Are there any guidelines for how to determine how many of different levels of loremaster baddies you should use to make a balanced fight for your heroes?
Garrett

No 'official' guidelines as such. For what it's worth I tend to calculate the 'level' of the group by summing all their Valour and Wisdom scores and assigning a multiple of that level in adversary Attribute levels (after adjusting for Denizen of the Dark). Double seems about right if the company is defending.

For example, a group of 5 characters each with Wisdom 3 and Valour 1 would have a combined 'level' of 20. Attacking them with 13 Attercops (13 x 3 = 39) creates a reasonably balanced encounter in my experience.

Of course this method is not ideal, so you may have to fudge the Attribute level in some cases (e.g. A Marsh-dweller of Attribute level 4 is not the equivalent of a Great Spider!).

While this method works in some ways, in others it doesn't.

My current group just enjoyed their third fellowship phase - having finished a full year of game time, and it's the first time they've really "advanced" their characters from the Experience Points they've earned.

All six players raised their weapon use in lieu of raising their Wisdom or Valour.



I would say that given their new advances, they would tear up most of the encounters they faced in the past three journeys - and yet none of their Wis or Val increased to warrant an increase in encounter difficulty using your proposed process.


Unlike games like D&D that have "built-in" upgrades with each level increase (in other words when a level is gained, a perfectly blended and balanced increase in saves, hps, attack rates, etc), the TOR has more of an a la carte approach to what is advanced. Using just one of the items on the menu to base the groups "toughness" is bound to provide inaccurate data too often. While it may be helpful, I wouldn't set a clock to it.


I have often wondered on an algorithm that can be surmised to answer just this question - and using the Attribute Level of the denizens seems the most apt way to establish a basis; but I'm not yet convinced of what aspect of the heroes do we used to determine an appropriate EL or "Encounter Level" (popularly used mechanic of D&D based off the assigned CR or "Challenge Rating" of each creature, for their APL or "Average Party Level"



That all being said - I am more leaning towards using the total Experience Points earned as the assigned variable in figuring out the appropriate difficulty.

I'm quite confident I'll end up accidentally wiping out my group.

I see it happening this way:

Me: "You finally track down the fearsome goblin raiders..."

*chop chop chop*

Group: "WE SMOKED THEM! HA HA! Too easy!"

Me: "Hmmm..."

(next battle)

Me: "You corner the grim orc chief and his cohort of guards..."

*chop chop chop*

Group: "In your FACE, orcs! Too easy!"

Me: "Hmmm..."

(next battle)

Me: "The Troll warband surprises you..."

*munch munch munch*

Group: "THAT WASN'T FAIR!"

Me: "Hmmm..."

Too funny,


Here's an interesting take and method.....

How about letting the players determine the appropriateness/fairness of an upcoming battle....


YOU: You woodland skills have given you clear evidence that you in pursuit of a pack of goblins - probably 5 and a warg. You know that there is a small cave in that direction - they mostly likely are taking up shelter there.

PLAYERS: I'll take our odds on that any day!

.
.
.
.
.

YOU: The many large footprints give credence that somewhere below you in that valley are a large pack of Stone Trolls - perhaps as many as 8.

PLAYERS: um.......I hear Rivendell is nice this time of year!

This discussion has been interesting since I have just started wondering about a method to create appropriate combat challenges for parties of various mixtures of characters. Preferably something that can scale depending on the party's combat skills (eg, harder against a warrior band, easier for a group of 'squishy' scholar/mage types).


Ashley,
Using your method, do you find the party consistently challenged? Without being over- or under-whelmed (so minimal fudging of creature's health or number of creatures attacking)?


SirKicley,
What are you comparing the player character's total XP Earned against? Are you comparing that to the Attribute Level of each creature? Or a group of creatures? Or are you doing something else?

Regarding the Ashley method and taking into account what SirKicley said, perhaps a compromise would take into account the highest Weapon skill.

Weapon skills, Wisdom and Valour are all improved with experience, so rather than base the multiplier on the sum of Wisdom and Valour, base it on the highest two abilities take from Weapon skill, Wisdom and Valour.

This way, a character who focuses on Weapon skill over Wisdom or Valour will generate a similar figure.

Or possibly add all three together and lower the multiplier to 1.5 instead.

By taking into account how many Experience Points have been earned/used - that effectively takes into account Wis, Val, and Weapon skills.


That was why I suggested this in the first place.



@Garn: To answer your question - I haven't been using a formula which is my point. I have been musing if such a formula is needed and if so - HOW? My initial thought was using Total Experience Points to guage party strength.

And then find some sort of comparison or other algorithm to find appropriately matched enemy group.



Regardless of what method is used, I firmly believe that it should be used sparingly. I have always loathed the typical D&D method and Computer based method of "at first level you fight goblins - at third level you fight bugbears - at 5th level you fight ogres - at 10 level you fight beholders - at 12 level you fight dragons and at 15th level you fight arch-fiends. The problem is believability - when you're 7th level - why did all the goblins suddenly dissapear and were now only fighting trolls and giants?


In other words, in TOR, I feel there should be a healthy does of player character wisdom "You're tracking a pack of 5 orcs" vs "You're tracking a pack of 8 stone trolls." Let the players decide if a combat is a wise decision for overcoming the obstacle. If the players don't heed common sense or the Loremaster Character's warnings......caveat emptor! I don't feel that a LM should be obligated to ONLY populated his world with "level-appropriate" encounters. But encounters that can ONLY be dealt with by combat should be balanced.


As a side-note I have a full-fledged convert. For years we only played D&D and he it is his true love - and it's so full of healing and remedies - and players learn to not fear encounters, no matter the danger level because it's so easy to overcome any maladies. So players tend to learn to be reckless and go after every encounter w/ violence. In his first TOR game he saw a comrade get "Wounded" and "Weary" and saw first hand just how long and hard of a road it was to recover while they were out on an adventure/journey. He said to me after - "Wow......this really makes me consider non-combat options in most cases."

Feel the same.

And it's worth to remember that in TOR the Heroes parry rating doesn't increase a lot. What is dangerous at "level 1" is probably still dangerous at "level 5".

I think some sort of process for ensuring combats will provide a fair challenge is needed. Especially for beginning campaigns and characters. By the fourth or so session in I generally have. A feel for what my players can handle and how they approach a combat situation. Before that, especially in a new game it is hard to know what challenge is actually presented by 5 orcs vs one stone troll.

I have not played TOR enough yet to get a sense of how powerful beginning or experienced heroes are, how tough the various monsters are and how steep the improvement with experience curve is.

In D&D a total number of hit dice of openents roughly equal to the party's total experience levels provided a good rule of thumb.

In Tunnels&trolls it works pretty well if the dice pluses adds of the characters are about equal to those of the monsters.

One thing I have never done is to always have the monsters follow a strict hierarchy of danger. Most goblins are weak and puny, most trolls are tough and strong. But I do occasionally spice things up with tough goblins or a feeble troll. Also my monsters will frequently make use of ambush, traps, missile weapons etc. I like encounters where the players have to think a bit.

In reading Tolkien it is clear that occasionally very large, tough orcs and goblins are encountered. These are the ones described as the "Great Goblin with a huge head" or "almost man-sized". The fighting Uruk-hai as opposed to those whining mountain maggots.

To help a little bit on the math here - If we assume the following is true:

1) All characters are “created” equal
2) All advancements from Experience Points are equally beneficial from a pure “power curve strength perspective” (regardless in which way)
3) All characters upon creation have a base power of “1” (because they’ve bumped either a Wis or Val score to 2).

THEN: that is a starting point that we can go with.

Given a 5 Character party, that would be Party Strength: 5.

A typical “goblin archer” has a Attribute Level of 2
A typical “orc” soldier has a Attribute level of 3

Given those to start with – we have to first determine how many such creatures would be an appropriate threat to such a party.

If the ratio is 1:1, then it’s 3 goblins or 2 orcs that would be an apt challenge.
If 2 orcs are a pushover for such a group, then perhaps it’s 2:1 ratio of Attribute Level vs Total XP Spent.

Unfortunately this only works at low ends of a characters career since the XP Expenditure is exponentially increased the higher one advances one of their characteristics.


On the other hand if you approach it from a “how high has the PC been advanced” vs “How many xp was spent” then the pendulum shifts too far in the other direction because a Weapon skill advanced to 4 is not just two points better than Weapon Skill 2. Because w/ 4 Success Dice on your side, you’re rarely missing, thus you’re not burning Hope, and you have an increased chance of Greater/Extraordinary successes occurring and doing significantly more damage. Furthmore having an extra REWARD or VIRTUE is not just 1 point better (if all you’re comparing is total tallied scores).

Just as vexing is that Attribute Level 4 is not just 1 point better than Attribute Level 3 – since that one number seems to apply to so many facets. Like the Challenge Rating system of D&D a CR5 creature is not just one more Hit Dice than a CR4 – because encompassed globally within that one better CR are all of the mechanics-based gamey stuff being advanced or elevated.

Is there a simple way to compare attack/parry/armor/endurance/damage? Or do they increase in non-smooth curves?

We are not really concerned with non-combat skills, attributes, valor and wisdom rewards etc. just factors that bear directly on combat.

Wisdom and Valour do often affect combat - even if indirectly.

Most of the benefits from those modify or enhance some statistic that is used during combat - whether it's KEEN edge of a blade, increased Hope or Endurance, etc.

Even Virtues that assist in healing make a difference in the long run when you're going into a second or third combat along the road.

Granted - extra Success Dice via Weapon Skill have more direct impact. But simply being "tougher" from rewards or virtues make a difference in the overall scheme of things.


Ultimately - because the PCs advance their skills/abilities as a la carte, it's nearly impossible to gauge or come up with a simple math comparison; in contrast the enemy encounters all have a set "attribute score" that effectively tells the overall strength of the creature.


In the end, I think it will just have to come down to an inexact science of trial and error and SWAG based off of experience of the LM. Which is the basis of many RPG experiences.

Here's another thought: use the recently released (PDF) Tales of the Wild, and look at the adventures in order that they were meant to take part.

By dissecting that info, you may be able to glean some understanding of how powerful creatures should become to a group of heroes with each subsequent adventure and use that as a sort of template to work from.

Sorry, been offline for a bit. So playing catch-up with my comments.

SirKicley,
Ack, you did say that you were considering things the first time around, didn't you? Sorry, in responding I thought you had accidentally only provided half of the equation, as it were, in your post.

While I agree that a level delimited encounter 'track' (goblins, bugbears, etc) is not appealing, it cannot happen in TOR - neither characters or creatures ever change level. Not to mention it's Tolkien. So it's going to be orcs, orcs and more orcs!

As for a real answer to your question... I've got a vague idea. Let me play with it for a bit.


Horsa,
Creating an appropriate challenge was my main concern. While I agree that you learn the party's capabilities after awhile, it is possible to unknowingly create a synergy between creatures that is unforeseen.

We might easily encounter something like this once you mix creatures. Imagine the party that encounters two spiders and four orcs. While this does not seem to be particularly overwhelming, if the spiders manage to use their spider poison called shot, things change drastically. Particularly if this is a hazard encountered while the characters are already tired and injured (during a Journey).

After this discussion I started working on my idea and nearly completed it when I had to put it aside for awhile. Thereafter I forgot it. Stumbling across it again, I figured I might as well finish it up and post it.

It is derived from the Marsh Bell encounters and, as such, might represent a spoiler for anyone who has not yet played that adventure.

With such a limited sampling it might not prove accurate, particularly with regards to experienced characters as skill levels are not included in the calculation. For any LM's with advanced characters I would appreciate your thoughts on it's appropriateness to the encounters you are running. Particularly if you have any custom encounters and can compare advanced character total XP vs opponent's XP Value (either method).

I hope some of you LM's find this of value.

TOR XP Value Guidelines

Garn, that was an interesting read. It gives a good start to the attempt, but I am chewing on whether or not it will playtest well. I need to try it out. My suspicions are that I think starting heroes are more powerful than you are projecting and there may be factors you haven't considered (such as initiative) or factors that need more emphasis (such as the number of heroes or enemies). Also, it may be that Attribute level has been given too much emphasis compared to the Endurance of the creature.

Although I prefer not worrying about fair fights and letting the chips fall where they may, I think it is very helpful when building an encounter to know whether the heroes will utterly destroy their opponents within the first couple of rounds or whether they will need to escape combat. That being said, this is a good project and I think it is one that can be done.

This looks like it might be useful to help eyeball fight difficulties. Appreciate the effort put in Garn, thanks.

Just a quick note though - Craven, Fear of Fire and Hate Sunlight are negative traits really so I don't think they should provide a +1 modifier to your calculations.

The formula I came up with (either method) could need serious adjusting. Particularly if extra combat encounters from official publications (which have been play-tested for appropriate challenge level) reveals any discrepancies. An analysis of TfW's XP Values for a Character Party and Opponent Party, taken through all of the combat encounters, and adjusting for AP/XP advancements, would probably reveal any glaring errors or omissions. Except I don't own it, yet.

The 10 XP per character is based solely on the points spent by a new character on their starting skills. Nothing else was considered - including starting weapon skills which should be a factor.

Unless I'm missing something, initiative cannot be included when comparing the relative strength of a Character Party vs Opponent Party as there is no way to know which group is going to receive it during combat. (Unless you plan to do some kind of detailed combat analysis and reverse engineer things from there.)