I halve Elite and Solo hp and this works very well. I used to halve Standard monster hp but I found some died too fast, giants especially should not be so squishy. So for Standard monsters I reduce hp as follows:
Low (eg Artillery) 4/Level+4+CON
Medium (eg Soldier, Skirmisher) 5/Level+5+CON
High (Brute) 6/Level+6+CON
This can be done to listed stats as follows, deduct:
Low: 2/Level+2
Medium: 3/Level+3
High: 4/Level+4
This matches closely to PC hit points and I find it works best.
Thursday, 22 October 2015
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
5e D&D - Scaling Challenges for More Players...
I don't actually 'build' encounters myself, but this is how it works...
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=33352
The DMG says a lot about this. Check the paragraph on Party Size, DMG pg 82. If a party has 6+ PCs then you multiply monster XP by 0.5 to set the budget. If you want a Medium challenge for 8 level 6 PCs then your budget is 600x8=4800 xp; with single monster's XPV multiplied by 0.5, ie you need a monster worth at least 9600 XP. Per DMG page 275 you need a single CR 13 monster (XPV 10,000) to provide a Medium challenge to the group.
Note that a Medium challenge is one that the group is expected to do 6-8 of between long rests, not something that will feel like a big fight. A Hard challenge for eight level 6 PCs has a budget of 900x8=7200 xp, single monster x0.5 so need 14400 xp. Per DMG page 275 you need a single CR 16 monster!
http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=33352
The DMG says a lot about this. Check the paragraph on Party Size, DMG pg 82. If a party has 6+ PCs then you multiply monster XP by 0.5 to set the budget. If you want a Medium challenge for 8 level 6 PCs then your budget is 600x8=4800 xp; with single monster's XPV multiplied by 0.5, ie you need a monster worth at least 9600 XP. Per DMG page 275 you need a single CR 13 monster (XPV 10,000) to provide a Medium challenge to the group.
Note that a Medium challenge is one that the group is expected to do 6-8 of between long rests, not something that will feel like a big fight. A Hard challenge for eight level 6 PCs has a budget of 900x8=7200 xp, single monster x0.5 so need 14400 xp. Per DMG page 275 you need a single CR 16 monster!
Monday, 19 October 2015
Monster CR in 5e
A lot of monsters are much lower CR than previously - eg I was surprised Manticores are only CR 3 now - which works ok if you run it like 4e with PCs normally fighting groups of monsters. Also, higher level monsters are much more fightable than in 3e; they may get lucky and kill PCs, but they are definitely beatable. Conversely, bounded accuracy means hordes of low level monsters are much more dangerous than in 3e.
Overall I like the change - the paucity of monsters above CR 10 was initially surprising, but the intent seems to be that high level PCs fight lots of mid-CR monsters, hordes of low-CR monsters, or the occasional high-CR solo monster.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=860737&postcount=22
Overall I like the change - the paucity of monsters above CR 10 was initially surprising, but the intent seems to be that high level PCs fight lots of mid-CR monsters, hordes of low-CR monsters, or the occasional high-CR solo monster.
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=860737&postcount=22
Sunday, 18 October 2015
Finished an Adventure Path! Paizo's Curse of the Crimson Throne.
http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?768319-Finished-an-Adventure-Path!-Curse-of-the-Crimson-Throne
Yesterday my Sunday group successfully completed Curse of the Crimson Throne after 34 sessions, levels 2-14, and almost 2 years of real time. The game blog is here - http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.co.uk/
Completing the AP feels rather like scaling Mount Everest - satisfying, but partly because of the sheer effort involved. Compared to running a 'normal' campaign, this felt vastly more arduous, reading all the books, trying to understand the intent of the series and the individual authors, working out what could be changed or avoided, what was the necessary backbone of each volume and of the AP as a whole. The backbone of a volume was sometimes hidden - eg in Book 5, the steps the PCs actually needed to take to complete the steps towards gaining the sword Serithtiel was buried deep in the text. In the case of Book 4 and its endless fetch-quests the whole thing proved unnecessary and I ended up not using most of it, making it a wasted purchase - but no way to know that in advance.
One conclusion I took away was that 3e/PF and its progression rate seems extremely unsuited to linear play with the scope of this sort of AP.
1. From the player end, PCs level up too fast and increase in power too fast, easily exceeding the credible scope - by the end of the campaign the godlike 14th level PCs felt like they should have been invading the Abyss, not merely saving a city. This would have been even more pronounced with the level 1-16 scope of the AP as originally written.
2. From the GM end, 3e/PF stat monster and NPC stat blocks go from reasonable at levels 1-5 to nightmarish levels 11+. Just reading stat blocks, looking up spells and powers, trying to grok authors' intent re battle tactics, took much more time than I normally need to prep a session, and this is just one part of running an AP.
The advantage of the AP was that it gave a satisfying, close-ended campaign experience, like completing a well made video game. I do plan to run APs again in the future, though next time I'll have a clearer idea what I'm getting into. I don't think I'll use 3e/Pathfinder again though. 5e D&D looks well suited to most Paizo APs, with 4e D&D also a possibility given plenty of editing to remove 'trash fights' - run as-is 4e would be much too slow. I'll need to be prepared for the extreme effort involved though; compared to running a more open or sandbox game, successful prepping and GMing of an AP takes far more work - which feels like the opposite of the common stereotype. Partly this is the time spent reading the text, partly it is the need to ensure it doesn't feel constricting and railroady.
Yesterday my Sunday group successfully completed Curse of the Crimson Throne after 34 sessions, levels 2-14, and almost 2 years of real time. The game blog is here - http://smonscurseofthecrimsonthrone.blogspot.co.uk/
Completing the AP feels rather like scaling Mount Everest - satisfying, but partly because of the sheer effort involved. Compared to running a 'normal' campaign, this felt vastly more arduous, reading all the books, trying to understand the intent of the series and the individual authors, working out what could be changed or avoided, what was the necessary backbone of each volume and of the AP as a whole. The backbone of a volume was sometimes hidden - eg in Book 5, the steps the PCs actually needed to take to complete the steps towards gaining the sword Serithtiel was buried deep in the text. In the case of Book 4 and its endless fetch-quests the whole thing proved unnecessary and I ended up not using most of it, making it a wasted purchase - but no way to know that in advance.
One conclusion I took away was that 3e/PF and its progression rate seems extremely unsuited to linear play with the scope of this sort of AP.
1. From the player end, PCs level up too fast and increase in power too fast, easily exceeding the credible scope - by the end of the campaign the godlike 14th level PCs felt like they should have been invading the Abyss, not merely saving a city. This would have been even more pronounced with the level 1-16 scope of the AP as originally written.
2. From the GM end, 3e/PF stat monster and NPC stat blocks go from reasonable at levels 1-5 to nightmarish levels 11+. Just reading stat blocks, looking up spells and powers, trying to grok authors' intent re battle tactics, took much more time than I normally need to prep a session, and this is just one part of running an AP.
The advantage of the AP was that it gave a satisfying, close-ended campaign experience, like completing a well made video game. I do plan to run APs again in the future, though next time I'll have a clearer idea what I'm getting into. I don't think I'll use 3e/Pathfinder again though. 5e D&D looks well suited to most Paizo APs, with 4e D&D also a possibility given plenty of editing to remove 'trash fights' - run as-is 4e would be much too slow. I'll need to be prepared for the extreme effort involved though; compared to running a more open or sandbox game, successful prepping and GMing of an AP takes far more work - which feels like the opposite of the common stereotype. Partly this is the time spent reading the text, partly it is the need to ensure it doesn't feel constricting and railroady.
Progression Rates
http://www.therpgsite.com/showpost.php?p=860734&postcount=21
Obvious caveat here is that 4E is built on a level 1-30 scale rather than a 1-20 scale, but even so it's quite clear that once you hit level 5, 4E actually ends up with a much slower level progression than any previous Wizards of the Coast edition of D&D.
With 3e xp has no platonic value, 1 xp means more the higher level you get.
My experience is that 3e & Pathfinder progression rate is quite similar to 5e after the first couple levels, but the power increase per level is much more so it feels much faster. My Pathfinder campaign started at level 2 and wrapped up yesterday at level 14 after 34 tabletop sessions; 12 level-ups so 2.8 sessions/level, but in the single digit levels it was generally 2 sessions/level. Similar to 5e, BUT 3e/PF PCs double in power every 2 levels, they start feeling like demigods around level 11. 5e PCs feel much much more grounded, I'd say they double in power more like every 4 levels (faster 1-5) so it doesn't feel nearly so weird.
4e PCs double in power about every 4 levels, much like 5e PCs. XP awards look similar - it's designed around 10 standard awards to level - but the fights are much much slower than in 5e and this keeps the actual speed of progression down. My 4e campaign started at level 1 and is level 25 after 92 sessions, 24 level ups so 3.8 sessions/level. It was 2-3 sessions at low level and has been very consistently averaging 4 sessions/level for most of the campaign.
My experience is that in practice 3e/PF levels fastest and has the fastest power progression, 5e next, and 4e is the slowest.
I'm also running a Classic D&D campaign, PCs currently around level 6. It seems to be around 3-5 sessions to level (the recommended rate in the Rules Cyclopedia as I recall), and actual PC power increases more slowly than 3e/PF but similar to 5e and 4e, maybe a bit faster.
Obvious caveat here is that 4E is built on a level 1-30 scale rather than a 1-20 scale, but even so it's quite clear that once you hit level 5, 4E actually ends up with a much slower level progression than any previous Wizards of the Coast edition of D&D.
With 3e xp has no platonic value, 1 xp means more the higher level you get.
My experience is that 3e & Pathfinder progression rate is quite similar to 5e after the first couple levels, but the power increase per level is much more so it feels much faster. My Pathfinder campaign started at level 2 and wrapped up yesterday at level 14 after 34 tabletop sessions; 12 level-ups so 2.8 sessions/level, but in the single digit levels it was generally 2 sessions/level. Similar to 5e, BUT 3e/PF PCs double in power every 2 levels, they start feeling like demigods around level 11. 5e PCs feel much much more grounded, I'd say they double in power more like every 4 levels (faster 1-5) so it doesn't feel nearly so weird.
4e PCs double in power about every 4 levels, much like 5e PCs. XP awards look similar - it's designed around 10 standard awards to level - but the fights are much much slower than in 5e and this keeps the actual speed of progression down. My 4e campaign started at level 1 and is level 25 after 92 sessions, 24 level ups so 3.8 sessions/level. It was 2-3 sessions at low level and has been very consistently averaging 4 sessions/level for most of the campaign.
My experience is that in practice 3e/PF levels fastest and has the fastest power progression, 5e next, and 4e is the slowest.
I'm also running a Classic D&D campaign, PCs currently around level 6. It seems to be around 3-5 sessions to level (the recommended rate in the Rules Cyclopedia as I recall), and actual PC power increases more slowly than 3e/PF but similar to 5e and 4e, maybe a bit faster.
Sunday, 27 September 2015
Best published D&D setting?
From http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?766780-Which-do-you-think-is-the-easiest-campaign-setting-to-pick-up-and-start-a-fleshed-out-game-with-as-a-DM&p=19419443#post19419443
Good D&D settings for me tend to be ones that are easily approachable, have lots of easy to use material, and fit the core/standard rules. Of ones that are available (so not Gary Gygax's Yggsburgh) I think Mystara via the Gazetteers (on rpgnow - start with GAZ1 Karameikos), Forgotten Realms (start in the Western Heartlands/Sword Coast) and Golarion (start in Varisia, newbie town Sandpoint is detailed in Rise of the Runelords and briefly in Pathfinder Beginner Box) are all good ones.
If you want something that feels modern, has pretty artwork, a fantastic world book (Inner Sea World Guide) and you want to spend loads of money on slim 64 page volumes, Golarion is great. :)
For sheer playability I'd tend to put Mystara & its 8-mile hex maps on top, especially for open-world sandboxing with dropped in modular adventures.
Forgotten Realms is great if you don't have a setting Nazi in your group or are happy to insist that yours is a non-canon campaign. The 1e Grey Box is probably the best intro if you're happy to tweak the NPC stats; that goes for Mystara too - both settings suffer a bit from excessive levels on NPCs, something Golarion, Eberron & Greyhawk generally avoid.
I'm currently running campaigns in all three of these settings, plus a fourth in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy using the 3e box set (available on rpgnow). I'd say Wilderlands was my favourite open-world setting, but getting its bottom-up orientation to work right is a bit more challenging than the three above; you need to do a bit of work to tie threads together and create a world-in-motion, in particular you need to develop the NPCs yourself, whereas Mystara Realms & Golarion come with plenty of detailed NPCs. Wilderlands is great though for doing your own thing, a published setting that really feels 'yours' rather than a corporate product.
Good D&D settings for me tend to be ones that are easily approachable, have lots of easy to use material, and fit the core/standard rules. Of ones that are available (so not Gary Gygax's Yggsburgh) I think Mystara via the Gazetteers (on rpgnow - start with GAZ1 Karameikos), Forgotten Realms (start in the Western Heartlands/Sword Coast) and Golarion (start in Varisia, newbie town Sandpoint is detailed in Rise of the Runelords and briefly in Pathfinder Beginner Box) are all good ones.
If you want something that feels modern, has pretty artwork, a fantastic world book (Inner Sea World Guide) and you want to spend loads of money on slim 64 page volumes, Golarion is great. :)
For sheer playability I'd tend to put Mystara & its 8-mile hex maps on top, especially for open-world sandboxing with dropped in modular adventures.
Forgotten Realms is great if you don't have a setting Nazi in your group or are happy to insist that yours is a non-canon campaign. The 1e Grey Box is probably the best intro if you're happy to tweak the NPC stats; that goes for Mystara too - both settings suffer a bit from excessive levels on NPCs, something Golarion, Eberron & Greyhawk generally avoid.
I'm currently running campaigns in all three of these settings, plus a fourth in the Wilderlands of High Fantasy using the 3e box set (available on rpgnow). I'd say Wilderlands was my favourite open-world setting, but getting its bottom-up orientation to work right is a bit more challenging than the three above; you need to do a bit of work to tie threads together and create a world-in-motion, in particular you need to develop the NPCs yourself, whereas Mystara Realms & Golarion come with plenty of detailed NPCs. Wilderlands is great though for doing your own thing, a published setting that really feels 'yours' rather than a corporate product.
Wednesday, 23 September 2015
Giving 5e a more 1e feel
They did do a good job IMO in making 5e D&D 'driftable' to play like a lot of other editions. The default setting is sort of "2.5e", but I was shocked looking at the 5e forum on EN World to see them treating it like 3e, with lots of talk of 'builds', 'optimisation' et al - nothing like the way I use it. That said, here are some of the things I do to go for a more 1e or Classic (pre-Non Weapon Proficiencies & Skills) type feel:
1. Skills - already vestigial in 5e, I don't really use them, I just add Profiency to whatever ability checks a character should be proficient in by reason of his Class.
2. Multiclassing - this is the bit of 5e that seems most 3e-like. Fortunately it's listed as an optional rule. Disallowed.
3. Saving throws - 5e has this weird thing where most saves never improve, in fact they get harder to make as DCs go up with level. I give every PC Proficiency in all saves, this gives more of a pre-3e feel. I found this doesn't work for monsters though, 5e casters are already much more limited than in other editions and they need to be able to have spells work most of the time or they will seem very weak.
4. Feats - for my Dragonsfoot game I didn't allow them at chargen. I'm a bit torn on this one, but a lot of 5e feats resemble stuff like the Mentzer Classic D&D 'Fighter Smash' attack - stuff that I think is ok at higher level. Again Feats are labelled as Optional and for some groups it may be safer to disallow them if you don't want a whiff of 3e style minmaxing.
5. Death Saves and "heal from zero" - a 4e-ism which is ok-ish in that game, terrible (IMO) in 5e. I don't use them, instead I use negative hit points and when a PC goes deep into negative they'll have trouble getting back up again.
1. Skills - already vestigial in 5e, I don't really use them, I just add Profiency to whatever ability checks a character should be proficient in by reason of his Class.
2. Multiclassing - this is the bit of 5e that seems most 3e-like. Fortunately it's listed as an optional rule. Disallowed.
3. Saving throws - 5e has this weird thing where most saves never improve, in fact they get harder to make as DCs go up with level. I give every PC Proficiency in all saves, this gives more of a pre-3e feel. I found this doesn't work for monsters though, 5e casters are already much more limited than in other editions and they need to be able to have spells work most of the time or they will seem very weak.
4. Feats - for my Dragonsfoot game I didn't allow them at chargen. I'm a bit torn on this one, but a lot of 5e feats resemble stuff like the Mentzer Classic D&D 'Fighter Smash' attack - stuff that I think is ok at higher level. Again Feats are labelled as Optional and for some groups it may be safer to disallow them if you don't want a whiff of 3e style minmaxing.
5. Death Saves and "heal from zero" - a 4e-ism which is ok-ish in that game, terrible (IMO) in 5e. I don't use them, instead I use negative hit points and when a PC goes deep into negative they'll have trouble getting back up again.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)