Troll Lord Games

Rules of thumb for balanced encounters?

Equal HD totals - PC total HD vs creature HD? Or is there a more clever method that used EX value of creatures?

I use: 1: Knowing the party well enough plus,
2: Knowing the monster(s) well enough.

Those rules of thumb never appealed to me.

If the players and party is new, start with conservative encounters and work up.
If you are unfamiliar with the monsters, start less of them. See what happens.

I don't worry about balance. If there are supposed to be a certain number of foes in an area, then the party must decide if the risk is worth it.

R-

Planned encounters I try to balance for the party. Random encounters, I almost never adjust. I know modern players want a lot of precise rules on how to make a "balanced" anything. When you deal with a game that has some many variables (dice, shitty CKing), it's impossible to put "balance" into encounters.

~O

If I'm going to "balance" the encounter, which I see no need to, I would look at XP awards.

If there is an encounter you are worried about because you want it to be a certain difficulty, you presumably have your party's character sheets in some form; get on Roll20 or something and run through it solo, playing all sides. I wouldn't do this for every encounter but for a set piece that you want to at least make the claim that it's not impossible, just play it out.

You probably won't do what your players do, and they'll still screw it up/dominate it, but you can demonstrate at least one path through it after you've played it and adjusted it.

Captain_K wrote:Rules of thumb for balanced encounters?

Equal HD totals - PC total HD vs creature HD? Or is there a more clever method that used EX value of creatures?

An adventure should have a mix of easy, standard and tough encounters. With an occasional terrifying, above-our-pay-grade encounter where the party either dies, flees, or does something marvellous

What constitutes easy etc. is partly about party HD, composition, player experience, where the party is in their resource cycle (fully rested or less) and so on. Add to that PC ingenuity and the vagaries of dice rolls and "balance" is a tricky proposition

Although it seems like party HD = monster HD, as you suggest might be a good "standard" encounter, such encounters can be quite tough. How often would Muhammad Ali defeat a clone of himself? 50 %? Unlike in boxing, in fantasy combat the stakes are death

Equal HD (even superior HD) can work fine if it is a solo creature and the party can surround it however, which merely confirms that balancing encounter difficulty is a litle more nuanced than a simple formula, unfortunately

There are concerns with HD = HD. A single 6 HD monster is not a fair match for 6 1st level PCs. Primarily because

1) the monster is likely to hit more often (monster HD = + attack bonus)
2) the monster is likely to hit harder (damage trends upward as monster HD increases)
3) the monster is likely to have special powers that require saves which the players will not likely resist (monster HD = save difficulty)
4) the monster is likely to resist the special powers of the players (monster HD = + save bonus)

and so forth. It can be more nuanced toward the players if

1) players are highly tactical and can exploit weaknesses including range
2) players have magic or other advantages (high attributes, for example)

No direct calculation is easily achieved.

Thanks for the input, you reaffirmed my believe in
1) "You just got to know.. feel what is "right"... using the old brain and experience to balance as you want
2) Why balance anyway... life is not fair or balanced.. would a young dragon only try to eat and take treasure in "fair fights" or go for easy pickings when he can.. life in the wild is "get what you want for the easiest risk.."

I like the use of EXP POINTS award equaling out for powers, I'll tweak into that see if that helps..

I just tossed a Purple Worm (Bog Worm) at a group of five 4th lvl PCs with one NPC guide who's advise was, "split up and run.. we can't take this thing..."... so I like easy (the previous adventure 2 Stirges per PC) and average (two Orc Warriors per PC) all mixed in with the hard to impossible.

Thanks again, Capt K

Also consider house rules, if any. My house version of C&C has the characters a bit more powerful than standard C&C so I end up scaling encounters to fit that. While I do value balance to a point, I am not strict with it and C&C does not have a very accurate balancing system. While I like that it can be frustrating at times.

Yeah, balance is tricky in C&C.

"Balance" isn't what I shoot for.

My players know that it is possible to get in over their heads which may lead to retreat being the smartest option in certain situations.

I don't set out to kill them in every combat or situation - if I did I could easily do so without putting any work into it. I could set an Adult dragon vs 1st level party or just a simple scene that ends with "rocks fall, everybody dies" would suffice... it wouldn't be fun, but it would certainly kill the PCs. Killing them is not my goal, but at least 40% of the combats they have should be challenging. I try to provide them with a variety of differing situations, but there is really no overall balance sought.

As said previously - knowing the players, their PCs, and the monsters is the easiest way to construct situations that are "balanced" (as I think you are meaning the word).

Others have made lots of great points about why balance may or may not be desirable so I won't repeat those.

I'll just say that when I want an encounter to really push a party but am actively avoiding a TPK, I always keep reinforcements ready. I build what I feel will be a challenging but not deadly encounter (balanced?) and then if it proves easier than I had imagined, I'll bring in the planned reinforcements. If it proves harder than I expected (poor PC tactics, or swingy dice) then I simply have a MOB flee or surrender when something happens that might makes sense (the players should never feel like they were handed victory when they didn't deserve it). Maybe a group of bandits are proving tougher than I thought. But one of the players gets a critical hit (or awesome improvised action) against them. I might rule that this critical scares one of the bandits away, which would be an "on the fly balance adjustment". It "fixes" the problem and rewards the players at the same time. This ends up feeling like "turning the tide of battle" which can be very cool for the players as they go from feeling in trouble to having the upper hand. Imagine a football game where a big play completely shifts the momentum of the game from one team to the other.

I also use enemy tactics as a balancing component. How effectively you run the enemies has a huge amount to do with difficulty (balance?). If the enemies play into your PCs hands (always attacking the guy with the best AC and not noticing the rogue sneaking around) then they'll be easier than if they're very alert, well positioned, and forcing the PCs to play defense. Use tactics to adjust on the fly difficulty.

I found a good example of balance this weekend in a Pathfinder game where even when you have a balanced encounter things go wrong. The harder encounter was with a baby green dragon that. thanks to barbarian rage and tactics went fast. In three rounds the dragon is dead with very little in the way of damage. The next encounter was with an animated cauldron that just about TPKed the group. The cauldron was supposed to be easy but it turned into a fight for life when the party was hit by horrid rolls and the reverse was true for the monster. Even if you get balance there are factors that are out of everyone's control. Die rolls, bad tactics and general mistakes can cause a party a bad run.

Long story short; I use balance as a way to gear encounters but don't rely on it. Things happen on both sides of the screen that are out of player and CK control. As well, there is a mistaken belief that balance is everything and that it is used to give players and edge. When working properly balance gives you a situation that can go either way and no one side has favor. It is basically parity and even ground. When it becomes dogma and misunderstood then, you have problems that leads to 'balance' being a problem and gives it a bad reputation.

I guess that in the end, all you can hope to achieve is an overall balance. I wont start a campaign with nothing but high-level dangerous areas for the PCs to explore or encounter, but there is a randomness to the game world. I roll for random encounters and so on just to keep things interesting and unexpected (even for the CK). Players that use their insight and knowledge of the game (to a point) can attempt their own balance, by making decisions based on perceived threat levels and acting accordingly to minimize "unbalance" that is not in their favor.

Rigon wrote:I don't worry about balance. If there are supposed to be a certain number of foes in an area, then the party must decide if the risk is worth it.

R-

Like attacking a pack of wererats, and then being worried about not having enough spells for the last fight

Aramis wrote:

Captain_K wrote:Rules of thumb for balanced encounters?

Equal HD totals - PC total HD vs creature HD? Or is there a more clever method that used EX value of creatures?

An adventure should have a mix of easy, standard and tough encounters. With an occasional terrifying, above-our-pay-grade encounter where the party either dies, flees, or does something marvelous

What constitutes easy etc. is partly about party HD, composition, player experience, where the party is in their resource cycle (fully rested or less) and so on. Add to that PC ingenuity and the vagaries of dice rolls and "balance" is a tricky proposition

Although it seems like party HD = monster HD, as you suggest might be a good "standard" encounter, such encounters can be quite tough. How often would Muhammad Ali defeat a clone of himself? 50 %? Unlike in boxing, in fantasy combat the stakes are death

Equal HD (even superior HD) can work fine if it is a solo creature and the party can surround it however, which merely confirms that balancing encounter difficulty is a litle more nuanced than a simple formula, unfortunately

It has been years since I ran games, but that is close to my look on it. There were times an encounter was a breeze, but maybe it siphoned off spells the party would need later, other times .... RUN AWAY !! or be cleaver and pull something out of a hat and win when it is unexpected.

For balance, the hd total to hd total is a start, but as stated, there are other factors to include. Is the party's spell caster worth his salt, does the monster have trick up his sleeve, ...

Also, why balance it on paper. Modify it as the players are doing it. If they are getting thumped when you didn't want them too, back off a bit. If they are wading through your big bad guys, send in a few more back up guys.

However, if the party was stupid ... they get what they deserve ...

Ah the good all simple DnD days of, "First level PCs go to the 1st level of the dungeon and did not ever go down stairs until they were second level." Those were simpler times.. all dungeons always fit on 8.5" by 11" square grid paper... sigh of nostalgia....

Captain_K wrote:Ah the good all simple DnD days of, "First level PCs go to the 1st level of the dungeon and did not ever go down stairs until they were second level." Those were simpler times.. all dungeons always fit on 8.5" by 11" square grid paper... sigh of nostalgia....

Hey, I still make dungeons like that.

Heck, I still make DUNGEONS.