make sure they don't die. OK, you've got a 12 day head start on me 3e-wise. I don't think that makes my experiences (which completely disagree with yours) invalid. Actually, one thing that you might be doing, which could screw up your lvling rate though. Remember, the xp listed on the table is for the PARTY. NOT the individual PCs. You divide the amount of xp on that table by the number of PCs in the encounter. If the list says the party gets 400 xp for an encounter, and there are 4 PCs, then they each get 100 xp, not the full 400. I, at least, haven't made that mistake. That's not the source of fast leveling IME.
ssvegeta555 08-02-04, 02:36 AM	The 13 ecounters to level up rules, is pretty much a guideline IMO. Just like exp, you know ad hoc the stuff to suit how the encounter went.
Geethree 08-02-04, 03:16 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 As an aside... I don't use experience points at all. When I am ready for the party to level up, I level them up. Sometimes I have two or three adventures prepared for a certain level, and sometimes only one. That's what I used to do as well, but right now I've switched to giving them a kind of abstract XP. I don't keep track of individual encounters, I just give them what I feel they deserve at the end of each session. I'll probably go back to the "level 'em up when I feel like it" system after this game. Keeping track of XP is cumbersome and unless I'm going by some established system (which I'm really not), I might as well just ignore it altogether.
Mister Mayhem 08-02-04, 03:19 AM	If the power balance within the party is OK, there is no such thing as character that is too powerful. Just means you are using monsters that are too weak. *** If your PCs are levelling up too quickly, give them less experience. This is not rocket science.
priest of blipdoolpoolp 08-02-04, 03:30 AM	Agreed, not rocket science... Nevertheless, oft tymes, dms (not all) may want to have a system which doesn't seem arbitrary, in which players can figure out the exps awarded them, when strictly going by the dm's guide. For fun... So, once again, if the dm's screen were shorter, so that players could see all rolls, and if we went strictly by the books- ie. no ad hoc exps, rather, strictly based upon those CR ratings, etc, what would you do to fix the fast level up problem. Mayhap tis a dm style question. For I never change a die roll, (no matter the campaign), and prefer (due to a hectic work schedule) to dm many bought adventures strung together to make a campaign.
Mindshred 08-02-04, 03:31 AM	Originally posted by Geethree I'll probably go back to the "level 'em up when I feel like it" system after this game. Keeping track of XP is cumbersome and unless I'm going by some established system (which I'm really not), I might as well just ignore it altogether. How is keeping track of xp cumbersome? The PC's just erase a number at the end of the night and add another...? Or are you keeping track of the PC's xp yourself? And also, how do those of you not using xp handle magical item creation?
GreyLord 08-02-04, 03:40 AM	I have similar problems, and much of those opposed to you are all full of it. When running the EXACT same campaigns with the EXACT same amount of monsters... In 3e, the PC's will go up quicker in level, and be able to finish off the monsters quicker and more easily. The power levels in relation to the monsters is more unequal in 3e, and the amount of experience (300 XP for 2 Orcs, or 150 XP per orc vs. ~15/orc XP in 1e, plus the 1000 to level in 3e vs. the ~2000 to level in 1e means that if they fight Orcs, the 3e party of 4 will go up in approximately 16 encounters, but the 1e party will need ~320 encounters...it's not hard to figure out where there might be problems). Those saying it's your problem are telling you to change the way you have done campaigns for ages. There are different ways to go about this however. As already suggested, you can change how experience is handed out. Unearthed Arcana has an XP system, whilst not perfect, and you will find the characters go up quickly at lower levels, that they slow down CONSIDERABLY at higher levels, which you might want to take a look at. Or you could adjust the 3e campaign as you desire in house rules. Finally, you should know 3e is a different set of rules, it is not the D&D of the past, in fact Rifts is closer to those rules than the current version of D&D. Hence you might want to toss out how you play D&D and play this new edition in a different manner. One way to do that is utilize the monster abilities much as you do characters. At 4th level if you want them to face a Minotaur for example, have the Minotaur have a few levels of fighter, or give the Minotaur some magic items that they use with expertise, change the Minotaur from the standard Minotaur to have some feats that equal out to the Characters. Good Luck, I can understand where you are coming from. Just remember rule 0 and you should be able to adjust to it.
Geethree 08-02-04, 04:43 AM	Originally posted by Mindshred How is keeping track of xp cumbersome? It's cumbersome if I try to award XP according to a system (like the normal one). Then I have to take CRs into account, number of players, etc. etc. It's not necessarily hard (and it isn't), but it's not something I feel I need to do. And it's not that cumbersome, it's just more cumbersome to do it than to not.
q'afuu 08-02-04, 05:23 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Example....A group of experienced players who create a good mix of combat oriented 1st level characters can easily take on and defeat 10 orcs if their tactics are sound. Forget it. Not without hideous discrepancies in stats, and then some. How good are the tactics you have at your disposal at first level anyway? And which ones aren't available to those orcs as well? At first level, most if not all PCs will drop to negative HP from a single crit from an Orc - those Orcs crit 15% of the time, so as soon as they're all in melee you'll see a crit per round on average against the PCs. Elementary D&D tactics 101: go for the spellcasters first, so as soon as the orcs see someone use healing they should go after that character. Even if you've dropped half of them by then, there's still too many left to block for the non-healing melee PCs. One round of flanking and the healer dies too, unless he's extremely lucky. A good party has a decent chance of not being TPKed by such an encounter, but logically at least one PC will die, probably more, let alone that the orcs could be defeated 'easily'.
MrkGrismer 08-02-04, 09:31 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Example....A group of experienced players who create a good mix of combat oriented 1st level characters can easily take on and defeat 10 orcs if their tactics are sound. That's 10 CR1 "encounters" worth of experience right there in a single encounter. Is it different in 3.0 edition? Because 3.5 they are CR 1/2: SRD Challenge Rating: 1/2 Which makes the entire encounter something like CR 3 or so (I believe, math fuzzy this morning).
q'afuu 08-02-04, 10:11 AM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer Which makes the entire encounter something like CR 3 or so (I believe, math fuzzy this morning). According to table 3-1 in the DMG, 10 standard orcs of CR 1/2 each represent an encounter level of 5 to 7. Edit: that has nothing to do with XP, btw - that's determined solely by the individual monsters' CR, except in special cases as explained in the DMG. And Orcs are CR 1/2 in 3.0 as well as 3.5, and in both cases that's worth half the XP of a CR 1 monster.
Seeker95 08-02-04, 10:12 AM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp I truly do believe that the level advancement in 3rd (and now 3.5) is a little fast (perhaps older players may feel the same- it being a comparison thing possibly)... Only kinda sorta. It may seem fast in that you move from level to level in less time. But 3rd edition has level progression all the way to 20th level (and beyond). In pre-3e, you topped out before that, with levels meaning practically nothing after 9th.
GreyLord 08-02-04, 11:11 AM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer Is it different in 3.0 edition? Because 3.5 they are CR 1/2: Which makes the entire encounter something like CR 3 or so (I believe, math fuzzy this morning). In 3.0 edition, if I recall correctly, if the amount was doubled, the CR went up by 1. So an encounter with 4 Orcs would be CR 2, and then 8 Orcs would be CR 3. 16 Orcs would make a CR 4 encounter...so in that light, it would probably be more towards the CR 3 encounter.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-02-04, 01:25 PM	Originally posted by MrkGrismer Is it different in 3.0 edition? Because 3.5 they are CR 1/2: No it's not different. They are CR1/2, my bad. Still, it's only going to take ~3 encounters like that to level up a standard party.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-02-04, 01:55 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Forget it. Not without hideous discrepancies in stats, and then some. How good are the tactics you have at your disposal at first level anyway? And which ones aren't available to those orcs as well? At first level, most if not all PCs will drop to negative HP from a single crit from an Orc - those Orcs crit 15% of the time, so as soon as they're all in melee you'll see a crit per round on average against the PCs. Elementary D&D tactics 101: go for the spellcasters first, so as soon as the orcs see someone use healing they should go after that character. Even if you've dropped half of them by then, there's still too many left to block for the non-healing melee PCs. One round of flanking and the healer dies too, unless he's extremely lucky. A good party has a decent chance of not being TPKed by such an encounter, but logically at least one PC will die, probably more, let alone that the orcs could be defeated 'easily'. Apparently the term "good tactics" escaped your notice. Good tactics include positioning the party so that terrain helps the melee types protect the casters. Good tactics include taking your opponents by surprise. Good tactics include intelligent use of spells and other resources. Good tactics include peppering the orcs with missile fire before they get a chance to close. Good tactics include giving some of your starting cash to the cleric so he can buy the best armor and a good shield. It's easy to be an armchair DM and throw out a scenario like the one you've described above, but the fact is you've not actually played that encounter multiple times with a few of the groups I ran for. I have. My actual experience and your speculations disagree completely. Also, please note that I never said the orcs could be defeated "easily". The fight would be tough, usually requiring the PCs to expend at least 50-75% of their resources, but it's a consistently winnable fight for players who prepare intelligently and maintain their plan once they begin the battle. Of course, I've seen disorganized parties get TPK'ed by a pair of orcs at 1st level as well. It all depends on player skill (and occasionally luck). BTW - How are you getting that each of the individual orcs crit 15% of the time? 3.0 standard orcs use greataxes which have a 5% chance of a threat. Against PCs with a decent AC (let's say 16) the chance of an actual crit is 2%. With all 10 orcs in combat, the likelihood of an actual crit each round is only 20%. In my campaigns, orcs tend to go for single-handed weapons and use shields, so even if they're using a longsword (for example) the chances of a crit each round only increase to 40%. That's definitely NOT a crit each round. Bump up the AC a bit due to good armor or intelligent use of spells (shield of faith is a great low level buff spell for melee types) and the chances go WAY down. IME, crits are rare enough that monsters cannot depend on them to even the odds.
Tehril 08-02-04, 02:14 PM	Actually, I find 3.0 more lethal to characters than ever. If you don't simple give them more treasure than is listed...and if you play their foes intelligently, then things seem balanced.
Seeker95 08-02-04, 03:04 PM	Tehril, you just gave the two biggest if's ever! I don't know a lot of DMs that don't give out "too much" treasure (except me and mine) and playing foes intelligentlyu has *always* been a DM weak point. If PCs are invading a creature's home turf, it should have plans for victory or escape. How often do you see DMs working with either?
q'afuu 08-02-04, 03:10 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Apparently the term "good tactics" escaped your notice. Good tactics include positioning the party so that terrain helps the melee types protect the casters. Good tactics include taking your opponents by surprise. Good tactics include intelligent use of spells and other resources. Good tactics include peppering the orcs with missile fire before they get a chance to close. Good tactics include giving some of your starting cash to the cleric so he can buy the best armor and a good shield. Apparently good tactics include always having the opportunity to use them, while the opposition doesn't. ;) You don't get to decide you'll be taking opponents by surprise, you hope your spot checks will succeed and theirs won't - at first level, those will be too closely tied to be guaranteed that. You don't choose the terrain either - you go where you need to go, especially at first level where you don't have spells for flight, let alone teleportation, and mounts are too expensive. You don't choose to notice the enemy at long distance, you hope you don't get ambushed. Arrow peppering works, but a rounded party of 4 PCs probably only has 2 decent archers, which can only fire 2 arrows at best at first level (and that requires two feats, so most probably it'll be one arrow a round) - against 10 orcs that can do 120 ft. in a round that's not all that much. And so on. If all the circumstances favour the party, sure it's easy. Problem is, they often don't. Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Also, please note that I never said the orcs could be defeated "easily". Yes, you did:Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie A group of experienced players who create a good mix of combat oriented 1st level characters can easily take on and defeat 10 orcs if their tactics are sound. Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie BTW - How are you getting that each of the individual orcs crit 15% of the time? 3.0 standard orcs use greataxes which have a 5% chance of a threat. Against PCs with a decent AC (let's say 16) the chance of an actual crit is 2%. With all 10 orcs in combat, the likelihood of an actual crit each round is only 20%. Standard 3.5 orcs, straight out of the MM, use javelins at range and falchions in melee. That's an 18-20 crit range for 2d4+4 damage, doubled on a crit. I should have said threaten 15% of the time, but with potentially 10 of them swinging their weapons once per round, that'll be close enough to a a crit per round on average. And with that damage, that's a near-guaranteed downed PC.
Tehril 08-02-04, 03:18 PM	Seeker: Well... my DM does it. My character is quite a bit under his suggested wealth rating, but the rest of the characters are pretty well where they are supposed to be. Well...the new guy traded all of his wealth for an extra level...we discovered him as a prisoner. :| 1 naked PC later, we take on an evil temple. Good times. Our DM tends to play with good tactics when the intelligence of the creatures calls for it... when the creature is stupid or arrogant, it acts as such. We deal with counterspelling (invisible spell casters counterspelling and summoning), we deal with summoned monsters and enemies protecting themselves effectively. We deal with flanking, suprise and some very nasty tactics which would take to long to relate. Sometimes we screw up and pay the price...typically one or more PC's die. When we play smart, we live. Sometimes we get lucky... What am I saying? You can't expect WOTC to nerf the character classes, the wealth or experience progression because your DM is inept with tactics and doesn't stick to the wealth suggestions. Give less wealth...be prepared for more character death. Have opponents act like they should (smart, dumb... according to their organisation and intelligence) and your players will have a variety of challenges. Change up the terrain so that they have to fight in different circumstances... adapt or die. Those "ifs" are the onus of the DM... not the company that produces the product.
Edymnion 08-02-04, 03:52 PM	Another point is that if the players are using "good tactics", aka using terrain to their advantage and setting up an ambush, then the encounter was not as challenging as if they had gone at it face to face. Lower the CR of the encounter. Break all four legs and both wings on a Dragon, and tie it's mouth shut, its going to be easy pickings for a party to kill, doesn't mean they get full xp for it though. If the groups "good tactics" mean they are put in little or no risk of being injured themselves, then they shouldn't get full xp for it. Ye have to be able to adjust CR and xp rewards on the fly to account for things like this.
MrkGrismer 08-02-04, 03:58 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu According to table 3-1 in the DMG, 10 standard orcs of CR 1/2 each represent an encounter level of 5 to 7. Edit: that has nothing to do with XP, btw - that's determined solely by the individual monsters' CR, except in special cases as explained in the DMG. And Orcs are CR 1/2 in 3.0 as well as 3.5, and in both cases that's worth half the XP of a CR 1 monster. Yeah, not enough coffee...:whatsthis
Count Arioch the 28th 08-02-04, 05:55 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion Another point is that if the players are using "good tactics", aka using terrain to their advantage and setting up an ambush, then the encounter was not as challenging as if they had gone at it face to face. Lower the CR of the encounter. Actually, that's not accurate. If the terrain or whatever beorehand restricts the monster's abilities in some way, yes, lower the CR. If the PCs use the terrain that's there to their advantage, then the CR should not be lowered. Punishing the players for using tactics is never a good idea.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-02-04, 06:03 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Apparently good tactics include always having the opportunity to use them, while the opposition doesn't. ;) You don't get to decide you'll be taking opponents by surprise, you hope your spot checks will succeed and theirs won't - at first level, those will be too closely tied to be guaranteed that. You don't choose the terrain either - you go where you need to go, especially at first level where you don't have spells for flight, let alone teleportation, and mounts are too expensive. You don't choose to notice the enemy at long distance, you hope you don't get ambushed. Arrow peppering works, but a rounded party of 4 PCs probably only has 2 decent archers, which can only fire 2 arrows at best at first level (and that requires two feats, so most probably it'll be one arrow a round) - against 10 orcs that can do 120 ft. in a round that's not all that much. And so on. If all the circumstances favour the party, sure it's easy. Problem is, they often don't. A good party will exert every effort to make sure the circumstances DO favor them whenever possible. We're talking about quickness of leveling here. If a party plans ahead and makes sure 1 out of every 5 fights is heavily biased in their favor due to excellent planning and tactics, they can rack up a lot of XP very quickly. Not every fight will allow this, and not every fight will be on the PCs terms, but good players can do a lot of things to make sure that a few fights are on there terms, and in those situations can usually take on a much larger challenge than normally suggested by the CR system. Good groups who enter a very tough fight that isn't on their terms usually do the smart thing and run away. Yes, you did: Sorry, I mispoke. Should have said, consistently, not easily. The fight won't be easy, but good players shouldn't lose anyone. Standard 3.5 orcs, straight out of the MM, use javelins at range and falchions in melee. That's an 18-20 crit range for 2d4+4 damage, doubled on a crit. I should have said threaten 15% of the time, but with potentially 10 of them swinging their weapons once per round, that'll be close enough to a a crit per round on average. And with that damage, that's a near-guaranteed downed PC. Even using falchions, the chance of a crit is only 60% each round, which gives you an average of a crit every two rounds or so, assuming PCs with ACs around 16 (which is very conservative IMO). Average damage for such a crit is 9hp. For melee types, that's hurt at first level, but even a Fighter with no Con bonus isn't going down because of it. Not to mention that, if the PCs use good tactics, all of the orcs shouldn't be able to attack in melee at once anyway. Orcs suck with ranged attacks, so forcing the orcs into a one or two person front is an excellent way to improve your chances. IMC the monsters do exactly the same things when they get a chance, but I don't metagame my NPCs and monsters either. If the PCs come up with a good plan, I don't automatically have their opponents do exactly the right thing to counter it. That's not fair to the players or to the campaign (which eventually begins to lack verisimilitude under such draconian DM practices). It's always been my opinion that it's the DM's job to reward good play. That's not to say that the PCs should always be expected to win. Sometimes the monsters plans work really well, sometimes the PCs come out on top. As I said above, good players who encounter a situation where the monsters have them by the short ones usually do the smart thing and run away to fight again later.
q'afuu 08-02-04, 06:35 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Even using falchions, the chance of a crit is only 60% each round, which gives you an average of a crit every two rounds or so, assuming PCs with ACs around 16 (which is very conservative IMO). Average damage for such a crit is 9hp. For melee types, that's hurt at first level, but even a Fighter with no Con bonus isn't going down because of it. Orcs have +4 to hit. That means close to 70% chance of a crit every round to be precise, or almost 2 every 3 rounds. Average damage for a crit is (2d4+4)*2=18, not 9. 9 is the average damage on a normal hit. The expected average damage per round of a single orc, not using flanking (which a group of close to 10 will definitely do) against a 16 AC opponent is over 4.5 hp of damage, which means it'll take 2 rounds on average to kill 2 of the 4 PCs, 3 for the 3rd and maybe 4 for the 4th (assuming a caster, a rogue, a warrior type - probably a cleric with good Con - and a real tank). if they all had one Orc to deal with and obviously provided they didn't kill that Orc before it killed them. But since there's 2.5 Orcs for each of the PCs initially, it'll take a lot less than that. Logically, one or two of the PCs *will* go down (and consequently CdG'ed) unless they manage to stack a lot of things in their favour. Running away isn't always an option - not every PC is fast enough to do that. My dwarf players know all too well that you don't have to run faster than the pursuing dragon to escape, you just have to run faster than the tin can on stumpy legs. ;) Besides, I reiterate: we're talking 1st level here. Not that many great tactics are available to begin with, those that are are usually available to the orcs as well and you can plan all you like, you can't guarantee being able to give yourself an edge more than about 60% of the time at best. You mention forcing the orcs into a 1 or 2 person front. That means you assume that's possible, which means the terrain must lend itself to it and you must be in a favourable position to do so. It's equally likely (if not more so), that the terrain actually allows the Orcs to pin you down, or to have half the group launch a volley of javelins followed by a charge of the remaining 5. In such a scenario, you'll be lucky if half the party is still standing after the first round. Adventurers go out adventuring. At that level, they have no means whatsoever to find out many specifics of what dangers lie ahead to prepare for them, and since they go out adventuring they don't get to choose the terrain or to prepare it to their advantage. Most of the time it's actually the monsters they run into that know the terrain better and have spent time building a stronghold or lair or at least to find out what's where and how it can be used.
Edymnion 08-02-04, 07:00 PM	Originally posted by Count Arioch the 28th Punishing the players for using tactics is never a good idea. Two things to this: 1) Less of a reward is not a punishment. They are still being rewarded. It is not a punishment unless you take away xp they already have. 2) If they use tactics that make it so the opponent cannot harm them, then it isn't a full powered encounter. Pouring acid on orcs in a pen is not fighting the orcs. Pouring boiling oil down murder holes while repelling an orcish invasion is not going to get you xp for those individual orcs, because they posed no direct threat to you at that time. Good tactics should let the players reap the rewards normally. Overpowering tactics that don't give the opponent a fair chance at fighting back should not be rewarded as strongly. In my games, an encounter only gives full xp if the opposition has a fair chance of fighting back. Archers sitting on the top of cliffs and taking pot shots at the guys at the bottom that don't stand a chance of reaching them don't gain XP for it.
GreyLord 08-02-04, 07:00 PM	Now that this is turning into a tactical thread instead of the questions about powerlevel...here are some common tactics I've noticed. The First thing the party does when they spot a group of Orcs, if the party is fresh, and recently rested, is not to hide, or take an evasive action, but to cast sleep on the group of Orcs. The MU's do this whilst the Clerics cast bless or other such spells. Meanwhile the Bards sing, and the Fighters and anyone else left bring out their missile weapons. It seems a pretty common thing and takes out quite a few of the Orcs right off the bat. In fact, a group of two orcs is almost always done out by this... However, the group isn't always prepared for the OTHER group of Orcs that was waiting just for this specific situation. However I don't do that typically because my goal isn't to wipe out the party. :D Sleep or Color Spray seems to be the staples of the parties at lower levels when they take on most monsters. It's after they use these spells that things start to get interesting. Just some basic tactics that generally will level the playing field rather quickly in favor of the party. To tell the truth, people say that SpellCastors are weak at low levels...from my experience, in the hands of a good player, the opposite is true, at least at first.
q'afuu 08-02-04, 07:55 PM	Originally posted by GreyLord The First thing the party does when they spot a group of Orcs, if the party is fresh, and recently rested, is not to hide, or take an evasive action, but to cast sleep on the group of Orcs. Sleep affects creatures in a 10-ft radius burst. How often does that suffice to catch even half of a decent group? And when several monsters fall asleep, doesn't it occur to the others to wake them up? That only takes a standard action after all, and pretty much makes your spell a wasted effort. I'm not saying it can't be effective, but casting Sleep from a long distance (max range for the spell or close to it) is often useless if you can't guarantee dropping the whole opposing group in 2 rounds tops.
Lord Nat 08-02-04, 09:39 PM	Well the EXP chart is for the core settings only you know. Just make your own or copy one out of a video game (For EXP charts see http://www.rpgclassics.com/). But the thing about PCs being so powerful in 3e is that NPCs for the most part are weaker. I mean unless you give the PCs class levels (in the DMG I think it says that is a bad idea for anyone but big plot NPCs) they are like flys to the PCs! I mean look at the NPC classes. Back in the 2e days (At lest I think back then. I have only played Baldurs Gate 2) most the NPCs are in the same leage of the PCs. I mean like all the towns people are as powerful as a level one PC at LEST.
Edymnion 08-02-04, 10:08 PM	Actually, in 3e, it depends on the size of the city. In larger cities, its quite possible to find many NPCs with class levels that are above that of the PCs. Hit the Town Building section in the DMG, you'll find that even small towns typically have at least one third level NPC in them, and a half dozen lvl 1's or so.
Lord Nat 08-02-04, 10:17 PM	Originally posted by Edymnion Actually, in 3e, it depends on the size of the city. In larger cities, its quite possible to find many NPCs with class levels that are above that of the PCs. Hit the Town Building section in the DMG, you'll find that even small towns typically have at least one third level NPC in them, and a half dozen lvl 1's or so. Hmm. Now that I look you are right ^_^ I never have really looked around most the real DM stuff of the DMG <.< >.> But it does seem to me people use Monsters a little to much... I mean monsters are all fun and good but some times it is better to toss a group of NPCs into battle. But that just might be that most DMs are lasy anymore. I mean it does take a lot of work to make a number of good NPCs for your party to fight with... Maybe some one needs to make a site where they just have a huge database of NPCs. Maybe have it set out in setting and then with or with out char info (Like background and stuff).
aka Jimmy 08-02-04, 11:23 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie To put it bluntly...hogwash. The CR system isn't perfect and the ~13 encounters to level guideline only applies to a very specific set of group and style parameters. Good players with good tactics can easily take on a handful creatures of CR equivalent to their level or a few creatures of up to two CR above their level (depending on the creatures and the party's ability to handle them) as a single encounter. To run a challenging game the DM for such a group ends up throwing encounters at them that result in significant XP gains for single encounters. Groups like this level FAST in 3e using the standard XP rules; IME every two to three sessions (no matter what level they are). The CR system works OK for average players who have created average characters vs. monsters run by an average DM. I'm sure it works for the majority of people who play the game. But telling someone that, because they fall outside the norm, they aren't using the game correctly is equivalent to telling someone whose shoes don't fit to grow their feet differently. The game is not perfect. The rules are not sacrosanct. The designers who wrote them are not infallible. If you need to modify the CR system, experience system or power-level of the game to get the type of advancement you want, go for it; and don't listen to the ruleslawyers or fanboys who tell you you're doing it wrong or breaking the game. The only thing that matters is creating a game that's fun for your group. Sooo... you never use books published after 1983 but you are an expert of the more subtle points of the CR system?
GreyLord 08-03-04, 12:44 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu Sleep affects creatures in a 10-ft radius burst. How often does that suffice to catch even half of a decent group? And when several monsters fall asleep, doesn't it occur to the others to wake them up? That only takes a standard action after all, and pretty much makes your spell a wasted effort. I'm not saying it can't be effective, but casting Sleep from a long distance (max range for the spell or close to it) is often useless if you can't guarantee dropping the whole opposing group in 2 rounds tops. This is true, but considering that typically the goal is to only knock out 3 or 4 (unless you really DO want to try to go up against 10 Orcs at 1st level...remember they get +3 to attacks in melee) if possible per caster. A group of 8 is a CR of 3, so if one actually get's that lucky, then they will be in for a treat. A distance version of sleep is effective, as even two players shooting arrows probably will take down at least one Orc in the process. If the Orcs pause to wake up the others up, that's going to be at least one or two more Orcs. For the Orcs that are surviving at a long range, I'd have them try to engage in melee preferably, as they know they are good at it...and it's a heck of a lot better than letting yourself be picked off at range whilst you try to wake up your friends. At short range, it's a more viable option in some degrees if you can get the Orcs to have the entire party engage one of them (unlikely for the Orcs). Hence to be a party killer, the ideal method is to have a CR 1 or CR 2 encounter which would be more lethal for the party rather then a CR 3 group of Orcs that rush the party. Overall, a large group of Orcs like that will be taken down pretty handily... (10 foot radius actually can cover quite a bit, and color spray in some ways is even more effective). The thing is if there are 2 Orcs (remember CR1 for a level 1 party) the party might think to engage them in hand to hand, but except for the exceptional party, at first level the Orcs will handily beat the 1st level melee characters if all is equal, or at least take one out. It is much easier for a party to waste a color spray or sleep. However, that is only a diversionary tactic, as there are two others waiting for ambush. A dirty trick by far...very nasty...especially to a party of 4 or 5. They wait until the spellcaster starts his spell (hence they can easily identify who the spellcasters are, none of this the enemy is omniscient deals, I think that's dumb DM'ing where the DM just assumes the monsters know which players are what) and attack from the rear... But I'm not in the mood for killing parties, and so sleep, is perhaps one of the most powerful 1st level spells, and should take out most CR1 and CR2 threats (as which it is designed), and if REALLY lucky, might take out most of a CR threat if it is composed of lower HD monsters.
Centerpoint 08-03-04, 01:26 AM	Good Idea Lord Nat,:bow: I have dozens of sneaky (mostly deceased) villians and heroes that bit the dust I would love to let someone else have if they find creating NPCs to be too troubling. Is there a place on these message boards to post stuff like that? Or does someone really need to create a website before that can happen? Just an observation going back to the original concern, I have rarely had the problem of characters grossly outstripping the xp predicted in published adventures. Occasionally, when the PCs think of something particularly devious, they end up with slightly more xp then predicted. The only exception was an adventure I ran which, when I looked back and totalled up xp after the characters had finished, I realized the amount of xp the module claimed to give did not calculate the xp for evil characters who killed EVERYTHING. Are there any modules in particular that you find particularly bothersome?
Lord Nat 08-03-04, 02:11 AM	I'd help set up a site if some one has the web space. I'd buy some but I am poor (Main down side of moving out of my moms basement... Rent is my BBEG!!!) so if any one has some free I can find the NPCs and maybe code the database (But have NO idea how to make a code so people can add stuff in so if I do it there will have to be a e-mail and add system).
q'afuu 08-03-04, 04:19 AM	Originally posted by GreyLord This is true, but considering that typically the goal is to only knock out 3 or 4 (unless you really DO want to try to go up against 10 Orcs at 1st level...remember they get +3 to attacks in melee) if possible per caster. A group of 8 is a CR of 3, so if one actually get's that lucky, then they will be in for a treat. A distance version of sleep is effective, as even two players shooting arrows probably will take down at least one Orc in the process. If the Orcs pause to wake up the others up, that's going to be at least one or two more Orcs. Let's see. Minor nitpick first: Orcs have a +4 to hit in melee (17 Str for +3, 1 Warrior level for another +1). Then, the arrows: let's assume two characters with longbows and +4 to hit with them (that's actually pretty generous). Against an Orc's AC of 13, they'll have an expected average damage of not quite 3 hp per round if I'm not mistaken. That means that between the both of them, they can only expect to take out 1 5 hp Orc per round. Assume the wizard's Sleep spell has a save DC of 14, with the Orc's -2 to Will saves that means on average 1 will remain standing and three go down. That means that, without surprise but with initiative, you'll have 1 dead Orc, 3 sleeping ones and 4 standing. Since if you wake one it can use it's action to wake the others, that leaves 3 to counterattack. With a range of 110 ft. on your sleep spell, those'll be among you before your second round, with the remaining 3 one round behind. IOW, with initiative but not surprise going to you, you'll have whittled down 1 of the 8 Orcs, while 4 need to spend one round just closing and the 3 others remaining will need 2 rounds. Not too shabby, but now imagine the Orcs win initiative. :smirk: If you have surprise *and* win initiative, the whole thing is a cinch. If you're surprised *and* lose initiative, you'll be lucky if more than one PC at least gets to act once. That's the thing with these comparisons: all fine and dandy when things work out, major problems if they don't. And at 1st level, you can't expect them to work out more than 60-65% of the time. Yes, it's great to win lots of XP that way. It equally sucks to lose several characters or the whole party that way, and that's half as likely to happen too. Hence, I don't do this as DM. What's the point? I'm not going to rationalize one TPK every three campaign starts as a minor setback compared to the phat XP to be gained in the other two.
Sphyre 08-03-04, 06:17 AM	Originally posted by Seeker95 3e is not too powerful. You need a license to hunt, fish, drive a car and get married. But they let anybody with a DMG be a DM these days. LOL, siged - unless of course, you have any objections :P
Draco Argentum 08-03-04, 06:43 AM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp The difficulty I get is when I dm bought modules, and do not change/add/modify them. I assume WotC prints modules knowing how many levels the PCs will gain for completeing them. There fore if you run them with no changes the PCs should get enough xp to attain whatever level the module says. It should the fit nicely into the next module in the series. Can anyone who has actually run one confirm that?
DungeonMaster 08-03-04, 09:22 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Good players with good tactics can easily take on a handful creatures of CR equivalent to their level or a few creatures of up to two CR above their level (depending on the creatures and the party's ability to handle them) as a single encounter. No. Completely wrong. You cannot regularly take on say, a couple dire apes without the DM stacking the deck in your favor. Their attack bonus is +8 so the average AC they're going to hit is 18 and their rend ability does 2d6+12 or an average 19 damage. Even the most con heavy barbarian doesn't have the hit-points to take that kind of punishment. PCs can barely survive it at level 3. It doesn't matter what level you choose either. A 7th level party has little to no hope of defeating 2 CR 9 dragon turtles who will both breath for roughly 140 damage every 1d4 rounds. No amount of "good tactics" will save you. What you need to defeat such encounters with that level of resources is the DM handing you favorable conditions like foreknowledge and advantageous terrain or positioning. Those sorts of favorable odds reduce XP. The CR system works OK for average players who have created average characters vs. monsters run by an average DM. I'm sure it works for the majority of people who play the game. But telling someone that, because they fall outside the norm, they aren't using the game correctly is equivalent to telling someone whose shoes don't fit to grow their feet differently. So let me get this straight: you think exceptional players with a poor DM will level faster than poor players with good DM? What a discovery! Who could have dreamed that one up? The CR system is in fact very robust. Not perfect, nothing is, but it's very robust tried tested and true in 3rd edition. Read this and the follow up thread, it's not precisely what you're after but it's the best online proof I can provide that at the very least individual classes cannot take on commensurate challenges for a party: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=241060
GreyLord 08-03-04, 11:18 AM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster No. Completely wrong. You cannot regularly take on say, a couple dire apes without the DM stacking the deck in your favor. Their attack bonus is +8 so the average AC they're going to hit is 18 and their rend ability does 2d6+12 or an average 19 damage. Even the most con heavy barbarian doesn't have the hit-points to take that kind of punishment. PCs can barely survive it at level 3. It doesn't matter what level you choose either. A 7th level party has little to no hope of defeating 2 CR 9 dragon turtles who will both breath for roughly 140 damage every 1d4 rounds. No amount of "good tactics" will save you. What you need to defeat such encounters with that level of resources is the DM handing you favorable conditions like foreknowledge and advantageous terrain or positioning. Those sorts of favorable odds reduce XP. So let me get this straight: you think exceptional players with a poor DM will level faster than poor players with good DM? What a discovery! Who could have dreamed that one up? The CR system is in fact very robust. Not perfect, nothing is, but it's very robust tried tested and true in 3rd edition. Read this and the follow up thread, it's not precisely what you're after but it's the best online proof I can provide that at the very least individual classes cannot take on commensurate challenges for a party: http://boards1.wizards.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=241060 I think I'd disagree with you on the Dire Turtles as it isn't dependent completely on the DM, but also on the players. You obviously haven't played with some of the Munchkins I've dealt with... Of course you have to be willing to let them be Munchkin to a certain degree (give them treasure that they would want) or it becomes much more difficult for them.
q'afuu 08-03-04, 11:29 AM	Originally posted by GreyLord Of course you have to be willing to let them be Munchkin to a certain degree (give them treasure that they would want) or it becomes much more difficult for them. Treasure's not the most important part (although items that give immunity or resistance to a monster's main attack obviously make all the difference). The thing is that you can't guarantee that monsters won't at some point get a few advantages - it's impossible that the party won't ever be surprised and won't ever lose initiative, for instance. If both those occur in an encounter with an EL 4-5 points above the party's level, some or all characters *will* die, unless they get insanely lucky on their rolls.
Seeker95 08-03-04, 11:46 AM	I recently put monster CR to the test in a different manner. I had a friend of mine play the BBEG. He was given a map of the lair ahead of time. He did not know how many players / PCs were in the party, and he did not know the classes or levels of his opponents. He was a spellcaster lich of appropriate CR for the party. He had to choose his spells ahead of time. When the night of the adventure arrived, the party entered the lair. I informed my friend of what he knew only at the point that he knew it. The players thought my friend was just there to watch. When they encountered the lich in his lair, I turned the encounter over to my friend. He had two objectives. First, he wanted to survive. Second, he wanted to escape. He was trapped in his lair unless he liberated the party of the key that let them in. He had permission to kill the party. A long but very enjoyable battle ended with two-thirds of the party dead before the lich was destroyed. If DMs played the monsters with the survival instincts the players use, more PCs would die.
jasper 08-03-04, 01:53 PM	If DMs played the monsters with the survival instincts the players use, more PCs would die. AND this is how you get called a killer dm. come how many times have you dms out there just roll over the oppostion due to fact the players are the pcs. Think about your monsters. Are they Pack animal, college student, frat boy, crazy cafffiee coffee freak on withdraw, Joe the janitor getting on the bus the same time the pcs are, etc. This does not mean turning every Klarence Kobold in a mega munckin of death but to give them an even break. The pcs discover a minor flaw in Wild E Coyete super genisus plan and plan on exploiting because you forgot that a second level mage would normally take these precaution the Wild E remember it. But due put into effect before the party acts on the minor flaw. I kill pcs where I can but I don't go out of my way to do so. If Seeker wants his wizard to pop off a fireball because the Kings seneschal did not put him to the head of line, let him. Of course All the kings horses and all the kings men will make sure seeker's wizard is never put together again. It is not how powerful and quick advance is in third but how hard it is for old time dms to get use to rapid advancement. As others have said you can lower the xps given out per encounter, have null encounters etc.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 03:11 PM	Regarding the orcs: It would be a dicey fight, to be sure, but 4 1st level characters can handle 10 standard orcs. It's not that tough. These same orcs only have 5 hp and a fairly low AC. A fighjter with cleave and a great axe should be able to take out 2 per round. That's 4 dead in 2 rounds by himself. 2 sleeps will also help. The first done early to break up the charge so all ten don't attack at once. Average sleep takes out 4 (3 to sleep 1 to wake them). 6 more advance. Two ranged attacks should be able to take out one of the six. Leaves 5 to engage. This is the round the PCs have to survive. Assuming the fighter readied an action, he chops two to pieces.3 remain. Two attack the cleric and one the fighter. Cleric has heavy armour and shield of faith or Prot evil up for an AC of around 20. Pretty good chance of surviving that for 1 round. Next round. Fighter kills his and moves to flank one of the cleric's. Thief moves in and kills one with a sneak attack. Cleric misses his. 1 on cleric. Meanwhile, mage sleeps the back 3 and 1 goes to wake them up again. Dispatch the last orc and then deal with the final 3, the mage using Daze to nullify one of them. It's not an easy fight by any means, and bad rolls on the PC's part and good rolls on the Orc's part can cause it to founder, but really, assuming the PCs are scouting ahead and have good Spot and Listen rolls, they can easily handle 10 standard orcs if they can catch them at range. As far as XP, I divide all XP awards by 2. If you think PCs level too fast in 3.5, then do that. Devin
blackprinceofmuncie 08-03-04, 04:07 PM	Originally posted by aka Jimmy Sooo... you never use books published after 1983 but you are an expert of the more subtle points of the CR system? Yep...it took me a good three and a half years of running multiple 3e games every week to realize that the system just doesn't appeal to me. I ran for every type of group (powergamers, roleplayers, complete newbies) and just about every level (never ran an epic game). I invested at least $400 in books and modules during that time. One day it hit me that 90% of the stuff I bought never got used, I wasn't really enjoying running games for people anymore (something I used to really look forward to) and every session seemed to be less about adventure and more about a long string of rules discussions and comparisons of the various characters feat/skill/PrC combos. So I sold the lot on eBay and used the proceeds to re-invigorate my OOP D&D collection.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 04:10 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Yep...it took me a good three and a half years of running multiple 3e games every week to realize that the system just doesn't appeal to me. I ran for every type of group (powergamers, roleplayers, complete newbies) and just about every level (never ran an epic game). I invested at least $400 in books and modules during that time. One day it hit me that 90% of the stuff I bought never got used, I wasn't really enjoying running games for people anymore (something I used to really look forward to) and every session seemed to be less about adventure and more about a long string of rules discussions and comparisons of the various characters feat/skill/PrC combos. So I sold the lot on eBay and used the proceeds to re-invigorate my OOP D&D collection. As yes. You claim to have run for "roleplayers" and yet then admit that your sessions "seemed to be less about adventure and more about a long string of rules discussions and comparisons of the various characters feat/skill/PrC combos" You can't have it both ways here. If the latter is true, then you obviously DIDN'T have good roleplayers to run with. Your whole gripe sounds like a problem with not having the proper calibre of players. Devin
blackprinceofmuncie 08-03-04, 04:22 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster No amount of "good tactics" will save you. What you need to defeat such encounters with that level of resources is the DM handing you favorable conditions like foreknowledge and advantageous terrain or positioning. Who said anything about a DM handing out forknowledge or advantageous terrain. Getting forknowledge of the challenges ahead through intelligent play should be one of the player's main goals. Most of the good players I run for won't even consider going into an adventure without spending at least an entire game session getting as much knowledge as possible about the situation and challenges involved. Forknowledge is something the players earn and my table. Do they always get correct info? Do they always get the whole story? No! But putting in the legwork definitely has its rewards over time. Using available resources to prepare for challenges, pick advantageous spots for confrontations, lure your enemies into those spots and take them by surprise (if possible) is what good play is all about. Avoiding your adversaries attempts to do the same to you is also important. Good players think about these things and a good DM doesn't metagame his way around the players efforts or nerf rewards when the players play well just to maintain the efficacy of the CR/XP system. If factors beyond PC control make the fight easier, modifying the CR is appropriate. Modifying the CR of an encounter down because the fight was made easier through good player tactics and strategy is absolutely ridiculous.
q'afuu 08-03-04, 04:32 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Most of the good players I run for won't even consider going into an adventure without spending at least an entire game session getting as much knowledge as possible about the situation and challenges involved. How much is 'as much as possible' at first level anyway? First level characters will usually not make a lot of knowledge/bardic lore checks, neither will the low level NPCs they deal with. Monster knowledge at level 1 is sketchy at best and non-existant at worst, unless info is made available through some contrived and improbable way.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 04:40 PM	Foreknowledge is not just about knowledge checks! Sheesh! Foreknowledge is roleplaying. Talking to NPCs, etc. More than that, it's about having a good scout in the party with good Listen and Spot skills who can see the orcs before the orcs see the party. And, to the poster who claimed that if the DMs played encounters like the players, then they'd be accused of being killer DMs....any DM who does that SHOULD BE labelled a killer DM. Being a DM is not about defeating the PCs. It's about, in part, playing the monsters properly. An average orc has an Int of 8 and a Wis of 7. What's more, they are Chaotic Evil and have Cha of 7. This means: 1. They are stupid 2. They are foolish 3. They have trouble coordinating anything 4. They are not prone to relate well to each other or work well together or have one of their number really take charge A DM who runs 10 standard orcs like the PCs run their characters is CHEATING. Plain and simple. As a DM running standard orcs, you are supposed to play them with the stats they have...and that means aggressive, stupid, and uncoordinated. A smart party of 4 PCs who are not caught by surprise should be able to take out a DM playing 10 orcs as they are supposed to be played. Devin
blackprinceofmuncie 08-03-04, 04:41 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp As yes. You claim to have run for "roleplayers" and yet then admit that your sessions "seemed to be less about adventure and more about a long string of rules discussions and comparisons of the various characters feat/skill/PrC combos" You can't have it both ways here. If the latter is true, then you obviously DIDN'T have good roleplayers to run with. Your whole gripe sounds like a problem with not having the proper calibre of players. Devin Well, I didn't say I ran ONLY for roleplayers. Over those three and a half years, I probably ran for at least 10 different groups on a regular basis, with quite a few pick-up games or one-shots thrown into the mix. That's a total of around 45-50 different players over that time period. Some of those players were pretty low-calibre. Others were great, both in terms of playing ability and just as people in general. Many of them I still game with. My point was, I didn't run just one type of game, for one type of player. On the other hand, people who considered themselves roleplay oriented and seem to be good roleplayers when playing other games seemed to get more enmeshed in the rules/character advancement aspect of the game when playing 3e. This isn't to say that their roleplaying suffered when playing 3e, their IC stuff was still great, they developed interesting personalities/goals/quirks and played them well. It's just that even the people who were roleplay oriented seemed to have a lot more OOC rules discussions during the game than with other games (even other D20 games). I'm not interested in the "why", all I know is that it happens with "a", doesn't happen with "b", so I'm going with "b". YMMV.
q'afuu 08-03-04, 04:42 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp It would be a dicey fight, to be sure, but 4 1st level characters can handle 10 standard orcs. It's not that tough. Run the same encounter as you did before, but now give the orcs initiative instead of the players. Sleep becomes much harder to use, the fighter can't get his cleave attacks before being attacked, possibly several times, maybe even bringing him down before he can attack, archers have to contend with obvious anti-archer tactics before they can get a shot off, and so on. There's no way to make sure a 1st level party can *consistently* handle such an encounter without suffering casualties, aside from the DM fudging rolls and/or favouring the PCs.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 04:43 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu How much is 'as much as possible' at first level anyway? First level characters will usually not make a lot of knowledge/bardic lore checks, neither will the low level NPCs they deal with. Monster knowledge at level 1 is sketchy at best and non-existant at worst, unless info is made available through some contrived and improbable way. Sketchy about orcs? Orcs? In most world one of the most common enemies in existence? Orcs? What's there to know about them anyways. Brutish, stupid, and mean. That requires a Knowledge check? Devin
devinmdp 08-03-04, 04:45 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Run the same encounter as you did before, but now give the orcs initiative instead of the players. Sleep becomes much harder to use, the fighter can't get his cleave attacks before being attacked, possibly several times, maybe even bringing him down before he can attack, archers have to contend with obvious anti-archer tactics before they can get a shot off, and so on. There's no way to make sure a 1st level party can *consistently* handle such an encounter without suffering casualties, aside from the DM fudging rolls and/or favouring the PCs. So what? Unless the orcs start within charging range ( and if the PCs have scouted well they won't) then the orcs close some distance and wham. Same outcome. In addition, you will note my fighter READIED his attack....so he WILL get his cleave off just fine thank you. And most parties will indeed tend to have more PCs ahead of the orcs on initiative than behind, given the orc lack of initiative bonus. Devin
Seeker95 08-03-04, 04:48 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp A DM who runs 10 standard orcs like the PCs run their characters is CHEATING. Plain and simple. As a DM running standard orcs, you are supposed to play them with the stats they have...and that means aggressive, stupid, and uncoordinated. Playing the orcs like the PCs is cheating. Playing the orcs with the same survival instincts of the PCs is not. If overwhelmed orcs have a way to escape, they will. In their own home, they will know the shortest route to the exit. Too many DMs play the monsters as "fight to the death" in whatever room the encounter begins. With orcs, the flee instinct should be even greater! Forget about saving the women, children and peers. If the battle is going against an orc, that orc should flee. It's called survival. The dumbest of animals has it. The most common of DMs tend not to.
q'afuu 08-03-04, 04:52 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp 1) Foreknowledge is roleplaying. Talking to NPCs, etc. 2) More than that, it's about having a good scout in the party with good Listen and Spot skills who can see the orcs before the orcs see the party. 3) As a DM running standard orcs, you are supposed to play them with the stats they have...and that means aggressive, stupid, and uncoordinated. 4) A smart party of 4 PCs who are not caught by surprise should be able to take out a DM playing 10 orcs as they are supposed to be played. 1) Presupposing there are NPCs that actually know anything, and that they're willing to give you that info. Gather Info check anyone? 2) Orcs get a +1 to Spot and Listen, and there's 10 of them. How well do you like the odds of all of them failing those checks? 3) Read the Orc flavour text in th MM. They plan raids and favour ambushes. 4) At least you qualified that with a 'not caught by surprise' note. Now try to include 'not losing out on initiative' in there too, that's even more important and much harder to assure.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 04:59 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 Playing the orcs like the PCs is cheating. Playing the orcs with the same survival instincts of the PCs is not. If overwhelmed orcs have a way to escape, they will. In their own home, they will know the shortest route to the exit. Too many DMs play the monsters as "fight to the death" in whatever room the encounter begins. With orcs, the flee instinct should be even greater! Forget about saving the women, children and peers. If the battle is going against an orc, that orc should flee. It's called survival. The dumbest of animals has it. The most common of DMs tend not to. I agree completely. Which FURTHER lessens the potential lethality of the fight. Let's really take a look at this shall we: 10 orcs spot the party from 200 ft. They think 10 vs 4....we will win and charge, letting out a whoop. Party wizard casts sleep. 3 orcs go down. Two arrows lodge into another orc who falls to the ground bleeding to death. Orcs stop. Think "uh oh.....there's a wizard amongst them." Orcs have NO IDEA how powerful this wizard is. They certainly have heard tales of fireballs and other horrible magical spells. The orcs wake the 3 sleeping orcs up. Meanwhile, another goes down to arrows. The human fighter does not seem worried, and is standing out front weapon held ready and in gleaming metal armour. Uh oh. Meanwhile, that wizard looks ready to start casting another spell. Uh oh. The orcs quickly discuss it and decide to turn tail. Another orc goes down to arrows and 3 more are slept. The remaining 5, carrying little for their comrades, now flee with all due speed. The PC chop up the sleeping 3 orcs and dispatch the remaining 2. That's the most likely outcome of the 10 orc encounter. Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 05:03 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp Sketchy about orcs? If you don't know they're Orcs *on beforehand* it's hardly foreknowledge, is it? Anyway, I was talking about finding out info. What guarantees there's decent info to be found out? How can you know the terrain on beforehand? Numbers of the opposition likely to encounter? Weapons and equipment? Magic? Preparations? Tactics? The only ways to find out about those are a) learning it from some NPC, in which I have to wonder why the party's needed in the first place and b) finding out for yourself by scouting, in which case you risk being found out before getting to use that info (or even finding it).
devinmdp 08-03-04, 05:05 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu 1) Presupposing there are NPCs that actually know anything, and that they're willing to give you that info. Gather Info check anyone? 2) Orcs get a +1 to Spot and Listen, and there's 10 of them. How well do you like the odds of all of them failing those checks? 3) Read the Orc flavour text in th MM. They plan raids and favour ambushes. 4) At least you qualified that with a 'not caught by surprise' note. Now try to include 'not losing out on initiative' in there too, that's even more important and much harder to assure. 1. Not everything need be done by check. And the DC is set by the Dm anyways. If it is well known that orcs infest the surrounding lands, it is likely known by EVERYONE. That'd be a DC 0 check. I think even level 1 PCs can handle that. 2. I like the odds a lot if they are 200 feet away. That's a -20 boys and girls. Meanwhile, since the group of orcs is big, the party thief will likely be able to spot the orcs. 3. Of course they do. So do PCs. The question is, who is better at it? Orcs with a Hide and Move Silently of -3 counting armour? Or a 1st level rogue with a +7 Hide and Move Silently? 4. As I said, losing initiative matters not one iota unless the encounter takes place within 60 ft and unobstructed terrain. If you check the encounter ranges in the DMG, it's unlikely for both of those to occur. Yes, 10 orcs in a dungeon waiting around a corner or behind a door for the PCs to stumble into them are going to wipe the floor with the PCs. But that's not the general reality of most encounters...is it? Devin
Krelios 08-03-04, 05:06 PM	Originally posted by Seeker95 As an aside... I don't use experience points at all. When I am ready for the party to level up, I level them up. Sometimes I have two or three adventures prepared for a certain level, and sometimes only one. I've heard you mention this before, and I've always wondered... How do you deal with things like item creation and spells with experience point costs?
Krelios 08-03-04, 05:11 PM	No it's not different. They are CR1/2, my bad. Still, it's only going to take ~3 encounters like that to level up a standard party. Let's see, 10 CR 1/2 Orcs is a EL 4 Encounter. That means that it's 3 levels higher than the PCs should be fighting. In fact, it's listed as "Very Difficult" according to the DMG. Of course it's only going to take a handful of such encounters. An appropriate challenge for a group of 4 1st level PCs is a PAIR of orcs (CR 1).A DM who runs 10 standard orcs like the PCs run their characters is CHEATING. Plain and simple. As a DM running standard orcs, you are supposed to play them with the stats they have...and that means aggressive, stupid, and uncoordinated. A smart party of 4 PCs who are not caught by surprise should be able to take out a DM playing 10 orcs as they are supposed to be played.First of all, there's no such thing as a DM "cheating." It's not a competition between players and DM. It's also perfectly reasonable to run orcs as cunning and ruthless... Their abilities are: Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6. That makes them slightly less knowledgable than peasants and a little impulsive. What part of that makes them stupid or uncoordinated? A DM who runs orcs as blubbering idiots is reducing the threat to his PCs and it's the DM's fault if they're levelling more quickly because of it.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 05:12 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu If you don't know they're Orcs *on beforehand* it's hardly foreknowledge, is it? Anyway, I was talking about finding out info. What guarantees there's decent info to be found out? How can you know the terrain on beforehand? Numbers of the opposition likely to encounter? Weapons and equipment? Magic? Preparations? Tactics? The only ways to find out about those are a) learning it from some NPC, in which I have to wonder why the party's needed in the first place and b) finding out for yourself by scouting, in which case you risk being found out before getting to use that info (or even finding it). Wonderful. None of the above is remotely related to what we were talking about. How do you know the terrain beforehand? You ask? Do you really require a Gather Info to have a PC ask someone whether ther are mountains or swamps to the east? I certainly hope not! Magic and preparations? We are not talking about raiding an orc lair. There is no magic. We are talking about 4 PCs encountering 10 orcs...basically on the march. Neither is expecting the other. The PCs are taking reasonable precuations to scout around in a dangerous area. The only way Gather Info really comes into this is: 1. To know that orcs are common hereabouts (so that the wizard can load up on sleep spells....though to be honest at 1st level all I'd take are sleep spells) 2. A poster (maybe it was you) supposedly claimed the PCs wouldn't know the capabilities of the orcs. As I replied, that is balderdash! As far as scouting, yes I suppose it has a risk, but a 1st level rogue against standard orcs has little if anything to worry about. Just compare the numbers. Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 05:14 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp 1) So what? Unless the orcs start within charging range ( and if the PCs have scouted well they won't) then the orcs close some distance and wham. Same outcome. 2) In addition, you will note my fighter READIED his attack....so he WILL get his cleave off just fine thank you. 3) And most parties will indeed tend to have more PCs ahead of the orcs on initiative than behind, given the orc lack of initiative bonus. 1) Whether they scouted well will depend on what the dice say. With 10 Spot and Listen checks for the Orcs, surprise will be a rarity for the party to begin with. In forrested terrain, chances are you won't notice the Orcs before they can close by running either. Better hope the terrain is too difficult for the orcs to run. You won't be able to use Sleep over a distance longer than 110 ft. anyway. Oh, and two Sleep spells means that's the only 1st level spell your wizard prepped for the day. Very likely (and generally a good tactic too). 2) Meaning he got to make an action, meaning he won initiative. 3) 'Tend to' doesn't mean 'always do'.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 05:18 PM	"First of all, there's no such thing as a DM "cheating."" Of course there is! It is perfectly fine for a DM to give orcs an Int of 18 and THEN play them like geniuses. It is not acceptable for a DM to give orcs an Int of 8 and then play them like geniuses. The latter is cheating. " It's not a competition between players and DM. It's also perfectly reasonable to run orcs as cunning and ruthless... " Of course, if you give them the stats to characterize them as such. Nothing wrong with smart and/or wise orcs. But that's not what we are discussing here. We are discussing out of the box standard orcs. <<Their abilities are: Str 17, Dex 11, Con 12, Int 8, Wis 7, Cha 6. That makes them slightly less knowledgable than peasants and a little impulsive. What part of that makes them stupid or uncoordinated?>> 7 Wis is hardly a little impulsive. 8 Int puts them halfways between average and the barest Int assigned to the dumbest of sentient monsters (Int 6). Add Chaotic alignment and a horrible Charisma and it adds up to stupid, impulsive, brutish, and uncoordinated. If low Int, Wis, Cha and Chaotic alignment means ruthless and cunning and clever....then I think you need to reconsider your interpretation of what these things mean. "A DM who runs orcs as blubbering idiots is reducing the threat to his PCs and it's the DM's fault if they're levelling more quickly because of it." Wrong. A Dm who plays orcs with their proper characteristics and ability scores is playing them as they were meant to be played and as the Cr for them was properly designed. Devin
devinmdp 08-03-04, 05:30 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu 1) Whether they scouted well will depend on what the dice say. With 10 Spot and Listen checks for the Orcs, surprise will be a rarity for the party to begin with. In forrested terrain, chances are you won't notice the Orcs before they can close by running either. Better hope the terrain is too difficult for the orcs to run. You won't be able to use Sleep over a distance longer than 110 ft. anyway. Oh, and two Sleep spells means that's the only 1st level spell your wizard prepped for the day. Very likely (and generally a good tactic too). 2) Meaning he got to make an action, meaning he won initiative. 3) 'Tend to' doesn't mean 'always do'. 1. Do the math. It really won't. Let's say I have 10 orcs with +1 Listen and -3 Move Silently and I have 1 rogue with +5 Listen and +7 Move Silently. At 150 ft, the minimum the rogue can get on his MS is 8. The orcs have to make a skill check of 23 to hear him. Won't ever happen (20's are not automatic in skill checks). Meanwhile, the Rogue on an average Listen check, will get a total Listen score of 15. The orcs each have to roll a Move Silently check at -3. That means if ANY single orc rolls a 3 or less on a D20, the rogue will hear him. WIth 10 orcs, the chances of one rolling a 3 or less is approximately 83%. Please note I assumed the rogue rolls a 1 on his Move Silently, so I gave you a HUGE benefit of the doubt here. If you now want to look at average rolls, it gets even better for the rogue. 2. Meaning it doesn't matter. Orcs win initiative. They go first. They take double moves and close 60 ft. Fighter goes. Readies action. Orcs go in round two, engage fighter. Fighter interrupts orcs and cleaves two of them. Can we move on from this particular point yet? 3. Of course. I never said 4 PCs ALWAYS beat 10 orcs. The dice can mess up anything anytime. But overall, in the wilderness, a chance meeting of 10 standard orcs and 10 reaosnably well played PCs will mean 10 dead orcs. Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 05:38 PM	1. Not everything need be done by check. Everything meaningful should be, though. 2. I like the odds a lot if they are 200 feet away. That's a -20 boys and girls. Meanwhile, since the group of orcs is big, the party thief will likely be able to spot the orcs. That's a big 'if'. Furthermore, that -20 goes for the party thief as well. Plus, your Sleep spell won't work until your 110 ft. or less away - that's a -11 instead of -20. 3. Of course they do. So do PCs. The question is, who is better at it? Orcs with a Hide and Move Silently of -3 counting armour? Or a 1st level rogue with a +7 Hide and Move Silently? Obviously the rest of the party doesn't have to get close at all, right? Need I repeat my remark about the range of Sleep? Or note the presence of the heavily armoured cleric you mentioned? 'Better' doesn't mean squat if both succeed. 4. As I said, losing initiative matters not one iota unless the encounter takes place within 60 ft and unobstructed terrain. 120 ft. Running speed. And again, that's enough to cross the max distance allowed for a Sleep spell. Yes, 10 orcs in a dungeon waiting around a corner or behind a door for the PCs to stumble into them are going to wipe the floor with the PCs. But that's not the general reality of most encounters...is it? Neither does the generality of encounters allow the party to get the jump on the Orcs. Wonderful. None of the above is remotely related to what we were talking about. Actually, it was. Or at least the post refered to was (hint: it wasn't yours). How do you know the terrain beforehand? You ask? Do you really require a Gather Info to have a PC ask someone whether ther are mountains or swamps to the east? I certainly hope not! General knowledge of the terrain is next to meaningless. Specific knowledge isn't. 'It's swampy' is not specific. There is no magic. We are talking about 4 PCs encountering 10 orcs...basically on the march. Neither is expecting the other. The PCs are taking reasonable precuations to scout around in a dangerous area. a) The PCs don't know there is no magic. b) Who said anything about it being basically a chance encounter? If it is, how can there be any significant foreknowledge involved? As far as scouting, yes I suppose it has a risk, but a 1st level rogue against standard orcs has little if anything to worry about. Just compare the numbers. Let's see. Assuming +7 in Hide and Move Silently and +6 in Spot and Listen, vs. 10 Orcs... He'll get noticed about 20% of the time. In which case he's largely screwed, and the party as well. Not to mention the possibility of the Orcs accidentally nearing the party from the opposite direction in which the Rogue is scouting...
q'afuu 08-03-04, 05:44 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp 1. Do the math. 2. They take double moves and close 60 ft. 1) Try to get the rest of the party in range for them to do something useful. Now do the math again. 2) They run, close 120 ft. and are standing all around the party, 2 or 3 Orcs per PC.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 05:56 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu 1) Try to get the rest of the party in range for them to do something useful. Now do the math again. 2) They run, close 120 ft. and are standing all around the party, 2 or 3 Orcs per PC. Yawn...this discussion is becoming pointless. I don't think you'll ever see it without laying it out on a map. But I will give it one more try... It doesn't matter if the Orcs discern the party after a certain point. All that matters is whether the PCs discern the orcs before 60 ft. As long as the orcs cannot move and attack on the first round, then the combat is as I have stated. Running doesn't matter, because you cannot attack after a run. If the orcs go first and run 120 ft....fine....then presumably they run up to the lead elements of the party. That's there initiative. Now the fighter cleaves and so forth. The wizard casts sleep. So forth. So what? Yes the orcs have a better chance of getting within 60 ft in forests and the like, but then they cannot charge (because of rough terrain and trees in the way), so it's basically a wash. As long as they are not within 30 ft in such terrain it doesn't matter who goes first. The only time it matters is that the orcs not be within charge range in clear terrain. THEN the party is possibly in deep do do, because the orcs will likely take out the fighter on the first round (especially with the +2 for charging). But the chances of the orcs successfully approaching in clear terrain to within 60 ft of a party is almost nil. Range of sleep doesn't matter. A wizard can easily cast effective sleep spells even when the orcs are engaging the fighter and cleric. Sleep does not have a huge radius. You can easily position it to graze 3 orcs and not hit a PC. And, in fact, slept orcs in melee are less likely to be awakened, as the awakener has to accept an AoO. Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:10 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp Yawn...this discussion is becoming pointless. I don't think you'll ever see it without laying it out on a map. The only problem is that you won't accept that terrain will not always be restricting movement. But I'll give you something else to think about. Standard Orcs have javelins. 1d6+3 *2, range increment 30 ft. 10 Orcs throwing their javelins at one of the PCs (assume AC 16, reasonable) from 60 ft. away have a total expected average damage of 10*6.5*0.1+10*13*0.1*0.2+10*6.5*0.1*0.8= 14.3 hp or one dying PC. Possibly two if wizard and rogue were targeted.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 06:10 PM	And let me clarify further...because this may be where you are getting stuck. The issue of less stealthy PCs is irrelevant. It doesn't matter because the PCs are not counting on surprise. They are only counting on awareness. The PC rogue will be scouting away from the party by some distance. The ideal distance is just far enough to counter the armour check penalty and skill defeicit of the worst PC. So if a party has a Rogue with a MS of +7 and the worst PC is with a +0 and a -5 AC penalty, then the Rogue should be scouting 120 feet away from the rest of the group. If anyone has not picked up on this little calculation before, you might want to try it, it works well. Because of this, initial awareness between the two groups is not going to depend in any way on the rest of the PCs. If you really wanted to paranoid, you could always have the scout 200 ft out from the party, and almost certainly ensure that the PCs will never be located before the scout (on a casual basis). In any event, as long as the PC scout discerns the orcs with enough distance, he can then relay the info to the party, which can then prepare for combat. Likely scenario: Scout discerns 10 orcs at 150 ft (as already shown mathematically). Orcs cannot discern party scout. Orcs cannot discern loud squeaky PCs because they are 200 ft farther away from the scout. Party scout now MS back to party and alerts them. Party decides to encounter the orcs and moves in a wide radius, to avoid detection, to a spot in the orc's line of march, preferrably with a good killing zone, but at least where the orcs cannot appear and charge the party in 1 round. Rogue now scouts ahead to get timing. He once again hears the orcs from 150 ft away. He again MS back to the PCs and alerts them that the orcs will be in position in X rounds. At 110 ft the wizard casts and the battle begins. The point to all this is that positioning, awareness, and scouting are generally more important than raw numbers. No one is arguing that 10 orcs vs 4 1st level PCS will kill the PCs easily if the orcs, let's say, attack from some bushes right next to the party. In that case, bye bye PCs. Almost 100% of the time. But due to the orc's bad Hide and MS skills and generally the presence of a PC scout, this is unlikely to happen. Very unlikely. Most of the time the PCs will become aware of the orcs well before the orcs become aware of the PCs. This gives the PCs a tremendous advantage, enough to overcome the orc's superior numbers (and this is a good thing....it's realistic!). Now, I can do all sorts of things to even the odds. Smart orcs would probably retreat after the first sleep spell and move ahead of the party and try to set up their own ambush.....they could even arrange to have one of their number act as a scout and remove his own armour and try to pinpoint the party's scout before the party's scout finds the orcs. Then the orcs could jump the PC scout and ambush the rest of them. But in the case of the PCs encountering the orcs at encounter distance in the wilderness, with both sides starting unaware, and with a party scout in good operation, the PCs will usually beat the orcs. Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:14 PM	You assume the scout actually scouts in the right direction.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 06:15 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu The only problem is that you won't accept that terrain will not always be restricting movement. But I'll give you something else to think about. Standard Orcs have javelins. 1d6+3 *2, range increment 30 ft. 10 Orcs throwing their javelins at one of the PCs (assume AC 16, reasonable) from 60 ft. away have a total expected average damage of 10*6.5*0.1+10*13*0.1*0.2+10*6.5*0.1*0.8= 14.3 hp or one dying PC. Possibly two if wizard and rogue were targeted. No. The problem you don't see is that the same terrain types that do not restrict movement also allow for longer encounter ranges. Funny how that works eh? Clear terrain doesn't restrict movement. Yes indeed. But sighting ranges are much farther as well. So the PCs are going to spot the orcs much farther away than 120 ft. So its really a wash. For the orcs to even have a chance to start the encounter close enough to be within 120 ft, they are going ot have to be in some seriously restrictive terrain. For the orcs to be in terrain that isn't restrictive, they are going to be sighted at well past 120 ft. There is no terrain I know of that both has short initial encounter ranges and is not movement restrictive. You could make an argument that night-time would allow the orcs to kick some butt. I'll even agree to that. Orcs vs PCs at night would mean a likely Orcish victory. Devin
Godeskian 08-03-04, 06:20 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Everything meaningful should be, though. [/i] :eek: :nonono: are you joshing me? I was raised on the storyteller system as opposed to D&D and i'm often appalled by the amount of checks some DM's ask for whatever happened to roleplaying for heavens sake. Whatever happened to the players walking into the bar and actually talking to the barman. Do you really just have players tell you 'I go into the bar [rolls check] a 16 on gather information, what do i find out' that's just bizarre. We've gone at times through three or four sessions without even picking up a dice, let alone rolling for every piddling little thing that happens.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 06:21 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu You assume the scout actually scouts in the right direction. Actually, I assume the scout makes an occasional circuit around the party in a 200ft radius (less if the party is at least a little stealthy). To be honest, I'd probably do it in a 100 ft radius and take my chances. But most of the time the scout should be roaming the front arc of the party's movement, as it is less likely to encounter creatures moving at its same speed from the flanks or behind. I'd also, for good measure, assume the mage's familiar is good at scouting and is scouting as well in the arcs not covered by the scout. A single familiar and rogue should be able to give the party a good early warning coverage. Also, I would likely acknowledge that the scout will not be moving at half speed to use his MS skill initially. But, that would be countered by the fact that the orcs are likely also moving at half speed (casual marching) until they heard something, and might be making noise unless they suspect trouble. A host of conditionals and modifiers can tilt an encounter one way or another. All of this debate illustrates, BTW, why I consider Spot and Listen to be the two most important skills in the game and, frankly, why I think Skill Focus (Spot or Listen) are amazingly good feats to take. These two skills are TPK preventers. Devin
devinmdp 08-03-04, 06:23 PM	Originally posted by Godeskian [/i] :eek: :nonono: are you joshing me? I was raised on the storyteller system as opposed to D&D and i'm often appalled by the amount of checks some DM's ask for whatever happened to roleplaying for heavens sake. Whatever happened to the players walking into the bar and actually talking to the barman. Do you really just have players tell you 'I go into the bar [rolls check] a 16 on gather information, what do i find out' that's just bizarre. We've gone at times through three or four sessions without even picking up a dice, let alone rolling for every piddling little thing that happens. [/B] I think the checks should be reserved for tasks too lengthy to RP out (i.e. making a week's worth of general inquiries throughout a city) or for tasks that are simply often beyond role playing (for example....with regard to making a stirring speech...I require my players to tell me the words they say, and then I use the Diplomacy check to determine how their delivery was....I don't expect my players to stand up and pound the podium and make a fiery speech in my den!) Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:27 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp There is no terrain I know of that both has short initial encounter ranges and is not movement restrictive. Really? Basic forest has enough trees to limit line of sight to a couple dozen yards at best in each direction and has no underbrush heavy enough to restrict movement.
Godeskian 08-03-04, 06:29 PM	or for tasks that are simply often beyond role playing (for example....with regard to making a stirring speech...I require my players to tell me the words they say, and then I use the Diplomacy check to determine how their delivery was....I don't expect my players to stand up and pound the podium and make a fiery speech in my den!) well...uhm.. why on earth not? I mean, back when I was gaming in manchester, we had a DM (and players I suppose) who loved that sort of stuff. Whenever introductions were made to new nobility, everyone would put on their best drama hat and introduce themselves in style when I had to convince an army to follow me into what should have been a hopeless battle, my DM insisted I roleplay the speech, and I loved it. What's more, the other players seemed to enjoy it as well. if you're not roleplaying your character for serious, then what are you doing? :confused:
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:31 PM	Originally posted by Godeskian whatever happened to roleplaying for heavens sake. Whatever happened to the players walking into the bar and actually talking to the barman. Read any of the gazillion threads I've said this on by now: skill checks do not prevent roleplaying skill attempts. There's nothing wrong with the players walking into the bar and talking to the barman. There's also nothing wrong with rolling a check to see what the barman has to say. Best of all, there's nothing wrong with combining the two: the PCs talk to the NPC and the DM determines what the NPC has to say by making a skill check.
Godeskian 08-03-04, 06:32 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Best of all, there's nothing wrong with combining the two: the PCs talk to the NPC and the DM determines what the NPC has to say by making a skill check. [/B] to each their own I guess. but it seems like an awfully hollow way to RPG to me.
devinmdp 08-03-04, 06:35 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Really? Basic forest has enough trees to limit line of sight to a couple dozen yards at best in each direction and has no underbrush heavy enough to restrict movement. Per the DMG, even in sparse forest (the lightest category available), every square has a 50% chance of having a tree AND a 50% chance of having light undergrowth in it. You do the math here. 75% of the squares are going to be onstructed to some degree. Corridors to run down are going to be almost non-existent beyond 2-3 squares. Charging almost impossible. If you don't believe me, go home tonight, break out your battle mat, and roll for each square. Let me know what your map looks like when you are finished and whether the orcs will have any chance to run or charge. Even better, while Spot skill is limited in such terrain, Listen is not. Even more better, Move Silently suffers a -2 penalty in such terrain. The PCs are going to hear the orcs coming well before the orcs will be in any sort of range. Devin
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:35 PM	Originally posted by Godeskian to each their own I guess. but it seems like an awfully hollow way to RPG to me. Mind telling me why exactly? What's the difference with your way from the player's POV?
Godeskian 08-03-04, 06:41 PM	Originally posted by q'afuu Mind telling me why exactly? What's the difference with your way from the player's POV? They actually feel like they are roleplaying, that what they do, how they play matters more than weather that 'gather information' roll ended up 15, when the lives of the entire free world depended on a 16 That when they put their heart and soul into a performance that it's actually worth more than that random role. I mean, random rolls are great for combat, which is an inherently random and chaotic, but for roleplaying? :confused:
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:47 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp Per the DMG, even in sparse forest (the lightest category available), every square has a 50% chance of having a tree AND a 50% chance of having light undergrowth in it. I'll readily admit the PHB and DMG don't seem to agree all that well, but I always thought light undergrowth wasn't enough to restrict movement (the PHB uses the term thick undergrowth, while the DMG mentions not being able to run or charge only in the paragraph on heavy undergrowth; OTOH both seem to indicate that anywhere where movement cost is doubled - which would include light undergrowth - charging/running is impossible). Moreover, this is where prior specific knowledge of terrain comes in (which the PCs won't have, and the orcs likely will). Every forest will have game trails, and orc patrols will follow paths, be it those trails or self-made paths, rather than struggle through undergrowth. That won't allow charging (normally no straight line), but it will allow running.
q'afuu 08-03-04, 06:50 PM	Originally posted by Godeskian They actually feel like they are roleplaying, that what they do, how they play matters more than weather that 'gather information' roll ended up 15, when the lives of the entire free world depended on a 16 That when they put their heart and soul into a performance that it's actually worth more than that random role. I mean, random rolls are great for combat, which is an inherently random and chaotic, but for roleplaying? :confused: IOW, you think a good peformance by the players (not necessarily the PCs) should always succeed. Why? I can be as persuasive as I want, there will be times when people still won't budge. That's just as random and chaotic as combat.
Godeskian 08-03-04, 06:54 PM	when did i say they always succeed? :confused: much like rolling dice, sometimes people just don't want to help you, but i'd rather they were actually roleplaying rather than just tossing dice for interactions.
DungeonMaster 08-03-04, 09:15 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Most of the good players I run for won't even consider going into an adventure without spending at least an entire game session getting as much knowledge as possible about the situation and challenges involved. While that is indeed an example of good play it does exactly nothing for your claim that PCs level too quickly and specifically contradicts the claim that PCs level every session. I'm rather of an experimentalist than a theorist, so I put my money where my mouth is: let's run a simple simulation, it won't even take that long. D&D core un-optional 3rd edition rules. I'll give you 10 orcs versus 4 1st level PCs on an open plain in broad daylight. devinmdp you provide me with plain 1st level characters - you have average starting wealth to work with to equip your PCs from the PHB. That means: 7.5 GP for monks 50 GP for druids 75 GP for wizards and sorcerors 100 GP for barbarians and bards 125 GP for clerics and rogues 150 GP for fighters rangers and paladins Ability scores are standard array: 15,14,13,12,10,8. There's a reliable online roller here: http://krisinchico.brinkster.net/rolldata.asp That can show all the rolls up front for all to see.
aka Jimmy 08-03-04, 09:17 PM	Originally posted by Godeskian when did i say they always succeed? :confused: much like rolling dice, sometimes people just don't want to help you, but i'd rather they were actually roleplaying rather than just tossing dice for interactions. First, your posts are replete with straw-man logical fallacies with regards to the way the 3rd ed system actually works. I think 3rd edition's skill system provides a much improved balance between dice rolling and roleplaying. Interaction skill rolls do not eliminate roleplaying. Rather, they give a structured framework for determining the result of said roleplaying. Any reasonable DM will (as the books suggest) give substantial modifiers on the rolls for roleplaying, assuming that it is within the abilities of the character. Furthermore, the results of such rolls are not purely binary. The DM uses the margin of success or failure to provide a general framework for the result. To refer to one of your many flawed arguments above, if the player gets a 14 on a DC 15 gather information roll, a reasonable person would give them partial or slightly flawed information (perhaps advancing the story in an interesting direction). This stuctured framework removes the nescessity for a DM to make purely subjective and often flawed judgements about just how well the player (not the character) is speaking. Second, there are several fundamental problems with your approach: 1) It is very often the case that a given player has a very different capability with regards to oratory than his character. One of the primary reasons for playing any roleplaying game is to assume a role which is different than yourself. Your system forces every player to be as good a speaker (and no better) than their character. This is an extremely unrealistic requirement for most people and unfairly restricts ones choice of character. 2) If a player is not so proficient a speaker, the only solution under your system is for that player to avoid situations where this would be a problem. Thus, unless you are playing with a bunch of Drama students, your system actually encourages players to favor hack-n-slash tactics over diplomacy in any important situation. 3) Lacking a skill system, players know for a fact that the results of any attempts at diplomacy are purely at the whim of the DM. Other than outstanding oratory (again, in the judgement of the DM) there is nothing they can do to influence the outcome of such situations. I find that, given the option between combat and diplomacy, players are infinitely more likely to try diplomacy if they have some means to judge their odds of success. Whereas every player knows that in combat they can "get lucky" and pull off an unexpected result, trying a diplomatic approach without a skill system is just volunteering to be railroaded by the DM.
Godeskian 08-04-04, 01:25 AM	Originally posted by aka Jimmy [B]First, your posts are replete with straw-man logical fallacies with regards to the way the 3rd ed system actually works. I think 3rd edition's skill system provides a much improved balance between dice rolling and roleplaying. and I disagree, shall I now insult your post or do we keep this civil? (this btw, is a rethorical question for the most part. You've set the tone of this discourse by your opening post) 1) It is very often the case that a given player has a very different capability with regards to oratory than his character. Funny that, all most all my players are playing characters that they believe they can give voice to. Imagine that. One of the primary reasons for playing any roleplaying game is to assume a role which is different than yourself. maybe in your games. My players by en large lead busy, complicated lives and roleplay for fun only. They like playing characters like that because that's what they're good at. Your system forces every player to be as good a speaker (and no better) than their character. This is an extremely unrealistic requirement for most people and unfairly restricts ones choice of character. hardly, and I guess my players aren't 'most people' in fact, since you chose to open this post by calling mine fallacious, let me do it back. This is a 'hasty generalisation' debating fallacy. You presume a certain quality of players, and that everyone must have such players without any evidence to that fact. 2) If a player is not so proficient a speaker, the only solution under your system is for that player to avoid situations where this would be a problem. Yes, God forbid they would try and expand their real life skills. :rolleyes: you would probably be surprised to hear this, but giving ones players a push once in a while tends to help them push their own boundaries. Thus, unless you are playing with a bunch of Drama students, your system actually encourages players to favor hack-n-slash tactics over diplomacy in any important situation. Chuckle. Finally someone enquires about the kind of players (sort of, you made a snide assumption, but i'll do you a favor and make it a question) I have for me to make the posts I made. You aren't far off. 3) Lacking a skill system, I don't 'lack' a skill system. Me and my players use skills, I just don't demand a skill check for every piddling little action. This btw, is an assumption on your part, one of many in your post. Other than outstanding oratory (again, in the judgement of the DM) there is nothing they can do to influence the outcome of such situations. sure there is. I find that, given the option between combat and diplomacy, players are infinitely more likely to try diplomacy if they have some means to judge their odds of success.Whereas every player knows that in combat they can "get lucky" and pull off an unexpected result, another hasty generalisation. Your players may react like this, mine don't. trying a diplomatic approach without a skill system is just volunteering to be railroaded by the DM. and you just keep going doncha. Now I railroad my players? So, my arguments are flawed, my players have to conform to yours, and i railroad people based on my 'whims' Did it ever occur to you that the fact that I have stable group of players mean that not everyone is limited by your narrow vision of what 'proper' D&D is? It's not as if i kidnapped them, tied them to chairs and forced them to play. It's one thing for the level of debate to deteriorate as people harden in their staked out positions, even over something so minor as 'more dice' rather than 'less dice.' However you choose to open against me by insulting my players, attacking me, attacking my posts without providing evidence and doing so in a thoroughly patronizing tone of post. If you ask me a question, i'll answer it, if you start off with insults and attacks, i will come out swinging as turning the other cheek is not part of my philosophy The die is in your court Jimmy, do you want a discussion or an argument?
Geethree 08-04-04, 02:23 AM	I don't 'lack' a skill system. Me and my players use skills, I just don't demand a skill check for every piddling little action.Neither does the normal system either. A common misconception about the D20 system is that it reduces roleplaying to dice rolls. This is entirely false. I'll only address Gather Info here since you seem to be mistaken as to how it works. Gather Information. This is not simply asking a question. This is not even asking a few questions. A Gather Information check is the result of hours of work. You spend an entire night buying people drinks and asking questions. This skill serves to streamline a process that would (in both game time and real time) take hours. Just walking up to the bartender and saying, "Give me the news" is not a Gather Information check. By and large, skill checks do not replace roleplaying, they resolve it. You roll diplomacy after delivering a speech. You roll bluff after telling a lie. Skill checks exist to add numbers to an extremely nebulous concept and allow the DM to resolve situations quickly and efficiently when he wants. Obviously, no sane DM will allow you to roll diplomacy and convince your arch-nemesis that he doesn't want to kill you. Perhaps an especially persuasive PC will convince the arch-nemesis that he shouldn't kill them right now, but he cannot remove that deep-down hatred.
Godeskian 08-04-04, 02:56 AM	Originally posted by Geethree I'll only address Gather Info here since you seem to be mistaken as to how it works. Gather Information. This is not simply asking a question. This is not even asking a few questions. A Gather Information check is the result of hours of work. You spend an entire night buying people drinks and asking questions. This skill serves to streamline a process that would (in both game time and real time) take hours. I appreciate the explanation, You and I agree on what gather information as a skill does completely. So what happens when (in the case of my players and I) we enjoy doing this? I cut my teeth both as a roleplayer and a DM with a guy who excelled at making 1 hour of game time equal to 1 hour of 'world' time if you will. I played Vampire with him for the next best thing to 4 years, every week on tuesday, and over those four years we progressed through a little over 2 months of in game time. My current players enjoy doing the same thing (i like to think I was a decent student as a DM in training 8 years ago :) ) They enjoy spending an entire gaming session at a royal banquet talking, scheming, planning, using the political power one often gains at higher level. It might not be everyone's cup of tea but it seems to suit my players and me.
Geethree 08-04-04, 03:23 AM	So what happens when (in the case of my players and I) we enjoy doing this? I cut my teeth both as a roleplayer and a DM with a guy who excelled at making 1 hour of game time equal to 1 hour of 'world' time if you will.That's up for you and the DM to decide. I normally use Gather Information checks to be for more mundane knowledge (what has happened in the city in the past 2 weeks) or for other things that might be better summarized in a few lines (how do most people feel about the king). It might not be everyone's cup of tea but it seems to suit my players and me.Then by all means, do what is best for your group. I think most people interpret the social skills as rules that you can't break. Some people just expect to roll diplomacy and get a half-priced sword. I think the social skills are a great tool, but they are nothing more than that. If you want to skip over some roleplaying (because honestly, not every villager will be fun to talk to), you can do that. If you need a way to resolve an argument, you have it. As a DM, I like having the ability to just say, "OK, roll diplomacy" when I want to either skip some boring roleplaying or skip ahead because of time issues.
Godeskian 08-04-04, 03:40 AM	Originally posted by Geethree That's up for you and the DM to decide. In this particular case I am the DM :) Then by all means, do what is best for your group. I think most people interpret the social skills as rules that you can't break. I find this an interesting and somewhat unclear comment. Do you mean most people interpret them as rules that can't be broken(as in abused) or broken (as in must be obeyed) ? As a DM, I like having the ability to just say, "OK, roll diplomacy" when I want to either skip some boring roleplaying or skip ahead because of time issues. I agree with you there. I don't ban the use of dice for skill checks (despite insinuations to the contrary in other posts) but for the most part, my players enjoy RPing the minutia of life as well as the maxima of it.
q'afuu 08-04-04, 04:41 AM	Originally posted by Godeskian when did i say they always succeed? :confused: much like rolling dice, sometimes people just don't want to help you, but i'd rather they were actually roleplaying rather than just tossing dice for interactions. First off, one doesn't exclude the other, like I said before. Second, I didn't say they always succeed - I said it seems they always succeed if they manage a rousing and heartfelt performance. The die roll decides the outcome. That's all it does. How you get to that outcome is what the roleplaying is for - and obviously, that'll influence the final result as well (good argumentation will get you a bonus to your Diplomacy skill, while limiting your questions to 'yo, whazzup?' will give you a penalty to your Gather Info attempts). The die roll comes last, when the DM knows how the encounter went and can set an appropriate DC for what the PCs are doing. Why would you arbitrarily decide the result instead?
Godeskian 08-04-04, 05:11 AM	Originally posted by q'afuu I said it seems they always succeed if they manage a rousing and heartfelt performance. ah, my bad. No, they do not always succeed if they manage a good performance. Why would you arbitrarily decide the result instead? [/B] okay, somehow the mistaken impression has crept into this thread that I don't use dice at all. I do. However there are times when frankly, the dice are wrong, when the extremes of dice-rolling ruin the roleplaying aspect. Imagine the following if you will. (this is taken from a campaign i ran a year or three ago) The PC's have an audience with a neutral king, who they desperately need for help. My players seleted their frontman, and that PC gave a very stirring, impassioned speech to the king, even three years on it stands out as a chracter performance. He then rolled a 1 on the diplomacy check. now, even with the best will in the world, and the most liberal interpretation of modifiers, that wasn't a success, and given that the king had no particular animosity against the players, and the quality of the effort put in by the players, i felt that dice roll seriously damaged what should have been a great success. You may disagree, maybe I should have let the dice fall where they may, punished my player for his lousy dice rolling skills and have the king send them packing. However I decided that in this case, the roleplaying should trump the dice roll.
Draco Argentum 08-04-04, 06:16 AM	Originally posted by Godeskian You may disagree, maybe I should have let the dice fall where they may, punished my player for his lousy dice rolling skills and have the king send them packing. However I decided that in this case, the roleplaying should trump the dice roll. Before I address the quote I'll say this. You're coming from storyteller to D&D and saying you don't like social skills checks? Storyteller has a larger set of mechanics for dealing with social interaction. And now onto the quote: heres the real problem, D&D has a poor set of mechanics for social interaction. One, or two for opposed checks, d20s generates a relatively flat probability distribution. Lots of other systems use manny more dice and have peaky probability distributions. This means you'll rarely get extremely poor rolls.
q'afuu 08-04-04, 07:08 AM	Originally posted by Godeskian However there are times when frankly, the dice are wrong, when the extremes of dice-rolling ruin the roleplaying aspect. Imagine the following if you will. (this is taken from a campaign i ran a year or three ago) The PC's have an audience with a neutral king, who they desperately need for help. My players seleted their frontman, and that PC gave a very stirring, impassioned speech to the king, even three years on it stands out as a chracter performance. He then rolled a 1 on the diplomacy check. Maybe he farted. Maybe the king had a migraine that day. Maybe he'd had bad news, or a row with the missus. It happens. It's a pain when it does, but it happens. In this case, I'd have let one of the PCs notice a source of discomfort with the king or something and allow that PC to step up and have a second attempt, possibly at a penalty to account for the unlucky failure at the first attempt. I'm with Draco that the single d20 isn't mechanically the best way to solve checks that in theory shouldn't have wildly varying results (2d10 would be an improvement already, although I'd personally prefer a total die size that isn't too large in proportion to the skill modifier to begin with). That said, it allows for a bit more spectacular results on a regular basis, and a bit of spectacle is fun. Players like to rejoice in fenomenal successes and to lament grandiose failures. It adds spice to the game. Some like it, some don't - it's a matter of taste. As an afterthought, I'm somewhat surprised by your initial comments in lights of these later explanations. You seemed rather extreme in your views at first.
Godeskian 08-04-04, 07:31 AM	I'd apologise for any extremeness on my part. I tend to get a bit, erm, overnthusiastic when espousing a viewpoint on a messageboard :blush:
Mister Mayhem 08-04-04, 07:40 AM	Originally posted by Godeskian [B] Imagine the following if you will. (this is taken from a campaign i ran a year or three ago) The PC's have an audience with a neutral king, who they desperately need for help. My players seleted their frontman, and that PC gave a very stirring, impassioned speech to the king, even three years on it stands out as a chracter performance. He then rolled a 1 on the diplomacy check. now, even with the best will in the world, and the most liberal interpretation of modifiers, that wasn't a success, and given that the king had no particular animosity against the players, and the quality of the effort put in by the players, i felt that dice roll seriously damaged what should have been a great success. You say the player gave a spectacularly good performance. Was his performance better than his character could have achieved? How high was the *characters* charisma and diplomacy? If the character had loads, and the king was neutral, and the request wasn't totally unreasonable, even a 1 could have been a success. If (according to his stats) the *character* should, in fact, have been useless at making impassioned speeches, why reward the *player* who does so? He isn't playing his role.
Godeskian 08-04-04, 07:58 AM	Originally posted by Mister Mayhem You say the player gave a spectacularly good performance. Was his performance better than his character could have achieved? How high was the *characters* charisma and diplomacy? Three years on, i honestly don't remember. I can look it up when I get home if need be. however I do recall that this particular character was the parties bard (as I said, they put their best person forward) and that they were around 5th level at the time. If (according to his stats) the *character* should, in fact, have been useless at making impassioned speeches, why reward the *player* who does so? He isn't playing his role. You know, now that you mention it, I honestly don't recall the last time one of my players chose to play a character with a low intelligence or charisma. Most of them seem to get a kick out of playing very intellegent, eloquent characters
Geethree 08-04-04, 03:20 PM	I find this an interesting and somewhat unclear comment. Do you mean most people interpret them as rules that can't be broken(as in abused) or broken (as in must be obeyed) ?As in they must be obeyed, but the problem behind that is that people often misinterpret what the skills mean. I understand that there are some legitimate complaints with the system (especially with Diplomacy), but by no means are the skills cut-and-dry or easily abusable.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-04-04, 10:49 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster While that is indeed an example of good play it does exactly nothing for your claim that PCs level too quickly and specifically contradicts the claim that PCs level every session. 1. My claim is that a) encounters of CR equal to the average level of the party in D&D 3.0 are generally a cake-walk for above average players with a good DM; and b) increasing the difficulty of encounters to actually provide a challenge for above average players and using the CR/XP system as written results in PCs leveling at significantly less than 13 encounters (naturally, that's the way the system is designed). IME, this meant that good players regularly gained levels every 2-3 sessions (on average). The fact that 1 session in 7 was spent gathering intelligence and planning is factored into this average and does nothing to contradict my point. 2. I never said PCs level every session. Ever. I'm rather of an experimentalist than a theorist, so I put my money where my mouth is: let's run a simple simulation, it won't even take that long. I ran simulations in the form of my own games for over 3 years. My experiences directly contradict your hypothetical speculations. That's good enough for me. YMMV. I'll give you 10 orcs versus 4 1st level PCs on an open plain in broad daylight. IME, good players who found themselves in such a situation with a standard 4 person party (i.e. warrior, rogue, cleric, arcane caster) would do their utmost to remain unnoticed or get away. There are no advantages (other than daylight) to use to even the odds. If they successfully avoided the encounter, they would then take steps to find the group of orcs at a later time in a different location with factors that favored the PCs and tactics already planned out in order to take advantage of those things.
WizO_Catoblepas 08-04-04, 11:04 PM	Ok everyone, let's cool it down a degree or two. Let's keep the posts on the subject matter of the thread, not other guests. Thanks.
Xavim 08-05-04, 02:42 AM	Personally I've found 3e to create drastically LESS powerful characters than previous editions of D&D mainly because more effort was placed in the rules to make the classes equal. For example look at 3.5 stoneskin. It grants you damage reduction of 10/adamantite. Now compare it to 2e stoneskin which made the caster completely and utterly IMMUNE to any physical attack regardless of damage. The wizard could be hit on the head BY THE MOON in 2e and it would just nock 1 attack off of his total(of course he'd now be buried underneath its crushing weight until the spell wore off but that's beside the point). At high levels this could climb as high as 14+ instants of invincibility. The only way for warriors to counter this was to literally Strangle the caster to death. Not to mention the high level rules that allowed spellcasters to create a 10th level spell that dealt 20d8 damage TO AN ENTIRE PLANE OF EXISTENCE. 3e has more powerful characters? Please, I just don't see it.
DungeonMaster 08-05-04, 02:47 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie a) encounters of CR equal to the average level of the party in D&D 3.0 are generally a cake-walk for above average players with a good DM Then you're going to have to define "cake walk". If it's "nobody dies" then we agree. If it's "no-one was seriously threatened" then the "good" DM isn't running his encounters appropriately in my humble opinion. First of all this isn't the proper terminology. If the Encounter Level (EL) equals the party level then it's going to be a challenge. Challenge is defined as posing a serious threat to one or more PCs, and no one dies. b) increasing the difficulty of encounters to actually provide a challenge for above average players and using the CR/XP system as written results in PCs leveling at significantly less than 13 encounters (naturally, that's the way the system is designed). IME, this meant that good players regularly gained levels every 2-3 sessions (on average). No, there's often great danger in increasing the EL. The DMG is specific in this respect, p.102: 1 to 4 EL higher then the party level is very difficult as in "one PC might very well die". A well constructed adventure contains a mix of encounters of varying EL. If you keep hiting your PCs with very difficult - read 1 to 4 higher than party level - encounters then they're going to die, often. The fact that 1 session in 7 was spent gathering intelligence and planning is factored into this average and does nothing to contradict my point. So it takes 1 session of "planning" to cover every encounter in an adventure? Are you being truly serious here? I ran simulations in the form of my own games for over 3 years. My experiences directly contradict your hypothetical speculations. That's good enough for me. YMMV. Well fine and well but that's not going to convince me because I've been playing this system very hard and testing every aspect of it for over 3 years as well and I can tell you that PCs die real quick and real often when you up the EL. When you go from a CR 1 Grimlock with 11 hp, +4 to hit and 7.5 average damage to a CR 2 ogre with 26 hp, +8 to hit and 14 average damage with 10-20 foot reach you realise real fast that you're in a different ballpark. Your 12 hitpoints as a 1st level fighter with good Con isn't quite as relevant anymore. Neither your 50 GP scale mail that you started out with. IME, good players who found themselves in such a situation with a standard 4 person party (i.e. warrior, rogue, cleric, arcane caster) would do their utmost to remain unnoticed or get away. There are no advantages (other than daylight) to use to even the odds. If they successfully avoided the encounter, they would then take steps to find the group of orcs at a later time in a different location with factors that favored the PCs and tactics already planned out in order to take advantage of those things. Then you missunderstand the EL system at a fundamental level. p.167 of the DMG specifically tells you to adjust the XP award with how the circumstances affected the difficulty of the encounter. If the party acquires circumstances that allow them to prevail over groups of monsters that are EL higher then their level then they get less XP for those monsters. Not the same amount as though they faced them on even terms and nowhere near as much if they were really hard pressed by the circumstances. You don't get 300 XP per orc if you catch the 10 orcs all sleeping and murder them all. In fact if there was no chance of the orcs actually challenging you (the DM casually doesn't roll listen checks for whatever reason, they don't have a sentry, etc...) then you should get no XP at all. So in detail, assuming you're a party of 1st level characters: The EL for 10 orcs is 5, overpowering for this group. If you kill them all in an up and up fight in the classic dungeon setting (or an open plain if you prefer), you get 300 XP per orc and so 3000 XP awarded. If you catch half of them sleeping and defeat them all then you reduce the EL by 2 to EL 3 (very difficult) and award half XP so 300 XP per orc, 3000/2= 1500 XP. You could instead just consider the 5 orcs and you'll get the same number. It's a fairly robust system. If the orcs ambush your party while half of your party is sleeping and you manage to defeat them all then you get 300 XP per orc, the EL jumps to 7, and you're very, very lucky to be alive at this point and get 3000x2 = 6000 XP, and well earned by a pair of 1st level adventurers with nothing to their name! I can, if you want, provide a detailed list of my recent campaign's exploits and XP awarded.
Naeron 08-05-04, 05:05 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie Example....A group of experienced players who create a good mix of combat oriented 1st level characters can easily take on and defeat 10 orcs if their tactics are sound. That's 10 CR1 "encounters" worth of experience right there in a single encounter. One more fight of even half that difficulty = 2nd level. A good DM can make the fight tough, a good DM can make the fight tough. A good DM running orcs who don't get surprised and get a little lucky can probably even win the fight (i.e. make the PCs run away). However, IME good players can regularly face odds like this and prevail, which means they level PDQ. To be accurate that is 10 CR1/2 monsters. For 4 1st level PCs, using the book rate that would give them 375xp each. But when it comes down to it if you feel that your players are levelling too fast then just give a percentage of standard xp.
Naeron 08-05-04, 05:51 AM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie <snip> Good players think about these things and a good DM doesn't metagame his way around the players efforts or nerf rewards when the players play well just to maintain the efficacy of the CR/XP system. If factors beyond PC control make the fight easier, modifying the CR is appropriate. Modifying the CR of an encounter down because the fight was made easier through good player tactics and strategy is absolutely ridiculous. I see these comments time an time again and it is probably DM Fallacy Number 1. XP awards advance PC levels, PC levels represent skill in a given professions. So XP awards represent advancing your skills in a profession. If you wipe out the Orcs by using terrain and tactics in such a way that you are never really threatened then you should always reduce the XP. XP is awarded for overcoming a challenge, if the challenge is lessened so should the xp. How does starting a rockfall on the Orcs teach you to become a better cleric or wizard. Tactical advantage means less xp, however that advantage is gained. And don't give the the tired old phrase about penalising the PC's. They get reduced experience and a pile of treasure but they get the greatest reward of all. They are alive and have easily wiped out some tough enemies who would otherwise have given them a hard combat. This means less resources consumed so the party have a better survival chance in the next encounter. That is the most important reward. My players know that if the get a big tactical advantage they will get less xp because the encounter was over more quickly and was less dangerous, and they are happy with that because they prefer having live PC's to dead ones. But if, as a DM, you feel that the campaign is generally levelling to fast apply a set xp modifier to all combat encounters. It requires no work to multiply all xp rewards by 50% and as long as it is consistent your players will have no trouble dealing with it either (you should also reduce treasure amounts somewhat to keep them roughly in line with the level guidelines as it makes stating encounters generally easier).
blackprinceofmuncie 08-05-04, 12:55 PM	Originally posted by Naeron If you wipe out the Orcs by using terrain and tactics in such a way that you are never really threatened then you should always reduce the XP. XP is awarded for overcoming a challenge, if the challenge is lessened so should the xp. How does starting a rockfall on the Orcs teach you to become a better cleric or wizard. I would never run or play the game that way. To me, that's the antithesis of what the game is all about. If the fight is easy because of factors outside the players control, I agree that the XP should be lower. If the PCs stack the odds in their favor through good play, the "challenge" wasn't easier, it was just overcome with tactics other than brute force and direct confrontation. AFAIC, the "encounter" starts when the PCs buy equipment and set out for adventure. If careful planning and preparation makes encounters the PCs have less dangerous and difficult, then the PCs become better (i.e. gain XP) by learning that careful planning and preparation pay off. A Cleric or Wizard who helps his party kill 10 orcs in an avalanche becomes a better Cleric or Wizard because he's learned that prayers and spells aren't the only way to accomplish your goals. That's one of the most important lessons that characters (and more importantly, players) can learn.
Godeskian 08-05-04, 01:02 PM	Shouldn't they also gain experience for 'learning' how to properly use the terrain against the orcs?
DungeonMaster 08-05-04, 01:40 PM	Well then you're not playing by the rules! By the rules meeting your opponents head on or worse fighting to glory through great adversity is better rewarded in tems of XP. If you manage to beat say 10 grimlocks at 3rd level in thick fog while being hampered by knee deep water and they have personal rafts - you get more XP. It's more of a challenge then fighting them on solid ground midday, it's harder and glory to the victor. He who walks out of such an encounter is a champion and is rewarded as such. If you run like a chicken every time the odds are stacked against you and only attack from comfortable heights with marginal risks to yourself then you don't get rewarded as much. Even if the comfortable heights are provided by the DM - and in the end it is the DM that provides you with the rockfall or the vats of boiling oil in just the right spot. It's a heroic fantasy XP system. "I Hroggar have defeated the kin of my most loathed enemy the dragon of Ravenscar in the tarterian depths of carceri passing through the portal of no return, most of our company fell in the foul pits of Kazbarden in their very lair and will never be seen again! The air was foul full of violence, the land did shake and the cruel traps and claws did steal away our brave friends! Yet here I stand with ale in hand and women at my side!" "I Imrick defeated only the devils that steped out of the portal - and while they were really quite big and nasty we made a device that dropped 10 tons of rock repeatedly on the exact spot they steped out onto. We killed a lot of them but then when the machine broke down and one steped out we ran like hell." Is Hroggar just lucky? Is he the stuff of fantasy? Is Imrick just a chicken? Is he the stuff of fantasy? If they both defeated the same type and number of devils who should get more XP and thus be higher level? You do get more treasure by beating creatures of higher EL then your party with beneficial circumstances rather than taking on an EL of your party level without beneficial circumstances and so it is not entirely without reward for fighting only during opportune moments. But you don't advance as fast as other people who take risks. Risk taking is a big part of success, in almost any aspect of life actually not merely D&D. Picking what's a reasonable risk (EL< party level + 5) can lead to great rewards - and great peril. Picking only what's to your advantage leads to diminished reward over a direct confrontation - but you live to see another day and maybe pocket some good coin. That's assuming you can pick at all! In practice the claim that PCs will always be able to outmaneuver their opponents is not plausible. There's often only so much that can be done to counteract a given opponent with your given resources. The generic dungeon setting is a prime example of how the players are never fully aware of what lies beyond the next corner. They can be, with magic in particular but there are lots of corners and only so many auguries and wizard eyes. And even then they will not necessarily be fully prepared for the coming challenge.
Mad Miso 08-05-04, 03:56 PM	Not to interrupt, but I'm finding myself, well.....(cough)agreeing with DM(cough). Seeing as how that doesn't happen much, I figured I might as well own up to it.:D
blackprinceofmuncie 08-06-04, 06:16 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Well then you're not playing by the rules! By the rules meeting your opponents head on or worse fighting to glory through great adversity is better rewarded in tems of XP. I think you'd better go back and re-read the DMG. The rules say nothing about lowering XP if the PCs overcome obstacles through tactics other than brute force and uncreative head-on confrontation. In fact, they say exactly the opposite, that an obstacle overcome through means other than combat should still net XP equivalent to defeating the obstacle head on; for example: creating a distraction and sneaking past an ogre guard to reach an objective, rather than simply attacking the ogre is still considered "overcoming the obstacle" and nets full XP.
devinmdp 08-06-04, 06:20 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie I think you'd better go back and re-read the DMG. The rules say nothing about lowering XP if the PCs overcome obstacles through tactics other than brute force and uncreative head-on confrontation. In fact, they say exactly the opposite, that an obstacle overcome through means other than combat should still net XP equivalent to defeating the obstacle head on; for example: creating a distraction and sneaking past an ogre guard to reach an objective, rather than simply attacking the ogre is still considered "overcoming the obstacle" and nets full XP. Indeed. In fact, if you take the other approach, and lower player's XP for intelligently overcoming obstacles, then you are simply encouraging mediocrity in your campaign. After all, why try to take the advantage in a combat when the end result is fewer XP? Might as well just blaze on in head first into every encounter so as to get the maximum XP eh? Devin
Mister Mayhem 08-06-04, 08:05 PM	Originally posted by DungeonMaster Is Hroggar just lucky? Is he the stuff of fantasy? Is Imrick just a chicken? Is he the stuff of fantasy? If they both defeated the same type and number of devils who should get more XP and thus be higher level? . Presumably, Imrick could only build the demon squishing device because he chose a class (or high enough INT) that gave him enough points to spend on Craft skills. Why should he get less XP for choosing a physcially weaker character than Hroggar, but still defeating the demons? They both overcame the same challenge, they both get the same XP. Just as a third character who spent all of his points on becoming the most persuasive man on the planet would get the same XP if he used those skills to persuade the demons to go home. Or another character who used his vast intelligence to discover what the demons were after, and so find a way to appease them without bloodshed. You get XP for overcoming meaningful challenges, not for mindless slaughter. ***** Heroic fantasy has *plenty* of heroes who get by with their brains, wits or charm more than their brawn.
priest of blipdoolpoolp 08-08-04, 12:49 AM	From the above discussions, I'm curious as to whether ten orcs fighting against four first level characters would fair as badly in the second or first editions? I'm thinking nay. ...and thou?
Kursk 08-08-04, 11:49 AM	It actually is about 5 times as fast to level in 3E. Simply look to 1E & 2E and adjust the XP needed to level. Make sure you scale down treasure from 3E tables if you do this otherwise bloat will happen. Remember 3E was designed for the video game generation. Instant POWER. Change it back if you like.
rogueattorney 08-08-04, 12:53 PM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp From the above discussions, I'm curious as to whether ten orcs fighting against four first level characters would fair as badly in the second or first editions? I'm thinking nay. ...and thou? In B/X D&D or 1e, 10 reasonably well-equipped orcs, say with chain mail, swords and spears, would make very short work of a 1st level party comprised of one fighter, one cleric, one thief, and one magic-user, assuming the party doesn't have some magical assistance. The exception would be if the party m-u has a Sleep spell prepared and can get it off. I recently had a B/X D&D party of 4 (halfling, thief, fighter and gnome) shredded by a group of 9 kobolds. They held a narrow bottleneck entryway with the fighter and halfling holding off the kobolds with spears, while the gnome and thief shot missile weapons into the mass of kobolds. They held out for a couple rounds, killing two of them, before the halfling went down and the kobolds poured into the room. Five of them surrounded the fighter, while the thief and the gnome were both taken out in one on one combat. The fighter took two or three out before finally being dragged down. If it had been 10 orcs instead of 9 kobolds, it would have been even more brutal. Orcs have a 5% better chance to hit (Thaco 19 instead of 20, for you 2e'ers), better AC, and more hit points (average 5 instead of 3). R.A.
Mister Mayhem 08-08-04, 12:59 PM	Originally posted by Kursk Remember 3E was designed for the video game generation. Instant POWER. Change it back if you like. Or maybe for people who like to see some progress after 6 months of gaming... Or for people who want to spend some of their free time *not* gaming, and still be able to advance their characters.
Lina_Inverse 08-08-04, 02:20 PM	heres a point,the monsters gaining an advantege gives you more exp,so why should the players setting up ambushs not get them less?its CLEARLY not as CHALLENGEING/DEADLY and in a game about HEROS who face incredible danger recklessness should be rewarded.this is dungeons and dragons,not cowards and wimps! your pcs should be thinking smart once the battle BEGINS,or do you want to have to concede and give your pcs the EXP of the level 20 wizard while there level 12 because of buff,teleport,kill.
blackprinceofmuncie 08-08-04, 03:54 PM	Originally posted by Lina_Inverse heres a point,the monsters gaining an advantege gives you more exp,so why should the players setting up ambushs not get them less? If the monsters are intelligent, and gain advantages through use of that intelligence, the PCs don't get more XP. Granting more XP for playing intelligent monsters intelligently is giving the PCs a freebie. If the monsters are unintelligent or of low intelligence and the circumstances happen to give them an advantage (something beyond the PCs control) I guess it's feasible to give more XP, but I don't think I would unless the circumstances were EXTREMELY compelling. And if my 12th level PCs are killing 20th level Wizards with the Scry/Buff/Teleport tactic, I'm doing a REALLY bad job of playing a 20th level Wizard. OTOH, if a group of 12th level PCs managed to take out a 20th level Wizard through excellent planning and tactics despite my playing the Wizard to his utmost ability, yeah I'd give the PCs exactly what they'd earned.
devinmdp 08-09-04, 01:35 PM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp From the above discussions, I'm curious as to whether ten orcs fighting against four first level characters would fair as badly in the second or first editions? I'm thinking nay. ...and thou? 1st or 2nd ed sleep spell. Doesn't take 1 round to cast. No save. Sleeps 2-8 of them. Fight is over in 2 rounds. No save. Devin
rogueattorney 08-09-04, 03:09 PM	Originally posted by devinmdp 1st or 2nd ed sleep spell. Doesn't take 1 round to cast. No save. Sleeps 2-8 of them. Fight is over in 2 rounds. No save. Devin True, assuming the m-u has a Sleep spell prepared and can get it off without being interrupted. Of course, the 1st level m-u in 1st/2nd only has that one spell, so the next time they run into 10 orcs that day, it'll be a different story altogether... R.A.
devinmdp 08-09-04, 03:23 PM	Originally posted by rogueattorney True, assuming the m-u has a Sleep spell prepared and can get it off without being interrupted. Of course, the 1st level m-u in 1st/2nd only has that one spell, so the next time they run into 10 orcs that day, it'll be a different story altogether... R.A. What 1st level wizard in 2nd edition didn't have sleep prepared?
Sulaco 08-09-04, 03:56 PM	Originally posted by priest of blipdoolpoolp Anyone feel the same, and if so, what steps do you take to remedy it. I diasagree entirely. Let's look at a simple example of acceptable challenges for a 1st level party based on published material: 1e (from Keep on the Borderlands): 30 Gnolls, 3 Flinds, and a number of Hyenas 3e (from Core Book CR/EL ratings): 1 gnoll Which party is likely more powerful?
blackprinceofmuncie 08-09-04, 04:41 PM	Originally posted by Sulaco I diasagree entirely. Let's look at a simple example of acceptable challenges for a 1st level party based on published material: 1e (from Keep on the Borderlands): 30 Gnolls, 3 Flinds, and a number of Hyenas 3e (from Core Book CR/EL ratings): 1 gnoll Which party is likely more powerful? 1) Keep on the Borderlands is a Basic adventure, not 1e. But that's just a nitpick. 2) I'm finding it difficult to locate this encounter in the adventure. Could you post a page number? 3) Field Folio (containing the Flind description) was released in 1981 and B2 Keep on the Borderlands was first printed in 1978. I find it hard to understand how Flinds made it into the module. Are you certain you're not confused about the encounter or the module in which its contained?
Sulaco 08-09-04, 04:45 PM	Originally posted by blackprinceofmuncie 1) Keep on the Borderlands is a Basic adventure, not 1e. But that's just a nitpick. 2) I'm finding it difficult to locate this encounter in the adventure. Could you post a page number? 3) Field Folio (containing the Flind description) was released in 1981 and B2 Keep on the Borderlands was first printed in 1978. I find it hard to understand how Flinds made it into the module. Are you certain you're not confused about the encounter or the module in which its contained? Actually, I think I must give a big "D'oh!". As you say, KotB was indeed a BD&D module, but I also realized that I was thinking about Return to KotB (which ws 2e) when I posted this. the gnolls are a random overland encounter the party can have long before they even hit the caves. My bad on both counts. Silly rabbit. :sad: