Is there a system ...

[Draz74]

Before I continue extensively homebrew-modifying a system to improve its balance, I wanted to check if there's something that would already meet my needs.

Some background: The last campaign I ran was PF2e. The way its CR system is actually balanced (at least beyond the first two levels; I accidentally TPK'd a L1 party with a single L3 monster) was very appealing. However, I like making monsters/NPCs from scratch a good deal of the time, and ... I got bored with PF2e's monster creation framework. It didn't have nearly as many choices as making a PC, and those choices had to be made largely out of a sense of fairness rather than making something as strong as I could within their level limit. So I ended that campaign.

So I'm looking for something with a great combination of entertaining monster creation rules, and a robust/balanced Encounter Building system. 5e has neither, of course ... M&M is fun to build NPCs as well as PCs (even though it has the same "fairness" issue as PF2e), but is very difficult to judge Encounter balance ...

I'm not sure if I'm specifically looking for "monsters built very similar to PCs." All the entertaining monster-creation frameworks I'm aware of are along those lines, but I'm open to something different.

For this particular campaign plan, I'm looking for a game where PCs' power scales pretty aggressively, as it does in PF2e.

Something fantasy-compatible and relatively crunchy ... Any suggestions?

[thethird]

3.5 / Pf1?

The rules for creating monsters is the same as for creating PCs. And it should be crunchy and fantasy enough for your tastes.

I would recommend reading this thread here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?187046-That-s-ONLY-CR-9-Let-s-Read-The-Monster-Manual-II) that goes over calculating the CR for monsters (that was woefully miscalculated). And urpriest monstrous handbook here (https://forums.giantitp.com/showthread.php?207928-Urpriest-s-Monstrous-Monster-Handbook) that goes over constructing/advancing monsters.

[Duff]

I'd be a little surprised if there's anything that meets that need.
Since building powerful encounters within the rules is an interest for you, I'd assume you're at least fairly good at it.
I'd also assume most GMs are not especially looking for that. They're looking for "Fits my story", "Interesting", "Colorful", and "Level appropriate"

So, in the same way a well optimised character can be out of balance with a character built for flavour, you'll probably find a level guide for most GMs will allow you too much; unless your players are also very good, and the system gives them a lot of opportunities to optimise.

[Nepenthe]

My favorite system, by far, for designing set piece encounters is Valor. It's level-based point buy. Enemies are built just like PCs, with templates based on how much of a threat they're meant to be.

I had one boss fight against an evil beautician who could stab his oversized scissors through one mirror and out another anywhere in the room.
Another was in a quarry crisscrossed by tracks with minecarts zipping along. The supervisor was perched on the rim with a ludicrously long whip he could use to grab the PCs and yank them into the tracks.The PCs had to work together to survive the climb before facing the boss directly (he was a total pushover when they finally got to him).

Be warned, though, Valor is a lot of work to run. You have to build everything the players might encounter as if it were a PC.

[Grod_The_Giant]

M&M is fun to build NPCs as well as PCs (even though it has the same "fairness" issue as PF2e), but is very difficult to judge Encounter balance ...
There's actually a pretty simple set of guidelines (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=198752) that's served me well for the better part of a decade now. Obviously doesn't take things like cheesy builds and unexpected synergies into account, but as long as you're playing (mostly) fair it works really well.

[Draz74]

3.5 / Pf1?

The rules for creating monsters is the same as for creating PCs. And it should be crunchy and fantasy enough for your tastes.

I ... hadn't considered that possibility. I was a dedicated 3.5e PC builder and sometimes player back in the day, but I know little about original PF1e and I'm under the impression it has changed a lot into a thing I know nothing about.

What exactly are the "robust" Encounter Building rules for 3.5e/PF1e? I don't remember much about 3e's CR system.

Your links don't fill me with lots of hope, though; other than VorpalTribble's guidelines for adjusting CR calculations, which seem sketchy, the links seem to just go off of by-the-book CR ratings for monsters, which are notoriously badly balanced even compared with bad PC balance.

Overall, I think I'd probably have to do more homebrewing to beat 3.5e/PF1e into good shape for my campaign than I'm already planning on. But if you think I'm wrong, keep pointing me in good directions.


My favorite system, by far, for designing set piece encounters is Valor. It's level-based point buy. Enemies are built just like PCs, with templates based on how much of a threat they're meant to be.

Be warned, though, Valor is a lot of work to run. You have to build everything the players might encounter as if it were a PC.

Thanks for expanding my horizons. I skimmed the book. I might try building some monsters in the system to see how they feel.


There's actually a pretty simple set of guidelines (https://www.myth-weavers.com/showthread.php?t=198752) that's served me well for the better part of a decade now. Obviously doesn't take things like cheesy builds and unexpected synergies into account, but as long as you're playing (mostly) fair it works really well.

Oooh, intriguing. Thanks.

[stoutstien]

Honestly over the years I've gone the complete other direction. It's a huge time sink that doesn't translate into much table wise.

[Draz74]

Honestly over the years I've gone the complete other direction. It's a huge time sink that doesn't translate into much table wise.

To each their own. Character building is a huge part of the RPG experience for me. And if I get addicted to building monsters in a system, the dedication that will lead to me putting into the campaign will indirectly translate to a lot, table-wise.

[Crake]

I ... hadn't considered that possibility. I was a dedicated 3.5e PC builder and sometimes player back in the day, but I know little about original PF1e and I'm under the impression it has changed a lot into a thing I know nothing about.

What exactly are the "robust" Encounter Building rules for 3.5e/PF1e? I don't remember much about 3e's CR system.

Level = CR

CR = level is a moderate encounter

CR = level +4 = boss level encounter with 50/50 survival rate

CRx2 = CR+2 meaning CRx4 = CR+4, meaning a party of 4 equal level enemies would be a 50/50 win rate, becuase it's even odds

The only point where this breaks down is when you realise that not all classes are equal, so even though a level 10 fighter and level 10 wizard are both a CR10 encounter, they're not REALLY both the same difficulty of an encounter. This is less of a problem at low-mid tiers of optimization, but at higher tiers, the CR system begins to break down.

That being said, that would go for pretty much any codified CR syste, that doesn't exist inside a very narrow band of gameplay system.

[thethird]

I ... hadn't considered that possibility. I was a dedicated 3.5e PC builder and sometimes player back in the day, but I know little about original PF1e and I'm under the impression it has changed a lot into a thing I know nothing about.

The biggest non easily intuitive change (to me) is how combat maneuvers work. Other than that most things are pretty minor (like, doing away with getting x4 skill points at first level, and limiting skill ranks on a skill to character level). And you can get used to it.


What exactly are the "robust" Encounter Building rules for 3.5e/PF1e? I don't remember much about 3e's CR system.

Building an encounter is easy. It's the same as building as any other character.


Your links don't fill me with lots of hope, though; other than VorpalTribble's guidelines for adjusting CR calculations, which seem sketchy, the links seem to just go off of by-the-book CR ratings for monsters, which are notoriously badly balanced even compared with bad PC balance.

Overall, I think I'd probably have to do more homebrewing to beat 3.5e/PF1e into good shape for my campaign than I'm already planning on. But if you think I'm wrong, keep pointing me in good directions.

What's challenging will depend on the table playing the game. You can build encounters easily, as per above, but building challenging encounters it's not something that can be formulated and scripted. Because what's challenging hardly translates well accross tables (and optimization levels). For example a ghost is complicated to deal with, because as incorporeals they are hard to damage, but a party of four clerics will have less of a challenge by simply using turn undead. That said for what's worth I think VorpalTribble's is a good generic formulation of a calculation of challenge rating. And see merit in looking at their approach to evaluate what makes a monster challenging. That's why I suggested to check it, as a mean to better gauge the challenge of an encounter and try to make it easier to calculate.

[Actana]

Fragged Empire is a pretty cool scifi system (with books for fantasy, pirates, cyberpunk and Bloodborne settings), has very in depth enemy building features, and is otherwise a really neat crunchy game with an emphasis on tactical combat with miniatures. Might be worth looking at.

[Pauly]

Before I continue extensively homebrew-modifying a system to improve its balance, I wanted to check if there's something that would already meet my needs.

Some background: The last campaign I ran was PF2e. The way its CR system is actually balanced (at least beyond the first two levels; I accidentally TPK'd a L1 party with a single L3 monster) was very appealing. However, I like making monsters/NPCs from scratch a good deal of the time, and ... I got bored with PF2e's monster creation framework. It didn't have nearly as many choices as making a PC, and those choices had to be made largely out of a sense of fairness rather than making something as strong as I could within their level limit. So I ended that campaign.

So I'm looking for something with a great combination of entertaining monster creation rules, and a robust/balanced Encounter Building system. 5e has neither, of course ... M&M is fun to build NPCs as well as PCs (even though it has the same "fairness" issue as PF2e), but is very difficult to judge Encounter balance ...

I'm not sure if I'm specifically looking for "monsters built very similar to PCs." All the entertaining monster-creation frameworks I'm aware of are along those lines, but I'm open to something different.

For this particular campaign plan, I'm looking for a game where PCs' power scales pretty aggressively, as it does in PF2e.

Something fantasy-compatible and relatively crunchy ... Any suggestions?

I am aware of various spaceship/mecha games that fit the bill of building customizable opponents. I can’t think of any good create your own monster systems from RPGs. There are some boardgames and wargames that get into this, but they have different system design goals so they don’t port over to RPGs very well.

The issue with using a points buy type of system is that 1,000 x one point goblins can never defeat 1 x thousand point dragon (or vice versa depending on your system). The actual synergies and abilities put on table and the terrain will mean that certain builds will be favored in certain scenarios. For example 1,000 points of archers will easily defeat 1,000 points of swordsmen on an open visibility table with mud that slows down the swordsmen (Agincourt). On the other hand if you change the table condition from mud to heavy fog that prevents the archers from seeing further than point blank range then the swordsmen win easily (Prestonpans).
What a oo Ints buy or similar system does is give you a rough guide as to what a ‘fair fight’ should be.

[Satinavian]

I am aware of various spaceship/mecha games that fit the bill of building customizable opponents. I can’t think of any good create your own monster systems from RPGs. There are some boardgames and wargames that get into this, but they have different system design goals so they don’t port over to RPGs very well
I have seen a couple of good create your own animal companion/golem/summon etc. systems in RPGs. There seems to be more demand because those need to balance basically PC abilities and put a price on them. But few systems even try a full create monster system for enemies and i don't know a single one that even remotely works.

Unfortunately even the first kind of tools won't work well for what the OP wants as those tend to focus not only on combat ability.

[Firest Kathon]

I honestly don't think you will find a system that fits your needs, because you have, in my opinion, two contradicting requirements. You want to

make something as strong as I could within their level limit.
while also getting

a robust/balanced Encounter Building system.
Any system with a balanced encounter building system will, by (my) definition, produce encounters/opponents of equal strength/difficulty when building for a given party. At least that is what I expect from a system that I would describe as such. If you can build something within the framework that is significantly stronger than other options, it would not warrant to be described as balanced nor robust.

Do you agree on this? Or am I completely misunderstanding your request?

[gbaji]

The issue with using a points buy type of system is that 1,000 x one point goblins can never defeat 1 x thousand point dragon (or vice versa depending on your system). The actual synergies and abilities put on table and the terrain will mean that certain builds will be favored in certain scenarios. For example 1,000 points of archers will easily defeat 1,000 points of swordsmen on an open visibility table with mud that slows down the swordsmen (Agincourt). On the other hand if you change the table condition from mud to heavy fog that prevents the archers from seeing further than point blank range then the swordsmen win easily (Prestonpans).

And this is exactly why I have issues with any sort of point comparison, CR ratings, etc, system. They attempt to boil down relative difficulty into a single number to compare, but outside of very basic hack and slash kinds of encounters, rarely actually mesh up well. And when they fail...? It's usually pretty catastrophic.

I prefer systems in which both the NPCs and PCs are built using the same methods *and* where balance is just based on GM eyeball and experience. Yeah. This means that if you are building a scenario, you must have a bit of experience with the system and game mechanics to do this, but if you just start out simple and basic, you can gradually ramp things up to make for fun/challenging encounters without accidentally tip over into the (very unpopular) "Ooops. Just killed everone with an encounter they had no real chance to win".

The key to success here is to not be afraid of handing the PCs "gimme" encounters. Use those earlier in the adventure to gauge what the PCs can do in any encounter situation, and then gradually adjust as you go. Also, if the game system has some sort of treasure/exp system associated with "encounter difficulty", I just chuck that out the window (well, as much as possible for any given game system). You should never feel obligated to give the PCs more reward than is deserved for the encounter they just faced, nor to hit them with something well outside their reach.

This approach does require a lot more custom work on the part of the GM, but is really really worth it in the end. And IMO, it's not a bad thing to retrain players to not expect specific risk/reward calculations in any given scenario or encounter (just to deal with the beancounter folks). It's about enjoyment of the game itself IMO. I don't put treasure on NPCs based on what the players expect for a given difficulty. They have treasure based on what they would reasonably have on them at the time in question. And most of that is going to be stuff they are using or need for some reason. If the party is ambushed by a group of bandits, the bandits will have stuff on them that would be useful for banditry. Nothing else. So yeah, any encounter outside of "defeated a major bad guy in his lair/base/whatever", isn't likely to result in treasure chests full of useful magic items, for pretty much the same reason (Dragon hordes, of course, are their own thing).

And honestly? I've found you can apply this philosopy to pretty much any game system. Just have to be willing to toss out the assumed encounter stuff in the rules and substitute your own.

[DrMartin]

All Flesh Must Be Eaten takes the build-a-monster approach as the foundation of the campaign.
The idea is you create how the zombies specific to your world / setting / scenario work mechanically, using essentially a point buy system. It could be they are romero-style brainless slow zombies in a game, or quick buggers that use a hive mind to strategize in another, or ghouls susceptible to sunlight in yet another.

Generalising, the idea is that you first create a rooster of does, and those are going to be the main feature for the scenario/ campaign.

I think this is a good tradeoff between the mileage you get and the energies put into making custom content - create an ecology of recurring critters rather than one-off showstoppers. This gives you a framework for creating the odd special monster for a special encounter too, when you need it.

I'd you adopt this framework I would argue that the system you are most familiar with is the best system to go with, as you'd be home-brewing a system of recurring encounters that you can fine tune and adjust as you play your campaign.

[icefractal]

Any system with a balanced encounter building system will, by (my) definition, produce encounters/opponents of equal strength/difficulty when building for a given party. At least that is what I expect from a system that I would describe as such. If you can build something within the framework that is significantly stronger than other options, it would not warrant to be described as balanced nor robust.That's kinda my read too, but maybe the OP's just meaning a very CR-solid system with more opponent versatility than PF2 (although not having run PF2, I don't know how much versatility that is).

Maybe something in the 4E line (4E itself, 13th Age, Lancer)? They tend to be more tightly balanced for a given level, similar to PF2. Without knowing PF2 monster creation, I can't say how they compare though.

Now if you mean "opponents have the same optimization potential as PCs" - well yes, that's possible in most systems by using the PC rules. And I'd say it's balanced - you're using the exact same tool set. But it isn't reliable in generating a fun game experience. Optimized characters can easily end up hard-countering each-other, and so if you're using PC builds against the PCs, some are going to be easy and some will be a TPK, it's only a matter of time.

I mean I do use classed NPCs some of the time (in PF1), and optimize them to an extent, but there's a certain point where you have to make a choice between maximally effective and being an enjoyable fight.

[afroakuma]

I mean, Legend technically, but that comes with its own soup of problems...

Draz74: All I can say is that if you'd like to do 3.5, I'm always churning out more content for it, all of which is free. Some of which might even be good. :smalltongue:

[Lucas Yew]

As I share all of your proposed ideals for a good game (npc transparency, crunchy rules, etc.), I'm afraid to say that almost no game on sale now fits said criteria.

If, on a hypothetical scenario that GURPS and/or the HERO System actually made their crunch truly "open" (as in GURPS Lite being free but NOT "open"), would that fit your needs?

[Thane of Fife]

Has anyone played Tales of Blades & Heroes? I have not, but I know it's derived from a point-based miniatures game, and I see that the GM book says it has rules for monster creation and encounter balancing. Wondering if it might fit what you want. Probably on the simpler side, though - the wargame has few stats and does most things through special traits.

[Koeh]

I mean, Legend technically, but that comes with its own soup of problems...

Despite the Soup, ( which admittedly I'm sure I added to with my homebrew :smallsigh: ) I love the monster/PC creation in Legend. Nothing in my game system exploration has beaten the track system in terms of character creation.

[Stonehead]

Can you not just use characters as enemies? In 1e at least, you could just build a character, and throw it at the players as an enemy. CR = level - 1, or CR = level if they get wealth-by-level equipment. You could also add class levels to monsters, although that probably didn't get adapted to 2e and might need some homebrew.

As has been said earlier, if that doesn't work in P2E, it does in 1e.


Fragged Empire is a pretty cool scifi system (with books for fantasy, pirates, cyberpunk and Bloodborne settings), has very in depth enemy building features, and is otherwise a really neat crunchy game with an emphasis on tactical combat with miniatures. Might be worth looking at.

I love Fragged Empire, if you want to keep a fantasy setting, there's even a spinoff (Fragged Kingdom). I don't think it's as good as Empire, but it's still pretty fun.


I'd be a little surprised if there's anything that meets that need.
Since building powerful encounters within the rules is an interest for you, I'd assume you're at least fairly good at it.
I'd also assume most GMs are not especially looking for that. They're looking for "Fits my story", "Interesting", "Colorful", and "Level appropriate"

So, in the same way a well optimised character can be out of balance with a character built for flavour, you'll probably find a level guide for most GMs will allow you too much; unless your players are also very good, and the system gives them a lot of opportunities to optimise.

The GM's role is usually closer to a game designer than a game player. As a result, most of the rules for character building are put in the hands of the players. GMs either make the choices for the players to interact with, or have a lot more freedom in creating creatures. That's because the GM's goal is usually to create a fun game for the players, not as much to be really good at playing the game. Because the GM's goal is usually to make something that's fun to fight, and not to make something that's super strong, there usually aren't robust rules the GM's can optimize in. Making something strong as a GM is trivially easy, to the point where it's no longer interesting. Making something that's fun and engaging to fight against is a lot more challenging, but also much more enjoyable. In my experience at least.

Like @Duff said, the goals of "optimization enemy creation" and "balanced encounter generation" are at odds with each other. If you can optimize something, that means by definition you can build something stronger than the alternatives, for the same or lesser cost. If two things have the same cost and have different strengths, it's imbalanced.

[Draz74]

Oh hey. I forgot for a while that I made this thread, and when I come back to it, it turns out it's picked up a bit of steam.

I'll respond in more particulars some other day, but for now...


I mean, Legend technically, but that comes with its own soup of problems...

Actually, this thread was born of my sad discovery that Legend's CR system really doesn't hold up well at all at most levels of play. Just look at how badly Level 2 murders Level 1 characters, when they're only supposed to be 1.4x better. And on the other hand, at high levels, how easily a couple of level 15s can murder a Level 17 as the action economy overpowers the marginal growth.