1/gryphon + Math = Me = < twice as dumb as the average cat

I can, and do, use a home written XP calculator, a trusty excel spread sheet. Which does make things really simple. THough it is getting a polish oon (I learned some new tricks recently)

To keep things simple, and to me that is the only way forward, I ahve to do things in simple stages.

Firstly I calculate the CR of each encounter seperately before hand, modifying it up or down as the situation requires. I don't add a bit or take a bit off as the game seems to like doing. I just increase or decrease the CR.

Equally I do not use the two CR 5 = 7 etc. pattern of increasing CR difficulty myself.

Two critters or/and encounter/environment CR are equal to the average of the two levels plus 1 (minimum of the max CR of either critter or encounter). (Traps or Environmental difficulty having a CR which can easily affect an encounter)

To go to +2 on CR you need double the number, so 2=+1, 4=+2, 8=+3 and so on.

CR of an encounter with a CR 4 & CR 2 is 4
CR of an encounter with a CR 4 & CR 4 is 5
CR of an encounter with say 16-23x CR 4 is 8

In the mention above of 512 CR4 is 13. The epics should have utterly minced them (although the environment does make it possible 1 more difficult).

Hells bells my little group of level 13 looneys used a couple of iterations of(cone of cold) in a similar situation and totally desimated the opposition. Killing one of their number as the cone intersected wit a lava flow.[boom]

I find this a LOT easier to plot into an excell spready than the origional methodology

I allocate XP to NPC as per the book but that is really easy to do as well.
I determine the party level modified for the kit they have.
I determine the total XP to allocate to the party. (NPC and 'resting' PC's/absent players count at 50%, if take part in the encounter if not they get none).
The total is then split up based on 1/Level.
Job done.

This method, while fair, is slow, it takes about three levels or more to catch up one level difference.

I am sorry but your whole approach seems over complex to me. I want this to be easy; CR for encounter, recorded against CR of party. Calculated at the end of the adventure.

I do have a nice shorthand way of doing this, which I’m sure you won’t take up but here it is: You just add up the numbers on page 38 of the DMG until you get to the CR you want.

Like if a CR 8 encounter for your party is worth 2400 XP, you can just add up lower CRs till you get to 2400 XP. Four CR 4s at 600 XP each, for example, or three CR 5s at 800 XP each. It ends up working out exactly the same as the big complicated table on page 49. Now that’s simple.

No, I’m using standard initiative rules. Which means that for each ceature type encountered, you have to roll a d20, look up and add a modifer, record a total, integrate the PCs results into a list, then get them all in correct order (in a duplicate list). It takes 3-5 minutes, sometimes more, for two reasons: first, table space is at a premium, so we don’t use initiative cards, I do it all with a written list; and second, I usually roll initiative seperately for each creature encountered. So if there are twenty creatures encountered (a war band or hunting pack or whatever) that means 20 init rolls.

It’s fairly easy to use the system to balance encounters using the calculation method, so much so that it’s not worth an additional post. There are essentially 4 steps:

1. Know the Party EL value.
2. Pick a total EL for the encounter – 1 or 2 less than that of the party for an easy fight, 1 or 2 more for a hard one, the same for a standard encounter. For ‘wilderness encounters’ where there has beeen no sorting, I’ll use a random value + half the lowest level of the party – for the 4,6,7,7,8 party mentioned, I would use 2d6+2.
3. Determine the creature type that’s been encountered. The CR of the creature and the target EL of the encounter will give you a rough idea in just a couple of seconds as to how many creatures of that CR are needed to reach that EL. I usually go for a little under half that number, then give character levels or other monster progression to one or two of the opposition to make up the difference.
4. Once these levels are determined, I finalise the number of “stock standard” creatures are in the encounter. And the result comes out right, every time.

With a mixed group of creatures, I’ll pick the number of higher CR creatures that I want, then calculate the number of lower-CR creatures needed to reach the EL. It doesn’t matter what the mix is, you can get the numbers right.

I don’t count class levels as being worth less than a full CR, nor do I treat solo monsters as weaker. Obviously, they are, but when balanced, the threat level comes out right; that sort of fudging is taken care of when assessing how difficult the combat actually was for how much xp to hand out. Which also covers things like encounters that happen to target a vulnerable point of the party, or that happen to target one of their strong points, etc.

I should say that I would like to see a post explaining how to get this effect — something the players actually do notice. Because I would have trouble balancing for a party of a 4, 6, two 7s and an 8. Although my first inclination would be to use an actually computerized, rather than handwritten equation. A calculator here says the effective party level is 7.3, so your system gets very different results from the system in the DMG. (The calculator agrees the monster difficulty level is 11.) Maybe your players just like more difficult encounters, and that’s what’s working for them?

Of course, after all this you have to fudge for class levels not being worth a full CR, solo monsters being weaker, etc. Making the whole precision in stage one just something that gets rounded away.

It takes more time to work out the initiative sequence for a major battle than it does to work out the experience!

You must be using some crazy customized initiative equation then too, because regular initiative sequence consists of rolling 8 d20s and putting the initiative cards in proper order — it takes well under a minute.

This equation is just anathema to me — I want the game to be more like something a human can handle, not more like something that takes a computer to figure out. You and I don’t even share the slightest conception of what qualifies as “simple.” In fact, your rule #12 all by itself strikes me as unnecessary, not-worth-the-time complexity.

I have no problem with DMs who get enjoyment out of perfectionizing little details that no one will ever notice, I just think their tone when talking about it should be more like “this is fun for me” and less like “I think everyone will like this!”