# Revised CRs/ECLs continuation thread



## Dinkeldog (May 4, 2003)

Continue.  

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45989


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hi Dinkledog mate! 

Appreciate the help - that thread ballooned very quickly.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I did question if he was having more than usual moderate encounters.
> One thing, though. As you know I consider the system (for my group) gives XP values that are too high and I don't know if that applies at all levels.
> But I feel there is a problem at low levels that is distinct from that, due to a built-in bias in the system to accelerate advancement of low-level characters - as a natural consequence of the fact "that low-level encounters that are even slightly higher CR are much more dangerous (and hence give greater rewards)". This is not a good thing, because it means that people will shoot through the system too quickly.
> If you don't want to change the system to account for this because you don't want to add arbitrary factors, that's okay. But I think there should be a sidebar in the final document discussing this, because people new to the system won't be aware of it, and offering an optional rule for those who want to maintain normal advancement rates at that level.
> (It's not important to work out what that rule would be just yet, with the system still being designed, but I'd be happy to hear a commitment to include one.) *




I will discuss it in the revision. But I won't be changing things arbitrarily (as you rightfully deduced).



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Thanks. I'd guessed at .25/head, based on half the cost of an extra attack, so having it confirmed may mean I'm getting a feel for the system - a good thing. *








			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I think it was meant that you should include the unrounded figure: so if a creature works out at 6.3, you list 6.3 so if people choose to add or remove fetures they know the cost will still be right. More useful, but oesn't look as pretty  *




I was just preempting the next bout. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *<about the SR using original MM CR & SR>
> Well, I mentioned it one or two messages before Anubis in this thread. Maybe that was it? *




I appreciate everyones help. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It should be a viable solution. At present, you calculate EL as accurately as possible, using fractions/percentages: see the example in the document of mixed creature EL. It ends up as 241%, modifying the final EL by 2.
> 
> Calculating creature XP by individual EL (as is done in the DMG) means that you get to use the rough figure for encounter level calculation, but you can calculate the XP cost of the PCs exact victories.
> In that example, the players are facing:
> ...




I think there could be an easier way than a full reverse engineering. 

I think determining the encounter EL is more important than the individual EL with regards EXP.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Drat. It was the DDG pseudo-deity I was looking for (since I dont have your version). On reflection, though, it should be easy enough to work out.
> I remember mention of a Deity Stat Array. Any idea what stats they get? *




The Divine Array is 35, 28, 25, 24, 24, 24 ~ of course I don't use the divine array in the Immortals Handbook.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *Like I said, it's probably full of holes . I threw out numbers so we'd have something to tear down and start from. *








			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *And if the PCs didn't negate the ability, it just happened to be negated in the situation? For example, the PCs fall through a small hole in the roof and find themselves facing a dragon. Should they get XP for the dragon's flight ability, even though they did nothing to negate it? *




As I mentioned previously I think situational modifiers are more to do with circumstances rather than PCs using their powers.



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *I was more interested in the philosophy of what makes a situation break down into "easier" or "harder". Your CR system seemed to lead the way  *




I think it outlines the ingredients correctly but not all the recipes. 



			
				seasong said:
			
		

> *If it works well, I'm glad I could help  *




Appreciate it mate!


----------



## Zaknafein (May 4, 2003)

*alot of work and comments*

this has become quite the tread... I am glad to follow this as I can... U_K how goes?  I know you told me to thank ya later after you posted... hehe... just a friendly reminder... I know its a lot of work... I can always use a reference material so that I can adjust accordingly... what do ya say?

-in honor zaknafein


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 4, 2003)

*Re: alot of work and comments*

Hi Zaknafein mate! 



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *this has become quite the tread...*




True. 



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *I am glad to follow this as I can... U_K how goes?*




Not too bad, streamlining some of the IH abilities at the moment...

...but I presume you mean the list of revised CRs. 



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *I know you told me to thank ya later after you posted... hehe... just a friendly reminder... I know its a lot of work...*




Its not really _that much work_ I simply have better things to do so I am in no hurry.



			
				Zaknafein said:
			
		

> *I can always use a reference material so that I can adjust accordingly... what do ya say? *




At the moment I am at the letter 'H' - after about an hour on the matter.


----------



## Anubis (May 4, 2003)

First off, as to the encounters, you must have missed the part about "one bugbear, two hobgoblins, and four goblins" which was the climax of the advanture and gave quite a bit of XP.  In fact, I think it was over 500 per person, but I can't recall exactly.

Also, by the current rules, if you retreat from combat after defeating some enemies, you still get NO XP.  This is stated plainly.  If enemies retreat you get full XP, if you retreat you get no XP.

As for going through low levels quickly, UK's system is designed for STANDARD games.  The standard for most adventures is Levels 5-15.  You are the exception if you wanna play at lower levels a lot.  This should NOT be taken into account whatsoever for the system, which awards XP based on the the overall challenge and not based on "when should characters gain a level".  At low levels, encounters are that much harder, so you main that much more XP.  It's right as-is.  If you, the exception, want slower progression, simply cut the XP awards.  Divide the XP given by UK's sytem by 2 or by 4 before dividing XP to PCs.  That'll slow down progression considerably and solve all your problems.  Or just do your suggestion of awarding XP by EL instead of PEL.  Do not try to make it sound like the system is to blame, however, when you are the exception.

As it stands, the system works perfectly for an OVERALL balanced campaign that spans ALL levels.


----------



## Eldorian (May 5, 2003)

Eldorian's Alternate SR system.

This is a fundamental change to how SR works, and may be inappropiate for UK's book, however, it will work for house rules.

Basically the system works by having a set SR.  This SR is the target number for a spell penetration check.  The spell penetration check is made by rolling a d20 and adding your EL, subtracting the opponent's EL, and adding benifts from feats like spell penetration.  

I don't factor in caster levels, as I think anyone without full fledged caster levels is too severly punished from SR, as I've found out at epic levels, the less than full fledged casters basically stand no chance of getting a spell through SR, and not much chance of not being saved against.

The great thing about this system, is that SR 11 equates to approximatly 50/50 chance to avoid spells from equal EL opponents.  So when determining the CR modifier for SR, SR 11 is basically avoids half magic attacks, and SR 30 is basically the same as magic immunity.  Currently, at high levels of SR, UK's system breaks down, because SR begins to cost more than magic immunity.  If you simply make SR cost .1 per point, it works out pretty well, with SR 11 being 1.1 CR, and SR 30 being 3 CR, basically magic immunity.

This system requires one to change how items, feats, and spells that give SR work.  For items, you can basically make SR 11 the equivalent of a Cloak of Displacement for cost, and go from there, using some exponential rule.  The weapon chart may make a decent basis, with SR 11 being the equivalent in price of a +5 weapon, and every +1 on the weapon being 2 on the SR.  The spell _spell resistance_ could simply grant SR 11. 

To convert a monster to this system, all one must do is take its current SR, and subtract its current CR, to get its new SR level.  For example, a mind flayer, at SR 25 and CR 8, would have new SR 17.  Obviously, the mind flayer is very spell resistant.  The Imp, on the other hand, has SR 5 and is CR 3, so it's new SR would be 2.  Obviously, the Imp has very little resistance to spells, from anything other than much weaker opponents.

The best part of the system is calculating the CR gained from SR.  It's much easier when Drow, which have SR 11, to always get the exact same CR modifier from SR, instead of as current rules have their racial abilities increase in CR as they gain in level.  And this system doesn't have the problem where extremely high levels of SR cost more than Magic immunity.  In fact, if one wanted to house rule things farther, one could remove magic immunity, and just give high SR, for example 30,  to monsters that previously had magic immunity.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 5, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, as to the encounters, you must have missed the part about "one bugbear, two hobgoblins, and four goblins" which was the climax of the advanture and gave quite a bit of XP.  In fact, I think it was over 500 per person, but I can't recall exactly.
> *



That's a bit more than the "by the book" system for that encounter: I reckon the normal award would be around 300 each for a 4-person group.
But it means the rest of the encounters were giving roughly the right amount of XP.

*



			Also, by the current rules, if you retreat from combat after defeating some enemies, you still get NO XP.  This is stated plainly.  If enemies retreat you get full XP, if you retreat you get no XP.
		
Click to expand...


*
Well, that should depend. The rulebook says "if the challenge was overcome."
If your objective was to stop that little army of devils from performing some evil mission, you have probably succeeded. They are now severely weakened, and may be forced to withdraw.
Circumstances matter.
In any case, many GMs will give awards for such partial successes, regardless.

*



			As for going through low levels quickly, UK's system is designed for STANDARD games.  The standard for most adventures is Levels 5-15.  You are the exception if you wanna play at lower levels a lot.
		
Click to expand...


*
This is rubbish. The DMg tells us that games fall into several types - low, medium, high, and very high levels. It says nothing about which is standard. However...
The standard game starts with players at 1st level, therefore _every_ standard game has to go through levels 1-4.
If you start your game above that, you are using optional rules, therefore you are playing a non-standard game.

*



			This should NOT be taken into account whatsoever for the system, which awards XP based on the the overall challenge and not based on "when should characters gain a level".  At low levels, encounters are that much harder, so you main that much more XP.  It's right as-is.  If you, the exception, want slower progression, simply cut the XP awards.  Divide the XP given by UK's sytem by 2 or by 4 before dividing XP to PCs.  That'll slow down progression considerably and solve all your problems.  Or just do your suggestion of awarding XP by EL instead of PEL.  Do not try to make it sound like the system is to blame, however, when you are the exception.
		
Click to expand...


*
I don't believe I am the exception. On this thread, two others have said they enjoy low-level play, and only you have argued the opposite view - based on that sampling, you are the exception. 
Also note, I'm playing an epic level game: personally, I prefer to skip the lower levels because I think that characters are oo fragile. But I see that there are plenty of people who enjoy those levels, and my goal was to ensure that such people are alerted to the fact that those levels will zip by faster than they expect, if they do not modify XP at low values.

*



			As it stands, the system works perfectly for an OVERALL balanced campaign that spans ALL levels.
		
Click to expand...


*
That spans ALL levels... except the low ones  

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 5, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Eldorian's Alternate SR system.
> 
> This is a fundamental change to how SR works, and may be inappropiate for UK's book, however, it will work for house rules.
> 
> ...




Essentially (as we discussed on MSN last night) your SR rules are the same as my optional rules with two differences.

#1. Instead of just using the monsters CR you work out the difference between CR and (current) SR. 

...This carries with it all the foibles of the current SR scores (which I suppose is both a good and a bad thing depending on what way you look at it).

#2. You add bonuses for feats/deific abilities after everything is converted to EL.

...For me this is a problem because it becomes all too easy to either always penetrate or always resist.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 5, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *In any case, many GMs will give awards for such partial successes, regardless.*




I would agree with this. But with a partial success I don't see why a DM has to reverse engineer everything (seems a trifle pedantic). Wouldn't either a flat 'best guess' suffice.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *This is rubbish. The DMg tells us that games fall into several types - low, medium, high, and very high levels. It says nothing about which is standard. However...
> The standard game starts with players at 1st level, therefore every standard game has to go through levels 1-4.
> If you start your game above that, you are using optional rules, therefore you are playing a non-standard game.*




I don't want to put words in Anubis mouth* but I think he meant standard EXP progression rather than refering to different measures of power.

*I could end up breaking my Caps Lock...only joking mate. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I don't believe I am the exception. On this thread, two others have said they enjoy low-level play, and only you have argued the opposite view - based on that sampling, you are the exception.  *




Absolutely, and theres nothing wrong with that. 

However, the CR/EL system shows that encounters at low level are more dangerous because of fragility that is the reason for the inflation of EXP when facing challenges at that measure of power.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Also note, I'm playing an epic level game: personally, I prefer to skip the lower levels because I think that characters are oo fragile. But I see that there are plenty of people who enjoy those levels, and my goal was to ensure that such people are alerted to the fact that those levels will zip by faster than they expect, if they do not modify XP at low values.*




Thats something I will definately have to point out to people. Then explain how they can easily adjust the EXP figures to compensate ~ should they so wish to do so.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *That spans ALL levels... except the low ones  *




I still standby the system. Mechanically its correct. Philisophically it seems many of you want to prolong levelling up (which is fair enough) but thats hardly an indictment against my system, if anything its a subjective argument.


----------



## Eldorian (May 5, 2003)

The problem with adding feats and abilities before converting to EL is that at low levels, these feats become increadably powerful, compared to high levels where it is often the case that feat means nothing.  IE, if your CR and your CR + spell penetration are in the same EL band, then your feat is worthless.  If you're level 1, and with spell penetration, you are CR 3, thats, what, EL 7? Compared to your EL 1 opponents?   And not all monsters having 50/50 resists I still say is a GOOD THINGtm.  They way you have it, every monster would be either spell resistant, or not, which is an on/off ability, and my system alows variation.  That way imps can have a little spell resistance, and mind flayers can have a lot.  Any creature with high enough SR, through use of your deific abilities or whatever, is basically spending abilities on becoming magic immune.  Any creature with high enough spell penetration is basically spending abilities on being able to effect magic immune creatures.   I don't really see a problem, as one can do the same with physical attacks by majorly focusing on defence or offence.  With my system, every +2 feat, such as spell penetration and greater spell penetration, is an additional 10% chance to penetrate spell resistance, which I believe is how the feats were designed to be balanced.  I mean, if your Supa Gawd of Spell "Stickin it where da sun don't shine, baby"  has a +20 to over come spell resistance, I think that, for his expenditure of 10 feat equivalents, he should be able to have a 50/50 chance of penetrating a golem's SR of 30.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 5, 2003)

Upper_Krust.

You say it take 13.3R moderate encounters to reach level 1. Yes, I see how you arrived at that value (300 / 4 = 75; 1000 / 75 = 13.3R) but when the heck does that ever happen?

Let's look at a typical goblin encounter.

Goblins advance as character class. Rogue is favored.

NPC character class and NPC wealth: +0.9

Darkvision is not added because it does not exceed CR +0.5 (once again, because goblins advance as character class this rule goes into effect).

Small size: –0.75

Total challenge rating: 0.15 (round down) = CR 1/8 (CR –2 said more clearly).

Now put four of the little buggers together and you get EL 2. Send them against a party of four 1st level PCs, and each character nets 112 XP.

This is a highly standard 1st level encounter.

The printed rules would award 75 XP for each goblin. Your system awards 150% that amount. This is the inflated XP at low levels that is being talked about.

I understand that X+4 equals a 50/50 encounter in your system, and that is where the problem lies.

A 50/50 encounter _should_ occur when the ELs of each respective side match up (for example, EL 5 versus EL 5 should be a 50/50 encounter). That is infinitely more intuitive. Yes I know that characters are defined by PEL (not EL) in your system, but that is where your changes should be begin. Define both parties by EL and get rid of PEL. Make equal EL rating a 50/50 encounter and then scale away from that standard in both directions accordingly. Moreover, do away from fractioned challenge ratings and expand Table 1–1A to include negative CR values.

You recently spoke of making your system more clear. These are some of the steps you could be taking.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 5, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I still standby the system. Mechanically it's correct. Philosophically it seems many of you want to prolong leveling up (which is fair enough) but that's hardly an indictment against my system, if anything it's a subjective argument. *



There's nothing subjective about it. We want proportionate XP at *all* levels, without inflated XP at low-levels. We want *equally* measured advancement when awarding XP throughout a character's career. This isn't subjectivity. This is universalization.


----------



## Anubis (May 5, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Upper_Krust.
> 
> You say it take 13.3R moderate encounters to reach level 1. Yes, I see how you arrived at that value (300 / 4 = 75; 1000 / 75 = 13.3R) but when the heck does that ever happen?
> ...




Here's your first problem.  CR 0.15 rounds to 0, which is CR 1/2 and EL 0, so you should recalculate.

Second, rogue goblins are not the standard.  The MM even states directly that the stats given are for warriors, not rogues.  Oh, and add in the Darkvision anyway.  It belongs in there whether UK wants to put it in or not.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Now put four of the little buggers together and you get EL 2. Send them against a party of four 1st level PCs, and each character nets 112 XP.
> 
> This is a highly standard 1st level encounter.
> ...




The problem here is that the MM underestimates the goblin.  Four goblins are almost a 50/50 encounter, NOT a 20% encounter.  This was one of the problems with WotC's current system and is one of the problems solved.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> I understand that X+4 equals a 50/50 encounter in your system, and that is where the problem lies.
> *




It is?  That's how it's already done in the game!  CR/EL +4 is an even match even by the CURRENT rules.  You're SUPPOSED to get that much XP for a 50/50 challenge!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> A 50/50 encounter should occur when the ELs of each respective side match up (for example, EL 5 versus EL 5 should be a 50/50 encounter). That is infinitely more intuitive. Yes I know that characters are defined by PEL (not EL) in your system, but that is where your changes should be begin. Define both parties by EL and get rid of PEL. Make equal EL rating a 50/50 encounter and then scale away from that standard in both directions accordingly. Moreover, do away from fractioned challenge ratings and expand Table 1–1A to include negative CR values.
> *




NO NO NO!  If you do that, you are no longer properly rating challenges and you are changing everything from the core system ALTOGETHER!  Even by the core rules, CR/EL is based on what is a 20% encounter.  This is stated in the book.  UK's system simply expands those rules to logical conclusions to give proper XP for encounters.

It still takes 13.33 encounters of CR/EL equal to the party's level to reach the next level.  It takes 13.33 EL 1 encounters for a Level 1 party to reach Level 2.  The only difference is that UK actually gives factual details (affirmed by playtesting) about what ACTUALLY constitutes an EL 1 ecnounter.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> You recently spoke of making your system more clear. These are some of the steps you could be taking.
> *




No, if he takes these steps he's simply going to make the problems within the core system worse.  The idea is to more ACCURATELY gauge challenges.  If a select few DMs want the low levels to last that much longer, they can either use the current flawed core system or divide UK's numbers by four.  Those of us caring more about accuracy than keeping players at lower levels, however, will use this great system.


----------



## Anubis (May 5, 2003)

*SR*

I still like my fix for the SR problem.  It has no flaws whatsoever.  If you think you can find flaws in my system, speak now.  I make SR a factor without blowing it out of proportion and I also have a good way of determining spell penetration.

Just do it, seriously.  It works at ALL levels.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 5, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *The problem with adding feats and abilities before converting to EL is that at low levels, these feats become increadably powerful, compared to high levels where it is often the case that feat means nothing.  IE, if your CR and your CR + spell penetration are in the same EL band, then your feat is worthless.  If you're level 1, and with spell penetration, you are CR 3, thats, what, EL 7? Compared to your EL 1 opponents?   And not all monsters having 50/50 resists I still say is a GOOD THINGtm.  They way you have it, every monster would be either spell resistant, or not, which is an on/off ability, and my system alows variation.  That way imps can have a little spell resistance, and mind flayers can have a lot.  Any creature with high enough SR, through use of your deific abilities or whatever, is basically spending abilities on becoming magic immune.  Any creature with high enough spell penetration is basically spending abilities on being able to effect magic immune creatures.   I don't really see a problem, as one can do the same with physical attacks by majorly focusing on defence or offence.  With my system, every +2 feat, such as spell penetration and greater spell penetration, is an additional 10% chance to penetrate spell resistance, which I believe is how the feats were designed to be balanced.  I mean, if your Supa Gawd of Spell "Stickin it where da sun don't shine, baby"  has a +20 to over come spell resistance, I think that, for his expenditure of 10 feat equivalents, he should be able to have a 50/50 chance of penetrating a golem's SR of 30.
> *




Well firstly, how many CR 1 creatures do you know with spell resistance?

The problem as I see it is that a single deific ability will practically make you completely spell resistant to any being with a caster level equal or less than your CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 5, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *You say it take 13.3R moderate encounters to reach level 1.*




I presume you mean Level 2 and beyond...?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Yes, I see how you arrived at that value (300 / 4 = 75; 1000 / 75 = 13.3R) but when the heck does that ever happen?
> 
> Let's look at a typical goblin encounter.
> 
> ...




Yes the figures are inflated at very low level (but not arbitrarily) - this represents the danger inherant at those levels as outlined by the system.

The system is flexible enough to support your ideas but I don't plan to incorporate them as standard. However, I may mention it as an option for those who want to stifle advancement.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 5, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *There's nothing subjective about it.*




I disagree.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *We want proportionate XP at *all* levels, without inflated XP at low-levels.*




If you don't want EXP determined as befits the challenge then by all means change it, just don't ask me to agree with what is quintessentially an arbitrary decision.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *We want *equally* measured advancement when awarding XP throughout a character's career. This isn't subjectivity. This is universalization. *




Universalisation at the expense of accuracy, sounds like the WotC philosophy we are trying hard to revise.


----------



## Eldorian (May 5, 2003)

*Re: SR*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I still like my fix for the SR problem.  It has no flaws whatsoever.  If you think you can find flaws in my system, speak now.  I make SR a factor without blowing it out of proportion and I also have a good way of determining spell penetration.
> 
> Just do it, seriously.  It works at ALL levels. *




No, your system has a flaw, the same as UK's.  That is, you rate SR based on a number that scales with level, when SR is a relative number.  IE, at high enough levels, SR rates more CR than magic immunity, which is simply silly.  My system makes it a relative number, which relates to CR and scales nicely.  Your system requires calculating CR, then calculating SR, then going back and recalculating CR, and recalculating SR, until you fall into the round off errors of CR.  Never claim to be without flaws.  You predispose yourself to denial.



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust _*
> Well firstly, how many CR 1 creatures do you know with spell resistance?
> 
> The problem as I see it is that a single deific ability will practically make you completely spell resistant to any being with a caster level equal or less than your CR.*




Well, feats matter too much for CRs 1-3, which you can find many creatures with SR, and it's bad at levels 15+, where your feats can sometimes not matter at all.  I'd be quite pissed if I had +2 more spell penetration than an ally, yet the EL chart puts us both at the same level for spell resistance penetration.  After all, I put a precious feat into the ability.  As for your singe deific ability.. perhaps it's not the system thats at fault, but how you're rating that ability?  The system works fine for epic levels out of the ELH.  Explain to me this diefic ability.  And why not make a counter diefic ability.  After all, I suggested that spell penetration cost half so much as spell resistance.  If diefic abilitys grant +1 CR, ie, +10 SR, then you could easily make a diefic ability that grants +20 Spell penetration.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 5, 2003)

*Re: Re: SR*

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Well, feats matter too much for CRs 1-3, which you can find many creatures with SR, and it's bad at levels 15+, where your feats can sometimes not matter at all.  I'd be quite pissed if I had +2 more spell penetration than an ally, yet the EL chart puts us both at the same level for spell resistance penetration. *




Something that could only happen at epic levels to begin with and even then it still wouldn't be the case with ever adversary.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *After all, I put a precious feat into the ability.  As for your singe deific ability.. perhaps it's not the system thats at fault, but how you're rating that ability?*




The ability in D&Dg adds 20 points to SR. Of course I reduced that to 10 points in the IH (as per the CR modifier).



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *The system works fine for epic levels out of the ELH.  Explain to me this diefic ability.  And why not make a counter diefic ability. *




I have its spell penetration counterpart.

But if you are relying on these to penetrate/resist then you are practically maintaining the black or white situations we are trying to avoid in the first place!



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *After all, I suggested that spell penetration cost half so much as spell resistance.  If diefic abilitys grant +1 CR, ie, +10 SR, then you could easily make a diefic ability that grants +20 Spell penetration. *




I don't see how that suggestion is valid though!?


----------



## Anubis (May 6, 2003)

Well, energy resistance is eventually worth more than energy immunity by the system.

To be, the actual solution to the resistance/immunity issue is to give resistance a maximum CR value.

OR . . .

For SR, to determine the CR modifier, just use the difference between WotC SR and WotC CR as the modifier.  That way it NEVER gets too high.  Maybe cap that number at CR +2 (SR +20), since at that point you can't beat it at the assigned level without help from feats and the such.

Also, you don't have to recalculate so much.  I said that was optional.  In fact, if THIS way is used, it's not even a factor.


----------



## Eldorian (May 6, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> For SR, to determine the CR modifier, just use the difference between WotC SR and WotC CR as the modifier.  That way it NEVER gets too high.  Maybe cap that number at CR +2 (SR +20), since at that point you can't beat it at the assigned level without help from feats and the such.
> 
> Also, you don't have to recalculate so much.  I said that was optional.  In fact, if THIS way is used, it's not even a factor. *




Exactly.  What you just typed is exactly my system, but instead of having SR 10 be a fixed value of "need a 10 to overcome" you have the SR be 10 +EL, and just subtract the EL to determine CR modifier.  My system is simplier.



> ]_Originally posted by Upper_Krust _
> *
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> ...




Case in point.  I am level 17, with spell penetration.  My ally is level 16 without.  We both use EL 17 to overcome spell resistance.  Not only am I higher level, but I spent one of my precious feats to become better at overcoming spell resistance, to naught.  It gets worse in epic levels, as you said.  In fact, Epic spell penetration means nothing at level 32 and 33.  Thats 3 feats, one of them epic.



> ]_Originally posted by Upper_Krust _
> *
> I have its spell penetration counterpart.
> 
> But if you are relying on these to penetrate/resist then you are practically maintaining the black or white situations we are trying to avoid in the first place!*




Sorry mate, but if I spend 3 CR, the equivalent of over 3 character levels (almost 4), to become spell resistant, it *damn* well better make me nearly immune.  Thats almost 4 levels without HD, without BAB, saves, skills, spells, ect.

And if I spend 1 CR, which is over one level's worth of power, without any other benifits, in order to be able to effect nearly magic immune guys, it better work half the time, cause I still have to worry about saving throws, and I didn't gain any other abilites in the process, like spells.  This uber spell penetration is the CR equivalnt of BAB +7.  Thats another attack, and then some.  It better be powerful.

The suggestion is valid because it rates these abilites as what they're worth, not what a min/maxer can get out of them using some sort of deity rules.  I may not know how playing a diety works, but I know how to play a PC, and this works for PCs, and it works for monsters.  It may be extremely simple for dieties to get on/off SR, and on/off spell penetration, but it sure isn't for PCs, even epic ones, and it's balanced for monsters.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 6, 2003)

I do not think your systems are much simpler and they certainly are not more accurate.  Here is my (revised) system in a nutshell.

Step 1: Find a creatures "SR Factor".  SR Factor is the difference between WotC SR and WotC CR.  (e.g. Lemure, SR 5, CR 1, SR Factor +4)

Step 2: Calculate UK CR and UK EL.  The CR modifierfor SR is determined by dividing the SR Factor from Step 1 by 10 and adding that number to the CR.  _This modifier is NEVER to exceed CR +2._  (e.g. Lemure, Base CR 2.75, SR Factor +4, CR Modifer +0.4, Final CR 3.15, EL 7)

Step 3: Add the SR Factor from Step 1 to the UK EL from Step 2.  This is the new SR.  (e.g. Lemure, EL 7, SR Factor +4, SR 11)

Step 4: For spell penetration, determine the individual CR of the spellcasters spellcasting levels and use the EL as the spell penetration modifier.  For example, a Level 20 Wizard is CR 20/EL 18; for spell penetration, roll 1d20+18.  For multiclass characters, count individual spellcasting classes by themselves.  For example, a Fighter 15/Wizard 10/Cleric 5 is CR 10/EL 14 as a Wizard and CR 5/EL 10 as a Cleric; for spell penetration, roll 1d20+14 when casting Wizard spells and roll 1d20+10 when casting Cleric spells.  _All modifiers for feats, deific abilities, etc. are added to the final EL number.  I advocate lowering the values of all such abilities, however, to one half their current values.  The above Level 20 Wizard with Spell Penetration would roll 1d20+19, and with Greater Spell Penetration, would roll 1d20+20._

As you can see, this is a relatively simple system, and thanks to Eldorian, it is now 100% flawless even with regards to CR modifiers for SR.  (I claimed the system itself was perfect before, but remember the CR modifiers were still open to debate as I stated.)  I do admit, however, that feats and other such things pertaining to SR and spell penetration may still need to be dealt with, although I think I have covered pretty much everything.

It may not be "quick and easy", but then again, UK's system itself is not "quick and easy" either.  This is the most accurate solution of any.  This system allows SR to play a role as it should, yet without breaking the system.  In addition, my system makes the spellcasting levels of any particular character important (as they should be; a Level 1 Wizard should never have as easy a time as a Level 20 Wizard, even if a Level 100 Fighter) and is very cleanly and easily able to accomidate all situations.


----------



## Eldorian (May 6, 2003)

Sigh.. anubis.. thats my system, with the changes I mentioned, and a new change. that of halving the modifiers from feats...

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 6, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Sigh.. anubis.. thats my system, with the changes I mentioned, and a new change. that of halving the modifiers from feats...
> 
> Eldorian Antar *




How is that your system?  The two are nothing alike save for the fact that they're both based around EL.  I see no other similarities between the two proposals.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 6, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here's your first problem.  CR 0.15 rounds to 0, which is CR 1/2 and EL 0, so you should recalculate.*



If anything, my estimate of CR 1/8 was generous then; CR 1/2 is even worse.

Well then, as this system purports to be accurate, let's hold it accountable.

+0.6 for warrior class.
+0.1 for NPC wealth
–0.75 for small class.

If the goblin advances as class, then no racial ability bonus for darkvision. Accuracy is not to be blurred by solitary arbitrary decisions after all (that would be a reference to you Anubis).

Final CR –0.05 or CR 1/4.

A CR rating of 1/4 awards 150 XP to each party member for defeating 4 goblins; 150 is 200% more than the standard amount of 75 (even worse than my initial estimate of 150%).

If you and Upper_Krust think that doling out 225 XP for these goblins is "okey-dokey" then you have both gone stark raving mad.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The problem here is that the MM underestimates the goblin.*



Not by 200% using my assessment, and certainly not by 300% using your arbitrary calculations.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Four goblins are almost a 50/50 encounter, NOT a 20% encounter.*



One of us has been eating more than their fair share of Cocoa Puffs, and it's not me. Four warrior goblins are a carpet of squishy meat, even for a group of four 1st level characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It is?  That's how it's already done in the game!  CR/EL +4 is an even match even by the CURRENT rules.  You're SUPPOSED to get that much XP for a 50/50 challenge!*



Hehe. Once again, your keen recall of the existing rules ... serves absolutely no purpose whatsoever here.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *NO NO NO!  If you do that, you are no longer properly rating challenges and you are changing everything from the core system ALTOGETHER!*



By Jove I think he's got it!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Even by the core rules, CR/EL is based on what is a 20% encounter.  This is stated in the book.  UK's system simply expands those rules to logical conclusions to give proper XP for encounters.*



And so that should be changed. Along with every other sacred-cow of 3rd edition Challenge Ratings. When two identical challenge ratings finally equal a 50/50 encounter, only then will we have an intuitive Challenge Rating system. Everything else can be reverse engineered from there, with, I suspect, far more accuracy at *all* levels; something the majority of DM's, both in my own experience and on these boards, clearly prefer.

-----

Upper_Krust.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I disagree.
> 
> ...
> 
> If you don't want EXP determined as befits the challenge then by all means change it, just don't ask me to agree with what is quintessentially an arbitrary decision.*



It's not a matter of disagreement. When you justify that XP is ramped up at lower levels to account for the fragility of low level characters, then you are being arbitrary. When you can design a system that uniformly awards proportionate XP at *every* level, then you are being logically consistent. When you choose not to see logical consistency because it upsets equations that were mistakenly thought to be sacrosanct, then you are being selective.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, energy resistance is eventually worth more than energy immunity by the system. *




Immunities can be trumped whereas resistances must be overcome ~ so in some ways resistance is better than immunity.

While this caveat may be an IH-centric thing, its only going to be at epic/immortal levels where the situation occurs that a characters spell resistance or energy resistance or somesuch 'costs' more than similar immunities.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

hello mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Case in point.  I am level 17, with spell penetration.  My ally is level 16 without.  We both use EL 17 to overcome spell resistance.  Not only am I higher level, but I spent one of my precious feats to become better at overcoming spell resistance, to naught.  It gets worse in epic levels, as you said.  In fact, Epic spell penetration means nothing at level 32 and 33.  Thats 3 feats, one of them epic.
> 
> Sorry mate, but if I spend 3 CR, the equivalent of over 3 character levels (almost 4), to become spell resistant, it damn well better make me nearly immune.  Thats almost 4 levels without HD, without BAB, saves, skills, spells, ect.
> 
> ...




The whole point of changing Spell Resistance in the first place is to avoid it becoming a black and white scenario at epic/immortal levels. As I see it the changes you propose bring us right back to where we have started - frankly I am starting to wonder if its worth even including optional rules for this at all.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hi mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If anything, my estimate of CR 1/8 was generous then; CR 1/2 is even worse.
> 
> Well then, as this system purports to be accurate, let's hold it accountable.
> 
> ...




...surely a small creature is -0.5 CR.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hello! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *It's not a matter of disagreement. *




Well I'm disagreeing with you so there! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *When you justify that XP is ramped up at lower levels to account for the fragility of low level characters, then you are being arbitrary.*




Thats simply untrue. As you well know EXP is not arbitrarily 'ramped up' but instead consistent with the CR/EL rules presented. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *When you can design a system that uniformly awards proportionate XP at *every* level, then you are being logically consistent.*




Consistency is irrelevant when it is inaccurate.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *When you choose not to see logical consistency because it upsets equations that were mistakenly thought to be sacrosanct, then you are being selective. *




Then stop putting the 'cart before the horse' and show me that the equations are wrong.

The only sacrifice I made to the equation was the EL jump from CR 1 to 2 ~ which should have been +3 (as opposed to +4). Other than that its as accurate as you will get as far as I can see.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...surely a small creature is -0.5 CR.*



Indeed it is. My mistake. Try as I might to redeem your CR system at lower levels, it was clearly impossible. Your system rates goblins at CR 0.20 (CR 1/2). Meaning that a party of four 1st level PCs will get 225 XP each (300% of the printed values) for the defeat of four typical goblins. That's identical to the XP earned for defeating the same number of hobgoblins. Your system does not simply inflate XP at lower levels. It is broken at lower levels.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Thats simply untrue. As you well know EXP is not arbitrarily 'ramped up' but instead consistent with the CR/EL rules presented.*



Consistent with rules that are broken; see example above. This does not solve the problem. Referring to broken rules as a justification for your argument places it on even shakier ground than it was already standing on.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Consistency is irrelevant when it is inaccurate.*



I couldn't agree more. Your equations for lower-level encounters are consistent within themselves, but wholly inaccurate; see example above. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Then stop putting the 'cart before the horse' and show me that the equations are wrong.*



Forget about putting the cart before the horse. I have put the mountain in front of the man, and still you refuse to see it. Once again, your requested evidence is found in the example above.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The only sacrifice I made to the equation was the EL jump from CR 1 to 2 ~ which should have been +3 (as opposed to +4). Other than that its as accurate as you will get as far as I can see. *



Then that is a sacrifice you cannot afford to make. Ultimately, your system would be served best by making it as intuitive as possible by disregarding the WotC X+4 = moderate encounter structure. You wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. You would be starting from the ground up, but with all your prep-work already done.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Indeed it is. My mistake. Try as I might to redeem your CR system at lower levels, it was clearly impossible. Your system rates goblins at CR 0.20 (CR 1/2). Meaning that a party of four 1st level PCs will get 225 XP each (300% of the printed values) for the defeat of four typical goblins. That's identical to the XP earned for defeating the same number of hobgoblins. Your system does not simply inflate XP at lower levels. It is broken at lower levels.*




I don't agree. 

While you believe the WotC EXP progression is already too fast (which is a fair enough), for me its the default standard I am working towards. Yes my system does grant even more EXP than the official method at low levels, but this is due to the relationship between CR and EL at those levels.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Consistent with rules that are broken; see example above. This does not solve the problem. Referring to broken rules as a justification for your argument places it on even shakier ground than it was already standing on.*




On the contrary I have already explained time and time again my reasoning for the CR/EL relationship.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I couldn't agree more. Your equations for lower-level encounters are consistent within themselves, but wholly inaccurate; see example above.*




Based on my system a group of six or seven goblins would be a 50/50 encounter for a party of four 1st level PCs. Personally I stand by that.

...of course if you play the goblins as _mere_ cannon-fodder then its unlikely they will represent the full extent of their rating.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Forget about putting the cart before the horse. I have put the mountain in front of the man, and still you refuse to see it. Once again, your requested evidence is found in the example above.*




Even with your example all it would take would be one or two lucky rolls and your PCs would still be defeated. The EXP simply bears this out.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Then that is a sacrifice you cannot afford to make. Ultimately, your system would be served best by making it as intuitive as possible by disregarding the WotC X+4 = moderate encounter structure. You wouldn't be throwing the baby out with the bathwater either. You would be starting from the ground up, but with all your prep-work already done. *




That has nothing to do with how intuitive the system is - its simply a matter of wanting slower than standard progression, or not; as the case may be.

If you want slower progression then fair enough, I respect your opinion and I am happy to both mention progression (which is slightly faster using my system at low levels) and include a reduced rate as optional, but I don't see any grounds to change one of the fundamentals of the system based on any 'evidence' shown thus far.


----------



## Eldorian (May 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *hello mate!
> 
> 
> 
> The whole point of changing Spell Resistance in the first place is to avoid it becoming a black and white scenario at epic/immortal levels. As I see it the changes you propose bring us right back to where we have started - frankly I am starting to wonder if its worth even including optional rules for this at all. *




My whole point in changing SR wasn't to avoid making it black and white.  My point was to change it so that it worked with your system, as it was intentionally designed to function with the old system.  It's you that has another goal, well intentioned as it might be.  I'm not so much as creating an optional rule, but modifiing the existing rule to function with revised CRs and ELs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How is that your system? The two are nothing alike save for the fact that they're both based around EL. I see no other similarities between the two proposals.*




Take X amount of CR worth of SR in your system, and in my system.  See how hard it is to penetrate for various ELs, neglecting Spell Penetration feats, which you changed.  Look deeper, friend.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 6, 2003)

UK, this guy (Sonofapreacherman, not Eldorian) is hopeless.  He thinks goblins and the like are cannon fodder, or as he put it, a carpet of meat.  Sonofapreacherman, we hear everything you're saying.  You're simply not hearing us tell you that YOU'RE WRONG.

If four goblins are a carpet of meat in your campaign, you are playing goblins wrong, plain and simple.  I have used this encounter numerous times, and at Level 1, it is ALWAYS a severe challenge.  Goblins are not cannon fodder to people at Level 1.  In fact, they can even challenge characters at Level 2.  Also, goblins and hobgoblins are nearly IDENTICAL in power, which is why they are both rated exactly the same.  Sure, hobgoblins have 1 more hit point and a little bit more strength, but they also lack several things the goblins have, including many skill modifiers and the larger ranged attack value.  I see no true difference in the level of challenge between goblins and hobgoblins, and playtesting bears this to be a fact.  Anyway, the MM underestimates goblins GREATLY.  That much is fact, at least when the DM does his job right.

Oh, and as to your comment about things of the same CR/EL being the same power, THEY ALREADY ARE RATED LIKE THAT IN UK'S SYSTEM.  I don't see where you find any proof to the contrary.  If this is about PEL, understand that if you give XP and base challenge on EL instead, your PCs will die far more often and gain far less XP.  Rating PCs by EL instead of PEL gives you some of the following problems:

If you rate the party by EL for XP and challenges (instead of PEL), you are saying that a standard encounter for a Level 1 party (EL 5) is a BUGBEAR (CR 2/EL 5).  I'm sorry, but more than one or two bugbears per adventure at Level 1 will cause fatalities.  THAT breaks the system.

Basically, since the basis of encounters is 13.33 of same EL to gain a level, you must give encounters based on what is a 20% challenge and NOT a 50/50 challenge, else your PCs will get maybe one or two fights in before having to rest.  The system is DESIGNED so that a party can face four or five encounters of equal EL before resting.  This is a GOOD thing.  If you deny that, you are simply wrong.

This system is designed to be used in COMMON situations, not for DMs who want to condemn their players to death and low levels forever.  Most players (80%+) HATE Levels 1-3 . . . WITH A PASSION . . . The current rules take this into consideration, and so does UK's system.  That does not mean it was designed to force these levels to go by quickly, though.  Instead, the system more accurately determined PROPER challenges, since people hate those levels because of character frailty more than anything.  Character frailty is because DMs use the incorrect numbers from the books that underestimate almost everything.  As such, this fixes the problem.  Are XP awards inflated?  They will seem high if you use the encounters you're used to.  Build a bridge, get over it, and tone down the encounters to what is appropriate.

Sorry to sound so upset, but this constant bickering is starting to wear my nerves thin.  I don't like arguing with brick walls.  I will not debate with you anymore, as you refuse to listen to common logic.


----------



## Anubis (May 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Immunities can be trumped whereas resistances must be overcome ~ so in some ways resistance is better than immunity.
> *




Dude . . . What are you smoking?  How can immunities *ever* be trumped?  I can't think of even one way to cancel an immunity.  Resistance, however, can be trumped, and easily at that seeing as resistance is per round and not per attack.

Please explain how immunity can be trumped, 'cause I don't see it.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Take X amount of CR worth of SR in your system, and in my system.  See how hard it is to penetrate for various ELs, neglecting Spell Penetration feats, which you changed.  Look deeper, friend.
> 
> Eldorian Antar
> *




I am looking deep, and I ain't seeing it.  I see no similarities aside from the use of EL for determining SR.  In my system, creatures have a set SR.  In your system, SR appears to be totally relative and never set.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *My whole point in changing SR wasn't to avoid making it black and white.  My point was to change it so that it worked with your system, as it was intentionally designed to function with the old system.*




But isn't that the same thing... 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *It's you that has another goal, well intentioned as it might be.  I'm not so much as creating an optional rule, but modifiing the existing rule to function with revised CRs and ELs.*




I think the end result is the same regardless of the intention.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Take X amount of CR worth of SR in your system, and in my system.  See how hard it is to penetrate for various ELs, neglecting Spell Penetration feats, which you changed.  Look deeper, friend. *




Okay I'll do some math tonight.


----------



## Eldorian (May 6, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Dude . . . What are you smoking?  How can immunities *ever* be trumped?  I can't think of even one way to cancel an immunity.  Resistance, however, can be trumped, and easily at that seeing as resistance is per round and not per attack.
> 
> ...




Indeed you are smoking something UK?  I mean, lookit me, I'm a fire elemental, I'm made of fire and immune to fire hahaha! OUCH, that god trumps my immunity?!?!  Damn, I wish I had fire resistance like, say, a shambling mound, which is made of burnable plant matter.  Then I'd still have some protection against this lamer god.




			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> I am looking deep, and I ain't seeing it.  I see no similarities aside from the use of EL for determining SR.  In my system, creatures have a set SR.  In your system, SR appears to be totally relative and never set. *




Did you try my little experiment?  You'll get the same amount of resistance per CR.  That is why they are fundamentally the same system.  Mine is just easier to rate.  And it is in your system that creatures have a relative SR, as in, if you advance in level, it goes up.  In my system, SR 10 is the same no matter what level you are, and it doesn't need to raise in level to be effective at higher levels.  

Although, looking at how extremely high CRs effect EL, I'm begining to think that SR should be more like AC, in that it has no effective cap in rating for CR.  The only problem with this, is that magic immune creatures need to have their magic immunity increase in CR value as they level to match SR's increases.  And it makes it a pain in the buttocks for Drow, and other races with SR increasing per character level, cause it basicaly makes thier racial CR modifier increase as they level.  Either that, or you could remove magic immunity, and just give golems and the like extremely high SRs, like EL plus 30.  Then you could do UK's add spell penetration before EL conversion thing, although it will still be the case that often times your feats will mean exactly nothing, which I dislike, alot.

Eldorian Antar

P.S. Agreed with Anubis again.. I expect the end of the world any day now.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hi all! 

I think Anubis is getting carried away (or perhaps should be); of course we know from the past that english is not his first language unless it is typed in upper case. Luckily I possess the polyglot feat... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, this guy (Sonofapreacherman, not Eldorian) is hopeless.  He thinks goblins and the like are cannon fodder, or as he put it, a carpet of meat.  Sonofapreacherman, we hear everything you're saying.  You're simply not hearing us tell you that YOU'RE WRONG.*




Let me translate this for everyone; I think what Anubis is trying to say is that, although he respects Sonofapreachermans opinion, he doesn't quite agree with it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If four goblins are a carpet of meat in your campaign, you are playing goblins wrong, plain and simple.  I have used this encounter numerous times, and at Level 1, it is ALWAYS a severe challenge.  Goblins are not cannon fodder to people at Level 1.  In fact, they can even challenge characters at Level 2.  Also, goblins and hobgoblins are nearly IDENTICAL in power, which is why they are both rated exactly the same.  Sure, hobgoblins have 1 more hit point and a little bit more strength, but they also lack several things the goblins have, including many skill modifiers and the larger ranged attack value.  I see no true difference in the level of challenge between goblins and hobgoblins, and playtesting bears this to be a fact.  Anyway, the MM underestimates goblins GREATLY.  That much is fact, at least when the DM does his job right.*




Of course Anubis meant to go on to say how not only that every individual DM plays differently but that how dice rolls can greatly affect low level encounters. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Oh, and as to your comment about things of the same CR/EL being the same power, THEY ALREADY ARE RATED LIKE THAT IN UK'S SYSTEM.  I don't see where you find any proof to the contrary.  If this is about PEL, understand that if you give XP and base challenge on EL instead, your PCs will die far more often and gain far less XP.  Rating PCs by EL instead of PEL gives you some of the following problems:
> 
> If you rate the party by EL for XP and challenges (instead of PEL), you are saying that a standard encounter for a Level 1 party (EL 5) is a BUGBEAR (CR 2/EL 5).  I'm sorry, but more than one or two bugbears per adventure at Level 1 will cause fatalities.  THAT breaks the system.
> 
> Basically, since the basis of encounters is 13.33 of same EL to gain a level, you must give encounters based on what is a 20% challenge and NOT a 50/50 challenge, else your PCs will get maybe one or two fights in before having to rest.  The system is DESIGNED so that a party can face four or five encounters of equal EL before resting.  This is a GOOD thing.  If you deny that, you are simply wrong.*




But still totally entitled to your opinion.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This system is designed to be used in COMMON situations, not for DMs who want to condemn their players to death and low levels forever.  Most players (80%+) HATE Levels 1-3 . . . WITH A PASSION . . .*




I think he means enjoy all levels of play but dislike stagnation.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The current rules take this into consideration, and so does UK's system.  That does not mean it was designed to force these levels to go by quickly, though.  Instead, the system more accurately determined PROPER challenges, since people hate those levels because of character frailty more than anything.  Character frailty is because DMs use the incorrect numbers from the books that underestimate almost everything.  As such, this fixes the problem.  Are XP awards inflated?  They will seem high if you use the encounters you're used to.  Build a bridge, get over it, and tone down the encounters to what is appropriate.*




Meaning that the system is modular enough for you to control progression at the rate you think suits your campaign best.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Sorry to sound so upset, but this constant bickering is starting to wear my nerves thin.  I don't like arguing with brick walls.  I will not debate with you anymore, as you refuse to listen to common logic. *




We all appreciate the measured and polite feedback mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Dude . . . What are you smoking?*




Your candy ***. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How can immunities *ever* be trumped?*




When they are of supernatural origin and your opponent possesses the appropriate portfolio(s) and requisite power.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I can't think of even one way to cancel an immunity.*




Then your claims to omniscience fall short of my own. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Resistance, however, can be trumped, and easily at that seeing as resistance is per round and not per attack.*




Resistance is not 'trumped' but rather defeated. 'Trumping' denotes supplanting something.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Please explain how immunity can be trumped, 'cause I don't see it.*




For enlightenment see above. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I am looking deep, and I ain't seeing it.*




YODA:
That is why you fail.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I see no similarities aside from the use of EL for determining SR.  In my system, creatures have a set SR.  In your system, SR appears to be totally relative and never set. *




I think you could have it either way.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Indeed you are smoking something UK?  I mean, lookit me, I'm a fire elemental, I'm made of fire and immune to fire hahaha! OUCH, that god trumps my immunity?!?!*




1st Ed. Manual of the Planes page 40:

"...Kossuth dwells in a palace built of elemental fire in a hot spot at the centre of the plane. The heat here is so intense that even creatures totally immune to flame, such as fire-elementals, take 1d2 points of damage unless protected by Kossuth." 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Damn, I wish I had fire resistance like, say, a shambling mound, which is made of burnable plant matter.  Then I'd still have some protection against this lamer god.*






Its not quite as black and white as that, no point going into details now.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Did you try my little experiment?  You'll get the same amount of resistance per CR.  That is why they are fundamentally the same system.  Mine is just easier to rate.  And it is in your system that creatures have a relative SR, as in, if you advance in level, it goes up.  In my system, SR 10 is the same no matter what level you are, and it doesn't need to raise in level to be effective at higher levels.
> 
> Although, looking at how extremely high CRs effect EL, I'm begining to think that SR should be more like AC, in that it has no effective cap in rating for CR.  The only problem with this, is that magic immune creatures need to have their magic immunity increase in CR value as they level to match SR's increases.  And it makes it a pain in the buttocks for Drow, and other races with SR increasing per character level, cause it basicaly makes thier racial CR modifier increase as they level.  Either that, or you could remove magic immunity, and just give golems and the like extremely high SRs, like EL plus 30.  Then you could do UK's add spell penetration before EL conversion thing, although it will still be the case that often times your feats will mean exactly nothing, which I dislike, alot.*




I'll have to look into this further.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *P.S. Agreed with Anubis again.. I expect the end of the world any day now. *




Yep. All the signs are portents are coming true, soon the prophesised Immortals Handbook will be born unto the world.


----------



## Eldorian (May 6, 2003)

> _ Originally posted by Upper_Krust _*
> Yep. All the signs are portents are coming true, soon the prophesised Immortals Handbook will be born unto the world.
> *



And yea, the world did know three winters without spring, and the seas boiled, and the sky was black as sack cloth, the moon as blood, and the Immortals Handbook was birthed of a jackel, screaming into the world on All Hallows Eve.  And the people of the world did know suffering, and pain.

---Upper_Krust 3:23


----------



## Anubis (May 6, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Indeed you are smoking something UK?  I mean, lookit me, I'm a fire elemental, I'm made of fire and immune to fire hahaha! OUCH, that god trumps my immunity?!?!  Damn, I wish I had fire resistance like, say, a shambling mound, which is made of burnable plant matter.  Then I'd still have some protection against this lamer god.
> *




Care to explain what ability allows a deity to trump immunity?  I have read the books many times and see NOTHING that allows this.  Please give page numbers.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Did you try my little experiment?  You'll get the same amount of resistance per CR.  That is why they are fundamentally the same system.  Mine is just easier to rate.  And it is in your system that creatures have a relative SR, as in, if you advance in level, it goes up.  In my system, SR 10 is the same no matter what level you are, and it doesn't need to raise in level to be effective at higher levels.
> *




I don't think I was clear enough in explaining.  By my system, SR is not just something you calculate on the fly.  Calculate all things as they are and use that.  For instance, under my revised system, a Lemure has SR 11.  Since a Lemure's SR doesn't advance based on power, it is ALWAYS SR 11.  If the Lemure gains HD and its CR/EL goes up, SR remains at 11.

Basically, calculate all new SRs and note them, replacing current SR numbers with the new SR numbers.  Do not calculate on the fly EVER.

For things that DO advance, well, calculate a new rate of advancement.  For instance, let's take the Drow.  The SR by the book is 11 + class level.  That means the SR Factor is +1.1 (SR is 12 as a CR 1 Level 1 Warrior) and SR is (generally) CR + 11.  As such, the CR value of the Drow's SR *never changes*, and is always EL + 11.  You see, since the Drow is CR 1.46 and thus CR 1/EL 1, SR starts at 12 and goes up by EL.  Piece of cake.

For classes that get SR such as the monk, do the same thing, except you add nothing to the CR *period* because it's a class ability.  Monk SR is Level + 10, and thus it starts at 23 when the Monk is Level 13.  This means SR is, simply put, always EL + 10.  Like I said, piece of cake.  On top of that, once you have the number, you never have to worry about it again!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hiya mate!
> 
> Your candy ***.
> *




Know your role and shut your mouth jabroni!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> When they are of supernatural origin and your opponent possesses the appropriate portfolio(s) and requisite power.
> *




This must be something you're adding to the rules, because it's nowhere to be found in the current rules.  To my knowledge and in the system as-is, immunities are immunites, not "immunities toward everything but certain deities".  Immunity is a word with a very narrow definition, ya' know.  If you're adding something, you should reconsider.  Immune is immune is immune.  Immune to fire does not mean immune to mortal fire, it means immune to fire PERIOD, even if from the God Of Fire himself.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 1st Ed. Manual of the Planes page 40:
> 
> "...Kossuth dwells in a palace built of elemental fire in a hot spot at the centre of the plane. The heat here is so intense that even creatures totally immune to flame, such as fire-elementals, take 1d2 points of damage unless protected by Kossuth."
> *




This is *3rd* Edition.  I play by *3rd Edition Rules*.  Please make all arguments as per *3rd Edition*.  I don't give a rat's behind about the old broken to Hell and retarded rules from editions past.


----------



## Eldorian (May 7, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Anubis_*
> quote:
> --------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Originally posted by Eldorian
> ...




Um.. I was kinda agreeing with you Anubis.  Immunity is immunity.



> _Originally posted by Anubis_*
> For things that DO advance, well, calculate a new rate of advancement. For instance, let's take the Drow. The SR by the book is 11 + class level. That means the SR Factor is +1.1 (SR is 12 as a CR 1 Level 1 Warrior) and SR is (generally) CR + 11. As such, the CR value of the Drow's SR *never changes*, and is always EL + 11. You see, since the Drow is CR 1.46 and thus CR 1/EL 1, SR starts at 12 and goes up by EL. Piece of cake.
> 
> For classes that get SR such as the monk, do the same thing, except you add nothing to the CR *period* because it's a class ability. Monk SR is Level + 10, and thus it starts at 23 when the Monk is Level 13. This means SR is, simply put, always EL + 10. Like I said, piece of cake. On top of that, once you have the number, you never have to worry about it again!
> ...




No no no, friend.  See, your system is exactly my system, except you add EL to the SR value after it's calculated.  We calculate it the same way, and rate it for CR the same way.  My experiment was to find a monster, calculate it's Eldorian SR and it's Anubin SR, and then test that against various spell casters trying to over come it.  Since a Drow has SR 11 + EL in your system, it has SR 11 in mine.  In your system, you add you EL to a d20 roll to penetrate, and in mine you add your EL minus their EL to your d20.  Which is easier, a constantly changing stat that always adds the same amount to CR, or a constant stat that always adds the same amount to CR?  

Anyways, I'm thinking that SR should work more like AC for the system anyways, and that it's not SR that the system gets wrong, but magic immunity.



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust _*
> 
> 1st Ed. Manual of the Planes page 40:
> 
> "...Kossuth dwells in a palace built of elemental fire in a hot spot at the centre of the plane. The heat here is so intense that even creatures totally immune to flame, such as fire-elementals, take 1d2 points of damage unless protected by Kossuth." *




First of all, as Anubis said, thats first ed.  And second of all, I find it ludicrous that fire elementals ever take damage from fire.  They *are* fire.  And I seriously doubt the 1e Manual of the Planes spells center wrong =P

Eldorian Antar


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, this guy (Sonofapreacherman, not Eldorian) is hopeless.  He thinks goblins and the like are cannon fodder, or as he put it, a carpet of meat.  Sonofapreacherman, we hear everything you're saying.  You're simply not hearing us tell you that YOU'RE WRONG.*




The problem here is a clash of philosophies. The U_K system as it stands is designed to 
a) measure the different power levels of critters, and 
b) come up with an XP cost for them based on that power.

The assumption here is that XP should be solely related to difficulty of encounters. 
But that's not the only role XP serve: they also act as a kind of social engineering tool. If you choose to follow the DMG guidelines, you know you will have PCs advancing at roughly the same rate, whether you play at 1st level or 20th level.
This IMO _should_ also be a goal of the XP system. 


*



			Basically, since the basis of encounters is 13.33 of same EL to gain a level, you must give encounters based on what is a 20% challenge and NOT a 50/50 challenge, else your PCs will get maybe one or two fights in before having to rest.  The system is DESIGNED so that a party can face four or five encounters of equal EL before resting.
		
Click to expand...


*
Sadly, I find myself agreeing with Anubis here. It wouldn't be a good idea to switch to an ELvEL (50/50) challenge rating. The DMG uses the same method as UK's system.

*



			Most players (80%+) HATE Levels 1-3 . . . WITH A PASSION . . .
		
Click to expand...


*
How odd. I'm sure I've not seen a stastical survey capable of producing those numbers. Can you quote a source? Thought not.

*



			Sorry to sound so upset, but this constant bickering is starting to wear my nerves thin.  I don't like arguing with brick walls.  I will not debate with you anymore, as you refuse to listen to common logic.
		
Click to expand...


*
You mean, he doesn't agree with you?

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> I think Anubis is getting carried away (or perhaps should be); of course we know from the past that english is not his first language unless it is typed in upper case. Luckily I possess the polyglot feat...
> 
> ...




LOL - I need to get an Anubs to Earth translator 

Darren


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (May 7, 2003)

*Class abilities*

Hi UK!

I've been lobbying for this before, and now I'm at it again..
I would really love to see some sort of listing of what you'd rate the different class abilities as being in CR adjustment.

I know that there's no room for it in the pdf, but maybe post your notes here or as a supplement or similar.
It would make it easy to create monsters and PrC's etc. 
Fx. even though I can just subtract a rogue's HD, saves, skills etc and thereby find out what the CR mod is per lvl, it's still hard for (at least for me) to judge what 1 die of sneak attack is worth. My hunch says the same as a feat, +0.2 CR, but I'm still a little lost. Pleeeeease? 


Something else: considering the heated discussion on SR and CR etc., I think it would be a good idea to release a version 4 of the CR system, before publishing it in the final form in the IH. Obivously, there are still _some_ issuses open for debate....
Just my opinion, anyway.

BTW, what will the power level be for deities in the IH. Meaning, will deities correspond in power to the deities in D&D and F&P? Just curious.

stay cool -


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hi Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *And yea, the world did know three winters without spring, and the seas boiled, and the sky was black as sack cloth, the moon as blood, and the Immortals Handbook was birthed of a jackel, screaming into the world on All Hallows Eve.  And the people of the world did know suffering, and pain.
> 
> ---Upper_Krust 3:23 *




Personally I always preferred the May Eve; Walpurgis Night...my birthday, to All Hallows Eve.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

*Can you smell what the Krust is cookin?*

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Know your role and shut your mouth jabroni!*




Just bring it! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This must be something you're adding to the rules, because it's nowhere to be found in the current rules.  To my knowledge and in the system as-is, immunities are immunites, not "immunities toward everything but certain deities".  Immunity is a word with a very narrow definition, ya' know.  If you're adding something, you should reconsider.  Immune is immune is immune.  Immune to fire does not mean immune to mortal fire, it means immune to fire PERIOD, even if from the God Of Fire himself.*




How narrow minded. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This is 3rd Edition.  I play by 3rd Edition Rules.  Please make all arguments as per 3rd Edition.  I don't give a rat's behind about the old broken to Hell and retarded rules from editions past. *




*Spinebuster*

3rd Ed. Deities & Demigods Page 26. (Under Immunities)

"...Unless otherwise indicated these immunities do not apply if the attacker is a deity of equal or higher rank."

*Kips Up*

*Krust Bottom*

There are no cosmic powers in 3rd Edition; no Elder Gods; no Time Lords; no deities with epic levels; no soul objects; no proper CR/EL system and no method for determining why God A is more powerful than God B - Why!? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM TO YOU YET!

*The People's Elbow*

*1-2-3*


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hi Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *First of all, as Anubis said, thats first ed. *




Handicap match eh!? Two on one. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *And second of all, I find it ludicrous that fire elementals ever take damage from fire.  They are fire.*




I don't think its ludicrous at all, at a certain temperature fire would be converted into plasma, thats even before we take the supernatural 'element' (no pun intended) into account.

All things are possible...at a certain measure of power. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *And I seriously doubt the 1e Manual of the Planes spells center wrong =P *




Okay - so I can only take so many Americanisms in one day.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The problem here is a clash of philosophies. The U_K system as it stands is designed to
> a) measure the different power levels of critters, and
> b) come up with an XP cost for them based on that power.*




Absolutely.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The assumption here is that XP should be solely related to difficulty of encounters.
> But that's not the only role XP serve: they also act as a kind of social engineering tool.*




Arbitrarily. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *If you choose to follow the DMG guidelines, you know you will have PCs advancing at roughly the same rate, whether you play at 1st level or 20th level.
> This IMO should also be a goal of the XP system.*




Does you social engineering take into account the higher proportional mortality rate amongst low-level adventurers?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Sadly, I find myself agreeing with Anubis here. It wouldn't be a good idea to switch to an ELvEL (50/50) challenge rating. The DMG uses the same method as UK's system.*




Indeed.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *How odd. I'm sure I've not seen a stastical survey capable of producing those numbers. Can you quote a source? Thought not.*




Wasn't that in Dragon Magazine a few issues ago...? 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *You mean, he doesn't agree with you? *


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> Arbitrarily.
> *




Maybe so, but this is an acceptance of the fact that it's hard to get a tool to do the job perfectly. I have no problem with "arbitrary" modifiers, if those modifiers are applied with a specific consistent goal in mind - and then you could argue they aren't arbitrary at all.

*



			Does you social engineering take into account the higher proportional mortality rate amongst low-level adventurers?
		
Click to expand...


*
It doesn't need to, to fulfil the social engineering goal. That's just a fact of playing at low level. 

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by demiurgeastaroth 
How odd. I'm sure I've not seen a stastical survey capable of producing those numbers. Can you quote a source? Thought not.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

*



			Wasn't that in Dragon Magazine a few issues ago...? 

Click to expand...


*
 I wouldn't know about that, as I don't read it. In fact, the number of DnD roleplayers I d know that read is very small (1 out of a dozen) - so based on this, such a survey probably isn't a representative survey and I can ignore it. Ha!  

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Class abilities*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Hi UK!*




Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I've been lobbying for this before, and now I'm at it again..
> I would really love to see some sort of listing of what you'd rate the different class abilities as being in CR adjustment.*




Simply try and rate every ability by contasting it to a similar feat.

Total all factors over 20 levels then divide by 20 and add them to the HD/Save/BAB/ etc. progression as outlined under design parameters.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I know that there's no room for it in the pdf, but maybe post your notes here or as a supplement or similar.
> It would make it easy to create monsters and PrC's etc.*




The problem with this is that you give people an inch and they take a mile. 

Theres always going to be some new class ability or some new monster ability that someone wants rated. Which is why I would rather show people how to design their own as opposed to (the neverending journey) of equating every power and ability conceived.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Fx. even though I can just subtract a rogue's HD, saves, skills etc and thereby find out what the CR mod is per lvl, it's still hard for (at least for me) to judge what 1 die of sneak attack is worth. My hunch says the same as a feat, +0.2 CR, but I'm still a little lost. Pleeeeease?  *




Lets go through the Rogue then... 

Ability Scores CR +0.025
BAB (As Cleric) CR +0.1
Feats CR +0.066
Hit Points CR +0.2
Saves CR +0.1
Skill Points CR +0.08

Total Before Class Features: CR +0.571/Level

- Sneak Attack: (1d6 = 1 feat ~ as per the ELH). Therefore over 20 levels 10d6 = CR +2.
- Traps: each ability seems about half as powerful as a feat = CR +0.3
- Evasion: Quite powerful, I would actually suggest at least the equivalent of two feats. CR +0.4
- Uncanny Dodge: first two comparable to a feat; but the trap bonus is probably only worth an extra feat every four points = CR +0.6
- Special Ability: each roughly comparable to a feat = CR +0.8

Total: CR +4.1 divided by 20 = +0.205

Rogue total: 

CR 0.571 + 0.205 = 0.776 (within the 0.76 to 0.84 boundaries)



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Something else: considering the heated discussion on SR and CR etc., I think it would be a good idea to release a version 4 of the CR system, before publishing it in the final form in the IH. Obivously, there are still some issuses open for debate....
> Just my opinion, anyway.*




I'm sure everyone would like me to release a v.4. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *BTW, what will the power level be for deities in the IH. Meaning, will deities correspond in power to the deities in D&D and F&P? Just curious.*




The power level will be similar, but not exact. Using the Template format everything is both a lot simpler and a lot more flexible.

I also advocate slightly differing (average) HD/Class Levels so in that respect Demigods (30-40 HD/Levels on average) will be slightly weaker and Greater Gods (80-120 HD/Levels on average)  will be slightly more powerful.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *stay cool - *




I'm already cooler than Bobby Drake.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Maybe so, but this is an acceptance of the fact that it's hard to get a tool to do the job perfectly. I have no problem with "arbitrary" modifiers, if those modifiers are applied with a specific consistent goal in mind - and then you could argue they aren't arbitrary at all.*




I prefer to avoid arbitrary solutions where possible, but I am willing to concede that sometimes they are necessary. However in this instance I don't believe they are necessary - and therefore optional.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It doesn't need to, to fulfil the social engineering goal. That's just a fact of playing at low level.*




Doesn't that notion seem a little hypocritical?



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> * I wouldn't know about that, as I don't read it. In fact, the number of DnD roleplayers I d know that read is very small (1 out of a dozen) - so based on this, such a survey probably isn't a representative survey and I can ignore it. Ha!  *




I was only playin' with ya'.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Class abilities*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Hi Sorcica mate!
> *




YO!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Simply try and rate every ability by contasting it to a similar feat.
> 
> Total all factors over 20 levels then divide by 20 and add them to the HD/Save/BAB/ etc. progression as outlined under design parameters.
> *




I know, I know. It's just that I'm uncertain om some abilities, like for instance Divine favor - which is powerful, but only if you have high charisma.
But your example with the rogue really helps to clarify things. Thanks!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The problem with this is that you give people an inch and they take a mile.
> *




You bet! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Theres always going to be some new class ability or some new monster ability that someone wants rated. Which is why I would rather show people how to design their own as opposed to (the neverending journey) of equating every power and ability conceived.
> *




Now, who could that someone be? 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Lets go through the Rogue then...
> 
> <snip>
> ...




Thanks!    

One question: How do you get the Gloom to be CR 35. Don't have the book, but as far as I remember it's 25 HD (monstrous hum.), 13d6 sneak attack and a +10 keen human dread dagger (+18 total).
Let's see, thats (25*0.6= 15) + (13*0.2= 2.6) = 17.6
The dagger costs 18*18*2*10*1000 = 6480000, which requires lvl 41 PC wealth (41*41*41*100= 6892100). That's +8.2.
So far we have 17.6 + 8.2 = 25.8 CR. I remember some spell-like abilities and that a gloom always moves silently, but not to add +9-10 CR ?? (after all, casting spells as a 20th lvl wiz adds only +7 CR).
So??



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'm sure everyone would like me to release a v.4.
> *




Yes! How else will we be able to start a 600+ post thread? 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The power level will be similar, but not exact. Using the Template format everything is both a lot simpler and a lot more flexible.
> 
> I also advocate slightly differing (average) HD/Class Levels so in that respect Demigods (30-40 HD/Levels on average) will be slightly weaker and Greater Gods (80-120 HD/Levels on average)  will be slightly more powerful.
> *




Looking forward to checking it out!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I'm already cooler than Bobby Drake.  *



True.


- See Ya


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> I prefer to avoid arbitrary solutions where possible, but I am willing to concede that sometimes they are necessary. However in this instance I don't believe they are necessary - and therefore optional.
> *




As I mentioned before, I am happy with that. I'd be happier for it to be standard rather than optional  but as long as it gets some attention, that's great.

*



			Doesn't that notion seem a little hypocritical?
		
Click to expand...


*
No (or in Anubis-speak, ABSOLUTELY NOT!). It's entirely consistent with the idea that danger presented is only part of the formula for awarding XP. If part of the goal is to present a standard rate of advancement, then altering XP awards is perfectly consistent. 

*



			I was only playin' with ya'. 

Click to expand...


*
Yes, I guessed - my response was similarly tongue-in-cheek.  

Darren


----------



## Anubis (May 7, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Um.. I was kinda agreeing with you Anubis.  Immunity is immunity.
> *




I didn't notice the sarcasm in there.  Sorry about that.  Hahaha.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> No no no, friend.  See, your system is exactly my system, except you add EL to the SR value after it's calculated.  We calculate it the same way, and rate it for CR the same way.  My experiment was to find a monster, calculate it's Eldorian SR and it's Anubin SR, and then test that against various spell casters trying to over come it.  Since a Drow has SR 11 + EL in your system, it has SR 11 in mine.  In your system, you add you EL to a d20 roll to penetrate, and in mine you add your EL minus their EL to your d20.  Which is easier, a constantly changing stat that always adds the same amount to CR, or a constant stat that always adds the same amount to CR?
> *




The problem with yours (and the difference between the two systems) is that you use overall EL whereas I use relative EL.  The relative EL allows advancement as it should be according to the rules, whereas your system would allow, say, a wizard with 100 fighter levels to use those fighter levels to help spell penetration.  Your system also gives creatures more SR even if all they gain is HD.  I have a problem with that.  I want to keep values as close to the original as possible.

In your system, a Lemure with 2000 HD would be impossible for a Level 4 Wizard to penetrate the SR because you use the current EL.  By my system, since a Lemure's SR never advances, the same Lemure with 2000 HD would still only have SR 11 and would be easily hurt by the magic of a Level 4 Wizard.  See the difference now?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Anyways, I'm thinking that SR should work more like AC for the system anyways, and that it's not SR that the system gets wrong, but magic immunity.
> *




I'd rather not change the basis of SR, though, seeing as SR is one of the things I don't find to be broken.  The only need for any change is to make it compatible with the new CR/EL system, that's all.




			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> First of all, as Anubis said, thats first ed.  And second of all, I find it ludicrous that fire elementals ever take damage from fire.  They are fire.  And I seriously doubt the 1e Manual of the Planes spells center wrong =P
> 
> Eldorian Antar
> *




Yeah!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi Anubis mate!
> 
> Just bring it!
> ...




You asked for it . . .



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> *Spinebuster*
> 
> 3rd Ed. Deities & Demigods Page 26. (Under Immunities)
> ...




*Sits Up!*

Sorry, please note that these are for DIVINE IMMUNITIES!  Also note that this does not apply to Energy Immunity!  Read it and weep: "immune to electricity, cold, and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank."  BOOYAH!

This implies, as I have stated, that immunity is immunity is immunity.  Energy immunity can't be rtumped unless you create something new that can!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> There are no cosmic powers in 3rd Edition; no Elder Gods; no Time Lords; no deities with epic levels; no soul objects; no proper CR/EL system and no method for determining why God A is more powerful than God B - Why!? BECAUSE I HAVEN'T GIVEN THEM TO YOU YET!
> *




Well then give 'em!  Don't imply that the books currently allow for it, though.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> *The People's Elbow*
> 
> *1-2-3*
> *




You wish, jabroni!


----------



## Anubis (May 7, 2003)

Hey UK, just implement my idea for PEL modifier for DMs who want slower advancement or do not play monsters properly!

If you treat goblinoids as cannon fodder only and play them as meat, PEL +4.

If you want to slow advancement for PCs, PEL +4.

Just modify the PEL for your own designs.  Don't come cryin' to us though when PC mortality goes up 400% and PC advancement drops down to 6.25% of optimal levels!


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hey UK, just implement my idea for PEL modifier for DMs who want slower advancement or do not play monsters properly!
> 
> If you treat goblinoids as cannon fodder only and play them as meat, PEL +4.
> 
> ...



Problem: this affects all levels, not just the low levels.

*



			Just modify the PEL for your own designs.  Don't come cryin' to us though when PC mortality goes up 400% and PC advancement drops down to 6.25% of optimal levels!
		
Click to expand...


*
If you're saying PC mortality will go up if you arbitrarily restrict XP to inaccurate ratings at low levels, how can this be? The current system apparentl already include this inaccuracy, so mortality shouldn't go up from what it is already.
In any case, GMs will put PCs up against the challenges they feel they can take - there's no reason to assume that changing the amount of XP they gain would suddenly drive them to increase the danger of their opponents. This doesn't make sense on several levels.

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 7, 2003)

Howdy Upper_Krust.

*Waves to other posters, lurkers, gods, and wannabe gods in attendance.*

Let us begin...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I don't agree.
> 
> While you believe the WotC EXP progression is already too fast (which is a fair enough), for me it's the default standard I am working towards.*



What the heck? At no point, including our MSN chats, did I say that the WotC XP progression was too fast. I said your system was too fast at lower levels. That is all.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes my system does grant even more EXP than the official method at low levels, but this is due to the relationship between CR and EL at those levels.*



This simply isn't getting through.

Upper_Krust, just because you justify inflated (read broken) XP awards at  lower levels due to the relationship between CR and EL in your system, does pull it out of hot water. Your system is broken at lower levels. Citing the way your system works as the sole argument to excuse a broken feature doesn't help your cause when *your system* doesn't work in the first place (at lower levels). The examples bear this out.


			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *On the contrary I have already explained time and time again my reasoning for the CR/EL relationship.*



Sorry friend, but you have done nothing of the sort. Your explanations equate to "this is how the internal logic of my system works". When the internal logic of your system has been exposed "not working", that explanation no longer holds water.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Based on my system a group of six or seven goblins would be a 50/50 encounter for a party of four 1st level PCs. Personally I stand by that.*



That's fine, but using your system, a group of four goblins is also a 50/50 encounter against a party of four PCs. That alone should tell you the system is broken at lower levels. The 300% inflated XP (from the printed values) should also set off some alarms in your head. The fact that goblins and hobgoblins are effectively treated as equal threats should call out the fire trucks.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...of course if you play the goblins as mere cannon-fodder then its unlikely they will represent the full extent of their rating.*



This has become your typical lament. _It can't be my CR system. It must be the way you GM_. It's beginning to sound like a parent who doesn't believe their child misbehaves at school because they're a perfect angel at home. It's not surprising that Anubis jumped on your weakest point like a terrier.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Even with your example all it would take would be one or two lucky rolls and your PCs would still be defeated. The EXP simply bears this out.*



Now your XP system takes outside chance luck into account? Don't be ridiculous. I think you know there are faults in your system. You just refuse to see them. I am not trying to beat your system down Upper_Krust. I am trying to make your CR system work at all levels. Right now, it doesn't work proportionately at lower levels. And yes, that niggling annoying *fact* could mean restructuring the way the whole thing works ... starting by throwing out the X + 4 structure.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *That has nothing to do with how intuitive the system is - it's simply a matter of wanting slower than standard progression, or not; as the case may be.*



No it isn't. I can slow your system down myself, by simply cutting XP in half. That's not a problem. But I would prefer that your system work all the time. It doesn't right now. I'm surprised you're not more concerned.

-----

Anubis.

Your entire post can be cleared up by requoting myself ... once.



> _Originally posted by Sonofapreacherman_
> *When two identical challenge ratings finally equal a 50/50 encounter, only then will we have an intuitive Challenge Rating system. Everything else can be reverse engineered from there...*



If any further explanation is needed, just ask. I'll be more than willing to screw your head on properly.



-----

demiurgeastaroth.

I see you're right on point ... as usual.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Class abilities*



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *YO!*




BOOYAKASHA! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I know, I know. It's just that I'm uncertain on some abilities, like for instance Divine favor - which is powerful, but only if you have high charisma.
> But your example with the rogue really helps to clarify things. Thanks!*




Glad I could help mate. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Now, who could that someone be? *




Best not to name names. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Thanks!*




No problem mate.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *One question: How do you get the Gloom to be CR 35. Don't have the book, but as far as I remember it's 25 HD (monstrous hum.), 13d6 sneak attack and a +10 keen human dread dagger (+18 total).
> Let's see, thats (25*0.6= 15) + (13*0.2= 2.6) = 17.6
> The dagger costs 18*18*2*10*1000 = 6480000, which requires lvl 41 PC wealth (41*41*41*100= 6892100). That's +8.2.
> So far we have 17.6 + 8.2 = 25.8 CR. I remember some spell-like abilities and that a gloom always moves silently, but not to add +9-10 CR ?? (after all, casting spells as a 20th lvl wiz adds only +7 CR).
> So??*




Might be something to do with:

+12 insight bonus
Fear Gaze
Blindsight
SR 35
DR 25/+6
as well as a few other minor things.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Yes! How else will we be able to start a 600+ post thread? *




You mean another one... 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Looking forward to checking it out!*




Appreciate the interest mate.  



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *True. *


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *As I mentioned before, I am happy with that. I'd be happier for it to be standard rather than optional  but as long as it gets some attention, that's great.*








			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *No (or in Anubis-speak, ABSOLUTELY NOT!).*








			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *It's entirely consistent with the idea that danger presented is only part of the formula for awarding XP. If part of the goal is to present a standard rate of advancement, then altering XP awards is perfectly consistent.*




To me that just sounds subjective though.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *Yes, I guessed - my response was similarly tongue-in-cheek.  *


----------



## Eldorian (May 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Eldorian mate!
> 
> Handicap match eh!? Two on one.
> *



Um.. yah... I'm American, remember.  Let me go get my gun.  I'll show you my "Backwoods Ball Blaster" signature move, followed by "Execution Style Double Tap" =P



> *I don't think its ludicrous at all, at a certain temperature fire would be converted into plasma, thats even before we take the supernatural 'element' (no pun intended) into account.
> 
> All things are possible...at a certain measure of power.
> *




No, at a certain tempurature, hot gas would be converted to plasma.  And I don't think plasma would bother a being composed of fire.  And what about cold, how do you get below absolute zero?  Other elements have maximuns as well, like acid.  I would figure a creature immune to an element would be immune to that maximun.  Sorry, but Immunity is immunity.  Not almost immune.  If you are opposed to absolutes, convert Immunity to some really high resistance.  And redefine everything that logically should be completly immune into a new monster that isn't.  But don't go claiming that it makes sense to trump immunities.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You asked for it . . .*




You forget I can no sell your attacks because I am booking this show. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> **Sits Up!**




Your Kane/Taker antics won't wash with me I'm the: "KING OF THE WORLD!" 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Sorry, please note that these are for DIVINE IMMUNITIES!*




So what? Are you trying to say that divine immunities are 'weaker'?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also note that this does not apply to Energy Immunity!*




The Immortals Handbook does not advocate automatically giving deities Energy Immunity.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Read it and weep: "immune to electricity, cold, and acid, even if the attacker is a deity of higher divine rank."  BOOYAH!*




Indeed - one of D&Dgs many mistakes. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *This implies, as I have stated, that immunity is immunity is immunity.  Energy immunity can't be rtumped unless you create something new that can!*




I have created it ~ they're called Divine Portfolios. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well then give 'em!  Don't imply that the books currently allow for it, though.*




I don't remember needing to imply anything. I was simply giving points of reference.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You wish, jabroni! *




*SPINNEROONI*


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

*You say potato, I say potato.*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> **Waves to other posters, lurkers, gods, and wannabe gods in attendance.**




Yoohoo! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Let us begin...*




Finish is more like. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *What the heck? At no point, including our MSN chats, did I say that the WotC XP progression was too fast.*




I could've sworn you did...then again my short-term memory is pretty poor I could be mistaken.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I said your system was too fast at lower levels. That is all.*




So change it.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *This simply isn't getting through.*




I understand your opinion - I just don't agree with it.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust, just because you justify inflated (read broken) XP awards at  lower levels due to the relationship between CR and EL in your system, does pull it out of hot water.*




Thank you. I agree - it does. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Your system is broken at lower levels.*




I don't see how granting EXP based on the challenge is 'broken'?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Citing the way your system works as the sole argument to excuse a broken feature doesn't help your cause when *your system* doesn't work in the first place (at lower levels). The examples bear this out.*




I don't believe the examples have shown any glaring flaws.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Sorry friend, but you have done nothing of the sort. Your explanations equate to "this is how the internal logic of my system works". When the internal logic of your system has been exposed "not working", that explanation no longer holds water.*




So far it hasn't been though.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That's fine, but using your system, a group of four goblins is also a 50/50 encounter against a party of four PCs. *




Surely they are an EL +3 encounter, rather than a +4 EL (50/50) that you attest.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That alone should tell you the system is broken at lower levels. The 300% inflated XP (from the printed values) should also set off some alarms in your head. The fact that goblins and hobgoblins are effectively treated as equal threats should call out the fire trucks.*




It tells me that due to the dangers inherant in low level play (not perceived by the official rules) that the PCs are now compensated fairly (if not proportionally).



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *This has become your typical lament. It can't be my CR system. It must be the way you GM. It's beginning to sound like a parent who doesn't believe their child misbehaves at school because they're a perfect angel at home.*




So are you saying all DMs play monsters with the same vehemence!?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Now your XP system takes outside chance luck into account?*




Merely pointing out the possibility that six or seven goblins could defeat a 1st-level party. Though even with a 50/50 encounter the PCs are always fractional favourites (given that they would be four heads against the DMs one).



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Don't be ridiculous. I think you know there are faults in your system. You just refuse to see them.*




Not at all, I have already admitted that the system bestows increased EXP at low levels. But this increase is proportionate too the danger.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I am not trying to beat your system down Upper_Krust.*




I know that mate, I appreciate your feedback.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I am trying to make your CR system work at all levels. Right now, it doesn't work proportionately at lower levels.*




Why does it have to work proportionally at lower levels? Can't it just work fairly instead!?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *And yes, that niggling annoying *fact* could mean restructuring the way the whole thing works ... starting by throwing out the X + 4 structure.*




Its certainly modular enough for you to do so if you so wish.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *No it isn't. I can slow your system down myself, by simply cutting XP in half.*




Then why don't you?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That's not a problem. But I would prefer that your system work all the time. It doesn't right now. I'm surprised you're not more concerned. *




The system does work all the time - it just doesn't work exactly the way you would prefer.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hi Eldorian mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Um.. yah... I'm American, remember.  Let me go get my gun.  I'll show you my "Backwoods Ball Blaster" signature move, followed by "Execution Style Double Tap" =P*




 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *No, at a certain tempurature, hot gas would be converted to plasma.  And I don't think plasma would bother a being composed of fire.  And what about cold, how do you get below absolute zero?*




Um...magic, the *super*natural. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Other elements have maximuns as well, like acid.  I would figure a creature immune to an element would be immune to that maximun.*




Generally speaking yes.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Sorry, but Immunity is immunity.  Not almost immune.  If you are opposed to absolutes, convert Immunity to some really high resistance.  And redefine everything that logically should be completly immune into a new monster that isn't.  But don't go claiming that it makes sense to trump immunities. *




I told you that all things are possible ~ eventually.

If you want to see it from a different angle you could say that the deity in question determines who or what is immune to the effects of its portfolio.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (May 7, 2003)

*Re: Re: Re: Re: Class abilities*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Might be something to do with:
> 
> ...






D'OH! 

Well, I see.....


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.
> 
> *Waves to other posters, lurkers, gods, and wannabe gods in attendance.*
> -----
> ...




Takes a bow  

Darren


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> If you want to see it from a different angle you could say that the deity in question determines who or what is immune to the effects of its portfolio. *




I was skeptical of the "immunity can be overcome" argument, too, but this makes a lot of sense. The god of fire might well be able to decide that fire creatures no longer get their protection. 
But if this is so, they ought to be able to suppress resistances, too, and I believe this debate started with the problem of resistances possibly costing more than immunities (though when does anything have more than a 100 points of resistance?).

Darren


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (May 7, 2003)

Personally I think fire immunity shouldn't stop all fire. Ever heard of Divine Fire damage? Huh? Oh...right...probably not, but fire done by a diety of fire should only be stopped by an equal or greater diety, not some puny-@$$ mortal with a Ring of Fire Immunity.  

Hehe!


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I was skeptical of the "immunity can be overcome" argument, too, but this makes a lot of sense.*




Trust in your Uncle Krust. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *The god of fire might well be able to decide that fire creatures no longer get their protection.*




Indeed.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *But if this is so, they ought to be able to suppress resistances, too, and I believe this debate started with the problem of resistances possibly costing more than immunities (though when does anything have more than a 100 points of resistance?). *




Again this is handled in a roundabout manner that I don't really want to get into now. Lets just say its all very neat and tidy.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 7, 2003)

Hi Dark Wolf mate! 



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Personally I think fire immunity shouldn't stop all fire. Ever heard of Divine Fire damage? Huh?*




Like a Phoenix...even though they handle it slightly differently.



			
				Dark Wolf 97 said:
			
		

> *Oh...right...probably not, but fire done by a diety of fire should only be stopped by an equal or greater diety, not some puny-@$$ mortal with a Ring of Fire Immunity.  *




Exactly, the Fire Portfolio (or whichever) has to mean something otherwise it means nothing.


----------



## Anubis (May 8, 2003)

Argh!  *Resisting Urges To Kill*

UK, how do you put up with those two without losing your cool?

Seriously.

The lack of . . . Never mind, I am doing my best not to blow my top right now.

 

Good grief.  Like I said, I will not debate that any longer.  In the end, two people disagreeing means nothing.  I will just let it be.  UK, those two are all yours!

Argh!


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 8, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Argh!  *Resisting Urges To Kill*
> 
> UK, how do you put up with those two without losing your cool?
> 
> ...




Aaaah.
<basks in warm glow of satisfaction>
 

Darren


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 8, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Argh!  *Resisting Urges To Kill*
> 
> UK, how do you put up with those two without losing your cool?
> 
> Seriously.*




I don't even know who you are talking about? 

Am I in the right thread?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 8, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Argh! *Resisting Urges To Kill**



When Anubis is left twisting in his own self-induced froth, its a sure sign that you must be on the right track.



-----

Upper_Krust.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Surely they are an EL +3 encounter, rather than a +4 EL (50/50) that you attest.*



A party of 4 goblins is a EL 4 encounter. By your own system, CR 0 = EL 0; 4 opponents = +4 EL. Therefore 4 goblins = EL 4 (not EL 3 as you claim).

Why do you not see this? Because it does not suit your argument to do so? Goblins and hobgoblins should not be rated identically.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *It tells me that due to the dangers inherent in low level play (not perceived by the official rules) that the PCs are now compensated fairly (if not proportionally).*



Now it becomes obvious. You are simply operating on the wrong premise. For you, the XP award matches the EL rating. Sure, I'll even agree for the sake of moving this debate along. But then EL does not properly rate the difficulty of lower level encounters.

That might not sink immediately, so try looking at it like this. If you feel that that a CR 4 encounter should award 225 XP to each member of a 1st level party of four, that's fine. It certainly does using your calculations. But then a group of 4 goblins is not a CR 4 encounter, they are not a CR 3 encounter, they might be a CR 2 encounter, but they are probably a CR 1 encounter.

I'll expand on this point even further...

To say that lower levels are inherently fragile is pure sophistry and self-deluded rationalization. Characters are always fragile when faced with superior opponents. Moreover, 1st level characters are not *always* faced with superior opponents (certainly not enough to say they are more inherently fragile than any other level). Lower level parties don't have the monopoly on fragility. A 20th level party is fragile to a very old prismatic dragon.

Fragility is irrelevant to your argument because fragility is universal. It can exist at *any* level. That's the big picture you haven't stepped far enough back to see. Sometimes characters are going to be fragile, sometimes they are not. Not every challenge a 1st level party charges into will bring them face-to-face with their own mortality. That's hogwash. To use your favorite argument ... not if the lower levels are dungeon mastered properly.



You CR system "seemingly" takes fragility into account for higher levels characters by appropriately scaling EL ratings using "increasing" increments. The CR to EL gap steadily widens. Wonderful. As it should be. Now turn around and look in the opposite direction. When you are dealing with lower level characters, those increments should reflect "decreasing" increments. The CR to EL gap should steadily shrink (more than it currently does).

Use the goblins from my above example as your ruler. A party of four goblins _should_ rate CR 1 or CR 2 (at most). The question you should be asking yourself is ... how can your system accurately arrive at those values without arbitrarily dividing/slashing the current lopsided values?

The easiest (most straightforward) approach I can think of is by calculating PC and opponent numbers the same way and scaling the XP awards accordingly. Nothing else would have to change. Now before you start talking about potatoes again )) this idea might not be the solution. It's just my initial thought on the subject. But make no mistake, a solution *is* needed. That's going to mean a few extra calculations, but in all the time we've interacted, you've never struck me as the kind of person who shies away from game mechanic paperwork. Don't start now. You've worked too hard on this ruddy thing.


----------



## Eldorian (May 8, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> A party of 4 goblins is a EL 4 encounter. By your own system, CR 0 = EL 0; 4 opponents = +4 EL. Therefore 4 goblins = EL 4 (not EL 3 as you claim).
> *



Sigh... Math not your strong point?  I know I said I would ignore you, but this is just silly.  4 goblins = EL4 is right.  UK said 4 goblins is a EL +3 encounter for a first level party.  4-1 is 3.




> *Now it becomes obvious. You are simply operating on the wrong premise. For you, the XP award matches the EL rating. Sure, I'll even agree for the sake of moving this debate along. But then EL does not properly rate the difficulty of lower level encounters.
> 
> That might not sink immediately, so try looking at it like this. If you feel that that a CR 4 encounter should award 225 XP to each member of a 1st level party of four, that's fine. It certainly does using your calculations. But then a group of 4 goblins is not a CR 4 encounter, they are not a CR 3 encounter, they might be a CR 2 encounter, but they are probably a CR 1 encounter.*




CR.. CR...  You mean EL?  Your PCs must be powerful indeed if 4 goblins take them 20% of their resources.  Or perhaps you have parties greater than 5 people?  Your claim that 4 goblins is as difficult as a single fighter is silly.



> *I'll expand on this point even further...
> 
> To say that lower levels are inherently fragile is pure sophistry and self-deluded rationalization. Characters are always fragile when faced with superior opponents. Moreover, 1st level characters are not *always* faced with superior opponents (certainly not enough to say they are more inherently fragile than any other level). Lower level parties don't have the monopoly on fragility. A 20th level party is fragile to a very old prismatic dragon.
> 
> ...




Um... first level parties have one Hit die.  Weapons deal around one die worth of damage at all levels.  Only at the first few levels are characters able to be killed in one hit from a melee weapon, barring criticals.  They also have limited resources with which to counteract these one hit kills, such as healing spells.  Trust me, the only levels at which PC mortality is higher is after save or die spells become prevalent, but by then you have resurrection, so it doesn't matter.

A 20th level is not fragile.  They have access to teleportation and true resurection, and a plethera of magic items to save thier butts.  Your appeal to the prismatic dragon is childish, btw.  It is much more than EL +3, as the golbins were.  EL +9 from my calculations.  That's high enough for "background only"

And every challege to a first level party, well, that includes a monster capable of dealing around 5-10 points of damage in one round, does make them face up to thier own mortality, because it's quite common for 1st level PCs to only have 5-10 HP at first level.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 8, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> When Anubis is left twisting in his own self-induced froth, its a sure sign that you must be on the right track.
> 
> 
> *




Taunting me?  Well then, consider me back on the job to shoot you down once and for all.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> -----
> 
> Upper_Krust.
> ...




He said EL +3, which is correct.  The goblins are EL 4, but the party is PEL 1.  That equates to EL +3, see?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Why do you not see this? Because it does not suit your argument to do so? Goblins and hobgoblins should not be rated identically.
> *




Yes they should.  They are nearly identical in power.  Same AC, nearly the same damage (only a 1 point difference), same hit rate, the hobgoblin is stronger, but the goblin has more special abilities and a greater ranged attack rate.  See?  They're equal.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Now it becomes obvious. You are simply operating on the wrong premise. For you, the XP award matches the EL rating. Sure, I'll even agree for the sake of moving this debate along. But then EL does not properly rate the difficulty of lower level encounters.
> *




Um, yes it does.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> That might not sink immediately, so try looking at it like this. If you feel that that a CR 4 encounter should award 225 XP to each member of a 1st level party of four, that's fine. It certainly does using your calculations. But then a group of 4 goblins is not a CR 4 encounter, they are not a CR 3 encounter, they might be a CR 2 encounter, but they are probably a CR 1 encounter.
> *




What part of "WRONG" do you not understand?  Four goblins are an EL 4 encounter.  An EL 1 encounter would be a 20% encounter.  An EL 5 encounter would be a 50/50 encounter.  THROUGH PLAYTESTING, an encounter with four goblins will be difficult for a Level 1 party, CERTAINLY more than a 20% encounter, but not quite a 50/50 encounter.  As such, EL 4 is correct through testing.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> I'll expand on this point even further...
> 
> To say that lower levels are inherently fragile is pure sophistry and self-deluded rationalization. Characters are always fragile when faced with superior opponents. Moreover, 1st level characters are not *always* faced with superior opponents (certainly not enough to say they are more inherently fragile than any other level). Lower level parties don't have the monopoly on fragility. A 20th level party is fragile to a very old prismatic dragon.
> *




Not really.  The problem is that low level characters will die in one or two hits.  The same thing is not true when putting a Very Old Prismatic Dragon against a Level 20 party.  Battles get generally longer as you increase in levels, giving all people a better chance.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Fragility is irrelevant to your argument because fragility is universal. It can exist at *any* level. That's the big picture you haven't stepped far enough back to see. Sometimes characters are going to be fragile, sometimes they are not. Not every challenge a 1st level party charges into will bring them face-to-face with their own mortality. That's hogwash. To use your favorite argument ... not if the lower levels are dungeon mastered properly.
> 
> 
> *




These numbers are meant to allow DMs to DM properly and not put gross challenges against PCs.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> You CR system "seemingly" takes fragility into account for higher levels characters by appropriately scaling EL ratings using "increasing" increments. The CR to EL gap steadily widens. Wonderful. As it should be. Now turn around and look in the opposite direction. When you are dealing with lower level characters, those increments should reflect "decreasing" increments. The CR to EL gap should steadily shrink (more than it currently does).
> *




Actually, the math supports the current system.  UK can explain, but it will give you a headache.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Use the goblins from my above example as your ruler. A party of four goblins should rate CR 1 or CR 2 (at most).
> *




Actually, I believe a goblin is EL 0 and four goblins is EL 4 . . . That's only if you DM them properly, of course.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> The question you should be asking yourself is ... how can your system accurately arrive at those values without arbitrarily dividing/slashing the current lopsided values?
> *




We don't want to arrive at those values.  The current values are correct.  Playtesting shows this to be true.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> The easiest (most straightforward) approach I can think of is by calculating PC and opponent numbers the same way and scaling the XP awards accordingly. Nothing else would have to change. Now before you start talking about potatoes again )) this idea might not be the solution. It's just my initial thought on the subject. But make no mistake, a solution *is* needed. That's going to mean a few extra calculations, but in all the time we've interacted, you've never struck me as the kind of person who shies away from game mechanic paperwork. Don't start now. You've worked too hard on this ruddy thing.
> *




Um . . . No.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 8, 2003)

Note that I'm not commenting on who is right and wrong in this thread, just wanted to observe:


			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Battles get generally longer as you increase in levels, giving all people a better chance.
> *




In fact, my experience is that this is WRONG (sorry, couldn't resist the caps lock key). 
Battles take longer in terms of the time to play it through, because people have a lot more options, but the actual number of rounds doesn't change that much. Obviously some fights will be quick, but I'd say the chance of a really long fight is greater at low levels, when both sides are taking one attack a round and can't hit each other 
Ive played through all the levels, and use a computer to track combat so I always know how many rounds a fight has taken. The actual number of rounds doesn't vary that much from low to high. (Though at 1st level, it could be very short, yes.)

Darren


----------



## Eldorian (May 8, 2003)

Average combat length is approximatly 4-5 rounds, at all levels I think.  There was a poll done in the general forum.  I know that my epic games and my 1st level games have pretty much always 4-5 round combats.  There is the odd one where the foes have uber fricken HP and can't hit anyone, so you just sit there and melee them to death instead of wasting valuable spells to kill them, but this isn't the standard case.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 8, 2003)

*Your all clear kid now lets blow this thing and go home*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 

You seem to be making a number of clear mistakes (not least challenging my authority  ). Also appears you were not willing to reply point by point, but instead replied with another diatribe. No matter, no hiding places left... 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *A party of 4 goblins is a EL 4 encounter. By your own system, CR 0 = EL 0; 4 opponents = +4 EL. Therefore 4 goblins = EL 4 (not EL 3 as you claim).*




Incorrect. I stated that four goblins were EL +3 beyond a typical 1st-level party.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Why do you not see this? Because it does not suit your argument to do so? Goblins and hobgoblins should not be rated identically.*




Any difference is negligable as to the effect on their CR.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Now it becomes obvious. You are simply operating on the wrong premise. For you, the XP award matches the EL rating. Sure, I'll even agree for the sake of moving this debate along.*




I accept your concession.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *But then EL does not properly rate the difficulty of lower level encounters.
> 
> That might not sink immediately, so try looking at it like this. If you feel that that a CR 4 encounter should award 225 XP to each member of a 1st level party of four, that's fine. It certainly does using your calculations. But then a group of 4 goblins is not a CR 4 encounter, they are not a CR 3 encounter, they might be a CR 2 encounter, but they are probably a CR 1 encounter.*




While the goblins would be fractionally less of a challenge than four 1st-level NPCs, the difference is negligable. I would say they certainly represent the lower end of the CR 1/2 spectrum.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I'll expand on this point even further...
> 
> To say that lower levels are inherently fragile is pure sophistry and self-deluded rationalization. *




On the contrary its an indisputable fact. Allow me to explain after your next point...



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Characters are always fragile when faced with superior opponents.*




...and at low level, characters are fragile even when faced with *inferior* opponents! Something which you fail to recognise.

A single skeleton with a longsword can potentially kill a 1st-level fighter with an 18 constitution in a single hit!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Moreover, 1st level characters are not *always* faced with superior opponents (certainly not enough to say they are more inherently fragile than any other level). Lower level parties don't have the monopoly on fragility.*




They do when facing inferior opponents.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *A 20th level party is fragile to a very old prismatic dragon.*




True a CR 97 dragon would crush such a party, in fact its an impossible (greater than EL +8) encounter.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Fragility is irrelevant to your argument because fragility is universal. It can exist at *any* level.*




See above.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That's the big picture you haven't stepped far enough back to see. Sometimes characters are going to be fragile, sometimes they are not. Not every challenge a 1st level party charges into will bring them face-to-face with their own mortality. That's hogwash.*




Virtually any opponent* can kill a 1st-level character (I'm sure there are some that probably can't but the majority certainly can) in a single round.

*almost certainly from CR 1/2 onwards.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *To use your favorite argument ... not if the lower levels are dungeon mastered properly.*




I don't doubt you could keep the PCs alive easily enough if the DM so wished.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *You CR system "seemingly" takes fragility into account for higher levels characters by appropriately scaling EL ratings using "increasing" increments. The CR to EL gap steadily widens. Wonderful. As it should be.*




Thank you.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Now turn around and look in the opposite direction. When you are dealing with lower level characters, those increments should reflect "decreasing" increments. The CR to EL gap should steadily shrink (more than it currently does).*




I still think its pretty much spot on. Of course at 1st-level the PCs will have the max. hp advantage as well.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Use the goblins from my above example as your ruler. A party of four goblins should rate CR 1 or CR 2 (at most).
> 
> The question you should be asking yourself is ... how can your system accurately arrive at those values without arbitrarily dividing/slashing the current lopsided values? *




One possibility (that I have actually just thought of) may be that CR 1/2 is actually EL -1 (since an additional character adds +2 EL).

Meaning:

CR 1/2 = EL -1 (instead of 0)
CR 1/4 = EL -3 (instead of -1)
CR 1/8 = EL -5 (instead of -2)

But this puts you in the dangerous position of 8-11 1st-level NPCs (as well as 8-11 goblins) being a 50/50 encounter for a party of four 1st-level characters instead of 6-7 1st-level NPCs or Goblins.

However, while that might seem more appropriate for the goblins (who admittedly represent the low end of CR 1/2) it seems an overbearing NPC force. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *The easiest (most straightforward) approach I can think of is by calculating PC and opponent numbers the same way and scaling the XP awards accordingly. Nothing else would have to change. Now before you start talking about potatoes again )) this idea might not be the solution. It's just my initial thought on the subject. But make no mistake, a solution *is* needed. That's going to mean a few extra calculations, but in all the time we've interacted, you've never struck me as the kind of person who shies away from game mechanic paperwork. Don't start now. You've worked too hard on this ruddy thing. *




I don't plan on changing any fundamentals based on the feedback on this particular topic. Though I am more than willing to address the issue of slowing progression with optional rules.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 8, 2003)

Hi guys! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Average combat length is approximatly 4-5 rounds, at all levels I think.  There was a poll done in the general forum.*




Was that not me laying the smackdown six months or so ago when someone (wrongly) attempted to argue that d20 breaks down because AC and BAB don't advance together. 

To which I explained equating AC with BAB is irrelevant without also equating Damage/Round with Hit Points into the mix and that on average fighters deal roughly 20% damage per round vs. equal opponents at all levels.


----------



## Eldorian (May 8, 2003)

Um.. smackdown?  I said how I thought it was silly that AC didn't scale with level, and you presented an arguement to which I immediately agreed with.  BTW, that was me =)  I believe we both agreed that this was not perhaps the optimal case, but it's how 3e works.  Also, I'd like to add, that Wizards doesn't see this, which is why thier high CR monsters have high AC.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> on average fighters deal roughly 20% damage per round vs. equal opponents at all levels.
> *




Should I laugh now or later?  I'm sorry, but a Level 120 Fighter will not be doing 500+ points of damage per round to a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon.  This is why epic battles are always longer, because of inflated hit points.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 9, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Um.. smackdown?  I said how I thought it was silly that AC didn't scale with level, and you presented an arguement to which I immediately agreed with.  BTW, that was me =)  I believe we both agreed that this was not perhaps the optimal case, but it's how 3e works.*




The smackdown occurred long before I mentioned it to you.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Also, I'd like to add, that Wizards doesn't see this, which is why thier high CR monsters have high AC. *




WotC mistakes no longer surprise me, in fact its something I plan to capitalise on.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 9, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Should I laugh now or later? *




Try holding it in for just a moment.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm sorry, but a Level 120 Fighter will not be doing 500+ points of damage per round to a Great Wyrm Prismatic Dragon.  This is why epic battles are always longer, because of inflated hit points.  *




Maybe I should have made that clearer I meant an identical opponent, not simply an equal CR.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 9, 2003)

Eldorian.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I know I said I would ignore you...*



I don't remember you saying as much. Anubis just said as much (but I see below that he reneged on that already).



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *4 goblins = EL4 is right.  UK said 4 goblins is a EL +3 encounter for a first level party.  4-1 is 3.*



To me it sounded like Upper_Krust was saying they were EL3 (period). I see Upper_Krust has made the same point you did. I'll let this reply stand for all.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *CR.. CR...  You mean EL?  Your PCs must be powerful indeed if 4 goblins take them 20% of their resources.  Or perhaps you have parties greater than 5 people?*



Nope. Standard first level characters.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Your appeal to the prismatic dragon is childish, btw.  It is much more than EL +3, as the golbins were.  EL +9 from my calculations.  That's high enough for "background only"*



You missed the ball completely here. I chose the very old prismatic dragon *precisely* because it is an EL +9 encounter (to illustrate how 20th level characters are reduced to fragility).



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Um... first level parties have one Hit die.  Weapons deal around one die worth of damage at all levels.  Only at the first few levels are characters able to be killed in one hit from a melee weapon, barring criticals.  They also have limited resources with which to counteract these one hit kills, such as healing spells.  Trust me, the only levels at which PC mortality is higher is after save or die spells become prevalent, but by then you have resurrection, so it doesn't matter.
> 
> ...
> 
> And every challenge to a first level party, well, that includes a monster capable of dealing around 5-10 points of damage in one round, does make them face up to their own mortality, because it's quite common for 1st level PCs to only have 5-10 HP at first level.*



Which is exactly why "lower level" encounters should be rated with decreasing increments of CR to EL (in the same way that "higher-level" encounter are rated with increasing increments of CR to EL); to accurately and proportionately represent their challenges at those levels. This was the gist* of previous post.

By-the-by, regarding your initial comments (about ignoring me), if your self-righteous worthiness is going step down from the clouds again in the future, then either respond to my post *in entirely* or stay in the clouds. If you're sincere, then start by reading my original post again. You managed to selectively skip over the gist* of it.

Funny that. 

-----

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Taunting me? Well then, consider me back on the job to shoot you down once and for all.*



And this would be how easily you justify your own hypocrisy? 



Thought so.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *An EL 1 encounter would be a 20% encounter.*



Look at that. You _can_ teach an old dog new tricks. If 4 goblin warriors take up more than 20% of 1st level character resources, then your playtesting counts for nothing. Not that I counted your... I don't know what to call it ... (idea of playtesting?) as much more than that. So don't worry, you didn't fall that far in my standing.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Not really. The problem is that low level characters will die in one or two hits. *



Once again, which is why "lower level" encounters should be rated with decreasing increments of CR to EL. To more accurately reflect what is and what is not a challenge for lower level characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, I believe a goblin is EL 0 and four goblins is EL 4 . . . That's only if you DM them properly, of course.*



*Smacks own forehead.*

How is it possible that you can be so oblivious to surrounding points?!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um . . . No.*



You're best argument yet. The "um" part was very fitting.

-----

Howdy Upper_Krust!

Wading towards your posts take a while sometimes.

I try not to be tardy.





> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust_
> *While the goblins would be fractionally less of a challenge than four 1st-level NPCs, the difference is negligible.*



It isn't negliable to lower level characters, and that's the whole point (assuming you've been reading along). The increments of challenge at lower levels have to be more refined. The gap between CR and EL needs to shrink in the same way that it widens for higher-level CR to EL conversions.



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust_
> * ...and at low level, characters are fragile even when faced with inferior opponents! Something which you fail to recognize.
> 
> A single skeleton with a longsword can potentially kill a 1st-level fighter with an 18 constitution in a single hit!
> ...



This is a fantastic turn of events! It's like you're making my points for me. Once again, this is why lower-level encounters need smaller increments of CR to EL conversion (to more accurately represent the "fodder" to "nemesis" spectrum for lower level characters). Thank you!



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust_
> *True a CR 97 dragon would crush such a party, in fact it's an impossible (greater than EL +8) encounter.*



You recognize my logic here as well (something that flew over the heads of both Eldorian and Anubis). Indeed, 20th level characters can be fragile too. Wow. With all this agreement flying back and forth, my head is spinning.



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust_
> *Virtually any opponent* can kill a 1st-level character (I'm sure there are some that probably can't but the majority certainly can) in a single round.
> 
> *almost certainly from CR 1/2 onwards.*



See two replies above (the fantastic turn of events).



> _Originally posted by Upper_Krust_
> *I still think its pretty much spot on. Of course at 1st-level the PCs will have the max. hp advantage as well.
> 
> ...
> ...



Will wonders never cease! I actually got through to you this time, even after your initial self-endorsement.



Wherever you're taking this idea? It's good. If you feel it's not perfect yet, then refine it. I think you're on the right track. At least it sounds that way to me.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 9, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust!*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Wading towards your posts take a while sometimes.
> 
> I try not to be tardy.
> 
> *








			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *It isn't negliable to lower level characters, and that's the whole point (assuming you've been reading along).*




It is negligable to lower level characters within the confines of rating CRs to within a single point.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *The increments of challenge at lower levels have to be more refined. The gap between CR and EL needs to shrink in the same way that it widens for higher-level CR to EL conversions.*




If only you could have mentioned that at the start. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *This is a fantastic turn of events! It's like you're making my points for me.*




Who better! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Once again, this is why lower-level encounters need smaller increments of CR to EL conversion (to more accurately represent the "fodder" to "nemesis" spectrum for lower level characters). Thank you!*




So you are also conceding that measured within single CR point increments that my ratings are accurate. Fair enough. 

However you advocate now that perhaps with CRs below one (or indeed any single increments of EL) we could rate CRs somewhat more accurately.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *You recognize my logic here as well (something that flew over the heads of both Eldorian and Anubis). Indeed, 20th level characters can be fragile too. Wow. With all this agreement flying back and forth, my head is spinning.*




To me it was more a statement of the obvious than any feat of logic, I think it was this factor that lead Anubis and Eldorian astray since they both envisioned you were actually responding to a previous point rather than making one of your own.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *See two replies above (the fantastic turn of events).
> 
> Will wonders never cease! I actually got through to you this time, even after your initial self-endorsement.*




Well after two concessions (firstly that my CR/EL scale was correct and secondly that I had rated low level monsters correct within increments of one CR) I finally managed to get to the crux of the matter and make the point for you. 

Simply that perhaps we should more accurately rate low (and fractional) CRs to encompass each EL jump.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Wherever you're taking this idea? It's good. If you feel it's not perfect yet, then refine it. I think you're on the right track. At least it sounds that way to me. *




Its certainly not perfect, but could be the seed for something useful, provided the solution does not become too pedantic.

The simple part becomes:

CR 4 = EL 9
CR 3.5 = EL 8
CR 3 = EL 7
CR 2.5 = EL 6
CR 2 = EL 5
CR 1.75 = EL 4
CR 1.5 = EL 3
CR 1.25 = EL 2
CR 1 = EL 1

The tricky part is of course rating 'fractions', perhaps if we apply the system into reverse?:

CR 0.75 = EL 0
CR 0.5 = EL -1
CR 0.25 = EL -2
CR 0 = EL -3
CR -0.5 = EL -4
CR -1 = EL -5
CR -1.5 = EL -6
CR -2 = EL -7
CR -2.5 = EL -8
CR -3 = EL -9
CR -3.5 = EL -10
CR -4 = EL -11
etc.

Not sure this is right but lets test it:

4-5 Kobolds = 1 1st-level PC
3 Goblins = 1 1st-level PC
2 Orcs = 1 1st-level PC
3 Hobgoblins = 2 1st-level PCs

Or in other words:

16-23 Kobolds = Typical 1st-level Party
12-15 Goblins = Typical 1st-level Party
8-11 Orcs = Typical 1st-level Party
6-7 Hobgoblins = Typical 1st-level Party

Not a bad first attempt.

Any comments so far?


----------



## Eldorian (May 9, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Eldorian.
> 
> I don't remember you saying as much. Anubis just said as much (but I see below that he reneged on that already).
> *




Way back when you wouldn't shut up about Twink, your twinked out amushing wizard...



> *
> To me it sounded like Upper_Krust was saying they were EL3 (period). I see Upper_Krust has made the same point you did. I'll let this reply stand for all.*




Guess you missed the plus.  Well, nobody said you were perfect.



> *Nope. Standard first level characters.*




You play goblins dumb?  You give really high point buys, or roll 4d6 and allow rerolls?  You give extraordinary amounts of cash to your PCs?  Give me an example of what you would consider a good fight involving 4 goblins and a group of 4 PCs.



> *You missed the ball completely here. I chose the very old prismatic dragon *precisely* because it is an EL +9 encounter (to illustrate how 20th level characters are reduced to fragility).*




Ah, I missed the ball... I see.. You meant that 20th level PCs are fodder for godlike dragons... Ok...  Did you have a point somewhere there?  My point was that in order for you to claim that level 20 characters are as fragile as 1st levels, you must show that level 20 characters have the same likelyhood to suffer serious losses in an equal EL encounter as 1st level.  Hence my arguement that 1st level characters are a single round of attacks away from death, from equal and lesser CR opponents, and that higher level creatures can take more punishment and recover from losses, making those losses less serious.



> *Which is exactly why "lower level" encounters should be rated with decreasing increments of CR to EL (in the same way that "higher-level" encounter are rated with increasing increments of CR to EL); to accurately and proportionately represent their challenges at those levels. This was the gist* of previous post.*




If I get what you mean here, and I'll admit, I'm not that interested in diciphering it, then UK's system already has gobally increasing CR to EL ratios, which is what your "decreasing increments of CR to EL".... as you go down the levels, and increasing as you go up.  Or are you not using the "middle" levels as your base of comparisons?

CR 2 - CR 1 / EL 5 - EL 1 = 1/4
CR 3 - CR 2 / EL 7 - EL 5 = 1/2
CR 4 - CR 3 / EL 9 - EL 7 = 1/2
CR 5 - CR 4 / EL 10 - EL 9 = 1

ect ect...

What do you propose then?  I think you want is for low level characters to get less exp for fighting more challenging fights.
Unless you are trying to state that four goblins is not a four times harder fight than one goblin, in order for what you want to be achieved, this ratio would have to increase more slowly at these low levels.  



> *By-the-by, regarding your initial comments (about ignoring me), if your self-righteous worthiness is going step down from the clouds again in the future, then either respond to my post *in entirely* or stay in the clouds. If you're sincere, then start by reading my original post again. You managed to selectively skip over the gist* of it.
> 
> Funny that. *




Gimme a break..  why would I respond to the whole post when I could give a crap about anything other than your arguement that high level characters are as fragile as low level ones, and that you think that 4 goblins is a cakewalk for 1st level parties?  I didn't respond to rest cause I didn't care.  Don't flatter yourself.  It's not my job to teach you how the system works, and it seems to me that the changes you want brought about would skew the results even farther away from where you'd like them to be.

Once again, I am reminded why I decided to ignore you, and I might go back to it.  Even if it means letting ignorance fester.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Eldorian (May 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> If only you could have mentioned that at the start.
> 
> *




Indeed.  Next time say, "Lets calculate ELs based on fractional CR at low levels."  Instead of what you said, which was open to interpretation.



> *
> However you advocate now that perhaps with CRs below one (or indeed any single increments of EL) we could rate CRs somewhat more accurately.
> 
> To me it was more a statement of the obvious than any feat of logic, I think it was this factor that lead Anubis and Eldorian astray since they both envisioned you were actually responding to a previous point rather than making one of your own.
> *




It wasn't so much as thinking it was a reply, but more of the fact that what he said was easily interpreted otherwise, and his suggestion for the fix was simply wrong.



> *Well after two concessions (firstly that my CR/EL scale was correct and secondly that I had rated low level monsters correct within increments of one CR) I finally managed to get to the crux of the matter and make the point for you.
> 
> Simply that perhaps we should more accurately rate low (and fractional) CRs to encompass each EL jump.
> 
> ...




I have some comments.  First off, orcs, hobgoblins, and goblins are more or less equal in CR.  Hobgoblins deal one more point of damage, and have one more HP, but goblins have one higher ranged attack bonus and are more stealthy.  Orcs have one less HP than hobgobos, and one less AC, but they have a 2 higher to hit and deal 5 more points of damage per hit on average.  So they should all be the same CR.  I agree that 6-7 of any of these is a typical 1st level party.  I'm inexperienced with Kobolds tho.  Never liked them, always been and orc and goblin guy.  I do know that if you go 2 on 1 Orcs to PC ratio, you will have a TPK.  Orcs hit hard.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 16-23 Kobolds = Typical 1st-level Party
> 12-15 Goblins = Typical 1st-level Party
> 8-11 Orcs = Typical 1st-level Party
> ...




You do realize that this is absolute proof that those two were absolutely wrong and that the system is already correct as is, right?

Just look at them numbers . . . Sorry, but 16-23 kobolds would MURDER a Level 1 party EASILY.  Don't even get me started on orcs.  A Level 1 party can barely take 1-4 of those things, much less 8-11.  Let's not forget the fact that orcs are more powerful than hobgoblins, not less as these numbers profess, although they are all CR 0 in the end.

Well, that takes care of that.  Undeniable proof that the system works as-is and needs absolutely no change.  I feel sorry for any players whose DM throws two dozen kobolds at them at Level 1.  With that matter totally settled, shall we move on to something fresh?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 10, 2003)

Howdy Upper_Krust.



			
				Upper_Krust[/i]
[B]So you are also conceding that measured within single CR point increments that my ratings are accurate.[/B][/QUOTE]But I am also saying that measuring CR within a single point does not accurately represent those challenges for lower level characters. You almost have to rate them with 1/2 points.

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Upper_Krust[/i]
[B]However you advocate now that perhaps with CRs below one (or indeed any single increments of EL) we could rate CRs somewhat more accurately.[/B][/QUOTE]Halleluiah!

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Upper_Krust[/i]
[B]Not a bad first attempt.

Any comments so far?[/B][/QUOTE]I think the opponent numbers are too great. What about 1/3 increments instead of 1/4? And if that does not work said:
			
		

> *Way back when you wouldn't shut up about Twink, your twinked out amusing wizard...*



That would be my tweaked out 1st level _generalist_ with a *25 point buy* spread? Yeah, he was completely out of control!





			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *You play goblins dumb?  You give really high point buys, or roll 4d6 and allow rerolls?  You give extraordinary amounts of cash to your PCs?*



I play goblins as little more than a nuisance in small numbers (I.E four of them), and as a force to reckoned with when their numbers swell (I.E. much greater than four of them). I play goblins with a poor grasp of strategy and as being cowardly by nature. Oh look at that! I play goblins exactly as they are described in the good book.

As for my PCs, they use the organic method of rolling their abilities; 4d6 six times (kept in order), reroll any one roll (taking the better of the two rolls), switch any two ability scores. Characters usually end up with one ability score they don't like, but usually enjoy role-playing that ability in the long run (my experience). Standard cash rolled randomly.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Give me an example of what you would consider a good fight involving 4 goblins and a group of 4 PCs.*



Sure. Four goblins against a group of four PCs. Done.



They'll be lucky if they break a sweat.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Ah, I missed the ball... I see.. You meant that 20th level PCs are fodder for godlike dragons... Ok...  Did you have a point somewhere there?*



Nope, that was it. Don't make such a big deal out of such small points in the future and these debates will speed along like nobody's business.





			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Hence my argument that 1st level characters are a single round of attacks away from death, from equal and lesser CR opponents...*



And this gets back to my central point about shrinking the CR to EL conversion for lower level encounters. I'm not going to repeat it again if you haven't figured it out yet. Sorry.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *If I get what you mean here, and I'll admit, I'm not that interested in deciphering it, then UK's system already has globally increasing CR to EL ratios, which is what your "decreasing increments of CR to EL".... as you go down the levels, and increasing as you go up.  Or are you not using the "middle" levels as your base of comparisons? *



Excellent! Then despite your best efforts, you actually do understand. Not middle levels. Lower levels.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *What do you propose then? I think you want is for low level characters to get less exp for fighting more challenging fights.*



I want lower level characters to receive proportionate XP. That's all. Currently they do not, but with the solution Upper_Krust is weaving, that could very well change.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Gimme a break. Why would I respond to the whole post when I could give a crap about anything other than your argument that high level characters are as fragile as low level ones, and that you think that 4 goblins is a cakewalk for 1st level parties?*



This is further proof that you missed the central point and made mountains out of molehills (like the prismatic dragon versus 20th level party). Why would I give you a break?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Even if it means letting ignorance fester.*



Well I did suggest you should keep your head in the clouds, so that wouldn't be surprising.





			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Indeed. Next time say, "Let's calculate ELs based on fractional CR at low levels." Instead of what you said, which was open to interpretation.*



I'll reach my epiphanies at whatever pace suits my Paleolithic brain, thank you very much. If the gradual path my logic takes is not direct enough for you ... too freaking bad.

-----

Anubis.

...

Oh nothing.

I just realized that responding to your nonsensical knee-jerk reactions is pointless.

I will say this however...

I hope you have a nice day.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The simple part becomes:
> 
> CR 4 = EL 9
> ...




At last! Yes, for those low level beasties, measuring to within an 'accuracy' of 1 CR point is just not accurate enough.



Looks good to me.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 10, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I have some comments.  First off, orcs, hobgoblins, and goblins are more or less equal in CR.  Hobgoblins deal one more point of damage, and have one more HP, but goblins have one higher ranged attack bonus and are more stealthy.  Orcs have one less HP than hobgobos, and one less AC, but they have a 2 higher to hit and deal 5 more points of damage per hit on average.  So they should all be the same CR.  I agree that 6-7 of any of these is a typical 1st level party.  I'm inexperienced with Kobolds tho.  Never liked them, always been and orc and goblin guy.  I do know that if you go 2 on 1 Orcs to PC ratio, you will have a TPK.  Orcs hit hard.
> 
> Eldorian Antar *




I'll agree that goblins and hobgoblins are roughly equal, but orcs are the terrors of the 1 HD species. Their strength and use of Great Axes can wreak havoc among a level 1 group. And I would say kobolds definitely are weaker than the two types of gobbos.

Darren


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (May 10, 2003)

> _Originally posted by Upper Krust: _
> 
> 16-23 Kobolds = Typical 1st-level Party
> 12-15 Goblins = Typical 1st-level Party
> ...




Any of those following would RAPE   a first level party, unless the party had some huge advange. Try to tone it down a little, but your getting there.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 10, 2003)

Hello mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I have some comments.  First off, orcs, hobgoblins, and goblins are more or less equal in CR.  Hobgoblins deal one more point of damage, and have one more HP, but goblins have one higher ranged attack bonus and are more stealthy.  Orcs have one less HP than hobgobos, and one less AC, but they have a 2 higher to hit and deal 5 more points of damage per hit on average.  So they should all be the same CR.  I agree that 6-7 of any of these is a typical 1st level party.  I'm inexperienced with Kobolds tho.  Never liked them, always been and orc and goblin guy.  I do know that if you go 2 on 1 Orcs to PC ratio, you will have a TPK.
> *




12-15 Kobolds = Typical 1st-level Party 
Kobold = CR 1/3

8-11 Goblins = Typical 1st-level Party 
Goblin = CR 1/2

6-7 Orcs = Typical 1st-level Party 
Orc = CR 3/4

6-7 Hobgoblins = Typical 1st-level Party 
Hobgoblin = CR 3/4

Are we saying the above is more appropriate then...?

I haven't decided how we get to that mechanically yet of course.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 10, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You do realize that this is absolute proof that those two were absolutely wrong and that the system is already correct as is, right?
> 
> Just look at them numbers . . . Sorry, but 16-23 kobolds would MURDER a Level 1 party EASILY. *




Thats what I thought. Just wanted to see where we all stood.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Don't even get me started on orcs.  A Level 1 party can barely take 1-4 of those things, much less 8-11.  Let's not forget the fact that orcs are more powerful than hobgoblins, not less as these numbers profess, although they are all CR 0 in the end.*




What did you think of my previous outline then?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, that takes care of that.  Undeniable proof that the system works as-is and needs absolutely no change.  I feel sorry for any players whose DM throws two dozen kobolds at them at Level 1.  With that matter totally settled, shall we move on to something fresh? *




Just hold your horses there.

I don't exactly see a Kobold equal to a 1st-level NPC. I mean I know they rate the same with regards CR (in one unit increments) but I like the idea of determining individual ELs at this measure of power for better accuracy.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 10, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *At last! Yes, for those low level beasties, measuring to within an 'accuracy' of 1 CR point is just not accurate enough.
> 
> Looks good to me. *




Yes but as I mentioned thats the easy bit. Its the CRs below 1 we need comments on. 

If my secondary notion is accurate then something akin to the following seems appropriate:

CR 0.66 = EL 0 = CR 3/4
CR 0.33 = EL -1 = CR 1/2
CR 0 = EL -2 = CR 1/3
etc.
CR -0.33 = EL -3 = CR 1/4
CR -0.66 = EL -4
CR -1 = EL -5 = CR 1/8
CR -1.33 = EL -6
CR -1.66 = EL -7 CR 1/16
CR -2 = EL -8
CR -2.33 = EL -9
CR -2.66 = EL -10

Alternately you could have:

CR 0.5 = EL 0 = CR 3/4
CR 0 = EL -1 = CR 1/2
CR -0.5 = EL -2 = CR 1/3
CR -1 = EL -3 = CR 1/4


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 10, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I don't know how individual monsters convert using this, but this approach looks better. However the translation between initial CR, EL, and final CR is confusing. It would be nice if you could do away with those final CR's altogether - they don't mesh with your EL system at all well.*




Well its pretty simple.

Remember that increasing the number of opponents by 2 equals an increase in EL of 2.

Therefore EL -1 is always going to represent CR 1/2, because its two less than EL 1.

Similarly EL 0 will represent CR 2/3 (my previous 3/4 idea was incorrect).

Also: 
EL -2 = CR 1/3
EL -3 = CR 1/4

...because:

EL +1 = x1.5 opponents
EL +2 = X2
EL +3 = x3 
EL +4 = x4-5
etc.


----------



## Eldorian (May 11, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I play goblins as little more than a nuisance in small numbers (I.E four of them), and as a force to reckoned with when their numbers swell (I.E. much greater than four of them). I play goblins with a poor grasp of strategy and as being cowardly by nature. Oh look at that! I play goblins exactly as they are described in the good book.
> 
> As for my PCs, they use the organic method of rolling their abilities; 4d6 six times (kept in order), reroll any one roll (taking the better of the two rolls), switch any two ability scores. Characters usually end up with one ability score they don't like, but usually enjoy role-playing that ability in the long run (my experience). Standard cash rolled randomly.
> *




Ah ha!  We have found your problem.  When you play goblins, you automatically assume they will be "little more than a nuisance."  Sure, goblins are cowardly and have a poor grasp of strategy, right out of the book, but also right out of the book, they use whave few advantages they have, numbers and malicious ingenuity.  They fight dirty and with numbers, ie, gang up on one guy, coup de grace him when he goes down, repeat.  Fight from ambush and use traps when they can.  You are underestimating them, they have average intellegence and are noted for being maliciously ingenius.




> *This is further proof that you missed the central point and made mountains out of molehills (like the prismatic dragon versus 20th level party). Why would I give you a break?
> *




No, I didn't "miss" your central point.  I didn't care about it.  I was attacking your misconceptions with which you might have used to build a central point, if there was one there.  You had the misconception that high level characters are as fragile as low level ones, and that 4 goblins is a cakewalk encounter for a 1st level party.  I repeat, get over yourself.  Not everyone cares about your point, but when I hear someone say goblins are a wimpy fight, and that high level characters are as fragile as low level ones, I just have to comment.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (May 12, 2003)

*Design parameters*

Hi there UK!

Some quick questions about the design parameters.

Now, as I see it, the +1.5 CR for increasing size from let's say medium to large, includes the ability mods (+8 str, -2 dex, +4 con) and anything beyond that should affect CR separately, right?
The stats are a +1CR increase, so is reach worth +0.5 CR and is natural armor adjustment included as well? If it is, you need to clarify that in the document, I think.

Seem to remember that you rated the half-ogre at +1.3 CR. I think that indicates you do not include natural armor.

Comments?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 12, 2003)

Eldorian.



Eldorian[/i]
[B]Ah ha! We have found your problem. When you play goblins said:


> *Sure, goblins are cowardly and have a poor grasp of strategy, right out of the book, but also right out of the book, they use what few advantages they have, numbers and malicious ingenuity. They fight dirty and with numbers, ie, gang up on one guy, coup de grace him when he goes down, repeat.*



So far the only thing you've been good at is repeating me. I just finished saying as much.

_I play goblins as little more than a nuisance in small numbers (I.E four of them), and as a force to reckoned with when their numbers swell (I.E. much greater than four of them)._

Did I need to translate this for you? I thought only Anubis needed to be hand-held. You guys share a surprising lot in common.

Hmmm... _is there a difference?_





			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *You had the misconception that high level characters are as fragile as low level ones, and that 4 goblins is a cakewalk encounter for a 1st level party.*



It's far from a misconception; given a powerful enough opponent, like a very old prismatic dragon, 20th level characters can become as fragile as 1st level characters. The 20th level characters may have "teleport away" options available to them, but I'm pretty darn sure a prismatic dragon can suppress such magic and then destroy the party in melee.

But four standard goblins against a typical 1st level party? The goblins may as well be fish in a barrel. One on one odds do not favor goblins. No matter how the crazy the bookie, he's going to loose money.


----------



## Eldorian (May 12, 2003)

Sigh.. you have selective reading.  What about the goblin tendancy to use dirty tricks?  And knowing how to fight in numbers means knowing group tactics, such as swarming single foes, as I suggested.  

Do you seriously think that UK's system takes into account the fact that you play goblins to be weaker than thier stats indicate based on flavor text?  They have average intellegence, ergo, the system should say they fight like your average foe.  You are still basing your dislike of the experience gained at low levels due to the goblin issue.  If you insist on playing goblins dumb, then thats a situational modifier for exp.  Rate them lower, don't complain about the system.  The problem with breaking the lower CRs up is that at lower levels minor abilities that have little effect in the game end up having a large effect in the game, such as your opponent's dark vision and such.



> _ Originally posted by Sonofapreacherman_*
> It's far from a misconception; given a powerful enough opponent, like a very old prismatic dragon, 20th level characters can become as fragile as 1st level characters. The 20th level characters may have "teleport away" options available to them, but I'm pretty darn sure a prismatic dragon can suppress such magic and then destroy the party in melee.
> *




You simply don't get it, do you?  By frail, we don't mean in comparison to opponents that are vastly more powerful than the party.  We mean in comparison to equal and lesser opponents!  OF COURSE the dragon dines on adventurer that night, but that's besides the point.  I'm saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties from like CR opponents, such as orcs and goblins.  To bring your example down to low levels, it's like saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties when facing a medusa.  Yah.. no doubt about that.. DID YOU HAVE A FREAKIN POINT?!?!?  

My point:  I've seen 2 orcs (EL +1) kill half the party and end the adventure.  First level characters are fragile.
Your point:  An old prismatic dragon (EL +9) could do the same to a level 20 party, therefore both parties are equally fragile.

Seriously.  Admit that higher level characters are less fragile than lower level ones.  And by fragile I mean, "Likely to die when faced with appropriate challenges."  And appropriate challenge means "any encounter such that the EL of the encounter is equal to the PEL of the party"


Eldorian Antar


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 13, 2003)

Eldorian.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *What about the goblin tendency to use dirty tricks?  And knowing how to fight in numbers means knowing group tactics, such as swarming single foes, as I suggested.*



Four goblins swarm fight a single opponent in a party of four? Let them. The rest of the party will flank and trounce the goblins in one round. I thought you said your tactics for playing goblins were intelligent? I prefer to play goblins with a something of a survival instinct, you know, to account for that average Intelligence of theirs.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *By frail, we don't mean in comparison to opponents that are vastly more powerful than the party.  We mean in comparison to equal and lesser opponents!  OF COURSE the dragon dines on adventurer that night, but that's beside the point.  I'm saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties from like CR opponents, such as orcs and goblins.  To bring your example down to low levels, it's like saying that a first level party can suffer serious casualties when facing a medusa.  Yah... no doubt about that.. DID YOU HAVE A FREAKIN POINT?!?!?*



And there it is. Your inner Anubis manifested.



Yes I made a point. A long time ago now. You still haven't picked up the pieces of your own fractured misunderstanding. My point was that fragility is irrelevant to Upper_Krust's CR system, because fragility is universal; 1st level characters do not have a monopoly on fragility. Any level of character can be fragile. Go back and check my original point if you don't believe me. Go on, really. See the mountain you have made out of a molehill.

Moreover, I also said that *any* challenge rating system, including Upper_Krust's, should take into account the full spectrum of "fodder" to "nemesis" opponents for every level of party. Rating lower level opponents with whole numbered CRs wasn't accomplishing that.

Perhaps you understand now, or is any more instruction required?


----------



## Eldorian (May 13, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Sigh.. you have selective reading.
> 
> My point:  I've seen 2 orcs (EL +1) kill half the party and end the adventure.  First level characters are fragile.
> Your point:  An old prismatic dragon (EL +9) could do the same to a level 20 party, therefore both parties are equally fragile.
> ...


----------



## Anubis (May 13, 2003)

Look, there is NO NEED to change ANY of the numbers from the current version.  No need to break things into fractional CRs, no need to change how CR translates to EL when CR is below 0, no need for any of these changes being brought about by sonofapreacherman or demiurgewhateverhisnameis.

Stop calculating, everybody.  PLAYTESTING bears the fact that the CURRENT numbers are 100% accurate.  I have used all the monsters presented here and debated about in actual adventures within the last two weeks, and I can assure you that two goblins ARE slightly more than a 20% challenge (although just barely) and that the EL to PEL ratios are indeed correct.

If you don't like the XP awards, simple increase the PEL!  Don't try to make a good system less accurate, though!

Calculating those franctional CRs and all that crap is overly pedantic, not to mention the whole thing sounds terribly arbitrary.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 13, 2003)

Anubis.

Your idea of PLAYTESTING does not inspire me with confidence.

-----

Upper_Krust.

Personally, I like the use of 1/3 increments (the 8-11 goblins scenario against a 1st level party). The actual playtesting I have done seems to support those numbers.

That said, I'm pretty sure the golden mean around here will lean towards the use of 1/2 increments (the 6-7 goblins scenario).

What's you opinion on the matter?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 13, 2003)

Eldorian.

I just noticed you posted again. I must have overlooked it as you didn't post anything new.



Word of advice. If you're  trying to make some kind of point (which still seems completely unrelated to anything I originally posted), repeating yourself is usually self-defeating.


----------



## Dark Wolf 97 (May 13, 2003)

Hello all!



> _Originally posted by Anubis_
> *
> Look, there is NO NEED to change ANY of the numbers from the current version. No need to break things into fractional CRs, no need to change how CR translates to EL when CR is below 0, no need for any of these changes being brought about by sonofapreacherman or demiurgewhateverhisnameis.*




Exactly! I as well, have been playtesting the system and happen to agree that, while its not perfect, its damn well close!

And my idea play testing should inspire confidence.  

And as far a fragileness goes - everything can be fragile, when compared to something 10 X more powerful, but 1st level characters have more fragileness when it comes to facing EL + or - 1 challenges.


----------



## Anubis (May 16, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Personally, I like the use of 1/3 increments (the 8-11 goblins scenario against a 1st level party). The actual playtesting I have done seems to support those numbers.
> *




You must either give your PCs LOTS of breaks or play goblins incredibly dumb if your PCs, at Level 1, can defeat 8-11 goblins using only 20% of their resources.  Any decent DM will tell you that 8-11 goblins is 50/50 OR WORSE.


----------



## Anubis (May 16, 2003)

I would like to clarify something about needing no change.  After reading back over the posts, one of the changes proposed is the following:

"EL 1/2 (CR 0) becomes EL -1"
"EL 1/4 (CR -1) becomes EL -3"
etc, etc, etc

WELL . . . The REASON I see no reason to change this is because it creates needless confusion and pedantic calculations.  It wasn't until recently that I realized that I was already calculating things this way.  You see, I found out right before the last game session about UK meaning for us to calculate CR 1/2 as EL 0 and so on and so forth.  Until that point . . .

Well, you see, I calculated things the old way with regard to fractions.  In other words, I counted CR 1/2 as EL 1/2, CR 1/4 as EL 1/4, and so on and so forth.  I always counted two creatures of EL 1/2 as being EL 1, four of EL 1/4 as being EL 1, etc.  Basically, I added fractions until I got to a whole number, and only THEN did I go by the chart.  In other words, I ran things like so:

Goblin = EL 1/2
2 Goblins = EL 1 (1/2 * 2 = 1 duh!)
3 Goblins = EL 2 (1.5 opponents equals EL +1, 1/2 * 3 = 1.5!)
4 Goblins = EL 3 (2 opponents equals EL +2, 1/2 * 4 = 2!)
etc, etc, etc

You get the idea.  Anyway, I looked over the numbers once more, and I saw that the way I calculated fractions actually comes up with identical results as when counting EL 1/2 as EL -1 and all that.  I also noticed that my way of counting fractions better told of the challenges and gave more accurate XP awards, so I decided to stick by it.

I guess all I would ask is that UK uses the numbers AS IS.  That means count CR 1/2 AS EL 1/2 and so on and so forth, counting fractions as per the book by adding fractions until you get to a whole number.  That is how I playtested, in fact.

Reducing the increments any further, however, as those two suggest, or even introducing fractions above the first whole number . . . Well, I don't think that should be done, plain and simple.  Just count fractions as fractions.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 16, 2003)

Dark Wolf 97[/i]
[B]...but 1st level characters have more fragileness when it comes to facing EL + or - 1 challenges.[/B][/QUOTE]Which is exactly why whole numbers don't do the trick (when it comes to accurately representing the fodder-to-nemesis spectrum for low level encounters).

-----

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Anubis said:
			
		

> *I would like to clarify something about needing no change.  After reading back over the posts, one of the changes proposed is the following:
> 
> "EL 1/2 (CR 0) becomes EL -1"
> "EL 1/4 (CR -1) becomes EL -3"
> ...



...or a long convoluted way of saying that we were right all along (without actually admitting it).


----------



## Anubis (May 16, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> ...or a long convoluted way of saying that we were right all along (without actually admitting it).
> 
> 
> *




How so?  You two are proposing putting things at much lower levels!  For one, you claim goblins are EL 1/4, which is incorrect.  I believe the system for determining CR is absolutely correct and that goblins are in fact EL 1/2.  In addition, I am totally against fractions over 1 to create ELs 2-4 because the jump in power really is as dramatic as 1 to 5 indicates.

I ORIGINALLY thought all along that the fractional CR/EL thing was done as per the book with adding fractions until you get to a whole number.  Hell that's how I playtested it to begin with!  It wasn't until the last game session that I saw UK say to use CR 1/2 as EL 0 and work from there and the such, and I played one game session with it and didn't like it because everything is off by exactly 1 EL that way.

Why do you think I said "the system needs no changes"?  THAT IS WHY.  I believe there should be NO changes PERIOD.  That includes (to me at least) no changing CR 1/2 to EL 0.  Yes, I understand that I misunderstood UK's rating of fractional CRs, but considering all I'm saying is use the numbers as-is, I hardly consider that agreeing with either of you, considering you are wanting to change the numbers, system, and rating of multiple opponents altogether!  I totally disagree with you both on all such matters.  I am merely saying "use fractions under 1 as-is", nothing more.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 17, 2003)

So long as a group of four lower-level opponents (like goblins) rate CR 2, and not CR 4, then the system starts to work at all levels. That is all I have ever cared about. You initially insisted that four goblins were a CR 4 encounter. Now you are saying different. I can respect anybody who admits they were wrong.

Personally, I still think fractioned Challenge Ratings for lower level encounters is the way to go.


----------



## Anubis (May 18, 2003)

Don't confuse CR and EL anymore, man.

Actually, four goblins are EL 3, not EL 2.

By the way, for the record, for a LEVEL 1 PARTY, the differences between EL 3 and EL 4 are negligible, as both are above 20% and below 50/50.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 18, 2003)

If 4 goblins are not EL 2, then even your solution is still broken. I support any calculation that results in 4 standard goblins equating to either CR 1/8 or CR –2 (whichever unit of measurement is finally embraced). So far the fractional system Upper_Krust has proposed offers the only solution to that problem, and a tidy one as well.


----------



## Anubis (May 18, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If 4 goblins are not EL 2, then even your solution is still broken. I support any calculation that results in 4 standard goblins equating to either CR 1/8 or CR –2 (whichever unit of measurement is finally embraced). So far the fractional system Upper_Krust has proposed offers the only solution to that problem, and a tidy one as well. *




Don't confuse "you don't like it" with "it's broken".  You see, if something is broken, that means it doesn't work in play.  Four goblins as EL 3 DOES work in play, it just doesn't work with the way you incorrectly handle goblins is all.  EL 3 means the challenge is about a Level 1.5 encounter give or take.  Right between Level 1 and Level 2.  Playtesting bears this out, plain and simple.  Look at it like this . . .

One is EL 1/2, which means a Level 1 party should always win.  This much is true.  Two goblins thus work out to be EL 1, meaning the party will use 20% of their resources against such an encounter.  This is also true, as the goblins will usually get a hit or two in to take away 20% of hit points (considered part of those resources as per the DMG).  Now given that, three goblins are EL 2, more than a 20% encounter.  This is a DUH since three are more challenging than two.  Logically, then, four goblins are EL 3.  Playtesting bears this also to be true, plain and simple.  The partys will use more than 20% of their resources but still have about a 75% chance of victory for the most part.  This is true.

As such, I see you as the problem, not the system.  In fact, I see only two people total having any problem with this system, meaning other people's playtesting agrees with mine.  In fact, several people have stated this flat out.

Your problem is that you use goblins as cannon fodder and not a serious encounter.  Stop it.  Once you play goblins correctly, you will have no problem.  The standard of the system should work for the majority and work MATHEMATICALLY.  IT DOES.  You are one of only two people with a problem here.  The rest of us know not to underestimate goblins.  For you two, it is easy to propose an OPTION where the DM can take his own DMing into account if he DMs easier than usual.  Hence my proposal about the optional PEL modifier.

I dunno how many times I can just say "you're wrong" before you get it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 18, 2003)

Hi all! 

Unfortunately I am having severe computer difficulties at the moment trying to upgrade various components and then being told my hard drive was about to die.

I am on a friends computer at the moment just to let you all know the situation. Not sure when things will be back to normal.

I would ask you all to be nice, but I imagine that will be falling on deaf ears.  

Incidently I managed to get my hard drive backed up, so nothing has been permanently lost *touch wood*. But as to any other time oriented repercussions (delays) I cannot say but hopefully I will be back within a few days so I won't have lost too much time, and the 'deadline' is July after all so there shouldn't be any major problems meeting it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 19, 2003)

*Re: Design parameters*

Okay, I think I have got things sorted for the meantime.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Hi there UK!*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Some quick questions about the design parameters.*




Fire away.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Now, as I see it, the +1.5 CR for increasing size from let's say medium to large, includes the ability mods (+8 str, -2 dex, +4 con) and anything beyond that should affect CR separately, right?*




Yes.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *The stats are a +1CR increase, so is reach worth +0.5 CR and is natural armor adjustment included as well? If it is, you need to clarify that in the document, I think.*




It counts for reach, size modifiers to hit (and be hit), but not Natural Armour.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Seem to remember that you rated the half-ogre at +1.3 CR. I think that indicates you do not include natural armor.
> 
> Comments? *




As I recall the Half-Ogre had different stats and wasn't exactly 'large'.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 19, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your problem is that you use goblins as cannon fodder and not a serious encounter.  Stop it.  Once you play goblins correctly, you will have no problem.  The standard of the system should work for the majority and work MATHEMATICALLY.  IT DOES.*



You are so funny. Where is this proof you keep talking about? I love it. You consistently defer to Upper_Krust's calculations, and throw around the word "mathematical" like it's going out of style ... but with no substance. Well, here's your chance to prove yourself Anubis. Upper_Krust's computer is down for the count. Step up to bat. What is this highly lauded mathematical proof you get so much mileage out of without ever once delivering first hand? Ante up.

Right now, the fractional system at lower levels keeps 4 goblins where they belong (at the EL 2 level) and accurately addresses the "fodder" to "nemesis" issue I keep bringing up. Do you even know what I mean by that? Every one of your posts indicates a resounding "no". It helps to know what is being talked about before opening your mouth on the subject. Heck, you just figured out how the fractional system is supposed to work!



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You are one of only two people with a problem here.*



I could be the only person with a problem here and it still wouldn't change my conviction. So far the only other person embracing my revelation (well, besides Upper_Krust) has been the one logical voice of reason. Just because a stadium full of people screams that 1+1=3 doesn't make them right. I prefer to think outside of that stadium. Feel free to remain inside.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I dunno how many times I can just say "you're wrong" before you get it. *



Your voice carries no more authority now than, well ... ever. In fact it carries even less.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 19, 2003)

*Just to tidy all this up...*

Hi all! 

Since you all seem to be close to openly insulting each other over this latest debacle; and since I'm the only one here with a wisdom of 18 or better  lets see if we can't isolate the disagreement...

1) Low level characters ARE more fragile because they are more vulnerable to less powerful opponents than characters of other levels.

2) The current system is about as accurate as you will get without breaking down CR into units smaller than 1. 

However, it could easily better utilise the EL units of 1.

Obviously there are discrepancies between monsters of the same CR using single increments.

eg. A kobold is not as powerful as a 1st-level NPC.

The differences can be sorted within EL I believe though.

Certainly, factional CR should be tied to EL. In that CR 1/2 should be 2 points of EL less than CR 1. Since it represents the fact that two CR 1/2 creatures equal one CR 1, and as we know an increase of +2 EL is the same as doubling the number of opponents.

So if CR 1 = EL 1
CR 2/3 = EL 0
CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/3 = EL -2
CR 1/4 or 1/5 = EL -3
CR 1/6 or 1/7 = EL -4
CR 1/8 to 1/11 = EL -5
CR 1/12 to 1/15 = EL -6
CR 1/16 to CR 1/23 = EL -7

The difficulty becomes assigning CR scores below 1. Although I think we arrived at an acceptable method above I am still not convinced it is perfect so I will do some more research on the matter. 

I know Eldorian mentioned that the CR factors may not be accurate enough when delving into fractions but I think it will be more accurate than if we do not.

Any comments?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 19, 2003)

*Can't leave you children alone for two minutes...*



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *You are so funny. Where is this proof you keep talking about? I love it. You consistently defer to Upper_Krust's calculations, and throw around the word "mathematical" like it's going out of style ... but with no substance. Well, here's your chance to prove yourself Anubis. Upper_Krust's computer is down for the count. Step up to bat. What is this highly lauded mathematical proof you get so much mileage out of without ever once delivering first hand? Ante up.
> 
> Right now, the fractional system at lower levels keeps 4 goblins where they belong (at the EL 2 level) and accurately addresses the "fodder" to "nemesis" issue I keep bringing up. Do you even know what I mean by that? Every one of your posts indicates a resounding "no". It helps to know what is being talked about before opening your mouth on the subject. Heck, you just figured out how the fractional system is supposed to work!
> 
> ...




Can we please, please stop with the personal attacks.

Suffice to say I am back and I will start kicking @ss if people don't start showing each other the same respect they would show me. 

...and in this I am specifically looking at Anubis, Eldorian and Sonofapreacherman.

Its really lowering the whole tone of the thread - and thereby reflects badly on me specifically. 

Also you guys are probably disaffecting posters who would otherwise contribute but for the constant sniping going on.

Its clear the three of you all have something to add, and are passionate about the material, but you just seem incapable of keeping the debate friendly.

Most disheartening.


----------



## Anubis (May 20, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> You are so funny. Where is this proof you keep talking about? I love it. You consistently defer to Upper_Krust's calculations, and throw around the word "mathematical" like it's going out of style ... but with no substance. Well, here's your chance to prove yourself Anubis. Upper_Krust's computer is down for the count. Step up to bat. What is this highly lauded mathematical proof you get so much mileage out of without ever once delivering first hand? Ante up.
> *




You're asking me to explain an explanation?  You really do just look for argument, don't you?  The system IS the explanation, and therefore needs none.  You do not explanation reasoning.  They are one in the same.

If I must, however, I suppose I can explain even further.  When a creature or creatures is of an EL that is equal to four characters of that level (e.g. EL 1 against four Level 1 characters), that EL represents a mild encounter for that party.  By the book, this gives us an encounter that should use about 20% of the PCs resources.  Because of this, one opponent of that EL is equal to any of the PCs of the same EL (e.g. an EL 1 is equal to a Level 1 PC), and as such, a 50/50 encounter in a on-on-one fight.  By the math, that means that four opponents of that EL are a 50/50 challenge for four such PCs.  A 50/50 encounter is one that is EL +4 when compared to the PCs, and as such, four opponents of a like EL are EL +4.  Using this, we can extrapolate every single number there is.  Two opponents are EL +2, three are EL +3, etc.  This is the explanation as to where the numbers for multiple opponents in the system come from.  To extrapolate even further, we reverse engineer these numbers to find the PEL for various party sizes.  Again, this gives us the results in the system itself.

There you have your proof.

Now if you would like proof that a goblin is CR 1/2 and four goblins are EL 3, well, the only such proof possible is called playtesting.  If an EL +4 is a 50/50 encounter and an EL +0 is a 20% encounter, that puts an EL +2 right in between the two.  If you playtest three goblins correctly (by the book, by their stats, and without holding back or fudging any dice rolls) and against a standard party as per the rules, you will find the goblins to be far worse than 20% but not quite a 50/50 encounter.  There is that proof.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Right now, the fractional system at lower levels keeps 4 goblins where they belong (at the EL 2 level)
> *




How so?  The fractional system YOU refer to that actually creates a CR 2/3 puts four goblins back up to EL 4, because goblins are CR 0.800 and as such become a CR 2/3 creature.  If that is not the fractional system you refer to, then you are obviously talking about the other thing I said where goblins are counted as CR 1/2, but even then, four goblins are STILL EL 3.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> and accurately addresses the "fodder" to "nemesis" issue I keep bringing up.
> *




How so?  Now you're gone beyond this debate.  If you're talking about fractional CRs ABOVE 1, that does not cover goblins no matter how you look at it.  Other than that, there IS NO "fodder to nesesis issue".  You alone having such an issue does not make it an issue.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Do you even know what I mean by that? Every one of your posts indicates a resounding "no". It helps to know what is being talked about before opening your mouth on the subject. Heck, you just figured out how the fractional system is supposed to work!
> 
> I could be the only person with a problem here and it still wouldn't change my conviction. So far the only other person embracing my revelation (well, besides Upper_Krust)
> *




You're overlooking the fact that he hasn't agreed with you.  He has proposed MORE fractions, but he still translates everything to straight number ELs in the negatives, which is pedantic to say the least.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> has been the one logical voice of reason. Just because a stadium full of people screams that 1+1=3 doesn't make them right. I prefer to think outside of that stadium. Feel free to remain inside.
> *




Well, considering the FACT that playtesting, which is the single most important and decisive factor of the system, bears the CURRENT system to be accurate, that makes you wrong by default.  It's not my fault if you don't DM right, and the system should not have to take that into account.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Your voice carries no more authority now than, well ... ever. In fact it carries even less.
> *




More than yours does, man.  More than yours does.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Hi all!
> 
> Since you all seem to be close to openly insulting each other over this latest debacle; and since I'm the only one here with a wisdom of 18 or better  lets see if we can't isolate the disagreement...
> ...




We have fractions.  All I think is necessary is to count fractions as fractions and not negative ELs.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> However, it could easily better utilise the EL units of 1.
> 
> Obviously there are discrepancies between monsters of the same CR using single increments.
> *




You're starting to let the two lone doubters get to you here.  Of course there are differences!  What you are forgetting is that there are always differences as no two creatures can ever be truly equal.  What matters is that the differences don't make an obvious change in the challenge.  As the system stands right now, I have found not a single inconsistency through the last month of playtesting.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> eg. A kobold is not as powerful as a 1st-level NPC.
> *




You're now forgetting your own mantra.  "Power isn't everything."  Remember that the kobold has LOTS of things that the NPC does not.  They just aren't all applicable in combat.  Same goes for the goblin.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The differences can be sorted within EL I believe though.
> *




The thing is it isn't necessary.  Playtesting bears out your system so far, UK.  I've been doing rigorous playtesting to check for myself.  You remember how skeptical I was, right?  Well if you could bring ME over to agree with you, what problems could possibly be left?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Certainly, factional CR should be tied to EL. In that CR 1/2 should be 2 points of EL less than CR 1. Since it represents the fact that two CR 1/2 creatures equal one CR 1, and as we know an increase of +2 EL is the same as doubling the number of opponents.
> 
> So if CR 1 = EL 1
> ...




Actually, your current system, although very slightly flawed, is as good as any system is ever going to get.  Your current way of turning negative CRs into fractions works with every monster in the MM at least, so I'd say it gets a good grade.  As for your proposal above . . . It's unnecessary!  Leave the fractions AS FRACTIONS in EL!  You have one less calculation and you get the EXACT same results.  This also makes it easier for outsiders to come in because they don't have to rethink how fractional CRs are done.

If something is CR 1/2, let it be EL 1/2.  If a party beats it, take the EL 1 XP and cut it in half.  If there are two, it become EL 1.  Simple as that, and without having to turn things back into a negative EL!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I know Eldorian mentioned that the CR factors may not be accurate enough when delving into fractions but I think it will be more accurate than if we do not.
> 
> Any comments?
> *




The factors themselves are as good as they're going to get, I believe.  Playtesting supports your system just about all the way now, UK!  There may still be kinks here and there (gelatinous cube is CR 9/EL 13, which sounds WAY too high, and the CR 3/EL 7 ghoul still bugs me slightly), but overall, you got things as good as they're gonna get.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 20, 2003)

Upper Krust.

You have thrown your weight around before ... and it was warranted. In this case, however, it isn't. If you don't like the way Anubis and Eldorian post, then quote their replies. Don't quote mine. That's twice you've quoted me when addressing a group of people. Anubis in particular is a butterfly of opinions, all devoid of the ability to back themselves up (with anything more meaningful than his insistence of "being right"). Perhaps his above post finally clarified this for you? If it didn't, no matter. It doesn't and never will wash for me. Taking his feral tone-of-voice into account, I have been "polite" to say the least. In fact, I have been holding back for the sake of your initial request for civility. Basically, I am *already* on my best behavior. This is as good as it gets.

That said, I like your latest suggestion for the breaking down lower-level CR into fractions. There is an example of how I see those rules playing out in my reply to Anubis below. Tell me if what you think. Or don't. It's up to you.

-----

Anubis.

I see from reading your reply above, that you made no attempt to understand the "fodder" to "nemesis" issue, and danced around my challenge to ante up with your mathematical proof ... claiming now that "playtesting" is the key. You did, however, pointlessly regergatate Upper_Krust's rules like a parrot. Don't worry. I expected your house of cards to collapse.

As I suspected, you have no mathematical proof, but are correct about one thing. Playtesting *is* the key. And no, conceptual roleplaying doesn't count. You have to actually sit down at a table with at least four unpredictable players.

A single goblin warrior with NPC wealth (using Upper_Krust's system) is CR 0.2. You can dispute this if you like, but it would be futile to do so. Darkvision simply does not count unless you break Upper_Krust's rules to suit your own purposes. Something I'm sure you'll attempt to do anyways. Well, disregarding that attempt ... by taking the actual numbers into account (not mention actual no-breaks-for-the-players playtesting), the goblins solidly weighs in at CR 1/5 (using Upper_Krust's recently posted revisions).

That would mean 4 goblins against a standard 1st level party are worth 300 XP all told; or 75 XP per goblin.

-----

Upper Krust, if I did my calculations correctly, I would call this latest solution perfection.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 20, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust.
> 
> <snip> Taking his feral tone-of-voice into account, I have been "polite" to say the least. In fact, I have been holding back for the sake of your initial request for civility. Basically, I am *already* on my best behavior. This is as good as it gets.
> 
> *




I really don't want to offend you, especially given that we see eye to eye on most issues with UKs system, but I do think you could have been a little less bombastic in your discussions with Anubis and Eldarion. 
I'm not saying there wasn't provocation (far from it!), and I did chuckle at the "Anubis, I'm glad you're big enough to admit you're wrong" posts, but I can't believe that it has been your best possible behaviour.

Darren


----------



## Anubis (May 22, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Upper Krust.
> 
> You have thrown your weight around before ... and it was warranted. In this case, however, it isn't. If you don't like the way Anubis and Eldorian post, then quote their replies. Don't quote mine. That's twice you've quoted me when addressing a group of people. Anubis in particular is a butterfly of opinions, all devoid of the ability to back themselves up (with anything more meaningful than his insistence of "being right").
> *




I've given proof as to what I say while you have not.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Perhaps his above post finally clarified this for you? If it didn't, no matter. It doesn't and never will wash for me. Taking his feral tone-of-voice into account, I have been "polite" to say the least. In fact, I have been holding back for the sake of your initial request for civility. Basically, I am *already* on my best behavior. This is as good as it gets.
> *




Well I'm done playing nice.  You're starting to annoy me, and you don't want me to get annoyed.  I'm trying really hard to maintain my composure now, but you are making it a difficult task.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> That said, I like your latest suggestion for the breaking down lower-level CR into fractions. There is an example of how I see those rules playing out in my reply to Anubis below. Tell me if what you think. Or don't. It's up to you.
> 
> -----
> ...




I will quote The Matrix now.  "I can only show you the door.  You have to walk through it."

I have shown you the math.  It's not my fault if you're too slow to understand it.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> As I suspected, you have no mathematical proof, but are correct about one thing. Playtesting *is* the key. And no, conceptual roleplaying doesn't count. You have to actually sit down at a table with at least four unpredictable players.
> *




I gave mathematical proof.  Also, I HAVE BEEN PLAYTESTING WITH AN ACTUAL GROUP.  Shows how much you know.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> A single goblin warrior with NPC wealth (using Upper_Krust's system) is CR 0.2. You can dispute this if you like, but it would be futile to do so. Darkvision simply does not count unless you break Upper_Krust's rules to suit your own purposes. Something I'm sure you'll attempt to do anyways. Well, disregarding that attempt ... by taking the actual numbers into account (not mention actual no-breaks-for-the-players playtesting), the goblins solidly weighs in at CR 1/5 (using Upper_Krust's recently posted revisions).
> *




. . . and then your PCs die horrible deaths if you throw four or five such encounter at them.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> That would mean 4 goblins against a standard 1st level party are worth 300 XP all told; or 75 XP per goblin.
> *




Great, you got the numbers you wanted and increased PC mortality for it.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> -----
> 
> Upper Krust, if I did my calculations correctly, I would call this latest solution perfection.
> *




I call it stupidity.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 22, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> Well I'm done playing nice.  You're starting to annoy me, and you don't want me to get annoyed.  *




Will you go green and rip your shirt?

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 22, 2003)

Howdy demiurgeastaroth.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *I really don't want to offend you, especially given that we see eye to eye on most issues with UKs system, but I do think you could have been a little less bombastic in your discussions with Anubis and Eldarion.*



No offense taken.

If bombastic is the worst I've been, then I really have been biting my tongue.



-----

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I've given proof as to what I say while you have not.*



Where is this proof? Saying there is proof and providing that proof are two different things. If your proof is so rock solid, as you seem to be claiming, then you should have no difficulty presenting it ... right now.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well I'm done playing nice.  You're starting to annoy me, and you don't want me to get annoyed.  I'm trying really hard to maintain my composure now, but you are making it a difficult task.*



Please don't make me laugh.



It took me 5 minutes to recover from that one.

*Wipes a tear out of eye.*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I will quote The Matrix now.  "I can only show you the door.  You have to walk through it."*



Believe me when I tell you ... you are no Laurence Fishburne.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have shown you the math.  It's not my fault if you're too slow to understand it.*



No. You have "referred" to the math. You have "shown" nothing. Deliver or don't. All you are doing now is stalling and (in so doing) wasting time better spent on finding ongoing solutions.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I gave mathematical proof.  Also, I HAVE BEEN PLAYTESTING WITH AN ACTUAL GROUP.*



Could have fooled me. While you may be playtesting *something*, it doesn't seem to be the goblin scenario we've been talking about.

Tell you what Anubis, if these numbers don't match up with your "idea" of balance, then perhaps you should simply change the rules to suit your own particular game.

See? Problem solved. Easy.


----------



## Anubis (May 22, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Where is this proof? Saying there is proof and providing that proof are two different things. If your proof is so rock solid, as you seem to be claiming, then you should have no difficulty presenting it ... right now.
> *




I HAVE . . . SEVERAL TIMES NOW IN FACT!  Geez!  Are you really that dense?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> No. You have "referred" to the math. You have "shown" nothing.
> *




Yes I have.  Please take time to actually read my posts.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Deliver or don't.
> *




I already have.  Shall I quote myself now?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> All you are doing now is stalling and (in so doing) wasting time better spent on finding ongoing solutions.
> *




There is no stalling, and there is no need to come up with solutions.  Since you seem hell-bent of ignoring the obvious proof I present to you, I think I'll simply turn the tables.

Why don't YOU offer proof that the system doesn't work?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Could have fooled me. While you may be playtesting *something*, it doesn't seem to be the goblin scenario we've been talking about.
> *




Not your goblin scenario, no.  I don't playtest tilted scenarios.  Nope.  In fact, my playtesting has been done during a campaign with encounters as normal per standard.  No fields where the PCs see them coming miles away, no one character taking on many, simply a party of four PCs facing normal encounters in standard settings.  We've had a cave and a castle so far and PLENTY of goblins, hobgoblins, and bugbears to go around.  The numbers work, plain and simple.  Where is your proof to the contrary?  Oh, that's right, YOU HAVE NONE.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Tell you what Anubis, if these numbers don't match up with your "idea" of balance, then perhaps you should simply change the rules to suit your own particular game.
> 
> See? Problem solved. Easy.
> *




You're overlooking the FACT that you and demiurgeastaroth are the ONLY PEOPLE WITH A PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM.  The system is designed to work in MOST situations.  To change it by your specifications would make it good for you and screw it up for everyone else.  Several people have already posted here about how the current system works and is not broken, yet you ignore those people.  You are in the minority, man.  It's two against the world, and playtesting shows the world to be right this time.

It's YOU who should "make changes" . . . PEL +4 sounds right . . . PEL +4 for the "DM Handicap" because you don't seem to have knowledge of the correct use of low-level baddies.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 22, 2003)

Hi all! 

...okay my comeback a few days ago was a bit premature but you just can't keep a good man down. 

Incidently the problem was in a dodgy stick of DDR Ram. 

I'll read over the posts I have missed and try and get back up to speed with replies in a day or so (I am busy most of tomorrow). This includes hopefully putting this current crisis to bed.

Incidently I think I mentioned it to someone online but I have checked the Revised 3.5 Monsters and every single one of them seems to be two-thirds (pretty much exactly) of what it works out using my system.

Meaning that to propitiate 'tougher' monster challenges they seemingly lower the monsters CR by 2/3rds = EL -2.

eg. 3.5 Pit Fiend = CR 30 (my system) and CR 20 (WotC).

Any comments on that or other (non-crisis) affairs?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 24, 2003)

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're overlooking the FACT that you and demiurgeastaroth are the ONLY PEOPLE WITH A PROBLEM WITH THE CURRENT SYSTEM.*



No. Demiurgeastaroth and I the only two people who have successfully identified, isolated, and illuminated the problem with exaggerated lower level XP awards (not to mention help Upper_Krust find the solution). While you're asking to see the proof again, the proof has already been weighed and the problem has already been solved. You are the *only* person still playing "catch-up"; and frankly, I won't play along anymore. You'll have to catch-up on your own.

I can take you to the mountain, I can point to the mountain and say that's it there, but if you still refuse to see the mountain, then I can't help you.

_Edited because my spelling sux._


----------



## Anubis (May 24, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Anubis.
> 
> No. Demiurgeastaroth and I the only two people who have successfully identified, isolated, and illuminated the problem with exaggerated lower level XP awards (not to mention help Upper_Krust find the solution). While you're asking to see the proof again, the proof has already been weighed and the problem has already been solved. You are the *only* person still playing "catch-up"; and frankly, I won't play along anymore. You'll have to catch-up on your own.
> 
> ...




You're out of your mind.  What problem has been identified?  Through playtesting, I see no inflated XP awards whatsoever.  Like I said, just because you're an incompetent DM doesn't mean the system should change.  Just learn to be a better DM and you'll see the real challenge levels.

No problem has been identified, in fact.  UK has even said time and again about being skeptical of your claims, and if anything, the OVERWHELMING SUPPORT his CURRENT system gets combined with playtesting should tell him that you two are nothing but hot air with no valid reasoning.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 24, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> You're out of your mind.  What problem has been identified?  Through playtesting, I see no inflated XP awards whatsoever.  Like I said, just because you're an incompetent DM doesn't mean the system should change.  Just learn to be a better DM and you'll see the real challenge levels.
> 
> No problem has been identified, in fact.  UK has even said time and again about being skeptical of your claims, and if anything, the OVERWHELMING SUPPORT his CURRENT system gets combined with playtesting should tell him that you two are nothing but hot air with no valid reasoning. *




While I would ordinarily bow to your superior intellect and debating skills, honed as I'm sure they have been in the most challenging of testing grounds (perhaps in front of the mirror - for who but a copy of Anubis could be a suitable challenge for the wit and wisdom of Anubis), the post above does amazingly contain an error (well, just one I want to comment on).

We claimed there were problems with XP at lower level. 
UK _agreed_.

That's the point I wanted to make, but so you can see I'm not putting words into U_K's mouth, here are the details:

a) At low level (level 1 in particular), XP might be very high compared to official rules, and would mess up the normal rate of progression. U_K agreed this would happen, but didn't consider it a problem - from his POV, this was a feature, not a bug. I acept that. But he said he would consider including an optional rule to soften this affect. 

b) Below a certain CR, rounding off to whole points is imprecise and potentially inaccurate. UK is working on a fractional CR system to handle this. Whether it ends up as an optional rule, or an integral system, is fine by me - I'd prefer the latter, but as long as it's included in some form I'll be happy. (In fact I think it would be easier to have the fractional rule as integral, and a comment: "if you don't like working with fractions, just round off to whole numbers".)

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 24, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Through playtesting, I see no inflated XP awards whatsoever. Like I said, just because you're an incompetent DM doesn't mean the system should change.*



And that is why your idea of playtesting counts for shinola. Thanks for making it even more obvious. Even Upper_Krust has repeatedly admitted that XP awards are inflated at lower levels using his system. A solution has since been created to solve that problem; one which has clearly flown over your head. You can't even see the inflated XP problem in the first place. While my replies may be bombastic, your language has long since become abusive. If your posts can't at least shroud themselves in cleverness, then learn how to censor yourself. Smarten up Anubis, I'm done listening to your "hoof-scrapings".

_Edited because apparrantly the word "sh-i-t" gets replaced with smiley faces._


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 24, 2003)

Hello.

Gelatinous Cube = CR 7 (the mistake is in the Ooze Type which should be +0.6 instead of 2.6).

The Ghoul is correct at CR 3


----------



## Anubis (May 24, 2003)

demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> We claimed there were problems with XP at lower level.
> UK agreed.
> *




No, he said that the numbers are more than the WotC system.  He has yet to say that it is a "PROBLEM".  Why?  BECAUSE IT ISN'T.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> That's the point I wanted to make, but so you can see I'm not putting words into U_K's mouth, here are the details:
> 
> a) At low level (level 1 in particular), XP might be very high compared to official rules,
> *




Now you speak the truth.  Inflated "compared to official rules", not overly inflated in an of themselves.  These awards that seem inflated to you are merely the CORRECT awards based on the challenges of the encounter.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> and would mess up the normal rate of progression.
> *




It doesn't mess anything up, it just changes it.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> U_K agreed this would happen, but didn't consider it a problem - from his POV, this was a feature, not a bug. I acept that. But he said he would consider including an optional rule to soften this affect.
> *




I have no problem with that, hence the "PEL Modifier" I proposed where DMs could set a PEL modifier to reduce XP awards.  This is the perfect solution, yet you've all ignored it, wanting the base system changed.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> b) Below a certain CR, rounding off to whole points is imprecise and potentially inaccurate.
> *




This is absolutely wrong and I have already given UK proof to this.  Now I will give you that same proof.  First, I am assuming that you are speaking of the system to make CR 1.25=EL 2, CR 1.5=EL 3, CR 1.75=EL 4, etc.  Well then, shall I give two ABSOLUTE indications of proof?  The Tiny Viper works out to CR 1.575, CR 1/EL 1 under the current system.  Under the changes, however, this thing would be CR 1.5/EL 3!  As if the EL 1 wasn't bad enough!  If I have to explain how wrong it is for a weak creature with 1 hp to be EL 3, then you shouldn't be playing this game at all.  Now we move to the Gnoll, which is CR 1.400, CR 1/EL 1 under the current system.  This number is pretty perfect, as one of these is a 20% challenge for a Level 1 party.  Under these changes, however, it would be CR 1.25/EL 2!  Not as bad as the other, but I have proven my point.

If instead you are talking about the fractional CRs/ELs under 1, then please just refer to my proposition of counting fractions as in the book, with CR 1/2 being EL 1/2 and thus two EL 1/2 creatures being EL 1, etc.

If this is about multiple goblins being worth EL 3 and the weird increments of fractions, well, that's your problem.  You may think that goblins are rated too high right now, but playtesting shows otherwise.  Four goblins are accurately rated at EL 3.  More than 20% but less than 50/50.  Only bad DMing makes these things too easy.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *
> UK is working on a fractional CR system to handle this. Whether it ends up as an optional rule, or an integral system, is fine by me - I'd prefer the latter, but as long as it's included in some form I'll be happy. (In fact I think it would be easier to have the fractional rule as integral, and a comment: "if you don't like working with fractions, just round off to whole numbers".)
> 
> Darren
> *




Except WE ALREADY HAVE FRACTIONS!  The changes to those fractions are what I have a problem with.  Right now, using flat fractions, things work out fine.  CR 1/2 is EL 1/2, CR 1/4 is EL 1/4, etc.  The current ratings for those fractions have shown to be FLAWLESS in playtesting thus far.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> And that is why your idea of playtesting counts for shinola. Thanks for making it even more obvious.
> *




My playtesting is actual gaming.  That kinda stuff CAN'T be refuted, plain and simple.  I play goblins by the book, and the ratings are fine as-is.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Even Upper_Krust has repeatedly admitted that XP awards are inflated at lower levels using his system.
> *




Inflated "compared to WotC's rules", not inflated in and of themselves.  Let's not forget those inflated awards come primarily when you have a party of less than four PCs.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> A solution has since been created to solve that problem;
> *




The only acceptable proposal I've seen is to base XP per person instead of per party by making things with Party Level x 75 XP per person.  Even that is a bit inaccurate, though, and does not properly gauge the challenges.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> one which has clearly flown over your head.
> *




Lots of things fly over your head.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> You can't even see the inflated XP problem in the first place.
> *




That's because THERE IS NONE.  How many times must people around here hammer that into your thick skulls?



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> While my replies may be bombastic, your language has long since become abusive.
> *




People whose arguments ignore logic just really upset me is all, and I lose my temper easily when confronted with such crap.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> If your posts can't at least shroud themselves in cleverness, then learn how to censor yourself. Smarten up Anubis, I'm done listening to your "hoof-scrapings".
> *




I'm a direct guy.  I don't dance around issues.  I say what I mean and mean what I say.  If you don't like it, too bad.  You tell me to smarten up, I'm telling you to get yourself some logic before further debating with me.  You're starting to just aggravate me at this point, and you're making yourself look bad in the process with your lack of logic.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 24, 2003)

Hello.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *While I would ordinarily bow to your superior intellect and debating skills, honed as I'm sure they have been in the most challenging of testing grounds (perhaps in front of the mirror - for who but a copy of Anubis could be a suitable challenge for the wit and wisdom of Anubis), the post above does amazingly contain an error (well, just one I want to comment on). *




Disappointed in you mate, I thought you were above the slagging match. 



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *We claimed there were problems with XP at lower level.
> UK agreed.
> 
> That's the point I wanted to make, but so you can see I'm not putting words into U_K's mouth, here are the details:
> ...




Indeed. I had proven as fact that low level characters were more fragile, therefore an elevated measure of XP at those levels is not only accurate, but warranted!



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *b) Below a certain CR, rounding off to whole points is imprecise and potentially inaccurate. *




Its not inaccurate if you are resigned to using whole points. But I would agree its potentially less accurate.



			
				demiurgeastaroth said:
			
		

> *UK is working on a fractional CR system to handle this. Whether it ends up as an optional rule, or an integral system, is fine by me - I'd prefer the latter, but as long as it's included in some form I'll be happy. (In fact I think it would be easier to have the fractional rule as integral, and a comment: "if you don't like working with fractions, just round off to whole numbers".)  *




Whether integral or optional depends on how simple I can get the mechanic. If I am happy its simple enough I'll probably run with it.


----------



## demiurgeastaroth (May 25, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What do you mean? I was entirely complimentary! 
<crawls away to hide in shame> 

Darren


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 25, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *This is absolutely wrong and I have already given UK proof to this.  Now I will give you that same proof.  First, I am assuming that you are speaking of the system to make CR 1.25=EL 2, CR 1.5=EL 3, CR 1.75=EL 4, etc.*



And this is where you gut yourself. The current system being discussed goes as follows...

So if CR 1 = EL 1
CR 2/3 = EL 0
CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/3 = EL -2
CR 1/4 or 1/5 = EL -3
CR 1/6 or 1/7 = EL -4
CR 1/8 to 1/11 = EL -5
CR 1/12 to 1/15 = EL -6
CR 1/16 to CR 1/23 = EL -7

You even quoted this system yourself, but conveniently addressed an earlier incarnation of this solution to shore up your own pointless (read: selective) argument.

*Shakes head.*

As I understand this system (the one I just reposted Anubis), any creature that rates between CR1 and CR2 still gets rounded down to CR1. Except that with this proposal, goblins are not the equals of hobgoblins and orcs. Normally that revelation would be enough to activate a light is most people's heads. You on the other hand? Well, there's no accounting for some people's mental blindness.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm a direct guy.  I don't dance around issues.  I say what I mean and mean what I say.*



Actually, you are the most evasive person I know on these boards. When asked to provide proof, repeatedly now, you dance around the challenge and fail to provide squat.

I guess that's why they call it the conceit of self-perception.

You are probably the exact opposite of how you see yourself. But hey, if those are qualities you'd *like to have*, then all the power to you. Everybody needs goals Anubis. Good luck achieving yours.


----------



## Anubis (May 25, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> And this is where you gut yourself. The current system being discussed goes as follows...
> 
> So if CR 1 = EL 1
> ...




I'll do this one politely.  Besides, it's easy to shoot holes in this now that I've studied your numbers.

Lemme see if I recall UK correctly here . . . If CR rounds down to 0, it is CR 2/3, and if CR rounds to -1, it is CR 1/2.  Yep.  Now it's time to kill the entire basis of your arguments.

Ya' know what's really funny?  Under your system, goblins, hobgoblins, and orcs STILL rate the same, and four goblins STILL come to EL 4!

You obviously failed to calculate these creatures.  BOTH rate at CR 0.800 exactly.  Oh, wait, lemme guess . . . You didn't take all teh goblins' bonus abilities into account!  Yeah, you can't forget the +4 racial bonus to Move Silently, the +6 bonus to Ride checks, and the Mounted Combat feat.  Orcs come in at CR 0.600 on the dot.  That's right . . . That makes goblins AND hobgoblins AND orcs CR 2/3 and thus EL 0, making four of any of them EL 4!

Now I know what you'll say, you'll try to say not to count the bonus goblins stuff because it only applies when they're mounted.  Unfortunately, the system says to take ALL things into account REGARDLESS of whether it's used or not, which kills your argument.  Of course you'll also probably play the Darkvision trump card, right?

Well, even funnier is that EVEN IF you discount the goblins' bonuses and the Darkvision, the results are STILL THE SAME!  Discounting all that stuff, goblins come in at CR 0.200 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3), hobgoblins come in at CR 0.600 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3), and orcs come in at CR 0.400 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3)!

Next, you'll probably say to drop all racial modifiers that don't collectively add up to more then 0.5, and I'm ready for that as well.  Goblins and hobgoblins come in at 0.200 in total racial abilities and orcs come in at 0.000 in total racial abilities.  That leaves only their class rating.  All three count as warriors (stated outright as such in the book) and thus all three come in at 0.600 overall not counting any racial abilities whatsoever.  Guess what?  All three are STILL CR 2/3 and thus EL 0!

Shall I show you how they all add up?  Gladly:

*GOBLIN*

Small Size: CR -0.5
Speed +10: CR +0.1
Darkvision: CR +0.2
Skills +10: CR +0.2
1 Bonus Feat: CR +0.2
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6

_Total: CR 0.8 ; 0.4 (not counting Ride +6 and Mounted Combat) ; 0.6 (not counting any racial modifiers)_

*HOBGOBLIN*

Darkvision: CR +0.2
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6

_Total: CR 0.8 ; 0.6 (not counting any racial modifiers)_

*ORC*

Darkvision: CR +0.2
Light Sensitivity: CR -0.2
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6

_Total: CR 0.6_

Ya' know, what makes it EVEN funnier is that MY proposal lowers the value of goblins to EL 1/2 and makes four of them EL 3!  So now my way rates them lower than yours!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Actually, you are the most evasive person I know on these boards. When asked to provide proof, repeatedly now, you dance around the challenge and fail to provide squat.
> *




I gave ample proof.  You simple chose to ignore it.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> I guess that's why they call it the conceit of self-perception.
> 
> You are probably the exact opposite of how you see yourself. But hey, if those are qualities you'd *like to have*, then all the power to you. Everybody needs goals Anubis. Good luck achieving yours.
> *




Now who's throwing meaningless insults?  I think this post will be direct enough for you and it SHOULD show you the error of your ways.  You're wrong, get over it.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 26, 2003)

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Besides, it's easy to shoot holes in this now that I've studied your numbers.*



Your most telling statement yet. So you *just* studied the numbers for the first time? Here's some advice for you Anubis ... do that more in the future _before_ expressing your spontaneous opinions. It might save you some added embarrassment.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You obviously failed to calculate these creatures.  BOTH rate at CR 0.800 exactly.  Oh, wait, lemme guess . . . You didn't take all the goblins' bonus abilities into account!  Yeah, you can't forget the +4 racial bonus to Move Silently, the +6 bonus to Ride checks, and the Mounted Combat feat.  Orcs come in at CR 0.600 on the dot.  That's right . . . That makes goblins AND hobgoblins AND orcs CR 2/3 and thus EL 0, making four of any of them EL 4!
> 
> Now I know what you'll say, you'll try to say not to count the bonus goblins stuff because it only applies when they're mounted.*



I won't even say that much. In the same way that Upper_Krust subsumes all of those racial bonuses into their existing challenge ratings (I.E. abilities like rapier and bow proficiencies, dodge bonuses against giants, etc.) the bonuses you are referring to are also subsumed into his existing calculations.

Nothing has changed since the last time you blinked Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Unfortunately, the system says to take ALL things into account REGARDLESS of whether it's used or not, which kills your argument.  Of course you'll also probably play the Darkvision trump card, right?
> 
> Well, even funnier is that EVEN IF you discount the goblins' bonuses and the Darkvision, the results are STILL THE SAME!  Discounting all that stuff, goblins come in at CR 0.200 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3), hobgoblins come in at CR 0.600 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3), and orcs come in at CR 0.400 (STILL CR 0 and thus CR 2/3)!
> 
> Next, you'll probably say to drop all racial modifiers that don't collectively add up to more then 0.5, and I'm ready for that as well.  Goblins and hobgoblins come in at 0.200 in total racial abilities and orcs come in at 0.000 in total racial abilities.  That leaves only their class rating.  All three count as warriors (stated outright as such in the book) and thus all three come in at 0.600 overall not counting any racial abilities whatsoever.  Guess what?  All three are STILL CR 2/3 and thus EL 0*



See above, and I might add, what a waste of your own time trying to fight it.

Here's the actual breakdown, adding NPC wealth to be fair. The only new feature is goblin speed.

Small Size: CR -0.5
Speed +10: CR +0.1
Warrior Level 1: CR +0.6
NPC wealth: +0.1

CR 0.3 still rounds down to CR 1/4 or El -3. Nothing has changed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ya' know, what makes it EVEN funnier is that MY proposal lowers the value of goblins to EL 1/2 and makes four of them EL 3!  So now my way rates them lower than yours!*



Do you actually read these posts? How is CR 1/2 lower then CR 1/4 or CR 1/5? You're retreating back to your 1 + 1 = 3 theories again, aren't you?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I gave ample proof.  You simple chose to ignore it.*



It's hard to ignore something when *nothing* is offered. Your latest post is no different.

Feel free to try again if you like.

_Edited to be more encouraging and less demeaning._


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 26, 2003)

Hello.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Here's the actual breakdown, adding NPC wealth to be fair. The only new feature is goblin speed.
> 
> Small Size: CR -0.5
> Speed +10: CR +0.1
> ...




...obviously the last thing I want to do is get involved in this particular _tete a tete[i/] but under the current rules (not counting options I am currently exploring) 

CR 0.3 (rounded down to 0) = CR 1/2 = EL 0.

See page #1 under 'Rounding Fractions'. 

I see how you made the mistake but you don't seem to be allowing for negative scores determined using my system and are taking fractions on '1' as literal fractional CRs.

Of course my above equation to EL is incorrect however, since (as I related a few weeks ago) a Challenge Rating of 1/2 should be EL -1 (since doubling opponents equals EL +2)._


----------



## Anubis (May 27, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Anubis.
> 
> Your most telling statement yet. So you *just* studied the numbers for the first time?
> *




"Studied" is the key word.  Oh, and "your" is also important.  I have looked at your numbers before, but dismissed them as garbage.  Further study supported that.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Here's some advice for you Anubis ... do that more in the future before expressing your spontaneous opinions. It might save you some added embarrassment.
> *




You're the only one getting embarrassed around here.  I have been proven right time and again and everyone here has agreed to that other than you and demi.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> I won't even say that much. In the same way that Upper_Krust subsumes all of those racial bonuses into their existing challenge ratings (I.E. abilities like rapier and bow proficiencies, dodge bonuses against giants, etc.) the bonuses you are referring to are also subsumed into his existing calculations.
> *




WRONG.  This is neither stated nor implied ANYWHERE in the rules.  Yes, for ECL purposes these things are not given weight, but . . . Then again, it doesn't matter because I gave you numbers that DID ignore the things you just mentioned!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Nothing has changed since the last time you blinked Anubis.
> 
> See above, and I might add, what a waste of your own time trying to fight it.
> ...




You're a hypocrite.  The Small size is counted in the same category as the supposed "subsumed" things!  Ya' know, much like it's done with the core PC races.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> CR 0.3 still rounds down to CR 1/4 or El -3. Nothing has changed.
> 
> Do you actually read these posts? How is CR 1/2 lower then CR 1/4 or CR 1/5? You're retreating back to your 1 + 1 = 3 theories again, aren't you?
> ...




UK covers this one in his post.  So wrong again!

UK, I would like to thank you for responding before me, because I would have gotten nasty.  Thankfully, you got here first and corrected him nicely before I got to him.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...obviously the last thing I want to do is get involved in this particular tete a tete[i/] but under the current rules (not counting options I am currently exploring)
> 
> CR 0.3 (rounded down to 0) = CR 1/2 = EL 0.
> ...



_

Thank you UK.  Also, if you look at the numbers I gave you on messenger, UK, you will see that making CR 1/2 be EL -1 gives IDENTICAL results to just using the fraction itself.

Basically, you propose the following:

CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/4 = EL -3
CR 1/8 = EL -5
etc etc etc

I'm proposing the following:

CR 1/2 = EL 1/2
CR 1/4 = EL 1/4
CR 1/8 = EL 1/8
etc etc etc

Doing the calculations, however, the two above proposals are identical in every way!  The reason mine is better is because of two reasons:

1) Mine is simpler.

2) It does take as much adjustment and gets rid of the pedantic negative EL numbers, leaving us with a system of counting fractions identical to the current system so as to make for minimal relearning._


----------



## Eldorian (May 27, 2003)

Hey all, finally back after being feed up with enworld's technical difficulties.

Sonofapreacherman:

When I quoted myself, I was repeating a large part of my post which you failed to comment on at all.  You accused me of not reading your posts in total.  Now you stand accused.  

I begin to wish you would just outright insult me.  Here I was thinking that your posts attempted to make some sort of arguement, and had thinly veiled insults in them, when in fact you were only posting to supply the veil for said insults.  If you would simply dispense with the veil, I would have known to simply ignore you.

Anubis: 

These fractional ELs are a bad idea.  If EL +4 is a 50/50 fight, and x number of opponents is EL +4, and Monster Y is CR 1/4, EL 1/4, then x number of Y is EL 4.25.  How the hell do I interpret EL 4.25?  Going into negatives allows the system to remain consistant, ie, whole numbers for ELs.

UK:  I still maintain that the factors for calculating CR are too impercise to work at a fractonal level.  Any system that ignores the difference between elite stats and straight tens has no right to claim that it is accurate to anything less than a whole CR, if it can even make that claim.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Anubis (May 27, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> Anubis:
> 
> These fractional ELs are a bad idea.  If EL +4 is a 50/50 fight, and x number of opponents is EL +4, and Monster Y is CR 1/4, EL 1/4, then x number of Y is EL 4.25.  How the hell do I interpret EL 4.25?  Going into negatives allows the system to remain consistant, ie, whole numbers for ELs.
> *




Oh!  I guess I need to explain better after all.  Handle fractions exactly as they're handled now in the WotC rules.

If one monster is CR 1/4 and thus EL 1/4, FOUR such monsters are 1/4 * 4, or EL 1 on the dot.  As I said, this actually comes up with identical results as UK's proposed negative EL system except people using the current WotC rules will more easily adjust as they won't have to learn the negative EL stuff, which is already pedantic and unnecessary.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *
> UK:  I still maintain that the factors for calculating CR are too impercise to work at a fractonal level.  Any system that ignores the difference between elite stats and straight tens has no right to claim that it is accurate to anything less than a whole CR, if it can even make that claim.
> 
> Eldorian Antar
> *




I honestly don't think that the stats make that great a difference at such levels unless you get silly with them (like if you gave a goblin 25 Strength or something along those lines).  As long as you keep the stats as they are, the numbers work fine.  If that's not enough, just use the design parameter to take the stats into account if something looks "off" as that's what the parameter is there for.  It's just not needed in "normal" situations.

For PCs with less stats, I would be tempted to come up instead with a PEL modifier.  It is my experience that through normal rolling, PCs get stats far above average MOST of the time.  For DMs using the 3d6 methods and such, I'd give maybe a PEL penalty of -1 or -2 to account for that.  MAYBE.  Again, though, we're talking about the exception and not the standard.  I don't know any players who would tolerate any of the 3d6 methods, at least not in this edition.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 27, 2003)

Howdy Upper_Krust.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *CR 0.3 (rounded down to 0) = CR 1/2 = EL 0.
> 
> See page #1 under 'Rounding Fractions'.
> 
> ...



I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your _latest_ solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores. All CR scores would be expressed as fractions, and those fractions would represent increments that each EL bonus (for opponent numbers) advances through.

Meaning a group of three CR 1/16 creatures would be worth EL -4; (EL -7 for CR 1/16) + (EL +3 for three opponents) = -4. If this is not how your system works, then please clarify.

If this is how your system works, then a CR of 0.3 rounds up to CR 1/3 before it rounds up to CR 1/2 (once again, using your latest solution).

-----.

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *WRONG.  This is neither stated nor implied ANYWHERE in the rules. *



Then how come everybody seems to know except you?





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Yes, for ECL purposes these things are not given weight... *



You just answered your own question here.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're a hypocrite. The Small size is counted in the same category as the supposed "subsumed" things! Ya' know, much like it's done with the core PC races. *



Excuse me? On the one hand you count CR scores for darkvision (when they are clearly subsumed), but then you scream blue murder when size is counted? If anybody is eating crow, that would be you friend. Furthermore, if racial abilities that extend above +0.5 are counted, then by logical extension racial abilities which drop below -0.5 should also be counted. The more important question is ... does size count as a racial ability or not?

Upper_Krust.

I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but I think it would be best clarified by you.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK covers this one in his post. So wrong again!
> 
> UK, I would like to thank you for responding before me, because I would have gotten nasty.*



Haha! I love it.

*Anubis:* "I could've taken him if... if... if you hadn't gotten here to stop me Upper_Krust!"

You're hysterical Anubis.

I'm waiting for clarification on the CR point. See above.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Basically, you propose the following:
> 
> CR 1/2 = EL -1
> CR 1/4 = EL -3
> ...



This is perhaps the sweetest victory of all. It started with an idea that you were dead set against (without, apparently, even examining the numbers), and now you support the idea with your own revisions. Thank you Anubis. You just made my day.



-----

Eldorian.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *When I quoted myself, I was repeating a large part of my post which you failed to comment on at all.*



And here I thought you quoted yourself again just because you liked the look of your own words (as opposed to the sound of your own voice).

Seeing as how it's _still_ unclear in your mind, you were arguing a point that I wasn't even contesting. You may as well be playing ball with the curb or boxing with your own shadow. Once you pick your pick yourself up, join the ongoing debate if you feel so inclinded. Or don't. I don't care either way.


----------



## Anubis (May 27, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your latest solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores. All CR scores would be expressed as fractions, and those fractions would represent increments that each EL bonus (for opponent numbers) advances through.
> *




This hasn't even even been thought of, mainly because it's not possible within the current system!  Sometimes the CR WILL drop below 0!  That's where the fraction come from!  Haven't you been paying attention?  It goes like so:

CR 0 = CR 1/2
CR -1 = CR 1/4
CR -2 = CR 1/8
etc etc etc

UK has only proposed adding a few denominations in there (unnecessary ones at that), but those changes don't help you out at all and in fact make things worse for you for the most part.

It seems to me you always go asking for clarifications when you're proven wrong or don't like what you hear.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Meaning a group of three CR 1/16 creatures would be worth EL -4; (EL -7 for CR 1/16) + (EL +3 for three opponents) = -4. If this is not how your system works, then please clarify.
> *




That is how the transition from CR to EL works under his proposed changes, yes.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> If this is how your system works, then a CR of 0.3 rounds up to CR 1/3 before it rounds up to CR 1/2 (once again, using your latest solution).
> *




This, however, is wrong.  The base CR to standard CR translations are not from the literal numbers but from the rounded numbers.  See above for details.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Anubis.
> 
> Then how come everybody seems to know except you?
> *




Everybody?  You seem to be the only one acknowledging such things.  Besides, even if you count none of that stuff, they still come out at CR 0.6!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> You just answered your own question here.
> ...




Look like your blindness has caused you to miss yet another point I have made.  My POINT was that as far as racial stuff goes, you either count ALL of it or you count NONE of it.  If Darkvision doesn't count, neither does size.

Besides, you looked at it wrong.  It's if the FINAL tally is below 0.5 you don't count it, at least that's what UK said when discussing the CORE PC RACES (which the goblin isn't one of I might add).

If you were right, then halflings and gnomes would have lower CR/EL ratings than the rest of the core PC races.  As such, you are wrong.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Upper_Krust.
> 
> I'm pretty sure I know the answer to this question, but I think it would be best clarified by you.
> ...




How is this a victory for you?  This has been my proposal all along!  Oh, that's right, you haven't been paying attention.  I have said all along to "use fractions as fractions"!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> -----
> ...




You're an . . . Oh screw it, I won't say it.  I wouldn't be telling you anything you don't already know.  One thing I know now is that debating with you is a waste of time because you're not interested in helping the system, you're only interesting in irritating people.  On that note, mission accomplished.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 27, 2003)

Hello.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *UK, I would like to thank you for responding before me, because I would have gotten nasty.  Thankfully, you got here first and corrected him nicely before I got to him.*




Don't thank me. I am sick and tired of the bad blood in this thread and if it continues beyond this post I won't be answering herein any longer.

I'm just telling you all now to drop this current line of discussion, its not doing anyone any favours. Just leave it. I'll bloody sort it and then when I present the solution you can all bitch at me because seemingly I am the only one who can take it and still come up smiling.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Thank you UK.  Also, if you look at the numbers I gave you on messenger, UK, you will see that making CR 1/2 be EL -1 gives IDENTICAL results to just using the fraction itself.
> 
> Basically, you propose the following:
> 
> ...




Thats one theory. The trick is of course how you get the numbers of the CRs (determined by my system) to represent the fractional CRs.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm proposing the following:
> 
> CR 1/2 = EL 1/2
> CR 1/4 = EL 1/4
> ...




The EL scores already represent the above. However it might be worthwhile clarifying it. Then again your solution could just end up increasing the confusion since the fractional ELs are extreneous to the system. So are fractional CRs but at least they are already integrated into the official rules.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 27, 2003)

Hello.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *UK:  I still maintain that the factors for calculating CR are too impercise to work at a fractonal level.  Any system that ignores the difference between elite stats and straight tens has no right to claim that it is accurate to anything less than a whole CR, if it can even make that claim.*




Generally I would agree with you because you are right.

However, as I see it exploring this idea at really low levels is actually more accurate than not exploring it. This is why the idea is giving me pause.

I still haven't decided yet whats for the best yet.

But its obvious a kobold is not the same challenge as a 1st-level NPC.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 27, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.*




Hello.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I asked for your clarification on this matter earlier, but I believe your computer was down at the time. As I understand your latest solution (not the one you related a few weeks ago), there would be no negative CR scores.*




But there will always be negative scores determined using my system. Its how we decipher those negative scores that is the problem.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *All CR scores would be expressed as fractions,*




Whether they are expressed as fractions or not the initial numbers could plausibly still be negative and theres no way to avoid this fact.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *and those fractions would represent increments that each EL bonus (for opponent numbers) advances through.
> 
> Meaning a group of three CR 1/16 creatures would be worth EL -4; (EL -7 for CR 1/16) + (EL +3 for three opponents) = -4. If this is not how your system works, then please clarify.*




Thats the plan, yes.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *If this is how your system works, then a CR of 0.3 rounds up to CR 1/3 before it rounds up to CR 1/2 (once again, using your latest solution). *




I don't recall posting a 'solution'. I do recall posting ideas of that nature that was in effect 'work in progress' but nothing I had finalised. That said, such a 'solution' may end up along those lines.

At any rate the current stipulation is to always round fractions down.

The key factor is how to break down scores between 0 and 0.9.

Obviously the kobold and 1st-level NPC example is relevant in that they both lie between these figures but are markedly different in terms of the challenge they represent.


----------



## MTR (May 28, 2003)

Well, as somebody who stumbled into this thread it certainly was, um, interesting.  Despite that I'd be interested in finding out more about the system.  I will say that advancing through the lower levels in fewer fights than the middle/upper levels is not, from my point of view, good.  

I do wonder how much certain factors can be taken into account.  If a party tends to be timid and falls back to rest and recover they won't string together enough of those 20% encounters to get them to the point where the players are scared in combat.  If you up the danger of the encounters they go up in level after very few play sessions.  Who's the best tactician at the table can be a major factor.  I'm driving at this: no system can take such factors into account but such factors are going to swamp very precise CR calculations.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 28, 2003)

Hi there MTR! 

Thanks for stopping by.



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *Well, as somebody who stumbled into this thread it certainly was, um, interesting. *




Its difficult picking the wheat from the chaff in this thread of late.  



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *Despite that I'd be interested in finding out more about the system.*




There is a link in the very first post of this thread which takes you here: 

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45989

Where you can download the entire set of rules (although its an earlier incarnation of the rules proper and there have been a few tweaks here and there since but you will get the gist of it).



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *I will say that advancing through the lower levels in fewer fights than the middle/upper levels is not, from my point of view, good.*




Well it does rate the challenge consistently though, rather than arbitrarily make encounters at lower levels worth less, as the official rules do.



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *I do wonder how much certain factors can be taken into account.*




I will certainly expound upon situational modifiers within the final draft. Thats something I really need to address further.



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *If a party tends to be timid and falls back to rest and recover they won't string together enough of those 20% encounters to get them to the point where the players are scared in combat.*




That tactic won't work in all situations though and of course theres nothing to prevent enemy forces regrouping/calling reinforcements/planning specifically for the PCs return etc.



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *If you up the danger of the encounters they go up in level after very few play sessions.*




If you play it 'by the book' though, PC casualties at low levels are practically a certainty. The increase in EXP is simply an extension of this.



			
				MTR said:
			
		

> *Who's the best tactician at the table can be a major factor.  I'm driving at this: no system can take such factors into account but such factors are going to swamp very precise CR calculations. *




As I have mentioned situational modifiers are going to be an issue, but my intention is to provide a more accurate method of determining CR. 

Situational modifiers are always going to be a factor one way or another but ask which is better; a system where the only real discrepancies are situational based or one where you are never even sure if the Challenge Rating is accurate to begin with* (as with the official system) and still have situational based modifiers to worry about.

*and is totally misleading at epic levels.


----------



## Anubis (May 28, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> The EL scores already represent the above. However it might be worthwhile clarifying it. Then again your solution could just end up increasing the confusion since the fractional ELs are extreneous to the system. So are fractional CRs but at least they are already integrated into the official rules.
> *




Actually, that's not how your numbers work.  In the WotC system, CR determines challenge and XP.  In your system, EL does all that.  Therefore, WotC CR = UK EL.  As such, fractional ELs is SIMPLER because it's what the WotC system already does with it's fractional CRs.


----------



## Anubis (May 28, 2003)

Hey UK, I really hate to say this, but I finally found an inaccuracy in your system.  It lies in the CR rating for Vermin Hit Dice (and probably Animal Hit Dice as well).  With the bigger monsters (colossal vermin to be precise), the numbers kinda break down.  I'm over here right now:

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51177

I'm trying to defend the CR 41/EL 22 Colossal Monstrous Scorpion, but after much debate, that number is inaccurate.  I know CR 11 is wrong, but so is CR 41.  You may wanna consider going back to the older ratings for Hit Dice.  You know, where Vermin are rated at 0.3 or 0.25 per Hit Die.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 28, 2003)

Hello.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Actually, that's not how your numbers work.  In the WotC system, CR determines challenge and XP.  In your system, EL does all that.  Therefore, WotC CR = UK EL.  As such, fractional ELs is SIMPLER because it's what the WotC system already does with it's fractional CRs. *




Anything that requires additional numbers cannot be inherantly simpler.

Whether its any 'clearer' or not is a matter for discussion however.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 28, 2003)

Hello.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hey UK, I really hate to say this, but I finally found an inaccuracy in your system.  It lies in the CR rating for Vermin Hit Dice (and probably Animal Hit Dice as well).  With the bigger monsters (colossal vermin to be precise), the numbers kinda break down.  I'm over here right now:
> 
> http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=51177
> 
> I'm trying to defend the CR 41/EL 22 Colossal Monstrous Scorpion, but after much debate, that number is inaccurate.  I know CR 11 is wrong, but so is CR 41.  You may wanna consider going back to the older ratings for Hit Dice.  You know, where Vermin are rated at 0.3 or 0.25 per Hit Die. *




No, my definition of vermin is accurate, however I'll tell you where the problem lies. 

Specifically look at the Strength and Constitution scores for this supposed Colossal Creature...it has a Str 29 and Con 14 when it should have a *minimum* of Str 42, Con 26. 

Or judging by the medium version the Colossal version should have Str 45 and Con 30, giving it an additional +8 on all attacks meaning its going to hit even epic armor classes every time. It will also gain +8 damage, however its base damage seems woefully inadequate to begin with and should be at least double the listed amount. Its hit points will increase by 512 giving it 928 hit points...more than the Tarrasque! Its natural armour bonus is also probably misleading and should perhaps be +30 (extrapolating from the medium size version). Also the increase in Con will also affect the DC for the poison.

I mean its ludicrous, do WotC not even know their own system!? I fully expect some changes to this in 3.5 though.


----------



## Anubis (May 28, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I have a question.  How does my proposal require additional numbers?  It's YOUR proposal that adds numbers.  With mine, you can use the fractional CR AS the fraction EL with no changes, whereas your proposal requires translated a fractional CR into a new number, a negative EL.  So tell me again, how does mine require additional numbers?

Mine simply uses the system for fractions that's already in place, produces IDENTICAL results to your proposal, and requires less "translation" from the current system (since we'd be using something already in the system).  Here is my full proposal.

For getting the fractional CR:

CR 0 = CR 1/2
CR -1 = CR 1/4
CR -2 = CR 1/8
CR -3 = CR 1/16
etc etc etc (as per your current PDF)

Then simple use this number AS the fractional EL, no translation of changes needed.  Add fractions as per the current WotC rules.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *No, my definition of vermin is accurate, however I'll tell you where the problem lies.
> 
> Specifically look at the Strength and Constitution scores for this supposed Colossal Creature...it has a Str 29 and Con 14 when it should have a minimum of Str 42, Con 26.
> 
> ...




Ah, thank goodness I'm not the only one who thought the thing was too weak for it's size!  I didn't say that because I was under the impression that we were keeping monsters the same for the most part, but now that you've said it, I'm glad I can come out and say such thigns as well.

I KNEW there had to be a reason for the "inaccuracy".  Hehehe but it was in THEIR numbers and not yours.  I guess that would be the opposite of the "kobold with 25 Strength" issue, eh?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 28, 2003)

Howdy Upper_Krust.



			
				Sonofapreacherman[/i]
[B]If this is how your system works said:
			
		

> *I don't recall posting a 'solution'. I do recall posting ideas of that nature that was in effect 'work in progress' but nothing I had finalized. That said, such a 'solution' may end up along those lines.*



You see, that's what I thought. I have no idea what Anubis thinks he's going on about.

All right then, solution or no, it's the best idea for rating lower level encounters so far (especially Challenge Ratings that fall between 0 and 0.9. Okay, using this solution, however 'work in progress' it might be, a goblin (CR 0.3) rounds down to CR 0.25 or EL -3.

Now this CR 0.3 rating also assumes that Size is *not* factored into your 0.5 racial calculations.

I asked you "specifically" to clarify this point in my last post, but Anubis suffered from an identity crisis and answered for you. If you could put this point to rest, that would be great.


----------



## Anubis (May 28, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.
> 
> You see, that's what I thought. I have no idea what Anubis thinks he's going on about.
> 
> ...




The goblin is either 0.8 (if you count his racial abilities which add up to 0.2 total) or 0.6.  Under no circumstance short of changing the goblin itself will it be 0.3 no matter how you slice it.  Face it, four goblins are EL 3.

Besides, why is this even being debated?  PLAYTESTING PROVES THIS TO BE TRUE.  Please stop ignoring the playtesting.


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 29, 2003)

Hi all! 

I'll respond directly to the current points tomorrow. 

Looking over an email from Anubis I received earlier tonight it seems as if he is meeting Sonofapreacherman halfway on a number of issues even if Anubis might not have perceived he is actually doing so.

Whether any such thing will ever be admitted by either side is of course about as likely as a swift conclusion to the Isreali-Palestinean Peace Negotiations.

But hey I can dream can't I!?


----------



## Upper_Krust (May 29, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *You see, that's what I thought. I have no idea what Anubis thinks he's going on about.*




Well then lets just let that whole thing lie.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *All right then, solution or no, it's the best idea for rating lower level encounters so far (especially Challenge Ratings that fall between 0 and 0.9.*




The key is how we split the unit between 0 and 1.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Okay, using this solution, however 'work in progress' it might be, a goblin (CR 0.3) rounds down to CR 0.25 or EL -3.*




Which solution is this, I am sure I have touted a few possibilitiess

You could split 0 to 1 in half; into three or possibly into four. The middle option is perhaps the best but its also the most untidy. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Now this CR 0.3 rating also assumes that Size is *not* factored into your 0.5 racial calculations.*




Ignore racial factors in tandem with class levels.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I asked you "specifically" to clarify this point in my last post, but Anubis suffered from an identity crisis and answered for you. If you could put this point to rest, that would be great. *




Do any of my above comments help? Even I am prone to getting confused now and again.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (May 31, 2003)

Howdy Upper_Krust.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *You could split 0 to 1 in half; into three or possibly into four. The middle option is perhaps the best but its also the most untidy.*



I agree. Splitting it into three is the most untidy solution. I think the quartering rule works better, but, once again, this is dependant on whether or not you count features like Size "specifically" as as racial abilities.

Below you say...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Ignore racial factors in tandem with class levels.*



...which still isn't very clear. To me that says ... if you ignore racial factors, then you must also ignore class level factors. Is this right? Please, a simple yes or no would be great.



Your above quoted reply, however, doesn't really answer my original question about Size. Making a conrete decision about this issue will help determine whether or not "thirding" or "quartering" (the 0 to 1 CR spectrum) is the way to go. I'll try to be more clear this time...

When calculating which racial abilities *do not* count towards total CR (because the total of those racial abilities "alone" do not exceed +0.5 CR) are the values for Size counted or not?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Do any of my above comments help? Even I am prone to getting confused now and again. *



Happens to the best of us.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 3, 2003)

I think I have had my fill of the D&D Rules Forum for another year. Some people already moaning about off topic discussions, even though all I was doing was answering questions put directly to me. 

Incidently I just finished a hack em' up PC game called Severance: Blade of Darkness. Lots of fun, if you get the chance take a look (the game is about 2 years old and I am sure its a budget title at the minute). I haven't been able to finish my game before I recently upgraded because my old machine couldn't handle it so it was nice to finally put it to bed.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Howdy Upper_Krust.*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I agree. Splitting it into three is the most untidy solution. I think the quartering rule works better, but, once again, this is dependant on whether or not you count features like Size "specifically" as racial abilities.*




Indeed. Those racial abilities are an annoyance I'll have to deal with once and for all.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Below you say...
> 
> ...which still isn't very clear. To me that says ... if you ignore racial factors, then you must also ignore class level factors. Is this right? Please, a simple yes or no would be great.
> 
> ...




Absolutely, I agree the proof could well be in the pudding (so to speak) - in that getting the racial mods inclusion or exclusion determined will probably point us in the right direction with regards the fractional CRs.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Happens to the best of us. *




Only temporary I assure you. 

Incidently as I mentioned over in the D&D Rules Forum I will likely add Create Spawn to the list of abilities that affect ECL more than CR.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 3, 2003)

Howdy Krust!

Been reading the thread on the rules forum. When you post the revised CR's of the MM and EHL creatures, will you please keep the decimals? It'll make it a lot easier for calculating the correct CR when modifying/advancing the critters on your own. Thanks!

And now for something else: I know this issue has been brought up before, but I have neither the time nor the patience to go through 1000+ posts  
I think that at low lvls both PC's and NPC's have very limited funds. This is especially true for NPC's. By my reckoning, a 5th lvl NPC fighter (~1560 gp) won't even be able to afford a MW sword, shield and a full plate!
Is it just me overlooking something or must PC's just get used to very few funds at low lvls?

Oh, and huury up with version 4, so that we all will have time to nitpick before the final release!  

Later,


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 3, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Howdy Krust!*




Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Been reading the thread on the rules forum. When you post the revised CR's of the MM and EHL creatures, will you please keep the decimals? It'll make it a lot easier for calculating the correct CR when modifying/advancing the critters on your own. Thanks!*




Okay, its a little more work but I can see how that would help people out a bit. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *And now for something else: I know this issue has been brought up before, but I have neither the time nor the patience to go through 1000+ posts  *




If it has been brought up before then I have probably forgotten it anyway - so ask away! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I think that at low lvls both PC's and NPC's have very limited funds. This is especially true for NPC's. By my reckoning, a 5th lvl NPC fighter (~1560 gp) won't even be able to afford a MW sword, shield and a full plate!
> 
> Is it just me overlooking something or must PC's just get used to very few funds at low lvls?*




Well a 5th-level PC would have 12,500 GP worth of equipment.

Whereas a 5th-level NPC would (as you outline) have 1,560 GP.

Of course these figures are just really general guidelines for the DM so if you wanted to give a 5th-level NPC a magic item or two then by all means go for it.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Oh, and huury up with version 4, so that we all will have time to nitpick before the final release! *




I look forward to the nitpicking! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Later, *




Take care mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 3, 2003)

*Does anybody have the A Garamond font...?*

Hi all! 

I reinstalled Pagemaker again and uploaded all my fonts but seemingly I am without the 'A Garamond' Font that I was using for a subheading in the IH.

Does anyone have that font? I have just spent and hour online trying to find the thing - with no success. I could have sworn I downloaded from some free font website, but I have tried half a dozen and can't find it.

Can anyone help me out?


----------



## poilbrun (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: Does anybody have the A Garamond font...?*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> I reinstalled Pagemaker again and uploaded all my fonts but seemingly I am without the 'A Garamond' Font that I was using for a subheading in the IH.
> 
> ...



Email sent


----------



## Anubis (Jun 3, 2003)

Hey, UK, have you put in my revisions for the PC/NPC wealth yet?  Your numbers simply give the NPCs far too little equipment, especially at lower levels.

I propose the following:

PC Wealth: (Level^3)*100
NPC Wealth: [(Level^3)*100]/4

Basically, keep your system for PC wealth, and for NPC wealth, simply take the PC wealth for those levels and divide by four.  Simple, ya?  On top of that, you get numbers that are pretty close to what treasure an encounter of that level should be worth.

Remember, an NPCs equipment to PCs is worth only half it's actual value.  So look at this:

NPC Level 20: 200,000 gp Wealth/100,000 gp Value
Level 20 Encounter: 80,000 gp

See?  PERFECT!  Well, not perfect, but you get my point.  Any which way, it's much better than what you do now.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 3, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Remember, an NPCs equipment to PCs is worth only half it's actual value.  So look at this:
> 
> *




Why is that??


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 3, 2003)

*Re: Does anybody have the A Garamond font...?*

Hey poilbrun mate! 



			
				poilbrun said:
			
		

> *Email sent  *




Thanks, much appreciated. Although you sent me Garamond and it was technically 'AGaramond' I was looking for. Does anyone have that?

Funnily enough my formatting looks slightly different - I am wondering if this is because of the switch over to Windows XP?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 3, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hey, UK,*




Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *have you put in my revisions for the PC/NPC wealth yet?*




Nope. But looking at my results I seem to be halving NPC wealth...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your numbers simply give the NPCs far too little equipment, especially at lower levels.
> 
> I propose the following:
> 
> ...




...One possibility is that we could have:

1/2 NPC Level^3 x 200 GP which I think solves your problem.

However, my problem with tinkering with the original calculations is that it of course interferes with the simple +0.1* mod for NPC wealth  

*per level. 

Of course this could just be my problem not the NPCs.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 4, 2003)

UK, 

Howdy.

Are you actually not going back to the Rules forum? If so, then I will move my posting to this thread. OTOH, I don't think those talking about the "OT" content were aiming at you, nor even that they were actually upset about anything, just making academic observations.
But either way, let me know what your intentions are and I will adjust accordingly.

PS. I finally finished going through your .pdf and look forward to discussing it with you.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 4, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> Why is that??
> *




Most treasure gained from NPCs is likely to be unusable by the PCs, and therefore is sold, which nets half the original value.  Also, treasure that IS kept is divided based on half the actual value.  As such, most treasure being sold and kept is only worth half.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 1/2 NPC Level^3 x 200 GP which I think solves your problem.
> *




. . . . . . . Are you trying to be cute with me, UK?  That formula comes up with the EXACT SAME RESULTS my method comes up with AT EVERY LEVEL!

How the @#$% did you do that?!

At any rate, that is acceptable.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> However, my problem with tinkering with the original calculations is that it of course interferes with the simple +0.1* mod for NPC wealth
> 
> *per level.
> *




How so?  Your original formula interfered with the 0.1 thing already, seeing as that should implay that NPC wealth is worth exactly half as much as PC wealth.  That means that if Level 20 gets 800,000, an NPC should get 400,000.  Instead, your old formula had the NPC with a meager 100,000, which was far less than half PC wealth (and also in turn makes those NPCs FAR less powerful than CR would indicate, as such an NPC would be CR 18 and play like half that in actual games).



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> Of course this could just be my problem not the NPCs.
> *




I would say it's not even an issue.  There is no way to make the 0.1 perfect without risking giving too much treasure to PCs as you point out.  It's an abstract number at best and there's no real way to set it perfectly.  You have to give NPCs enough equipment to survive, but you also gotta keep treasure gains down.  I would still almost suggest that you not count wealth seperately, but that would screw with some other numbers.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 4, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *UK,
> 
> Howdy.*




Hey Coredump mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Are you actually not going back to the Rules forum?*




I try and avoid it if possible, but I replied to your latest missive. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *If so, then I will move my posting to this thread.*




Well, in future I would probably prefer it here that over there.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *OTOH, I don't think those talking about the "OT" content were aiming at you, nor even that they were actually upset about anything, just making academic observations.*




I hate to engender bad sentiment even if it was unwarranted.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *But either way, let me know what your intentions are and I will adjust accordingly.*




Post herein if you can. Thanks.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *PS. I finally finished going through your .pdf and look forward to discussing it with you. *




Sure, thanks for your time. 

Some things that have already been corrected since version 1 are: 

- Clarifications to when you should or should not factor ability scores.
- Non-ability scores restructured.
- Various Templates restructured including Construct; Ooze; Undead.

Work in progress:

- Revision to Fractional CRs
- Situational Common Denominators
- Full list of MM/ELH CRs to one decimal place.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 4, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Most treasure gained from NPCs is likely to be unusable by the PCs, and therefore is sold, which nets half the original value.  Also, treasure that IS kept is divided based on half the actual value.  As such, most treasure being sold and kept is only worth half.*




I wouldn't necessarily say most treasure, certainly not at lower levels. Probably at higher levels and above...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *. . . . . . . Are you trying to be cute with me, UK? *




Nothing but love for you mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That formula comes up with the EXACT SAME RESULTS my method comes up with AT EVERY LEVEL!
> 
> How the @#$% did you do that?!*




As the cerebral assassin would say: "I am THAT DAMN GOOD!". 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *At any rate, that is acceptable.*




I'll sleep better knowing you are not going to kick up another ruckuss. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How so?  Your original formula interfered with the 0.1 thing already, seeing as that should implay that NPC wealth is worth exactly half as much as PC wealth.*




Indeed. However the CR modifier is not derived from the wealth itself, but rather from the typical wealth attributed to a given level.

eg. 
1st-level PC Wealth = 100GP = CR +0.2
10th-level PC wealth = 100,000GP = CR +2 (1000 times more than level  1)
20th-level PC wealth = 800,000GP = CR +4 (8 times more than level 10)

Without having an actual wealth table/formula, rating CR by wealth alone is impossible.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That means that if Level 20 gets 800,000, an NPC should get 400,000. *




Well thats far too much for an NPC. 200,000 would be much more practical.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Instead, your old formula had the NPC with a meager 100,000, which was far less than half PC wealth (and also in turn makes those NPCs FAR less powerful than CR would indicate, as such an NPC would be CR 18 and play like half that in actual games).*




Indeed, upon review the old figure was too low.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I would say it's not even an issue.*




Well it is an issue; but fortunately I already have the solution. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There is no way to make the 0.1 perfect without risking giving too much treasure to PCs as you point out.  It's an abstract number at best and there's no real way to set it perfectly.  You have to give NPCs enough equipment to survive, but you also gotta keep treasure gains down.  I would still almost suggest that you not count wealth seperately, but that would screw with some other numbers. *




As far as I can tell a figure of 0.15/level of NPC wealth is viable...if not pinpoint in accuracy.

Therefore:

PC wealth = +0.2/Level (Level^3 x100 GP)

NPC Wealth = +0.15/Level (Half Level^3 x200 GP)

An alternative method would be (3/4 Level^3 x100 GP) for the NPC. That may actually be easier to implement since it only requires one deviation from the norm.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 4, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Most treasure gained from NPCs is likely to be unusable by the PCs, and therefore is sold, which nets half the original value.  Also, treasure that IS kept is divided based on half the actual value.  As such, most treasure being sold and kept is only worth half.
> 
> *




Please elaborate. I'm at a total loss   

I think I get that items sold only sell for half price. Okay. But why is the part kept by the party divided based on half the value? as I see it, the NPC has some treasure worth X. Then the party divides some part of X among themselves, and the rest of X gets sold off - and only fetches half the remaing X value. Right?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 4, 2003)

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Please elaborate. I'm at a total loss
> 
> I think I get that items sold only sell for half price. Okay. But why is the part kept by the party divided based on half the value? as I see it, the NPC has some treasure worth X. Then the party divides some part of X among themselves, and the rest of X gets sold off - and only fetches half the remaing X value. Right? *




I don't want to put words in Anubis mouth but I think he was over generalising here and you have pegged it exactly.

PCs probably won't start selling NPC equipment until at least mid-levels and I doubt even then it would be anything like half until at least high-levels. 

This doesn't even factor in cohorts, so Anubis generalisation is somewhat misleading. 

My character, Thrin, stockpiled magic items for years. Then when he became a god he dished a lot of it out to his more important worshippers. As a result the top people were really tough which furthered the reputation of the Order of Thrinian Knights, who now have the reputation as some of the toughest fighters in the known worlds.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 5, 2003)

NOTE: The following quotes are taken from the thread "Dire Tiger" in the D&D Rules forum. Since it had taken a turn towards House rules, UK wisely asked to move the conversation here. If you would like more background, go ahead and check out that thread.

(I apologize for the large quotes, but I decided it would be best for continuity, since I am importing from another thread.)

Anubis


> The thing is it ISN'T his problem. There are always people who just don't understand. Not all people operate at the same level. Some people would find the core rules hard to understand even. Some people might find Super Mario Bros. to be a hard game. These are not problems with the system, it's problems on the user's end. Most people who look at UK's system understand it pretty well. I see very few people having a tough time, and most of them went in with closed minds anyway, which assured a lack of understanding.
> 
> I'm not being mean, I'm being a realist. Some people just can't grasp advanced concepts. Just like I can't grasp calculus. It don't mean calculus is poorly designed, it means I am just not able to understand.
> 
> I think the fault here lies with the user, because everything in the PDF is pretty crystal clear.




But see, the point is that YOU think it isn't the problem, and YOU think it is clear. As soon as UK decides the same thing, it is over. It will never get clearer.
Your Calculus example is a great one. Check out a Calc book from 20-30 years ago. Man is it dense and hard to understand. But *some* people could understand it, in fact felt it was plain as day. If the various authors felt that was "Good enough, not everyone will understand anyway" then the books of today would be just as hard. But the ones today are much clearer, and do a much better job of explaining concepts. We could stop now, but the authors are still trying to find ways to reach more people, by making it even clearer.  Of course they will never reach 100%, but as soon as they decide it is the "readers fault" it will never get better.
I bet that I could teach you calculus, I could make it understandable to you. (course, it would be easier if you had some algebra knowledge.)
UK is not saying that he is a bad person because someone didn't understand, but rather that their understanding is an opportunity for improving the message to reach even more people.


.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 5, 2003)

UK,
The bulk of your post was in explaining away what I listed as potential problems. I had not claimed they were true, just using them to demonstrate that being more accurate did not necessarily equate to being better.
Unfortunately, Anubis chose not to respond to that aspect.

Now, for the exchange about the Pit Fiend. (NOTE: I am again quoting alot, from various posts, to facilitate understanding for those not reading the other thread.)

UK


> .....what I have noticed from the 3.5 monsters so far is that their CRs are two-thirds the figure my system advocates.




Coredump


> Okay, but does it matter? From what I can tell, WotC is saying that the Pit Fiend is CR 20, therefore EL 20.
> Your method says CR 30, which still translates to an EL of 20. So what is the difference?.




UK


> The difference is that under WotCs method a 20th-level character is CR 20/EL 20 and I disagree with the latter half of that appraisal.
> 
> They still advocate that a single 24th-level character is a difficult (50/50) challenge for a party of 4-5 20th-level characters. Or that a single 20th-level character is a difficult challenge for a party of 16th-level characters. This just simply isn't the case.
> .




Okay, but I don't feel that answered my question.  You seem to feel your CR system is better than the Core one. As an example of the difference, you showed how the Pit Fiend was shown to be rated very differently.
While the issue of PC = CR = EL may be a valid concern, that was not the crux of my question.
Why does it matter that WotC says Pit Fiend CR is 20, and you say Pit Fiend CR is 30; since they both mean the SAME EL. 
At least in this one case it sounds like you are stating 
"WotC has it wrong, they say it is CR 20 and a moderate challenge for a 20th level party, I say it is CR 30 and a moderate challenge for a 20th level party, so my way is better."

How does this demonstrate the superiority of your system, since it came out with the SAME end result?

.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 5, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Sorcica mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That answers my question (if indeed this is what Anubis meant.). Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 5, 2003)

Hi Coredump mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Okay, but I don't feel that answered my question.  You seem to feel your CR system is better than the Core one.*




Indeed.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *As an example of the difference, you showed how the Pit Fiend was shown to be rated very differently.*




That wasn't the point I was trying to make with that example, I noticed over in the other thread you took that in a different direction to where I was going with it.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *While the issue of PC = CR = EL may be a valid concern, that was not the crux of my question.*




But its a valid indictment of the official rules.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Why does it matter that WotC says Pit Fiend CR is 20, and you say Pit Fiend CR is 30; since they both mean the SAME EL.
> At least in this one case it sounds like you are stating
> "WotC has it wrong, they say it is CR 20 and a moderate challenge for a 20th level party, I say it is CR 30 and a moderate challenge for a 20th level party, so my way is better."
> 
> How does this demonstrate the superiority of your system, since it came out with the SAME end result? *




Pit Fiend CR/EL 20 (WotC); CR 30/EL 20 (my system)
Bone Devil CR/EL 9 (WotC); CR 14/EL 13 (my system)
Barbed Devil CR/EL 10 (WotC); CR 16/EL 17 (my system)
Gauth CR/EL 6 (WotC); CR 9/EL 13 (my system)
Mummy CR/EL 5? (WotC); CR 8/EL 13 (my system)
Mummy Lord CR/EL 11? (WotC); CR 17/EL 17 (my system)

So really the Pit Fiends rating is merely a coincidence.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 5, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I wouldn't necessarily say most treasure, certainly not at lower levels. Probably at higher levels and above...
> *




Like I said, 100% perfection on the wealth issue is impossible.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Nothing but love for you mate!
> *








			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> As the cerebral assassin would say: "I am THAT DAMN GOOD!".
> 
> I'll sleep better knowing you are not going to kick up another ruckuss.
> *






I only kick up a ruckuss when I need to! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Indeed. However the CR modifier is not derived from the wealth itself, but rather from the typical wealth attributed to a given level.
> 
> eg.
> ...




Judging my your mind-dizzying explanation of the former, your latter statement sounds quite true hahaha!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well thats far too much for an NPC. 200,000 would be much more practical.
> *




Ah, we're finally in agreement. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Indeed, upon review the old figure was too low.
> 
> Well it is an issue; but fortunately I already have the solution.
> ...




Um, I don't find this to be accurate.  1/4 the wealth of a PC is worth 3/4 the CR of a PC? 

I'd say if you change it at all, change it to +0.05/Level for NPC wealth.  Mostly likely, though, the +0.1/Level works.  Then again, +0.05/Level is starting to sound mighty fine, and it won't greatly change the CRs . . . How about it?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> An alternative method would be (3/4 Level^3 x100 GP) for the NPC. That may actually be easier to implement since it only requires one deviation from the norm.
> *




Don't do that.  That's just silly.  If you have two formulas, have two formulas.  no need to keep one part the same in both, that's simply pedantic.  I'd rather have something slightly different yet more accurate and better.  Besides, this formula gives you inflated results yet again, giving 168.75% of the wealth the other gives you.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> I don't want to put words in Anubis mouth but I think he was over generalising here and you have pegged it exactly.
> 
> PCs probably won't start selling NPC equipment until at least mid-levels and I doubt even then it would be anything like half until at least high-levels.
> *




I don't quite agree with you here, especially when there are lots of NPCs with the same equipment, which is common.  Common for me at least.  I love throwing lots of Warriors and Adepts at my PCs hahaha.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> This doesn't even factor in cohorts, so Anubis generalisation is somewhat misleading.
> *




To be honest, I think cohorts and followers should be counted on their own and not be considered part of the leader characters CR/EL.  I know that's a major rule change, or at least I think it would be.  Nonetheless, these characters need their own ratings and should count as full characters.  These dudes are worth far more than a summoned creature.

BY THE WAY, speaking of summoned creatures . . . UK, you might wanna amend the Gate spell when used in your system . . . Actually you should amend it either way, 'cause it's TOTALLY BROKEN.  Right now, a Level 26 character can summon and control a HECATONCHEIRES.  I don't think I need to explain how silly and broken THAT is.  My suggestion would be to make it so you can't control *anything with a CR more than double the caster's CR*.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> My character, Thrin, stockpiled magic items for years. Then when he became a god he dished a lot of it out to his more important worshippers. As a result the top people were really tough which furthered the reputation of the Order of Thrinian Knights, who now have the reputation as some of the toughest fighters in the known worlds.
> *




I somehow get the feeling that this is a very poor example for you to use to demonstrate your point. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> That answers my question (if indeed this is what Anubis meant.). Thanks.
> *




Yeah, sounds about right, for the most part.  Kinda.  Hahaha.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 5, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I only kick up a ruckuss when I need to!*




...its your judgement on when its needed I pall at. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Judging my your mind-dizzying explanation of the former, your latter statement sounds quite true hahaha!*




Just put your trust in Krust. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Ah, we're finally in agreement. *




So it would appear. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Um, I don't find this to be accurate.  1/4 the wealth of a PC is worth 3/4 the CR of a PC? *




...because they get the same wealth as a PC 3/4 their level.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'd say if you change it at all, change it to +0.05/Level for NPC wealth.  Mostly likely, though, the +0.1/Level works.  Then again, +0.05/Level is starting to sound mighty fine, and it won't greatly change the CRs . . . How about it?*




PC +0.2
NPC +0.15

Therefore a 20th-level NPC = CR 19



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Don't do that.  That's just silly.  If you have two formulas, have two formulas.  no need to keep one part the same in both, that's simply pedantic.
> I'd rather have something slightly different yet more accurate and better.  Besides, this formula gives you inflated results yet again, giving 168.75% of the wealth the other gives you.*




True, the first formula is better, I was just thinking out loud. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I don't quite agree with you here, especially when there are lots of NPCs with the same equipment, which is common.  Common for me at least.  I love throwing lots of Warriors and Adepts at my PCs hahaha.*




Well obviously if you are throwing a heap of NPCs with the same equipment at the PCs... 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *To be honest, I think cohorts and followers should be counted on their own and not be considered part of the leader characters CR/EL.*




When were they ever not?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I know that's a major rule change, or at least I think it would be. *




News to me. I always rated them as extra characters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *BY THE WAY, speaking of summoned creatures . . . UK, you might wanna amend the Gate spell when used in your system . . . Actually you should amend it either way, 'cause it's TOTALLY BROKEN.  Right now, a Level 26 character can summon and control a HECATONCHEIRES.  I don't think I need to explain how silly and broken THAT is.  My suggestion would be to make it so you can't control *anything with a CR more than double the caster's CR*.*




Double caster level as CR sounds decent.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I somehow get the feeling that this is a very poor example for you to use to demonstrate your point.  *


----------



## Anubis (Jun 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> ...because they get the same wealth as a PC 3/4 their level.
> 
> PC +0.2
> ...




Oh, so you meant the 0.15/NPC Level would be for the new proposed formula and NOT the original one you came up with that matched my results.  I understand that, and those numbers do match pretty perfect.  The wealth may be a bit much, though.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> True, the first formula is better, I was just thinking out loud.
> *




Well if you use the first formula, your +0.15/NPC Level doesn't work.  Check it out . . .

With the old (better) formula, you get 200,000 gp wealth for a Level 20 NPC.  A Level 20 PC gets 800,000.  Therefore, since the NPC always have a quarter the wealth of a PC, then the NPC wealth rating should be a quarter of the PC wealth rating.  +0.2/PC Level and +0.05/NPC Level.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Well obviously if you are throwing a heap of NPCs with the same equipment at the PCs...
> *




Most leaders arm their armies with the same equipment.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> When were they ever not?
> *




You implies that cohorts and the such would be a problem because they are included in CR.  I simply stated that they should be seperate.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Double caster level as CR sounds decent.
> *




In agreement yet again!  I think we're in the home stretch here now!

How'd you like the numbers in that e-mail?  If you would playtest them in a game, I do believe those numbers would bear out nicely.  It still keeps goblins at CR 1/2 and makes four of them EL 3, but I think that's accurate anyway.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 6, 2003)

Where goblins and every other creature between CR 0 and CR 1 are concerned, the fractional solution seems to favor increments of either 1/4 or 1/3.

Upper Krust.

I know we both dislike the messy 1/3 fractional solution, so what about this...

CR 1 = EL 1
CR 3/4 = EL 0
CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 1/4 = EL -2
CR 1/8 or 1/16 = EL -3...

That way CR 0.3 creatures (like warrior goblins with Size modifiers calculated separately from their racial package) round down to CR 1/4 and rate EL 2 for a group of 4 such humanoids.

Now whether you rate NPC wealth at +0.15 or +0.05, this final value for goblins in particular will still round down to CR 1/4 before adjusting EL for numbers (as above).

These numbers would award a party of 4 PCs 112.5 XP each for decimating 4 goblins warriors. Not an ideal value for goblins (still inflated by 150% by my estimation) but a good compromise nonetheless.

Now the weight falls cleaning on your shoulders Upper Krust. Have you made any progress determining which racial CR features should and should not be calculated separately?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Oh, so you meant the 0.15/NPC Level would be for the new proposed formula and NOT the original one you came up with that matched my results.  I understand that, and those numbers do match pretty perfect.  The wealth may be a bit much, though.*




No I didn't mean that. I meant use the old formula.

Half Level^3 x 200GP



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well if you use the first formula, your +0.15/NPC Level doesn't work.  Check it out . . .*




I just did, it should be +0.126...which doesn't exactly roll of the tongue. 

We could probably get away with making it +0.125 I think.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *With the old (better) formula, you get 200,000 gp wealth for a Level 20 NPC.  A Level 20 PC gets 800,000.  Therefore, since the NPC always have a quarter the wealth of a PC, then the NPC wealth rating should be a quarter of the PC wealth rating.  +0.2/PC Level and +0.05/NPC Level.*




No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no and no.

This is one of those situations that, while simple, is an absolute bugger to properly explain to someone unless they have taken an advanced course in krustanomics. 

Listen up...

A 20th-level PC gets 800,000 GP = +4 CR
A 20th-level NPC gets 200,000 GP = +2.52 CR (or as I menationed above possibly +2.5 for simplicity)
A 12th-level PC gets 172,800 GP = +2.4 CR
A 13th-level PC gets 219,700 GP = +2.6 CR 

A 10th-level PC gets 100,000 GP = CR +2
A 10th-level NPC gets 25,000 GP = CR +1.26 (or +1.25)
A 6th-level PC gets 21,600 GP = CR +1.2
A 7th-level PC gets 34,300 GP = CR +1.4

*We do not measure the AMOUNT of GP they get, forget about how much more wealth one has above the other - you can't rate it like that!

We measure the LEVEL at which they get a certain amount!*

A 20th-level PC gets 8000 times more wealth than a 1st-level PC. Its impossible to rate wealth as a CR factor in and of its own amount. So instead we rate wealth based on the level at which they should receive that wealth.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Most leaders arm their armies with the same equipment.*




When do 'armies' ever get maical equipment. Maybe the leaders of mid-level and above.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You implies that cohorts and the such would be a problem because they are included in CR.  I simply stated that they should be seperate.*




Of course they have a seperate CR - everthing does. But they would still be factored into the (P)EL as you would multiple party members.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *In agreement yet again!  I think we're in the home stretch here now!*




*touches wood*



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *How'd you like the numbers in that e-mail?  If you would playtest them in a game, I do believe those numbers would bear out nicely.  It still keeps goblins at CR 1/2 and makes four of them EL 3, but I think that's accurate anyway. *




I need to study this facet in more detail before making any judgement.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Where goblins and every other creature between CR 0 and CR 1 are concerned, the fractional solution seems to favor increments of either 1/4 or 1/3.*




Possibly.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust.
> 
> I know we both dislike the messy 1/3 fractional solution, so what about this...
> 
> ...




Firstly there is no CR 3/4. Its CR 2/3.

Secondly, maybe I am just missing the obvious here (?), but how are we any further along with the above 'insights'? 

The problem has nothing to do with the relationship between fractional CRs and ELs. We already have that deteremined.

The problem is how do we get the decimal results of my CR system to coincide with fractional CRs (and therefore ELs) since we can't just take the decimal and turn it into a fraction because the CR system takes scores below zero!



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That way CR 0.3 creatures (like warrior goblins with Size modifiers calculated separately from their racial package) round down to CR 1/4 and rate EL 2 for a group of 4 such humanoids.
> 
> Now whether you rate NPC wealth at +0.15 or +0.05, this final value for goblins in particular will still round down to CR 1/4 before adjusting EL for numbers (as above).
> 
> These numbers would award a party of 4 PCs 112.5 XP each for decimating 4 goblins warriors. Not an ideal value for goblins (still inflated by 150% by my estimation) but a good compromise nonetheless.*




I'm unclear as to how exactly you are marrying decimal CRs and fractional CRs/ELs.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Now the weight falls cleaning on your shoulders Upper Krust. *




Naturally. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Have you made any progress determining which racial CR features should and should not be calculated separately? *




I'll have this all wrapped up this weekend.

...hopefully.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *The problem is how do we get the decimal results of my CR system to coincide with fractional CRs (and therefore ELs) since we can't just take the decimal and turn it into a fraction because the CR system takes scores below zero!
> 
> ...
> 
> I'm unclear as to how exactly you are marrying decimal CRs and fractional CRs/ELs.*



Directly. In the most simple and straightforward way imaginable.

When you translate a CR 0.3 creature into a fractional CR, you get a CR 3/10 creature. Now because you always round CR down, rounding down fractional Challenge Ratings is no different. The two closest fractional CR increments are 1/2 and 1/4. A CR 3/10 creatures falls directly between those two ranges, and thus rounds down to CR 1/4.

Adjusting CR for opponent numbers works on the same premise, except that each increment of fractional Challenge Rating (2/3, 1/2, 1/4, 1/8, 1/16, etc.) counts as +1. Which is why a four CR 1/4 creatures add up to EL 2.

Easier than eating pie.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hey Anubis mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hmmm . . . I don't think I really like your little premise here.  I think the best way is to compare the wealth directly by comparing the PC level to the NPC level PER LEVEL.  Compare Level 20 only to Level 20, etc.  I certainly understand what you're saying now, though.

IF you do it this way, though, I'd like something more exact.  So go with your new proposed formula.

(3/4Level ^3)*100

Then make it 0.15/NPC Level for wealth.  That way you are EXACT.  You're the one with a problem with more wealth for NPCs, not me.  I don't mind having NPCs with more wealth, it makes things more interesting.  Inflated treasure, but the DM could handle that.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 6, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Where goblins and every other creature between CR 0 and CR 1 are concerned, the fractional solution seems to favor increments of either 1/4 or 1/3.
> *




The ideal solution favors 1/2 increments, actually.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Upper Krust.
> 
> I know we both dislike the messy 1/3 fractional solution, so what about this...
> ...




If you do this, then halflings and gnomes become ECL -1 PC races.  You can't count size for goblins while not counting it for gnomes and halflings.  Check it out, when UK rated the gnome and halfling, when he came up with that "don't count under 0.5", he was saying to count ALL the factors on the creature save for the class and if THAT is under 0.5, then you don't count ANY of it.  When you count everything but the class for the goblin, you get 0.2, so you therefore would count NOTHING it has, including the size.  That why UK says you only count the class when dealing with ECL 0 races.

You have to count it for all and make gnomes and halflings ECL -1 or not count size at all even for goblins.  Or do you honestly think that goblins are weaker than gnomes and halflings?  They aren't.  All three races are pretty equal in power.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Now whether you rate NPC wealth at +0.15 or +0.05, this final value for goblins in particular will still round down to CR 1/4 before adjusting EL for numbers (as above).
> 
> These numbers would award a party of 4 PCs 112.5 XP each for decimating 4 goblins warriors. Not an ideal value for goblins (still inflated by 150% by my estimation) but a good compromise nonetheless.
> *




Four goblins are worth much more than that considering the PCs could aren't gonna have such an easy fight.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Now the weight falls cleaning on your shoulders Upper Krust. Have you made any progress determining which racial CR features should and should not be calculated separately?
> *




Well if you count size, gnomes and halflings become ECL -1, so I would say no to this.  Count size for all or count size for none.  Can't have it both ways.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Directly. In the most simple and straightforward way imaginable.
> 
> When you translate a CR 0.3 creature into a fractional CR, you get a CR 3/10 creature. Now because you always round CR down, rounding down fractional Challenge Ratings is no different. The two closest fractional CR increments are 1/2 and 1/4. A CR 3/10 creatures falls directly between those two ranges, and thus rounds down to CR 1/4.
> ...




And now I must thank you for eliminating yourself from the debate in this way.  It's been shown time and again that doing this is IMPOSSIBLE because it doesn't account for negative CRs (which happen to take up a majority of Level 1 monsters, by the way).  You would have 16 kobolds being an EL 1 encounter!


----------



## Anubis (Jun 6, 2003)

Well, here is my famous compromise that UK was talking about before.  I think this can solve all our problems.  I e-mailed this to him a week or two ago and I think is finally covers the final issue (which is kobolds and NOT goblins).



Okay here is my updated base CR to fractional CR proposal.  This would solve the kobold problem altogether.  For these numbers, any positive numbers must always be rounded down, while negative numbers are always rounded to the nearest as per normal math.  (The reason for this is because once you get to negative numbers and fractions, the differences become so minute that even the slightest change can have a big effect since these things are primarily for Level 1 parties to fight against.)

CR 0.5 = CR 1/2
CR 0 = CR 1/3
CR -0.5 = CR 1/4
CR -1 = CR 1/6
CR -1.5 = CR 1/8
CR -2 = CR 1/10
CR -3 = CR 1/16
CR -4 = CR 1/24
CR -5 = CR 1/32
CR -6 = CR 1/48
CR -7 = CR 1/64

As per my original proposal, all fractional CRs equate to the same fractional EL.  As such CR 1/2 = EL 1/2, CR 1/3 = EL 1/3, CR 1/4 = EL 1/4, etc. etc. etc.

Basically, beyond finding the fractional CR, there are no additional calculations whatsoever.  Fractions are counted as per the WotC system with fractions adding up until at least EL 1.  Two opponents at EL 1/2 are EL 1, three opponents at EL 1/3 are EL 1, four opponents at EL 1/4 are EL 1, etc.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Directly. In the most simple and straightforward way imaginable.
> 
> When you translate a CR 0.3 creature into a fractional CR, you get a CR 3/10 creature. Now because you always round CR down, rounding down fractional Challenge Ratings is no different. The two closest fractional CR increments are 1/2 and 1/4. A CR 3/10 creatures falls directly between those two ranges, and thus rounds down to CR 1/4.
> 
> ...




Actually you seem to be ignoring the point I just made (and the crux of the whole idea).

What about negative CR scores - something which will occur using my system!?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2003)

Hello Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Hmmm . . . I don't think I really like your little premise here.  I think the best way is to compare the wealth directly by comparing the PC level to the NPC level PER LEVEL.  Compare Level 20 only to Level 20, etc.  I certainly understand what you're saying now, though.*




Glad I got through. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *IF you do it this way, though, I'd like something more exact.  So go with your new proposed formula.
> 
> (3/4Level ^3)*100
> 
> Then make it 0.15/NPC Level for wealth.  That way you are EXACT.  You're the one with a problem with more wealth for NPCs, not me.  I don't mind having NPCs with more wealth, it makes things more interesting.  Inflated treasure, but the DM could handle that. *




Actually Eldorian had a good idea there.

NPC Level^3 x 25 GP

Which gives us the same results as before but is probably slightly easier to work out.

Essentially what we are trying to outline is that NPC wealth is about one quarter PC wealth. However, the DMG doesn't seem to use such an idea, but looking at that book why the hell should a 1st-level NPC have the same wealth as a 2nd-level PC ~ it doesn't make any bloody sense.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well, here is my famous compromise that UK was talking about before.  I think this can solve all our problems.  I e-mailed this to him a week or two ago and I think is finally covers the final issue (which is kobolds and NOT goblins).
> 
> Okay here is my updated base CR to fractional CR proposal.  This would solve the kobold problem altogether.  For these numbers, any positive numbers must always be rounded down, while negative numbers are always rounded to the nearest as per normal math.  (The reason for this is because once you get to negative numbers and fractions, the differences become so minute that even the slightest change can have a big effect since these things are primarily for Level 1 parties to fight against.)
> 
> ...




You forgot CR 2/3 = EL 0.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 6, 2003)

I didn't forget anything.  I don't think there should be a CR 2/3 at all nor an EL 0.  Has my proposal gone over your head altogether?  The first column is exact CR, the second is the translated fraction.  That translated CR IS the EL with no changes, giving fractional ELs.

To clarify, for instance, if a creature came out to be CR 0.75, that would be "0.5" and as such would translate to CR 1/2.  As such, it would also be EL 1/2.  Find XP for fractions as in the book.  Two such creatures would be an EL 1 encounter.  Three would be EL 2, four would be EL 3, etc.

See what I'm saying now?  I'm trying to make this simpler for you by trying to make some aspects as close to the original rules as possible procedure-wise, yet you keep insisting on making things more complicated by introducing as many brand-new factors as you can no matter how pedantic.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 6, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I didn't forget anything.  I don't think there should be a CR 2/3 at all nor an EL 0.*




Incongrous given that we know that an EL of one less that EL 1...ie. EL 0, represents 2/3rds of an EL 1.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Has my proposal gone over your head altogether?  The first column is exact CR, the second is the translated fraction.  That translated CR IS the EL with no changes, giving fractional ELs.
> 
> To clarify, for instance, if a creature came out to be CR 0.75, that would be "0.5" and as such would translate to CR 1/2.  As such, it would also be EL 1/2.  Find XP for fractions as in the book.  Two such creatures would be an EL 1 encounter.  Three would be EL 2, four would be EL 3, etc.
> 
> See what I'm saying now?  I'm trying to make this simpler for you by trying to make some aspects as close to the original rules as possible procedure-wise, yet you keep insisting on making things more complicated by introducing as many brand-new factors as you can no matter how pedantic. *




You can't ignore CR 2/3, it must be incorporated.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I'm saying THERE IS NO EL 0.

That's the part you don't seem to get.

EL goes to fractions, not negatives.  CR goes to negatives that translate into fractions.

There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to having a CR 2/3, and I guarantee that introducing such a silly concept would turn people off of your system.  They want to be able to EASILY go from core to UK without much translation needs.  As such, we should only keep denominations that are already known.  The numbers are still accuratem after all, so there is no need to introduce this negative EL concept.  Better to go with the fractions.

Now try to keep up here:

If CR rounds down to 0.5, that translates to CR 1/2 which in turn translates to EL 1/2.  CR rounding down to 0 gives us CR 1/3, which translates to EL 1/3.  Rounding to -0.5 gives us CR 1/4, which is EL 1/4, and so on and so forth as outlined above.  EL NEVER reaches 0, it just keeps dividing into more fractions.

You need to understand that the negative EL concept will confuse far more people than it will help, and in addition, it gets inaccurate when you have medium-sized groups.

My fractional system solves that problem and gives the same exact results otherwise.

I'm trying to help you out by making things simpler without costing any accuracy.  You seem hell bent on making things as complex and undesirable as possible.

One thing is for certain, that no matter the outcome, I'm gonna personally be using the rules that have playtested correctly, which is using fractional ELs as I have outlined.  If you wanna goof up the system, that's your perogative, but I won't be one of the people using it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 7, 2003)

Hey Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm saying THERE IS NO EL 0.*




Indeed you are, and its akin to saying 2+2=5.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's the part you don't seem to get.*




I get it all right, I'm just not swallowing it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *EL goes to fractions, not negatives.  CR goes to negatives that translate into fractions.*




I have no problem with fractional EL, I agree EL going to negatives is somewhat incongrous.

The system is modular enough to work either way.

But I am not yet convinced its totally for the best.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *There is absolutely no rhyme or reason to having a CR 2/3,*




Actually there is a completely justified reason.

Increasing an EL by 1 is akin to multiplying the number of opponents by 1.5. Therefore decreasing the EL by 1 is akin to dividing the number of opponents by 2/3.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and I guarantee that introducing such a silly concept would turn people off of your system.*




Not once they understood it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *They want to be able to EASILY go from core to UK without much translation needs.  As such, we should only keep denominations that are already known.*




Nonsensical.

Theres no point making the transition easy if the end result is not going to help people. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The numbers are still accuratem after all, so there is no need to introduce this negative EL concept.  Better to go with the fractions.*




I haven't decided which is for the best yet.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Now try to keep up here:*




Dude I have already lapped you! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If CR rounds down to 0.5, that translates to CR 1/2 which in turn translates to EL 1/2.  CR rounding down to 0 gives us CR 1/3, which translates to EL 1/3.  Rounding to -0.5 gives us CR 1/4, which is EL 1/4, and so on and so forth as outlined above.  EL NEVER reaches 0, it just keeps dividing into more fractions.*




You forgot CR 2/3.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You need to understand that the negative EL concept will confuse far more people than it will help,*




On the other hand it is easier to work out though. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and in addition, it gets inaccurate when you have medium-sized groups. My fractional system solves that problem and gives the same exact results otherwise.*




What problem?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I'm trying to help you out by making things simpler without costing any accuracy.*




I appreciate the help mate. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You seem hell bent on making things as complex and undesirable as possible.*




Well of course, thats my top priority. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *One thing is for certain, that no matter the outcome, I'm gonna personally be using the rules that have playtested correctly, which is using fractional ELs as I have outlined.  If you wanna goof up the system, that's your perogative, but I won't be one of the people using it. *


----------



## Coredump (Jun 7, 2003)

Anubis, you have obviously made it simple to understand, and UK just doesn't 'get it'. It is not your fault, some people will never understand, he probrably never got Calculus either. I think you are being unduly harsh on yourself by trying to explain it further; if he doesn't get it, it is his own problem, and not yours. You have done all that is reasonable, he should just have to suffer.


OTOH, you could just keep getting pissier and pissier until your condescending arrogance becomes so overwhelming that he just *has* to understand.

.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 7, 2003)

Hi Coredump mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Anubis, you have obviously made it simple to understand, and UK just doesn't 'get it'. It is not your fault, some people will never understand, he probrably never got Calculus either. I think you are being unduly harsh on yourself by trying to explain it further; if he doesn't get it, it is his own problem, and not yours. You have done all that is reasonable, he should just have to suffer.
> 
> OTOH, you could just keep getting pissier and pissier until your condescending arrogance becomes so overwhelming that he just *has* to understand. *




A smilie would have went a long way there Coredump mate.

I abstained from pointing out the irony of the situation, given Anubis outburst in the Dire Tigers thread. I had sort of hoped everyone else would as well. 

Incidently I have finished the Situational Modifiers; although one is giving me pause:

"One side incapable of effective retaliation." = EL +8/-8

Still not convinced thats the right rating. 

Any comments?


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 7, 2003)

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If you do this, then halflings and gnomes become ECL -1 PC races.  You can't count size for goblins while not counting it for gnomes and halflings.*



Of course. Nobody said otherwise. But what you successfully glaze over is that both gnomes and halflings come with a *host* of racial abilities, which far outweigh the racial abilities of both goblins and kobolds (who have a few meager situational bonuses at best). When it comes to these racial abilities, only Upper Krust can tell us how he rated them, but suffice to say, the number of racial abilities afforded to gnomes and halfings give them a definitive advantage over their goblin and kobold opponents (which should obviously be reflected in their CR).



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You have to count it for all and make gnomes and halflings ECL -1 or not count size at all even for goblins.*



Once again, count for all. See reasons above. Gnomes and halflings have the advantage.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Or do you honestly think that goblins are weaker than gnomes and halflings? *



Abso-firetrucking-lutely.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *They aren't.  All three races are pretty equal in power. *



In a pigs eye perhaps.





			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *It's been shown time and again that doing this is IMPOSSIBLE because it doesn't account for negative CRs (which happen to take up a majority of Level 1 monsters, by the way).  You would have 16 kobolds being an EL 1 encounter! *



Then negative challenge ratings need a slightly different rule set to compliment the existing fractional proposition. That's all that means.

As for your 16 kobolds = EL 1 encounter, your calculations couldn't be further off the mark. A kobold rates CR 0.2 to CR 0.3 (depending on whichever system of NPC wealth is finally embraced).

Hit Dice: +0.55
Speed: +0.1
NPC Wealth: +0.05/+0.10/+0.15
Size (calculated separately): -0.5
Miscellaneous racial abilities: Negated from calculations because their combined total does not exceed CR +0.5 or fall below CR -0.5).

I would say kobolds should *definitely* rate CR 1/8 using this system (or CR 0 using my newly proposed system below), but as of right now, they either rate as CR 1/8 or CR 1/4 (depending on NPC wealth), which means that sixteen of them equate to either a CR 5 or CR 6 encounter.

Your talent for exaggeration (on either end of the spectrum) serves you well Anubis.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 7, 2003)

Upper Krust.

Now let's get back to that *slightly different rule set* I just mentioned to account for negative Challenge Ratings (before Anubis has a synaptic meltdown in his next reply).

Here goes.

CR 0.66(R) = CR 2/3 = EL 0
CR 0.50 = CR 1/2 = EL -1
CR 0.25 = CR 1/4 = EL -2
CR 0 = CR 0 = EL -3
CR -0.25 = CR -1/4 = EL -4
CR -0.5 = CR -1/2 = EL -5
CR -0.66(R) = CR -1 = EL -6
CR -1 = CR -2 = EL -7
CR -2 = CR -4 = EL -8
CR -3 = CR -3 = EL -9
(etc.)

I'm not sure if CR -0.66(R) is needed. Perhaps you can impose your brand of UK algebra in there. Let me know what you think.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust.
> 
> Now let's get back to that *slightly different rule set* I just mentioned to account for negative Challenge Ratings (before Anubis has a synaptic meltdown in his next reply).
> 
> ...




The problem with the above (before we discuss anything else) is that it doesn't factor CR 1/3 = EL -2

Before we take decimal CR into account everything else must look like this:

CR 2/3 = EL 0 = EL 2/3
CR 1/2 = EL -1 = EL 1/2
CR 1/3 = EL -2 = EL 1/3
CR 1/4 = EL -3 = EL 1/4
CR 1/6 = EL -4 = EL 1/6
CR 1/8 = EL -5 = EL 1/8
CR 1/12 = EL -6 = EL 1/12
CR 1/16 = EL -7 = EL 1/16

The above is set in stone. The only problem is the exact balancing of decimal CR to fractional CR.

But I'll have this sorted over the weekend (along with the racial quandary).


----------



## Anubis (Jun 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> "One side incapable of effective retaliation." = EL +8/-8
> 
> Still not convinced thats the right rating.
> ...




If one side is TOTALLY incapable of ANY retaliation, then there should be no XP award whatsoever unless the PCs are the ones to have directly cause the condition wherein their opponents could not retaliate.

Example 1: PCs surprise opponents by making the floor disappear and dumping them into lava to melt.  The PCs get XP because they caused the inability to retaliate.

Example 2: PCs enter a chamber where dozens of epic characters are in a form of sleep (think Highlander Endgame's Sanctuary here) and kill them all.  NO XP WHATSOEVER.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 7, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> Anubis.
> 
> Of course. Nobody said otherwise. But what you successfully glaze over is that both gnomes and halflings come with a *host* of racial abilities, which far outweigh the racial abilities of both goblins and kobolds (who have a few meager situational bonuses at best). When it comes to these racial abilities, only Upper Krust can tell us how he rated them, but suffice to say, the number of racial abilities afforded to gnomes and halfings give them a definitive advantage over their goblin and kobold opponents (which should obviously be reflected in their CR).
> ...




Mind offering that little thing called proof?  I look at these and see three equal races in every way.  +4 against giants and a handful of pointless cantrips do not an advantage make.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> Then negative challenge ratings need a slightly different rule set to compliment the existing fractional proposition. That's all that means.
> ...




I should point out now that monsters do not get NPC wealth, so that is not counted.  You REALLY need to actually start paying attention to the system.  Wealth is given to classed characters above 1st level.

Also, kobolds are CR 1/3.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 7, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Upper Krust.
> 
> Now let's get back to that *slightly different rule set* I just mentioned to account for negative Challenge Ratings (before Anubis has a synaptic meltdown in his next reply).
> 
> ...




The difference between you and me is that although accuracy between the two proposals is similar, mine is FAR simpler to understand.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 7, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> CR 2/3 = EL 0 = EL 2/3
> CR 1/2 = EL -1 = EL 1/2
> CR 1/3 = EL -2 = EL 1/3
> ...




You do realize your second column there is utterly pointless, right?

Also, why are you so obsessed with this CR 2/3 nonsense?  Are you intentionally trying to make your system MORE difficult to understand?  I thought you were trying to make things simpler for people?

Your second column has no point whatsoever.  You get to the same end result I do, and your negative EL crap will just confuse people.  So I would suggest you not set this in stone, seeing as there is no basis for any of it.

I understand what you're trying to do here, believe me.  *I* understand.  People going into your system without guidance direct from you, however, will NOT understand.

You're trying to keep the direct CR relationships going.  I understand that.  I'm simply saying it's pedantic and pointless.  ESPECIALLY the stupid negative EL crap.  With CR 2/3, how do you get to EL 1?  It's IMPOSSIBLE.  The whole point of fractions is to make it so you get up to EL 1 and work from there AS PER THE CURRENT RULES.  With 2/3, however, your starting point would be EL 2 from three such creatures.  Then you have a problem with the "1.5 opponents" thing because you can't 1.5 opponents at EL 2 from three creatures.  See the problem here?  The whole point is to make EL 1 the common denominator.  All creatures at fractions should eventually add up to EL 1.  On top of that, dividing EL 1 into so many fragments (quarters) is silly.

The problem is that although the jump from Level 1 to Level 2 is enormous, the divisions of Level 1 and below are almost nonexistent.  (i.e. you can't get much weaker than Level 1)  The ONLY way I would accept CR 2/3 (grudgingly) is if it simply bumped all the others down but retained the current divisions of the relationship, like so:

CR (rounds down to) 0.5 = CR 2/3 = EL 2/3
CR (rounds down to) 0 = CR 1/2 = EL 1/2
CR (rounds to) -0.5 = CR 1/3 = EL 1/3
CR (rounds to) -1 = CR 1/4 = EL 1/4
CR (rounds to) -1.5 = CR 1/6 = EL 1/6
CR (rounds to) -2 = CR 1/8 = EL 1/8
CR (rounds to) -3 = CR 1/12 = EL 1/12
CR (rounds to) -4 = CR 1/16 = EL 1/16

That's the absolute ONLY way I'd accept this stupid CR 2/3.  No passing Go, no quartering EL 1, no nothing!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 7, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *If one side is TOTALLY incapable of ANY retaliation, then there should be no XP award whatsoever unless the PCs are the ones to have directly cause the condition wherein their opponents could not retaliate.*




...exactly, one side causes such a condition.

The obvious example being all the PCs flying, drop a Tarrasque with missile weaponry then cast a wish. None of the PCs were ever in harms way. Should they therefore be rewarded to the same extent as PCs who slog it out with the Tarrasque!?

Maybe, yes, no, DM's choice? I'm not sure which was why I through this one out to the masses.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Example 1: PCs surprise opponents by making the floor disappear and dumping them into lava to melt.  The PCs get XP because they caused the inability to retaliate.
> 
> Example 2: PCs enter a chamber where dozens of epic characters are in a form of sleep (think Highlander Endgame's Sanctuary here) and kill them all.  NO XP WHATSOEVER. *




Yes I see the juxtaposition.

I'm primarily concerned with the former type of example. Though in your first example the opponents had the chance to win initiative and attack the PCs so its not exactly the kind of example I was discussing. 

Nothing to do with surprise. Simply that circumstances (either situational or contrived) prevent one side from effectively attacking the other...ie. they don't have any chance whatsoever.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 7, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You do realize your second column there is utterly pointless, right?*




Its as pointless as the third.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, why are you so obsessed with this CR 2/3 nonsense?*






I do love you, I can't deny you make me laugh mate.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Are you intentionally trying to make your system MORE difficult to understand?  I thought you were trying to make things simpler for people?*








			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Your second column has no point whatsoever.*




I think you already said that above.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You get to the same end result I do, and your negative EL crap will just confuse people.  So I would suggest you not set this in stone, seeing as there is no basis for any of it.*




Negative EL is incongrous (just like negative CR), but simpler to discern than fractional EL, noticeable given the fact that even you are having difficulty with your much vaunted fractional EL incorporating CR 2/3, which is a necessity.

To me decimal and fractional EL go hand in hand. They should represent exactly the same thing after all. But looking at it, things like multiple opponents are easier to work out using decimal EL. Also given the fact that ELs are relative; fractional EL doesn't gel as well as decimal EL.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I understand what you're trying to do here, believe me.  *I* understand.*




Theres no pulling the wool over some peoples eyes it seems. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *People going into your system without guidance direct from you, however, will NOT understand.*




Luckily I'm there to guide them through the text with copious examples. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You're trying to keep the direct CR relationships going.  I understand that.  I'm simply saying it's pedantic and pointless.  ESPECIALLY the stupid negative EL crap.  With CR 2/3, how do you get to EL 1?  It's IMPOSSIBLE.
> 
> The whole point of fractions is to make it so you get up to EL 1 and work from there AS PER THE CURRENT RULES.  With 2/3, however, your starting point would be EL 2 from three such creatures.  Then you have a problem with the "1.5 opponents" thing because you can't 1.5 opponents at EL 2 from three creatures.  See the problem here?  The whole point is to make EL 1 the common denominator.  All creatures at fractions should eventually add up to EL 1.  On top of that, dividing EL 1 into so many fragments (quarters) is silly.
> 
> ...




What you do or do not accept is of no consequence next to the facts.

Here are the facts:

Increasing EL by +1 is the same as multiplying CR by x1.5; equally, reducing EL by -1 is the same as dividing CR by 2/3.

Either you understand this or you do not. 

Its that simple.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 7, 2003)

Anubis







> I should point out now that monsters do not get NPC wealth, so that is not counted. You REALLY need to actually start paying attention to the system. Wealth is given to classed characters above 1st level.



Well, I think I have been "REALLY" paying attention, and I am pretty sure that a Balor is considered a monster, and that it isn't a classed character.
Yet in section 14.0 Wealth, it is given as an example of getting CR +1.8 due do its 'wealth' of a vorpal greatsword.
Now, I have not been "REALLY" paying attention to the errata, so that may have been addressed.



Anyone,
About fractional CR:  I am all for continuity and for being a math geek. But how imperative is it that this section is taken with such exacting precision?  It seems that luck/party make-up/etc. make for much larger variables at very low levels; thereby lowering the need for precision. (Though accuracy is still helpful)

Plus, the method for 'adding' CR's seems to break down the more creatures you have. So worrying about what EL a group of 64 Kobolds will be doesn't seem to contain much merit.



PS. UK, sorry about the lack of  smiley, but I knew you would get it, and the childish part of me was wondering if Anubis would....apparently not.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 7, 2003)

UK


> ""One side incapable of effective retaliation." = EL +8/-8
> 
> Still not convinced thats the right rating.
> 
> Any comments?



Sure thing buddy.

I think you are venturing into an area best left for the DM. There are too many variables and shades of grey. Lets take a generic example of no flight defense; (same problem as the terrasque)
First, what level is the EL? If the EL is 10, it makes it almost worthless to combat it XP wise; but if it is EL 28, you still get decent XP; eventhough it is just as helpless.
This would seem to call for a "% drop" in EL; which, IMO is best left to the DM.
Now, what if there are 5 party members, and 2-3 can fly? How does that change the equation?
What if their flight ability is expendabe, ie via potion or charged item, will they use it? Maybe they *could* fly and make it inconsequential, but will they? To me, most anything that is to be determined 'after the fact' is related to XP more than EL, and should be handled by the DM.

I had other complications, but have conveniently forgotten them. In general, I think the situational modifiers may be best left as a suggested range; probably based on percentage of CR/EL
ie. If XXX is happening, than adjust the EL by 1-3 for core, and 3-6 for epic. Or some such. This would give the DM an idea of how much certain conditions should impact your system, while still giving them flexibility for implementing in various situations.

.


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 8, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Incidently I have finished the Situational Modifiers; although one is giving me pause:
> 
> "One side incapable of effective retaliation." = EL +8/-8
> ...





You might wanna consider taking it between -4 and -6.

The plus side makes no sense btw.  If your PCs are incapable of retaliation, then they cannot win the situation.  I don't give exp for fleeing without having accomplished anything.  How do you earn exp for winning a no-win situation?

However, if the foes are incapable of fighting back, it may still take resources to kill them, although most likely much less than if the foe could fight back.  After all, the foe may still pose a threat, or prevent a goal, such as a landbound foe guarding a treasure.  

For the tarrasque... he's a pretty hard mofo to kill, and just may take most your resources.  At the least, he takes a wish, and that has an XP component, so you should definatly get some XP back (when we fought the tarrasque, the wizard that cast wish got his exp back for free, nice DM).  If that tarrasque is, say.. eating half your army.. and the PCs are flying around in low orbit..  and the big T's normal EL is equal to the party's EL..  they should get some exp for killing him.  -4 EL means one forth the exp award, and that seems about fair.  Our party that killed the tarrasque.. while he was sleeping, although I put him to sleep with eyebite, took something around 10 spells to kill.  All my remaining 9th levels.  Level 23 party.  And he was guarding an item we needed for an epic spell component, so we had to kill him (it was stuck to his underbelly). 

Even had we encountered a sleeping tarrasque that was guarding the item we needed.. it would still be as if a trap.  I mean, the challenge is setting off the trap without getting killed, ie, killing the tarrasque before he knows what hit him.  Incidentally, it was a series of acid substituted empowered delayed blast fireballs that went off simotaniously that did most of the damage.  My character =).

My main point is -8 means one 16th of normal exp, which seems a bit harsh, because even tho he can't fight back, he may still pose a threat to some goal of the PCs.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 8, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *UK
> 
> Sure thing buddy.
> 
> ...




Ya missed something bud.  ELs are relative.  See table 1-5 for exp based on relative EL.  -8 EL means one 16th the XP award, no matter what.

As for the 3/5 the party flying or whatever, consider each side as a whole.  Afterall, the non flying types do represent resources.  For example, with the shear number of conditions for which my Sorcerer's contingency teleport would go off, not much represented a serious threat, baring dimensional anchors or antimagic.  Even if he was killed before it went off, being dead was one of the triggers, and he had a true rez waiting on the other end.  So for this character, not much could actually threaten him.   But his allies were another story.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Coredump (Jun 8, 2003)

> Ya missed something bud. ELs are relative. See table 1-5 for exp based on relative EL. -8 EL means one 16th the XP award, no matter what.



Yes and no. I knew they were relative, but didn't catch all the implications. Thanks to you, I now realize that the -8 will have a similar effect regardless of level.
My other statements were similar to yours, in the sense that not being able to retaliate, does not necessarily mean it is a cakewalk.

I don't think 1/16 is necessarily a bad number, just not for all situations.


OT: I don't think I would allow multiple unrelated triggers for one contingency spell. And I don't think I would let death be a trigger at all. Not that it is clearly allowable or not, just my interpretation.

.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 8, 2003)

Hi Coredump mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Anubis
> Well, I think I have been "REALLY" paying attention, and I am pretty sure that a Balor is considered a monster, and that it isn't a classed character.
> Yet in section 14.0 Wealth, it is given as an example of getting CR +1.8 due do its 'wealth' of a vorpal greatsword.
> Now, I have not been "REALLY" paying attention to the errata, so that may have been addressed.*




As far as I am concerned there is a difference between intrinsic equipment (such as the Deva's mace or Balor's sword) and any potential items the DM may or may not give out due to the treasure tables.

So I am confused as to what you are saying here. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Anyone,
> About fractional CR:  I am all for continuity and for being a math geek. But how imperative is it that this section is taken with such exacting precision?  It seems that luck/party make-up/etc. make for much larger variables at very low levels; thereby lowering the need for precision. (Though accuracy is still helpful)
> 
> Plus, the method for 'adding' CR's seems to break down the more creatures you have. So worrying about what EL a group of 64 Kobolds will be doesn't seem to contain much merit.*




I finished both fractional CR and racial modifiers last night. I'll go over them and test them today then post them later either today or tomorrow. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *PS. UK, sorry about the lack of  smiley, but I knew you would get it, and the childish part of me was wondering if Anubis would....apparently not. *




Lets just let sleeping dogs lie then.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 8, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *UK*




Hiya mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Sure thing buddy.
> 
> I think you are venturing into an area best left for the DM. *




Possibly, like I said that was the only such common denominator that was giving me pause.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *There are too many variables and shades of grey. Lets take a generic example of no flight defense; (same problem as the terrasque)
> First, what level is the EL? If the EL is 10, it makes it almost worthless to combat it XP wise; but if it is EL 28, you still get decent XP; eventhough it is just as helpless.
> This would seem to call for a "% drop" in EL; which, IMO is best left to the DM.
> Now, what if there are 5 party members, and 2-3 can fly? How does that change the equation?
> ...




Well (as Eldorian mentioned) ELs are relative.

I may leave the EL rating as DMs Choice. But it would be nice to provide some suggestions and guidelines for this one.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 8, 2003)

Eldorian said:
			
		

> *You might wanna consider taking it between -4 and -6.*




Possibly, I had +4/-4 for a while as my initial supposition.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *The plus side makes no sense btw.  If your PCs are incapable of retaliation, then they cannot win the situation.  I don't give exp for fleeing without having accomplished anything.  How do you earn exp for winning a no-win situation?*




What if there are two teams of PCs? What if the DM is factoring EXP for prominent NPCs etc.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *However, if the foes are incapable of fighting back, it may still take resources to kill them, although most likely much less than if the foe could fight back.  After all, the foe may still pose a threat, or prevent a goal, such as a landbound foe guarding a treasure.*




Indeed. 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *For the tarrasque... he's a pretty hard mofo to kill, and just may take most your resources.  At the least, he takes a wish, and that has an XP component, so you should definatly get some XP back (when we fought the tarrasque, the wizard that cast wish got his exp back for free, nice DM).  If that tarrasque is, say.. eating half your army.. and the PCs are flying around in low orbit..  and the big T's normal EL is equal to the party's EL..  they should get some exp for killing him.  -4 EL means one forth the exp award, and that seems about fair.  Our party that killed the tarrasque.. while he was sleeping, although I put him to sleep with eyebite, took something around 10 spells to kill.  All my remaining 9th levels.  Level 23 party.  And he was guarding an item we needed for an epic spell component, so we had to kill him (it was stuck to his underbelly). *




You are convincing me that -4/+4 (my original supposition) is more accurate.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Even had we encountered a sleeping tarrasque that was guarding the item we needed.. it would still be as if a trap.  I mean, the challenge is setting off the trap without getting killed, ie, killing the tarrasque before he knows what hit him.  Incidentally, it was a series of acid substituted empowered delayed blast fireballs that went off simotaniously that did most of the damage.  My character =).
> 
> My main point is -8 means one 16th of normal exp, which seems a bit harsh, because even tho he can't fight back, he may still pose a threat to some goal of the PCs. *




Agreed.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 8, 2003)

Howdy UK,



> As far as I am concerned there is a difference between intrinsic equipment (such as the Deva's mace or Balor's sword) and any potential items the DM may or may not give out due to the treasure tables.
> 
> So I am confused as to what you are saying here.
> .




Hmmmm...... Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'wealth' then.  To me it is an indication of their available equipment, since a 6th lvl fighter with a +5 sword, is more of a threat than with a +1 sword.  I did not think it was meant to indicate how much jewelry and gems were laying around.

I did/do not see much of a difference if a 20th lvl character has a +5 vorpal sword, or if a Balor has it. Their 'wealth' makes them more of a challenge.

I never really considered the Treasure Tables at all, as far as "You find 10,000 PP and 15,000 GP" meaning much in regards to the CR/EL. (Unless, of course, the Table indicates magic that the creature could be using....)

My statement was because it was mentioned that wealth was not used for a Kobold; but a Kobold with a sword and leather armour, is more of a threat than without. 



> I may leave the EL rating as DMs Choice. But it would be nice to provide some suggestions and guidelines for this one.



Well, I will withhold final opinion until I see what you have, but my initial response is 'Absolutely'. I think guidelines of a range of adjustments would be well warrented. Along with suggestions as how to apply the range. ie. not just say '-4 to -6 EL' but rather  XX may lead to a -4 adjustment, YY may lead to -5, and ZZ should indicate a -6.
I think it  is totally feasible to have an encounter warrent a -8 EL, and they DM should feel the flexibility to do so.



> (Terrasque)
> You are convincing me that -4/+4 (my original supposition) is more accurate.



But also consider a 'moderate' encounter from a ledge, where it is literally shooting fish in a barrel. yes, it may cost them some arrows, but it may not be worth 1/4 the XP.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 8, 2003)

Anubis.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I should point out now that monsters do not get NPC wealth, so that is not counted.  You REALLY need to actually start paying attention to the system.  Wealth is given to classed characters above 1st level.*



As I originally stated (2 or 3 pages ago now), I factored in wealth "to be fair". Without wealth, the case for my goblin and kobold CR values is made even stronger still. My proof has been in the pudding since the beginning. I can't help it if you don't like pudding.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 8, 2003)

Oh, I have finished (a while ago) going over the appendix; but was waiting for the resolution of the fractional/situational discussions. I didn't want to have too many things going at once.

.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 8, 2003)

Coredump, what UK is saying about wealth is that if there is a significant keyed magical item (like the Astral Deva's mace or the Balor's sword), you find the value and apply that level of wealth to the creature, BUT that has nothing to do with giving the creature equipment.

Goblins and the like have no such equipment, and thus are not counted as having any because "basic" isn't even Level 1 equipment.

Sonofapreacherman, the goblin is either 0.8 is you factor in all racial modifiers OR 0.6 is you factor in none.  (I have no clue where you get your silly 0.3 from.)  If you factor in size seperate, you MUST do the same for gnomes and halflings, which would make a Level 1 gnome or halfling PC CR 0.5 instead of CR 1.

Allow me to spell it out for you.

*Goblin* 
_
Small Size: CR -0.5

Speed +10: CR +0.1
Darkvision: CR +0.2
Skills +10: CR +0.2
1 Bonus Feat: CR +0.2

Level 1 Warrior: CR +0.6
_

So again, how do you come up with your +0.3 nonsense?  If you're saying not to count the Ride +6 and Mounted Combat, then you are ignoring the basis of the systen which states flat out to factor in ALL things, even if unused, because the POTENTIAL for using those things is there.  Ya' know, kinda like DR 5/+1 on an epic monster; it won't do a damn thing for it because epic characters have magical weapons, but it COULD if a character found himself or herself without a good weapon all of a sudden.  Just the same, the goblin may not use the Ride and Mounted Combat often, but that goblin could potentially mount and become a nuisanse, and so you must count these abilities.  UK has stated this on MANY occasions about counting ALL things even if unused or unuseful.

As such, the goblin is either 0.2 or 0.6; if 0.2, then the goblin is EL 1/2 and four goblins is EL 3; if 0.6, then the goblins is EL 2/3 and four goblins is EL 4.  No matter how you slice it, the four goblins are gonna be at least EL 3 unless you either totally change goblins or foolishly quarter EL 1 (which also goofs up other CRs badly).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 8, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *Howdy UK,*




Hiya mate!  



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Hmmmm...... Maybe I don't understand what you mean by 'wealth' then.*




Anything not already given in the description.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *To me it is an indication of their available equipment, since a 6th lvl fighter with a +5 sword, is more of a threat than with a +1 sword.*




Already taken care of:

6th-level Fighter = CR 4.8

with +1 sword (needs at least 3rd-level equipment) = +0.6
with +5 sword (needs at least 13th-level equipment) = +2.6

Therefore:

6th-level Fighter with +1 sword = CR 5.4 (5)
6th-level Fighter with +5 sword = CR 7.4 (7)



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *I did not think it was meant to indicate how much jewelry and gems were laying around.*




Nope.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *I did/do not see much of a difference if a 20th lvl character has a +5 vorpal sword, or if a Balor has it. Their 'wealth' makes them more of a challenge.*




Of course not. The effects are the same, as rated in my system.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *I never really considered the Treasure Tables at all, as far as "You find 10,000 PP and 15,000 GP" meaning much in regards to the CR/EL. (Unless, of course, the Table indicates magic that the creature could be using....)*




Exactly.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *My statement was because it was mentioned that wealth was not used for a Kobold; but a Kobold with a sword and leather armour, is more of a threat than without.*




Equivalent to 1st-level NPC equipment or possibly less. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Well, I will withhold final opinion until I see what you have, but my initial response is 'Absolutely'. I think guidelines of a range of adjustments would be well warrented. Along with suggestions as how to apply the range. ie. not just say '-4 to -6 EL' but rather  XX may lead to a -4 adjustment, YY may lead to -5, and ZZ should indicate a -6.
> I think it  is totally feasible to have an encounter warrent a -8 EL, and they DM should feel the flexibility to do so.*




Indeed. I think the modifier should probably tie in with how much resources are expended.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *But also consider a 'moderate' encounter from a ledge, where it is literally shooting fish in a barrel. yes, it may cost them some arrows, but it may not be worth 1/4 the XP. *




Probably cost them a few greater magic weapon spells too.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 8, 2003)

Okay UK, good to hear from you again,

Almost all of what you wrote is what I expected and believed. Just a couple of things.



> Anything not already given in the description.



Could you elaborate on this a bit? Let me outline what I think of as potential problems (for me anyway)

Start with two Monstrous Humanoids, both with 2 HD. (meaning two different species/races; not just two of the same race.)

In the 'description' it is mentioned that one race uses a chain shirt, and longsword, and the other race uses padded and a club. If you do not take into account 'wealth' that is in the description, these two will have the same CR/EL. But they are apparently of different difficulties.

Then consider the Balor again, the sword is most definitely in the description, yet you counted it into the CR.


Now, onto the Kobold.
If you have a 3rd level character, he is assumed to be 'naked' as far as equipment/wealth. Then you add in the .2/.? for the various and sundry equipement possessed by the PC/NPC.
For some monsters (ala Balor) you add in equipment/wealth they possess.
So, why not add in the equipment/wealth for other monsters, ie the kobold. True, they would not have a full 'level' of wealth, but they also don't have a full 'level' of HD and you manage that well enough.

.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 8, 2003)

Hi all! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Oh, I have finished (a while ago) going over the appendix; but was waiting for the resolution of the fractional/situational discussions. I didn't want to have too many things going at once. *




Well I may as well type this up now, although I was planning on testing it a bit more...

Anyway.

*Racial Mods*

Dwarf Racial Mods: CR +0.4
Elf Racial Mods: CR +0.3
Human Racial Mods: CR +0.3
Half Orc Racial Mods: CR +/-0.0
Gnome Racial Mods: CR -0.2
Halfling Racial Mods: CR -0.2

Goblin Racial Mods: CR +0.1 (without speed increase*)
Hobgoblin Racial Mods: CR +0.3
Kobold Racial Mods: CR -0.2 (without speed increase*)
Orc Racial Mods: CR +0.1

*I don't see how they can justify the 30 ft. speed for these creatures.

Humanoid Hit Dice: CR +0.55
Half Humanoid HD (Kobold): CR +0.275

Warrior NPC Level: CR +0.6

PC/NPC Level: CR +0.8

Level of NPC equipment: CR +0.125 

*Fractional CR*

0.75 = CR 2/3
0.5 = CR 1/2
0.25 = CR 1/3
0 = CR 1/4
-0.5 = CR 1/6
-1 = CR 1/8
-2 = CR 1/12
-3 = CR 1/16

If you need to work out each individual fraction simply divide each number by four.

eg. 
-0.25 = CR 1/5
-0.75 = CR 1/7
-2.5 = CR 1/14

Any comments?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 8, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Okay UK, good to hear from you again,*




I'm like the proverbial bad penny... 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Almost all of what you wrote is what I expected and believed. Just a couple of things.*




Fire away. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Could you elaborate on this a bit? Let me outline what I think of as potential problems (for me anyway)
> 
> Start with two Monstrous Humanoids, both with 2 HD. (meaning two different species/races; not just two of the same race.)*




Base: 2 Monstrous Humanoid HD = CR +1.2



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *In the 'description' it is mentioned that one race uses a chain shirt, and longsword,*




(Items: 115 GP) Requires 2nd-level NPC equipment (200 GP) = CR +0.25



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *and the other race uses padded and a club.*




(Items: 5 GP) Less than 1st-Level NPC equipment (25 GP) = CR +0



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *If you do not take into account 'wealth' that is in the description, these two will have the same CR/EL. But they are apparently of different difficulties.*




CR 1.45 = EL 2
CR 1.2 = EL 1



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Then consider the Balor again, the sword is most definitely in the description, yet you counted it into the CR.*




...because its in the description. Its intrinsic.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Now, onto the Kobold.
> 
> If you have a 3rd level character, he is assumed to be 'naked' as far as equipment/wealth. Then you add in the .2/.? for the various and sundry equipement possessed by the PC/NPC.*




A 3rd-level character = CR +2.4 (with no equipment)
With 3rd-level NPC character wealth = CR +2.775 (2.4 + 0.375)
With 3rd-level PC character wealth = CR +3 (2.4 + 0.6)



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *For some monsters (ala Balor) you add in equipment/wealth they possess.
> 
> So, why not add in the equipment/wealth for other monsters, ie the kobold. *




I do. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *True, they would not have a full 'level' of wealth, but they also don't have a full 'level' of HD and you manage that well enough. *




Kobold: 
Racial Mods -0.2
Half HD +0.275
1st-level PC equipment necessary (with Light X-Bow) +0.2

Therefore CR = 0.275 (0.25) = CR 1/3


----------



## Anubis (Jun 9, 2003)

I have several comments.

First, about the wealth thing.  UK, the way you're chaning the NPC wealth thing makes the whole system about a hundred times more complicated.  Counting "basic" equipment (anything that isn't magical) as wealth is just plain stupid.  As such, things like standard goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and orcs should not have any wealth counted.  The balor's sword is counted because it's a major magical item.

Second, as to justifying the 30 ft. base speeds for goblins and kobolds . . . It's a RACIAL ABILITY.  There are many things that get bonuses such as this.  These two races are just "faster" than standard races.  That's all the justification that's needed, and I'm not at all sure why you would suggest otherwise.

Third, you REALLY need to specify whether to count all those small racial abilities in that list you presented or not.  Do we tack that into CR or not?  I'm guessing that the whole "don't count racial abilities unless they add up to more than 0.5" statement still applies here . . .

Fourth, I warned you I could kill any quartering of CR 1 you gave me and I'm gonna do it right now.  The PROBLEM isn't within CR 1, but rather how fast the fractions shrink under 0.

I will get right to two examples that instantly break your system.  Observe the Small Zombie and the Fire Beetle.

Small Zombie: CR -2.300
Giant Fire Beetle: CR -0.900

These round to CR -2 for the zombie and CR -1 for the fire beetle, assuming you took my advice about rounding down when the CR is positive but rounding to the nearest when the CR is negative.  (If not, the zombie is actually CR -3.)

Here are the numbers as they come out using my proposal and using your proposal:

Monster ~ Anubis ~ UK

Small Zombie ~ EL 1/8 ~ EL 1/12
Fire Beetle ~ EL 1/4 ~ EL 1/8

You say that a Level 1 party can take on 12 small zombies, while I think they could only handle 8.  Any DM will tell you that the 8 is far more accurate.  Yet you think they could take on half again as many small zombies AS A 20% ENCOUNTER.  Ludicrous.

For the fire beetles, I say 4 and you say 8.  Again, any DM would tell you that for a 20% encounter, a moderate encounter which PCs would have little to no difficulty winning, the 4 is more accurate than the 8.  You think the party could take on TWICE AS MANY FIRE BEETLES . . . AS A 20% ENCOUNTER!

Anyway, pretty much all the weakest skeletons and zombies and vermin and animals work out this way, but then again, they're pretty much the only thing that get to negative CR in the first place!

There you have you proof that quartering CR 1 breaks the system.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 9, 2003)

> Counting "basic" equipment (anything that isn't magical) as wealth is just plain stupid. As such, things like standard goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and orcs should not have any wealth counted. The balor's sword is counted because it's a major magical item.



But it is all relative.  It is a big change between a Balor with the badassed sword, and without.
Likewise, it is a big difference to have a gnoll with a chain shirt and longsword, or just padded and a club. But you seem to want to treat them the same.
In fact, from what you are saying, there is no CR/EL difference between a fighter in padded armour with a dagger, and one in full plate with a greatsword. Much of the 'wealth' of a low-medium lvl character would be non-magical.



> There you have you proof that quartering CR 1 breaks the system.



First, that is not 'proof', that is an opinion. Second, you can't just claim that DM's will agree with you; I would venture to guess UK is also a DM...
Third, I have found this system to be inaccurate for low levels anyway.

And last, it is your assertion that 4 first level characters can take on 8 small skeletons, and then repeat that process 3 more times?
I think both of your systems are too harsh. 8 skeletons will probably lose to 4 characters, but should do a number on their 'resources'.  Heck, if the cleric misses the turn, they may even lose the mage.

I do find it interesting that (IMO) <1CR creatures seem to be underestimated, and >1 (but low )CR creatures seem to be overestimated. But more on that later.

.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 9, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> But it is all relative.  It is a big change between a Balor with the badassed sword, and without.
> *




And as such, the balor's sword IS counted.  Like I said, magical is counted, non-magical should NOT be counted.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> Likewise, it is a big difference to have a gnoll with a chain shirt and longsword, or just padded and a club. But you seem to want to treat them the same.
> In fact, from what you are saying, there is no CR/EL difference between a fighter in padded armour with a dagger, and one in full plate with a greatsword. Much of the 'wealth' of a low-medium lvl character would be non-magical.
> *




I think that they would all rate the same regardless of the amount of non-magical equipment, not because they are the same power, but because different such ratings are pedantic and inaccurate.  The cost of items does NOT directly increase with the power of the items.  Here are examples of what I'm saying:

Greatsword: 50
Two-Bladed Sword: 100

Longsword: 15
Rapier: 20

Morningstar: 8
Heavy Mace: 12

Large Wooden Shield: 7
Buckler: 15

Scale Mail: 50
Chain Shirt: 100

See what I mean?  The greatsword is obviously better than the two-bladed sword, the longsword is better than the rapier (usually), the morningstar has identical power to the heavy mace, and large wooden shield is better than the buckler, and the scale mail and the chain shirt are pretty much the same.  Yet all the "weaker" items can cost double the better items!  I might make an exception for heavy armor, but that would be the extent of it.

Also, how do you account for wealth that can't be used?  Unlike powers that can't be used, items that can't be used have no potential for use, like a fighter with a wand or a wizard with an exotic weapon and no proficiency.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> First, that is not 'proof', that is an opinion. Second, you can't just claim that DM's will agree with you; I would venture to guess UK is also a DM...
> Third, I have found this system to be inaccurate for low levels anyway.
> *




His way, yes, but not the way I proposed.  I have playtested my way, and it works beautifully.

Also, I believe this is proof that the quartering is broken.  I don't know ANY DMs out there who would think that 12 small zombies is a normal encounter for a Level 1 party.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> And last, it is your assertion that 4 first level characters can take on 8 small skeletons, and then repeat that process 3 more times?
> I think both of your systems are too harsh. 8 skeletons will probably lose to 4 characters, but should do a number on their 'resources'.  Heck, if the cleric misses the turn, they may even lose the mage.
> *




Actually I was talking about zombies, which are weaker than skeletons.  By my proposals, a normal encounter for a Level 1 party would be 3 skeletons.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *
> I do find it interesting that (IMO) <1CR creatures seem to be underestimated, and >1 (but low )CR creatures seem to be overestimated. But more on that later.
> *




That's why I changed things at low levels.  Believe me, though, the more powerful things are not overestimated, they're just usually not played correctly.  (Dragons and the number one victim of incorrect DMing.  DMs SHOULD use metagame knowledge when running dragons.)


----------



## Anubis (Jun 9, 2003)

Okay, after many hours of study, I not only pinpointed the problems with UK's proposal, I also found a steady formula to determine fractional CRs!

Here it goes . . . We know CR 1 = EL 1.  Well, I propose that we set half that (CR 0.5) to equal the EL 2/3.  Starting from that point, I made a variation of the original formula as the basis for mine.  After 1, the formula that UK uses goes CR*2 = EL+4.  This obviously don't work below 1, however, because then you could never take into account negative CRs.  Instead, you have to reverse the formula!  It goes like so, *for CRs below 1*:

CR-2 = EL/4

Bam!  With that, you get the following:

CR - EL
===================
-3 = 1/16
-2.5 = 1/12
-2 = 1/8
-1.5 = 1/6
-1 = 1/4
-0.5 = 1/3
0 = 1/2
0.5 = 2/3
1 = 1

UK's proposal has no mathematical basis, whereas my proposal is based off of the very formula that works his entire system!  I think this is certain proof that I have the right idea here.

Now as for the following proposal:

CR - EL
===================
1 = 1
1.25 = 2
1.50 = 3
1.75 = 4
2 = 5
2.50 = 6
3 = 7
3.50 = 8
4 = 9

The base problem with this is in pathetic creatures with unbalanced powers.  In this, the tiny viper works out to be EL 3, ridiculous by any DM's imagination considering the whopping 1 hp.  Also, gnolls work out to be EL 2, which although I find that to be slightly stupid, it's not quite as unbalanced as the timy viper.  On that note, there are only three solutions:

1) Reduce the CR value of poison.
2) Forget about diving up ELs 1-4.
3) Have a poison parameter that limits the poison power of smaller creatures, which kills the realism of the viper.

Take your pick, 'cause it currently don't work at all.  Anyway, that's my report.  Those using the system are urged to use THIS formula and not UK's, as UK's will cause problems with the fractional monsters.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 9, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I have several comments.*




Thought you might. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First, about the wealth thing.  UK, the way you're chaning the NPC wealth thing makes the whole system about a hundred times more complicated.  Counting "basic" equipment (anything that isn't magical) as wealth is just plain stupid.  As such, things like standard goblins, hobgoblins, kobolds, and orcs should not have any wealth counted.  The balor's sword is counted because it's a major magical item.*




No, a Balors Sword is counted because of how much its worth. There is a reason why non magical items cost money you know - because they are still useful!

Low Level PCs probably won't have any magic items but their wealth is still factored.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Second, as to justifying the 30 ft. base speeds for goblins and kobolds . . . It's a RACIAL ABILITY.  There are many things that get bonuses such as this.  These two races are just "faster" than standard races.  That's all the justification that's needed, and I'm not at all sure why you would suggest otherwise.*




Then factor that in, its simply an additional +0.1 to CR.

Personally I think that could be a 'typo' since theres no real justification for it.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Third, you REALLY need to specify whether to count all those small racial abilities in that list you presented or not.  Do we tack that into CR or not?  I'm guessing that the whole "don't count racial abilities unless they add up to more than 0.5" statement still applies here . . .*




Count everything from now on.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Fourth, I warned you I could kill any quartering of CR 1 you gave me and I'm gonna do it right now.*




I posted the stuff up without fully testing it so there could be incongruities, but lets see the evidence...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *The PROBLEM isn't within CR 1, but rather how fast the fractions shrink under 0. *




Well I'm glad you are onboard with all positive numbers. Lets see what we can do with the negative ones...



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I will get right to two examples that instantly break your system.  Observe the Small Zombie and the Fire Beetle.*




...its always possible one of the factors could be incorrect...?



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Small Zombie: CR -2.300
> Giant Fire Beetle: CR -0.900
> 
> These round to CR -2 for the zombie and CR -1 for the fire beetle, assuming you took my advice about rounding down when the CR is positive but rounding to the nearest when the CR is negative.  (If not, the zombie is actually CR -3.) *




Okay lets see:

Small Zombie:
Small = -0.5
Undead (Mindless) = -1.5
1 HD = +0.5
+10ft speed = +0.1
+1 Natural Armour = +0.1
Toughness Feat = +0.2
Partial Actions = -0.25

Total -1.35 (rounds to -1.5) = CR 1/10

Giant Fire Beetle:
Small = -0.5
Vermin = -1.5
1 HD = +0.5
+10 ft. speed = +0.1
+5 Natural Armour = +0.5

Total -0.9 (rounds to -1) = CR 1/8



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here are the numbers as they come out using my proposal and using your proposal:
> 
> Monster ~ Anubis ~ UK
> 
> ...




Alternatively I could be overcooking the 'Mindless' trait.

I mean non-strength and non-dexterity have palpable repercussions in a fight, but does the mindless trait have the same bearing on a fight?

Perhaps it should be -0.5 instead of -1.5?

What do you think? Do you see the above problem with creatures other than (mindless) Undead and Vermin?

One sore point with that idea could be the skeleton, I'll have to check that.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 9, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Okay, after many hours of study, I not only pinpointed the problems with UK's proposal, I also found a steady formula to determine fractional CRs!
> 
> Here it goes . . . We know CR 1 = EL 1.  Well, I propose that we set half that (CR 0.5) to equal the EL 2/3.  Starting from that point, I made a variation of the original formula as the basis for mine.  After 1, the formula that UK uses goes CR*2 = EL+4.  This obviously don't work below 1, however, because then you could never take into account negative CRs.  Instead, you have to reverse the formula!  It goes like so, *for CRs below 1*:
> 
> ...




In summary...

My analysis of fractional CR may indeed be misleading (I'm still looking into it, although the divisions from 0+ appear to work); I'll know in future about posting stuff before I have double checked it.

We may indeed have to run with halving instead of quartering below 1. Which would make the Small Zombie CR 1/5 and the Giant Fire Beetle CR 1/4. It would also make the Medium Zombie 1/3.

Poison does appear to be rated fairly high, maybe its effects should be halved (I'll check)? Though I currently rate the Tiny Viper at CR 1.375 (1.25) = EL 2; not EL 3.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 9, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Racial Mods
> 
> Dwarf Racial Mods: CR +0.4
> ...




I should point out that unless you've changed the factors, hobgoblin racials mods equal 0.2 (Darkvision) and orc racial mods equal 0 (0.2 Darkvision -0.2 Light Sensitivity).

While I'm at it, I would highly suggest going ahead and not counting any racial mods that together add up to between -0.5 and 0.5.  The reasoning is simple: if you count these factors AND keep the fractions above CR 1, humans, elves, and dwarves come out to EL 2 as Level 1 characters, while half-orcs comes out normal and both gnomes and halflings comes out to be EL 2/3 characters.  I would suggest leaving all the base creatures as ECL 0 races for simplicity's sake.

As for the midless trait, go ahead and keep it.  I thought partial action only creatures were CR -1 not CR -0.25, which is why I rated zombies so low.  At CR -0.25, it works.  I also didn't count their feats, but now I noticed that feats on any mindless creatures are bonus feats.  I have them listed as the following:

Tiny Skeleton: CR -0.325, CR~EL 1/3
Small Skeleton: CR 0.150, CR~EL 1/2
Medium-Size Skeleton: CR 0.900, CR~EL 2/3
Tiny Zombie: CR -2.050, CR~EL 1/8
Small Zombie: CR -1.350, CR~EL 1/6
Medium-Size Zombie: CR -0.350, CR~EL 1/3

As to wealth, well, as I pointed out above, the non-magical items do not scale price with power, as I showed.  The reason low PC/NPC wealth is counted andthe "basic equipment" of those races is not counted is because these creatures barely have what constitutes Level 1 NPC wealth.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 9, 2003)

After careful study, it appears that halving the value of poison pretty much fixes everything save for the only slightly off gnoll EL.  The gnoll still works out to be EL 2 unfortunately, but that's not really a big deal because it can be argued that a gnoll IS EL 2 and not EL 1.  Whatever.  Here is the complete list of CRs and ELs I have come up with so far:


```
[COLOR=white]
Monster                                                Rating       CR       EL

Animated Object, Living Statue                          2.600        2.50     6
Badger                                                  1.150        1        1
Bugbear                                                 2.150        2        5
Demon, Dretch                                           4.026        4        9
Devil, Lemure                                           2.650        2.50     6
Dire Bat                                                4.800        4        9
Dire Rat                                                1.100        1        1
Dire Tiger                                             12.200       12       15
Gargoyle                                                5.700        5       10
Gelatinous Cube                                         9.200        9       13
Ghast                                                   4.650        4        9
Ghoul                                                   3.250        3        7
Giant Bee                                               0.850        0 2/3    0 2/3
Giant Beetle, Fire                                     -0.900        0 1/4    0 1/4
Gnoll                                                   1.400        1.25     2
Goblin                                          0.200 / 0.600        0 2/3    0 2/3
Hell Hound                                              4.850        4        9
Hobgoblin                                       0.200 / 0.600        0 2/3    0 2/3
Kobold                                                  0.075        0 1/2    0 1/2
Krenshar                                                2.100        2        5
Monstrous Centipede, Tiny                              -1.575        0 1/6    0 1/6
Monstrous Centipede, Small                             -0.850        0 1/4    0 1/4
Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny                               -0.700        0 1/3    0 1/3
Monstrous Scorpion, Small                               0.200        0 1/2    0 1/2
Monstrous Scorpion, Colossal                           40.050       40       22
Monstrous Spider, Tiny                                 -0.900        0 1/4    0 1/4
Monstrous Spider, Small                                -0.300        0 1/3    0 1/3
Mummy                                                   6.900        6       11
Ogre                                                    4.200        4        9
Orc                                             0.000 / 0.600        0 2/3    0 2/3
Skeleton, Tiny                                         -0.325        0 1/3    0 1/3
Skeleton, Small                                         0.150        0 1/2    0 1/2
Skeleton, Medium-Size                                   0.900        0 2/3    0 2/3
Snake, Tiny Viper                                       0.975        0 2/3    0 2/3
Stirge                                                  1.100        1        1
Troglodyte                                              2.300        2        5
Wight                                                   6.100        6       11
Wraith                                                  8.400        8       13
Zombie, Tiny                                           -2.050        0 1/8    0 1/8
Zombie, Small                                          -1.350        0 1/6    0 1/6
Zombie, Medium-Size                                    -0.350        0 1/3    0 1/3
[/COLOR]
```

For the creatures with two Ratings, the first number is the creature's racial modifier alone while the second is the actual rating of one such creature per the book (NOT counting racial abilities but only NPC class levels in these cases).  These creatures are ECL 0 creatures that are classed in the MM.

Also, I understand and realize that UK could very well get different ratings for many of these creatures due to the fact that not all pertinent factors are in the PDF (and thus must be rated ad hoc).  I came to these numbers using my judgment on things that were not rated in the PDF for various things.  For instance, I do not count the stirges attach ability at all (the reasoning is simple: the stirge loses all defenses while attached, and unlike other attach abilities that use improved grab and grappling, this ability proves to be pretty worthless as it disables the stirge), and I also count the gelatinous cube's transparency to be worth 0.2 and the engulf ability to be worth 0.5 . . . Basically, many of these are judgment calls, and UK and I will likely have differing opinions on some things.  These numbers, however, I can guarantee to be 99% accurate by the PDF, so it's safe to use them in your games if you use this system.

Besides, UK shouldn't have to do ALL the work.  I'll be keying more creatures as I go along.  In fact, I'd be more than happy to release all my results on the boards as I get them.

Anyway, enjoy!


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 9, 2003)

Wow. So much new information to deal with.

First of all, I believe the equation that Anubis pulled out of his hat (CR-2 = EL/4) is worth embracing. That's right. It's appears to be a good, clean solution. I can't stand arbitrary solutions any more than the next poster on this board. This new equation makes sense.

Second of all...

Upper_Krust.

I think this new "count everything" idea (regarding racial abilities) needs to be examined more closely. I like it, but I'm not sure about it. Still reading (I'm in a rush today). The point is... I'd like to see it work. How else can we cook the books so that all the core races come out to ECL 0.

I agree that poisons are rated too harshly. My own playtesting bared that one out too.

Lastly (for the moment), I think goblins and kobolds moving at 30 feet is completely acceptable. Both races are a skitterish lot, well accustomed to making cowardly retreats.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 9, 2003)

*HEADLINE: HELL FREEZES OVER* 

Yikes, Sonofapreacherman, UK, and I all accept the new formula!  Wow!  Well then, since I'm on a roll, I might as well reveal my next proposal!

This next one has to do with wealth and trasure.  As I'm sure most have already figured out, the old treasure tables do not work when coupled with the new EL system and the new PC wealth formula.  First, UK's formula gives far more wealth at low levels and far less wealth at high levels.  Second, the current treasure tables work off of EL and are designed to work with the DMG's wealth tables, and this new system is a significant change.  Third, wealth increases even more when one EL encompasses many levels, making a linear system seem unworkable.  In light of all these facts, one would think that wealth and treasure get terribly broken under the new system.  This is mostly true unless you work out properly.  After three seperate attempts, I believe I have finally found the solution.

I'll skip all the mistakes I made and get right to the results here.  In order to figure out how much treasures should be worth, you must find out how many levels it takes to reach the next EL up and then calculate the wealth increase.  Divide that by 13 1/3 (the number of encounters it should take to reach the next level) and then by the number of levels in that EL (which doesn't come into play until middle levels) and then you have the ideal value of a treasure of that level.  From there, simply give treasure based on the EL.

Before I go on, I will post a table of the wealth of Levels 1-40, because that is the scope of my initial findings and the most likely used levels.  These numbers are all derived from the new PC wealth formula.


```
[COLOR=white]
PC Wealth

Level  1             0
Level  2           800
Level  3         2,700
Level  4         6,400
Level  5        12,500
Level  6        21,600
Level  7        34,300
Level  8        51,200
Level  9        72,900
Level 10       100,000
Level 11       133,100
Level 12       172,800
Level 13       219,700
Level 14       274,400
Level 15       337,500
Level 16       409,600
Level 17       491,300
Level 18       583,200
Level 19       685,900
Level 20       800,000
Level 21       926,100
Level 22     1,064,800
Level 23     1,216,700
Level 24     1,382,400
Level 25     1,562,500
Level 26     1,757,600
Level 27     1,968,300
Level 28     2,195,200
Level 29     2,438,900
Level 30     2,700,000
Level 31     2,979,100
Level 32     3,276,800
Level 33     3,593,700
Level 34     3,930,400
Level 35     4,287,500
Level 36     4,665,600
Level 37     5,065,300
Level 38     5,487,200
Level 39     5,931,900
Level 40     6,400,000
[/COLOR]
```

Now I will give my proposal exactly as I gave it to UK.  Here is the proposal as I originally wrote it in my e-mail to UK:



Anyway, I've been thinking very hard about this, and I think I have come up with a solution. The ONLY possible bad thing about the solution is that wealth gained during gaming would not exactly match wealth from the tables at certain points.  Then again, I don't know a single campaign where those tables are followed to the number, so the differences are within acceptable limits.  All things considered, it all balances out in the end because although you get more treasure at the low end of a particular EL, you get less treasure at the high end of the same EL.  All in all it's the ONLY solution that works at ALL levels.

Indeed, you must give out treasure PER EL (as you guessed at one point), and have a specific level of treasure for each EL.  This of course would normally give us the problem of giving more treasure to higher level characters within the same EL, right?  WRONG.  By taking the average needed for every level within a given EL, you get an average amount of treasure per encounter within that EL.

In order to do this, though, you must change things at ALL levels, not just epic levels.  I present to you the following chart:


```
[COLOR=white]
EL     Treasure Value     Treasure Level

1-4               240                  1
5-6               570                  2
7-8             1,110                  4
9               1,830                  6
10              2,730                  7
11              3,810                  8
12              5,070                  9
13              7,320                 11
14             10,920                 12
15             15,240                 14
16             20,280                 15
17             29,280                 16
18             43,680                 18
19             60,960                 19
20             81,120                 20
21            117,120
[/COLOR]
```

For every value that is within the parameters of the DMG, I went ahead and assigned a Treasure Level from the DMG.  The first column is the EL of the encounter.  The second column is what the value of a treasure from such an encounter should be in order to keep PCs with wealth parameters.  The third column gives us the Treasure Level from the DMG to use that matches those values, as per p.170 of the DMG.  Five Treasure Levels will of course never be used, but that's okay.  Each Treasure Level indicated gives an average of the indicated amount of treasure and thus keeps PCs within wealth guidelines.  Over Treasure Level 20, it is of course up to the DM to assign treasure that is worth a total of about the given value, as per the suggestions in the ELH about not randomly generating epic treasure.

The numbers in the second column were obtained through a method similar to the one I gave you before for obtaining treasure values per level.  The formula seems more complex, but it actually isn't and this is unfortunately the only way to get accurate treasure numbers.  It's no more complicated than your entire CR system.  The formula is as follows:

{ [ (calculated wealth for first level of next EL) - (calculated wealth for bottom level of current EL) ] *4 } / 13 1/3 / (number of levels in current EL)

That looks even more intimidating than before, of course, and likely needs explanation.  What it means is subtract the wealth of the bottom level of the current EL from the wealth of the bottom level of the next EL up (because that's how much wealth should be accumulated through that particular EL), multiply the result by 4, and then divide it by 13 1/3.  Then finish it up by dividing the result by the number of levels within the current EL.  Remember that by the system, 13 1/3 encounters is the technical norm, and that is where I got the number of course.  Now it is time for an example to explain.  The following is how you get the value of an EL 21 treasure:

EL 21 = Levels 32-39
EL 22 = Levels 40-47

PC Level 40 (bottom level of EL 22) Wealth: 6,400,000
PC Level 32 (bottom level of EL 21) Wealth: 3,276,800

6,400,000 - 3,276,800 = 3,123,200
3,123,200 * 4 = 12,492,800
12,492,800 / 13 1/3 = 936,960

936,960 / 8 (number of levels within EL 21) = 117,120

As I said, PERFECT.  This finally fixes the problems with wealth and treasure, assuming you use the wealth formula that has been settled upon for PCs.  I know this is a bit complex, but then again, it's 255% necessary.  You changed the way to CR/EL system works, which breaks the current treasure system by default because it was run based around the old CR/EL system.  As such, there were bound to be complications when wealth was changed, and as such, treasure needed to be changed right along with it.

Anyway, problem solved.

Questions?  Comments?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 9, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *I should point out that unless you've changed the factors, hobgoblin racials mods equal 0.2 (Darkvision) *




...and +0.08 for skills.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *and orc racial mods equal 0 (0.2 Darkvision -0.2 Light Sensitivity).*




I thought I had light sensitivity at -0.1...?

Okay, and I just checked, I have it at -0.2; shows what I know. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *While I'm at it, I would highly suggest going ahead and not counting any racial mods that together add up to between -0.5 and 0.5.  The reasoning is simple: if you count these factors AND keep the fractions above CR 1, humans, elves, and dwarves come out to EL 2 as Level 1 characters, *




Indeed.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *while half-orcs comes out normal and both gnomes and halflings comes out to be EL 2/3 characters.*




Well, the facts don't lie. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I would suggest leaving all the base creatures as ECL 0 races for simplicity's sake.*




I will do the reverse. Factor all mods but 'suggest' DMs ignore racial mods for the sake of brevity.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for the midless trait, go ahead and keep it.*




Well it works a peach now we changed the fractional CR rating.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I thought partial action only creatures were CR -1 not CR -0.25, which is why I rated zombies so low.  At CR -0.25, it works.*




Well, thinking about it, its like losing half an attack. Since gaining an attack is +0.5 it occured to me that -0.25 suited partial actions better.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I also didn't count their feats, but now I noticed that feats on any mindless creatures are bonus feats.  I have them listed as the following:
> 
> Tiny Skeleton: CR -0.325, CR~EL 1/3
> Small Skeleton: CR 0.150, CR~EL 1/2
> ...




Absolutely.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *As to wealth, well, as I pointed out above, the non-magical items do not scale price with power, as I showed.  The reason low PC/NPC wealth is counted andthe "basic equipment" of those races is not counted is because these creatures barely have what constitutes Level 1 NPC wealth. *




Which is why if they have less than 25 GP (1st-level NPC wealth) they don't get any CR bonus.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 9, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *After careful study, it appears that halving the value of poison pretty much fixes everything save for the only slightly off gnoll EL.  The gnoll still works out to be EL 2 unfortunately, but that's not really a big deal because it can be argued that a gnoll IS EL 2 and not EL 1.  Whatever.*




I think we can live with it...that said I don't see any problem.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here is the complete list of CRs and ELs I have come up with so far:
> 
> For the creatures with two Ratings, the first number is the creature's racial modifier alone while the second is the actual rating of one such creature per the book (NOT counting racial abilities but only NPC class levels in these cases). *




Count everything from now on. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *These creatures are ECL 0 creatures that are classed in the MM.*




They are still ECL 0. Technically you could have anything up to +0.9 still represent ECL 0 if we adhere to the rounding down mechanic.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Also, I understand and realize that UK could very well get different ratings for many of these creatures due to the fact that not all pertinent factors are in the PDF (and thus must be rated ad hoc).*




Even I can't remember all the stuff I have changed. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I came to these numbers using my judgment on things that were not rated in the PDF for various things.  For instance, I do not count the stirges attach ability at all (the reasoning is simple: the stirge loses all defenses while attached, and unlike other attach abilities that use improved grab and grappling, this ability proves to be pretty worthless as it disables the stirge), and I also count the gelatinous cube's transparency to be worth 0.2 and the engulf ability to be worth 0.5 . . . Basically, many of these are judgment calls, and UK and I will likely have differing opinions on some things.  These numbers, however, I can guarantee to be 99% accurate by the PDF, so it's safe to use them in your games if you use this system.
> 
> Besides, UK shouldn't have to do ALL the work.  I'll be keying more creatures as I go along.  In fact, I'd be more than happy to release all my results on the boards as I get them.
> 
> Anyway, enjoy! *




If you get close enough then the odd fractional discrepancy here and there doesn't really matter...that much.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 9, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Wow. So much new information to deal with.*




Deep Breaths. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *First of all, I believe the equation that Anubis pulled out of his hat (CR-2 = EL/4) is worth embracing. That's right. It's appears to be a good, clean solution. I can't stand arbitrary solutions any more than the next poster on this board. This new equation makes sense.*




To paraphrase the movie 'Die Hard':

"Well we don't keep him around for his charming personality." 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Second of all...
> 
> Upper_Krust.
> 
> I think this new "count everything" idea (regarding racial abilities) needs to be examined more closely. I like it, but I'm not sure about it. Still reading (I'm in a rush today). The point is... I'd like to see it work. How else can we cook the books so that all the core races come out to ECL 0.*




Everything less than +0.9 (or +0.5 even) rounds down to ECL 0.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I agree that poisons are rated too harshly. My own playtesting bared that one out too.*




Halving seems to work 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Lastly (for the moment), I think goblins and kobolds moving at 30 feet is completely acceptable. Both races are a skitterish lot, well accustomed to making cowardly retreats.
> 
> *


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 14, 2003)

Ah yes. Those plucky WotC designers...

They do mean well.

-----

Ed: "There's a section on setting target challenge ratings for new monsters and material on how to consider CRs for advanced monsters. We talk about how to playtest a CR and we also talk about how adding a class level to your monster affects its CR. This is more detailed than we've published before but, remember, setting CRs isn't a complete formula; you have to playtest and use your judgment"

Andy: "As always, it's a combination of numbers and judgment. The game's not cut-and-dried enough for a simple system to cover all the variables."

-----

If only they knew the labors that are being wrought, unknown to their "in-house" R&D department.

_And lo, the revised Challenge Rating system did rise from beneath the ashes of version 3.0, but alas, the solution did not come from WotC, much to their chagrin._


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 14, 2003)

Hiya mate! 

Incidently I have been working on V.4 this week. Its pretty much finished but for the entire Monster Manual and Epic Level Handbook list of monsters (re)rated to whatever decimal place I get taken...not really looking forward to that again. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Ah yes. Those plucky WotC designers...
> 
> They do mean well.
> 
> ...




I'll get v.4 published in Dragon magazine and make WotC look like a bunch of goofers...'CR isn't a complete formula indeed'!  

Not that they can complain; since I did proffer it to them, albeit too late to make it into the Revised Core Rulebooks.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 15, 2003)

Looking forward to it. I am curious about one thing however. I know you claim that "writing" is not your best skill, but will there be more paragraphs about "how-to-use-the-rules" in this version? That is really the key to getting this system widely embraced. Something more than "final product examples" this time, but rather, a little description on how you got there ... no matter how basic it may seem to you (and many of us).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 15, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Looking forward to it. I am curious about one thing however. I know you claim that "writing" is not your best skill,*




I am good enough when I put my mind to it, I just don't like wasting words...shall we say. 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *but will there be more paragraphs about "how-to-use-the-rules" in this version?*




Yes, as well as some 'when to use...' sections.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *That is really the key to getting this system widely embraced.*




Probably.



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *Something more than "final product examples" this time, but rather, a little description on how you got there ... no matter how basic it may seem to you (and many of us). *




I must admit I hadn't thought of pursuing this direction, but its something I may look into.


----------



## Eldorian (Jun 16, 2003)

Once again... I have to come out and say that fractional CRs are nonsense.  The system doesn't take into account ability modifiers, which, everyone must admit (except maybe anubis), do have some effect on gameplay, in terms of challenge.  How can the system claim to be accurate to within a fraction of a CR if it doesn't take this into account?  Indeed, how can it be accurate at all?  I'm actually beginning to lose faith in the system due to this lack.  How can it approach accuracy if it doesn't take into account a major feature of the game?  Even with design parameters, a creature with the top of the line for his size catagory compared to a creature with bottom of the line is a huge difference in power. 

I mean, the system takes into account factors which have less significance than ability scores, like bonuses to skills and very situational abilities like burrowing and darkvision.  I mean.. stupidmonster_1 with straight tens and darkvision is harder than stupidmonster_2 with straight 14s and normal vision?  I'm just thinking we can't get away with dropping ability scores, and the discussion on fractional CRs has brought this to light.

Eldorian Antar


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 16, 2003)

Eldorian.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *The system doesn't take into account ability modifiers, which, everyone must admit (except maybe anubis), do have some effect on gameplay, in terms of challenge.  How can the system claim to be accurate to within a fraction of a CR if it doesn't take this into account?*



Because all this system purports to offer are more accurate guidelines than the current system. Right now, the current system offers lose guidelines with which to measure Challenge Rating (that have been largely proven inaccurate). So in the end, all Upper_Krust is offering is a more accurate "estimate of CR" ... but still a guide nonetheless (albeit empowering player with quantifiable knowledge, rather than waiting for WotC to hand down their latest batch of CR guesses).

There is so much variance with ability scores that not only would it be too cumbersome to continually track them (especially when ability scores are modified on the fly by spells, monster abilities, and poisons), but until those ability scores reach epic levels, average ability scores (the most universally common; as opposed to all 18s) simply don't significantly impact Upper_Krust's more accurate "estimate of CR".

If you're trying to make his system any more complicated than that, you're spinning your own wheels. If over-complication is your bag, then hey, go crazy. I'm sure your can whip up some values for ability scores in your own game ... should they be needed that urgently. But they really aren't needed here.



No offense.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 16, 2003)

I think his point is one of relative accuracy. If a creature like a Balor has a 21 str, or a 26 Str, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. But if a creature like an orc has a 13 Str or a 16 str; it makes a much bigger difference.
I think his point is that when worrying about tiny differences of CR, a difference of ability scores may warrant a change from 1/8 to 1/6 quite easily.

And it has been my impression that it has not be UK's claim that  "all Upper_Krust is offering is a more accurate'estimate of C' ... but still a guide nonetheless ". It has been my impression from his statements that it has been meant as a 'complete formula'.

One of the assumptions UK seems to make is that ability scores scale pretty linearly with HD. Which is why the CR gets thrown off pretty badly by things like the colossal scorpion and such. The CR can be a 'complete formula' only when the monster creation process is strictly formulaic.

And it has yet to be proven to me that UK's system is much more accurate/useful to warrent a change. I have found a number of (what appear to be) broken CR's in the UK system also. [Yes UK, I will post them for discussion, I was just waiting for the wealth/fractional topics to run their course.]

.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 16, 2003)

Anubis

Could you please elaborate something for me?
One of my players would like to play either a Bugbear or an Ogre. So I calculated their CR to find the ECL (adding wealth). And just to make sure, I checked them with your CR's, posted on p. 6 of this thread.
You mark the Bugbear at CR 2.15 and the Ogre at CR 4.2.

I get: 

BUGBEAR

3 hum. HD: +1.65 CR
Nat. Armor: +0.3 CR
Darkvis.: +0.2 CR
Stat Mods: +0.6 CR
Total: +2.75 CR

and

OGRE

4 giant HD: +2.2 CR
Nat. Armor: +0.5 CR
Darkvis.: +0.2 CR
Large: +1.5 CR
Stat Mod outside parameters for L size: -0.6 CR
Total: +3.8 CR

So what am I screwing up? UK has confirmed (somewhere in this thread) that only stat mods outside the parameters for size affect CR. So I don't get it.

I think that I'm right with the Bugbear, as 3 lvls of wealth will add up to CR 3.35 - fine for a PC.

However, CR 3.8 for the Ogre is too low. Here, the 4.2 is much better, as 5 lvls of wealth will give CR 5.2 - fine for a PC.

What am I missing. Thanks in advance for any reply.

Others are of course welcome to add their comments as well.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 16, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Once again... I have to come out and say that fractional CRs are nonsense.*




I can't agree with that. 

I wouldn't proffer they were perfect, but the system is more accurate with them, than without fractional CRs, regardless of any other problems we encounter.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *The system doesn't take into account ability modifiers, which, everyone must admit (except maybe anubis), do have some effect on gameplay, in terms of challenge. *




Well it takes Ability Score modifiers for Size (and a few other things) into account.

One of the problems I have is trying to retrofit the system when WotC break their own parameters, typically with regards size based modifiers.

I have also been considering a modifier for low Intelligence, since I have given one for 'mindless'.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *How can the system claim to be accurate to within a fraction of a CR if it doesn't take this into account?  Indeed, how can it be accurate at all?*




Challenge Rating revolves around what parallels PCs of a certain level. Unless you plan on penalising PCs for rolling up high ability scores (increased ECL) there is always going to be that element of luck about rolling up a character.



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I'm actually beginning to lose faith in the system due to this lack.*




Sorry to hear this mate. 

I'm all ears as to your better solution...?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *How can it approach accuracy if it doesn't take into account a major feature of the game?*




Any DM can input Ability Scores as a factor if they so wish. 

What you have to ask yourself is how detailed do you want to get?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *Even with design parameters, a creature with the top of the line for his size catagory compared to a creature with bottom of the line is a huge difference in power.*




Can you show me a creature that breaks the system without breaking the Design Parameters?



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I mean, the system takes into account factors which have less significance than ability scores, like bonuses to skills and very situational abilities like burrowing and darkvision.  I mean.. stupidmonster_1 with straight tens and darkvision is harder than stupidmonster_2 with straight 14s and normal vision?*




The reason these take precedence is because they are non-standard, in that there is no give and take; unlike ability scores where PCs can roll up varying ability scores. Again, this comes back to high ability scores essentially being treated in a similar light to lucky dice rolls (which in effect they are).



			
				Eldorian said:
			
		

> *I'm just thinking we can't get away with dropping ability scores, and the discussion on fractional CRs has brought this to light. *




...just when I thought everything was going well too. 

Appreciate the feedback nonetheless mate.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 16, 2003)

Hi Coredump mate! 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *I think his point is one of relative accuracy. If a creature like a Balor has a 21 str, or a 26 Str, it doesn't make a whole lot of difference. But if a creature like an orc has a 13 Str or a 16 str; it makes a much bigger difference.*




See my previous reply to Eldorian.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *I think his point is that when worrying about tiny differences of CR, a difference of ability scores may warrant a change from 1/8 to 1/6 quite easily.*




The difference between CR 1/8 and 1/6 is an entire point of CR by my system lets remember. 

CR -2 = CR 1/6
CR -3 = CR 1/8



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *And it has been my impression that it has not be UK's claim that  "all Upper_Krust is offering is a more accurate'estimate of C' ... but still a guide nonetheless ". It has been my impression from his statements that it has been meant as a 'complete formula'.*




There is never going to be perfect accuracy, but I always strived for accuracy to within fractions, and I think for the most part I have achieved that.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *One of the assumptions UK seems to make is that ability scores scale pretty linearly with HD. Which is why the CR gets thrown off pretty badly by things like the colossal scorpion and such. The CR can be a 'complete formula' only when the monster creation process is strictly formulaic.*




If WotC state that a Colossal creature gains 'x' benefits then they turn around and create a Colossal creature without those benefits then obviously there are going to be problems, but they are not problems inherant in my system.



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *And it has yet to be proven to me that UK's system is much more accurate/useful to warrent a change. I have found a number of (what appear to be) broken CR's in the UK system also.*




No time like the present mate, lets see them. 



			
				Coredump said:
			
		

> *Yes UK, I will post them for discussion, I was just waiting for the wealth/fractional topics to run their course. *




Thats pretty much over.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 16, 2003)

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Anubis
> 
> Could you please elaborate something for me?*




Well I'm not Anubis but I know the system fairly well. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *One of my players would like to play either a Bugbear or an Ogre.*




Excellent. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *So I calculated their CR to find the ECL (adding wealth). And just to make sure, I checked them with your CR's, posted on p. 6 of this thread.
> You mark the Bugbear at CR 2.15 and the Ogre at CR 4.2.
> 
> I get:
> ...




They also have a +4 skill modifier but that only equates to a +0.08 CR bonus.

Remember to factor PC Wealth, +0.6 for 3rd-level (since 2nd-level wealth would still take them above CR 3). Total ECL +3.43 (3)

Essentially you are getting: +6 to ability scores, +3 to natural armour, darkvision and a +4 move silently bonus instead of class features.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *and
> 
> OGRE
> 
> ...




Speed: -0.1
Do Ogres get Darkvision? (Is that in the errata?)

3.5 I get; with +0.8 for wealth for Total ECL 4.3 (4) 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *So what am I screwing up? UK has confirmed (somewhere in this thread) that only stat mods outside the parameters for size affect CR. So I don't get it.*




Looks okay to me.

Of the two the Ogre seems to have the most visceral impact for the ECL. On the surface it may even look too powerful for its ECL, but remember that Ogre BAB and HD is not as good as a fighters/barbarians and those negative ability score penalties may hurt it and it also has no class features.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I think that I'm right with the Bugbear, as 3 lvls of wealth will add up to CR 3.35 - fine for a PC.*




Yeah you had that one pegged pretty well.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *However, CR 3.8 for the Ogre is too low. Here, the 4.2 is much better, as 5 lvls of wealth will give CR 5.2 - fine for a PC.
> 
> What am I missing. Thanks in advance for any reply.*




I'm curious about this too. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Others are of course welcome to add their comments as well. *




Thanks...I will.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 16, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> 
> They also have a +4 skill modifier but that only equates to a +0.08 CR bonus.
> 
> ...




Yeah, I ignored the skill bonus - so small.

And no, Ogres do not get darkvision. My bad  

Thanks for the reply, UK. Seems that I'm getting the system after all.  
But then I don't get Anubis' numbers   

BTW, I think that if I claimed that a Ogre only was ECL 4 over on the Wizards boards, there would be an uprising. Maybe it's a little _too_ low?
Honestly, thinking of it, I don't think so. But there sure is a big difference between ECL 4 as suggested by you and ECL 6 as suggested by wizards...

Later,


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 16, 2003)

*Revised (Optional) Size*

Hi all! 

If you haven't already seen it, take a look at the 3.5 Titan:

http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x=dnd/iw/20030615c

(Incidently I rate it at CR 27.46 by my reckoning, but thats not what I want to talk about.)

I have been growing increasingly annoyed with the official Size/Base Damage rules so I will probably include these optional rules in the Appendices of the IH.

Fine: 1 on crit
Diminutive: 1
Tiny: 1d2
Small: 1d4
Medium: 1d8
Large: 2d8
Huge: 4d8
Gargantuan: 8d8
Colossal: 16d8

Slam: Crushing Damage
Gore: Piercing Damage
Claw: Slashing Damage
Bite: All of the above.

I am sure there are a few other nuances to iron out, but in the meantime any comments?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 16, 2003)

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Yeah, I ignored the skill bonus - so small.*




True.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *And no, Ogres do not get darkvision. My bad  *




It can be difficult keeping track of the minutiae...as long as you get the salient points covered you shouldn't have too many problems. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Thanks for the reply, UK. *




Anytime mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Seems that I'm getting the system after all. *




I do like a happy ending. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *But then I don't get Anubis' numbers *




Could be anything, maybe he typed it up wrong, happens to the best of us. 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *BTW, I think that if I claimed that a Ogre only was ECL 4 over on the Wizards boards, there would be an uprising. Maybe it's a little too low?*




Its plausible I could have rated the size modifier incorrectly, but I don't think so...?

I think its simply a matter of specialisation. 

Obviously the Ogre specialises in the more visceral area of combat but the Dex, Int and Cha penalties could hurt it in the long run. If people play combat heavy/roleplaying lite campaigns then you could certainly make a case that the ECL should be higher.

The Ogre character is certainly likely to attract the majority of attention from enemies (certainly at low-mid levels); equipment is going to be harder to come by*; Transport is going to be an issue at low-mid levels.

*Unless you buy into the 'All magic items resize' nonsense.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Honestly, thinking of it, I don't think so. But there sure is a big difference between ECL 4 as suggested by you and ECL 6 as suggested by wizards...*




Initially I thought it looked a 5. 

I seem to recall WotC's system in Savage Species rated it a 7, but they reduced it by 1.



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Later *




Cya mate.


----------



## Ashardalon (Jun 16, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *
> And no, Ogres do not get darkvision. My bad
> *




Aaactually, from the SRD:



> Giant
> Giant: A giant is a humanoid creature of great strength, usually of at least Large size. Giants are proficient with all simple weapons and with any weapons listed in their entries. *Unless noted otherwise, giants have darkvision with a range of 60 feet.*
> Hit Die: d8
> Attack Bonus: Total HDx3/4 (as cleric)
> ...




Thankfully, the R3E MM will apparently spell such things out explicitly. That should help reduce the confusion.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 16, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Anubis
> 
> Could you please elaborate something for me?
> One of my players would like to play either a Bugbear or an Ogre. So I calculated their CR to find the ECL (adding wealth). And just to make sure, I checked them with your CR's, posted on p. 6 of this thread.
> ...




First off, ogres don't have darkvision.

Second, I don't count ANY ability score modifiers unless they are well outside the norm.

As I said, UK may disagree with some of my numbers as the system forces some judgment calls that he and I deal with differently.  I would say you'll be okay using the 2.15 and 4.2 and just adding for wealth and levels as necessary.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 16, 2003)

Well this was timing...



Ashardalon[/i]
[B]Aaactually said:


> *
> First off, ogres don't have darkvision. *




I guess you guys posted at the same time.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 16, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> First off, ogres don't have darkvision.
> 
> ...




okie dokie  

Thanks for the reply.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 17, 2003)

Wow, I NEVER ONCE saw that about giants having darkvision.  They better damn well start spelling things out per monster!  Geez!  What an annoyance!

By the way, UK, I DO know that ogres don't get -0.1 for speed.  They aren't slow, they're wearing medium armor.  See the errata for this clarification.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 18, 2003)

*Prods Upper_Krust with a cross-continental stick.*

How's version 4 coming along?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Wow, I NEVER ONCE saw that about giants having darkvision.  They better damn well start spelling things out per monster!  Geez!  What an annoyance!
> 
> By the way, UK, I DO know that ogres don't get -0.1 for speed.  They aren't slow, they're wearing medium armor.  See the errata for this clarification. *




Do either of us know these rules at all!?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> **Prods Upper_Krust with a cross-continental stick.*
> 
> How's version 4 coming along?
> 
> *




Well I am about halfway through revising the CRs (which is the main hurdle at this point); there are a few other things to worry about and I'll want to do some extensive reading and testing before I post it this time.

I am currently considering a Damage mechanic and incorporating a rule for creatures with attacks fewer than a Fighter equal to their Hit Dice.

I'm also not sure if I'll include the Feats and Spells section this time.

Oh and forget about the above Optional Size/Damage rules - they throw off the relationship between Damage and Hit Dice too much. So its no point incorporating doubling damage unless you start incorporating quadrupling Hit Dice...then you start a whole sequence of events which are better left alone.


----------



## green slime (Jun 19, 2003)

Ummm....

Apart from drugding through this very long thread to wheedle out the particulars, is there anyplace where one can find the "collected CR revision" document in one handy pdf/doc/txt/html file?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hey there Green Slime mate! 



			
				green slime said:
			
		

> *Ummm....
> 
> Apart from drugding through this very long thread to wheedle out the particulars, is there anyplace where one can find the "collected CR revision" document in one handy pdf/doc/txt/html file? *




There are two threads where you can download a pdf of the CR/EL Revision Document in full.

However, I recently lost all my bookmarks during some computer trouble and I don't have a direct link anymore...actually just realised there is a link at the start of this thread. DOH! 

Link to Version 1.0 which has been downloaded 364 times  (thanks for the support all)

http://enworld.cyberstreet.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=45989

Does anyone still have the link to Version 3.0?  Nevermind I will just post Version 3.0 here.

However you may be better off waiting a week (or so) until I have version 4.0 up and running.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 19, 2003)

Uh, Oh, that's almost a deadline you set there...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

*The new Size factors.*

Hi all! 

I reworked the size factors to much more detail and arrived at the following:

Fine: CR +0.15 (yes thats a plus)
Diminutive: CR -0.6 (yes its better than Tiny)
Tiny: CR -0.75
Small: CR -0.4
Medium: CR +/-0
Large: CR +1.5
Huge: CR +2.5
Gargantuan: CR +4.4
Colossal: CR +5.3

Consider those changes in effect for V.4

Also I will be instigating a New Factor 'Damage' (for when damage deviate from the norm), removing an old factor 'Epic Abilities' (which is subsumed by the Unusual Abilities Factor) and tweaking the 'Multiple Attacks' factor to include a negative penalty for attacks weaker than a Fighter (something which is already incorporated into class features, in the Design Parameters section. I may have to redo that one altogether since its tied to BAB progression. Don't know how I missed that. 

Edited to add the Speed changes.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 

I trust you are keeping well? Keeping busy in the Monster Forums I see. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Uh, Oh, that's almost a deadline you set there...  *




Thats okay, I can always go back and edit the post later.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 19, 2003)

I'm not sure if it was talked about already, but did you do something about your speed parameters?

While it should be obvious that this shouldn't be the case, but your text did indicate that it would be possible that a creature would suffer a negative adjustment to CR from an additional low speed...


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 19, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Knight Otu mate!
> 
> I trust you are keeping well? Keeping busy in the Monster Forums I see.  *



Indeed. My favored home at the moment, given that the PbP games I was in died comparably early deaths. 



> *Thats okay, I can always go back and edit the post later.  *




Lol!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I'm not sure if it was talked about already, but did you do something about your speed parameters?
> 
> While it should be obvious that this shouldn't be the case, but your text did indicate that it would be possible that a creature would suffer a negative adjustment to CR from an additional low speed... *




Not sure I am picking you up right... 

If a Large creature typically has 40 ft. speed, one with only 20 ft. speed would have a -0.2 CR modifier.

Which reminds me I forgot to include Movement in the above size mods...DOH!


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 19, 2003)

Let's say a colossal creature has a clumsy flight speed of 5 feet. Logically, it would be very slightly more dangerous than without the flight speed (but the increase in danger would be miniscule enough to say that it would not increase the CR).

Someone who does not think about that though, might miss the logic, which would lead to a negative adjustment to CR.

Admittedly, that should normally be rare, but seeing some of the posts all over the web does not make me hopeful that it will be rare.  (and of course, such a creature as above should propably considered badly designed).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Indeed. My favored home at the moment, given that the PbP games I was in died comparably early deaths.  *




Sorry to hear that! 

Still my friend S'mon runs PBEM games now and again (don't think he is running one at the moment - hes pretty busy right now); next time he starts one up I will let you know - just incase you are interested.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Let's say a colossal creature has a clumsy flight speed of 5 feet. Logically, it would be very slightly more dangerous than without the flight speed (but the increase in danger would be miniscule enough to say that it would not increase the CR).
> 
> Someone who does not think about that though, might miss the logic, which would lead to a negative adjustment to CR.
> 
> Admittedly, that should normally be rare, but seeing some of the posts all over the web does not make me hopeful that it will be rare.  (and of course, such a creature as above should propably considered badly designed). *




I think I see what you are getting at now (?).

I'll stipulate you can't have a CR penalty from secondary locomotion.

Thanks.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 19, 2003)

After careful study, it has occured to me that Darkvision and Scent _should not be rated_.  Both of these are far too insignificant to have any real impact on CR.  For Darkvision, damn near everything has it, and those that don't can easily find a light source.  (Remember, Darkvision only goes through *natural* darkness.)  So standard Darkvision is akin to having a bullseye lantern that only helps you.  Also, it is a very low level spell that can also be made permanent.  All signs point to Darkvision not being worth anything.  As for Scent, I'm not sure why this paltry ability was ever counted in the first place.  It doesn't do anything other than alert you to the presence of things that have a smell within a certain range.  It doesn't even pinpoint locations, making it useless against invisibility and the like.  This ability is nothing more than a duplicate of Low-Light Vision for the sense of smell, seeing as Scent is nothing more than an enhanced sense of smell.  Again, it does not impact CR in the least.  On the same token, those with Light Sensitivity should not have a reduced CR either, seeing as this vulnerability is very limited in scope and has never once had an impact on any encounter that I am aware of, even after years of gaming.  This is just an always active Flare effect, nothing more.

Anyway, I'm certain there are likely other paltry abilities.  The stirge's Attach ability also counts as having no impact on CR, seeing as it makes the thing very vulnerable and the blood drain is already counted seperate.  Again, there are others I'm sure.  I can post more as they come to mind.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *After careful study, it has occured to me that Darkvision and Scent should not be rated.  Both of these are far too insignificant to have any real impact on CR.  For Darkvision, damn near everything has it, and those that don't can easily find a light source.  (Remember, Darkvision only goes through *natural* darkness.)  So standard Darkvision is akin to having a bullseye lantern that only helps you.  Also, it is a very low level spell that can also be made permanent.  All signs point to Darkvision not being worth anything.  As for Scent, I'm not sure why this paltry ability was ever counted in the first place.  It doesn't do anything other than alert you to the presence of things that have a smell within a certain range.  It doesn't even pinpoint locations, making it useless against invisibility and the like.  This ability is nothing more than a duplicate of Low-Light Vision for the sense of smell, seeing as Scent is nothing more than an enhanced sense of smell.  Again, it does not impact CR in the least.  On the same token, those with Light Sensitivity should not have a reduced CR either, seeing as this vulnerability is very limited in scope and has never once had an impact on any encounter that I am aware of, even after years of gaming.  This is just an always active Flare effect, nothing more.
> 
> Anyway, I'm certain there are likely other paltry abilities.  The stirge's Attach ability also counts as having no impact on CR, seeing as it makes the thing very vulnerable and the blood drain is already counted seperate.  Again, there are others I'm sure.  I can post more as they come to mind. *




I'll think about it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 19, 2003)

Hi all! 

Here are the revised Design Parameters for determining Classes and Hit Dice.

Ability Score Increases (+1/4 Levels): 
CR +0.025

BAB:
As Fighter CR +0.2
As Cleric CR +0.15
As Wizard CR +0.1

Feats (+1/3 Levels):
CR +0.066

Hit Dice:
d4 CR 0.125
d6 CR 0.175
d8 CR 0.225
d10 CR 0.275
d12 CR 0.325

Saves:
Each Good save CR +0.06
Each Poor save CR +0.03

Skills:
8/Level = CR +0.08
6/Level = CR +0.06
4/Level = CR +0.04
2/Level = CR +0.02

Class Features: 
As appropriate.

eg. Fighter
Ability Scores: +0.025
BAB: +0.2
Feats: +0.066
Hit Dice: +0.275
Saves: +0.12
Skills: +0.02

Class Features (11 feats over 20 levels) = Cr +0.11

Total: CR +0.806 (0.8)/Level of Fighter Class

eg. Construct
BAB: +0.15
Hit Dice: +0.275
Saves: +0.09

Total: CR +0.515 (0.5)/Hit Dice


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 20, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *As for Scent, I'm not sure why this paltry ability was ever counted in the first place.  It doesn't do anything other than alert you to the presence of things that have a smell within a certain range.  It doesn't even pinpoint locations, making it useless against invisibility and the like.*




SRD:


> The creature detects another creature's presence but not its specific location. Noting the direction of the scent is a standard action. If it moves within 5 feet of the scent's source, the creature can pinpoint that source.




A little bit more than you give it credit for.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 20, 2003)

Hi all! 

Also remember that extraordinary abilities that accomplish the same as supernatural abilities are intrinsically more powerful...since they can't be dispelled, affected by anti-magic etc.

So Natural Darkvision is better than Darkvision At Will as a spell-like ability.


----------



## Ashardalon (Jun 20, 2003)

> _eg. Construct
> BAB: +0.15
> Hit Dice: +0.275
> Saves: +0.09
> ...



_

Reminds me... in R3E, you'll propably want to distinguish between intelligent construct and unintelligent ones, as those with an Int score will receive feats and skills (at 2+Int * HD+3).

There might be other, similar cases._


----------



## Anubis (Jun 20, 2003)

Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *
> 
> SRD:
> 
> ...




Well of course I got mine out of the original MM bought when first released.  I never reference the SRD, only the printed books.

Although more useful than I originally thought, it still doesn't warrant a CR rating.  It only pinpoints with five feet, which really isn't too awful useful anyway.  More useful than useless, but still so trite as to be effectively worthless.  The point is that Scent does not effect the challenge of any encounter in any circumstance, which I believe is a supported fact through gaming.  That would be like having one point of energy resistance or SR 3 or something equally silly.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> Also remember that extraordinary abilities that accomplish the same as supernatural abilities are intrinsically more powerful...since they can't be dispelled, affected by anti-magic etc.
> 
> So Natural Darkvision is better than Darkvision At Will as a spell-like ability.  *




I don't dispute that.  My point is that these are effectively useless abilities challenge-wise.  Darkvision is very limited, possessed by damn near everything, and allows you to do something a 2 gp item can do fot far more people.  The fact remains that it does not impact the power level of a creature.  I can certainly say an orc without Darkvision is just as dangerous as one with Darkvision.  Same goes for all other creatures with Darkvision.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 21, 2003)

Hi Ashardalon mate! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *Reminds me... in R3E, you'll propably want to distinguish between intelligent construct and unintelligent ones, as those with an Int score will receive feats and skills (at 2+Int * HD+3).
> 
> There might be other, similar cases. *




Intelligent Undead and Mindless Undead are treated differently with regards to bothe the Hit Dice Modifier and the Type Modifier.

eg. 
Intelligent Undead are +0.6/HD with a +1 CR modifier for Type

Mindless Undead are +0.5/HD with a -1.5 CR modifier for Type.

Intelligent Constructs however are not yet standard fare, I will deal with them when I have 3.5 in my possession. All the building blocks are there for people to do the work already so i don't forsee any problems.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 21, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well of course I got mine out of the original MM bought when first released.  I never reference the SRD, only the printed books.
> *



Then you should know that almost the same text is printed on page 10 of the MM. And the bit about giants and darkvision is on page 4. Maybe you should read the introduction to the MM. It sounds as if you never did so. 

These two abilities give a miniscule advantage to creatures, and UK's system gives a miniscule increase to CR for these abilities. Scent gives a slight edge and allows to track by scent. Darkvision does not alert your opponents due to giving off light, as most of your alternatives would. Once in a while, these things might pay off, and thus are worth (IMHO) the miniscule increase. They don't even increase the CR on their own at the +0.2 rating they currently have (A point could be made to decrease darkvision to maybe 0.1 per 60 feet of range, but that might be overly pedantic).


----------



## Coredump (Jun 21, 2003)

I have to agree with Otu,
The UK system is about complete relative abilities; it is *not* about how difficult are they to beat. There are a lot of things that really wouldn't matter in a battle, yet are factored in. This is the whole crux of his method(At least as I understand it), that CR should be independent of foe.

.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 21, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *I have to agree with Otu,
> The UK system is about complete relative abilities; it is *not* about how difficult are they to beat. There are a lot of things that really wouldn't matter in a battle, yet are factored in. This is the whole crux of his method(At least as I understand it), that CR should be independent of foe.*



Well said.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 22, 2003)

Well you wanna talk relative, how about the fact that neither Darkvision NOR Scent are worth as much as ANY other +0.2 things in the system?  Observe:

1 Feat
+10 Skills
+20 Speed
20 Fire Resistance
Improved Grab
Constrict
Cast Fireball AND Slay Living AT WILL (as 10th level)
Touch Attack dealing 2d8+1 Sonic Damage
Attack that does Chill Touch
Half Damage from Slashing Weapons

Need I go on?  Didn't think so.  Checkmate! 

If you really MUST rate these two, make them like 0.05 each or something.  0.2 is not a miniscule increase, it's a fifth of a level.  These aren't worth more than 5% of a level.


----------



## Coredump (Jun 22, 2003)

Anubis, I realize you love to claim that you are right. (ala 'checkmate') but your own statement proves our point, not yours. Your logic was that it should not be included because it was not a help in a fight; that is what was flawed; and that is what you admitted. No one was commenting on the .2 adjustment, just the logic you used.

There are plenty of times where 2 points of N armor is not much of a difference, or being able to fly +20ft/rnd, or a point of deflection, etc.  But they are included, because it is meant to be irrelevent of encounter, and a measuer of total power.  Also, I would move that the above is no more useful than scent/darkvision, and worth the same amount. but YMMV.

I am not sure if .2 is the right amount for Darkvision or scent. But they do sound like they could be pretty helpful. many parties kinda rely on invisibility, and scent really hurts that. Also, darkvision makes it a lot easier to sneak up on the party....  Just not sure.


.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jun 22, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Need I go on?  Didn't think so.  Checkmate!
> *




Unless of course, some of these values are out of whack. 

I guess I'd take scent as similar powerful to the feat or the +10 to skills. Maybe also the +20 to speed, but that's doubtful. The other abilities have a more direct impact on combat, which lets them appear quite powerful, but might not be. The abilities that IMHO are far more powerful than scent would only be these four:

Cast Fireball AND Slay Living AT WILL (as 10th level)
Touch Attack dealing 2d8+1 Sonic Damage
Attack that does Chill Touch
Half Damage from Slashing Weapons

I already said that I could see a decrease to darkvision. I'm not yet convinced on scent.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 22, 2003)

Hi all! 

I much prefer to rate everything in CR then sort it all out with EL. So I don't think ignoring abilities is the answer.

However, if some of you have issues with some of the factors then by all means lets get it all out in the open.

If there are incongruities then I am happy to see evidence and listen to suggestion for solutions.

For spell-like abilities, remember the Design Parameters limitations.

The Touch Attack remember supplants physical damage.

Half Damage from a single weapon type may admittedly be rated too low. It should be +0.33 (as in V.4).

Half Damage from all weapon types is +1, the same as only being hit 50% of the time (as with Incorporeality). 

Generally, when rating a relatively weak ability I try to see if it would make a worthwhile feat.

For spell-like abilities, perhaps each At Will/Always Active ability should add +0.2 (on top of the rating) - the feat 'Innate Spell' (in Tome & Blood) lets you use a single spell at will. However, the spell must be 8 slots lower than you can cast.

This would mean the Pit Fiend (21 At Will abilities) would have an additional +4.2 CR mod. Perhaps this should only be used for ECL in fact?

Any comments?


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 22, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *This would mean the Pit Fiend (21 At Will abilities) would have an additional +4.2 CR mod. Perhaps this should only be used for ECL in fact?
> 
> Any comments? *




I agree on this. I have stated earlier, that at will abilities were rated to low for ECL purposes. I think my example was that regeneration 1 would rate something like +2.1 ECL whereas Heal at will only would rate +2.45 ECL or something.

Clearly, the ability to use heal and fx. fireball at will should rate higher than is currently the case, at least for ECL purposes, IMO.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 22, 2003)

Scent does not help much AT ALL against invisible creatures.  You can only pinpoint if you get right next to them!  As for Darkvision, I still have yet to EVER see Darkvision do ANYTHING useful.  It's nothing more than "good vision", just like Scent is nothing more than "good smell".  Low-Light Vision is ignored, so Darkvision and Scent should be as well as they are no more useful.  The stirge's Attach also falls under the useless category.  These things have little impact on the game PERIOD, not just combat purposes.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jun 23, 2003)

Just the other night, some hobgoblins snuck up on the party and surrounded them. Because the hobgoblins didn't need a lantern for illumination, they were able to silently coordinate their attack and completely surprise the party. Darkvision almost singularly defined the hobgoblin combat advantage.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 23, 2003)

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *I agree on this. I have stated earlier, that at will abilities were rated to low for ECL purposes. I think my example was that regeneration 1 would rate something like +2.1 ECL whereas Heal at will only would rate +2.45 ECL or something.
> 
> Clearly, the ability to use heal and fx. fireball at will should rate higher than is currently the case, at least for ECL purposes, IMO. *




True. I think ECL +0.2/Spell-like Ability (At Will/Always Active) is probably right. With possibly +0.04/use up to x5.


Regarding the whole Darkvision and Scent Issue, I think they should stay at +0.2. 

I just checked and Scent is in the feat list in the Masters of the Wild splatbook. I am sure Darkvision is a feat somewhere, I just can't recall where.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 23, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Sorcica mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Uhm, I don't have the pdf on this computer. Would you mind giving as example what the ECL of being able to use _heal_ at will is?
And what about Dimension Door?

Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 23, 2003)

Hi there mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Uhm, I don't have the pdf on this computer. Would you mind giving as example what the ECL of being able to use heal at will is?
> And what about Dimension Door?
> 
> Thanks. *




Depends on the spell level.

Minimums: 

Heal 6 (spell level) x 11 (caster level) x 0.0025 = +0.165

+0.2 for ECL = +0.365

Minimum 11 Hit Dice (design parameter)


Dimension Door 4 x 7 x 0.0025 = +0.07

+0.2 for ECL = +0.27

Minimum 7 Hit Dice (Design Parameter)


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 23, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi there mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Thanks for that.

This is what I mean. Let's say you are around 12th lvl. You get some sort of template that allows you to cast heal at will. Wham! For free, basically.
If you got regen 1, you'd have to pay 2 lvl's or something. What can be done about this?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 23, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Thanks for that.*




No problem mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *This is what I mean. Let's say you are around 12th lvl. You get some sort of template that allows you to cast heal at will. Wham! For free, basically.
> 
> If you got regen 1, you'd have to pay 2 lvl's or something. What can be done about this? *




It does seem something of an incongruity. I'll have to have a think about it.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 23, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *If you got regen 1, you'd have to pay 2 lvl's or something. What can be done about this? *




Regen converts most types of damage into subdual. A creature with _heal_ at will can still be killed with a boatload of slashing damage, but a boatload of slashing damage converted into subdual damage won't kill a thing. It'll knock it out though, that's for sure. Anyway, all I'm saying is that I don't necessarily think that regen is over-valued, but more that _heal_ at will is undervalued. It's one of those at will spells that simply breaks the formula.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 23, 2003)

As for the hobgoblin ambush . . . Well, IIRC, an ambush can be done even *without* Darkvision, and ambushes have always been covered under situational modifiers.  So no, I doubt your hobgoblins' Darkvision made *the* difference in the encounter.

You guys can count Darkvision and Scent all you want, I refuse to count an ability that 90% of all creatures have (Darkvision) and an ability with almost no use other than pinpointing invisible creatures within five feet (Scent).

For the problem with rating carious useful abilities, um, how about NO ADDITIONAL ECL MODIFIER?  As kreynolds pointed out many times, things are not magically more useful for PCs.  The PCs are supposed to have an "advantage" anyway.

Personally, I won't be counting Darkvision or Scent and I damn sure won't add an ECL penalty (that's what it is) for PCs with special abilities.  The CR modifier is more than enough.  As for Heal, if you use UK's revised Heal, it no longer breaks.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jun 23, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *
> 
> For the problem with rating carious useful abilities, um, how about NO ADDITIONAL ECL MODIFIER?  As kreynolds pointed out many times, things are not magically more useful for PCs.  The PCs are supposed to have an "advantage" anyway.
> 
> Personally, I won't be counting Darkvision or Scent and I damn sure won't add an ECL penalty (that's what it is) for PCs with special abilities.  The CR modifier is more than enough.  As for Heal, if you use UK's revised Heal, it no longer breaks. *




I disagree. Even cure light wounds at will would be underrated at the cost Heal currently has. I'm leaning towards the argument that there should be no extra penalty for ECL compared to CR, but then the CR adjustment should be higher.

Sure, Cure Light Wounds or UK's heal might not be as effective in combat as the core Heal, but assuming the PC survives, his and all the partys damage will be gone in a few rounds.
Clearly that's worth more than +0.4 CR?

Many other spells share this sort of problem if they are usable as will, IMO.
Not sure what the solution is, though, as raising the cost might increase the CR of monsters with many spell-like abilities to stupid levels.

Comments?


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 23, 2003)

Sorcica said:
			
		

> *Comments? *




Only one, which just occured to me. In regards to the "big fat ECL modifier for cool stuff that PCs get which are normally restricted to monsters 'cause their just so darn cool", I think I just found my own peace on my opinion of the matter (which should be clear after reading this). Here it is...

In all my gaming, every time I have ever seen a party go up against a troll when they had no foreknowledge of what they were facing, thus nobody had thought "hey, let's stock up on fire stuff", the troll is just as deadly as a PC with regen. Of course, one cannot ignore the fact that a single troll really isn't truly _that_ deadly to the party, seeing as how its outnumbered 4 to 1, but you get the point. If the troll is an exception to most in that it actually has a fear of death, i.e. it isn't stupid, then it's even more deadly, as it won't be stupid enough to just fight to the death. After all, generally, PCs won't fight to the death if they don't have to. If they have a better option, such as fleeing and fighting another day, they'll take it.

The same, though far worse, applies to a demon or devil with regen when the party has no holy weapons...and seriously, how often have you heard of someone keeping more than one vial of holy water with them at all times?

Anyway, I still think that the only difference between a PC with regen (or similar) and a monster with regen (or similar) all boils down to the DM being affraid of some hard work, and in all honesty, when it comes down to a demon with regen, if played smartly (especially when deserving because of a good Intelligence, etc), they can plague a party 'til just about the end of their days. I know. I've done it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 24, 2003)

Hi all! 

Personally I don't really have a problem with CR and ECL being identical. I may remove the seperate ECL mods, I haven't decided yet.

Certain abilities will naturally see more use in PC hands and this could unbalance a low-mid level game if the DM is not careful. I guess a seperate ECL bonus for them was an arbitrary way of reddressing a 'possible' balance issue, rather than a definite one.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 24, 2003)

UK. Perhaps a small passage pointing out some of the pitfalls would be appropriate. Something along the lines of "Things To Watch Out For". You could make mention of any forms of special healing, for example. The passage could also suggest some flat ECL modifiers for such special circumstances (+0.2, +0.3, etc, etc), that way, if a DM was worried about it, he could use them. Besides, if at higher level an ability (such as fireball at will, or something) is no longer a problem, the DM could then just drop the adhoc ECL modifier. That would give the player a breath of fresh air and bring their ECL a little closer to their actual power level. I think that would be a better idea than incorporating the adhock ECL modifiers right into the rules.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 24, 2003)

After about two minutes of real deliberation, I finally figured out the problem.  The problem is AT WILL SPELL-LIKE ABILITIES.  There are thousands of ways to make even the monsters seem underrated with the current ratings.  Consider a monster with the following list of SLAs:

Fly
Improved Inivisibility
Dimension Door
Wall of Force
Cone of Cold
Chain Lightning
Heal
Horrid Wilting
Meteor Swarm
Mordenkainen's Disjunction

If a monster can use all of these at 25th level at will, the CR modifier is +3.6875 . . . This combination, however, would make a monster all but invincible until the upper reaches of the ELH, making a paltry +3.6875 seem pretty dumb.  Invincibility for a mere 4 levels?

Them being at will is what really makes this combination deadly, and that's for a monster using them, not PCs!

My possible solution is to simply remove At Will abilities altogether.  Go by number of times per day only, and use that calculation to figure out everything.  See?  Problem solved.  At will abilities are just too strong for ANYONE when they're the right abilities.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 24, 2003)

I think getting rid of at will abilities all together is a little drastic. I definately agree that _cone of cold _at will is pretty powerful, but is _burning hands _at will really that bad? At only 5d4, not remotely. Basically, I really like the idea of at will powers, and while I recognize that some spells at will are extremely powerful, not all spells fit into that category.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 24, 2003)

You missed the point.  The point is that certain combinations of at will SLAs are severerly underrated because those SLAs are at will.  If you do not remove at will SLAs altogether, you should at least put some system in place to limit them in SOME way.

Perhaps a point of subdual damage per spell level for each use per day over five would be a good idea . . . Like a "drain" of sort, and Regenration is unable to restore that subdual damage no matter what.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 24, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You missed the point.  The point is that certain combinations of at will SLAs are severerly underrated because those SLAs are at will.  If you do not remove at will SLAs altogether, you should at least put some system in place to limit them in SOME way.*




There already is a limiter; the design parameters.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Perhaps a point of subdual damage per spell level for each use per day over five would be a good idea . . . Like a "drain" of sort, and Regenration is unable to restore that subdual damage no matter what. *




That would defeat the 'At Will' premise.

If a spell-like ability is over powered then that means the spell itself is overpowered; simple as that. Hopefully 3.5 will fix all the problem spells a few of which I touched upon in the CR/EL pdf.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 25, 2003)

Okay, I have a new proposal.  UK has proposed adding an additional 0.2 per SLA for "At Will" SLAs.  The problem with this idea is that it ignores the level of power of the SLAs involved and overinflates many listed creatures.

My proposal is that we instead add 0.02 per spell level per SLA.  This takes power into consideration and stops the overinflation.

For instance, let's say a creature can use Magic Missile, Haste, Cone of Cold, Heal, and Meteor Swarm "At Will" at 20 level.  Calculate the base CR value as per the PDF.  We then add the "At Will" value.  For this set . . .

Base: CR 1.2

UK value: CR +1
Anubis value: CR +0.48

UK Total: CR +2.2
Anubis Total: CR 1.68

Now this is a very light example.  Let's use something a bit more drastic, the PIT FIEND.  See MMp.53 for the full SLA list.  It has a total of 76.5 spell levels over 21 At Will SLAs along with Meteor Swarm and Symbol 1/day.

Current value: CR +3.39575
At Will Base: CR +3.25125

UK value: CR +4.2
UK Total: CR +7.59575

Uh, sure.  The pit fiend may have nice abilities, but they certainly aren't worth a whopping SEVEN levels.  They are more useful than the current number, however.  Let's try this again.

Anubis value: CR +1.53
Anubis Total: CR +4.92575

That's more like it!  Any questions?


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 25, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *You missed the point.  The point is that certain combinations of at will SLAs are severerly underrated because those SLAs are at will.  *




I didn't miss the point at all. Consider encounter distances. If the PCs can't spot the enemies at night, the enemies will likely get surprise on them. But if the PCs can see better in darkness than their enemies, they have a better chance of getting the jump on them. So, running with that though, let's take a look at our options.

Take two parties; one party of 4 human PCs and one party of 4 human NPCs. They're the same level. They don't have any equipment but their non-magical swords. They're have the same mix of classes, a fighter, wizard, rogue, and cleric. It's night. It's dark. Neither side has a distinct advantage over one another.

But, as a DM, you want the encounter to be a challenge. So, you change the party of 4 human NPCs into a party of four dwarven NPCs. Same level. Same mix of classes. Same equipment. But the NPCs have an advantage over the humans. They can see better. So, they have a better chance of getting a jump on them. Now, obviously, the PCs aren't going to like this, so let's change them into dwarves too. Now both sides are even, as they both have darkvision.

Now, let's take a simple _low-light vision_ spell and give it to the NPC party wizard, and as luck would have it, a new moon is out tonight. See what just happened there? The NPCs now have access to far better vision by utilizing two seemingly small abilities at the same time. Apart, low-light vision and darkvision are fine in their own right, but together, it's a whole different matter. The PCs can see 60 feet in darkness, as can the NPCs, but the NPCs have an advantage that the PCs don't. They can see twice as far in low-light conditions as well.

Normally, with darkvision, you can see only 60 feet in darness, then nothing. With low-light, you can't see anything in darkness. Low-light requires light to extend your vision. Darkvision doesn't require any light, but it helps you see only a short distance. If you have both, you can see fairly well in total darkness, something the PCs can do just fine, since they're also dwarves, but you can also see really well in low-light conditions, something the PCs can't do at all.

Low-light vision. Seemingly harmless. Darkvision. Seemingly harmless. Apart, they're not much to worry about. Together, they are quite useful.

Most of the combinations you are talking about work like this. In their separate parts, they are quite normal, but if slapped together, they can be quite dangerous.

Is the fireball spell at will powerful? Sure. Is the energy immunity (fire) spell at will powerful? Not so much, I'd argue, as there are four other energy types to choose from. But, put them together and what do you get? A PC or NPC that throw fireballs at his feet any time someone gets to close to him, and he can do this all day long until everyone is dead.

So, I didn't miss your point at all. I simply disagreed with _part_ of your point. I agree that certain combinations of powers can be over the top, but I certainly don't think it warrents the removal of all at will abilities. After all, really, how terribly power are fireball at will and tongues at will when combined? No more so than they are separately.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 25, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Any questions? *




Do you really think that Gentle Repose at will is worth an additional +0.06 more than it normally would be? I doubt it.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I didn't miss the point at all. Consider encounter distances. If the PCs can't spot the enemies at night, the enemies will likely get surprise on them. But if the PCs can see better in darkness than their enemies, they have a better chance of getting the jump on them. So, running with that though, let's take a look at our options.
> 
> ...




And as I said above, that was a proposal.  As UK will attest, I have not set my mind on anything as of yet because this is a very complex issue.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Do you really think that Gentle Repose at will is worth an additional +0.06 more than it normally would be? I doubt it.  *




Probably not, but Fireball is.  We can't just add more for some SLAs and not others.  You can't qualify such things else things become far too complex.


----------



## green slime (Jun 25, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hey there Green Slime mate!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Hello 

Just a belated "thank you" for posting the link! Didn't get round to reading this thread again until now.

Thanks again!

And I hope the weather there is better than here. We are having a typical Swedish summer I tell you...


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 25, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *And as I said above, that was a proposal.  As UK will attest, I have not set my mind on anything as of yet because this is a very complex issue. *




You missed the point.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 25, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *Probably not, but Fireball is. *




I agree.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *We can't just add more for some SLAs and not others. *




Sure you can. It's done for everything else. A 10d6 cold ray attack is cheaper than a 10d6 force ray attack. Why? One is better than the other. Fireball is better than Tongues and Gentle Repose, so it should be more expensive than the latter.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *You can't qualify such things else things become far too complex. *




And you can't arbitrarily slap modifiers of +0.06 on every single third level spell-like ability useable at will. +0.06 for Gentle Repose and +0.06 for Fireball illustrates a broken system. Gentle Repose at will simply is not as powerful as Fireball at will. An implementation following your suggestion would be a flawed mechanic, and there simply is no denying that.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 25, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> And you can't arbitrarily slap modifiers of +0.06 on every single third level spell-like ability useable at will. +0.06 for Gentle Repose and +0.06 for Fireball illustrates a broken system. Gentle Repose at will simply is not as powerful as Fireball at will. An implementation following your suggestion would be a flawed mechanic, and there simply is no denying that.
> *




That's not a problem with my modifier, but would rather be an issue about the spell level.  All Level 3 spells should be roughly similar in power and usefulness.  If Tongues and Gentle Repose aren't worth as much as Fireball IYO, then lower the spell level of Tongues and Gentle Repose to Level 2 or even Level 1.

I think my proposal there works, though, all things considered.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 25, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *That's not a problem with my modifier, but would rather be an issue about the spell level. *




I think that's more of a copout than anything else.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 25, 2003)

Hi all! 

As I mentioned to Anubis last night, one of the problems I have with his SLA solution is that it factors Spell Level twice which surely makes it overly complicated...Occams Razor and all that.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 26, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> As I mentioned to Anubis last night, one of the problems I have with his SLA solution is that it factors Spell Level twice which surely makes it overly complicated...Occams Razor and all that.  *




First off, what's tis Occams Razor crap?

Second, as I mentioned, adding another modifier AT ALL means counting SLAs twice altogether, so there's no problem with counting spell leve twice.

To you, kreynolds, if it's of the same level, it's supposed to be equally powerful.  If they are not, then the spell level is at fault.  That's not a copout, that's a fact.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 26, 2003)

Anubis said:
			
		

> *To you, kreynolds, if it's of the same level, it's supposed to be equally powerful.  If they are not, then the spell level is at fault.  That's not a copout, that's a fact. *




Maybe, maybe not. At any rate, it could very well be a simple matter of not looking at all sides of the problem. Tongues can be a quite useful spell, as it can often be the fine line and last effort to avoid combat with a group of creatures that don't speak or understand your language, or it can be used to parlay with a powerful outsider. It just isn't used very often, but when it _is_ used, it can be a quite powerful spell, thus it's given spell level.

However, this system doesn't care about anything _but_ spell level. It doesn't take into account the rare occasions that it will be used. Tongues can be a very useful spell, but the mere fact that it is used so infrequently does not and should not lessen its spell level. I don't expect this system to be able to account for things like this, but I do expect the brains behind the system to keep it in mind. Thus, I don't think a flat adhoc modifier to all spell levels should be used. It's bad enough that every spell _already_ is rated with static numbers, but it doesn't need to be made any worse.

I don't know what would be a better way of handling this, but I _do_ know that this isn't it. Maybe we should look at it another way.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 26, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *First off, what's tis Occams Razor crap?*




If you don't know what it is how do you know its crap? 

Essentially given two methods that accomplish the same thing you always choose the simplest.

At the moment I am off the mind that the Spell-like Abilities are good enough as is.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Second, as I mentioned, adding another modifier AT ALL means counting SLAs twice altogether, so there's no problem with counting spell leve twice. *




There is a problem with it, using the same factor twice is redundant.


Incidently I double checked the Hit Dice factors with the recently changed Class/Hit Dice Design Parameters and a few worked out slightly higher; notably Dragon (now +0.8) and Outsider (now +0.75) Hit Dice to name but two.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 26, 2003)

UK. Could I ask a huge favor of you? OK, it's not really huge, but it would be a great help to me. Could you take a look at the fire genasi from the FRCS and let me know what you come up with? I actually came up with below 0.5, but I can't remember the specifics right now.


----------



## Anubis (Jun 27, 2003)

Well . . . Since healing abilities are the only ones that really get out of whack when used at will, however about CR +1 for every At Will healing ability?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 27, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *UK. Could I ask a huge favor of you? OK, it's not really huge, but it would be a great help to me. Could you take a look at the fire genasi from the FRCS and let me know what you come up with? I actually came up with below 0.5, but I can't remember the specifics right now. *




My first impression is that its akin to +0.3. Its certainly not above +0.5, which makes their +1 Level Adjustment seem somewhat ridiculous.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 27, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Well . . . Since healing abilities are the only ones that really get out of whack when used at will, however about CR +1 for every At Will healing ability? *




I'll have a think about it, but I am not convinced that I should start messing with individual spells.

For what its worth I have a method for outlining the spell-like abilities of Outsiders and curtailing Deities from simply creating every servitor with 'Heal At Will'.


----------



## Clay_More (Jun 27, 2003)

The problem is the same here, as it is with many rules in D&D. If you put them to the extreme, they will always break. 

If I take every single, non-combat spell in the PHB and give it to a creature (giving it a +20 CR rating), it will obviously seem flawed. 

The basic problem in the discussion seems to be, that people make the monsters after the system, instead of applying the system to the monsters.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 28, 2003)

Hi Clay_More mate! 



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *The problem is the same here, as it is with many rules in D&D. If you put them to the extreme, they will always break.*




Absolutely...



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *If I take every single, non-combat spell in the PHB and give it to a creature (giving it a +20 CR rating), it will obviously seem flawed. *




...which is why I try and outline the pertinent Design Parameters to guide people away from making decisions that will blatantly compromise the system.



			
				Clay_More said:
			
		

> *The basic problem in the discussion seems to be, that people make the monsters after the system, instead of applying the system to the monsters. *




I don't see why you can't have both methods in effect. Provided things are kept within the design parameters of course. I have these better outlined in Version 4; hopefully that will go some way to helping the situation.


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 28, 2003)

Thanks for the response UK. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *My first impression is that its akin to +0.3. Its certainly not above +0.5, which makes their +1 Level Adjustment seem somewhat ridiculous. *




I came up with a +0.34, but I know I miscalculated somewhere. Anyways, my first inclination is to modify the race so that it equals a _true_ +1, i.e. beef it up a little. It's either that, or I just drop the modifier all-together, but I don't think that would be fair to the core races. What do you think?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 28, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Thanks for the response UK.  *




Anytime...you should know me well enough by now. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I came up with a +0.34, but I know I miscalculated somewhere. Anyways, my first inclination is to modify the race so that it equals a _true_ +1, i.e. beef it up a little. It's either that, or I just drop the modifier all-together, but I don't think that would be fair to the core races. What do you think? *




Well I think it is balances very well with the Core Races, so don't fall into the trap of 'believing the hype' as it were. The facts speak for themselves; its in around +0.3 (give or take a tenth). So I would either play it like that or boost it up to +1 (in fact I would boost it to +1.3).


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 28, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *(in fact I would boost it to +1.3). *




Why is that? Is that were some of the other core races sit, like dwarves or elves?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 28, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Why is that?*




...simply because we don't count the core race modifiers at all and most of them are +0.3.

Therefore to give a legitimate +1 ECL more than the core races I would boost it to +1.3.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Is that were some of the other core races sit, like dwarves or elves? *




No.

Elves +0.3
Dwarves +0.4
Humans +0.3
Half-Orcs +0
Halflings -0.1 (+0.3, -0.4 size)
Gnomes -0.1 (+0.3, -0.4 size)


----------



## kreynolds (Jun 28, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...simply because we don't count the core race modifiers at all and most of them are +0.3.
> 
> Therefore to give a legitimate +1 ECL more than the core races I would boost it to +1.3. *




Gotcha.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Elves +0.3
> Dwarves +0.4
> Humans +0.3
> Half-Orcs +0
> ...




How very interesting. Out of curiousity, what did you come up with for the tiefling and aasimar? Again, I can't remember my numbers, but I know that both were really close to 0.5.

Also, here's a question. When determining the ECL of a genasi, do you factor character wealth into that? After all, with the genasi at +1, the ECL modifier is used to determine how much character wealth you get. I think I have my wires crossed right now, at least in regards to this little tid-bit.


----------



## -Eä- (Jun 30, 2003)

Well... It has been a while, but right now I am more into the WoD-system than D&D and because I am playing in a Vampire: The Masquerade campaign, I haven't been too busy with considering UK's system. However:

There has been some discussion on SLAs inflating, especially when you get too many of them with powers whose sum is greater than its parts. I believe I can propose something here than could work. The problem as I see it is that the cost of SLAs is linear to its number: i.e. the cost for three CL 5 SL 3 abilities is the same as the cost for four CL 5 SL 3 abilities divided by four and then multiplied by three. In my opinion this should not be the case!

A way to work around this would be to add a cost to the number of SLAs (possibly based on spell level) and always count the lowest level spell first, so that it will be increasingly costy to take a lot of higher level abilities. After all, it is by this principle level advancement works.

Please tell what you think of this idea, and if you find it interesting, I would be happy to offer some advice on different mechanics for doing this, even construing one.

_Edit: I thought one could use html in these boards_


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 30, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate! 

Apologies for the slow reply. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *How very interesting. Out of curiousity, what did you come up with for the tiefling and aasimar? Again, I can't remember my numbers, but I know that both were really close to 0.5.*




Aasimar (ECL) +0.6305
Tiefling (ECL) +0.4305



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Also, here's a question. When determining the ECL of a genasi, do you factor character wealth into that? After all, with the genasi at +1, the ECL modifier is used to determine how much character wealth you get. I think I have my wires crossed right now, at least in regards to this little tid-bit. *




Right enough. If you were boosting the Genasi to +1 (or +1.3) remember that +0.2 of that figure will comprise PC wealth.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jun 30, 2003)

Hey Eä mate! 

Hope you have been keeping well since last we spoke!? 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Well... It has been a while, but right now I am more into the WoD-system than D&D and because I am playing in a Vampire: The Masquerade campaign, I haven't been too busy with considering UK's system. However:
> 
> As long as you are having fun thats the main thing.
> 
> ...


----------



## -Eä- (Jul 1, 2003)

'f course I am keeping well! And I hope all of you are as well! My vacation has just started and the weather is excellent and my Vampire group is getting more and more absurd - what more could one ask for (-;

By the way, UK: I think your design parameters do the trick in that regard. Is there a link to the fourth version of the CR-EL document? How is your homepage growing? I am currently making one myself, based on a universe a friend of mine and I have made and a pun on the universe in the Matrix.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 2, 2003)

Hi Eä mate! 

Tried to post this yesterday but the boards were down.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *'f course I am keeping well! *




Glad to hear it! 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *And I hope all of you are as well! *




Not too bad thanks for asking.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *My vacation has just started and the weather is excellent and my Vampire group is getting more and more absurd - what more could one ask for (-;*




The Infinity Gauntlet. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *By the way, UK: I think your design parameters do the trick in that regard.*




You know its makes sense. 



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *Is there a link to the fourth version of the CR-EL document?*




No because I haven't finished it yet. It can sometimes be complicated uncompliacting things. 

I may release a 4.0 beta to a select few people herein (within a day or two) to iron out the creases before posting the entire pdf for download.

I doubt I will have finished the revised CRs list if I go with the beta release prior to the full pdf.

I so do not (and will not) want to even contemplate a Version 5. So Version 4 will be 'it'.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *How is your homepage growing?*




Its still on the drawing board. When I have some significant previews I want to reveal I will get it sorted.



			
				-Eä- said:
			
		

> *I am currently making one myself, based on a universe a friend of mine and I have made and a pun on the universe in the Matrix. *




When you get it finished post the link...even if its in Norwegian.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 2, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Theres a lot more to it than that but I am not going into details now.  *




I trust you take into account things like XP costs and costly components, which spell-like abilities do not have?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 2, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *I trust you take into account things like XP costs and costly components, which spell-like abilities do not have?  *




Under my auspices Monsters with spell-like abilities with an XP  component pay must pay the cost out of their...'spirit' shall we say. 

Don't want to go into Immortals Handbook details at this juncture I am sure you will understand.


----------



## Tywyll (Jul 5, 2003)

*Anyone done this already?*

Is there a more current version of this doc?  Has anyone converted the monsters out of books like Book of Vile Darkness or anything similar?  Has anyone done a rough spread for the NPCs of various levels?  I am interested in trying the system out, but don't want to have to figure all the new monsters I am planning on using (like in MM2).  Just curious if anyone has done the work already.  

Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 5, 2003)

Hi all! 

Okay I had a loot at the Arch Demons in the BoVD.

Using V.4 I tentatively worked them out at:

Demogorgon: CR 63
Graz'zt: CR 49
Juiblex: CR 46
Orcus: CR 59
Yeenoghu: CR 50

So that would mean for instance Graz'zt would be a Tough Fight (EL +2) for a Party of 4-5 33rd-level characters and a Difficult Fight (EL +4) for a Party of 4-5 24th-level characters.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 5, 2003)

> Okay I had a *loot* at the Arch Demons in the BoVD.




Poor Arch Demons, getting looted for no good reason.  

Back to the XP costs for a while, if I may... If you were increasing the level of a spell to compensate for the loss of the XP components (I do see that you're doing something different, but that's not important for my question ), how many XP would be equivalent of a spell level? Based on the ELH, I took a value of 200 XP, which does seem to be a good guess, but I wanted to hear your opinion.

(I'm using this for my revision of my planar ruler template, in case this is important)


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 5, 2003)

Hi Knight Otu mate! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Poor Arch Demons, getting looted for no good reason.  *




I was simply trying to rectify my financial situation. 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Back to the XP costs for a while, if I may... If you were increasing the level of a spell to compensate for the loss of the XP components (I do see that you're doing something different, but that's not important for my question ), how many XP would be equivalent of a spell level? Based on the ELH, I took a value of 200 XP, which does seem to be a good guess, but I wanted to hear your opinion.
> 
> (I'm using this for my revision of my planar ruler template, in case this is important) *




Well I could see 200 probably working...

*goes away and checks PHB and ELH*

...possibly even 100? Or 500?

Might be easier if we have a list of spells with XP components:

Atonement: 500
Awaken: 250
Commune: 100
Greater Restoration: 500
Limited Wish: 300*
Miracle: 5000*
Permanancy: 500/Spell level
Simulcrum: 1000
Vision: 100
Wish: 5000*

Create Living Vault: 20,000 (DC 58: 13th-level)
Damnation: 2000 (DC 97: 17th-level)
Dire Winter: 10,000 (DC 319: 39th-level)
etc.

Looking at all that and the spell factors for epic spells I would go with 500. But it perhaps bears further investigation...?


----------



## Anubis (Jul 6, 2003)

Here is a revised list of CR/EL ratings based on my calculations using UK's PDF (with some discretion of course).  


```
[COLOR=white]
Monster                                                Rating       CR       EL

Animated Object, Living Statue                         2.6000        2.50     6
Bugbear                                                1.9500        1.75     4
Devil, Lemure                                          2.6500        2.50     6
Dire Bat                                               4.8000        4        9
Dire Rat                                               1.0000        1        1
Dire Wolf                                              5.2000        5       10
Dragon, Black, Young (3)                              13.6000       13       15
Dragon, Brown, Very Young (2)                         12.9500       12       15
Dragon, Deep, Very Young (2)                          12.1525       12       15
Dragon, Red, Wyrmling (1)                              9.6500        9       13
Elemental, Small Earth                                 3.9000        3.50     8
Elemental, Medium-Size Earth                           5.1000        5       10
Ghast                                                  4.7000        4        9
Ghoul                                                  3.2500        3        7
Giant, Hill                                            9.0000        9       13
Gnoll                                                  1.2000        1        1
Goblin                                         0.100*/ 0.6000        0 2/3    0 2/3
Hobgoblin                                      0.000*/ 0.6000        0 2/3    0 2/3
Homunculus                                             0.9000        0 2/3    0 2/3
Krenshar                                               1.9000        1.75     4
Mummy                                                  6.9000        6       11
Ogre                                                   4.2000        4        9
Orc                                            0.000*/ 0.6000        0 2/3    0 2/3
Skeleton, Tiny                                        -0.3250        0 1/3    0 1/3
Skeleton, Small                                        0.2500        0 1/2    0 1/2
Skeleton, Medium-Size                                  0.9000        0 2/3    0 2/3
Skeleton, Large                                        3.0000        3        7
Stirge                                                 1.3000        1.25     2
Troglodyte                                             2.1000        2        5
Wight                                                  6.1000        6       11
Zombie, Tiny                                          -2.0500        0 1/8    0 1/8
Zombie, Small                                         -1.2500        0 1/4    0 1/4
Zombie, Medium-Size                                   -0.3500        0 1/3    0 1/3
Zombie, Large                                          2.2500        2        5

Bear, Black                                            1.8000        1.75     4
Bear, Brown                                            5.2000        5       10
Snake, Tiny Viper                                      0.7250        0 2/3    0 2/3

Monstrous Centipede, Tiny                             -1.5750        0 1/6    0 1/6
Monstrous Centipede, Small                            -0.8000        0 1/4    0 1/4
Monstrous Centipede, Medium-Size                       0.0000        0        0 1/2
Monstrous Centipede, Large                             2.1000        2        5
Monstrous Scorpion, Tiny                              -0.7500        0 1/3    0 1/3
Monstrous Scorpion, Small                              0.3000        0 1/2    0 1/2
Monstrous Scorpion, Medium-Size                        1.0000        1        1
Monstrous Scorpion, Large                              3.7500        3.50     8
Monstrous Spider, Tiny                                -0.9500        0 1/4    0 1/4
Monstrous Spider, Small                               -0.2000        0 1/2    0 1/2
Monstrous Spider, Medium-Size                          0.5000        0 2/3    0 2/3
Monstrous Spider, Large                                3.0500        3        7



*By character class



Type                                                   Rating

Baatezu                                               +2.3000
Construct                                             -0.5000
Elemental                                             +1.7000
Fire                                                  +0.5000
Incorporeal                                           +1.2000
Ooze                                                  +1.6000
Tanar'ri                                              +2.3000
Undead, Intelligent                                   +1.0000
Undead, Mindless                                      -1.5000
Vermin                                                -1.5000



Size                                                   Rating

Fine                                                  +0.1500
Diminutive                                            -0.6000
Tiny                                                  -0.7500
Small                                                 -0.4000
Medium-Size                                           +0.0000
Large                                                 +1.5000
Huge                                                  +2.5000
Gargantuan                                            +4.4000
Colossal                                              +5.3000
Colossal+                                             +8.0000



Unrated Ability Scores                                 Rating

Strength                                              -2.0000
Dexterity                                             -2.0000
Constitution                                          +2.0000
Intelligence                                          -1.5000



Template                                               Rating       ECL/CR

Ghost                                                 +5.9000           +5
Lich                                                  +8.1000           +8
Monster of Legend                                     +9.0000           +9
Vampire                                               +8.1000           +8
[/COLOR]
```

For the creatures with two Ratings, the first number is the creature's racial modifier alone while the second is the actual rating of one such creature per the book (NOT counting racial abilities but only NPC class levels in these cases).  These creatures are ECL 0 creatures that are classed in the MM.


----------



## Knight Otu (Jul 6, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Looking at all that and the spell factors for epic spells I would go with 500. But it perhaps bears further investigation...? *




Maybe... 200 looked pretty good, 500 might be easier to calculate...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 7, 2003)

Thanks for the list Anubis mate! 

Hey Knight Otu matey! 



			
				Knight Otu said:
			
		

> *Maybe... 200 looked pretty good, 500 might be easier to calculate... *




Its a tricky one, to be sure, but I think the Permanency XP modifier is the most solid peice of evidence we have.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 10, 2003)

Hey UK. 

I used your system to break down the shadow in the MM, but I must have messed up. Here's what I got...


```
[color=white][font=arial][b]Hit Die: [/b]3 undead hit die		+1.8
[b]AC: [/b]+1 deflection			+0.15
[b]Speed: [/b]fly 40 ft. (good)		+0.6
[b]Ability Damage: [/b]1d6 Con (average 3)	+1.2
[b]Create Spawn: [/b]shadow, CR 7		+0.7
[b]Undead[/b]				+2
[b]Incorporeal[/b]			+2.2

[b]Total CR				8 (round down from 8.65)
Encounter Level			13[/b]
[/font][/color]
```

This can't be right, can it? Where did I go wrong? Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 10, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Hey UK.
> 
> I used your system to break down the shadow in the MM, but I must have messed up. Here's what I got...
> 
> ...




The problem is mainly in the Undead and Incorporeal types which have been reduced for V4. Also its Str damage is temporary. Finally it deals no actual damage (I have created a Damage factor for V4).

So it should look something like this:

Hit Die: 3 (INT) undead hit die		+1.95
AC: +1 deflection			+0.15
Speed: fly 40 ft. (good)		+0.6
Ability Damage: 1d6 Con (average 3)	+0.6
Create Spawn: shadow, CR 7		+0.5
(INT) Undead			+1
Incorporeal			+1.2
Damage			                -0.4

Total CR				5 (round down from 5.6)
Encounter Level			10

Hope that helps.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Total CR				5 (round down from 5.6)
> Encounter Level			10 *




So the shadow would be a difficult encounter for a party with a PL of 6, right? Is that about a 50/50 encounter? Or would 50/50 be a very difficult encounter?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 10, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *So the shadow would be a difficult encounter for a party with a PL of 6, right? Is that about a 50/50 encounter? Or would 50/50 be a very difficult encounter? *




Well; a party of four 2nd-level characters would be PEL 5 which would be (at EL +5) fractionally tougher than a difficult (50/50) encounter.

A party of four 3rd-level characters would be PEL 7 and therefore it would be an EL +3 encounter.

A party of four 4th-level characters would be PEL 9 and would find it an EL +1 encounter.

If you want to make a difficult (50/50) encounter of Shadows for a party of 5th-level characters then have one shadow per party member.

Of course having a Cleric in the party lowers the EL of Undead. Thats handled in the V4 Situational Modifiers section.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 10, 2003)

Cool. Thanks!

One more thing. Did you guys ever decide on whether or not to include a template's ability score modifiers as CR modifiers? What about for ECL? For example, if a template grants +2 to strength, would that add +0.2 to CR? What about ECL?


----------



## Ashardalon (Jul 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Its a tricky one, to be sure, but I think the Permanency XP modifier is the most solid peice of evidence we have. *




Good evidence indeed... I guess that settles it.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 10, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Cool. Thanks!
> 
> One more thing. Did you guys ever decide on whether or not to include a template's ability score modifiers as CR modifiers? What about for ECL? For example, if a template grants +2 to strength, would that add +0.2 to CR? What about ECL? *




Yes you include them.

I clarify queries like this in V4.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 10, 2003)

Hi Ashardalon mate! 



			
				Ashardalon said:
			
		

> *Good evidence indeed... I guess that settles it.  *




True. Although its always possible that the Permanancy figure itself is wrong. 

However, I don't have the inclination to dig too deep into this particular problem at this point.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 10, 2003)

Me again! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes you include them. *




So an Ogre's strength score of 21 does what to it's CR? Does that have a modifier? Is it +1 CR (+0.1/increase, 21-11=base modifier of 10 x 0.1 = +1)? Or is it only for templates and ECLs?



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I clarify queries like this in V4. *




Which will be uploaded....when? 

By the way, I'm asking so many questions because I'm customizing an MMII monster for my CotSQ game.


----------



## Ashardalon (Jul 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *However, I don't have the inclination to dig too deep into this particular problem at this point.  *




Understandable.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 10, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Me again! *




Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *So an Ogre's strength score of 21 does what to it's CR?*




Nothing to its CR.

But remember we add a Size Modifier to CR. The Size Modifier factors in the ability score changes.

But that only accounts for the average ability score modifiers for that size. Where its ability score modifiers (for ECL) are different then you would add them (as well) to ECL.

So for CR:

The Ogre gains +1.5 for Size. +1 of this accounts for +10 to ability scores (+8 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex).

For ECL:

The Ogre gains +1.5 for Size. However it gains +10 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex; -4 Int; -4 Wis. Thats a difference of -6 on the typical size modifiers so the final mod would be -0.9. That takes account of both size and ability score modifiers.

Does that have a modifier? Is it +1 CR (+0.1/increase, 21-11=base modifier of 10 x 0.1 = +1)? Or is it only for templates and ECLs?



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Which will be uploaded....when? *




...when its finished. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *By the way, I'm asking so many questions because I'm customizing an MMII monster for my CotSQ game. *




Ask away, I don't mind. Glad to help mate.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 10, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *
> Nothing to its CR.
> 
> But remember we add a Size Modifier to CR. The Size Modifier factors in the ability score changes.
> ...




Dude, how many times do I have to tell you that's you're not only gonna confuse people by adding extras for ECL, you're also screwing PCs by double taxing their abilities.  They already pay for those ability scores, so why should they pay again?

Better yet, look at facts.  Now if we go realistic here, if you have two Level 3 ogre fighters with Level 7 PC wealth (CR 4 + Level 3, just for the sake of this example) face each other, one a PC and one a monster, equal equipment, that should be a 50/50 encounter.  That fact can't be disputed.  If they are equal, it is 50/50.

However, the CR for the monster would be 7 (7.8) with an EL of 12.  Due to the added ECL modifier for total ability score bonuses +4 (Str +10, Dex -2, Con +4, Int -4, Cha -4), the PC is CR 8 (8.2) and EL 13.  Why does this make any sense that a 50/50 encounter now is not rated as such?  Ridiculous.

The same goes for any monsters with SLAs.  What should be a 50/50 encounter no longer is.

You seem to think that ECL is independent of CR and EL, but it is not.  By every source, ECL IS Level, and thus is counted with CR and EL all the same.  You seriously need to just drop the ECL modifiers or list them ONLY as optional with cautions that using them could unbalance things.

I think you should add any ECL modifiers to CR as "optional" and have the STANDARD be CR=ECL in all cases.  Anything else could cause confusion and unbalance things considerably.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 10, 2003)

Here's what I get for the Shadow using the current PDF:

3 Intelligent Undead HD: +1.8 (3*0.6=1.8)
Fly (Good): +0.8
Fly Speed -20: -0.2
+1 Deflection: +0.15
1d6 (4) Strength Damage: +1.4 (0.6+0.2*4=1.4)
Create CR 6 Spawn: +0.6
Undead (Intelligent): +1
Incorporeal: +1.2
+2 Turn Resistance: +0.1

Total 6.85

CR 6/EL 11


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 11, 2003)

Hi Anubis mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Dude, how many times do I have to tell you that's you're not only gonna confuse people by adding extras for ECL, you're also screwing PCs by double taxing their abilities.  They already pay for those ability scores, so why should they pay again?
> 
> Better yet, look at facts.  Now if we go realistic here, if you have two Level 3 ogre fighters with Level 7 PC wealth (CR 4 + Level 3, just for the sake of this example) face each other, one a PC and one a monster, equal equipment, that should be a 50/50 encounter.  That fact can't be disputed.  If they are equal, it is 50/50.
> 
> ...




I think you are making a mountain out of a molehill here - and not for the first time. 

Adding any and all ECL modifiers to CR would mean factoring ability scores to CR.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 11, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Here's what I get for the Shadow using the current PDF:
> 
> 3 Intelligent Undead HD: +1.8 (3*0.6=1.8)
> Fly (Good): +0.8
> ...




Yes I made a mistake with the Ability Scores Damage modifier and I also forgot the Turn Resistance mod. DOH! 

The final figure should be CR 6 (from 6.5)/EL 11

Which makes it:

Party of four 3rd-levelers = Difficult (50/50) Encounter*
Party of four 4th-levelers = Tough Encounter*
Party of four 6th-levelers = Moderate Encounter*

*Remember the Situational Modifier for Undead will be less if the party have a cleric.

Thanks Anub!


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!  *




As we like to say in Texas...Howdy! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *So for CR:
> 
> The Ogre gains +1.5 for Size. +1 of this accounts for +10 to ability scores (+8 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex). *




Gotcha.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *For ECL:
> 
> The Ogre gains +1.5 for Size. However it gains +10 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex; -4 Int; -4 Wis. Thats a difference of -6 on the typical size modifiers so the final mod would be -0.9. That takes account of both size and ability score modifiers. *




I don't think I'm understanding your terminology. What do you mean by...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Thats a difference of -6 on the typical size modifiers so the final mod would be -0.9. *




Do you mean the difference between the above ability score modifiers (+10 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex; -4 Int; -4 Wis/total 4) and the ability score modifiers derived from an increase in size (+8 Str; -2 Dex; +4 Con/total 10)?

If I'm understanding you, then I take the size modifier (for simplicity) and subtract the difference between the ECL modifiers for the size adjustment and stat modifiers, which would be 0.6? I think I got ya' on this now.

I do have one more question though. For ECL, the base ability scores are all 10's, and the modifiers are figured from there. Why? No PC ever has ability scores of all 10's. It's possible, sure, but I've never seen it, and I would find it hard to believe that a single DM out there wouldn't take pity on such a character and allow them to reroll.

With that said, why isn't the base considered higher? NPCs are not expected to have higher stats, but PCs most assuredly are. What's confusing me is this: At character creation, I roll my stats and get the following; Str 12, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 13. Why is my ECL not immediately adjusted up by +1.0? If the base for ability scores is 10, then I exceed some of them. But, if I'm a 1-HD monster PC, and that includes a Strength modifier of +2, which gives me a total Strength score of 12 (from the base of 10), I get hit with a +0.2 ECL modifier? That doesn't seem very consistent, and it certainly doesn't feel very intuitive.

Basically, I'm wondering why the base for ability scores is figured up so low for ECL when it is such a rare case for a PC to even have stats at that base. Basically, there's an incongruity here, and it's a glaring one. Here's an example using the base of 10 for two different characters...

1st level human fighter created: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10.
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbspNo ECL Modifier.
1st level arctic dwarf fighter (RoF; ability modifiers +4 Str; -2 Dex; +2 Con, -2 Cha/total +2) created: Str 14, Dex 8, Con 12, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 8)
&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp&nbsp+0.2 ECL Modifier.

See? Both are 1st level characters. The human has unbalanced ability scores over the base by +2 but no ECL modifier. The artic dwarf has unbalanced ability socres over the base by +2 and has an ECL modifier.

I think the base for ability scores needs to be redefined for PCs.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Does that have a modifier? Is it +1 CR (+0.1/increase, 21-11=base modifier of 10 x 0.1 = +1)? Or is it only for templates and ECLs? *




I don't think it should have a modifier for anything, or at the very least, the base needs to be moved up from 10.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...when its finished.  *




Punk.  



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Ask away, I don't mind. Glad to help mate. *




Thanks!


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Adding any and all ECL modifiers to CR would mean factoring ability scores to CR. *




I don't think that's what Anubis was suggesting. I think he was suggesting to drop the ECL modifiers for ability scores, just as they aren't counted with CR. I could be wrong though.


----------



## Coredump (Jul 11, 2003)

Hi Folks...



> You seem to think that ECL is independent of CR and EL, but it is not. By every source, ECL IS Level, and thus is counted with CR and EL all the same. You seriously need to just drop the ECL modifiers or list them ONLY as optional with cautions that using them could unbalance things.



But I don't think they are the same.  CR/EL is an 'attribute' that is meant to say how tough a monster will be for one (combat) encounter. 
ECL is an 'attribute' that is meant to show how useful/powerful/etc. a character is over time. *NOT* just for one combat.

To use a similar example as you. Two fighters, 5th level fighter, +1 ECL race. Lets take the case of an ECL +1 race (RACEX) and a similar ECL +1 race (RACEY). They have similar 'advantages', except RACEX can move a bit faster, gets AMBI as a bonus feat, or something. While RACEY can use Cure Light Wounds as a std action. Now, for a straight up fight, sure RACEX will have an advantage. But since you are supposed to have a number of encounters in a day RACEY is *MUCH* better off.
Over the course of a day, RACEX may have 3-4 encounters, before he needs to recover HP. RACEY can pretty much keep going all day, until he gets bored. Yet, you say they should be equivalent.


Similar, by your theory, a fighter against a thief should be a 50/50 fight. (After all, they are both the same CR) But there is no way an 8th level thief is going to beat an 8th level fighter. The fighter is a better *FIGHTER*, for combat his CR is 'more impressive'. But the Rogue has other talents, while not a 'waste' in a fight; character value *has* to include activities/abilities outside of combat.

.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *But since you are supposed to have a number of encounters in a day RACEY is *MUCH* better off. *




RACEY won't make it through one encounter with RACEX. Cure light wounds once per round isn't enough to survive against RACEX. He'll get stomped. Thus, in a 1 on 1 fight, RACEX is actually far more powerful.

The point is two-fold; First, this example doesn't prove that cure light wounds at will deserves an ECL modifier higher than the CR modifier, and second, RACEX is actually more powerful than RACEY. Every round that RACEY heals himself, he can't do anything but move. Next, RACEX closes the distance (he moves faster than normal, so this obviously isn't a problem), then smacks RACEY again. RACEY again moves and heals. RACEX again moves and wacks. Eventually, RACEY will fall. Why? He's too busy healing himself to respond to attacks.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *Yet, you say they should be equivalent. *




My previous example with the human and arctic dwarf proves that they should, unless someone can explain the disparity of ECL modifiers for ability scores between two 1st-level characters. Granted, spell-like and supernatural abilities, and some other funky abilities do indeed warrant an ECL modifier higher than a CR modifier, but not all of them.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 11, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *As we like to say in Texas...Howdy! *




I thought that was just in the movies...you mean they really say that. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I don't think I'm understanding your terminology. What do you mean by...
> 
> Do you mean the difference between the above ability score modifiers (+10 Str; +4 Con; -2 Dex; -4 Int; -4 Wis/total 4) and the ability score modifiers derived from an increase in size (+8 Str; -2 Dex; +4 Con/total 10)?
> 
> If I'm understanding you, then I take the size modifier (for simplicity) and subtract the difference between the ECL modifiers for the size adjustment and stat modifiers, which would be 0.6? I think I got ya' on this now.*




Yes. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I do have one more question though. For ECL, the base ability scores are all 10's, and the modifiers are figured from there. Why? No PC ever has ability scores of all 10's. It's possible, sure, but I've never seen it, and I would find it hard to believe that a single DM out there wouldn't take pity on such a character and allow them to reroll.*




...For ECL you only calculate the 'modifier' to ability scores. 

The idea of a '10' average is irrelevant if this is some throwback to a previous version of the CR/EL pdf then I apologise. But suffice to say kick the notion to the curb.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *With that said, why isn't the base considered higher? NPCs are not expected to have higher stats, but PCs most assuredly are. What's confusing me is this: At character creation, I roll my stats and get the following; Str 12, Dex 10, Con 13, Int 10, Wis 12, Cha 13. Why is my ECL not immediately adjusted up by +1.0?*




Because the system does not purport to accomodate good luck. It only accomodates set facts.

Rolling high ability scores is luck.

Automatically gaining high scores from a Template or as a Racial Modifier is a set fact.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *If the base for ability scores is 10, then I exceed some of them. But, if I'm a 1-HD monster PC, and that includes a Strength modifier of +2, which gives me a total Strength score of 12 (from the base of 10), I get hit with a +0.2 ECL modifier? That doesn't seem very consistent, and it certainly doesn't feel very intuitive.*




Think of it like this.

Treat ECL as you would a Template.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Basically, I'm wondering why the base for ability scores is figured up so low for ECL when it is such a rare case for a PC to even have stats at that base. Basically, there's an incongruity here, and it's a glaring one. Here's an example using the base of 10 for two different characters...
> 
> 1st level human fighter created: Str 12, Dex 10, Con 10, Int 10, Wis 10, Cha 10.
> No ECL Modifier.
> ...




Yes it has an ECL modifier which in and of itself amounts to nothing since we don't rate ECLs unless they are better than +0.5 (In fact technically we don't rate them until they are better than +1 but I could see people exploiting that with +0.9 ECL races so its better to outlaw anything between +0.5 and +1).



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I think the base for ability scores needs to be redefined for PCs.
> 
> I don't think it should have a modifier for anything, or at the very least, the base needs to be moved up from 10.*




What base!? There is no base!



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Punk.  *








			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Thanks! *




Anytime.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 11, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!  *




Howdy! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I thought that was just in the movies...you mean they really say that.  *




Damn straight! 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Yes.  *




Cool.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...For ECL you only calculate the 'modifier' to ability scores. *




And if the modifier is no better than what a freshly created character could get? It doesn't make a lot sense, unless you're using point buy, in which case you won't run into this problem.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *...Think of it like this.
> 
> Treat ECL as you would a Template. *




I charge the exact same amount to a PC for a template that I would a monster. No more, no less. Hasn't caused a problem that I couldn't handle yet.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *What base!? There is no base! *




Ah, but there is. It just isn't accounted for in your system, something I hadn't realized until now. The flaw is that the system doesn't accomodate "luck", but that's ok. That's what common sense is for. If player 1 rolls one 12 and five 10s, and player two rolls all 10s but chooses a race with +2 to one stat, neither have an advantage over the other. The race effectively has an ECL modifier of +0 (no matter how small the modifier, even if +0.2, it's still there) They are perfectly equal, yet your system dictates otherwise.

I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around that.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 11, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't think that's what Anubis was suggesting. I think he was suggesting to drop the ECL modifiers for ability scores, just as they aren't counted with CR. I could be wrong though. *




You're absolutely right, this is precisely what I meant.  Your post before this one also tells the story perfectly.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 11, 2003)

Allow me to clrify my position.

For monster races, I do not think ability scores should apply to CR OR ECL.  (Size is different because it has more than one specific impact.)

FOr TEMPLATES, however, the ability scores SHOULD be counted, and the reasoning is because a template is never a race in and of itself.  You can't just have a flat "Vampire" or "Ghost".  They have to go on top of OTHER races, and therefore adds MORE to an existing race.

Anyway, that's what I have to say on that.


----------



## Coredump (Jul 12, 2003)

HI KReynolds



> RACEY won't make it through one encounter with RACEX. Cure light wounds once per round isn't enough to survive against RACEX. He'll get stomped. Thus, in a 1 on 1 fight, RACEX is actually far more powerful.




Two things
First, since the only main difference is one feat, toe to toe, it will be close. RACEX will usually win, but I don't think it will always be a massacre

Second, *EXACTLY* my point. Yes, in a one-on-one fight, RACEX has an advantage, he is a tougher 'one combat' opponent. So according to other examples here, *that* is reason for him to have a higher CR/ECL. But I disagree. A player is more than 'one combat'

Take these two as separate players. Lets run two solo adventures to remove variables.

RACEX: Runs into 4 orcs-kills them takes 8 of 40 Hps. (32)
Runs into 2 ogres-kills them, takes 9 of 40 hps (23)
Runs into 6 kobolds-kills them, takes 5 hps (18)
Runs into one Hell Hound-kills it takes 11 hps (7pts)
He now decides it is time to stop, and maybe go back to town for healing, whatever

RACEY: 4orcs-10 of 40 damage (32)
Heals between combat (40)
2 ogres 14 damage (26)
heals (40)
6 kobolds- 8 damage (32)
Heals (40)
Hell Hound - 19 damage (21)
Heals (40)

While RACEX is going back to camp/town/whatever, RACEY only has to worry if he can carry all of the loot!

This is my point, CR should use what is useful for 'one combat', because it is being used to gauge a creature that is being used for ..... one combat.  ECL needs to have slightly different concerns, since it is being used to gauge *more* than just one combat.


Similarly, instead of race/lvl, try with lvl/lvl
How would a combat go between a fighter 8 vs. a fighter4/rogue4?
I would have to say that the Fighter 8 has a definite advantage; so should fighter levels have a higher CR/ECL than rogue levels?


CR is a fine metric, as long you people recognize *what* it is measuring. It is measuring 'danger level' for one encounter. ECL is measuring 'added effectiveness' over many many many encounters, and between encounters, etc.

.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 12, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Howdy! *




Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *And if the modifier is no better than what a freshly created character could get? It doesn't make a lot sense, unless you're using point buy, in which case you won't run into this problem.*




If you see 'luck' as a problem then I suppose you are right.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I charge the exact same amount to a PC for a template that I would a monster. No more, no less. Hasn't caused a problem that I couldn't handle yet.*




Fair enough, I was just trying to make things simpler for everyone.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Ah, but there is. It just isn't accounted for in your system, something I hadn't realized until now. The flaw is that the system doesn't accomodate "luck", but that's ok.*




I fail to see how not accomodating luck is a 'flaw'. 

Wheres a 'Heisenberg Compensator' when you need one!? 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *That's what common sense is for. If player 1 rolls one 12 and five 10s, and player two rolls all 10s but chooses a race with +2 to one stat, neither have an advantage over the other. The race effectively has an ECL modifier of +0 (no matter how small the modifier, even if +0.2, it's still there) They are perfectly equal, yet your system dictates otherwise.
> 
> I'm just having a hard time wrapping my head around that. *




Did you ever penalise a player for rolling up good ability scores before!? I doubt it, and I don't think its something you should instigate now.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 12, 2003)

Coredump said:
			
		

> *HI KReynolds
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Now I will shoot this logic out of the water.  CR is NOT the measure of challenge for an encounter in the new system, it's a direct measure of power.

Now you make some pretty valid claims about usefulness . . . HOWEVER . . . You forget that CR is based around fresh PCs against a fresh encounter EVERY TIME.  The CR system has NEVER taken into account the number of encounters before resting . . . ever.  Does it mention that?  Yes.  Why?  To let the DM know how many they can handle normally, nothing more.

I can prove this.  With standard wealth, a Level 5 cleric can have multiple Wands of Cure Light Wounds.  THIS in and of itself will allow a party of PCs to have more encounters before resting.  Do you raise that PCs ECL just for having good items?  NO!

Now understand this.  Yeah, Cure Light Wounds at will is useful and it allows PCs to go longer before resting.  So what?  Like I said, that ain't part of level, CR, EL, OR ECL.  Never has been, never will be, and it shouldn't be.  Epic characters go longer as well.  It's just a fact of life!  How about the fact that by the rules, an item that can use Cure Light Wounds at will only costs 1800 gp!  (I doubled its cost ad hoc due to the usefulness as per the rules, but it's still cheap as Hell and obtainable by Level 4 EASILY.)  Again, do you raise that PCs ECL just for having good items?  NO!  So how is Cure Light Wounds at will so great?  It allows you to have more encounters fresh.  If anything, this makes the CRs MORE accurate as direct ECL as all encounters will likely be fresh v. fresh as intended.  Better yet, how does resting hurt the PCs?  You act like not having to rest is a great waste or something.  Not so.  They leave, rest, and come back.  No difference except a couple of days.  No biggie!  Same difference!  In fact, resting may be a BOON because you can unload treasure at home and go back able to carry more!

So you see, there really is no reason to boost ECL because, well, there simply is no logic in it.  Encounters are supposed to be fresh v. fresh anyway.

Anyway, I would like to apologize if this sounds harsh at all, you should all know my mannerisms by now.  I mean no harm!  I just tell it like it is, really.  Just trying to show how these things really effect games to the core.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 12, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Allow me to clrify my position.
> 
> For monster races, I do not think ability scores should apply to CR OR ECL.  (Size is different because it has more than one specific impact.)
> 
> ...




Races are Templates in all but name.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 13, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Did you ever penalise a player for rolling up good ability scores before!? I doubt it, and I don't think its something you should instigate now. *




I don't either, which is why I switched to point buy a long time ago. Quite frankly, I've seen too many characters die a very unheroic death short into the game because they rolled crappy stats, and D&D is a game of heroes.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 13, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hiya mate!
> 
> 
> 
> Races are Templates in all but name. *




I disagree, and I think most would agree with me here.

Races are a BASE creature, Templates are an ADDITION.  Templates are more like Classes than Races, to be honest.  As such, everything in a Template is counted.

To show a better example, imagine a Template that does NOTHING but add +10 to every stat.  Let's call this the "Krustacion" for humor purposes.  Now a goblin is a goblin, but a Krustacion goblin is far more powerful, even though the Template grants ONLY stat bonuses; if the goblin simply had 14 Strength instead, that is within the standard rolling procedures and could be achieved through luck (and was) whereas the +10 from the Template applies NO MATTER WHAT IS ROLLED, and is ALWAYS an addition.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 14, 2003)

Hi Anubis matey! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *I disagree, and I think most would agree with me here.*




Appeal to authority. 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Races are a BASE creature, Templates are an ADDITION.*




Both add set fixed bonuses.



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *To show a better example, imagine a Template that does NOTHING but add +10 to every stat.  Let's call this the "Krustacion" for humor purposes.  Now a goblin is a goblin, but a Krustacion goblin is far more powerful, even though the Template grants ONLY stat bonuses; if the goblin simply had 14 Strength instead, that is within the standard rolling procedures and could be achieved through luck (and was) whereas the +10 from the Template applies NO MATTER WHAT IS ROLLED, and is ALWAYS an addition. *




You don't roll racial traits either so I fail to see the logic of the above argument!?

The Krustacion Template would add +6 CR.

The Goblin Racial Traits would add +_x_ CR.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 14, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Anubis matey!
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Think OUTSIDE the PC/NPC lines.  Think OUTSIDE the bun.  Think OUTSIDE the box.

Or rather think inside.

You see, you CAN'T, no matter what you do, have "just a Krustacion" or "just a Vampire" or "just a Paragon".  In the same way, you can't have "just a fighter", "just a wizard", or "just a psion".  These are ALWAYS tied to the base creature LATER.  You CAN, however, have "just a goblin", "just a human", or "just a mind flayer".

THAT is the fundamental difference AND the flaw in your argument.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 14, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Anubis said:
			
		

> *Think OUTSIDE the PC/NPC lines.  Think OUTSIDE the bun.  Think OUTSIDE the box.
> 
> Or rather think inside.
> 
> ...




None of which changes the fact that you technically 'add' Racial Traits to a character just as you would a Template.

Whether these Traits are ingrained from the start is irrelevant. Many Templates are also ingrained from the start, so what does that prove.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jul 14, 2003)

I understand where both of you are coming from, even if you do not understand each other.

(*I can't believe I'm being a mediator for once.*)

Anubis is going as far back as the "race" and adding classes and templates from that point forward.

Upper_Krust is going as far back as the "player" and adding races, classes, and templates, from that point instead (and, presumably, a character sheet as well).


----------



## Anubis (Jul 14, 2003)

Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I understand where both of you are coming from, even if you do not understand each other.
> 
> (*I can't believe I'm being a mediator for once.*)
> 
> ...




Oh I understood him perfect, just as you explained it here.  That's why I told him to think outside (or perhaps inside) PC/NPC lines, because he was starting at the player point instead of the mechanic point, and the balancing need to be from a mechanic poin rather than a player point.


----------



## kreynolds (Jul 15, 2003)

Hey folks,

I'm pretty sure I already asked you guys this, but I can't find it now; what are the CR modifiers for racial skill bonuses? Also, what would the design parameter be (the suggested maximum)?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 15, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Hey folks,*




Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *I'm pretty sure I already asked you guys this, but I can't find it now; what are the CR modifiers for racial skill bonuses?*




+5 skill points = +0.1 CR



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Also, what would the design parameter be (the suggested maximum)? *




Maybe < +8 per HD/Level 

Edit added the 'Per'


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 15, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I understand where both of you are coming from, even if you do not understand each other.
> 
> (*I can't believe I'm being a mediator for once.*)
> 
> ...




As far as I can tell there is no 'mechanical' difference. So the only disagreement can be a subjective one; not an objective one.


----------



## Anabstercorian (Jul 16, 2003)

I'm not going to bother to explain my reasons as half the time neither of you use anything resembling logic, but I'm on Krust's side on this one.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 25, 2003)

*The Golden Rule*

Hi all! 

I am thinking of adding 'the Golden Rule' to the CR/EL system whereby a monsters CR cannot exceed double the value of its Hit Dice.

eg. A Dretch is a 2 HD Outsider which gives it CR +1.5.

Therefore it can't have a CR higher than 3 (even though its abilities take it to CR 5)

The majority of creatures won't be affected by this although notable exceptions are the Planetar and the Solar.

However, if you allow PCs to become these creatures determine their ECL normally. (I have ECL and CR in the IH anyway).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 28, 2003)

*V.4 Update*

Hi all! 

Just letting you know I am still working away on v4 (in between working on the IH).

I have updated everything to 3.5 specifications (which makes sense since I agree with most of the revisions).

I should *touch wood* have the main body of the work finished sometime tomorrow (by that I mean everything except the entire list of Revised Monsters).

Aside from the changes induced by 3.5 there are a lot of other revisions and I also hope I have made things somewhat simpler to understand - I suppose you'll all let me know one way or the other.


----------



## Anubis (Jul 28, 2003)

*Re: V.4 Update*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi all!
> 
> Just letting you know I am still working away on v4 (in between working on the IH).
> 
> ...




Just . . . When you get V.4 done, post it EVEN WITHOUT THE MONSTERS!  I want the rules!  I don't care about your ratings for the monsters because I don't count some things such as Darkvision and Scent!


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jul 29, 2003)

YES, UK! Do post the v.4!!!!

Question: When using CR as ECL, what about the feats and ability increases added for level advancement (i.e. +1 stat/4 lvls [0.025 CR] and +1 feat/3 lvls [+0.066 CR]). Is that included in the CR?
I would think that the feats are, but ability adj. is not, and it does after all add up to + 1CR over 20 lvls. Care to comment?

Sorcica


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 29, 2003)

Hi Sorcica mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *YES, UK! Do post the v.4!!!!
> 
> Question: When using CR as ECL, what about the feats and ability increases added for level advancement (i.e. +1 stat/4 lvls [0.025 CR] and +1 feat/3 lvls [+0.066 CR]). Is that included in the CR?
> I would think that the feats are, but ability adj. is not, and it does after all add up to + 1CR over 20 lvls. Care to comment? *




They are both factored to Character Classes. They are factored to Monster Hit Dice where appropriate...as far as I know Monsters don't gain ability score increases +1/4 Hit Dice.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jul 29, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hi Sorcica mate!
> 
> 
> 
> They are both factored to Character Classes. They are factored to Monster Hit Dice where appropriate...as far as I know Monsters don't gain ability score increases +1/4 Hit Dice. *




That's what I mean. If my PC is a LeShay for example, the ECL without wealth is around +53 IIRC. So my Fig1/LeShay is a 54th lvl character. Shouldn't I get feats and ability bscore increases for that? And won't that affect final CR/ECL?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 29, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *That's what I mean. If my PC is a LeShay for example, the ECL without wealth is around +53 IIRC. So my Fig1/LeShay is a 54th lvl character. Shouldn't I get feats and ability bscore increases for that? And won't that affect final CR/ECL?
> 
> *




Well you would gain the LeShay Feats mentioned in its description and you would gain the LeShays Ability Scores (or whatever bonuses the Racial Traits bestow).

But no, you do not gain feats outside your Hit Dice/Class Level Progression, and you wouldn't gain Ability Score bonuses except from Racial Traits and Class Levels.

The LeShay would bestow:

Str: +10
Dex: +34
Con: +26
Int: +22
Wis: +12
Cha: +36

It also has 17 feats derived from its Hit Dice (listed in the ELH - which I suppose a kind DM might let you modify).

So if you rolled up you character (or used point buy); you would then add the above traits. Then you would add you +1 Feat for being a Fighter and +1 Feat for 1st-level or whatever.


----------



## Matrix Sorcica (Jul 29, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Hello again mate!
> 
> 
> Well you would gain the LeShay Feats mentioned in its description and you would gain the LeShays Ability Scores (or whatever bonuses the Racial Traits bestow).
> ...




But according to Savage Species you get ability score increases as if you were a character of a level equal to your HD. Since you have to get as many XP as a 'normal' character, shouldn't you get all the benefits as well.
I do realise that this will only further complicate things and increase ECL, but it is just some thoughts...


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 29, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				Sorcica said:
			
		

> *But according to Savage Species you get ability score increases as if you were a character of a level equal to your HD. Since you have to get as many XP as a 'normal' character, shouldn't you get all the benefits as well.
> I do realise that this will only further complicate things and increase ECL, but it is just some thoughts...  *




Savage Species has its good and bad points (determining CR/ECL is one of the latter). WotC should leave that up to the experts. 

Regardless, its simplicity itself to factor in these additional ability score bonuses - the 50 HD LeShay would gain +12 points. Increasing ECL by +1.2.

But to be perfectly honest I don't think they should gain them - I mean they already have their ability scores calculated for that particular Hit Dice for goodness sake.


----------



## Sonofapreacherman (Jul 30, 2003)

I hear what you're saying Upper_Krust, but I think it's important to inlcude ability adjustments for monsters now. They made it so that all ceatures gain feats in the same way for the sake of universality. Ability adjustments should fall in line too.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Jul 30, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				Sonofapreacherman said:
			
		

> *I hear what you're saying Upper_Krust, but I think it's important to inlcude ability adjustments for monsters now. They made it so that all ceatures gain feats in the same way for the sake of universality. Ability adjustments should fall in line too.
> 
> *




As far as I am concerned those ability score increases are already factored into the LeShays (or any other monsters) Ability Scores.

But like I said its easily handled with the system.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 23, 2003)

*Epic Class Progression Rated*

Hi all! 

I was just going over the Epic Core Class Progression and arrived at the following:

Barbarian: +0.835
Bard: +0.685
Cleric: +0.695
Druid: +0.695
Fighter: +0.765
Monk: +0.815
Paladin: +0.765
Ranger: +0.765
Rogue: +0.765
Sorceror: +0.575
Wizard: +0.575

Also the Mystic Theurge works out at a massive +1.111.

All the above are without equipment.

The main problem is the lack of any organised spellcasting improvement after 20th-level.

Tie the Improved Spellcasting feat to Intelligence instead of level (initially done in D&Dg to placate the need for the Epic Level Handbook) really ballses things up.

Thats something I have been considering addressing with my revised epic spellcasting system.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 26, 2003)

*Dual Actions (Su) of the Chronotyryn*

UK. What would you rate this ability at? I figured it would add about +2.5 to CR (or +4 to ECL), mostly just by comparing it to other monster abilities. Do you think it should be higher?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 26, 2003)

*Re: Dual Actions (Su) of the Chronotyryn*

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *UK. What would you rate this ability at? I figured it would add about +2.5 to CR (or +4 to ECL), mostly just by comparing it to other monster abilities. Do you think it should be higher? *




I rate Dual Actions at +5 CR.

Its a very powerful ability, it provides a lot more flexibility than simply doubling attacks.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Dual Actions (Su) of the Chronotyryn*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *I rate Dual Actions at +5 CR.
> 
> Its a very powerful ability, it provides a lot more flexibility than simply doubling attacks. *




Crap, I should have clarified that the CR of +2.5 I gave was the WotC CR. For your system, I figured about 4. But, +5 in your system would put the CR adjustment in WotC speak at about +3.32. I guess that number is ok, but the reason I put it at +2.5 was because on its own, its ok, but coupled with spell-like and other supernatural abilities, it rounds it nicely. Maybe a flat +3 (WotC) will work fine. I'll have to chew on that for a bit.

Thanks!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 26, 2003)

*Re: Dual Actions (Su) of the Chronotyryn*

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Crap, I should have clarified that the CR of +2.5 I gave was the WotC CR. For your system, I figured about 4. But, +5 in your system would put the CR adjustment in WotC speak at about +3.32. I guess that number is ok, but the reason I put it at +2.5 was because on its own, its ok, but coupled with spell-like and other supernatural abilities, it rounds it nicely. Maybe a flat +3 (WotC) will work fine. I'll have to chew on that for a bit.
> 
> Thanks!  *




Well, work the total CR out under my system and then divide by 2/3 might be the easiest way.


Incidently I have went over all the 3.5 Core Classes again and a simple balancing trick becomes apparent:

Barbarian: reduce HD to d10
Cleric & Druid: reduce HD to d6
Monk: reduce HD to d6
Paladin: reduce HD to d8

There is also a borderline case for increasing Rogue HD to d8; but when in doubt best to leave it alone I think.

Of course all this is just food for thought (it *won't* be implemented in the Immortals Handbook or anything like that)


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 26, 2003)

*Re: Re: Dual Actions (Su) of the Chronotyryn*



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> *Well, work the total CR out under my system and then divide by 2/3 might be the easiest way. *




Actually, that's what I did. I came up with a 4 (actually a 3.75, but I just said "bah" and rounded up).


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 26, 2003)

*Re: Dual Actions (Su) of the Chronotyryn*



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> *Actually, that's what I did. I came up with a 4 (actually a 3.75, but I just said "bah" and rounded up). *


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 29, 2003)

UK,

Got a question for ya' about Energy Drain, Ability Drain, and Ability Damage (otherwise ability drain without the permanent option) in your preview PDF. Do your breakdowns assume that these abilities can only be used once per round, even if they are used with a melee attack, like a vampire's slam attack? I presume they are. If so, what about if the ability works with each successful melee attack? Should you just calculate the total CR modifier as normal and then multiply that by the number of attacks the creature can make in a full attack action that is applicable to the draining ability?

Thanks!


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 29, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> UK,




Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Got a question for ya' about Energy Drain, Ability Drain, and Ability Damage (otherwise ability drain without the permanent option) in your preview PDF.




...and massively changed in Version 4. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Do your breakdowns assume that these abilities can only be used once per round, even if they are used with a melee attack, like a vampire's slam attack? I presume they are. If so, what about if the ability works with each successful melee attack? Should you just calculate the total CR modifier as normal and then multiply that by the number of attacks the creature can make in a full attack action that is applicable to the draining ability?
> 
> Thanks!




Actually the way this works in version 4 is that you total any special abilities that can stack and be used more than once in the same round.

Here is the text straight out of V4

***

For creatures that can ply the same special attack more than once per round, multiply the cost by the number of times it can be used only if its effects stack with itself.

eg. Ghoul: 3 attacks/round with Paralysis Touch. Paralysis does not stack with itself so only rate the ability once.

eg. Five-Headed Pyrohydra: 5 possible breath attacks/round dealing 3d6 fire damage. The fire damage stacks with itself so you total the effects; in this case treat as 15d6 energy damage.

***

Incidently things like Ability Score Loss (Damage/Drain) and Energy Drain (among many others) are rated differently in version 4 - so don't be going by previous versions.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 29, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> For creatures that can ply the same special attack more than once per round, multiply the cost by the number of times it can be used only if its effects stack with itself.




That's what I figured. Thanks!



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Incidently things like Ability Score Loss (Damage/Drain) and Energy Drain (among many others) are rated differently in version 4 - so don't be going by previous versions.




I'm not. I'm actually rating them myself. The numbers you have in version 3 come out too low. Incidentally, how do you rate them in version 4?


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 29, 2003)

UK,

If you're interested, here's how I'm currently rating Ability Damage. If you have any input, I fully welcome it. Remember though, that this is for Level Adjustment, or in other words, WotC ECL.

*Ability Damage*
+0.75 (base) +0.25/point of ability score damage (use average)
+0.75 additional if the ability is Constitution

*Examples*
A) 2 points of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, once per round = +1.25
B) 1d6 points of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, once per round = +1.625
C) 1 point of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, up to four times per round = +1.75
***Closest to cost of wealth required for +1 wounding weapon (+1.3)***
D) 2 points of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, up to four times per round = +2.75

By the way, the "+0.75 extra if Con" is a WotC thing, and its only in there so that I could play around with it and see if I want to keep it. Anyway, what do you think?


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Hey UK,

If you're interested, here's how I'm figuring up the LA for DR in 3.5 now...

*Damage Reduction*

*Damage Reduction Values*
+0.165/point of damage reduced

*Damage Reduction Levels*
Magic			+0.11
Material		+0.33
Alignment		+0.33
Epic			+2.33

When combining damage reduction level types using the OR factor, the highest level is halved then added to the first level. For example, silver adds +0.33, but if it is combined with an alignment, such as good, the alignment level is halved and added to the magic level, thus giving a total addition to LA of +0.495 (+0.33 for silver, plus +0.33/2 for good). When combining damage reduction level types using the AND factor, the levels are simply added together. Thus silver AND good would add +0.66 to LA.

Epic level damage reduction works differently. When combining epic level damage reduction with any other level and using the OR factor, reduce the epic level modifier by the level you are combining it with. For example, while epic level damage reduction is worth +2.33 on its own, it is worth only +2.0 when combined with silver using the OR factor (such as DR X/epic or silver). Otherwise, calculate the modifier as normal. For example, when combined with silver using the AND factor, the total damage reduction LA modifier would be +2.66 (for DR X/epic and silver).

*Examples*
DR 5/magic		+0.935
DR 5/silver		+1.155
DR 5/silver or magic	+1.1
DR 5/silver and magic	+1.265
DR 5/silver or evil	+1.32
DR 5/silver and evil	+1.485
DR 5/epic		+2.33
DR 5/epic or silver	+2.0
DR 5/epic and silver	+2.66

DR 5/cold-iron and evil would add +1.485 to LA, while DR 20/cold-iron and evil would add +3.96 to LA.

*Barbarian-Type Damage Reduction (not hardness!)*
+0.3/point of damage reduced

DR 5/— would add +1.5 to LA, while DR 20/— would add +6.0 to LA.


What do ya' think?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> The numbers you have in version 3 come out too low. Incidentally, how do you rate them in version 4?




Ability Damage = +0.15/point
Ability Drain = +0.2/point

Energy Drain = +0.4/level

Remember to multiply for multiple attacks with the special ability); also there are a few multipliers based on the delivery method; Ray x2; Breath x3; Gaze x4 etc.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> UK,
> 
> If you're interested, here's how I'm currently rating Ability Damage. If you have any input, I fully welcome it. Remember though, that this is for Level Adjustment, or in other words, WotC ECL.




Well WotC ECL more or less parallels my CR.

So lets take a look.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Ability Damage
> +0.75 (base) +0.25/point of ability score damage (use average)




Personally I think this is too high. 

Also you haven't made any distinction between Ability Damage and Drain.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> +0.75 additional if the ability is Constitution




I rate all abilities the same. Its far more convenient and unless you are going to make gaining Con more difficult/expensive than other abilities I don't think you should make losing Con more costly. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Examples
> A) 2 points of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, once per round = +1.25
> B) 1d6 points of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, once per round = +1.625
> C) 1 point of Strength damage on a successful melee attack, up to four times per round = +1.75
> ...




Interesting parallel with the Wounding weapon special ability. Personally I rate each enchantment bonus or special ability bonus equal to a feat; therefore +0.2.

However, the Wounding special ability is slightly different from standard Ability Loss attacks. Firstly a Critical Hit does not multiply the weapons effects; secondly the wielder does not gain hit points back from the damage/drain. However, the weapon does allow iteritive attacks. 

So if we assume the weapon ability is +0.4. Its really the same as four ability point damages (four being maximum natural attacks with the weapon). So 4 x +0.15 = +0.6, however remember that you don't get the stacking on critical hits and you don't get the hit points from dealing the damage, hence my reduction.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> By the way, the "+0.75 extra if Con" is a WotC thing, and its only in there so that I could play around with it and see if I want to keep it. Anyway, what do you think?




I think in trying to make these abilities less accessible to players (in terms of ECL) you may have overated them, something I think I was guilty of myself when I initially came to rate them.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> Hey UK,




Hello again mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> If you're interested, here's how I'm figuring up the LA for DR in 3.5 now...




Sure fire away.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Damage Reduction
> 
> ***SNIP***
> 
> What do ya' think?




Okay, firstly I think it is overtly and unnecessarily fidgety.

Here is Damage Reduction straight out of Version 4 (I hope the Table doesn't disperse):

***

13.04 Damage Reduction
CR +0.1/point of damage reduced

Table 1-6: Modifiers to Damage Reduction
Damage Reduction
     defeated by			Example	           Modifier
Multiple Elements			Babau		x1/4
Single Element			Zombie		x1/2
Adamantine or Epic Element		Iron Golem	x1
Combination of Elements		Lich		x1
Combination of Elements*		Solar		x1.5
Can’t be defeated by any Elements	Mummy	             x2
*including either Adamantine, Epic, or both.

eg. Babau (DR 10/cold iron or good) = CR +0.25 (1 x 1/4)
Zombie (DR 5/slashing) = CR +0.25 (0.5 x 1/2)
	Iron Golem (DR 15/adamantine) = CR +1.5 (1.5 x 1)
	Lich (DR 15/bludgeoning and magic) = CR +1.5 (1.5 x 1)
	Solar (DR 15/epic and evil) = CR +2.25 (1.5 x 1.5)
	Mummy (DR 5/-) = CR +1 (0.5 x 2)

***

Edit: okay the table totally dispersed when I tried copy and paste - thats what you get for making me post instead of waiting for version 4.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Well WotC ECL more or less parallels my CR.




Sort of. Something I noticed though that you might find interesting: Two-thirds of your CR generally equals WotC CR, right? Well, four-fifths of your CR tends to be really close to WotC ECL/LA. Just a neat little factoid. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Personally I think this is too high.




I really didn't think it was, but I'll take a look at it again. Perhaps the problem is the base modifier (which I really like using, as most abilities lose a lot of their punch as levels go up)...



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Also you haven't made any distinction between Ability Damage and Drain.




Actually, I did. I just didn't post it. Besides, no distinction is neccessary in the formula. While a distinction must be made between the two when referring generically to "ability score loss", no distinction is neccessary in the formula between damage and drain, as the mechanics are completely different, and as such, I use two different formulae.

I rate ability drain using a separate formula (of which the base modifier might also be a problem, so I'll take a look at that).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I rate all abilities the same. Its far more convenient and unless you are going to make gaining Con more difficult/expensive than other abilities I don't think you should make losing Con more costly.




Generally, so do I. Like I said, mostly it was just to figure out why it was there in the first place. After fiddling with it this morning, I can't come up with any reason, so I'm snipping it out.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Interesting parallel with the Wounding weapon special ability. Personally I rate each enchantment bonus or special ability bonus equal to a feat; therefore +0.2.




I'm not so sure about that. The ability to deal ability score damage goes beyond the power of a feat, IMO. After all, with the wounding property at +2, when was the last time you saw a feat bestow flaming burst at will once per round? Do you disagree?

I also rate bonus feats at LA +0.3/per extra feat, but that's another discussion for another time. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> However, the Wounding special ability is slightly different from standard Ability Loss attacks.




True.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Firstly a Critical Hit does not multiply the weapons effects;




Yup. That's a good point, but I still don't recall seeing a feat that bestows flaming or frost at will once per round. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> secondly the wielder does not gain hit points back from the damage/drain.




Creature's rarely ever get hit points back for ability damage. That usually only happens with ability _drain_. Remember, they are two very different abilities with very different effects. Ability damage is temporary in the same way that hit points come back over time. Ability drain is permanent, and the creature usually gets something back for inflicting it.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> However, the weapon does allow iteritive attacks.




Which is one thing that most certainly pushes it beyond the power of a feat, IMO.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> So if we assume the weapon ability is +0.4. Its really the same as four ability point damages (four being maximum natural attacks with the weapon). So 4 x +0.15 = +0.6, however remember that you don't get the stacking on critical hits and you don't get the hit points from dealing the damage, hence my reduction.




I understand the critical part, but ability damage does not automatically give you hit points in return. You're thinking of ability _drain_.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I think in trying to make these abilities less accessible to players (in terms of ECL) you may have overated them, something I think I was guilty of myself when I initially came to rate them.




But I'm not trying to make them less accessible. In fact, that's one thing that I hate about how WotC tends to treat special abilities. I'm simply trying to rate it fairly based upon its usefulness for a PC. Like I said, the base modifier I use may be too high, and that might be the problem. If you're interested though, here's the original formula I was using for Ability Damage (*+0.5 (base) +0.15/point of ability damage*).


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Hiya mate!




Howdy.  Thanks for replying.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Ability Damage = +0.15/point




Wild. That's the same that I used for my original formula (though I also included the same base posted above, but again, it might be too high).



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Ability Drain = +0.2/point




I don't know. Seeing as how drain is much more potent than damage, I think I'd have to rate it at least 50%, maybe even 75%, higher than damage.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Energy Drain = +0.4/level




That seems fair, though I include a +0.5 base modifier as well.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Remember to multiply for multiple attacks with the special ability);




Definately, and thinks for lending me a hand with that. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> also there are a few multipliers based on the delivery method; Ray x2; Breath x3; Gaze x4 etc.




Right, I just didn't bother posting them. I notice that you've gone to multipliers now? Is that just to simply the math? I tried that at some point but it just felt to clunky.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

EDIT: UK! If you read this post, don't reply until you read the next post. Thanks!

I really appreciate your insight on all this, by the way. So thanks. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Okay, firstly I think it is overtly and unnecessarily fidgety.




LOL  That indeed may be, and I may take care of that later on, but that's how my mind works. I never start with KISS, but I generally arrive at it in the end. I also like the longer numbers, as it helps me arrive at a more accurate figure. Anyways, what about the actual numbers? Here's a comparison...

+1.155: My DR 5/adamantine
+0.500: Your DR 5/adamantine

Obviously, my numbers come out to just over double yours. Maybe, I should use a base modifier and lower the modifier per point of reduction. Let me go see how that looks.

But, I have to ask. Those figures of yours for DR...those are your CR modifiers, right? If so, then that would mean DR 5/adamantine on a monster in WotC would have a CR modifier of only +0.333, or an LA of roughly +0.4.

I wonder how that base modifier would look...


*Set 1*
_+0.5 (base) +0.1/point of damage reduced_

...which would make DR 5/magic about +1.11 LA, DR 10/magic about +1.61 LA, DR 15/magic about +2.11 LA, and DR 20/magic about +2.61. Nah. Way too high at the upper levels. Let me try that again...

*Set 2*
_+0.5 (base) +0.05/point of damage reduced_

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.86 LA, DR 10/magic about +1.11 LA, DR 15/magic about +1.36 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.61. That's a little better. Let me try one more set...

*Set 3*
_+0.5 (base) +0.065/point of damage reduced_

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.935 LA, DR 10/magic about +1.26 LA, DR 15/magic about +1.585 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.91 LA. Hmm. Interesting.


I know it's still clunky, but I'll look into doing something about that later. Right now, I'm only concerned with the accuracy of the final numbers. I'm favoring Set 2, surprisingly enough, though I'm considering dropping that initial modifier to a +0.4, maybe even lower...


*Set 4*
_+0.4 (base) +0.05/point of damage reduced_

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.76 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.51 LA.

*Set 5*
_+0.3 (base) +0.05/point of damage reduced_

...this would make DR 5/magic about +0.66 LA, and DR 20/magic about +1.41 LA.


Very interesting. Now for a comparison between your numbers and Set 5 (which I'm diggin' on)...

+0.88: My DR 5/adamantine
+0.500: Your DR 5/adamantine (converts to about +0.333 WotC CR)

+1.63: My DR 20/adamantine
+2.00: Your DR 20/adamantine (converts to about +1.333 WotC CR)

How very, very interesting. I think I might be starting to see the reason you went with multipliers. I'm don't know. Let me look at it for a while.

Again, thanks for your input on this!


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Damn you, UK.   

Alright, after playing with the numbers a bit, it looks like using a multiplier, like you did, is the best way to go. Here's what I decided on for determining level adjustment...

+0.08/point of damage reduced

Here's some comparisons using DR 10/magic...

+0.250: Your CR
+0.166: WotC CR (approximate, using your formula)
+0.313: My LA

Now using DR 10/adamantine...

+0.500: Your CR
+0.333: WotC CR (approximate, using your formula)
+0.400: My LA

I like that. A lot. Ironically, my LA comes out 20% lower than your CR, which is about right.  So, what do you think?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Sort of. Something I noticed though that you might find interesting: Two-thirds of your CR generally equals WotC CR, right? Well, four-fifths of your CR tends to be really close to WotC ECL/LA. Just a neat little factoid.




Just goes to show - they almost got ECL right. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I really didn't think it was, but I'll take a look at it again. Perhaps the problem is the base modifier (which I really like using, as most abilities lose a lot of their punch as levels go up)...




Instead of base modifiers I use design parameters.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Actually, I did. I just didn't post it. Besides, no distinction is neccessary in the formula. While a distinction must be made between the two when referring generically to "ability score loss", no distinction is neccessary in the formula between damage and drain, as the mechanics are completely different, and as such, I use two different formulae.
> 
> I rate ability drain using a separate formula (of which the base modifier might also be a problem, so I'll take a look at that).




Okay.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Generally, so do I. Like I said, mostly it was just to figure out why it was there in the first place. After fiddling with it this morning, I can't come up with any reason, so I'm snipping it out.








			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about that. The ability to deal ability score damage goes beyond the power of a feat, IMO.




For a touch attack!? I don't agree.

Even Rogues get the Crippling Strike Feat which works in conjunction with Sneak Attack. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> After all, with the wounding property at +2, when was the last time you saw a feat bestow flaming burst at will once per round? Do you disagree?




I do disagree.

What about feats that mimic Bane weaponry (Bane of Enemies); feats that mimic Aligned weaponry (Holy Strike); feats that have bonuses mimicking increases to enhancement bonuses (Weapon Specialisation); feast that mimic more exotic abilities (Vorpal Strike; in this case prerequisites absorbing the disparity).



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I also rate bonus feats at LA +0.3/per extra feat, but that's another discussion for another time.




I can't agree with that. Three feats equalling one level, I don't think so.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> True.




Word. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Yup. That's a good point, but I still don't recall seeing a feat that bestows flaming or frost at will once per round.




That would be incongruous; but what you should really be asking yourself is have I seen any other special abilities or equivalent enhancement bonuses as feats - and when you do that of course, you realise I am right. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Creature's rarely ever get hit points back for ability damage. That usually only happens with ability _drain_.
> 
> Remember, they are two very different abilities with very different effects. Ability damage is temporary in the same way that hit points come back over time. Ability drain is permanent, and the creature usually gets something back for inflicting it.
> 
> I understand the critical part, but ability damage does not automatically give you hit points in return. You're thinking of ability _drain_.




I am sure I have calculated this into the +0.15/+0.2 dichotomy between damage and drain. It was over a month ago when I rated them, and I can't recollect every facet offhand. But I am confident the result is right.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Which is one thing that most certainly pushes it beyond the power of a feat, IMO.




You are missing the obvious here.

Wounding is a +2 power; therefore it is the equivalent of two feats.

It also does not stack with a critical so it is inherantly weaker than how I would rate a single point of iteritive ability damage (+0.6 to CR; or +3 market bonus)



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> But I'm not trying to make them less accessible. In fact, that's one thing that I hate about how WotC tends to treat special abilities. I'm simply trying to rate it fairly based upon its usefulness for a PC. Like I said, the base modifier I use may be too high, and that might be the problem. If you're interested though, here's the original formula I was using for Ability Damage (+0.5 (base) +0.15/point of ability damage).




Instead of the base I would advocate a Design Parameter of 2 HD per point of damage/drain.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Howdy.  Thanks for replying.




Hey! Thats a given - you know that. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Wild. That's the same that I used for my original formula (though I also included the same base posted above, but again, it might be too high).








			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I don't know. Seeing as how drain is much more potent than damage, I think I'd have to rate it at least 50%, maybe even 75%, higher than damage.




The issue of permanence in this case isn't really that great (since it can still be restored).



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> That seems fair, though I include a +0.5 base modifier as well.




Whereas I would advocate a 4 HD/level of energy drain Design Parameter. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Definately, and thinks for lending me a hand with that.




Dude - its me! I live for this stuff. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Right, I just didn't bother posting them. I notice that you've gone to multipliers now? Is that just to simply the math? I tried that at some point but it just felt to clunky.




It was for a number of reasons, overall I think it has worked out for the best.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Can’t be defeated by any Elements	Mummy	             x2




Important question: Is this barbarian-style DR or is this for hardness? I ask because there's a huge difference, and v3 of your doc doesn't take that into account.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hi kreynolds mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Damn you, UK.
> 
> Alright, after playing with the numbers a bit, it looks like using a multiplier, like you did, is the best way to go. Here's what I decided on for determining level adjustment...




Well I am the Krust!   



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> +0.08/point of damage reduced
> 
> Here's some comparisons using DR 10/magic...
> 
> ...




I still like mine better. 

Its quicker, easier, more seductive.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> Important question: Is this barbarian-style DR or is this for hardness? I ask because there's a huge difference, and v3 of your doc doesn't take that into account.




Barbarian DR


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Instead of base modifiers I use design parameters.




Except in v3 you used both. Kinda double kill, don'tcha think? 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> For a touch attack!? I don't agree.
> 
> Even Rogues get the Crippling Strike Feat which works in conjunction with Sneak Attack.
> 
> ...




Like you said, in the case of feats such as these, their prerequisites absorb a lot of the disparity. But, what if there are no prerequisites? That's exactly what happens when you put 1 point of Con damage on a monster. His ability has no prerequisites. He didn't have to purchase particular feats, skills, and levels in order to get that ability. He simply has it. You never see a feat that grants Crippling Strike or the Wounding Property without any prerequisites, and you're not taking that into account (as far as I can tell - you didn't include your design parameter for ability damage). But, if you do happen to know of feats such as those that I mention, then by all means, point them out.  But, I do understand that's what design parameters are for.

Still, a design parameter can't cover everything. For example, Constitution damage on a touch attack would be served well to have a design parameter limiting to a certain amount of hit die, this I fully admit. However, it would also be service to include a design parameter that takes into account the usefulness of the ability based upon the _type_ of hit die. In other words, a design parameter limiting 1 point of Constitution damage to blah HD works fine on a Wizard or Fey, but it doesn't take into account the usefulness on a fighter, who can slap you around all day long with ease using touch attacks.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I can't agree with that. Three feats equalling one level, I don't think so.




I don't either. That's why three feats don't equal a level. They equal nine-tenths of a level.   I could be pursuaded to drop that down a little though, maybe _+0.25 or 0.225/bonus feat_. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> That would be incongruous; but what you should really be asking yourself is have I seen any other special abilities or equivalent enhancement bonuses as feats...




Such as? Do you mean like the Initiative enhancement from Oriental Adventures? You will hopefully take note that Improved Initiative has no prerequisites, so the fact that the enhancement equals the level in power of a feat is irrelevant. No feat without prerequisites equals the level of power in a shocking burst weapon. As soon as you read this, you'll know I'm right.   



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I am sure I have calculated this into the +0.15/+0.2 dichotomy between damage and drain.




Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there. I wasn't talking about ability drain. I was talking about a weapon enhancement that deals ability damage, and though ability damage never gives you hit points, you mentioned it anyway. Just pointing out that one has nothing to do with the other, not challenging your numbers. That's all.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> You are missing the obvious here.
> 
> Wounding is a +2 power; therefore it is the equivalent of two feats.




I disagree. At will, assuming four times per round, I think its the equivalent of 2.5 to 3 feats. However, that does tell me that I need to lower my base down a bit, probably to +0.5.



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> It also does not stack with a critical so it is inherantly weaker than how I would rate a single point of iteritive ability damage (+0.6 to CR; or +3 market bonus)




True. In that case, I'll go with it being equal to 2.5 to 2.75 feats then. 



			
				Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Instead of the base I would advocate a Design Parameter of 2 HD per point of damage/drain.




That's no doubt ultimately the easiest route. But, it's not perfect.

How does that design parameter take into account the power levels of a Fey and Outsider? It doesn't. A 10HD fey doesn't have as good a BAB, while a 10HD outsider's BAB is twice as good, meaning he's far better at hitting people with touch attacks, meaning the design parameter doesn't take into account that his Ability Damaging touch attack is far more powerful on him than it is on the Fey.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying such a design parameter is flawed; Just that it's too bad it doesn't cover everything (I'm picky that way ).


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I still like mine better.
> 
> Its quicker, easier, more seductive.




I just think that +.5 for DR 10/adamantine is a hair too much. That's all. OK, maybe a couple of hairs.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Barbarian DR




Sweet. Thanks.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Except in v3 you used both. Kinda double kill, don'tcha think?




It might have been then, but it isn't now since I only use design parameters.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Like you said, in the case of feats such as these, their prerequisites absorb a lot of the disparity. But, what if there are no prerequisites? That's exactly what happens when you put 1 point of Con damage on a monster. His ability has no prerequisites. He didn't have to purchase particular feats, skills, and levels in order to get that ability. He simply has it. You never see a feat that grants Crippling Strike or the Wounding Property without any prerequisites, and you're not taking that into account (as far as I can tell - you didn't include your design parameter for ability damage). But, if you do happen to know of feats such as those that I mention, then by all means, point them out. But, I do understand that's what design parameters are for.




You overlook the obvious. 

A single 1 point Ability Damage attack for a monster actually rates slightly less than a feat.

Therefore it requires no prerequisites.

I would be totally happy allowing it as a feat (provided it was not an iteritive attack).



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Still, a design parameter can't cover everything. For example, Constitution damage on a touch attack would be served well to have a design parameter limiting to a certain amount of hit die, this I fully admit. However, it would also be service to include a design parameter that takes into account the usefulness of the ability based upon the _type_ of hit die. In other words, a design parameter limiting 1 point of Constitution damage to blah HD works fine on a Wizard or Fey, but it doesn't take into account the usefulness on a fighter, who can slap you around all day long with ease using touch attacks.




I don't see what this has to do with the Ability Damage rating in and of itself!?



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I don't either. That's why three feats don't equal a level. They equal nine-tenths of a level.   I could be pursuaded to drop that down a little though, maybe _+0.25 or 0.225/bonus feat_.




+0.2 - you know it makes sense.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Such as?




Such as all the above feats I previously listed.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Do you mean like the Initiative enhancement from Oriental Adventures? You will hopefully take note that Improved Initiative has no prerequisites, so the fact that the enhancement equals the level in power of a feat is irrelevant.




No, I didn't mean that.

I meant that feats parallel +1 enhancement bonuses or +1 market modifier special abilities in terms of power.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> No feat without prerequisites equals the level of power in a shocking burst weapon. As soon as you read this, you'll know I'm right.




If you could explain it philosophically (which is the difficult part*) I would allow a feat that permitted attacks to deal +1d6 electrical (or any energy based) damage.

*I would allow it for any creature with the air/electrical descriptor.

Weapon Special Abilities can easily become feats provided you can explain how.

Weapon Specialisation adds +2 damage - which parallels in power a +1 enhancement bonus.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Perhaps, but that's neither here nor there. I wasn't talking about ability drain. I was talking about a weapon enhancement that deals ability damage, and though ability damage never gives you hit points, you mentioned it anyway. Just pointing out that one has nothing to do with the other, not challenging your numbers. That's all.




Glad to hear it. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I disagree. At will, assuming four times per round, I think its the equivalent of 2.5 to 3 feats.




Remember it doesn't multiply (unlike standard Ability Damage) upon a critical hit. So it would be lower.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> However, that does tell me that I need to lower my base down a bit, probably to +0.5.








			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> True. In that case, I'll go with it being equal to 2.5 to 2.75 feats then.




Nearly there. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> That's no doubt ultimately the easiest route. But, it's not perfect.




...tread carefully. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> How does that design parameter take into account the power levels of a Fey and Outsider? It doesn't. A 10HD fey doesn't have as good a BAB, while a 10HD outsider's BAB is twice as good, meaning he's far better at hitting people with touch attacks, meaning the design parameter doesn't take into account that his Ability Damaging touch attack is far more powerful on him than it is on the Fey.




These factors are handled in and of themselves. I don't see any problem.

Fey BAB is handled when you determine Fey HD.



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Don't get me wrong though. I'm not saying such a design parameter is flawed; Just that it's too bad it doesn't cover everything (I'm picky that way).




I think you are clutching at straws here Don Quixote.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hello again mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> I just think that +.5 for DR 10/adamantine is a hair too much. That's all. OK, maybe a couple of hairs.






I think all these ratings are in some part subjective; so you are better going for simplicity when two methods give similar results.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Alright, alright!!! I get it! I suck!   

Just kidding.   Ok. Looks like I need to chew on my numbers again (I did at lunch, and I wasn't happy with my results...not by a longshot).

At the very least, you saved my butt in regards to my Flame Freak prestige race. His 2nd-level abilities are about to kick in, and I almost nerfed him by dropping his special ability down in power a bit.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

UK. Here's another one. With the mechanics of energy resistance having changed, has your formula changed from +0.02/point of energy resistance? The way it works now, I figured its value would be doubled, wouldn't it?


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

Hiya mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Alright, alright!!! I get it! I suck!




I wouldn't say that, its not like I get everything perfect on the first go myself. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Just kidding.








			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> Ok. Looks like I need to chew on my numbers again (I did at lunch, and I wasn't happy with my results...not by a longshot).




Don't be too hard on yourself - in fact be easy on yourself and let me do all the hard work so you don't have to. 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> At the very least, you saved my butt in regards to my Flame Freak prestige race. His 2nd-level abilities are about to kick in, and I almost nerfed him by dropping his special ability down in power a bit.




Glad I could help.


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 30, 2003)

kreynolds said:
			
		

> UK. Here's another one. With the mechanics of energy resistance having changed, has your formula changed from +0.02/point of energy resistance? The way it works now, I figured its value would be doubled, wouldn't it?




Yep.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> Yep.




Awesome! I don't suck!!


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 30, 2003)

By the way...interested in my numbers for Fast Healing? *nudge, nudge*


----------



## Upper_Krust (Aug 31, 2003)

Howdy mate! 



			
				kreynolds said:
			
		

> By the way...interested in my numbers for Fast Healing? *nudge, nudge*




I'll take a look?

No promises though.


----------



## kreynolds (Aug 31, 2003)

Upper_Krust said:
			
		

> I'll take a look?
> 
> No promises though.




I'm just wondering how close I am to your numbers.

+0.35/point per round

So...how close am I?


----------



## Darkness (Aug 31, 2003)

Thread's getting a bit long again...

Please continue here. Thank you!


----------

