Balancing Encounters

[Learn34]

So, I am new to DMing, but have strong opinions on alot of what goes into the art. That said, I need help figuring out how to properly scale & construct encounters for a patently terrible party. My players are the sort who have very clearly never been challenged by their previous DMs, and thus I have a party consisting of:
Doppelganger Rogue12 (incorrectly built by 2 of the players, but I'm letting slide because I agree with the arguments of the LA adjustment thread. Ergo, no LA for the race >> 12 Class levels + 4RHD = EL16 character)
Proto-Hulking Hurler (built by me for one of the players, best attempt and merging RP & mechanics). At present just Half-Minotaur/Half-Ogre with mostly bought-off LA, Barb4(Trip&Grab ACFs)/Fighter2/Warhulk9/LA+1
Player #3 had a Ranger with TWF line but also mounted combat feats and most of his money sunk into a magic longsword, Leadership but no cohort, etc. Is transitioning to a home-brewed ranged class which should be doing ~50 damage per round (but still just a martial, and ranger-themed). Tried to push him towards the ToB martial disciplines and the Home-brewed ranged disciplines to no avail.

So, my basic problem is that I refuse to softball encounters based on their **** party composition. That said, I don't want to give them encounters too difficult for their party size. Does anyone have a good formula for lowering encounter EL based on # of party members? I initially tried a flat 3/4 (working off the understanding that a default party is 4 PCs) but that was woefully easy, wheres the EL15 encounters they've had thus far have been 1 fight followed by a week of recovery. The campaign/adventure is basically my attempt at adapting Darkest Dungeon to D&D 3.5, using Sanity in place of stress, but I'm pretty sure if I leaving the Illithid Lich I've currently got planted in one of the dungeons it'll slaughter the three of them, Truedeath crystals or no.

On a related note: how do I ensure they have appropriate WBL without coddling them? My basic aggravation is that I feel like I can't punish them for failure or a lack of critical thinking. If I lock treasure behind puzzles and they don't solve said puzzles, then I either deny them the WBL they need to function or give that same treasure to them somewhere else and thus don't punish their failure.

[Mike Miller]

The bigger problem isn't the 3 PC party, but the lack of variance. They are 3 martials with no magic. The default assumption for WotC would have been something along the lines of 1 divine and 1 arcane with 2 martials. You have to keep in mind they don't have the magical means a party of higher levels normally would.

[zlefin]

the formula for EL is quite clear on lowered party size. with 3 members it'd be -1 to party EL.
so CR 15 would be appropriate for their party size according to the rules.

the rules aren't perfectly accurate of course, and don't account for all contingencies.

you could also factor in a -1 for them having poor builds if you want; and another -1 if their wbl is substantially below what it's supposed to be,

don't hide treasure behind puzzles if they're bad at puzzles.

[Learn34]

I'm aware of the party comp problem, but absolutely refuse to give them any relief for it. They want to play 3.5, they can live with it's realities. That said, what I've gathered from this is that I'm more or less on the right track given my perspectives. One questions though: on what page is the party size math? I haven't found it skimming through the DMG §3.Encounters.

[Fizban]

So, my basic problem is that I refuse to softball encounters based on their **** party composition.

On a related note: how do I ensure they have appropriate WBL without coddling them? My basic aggravation is that I feel like I can't punish them for failure or a lack of critical thinking. If I lock treasure behind puzzles and they don't solve said puzzles, then I either deny them the WBL they need to function or give that same treasure to them somewhere else and thus don't punish their failure.
Nothing in the DMG supports "locking treasure behind puzzles." It's your job to make sure they get sufficient treasure. Puzzles are not a mandatory part of the game, nor is putting treasure behind them.

I'm aware of the party comp problem, but absolutely refuse to give them any relief for it. They want to play 3.5, they can live with it's realities.
Sounds like DM problem.

Seriously. You agreed to run for this party. You agreed to DM for this party. Unless they specifically agreed that they were underpowered and would get stomped and believe that the game will be fun anyway, but I sincerely doubt they did. It is your job to make the rest of the game work. See DMG, chapter 1.

If you absolutely refuse to change your DM style, then you need to go back to the beginning and make that clear. And if the group doesn't want to play that way and disbands then it's your fault for refusing to compromise (and if they are willing to try, you'd best be grateful). The easiest way to show what you mean is to have them take the party they have and run through the only type of encounter you're willing to run, and watch what happens-making it clear that you're doing a mechanical test and not starting the actual game yet.

But by accepting those characters, by starting this game, you agree to make it fun with those characters. Period. It's also your job to acknowledge when a game isn't going to work, rather than drag everyone along to something no one is going to like. You can run your game however you want, but if you won't change how you run your game to fit the players, then that means some groups you won't be running for.

That said, what I've gathered from this is that I'm more or less on the right track given my perspectives. One questions though: on what page is the party size math? I haven't found it skimming through the DMG §3.Encounters.
There is no party size math. You either have four and you're at the expected amount, or you don't and you wing it. By your tone I would expect you were already winging it, since I'll bet you optimize your monsters and give them tactical advantages without regard for difficulty increase.

If you actually want to make sure they can handle an encounter, the best test is to just see if their characters can get through the encounter. You have copies of their sheets (or you should), you have the encounter. If you don't have time to do that sort of heavy testing then you're gonna have to find somewhere else to bend a little.


Now, all of that said, I do notice your intent of a Darkest Dungeon style game. Which, if they agreed to it, should fully allow for them getting wrecked and dying until they make better characters. But the difference between Darkest Dungeon and DnD 3.5, is that in DD a spellcaster is just another monster with a slightly novel gimmick. Nothing at all like the char-op'd 3.5 wizard. Your Darkest Dungeon 3.5 lich should not have an impenetrable lair, nor should it be able to instantly kill or disable the entire party (no 3.5 lich should, unless the party is operating on the same level and you're playing 5d chess with your players). You still have to figure out what sort of party you do want them to bring. DD isn't meant for 3/4 sized parties with no healers either, but if you've only got 3 players then you've only got 3 players.

[Learn34]

Nothing in the DMG supports "locking treasure behind puzzles." It's your job to make sure they get sufficient treasure. Puzzles are not a mandatory part of the game, nor is putting treasure behind them.
>Fair, though again, not in the style of Darkest Dungeon.


You agreed to run for this party. You agreed to DM for this party. Unless they specifically agreed that they were underpowered and would get stomped and believe that the game will be fun anyway, but I sincerely doubt they did. It is your job to make the rest of the game work. See DMG, chapter 1.
>Sorta, but mostly not. I don't really want to DM for a 3.5 game, because I don't feel I have sufficient system mastery, I don't have a status-quo sandbox built for them to play in, and I sure as hell don't have the time to craft a customized story for them. Even if I had the latter-most, these guys have 0 agency. They expect there to be a railroad for them to follow. I agreed to DM for a 3.5 campaign adventure, because I would rather DM for them than be one of their players. They know even less than I about the rules, and have little care for them. They, frankly, have no business playing 3.5. 5e sure, some rules-light system definitely (hence the three of them switching off DMing for a World of Darkness-based homebrew that's still under construction). I f***ing hate non-rules bound gameplay, because everything becomes this BS sniveling negotiation between the DM and the players. Every success or failure is the result of the DM letting the players succeed. The only reason I'm running this is because I don't want to be a dead weight within the group.

>Along the same lines, I had 0 input in the construction of 2 of the PCs, and made the third to be what the player wanted. They players just made them; apparently without any regard to the campaign they would be playing in, which I was very clear with them about from the beginning.


'll bet you optimize your monsters and give them tactical advantages without regard for difficulty increase.
>I was asking about encounter balancing specifically because I don't have time to do more than grab monsters from the MMs and other splat books (using an online tool to search based on type & CR). If I had enough system mastery, I would be directly porting creatures from Darkest Dungeon, which would actually give them a much more favorable condition (as those are mostly beast-stick fights). But, again, I don't have sufficient system mastery to ensure those are appropriate. I made one attempt, which they beat, but as with the only other fight they've had (1 Charnel Hound), it was the only fight they managed that day. They left the dungeon afterwards and spent a week recuperating.


If you actually want to make sure they can handle an encounter, the best test is to just see if their characters can get through the encounter. You have copies of their sheets (or you should), you have the encounter. If you don't have time to do that sort of heavy testing then you're gonna have to find somewhere else to bend a little.
>I can do that (as I now have copies of 2 of the three PC's sheets), but I cannot account for their tactics (or complete lack therof). Both fights the Rogue and Ranger spent basically the entire thing dawdling and trying to get the Large Proto-Hulk to "tank" despite having neither good ranged options nor reach.

The lich is, at present, just an Alhoon Mindflayer sitting in a room. It was only when I looked at the entry that I saw all the enchantment spells and thought "Oh ***." Because the Proto-Hulk can probably single-handedly kill the other two PCs and has a garbage will save. That said, I will go back and make sure they actually understand what they signed up for. I want to keep using D&D monsters to prevent the encounters from becoming repetitive, but will definitely try to avoid spell/SLA-heavy monsters.

[zlefin]

It sounds like you might be better off using an adventure path or module.

it also sounds like you, as a person and with the gaming preferences you have, might simply not be a good fit for these other people and the kind of game they want.

[Saintheart]

I'm aware of the party comp problem, but absolutely refuse to give them any relief for it. They want to play 3.5, they can live with it's realities. That said, what I've gathered from this is that I'm more or less on the right track given my perspectives. One questions though: on what page is the party size math? I haven't found it skimming through the DMG §3.Encounters.

I'm not sure if there's a specific page with the math on it, but the official d20 encounter calculator (http://www.d20srd.org/extras/d20encountercalculator/) might do the job for you. The calculations at least roughly take into account party size in working out whether a 'book' CR encounter is going to be theoretically easy or hard.

[Fizban]

>Fair, though again, not in the style of Darkest Dungeon.
DD has a different treasure flow though. You spend a bunch just to reach the dungeon, hopefully recoup those losses, and if you're lucky/good you come back with enough to profit.

Funny enough, that can interface perfectly with this party: they have no heals or status removal, heals and status removal are expensive to buy in item form, so you can throw tons of treasure at them as long as they're eating hits that require tons of treasure to survive.


>Sorta, but mostly not. I don't really want to DM for a 3.5 game, because I don't feel I have sufficient system mastery, I don't have a status-quo sandbox built for them to play in, and I sure as hell don't have the time to craft a customized story for them. Even if I had the latter-most, these guys have 0 agency. They expect there to be a railroad for them to follow. I agreed to DM for a 3.5 campaign adventure, because I would rather DM for them than be one of their players. They know even less than I about the rules, and have little care for them. They, frankly, have no business playing 3.5. 5e sure, some rules-light system definitely (hence the three of them switching off DMing for a World of Darkness-based homebrew that's still under construction). I f***ing hate non-rules bound gameplay, because everything becomes this BS sniveling negotiation between the DM and the players. Every success or failure is the result of the DM letting the players succeed. The only reason I'm running this is because I don't want to be a dead weight within the group.
Oof.

>Along the same lines, I had 0 input in the construction of 2 of the PCs, and made the third to be what the player wanted. They players just made them; apparently without any regard to the campaign they would be playing in, which I was very clear with them about from the beginning.
Fair enough then, looks like the players done goofed themselves. They agreed to let you DM, you said it was gonna be hardcore, and they didn't involve you in their character creation.

>I was asking about encounter balancing specifically because I don't have time to do more than grab monsters from the MMs and other splat books (using an online tool to search based on type & CR). If I had enough system mastery, I would be directly porting creatures from Darkest Dungeon, which would actually give them a much more favorable condition (as those are mostly beast-stick fights). But, again, I don't have sufficient system mastery to ensure those are appropriate. I made one attempt, which they beat, but as with the only other fight they've had (1 Charnel Hound), it was the only fight they managed that day. They left the dungeon afterwards and spent a week recuperating.
Alright, so my first piece of advice is: nothing from MM3. MM3 is the book of char-op'd monsters for char-op'd parties. MM2 and Fiend Folio have obvious problems, but those that aren't problems are much more in line with MM1. MM 4 and 5 have a much later mindset, but they still dial it waay back. A reasonably optimized party can do the +33% output vs baseline needed to make up for missing a member, but MM3 is just bonkers.

>I can do that (as I now have copies of 2 of the three PC's sheets), but I cannot account for their tactics (or complete lack therof). Both fights the Rogue and Ranger spent basically the entire thing dawdling and trying to get the Large Proto-Hulk to "tank" despite having neither good ranged options nor reach.
On that I agree, no compromises. 3.5 does not expect optimized characters, but it does expect effective tactics. You can win with zero-op parties, no feats and bland spells, as long as you fight correctly.

The lich is, at present, just an Alhoon Mindflayer sitting in a room. It was only when I looked at the entry that I saw all the enchantment spells and thought "Oh ***." Because the Proto-Hulk can probably single-handedly kill the other two PCs and has a garbage will save. That said, I will go back and make sure they actually understand what they signed up for. I want to keep using D&D monsters to prevent the encounters from becoming repetitive, but will definitely try to avoid spell/SLA-heavy monsters.
Good plan.

To account for the 3/4 party size and lack of casters, you'll also want to stick with monsters that don't nullify any of them. If the rogue doesn't have anything to sneak attack undead, stay away from undead. If they can't pierce DR, no big DR monsters. Etc. You can use big energy/status/etc stuff as long as they're buying and using the consumables for it (including pre-emptive buffs), rather than trying to hoard treasure, and notifying them of this plan might get them to go along with it. Monsters with Dispel SLAs can just conveniently forget them.

I'll have a skim and see if anything pops out at me later.

From MM5, I'm seeing lots of CR 8-10 stuff you could use in various quantities. As a no-caster party, they're also more suited for extended bashing of little guys here and there. Of course, a lot are also immune to sneak attack.
-Blackwing, something to trip/shoot at with a non-fight-ending will save effect.
-Burrow Root, deals con damage and splits at half hp, good to force consumption of healing resources.
-Deadborn Vulture, something you get to chop up twice.
-Solamith: demon with lower DR and fast healing, but deals damage to self to throw fireballs.
-Remmanon: CR 15 devil whose only real offense is a confusion aura, and no ability to dispel Magic Circle. High DR, but no fast healing- a perfect "bring X to win" boss.
-Elemental Mage: basically just bruisers with some flavor effects and fast healing so they take a bit longer to kill.
-Ember Guard: CR 13 bruiser with high but simple DR (use Align Weapon oils), only light fortification, breath weapon also slows.
-Graveyard Sludge: CR 4, but very DD as it animates anything that dies nearby, making it a special boss fight in a can. Fear save makes it annoying to kill, but the main fight is whatever
-Thoon stuff: the Mind Blast DCs on the thoon flayer and madcrafter aren't that high, and the solider, scyther, and stormcloud are all fairly squishable while retaining interesting abilities. DD isn't very Thoon compatible, but DD has a very small palette when all things are considered.
-Mockery Bugs: bugs wearing human husks seem very DD- the monarch's Spell Turning defense is wasted on this party, and the drones have backlash and 1/6 hour breath weapons that make them threatening in an easily measured way.
-Skull Lord: the obvious boss in a can, sadly the party is too high of a level to make this work. Otherwise it'd be the Collector.
-Spawn of Jubilex: good sludge monsters, CR 6/10/14, easy hp based threats.
-Thrym Hound: big CR 10 icy wolf.
-Vinespawn: CR 7 engulfing vine monster, classic horror.

From MM4
-Bloodhulks, hp-bag undead that don't penalize a rogue as much as Skeletons/Zombies would, though those are also options.
-Corrupture: another simple acid ooze, with trample and self-centered burst.
-Verdant Prince: CR 11 fey caster-ish with a few simple 1/day effects.
-Vitreous Drinker: CR 11, spectral raven scouts, horrifying gaze, gives you cataracts, very horror setup.
-Zern: they're also a ways underlevel, but more body-horror stuff with turning people into their Blade Thralls.

Incidentally, the question of level is a big one: for a gritty Darkest Dungeon style game, why start at 12th+ level when the game has stopped being gritty? Levels 1-6 are most appropriate, and could cap off with a Skull Lord, after fighting through a number of dungeons with the other x/y/z CR'd family monsters (Rylkar, Demonhives, Tirbana, Myconids, etc). Even 6-12 would work fine.

[Learn34]

Incidentally, the question of level is a big one: for a gritty Darkest Dungeon style game, why start at 12th+ level when the game has stopped being gritty? Levels 1-6 are most appropriate, and could cap off with a Skull Lord, after fighting through a number of dungeons with the other x/y/z CR'd family monsters (Rylkar, Demonhives, Tirbana, Myconids, etc). Even 6-12 would work fine.

The level question is basically of a function of continuity. This all started the beginning of last year. One of the current players was DM, though only because he really wanted to play D&D and didn't know anyone else who played on a regular basis. He wanted to play a war troll, which he thought was ECL 12 (because he's still wrapping his head around how LA works), and so the party started out at ECL 12. That's the short version. The long version is a cavalcade of nobody nowing WTF they were doing and me learning more about D&D through the GitP forums than from anywhere else. In the adventures that guy (let's call him J) and one of the other players (whom shall be called T) DM'ed for, I was able to get by as a Lizardfolk (LA+1, no RHD, because again, no one understood the rules when it was made)/Barbarian 6/Druid for the rest, with each adventure increasing party level by 1. My Pixie (LA+4 version) Bladelock was overpowered to the point T just started dropping AMFs on every major contention point after I told him about them (which I then circumvented by having a couple big Skeletons created through The Dead Walk).

I agree that it would make a lot more sense to play a campaign like this at a low level, but that's not what these guys want. They don't understand/don't accept that there's a massive shift in gameplay between high and low levels. They expect playing at ECL 16 to be much the same as ECL 6, just with bigger numbers.

Thank you for the suggestions. For the most part I'm going to accelerate when the gypsy caravan appears in town so they can buy magic items (I will try to make clear the importance of Truedeath crystals to the Rogue and home-brewed sharpshooter), while keeping the encounters in the EL 15 range. Just gotta be sure to cut out certain things (heavy enchantment monsters, swarms, etc.).

[MeimuHakurei]

The party of Fighter/Rogue/Ranger can handle level-appropriate encounters somewhat, problem is if you want to do anything noncombat that would be tough for a 12th level character to deal with (Natural disasters are a nice way to introduce more abstract challenges since they do actually have a CR). Here's a few things that'll give a martial group a tough time:

Swarms: As you noted, since those are immune to weapon damage. Do note that they're not immune to fire damage from (Everburning) torches so they should be fine if you use only a handful of low-level swarms.

Flying enemies, particularly dragons: They'll generally require a strong source of ranged damage, because while you can challenge things like harpies with a potion of Fly, a dragon will easily outmanuever a flying martial with its enormous speed. And no, they will not attempt to melee an adventurer group if they have the clear advantage staying in the air.

Incorporeal enemies: With the ability to avoid hits by hiding in solid objects (magic weapons can hit them with a miss chance, so it's not a lost cause on that front), it's hard for martials to tag them unless they properly time readied actions. They also tend to have nasty effects on touch effects or mean stuff like possession.

Longer encounter days: Yes, at this compo, the alleged asset of martials is actually their worst enemy. They do have a ranger, so they might be able to recover from damage at a rate quicker than 12 HP per day. They're still massively wanting for condition removal, so feel free to employ enemies with poison attacks. This actually would be even more of a problem at low levels where CLW wands and spellcasting services are prohibitively expensive.

Hazardous environments: This ranges from underwater areas, floating archipelagos, sandstorms, blizzards and a large list of other places where you get hurt on a per-round basis. Many of them can be warded off with the right buff and may still require a few other things to get around (Water Breathing still doesn't allow heavily armored martials to swim around well).

Scrying: You know how stupidly effective it is to just scry the BBEG's lair and then tp in an elite squad of planar bound minions buffed like crazy? Now you know that enemy spellcasters can also do that. If you wanna go easy on that, just use scry+tp for the Wizard to constantly be one step ahead of the party.

[Torpin]

Swarms: As you noted, since those are immune to weapon damage. Do note that they're not immune to fire damage from (Everburning) torches so they should be fine if you use only a handful of low-level swarms.


Do everburning torches do fire damage in your game, cause they don't due to the fact the light is from the continual flame spell which specifically says it doesnt give off heat, and would make it practically impossible to store in most bags if it did

[Kesnit]

They left the dungeon afterwards and spent a week recuperating.

That is actually completely in line with Darkest Dungeon. One reason that game has a large list of adventurers is because after a few runs, the adventurers are losing sanity, or dying, or something along those line and need to be put back together.

[Hackulator]

I mean from what you said you don't want to play AND you don't really want to be DMing why are you even involved in this game?

[King of Nowhere]

whenever the party is too weak, or too strong, for the encounters they are supposed to face, just give them a virtual level adjustment.
I mean, they are level 13 but are weaker than that? Assume they are level 11 for the purpose of encounters. Still too hard? Assume they are level 10. You'll find the equilibrium.

[MeimuHakurei]

whenever the party is too weak, or too strong, for the encounters they are supposed to face, just give them a virtual level adjustment.
I mean, they are level 13 but are weaker than that? Assume they are level 11 for the purpose of encounters. Still too hard? Assume they are level 10. You'll find the equilibrium.

They'll have more trouble with noncombat situations, which don't have a particular CR in mind. And with Fighter/Rogue/Ranger as the party, this makes for an excessively narrow band of routes they can take to deal with challenges compared to a party that has Wizards, Clerics, Sorcerers, Beguilers or even Bards.

[Fizban]

I agree that it would make a lot more sense to play a campaign like this at a low level, but that's not what these guys want. They don't understand/don't accept that there's a massive shift in gameplay between high and low levels. They expect playing at ECL 16 to be much the same as ECL 6, just with bigger numbers.
Should be easy enough as long as you stick mostly to non grappling bruisers and watch their AC. That's the big missing link- if you've been reading hulking hurler lockdown sort of builds, you've probably been told AC is useless. A no-caster party with no AC is so dead it's funny. You can get miles and miles out of monsters for this party just by using bruisers that have a hard time hitting their AC, as long as they have enough. It only takes being 2-3 CR under to seriously drop the AB and hp, then a little less perfect positioning so the PCs get a chance to double/triple-team one before the other is in range.

Basically the exact opposite of the usual monster advice, instead of looking for the most power for the CR and making sure they work perfectly, you can use weaker stuff for the CR and make sure there are errors for the players to exploit. And then if they don't, let 'em have it.

Though there are two things about grappling monsters seriously overlooked: if they're grappling you at that full unstoppable bonus, then they've got no dex bonus, and the rogue can go to town. And if they're super big, they ought to be grappling you at -20, making their grapple much more meet-able. Even so, that's not enough to make the Giant Crab stop being a murder machine, even in its slightly weaker Stormwrack version- being Swallowed Whole by most monsters is actually good for you (less incoming damage), but the crab has no swallow, only pure damage from constrict and iterative grapple checks (for claw damage thanks to improved grab).

The pig-men from the warrens have a tauric guy- he can be directly statted with the Tauric template from MM2, or just reskin a Centaur.