Post/Author/DateTime	Post
Mindolin 10-02-07, 03:03 PM	Okay. The title says most of it. What I am thinking is to take a small emphasis off of the magic item stat boosters. Not to say I don't want a lot of magic, I am currently DMing a high magic world. Anyway, what I am thinking is that instead of having the stat increase be every four levels, it would be every three levels. What does everyone think of this house rule? Of course, it will be handed to heroes and villains alike.
Puritan13 10-02-07, 03:10 PM	As long as you use the same rule for your NPC's it should be balanced. Your characters will go through monsters slightly quicker, but I wouldn't worry about that.
metalmayhem80110 10-04-07, 12:56 AM	No offense, but it doesn't sound like it will make as much of a difference. Except for the fact that a +6 to a stat is like 36,000. I would rather get stat increases slower, and than go for my nifty item. If you really want to have this changed, you might look into the way star wars saga does it. They have it (Correct me if I'm wrong, I'm still VERY new to the system) where you gain 2 +1s to stats each 4 levels, but they must be seperated. So you gain a lot of stats, and have to spread out, a little.
heffroncm 10-04-07, 12:58 AM	Okay, so, you're getting 6 points instead of 5, and getting them slightly faster. I don't think this will discourage anyone from taking +6 stat items.
navar100 10-04-07, 02:27 AM	How about keep it every 4 levels but it's a +2 increase?
danielinthewolvesden 10-04-07, 02:58 AM	I would suggest 2 +1, every 4 levels, different stats. And ability boost items then cost double. Otherwise, heffroncm is right.
CroBob 10-04-07, 03:11 AM	Why not just make it every other level and remove the stat boosting items from the game entirely?
heffroncm 10-04-07, 03:22 AM	I do kind of have a problem with removing stat boosting items entirely. The CR system, imperfect as it is, is built on certain assumptions. One of these assumptions is that +6 stat items are not only available, they are fairly abundant and common. They are priced low enough that they are available in many places. Unless you are going to add enough extra stat points to cover all the stat items a person would normally have, and I would estimate that would mean at least adding another 16 stat points to levels 1-20, then removing stat items is probably a bad idea.
CroBob 10-04-07, 03:28 AM	Then ignore the CR system. Ad hoc XP based on how challenging the fight actually is, not how challenging it should be assuming the players are on an arbitrary power curve.
heffroncm 10-04-07, 04:10 AM	Then ignore the CR system. Ad hoc XP based on how challenging the fight actually is, not how challenging it should be assuming the players are on an arbitrary power curve. Yes, you can do that. It is also a lot more work. I've plenty enough to do with getting each game ready without having to decide how much each encounter is worth individually based on how much trouble the PC's have with it. I'd rather use the CR system. Some monsters the party will have more trouble than the CR suggests, some the party will find easier than the CR suggests. As long as I have a variety of opponents, it averages out to accurate in the end.
CroBob 10-04-07, 04:21 AM	More work? More work to arbitrarily decide how much XP the party gets on the spot? More work to know what your party can do regardless what the DC of the creature is? Do you toss a horned devil at the party because they're about level 15, or because they can take one on? What's the difference? You would toss a group of poorly prepared, under-optimized characters at exactly the same stuff you'd toss a group of power-gamers at? You already create encounters based on what your specific PCs can do and you know it. The approximation of CR value is fairly useful, sure, but it's merely the first step. No, I disagree with you. It's easier to design an encounter based around what you know your characters can do, and to assign XP based on how difficult it actually was. It could simply be our separate styles of DMing, but this is and always has been the case for me.
heffroncm 10-04-07, 04:31 AM	There is definitely a fundamental difference here. I don't tailor my encounters based on what I know my characters can accomplish. I plan for a very wide variety of encounters, and count on my players to be versatile enough to handle it. I plan my encounters with the CR system. If the players are finding things too easy for a while, I'll bump the CR up a bit compared to the party level.
Marstead 10-04-07, 06:37 AM	I'm running it like this, and it works well: I award 1 ability point per level, but the cost of raising an ability score increases based on your current score (similar to the point buy system), which simulates the difficulty in improving in an area in which you already excel. If a stat's value is between 1 and 13, it costs 1 point to increase. If a stat's value is between 14 and 15, it costs 2 points to increase. If a stat's value is between 15 and 16, it costs 3 points to increase. If a stat's value is 17 or higher, it costs 4 points to increase. By this method, the typical powergamer attack of flooding all your ability increases into one ability score will yield identical results, but people with abysmal scores early on can avoid power crunching their big stats and raising their lower ones for cheaper.
Roog 10-04-07, 06:45 AM	I do kind of have a problem with removing stat boosting items entirely. The CR system, imperfect as it is, is built on certain assumptions. One of these assumptions is that +6 stat items are not only available, they are fairly abundant and common. They are priced low enough that they are available in many places. Unless you are going to add enough extra stat points to cover all the stat items a person would normally have, and I would estimate that would mean at least adding another 16 stat points to levels 1-20, then removing stat items is probably a bad idea. How about doing what d20 Conan does, and +1 to all stats at level 6, and +1 every four levels after that (or something similar), as well as +1 to one stat every four levels?
CroBob 10-04-07, 12:17 PM	There is definitely a fundamental difference here. I don't tailor my encounters based on what I know my characters can accomplish. I plan for a very wide variety of encounters, and count on my players to be versatile enough to handle it. I plan my encounters with the CR system. If the players are finding things too easy for a while, I'll bump the CR up a bit compared to the party level. Yet, those encounters you expect your party to be versatile enough to handle, they should be versatile enough to handle according to he CR system. So, in fact, you are tailoring the encounters, you're simply not taking into account what the characters can actually do, but what they should, theoretically, be able to, assuming the typical power curve. Consider me this; A group of front-line fighty types, those who have proficiency with bows or other ranged weapons have only mundane versions, and the only caster is a poorly played druid (and by poorly payed, I mean just awful!), the only character with a reliable ranged attack couldn't make the night's session. When they're level 7, they get attacked by some Arrow Demons. It should be fairly tough, at EL9. Yet, half of them die. Do the survivors (and the not survivors, if the party manages to find a way to raise them) of what would have been a slaughter if not for lucky rolls get the XP for two CR 7 creatures, or was it actually a much tougher fight than the CR would otherwise be?
danielinthewolvesden 10-04-07, 03:05 PM	Then ignore the CR system. Ad hoc XP based on how challenging the fight actually is, not how challenging it should be assuming the players are on an arbitrary power curve. Then you end up with bored players or dead PC's. We just had a post here by one DM who is runnong both a 3 pC party AND a low magic campaign, and wanted to know why a certain encounter ended in a TPK and what he should do about it.
SkepticalBandit 10-04-07, 03:13 PM	Then you end up with bored players or dead PC's. We just had a post here by one DM who is runnong both a 3 pC party AND a low magic campaign, and wanted to know why a certain encounter ended in a TPK and what he should do about it. CR's are kind of funny sometimes. I'm running a caster heavy game (3 full casters and a ranger). They mow through some encounters without trouble, but others are killers. At 5th level, they capped a Morhg pretty quickly. That was supposed to be a full on, big, scale battle, and they resolved it in just 4 or 5 rounds. However, at level 6, I killed off one of the casters (a halfling sorcerer) with a pair of Shadows. (Yes, it's an undead heavy campaign).
DM Zoc 10-04-07, 06:25 PM	Changing how frequently you increase stats will have less of a change on game balance than whether you chose to run 28 or 32 point buy (or, if you roll, it will change things less than the difference between the person who rolled well and the person who rolled not as well).
CroBob 10-05-07, 12:15 AM	Then you end up with bored players or dead PC's. We just had a post here by one DM who is runnong both a 3 pC party AND a low magic campaign, and wanted to know why a certain encounter ended in a TPK and what he should do about it. A lack of CR ratings in second edition didn't seem to create that problem. My games don't have that problem. I mean, if you included a reason for saying what you did, some evidence, perhaps in the form of a reasoned argument, maybe it would be persuasive. Right now it's an entirely unsubstantiated claim, though. I fail to see what makes a game boring when the reward is balanced by the challenge instead of the hypothetical challenge. What's the difference except the exact amount of XP rewarded and the challenge being better suited to specific characters instead of the typical party of the Fighter, Wizard, Rogue, and Cleric? Did you bother reading my second post? Basically, on what basis do you make that judgement? The DM you cite obviously didn't tailor encounters based on the characters that were fighting them, which is required with or without the CR system.
heffroncm 10-05-07, 10:01 AM	Yet, those encounters you expect your party to be versatile enough to handle, they should be versatile enough to handle according to he CR system. So, in fact, you are tailoring the encounters, you're simply not taking into account what the characters can actually do, but what they should, theoretically, be able to, assuming the typical power curve. Consider me this; A group of front-line fighty types, those who have proficiency with bows or other ranged weapons have only mundane versions, and the only caster is a poorly played druid (and by poorly payed, I mean just awful!), the only character with a reliable ranged attack couldn't make the night's session. When they're level 7, they get attacked by some Arrow Demons. It should be fairly tough, at EL9. Yet, half of them die. Do the survivors (and the not survivors, if the party manages to find a way to raise them) of what would have been a slaughter if not for lucky rolls get the XP for two CR 7 creatures, or was it actually a much tougher fight than the CR would otherwise be? There is a differance between picking a couple monsters of the right general threat level (that being what CR is) and custom designing every single creature that my players encounter. One of these things can be accomplished in minutes at the table when my players throw me for a loop and go off into areas I'm not prepared for. The other takes hours of cross-referencing tables and character sheets per encounter. As to your Arrow Demons, that was a perfect example of how difficult that fight would be. Assuming you are sticking with the CR system in the example you cite, you are pitting an EL 9 encounter versus 3 level 7 PCs. An EL 9 encounter against a standard party level 7 is likely to result in at least one fatality. It can even be a TPK. That's the danger of pushing above the party level. Arrow Demons are intelligent, and with there Dimension Door ability and decent Initiative Modifier are likely to act before the PCs. 1 of them is an appropriate challenge for a group at level 7. 2 of them can kill their choice of PC before the players get a chance to act. This is comparable to what would happen with other EL 9 encounters versus a party level 7. The party, theorectically, can barely handle the encounter and probably need a heap of luck to do it. I'm sure they have ways to handle the Arrow Demon's ranged advantage. As to party make-up, there's a bit of a learning curve associated with D&D. Adventuring groups are going to logically fill the holes they have with appropriate people. There have been very few campaigns that I've played which take place in a social vacuum, with the group unable to recruit more suitable members. You seem to be implying that poor tactical decisions should be awarded with increased experience. Yes, there can be RP reasons why the entire party rolled up Gnome Barbarians. Then it's up to the DM and players to decide between them wether they want a game designed specifically to allow Gnome Barbarians to be successful, or if they would prefer a game where the Gnome Barbarians have to find a way to be successful against normal challenges. Basically, we're arguing a question already answered in the DMG. Do you prefer to tailor every encounter to be an appropriate challenge for your PCs, or do you prefer status quo encounters in which the world exists as it does and the PCs have every likelihood of encountering innapropriate challenges? So, no, I would not award them more XP than the two CR 7s. I would question either why they are being picked on by their DM (tailored encounters) or what they are doing wandering around a place with such dangerous demons about (status quo encounters).
Senevri 10-05-07, 11:34 AM	The thing is... I've done a decent WBL analysis, and you roughly get a +2 stat boost from items per 4 levels. Of course, most go for a magic weapon instead of stat boost early on, but the math still holds. If you want to remove permanent effect items (as I've done in one campaign), you're going to need pretty significant stat boosts. I'm currently handing out 3 points every 4 levels... but I'll tell you how that works out later on. It does make a bigger gap between a 3rd level and a 4th level character, though.
heffroncm 10-05-07, 01:08 PM	The thing is... I've done a decent WBL analysis, and you roughly get a +2 stat boost from items per 4 levels. Of course, most go for a magic weapon instead of stat boost early on, but the math still holds. If you want to remove permanent effect items (as I've done in one campaign), you're going to need pretty significant stat boosts. I'm currently handing out 3 points every 4 levels... but I'll tell you how that works out later on. It does make a bigger gap between a 3rd level and a 4th level character, though. That seems like a rather low estimate to me. Most characters I've built and seen build have, at the least, two +6 items (Con and Str or Casting Stat) by the time they are level 15. That's about a third of the character's wealth by level, and provides some very large benefits compared to the other options of similar cost.
CroBob 10-05-07, 01:14 PM	There is a differance between picking a couple monsters of the right general threat level (that being what CR is) and custom designing every single creature that my players encounter. One of these things can be accomplished in minutes at the table when my players throw me for a loop and go off into areas I'm not prepared for. The other takes hours of cross-referencing tables and character sheets per encounter. As to your Arrow Demons, that was a perfect example of how difficult that fight would be. Assuming you are sticking with the CR system in the example you cite, you are pitting an EL 9 encounter versus 3 level 7 PCs. An EL 9 encounter against a standard party level 7 is likely to result in at least one fatality. It can even be a TPK. That's the danger of pushing above the party level. Arrow Demons are intelligent, and with there Dimension Door ability and decent Initiative Modifier are likely to act before the PCs. 1 of them is an appropriate challenge for a group at level 7. 2 of them can kill their choice of PC before the players get a chance to act. This is comparable to what would happen with other EL 9 encounters versus a party level 7. The party, theorectically, can barely handle the encounter and probably need a heap of luck to do it. I'm sure they have ways to handle the Arrow Demon's ranged advantage. As to party make-up, there's a bit of a learning curve associated with D&D. Adventuring groups are going to logically fill the holes they have with appropriate people. There have been very few campaigns that I've played which take place in a social vacuum, with the group unable to recruit more suitable members. You seem to be implying that poor tactical decisions should be awarded with increased experience. Yes, there can be RP reasons why the entire party rolled up Gnome Barbarians. Then it's up to the DM and players to decide between them wether they want a game designed specifically to allow Gnome Barbarians to be successful, or if they would prefer a game where the Gnome Barbarians have to find a way to be successful against normal challenges. Basically, we're arguing a question already answered in the DMG. Do you prefer to tailor every encounter to be an appropriate challenge for your PCs, or do you prefer status quo encounters in which the world exists as it does and the PCs have every likelihood of encountering innapropriate challenges? So, no, I would not award them more XP than the two CR 7s. I would question either why they are being picked on by their DM (tailored encounters) or what they are doing wandering around a place with such dangerous demons about (status quo encounters). You can tell what a creature's threat level is by reading it's stats block. There's no need to cross-reference or hours of anything. You know what your PCs can do. You don't need a copy of their character sheets, you see them do it in actual fights. Assumptions, assumptions. See, you assumed it was a typical party that was missing someone when fighting the Arrow Demons. Not true. There were six, not counting the one who didn't show up. Yes, they could handle the ranged attackers, that's how they managed to actually win the fight. However, that doesn't make it not a weakness. I'm sure Achilles could try to dodge arrows, but that doesn't mean his heel isn't a weakness. And, let's be frank, the typical party stands, in practice, almost no chance of being killed by an EL two above APL. Let's assume that same group fought four Babau. EL 10, right? Yet, the group has no problem with them at all. They take some damage and spend some time trying to actually find them (a few times), but after that, it's dead time for the Babaus. In reality, it was not as large a threat as the game assumes, while the first was a larger, at a lower theorized threat. Of course, larger groups make most fights easier than the theory would claim it is, but two extra people should only effectively modify the EL by one or two at best. So, even as you state, the party theoretically cannot (or it's very difficult if they can) handle things they, in fact, can. While other things they theoretically can handle, in fact, is more difficult than that. While I agree the CR system is decent as an approximation of power, that's all. An approximation. And it's often off by at least a little. I really don't think the game's designers assumed every fight the PCs would be in would be tough because it happened to exploit the PCs' weakness.
heffroncm 10-05-07, 04:02 PM	Assumptions, assumptions. See, you assumed it was a typical party that was missing someone when fighting the Arrow Demons. Not true. There were six, not counting the one who didn't show up. Why, yes, how silly of me to assume the same basic assumptions the CR system is based on when using the CR system. You didn't specify, leaving me to draw the information from the only place I could, the system we're arguing about. I stated that such a fight would be "very difficult," that meaning that they should win, but won't be able to do two. If you want your party of 6 to face the same relative difficulty, those two Arrow Demons would need to be advanced by 2 HD, giving them another 28hp, another BaB, another point to all saves, and another feat. This would put the difficulty in line with a party of 4 facing off against 2 stock Arrow Demons. As to your Babau, properly played, they are just as much a threat. With Sneak Attack and a high enough Hide modifier as to nearly guaruntee sucess, plus Sneak Attack, Darkness as an SLA, and Darkvision, they are a major threat to anyone of the level in question. On top of that, if you do manage to find and attack one, your weapon is taking 1d8 damage ignoring hardness. A level 7 character has 19,000 to spend. Even if you assume they are set up specifically to fight Babau and have spent half their gold on their weaponry, you end up with a +1 Blessed Cold Iron weapon. This weapon is going to have 6 HP. So, yeah, I do think a bunch of Babau is quite as threatening as a couple Arrow Demons. The entire point I'm trying to make is that the CR system isn't perfect, but it's good enough. Each fight doesn't need to target the party's weaknesses. Some will be tougher than others. As long as you use a variety, like I've said in every single post, it will average out in the end. There's no need to individually asign experience for every single encounter the party comes up against, when you can achieve the same result using the CR system with less work. So, in the end, the argument I'm trying to put forth here is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it."
Senevri 10-05-07, 05:12 PM	That seems like a rather low estimate to me. Most characters I've built and seen build have, at the least, two +6 items (Con and Str or Casting Stat) by the time they are level 15. That's about a third of the character's wealth by level, and provides some very large benefits compared to the other options of similar cost. well, possibly. However, giving 3 points gives more options to bump uneven values, so it may balance out. My math assumed a +8 item ASAP, and then starting on a second stat to increase. However, if you give 1 point per level (+15 points over normal), it's easy to calculate and MAY cover for the lack of stat and resistance items. But, if your players put ALL 20 points to a single stat...? Yeah. you may want some sort of additional ruling there. The point in this exercise, really, is to get the people to focus on the "interesting" items rather than the "number-boosting" items. Basically, items I'd like to eliminate: stat boosters resistance boosters (at least the universal ones) Rings of Protection But... time will tell. At least NPC generation is easier, as you don't need to go shopping as much.
CroBob 10-05-07, 05:22 PM	Why, yes, how silly of me to assume the same basic assumptions the CR system is based on when using the CR system. You didn't specify, leaving me to draw the information from the only place I could, the system we're arguing about. The very system I'm arguing is arbitrary and nothing more than a springboard for determining actual difficulty. I stated that such a fight would be "very difficult," that meaning that they should win, but won't be able to do two. If you want your party of 6 to face the same relative difficulty, those two Arrow Demons would need to be advanced by 2 HD, giving them another 28hp, another BaB, another point to all saves, and another feat. This would put the difficulty in line with a party of 4 facing off against 2 stock Arrow Demons. Doubtful. When the difficulty of the fight is getting to the enemy (before dying), some extra hit points and base attack aren't all that important. Such an increase is disproportionate to the actual challenge the encounter presents, which is the ranged attacks and ability to dimension door. It could make it slightly more difficult, but not enough to compensate for two PCs. The PCs still out-action the demons three to one, and have proportionately more total hit-points, not to mention ability to remove other things' hit points, for the difference than the demons gained. The best thing they get from it is the extra attack bonus, but they already have a good attack to begin with. As to your Babau, properly played, they are just as much a threat. With Sneak Attack and a high enough Hide modifier as to nearly guaruntee sucess, plus Sneak Attack, Darkness as an SLA, and Darkvision, they are a major threat to anyone of the level in question. On top of that, if you do manage to find and attack one, your weapon is taking 1d8 damage ignoring hardness. A level 7 character has 19,000 to spend. Even if you assume they are set up specifically to fight Babau and have spent half their gold on their weaponry, you end up with a +1 Blessed Cold Iron weapon. This weapon is going to have 6 HP. So, yeah, I do think a bunch of Babau is quite as threatening as a couple Arrow Demons. Sneak attack is certainly an important consideration, when being used against PCs who can be flanked. If they cannot be flanked or lack Improved Uncanny Dodge, however, it's different. Not that the sneak attack is useless, only that it's not nearly as useful against the guys who will be fighting them head to head. The PCs can easily counter darkness, and even then create light if it's simply normally dark. And so they can sneak. Good for them. How about characters who have Blindsense as a class ability? How do they compensate for that? How do they compensate for a character with Scent? You see, this particular groups isn't much threatened by sneaky guys who stab kidnies. The typical group, sure, the babaus are a decent threat. However, this group, along with weaknesses, also strengths. They're exceptionally good at fighting sneaky dudes, and they're bad at fighting ranged dudes. My point is exactly that CR is meant for a typical, one of all of the four major class types, lacking none, groups. When the group is not that (and it hardly ever is, in my experience), the CR system is an approximation and nothing more. What the group is good at and what they're bad at must be taken into consideration. Even if you're lazy and don't reward XP according to actual challenge, you must take what the group can do into account when planning encounters. Certainly, the world is it's own world, not everything will be an appropriate challenge, but the stuff you plan for the PCs to do, not simply them running off to find adventure where the giants are said to be, ought to take into consideration what they can do. Where's the fun of the game if you don't make such considerations? "Well, a wall of force and no arcane caster or someone with use magic device. I guess we simply cannot continue through here. That sucks. I wonder why the DM didn't consider what we could actually do before creating a plot point we cannot tackle." The entire point I'm trying to make is that the CR system isn't perfect, but it's good enough. Each fight doesn't need to target the party's weaknesses. Some will be tougher than others. As long as you use a variety, like I've said in every single post, it will average out in the end. There's no need to individually asign experience for every single encounter the party comes up against, when you can achieve the same result using the CR system with less work. Or you could just ad hoc XP based on how challenging an encounter actually was (as per my original statement), which not only requires less work than checking XP tables and multiplying and then dividing, but is consistent with the reason the PCs get a specific amount of XP in the first place; They overcame a challenge to a degree appropriating that much XP! So, in the end, the argument I'm trying to put forth here is "if it ain't broke, don't fix it." And mine; "If it's not an accurate measuring tool, use a better one. (The one I'm suggesting is good judgment, which not everyone has, which is why I'm not arguing CR should be done away with)"
heffroncm 10-05-07, 06:34 PM	Doubtful. When the difficulty of the fight is getting to the enemy (before dying), some extra hit points and base attack aren't all that important. Such an increase is disproportionate to the actual challenge the encounter presents, which is the ranged attacks and ability to dimension door. It could make it slightly more difficult, but not enough to compensate for two PCs. The PCs still out-action the demons three to one, and have proportionately more total hit-points, not to mention ability to remove other things' hit points, for the difference than the demons gained. The best thing they get from it is the extra attack bonus, but they already have a good attack to begin with. Yes... and two HD of Outsider gives them an extra 2 BaB, a stat point, and a feat. That feat would be Manyshot in this circumstance. This allows them to make 6 ranged attacks as a Standard Action. Manyshot provides an additional 2 arrows per bow because they have a BaB of +12, and Symmetrical Archery allows both bows to be used at the same time. This gives six arrows at +9 to hit as a standard action, versus the 2 arrows at +14 the demon had before. If that is not a significant increase in difficulty, what is? Sneak attack is certainly an important consideration, when being used against PCs who can be flanked. If they cannot be flanked or lack Improved Uncanny Dodge, however, it's different. Not that the sneak attack is useless, only that it's not nearly as useful against the guys who will be fighting them head to head. The PCs can easily counter darkness, and even then create light if it's simply normally dark. And so they can sneak. Good for them. How about characters who have Blindsense as a class ability? How do they compensate for that? How do they compensate for a character with Scent? You see, this particular groups isn't much threatened by sneaky guys who stab kidnies. The typical group, sure, the babaus are a decent threat. However, this group, along with weaknesses, also strengths. They're exceptionally good at fighting sneaky dudes, and they're bad at fighting ranged dudes. Yes, and because of those strengths, if you look at the overall adventure, it evens out. You have one below average difficulty fight, and one above average difficulty fight. I still think the Babau Slime is something that is being overlooked, it adds significantly to the CR of the creature because in a single round it can destroy even heavily enchanted weaponry. My point is exactly that CR is meant for a typical, one of all of the four major class types, lacking none, groups. When the group is not that (and it hardly ever is, in my experience), the CR system is an approximation and nothing more. What the group is good at and what they're bad at must be taken into consideration. Even if you're lazy and don't reward XP according to actual challenge, you must take what the group can do into account when planning encounters. Certainly, the world is it's own world, not everything will be an appropriate challenge, but the stuff you plan for the PCs to do, not simply them running off to find adventure where the giants are said to be, ought to take into consideration what they can do. Where's the fun of the game if you don't make such considerations? "Well, a wall of force and no arcane caster or someone with use magic device. I guess we simply cannot continue through here. That sucks. I wonder why the DM didn't consider what we could actually do before creating a plot point we cannot tackle." And this is the big differance. I do not tailor my adventures to the individual group. It is the very rare occurance that I take the party's abilities into account when creating an adventure. I operate this way for a couple reasons. For one, you don't need any one class to tackle any situation, but you do need to compensate for that lack. Any decent group of adventurers is going to either recruit someone to fill their gap, or, barring that, buy what they need. If they go into a dungeon blind and happen upon something that only Dispel Magic can handle, then they get a wand and use it. If they happen to be playing the aforementioned group of Gnome Barbarians, then they'll be buying an item to go ethereal and around, or spending a lot of time digging around the side, or buying a Rod of Cancellation (on a tangent, any adventuring party should own one of these by level 7 or 8, they are cheap and extremely useful). For two, forcing my players to operate outside what they think of as their 'class boundaries' gets them thinking. The more creative they are being, the more interested in the game, the more likely it is that they will complete the adventure and be creative when it comes to RP. And for three, anything I make gets written down. I never throw away old material. I've been DM'ing in 3rd and 3.5 since day 1, and have a bookcase full of homebrew. If I had tailored each adventure to the party involved, I wouldn't be able to grab a binder and be ready when I haven't had time to prepare. Or you could just ad hoc XP based on how challenging an encounter actually was (as per my original statement), which not only requires less work than checking XP tables and multiplying and then dividing, but is consistent with the reason the PCs get a specific amount of XP in the first place; They overcame a challenge to a degree appropriating that much XP! Granted. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see how this would appeal to someone who is interested in a more freeform structure to their game.
danielinthewolvesden 10-05-07, 08:43 PM	A lack of CR ratings in second edition didn't seem to create that problem. My games don't have that problem. Basically, on what basis do you make that judgement? The DM you cite obviously didn't tailor encounters based on the characters that were fighting them, which is required with or without the CR system. They did have something very like CR ratings, "encounters for a given level". DMing for like 35 years?:P And, it is not required, which is the neat thing about the system. The Players also know about the system, and if they choose to play a group of 4 fighters, then that's on them, not the DM. Do not get me wrong, I DO tailor most of my encounters for my group, but it IS nice sometimes to be able to throw a quick wandering monster at them without worry. That's why I do not like LM campaigns, the math is all off.
CroBob 10-07-07, 12:57 AM	Yes... and two HD of Outsider gives them an extra 2 BaB, a stat point, and a feat. That feat would be Manyshot in this circumstance. This allows them to make 6 ranged attacks as a Standard Action. Manyshot provides an additional 2 arrows per bow because they have a BaB of +12, and Symmetrical Archery allows both bows to be used at the same time. This gives six arrows at +9 to hit as a standard action, versus the 2 arrows at +14 the demon had before. If that is not a significant increase in difficulty, what is? An interesting take on things. However, I think it's important to point out the flaw. Manyshot necessitates the target be within 30'. When your advantage is that you can stay a distance away, then being able to do more while you're close isn't that big a deal. Being close is to be avoided if this fight is to be won, and this demon, as you said, is smart. You have a nice move of forty, so you could, ideally, be 30' away and then move 40' after your attacks, but that 70' is still much closer than is both comfortable and possible. In addition, you're ignoring that the demon can already fire three arrows from each of his bows each round at his current number of hit dice, two with a higher bonus than that plus nine, if the third is only at plus seven, thanks to his Rapid Shot feat, albeit with a full attack action. However, he has the opportunity to take that full attack action after dimension dooring a distance away after the PCs have gotten close, the same as he'd do if her were using Manyshot. He'd simply be able to move his full movement less often. Yes, and because of those strengths, if you look at the overall adventure, it evens out. You have one below average difficulty fight, and one above average difficulty fight. I still think the Babau Slime is something that is being overlooked, it adds significantly to the CR of the creature because in a single round it can destroy even heavily enchanted weaponry. Perhaps if the PCs got their XP at the end of the adventure then that'd be alright. However, as a PC, it's simply not satisfying to get very little XP when the risk of a TPK is real and it took cunning to avoid, then you're rewarded more XP from a fight that was a cakewalk. The Babau slime is nigh irrelevant. Those with good reflex saves aren't really risking their weapons, those without, yet who rely on weapons, can easily use their mundane ones (woh, pocket change down the drain), and casters have spells. There's a touch of risk, sure, but it's really not that big a one by seventh level. For one, you don't need any one class to tackle any situation, but you do need to compensate for that lack. Any decent group of adventurers is going to either recruit someone to fill their gap, or, barring that, buy what they need. If they go into a dungeon blind and happen upon something that only Dispel Magic can handle, then they get a wand and use it. If they happen to be playing the aforementioned group of Gnome Barbarians, then they'll be buying an item to go ethereal and around, or spending a lot of time digging around the side, or buying a Rod of Cancellation (on a tangent, any adventuring party should own one of these by level 7 or 8, they are cheap and extremely useful). This assumes they can stop doing what they're doing in the middle of it, figure out what they can buy to get the job done, leave, find somewhere to buy it, and then come back and use it, picking up where they left off. If that's frequently the case, cool. However, didn't that just make the encounter a bit more difficult than it would have otherwise been? For two, forcing my players to operate outside what they think of as their 'class boundaries' gets them thinking. The more creative they are being, the more interested in the game, the more likely it is that they will complete the adventure and be creative when it comes to RP. That's fine and good. However, it doesn't make an encounter any more or less difficult than it, in fact, was, nor does it make any one class suddenly able to do something it cannot. A group with no dedicated healer type always manages to find ways of getting healed. However, it's also still more difficult. Just because someone can do something, it doesn't mean they can do it well, making it's getting done more difficult. And for three, anything I make gets written down. I never throw away old material. I've been DM'ing in 3rd and 3.5 since day 1, and have a bookcase full of homebrew. If I had tailored each adventure to the party involved, I wouldn't be able to grab a binder and be ready when I haven't had time to prepare. I've been DMing the same amount of time (and longer). If I use an old adventure, or location from a previous adventure, anyhow, my players notice. I did it once. Not that it's a bad thing, they found it a creative use for an old map. Besides, not being as prepared as much as you'd like is a nice opportunity to wing it. Ever draw out a dungeon the first time on the battle grid? The players don't notice and it's exciting for you, too. But, then, my doctors say I have ADD. Granted. I think we're going to have to agree to disagree on this one. I can see how this would appeal to someone who is interested in a more freeform structure to their game. I dunno if I'd call it "freeform" so much as "consistent", as the whole point is to add a consistency to XP rewards based on challenge.