do tactics affect CR?

[big teej]

greetings playgrounders,

huge ramble spoilered, main questions follow
last session, I slated an avalancher (monster manual III page...... 14?) against my group.

they're travelling through mountians looking for a dragon.
details of avalancher encounter

the avalancher opened combat with its 'cause avalanche ability'
initially this causes 2d6 damage from the falling rocks. DC 15 reflex for half
the gnome bard, failed
the bard's badger, failed
the gnome cleric, failed
the dwarf fighter, failed
the cleric's badger, failed
the paladin, passed.

now, the secondary effect is "anyone who doesn't save for half must make a 2nd save or be buried under rubble." DC 20
everyone failed (except the paladin, who didn't have to make the save)

so I now have the whole party - sans' the paladin- buried under rocks while the paladin has to solo the CR 5 encounter.

I took a look at how long it would take the paladin to kill the avalancher...
and how long it would take the party to be crushed.
numbers came out too = TPK

so I retconned the hell out of it.
I consider it a personal failing as a DM that I had to do that. I have NEVER had to do that before.


I seem to have hit this ceiling where I only seem to be able to make encounters "ridiculously hard" or "steamrolled easy"
I'm having a hard time hitting a nice "challenging" middle ground.

since that's what the avalancher was supposed to be.

tl;dr, the avalancher was going to TPK the party.

now, the reason I come here with this, is because it seems like everytime I use tactics aside from "the bad guys run towards you and attack" the party takes massive casualties.

example: B - the above avalancher encounter
example: A - an encounter with a bugbear and 4 orcs with class levels resulted in 2 PC deaths (in hindsight, I overpowered the encounter) so.
do tactics increase CR/lethality?


and have you ever run into a problem keeping things "goldilocks challenging" for the party?

[Evil DM Mark3]

They do increase lethality. I am away from my books ATM but I do recall a table in the DMG that lists xp multipliers for fights that are easier/harder than the stated ECL.

As for the PCs dieing if they are forced to think a little about the combat, in a way that is their problem, not yours. Build up to it slowly and make sure there are ways of dealing with the foe.

[Gullintanni]

Tactics, as used by reasonably intelligent monsters, are (supposed to be) factored into a creature's CR. What it looks like you've done here is placed your PC's in a situation that favors the monster you're using. CR is a metric that gauges all the creatures capabilities on neutral territory, that is terrain that provides no measurable advantage to either party. If your monster is in an advantageous environment, then CR will be higher.

My recommendation is that if you're going to put your PC's in such a life threatening situation then you need to provide either:

1. Clues, so that the party can prepare. Not everyone spams divinations every third step, so leaving a hint that death lurks around the corner is good.

2. A way out. This is something that I see DMs miss a lot. DnD is a lethal system, and you shouldn't shy away from creating lethal challenges, but you should also implement devices that reward player ingenuity. So your collapsed area has vines in it that have fallen loose after the avalanche and are now within the party members reach. They grab the vines and attempt to pull themselves from beneath the rubble. DC 15 Strength Check, or DC 15 Escape Artist check. The Paladin uses "Aid Another" to help his party members free themselves.

One of the most memorable challenges I threw my party into was, after being captured by Hobgoblins, they took the party's equipment and forced them to fight Worgs in an arena. The catch is that the Worgs were chained to a chest in the middle of the arena, and the chest contained the PCs gear.

The situation was far more lethal than it ought to have been, but they managed to distract the Worgs, get the fighter his sword and off to the races they went. It was a tough situation, but they had options.

[Cog]

The technical answer is that CR, Challenge Rating, is a number attached to the creature. That stays the same. Tactics, terrain, and the like affect what's called the EL, Encounter Level.

[Yora]

Adjusting the XP reward for an encounter is probably done best with encounters that don't start with the PCs and the enemies starting on an equal level. A door opens and the suprised PCs see two equally suprised ogres: Neither side had time for preperation or set up favorable terrain.

But you could also have very well orcestrated ambushes that block escape routes, allow the ambushers to attack from safe positions, and make it very hard to fight back for the victims. In that case killing the victims in the trap is a cakewalk, or surviving the ambush is much more complicated and difficult than fighting the attackers on equal ground. That's all what Tuckers Kobolds do.
I think in such situations it's a good idea to treat the EL of the encounter as higher or lower than the creatures by themselves would be.

[CalamaroJoe]

I don't think that causing an avalanche must be considered a exceptionally cunning tactic from an avalancher :smallamused: It's a mountain creature, it's obviously in its favorable environment, I think this is factrored in CR.

Maybe the party was just unlucky ...5 fails out of 6 (two times!). You didn't tell us what level are they.
I liked Gullintanni's advice; instead of revoke the encounter you may have changed something in how the "buried under rubble" status worked. Maybe give a save each round to emerge, or something else..

[Dsurion]

Let me get this straight: You used a monster whose primary ability is "rocks fall, everyone dies", and everyone died? Go figure :smallwink:

[big teej]

I don't think that causing an avalanche must be considered a exceptionally cunning tactic from an avalancher :smallamused: It's a mountain creature, it's obviously in its favorable environment, I think this is factrored in CR.

Maybe the party was just unlucky ...5 fails out of 6 (two times!). You didn't tell us what level are they.
I liked Gullintanni's advice; instead of revoke the encounter you may have changed something in how the "buried under rubble" status worked. Maybe give a save each round to emerge, or something else..

I do have this habit of going "I have a cunning plan" in a 'super-cool' voice and then doing something ridiculously obvious (like returning fire.)

you're right, I neglected level
the party is 4th level all around, the gnomes are slightly behind everyone else in XP due to their predecessors dying.

and yes it was well within my power to change how it works, but I have gone out of my way to build up a reputation for a legitimate "I will never fudge for or against you" DM style.

so as soon as I looked up the rules for being buried, their fates were sealed. :smallfrown:



Let me get this straight: You used a monster whose primary ability is "rocks fall, everyone dies", and everyone died? Go figure :smallwink:

well... when you put it that way. :smallredface:

:smalltongue:

[awa]

now the problem with the avalancher has nothing to do with tactics it has to do with what is a save or be removed from fight which the vast majority of the party failed. the avalancer using its primary ability is not a clever tactic and would not increase its cr.

in a general sense if the terrain or tactics make the monster more dangerous then its cr would suggest then the pcs deserve more exp for beating it and you should acknowledge that it is more dangerous when picking foes to send against your pcs.

[HunterOfJello]

Tactics can't definitely have an immense difference on the CR of a fight. A goblin cave is a very low CR compared to a properly created Tucker's Kobolds cave.

I've also run fights where enemies avoided using Save or Die spells because I know that my players hate those spells and I think that they aren't that much fun in the game. This does have the effect of making many enemies much weaker or pointless to bring into the game though. (Ex: Bodaks)

[Cyrion]

so as soon as I looked up the rules for being buried, their fates were sealed. :smallfrown:



This is the big lesson for you as a DM- always read about the attacks and potential situations that could be generated before you spring the encounter. This allows you to plan the encounter with viable, non-fudge escape clauses (or not, if that's your choice). You should never be surprised by your own monsters as a DM.

[big teej]

This is the big lesson for you as a DM- always read about the attacks and potential situations that could be generated before you spring the encounter. This allows you to plan the encounter with viable, non-fudge escape clauses (or not, if that's your choice). You should never be surprised by your own monsters as a DM.

in my defense, I usually plan my encounters to the last detail (complete with 'a way out') this time however, I simply forgot about the 2nd "or be buried alive" save.

:smallfrown:

[Keld Denar]

Tactics can't definitely have an immense difference on the CR of a fight. A goblin cave is a very low CR compared to a properly created Tucker's Kobolds cave.

No no no...as stated above, CR is static. CR never changes. One kobold has a CR of 1/2, 50 kobolds have a CR of 1/2 each, and 50 kobolds behind cover with tanglefoot bags and areas of difficult terrain filled with traps are still CR 1/2 each.

EL is the difficulty of the encounter. One kobold is EL .5. Two kobolds is EL 2.5, 4 is EL4.5, and 8 is EL 6.5. 8 kobolds behind cover might be EL 7, and 8 kobolds with cover and favorable gear/conditions might be EL 8.

Regardless, it doesn't change CR. CR is CR is CR is CR.

[Goober4473]

EL is the difficulty of the encounter. One kobold is EL .5. Two kobolds is EL 2.5, 4 is EL4.5, and 8 is EL 6.5. 8 kobolds behind cover might be EL 7, and 8 kobolds with cover and favorable gear/conditions might be EL 8.

I agree with your point, but just a quick math thing: I believe you add CR together until you get to 2, then +2 per doubling. And aren't Kobold CR 1/3 or 1/4? In any case, two CR 1/2 would be EL 1, four would be EL 2, eight would be EL 4, sixteen would be EL 6, etc.

Then of course you add in special terrain and the like, which modifies EL (but not CR, as you say).

[Keld Denar]

Eh, whatever, I didn't check my math. I was simply going off the fact that CR is static while EL varies depending on number of foes, contitions, advantages, etc.

EL should be what is used to balance an encounter, not CR. CR only dictates how much XP the party gets.

[CTrees]

I always treated it as:
-CR is static, unless there are deviations from the source material (templates, class levels, greatly improved/weakened equipment, etc.)
-Favorable circumstances do change the ECL
-Tactics can make the fight more challenging, but shouldn't change the ECL unless it's out of character for the enemies (ex., a ancient dragon should have some darned smart strategies worked up. A hill giant... probably shouldn't do anything much more complicated than "hit with club" or "throw rock," unless led by something smarter (in which case, the CR of that leader factors into the ECL)

Taking that exemplar of "weak monsters played smart," Tucker's Kobolds, as an example... The Kobolds aren't buffed, themselves, and don't have unusual equipment. They keep their same CR, but the number of them increase the ECL. They're a moderately intelligent race, and they're just using the equipment and environment available to them wisely - there's nothing out of character, so the smart tactics? They shouldn't increase the ECL. However, the kobolds are fighting under massively favorable circumstances (specifically crafted level of a dungeon, excellent defenses, etc.), which should increase the ECL, dramatically.

But that's mostly my feeling; I'm not sure exactly where RAW sits on all of that.

[valadil]

DC 15 reflex for half
the gnome bard, failed
the bard's badger, failed
the gnome cleric, failed
the dwarf fighter, failed
the cleric's badger, failed
the paladin, passed.


As a player I have terrible luck. My d20s think they're d4s. I've had sessions where I've rolled more 2s than every other result combined. No really, I've counted.

And I'm okay with a system that punishes that. I mean, I don't enjoy the session particularly. But if I play a game that lets me get away with blatant failure and I can still do well, I lose interest in the system. If your players continually roll below 25th percentile or so, they should not succeed.

But back to your original question, here's how I deal with tactics. I assume enemies are using reasonably intelligent tactics. They're going to use terrain features to their advantage. They're going to work as a team. The PCs do not get rewarded for this.

The PCs do get rewarded if they can circumvent enemy tactics. If the players are successful at scouting ahead, they'll catch the enemy unaware. Or they'll attack from an angle the enemy didn't see coming, negating the terrain advantage. Or they'll bypass the fight entirely. Hell, they may even do something I never saw coming. That's the reward the PCs get for being clever.

But I try not to go overboard with it. Or if I do go overboard, I communicate that to the players. If I put the enemies on a 110' cliff, knowing that the PCs ranged weapons stop at 100', that's just unfair unless several PCs have flight type abilities. The players would have a chance to see the cliff, realize their weapons will fall short, and choose a method of engagement or to ignore the fight entirely. Players who assume that the GM would only ever use a fair fight and rush into battle expecting friendly Deus Ex are met with death.

[Tyndmyr]

Yes, tactics affect CR. Most monsters have a block describing typical behavior. Your bear isn't going to be making brilliant tactical maneuvers and the like.

If you're using substantially harder tactics that it expects, increasing the CR is fair.

On the other hand, if you're using them very poorly for whatever reason, perhaps dropping the CR one or two is fair. The dragon what never uses his breath weapon, wings, or spells, for example.

[Keld Denar]

CTrees, I think you mean EL (Encounter Level), not ECL (Effective Character Level). Right?

And Tyndmyr, a dragon who can't fly and doesn't use it's breath weapon would be a favorable factor to the PCs against the dragon's EL, meaning you throw more dragon at your players and expect similar outcomes, or leave it as is and count it as a lower EL (anticipating there to be more encounters later in a day). That still doesn't change the CR though. The only thing that changes CR is the application of things like templates, class levels, and HD/size advancements.

I think a resonable rule of thumb for a given party is to throw 3-4 times their APL (average party level) in ELs per day. Whether thats 3 even EL encounters, a couple of EL-1s and an EL+4, or whatever. Thats somewhere in the ballpark of what most of D&D is balanced against.

[CTrees]

CTrees, I think you mean EL (Encounter Level), not ECL (Effective Character Level). Right?

So apparently I've been misusing that acronym for awhile now. And, yeah... So that first point should just be, "CR is static, some things may increase ECL," and the rest should reference EL.

Thanks!

[Barlen]

CR might not change, but the make up of the party can mess with how well they respond to certain challenges. A party that consists of an archery ranger, dagger wielding rogue, and a rapier wielding bard will have a hard time with an appropriately CRed group of skeletons. A single melee cleric might solo the them and ask where the rest of the encounter is. But then weird things can still happen (who would have thought the paladin would pass the reflex save and the bard would fail twice?).

Hind sight is 20/20, in this case you might have wanted to run the buried alive like the web spell. Strength check each round till they pass and 1 or 2 rounds to free themselves (half move till they are out). Then the paladin just has to hold off the mob and maybe lead it away from the buried party while they free themselves.

[Keld Denar]

Yea, but CR affects experience, not EL. If you happen to be the proper tool for the job, that doesn't mean you should get less experience, just that getting that experience consumes fewer resources. Likewise, pounding in a nail with a screwdriver doesn't mean you've pounded in more nails, only that the nails you've pounded in took longer and were more difficult.

CR is a function of results (10 skeletons destroyed, 4 ogres slain, 2 blade traps disarmed), EL is a function of whether or not you have the resources to get to that result efficiently or circumstantially, or whether or not there are additional challenges in place that make your tools less effective.

A good DM balances encounters around EL, not CR. CR is a means to an end. EL is that end.

[Karoht]

Level 4-5 party, 6 players.
The day before, the party had sieged this castle under construction. They wrecked the place pretty good, and fought through probably around 40-60 orcs the day before. They were forced to break off and return the next day.

Forces remaining? 15 orcs. 1/2 CR each.
Alone, attacking normally, no challenge.
Fighting in the ruins of a castle, which the orcs have booby trapped, as well as sapped the walls? Whoa, hang on.

Five orcs ran round distracting the party while another 2 teams of 5 would knock out the final supports and collapse a wall on the party.

Even with an incredibly low reflex save, and a party of people who all had high saves, this little group of orcs, just using superior tactics, was a considerable threat. It was very nearly a TPK.

[Keld Denar]

Its still 15 CR 1/2 orcs and what amounts to probably a CR3 trap. 4 orcs is EL2, 8 orcs is EL 4, and 16 is EL 6. Adding in the trap makes it EL 7 Favorable conditions at 1 to the top of the EL to make it about EL 8.

So you gave your party an EL = APL +3 encounter, and wondered why they nearly got TPKed. EL +3 is considered "very challenging" and boarderline "deadly". It has nothing to do with CR...its a function of EL.

[Karoht]

Its still 15 CR 1/2 orcs and what amounts to probably a CR3 trap. 4 orcs is EL2, 8 orcs is EL 4, and 16 is EL 6. Adding in the trap makes it EL 7 Favorable conditions at 1 to the top of the EL to make it about EL 8.

So you gave your party an EL = APL +3 encounter, and wondered why they nearly got TPKed. EL +3 is considered "very challenging" and boarderline "deadly". It has nothing to do with CR...its a function of EL.

I'll admit that I do not understand EL very well, nor do I profess to be the worlds greatest DM. But I think that is the core of this discussion. I never thought to consider the walls as a trap. I guess I tend to think of NPC's the same way as PC's. If a PC shoved a piller onto something and caused it considerable harm, why would that be different from if an NPC does it?

On the other hand, tactics isn't entering into this discussion very well it seems. At least not from a mechanical point of view.

Let me provide another example. Same party, the encounter before the castle.

They fought about 10 orcs, all up in trees with crossbows. Only 5 of them ever shot anything. They all had set up safety lines to move from tree to tree quickly and safely. Said safety line consisted of a rope tied to a branch.

They waited until nightfall, then had one of their orcs wake up the player camp and lured them into the ambush. The orcs could all see in the dark, the player party were mostly humans. These orcs were moving around, from cover to cover, in the dark, against foes who had difficulty even seeing them. 5 would move and shoot, then spend the action behind cover reloading, while the other 5 did the same. This didn't result in anything dangerous such as a TPK (though it very easily could have), and provided great cover for 2 other orcs to go sabatoge their camp and make off with a bunch of their stuff. It certainly didn't help that it was mostly a melee party, who refused to carry bows when they were given to them before entering the swamp.

Was this also again a case of under/overestimation of EL VS CR?

[Tyndmyr]

And Tyndmyr, a dragon who can't fly and doesn't use it's breath weapon would be a favorable factor to the PCs against the dragon's EL, meaning you throw more dragon at your players and expect similar outcomes, or leave it as is and count it as a lower EL (anticipating there to be more encounters later in a day). That still doesn't change the CR though. The only thing that changes CR is the application of things like templates, class levels, and HD/size advancements.

Correct. I'm in the bad happen of using the terms interchangeably, since I only ever use CR to determine EL and so on.

[Coidzor]

Let me provide another example. Same party, the encounter before the castle.

They fought about 10 orcs, all up in trees with crossbows. Only 5 of them ever shot anything. They all had set up safety lines to move from tree to tree quickly and safely. Said safety line consisted of a rope tied to a branch.

They waited until nightfall, then had one of their orcs wake up the player camp and lured them into the ambush. The orcs could all see in the dark, the player party were mostly humans. These orcs were moving around, from cover to cover, in the dark, against foes who had difficulty even seeing them. 5 would move and shoot, then spend the action behind cover reloading, while the other 5 did the same. This didn't result in anything dangerous such as a TPK (though it very easily could have), and provided great cover for 2 other orcs to go sabatoge their camp and make off with a bunch of their stuff. It certainly didn't help that it was mostly a melee party, who refused to carry bows when they were given to them before entering the swamp.

Was this also again a case of under/overestimation of EL VS CR?

That was mostly screwing over your players by using tactics that prevented your party from engaging the enemy in order to steal their stuff more than anything else. I mean, they did eschew ranged combat options in the first place, but it really seems like you want to play an entirely different game than they do.

[Keld Denar]

Was this also again a case of under/overestimation of EL VS CR?

EL. Your PCs refusing to carry ranged weapons doesn't make an individual orc harder or easier to kill in a vacuum, or worth more or less XP. Circumstances make that orc harder or easier to kill, and circumstantial things are a function of EL, not CR. If you had given all of the orcs a single level of Fighter, that would have boosted their CR. Giving them superior tactics like sniping from trees when the party doesn't have ranged attacks is a boost to EL. EL doesn't factor in reward. 10 1 HD orcs with crossbows are worth exactly X experience and yield Y gold in treasure regardless of whether or not you encounter them on an open plain or have to climb a slippery hill in pooring rain to get to them. The only thing that changes is EL, which is a tool basically used to determine aproximately how much of the party's resources the encounter will expend, and how deadly it might be. Don't forget, HP are a resource too. That said, EL is pretty ad hoc. Yea, orcs in trees are harder than orcs on the ground, but how much harder? And are orcs in trees at night the same degree harder than orcs in trees during the day? More? Less?

EL is not CR, but CR can be EL. XP is awarded per CR, not EL, although the DM always reserverse the right to assign additional XP for any other reason, including coming up with simple solutions to otherwise difficult encounters.

[Karoht]

That was mostly screwing over your players by using tactics that prevented your party from engaging the enemy in order to steal their stuff more than anything else. I mean, they did eschew ranged combat options in the first place, but it really seems like you want to play an entirely different game than they do.

Actually, it was simply a matter of that the orcs had an intelligent leader, who happened to have levels in ranger, with many of his liutenants having levels in rogue.
Also, these orcs had been ambushing and robbing people in the swamp for quite a while, close to a year. They had an established tactic working for them. I had this stated out and on paper before the party had even picked classes.

I didn't screw my party, the orcs did by outplaying them. And they weren't even tailor made to outplay them, nor did I change their tactics.



EL is not CR, but CR can be EL. XP is awarded per CR, not EL, although the DM always reserverse the right to assign additional XP for any other reason, including coming up with simple solutions to otherwise difficult encounters.Ah. I'm starting to get it. I think. Maybe.

To Both: I said up front I'm not the best DM in the world.

[Coidzor]

Actually, it was simply a matter of that the orcs had an intelligent leader, who happened to have levels in ranger, with many of his liutenants having levels in rogue.
Also, these orcs had been ambushing and robbing people in the swamp for quite a while, close to a year. They had an established tactic working for them. I had this stated out and on paper before the party had even picked classes.

I didn't screw my party, the orcs did by outplaying them. And they weren't even tailor made to outplay them, nor did I change their tactics.

You are responsible for the composition and tactics and leadership of the orcs. So you can't say "I didn't do it, the orcs did," and expect that to be treated as a credible statement.

Your players knew about this in advance and still chose to approach the game as if it were something else entirely. That should be pretty telling in and of itself. Having all your players decide to be heavily armored knights when you're running them through a pirate game is generally a sign that something's up, after all.

[Karoht]

You are responsible for the composition and tactics and leadership of the orcs. So you can't say "I didn't do it, the orcs did," and expect that to be treated as a credible statement.

Your players knew about this in advance and still chose to approach the game as if it were something else entirely. That should be pretty telling in and of itself. Having all your players decide to be heavily armored knights when you're running them through a pirate game is generally a sign that something's up, after all.

Right, so I should never let the player make bad tactical decisions, I should just alter the encounter. Should I hold their hand as well?

I love how you are making such a wide variety of assumptions of myself and the players, along with the situation. Yes, they were a melee heavy party. Guess what, the wizard in the party had means of neutralizing the issue. So did the rest of the party for that matter. It's not my fault the wizard chose burning hands and lit the forest on fire, which actually made it easier for the orcs to escape with their stuff. It's also not my fault that the wizard didn't even bother to cast light to help the rest of the party, because he was able to see just fine.

The party also chose this quest at the time, they were notified many times that there were orcs ambushing people at night, caravans returning empty with orc arrows still stuck in the wagons. They were offered bows for free along with this knowledge. The players blundered into the swamp unprepared, they didn't expect an ambush and they payed the price.



========
I'll admit to underestimating the effects of tactics (IE-The NPC's playing smart rather than just going 'orc smash, take shineys') as it relates to EL VS CR. In this particular case, I assumed that a 1/2 CR orc was always a 1/2 CR orc and nothing more, no matter how you played it. Now that I am aware of the effect of tactics on EL (rather than CR as a generalized metric for determining difficulty of an encounter), I can better tailor and adjust encounters to my players.

[Keld Denar]

Now that I am aware of the effect of tactics on EL

And knowing is half the battle! GI Joe Orc!

[Coidzor]

I love how you are making such a wide variety of assumptions of myself and the players, along with the situation.

Well, you're the one who is describing them consistently as playing at an intelligence and tactical level far below your own. As in, they're trying to play a kick in doors and kill orcs with pie game and you're trying to play with actual tactics.

That does still appear to be the root of the issue the more you go on about it.

[Allanimal]

so as soon as I looked up the rules for being buried, their fates were sealed. :smallfrown:

Wait a minute. The Badgers have a burrow speed. Why didn't they tunnel to safety, with the PCs following behind?

[Karoht]

Well, you're the one who is describing them consistently as playing at an intelligence and tactical level far below your own. As in, they're trying to play a kick in doors and kill orcs with pie game and you're trying to play with actual tactics.

That does still appear to be the root of the issue the more you go on about it.No, that is a fair assessment. Your criticism however sounds like you saying "how dare you play smarter than your players."
Moreover, if they want to continue the 'kick in doors and kill orcs with pie game' after it has been clearly expressed (over several encounters, these two included) that this is not the case, that is their business, and yes, they will be punished for it.

Lastly, its not like they couldn't play the same tactics in return. They could have shoved a wall or two onto the Orcs just the same. One light spell from the Wizard would have trivialized the ambush in the trees, or simply running back to camp.

Sorry, I don't hand hold herp derp players.

[big teej]

Wait a minute. The Badgers have a burrow speed. Why didn't they tunnel to safety, with the PCs following behind?

-head desk, face palm, groaner,-

:smalleek::smallredface:

it didn't occur.... to... ANY of us -face palm-

-frusterated scream of rage and frusteration-

ugh....