Official ICE Forums
Systems & Settings => Rolemaster => Topic started by: Althalus on April 16, 2014, 04:43:07 AM
-
Hello,
i am starting a new campaign.
how do i identify encounter monsters level according to the parties levels to keep it challenging but not too hard/lethal.
thanks for your input!
-
I usually take the level of the players as a base level of creatures to encounter + 1 for amount of players. 5 1st level characters = 10 levels of creatures encountered or 5 level 2 orcs, or one Ogre (8th Level) or a scouting party of goblins 5 Level 1 and a commander level 3 or 4. That way the characters are not entirely over whelmed but are challenged. If using big creatures like an Ogre or something that does a lot of damage, then limit the number and add lesser creatures if you think one creature will not be challenging enough. Remember that overcoming a foe does not have to be by combat, they can slip past the obstacle to earn experience to overcome the challenge too.
-
I wouldn't be much help I don't think. I'd just 'eyeball' it really. But then, as a GM, I'll track my players characters pretty well so I can refer to them when putting together encounters ahead of time. So I'd always have the players characters stats on-hand.
Also, IMO, it's a healthy thing for your group to realize there are times when they just need to run. :) On occasion I'd setup a combat that they really aren't intended to overcome.
-
Total OB and DB is what I use. In the end all other things balance out.
If you get the players to write down their primary OB and non spell buffed DB's then compare this to the mobs. So you probably only want to put them up against half this for most fights unless they have tactical advantages like stealth or magic. You can always slowly up the ratio until you are comfortable for your group and its power level.
EDIT: You can always have more orcs come in the door or around the corner.
-
In the first couple of sessions, my parties usually face human adversaries (bandits, local thugs, and so on), so it's easy to do a level-to-level comparison. As they get more comfortable with the system and develop their tactics, I start factoring in monsters and things like Orcs. Like Marrethiel I find it more useful to compare OB and/or spell lists and skill bonuses rather than the raw level numbers. And, like Cory, I occasionally put in encounters where the party had better be smart enough to know how to run.
-
Initially I do levels as well. Later I calculate the "melee" levels and "magic" levels (splitting semis accordingly) and throw in modifiers due to items carried and figure from there as some foes will be more magical than melee or I may build an opposing mixed force (a mage and minions).
-
I try to match levels, but like Cory I always give my players 3 options:
#1: They can Talk
#2: They can Walk
#3: They can Fight
Of course there is always the chance that one or two of the options can be removed from the equation based on how the group responds to the encounter.
However if the encounter is a "Set Encounter", meaning the particular encounter is always there, and I do have a couple that are set up, matching to the party abilities and levels is not an option there, they get what they ran in to, plain and simple. These are normally in out of the way locations where low level groups have no right being.
-
I've long maintained that the difficulty of obstacles (including the level/strength of monsters and other opponents) should be fixed, and must never be "balanced" against the players.
What's the point of gaining a level when the world around you suddenly gains a level as well?
Our group is low-powered, and our plots are story-driven. Combat happens and is often unavoidable, but it is not the goal of our gaming and we award XP for problem solving and roleplaying, not for dice rolling as such. In this setup, the players are expected to know their place: Unless you feel your character is a master swordsman (and has the stats to show for it), picking fights may not be a good idea. Especially as under Rolemaster rules, combat has a dangerous random element and even the lowliest opponent has a real chance to land a lucky hit on you.
-
Frabby,
I agree whole heartedly, IMHO plots and encounters should be story driven and not level driven.
MDC
-
A level system like tbigness proposses work great for low levels, after that experience will tell you more than any formula. The tactics of the PCs will determine how to challenge them with more defying encounters.
-
Using total levels is a start, but I have found it by itself is not enough, because a solo creatures tend not to be as challenging as groups of creatures. If the party is 5 level 1 PCs, then a single level 5 creature will generally (IMHO) not challenge them as much as 5 level 1 orcs, simply because a single high roll on an attack or critical can end the level 5 creature's career, whereas the five level 1 creatures each get a chance to land one open-ended attack or high critical. In short, the swinginess of RM combat rolls means that it is almost always better (statistically speaking) to have five +30 attacks than a single +80 attack. So the number of combatants must also be taken into account. Also, if there is only one monster and 5 PCs, the PCs can work to make sure one or two of them are in the monster's face and parrying while the rest attack, greatly reducing the chance of a solo monster winning. So if I am using a solo monster, I can make it a level equal to the total level of the party.
If I am using multiple creatures, I rarely put a number of them equal to the total party's level. A group of 5 level 1 orcs is going to be a real challenge for a group of 5 level 1 PCs, especially if those orcs have OBs similar to those of the PCs, so most battles will have a bit less than that-- say 3 or 4 level 1 orcs.
-
I default to make the encounter higher than the characters and let them determine how to overcome the obstacle. I even have them highly out leveled to see if they go blindly into certain death or become captive, avoid the encounter or talk their way out of it.
Just have to be creative.
-
superior tactics>superior strength. I've had my players run back to town for reinforcements, I've had them overcome their objectives through sheer force but barely crawling back home alive, I've had them flee in terror, I've even had TPK's. All for the evolvement of the group's ability to use surveillance, to plan well ahead, use extensive tactics, be creative, etc. I'm proud of my current, very creative group of players, their efforts always combine caution with proper intelligence and planning.
I say keep'em on their toes! The game should be ruthless, its mysteries scary and mysterious, it's critters unpredictable and dangerous, the lands hazardous and unknown. And that way it will never become boring.
-
+1
-
I agree with those above that say the challenges should be story driven and not set against the parties levels.
When I am GMing if an adventure is being written especially for the party then I use two measures. I generally take the number of powerpoints available to the players and try and put the party under 'stress' for one round for every ten powerpoints (or equivelant). I also look at how many criticals the party put out typically each round.
It typically takes three 'E' crits to take down any one creature so knowing how your party fights and how many criticals they can put out can tell you they will handle any one encounter. Not every fight has to be to the death so a mix of encounters can keep the party under stress/duress so they have to use the resources they have and not be able to regain their powerpoints, re-equip arrows or repair armour etc.
As a player our party uses a lot of adrenal move speed, two weapon combo with thrown weapons and one of us has haste. We are in the 15th-20th level range and on the first round of a combat, if we are the aggressors, we can put out 15 'E' criticals. That is probably 5 baddies down in round one regardless of their level. To challenge us fights have to last longer so that we are using up our resources, running out of thrown weapons, using up daily use items and spell adders. We could realistically take ourselves out in 10 seconds flat if we met ourselves in a dark alley.
So I would look at the 'burn rate' of your players and use that to challenge them.
-
Superior tactic > superior strength.
while true..try to keep the enemy within a rough few levels of the party..
no amount of tactics is going to let a 1st level rogue kill a dragon..
an open ended roll on the otherhand.......
-
A couple of points,
1) Never Assume the party is at full strength, unlike some games where it is easy to heal completely before encounters. And if the party is suffering from multiple wound penalties it can degrade the party's strength very quickly.
2) Levels are not a perfect fit to determine party strength, there are quite a few other things that can go into the mix.
MDC
-
I try not to take the party into consideration that much. If my bad guy chooses to hire seven samurai to defend him then that is how many there will be and how the party then deals with that is down to their ingenuity or not.
I would not send a dragon against the party as part of the plot but if the party go after the dragon that is their folly.
-
I try not to take the party into consideration that much. If my bad guy chooses to hire seven samurai to defend him then that is how many there will be and how the party then deals with that is down to their ingenuity or not.
I would not send a dragon against the party as part of the plot but if the party go after the dragon that is their folly.
I agree. Though if the party has only four members I would make sure those Samurai are pretty low level.
Overall, I guage the difficulty of encounters more by my Big Bad Evil Guys' combat stats-- OB, Hits, AT(DB)-- and the number of enemies. Level to me is significant (especially against spellcasters), but not as significant as OB, DB, and hits. If your players are level 3, it would be rather cruel to put them up against multiple enemies with an OB of 120. A few orcs with 50 hps, 50 OB and AT 2 (RMU) or AT 5 (RM2) is more what I'd be looking at.
-
I wouldn't even adjust the levels. I would probably make the party aware of the reputation of the samauri. If they have killed 'hundreds' of adventurers already or they are famed for being fearsome warriors then that should tell the party that they may be out classed.
There is just as much fun to be had in a running battle lasting days and geurilla tactics and 'set plays' as there is standing toe to toe and bashing it out. Any party worth it its salt should be able to turn the tables on a foe far higher than themselves.
-
There is also always the option of giving the party a chance to get "off the hook" when over matched. If the party wasn't completely outclassed, their opponents may be more than happy to let them withdraw and not risk further injury. Of course the players have to realize they are losing and that withdrawing is an option...
-
I tend to plan for encounters to challenge the players and not give them an easy fight, to encourage them to think about how to negotiate the threat. The roleplaying aspect can be a very fun avenue. I don't completely out class the players everywhere but make it dangerous enough that caution will always be the key to survival. Extra points for avoiding the conflict even better to overcome it without any loses or having opponents retreat. by leveling encounters to the level of the PC's gives them a false sense that this game is easy or the game world will always be at their level. I play a more open sandbox with per-populated area encounters.
-
I forgot to mention the biggest thing, it is not the GM vs the players.
MDC
-
I write the adventures to fit the players but I don't fix the levels to suit the players. I remember the kobalds of my youth being a two a penny easy kill monster and we would wade though hundreds. The only real threat would be if they had an oger in tow. A RM kobald is a much more dangerous proposition. I would still set the players the challenge of rescuing an innocent from the heart of a kobald stronghold. I would probably let them meet a scouting party first so they can get the measure of the enemy and if they can take one alive then they will get an idea of the numbers they are up against. A sufficiently terrified kobald may tell the players if the innocent was due to be moved so they could mount a rescue above ground and at a place of their choosing but then maybe not. If the players feel that a full on frontal assault is the answer then that is their choice. The world exists and it is up to them to deal with it and use their own strengths to work together as a sum greater than their individual parts. The rescue should be a heroic act against impossible odds once the players have retold the story a few times and skipped the embarrassing failures that are bound to happen.
If the party revisit the same hold when they are five levels higher and just passing through then the kobalds will not be suddenly higher level or suddenly twice as numerous.
If they fail in the rescue, the same plot may come around again but the innocent is now hold by a band of orcs with a 'pet' hill giant.
-
D&D kobalds got much more deadly after they introduced grappling rules or for that fact most small creatures you would find in large numbers.
MDC
-
I forgot to mention the biggest thing, it is not the GM vs the players.
MDC
<siiiiigh> You are so right. If only some GM's would remember that more frequently. I will admit, I've fallen victim to that poor GMing mindset myself. I've gotten frustrated at the players for killing MY creatures. Poor form on my part.
I do try to set up an outline of the story and make the difficulty story driven. Yes, if the party wants to track/hunt/fight a dragon... then that is their folly. If the party goes off script and wants to start a brawl with the town guard, then so be it. The story I have set up is an open outline because more often than not, the players go off on a tangent I never expected and I have to throw some things together on the fly. That won't change the difficulty of the story based enemies. If they pissed off the assassin's guild and an assassin is now tracking them and there is now a bounty on their head because they pissed off a nobleman and the town guard wants to hang them, then shame on them! The Story based creatures don't care and are still going to be the same level.
There were so many great points brought up in so many of these replies that it just isn't feasible for me to quote each person who said it. Please note that these bits of info are not all my own but taken from the previous posts in this thread.
- the singular most important has to be that it is not GM vs. players. The goal is to have fun and to let the players work through an adventure, not just breeze through it, but sometimes TPKs happen naturally
- there can always be some more orcs coming around the corner if the party just blew through the initial group
- there can always be the spy/assassin/thief/rogue leader who was hiding undetected in the shadows waiting for the party to be weakened before making his presence known
- the players are their own worst enemy at times. Give them many options to get sidetracked and to run into trouble, then let them continue the main quest battered, bruised, and bleeding
- the party almost always has the option to "talk, walk, or fight"
- tactics is superior to strength
- number of creatures is more challenging than a larger one. More creatures = more attacks = more chances to roll a crit that kills a party member. 5 level 1 players vs. 1 level 5 orc. My money is on the players. Unless you go overboard and put them against a Mature Nether Drake
- parry, parry, parry. Wait... that falls under "tactics"
As my own rule of thumb, the story has set levels of creatures based on player HP, OB, magic items, skill of PC. If one player has Orc Slaying Sword of Pain, you can bet your last gold piece I am not sending Orcs against them. The party should be able to handle the quest with challenge, maybe even with difficulty. I have had a 1st round death crit that completely ended the quest 20 minutes into the session. On the fly, I had to throw in something to extend the session past 20 minutes. That ad lib addition to the quest made the session last longer and developed into a well played out campaign and the story line worked. That isn't the same as "adding" more creatures to the story because the GM feels like pounding on the PCs for a while.
The beauty and caveat of being the GM is that it is YOUR world and only you know what is around the corner in the next room, or what level they are. If the party is struggling, lower the HP of the NPCs, lower their OB, lower their DB. Let them live a little before you kill them off! Muwahahahahaha
-
You have to consider at least:
Fighting ability (OB/DB/Armor/hp)
Healing ability
Spellcasting (Defensive/offensive)
Movement (swim/fly)
Spell-like abilities (paralyzation/regeneration etc)
Magic items (weapons/scrolls/wands etc)
Intelligence and tactics (Ambush/ defend/counterattack/prepared escape routes/luring to difficult terrain)
There are so many factors that your best bet is to start with easier opponents that are not very smart and build up from there. Especially if your players are not very experienced.
As I see it a solid plan and good tactical thinking can overcome seemingly superior opposition. So later you can easily up the abilities and intelligence of the enemy.
Like others have mentioned this is not only a question of finding good balance for fights. That too is important but I myself too like to plan the campaign world so that there are clearly too powerful creatures in the world that PCs would be suicidal to challenge. If they want to do it its their choice but GM doesnt have to let them win that fight.
Its good for PCs to understand when to fight and when to talk. Creature that is clearly superior to the PCs can demand them to give them magical items or gold, or it can ask them to perform a mission for him. It doesnt have to kill them off right away, thats not fun. An encounter can be very powerful comparing to PCs but it doesnt have to be lethal.