… I suppose I could have found a way to get a dash in there or something. What’s one more separator in a title?
I realized today after Random Encounter Tables: Second Thoughts (Heavy Lifting) went up that the raw percentages might not be so useful overall, but didn’t have time at that point to do anything about it.
I’ve redone the tables for this post, showing the likelihood for each slot that the encounter is enhanced, standard, reduced, or evidence only.
I had some Second Thoughts about Random Encounter Tables. Erik Tenkar likes using three dice for his random encounter tables because he likes the curve, and planned to have deliberate, potentially large gaps in the table so he could combine the random encounter check (determine whether there is one) and the encounter selection (determine what the encounter is). That’s fair enough.
It’s not to my taste, though. I have historically preferred two dice, usually mismatched, because of the ‘pyramid curve’ they give me. However, as described in the Second Thoughts post yesterday I think there might be a better way. Use three dice but have one of them, in addition to adding to the roll to determine the encounter also be used to determine an encounter modifier.
This feels pretty good, and has some good possibilities. However, I like to back these things up with numerical analysis to make sure that it makes sense.
Math happens, but it’s mostly tables. I can provide spreadsheets if anyone is really interested.
If the rules endow demi-humans with extremely long life-spans without level limits it seems logical that powerful, high-level demi-human NPCs would come to dominate the game world.
I am not entirely certain this is true.
I mean, I know this is not true in my campaign because I said so… but if we run the numbers I think it will be easily demonstrated to not be terribly likely.