Overkill?

[Chester]

Hello! Some advice here.

When I last DM'd, the party was on horseback going through a rarely-traveled mountain pass. This pass is purportedly infested with ogres and hill giants.

Party is level 6.

The ranger rolled low while scouting and was spotted by three ogres.

We left off with the Ranger running back to the party, pursued by the ogres.

My plan is that in addition to the ogres, there's a hill giant throwing rocks from a ledge above. I also think that the horses (1 is the ranger's, the other 3 have the riders on them) would probably panic.

1. RAW, how do I handle the horses getting panicked?
2. Did I create too tough an encounter? Not tough enough?

[Zanos]

Horses panicking is handled by the Ride skill. If your mount is not war trained, you need to make a DC 20 ride check every round (http://www.d20srd.org/srd/skills/ride.htm) or lose your actions.

Hill giants are pretty beefy, and are CR 7 by themselves. If he only throws rocks and the party doesn't have to fight him directly, they should be able to manage the ogres.

What's your party composition look like?

[Chester]

What's your party composition look like?

Gnome Bard 3/Rogue 2/Unseen Seer 1
Elf Duskblade 6
Elf Ranger 5
Human Dread Necromancer 6

[NoACWarrior]

If the horses are not warhorses or those derived from a magical effect (mount or even smoke bottle) then the rider needs to "control mount in battle".
from the SRD:
Control Mount in Battle
As a move action, you can attempt to control a light horse, pony, heavy horse, or other mount not trained for combat riding while in battle. If you fail the Ride check, you can do nothing else in that round. You do not need to roll for warhorses or warponies.

I'd avoid making the horses panicked as they would typically do what a panicked creature does...

3 orgres is around 4-5 CR depending on how you cut it, and can go up to 6 CR if the conditions are advantageous (higher ground, no ability to get to them via Melee). I'd say a lvl 6 party should be adequately challenged by this, unless they have 0 ranged damage, at which point they should probably run away.

[Kazudo]

Gnome Bard 3/Rogue 2/Unseen Seer 1
Elf Duskblade 6
Elf Ranger 5
Human Dread Necromancer 6

Ouch. That's a pretty sparse party.

That might be a bit much, but if they're good and tactically based then it shouldn't be too tough if the Hill Giants just throw rocks and MAYBE come down one at a time after the ogres.

[Keneth]

They have horses, they should just run away and live to fight another day. Unless they're pretty highly optimized.

Also, I always find it amusing when I see 3.5 parties with varying level totals, especially when the one getting the short stick is the one playing the weakest class. :smallbiggrin:

[Chester]

They have horses, they should just run away and live to fight another day. Unless they're pretty highly optimized.

Also, I always find it amusing when I see 3.5 parties with varying level totals, especially when the one getting the short stick is the one playing the weakest class. :smallbiggrin:

Ranger is new to the group. We started him one level below.

[Hiro Protagonest]

Ranger is new to the group. We started him one level below.

There's no reason to do that. That's not in the rules, that just makes one player weaker.

[NoACWarrior]

Hmm - If the 3 ogres were engaging the party in Melee it would probably be around a CR 4.

But with the hill giant inaccessible to melee, and only 1/2 the party able to deal decent amounts of ranged damage (bard and dn would use slings or crossbows), that portion would probably be about a CR 8-9.

Both the ogres and the hill giant added in with the difficulty to get to the hill giant I'd say would make a solid 9 CR.

Are you expecting the party to be able to kill the hill giant?
If so, all the hill giant has to do at low HP is run away and get more hill giants.
Instead, you could simply have the PCs deal with the 3 ogres and then run away - I'd put that CR at around 5-6, its totally reasonable that the PCs would run away from something which is 2 CR more then them.

[Kazudo]

There's no reason to do that. That's not in the rules, that just makes one player weaker.

Normally I'd agree, though saying there's never a reason to do that is a bit sharp. I've had reasons to start with a character behind or ahead a level. Most of it isn't rulebound but, hey, gotta love tabletop games, they grant you freedom of interpretation and manipulation for dramatic effect.

EDIT: For example, if the player entered late and the previous players did something rather amazing, earning them a rather large abundance of XP and getting them, as a group, to a new level forging new bonds of kinship. Then comes new guy #2 and he just gets to start at the level we had to work so hard to get to?

Most of that above was for dramatic purposes. I don't typically have a level discrimination except in certain circumstances, like a player resurrecting their character or wanting to deal with LA buyoff.

[Madara]

Usually, I start them a level lower, but give them accelerated XP, so that they do eventually catch up, but the higher levels get to enjoy the reward of their hard work for a bit.

[Chester]

Usually, I start them a level lower, but give them accelerated XP, so that they do eventually catch up, but the higher levels get to enjoy the reward of their hard work for a bit.

This.

Anyway, the party is rather scrappy to say the least--I think that makes it more fun!

[Keneth]

Then comes new guy #2 and he just gets to start at the level we had to work so hard to get to?

Who's to say the new guy hasn't had his own fair share of ordeals? Is every new character you pick up Mr. Average? :smallconfused:

I know it seems like you're somehow rewarding the original group, but in reality you're just punishing the new guy for being late to the party.

D&D has enough imbalance in the system as it is, XP disparity just exacerbates the issue. You should kill it with fire and never look back.

[Chester]

There's no reason to do that. That's not in the rules, that just makes one player weaker.


Who's to say the new guy hasn't had his own fair share of ordeals? Is every new character you pick up Mr. Average? :smallconfused:

I know it seems like you're somehow rewarding the original group, but in reality you're just punishing the new guy for being late to the party.

D&D has enough imbalance in the system as it is, XP disparity just exacerbates the issue. You should kill it with fire and never look back.

Remind me not to invite you to play with our group, then.

Otherwise, thanks to the rest of you who offered on-topic responses. I think I got this covered! :smallsmile:

[TuggyNE]

Remind me not to invite you to play with our group, then.

I saw this and was quite puzzled. What's so bad about wishing for party balance on something that is, fundamentally, as metagame-determined as "starting level"? It's not as though there is any general in-character reason for there to be new recruitable PCs at level X-1, but none at level X: it's an abstraction, and the main reason there's even any replacement character at all is so someone can play easier.

Given that, insisting on some sort of arbitrary handicap just seems, well, out of place, and potentially a bit mean-spirited. "You lost your character, so just to make sure you're properly punished, your replacement is down a level. Have fun!" Not indeed that that's necessarily the thought, but it could be, and that tendency is one to avoid, I think.

[Brookshw]

I saw this and was quite puzzled. What's so bad about wishing for party balance on something that is, fundamentally, as metagame-determined as "starting level"? It's not as though there is any general in-character reason for there to be new recruitable PCs at level X-1, but none at level X: it's an abstraction, and the main reason there's even any replacement character at all is so someone can play easier.

Given that, insisting on some sort of arbitrary handicap just seems, well, out of place, and potentially a bit mean-spirited. "You lost your character, so just to make sure you're properly punished, your replacement is down a level. Have fun!" Not indeed that that's necessarily the thought, but it could be, and that tendency is one to avoid, I think.

Eh, it was something I saw commonly back in 2e. Never really bothered me then. If you want a metajustification, the players are the stars/heroes and until this person joined they weren't one so they're not as advanced. Sure its kinda hamfisted but personally nothing that ever bothered me.

[Seto]

I saw this and was quite puzzled. What's so bad about wishing for party balance on something that is, fundamentally, as metagame-determined as "starting level"?

He didn't say "you're wrong", he said "remind me not to invite you to our group", implying that there's no need to make absolute judgments ("you should kill it with fire") since he isn't in OP's group and, well, each group plays their own way. A not-too rude way of saying "yeah well you're not playing with us so stop telling me how to DM and get back to the original question", as I see it.

[Keneth]

Remind me not to invite you to play with our group, then.

I make a horrible player anyway, especially when faced with DMs who stand firmly behind their (misguided) beliefs. :smalltongue:

[TuggyNE]

He didn't say "you're wrong", he said "remind me not to invite you to our group", implying that there's no need to make absolute judgments ("you should kill it with fire") since he isn't in OP's group and, well, each group plays their own way. A not-too rude way of saying "yeah well you're not playing with us so stop telling me how to DM and get back to the original question", as I see it.

Yes, but … it wasn't merely "shut up and stop backseat-DMing", but "I would not want you as a player". That seems to me to be … overkill. :smallcool:

[ace rooster]

I would agree with many people that differing levels without player stupidity is probably a bad thing, but that is beside the question.

The horses probably have the right idea, (as in run like a metaphor ...) so make sure you play them that way. I have played a character that survived because his horse ran away, they do that if they have no other instructions, I got turned to evil for offing another PC that was responsible for the death of that horse, he never understood why I did it. Best animal companion I ever had :smallfrown: Anyway I degress.
Are the animals war animals? If not they run, (with PCs in tow) and PCs have to jump off (1d6 damage) to stick around (probably bad idea). Don't be scared to play the PC's animals as NPCs who act in their own interests. Maybe have one of the horses securely tied up for the ranger, but this seems like a cut and run sit.