A Demon Haunted World

[Username17]

But D&D isn't simply monster stabbing. Usually the PCs are also expected to face-off against enemy knights, assassins or wizards. Are these supposed to be weak "like a lurker of the same level" by the lack of PC-appropriate treasure?

Presumably you also have the equivalent of Warriors and Adepts that allow you to slot in Goblins as generic encounters. Obviously you aren't going to want the 1st level encounters to be "One 1st level Goblin Shaman" because that's terrible.

It's not actually necessary for CR to be equal to level for these benefits to be preserved, but it needs to have a fixed and formulaic relationship to level, such as e.g CR=Level+4 (which would make a group of 4 CR N monsters a standard encounter for a level N party of four). I think the best such relationship (the easiest to design and balance, and most tractable for encounter building) is simply '='.

This is dumb and also fails to understand the core principle of tiering in the first place. The Wraith is a level 4 enemy because you have the tools to fight it at 4th level. It's not a tossup at 1st level, it will fucking wreck you.

Same Game Tests can work by having a number of level appropriate monsters that roughly equal a player character. So you'd Same Game Test with like 3 or 4 equal level monsters. You wouldn't use singular over-leveled monsters because they have abilities and numbers that players aren't expected to be able to counter.

Fundamentally, 3e came closer to having its encounter math work out than 4e did. Like, a lot closer. So obviously it's tempting to continue the encounter math in the 3e tradition. But that's actually just empty cargo cult thinking. 4e's targets were better targets to have, and if you're going to go through all the trouble of making new math you should try to hit the better targets instead of trying to hit the worse targets. Because obviously.

-Username17

[Foxwarrior]

I've long considered it a drawback to an RPG if the NPCs in it can use objective, non-metagamey methods to determine whether a character is a Player Character or not. If only Player Characters have Player Classes, then within the fiction being a Player Character is a thing. Is there going to be some fluff justifying this?

[Username17]

I've long considered it a drawback to an RPG if the NPCs in it can use objective, non-metagamey methods to determine whether a character is a Player Character or not. If only Player Characters have Player Classes, then within the fiction being a Player Character is a thing. Is there going to be some fluff justifying this?

You are absolutely going to have NPCs who have player character classes. Lich kings and such. You just also need to have low level encounters that are "five Orc swordsmen" and such. And that would be back breaking if those swordsmen were all player character equivalent Paladins and Berserkers.

-Username17

[Schleiermacher]

This is dumb and also fails to understand the core principle of tiering in the first place. The Wraith is a level 4 enemy because you have the tools to fight it at 4th level. It's not a tossup at 1st level, it will fucking wreck you.

It's true, that was a dumb suggestion. It was intended to illustrate that I'm not wedded to CR=Level for purely dogmatic reasons, but I didn't think it through before I threw it out. The thing is though that the sheer practicalities of writing content for the game, if nothing else, dictate that you're going to want to use Ogres as boss monsters for level 2 PCs, regular encounters for level 4 PCs and horde mooks for level 8 PCs. And that encounter math gets a lot easier if the basic unit of encounter building is one ogre rather than "one fourth of an ogre warband", even if the encounter guidelines tell you in black and white that you shouldn't ever make PCs fight a single ogre four-on-one.

You are absolutely going to have NPCs who have player character classes. Lich kings and such. You just also need to have low level encounters that are "five Orc swordsmen" and such. And that would be back breaking if those swordsmen were all player character equivalent Paladins and Berserkers.

That's all good, but then, what's the difference between the level 5 evil Cleric and the CR 5 Acolytes who make up the rest of that encounter?

[Foxwarrior]

Presumably the CR 5 Acolytes are on par with CR 5 Brutes, and a Brute is the sort of thing you can Gestalt a Cleric with while keeping a lot of the Cleric's abilities? I suppose this means the level 5 Cleric is something like CR 7? (Or by some metric, a substitute for 2 or 3 CR 5s. Who knows, maybe you use XP numbers to count out how many creatures is a good fight.)

Edit: If a player feels like it, can they gestalt their Berserker with an Adept in the same way they can gestalt with a Brute?

[nockermensch]

But D&D isn't simply monster stabbing. Usually the PCs are also expected to face-off against enemy knights, assassins or wizards. Are these supposed to be weak "like a lurker of the same level" by the lack of PC-appropriate treasure?

Presumably you also have the equivalent of Warriors and Adepts that allow you to slot in Goblins as generic encounters. Obviously you aren't going to want the 1st level encounters to be "One 1st level Goblin Shaman" because that's terrible.

Yeah, yeah. But sometimes the story demands that the party's foe is not something weaksauce like "Goblin Shaman", but a proper "Goblin Necromancer 5". And this guy should break the paradigm where

PC Class Level X >> Monster Level X

So your encounter calculator math already won't be something simple as "add N foes of level X for an appropriate challenge for a party of N level X PCs". You'll need at least an "elite" class of foes (people with PC classes), that will be more hardcore.

This is also a good point to note that some creatures are thematically "solo encounters" (Gelatinous Cubes, Tigers, Otyughs, Purple Worms, Dragons). How's the encounter calculator accounting for monsters that break the team vs team paradigm and are meant to be found alone and still somewhat challenge the party?

[Username17]

The thing is though that the sheer practicalities of writing content for the game, if nothing else, dictate that you're going to want to use Ogres as boss monsters for level 2 PCs, regular encounters for level 4 PCs and horde mooks for level 8 PCs. And that encounter math gets a lot easier if the basic unit of encounter building is one ogre rather than "one fourth of an ogre warband", even if the encounter guidelines tell you in black and white that you shouldn't ever make PCs fight a single ogre four-on-one.

This is the opposite of true. If the basic unit of encounter is one level appropriate Brute, then you can't have regular encounters with boss monsters at all. If you are already intending to have 4 Hill Giants appear at level 6, then you can make a regular encounter that has 2 Hill Giants and a Frost Giant instead. If you don't have multiple Hill Giants in the standard encounter, you don't have any encounter design currency to buy higher level monsters.

Trading down is equally easy or difficult no matter how many Ogres you start with. One Ogre could trade for 3 Grimlocks or whatever and you could have a regular encounter be 3 Grimlocks if the starting point was 1 Ogre or 12 Grimlocks if the starting point was 4. But trading up is only possible if you start with more than one Ogre in a warband.

-Username17

[Schleiermacher]

This is the opposite of true. If the basic unit of encounter is one level appropriate Brute, then you can't have regular encounters with boss monsters at all. If you are already intending to have 4 Hill Giants appear at level 6, then you can make a regular encounter that has 2 Hill Giants and a Frost Giant instead.

I think I have communicated poorly. When the basic unit of encounter building is one ogre, that means I can trivially answer the question of when a single ogre would be a level-appropriate encounter for a party, even if a regular encounter is supposed to be with one ogre per PC. That makes it easy to account for unusual party sizes, mixed levels etc -because the PC party is effectively just another "encounter". By happy chance, it also gives me a good idea of the lowest level when an Ogre should probably show up as part of a climactic encounter, for tiering purposes. (because an encounter is supposed to have more than one monster in it, so one "regular" ogre plus some extra monsters makes a level-appropriate boss fight.)

If Ogres are designed to be encountered in groups of four, I can no longer trivially answer those questions - in fact I might not be able to answer them at all.

Frost Giants are level 8 monsters -but does that mean a single one makes a good encounter for a level 4 party? It might, but it could be that the Frost Giant will have too strong offense and too weak defense to be a satisfying encounter, ala 4e minions. Or vice versa, ala regular 4e monsters.
Or it could be that the Frost Giant has some kind of GTFO ability - a cold aura maybe- which will utterly wreck the level 4 party. I don't know, except on a case by case basis.

[Mord]

If you are already intending to have 4 Hill Giants appear at level 6, then you can make a regular encounter that has 2 Hill Giants and a Frost Giant instead.

So if 4 Hill Giants are EL 6 and you want CR to mean "this monster is appropriate as part of a challenge for a PC party of the same level," and 2 Hill Giants and 1 Frost Giant are EL 6, doesn't that mean that the CR of a Frost Giant must be greater than 6?

In turn, doesn't that imply that a Frost Giant must outclass level 6 PCs in the same way a Wraith outclasses level 1 PCs?

Or is there some other way we should be describing a solo monster that is a good challenge for a party of level X PCs without declaring that solo monster to be CR X+N? Since actually being CR X+N would imply the monster has some kind of "you must be this tall" power that the PCs won't be able to counter until they level N more times.

[MGuy]

The problem with a low level wraith is that you don't have the tools readily available at low levels to take care of it (at least not in the version of dnd being imagined here). The thing that makes the frost giant higher level is just its numbers which is an easier problem to get around. So a higher level creature that is effectively just bigger numbers can be slotted in against a party of pcs easier than a monster with a complete fuck off passive ability can be against a lower level party. As I mentioned earlier most monsters are just a pile of stats with iconic monsters having some special ability(ies) and the whole tiers thing is really just an exercise in determining when you want certain abilities to be readily available to the players.

You can easily make a first level wraith a thing 1st level players can beat if you design your game such that being incorporeal is a hindrance that can be overcome by most if not all first level dudes. Being a big thing with big numbers is easy just to scale upward as long as the underlying math in your system holds. That would allow you to easily place big numbered challenges in in place of smaller numbered challenges by just doing a bunch of maths.

[Mord]

The problem with a low level wraith is that you don't have the tools readily available at low levels to take care of it (at least not in the version of dnd being imagined here). The thing that makes the frost giant higher level is just its number which is an easier problem to get around. So a higher level creature that is effectively just bigger numbers can be slotted in against a party of pcs easier than a monster with a complete fuck off passive agility can be against a lower level party. As I mentioned earlier most monsters are just a pile of stats with iconic monsters having some special ability(ies) and the whole tiers thing is really just an exercise in determining when you want certain abilities to be readily available to the players.

You can easily make a first level wraith a thing 1st level players can beat if you design your hand such that being a incorporeal is a hindrance that can be overcome by most if not all first level dudes. Being a big thing with big numbers is easy just to scale upward as long as the underlying math in your system holdsl. That would allow you to easily place big numbered challenges in in place of smaller numbered challenges by just doing a bunch of maths.

Right, but now we're right back to the situation where sometimes "CR 9" means "a party of Level 5 PCs will find this a tough solo monster" and other times "CR 9" means "a party of Level 5 PCs can fuck right off," because sometimes the CR 9 monster is just a CR 5 monster with a few more hit dice and sometimes the CR 9 monster has at-will "Death To Level Eight And Below" or is double-secret-incorporeal or something.

[MGuy]

I'm not sure how you walked to that conclusion based off of what you quoted me saying. I was just explaining the difference between a wraith's fuck off modifier being a passive ability and a Frost Giant's fuck off feature just being greater numbers.

[Username17]

I think I have communicated poorly. When the basic unit of encounter building is one ogre, that means I can trivially answer the question of when a single ogre would be a level-appropriate encounter for a party, even if a regular encounter is supposed to be with one ogre per PC. That makes it easy to account for unusual party sizes, mixed levels etc -because the PC party is effectively just another "encounter". By happy chance, it also gives me a good idea of the lowest level when an Ogre should probably show up as part of a climactic encounter, for tiering purposes. (because an encounter is supposed to have more than one monster in it, so one "regular" ogre plus some extra monsters makes a level-appropriate boss fight.)

If Ogres are designed to be encountered in groups of four, I can no longer trivially answer those questions - in fact I might not be able to answer them at all.

This is so wrong that again it is the opposite of correct. If the expected opposition is "one Ogre" for a standard party, a non-standard party is very difficult to calculate for. If you need 25% more Ogres and you're starting with four, you just add an Ogre. If you need 25% more Ogres and you're starting with one, then there is no obvious way to fill the roster.

If the base expected encounter is one Ogre then the smallest possible increase in Ogres is double the amount of Ogres. That is completely incompatible with modest increases to the player side like having 5 player characters instead of 4 or slightly powerful equipment or whatever. If the base expected encounter is four Ogres, then you can increase the number of Ogres by double, but you can also increase them by 25%, 50%, or 75% if the amount of Ogre power you're looking for is less than that.

And the same goes for smaller or unoptimized parties, but even more so. If you want to reduce the power of the Ogre encounter it is obviously infinity times easier to reduce from 4 Ogres than to reduce from 1. The only amount of Ogres less than 1 is zero, but 3, 2, and 1 are all less than four.

The larger the number of monsters in an expected encounter the more control you have to fine tune the strength of an individual encounter. That's just mathematically true, and arguing the opposite makes you definitionally wrong.

-Username17

[DenizenKane]

Yeah, what Frank is saying makes perfect sense. I think Schleiermacher was just thinking you meant you couldn't split up that 4 monster building block.

If a CR3 encounter for a four person party is 4 Ogres, that is both more interesting. And, the Math allows you to add 2 more Ogres for a 6 person party, or take one away for a 3.

The reason it is a CR3 monster at all is because it presents a level relevant challenge to a level 3 character.

Additionally, you can also include 4 different monster classes in one CR3 encounter and create a more dynamic fight.

So, I suppose the way to do solo monsters would be a trade-up.
Four CR3s = Two CR4s = One CR5.

So, your solo encounter for a level 3 party is a CR5 monster, and then increase the difficulty by 50% by adding a couple CR3 bodyguards for a more challenging encounter.

Additionally, you can trade down for a more interesting encounter,

You can have Eight CR2s, and a CR4.

Sounds good to me.

[Mord]

I'm not sure how you walked to that conclusion based off of what you quoted me saying. I was just explaining the difference between a wraith's fuck off modifier being a passive ability and a Frost Giant's fuck off feature just being greater numbers.

I disagree that "greater numbers" constitutes a "fuck off feature." Frank seems to be looking to build a paradigm where a monster's CR indicates its position in a tiered hierarchy in which higher-tiered monsters possess abilities that make them pretty much untouchable to lower-tiered monsters or the PCs who are expected to fight those lower-tiered monsters:

The Wraith is a level 4 enemy because you have the tools to fight it at 4th level. It's not a tossup at 1st level, it will fucking wreck you.

So, we are describing the Wraith as CR 4 because it has a feature - incorporeality - that characters below Level 4 are simply not equipped to deal with. Stated generally: a monster of CR X + N will wreck any number of PCs of Level X where N > 1.

We're also discussing CR assignment/encounter design math where the standard encounter for Y PCs of Level X is Y monsters of CR X. All well and good.

However, the problem here is that if you wanted to have fewer monsters in that encounter for your Y Level X PCs and maintain the same "standard" difficulty level, you would have to include monsters tougher than your standard CR X monster.

If a monster whose CR exceeds a PC's Level is, by our earlier definition from the Wraith example, untouchable to that PC, how do we describe a monster who is tougher than the norm without assigning that monster to a higher CR?

You may say that this doesn't hold strictly true for every increment of 1 CR/Level, where let's say a CR 5 monster might not utterly outclass a Level 4 party in the same way a CR 4 monster utterly outclasses a Level 3 party. Even so there will be some number of tier breaks in the CR/Level ladder in which a monster of CR X+1 does wreck the faces off of PCs of Level X.

If, for some values of X, PCs of Level X cannot be expected to fight some monsters of CR X+1, then we have a real problem in describing monsters who are individually tougher than the standard encounter fodder. Either we define CR inconsistently by sometimes using it to denote a total face-wrecking and sometimes using it to denote a slightly larger but still surmountable pile of numbers, or we need some term other than CR to describe monsters who are tougher than standard encounter fodder.

This isn't insoluble, but it requires new terms. Perhaps the kind of face-wrecking "you must be this tall" effects are describable by an explicit "Tier" value, while vertical power within a limited paradigm is described with "CR" or "Power".

The Tarrasque is the classic example here. It's nominally CR 20 because its numbers are very high, but actual Level 20 characters will dickslap it in the face. The nature of the challenge posed by the Tarrasque is something that a competent party will have mastered to the point of triviality fifteen levels prior. Compare a CR 20 Wyrm Red Dragon, which would eat a lower-leveled party in its sleep.

If we assume that a single Tarrasque is something we could throw at, say, a four-hero Level 10 party as a "standard" difficulty encounter, then we would call the Tarrasque CR 10. But, if a "standard" difficulty encounter for a four-hero Level 10 party is four CR 10 critters, how do we describe the Tarrasque as something you should be throwing out alone without describing it as having a CR >10?

I hope that more thoroughly explains my mental stumbling block here.

[Omegonthesane]

I had this in my head back when I larped in a system that insisted on only expressing "summary character power" in terms of total experience points gained rather than in terms of biggest level-gated ability.

You basically do need a "minimum level at which this can be fought at all" stat alongside the CR. So a Frost Giant might be Level 10, Rank 5 if its numbers are Level 10 but it doesn't have any abilities that hard-counter a party of at least 5th level.

(I say "Rank" assuming that "Tier" is reserved for Heroic/Advanced/Paragon/Epic or whatever the terms for sets of 3-6 levels are)

ETA: Is it worth also coming up with a specific term for "level above which the party hard counters this" as opposed to "level below which this hard counters the party"? see: Tarrasque

[violence in the media]

I am also confused about the CR/EL/Level thing, especially when it comes to PC mirror matches or encounters where not all the PCs are present.

So, 4 Level 3 PCs are supposed to run into 4 Ogres and have that be a level appropriate challenge that they handily win, and so Ogres are known as "Level 3" monsters. I'm with you here.

If, instead, the PCs run into a mirror match situation where they face another party of 4 Level 3 NPCs, what CR/EL is that supposed to be? What is the CR/EL if those NPCs are Orc Berserkers instead of mere Orc Swordsmen?

If you have 1 PC, is the encounter difficulty the same when you face 1 ogre? Or does that get into toss up situations where a specific 3rd level PC might be poorly suited to fighting ogres?

Also, to tangent off of this point with some anec-data, it's been my experience that many people don't often want to bother playing a standalone "standard difficulty" encounter where EL = party level. Like, 1 Troll or 8 Lemures are never going to feel like a satisfying challenge for a party of 4 5th level PCs, and it makes you wonder why you even set up the battle mat, got out the dice, and started the combat music. That's not saying you can't make the encounter interesting with context or set dressing, but the actual question of "do we win" isn't really in doubt, and that causes a lot of people I've played with to lose interest. It's the Elennsar paradox. People want every encounter to be dangerous, but they want to win all of them too.

How do you fix this? Should "standard" expected-win encounters even be a thing? Should the D&D expected quantity of encounters (13 per level, IIRC) be scaled way down?

[Username17]

I am also confused about the CR/EL/Level thing, especially when it comes to PC mirror matches or encounters where not all the PCs are present.

So, 4 Level 3 PCs are supposed to run into 4 Ogres and have that be a level appropriate challenge that they handily win, and so Ogres are known as "Level 3" monsters. I'm with you here.

If, instead, the PCs run into a mirror match situation where they face another party of 4 Level 3 NPCs, what CR/EL is that supposed to be? What is the CR/EL if those NPCs are Orc Berserkers instead of mere Orc Swordsmen?

If you have 1 PC, is the encounter difficulty the same when you face 1 ogre? Or does that get into toss up situations where a specific 3rd level PC might be poorly suited to fighting ogres?

Also, to tangent off of this point with some anec-data, it's been my experience that many people don't often want to bother playing a standalone "standard difficulty" encounter where EL = party level. Like, 1 Troll or 8 Lemures are never going to feel like a satisfying challenge for a party of 4 5th level PCs, and it makes you wonder why you even set up the battle mat, got out the dice, and started the combat music. That's not saying you can't make the encounter interesting with context or set dressing, but the actual question of "do we win" isn't really in doubt, and that causes a lot of people I've played with to lose interest. It's the Elennsar paradox. People want every encounter to be dangerous, but they want to win all of them too.

How do you fix this? Should "standard" expected-win encounters even be a thing? Should the D&D expected quantity of encounters (13 per level, IIRC) be scaled way down?

The standard encounter that you are expected to win should absolutely be a thing. It's essentially the thing you encounter most of the time and you can make a good case that encounter guidelines that generate those accurately are the only things that actually matter.

Now here's the horrible reality of encounter math: it doesn't scale linearly. If four player characters are expected to win against 4 monsters, then 5 player characters are expected to win harder against 5 monsters, and 6 player characters are expected to win harder still against 6 monsters. Each player character is better than each monster, so adding bodies to both sides just increases the bulge Team Player has over Team Monster. The 4e designers never seemed to grasp that concept, which is a big reason the threat level in that game is so low.

Another issue is that at level 1, level 2 things are one level higher but they are also twice your level. It is simply unreasonable to expect logarithmic relationships to be the same in the first few levels as they are in the levels after that. Specifically: at 1st level the player characters may not even have a backup silver dagger, meaning that damage resistance abilities like those of the Wraith and the Werewolf would likely be disqualifying rather than merely annoying.

The relationship between characters of higher levels against opponents that are yet higher levels still will not be the same. A 4th level party might have a tough time with a Genie or a Hydra, but they won't get "completely wrecked" the way a 1st level party would be by a Wraith or Invisible Stalker.

-Username17

[DrPraetor]

There's an internally-contradictory goal, where players want to face impossible odds and win anyway, like happens all the time in the source material (sword and sorcery novels.)

Now, the problem is, when you set up impossible odds the players do not in fact win.

It isn't a perfect solution, but player characters should have luck points. Which would be why they'd win mirror matches and dramatically snatch victories from nominally-superior opposition.

This won't satisfy some people, who will complain (rightly), that if your opponent is +1 on you but you have five rerolls and he doesn't, you're in fact better than he is. But, it's still better than the alternative, where players don't get to go up against nominally superior opposition and win anyway (repeatedly, which becomes increasingly implausible each time it happens.)

I'd still say the default encounter should be one where the PCs win without using up luck points, but various sorts of stretch encounters still need to be included in the available mix at each level of play, and should be included in the mix before you switch over to writing a PHB to match your MM.

[merxa]

If you're dealing with tiers and non linearity you may have to throw out the CR system and rate monsters on an EL scale only.

IE so,
1 marilith might be an EL 10
4 frost giants EL 10
army of orcs EL 10

Within a monster block it could list suggested encounters, so for frost giant

Solitary frost giant EL 6
4 advanced scouts, EL 10
12 remorhaz-riding calvary lead by tribal shaman/priest EL 12
Frostiron Fortress of Nysnö, plane of Ice EL 16

[RobbyPants]

This won't satisfy some people, who will complain (rightly), that if your opponent is +1 on you but you have five rerolls and he doesn't, you're in fact better than he is.

There's an easy counter to that.

Ask them if Everyman Hero beats the Evil Sorcerer, isn't he in fact better?

• If they say "yes", then you're in agreement, and the matter is settled.
• If they say "no", ask them how he won. If they claim that he got lucky, remind them that the subject of debate is called luck points, and that the matter is settled.

[DenizenKane]

If you're dealing with tiers and non linearity you may have to throw out the CR system and rate monsters on an EL scale only.

IE so,
1 marilith might be an EL 10
4 frost giants EL 10
army of orcs EL 10

Within a monster block it could list suggested encounters, so for frost giant

Solitary frost giant EL 6
4 advanced scouts, EL 10
12 remorhaz-riding calvary lead by tribal shaman/priest EL 12
Frostiron Fortress of Nysnö, plane of Ice EL 16

But then it doesn't match up with the monster classes so easily and that eliminates the whole point of the system.

Need 12 Cavalry? Trade down your 4.

Say you're at CR8, and you want cavalry lead by a tribal/shaman priest.

Start with a case CR8, which could be 4 shamans, then you just trade down 3 of them, to get 6 CR7 monsters, trade down again, you get 12CR6 cavalry, and a CR8 shaman.

Need a solitary giant? Take your 4, trade up twice, you've got a solo mob, its 2 CR higher. At Level 6, you'd fight an 8 solo giant and probably win unless it's CR related schtick hosed the characters. But, due to action economy that encounter would be boring, but maybe there could be solo monster rules.

Maybe a +2CR template for a mob that makes it a solo encounter, maybe a size increase, more actions, more damage, hp, etc.

[DrPraetor]

So while you're doing the monster manual first, I think it would make some sense to set up how a class stat block would look. Although I'm spitting out an example I'm thinking about the schema for a stat block and not producing a serious class here.

Bunny Mage Heroic-tier, Melee, Magic-using
The lord-tier class with an entire Moe army is a Nekomancer.

Short summary: The Bunny Mage utilizes her superior hearing and elemental magic to protect her friends. She can deliver elemental attacks with a chance for knockback when her allies are threatened, and can also hold her own in melee with a light weapon, dealing bonus elemental damage. Her elemental magic also enables her allies to survive in adverse environments.

Attack Bonuses: Melee 1/l, Ranged 0.5/l, Dominate 0.5/l, Trick 1.5/l
Defense Bonuses: Endure 1/l, Evade 1/l, Resist 0.5/l, Sense 1.5/l

Level	Features
7	Class Vestment: Kemonomimi (Crown Chakra); Bonus Technique: Elemental Focus (4); Bonus Technique: Designate Allies (4)
8	Ambush Awareness; Endurance Blessing
9	(you should get stuff at every level, even when you get a new level of techniques to choose from)
10	Coordinated Blast (5,4)
11	(you should get stuff at every level, even when you get a new level of techniques to choose from)
12	Chain Blast (6,5,4)

Item: Kemonomimi - Crown chakra, indestructible, personal.
Scaled bonus to Int (1+L/3(RD)).
Confers the exceptional hearing talent, with an additional bonus of L*2m to base range.
The Kemonomimi must be equipped to utilize the Elemental Focus or Designate Allies techniques, and any technique which depends on those.
The appearance of the Kemonomimi will change whenever the Bunny Mage changes her Elemental Focus (typically, Red for fire, Yellow for electricity, and etc..)

Bunny Mage Techniques, by Level:
* Bonus technique (learned automatically, 1 instance in a bonus slot)
^ Bunny-Mage only technique (see below)
! Specialized technique (modified for Bunny Magi)
all other techniques use the "common" rules.
Level 4: Bunny Blast^, Bunny Blow^, Bunny Burst^, Designate Allies*, Disarm Giant, Double Spring Attack, Elemental Focus*, Energy Mark^, Energy Riposte!, Free Action, Parry Giant, Swallow Strike! ... (at 7th level you'd have 2+ choices from this list so you should have about 10 in addition to the two freebies, I think.)
Level 5: Bunny Barrier^,

Bunny Barrier (Spell, Reaction, Depends: Designate Allies, Depends: Elemental Focus): Bunny mage trigger. Trick attack. Inflicts (elemental focus-type) damage (1D6/2*L, RD) on the triggering foe, half on a miss; and, places (elemental focus-type) energy-hazard (damage 2D6+L), in the hex of the triggering foe and in up to two adjacent hexes of the Bunny Mages' choice.

Bunny Blast (Spell, Reaction, Depends: Designate Allies, Depends: Elemental Focus): Bunny mage trigger. Trick attack. Inflicts (elemental focus-type) damage (1D6/2*L, RD) on the triggering foe, half on a miss; on a hit, the foe is also shaken.

Bunny Burst (Spell, Reaction, Depends: Designate Allies, Depends: Elemental Focus): Bunny mage trigger. Trick attack. Inflicts (elemental focus-type) damage (1D6/2*L, RD) on the triggering foe, half on a miss; on a hit, the foe is also knocked 2m away from the trigger ally and loses 10m of movement.

Bunny Blow (Spell, Reaction, Depends: Designate Allies, Depends: Elemental Focus): Bunny mage trigger. Trick attack. Inflicts (elemental focus-type) damage (1D6/2*L, RD) on the triggering foe, half on a miss; on a hit, the foe is also nauseated.

Energy Mark (Spell, Vancian, Full Round, Depends: Designate Allies, Depends: Elemental Focus): Trick attack single roll vs. all detected foes in threatened radius of all allies. Inflicts (elemental focus-type) damage (1D6/2*L, RD) on all targets.

Energy Riposte, Swallow Strike: For these techniques, energy damage matches her elemental focus.

Anyway, that was amusing.

One thing I note, if Fighter abilities work like Wizard spells in that you can write arbitrary numbers of them on your character sheet and then "prepare" some more moderate number per level (but not like Vancian spells in that they're gone when you use them), then you'd be perfectly fine with having chains and dependencies and things.


But what are the challenges by level going to look like?

Level	Challenges
1	Outnumbered by low-threat foes (e.g. goblins), low-mobility melee foe to disable/kite (e.g. moorlock).
2	Foe to disable/kite before it closes because it could kill you in a single blow (ogre)
3	...
7	Foes that automatically fill the battlefield with energy damage
8	Foes that can only be fought in the air
9	Foes that automatically negate normal movement in the battle field (solid fog, reverse gravity). ...

And so on?

[Wiseman]

Isn't that how it was in 3e? An equivilent encounter for a party of 4 level 5 characters was 4 CR5 creatures?

[DenizenKane]

Isn't that how it was in 3e? An equivilent encounter for a party of 4 level 5 characters was 4 CR5 creatures?

No, it's one CR5 creature for an even encounter.

Which, sucks because fighting one creature is boring, and there's no room to construct interesting encounters.

If I want to throw two creatures at the party, and it's an even encounter they are CR3 now, and then they're not really much of a challenge to the party.