Designing Quests for 6+ Players [Archive] - Wizards Community

Designing Quests for 6+ Players [Archive] - Wizards Community

Post/Author/DateTime Post
Entropicurity
10-24-07, 12:11 PM Hello all!

Alright, went through a bunch of resources and one of my favorite so far is the Craft:Adventure stuff provided by RPGA. Though, a while ago I was trying to figure out how to determine what would be challenging for smaller groups of players and someone gave me the following table for determining effective CR:

2 Players = (APL-4 = CR)
3 Players = (APL-2 = CR)
4 Players = (APL = CR)
5 Players = (APL+2 = CR)
6 Players = (APL+4 = CR)

Where APL is Average Player Level and CR is Challenge Rating

Now the Craft:Adventure doesn't put this into account. In fact it uses a time table to determine how many encounters can fit into a single session and then uses the sum of the average level of all the characters in the party and divides it by the time alloted or encounters put together.

Now this is GREAT for a group of 4 players, but if we go to 6 players (my current campaign) I find that if I am going to give them any experience at all I would have to eliminate entire encounters and add the sum of entire encounters together to get the encounters to be of any challenge to the players.

So the question I have is as follows and I'll use an example to help out. Lets say I have 6 level 3 players. Now, they all have 32 points put into stats, so I usually increase their ECL by 1 for the porpose of determining CR. SO thats a total of 24 "Reserve." According to Craft Adventure you "should" have about 6 encounters plus 1 "bonus" in case game runs short. This gives an average encounter level of 4.....which is equal to the average player level.

Thats effectively 4 levels below the level of "average" or "challenging" for 6 players. So concidering I never really go over 2 levels above the average player level for NPCs in encounters I would probably have teams of NPC's that summed up to +4 APL.

So the question now is should I toss the timetable out the window and stick with just the APL as my limiter, or should I come up with a new equation all together for my adventures andkeeping them within my 200minute timeframe?

OR

Should I take the Sum of the 6 players levels, divide that by 4 and treat that as the "Level" in which to base time and number of encounters off of?

Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated
PantherFern
10-24-07, 05:23 PM I don't guess I understand how (or why) you're figuring ELs the way you are.

I do it like this:
A party is generally considered to be 4 people. A party of 6 is 1.5 parties.

Goblins are CR .25
For a regular level 2 party, you'd need 8 of them for a total CR of 2. (8*.25=2)
For a 6-person level 2 party you multiply by 1.5 so 12 is an EL of 2

I figure this because the APL is still 2 either way, but because you have 50% more party you need 50% more challenge. So basically, figure out what kind of an encouter you'd throw together for a regular 4-person party, then add or subtract 25% more or less for each person more than or less than 4.

So using the goblins again and assuming party members are all level 2:
2 pcs= 4 goblins
3 pcs= 6 goblins
4 pcs= 8 goblins
5 pcs= 10 goblins
6 pcs= 12 goblins
etc.

Of course that's dead-on, by-the-book "appropriate" encounter levels. So for a 6-person, level 2 party, I'd go with 12 goblins but treat it as CR=2 for handling XP/loot.

I figure it scales because the CR indicates what a party can "handle" without much trouble. But it's all based on 4 pcs. More or fewer pcs mean less "handling" ability.
4 pcs level 1 can take 4 goblins @ CR 1, 300xp/4=75xp each
4 pcs level 2 can take 8 goblins @ CR 2, 600xp/4=150xp each
4 pcs level 3 can take 12 goblins @ CR 3, 900xp/4=225xp each
4 pcs level 4 can take 16 goblins @ CR 4, 1200xp/4=300xp each

6 pcs level 1 can take 6 goblins @ CR 1, (300xp*1.5)/6=75xp each
6 pcs level 2 can take 12 goblins @ CR 2, (600xp*1.5)/6=150xp each
6 pcs level 3 can take 18 goblins @ CR 3, (900xp*1.5)/6=225xp each
6 pcs level 4 can take 24 goblins @ CR 4, (1200xp*1.5)/6=300 xp each
Zovc
10-24-07, 05:41 PM I hope you have six mature, serious players, or else you might have trouble keeping everyone's attention. I have trouble keeping three of my friends in line when another is seriously debating what to do.
Entropicurity
10-24-07, 05:43 PM well I'm not sure how it worked out that way either, it was recommended by another player and others seemed to boast that it was indeed the case.

So if I'm getting this right, there should be no Level Adjustment to the CR because of more players or less players?

Reason I'm asking this is because I want to keep as close to RPGA standards as possible more or less for balancing porposes than anything else, that and the amount of time it takes for the encounter to work out.

So if I go with what you've said, I would also assume that players play 1.5 times longer than normal which would change the rest of equation to limit the number of encounters. Iwould then not have to worry about level adjustments for the battles.

Though the argument remains:
Lets say you have just One player (just doing extremes here) and you set them up against a single NPC with equal level. The player would technically have a 50/50% chance to succeed on an equally classed and skilled player. This means it has a relatively high chance of death making it above challenging.

On the other hand, you have more players, lets say 8 (enough for two games all together) they can easily use skills that aid one another and the rolls become more streamlined, spells cast affect multiple characters and multiple skill attempts can be made during a single round that make it a lot easier to take on an equivilent foe. Using your example from before, the group could easily take on more goblins not only because of strategy and spells but also because that many people take up so much space that the battle because drawn out.

Since the extremes have different odds of success, I would also assume that the level adjustment suggest would assure that the players survive the fight assuming they played thoughtfully. With the smaller groups you become more specialized making it have a higher chance of a single ability of disabling you, where as a group would be able to overcome these obstacles because of diversity.
Entropicurity
10-24-07, 05:45 PM I hope you have six mature, serious players, or else you might have trouble keeping everyone's attention. I have trouble keeping three of my friends in line when another is seriously debating what to do.

No worries there, I have had each player put together a player history that is so detailed that it will give them hours upon hours of RP to have between conversations and actions in the game. These same histories also help my players to stay focused as they have a reason to know whats going on as it might affect something they are planning for the future.
Zovc
10-24-07, 06:03 PM Though the argument remains:
Lets say you have just One player (just doing extremes here) and you set them up against a single NPC with equal level. The player would technically have a 50/50% chance to succeed on an equally classed and skilled player. This means it has a relatively high chance of death making it above challenging.

On the other hand, you have more players, lets say 8 (enough for two games all together) they can easily use skills that aid one another and the rolls become more streamlined, spells cast affect multiple characters and multiple skill attempts can be made during a single round that make it a lot easier to take on an equivilent foe. Using your example from before, the group could easily take on more goblins not only because of strategy and spells but also because that many people take up so much space that the battle because drawn out.

Well, this sort of thing can't be perfect, especially when taking the extremes. Not only is it extremely difficult to do so with just the base classes, but when you start adding in your own content or the content of others, it literally is impossible. Spells in particular make this sort of thing more difficult to test. The best advice I can give to make sure things work nicely is to test this out yourself with a sample party, I'd suggest you use a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, and a bard.
PantherFern
10-24-07, 06:28 PM So if I go with what you've said, I would also assume that players play 1.5 times longer than normal which would change the rest of equation to limit the number of encounters. Iwould then not have to worry about level adjustments for the battles.
Well, I suppose theoretically, yeah. More people means more turns/round, more conversations during RP, etc. Of course trying to quantify play time is futile regardless how many people there are. But yeah, you should see fewer encounters in a four-hour session with 6 people than you will with 4 simply because there's more people "doing stuff."

Though the argument remains:
Lets say you have just One player (just doing extremes here) and you set them up against a single NPC with equal level. The player would technically have a 50/50% chance to succeed on an equally classed and skilled player. This means it has a relatively high chance of death making it above challenging.
True. Consider that the DMG says a classed NPC has a CR of their level.
So a level 4 Elf ranger would be a CR 4 appropriate for 4 level 4 PCs.
Using the percentages I laid out above, you only have 25% of a party.
Say you have a level 4 rogue for a PC.
25% of CR 4 = 1, so he should be facing a total CR of 1 for an equal challenge.
So where you would throw a level 4 ranger at a 4 person party, throw a level 1 ranger at a 1 person party for an equivalent challenge.

On the other hand, you have more players, lets say 8 (enough for two games all together) they can easily use skills that aid one another and the rolls become more streamlined, spells cast affect multiple characters and multiple skill attempts can be made during a single round that make it a lot easier to take on an equivilent foe. Using your example from before, the group could easily take on more goblins not only because of strategy and spells but also because that many people take up so much space that the battle because drawn out.
True.

Since the extremes have different odds of success, I would also assume that the level adjustment suggest would assure that the players survive the fight assuming they played thoughtfully. With the smaller groups you become more specialized making it have a higher chance of a single ability of disabling you, where as a group would be able to overcome these obstacles because of diversity.
Well, that's sort of the nature of things though. The more people you have, the higher the chance that somebody is skilled in Craft: basketweaving or that somebody will make that DC 31 spot check. That's the nature of numbers and probabilities and I don't know that there's much to be done about it.

One person with decent hide/move silent will be able to sneak up on somebody more easily than 8 people with varying levels of stealth even if their average skill ranks are the same as the one person.

Eight people will be able to intimidate a guard much easier than one would though, so I think it generally evens out overall. Some things are easier with more people, some with less.
Entropicurity
10-24-07, 06:34 PM Well that is definitely a different way of looking at things and I'll have to give it a shot for sure. Thanks for all the help!
Zovc
10-24-07, 06:35 PM True. Consider that the DMG says a classed NPC has a CR of their level.
So a level 4 Elf ranger would be a CR 4 appropriate for 4 level 4 PCs.
Using the percentages I laid out above, you only have 25% of a party.
Say you have a level 4 rogue for a PC.
25% of CR 4 = 1, so he should be facing a total CR of 1 for an equal challenge.
So where you would throw a level 4 ranger at a 4 person party, throw a level 1 ranger at a 1 person party for an equivalent challenge.

I thought a level 4 elf ranger would be a CR of 1. I don't have my DMG handy, but it doesn't make sense that a level 4 ranger would be considered an appropriate fight for a level 4 party.
Entropicurity
10-24-07, 06:39 PM you have to understand that a level 4 for level 4 party would be a small fight, of minor difficulty that used up minor resources and doesn't put the party at risk of death. The higher the challenge rating vrs player ratio the higher the exp should be and the higher risk of using up resources should be. But essentially it is believed that the party would use up their resources after 13.333 fights of equal CR.
Zovc
10-24-07, 06:45 PM So a party deals with 13.333 pushovers then rests? I was under the impression that a creature of the party's challenge level was supposed to be a challenge.
Entropicurity
10-24-07, 06:56 PM It is a challenge
usually if the ranger has his way, he could very well have a favored enemy favored towards on of the race types of the party in question.

It can also be assumed that the ranger has the appropriate either two weapon fighting or ranged combat feats coupled with the appropriate move silently and hide skills.

Assuming the Ranger gets not only the initiative but also the surprise round (for higher senses as well as laying in wait) we can therefore assume that the oponent team has one "aware"

That ranger then gets a free shot into the crowd at a Fighters BAB which can deal 1d6 to 8 +2 damage for the favored enemy. Assuming the ranger gets this hit and hits each time on the favored target, we can assume that 13.333 times that one of the players would be in a great harm after taking a minimum of 39 damage with heals in between. Since at this point the ranger would also have her first druid spell Entangle could come into play and make things even more complicated, buying the Ranger more time and giving him or her at least two more shots in.

So with all things considered we have a very complicated creature that can pose a serious threat if the NPC is tailored towards that party.
PantherFern
10-24-07, 07:04 PM I thought a level 4 elf ranger would be a CR of 1. I don't have my DMG handy, but it doesn't make sense that a level 4 ranger would be considered an appropriate fight for a level 4 party.

From my DMG, pg. 167 (this is 3.0 DMG)

An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC's level. Thus, and 8th level sorcerer is an 8th level encounter.

Remember, that an encounter is considered to be one that only uses up 20% of the party's resources. A single, 4th level PC vs. a single 4th level NPC is going to have a helluva fight on their hands and, likely as not, die. This is not a 20% resource scenario. By the same token though, a party of 4 4th level PCs should have little trouble dealing with a single 4th level NPC. Hence, a single NPC of the same level as the party (4 PCs assumed) is considered a normal challenge.
Zovc
10-24-07, 07:11 PM Okay, that makes sense. I just looked in the monster manual, Dwarven, Elven, Gnomish, and Halflang Warriors (all of the 1st level) are CRs of 1/2. I'm assuming this is because they are warriors and not fighters, for example?
PantherFern
10-24-07, 07:33 PM Okay, that makes sense. I just looked in the monster manual, Dwarven, Elven, Gnomish, and Halflang Warriors (all of the 1st level) are CRs of 1/2. I'm assuming this is because they are warriors and not fighters, for example?

Right, because warrior is an NPC class rather than a PC class.

They don't have the same skills, proficiencies, feats, equipment, etc that a PC would.

Whether that's worth a full 50% increase in CR is, perhaps, debatable. But that's how it is according to RAW.
Zovc
10-24-07, 10:30 PM Well, I'm glad this thread existed, my players would have not been getting much bang for their buck, in terms of effort.

:)
PantherFern
10-25-07, 01:14 AM So a party deals with 13.333 pushovers then rests? I was under the impression that a creature of the party's challenge level was supposed to be a challenge.

No.

The party should normally have about 4 level-equivalent encounters per day. The 13.3 comes in because by the CR-XP charts, it should take 13.3 level-equivalent encounters before the party acrues enough XP to level up.

A creature of the party's challenge level should only consume 20% of the party's resources - spells, potions, HP, etc. Lucky rolls aside, it should be won by the party with a modicum of effort and time. If you want to challenge them more, bump up the CR you throw at them but just try to remember that, because it should eat up more resources, they should get a rest after 3, or even 2 or 1 in a day depending on how tough it actually was (unless you want to be really cruel.) Also remember because the CRs will be higher, they'll be getting more experience per encounter and so will level up in less than 13.3.

I don't think the 13.3 thing is something you really need to keep conscious track of. It's just how the numbers happen to work out if you go strictly by the CR-XP chart in the DMG. It also doesn't account for ad hoc XP awards you might give out, RPing XP awards, or XP "payments" made for spells, creations, etc. It's just that if your players leveled up at the end of last session and now this session they're about to level up again after only 4 or 5 encounters, you might want to take a look at how you're handling XP.
Zovc
10-25-07, 03:09 PM This is why I should be a player before a DM, I need gameplay experience desperately.

Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Entropicurity 10-24-07, 12:11 PM	Hello all! Alright, went through a bunch of resources and one of my favorite so far is the Craft:Adventure stuff provided by RPGA. Though, a while ago I was trying to figure out how to determine what would be challenging for smaller groups of players and someone gave me the following table for determining effective CR: 2 Players = (APL-4 = CR) 3 Players = (APL-2 = CR) 4 Players = (APL = CR) 5 Players = (APL+2 = CR) 6 Players = (APL+4 = CR) Where APL is Average Player Level and CR is Challenge Rating Now the Craft:Adventure doesn't put this into account. In fact it uses a time table to determine how many encounters can fit into a single session and then uses the sum of the average level of all the characters in the party and divides it by the time alloted or encounters put together. Now this is GREAT for a group of 4 players, but if we go to 6 players (my current campaign) I find that if I am going to give them any experience at all I would have to eliminate entire encounters and add the sum of entire encounters together to get the encounters to be of any challenge to the players. So the question I have is as follows and I'll use an example to help out. Lets say I have 6 level 3 players. Now, they all have 32 points put into stats, so I usually increase their ECL by 1 for the porpose of determining CR. SO thats a total of 24 "Reserve." According to Craft Adventure you "should" have about 6 encounters plus 1 "bonus" in case game runs short. This gives an average encounter level of 4.....which is equal to the average player level. Thats effectively 4 levels below the level of "average" or "challenging" for 6 players. So concidering I never really go over 2 levels above the average player level for NPCs in encounters I would probably have teams of NPC's that summed up to +4 APL. So the question now is should I toss the timetable out the window and stick with just the APL as my limiter, or should I come up with a new equation all together for my adventures andkeeping them within my 200minute timeframe? OR Should I take the Sum of the 6 players levels, divide that by 4 and treat that as the "Level" in which to base time and number of encounters off of? Any help and advice would be greatly appreciated
PantherFern 10-24-07, 05:23 PM	I don't guess I understand how (or why) you're figuring ELs the way you are. I do it like this: A party is generally considered to be 4 people. A party of 6 is 1.5 parties. Goblins are CR .25 For a regular level 2 party, you'd need 8 of them for a total CR of 2. (8.25=2) For a 6-person level 2 party you multiply by 1.5 so 12 is an EL of 2 I figure this because the APL is still 2 either way, but because you have 50% more party you need 50% more challenge. So basically, figure out what kind of an encouter you'd throw together for a regular 4-person party, then add or subtract 25% more or less for each person more than or less than 4. So using the goblins again and assuming party members are all level 2: 2 pcs= 4 goblins 3 pcs= 6 goblins 4 pcs= 8 goblins 5 pcs= 10 goblins 6 pcs= 12 goblins etc. Of course that's dead-on, by-the-book "appropriate" encounter levels. So for a 6-person, level 2 party, I'd go with 12 goblins but treat it as CR=2 for handling XP/loot. I figure it scales because the CR indicates what a party can "handle" without much trouble. But it's all based on 4 pcs. More or fewer pcs mean less "handling" ability. 4 pcs level 1 can take 4 goblins @ CR 1, 300xp/4=75xp each 4 pcs level 2 can take 8 goblins @ CR 2, 600xp/4=150xp each 4 pcs level 3 can take 12 goblins @ CR 3, 900xp/4=225xp each 4 pcs level 4 can take 16 goblins @ CR 4, 1200xp/4=300xp each 6 pcs level 1 can take 6 goblins @ CR 1, (300xp1.5)/6=75xp each 6 pcs level 2 can take 12 goblins @ CR 2, (600xp1.5)/6=150xp each 6 pcs level 3 can take 18 goblins @ CR 3, (900xp1.5)/6=225xp each 6 pcs level 4 can take 24 goblins @ CR 4, (1200xp*1.5)/6=300 xp each
Zovc 10-24-07, 05:41 PM	I hope you have six mature, serious players, or else you might have trouble keeping everyone's attention. I have trouble keeping three of my friends in line when another is seriously debating what to do.
Entropicurity 10-24-07, 05:43 PM	well I'm not sure how it worked out that way either, it was recommended by another player and others seemed to boast that it was indeed the case. So if I'm getting this right, there should be no Level Adjustment to the CR because of more players or less players? Reason I'm asking this is because I want to keep as close to RPGA standards as possible more or less for balancing porposes than anything else, that and the amount of time it takes for the encounter to work out. So if I go with what you've said, I would also assume that players play 1.5 times longer than normal which would change the rest of equation to limit the number of encounters. Iwould then not have to worry about level adjustments for the battles. Though the argument remains: Lets say you have just One player (just doing extremes here) and you set them up against a single NPC with equal level. The player would technically have a 50/50% chance to succeed on an equally classed and skilled player. This means it has a relatively high chance of death making it above challenging. On the other hand, you have more players, lets say 8 (enough for two games all together) they can easily use skills that aid one another and the rolls become more streamlined, spells cast affect multiple characters and multiple skill attempts can be made during a single round that make it a lot easier to take on an equivilent foe. Using your example from before, the group could easily take on more goblins not only because of strategy and spells but also because that many people take up so much space that the battle because drawn out. Since the extremes have different odds of success, I would also assume that the level adjustment suggest would assure that the players survive the fight assuming they played thoughtfully. With the smaller groups you become more specialized making it have a higher chance of a single ability of disabling you, where as a group would be able to overcome these obstacles because of diversity.
Entropicurity 10-24-07, 05:45 PM	I hope you have six mature, serious players, or else you might have trouble keeping everyone's attention. I have trouble keeping three of my friends in line when another is seriously debating what to do. No worries there, I have had each player put together a player history that is so detailed that it will give them hours upon hours of RP to have between conversations and actions in the game. These same histories also help my players to stay focused as they have a reason to know whats going on as it might affect something they are planning for the future.
Zovc 10-24-07, 06:03 PM	Though the argument remains: Lets say you have just One player (just doing extremes here) and you set them up against a single NPC with equal level. The player would technically have a 50/50% chance to succeed on an equally classed and skilled player. This means it has a relatively high chance of death making it above challenging. On the other hand, you have more players, lets say 8 (enough for two games all together) they can easily use skills that aid one another and the rolls become more streamlined, spells cast affect multiple characters and multiple skill attempts can be made during a single round that make it a lot easier to take on an equivilent foe. Using your example from before, the group could easily take on more goblins not only because of strategy and spells but also because that many people take up so much space that the battle because drawn out. Well, this sort of thing can't be perfect, especially when taking the extremes. Not only is it extremely difficult to do so with just the base classes, but when you start adding in your own content or the content of others, it literally is impossible. Spells in particular make this sort of thing more difficult to test. The best advice I can give to make sure things work nicely is to test this out yourself with a sample party, I'd suggest you use a fighter, a rogue, a wizard, a sorcerer, a cleric, and a bard.
PantherFern 10-24-07, 06:28 PM	So if I go with what you've said, I would also assume that players play 1.5 times longer than normal which would change the rest of equation to limit the number of encounters. Iwould then not have to worry about level adjustments for the battles. Well, I suppose theoretically, yeah. More people means more turns/round, more conversations during RP, etc. Of course trying to quantify play time is futile regardless how many people there are. But yeah, you should see fewer encounters in a four-hour session with 6 people than you will with 4 simply because there's more people "doing stuff." Though the argument remains: Lets say you have just One player (just doing extremes here) and you set them up against a single NPC with equal level. The player would technically have a 50/50% chance to succeed on an equally classed and skilled player. This means it has a relatively high chance of death making it above challenging. True. Consider that the DMG says a classed NPC has a CR of their level. So a level 4 Elf ranger would be a CR 4 appropriate for 4 level 4 PCs. Using the percentages I laid out above, you only have 25% of a party. Say you have a level 4 rogue for a PC. 25% of CR 4 = 1, so he should be facing a total CR of 1 for an equal challenge. So where you would throw a level 4 ranger at a 4 person party, throw a level 1 ranger at a 1 person party for an equivalent challenge. On the other hand, you have more players, lets say 8 (enough for two games all together) they can easily use skills that aid one another and the rolls become more streamlined, spells cast affect multiple characters and multiple skill attempts can be made during a single round that make it a lot easier to take on an equivilent foe. Using your example from before, the group could easily take on more goblins not only because of strategy and spells but also because that many people take up so much space that the battle because drawn out. True. Since the extremes have different odds of success, I would also assume that the level adjustment suggest would assure that the players survive the fight assuming they played thoughtfully. With the smaller groups you become more specialized making it have a higher chance of a single ability of disabling you, where as a group would be able to overcome these obstacles because of diversity. Well, that's sort of the nature of things though. The more people you have, the higher the chance that somebody is skilled in Craft: basketweaving or that somebody will make that DC 31 spot check. That's the nature of numbers and probabilities and I don't know that there's much to be done about it. One person with decent hide/move silent will be able to sneak up on somebody more easily than 8 people with varying levels of stealth even if their average skill ranks are the same as the one person. Eight people will be able to intimidate a guard much easier than one would though, so I think it generally evens out overall. Some things are easier with more people, some with less.
Entropicurity 10-24-07, 06:34 PM	Well that is definitely a different way of looking at things and I'll have to give it a shot for sure. Thanks for all the help!
Zovc 10-24-07, 06:35 PM	True. Consider that the DMG says a classed NPC has a CR of their level. So a level 4 Elf ranger would be a CR 4 appropriate for 4 level 4 PCs. Using the percentages I laid out above, you only have 25% of a party. Say you have a level 4 rogue for a PC. 25% of CR 4 = 1, so he should be facing a total CR of 1 for an equal challenge. So where you would throw a level 4 ranger at a 4 person party, throw a level 1 ranger at a 1 person party for an equivalent challenge. I thought a level 4 elf ranger would be a CR of 1. I don't have my DMG handy, but it doesn't make sense that a level 4 ranger would be considered an appropriate fight for a level 4 party.
Entropicurity 10-24-07, 06:39 PM	you have to understand that a level 4 for level 4 party would be a small fight, of minor difficulty that used up minor resources and doesn't put the party at risk of death. The higher the challenge rating vrs player ratio the higher the exp should be and the higher risk of using up resources should be. But essentially it is believed that the party would use up their resources after 13.333 fights of equal CR.
Zovc 10-24-07, 06:45 PM	So a party deals with 13.333 pushovers then rests? I was under the impression that a creature of the party's challenge level was supposed to be a challenge.
Entropicurity 10-24-07, 06:56 PM	It is a challenge usually if the ranger has his way, he could very well have a favored enemy favored towards on of the race types of the party in question. It can also be assumed that the ranger has the appropriate either two weapon fighting or ranged combat feats coupled with the appropriate move silently and hide skills. Assuming the Ranger gets not only the initiative but also the surprise round (for higher senses as well as laying in wait) we can therefore assume that the oponent team has one "aware" That ranger then gets a free shot into the crowd at a Fighters BAB which can deal 1d6 to 8 +2 damage for the favored enemy. Assuming the ranger gets this hit and hits each time on the favored target, we can assume that 13.333 times that one of the players would be in a great harm after taking a minimum of 39 damage with heals in between. Since at this point the ranger would also have her first druid spell Entangle could come into play and make things even more complicated, buying the Ranger more time and giving him or her at least two more shots in. So with all things considered we have a very complicated creature that can pose a serious threat if the NPC is tailored towards that party.
PantherFern 10-24-07, 07:04 PM	I thought a level 4 elf ranger would be a CR of 1. I don't have my DMG handy, but it doesn't make sense that a level 4 ranger would be considered an appropriate fight for a level 4 party. From my DMG, pg. 167 (this is 3.0 DMG) An NPC with a PC class has a Challenge Rating equal to the NPC's level. Thus, and 8th level sorcerer is an 8th level encounter. Remember, that an encounter is considered to be one that only uses up 20% of the party's resources. A single, 4th level PC vs. a single 4th level NPC is going to have a helluva fight on their hands and, likely as not, die. This is not a 20% resource scenario. By the same token though, a party of 4 4th level PCs should have little trouble dealing with a single 4th level NPC. Hence, a single NPC of the same level as the party (4 PCs assumed) is considered a normal challenge.
Zovc 10-24-07, 07:11 PM	Okay, that makes sense. I just looked in the monster manual, Dwarven, Elven, Gnomish, and Halflang Warriors (all of the 1st level) are CRs of 1/2. I'm assuming this is because they are warriors and not fighters, for example?
PantherFern 10-24-07, 07:33 PM	Okay, that makes sense. I just looked in the monster manual, Dwarven, Elven, Gnomish, and Halflang Warriors (all of the 1st level) are CRs of 1/2. I'm assuming this is because they are warriors and not fighters, for example? Right, because warrior is an NPC class rather than a PC class. They don't have the same skills, proficiencies, feats, equipment, etc that a PC would. Whether that's worth a full 50% increase in CR is, perhaps, debatable. But that's how it is according to RAW.
Zovc 10-24-07, 10:30 PM	Well, I'm glad this thread existed, my players would have not been getting much bang for their buck, in terms of effort. :)
PantherFern 10-25-07, 01:14 AM	So a party deals with 13.333 pushovers then rests? I was under the impression that a creature of the party's challenge level was supposed to be a challenge. No. The party should normally have about 4 level-equivalent encounters per day. The 13.3 comes in because by the CR-XP charts, it should take 13.3 level-equivalent encounters before the party acrues enough XP to level up. A creature of the party's challenge level should only consume 20% of the party's resources - spells, potions, HP, etc. Lucky rolls aside, it should be won by the party with a modicum of effort and time. If you want to challenge them more, bump up the CR you throw at them but just try to remember that, because it should eat up more resources, they should get a rest after 3, or even 2 or 1 in a day depending on how tough it actually was (unless you want to be really cruel.) Also remember because the CRs will be higher, they'll be getting more experience per encounter and so will level up in less than 13.3. I don't think the 13.3 thing is something you really need to keep conscious track of. It's just how the numbers happen to work out if you go strictly by the CR-XP chart in the DMG. It also doesn't account for ad hoc XP awards you might give out, RPing XP awards, or XP "payments" made for spells, creations, etc. It's just that if your players leveled up at the end of last session and now this session they're about to level up again after only 4 or 5 encounters, you might want to take a look at how you're handling XP.
Zovc 10-25-07, 03:09 PM	This is why I should be a player before a DM, I need gameplay experience desperately.