03-29-2015, 01:33 AM | #31 |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Another thought:
The article also defines the monster rating terms "Nuisance", "Fodder", "Worthy", "Boss", and "Epic". These depend on the ratio of the party's CER to the monster's CER. However, since it is not always practicable to keep track of the party's CER, I suggest we figure out the CER of a typical party of delvers. The first step would be to write up fairly optimized characters using the Dungeon Fantasy templates, as Dungeon Fantasy stat blocks. I suggest starting with the traditional Knight, Cleric, Thief, and Wizard as the "default party". Then we can calculate the CER for these, and then we can determine which monsters would rate as "Nuisance", "Fodder", etc for this party. This should serve as a useful benchmark for GMs who also run Dungeon Fantasy games...
__________________
GURPS Repository • Sunken Castles, Evil Poodles - translating German folk tales into English! |
03-29-2015, 01:43 AM | #32 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
__________________
My Twitter My w23 Stuff My Blog Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library Become a Patron! |
|
03-29-2015, 02:17 AM | #33 | |
Join Date: Sep 2004
Location: Oldenburg, Germany
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
Still, since these stat blocks were originally for Dungeon Fantasy, it might be a useful exercise to figure out a sample "default party" based on the templates of the line. And "Warrior (Knight)", "Cleric", "Rogue (Thief)", and "Wizard" are the "default party" for D&D, which inspired GURPS Dungeon Fantasy.
__________________
GURPS Repository • Sunken Castles, Evil Poodles - translating German folk tales into English! |
|
03-29-2015, 02:29 AM | #34 | |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
__________________
My Twitter My w23 Stuff My Blog Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library Become a Patron! |
|
03-29-2015, 10:24 AM | #35 | |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
|
|
03-29-2015, 11:32 AM | #36 | ||
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Houston
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
Quote:
My advice is use these: Attack : 16 DMG : 1d+3 DR : 3 AD : 14 HT: 12 HP : 13 FP : 13 This is, based on DF1, a slightly less than average DF adventurer. Note that it doesnt include templates past DF1 which would adjust these numbers. Compare, as you like, to whatever starting set of stats you settle on all the way up the scale, similar to clothing sizes. Epic E2 E3 E4 E5 and so on and so on and so on..... YOu see at the end of the day, the specifics of the numbers doesnt matter as much as they first appear. What DOES matter is that the GM has a reliable estimate for a monster X, and some knowledge of how the party did last time vs Y so that he can then make convenient and educated decisions about upcomming encounter Z. You see some players are just tactically minded and love the 'game' part of the game and those groups will have a slight advantage that you simply cant account for by looking at either monsters or templates. Some players are fiercely resourceful and inventive and they will have an advantage as well. Some ARENT and they will be a slight disadvantage REGARDLESS of what the numbers on the CharSheet/StatBlock say. Being able to make differential arguments against standardized evaluations is still EXTREMELY USEFUL! Examples: We did Fodder last time and that was tougher than I thought it would be but not a TPK. Lets stick with Fodder till they get a chance to 'level up'. Well last time we did Worthies and it was a cake walk, but the crits rained down in a deluge, so we should hold it here. Well we did Epic last time and I knew that was going to be difficult but DANG they barely made it out alive and they're still scraping together money to Rez the Elf. Maybe well dial it down a bit. JUST using these as comparators it allows you to make adjustments regardless of what the numeric values of the CERs are for the party. As long as the party doesnt change, what youre looking at is the CER of the monsters. Does that make sense? See as long as we stick to Ghostdancer's system consistently theres nothing really to fear. Well all, even though we have vastly different parties, are going to evaluate monsters more or less the same way. There is going to be some variance in that surely but not as much as you might think, especially in DF. So we might not all agree on what makes a party for any given table, but if we all agree what Troll from DFM:1 is and what its CER value is, then we can make OUR OWN estimates, based on the abilites of the parties in our group (AND THE TACTICAL ABILITIES OF THE PLAYERS THEMSELVES). Nymdok Did that come off as ranty? it felt ranty....I didnt mean for it to be ranty..... |
||
03-29-2015, 12:07 PM | #37 |
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Minneapolis, MN, USA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Go with broad ranges, like by 50. I did go through DFA1, found that the average CER of the sample characters therein scaled down to 250 points was 150 for four, and that it varies wildly. It doesn't even have a strong correlation with character points. Ghostdancer has a point: different campaigns will have different results.
|
03-29-2015, 01:50 PM | #38 | ||
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
Yeah, this is something I couldn't cover in much detail but falls under the heading "Gamemasters, know thy players!" For my games, all characters are "created equal" in that they are optimized to whatever concept the player wanted. But having a player know the rules for combat, magic, whatever acts as a force multiplier for that player's character - they are far more effective than their character would otherwise indicated because they know the system. Let's also not forget the player who has awesome dice rolls. I have tow such players in my group - one whose "luck" (or however you wish to call it) is not so constant, but enough that it's noticeable and the other whose luck is constant. She regularly rolls a 3 or 4 every session, crits between 5 to 10 times, and almost never fumbles. She's been accused of using loaded dice - but she usually replies by rolling the accuser's dice to the same effect. This works regardless of system, die types, resolution, etc. - if their is a measure of probability involved (dice, cards, whatever) she'll get the best results often enough that it seems nearly impossible. Basically, I don't play games of chance with my other half - I never win - especially poker. Quote:
Again, as a game designer the first thing I think of when writing is "How useful is this to other GMs/players?" or "Can I make it more generic?" If you are assigning your monsters to CERs that aren't going to be used anyways because of the very nature of the system you're deriving the label from, how can that be helpful? It's literally going to vary from group to group so all you are doing is creating a artificial construct that no one will use in the first place. I think part of the problem here is that the previous categories used the Fodder/Worthy/Boss model. I kept that model, but used it differently. If you're going to use CERs, then use the same model - group them by their rating and then move on. That's the easiest way to help the most people in my opinion. I know I'm going to go back and update all my Triple Threat monsters to use a CER too (I'm just going to shove it on a stat line though.
__________________
My Twitter My w23 Stuff My Blog Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library Become a Patron! Last edited by Christopher R. Rice; 09-23-2015 at 04:20 PM. |
||
03-29-2015, 03:12 PM | #39 |
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Portsmouth, VA, USA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
As an aside, can I get one or two folks to double check for errata for this article? I'm going to send some in, and I want to make sure I got it all.
__________________
My Twitter My w23 Stuff My Blog Latest GURPS Book: Dungeon Fantasy Denizens: Thieves Latest TFT Book: The Sunken Library Become a Patron! |
03-29-2015, 05:38 PM | #40 | |
Join Date: May 2008
Location: CA
|
Re: Pyramid's Combat Effectiveness Rating for Foes
Quote:
Really, just an 'Iconic Party' would be helpful even if they aren't perfectly generic. |
|
Tags |
cer, pyramid, pyramid 3/77 |
|
|