Two Sets of Rules, the Good and Bad?

[OldTrees1]

It's not something the DMG says outright, it's something you notice when you examine the table on DMG page 274 closely. Between CR 1 and CR 19, every +1 to CR adds 15 HP and 6 damage. It's also something you can derive from the encounter construction rules (e.g. compare adjusted XP two CR 3s to a CR 6).

Hmm. That is a good point. The increase in AC and atk would increase it a bit themselves.

The encounter construction rules (according to the calculator I am using) tell me 1-8 CR 3s are EL 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. So the DMG is not claiming they scale linearly according to the encounter construction rules.

The relationship is not neat and it breaks down in several places (a CR 30 monster has the stats you'd predict for a CR 50ish monster if you extrapolated from CR 1 to 19, and of course CR 1/8 to 1 has a very strange power progression indeed). But it's a smoother progression than the PC power progression and since 5E is meant to be tilted in favor of the players anyway, it's easy to guesstimate a fight by erring on the side of the PCs.

It's not like anyone has an exact, objective metric anyway for determining if a fight was the "right difficulty." The 5E designers got their table from playtesting AFAICT, just fitting a curve to whatever level of difficulty made their playtesters happy in the dungeon crawls they were using during the playtest, and I'm sure that the CRs over 20 got minimal playtesting anyway. There's no secret master plan.

Yeah, I hope 6E is better about this. Even if it only gets better at communicating.

[MaxWilson]

The changes to stats normally would generally imply quadratic growth. A linear increase in damage and in health => quadratic growth in threat. The tables also see increases in AC and Atk which would also be factors. That made me suspect polynomial growth.

But monster quantity scales power quadratically too. Therefore, it's still valid to treat power as scaling roughly linearly in CR, for purposes of encounter construction. Two CR 5s and one CR 10 are both about four times as strong as one CR 5. I'm not explaining it with the right words but hopefully you get the point.

(Actually, the adjusted XP bonus treats power as scaling roughly as the 3/2 power, not quadratically, for quantities over 3. See: Lanchester's Laws. 3/2 power is a common simplification when you can't predict in advance whether AoEs or direct attacks will be more prevalent, e.g. both melee (linear power growth) and archers (quadratic power growth) are in the army.)

[OldTrees1]

But monster quantity scales power quadratically too. Therefore, it's still valid to treat power as scaling roughly linearly in CR, for purposes of encounter construction. Two CR 5s and one CR 10 are both about four times as strong as one CR 5. I'm not explaining it with the right words but hopefully you get the point.

You caught me mid edit as I realized that. It takes me a moment to remember and apply Lanchester's Laws

I will give this model a try. It should help handle mixed CRs much better than the flat quantity multiplier 5E DMG uses.

[MaxWilson]

You caught me mid edit as I realized that. It takes me a moment to remember and apply Lanchester's Laws

Ah, okay. Responding to edit:

The encounter construction rules (according to the calculator I am using) tell me 1-8 CR 3s are EL 3, 5, 8, 9, 10, 12, 14, 15. So the DMG is not claiming they scale linearly according to the encounter construction rules.

Yeah, I hope 6E is better about this. Even if it only gets better at communicating.

I don't quite follow what you mean about ELs and the DMG. Do I need to, or are we on basically the same page now about how to build 5E encounters in your head?

I will give this model a try. It should help handle mixed CRs much better than the flat quantity multiplier 5E DMG uses.

The flat multiplier is an attempt to apply Lanchester's Laws without having to explain Lanchester's Laws. (Basically its N ^ 1/2 power, for N monsters, so total adjusted XP (proxy for resource usage) scales as the 3/2 power of N.) IMO they should have explained, at least briefly, that that's what they were doing.

[OldTrees1]

Ah, okay. Responding to edit:

I don't quite follow what you mean about ELs and the DMG. Do I need to, or are we on basically the same page now about how to build 5E encounters in your head?

We are on the same page now. You don't need to follow the bit about the ELs.

The 5E encounter calculator I was using automatically compares the encounter's adjusted xp vs a single monster of CR X.
https://kastark.co.uk/rpgs/encounter-calculator-5th/
It calls it "Encounter Challenge Rating" which was EL back in 3E.

[MaxWilson]

We are on the same page now. You don't need to follow the bit about the ELs.

The 5E encounter calculator I was using automatically compares the encounter's adjusted xp vs a single monster of CR X.
https://kastark.co.uk/rpgs/encounter-calculator-5th/
It calls it "Encounter Challenge Rating" which was EL back in 3E.

Ah. You may want to check out Kobold Fight Club. It has a really nice UI which helps my creativity sometimes.

[Tanarii]

But it's a smoother progression than the PC power progression and since 5E is meant to be tilted in favor of the players anyway, it's easy to guesstimate a fight by erring on the side of the PCs.

PC non-linear power progression is (supposed to be) accounted for in the non-linear encounter difficulty and adventuring day tables. For example, the jump from 4th to 5th is quite obvious when you look at it.

And from experience before I started running T1 and T2 games separately, it's pretty noticeable at the table too. You definitely can have a level 5 'power level' some level 1s, while not getting much in the way out of it themselves. Even more so for a single lower level character. Which is one reason I don't think it's absolutely required to start replacement characters at the same level as the old ones. Bottom of the Tier works fantastically, mixed levels within a Tier within problem at all. Cross-tier you'll definitely start to get a bit of handholding to stay alive at for a session or two (ie starting a level 1 with a few 8s).

[MaxWilson]

PC non-linear power progression is (supposed to be) accounted for in the non-linear encounter difficulty and adventuring day tables. For example, the jump from 4th to 5th is quite obvious when you look at it.

Yes, that's my point - - it's not built into CR itself, so it doesn't stop you from swapping out one CR 10 for two CR 5s, for example.

PC power variability is huge though. All Nth level parties are not equally capable.

And from experience before I started running T1 and T2 games separately, it's pretty noticeable at the table too. You definitely can have a level 5 'power level' some level 1s, while not getting much in the way out of it themselves. Even more so for a single lower level character. Which is one reason I don't think it's absolutely required to start replacement characters at the same level as the old ones. Bottom of the Tier works fantastically, mixed levels within a Tier within problem at all. Cross-tier you'll definitely start to get a bit of handholding to stay alive at for a session or two (ie starting a level 1 with a few 8s).

Yeah, I agree that replacement characters do not need to be the same level as who they replace. I sometimes have 20th level PCs and 5th level PCs in the same party, or level 14s with first-level PCs. (They don't stay first level for long, but still...)

Levels 1-2 are a bit fragile but after that you can pretty much mix and match anyone with anyone if you want to.

Disclaimer: my games are a mix of simulationism for procedural resolutions like combat (i.e. show "what would really happen" instead of trying to create "balanced encounters") and DramaSystem-inspired narrativism for pacing, content introduction, and emotional interactions between characters (i.e. let players share explicit ownership over the creative agenda and what details we should drill down on vs. skip over, instead of the DM just assuming--if you think it's relevant to have a flashback scene of you discussing your fears with your mother prior to accepting the current mission, you can make that happen). It works well for me and my players and keeps things interesting at all levels, but if you're running a more conventional epic fantasy Forgotten Realms-style campaign I can imagine players of certain lower-level PCs (e.g. 4th level monks) getting frustrated with their relative lack of impact during epic combats. YMMV.

[KorvinStarmast]

My ad blocker is set to block everyone's avatars, and I never noticed before that there's another little gender icon that it's not blocking.

Aah, that explains it.

Though note the symbol doesn’t appear if you’re on the mobile site

Since I never use mobile, I didn't know that. Thanks!

You don't treat fractional CRs as a decimal point to be averaged. CR 1/4 is 2 steps down from CR 1. The average of CR 9 and CR 1/4 is CR 4. Five steps up from CR 1/4 and five down from CR 9.

And it's just as easy to write down Diviner (Volvo pg ##).

The Diviner is a big fan of driving safety, I notice. Even Volo noticed, I guess.

The 5E designers got their table from playtesting AFAICT, just fitting a curve to whatever level of difficulty made their playtesters happy in the dungeon crawls they were using during the playtest, and I'm sure that the CRs over 20 got minimal playtesting anyway. There's no secret master plan.

Not gonna bet against that, and thanks for the insight you gleaned on the CR pattern.

Yeah, I hope 6E is better about this. Even if it only gets better at communicating.

You are bound to be disappointed in the latter. Unless new blood is brought int.

PC power variability is huge though. All Nth level parties are not equally capable.

Understatement of the week.

[MoiMagnus]

That's because, unlike 3e, there's absolutely no assumption that CR ~ level.

Mostly correct in practice.
But some effects like the Polymorph spell ("The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's (or the target's level, if it doesn't have a challenge rating).") proves that the designers did intend CR = level to be a reasonable match.

[KorvinStarmast]

proves that the designers did intend CR = level to be a reasonable match.

Hardly proof of anything.

I think it was done for the sake of (1) simplicity (a key effort throughout 5e development) and without balance considerations in mind. (So, maybe it's a Mearls thing).

[PhoenixPhyre]

Hardly proof of anything.

I think it was done for the sake of (1) simplicity (a key effort throughout 5e development) and without balance considerations in mind. (So, maybe it's a Mearls thing).

Agreed. The DMG (in the Creating a Monster section) has this:

A single monster with a challenge rating equal to the adventurers’ level is, by itself, a fair challenge for a group of four characters. If the monster is meant to be fought in pairs or groups, its expected challenge rating should be lower than the party’s level.

Don’t fall into the trap of thinking that your monster must have a challenge rating equal to the level of the characters to be a worthy challenge. Keep in mind that monsters with a lower challenge rating can be a threat to higher-level characters when encountered in groups.

It would be rather odd if a character of level X was a fair challenge for 4 characters of level X. In fact, that makes approximately zero sense.

Polymorph is an outlier. And a bad spell to boot (not as bad as it was in earlier editions, but). I'd say it should be more like wildshape--you get CR = level / 3. If a moon druid can't wildshape into it, polymorph shouldn't work either. Wizards shouldn't be better at changing shapes than druids, nor should land druids than moon druids. Just another way that "spell list is most of your class features" is bad design. Both for land druids and for wizards.

[Tanarii]

Mostly correct in practice.
But some effects like the Polymorph spell ("The new form can be any beast whose challenge rating is equal to or less than the target's (or the target's level, if it doesn't have a challenge rating).") proves that the designers did intend CR = level to be a reasonable match.

Absolutely not. All it proves is who ever wrote that spell doesn't understand how CR works.

I'm shocked it hasn't received errata yet, even with 5e's original "we don't fix unbalanced things with errata, only typos or incorrectly written things" policy. Of course, since that policy has gone by the wayside with Tasha's, Polymorph is a prime candidate.

[Segev]

Agreed. The DMG (in the Creating a Monster section) has this:



It would be rather odd if a character of level X was a fair challenge for 4 characters of level X. In fact, that makes approximately zero sense.

Polymorph is an outlier. And a bad spell to boot (not as bad as it was in earlier editions, but). I'd say it should be more like wildshape--you get CR = level / 3. If a moon druid can't wildshape into it, polymorph shouldn't work either. Wizards shouldn't be better at changing shapes than druids, nor should land druids than moon druids. Just another way that "spell list is most of your class features" is bad design. Both for land druids and for wizards.

Absolutely not. All it proves is who ever wrote that spell doesn't understand how CR works.

I'm shocked it hasn't received errata yet, even with 5e's original "we don't fix unbalanced things with errata, only typos or incorrectly written things" policy. Of course, since that policy has gone by the wayside with Tasha's, Polymorph is a prime candidate.

I dunno. A "fair challenge" is not, remember, "a 50/50 shot of either side winning." A "fair challenge" is still something the PCs are expected to win fairly handily, just expending a certain amount of resources. I am less sure of the math in 5e than 3e, but I know in 3e it was expected to use up about 1/4 the resources of a party of 4 to face an encounter whose CR matched theirs. A single level 5 PC-like creature vs. a level 5 party of 4 would, in fact, seem just about right to burn 1/4 of that party of 4's resources before they win handily.

Now, again, that math isn't 5e's, so it may not hold up exactly, but I can certainly see how it's POSSIBLE that "level is approximately CR" would work. I won't say it definitely does in 5e, though. Especially not when the 5e shapeshifting rules tend to make the shapeshift almost an extra summon, what with the bonus hp it represents.

[PhoenixPhyre]

I dunno. A "fair challenge" is not, remember, "a 50/50 shot of either side winning." A "fair challenge" is still something the PCs are expected to win fairly handily, just expending a certain amount of resources. I am less sure of the math in 5e than 3e, but I know in 3e it was expected to use up about 1/4 the resources of a party of 4 to face an encounter whose CR matched theirs. A single level 5 PC-like creature vs. a level 5 party of 4 would, in fact, seem just about right to burn 1/4 of that party of 4's resources before they win handily.

Now, again, that math isn't 5e's, so it may not hold up exactly, but I can certainly see how it's POSSIBLE that "level is approximately CR" would work. I won't say it definitely does in 5e, though. Especially not when the 5e shapeshifting rules tend to make the shapeshift almost an extra summon, what with the bonus hp it represents.

Doing the CR math, simple characters end up somewhere between on-par or a little ahead (level 1-2 only, due to better armor) and way behind (CR ~ 1/2 level). And the spread is tremendous for spell-casters. An Archmage (by stock CR 12, level-equivalent 18 by casting) can be anywhere from CR 4-ish (with bad spell selection, his hit points and defenses are trivial) to CR 20+. Martial builds are more consistent, but it's not constant. A level 18 Champion fighter ends up CR 9, where a level 1 fighter is not quite CR 2.

There is no single mapping between CR and level. At all. And if you expect to consistently throw CR = level monsters at the party, your encounters will be sub-optimal.

Plus, the balance defined by CR only applies with some assumptions. Specifically, it's designed as a baseline that assumes:
1) little to no optimization, but no anti-optimization. Best score in main stat, but no racial optimization, no action-economy optimization, no team synergy.
2) no variant rules, including multiclassing or feats.
3) no combat-effective magic items at least until T3, and then no assumptions about which ones (ie a common Moon-touched blade that bypasses resistance is fine).
4) no particular teamwork, terrain, allies, etc.

It's purely a measure of combined staying power and HP threat. And explicitly so. Things that don't affect either one directly aren't considered (they're considered later in the encounter-building process). CR is just a first pass filter to narrow the list. Does that take more effort? If you want to do it well.

But on that note, 3e's CR system is notoriously borked as well. In theory, you can say things about balance. But really, two different parties facing identical threats may have anything between a curbstomp for the PCs to a curbstomp for the enemies.

4e did better, at quite a bit of a cost in various directions. Although I do happen to like 4e-style monster-building techniques (in principle, if not in implementation).

[MoiMagnus]

Having entered the stats of "Greg the boring fighter" (so champion which only takes ASI up until it reachs 20/20 in Str/Con and then consider other feats, and with only +X items) in a CR calculator on few levels, and it seems that indeed, the better approximation is CR = Lv * 2/3.

That also matches the CR of high level spellcasters NPCs from the MM (Mage level 9 -> CR 6, Archmage level 18 -> CR 12). Though they don't have class features while spellcaster PCs do have significant class features to back up their spells.

So yeah ... while optimised PCs might be around a CR equal to their level, I probably read into polymorph much more than what was intended.

[Doug Lampert]

Having entered the stats of "Greg the boring fighter" (so champion which only takes ASI up until it reachs 20/20 in Str/Con and then consider other feats, and with only +X items) in a CR calculator on few levels, and it seems that indeed, the better approximation is CR = Lv * 2/3.

That also matches the CR of high level spellcasters NPCs from the MM (Mage level 9 -> CR 6, Archmage level 18 -> CR 12). Though they don't have class features while spellcaster PCs do have significant class features to back up their spells.

So yeah ... while optimised PCs might be around a CR equal to their level, I probably read into polymorph much more than what was intended.

PC spellcasters have lots of nifty class features, that typically don't greatly enhance their CR.

NPC casters from the MM have more HP which does increase their CR.

So, despite all the nifty class features, I'm not sure that PC spellcasters should be expected to be even as high a CR as the equivalent MM mage.

[MoiMagnus]

NPC casters from the MM have more HP which does increase their CR.

Do they, really?

The Mage (Lv 9, CR 6) has 40 HP (9d8 and CON 11), while a Lv 9 wizard with the same CON 11 would have 38 HP (because they cheat on their d6 and have 6 at level 1 and 4 each level after that). And IME, mages tend to have at least 12 CON because they like succeeding at concentration checks.

The Archmage (Lv 18, CR 12) has 99 HP (18d8 and CON 12), while a Lv 18 wizard with the same CON 12 would have 92 HP. Again, 12 CON for a level 18 PC wizard is very low, especially when there is a rare amulet that raises your CON to 19.

[Silly Name]

Do they, really?

The Mage (Lv 9, CR 6) has 40 HP (9d8 and CON 11), while a Lv 9 wizard with the same CON 11 would have 38 HP (because they cheat on their d6 and have 6 at level 1 and 4 each level after that). And IME, mages tend to have at least 12 CON because they like succeeding at concentration checks.

The Archmage (Lv 18, CR 12) has 99 HP (18d8 and CON 12), while a Lv 18 wizard with the same CON 12 would have 92 HP. Again, 12 CON for a level 18 PC wizard is very low, especially when there is a rare amulet that raises your CON to 19.

You gotta compare them to their CR, not their HD. Monsters/NPCs have "inflated HP" in the sense they have more HP than an average PC whose level equals the monster's CR. A level 12 wizard with CON 12 has 12d6+12 HP, which means an average of 56 HP.

That's why CR as level doesn't work (and why Polymorph is so powerful), because monsters are built radically different from PCs. A monster has to have enough HP to last 3 to 5 rounds against a party of four whose level is equal to its CR, and its abilities are all geared around the assumption it won't "exist" after that encounter. They normally don't get to go nova and have consistent damage outputs throughout a fight (even spellcasters are usually built with a list of prepared/available spells that is meant to keep their damage output in check).

For example, last night one of my players (Barbarian 8/Fighter 3) dealt around 85 damage in a single round, which would have been enough to drop three out of four of his other party members. A horned devil (CR 11) can deal, on average and assuming all hits connect, 40 damage per round in melee or 42 damage per round at range. But the horned devil has 178 HP, and the Barbarian had roughly 120 max HP.

[MaxWilson]

Agreed. The DMG (in the Creating a Monster section) has this:

It would be rather odd if a character of level X was a fair challenge for 4 characters of level X. In fact, that makes approximately zero sense.

You can't use the "fair challenge" guidelines to infer anything about level:CR equivalence, because what would be really odd if "a fair challenge" were intended to mean "equal in strength to the PCs", since the party would then TPK approximately half the time. "Fair challenge" != "equivalent in strength." It means "curbstomp that doesn't feel like a curbstomp to newbies."

Having entered the stats of "Greg the boring fighter" (so champion which only takes ASI up until it reachs 20/20 in Str/Con and then consider other feats, and with only +X items) in a CR calculator on few levels, and it seems that indeed, the better approximation is CR = Lv * 2/3.

And that's without counting abilities that don't show up in CR but actually do add a lot of power/survivability (like the Mobile feat and access to Blur), and also without optimizing the Fighter (no GWM/PAM, etc.). More combat-optimized PCs have a higher CR.

In practice, a rule of thumb that CR N monster ~= lvl N PC works out pretty well. If the intent is "players fight an enemy as strong as the PCs," then four 12th level PCs are in for a tough fight vs. two CR 13 Beholders and four CR 6 Medusas, and the players may take some casualties even if they win, but winning is as plausible as losing. (It's even more plausible if they work out the correct trick--all the monsters rely on vision!)

[KorvinStarmast]

Absolutely not. All it proves is who ever wrote that spell doesn't understand how CR works.

I'm shocked it hasn't received errata yet, even with 5e's original "we don't fix unbalanced things with errata, only typos or incorrectly written things" policy. Of course, since that policy has gone by the wayside with Tasha's, Polymorph is a prime candidate.

They already screwed up True Polymorph. In first printing, permanent was permanent after an hour of concentration.

I preferred that to the "untill dispelled" since all that did was create cheese.

You want to undo True Polymorph? 9th level spell? You get someone to cast wish, a 9th level spell. I first saw the new language in the SRD, but then discovered that it had been folded into new printings without a 'here's errata 1 for PHB...'

Sloppy choice, IMO, by WotC.

[MaxWilson]

They already screwed up True Polymorph. In first printing, permanent was permanent after an hour of concentration.

I preferred that to the "untill dispelled" since all that did was create cheese.

Both ways are exploitable. Permanent duration lets you do things like create permanent Couatls and Young Silver Dragons as allies, without a vulnerability to Dispel Magic.

I can see why you'd prefer "truly permanent" (doesn't end even if the target drops to 0 HP) though, for thematic and historical reasons.

[KorvinStarmast]

Both ways are exploitable. Permanent duration lets you do things like create permanent Couatls and Young Silver Dragons as allies, without a vulnerability to Dispel Magic.

I can see why you'd prefer "truly permanent" (doesn't end even if the target drops to 0 HP) though, for thematic and historical reasons.

Yes. And one does have to concentrate for the whole hour, during which time another encounter may arise ...

9th level spells are supposed to be very powerful. I really dislike the idea that a 5th level mage can undo it by casting it enough times to finally hit that ability check score (19) ...

[MaxWilson]

Yes. And one does have to concentrate for the whole hour, during which time another encounter may arise ...

9th level spells are supposed to be very powerful. I really dislike the idea that a 5th level mage can undo it by casting it enough times to finally hit that ability check score (19) ...

I have a similar dislike for how a cleric who spends 30 days and 1000 gp setting up a permanent Forbiddance against fiends can have his month's efforts undone in 30 seconds by a CR 4 Babau spamming Dispel Magic until it works. At least it arguably doesn't work against Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum if you spend a year's effort on it, though (due to difference between duration: permanent and duration: until dispelled).

At-will Dispel Magic and d20s just don't mix. In some campaigns I've inverted Dispel Magic so that Dispel Magic N automatically fails on spells over level N, and requires an ability check for spells level 1-N, as opposed to automatically succeeding except against spells over level N. I'm not doing that in any current campaigns but you've reminded me how much I wish I were.

[KorvinStarmast]

I have a similar dislike for how a cleric who spends 30 days and 1000 gp setting up a permanent Forbiddance against fiends can have his month's efforts undone in 30 seconds by a CR 4 Babau spamming Dispel Magic until it works. At least it arguably doesn't work against Mordenkainen's Private Sanctum if you spend a year's effort on it, though (due to difference between duration: permanent and duration: until dispelled).

At-will Dispel Magic and d20s just don't mix. In some campaigns I've inverted Dispel Magic so that Dispel Magic N automatically fails on spells over level N, and requires an ability check for spells level 1-N, as opposed to automatically succeeding except against spells over level N. I'm not doing that in any current campaigns but you've reminded me how much I wish I were.

You have given me food for thought. (And speaking of campaigns, after I did the sums last month, I realized that the NPC wizard who is trying to create a perm teleportation circle to a place in his original homeland is about 4,000 GP worth of gems short. (My bad on the math). So a rash of burglaries has broken out in the local area, which the PCs are about to find out about ... and he may try to find a way to steal some of their gems ... )

[Tanarii]

Having entered the stats of "Greg the boring fighter" (so champion which only takes ASI up until it reachs 20/20 in Str/Con and then consider other feats, and with only +X items) in a CR calculator on few levels, and it seems that indeed, the better approximation is CR = Lv * 2/3.

Given that the Polymorph spell gives (effectively) temp HP equal to the creatures full HP, it'd probably be best as CR = Lvl * 1/2.

For purposes of that spell only, not a general rule. If someone wants NPCs-as-PCs, the full and complicated method is to calculate the CR off the DMG table. Which is really only necessary for XP awards IMO, unless you're building on a budget. And for that purpose, a rough guideline of XP as if a CR = 2/3 * level is probably sufficient eyeballing.

I'll build on a budget for a theoretically party level for that adventuring site, if I'm creating my own content. Not tailored for specific PCs though, since I don't know which PCs will be going into it in advance. But since far more often I'm stealing content from old adventures, chopping it up, and adapting to 5e and inserting it piecemeal into my world, my primary use for CR is still XP awards.

[MaxWilson]

You have given me food for thought. (And speaking of campaigns, after I did the sums last month, I realized that the NPC wizard who is trying to create a perm teleportation circle to a place in his original homeland is about 4,000 GP worth of gems short. (My bad on the math). So a rash of burglaries has broken out in the local area, which the PCs are about to find out about ... and he may try to find a way to steal some of their gems ... )

I feel so bad for that wizard! If he skips even a single day the entire effort is wasted. :(

[Segev]

You have given me food for thought. (And speaking of campaigns, after I did the sums last month, I realized that the NPC wizard who is trying to create a perm teleportation circle to a place in his original homeland is about 4,000 GP worth of gems short. (My bad on the math). So a rash of burglaries has broken out in the local area, which the PCs are about to find out about ... and he may try to find a way to steal some of their gems ... )

I feel so bad for that wizard! If he skips even a single day the entire effort is wasted. :(

If the players are likely to be similarly sympathetic, you might have the wizard beg for help. I don't know how much 4,000 gp is to your party, but either a donation or a quest to earn a favor from a wizard able to cast 5th level spells, and willing to do so daily for a year on a project like this, might be worth their while.

[MaxWilson]

If the players are likely to be similarly sympathetic, you might have the wizard beg for help. I don't know how much 4,000 gp is to your party, but either a donation or a quest to earn a favor from a wizard able to cast 5th level spells, and willing to do so daily for a year on a project like this, might be worth their while.

Or even just the satisfaction of helping out a fellow human being with a timely loan, while simultaneously opening a new transportation hub for a remote region.